Daedalus451

I'm using your second solution in a 6.4 scaled Kerbin, so no RSS or RSSVE. But the loss of ground detail when I switch to scaledSpace (I've set it to 100km altitude) is really sad. I'd like to try the other solution, and find a happy compromise between them. I haven't seen any explanation for how to actually apply solution 1 anywhere in this thread in a way that makes sense on a rescaled stock system, rather than in RSS/RO/RSSVE. The linked MM patches have all been removed, and other references are made to RSSVE, which I don't use. How can I actually use solution 1 in practice on a 6.4x Kerbin, rather than just in theory? Apologies in advance if I'm being dense or if I've missed something. And many thanks for your help and for your gorgeous mod.

Great, I'll try that. Many thanks.

This link doesn't work any more. Is there somewhere to still get this MM patch?

Getting this nullref spam from Oh Scrap. Any ideas? Could Mandatory RCS be causing this?

I use BARIS alongside KCT and Scrap Yard. I have built a plane, which has now developed loads of failures through BARIS. I have recovered the intact plane to the SPH (so it can be used again without rebuilding it), but I can't fix the failures from the hangar. Nor does swapping out the broken parts for new ones (using ScrapYard) fix the problem - the failures just jump to the new parts. Could a feature be added, to allow funds to be used to repair a stored craft when using KCT and ScrapYard? (And before anyone suggests it, I'm still very early in a UbM career at this point, so don't have any Level 1 engineers to do the repairs outside) Thanks! EDIT: Additionally, when using KCT/ScrapYard saving the design of a stored craft with failures mean that any new craft built from that saved design also inherits the same failures. This is very silly!

Thanks, I will try BARIS too!

Ok, I can't get you a log right now. I'll see what I can do later. That seems a shame about the low likelihood of engine failures though. I'd have thought the engine, being the most complicated thing on a rocket after the guidance system, would be far more prone to failures if it's not tested properly. What kind of engine failures can occur? Does it just shut down, or can you get gimbal lock, underthrust etc?

I'm not getting any Oh Scrap failures with liquid engines at all. Untested solid rockets fail all the time, and I've had a control surface failure too, but never any problems with liquid engines (from this mod). I'm also using three other mods which produce failures: Dang It, Kerbalism and Kerbal Launch Failure. I'm also using Engine Ignitor. Could any of those be causing a conflict?

Ok. Does that mean that compatibility with contracts is being worked on and I should just sit tight?

The new science system is very cool. But I do miss the stock survey contracts. Is there any way to have surveys (or something similar) work alongside Kerbalism's science feature? Maybe in the form of an additional 'spot survey' button on the various experiments, with very low science return?

Is this compatible with 1.6.1, and has the issue with changing LAN to zero fixed in this version?

Any chance of a variant of the 1.875-1.5m Gemini service module that doesn't have all the struts on the inside and is open at the top? I'd love to be able to have a solid retro pack nestled in the top of the SM (similar to the real Gemini) but at the moment it just gets caught when you decouple the SM. Even better would be a two-piece Gemini SM, so you can decouple the bottom parts to reveal the retros.

Still loving this mod. The most recent thing I've noticed is that when a Kerbal goes on EVA, the pressure in the pod drops due to the lost volume, and has to be topped up again. Which got me thinking... Have you considered changing the Habitat/Pressurisation mechanics to reflect the complete venting of atmosphere when Kerbals go on (or come back from) EVA? I think it would add another great layer to your simulation, built on core mechanics that already exist in Kerbalism. To really make it amazing, you could even incorporate it with a toggle to turn crew helmets on or off inside the pod (i.e. shorthand for preparing them for EVA), and allow manual depressurisation of a pod while Kerbals are in it (to simulate an airlock, and prevent complete depressurisation of an entire station, for example). Just an idea. Love your work.

Thank you!

What should I put in a MM patch to remove all functionality from the test weights except for their... well, weight?

@Kerbas_ad_astra has been maintaining VSR since Ven went inactive, and his release for 1.6.1 is still incompatible with the latest version of Kerbalism, even though it was fine with earlier versions. As for why I can't just use a different parts pack, that's because VSR has several extremely useful non-stock parts which my career save uses heavily. So I'm kind of stuck. I have also asked @Kerbas_ad_astra if there is anything he can do - maybe you could talk? I will post in the discord too. Thanks for all your hard work.

Hi @Kerbas_ad_astra. It seems that VSR is causing a weird conflict with Kerbalism. @JebIsDeadBaby has explained it over in the Kerbalism thread, but a number of us are all experiencing the same problem. The linked post mentions the Mk1 pod, but this bug is happening with all kinds of vessels. As far as I can tell, this bug is being created with Ven's last release, and with release you've just done for 6.1. Is there anything you might be able to do to isolate or fix the problem? Many thanks.

Yes

Tried KSP with the latest development build of Kerbalism. Sadly, that didn't fix the problem with VSR.

Confirm same problem with VSR.

With Kerbalism installed, the values for Oxygen and Hydrogen wedges are all messed up , and don't reflect the values in the spreadsheet you linked. All sizes of Hydrogen wedge are holding 21350 units, and the Oxygen values are 6100;1300;21350;21350. I've taken a look in the configs for those wedges, and it just looks like you forgot to put in proper values for the MM patch for Kerbalism. Should be an easy fix. The fuel cells seem to be massively underpowered compared to the (Kerbalism-ified) stock fuel cell, especially considering their mass. The Kerbalism-modded stock fuel cell produces about 4.7 EC per unit of Oxygen, whereas the two UvSii power cells produce only give 0.94 EC/ox. There is also no difference in terms of their efficiency, despite their descriptions. In order to bring them into line with stock, I suggest that you bump the EC output for the two power cells (when Kerbalism is installed, at least) to 12 EC (50% efficiency) and 33.6 EC (70% efficiency), respectively (assuming the stock cell has an efficiency in the region of 47%). Efficiency is the most important thing with fuel cells, not raw output. The other thing that seems odd is the very high mass of the cores as fuel tanks. Why does a dry LFO 8-core weigh 1.45 tonnes, when a structural core weighs only 0.225?

The Kerbalism Planner isn't appearing properly in VAB with the new update. Only seeing the very top of the GUI, showing the target body, sunlight/shadow indicator and orbit. No other info.

EDIT: Never mind. I was using the 1.5.1.8 pre-release build. My mistake.

Any chance of just introducing an option to turn off the minimum throttle levels altogether - i.e. just so the action groups work, without all the minimum throttle levels and hard-coded keybindings? I just can't get the more sophisticated parts of this mod to behave properly with a HOTAS throttle, or with Engine Ignitor. Either that, or it could do with some way of rebinding keys, so that I don't keep magically igniting my engines without ignitors, every time i press Right Alt.

This doesn't want to work with 1.5.1. I get an incompatibility message at the main menu.