NipperySlipples

Not having any form of occlusion makes the whole of the system boil down to just put an antenna on it and forget it. It feels pointless to me. Now it's just "going to the mun you use this antenna" going to Duna you use this antenna. Set and forget. Distance isn't enough to make it a worthwhile mechanic in my opinion.

Im most excited to see what this community can do when the kraken isnt around to smash up its creations. Cant wait to see the crazyness you are all going to create.

Unfortunately my game is far to custom for my KK harbors to be of much use to anyone. Its mostly a role play scenario. My kerbin is heavily edited to be more of a radioactive wasteland with kerbalism, Ive got custom paralax configs, terrain and texture edits and the sites themselves are all designed with the "kerbals live underground and its the end of a nuclear winter" thing in mind. I'm happy to share but I don't imagine it's what anyone else wants in their game. (and some of my sites require an additional mod for the statics, so extra dependency aswell ) Truth be told if it wasn't so customized, i'd of waited for you to do a better job of a jnsq version. I just knew with my terrain being different, i was going to have to move them all anyway. Thats an odd one and I was a little curious so i had a quick read through of some of the code on contract configurators git hub, I noticed in the way point generator there is .... and There are a bunch of other places this underwater flag comes up to. I'm not going to be in a position to test for a day or two, and I could be off the mark but it looks like there is an "underwater = true" property you can add to the waypoint definition to change the way it generates when the way point is underwater. Might be worth a quick test if it saves you having to write additional configs for each mission.

I love this. These missions are fun, add lots more to do to the game and are well designed and feel different with each repeat. In my hardcore playthrough they REALLY help flesh out the early game and provide a wonderfully fun source of income. Took me a few hours to build 16 custom harbors in KK, spread them out around my customized JNSQ game and setup the co-ordinates in the groups config. Easy given how much I got out of it with these new missions. I really appreciate the effort you took into making it so configurable. The dive sites were harder to adapt. Needed to setup all the waypoints after finding a new home for all the KK sites and anomalies. That took me the better part of a day. 100% worth it though. (and gave me a chance to over decorate the crap out of the areas around some of them with more statics) - Having done all this i have a few small suggestions. Im not sure its possible in a contract config ,but to make this extremely easy to configure to custom planets/ rescaled systems it would be nice if the dive site waypoints were automatically created relative to the KK dive site co-oridinates . something like dive1lat = SiteLocationLat - offset. This way we would only have to set up harbor location and Observer location. in the same vein multiplying the rewards by a distance factor could be helpful, so if using a rescaled system or another planet pack the rewards are more worthwhile without changing each contracts config. Also the starting KUMA dive certification, on a rescaled system it wants to dive to a reasonable depth (like 300m) and then the second part of the certification requires you to leave your vessel and touch the sea floor with a scuba-kerbal. However the sea floor might be a lot deeper than the 300m point your supposed to leave the sub at assuming your not on standard kerbin. I know the mod is just meant for stock and I'm using it in a way not (yet) intended but you may want to consider an optional depth check rather than the sea floor for the first dive. (like 500m or something) . better yet have it be dive to the sea floor or X depth whatever comes first. In JNSQ I wasn't able to complete the dive certification (and unlock the other contracts) until I was able to dive to around 1000m with pressure limits (and rational bouyancy/pressure mod) which was either very hard or very slow (just letting the kerbal sink the 700m). with your JNSQ-GAP and now this in my JNSQ game my biggest problem is that I'm not sure I'm ever going to leave kerbin. Thanks for all your work!

The first exception (_BuildManager) is from Eve-Redux, it hasnt caused me any actual issues in 1.12 yet. but if your having problems with your clouds then youll want to look for help in the eve thread. Secondly, You have multiple mods complaining about missing toolbar controller (which will also require click through blocker) you'll want to download and install both of those. Ferram lists Blizzy's toolbar for its toolbar requirment as well so you may also need to install that as well (not sure if its required anymore with toolbar controller) . With all of those installed you should see a few new mod related buttons that you were missing. Ferram , engine lighting, etc.. You probably also want to install KSP-recall , its a community bugfix mod and it will help with a few bugs your almost guaranteed to encounter in this install. but that's just my recommendation and not required to fix FAR. Lastly, your BD armory is throwing all kinds of errors. I don't use BD and I don't know if thats expected behavior, but i would be careful and watch for problems from them (or maybe check with the BD armory thread as-well) So to recap - ins tall all three of these to see some mod buttons your missing and hopefully fix your input locks -

Uncheck Automatic quick apply and the new parts buttons will function properly. Its just "automatically quick applying" again as soon as you press the button. Both buttons at the bottom are meant to be un-functional when that's checked. @roxik0 Got a chance to do a more robust test. You can reproduce flow graph errors consistently by 1) going into VAB. 2(create a ship with a tank/engine and command pod of your choosing. 3) Open scrap yard gui , uncheck auto quick apply and press new parts. 4) remove and replace any part on the ship. Scrap yard runs verify editor, and you get a flowgraph error on the command pod. Delta V readout goes wonky in the editor at this point. Until now its correct. Every time you press new parts and remove/re-add a part it will do it again, changing the delta v reading every time.

@linuxgurugamer @zer0Kerbal Sorry for this, Please ignore my previous suggested fix. As much as i don't want to admit this, I was wrong and didn't fix anything. Only hid the problem for awhile in my save. Id actually written a unit test yesterday that worked fine for 5 or 6 launches/recoveries before I posted....but well playing today i realized it was giving me wrong numbers again. So yeah, sorry. The bug still exists. Launch any vessel with KCT and scrap yard installed (and override funds on) , recover to VAB or SPH via construction time and your funds will go up well you also keep the vessel. It can be repeated by re-launching the same vessel from storage and recovering for more free funds. I no longer have any idea if its a problem with Scrapyard or KCT's scrap yard wrapper. I know override funds is a forever work in progress and was never fully implemented, but this feature used to work in previous versions (the last time i looked at it would of been around KSP 1.6- 1.7). If your looking for feedback , your hotfix seems to be working well. No flow graph errors and massively reduced lag on my end. Thanks.

@zer0Kerbal @linuxgurugamer I believe there is currently a bug with Scrap yard and KCT's interaction. When recovering to VAB or SPH via construction time if override funds is enabled, not only will you still receive funds and have the vessel, but some parts will be removed from your inventory that shouldn't. To see the bug, recover any vessel to SPH or VAB with Scrapyard and KCT installed and scrapyards override funds option enabled. Note you still have the vessel, but are also awarded a bunch of funds for the parts. Someone check my work but I've suggested a very simple fix on git hub here (Link Removed because I didnt manage to fix anything)

Ctrl-K will open up the Kerbal construct GUI. In there you can select the troublesome launchpad pieces and move them down with a movement tool similar to parts in the VAB.

I'm also playing with far and having no issues. Tweakchute makes its changes to moduleparachute. Far removes moduleparachute from parts and replaces it with its own module. Tweakchute wont do anything in a FAR game, but shouldn't be able to crash it. I think @Gordon Fecyk may have a third mod causing a conflict. However, since tweakchute isn't doing it's thing with FAR, you have to remember to set the altitude and pressure for opening chutes if you don't want to smash into the ground too fast. Luckily both are easily tweak-able in the editor. Were just an extra right click away from safety is all.

You are welcome to uninstall it if you dont enjoy it *not sarcastic* Next time try constructive criticism. Everything is fully customizable failure and difficulty wise. There are config's, There is a settings page. Your career settings may need to be adjusted if you find it not to your liking, or the chances of failure in oh scraps config. You also likely wouldn't of run out of funds if you were building just the booster for static fires until it was more reliable. If you just built 3 Large fully mission ready rockets and tried to launch them without testing or increasing generations then yeah....3 duplicate, super expensive, untested rockets made of large numbers of untested parts.....well that's the expected outcome. Try: 1) prebuilding just the boosters, testing them and increasing generation until they fire more often than not. (static fires) 2) not using a bunch of low generation parts all together at the same time on early rockets. a bunch of low generation/untested parts on the same craft will increase your chances of having a failure. Using a part failure mod like this or baris is a process of building up the reliability of your parts. You wont just launch a rocket and get to space unless your inventory is tested and improved. In short, Lots of people manage just fine. Maybe its user error. If you have any actual balance suggestions or questions, I'm sure the mod author would be happy to hear them. Without the sarcasm mind you.

Can you all please stop putting out incredible looking planet packs before I'm halfway done exploring the last one. It makes decisions for new save games really really hard. In all seriousness though, I took a quick look at this well waiting for the DLC. From what i can see it looks Quality with a capital Q. 1/4 scale is great. Planets look top notch visually. the pack works with a ton of other mods out of the box. I've already spotted some really cool looking places I want to explore and the arrangement of bodies really looks like its going to add some interesting challenges as you get further out to. I'm excited to play this. Thanks for all the work you guys are doing. I wouldn't expect less from the galileo team and you delivered.

These links aren't working. All 404 not found.

Ive just tested again and they are still working on my install. Here's a screenshot. Perhaps you have parachute failures turned off in the difficulty settings? Otherwise you may just be getting lucky, or perhaps have very high generation/safe parachutes? That being said, If you truly think its not working you can upload the save file and log somewhere for me and I will look into it.

@dkavolis Small bug report. Latest version creates NRE spam in the log as soon as you go EVA. I'm not sure if this is a problem. This is with a fresh install of 1.7 and nothing except module manager, FAR and modular flight integrator on a brand new save. Log file here. Reproduction steps are simple, launch a pod with a kerbal and EVA.

I have in the past experienced something that sounds exactly like this. However, it was because I had removed a ton of mods from a save, and had ships still being built by KCT. I did not have this problem on a new save. Your log is full of things like this... Youv'e removed a ton of mods from this save. Im betting you removed a bunch of it with ships in the build queue. Try testing your install again in a new save. I may be way off base, but Id bet it works.

Is kerbal health something your interested in supporting? Having looked over your planet description's in game, you've come up with tons of cool ideas here and I would love to see what you would do with radiation in this system. A day in the mod makes me confident you would do a better job than me. So please consider this a feature request. The config's are small , simple and well documented in kerbal health's wiki. I'm happy to make some if your not interested. If that's the case, would you mind if I sent you a private message with some questions related to the planet compositions? The two values needed boil down to the % of radiation blocked by magnetosphere (if there is one) and the % of radiation absorbed in the atmosphere (again, if there is one). And thanks again for all the work that must have gone into this planet pack.

This is fantastic work. Well done, and thanks to Gameslinx. Has anyone run this with kerbal health? I'm hoping for some radiation config's. I'll write my own if not, but id love to avoid spoiling all these cool new planets just to research appropriate radiation settings. I Would much rather mutate a few kerbal generations by finding someone elses radiation levels in game (or i guess send probes ).

If automatically quick apply is selected, Your inventory will be used instead of new parts whenever possible. If it is not selected you will always build a new part (upping the generation) unless you manually select to use a part from your inventory via scrap yard GUI. The buttons are just quick toggles for the whole vessel to switch between building new parts (Up generation, become quicker at building it and make it safer with oh scrap) or using inventory where possible (reduce build time and costs of vehicle)

Depends on the part and the mod, but for the most part yes. Any parts that uses the same modules as stock will fail. Some mods will have issues. If the mod in question just adds parts without changing game mechanics, than it most likely will work fine. I use this with 150+ other mods , and now have (almost) all of them working correctly. If you were to install something like airplanes plus, bluedog or restock they will be compatible. Textures and parts (should) be fine. If you install say SSTU which adds parts with tons of switchable variants and options (like internal RCS on parts, or multiple engine configurations that are still just a single part, etc) you may run into some issues (all your engines failing at once on a multi engine configuration, because there all technically one part for example). That being said, even if a part cant "Fail", it will still be used to calculate your vessel saftey rating. There will still be a benefit to building it multiple times and testing it, in order to lower the chances of failure across the whole vessel. Current save is using oh scrap with the following part mods: Airplane plus, grounded, all of the near future mods, restock(+) , the maritime pack, station parts expansion ,and OPT. I have no issues with failures on any of these. Mods I know that currently arnt supported: Real chute - Parachutes wont fail. (support may be added in the future) SSTU - most things wont fail correctly. (probably wont ever work with oh scrap) Science alert re-alerted - Bug in scrap yard prevents you from recovering root part if this is installed , Severed is aware of this one, and we may see a fix in the future. X-science is a working alternative for the moment.

One of them is MODULE:NEEDS[!FerramAerospaceResearch], The ! means "Needs No Ferram Aerospace Research present" . There is an error though, and its probably my fault. A : is missing. Line 3 of parachutefailures.cfg reads: but it needs to read: With a : between Module and needs. Add that and your parachute failures will work again. Sorry about that. Its also named"parachureFailures.cfg" instead of parachute lol, but that doesn't really make a difference.

@severedsolo Pull request is in with Ferram Support. Includes Control surfaces and parachute failures (with FARS implementation of realchute). Also added a force repair (Debug) button for easier testing. Sorry for pinging you this way, I still cant send private messages until I've posted a few more times.

@Snark No need to apologize for protecting our content/ this website. That's 100% my fault, I should have read the licensing in full. I saw MIT in the OP and never opened the actual licence. In fact I should be thanking you. Technically I was in violation of his licence and had he wanted to , severed could have taken action on that. So, thanks for the good work and apologies for not following through with the rules properly before posting. I was only posting here in case someone could find a bug I missed before Severed got to see it. Ill refrain from creating my own thread or posting it again until severed has a chance to look at the PR. He mentioned above he was working on other projects first. It was silly of me to post it in this thread and say "don't ask for help here" anyway. I am pretty sure severed has plans for OhScrap going forward, hes just been busy pumping out content for other mods. I'd rather not post a derivative mod if that's the case. If it turns out I'm a garbage coder and he doesn't like my PR, I will separate JUST the compatibility patches and not the bug fixes/code changes (leaving all original code intact) to post as a separate .dll that could be added to the current OhScrap for people who wanted it. As long as severed is still actively developing OhScrap, his thread should be where you have to go to find it. So, for anyone interested. You can follow the Fork on github if you'd like to try it out. Really at the heart of it, I worked on OhScrap because i have an install with 167 mods that I really wanted to add ohscrap/scrapyard to. I just wanted them compatible so that I can enjoy all of Severed's future content.

@severedsoloIt wasn't ready yesterday, it is now! PR has been put in with working remote tech support and a few bug fixes in other places. That being said. Still got 6 more days off. There will be more coming. Ive also now got a release [Link removed by moderator] ready to go if anyone wants to try it. (DO NOT BUG SEVEREDSOLO IF YOU HAVE AN ISSUE. BUG ME INSTEAD. NOT IN THIS THREAD. PM OR ON GITHUB - Until he merges this , if he merges this, it is not his problem.)

@severedsolo I love your mod. Thank's for all your work. I've created a [Link removed by moderator] and added remote tech support. I know you were waiting for RT2 but I'm impatient. It was done with reflection and a separate failure module so there are no additional dependencies and its easy to remove when RT2 comes out. I've also fixed a bug or two in the original antenna failure module. (it now respects comm-net settings. Previously if comm-net was disabled, the part could still fail it just wouldn't have any effect besides highlighting,). I've got a week off work, and I intend to add compatibility patches for a few other mods. Ferram , kerbal health and (because someone suggested it above and it sounds fun) deep freeze all come to mind. Id like to ensure you have no problems with any of this. I would have liked to have asked you in a private message but my forum account is too new to send messages. If your against anything I've done or released regarding your content, please let me know. I'm not really sure what proper procedure is around here (other than follow the licence). Otherwise, if you've had any oh scrap bug reports/Requests you'd like me to look into well I'm at it, also let me know! I've got a little free time.... Anyway, Thanks again for your mods man. Scrapyard/Oh Scrap/kct combo has given this game new life for me.