Araym

If any it's needed any "help", do not worry: call me also in PM to try to figure "what happened" to me. Some "facts" about the problem I noticed, and "how/where/why" in my install: I play win an heavy, modded, enviroment: having both Pathfinder, Snacks and B9PartSwitch, i personally "preferred" to have the tanks set following B9PartSwitch than Patfinder, so initially I removed the patch for Pathfinder itself and "deleted" the checks for it in the B9Partswitch tanks patch (because with it, even without the patch for Pathfinder, the B9 one was not loading): it started to throw the above mentioned error once, finally, it started to be seen by ModuleManager I moved to a clean install (without pathfinder at all), only with Snacks and B9Partswitch, but it also didn't work... I noticed the ":NEEDS[Snacks]" error (... it should be ":NEEDS[SnacksUtils]", so I corrected that too: the error didn't disappear... ... ... In the end, I basically "rewrote" all the patches, removing A LOT of various ":NEEDS" to a bare minimum (basically just a check between having or not B9Partswitch and/or the various Snacks/SncacksFreshAir/SnacksStress) knowing that I'm not going to play with a lot of the mods placed in the various checks (TacLS/USILS/etc etc) and, somehow, it started to work on my end In the end, I think that the problem is somewhere in the B9Tank patch, but I didn't figured "where", as basically, aside removing the (too many) :NEEDS, I basically copied it... so it should be some weird interaction at that level

Hello again, @Angel-125, and sorry to bother you so much... ... as an hard fan of the old Kerbfleet by Kuzzter (and to recreate, eventually) a situation where my kerbals could eventually make Hydrazine on orbit, I was wondering if there are any template (somewhere) for that kind of "converter", and which part could eventually be (someway) balanced to became a "distillery" (crew cabins??? labs??? I would like a converter that could be used only by engineers, like a legacy about Bill being the one actually making it in Kuzzter's comic, obviously in a kind of conversion only from monopropellant )

Question/Curiosity: browsing folders and files in Vanguard Technologies, I found a MM patch that adds "ModuleKrKerbalParachute" to some of the "kerbalEVA" definitions, namely the Default and Vintage ones (both for the male and female versions)....... ... should it been update also for the Slim and Future ones???

Yeah... done it and working. ... I perfectly immagined was a non standard option somewhere to turn on... ... multiple time I even checked the Life Support Folder... ... but dumb as I am, I never noticed that little difference between cfg and txt (on my end, both opens in Notepad++) so I was wondering "... damn: the file are there! WHY are they not working???" <ME: dumb as always> Thanks for the answer

Call me "dumb" (because.... I definitely am it, sometime-if-not-always), but, even if I enabled the "basic" SNACKS behaviour (related to Snacks usage and Soil production), I somehow fail to find how to enable "FreshAir" and "Stress" advanced one. It's done in the "Setting" Menu??? Is it functional only when starting a new save??? (because I cannot find it in the "setting" menu, in already started saves) Is it working only for career??? (because I'm not finding it, but for the moment I'm just settling my mods in a sandbox one) KSP 1.12.2 and latest SNACKS 1.27.3 here

Update: In the end, with the original patches provided, I could not resolve the issue. Knowing that I'm playing with SNACKS and B9PartSwitch, I simply moved the "Extra_B9TankTypes.cfg" in an external directory (to find it easily, in case) simplyfing it only to the mod I know I'm using (so no Kerbalism, USILifeSupport or TACLifeSupport), and making a "nuked version", removing the various ":NEEDS[....]" in it (to have them loaded always, to avoid any issue), then also simplyfing the ":NEEDS" in the "Extra_B9Tank.cfg" file (also moved in the same external directory). That resolved it (for the moment)

Hi here... I'm appearing again to advice, probably, about a B9PartSwitch problem: when using SNACKS and B9PartSwitch MM patches (both "Extra_B9TankTypes.cfg" and "Extra_B9Tanks.cfg"), I found my game throwing a fatal error by B9PartSwitch itself, prompting me to close the game once in KSP main starting menu. It took a while to, in the end, narrow it to a specific part of coding, inside "Extra_B9Tanks.cfg": in the definitions related to the Commodity tanks, every SUBTYPE related to Snacks itself has "SUBTYPE:NEEDS[Snacks]", but it should be "SUBTYPE:NEEDS[SnacksUtils]" EDIT: NOPE! That could be an issue, eventually, but the game is still throwing the same errors, even trying my modification. (I have errors related to all the parts trying to interact with "Extra_B9TankTypes" searching for the "tundraSupplySnacks" subtype) [LOG 20:40:04.659] DragCubeSystem: Creating drag cubes for part 'TE2.19.SH.Interstage' [LOG 20:40:04.733] PartLoader: Compiling Part 'TundraExploration/Parts/GOJIRAIII/TE2_19_SH_Tank/TE2_19_SH_Tank' [LOG 20:40:04.806] PartLoader: Part 'TundraExploration/Parts/GOJIRAIII/TE2_19_SH_Tank/TE2_19_SH_Tank' has no database record. Creating. [LOG 20:40:04.807] [DragCubeSystem]: Drag cubes not found or cannot be read for part Part. Generating New drag cubes. [LOG 20:40:04.810] DragCubeSystem: Creating drag cubes for part 'TE2.19.SH.Tank' [LOG 20:40:04.873] PartLoader: Compiling Part 'TundraExploration/Parts/GOJIRAIII/TE2_19_SS_AFT/TE2_19_SS_AFT' [WRN 20:40:04.918] [Part]: Cannot have ModuleCargoPart and ModuleInventoryPart on same Part [TE2.19.SS.AFT'. Removed ModuleCargoPart [LOG 20:40:04.947] PartLoader: Part 'TundraExploration/Parts/GOJIRAIII/TE2_19_SS_AFT/TE2_19_SS_AFT' has no database record. Creating. [LOG 20:40:04.947] [DragCubeSystem]: Drag cubes not found or cannot be read for part Part. Generating New drag cubes. [LOG 20:40:04.950] DragCubeSystem: Creating drag cubes for part 'TE2.19.SS.AFT' [LOG 20:40:05.019] PartLoader: Compiling Part 'TundraExploration/Parts/GOJIRAIII/TE2_19_SS_CARGO/TE2_19_SS_CARGO' [LOG 20:40:05.418] PartLoader: Part 'TundraExploration/Parts/GOJIRAIII/TE2_19_SS_CARGO/TE2_19_SS_CARGO' has no database record. Creating. [LOG 20:40:05.418] [DragCubeSystem]: Drag cubes not found or cannot be read for part Part. Generating New drag cubes. [LOG 20:40:05.425] DragCubeSystem: Creating drag cubes for part 'TE2.19.SS.CARGO' [LOG 20:40:05.523] PartLoader: Compiling Part 'TundraExploration/Parts/GOJIRAIII/TE2_19_SS_Crew_Pod/TE2_19_SS_Crew_Pod' [WRN 20:40:05.893] [Part]: Cannot have ModuleCargoPart and ModuleInventoryPart on same Part [TE2.19.SS.Crew.Pod'. Removed ModuleCargoPart [ERR 20:40:05.895] Module ModuleB9PartSwitch threw during OnLoad: System.Exception: Fatal exception while loading fields on module ModuleB9PartSwitch on part ---> System.Exception: Exception while loading field subtypes on type B9PartSwitch.ModuleB9PartSwitch ---> System.Exception: Exception while loading fields on subtype PartSubtype tundraSupplySnacks ---> System.Exception: Exception while loading field tankType on type B9PartSwitch.PartSubtype ---> System.Collections.Generic.KeyNotFoundException: No tank type named 'tundraSupplySnacks' exists ... and I HAVE the B9 tank definitions in GameData.

... and after all the "simulation", today was "The Day"! Today the Might(ly kitbashed) Saturn C-8 Nova is going for landing on the Mun! Direct Ascent style! It's said the even the seats of the gods were shaken, when the 8 F-1 engines on the S-IC-8 first stage roared at lift off... First Stage cut-off and second stage separation/ignition: Low Kerbin Orbit final burn/insertion, completed by the third stage S-IV-B: The satisfaction was palpable in the crew module, with Jebediah, Bill and Bob complimented each other, after having ride "The Beast" safely in space. But it was only the begin of their journey... After a check-out of every system, it was time for the Munar Insertion Burn, again performed by the S-IV-B's single J-2 engine: Everything went smoothly: after ditching the S-IV-B, it was time just to enjoy the ride until the Munar SOI... ... to perform the Munar Orbital Insertion... ... and then, be ready for the start of Munar Landing... ... that will be in a very "hystorical" place... "Kouston... Tranq... ehm... Armstrong Base here: the Eagle has landed." At this point, was just matter of performing the IVA on the Mun surface: The first was Jeb, eager to pay his homage to the place... ... then Bill turn... ... rapidly followed by Bob... ... to riunite the crew on Munar soil. Bill- "It's time to set the flag, lads..." Bob- "Flag??? What "flag"??? Nobody told me to take "a flag" with me!!!" Jeb- "Don't worry, Bob..." "... I have you covered!" "... a small step for three Kerbal..." "A giant leap for Kerbalkind!" It was time, then, to leave the Mun: our heroic trio climbed back to the Command Module... ... and set sail for the second leg of their journey: returning back to Kerbin. -- This conclude our coverage of the "Direct Ascent, Apollo II" Munar Mission. -- To the next time, fellow kerbonauts. Space Safely!

Since yesterday, aside some heavy cfg patching to some old parts that I'm trying to keep alive in modern KSP, I'm messing with a monster rocket... Behold! The Might(ly kitbashed) Saturn C8 NOVA! Some "flight test simulations" (a.k.a.: put it in the pad to check if I stacked everything correctly and deal with a lot of "Revert to VAB" moments, to iron out issues) showing some "simulated" moment of the prospected final vehicle: And then the final, actual, product that will be shipped to the Araym's Kerbal Administration of Space Adventures, refined by changing the layout of the first stage engine positions (... in these pre-flight tests, they were arranged alike the Saturn I: 4x central, 4x external) and the addition of the 8th engine in the second stage: Gloriously rocket of BDB lineage (at probably 80% derived from Bluedog's Sarnus V) made of: a mandatory entire (hystorical) Apollo CSM as Munar Ascent Stage; a reworked/shortened Saturn I S-IV (the early upper stage, with 6 small engines mount) with modernized 6x AJ-100 engines (derivative of the upper stage engine used in the Thor-Able/Delta rocket, or the General Electric's proposal for another, discarded, Direct Ascent Apollo) as Munar Lander Stage/Munar Orbit Insertion, as my kitbashed invention; the entire (actually flown) S-IV-B (from the Saturn V) in the classic single 1x J-2 propelled version as third stage; a S-II-8 second stage of new concept, exagerately powered (but needed) by 8x J-2 engines (7x in anular configuration + 1x central) as the Nova required also, following the proposed rocket; a S-IC-8 first stage, powered by 8x roaring F-1 engines (in the same S-II new design as 7x anular/1x central). Further "press release" will inform the public about the sorts of the intrepids Jeb, Bill and Bob, scheduled to be launch live for the actual Mun shot mission.

I guessed it was just a nice "estimation", but nothing more, almost right. Interested in the topic I did a bit of backtracking in almost the whole thread, just to understand the "process" that brought some values as they are actually, and the struggle to have bot RO playstyle and stock playstyle to live together in one single library of resources: not playing in RO, I can someway imagine that they have some differencies, once all their modding is implemented, that maybe put LqdHydrogen to the value that it is... The only "weirdness", mostly probably by the fact that, probaly, at the time, not so much of other fuels were used in a stock-modded enviroment (You were the first trying, probably, launching CryoEngines/Tanks, but looking at those dates it was A LONG AGO: it was probably just a niche addition)... ... but now I see A LOT more mods, in a stock enviroment, using different resources in a realistic fashion, and a lot of people, for example, are starting to code, for example, SpaceX rockets (a novelty only, back then, when today is a leading firm in space launch) and I noticed a very large gap in in-game credits between a standard LiquidFuel "stock rocket", a far too cheap LqdHydrogen, and a far too expensive LqdMethane (if assumed the same tank and similar performance engines). I do not want to push, here, my own "preference" (pushing for a change here could lead to the necessity of an entire "rework" of thons of mods that probably were balanced against the actual figures): politely, as last request, to not further clog here with tons of post, I would eventually ask if I can bother you, in PM, for a couple of simple requests: by myself, for my own usage, I tried to "change" eventually something, but the major problem I found is that, even if succesful for the cost/unit, then I encountered some "little bugs" once the actuall version of CryoTanks apply its patches (probably just because are mass/cost tailored to the actual values) with some "negative cost". If it is not an inconvenience, @Nertea, I would just ask about those patches a bit (mostly because I'm a bit of a disaster when MM patches start to make "math" and implement "variables", and probably I would just needed an indication or two about where I should look to then take all the matters about "personal modificatios" on my own)

Indeed it will not: it just happened that you mentioned a thing that I was not aware of...Taken notice of it, we can go on on the main topic of my appearance: the underlying cost balance between LiquidFuel, LqdHydrogen and LqdMethane. Hydrogen, for sure, is "the common material in the universe", but in my own grasp of rocketry, also one of the hardest fuels to manage, given the boiloff problems. I totally get the more "scientific data" under each resource (density, heat capacity etc etc): those are easy to find around and, with a bit of knowledge, even to understand. In fact I'm not arguing that: I still do not grasp "the money" involved, then, to quantify the usage of those value. I'm not asking a complex dissertation: a simple "we found this cost in this piece of paper/this reference: it show this cost/units. In game, that real life units equal to xxx units in game. It looked plausible" followed by a "Oh... I didn't know it...." by me, and I will disappear in peace. I didn't find (up to now, internet hunting) a clear "real life" value to just debunk myself or any misconception of mine (eventually dumbely exposed in my previous posts), prior to rush here and ask: it just seemed odd the disparity in game. (I'm a very curious guy, even more when related to science, and in scientific fashion I find myself in the urge to "ask/inquiry" things that I do not know: not to debate anyone else knowledge, but to wider mine)

@RoverDudeI understand that me, as "a single nobody", has "no power" to "force" a change: I'm here just as an user/player (looking at the related LqdHydrogen/Lqdmethane, as you adviced, it seems that both falls under Nertea maintenace, so it was not a totally mistake to ping him in the previous message...) trying to figure "why some things are set in a way that, in MY own game, they seems odd". I do not like to make too much of a comparison to "real life", but basically, even taken in account the "boil-off" problem, in a modded game like mine, in any career, ANYTHING is superseeded once LqdHidrogen is reach: better ISP better costs no need of any different chemicals even (or probably even more) for lifters from Kerbin, as boil-off is painful for interplanetary stages (unless used in conjunction with a lot of mods that upgrade nuclear engines to LqdHydrogen usage, more likely in real life, rather than the kerbal Kerosene counterpart of LiquidFuel... at that point leaving the "more common" LiquidFuel just for atmospheric planes jet engines) It's a lot of time from my lastest days in KSP, so I'm only recently returning to play it (the "final release" will lower the need to constant update mods for each release), and, restarting from the ground with my careers, I found extremely odd the discrepancy found on LqdHydrogen tanks (... probably is because I'm still bound to an "early gameplay", just to re-discover all the new things added since my last time in KSP). Being CRP the "common resource", I found just more easy to talk about it here: not seeking to "impose my will", but rather "understand"... ... and without any further annoyance, once that, return to my own game, where I'm kind of capable, eventually, to customize things, once I grasped the PRO and CONS of some, actually implemented, choices, by the most influencial modders: I do not want to be unpolite... just having "A LOT" of mods, often developed with different mindsets, I'm not new to "smooth angles" when they are put together, to then develop a personalized version of the game that plays "more intuitively" in MY own mindset. KSP is the first game that offer to me that, in some way, probably because I'm following it since 0.13 and I saw its own development. I actively mod it myself. Not "releasing mods to the public", but for the possibility offered, knowing its own "coding", between cfg files and a bit of MM, to tailor the end result to my preferences. For me is not a "game", but a "software language" that allow to develop "my own game of little green men". ---- Aside that: So, now, each mod that involves some kind of harvesting is it going have its own "Resource Configs"??? I will have to check each of those, one by one??? Having still installed the "old" configs, will the new one be compatible/MM patches/have the same syntax alike them??? Have I to remove them and add/wait each mod to develep their own??? Sorry, again, for all of these questions (maybe made thousand of times) but, as said, I'm back from a LONG hiatus from KSP and I'm trying to get a grasp of all the changes occurred during the time (I'm behind, probaly, 5 or 6 major release, from my latest time here) I'm at lost here too, now: seeking for some answer brought me more questions...

Preface: I use A LOT of mods. Probably "too many". Among them, CryoTanks and related patches for A LOT of mods. Issue: I'm in the process, using CryoTanks as inspiration, to adapt some old mods that I find useful for myself. During the balancing process, I noticed something that is puzzling me: basically, I noticed how VERY different is the cost of the same tank, if it run as LOX (stock 9:11 ratio between LiquidFuel/Oxidizer), LH2/OX (15:1 CryoTank ratio between LqdHydrogen and Oxidizer) and LCH4/OX (3:1 CryoTanks ratio between LqdMethane/Oxidizer. This is a simple example (a tank with, stock, 450 fuel + 550 Oxidizer, for a 1000 units total): Oxidizer LiquidFuel LqdHydrogen LqdMethane density = 0.005 density = 0.005 density = 0.01097000000 density = 0.00042561 unitCost = 0.8 unitCost = 0.8 unitCost = 0.0367500 unitCost = 0.45 LqdFuel LH2 LCH4 Fuel quantity 450 3750 1875 Oxidizer quantity 550 250 625 Total Fuel 1000 4000 2500 Ratio 9:11 15:1 3:1 Fuel Cost 360 137.8125 843.75 Oxidizer Cost 440 200 500 Total Fuel Cost 800 337.8125 1343.75 I do not want to go too deep in any technicality (I'm an average person, and probably Engineers and Technician in the field by profession could debunk my assumption easily), but I'm trying to figure out some werid thing I noticed, as player, following these assumption: Ratios used/densities are considered only as final value needed to balance the overall cost Liquid Fuel: it should be the "easier" fuel to obtain; it's easy to storage, it has average performances (as ISP, assuming it is basically Kerosene... yeah... mileage could vary, based on engine technology, but overall that is...); it has no issue in long term usage in space (no boil-off) LqdHydrogen: it is hard to storage (a LOT of boil-off), so in game (as CryoTanks introduced) it needs insulation and/or active cooling; it's, generally speaking, costly to obtain (there are a lot of way to do so, not only pyrolisis, but I assume that, even if available in high quantities, in modern day, the net energy spent is high, and it is useful just because, the costly production offer some benefits, as ISP); it has the best performances (best ISP overall) LqdMethane: it is not so hard to storage (little to none boil-off, being a big molecular compoound); it is fairly cheap to obtain (a lot of gas extraction sites); it has a better ISP than LiquidFuel but slightly worse than LqdHydrogen I kind of figure that the cost of LqdMethane is, probably, someway, based of the real life, cost/availability of liquid methane for automotive usage (based probably on US$ prices???) so I assume that could be left as it is (better overall ISP could be paid in game)... ... BUT the thing that is puzzling me is, actually, the SO LOW overall cost of LqdHydrogen tanks: in the example above, taking for granted that 800 credit is the base cost of that tank, that the methane version could have been balanced equally with real life consideration, so 1343.75 total could be good, I personally should expect to see the hydrogen tank being the MOST expensive, not the cheaper (a consideration, gameplay wisely, that you can get better ISP, but at the cost of tank complexity/usage of EC to avoid boil-off/high production costs). By some fast math, I see that, probably, the cost of both was based on actual usage of Methane and Hydrogen for cars (the easiest way to get some prices, and some of those I run too), but: both hydrogen and methane used for cars are not CRYOGENIC contained , but only mantained in a "liquid" state by pressure (again: i'm not a scientist, I espect some technician in the field to debunk my assumptions, but I suspect that for rockets that has an HUGE impact: that "more fuel x volume" squized using cryogenic chilled fuels make the "more cost/complexity x volume" ramp up probaly exponential, rather than the hi-pressure only methane used in household common usage) methane for cars is way more expensive, for example, than the same methane used for home appliances, but they are THE SAME product (and in this I have some knowledge: I worked for some methane retailers and, even if based on my country, I know the HUGE difference, up to 1\3 for home applications) Overall, I have not a final value to propose (I have my own concern about it): In a game perspective, I would balance the tank cost as LiquidFuel<LqdMethane<LqdHydrogen, based on their performances in game only, rather than various comparison to real life. It's not so much difficoult for the methane: a reduction, to place the above example tank in the 900 credits range as fuel cost, leave a value of (900 total minus 500 Oxidizer = 400 credits for LqdMethane... 400/1875 units = 0.21~ x units.. as it was a job of mine, I know that, in my country, it's not so far from the cubic meter cost in € for house usage, removed the cost of taxes and the provider profit... so also doubles as a real life parallel), but then the LqdHydrogen should be the most expensive (let's say that the above tank should be the one in the 1300 credits overall, more likely the actual LqdMethane) then going for an HUGE higher price: 1300 total costs, minus 250 Oxidizer cost, leave a 1050 credits. Divided by the 3750 volume units, it gives a 0.28 credits/units in in game price for LqdHydrogen... it's almost a 30x value respect the actual one, but I feeling it as more balanced value than the, actual, "cheaper fuel/best performance fuel" we have in a CRP modded game. Knowing that I do not have a real life comparison/figures for the LqdHydrogen, I made these absumptions only looking on a game-balancing perspective. I would like to know, @RoverDude, what figures were used to extract the actual CRP's LqdH prices, just to see if there is a way to, actually, place a more balanced value. As the developer of reference for CryoTanks, I would also like to invite @Nerteato this discussion, to eventually share some thoughts. Thanks in advance for any answer

Hi everyone! After years, I'm back to KSP, and obviously with BDB. Today menu: kitbashing my own version of a Nova/Saturn C-8, for a direct mission to the Mun: I have just to solve the "little" problem with the piping of the 8x F1 engines in the first stage: forcing them to surface attack with EEX is not working to feed them with fuel. EDIT: It was not an F1 problem..... ... but more about a faulty MM patch made by me (used to convert/update some old tanks, included the 7m used here as first stage) ispired by the ones made for CryoTanks. Quite difficoult to feed some LOX engine, if the main tank is an Liquid H/OX one Back to the design board...........

There are some various parts from KF that fail to show their textures, even if they are actually in KF's Assets folder. (Folding and Extending landing leg, for example) EDIT: I forgot to install TextureUnlimited. MY BAD That could be also the issue related to @desepticon too

Stupid question (for sure/very probably): it is possible to set a 5x simmetry? If yes, how??? I can kind-of-do-it by setting "angle snap" to 72° (360°/5), but obviously I have then to place part singulary. I would like to have the odd one in the simmetry selection......

I had difficoulties to find where the "custom categories" were saved (now I got it, and I'm more than capable to keep any problem in check, changing the PartCategories.cfg file). The overall issue is that, even if I can now do that, each time the game is loaded, with one of those "custom partlist" file hidden here or there in any mod, the issue is still repeating. I commend the effort of any modders that want to make easier to reach their own parts, and just asking if there could be a "workaround" to avoid a bug (ModuleManger-style of coding???): it took a good hour to hunt down each mod that showed this behaviour, just to find the culprit file (often not named in the same way/placed in a clear position) and delete and/or just manually copy in my own PartCategories.cfg, if I liked it. I did not want to sound irrispectful (I love all the modders for their efforts to make KSP a GREAT game)... ... just guessing if it is possible to add a more "user friendly" approach to the custom part list, as it is very useful for any end user player (if managed locally by each one, with their own categories), but shows a bit of a problem when interacted by external files.

I'm here (probably again) to report about the little "bug", not only from your mod, but anyone adding some "Custom Part List" file: each time the game is loaded, the game add a new istance of the list: I'm ending with dozen of your your mod category, after a while... As "ModuleManager" is basically an hardcore dependency for many of them, I think that could be more "friendly user/coding etiquette" to add some MM "logical command", if they could work, alike "@"(edit) or "%" (edit-or-create) or something similar (I'm not very MM capable, aside basic modification-usage) to just updating the same category and part list, rather than use the actual "plain version" that had the issue to add multiple one, one for each time the game is loaded... Dunno if MM can handle it, because the stock cfg file is updated/reloaded on the fly, like saving a craft, each time VAB or SPH is exited, but if it could (it's just needed once, at game start), that should easily solve the "duplication bug". Each time I had to hunt down wherever one of those file is placed/named, as not every modder has an unique way to name the corresponding cfg file. (If MM is unable, at least put it in some "Extra" folder, out from the main one that goes into the "GameData" one, to let the user know that it could be used, but also it could lead to some "issues")

I'm here (probably again) to report about the little "bug", not only from your mod, but anyone adding some "Custom Part List" file: each time the game is loaded, the game add a new istance of the list: I'm ending with dozen of your your mod category, after a while... As "ModuleManager" is basically an hardcore dependency for many of them, I think that could be more "friendly user/coding etiquette" to add some MM "logical command", if they could work, alike "@"(edit) or "%" (edit-or-create) or something similar (I'm not very MM capable, aside basic modification-usage) to just updating the same category and part list, rather than use the actual "plain version" that had the issue to add multiple one, one for each time the game is loaded... Dunno if MM can handle it, because the stock cfg file is updated/reloaded on the fly, like a craft one, each time VAB or SPH is exited, but if it could, that should easily solve the "duplication bug". Each time I had to hunt down wherever one of those file is placed/named, as not every modder has an unique way to name the corresponding cfg file. (If MM is unable, at least put it in some "Extra" folder, out from the main one that goes into the "GameData" one, to let the user know that it could be used, but also it could lead to some "issues") ---- Unrelated (but useful for @Nextjr for sure): You can add "offset" values to any IVA cockpit Something alike this: @PART[b_cockpit_qs] { @INTERNAL { @name = JQSIVA3 // BCockpitQS %offset = 0.0, -0.17, 0.15 } } **DO NOT COPY THIS: it's just to make an EXAMPLE!!! I put some random values** That "offset" command is very useful knowing that (in the SPH, where I was used to make my own adjustment when needed to any cockpit) : - the first value move the IVA left-right (i do not remember if the positive value is "right" or "left") - the second move up-down (negative value as "up", positive as "down") - the third one move forward-backward (negative as "forward", positive as "backward") and that, often, is just needed a little movement in the decimals, because they are misured in "in-game" meters (I used to add some surface attacked parts of known dimensions, alike tanks - 0.625/1.25m -, to gauge how much I had to move the cockpits to fit the models, then make modification, reload the game... modify, reload... etc etc until done)

I'm here (probably again) to report about the little "bug", not only from your mod, but anyone adding some "Custom Part List" file: each time the game is loaded, the game add a new istance of the list: I'm ending with dozen of your your mod category, after a while... As "ModuleManager" is basically an hardcore dependency for many of them, I think that could be more "friendly user/coding etiquette" to add some MM "logical command", if they could work, alike "@"(edit) or "%" (edit-or-create) or something similar (I'm not very MM capable, aside basic modification-usage) to just updating the same category and part list, rather than use the actual "plain version" that had the issue to add multiple one, one for each time the game is loaded... Dunno if MM can handle it, because the stoc cfg file is updated/reloaded on the fly, like a craft one, each time VAB or SPH is exited, but if it could, that should easily solve the "duplication bug". Each time I had to hunt down wherever one of those file is placed/named, as not every modder has an unique way to name the corresponding cfg file. (If MM is unable, at least put it in some "Extra" folder, out from the main one that goes into the "GameData" one, to let the user know that it could be used, but also it could lead to some "issues")

It was totally MY fault, indeed: I was debugging my instal for unrelated reasons to MLP, and I forgot from where I got StagedAnimation, so I did a fast github resesearch, found Nathan repository and, by various other "reasons", landed on the wrong file. Only after that I found the problem with your mod and had to resolve the issue with an outdated plugin... --- Unrelated, but another little "bug", not only from your mod, but anyone adding some "Custom Part List" file: each time the game is loaded, the game add a new istance of the list: I'm ending with dozen of your Modular Launc Pad category. As "ModuleManager" is basically an hardcore dependency for many of them, I think that could be more "friendly user/coding etiquette" to add some MM "logical command", if they could work, alike "%" (edit) or something similar (I'm not very MM capable, aside basic modification-usage) to just updating the same category, rather than use the actual "plain version" that had the issue to add multiple one, one for each time the game is loaded...

Preface: I run A TON of mods. Among them, "Custom Category Kit" and "WildblueIndustries", both affecting MANY new part categories appearing in my VAB and SPH, so I don't really know if any behaviours of my installation could differ from a pure "stock installation". My issue: To have a "better" way to find parts, in a custom made arrangement that fit my preferences, I started to split parts in various group using the stock "Add custom categories" menu (the last light-brownish option under the "filter" expanded part menu): it's a painful process, but by the time is proving to be more efficent for me, because both the standard stock groups and the various added mods categories in the blue-ish "filter by function" groups are, often, a mixed nightmare (if, by example, I'm searching for "jet engines", I have to hunt them in the common "engine" category, mixed with any kind of other type of engines - rockets, xenon, nuclear...etc etc). This is even worse for other type of needs (for "structural parts", I often need to jump between the "structural" category and the "aero", if maybe the needed shape could be a more classic "tube" put in the former, than a "conical shape" that could be a nosecone in "aero") Sometime, using the "Janitor's Closet" mod and some in game filtering, I'm able to shrink the mess, but nothing is alike having perfectly, split, custom categories. Fortunally, these categories, once made, are shared between all my saved games, so it's a one time effort... ... mostly... The problem and the "help" needed: ... untill, for testing purpose, I find myself in the need to set up different installations of the game. So I would like to find them and, someway, export them to a different game installation, to not have to redo all my customization from the ground. And here my question: As rougly knowingt how KSP works, when "saving" something, these "customized categories" should be stored somewhere very likely as a .cfg file (I see various mods using those to add their own "stock custom categories" that way). They are probably not in the "save" persistent file, because I already know that my categories are "cross-saves" compatible, but I VERY FAILED to find them anywhere else in the game. Can anyone help me, pointing where I should look ??? Thanks in advances.

My brain went BOOM like in the spoiler............

With 1.12.2 I re-(re-re-re)-started (for the xxx-time) a whole, entire new installation. The United Kerbal States are ready to roll out, for the "Moho Program", our Moho-RedEtoh assembly, in which Jebediah will try a suborbital flight, first kerbal of the western emisphere to reach space. Our brave kerbonaut will risk everything in the (un)auspicious named capsule: "FreeBOOM 7"!!

Oh... ... yeah. I'm so used to have Benjee's suits that I basically never noticed that he had a plugin enablingcustom IVAs.