panarchist

Is this other save in a different installation of KSP? If not, does KK still work in the other save?

Reply directed to @akron - this can be mitigated if you have some technical confidence, by using an editor like KML or opening the persistent.sfs file in a text editor and editing the reliability numbers on your existing parts. To do that, back up your save, then open the save in KSP with EVA Repairs installed. Immediately close the save and quit, then edit the file. What I don't know is if the reliability effects are added on initial game launch or after the vehicle is loaded into memory - if it's the latter, then you'd need to switch control to each vehicle, quit, and then edit the file. As long as you have a backup ahead of time, you're fine. Then you just have to go up and repair things as they fail - adding repair kits to existing vehicles is a more complex procedure that I'm not going to attempt to outline.

That mod only used the "Kerbin Mini Shuttle" name from 2013-2014. After that, it was renamed the Kerbin Shuttle Orbiter (KSO) or for a time, Kerbin Shuttle Orbiter System (KSOS). There isn't a conflict if @DimonD wanted to use it. KSO has passed through several hands, and the current maintainer is idle at the moment: Definitely going to try this mod out - it looks great. Nice work, DimonD!

When you say "Triton", you mean "Neptune", right? (Triton is the RL design and isn't in Kerbal Atomics) That sounds in the right ballpark, given the details on Triton. The generator takes 3% of the output of the reactor in propulsive mode. Also, the MW in the engine is MWt (Thermal) - for the Triton design, 10% of the MWt becomes MWe (Electrical) - so the Brayton cycle generator is only going to produce 3 tenths of a percent of that - 500MWt becomes 1.5MWe. The devil's in the details - without knowing how closely to the designs Nertea is modelling, and without more detail on the RL Triton, it's hard to say what's realistic - but I find it plausible that a Trimodal engine is less efficient than a fission reactor dedicated solely to electrical power. You gave the production numbers, but what's the consumption difference look like?

Yes, after making the changes for engines, copy that whole block of text and paste it in below itself, then change the second @PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleEnginesFX]] line with @PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleDeployableSolarPanel]] There's almost certainly a more elegant way to do it, but that will work.

Yes - one way is to edit BaselineConfig.cfg Replace the line: EVAREPAIRS_BASELINE_CONFIG with: @PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleEnginesFX]] The downside to this approach is you'd need to do it every time you update EVA Repairs. A better way would be to write a Module Manager patch to remove the EVAREPAIRS_BASELINE_CONFIG module from all parts except engines. I usually mess those patches up, so implementing that is best left as an exercise for the intrepid reader.

That's how that type of engine works - effectively, you *are* running it at minimum throttle. It's higher than normal reactors, but it means you don't have to have a separate reactor for electrical generation. How much worse is it? Re: radiators in the model - when a trimodal nuke runs, most of the heat leaves the spacecraft in the exhaust - the radiators are to deal with heat that is transferred to the frame before the propellant leaves the engine. When operating in power production mode, the "propellant" stays in the engine and isn't exhausted, so it's plausible to have heat generation in that mode. The intent of the RL trimodal engines is to operate in power production mode long enough to charge batteries or some other energy storage device, then to be shut down until needed for the next recharge. Of course, no one has built the real thing yet, so all the numbers are approximations anyway.

Brigadier is correct, it's Kerbalism. Lots of cool stuff in that mod, but beware - it doesn't play well with a lot of other mods. Best to run it in a separate instance of the game. That said, it is pretty amazing in terms of scope and functionality, and a lot of fun (and sometimes real challenge) to play.

The art and model are public domain, the config files are GPLv3, so yes, you can create derivative works and distribute them, but you'll want to call out specifically in the Junkyards mod that the PSA Greenhouse config files (and only those) are GPL 3 and retain the GPLV3.txt license file. (as required by the license) The specific callout is necessary because otherwise you're putting the whole mod under GPLv3, and that license isn't compatible with certain other licenses like MIT. This reminds me that I really should update, re-license, and redistribute this mod as MIT once I review and replace the configs. Looks like you already did that in the Github repository for AtomicTech-Inc.-Junkyards. So you should be good to go. TLDR - you don't actually need to ask, just adhere to the license - but yes, and thanks for asking.

1.12 was released in June. The most current version of CNC on GitHub was released in July. (which appears to be when @TaxiService was last on the forum) The userbase for this mod has been running it for several months without reports of issues, so it may be unique to your installation. The last full release was on 1.11, and there weren't a lot of breaking changes between 1.11 and 1.12 - now that there will be no more major versions of KSP, most of the mod makers are in maintenance mode. The issues you have in any mod aren't likely to be fixed if you wait for it to be updated before raising the issue in the thread or on GitHub. Providing logs in this thread would help, as other members might identify known incompatibilities. and "clutter" in a thread isn't so much of an issue now that the main program development has wrapped up.

Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to work with the 12.2 hidden launchsites - depending on the decal elevation, they're either buried or hanging in the air. I should have mentioned it earlier, that was the first fix I tried. Also, BTW for anyone interested, if you uncheck the setting to allow extra launchsites, those hidden bases do not go away.

I'm not 100% sure of anything, other than that when using Sigma Dimensions to scale everything up 2.7x, structure elevations and terrain elevations don't always match up. (although KSC *does*, so I don't know why the other permanent statics do not) Water height is always 0 elevation, so the mismatch would be due to local terrain height being too low. For KK statics, I suspect that it depends on whether they use an absolute height or relative to the surface - but with the default statics, I have no idea how they're setting height. I'll take this over to the thread for Sigma Dimensions - it's not really a KK issue.

Does anyone know if there is a way in KK or otherwise to edit the positions of the default (game) statics? I am playing with a resized Kerbin (2.7x scale), and the new 1.12 hidden launchsites have some minor positioning issues I am trying to fix. (i.e. the Cove Launch Site launchpad is underwater)

Those IVA shots definitely give off a strong Locust or Mad Cat vibe. Nice - I am totally stealing that idea for my next interstellar mission.

Angel-125's position towards CKAN seems to have mellowed the last couple of years. You weren't imaging things - he made several previous comments about not supporting CKAN. I probably track this thread more closely than most due to being an airship and aircraft carrier fanatic. I'm not usually a CKAN user, though, so I had to actually install it again to validate who was maintaining the metadata. Now that I look at it again, Heisenberg is listed in CKAN as "Airships" (which *is* the other name for it) - I don't know enough about how CKAN works to know if the naming difference as an impact on this.

None of those should have a bearing on the issue - those are all part of the Engineer, Snacks, and Trajectories mods.

What are the unknown modules? It's possible you're missing a dependency.

Heisenberg is on CKAN.

If it's just "Unsupported KSP version, please use 1.7.3" without a message saying the mod was disabled, then that is a warning, not an error. It usually will still work. KSR is updated to 1.9+, so if you're seeing that message, you're probably on an older version of KK and should be using the version linked here:

The major issue you *might* encounter is that one or more bases may end up below ground level by several meters. If that happens, you may need to spawn at that base, Ctrl-K into the KK GUI, and click on "Edit Groups" so you can raise the group up to the surface level. Also, your vertical terrain is going to be 10x (or whatever is set in the rescale settings), which means parts of the base may not be adjacent to the ground or can bury parts of the base that were level at 1x or 2.7x. Be prepared to do a lot of editing on some sites for either functionality or aesthetics.

"Oxygen" is used by most of the LS mods, which is why there is a Karbonite "recipe" for it. Some mods like Universal Storage use "Oxygen" with a compressed gas form of storage - which is why US O2 containers hold so much O2. The general direction of the mod makers has been - if it's for propulsion, "LiquidOxygen", if it's for life support, "Oxygen"

Output would need to be changed if you want to output LO2 - LOX /LO2 (LiquidOxygen) is definitely different than Oxygen in CRP. I picked LiquidOxygen because LiquidHydrogen is already in MKS and is also used in CRP and several other major mods like Nertea's NF and FF mods. (also Universal Storage II) If you want to maintain the current Karbonite distiller config, then you could also write a tiny MM patch for a converter to go from LiquidOxygen to Oxygen (for LS mods and such). Not sure if anyone is already doing that, other than possibly TAC-LS, but in real life, O2 is usually stored in liquid form and converted to gaseous O2 via evaporation. (NASA does this, but it's more common the the US armed forces for fighter jets and high-altitude aircraft. USN stores it in a 10L container which is swapped out after the aircraft lands on the ship and before launching again on a catapult)

Go to the Space Center view and right-click on the KCT icon. Left-clicking brings up the Build List, right-clicking brings up the settings.

Crew (i.e. having to have one, or having to have a specific class like Engineer, still applies in sandbox. So does skill if you have "Use Kerbal experience" checked in the save settings.

They still work - the format of the statics hasn't changed significantly since 1.5.x. So long as you're on the correct version of KK for your KSP version, Kerbin-side Complete Continued works just fine. (caveat, I haven't launched from *every* site, so there might still be some hidden issues with specific sites)