Starwaster

That field isn't intended to store persistent engine status. You need to get the ignitions field from the engine itself.

@draqsko It's hard to say for sure. I wish I had had more time to look through the code. Looking only at the section you've pointed out, it definitely is odd that it is discarding NewLAN like that. Was it meant to return a delta or the absolute new LAN value? The way that return value is used elsewhere makes me think it's not actually meant to be the absolute new value. Maybe @Whitecat106 was going one way and then changed his mind. And changed the code but left that one bit in (NewLAN = ...) Looking at it again and I notice that in https://github.com/Whitecat106/OrbitalDecay/blob/6d648de50261a63fb170f9863106f21ba5131542/Source/DecayManager.cs#L859-L862 It's treating things a bit differently if less than timewarp x100. And the first part of that is scaled by current rate of warp. I would think you would scale it by deltaTime or fixedDeltaTime instead. And why does it only scale the first calculation and not the others? And if it's x100 or greater then GetSecularLANChange is used instead and I didn't notice that before. So what speeds is this actually happening at? Maybe that one needs to be looked at too. It's all a bit inconsistent and again I really wish I had had more time to look at things when I tried to help before.

@draqsko It wasn't a matter of applying too much change, it just wasn't (or isn't) calculating it properly. The issue is likely to be in this code here but this is as far as I traced it. http://github.com/Whitecat106/OrbitalDecay/blob/master/Source/MasConManager.cs#L1190-L1316

It doesn’t need revival. It’s a parts mod with no code to be updated.

Load order is an issue if another mod is patching that part. The last one to patch that field is what counts

It's handled in the DeadlyReentry.cfg file

@Iodyne No, you can't copy/paste tanks in the VAB No, the tank window should not disappear when changing values and I have not seen that happen myself nor can I recall anyone having reported it before now. I'll look at your log. Not sure what you mean about patches; please clarify that? EDIT: This is probably what is causing the window to vanish: [EXC 04:13:38.079] NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object RealFuels.Tanks.TankWindow.EnsureFreshAddLabelCache () (at <8f51b17657a546bc9d737ed47d61667b>:0) RealFuels.Tanks.TankWindow.GUITanks () (at <8f51b17657a546bc9d737ed47d61667b>:0) RealFuels.Tanks.TankWindow.GUIWindow (System.Int32 windowID) (at <8f51b17657a546bc9d737ed47d61667b>:0) UnityEngine.GUILayout+LayoutedWindow.DoWindow (System.Int32 windowID) (at <fa6f9762ac624af092525d37c9d516c4>:0) UnityEngine.GUI.CallWindowDelegate (UnityEngine.GUI+WindowFunction func, System.Int32 id, System.Int32 instanceID, UnityEngine.GUISkin _skin, System.Int32 forceRect, System.Single width, System.Single height, UnityEngine.GUIStyle style) (at <fa6f9762ac624af092525d37c9d516c4>:0) UnityEngine.DebugLogHandler:LogException(Exception, Object) ModuleManager.UnityLogHandle.InterceptLogHandler:LogException(Exception, Object) UnityEngine.Debug:CallOverridenDebugHandler(Exception, Object) It looks like you don't have the latest version for KSP 1.8 Get RF 12.8.4.1

Yes

Updated build release for KSP 1.9.x https://github.com/Starwaster/AnimatedDecouplers/releases/tag/v1.4.2.2

Technically, neither @NathanKell or I created Real Fuels, only maintain it. It was created by @ialdabaoth

It depends specifically on where you are seeing that used. If it's a TANK node especially in a TANK_DEFINITION then it's because the amounts are meant to be zero by default. If it is in a ModuleFuelTanks then you can set up default values for specific resources (and even use percentages for maxAmount) Utilization is a multiplier and is usually 1. It is higher for compressed gasses and could even be used to simulate SpaceX super chilled RP1/LOX. It's still valid when paired with a maxAmount of zero because the player can then come along and add that tank via the VAB editor in which case maxAmount is set and utilization comes into play. I'm not familiar with CryoTank or its patches and I don't know why they would set utilization to 10 as it's literally 10x (1000%) There's actually more than one area where utilization is used. It's used in TANK nodes where it behaves as I said (1 = 100%) but there's also a utilization field in ModuleFuelTanks where 100 = 100%. Maybe whoever wrote that patch thought that they were setting it to 10%. (but that seems equally strange. I just don't know why they did it that way)

No it’s not, sorry but thanks anyway. I had a a 1.9 build already but my PSU woes made things chaotic. And we had a couple of older cats at our sanctuary pass within a few weeks of each other. I just have to assemble a release and put it up.

No, not abandoned, I'm just lazy about updating it because it's pretty resistant to KSP updates. I don't think I'm even having a problem with it in 1.9x I'll take another look at it and see what's going on

No, a non-existent field in a PART config won’t affect RF/ MEC at all

@dlrk While using negative TANK mass values can work, it's really not very safe. It's better to go with an appropriately lower positive value. Tank mass IRL as @taniwha said is linked to how much the tank has to be pressurized but is also (probably to a lesser degree) linked to stresses from propellant mass on the ground. That's why LH2 tanks were given a lower mass value. Balance wise it should be safe to use RealFuels values for tank masses. Those values can be found here and you should probably just stick with the Default block https://github.com/NathanKell/ModularFuelSystem/blob/master/RealFuels/Resources/RealTankTypes.cfg

@TranceaddicT PartLoader warnings about variables can generally be ignored. It means that a field in the PART block of the config doesn't actually exist in the PART. Those fields are usually just for temporary data storage while the config is being built by whatever patch added it. Sometimes they get deleted in a later ModuleManager pass but it's not really a problem if they aren't. As for the null ref, it sounds like it's only happening to the prefab and it's probably also safe to ignore that one but I'm not as confident in making that statement as for the variable warnings. I'll try to dig deeper but right now I'm thinking it's a configuration issue. I'd like to look at the configs in question.

If you are 100% positive that the errors in the log are linked to ModuleAnimatedDecoupler, did you report them? Is there a forum post I should know about? I certainly don't see a relevant issue for it on its Github page

Nobody’s going to fault you for providing useful information.

Radiators don’t help with reentry. That’s not even a thing IRL except possibly in some hypothetical designs. (I can’t think of any offhand) And the stock KSP radiators aren’t even effective in flight scene since they deliberately will not transfer heat to the radiators unless the overheated part is hotter than ambient temperature. That was a response to concerns that radiators were too effective at cooling the craft during reentry, though it was an unrealistic and improper response. so what I’m trying to say is it’s probably not reasonable to expect SR to give craft with radiators special handling that they don’t even get during in flight gameplay.

Can you smash into the ISS?

@sevenperforce I can’t imagine any definition for ‘torched’ which corresponds to all three fuel cells successfully being reconnected to the power bus and functioning normally for the remainder of the mission. What happened (according to the official report) is that they were disconnected from the system to protect them. Automatically. Also it is an exaggeration to say the entire control system was shut down. It’s true that the command module computer was down but actual control of the launch vehicle is from the instrument unit in the S-IV-B with the command module computer taking over the launch if the instrument unit fails.

Ok so I’d wanted to get the new updates out faster than this but my PC seems to have died. Maybe the PSU. Going to see if I can get a PSU tester. They’re not too expensive. Then we’ll have to see what happens. sorry.

Crash a rocket. HARD.

Can you give a specific example of that happening?

Liquid hydrogen is not cheaper. It must be refrigerated down to cryogenic temperatures (20K) prices come from the CRP mod and have been through strenuous vetting by the RO community using 1960s prices and inflation values