Starwaster

Anywhere in your GameData folder. I prefer to put things like that in a folder called zzzMyTweaks (zzz to ensure that it runs as last as possible) I think I started that practice back in 0.25 and regularly add to it to ensure a consistent experience whenever I upgrade KSP. It has 47 subfolders (for various mods or categories) and 273 files. You won't need it once you're upgraded to the latest SSTU so don't bury it too deeply that you can't find it to delete it.

@Gremillion @PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[SSTUModularPart],@MODULE[ModuleFuelTanks]:HAS[~basemass[<0]]]:FINAL { @mass = 0 }

Sorry, I left something out! The cause is a mod conflict between SSTU and Real Fuels. Both mods are trying to manage tank mass and only one should be allowed to do so. ShadowMage released an update which has SSTU opt out of mass (and cost? Maybe?) management if Real Fuels is installed and the SSTU has ModuleFuelTanks installed. BUT, I don't know if it will run on KSP 1.4.5 If you don't want to update KSP right now, there is a workaround which I had forgotten about which is to set the tank part's base mass to zero. Since the cause is that both SSTU and Real Fuels start out by removing the part's mass, they are both prevented from setting the part negative. (literally, we start out by subtracting the tank's base mass from the part before we do any other mass manipulation. If the part has no mass then our mod's are not able to subtract mass) If you need to I can come up with a patch that will take care of that. The part will still get mass because RF will calculate new tank mass for it.

What I think is happening is that a tank's mass has dropped below zero. The actual part mass would already have been negative. Net mass at launch was positive but propellant depletion dropped it below zero. Unity RigidBody has to have positive mass in order for any forces to operate on it. This is also the same thing that causes rockets to occasionally become 'stuck' to the launch pad. You can test for this in the VAB by making whatever tank the engine in question is drawing from and make that tank root so you can remove all other parts from it. Then set the resource sliders to zero for that tank part. Then look at the vessel mass in the engineer's report or with a mod like MechJeb or Kerbal Engineer. Alternatively you can enable the infinite propellant cheat in the cheat menu and then see if you still have that thrust problem. (you could even make note of how much propellant was left when thrust stopped working and then reload and enable the cheat just before propellant level drops to that point)

@gamerscircle if you have a probe on a discarded part you can use the rename option on the PAW to change the vessel type to debris..

What exactly do you mean when you say they aren't producing thrust? Aside from the lack of error in the engine, does the engine's PAW say that thrust has dropped to 0? Or is there another symptom? (it may sound like a stupid question but I have an idea what might have happened which has nothing to do with the engine so I need to know exactly what it is you experienced to make you think there was no thrust) Edit: And there may not be a solution possible if you're playing in KSP 1.4.5 unless you can get the most recent SSTU update to run with that version of KSP.

Every Kerbal dies. Not every Kerbal really lives.

KSP is dead. Long live KSP.

There shouldn't be, especially the RF specific patches. Nothing significant is going to change there.

SMURFF is what you use if you're not brave enough for RO. If you have RO you don't want SMURFF. Installing it in the middle of a save game... sure, why not? What could possibly go wrong? I mean it's not like any engines you have in flight are going to stop working because they just got reconfigured to use a different set of propellants and possibly a different mix ratio of said propellants.... right? RIGHT?!?? Ehhh. Don't do it. Sounds like a really bad idea to me.

Then you should reproduce the problem in a pure stock environment and then post it in the unmodded installs section of Technical Support. What's the point of claiming 'I know it isn't a mod' and then posting in the modded installs section? Also, you should provide a better description of the problem? What degree of torque are you talking about? If it's only a tiny bit over time then that's natural. Gravity gradients are a thing even in stock. (unless your vessel is a single part; gravity gradients are meaningless for a single part vessel)

Re: the stock wheels, or more specifically the Unity VP wheel code: Not 100% sure of this but where their documentation says that piston forces are in newtons.... I think as implemented (again, on the Unity side) that it's actually behaving as an acceleration rather than as a 'force'....

@63Hayden Are these the FASA parts you're talking about? If so, I was just looking at those and there's some noticeable issues IF you loaded the Saturn V craft file that uses those parts. The issue is that the J2 engines are not properly configured. Issue only applies if loaded the craft file. If so, remove the J2 engines from the rocket and replace them with with fresh copy from the inventory list. Place them and then configure them using the engine GUI button. Change their configuration to 230K (as loaded from the craft file they are the default J2 with 800 kN of thrust and cannot be reconfigured from the GUI because of exceptions being thrown. That's why, replace them with fresh copies)

What kind of orbit are you starting from? What altitude and what is your inclination compared to the moon’s inclination?

Hmmm seems that it might not be possible to change suits of Kerbals in the field.... certainly not when they are on EVA which is to be expected. (the suits are actually different Parts...) But they don't even seem to change when they are inside of a pod.... I think that once recovered that they put on the new suit. Have to think on this some more and dig deeper...

Next update will have an option to enforce the dress code for your Kerbal roster. QUESTION: There is already an option to automatically assign the Future suit to new hires. Should the dress code enforcement process magically apply to Kerbals in the field? (on assignment on Kerbal in orbit somewhere or visiting another world, etc etc) Or should it only apply to Kerbals who are located at the KSC? (i.e. status = Available)

(note that I'm not associated with the mod and am not the one who wrote the config for that part so treat this as conjectural but you should still find it informative) Good question with no good answer. A better question would probably be whether it can really be operated at sea level in the first place. Remember it is heavily optimized for vacuum operations. (or at least very high altitude) Technically its thrust at sea level should be approximately half of its vacuum thrust as with the J-2. I tried to find some sea level statistics for the J-2X and cannot. That information just doesn't exist. What I did find was information on a NASA blog (author Bill Greene) which stated that it couldn't be started on the ground because it would rip the nozzle extension apart. (obviously it is operated on the ground for test fires but has no nozzle extension) So what the correct answer would be here is tricky. We don't have individually damageable components so can't simulate the result of a destroyed nozzle. The engine this part is based on can't even be operated meaningfully at all at sea level and can't even be throttled below 84%. (actually I'm not even sure it can be throttled between 84-100%; it's either 84% or 100%) So it's pretty limited as to what situations it can be operated in and anywhere near sea level wasn't meant to be one of those situations. So... no. 11 kilo-newtons of thrust is nowhere near correct but being able to operate the engine on the ground isn't correct either. Some things have to be abstracted in this game and sea level thrust of a vacuum rated engine is one of them. (blog post below comparing J-2X to RS-25) https://blogs.nasa.gov/J2X/2013/08/06/inside-the-leo-doghouse-rs-25-vs-j-2x/

Deadly Reentry has a 15 meter version of the stock inflatable.

@Lisias that does sound odd but, that doesn't look like a case of patches being applied out of order as such. If the patches that you're focusing on there were marked :FINAL that would show in the log and it doesn't, not anywhere for the designated patch. Where then was it determined that those patches were marked as :FINAL? Edit: No offense to the player having this problem but I strongly suspect he is using a different version of MiningExpansion than what you think he is. He was probably using 0.99.1 which has no pass specified for those patches. 0.99.2 is the one that specifies :FINAL

@Bombaatu The following MM patch probably will do it. I do not have time to test it right now. @PART[KerbalEVAFuture|kerbalEVAfemaleFuture] { @MODULE[ModuleColorChanger] { animState = True } }

It's really not. Go look at the code for Crew Light.

Unless it's not using an action group to turn the suit light on.

@JadeOfMaar Custom or specific support for crewed parts shouldn't generally be needed for Ioncross; it configures every part that can contain crew.

In spite of what that might look like it is a DynamicBatteryStorage error

No idea about that. I didn’t know something was wrong with kerbnet that was rss specific