Starwaster

insulation could be simulated by adding extra mass and lowering the fuel loss value. (realistically it shouldn't be lowered by very much because there's only so much that can be done with insulation alone)

p3asant, that part name has a space in it. Module Manager cannot handle spaces. Or to be more precise there's a problem passing the URI on to KSP. It should probably be considered a bug that KSP allows spaces at all. Most likely it's being escaped internally. I've tried myself to figure out a way to use escape characters in MM config files but I'm not sure KSP actually uses any known escape schemes. In short, the problem is the author's / modder's responsibility but if you want to make it work on your end then you should rename the part. Change the spaces to . i.e. do this in the part's configuration file: name = F1.RocketMotor Then be sure to use that in your ModuleManager configuration file that you quoted above. Warning: I think that what I'm telling you to do will NOT break existing save files because IIRC spaces are renamed to . in the save files anyway. I am not on my KSP playing machine as it is out of action indefinitely. I'm currently on a MacBook and am not able to play KSP on it at this time. (because I'm not accustomed to Macs and I broke my KSP horribly when I tried copying mods into the GameData file because apparently Macs like to replace the entire contents of the folder you're trying to paste into instead of merging? I'm not actually sure, all I know is I can't test that out but it should work ok. Backup your persistence.sfs and quicksave.sfs files just in case.) Also be warned that if the author ever updates that mod that your part file changes will be overwritten so you really want to bug them to rename the part without spaces.

Or it's a ghost planet. The Mun is haunted by the ghosts of Kerbals Crashed.

That sounds unlikely. ModuleManager works at during game startup and executes once. I don't think even 1.4's changes alter that behavior. So it added the code you requested or it didn't. Use the debug menu and look at pods that have had KE added and see what actually got added. Maybe KE doesn't like being put on parts with other modules.

An amendment to my prior post. If it's not enough to direct the burden of resolving versioning issues onto the modding and player community and a fix really is required (which I re-affirm that I don't think one is because the problem is non-existent) then the solution should be that ModuleManager periodically (every few hours tops or just once a day) should check online for updates. It's easier to resolve a version issue for a plugin living in a single location than one that resides in multiple locations. Because sooner or later, with this system, players will have to worry about resolving version issues only they'll have to do it individually one by one across multiple mods. Right now, how many version of ModuleManager are there that we think we have to worry about? By now they should really be down to two. The latest official one which practically everyone is using and Sarbian's version from a few months back which corrected an issue where the plugin might not execute properly or cause other plugins not to execute. And of course his extensions. Aside from that, it shouldn't be an issue at this point in time. And, going forward, how much updating do you anticipate doing, Sarbian? Aside from fixing bugs in the software or fixing future compatibility issues arising from KSP updates there really shouldn't be much updating going on. If there is, then let the plugin 'phone home' as Kerbal Alarm Clock does. And update once at a single location rather than updating many.

I concur except that I'm going to use the word horrified rather than concerned. One of the things that was great about ModuleManager was it only augmented the way config files worked. It didn't alter the behavior on such a fundamental level. Config files are supposed to function no matter where they are. Also, one use of MM config files is as tweaks. I think quite a few of us as non-modders keep our tweaks in a separate sub-folder (i.e. MyTweaks). Now I'll need to copy the dll in there even though it's located elsewhere and should be functional? I submit that the issues that these changes are intended to address were never very serious issues to begin with and didn't merit such a drastic response. They should have either been treated as non-starters or given very SERIOUS fore-thought before altering the way in which ModuleManager works. Leaving well enough alone would have been a great response to not making such sweeping changes to ModuleManager to begin with. Accidentally overwriting files when installing over them has always been a risk with software. It requires some caution when installing software and nothing more.

jebs yardstick says they are. is it lying?

you need hard edges on those meshes. they dont look properly shaded otherwise.

The only part of rockets being re-scaled is their mass. Dimensionally they're to scale with the planet. (they even were before except that the planet was too small)

THIS mod scales the Kerbol system. Mainly just Kerbin right now. Kerbin (when using this plugin) is the size of Earth. Its gravity is unaltered because Kerbin is already 1G. Its orbit is already altered, which at the moment, puts it at the far edge of the Kerbol system, but eventually all the planets will be rescaled and have their orbits adjusted so that they are further out than they currently are. It has no direct effect on parts. You might possibly be thinking of Modular Fuels (which Nathan is maintaining and which was developed by Ialdoboath) which allows you to reconfigure fuel tanks and engines in the VAB. At its most extreme realism settings it also rescales the masses of tanks and engines. (resources are also less dense which affects how engines and tanks were scaled so that they would have the proper mass ratios and TWR ratios)

That would likely require changing the joint type or auto-strutting the pieces the way Procedural Fairings auto-struts its fairings with invisible struts.

Yes, and they are PNGs

that's why that's a word I avoid like the plague. they said the same about redefining gravity vectors in Crysis until someone went and did it.

you grabbed something from his signature. each of which also contains but a single mod but some are composed of numerous files.

search spacport for converters. theres at least one. how do they compare with png's in 0.22?

There's no way to do it the way you want unless you write a plugin that locks the part when unoccupied.

maybe my understanding is flawed but I kind of thought it did. It seems like there's different zones or categories and... I thought that once you did science in a particular zone at a particular distance from Kerbin that later attempts became less efficient. But I've admittedly been spending most of my time testing plugins than doing 'hard science'. so my understanding could be totally off

stupid question but are you doing a circularization burn at apoapsis? (I've done Mun orbits as low as 8km and you can go even lower than that as long as you don't hit any hills)

In orbit. Interplanetary transfers where you don't care how long the burn takes. It matters for takeoff or engine only tail landings where your TWR MUST be greater than 1 taking into account local gravity

anyone know about macs? trying to get into my macbook so I can resume playing. its pgp protected which password I remember but not my OS X login. there seem to be several password recovery options but I'm hesitantnto try them because of the encryption. am I hosed?

sigh, way to ruin my 2010 joke

All these worlds we give to you. Except Eve. Attempt no landings there.

you can easily add the code to the heat shield config file yourself. I'd even post it here for you but I'm typing from my ipad and my PC is out of action with a bad hard drive. look at any decoupler config file. you're looking for something like Edit: Below should do it. MODULE { name = ModuleDecouple ejectionForce = 250 explosiveNodeID = top }

FYI I'm not using FAR ATM and I get the parachute bug too. I've been testing with just some parts mods (KW, some zzz stuff), modularfuels, stretchy tanks and the rescaled kerbin plugin.

Not enough drag? Maybe adjust opening pressure and final open pressure/altitude? I forget what the parameters are and can't check them out now. Edit: You know before my computer died I was noticing actual acceleration even a few kilometers above the surface even with a drogue and four normal chutes. So that's not just no drag that's... I dunno what. Maybe all drag values need to be upped universally? Are there any global parameters that might help?