Olympic1

I plan to merge all the seperate packs into 1 big one for the following reasons: Mostly for CKAN compatiblility Reduce the .version files from 7 to 1 Reduce the file count But of course I want the opinions of you guys about this.

Harvster Gap it is then

His file was approved 3 days ago

Yea, the partnames were changed with the update

Already some great suggestions I agree. Maybe the greek mythology figure for harvest? That will then be the Demeter Gap - - - Updated - - - OR: because Hale is named after a female shepherd, maybe the god of the shepherds: Pan

The past few days I was updating the wiki's templates and pages. I fixed some templates that needed fixing for a long time, and I added some more info to the planets and some other pages. Now I came across Hale and because it's orbiting in the rings of Sarnus, it's a shepherd moon. Because Hale is also orbiting in a gap (of the ring), I need a fan based name (or by the dev's) for that gap. It would be best if it isn't a real life name of a gap.

Try making a PR from Mihara's repo to your fork so you are even. Only do this if it doesn't revert your additions. If that worked try again to make a PR to the master with your additions

After testing on 16 saves (yes, I have so much time to test) with both options, I came to the following results: - When testing the biomes without any spaces, it added resources to the biomes 2 out of the 8 saves. - When testing with spaces (as Warezcrawler said), it added resources to the biomes 7 out of the 8 saves. So conclusion: To add biome specific resources you'll have to use spaces (if the biomename has them) in the biome names.

Well I began working on updating it, I have postponed the dds conversion and biome maps for after the update

ehm, I don't know what to say

Fixed

Yes, I works with OPM

There are only 2 cargo bays, a medium (2m) bay and a large (3m) bay

Wouldn't it help to use the scale factor inside the model {} instead of rescale?

In my game if I TAB in the tracking station it goes normally in order of appearance. So Joolian moons and then sarnus, etc..

If you want to add a resource to a biome, do you have to write the biome with a space (South Pole) or do you have to leave the space out (SouthPole)

that's right

The flightGlobalsIndex for the Sun, Kerbin, Mun, and Minmus are hardcoded from 0 - 3. The other stock planets are given a FGI from 4 - 16 (like it is normally). For custom planets: Kopernicus gets the FGI from its planet configs and gives them a new FGI. Example: Planets load in game in following order - 50 - 173 - 85 - 86 - 213 Kopernicus gives them new FGI's in following order: - 50 becomes 17 - 85 becomes 18 - 86 becomes 19 - 173 becomes 20 - 213 becomes 21 I don't know what number is assigned to a config without a FGI. I think it is given one in order of appearance.

I have played with this ingame and you don't need any config for SCANsat, it uses its own defined colors to add them to custom planets. The only downside is that for some planets you have to zoom very far out in flight view or look via mapview to see any resource overlays. Tested this both with stock and SCANsat overlays.

SCANsat works fine with planet packs. I never had an issue with it, I see resources with stock scanner and see them on the maps. So I don't know what you mean?

Blame Bill

I know it can't be 100% realistic but I guess thats about 90 - 95%. Keep up the good work

You don't need any 3D skills, you only need a good eye (for evaluating your planet) and texturing skills. The most thing are done via config files.

How is this planet pack going? Any progress on new planets? FYI: I'm not trying to push you

I think real life is more important then bringing out a mod