a__gun

Good job on first release! Not had a chance to do any testing yet but a few things: Not sure your MM patch will work as intended. You have used 'HAS[~MODULE' when 'HAS[!MODULE' appears to be the correct syntax (The example I gave you was checking against a variable not a module, this does seem to use ~ rather than !, no idea why). If you look at this post it gives some good examples that cover most things. Also, I have started a basic MM patch to add your module to ALL parts meeting certain criteria: @PART[*]:HAS[!MODULE[ModuleConnectedLivingSpace], !MODULE[ModuleParachute], ~category[Aero], ~category[Propulsion], { MODULE { name = ModuleConnectedLivingSpace passable = true } } ////All parts with: //No CLS module already //No parachute module //Not an aero part //Not a engine/tank I think other checks it would be good to make are the mass of the part, its attachment rules and the size of its nodes. To do this however, you would need code along these lines: @PART[*]:HAS[#mass[>1], #attachrules[1*], #node*[*,*,*,*,*,>0]] { MODULE { name = ModuleConnectedLivingSpace passable = true } } and I have no idea if MM can handle comparisons (<,>, etc) or partial variable names using wildcards (node*).

You'd have to recompile the .dll as it is hard-coded :/

Any graphical mods?

First things first: thats absolutely fine RL always has to come first! So am I right in thinking this doesn't actually re-order parts in the editor as such, but rather forces KSP to load them in a certain order?

@Cilph I know you're taking a bit of a break from this at the moment but for the next release would it be possible to get the crew required for a command station moved into the settings file (So the user can set it to anything rather than being stuck at 6). As a slightly bigger (read: probably massive) change, it would be awesome to have a requirement for a certain part/parts to be crewed rather than just measure the total crew onboard. What I have in mind secifically is a config I've made for zzz's lab model (The one used in the Interstellar mod). I have rigged it up to be a 'remote command center' with a SPU set as a command station, an antenna and a dish. But with the logic set as it is I could stick two hitchhiker containers on a ship with an uncrewed 'remote command center' and still be able to control probes. Looking forward to see what comes with the next version

Should probably ask to have this thread closed...

This sounds amazing! I love the idea of actually being able to use the subcategory system, but I don't really like the sound of making changes to the cfg files. Would it be possible to make a version of this that uses ModuleManager patches to set/change the category and subcategory of parts whilst maintaing the integrity of the original file? I don't know exactly how your plugin works but if this were possible it would be awesome

So is it the angle of the 2nd to nth sensors in relation to the first sensor, or the distance between them, or something else entirely..?

@Fractal_UK Had a look at the code for FNImpactorModule to try and get a handle on exactly how science is calculated for each impact and found this: } else { net_science += (1.0 - Vector3d.Dot(surface_vector, net_vector.normalized)) * 50 * PluginHelper.getImpactorScienceMultiplier(body); net_vector = net_vector + surface_vector; } From what I can tell (and its a long time since I've properly looked at matrices and dot-products) this would suggest that the determining factor for how much each sensor boosts the science received is the angle from the sensor to the site of impact, and how this compares to the average of the angles for previously checked sensors. I.E. for maximum science return per impact, sensors should be placed equiangularly around the site of impact (2 sensors 180° apart, 3 sensors 120°, 4 90° etc). If this is indeed the case and distance to impact has no effect, then theoretically you could place three sensors 10m apart and still maximise your scientific returns as long as you can land in the middle of them (AND not damage your sensors!). Also well done on a great algorithm - seems like a fairly realistic way to model the benefits of multiple sensors TL;DR (If I am right) for best results with impacts, create a circle of sensors and crash in the middle of them

My guess would be you are using B9 wheels. See here for a fix.

That's awesome I can do KAS container resizes if that would be useful...

RemoteTech adds a button on that panel which matches its style - maybe this could be replicated

I agree it would, though it was not my idea and personally I don't think it should be within the scope of this plugin, but the OP says that's what he wants to do:

Awesome. As for adding pictures of the craft, have you seen VesselView?

You could even: @PART[PorkJet*]:HAS[~LivingSpaceSetting[]] //Search for all parts who's names start with 'PorkJet' without the variable 'LivingSpaceSetting' { LivingSpaceSetting = defaultLivingSpaceSetting //Set LivingSpaceSetting to whatever value you want } This would apply the settings to all of porkjet's parts (as long as he follows that naming convention) that don't have LivingSpaceSetting set

Anyone else have occasional problems with the solar panels being blocked by themselves?

Sounds great, but I'd love to see what I'd be downloading...

You can say 'add these config options unless they are already set' as you previously asked. Example: @PART[*]:HAS[~LivingSpaceSetting[]] //Search for all parts without the variable 'LivingSpaceSetting' { LivingSpaceSetting = defaultLivingSpaceSetting //Set LivingSpaceSetting to whatever value you want } This comes from one of the examples in the second post on the MM thread

What about engine shrouds - any chance on getting those to render..?

pe = periapsis, ap = apoapsis

You previously mentioned heuristically working out wether unsupported parts were passable or not. Can I suggest that the size of attachment nodes would be a easy way to do this. Of course it does assume attachment nodes are all set to sensible sizes, which they are not, but logically anything with a 1.25m node or above should fit a kerbal through. On second thoughts, I suppose you don't want kerbals passing through fuel tanks and batteries regardless of their size.....nevermind :/

Welcome and good luck

Ok weird bug.... I've been getting the vessel dupication/missing space center bug on and off (Seems to be triggered by high speed ground impacts with Interstellar mod, AGM may have a part to play too) but today I managed to get it across two save files. I crashed a Impactor probe into the Mun (for science! See interstellar) and the game started stuttering, but i quit out to the space center scene to find the bug had struck. I quit to the main menu to investigate further, as I've never checked how far this bug spreads. Upon reloading the save the bug first appeared in (without reloading the game) the bug was still present and my active flights went up by one. Went back to the main menu, reloaded the database and flashed up the save again - same result. So I tried loading a different save to see if that would work but no. At this point I gave up and restarted the game. When I went back to my second save (the one the bug DID NOT first occur in) to delete the duplicate via the tracking station, I found it had copied one of the ships from the first save. This ship is not saved in either save or the main ships folder, so it has to of been stuck in RAM somehow. Sorry if this is old news, but this is a side of this bug I have not witnessed or heard discussed.

Yes I think you are right, I just meant that if you assume that you will (after adding new biomes) balance the science down so that the total for the planet is the same as before.

Yup I can confirm AGM is responsible for this. The new 'Manage your action groups with the build in context click.' feature seems to be the issue - AGM looks for the root to add the option to its context menu, but the root has been destroyed so it can;t find it. It gets caught in a loop looking for the root part. I never use this feature anyway - is it possible to have a version without it, or an option to disable it?