Boomerang

Yup, that should be fine. I don't know what other dependancies/plugins B9 requires, but assuming you leave those things alone, you should be able to prune out all the other parts. Just make sure the route to that part remains the same. If it's GameData/B9/SubfolderA/SubfolderB/Part, make sure it stays that way. If you want to make totally sure that that'll work, open the desired part's cfg folder and look at the model and/or texture lines near the top of the document. Make sure that the texture and such is contained in the folder of the part you're saving. If it's not, and it's in another part's folder (this happens to save memory occasionally, utilizing the same texture across multiple parts), then you'll need to make sure that that file remains in it's proper folder.

Nope, at least not that I've seen. Ladders have always had a bit of chance associated with their use, but they've become far less reliable with .25. Just be ready to use the jetpack as soon as you click EVA. As usual, having other parts attached near the hatch will greatly increase the chance of things being wonky, but it'll happen even with bare capsules.

Or, if you go to the Firespitter thread, immediately under the KerbalStuff link, there's a link to this: http://snjo.github.io/ Middle button in the top row is "Download Plugin" to save the larger download and having to prune out parts and such.

It's fair to say that if it weren't for a multitude of people demanding an unfinished product, we wouldn't even have a Windows x64 release. That Squad themselves don't even recommend using it should say volumes.

Oh, I already am, which is all the more reason I hate seeing things develop as they have. Unfortunately it'll just make for more bitter users, which makes for more annoyed authors, etc, etc. We'll just have to see.

If it were me in that case, and what I do anyway, is set up a simple daily archiving of my persistence file. I use Automator on OSX to do it automatically, but you could do it manually, and I'm sure your operating system of choice has some sort of automating program. Create an 'Archives' folder in your 'Saves' folder and copy your persistence.sfs into it daily, affixing the date of the copying. And if that's too much work, there's a mod called AutoSave that will create numbered persistence backups within each save folder for you every time you enter the game. So if something gets borked during a flight and you can't revert/quick load, you could at least reload from the state of the last time you started the game. Which might not be entirely 'hardcore' difficulty, but I think it's fair enough for a game that does have it's fair share of bugs. As for your original question, I have a feeling it would be rather difficult at a basic level to identify what flights were ruined by bugs versus some sort of user error in construction or piloting. If you look at the flightlog, plenty of bugs just register as collisions or structural failures. Which are also what comes up when the user messes up. How are you going to tell the difference? If it was as easy as the game saying 'ooh, that's a bug!' I think said bug would probably have already been dealt with in the first place.

I think that's one of the most tragic things about this all - the lack of appreciation for the hours and hours and hours of time that modders not only put into creating/updating mods, but also in helping all the users. Some of whom have legitimate bugs, but many of whom either don't know enough to ask for the help they really need and have to be coached through the process, or, even worse, who just expect a few terse sentences on a message board to produce a solution. I'm not *that* far removed from being one of the people who needed coaching through the support process and I really, really appreciate the time that people put into these projects, and for no more reward than some thanks and rep. It's tragic that more and more people seem unaware of that effort on the part of the modders, or if they're aware, then they don't appreciate it or expect to be catered to. Our modders are a creative, hard-working bunch who have all sorts of aims. It takes a lot for a bunch of them to come out in unison against a project in particular. For such a thing to happen really ought to suggest that the idea being trounced is a woefully bad idea, rather than that the modders are a bunch of control freaks or whatever vibe is being passed around by a few people. Anyway, I suppose the cynicism is understandable, but at the same time, there are a lot of people who honestly appreciate the time and effort that people put into their mods and that I'd hope a nasty, demanding few don't ruin things for everyone.

Oh, good, more short-sighted people who can't see past their own minor inconveniences. Please, for the love of whatever you love, look into *why* authors have chosen to disable their mods for x64. And as I believe Ferram said, if you're tech savvy enough to edit a mod so as to re-enable it for x64, you're probably clever enough to deal with the myriad problems inherent to that version of the game. Or at the very least clever enough to not go around blaming the author for your x64 problems.

Aye. As someone who's fairly mechanically handy, I feel like this mod is the equivalent of someone working out of his basement to turn off all of his neighbor's 'Check Engine' lights for them so they don't have to look at the little red light/take their car into a mechanics. You know, because it's really just a hassle and nine times out of ten there's not actually anything to worry about. Even if someone did that, and most of the time it saved drivers a tiny bit of aggravation and gave them 'more control over their cars', don't you think the local mechanics would start getting pissy when more people started coming in with automotive problems that could have been solved earlier thanks to a little warning/would have been much easier to diagnose otherwise? (ignoring the whole trope of mechanics loving to find extra ways to charge people) While not the biggest problem in the world, this CC issue is a tangle of subissues, and rather than working with the people who'll have to deal with the fallout of all this, someone got pissy that one person was a bit hostile and decided 'frack it, I'll just let the cat out of the box'. Maybe there's a way all of the tech un-savvy people who are going to fill mod threads when they don't understand why their .90 game is almost immediately borked can be redirected to this thread. You know, so all the people who are saving hours and hours of their lives not clicking 'Ok' can deal with the mess.

The problem is that in order to circumvent an absolute minimum amount of annoyance for players, someone's created a mod that a: is going to cause at least some further confusion when it comes to mod authors providing support to users having problems and b: from now on, authors can't count on CC warnings being seen by users, as has been documented previously in this thread. Is this the end of the world? No, but it's using a cannon to kill a mosquito - the problems created by it, even if they only exist for mod authors, are far greater than the initial 'problem'. The intent behind this was good, just not well-thought out. And unfortunately it's probably going to be the people who need CC notifications the most who are going to end up using this because they thing said notifications are useless.

Hey, thanks a bunch, they're the best of both worlds!

What's your periapsis before beginning reentry? Aiming between 30-35km on stock-sized Kerbin if you're reentering from LKO should keep the temperatures in a survivable range.

Also, sometime I sometimes forget with a new game is that I play at the half-res setting and if I try to start up with all my mods at full res, the game will never start. So many check your settings?

Aye, every time I see this crop up in the new posts listings, I wonder a bit more why it hasn't been locked yet. All this is going to lead to is anger. As for the OP, you can be frustrated with a problem without having a flamebaiting rant about said problem while then asking out of the corner of your mouth about the actual problem. I've run OSX for years and you don't see me flailing my arms about and screaming when I've got to try to fix things on my SO's Windows 8 rig.

It did spawn correctly, yeah. And the rotating behavior is standard for me. Might be a product of EditorExtensions, but I'm pretty sure it's a stock feature. Thanks a lot for that, I've seen the rotation line before but plum forgot about it. By rotating it by 180º in the cfg, I got it to display properly in the editor. The side affect being that now it spawns backwards, but tapping Q/E twice fixes that easily enough and my slightly ridiculous need to have the parts list looking nice is sated. If I ever get around to teaching myself how to use Blender I'll try to figure out a proper fix, but yours was just what I was looking for. And thanks to both of you for the prompt replies!

As someone with no experience creating models or the like, I'm curious as to whether there's a straightforward way to change the orientation of a part in it's image in the parts list. I've got two radial parts that appear with their nondescript back sides facing outward in their default parts list image. This isn't proper problem at all, but for the sake of aesthetics and having them be slightly more easy to identify at a glance, I'd prefer it if I could rotate the models 180º. Hopefully this illustrates what I'm on about. The left image is the default presentation, the second is the result of mousing over the part, triggering the standard rotation of the highlighted part. My gut says that I'd probably have to open the models in Blender and rotate them as I like, then re-save the model file, but I figured I'd ask here in case there's an easier way to accomplish what I'm looking for.

I've already taken care of snipping the engine module and such from the cfg file. And I don't really know, I just prefer to have the capsule sans any sort of engine. Plus I don't need the Baha folder that way. His work is great, but my GameData folder is bloated with folders at the moment. Thanks for the reply though. Edit - Alright, I've given in to your cool LES engines Turned them to controllable de-orbiting engines with significantly less power, but I've kept 'em

Hopefully this isn't too odd of a request, but I noticed that the alternateconfig folder doesn't come with the download anymore. As someone who doesn't want to use the LES function of the capsule, is there still a separate model/texture out there so I don't have the unused engines stuck out and exposed? Thanks!

This sounds great

The new rover bodies look great!

I'm just going to throw out how my folders are organized. I've had them this way for several versions and everything seems to work fine. Two folders related to this mod to get both the personal parachutes and the ejection system part. #1: KSP/GameData/EVALoading Contains: EVAParachutes.cs; EVAParachutes.dll #2: KSP/GameData/VNG Contains: FrementGUILib.dll; VanguardTechnologies.dll; And three folders: VNG_Eject; parachute; and FrementGUI All of which was downloaded via this thread.

There's a separate folder in the download that has a handful of new parts, but the vast majority of it is new textures and models for stock parts. I think Windows gives you options to combine the contents of folders that makes instillation easy. I know on OSX the most straightforward way is to paste the mod files for a particular part into the part's stock folder, overwriting where necessary. Just make sure to have a backup o your KSP/Gamedata/Squad/Parts folder, in case of mistakes or if you wish to revert to the original models/textures.

I'd recommend giving career mode a go, and that's coming from someone who's pretty die hard into sandbox. And even then, it's been fun playing with the new SP+ stock parts, rebuilding some of my craft that used the mod parts in the past. And being able to use the Alt key to force node attachment is really nice in the editor, slicker than Alt+R with EditorExtensions.

Sounds good to me!

Nope. But ferram (the FAR guy) released a FAR alternative called NEAR that lacks the analytical data and aerodynamic failures that FAR causes. So if you want more realistic aerodynamics but FAR was too much for you, NEAR might be worth giving a try. The most news we've gotten out of SQUAD re:aero is that with .26 they're hoping that parts within (at least) stock cargo bays will be shielded from drag.