Beetlecat

How do you mean? It just needs definitions for any KK runways that define the approach and different glideslope angles and marker distances. Also--speaking of that @Caerfinon -- I think the config for the JNSQ island airfield 270 approach is off-center. It's just the one dirt runway, so it should match the latitude as the 90 approach? but it's off a little bit. This made for quite an exciting night landing when stopping there for some fuel and coffee during an evening flight... ;D

Yeah, if you follow and occasionally vet the sources shown, Wikipedia can be a pretty reliable "state of current knowledge" repository. The fact that it's mutable and revisable makes it more valuable than a stack of encyclopedias on any ol' shelf.

Just to be completely sure, these dropped stages are out of physics range, right?

Nice! The fun with this one will be the steady updates over the coming months/years as the facility evolves!

Never forget! These are permanently required for me as well

This is wunderbar to a high degree. Congrats to all! Now get to flinging those darts!

The best kind of necro... Welcome back!

I'd say go for it! It's what I'm using.

I'm trying/using it with *a minor* issue (possibly just due to mod interactions)! Give it a shot! Question for BV users/and maybe @maja: As to those issues, I'm using Kerbalism, and Grounded vehicle parts-- and am having a hard time keeping a rover powered up and moving. Kerbalism typically overrides stock "fuel cells" but the Grounded mod includes its own fuel cell motors that still burn liquid fuel to generate EC (which is also managed differently in Kerbalism). I have plenty of power generation ability vs EC cost of moving + autopilot. When I set the autopilot and switch back to the KSC, the rover begins moving just fine. The Kerbalism sim of the craft in the background shows the EC left as full/"Perpetual" for about a minute or so, but will begin draining the craft's batteries (as if the motor was switched off) and eventually the Bon Voyage status panel will show the craft stopped. Swapping back to the craft shows there's plenty of fuel and the batteries fill back up immediately. The puzzling part is why there is a span of a minute or so when everything seems fine... Is something getting "out of sync" with Bon Voyage, not allowing the simulation of the Grounded fuel cell, or maybe a special issue because Kerbalism isn't handling the power generation of the Grounded mod properly?

oh yes! That's it. Good eye.

I clearly don't build enough with cargo plane parts, but I'm not recognizing this cargo bay/door combo. It's not stock, right?

The dlls seem to be the version and file size, etc. I'm guessing one of them can just be nuked. I'll try it and report back <reporting back>Seems to work fine!

Rather adorable.

Oh, that's interesting. I need to look more closely at my craft in the persistent file & KCT's queue and storage. Do the EVARepair stats get baked into each individual part-per-craft? I wasn't under the impression that's how it worked. --that it was more of a global status of "this category of part" whether it's in KCT construction queue or not?

I had totally lost track of these -- and it's all so outrageously cool! Nice work all around.

Was just doing some new digging, looking for lower-frills fueled wings solutions after realizing there were issues with Modular Fuel Tanks / FuelWings and all of the nested Part Switch and Cryo Tanks, etc. things I'm playing with at the moment. This'll do the trick! It seems clunky, but also adding a bunch of these after the [kerbalEVA*] filter can exclude the smaller winglets and fins that it doesn't quite make sense to have fueled: ~name[*Fin*],~name[*fin*],~name[*Winglet*],~name[*winglet*] -- I'm not quite sure if they can be stacked in the same expression, or if there's a way to disregard case-sensitivity, but this seems to work!

Ugh, indeed. So sorry for prompting this. It was an elegant idea but there are so many ghosts in these here machines. A big master switch button will serve the same purpose nicely-- and maybe even serve as a role-play failsafe for other mod interaction shenanigans.

so many doo-dads. I must be ready for this!

Nice! Thanks for the bundle of updates concerning KRASH, though now I'm feeling regret for prompting a potential headache from it... I'm picking up a gnarly NRE spam in the editor with both KRASH & EVARepairs installed. Here's a log from a somewhat minimal test install: https://drive.google.com/file/d/13Vh9r2idpZmuYGCrCisFAkmgpqlYZfEp/view?usp=sharing

Yes! That's the one -- Not sure how better balanced these V2, etc. bits are, but it certainly can provide for some other options of quirky early-game rocketry, particularly slapping that cockpit and wings on the flyable A4 thingy. Bonkers stuff, but the visual progression to the X-1 is interesting.

Speaking of parts and variants for the V2 -- wasn't there a cockpit mod developed for a winged V2 concept? I'm trying to remember where/who I saw working on that...

I totally appreciated that when starting a new career in 0.10, for sure! The appeal of real-dates was calling to me, with the unfortunate side-effect of reverting to the sunrise @00:00 after my Kerbals were enjoying the 6am wake-up for a few days.

I excitedly installed this before reading this current post-- this has something to do with sunrise being at midnight, yeah? For the time being, I'll pretend the KSC is using an inversion of Old Bohemian Time or something...

Probably working as designed... I'm really enjoying trying out EVA Repairs in a new career while running through my usual rounds of "test these engines a bit before we go anywhere..." as I build some early-game rockets and planes. Here are some observations for @Angel-125 and fellow players: I'm using Scrapyard, and this mod seems to be agnostic to the individual-parts themselves--which is fine!--it's meant to be a more abstracted, lighter-weight system, and I appreciate that! Scrapyard still has the effect of streamlining construction and shortening build times with KCT. There's no reason the lessons learned from one exploded SRB wouldn't immediately be applied to another one currently under construction or on the shelf. I'm also running a handful (okay, a handful+) of parts mods, and getting the activation failure science points is a huge windfall for the R&D team--But almost too much? Could the science point amount earned per failure be defined on the settings page, randomized (within a range), or defined on a per-part basis in the MODULE? --Or maybe tie it to the global science reward % slider (if it's not already)? I wouldn't mind earning .5 or .25 points if I'm running a battery of cheap SRBs on a test stand. This mode of earning science feels more genuine than learning how to build bigger rockets by taking temperature readings in the atmosphere or detecting graviolis, but raking in early failures enables flying through the early tech tree... -- maybe later on I'll wish the payout was higher... This is obviously a perceived balance thing in my current game. KRASH is entirely compatible -- test flights run do *not* increment the reliability scores, etc. However---all failure modes will still happen in a KRASH simulation. Disabling them in game settings does work, but that's relatively clunky. Would a hotkey master switch or toolbar button to temp disable the mod (similar to engine lighting) be feasable? The game does remember the previous "on" settings upon reverting / terminating a KRASH sim, so that process is only half-clunky. Overall, I'm liking how clean and easy this is to work with so far, and while I find myself missing some of the deeper complexity of BARIS, I'm interested in seeing how this one evolves.

We can't always win... OH! you guessed correctly! nice. I'm guessing it'll be @Zarbon44 -- for absolutely no reason.