[1.12.5] Bluedog Design Bureau - Stockalike Saturn, Apollo, and more! (v1.14.0 "металл" 30/Sep/2024)

[vossiewulf]

8 minutes ago, draqsko said:

 

That experiment only works while landed, if you scroll down a bit past the section you were editting you will see this part:

 

Have to be landed on a body to perform the experiment, and it only applies to

 

The other file in that folder, MOLEModulesExperiments is probably where you want to add in the OWS as a required part in orbital experiments. Also make sure you use the title of the part, so in the case of the Skylab OWS it would be requiredPart = Hokulani-OWS Orbital Workshop

 

Not sure that will fix it though, there could be other issues in the configs and I've never used WBI MOLE so I'm not really familiar with how it operates. But that should at least get you started in the right direction. Also delete the MM caches every time you change a configuration file so that KSP actually loads the new configuration, sometimes MM will just load from cache and that will drive you nuts trying to debug something in configuration files.

Not sure where you saw a particular experiment, the ones I was trying to run were all orbital as an option; this module just doesn't work at all because WBI won't talk to it as it's not on the parts whitelist. I'll go back and try the additional config changes to see if that fixes it for the sake of other people who may need a workaround, but I solved it by skipping back to before I launched the Holukani OWS and switched it out for a Bigby OWS, which is basically identical in size and function.

However there's yet another problem in that there seems to be a general issue with finalizing WBI experiments, as in you can't. The Review Data button does nothing, have tested it with the Bigby as well as the Pathfinder Doc Science. So I need to report that in the WBI thread but am still stuck.

[draqsko]

5 minutes ago, vossiewulf said:

Not sure where you saw a particular experiment, the ones I was trying to run were all orbital as an option; this module just doesn't work at all because WBI won't talk to it as it's not on the parts whitelist. I'll go back and try the additional config changes to see if that fixes it for the sake of other people who may need a workaround, but I solved it by skipping back to before I launched the Holukani OWS and switched it out for a Bigby OWS, which is basically identical in size and function.

However there's yet another problem in that there seems to be a general issue with finalizing WBI experiments, as in you can't. The Review Data button does nothing, have tested it with the Bigby as well as the Pathfinder Doc Science. So I need to report that in the WBI thread but am still stuck.

Wild Blue Industries/MOLE/ExperimentResults/BaseandStationBuilding.cfg is only for a surface experiment, changing only that file will produce no resulting change for an orbital lab, it has to be landed on Kerbin, Minimus, or Mun per the situation requirements that I quoted. You could test overall functionality using the edit you tried but you'd have to try the experiment landed on the surface of Kerbin or one of the moons, not in space. MOLEModulesExperiments.cfg is the configuration file for orbital experiments, and you have to add it there to every experiment as well as you can see:

 

Quote

EXPERIMENT_DEFINITION
	{
	id = WBIBRE
	title = Botanical Research Experiment
	baseValue = 30
	scienceCap = 60
	dataScale = 1
	biomeMask = 7
	situationMask = 63
	description = Bontanical research is an important subject for long term space habitation. Learning to grow plants in microgravity will hopefully lead to growing edible crops in the future- once we perfect the technology.
	mass = 0.1
	techRequired = spaceExploration
	tags = mole
	requiredResources = LabTime,90;Plants,84
	requiredPart = Mark One Botany Lab
	requiredPart = LDEF Botany Module
	requiredPart = M.O.L.E.
	requiredPart = LDEF Science Processor
	requiredPart = Bigby Orbital Workshop
	requiredPart = D2 Centrifuge
	requiredPart = D2 Science Module
	requiredPart = GondoLab
	requiredPart = Doc Science Lab
	requiredPart = Tranquility Mk2 Habitat

Quote

EXPERIMENT_DEFINITION
	{
	id = WBISAME
	title = Solar Activity Monitoring Experiment
	baseValue = 25
	scienceCap = 100
	dataScale = 1
	biomeMask = 7
	situationMask = 63
	description = The Solar Activity Monitoring Experiment (SAME) endeavors to watch the sun and study its activity. By studying its properties, we might some day predict when its solar storms occur, and perhaps find a way to harness its energy for space travel beyond mere solar panels.
	mass = 0.01
	tags = mole
	techRequired = spaceExploration
	requiredResources = LabTime,36;SolarReports,36
	situations = ORBITING
	requiredPart = Bigby Solar Observatory
	requiredPart = M.O.L.E.
	requiredPart = LDEF Science Processor
	requiredPart = Bigby Orbital Workshop
	requiredPart = D2 Centrifuge
	requiredPart = D2 Science Module
	requiredPart = GondoLab
	requiredPart = Doc Science Lab
	requiredPart = Tranquility Mk2 Habitat

 

There's other issues perhaps in the configuration for BDB as I stated earlier, I'm not familiar with how MOLE operates so I'm not sure if the entire config actually works. From what I can see comparing the BOW to the Hokulani it should work in theory since the configurations are nearly identical, other than the fact that WBI calls back to a template folder for the configurations of the templates while BDB has the templates in the compatibility file of the part. Either method should work equally well with Mod Manager for patching parts.

 

[vossiewulf]

2 minutes ago, draqsko said:

Wild Blue Industries/MOLE/ExperimentResults/BaseandStationBuilding.cfg is only for a surface experiment, changing only that file will produce no resulting change for an orbital lab, it has to be landed on Kerbin, Minimus, or Mun per the situation requirements that I quoted. You could test overall functionality using the edit you tried but you'd have to try the experiment landed on the surface of Kerbin or one of the moons, not in space. MOLEModulesExperiments.cfg is the configuration file for orbital experiments, and you have to add it there to every experiment as well as you can see:

 

 

There's other issues perhaps in the configuration for BDB as I stated earlier, I'm not familiar with how MOLE operates so I'm not sure if the entire config actually works. From what I can see comparing the BOW to the Hokulani it should work in theory since the configurations are nearly identical, other than the fact that WBI calls back to a template folder for the configurations of the templates while BDB has the templates in the compatibility file of the part. Either method should work equally well with Mod Manager for patching parts.

 

Thanks for the clarification, I understand now.

[Daedalus451]

On 8/7/2018 at 4:22 PM, CobaltWolf said:

The compatibility folder IS inside the gamedata, specifically Gamedata/Bluedog_DB/Compatibility. Unfortunately, neither myself or my co-author maintain any of the compatibility files at this point - we're pretty reliant on community uploads, which is why we hold on to them ourselves in the first place - easier for someone to come along and make a fix to them if they don't have to build a full compatibility setup from scratch. I've seen other mods where such compatibility files are linked in a single post and afterwards are bery hard to find. It looks like lately there has been some tinkering on the RemoteTech and SETI Rebalance configs, but again I frankly don't know what their status is.

But, maybe I should hold my tongue - I just looked at the recent issues on the Github, and it looks like the syntax for our remotetech configs was recently edited to properly activate only when SETIRebalance is *not* detected - ie, the configs are disabling themselves. I don't know why that is, since it sounds like it just means our antennas just don't do anything with SETI installed. I think opening up your copy of the remotetech_Antennas.cfg file in something like Notepad++, and then running a find and replace to change all instances of NEEDS[RemoteTech,!SETIRebalance] to NEEDS[RemoteTech].

In the mean time, if anyone else here uses those mods and knows what is up, please reach out on Github with some suggestions.

Tried that, didn't work. I had a bit of a poke around, and found another MM patch in Compatibility/SETIrebalance that makes slightly different tweaks to your antennas if both RT and SETI are installed - so presumably the syntax is deliberate (only one patch is needed or the other, depending on SETI). After much reading about MM patches and RT configuration, and head scratching, it turned out that the second patch was not a patch at all, but a text file.   Changing it to a .CFG did the trick! You might want to change that in the Master.

[Jso]

1 hour ago, Daedalus451 said:

After much reading about MM patches and RT configuration, and head scratching, it turned out that the second patch was not a patch at all, but a text file.   Changing it to a .CFG did the trick! You might want to change that in the Master.

Nice catch. Fixed in master.

[draqsko]

1 hour ago, Daedalus451 said:

Tried that, didn't work. I had a bit of a poke around, and found another MM patch in Compatibility/SETIrebalance that makes slightly different tweaks to your antennas if both RT and SETI are installed - so presumably the syntax is deliberate (only one patch is needed or the other, depending on SETI). After much reading about MM patches and RT configuration, and head scratching, it turned out that the second patch was not a patch at all, but a text file.   Changing it to a .CFG did the trick! You might want to change that in the Master.

Hope you aren't trying to do historical missions with those RT configs. Both the RT and the SETIRebalance configs have the same stats for the antennas, and I found that Mariner 1 and 2 are impossible. The ranger dish antenna has an RT range of 50,000,000 m (just past the orbit of Minmus in stock scaled systems) while the stock configuration has an antenna power of 2,000,000,000 which can easily reach Eve. The RT configs are balanced around stock antenna balance rather than actual historical uses. It's part of the reason I dropped using RT for the moment, the BDB RT configs need a serious rework if you want to do historical missions, both in range and data transmission rates (there's a few times I've had to allow partial transmission because the antenna can't even transmit the smallest experiment in one go on certain historic probes).

To give you an idea how messed up it is, the Mariner 4 dish in stock BDB has an antenna power of 8,000,000,000 while the RT config has a range of 35,000,000,000 m. Using that ratio the range of the Ranger dish antenna should be somewhere around 9,000,000,000 m (which would reach Eve as long as its on the same side of the sun as Kerbin) instead of 50,000,000 m.

So keep that in mind before you launch your Mariner 1 and 2 missions to Eve only to see them lose connection just outside Kerbin's SOI like I did.

 

PS. Eventually I'll rework these configs myself if no one else does and submit a pr on github, but right now I don't want to commit to anything. Just bought a new house and while I'm taking a break right now from doing work around it cause it's too damn hot, I know I'll drop off the face of the Earth in a month or two once it cools down enough to work outside at least until winter sets in. I hate to leave people hanging by saying I'll do something, get halfway through it and then have to stop because of real life.

Edited August 10, 2018 by draqsko

[mr. engino]

On 8/7/2018 at 10:22 AM, CobaltWolf said:

Who actually uses the various solid motors (besides the radial Titan SRBs)? Does anybody in the community actually bother dealing with solid kick stages?

Sorry I'm late to comment on this. I do use the various srbs included with BDB, usually for the historical spacecraft. I must admit, however, I really need to learn how to adjust the boosters and also when to turn them off; when I attempted to make my Vanguard I replica, I forgot to turn off the srb, so I instead made a Luna I replica, though since it didn't fly by the mun, I guess it was more like Pioneer V...

[Abrecan]

On ‎8‎/‎7‎/‎2018 at 10:22 AM, CobaltWolf said:

Who actually uses the various solid motors (besides the radial Titan SRBs)? Does anybody in the community actually bother dealing with solid kick stages? Does anybody use 1.5m or 1.875m launchers that primarily use the existing BDB solids like the Castor-120?

Heyo, I still use the good ol' Castors. Like I said before I love using them early game, as a 2 stage Castor can achieve orbit with a Mercury Capsule far cheaper than the Atlas. I use both either way, but the Castors are fun imo 

Also: in regards with the Atlas LV, even though I don't use real engines and whatnot I still simulate the orbit from skirt jettison, MECO, and finish the orbit with the little Vernier engines.

Edited August 10, 2018 by Abrecan

[CobaltWolf]

Hercules BE-3 0.3125m Solid kick motor

STAR-48B / "PAM-D" 0.9375m Perigee Kick Solid

[HooHungLow]

On 8/8/2018 at 3:47 PM, CobaltWolf said:

I don't know, they were cool :S

I'm alive, just busy with work. I am looking forward to getting back to it soon! 

I am glad @CobaltWolf got around to making my PAM. 

Edited August 12, 2018 by HooHungLow

[Pappystein]

On 8/7/2018 at 11:22 AM, CobaltWolf said:

Who actually uses the various solid motors (besides the radial Titan SRBs)? Does anybody in the community actually bother dealing with solid kick stages? Does anybody use 1.5m or 1.875m launchers that primarily use the existing BDB solids like the Castor-120?

 

I

• The MX Peacekeeper 2nd and 3rd stages would be on the to-do list. This is something I promised to @Pappystein and @Jso over a year ago now, and honestly, they're kinda dope. Why do you ask? Because they're SRBs with extending nozzles.
• Since this also would involve the STAR motors getting redone, a Burner 2 stage might be appropriate. Burner 2 is basically taking an off the shelf STAR-37 and adding enough hardware (full attitude control and guidance systems, for starters) to make it an independent upper stage, mostly for launching small weather satellites using surplus Thor and Atlas missiles as a first stage.

If anyone has any particular feelings on the above, please let me know!

 

SNipped most of that so let me say what I use.

I use the MX stack provided by JSO's prototype file that re-scales the Castor 120 and Castor 30 to represent the SR-118/119/120 of the MX for quite a bit of my Satellite launches.     It has replaced Delta II as my main line Satellite launcher since it is cheaper and has a similar payload.  That is unless I am looking for a specific orbit since Mechjeb hates solids.  I think it is obvious what MY opinion about a real MX stack would be    Please and thank you!

 

The SR-119 specifically is used as SRBs on a lot of my smaller launchers.     I even have launched several rockets with an Inline SR-118/SR-119 strap on booster stack.  that is to say the SR-118 is strapped on mid way up the rocket. and via an inline decoupler the SR-118 is below the SR-119.  My Deltas go to 9 GEM-40s then 9 GEM-46s.  If I need more umph for a smaller satellite I do a 2x2 SR-119 SR-118 burn on the Delta chassis. 

I would appreciate a Burner/Burner-2 type bird, but correct me if I am wrong.  Couldn't a separate part be made to stack onto the STAR-37 to make them?

[snipped much of my post not realizing I was several days behind.... /sigh ]

Quick question if the STAR-37 and STAR-48 are getting NEW models...   Could we see thrust vectoring for STAR-37FMV and STAR-48BV?

 

 

Edited August 13, 2018 by Pappystein

[CobaltWolf]

14 hours ago, Pappystein said:

SNipped most of that so let me say what I use.

I use the MX stack provided by JSO's prototype file that re-scales the Castor 120 and Castor 30 to represent the SR-118/119/120 of the MX for quite a bit of my Satellite launches.     It has replaced Delta II as my main line Satellite launcher since it is cheaper and has a similar payload.  That is unless I am looking for a specific orbit since Mechjeb hates solids.  I think it is obvious what MY opinion about a real MX stack would be    Please and thank you!

 

The SR-119 specifically is used as SRBs on a lot of my smaller launchers.     I even have launched several rockets with an Inline SR-118/SR-119 strap on booster stack.  that is to say the SR-118 is strapped on mid way up the rocket. and via an inline decoupler the SR-118 is below the SR-119.  My Deltas go to 9 GEM-40s then 9 GEM-46s.  If I need more umph for a smaller satellite I do a 2x2 SR-119 SR-118 burn on the Delta chassis. 

I would appreciate a Burner/Burner-2 type bird, but correct me if I am wrong.  Couldn't a separate part be made to stack onto the STAR-37 to make them?

[snipped much of my post not realizing I was several days behind.... /sigh ]

Quick question if the STAR-37 and STAR-48 are getting NEW models...   Could we see thrust vectoring for STAR-37FMV and STAR-48BV?

(I don't know why you cut part of your post, forums aren't instant messaging, you can reply to older stuff )

I had to go dig up our old conversation about the dimensions for the MX stages. Good news is, I threw them together in Maya and they seemed to be scaled properly. Bad news is, I can't find anything on how the nozzle extensions worked You mentioned 3 actuators, and I was able to identify them in photos from the Nuclear Museum but they don't appear to interface with the non-extending part of the nozzle. (Twitter link has an image in the third tweet or so from that series)

 

Related, but I am struggling to understand how the actuators for these solid engines work. Near as I can tell it's just some linear actuators jammed up inside the mate between the embedded nozzle and the casing, but that doesn't make much sense to me - it's not like they're pushing against the nozzle with any sort of leverage. I'm sort of in a holding pattern for detailing the nozzles on the 1.5m solids as a result, in addition to what I asked about above. One issue I'm noticing with these revamps is I am spending a lot of time doing research, collecting photo references, etc because I really, really, really don't want to have to remodel all this stuff again. I want it to be right the first time So, if I don't have an answer or solution to something, I will err on the side of collecting more information before I commit.

EDIT: I have been informed that all the MX-Peacekeeper stages use Liquid Injection TVC, but that doesn't answer the question for the Castor 30/30XL and the STAR-37FV and STAR-48BV, which use some sort of hydraulic actuators.

I suppose the Burner 2 equipment could be a 'strap on' part, but it wouldn't look as nice (I couldn't bake the AO shadows in if I did that) and would be fairly single use I'd think, or at least, difficult to make useable in other configurations.

I suppose thrust vectoring would be possible, but in that case I think I would combine them. Either have the existing STAR motors with minimum hardware (ie just the actuators, not the boxes and cabling and such on the real 'V' models) but with wiggleable nozzles... or, I don't know what else.

Will have to make a pt 2 post this afternoon since I had some more things to share, but for now see how the Athena-II is taking shape. I think I've settled on the Castor 30 version being the one represented in BDB, since the Orbus 21 will have to be for IUS and I don't feel the part would be able to fill both roles. This image also illustrates a bit how overscaled Scout is in BDB to fit within stock sizes...

EDIT: If the Athena looks a bit too short, it might be. I need to check the lengths of the Castors, and I have been leaving a little extra room for decouplers.

Edited August 13, 2018 by CobaltWolf

[Pappystein]

3 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

(I don't know why you cut part of your post, forums aren't instant messaging, you can reply to older stuff )

I only clipped out redundant parts to not spam comments etc.

 

3 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

I had to go dig up our old conversation about the dimensions for the MX stages. Good news is, I threw them together in Maya and they seemed to be scaled properly. Bad news is, I can't find anything on how the nozzle extensions worked You mentioned 3 actuators, and I was able to identify them in photos from the Nuclear Museum but they don't appear to interface with the non-extending part of the nozzle. (Twitter link has an image in the third tweet or so from that series)

Related, but I am struggling to understand how the actuators for these solid engines work. Near as I can tell it's just some linear actuators jammed up inside the mate between the embedded nozzle and the casing, but that doesn't make much sense to me - it's not like they're pushing against the nozzle with any sort of leverage. I'm sort of in a holding pattern for detailing the nozzles on the 1.5m solids as a result, in addition to what I asked about above. One issue I'm noticing with these revamps is I am spending a lot of time doing research, collecting photo references, etc because I really, really, really don't want to have to remodel all this stuff again. I want it to be right the first time So, if I don't have an answer or solution to something, I will err on the side of collecting more information before I commit.

Actually the one of the reference pages I linked you BITD said something about simplification as the middle nozzle portion is extended by the end portion.  IE one set of three actuators move the whole thing via friction(?)    In the bottom of the two photos for the SR-119 Nozzle (I am guessing) you can see between the lower and middle nozzle the flaps that catch the lower nozzle as it extends and allow the mid-nozzle to extend.    The white ring is not solid (it only covers a small portion of the circumference. The ring has 3 "spring steel straps" (my quotes) that pull the middle down.  Once the middle locks, the "steel straps" allow the end piece to complete it's journey.   So the middle nozzle should have a white ring at the top with 3 "black/bare steel" straps about 1/3rd mid nozzle length that extend out at a wider angle than the mid nozzle.   That means as the bottom nozzle portion is extending we should see ~1/2 of the mid nozzle extending above it until the mid nozzle locks into place.  Then the straps should either break off or pop out-side of the lower nozzle portion.   

 

To be honest the HOW this works is conjecture.  Those white ring portions could have explosive decouplers on them for all I know.   But those three flaps HAVE to be what guide the middle nozzle to extension given there are no other real actuator action that would be considered "simplified."   

 

Unrelated but here is a fair photo of a STAR-48BV with the Hydraulic reservoir/pump and actuator visible:   IIRC the White box is the controller and the Black one is the Pump/reservoir

And the Star 37FMV (Cad Drawing) I think the Reservoir is on the opposite side of this view (laid out like the STAR-48BV above since they use similar component layout.

[Skyrunner84]

Hey everyone.... I cant remember if I have already said this so I will say it now. This is one of my favorite mods. I have finally got it set up in a career save using a 3.2x system in KSP 1.4.5. I find that the ships I have made so far are very nicely balanced for this size.

Now on to my one issue. For some reason some parachute parts (i.e. the Mercury Landing and Control Module) are starting with the parachute deployed in the VAB. The real problem is that it does not appear that it is being treated like a parachute because I don't have any of the normal parachute options when I click on the part. When I launch a part like this the parachute remains out and does not act like a parachute. Also it does not show a parachute in the staging, just a de coupler. 

Here is a photo from the VAB:

Album https://i.imgur.com/zaO5P7T.png will appear when post is submitted

It seems like I have had this problem before. I cant remember if it was with BDB or another parts mod and I don't remember how it was fixed. Any ideas on this one?

 

UPDATE: I just installed RealChute and all seems to be fine in the VAB for now. I am getting ready to launch my first Mercury Redstone rocket in this save. I will let you know what happens. I would still like to know what was wrong though.

UPDATE 2: Installing RealChute fixed everything for me. I dont know why BDB messed up to begin with since I never used it with RealChute in the past. Oh well I am happy now.

Edited August 15, 2018 by Skyrunner84
update

[HooHungLow]

@CobaltWolf Can't wait for the revamped parts! (Scout, Athena...etc.) Coming along nicely. 

[CobaltWolf]

On 8/13/2018 at 4:27 PM, Skyrunner84 said:

UPDATE: I just installed RealChute and all seems to be in the VAB for now. I am getting ready to launch my first Mercury Redstone rocket in this save. I will let you know what happens. I would still like to know what was wrong though.

But, everything is working now? I am not sure what the issue would be other than perhaps the RealChute configs were running when they shouldn't.

7 hours ago, HooHungLow said:

@CobaltWolf Can't wait for the revamped parts! (Scout, Athena...etc.) Coming along nicely. 

Me neither! Had to take the last couple of nights off to take care of Real Life ^TM  but hopefully I'm going to be able to kick some more stuff out the next couple of days.

[KnedlikMCPE]

Hello guys, when i tried Hermes orbiter, M-LCM was not as parachute. Cam someone please help? Tried reinstalling both MM and 

https://imgur.com/w3mhimE.png

Edited August 15, 2018 by KnedlikMCPE

[CobaltWolf]

On 8/13/2018 at 4:27 PM, Skyrunner84 said:

UPDATE: I just installed RealChute and all seems to be fine in the VAB for now. I am getting ready to launch my first Mercury Redstone rocket in this save. I will let you know what happens. I would still like to know what was wrong though.

UPDATE 2: Installing RealChute fixed everything for me. I dont know why BDB messed up to begin with since I never used it with RealChute in the past. Oh well I am happy now.

2 minutes ago, KnedlikMCPE said:

Hello guys, when i tried Hermes orbiter, M-LCM was not as parachute. Cam someone please help? Tried reinstalling both MM and BDB.

Album https://imgur.com/w3mhimE.png will appear when post is submitted

Alright, can one of you do me a favor, and go into Gamedata\Bluedog_DB\Compatibility and delete the RealChute folder, and tell me if that fixes things? The config hasn't been updated in over 2 years so I don't know why it would be screwing up now. @Skyrunner84 if you do this make sure you uninstall RealChute as well!

[KnedlikMCPE]

Okay, it worked very well, and im glad how KSP community is helping others. Im familiar with this issue, always issue of MM, but today its something different. Thanks you very much.

[Skyrunner84]

7 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

Alright, can one of you do me a favor, and go into Gamedata\Bluedog_DB\Compatibility and delete the RealChute folder, and tell me if that fixes things? The config hasn't been updated in over 2 years so I don't know why it would be screwing up now. @Skyrunner84 if you do this make sure you uninstall RealChute as well!

I will try this when I can.... but like i said everything was fixed after installing RealChute. So far i do kinda like RealChute.

[CobaltWolf]

19 hours ago, KnedlikMCPE said:

Okay, it worked very well, and im glad how KSP community is helping others. Im familiar with this issue, always issue of MM, but today its something different. Thanks you very much.

12 hours ago, Skyrunner84 said:

I will try this when I can.... but like i said everything was fixed after installing RealChute. So far i do kinda like RealChute.

Well, it sounds like the Realchute.cfg in the compatibility folder was it. Thanks for helping me figure it out!

EDIT: Well, I don't know WHY the config would screw up... it shouldn't activate unless there is a "RealChute" folder in your gamedata, @KnedlikMCPE do you have one somehow?

Edited August 16, 2018 by CobaltWolf

[KnedlikMCPE]

I had it but old. Now i have problem with Kane. Everytime i activate ABORT (LES) it normally lifts off. But above shore, kane CM explodes with no reason. It show it crashed into SSTU Reflection Probe, i think SSTU is mod i had. I dont have SSTU in Game Data, so how i can remove this issue?

[KnedlikMCPE]

hello?

[Pappystein]

9 hours ago, KnedlikMCPE said:

I had it but old. Now i have problem with Kane. Everytime i activate ABORT (LES) it normally lifts off. But above shore, kane CM explodes with no reason. It show it crashed into SSTU Reflection Probe, i think SSTU is mod i had. I dont have SSTU in Game Data, so how i can remove this issue?

SSTU is ONE of a series of GREAT Mods by @Shadowmage and several of them can cross-refer to the core SSTU mod.   I suggest going through your entire GameData folder and remove anything that references SSTU, PBR etc.   I am suggesting this because you have PARTS of the SSTU suite installed but not all of it and theirfor it is broken.

 

Point in fact, it sounds like you should delete all non Squad mods out of your gamedata directory and then start adding them in one at a time with new downloads.  You have several PARTIAL mods in your GameData folder and this is what is causing 100% of your issues.   If you are using ANY 3rd party mod downloader (like CKAN) then I would suggest to NOT use ANY downloader again.   This was the exact problem that caused me to quit using CKAN.

 

6 hours ago, KnedlikMCPE said:

hello?

I know it is like pins and needles waiting for a reply but not all of us are available 24/7.  Please be patient.  If you have not had a reply in a few days then please re-ask your question.

PS I do not work for nor am I really affiliated in any way with this mod...  I have just been through the same experiences you have.

[Shadowmage]

9 hours ago, KnedlikMCPE said:

I had it but old. Now i have problem with Kane. Everytime i activate ABORT (LES) it normally lifts off. But above shore, kane CM explodes with no reason. It show it crashed into SSTU Reflection Probe, i think SSTU is mod i had. I dont have SSTU in Game Data, so how i can remove this issue?

The 'SSTU Reflection Probe' is added by TexturesUnlimited ( https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/167450-143-textures-unlimited-pbr-shader-texture-and-model-api/ ) -- please report your problem in that thread, or on its github issues page ( https://github.com/shadowmage45/TexturesUnlimited/issues ), along with a link to an upload of your KSP.log file (instructions on how to find the log should be here -- https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/83212-how-to-get-support-read-first/ ).