[1.9.1+] OPT Legacy 3.1.2 | Reconfig 3.4 [Apr 20, 2021]

[Chase842]

First off, thank you very much for this update! I am crazy excited to try out all the new VTOL engines and see what kinda cool stuff I can make! @JadeOfMaar

Note: I am using KSP 1.8.1, like most people, cuz of Kopernicus.   And I'm using OPT Reconfig 2.0.2

I am getting an infinite loading bug(Not a crash) at startup, when the game or module manager is trying to patch/load the "OPT/OPT/Parts/hfuselage/h_2m_em_fm"
EDIT: I am also getting the same issue if using only OPT Legacy (without the other OPT mod) and the infinite loading bug occurs on "OPT_Legacy/Parts/Avatar/OPTL_A_8m_cockpit/a_8m_cockpit". I don't know if this info helps

 

The relevant mods/things that could impact this that I am using are:
- Community  Resource Patch (Latest)
- Modular Fuel Tanks (Latest)
- B9 Part Switch (latest)
- Kerbal Atomics and Cryo Engines (Both Latest)
- WBI Kerbal Actuators (Latest)  (Not using any other WBI mods/tool, just actuators)
- Firespitter (Latest)
- I am trying to use OPT Legacy and OPT for the first time. As far as I could tell, they should be compatible. (The same issue occurs with just legacy, so I don't think this is the issue.)
- I have deleted the wing parts and the humpback parts from both OPT mods.
 

Here's a link to a zip file with my module manager ConfigCache & ConfigSHA file,  and the 2 module manager logs: https://drive.google.com/file/d/12E3ztRKd2IPY-e4AqJ9YBAOL1mpPxMk6/view?usp=sharing
Let me know if there are any other logs or data you would need to help troubleshoot this issue.
I already read through them, but I couldn't make heads or tails of what the issue is, although I just got out of the ER early this morning, so I'm not operating at 100% mental capacity. I would appreciate some help.

Another Edit: Not sure, but, it might have something to do with the "emm_h_fuselage.DDS"   and   "OPTL_A_8m_cockpit_emm.DDS" files. Maybe this will help.

Thanks for the mod update and the assistance! 


P.S. I always use non-legacy... I am curious about the differences between the two..
       Are the legacy parts more up-to-date? Is there a difference between Kraken and H fuselages? etc?

Edited June 3, 2020 by Chase842

[overkill13]

8 hours ago, JadeOfMaar said:

@Gryphorim @overkill13 I found the problem. The OPT SAS tank options were wrongly assuming Rational Resources was installed while expecting CryoEngines or Kerbal Atomics. I didn't notice because Captain Kipard's Skylon defines that tank type when RR is not present. I've released the fix.

I was going to say.  My WBI only has Kerbal Actuators in it, so it shouldn't even have a resource config.

I deleted my MM cache just for fun and reinstalled the latest Reconfig and Legacy.  I am now enjoying this beautiful mod, issue free again.  Thanks a lot Jade. 

Now I just need to find the two new crew parts so I can mod some Kerbal Health modules onto them.  PLEASE don't ever go to the system where part title, manufacturer and description are stored somewhere off site and only called for in the cfg files.  That makes modding, for an amateur like me at least, a real PITA.

[Gryphorim]

An idea for the VT Helicarrier: a few variants with some vertical distance between intake side and exhaust side, to facilitate snapping to (through) fuselages. So maybe a Mk2 height, J, and K height versions?
personally I'd like a version that can act as RCS as well, (or a ring RCS mount with 45 degree thrusters that snaps around the VT engine, but that would be easy enough to make with existing parts, I guess.)

[JadeOfMaar]

@Chase842 Hey. I'm glad you're hyped. I also stay in 1.8.1 because of Kopernicus. Unfortunately, the MM-related logs only tell half the story and they're telling me that on the config level, everything is fine. Next time be sure to include your KSP.log for the other half.

Something's up with Modular Fuel Tanks. I'm getting the hang issue now. While I find a solution for that, skip MFT and try Configurable Containers instead.

ER, you say? Well I'm glad you're healthy enough to tax your brain with KSP problems. That's a very good sign.

OPT Legacy's "Kraken" is the same as OPT Main's K. The H fuselage primarily exists in the "H mounted" form which complements K and becomes KH (which renders the legacy Humpback form obsolete). H exists secondarily as its own fuselage "H fuselage" so players can build "small shuttles" that are stand-alone and aren't joined at the hip with K/KH. Unfortunately, the OG dev did not make it so that an H craft can smoothly fit and attach onto K/KH in flight.

 

31 minutes ago, overkill13 said:

I was going to say.  My WBI only has Kerbal Actuators in it, so it shouldn't even have a resource config.

I deleted my MM cache just for fun and reinstalled the latest Reconfig and Legacy.  I am now enjoying this beautiful mod, issue free again.  Thanks a lot Jade. 

Now I just need to find the two new crew parts so I can mod some Kerbal Health modules onto them.  PLEASE don't ever go to the system where part title, manufacturer and description are stored somewhere off site and only called for in the cfg files.  That makes modding, for an amateur like me at least, a real PITA.

Yea I didn't need you to delete your MM cache, as it turns out. Nonetheless, it's still a valid thing to do to help troubleshoot an install. You're welcome.

Lol. It's easy enough to find them. In-game, look in the Science and Utility categories. Install this little gem so you can easily spot parts by their part names while KSP is running. 

That "system" you're describing sounds like localization. I would like to do that actually, lol. I've seen Germans and Russians using OPT so I have them in mind first. But.... it's not going to happen anytime soon so you're safe. I'd have to take over OPT Main and edit its files directly to do so.

4 hours ago, Horus said:

Downloaded this awesome mod. Tried to open H Bubble craft, but it cannot find some parts. Including those H ones. Where can I find them?

OPT "Main," the primary parts pack is here --> SpaceDock.

Edited June 4, 2020 by JadeOfMaar

[overkill13]

Interesting.  I never could figure out why all the parts went that way.  Didn't really think about the translations.

[Chase842]

5 minutes ago, JadeOfMaar said:

@Chase842 Hey. I'm glad you're hyped. I also stay in 1.8.1 because of Kopernicus. Unfortunately, the MM-related logs only tell half the story and they're telling me that on the config level, everything is fine. Next time be sure to include your KSP.log for the other half.

Something's up with Modular Fuel Tanks. I'm getting the hang issue now. While I find a solution for that, skip MFT and try Configurable Containers instead.

ER, you say? Well I'm glad you're healthy enough to tax your brain with KSP problems. That's a very good sign.

OPT Legacy's "Kraken" is the same as OPT Main's K. The H fuselage primarily exists in the "H mounted" form which complements K and becomes KH (which renders the legacy Humpback form obsolete). H exists secondarily as its own fuselage "H fuselage" so players can build "small shuttles" that are stand-alone and aren't joined at the hip with K/KH. Unfortunately, the OG dev did not make it so that an H craft can smoothly fit and attach onto K/KH in flight.

Thanks for looking into this for me! I'll just remove MFT for now then. I do absolutely love and prefer MFT for all my fuel tank needs, so I do hope you find the source of the issue eventually, but please don't rush on my account.
Thanks for the info on the differences between legacy and main OPT. I did notice that these new engines are only in the Legacy version, hence why I am now using both, which I am assuming there is no harm in doing so.

 

[JadeOfMaar]

52 minutes ago, Gryphorim said:

An idea for the VT Helicarrier: a few variants with some vertical distance between intake side and exhaust side, to facilitate snapping to (through) fuselages. So maybe a Mk2 height, J, and K height versions?
personally I'd like a version that can act as RCS as well, (or a ring RCS mount with 45 degree thrusters that snaps around the VT engine, but that would be easy enough to make with existing parts, I guess.)

I absolutely won't make those variants, sorry. To facilitate that it has a deploy slider and the engine half spaces out from the intake half. Adjust the slider as you will (up to about 0.6m, the thickness of the OPT Huge Pylon) and never touch its deploy toggle.

To fit flush on the J and K fuselages, I made the wrapper engines. They have the same response timing as the helicarrier engine so there will never be a moment of imbalanced thrust while throttling.

For Mk2 body matters (to an extent) I made the LP-J and LP-R. A proper Mk2 wrapper engine is an attractive idea... I think I'll do that. It sucks that any Mk2 VTOL engines that exist now include the fuselage itself, restricting their place-ability.

I've made previous designs for helicarrier engines, including built-in verniers. I decided not to do this for OPT because I've already made sure that there are many options for air-breathing RCS. It simply faded from my mind and it may have ended up looking bad.

Spoiler

I made this draft a long time ago for my old mod Thor Tech. I was just beginning to make models then so I couldn't promise to deliver this quickly.  It's much more Avengers-alike than the OPT one.

 

[Chase842]

I got a question....

I don't understand how some of the engines can "work in a vacuum" with only intake atmosphere and electricity? It seems more than just a little cheaty, which normally I'm okay with, as long as it has some sort of research/concept that proves it could be possible in the near/far future, or possible if you can do a hard to do thing, like provide a ton of electricity, or do something risky like irradiate the country-side(LOL), or something....

I mean, I understand that the atmospheric gases are the propellant in this case, which are "shot" out with guass or railgun like technology, which requires a lot of electricity, but there is no atmosphere in a vacuum, and I haven't come across any fuel tanks to store atmosphere yet.
Although I don't exactly know how guass/railgun concepts would work with an engine to provide reasonable thrust, unless perhaps with thousands of tiny tubes that the gas is compressed into, and shot out of, so it doesn't just diffuse to quickly and not transfer a lot of it's energy, idk.
Although if we did have a fuel tank for atmosphere, and the goal is just to store a high density of any old gas to use in these "guass" like engines that  shoot gas out at a high speed, wouldn't having a single gas that compresses to high densities and is easy to store, be more efficient option than a mixture of various atmospherics gases for vacuum modes?

Do you happen to have any articles that can at least show us that this guass engine concept has some sort of realistic possibility of existing? I did some googling, but I couldn't find anything, although it seems like a very niche topic, so I'd imagine it'd be hard to google.

Don't get me wrong, I think the idea of a guass engine sounds cool as hell, but I do like to be at least hard sci-fi levels of realistic with my KSP engines/thrusters.
I know these new engines were just released, and as a modder and game dev myself, I know this is all subject to balance changes, and I hope we can all brainstorm some ideas together to help make the new engines as balanced and realistic as possible.

Anyways, I love the models, animations, VTOL functionality, and the form fit engines quite a lot! Great work! I did see some z-fighting(flickering) with the quads used for decals on the Stail 4m fuel tanks. Lifting the quads up even by 0.0001m should remove the z-fighting, easy fix.


EDIT: Also, I am now a big fan of configurable containers, thanks for suggesting that!

Edited June 4, 2020 by Chase842

[Northstar1989]

On 6/2/2020 at 3:46 PM, JadeOfMaar said:

K drone core with RCS (J drone core is placeholder) and the existing K SAS parts get RCS as intended waaaay back when I made the SAS parts.

I'm a bit confused: why do these parts eve exist?

RCS and SAS are two competing control systems.  What's more, they optimize to different placement...

RCS is best placed as far from the CoM of a vessel as possible for rotation-control, to increase their lever-arm and increase the torque produced for a given RCS force (increasing effectiveness and reducing Monoprop consumption for a given turn-rate/torque.  Although with really large, unstable designs, you're better off just using a proper rocket-engine removed from Main Throttle for rotation control...)  The Monoprop tanks, meanwhile, are best placed centrally to reduce CoM shift.

SAS, on the other hand, is best placed close to the Center of Mass of a spacecraft- to reduce wobble and "spaghettifying" of long, thin spacecraft/planes- although in a plane, there's also justification for putting it more towards the nose, as it will weaken the fuselage structure less there.  And the more SAS you have, the less RCS you need.

Generally the only reason you might want RCS in the same place you'd put SAS is for translation-control: and even then you're usually better off with a set of RCS thrusters far from the CoM, precisely-balanced for translation (thrust-vector for the RCS must pass through CoM) to do this: as then they can also double as rotation-control the rest of the time...

I suppose there's a marginal use for this in reducing part-count, and SAS systems placed towards the nose on unmanned spaceplanes with large Canards (cockpits are too heavy to have an SAS module between them and the main wings- it will cause the fuselage to flex too much.  Canards provide some Lift to the nose, helping reduce the weight that must he supported by the fuselage all the way to the main wing...) and FAR installed and providing body-lift from the fuselage to reduce flexing further...

Which are basically all I ever build (as unmanned, canard-using spaceplanes are basically the most efficient designs possible in FAR with regards to fuel-usage: especially as Center of Lift shifts backwards in FAR with increasing mach speed- making forward swept Canards very efficient for keeping the nose up), now that I think of it- and I'm very limited on part-counts my CPU can support- so maybe I shouldn't be complaining...

Edited June 4, 2020 by Northstar1989

[JadeOfMaar]

@Northstar1989 They exist for modularity and to reduce bloat in the part catalogue. Don't want a particular part's reaction wheels or RCS thrusters, hit their toggle in their PAWs and save while in the editor. Also, the majority of KSP players won't know finer things like that. (Heck, I didn't know that SAS and RCS and so opposite but I know that the better one is, the less you need the other). They tend to build very inefficiently and tend to want a lot of both SAS and RCS wherever feels good, and a lot of MonoPropellant because aligning one or two heavy ships in order to dock or to do a burn in a hairy situation can be very taxing on one's patience. Emphasis on heavy due to KSP part mass balancing.

8 minutes ago, Northstar1989 said:

and I'm very limited on part-counts my CPU can support- so maybe I shouldn't be complaining...

Lol

[Northstar1989]

Intriguing.  I'm not sure I understand all that about PAWs and modularity, though?

Also, in a different topic: do you happen to know if the airbreathing engines in this mod work with KSP-Interstellar precoolers?

Last I worked on helping develop, or played with, Interstellar (which was admittedly quite a while ago: real life and game updates got me away from such a complex-but-awesome mod that most players fail to understand is actually HEAVILY based on real science and more realistic than Stock in many cases...) it added code to the Stock precoolers, and precoolers from mods, using ModuleManager, that allowed them to do what they would in real life: cool the airflow and effectively allow it to be compressed further than normal, to internal speeds/pressures (inside the duct systems and entering the engine) much lower and higher, respectively, than what compressors cpuld ever achieve without them.

Effectively, this meant that when the precoolers were activated (a right-click/ action group command was added to turn them on/off) the intakes they were attached to passed "slower" and "lower altitude" (higher pressure) air along to their engines: shifting the velocity and altitude-curves to the right (so engines could produce peak Thrust at higher speed/altitude, and would flame-out at higher speed/altitude as well...)

This is extremely realistic, actually- and why the British government is jumping on adding SABRE-derived precoolers to their under-development supersonic jet fighters/bombers, now that the precoolers have been demonstrated to work effectively in a hypersonic wind-tunnel to the same parameters they were expected to.

In space terms, this would mean you could use airbreatgers up to higher speeds and altitudes, increasing the potential viability of spaceplanes and very high-altitude airlaunch systems...

Anyhow, I was wondering if it is possible to combine something like a OPT Turboramjet with the KSP-Interstellar precooler code, and have it improve airbreathing performance, like I hope (and as it realistically should).

This might also be a way to make the mod more "balanced" and silence some of your critics- rather than have the most advanced engines in OPT work up to such high speeds and altitudes, nerf their performance somewhat: but bundle the Interstellar pre-cooler code with the mod so players can obtain the original performance by throwing on some pre-cooler parts (the code would work with stock pre-coolers, and any pre-coolers of your own design if you made sure the code recognizes them as pre-coolers and knows how powerful they should be...)

A note on pre-coolers, though: if I remember correctly, they can be VERY electricity-hungry (power is used to pump coolant fluids around, to the abstracted coolant system present in KSP-Interstellar and the various radiators and convective heat-exchangers especially) and they might require the WasteHeat code and associated radiators from Interstellar as well.  These pre-coolers were not the hydrogen-cinsuming designs of a SABRE, but assumed the use of active radiators powered by nuclear reactors or Microwave Beamed Power converted directly into electricity instead... (I do think there was talk of letting them consume cryogenic fuels as a heat-sink to reduce EC usage, though.  Not sure if it was ever realized...)

This is pretty complicated now that I think of it, though.  Maybe it would be best just to include KSP-I compatibility patches (if they're necessary for the engines to work with pre-coolers) or make a hand-wavy reference to "integrated precoolers" and increase the mass and Center of Mass offset (forward, away from the rear-facing engine mounts where most of the mass of KSP airbreathing engines is unrealistically concentrated) to represent precooler parts not actually represented, instead?

[JadeOfMaar]

@Northstar1989 What I meant was: Right-click the part and lock off what you don't want. The context menu of a part is called Part Action Window. I don't ever see anyone disabling the reaction wheels but there's a fair chance they won't want the RCS or will disable or weaken other K Inline RCS ports to balance thrust.

I regularly visit KSPI's GitHub and haven't seen any hint of patches for OPT plane parts. But I've seen what precooler configs look like and I know very well that while they exist for B9 Aerospace, they (expectedly) don't work, and the B9 SABREs always threaten to explode. This is because B9's precoolers are merely tanks that call themselves precoolers. They're not actually intakes.

I would really like that this curve-shifting functionality of precoolers was stock. The only thing that they have going for them in stock is that they have very high heat dissipation which visibly helps when an engine otherwise overheats from struggling, the active vessel stuck at low speed due to low TWR or high drag. I can't do anything about this to deal with critics, and I'm past that at this point. So, meh.  

I released a feature that adds a handwavium ablative plasma thing to the 2.5m Nebula Shock Intake. It's based on the idea that most of a fusion reactor's heat can be or is dumped out by the use of its plasma by the fusion drive. The Nebula engine is a hybrid plasma jet engine (the SCOOP technology is not my idea but I rolled with it). And I came up with this plasma based coolant to potentially help spaceplanes deal with heat buildup due to shock heating, or protect against the occasional case of the Nebula engine starts wildly overheating because reasons. I don't intend to add this feature to any other parts.

I also snuck radiator modules into the original legacy wings (not the ones I made). (Their capacities are 100 ~ 250 kW.)

To facilitate KSPI's precooler feature I'd have to make dedicated precooler parts, for Mk2, 2.5m (inline), J and K. Also, I wonder if they would play well with OPT's engines that have their own intakes and are long enough to contain their own precooler assembly, namely the J-60 family and the J-81...and the J-61 which has its own intake but is more a ramjet/scramjet.

3 hours ago, Northstar1989 said:

This is pretty complicated now that I think of it, though.  Maybe it would be best just to include KSP-I compatibility patches (if they're necessary for the engines to work with pre-coolers) or make a hand-wavy reference to "integrated precoolers" and increase the mass and Center of Mass offset (forward, away from the rear-facing engine mounts where most of the mass of KSP airbreathing engines is unrealistically concentrated) to represent precooler parts not actually represented, instead?

I think all of OPT's jet engines that can run at Mach 5 would be very appropriate to have the precooler functions when KSPI is installed. Surprisingly, out of all the engines I've made for this update, I've made none that are just the nozzle and need that abstraction with offset CoM.

[AccidentalDisassembly]

@JadeOfMaar --- With the new OPT Reconfig, KSP also hangs while loading for me - on part h_2m_em_fm. While looking through the patches to figure out what was going on, I notice one instance of empty OR pipes in a module manager patch ("||") that may or may not cause problems.: MainUtilities.cfg, line 146. Or not, I don't know.

However, the real issue is with OPT_CCTanks.cfg. Two things:

1. It applies a CC patch to h_2m_em_fm (and other parts) even if the user hasn't installed CC but has installed any other AT mod, because ConfigurableContainers DLL is packaged with AT_Utils, unfortunately, so it's always there if the user has installed something like Ground Construction.
2. The patch leaves a variable in the ModuleTankManager module that causes the hang. Blue stuff is a suggestion, red stuff is what seems to be the problem:

Quote

OPT_CCTanks.cfg --> The patch looks like this: 

@PART:HAS[#manufacturer[OPT*Division],#refVolume[*]]:NEEDS[ConfigurableContainers,!B9PartSwitch] I would suggest adding this to avoid forcing CC when B9PS + any other AT mod are also installed
{
    MODULE
    {
        name = ModuleTankManager
        Volume = #$../refVolume$
        @Volume *= 0.013717
        Tag = #$../TankTag$
        DoCostPatch = True
        DoMassPatch = True
        TANK
        {
            name = LFO
            Volume = 1
        }
    }
}

RESULT:

MODULE
 {
            name = ModuleTankManager
            Volume = 3.950496
            Tag = OPTbody <-- this never gets removed, and is not present in any patch/module distributed with ConfigurableContainers, I don't think
            DoCostPatch = True
            DoMassPatch = True
            TANK
            {
                name = LFO
                Volume = 1
            }
 }

Anyhoo, disabling only OPT_CCTanks.cfg lets me load, so... probably the Tag bit?

EDIT: I just realized - are OPT_Legacy and the other OPT interoperable? I always thought they were mutually exclusive, because one was called.. well.. legacy!

Edited June 5, 2020 by AccidentalDisassembly

[KIMCHI]

The only thing this set needs now are some solar panels we can fit on the J, K, et al bodies. I can't wait to get those new landing gears you teased us with. These new parts are brilliant!

[JadeOfMaar]

@AccidentalDisassembly You know what.... Thanks a lot for that realization. What's going on is truly that without the actual ConfigurableContainers folder, its tank types are undefined, so it's just like the #1 B9PS problem... The tank definition doesn't exist so Configurable Containers doesn't know what it's reading so it's unhappy. Fortunately there is a subfolder in there that I can target with ModuleManager to ensure that CC's existence is properly detected. And it's working so I have now posted this fix.

:NEEDS[ConfigurableContainers/Parts]

The OPT tag that I add to the module is completely harmless. And making negative needs for B9PS is something I'll avoid as much as possible. B9PS is more than a fuel switch mod.

Also, thanks for spotting the double pipe.

11 hours ago, AccidentalDisassembly said:

EDIT: I just realized - are OPT_Legacy and the other OPT interoperable? I always thought they were mutually exclusive, because one was called.. well.. legacy!

Nah, nothing is mutually exclusive. The three OPT mods fit together into, technically, a suite.

@Chase842 Concerning your problem with Modular Fuel Tanks, I bet you had AT Utils installed too, so nothing is actually wrong with MFT so you can download Reconfig 2.0.3 and return to using that.

...

8 hours ago, KIMCHI said:

solar panels

Edited June 5, 2020 by JadeOfMaar

[AccidentalDisassembly]

5 hours ago, JadeOfMaar said:

@AccidentalDisassembly You know what.... Thanks a lot for that realization. What's going on is truly that without the actual ConfigurableContainers folder, its tank types are undefined, so it's just like the #1 B9PS problem... The tank definition doesn't exist so Configurable Containers doesn't know what it's reading so it's unhappy. Fortunately there is a subfolder in there that I can target with ModuleManager to ensure that CC's existence is properly detected. And it's working so I have now posted this fix.

The OPT tag that I add to the module is completely harmless. And making negative needs for B9PS is something I'll avoid as much as possible. B9PS is more than a fuel switch mod.

Also, thanks for spotting the double pipe.

Nah, nothing is mutually exclusive. The three OPT mods fit together into, technically, a suite.

I didn't even know you could do that with MM! Interesting. Glad I got in the ballpark of the problem at least.

One small note about the most recent version, just noticed as I was taking it for a spin (loads fine!) - one cockpit is not successfully captured by the category:

[JadeOfMaar]

28 minutes ago, AccidentalDisassembly said:

one cockpit is not successfully captured by the category:

Weeeeeeird. I'll look into that sometime.

[DStaal]

MM throws a couple of errors for me:

[LOG 19:36:30.284] Applying update OPT_Reconfig/OPT_WBI/@PART[OPTdropTank2]:NEEDS[Pathfinder] to OPT_Legacy/Parts/MiscParts/dropTank/dropTank2.cfg/PART[OPTdropTank2]
[LOG 19:36:30.317] Applying update OPT_Reconfig/OPT_WBI/@PART[opt_powersphere1b]:NEEDS[Pathfinder] to OPT_Legacy/Parts/MiscParts/Power/OPT_PowerSphere1b.cfg/PART[opt_powersphere1b]
[WRN 19:36:30.318] Cannot find key WBIVolume in PART
[ERR 19:36:30.318] Error - Cannot parse variable search when inserting new key capacityFactor = #$../WBIVolume$
[LOG 19:36:30.329] Applying update OPT_Reconfig/OPT_WBI/@PART[opt_powersphere2]:NEEDS[Pathfinder] to OPT_Legacy/Parts/MiscParts/Power/OPT_PowerSphere2.cfg/PART[opt_powersphere2]
[WRN 19:36:30.330] Cannot find key WBIVolume in PART
[ERR 19:36:30.330] Error - Cannot parse variable search when inserting new key capacityFactor = #$../WBIVolume$

Let me know if you need the rest of the log - KSP is still loading. 

[AccidentalDisassembly]

2 hours ago, JadeOfMaar said:

Weeeeeeird. I'll look into that sometime.

Ah! Looked in the config. I think maybe it's just because that one part doesn't have a "tags= ...." entry in the config, that's all.

[baihaqima]

Hello i need help. When i load the game there is a pop up saying B9 part switch - fatal error, and some more stuff below it stating "fatal exception while loading fields on module B9PartSwitch on part.... " Please any help would be appreciated. Thanks in advance.

[JadeOfMaar]

3 hours ago, baihaqima said:

Hello i need help. When i load the game there is a pop up saying B9 part switch - fatal error, and some more stuff below it stating "fatal exception while loading fields on module B9PartSwitch on part.... " Please any help would be appreciated. Thanks in advance.

Did you install Community Resource Pack? If yes, I'll need to see at least a screenshot of that message window (to determine whether it's some other mod that uses B9PS but has a component missing or broken).

[JadeOfMaar]

18 hours ago, DStaal said:

MM throws a couple of errors for me:

[LOG 19:36:30.284] Applying update OPT_Reconfig/OPT_WBI/@PART[OPTdropTank2]:NEEDS[Pathfinder] to OPT_Legacy/Parts/MiscParts/dropTank/dropTank2.cfg/PART[OPTdropTank2]
[LOG 19:36:30.317] Applying update OPT_Reconfig/OPT_WBI/@PART[opt_powersphere1b]:NEEDS[Pathfinder] to OPT_Legacy/Parts/MiscParts/Power/OPT_PowerSphere1b.cfg/PART[opt_powersphere1b]
[WRN 19:36:30.318] Cannot find key WBIVolume in PART
[ERR 19:36:30.318] Error - Cannot parse variable search when inserting new key capacityFactor = #$../WBIVolume$
[LOG 19:36:30.329] Applying update OPT_Reconfig/OPT_WBI/@PART[opt_powersphere2]:NEEDS[Pathfinder] to OPT_Legacy/Parts/MiscParts/Power/OPT_PowerSphere2.cfg/PART[opt_powersphere2]
[WRN 19:36:30.330] Cannot find key WBIVolume in PART
[ERR 19:36:30.330] Error - Cannot parse variable search when inserting new key capacityFactor = #$../WBIVolume$

Let me know if you need the rest of the log - KSP is still loading. 

I uploaded the fix. The volume key for the power spheres didn't exist so there was no value to read.

[Dovahkiin2132]

The new parts can't use Liquid Hydrogen,i have both Cryo Engines and Tanks.

[Dovahkiin2132]

Also,how do the warpjets work?

[JadeOfMaar]

19 hours ago, Dovahkiin2132 said:

The new parts can't use Liquid Hydrogen,i have both Cryo Engines and Tanks.

I need a zip of your KS.log and your Logs/ModuleManager/

19 hours ago, Dovahkiin2132 said:

Also,how do the warpjets work?

The warpjet starts with a magnetic rail structure so it usually needs to be pretty long. and then:

On 6/2/2020 at 3:46 PM, JadeOfMaar said:

The "combustion chamber" of the WarpJet is one or more especially high powered, specialized regions of the magnetic rail. This is where it becomes soft/ whimsical sci-fi. That specialized region produces a spheroid magnetic confinement field and can contract/ compress with enough force to cause the air caught inside to superheat and ignite. It then releases this energy at the rear end, closes, and opens at the fore end to receive new air to compress. You could correlate this to a pulse detonation jet engine but it uses fusion. This "fusion pulse" energy allows it to serve as a rocket engine, in essence. A rocket but it uses the air itself and only the air.

There's even more to a WarpJet's whole process and all that it can do apart from being an engine, than this but it will be documented in imagery and posted to a wiki.