[1.8.x-1.12.x] Module Manager 4.2.3 (July 03th 2023) - Fireworks season

[sarbian]

Currently there is no way to do that. I'll consider it

[Alewx]

Heya I'm using 0.9 and 2.5.6

With some Mods but only a few Partmods.

but my MM is giving me a strange message:

[Mecripp]

Heya I'm using 0.9 and 2.5.6

With some Mods but only a few Partmods.

but my MM is giving me a strange message:

http://i.imgur.com/4zy21qi.png

Check to make sure you only have 1 ModuleManager.*.*.* installed looks like you have one that is around 1.5.7 installed somewhere.

[Alewx]

Check to make sure you only have 1 ModuleManager.*.*.* installed looks like you have one that is around 1.5.7 installed somewhere.

Actually it was a copy of 2.5.4 in one of the partmod folders hidden, thanks for the help.

[FreeThinker]

Question, is there any way Module Manager allows me to disable/delete a part from not showing in the VAB?

[BudgetHedgehog]

Question, is there any way Module Manager allows me to disable/delete a part from not showing in the VAB?

@PART[partnamehere]:Final
    {
        @category = -1
    }

Should remove it from the editor part list (add "!TechRequired = DELETE" and "!entryCost = DELETE" above the category line to remove it from the tech tree too).

Edited December 23, 2014 by ObsessedWithKSP

[Starwaster]

Woah Sarbian dude 2.5.6 change notes say you fixed your stupidity? Fix mines next!!

[FreeThinker]

@PART[partnamehere]:Final
    {
        @category = -1
    }

Should remove it from the editor part list (add "!TechRequired = DELETE" and "!entryCost = DELETE" above the category line to remove it from the tech tree too).

Thanks, this is exactly what I need for my Integration mod!

[BLUAV8R]

How do I include an "OR" statement when searching for part parameters?

For instance:

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleEnginesFX]&[@RESOURCE[LiquidFuel] [COLOR="#FF0000"](OR goes here)[/COLOR] @RESOURCE[Oxidizer] [COLOR="#FF0000"](OR)[/COLOR] @RESOURCE[Monopropellant]]&!MODULE[ModuleFuelTanks]]:NEEDS[RealFuels]:Final

If this isn't possible I can always just do 3 individual ones for engines also with LiquidFuel, engines also with LF/OX, engines also with Monopropellant, or engines with all 3 (like a service module)

Ideally I don't wanna do this as it is a lot to write if I can fit it all into less

Edited December 24, 2014 by Sippyfrog

[BudgetHedgehog]

How do I include an "OR" statement when searching for part parameters?

I think the symbol is |:

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleEnginesFX],@RESOURCE[LiquidFuel|Oxidizer|Monopropellant],!MODULE[ModuleFuelTanks]]:NEEDS[RealFuels]:Final

Should do it, but someone will need to verify the syntax (or you could just try it and see? )

[BLUAV8R]

I think the symbol is |:

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleEnginesFX],@RESOURCE[LiquidFuel|Oxidizer|Monopropellant],!MODULE[ModuleFuelTanks]]:NEEDS[RealFuels]:Final

Should do it, but someone will need to verify the syntax (or you could just try it and see? )

Thanks! I just realized what I was trying to write was nullified by a previous statement in my patch as it already did that, but this is great to know for the future!

[The Pink Ranger]

Hey fellas. I'm trying to make a universal patch to make everything compatible with RSS without using MFT or Real Fuels.

Trying to multiply LiquidFuel and Oxidizer amounts and maxamounts by 5 and this is what I have copy and pasted from my cfg file:

@PART
[*]:HAS[@RESOURCE[LiquidFuel|Oxidizer|SolidFuel|Monopropellant|XenonGas]]
{
    @RESOURCE[LiquidFuel]
    {
        @amount *= 5
         @maxAmount *= 5
    }

    @RESOURCE[Oxidizer]
    {
        @amount *= 5
         @maxAmount *= 5
    }

    // What multipliers to use for the following?    

    @RESOURCE[SolidFuel]
    {
        @amount *= 1
         @maxAmount *= 1
    }

    @RESOURCE[MonoPropellant]
    {
        @amount *= 1
         @maxAmount *= 1
    }

    @RESOURCE[XenonGas]
    {
        @amount *= 1
         @maxAmount *= 1
    }
}

Doesn't work. Can anyone tell me what I'm doing wrong here? Thanks.

Edit: Caught the missing bracket. Still doesn't work.

Edited December 24, 2014 by The Pink Ranger

[NathanKell]

Um, why are you multiplying things like that? You'll create a Bag, err Tank, of Holding....if you're going to stuff more mass in a tank, you should also make it bigger.

[The Pink Ranger]

Um, why are you multiplying things like that? You'll create a Bag, err Tank, of Holding....if you're going to stuff more mass in a tank, you should also make it bigger.

Okay so if I just adjust the resource densities to real world figures (as I've already done) then that should be enough to bring the stored energy somewhat in line with real world figures? The only reason the *5 multiplier is necessary for converting stock tanks to real fuels is because real fuels pretty much just changes the units right?

Density part of the patch:

// Squad Resource Definition Densities

@RESOURCE_DEFINITION[LiquidFuel] // assume kerosene
{
    @density = 0.000915
}

@RESOURCE_DEFINITION[Oxidizer] // assume liquid oxygen
{
    @density = 0.001141
}

@RESOURCE_DEFINITION[SolidFuel]
{
    @density = 0.00175
}

@RESOURCE_DEFINITION[MonoPropellant] // assume hydrazine
{
    @density = 0.001021
}

//@RESOURCE_DEFINITION[XenonGas]
//{
    //@density = ???
//}

Anyway even if my original intent doesn't make sense conceptually what can I do to get the resource changes to work (for future reference)? I tried splitting them up as follows and despite that module manager reports no errors on load it still doesn't work.

@PART
[*]:HAS[@RESOURCE[LiquidFuel]]:Final
{
    @RESOURCE[LiquidFuel]
    {
        @amount *= 5
        @maxAmount *= 5
    }
}

@PART
[*]:HAS[@RESOURCE[Oxidizer]]:Final
{
    @RESOURCE[Oxidizer]
    {
        @amount *= 5
        @maxAmount *= 5
    }
}

...... and so on and so forth for the others

Edited December 24, 2014 by The Pink Ranger

[NathanKell]

Ah, didn't realize you were changing densities too. As it happens, what you're doing is very similar to something dimonnomid did once...

As to the latter snippet you posted, I don't see why your patch is failing. It should work! Is there a typo I'm missing, other-people-who-read-this-thread?

[BLUAV8R]

Ah, didn't realize you were changing densities too. As it happens, what you're doing is very similar to something dimonnomid did once...

As to the latter snippet you posted, I don't see why your patch is failing. It should work! Is there a typo I'm missing, other-people-who-read-this-thread?

Yeah there is at the top:

@PART[*]:HAS[@RESOURCE[LiquidFuel|Oxidizer|SolidFuel|[COLOR="#FF0000"]Monopropellant[/COLOR]|XenonGas]]

should be:

@PART[*]:HAS[@RESOURCE[LiquidFuel|Oxidizer|SolidFuel|[COLOR="#FF0000"][B][I]MonoPropellant[/I][/B][/COLOR]|XenonGas]]

[Mecripp]

You guys get that to work tryed a couple of way but the only one that let me change resource, I had to use @PART[*]:HAS[#category[Propulsion]] and then the math just the one is changing ?

[The Pink Ranger]

Yeah there is at the top:

@PART
[*]:HAS[@RESOURCE[LiquidFuel|Oxidizer|SolidFuel|[COLOR=#FF0000]Monopropellant[/COLOR]|XenonGas]]

should be:

@PART
[*]:HAS[@RESOURCE[LiquidFuel|Oxidizer|SolidFuel|[COLOR=#FF0000][B][I]MonoPropellant[/I][/B][/COLOR]|XenonGas]]

LOL! Wow! I wish module manager had a way to check syntax hahahaha! Hopefully that works

Anyway I'm not familiar with dimonnomid's work but I think it might be fairly simple to write a short patch that allows almost any parts mod to work with RSS/10x Kerbol. What I'm thinking is as follows:

1.) As per your calculations simply divide the mass of all parts containing engine and engineFX modules by about 6

2.) Also as per your calculations divide the masses of all parts not containing said engine modules by about 4

3.) As per TChapman500's calculations divide all stock resource densities by about 5 in order to bring them acceptably close to real equivalents (if other mods balance their resources around stock values then I'm thinking this blanket patch will bring them in line with the scale of RSS with minimal issues.)

4.) Not sure if this last one is necessary but no harm in testing it out: Multiply all stock tank volumes by about 5

------------

The other thing I'm currently trying is this:

Stock KSP balances around smaller scale planets by increasing everything's density. I'd like to see what happens when I tone the density of all parts down to realistic values and then balance them for the smaller scale planets by reducing thrust instead of increasing mass. I have a feeling that a lot of the strange behavior in KSP can be chalked up to everything having insane amounts of inertia.

So basically all I'm doing is implementing all of the pseudo realistic changes above and then dividing thrust for all engines by the same factor I divided their mass by. Then I'll further tweak by relating the TWR of a certain size of rocket to its dV.

So far I've got all of this done except the resource multiplier.

[The Pink Ranger]

You guys get that to work tryed a couple of way but the only one that let me change resource, I had to use @PART

[*]:HAS[#category[Propulsion]] and then the math just the one is changing ?

Having a similar problem.

If I write this:

@PART
[*]:Final
{
    @RESOURCE
[*]
    {
        @amount *= 5
        @maxAmount *= 5
    }
}

It only seems to affect the first resource in each part.

However if I punch in each resource individually like this:

@PART
[*]:Final
{
    @RESOURCE[LiquidFuel]
    {
        @amount *= 5
         @maxAmount *= 5
    }

    @RESOURCE[Oxidizer]
    {
        @amount *= 5
         @maxAmount *= 5
    }

    @RESOURCE[SolidFuel]
    {
        @amount *= 5
         @maxAmount *= 5
    }

    ... etc ... etc ... etc ...
}

Then it works fine.

[Kowgan]

I feel really bad to keep asking questions like that. But hopefully they're ceasing!

What's the difference between

"@PART

[*]:HAS[@MODULE(...)" and

"@PART

[*]:HAS[MODULE(...)"

?

When, and why should I use the "@" in that very line, while checking if a part has something, like a certain module? Thank you!

[BLUAV8R]

I feel really bad to keep asking questions like that. But hopefully they're ceasing!

What's the difference between

"@PART

[*]:HAS[@MODULE(...)" and

"@PART

[*]:HAS[MODULE(...)"

?

When, and why should I use the "@" in that very line, while checking if a part has something, like a certain module? Thank you!

When it searches the part parameters you've given it, you have to put that in there because it tells MM this:

@FOO = Find FOO for me because i'm going to do some edits to it

FOO = Make a new FOO so I can add stuff (and so If you said this in Search Parameters, well, it really just doesn't make sense)

So you need it because it says that you're gonna find the things with it and also make changes, kinda the whole reason you're looking up the part in the first place lol

I think that's why, but don't quote me on that XD i'd wait and see what NathanKell or Sarbian say lol

[Kowgan]

Thank you for that, Sippyfrog. Much appreciated!

If that's so, it's quite confusing why would we call a parameter that requires (:HAS) something that I will yet create ([Module...])... Right?

I guess I'll just go with "'@' is necessary. Not using it would make things go wrong.", and always put it there.

[BLUAV8R]

Thank you for that, Sippyfrog. Much appreciated!

If that's so, it's quite confusing why would we call a parameter that requires (:HAS) something that I will yet create ([Module...])... Right?

I guess I'll just go with "'@' is necessary. Not using it would make things go wrong.", and always put it there.

That's kinda how I've always treated it lol Not sure why it's there or what it does, but always use it XD

[SVlad]

sarbian, excuse me for that question but why don't you mark latest release on github as latest?

[sarbian]

I got tired of uploading the same file everywhere.