qm3ster

Same.

Should I make an issue or a pull request of this, and should it be on USI Core or MKS repo?

Orite, orite, so from the most stable auto differential thrust with no configurable settings you want to maek a whole autopilot with a lot of configurability? :v My idea was that the complete CoM-multiengine stabilisation and control core would be one layer, and the high level autopilots would live on top of that abstraction. That requires much less collaboration. But in retrospect, it might end up just like mechjeb differential thrust, since mechjeb for instance would not account for the dV that gets spent on rotation and the reduced TWR from not burning all at 100% for suicide burns, etc.

Is it possible to configure snacks to use supplies as the resource? I know there's a mod that bakes snacks from supplies or organics, also.

Can't you install both snacks and USI-LS?

I agreesomething should be done. But they also can't also just copy it over. What if the license says "CKAN, No CKANing!"

Is the USI-LS patch part of the mod now, or is the CommunityPatch still necessary? - - - Updated - - - Congratulations

Well, I'm willing to be your CKAN secretary :v (Including that you can send anyone that has CKAN issues with your mods my way without even looking at their problem.) I think CKAN is an absolute godsend, because it promotes breaking mods down into shared modules and frequent updates. Licenses are crucial because only things that give permission to be indexed such as in CKAN can be added worry-free, especially keeping in mind that developers often don't have legal manpower, and many open-source contributors believe in intellectual property rights. Honestly, I don't mind fixing up netkan for mods I enjoy using, and I'd always do that before bugging the dev to spend their time on that, but I thought you might be happy to do "the right thing" from the start. (I know I would, in your position.) (Note how I did not say "Hey RoverDude, your mod isn't showing up on CKAN, go fix it, but did all the research myself and just brought you a suggestion "what to do" vs "everything is broken, not wow" as concisely as I could ( I couldn't make a pull request against your Kerbal Stuff metadata ))

Thank you for making such great mods. Thank you for responding to suggestions so fast. Thank you for making frequent updates. Why aren't you on Patreon? - - - Updated - - - Thank you for updating changelogs in threads before CKAN even indexes the updates.

Frequent updates are literally THE BEST

Don't know how much time you spend looking over these messages, but: It's the same licence, it's misspelled. [COLOR=#000000] "license" : {[/COLOR] "description" : "A license.", "enum" : [ "public-domain", "Apache", "Apache-1.0", "Apache-2.0", "Artistic", "Artistic-1.0", "Artistic-2.0", "BSD-2-clause", "BSD-3-clause", "BSD-4-clause", "ISC", "CC-BY", "CC-BY-1.0", "CC-BY-2.0", "CC-BY-2.5", "CC-BY-3.0", "CC-BY-4.0", "CC-BY-SA", "CC-BY-SA-1.0", "CC-BY-SA-2.0", "CC-BY-SA-2.5", "CC-BY-SA-3.0", "CC-BY-SA-4.0", "CC-BY-NC", "CC-BY-NC-1.0", "CC-BY-NC-2.0", "CC-BY-NC-2.5", "CC-BY-NC-3.0", "CC-BY-NC-4.0", "CC-BY-NC-SA", "CC-BY-NC-SA-1.0", "CC-BY-NC-SA-2.0", "CC-BY-NC-SA-2.5", "CC-BY-NC-SA-3.0", "CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0", "CC-BY-NC-ND", "CC-BY-NC-ND-1.0", "CC-BY-NC-ND-2.0", "CC-BY-NC-ND-2.5", "CC-BY-NC-ND-3.0", "CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0", "CC0", "CDDL", "CPL", "EFL-1.0", "EFL-2.0", "Expat", "MIT", "GPL-1.0", "GPL-2.0", "GPL-3.0", "LGPL-2.0", "LGPL-2.1", "LGPL-3.0", "GFDL-1.0", "GFDL-1.1", "GFDL-1.2", "GFDL-1.3", "GFDL-NIV-1.0", "GFDL-NIV-1.1", "GFDL-NIV-1.2", "GFDL-NIV-1.3", "LPPL-1.0", "LPPL-1.1", "LPPL-1.2", "LPPL-1.3c", "MPL-1.1", "Perl", "Python-2.0", "QPL-1.0", "W3C", "Zlib", "Zope", "WTFPL", "open-source", "restricted", "unrestricted", "unknown" ] } CC 4.0 BY SA NC should be CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0

DTC most recently introduced "throttle steering functionality". Haven't tried that mod at all, but sounds like it's the same idea the third time over. Mechjeb introduced differential thrust centuries ago, in .90, but it seems to be quite limited in effect. Setting MechJeb desired attitude to 175 degrees off the currently pointed direction, limiting max thrust to like 1%, and burning still burns radial engines on the wrong side of the CoM with non-zero thrust. As far as I know, all 3 are currently in active development, so I was wondering what amount of collaboration takes place. Perhaps there are some shared backend modules to be taken out of these mods, to prevent the self-excitation of a "MechJeb &/| DTC &/| TCA" system, to improve the transition between hovering, MechJeb autopilot, and manual control with throttle steering augmentation in flight, to improve performance by having only one module run derivatives of flight/engine data, and to use the most precise and stable (in real ksp practice) algorithm for all 3 cases.

So your mod+this mod can basically give the same hovering with unbalanced engines as TCA? What makes this mod, in your opinion, better than TCA? What about MechJeb's differential throttle utility? What do you have to say about that one?

I politely disagree. The issue begins in KerbalStuff, in a string that you keyed in by hand. The license needs to be standardized to "CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0" (Right now it's CC 4.0 BY SA NC) I have multiple issues running KerbalStuff people, about license and the CKAN bot, but this is most cleanly resolved at the root here. I did file this ​to get the mod out to the people as fast as possible.

Since I started to use CKAN, if I want to install a mod that is not on CKAN, I make my own netkan for it, and debug it until it installs the mod on my machine. Then I test it for old versions that are available for download. Then I make a pull request on GitHub to add it. I guess it's because I like procrastinating.