Jump to content

[1.0.2][May17] SelectRoot2: Fixing stock awkwardness

FW Industries

By FW Industries
in KSP1 Mod Releases

 Share

Recommended Posts

NKL

NKL

Posted
Posted
If a challenge says "Stock only" and I use this, I have violated the rules of the challenge in my mind. Even if I then copy the craft to a "pure" stock game it was created in a non-stock way. Like it or not, this mod allows you to create ships that you could not create in stock.

Oddly enough, I have no problem building a ship with Kerbal Engineer installed and then copying IT to a stock install to participate in a challenge. The ship built with KER could have been built in the stock game so it's fine.

Or is it? I can't count how many "stock" SSTO's have "tweaked" LFO tank with less oxydizer in order to get less weight and no oxy spoil.

You can tweak the craft file manually... Is it CHEATING? It's up to you to "feel" that this can be a legit thing. I mean, think about it. Few update ago, everybody was like "yyeeww subassembly is the devil, it's not stock". now we got a inbuilt system which does the same.

I'd rather say squad should really add more in-game BUILDING TOOLS.

Like editors extension. add more control, that you could virtually do by yourself if you were the OCD king.

Like select root. Which basically throw away the root (huehuehue) problem of the ksp building limitations.

For the coder(s) of this mod, thanks you. +rep

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Superfluous J

Superfluous J

Posted
Posted
Or is it?

It is.

I can't count how many "stock" SSTO's have "tweaked" LFO tank with less oxydizer in order to get less weight and no oxy spoil.

Can't you do that in the VAB? If so, it's not cheating. If you can't, it is.

You can tweak the craft file manually... Is it CHEATING?

Yes.

It's up to you to "feel" that this can be a legit thing.

No, it's not up to you. It's up to the person who made the challenge. If they said "stock only" they mean you can't do any of those things. If you're just playing for yourself, go for it. I know I do. But for a "stock only" challenge, editing the persistence or craft file is cheating.

I mean, think about it. Few update ago, everybody was like "yyeeww subassembly is the devil, it's not stock". now we got a inbuilt system which does the same.

I never heard people calling subassemblies the devil, but if they allowed someone to make a craft that was impossible to make in stock, then a challenge that says "stock only" should not have allowed them. I am not sure, but it's possible I suppose that there'd be a way to make a non-stock craft using the old subassembly manager. I must admit I barely remember it now, so used am I to the stock version.

I'd rather say squad should really add more in-game BUILDING TOOLS.

Like editors extension. add more control, that you could virtually do by yourself if you were the OCD king.

Like select root. Which basically throw away the root (huehuehue) problem of the ksp building limitations.

On this we agree :)

For the coder(s) of this mod, thanks you. +rep

This too!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hurry- Starfish!

Hurry- Starfish!

Posted
Posted (edited)
If a challenge says "Stock only" and I use this, I have violated the rules of the challenge in my mind. Even if I then copy the craft to a "pure" stock game it was created in a non-stock way. Like it or not, this mod allows you to create ships that you could not create in stock.

Oddly enough, I have no problem building a ship with Kerbal Engineer installed and then copying IT to a stock install to participate in a challenge. The ship built with KER could have been built in the stock game so it's fine.

Then that means whoever made the challenge will have to define the term "stock" for their challenge, because otherwise it's unclear.

Does "stock" mean you have to do everything in a vanilla install without using any mods? In that case your Kerbal Engineer wouldn't be allowed either. Sure, you could theoretically build the same craft without it - but it's the same with mods like this one, since you could just use an unmodded install and manually edit the craft file with a text editor. Whether it's this or building your craft without Engineer, it would require additional research and effort to do manually what otherwise a tool would do for you, but what you end up with is a ship that's made from stock parts, works in a stock install and imo is thus stock for all intents and purposes.

If a challenge is to be meant to be done completely without the aid of mods of any kind, the creator could specify this of course... but I don't see a reason why mods like Kerbal Engineer should be allowed in cases where mods like SelectRoot aren't.

Edited by Hurry, Starfish!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Boamere

Boamere

Posted
Posted (edited)
ANGRY SNIP

I don't know what you two have to "argue" (close to arguing, a bit edgy :rolleyes: ) about, it's just opinions, personally I think select root should be in the game and should be considered stock.

Can I ask why building something using this would give you any advantage in a challenge? Thanks :)

(also to let you know (just some advise not having a go!)saying things like "it is" bluntly like that makes you sound a bit pompous :/)

Edited by Boamere
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Deadweasel

Deadweasel

Posted
Posted

The way the game is coded provides a definite wall to building some types of ships in the VAB, especially where multi-craft missions are concerned, and especially so now that subassemblies are stock.

Picture this:

A lander was built to be used in multiple missions, but it was initially built the same way most ships are, from the capsule on-down. The problem? The capsule is the one-kerb cockpit part, with only one possible attachment point (which is now currently "blocked" by the rest of the lander body). With this mod, I can select a docking port as the root, which not only makes the entire ship eligible for saving as a subassembly, but also makes it possible to attach to other vessels in the VAB/SPH, instead of forcing me to launch and dock the sucker separately.

An example:

screenshot38.png

There's a docking port on the belly of the fuselage that is the root part -thanks to this mod- which means I can import it and attach it readily to any other vessel before launch. When it was initially built, this would have been impossible because the "Root part attachment points are blocked". Before this mod, the only option I would have had available would be to re-build it starting with the docking port. Ever try to get another body part's longitudinal side to stick to a docking port (instead of vice-versa, or on the end)? Good luck with that.

Basically, my point is that, as long as the game places restrictions on building by disallowing use of a STOCK feature (subassemblies) based simply on whether the root part has an open attachment point, it's absolutely a great idea to open the creative floodgates even further to new players by including this functionality as a potential stock feature as well.

Also, to address the purism (cheating) aspect that was introduced to the thread: how is it at all possible to discuss what is or isn't "allowed", in a game that is still in alpha?? Subassemblies used to be considered "unclean" because they were only possible via mod. Then along comes an update that includes the functionality in stock. Whoops. Same for some of the additional parts that were previously only available by installing C7's pack. Now many of them are part of the vanilla install. Uh oh. Then came the tweakables that addressed the need to edit the ship files manually (a filthy CHEAT) to launch with landing gear closed or shielded docking ports opened. Arguing about what should or shouldn't be in a game that's still under heavy and active development is nothing but self-defeating, since popular mod-based features are inevitably going to be added into the vanilla game at some point one anyway.

(I can't wait to read the threads that will be spawned if SQUAD decides to include MechJeb into the game. I even bought stock in a few microwave popcorn companies.) :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Superfluous J

Superfluous J

Posted
Posted (edited)

I'm going to bow out. This thread doesn't deserve this much anger and we all agree on the important part: That it's ridiculous that this isn't in the stock game.

All other discussions can be saved for rules lawyering in poorly worded contests. There are plenty of those to go around :)

And merely for clarity, Deadweasel, we were (or at least I was) restricting the "cheating" talk to participating in contests that specifically state "stock only."

Edited by 5thHorseman
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Deadweasel

Deadweasel

Posted
Posted
I'm going to bow out. This thread doesn't deserve this much anger and we all agree on the important part: That it's ridiculous that this isn't in the stock game.

All other discussions can be saved for rules lawyering in poorly worded contests. There are plenty of those to go around :)

And merely for clarity, Deadweasel, we were (or at least I was) restricting the "cheating" talk to participating in contests that specifically state "stock only."

Absolutely with you there, no pointing fingers or blame or anything of the sort being lobbed from this corner of the intertubes. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Ratzap

Ratzap

Posted
Posted

Since the author seems to be awol, I've recompiled the source for this against 0.23.5 assemblies. It didn't compile cleanly straight off the bat so don't be surprised if there are problems with the old package. The license is open so I'll put up the source + DLL if anyone's interested in the new compile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ratzap

Ratzap

Posted
Posted
What was pouropose of doing this? Old one worked just fine.

Did you even read my posts? It may work for you but the source as it was does not compile against 0.23.5 cleanly - meaning it's ready to break. Feel free to keep using the old one but me, I like things that don't have time bombs in them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Azimech

Azimech

Posted
Posted

I've encountered a situation in the recompiled version, can't remember this ever happened in the previous one: after rebuilding, removing a cluster of parts from root results in "sticking to the mousepointer", unable to place anywhere and even dumping back in the parts catalog works after five or six clicks, the cluster shrinking in parts like the parts catalog is "eating".

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ratzap

Ratzap

Posted
Posted
I've encountered a situation in the recompiled version, can't remember this ever happened in the previous one: after rebuilding, removing a cluster of parts from root results in "sticking to the mousepointer", unable to place anywhere and even dumping back in the parts catalog works after five or six clicks, the cluster shrinking in parts like the parts catalog is "eating".

I've had that in the old version a fair bit, it's one of the reasons I got round to recompiling it in the first place. I had to leave the VAB and re-enter to clear it. If it's still present then the list re-sort used is failing at times or the underlying KSP routines are. If it was easier to reproduce at will it'd be easier to debug.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BigD145

BigD145

Posted
Posted
I've encountered a situation in the recompiled version, can't remember this ever happened in the previous one: after rebuilding, removing a cluster of parts from root results in "sticking to the mousepointer", unable to place anywhere and even dumping back in the parts catalog works after five or six clicks, the cluster shrinking in parts like the parts catalog is "eating".

Can you press the delete key?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Vanamonde

Vanamonde

Posted
Posted

If you have a problem with something another member has posted, please simply hit the 'report' button on that post and let the moderators deal with it. Do not respond angrily yourself and get into an argument, because that's unpleasant for everyone else to have to read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...