KerbalX.com - Craft & Mission Sharing

[Wanderfound]

BTW, as an example, this is a fairly typical action group list for a spaceplane:

Action group key:

1: Toggle RAPIERS

2: Switch RAPIER modes

3: Toggle Aerospikes

4: Toggle intakes

5: Reduce flap deflection

6: Increase flap deflection

7: Engage docking mode

8: Open and illuminate cargo bay

9: Trigger spoilers

10: Toggle Vernors

They nearly all use action groups exclusively in place of staging. Have a dig through http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/86202-Better-SSTO-Spaceplane-Challenge-%280-23-5-0-24%29-Fin%21 if you want a broader sample.

[tetryds]

I was thinking that the placeholder pic would be some nice(ish) brushed metal icon with an embossed craft on it (rocket for VAB, plane for SPH). It would be very clear that it's not the pic of the craft, but would still show clearly which building type it belonged to. I could exclude craft without pics from the list, but that basically says "either put a pic or no-one will ever see it".

Re custom lists; yes in the plan (which is mostly in my head still, some rough scribbles @ http://kerbalx.com/planned_features)

I was thinking that users could define custom "hangars" which they could put a selection of their craft and other users craft too if they wanted. So you can have a hangar for a set of your own craft and you could also create one for other peoples craft that you like. Other people can then browse the craft in your hangars. Craft pages will also say which hangars they are in, so when browsing for craft people will be led on to find similar craft.

(and naturally, these hangars are trans-dimentional hangars; 1 craft can be in several hangars at the same time ).

Being able to update a craft is also something I plan to add. If you know Jebretary you'll see this is a logical step for me to add (Jebretary maintains ALL versions of a craft as you develop it), but it will be rather different to how Jebretary functions and there will be a limit to how many versions of each craft can be stored. Initially that limit will be pretty low, like 2 or 3. As I can afford to put more database power behind then I will bring that limit up.

Yes, some image that would be impossible to take from screenshots would be good, yes.

Maybe a red cross on it with "no pics" on it? I don't really think that people will download crafts without pics, it should be very encouraged.

Removing from the list? Not sure, but maybe it would work for when someone shares crafts on the forums, and put all information here (the only way I see that not having pics could work).

About that, I really like the hangar idea, also adding crafts as favorites.

I don't think it should show everyone who liked the craft, but it could show everyone who favorited it.

2 or 3 versions seems fine, and I don't think it needs more.

Also, how are you going to handle moderation of the site?

You know that people will upload the same craft several times and are prone to putting not wanted pics etc.

About uploading, maybe limit to 3 or 4 a day for now?

Just to avoid spam and hold bandwidth a bit, I want to up all my crafts there but will do it slowly just to stay on the top avoid issues.

Edit: about action groups, I think that manually is fine.

As you mentioned, it's not very sane to try to figure out what a bunch of part activations mean.

What about having premade tags for action groups? Then it would be just click-click.

Edited September 15, 2014 by tetryds

[Wanderfound]

Another option could be to allow users to save & load a default action group list, then tweak as necessary. Virtually all of my craft have near-identical AG lists (e.g. primary engine, secondary engine, engine mode, intakes, flaps up, flaps down, docking and/or cargo, vectored thrust toggle). Allowing multiple default lists would be even better; there tends to be a typical AG pattern for cargo planes that is slightly different from the one for sportsplanes, etc.

Everyone is obviously going to have their own preferences, but as it stands the action group part of the website may as well not exist for me. I'm just not willing to retype that list manually for every single design; much too much like work.

[tetryds]

Another thing would be a better highlight on selected filters.

Not much but helps.

Yeah I know you can see what is being filtered on the bottom of the filters section, but a better highlight won't hurt.

[katateochi]

I understand your point about wanting to avoid too many categories, although I do think "spaceplane" is a large and distinct enough group to have a stronger claim to a separate identity than many other things (satellite and station and base? And what's an LV if it isn't a lander?). There are a large proportion of KSPers who build and fly spaceplanes exclusively, and someone looking for a spaceplane usually isn't interested in finding a rocket and vice-versa.

If you do want spaceplanes to go under "aircraft", you'll need to make that clear. Perhaps change "aircraft" to "winged" or "planes". A lot of spaceplane designers are going to see "aircraft" and go "no, this is a spacecraft...".

I see your point about spaceplanes, you've twisted my arm, consider that added.

The current classes aren't right, I'm mean I've got "moonbus" as one of them (which was just a joke, forgot to take it out, now someone has tagged a craft with it!). (any moonbusses will become rovers).

LV btw is launch vehicle, it needs an on hover hint. I was actually expecting quite a few LV's particularly subassembly LV's but that hasn't happened yet. Aircraft (and spaceplanes!) are the largest group so far.

Yes, some image that would be impossible to take from screenshots would be good, yes.

Maybe a red cross on it with "no pics" on it? I don't really think that people will download crafts without pics, it should be very encouraged.

Removing from the list? Not sure, but maybe it would work for when someone shares crafts on the forums, and put all information here (the only way I see that not having pics could work).

About that, I really like the hangar idea, also adding crafts as favorites.

I don't think it should show everyone who liked the craft, but it could show everyone who favorited it.

2 or 3 versions seems fine, and I don't think it needs more.

Also, how are you going to handle moderation of the site?

You know that people will upload the same craft several times and are prone to putting not wanted pics etc.

About uploading, maybe limit to 3 or 4 a day for now?

Just to avoid spam and hold bandwidth a bit, I want to up all my crafts there but will do it slowly just to stay on the top avoid issues.

Edit: about action groups, I think that manually is fine.

As you mentioned, it's not very sane to try to figure out what a bunch of part activations mean.

What about having premade tags for action groups? Then it would be just click-click.

By pre-made action groups, do you mean have a number of "standard" phrases that the user can click on to add to an action group? Like "toggle main engines", "run science experiments" (and basically everything Wanderfound put in the above post).

Do you guys know if there are any other parts out there that do the same thing as the B9 info drive and put user definable info into the craft file?

re the hangars and favs; I was thinking that rather than having two separate concepts you'd simply have a "favourite hangar" where your favourite craft would get added. how does that sound?

re Moderation. Things like trying to upload the same craft again and again can easily be blocked if it is actually the same craft, but if even the amount of fuel in one tank is changed that check won't work. There is currently a cap at 20 craft per user. I intend to raise that cap, its just there to limit spamming and keep growth a bit in check initially. Then of course there is the NSFW images that I'm sure some kid will post at some point.

What I want to work towards is a self correcting community with users taking responsibility for what is on there (taking inspiration from both Imgur and Stackoverflow)

You'll be able to report a post if it seems inappropriate. If a post gets 3 or more reports against it then it will be hidden from public view and the uploading user will be notified. If they do nothing a) the craft will no longer be accessible even to them they will get a black mark against their account. Or they can then appeal, at which point a human will be needed (most likely me at first) to decide one way or the other. If it turns out that the post was reported inappropriately then the users who reported the post will get black marks. So there is an incentive to not abuse the reporting feature. Get enough black marks (not sure how many), bye bye account (or at least account suspension).

In the cases where a human is actually needed I'd like some way to differ questions to the community, perhaps some sort of voting system where a random group of users will be asked to vote if a post is appropriate or not.

I'd like to try and make the user base self regulate itself but that won't be fool proof and I will certainly need to promote some volunteers to moderator status to help me. If anyone wants to help me with that aspect then let me know.

At the moment things are a bit more frontier; basically, if I see any form of genitalia on there I'll just nuke the account of whoever posted the offending image! no questions, no second chances! So don't!!

If I was building this with any other community in mind I'd be really worried about this and moderation features would have to be added almost before anything else! But you guys....I have faith in. I hope I can get the core concepts in place first before having to deal with moderation seriously.

[tetryds]

By pre-made action groups, do you mean have a number of "standard" phrases that the user can click on to add to an action group? Like "toggle main engines", "run science experiments" (and basically everything Wanderfound put in the above post).

Yes, exactly.

re the hangars and favs; I was thinking that rather than having two separate concepts you'd simply have a "favourite hangar" where your favourite craft would get added. how does that sound?

That sounds great, since I am not limited to have only one.

re Moderation. Things like trying to upload the same craft again and again can easily be blocked if it is actually the same craft, but if even the amount of fuel in one tank is changed that check won't work. There is currently a cap at 20 craft per user. I intend to raise that cap, its just there to limit spamming and keep growth a bit in check initially. Then of course there is the NSFW images that I'm sure some kid will post at some point.

What I want to work towards is a self correcting community with users taking responsibility for what is on there (taking inspiration from both Imgur and Stackoverflow)

You'll be able to report a post if it seems inappropriate. If a post gets 3 or more reports against it then it will be hidden from public view and the uploading user will be notified. If they do nothing a) the craft will no longer be accessible even to them they will get a black mark against their account. Or they can then appeal, at which point a human will be needed (most likely me at first) to decide one way or the other. If it turns out that the post was reported inappropriately then the users who reported the post will get black marks. So there is an incentive to not abuse the reporting feature. Get enough black marks (not sure how many), bye bye account (or at least account suspension).

In the cases where a human is actually needed I'd like some way to differ questions to the community, perhaps some sort of voting system where a random group of users will be asked to vote if a post is appropriate or not.

I'd like to try and make the user base self regulate itself but that won't be fool proof and I will certainly need to promote some volunteers to moderator status to help me. If anyone wants to help me with that aspect then let me know.

At the moment things are a bit more frontier; basically, if I see any form of genitalia on there I'll just nuke the account of whoever posted the offending image! no questions, no second chances! So don't!!

If I was building this with any other community in mind I'd be really worried about this and moderation features would have to be added almost before anything else! But you guys....I have faith in. I hope I can get the core concepts in place first before having to deal with moderation seriously.

I like your idea, and think that no-mercy is a way to go.

If anything happens and is confirmed, the account gets locked and wait for an appeal (you know, not everyone has exclusive access to their rigs).

What about a system similar to what KSP forums do?

The first two or three crafts someone posts are moderated, someone with persmissions simply click-look-accept/ban.

And what about an option to verify accounts using the forums, or email?

It would be interesting to have KerbalX account verified as belonging to the same owner of a forum account somehow, and linking the forum one from there.

So those wouldn't even require moderation to start with.

But it would be something for much later.

[luizopiloto]

with comments and ship ranking implementation, troll things should be detected more easilly I think...

[tetryds]

Oh, I found a bug:

Select one of the order filters name/class/downloads etc. other than date.

Click invert, and select any craft.

Use the browser or the button on the top to return to the previous (main) page.

All of the order filters will be selected.

Also, the invert thing is a bit weird, the "download" and "part count" are actually showing the least downloaded and less parts at the top when not inverted.

[Justin Kerbice]

@katateochi: regarding mod's name matter, I have an idea:

instead of using dir name only (I perfectly know it may be temporary I guess), why not first use part dir + category + partname like KSP mod admin.

And, allow users (uploader of a craft or not) to create the link "part -> archive/mod" with a download link (+mirror(s)).

Also, considering stock parts as not a mod (special process for Squad and NasaMission dirs/names)

So we may have something like:

A marvelous craft use: modA.catB.part1

modB.catC.part6

both parts are links:

already known: mod page on KerbalX (mod X version a.b.c contains ... list of all the parts)

unknow: an edit page "help us, give some info about this mod please" with a form containing base name (ex: Firespitter), archive name (Firespitter-pre6.3....), version, download link(s) (one texfield + a '+' to add more links).

This page may handle more than one mod version (to ba able to sort out parts added / removed). Be careful here, you would consider old mods as for example in 3 years we got crafts using very old mods and never been updated, people can be aware this astonishing craft is using something obsolete and may be upgraded or don't know, removed, kept for preservation (like a museum ), ...

When it is filled, mod get a reputation (or trust factor) of "to be confirmed", more users need to confirmed the mod is the right one, and the download links are safe (to avoid dubious/scam/infected/fake links/contents)

[katateochi]

Hi Guys!

While I can't claim to have been working on any of the new features today, I have been seriously torturing the code to ramp up the performance of the site. Lots of under the hood stuff including a switch to a different web-server which can handle more concurrent requests and some other changes that improve the way the site serves its assets.

Anyway, the upshot of that is the site is running a lot faster now.

I also tidied up the way too wordy OP for this thread.

A few people had uploaded craft that had missing parts and then they'd uploaded their part-maps but had missed that last step of requesting their craft was rescanned. Anyway, I've rescanned all craft with missing parts and most of them now have all parts detected, just a couple which are still missing parts (and one is mine that is intentionally missing a part).

This will stop being a problem when I automate that bit. Until then I will manually run a rescan over craft with missing parts once a day.

*snip

What about a system similar to what KSP forums do?

The first two or three crafts someone posts are moderated, someone with persmissions simply click-look-accept/ban.

And what about an option to verify accounts using the forums, or email?

It would be interesting to have KerbalX account verified as belonging to the same owner of a forum account somehow, and linking the forum one from there.

So those wouldn't even require moderation to start with.

But it would be something for much later.

Yes I think your right, a mimic of the process applied here, perfect.

I'd initially thought I didn't want to do email authentication because that would be a blocker to people just getting on and using the site. But I think that it is needed, but I could make it so that you can upload maybe 1 or 2 craft, but to upload anymore you have to authenticate you email.

I like the idea of linking the accounts with the forum ones, not sure how thou, but I'm sure it would be possible. Even if it mean putting a particular random string in your signature for a short while, kinda like googleapps do with a meta tag when you want to associate a site.

Oh, I found a bug:

Select one of the order filters name/class/downloads etc. other than date.

Click invert, and select any craft.

Use the browser or the button on the top to return to the previous (main) page.

All of the order filters will be selected.

Also, the invert thing is a bit weird, the "download" and "part count" are actually showing the least downloaded and less parts at the top when not inverted.

Bug confirmed!

Yeah the invert sort does very odd things after a browser back event! It's to do with how the invert button functions. I've logged that in the issue tracker and I shall fix that shortly.

Infact even without invert selected, but any of the other sort options other than date selected, you get odd results after going back. You should get the same search results as it showed when you clicked to view a craft, but its not doing that for the other sort options. grrr.

The default order for downloaded should be most downloaded first and then if you invert you get least downloaded first. I'll change it to be like that.

But what about part_count? Should the default part_count order show largest craft first or smallest?

On the subject of the sort options. Is being able to sort by SPH/VAB or class actually useful or shall I take those out?

@katateochi: regarding mod's name matter, I have an idea:

instead of using dir name only (I perfectly know it may be temporary I guess), why not first use part dir + category + partname like KSP mod admin.

And, allow users (uploader of a craft or not) to create the link "part -> archive/mod" with a download link (+mirror(s)).

Also, considering stock parts as not a mod (special process for Squad and NasaMission dirs/names)

So we may have something like:

A marvelous craft use: modA.catB.part1

modB.catC.part6

both parts are links:

already known: mod page on KerbalX (mod X version a.b.c contains ... list of all the parts)

unknow: an edit page "help us, give some info about this mod please" with a form containing base name (ex: Firespitter), archive name (Firespitter-pre6.3....), version, download link(s) (one texfield + a '+' to add more links).

This page may handle more than one mod version (to ba able to sort out parts added / removed). Be careful here, you would consider old mods as for example in 3 years we got crafts using very old mods and never been updated, people can be aware this astonishing craft is using something obsolete and may be upgraded or don't know, removed, kept for preservation (like a museum ), ...

When it is filled, mod get a reputation (or trust factor) of "to be confirmed", more users need to confirmed the mod is the right one, and the download links are safe (to avoid dubious/scam/infected/fake links/contents)

Sorry Justin, I'm not fully understanding your suggestion, I can see some good ideas in there, I just can't quite see the whole.

I'm not sure what the need for having category is, aside from having extra info available.

re allowing users to add info like download links is something that I plan to add (with a voting system to ensure the best link is the one used).

As I said, I think I'm not quite understanding your idea, but it has been a rather long day and my brain has gone squishy!

I shall ponder this some more tomorrow!

[tetryds]

Yes I think your right, a mimic of the process applied here, perfect.

I'd initially thought I didn't want to do email authentication because that would be a blocker to people just getting on and using the site. But I think that it is needed, but I could make it so that you can upload maybe 1 or 2 craft, but to upload anymore you have to authenticate you email.

I like the idea of linking the accounts with the forum ones, not sure how thou, but I'm sure it would be possible. Even if it mean putting a particular random string in your signature for a short while, kinda like googleapps do with a meta tag when you want to associate a site.

Yes, allowing some crafts without authentication, or limiting to 1 or 2 crafts per day for those accounts.

If you just want to trow in something you don't have to bother, but if you want to save your whole SPH in there it makes sense to have it set.

But what about part_count? Should the default part_count order show largest craft first or smallest?

On the subject of the sort options. Is being able to sort by SPH/VAB or class actually useful or shall I take those out?

Well, by logic the part count should display the vehicles with more parts first, then the ones with least parts when inverted.

And yeah, I don't think that either makes sense.

If you want it SPH or VAB you already have the filter.

[katateochi]

@tetryds

well, I thought I was going to bed, but it turns out I've fixed a couple things instead. That invert sort bug is fixed (and the text commands for sort work better now, still not 100%), removed the unnecessary sort options and restyled the buttons to have clearer highlighting (I'd missed your comment about the highlighting earlier, good point. I think this is an improvement).

[Fail-Man 3D]

Overly-long craft titles wrap to a new line, overflowing into and and cover the menu bar.

Huge screenshot (SeaMonkey 2.29, roughly equivalent to Firefox 30-32): http://i.imgur.com/DLy8yT0.png

[Justin Kerbice]

Sorry Justin, I'm not fully understanding your suggestion, I can see some good ideas in there, I just can't quite see the whole.

I'm not sure what the need for having category is, aside from having extra info available.

re allowing users to add info like download links is something that I plan to add (with a voting system to ensure the best link is the one used).

As I said, I think I'm not quite understanding your idea, but it has been a rather long day and my brain has gone squishy!

I shall ponder this some more tomorrow!

My bad, I thought KSP Mod Admin display parts by their category (Utility, Propulsion, ...), it may be an option, don't know.

but the tool display a list like:

craft name
|-Clamp-O-Tron Docking Port (2)      Squad
|-Inline Reaction Wheel (1)          Squad
[COLOR="#FF0000"]|-IE.RepulsorAlpha(3)[/COLOR]                      
|-Y-1 (1)                            Kerbice Group
|-...

(missing part comes from lo-fi wheels & repulsors mod)

Usually, this great tool allow you to see missing part in quite obvious way (ex of some missing parts due to mod removal: Karbonite.Tank.25.01, or TTcarwheel.Tweakable, it's easy to figure out which mod contains the parts )

Anyway, mod name display could be better, more precise, due to the "folder as base" style many modders use, including myself.

[katateochi]

Overly-long craft titles wrap to a new line, overflowing into and and cover the menu bar.

Huge screenshot (SeaMonkey 2.29, roughly equivalent to Firefox 30-32): http://i.imgur.com/DLy8yT0.png

Craft names will now dynamically adjust their font-size until they fit. Looks a bit silly if you try to put a small essay in the title but for the 90% of craft names I think it should be better.

In the craft lists (search results) over-long names get truncated if they are more than 35 chars long and will reduce in font-size a bit. Unlike the main title they only scale to a couple of set sizes otherwise it gets too small to read.

Also, if you want you can change the name of your craft as it is displayed on the site. But that won't effect the name of craft in the craft file or what is returned in the text if you put [name] in your text.

My bad, I thought KSP Mod Admin display parts by their category (Utility, Propulsion, ...), it may be an option, don't know.

but the tool display a list like:

craft name
|-Clamp-O-Tron Docking Port (2)      Squad
|-Inline Reaction Wheel (1)          Squad
[COLOR="#FF0000"]|-IE.RepulsorAlpha(3)[/COLOR]                      
|-Y-1 (1)                            Kerbice Group
|-...

(missing part comes from lo-fi wheels & repulsors mod)

Usually, this great tool allow you to see missing part in quite obvious way (ex of some missing parts due to mod removal: Karbonite.Tank.25.01, or TTcarwheel.Tweakable, it's easy to figure out which mod contains the parts )

Anyway, mod name display could be better, more precise, due to the "folder as base" style many modders use, including myself.

So I've been looking into trying to get better mod identification for "sub mods" and (what I think your suggesting) looking at working out the "missing mod" based on the name structure of the part.

This is what I've found so far => "argh WHY isn't there a standard!!"

There just isn't any standard between mods, they seem to do whatever they want as far as folder structures and naming conventions go.

Quite a few have the nice format of "mod_name.part_name" for the part name but just as many mods either don't put any mod info in the name, or they do but without using . or _ separators. And its not even that you can say its just the less well known mods that don't follow the standard. For example KAS, B9, NovaP all prefix part names with mod_name followed by a full-stop. KWrockety and RemoteTech both put the mod name in, but without any separators, some use author initials (like KSPX, all prefixed with cl.) and the rest just don't do anything (which is more like the squad parts).

I could say that if a part_name has a full-stops then the first part of the name will be the modname, but full-stops are also used to denote other things (ie lightnav.blue, lightnav.red). So it would result in lots of incorrect assertions (and without first knowing the mod name, you can't say if the first bit of the name is a mod name or not! catch 22)

It's just as much of a minefield with folder structures. Some are like ModName/SubMod/parts..... and some are ModName/parts/SubMod/... others have parts divided into detailed sub categories others just have them all in one folder and some do really different things like have the plugins in the folder with the main mod name, but the parts are in separate folders next to it.

Because some use category sub divisions and some use completely custom subdivisions I can't even start with a known list of categories ie [structural, command, engines etc] and say that if the sub folder is not one of those then its a sub mod name, because it would consider each custom sub-categories to be a separate sub_mod.

From what I can see there is no way to reliably figure out sub-mods from the folder structure without having a mass of a priori knowledge about each mods structure and that would defeat the point of being able to mine the info from a completely uninformed starting point. It's also not possible to rely on being able to get a mod name from just the info on a craft's part.

So at least for now, I think the best I can do is direct part name matching (as currently happens on the site) and if a match isn't found the craft is marked as missing a part. and the PartMapper can reliably return the root mod dir as the "mod name" for a given part, but it can't reliably determine sub-mods (unless anyone as some cunning suggestions!)

[Justin Kerbice]

[...]

From what I can see there is no way to reliably figure out sub-mods from the folder structure without having a mass of a priori knowledge about each mods structure and that would defeat the point of being able to mine the info from a completely uninformed starting point. It's also not possible to rely on being able to get a mod name from just the info on a craft's part.

So at least for now, I think the best I can do is direct part name matching (as currently happens on the site) and if a match isn't found the craft is marked as missing a part. and the PartMapper can reliably return the root mod dir as the "mod name" for a given part, but it can't reliably determine sub-mods (unless anyone as some cunning suggestions!)

I'm guilty for non using smart naming convention . I've to think of using these smart convention from B9 and cie, that's where KSP mod admin thing is in fact !

My opinion on this: you have 2 choices, none ideal:

1 - rely on (unreliable) users,

2 - do a super complicated and slow magi-guess algorithm

1 => add a voting system/use more than 1 source to be sure (if on 4 inputs on 4 you have 4 different things => boom, but if more than x %, 75 for ex, are equals, it may be good)

2 => magi-guess may not be so hard just need multiple steps:

a part-mapper style script to gather archive contents from mods and make a set of archivename = parts list (could be also user inputs or... boring work to download everything and parse !)

a DB to look at each part found on uploaded craft and match the mod archive name (praying author have add version in it !)

[BudgetHedgehog]

Excellent site, I just uploaded my Simple SSTO to it - helps identify mods that I forgot I used when I made it

One thing - the Action Group tab is missing the Brake group

[katateochi]

Excellent site, I just uploaded my Simple SSTO to it - helps identify mods that I forgot I used when I made it

One thing - the Action Group tab is missing the Brake group

ah opps. who needs brakes

brake group has been added now.

I have a question for you guys;

Would you want a FAR compatible (but 100% stock part) craft to appear in searches for stock craft or mod craft? What about a 100% stock part craft that uses KerbPaint, would you consider that a mod or stock craft?

I'd like my painted stock craft to appear in the results for stock craft (as if you don't have KerbPaint it will work fine) but that is probably not the case with FAR craft. So I'm wondering about having a class of mods that are "optional", but that will complicate the search a bit. Not sure yet. What do you think?

[BudgetHedgehog]

Would you want a FAR compatible (but 100% stock part) craft to appear in searches for stock craft or mod craft?

Don't quote me on this, but I think crafts made with FAR installed just won't work on a stock game - or at least the control surfaces won't, as it replaces the control surface PartModule. Even if this isn't the case, crafts built under FARs rules both look and behave completely different to stock. For example, since FAR introduces lifting body effects, it's entirely possible to build a working plane out of fuselage and say, a couple stock winglets. Such a plane would be flyable with FAR but more than likely not in stock, despite stock parts. On the other side of the coin, I'm guessing more than a few of Overfloaters SSTOs just would not work under FAR rules.

So yeah, put them in mod crafts. As for Kerbpaint and things like the Stock Part Revamp, I'd put them in mods as well - if people don't have those mods installed, the craft they download would look different to the one pictured, sometimes very much for the worst. But then, that would stop people who want to play purely stock from getting them as they wouldn't bother browsing the mod section for crafts that both load and work correctly in stock.. Hmm.. There's equal pros and cons for both sides :/

[tetryds]

FAR and NEAR crafts should be under mods, but KerbPaint not.

Because when a craft has only KerbPaint it works normally on Stock, and you will know that the pictures are from it painted, basically.

[Wanderfound]

Don't quote me on this, but I think crafts made with FAR installed just won't work on a stock game - or at least the control surfaces won't, as it replaces the control surface PartModule.

Nope.

Even if this isn't the case, crafts built under FARs rules both look and behave completely different to stock. For example, since FAR introduces lifting body effects, it's entirely possible to build a working plane out of fuselage and say, a couple stock winglets. Such a plane would be flyable with FAR but more than likely not in stock, despite stock parts. On the other side of the coin, I'm guessing more than a few of Overfloaters SSTOs just would not work under FAR rules.

Yup.

It's not an incompatible-parts thing, it's a designed-for-radically-different-physics thing. A good stock plane is usually a really bad FAR plane and vice-versa.

[katateochi]

@ObsessedWithKSP, tetryds, Wanderfound

Fast replies, thanks guys! So general consensus is that they're mod with a possible ? around KerbPaint.

From an implementation point of view considering them all mod (inc KerbPaint) is far simpler; I just need to define a special "non-existent" part that can be added to a craft's part associations in the DB to make the link between a craft and a part-less mod (won't effect part count as that is based of the raw file data, not DB associations). That way they craft will just behave like any other mod craft when it comes to the search functionality.

Personally I'd like to see KerbPaint being considered an optional mod and having some different behavior around that, but I think (being all agile and lean) I'll do the simplest thing that works first and get something delivered. Should have some time to work on adding that this weekend. Then later I can wonder about the special case if that still seems needed.

[katateochi]

My domain registrar is having some issues and currently KerbalX.com is unavailable.

You can still get to the site if you go to http://kerbalx.herokuapp.com

Site is back up

Edited September 20, 2014 by katateochi

[katateochi]

Version 0.3.0 is now deployed.

I think I've got automatic detection of FAR, TweakScale and KerbPaint working now based on the modules found on parts. I've rescanned all the craft and I'm fairly sure that it's correctly identified those mods. There's just a couple craft that I'm not 100% sure about.

@Batteriii a couple of your craft have a 'stock' #tags, but they've now been detected as using TweakScale, so they're now considered mod craft. Is this correct or is it just that you have tweakscale installed but it doesn't actually apply to these craft?

Craft with just KerbPaint and stock parts are now considered mod craft, I'm not totally happy about that, but it's technically more accurate so it will do for now. I would still like to see a stock part + KerbPaint craft appear in stock searches, but I can make that work later.

So far I've just got support for FAR, TweakScale and KerbPaint in place, but it will now be very easy to add in support for other "partless" mods, once I know what modules to look for.

The little module I've written to deal with reading craft files can now be easily extended to add support for mods like these. It's now just a one liner to add in additional mod support like this.

  @craft.force_association_with "FAR" if file.has_module?("FARBasicDragModel")
  @craft.force_association_with "TweakScale" if file.has_module?("TweakScale")

  #craft that have KerbPaint modules but still have all parts with original color settings won't be considered painted
  @craft.force_association_with "KerbPaint" if file.has_module?("ModulePaintable") && file.has_painted_parts?

So if you know of a mod that needs to be detected like this and can tell me what module(s) it adds to parts then let me know and I can add it in very easily.

In the case of FAR and TweakScale it is just checking for the presence of a specific module. With KerbPaint I've added an extra step which checks to see if the module actually defines a different color or if its still using the original colors. If a craft has KerpPaint modules but none of its parts are actually painted then it doesn't consider it a KerbPaint craft. I may need to do something like this for TweakScale aswell, to check if parts are actually re-scaled or not (but I need to understand more about how it changes the parts).

I still need to add support for NEAR, but I need a craft that uses NEAR so I can poke around in it and see what modules NEAR adds. If one of you guys could upload a NEAR craft to the site and tell me so I can use it as a point of reference, that would great and would save me some time.

Check your craft and let me know if you think any have been incorrectly marked as mod craft now.

@Wanderfound, your craft where the most effected by the changes, but I'm fairly sure they're correct.

NOTE - If you have the list of mods or the details info shown in the text (using the [mods] or [details] KerbDown syntax) they may not reflect the changes in the text as the text is only reprocessed when you edit it. If the mod list in the text is different to the one shown from the link in the header then just edit the text widget that has the mod or details info, ensure you change the text slightly (just add a space) so it thinks the content has changed and saves the page. Then the info in the text should be updated correctly.

[katateochi]

Just deployed several fixes and some minor features.

Main functionality addition is that there is now a search interface on the mods, parts and users pages.

I've also further improved the performance of the crafts search, that should be really quite quick now!

I've realised a problem with the PartMapper, it is mistaking a number of things for parts including modules and agencies. The result is a lot more "parts" being listed on the site than there really are.

I shall update the part mapper and then I'm going to do a purge of all parts that are not currently associated with any craft. That will mean a big drop in the knowledge base part list, but it will pick up again pretty quickly. (this won't effect any currently uploaded craft).

When I do that, would those of you who have uploaded part-maps mind if I email you and ask if you could re-upload your partmaps?

I also realised a dumb mistake I made in the detection of FAR. I made it so that craft with FAR modules got linked with a mod called FAR, not 'FerramAerospaceResearch', so there are two mods in the system which should be one and the same. That will be easy to fix thou and the only effect will be the change of name in some crafts mod lists.