[1.2] OSE Workshop - KIS Addon: (v1.1.0 - 2016.11.03)

[gamerscircle]

I am not playing a 'card' here.. I "play" the game to the the best of my ability.

Playing KSP and attempting to understand the depth of KSP can and is challenging for those that don't know about Rockets, Planes, Celestial bodies, etc. [btw .. I am not getting attitudey here, since tone is not transferable] When I had this mod installed, I saw that there was a new category that had lots of stock and non-stock parts.  I am assuming that this have the OSE ability.  [similar to Ground Construction and MKS?]

You are suggesting that if I want to figure out if and why I can't make the MKS Ranger Inflatable Storage Module [Ranger_ISM.cfg which lists the mass = 0.75] to check this new category and see if there is an OSI workshop that will allow 0.75 or higher?

 

[Enceos]

All parts, which you can't find in specific categories, end up in the last category. It will have a lot of pages.

[nhnifong]

Is this meant to be used only with MKS or MKS-Lite? It's not shown as a requirement in the description.

If not, then how can one obtain MaterialKits other than by packing them in from Kerbin?

[MaverickSawyer]

There's parts in the pack to make the kits from ore.

[canisin]

Is this mod working in 1.3? It's either that or I am missing something very obvious. It loads up completely fine, but I cannot find any way to activate or use the workshop/printer! Is it maybe failing silently? 

[gamerscircle]

On 5/8/2017 at 0:49 PM, Enceos said:

All parts, which you can't find in specific categories, end up in the last category. It will have a lot of pages.

I was able to make something, but is there a special container that I am also to have local for the parts to show up?  The YT has older references and I don't see them in the editor.. [unless I am blind.. and that might be the case.]

[Baladain]

On 5/31/2017 at 9:49 PM, gamerscircle said:

I was able to make something, but is there a special container that I am also to have local for the parts to show up?  The YT has older references and I don't see them in the editor.. [unless I am blind.. and that might be the case.]

When you make an item, it will show up in KIS storage.

If you want the items you create to show up in a specific KIS container, right click that container, and click "Favor inventory"

If you're still trying to find out why you can't make specific parts, you must have a KIS container large enough to hold that part.

[bounty123]

It's not working for me with 1.3, items are not visible in the editor. Anyone else experiencing this problem?

[dlrk]

The OP recommends MKS-lite. What about regular MKS?

[goldenpsp]

Just now, dlrk said:

The OP recommends MKS-lite. What about regular MKS?

MKS works great.  MKS-lite is no more.

[Vorg]

So OSE is working in 1.3?

[BrutalRIP]

1 hour ago, Vorg said:

So OSE is working in 1.3?

its not for me

[Aelfhe1m]

1 hour ago, Vorg said:

So OSE is working in 1.3?

Needs a few edits and a recompile at the very least.

[LEGIONBOSS]

On 2017. 06. 06. at 4:41 PM, bounty123 said:

It's not working for me with 1.3, items are not visible in the editor. Anyone else experiencing this problem?

 

On 2017. 06. 07. at 0:33 AM, BrutalRIP said:

its not for me

Same for me, only the Material Extractor shows up when I use the "Filter by resource" option with Dirt. The rest I cannot find (but the part files look okay)

Edited June 11, 2017 by LEGIONBOSS

[goldenpsp]

24 minutes ago, LEGIONBOSS said:

 

Same for me, only the Material Extractor shows up. ObiVanDamme PLEEEASE 

 

[LEGIONBOSS]

39 minutes ago, goldenpsp said:

 

 

Edited June 11, 2017 by LEGIONBOSS

[VenDei]

Hello, while I find the idea of the mod very appealing (I think), I'm rather put off by the lack of some more documentation? I mean, this isn't just some rather self-explanatory, one-trick-pony parts pack, it adds a complete mechanic, seems to tie in with mods that themselves add complexity and I get the idea it changed somewhat over time so that it's quite hard to glimpse an idea just from the evolution of release notes over time and the list of features. I'd like to estimate, for example, if the flow of materials in this mod matches well with what I currently have in my setup, or if it will be heavyweight in that respect. So, a simple flowchart of how materials and parts interact might give me - and others that haven't tried this mod before - a better idea of what they're getting themselves into.

[goldenpsp]

41 minutes ago, VenDei said:

Hello, while I find the idea of the mod very appealing (I think), I'm rather put off by the lack of some more documentation? I mean, this isn't just some rather self-explanatory, one-trick-pony parts pack, it adds a complete mechanic, seems to tie in with mods that themselves add complexity and I get the idea it changed somewhat over time so that it's quite hard to glimpse an idea just from the evolution of release notes over time and the list of features. I'd like to estimate, for example, if the flow of materials in this mod matches well with what I currently have in my setup, or if it will be heavyweight in that respect. So, a simple flowchart of how materials and parts interact might give me - and others that haven't tried this mod before - a better idea of what they're getting themselves into.

A vast majority of mod documentation is community driven.  With that said, grab the mod, put it in a test KSP install, play around and make a flowchart.  I'm sure it would be appreciated by all.

[VenDei]

@goldenpsp While I'm considering doing just that, what could possibly go wrong with someone not knowing the first thing about the mod writing documentation?

[goldenpsp]

Just now, VenDei said:

@goldenpsp While I'm considering doing just that, what could possibly go wrong with someone not knowing the first thing about the mod writing documentation?

Well one of the probably most complex mods for KSP, @RoverDude's MKS has documentation that is 99.9% community driven and the documentation is quite good.

[VenDei]

"Community driven", maybe. But in this case I specifically asked "um, how does this work, it doesn't say anywhere, really", and you propose that I find out on my own and tell everyone else. Not actually constructive.

[goldenpsp]

12 minutes ago, VenDei said:

"Community driven", maybe. But in this case I specifically asked "um, how does this work, it doesn't say anywhere, really", and you propose that I find out on my own and tell everyone else. Not actually constructive.

The mod itself acts like a 3D printer, able to print most any part as long as a KIS container is attached large enough to fit the finished part.  It also has a pretty basic IRSU to let you make the required materialkits out of ore in situ.

That is really the extent of this mod.  More constructive.

Beyond that, most modders create mods for their own enjoyment and are then kind enough to share them with the rest of us.  Expecting them to write documentation so you are more likely to use the mod  is a bit backwards in thinking, especially if documentation isn't something they enjoy doing.

And you didn't really seem to have any actual questions, more of just a rant that you don't have documentation.  Also there are plenty of videos using this mod that would give a good overview of how it works.  Just takes a quick search.

Edited June 23, 2017 by goldenpsp

[VenDei]

15 minutes ago, goldenpsp said:

The mod itself acts like a 3D printer, able to print most any part as long as a KIS container is attached large enough to fit the finished part.

That much is obvious, and even said.

 

16 minutes ago, goldenpsp said:

It also has a pretty basic IRSU to let you make the required materialkits out of ore in situ.

And here documentation fails. You also handwave over the part that is actually interesting and complex. And that is actually hard to test. Which I did during this exchange. I might have completely missed it, I may never know, but this mod isn't what I'm looking for.

And no, software development is not and has never been about just hacking code. It's what I tell my students first thing, and advise them to leave immediately and do something else if they think otherwise - and I'm proven right by the strong correlation of those disagreeing with that statement and those dropping out within two years for bad performance at coding and dissatisfaction. There's a strong correlation between quality of code and ability and willingness to document, and I also see it in KSPs veritable mod graveyard. So, expecting mod developers to document is me taking them seriously at their hobby. Every hobby has their unloved tasks. I'm not asking for illustrated, polished, localised KSPedia pages, but a table like "thingies + whatsernames -> Uber-Transmogrifier -> foobar" for everything the mod touches upon is not really asked much.

Oh, and:

46 minutes ago, goldenpsp said:

And you didn't really seem to have any actual questions, more of just a rant that you don't have documentation.

How about that:

2 hours ago, VenDei said:

I'd like to estimate, for example, if the flow of materials in this mod matches well with what I currently have in my setup, or if it will be heavyweight in that respect.

Apart from that, the videos concerning this mod seem severely outdated. Which is why I asked here for information.

[RoverDude]

3 hours ago, VenDei said:

There's a strong correlation between quality of code and ability and willingness to document

This is completely false.

3 hours ago, VenDei said:

So, expecting mod developers to document is me taking them seriously at their hobby

Good thing most modders really don't care whether a user thinks they are serious about their hobby or not.  Because this is an unreasonable expectation.

 

Edited June 23, 2017 by RoverDude

[Snark]

Hi @VenDei,

Just wanted to address some of the concerns you've raised here.  While they're legitimate concerns, it's important to understand something about the social dynamics of modding.

First and foremost, let's get one thing straight about the relationship between mod authors and mod users:

Mod authors don't owe mod users anything.  At all.  Period, full stop.  (Including documentation.)  That's because they're spending lots of time and effort and energy, for free, to give people shiny toys to play with, for free.  Remember that developing a mod takes lots of tedious, hard, often very un-fun work.  And that modders have real lives, just like the rest of us, which means modding (an unpaid hobby, done in spare time) has to take a back seat to IRL commitments such as work, school, family, etc.

A very important corollary of that is that it is never appropriate to complain about the mod in the mod's thread.  It's as if someone were to throw open the doors of their house, put out a big sign saying "FREE COOKIES!", and invite the general public inside, purely out of the generosity of their hearts, with no ulterior motive.  In such a situation, if you walk into their house and help yourself to the cookies, it's pretty poor form to complain that there's something wrong.  If you don't like 'em, don't eat 'em.  It's basic politeness, it's that simple.

Of course, that doesn't mean you shouldn't make requests or offer constructive feedback-- those are fine.  In fact, it's great if you do that!  It helps modders understand their users better, and that sort of thing can be very valuable to the modder.  You may be doing them a favor by doing so, as long as it's not couched as a complaint.

However-- and this is very important-- when making such a post, one must constantly bear in mind that the modder doesn't owe you anything.  Also remember that you have no idea how busy the modder is IRL, or what motivates them to mod, or anything else.  Therefore, you really can't have any expectations at all as to what response you'll get.  Maybe the modder will say "hey!  great!  I'll get right on that!"  Or maybe they'll say "Nah, sorry, I just don't have the time."  Or maybe they'll ignore you completely.  All of those are perfectly valid responses on the modder's part... and it's really not appropriate to argue back, because at that point you'd be telling them what to do, which of course is never okay to do with someone who owes you nothing and is just doing this as a hobby.

With that in mind, then, to the case at hand:

There was nothing at all wrong with your initial request.  It was a great post, well expressed, politely offered, and worth a polite response.  Basically, "hey, this is hard, is there some documentation?"  So, thank you for that.

And you got a polite response, essentially "sorry, no, there isn't."

And that's really all that can be said, there.  Basically, that's all the discussion that's reasonably possible, unless you wanted to go on from there to offer your own efforts to help, or something.

The trouble is, your posts after that point were essentially trying to argue back against that and saying "lack of documentation is bad," which the community interprets as "telling people who don't owe you anything what they should do."  Which is why the responses quickly became highly unsympathetic after that point.

You do make a good point that "having good documentation is valuable for a mod."  That's a great discussion to have, and if you wanted to spin up a thread in Add-on Discussions to talk about your philosophy around mod documentation, that's a perfectly reasonably thing to do.  I wouldn't be surprised if you'd get some lively discussion there.    But-- and this is the point here-- this thread is not really the place to do that, for two important reasons:

• First, it's off topic:  this thread is about this particular mod, not about "Philosophy of Documentation".
• Second, regardless of your intention, it ends up coming across as "telling a person what to do who does hard work giving you stuff for free," which is simply not going to get anywhere.

Also, please bear in mind that nobody's actually disagreeing with you about "is documentation useful or important."  They're just saying that it's not their job to document stuff for you.

You're absolutely right that better documentation would be a great and helpful and wonderful thing, and lack of it can cause difficulties.

And yes, some modders do lots of documentation.  Others do practically none at all.  And it's not anybody's place to say that the former are somehow "better" than the latter-- for example, a modder who doesn't document much may simply be a lot busier IRL than the one who does.

With that in mind, therefore, please be sensitive about arguing with a mod provider.  By all means make polite requests, but always be prepared to take "no" for an answer.

In any case:  the current argument is now settled, to wit:

• Question:  "Can someone give me some more documentation?"
• Answer:  "No, not in this case."

There, done. 

Okay, re-opening the thread.  Thank you for your patience, and I trust we can all get along without undue acrimony.