Snark

Moving to KSP1 Mods Discussions.

The above content has been split off from the main CKAN thread, here, because it's more about discussing opinions on CKAN's merits and so forth rather than discussing issues with CKAN itself. As such, it's not really on-topic for that thread, as it's unhelpful to people who are just trying to use CKAN. Please feel free to continue discussing the matter here. However, I would caution folks to please remain civil and refrain from accusations, ad hominem attacks, and the like. Thank you for your understanding.

Some content that took the thread off-topic (general discussion of opinions about the merits of CKAN rather than discussion about CKAN itself) has been moved to a thread of its own here:

No idea, perhaps just go and ask the people who are using them? Folks are generally pretty friendly about this sort of thing.

And once they aggro on you, they'll keep chasing you to the ends of the earth. Not like the other baddies, who will give up on you and return to their patrol spot if you run away far enough. Yeah, those critters are nerve wracking.

What Bob said. They may not be immediately recognizable in the list, if your eyeballs are looking for the fancy unfolded appearance, because their default thumbnail in the tech tree is the fairly dull cylindrical appearance they have when they're retracted. Also: This assumes you have the default stock tech tree. If you're running some mod that significantly rejiggers the tech tree in some way, then depending on how that mod is written (including the nitty-gritty details of specifically what it does with ModuleManager patches), then the antennas from this mod may or may not get brought along for the ride. I've never tested that (since I myself generally don't run tech-tree-altering mods), so I don't actually know whether it would be an issue or not. Just something to be aware of, in case you observe any oddness in that regard.

Nope. This mod just looks at action groups that exist in the game. My understanding of how the other mod works is that it provides the necessary UI and functionality to behave as if there were additional "action groups" in the game... but because of the way the original developers implemented action groups, I believe it's not actually possible to truly add action groups to the game. Since all my mod "knows about" is what it can see in the available action groups that the game provides, there's no way for it to "see" the extra stuff that any other mod adds that looks-and-feels like an action group but doesn't actually change the base game behavior. The only way to do that would be if I added a bunch of special-case code into my mod, to try to detect that this one specific other mod is out there and then try to interoperate with it, and that's not something I've done (or am realistically likely to do, at this point). (Sorry for the delay in replying!)

Some content has been removed. Folks, a gentle reminder to play nice, please, and to remember that you're not a moderator, so please don't try to police others' posts. If you have a concern, just report it, and the moderators will decide whether anything needs addressing. It's what we're for.

Further content has been redacted and/or removed, due to personal remarks and off-topic "arguing about arguing". Folks, please don't make things personal. In an open community like this, you will encounter people who disagree with you, and arguments will result. This is fine, and is to be expected. But please keep a few things in mind: It's about the post, not the poster. Please contain your remarks to the objective topic under discussion, and don't let your irritation with the person sucker you into making personal remarks. It never ends well. In that vein: Please address the person's points. How they choose to make those points, and their style of writing or argument, is not your concern. If you think that someone is so egregiously rude that they're breaking forum rules, then please file a report and the moderators will have a look. It's what we're for. Beyond that, though, it's not your place to tell anyone else how to be, so please don't. Try to stay germane to the topic, please, which is this mod. Arguing about how someone else argues, or defending your own behavior, is off-topic. Please bear in mind that if you're rat-holing on some esoteric technical point, 99%+ of the people here will have no interest in it because they're unaffected. Doesn't mean you can't discuss it, but a lengthy esoteric technical argument doesn't help people. Quite the opposite. Please don't drown people in matters that don't concern them. The debate about ModuleManager and prefabs, in particular, appears (AFAICT) to have run its course, here. I'm seeing tons of vociferous, heated yes-it-is no-it-isn't technical arguments about prefab minutiae, none of which (AFAICT) has anything to do with actually helping a ModuleManager user solve a practical problem. The argument is all about who's right and who's wrong, which nobody cares about other than the people arguing. So, with that in mind: Please drop the prefab argument, folks. It's not helping. If you have a concrete recommendation for ModuleManager users-- such as "if you have problem X, you should do Y to resolve it", then by all means post that, because that will actually help people. But anything else is technobabble that users don't actually need at this point, so if you want to discuss that, take it elsewhere, please. Thank you for your understanding.

Further off-topic posts removed. Folks, please don't make things personal, which includes gossiping about anyone. If you have a concern about anyone's behavior that you believe is rule-breaking, kindly report it to the moderators and we'll have a look. It's what we're for. Otherwise, other people's business is none of yours. Also, please don't try to tell anyone else what to do or not to do. This is called "backseat moderating" and is not allowed. Thank you for your understanding.

Some content has been removed. Folks, a gentle reminder, please leave real-life politics out of the forum, even tongue-in-cheek or in jest. Thank you for your understanding.

Some content has been redacted and/or removed due to off-topic digressions. Folks, the topic of this thread is Russian launches and missions. Kindly leave the "my rocket is better than your rocket" posturing at the door. It's off topic, it solves nothing, and it just makes the thread less useful and interesting to all concerned. Thank you for your understanding.

Moving to KSP1 Modelling and Texturing Discussion.

Moving topic to KSP1 General Mod Development Help and Support.

A large amount of content has been removed, due to: politics off-topic content arguing about arguing telling people what to do or not to do (a.k.a. "backseat moderating") responding to any posts that do any of the above. When we remove a thing, we gotta remove everything that responds to it, lest we create "dangling responses". Folks, please don't post politics, surely this reminder shouldn't be necessary. A few bits of advice: "Here's what government should do" or "here's what public policy should be" tends to be political, so if you see yourself writing that kind of thing, treat that as a warning signal and reconsider posting it. Responding to someone else who posted politics, is politics. Even if you say "not political, but". Discussion of environmental issues per se isn't really about SpaceX, so it's off topic. "SpaceX is having difficulty with a launch permit because of environmental issue" is fine... but extending that to "what our environmental policy should be" or the importance of such issues is off-topic. (And almost invariably political.) Please don't tell anyone what to do or what not to do, even as a "suggestion". You're not a moderator, it's not your place to give orders. If you think something's a problem, just report it and don't respond. That engages the moderators, whose job it is to deal with that sort of thing. It's what we're for. When you know that someone else's stuff is off-topic, please don't try the maneuver of responding to them in the same vein, and then inserting a token "obligatory SpaceX" remark, in order to somehow make your post "OK". It just makes things worse. When we remove the other thing, it means we have to remove your stuff, too. Please don't respond to anything political or otherwise problematic with the rules, even if your own post tries to steer clear of those problems. Because we can't have "dangling responses". Thank you for your understanding.

Since the author has chosen to delete the mod, there's nothing further to discuss here, and so the thread has been locked. Some content has been redacted and/or removed, due to people making personal remarks. Folks, let's please remember that we're all friends here: modders make what they do out of personal interest and passion for the game, and users like to try the mods for the same reason. So let's keep things civil, please. Just to be sure we're all on the same page, it may be worth reviewing a couple of points that one presumes we all understand, here: Modders give us shiny toys for free, and don't owe the users anything. (So it's never appropriate to complain about a mod, though of course good-faith constructive feedback is always appropriate.) A mod changes the user's gameplay (and has the potential to wreck savefiles), so naturally users are going to want to know what it does: both to decide "do I want this for my gameplay" and to assess risk. So it's common for modders to provide such information along with a mod. The modder is under no obligation to do so (see bullet point above), but since every user needs to know this basic information, it's to be expected that folks will ask about it if the information isn't included. Thank you for your understanding.

You mean Moh? No, it's a gas giant, no surface there. I don't know about any wiki, but if you look at the OP of this thread, there's a section entitled "New Planetary Layout" with a spoiler that describes things. It's not much info, but at least it tells you what things are (for example, it mentions that Moh, which you were asking about here, is a gas giant).

Hello, and welcome to the forums! Really cool mission report, thank you for sharing.

Hello, and welcome to the forums! We've moved your question to its own topic under KSP1 Mod Discussions, since that's the best place for general questions about mods. If you have a question about a specific mod (such as OPT?), then the best place to ask would be in that mod's release thread. Otherwise, if you have a modding question and aren't sure where to ask, then this subforum would be the place to go. Hope you can find an answer to your problem!

Nice ideas, and really nicely written up and organized! Thank you for sharing.

Thread locked per OP request. Please see the new thread, linked above, for continuation of this topic.

A large amount of content has been redacted and/or removed, due to off-topic digressions and other issues. For anyone interested in the detailed technical minutiae of the specific problem that @NippyFlippers raised, please see the GitHub issue that JonnyOThan was kind enough to open for that purpose: Thank you for your understanding.

Some off-topic content has been removed. Folks, the topic of this thread is this fork of TweakScale, please try to confine your questions to that topic. Thank you.

Some content has been removed, due to off-topic discussion (among other things). Folks, please play nice. The topic of this thread is this fork of TweakScale. If you have a question about a different fork of TweakScale than this one, best to go ask there. This is one of those situations where more than one fork of a mod is being actively supported / maintained / developed. It's understandable that folks might be a little unfamiliar with how such situations work, because for the large majority of mods, that is not the case and there's only one active fork at a time. However, just because it's uncommon doesn't mean it doesn't happen-- such as the current case. So, what's a confused user to do? Well, if you have a question about a particular fork of a mod, then you should ask your questions in that fork's thread. For example, if you use Lisias' fork of TweakScale, and you have questions about it, you would ask here. If you have questions about someone else's fork, then you should go ask them in that modder's thread. That's certainly a reasonable thing for a user to want to know, and it's perfectly understandable to want to ask such a question. However, please understand that questions like this are tricky. Why? Because there is nobody in a position to answer authoritatively. Modders know their own work-- that's why, if you have a question about a mod, the right person to ask is the author. Modders-- like anyone-- are not in a position to know someone else's work unless they've worked with it themselves. One trusts that modders are aware of this, too, and would know better than to comment on someone else's work. The person to answer questions about a modder's work is the modder themselves. This means that if you ask modder A to critique or discuss modder B's work, you're asking them a question about something they aren't in a position to judge. If you want to know the differences between two active forks like this, therefore, your best bet is to look at the OPs of their respective threads in detail, and see what information you may find there. Each author is in the best position of describing what features or other benefits their own fork provides, so the OP of their mod thread is the best place to get such information. Thank you for your understanding.

Moving to Mod Discussions.