FalloutBoy

I Agree and Disagree to a certain extent, what I am getting tired of though is items that don't have any proper definition for category and/or subcategory which are two items in the config file which don't always seem to be set correctly so you end up with liquid fuel engines in the science section and rockets under utility - its a right royal mess and takes ages to find things; However if to set all liquid fueled rocket motors to the be category = Propulsion and all fuel tanks to the same they don't automatically sort nicely. But if you set the Category to Propulsion and make all Rocket Engines for arguments sake = 1 and all liquid fuel tanks = 2 then they should sort correctly. So for a starter my thoughts are under propulsion: Liquid fuel rockets(1) then Liquid fuel tanks - first those without mono propellent(2) and then those that include it(3) R.C.S Thrusters(11) and thruster fuel(12) -> keeping the thruster mono-propellent in this case as close as possible to the liquid fuel mono propellent tanks. Nuclear engines(21) and fuel tanks(22) Booster engines(31) and rockets(32) Seperatrons(41) So what we have here is everything that's a fuel tank sorted by the numbers under the category propulsion. Of course some of these can be further refined depending on if they are and inline model or radial, my thoughts there are radial first inline 2nd. But with what I've got now and its just a few installed mods some of them literally have no definition and its hopeless what you are describing though i think is sorting by manufacturer and is beyond the pervue and if it can be done I'd have to delve into mono to do it - not something I'm quite ready to do yet.

Ignoring the numbers as they are for my reference as you work down the list the items with the ---- are the main categories defined by squad for parts in the VAB Under that I have tried to sub categorize the parts into logical blocks for sorting so for example with pods you will see 1 man pods first then 2 man pods and so forth then the next block is remote controlled unmanned pods and finally the last block is unmanned satellite pods. What I'm after input on is how to further sub categorize blocks so that things are sorted the by the largest data sets possible while still providing the best visual sort order. I.E the main heading for the next section is propulsion where I will sort rocket motors by type then beneath that will come the fuel tanks for each set of motors - but do i want to sort them by size? or name? if they are an attached radial tank or inline so basically if i decided to sort liquid fuel motors then fuel tanks which are inline followed by radial you would see displayed under the propulsion panel LFM1 LFM2 LFM3 LFM4 LFM5 IFT1 IFT2 IFT3 IFT4 IFT5 IFT6 RFT1 RFT2 Where LFM = Liquid fuel motor, IFT = Inline fuel tank, RFT = Radial Fuel Tank Then the next subcategory might me nuclear engines followed by their fuel tanks in much the same way. The over arching goal is to sort out categories in the VAB and SPH so that you can find what you want as quickly as possible. I hope this helps disambiguate what I'm trying to achieve somewhat, I've already got most of the program written and am getting close to just needing to ensure everyone is happy with the categories because initially they will be completely hard wired and I'm yet to decide if they'll stay that way - so your input is crucial.

I have posted this also in general discussion so please excuse the double post but I thought it might get more exposure here: The Categories which have ---- at the end I have no control over the order of and I can not add any more AFAIK The Items beneath that are those which I have defined as Sub Categories so that will be the initial sort order. The items will then be broken down further along the lines of the largest definable type for each section which will further refine the sort. This will be the basis for a simple editor which changes the Category and Sub category and refine options for each part.cfg, you will see the contents of the entire part.cfg but will only be able to change the category and sub category. Note: The reason why a lot of addons are not sorting correctly and things are under the wrong sections is that these things are un or incorrectly defined. If there is anything you can think off in respect of Sub Categories or ways to break down sub categories into the largest groups possible - id be glad to hear it. Category Pods 1000---- Manned 1 man 10000001 Manned 2 man 10000002 Manned 3 man 10000003 Manned 4 man 10000004 Manned 5 man 10000005 . . . Unmanned remote 10000500 Unmanned probe 10001000 Other 10009000 Propulsion 2000---- Ion 20000000 Jet 20001000 Liquid 20002000 Nuclear 20003000 Solid 20004000 Aerospike 20005000 Fan 20006000 Propeller 20007000 Ballon 20008000 Misc 20009000 Control 3000---- SAS 30001000 ASAS 30002000 Guidence 30003000 Structural 4000---- Decoupler 40001000 Fairing 40002000 Adapter 40003000 Strut 40004000 Beam 40005000 Node 40006000 Launch Control 40007000 Connector 40008000 Attachment point 40009000 Aero 5000---- Nose cone 50001000 Winglet 50002000 Cannard 50003000 Wing Connector 50004000 Intake 50005000 Nacelle 50006000 Control Surface 50007000 Utility 6000---- Battery 60000000 Parachute 60000500 Window 60001000 Escape Tower 60001500 Lander Leg 60002000 Light 60002500 Anchor 60003000 Bay 60003500 Hook 60004000 Magnet 60004500 Sound 60005000 Solar panel 60005500 Thermal generator 60006000 Docking port 60006500 Ladder 60007000 Rover 60007500 -Body 60007500 -Wheel 60007600 -Track 60007700 Science 7000---- Communication arial 70001000 Meter 70002000

Hi Everyone, I know that KSP has in the parts.cfg files has a category and subcategory, can I adjust these so I can change the sort order of the parts within the category? and if the answer is yes - can someone describe to me the layout. O.K - I just worked out a couple of things Each part file has a category and subcategory by the looks of it you can sort your parts by assigning a Category and a Sub category. I believe the parts are sorted into Category(Group) and then by subcategory in Alphabetical Order. I note that a LOT of mods leave at minimum the Sub Category defined as non nonsensical nothing or random values. I believe I can get the parts sorted by sticking to some rules. In the following list the items with ---- at the end are fixed - do not ask to add more because im pretty damned certain I can't. The four digits on the right hand side of the number are a suggested value - at the moment for my purposed only - but it will result in a piece of text that will change the sort order. To that end can you all check the following list of initial Sub categories and see if you agree with them, please note that they will be broken down further as in Inline, Radial, bla bla bla dependant on what is available as a sub-sub category for that object i.e fuel tanks - oxidizer, fuel. = 2 sub cats, whereas rcs = monopropellent only Heres the list - please let me know if there is anything I have missed and I will need to know a.s.a.p. Category Pods 1000---- Manned 1 man 10000001 Manned 2 man 10000002 Manned 3 man 10000003 Manned 4 man 10000004 Manned 5 man 10000005 . . . Unmanned remote 10000500 Unmanned probe 10001000 Other 10009000 Propulsion 2000---- Ion 20000000 Jet 20001000 Liquid 20002000 Nuclear 20003000 Solid 20004000 Aerospike 20005000 Fan 20006000 Propeller 20007000 Ballon 20008000 Misc 20009000 Control 3000---- SAS 30001000 ASAS 30002000 Guidence 30003000 Structural 4000---- Decoupler 40001000 Fairing 40002000 Adapter 40003000 Strut 40004000 Beam 40005000 Node 40006000 Launch Control 40007000 Connector 40008000 Attachment point 40009000 Aero 5000---- Nose cone 50001000 Winglet 50002000 Cannard 50003000 Wing Connector 50004000 Intake 50005000 Nacelle 50006000 Control Surface 50007000 Utility 6000---- Battery 60000000 Parachute 60000500 Window 60001000 Escape Tower 60001500 Lander Leg 60002000 Light 60002500 Anchor 60003000 Bay 60003500 Hook 60004000 Magnet 60004500 Sound 60005000 Solar panel 60005500 Thermal generator 60006000 Docking port 60006500 Ladder 60007000 Rover 60007500 -Body 60007500 -Wheel 60007600 -Track 60007700 Science 7000---- Communication arial 70001000 Meter 70002000

I may have found a visual bug in the latest version of Mechjeb - I'm not sure so hoping someone can try and replicate it for me. I had the ascent window showing and the landing window, I had made and was testing a simple lander - so would take off from KSC and then tell it to land at KSC - so far so good ; but if I then took off the bottom of the ascent window would start flashing violently trying to show another item, resizing itself, then remove the item and resize again. If someone could validate my findings it would be appreciated and then if it is a bug as opposed to an ID10T error I can report it. Cheers

What I was referring to was the <Plugins> and <PluginData> directories - if these are used then they should be beneath the ISS directory - otherwise if another mod comes along that could overwrite those files if copied into the <GameData> directory they could be overwritten with another version which could break compatibility with the existing mod. What I am saying is although it creates duplicate files it would be better if the <plugins> and <PluginData> were in the actual mod directory as then nothing but a new version of the mod could overwrite them ; ensuring that even if you do download a new version of the KAS or Romfarer dlls through the installation of another mod that the new mod will not touch in anyway the existing mod ; thus ensuring that both will still work. If those files are 0.19 files then they shouldn't IMHO be in the GameData directory at all as that is only for 0.20 mods. Multi Authored or not - All mods need to follow a standard set by the developers and I have not yet seen that standard defined - keeping the <GameData> directory only for <mod directories> and then everything else below the <mod directories> ensures that parts can not overwrite other parts which was one of the most annoying things about 19.x.

<GameData> ....<DIR> ISS-ver.0.051 ....<DIR> PluginData ....<DIR> Plugins ....<DIR> Ships That's whats in the archive, the problem I see is that if an author updates a mod from 19.x to 20.x which then overwrites part of the PluginData or Plugins Directory this could cause serious problems with computability, unless these mods have version numbers tacked on the name of the files they could be overwritten by files with the same name. Two possibilities exist for correcting this - one is file version numbers - YUCK. The other is that you mention that the item requires <modname> version x and then let the user choose if they want to install <modname> version x then they can choose to download it to but I feel that putting other mods or extras in the root level of <GameData> is an extremely bad idea, maybe someone should consult the developers on this but I think all data related to a mod should be in that mods own directory even if its a dependency ; yes this will create some replication but will stop mods breaking other mods. And when it comes down to it why bother following a convention if half the modders are going to revert to a convention that can break stuff.

Okay then barring data being moved to the root level of KSP which is not a good thing because it could break compatibility if other < .20 version mods are installed this mod as downloaded has items in the root level of <GameData> which should not be there and need fixing.

Hi, I hate to be a pain in the butt and haven't yet found reference to complete information about the structure of 0.20 addons under KSP - however the information I have seen suggests that the format is as follows. <KSP Dir> ----<GameData> --------<Modname> ------------<Flags> ----------------<Parts> ----------------<Props> ----------------<Resources> ----------------<Sounds> ----------------<Spaces> --------<Next Modname> ...... While this mod follows this structure I note also that it has placed some items in the root level <GameData> - should this be happening or is this mod putting things in places it shouldnt, I would have thought that the whole point of moving new version mods to their own directory was to keep things separate so that they couldn't be accidentally overwritten and break compatibility - I.E if the romfarrer.dll got updated by another release by romfarrer then in its current location it would be overwritten but if it was in <GameData\ISS ver. 0.05\Plugins> it would be left intact leaving the new version to operate independently of this mod without breaking it. Another thought is a textfile that states that ISS Ver. 0.05 is dependent on this version of the dll so it does not get over written but here I think we are getting away from the principle of K.I.S.S - Keep It Simple Stupid. Can someone direct me to a place that says how the mods should now be structured?

@Falloutboy more than happy to teach you blender mate, it's pretty easy once you spend a good week or so going over hotkeys and such as Hooji said.

Hi, Is Kerbal meant to be Earthlike and have similar conditions to Earth such as the level of gravity? I am asking as I built a simple rocket and using Mechjeb told it to limit its acceleration to 4m/s which should be enough to counteract normal Earth gravity ; however it did nothing and only began to climb when I changed acceleration to 10m/s. Now having one foot in each world I happen to know how to convert metric and imperial measure. Earth Gravity = -10 fps There a 3'4" to 1 metre so therefore Earth gravity is 10/3'4" = 3m/s. Yet on Kerbal my craft needs 10m/s to overcome gravity at sea level - is my thinking floored or is kerbal a heavy gravity world? 10m/s = 3'4" per metre = 33'4" ( 33 feet four inches ) per second almost 3.4 x the gravity of Earth. Would really appreciate if someone could clear this up for me.

Hi Devogen, I liked your space station ring pack but never had much luck getting the parts to work, possibly due to changes in KSP itself as it seems you are forced to build a rocket in the VAB - but would very much like to use them, is there any possibility that you could dig them out, place a connection point in the middle of the detailed hub top and bottom? It would also be very nice if we could have a version that unlike the fixed one could rotate around the centre axis. Cheers and keep up the good work. I myself am planning my own small mod - my first task is learning to use blender to make the 3 small models I need which in itself is no small task.

r4m0n: I had a Hohhman tranfer the on the 18/04th which would have involved my Kerbalnauts having to canibilze each other to survive - is there any way you could get Mechjeb to determine that anything longer than 24 hours is a bit rediculous and make alternate plans. Trying to select a target hub can be very difficult, could you possibly make it that a list of hubs on the target vehicle is shown when you target the vehicle for rendezvouz. I have noticed also that mechjeb when using RCS uses a lot of monopropellent, just a thought and I don't know if it will help or not but if you only calculated the vector samples every 3 cycles of mechjeb and then averaged the difference for bursting the RCS it might cut down on the amount of RCS required. - Just a thought, the innards of Mechjeb although I know what its doing are far beyound my comprehension. Cheers. BTW love Mechjeb its helped me learn a lot. Looking forward to the latest version.

I to was having problems with docking large craft until I discovered that I had been missing setting which docking port to connect to, it would be handy if mechjeb had a mechinizim to select the destination docking port or at least would refuse to operate the docking computer with an error if you hadn't selected one. I did have an autopilot issue like the one you described though which in the end used of 3x750 tanks of monopropellent before the craft drifted into my solar array wrecking the absolutely massive station I had built. I have also noticed that mechjeb just chews through the monopropellent in normal use SAS on or off.

Just for reference so that nobody else strikes the same issue, after it was announced today that the forums were back up I attempted to login with a browser called Commodo Dragon, it's meant to be a secure browser - but when attempting to login here it always takes you to the image showing the forums under maintenance, if however I use another browser like Internut Explorer I can login perfectly fine. So if you are having problems logging in a browser change may fix it for you, I also noticed that I had a browser issue with Dragon and rebooting my router. It seems that the certificate Dragon ( and possibly others ) is providing causes problems.