[1.9.x] QuizTech Aero Pack Continued

[Stone Blue]

23 hours ago, TMasterson5 said:

For those that wanted radars and such in cockpits, here ya go:

[Link snipped by moderator due to violation of mod posting guidelines. See note below.]

Download, then copy paste into your gamedata and hit the replace option in the dialog box that comes up. That will replace the cfg's with these that include radars and weapons managers. Also if I missed something that you wanted to see just let me know!

Thanx for doing this...
However, wouldnt it be better to make these MM patches, rather than edited, replacement cfgs?... Just thinking, that way, they could go in a seperate folder, so they could be installed/removed without messing up the actual QuizTech install... And also, if someone goes to uninstall the BD mod(s), and forgets to replace these with the originals, these will clutter the logs with "module not found" errors... vOv
 

[linuxgurugamer]

23 hours ago, TMasterson5 said:

For those that wanted radars and such in cockpits, here ya go:

[Link snipped by moderator due to violation of mod posting guidelines. See note below.]

Download, then copy paste into your gamedata and hit the replace option in the dialog box that comes up. That will replace the cfg's with these that include radars and weapons managers. Also if I missed something that you wanted to see just let me know!

I would be willing to include  optional patches, but this is just plain wrong, and I do not approve of these patches.

This is going to create nightmares for me in maintenance, and ould even (if it gets bad enough) to make me consider dropping this mod 

[TMasterson5]

3 hours ago, Stone Blue said:

Thanx for doing this...
However, wouldnt it be better to make these MM patches, rather than edited, replacement cfgs?... Just thinking, that way, they could go in a seperate folder, so they could be installed/removed without messing up the actual QuizTech install... And also, if someone goes to uninstall the BD mod(s), and forgets to replace these with the originals, these will clutter the logs with "module not found" errors... vOv
 

I dont know how to begin making an MM patch for it. This was the quickest and easiest way to go about doing it. Also that just adds yet another folder to peoples game data to be forgotten about. And that doesnt actually effect anything sooooo.....

3 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:

I would be willing to include  optional patches, but this is just plain wrong, and I do not approve of these patches.

This is going to create nightmares for me in maintenance, and ould even (if it gets bad enough) to make me consider dropping this mod 

You can not approve all you want I suppose. The bottom line is that you said you didnt wanna do it, so I did it instead. 

 

It doesnt actually affect you at all in any way, so youre complaining for zero reason here... But if you want to drop it I am 100% confident someone else will pick it up, so you do you man! 

[linuxgurugamer]

3 minutes ago, TMasterson5 said:

I dont know how to begin making an MM patch for it. This was the quickest and easiest way to go about doing it. Also that just adds yet another folder to peoples game data to be forgotten about. And that doesnt actually effect anything sooooo.....

You can not approve all you want I suppose. The bottom line is that you said you didnt wanna do it, so I did it instead. 

 

It doesnt actually affect you at all in any way, so youre complaining for zero reason here... But if you want to drop it I am 100% confident someone else will pick it up, so you do you man! 

By replacing files, you make it impossible for me to support this anymore.  If you used a MM patch, then it's supportable.  In order to support this, I will now have to ask which set of cfg files they are running.  And frankly, I don't have time for this.

You're right, I can't stop you.  But I can stop supporting this.  Given that no one else had stepped up, to support this or about 70 other mods that I'm supporting, I'm not confident that someone else will pick it up.

A MM patch doesn't need another folder.  It's a config file, just like anything else.  And maybe, if you asked, someone might be willing to help you with the patch.

Edited July 4, 2017 by linuxgurugamer

[RobForrest]

Linux it is literally as simple as adding

"MODULE
    {
      name = ModuleRadar
      omnidirectional = false
      scanRotationSpeed = 120
      directionalFieldOfView = 120
      lockRotationAngle = 4
      canRecieveRadarData = true
      minSignalThreshold = 80
      minLockedSignalThreshold = 100
      rwrThreatType = 1
      maxLocks = 3
      multiLockFOV = 40
      canTrackWhileScan = true
    }"

to the config, if someone doesn't have BD armory, it doesn't do anything and the part works as normal, if they do, they have radar, which isn't a weapon FYI.  There is nothing for you to maintain.

[TMasterson5]

1 hour ago, linuxgurugamer said:

By replacing files, you make it impossible for me to support this anymore.  If you used a MM patch, then it's supportable.  In order to support this, I will now have to ask which set of cfg files they are running.  And frankly, I don't have time for this.

You're right, I can't stop you.  But I can stop supporting this.  Given that no one else had stepped up, to support this or about 70 other mods that I'm supporting, I'm not confident that someone else will pick it up.

A MM patch doesn't need another folder.  It's a config file, just like anything else.  And maybe, if you asked, someone might be willing to help you with the patch.

you dont though? They are exactly the same +/- like 10 lines that wont affect the way the rest of the cfg works at all and my plan was to keep them updated if you update on your end, however I dont really foresee you even actually doing that since you dont really seem to want to maintain the mod anyways.

[snip] We all pitch in and maintain and make mods where we can, [snip] all youre doing is maintaining and not adding.completing the mod.... You keep thinking that, Ive always found that where there is one willing to support it there is more.

 

Okay so say I make this mm patch, would it not then need a folder to sit in in gameData? Assuming people dont just want a billion text files sitting in their gameData which is far worse. I could have asked for that yeah, or, I could just do what I did myself and the turn around is faster, I dont have to rely on someone else for help, and the effect is exactly the same. [snip] This doesnt effect you at all and your continued complaining makes me think that really you just dont want to support the mod at all and are just looking for an out......

Edited July 4, 2017 by Snark
Ad hominem personal criticism removed

[linuxgurugamer]

1 hour ago, TMasterson5 said:

you dont though? They are exactly the same +/- like 10 lines that wont affect the way the rest of the cfg works at all and my plan was to keep them updated if you update on your end, however I dont really foresee you even actually doing that since you dont really seem to want to maintain the mod anyways.

[snip] We all pitch in and maintain and make mods where we can, [snip] all youre doing is maintaining and not adding.completing the mod.... You keep thinking that, Ive always found that where there is one willing to support it there is more.

Okay so say I make this mm patch, would it not then need a folder to sit in in gameData? Assuming people dont just want a billion text files sitting in their gameData which is far worse. I could have asked for that yeah, or, I could just do what I did myself and the turn around is faster, I dont have to rely on someone else for help, and the effect is exactly the same. [snip] This doesnt effect you at all and your continued complaining makes me think that really you just dont want to support the mod at all and are just looking for an out......

You can put the MM patch into the same folder as this mod.  It doesn't need it's own folder.

I'm maintaining this, and 70 others, and I've written about 10 of my own.  I think I have a right to be concerned about support.  I don't do 3d modeling, so for that, rely on other.

But.  Enough of this.  I offer this mod to you to maintain and support.  I use it myself, but don't need a hassle of wondering which set of cfg files someone has installed.  I have one mod with that issue already, and am working to get rid of the problem by writing a MM patch file for it.

[TMasterson5]

1 hour ago, linuxgurugamer said:

You can put the MM patch into the same folder as this mod.  It doesn't need it's own folder.

I'm maintaining this, and 70 others, and I've written about 10 of my own.  I think I have a right to be concerned about support.  I don't do 3d modeling, so for that, rely on other.

But.  Enough of this.  I offer this mod to you to maintain and support.  I use it myself, but don't need a hassle of wondering which set of cfg files someone has installed.  I have one mod with that issue already, and am working to get rid of the problem by writing a MM patch file for it.

The mod, that I dont have control over releases of in anyway?

 

IT REQUIRES NO SUPPORT. How are you not getting this? Ill make this simple:

step 1. I make and relase the cfg's

step 2. you update the mod

step 3. i grab your update and update the cfgs

step 4. i reupload the new cfg's

That is it, there is 0 need for you to do any extra work at all. For someone who claims to be so incredibly experienced with your 70+ mods. [snip]

Edited July 4, 2017 by Snark
Ad hominem personal criticism removed

[linuxgurugamer]

1 hour ago, TMasterson5 said:

The mod, that I dont have control over releases of in anyway?

 

IT REQUIRES NO SUPPORT. How are you not getting this? Ill make this simple:

step 1. I make and relase the cfg's

step 2. you update the mod

step 3. i grab your update and update the cfgs

step 4. i reupload the new cfg's

That is it, there is 0 need for you to do any extra work at all. For someone who claims to be so incredibly experienced with your 70+ mods. [snip]

[snip]

1. Here is what is going to happen, I've seen it before:
2. Player installs mod
3. Player installs your cfgs, replacing the cfgs in the mod
4. Player has a problem
5. Player post in thread asking for help, without saying that he installed your cfgs

(expletive-deleted)

So:  Do you want to take over the entire mod, and provide ALL the support for it, for two different sets of cfgs?

[RobForrest]

You clearly don't understand how radars and configs work then dude.

[TMasterson5]

[snip]

1 hour ago, linuxgurugamer said:

 

1. Here is what is going to happen, I've seen it before:
2. Player installs mod
3. Player installs your cfgs, replacing the cfgs in the mod
4. Player has a problem
5. Player post in thread asking for help, without saying that he installed your cfgs

(expletive-deleted)

So:  Do you want to take over the entire mod, and provide ALL the support for it, for two different sets of cfgs?

theyre the exact same cfg's in every way minus 10 lines that dont effect the game at all how are you still missing this? The only way anything changes is if people use BD, in which case it adds functions. If they dont use BD then those sections of the part simply wont load and nothing will change at all.

 

If I took over the mod the first thing I would do is support BD, since, ya know, it requires minimal effort to do and the mods cockpits are quite clearly military focused..... So no, because I would only need one set instead of being difficult about this whole thing

[snip]

Edited July 4, 2017 by Snark
Ad hominem personal criticism removed

[linuxgurugamer]

7 minutes ago, TMasterson5 said:

If I took over the mod the first thing I would do is support BD, since, ya know, it requires minimal effort to do and the mods cockpits are quite clearly military focused..... So no, because I would only need one set instead of being difficult about this whole thing

Be my guest.

I notice that you haven't taken me up on the offer.........wonder why?

[TMasterson5]

4 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

Be my guest.

I notice that you haven't taken me up on the offer.........wonder why?

You seem to forget that youre the one that the original mod maker gave permission to? If you have contact with him Ill be glad to take it off your hands, since youre too high and mighty for it apparently. If not then you might as well stop suggesting it as Im not trying to commit IP theft.

[linuxgurugamer]

2 minutes ago, TMasterson5 said:

You seem to forget that youre the one that the original mod maker gave permission to? If you have contact with him Ill be glad to take it off your hands, since youre too high and mighty for it apparently. If not then you might as well stop suggesting it as Im not trying to commit IP theft.

I suggest you re-read the first post:

Quote

License: CC-BY 4.0 International

 

[Snark]

Okay, folks, everyone take a step back and take a deep breath.  Various posts here have been pruned and/or redacted due to inappropriate content.  This is a forum for civil discussion, and rude / demeaning personal attacks have no place here.  You're perfectly welcome to disagree, but please do so like a mature adult.  Thank you.

There are several issues here.  Lengthy details below, but they can be summarized thus:

• Please be civil.
• Please don't tell other people what to do (backseat moderating).
• Please follow the rules about posting your own mod content.
• Mod authors and maintainers owe you nothing.  You're welcome to make requests, but not demands.  If the answer to your request is "no," then no means no, and that's that.
• This particular mod has a wide-open license that basically allows anyone to do anything they want.  So if there's anything you don't like about how the maintainer of this version is conducting his business, you're always free to go start your own thread and post your own mod (providing you follow the add-on posting rules, of course.)

Details below.  I'll start with the actual rules violations, then move on to some friendly advice about how to be a good forum citizen.

 

Issues about forum rules:

First, @TMasterson5:  I've removed the download link for the zip file you created, because it is in violation of the add-on posting rules.  Please take a moment to review them.  By distributing this zip file, you are, in effect, creating your own mod, which carries with it several obligations that you are failing to fulfill.  In particular, a mod must post a license, which you did not.  It's also not appropriate for you to be hijacking someone else's thread to post your own mod.  If you're releasing your own mod, you're welcome to do so, but put it in your own thread.

I've removed or redacted several posts in this thread, from various users, because they descended into insults and petty name-calling.  This is never okay (forum rule 2.2.d, 2.2.n).

I've also removed at least one post that was telling other people what to do.  Please, folks, don't do that, no matter how well-meant.  This is called "backseat moderation," and is also against forum rule 3.2.  It's not your place to tell people what not to do.  If you see someone behaving in a way that you believe is so inappropriate that it violates the forum rules, just report the post and let the moderator team decide on the matter.  It's what we're for.

 

Concerning being a "good citizen" on the forums:

Several people here seem to be laboring under a misapprehension.  Folks appear to be making some completely unwarranted (and flat-out inaccurate) assumptions:

• That the mod maintainer owes you (or anyone else) anything, at all.  He doesn't.  Not even slightly.  Like all mod authors and maintainers, he's spending his personal time, for free, to make this mod available to the community, for free.  Since he's not asking for anything, he doesn't owe you anything.  It's as simple as that.  It's fine to make a (polite) request, but you have no right at all to make a demand.  If the answer to your request is "no," for any reason (or no reason) at all, then "no means no" and that's the end of the matter.  He's not even under any obligation to explain or justify-- the fact that he has done so here is simply out of politeness, not due to any obligation on his part.
• That you know better than the mod maintainer what will or won't cause inconvenience to him.  He knows his own business better than you do.  If he says this will inconvenience him, that's the end of the matter.  If you think it's so easy, of course you're free to go create and/or maintain your own mod, just as he's doing here.  Nothing stopping you.

With that in mind, then, any further arguing on this particular point here is over the line.  You asked, he said no, there's your answer.  Done.

Aside from that matter, if anyone would like this BDArmory radar support to be available, there are several options open to you.  Let me begin by saying that @TMasterson5's proposed "solution" to this support-- i.e. to make a set of part .cfg files that people are supposed to install in-place and overwrite the existing configs-- is, indeed, a really bad idea.  It creates maintenance nightmares for mod authors, exactly as @linuxgurugamer describes, and there are better ways to do that.  It's also inconvenient to users, because it causes maintenance hassles any time a mod updates any of its versions.

Far and away the best way to accomplish what you want is with a ModuleManager patch.  It's dead simple.  You say,

2 hours ago, TMasterson5 said:

I dont know how to begin making an MM patch for it.

...except that it literally takes only a couple of minutes.  Let's say 5 minutes, to allow some time for looking at the MM instructions.  (Or you could get someone to help you-- there are lots of people who understand this stuff, since it's so easy and useful.)  The MM config is extraordinarily simple and intuitive, and is well-documented.  It would take just a few minutes of your time, in exchange for preventing all sorts of headaches both for the maintainer of this mod and for all the users.

That's how basically everyone does this kind of mod-patching.  It's the standard way that everyone uses, and makes life easier for everybody concerned.

This is just friendly advice, of course.  If you make your own mod and post it, you can do whatever you like and can have whatever installation instructions you want.  Only, if you choose to do it as you've described rather than the MM approach described above, be prepared for an endless procession of people posting in your mod thread, asking you why you can't do it as an MM patch and requesting that you please do that.

You seem to be minimizing and belittling the effort that @linuxgurugamer puts into maintaining this mod.  If you think it's so easy, why not take on ownership of the mod yourself?  He's generously offered to hand it over.  So, if you're not prepared to make the effort yourself, then you really have no grounds for criticizing the level of effort that LGG does or doesn't put into this.  If you don't like it, don't use it.  Or go make something yourself, as long as you follow the community rules for add-on posting, as LGG is doing here.

2 hours ago, TMasterson5 said:

You seem to forget that youre the one that the original mod maker gave permission to? If you have contact with him Ill be glad to take it off your hands, since youre too high and mighty for it apparently. If not then you might as well stop suggesting it as Im not trying to commit IP theft.

Thank you for your concern; however, this is actually not how it works, in this case.  As LGG points out, the license is clearly stated on the OP of this thread (as is the case with every mod, since it's a posting requirement).  If you'll look at the OP, you'll see that the license is CC-BY 4.0 International.  Here's a link, to save you some googling.  It's an extraordinarily permissive license that basically means anybody can do anything they want with the mod, including modifying it, and the only requirement is that the license of the derived work can't be any more restrictive.  So it's essentially not legally possible to "commit IP theft" here.  You can post your own complete version of this mod, if you want.  Or you could post a patch (I'd suggest MM, if you do this) designed to apply to this version.  Nothing stopping you.

 

That's basically it.  I appreciate your patience, everyone.  Re-opening the thread for business now, and I hope we can all behave ourselves like civil adults.  Thank you for your understanding.

[TMasterson5]

For anyone interested in that still, Ive created a new thread for this and several other mod tweaks Ive acquired over my modding time to avoid several things since clearly the powers at be know all and cant be wrong. So here is the link to the new page: 

Enjoy!

 

PS: Oh and btw @linuxgurugamer, youre welcome for getting that VTOL engine to work for you months ago since you couldnt, which, btw, you didnt even bother to say thank you for....... 

 

Peace out Quiztech continued peeps!

[Mecripp]

@linuxgurugamer  Please keep up the great work you do and much thanks to all the mods that let there work be picked up

Here is a MM for anyone that wants to use it @RobForrest @TMasterson5 if those lines is all you need this should work

Spoiler

@PART[quizTechMk1K10Cockpit]:NEEDS[BDArmory]
{

MODULE
    {
      name = ModuleRadar
      omnidirectional = false
      scanRotationSpeed = 120
      directionalFieldOfView = 120
      lockRotationAngle = 4
      canRecieveRadarData = true
      minSignalThreshold = 80
      minLockedSignalThreshold = 100
      rwrThreatType = 1
      maxLocks = 3
      multiLockFOV = 40
      canTrackWhileScan = true
    }
}

@PART[quizTechMk1EagleCockpit]:NEEDS[BDArmory]
{

MODULE
    {
      name = ModuleRadar
      omnidirectional = false
      scanRotationSpeed = 120
      directionalFieldOfView = 120
      lockRotationAngle = 4
      canRecieveRadarData = true
      minSignalThreshold = 80
      minLockedSignalThreshold = 100
      rwrThreatType = 1
      maxLocks = 3
      multiLockFOV = 40
      canTrackWhileScan = true
    }
}

@PART[quizTechMk2ThunderboltCockpit]:NEEDS[BDArmory]
{

MODULE
    {
      name = ModuleRadar
      omnidirectional = false
      scanRotationSpeed = 120
      directionalFieldOfView = 120
      lockRotationAngle = 4
      canRecieveRadarData = true
      minSignalThreshold = 80
      minLockedSignalThreshold = 100
      rwrThreatType = 1
      maxLocks = 3
      multiLockFOV = 40
      canTrackWhileScan = true
    }
}

@PART[mk2MedNose]:NEEDS[BDArmory]
{

MODULE
    {
      name = ModuleRadar
      omnidirectional = false
      scanRotationSpeed = 120
      directionalFieldOfView = 120
      lockRotationAngle = 4
      canRecieveRadarData = true
      minSignalThreshold = 80
      minLockedSignalThreshold = 100
      rwrThreatType = 1
      maxLocks = 3
      multiLockFOV = 40
      canTrackWhileScan = true
    }
}

 

[linuxgurugamer]

1 hour ago, TMasterson5 said:

For anyone interested in that still, Ive created a new thread for this and several other mod tweaks Ive acquired over my modding time to avoid several things since clearly the powers at be know all and cant be wrong. So here is the link to the new page: 

Enjoy!

 

PS: Oh and btw @linuxgurugamer, youre welcome for getting that VTOL engine to work for you months ago since you couldnt, which, btw, you didnt even bother to say thank you for....... 

 

Peace out Quiztech continued peeps!

From the changelog (which is earlier in the thread):

v1.3.8
- Fixed K-35B engine/wings, thanks @TMasterson5

 

sorry I didn't call it out in bolder letters.

And, regarding your mod tweaks, that's fine, but you need to put a license into the zip files which you provide for download.  I see the license in the README, but I'm pretty sure it needs to be in the download files themselves.

And, I'm curious, since @MeCripp so nicely provided you with a MM patch, why are you still providing the full cfg files in the QuicTechAero download file you have?  Why not do it as a patch?  Unfortunately, what you are doing is still going to cause me headaches.

 

Edited July 5, 2017 by linuxgurugamer

[jonathanmoon]

Ive got a small problem with the mod, not all parts are showing up. its a sandbox game so I cant be missing them because I havent done the research. in fact only the phenix hoverwings and the inline shielded dockingport are showing up. even after checking they werent empty files when I downloaded them and moved them into the correct folder for normal stock parts I still cant see the parts. Im afraid this isnt the first time some parts were missing, in 1.2.2 the hoverwing, liniar aerospike and cockpits were missing

[linuxgurugamer]

On 7/23/2017 at 2:02 PM, jonathanmoon said:

Ive got a small problem with the mod, not all parts are showing up. its a sandbox game so I cant be missing them because I havent done the research. in fact only the phenix hoverwings and the inline shielded dockingport are showing up. even after checking they werent empty files when I downloaded them and moved them into the correct folder for normal stock parts I still cant see the parts. Im afraid this isnt the first time some parts were missing, in 1.2.2 the hoverwing, liniar aerospike and cockpits were missing

How did you install this?  If you move them to different folders than they are in the zip file, it won't work.  When you say "correct folder for normal stock parts", you have me wondering where they actually are

Edited July 24, 2017 by linuxgurugamer

[maxminster2]

help me, i only have a mk2 docking thing,

twin engine and helicarrier one i read  the instructions and everything

 

Edited August 10, 2017 by maxminster2
the ,

[jonathanmoon]

if the part is an engine I put in the stock folder for engines, like that. I have tried unzipping and placing it in the gamedata folder like any other mod, no matter what I do I always miss parts

[linuxgurugamer]

On 8/20/2017 at 0:04 PM, jonathanmoon said:

if the part is an engine I put in the stock folder for engines, like that. I have tried unzipping and placing it in the gamedata folder like any other mod, no matter what I do I always miss parts

why on earth would you put something into the stock folder?

Please get me a log file, that's the only way I can help you

On 8/10/2017 at 7:06 AM, maxminster2 said:

help me, i only have a mk2 docking thing,

twin engine and helicarrier one i read  the instructions and everything

 

Log file, please

[jonathanmoon]

I dont get chrash reports, so how can I get you the log file?

[linuxgurugamer]

Well, try reading my signature to start.

Here, I'll help you:

Read this BEFORE asking for support: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/83212-how-to-get-support-read-first/