Snark

[1.7.x] MissingHistory v1.7.3: Handy parts to complement Making History.

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

@Snark

The IVA on the MK2POD_IVA was too far back and was causing visual issues (ie: the floor/bulkhead was in front of the Kerbals' eyes).

I've added an offset so that it will be visible properly. This was causing problems both on the flight scene, where the portraits are shown, as well as when showing the see-through of the vessel

PR is here:

https://github.com/KSPSnark/MissingHistory/pull/5

Edited by linuxgurugamer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

MM compatibility patch for MissingHistory and ReStock/ReStock+.
Applies ReStock textures to the rescaled parts from Missing History. Hides 303 and T15 engines if ReStock+ is installed.
 

Patch 1 - for ReStock (save as something like "MissingHistory_Restock_Compatibility.cfg"):

Spoiler

//Compatibility patch for Missing History & ReStock

//NoseCone parts seem to get the right models applied without any patch.
//Including patches here just in case.
@PART[pointyNoseConeA_1p5]:AFTER[MissingHistory]:NEEDS[ReStock]
{
	-mesh = dummy
	@MODEL
	{
		model = ReStock/Assets/Structural/restock-nosecone-125-2
	}

}

@PART[pointyNoseConeB_1p5]:AFTER[MissingHistory]:NEEDS[ReStock]
{
	-mesh = dummy
	@MODEL
	{
		model = ReStock/Assets/Structural/restock-nosecone-125-2
	}
}

//EnginePlate2 not touched by ReStock. No compatibility patch needed.
//FLA10_adapter patch just adds fuel. No compatibility patch needed.
//SmallTank not touched by ReStock. No compatibility patch needed.

@PART[probeStack_1p5]:AFTER[MissingHistory]:NEEDS[ReStock]
{
	-mesh = dummy
	@MODEL
	{
		-model = dummy
		model = ReStock/Assets/Command/restock-drone-core-125-1
	}
}

@PART[reactionWheel_1p5]:AFTER[MissingHistory]:NEEDS[ReStock&!IndicatorLights]
{
	-mesh = dummy
	@MODEL
	{
		-model = dummy
		model = ReStock/Assets/Control/restock-reactionwheel-125-1
	}
}

@PART[ServiceBay_187]:AFTER[ReStock]:NEEDS[MissingHistory]
{
    @MODEL
    {
        -model = dummy
        model = ReStock/Assets/Payload/restock-service-bay-125-1
    }
    //Modules and variants copied directly from ReStock service bay. Credit to Nertea et al.
    @MODULE[ModuleAnimateGeneric]
    {
        @animationName = DoorsOpen
    }
    @MODULE[ModuleSeeThroughObject]
    {
        @transformName = NewBay125
    }
    MODULE
    {
        name = ModulePartVariants
        useMultipleDragCubes = false
        baseVariant = Opaque
        VARIANT
        {
            name = Opaque
            displayName = #LOC_Restock_variant-service-bay-opaque
            primaryColor = #ffffff
            secondaryColor = #ffffff
            GAMEOBJECTS
            {
                ServiceBay125_Opaque = true
                ServiceBay125 = false
                ServiceBay125_Transparent = false
                FloorColliders = true
            }
        }
        VARIANT
        {
            name = Transparent
            displayName = #LOC_Restock_variant-service-bay-transparent
            primaryColor = #ffffff
            secondaryColor = #999999
            GAMEOBJECTS
            {
                ServiceBay125_Opaque = false
                ServiceBay125 = false
                ServiceBay125_Transparent = true
                FloorColliders = true
            }
        }
        VARIANT
        {
            name = Hollow
            displayName = #LOC_Restock_variant-service-bay-hollow
            primaryColor = #ffffff
            secondaryColor = #000000
            GAMEOBJECTS
            {
                ServiceBay125_Opaque = false
                ServiceBay125 = true
                ServiceBay125_Transparent = false
                FloorColliders = false
            }
        }
    }
}

//Size1p5_Size2_Adapter_02 isn't touched by ReStock. No compatibility patch needed.
//Size3_Size2_Tank patch is deprecated.
//Size3LargeTank patch isn't applied when ReStock is present.
//Size3MediumTank patch isn't applied when ReStock is present.
//Size3SmallTank patch isn't applied when ReStock is present.

@PART[solidBooster_1p5]:AFTER[MissingHistory]:NEEDS[ReStock]
{
	-mesh  = dummy
	@MODEL
	{
		-model = dummy
		model = ReStock/Assets/Engine/restock-engine-srb-thumper-1
	}
}

@PART[xenonTank_1p5]:AFTER[MissingHistory]:NEEDS[ReStock]
{
	-mesh  = dummy
	@MODEL
	{
		-model = dummy
		model = ReStock/Assets/FuelTank/restock-fueltank-xenon-125-1
	}
}

@PART[battery_1p5]:AFTER[MissingHistory]:NEEDS[ReStock&!IndicatorLights]
{
	-mesh = dummy
	@MODEL
	{
		-model = dummy
		model = ReStock/Assets/Electrical/restock-battery-125-1
	}
}

 

 

Patch 2 - for ReStock Plus (save as something like "MissingHistory_ReStockPlus_Compatibility.cfg"):

Spoiler

//Compatibility patch for MissingHistory and ReStockPlus
//Hide 303 and T15 engines if ReStock+ is installed, to prevent duplicates.
@PART[liquidEngine303]:AFTER[MissingHistory]:NEEDS[ReStockPlus]
{
	@category = none
	@subcategory = 0
	@TechRequired = Unresearchable
	%TechHidden = true
}

@PART[liquidEngineT15]:AFTER[MissingHistory]:NEEDS[ReStockPlus]
{
	@category = none
	@subcategory = 0
	@TechRequired = Unresearchable
	%TechHidden = true
}

 

 

Before:

twfhBzD.png?1

 

After:

yGzoFdO.png

Not pictured:
Aerodynamic nose cones, as they seemed to work without the patch anyway.
Parts that aren't touched by ReStock. (If I missed any parts that are touched by ReStock, I'm sure someone will let me know...)

For the uninitiated, to use these patches, copy the text from the code blocks above into text files, give them sensible names ending in .cfg, and place them in your GameData folder.
 

Edited by UnanimousCoward
clarity; making things actually work; making other things actually work

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Hi I tried your MM patch and it seems to break the 1.875 service bay doors... @UnanimousCoward

tyvr5BY.png

KSP 1.7.0 with Making History and No Breaking Ground

Edited by EvanR
specify ksp version

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, EvanR said:

Hi I tried your MM patch and it seems to break the 1.875 service bay doors... @UnanimousCoward

KSP 1.7.0 with Making History and No Breaking Ground

Aye, that's what a complete lack of testing will get you...
Try it now. I've updated the patch in the post above. Should be fully functional now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sweet those changes make the 1.875 service bay look right and act right. @UnanimousCoward

Unfortunately I have two pugs and two valiants in the tech tree and in the VAB:

gtxGsfE.png

This is with the original patch and the updated one

The one with the variants is better IMO, not sure which mod it came from, this is all getting very confusing : )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, EvanR said:

Sweet those changes make the 1.875 service bay look right and act right. @UnanimousCoward

Unfortunately I have two pugs and two valiants in the tech tree and in the VAB:

gtxGsfE.png

This is with the original patch and the updated one

The one with the variants is better IMO, not sure which mod it came from, this is all getting very confusing : )

The Pug is in Restock+, and Restock has a Valiant model. I don't have this problem, are you sure you have the latest versions? They have compatibility patches for each other, I believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I have latest ReStock ReStock+ and MissingHistory. ReStock+ and MissingHistory both contain the engines T15 Valiant 303 Pug. But neither mod has provision to hide their version. Hence the bottom part of your patch...

Yeah latest versions, brand new save, both parts show in R & D and can be unlocked and used together. I'm not sure why that part of the patch isn't working. Maybe there is something up with my Module Manager cache or something

Removing those duplicates was the whole reason I was here xD

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, EvanR said:

Yes I have latest ReStock ReStock+ and MissingHistory. ReStock+ and MissingHistory both contain the engines T15 Valiant 303 Pug. But neither mod has provision to hide their version. Hence the bottom part of your patch...

Yeah latest versions, brand new save, both parts show in R & D and can be unlocked and used together. I'm not sure why that part of the patch isn't working. Maybe there is something up with my Module Manager cache or something

Removing those duplicates was the whole reason I was here xD

 

For some mysterious reason I can't wrap my head around, that patch to hide the engines will not work when it's at the end of the previous patch file. It fails to apply the patches to those engines. (I swear it worked yesterday when I wrote it...)

But it works just fine if you cut and paste the exact same code into a separate file of its own. (My MM-fu is very limited, so I have no idea why. Any explanations would be most welcome. Perhaps I'll wander over to the MM thread and ask about it.)

I've updated the code above so there's two separate patch files now. At least on my install, this works just fine. If it doesn't work for you, I'm all out of suggestions...

Edit:--

I figured out what the problem was. (Syntax error, obviously.) Should be all fixed now. 

Edited by UnanimousCoward
own stupidity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It finally works. Just to reiterate what happened:

Removing the duplicate parts (second config file above) will not work unless those patches are in a file by themselves. Will reproduce the file here:

@PART[liquidEngine303]:AFTER[MissingHistory]:NEEDS[ReStockPlus]
{
    @category = none
    @subcategory = 0
    @TechRequired = Unresearcheable
    %TechHidden = true
}

@PART[liquidEngineT15]:AFTER[MissingHistory]:NEEDS[ReStockPlus]
{
    @category = none
    @subcategory = 0
    @TechRequired = Unresearcheable
    %TechHidden = true
}

Thanks to @UnanimousCoward for that and let's hope that either MissingHistory and ReStockPlus incorporates this into their distribution.

 

One thing came to mind while struggling with this. Aren't MissingHistory and ReStockPlus aiming for the same sort of purpose, hence the slight overlap. Wouldn't it make sense to merge them into the same part pack? Thanks to MissingHistory it's clear many things are missing from ReStockPlus. Would have saved some headache here for user for sure. Alternatively agree which parts should be introduced by which mod, i.e. which one "has ownership" so there is no overlap. Just a thought don't hate me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, EvanR said:

It finally works. Just to reiterate what happened:

Removing the duplicate parts (second config file above) will not work unless those patches are in a file by themselves. Will reproduce the file here:

 

Actually, it should work fine if you combine them into one file. Turned out there was a superfluous curly bracket floating around, which borked the thing. I fixed the syntax above, but I couldn't be bothered to edit the post again to combine them back into one file. 

But I'm glad it's working for you. And if @Snark wants to roll it into Missing History, that's cool. (I can do a PR on Github if that's the preferred method.)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@EvanR and @UnanimousCoward thanks for putting in the work!

I'll look into adding this.  Unfortunately I need to do some testing and what-not before rolling it in, and my KSP time is a bit constrained right now, so it may be a few weeks before I can take action.  :(  Sorry if that sounds like a cop-out, I hate to leave you hanging, but IRL is IRL and not much I can do about that.

But please rest assured that I haven't forgotten-- I'm motivated to want MissingHistory to play nice with ReStock, and am really grateful that someone has stepped up and figured out the necessary.  I'll get on this as soon as I can.  It'll just be a while, is all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually I tried to combine the "final" two versions into one file and again it did not work. I tried to detect what bug you found but couldn't, so maybe that curly brace is still there somewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Double-checked and all the braces are balanced. No extras.

That's so weird. I can't see any reason why it would need to be in separate files.

Alternatively – if you don't already have any craft in your save that are using the Missing History versions of the 303 or T15, – the following code will nuke the parts completely. I have this block in the same file as the first patch, andf it works fine for me. (You'll lose any ships that do have either of those engines, though.)

//Kills 303 and T15 engines
-PART[liquidEngine303]:FINAL{}
-PART[liquidEngineT15]:FINAL{}

 

@Snark IRL comes first, of course. I'm just glad to be able to contribute in some way. I've been using a number of your mods for ages. They really add to the game experience.

The only visual issue I came across was that the texture for the battery is a bit horizontally stretched due to the scaling. The part with the plug sockets looks a bit too wide. If you change the vertical scaling of that duplicated part to 1.5, it resolves the issue (1.25 doesn't look too bad either), but I didn't want to do that in this patch in case it had bad effects on existing craft.

Edited by UnanimousCoward

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, UnanimousCoward said:

Double-checked and all the braces are balanced. No extras.

That's so weird. I can't see any reason why it would need to be in separate files.

Alternatively – if you don't already have any craft in your save that are using the Missing History versions of the 303 or T15, – the following code will nuke the parts completely. I have this block in the same file as the first patch, andf it works fine for me. (You'll lose any ships that do have either of those engines, though.)


//Kills 303 and T15 engines
-PART[liquidEngine303]:FINAL{}
-PART[liquidEngineT15]:FINAL{}

 

@Snark IRL comes first, of course. I'm just glad to be able to contribute in some way. I've been using a number of your mods for ages. They really add to the game experience.

The only visual issue I came across was that the texture for the battery is a bit horizontally stretched due to the scaling. The part with the plug sockets looks a bit too wide. If you change the vertical scaling of that duplicated part to 1.5, it resolves the issue (1.25 doesn't look too bad either), but I didn't want to do that in this patch in case it had bad effects on existing craft.

Why not scale down the 2.5m variant? Afaik the battery should be available in both sizes by ReStock. Could reduce stretchmarks?

Edit: Ignore me if I'm not making sense. I should be in bed...

Edited by Jognt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Jognt said:

Why not scale down the 2.5m variant? Afaik the battery should be available in both sizes by ReStock. Could reduce stretchmarks?

Edit: Ignore me if I'm not making sense. I should be in bed...

Haven't checked, but I'm pretty sure that it would have the same issue if you want to keep the part with the same dimensions that it has now.

If the scaling of the x, y and z dimensions isn't consistent, the image gets stretched. The only remedies are to change the part scaling or modify the image. 

Changing the scaling will (I think) cause issues with people's existing craft that use that part, and the licence for ReStock doesn't permit modifying the images, which is obviously entirely fair given the effort that went into creating them.

Honestly, the stretching is not that bad, though. I can live with it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, UnanimousCoward said:

The only visual issue I came across was that the texture for the battery is a bit horizontally stretched due to the scaling.

Yes, that's unavoidable due to the anisotropic scaling.

18 hours ago, UnanimousCoward said:

If you change the vertical scaling of that duplicated part to 1.5, it resolves the issue

Yes, but it introduces another problem, which is far worse (for me, and since it's my mod, my tastes are what's relevant here) ;) ... doing that would make it completely visually indistinguishable from the Z-1K battery in the parts list.

I hate parts that look identical in the parts list of the VAB.  I can never keep straight which is which.  I want it to be a slightly different shape than the Z-1K so that they look different.  Plus, making it 1.5 times taller would be inconsistent and therefore unambiguously wrong (in my personal OCD universe where consistency is important):  the height of the Z200, Z1K and Z4K batteries are all about the same, so clearly that is the correct height for a stack-mounted battery and I am not going to make the Z2K be the "odd man out" there.

Yes, it means the texture is a bit stretched, but for me that's a tiny minor wart that is of far less significance than, 1. being consistent height with the others, and 2. being visually distinguishable in the parts tab.

If someone would like to step up and supply a non-stretched stockalike texture for the Z2K-- emphasis on "stockalike", I mean really stockalike, not "prettier"-- then I'll happily look at incorporating that.  :)  Won't be me, because I've got the artistic talent of a concussed bee.  In the meantime, the stretched texture is something I can live with.

16 hours ago, Jognt said:

Why not scale down the 2.5m variant?

I considered that option when I was first putting things together, but decided not to, for a couple of reasons.  First, it wouldn't solve the stretching problem-- would just flip it around and you'd have it vertically stretched rather than horizontally.  Second, that would bring along the Z4K's fancy control-panel-ish looking thing, which I don't want; for me that's a Z4K thing, and I view the Z2K as being more "spiritually akin" to the Z1K.  Besides, the extra detail in the "control panel" would call even more attention to the stretched texture.

22 hours ago, EvanR said:

Wouldn't it make sense to merge them into the same part pack? Thanks to MissingHistory it's clear many things are missing from ReStockPlus. Would have saved some headache here for user for sure. Alternatively agree which parts should be introduced by which mod, i.e. which one "has ownership" so there is no overlap. Just a thought don't hate me

Of course no hate, no worries on that score!  :)  Always happy to hear ideas and suggestions, even if they're ones I choose not to adopt.  There have been plenty of times when users of my mods have proposed original ideas that are great, and make me smack my forehead and mutter "why the heck didn't I think of that," and which I then choose to incorporate into the mod.  So brainstorming is always welcome.  ;)

In this particular case, though:  no, not gonna do that, because (and I mean this is the friendliest, most welcoming way, please don't take this as criticism) it's an absolutely awful, terrible idea from my perspective.  Not a dumb idea on its own, it simply would be completely antithetical to what I want for this mod.

ReStock is gorgeous, I'm sure... but it is hugely disruptive, it completely "repaves" the game, and I do not want to run it myself.  Nor does everyone else, necessarily.  Not everyone who's running MissingHistory wants to run ReStock.  Some do, sure, but not all.

The purpose of MissingHistory is to supply new things, not to tinker with all the existing things (other than a couple of new models from Porkjet that I particularly liked).  I like the look of the stock game, and don't want to replace all the stock models.  Furthermore, my understanding is that ReStock isn't "simply" a reskin, but it also actually introduces new parts and such, and it does some non-standard patching mechanisms for performance reasons, hand-rolling its own override mechanism for that rather than using the traditional ModuleManager-style approach.

None of those are necessarily bad things.  It's a major tour de force, and I don't mean to imply any criticism of it, even slightly.  But adopting it is a pretty major change to one's game, and is very much a major "lifestyle choice" on the part of the KSP player.  I'm sure it's wonderful... but it's not for everyone.  And, in particular, it's not for me, just because of my own personal tastes.

If these two things were bundled together, it would mean that nobody could get the "missing" stuff (which is what this mod is all about) without bringing along a truckload of other stuff for the ride (ReStock).  Which would completely defeat the purpose of this mod.

The point of MissingHistory is to be low-key.  It adds a few new parts, that's all.  It leaves stock parts alone, other than reskinning a couple of stock engines, and it's very scrupulously careful to make sure that it's only a reskin without affecting part geometry or any engine stats, so that it can be cleanly uninstalled if a player changes their minds.

TL;DR:  ReStock and MissingHistory do completely different things, and serve completely different purposes, and are targeted at users with completely different requirements.  So they simply don't belong in the same box.  They need to stay packaged separately, and will stay that way.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The similarity is with ReStockPlus (not ReStock) which adds new missing parts (including two that MissingHistory also adds), but you are right that it (ReStockPlus) also has a patch to make some SRBs gimbal and modifies the volume stat of the oscar-B fuel tank. Other than that, the two mods are directed in mostly the same direction. It's a bit miraculous that they only overlap in two porkjet parts. But I understand your point

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Snark said:

It leaves stock parts alone, other than reskinning a couple of stock engines

I wish you'd have stayed away from that. Why do that in the first place? The idea about Missing History, as per my understanding, is about to add parts that should have been included in MH but aren't. Reskinning parts that are pure old stock, not even part of MH, makes in this context no sense to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, VoidSquid said:

I wish you'd have stayed away from that. Why do that in the first place? The idea about Missing History, as per my understanding, is about to add parts that should have been included in MH but aren't. Reskinning parts that are pure old stock, not even part of MH, makes in this context no sense to me.

It made more sense back when Porkjets textures were also in MH as his parts overhaul is missing from KSP release history. (See what I did there?)

Though I agree that Missing History essentially has “parts missing in making history” and “bits of porkjets overhaul” in its scope, which can feel weird. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, VoidSquid said:

I wish you'd have stayed away from that. Why do that in the first place?

Well, for the answer to that, you could go read the OP of this thread (the "Why would anyone want this" section), where I made a point of saying exactly what I was doing and why, if you were so inclined.

But to elaborate, I did it for a variety of reasons:

  • Because they were part and parcel with the other Porkjet parts (the Valiant and Pug), and it bugged me for them to have a different "look" from those.
  • And because this was happening back when Squad was giving a lot of other parts a visual revamp, and all the Making History engines had a fairly updated look to them, and I thought the Reliant and Swivel looked a bit old and clunky and I liked Porkjet's version better.
  • And because I thought (correctly, as it turns out) that most other folks would like it, too.
  • And because it's completely transparent and harmless because it doesn't affect their stats or their node geometry in any way, so it's a totally "safe" substitution.
  • And because I like it, so since it's my mod, I do what I want.  Bear in mind that any time any modder ever releases anything, he has no way of knowing if anyone's actually gonna download it.  It turns out that MissingHistory has been a runaway smash hit, but I had no way of knowing that when I wrote it-- for all I knew, maybe two or three people would download it and it would end up being mostly just my private thing.  In which case the smart thing to do is obviously to make it the way I, personally, like it.  Same as with all of my mods.
  • And because no other mods existed that did this in a way that I liked, without bringing a bunch of other baggage along for the ride.
  • And because I know that not everyone likes the same thing, and (being a considerate, thoughtful person) I like to enable other people's play styles where possible, even when it's different from mine, even though (like any modder) I'm under no obligation to do so.  Therefore (as I usually do) I made the effort to factor the config files in the mod so that it's trivially easy (just a couple of mouse clicks to delete a couple of files) to remove the reskin, if anyone happens not to like it.  It's literally less than ten seconds of effort.  If you don't like 'em, don't use em.

So that's why.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just thinking about the Swivel and the Reliant, just those two, nothing else.
Plus, as Squad, with almost every update, is "modernizing" the textures/look of old parts, I'd expect them to "update" those two engines soon as well. The less sense it makes to me to include a change of these stock engines in this mod. 
Sure, I could disable them (which I did), and disable the config files for them in other mods (Real Plume as per my setup), but why would I want to have that extra work in the first place if I simply want to have additional parts that sould but aren't in the MH expansion? Why not put changes to stock part in a separate mod?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Now our posts crossed each other, Snark, lol :)

As per my understanding - see the IL mod - you did what you wanted to have, and let others like me participate from the mod. Make no mistake, I'm more than grateful!
Just because I have my own line of thinking and reasoning makes your point not less valid in any capacity. You did what you wanted to do, and I truly hope you continue with that!

How boring would the world be if all of us would have the same taste, the same opinion.

It just happened that I don't like your decision to modify stock engines. And this is foremost and by all means just my personal preference to like it or not. :)

Knowing you just a little bit, I'm pretty sure you won't be "offended" by someone just having a different opinion, and why would you? We aren't little kids anymore, hehe :)

Edited by VoidSquid
Silly typos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, VoidSquid said:

Plus, as Squad, with almost every update, is "modernizing" the textures/look of old parts, I'd expect them to "update" those two engines soon as well. The less sense it makes to me to include a change of these stock engines in this mod.

  • Date of MissingHistory's release:  March 13, 2018, i.e. 15 months ago.
  • Today's date:  June 5, 2019.
  • Number of new models for Swivel and Reliant that Squad has released during that time:  Zero.
  • Number of announcements that Squad has made that they intend to reskin those engines:  Zero.
  • The earliest date that Squad would be at all likely to reskin them, even if they did decide to do so:  Probably three months or so from now, if Squad sticks to their quarterly release cycle.  But bear in mind that there are a lot of other engines crying out for reskins (e.g. Skipper, Mainsail, etc.), so even if Squad continues their gradual reskin, there's no guarantee that the Swivel and Reliant will be in the next one.  So it could easily be six months or more from now, if ever.

So obviously I made the right choice, by my lights.  I've had the last 15 months playing with models that I like better than the stock ones (and, from the majority of feedback I've received about the decisions, most of my users like that, too.)  And probably have at least another three months in that state, possibly considerably more.

And it was very little effort to add them, since Porkjet did the real work.  I would have added it even if I knew it would only last three months.

And if anyone doesn't like it, it's two mouse clicks to delete the reskin.

And if-and-when Squad ever does reskin those engines, it's trivial for me to remove the reskin at that time.  This has, in fact, already happened:  the original release of MissingHistory had Porkjet's reskin of the Terrier in it, too. Many months after I did that, Squad came out with a revamp of the Terrier (much to my delight), so I happily removed the Terrier reskin from MissingHistory since it was no longer needed.

If that were to happen with the Swivel and Reliant too, I'd be delighted.  It's not as though I want to reskin them; I want the stock game to just have models that I like.  So I view this as an easy, low-effort band-aid solution to tide me over until such time as Squad gets around to those engines.

 

But all of that is just a bunch of words.  What it boils down to is this:

  • It's there because I like it, for a variety of reasons that I've done you the courtesy of explaining here, though naturally I was under no obligation to do so.
  • It's also the case that most of my users like that, too, which tells me that it was the right decision even apart from my own preferences.
  • It's also the case that it's no skin off your nose if you don't like it, because you can just fix the problem with literally two mouse clicks and then it will do exactly what you want.
  • And the fact that you can fix it with just two mouse clicks, without having to do inconvenient things like hacking around in config files, is precisely because I anticipated that there might be users with preferences such as your own, so went ahead and made the effort (way back when I first released) to make sure that it's as easy as possible for you to have what you want.  Because you're my user, too, and I care about your game experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Tonka Crash said:

It's Snark's mod

Ofc it is, and it should be no other way.
Just read my last post, you just did type faster than I can :)

Snark, do me a favor please: stop justifying and explaining yourself, ok? It is YOUR mod, as it should be, YOU made it the way YOU like it, and this is exactly how it should be. KSP is our common passion, we both have more often than not to do what others want (aka work, customers, etc.), but please, not here, not in KSP. You put your passion, your energy in this game, this community. Would you do the same if forced, to please others?

I just happen not to like one of your choices, that's all. So what?

Edited by VoidSquid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.