KSPFactory - part.cfg Config file editor

[Capt'n Skunky]

- KSP Loader function (select the parts you want to use, load the game... to reduce load time and number of parts in VAB)

Rather than try to start making it a multipurpose tool that duplicates existing programs, you should stick to your original scope of a config editor. I\'m not trying to tell you what to do, it just seems that your starting to experience mission creep.

Arrr!

Capt\'n Skunky

[imdying]

Scoping points for this project include:

- Anything that a part modder might find useful

- Management of large numbers of parts (typically a modder has all of everybody elses parts, as they love parts!)

The loader functionality is an extension of the first and second points; a modder wants to be able to load as much or as little of his part library in order to test things, without waiting any longer than they have to, because of more than the required number of parts to load.

At least, when I\'m trying to view parts in the VAB (rather than the modelling program or PartsLab), that\'s how I like it, so that\'s what I\'ll use as a starting point.

Unfortunately, I\'m familiar with scope creep and the effect it has on IT projects, but at the moment we\'re still inside the original KGG RFP ;D In my professional capacity, my attitude to it is, 'Sure, you can have that, it\'ll take more time and money'. Interestingly I generally find creep is kept in check by release dates more than budgets :S

I didn\'t realise there was an existing program for loading mods into KSP (other than generic mod loader), can you direct me to a download (so I can rip off all their good concepts ;D)

/edit: At the moment I\'m building a base to work from, before I start on the 3D stuff. Features like these are pretty trivial compared to the development effort that\'ll require. I\'m disappointed by the loss of the jgjiscool\'s \'Rebuild-the-SDK\' project\'. Judging from reply #5 in his thread, the screenshot depicts a lot of useful looking classes that must\'ve taken some time to write. I can load a texture 3D object and make it spin/move, but that\'s it, and I\'ve never done that with the Collada format. And never in a window on a winform. For me, that\'s where the real learning experience comes in.

Go easy on poor KSP Factory though... This represents little more than a weeks mucking about!

[Capt'n Skunky]

Someone else here on the forums was creating some form of mod manager, don\'t have time to find it atm.

GME does it\'s job just fine, don\'t see what else someone would need. On the plus side, it can be used for any moddable game.

Arrr!

Capt\'n Skunky

[imdying]

GME does it\'s job just fine, don\'t see what else someone would need.

Can you give it a .craft file and make sure it copies over the parts needed to use it?

Can it load a number of packs, say \'Vanilla\' and \'NovaSilisko\', whilst removing unwanted parts?

It is possibly all a moot point though, this will likely only last till the SDK is rewritten. Probably what it is best for is setting a minimum standard for that SDK. If the SDK can\'t do everything this can at the very least, it can safely be declared inadequate.

[Capt'n Skunky]

A .craft file would be outside the scope of a mod.

It only copies whole mod folders but handles overwrites.

I basically delete parts from packs that I never use anyway so when I copy them over I only get the parts I want.

Arrr!

Capt\'n Skunky

[imdying]

A .craft file would be outside the scope of a mod.

It only copies whole mod folders but handles overwrites.

I basically delete parts from packs that I never use anyway so when I copy them over I only get the parts I want.

Arrr!

Capt\'n Skunky

Cheers for that, good to know... I guess I should download it for a look!

If you\'ve seen the Kerpollo, we released that with .craft files, partially because it\'s difficult to assemble, partially because without docking we needed a way to make it all work. The idea is that when you get ready to distribute your \'part pack\', if it requires .craft files for the aforementioned reasons, then it\'ll ensure nothing gets forgotten. Maybe! That\'s the plan at least... but of course a lot of that functionality also lends itself to being a part loader, which is how we got here...!

[Capt'n Skunky]

Oh, GME will copy over craft files if included as part of the pack, but it won\'t deal with issues of parts not in the pack that are used in the craft file. That\'s why there\'s a specific folder structure needed for it to work.

Arrr!

Capt\'n Skunky

[imdying]

TBH I don\'t blame it... the craft files opens a world of pain due to parts with duplicate names etc. I\'m not sure how I\'ll solve that, probably by having the list of possibilities populated and preselecting the one \'most likely\' by however metric I decide that. It\'ll be in interesting problem to solve one night though

Another example of things that spiral but open possibilities is telling KSP Factory where ksp.exe is. I need that, so that I can \'play\' the sounds in the editor. Part specific sounds as easy; they are in the parts \'sounds\' folder. But the vanilla ones... I would either have to include the stock sounds, or access the ones the user has. Naturally the latter is preferable, so I\'ll add something to point to ksp.exe. Of course, once I have that value, then having a loader/play functionality is just a natural addition.

I don\'t get a lot of time working on winforms, I\'m mostly in the web space doing applications and webservices, but also some windows services (had to rewrite the ServiceBase class for Windows 7 not that long ago, ugh), so this gives me a reason to bone up on how it works.

[Capt'n Skunky]

Well, see the thing about being a generic mod enabler is that it can\'t deal with any game specific formats, you know, because of that whole generic thing.

=P

Arrr!

Capt\'n Skunky

[imdying]

Bah, excuses! ;D

Thanks for your thoughts Captain

[Capt'n Skunky]

No problem. I\'m interested in seeing a config editor. And a utility that can scan a craft file and install or report missing all the parts needed would be useful.

Arrr!

Capt\'n Skunky

[foamyesque]

There are two things that are amazing pains in .cfg editing, and they are node and thrust positions and vectors. I think I\'ll try this out if it makes those any easier.

[jgjiscool]

What you need to remember is \'x\' is that way --> \'y\' is that way . (straight up) and \'z\' is that way /\

[imdying]

There are two things that are amazing pains in .cfg editing, and they are node and thrust positions and vectors. I think I\'ll try this out if it makes those any easier.

Yes and no. Yes, you can\'t muck up the syntax, no, still no visual reference. I\'m thinking about putting a side/plan/elevation 2D view in though; half as a stop gap, half in case I can\'t get a 3D view.

No hurry to try it mate, it\'s still very much a WIP, but all sugggestions welcome.

[foamyesque]

What you need to remember is \'x\' is that way --> \'y\' is that way . (straight up) and \'z\' is that way /\

This is not always true; it depends on the part.

[imdying]

This is not always true; it depends on the part.

Now I\'m not a modellers back side, but I\'m pretty sure he\'s correct, for this game. Some games might use a different coordinate system (as does Blender vs 3DMax as I understand it), but up is always 0, 1, 0 AFAIK, i.e. X=left/right, Y=up/down, Z=depth into/out of screen. I think we use something known as a \'cartesian coordinate system\'; somebody is sure to correct me if that is wrong.

Now where some confusion can enter is with the ThrustVector. You have to remember it\'s the opposite to what is intuitive, i.e. it depicts the direciton the rocket will travel, not the direction that the exhaust gases escape the engine from. I don\'t know about the ThrustVector0-5 for RCS though, would have to experiment to find out.

[foamyesque]

You\'re correct that the game uses Cartesian coordinates, but that doesn\'t specify which number refers to which axis; they can be arbitrarily chosen, and even the axis themselves need not map to up/down, left/right, forward/back; the only requirement is that they be at right angles to each other. There are other possible systems as well, particularly polar coordinates, which are better for working with arcs.

In any case, what matters is KSPs convention. You may be correct, but I could\'ve sworn I\'d seen parts, like C7s RCS units, that didn\'t follow it.

[imdying]

Ahh right

The vectors are all specified as 3 digits: x,y,z

The nodes are two vectors, position and direction (which is just a line with pos as the start point and direction as the other end), i.e. posx, posy, posz, dirx, diry, dirz

RCS thrustvectors are 7 digits posx, posy, posz, dirx, diry, dirz, thrustpower

FX vectors are 6 digit, posx, posy, posz, dirx, diry, dirz

Does that help or am I on the wrong track?

[jgjiscool]

I despise the y-up system. Unfortunately, that\'s how Unity rolls. As long as KSP is awesome, I couldn\'t care less if they want to the the y and z mixed up. Yeah you\'re pretty much correct. And solid rocket vectors are stupid. Unless you want a circle-making rocket.

[imdying]

Well actually.... that\'s exactly what we did want to make, more or less, you\'ll see 8)

[TheCardinal]

A great tool!

[Mott Oper]

Oh. no!!! It doesn't work with 0.21. Is it any working tools like this?

[whaaw]

hi,

hi can you put the surce online? i think im able to ubgrade it

[Greys]

This tool and nearly all of the posts in this thread predate the current format of cfg files and many new partModules have been added since that it won't be aware of (also nearly all of the remaining modules have been depreciated)

[Specialist290]

Please don't bump older topics without a good reason to. This mod has been out of development long enough that there's really no reason to continue asking after it, and as such, I'm going to close the topic. In the event the original developer returns and wants to update it, he or she can request this thread be reopened.