0.24 Mod Compatibility Testing

[Padishar]

Part Angle Display has been updated to 0.2.3.0 for use with KSP 0.24 and works correctly (0.2.2.0 also worked fine with 0.24 but there was an existing minor bug that needed fixing).

[Helix935]

nebuchadnezzar: it will have them as soon as reports start flowing in. I will add the ones I know.

Helix935, now that there is an official thread, I have taken the liberty of removing "semi-official" from the title. Hope that's ok!

thats ok and since i just woke up, i might as well list what has been noted so far

Toolbar

ATM basic

B9( only 10 -20 parts)

EVE/BA (Better atmosphere must haves listed as BA+) medium

Crossfeed enabler

distant object enhancement

engineer(redux)

exsugent engineering (only DLL)

firespitter ( only DLL)

JSI(Rosterprop)

Kerbaltek

Kittopia Space (BA+)

klockheed_martian ( only DLL)

Kw rocketry

mechjeb( only DLL)

Modstatistics

MP Nazari-hot rockets

Nearfuture

NorthkeSerCom

ParameciumKid

R&S Capsuledyne

Rss

RLA stocklike (only 5-10 parts)

Scansat(only DLL)

SmokeScreen (only DLL)

Splaceplane PLus

Texture Replacer (BA +)

Alarmclock-TriggerTech

Vessel view

all latest vesions, toolbar update came today included, during start up game mod manager warns me about firesplitter and real solar system mod incopatabilty,(although i only have their dlls not the actual mods becouse they were needed for the mods i use ) but i have recorded no visible impact to space plane plus (firesplitter dll needed for it) and better atmospheres (real solar system dll),kerbal engineering redux works "halfways" CONFIRMED"this has a fix in previous comments on this thread.

either these FS and RSS are false positive or anything else, evreything on this list works as intended as it was with 23.5, windows 64 bit,

thanks for that, i will make sure to copy and paste that and cite you

Edited July 18, 2014 by Helix935

[tajampi]

For me EVE does not seem to work, it just creashes when the loading screen ends...

Just under the crash there is a interesting line: (the other stuff is just the game loading textures)

SymInit: Symbol-SearchPath: '.;D:\Ksp64\ksp-win64-0-24-0\KSP_win64;D:\Ksp64\ksp-win64-0-24-0\KSP_win64;C:\Windows;C:\Windows\system32;SRV*C:\websymbols*http://msdl.microsoft.com/download/symbols;', symOptions: 530, UserName: 'Alberto'

Mods: (maybe it's incompatible?)

Toolbar

DeadlyReentry

Dmagic Orbital science

FAR

MechJeb2

ModStatisc

NasaMission

ProceduralDynamics-Procedural wings

Squad

TriggerTech-Alarm clock

BoulderCo

EVE

All the mods are updated to 0.24 except EVE...

[falken]

Advanced SRB v6 still works fine.

[Helix935]

has anyone begun testing KSO?

[NathanKell]

This thread *continues* to report mods as "confirmed working" that are known to have problem. Again, just because a mod author hasn't implemented a compatibility check (i.e. there is no warning on KSP start) does not mean that a mod is compatible, even if you see no obvious signs of problems during gameplay.

Please fix this. You are spreading misinformation.

[Blind Dead McJones]

After reinstalling Kerbal Alarm Clock and Kerbal Engineer Redux (at the same time) and booting up 64-bit, this happens:

The orbital paths of planets, ships etc. do not show up in the map screen. They're still there, obviously, but the orbital paths are not which makes it much more difficult to navigate. It could be either of those mods that caused it, because I wasn't having problems with the versions I had before a few minutes ago. This also only happens in 64-bit. Ordinary 32-bit does not have this problem. I'm going to go back and see if I can solve anything now.

[update]

I removed the Triggertech folder and still had this problem. If this problem is caused by a mod, I think it's Kerbal Engineer Redux. However, at least according to Majiir, mods shouldn't behave differently between 32-bit and 64-bit, so this might not be a mod problem but instead a 64-bit problem.

Edited July 18, 2014 by Blind Dead McJones
further information

[Majiir]

This thread *continues* to report mods as "confirmed working" that are known to have problem. Again, just because a mod author hasn't implemented a compatibility check (i.e. there is no warning on KSP start) does not mean that a mod is compatible, even if you see no obvious signs of problems during gameplay.

Please fix this. You are spreading misinformation.

I must second this. It's made worse by a lack of clarity. The title implies that this thread is about 64-bit compatibility, but that doesn't seem to be the case. There are also additional markers to indicate whether a mod's part costs are balanced, but its application is inconsistent or incorrect. (Kethane, for example, has balanced part costs, but this list seems to indicate otherwise since some entries are marked with three stars.)

Misinformation hurts the community. Even correct information can hurt the community if it's easily misinterpreted. This thread has a lot of both.

[Helix935]

This thread *continues* to report mods as "confirmed working" that are known to have problem. Again, just because a mod author hasn't implemented a compatibility check (i.e. there is no warning on KSP start) does not mean that a mod is compatible, even if you see no obvious signs of problems during gameplay.

Please fix this. You are spreading misinformation.

I must second this. It's made worse by a lack of clarity. The title implies that this thread is about 64-bit compatibility, but that doesn't seem to be the case. There are also additional markers to indicate whether a mod's part costs are balanced, but its application is inconsistent or incorrect. (Kethane, for example, has balanced part costs, but this list seems to indicate otherwise since some entries are marked with three stars.)

Misinformation hurts the community. Even correct information can hurt the community if it's easily misinterpreted. This thread has a lot of both.

hmm i noted your comments and opinions and have begun work to rectify those mistakes, i should have mentioned that this my first time hosting a mod compatibility thread so i have yet to work out an effective system that showcases all known (to myself) information about those said mods....

any further opinions about ways you can help improve this thread you can continue post here...

Thank you for your cooperation

Edited July 18, 2014 by Helix935

[johnnyhandsome]

Also, could you spell out the full name of the mod. I had no idea what EVE until looking around another part of the forum and discovering its the Enhanced Visual Effects mod. Geeze man. That wold have been helpful to know earlier.

[NathanKell]

Ok, specific comments then.

1. Include a link to the official thread in the OP.

2. Rename "Confirmed Working" to "Has been tested, Seems to work - no issue reports yet" Create a new Confirmed Working category and use the same criterion as the official thread (no errors in output log (NOT KSP.log!) from the mod, after at least a day's playing with the mod. If you don't know how to check this, I will write up a guide for you.).

3. If the mod does not include, or rely on, any plugins (e.g. RLA Stockalikes, KW Rocketry), that also can go in Confirmed Working. If you're in doubt whether a mod has or requires a plugin, and you do not have confirmation in the form of (2), then it should not go in Confirmed.

4. Always include a version number with a report, and include a version number in the OP.

Do *not* accept "It's working!" posts from people unless the above has been followed. Do not accept "It's broken!" from people unless Majiir's rules (from the official thread) are followed.

Edited July 18, 2014 by NathanKell

[Helix935]

Ok, specific comments then.

1. Include a link to the official thread in the OP.

2. Rename "Confirmed Working" to "Has been tested, Seems to work - no issue reports yet" Create a new Confirmed Working category and use the same criterion as the official thread (no errors in output log (NOT KSP.log!) from the mod, after at least a day's playing with the mod. If you don't know how to check this, I will write up a guide for you.).

3. If the mod does not include, or rely on, any plugins (e.g. RLA Stockalikes, KW Rocketry), that also can go in Confirmed Working. If you're in doubt whether a mod has or requires a plugin, and you do not have confirmation in the form of (2), then it should not go in Confirmed.

4. Always include a version number with a report, and include a version number in the OP.

Do *not* accept "It's working!" posts from people unless the above has been followed. Do not accept "It's broken!" from people unless Majiir's rules (from the official thread) are followed.

ok i will try to ensure that i have this done properly (even though this has become more exhausting then i thought it would be to manage this...)

[NathanKell]

Yeah, supporting this sort of thing is a ton of work!

(In part that's why we created the official thread, because it's work the modders, who actually know the internals of the mods in question, are used to). I appreciate your starting this thread, but if you want me to close it and redirect people to the official thread, that's fine, no problem. As "modder-ator" I already volunteered myself to do this sort of thing. :]

[Helix935]

Yeah, supporting this sort of thing is a ton of work!

(In part that's why we created the official thread, because it's work the modders, who actually know the internals of the mods in question, are used to). I appreciate your starting this thread, but if you want me to close it and redirect people to the official thread, that's fine, no problem. As "modder-ator" I already volunteered myself to do this sort of thing. :]

considering how much real life issues i had to put off for a few hours to do, please do it besides i have some things involving bugs with certain mods that i need to post anyway...

at least i tried

[NathanKell]

Ok--good luck with RL!