Ippo

Thank you! You are amazing!

I see that mod is licensed under WTFPL: you could make that trivial patch + recompile and upload to kerbalstuff so that we can index it

I'm adding the latest MechJeb manually. I'm not sure why it hasn't noticed EE2.4 yet since it's on KS. As for firespitter, where did you find v7.0? The latest release on KS is still 6.3.5. Chance, yes. Deadline? Not yet Hi, could you please post the output of your "ckan list" ?

Hi, from the GUI there's no way at the moment, I'm afraid. You can (kinda) do it from the CLI though: mono ckan.exe list > modlist.txt will write the list of installed modules to that text file. Not exactly what you are looking for, I know, but still pretty close

Yes thanks! At a glance it looks good to me, but I'll have to wait until tomorrow to take a close look and merge. thank you so much for your contribution!

I think it's better if you email the support address linked by the moderator.

Hey monstah, don't worry, git makes it so we can revert any mistake with a couple of clicks Could you link the original PR?

I am an engineer specialized in control theory. I know full well what a mathematical model is, and I admit with no problems that I am nowhere near skilled enough to design / fly a real plane, nor do I want to be. Well, okay, I'd like to be, but I don't expect to learn it by playing a video game; there's the Dunning-Kruger effect, and there's an aerodynamic model where the air both interacts with a part and doesn't at the same time. Although I have some pretty strong ties with the RO modders, I'm not one myself: in fact, I don't even play with RSS+RO. Yet, I absolutely support more realism (please note: "more realism" =/= "realism") in stock. Please don't make the huge mistake to assume that everyone that wants some realism wants Realism Overhaul to be stock. Not even Felger, RO's maintainer, would say that. tl;dr: "you want ksp to be a simulator!" is a strawman argument.

Oh you are right, I didn't bother uploading a new release since the first one is already compatible with 0.90. There's no problem though, you can safely update the file yourself if you want to get rid of the warning.

People here are getting lost over the technicalities of defining the term "realism" in a game, and at the same time forgetting that the current aero model is not unrealistic, it's strictly physically impossible. It requires a good amount of doublethink to defend an aerodynamic model where the air flow interacts with a part and also with the part that's shielding it: basically, parts are solid (they interact with the airflow) and they are not (it goes through them to interact with shielded parts). Please, let's all agree that this is not acceptable in a game about science regardless of the level of accuracy you want from it.

Hi! 1) You can from the command line: use ckan ksp forget <name> where <name> is the name of the install you want ckan to forget about. You can find out the names using "ckan ksp list". 2) Yes, it totally can In fact, I routinely use it to manage both my playing install and my dev install. Glad to hear that Apparently, the awesome pjf has already got it covered, we'll solve this asap

And my phone cut a piece of the post. It removes the need for comm relays around Kerbin, but not for interplanetary stuff.

I use a modified RT setup, like this: - multiple launch sites / stations around kerbin; - standard range model; - nearly infinite range for ground stations. bin, but not for interplanetary stuff. Also, it's a more realistic model then the one used by RT: that's right kids, sometimes realism is easier than abstractions.

Whatever they choose to make, I hope they won't break FAR because I will be staying with it anyway - I'm not even going to wonder what aero model they'll make becaus I already know it's never going to be on par with FAR. I bought this game on the promise of realistic physics simulation, as advertised on their site, and that's what I want from the game. l;Dr: Realism for realism sake is not that bad if that's what you thought you were buying.

Hey Diazo, just a normal PR will do, or I can edit them for you if you tell me what files you need me to fix We make a point to try not to force authors to change their packaging: however, if I may suggest you to add a .version file in your releases, then ckan can pick up version information from that. It's most useful for github releases, like yours

Actually, it is our policy to avoid deleting metadata unless there's a really compelling reason to do it. Having metadata for old versions allows users to downgrade to a given version if they so desire, plus it creates a real "archive" of mods and their relative versions. So we'd like to keep the old metadata (the client will install the latest by default anyway), unless there's some particular reason to want those unavailable

Hey, I just remembered seeing your post and forgetting to reply So, at this moment KS integration is only and completely done on KS' side of the thing, and we have no control over it. What's happening is that the awesome SirCmpwn has written a bot that, when a new mod is created, creates a pull request to our NetKAN repository (example) and adds a badge to the mod's page on KS, apparently without checking if we have already accepted the file or not. Older mods have not been added by the bot and thus have no badge yet, althout SirCmpwn has stated in the KS thread that he'll do it eventually. Hope this answers your question

It's okay, I can open one for you I'll just need you to give me detailed reproduction steps: can you please tell me step by step what you are doing exactly to trigger the error? We need to know so we can replicate it and figure it out

Hey Diazo! Let me repeat the apologies I gave to marce and extend them to you too. If you'd like to open an issue on github, I'd be grateful so we can take a close look at what happened. Is redistributing of that mod permitted? If not, let me know and I'll pull it from the index immediately. Sorry again :/

Hey Hoaz, how's it going? Is the issue still present? If so, I encourage you to open a github ticket, it's harder for us to miss / forget it Hi! Thanks, I just fixed #1. #2 is on a feature request somewhere and I guess we'll get around to implement it eventually The number of open tickets is... interesting, at the moment Hi marce, sorry to hear about this. If you want we can discuss this privately on IRC the next time I'm around, or as always open an issue and we'll sort it out. Sorry about the poor communication: we'll try to keep an eye open in the future to try to ensure that forks have the author's consent.

Thanks for your contribution!

Oh, but you can Make sure you have installed Mono, and then run mono ckan.exe

We are going to need some more details: what version of ckan are you using? Could you explain us the reproduction steps so that we can replicate the problem? Also, does it still happen if you update to the latest version of the ckan client? Thanks for your report! I was able to reproduce it, here's the issue if you want to check our progress on it Hi, no, it shouldn't cause any problems, in theory (if it happens, please report it immediately so that we can fix it ). ckan does not verify the integrity of the mod after it has been installed, so it should be safe to remove parts from a mod.

Kerbalstuff keeps all the previous releases

There's a simpler way. Go to the game options in steam: in the "betas" tab you can subscribe to"latest stable version", that will keep you on 0.25 until 0.91 is out.