Ippo

Yes, it is I envision OPS as a pure backend with no data, that can manage any perk tree that is thrown at it. This way it remains completely agnostic to the perk trees that the user wants to load, just like Open Resource System doesn't need CRP to work, rather the opposite. I also agree that the earlier we start discussing the standard trees to be put in CPP, the better. Of course, I am going to need at least one tree devoted to repair abilities Also, technical information: in my current design concept, each tree must have a unique name, and each perk in it must have a name that is unique in that tree. To access a perk, one will need to use both the name of the tree and of the perk, so that there is no possibility of confusion between perks with the same name in different trees. How does it sound? Good, bad, terrible...?

Hi, I would like to remove the fairing bases and keep only the thrust plate adapter and the procedural interstage, but I can't figure out what files I need to delete... a little help, please?

OMG YES! I can't live without your fairings anymore! Also, there's a typo in the topic (compatability).

Thanks for your feedback guys, but all the things you mentioned would actually be mods based on this. What's really needed is to define some general skill trees that are general enough to be useful for everyone, without being too vague. Also, a way to have closed paths in trees. Saving a tree in a cfg is trivial, having multiple paths that merge, less trivial. In fact, I think that at the beginning we will only have open paths (two skill lines cannot merge into one). I will probably start coding tomorrow evening (Europe time zone), and report back on the progress.

Hello everyone, I'd like some feedback on what is, at the moment, just an idea. Some of you may have seen that the latest release of my mod includes a perk system. However, it is pretty much baked into it and can't be used as an API, if anyone else wants in on the action. I was originally planning to separate the system in the long run, but since RoverDude has expressed interest in the idea, let's start working on that now. The idea is to have an API in place that will allow the definition of perk trees, shamelessy ripped off inspired by the Skyrim system. In short, there will be multiple independent trees, each one defining the various perks (or skills: what's the best name?) in a tree structure where perks are unlocked sequentially. The trees will define the possible paths and skills, and each kerbal will have his own personal set of unlocks. Unlocking the perks will be done by expending perk points. A perk point can be of two types: shared (it can be used for any kerbal the player sees fit) or personal (it can only be used on the kerbal that acquired it). Additionally, a perk point can be restricted to a set of perk trees or left available to spend on any tree. The acquisition of perk points will be left entirely for the mods to implement, so that every mod can use whatever logic makes sense for it. For example, you might want to unlock a perk point every X hours of flight, or only upon particular events... your choice. In the same way, OPS will only handle the perks, not their effects: client mods will be entirely responsible for the implementation of whatever effect they like. From a technical point of view, my mod Crew Files already provides the necessary tools to store any information about a kerbal, while perk trees information can be safely stored in a scenario module. Of course, perk trees will be defined using cfg files, and this brings us to the second half of the proposal. We will also need a shared set of basic perk trees. Much like Community Resource Pack, using them will not be mandatory, just convenient as it would allow standardization between any mod that wants to use a perk system. Just like CRP, of course, anyone will be free to implement their own perk trees and use them instead. Right now I haven't started implementing it yet: we are still in the concept phase, but not for long. So, I'd like to know what you think of this, and if you see any obvious problem / missing feature / whatever.

Yes, to be honest I am using the version for 0.24.2, and didn't notice any issue. If anything, it's a little laggy, maybe I should downgrade to medium res, but that's all.

Nah, not *that* much. Well, they are a lot more saturated, but the basic color is the same. It looks good with BA, imho.

And they look fantastic together, but I like higher fps even more Tonight I'll try again and see if it was just some weird transient issue or something. I will also try BA mid-res, and I'll try to mess with your settings. Cheers!

Well, I wouldn't expect 3 lights to cause a noticeable performance. I will try more tests on my own and let you know. ... in the meantime, I have to choose between this and BA :/

I'd also like to ask around if anybody is noticing any performance problem. Granted, I have better atmospheres installed which is preatty heavy on itself, but I noticed a definite loss of fps after installing this. Just me?

That looks like an out of memory case to me... it's very strange that it happens only with Module Manager, though. Are you sure the game starts just fine if you remove *only* module manager?

Hey, just dropping by to say that this is awesome and really adds to the immersion Just a quick remark: I think that the coloured reflection starts a little early, on Kerbin it becomes very visible around 30 kms, which looks a little bit early to me. But maybe it's just my taste...

I bet you are on OSX: I was reading just the other day that on OSX KSP uses the previous version of unity or something like that. Anyway no, don't worry about it: I'll see it removed the next time I have to update something, there's nothing (that I know of) that should conflict between different unity versions.

Ehm... I don't get what you mean :/

Since we are at it, I'd like to point out that the list of mods that support this is growing. Now, that's absolutely awesome, but I think it's time you start considering the idea that the list might go off-screen and will need a scrollbar (in my setup, AVC shows 24 entries and takes up already half of the screen's height). Just throwing my 2 cents in your general direction

This. While I agree that SQUAD is kinda slow, they are really just a handful of guys doing all the coding and artwork stuff. It is unfair to compare them to modders, because the modders outnumber the official team easily by 100 times. Obviously they are going to release 100 times faster.

If you don't mind, I'll link your cfg in the OP when I get home later

Probably a good idea: as always, if anyone makes some edits, please share them!

Take a look at the las section of the OP, it should explain what you need I used to add them to any command pod, but it also targeted MechJeb and I was asked to ditch unmanned pods anyway (and to be honest, it made sense to me). Also note that the spares in command pods is pretty much a temporary thing, until the guys of Universal Storage find the time to make a pack for us Yes, they have: that's why I release Alpha 4.2 a couple of posts ago

You know, that's a really good suggestion, I like it But it will need revision later on, when I'll add the remaining failures (oh yes I will: if it can break, I'll find a way...). Those are 3 mods that I consider "core": I wasn't able to play until TAC was updated earlier tonight, it feels like cheating without it Now these are the kind of stories I hoped to hear I'm glad you are having fun Thanks for putting up with me

Alpha 4.2 is out! Fixes the issue with the SpareParts' cost in command pods. I also have bundled MiniAVC in the download: this is just an update checker that will notify you when an update is available (and you have seen that I do often need to fix some mistake I made, so...). I want to stress that the update is strictly opt-in, and no information is sent unless you allow it to update. Even then, it will only fetch the latest version number, and nothing more. If you want to know more, head to its thread.

Ayyyyy yessssss!!!!

Aw, shoot: I forgot to update the cost definition in SpareParts.cfg to match the new CRP definition. I will do it ASAP. I'm sorry, this release has been pretty sloppy so far (it is however an improvement over the previous one, that was sloppy AND buggy).

You know, if the Pe is low enough and you do this at the right point in the orbit, you can actually re-enter. But I still cringed, hard.

Hi Nereid, I was wondering if we could get KSP-AVC support. It would be only a matter of including one file, I could write it for you if you can't be bothered. It would be super-cool to have