Papa_Joe

Yes, my apologies. and that version does work with KSP ver 0.23.5. I will update the OP as well.

I totally understand. I have gone thru a "rash" of update of late On another note, codepoet has been working diligently to devise a method to make CLS optional. I will be receiving code to test soon. Once we work out the details, I will be releasing a new version that will not "require" CLS (and by extension, Module manager). I'm hoping this will help those that simply do not want to have CLS at all.

Ok. that sounds like I need some additional scene checking to prevent creating objects that will fail. I'll look at that. For example. when going eva, the "active vessel" is now a kerbal, (i think) Realism Mode only affects the method of transfer. In Crew: Enables sound and delayed transfer to simulate time taken to get to the new part. In science: prevents a science experiment from being reused. In Resources: Enable sound and a transfer rate to simulate the time needed to "pump" a resource. Limits resource chioices to those that have TransferMode != none. Enable CLS determines if we care about "spaces". With this off, it will allow transfers to any habitable part. The parts you mentioned, are .20 parts. I know they made changes to part structures after that date. I do not know if that has a bearing or not. I check the Crew capacity value. Also, do you have the debug window open? can you turn on verbose mode, and record your action and save the log? If you can, please post and I'll review. there may be an error "under the hood" Finally, what version of SM are you using? Thanks!

With CLS disabled, you should be able to transfer freely. Are you experiencing an issue?

I will address the issue. so the test was, create a MkIII and put it on the pad. Then EVA. the error pops up then? Do you have the Transfer window open? If so, do you have the part selected?

I'm somewhat in the same position. I've got over 20 years experience in software, but I've never had to create dynamic binding for assemblies, as the environment was "contained". If i needed an assembly, it was available for distribution with the code. So my skills in that area are definitely lacking. I undrstand the concepts tho and can certainly code to it with a bit of assistance from google. From my experience, the simplest solution generaly works the best, and good complexity is built upon good simple component. CLS is certainly written this way. Unfortunately, SM is not. I'm working towards that, with constant refactoring each update.. I have to be careful tho as I can break what was working in the process... Good talk all. I'll be here to help with testing any potential solution. Even if we test and scrap, it is an education for me and that is priceless.

I recommend you research ancient egyptian gods. I don't think anyone is using them atm...

As I stated in the "Curse thread", action is what is of value. After reading this entire thread, I do not see one needed component. A project Manager. I see a few folks stepping up to "assist" with that, but no one go to person to coordinate the effort. I'd like to volunteer. I will go thru the documentation provided to date, mash it all together, and make sense of it. We can then get together to "trash it" and make it better. Then we can start working on divvying up the work, once we have decided on a path, and a code base from the "competition". I'm not proposing to decide anything. Only to ensure that "decisions" get made, help with coordinating everyone's effort, answering the numerous questions (when needed) and helping with coding where I can, writing where I can, and thinking of things like Software Life cycle and maintenance, scaling, language support, etc. If we want to do this, let's do it right and get a plan on "paper" that we can track to and know if we are successful. Thoughts?

Agreed. You may not have been here long enough to remember the incessant diatribe about MechJeb. is it cheating, is it not... bla bla bla.. In the end you play the game your way. No matter what anyone else says, they are NOT you. This is why I build my plugins with a lot of choice. So you can play the game your way, not my way. Have fun!

Sounds like plan. Let me know what I can do to assist.

Yes it can be related to TAC LS. I'm at a bit of a disadvantage as I'm not running it. I will reexamine the code to see where I may be causing heartburn. Also, was the kerbal going EVA in one of the selected parts? Source or Target?

thanks. I'll take a look. If you can tell me the conditions of SM at that time. what windows open and what options selected, along with whether or not crew was selected, and if any source or destination parts were selected. Also, if the above is true, was the kerbal that went eva in one of the selected parts? Thanks1

Personally, I think that what is good for the community comes first. I can rework what I need to for the good of the group. The way I see it, if we have a chance to "do it right", let's take it.

Thanks, the code helps me a lot with understanding the problem. @Faark, Your approach is similar to what I was thinking (tho my thinking was very rudimentary). Do the lifting in one place, and simply ignore the object if not properly instantiated.

I found this on the web. not sure if it is helpful or not (you may be well past this), but you can decide. http://chrisxwallis.wordpress.com/2010/10/01/late-binding-to-a-class-librarydll-in-c/ Upon consideration, I got to thinking. If the interface is instantiated at run time, and we do the dll existence check there, If the dll is not htere I simpley end up with a null for the object. If there, and an object is in existence, I would think that the need for the function level reflection becomes moot.. Do I understand correctly? At that point I can make the calls to the functions via the Instantiated dll object's interface methods... Too simple? am I missing something? both objects are .NET, so the need for native binding does not exist....

The concept of checking only at initialization would work for me, as I would check for the existence of the dll, and flip a switch to bypass any CLS calls. I theory that would work, as I would make no calls except for the first to initialize my environment.

@codepoet, First, it was my decision to incorporate CLS, so the burden is mine not yours. As with all "new" things, there will be "resistance". I can live with that, and since the plugin does allow players to "turn it off", they can get the experience they want, even if it means adding another plugin. So please don't feel guilty. We are in this together, and the end results will justify the "initial pain" on introducing something new. Now, I must admit, I've not done much with reflection, so I'm in unfamiliar territory. I'm going to do some research and see what I come up with.

What scene are you in? It should work in PreFlight and InFlight only. Does it work in those scenes?

Just a heads up. New Version Ship Manifest out. Version 0.23.5.3.2.3 - 11 May, 2014 - Settings, Roster & Bug Fix Edition. - New: Roster Window now allows adding and removing individual Kerbals during pre-flight in Realism Mode, and also In-Flight in Standard mode. - New: Additional changes to Settings. - Now sepearate sections make finding things easier. - Changed LockRealismMode to LockSettings, as Realism Mode is not a parent setting. - Added Locksettings to the Settings Window. Once set, must be turned off in config file. - Made Enable CLS a child of Enable Crew - Bug: SM not detecting Changes in CrewCapacity with Inflatable Parts... - http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/62270-0-23-5-Ship-Manifest-%28Crew-Science-Resources%29-v0-23-5-3-2-1-22-Apr-14?p=1118517&viewfull=1#post1118517 - Bug: SM Erros when attempting to transfer to a pert with no internal model - http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/62270-0-23-5-Ship-Manifest-%28Crew-Science-Resources%29-v0-23-5-3-2-2-2-May-14?p=1140559&viewfull=1#post1140559 - Bug: SM still allowing negative numbers in resource transfers. - http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/62270-0-23-5-Ship-Manifest-%28Crew-Science-Resources%29-v0-23-5-3-2-2-2-May-14?p=1136419&viewfull=1#post1136419 I'm hoping with a change I made to fix Inflatable Habs, I also fixed the LS resource doubling. if someone would be so kind as to test that, I cannot. I think we are getting pretty stable now. Add soft dependencies and we are looking pretty good. Let me know what you all think! Enjoy!

New Version out. Version 0.23.5.3.2.3 - 11 May, 2014 - Settings, Roster & Bug Fix Edition. - New: Roster Window now allows adding and removing individual Kerbals during pre-flight in Realism Mode, and also In-Flight in Standard mode. - New: Additional changes to Settings. - Now sepearate sections make finding things easier. - Changed LockRealismMode to LockSettings, as Realism Mode is not a parent setting. - Added Locksettings to the Settings Window. Once set, must be turned off in config file. - Made Enable CLS a child of Enable Crew - Bug: SM not detecting Changes in CrewCapacity with Inflatable Parts... - http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/62270-0-23-5-Ship-Manifest-%28Crew-Science-Resources%29-v0-23-5-3-2-1-22-Apr-14?p=1118517&viewfull=1#post1118517 - Bug: SM Errors when attempting to transfer to a part with no internal model - http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/62270-0-23-5-Ship-Manifest-%28Crew-Science-Resources%29-v0-23-5-3-2-2-2-May-14?p=1140559&viewfull=1#post1140559 - Bug: SM still allowing negative numbers in resource transfers. - http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/62270-0-23-5-Ship-Manifest-%28Crew-Science-Resources%29-v0-23-5-3-2-2-2-May-14?p=1136419&viewfull=1#post1136419 I'm hoping with a change I made to fix Inflatable Habs, I also fixed the LS resource doubling. if someone would be so kind as to test that, I cannot. I think we are getting pretty stable, and a bit more user friendly now. Add soft dependencies and we are looking pretty good. Let me know what you all think! Enjoy!

Update: I have solved the Inflatable parts issue. It will be in the next release. Edit: I have added Crew member Add / Remove to the Roster Window. Release imminent...

Actually, that has never been requested here. I did notice it on the Crew manifest thread recently tho. I will add that to the list. Edit: I just did a little testing. and you can add an individual Kerbal now. 1. In preflight, open the transfer witndow and the roster window. 2. Go to the Transfer window and select the desired part you want the kerbal to go into as the Source (red) 3. In the Roster window, find an available Kerbal. You will notice an EDIT and an ADD button. 4. Now in the Roster Window, Click Add. Done. Now I'll work on a remove for ya. I'm thinking in the Roster window, if the kerbal is part of the active vessel, I can change the "---" to "Remove".

Nope... you are just a bit confused. I indicated that this is in the Pending section, so that means it is not yet in a release. I have solved the problem and implemented a fix, but it is not yet released.

Yes, but you were more thorough. Thanks for that, as you have helped me in the past as well.

You can solve this problem by creating custom configs for those parts. See codepoet's OP for info on making Module Manager configs. While this may not be a "correct" solution, it will allow you game play.