Yemo

@swjr-swis: You are right, I edited it out to prevent further discussion on this, has been done enough in other places and does not belong here.

Is there a new reference for spacedock.info yet? Along the lines of the old one for kerbalstuff, for those who host their own metadata and provide mods without a "free" license: "$kref" : "#/ckan/kerbalstuff/1198", eg something like "$kref" : "#/ckan/spacedock/20",

I can understand that squad does not want to get involved with community/fan generated/administered sites especially for areas outsider their own expertise like (mod) hosting. But given the track record of that other site, which promised features to be delivered by the end of 2014, which are still nowhere to be seen or heard of at the start of 2016, is it really necessary to (exclusively) stay with that other site? This is the nexus, which has a reputation with truly massive modding communities (skyrim!), a very fair and proven track record from community interaction to ads and site funding, as well as staff actively trying to integrate non-standard community solutions. edited out a paragraph after feedback from @swjr-swis

Spacedock.info is the new kerbalstuff. Website: http://spacedock.info All downloads are (manually) available again from spacedock.info (except for "InitialContracts", which is discontinued). The greenhouse still needs the update for USI Life support and UnmannedBeforeManned could use some checkup as well. There will be some quirks, like mod banners not working at the moment (the mods with blank banners tried to upload a banner, the ones with default space background found out about them not working in chat ) and it will take some time to fill in the information again (the descriptions on kerbalstuff were lost).again. As I write this, there seem to be some issues with the registration emails and ckan will take some time to adjust, but at least the manual downloads are working. If you register at spacedock.info, my new username over there is "Y3mo" (which is my username on github), if you want to follow those mods. This is the spacedock.info chat, were people will help you with any issues: IRC: https://kiwiirc.com/client/irc.esper.net #spacedock If you want to contribute to my "coffee fund" this is my patreon page, I'm very grateful for every contribution and would like to thank my six patrons (one preferred a one time donation last month)! https://www.patreon.com/Yemo Spacedock.info does not have a patreon page yet, they said in chat that for the time being all is well on th funding side and thus they concentrate on making spacedock.info and ckan work again. If anything changes in that department, I will post a link to their patreon page here in this thread as well. edit: This is the patreon page of @pjf, who is responsible for CKAN (only about 2$ left for his next milestone): https://www.patreon.com/pjf0 SETI-Rebalance instead of SETI-BalanceMod The change to spacedock.info gave me the opportunity to rename the SETI-BalanceMod into SETI-Rebalance (was already renamed in the file structure and so on, kerbalstuff just did not allow renaming mods). Since the now existing modules SETI-Rebalance, SETI-CommunityTechTree, SETI-Contracts and SETI-Greenhouse are the shards of the original ksp 0.90 all-in-one SETI-BalanceMod. My current priority is the ckan reintegration and after that bringing the descriptions, pictures and so on back on spaceport.info.

The arguing is about my suggestion of striving for an actually achievable opt-out toggle to create something better than status quo vs chasing the dream of an opt-in toggle for the sake of principle. Sorry for trying to argue for something that I believe would improve the situation for you particularly. I personally am fine without the opt-out. I ll stop arguing about it since the people who would imho actually benefit from my suggestion seem to be determined to keep everything the way it is. Sorry for the inconvenience and thanks for the bashing as a "ckan advocate", have a nice day. I m out of here.

I would imagine an opt-out like this in the beginning: CKAN checkmark is set by default Iff "unchecked" => set flag that this mod is not allowed on ckan by express decision of modder and thus any manually added or other wise existing netkan entry is ignored as long as that flag is set Else => a1. Bot creates file and pull request with default entries a2. If complications, someone from ckan takes a look a3. Netkan entry can be modified by pull request When it is more developed it would go like this: b1. Bot creates file with default entries b2. User can modify file using UI (dropdowns for options, dependent/recommended mods and so on) b3. When done, bot submits modified file to netkan as pull request b4. User can "fork" his netkan file using spacedock UI like in b2 b5. And then create a pull request from spacedock UI for the modified file, everything with dropdowns, no coding within spacedock UI, but code is displayed in a preview window. "Experienced" ckan users can always externalize their metadata to their own github repositories and ignore all that. Maybe a way to still use the spacedock UI except that they have to copy paste the previewed code into their metadata file. I start from the logical deduction that there can be a great many reasons for not clicking "ckan-checkbox" but there can practically be only one reason for deselecting "ckan-checkbox". It is not a matter of my personal preference, just a matter of the informational value deductible from those actions. @inigma talked about how mods get on spaceport, not about the suggestion regarding a ckan-checkbox-toggle.

@swjr-swis It seems as if we were arguing from two different perspectives. You argue that opt-out toggle would be worse than opt-in toggle in a perfect world/situation. edit: I agree with that! I argue that opt-out toggle would be an improvement to the current world/situation whereas opt-in toggle would not change the current situation at all, given all the other parameters.

That was kind of the idea behind my "opt-out of ckan via spacedock" proposal. It would provide the clear information that the modder does not want to be on ckan. Whereas the "opt-in of ckan via spacedock" leaves it open to interpretation if the modder simply does not know or care about it and would potentially be grateful for being added manually (which is pretty common going through the threads of newer modders/mods where modders are asked for ckan support) or whethe the modder did not want to be on ckan. So opt-in leaves us pretty much exactly where we are at the moment. Which is fine by me, I just thought the possibility to simply opt out of ckan without the need to talk to someone or raise an issue and so on would improve things compared to the status quo. It is about my proposal concerning what was formerly the ckan checkmark on kerbalstuff.

And if they actually include career mode, with all that little text and those potentially confusing and possibly hard to read numbers. "Test TT-18A Decoupler at an altitude between 7300m and 7900m at a speed between 370m/s and 420m/s" Or the revelation when they find out that they can pop up the nav ball in map view, if they manage to hit that tiny arrow at the center bottom of their screen. Right after spending 2 hours switching from map mode to staging mode (if that is not changed for ps4). I'll have to remind myself to watch "first impression" streams.

The removal of that remote tech light stock feature is imho the best news about 1.1 so far. It means squad and the modding community can fully concentrate on making ksp and mods work with unity 5 for and immediately after patch 1.1, without having to deal with the ambiguity, preferences and misunderstandings such a new feature would bring on top of that. Just remembering atmo/heat model changes in 1.0...

I m actually looking forward to it. Not for personal use but out of curiosity how they set up the controls, what state the game will be in (dV shown in editor? navball in map view shown or hidden by default? etc.), what the reaction of the customers will be initially and after a few months (especially without mods) and squads response/actions to that.

Since you have probably the most experience with your large mod catalogue: Would it make sense to be able to use spacedock as a (second, optional at the modders discretion) frontend for github releases? Especially the ability to display permanent (not part of the changelog like on the github page with the download button) graphics/diagrams right on the page with the "download" button could be interesting to minimize support requests regarding resource flows/contract progression and so on. Would that be feasible/worth it?

With opt-out I meant the same "checked by default" checkbox which was there on kerbalstuff (and did not cause any problems for anyone to my knowledge), but with the added functionality that it works as a toggle and can be changed after the initial upload. All problems I heard of so far were not caused by this checkbox, but by the addition of a mod to the netkan repository, independent of kerbalstuff checkbox and the modders knowledge - anyone please correct me on that. The problem with "unchecked by default" would be the same as today. There is no simple/external way to differentiate between modders who ask people for help to add their mod to ckan because they can not check that box after the initial upload and lack the time or knowledge to do so, and modders who do not want to be on ckan. While that is easy to remember for the prominent mods/modders, it becomes the same mess as today for the not so prominent ones. Contrary to that, if the box is unchecked, but was "checked by default", there is no question about it that the modder made the choice to stay away from ckan. As I said above, I do not know of any case where the "checked by default" box on kerbalstuff was the problem, to my knowledge the problem was always when people (most trying to be helpful) added the mod to netkan independently of the modder. "Checked by default" but toggleable would prevent that while "unchecked by default" would continue the existing ambiguity. Of course modders who administer their own metadata like eg @RoverDude, the modders invovled in realism overhaul and myself would be independent of that anyway. Though I would like to be able to use a spacedock drop-down interface to generate/edit the metadata file (thus preventing stupid mistakes) and then copy paste it to my repository where it is read from. @RoverDude, @billkerbinsky About KSP-AVC: This was meant as an optional feature for the far away future, for those interested, certainly not active by default. But I agree with the feedback that checking the included .version file as an extra precaution/warning makes more sense then changing it automatically.

Yeah, instead of lightning fast, comfortable and a little dirty (in terms of licences), the community now seems to favor still quick, less comfortable but clean (in terms of licenses). There are opportunities in the second ("cleanish slate") approach as well. We will have to wait and see. I'm not too sure about the capabilities or availability of the server linked by Borisbee, so won't set the OP links to it. But it is fine with me as an interim source for the mods.

As someone who released mods both with free and "restricted" licenses, those are my 2 cent: I uploaded my mods to the default ksp community mod hosting site so that they are available to the ksp community. The site went down, but the owner of the site provided the data as an interim backup until the "default ksp community mod hosting site" is restored. Thus as long as it is a temporary "interim" solution, it would have been fine from my point of view, but I understand the general problem with it. Similarly with ckan. I made the mod available via ckan and am controlling the metadata myself. Thus ckan getting it from a temporary shadow-mirror would have been fine by me. Since that might be a matter of ambiguity and opinion, I can understand the clean slate approach as well. However this clean slate approach should not be in vain, it can be an opportunity! Imho if there is such a disruption, then at least it should be used as an opportunity to improve. Even if that means that it takes a week to do it right (meanwhile the "free to redistribute" mods can be made available in a simple directory as the one taken down presented (http://cdn.kspstuff.com/storage/ ), no need for graphical interface for that temporary solution. Let's take the next few days to brainstorm what opportunities for improvement this clean slate approach presents instead of just continuing the awesome work of @SirCmpwn. I bet he had some great ideas but was at least to some extent (as every project is) boxed in by the existing framework as well. My thoughts/brainstorming contributions: Full (opt-out by checkbox) github/spacedock/ckan/ksp-avc? integration by modularization edit after feedback: With opt-out I meant the same "checked by default" checkbox which was there on kerbalstuff (and did not cause any problems for anyone to my knowledge), but with the added functionality that it works as a toggle and can be changed after the inital upload. All problems I heard of so far were not caused by this checkbox, but by the addition of mod to the netkan repository, independen of kerbalstuff checkbox and the modders knowledge. 1. Spacedock serves as the connecting web-frontend for downloads (with possibility of github login as @SirCmpwn implemented, will be made easier by clean slate approach if people used different user names) !Non-personal/user information (like mod settings/forum mod links and so on is stored in 2 places, the spacedock server and a github repository! 2. There are two background sources for the zip files available on spacedock: a) Storage controlled by spacedock b) Github releases c) Providing opt-out flags eg whether the mod is allowed to be temporarily redistributed from a backup source with the blessing of the previous caretaker if the spacedock frontend fails... 3. Spacedock can serve not only as a frontend for downloads but also for CKAN configuration a) Ability to edit the respective netkan file via spacedock UI (only drop-downs etc to minimize issues) and to then display the resulting metadata file in code b) Ability to point towards the respective github metadata for more experienced modders (who can still copy paste the code generated/displayed in a) to the metadata in their own respository c) Flags/checkboxes to disable ckan integration if the modder wants to opt-out (also possibility to temporarily opt out if there is a bug crisis and/or ability to trigger a red/yellow "warning" symbol next to the mods listing within ckan if there is such a crisis, to easily alert the ckan users of this mod with a single checkmark through the spacedock frontend) 4. Spacedock as a frontend for KSP-AVC version checking/updating Maybe ability to auto-generate .version files and add them to the zip file for the distant future? edit after feedback from RoverDude: This was meant as an optional feature for the far away future, for those interested, certainly not active by default. But I agree with the feedback that checking the included .version file as an extra precaution/warning makes more sense then changing it automatically. One of the most important aspects is, that except for user information, the metadata would not only be stored there but also in github respositories for backup I m sure I forgot something, but as I wrote above, let us use this opportunity to stand on the shoulder of giants (github, kerbalstuff, ckan and ksp-avc) and build something better than each was alone.

Next update (this is moving very fast): Temporary manual downloads are available again, thank you @Jattenalle and everyone involved! Full temporary kerbalstuff archive available here (search for name of mod author): http://cdn.kspstuff.com/storage/ Forum news on project status:

Is it ok/intended to link to the mod files at that location as the main manual download in the mod thread or is it intended as a recovery storage and the added demand will crush the server? edit: retracted as the address is in the next post, thank you very much Jattenalle!

@SirCmpwn expressly said in chat about 2 hours ago, that money was irrelevant for his decision (and thus no interest in patreon). It was a reaction to actions and lack of actions from squad and the community as can be read on [Moderator removed defunct website link].

@Thedas, @titan357 Update: It seems that contingencies will be up much sooner, mainly to allow ckan access to the mods previously hosted on kerbalstuff. I have no idea when the manual download will work again and to what extent, but at the rate some community members work on it, it seems like it will only be a matter (guesstimated 1-3) days until ckan has access to the mods again. All made possible since @SirCmpwn thankfully provided the necessary data from kerbalstuff.

Thought that money at least was a small part of it, but @SirCmpwn said in chat just an hour ago or so, that money was irrelevant (so no interest in patreon and so on from his side). As far as I can tell, it was the reaction of squad ("none") and the community (criticism when something did not work, ignorance when everything worked).

I was hesitant at first about ckan, since I was the manual type myself and I had enough support issues already (though most likely much less than you). But after embracing it for some months now and looking back, I would guesstimate that it cut support issues at least in half. The install issues with wrong folder placement/module manager versions/incompatible mods and so on have largely disappeared, especially since I assumed direct control over the ckan metadata files regarding my mods.Thus after some inital getting used to, I effectively traded the most annoying/unnecessary support issues, for (now) simple and rare metadata textfile maintenance on github.

Ah, that explains it. Never used them will have to try some time. It is unfortunate, but a direct and predictable result when the dev/publisher of a game decides not to offer a mod hosting site, which appears adequate to the majority the modders (curse seems to be not accepted as adequate). The awesome mod hosting site from a community member to fill that void went down with this statement: [Moderator removed defunct website link] So we will have to wait until the community resurrects or replaces that site (which is done at the moment, but may take several days). Then it will take at least several more days until mod authors reupload their mods and everything is working again including the adjustment of all those ksp-avc and ckan links. Given the uncertainty/possible hosting/setup issues, amount of time needed for background adjustments and so on, with real life in the background (I will not have access to my main pc until at least next week...) etc, I therefore estimate at least one, probably 2 weeks until the major SETI downloads are generally/publicly available again... Currently unaffected is just the RemoteTech config, since that download uses github. edit: The only thing I can reasonably do at the moment is to redirect the downloads to the general farewell statement on kerbalstuff to avoid the impression of a random 404 error. edit2: It seems that I can not even edit a link without killing the formatting. This new forum is really annoying and apart from the notifications feels like a downgrade. So I just put a disclaimer above the downloads and save my sanity for the ksp-avc/ckan-config/reupload mess.

I just don't know how to adjust it, I just posted the link to the post and that was what it auto-displayed.

@Valerian: No problem at all, rl comes first, just something which came to mind and I wanted to write it down before it gets lost among all the other stuff going on at the moment. I added PlanetShine to the ckan mod suggestions for SETI-BalanceMod, though with the kerbalstuff situation it will take a while to be relevant anyway. Thank you for the awesome mod!

Most likely an issue with the install path, so it does not find the models/textures or so. I also noticed that the B9procedural version from @Crzyrndm is a lot smaller than the last version from @bac9, though that is probably unrelated, since afair it worked for me the last time.