rynak

Installation paths: KSP/GameData/Chatterer/plugins/Chatterer.dll KSP/GameData/Chatterer/plugins/PluginData/Chatterer/plugin.cfg KSP/GameData/Chatterer/Sounds <--- various stuff in there, but irrelevant since sounds work fine KSP/GameData/Chatterer/Textures/chatterer_icon_off.png KSP/GameData/Chatterer/Textures/chatterer_icon_on.png KSP/GameData/Chatterer/Textures/chatterer_icon_toolbar.png KSP/GameData/Chatterer/Textures/line_512x4.png I'm quite sure the above is correct? Toolbar version is one i downloaded yesterday, so should be fine? Already did that - that's how i got the settings window to show at all. Moved a batch of plugins to another temporary directory, and now the button shows up. Seems to be an incompatibility, with another mod's version. Will try to narrow it down one mod at a time. Sorry for the false alarm. Thanks for bothering.

freeze on loading the radio. I did remove the previous stuff.... only change i made was to delete cfgs of parts i don't use, and to delete the kspapiextensions.dll, because i do already have an updated version in gamedata. Currently too busy to debug this, because i'm debugging another plugin.... will post more data later. EDIT: WinXP SP3, so 32bit KSP

Aaaaaaaaaaaaand..... still works in 0.24 32bit! Why isn't this stock?

The log files are in your root KSP directory.

Well, based on the link to the screenshot you posted, the obvious answer is: Sort by science points remaining. If the screenshot is the display you're talking about, then it still displays one experiment per line, so there should be no layout problem with sorting experiments? Of course, one could only sort those experiments, that weren't filtered out with the buttons. EDIT Also, maybe some curious players want to know the opposite: total earned science points for a combination of loc/biome/situation/experiment. Soo, for the library: 1. Various intuitive filtering options - there should be reasonable defaults, like for example not even listing unavailable experiments. 2. Sort the results either by science remaining (default!), total science earned, or "type" (location > biome > situation > experiment) Straight forwards?

Soo, any news on when starwaster will strike back? It's not like NEAR is everyone's cup of tea.

So, how does one access the settings the normal way? The OP doesn't say. The readme doesn't say. There is no chatterer button listed in my toolbar config. I edited chatterers configfile to force the settings dialog visible, but i guess there must be a proper way to display it? The configfile mentions a button position, but i see no new button on the screen. EDIT: Yes, i installed stuff into correct paths - or at least i didn't mess with the paths in the archive.

As my post above yours said: NO! Unless you can program C#.

I notice that everyone who said that "it works here", either was on 64bit or didn't mention if he was running 32bit or 64bit. Sooo, is there anyone for whom this works properly on 32bit XP?

...the same as what he said, but rephrased to hypocritically hide the consequences of your demands.

Here's an idea: If you need a quick hackfix, to make your stuff survive, while waiting for the dev to fix the inaccuracies: Just edit the configfile! There you go: Safe landings, without the need to prematurely change the mod in... sorry.... STUPID WAYS..... just because the current sane approach still needs fixing.

Umm, "this mod" and that configfile do not change contracts! It only changes the DESCRIPTION of contracts. So, what "this mod" could do is avoid repetitive contract descriptions - it cannot change the gamemechanics of contracts without a plugin.

Rule of thumb: No matter what some party does - it really doesn't matter what - someone on the internet will come forward to defend or attack it. It has nothing to do with the facts at hand or the circumstances - the mere fact of there being something resembling a "team", will attract people who want to attack or defend something - the justifications and reasoning, they will then make up themselves, but the true motivation simply is argueing for the sake of argueing - they like to be on a team and fight for it. (Yes, i do have a very low opinion of humans - not my fault) As such, the entire discussion in this thread IMO is kinda pointless - the initial post, and the statements by modstats pretty much explain the situation to anyone who cares about data and facts. Those argueing in the thread here instead? It doesn't matter what arguments or facts you bring up, no one of the warriors will switch sides, "retreat" or be "beaten". It's completely pointless, unless you like this particular.... sports game.

From my limited testing (not much), it does seem to work with the 32bit version. No idea about 64bit.

Thanks! Was holding off until now.

Just a minor proposal: If you do already realize that some players seem to not want them in the dir gamedata/nereid, then is it too much effort to ask yourself WHY they might have an issue with the naming scheme? Developers putting their games/mods into folders called foo/devname/gamename or foo/studioname/gamename or even (WTF?) foo/publishername/studioname/gamename is GODDAMN CONFUSING TO THE USER. It makes it really hard to keep track and maintain one's own installed software, because one can - from the relevant super-dir (here: gamedata) no longer quickly see which mod is where. Sooo, just a hint to plugin developers in general: Maybe it would make more sense to consider yourself not more important, than the user's need to organise his own software on his own computer - instead of simply complaining that some users refuse to accept your egomaniac naming scheme and this way mess up installations.

That screenie reminds me: If this isn't much effort, it would really be helpful to have lines between the "rows". It's related to the earlier request for highlighting lines (which i agree with too): Right now, it's easy to accidentally skip rows when navigating between the "columns".

Good catch! Though gigabytes is an exaggeration - unless ALL those "assets" are JPEGs. Anyways, as others said, this is kinda of topic, so stopping now.

Was mentioned earlier in this thread. I thought you were talking about KSP with pwings - not real life. No, it doesn't. IF FAR is installed (and only IF), then it might "scale" the metadata that FAR gets (check the cfg files - the default FAR values are in there). It does however not take wing thickness into account. Your ugly looking plane in the screenshot will fly just fine! I'm familiar with this in my own games. So, either you're suffering from a different bug, or you're reporting a placebo effect. (All of this is assuming, that the behavior did not change in the most recent version... but the author mentioned no such thing) I did.

Did you perhaps install the community crew report version of sciencedefs? What you describe is what happens, if the sciencedefs file (probably the one in the squad folder) is broken or missing. Either they messed up AGAIN, or maybe you forgot to rename it properly (CFG, not TXT)?

Erm, according to the dev, the thickness doesn't have any effect on aerodynamics at all - it's just fluff... so, if you're seeing actual gameplay consequences, then something else than just visual glitches should be happening? Do the control surfaces in your case collide wrongly or something like that?

I was neither using FAR nor SDF back then (0.32.5) - plain stock aerodynamic model. I just checked - it still happens in 0.40 here. Steps: 1. New sandbox game 2. Go to SPH 3. Use stock inline MK1 cockpit (the one called MK2) - but really, it shouldn't matter which one you pick 4. Add 5m fuel tank 5. Select normal pwing... move it along the fuselage - CoL updates and shows correctly. 6. Click to attach the part - CoL returns to original position - as if the wing doesn't exist. Basically, i only ever get to see CoL for the wing i'm currently attaching, but cannot see CoL for those already attached.

Well, it's aesthetically annoying, but doesn't really affect gamemechanics.... the bug that the center of lift for some people - including me in 0.32.5 - ignores pwings, is something i'd consider much more severe. After all, its kinda hard to design a well behaving airplane, if the CoL marker is completely wrong.

I think he responded to that earlier - or maybe that was in the fairing thread. Either the pwing or the pfairing dev asked squad to support this during the experimentals. It didn't happen - at least this time.

But you're comparing 0.23.5 32bit with 0.24 64bit. Compare the same versions and installs. Furthermore, apps running in 64bit-mode can be significantly faster, but again this is completely irrelevant to what i explained, for multiple reasons: 1. It only means that CPU tasks will be faster. It doesn't speed up memory access or GPU processing. So, you might experience less lag, because CPU bottlenecks are lessened. Others remain as they were. 2. And even for the CPU - just because you can do something inefficient faster, it doesn't make it more efficient: If you'd do it efficiently, you could do it even faster. 3. Finally, Intel and AMD are *censored* liars. That apparent speed boost when running in 64bit mode? You think thats because 64bit is faster? Well, that is what they want you to believe, because else back then there would have been no reason to buy 64bit CPUs and OSes. Here's what really happens: When they introduced 64bit CPUs, they not only upped the addressing and increased the size of registers, they also VASTLY increased the NUMBER of cpu-registers. And not just a bit, but almost TEN-FOLD. Then they went and made those features only available for apps running in 64bit mode, even though this got nothing to do with 64bit at all. But they needed an incentive to make 64bit LOOK faster, to justify the switch (No, RAM limitations wouldn't be a justification, because 32bit x86 can actually address more than 4GB in total... thats another lie. In fact, XP32 was already capable of addressing more than 4GB from the POV of the OS, but the feature was purposefully disabled in a configfile, so that applications wouldn't use it, and thus users would think they have to upgrade to a 64bit OS, to access more than 4GB).