Snark

Moving to Add-on Discussions, since this is about a mod.

Or it might just be biding its time, or who knows what. Be that as it may... given the fraught history, and given that there does not appear to be any way of knowing that what happened once mightn't happen again, the current policy remains until/unless there's a reason to change it.

Your wheels are the wrong way up. The bottom of the wheel has to be on the ground. "But it's a round wheel, they spin, it shouldn't matter what angle they're mounted at." That's correct, IRL, but that's not how it works in the game. The way the game is implemented, the wheel has a slidey patch on the bottom that has to be on the ground. The rotating-wheel visual is just eye candy and doesn't actually do anything. This.

Moving to Add-on Discussions.

Sure. It just doesn't move around, is all. ... sorry, couldn't resist. Well, I guess it depends on what you count as "wheels". For example, you could build a craft that sits on aircraft landing gear, and use a small engine (jet or rocket, as appropriate) to push it around. Or if you have the Breaking Ground DLC, you could probably rig up something using the rotor parts in place of actual "wheels". Or something using levers or pistons that hops around. Or put reaction wheels on a cylindrical craft and just roll the whole thing around. Creativity can be your friend.

It holds four kerbals and it has a convenient 2.5m squat, cylindrical shape that makes it convenient for building large cylindrical spacecraft. That's pretty much it. It's a convenient shape option. I use them fairly frequently for "build a station" or "build an outpost" contracts, since it holds a fair number of kerbals and is nicely launchable. Other than that, I don't use them a lot.

Pinging @Turf just to make sure you see ManeTI's questions.

Hi folks, Some content has been removed due to overly personal / accusatory remarks. Note that the CKAN maintainers have already posted a thorough explanation of what was done and why, with proposed solutions that haven't materialized yet, in large part because much of this depends on external factors that are outside the CKAN maintainers' control. They've got some knobs they can turn, and they've been doing so, but a perfect solution has been elusive. That doesn't mean one can't debate or discuss technical issues. I'm an experienced software engineer myself, but personally, I'm disinclined to kibitz in cases like this, since I figure that someone like the CKAN maintainers (who have been working on a tool for years, and whose good faith is amply demonstrated by the countless hours of volunteer work they've put into it for the benefit of the community) will have considerably better judgment in the matter than someone else (such as myself) who hasn't walked that particular walk. So, personally speaking, I'm inclined to stay out of their way and let them work on solving the issue as best they can. That doesn't mean folks can't make suggestions. More people = more ideas, and of course it's possible that someone will think of some useful technical solution that the CKAN authors haven't already thought of. So there's nothing wrong with sharing such ideas, in general. Please do so respectfully, however, and in non-accusatory fashion. There's no call for pointing fingers. Remember that nobody's obliged to use CKAN. Remember that this tool is only available to you because unpaid volunteers are putting in years of effort to maintain and extend the tool over time, and to keep up with the ongoing welter of KSP mods that are always popping up and often need help in integrating because the mod authors aren't perfect. Remember that there are plenty of factors outside the maintainers' control, and also that they're juggling this unpaid labor of love in addition to dealing with families and day jobs and so forth. If you like using CKAN, therefore, leveling personal criticisms and accusations at the people who continue to bring you shiny toys for free is a pretty poor way to show your appreciation. So please, don't do that. If you don't like it, don't use it. If you'd like to help improve it and can do so constructively, without pointing fingers, then feel free. With regard to the current issue at hand-- the issues with CKAN metadata around the B9 Procedural Wings mod-- this thread appears to have pretty much run its course. The nature of the technical problem has been explained, along with the rationale. Some alternative ideas have been proposed and discussed over the past few days. At this point, it would seem that further constructive suggestions have run out and things are starting to go in circles. The authors have explained what's going on and what their intentions are, so we're basically done here. Accordingly, closing the thread. Thank you for your understanding.

Yep, it's not much. I was mainly suggesting them because they provide a convenient way to widen the attachment point of the legs. Having the legs be an extra Baguette-width further out from the center can really make a difference in stability. Furthermore, since you can mount them really low down, you can set them to drain last, so they help to lower your CoM, too. I just slapped this together and didn't add on other low-mass radial extras like antennas, other science instruments, solar panels, etc., but you get the idea. Note the location of the CoM, and then look how far out from the center the legs are placed. It's rock-solid stable and you could land on a 30-degree slope with no trouble. It's set to burn the fuel in the Baguettes last, so that helps keep the CoM low as fuel is burned. The pictured CoM is with a full load of fuel. Since the full-load CoM is slightly above the CoM of that 1-ton fuel tank, then this means that yes, the CoM will rise slightly as you start to burn fuel. But only slightly, and even with a good 1000 m/s of its dV burnt, it's stil a low CoM overall and should land with no problem. It provides 2400 m/s of dV, which isn't quite enough to go from LKO to the Mun's surface and back, but it's close enough that as long as you give it a reasonable boost from LKO, it can finish the job on its own. And it's reasonably aerodynamic, so you don't need to put it in a fairing. Just stick a decoupler under that Terrier and you can put it atop a 1.25m stack.

Hmm, that's odd. Sounds like some sort of IT issue, we'll bring it up with the relevant folks to have a look.

(I'll assume that you're already avoiding steep landing places like crater walls and going for reasonably level surfaces). There are a variety of lander designs that can work. I find that "command pod on top of fuel tank on top of engine, with four landing legs around it" does okay, generally speaking. It helps to make sure you're coming down perfectly vertically, and (if it's available to you) use SAS to help you, e.g. land while SAS is set to hold . If you want a wider stance (and, incidentally, a bit of extra fuel storage) ... the Baguette fuel tank is really handy. Put four of those around the central fuel tank in radial symmetry, and then attach your lander legs to those. This moves your lander legs farther out from the center by an extra half a meter or so, and adds quite a bit of stability. Could you post a picture of a typical lander you've tried, that you had issues with? (It's easier to critique a concrete example than to offer general advice in a game with so many variables. If we can see what you're doing, it'll be easier to offer specific suggestions for improvement.) One last bit of advice: if you find yourself having lots of problems with tipping, another thing that can be helpful is to add a reaction wheel. Those will help maintain stability, and (depending on the mass and shape of the ship, and the power of the reaction wheel) might be strong enough so that even if you do fall over, they can right you again.

It's a mixed bag, but for me, at least, the answer is generally no. For a few reasons: There are several of us, so we share the load. The amount of moderating any one moderator needs to do is... well... moderate. (Ahem.) The only thing that really is quite repetitive (on a frequent, daily basis) is approving posts in the queue (e.g. from new members who haven't made enough posts yet to get unqueued). But that's literally just a quick glance and a few mouse clicks, so it's not much of a "burden". Plus, for me, at least, any tedium is easily offset by the little endorphin bump of "oh yay, someone new to the forum!" Other routine stuff, like moving threads to the right section, is also generally just a few mouse clicks... and also doesn't come up all that often. Most users do the right thing most of the time, even new ones. And people tend to learn pretty quickly. That's one possible read on it, sure. However, one thing you learn pretty quickly on this job is not to leap to conclusions about what's going on inside the headspace of someone you don't know. When your only "view" of a person is a few typed words on a screen, it's really tempting to read things into it that simply aren't there. For example, just because they made a mistake doesn't necessarily mean they're lazy-- much more common is that they're simply clueless, which is only to be expected from someone who just arrived in a new place and doesn't know the ropes. (They're quite often grateful and/or apologetic afterwards, even though they haven't really done anything wrong.) Or, for example, the person may just be a kid-- this is not an adults-only forum. But you can't see how old they are when you're reading the post, so if you're looking at something that a 10-year-old wrote and picturing someone in their 20s or 30s writing that, it would be easy to get annoyed; but that would be missing the mark. So, the key to all of this is to be unflappable, to force oneself not to leap to conclusions about people's motivations and attitudes, and just view it as "there's something out of place, nudge it back where it goes, no biggie." I find that it's more efficient just to keep talking at them until they agree to stay just to shut me up. Seriously, though... people do have lives, and sometimes they move on with them (we're all just part-time volunteers, after all, it's not like we're on a contract). Moderators do come and go, over time. So from time to time a moderator will leave, and from time to time we add new ones to make up for that. We try to maintain the team at a reasonable size to share the load. Something like that would obviously be a concern, which is why we're extremely conservative and careful about who we let onto the team. We generally only ever add someone as a moderator when they have a very lengthy, consistent track record that shows that they're not the kind of person who would ever do such a thing. So, no, that hasn't happened. Speaking for myself, I like it a lot, which is why I'm still here at this unpaid "job" after more than five years. What I like about it: I enjoy helping people. I did my best to do that when I was just a regular forum user, and now that I'm a moderator, it's like helping people but with superpowers. I'm a meticulous, OCD person who doesn't mind repetitive tasks (and can even find them oddly soothing). I really like the civil, sane, constructive community here in the KSP forums. It's far and away the nicest community I've run into anywhere on the internet, and therefore the only one that I care to spend time in. I think that's a big part of why so many other people like it, too. Being a moderator means I can help to keep it that way, and that feels good. There's a lot of camaraderie among the mods. We have our own chat channel where we hang out, and it's a fun group. It's a volunteer job, so it's not as though we're punching a clock or anything; we just pop in as and when we have time to do so. But it mostly boils down to this: Approve posts from the queue Respond to user reports Flag spammers Every once in a while some problem will pop up (either because one of us happened to spot it, or more often because some vigilant user issued a report), in which case we deal with it as may be needed. Examples of common scenarios are a user cluelessly posting something in the wrong place, or putting a giant log file into the forum, or posting a mod but forgetting to provide a license, that sort of thing. Occasionally there will be a dust-up when someone is "coloring outside the lines" (such as when an argument becomes heated and people start making personal remarks), in which case we step in as needed to clean things up and cool things down. That's easily the least fun part of moderating, but fortunately it doesn't come up all that often, since most people here are pretty well-behaved as a rule.

Hello @spaceguy2021, and welcome to the forums! Thank you, that's good advice. However, it's also the case that the original poster asked the question nearly eight years ago, so it's probably safe to assume that they've got things figured out by now. Accordingly, locking the thread to prevent further confusion. If anyone has a question about current KSP, please feel free to spin up a new thread!

This thread has been split from the B9 Procedural Wings Fork thread, as the discussion about "what's the right way to solve this sort of dependency issue in CKAN" wandered far off topic for that thread and was derailing it. It was split from here: An important note: Yet again we've had to go in and remove personal remarks, after Vanamonde's previous admonishment not to do that. Look, folks, we understand that this is clearly a highly contentious thread, and that people (understandably) feel strongly about software that they've worked on, or which they use for their mods, or which affects many other users. It's perfectly fine to have lively debate. But, as Vanamonde already said above, please do not make things personal. Debating technical points is fine, but making personal observations about other people's character, or their tone, or what you infer their motivations to be, or the like-- that's out of bounds, folks. It's always been out of bounds here in the forums. So please, don't do that. Thank you for your understanding. [EDIT] And to be clear... if you have any questions or concerns about moderating, please approach the moderator team privately about it. Public discussion of moderation is out of bounds, per forum rules 3.3. and 3.4. Thank you.

Hello @doomwarriorx, and welcome to the forums! We're sorry, but we had to snip the giant text file you embedded in your post. It's great that you're sharing necessary technical information to help people help you... but please realize that the forums aren't really designed for giant text files; they're meant for smaller, human-readable stuff, and embedding giant files in your post (even if they're hidden in a spoiler section) can cause problems for people's browsers, especially on mobile devices. The best way to share that sort of thing is to post it to some third-party file sharing site (there are plenty of them on the internet), and then link to it here, so that people can get to it as needed. Thank you for your patience, and again, welcome! I hope we can get your problem sorted out.

A large number of posts have been split from this thread, since they diverged into a lively debate about the right way to solve this sort of dependency problem in CKAN and got far off-topic for this thread, derailing it. You can find the discussion at the new thread, here: Further discussion about this mod here is fine-- including if CKAN is involved-- but please don't get into arguments about the right way to solve CKAN problems here, it's not the topic of this thread. So, to be clear, if you're trying to figure out where to post: Questions about this mod (and answers thereto), problems with this mod (and solutions thereto), and discussion about this mod are all on-topic for this thread, and please feel free to discuss. Basically, anything that a user of this mod would be interested in. Discussion about CKAN strategy and what the right approach should be to solve problems therewith... please take it to the other thread. Thank you for your understanding. [EDIT] Just now had to remove a "last word" sort of comment. To be clear, please keep any discussion of the incident out of the public channel-- anyone who wants to discuss it is welcome to approach the moderators privately. The whole point here was to get the off-topic argument out of this thread, so before anyone tries to get in the "last word", please stop and think about whether what you're saying would antagonize the other side of the argument and prompt them to respond in kind, which just drags us all right back into the same mess again. Thank you.

Best to move this thread back on topic, so let's all please drop the emoji discussion, thank you. Just to close out the topic, Relatively small things can cause issues for sensitive individuals. We've had people encounter severe problems because someone used a flashy avatar, for example, and avatars aren't all that much bigger than an emoji. If the emoji is there, it's going to get spammed in a wall of them. Or people will be quoting it back and forth and having it show up in multiple places on a page, all at once. This has, in fact, happened. Multiple times. Recently. It sets a bad example. People in general should exercise restraint about posting flashy stuff... but not everyone has gotten that memo, and if the forum itself is putting flashy stuff up like that, it's likely to make people think that "flashy stuff is okay" and will cause folks to exercise less caution. TL;DR: It can hurt people. Yes, really. No, we're not exaggerating. So it doesn't belong in the forums. And now, back to the topic, everyone.

As for how the game has progressed: For updates to the game since 1.2, check out everything on this page, above this point: https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Version_history#v1.2 Executive summary of some of the highlights: localization to various languages Asteroid Day added to stock (new science instrument & asteroid missions) EVA parachutes, new EVA suits Part variants (can switch between different models and paint jobs) Major revamp of many part models, part textures, and planetary surfaces dV display, in flight and in VAB Radically improved burn indicator on the navball Improved maneuver-node UI Ability to switch altimeter between absolute and surface-relative mode Action groups editable in flight Kerbal inventories and EVA construction mode allows engineers to do some ship-building "in the field" As for how the community has progressed: Well, it hasn't, really. We're still a bunch of generally nice space nerds who like arguing with each other. Currently slated for release in 2022. Occasionally there are updates from the devs about how various things will work, but news is rather sparse these days. There's a whole sub-forum dedicated to it here: KSP2 Discussion KSP2 Dev Diaries In addition to the above, you may find this Q&A useful. It's a bit dated (from August 2019), but gives a sense of what their vision is for the game:

Moving to Spacecraft Exchange.

Various content has been redacted and/or removed due to running afoul of forum rules 2.2.c, content unsuitable for children. We're sorry to have to do this, and we hate to rain on folks' parade. Please remember, though, that this is a family forum and there are children present, so let's keep it clean, please. Thank you for your understanding.

I'm still around, but have kinda been neglecting this. No new developments since I last posted a couple of years ago. As far as I know the mod should still work on current KSP, but I haven't tested it lately so I can't guarantee that. If you happen to find out one way or the other, let us know?

A very large number of posts that were all basically just repetitions of "It's Friday!" were removed, since it ballooned to the point that it was making the thread unreadable, in addition to using giant flashy walls of gifs that are potentially medically dangerous for some people. Folks, it's great that you're excited about KSP, and we're happy to see your enthusiasm. However... please try to remember that the purpose of this thread-- like any thread in the forum-- is to provide a place to discuss a topic. The large majority of your fellow KSP forum members who come to the thread are doing so because they want to read about the topic. And if you've blown up the thread with multi-page torrents of contentless fluff... well, we understand you're enthusiastic and that's great, but it does get in the way of fellow users being able to enjoy the thread for the purpose with which it was intended. Yes, I'm sure we're all well aware of what day it is, so no need to point that out ad infinitum, okay? So, please try to be mindful of forum rule 2.2.o: On a more serious note: Part of this outpouring of enthusiasm involved posting giant walls of obnoxiously flashy gifs (saying "IT'S FRIDAY!"). I'm sure nobody meant any harm here, and probably just thought it was harmless fun. However, please be aware that this can cause potentially serious medical problems for people who may have photosensitivity problems with flashing images. From forum rule 5.2: So, please don't do that. In short: Nobody's in trouble, but please try to stay on topic and have something meaningful to say, and please avoid posting excessively flashy animations. Thank you for your understanding.

Quite a bit of content has been removed, due to: unsupported accusations insulting/disrespectful personal remarks going blatantly off-topic Folks, please play nice. There is nothing wrong with raising valid concerns, but there are right ways and wrong ways to go about doing this. What's going on In the current case, a concern has been raised about the potential presence of a computer virus in a forked version of the mod. This was reported by just one user, whose antivirus software triggered on the downloaded DLL. Other users have suggested that it may be a false alarm, and indicated that their own scans found nothing wrong. Clearly, if a virus were present, that would be a big deal, so if someone has a concern about that, of course it's a good idea to raise the issue so that it can be addressed ASAP. However, "my antivirus flagged something" is only the start of the story (and might be a false alarm), and it's important to understand what to do next in a situation like that. Here the major do's and don'ts. What you should do If you have concerns about a potential virus in a KSP mod download, here is what you should do: Report the post, along with a note detailing your concerns. This will get the moderator team to have a look as soon as possible. Do a reasonable amount of due diligence on your part to collect evidence to support your assertion. "My antivirus flagged it" is one useful data point, of course, but that by itself is not enough evidence to leap to conclusions. There are additional steps you can take, which I'll get into below. Do not make public accusations. If action needs to be taken, that's what moderators are for. Due diligence when reporting: Help us help you If you have concerns about the potential presence of a virus-- for example, "my antivirus software just flagged it"-- then here's what you can do to help, when reporting the issue to us. Technical details in spoiler. What not to do It is incredibly inappropriate to level accusations against people, for a variety of reasons: There might not actually be a virus in the DLL. It is not uncommon for anti-virus programs to give false alarms. Even if there's a virus in the DLL on your system, it's not guaranteed that it came from the download. Maybe you downloaded a clean DLL and then it got infected on your system. Even if there were a virus in the download, you don't know it's deliberate on the part of the poster. They could have been an innocent victim. So it's not appropriate to level accusations. So don't do that, please. We now return you to your mod thread in progress Thread is now unlocked. Play nice, folks. Please, no further "is there a virus?" discussion here. We're actively following up on the matter privately, and will post a status update here when we have a resolution one way or the other. If anyone has relevant evidence of a problem, please contact the moderator team directly. (For the nonce, the status remains "one single user has reported a hit on their antivirus software, other users find it clean, no further confirmation available." If anyone has any concerns about downloading it, remember that the source code is publicly posted so you can always just grab the source and build it yourself. Speaking as a KSP modder myself, I've looked at the code changes, and @vader111's updates look innocuous to me.) Thank you for your understanding.

Because experience has shown that otherwise, some folks would spam likes so much that there would be rampant "like inflation" and it would end up being basically meaningless. The fact that they're limited in quantity, and therefore require people to pick and choose, makes them more useful to the community.

Well, somewhat. There are too many references to it scattered around old threads in the forums for it to be practical for us to remove all references. But those tend to be buried in ancient posts, and at least we can make a reasonable effort to keep new references (which would be more visible, and therefore more likely to lead the unwary astray) out of the forum.