nobodyhasthis2

@Yemo Is the tech tree rebuild still being planned and is there a diagram of it ? I am building up a list of personal patches for a list of non supported mods. I am not sure if the mapping should be planned against the current tree on the new proposal. I know it might be very early to ask this. Especially with the version dance and RT reverse engineering stuff coming up at some undetermined point in the future..

This is awesome. Since we now been given a Kerbin sized engine. I wonder how heavy the elephants really are on Kerbin? I wonder what other units of measurement we could have. Scott Manley's twinkie scale video and now elephant exhaust. What is next. The pirate ninja mod?

If this working correctly. The aim is to get the experiments back to Kerbin. It suppose to present a bit of a logistic problem and makes space stations a bit more practical as well. So you will be flying up new science equipment and test samples to the station. Then bring back the test material for analysis on Kerbin. It encourages people to think about service missions to space stations. EVA play also gets a bit of a boost because there stuff to collect and move around. There is supposed to be a reward for returning test samples back to planet side. At least that is how the contracts are supposed to work. Originally this tied in with the concept behind Station Science mod. Which has similar game play mechanics and also expands space station play. Take material into orbit and put it through a test program. Then return the material back to Kerbin for a reward. It is possible to do the analysis in orbit in Station Science but it required lifting about 100 tons of advanced lab, particle accelerator and test chamber up there. Initially it is just easier to come up with a economic taxi service for crew, equipment and test material.

It is a bug. Or the need for a new feature depending on how we look at how the configs version numbers work for the mod. Task in hand to fix. Clean everything out. The best way is to make a .ckan and use it on a fresh install. Although this might not help it will not do any harm either. There was an update to CustomAsteroids-Pops.netkan to as workaround in the last week from Starstrider42 which should help you. He has also passed on a very good bug report it case it persists.

It is not on space dock. This is a fork of N3h3mia's Orbital material science. This is an experimental pre-release. So the down load is listed here https://github.com/mwerle/OrbitalMaterialScience/releases You will want the "science pack". Which is the biggest file if your confused by all the numbers. The rest of the files are not required unless you are debugging or only want a part of the whole package. It was done this way to make it easier to get just a bit of it before KSP 1.1. Due to memory constraints. If anyone is not sure what each bit does look back on the original 0.90 version instructional videos found here http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/73723-090-orbital-material-science-version-06/ Although please adjust for new KIS if approprate. @michathanks for the update by they way. Though we lost you when your computer when out of commission at christmas. Glad to see you back here.

Nope totally wrong there. I supported you. However that response means I was right to leave you out of it. Good enough reason not to link it right here. Seriously this not worth your time. Yes the point is elegantly made but not here. The wound is too deep. The list of problems go way back to 2014. Seriously he has being getting shafted for years. To cut a long story short. This is the wrong thread to talk about CKAN. There is another thread for that. I am saying that out of respect for @ferram4 Ironically we have already discussed this. You have told me your workflow which avoids half the problem. Then offered up a good solution to reinforce it. I am more that happy to send you a PM later on today ok. Although I do realise you have got other stuff going on in RL. So no harm done if you can't respond for now.

It is there but does not directly reference your last CKAN contributions. Although the connection is fairly obvious. In short it is the same story but from the point of view of an end user. Looking at a passed FAR problem and how it applies to the whole community. Honestly I thought it was best to not use FAR as a direct example in the larger issue as there plenty evidence about it already. I don't even want to give you the link as you have been through enough.

Well as a "convenience" and to provide you with "less work"... The thread actually provides advice that fixes most past problems and now has more advice to debug FAR without the use of CKAN. There also user focused Issue on Github that shadows that advice and indirectly links to every negative comment or suggestion you have ever made as supporting evidence. That is about all we can do. However we are still going to get people in here that are new to all of this. CKAN users can't be accused of ignoring the advice if they don't know it exists. I know it is annoying for everyone to keep constantly redirecting traffic to there. I just hope people are not to "busy" here to keep doing that.

Report on the CKAN thread. Will not go into the details here for the sake of brevity. Curse is tricky to get right and does not like getting indexed. The CKAN team have to input the url manually. There a project running to fix this in the future.

Your comments where fair and needed to be said. I can speak for anyone else but I though you made you point quite well CKAN authors are amazing and the project statistics are jaw dropping to prove it. Although just for complete clarity here. To avoid any personal miss understandings. As far as my own contribution goes. I do not deserve any praise at all. I don't do anything apart from chuck money into various pockets ( If anybody is curious, Vitas for the spacedock server. Roverdude for herding cats, Pjf for CKAN sprints ). So if I am a pain in the butt to these people. The lease I can do is buy them a coffee now and again. It depends on the definition of a hotfix across the whole community. Breaking MM could have been bad for a lot of mod owners. Plus I have seen comments off forum about having to recompile code. If it is a bigger change we have to wait to hear back from individual mod owners. This has happened before. An example being 1.0.3 to 1.0,4 was a hotfix. 1.0.4 to 1.0.5 probably was not. Yes that is pretty much that is how is goes. Although we could open the flood gates directly in CKAN and let them all through with a few lines of code. The question is should we if mod authors are saying it is not a hotfix. When the answer is has been no in the past and the ball gets tossed back into the modding community, However for what is it worth. There is a link to the PR a few pages back if people want to voice an opinion on where or not it gets merged. This is a massive change in the way things are done. It has been suggested over and over since we started getting stable KSP builds. So it is already done. Almost there. Honest...... Links posted a few pages back for those that want to read the code.

Yes the first part is a double edged sword. It just might get more self edited later on if people don't see the funny irony of version control. Especially if end users can't take the joke. Or pulled all together if too many objections raised. The point I was trying to make is Mod authors are awesome in creating amazing things and the CKAN crew work their butts off making it all available. Then comes along the end user and says "Hey guys you missed a bit". Instead of "thank you". Then the situation can deteriorate from there, Sometimes the best policy for the end users is to wait things out. It is difficult time for everyone right now. There is only a tiny number of people working away in their spare time to build the support network. It all takes time. As for the remark about folder wipes. It is a really long story but crops up briefly in the thread a few pages back. In short CKAN can't be trusted to fully uninstall mods and users need to be aware of this. Mods can write their own files independently when CKAN is not running. Plus a mods folder structure is mostly agnostic. There is no default structure forced onto mod authors. There has been a few cases in the past where dodgy config files have messed things up badly. So when users get told to do a clean install by an author after a big update. They need to listen up. Unselect the mod in CKAN. Manually delete the left over config files / folders from Gamedata. Then reinstall through CKAN again. Every suggestion to automate the process leads to a worse outcome that the original problem. Honestly we have debated this to death. It's a paradox. I am not saying it can't be fix. It just super time consuming to do once every permutation is accounted for. For something that is only an edge case that affects a small number of mods.

Wow, from that post in this thread you'd think that some mod authors never learned how to provide metadata when everyone started using CKAN. Or course they don't have to. We can finish the job for them with a bit of user feedback. . Normally missing data gets fixed amazing fast. The only problem is around KSP update time things get super busy around here. Especially when a KSP hotfix is more that a hotfix to some mod authors. They need to be picky about version control. Mod authors are awesome in creating amazing things and the CKAN crew work their butts off making it all available. Then comes along the end user and says "Hey guys you missed a bit". Instead of "thank you". Then the situation can deteriorate from there, If users are complaining to a mod author about a mod not appearing in CKAN the answer is this ... Yes sir that is the facts. Linux64 users have seen the future of KSP modding. Although it also crops up in Windows when using multiple KSP install directories. So you might not be that far out of the statistical bell curve. In my own case running in windows. A minimum amount of mods is around 104 after 1.0.x. The Unity 4 memory cap limits the maximum amount (How I get so many under the cap is another story). So I ended up creating mod packs (.ckan files) aimed at setting up different flavours of Ksp. So although less mods are used the whole problem of tracking changes is just as bad. Possibly worst. On an average day I could have between 4 to 8 builds. So possibly 400 to 800 mods being chased. CKAN is the way ahead. There are things about it I hate with a passion (The documentation should be more verbose about the dangers of not obeying requests folder wipes). However the benefits to users with large installs or multiple install folders cannot be disputed.

Sounds good. We might have to test the wheels all over again with the new tweakable options. The new automatic creation of wheel reinforcement struts to the center of mass could screw things up .

The override function has been created #1499. It just does not have a GUI yet. Yes all the bad stuff has be discussed in depth elsewhere but people keep on asking for a version checking to be removed. Despite the fact that mod authors could avoid the whole problem by setting max_ksp. The analysis of the PR on deciding if 1.1.1 > 1.1.2 is a minor change is here #1690. If this is done all mods get automatically accepted. Doing this sort of thing was ok in the past for ksp 1.0.3. to 1.0.4. but terrible for ksp 1.0.4 to 1.0.5 With a "minor" update. Each individual's mileage might vary.

Here we go again Edit; MM ending .23 is toast by the looks of it.

@nightingale I am still having problems getting "To boldly go" to work in the game. I do have a ton of mods installed and something is stopping Strategia. Although contract configure is running fine. Can I send you a PM with a link to a save file? I am not sure if you need a save with craft holding all the data just before recovery or the a save from the space center after recovery. What is more useful? Also worth mentioning that I have science funding running (in lieu of some stock contracts). So the OnScienceReceived event would also be generating money anyway. I am wondering if blocks the biomes bonus shown above.

@linuxgurugamer Can you put in the explanation behind two config files. The OP does not explain there are two different power response configs. One is an instant response, similar to stock, and the second is a graduated power response, where it takes the engines a few seconds spool up to full thrust. This is only known by searching through the instructions and further details are a complete mystery..

Try it without forcing DX11. A bit of advice that probably still stands from pre-release. KSP is built on the DX9 pipeline as this is the most stable, and to avoid introducing unknown variables. This is the pipeline chosen automatically, and in normal use, no further action is required. However, there may be some graphics glitches with other pipelines on some hardware. Your mileage may vary. The use of alternatives is not officially supported, so we would prefer that issue reports (especially concerning graphics problems) are made for DX9 only (The default). The alternatives are provided as a courtesy and to allow for some workarounds with some hardware.. KSP 1.2 will be the graphics update

Ok cool. Currently working on a new game install. So I could have broken something. Just not seeing the messages to prove this working. I think that I am only get one message per mission. Rather that send you save file just what I probably be better doing is finishing off the mod list. Then restart a brand new game with aircraft to see if multiple bonuses pay out with all the other mods running. Unless someone else comes along with the same symptoms. I am going to assume this is user error.

Does it only work once per mission? If I fly through two biomes does it give +X twice?

Ok now I am less confused. Sorry it is just me. The duplication of the mods name in the OP is really confusing. Especially since both mods are now for 1.1. Right now ForScience does not seem to be working in 1.1 so I will use this version. So far the only problems that I am having with AutomatedScienceSampler is being caused by user error. I keep forgetting to switch it off before recovery. Leaving it on messes up the next launch because it just always fails to store data. it keeps needing to be forced back to a cockpit. I am also a little worried that this will not support probe core storage later on when SETI is relaunched. However apart from that it all works. In fact it is rather awesome. It just needs to start switched off and later on needs to store user settings later on. Nice to see that as a planned feature. What I am still confused by is ForScience did seem to work with DMagic Orbital Science. In fact it seemed to work with everything a little too well. The only mods it did't play nice with was resource using experiments. Like Station Science or Orbital Material Science. It had to be switched off when these experiments where present because it tried to trigger them too early. However apart from that it seemed to work. If launching another version leads to better collaboration that is all good.

Does the configuration window work in 1.1? I seem to just get FS in the tool bar. Science is being collected but that configuration window is missing. That means the per craft settings seem missing.

Ok now I am confused. Right now this has less features that the original. What is the point of this? Is because For Science is now broken? Will @WaveFunctionP fix the For Science mod or should we switch to using this?

Even more fun fact. This what happens when we get a singer to use Google Translate.

How does "to boldly go" work again? I need to know that exact conditions to match to get it to work. So far i have seen it trigger only once and then it never works again.