Erquint

Has it never not thrown errors, then? Was it like that since the very start? That's confusing. Also quite confusing is the titling. I've seen your UBME on the forum but not on CKAN. Does your UBME affect the whole SETI-MMP, including SETI-R and SETI-PP, not only SETI-UBM?

I installed the SETI-MetaModPack from CKAN. The mods that are part of it link here through redirects and I can't seem to find threads dedicated to them separately. SETI-Rebalance and SETI-ProbeParts produce a lot of errors on loading for me. I tried downgrading to 1.3.1 but still get those errors on parsing CFGs. What setup would be native for the MetaModPack? What else other than game version I have to downgrade in order to make it work as intended? Is this a known issue or should I remove all other mods and check how these two act on their own as well as gather logs?

So, are you planning on releasing this patch to CKAN? I realize you're not Y3mo and the whole ARR deal but this wouldn't be the first complementary side-fix package released separately.

I see. It's still complicated. And your, guys, work is still underappreciated. I'm unpleasantly surprised to see many devs still being quite uncooperative. But what's the deal with FAR? People over in its thread are recompiling their own "forks". In terms of CKAN, is the deal with FAR forks purely a licensing grey zone until Ferram himself turns up or are you waiting for the crowd to choose a proper maintainer among themselves?

But does it work on the basis of "leave it be until somebody breaks their game and cries about it to us" or "keep a close eye on these ones in case the game has major changes to its structure in one of the updates"?

Why are "any" max KSP versions still allowed? In my understanding, once a dev pushes an "any" version file, there is no longer any way to track how outdated that package is. In other words, I'd imagine there are mods that have been compiled for, let's say, 1.0.2 far in the past and marked as "any" which are now terribly outdated, potentially causing numerous issues and will never cease to be parsed as "compatible" by CKAN. Or are the packages with such compatibility version tags closely-curated all the time? Even then, at one point in the future or another, this may change, CKAN may lose its current maintainers and/or curators, policies may change and these "any" version packages will be nothing but a headache for whomever tries to figure anything out. Are there good reasons to allow such an unconventional and regulated bypass to the versioning system to persist to this day?

If it is compatible with the latest version, as you say — mark it as such on CKAN. Currently the package on CKAN is marked to only be compatible with versions up to 1.1.2.

Kopernicus just updated on CKAN. Reinstalled Outer Planets back. Seems to work properly.

Can't wait to see this on 1.2.1 KSP CKAN.

I'm going full CKAN-exclusive route. No changes other than those CKAN provides. Not that I don't know my way around hand-editing numerous files as I did before with KSP and keep doing with other games. I've had my hands wet in the past but this time around I want to support a package manager by actively taking a stance of relying on it completely. I'm ready to suffer whatever losses this brings as I am already deprived of FAR, MJ2 and many other mods I couldn't imagine playing without. CKAN is demanding but I believe it to be the best thing to ever happen to modding in general. KSP mod scene is ready to mature.

I confirm empty black universe. I will uninstall the mod for now since I don't have any crafts orbiting extra bodies right now. Hope there are no more inconsistencies to look out for aside from that.

Don't do this, I beg you. There are other ways: Maybe engineers can only repair up to a certain threshold of damage corresponding to their skill or cannot repair at all if the part is beyond a certain level of disrepair higher than it. Or implement a resource (like "SpareParts" used in some other mod) and make the skill level affect efficiency at which these are spent. Cooldowns are the worst. Also can't wait for the malfunctioning hatches — making kerbals "tourists" might be the simpliest solution. But a more deep model where at some point a kerbal cannot exit a vehicle and beyond that cannot even control it would be much appreciated as well.