TeddyDD

I love textures for Procedural Parts. Its like new part pack but way lighter for RAM Keep up great work! You could also consider creating textures for procedural fairings.

I never deleted any stock part (except old shuttle cockpit before 0.90) I use Procedural Parts/Fairings and when I installing things like KW Rocketry I just delete everything except engines, struts and rcs pods. When I ran out of memory there is Active Texture Management to help

Damn it ferram4, every of your mods (excluding NEAR) is must have for my KSP install. Awsome

Omg I want this too From what I understand KerbalEdu is paid version beside normal KSP. We can buy it but I don't suppose that it will be released as a mod or introduced into our usual KSP http://www.kerbaledu.com/faq#question3-4

Be pro and don't kill kerbals?

Kerbin > Eve flyby > Duna (and two hours of planing in KSP Trajectory Optimization Tool)

Try >ckan ksp default default

Your mod should become stock just like SpacePlane+ Amazing work! Thank you

Ok, thank you So far so good. It works. Now I need to break into this

I'm trying to run this. Which git lib did you used?

My girlfriend become fan of Kerbals. She doesn't like rockets, spaceplanes and all this stuff. She likes Kerbals O.O There are her works:

I would second that If there was a way to deploy standalone Python 3 app for Win, Mac and Linux. But from what I know it is impossible to do. For now I would stick to first idea (Python prototype > C# final app)

That "once" was on 0.23.5 I have got nvidia optimus card what also makes trouble (ksp doesn't like optirun) Also I use a lot of mods. Actually, that's why I became interested in this topic

Keywords are "kind of" I tried to play on Linux once and it was awful But I think We can manage to do it

I would argue... but just tried to build cx_Freeze against Python 3.4 No way :> What a crap xD Personally, I wish we wrote this in my favourite Golang xD But guess what? There isn't native Go GUI library and using bindings is... funny :> (It is not a proposal of course, just my adoration for this language) I just hope that Mono/C# stuff will work properly on all systems Yeah... true Edit: IronPython is still python 2.7 :| Since we want to use Mono/.NET IMO better let's stay with C#

Very good solution, actually a compromise between simple packages and copyright laws. EDIT: I thought of our prototype Python application. If it would be good enough (I mean very good) we could try to use cx_Freeze to create standalone executables for Window, Mac and Linux. Of course Python program usually has slightly worse performance. But developers time is more valuable than computer time. Python is a good language, and if this way would work I see no reason to rewrite everything in C#

Agree. Besides package licence must be clearly separated from mod licence. I suggest package-licence: -name: "MIT License" url: "http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT" instead license: - name: "MIT License" plaintext: &mit_license | The MIT License (MIT) Permission is hereby granted ...

This description convinced me. Forget about my previous post. Now I understand what you mean, and damn ... this is simple and great! I have a few comments, but this is rather details. I think that the client should care about hashing files when installing mod and then save checksums somewhere. Package file should be simple enough to make it possible to create it manually (excluding the checksum xD) It is still a matter to discuss. If you want these checksums I will not argue about them I do not like skipping files like readme, or example crafts etc. That king of files in the archive must be marked and manager will decide what to do with them. This will be simple: contents: '03d2659490e744b2641ca47ebe6e93f8': 'DeadlyReentry/DeadlyReentry-RealChutes.cfg' 'bbe1bd3cb63cba5b630ae9c82bc2f011': 'DeadlyReentry/Sounds/fire_damage.wav' '01ea0cb76541c1f16f8c71ba09d04098': 'DeadlyReentry/Sounds/gforce_damage.wav' documentation: "imagine I'm checksum": "DeadlyReentry/readme.txt" etc. To hash archive better use SHA1 (just in case) The whole project is starting to look more and more real. I need to start learning C# in order to do something useful

So our ideas are similar. I thought about three packages like this: There is R4.0c package (for KSP 0.22) first version of this package for KSP 0.23.5 appears: R4.1 (virtual, itself does not contain any files) > depends on R4.0c+community-fix-1 (another package, not installed manually, contains only the fixed files) > depends on R4.0c USER: Great, Install it. Manager downloads and installs what you need. and marks the R4.1 package as willed by user. New version appears 5.0 USER: Cool, Install it! Manager sees that the package has two dependencies. That dependencies were automatically installed and no other mod need them. They can be safely deleted. (In case of trouble prompt the user.) Deletes three packages and install the new version - 5.0 Generally, my idea is to use sub packages. I understand that you do not want to remove any packages when upgrading. It's a good idea because it simplifies this process. In that case, I'm interested in how R4.0c-community-fix-1 package could look like according to your idea? Mod file with the patches and fixes applied? Or some sort of meta data? In any case, I agree with you that the mod with community fixes (those essential to work) should be treated as newer version of this mod. Edit: I used the additional virtual package so it is be recognized by the manager as the next version of R4.0c and to law and order But of course it could be done without it: R4.0c R4.0c-community-fix-1 (or R4.1 for a pretty version number) depends on R4.0c

From that what you write from the client point of view would look the same: Download original release and then download patches/fixes and override the necessary files :| I don't understand you. I don't think patch for B9 4.0 that causes mod works on KSP 0.23.5 is a temporary package.

I mean we do not modify any original mods. Example: B9 R4.0c for 0.22 > Works out of the box B9 4.1 (our unofficial) for 0.24.2 > Depends on: B9 Aerospace Pack Fixes Pack (community) which depend on original B9 0.22 R4.0c Then Bac9, Taverius and K3|Chris are releasing B9 5.0 B9 5.0 for 0.24.2 dependent on: etc...

And what about the installation of such a mod? It may have a completely different folder structure than our standard. IRC? It's a good idea. I usually have time between 8 am - 12 pm and 8 pm - 00:00:00 am GMT (I hope I calculated it correctly) How about you? Edit: Forum is trolling me Hello Micha Welcome aboard! Precisely what solution I like. Nobody moves original files. Edit2: It would be great to write the entire program in Python... but Python apps deployment is a nightmare :C But to write the prototype is a good language.

I would prefer something like mapping files from the archive into the game folders. Moders can continue to work in their own way. Its less work for us when upgrading package. The folder structure in a mod rarely changes. Now we would have to change it manually every update.

What if author used "All rights reserved" or "CC-BY-NC-ND"? Boom! The system does not work, end of the world? We can not in any way modify the original files. Package files should contain instructions on how to unpack such a mods. Do we really need SHA1 of every file in archive? Besides, cool

So client need git installed right? It looks a bit better when you explain it from the client point of view. So off, if the file meta.yml there is no link to download, the client should look for github releases (or in master as in your example) If I understood everything well your idea much better use features of github (eg searching) Edit: I do not think that every meta.yaml file should contain a license, which in addition can be confused with mod license. But that's just my opinion. Anyway, it looks good. Would it look like the process of creating such a repository? Or addition to the new packages?