Garoad

Oh, this is really nice. I think you're on a good track! You might consider putting "top mods" and "new mods" side by side. Not to bring back Spaceport nightmares, but since I assume most visitors are going to be repeat visitors who'll get to know the popular mods early, the "new mods" are probably more interesting. Or maybe new mods first, then top mods, if not that? Possibly make the buttons a tad bit smaller to save on real estate and allow for more text description.

What TheAlmightyOS described, modders not trying to address EVERY little question, is pretty much how this stuff works in most modding communities. If there are many complaints here about "too much support work" answering simple questions--the dedication is great and all--but publishers don't have time to waste on the minor stuff. Why try? Explicitly ask for help handling support volume, if it's really needed. I've never tried to answer every question posted about something I've contributed to a game community. Just give it time, and if it's a popular -whatever-, someone will usually jump in to help OR the "problem" will solve itself (user figures out their own dumb mistake). Note I'm not attacking the concept of the thread--if enough people want to do it, go for it.

Oh I could tell your tone was a little tongue in cheek or something. No matter, there seems to be a project active. I'm not sure how you do the installs so fast, I always have problems locating specific stuff or issues that take forum research, patches, fix downloads etc. to resolve.

Looks like some possible answers, thanks to those offering other useful suggestions. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/55401 http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/26031-Win-KSP-Mod-Admin-v1-3-9-Mod-install-with-2-klicks

That's not correct in "normal" Steam either, despite setting "Do not update automatically" in the settings for KSP, it still forces you to update before it launches. You get one of those annoying startup delay dialogs when it's doing this. Steam users need to remember to back up each version (folder copy) if they want to delay updating, it's not optional. Touchy subject for me because it ruined hours of mod tweaking before (now I have a non-Steam version of KSP too, heh).

? Sure it was centralized, certainly much more so than now. Yes it did stink pretty bad for various reasons, but being the "official" repository wasn't one of them. Even with the trash it was easier to download 90% of the mods you want from there, and MUCH better for browsing and discovering new mods than going through the forums randomly. You can't search for it if you don't know it exists. I don't want to get into this since it's irrelevant now, but a simple block user function and fixing the duplicate problem would have eliminated the major pains. I'm talking about the entire process, including locating stuff. In my experience it's more like an entire evening at best, but usually more as you find that you missed things you had previously, or need to address problems. Maybe you're installing simple mods. Yeah, not really helpful - the questions were do any exist (currently active, obviously) and is the concept itself feasible. If you don't like the question, there's no need to respond with negativity, simply move on.

So today (without Spaceport), I'm wondering how everyone is dealing with the hassle of setting up mods. Does everyone spend hours searching scattered sites and the forums, reading readmes, unpackaging/installing, and individually testing each one? (Really, the first and last steps are the most painful when you throw in version incompatibilities.) After returning from a break the game is always at a new version, meaning you pretty much have to go through this setup process all over again. Sometimes my dread at doing all the mod setup stops me from bothering at all - which sucks. Maybe I just don't like the game enough for it to be worth it, I don't know, but I'm always curious to check back periodically hoping that things will improve over time. Anyway, is there a new tool or utility out there which can take some of the pain out of this? Is there any potential for the creation of such a tool if none exists?

Yes - what I'm wondering is, how are they making any money? You need customers to keep a business running.

This is perfectly fine from a moral standpoint. You can't own a design any more than you can "own" any other natural or artificial pattern. Knowledge isn't a scarce resource like physical property is. Without economic scarcity, property rules used for scarce resources do not apply.

Ahh, well at least that's a logical reason. Might be about time to finally try out Ubuntu...

It looks like KSP is running at 3.5 or 3.6 gigs for me (seems to be lots of paging going on too) - why isn't KSP 64 bit? It seems the game would benefit from this. Search is useless on those keywords, is there any info about this topic? Would it be too much trouble to offer an optional 64 bit version?

Any chance we can get a different class of generators entirely which isn't nuclear and doesn't use monoprop? Something like maybe propane, or gas or kerosene powered? Reasoning: -Slightly more engineering design challenge -No worries about generators using up all your monoprop leaving you immobile I've no idea if those fuels have ever been used for power generation in an application like this... but then again, who cares?

I'm not reading this entire thread, but IP and copyright are obviously the main problem (or at least a major one). Mandate a mod community friendly license like GPL or similar for upload to Spaceport and this forum, and anyone who disagrees can GTFO. It's the only way to end this unproductive waste of time and resources. Guaranteed the overall mod community will barely notice any downside. And if a few modders quit, oh well - it's better than inevitably having dozens of "unsupported" mods breaking people's save games simply because the original author got bored.

Is there any information I missed about how to best utilize the RCS Thrust Info data? What do the first & second numbers mean? Ex. Pitch down: 5.44, 0.06 What would be considered optimal or "good enough"?

Testing so far I haven't experienced any issues. One suggestion I have is to think about a way to allow easy over-writing of existing part assemblies, by either displaying the names of the currently saved files or actually allowing you to double click them to save over. As it is right now you have to remember the exact name and spelling in order to overwrite something. No doubt plans for something like this is already in your backlog... thanks for taking up the task.

A DR clone isn't something I could complete in a short period so I won't attempt that. Just sayin', in case someone IS thinking of doing so, don't let my uneducated questions & interest stop you.

This mod is flipping awesome, one of the coolest looking mods I've seen, but I think there's something missing I'm having a hard time with--RCS thrusters. I see the tanks, but I haven't been able to find a good type of thruster which looks decent on these structures. What does everyone do for RCS?

The thing that worries me (about what research may discover) is... why didn't the original DR developer use a different joint type? Is there some huge downside or issue preventing it?

You mean this isn't up to date? http://svn.mumech.com/KSP/trunk/MuMechLib/ (from first page) I think it'd require researching FixedJoint or ConfigurableJoint. http://docs.unity3d.com/Documentation/ScriptReference/FixedJoint.html Does anyone know what license this was released with? (the code)

How did this go? I've always assumed the DR implementation is as good as it's going to get without some kind of undiscovered "hack".

No more nonsense of having to worry about proper alignment when docking to "make it look pretty"! Anyway, another topic... What's up with how springy & loose the connections are with this mod? When using KAS to lift very heavy stuff, DR parts wobble sooooo much that it stops you from creating any seriously useful cranes and cool stuff like that. I know this has to do with Unity suckage, but are there any creative workarounds/hacks? Not possible to use a different type of joint? One thing I've considered was using something like Quantum struts to secure things, but then of course that'll cause problems once they start to move, kind of defeating most of the purpose of the robotics.

I didn't do anything serious but last time I looked at my CPU usage when KSP was loading, it was averaging something like 10% CPU. I'm not sure why the CPU would make such a difference, it's not even hitting 25% for me. Memory usage really spikes as the load is happening (haven't checked how busy the SSDs are while this is going on), memory ends up at about 1.8 GB upon hitting the start menu, and settles close to 2 to 2.5 GB loading some modest craft. So what's left? -Disk read access (haven't checked how that performs yet) -Texture transfer to video memory? -Inefficient loading process? I haven't thought about this too much so I could be wrong, but I guess it'd be possible to do this in such a way that it's not maxing out any one resource (one always waiting for the other to finish, but task switching quickly & inefficiently).

Rotating docking ports would be extremely useful - esp. w/Common Berthing Mechanism ports for an ultra thin connection. There's also a lot of demand for just variable sized robotics parts. I wonder if it'd be possible to do something like that Procedural Wing mod and let people resize their robotics parts right in game?

So, when KSP is loading all these mods and crap, what makes it take so long? And how do we optimize this load time? It doesn't seem to be CPU... it could be disk driven I suppose (1GB+ of mods here), but even then I'm not sure it explains it all. (I have 4 SSDs w/RAID...) Does anyone know what the bottleneck is? I love this picture, take away the glasses & extra pounds, add a better sense of style and that's basically me. And God help anyone who tries to take away my full-size non-thin keyboard.

Kerbal Space Program End-User License Agreement IMPORTANT PLEASE READ THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT CAREFULLY BEFORE CONTINUING WITH THIS PROGRAM INSTALL ... 1. GRANT OF LICENSE. The SOFTWARE PRODUCT is licensed as follows: (a) Installation and Use. Electro Chango S.A. de C.V. grants you the right to install and use copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on your computer running a validly licensed copy of the operating system for which the SOFTWARE PRODUCT was designed [e.g., Windows XP, Windows 7, Windows Vista, Mac OSX]. ( Backup Copies. You may also make copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT as may be necessary for backup and archival purposes. 2. DESCRIPTION OF OTHER RIGHTS AND LIMITATIONS. (a) Maintenance of Copyright Notices. You must not remove or alter any copyright notices on any and all copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT. ( Distribution. You may not distribute registered copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT to third parties. Evaluation versions available for download from Electro Chango S.A. de C.V.'s websites may be freely distributed. © Prohibition on Reverse Engineering, Decompilation, and Disassembly. You may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the SOFTWARE PRODUCT, except and only to the extent that such activity is expressly permitted by applicable law notwithstanding this limitation. (d) Rental. You may not rent, lease, or lend the SOFTWARE PRODUCT. Of course, EULAs like this do mention copyright, but it's a redundancy.