inigma

First thing: encase a kracken drive and call the whole thing a warp nacelle.

Use a trimmed down version of KSP's GameData and you can load it in seconds. Dl has a video of what its like to debug DMP.

RoverDude can you roll into Karbonite your mini-drill? Karbonite really should have as default parts for all standard scale sizes.

You sir, are amazing. Thank you! I'm glad we squished this one. I'll be testing the dev build on Sunday to verify.

He confirmed that DMP is not recognizing kill vessel events caused by the undocking process initiated by the unlinking of vessels. Hopefully the fix will make DMP more stable overall.

Using KAS with DMP, and linking, transferring fuel, and unlinking the fuel pipe link, I noticed these vessels in the Universe folder existing at the same time (Fuel Truck 2 is duplicated): This seems to be Fuel Truck 2 at a time/state before the original KAS linking (I only include here the initial vessel info) pid = 182e324024bd4c219c1a11493ae48a95 name = Fuel Truck 2 type = Ship sit = LANDED landed = True landedAt = KSC splashed = False met = 13194.4572478505 lct = 212710.677725553 root = 0 lat = -0.0573372449474846 lon = 285.282227398074 alt = 65.727844790672 hgt = 0.9426644 nrm = 0.0001822566,0.003499295,-0.9999939 rot = -0.0702356,-0.1146595,0.5091447,0.8501129 CoM = 2.049357E-05,-1.231853,-0.01150618 stg = 1 prst = False ref = 3594016883 ctrl = True cPch = 0 cHdg = 0 cMod = 0 ORBIT { SMA = 300811.520809469 ECC = 0.994822982480491 INC = 0.057393375777106 LPE = 89.7273083677993 LAN = 270.656940372552 MNA = 3.14159382198218 EPH = 225905.174973403 REF = 1 } This seems to be the duplicate Fuel Truck 2 that is created after KAS unlinking pid = 3c4df8f700d349438cc5d4fc3a6f9055 name = Fuel Truck 2 type = Ship sit = LANDED landed = True landedAt = KSC splashed = False met = 0.0399999999790452 lct = 226006.262418919 root = 0 lat = -0.0573372122134231 lon = -74.7177709778304 alt = 66.0975848681992 hgt = 0.9423799 nrm = 0.0001674425,0.003378303,-0.9999944 rot = -0.07026482,-0.1147926,0.5090842,0.8501288 CoM = 0.0001070625,-1.153999,-0.01146904 stg = 1 prst = False ref = 3594016883 ctrl = True cPch = 0 cHdg = 0 cMod = -1 ORBIT { SMA = 300811.732365365 ECC = 0.994822808130824 INC = 0.0573908703030268 LPE = 89.5610114731223 LAN = 272.509021763056 MNA = 3.14159859736158 EPH = 226006.322418919 REF = 1 } It's not an exact location duplicate per se, but close enough to where parts are going to collide when I load either ship. Is there a way to have the Universe be checked for these kinds of duplicates? I can provide you the full vessel files if you'd like.

I don't think progressive drilling efficiency reduction in the answer to the cheaty aspects of Karbonite in its current form. I really think you need to consider a more long term development goal of a primary and secondary resource system, with Karbonite the infinite primary resource, but in far rarer quantities and more difficult to extract; and then three other resources that Karbonite can be broken down into and later refineable into consumable resources, but also these secondary resources can be found in finite quantities in abundance in various specific locations in the system. I outlined it here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/87335-24-2-Karbonite-Ongoing-Dev-and-Discussion?p=1431008&viewfull=1#post1431008 What are your thoughts on this approach for mainline Karbonite development?

Duckling is SSI worthy, if interested in submitting. Can it make 120km undock, land, and return to 120km?

You're talking about Master Controlled Warp, right? You want veto power as an option programmed in for other online players? Might work.

This mod will go great with a Cinema mod list for KSP movie producers.

I did some further testing. Just KAS and DMP for mods. Win7 64 bit. KSP 32 bit. 1. Simply create a fuel truck with a KAS pipe port. Park it off the runway. 2. Launch a second fuel truck but named differently (i.e. fuel truck 2) with a KAS pipe port. Park it next to the other fuel truck. 3. Have a Kerbal EVA to link the pipes. Doesn't matter which order. 4. Switch to the linked fuel trucks. 5. Switch back to EVA and unlink pipe. 6. Switch to Tracking Center and you will see both vessels with their appropriate names. 7. Disconnect and reconnect. On reload with the server, and going to Tracking Center you will either see: Only one fuel truck - which when loaded seems to be in a state prior to any fuel transfer, and before any launch of a second truck. or Two fuel trucks with the same name - which when either is loaded, both occupy the same space as the first truck and explode. Looking at the debug, it seems to me that DMP is not transmitting to the server database the destruction of the linked vessel, and the creation of two separate vessels again, with their appropriate names either. DMP may be treating both entities as existing, but since the database is not updated with the location and name of the second unlinked fuel truck, the database only has info that a second vessel exists, with the same name as the first truck, in the same place as the first truck. I've tried no warp, MCW, and subspace, and am able to duplicate this with any of those warp methods enabled on the server. I have not found a work around. This is something DMP related in how it doesn't seem to recognize KAS unlinked vessels that were previously linked, or simply not saving the vessels when created by KAS. KAS's fuel transfer pipes is the only way to transfer fuels between vessels short of docking them, or ramming one with a claw. Not very elegant. On a multiplayer server using resource mining, an easy way to link up vessels and transfer fuel is quite necessary. Would you be willing to at least take a look at duplicating this when you get a moment? I know you're very busy this side of the year. Let me know if need anything else from me.

Already on it after I posted last. My progress is documented here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/64595-Open-Resource-System-%28ORS%29-Mod-Resource-API-version-1-4-2?p=1437017&viewfull=1#post1437017 I'm stuck now, as I just can't seem to get the darned sphere to be transparent whatsoever. Also, I'm not sure if at this point I should be forking this from Fractal and ORS or with RoverDude with ORSX.

I have confirmed that KAS conflicts with DMP. When one does a pipe connection between two vessels, KAS destroys both vessels and creates a new merged one. DMP doesn't see this action and instead sees a new duplicate vessel created in the space of the old. When a player reloads from the tracking center, the KSP physics engine tears the duplicated vessels into a massive parts explosion as parts attempt to occupy the same space as their duplicate. Until corrected, and since KAS is not open source, I can see it as an easy decision to dump KAS from the mod list when DMP is priority.

KAS with DMP is unfortunately a guaranteed duplicate ship explosion after linking pipes, transferring a resource, unlinking pipes, and exiting the server. On server re-connect the Tracking Center displays vessel duplicates. Unless you Recover all duplicates, opening any one of them will cause duplicate vessels to appear in another, leading to a physics explosion. Not good. Its consistent and duplicatable. I've not found a work around yet. I recommend DMP test for KAS presence and treat ship spawning differently so as to avoid such explosions. Actually, I wonder if DMP could be made to determine if a vessel has been duplicated within the space of another, and automatically remove the duplicate vessel before loading it in Tracking Center, or before physics load. godarklight, what do you think of this brainstorm - a DMP duplicate vessel detection auto-removal-of-the-newest-vessel workaround?

Anyone know if RemoteTech2 works well with DMP?

No luck. I forked my own GitHub. I modified Shader.Find from Unlit/Texture to Unlit/Transparent, then rebuilt the dll, and the bubble no longer appears which is obviously not right. I also tested with adding an alpha channel to the resource point png, no luck. Then I used Transparent/Diffuse and got an opaque purple bubble which should be recognizing the png alpha channel. I poured over Unity examples to no avail. Any idea what I might be doing wrong?

Thats just it. Even you agree on the rarity of mod incompatibility. If I assemble well tested mods and test their compatibility with each other before any initial release, the rarity of such a drastic issue being discovered post-release is even more minimal the older it gets. But even if a glaring incompatibility or serious mod bug were discovered post release, my self destruct clause should alleviate that support concern outright. The pack wont be kept alive for long in such a scenario. Long term, only feature support would be an issue compared to the latest mod release, but only deprecated features would be an issue - yet how often do mod devs deprecate features? In such a scenario a user would be instructed to download the latest mod version - the same response a mod pack user should also get.

Should I include RCS Sound Effects in the Bare Essentials List? No conflicts, and adds something that is missing in stock that might get added later.

Removed the following mods from the KSP Essentials Mod List TweakableEverything by toadicus (License Permitted)(P) - tweaks part parameters such as engine thrust, decoupler expolsive charge, docking port magnetic power, etc. (was removed due to tweaks able to apply values greater than stock game, which is physics changing and not in line with the theme of this pack unless mod dev can confirm or limit tweakables to stock max values) Navball Docking Alignment Indicator by mic_e (✓)(GNU LGPL v3)(P) - easier docking with a navball aid (removed due to possible conflict with upcoming .25 navball. Uncertain for now. When .25 is released NDAI will be reconsidered) Improved Chase Camera by BahamutoD (GNU GPL v3) - chase camera follows current velocity vector, not rear of craft (removed due to current limitations with ICC being constantly on, causing manual flight errors when switching camera views, will be reconsidered if default value is reprogrammed to off.) Kerbal EVA Resource Transfer by marce (CC BY-NC-SA Intl 4.0)(P) - EVA Kerbals can carry a small amount of any resource and transfer it to another vessel (was useful to move some resources, but not practical. marce, if you can find a way to have EVAs carry a fuel pipe to connect two vessels together to allow resource transfer, then it would add a larger value to the EVA RT mod! right now its nice, but i don't see value yet in an "essentials" pack after playing with it for a while since small resource transfer isn't practical yet except to maybe kickstart a dead vessel. If you made KERT able to connect pipes between vessels, you'd have a winner!) Added Procedural Fairings to KSP Essentials list, though it adds parts, they are actually missing parts that should be included in the stock game at gold release.

toadicus, are these tweakables permitting powers that are not in stock, ie increasing the decoupler force, if I bump it up, is this more than stock values? If your mod increases values over what is found in stock, some players might consider that cheating. Is there a way to limit maximum tweaks to the maximum stock value if so?

@ferram4 Thanks for your input! Yes if the Bare Essentials pack causes the irresolvable problems you fear, I will pull it, close up shop and you can use this thread as an example of what not to do. Regarding the name, its not a tools pack. Is my own configured pack of mods that I install in every game I play which I consider essential and have bothered to test in several games over time. You don't have to subscribe to that. You're worried about an ugly duckling before the eggs have even hatched. I'm darned if I name the pack after me, and darned if I don't. I'm darned if there are no compatibility issues to justify assembling the pack, and darned if I discover or "introduce" any in the process of doing so. I'm darned if I don't support the mods in the pack, and darned if I don't. I'm darned if I require subscribers to post incompatibility issues in my mod pack thread, and darned if I refer them to seek help from mod dev threads. Not to ask the obvious question, but what do you want? You've already made it clear you just don't like mod packs, but the reasons you state your dislike appear to conflict. Just remove the idea of me as a mod packer and just consider me as a single user of all these mods together, would you then have a problem with me seeking support from you or discussing my problems with others? What if there were duplicates of me all experiencing the same issues then - would it really be a problem giving them all the same answers or even a relief that others like me are figuring out solutions on our own and sharing them? From this I gather from you and others is that the whole argument against mod packs and their subscribers is just an argument against using multiple mods and individual players who find themselves in the same situation as other players of the same multiple mods. Is this what you want to argue? Other than my own mod experience being duplicated by others, the only substantial argument against mod packs I can gather so far from others is a loss of download count, which can be rectified by sharing that info. Regardless, as I said, this will be an unpluggable experiment if it goes awry. Are you at least ok with that? I do have one question for you though: if you could recommend a list if mods that didn't add parts or change game physics, what would you recommend to new players who have never played with mods but still want a mostly stock game experience? What's in Ferram's KSP Bare Essentials Mod List? @RoverDude: You want two weeks? You've got it!

@ferram4 The mod list is called Inigma's KSP Essential Mod List because one's person's essential mod is another's bloat. I take full responsibility for the composition of the list. If I were to remove my name and just call it KSP Essential Mod List, then I'd face a new set of naysayers wondering what right I have to determine what is essential for KSP. Catch 22. So it remains Inigma's KSP Essential Mod List, unless you can propose a better name. As I said, I wouldn't care to remove my name from it. Heh. Maybe I should just call it KSP Essential Mod List and let the controversy roll in to see which side of the coin I get the least grief! And yes, I desire to work on learning mod development. I have two WIPs: a rotating docking port for post-docked vessel alignment, and looking into adding a resource layer that Karbonite can be broken down into further, with those resources finite but minable depending on type of location, and Karbonite more rare but still available universally. We'll see what I can pick up and contribute in that way too. For now, I think I will release the Bare Essentials pack when .25 is posted, just to prove to myself and the community that a properly managed pack isn't the pandora's box of problems you have shared with me as your worry. It's a simpler list. I might keep the larger KSP Essentials Mod List as just that - a list. We'll see. This thread won't be hiding anything from mod devs when a compatibility issue is discovered pre-pack-release. Post release, deprecated version bugs wont be forwarded to mod devs for obvious reasons. But post release, current version bugs will be forwarded. I don't see a problem, but I do thank you for sharing your concerns and allowing me to address them. I hope at least other mod packers will learn from my example...which is why I want to set a good one. If you did support a mod packer, what would you realistically want to see in one?

@ferram4 There is a market for mod lists, and mod packs. Do you deny this? Beyond providing basic mod troubleshooting and feature help, I don't intend to provide out of date mod support. My recommendation for any irreconcilable mod conflict will always be to require the user to update individual mods to the latest version, test, and if it breaks other mods in the pack, report it to this thread so we can make a decision on what to do next: either report it to the mod devs, or remove it from the pack. There are incompatibilities with KAS and DMP, but none I've experienced. There may be incompatibilities with RCSsounds and Chatterer. In my testing I am discovering them and attempting to find work arounds. I am sharing my knowledge with the mod list and this thread, as well as sharing the final result in a mod pack. It looks like I may have to dump KAS altogether if I can't get licensing for it. If there is discovered and reported in this thread an incompatibility that requires the mod pack to be updated, then I hope my my self-destruct clause in my OP at 3 weeks of AWOL inactivity as you suggested takes effect by anyone reporting my absence to Kerbal Stuff asking them to take it down. Great idea. Edit: Self Destruct clause added. @mrBlaQ anytime a mod player downloads a list of their own choosen mods, are they instantly out of date? What's the difference if it was a group of individual mod players downloading the same mods at near the same time, or providing a pack? I'll have to check out KerbalStuff's notification system. I wonder if Kerbal Stuff would be interested in working with mod packers providing a mod list that then Kerbal Stuff can notify subscribers of new updates.

Any idea on what cfg setting I'd need to modify to allow displayTexture to be semitransparent so users can see landing sites without having to enter inside the texture bubble?

I am still noob confused though on where in the program I should update a shader to turn the bubbles transparent. Which GitHub file should I be modifying?