atraos

That's why I offered to write the script. Doesn't use up Proot's resources for debugging etc. and it would be presented as a "use at your own risk" thing for the people that want the convenience

You could most likely do with just two scripts, one batch and one unix shell script (which would work across OSX and linux) if you want, you can DM me the requirements for the script and an dummy version of your pack to work with and I could try to whip up something for that. (If it works, it's a convenience for the users, if it doesn't your pack doesn't get any flak for broken installer, because I was the one that ....ed up) Edit: you could similarly outsource the creation of a CKAN config to leave you free to work on the pack, but that is a little more involved so you might want to put the requirements for that into a post, so someone experienced with CKAN can pick that up

I don't know if you realise it Upsilon, but your posts do come across as quite condescending, let me give you 2 examples, why you might have rubbed Kerbart the wrong way Here you are again implying Kerbart, in criticizing you, must be driven by irrational anger, which I find is quite patronizing. This is just my reaction to your comments, and someone else might read them differently, but I just wanted to point out to you, how you might be unwillingly antagonizing the people you addressed.

Let me preface this with the fact that this is very subjective and because I have no clue about modeling I might have problems putting it into words properly: I feel that the biggest discrepancy exists between parts of the same type across different sizes, especially fuel tanks. I think that they should show a clear progression or evolution among them, but to me look totally unconnected (except for being cylindrical). Something similar happens when I look at the buildings, level 1 to level 2 share enough characteristics (likely because they were produced together) but level 3 doesn't seem to be an upgrade but rather completely different buildings standing in the same place. (All of this might be exagerated by me knowing which parts were produced together ) . Then there are small issue like the textures on the NASA parts being asymmetric etc. Again, fluff but something that should have been caught in a final polishing pass before release. As for Daggerfall: do you think it should have been released like that, just because it was patched into something playable afterwards?

I can't speak for jfx, but I think you are unfairly conflating the criticism of graphics quality (i.e clean, high res textures and a uniform graphics style across similar parts etc) with the a dislike of the "cartoonish" or stylized graphic style. I don't think, that SQUAD's initial goal for a feature was to implement the base functionality, to be fully realized sometime later. Imagine skyrim had been released with the main quest comprised of 5 quests to kill 5 basically recolored dragons at different locations, but with the promise to flesh out the main quest line in later updates. Would you accept the goal of having a main quest met and ready for release?

If criticism needed to be unanimous to be considered valid/worthwile, nothing would ever be addressed in anything. I don't want to make any assumptions about the fraction of the community that is frustrated, but I think that the dissatisfaction about this update is significant, especially compared to earlier releases, warranting an acknowledgment and a brief discussion.

To be perfectly fair, I stated that a lot of players (me included) feel that the update was rushed and want that acknowledged. I stated my reasons for why I hold that opinion in the paragraph above that. Originally I only wanted to point out that I (and what I perceive to be many others that are unhappy with the current situation) are not looking to point fingers or for an apology, but to have our grievances addressed, so we can work on making the game better. I expanded on my "wrong/missing polish" precisely to avoid looking like making blanket statements, but I can understand how the TL;DR can be interpreted like that Edit: Oh yeah, one big thing that I forgot which I feel was/is definetely needed for the release to the public was a proper, polished tutorial. As it stands by far the best and maybe only viable tutorial for new players are youtube videos, especially scott manleys.

I think what would really help quench many people' frustration would be to get a statement from SQUAD that this release was rushed/ this release should not have been 1.0, regardless of who are what is to blame for the fact that we have the update that we have. And then, when SQUAD and the community can have a discussion about the flaws present, how to proceed with the development/polishing and maybe how to improve the testing procedure in the future. I am perfectly happy to accept that SQUAD's hand was forced for some unspecified reason in regards to the time schedule, but I will be severely disappointed, if squad just moves own, pretending that there is hardly anything wrong/missing in this release, like parts of the community try to do. To expand a bit on what I mean by "wrong/missing" is, that I think that the game in general and the 1.0 features in particular lack polishing and balancing. Many parts like size 3 radial decouplers/probe-core/SAS etc are still missing. The KSC buildings are still somewhat ackwardly plopped onto/sticking out of the ground, missing proper transitions. This may seem like fluff, and I would agree, if we were still in early access and working up to implement all features, but for 1.0 where "KSP is finally ready to be viewed by all as a complete game " some polish is needed. The Career/Science Tree, imo, seems to need a balancing/playtesting pass to avoid overt grinding and inter-level dependencies (especially at the 90 science level where the player is between orbit and moon landing and size 2 engines, structural parts and tanks are each in different parrallel nodes) TL;DR : I think many players are looking for an acknowledgment (no apology, finger pointing or anything, just acknowledgment) from SQUAD that 1.0 was rushed/not polished enough, so that a discussion can be had with the community about how to fix it and avoid these problems in the features

Just de- and reattach a subtree that contains all affected struts and fuel lines. Upon Reattachment all fuel lines and struts will be refreshed and reconnect.

So this is my last mission gone horribly RIGHT. having just achieved drone tech, I originally wanted only to strand a vessel on the moon, but that turned quickly into a suicide misson to solar orbit. Pushing my luck even further, I managed not only a kerbin encounter but even a minmus flyby and aerobraking in kerbins atmosphere. And all of that with my last 40 units of fuel cO Must have been jeb at the wheel I'll edit this post with screens as soon as I have look through all the shots taken.

FireStorm are you still working on this? Because I wanted to do something like this myself, and I'd like to help you or at least discuss the progress you made, so that I can take over from there