Stone Blue

Well, it would be best if someone wanted to step-up *now*, rather than later to adopt it... While it *IS* still working, and while MOARdV is still around, to tie up any loose ends and make for a seamless hand-over to a new owner... vOv Also, on the repo, there appears to be 3 possible bugs, a feature request, and a PR already waiting for a new owner to poke at. Not to mention, even tho it may *work* as-is, it should probably at the least, be recompiled against .NET 4.x (vs old 3.5), that the Unity 2019 update introduced in KSP 1.8.0, to help future-proof it. vOv Also, if he's had the adoption offer up for quite awhile now, I imagine he doesnt want to get tagged all the time, and have to keep offering support or feeling obligated to answer, when people post here asking questions or looking for help vOv

@Kerlix i dont remember if Telemachus already has this functionailty built-in or not... But in the meantime, MechJeb and VOID- Vessel Orbital Information Display, and Graphotron all can save data to a .csv, which can then be converted to .xls. Disclaimer, MJ has been updated for 1.8.0, and if VOID has not been yet, it probably will be soon, since Linuxgurugamer adopted it and he is currently working on updating the tons of mods he caretakes for 1.8.0. Graphotron may/may not work in 1.8.0, but I *think* it works in KSP 1.3.1 to 1.7.3. vOv @DanGSun Theres also the old Kerminal interface addon for Telemachus, which also seems able to already do .csv logging. I dont know if it still works or not, but might be something for you or "someone" to poke around and look at .. vOv

Not necessarily. @alexustas is not very active on the forums for a looonngg time, and has always had long periods with no word between updates of their mods. Just have to be very patient, or wait for someone to post up an "unnoficial" fix in the meantime.

@john1978 Actually, that patch will add surface attachment to *every* part in KSP, if it is not already. Thats probably not a good idea. I just edited the text in my post, to reflect ONLY the ExtCam part... Probably best to use the new version.

@john1978 try the Module Manager patch fix in this post: https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/105821-16x-rasterpropmonitor-development-stopped-v0306-29-december-2018/&do=findComment&comment=3598123 EDIT: nevermind... I just realised you're asking about the ALCOR camera part, *not* the JSI inline one in RPM sorry. Looks like the no bulkhead profile bug might be the issue. 1) Open a text editor of your choice 2) Copy paste the text in the box below 3) Save the file with extension .cfg, using any name you want (can put it in /GameData, or in *any* /GameData/<subdirectory>/ that you want) @PART[ExtCamRadialVErt]:HAS[!bulkheadProfiles[]]:FINAL { bulkheadProfiles = srf }

@IgorZ THANK YOU, THANK YOU!!!! This is an absolute must have mod for me, that I have been using since you first released it. I *constantly* am using it to help clean up and troubleshoot my modded installs, *AS WELL AS* helping me to identify easy bugs/issues I can fix, or at least to help dev's identify issues. It has saved me soooo much time, by cross-referencing the timestamps in the WARNINGS log, to the full KSP log... (dont have to scan/search thru the whole KSP log to find stuff...)

Yes, because I wish Ford had rather released an updated version of the Ford Pinto for 2020, exactly like THIS, just only with 4wheel disc brakes, *instead* of releasing the updated version of the 2020 Ford Mustang :roll_eyes:

Hmmm... I've been using MADLAD since it first came out. I like to use it in testing/troubleshooting my modded mod installs Also, I thought modifying .version files *usually* breaks KSP AVC checking, if the file doesnt match the hosted one exactly? And I definately wouldnt want to *ever* uninstall .version files... I use KSP AVC to keep me up to date on my manually installed mods, as well as quite often opening and checking them myself for version reference. So for me, it would have to be ignoring the warning

@linuxgurugamer if you go with adding this to .version files and KSP AVC/MiniAVC, any chance of maybe adding a switch in KSP AVC, to ignore warnings for specific mods, when the install directory doesnt match? Just thinking like adding it to, and in addition to the compatability overide GUI, for peeps who mod their mod installs... I kno that can open up a whole can of worms for peeps who *dont* know what they are doing, and just turn off the warnings, because seeing a warning popup while the game is loading anyway, seems to bug them... :roll_eyes: ... but, idk... vOv ... I havent fully thought thru the pros/cons of doing that, and just thought I would mention it as something to consider Overall, I *like* the whole premise... EDIT: hmm.. just thought, mebbe havit add a line in the log, right after the line it adds for each mod, stating that the check is indeed turned off... and if it shows that, and hence no support should be expected for issues with that mod when posts up their log... vOv

You can *try* it, but I wouldnt expect any support if it doesnt work. IMHO, backward compatability *is* a good question to ask, so long as you're not asking/pestering for a mod dev to specifically *add* or make changes so its backward compatable, if it is not already by the luck of the draw, backward compatable. And make sure to try it on a seperate KSP install, or at least one that doesnt have a very important to you saved game. KSP 1.8.0 introduced an big update to the base Unity game engine KSP uses. Generally, Unity updates *can* and usually do break mod plugins (.dlls). While *any* KSP update can break plugins, Unity updates have a greater chance of doing so.

ZeroMiniAVC i only recommend this for people who really know how to manually install mods and/or manipulate the /GameData folder responsibly, *OR* those people who install the full version of KSP AVC.

@linuxgurugamer I guess mebbe just a matter of semantics, but since the idea is too make this as simple and easy as possible for people who have the least amount of knowledge of how and where mods go for KSP, and seemingly little computer literacy (not meant to sound in a bad or judgemental way), may I suggest a small tweak to your message to the user? Since stock installs of KSP use different folder naming for the 3 available OSes, and for those who may name them differently, mebbe make this tiny tweak? vOv this: .... All files should be located in KSP/GameData/" + <DIRECTORY> to this: .... All files should be located in <KSP install folder>/GameData/" + <DIRECTORY> or something to that effect... I'm just thinking instead of someone who doesnt know better, looking for the *exact* folder name of "KSP/GameData", which doesnt exist unless someone *actually* chnaged it to that on their own... vOv

@SteveD80 Its bad form, and even a forum rule and a post about it (I cant find the thread for it rn), to ask mod devs for updates. Especially only days after KSP updates, much less VERY BIG KSP updates where the Unity engines has been updated. Also, the dev of NavHUD owns over 200 mods, all of which will need to be tested, and updated as needed. Please be patient.

THANK YOU, @DoctorDavinci ... I'm also glad to see you back

Well, if they dont have one specifically listed in a forum thread OP, or one listed on the hosting site, or one *in* the release package (.zip), then they default to ARR... Which is *NOT* supposed to be shared or distributed at all

Sorry, I dont know what your asking, other than the most likely *mod* that you are looking for that is in /MOARdV, is this: (and this is the thread it would be best to reply to...) It sounds like maybe you have an IVA mod installed that references MAS, but you dont *have* MAS installed? vOv

Lol... I was mainly replying to @ Dave7 ... in case he wants to share any moar old mods

YESS.. thats the one I couldnt think of

Make sure to check the licenses, first, before sharing, tho...

@prestja you're versioning on the release page is incorrect/conflicts with whats stated in your thread.

Dont get me wrong, I wasnt targeting you, or questioning your motives about ego being primary motivation for doing what youre doing, or any one else continuing/taking over mods... I just saying it *could* be the case by some people... and yes, I' have seen it done before... I think the whole discussion in this thread, has not necessarily that youve done a wrong or bad thing... its just moar aboot the *way* you did it that has raised hackles... And IMHO, no need for you to further defend or explain yourself... I think that has all been discussed and cleared up, and youve even said you've acknowledged and made changes to those concerns and methods

Oh!... wait... I was talking aboot the LanderTek mod in my post *here*... PMd you aboot that pod Also, @Dave7 you may want to edit your post and remove that link you posted and take down the file, till the LanderTek license issue gets definitively answered

Exactly... and I think this is the biggest point most users just dont get... Most devs create content they themselves have an interest in having in-game, *first and foremost* ... providing it to the public is *secondary* and *gracious*... and as I said, *costs* the dev a lot of extra time and effort, really unnecessary for *them* to enjoy what they've created... Not appreciating that extra time/effort, and ticking them off, helps no one... *even if you CAN do it legally..* Why would someone want to make a complicated mod, spending sooo much time and effort, if they were solely wanting to provide it to a majority of users who may only complain and demand, if it wasnt first and foremost something they had passion for, for their own use first? If that *were* the case, then they are seemingly just doing it for the sake of their ego... Which, IMHO, is where a lot of "continuations" and takeovers come from.. the hard work has already been done by someone else... Many people feel they can just add a tweak or two, a little polish, a simple recompile, and get a bunch of glory from the community... vOv But I digress from topic...

Hmm.. do you have a solid source on that?.. no license seems to be mentioned in his OP, and there doesnt seem to be a license included in the package either? .. which means it looks moar like its an ARR by default... unless he publicly stated somewhere else an open license? i would find out for sure, before putting any effort or work into something you eventually wouldnt be able to publish vOv

Do you have these three files, in a folder/location that I have highlited above?