MisterFister

@TheCardinal would it be possible to update the Spacedock listing to reflect this thread as the goto place for info and support on this mod?

Because the only items you seem to be reacting to come from the first portion. I assure you, there is ample context in the rest of what I said, including the spoiler sections, to shed insight on why I reacted the way I did. And ok, I'll admit for the second time that on this instance with this specific item of metadata, I was mistaken as to context. Fine. You got that one from me. For a second time. You were right, I was wrong. Now look at what else I was getting at. Then realize that I'd spoken with several modders specifically about CKAN indexing issues, at least a dozen of mod authors across the v1.1.1 and v1.1.2 rollout periods. Then realize that with each and every one of them, I, your user, was put in the middle. CKAN info was telling me to bring the concern to them. Those modders tell me to bring the concern here to this thread. You can search for questions by me, and you won't find them all, because I was enduring final exams and only had small periods of opportunity to get on. Now I WILL point out that for large numbers of mods -- more than a hundred by this point since v1.1.2 pushed, in fact -- the automated systems that work behind the scenes have worked with no symptoms that I know to ask about. The individual installments of success outnumber the individual installments of distress. I grant that. But those individual installments of distress (not technical distress, "my mod isn't working" distress, but social distress) outweighed the successes, at least for a time. And then I dug around and researched and read forum archives. And then I saw you give the answer that you did, which I freely admit for the third time was informationally accurate, but you know something? Maybe if you could dial back the "go tell the mod author about it" attitude, you'd have gotten a politer response. Or, in the alternative, at least I'd have cited a different reason for launching into my description of my investigative reporting. So there's three of you. Listen, you guys do a lot of good work. I saw something that I thought needed to be pointed out. And perhaps the three of you folks who are at the helm now aren't the same as the people who were responsible for the turdstorm that I learned about within the archives. But I saw friction, and the friction bled off onto me and a few other users. friction that takes place in large measure OUTSIDE the CKAN forum because it's distributed somewhat randomly across the support threads of, well, several hundred other mods.

No. The "source" is the human-readable programmed code of the mod. The "mod" files are the compiled code, after they've been converted into information that is not human-readable but IS machine-readable. Squad (the company that makes Kerbal Space program) allows anyone to create mods for the game, on the strictly-enforced condition that anyone who makes a mod also release the source code with it, or a description as to where it can be publicly found on the internet (such as a github or dropbox link.) Releasing a mod without also releasing the source code is a HUGE no-no with this game, and people take it extremely-very seriously. For the average end user like you or me, there's no use for it, because you need to be a programmer to understand it. I suggest leaving it in the zipfile that you downloaded and just extracting the mod files into your GameData. Again, whatever you do, DO NOT place the source code in your GameData folder -- anything in the GameData folder will be scanned by Kerbal Space Program when the game starts and the computer will attempt to load it into the game as a mod. Since source code is not a runnable mod, errors will result. I'm not sure as to ALL of the reasons for requiring the source code to be released, as I imagine that there are a fair few of them to be considered. Some reasons that I myself can think of: it prevents some douchebag from designing a virus to look like a mod, since with the source code, it'll be very apparent that it's a virus; Squad itself might want to look into the code to see how it works. Some mods have actually been absorbed into the stock game, and some modders have even been hired as programmers. No lie. Of course, since it's also a huge no-no to charge money for a mod, that means that anyone who makes a mod is doing it as a volunteer hobbyist. Which means that they can quit at any time, such as when stuff gets real in their offline lives. Making the code open source allows other volunteers (strangers) to take over support of the mod once the original author is no longer around to do it.

I updated my text to reflect what I get from what you just explained, with a caveat that you can explain it better than I ever could.

Hahaha, if I'm ever "not playing KCT," that's hilarious. A laugh riot! ;-) No, seriously, it's like the second or third mod I look to install. On a build with hundreds of mods. I'll add KRASH to that list, tyvm.

I tried reading the OP to gain a better understanding of what this mod does, but I'm still rather unclear. I glanced through a few of the pages of this thread at random, no help. Is there a specific post that explains what this mod does?

I'm still a tad confused. What does this mod do that the "simulation" mode in KerbalConstructionTime does not, or vice versa? Will these mods conflict if installed together? @magico13? @linuxgurugamer?

Ok then. That actually makes sense. I for one would've benefitted from some clarity when you first mentioned that. "Go tell that to the SpaceDock thread, because the easiest fix is to correct that particular info at its source which CKAN just copies and forwards." If you're familiar with what else I discussed in my same post that you quote from, I hope you'll appreciate my honest mistake in thinking that your reply to go to someone else was simply a deflection instead of an answer. Nevertheless, I'll know to look into details like that in the future. My apologies in erroneously tagging you. I did so because I misunderstood what @politas was trying to explain.

Sorry, that's bullcrap. @stupid_chris has enough on his plate, please and thank you. You were correct in suggesting to me that I had a great opportunity to provide a URL to you when I didn't, and that's something that I would've called out someone else for had I been an onlooker, so no worries on that item. But then you get the info from someone who happened to log in before I had a chance to see this and respond, and your first response is "well I looked at it, no-ma-yob." No. I, right here, brought this to the attention of the CKAN thread. (Yes, I erred in not providing more thorough information with URL links.) "Well our info points to a SD listing, so that mod author can fix it any time he chooses." No. If I were reporting an issue with the SpaceDock listing being in error, then fine. But this isn't a SpaceDock thread on the KSP forums, it's a CKAN thread. I didn't report an issue with the SD listing, I reported an issue with the CKAN metadata. The end-user product being delivered and discussed in this particular searchable and indexable conversation is CKAN. The end-user experience being prioritized here is CKAN. CKAN's metadata, at the end of the day, in my view as a user, is CKAN's responsibility and no one else's. If others want to help or contribute (you know, like I did when I asked if there was something I could do to help after pointing it out) then that's fine. If the mod author specifically wanted to help, then that's hunky dory as well. But to offload it onto the mod author, summarily, nonchalantly like that? No. Oh dear lord, this speaks to me. I can't find fault with any of this. I'm beginning to consider doing the same thing. I may retain CKAN as a method of discovering mods, on an otherwise manual install. Ladies and gentlemen, go do a text search within this discussion for "ferram" and you'll see a clot of posts stemming from late October 2015. I've spent a good... I dunno, two hours maybe(?) over the last two days reading those discussions. FAR was perhaps the first high-profile mod that had this happen, but my understanding from having read both before and after that time period is that the human-issue was bound to come up eventually for someone. tl;dr -- I really like the idea of mod-authors' efforts and time investments being respected not only by users like me, but by fellow mod-authors and content creators. Here's why I'm bringing this up here, and it's not for the mere sake of a history lesson or to watch myself type. It was an example, perhaps the first very-high-profile example in CKAN's history (happy recent anniversary to CKAN, by the way) but by no means the most recent example, of users like me being put in the middle. What do I mean by that. I'm glad you asked. Lookit. I run mod-heavy. tl;dr -- I really like the idea of CKAN. I know how to manage mods manually. The fourth Great Debate is mods-vs-stock. "Mods are cheating!" "No they're not!" "When it's stock, I'll consider it non-cheating!" "Take that back!" "Your kerbal wears combat boots!" It gets nasty. But it boils down to a fundamental question -- "How Is KSP Meant To Be Played?" And the stock-with-no-mods conclusion I disagree with (obviously) but its logic is undeniable: mod management takes away from play time. Mods, at their most absurd, have all of the hassles of DLC except financial cost to the user, with very few of the benefits. And CKAN, very simply, brings very-mod-heavy play a lot closer to The Way KSP Is Meant To Be Played -- by playing it, instead of load-testing it. So when arguably the two single most significant enablers of my ability to enjoy KSP amid my busy offline life (CKAN for time management, FAR for in-game aerodynamics) are competing with each other... frankly, it liquides ticks me off. [Edit; the adult-language autocorrect for "pi.ss.es me off" transmogrifies it into "liquides me off." I find that to be just plain odd.] I'm in law school (until I graduate in thirteen days -- yay!). Law, communication, arbitration, and dispute resolution are what I do. They are, quite literally, my stock in trade. When I am put into a position where no matter what I do, I end up having to somehow side "against" another person who has done right by me in the past, that's unfair. I am unavoidably either: 1.) contributing to CKAN's userbase, which is then used, even if unwittingly and unintentionally, as justification for "moral hazard" (an intriguing keyword hit within this particular forum thread, if you're curious for context); 2.) "just wanting my mods to work" and having to navigate forum thread responses from mod-authors who are obviously answering through gritted teeth when I bring a CKAN-metadata or KSP version compatibility question; 3.) being caught in the middle where I am literally telling someone like @NecroBones that there are mods pertinent to his work that simply disappeared from CKAN, whereas I come back here and see someone else get told by @politas that @Ippo can fix a metadata-listed forum link "any time he chooses." Frankly, I'm privileged to be in the position that I'm in -- I benefit GREATLY from CKAN without being utterly helpless without it. Just like I benefit greatly from MechJeb's Hohmann Transfer Planner, because I can't synch up an orbital rendezvous for excrements, [edit: a more understandable language-filter autocorrect] but I can dock decently even without NavyFish's DPAI mod, though obviously that makes docking a cinch. The only downside for myself from dropping CKAN that I can see, beyond the time and convenience issue which I can work around, is the fact that there have been a fair few mods I discovered initially through CKAN, so I may keep the .exe for that standalone purpose. I don't have to decide right now, and I also choose not to decide right now, but I'm seriously considering dropping CKAN.

I, as a user, would be curious to know where this link might be. You indicated hesitation in posting it here out of respect for @ferram4, perhaps you can PM it to me? I'm no modder or programmer, but I have worked in logistics and customer flow management, and I can say that "read the first post please" is very little to ask. I've screwed it up sometimes by "reading" but nevertheless skimming over a detail that I later learned to have been relevant, of course, but that's a less-unacceptable error than simply deciding not to read it. Another possible solution would be to forcibly put the special-case info right there in the metadata descriptor. Right now it reads: FAR replaces KSP's stock part-centered aerodynamics model with one based on real-life physics. Instead, might it not read: FAR replaces KSP's stock part-centered aerodynamics model with one based on real-life physics. ATTENTION!!! There are KNOWN issues of this mod's installation not being managed correctly! Please read the OP of the link thread below before posting support issues, and please also know up front that your issue will not be addressed unless you can provide logfiles from both a CKAN install and a manual install with the same symptom. This has been a particular issue with this one mod. This is in addition, of course, to changing the embedded metadata link to the actual FAR-for-CKAN support thread (with a link in that thread's OP pointing to this one, of course.) And, not to be confrontational, but I'm gonna stick up for @ferram4 on this one when I say: no one can convince me that "nobody" at CKAN knows what's involved in getting this accomplished. I, for one, do not appreciate it when two of my favorite KSP utilities (CKAN and FAR) have creators that are somehow holding a grudge with one another because you know what? To heck with the nitwit user who doesn't know to read an OP, I get unfairly smooshed in the middle during that fight, and I don't like it. Let the man some peace in sorting some of the chaff from his tech requests for cryin out loud. :-\ It's not just this mod, to be entirely clear on this matter. Every time I visit CKAN, I'm told (either directly or because I see forum posts already discussing my issue) to bring something to a mod author's attention, and at least 65% of the times I've done that I end up going back to the CKAN thread to get either the answer or some other lead to a resolution that wasn't with the mod author. I say that based on my modding history since 2013 when I started with v0.18 when I was sucked into this wonderfully addictive game by happening across Scott Manley's Reusable Space Program, so I've been modding since before CKAN was a thing and I'm not exactly a slouch, since I was running v1.0.5 on a dual-boot Linux64 system with well over 230 mods installed and active, with a KSC idle screen RAM footprint easily in excess of 7.5GB. So.

Be advised that it's been a long time since I've actually mucked with those (law school... *sigh*) so I may be mistaken on this next bit, but it's possible that X and Y in my example above have to be equal to each other. (In other words, I think that the resolution has to be a square of two squares, or quartic.) Not sure though. Then again, now that I'm wondering, it might be that they ONLY have to be equal to each other and my mistake would be the need for each axis (X or Y) to be a square. I know that squares as a lot to do with this. More info my abound elsewhere. Sorry I couldn't offer more certainty. I know that the issue I had with it was regarding Notes by hashashin. The icon textures for Blizzy's Toolbar were nonconforming and were instead displaying as solid magenta fields when TR was also running. Running the mods in question without TR resulted in no user-visible issue or error. Altering their resolutions to bring them into mathematical compliance fixed it on my end, but the problem reasserted whenever CKAN updated Notes.

Ah. Apologies.

I can report that Contract Configurator v1.11.3 is listed on CKAN as being affirmed compatible with KSP v1.1.2.

To both the above -- my experience with this mod, and from what I've seen on YouTube, is that this mod plugin only activates on simulated vessels -- it goes dark when a vessel is "on rails." In other words, satellites you place in orbit and forget about (such as RemoteTech) will have a very low failure rate, but vessels you spend a lot of time babysitting such as mining rigs, will have higher failure rates, because of how long you're letting the plugin run on a per-vessel basis. If the vessel is physics-loaded within the physics radius (~2.2km spherical in 32-bit, perhaps 10km spherical or more in 64-bit, though both of those settings are configurable with the pre-game main menu options sliders) then the plugin runs for that vessel as well, such as during orbital rendezvous and docking efforts. That means that if you spend a lot of time staring at a craft as it transits to another planet intended to land and return before launching another from KSC, then you're doomed to much hardship. If you run KAC and prefer to keep multiple missions running simultaneously, then this is the mod for you, especially if you're willing to rethink some of your vehicle design habits in unexpected ways to really balance launch cost versus mission redundancy. Very few failures from this mod are automatically mission-critical, such as a launch-stage engine failure during initial ascent. Otherwise, with planning and proper forethought as to how different missions can each serve as mutual backups / rescues, you should be ok. I'd imagine that you wouldn't have an issue as to the game crashing on you, but once you load this mod, failures will begin to occur on your vessels in-flight, and only the ones you designed with component redundancy (or those with command pods that have "spare parts" resource available) will continue to be viable post-failure. I share @rough93's sentiment when I say that both of your mods are truly wonderful, and I really do hope to be able to play KSP with them again at some point. It's one of the ones I silently "hope" for when I click futilely spam "refresh" on CKAN. (A compliment and nothing more.)

This gives me hope that it'll be available on CKAN for v1.1.2 soon enough for me to have a chance to play with it before other worldly concerns vie for my attention away from the computer! I love this mod and consider it one of my must-have mods for any save.

Ah, good to know. You're already on top of the CKAN issue, per your comment in the other thread, so I'll finish up my forum lurking and go do my other stuff. take care

Is this CP still supported? CKAN reports that the latest compatible version of KSP is v1.0.4, and there've been no comments on this thread for several months.

Sir, you say you are testing in KSP v1.1.2. CKAN is showing that the latest indexed version of your CP is keyed to v1.1.0. Were you aware of this? I see a release notation from six days ago, but I think that was still v1.1.0 territory.

@linuxgurugamer yeah, this CP too, with the CKAN issue I reported on the other thread. :-\

Unfortunately, literally hours after you posted this, KSP migrated to v1.1.2. Good news: it seems to be a rather robust hotfix, and Squad is confident enough that they're literally going on vacation now, so that means no new versions for a while I think. Bad news: CKAN is still refusing to recognize this entry as v1.1.2 compatible.

Are you sure you're running the correct version? Updating to KSP v1.1.2 (which is usually an auto-update if you're on Steam) will mess with CKAN. CKAN will continue to see your installed mods as "visible" despite them not being updated in the CKAN index. To verify: uninstall and attempt to reinstall with CKAN. It'll end up suppressed because the most recent version of these mods are indexed according to CKAN as being v1.1.0. @linuxgurugamer speaking of, not an update progress request but just wanted to make sure you were aware, CKAN doesn't show these mods as v1.1.2 compatible. Is this something you're already aware of? I don't see any discussion on this thread about it, hence my question.

My glee will remain unabated, even if frustrated by a further day! (Seriously, take yer time man, but thx for the speedy reply.)

Been waiting for this, thanks man! I gleefully wait for CKAN to reflect the release!

Hi there! Awesome mod! Two things. First, the red / highlighted text in the OP which I quote above (with ample before-and-after to make locating it easier) seems to be a typo. "Quares" is a customized, workplace-specific function at a previous job of mine, which is why it stood out for me. I'm pretty sure you intend to refer to squares. (Also, due to my own experience in v1.0.4 and v1.0.5 dealing with icon textures for Blizzy's toolbar, defining "square" might be helpful to the end user -- specifying that texture dimensions of specific size values are acceptable but some are not, such as 2x2, 4x4, 9x9, 256x256, but 13x25 would be invalid, for example.) Second, an actually-pertinent question. I see your helpful OP with color-coded notations for Heads and Suits with respect to texture packs. Is this a matter of choosing one and going with it because multiple packs would conflict, or can multiple be installed and then chosen from / randomized from in-game? If, say, I wanted to have a class-sensitive suit-leveling mechanic but I preferred Renaissance suit colorings with GreenSkull helmets, but if I run a sprawling career-save with numerous dozens of kerbals scattered throughout the Kerbol system I might want to increase the pool of available heads beyond a single pack? Or if I wanna select from heads of one but a skintone from another? Also, these heads and suits apply to civilians too, right? Also, with regard to the OP, the texture pack selection is catalogued and color-coded to nicely. Has anyone made a series of imgur albums to showcase them each individually? If not, would I be out of line to offer to do so? Have you checked the resolution / sizes of these texture files? Each dimension ( X * Y ) needs to be a power of 2. (2, 4, 8, 16, 32, etc.) If not, manually resizing them COULD work, but would only fix it on your end until the mod were updated. Maybe notify that mod author?

Awesome! With your permission, I'll message the CKAN people to update your mod's metadata to point to this forum thread, unless you'd prefer to be the one to do so.