MisterFister

A cursory glance on just this last page by itself would answer your question.

And the matter of marking them as conflicting with each other in CKAN, as a temporary measure? Or is that a nuclear option, due to whatever would be involved in removing the conflict-flag at a later time once a fix has been developed?

@Enceos hey man, awesome mods you got here, and just now in visiting this thread I saw your droptank "wrapper" idea that quite frankly makes me angry that I never through of that before. I'll be downloading that right after this writeup. (Though, I notice that your Wrapper and Portable Science Crate are Dropbox downloads, but your Texture mods and Asphalt Tiles are on Spacedock. Why no Spacedock listings for the others?) Anyway, I discovered your mods by browsing CKAN. (I am NOT reporting a CKAN issue, I reported that on the CKAN thread here.) CKAN did report an overwrite discrepancy, and a CKAN safety feature is to adopt a hands-off approach when different mods attempt to overwrite the same files. I downloaded both of your mods manually, and I verified that there is an issue with how you package them. Each of your mods contains filename PPVensTankEnds.dds, but each of a different size. Even for manual installers, the question becomes -- which one gets used, and which one goes bye-bye? I imagine that for CKAN-purposes, this cross-packaging would result in them simply being labeled as incompatible with each other, corralling a user into a binary one-or-the-other choice between the two, which is sad, but my question for you is specifically with respect to manual installers and how you'd care for them to proceed. Thanks, and these look purdy, so I look forward to giving them a go!

A few things. First, I'm using CKAN v1.16.1 in Windows 7 64-bit. I ran across what I'm guessing is either a packaging error or a full blown inter-mod conflict (see below). CKAN seems to be attempting to output some useful error log data, but I'm reminded that Unix / Linux uses different carriage returns than Windows recognizes. Of course, I can cut and paste the output through Windows Wordpad before then re-cutting and re-pasting here (attempting to go straight into my browser text entry window here results in ONLY the first line being pasted and everything else from the clipboard lost.) So, feature request: could the CKAN error output be converted to a different linebreak notation that would be friendlier to Windows output screens? I know that when I look at Windows-generated text files in Linux there's no issue, only when looking at Linux-generated text in Windows. Second, please behold the following error output: Oh no! We tried to overwrite a file owned by another mod! Please try a `ckan update` and try again. If this problem re-occurs, then it maybe a packaging bug. Please report it at: https://github.com/KSP-CKAN/CKAN-meta/issues/new Please including the following information in your report: File : GameData/KerbalHacks/PP_Textures/PPVensTankEnds.dds Installing Mod : HazardTanksTextures 1.0 Owning Mod : VensStylePPTextures CKAN Version : v1.16.1-0-g2e91715 (beta) Your GameData has been returned to its original state. Error! I have no GitHub login credentials, so in lieu of reporting it there I hope to report it here. I have performed some sleuthing, and I have some insight. Looking through the CKAN\downloads cache, I note that filename B112DD5E-VensStylePPTextures-1.1.zip is previously installed from a prior pass. The current attempt to install from filename A89D9252-HazardTanksTextures-1.0.zip is generating the error. GameData\KerbalHacks already exists from VensStylePPTextures, and contains filename PPVensTankEnds.dds for 342kb. The zipfile's GameData\KerbalHacks is attempting to overwrite this with the same filename, sized 284kb, with a last-modified datestamp inside the zipfile of March 20 of this year, identical to the internal datestamp of the larger file from the previously-installed zipfile. I asked the mod author here any advice for manual installers, but my message here is to alert you of what I gather is a one-or-the-other mod conflict between the two. Thanks.

Um. Ok. I'll tinker with it then! Thanks

What is the difference between Minimum Ambient Lighting (the mod this thread is dedicated to) and this other mod called Ambient Light Adjustment?

Hmm. What is the difference between this Ambient Light Adjustment (the mod this thread is dedicated to) and this other mod called Minimum Ambient Lighting

I accidentally stumbled across this mod while browsing CKAN. Long time PreciseNode user here, and yours looks kinda neat, but I'm not really understanding what yours does that the other doesn't? Or what the other does that yours doesn't, i.e. features implemented on that end since the fork. I understand that you've locked the text entry keys, which is cool because I ran into that issue too, but... well, sometimes copying burn gimbals from Transfer Window Planner (at least I think that's the mod I get the info from) works better with the 10-key side panel on my keyboard. I can imagine living without that, but I'm just curious as to the other stuff. Do the two mods conflict? If not, I'd care to load them both up to watch them side by side. I might even make a video comparing them, if you like.

Apologies folks, but I am legit a little dense. I read the OP, I read through the last few pages of this thread, and I did a keyword search through the thread for "legacy." I'm not entirely clear on what is in the Legacy Parts download and what's in the main download. I see in the OP there's the rework video... are there parts that haven't been reworked yet, or won't ever be reworked, or...? As in, could the OP be updated with actual lists and / or imgur pics of parts in each? (Possibly concealed by spoiler tags, of course.)

I would care to verify with @Athlonic specifically that this mod is confirmed to work with KSP v1.1.2, please.

You need to post that on Spacedock, bruh. There are other reasons to drop CKAN (such as the interplay between CKAN caretakers and other mod authors with respect to whose responsibility it is to support errors with someone's mod when the only problem is that CKAN didn't install it correctly) but with viable 64-bit in Windows, I can assure you that modded installs will get heavier and heavier. In KSP v1.0.5 in 64-bit for Linux, I was easily running more than 230 mods. On v1.1.2, by my estimate I'm up above 200 and climbing. I can assure you that managing all of those mods is difficult, even with CKAN, and I'm attempting to see if I can avoid using it entirely for other principles. Oh I agree. Ultimately, I think I'm stuck always using CKAN at least as a way to discover new mods (I think about 50 of the mods I have right now I originally discovered through CKAN, and an additional 20 through those 50) even if I do manage to part myself from it and go manual. At this point I'm thinking I'll just end up with a few pages of browser bookmarks.

Just so I'm clear and I know which versions to install on which copy I have of KSP, the latest release version of this mod v1.5.1 is set for KSP v1.0.5, and the v1.6.0 prerelease is kinda sorta set for KSP v1.1.0....? v1.1.2? I'm not trying to nag I just wanna make sure I understand.

It should be noted that forum mods are pretty good at deleting posts that violate rules. I've never hosted my own mod thread, but I suspect that mod-authors would be taken seriously if they PMed a forum moderator to report people nagging. What we see on that thread is anything that hasn't been deleted. I vaguely recall that at one time they did -- in fact, I think GrunfWorks has a YouTube series still running based in v0.90 and I think he runs both of those mods. But if not, oh Dear Sweet Jebediah I would I love to see this. They essentially sound like two halves of the same mod, to me.

Is this mod still actively supported?

Has there been any consideration to hosting this mod on Spacedock, the KerbalStuff successor site?

I fear this mod author may be officially on hiatus. His profile indicates no forum login since Nov 2015, and I checked the last four pages of this thread and performed text searches for his name, with no hits as far back as early July 2015. Given the explicitly-announced changes in v1.1.x requiring recompiles, I'm wondering if anyone knows of someone who's already taken the torch on this awesome little mod, or at least performed a caretaker recompile. It would be nice to see this on Spacedock again. :'(

So are you officially supporting this mod, or just unofficially helping out until someone else volunteers? Are you covering any other mods, such as perhaps BD Parts? If you're taking over, is there another forum thread in the works, or a SpaceDock listing?

Is this mod still being officially supported, or just unofficial / community support? I see the post above mine, and I think it's saying that if I download the otherwise-latest version of this mod, and overwrite that with the Animation Modules item from the embedded link, everything will work in v1.1.2. Others have already asked about possible posting this to SpaceDock, but I'd simply be happy with an updated OP in this thread if that's possible. (SpaceDock would be awesome though, can't lie about that.) Note, I do see BahamutoD Animation Modules listed on CKAN as v1.1.2 compliant, tagged as being from the same github location as that described with the embedded post. Could THAT item be posted to SpaceDock?

Is this mod being officially maintained, or just unofficially? I see the post about it being recompiled for v1.1.x, are there any plans to officially release such an update (possibly on SpaceDock?) and / or to update the OP of this thread?

Hmm. I like costing research and funds, plus impose the prerequisite requirement that the editor building being used has been upgraded, or a specific tech node unlocked, for this ability to be accessible? Or both? Or imposing that it can only be done if the vehicle is launched empty of all resources, requiring the player to have a vehicle ready to fuel it at the Launchpad (klaw, or kas.winch)?

NearFuture would be a nice mod to support as well. This looks awesome, @ShotgunNinja, and thank you for your answer. It answered my question completely.

Also -- does anyone else have advice on how I can split a quote-box when I reply? I read this entire thread, browsing quickly though pages maybe 5-25 or so, but I read the first five and last nine pages thoroughly. This is why I wanted to make specifically clear that I'm asking if this mod is intended to be a "total conversion mod," specifically. Just a yes / no question for the original author @ShotgunNinja, specifically. Not trying to make a kerfuffle.

And I appreciate the response, as it goes to about 85% of what I was asking. I'll simply (and very congenially, I don't try to be a know-it-all) await a direct response from @ShotgunNinja as to his overall vision for this mod. I'll remind you that I was drawing observation from a very unique other mod that is very intentionally designed to be self-contained, and mod-interactivity with that one is either incidental, very specifically thought out, or very small. (For example, BTSM does list DRE as a hard prereq, mostly as a mechanism of convenience that it was already out in the wild and FC would've wanted to make a version of it himself had it not already been publicly available.) That Kerbalism will simply subordinate to RemoteTech is awesome news, if it's an intended behavior of Kerbalism to do so. As for giving him time to work, I wasn't making any feature requests, I was simply following up on my own original question (which was unclear in what I was actually trying to ask) that he'd already attempted to answer. Hours or weeks to hear back, I'm in no rush.

@ShotgunNinja I thank you for your reply. I realize that I utterly failed to clearly ask part of what I was trying to find out. I'm curious if your mod foresees either suppressing sections of itself in the presence of other mods, or at least coexisting with shared or overlapping enhancements? For my own career saves, I'd be interested in using TACLS and RemoteTech. I'm actually asking a question that I don't think has been asked here before. I'm reminded of @FlowerChild's technique to make exclusive-bundled mods, such as Better Than Starting Manned for KSP, or his Minecraft mod "Better Than Wolves," which I'm rather fond of. I think he justifies rather well his creative decision to intentionally and consciously prevent other mods from working with or modifying his (either by flat refusing to provide support for coding conflicts, or simply in his decision to perform in-game balance of his mod internally, only against itself). The issue I'm asking about is that his decision to do that is perfectly fine, but simply uncommon when it comes to considering other mods in any game -- KSP, Minecraft, or any other. So I'm respectfully asking a specific question here: Kerbalism has a life support segment, and a "RemoteTech"-ish segment. For players like me who might prefer to use their own mods for those segments, is that something you foresee accommodating (unintended inter-mod conflicts notwithstanding)? Or do you find yourself of the vision that Kerbalism is designed against itself and only against itself for in-game balance purposes? Keep in mind, I'll try your mod either way, and if you're of the "standalone vision" mindset, I'll simply set aside a specific install of KSP to play this mod if need be. I'm just curious to get your thoughts on this.

Just chiming in to agree with the "for future reference" mentality here. There are some other threads discussing some hypothetical mod frameworks that could potentially benefit from a coordinated renaming of resources, or an introduction of a secondary resource such as LiOH. One of my admittedly longer-winded contributions is here, and some lateral interest from a different mod developer is discussed here. I'd be very excited if more secondary-life-support "in-flight quality of life" mods were specifically compatible with TACLS.