IRnifty

Updated! v0.6.1: - Fixed part highlighting compatibility issue with Ship Manifest (and any other mod that highlights parts).

Updated! v0.6.1: - Fixed part highlighting compatibility issue with Ship Manifest (and any other mod that highlights parts).

Thank you for making me aware of the compatibility issue. I am currently correcting it and will push a "bugfix" update within the next few short hours. In the meantime, I feel I should propose a highlighting manager mod which would manage and prioritize highlight requests made by mods such as yours, mine, and Farram's mods. As it is, the current model of handling highlighting is not very multi-mod friendly, so I'd like to change that. What do you think? Oh, and I will most certainly take a look at maybe providing a sort of living space failure system. I welcome failures for any mod!

Papa_Joe, hmm... Interesting. Ok. I'll have a bit of a look at how I implement my highlighting system. Likely, what I can do is, when a player turns on highlight, set an internal bool to true, and when they turn it off, only reset highlighting only once if that bool is still true and then set it to false. Shouldn't be too hard. Perhaps this could work well with other mods that highlight. Or... Perhaps... Maybe a highlighting manager mod should be created and thus used by any mods wishing to highlight, since the currently implemented highlighting system allows for too much conflict. I'm going to implement the first of my ideas and then message you about possibilities for that highlighting manager. Thanks for letting me know about the conflict. EDIT: So I've tested my implementation, and it works well, but it currently overrides your coloring only while mine is active. I personally consider this fine. But other than that, it works well, because when the user turns my highlighting, yours is reinstated properly following one frame.

Updated! v0.6: - Added settings option to stop time warp when a failure occurs. Default on. - Added settings option to display an alert dialog when a failure occurs. Default on. - Added settings option to highlight in red the failing part while the alert is open. Default on. - Added icon to the KSP toolbar (A.K.A the "App Launcher") which handles the new settings and the ship status highlighing. - Removed "Highlight Failed Parts" ship status option. Failed parts now automatically display as red when ship status highlighting is active.

Updated! v0.6: - Added settings option to stop time warp when a failure occurs. Default on. - Added settings option to display an alert dialog when a failure occurs. Default on. - Added settings option to highlight in red the failing part while the alert is open. Default on. - Added icon to the KSP toolbar (A.K.A the "App Launcher") which handles the new settings and the ship status highlighing. - Removed "Highlight Failed Parts" ship status option. Failed parts now automatically display as red when ship status highlighting is active.

Yes of course. It would make sense to make landings easier in order to provide an entry level of challenge, but those who install the mod want the challenge of realism. Therefore, it is best to leave it just as possible to fail while landing/taking off as it is for a 10 minute orbital transfer. And the stranger thing, in my career play, provided I've only been to the Mun so far, I've had a total of 3 failures excluding decoupler failures. One was an altimeter failure on a muli-pod jet, so no real harm. Another was a glitched engine failure, and the third was a tank failure on my SCANsat probe, which I thus was forced to leave in orbit for future return. This is at around a total of over 50 flights. That's a 6% failure rate. Now if I were to include the decoupler failures, over half of those were within "simulations" made possible with a mod that causes build times, which also provides paid simulations (basically a test run of the craft which costs around 5% of the original craft). The other half of the decoupler failures I right clicked on the part during flight and spammed decouple until it exploded. I'd say those failures increased the actual flight failure rate to about 10%-12% in total. By my books, even with their high rate of failure, decouplers so far have been a very minor setback, usually only causing a small loss in efficiency due to carrying around dead weight. Oh, and Phenakist, failures currently cannot happen if the vessel is unloaded. This means you must be near or controlling a vessel in order to receive a failure.

Phenakist, I appreciate your feedback. That is strange, as I have a function designed to stop time warp along with alerting the player should a failure occur. I had thought I forgot to add that function to tanks, but it seems I didn't. Testing will be required, so I'll get back on that. However, there is already an overlay option, found in every command part. Right click, "Get Ship Status", which will open a small dialog which allows you to view the state of every part affected by my mod. As for decouplers, yes you can fix them, but you must use an Engineer or be in Sandbox or Science Mode to use the proper fix option. I think I want to redesign how and when decouples fail anyway. As it is, it's impossible to determine if a decoupler will fail or not until you need to use it, since that isn't determined by the mod until then. superkurbol2014, I'll have a look at the mod and do some testing. My mod operates by placing additional modules onto parts which override the original modules, so there may be a possibility. I'll have to check and get back on that. Invader Myk, still too high, huh? I'll reduce it yet some more in the coming update. Again, thanks all of you for the feedback. It is deeply appreciated.

Updated! v1.0.3: - The Open and Save file dialogs now begin at the install path of the program.

Hmm... This is really interesting. I am honestly completely unsure what causes this. The error is strangely claiming your install to be a network location. So I think there may be one solution which might help, but it's a long shot, so I'll be in contact via private message some time today or tomorrow with a private test version which I'd like you to try. Sound good?

Interesting... I'm not entirely certain what could be causing it then. I think you just have a very rare setup that interferes. Wait. You're running KSP out of your Users folder. Have you tried moving it somewhere like Program Files and trying it there? It may be that having the install in your Users folder, or any subfolder, causes some weird access issues with my program...

Were you also running KSP at the time you opened the program? What OS do you have? Win 7, or 8?

It doesn't require C++ so much as it does C#. I promise, C# is loads easier to deal with than C++ is. Sure, it's still a struggle for people that have never touched code before, but it is by far one of the easier programming languages to learn.

Updated! v1.0.2: - Allowed opening of game save (*.sfs) files. - Allowed opening of files with node names that may not be completely alphanumeric. - Improved file open error handling. - - - Updated - - - Can you please tell me bit about your computer? Are you installing this into your KSP directory? What version of KSP is KCE installed into?

Whoa whoa. Did you just try opening a ModuleManager file? EDIT: Pics added.

Updated! v0.5: - KSP 0.9 compatibility update. Fixed IPartCostModifier bug and part highlighting bug resulting from changes between 0.25 and 0.9. - All proper repairs require a Kerbal with the Engineer skill, with varying degrees of experience. Improper repairs remain accessible by any Kerbal. - All proper repairs can be done by any Kerbal of any experience if not in Career Mode. - Reduced Decoupler chance of silent failure from 20% to 10%. - Module Injector now searches all config files for injections, allowing separated injection files. - Modified reliability drain logic to properly reflect the Kerbin 6 hour day.

Updated! v0.5: - KSP 0.9 compatibility update. Fixed IPartCostModifier bug and part highlighting bug resulting from changes between 0.25 and 0.9. - All proper repairs require a Kerbal with the Engineer skill, with varying degrees of experience. Improper repairs remain accessible by any Kerbal. - All proper repairs can be done by any Kerbal of any experience if not in Career Mode. - Reduced Decoupler chance of silent failure from 20% to 10%. - Module Injector now searches all config files for injections, allowing separated injection files. - Modified reliability drain logic to properly reflect the Kerbin 6 hour day.

Hello all ('-')/, I'd like to present my 3rd party program: Kerbal Config Editor v1.1 Release Kerbal Config Editor (KCE) is an easy to use tool designed to allow modders of Kerbal Space Program to easily and quickly alter or even create KSP Config Files. Screenshots This software is provided "as-is" with no warranties. Presented under the GPL v3 license. Creation and/or publication of media (images, videos, etc.) while using this software is authorized. Created by: Nifty255 Copyright © 2015 All rights reserved. This software is in RELEASE. However, bugs can still happen. If you have a bug, or a suggestion, please leave it in a mature manner. DOWNLOAD: SpaceDock OR GitHub SOURCE: GitHub Get KCE on CKAN! KSP 1.1 USERS BEWARE: KSP 1.1 is still in Pre-Release status. Bugs are expected. In addition, KCE v1.1 is NOT backwards kompatible with older KSP versions. Because of this, older versions of KCE are still available in SpaceDock's "Changelog" section AND in GitHub's "Releases" section. INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS: Place the program file into the same directory as your Kerbal Space Program install. For example, if KSP is installed in C:\Program Files\Kerbal Space Program, then that is where this program goes. FEATURES: Kerbal Config Editor allows users and modders to easily read, edit, and even create KSP config files. - Supports creating new config files and saving. - Supports opening existing config files. - Supports editing of nodes, their names, and values, their names, and assigned values. - DOES NOT currently support comments. This is planned for a future release. CHANGELOG: v1.1: - KSP 1.1 PRE-RELEASE Kompatibility Update. BUGS ARE EXPECTED. v1.0.4: - Minor UI improvements. - Changed File IO to use the OS's path separator instead of hardcoded backslashes. v1.0.3: - The Open and Save file dialogs now begin at the install path of the program. v1.0.2: - Allowed opening of game save (*.sfs) files. - Allowed opening of files with node names that may not be completely alphanumeric. - Improved file open error handling. v1.0.1: - Fixed menu items not reactivating. v1.0: - INITIAL RELEASE

Care to make a list of things you believe should be repairable at each level, taking into account what tech is available when? I'm still busy and unable to do many things, although I've fixed most bugs and am close to recompiling a compatibility update.

Apologies to everyone for disappearing. I've become extremely busy as of late and haven't had the time to work on anything I want to, which saddens me greatly... However!!! I'm expecting to get a month long paid vacation soon and should be able to at the least work on any bugs 0.90 produces in my code. Thanks for being patient, sticking to it, improving it, and just being awesome KSP players. I promise I haven't given this up and really really hope to find the time to get back into this. For that matter, what do yo guys think I should do with Engineer skills in the 0.9 update? A: Engineers lvl0+ can repair, but number of parts is based on level. B: Engineers lvl0+ can repair, but chance of failing the repair is lower per level. C: Engineers lvl1+ can repair, with a flat and even chance of successful repair all throughout.

Apologies to everyone for disappearing. I've become extremely busy as of late and haven't had the time to work on anything I want to, which saddens me greatly... However!!! I'm expecting to get a month long paid vacation soon and should be able to at the least work on any bugs 0.90 produces in my code. Thanks for being patient, sticking to it, improving it, and just being awesome KSP players. I promise I haven't given this up and really really hope to find the time to get back into this. For that matter, what do yo guys think I should do with Engineer skills in the 0.9 update? A: Engineers lvl0+ can repair, but number of parts is based on level. B: Engineers lvl0+ can repair, but chance of failing the repair is lower per level. C: Engineers lvl1+ can repair, with a flat and even chance of successful repair all throughout.

They were once the same, but I lowered the weight of them because they were far too heavy. So I don't know exactly what would happen if both mods were loaded together. No doubt, there'd be only one resource, but I don't know which weight it would use.

Thanks for stepping in, Ippo. I was in fact busy with the real world. Unfortunately, though, KM doesn't automatically detect 3rd party parts. I'll be looking at a way to do that in the near future. Regardless, thanks again for trying And mic_e, haha... I figured it out a ways back, but just didn't have the time to do it. Now I need to run all over my own code to remember how it works. XD Luckily, I documented it very well.

Thanks! Do you have anything you'd like to see changed, removed, or added?

I would consider using it, but would rather leave my mod as a base that is extendable by others, instead of potentially extending or relying on others. I appreciate the idea, though. As for quality and reliability, they are both public variables, and thus are accessible and modifiable by any class that can get a reference to the instance (you need to get the failure module of the part with "part.Modules.OfType<ModuleReliabilityBase>().FirstOrDefault<ModuleReliabilityBase>()" before accessing those vars).