Multiple GameData folders?

[BlackHat]

Can you have Multiple GameData Folders in the KSP Game folder?

ie. will the game ignore all other GameData folders and use only the one labeled "GameData"

Can I have:

KSP
- GameData
- GameDataVanilla
- GameDataOPM
- GameDataATM-Basc
- Internals
- KSP_Data
etc

So that when I want to switch around what Mods or compression modes I am going to be using I can just rename the one I want to use now to "GameData"

Or do I need to move the "other" GameData folders out of the KSP game folder?

[Corw]

That should work. It is simple to do. Just try it?

[regex]

Why not just copy the entire KSP directory and have multiple installs? It's a lot less work.

[Vaporo]

Yep. I have three of four GameData folders like that.

[jarmund]

I'm guessing the origin of this question stems from the same issue as I've been having: Not wanting to make a separate installation for each combination of mods you'd like to use.

I think it would be best if the game asked you with a list of checkboxes, one for each mod, every time you start a new game. Maybe with the ability to bring up this list at a later point if you chose to add more or remove some.

[Thomas988]

Am I the only one who sees a heavenly light splitting the clouds? Why have I not thought of this?!

[Randazzo]

Am I the only one who sees a heavenly light splitting the clouds? Why have I not thought of this?!

Indeed. I am now wondering why I have four instances of KSP installed.

[Wjolcz]

Indeed. I am now wondering why I have four instances of KSP installed.

Same.

[Stone Blue]

And this actually works?...Dont your game saves and ships get screwed up, to say the least?

Personally, I run completely separate KSP_win folders...(Currently have 5)...Other than maybe 15mins install time for each one, the only other savings I can see is just under 1GB harddrive space for each one...With most HDDs at LEAST 500GB, and most 1TB or more, I dont really see theres much benefit in running separate GameData, rather than KSP_win folders....???

Edited March 20, 2015 by Stone Blue

[Norpo]

And this actually works?...Dont your game saves and ships get screwed up, to say the least?

I would imagine only if you actually load the save, which you could avoid by just not loading it.

Of course, if you accidentally load the wrong save, it'll be messed up, which is what backups are for.

[BlackHat]

I'm guessing the origin of this question stems from the same issue as I've been having: Not wanting to make a separate installation for each combination of mods you'd like to use.

I think it would be best if the game asked you with a list of checkboxes, one for each mod, every time you start a new game. Maybe with the ability to bring up this list at a later point if you chose to add more or remove some.

Sounds like you want something like "Nexus Mod Manager", I used to use it for Skyrim and Fallout. I agree, something like that for KSP would be great. Made adding and removing mods VERY simple and Fast.

CKAN is very close. But it "forgets" what mods I have downloaded before but am not currently using. So I have to search through 500 mods trying to remember the name of that mod I was using last week.....

- - - Updated - - -

Hmm. Had not thought about the conflicts with Saves if I am switching between different GameData folders frequently.

In that case, I can see having multiple KSP installs instead of GameData folders....

Currently I am just wanting to test various mod combos and compressions to find what minimizes my crashes.

[Renegrade]

What, why??

If you go with the multiple-install route, you don't have to worry about the saves being damaged by incorrect modsets - the saves then become local to the correct set of mods.

The GameData folder is half of a stock install (and like nine-tenths of a heavily modified install) disk-space wise anyhow. If diskspace is such a concern, install Linux (that'll cut your OS overhead by 67% or so) and use symlinks aggressively.

(To create a new install from either the Steam OR Store edition, simply copy the entire thing somewhere. It doesn't have to be re-installed or any crap, unless you want an absolute fresh install)

[Van Disaster]

I have my 0.90 main install, and then outside the entire folder tree I have what is currently called 0.90_Modstore, which is where I install mods. After that I just symlink mods into GameData ( use mklink on windows NT-based OS ), which means all I have to do to swap entire modsets around is to list mod folders in a text file somewhere & run a simple windows script to swap entire installs without actually copying files anywhere at all.

Also handy for checking stuff out in a bare bones base install ( which itself is mostly just a new folder & lots of symbolic links too ).

If you load a game with a mod missing, just alt-F4 before it's had a chance to do anything & it should be ok. Actually I've loaded & saved games with ships not loaded because of missing parts, exited properly, put the missing parts back in the install & had the ship reappear, but I don't know exactly what the limits of that are. I run Nereid's S.A.V.E to take snapshots but wow does that eat disk space fast...

Edited March 20, 2015 by Van Disaster

[jarmund]

Sounds like you want something like "Nexus Mod Manager", I used to use it for Skyrim and Fallout. I agree, something like that for KSP would be great. Made adding and removing mods VERY simple and Fast.

CKAN is very close. But it "forgets" what mods I have downloaded before but am not currently using. So I have to search through 500 mods trying to remember the name of that mod I was using last week.....

- - - Updated - - -

Hmm. Had not thought about the conflicts with Saves if I am switching between different GameData folders frequently.

In that case, I can see having multiple KSP installs instead of GameData folders....

Currently I am just wanting to test various mod combos and compressions to find what minimizes my crashes.

I feel like hacking together a perl script that does this for me.

1. Keep all mod-folders as they would normally reside in Gamedata in some other folder. We'll call this folder ModRepo

2. Run perl script

3. Check the ones you want to install (The mods are populated from the ModRepo folder , or load a preset of checked mods)

4. perl script copies in the mods you've selected.

5. play

Not as clean as i'd like it to be, but at least i wouldn't have to:

- Drag and drop each individual folder

- Have separate installations

- Have multiple gamedata folders

[katateochi]

While it's an interesting observation that multiple GameData folders work, I'd rather just run with multiple installs.

But with multiple installs there is sometimes the problem of having a craft that you want to have in each install, so you manually copy the craft and then sometime later get totally confused as to which instance of the craft is more up to date. (at least that's what happens to me!)

So I approached this problem from the other way round, rather than having one install that has multiple GameData setups I've got a way of mirroring certain craft between saves (saves in one or multiple installs). I've made a tool that does version control for craft and save files and one of its features is being able to mirror a craft between saves, so when you change it in one save, it is automatically updated in which ever saves you've selected to mirror it with.

[problemecium]

So to select the one you want to use in play, you rename it to "GameData"? In that case I agree with the separate-install faction here. Hard drive space is cheap.

Now if someone wrote a simple mod to pick a GameData folder to load during runtime, and/or assign saves to a specific GameData folder, that would kick all kinds of tail fin.

[Stone Blue]

I'm guessing the origin of this question stems from the same issue as I've been having: Not wanting to make a separate installation for each combination of mods you'd like to use.

I think it would be best if the game asked you with a list of checkboxes, one for each mod, every time you start a new game. Maybe with the ability to bring up this list at a later point if you chose to add more or remove some.

Ummm.... There already exists a plugin for this...Not only can you "turn on and off" mods at the main game menu, you can also "turn on and off" specific PARTS, within a mod...This keeps them from loading...So say you want to load a part heavy mod, but you only want a few parts to load from it, you can easily pick and choose SPECIFIC parts to load, at the beginning of each game, without messing with ANY files or folders...

AddOn Controller:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/94811

[Van Disaster]

So to select the one you want to use in play, you rename it to "GameData"? In that case I agree with the separate-install faction here. Hard drive space is cheap.

Now if someone wrote a simple mod to pick a GameData folder to load during runtime, and/or assign saves to a specific GameData folder, that would kick all kinds of tail fin.

I got to the point of having a script that'd pick a package of mods to link into GameData, process it and then start the game, but I fiddle with my install too much to rely on that. It's handy for things like shared games or running DMP though.

The only problem with my approach is it'll also end up with shared PluginData dirs but *usually* that's beneficial. Only having to manage one set of mods is handy given how much I fiddle with those too...

[Renegrade]

I have my 0.90 main install, and then outside the entire folder tree I have what is currently called 0.90_Modstore, which is where I install mods. After that I just symlink mods into GameData ( use mklink on windows NT-based OS ), which means all I have to do to swap entire modsets around is to list mod folders in a text file somewhere & run a simple windows script to swap entire installs without actually copying files anywhere at all.

I'd always assumed that the mklink command was simply a CLI version of the 'shortcuts' feature and equally worthless. I've performed some tests, and aside from some.. very serious file management flaws (if you move it across partitions/drives, the symbolic links are converted into directories..typical MS half-assed design), it actually performs more like ln than it's GUI edition.

Given my normal KSP usage habits though, I could easily reconstruct the symlinks (old versions of KSP get archived to magnetic disk for me), so the issue becomes less troublesome. So now I can create my dream Linux-KSP setup in Windows...kinda (very similar to your own, only with multiple installs). Thanks!

[michaelsteele3]

I always knew the multiverse theory was true. But in KSP? Mind blown.

- - - Updated - - -

I always knew the multiverse theory was true. But in KSP? Mind blown...

- - - Updated - - -

Wait what? It said I posted that same thing 5 minutes ago when I didnt?

Oh my god this is ironic. I talk about a paralleled universe and my post duplicates itself from a forum bug XD

[Fel]

And this actually works?...Dont your game saves and ships get screwed up, to say the least?

Personally, I run completely separate KSP_win folders...(Currently have 5)...Other than maybe 15mins install time for each one, the only other savings I can see is just under 1GB harddrive space for each one...With most HDDs at LEAST 500GB, and most 1TB or more, I dont really see theres much benefit in running separate GameData, rather than KSP_win folders....???

Total waste of space! Just hardlink all the files in KSP_win (mklink /H for windows) (ln -P UNIX-like) and you have multiple KSP installs for zero space / time / everything loss. (Or... you could just use symbolics, probably easier but not as nerdy ;p)

[Van Disaster]

So now I can create my dream Linux-KSP setup in Windows...kinda (very similar to your own, only with multiple installs). Thanks!

You could hardlink too ( as was mentioned ), only I generally prefer symbolic links just because they're obvious. Most of the time anyway, NT occasionally forgets to both show they're links and also occasionally explorer believes they're actual files, which confuses more than just me. Sitting tight until it's worked it's life out makes that go away.

I have a few seperate game dirs ( well, four at the moment I think ) but a lot less than I used to have, and other than the stock one they're all mostly shared files.

[Renegrade]

Total waste of space! Just hardlink all the files in KSP_win (mklink /H for windows) (ln -P UNIX-like) and you have multiple KSP installs for zero space / time / everything loss. (Or... you could just use symbolics, probably easier but not as nerdy ;p)

I'd strongly recommend against hardlinks. They have a lot of limitations and you'd have to do that on a file-by-file level (not much of a problem for a script or such, but that would preclude manual administration), as directory links are.. troublesome. Also hardlinks can't cross to different filesystems.

Also.. this is KSP.. "Not Shoot People With Slightly Different Guns 5". You can fit 1e+38 copies of it on a single sided, double-density five-inch floppy disk*.

* - may be a slight exaggeration. Only a bit though - ksp is amazingly tiny. "Stab People While Being a Genetic Memory Pirate IV" is like 25.6GiB, KSP is what, 2? I've put 36 hours into Stab People IV and will probably top out at twice that. I've put over 3500 hours into KSP and there's no sign of it stopping anytime soon. It's not just good value, it's also good disk space to gameplay ratio!

You could hardlink too ( as was mentioned ), only I generally prefer symbolic links just because they're obvious. Most of the time anyway, NT occasionally forgets to both show they're links and also occasionally explorer believes they're actual files, which confuses more than just me. Sitting tight until it's worked it's life out makes that go away.

Ew, another problem. Trust microshaft to completely mess something up and implement it in the most bass-ackward fashion possible. Well, I'm gonna give it a shot anyhow - KSP folders can generally be reconstructed from source archives at will so any lossage will be easily repaired.

I have a few seperate game dirs ( well, four at the moment I think ) but a lot less than I used to have, and other than the stock one they're all mostly shared files.

I'm going to have just as many as before, only they won't have unique copies of each mod anymore... The symlinks-not-copying-properly bug is obnoxious though as that would be perfect for forking a new copy. Maybe xcopy will fare better than explorer...

[Fel]

You could hardlink too ( as was mentioned ), only I generally prefer symbolic links just because they're obvious. Most of the time anyway, NT occasionally forgets to both show they're links and also occasionally explorer believes they're actual files, which confuses more than just me. Sitting tight until it's worked it's life out makes that go away.

I have a few seperate game dirs ( well, four at the moment I think ) but a lot less than I used to have, and other than the stock one they're all mostly shared files.

Err, just wanted to say that the reason hardlinks are "nerdy" is because they OS doesn't know the difference between a hardlinked file and a non-hardlinked file. If it shows the difference it isn't a hardlink.

Hardlinking is just adding a separate entry in the MFT that says the same dataspace is used by two files. Symbolics are an actual file that have some kernel implementations. (Since a program never interacts directly with a file, but calls the OS to do so, the OS then returns the altered "symbolic" path. When a program "calls" the symbolic). This lets you do absurd things with symbolics (such as linking a directory on one HD to a directory on another HD; [in theory, you could do it to a CD or even removable media... but that may have weird stuff happening... I'm not 100% certain of the implementation]).

Heck, since a symbolic link IS just a file, you can make a hard link to the symbolic as well... and then symbolic the hard link XD.

So yeah.... recently I've gotten into making crazy amounts of symbolics and hardlinks everywhere; even to the point where I'm moving "logs" / "saves" or other space changing files out of my main HD so that it never fragments and I can even set it read-only XD.

[Van Disaster]

Not up on current unix filesystems, but the idea certainly used to be that there is literally no difference - a "normal" file just has a single hard link. Which in this case is why I prefer symlinks ( not least because I'm not sure I trust NTFS hard links to behave either... ) because they're obvious, and a little easier to manage if you're constantly fiddling with things...