Depreciated SVE -Do Not Enter-

[Shadriss]

2 hours ago, Nhawks17 said:

I've updated the OP to tell people to refrain from installing via CKAN... I will also be making a request to the CKAN team to remove SVE from CKAN until a proper and supported netkan file can be created.

Thanks much, @Nhawks17. I'm hoping that will go a long way towards heading off more instances of this same problem. I love CKAN's ideas, but setting it up so anyone can drop a .netkan file may not be the best of ideas. While it does allow for forks and derivation mods to get posted easily, it's just as easy for something like this to happen as well.

 

2 hours ago, MrMeeb said:

If you haven't yet fixed it by manually installing, I believe deleting the BoulderCo file in GameDate will resolve the problem. 

This. Also a viable way to fix @Illation' s problem, and could also be the simplest in this case. Thanks for the back-up... I'd not really thought about the problem beyond seeing CKAN usage popping up again.

[Nhawks17]

Aww man I missed it  Happy belated 1,000th post me. You've done well.....

[Illation]

1 hour ago, Shadriss said:

This. Also a viable way to fix @Illation' s problem, and could also be the simplest in this case. Thanks for the back-up... I'd not really thought about the problem beyond seeing CKAN usage popping up again.

Yup, it did, and also doubled my framerate so happiness all around

[Shadriss]

43 minutes ago, Illation said:

Yup, it did, and also doubled my framerate so happiness all around

Half the clouds, double the FPS. Makes sense to me.

[sidfu]

tbo the best thing to do with ksp is alwlays intall lmods 100% the time yourself.

i never liked ckan my experence with it was it ccrashing on every step i  did to install RSS and in process messing up thosse files as they where corrupted by the crashes. for me to install 5 RSS mods thru ckan it crashed or froze 8 times so i gave up and i do everything manualy to ensure stuff instsall right.

[Senshi]

 

The simpler alternative would be to fix the netkan file.

If you don't want to, others can do it. It's easy. I understand some people don't like it, while others do. There's little harm in supporting ckan, and they really made it amazingly easy to manage support. All you need is a github account and the understanding to edit a simple array textfile.

 

Currently, the SVE netkan says this:

Spoiler

{
	"spec_version" : "v1.10",
	"$kref" : "#/ckan/spacedock/58",
	"identifier" : "StockVisualEnhancements",
	"license" : "CC-BY-NC-SA",
	"release_status" : "stable",
	"x_netkan_epoch" : "1",
	"conflicts": [
	{
	"name": "SVE-Textures"
	}
	],
	"depends": [
	{ "name": "EnvironmentalVisualEnhancements" }
	],
	"recommends": [
	{ "name": "Kopernicus" },
	{ "name": "Scatterer" }
	],
	"install": [
	{
	"find_regexp" : "Game[dD]ata/StockVisualEnhancements",
	"install_to" : "GameData"
	}
	]
	}

 

I guess it really only needs the removal of the EnvironmentalVisualEnhancements dependency? I also guess the Kopernicus recommendation is nonsensical?

If you could confirm that to be true, the fixed netkan would be, and I (or anyone else) could just edit it.

Spoiler

{
	"spec_version" : "v1.10",
	"$kref" : "#/ckan/spacedock/58",
	"identifier" : "StockVisualEnhancements",
	"license" : "CC-BY-NC-SA",
	"release_status" : "stable",
	"x_netkan_epoch" : "1",
	"conflicts": [
	{
	"name": "SVE-Textures"
	}
	],
	"recommends": [
	{ "name": "Scatterer" }
	],
	"install": [
	{
	"find_regexp" : "Game[dD]ata/StockVisualEnhancements",
	"install_to" : "GameData"
	}
	]
	}

 

EDIT: Actually, EVE should probably be added as a conflict, to make it clear that they do not work together as a user might expect.

Edited April 27, 2016 by Senshi
I hate the enforced WYSIWYG editor something fierce

[Aegrim]

Is their a clouds.cfg file for people who want the auroras but don't want the clouds? I really want the EVEv2 clouds with shadows, but that mod lacks the auroras.

Does anyone know if EVE and EVEv2 will clash and cause crazy bugs?

[SoTOP]

2 hours ago, Senshi said:

 

The simpler alternative would be to fix the netkan file.

If you don't want to, others can do it. It's easy. I understand some people don't like it, while others do. There's little harm in supporting ckan, and they really made it amazingly easy to manage support. All you need is a github account and the understanding to edit a simple array textfile.

 

Currently, the SVE netkan says this:

  Reveal hidden contents

{
	"spec_version" : "v1.10",
	"$kref" : "#/ckan/spacedock/58",
	"identifier" : "StockVisualEnhancements",
	"license" : "CC-BY-NC-SA",
	"release_status" : "stable",
	"x_netkan_epoch" : "1",
	"conflicts": [
	{
	"name": "SVE-Textures"
	}
	],
	"depends": [
	{ "name": "EnvironmentalVisualEnhancements" }
	],
	"recommends": [
	{ "name": "Kopernicus" },
	{ "name": "Scatterer" }
	],
	"install": [
	{
	"find_regexp" : "Game[dD]ata/StockVisualEnhancements",
	"install_to" : "GameData"
	}
	]
	}

 

I guess it really only needs the removal of the EnvironmentalVisualEnhancements dependency? I also guess the Kopernicus recommendation is nonsensical?

If you could confirm that to be true, the fixed netkan would be, and I (or anyone else) could just edit it.

  Reveal hidden contents

{
	"spec_version" : "v1.10",
	"$kref" : "#/ckan/spacedock/58",
	"identifier" : "StockVisualEnhancements",
	"license" : "CC-BY-NC-SA",
	"release_status" : "stable",
	"x_netkan_epoch" : "1",
	"conflicts": [
	{
	"name": "SVE-Textures"
	}
	],
	"recommends": [
	{ "name": "Scatterer" }
	],
	"install": [
	{
	"find_regexp" : "Game[dD]ata/StockVisualEnhancements",
	"install_to" : "GameData"
	}
	]
	}

 

EDIT: Actually, EVE should probably be added as a conflict, to make it clear that they do not work together as a user might expect.

The problem with EVE dependency on CKAN is that it automatically installs default EVE config files that are not needed for SVE. I think the way this should be handled is by making SVE as a config option to EVE. For that you would need SVE version that doesnt bundle EVE.

[Senshi]

Or just use SVE "as is", with EVE included. That's why SVE currently conflicts with EVE, in terms of NetKAN logic.

Sure, it'd be nice if EVE was separated from its config files, but that should be discussed in a separate thread. It would certainly make it much cleaner to combine EVE with the various possible configs for it, in a dependency-safe mode.

[DuoDex]

I will try to fix the CKAN file, or barring that remove it. I should note that the current method of distribution - including the EVE files - might have better stability but doesn't play nicely with how CKAN wants to install.

[sidfu]

3 hours ago, Aegrim said:

Is their a clouds.cfg file for people who want the auroras but don't want the clouds? I really want the EVEv2 clouds with shadows, but that mod lacks the auroras.

Does anyone know if EVE and EVEv2 will clash and cause crazy bugs?

if u dont want clouds but the auroras just disable them ingame. u can do anything with a little cfg edits or even ingame editing.  for example before when playing around i had it use eves clouds for kerbin .  it looked awasome but killef fps trying to launch abig rocket

[Senshi]

Actually, there already is a pull request to fix SVE's netkan: https://github.com/KSP-CKAN/NetKAN/pull/3779/commits/9a9c095b88d277da06126e272f345c69a027a706

I'm guessing it'll be integrated very soon (=today-ish).

Edited April 27, 2016 by Senshi

[MetaframeNL]

Is there a way to make the clouds like in the first experimental? The last update of SVE makes it very hard for my pc to go trough the 4km base layer of clouds, i suffer enormous fps issues. After i passed trough the clouds all is fine again 

All help will be greatly appreciated !

[Jacke]

2 hours ago, Senshi said:

Or just use SVE "as is", with EVE included. That's why SVE currently conflicts with EVE, in terms of NetKAN logic.

Sure, it'd be nice if EVE was separated from its config files, but that should be discussed in a separate thread. It would certainly make it much cleaner to combine EVE with the various possible configs for it, in a dependency-safe mode.

EVE is currently separated from its config files, if you take a look on the EVE topic and on its Github page, there's EVE itself, the .dll's and the .shader's (under EnvironmentalVisualEnhancements) in one .zip and its stock config (under BoulderCo) in another .zip.  @rbray89 did that just for alternate configs like SVE.

[Nhawks17]

3 hours ago, DuoDex said:

I will try to fix the CKAN file, or barring that remove it. I should note that the current method of distribution - including the EVE files - might have better stability but doesn't play nicely with how CKAN wants to install.

As much as I'm sure some would like CKAN support, I don't want to have to compromise by removing the EVE distribution for the people who don't use it  

[DuoDex]

30 minutes ago, Nhawks17 said:

As much as I'm sure some would like CKAN support, I don't want to have to compromise by removing the EVE distribution for the people who don't use it  

That shouldn't happen, @politas' commit that you just commented on should fix everything (won't remove EVE for others either) 

[Nhawks17]

19 minutes ago, DuoDex said:

That shouldn't happen, @politas' commit that you just commented on should fix everything (won't remove EVE for others either) 

Oh ok, awesome  Thanks guys  

[Shadriss]

As long as it's fixed, the method doesn't really matter.

[HerrGeneral]

Is it just me, or are the aurorae only visible on the light side of Kerbin- as if the self-illumination property of the texture isn't working? I am using Scatterer with the "draw atmosphere over EVE clouds" option, but even turning that off still has this problem.

[Nhawks17]

11 minutes ago, HerrGeneral said:

Is it just me, or are the aurorae only visible on the light side of Kerbin- as if the self-illumination property of the texture isn't working? I am using Scatterer with the "draw atmosphere over EVE clouds" option, but even turning that off still has this problem.

You should read back a couple of pages  

[HerrGeneral]

Gah. I thought I had gotten into the habit of checking back a few pages before asking questions, but apparently I forgot. Sorry!

Now that I look, though, you said that EVE doesn't have a module for self-illuminating cloud layers- but didn't it used to? I distinctly remember that older versions of EVE used with certain packs (Astronomer's Pack comes to mind) had glowing aurorae visible at night. Was that a custom plugin for that one pack?

[Nhawks17]

14 minutes ago, HerrGeneral said:

Gah. I thought I had gotten into the habit of checking back a few pages before asking questions, but apparently I forgot. Sorry!

Now that I look, though, you said that EVE doesn't have a module for self-illuminating cloud layers- but didn't it used to? I distinctly remember that older versions of EVE used with certain packs (Astronomer's Pack comes to mind) had glowing aurorae visible at night. Was that a custom plugin for that one pack?

Yes the old version of EVE had the ability to do so but the new one does not (yet)

[sidfu]

@Nhawks17  did u see this over on kerbal stuff? i looked at its textures and they seem like some of them are yours or rbrays from stock eve. jusst wanted to check as all the links he provides are dead links  http://spacedock.info/mod/608/CVE - Cloudd's Visual Enhancements

jusst wanted to know if that  is ok for someone to do?

[Nhawks17]

4 hours ago, sidfu said:

@Nhawks17  did u see this over on kerbal stuff? i looked at its textures and they seem like some of them are yours or rbrays from stock eve. jusst wanted to check as all the links he provides are dead links  http://spacedock.info/mod/608/CVE - Cloudd's Visual Enhancements

jusst wanted to know if that  is ok for someone to do?

Technically yes, but not in their current state. For them to redistribute the textures in SVE it needs to follow the terms in the license which they currently aren't doing right now. The forum thread they had has been removed but SpaceDock isn't the forums  @Red Iron Crown is there a way to contact SpaceDock admins or should I post something in the SpaceDock thread?

[Red Iron Crown]

@Nhawks17 We're looking into it at the moment.