discussion Discussion - Community Category Kit

[Andem]

From a user's POV: Great idea! How about an Extraplanetary Ops tab (with a shorter name obviously)? EL stuff, Karbonite Stuff, etc.

[jofwu]

In my mind there's a lot of overlap with Infernal Robotics (@Ziw) and some of the new Konstruction parts. There's probably other mods with similar functionality that aren't coming to mind right now... Maybe not enough that you guys think it's an issue, but I wanted to point that out.

And I agree with @Eklykti about "crew cabins". KPBS (@Nils277), Stockalike Station Parts (@Nertea), and many other mods have plenty of "non-command parts that hold Kerbals". Anything meant for a base or station really- especially those that don't have some specific function (like greenhouses, MKS colony stuff, etc.) Maybe this doesn't make sense with the Hitchhiker already setting a precedent for this sort of thing... Maybe all of these modders would rather put their things in Utility or in a unique category. But that's my two cents.

Edited October 19, 2016 by jofwu

[neamerjell]

@RoverDude and @DStall: Thanks for enlightening me on the purpose of this proposed mod. Filter Extensions is fulfilling much of my part organizing needs so far. So categories in which mods overlap is what you are trying to identify? Here's one: any light emitting parts that are not a cockpit or other manned (kerballed?) part (like a science lab) should be grouped together.

This category would include the stock spot lights, the beacon light from USI, Aviation lights, Surface lights, etc. FE has a hard time catching all of these.

[RoverDude]

Just bear in mind this is not about changing stuff other people use, it's simply a clearing house for mods that want to avoid potential conflict.  Which is not very exciting for users, but pretty nice for content creators.

[Dark Lion]

On 10/17/2016 at 11:51 AM, Kobymaru said:

 

You have to specify exactly which directories in your ZIP file should be installed to the users GameData. If you don't include CCK in that, but instead add it as a dependency then it should be fine.

Does this mean the user can opt-out of CCK entirely and the mod itself still functions properly without it?

I STILL have no idea what CCK does.

Honestly... I love some of you guys' work so much I'd very nearly hunt YOU to get the perks and parts, so I'm really confused. Do I need CCK, or is it about preferential organization of the editor by the user?

I'm hesitant to add new stuff and this is the topic I found on it after I discovered the folder in @Nils277's KPBS recent update... Sorry if this is off-topic or already answered, in advance.

Standing by- for enlightenment!

Edited October 24, 2016 by TheLionsBite
I didn't read enough of the discussion before posting.

[Nils277]

14 minutes ago, TheLionsBite said:

Does this mean the user can opt-out of CCK entirely and the mod itself still functions properly without it?

I have no idea what CCK does.

Honestly... I love some of you guys' work so much I'd very nearly hunt YOU to get the perks and parts, so I'm really confused. Do I need CCK, or is it about preferential organization of the editor by the user?

I'm hesitant to add new stuff and this is the topic I found on it after I discovered the folder in @Nils277's KPBS recent update... Sorry if this is off-topic or already answered, in advance.

Standing by- for enlightenment!

CCK is used to avoid redundand Tabs in VAB/SPH. It does not impact the performace or adds many resources (only a small image for the tab). So i would suggest just leaving it in the folder. 

Whether a mod still works to a full extend when CCK is removed depends on the mod itself. It may be that you won't be able to find some parts anymore that are placed in the tabs that CCK adds. KPBS has a fallback for that case so you won't have a problem there. Other mods might behave differently. I would recommend to keep it in your GameData folder. Otherwise you might have redundant tabs in the VAB/SPH when you have e.g. USI-LS and KPBS installed simultaneously. (Which was the case prior to CCK and the reason CCK was brought to life)

Edited October 24, 2016 by Nils277

[Dark Lion]

3 minutes ago, Nils277 said:

CCK is used to avoid redundand Tabs in VAB/SPH. It does not impact the performace or adds many resources (only a small image for the tab). So i would suggest just leaving it in the folder. 

Whether a mod still works to a full extend when CCK is removed depends on the mod itself. It may be that you won't be able to find some parts anymore that are placed in the tabs that CCK adds. KPBS has a fallback for that case so you won't have a problem there. Other mods might behave differently. I would recommend to keep it in your GameData folder. Otherwise you might have redundant tabs in the VAB/SPH when you have e.g. USI-LS amd KPBS installed simultaneously. (Which was the case prior to CCK and the reason CCK was brought to life)

@Nils277 you're the man! KPBS is the only real parts pack I have right now, so I should be go for launch without CCK. However, there are parts in the KIS, KAS, and KER, but I only use one part of all parts they each offer ( the flexible docking port.) Happy to try CCK as needed, but I'll report back if there are any troubles with redundancy or anything related to KPBS used without it.

[Jiraiyah]

@RoverDude

Hi sir, in latest version of USI Life support, there is a folder for Community Category Kit, how would it work side by side with filter extensions? or can i simply put my own configgs from filter extensions to this folder for it to work? how should i use it? any forum for this new mod of yours ? too many questions

[RoverDude]

It has nothing to do with filter extensions, it just adds a new tag-based category for modders.

[Crzyrndm]

@Jiraiyah

I need to check through FE's distributed configs and add some MM conditionals where there is overlap. Far less hassle to do any interop that way

[steedcrugeon]

Has there been sufficient noise made to warrant investigating putting parts for 'off Kerbin' manufacturing and construction into it's own category? Referring to EL and Konstruction mods and derivatives there of. That utilities category gets mighty full very quickly, although it is a very 'catch-all' category.

[linuxgurugamer]

With regards to the categories getting crowded, why not use subcategories? 

There is a cfg mod on curse forge which, while aimed at stock, has a very complete list of custom categories and subcategories.  I tried it earlier today, worked pretty well

[Jimbodiah]

I'm a bg fan of the Part Organizer mod under 1.1.3 which basically does the same as you are suggesting. So yes, I would love to see this. A possibility to add your own categories via a MM patch would be really nice as well.

Categories I would suggest:
- Probe Cores (keeping Command for manned pods only)
- Solar Panels
- Engines - Electrical and nuclear
- Engines - Airplane
- Life Support (which RoverDude has already added in the current CCK itteration)
- Rovers ( ^ dito ) 
- RCS (blocks, thrusters and dedicated MP tanks)
- Mininig/resources (drills, ISRU, ore containers, also for KA/K+)

 

Per-mod patches would be needed, but I can help out with that if needed. I've done the same for Part Organizer for around 15 mods (mostly your's and Rover's plus SSTU and BDB).

Currently CCK assigns a complete directory of parts to a category, but seeing as a lot of mods are not organised like this it might be handy to be able to MM hack the part's category in question.

[RoverDude]

That's actually incorrect - CCK works off of tags, not directories.  I'll happily add more categories, but only if we hit a point where it's valuable to two or more modders (i.e. I expect this will remain a very small pack specifically designed to avoid the conflicts we bump into from time to time).

[Warro]

I haven't seen any suggestions for category for marine-related stuff: floats, ballast tanks, ship hulls, engines that work only in/on water surface, etc. All of them have very limited use if you are making something that should be used in flights.
For engines maybe only separation of atmosphere_dependant (turbines, propellers are no good when you design probe, rocket or orbital station and SRB are not so useful in planes as main propulsion, for example) is needed.
Electrical - maybe only separate storage from generating parts. Don't get the idea of separating RTG or reactors from solar panels, all of them have the same function of electrical income.
For separate life support - totally agree. Mining, rovers sounds good too.

[DrScarlett]

Thank you, @RoverDude, for maintaining this and the latest update. Thanks a lot!

[IgorZ]

Heads up! New version is released:

1.2.0 - 2016.12.2

• [Enhancement] Define common filters via a config file.
• [Enhancement] Allow defining custom filters by updating via ModuleManager (read Wiki!).

Important change in it is that third-party developers can now use CCK for creating own custom filters! Read more on Wiki.

In nutshell, if you decided to create own cool filter for your parts you add the following MM (ModuleManager) patch into your project:

@CCKExtraFilterConfig
{
    Item
    {
        name = Cool Mod Things
        tag = cck-cool-mod
        normalIcon = CoolMod/Textures/FilterIcon
        usedByMod = Cool Mod
    }
}

 

[IgorZ]

New release.

1.2.1 - 2016.12.12
- [Change] Recompile for KSP 1.2.2

It turned out that due to CKAN specifics if dependency mod is not compatible with the current game version then the dependent will not be listed even in "All mods" filter. I.e. in spite of no actual changes were needed in CCK it still needs a new release to reflect the version change.

FYI. See the following CKAN issue.

Edited December 13, 2016 by IgorZ

[DStaal]

On 12/12/2016 at 11:42 PM, IgorZ said:

New release.

1.2.1 - 2016.12.12
- [Change] Recompile for KSP 1.2.2

It turned out that due to CKAN specifics if dependency mod is not compatible with the current game version then the dependent will not be listed even in "All mods" filter. I.e. in spite of no actual changes were needed in CCK it still needs a new release to reflect the version change.

FYI. See the following CKAN issue.

The download for it seems to have issues: My unarchiver won't unzip it, prompting me to find 'the rest of the archive'.  (Since I'm manual anyway, I went with 1.2.0, which has no issues.)

[IgorZ]

1 hour ago, DStaal said:

The download for it seems to have issues: My unarchiver won't unzip it, prompting me to find 'the rest of the archive'.  (Since I'm manual anyway, I went with 1.2.0, which has no issues.)

What archiver do you use? The release file is a regular ZIP archive. It's handled fine by any version of RAR, 7-Zip, Windows Explorer, and integrated CKAN unarchiver (not sure what does it use to unzip distributions).

[DStaal]

I use 'The Unarchiver' on Mac.  Typically it handles everything.

However, as this is a new computer there are some things I'm still setting up - and it's possible there was some oddball permissions setup issue that was the problem, since my fourth try works now. 

(And why it worked on the previous version - and most of the stuff I was downloading - but not *this* version is still an open question.)

[IgorZ]

2 hours ago, DStaal said:

I use 'The Unarchiver' on Mac.  Typically it handles everything.

However, as this is a new computer there are some things I'm still setting up - and it's possible there was some oddball permissions setup issue that was the problem, since my fourth try works now. 

(And why it worked on the previous version - and most of the stuff I was downloading - but not *this* version is still an open question.)

Last couple of releases were done by me on the same machine using the same release script and software. I have no idea why one release is good and another is bad. I would guess that problem is in incomplete download. Try to re-download the file and check its size: it must be exactly 29,227 bytes.

[DStaal]

I had tried that a couple of times.  As I said: It appears the problem was some sort of set-up issue between macOS and The Unarchiver - I'd gotten a permission request on another archive, and after that I came back and it worked.  (Current versions of macOS require that you actively give applications permission to write to any directory other than the normal 'Documents' directory - it's a one-off request, and I just got a new computer so I'm getting them all again.)

[paul23]

Hey is there a reason for all TAC items to list under both "TAC LS items" and "lifesupport"? - Life support seems kind of redundant as it is the same as TAC LS items + usi ranger (not others!) agriculture module. While the agriculture model is also duplicated there: it's also in the USI kolonization tab.

 

Also will there be an official update for 1.2.2 - or should I just increase the max version myself?

[IgorZ]

4 hours ago, paul23 said:

Also will there be an official update for 1.2.2 - or should I just increase the max version myself?

Official update for what? Last version is 1.2.1, and there are no plans to make another one.