Is it just me, or are part descriptions getting lame?

[KSK]

16 hours ago, Snark said:

So, basically, if you'd like to try your hand at some custom descriptions for specific parts, all you have to do is create a file anywhere in GameData (can be in a sub-folder, or in the root folder, doesn't matter).  Can call it anything you like, as long as the file name ends with ".cfg".  Then you can put text like this into it:

@PART[thePartName]
{
    @description = Whatever text you want to put here, have fun!
}

...where "thePartName" is whatever name the part says in its .cfg file (i.e. "name = whatever").   If you want to tinker with multiple parts, you can put multiple @PART sections in one file if you want (you don't have to do one part per .cfg file).

The above snippet would completely replace the existing description.  If you want to keep the existing description but add on to it, you would do this instead:

@PART[thePartName]
{
    @description ^= :(.)$:$0 Stuff you want to add on to the end of the description.
}

...never mind trying to understand all the gibberish punctuation there, unless you happen to be interested in grokking all the technical details.  Just copy it verbatim and substitute your own text.

(Note, in case it's not obvious:  all of the above only works if you happen to have ModuleManager installed.  If you're running any mods at all, there's a pretty good chance you have it installed already, since so many mods use it & bundle it.  If you don't have it installed, you can get it here.)

Hi @Snark

Another question if you don't mind?

What would be the equivalent configuration copypaste for editing tech tree node descriptions please? I've been poking around with Google but not very well since I don't have a clear idea of what I'm looking for. I've found the tech tree configuration file but taking your last piece of advice to heart...

Alternatively, is there a good guide to this kind of stuff that you could point me at, rather than writing it all out again here?  

Many thanks!

[MacLeod-Industries]

2 hours ago, KSK said:

Hi @Snark

Another question if you don't mind?

What would be the equivalent configuration copypaste for editing tech tree node descriptions please? I've been poking around with Google but not very well since I don't have a clear idea of what I'm looking for. I've found the tech tree configuration file but taking your last piece of advice to heart...

Alternatively, is there a good guide to this kind of stuff that you could point me at, rather than writing it all out again here?  

Many thanks!

My suggestion, until Snark replies, (and for any future file editing questions that aren't easily answered)

Back up the file you want to change, and then just start poking around and guessing what to change. (Hopefully you have a fast hard drive, because you are going to have to boot up the game quite a few times)

Started doing this a while ago, you learn a lot about programming and how the game is built in the proccess.

I actually started it trying to resurrect Bill after he "accidently* crashed his jet fighter, and went from there.

[KSK]

5 minutes ago, MacLeod-Industries said:

My suggestion, until Snark replies, (and for any future file editing questions that aren't easily answered)

Back up the file you want to change, and then just start poking around and guessing what to change. (Hopefully you have a fast hard drive, because you are going to have to boot up the game quite a few times)

Started doing this a while ago, you learn a lot about programming and how the game is built in the proccess.

I actually started it trying to resurrect Bill after he "accidently* crashed his jet fighter, and went from there.

 

Backing up is always sensible but in this case I haven't played KSP for a while so if I bork my install it's no big deal. Besides, from Snark's post, I think that's the big advantage of using Module Manager - I can just mess around with the MM config file until it works, without worrying about editing (and possibly breaking) the actual game files.

[MacLeod-Industries]

16 minutes ago, KSK said:

 

Backing up is always sensible but in this case I haven't played KSP for a while so if I bork my install it's no big deal. Besides, from Snark's post, I think that's the big advantage of using Module Manager - I can just mess around with the MM config file until it works, without worrying about editing (and possibly breaking) the actual game files.

But if there is no danger of breaking the game, where is the fun in doing it? 

[OrbitalBuzzsaw]

18 hours ago, razark said:

Well, the devs do have a hand in how their game is perceived based on how they write the part descriptions.  In fact, it matters a lot more to the average user than some neat coding trick that no one outside the company will ever see.

No but like adding more parts and stuff

[Kerbart]

19 hours ago, Spricigo said:

Example of it in action:

Portuguese: Xá comigo, eu livro sua cara.

Gogle translation: Shah with me, I'll read your face.

Actual translation: Let it to me, I cover you.

A classic computer joke in the 1970s was how an early translation program was tested by translating The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak into Russian and from there back into English. It came back as The vodka is splendid but the beef was rotten.

[Snark]

On 10/27/2017 at 3:02 AM, KSK said:

What would be the equivalent configuration copypaste for editing tech tree node descriptions please?

Took a little head-scratching, since they don't model the tech tree the way they do everything else (specifically, they use "id" as the identifier marker rather than "name", which isn't as friendly to ModuleManager; no idea why Squad chose to be inconsistent that way).

The stock tech tree is defined in GameData/Squad/Resources/TechTree.cfg.  Its format looks like this:

TechTree
{
    // ...blah blah blah, various nodes
    
	RDNode
	{
		id = survivability
		title = #autoLOC_501026 //#autoLOC_501026 = Survivability
		description = #autoLOC_501027 //#autoLOC_501027 = The art and science of landing and walking away from it.
		nodeName = node2_survivability
        // and some other properties...
	}

    // ...blah blah blah, various other nodes

}

However, as with virtually all modding questions, the answer is simple:  go find a mod that already does something like what you want to do, and then copy the technique.    For example, perhaps the best-known tech tree mod is CommunityTechTree, so it's pretty quick to go find their source code and see how they do it.

Anyway, here's what you want:

@TechTree {

    // Have one of these RDNode sections for each node you want to tweak.
    // The thing in brackets next to "id" is whatever the id is for the
    // node you're tweaking.
    @RDNode:HAS[#id[survivability]] {
        @description = Some new and snazzier description!
    }
    
    // and so forth for other RDNode entries
}

 

 

[ZooNamedGames]

I miss the days when engines like the mainsail and the skipper used to have a running joke how the stronger the engine, the more people they could rival against. IIRC, the skipper rivaled large cities, with the mainsail rivaling whole nations.

Fun times...

[Mrcarrot]

On 10/27/2017 at 4:09 PM, Kerbart said:

A classic computer joke in the 1970s was how an early translation program was tested by translating The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak into Russian and from there back into English. It came back as The vodka is splendid but the beef was rotten.

Experimenting with Google Translate on that, playing with several languages, I got The Holy Spirit is already there, but the body is weak.

[KSK]

Rather than spam pictures in any more threads than I need to, I'll just leave this here. Much work to do but the all-important 'getting the code to work' hurdle has just been crossed.

Thanks @Snark for kicking this off!

[Chemp]

8 hours ago, KSK said:

I'll just leave this here.

That looks and sounds great! I definitely like this version better than the stock one.

I'm still interested to do the translations, if localization is still a thing.

[KSK]

1 hour ago, Chemp said:

That looks and sounds great! I definitely like this version better than the stock one.

I'm still interested to do the translations, if localization is still a thing.

Thanks! And yes - very keen to see this localized, so any and all translators are more than welcome!

The plan is to re-write all the part descriptions and tech tree descriptions in that sort of style using a mix of characters from the game and characters from my own writing. Couple of ideas for character points-of-view I've had so far:

Jebediah Kerman:    "KIS - A History of Kerballed Spaceflight."
Ademone Kerman:    "Rockomax Corporation Board minutes."
Al Kerman:        "Classified Briefing - C7 Special Projects Division."
Hanbal Kerman:    "Engines and Engineers."
Germore Kerman:    "Probodobodyne - the early years."
Dunney Kerman:    "Principles of Planetary Geology."

Looking ahead a little (OK, a lot  ), I'd like to tweak some of the manufacturers a bit too, either to swap out some of the more lolkerbal ones or to tone down the names a bit. For example, taking a leaf out of @JakeGrey's book, I'm thinking that Jeb's Junkyard would be replaced by: "Kerman Aerospace Engineering (formerly Jebediah Kerman's Junkyard and Spacecraft Parts)

[KSK]

On ‎26‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 6:40 PM, Snark said:

My two cents:  if you're gonna take the time and effort to do this... put it all in one big .cfg file and publish it as a mod.  Share the joy! 

...and the nice thing about making this an actual published mod, @KSK, is that you can get people to help you with it.  For example, start by creating a thread in the "Add-on Development" forum for your work in progress, and solicit contributions from people who care about this stuff, such as @regex.  Many hands make light work, here.  I bet a lot of people would be happy to chip in.

Done.  New thread started here with a copy of the work-in-progress tech tree patch.

[NSEP]

Yes, i think they are kinda lame but i don't understand why it should be a big problem. Cant you just look up its purpose in the KSPedia? After all, its not that hard to change and does not require massive amounts of time so i don't mind.

[John FX]

On 26/10/2017 at 7:02 PM, regex said:

The hardest part is commitment, everything else is just learning.

Tell me about it, I committed to designing a real world product about a year ago. Learning what I needed was the easy part, the hard part is making myself work on it every day because I know if I can get the product in a stable saleable state it will be very very worth a year or two of working with no wages.

I now have a prototype working in the real world doing all the stuff it needs to, now I need to strengthen the code, make it properly robust and add a pretty , stable, and functional interface so people think the underlying code is also pretty , stable, and functional.

Realistically there is at least another year of work to do. I am not doing bad for only having a design team of 1.

EDIT :

On 16/11/2017 at 7:57 PM, NSEP said:

Yes, i think they are kinda lame but i don't understand why it should be a big problem.

It's not a big problem but a problem does not have to be big in order for it to still be a problem, enough of a problem that someone is willing to put the work in to sort it out.

So, not a big problem but still a problem to some.

Edited November 21, 2017 by John FX

[NSEP]

43 minutes ago, John FX said:

It's not a big problem but a problem does not have to be big in order for it to still be a problem, enough of a problem that someone is willing to put the work in to sort it out.

So, not a big problem but still a problem to some.

To me, a problem is a only relevant when it kills gameplay. I barely even read descriptions. But anyway, if someone has a problem with it, and it can be easily fixed, i have nothing against it.

[DeltaDizzy]

On 10/26/2017 at 12:40 PM, Snark said:

My two cents:  if you're gonna take the time and effort to do this... put it all in one big .cfg file and publish it as a mod. 

<sniped>

I almost did that  but for the titles as well and for the previous_1.2.2 beta. Everything was changed to #autoLOC_xxxxx

But then it fixed itself

[W. Kerman]

The "Kerbals are silly" descriptions are somewhat charming, but having descriptions that actually describe the part and its functions would be nice. For example, the MPL ( the lab) has the following description...

"No longer are you limited to research facilities only on Kerbin! With the Mobile Processing Lab, you can conduct long-term experiments and ongoing research with the data you collect in the field. Be sure to check back on your scientists from time to time, and transmit the results of their research home! This model is guaranteed to spontaneously combust less than previous models, and also has the equipment necessary to clean out and restore functionality to inoperable experiments."

So the description tells you that 

- You can do research if you have data

-You can reset experiments with this

 

But this never talks about the off-world Kerbal leveling up or its new KerbNet capabilities. And the lab has good KerbNet. The part is one of the first to has biome scanning depending on how you go down the tech tree.

 

So the descriptions could be improved to be more informational.