But it still works with the new version!

[Wolf Baginski]

There are always mods that will still work with a new KSP version, but use utilities such as MiniAVC that trigger warnings.

If nothing is breaking, if things are still working as expected, it's easy to edit the .version file.

This is a sample from one Mod I am successfully using. It's the last two blocks that are the key, though the minimum version was set by the creator. When a tested version comes out, the .version file will be overwritten, or you can go back to the file in the archive file you download. And you will still learn of a later version of the Mod when it becomes available.

It looks as though info-display mods are least likely to be affected by the version changes.

Quote

	"KSP_VERSION":
	{
		"MAJOR":1,
		"MINOR":3,
		"PATCH":0
	}
	"KSP_VERSION_MIN":
	{
		"MAJOR":1,
		"MINOR":2,
		"PATCH":9
	},
	"KSP_VERSION_MAX":
	{
		"MAJOR":1,
		"MINOR":4,
		"PATCH":1
	}

 

[Kerbart]

In the past I've encountered mods where that doesn't work (I forgot which), but in general, yeah, that works, to get rid of the annoying message.

I wish AVC had a "don't show this again" option with that dialog, even if it had a few are your sure" hoops to jump through to prevent accidental shut-off of the warning for a mod.

[UnanimousCoward]

I've found that if the .version file contains a "URL": section, you may need to delete that as well to make it work. (For example, PlanetShine.)

[artwhaley]

On 3/18/2018 at 8:52 AM, Kerbart said:

In the past I've encountered mods where that doesn't work (I forgot which), but in general, yeah, that works, to get rid of the annoying message.

I wish AVC had a "don't show this again" option with that dialog, even if it had a few are your sure" hoops to jump through to prevent accidental shut-off of the warning for a mod.

I don't know if anyone has read the last few pages of the mini-AVC thread but...  this is a sore subject.  lol.   The basic consensus is...   if your want to play with an unsupported mod...  the least you can do is click the button every time it loads...  so that you're reminded NOT to complain and ask for support!  It IS annoying as a user who understands how mods work and knows better...  but experience has proven that a LOT of people don't get it.   There's even someone who's compiled a 'mod' that just attacks AVC.  Grumble.

As a compromise...  I wish it would aggregate everything into a single report at startup!   One box that pops up and says "Hey, these 3 come up as incompatible, this one's compatible but has an update, etc."  

And, or, if there was a network connection available - there could be a way to phone home...  so an author could just mark it as compatible if no updates were required?

Nyah.   Updates are infrequent enough now that I think we can all just click the 'ignore' buttons for a few days after each update.   If a mod you want to play ISN'T being updated...  keep the thread active and figure out if the license allows someone else to make maintenance updates!

Also, Hey Kerbart!   Long time no talk!  

[DStaal]

2 hours ago, artwhaley said:

As a compromise...  I wish it would aggregate everything into a single report at startup!   One box that pops up and says "Hey, these 3 come up as incompatible, this one's compatible but has an update, etc."  

That would be KSP-AVC.  (Instead of mini-AVC.)  There's even an 'Extended' version around where someone's supporting it for 1.4.1.

[Kerbart]

2 hours ago, artwhaley said:

I don't know if anyone has read the last few pages of the mini-AVC thread but...  this is a sore subject.  lol.   The basic consensus is...   if your want to play with an unsupported mod...  the least you can do is click the button every time it loads...  so that you're reminded NOT to complain and ask for support!  It IS annoying as a user who understands how mods work and knows better...  but experience has proven that a LOT of people don't get it.   There's even someone who's compiled a 'mod' that just attacks AVC.  Grumble.(,,,)

Also, Hey Kerbart!   Long time no talk!  

I just installed 250 mods through CKAN. Do you really think I want to click "ok" 250 times? Besides, it's been a week since 1.4 came out. By now I'm totally entitled to spam those lazy mod devs demanding that they update their mods. I've totally had it with their total disrespect for my time, forcing me to click all those ok buttons.

 

I guess you're right

 

Hi Art! Going well. Any new developments?

[scottadges]

I'm gonna assume... with 2800 posts on your profile... that this was entirely sarcastic? 

4 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

By now I'm totally entitled to spam those lazy mod devs demanding that they update their mods.

[Kerbart]

1 hour ago, scottadges said:

I'm gonna assume... with 2800 posts on your profile... that this was entirely sarcastic? 

Well, that, or I just posted with every update on every mod thread "when will you have updated it for version x.y.z?" 

 

[artwhaley]

1 hour ago, Kerbart said:

Well, that, or I just posted with every update on every mod thread "when will you have updated it for version x.y.z?" 

 

I like to go the other direction and ask them why something isn't compatible with my 0.23 install.  Those were the days.

[DoctorDavinci]

So there is this mod called 'Zero Mini-AVC' that may ne exactly what you are looking for  ... link below, at bottom of the list

 

[Kerbart]

I think that’s the one @artwhaley had in mind when he spoke about a mod that attacks AVC.

I also think Art didn’t have me in mind when he said people disable AVC and then complain about their mods being incompatible. I only “fix” the version file after I’ve concluded it works (a good indicator: the console doesn’t get spammed with exceptions).

I have a fairly limited number of mods, and over the years I’ve developed a method that works for me:

• Make a two folders in “documents” (yes, I run Windows, and I’m not ashamed of it) for the new version (in this case 1.4) — one “clean” for testing, one for “the modded” install
• Test that it works. It should, of course. But it’s a good practice to test even basic assumptions; it prevents a tremendous headache later if it doesn’t work. From here on I will omit “test it” after every step
• copy over the mods one by one from the previous version to the “clean” install, and then move them into the modded install. This way I can see if they work, and if they work with the other mods
• remove the ones that don’t work. Fix the version file for those that work and where AVC whines
• as updates come out, replace the working mods, and install the ones that didn’t work
• remove the “old”clean version — I like to keep the current one around for testing, and to torture myself playing full stock once in a while.

Most mods are back within a week, and a good part works regardless (I use very little part mods, the majority is “make KSP work more in the way I like it to work” fashion).

[Jacke]

This is a bit meta, but AVC itself is verging on being an unsupported mod.

There's not been a new version since 2016 Oct 13.  Its cloud database has been updated and obvious the mod authors update their own .version files.  But @linuxgurugamer identified a non-trivial bug back in 2017 Oct 10 that's not been addressed.  And it's got to be at least partly luck that a KSP version update hasn't broken AVC.

But someday a KSP change will break AVC, which is a vital bit of KSP infrastructure most mods depend upon.

[linuxgurugamer]

30 minutes ago, Jacke said:

This is a bit meta, but AVC itself is verging on being an unsupported mod.

There's not been a new version since 2016 Oct 13.  Its cloud database has been updated and obvious the mod authors update their own .version files.  But @linuxgurugamer identified a non-trivial bug back in 2017 Oct 10 that's not been addressed.  And it's got to be at least partly luck that a KSP version update hasn't broken AVC.

But someday a KSP change will break AVC, which is a vital bit of KSP infrastructure most mods depend upon.

I am aware of the problem, will be contacting other mod authors about it

[linuxgurugamer]

18 hours ago, artwhaley said:

As a compromise...  I wish it would aggregate everything into a single report at startup!   One box that pops up and says "Hey, these 3 come up as incompatible, this one's compatible but has an update, etc."  

That's actually what the full KSP-AVC mod does

16 hours ago, DStaal said:

That would be KSP-AVC.  (Instead of mini-AVC.)  There's even an 'Extended' version around where someone's supporting it for 1.4.1.

Who would that be?

[devoid]

24 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

That's actually what the full KSP-AVC mod does

Who would that be?

No idea who it is, but the release post for the "extended" version is 

 

[DStaal]

I'm a little leery of it, I'll admit: It's a fairly new poster, and there's no link to any changes they may have made.  Just to the original github repo, and a new mediafire download link.

However, it does appear to mostly work.

[linuxgurugamer]

I've asked him if he is going to be providing continuing support and bug fixes, if not, then I'll be adopting this

[DStaal]

39 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

I've asked him if he is going to be providing continuing support and bug fixes, if not, then I'll be adopting this

Honestly, I'd trust it a lot more under your guidance than his.

[artwhaley]

I was NOT referring to @Kerbart when I described the hassles that 'typical' users create when they ignore a mod's warnings!   

And...  I'm just going to put it out here...  if someone ever had it out for @linuxgurugamer , all they'd have to do to kill him would be to come here...  keep starting mods... and then abandoning them so he has to take them over.   Eventually...  he's going to have so many of them that he'll forget to eat...

[linuxgurugamer]

1 hour ago, artwhaley said:

I was NOT referring to @Kerbart when I described the hassles that 'typical' users create when they ignore a mod's warnings!   

And...  I'm just going to put it out here...  if someone ever had it out for @linuxgurugamer , all they'd have to do to kill him would be to come here...  keep starting mods... and then abandoning them so he has to take them over.   Eventually...  he's going to have so many of them that he'll forget to eat...

I don't have to take over mods, I only do the ones I like.

[artwhaley]

Just now, linuxgurugamer said:

I don't have to take over mods, I only do the ones I like.

Ahhh!   So they have to at least create and abandon LIKEABLE ones! 

[sarbian]

Last time I checked @cybutek was still around and did not announce he was stopping support of his mods.

[linuxgurugamer]

2 hours ago, sarbian said:

Last time I checked @cybutek was still around and did not announce he was stopping support of his mods.

You are correct.  But while he is still visiting, and is apparently working KER (I see recent updates on Github), KSP-AVC has several significant bugs which were reported to him back in October, along with a PR to fix at least one of them.  Other than saying he didn't like the PR and would fix it another way, there has been no response.

Given that 1.4.1 is out, and that mods are being released, there have been reported crashes with KSP-AVC, I've been trying to contact him and get a response for quite a while.  If this goes much longer, no one will be able to use it reliably.  As it is, I'm deleting the Min/Max info from my version files since that is where one of the significant bugs is.

I'm quite willing to adopt the mod, and as I always state, am always very happy to return mods to their authors if they return, it's happened once or twice as I recall.

I'm spending some time right now looking at the KSP-AVC code.  It's not my usual coding style, but I'm getting the hang of it, and any changes I make will be in a similar style.

 

[Wolf Baginski]

I wasn't aware of bugs in KSP-AVC, but I shall keep that in mind.

I am afraid I see enough poorly-documented stuff, here and else-net, that I sometimes wonder if a problem is the new program version, or an existing bug that I never had reason to notice.

"Here be  bugfixes" isn't very helpful in a changelog, but a full, detailed, list may be worse. I am not a programmer, and I wouldn't expect you to understand the jargon of my trade, but too often documentation doesn't.

And, yes, I know how the details matter, all the different parts of the system that are interacting, each with multiple versions. I have a suspicion that something is lurking within Linux itself, a Kraken-like horror waiting to trigger an error  in any program prepared on a Windows machine. Things have been happening.