[1.8.x-1.12.x] Module Manager 4.2.3 (July 03th 2023) - Fireworks season

[Nori]

Is it possible to make any cfg files I create process after any other cfgs including ones that might have :Final?

I'm wondering as I've run across a conflict where a mod applies a change:

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[RealChuteModule]]:Final
{
	@maxTemp = 1150
}

I'd like to override the change, but am not sure how MM determines who is really the "final" cfg.

[erendrake]

Is it possible to make any cfg files I create process after any other cfgs including ones that might have :Final?

I'm wondering as I've run across a conflict where a mod applies a change:

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[RealChuteModule]]:Final
{
	@maxTemp = 1150
}

I'd like to override the change, but am not sure how MM determines who is really the "final" cfg.

I believe final should take care of it unless there is another "final", in that case i think they execute in alphabetical order?

[Starwaster]

I believe final should take care of it unless there is another "final", in that case i think they execute in alphabetical order?

Correct, and the folder's name matters too regarding order.

I think... crap, someone tested this and posted it and I forget. I think they said folder name mattered...

[undercoveryankee]

Is it possible to make any cfg files I create process after any other cfgs including ones that might have :Final?

I'm wondering as I've run across a conflict where a mod applies a change:

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[RealChuteModule]]:Final
{
	@maxTemp = 1150
}

I'd like to override the change, but am not sure how MM determines who is really the "final" cfg.

I'd have thought mods running patches in the :FINAL pass would be discouraged to keep a pass available at the end for local customizations. I'm curious what mod this is and why going :AFTER something specific doesn't work.

[erendrake]

I'd have thought mods running patches in the :FINAL pass would be discouraged to keep a pass available at the end for local customizations. I'm curious what mod this is and why going :AFTER something specific doesn't work.

I believe it is discouraged. NathanKell is a bad boy

https://github.com/NathanKell/DeadlyReentry/blob/master/DeadlyReentry/DeadlyReentry-RealChutes.cfg

[erendrake]

Is it possible to make any cfg files I create process after any other cfgs including ones that might have :Final?

I'm wondering as I've run across a conflict where a mod applies a change:

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[RealChuteModule]]:Final
{
	@maxTemp = 1150
}

I'd like to override the change, but am not sure how MM determines who is really the "final" cfg.

You could have just talked to the mod author, Nathan said he doesnt mind moving his CFG off of final.

[Nori]

I believe it is discouraged. NathanKell is a bad boy

https://github.com/NathanKell/DeadlyReentry/blob/master/DeadlyReentry/DeadlyReentry-RealChutes.cfg

Well in his defense, I think someone wrote it for him...

Anyway, that is the value I'm trying to override. I could just delete the file, but then I may forget about that when/if I update.

Correct, and the folder's name matters too regarding order.

I think... crap, someone tested this and posted it and I forget. I think they said folder name mattered...

Hmm, if folder name matters then I might be ok. I put all my cfgs in zCustom (I assumed it was last, but never was quite sure).

I would probably write the following:

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[RealChuteModule]]:NEEDS[DeadlyReentry]:Final
{
	@maxTemp = 1700
}

But I have a feeling it could be overridden.

I'll be trying it tonight if I get a chance, but I was wondering what the official word is on order of operations for conflicts like this.

[undercoveryankee]

I believe it is discouraged. NathanKell is a bad boy

https://github.com/NathanKell/DeadlyReentry/blob/master/DeadlyReentry/DeadlyReentry-RealChutes.cfg

If RealChutes is playing nice and running all of its patches in its own :FOR pass, running DRE's patches :AFTER[RealChutes] should be enough.

[Starwaster]

I believe it is discouraged. NathanKell is a bad boy

https://github.com/NathanKell/DeadlyReentry/blob/master/DeadlyReentry/DeadlyReentry-RealChutes.cfg

Well, *I* discourage it... does that count?

[erendrake]

ill just leave this here..

<Erendrake> NathanKell: I keep thinking about asking for a priority in MM so you could say :AFTER[1] OR :AFTER[1000]

<Erendrake> then i realized all that would do is move the goalpost and people would be in the MM thread asking "How do i get in after :FINAL[2140000000]

<Taverius> i wish AFTER took logical operators

<TonyTheLemur> :JUST_BEFORE_THE_APOCALYPSE

<Taverius> heh

<K3|Chris> it's CSS z-index all over again

<K3|Chris> and !important

<Erendrake> exactly

<Erendrake> !!important!!

<TonyTheLemur> agh i hate !important

<TonyTheLemur> i confess to using it rarely, but i still hate it

<TonyTheLemur> one of the github issues on a site i work on is "get rid of all !importants"

<Erendrake> Im glad its there, but you hope that it is never required

[Starwaster]

Ok ok, how about :INFINITY+1

[sarbian]

Justin Kerbice :

You want to edit that :

PART

{

name = mypart

myvalue

=

100

MYNODENAME

{

name =

myModule

anumber = 20

}

}

I you want ta patch that won't take the Parts with myvalue = 100 you do

@PART[*]:HAS[~myvalue[100]]

{

...

}

I you want ta patch that won't take the Parts with a MYNODENAME named myModule you do

@PART[*]:HAS[!MYNODENAME[myModule]]

{

...

}

Now, can we move back on testing the version I posted instead of talking about Final and stuff explained in the second post of the thread ?

Edited September 15, 2014 by sarbian

[Nori]

Now, can we move back on testing the version I posted instead of talking about Final and stuff explained in the second post of the thread ?

Maybe I'm missing something but I've read the second post several times and I didn't see any mention on how MM prioritizes when there is a conflict, such as two separate @PART[]:Final editing the same value.

Guess it doesn't really matter now as the config is going to be changed anyway.

[sarbian]

At equal priorities the patch are run in the order they are found in the game database. Currently the game sort them alphabetically by dir name ( GameData/ being the first ).

So if you need a patch to run later you can put it in a dir called zzz_something and use :Final.

It works for personal patch that you don't plan to distribute, but for a proper mod it's a really bad solution. One I will not help with.

Edited September 16, 2014 by sarbian

[Nori]

At equal priorities the patch are run in the order they are found in the game database. Currently the game sort them alphabetically by dir name ( GameData/ being the first ).

So if you need a patch to run later you can put it in a dir called zzz_something and use :Final.

It works for personal patch that you don't plan to distribute, but for a proper mod it's a really bad solution. One I will not help with.

Ok, thanks for clarifying.

[sarbian]

2.4.1 is now available. It adds

- all the variable system explained in this post (I updated it)

- a way to change a node type. You put a "| = NewNodeType" insde the node you want to change.

- callbacks called after MM is finished with the patch.

For example if you wanted to change one of the Rapier MODEL_MULTI_PARTICLE effect into a smokescreen MODEL_MULTI_PARTICLE_PERSIST :

@PART[RAPIER]
{
 @EFFECTS
 {
  @running_closed
  {
   @MODEL_MULTI_PARTICLE
   {
    | = MODEL_MULTI_PARTICLE_PERSIST
   }
  }
 }
}

Downloads :

ModuleManager.2.4.1.dll

ModuleManager-2.4.1.zip

Edit : 2.4.1 since I forgot to include a feature

Edited September 17, 2014 by sarbian

[Pirsig]

I've searched through the thread and Google has turned up only how to do this with a new plugin, but I'm wondering if anyone has figured out a way to modify the kerbalEVA part using MM configs? Specifically I'm trying to modify the xmitDataScalar property for surfaceSample, which in my understanding can only be done at the part level where ModuleScienceExperiment is added, not through EXPERIMENT_DEFINITION.

Edited September 17, 2014 by Pirsig
Clarity

[Starwaster]

I've searched through the thread and Google has turned up only how to do this with a new plugin, but I'm wondering if anyone has figured out a way to modify the kerbalEVA part using MM configs? Specifically I'm trying to modify the xmitDataScalar property for surfaceSample, which in my understanding can only be done at the part level where ModuleScienceExperiment is added, not through EXPERIMENT_DEFINITION.

I don't think you can directly affect KerbalEVA as (I think) it is being constructed on the fly in code. No config node exists that you can hack into. Maybe take that with a grain of salt but I think it's accurate.

I'm not sure that's true though that ModuleScienceExperiment is the only place you can do this.... I'll poke around a bit and see what I can find. I'm sure I did something like this before for my science probe configs...

Edit: Bah, never mind, it was just a custom ModuleScienceExperiment....

Edited September 17, 2014 by Starwaster

[Pirsig]

I don't think you can directly affect KerbalEVA as (I think) it is being constructed on the fly in code. No config node exists that you can hack into. Maybe take that with a grain of salt but I think it's accurate.

I'm not sure that's true though that ModuleScienceExperiment is the only place you can do this.... I'll poke around a bit and see what I can find. I'm sure I did something like this before for my science probe configs...

That's what I thought, but I figured I'd ask just in case.

As for this specific case, I have tried directly adding xmitDataScalar to the EXPERIMENT_DEFINITION but it did not seem to use the value supplied there. If you don't define it anywhere there seems to be a background default value of .5.

[NathanKell]

sarbian: Awesome!

[Pesqueeb]

I have a question that so far my goolge-fu has been un-able to answer. I seem to have misplaced my module manager with in the VAB. I clicked to ad a window for Infernal Robotics, and the whole main button seems to have vanished. I *think* I might have done something when I was trying to configure visible buttons, and that it might be hiding off in the margins somewhere, but I'm not sure. Is there some way I can just restore to default, or otherwise return the button to it's original position, short of re-downloading the whole program. Everything works fine everywhere else, but when I'm in the VAB, it's just....gone.

Edited September 18, 2014 by Pesqueeb

[Mecripp]

I have a question that so far my goolge-fu has been un-able to answer. I seem to have misplaced my module manager with in the VAB. I clicked to ad a window for Infernal Robotics, and the whole main button seems to have vanished. I *think* I might have done something when I was trying to configure visible buttons, and that it might be hiding off in the margins somewhere, but I'm not sure. Is there some way I can just restore to default, or otherwise return the button to it's original position, short of re-downloading the whole program. Everything works fine everywhere else, but when I'm in the VAB, it's just....gone.

Did you mean to post in Toolbar ? if so http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/60863-0-24-2-Toolbar-1-7-6-Common-API-for-draggable-resizable-buttons-toolbar but if you want to MM to reload ALT- F11 think it was.

EDIT- There is a ingame DB reload/dump menu you can open with ALT-F11 while in the spaceport screen (be aware that it mess up R&D unlock, as the stock reload does)

Edited September 18, 2014 by Mecripp2

[Pesqueeb]

Did you mean to post in Toolbar ? if so http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/60863-0-24-2-Toolbar-1-7-6-Common-API-for-draggable-resizable-buttons-toolbar but if you want to MM to reload ALT- F11 think it was.

EDIT- There is a ingame DB reload/dump menu you can open with ALT-F11 while in the spaceport screen (be aware that it mess up R&D unlock, as the stock reload does)

*facepalm*

Yes, that's what I meant. Thank you. I guess it's time to go to bed.

[sarbian]

Taverius found a few problem with the current variable implementation (there are not replaced in some configuration) so there will be a 2.4.2.

[LoggerM]

Hello People,

I like to share an issue with the Modul Manager:

I had some problems loading the game with the new B9 pack with MM 2.3.5. Same with 2.4.1

The game crushed while loading, and the loading-bar says "Modulmanager: LEGACY"

Some time ago I tryed starting KSP in Kompilation-mod (Win7) After changing this back to default the game again runs good.

Not critical, but may you can fix this?