Kerbalexchange.com - a new Space Port

[knotbeer]

Hey guys, I've been working on a new Space Port... Something you can search properly though. If anyone wants to throw some ideas please feel free (keeping in mind this is totally in development mode, but it seems to be working to a point where I need more eyes on it).

http://www.kerbalexchange.com

You need to create a Space Agency in order to upload an add-on. This allows for multiple add-ons to be held by one entity. The CEO can be changed, therefore if someone leaves/quits/disappears there is a succession plan.

I'm working on functionality, and looks suck... But... It does sort of start to look like it's coming together. Anyone here know Drupal and want to contribute some time? I would share any Bitcoin donations if there are any. Thanks.

Current todo list (in no specific order as of yet) :

• Create and display "news" section on front page
  
• Create page to display all add-ons and craft associated with Space Agency
  
• Add ability for Space Agency CEOs to add/manage people who can be contributors to their project
  
• Create searchable help
  
• Create quick help FAQ - display "What to do" or "How to" after signup
  
• Looking into "API" for data as to what content is on the site (see Blue Stone's post)
  
• Include shopping cart feature (?) possibility (see Blue Stone's post)
  
• Figure out licensing transfers, etc. (see EndlessWaves's post)
  
• [currently in progress] CRAFT
  
  • Stock/Non-stock Craft Separation
    
    • NON-Stock Craft will have ability to reference and auto-link to add-ons needed (or even other craft)
      

  [*]Possibility of adding "recommended" add-ons so authors can recommend something if theirs is for instance an API type add-on

  [*]Theme design and looks - right now functionality is most important

  [*]Need to create views of lists of add-ons and crafts categories designated so far (ideas welcome) :

  • Plugins
    
    • Pods
      
    • Propulsion
      
    • Control
      
    • Structural
      
    • Aero
      
    • Utility
      
    • Science
      

    [*]Craft (Stock / Non-Stock)

    • Lander
      
      • Manned
        
      • Unmanned
        

      [*]Orbital Tug

      [*]Plane

      [*]Rover

      [*]Satellite

      [*]Single Stage to Orbit (SSTO)

      [*]Space Station

      • Components
        

I will keep updating this as I go.

Edited November 18, 2013 by knotbeer

[Deadweasel]

Interesting idea, though not the first attempt I've seen crop up attempting to replace SpacePort.

So after watching the other one flare for a few weeks almost a year back, then apparently fizzle out completely, let me play devil's advocate to you for a moment:

Are you considering your project to be a direct replacement for SpacePort, and if so, how are you coming at the far-from-insignificant step of getting people to translate over to yours instead?

Consider the major hurdles you are facing in this arena:

• SpacePort is linked on the official site (what with having been created by the developers themselves and all), and is among the top Google matches for anything containing the terms "kerbal space program" and "mod"
  
• What about .craft uploads, not just mods? Mods only was the initial assumption that SpacePort made, and now look at the mess it has become when people starting sending in craft files too.
  

Accommodating .craft uploads would be arguably the most critical feature to develop, because if you're planning on it from the start, then there's at least some planning for that already happening instead of coming around well after the database is turned into a mess of confusion.

Also, providing a central place for people to share their creations from, perhaps with the ability to auto-reference mods they used in the process? Instant-win! Perhaps a submitter could have a means of checking boxes to indicate the mods used, which will create a list of links to each mod also in the database.

How many posts do you see of an epic craft, followed by all kinds of requests for the file, or at least to know the mods used? The OP could just link to his submission on your site, which would answer all of their requests in a single link instead of forcing them to go back and think about the different parts all over again.

You'd have to have functionality that stands out from the official solution so much more that it outright overshadows it. If you're serious about it, you could also get in touch with the devs and perhaps see about reaching some kind of arrangement with them to take over from SpacePort completely, giving you the opportunity to not just fix that crappy broken search, but also to re-organize everything properly from the ground-up as well.

Otherwise, if you're just looking to create another site whose only real selling point is a better search, well... you're going to be fighting a heck of an uphill battle, since it's currently easy to bypass the crappy SpacePort search by submitting "kerbalspaceprogram.com [mod name]" to Google and getting more accurate results. Not trying to dissuade you here, because Jeb knows I'd love to see something better come along and do it right.

[knotbeer]

Deadweasel,

I have a lot of different reasons this is not just a spoof. For one, I'm a seasoned veteran and a professional administrator in this field who can handle such a task of creating/operating a website like this and I have invested money in the stability of the hosting framework so that isn't going to be an issue like I've seen before for other games/sites where there aren't any resources, experience, or knowledge behind the scenes. My issue however is that I'm a salary-paid full-time real-world employee so there are days you just won't see or hear from me. haha.

As for crafts - its' all in there, but right now you just can't make one because I have to get a module in place that will actually change the drop down menu when you select plugin or craft. If you try to create an add-on you will see the selector so it's there, but right now the .craft stuff doesn't get put up because there are other higher-level permissions that need to be in place otherwise people's uploads will get deleted every time a required field is added.

My special functionality? That is a fantastic point. Here is what I bring to the table:

1. I have direct contact with the developers so when the time comes they will know this exists. That hasn't happened yet.

2. I am going to encompass the entire development process of an add-on. This means teams within a single "agency" for dividing tasks, etc.

3. Places to provide links - Videos, Websites, Forums, etc.

4. Somehow make it easy to get back-and-forth to GIT - files/links/users. This will likely be another tab near the "Overview/Installation" tabs in the add-on display. Not sure yet.

5. Flags for users to mark content out of place or inappropriate.

6. Proper search characteristics. The add-ons have variables that are connected to which versions they are compatible with. This will no longer (compared to kerbalspaceprogram.com) need to be in the descriptions, and since it is merely a check box will yield proper results and not partial search results

- For instance: I always have to search for stuff such as: "0.22" or "22]" or something odd to get the best results. Not everyone puts the leading zero or formats it the same with the brackets and/or spacing.

I have a few other reasons of things I can do. I can't lay all my cards out on the table, mostly because it's so dang simple.

I have put a lot of thought and have handwritten documentation on this. If I end up finding a partner in crime (roles and permissions already in place) they will happily get a copy of these emailed to them. It's chicken scratch unless you know what I'm after.

Still that's a part of the fun of making things. It doesn't exist yet.

[knotbeer]

I will put craft functionality in right away.

My Goal is to be appropriately functional by December 6th, 2013.

Edited November 17, 2013 by knotbeer

[TMS]

Ummm... isn't spaceport being replaced anyway?

[knotbeer]

Ummm... isn't spaceport being replaced anyway?

Yes it is... Don't worry about those facts. I'm just looking at what people think.

[knotbeer]

Consider the major hurdles you are facing in this arena:

• SpacePort is linked on the official site (what with having been created by the developers themselves and all), and is among the top Google matches for anything containing the terms "kerbal space program" and "mod"
  
• What about .craft uploads, not just mods? Mods only was the initial assumption that SpacePort made, and now look at the mess it has become when people starting sending in craft files too.
  

Accommodating .craft uploads would be arguably the most critical feature to develop, because if you're planning on it from the start, then there's at least some planning for that already happening instead of coming around well after the database is turned into a mess of confusion.

Also, providing a central place for people to share their creations from, perhaps with the ability to auto-reference mods they used in the process? Instant-win! Perhaps a submitter could have a means of checking boxes to indicate the mods used, which will create a list of links to each mod also in the database.

How many posts do you see of an epic craft, followed by all kinds of requests for the file, or at least to know the mods used? The OP could just link to his submission on your site, which would answer all of their requests in a single link instead of forcing them to go back and think about the different parts all over again.

Deadweasel...

These points are exactly what made me want to do this. All of these points.

[Deadweasel]

Okay, I am officially intrigued now. Seems you've thought this through pretty well, so I'm going to bookmark this devil and watch it grow!

Here's hoping your efforts pan out!

[EndlessWaves]

The main issue I have with spaceport is clause 7 of the upload terms:

7. MODIFICATIONS.

SQUAD reserves the right to modify this Agreement and impose and modify new or additional terms and conditions regarding the use of the products and services, at any time, making them available on the site. All new and/or modified terms and conditions will be effective 10 (ten) days after their publishing and will be part of the current Terms and Conditions. Within the 5 (five) days following the publishing of the modifications and/or additions, you must inform SQUAD via e-mail, regarding your non acceptance of the modifications and/or additions to the following e-mail: [email protected] or else, to the following address: Zamora 196 Col. Condesa, 06140 Mexico City, Mexico, in order for SQUAD to take the necessary steps for retiring your account, your products and all the information related to you. Once said term has elapsed, your continued use of the products, the services and the site will be deemed as the express acceptance of said new and/or modified terms and/or conditions.

The average mod author publishes a mod on an upload and forget about it basis. They may provide updates for patches but how many people are really going to have that sort of ongoing involvement over the entire life of the game that they'll be aware of any news about spaceport changes in five days or less?

I understand squad need to cover their backs but there should be some effort to find something that means mod authors aren't giving away blanket permission should the outlook of the controllers of spaceport change (squad going bust and being bought up by ubisoft for example).

Perhaps a requirement to explicit agreement to the new terms with existing uploads either continuing under the old ones or being removed.

As to the site, I offer the following comments:

1. As of writing the left-sidebar is somewhat jumbly and would look better with the elements more lined up.

2. I'm not sure about the 'space agencies' concept. Or rather, I think it's a great idea to allow shared ownership but the site currently seems set up to use it as the default with presumably even lone authors needing to create one. I'd prefer to have everything referring to an author instead of an agency but with the ability for groups to create an agency as the author. Hierarchies and single controllers shouldn't be required either, multi-person mods are sometimes just two or three people with different skill sets working on their own aspects rather than teams with leaders.

3. Tabs each with only a small amount of information are horrible. All of the single line bits of information (KSP version etc.) should always be visible.

4. The ability to keep all bug reports and feedback of a mod in one place is valuable, so the ability to redirect commenters to the official KSP forum thread would be nice. Magical integration if squad will allow it, a simple 'the author requests comments for this mod be posted on the forum' notice and the ability to close site comments if not.

[Stone Blue]

Any chance of including a public API or something, for example, so someone developing a mod manager would be able to interface with and pull current data, so using a mod manager could possibly use auto update for someone's installed mods?...Even without the full auto update, it would be nice to at least be able to pull basic current info of a mod, like version number, latest upload date (to YOUR site), and KSP version number...also maybe other mods required to work with each one.

Another feature that might be nice, would be a "shopping cart"...So if someone is "shopping" thru mods, and knows they are going to be downloading several right after another, I guess it would be nice to throw them into a "cart", then download them all at once when they are done browsing mods... ??

This might be helpful for people with slow or troublesome internet connections...Like me...My speeds are pretty close to advertised, but downloads, streaming, and even loading web pages constantly drop int the middle...Even small downloads of just a couple MB stop in the middle and wont finish for me, so i have to go back and try to restart any individual ones that fail...Kind of a PIA if I am downloading a dozen mods all in one sitting....At least if they were in a "cart", it would be easier to have all the ones I am trying to download listed on one page, instead of having to go back to each specific mod's page and hit the "download" button from there...??

Edited November 17, 2013 by Stone Blue

[TheCanadianVendingMachine]

Could you include Video support? So the uploader can have a video showcasing their mod.

[knotbeer]

Could you include Video support? So the uploader can have a video showcasing their mod.

I would like to do this, I will look I to the possibility of uploading and keeping our own video files on that server.

ypu can however put a link to videos when you create an addon, there is already a place for them.

[Deadweasel]

I would like to do this, I will look I to the possibility of uploading and keeping our own video files on that server.

ypu can however put a link to videos when you create an addon, there is already a place for them.

As a site owner and developer myself, I'd like to say that there are (figuratively) a hundred justifications to just let YouTube/Vimeo/etc host the videos, and maybe a couple against it.

The primary qualifications that apply to users are at least two-fold:

1. Simplicity: YouTube allows the user to focus on content creation, accepting a range of possible formats. The site handles compression and transcoding automatically to offer up a quality stream that is difficult to achieve on the submitter's end, without practice and lots of trial and error. The submission interface is fast, easy to use, and intuitive, not to mention that the bulk of potential submitters will already have a YouTube account anyway.
   
2. Reliability and flexibility: Everybody knows YouTube, and it's uptime is almost unparalleled among video streaming sites. There's something to be said for having things operating on Google's own massive and widespread infrastructure. If the host site becomes unavailable for some reason, so does any content hosted there.
   

For site admins:

1. Bandwidth/storage: Videos take a LOT of bandwidth to offer out to a large audience, and it's not cheap unless -like Google- you happen to own and operate the lion's share of that infrastructure yourself. Most site owners don't have that kind of luxury (or money) without some serious commercial backing or sponsorship. Simply allowing for embedded video links -like what is used on the KSP forums- places the burden of performance and bandwidth on YouTube instead of the local site. This is why most large sites serving up media will either rely on YouTube, or if security and control is a concern, will develop or sign up with a content delivery network (CDN), which centralizes all media off of the main site, while also shuffling off the additional bandwidth load, ensuring the site itself stays live, even if the media server is being swamped or having trouble.
   
2. Design and operational complexity: Hosting video locally creates a situation where the site designer(s) are forced to essentially re-create the wheel in order to accommodate users who may not have the related technical knowledge to submit a good quality video render, meaning it's more likely that submitted files will be unnecessarily large, of low quality, or potentially both. Hosting videos locally places a large -and I feel very unnecessary- technical and financial burden on the site owner, next to the simple task of setting things up to play embedded video linked from another host purpose-built for the task, in this case YouTube.
   

All in all -and especially where video is concerned- simply allowing for an embedded video player is the simplest, most reliable and least time-consuming option for both the site owner and the user.

[knotbeer]

As a site owner and developer myself, I'd like to say that there are (figuratively) a hundred justifications to just let YouTube/Vimeo/etc host the videos, and maybe a couple against it.

The primary qualifications that apply to users are at least two-fold:

1. Simplicity: YouTube allows the user to focus on content creation, accepting a range of possible formats. The site handles compression and transcoding automatically to offer up a quality stream that is difficult to achieve on the submitter's end, without practice and lots of trial and error. The submission interface is fast, easy to use, and intuitive, not to mention that the bulk of potential submitters will already have a YouTube account anyway.
   
2. Reliability and flexibility: Everybody knows YouTube, and it's uptime is almost unparalleled among video streaming sites. There's something to be said for having things operating on Google's own massive and widespread infrastructure. If the host site becomes unavailable for some reason, so does any content hosted there.
   

For site admins:

1. Bandwidth/storage: Videos take a LOT of bandwidth to offer out to a large audience, and it's not cheap unless -like Google- you happen to own and operate the lion's share of that infrastructure yourself. Most site owners don't have that kind of luxury (or money) without some serious commercial backing or sponsorship. Simply allowing for embedded video links -like what is used on the KSP forums- places the burden of performance and bandwidth on YouTube instead of the local site. This is why most large sites serving up media will either rely on YouTube, or if security and control is a concern, will develop or sign up with a content delivery network (CDN), which centralizes all media off of the main site, while also shuffling off the additional bandwidth load, ensuring the site itself stays live, even if the media server is being swamped or having trouble.
   
2. Design and operational complexity: Hosting video locally creates a situation where the site designer(s) are forced to essentially re-create the wheel in order to accommodate users who may not have the related technical knowledge to submit a good quality video render, meaning it's more likely that submitted files will be unnecessarily large, of low quality, or potentially both. Hosting videos locally places a large -and I feel very unnecessary- technical and financial burden on the site owner, next to the simple task of setting things up to play embedded video linked from another host purpose-built for the task, in this case YouTube.
   

All in all -and especially where video is concerned- simply allowing for an embedded video player is the simplest, most reliable and least time-consuming option for both the site owner and the user.

Hosting videos would only be necessary for something such as internal/private items for a group of people, and I wouldn't make it publicly viewable. I would like to explore the needs of this, but I myself enjoy adding it to the todo list so it's available.

I have added the requested feature of linking add-ons to other (existing in Kerbalexchange) prerequisite add-ons that are required to be used, so when you are viewing the item, you will see the prerequisites linked in the "Installation" tab.

I hate the way it looks, and I am not much of a designer but I think once I get enough functionality (the site has to have planning stages accomplished before I can get to the next thing for example) I will need to focus on design and looks. Right now I'm working on the craft side of things. I have top-level database categories for these things, so I will have them in within a next few hours.