Request to Squad - Mandatory Config File

[Yilmas]

Would it be possible for Squad to make it mandatory for all mods no matter how simple it is (even part only mods), to include a config file.

It would simply need to describe a few things about the mod. such as:

- Name

- Version

- Author

- Forum Link

- Link to license

- Download Link (Curse, Private, whatever)

- Github (or rather a bug reporting link)

- Whatever else Squad may think of.

Besides the hassle of updating mods, where you are not always entirely certain what version of the mod, you are currently running. It would also make it a lot easier to find information about said mod on the forum, because as we all know, the current search function on the forum, is crap at the best.

Even something like reporting a bug, becomes a hassle to many users, because they need to first find the forum thread, and then we are back at the search function.

I'm also guessing, that such a feature would make it a lot easier for all the Mod Managers out there.

Would anybody have anything against this, and why ? Because, personally, I cant see any reason what so ever, to dislike such a feature.

Yes, I tried to search the forum, to see if this was old news/an old request, but no such luck.

[Pursuedtank]

This has been gone through fairly recently. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/72777-KSP-should-require-a-Standardized-Mod-Versioning-File As you can see the Modders don't particularly like the idea.

[Yilmas]

Before a moderator goes ahead and closes this thread, if such a fate should arise (Looking at the previous thread).

First I'd like to mention, that I do NOT propose a standardized versioning. I just propose a mandatory field for the version number, what ever format it is in.

If this could be fixed with a readme, then by all means go ahead. But still as a mandatory thing. Someone brought up the license part being mandatory, but hey that is so Squad doesn't get into trouble with laws in the different countries, and to some degree help protect the modders.

Again, someone said that "the modders had unanimously vetoed the proposal" well, they didn't, since this request keeps popping up.

"No mod nor KSP itself uses these data" - Well, isn't that basicly like when somebody creates a mod, to begin with, the modder in question will have no idea whether or not it will be populate or even used, yet they make it anyway.

At the end of the day, this feature may end up becoming the first step to providing a "KSP that is mod friendly", perhaps in the form of a mod launcher, idk.

And then, if modders still disagrees with this, then perhaps, one should ask the question. Am I asking the wrong audience, this is also something the end-user would like, so perhaps it should be asked in the general section of this forum. So IF the end-user likes it, then the modders might see reason.

This is as much a Request as a Proposal.

[BudgetHedgehog]

I'm not sure SQUAD can do anything about 3rd party add-ons..

[Justin Kerbice]

I'm not sure SQUAD can do anything about 3rd party add-ons..

There is two ways:

- the bureaucratic/legal way, they can prevent people for modding their own game (and shoot themselves in both feet), some companies have done this before, mostly by messing so much with internal data formats used and of course not relasing any documentation at all (ex: Bugbear with Flatout series),

- the "friendly" way, they decide a new standard like they set up curse hosting, no voting, no debate, no democracy there, kind of "follow us or die", KSP will not load any content without some files first.

It's close to how dynamic library works in fact, if the code is made specifically to load version X of lib A, using a custom lib A' of version X.01 will failed.

[robopilot99]

I personally like the idea. I've never modded but it doesn't seem like a huge hassle to create a version number and add a download link. However as stated before the mod creaters didn't seem in favor of the idea.

[frizzank]

It is a good practice to include a version number and a revision history for your mod, not only for others but for yourself as well.

Also a consistent naming convention is key to any organization process.

[Red Iron Crown]

Something needs to happen to make it worthwhile to conform to the standard. Some sort of mod manager that requires it, maybe. Modders don't seem big on consensus, but if there's a compelling reason to use a standard I'm sure most would.

blizzy78's toolbar is a good example.

[regex]

Modders don't seem big on consensus, but if there's a compelling reason to use a standard I'm sure most would.

This. Without a compelling reason only a few will bother, and "because it would be nice" is far from compelling. Modding is a time-consuming hobby and adding one extra thing that needs to be done right during every release is downright annoying, especially when we already have users who can't, for the life of them, read the manual. Also, when hosting on a place like Curse there are delays before a release goes public and if you get that config wrong and have to send up a new one it becomes a real pain in the rear.

As far as versioning and last release date here on the forums, that's something most people are willing to do and it makes a lot of sense.

[Moon Goddess]

I still fail to understand on a game built like KSP why anyone needs a mod manager.

[Red Iron Crown]

I still fail to understand on a game built like KSP why anyone needs a mod manager.

I would like it if a mod manager could keep me up to date with the releases of the different mods I use, much less hassle than tracking a dozen or so forum threads. I can only imagine it is more hassle still for those with 50+ mods.

[Yilmas]

I still fail to understand on a game built like KSP why anyone needs a mod manager.

I would like it if a mod manager could keep me up to date with the releases of the different mods I use, much less hassle than tracking a dozen or so forum threads. I can only imagine it is more hassle still for those with 50+ mods.

I am one of those people that simply use to many mods to even bother to count them. I like my game modded. And quite frankly, if a person like his game stock, his opinion on the use of mod managers or this thread for the matter, shouldn't really matter, as that person would never be in a position where it would influence him.

Now, if said person were thinking of using mods, then I cant see the reason why not to use a mod manager right from the start.

Some one said in the other thread that this is basically like the "chicken and the egg".

Well, why must it always be the service providing company, that takes the first step. Why cant we as a community take the first step ?

Now, I wont change the subject of this thread, though I will bring in an old topic, just bare with me for a moment.

Curse. Many hates curse, and the way Squad has tried to give us a new platform. However, it wasn't until the announcement of curse(or there about) that the community took action; action in ways it could create something else, something better.

Please refer from hijacking this thread into a curse thread. But instead look at the principle of who takes the first step, the first real step.

Yes, modding is a time consuming task. However, I really cant take it serious about the reference to time when it comes down to a single file, containing mainly non-changing information(set only once), except a number which the modder may change as he or she so desires depending on the type of versioning that they use.

Even if, we were looking at time, well, why don't we look at common programming practice, assembly information for any library can by default include a version. Located in Properties/AssemblyInfo.cs, it contains what we need, yet so few modders actually uses it. It can even be set to auto version. And the auto doesn't have to be the main version, like: [assembly: AssemblyVersion("1.0.0.*")], it is that simple, so now visual studio will auto manage your revision number, but you may control the actual version(Major, Minor and Build).

Unless I'm mistaken about our access to System.Diagnostics.FileVersionInfo, we should be able to pull it through that then. But it would still require the modders to actually use the feature. (by default a library's version will always be "1.0.0.0").

[Faark]

Even if, we were looking at time, well, why don't we look at common programming practice, assembly information for any library can by default include a version. Located in Properties/AssemblyInfo.cs, it contains what we need, yet so few modders actually uses it. It can even be set to auto version. And the auto doesn't have to be the main version, like: [assembly: AssemblyVersion("1.0.0.*")], it is that simple, so now visual studio will auto manage your revision number, but you may control the actual version(Major, Minor and Build).

Unless I'm mistaken about our access to System.Diagnostics.FileVersionInfo, we should be able to pull it through that then. But it would still require the modders to actually use the feature. (by default a library's version will always be "1.0.0.0").

Some mods just stopped doing this automatic versioning because it makes it hard to share functions between mods...

[Yilmas]

Some mods just stopped doing this automatic versioning because it makes it hard to share functions between mods...

How ? If I may ask such a bold question. If you only do the automatic versioning with the revnumber I cant really see the problem...

[regex]

However, I really cant take it serious about the reference to time when it comes down to a single file, containing mainly non-changing information(set only once), except a number which the modder may change as he or she so desires depending on the type of versioning that they use.

Have you written any mods for any games? If not, try it. Maintain a few mods, get a feel for how much time it takes, how much effort is involved, how much you have to remember , all this after a hard day at a job when all you really want to do is sit down play the game but still feel compelled to bang out more code or push around a few more polys.

Better yet, write an auto-versioning tool that will generate this file for modders. Maybe a packager, mod downloader, etc... Try doing these things, make a compelling reason for modders to create these little tools for you. Until then, try being thankful that someone out there is spending their own time providing entertainment for you, for free.

Also, Curse will eventually have a mod manager for KSP.

[Red Iron Crown]

Also, Curse will eventually have a mod manager for KSP.

While that's true, at least some of the mods I use aren't going to Curse for ideological reasons, and I'm not convinced that mod updating will be free, especially if the client goes ad-free as they claim. A community solution would be better, maybe something will come of the efforts started since the Curse announcement.

[regex]

While that's true, at least some of the mods I use aren't going to Curse for ideological reasons, and I'm not convinced that mod updating will be free, especially if the client goes ad-free as they claim. A community solution would be better, maybe something will come of the efforts started since the Curse announcement.

I have a great idea then. How about the community get together and provide these config files for the first 400 mods here, already individually laid out for each mod and the current version. PM each of these mod authors this config file and instructions on where that file should be included in the package and how it should be maintained. Put in some effort and show the modders how you'd like it to be done. See how many adopt it. Sell the idea to them instead of asking SQUAD to make it mandatory.

There might also be a requirement for such a thing when/if a new community mod site becomes available.

[Red Iron Crown]

Easy there, regex. I understand and appreciate the work that goes into modding, and I'm certainly not demanding anything from the modders. That doesn't mean I can't express some hope that somebody with the appropriate skills can develop a centralized mod management system that works, or that the people working on a community-based mod repository are successful.

[Yilmas]

Have you written any mods for any games? If not, try it. Maintain a few mods, get a feel for how much time it takes, how much effort is involved, how much you have to remember , all this after a hard day at a job when all you really want to do is sit down play the game but still feel compelled to bang out more code or push around a few more polys.

Better yet, write an auto-versioning tool that will generate this file for modders. Maybe a packager, mod downloader, etc... Try doing these things, make a compelling reason for modders to create these little tools for you. Until then, try being thankful that someone out there is spending their own time providing entertainment for you, for free.

Also, Curse will eventually have a mod manager for KSP.

Yes, made 2 mods for Eve-Online, and in the process with one for KSP... And on the side line, I have developed and managed a website for a community with little over 650 daily users for 4 years(Eve-Online). So I am fully aware of the stress and pain that is involved in the process. People like me that doesn't always know how to manage personal time, end up sacrificing time with family or loved ones for others..

With that said, lets try and control our self's for a proper discussion. We are all grown ups, we should be able to calmly talk about this. If I offended anyone, please do remember, that I meant no disrespect to anyone.

Edited June 3, 2014 by Yilmas
Lack of punctation, caused wrong meaning.

[regex]

Easy there, regex.

I'm actually trying to provide you guys with a solution. If half of the work is already done you'll have a much easier time getting people to adopt a scheme. If you want to see something done help others out; poasting is cheap.

[Yilmas]

I'm actually trying to provide you guys with a solution. If half of the work is already done you'll have a much easier time getting people to adopt a scheme. If you want to see something done help others out; poasting is cheap.

Posting and talking is cheap, yes. But that is generally how ideas are formed.

But regarding your idea:

- Auto-versioning tool that will generate this file for modders

So instead of the modder copy/pasting or writing the links and so on into a file, you want them to do it into a program. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that illogical, I don't even think it would save the modder any time.

- Packager

Can't argue about that, however I do not personally have the skills nor the idea of how to make that. Though, I agree that it would be a good feature.

- Mod Downloader

With all the chaos of different mod repositories, I don't think now is the time to make such an app. At least not 3rd-party, though I heard O-Docs project mention it. But still, without actual mod repo's, again it would be much better to focus the time on the repo's. (In my mind).

[Red Iron Crown]

I'm actually trying to provide you guys with a solution. If half of the work is already done you'll have a much easier time getting people to adopt a scheme. If you want to see something done help others out; poasting is cheap.

I honestly wouldn't know how to do what you suggest. I mean, I could gather the info, but I wouldn't know what format is best for it or where it is best to put it in the package, or how it should be maintained. But I certainly wouldn't mind doing some of the legwork, how would you suggest I start? Assume I'm an idiot that knows nothing about programming/package management.

[regex]

Posting and talking is cheap, yes. But that is generally how ideas are formed.

The title of your thread is pretty much demanding that SQUAD mandate people do a certain thing, it's not searching for an idea.

But regarding your idea:

You want a config file? Create one. Then copy it and individualize it for a bunch of popular mods and ask each of the authors to include the individualized file in their mod's package. Do the work, sell the idea, see if it gets adopted. Anyone can edit a text file.

But still, without actual mod repo's, again it would be much better to focus the time on the repo's. (In my mind).

Then why did you feel it necessary to make this thread? There are already at least two mod repo threads where you could have exchanged ideas with the people putting in the work.

E:

I honestly wouldn't know how to do what you suggest. I mean, I could gather the info, but I wouldn't know what format is best for it or where it is best to put it in the package, or how it should be maintained. But I certainly wouldn't mind doing some of the legwork, how would you suggest I start? Assume I'm an idiot that knows nothing about programming/package management.

Check the mod repo threads, especially early in the Majiir challenge thread. They were tossing around a lot of "wishlist" items that would give you an idea of where to start.

[Yilmas]

The title of your thread is pretty much demanding that SQUAD mandate people do a certain thing, it's not searching for an idea.

Well, that is true to some point, though I don't demand squad to do anything. I request it. The word "demand" is a bit too strong/aggressive, I'd say.

When I created this thread, that was the idea. Since then, the topic has evolved, myself and others have gained insight. And through that, the general topic or red-line in this has changed to some degree. However, I refuse to change titles or edit the first post, simply because it is outdated. It is important information, considering where this "idea" started at.

You want a config file? Create one. Then copy it and individualize it for a bunch of popular mods and ask each of the authors to include the individualized file in their mod's package. Do the work, sell the idea, see if it gets adopted. Anyone can edit a text file.

Well, I might very well do that. Most likely together with the release of my own mod.

Then why did you feel it necessary to make this thread? There are already at least two mod repo threads where you could have exchanged ideas with the people putting in the work.

This is gonna sound counter-logical compared to my previous statement. But you can work on 2 sides at the same time. And yes, I am putting in my ideas with the different repo projects.

2 sides meaning, mod and repo... Though, if the two sides are not ready, there is no point in having a connection between them ready. Plus, when they do become ready, you will most likely end up having to revisit many parts of said connection, to counter-act any flaws, that have been brought forth.

And at the end of the day, many people, modders and end-users alike, are not involved with any of the repo projects or mod-creation, and with these kinds of threads, they might end up becoming interested.

Edited June 3, 2014 by Yilmas

[Greys]

This is gonna sound counter-logical compared to my previous statement. But you can work on 2 sides at the same time. And yes, I am putting in my ideas with the different repo projects.

2 sides meaning, mod and repo... Though, if the two sides are not ready, there is no point in having a connection between them ready. Plus, when they do become ready, you will most likely end up having to revisit many parts of said connection, to counter-act any flaws, that have been brought forth.

And at the end of the day, many people, modders and end-users alike, are not involved with any of the repo projects or mod-creation, and with these kinds of threads, they might end up becoming interested.

It's not that it sounds counter-logical, it's that it's functionally invalid. Both of those mod repo threads, and nearly all of the ones that have come and gone, exist in this subforum, so your thread is directly competing with them for screen space and therefore reducing the likelihood that your end users will see those threads, while not exposing any new endusers to the concepts that they still won't be exposed to because the original post is spam regardless of what conversation followed and no random passerby is going to bother reading everything. If you want to spread the word of repojesus, go somewhere else and tell new people about the things the people are doing in those other threads.