[1.1.2] Kerbin-Side (v1.1.0) & Supplements

[Geschosskopf]

6 minutes ago, Warro said:

Yeah, it's simple, all the game is about it. It's not rocket science... Oh, wait, it IS rocket science
If it's so simple - where are dozens of beautiful and functional bases from many authors? Have you seen them? I haven't. I do not count the couple from experienced modders - they contain their own set of static assets mostly.

Hmm, have you even TRIED to do it yourself?  

Edited November 26, 2016 by Geschosskopf

[Galileo]

It is very simple to do it yourself if you are willing to try and learn.  Most users are intimidated by "modding"  and think it requires prior knowledge of coding or programming when in fact,  it does not.  That is the main reasons most users don't make "beautiful and functional bases". Also, many users are lazy and would rather wait on someone else to do the work or just use what's available instead of learning to do it themselves. 

So really,  it all comes down to the willingness of users to learn how to do things for themselves. Until then,  nobody has the right to complain about a free mod because they are the ones not willing to put in the work to make things the way they want them, and ultimately the dev can do what they want. 

The tools are there.  Users just need to learn how to use them. 

Edited November 26, 2016 by Galileo

[Warro]

6 hours ago, Geschosskopf said:

Hmm, have you even TRIED to do it yourself?  

No, cause I'm not interested in having my own set of bases. I've got tired already to have my own set of .cfg for some part mods - yes, own config suits me better, but it's a pain, when it comes to upgrade mods and you need to make all your changes again.

5 hours ago, Galileo said:

 Also, many users are lazy and would rather wait on someone else to do the work or just use what's available instead of learning to do it themselves.

Agreed. I'm lazy, too. I'd prefer to use something already done, than create something myself, that's why I'm on forum, not in Blender or KK editor now However, I've done few parts in blender for own use and can tell you - it's not so simple to make something of sufficient quality. Yes, it's possible ("The tools are there."), just not so simple. The tools themselves are not enough, you also need will and a bit of skill

5 hours ago, Galileo said:

Until then,  nobody has the right to complain about a free mod because they are the ones not willing to put in the work to make things the way they want them, and ultimately the dev can do what they want.

I think that it's a bit different - users have rights to complain, modders have rights to ignore complains We can suggest to add, remove or modify something in the mod to the author, but can't blame the author if he does not agree.

[Galileo]

24 minutes ago, Warro said:

I think that it's a bit different - users have rights to complain, modders have rights to ignore complains We can suggest to add, remove or modify something in the mod to the author, but can't blame the author if he does not agree.

Retract my last statement and replace it with this because I agree with this 100%

[panarchist]

KerbinSide distribution is kind of a moot point now, since @AlphaAsh gave @Ger_space distribution rights.  Which is great, I'm looking forward to both mods continuing to be maintained.  AlphaAsh made Kerbin feel populated, and now he's making some awesome mods for Stellaris.  Ger_space has already updated KerbalKonstructs, which means I will totally owe him or her a beer if they ever end up in Seattle - because this is one of my "must have" mods.  This plus GAP makes the game a lot more fun.

That said, there are some other great mods out there, like Kosmodrome, BAD-T, and one that just got released yesterday, Wenchang.  I highly recommend all three.

[Ger_space]

@Warro and @Geschosskopf

I have the permission from AlphaAsh to modify and redistribute Kerbin-side. If someone finds a bug please report it to me.

Currently the mod runs pretty well, and I didn't change the kk cfg format, so I left the mod unchanged.

Adding new assets to Kerbin-side is a bad idea, because the license is very restricted, or you need to transfer all rights to AlphaAsh, because I don't want to deal with x licenses in one mod.

If you like to use the Kerbin-side assets for you're own bases, then down the Kerbin side statics package and use the in-game editor (ctrl+k) to place them.

If you can wait a few days, the editor is getting to be more user friendly.

[Geschosskopf]

9 hours ago, Warro said:

Agreed. I'm lazy, too. I'd prefer to use something already done, than create something myself, that's why I'm on forum, not in Blender or KK editor now However, I've done few parts in blender for own use and can tell you - it's not so simple to make something of sufficient quality. Yes, it's possible ("The tools are there."), just not so simple. The tools themselves are not enough, you also need will and a bit of skill

I don't think you're understanding how Kerbal Konstructs works.  You don't need to make your own models.  AlphaAsh already did that in spades.  In fact, he created a whole game-within-a-game, which is the genius of it.  The problem is, most folks don't realize this, or are afraid to try it.  But it's actually pretty simple So I'll try to explain it again.

• Kerbal Konstructs is the "game engine" with all the rules for how custom bases and their various parts work.
• One of the functions of Kerbal Konstructs is to be a base editor.  The general concept of this is exactly the same as the VAB.  That is, you select from a list of pre-made parts (that is, buildings) and plunk them down where you want them, arranged to taste.
• Kerbinside is first and foremost the library of pre-made buildings, runways, etc., that you use in the editor to make your custom bases.  Without this library (or a compatible library from another mod), the base editor in Kerbal Konstructs has nothing to work with.
• All the bases in Kerbinside are best thought of as analogous to the stock craft in KSP.  That is, they are examples made from the exact same pre-made buildings available to the user in the Kerbal Konstructs editor.  IOW, using a Kerbinside base is pretty much the same as flying the stock Kerbal-X or Ravenspear.

Thus, to make your own base, just pick a location and fly a ship there.  Then you open the base editor, select pre-made buildings from the list, plunk them down, and tweak their positions until you like where they are.  That's pretty much it.  Same process as building a rocket.  You can use any of the buildings you see at the bases in Kerbinside--there's a huge selection.  It's really not hard at all, but it can be tedious if you want to have everything connected by roads because it's hard to get the road sections to line up perfectly.  So if you want a naval base at some point on the coast, just go there and make it.  It's not that hard to do.

 

7 hours ago, Ger_space said:

Adding new assets to Kerbin-side is a bad idea, because the license is very restricted, or you need to transfer all rights to AlphaAsh, because I don't want to deal with x licenses in one mod.

Right.  The reason the license is so restrictive is because the whole Kerbal Konstructs / Kerbinside thing is a game within a game.  Basically, AlphaAsh gave us a box of Lego pieces.  We can rearrange the pieces (buildings) but he still made the all pieces.  It's just like you can't claim any rights to a ship design using stock rocket parts.

 

7 hours ago, Ger_space said:

If you can wait a few days, the editor is getting to be more user friendly.

Making the editor more user-friendly is always a good thing.  Thanks

 

[Warro]

@Geschosskopf   you totally misunderstood or misread my posts. I know, what KerbinSide and KK is. I know about editor and what it allows to do. The problem is the same as with crafts - having lego pieces and ability to stick them to one another doesn't mean you will get piece of art as result. Some creations make me have *facepalm* feelings, and that aren't specially built to be ugly or weird. I can remember many situations like "why my airplane doesn't fly with FAR?" or "why my rocket flies engine-first" etc. "Oh man, you call THAT a rocket(plane, etc.)?" So thanks for instruction to KK editor, maybe it'll help someone, not me, cause it's not issue here.... I just don't need MY bases, then write contract which will use MY bases, etc. I'd better use what is already done.

About KerbinSide license - I, personally, don't like it having strict license, but AlphaAsh has all rights to choose any license which is within local rules. I just mentioned my position if anyone cares at all.  

1 hour ago, Geschosskopf said:

 It's just like you can't claim any rights to a ship design using stock rocket parts.

Nope, you can claim design as yours, not the parts themselves. Your house is still your house, even if you borrow tools to build it from your neighbour. If he didn't mention otherwise when lent you the tools.

[panarchist]

6 minutes ago, Warro said:

@Geschosskopf   you totally misunderstood or misread my posts. I know, what KerbinSide and KK is. I know about editor and what it allows to do. The problem is the same as with crafts - having lego pieces and ability to stick them to one another doesn't mean you will get piece of art as result. Some creations make me have *facepalm* feelings, and that aren't specially built to be ugly or weird. I can remember many situations like "why my airplane doesn't fly with FAR?" or "why my rocket flies engine-first" etc. "Oh man, you call THAT a rocket(plane, etc.)?" So thanks for instruction to KK editor, maybe it'll help someone, not me, cause it's not issue here.... I just don't need MY bases, then write contract which will use MY bases, etc. I'd better use what is already done.

About KerbinSide license - I, personally, don't like it having strict license, but AlphaAsh has all rights to choose any license which is within local rules. I just mentioned my position if anyone cares at all.  

Nope, you can claim design as yours, not the parts themselves. Your house is still your house, even if you borrow tools to build it from your neighbour. If he didn't mention otherwise when lent you the tools.

Misunderstood, I think - I read them the same way.

I can relate to opinions on some of the bases in KS, I still can't stand some of the structures on KSC2 and the lifting road section blocking access to the launchpad from the VAB.  And a few other quirks here and there.  I still stand by not changing KS - preferably not changing it at all other than updates.  It's got it's own mythology now - people expect those bases to be there.  I'm *still* annoyed that the owner of Kosmodrome moved it - I liked the old location, and I wish the option had been left to keep it where it was.  Moving it back isn't intuitive because AlphaAsh decided not to do coordinate conversion to Lat/Long when KK was created.  All of which are pretty trivial complaints, but they're also why I haven't just moved Kosmodrome back to where it "belongs" - I just don't have the time/desire to figure out where that is and mod the files myself.

I'd like to see more people put out more bases (which I believe you pointed out up-thread) - I'd rather they were their own mods instead of being worked into Kerbinside.  It's not likely, though, because there's a limited number of public domain assets - the KS assets are all "no-distribute" (and I totally respect AlphaAsh's right to control that), and only a small number of mod makers have taken it on themselves to create new assets.

 

[Warro]

@panarchist - as i mentioned earlier, I'd prefer not to have KerbinSide as mythological lore of KSP, it'll be much better if we have non-strict licenced analog of CRP for locations of bases and have THAT as lore. I like named waypoints feature in KSP, but I'm disappointed they are random. It'll be so cool if you can define by the name where it is, if you have good memory But we are here, not there.....

For assets - I'd like to see more infrastructure type ones, not more launchpads and runways. In my career I'm not using remote unlock for the bases I haven't visited by craft. There are already enough alt. launchpads for probably any real use (except roleplay, of course). More for flyby and landing at, please   However, I'm waiting for drydocks, oil rig and other stuff from Eskandare to be released too...

 

 

[Fireheart318]

I want an oil rig and aircraft carrier! Also, one of these things http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/ediosjustcause2/images/d/d7/Screenshot_12866.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20100404090945 wouldn't hurt

Edited November 28, 2016 by Fireheart318
Re-phrasing

[Geschosskopf]

3 hours ago, Warro said:

as i mentioned earlier, I'd prefer not to have KerbinSide as mythological lore of KSP,

Too late for that.  KS has been a thing for too long now.  Folks are used to it as-is.

[panarchist]

3 hours ago, Warro said:

@panarchist - as i mentioned earlier, I'd prefer not to have KerbinSide as mythological lore of KSP, it'll be much better if we have non-strict licenced analog of CRP for locations of bases and have THAT as lore. I like named waypoints feature in KSP, but I'm disappointed they are random. It'll be so cool if you can define by the name where it is, if you have good memory But we are here, not there.....

For assets - I'd like to see more infrastructure type ones, not more launchpads and runways. In my career I'm not using remote unlock for the bases I haven't visited by craft. There are already enough alt. launchpads for probably any real use (except roleplay, of course). More for flyby and landing at, please   However, I'm waiting for drydocks, oil rig and other stuff from Eskandare to be released too...

 

 

Well, there's what we prefer, and what we have.  For better or worse, KerbinSide already exists, there are a lot of people using it, and it's up-to-date with the current version of KSP.  I'd love to see a community-licensed version of KS, but not enough to create it.  When it matters enough to someone to build it, I would definitely use it.  That said, so long as KS has a maintainer, I'm happy to use that, too - especially since there's already a history behind it via the original writeups and the GAP contracts for it.

Other than KS, I think there's only 4 or 5 actual named places in KSP which are "permanent", and they're all part of the DSN.  It'd be interesting to see if the current dev staff intends to name more places.

[Warro]

11 hours ago, Geschosskopf said:

Too late for that.  KS has been a thing for too long now.  Folks are used to it as-is.

It's not lore, it's mod, one of many, and with strict license, which is no good for lore-alike things. Yes, it's handy, yes, many users use it as-is, yes it's tied to some contract packs, which is handy, too. It's mantained now, which is cool, but what will happen, if not? Remember KerbinCity - it was one of the first KerbTown places and where it is now? There is KerbalKonstructs after KerbTown, but what is continuation of KerbinCity? Nothing, and this is because of license.

[Geschosskopf]

5 hours ago, Warro said:

It's not lore, it's mod, one of many, and with strict license, which is no good for lore-alike things. Yes, it's handy, yes, many users use it as-is, yes it's tied to some contract packs, which is handy, too. It's mantained now, which is cool, but what will happen, if not? Remember KerbinCity - it was one of the first KerbTown places and where it is now? There is KerbalKonstructs after KerbTown, but what is continuation of KerbinCity? Nothing, and this is because of license.

Geez, you're so determined to fail to understand the situation, and to invent problems that do not exist, that you're really trying me patience in explaining all this to you.  But I'll try one more time...

If you actually bother to read the Kerbinside license, you will see this:

 

Quote

 

• Addendum 1: You may modify the contents for personal use but may not re-distribute modified versions of the content without obtaining permission first. Contact Ashley Hall on the KSP forums, PMing the user AlphaAsh.
• Addendum 2: This work may not be re-distributed, modified or un-modified in a 'mod pack'.
• Addendum 3: If re-distributing, no financial or other form of profitable gain should be made from this work, directly or indirectly. No advertising of any sort may be included in the redistribution or at any point of redistribution.
• Addendum 4: Contributions from collaborators may be licenced separately, except where such licence conflicts with this licence. Conflicts will be handled by the collaborators when they occur.

Exceptions: Re-distribution of modified configuration files is allowed without permission. Addendum 1 and 2 of this licence also do not apply and are waived in this case. This licence must still be included. All other content may not be re-distributed and if you re-distribute modified configuration files, you must make links to the pre-requisite content available where appropriate (such as in a forum post or readme file). You must also be first-point for any support necessary for your mod and where it is deemed appropriate by the original mod authors.

 

 

This gives you absolute freedom to use the building assets of Kerbinside to make your own bases, not only for your own use, but you can ALSO share them.  You are also allowed to completely rearrange all the "stock" Kerbinside bases to your heart's content, AND share such revamped Kerbinsides as well.  This is because a Kerbinside base is nothing but a collection of configuration files, not the actual static assets themselves.  If you'd actually bothered to look in the Gamedata folder, you'd know this already.

 

So yes, Kerbal Konstructs and Kerbinside must be maintained as KSP updates, and only specific people authorized by AlphaAsh can do that.  That's no different from any other mod.  Someday they might stop being maintained and all this will cease to exist.  But hey, that's a risk you take when you start relying on any mod for key elements in your universe's storyline.  All good things must come to an end, so just enjoy them while they last.

My advice to you, therefore, is to start enjoying Kerbinside, not whining about it.  Learn how to use the editor in Kerbal Konstructs.  Don't like some of the "stock" Kerbinside bases?  Change them.  Want a new base somewhere else?  Build it.  You've got a set of over 200 pre-made buildings, roads, runways, etc., to play with.  Knock yourself out.  Then publish your results for others to enjoy, too.  This is what AlphaAsh wanted when he created all this wonderful stuff.  He gave us all the ability to shape the world.  Make him happy and use it.  I'm sure he's very disappointed that so few have done so.

[Warro]

@Geschosskopf man, English isn't my native language, but I can read, thanks. I've read license of KerbinSide long before your last post. And trust me, I understand what is written there, maybe better, than you. Yes you can modify .cfg, add new, edit existing, but the process of distributing your work is not so convenient as with other mod - you can't redistribute even unmodified assets with your mod, you need to link all pack with used content as prerequisite, so you will have original .cfg too. Duplicated bases? Or mention in your download - delete this and that after download? Write disabler MM config? All that is possible, but not convenient, what is not so good. This, plus (as mentioned before) people are lazy, so as result - where are packs of content, distributed as described? I cant see them, can you? Users just use K-Side as pack, modders prefer their own packs with own assets, all.

5 hours ago, Geschosskopf said:

My advice to you, therefore, is to start enjoying Kerbinside, not whining about it.

Thanks for advice, too late maybe. I'm using K-Side since 1.0, I guess. Deleted AirRace, because not interested, but that's the maximum of what I'm ready to mess with customizing it for my use. I've got tired of "damn, forgot to save my changes before upgrading that mod" situations. That reminds me russian anecdote - "after assembly, treat with a rasp".

Edited November 28, 2016 by Warro

[Geschosskopf]

3 hours ago, Warro said:

@Geschosskopf man, English isn't my native language, but I can read, thanks. I've read license of KerbinSide long before your last post. And trust me, I understand what is written there, maybe better, than you. Yes you can modify .cfg, add new, edit existing, but the process of distributing your work is not so convenient as with other mod - you can't redistribute even unmodified assets with your mod, you need to link all pack with used content as prerequisite, so you will have original .cfg too. Duplicated bases? Or mention in your download - delete this and that after download? Write disabler MM config? All that is possible, but not convenient, what is not so good.

I understand the license perfectly well.,  Back when I was practicing law, I focused on intellectual property.  So no, you do NOT have to include the original Kerbinside config files.  All you've got to do is publish your new and/or modified config files.  Then, in the thread you create for your new base, you just need links to KK and KS, and your download package of configs must include the licenses from KK and KS.

 

3 hours ago, Warro said:

This, plus (as mentioned before) people are lazy, so as result - where are packs of content, distributed as described? I cant see them, can you? Users just use K-Side as pack, modders prefer their own packs with own assets, all.

 As you say, people are lazy.  The absence of new bases for KS is due to that, not because of licenses.

[Warro]

7 hours ago, Geschosskopf said:

So no, you do NOT have to include the original Kerbinside config files.

I didn't say YOU should include original .cfg, read carefully, please. There is no "assets_only" download (the bundled bases configs will be in the pack, which you will link as prerequisite),  so for modified bases you should somehow deal with original .cfg's.  Not an issue, if you want to add new base, but you'll get all bases, bundled with needed pack, as a bonus, which you can't refuse.
If you're confident with intellectual property, tell me, what's the point of having strict license for non-commercial content?

[Ger_space]

3 hours ago, Warro said:

I didn't say YOU should include original .cfg, read carefully, please. There is no "assets_only" download (the bundled bases configs will be in the pack, which you will link as prerequisite),  so for modified bases you should somehow deal with original .cfg's.  Not an issue, if you want to add new base, but you'll get all bases, bundled with needed pack, as a bonus, which you can't refuse.
If you're confident with intellectual property, tell me, what's the point of having strict license for non-commercial content?

Are you sure there is nothing like that? http://spacedock.info/mod/565/Kerbin-Side CORE 

About the license protected and unmaintained mods: I could provide a CFG-Patch loader within Kerbal-Konstructs . As KK is under the MIT License, so it stays maintainable and the original mods don't need to be modified, they only get loaded in a working way.

[Warro]

4 minutes ago, Ger_space said:

Are you sure there is nothing like that? http://spacedock.info/mod/565/Kerbin-Side CORE 

About the license protected and unmaintained mods: I could provide a CFG-Patch loader within Kerbal-Konstructs . As KK is under the MIT License, so it stays maintainable and the original mods don't need to be modified, they only get loaded in a working way.

Sorry, my bad, as I remember, core had common assets and few bases, other packs contained additional assets and more configs. So my memory fails me or something changed since then.
With KerbinCity it looks like the same collider issue of model itself, not only outdated config. Plus, the whole project (it was COMMUNITY project, if you read description in old thread, btw) stopped to develop in the middle of building, so there are empty lots, unfinished bridges, etc. So there is need to dig in model itself, I guess. But if it's not too troublesome to have KK more backward compatible with old configs - that can't hurt.

[Eskandare]

KSC 2 now actually has a name, Baikerbanur.

[Aerospacer]

(outdate info)

 

Edited December 8, 2016 by Aerospacer
outdate info

[ebrhahaman]

when will it be out for 1.2? I'm just asking because I really love this mod

[Ger_space]

40 minutes ago, ebrhahaman said:

when will it be out for 1.2? I'm just asking because I really love this mod

This mod doesn't need to be updated, because it runs with 1.2. Just use the latest version of Kerbal Konstructs and you'll be fine.

 

On 7.12.2016 at 0:05 PM, Eskandare said:

KSC 2 now actually has a name, Baikerbanur.

I'll change the name,  or make a reference to it in the desciption, in a future release. (as soon as I need to edit the Kerbin-Side package)

[AlphaAsh]

On 28/11/2016 at 4:36 PM, Geschosskopf said:

Make him happy and use it.  I'm sure he's very disappointed that so few have done so.

A little, yes.

On 29/11/2016 at 7:06 AM, Warro said:

I didn't say YOU should include original .cfg, read carefully, please. There is no "assets_only" download (the bundled bases configs will be in the pack, which you will link as prerequisite),  so for modified bases you should somehow deal with original .cfg's.  Not an issue, if you want to add new base, but you'll get all bases, bundled with needed pack, as a bonus, which you can't refuse.
If you're confident with intellectual property, tell me, what's the point of having strict license for non-commercial content?

There is. KerbinSide Core. Which Ger_Space has rights on too.

edit And he ninja'd me about it already.

Edited December 18, 2016 by AlphaAsh