Umbra Space Industries - (Roadmap and WIPs)

[Ballistic Idiot]

Ok, so I'm guessing the engines you mean are from the Karbonite pack then.

Here is a set of configs that should do what you want. Just copy this into notepad, save it as something.cfg and put it somewhere in your gamedata folder.

I haven't tested this though. There may be some misconfig here, so try it out in a sandbox first.

I have never actually looked into the mechanics of Tweakscale. Apparently I should have, it's brilliantly simple.

Thanks very much, Nori.

I'm going to build tiny rockets.

[Nori]

Glad to be of help. I forgot to mention that you do need modulemanager (2.6.6 would be best) for that too. I generally just assume people know that, but you can never be too sure.

Yeah, tweakscale is pretty simple (but can be tedious) to setup. It can get more complicated if you want to define your own scale, but even that isn't too bad.

[frozenwatters]

I have to say that I really enjoy the USI Kolonization parts but have not gotten far enough in a career game yet to fully enjoy all of it. I am a bit of a modaholic and spend more time trying to find the right combinations (of mods) to move on with a challenging yet fun career game.

I find the two main LS mods that most players use a bit too hard core and interferes with my fun factor which is why I enjoy the IFI-KLS system instead as it seems much more Kerbalized than yours or others.

I have been through some of the threads and I suspect someone has already asked before, but would there ever be a chance to get support for the IFI-KLS system so that Kolonization will play with it rather than the other LS mods?

If not, is there anyone else that is using IFI-KLS and Kolonization that has worked this out at all?

Keep up the great work btw and thanks again for your time and consideration.

Cheers,

[Orange_Slime_]

Is there a craft file of the starlifter somewherE?

[rabidninjawombat]

I have to say that I really enjoy the USI Kolonization parts but have not gotten far enough in a career game yet to fully enjoy all of it. I am a bit of a modaholic and spend more time trying to find the right combinations (of mods) to move on with a challenging yet fun career game.

I find the two main LS mods that most players use a bit too hard core and interferes with my fun factor which is why I enjoy the IFI-KLS system instead as it seems much more Kerbalized than yours or others.

I have been through some of the threads and I suspect someone has already asked before, but would there ever be a chance to get support for the IFI-KLS system so that Kolonization will play with it rather than the other LS mods?

If not, is there anyone else that is using IFI-KLS and Kolonization that has worked this out at all?

Keep up the great work btw and thanks again for your time and consideration.

Cheers,

Im assuming IFI, is Intersteller Life support. I've never played with it, but based on my quick reading of its features, it seems very similar to USI-LS (one resource, and electricty required for kerballs) So not sure were you got the idea that USI-LS was too complicated

I'd probably recommend asking on That mods forum post to see if someone has whiped up a config for MKS, (its alot easier then searching through 1200 pages )

[qm3ster]

@RoverDude, my love, please!

Untick CKAN, update your license to have hyphens instead of spaces, then tick CKAN again.

[RoverDude]

Log an issue with the CKAN people please

[qm3ster]

Log an issue with the CKAN people please

I politely disagree. The issue begins in KerbalStuff, in a string that you keyed in by hand.

The license needs to be standardized to "CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0"

(Right now it's CC 4.0 BY SA NC)

I have multiple issues running KerbalStuff people, about license and the CKAN bot, but this is most cleanly resolved at the root here.

I did file this ​to get the mod out to the people as fast as possible.

[RoverDude]

Then that's a CKAN problem on their parser. I do not use CKAN, their elves take care of this.

- - - Updated - - -

(And why KS does not include such a common license is beyond me)

[qm3ster]

Then that's a CKAN problem on their parser. I do not use CKAN, their elves take care of this.

Don't know how much time you spend looking over these messages, but:

It's the same licence, it's misspelled.

[COLOR=#000000] "license" : {[/COLOR] "description" : "A license.",
"enum" : [
"public-domain",
"Apache", "Apache-1.0", "Apache-2.0",
"Artistic", "Artistic-1.0", "Artistic-2.0",
"BSD-2-clause", "BSD-3-clause", "BSD-4-clause",
"ISC",
"CC-BY", "CC-BY-1.0", "CC-BY-2.0", "CC-BY-2.5", "CC-BY-3.0", "CC-BY-4.0",
"CC-BY-SA", "CC-BY-SA-1.0", "CC-BY-SA-2.0", "CC-BY-SA-2.5", "CC-BY-SA-3.0", "CC-BY-SA-4.0",
"CC-BY-NC", "CC-BY-NC-1.0", "CC-BY-NC-2.0", "CC-BY-NC-2.5", "CC-BY-NC-3.0", "CC-BY-NC-4.0",
"CC-BY-NC-SA", "CC-BY-NC-SA-1.0", "CC-BY-NC-SA-2.0", "CC-BY-NC-SA-2.5", "CC-BY-NC-SA-3.0", "CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0",
"CC-BY-NC-ND", "CC-BY-NC-ND-1.0", "CC-BY-NC-ND-2.0", "CC-BY-NC-ND-2.5", "CC-BY-NC-ND-3.0", "CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0",
"CC0",
"CDDL", "CPL",
"EFL-1.0", "EFL-2.0",
"Expat", "MIT",
"GPL-1.0", "GPL-2.0", "GPL-3.0",
"LGPL-2.0", "LGPL-2.1", "LGPL-3.0",
"GFDL-1.0", "GFDL-1.1", "GFDL-1.2", "GFDL-1.3",
"GFDL-NIV-1.0", "GFDL-NIV-1.1", "GFDL-NIV-1.2", "GFDL-NIV-1.3",
"LPPL-1.0", "LPPL-1.1", "LPPL-1.2", "LPPL-1.3c",
"MPL-1.1",
"Perl",
"Python-2.0",
"QPL-1.0",
"W3C",
"Zlib",
"Zope",
"WTFPL",
"open-source", "restricted", "unrestricted", "unknown"
]
}

CC 4.0 BY SA NC

should be

CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0

[RoverDude]

See, here's the thing.

I do not use CKAN. It tends to cause me support issues. I love the idea, but they need to sort the execution. So yes, how I spelled my license (which is perfectly readable by a human) causes a problem for their parsers. This is not my problem, because it is not affecting the functionality of my mod. That list of acceptable licenses means nothing to me, since the license as detailed is perfectly acceptable.

I am not trying to be a pain here, but it's just not my problem if they can't sort that, and I am incredibly busy. If CKAN wants to list my stuff, that's awesome. But I have zero idea why a license in a specific format is even required or relevant for what they are doing. And if they want more modder support (versus the building animosity because I have to deal with this instead of work on mods) then they need to sort that, plain and simple.

[goldenpsp]

See, here's the thing.

I do not use CKAN. It tends to cause me support issues. I love the idea, but they need to sort the execution. So yes, how I spelled my license (which is perfectly readable by a human) causes a problem for their parsers. This is not my problem, because it is not affecting the functionality of my mod. That list of acceptable licenses means nothing to me, since the license as detailed is perfectly acceptable.

I am not trying to be a pain here, but it's just not my problem if they can't sort that, and I am incredibly busy. If CKAN wants to list my stuff, that's awesome. But I have zero idea why a license in a specific format is even required or relevant for what they are doing. And if they want more modder support (versus the building animosity because I have to deal with this instead of work on mods) then they need to sort that, plain and simple.

Can I copy this and add to my "twitch and general support" library of quick quotes?

[qm3ster]

Well, I'm willing to be your CKAN secretary :v

(Including that you can send anyone that has CKAN issues with your mods my way without even looking at their problem.)

I think CKAN is an absolute godsend, because it promotes breaking mods down into shared modules and frequent updates.

Licenses are crucial because only things that give permission to be indexed such as in CKAN can be added worry-free, especially keeping in mind that developers often don't have legal manpower, and many open-source contributors believe in intellectual property rights.

Honestly, I don't mind fixing up netkan for mods I enjoy using, and I'd always do that before bugging the dev to spend their time on that, but I thought you might be happy to do "the right thing" from the start. (I know I would, in your position.)

(Note how I did not say "Hey RoverDude, your mod isn't showing up on CKAN, go fix it, but did all the research myself and just brought you a suggestion "what to do" vs "everything is broken, not wow" as concisely as I could ( I couldn't make a pull request against your Kerbal Stuff metadata ))

[goldenpsp]

Well, I'm willing to be your CKAN secretary :v

(Including that you can send anyone that has CKAN issues with your mods my way without even looking at their problem.)

I think CKAN is an absolute godsend, because it promotes breaking mods down into shared modules and frequent updates.

Licenses are crucial because only things that give permission to be indexed such as in CKAN can be added worry-free, especially keeping in mind that developers often don't have legal manpower, and many open-source contributors believe in intellectual property rights.

Honestly, I don't mind fixing up netkan for mods I enjoy using, and I'd always do that before bugging the dev to spend their time on that, but I thought you might be happy to do "the right thing" from the start. (I know I would, in your position.)

(Note how I did not say "Hey RoverDude, your mod isn't showing up on CKAN, go fix it, but did all the research myself and just brought you a suggestion "what to do" vs "everything is broken, not wow" as concisely as I could ( I couldn't make a pull request against your Kerbal Stuff metadata ))

This will end well. You were doing ok until the end, where you blew it.

For all the talk of "doing the right thing" you missed the mark pretty bad. This likely could have been addressed very easily (and been fixed) with a simple github issue in the appropriate repositories, vs pestering in multiple threads with multiple posts. As Roverdude has asked many times, if you want an issue to not get lost, make a github issue. If you want it to get lost by all means post it in one of the 12+ threads where it is likely to be forgotten.

[RoverDude]

Well in fairness there is no mechanism for pull requests against KS

And the thing is... there is no need to read my specific license type to include it in CKAN. That's the root issue, and CKAN needs to fix that.

[passinglurker]

Well, I'm willing to be your CKAN secretary :v

(Including that you can send anyone that has CKAN issues with your mods my way without even looking at their problem.)

I think CKAN is an absolute godsend, because it promotes breaking mods down into shared modules and frequent updates.

Licenses are crucial because only things that give permission to be indexed such as in CKAN can be added worry-free, especially keeping in mind that developers often don't have legal manpower, and many open-source contributors believe in intellectual property rights.

Honestly, I don't mind fixing up netkan for mods I enjoy using, and I'd always do that before bugging the dev to spend their time on that, but I thought you might be happy to do "the right thing" from the start. (I know I would, in your position.)

(Note how I did not say "Hey RoverDude, your mod isn't showing up on CKAN, go fix it, but did all the research myself and just brought you a suggestion "what to do" vs "everything is broken, not wow" as concisely as I could ( I couldn't make a pull request against your Kerbal Stuff metadata ))

One should be careful about tossing around talk of doing "the right thing" because some could argue actively denouncing CKAN and having a mod disable itself when CKAN is detected to cut down on CKAN related support issues like what many modders did with Windows 64bit to be doing "the right thing"

[RoverDude]

The 'Right Thing' in this case is for CKAN to aggressively make sure my workload is as low as possible - similar to how KSP-AVC is pretty much a no-brainer for me these days, and has an ideal workflow.

[qm3ster]

And the thing is... there is no need to read my specific license type to include it in CKAN. That's the root issue, and CKAN needs to fix that.

I agreesomething should be done.

But they also can't also just copy it over. What if the license says "CKAN, No CKANing!"

[RoverDude]

Again, not my problem. I do not understand why CKAN needs a license anyway, unless they are distributing from their own servers instead of just linking...

[Kobymaru]

I do not use CKAN. It tends to cause me support issues. I love the idea, but they need to sort the execution.

That's a shame, imho it's the best thing since sliced snacks, and it's invaluable in keeping my install up-to date. But anyway, back on topic...

How about this:

Both the dash-version and the spaces-version is readable by a human. So there's no harm either way, right?

How about someone (let's say me) makes a pull request that changes it, and RoverDude just clicks "OK". This way, the CKAN'ers are happy and RoverDude just needs one click.

Or is there any other reason why the name of the license can't change?

And @qm3ster:

Look man, I appreciate what you are trying to do, getting stuff into CKAN is a good thing. But you *really* need to work on communication skills! You can't just pester the dev and blame him and trying to point out that you are right and he is not. That's not helpful.

This kind of tone is common in the open source world, but if we reach the Linux Kernel communication culture, this community is doomed. So how about you stop wasting your and the devs time?

[jiynx]

suggestion/request: don't know if anyone has brought up the idea, but an altitude sensor on the airbags/floats in USI survival would be tits. it's one thing to be all 'okay and deploy...NOW', and hit it, but when you're pre-unlimited action groups that gets hard. sure you can tag deployment to existing action groups but that's iffy - odds of accidental deployment are strong.

sometimes you're just juggling a lot of things - it'd be sweet to make the airbags hands-off.

making something like the refund mod see that the impact tolerance is now way higher is another ball of wax entirely.

(or do they have this ability and i never noticed before??!!)

[GokouZWAR]

[quote name='Kobymaru']That's a shame, imho it's the best thing since sliced snacks, and it's invaluable in keeping my install up-to date. But anyway, back on topic...

How about this:
Both the dash-version and the spaces-version is readable by a human. So there's no harm either way, right?
How about someone (let's say me) makes a pull request that changes it, and RoverDude just clicks "OK". This way, the CKAN'ers are happy and RoverDude just needs one click.

Or is there any other reason why the name of the license can't change?


And @qm3ster:
Look man, I appreciate what you are trying to do, getting stuff into CKAN is a good thing. But you *really* need to work on communication skills! You can't just pester the dev and blame him and trying to point out that you are right and he is not. That's not helpful.
This kind of tone is common in the open source world, but if we reach the Linux Kernel communication culture, this community is doomed. So how about you stop wasting your and the devs time?[/QUOTE]

Wouldn't it be simpler to create a string parser that would take spaces and convert them into hyphens when the file is loaded onto his server or something? Seems like there's a lot of time wasted talking to devs that could have been spent on this instead of creating limitations. He wants his product used he should make it user friendly so the users want to use it. In roverdude's case, its not. I don't blame him for not wanting to use it. He does it as a service to his end users which is great, but its easier for him (an imo is just fine with me) to host it on his own site and just notify his mod users of updates on this thread or on his site directly. I'm sure he could code his own CKAN that would work a lot better if given half a chance too...

[johnnydope]

hello, I have a question about a USI part. .cfg file says it was made by roverdude. its the "Power Coupler". is it magic elf powered? or is there actual physical KIS item cables to plug into it? im cool either way. I jus want to know if im not rendering a part or something. closest part I have to an extension cable is from the SEP mod. the "AKI Power Transfer Conduit". perhaps adding KAS nodes to the part would make it compatible with the cable I already have?

[goldenpsp]

2 hours ago, johnnydope said:

hello, I have a question about a USI part. .cfg file says it was made by roverdude. its the "Power Coupler". is it magic elf powered? or is there actual physical KIS item cables to plug into it? im cool either way. I jus want to know if im not rendering a part or something. closest part I have to an extension cable is from the SEP mod. the "AKI Power Transfer Conduit". perhaps adding KAS nodes to the part would make it compatible with the cable I already have?

It is "wireless" power.  You can consider it true wireless power or abstracted power.  All of the "wireless" logistics that @RoverDude has added to his mods are general designed as "abstracted" .  AKA the kerbals are actually running wires to power things, or they are running around "transferring" things in the background.  It was originally designed primarily to combat the "Kraken" that often causes bases to self destruct when they are large and connected together, especially with KAS pipes.

[johnnydope]

3 hours ago, goldenpsp said:

It is "wireless" power.  You can consider it true wireless power or abstracted power.  All of the "wireless" logistics that @RoverDude has added to his mods are general designed as "abstracted" .  AKA the kerbals are actually running wires to power things, or they are running around "transferring" things in the background.  It was originally designed primarily to combat the "Kraken" that often causes bases to self destruct when they are large and connected together, especially with KAS pipes.

Okie dokie. Magic elves it is! thx for the info man.