[WIP] Inigma's KSP Essentials Mod Pack

[inigma]

KSP Fans! Never tried mods before? Want to know where to begin? Then start here. I offer this project for community input on the various mods, and their composition within the mod pack. The aim of this mod pack is to get you started trying out different mods on your own. I just provide you with a few basic ones I believe in. I encourage you to maintain regular updates of individual mods as necessary and simply treat this pack as a starting point on your journey, and not a regularly maintained release subscription.

Theme:

My KSP Essentials Mod Pack is a non-invasive collection of widely accepted KSP mods that I deem are a must-have. They offer:

• Tools and utilities that enhance vessel building and testing
  
• Tools and utilities that provide greater vessel control
  
• Tools and utilities that provide additional camera options for taking those screenshots or videos that you have been thinking of making
  
• DarkMultiplayer since I believe the multiplayer experience is and will be soon one of the most essential experiences of the game
  
• Kerbal Attachment System to make those EVAs with friends a little more productive
  
• Karbonite to give you and your friends a resource meta game to play with.
  

These mods do not modify game physics or change existing visuals, or add parts for parts sake - since this is an essentials mod pack, not a bloat mod pack. I honestly believe a future stock version of Kerbal Space Program will have all of these concepts incorporated at some point, so I ask why wait? None of these mods seriously conflict with any other in the pack, if at all (as far as I've tested).

*I have not added SpaceplanePlus to the mod pack since it will be included in the upcoming release version .25 of Kerbal Space Program.

Support Statement:

Some may ask why "Inigma's" mod pack, and not simply called KSP Essentials Mod Pack? Because one person's essential mod is another person's bloat! I am open to discussion on what kind of mods you think are "essential" and if there is enough participation in this project to help decide such, then the pack will be renamed and my name removed. For now my name is on it only to indicate responsibility for who has determined in this pack what mods are "essential" in playing KSP. I have not developed any of the mods in this pack. Repeat, I have not developed any of the mods in this pack. It is not my intent to take credit away from anyone, but rather to simply offer responsibility for the support of the composition of this mod pack. If you notice a bug, or something is broken in your game after installing this mod pack, please see the Troubleshooting section below.

This mod pack currently is a list of links to a mod's development thread so you are encouraged to download the latest version of the recommended mod directly from the developer. Please post to this thread any developer-confirmed irreconcilable conflicts with other mods in this pack. I will promptly and simply reconsider their inclusion if so. Since this is only a mod list for now, and not a true mod pack, and since you are being directed to download the latest version of these mods from the developer themselves, then you are directed for now to seek all other support from them for any issues! In the future I will offer a .zip file - a true mod pack, after I have tested compatibility to my satisfaction, at which point users of the pack will be directed here first for support.

Inigma's KSP Essentials Mod Pack:

Editor Expansion (Essential)

• SelectRoot by Industries - select a new root part for your vessel
  
• Editor Extensions by MachXXV - an expansion of the VAB and SPH build options to include more snap angles, more symmetrical part placement, and more
  
• Kerbal Engineer Redux by cybutek - used for calculating Delta V, and providing flight data as needed
  
• HyperEdit by Ezriilc - included for only for testing ship designs, not cheating
  
• Hullcam VDS by Albert VDS - for rover cams, ship cams, ground cams, and more, for those who like to take neat pics or videos
  
• RCS Build Aid by m4v - adds an rcs center of balance and other visuals in VAB and SPH for perfect RCS placement (not yet tested for inclusion)
  
• TweakableEverything by toadicus - tweaks part parameters such as engine thrust, decoupler expolsive charge, docking port magnetic power, etc. (not yet tested for inclusion)
  

Command and Control (Essential)

• Toolbar by blizzy78 - essential GUI container for other mod buttons
  
• Kerbal Alarm Clock by TriggerAu - set timers that alert you to launch windows, SOI changes, and maneuver node pausing
  
• Docking Port Alignment Indicator by NavyFish - easier docking with a GUI
  
• Navball Docking Alignment Indicator by mic_e- easier docking with a navball aid
  
• TAC Fuel Balancer by TaranisElsu - Move fuel or balance it from a separate GUI (I am thinking of replacing this if a good alternative can be found)
  
• Improved Chase Camera by BahamutoD - chase camera follows current velocity vector, not rear of craft (not yet tested for inclusion)
  
• Camera Tools (Stationary Camera) by BahamutoD - provides a camera that you can set to be stationary for recording those awesome flight scenes (not yet tested for inclusion)
  
• Resource Details in Tracking Center by avivey - Resource and visual information GUI for vessels in the Tracking Center screen for accurate vessel selection (not yet tested for inclusion)
  
• Kerbal EVA Resource Transfer by marce- EVA Kerbals can carry a small amount of any resource and transfer it to another vessel (not yet tested for inclusion, I thought it might enhance multiplayer EVAs)
  

Missing Game Artifacts (Essential)

• Mk2 Cockpit Internals by Sam Hall - opens the windows on the stock mk2 cockpit. the only visual enhancement that isn't, since it actually should be in the stock game aways.
  
• Chatterer by Iannic-ann-od - near random background radio chatter between KSP Mission Control and your Kerbals, adds immersion
  
• RCS Sound Effects by pizzaoverhead - RCS thrusters have sound and light effects for better feedback on knowing they are operating (not yet tested for inclusion)
  

For Multiplayer Fun

• DarkMultiPlayer by godarklight - The one and only true multiplayer mod for KSP, adds a main menu window to connect to a server found on the DMP server list. Creates a separate DarkMultiPlayer save game folder in your saves. No conflict with single player.
  
• Kerbal Attachment System by KospY, Majiir, zzz, Winn75 - For EVA Kerbals to grab things, and for fuel lines (ie no more docking tankers to ground craft in order to transfer fuel. just hook them up with a fuel line via EVA instead).
  
• Karbonite by RoverDude (I'm leaning to Karbonite with its open and free development push, although Kethane was previously here) a resource meta game whereby you scan for and mine Karbonite and use it as fuel in Karbonite engines or convert it to fuel for use in regular engines. Useful for expanding Kerbol system empires, and makes for great multiplayer and role play goal setting. This mod is included in this pack to introduce you to the wonderful world of the Open Resource System. Feel free to load other resource mods as desired. This mod does not conflict with Kethane.
  

Installation:

Download the mod pack from here:

-Link TBD-

For best results, a 32 bit version of Kerbal Space Program is assumed, however I've tested these in 64 bit as well without any major issues cropping up.

1. Make a copy of your Kerbal Space Program\saves folder and move it to a safe place outside of your Kerbal Space Program folder.

2. Extract the .zip file to your Kerbal Space Program folder.

3. Read the READ ME and be sure to reach each mod's READ ME.

4. Launch Kerbal Space Program.

It is highly encouraged, no, forced upon you now, to go to each mod's link above and download the mod from the developer directly, following their installation and support instructions. For now, please contact the developers directly for any issues with their plugins as it relates to compatibility with other mods. If you discover and confirm with the mod developer an irreconciable conflict, please post in this thread below so I can evaluate the affected mods for inclusion in the mod pack going forward.

LIABILITY DISCLOSURE

I assume no responsibility or liability for anything that happens to your Kerbal Space Program, computer, mouse, keyboard, joystick, peripheral, or your mom's chocolate cake with the use of this mod pack or the mods listed in this pack. You use this mod pack at your own risk. This means if it breaks a save game that you've spent years building, and you have become financially dependent on it because you produce a long-running Youtube series where you have million dollar sponsors fronting your effort, you are out of luck and most likely could be made fun of at worst or be made a statistic at best, if you didn't make a back up. You made a backup, didn't you? I don't want to hear about your CPU melting. That said, I use these mods on my own computer, and have not had a meltdown and have found these mods to be compatible with each other. I have probably had my KSP crash once or twice when testing new mods in the process, so always keep your valuable save games backed up from time to time. I recommend this really cool service called backblaze for backing up your computer to the cloud for like only 5 bucks a month for unlimited storage. Try it sometime. There are other services like carbonite and mozy too. Find one you like and use it. Heck you could even burn your saves to disc, ok? Only you can prevent forest fires. A rolling stone gathers no moss... wait. Arr mateys! OK it's getting late here. I should go to bed.

Troubleshooting:

1. If you see a problem, make a copy of your saves folder to a safe place. Then simply remove all folders in your GameData folder except for NASAmission and Squad folders. Reload KSP to see if the problem persists.

2. Re-add mod folders on each reload of KSP until you narrow down the offending mod.

3. Once you've discovered the offending mod, post to this forum here to see if anyone has heard of the issue. If not, or no response from me, download the latest version of the mod from the developer. Remove all mod folders from GameData except NASAmission and Squad folders and the offending mod. If issue persists, contact the mod developer.

4. If issue can only be recreated with other mods, please contact the developers of both mods to see if there is a fix planned. If not, contact me and I will consider removing the offending mods from the mod pack once I confirm there is an irreconcilable conflict.

Edited September 20, 2014 by inigma

[inigma]

KNOWN ISSUES:

Check back frequently in this post for a published list of known issues while we test this mod pack.

1. So far, multiple versions of mod manager dll is installed in GameData after installing all these listed mods. Dumping all but the latest versions seems to help, but now I'm running into crashes in 64 bit KSP prior to loading a save game. It might be the save game.

2. I hope to cull this mod pack list of mods that have restrictions on redistribution. As I am made aware of them, I will remove them from the intended .zip if I can not gain permission from the listed mod maker, but the mod link will remain assuming I can confirm compatibility of the rest of the .zip with the restricted mod.

3. Not sure if its DMP related, but save games may refuse to populate on the Resume Game screen, asking you to update, delete, or cancel with two of the options leading to a game freeze. Click delete and you will never have to worry about the menu popup again, and don't worry - your games will be safe.

Edited September 20, 2014 by inigma

[CitizenAerospace]

Nice! I've used a bunch of different mods before, but it's taken me a loooong time to find a list of mods that I find really useful... This should really help new players!

[inigma]

Thoughts? Suggestions on which mods to include or exclude? Developers, have any input? Fans, do you have input? What would you like to see in this KSP Essentials Mod Pack that fits the declared theme in the OP?

[NathanKell]

Please read this thread in its entirety, and be aware you are going against the explicit wishes of many, many mod-makers.

So long as it remains links, no one will have a problem, but be prepared for devs refusing to support anyone who uses their mods via a modpack; and be prepared for license closures if you go ahead with it. Further, note that (as just one tiny example of the problems inherent in modpacking), you're linking to a very outdated version of Chatterer. I haven't even checked the rest of the links.

[inigma]

Please read this thread in its entirety, and be aware you are going against the explicit wishes of many, many mod-makers.

So long as it remains links, no one will have a problem, but be prepared for devs refusing to support anyone who uses their mods via a modpack; and be prepared for license closures if you go ahead with it. Further, note that (as just one tiny example of the problems inherent in modpacking), you're linking to a very outdated version of Chatterer. I haven't even checked the rest of the links.

Thread already read before posting this thread. Also, I already caught the old chatter link. thanks though! Any mod developer that I misunderstand their license who does not want to have their mod included in the zip file only has to say so and I will gladly remove it from the mod pack.

Edited September 20, 2014 by inigma

[Wanderfound]

Thread already read before posting this thread. Also, I already caught the old chatter link. thanks though! Any mod developer who does not want to have their mod included in the zip file only has to say so and I will gladly remove it from the mod pack.

"Better to beg forgiveness than to ask permission" works better in rhetoric than in reality.

[Genolution]

Thread already read before posting this thread. Also, I already caught the old chatter link. thanks though! Any mod developer who does not want to have their mod included in the zip file only has to say so and I will gladly remove it from the mod pack.

So you learned nothing from the discussion in that thread? And you expect every mod author who did all the work to make the game by your own admission (implied) more enjoyable and who doesn't want to be included in this terrible idea to go through the trouble of "opting out" every time some yahoo decides to assemble a pack of their outdated work?

[Genolution]

After reading that thread even I am offended by this. You are not a modder. Maybe you just don't understand what you are doing. I hope you don't go any further than a simple list but you mention a zip. file which would be against many license agreements and would anger the people that contribute the most in this community. You realize this, right?

[inigma]

After reading that thread even I am offended by this. You are not a modder. Maybe you just don't understand what you are doing. I hope you don't go any further than a simple list but you mention a zip. file which would be against many license agreements and would anger the people that contribute the most in this community. You realize this, right?

I'm sorry you are offended. Putting together and testing and tweaking a GameData folder that actually works is the work of a modder. In fact, I have to do testing first to even see what is compatible before posting a zip file. What is the reward for that work? Does one even need permission to share the results if that unique work?

Who is going to do the work of managing compatibility with other mods? If not 100% of the developers of mods in a probable or desired set (a greater improbability with each Iincreasing number of mods involved or desired in a game), then the sheer number of mods available for download for free demands the community provide this service to players in the form of mod manager developers and mod packers. We are providing a service that mod developers can't (unless they design and test their own mod with all other mods in existence, which is a greater improbability with each new mod released on the market, and in reality not all mod makers test their compatibility with all mods today).

Just saying something is offensive without providing detail goes nowhere and only trolls a thread. Do you have a specific concern or complaint that I can address?

To me, the only real valid concern I read in that thread and others concerning modpacks (assumimg proper credit due) is over support for deprecated versions of mods in the wild. Yet isn't this "issue" already present in reality with individual gamers who have downloaded mods into their games that already have other old mods installed and are having issues? The universal answer is to download and install the latest mod versions. Except with a mod packer in the market there is now a larger testing footprint for mod compatibility. It is then the responsibility of the mod packer to either test continued compatibility or remove the offending mod from the pack. Its a win win scenario for everyone involved.

Concerning licensing, I dont see how one could regulate it. Is a mod creator going to sue me simply because I offer a non commercial dowload of his own non commercial mod perhaps a version or more behind his - essentially sharing my GameData folder with others so that we can simply play a multiplayer game together? Mod packs of this sort already exist in the wild. I'm simply posting my multiplayer modpack here rather than just on my own website.

With multiplayer being a development goal of Squad, I will guarantee you that mod packs will be essential to keeping your mods relevant. Why continue to fight the inevitable? Embrace it and move on. Hence this thread and my mod pack.

If you are concerned about ask first pack later, I agree with you in principle but in reality not all mod packers will do this. Not to sound crass, but should this be something we should get used to? I ask because it is already happening in the wild. It's just not prevalent in this forum yet. If by this thread I can point out how all the talk of mod packs serves nothing until it is demonstated, then I will have achieved the one of the major purposes of this thread.

Personally I'd rather do the work of testing mod compatibility and then asking the final mod pack members for any required licensing permission. Else mods will be removed, and the community informed of such refusals.

Edited September 20, 2014 by inigma

[mouzfun]

Concerning licensing, I dont see how one could regulate it. Is a mod creator going to sue me simply because I offer a non commercial dowload of his own non commercial mod perhaps a version or more behind his

Do you realise you sound like a complete ass?

Also, regulating would be in the form of banning you from this forum, i assume.

[Vendan]

The issue is more when you start violating licenses. Not everything is licensed "do what you want with it", in fact a lot of art resources are more towards all rights reserved. Violate those licenses and Squad will get rid of your download links in no time.

For one, KAS wouldn't allow this sort of thing, it's license is rather locked down.

[Wanderfound]

"I think I can probably get away with it" is not a very good argument for the ethics of appropriating someone's else's stuff and putting your name on it. The modders are already giving away their work for free; there's no space for any pseudo-copyfighter justification here.

It's a clear Wheaton's Law violation, mate.

If you want to do this, create a recommendations/list site that becomes so popular that the modders come to you asking you to promote them. Get with the Tao.

[inigma]

Do you realise you sound like a complete ass?

Also, regulating would be in the form of banning you from this forum, i assume.

Maybe to those who don't read my posts, yes. I can put emotion behind it with smileys if that makes it sound nicer and less assy. I'm tired of mods not working with other mods. It's time to change that. Who's going to step up to do so if not a mod packer?

Maybe not for this thread, but I'm actually curious as to the legal consequences of providing a mod pack. Anyone know? Else if a specific modder complains about it, sure I will gladly remove it from the mod pack and I will be sure to let everyone know in the OP that a certain modder does not want their mods re-distributed, even if their mod has been hard tested for incompatibilities through countless hours of QA by a mod packer. If they don't want to include the result of such work as a benefit to their fanbase, then I don't believe they will have much a fan base left going into a multiplayer environment. It's time to address the reason behind those attitudes now and move on and dump the mods that don't care to play with others. For now this idea remains links. After all in my own testing I've crashed my KSP three times, broke a save game, and wished I never started this project. Mod packs already exist in the wild. There is no point is ignoring them here on this forum. It's time for a mod pack and for someone to show that 90% of the worries are just that. Worries. The 10% of real issues that remain deal with the work of compatibility itself, support expectations, and giving credit where credit is due. Who here agrees?

Can anyone point out anything wrong with what I've said in this post? Can anyone acknowledge the need for a service provided to players to test mod compatibilities? Who's going to step in to do that if not all mod makers testing for compatibility with every mod? Let's start some mod packs to address compatibility issues. For now this project remains links. If your mod is listed, by all means feel free to join in on this discussion and add your feedback into what you've discovered to be solutions for compatibility with the mods in this pack. Let's start working together rather than fighting over turf, and let's give KSP newbies a somewhat trustworthy KSP Essentials Mod Pack!

Edited September 20, 2014 by inigma

[Vendan]

Maybe not for this thread, but I'm actually curious as to the legal consequences of providing a mod pack. Anyone know? Else if a specific modder complains about it, sure I will gladly remove it from the mod pack and I will be sure to let everyone know in the OP that a certain modder does not want their mods re-distributed, even if their mod has been hard tested for incompatibilities through countless hours of QA by a mod packer. If they don't want to include the result of such work as a benefit to their fanbase, then I don't believe they will have much a fan base left going into a multiplayer environment. It's time to address the reason behind those attitudes now and move on and dump the mods that don't care to play with others. For now this idea remains links. After all in my own testing I've crashed my KSP three times, broke a save game, and wished I never started this project. Mod packs already exist in the wild. There is no point is ignoring them here on this forum. It's time for a mod pack and for someone to show that 90% of the worries are just that. Worries.

Way to go, saying "I'm not an ass" and then immediately starting in on sarcastically insulting mod authors.

[inigma]

Way to go, saying "I'm not an ass" and then immediately starting in on sarcastically insulting mod authors.

Huh? Where is there sarcasm in my post, or an insult for that matter?

[lincourtl]

The legal consequences are quite clear -- you can be sued, although being banned from the forums, Curse, and Kerbal Stuff, would be the likely first step. Where the licenses for any given mod do not allow redistribution, you would be infringing on that creator's intellectual property. It's the same complaint people have about I F* Love Science, and any of dozens of other sites which use other people's work without permission or compensation. A simple acknowledgement isn't even enough if the licensing does not allow it. And saying that creators can always opt-out isn't good enough either. They must be allowed to opt-in. In other words, you must get explicit permission from each creator whose work you plan to use. You may not like it, but it is the current state of the law in the U.S., and many other countries. It's also common decency to allow creators control of their own work.

Edited September 20, 2014 by lincourtl

[inigma]

The legal consequences are quite clear -- you can be sued, although being banned from the forums, Curse, and Kerbal Stuff, would be the likely first step. Where the licenses for any given mod do not allow redistribution, you would be infringing on that creator's intellectual property. It's the same complaint people have about I F* Love Science, and any of dozens of other sites which use other people's work without permission or compensation. A simple acknowledgement isn't even enough if the licensing does not allow it. And saying that creators can always opt-out isn't good enough either. They must be allowed to opt-in. In other words, you must get explicit permission from each creator's work you plan to use. You may not like it, but it is the current state of the law in the U.S., and many other countries. It's also common decency to allow creators control of their own work.

Sued for what? Monetary damages? Is there a financial consequence? How much? Can you give me a single case example where a non commercial mod packer was ever sued for monetary "damages" for including non commercial mods? Squad can manage their own forums any way they want. But tell me please, what could possibly happen if I still provided a zip file of my GameData folder for use with multiplayer in DarkMultiPlayer, on my own website where no such ban will occur? After all, one only need to check out the DMP server list to see severs offering modpacks for play on their server. What's being done about it now? And if they can offer mod packs for multiplayer, what then is preventing anyone from offering a mod pack, even on Squad forums here in Add-on Development for the same purpose? Licensing is the only real issue Squad seems to be worried about. Ok, I get informed to remove a mod, then mods removed. What next? What barrier remains? None. All is respected, all is credited, and support concerns are taken care of. What's remains of yours or anyone's concerns other than simply getting the mod pack project started without prior notification of the mod pack owners? And if that's the issue, didn't anyone here complaining about this approach read that I want to test compatibilities first? I want to test compatibilities first without bothering the mod makers for now, so when I do offer the service, the work is already done and can prove its worth.

Bear in mind this is all theoretical talk for now. I've not done anything concrete except provide a mod list! But even if I offered to include their mod in a zip, one word from a modder and out their mod goes. This isn't assy, this isn't unfair. Nothing is being lost except perhaps a download count (which if that is what a modder requires, I will be happy to share!). If a modder is profiting off of a mod they made for KSP, then I think they have bigger issues, and I certainly don't want it in this mod pack.

Edited September 20, 2014 by inigma

[Genolution]

Putting together and testing and tweaking a GameData folder that actually works is the work of a modder.

Look everybody I'm a modder too!! Just because you put together a list of mods that just happen to work together doesn't make you a modder

Just saying something is offensive without providing detail goes nowhere and only trolls a thread. Do you have a specific concern or complaint that I can address?

Did you not read the thread? It seems you didn't or at least you failed to comprehend the sentiment of the majority of modders who posted.

To me, the only real valid concern I read in that thread and others concerning modpacks (assumimg proper credit due) is over support for deprecated versions of mods in the wild. Yet isn't this "issue" already present in reality with individual gamers who have downloaded mods into their games that already have other old mods installed and are having issues? The universal answer is to download and install the latest mod versions. Except with a mod packer in the market there is now a larger testing footprint for mod compatibility. It is then the responsibility of the mod packer to either test continued compatibility or remove the offending mod from the pack. Its a win win scenario for everyone involved.

Your very own initial release included a very outdated mod.

Concerning licensing, I dont see how one could regulate it.

You obviously don't know the difference between right and wrong. Somebody provides for you something of value for free asking only that you follow a few simple rules and you cant even abide by that? I just don't understand how such a simple moral concept can go over peoples heads like this.When push comes to shove I don't think Squad/KSP forum moderators will be willing to alienate the moddrs who contribute to this community by giving you a platform to violate license agreements.

Mod packs of this sort already exist in the wild. I'm simply posting my multiplayer modpack here rather than just on my own website.

Doesn't mean It will be tolerated here.

With multiplayer being a development goal of Squad, I will guarantee you that mod packs will be essential to keeping your mods relevant.

What? Good mods are relevant because people want them regardless if they play single or multiplayer. What are you going on about?

If you are concerned about ask first pack later, I agree with you in principle but in reality not all mod packers will do this. Not to sound crass, but should this be something we should get used to? I ask because it is already happening in the wild. It's just not prevalent in this forum yet.

At least you understand what you are doing is wrong. That's a start. I'm sure the "But everyone else is doing it" argument never held water with either of our mothers so why do you persist?

If by this thread I can point out how all the talk of mod packs serves nothing until it is demonstated, then I will have achieved the one of the major purposes of this thread.

To get banned? And it was demonstrated earlier and failed when the curator got bored or to busy.

[mouzfun]

Sued for what? Monetary damages? Is there a financial consequence? How much? Can you give me a single case example where a non commercial mod packer was ever sued for monetary "damages" for including non commercial mods?

Are you even serious? It is currently a crime, like it or not. The fact that nobody got cought doesn't mean they won't or shouldn't. Purely from moral standpoint, you are violating wishes of the creators, who clearly stated they don't wan't they work shared/restributed in the licence.

[inigma]

http://i.imgur.com/h5MVPxQ.png[/urlYour very own initial release included a very outdated mod.

Uh, the initial link that I published that was "outdated" was actually a link that brought people to a page with the correct link on it anyways. So even the old link isn't "outdated" since it pointed people properly to the right site. But I updated the link just the same to appease the naysayers and make the link list more professional.

[lincourtl]

Sued for what? Monetary damages? Is there a financial consequence? How much? [blah, blah, blah]

OK, you are intentionally failing to hear what everybody is telling you. So I'll leave you with these final two thoughts, and then I'm done with you.

1) Collecting together a group of mods does not make you a creator of a mod. It makes you a curator.

2) Like Wanderfound said, Wheaton's Law: Don't be a ..... You seem intent on violating it.

[inigma]

Are you even serious? It is currently a crime, like it or not. The fact that nobody got cought doesn't mean they won't or shouldn't. Purely from moral standpoint, you are violating wishes of the creators, who clearly stated they don't wan't they work shared/restributed in the licence.

Woa wait good buddy. No one is violating anything here. This OP is still only a list. This thread exists for discussion to quash these kinds of misconceptions. If a mod wishes not to be included in final .zip when I do provide one, then it won't be in it. Clear? How is this thread or the intended final result violating anyone's wishes?

Edited September 20, 2014 by inigma

[inigma]

OK, you are intentionally failing to hear what everybody is telling you. So I'll leave you with these final two thoughts, and then I'm done with you.

1) Collecting together a group of mods does not make you a creator of a mod. It makes you a curator.

2) Like Wanderfound said, Wheaton's Law: Don't be a ..... You seem intent on violating it.

1. Where did I ever say I was a creator of a mod? I said testing compatibilities and modifying mods to work together is the work of a mod developer. I didn't say it made one a mod developer.

2. Wheaton's Law - "being a jerk" is an arbitrary definition. I don't intend to be a jerk to any mod maker listed in my mod pack. Even in their own definition of one. Pure and simple. If a mod maker does not want in, they won't be in the zip. They will be listed though in the mod pack links. Unless they don't want to have their link listed either.

I do want to say that you and other's feedback in this thread has been most invaluable in defining the approach future mod packers will need to take!

Edited September 20, 2014 by inigma

[mouzfun]

Woa wait good buddy. No one is violating anything here. This OP is still only a list. This thread exists for discussion to quash these kinds of misconceptions. If a mod wishes not to be included in final .zip when I do provide one, then it won't be in it. Clear? How is this thread or the intended final result violating anyone's wishes?

What? Your list containts atleast KAS, for example, which license clearly prohibits redistributing = wishes. Also i'm not sure on the clear definition of "sharing", but it might apply to OP.

Funny thing, i couldn't find clear definiton of sharing.

Edited September 20, 2014 by mouzfun