[WIP] Inigma's KSP Essentials Mod List & Bare Essentials Mod Pack (in testing)

[inigma]

Inigma's KSP Essentials Mod List

Introduction:

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 listed. I present two mod lists: a KSP Bare Essentials mod list that doesn't include multiplayer and parts, and a KSP Essentials mod list that adds mods that introduce game features and concepts that are most likely to be in a gold release of KSP. The aim of this mod list is to get you started trying out different mods on your own and help you resolve any incompatibilities with the mods in this list. I invite the community to help me fully test out the mods in the list, and generate information on how to resolve incompatibilities.

KSP Mod Developers! Want to grow your fan base? Want to help the community discover solutions to incompatibility problems you've been having with other mods? Then post here if your mod is listed in the KSP Essentials Mod List below, or if you'd like to be considered for inclusion. I will attempt to contact all mod developers on the KSP Essentials Mod List in their respective mod development threads in order to elicit their support and participation in this thread as necessary.

My goal is to eventually include these listed mods and any incompatibility solutions we discover, into a downloadable KSP Essentials Mod Pack. We will not include any restricted license mods in the KSP Essentials Mod Pack that we do not have permission to redistribute. If you decline having your mod included in the KSP Essentials Mod Pack, then your mod will not be included in any released mod pack, but your mod may remain on the KSP Essentials Mod List until we find a more open alternative. That said, we hope you will support the purpose of this thread to provide the KSP fan base a much-needed service to evaluate the compatibilities of your mod with other mods in this mod list, and provide solutions for any incompatibilities that are discovered. We hope you would also be willing to let us share those solutions in a released mod pack, where you get the credit, and this thread handles the initial support.

Why "Inigma's" KSP Essentials Mod List? Because one man's essential mod is another's bloat. I take full responsibility for the selection of mods included in this mod list. If others are willing to contribute to a discussion on what mods best fit the theme below, I will happily change this to a generic KSP Essentials Mod List. I am not a developer of any of the mods in this list, and by no means is my name for this pack intended to convey that I am. If you have a better name for this mod list, by all means, propose it!

See also Inigma's KSP Bare Essentials Mod List for an even more paired down list that is fully compatible with "upgrading" to the KSP Essential Mod List below.

Moderator Comment - Any mod pack link published here will only include add-ons with permission from their creator. Inigma will work to keep any published mod pack up-to-date as necessary. At the point when any mod pack becomes depreciated, the links to any mod packs affected will be removed. - sal_vager

Theme:

My KSP Essentials Mod List 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
  
• Karbonite to give you and your friends a resource meta game to play with.
  
• Kerbal Attachment System to make those EVAs with friends a little more productive
  

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.

Inigma's KSP Essentials Mod List:

All mods are tested in KSP 32 bit. KSP 64 bit is currently not supported by Toolbar and other mods in this list. I will release a separate KSP 64 bit list at a later date.

(✓) no known incompatibilities with any mods so far also checked.

(P) mod developer gives written permission in this thread to include mod in the KSP Essentials Mod Pack expressly.

(MIT/etc) current license permitting distribution such as in this mod pack.

Editor Expansion (Essential)

• SelectRoot by FW Industries (✓)(MIT) - select a new root part for your vessel
  
• Editor Extensions by MachXXV (✓)(MIT) - 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 (GNU GPL v3) - used for calculating Delta V, and providing flight data as needed
  
• HyperEdit by Ezriilc (✓)(GNU GPL v3) - included for only for testing ship designs, not cheating
  
• Hullcam VDS by Albert VDS (GNU GPL v3) - for rover cams, ship cams, ground cams, and more, for those who like to take neat pics or videos
  
• RCS Build Aid by m4v (✓)(GNU LGPL v3) - adds an rcs center of balance and other visuals in VAB and SPH for perfect RCS placement
  

Command and Control (Essential)

• Toolbar by blizzy78 (✓)(License Permitted) - essential GUI container for other mod buttons
  
• Kerbal Alarm Clock by TriggerAu (✓)(MIT) - set timers that alert you to launch windows, SOI changes, and maneuver node pausing
  
• Docking Port Alignment Indicator by NavyFish (✓)(License Permitted) - easier docking with a GUI
  
• TAC Fuel Balancer by TaranisElsu (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0) - Move fuel or balance it from a separate GUI (I am thinking of replacing this if a good alternative can be found)
  
• Camera Tools (Stationary Camera) by BahamutoD (✓)(GNU GPL v3) - provides a camera that you can set to be stationary for recording those awesome flight scenes
  
• Tracking Center Extensions (aka Resource Details in Tracking Center) by avivey (✓)(Public Domain)(P) - Resource and visual information GUI for vessels in the Tracking Center screen for accurate vessel selection
  

Missing Game Artifacts (Essential)

• Mk2 Cockpit Internals by Sam Hall (✓)(CC BY-NC-SA 3.0) - 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 and Athlonic (✓)(GNU GPL v3) - near random background radio chatter between KSP Mission Control and your Kerbals, adds immersion
  
• RCS Sound Effects by pizzaoverhead (✓)(GNU GPL v2) - RCS thrusters have sound and light effects for better feedback on knowing they are operating
  
• Procedural Fairings by e-dog (CC BY 3.0) - Adds fairings to make rockets look like rockets.
  

For Multiplayer Fun

• DarkMultiPlayer by godarklight (✓)(GNU GPL v3)(P) - 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. Recommended that you use the development build of DMP to avoid conflict with Kerbal Attachment System below.
  
• Karbonite by RoverDude (✓)(CC BY-NC-SA Intl 4.0)(P)- (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 list 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.
  
• 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). (will NOT be included in a mod pack due to licensing restrictions)
  

Liability Disclosure

I assume no responsibility or liability for anything that happens to your Kerbal Space Program, save game, files, computer, mouse, keyboard, joystick, peripheral, or your mom's chocolate cake with the use of the mods in this mod list. You use this mod list at your own risk. That said, the purpose of this thread is to help prevent most of the situations from happening. With the exception of your mom's chocolate cake.

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 there is 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 list once I confirm there is an irreconcilable conflict.

Mod Pack Self Destruct Clause: If at any time an incompatibility is found with any of my mod packs hosted on Kerbal Stuff, Kerbal Stuff has my permission to remove my mod pack at will, if and only if the issue has been reported in this thread, and two weeks have passed, and I have not posted anywhere on the KSP forums, and if I have not stated in this thread that I have a planned absence from this thread that will go beyond 2 weeks. After that point, any user or mod dev may request Kerbal Stuff to pull down my mod pack if all those conditions are met, and Kerbal Stuff at their discretion may remove the mod pack to prevent propagation of a bad mod pack.

Final Word:

Check back with this OP often, as it will be mercilessly edited with new information as this project evolves. I've found that the vast majority of you are in favor of maintained mod lists, but I also know there has been a lot of emotion involved with the discussion of mod packs. I figured I'd start with a mod list, invite mod devs to participate in confirming or resolving compatibilities, and then seek building a mod pack with permission from any remaining restricted mod developers as necessary. It may turn out that the KSP Essential Mod List will differ from the KSP Essential Mod pack based on restrictions. I want to invite mod devs to help with this project regardless. Information on mod compatibility should be every developer's concern. If anyone should have a say in how mod packs should be created, maintained, and supported, it is our wonderful mod development community. I offer you to have that say now, especially if you are in fact one of the mod developers listed above. Let's see what we can do to work together to provide a service the KSP fan base needs now that the number of mods to choose from is growing every day, and not every mod developer is testing for incompatibilities with every other mod. Let's make this a community project where I as a mod list and possible mod pack manager set the theme, and you as the mod dev set the terms, and you as the KSP fan set the standard of what is really wanted. Deal?

Edited October 8, 2014 by inigma
updated Proc Fairings to passed testing. Removed KAS warning with DMP. Added DMP dev build info.

[inigma]

KNOWN ISSUES:

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

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. When starting DMP for the first time, the persistent.sfs file is not properly populated so users who click on Resume Game, prior to having ever connected to a DMP server, will get prompted by KSP to delete the invalid save file. Fix is to simply include a valid persistent.sfs file in DMP on DMP install. Issue reported to DMP dev. Can be fixed by dev, or by KSP Essentials Mod Pack when its published.

4. 64 bit KSP is not fully supported by some mods in the mod list, such as Toolbar. In one of my stock save games, KSP will crash on game load when either DMP is loaded with TAC Fuel Balancer or Kerbal Alarm Clock. Removing DMP prevents the crash entirely. Keeping DMP but removing TAC Fuel Balancer and Kerbal Alarm Clock prevents the crash too. 32 bit version of KSP has no such issue.

Edited September 22, 2014 by inigma

[inigma]

Inigma's KSP Bare Essentials Mod Pack

Theme:

The theme of this mod pack is a minimalistic set of tested mods that are universally accepted, and do not conflict with other mods in this pack or the KSP Essentials Mod List, or most other mods for that matter, and introduce concepts and add or fix missing parts that should be in a gold release of KSP. This list and future mod pack is fully compatible with upgrading to the KSP Essentials Mod List/Pack above since it's the same pack as KSP Essentials but with cameras, EVA enhancements, resources, and multiplayer removed.

Inigma's KSP Bare Essentials Mod List

Editor:

SelectRoot by FW Industries (✓)(MIT) - select a new root part for your vessel

RCS Build Aid by m4v (✓)(GNU LGPL v3) - adds an rcs center of balance and other visuals in VAB and SPH for perfect RCS placement

HyperEdit by Ezriilc (✓)(GNU GPL v3) - included for only for testing ship designs, not cheating

Command and Control:

Toolbar by blizzy78 (✓)(License Permitted) - essential GUI container for other mod buttons

Kerbal Alarm Clock by TriggerAu (✓)(MIT) - set timers that alert you to launch windows, SOI changes, and maneuver node pausing

Docking Port Alignment Indicator by NavyFish (✓)(License Permitted) - easier docking with a GUI

Missing Game Artifacts:

Mk2 Cockpit Internals by Sam Hall (✓)(CC BY-NC-SA 3.0) - 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.

UPDATE: The Bare Essentials list is now complete. Testing is complete. I am still examining others for possible inclusion, but nothing hard yet. The idea of Bare Essentials is minimalism with least resistance to additional mods a user may install, and widely used by a majority of mod players.

Download

Link TBD (For now, go to each individual mod thead linked above to download and install them individually)

Installation

1. In a fresh install of KSP, simply extract the downloaded zip file into your GameData folder.

2. Thank each individual developer in their development thread for making an awesome mod.

3. Contribute to a mod's development and support.

Troubleshooting

1. Remove all mods.

2. Update broken mod and test with that one mod. If issue persists, contact the mod developer.

3. If conflict is only when other mods in the pack are installed, and if you are using updated versions of all mods downloaded from the developer directly, then contact the individual mod developers, and inform this thread of the issue so we can remove the offending mods

Self Destruct Clause

If at any time an incompatibility is found with any of my mod packs hosted on Kerbal Stuff, Kerbal Stuff has my permission to remove my mod pack at will, if and only if the issue has been reported in this thread, and two weeks have passed, and I have not posted anywhere on the KSP forums, and if I have not stated in this thread that I have a planned absence from this thread that will go beyond 2 weeks. After that point, any user or mod dev may request Kerbal Stuff to pull down my mod pack if all those conditions are met, and Kerbal Stuff at their discretion may remove the mod pack to prevent propagation of a bad mod pack.

Final Word

This pack is minimalistic. I install it in every game I play no matter what. I hope you enjoy these mods. If you do, please shout out to the developers in their respective forum threads, and contribute to their work.

Edited October 7, 2014 by inigma

[sumghai]

Speaking as the author of the FusTek and SDHI add-ons, I personally dislike the concept and implementation of "mod packs", for reasons many other add-on authors have described. However, since my work uses the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) license, this technically and legally permits you to redistribute them, so I can't stop you from doing so.

What I can say, however, is that because my work will be updated on an irregular basis (especially dev / experimental builds), any version of my work you include in your "mod pack" is almost certainly going to have compatibility issues, potentially as a result of any personal tweaks you may or may not choose to implement at your discretion.

As such, I hereby declare that I will not be able to provide any support for any unofficially-redistributed versions of my add-ons.

[inigma]

No problem sumghai. Thank you for commenting. I understand when a mod pack is released it may include deprecated mod versions and support for those versions then falls on the mod pack manager alone else the user will be directed to the latest version of the mod after which support for compatibility would rest with the developer first, then us second if the dev desires not to troubleshoot the matter with the user. At anytime a mod can not be made compatible either by the work of the mod dev or this mod list community with other mods in this mod list, it will simply be considered for mod list removal.

There are no support obligations for the compatibility of a devs mod with the mod list upon the mod dev themselves except for that which they may wish to provide.

[godarklight]

Inigma, Thanks for letting me know .

I personally support the idea of modpacks as it makes modded servers for DMP so much easier, players generally like the ideas of mod packs, but other mod developers are generally against this.

The major reason is an issue with support - Mod packs won't update until after a mod does, and other mod developers may not like hunting down bugs that don't exist .

Also I believe DMP has an incompatiblity with KAS when things are connected together, but that's likely due to the position / rotation kick that DMP currently has. Explosions, explosions everywhere!. After 0.1.6 comes out everything should be good (*crosses fingers*)

Also, prepare yourself for when #kspmodders gets hold of this, hopefully this thread doesn't end up like http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/91939.

EDIT: Just to make it clear, I will provide support for DMP even in a mod pack, and it's almost certain that a mod pack that includes DMP will likely show up on the public server list sooner or later .

Edited September 21, 2014 by godarklight

[marce]

First, it's nice to hear that you consider my mod (Kerbal EVA Resource Transfer) an essential one.

This specific mods has been developed to be used together with TAC-LS & KAS and should therefore work with those.

Regarding a mod pack in general I’m ambivalent. I won’t (can’t) stop you as long as you are respecting the various licenses. But to be frank: I don’t have enough time to do so much compatibility testing on a regular basis.

There is a certain reason why I don’t even promise to support my own mods (and use a rather open licensing so that someone else could theoretically take over in case I’m MIA): I simply can’t since I may be pulled away from everything KSP related for months any day.

So if you really want to pull this off be ready to invest vast amounts of time and get yourself very familiar with all the black magic used inside many mods, because I’m probably not the only one (based on the posts from sumghai & darklight) who can’t help you out. Just a warning, it’s not exactly fun

[mic_e]

Thanks for including my mod in your essential mod list

I've extensively tested it with the following mods from the list (as part of my 0.24 campaign, ~200 hours of playtime):

• SelectRoot
  
• Editor Extensions
  
• Kerbal Engineer Redux (Version 1, the one that's currently in beta, and which I'd actually recommend)
  
• Toolbar
  
• Kerbal Alarm Clock
  
• Docking Port Alignment Indicator
  
• Kerbal Attachment System
  

I've tested it some time ago (in ~0.22) with:

• HyperEdit
  
• Chatterer
  

I haven't tested it yet with any of

• Hullcam VDS
  
• RCS Build Aid
  
• Tweakable Everything
  
• TAC Fuel Balancer
  
• Improved Chase Camera
  
• Camera Tools (STationary Camera)
  
• Resource Details in Tracking Center
  
• Kerbal EVA Resource Transfer
  
• Mk2 Cockpit Internals
  
• RCS Sound Effects
  
• DarkMultiPlayer
  
• Karbonite
  

I have so far found no incompatibilities with any mod, and think it's rather unlikely that there would be any, but then again, you never know...

Unfortunately, I don't have the time for doing extensive testing during the next few days.

You do have permission to include my mod in a single redistributable ZIP file (it's cool to know your download count, and including the mod in a ZIP file may lead to non-recent versions being used, but spreading it to as many people as possible is the main priority. Just make sure to include a link to the forum thread, or something).

I think your list pretty much nails it; the only mod I've currently installed that would also qualify for your list is StripSymmetry, an other editor improvement. I, personally, prefer a level of realism (FAR, DRE, ProceduralFairings, Infernal Robotics to fit large craft inside the fairings), some eye candy (Distant Object Enhancement, Environmental Visual Enhancements), and some carreer improvements (Higher Part Cost, Mission Controller, Fine Print), but that's clearly outside your scope, with the possible exception of Distant Object Enhancement.

Edited September 21, 2014 by mic_e

[RoverDude]

Heya

As noted in other threads, I fully expect anything I make to have it's warning stickers pulled up and for people to remix/rehash any of my works. That's precisely why I license it that way. So the use of Karbonite is perfectly fine, and encouraged. I would however recommend waiting till 0.25 as it is about to get a pretty major revision.

Usual deal - just as I generally ask 'do you have mod X?' etc. in support requests, if it is determined that they have taken my tinker toys and stuck a piece in their ear, I will send them here. Already have this with mods that extend Karbonite, so no biggie.

My very strong recommendation: Don't change any mod stuff, and use KSP-AVC. If I were in your shoes (shoes that I expect would soon be engulved in flames) I'd only use KSP-AVC mods just to make the experience a hell of a lot easier. At the very least, use it for yourself.

Also - my release schedule is aggressive. So be prepared.

[mhoram]

Have you had a look at the following mods?

I find them quite essential.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/72212-Jebretary-Automatic-Version-Control-%28backups%29-for-craft-and-saves-v0-4-0

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/47863-0-24-2-Precise-Node-1-1-0-Precisely-edit-your-maneuver-nodes

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/50524-0-24-Enhanced-Navball-1-3

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/35018-0-24-2-PartCatalog-3-0-RC7-%282014-08-18%29

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/92511-0-24-2-PartArranger-1-2-Arrange-your-part-list-however-you-want!

[toadicus]

inigma: I have used all of my mods with many of the mods on your list with no ill effect. I have personal experience that TeakableEverything is compatible with:

• Kerbal Engineer Redux
  
• HyperEdit
  
• Toolbar by blizzy78
  
• Kerbal Alarm Clock
  
• TAC Fuel Balancer
  
• Mk2 Cockpit Internals
  
• Chatterer
  
• Kerbal Attachment System
  
• Karbonite

I have no reason to believe that any of the other mods on your list would cause compatibility issues. I don't have availability to promise testing time at this point, but I will accept consolidated bug reports from you for your pack (you do the basic troubleshooting steps, send complete reports to me via PM or in the TE thread).

[magico13]

I'm a mod author that is generally OK with mod packs. Whether that's because my mods don't have such massive popularity that I don't worry too much about the time required for support, or if that's because I played minecraft with friends and modpacks were essential (even if they were made by me just for our server). I agree that once multiplayer becomes "normal" in KSP mod packs will be needed to make everyone's lives easier.

With that said, I give early permission to the use of my mods in this pack. Though I doubt KCT will be of any use to the pack, StageRecovery may work well with these other mods. I haven't tested it with DMP though. Like others, I'd prefer that support goes through you first, then to me but the occasional person who goes straight to me won't bother me that much.

If you decide not to include any of my mods in this pack, that's fine as well

[inigma]

@godarklight: DMP is actually the reason I've put together this mod list, since I intend to test out a fully functional mod pack for use on a DMP server. Thanks for your support! DMP will be an essential mod in this pack going forward, and thus will have priority over all other mods. Until I hear back from a KAS dev on licensing permission, it is currently hanging by a thin thread especially since though I've not been able to reproduce any issues, KAS + DMP explosions, others say they have.

@marce: I am testing the usefulness of EVA Resource Transfer, especially in a DMP environment. Any mod that can non-invasively (ie does not add parts) add useful EVA options should be part of the base game, and hence why I am seriously considering keeping yours in the final list. Thanks for your permission to include it in a released mod pack. As usual, initial issues with any mods will first be directed to this thread, and if there is anything EVART specific that we've narrowed down, we'll redirect the support request to your dev thread. Thanks again for supporting this mod list/pack!

@mic_e: Thank you very much for supporting this mod list and allowing inclusion of your mod in the mod pack! I will publically share the download count for the mod so all modders know how many copies of their mod have been distributed. I think this should be expected for any mod pack. I've tested your mod and it works really well for a minimal docking aid vs Navyfish's DPAI mod. I wish to include both mods since both work together without conflict. Here's hoping.

@RoverDude: Thanks RoverDude for your full support! It's modders like you that I believe set the gold standard of what our modding development community should strive to be like. You have vision my friend. Let's see it become reality! I look forwarding to spreading the open license vision with this mod list/pack push. As usual, if there are issues with anything in the actual mod pack whereby a user is using a deprecated version of a mod, we will attempt to resolve it, and if not able to, we will redirect the user to getting the new version directly from the mod dev and only then encourage them to bring up continued issues with the mod dev. Thanks again for helping get this project kickstarted.

@mhoram: I will certainly look at them! I really like the part managers. I am avoiding enhanced navball since .25 will be including enhancements to the navball.

@toadicus: Thank you for supporting this project! We'll keep comaptibility reports in this thread for now and refer users over to you if installing any new version you release continues any issues. You make a pretty cool mod.

@magico13: Thanks for your support as well! I will look at StageRecovery... looks promising. I'll test it out to see if it meets our general theme.

Edited September 22, 2014 by inigma

[magico13]

Just thought of something. For the actual mod pack .zip file, you could host it on Kerbal Stuff, that way users could be notified of updates automatically and authors could see detailed download statistics. All Kerbal Stuff needs is a zip file, so it should be agnostic to the fact that the pack isn't itself a mod. I'm not positive how the hosts would feel (Majiir and SirCmpwn), but they'd likely be more ok with a modpack on the site than Curse would, especially if you've got permission for each mod. It may be worth asking on the Kerbal Stuff thread before doing so, though.

[inigma]

64bit KSP: In one of my stock save games (the SSI public save game available in the SSI dropbox), KSP will crash on game load when either DMP is loaded with TAC Fuel Balancer or Kerbal Alarm Clock. Removing DMP prevents the crash entirely. Keeping DMP but removing TAC Fuel Balancer and Kerbal Alarm Clock prevents the crash too. Investigating. Not tested with 32 bit yet. Not tested with other saves yet. Not tested with new games yet. Added to known issues post.

EDIT:

All other saves broken in 64 bit.

32 bit has no issues at all with loading saves when running all current mods in KSP Essentials Mod List.

I think a mod pack at this time of any sort may be limited to only a 32 bit release. Now that save games load, time to start test if every mod is working as designed....

Edited September 22, 2014 by inigma

[inigma]

Just thought of something. For the actual mod pack .zip file, you could host it on Kerbal Stuff, that way users could be notified of updates automatically and authors could see detailed download statistics. All Kerbal Stuff needs is a zip file, so it should be agnostic to the fact that the pack isn't itself a mod. I'm not positive how the hosts would feel (Majiir and SirCmpwn), but they'd likely be more ok with a modpack on the site than Curse would, especially if you've got permission for each mod. It may be worth asking on the Kerbal Stuff thread before doing so, though.

That's a great idea! I will consider Kerbal Stuff when it comes time to decide where to host the mod pack.

[inigma]

updated op with currently listed compatible mods, as well as posting current status on mod pack permission requests.

[inigma]

created a KSP Bare Essentials Mod List in post #3 - a reduced version of the KSP Essentials Mod List from post #1 removing camera and EVA enhancements, and multiplayer and resource mods, with the intent to provide a single player, near universally accepted mod list that works in 32 and 64 bit from which subscribers can play without incompatibilities, or expand into including their own desired mods.

[inigma]

Tested PartCatalog with current mod list. No issues. Actually works very well. This should be standard game. Seriously considering it for inclusion, albeit with my own modified config file to narrow down catalog to only three categories: KSP, Karbonite, KAS.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/35018-0-24-2-PartCatalog-3-0-RC7-%282014-08-18%29

[Majiir]

I'm going to wear a few different hats for this post.

As Kerbal Stuff admin: Mod packs are allowed on the site as long as they respect the licenses of the mods in the pack.

As former KAS maintainer: I wouldn't count on getting permission to distribute KAS. The license was written specifically to forbid mod packs and re-hosting.

As a modder: Mod packs have been attempted many times, and I'm not aware of any that have taken off. There are good reasons for this.

Mod lists are not as bad, but they can still be misleading. Looking at this thread, you have checkmarks for compatibility. What does that even mean? Unlike in other games, KSP mods very rarely conflict. When they do, the conflicts are insidious and hard to track down even when the developers are working in cooperation. There's no way you can exhaustively test every mod in your list for mutual compatibility. All you have is a surface-level inspection: Do these things obviously conflict after a few minutes of playing?

I do urge you to work on lists rather than packs. There have been many discussions on this forum about the problems that mod packs cause, from support to version staleness to licensing to necrotic downloads. I have never seen any would-be packer properly address those concerns.

Even if you (somehow) surmount those issues, there's a more basic discomfort with mod packs: they steal popularity. You upload your pack, a bunch of people download it, and... you get the download counts. On Kerbal Stuff, mod visibility in search and the home page are influenced by hits. The same is true of Google Search and all kinds of hosting providers. That cause problems for users looking for a particular mod, but it also hurts the mod developers.

Finally, mod packs add very little value. The best I can come up with is "you only download one file" and "you don't have to deal with dependency issues". Except... neither of those hold as soon as the user wants to install mods outside your list. Some basic dependency management skills are essential to installing KSP mods, and it's really not hard. Modders are very careful when introducing dependencies to make sure they soft-fail as much as possible, and many mods will automatically work out which dependencies to use at run time. Downloading one file is nice, but it's entirely offset by the possibility that one mod is out-of-date, and the user has to uninstall it, install the correct version, and then sort out whatever differences there were between the original and packed versions. The benefits are so quickly washed out by complications.

I suggest you push the envelope on mod lists, and work on ways to make it easier for users to find and use them. There are a lot of possibilities here, including tools for managing automatic installation of lists, or even first-class mod list support on sites like Kerbal Stuff. Working on those frontiers will do a lot more good than pushing an idea that's already been beaten to death over and over in this community.

[inigma]

@Majiir: Would Kerbals Stuff be able to add download counts to corresponding mods every time a mod pack is downloaded? Also, would you be willing to allow the KSP Essentials Mod Pack to include Kethane if this thread alone supports any Kethane version in the pack that is deprecated?

From my perspective, the best value well-managed mod packs can bring is community intelligence on mod compatibilities both within and outside the mod pack. The market need for this service increases with each new mod released to the public over time. KSP is nearing a point where mod packs are becoming necessary to meet this need. Managing individual mods may be easy for some, but there will always be an increasing market for those who don't want to put out the effort, and thus stay away from mods as a result. A mod pack brings people into the mod universe who otherwise would not have bothered. It's a win win solution for all. I am not certain I see any downsides except to myself, to the approach I'm taking with this mod list and future pack.

Edited September 22, 2014 by inigma

[avivey]

I'm happy to see you want my Tracking Center plugin, despite it's being under-cooked.

I can't commit to do much testing, but I doubt it would be an issue - very few plugins live in the Tracking Center, and I've already handled one possible conflict that I don't think will be back.

FWIW, I routinely play with these plugins, and never had an issue:

• SelectRoot
  
• Kerbal Engineer
  
• Hullcan
  
• Alarm clock (And Alternate Resource Panel)
  
• KAS
  
• TweakableScale
  
• SCANsat
  

and maybe a few more.

It's licensed as "public domain", so you don't need my permission to distribute or modify or compile into another mod. If you fork it and make it better, I'll probably abandon my version for yours.

Good luck with managing this thing. I have nothing against mod-packs, but I think they are a lot of work, and I don't personally like using them.

A couple more plugins that I consider important are Enhanced Navball and Precise Node for flight; Visual Enhancements and Final Frontier for immersion; Notes, Action Group Manager (Or AG Extended) and Simple Part Catalog (or similar) for order.

[ferram4]

From my perspective, the best value well-managed mod packs can bring is community intelligence on mod compatibilities both within and outside the mod pack. The market need for this service increases with each new mod released to the public over time. KSP is nearing a point where mod packs are becoming necessary to meet this need.

Really? If that's the case, there should be a very large list of mod incompatibilities that you can cite to justify this statement. I'm certainly not aware of any large-scale incompatibilities between mods that could justify any of this, and if there are any, it would be nicer to have those stated so that they can be addressed by the mod developers rather than sitting on them and delaying resolving those issues. So, what incompatibilities are there currently?

Managing individual mods may be easy for some, but there will always be an increasing market for those who don't want to put out the effort, and thus stay away from mods as a result. A mod pack brings people into the mod universe who otherwise would not have bothered. It's a win win solution for all.

This assumes that a mod developer gains value from having more users; this is not necessarily a valid assumption. The most useful users of a mod are those who are deeply interested in the feature the mod provides and are willing to provide lots of constructive feedback as well as help other users having difficulty using those features. Those useful users will be involved already, simply because they are already interested in the feature; a mod pack will only bring in people who are less interested in the mod's features, and many of them will not provide useful feedback or will simply make nasty, unreasonable demands. These are not the kinds of users that help a modder, and their only use in any other situation would be that their money is just as green as the passionate user. The problem is that we don't get paid per user, so there is no benefit at all to the type of lazy users that you are seeking to bring in.

I am not certain I see any downsides except to myself, to the approach I'm taking with this mod list and future pack.

Well, then since you haven't bothered to search for the recent threads that explain why there are issues, let me do you the favor of reiterating (some) of the many problems:

1. If you don't update your pack exactly when a constituent mod updates, you will continue to distribute code that does lacks up-to-date bugfixes.
   
2. If you don't provide support for each of the constituent mods, each of those mod's authors will have to work to support your pack, regardless of what version of the mod you are distributing.
   
3. If you happen to leave, your download rots, and then months after you're gone we will be dealing with issues from the last versions you packed because people are still downloading that old archive.
   
4. Even while you're there, people are less willing to download a pack frequently than they are to download various mods frequently; people will be unwilling to update because not enough has changed in the pack, and then we're back to old versions again.
   

These are all issues that become far, far worse if a modpack becomes popular, pushing the mods themselves out of the spotlight. We have been lucky (so far) in that none of the attempts have succeeded, but if you continue with this, you will need to address each of these problems satisfactorily (along with the others that I have forgotten at this moment), and no one has ever provided a good explanation of how they would solve them. Most of the time, would-be packers ignore the issues entirely or else dismiss them as far-fetched, which, I must admit, does not fill me with any confidence regarding modpacks at all.

[Majiir]

@Majiir: Would Kerbals Stuff be able to add download counts to corresponding mods every time a mod pack is downloaded?

Kerbal Stuff does not have that capability. If its features were to be expanded, it's far more likely that it would support mod lists rather than uploaded packs.

Also, would you be willing to allow the KSP Essentials Mod Pack to include Kethane if this thread alone supports any Kethane version in the pack that is deprecated?

No. I've only once granted an exception for Kethane distribution (for Extraplanetary Launchpads). The issue is that you can't possibly support Kethane; do you have an intimate understanding of how it works? Are you aware of all the compatibility details between Kethane versions? Instead, what will happen is your pack users will say "I have a problem with Kethane" and look up my thread. I have worked very hard to reduce the support load for Kethane, and that's been very successful. I'm not willing to compromise that.

From my perspective, the best value well-managed mod packs can bring is community intelligence on mod compatibilities both within and outside the mod pack. The market need for this service increases with each new mod released to the public over time. KSP is nearing a point where mod packs are becoming necessary to meet this need. Managing individual mods may be easy for some, but there will always be an increasing market for those who don't want to put out the effort, and thus stay away from mods as a result.

All of those things can be achieved with mod lists and/or package management tools. This is why I encourage you to look into those more deeply: They can solve a lot of these pain points without inflicting the kind of damage that mod packs would.

[inigma]

@avivey Thank you for supporting this mod list/pack! I really like your plugin and I know others will too. I'll have to try FF sometime. I hear a lot of good concerning it.

@ferram4 You make a point that there aren't a lot of incompatibilities in the current mod market, and then post a concern about issues that may arise with deprecated mod versions the older one's set of mods get. You essentially countered your own disagreement behind the market desire for a mod pack, with your later stated concern of users using deprecated mod versions seeking support. In essence you concur there will be a market need at some point after a mod release to provide such support for users using deprecated mod versions! Whether or not a user download and installs a mod pack with old versions though, or downloaded and installed mods individually when those versions were the latest and run into the same problems, there then exists in both scenarios the exact same incompatibilities and the lack of mod dev willingness to support such. There is a need for such a support service. The answer in both scenarios, which I think you may be missing: is that the end result is the same - to recommend the user to troubleshoot by removing mods to discover which is at fault, and then updating current mods with the latest versions starting with the at-fault mod, and only then bring up incompatibilities with the mod developer. At that point, regardless if they started out with a mod pack, or were an independent mod aficionado and installed mods independently at one point matching the same conditions as users with a mod pack, they would still go to the mod dev for support once the latest versions of all mods were finally installed and if the problem persisted. The only real benefit to the mod pack scenario is that multiple users would be affected, not just one, and thus a pattern better established, and perhaps additional data points for troubleshooting what otherwise would have been an isolated issue.

To be honest I don't know what mod developers gain at all from their hard work except recognition. I know testing this mod list and doing the work to make a mod pack is a lot of work. What reward do I get? Same thing: recognition (but more importantly I'd rather just be happy knowing I helped someone enjoy KSP all the more since I want to see KSP thrive. I don't need to have my name associated with this project. Heck I'm really just doing it so I can get a DMP server off the ground with a good working set of mods for users to download and start enjoying playing together, but figured if I can help them, then I can help even more by publishing such a pack on KSP forums! ).

You said there were problems with the approach I'm taking with this mod list/pack:

• If you don't update your pack exactly when a constituent mod updates, you will continue to distribute code that does lacks up-to-date bugfixes.
  :MY RESPONSE: If the versions in the pack work well enough at the time of release, then new versions won't need to be updated "exactly when a mod updates" for any "up-to-date bugfixes" that could likely break compatibilities with other mods in the pack anyways! Granted new features may be missing, but concerns about bugs should be emphasized and worked out during the mod pack's testing phase, not necessarily post-release.
  
• If you don't provide support for each of the constituent mods, each of those mod's authors will have to work to support your pack, regardless of what version of the mod you are distributing.
  :MY RESPONSE: This is true regardless if a user installed a mod pack or downloaded the individual mod's version at the time that singular version was current. The support scenario and resulting solution is the same: update the mod! Most existing features do not change significantly between releases. If its a bug that is found that escaped the mod pack's original testing, then standard mod troubleshooting is the answer! Remove mods to isolate affected mod, update mod, and if doing so breaks compatibility with other mods whether in the mod pack or not, then update those mods as well. If unable to be fixed by the community or the affected mod devs after that, then users should be encouraged to simply remove the mod, and future releases of the pack should remove it as well!
  
• If you happen to leave, your download rots, and then months after you're gone we will be dealing with issues from the last versions you packed because people are still downloading that old archive.
  :MY RESPONSE: Perhaps then I should leave instructions in the OP that if I am AFK for more than 3 months straight (no posts on KSP), Kerbal Stuff pulls the mod pack down, and any mod developer or user is welcome to inform Kerbal Stuff to do so at that point with the authorization from me, the list/pack manager, already in my OP. Call it a self-destruct clause if you will.
  
• Even while you're there, people are less willing to download a pack frequently than they are to download various mods frequently; people will be unwilling to update because not enough has changed in the pack, and then we're back to old versions again.
  :MY RESPONSE: The solutions always remain the same though, and the answers just as forth coming both here in this thread and in mod dev threads: remove offending mods to isolate cause, update all mods to latest versions, remove mods that can not be fixed. Simple eh? Stick to that response, forever, and there will be no issues. In fact, isn't this what is already being told to mod users that are having problems? So my approach is nothing different than what is already being done. I wouldn't expect mod devs to change what they are doing now anyways. It really is a seamless response. Except now the community has another point of support: this mod pack's user community, where I hope this mod pack user base collective intelligence will resolve problems even faster than the current user-mod dev support model.
  

@Majiir When not addressing major KSP version compatibility, the majority of the time Kethane releases new versions, those versions contain new features, not necessarily always a removal of old features. So even current documentation of Kethane features is usually sufficient to assist users of deprecated mod packs. In fact, this is true for most iterations of software anyways. But even if not, users of this mod list/pack are encouraged to post their questions here first anyways so users can benefit from the collective knowledge of the user base. Regardless though where they may initiate their support request, if you ever received a question from a user of an old version of Kethane, what do you tell them if they are asking a feature or bug question? You should be telling them to upgrade first and then ask their question! Why would you think twice about saying anything different to mod pack users, or even wondering if they were mod pack users? Your support answer should always be the same to users of old Kethane versions regardless of where they got it: Upgrade! When those users upgrade and still have questions... then what? Are you saying you've worked hard to not handle support questions from new users? Does this mean you've worked hard not to have new users then? I'm confused. I think your desire to reduce support request workload is commendable. But with new users comes the increase, mod pack or not. Are you saying then you don't want new users? After all, if we eliminate the worry over supporting deprecated versions by both accepting the real need for users to be running updated mods anyways, then it should be a non issue. I as mod pack owner should be responsible for updating the pack, of course, but it's beside the point: upgrade individually or via pack is the universal response we both have to the deprecated version concern. If this project can draw in people who've never used mods before and can teach them by osmosis to manage their own desired mods individually whenever they run into a major problem or out-of-date feature questions, I will have achieved another goal of this thread: KSP fan base mod education. I would hope Kethane would be an integral part of this introduction to KSP mods to such users - if you're interested in the increased fan base (and ok with the increase in support questions from users using updated versions of Kethane).

Thanks for the suggestion about mod management tools. I want to investigate them in the future. Do you know of any you'd recommend? If there was an easy way to have a mod pack inform users of new versions of mods that are out, I would adopt it for this project in a heartbeat! If not, then I only have time to test mod list compatibilities, and publish a mod list. I haven't even assembled the pack and probably wont until .25 comes out, although I might release the Bare Essentials pack before then.

Edited September 23, 2014 by inigma