Modulemanager version ksp download

Search icon An illustration of a magnifying glass. User icon An illustration of a person's head and chest. Sign up Log in.

Web icon An illustration of a computer application window Wayback Machine Texts icon An illustration of an open book. Books Video icon An illustration of two cells of a film strip. Video Audio icon An illustration of an audio speaker. Audio Software icon An illustration of a 3. Well done. This version seems to have a lot of bugs as expected perhaps , but I may also be doing something wrong. I found it got very messy, very quickly to have the mod in all the required subdirectories 5 in all.

I think it was better to have just one in the GameData folder. Unfortunately, the reload of the database on the debug menu function did not appear to work. It would be so good if it was reliable. I was unaware of the earlier wildcard extension. It's awesome! I have fallen back to using that for now.

I can confirm that this is working for me at the moment. Works as advertised for that. I only have 1 or 2. One of the things that was great about ModuleManager was it only augmented the way config files worked. It didn't alter the behavior on such a fundamental level.

Config files are supposed to function no matter where they are. Also, one use of MM config files is as tweaks. I think quite a few of us as non-modders keep our tweaks in a separate sub-folder i. Now I'll need to copy the dll in there even though it's located elsewhere and should be functional? I submit that the issues that these changes are intended to address were never very serious issues to begin with and didn't merit such a drastic response.

Leaving well enough alone would have been a great response to not making such sweeping changes to ModuleManager to begin with. Accidentally overwriting files when installing over them has always been a risk with software. It requires some caution when installing software and nothing more.

If it's not enough to direct the burden of resolving versioning issues onto the modding and player community and a fix really is required which I re-affirm that I don't think one is because the problem is non-existent. It's easier to resolve a version issue for a plugin living in a single location than one that resides in multiple locations. Because sooner or later, with this system, players will have to worry about resolving version issues only they'll have to do it individually one by one across multiple mods.

Right now, how many version of ModuleManager are there that we think we have to worry about? By now they should really be down to two. The latest official one which practically everyone is using and Sarbian's version from a few months back which corrected an issue where the plugin might not execute properly or cause other plugins not to execute.

And of course his extensions. Aside from that, it shouldn't be an issue at this point in time. And, going forward, how much updating do you anticipate doing, Sarbian? Aside from fixing bugs in the software or fixing future compatibility issues arising from KSP updates there really shouldn't be much updating going on. If there is, then let the plugin 'phone home' as Kerbal Alarm Clock does.

And update once at a single location rather than updating many. There is the phrase "do not let the animals run the zoo. Only allowing the local instance of MM to apply config from its local source does not prevent conflict since the locally-sourced config is applied globally. Changes-after-changes to the same value is a feature of the MM system. To prevent undesirable out-of-order config overwrite what is needed is a robust and open versioning scheme which is able to reliably discriminate "first" and "second" config patches without hindering the natural open-endedness of the design.

Instead, put the sequencing information into the cfg patches themselves. This way a modder can opt-in to enforced sequencing for data integrity purposes.

For example the config patch for Kethane 0. Then MM can compare the config patches, see they are the same patchClass, then compare version numbers to see if it should apply or not. I cannot see how to expand data protection beyond this level without unfairly allowing one modder to lock down the data for others which is against the MM purpose.

Now I don't know anything about C but for World of Warcraft addons in Lua when we ran into the shared library issue we created a method of detecting during loading if the shared library was already loaded and only loading the rest of the file to replace it if we had a newer version.

Can you also fix it so it would work with part names containing spaces i. BobCat's mods? Maybe use quotes to indicate where strings starts and ends, like it's common in OS's command shells?

It's a Unity3D issue with ConfigManager. It does not like whitespaces. They're illegal within its URL specification. If you look at a save file you'll note that they're converted to periods. So internally it doesn't even preserve the spaces, it seems like it just works around them.

Underscores are the ones converted. I've tried to get it to handle spaces myself btw by escaping them but it doesn't seem to respect accepted escape characters. Or one could simply refrain from overwriting them when it's not needed. When I install a new Unity-based game, I don't have to worry about it breaking another Unity-based game I have installed, as long as both authors follow best-practices in this area and have their own copies of whatever version of Unity they used in their own directories with the game, just like KSP does.

This creates none of the nightmare scenarios people seem to be fearing for some reason, nor any upgrade problems when new versions of Unity are released the kind of problems that would be created if they were trying to use Unity as a shared resource.

Each game has its own copies of needed libraries in whatever versions they were designed to use, and problems are avoided , not caused, by the fact that they may be using different versions at the same time. That's actually how you cause problems, rather than avoid them. Avoiding these kinds of version issues is most easily done by isolating each mod so that it can use whichever version works for it, and not be affected by future updates that might change things in ways that were not known at the time the mod was made.

As long as you don't have the plugin in one single location, trying to cope with many config files, each potentially written under a different version of the plugin, you greatly simplify the problem and simply avoid the kind of compatibility problems that crop up any time shared resources are used. Resource sharing can be a great boon in many situations, but is ModuleManager such a large and memory-hungry plugin that it really benefits from it?

Trying to share it rather than treat it like a local library for each mod that wants to take advantage of it seems like it creates more headaches for no real benefit This isn't multiple mods as you're trying to describe it. This is or WAS, pre It looks through the config nodes which have already been loaded into memory. All of them. No matter where they are.

And currently does that rather well. The changes being discussed haven't even been given proper testing nor discussion as to the consequences before pushing them out. What I'm not understanding is where the problem with a unitary MM is. Presumably any sufficiently sophisticated implementation of a unitary MM is just as good as a fragmented array of MMs. Sign up Log in. Web icon An illustration of a computer application window Wayback Machine Texts icon An illustration of an open book.

Books Video icon An illustration of two cells of a film strip. Video Audio icon An illustration of an audio speaker. Audio Software icon An illustration of a 3. Software Images icon An illustration of two photographs. Images Donate icon An illustration of a heart shape Donate Ellipses icon An illustration of text ellipses.