• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4760 Excellent


About Alshain

  • Rank
    Flight Director

Profile Information

  • Location α: 19h 55m 18.8s δ: +06° 24′ 24″
  1. Possible to get mods for old versions of KSP?

    Just be aware if your mod had bugs in that version it is unlikely to ever be fixed in that version. Assuming the new author uses Github. A lot of people don't know how to use Git (though I strongly recommend reading the book) so they just abandon it entirely.
  2. - Version 2.2.1 Released - No changes, just a fix for 1.3.1.
  3. That is correct, AGM does not actually interface with the MiniAVC DLL, it is a standalone mod included in the package. Also, I just want to point out there are ~450 mods that use it (and that's just the ones using Cybutek's service, you can host the version file anywhere) and I doubt half of them are GPL. I'm not sure why this is an issue in my mod, this whole conversation seems a bit silly.
  4. Well, anyway. There is a 4th option. As the copyright holder he can give written permission to circumvent a part of his license. So all I need to do is get written permission from Cybutek to include it my package.... " Bundle the MiniAVC.dll file into your packaged add-on directory along with your version file. " Done.
  5. BSD-2 Clause is compatible with MIT and thus should be safe. In fact the only restriction that applies is that it retains the copyright notice, which it does here, and here. Including and modifying source from a GPLv3 project would certainly break the license, however distribution of GPLv3 libraries would not. Since AGM does not include MiniAVC source, only unaltered binaries are included with the distribution, the license is still properly honored as long as I follow the other rules, such as including the license, and include instructions on how to obtain the original. Bear in mind, the authors of both these tools wrote them with the expressed intent for users to include them with their mod. They wouldn't (and didn't) put a license on them that would prohibit that Regarding updates: I was planning to work on it this weekend... and on the way home, my alternator died. So that's gotta get replaced this weekend, and I'm working a new job which takes up all my time so bear with me. I'll try and get it done as soon as I can.
  6. I agree with @Deddly and prefer it that way, and in fact I wish they would remove a few (for example CKAN, which doesn't even belong in this forum, as it's a Tool or Application but it certainly doesn't need to be stickied) It just creates a bunch of clutter at the top. The database of mods is important and should stay, and of course threads from squad and moderators (though logical consolidation of information in some cases might be useful), other than that, the TOTM and that's it. By the way, I'm not ignoring people. I've been a bit busy but if your patch is posted here, it will make it to the front page eventually. Fear not!
  7. Some bugs I found in 1.3.1

    Yes, as Steve_v said, whether you think the mod has something to do with it or not, the only way to be certain is to reproduce the issue with no mods installed. Please do that before adding issues to the bug tracker, that just consumes developer time.
  8. It should be. I've slept since then. I'll have to go back and look at your implementation. One thing you might want to add to the delegate is the event unregistration though. GameEvents.onGUIApplicationLauncherUnreadifying.Remove() My implementation is a bit different, I treat buttons as interfaced objects so I can treat the App Launcher and Blizzy's Toolbar as single Interface (IButtonBar). Never the less, if it helps, here is the code I use. I also registered the onGUIApplicationLauncherDestroyed event which looking at it now, I don't seem to have unregistered that one in my code... hmmm. this one is from AGM, it's basically the same but instead of altering a setting in the game, it controls the visibility of a window. It also has documentation and better code style (I took the time to run through StyleCop on it).
  9. Depends. What do you most? Fly in the atmosphere? Scatterer Spend time in orbit of the body or nearby moon? EVE.
  10. I think the biggest reason this didn't happen has nothing to do with play styles, it is because this is insanely difficult to program correctly and Squad didn't feel it was worth the dev time.. Even the RemoteTech flight computer is terrible mess. It only works half the time, not well enough to turn on signal delay as a game option because it is too ignorant to fly your probe correctly even when you tell it exactly what to do. As much as I love RemoteTech, I use quickload far more often when I try to use the flight computer because half the time it either won't stop when it is supposed to and spins the craft in circles, or gets confused as to which direction is prograde (which I think is actually a stock issue when having multiple probes on one craft, even if all the probes are facing the same correct direction). The worst part is, even if you see it messing up, you can't stop the maneuver. Even if signal delay is off, you can't stop the maneuver, deleting it does nothing, you have to force shut down the engine, try to stop the maneuver, return to the space center and then come back to the craft for it to be finally deleted. Now if the RT developers have been working on this mod for years and it is a complete mess, imagine if Squad tried to do it in stock in one patch. That isn't to say it couldn't be done and done better, but it would take dev resources that would detract from development on other things.
  11. A Simple Guide to Licensing

    We have a guide for this in the Addon Discussion forum.
  12. #BringBackTheBarn

    You know, at the very least they could release it as a mod or just release the assets like they did with the Porkjet parts.
  13. Idea for mod

    The only way this could really work and look half way decent would be similar to how Farming Simulator handles dirt. It's basically a transparent layer on top of the tractor and when they want the dirt to show, they just make it more opaque. The problem is, you would have to create this layer for every part, which would be a massive undertaking.
  14. New Action Groups?

    I'm not sure I understand what you mean by that. I was just letting you know so you could correct it and it wouldn't cause any confusion later.
  15. New Action Groups?

    My question was whether they were action groups. It sounds like you are describing actions, not groups. I believe you have mixed your terminology making the lines in the patch notes inaccurate. They are not action groups, they are actions. So, you did not add action groups (if you didn't add to the KSPActionGroup enumeration, you didn't add groups). In the end it led me to believe there were new groups I needed to account for in my mod, but I don't believe that is true.