Alshain

Members
  • Content count

    8251
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4779 Excellent

5 Followers

About Alshain

  • Rank
    Flight Director

Profile Information

  • Location α: 19h 55m 18.8s δ: +06° 24′ 24″
  1. Not as far as I am aware. We could use a Chinese translation.
  2. KSP Weekly: The Cosmic Snake!

    No, just weather. Knowing Squad they will put in the rain without the clouds.
  3. I have finally managed to get time to update the thread to this point. I apologize for it taking so long. New job has been keeping me busy.
  4. The Question of 1.4

    No, they said it was stock. Several of us asked that question. That's the issue, it doesn't technically have what you would consider and "API". It just leaves it's members public for us to access. A true API is a 'translator' between the primary code and the mod developer, the code of an API serves no purpose but to format the inputs of the primary code and make them accessible to the mod developer. If the primary code changes, the API code is changed to adapt without changing the method headers (as much as possible, sometimes you just have to but then you use deprecation) and that way the mod developer never needs to see the change. That's an API. KSP doesn't have that and you can't avoid changing the primary code headers.
  5. The Question of 1.4

    We do know 1.4 will have a stock texture switcher.
  6. Which colonisation?

    DStaal is right, though in my context I was trying to differentiate between assembly (like the Lunar rovers which had to be built on the Moon) and actual onsite fabrication (like the proposed "3D Printed" bases by NASA and ESA.) USI would seem to favor the former, while Pathfinder along with OSE Isa better match for the latter.
  7. Which colonisation?

    Pathfinder is the best one I've seen if you want to construct bases insitu. USI is moving away from the idea of insitu construction. While it technically supports it, the developer has been working with other mods like Ground Construction that emphasize insitu assembly, rather than construction. That goes for EPL too, while it supports it, the USI developer really wants to support Ground Construction which requires you to ship a box for every craft you want to build and then assemble in place after it has landed. It's also tends to be very buggy in my experience. I've never played with Planetary Base Systems, so I can't say how it would compare, on paper it looks pretty good. Add KIS/KAS for with that and you can construct and assemble. The USI construction parts are a neat idea, and they extend the range abilities of KIS, but in my experience using them with the mechanical parts is just too difficult (though the mag lifter is probably the most useful if you can keep it from dropping the payload). The big problem is not necessarily the mod or the parts, but the controls that we are resigned to with KSP and servos. I long for a mod that can add Farming Simulator style servo controls to KSP. In any case, I found when using Konstruction, I never used the servo's and instead just used their KIS range extending abilities. You might consider adding OSE Workshop to that list for constructing new base parts insitu.
  8. 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.
  9. - Version 2.2.1 Released - No changes, just a fix for 1.3.1.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.... http://ksp.cybutek.net/miniavc/Documents/README.htm " Bundle the MiniAVC.dll file into your packaged add-on directory along with your version file. " Done.
  12. 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.
  13. 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!
  14. 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.
  15. 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. https://github.com/Alshain01/KSP-AdvancedTweakablesButton/blob/master/AdvancedTweakablesButton/AppLauncher.cs 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). https://github.com/Alshain01/ActionGroupManager/blob/master/AGM-VisualUI/UI/ButtonBar/AppLauncher.cs