Boris-Barboris

Members
  • Content count

    587
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

427 Excellent

2 Followers

About Boris-Barboris

  • Rank
    I'll be right happy to

Profile Information

  • Location Russia

Recent Profile Visitors

10,271 profile views
  1. dead the video is
  2. Yes. But, please, test it.
  3. Boris-Barboris

    [W.I.P.] Kerbal Wind Tunnel

    There's no direct way, only iterative approximation. Anyway, it's your call.
  4. Boris-Barboris

    [W.I.P.] Kerbal Wind Tunnel

    Keep in mind that CorrectCoL math is not precise: mod did not search for equilibrium control surface position to maintain this particular AoA and always assumed default (neutral) pitch\roll\yaw. If you desire correctness, you should tackle this.
  5. What are the names of control surface modules in the craft file? Try manually renaming them to SyncModuleControlSurface, see if it helps with AA. Strange thing, probably installing/uninstalling FAR does this.
  6. Load game, reproduce problem, pause game - full log file. Screenshots of the situation when you have this problem, with AA windows Open. Flight Model AA window is very important, make sure it is visible.
  7. No. Screenshots and logs should tell.
  8. @AlchemicRaven it is an unfortunate technical limitation, caused by my need to use custom control surface class. When you reconfigure your crafts and save them, settings will persist. With AA it has to be done unfortunately.
  9. I don't know exactly too, but probably not. However, I just noticed, that Corresponding Source is needed for non-executable work as well, if it's distributed in object form. Here is the exact quote: "The "Corresponding Source" for a work in object code form means all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control those activities..." I guess I missed the absense of "executable" in that part.
  10. In no way assembly_csharp.dll is a general-purpose tool. If there was a special clause in GPL that said that corresponding source also exclude platforms for plugins, this thread would not exist. It does diffirentiate beteween executable work and non-executable work. Models are not executable. "Corresponding Source" is only for executable work. (fixed) "...compiler used to produce the work, or an object code interpreter used to run it." GPL is okay with that. GPL is also ok with visual studio as well, because it's just an interface to compilers, and is not strictly required to build the library, and the compilers are specified as an exception. If GPL contained a wording like "or anything that you can stretch and twist your way of thinking to call a compiler", that would be ok. Game dll is not a compiler. assembly_csharp is a library the plugin depends on, it's as simple as that. And GPL is well-known to disallow linking to non-free libraries and then distributing it. It's no news.
  11. Just like you can violate some law when you are not subject to it. You are not breaking the law, but you violate it. It's just semantics, I take the word "violate" quite differently than you apparently. He violates the term of the parole "Not using the internet", yes. It doesn't mean he's breaking some law by it. There is a clause "no internet", there is his action "uses internet". He violates the clause. It does not mean he can't, or the clause was for him. But his actions violate it. I would rather prefer a better-suited license. Are you ready to quote something? Or is that just a figure of speech? I just described it in the post you quote, how the author being subject to his ARR license bears no logical contradiction whatsoever. ARR license explicitly names the author\developer\etc and reserves all the rights to him, making him perfectly capable of distributing binaries without violating the license. If the license needs special remarks for your specific case, you should probably use some other license. I don't understand the last question. Nothing. But there is no point in distributing source, players need a binary to use the plugin, so someone has to distribute the binary under the GPL terms. Under GPL - yes. Such case need another license. Want to stay half-closed-sourced? Don't use GPL.
  12. No. My position is that developer violates GPL, not that he is bound to it. But I certanly do expect the developer to honor the license, in the same way I expect the government to respect it's own laws. Because if he does violate some GPL clauses, nobody but him can exercise the rights it gives. This makes licensing meaningless in my opinion. Nothing so far. ARR contains developer's or other copyright holder's name and "all rights reserved" clause (wich is absent in GPL by the way, although implied by copyright law) wich reserves these rights to him. No contradiction here, bad example. Now this is a good point. I was wrong on that apparently.
  13. KSP is not providing hardware resources to the plugin. Not even Unity or Mono does it. OS does it. Plugin does not run on KSP. Plugin code is dynamically compiled by Mono in linkage with KSP code, and then run by the OS. No. Out of an infinite set of interactions between two entities you have chosen the most abstract one and have proclaimed "see, very similar". I don't share this opinion at all. I see no resemblance. They are not guaranteed to be present on an arbitrary computer. Factually wrong. Mod depends on all of the following: system calls and primitives, provided by OS and wrapped into C# API by Unity Mono fork (non-GPL), Unity Mono fork CLR implementation iteslf (non-GPL), Unity Engine functionality (non-GPL), and finally, at the entirety of KSP game logic library (non-GPL). KSP itself is just a part of the dependency. I have no problem here. Imagine standing in the court and saying that planet Earth is an operating system for humanity. You use abstractions that are so far-fetched that they bear no conclusion. Operating system is not a thing, that is required for other things to run. This is too broad. GPLv3: " The "System Libraries" of an executable work include anything, other than the work as a whole, that (a) is included in the normal form of packaging a Major Component, but which is not part of that Major Component, and (b) serves only to enable use of the work with that Major Component, or to implement a Standard Interface for which an implementation is available to the public in source code form. A "Major Component", in this context, means a major essential component (kernel, window system, and so on) of the specific operating system (if any) on which the executable work runs, or a compiler used to produce the work, or an object code interpreter used to run it. " "Executable work" is our plugin. Now there are two tems left: Major component and System Libraries. Scenario 1 - you say that Major component is KSP+Unity+Mono as a bundle, leaving System Libraries empty. But this bundle is not an essential component of operating system, neither it is a compiler (only Mono is, in a way (JIT)), not is it an interpreter (once again, only Mono is (in a JIT way)). Scenario 2 - you say that Major compooent is Unity+Mono, and KSP game dll is System Library. But KSP game dll does not only serve to enable use of our plugin, because plugin uses both OS\Mono and KSP data structures. KSP dll is not a wrapper or utility around Unity, it is a complex program in itself, that is being manipulated by the plugin, so clause (b) fails, even if you stretch clause (a) and manage to twist yourself of of the fact, that Mono\Unity is not generally distributed with KSP.dll
  14. Can you please demonstrate deductive chain that establishes Unity or KSP AssemblyCSharp.dll as an operating system in any of it's academical or legal definitions? Because I don't see any. Your understanding does not give you any weight on the subject of widely-used definitions. Words were there long before you, and their meaning is up to your interpretation at best, but not definition.
  15. Not by writing, by distributing dlls that are bound to non-GPL KSP. No it's not. The culture of licensing the code. By that logic, there's no point to licensing code in the first place, if the terms of the license are not respected. No it's not. Stop pulling new definitions out of thin air.