Punslinger

Members
  • Content Count

    9
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Good

1 Follower

About Punslinger

  • Rank
    Bottle Rocketeer

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. There's one big problem with this. Take a look at the most popular KSP mods, and you'll see that a LOT of them are being maintained by somebody other than the original author. A lot of mods get handed off because life happens, people get tired of developing KSP mods, but there's enough community demand for the mod to keep it alive. How would that work with a paid mod system? AFAIK, no existing paid mod system allows an author to transfer ownership or share write access with anyone else. This applies even if an author decides to make their mod available for free, because the only way a paid mod system can work is by using a signature/DRM system to regulate all mod installations, which means there is still the same issue of handing over control to another developer.
  2. I've been having a weird issue with a Tundra Assembly Plant I have on Iota (GPP). It's manned by a two-star Technician, and currently producing 0.0104 SpecializedParts per second. When I start up the MaterialKits bay, MKS reports that it's producing only 0.0003 units per second. The plant still has 1960/2000 Machinery left, so it's not efficiency loss due to age. And I'm not using any MaterialKits to produce Machinery, ColonySupplies, or TransferCredits. A ground test with a brand-new plant also manned by a two-star Technician gives me a production rate of 0.0049 units/sec. Still not as good as I seem to be getting with SP, but a lot better than .0003. The only thing I can think of is that, not knowing about the multi-bay bug, I tried to change the third bay of the Iota plant to MaterialKits and forgot to stop the converter first, so maybe that borked something somehow? Changing it back to Machinery (but not running it) didn't seem to fix anything. Screenshot included: Edited to add: I've noticed something else after further testing. A craft with one Assembly Plant produces MaterialKits at .0054/sec. A craft with three Assembly Plants, each with one bay set to MaterialKits, produces only .0018/sec per plant, for a total of .0054/sec with all three bays running! Further edit: Hmm, now we're getting somewhere. Adding storage for MaterialKits seems to decrease the rate of production. I added two of the round 2.5m containers to the craft, to add storage for 9000 units of MK, and the production rate dropped to .0049/sec as I saw before. Adding two more for a total of 18000 units of storage dropped production down to .0026/sec. Still another edit: Never mind. After more careful testing, it looks like it's just the Kolony Inventory UI that's bugged. The amount of storage doesn't affect the rate of production, and two workshops with MK bays produce twice as much as one. I feel silly.
  3. Hi, and thanks for the great mod! Just a quick PSA for anybody who's using the KRnD mod, you need to add the following line to the GameData/KRnD/blacklist.cfg file: BLACKLISTED_MODULE = USFuelSwitch Otherwise, the battery packs won't do anything in flight. They'll look okay in the editor, KER will report the correct amount of electrical charge, but in flight, they'll be unclickable and they won't count toward the vessel's total EC capacity. Discovered this during a ground test today.
  4. Why, thank you! The best thing was when I was playing Overwatch, and matchmaking dropped me on the same team as a dude called PunionRings. Much fun was had. Yeah, I've learned that anytime something changes, people love to panic and assume the worst. On rare occasions, it might be warranted, but 99.9% of the time, the worst-case scenarios they talk about exist only in their imaginations. It's amazing how much FUD you can cut through when you're dual-wielding Occam's and Hanlon's Razors!
  5. Because this is the generic EULA that T2 uses for all their games. Look at the parts that refer to things like multiplayer ("online services"), which literally does not exist in KSP. They switched to this EULA because their legal department doesn't want the headache of wrangling separate EULAs for every game they sell. Not because they are secretly hatching nefarious plots against modders from their underground volcano lair. Also, they aren't giving themselves rights to do anything with your mods, because they can't. Your mods were created outside KSP, they are not derivative works, so there isn't any claim T2 can lay to them. The "you give us a license" clause is referring to things like screenshots, .craft files, and missions made with the upcoming expansion. And it's not there so T2 can steal All The Stuff while cackling maniacally. It's there so that any mission/craft-sharing service can legally function without being sued by somebody looking to win a payout by claiming T2 is making copies of their work without permission. The forum has similar terms, because every time somebody loads this thread, T2/Squad is creating and distributing copies of everything posted here. Without a license to do so from the people posting, they'd be open to a lawsuit if somebody decided they wanted some easy money. (This is also why those terms for the forum don't apply to offsite links, such as to mod repos on GitHub. T2's servers aren't hosting that content, so they aren't copying it, so the EULA doesn't apply. Otherwise, any company whose website was linked to from there would have a field day suing T2 for claiming a license to use their property.) See above. 1. Because they are not lawyers and cannot give legal advice. (Neither can I, BTW. This is just educated guesswork by a layman.) 2. Because they did not make this change. 3. Because the legal team that did make this change would almost certainly tell T2/Squad to say nothing. Anything you say with regard to a contract has to be very precisely worded, otherwise it can be exploited by somebody looking for a loophole. Suppose Squad says, "Yeah, that's just a CYA, we'll never sue modders." And then some modder tries to sell a mod based on slightly-reworked stock assets. T2/Squad goes to sue them, and the modder says, "Ah, but you said you'd never sue your modders!" Would a judge toss the lawsuit on that claim, or would a jury be swayed by that reasoning? Probably not, but that's not a chance any reputable lawyer will ever take. Not when IP worth millions of dollars is at stake. Or to put it another way, Squad decided that their relatively informal promise of free DLC waaaaay back at the beginning of KSP's history was sufficiently binding that they're going ahead and making the Making History expansion free to people who bought the game before May 2013. Yes, the Squad devs are cool people who keep their word. But it's also very likely that the T2 legal team decided that there'd be sufficient risk of a lawsuit if the company did anything else. Look, I'm really looking forward to the Universal Storage revamp, and I don't want to see it disappear into the maw of the Kraken just because of a bunch of paranoid conspiracy theorists decided to scare modders into hiding.
  6. Do you have any evidence of this? Has T2, or any publisher, ever actually tried to do this? How do you think trying to sell people a mod they already have for free would even work, from a business standpoint? Why do you think they are so desperate for content that, instead of relying on the dudes at Squad they've already hired specifically to create more content for the game, they'd target random mods and try to steal them? Do you think T2 is stupid enough to nuke the modding community for every game they own, including major franchises like Civ, by trying to steal mods from a game as niche as KSP? Do you think T2 wants to be at the center of the giant PR firestorm that would definitely occur if they actually did try to do this?
  7. Do you have a day job? Do you work for free? No? So you're only in it for the money, then?
  8. First of all, let's remember the most important advice given out by the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: "Don't Panic." People who are wigging out about the idea of T2 coming along and stealing their mods really need to take a good long look at the Civilization series, which T2 also owns and which also relies HEAVILY on the modding community. It is also a lot bigger, in terms of both budget and playerbase, than KSP. Now, has T2 tried to do anything monumentally stupid like banning modding or stealing the best mods to resell as DLC? No. Because T2 are not a bunch of freaking idiots. First: the way KSP is designed, DLC part packs aren't even possible. Yes, you could sell the files, but there's no DRM on them, so obviously T2 isn't going to bother. Trying to add DRM to KSP would require so much rewriting that it wouldn't be worth it, because at that point, you're better off just creating KSP2 from the ground up. I'm a programmer at my day job, so I know what a giant pain in the butt it is to rewrite legacy code. Second: the only market for KSP mods is KSP players. Who A) already have the mod for free and B) would instantly know it had been stolen if they see it pop up as paid DLC, either now or in a hypothetical KSP2. So the market for stolen mods is basically zero. Third: stealing mods to sell them as DLC is a trick you can only pull once, because the instant you do, nobody will bother creating anything for your game anymore. You aren't just killing the goose laying your golden eggs, you're nuking that sucker from orbit. Fourth: there are a lot of mods that add spacecraft from other copyrighted works (e.g. Firefly) into the game. If T2 were ever to actually try to claim ownership of those, lawyers' heads would explode with the sheer magnitude of joy they'd get from filing the resulting lawsuit. Fifth: T2 has an army of developers and artists who are already being paid salaries to create lots of stuff for their games. They don't need to trawl the fora looking for mods to steal. Bottom line: any organization trusts its own coders more than it trusts the developers of Random Internet Code. Sixth: AFAIK, there has been no documented case of a game company ever actually stealing fan work and trying to pass it off as their own. The few times a company has taken an interest in distributing mods, it has taken the form of purchasing the rights to the mod and/or hiring the modders on as full-time developers. Counter-Strike is probably the most notable example. But if you want even more proof that modders don't have anything to fear, take a look at DotA. It has millions of users. It launched an entire new genre of game. And it's still a completely free mod that even Activision hasn't tried to steal for themselves. So even something with that much profit potential, where it would be fairly easy for them to simply slap it on top of Warcraft 3 and call it a new game, hasn't been stolen. Seventh: If you put an MIT- or BSD-style license on your mod, then you've already given T2 (or anybody else) permission to resell it, because MIT/BSD-style licenses are extremely permissive. And the fact that T2 isn't already selling a DLC pack consisting of mods distributed under permissive licenses, where there would be absolutely no chance of them losing any lawsuit in court because your license explicitly gives them permission to redistribute without any obligations on their part, should really tell you something about the likelihood of T2 trying to do this. All of this is to say that people really need to calm down, because the odds of T2 actually trying to steal your work are somewhere between nil and bupkis. (Also, while we're on the subject of draconian license terms, the clauses that Piez added would technically forbid anybody from using KSPTrajectories in an ad-monetized Twitch stream or YouTube video, because it would be "commercial or personal gain" without "prior written authorization from the copyright holder." See how easy it is to find the worst-case scenario in any contract clause?)
  9. I'm having a problem with the hab timers. I've been doing missions where I pre-drop a temporary base with supplies and hab, and I land Kerbals nearby for the mission. I usually end up more than 150m away from the base when I land, because I'm bad at precision landings (especially in atmosphere), so the lander isn't being shared. My problem is that when I try to end the mission and return home, as soon as my Kerbals go back into the lander, they go tourist-mode. It's as if the hab-timer for the lander keeps ticking even though the Kerbals aren't in it! When I looked at the source code, particularly ModuleLifeSupportSystem, I saw that it avoids updating TimeEnteredVessel if the Kerbal is entering the previous vessel. What's the reason for this, out of curiosity? From my perspective, it means that my landers have to have as much hab-time as my bases in order to avoid hab penalties kicking in, or that I have to land a third "dummy" vessel for kerbals to hop into on their way back to the lander. It'll also make driving base vehicles like Akita rovers unnecessarily annoying, because Kerbals will have to avoid using whichever one they last used, otherwise they'll become grouchy. Aside from this issue, I'm really enjoying the USI mods, though!