King Arthur
-
Posts
314 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by King Arthur
-
-
I delete unnecessary bloat DLLs like MiniAVC because I want my /GameData directory to be reasonably clean and I can do the required upkeep myself, so I don't find the idea of looking out for another such DLL all that appealing.
-
1 hour ago, peteletroll said:
I filed a bug report for misbehaving controls here. Please upvote the bug!
Took a while to figure out where the upvote thing was, but now it has one more upvote. :V
This mod is a lifesaver, I really do appreciate your continued development of it.
-
As I've always understood it, "climb" is the vertical climb stage of launch while "turn" is the gravity turn stage of launch. I could be wrong for all I know, though. :V
-
Just now, R-T-B said:
Good job not reading any of the above.
Mojang didn't get served, Bukkit did.
GPL code must link with GPL code.
Guess what Kopernicus isn't doing?
Mojang owned Bukkit at that point in time according to what you linked, so yes Mojang got served (and would have gotten served even more had they not axed Bukkit). I see no problem of the referenced event, a license was broken and the infringing works were killed and the offending parties asked to cease or face further legal consequnces.
So yes, file a DMCA takedown against Kopernicus. Go for it. If Kopernicus is in violation of licenses, whether their own or those whose code they reuse, they should be served.
-
12 minutes ago, R-T-B said:
The mods can see edit history. They know and I hope one can confirm that my whole thread was a giant statement about how it solely existed to support scatterer, was to act as a bleeding edge release for bugtesting, and would never be fully stable.
So... what again?
Funny, I made a template for Planetshine (and others) that credited "author," original author (if applicable) and links to threads of all the mods history, which i had to research.What again?
Duplication of effort.
To rephrase what Nertea already brought up, why not directly contribute to the master branch if you're interested in working on the bleeding edge and the "never be fully stable"? You said yourself that you would "send bugs upstream" in your original post, if I remember correctly, implying your code would be written primarily separately from the master branch. Why not just work together with the original devs in the first place? At least with regards to Scatterer, I'm of the understanding it is being actively developed and maintained (I don't actually follow Scatterer's developments as I don't use it myself, so I could be wrong). Even if the master branch is stale (eg: Planetshine), your fork could have been presented like how prestja did with his fork.
Most, if not all, of the mod devs here are just hobbyists who do what they do in their free time, I've always gotten the impression the modding community here hates work duplication because it is inefficient and wastes precious time that could have been spent on something else. Consider how, for example, Blue Dog and Tantares offload Soviet and American rocketry parts to each other because otherwise it would be duplicated effort, and working together on collaborative projects such as Restock and Community Resource Pack where they can each contribute their specialties.
You are absolutely within your right to fork a mod if the license permits it, and nobody will stop you in your endeavour. If a mod dev asks you to stop in violation of their own license, you have a right to just ignore their demands and continue. However, the community appreciates mod devs being considerate of each other, so a mod that eschews such considerations will receive some backlash regardless of whether you are legally correct; even moreso in a high-stress time like right now where the dust from 1.8's release hasn't settled yet.
24 minutes ago, R-T-B said:I'm not a citation or something?
Would you prefer me do a DMCA takedown of Kopernicus?
Too bad I'm not as evil as people think. My point is you are one spiteful forum ban away from bye bye lotsa content.
Even your forum staff warn people away from the GPLv3, you may want to read:
Please be aware that if you are using a different license and do decide to package a mod that is licensed GPL (or any other license that may be incompatible with yours), you open yourself to the possibility that others can take legal action against you for doing so.
Kopernicus is LGPLv3 and includes as well as links against a MIT library (ModularFlightIntegrator).
It's a problem. Also, reading material:
http://rdwl.xyz/blog/the-bukkit-implosion/
tl;dr If someone gets mad, they can make your code go away and it won't come back. It doesn't even cost more than a few hundred dollars. Yes, it applies to code you link against to, making it even worse (they are wrong on that and there is fairly recent legal precedent).
So a license infraction results in the work getting axed? Sounds perfectly fine to me, working as intended. A GPL licensed work getting used and redistributed in a closed-source product should result in copyright strikes and takedowns unless correction measures are taken by the offending party. Hell, this is the entire point behind the GPL; to ensure all GPL licensed works remain permanently accessible by anyone and everyone under threat of legalese. Mojang dun goofed, and they got served for it; all is well.
So to your query of issuing a DMCA takedown against Kopernicus? Go for it. Granted I'm not sure on what legal grounds you specifically have to be issuing copyright strikes against them, but I say go for it (or ask someone who has the legal basis to do so). Make a gigantic fuss, that's how problems get fixed. In the immortal words of Hachiman from Oregairu: A problem isn't a problem until someone makes it a problem.
-
37 minutes ago, R-T-B said:
You just sort of made my point without knowing it. The point is we now have three quality rendering engines and that is a good thing. They all feed each other pull requests. They all have different names. Skedaddle wasn't different enough from scatterer? Or what?
It's not about being stopped. My rebuilds had testers and users that were happy to help when I abruptly closed up shop. You have no idea the amount of flack I've got and continue to get for the audacity of even TRYING what I did. In my other thread, I've been told my apology isn't even sincere because I was still there saying the licensing issue should be talked about to avoid further confusion.
Consider how positively this 1.8 recompile of Planetshine was received (which you're aware of already):
The mod was forked because a swift update didn't seem forthcoming, Valerian's earlier post notwithstanding.
What prestja and you did are fundamentally the same, but what was different was the execution. Prestja's fork is presented in such a way that it is in support of the original mod, rather than a wholly separate fork. Courtesy and consideration was paid to both Valerian and Papa_Joe by making it clear that they have the right of way should they decide to follow up on further developments, and incompatibilities between the branches were kept to a minimum (if any) so both the devs and end-users aren't unnecessarily hassled.
52 minutes ago, R-T-B said:Your real issue (that your community isn't expressing it's actual will in licensing, and in some cases, is using actually illegal licenses for the context) isn't one I have an answer to, so I'm going to drop this. It's falling on deaf ears anyhow. It's easy to play the "hey there's a problem card" but if no one has an answer what good does it do? It's giving me a headache anyways.
Personally, I feel the claims of license misuse are overblown. KSP modding has been around for 8 years, of which I've witnessed ~6 years on and off and I can't recall any significant instances where license misuse was a problem. Most of it is common sense anyway, with attribution, share-alike, and non-commercial being the primary things everyone is concerned about which is covered in some form or another by basically any GPL/MIT/Apache/Creative Commons license.
Actual cases of license misuse and the problems it created within the KSP community likely need to be cited if this so-called problem really does need addressing. Simply talking about it doesn't do much when the community at large does not actually see any negative effects.
-
4 hours ago, R-T-B said:
PhoenixTerrainMod was launched initially when the author had been gone only 10 days, to enable a rapid update.
It's really exactly the same.
----------------------
You know Chromium project? The one that builds Chrome browser. You MIGHT want to look into how they were born of WebKit, and replaced it ultimately as a better product for all.
There are other examples. Laugh at them all you want, but these are established concepts based on a long history.
Forking and releasing a mod that has been stale for merely 10 days is fine if the license permits it, but the community at large may or may not appreciate it depending on how it's executed. Most people around here who do re-releases like that usually do it as an interim measure in direct support of the original mod, rather than a full-blown fork.
To reiterate, the only rule you actually infringed was the lack of a license visible on your forum post. If you chose to continue developing your forks, noone will have stopped you provided you were in compliance with licenses.
As for Chromium, first of all you're comparing things that shouldn't be compared. What you should be comparing are KHTML, WebKit (which was forked from KHTML), and Blink (which was forked from WebKit). All three rendering engines are seeing continued development as far as I know, so judging which is "better" will depend on the eyes of the beholder. Also consider Linux branches like Ubuntu and Android, whose relevant developments are fed back upstream to things such as the Linux kernel for the entire Linux ecosystem's benefit.
-
19 minutes ago, R-T-B said:
For what little my experience as a coder is worth:
This is the only game I have ever modded for, or code project I have ever forked that has been met with so much hostility.
Aparently, your licenses have diverged from your authors actual wishes for the code. This is an issue, and it is unique to the environment here from what I can tell. I suggest and submit, humbly, that you simply pick a license in line with your actual wishes/intent and quit wondering why people end up confused and disenchanted like me.
I'm only bothering to write this because I still care about this game and I do not believe what you have going here will encourage development as "fresh ideas" dry up. This will become more of an issue, not less, if you don't think about this soon, and hard.
Peace.
Any mod release must be accompanied by a license named in the forum post, this has been the case for as long as I can remember and most people can accomodate this whether their mod is original or a fork.
As for "hostility", I presume my suggestion to not fork Planetshine was among them. I brought that up because the original dev for Planetshine had mentioned interest in continuing support himself once 1.8 landed. It is simple courtesy to not fork mods willy-nilly, especially one that hasn't been abandoned or discontinued. Usually a fork arises to address abandonment/discontinuation (eg: Kerbal Joint Reinforcement Next from Kerbal Joint Reinforcement) or because the fork incorporates significant design or policy changes (eg: DiRT forked from Texture Replacer).
Obviously the permissions and blessings from any mod devs involved will supercede courtesy, and you absolutely do not need any permissions if the license already permits it, but showing courtesy goes a long way towards maintaining a cohesive community.
-
Planetshine had its original dev, Valerian, show up earlier saying that he intends on releasing an update for 1.8, so I would hold off on you forking that for now to save everyone unnecessary confusion.
-
Sweet! Thanks for clarifying, gonna play around with this once 1.8's dust settles down.
-
So I have a feeling this is something I've always wanted when I fly shuttles with offset thrust vectors and other such things, but the description in the OP is kind of convoluted so I would like to confirm:
If I have "Control Point: Pitched" active and I set Pitch Angle to, say, 10 degrees, does that mean I am flying with a control point that has a 10 degrees pitch up offset?
If the basic gist of this mod is "user-configurable control point pitch offset", then that sounds great.
-
1 hour ago, Barzon said:
@King Arthur just, like, look at the blacklist/whitelist. I figured it out in like an hour.
but because you dont seem to want to, i'll do it for you:
just copy that into Notepad++ or something, and save it as noseconeandskwodSSME.restockwhitelist or whatever have you, and
remove those lines from the .restockblacklist file within Gamedata/ReStock.(?)
I am quite aware what I need to do to pick out stuff I want from Restock, no need to be snarky about it.
It is really old that the slightest of disagreements evokes the white knights as if a great cardinal sin was committed. Seen it happen time and time again everywhere. Restock doesn't need you to defend its honor or whatever it is you think I've infringed. :V
-
37 minutes ago, Nertea said:
Yeah this kind of thing is a large challenge. You see, there's more than one use for that part. Because of the large set of possibilities for placement, it's quite difficult to ensure that every use case is catered for. Because that part shows up in career along with rockets at the beginning, the choice was made to shape it in a rocket-friendly fashion. This of course creates challenges with the particular placement you describe but other uses have much better part flow now. We have to make choices like this all the time - one very key improvement that has been universally hailed is the top node of the 2.5m command pod, where we deviate from stock for considerably better part flow.
We continue to welcome assistance and iterate on the project and if you find cases where things are actually mechanically different than their stock implementation, please let us know and we'll look into it.
Given that the stock Aerodynamic Nose Cone fits both the Mk3 Cockpit and rocket noses, at least as far as I can tell anyway (and I use this nose cone a lot, it's my favorite one for almost everything), I'm not convinced that Restock has to make a compromise that stock never had to deal with.
-
2 hours ago, Beale said:
Wait what was flat out bad? Curious to get feedback. I made small contributions to Restock, but the guys that did the rest are A+ dudes.
I voiced most of my concerns/disagreements over in the Restock thread, if you'd like to take a look. I don't want to detract too much from discussing Tantares here, though I suppose it's alright since you're personally involved in the discussions.
1 hour ago, Barzon said:if you dont like what honestly is some of Beale's best work (The solar panels), then why insult him, and the rest of the ReStock team.
I have never insulted Beale's work nor do I have a problem with his or Restock/Nertea's solar panels, please do not put words in my mouth. I have intended to be courteous and respectful to Beale during my discussion with him here, if this has not been the case then I ask a moderator to point out any problems so I may address them.
I inquired about keeping the old stock-style panels as a variant because I thought players, including myself, would appreciate having a choice in running Restock or not while maintaining a consistent overall style, and on the assumption that it would not be too much of a hassle for Beale to implement as he winds down his development work. One could even roleplay the stock-style panels as "older" panels or something, for the especially creative storytellers!
1 hour ago, cineboxandrew said:What collider changes are you having issues with? the colliders should all be the same as stock
I've had stuff radially attached to a stock HECS2 end up floating in midair when the same craft was subsequently loaded with the Restock HECS2. The Aerodynamic Nose Cone also has a very clearly different mesh and collider.
I certainly appreciate that Restock went to great lengths to try and be identical to stock, but the fact of the matter is that it's "almost" the same as stock rather than an exact 1-to-1 match. In a game like, say, Skyrim where meshes have nothing to do with gameplay I wouldn't really care, but I do care in a game like KSP where the physics and other elements of gameplay involve the mesh and colliders.
-
6 hours ago, Beale said:
That's a first! interesting, I'd love to hear your thoughts to why.
The older textures do exist, somewhere - I have deleted them locally but they are not lost (Can dive into past releases for example). So, it is not a huge job to do if enough people want this.
I found Restock a mixed bag, some things were good and others were disagreeable or just flat out bad. I also strongly disagree with their marketing that Restock is a purely aesthetic change; Restock incorporates subtle mesh and collider changes (among other things), and because KSP takes such things into account for its physics they actually have a tangible gameplay impact unlike with most other games. Restock is a wide-scope parts pack mod masquerading as a 1-to-1 stock replacer as far as I'm concerned.
So I've shied away from Restock. I selectively use some parts from it in my current playthroughs, with CFG changes so they don't replace stock parts, for better quality of life using Nertea's other mods since most have a soft dependency on Restock, but that's about it.
Letting the players have more choice in their mod setups and visual styles is never a bad thing, so I for one would greatly appreciate it if it is within your consideration.
-
12 minutes ago, Beale said:
Those people exist?
For a more serious answer - sure I'm open to the idea if there is a big demand for it.
Show of hands those who want it?I'm one of them, I don't completely agree with what Restock does. :V
Note that I made the query based on the assumption that the assets already/still exist, and that it would be a relatively simple matter. If it's anything fairly involved, then I understand if you don't want to bother with it as you unwind your development work.
-
9 hours ago, Beale said:
Speaking of solar panels, they have all been updated to the Restock style.
Could the original panels be kept as a variant for those that don't want to use Restock?
-
Alright, here's my findings:
* The timewarp EC cap did not in any way mitigate the "out of EC" problem in timewarp. Just for clarification, this is for inactive crafts. Active crafts have never had "out of EC" problems during timewarp with regards to Snacks converters.
* The toggle to disable EC consumption for converters during background processing resolves the "out of EC" problem in timewarp.
So overall, while the effectiveness of the EC consumption cap is dubious, the other workaround which involves disabling EC consumption outright does indeed work to fix the problem. Many thanks!
-
Many thanks for the new release, will report back on whether the new workarounds help address the EC issue.
-
I'm guessing it's an oversight, the source code was included in the download way back when. For what it's worth, the DLL as it is right now doesn't appear to be malicious (it never was, as far as I know; been using this since 0.25). The worst that could have been said about the source code was that it was a bit sloppy, and that's not really a problem.
OP has a Github repo for this, but it appears to be pretty out of date: https://github.com/flywlyx/GN-drive
Hopefully the source code gets re-added and updated, policy is policy.
-
51 minutes ago, IronKerbal said:
I have a Issue to report:
The OKEB-150 "Halo" has no Collider, it can not be moved around in the VABThis was fixed in NFSolar v1.0.5 as mentioned earlier in the thread, be sure you have the latest release.
On 9/10/2019 at 7:58 AM, Nertea said:I released NFSolar 1.0.5 with a fix for that Halo collider issue.
-
6 hours ago, Angel-125 said:
I don’t know if dynamic battery storage works in the background. Recently I did two things to help get around the KSP converter timewarp issue. First, I capped resource consumption at the 100x mark, so timewarp past 100x would be treated as 100x. Second, I capped electric charge use to the recycler’s base usage plus crew capacity, so it won’t be consumed faster for more experienced crew members.
Judging from how we're (still) talking about this problem, the workarounds you implemented back in v1.21 in July are probably not working as intended.
If this is all too much of a hassle for you to tackle (it's basically a problem with stock KSP after all, not your fault), how about a workaround where the converters simply ignore ElectricCharge costs during timewarp and/or for inactive crafts? It's a very blunt workaround, but quite honestly I doubt most of us play KSP in a way where we need to budget EC by a razor sharp edge anyway; we usually either have way too much or way too little EC. Could even make it a user-toggleable option if some of us don't want it.
-
@coredumpster I had a nagging hunch that the recyclers weren't actually doing their thing with how much soil is accumulating in my stations, but I'd never bothered to investigate it. That is concerning. :\
-
Roger that, thank you!
Adding small dll to Parts-Only mods to verify install loc
in KSP1 Mods Discussions
Posted
If people are already deleting MiniAVC.dll (I'm one of them, though I also know what I'm doing and thus wouldn't bother you. :V) then it stands to reason they would also just delete this hypothetical new DLL also and you would be back at square one.
I second Nertea's proposal of adding this as a new feature to .version files and plugins that read those files (MiniAVC/AVC), it accomodates your desire for directory structure checks without adding more bloat to the /GameData directory.