• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

28 Excellent

About weissel

  • Rank
    Rocketry Enthusiast
  1. KSP Weekly: The son of Mars and Venus

    Sorry for the necromancy; I'll slay Zombie Kerman after the post again. DMP: see https://github.com/godarklight/DarkMultiPlayer/blob/master/LICENCE.txt LMP: see https://github.com/DaggerES/LunaMultiPlayer/blob/master/LICENSE Both are the same license, a "MIT License" and basically allow you to do as you please (copy, modify, sell, ...), as long as "The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software." Which is very easy to do. The license also makes clear that there is neither a warranty nor an accepting of liability --- which is to be expected and no real hindrance. So ... yes, from the copyright side they can borrow 1:1. No legal reasons not to: they have the explicit permission to do so. [Kills Zombie Kerman]
  2. Weather

    Engines are "frozen"? Do you see your nozzles go white all over with frozen humidity, or are they starting to glow red if you run them? Decouplers having a delay? Decouplers use explosives. Explosives do not care about deep temperatures: guns fire even in the Russian winters and the Antarctic. You want something 'cool' which is fine --- but if it badly clashes with the type of reality the game has, it fails. (This reminds me of Here's To The Heroes (lyrics), mp3.) I think you should go back to the drawing board to find viable effects and explain why waiting a few days, weeks, months for more pleasant weather is not going to happen all the time, rendering all the weather mostly a non-issue or a nuisance at worst.
  3. By flying 10-25° off retrograde (point the shield end more down towards Kerbin) you can generate lift, thus keeping you in the thinner atmosphere for longer, hitting the dense "we are going to cook you" atmosphere layers slower. By the same token you have a limited steering ability (left and right) by tilting the pod left and right. Unfortunately you are unlikely to have enough electrical energy or monoprop to manage holding that position. There are other options, left as an exercise for the reader, alternatively investigate how the Apollo capsule did it. I do not think you can fix this problem in flight without certain mods and parts you don't have. You could raise your periapsis to above 70 km and launch a rescue mission when you pass Kerbin, collecting the stranded Kerbal --- assuming you can already do EVA in space. If not, be happy that Kerbals need no life support while you go get that ability and rescue him/her, possibly years later.
  4. KSP Weekly: The son of Mars and Venus

    And I want quality gameplay. The non-barn progression is cobbled together and never will be "good", no matter what you do with the rest. As a lot of "High Res" packs and patches for older games have shown, graphics can be updated pretty easily. Gameplay, however ... not so much. "previewed" is the important word here. You can object to the quality of the barn space centre --- that can be improved. Or you can object to the idea of having any barn whatsoever in the game. I thought the barn fit well into the haphazard way Kerbals build rockets with no thought of safety, and a lot of "ad hoc". Apparently others thought the idea that rocketry started very much improvised was not worthy of the glorious KSP. But the console does not have new workflows, nor new features getting implemented, no new screens added, no new parts made/overhauled. MH has all that, that is why there is much to report. I can hear people howling at a palette swapped lvl 1 VAB. People like you, I'd think. I mourn the disappearance of BTSM. It was ... great, hard, focussed. But with no barn or any other visual, it is kinda hard for a modder to add another level, which makes it harder for modders to actually make an attempt for a balanced progression there. It's a nice lil' tank (treat very very stoically, get involved at your own risk), but ultimately you want procedural tanks.
  5. KSP Weekly: The son of Mars and Venus

    And I am so happy there is no "barn" --- NOT. The jump between 30 parts (very limiting) and 255 parts (not a limit for most vessels) is quite extreme. But then I value gameplay a lot over glitzy graphics --- if I wanted glitzy graphics I'd be playing AAA games. And the barn could have been improved ...
  6. KSP Weekly: The son of Mars and Venus

    So what information exactly do you want? The number of bugs fixed? (23) The titles of the bug reports newly added? (really? Would you even understand them?) The number of open bugs (say, 100. That could be 15 game breaking/crashing bugs or 100 typos/bad translations ...) The amount of hours spent? (irrelevant. Also not something companies reveal to the world just like that.) The change in Lines Of Code? (relates to progress as much as the distance relates linearly to dV. Especially if you start at a random velocity vector. Also this tends to change little while bugs are fixed.) If bugs are cleared faster than added? That might be interesting, but in the beginning of QA the unsolved bugs are rushing in and towards the end the bug numbers dissolve --- and yet, a bug can be anything betwenn[sic] a typo and a "we need to change everything, it'll take 6-9 months at least." bug -- remember the Kraken! A fixed delivery date, no matter what? You want them to release something less than ready or hold a finished product back, for the sake of a date? Lots of developers say "it's ready when it's ready" and that simply is the truth. "Work is progressing (nicely|adequately|slowly|barely)"? But that is what they said! QA is working well, console developers are reacting quickly, stability and playability are the focus and are improving lots. How about you mock up a sample of what information you want to see and tell us why you want each of the parts in your mock-up progress report on consoles?
  7. Take-Two Kills "Essential" Grand Theft Auto V Mod

    The Sovereign. Sorry, but if you come along the lines "who died and made you king?" I naturally understand that as a "shut up". '"who are you to say what" is right and what is wrong?' does have that ring, doesn't it? Actually, no. Not even the right continent. Let me answer: T2 insists on being able to change the terms at any time. T2's (and tons of other EULAs) are written in dense lawyerese, so people will not be able to read them, and that is on purpose. T2 did not "agree to share their property" --- T2 agreed to "let me use their property (code, assets, IP) until they don't feel like it any more". Like these free and now pay-for SP cars. T2 is not acting in good faith in first place, changing their tune from "as long as it's SP, mod all you want" to "we'll shut down more or less all mods", and if that is not reneging the deal I don't know what is. T2 is trying to shore up their own shoddy work in GTAO and doesn't care about collateral damage --- even to their own product. I have the right to fork over money. And more money. And even more money. I might get some data or virtual goods, but no guarantees. And that is about the only right I can rely on. Now if my money clip was weighing me down with all these $10,000 bills, that may come in useful. Now, if you can say that sounds like a fair deal ... "honest enough to pay"? There is no dishonesty involved in getting the software legally from a place where you don't have to pay over a place where you have to pay. I think you are totally not understanding the basic idea here. But see the links in the last posts. And of course people have the right to commercialize their software! I don't see where on the world they would not have that right --- except maybe in criminal groups, say Daesh. And people do not need to forbid unauthorized redistribution --- go see the copyright laws, it is not allowed, even right now, to distribute without a license.[2] So what the ... is your problem? That the GPL does not allow them to simply ... to say it in your words, "pirate" the GPL'd software and sell it as ARR with no source code? Is that really what upsets you? [2] Excluding Public Domain, which is a licence or stuff that have lost the protection time of copyright. I am sorry but I have to contradict you. Other people cannot use that segment of the code. They can only use --- probably --- from what that segment was forged[1]. Unless the maker of the proprietary software did not change a single bit of the sourcecode, that is. Which is unlikely for anything but fairly trivial projects. [1] There is no need to publish any changes. The code may have gone through many hands until it arrives at the company, who may have paid for getting it. It may never have been available outside a number of companies who were not inclined to publish it. You really need to read up about the GPL. It's not against corporations, nor against the military, nuclear power, Republicans, Democrats, ... You even have permission to pass it, changed or unchanged, on to others, under certain circumstances. Again, please compare that with the GTA EULAs.
  8. Take-Two Kills "Essential" Grand Theft Auto V Mod

    I see, we will not be able to find common ground here. We will have to agree to disagree, I guess, with me pointing out that by that logic they could intentionally make GTA V no longer work at all and let everyone buy a patch/new version/GTA VI, and you answering that it's their IP, they get to do whatever they want. But I stand on that Rockstar/TT building GTAO knowingly and wilfully decided not to or not sufficiently to check what the players' PCs told them, like "Here, add $10m to my account", but to believe blindly and add that sum to their account. Checking your input has been considered absolutely needed for at least 20 years now. And now they try to put a band aid over it by not allowing mods --- not that *cheaters* will care. In their idea of a cure for the problem they are. URL for that claim?
  9. Take-Two Kills "Essential" Grand Theft Auto V Mod

    Of course I am not the owner of GTA V. Neither are judges, juries, the supreme court, the constitution or the law of the land. Also, last I looked, I was not under your command in any way and therefore you have not the slightest right to tell me what I may say regarding T2 and their IP --- especially not an implied "Shut The **** Up!" When I buy a game --- or rather, pay for the license to play a game --- I certainly feel entitled to actually play that game to the fullest, and I don't feel warped saying that the publisher removing content only to sell it back to me is not a case of fairness. It's not like I use a time or feature limited demo or not yet registered shareware. GTA V doesn't come cheap. But I agree with you on piracy. You cannot see how that is not piracy? Let me help you: It is not murder/robbery/... on the high seas (or rivers). It is not Copyright infringement or "music piracy"... nothing was taken of code or assets. It is not patent "piracy", nothing to do with patents. It's not a pirate radio, by virtue of not broadcasting anything. It's not a boat or ship, hence not a 1934 designed sailing dinghy type called "Pirate". Nor has it any relation to the steamboat "Pirate", the USS Pirate (SP-229), the civilian motorboat "Pirate" turned patrol vessel for 1917/18, the USS Pirate (AM-275), an WWII minesweeper sunk at Korea in 1950. It has nothing to do with: sex, pimps, etc, where the word "pirate" turns up now and then. aircraft hijacking Space piracy (analogue to high seas piracy) Films, games, toys, literature, ... even though some have "pirate" in their name Sports teams any Pirate Party a butterfly (Catacroptera, aka "pirate") It is not related or involved with a Passive Infra-Red Airborne Track Equipment It has no connection to "Pirate Joe's" which bought/buys at full price and resold some Trader Joe's wares in Canada, where Trader Joe's does not exist at all. This is a special case of Corporate Stupidity: Pirate Joe's spends $4,000-$5,000/week. At full price, mind you! (He clearly is their largest customers.) Of course you need to shut them down, by litigation, banning them from the stores (with photos to other stores), because ... everybody loses that way. Yeah, real real smart. Take heed T2, you need to emulate that. Instead of giving the guy a very good retailer/VIP discount, logistic and other support and a medal, because selling more stuff is apparently a bad idea. And in which way exactly does the Gnu Public License license prohibit that? That is the entire point of the GNU GPL. Any work utilizing GNU GPL-licensed code must be distributed under GNU GPL itself. Therefore, there's no way to include a GPL-licensed software library in your proprietary, closed-source, ARR program. You can do that with something like the MIT or BSD license, where you have to include a copy of the license with your program, but the program itself can be under any license. And I thought you had an argument or facts instead of an (uninformed!) opinion. Stuff like this and that paragraph. Maybe you reread the FAQ and the quick guide to the GPLv3 and the GPLv3: yes, you may sell copies, yes, you may charge a fee for downloading a copy, etc. More on selling free software. You may also read how open source developers make money. The entire point of the GPL is to make sure that it's software stays free. You exactly describe it: with free software, anybody can --- and should --- take it, but with MIT or BSD the result is a proprietary, DRMed, "do not touch, do not look", "mods are forbidden" AAR software and any extensions or bug fixes to the free software parts are buried, and likely never will turn up again, forcing the next guy to reinvent that wheel, again. With the GPL, if you want to propagate or convey the program, you have to give back. And EULAs don't? Forcing conformity of the author's view what you may or may not do with the software, like no mods and so on ... The GPL lets you do whatever you want, unless you want to propagate or convey it --- which is an action that without permission gets you into copyright troubles anyway. Changing the source code, adding mods, turning it upside down ... which EULA does allow you that again?
  10. Take-Two Kills "Essential" Grand Theft Auto V Mod

    No. But I think that many times games publishers have been exceedingly stupid and trying to make a money grab. Often at the behest of some well meaning sales guy or some executive. T2 just did that, so ... Thank you for the compliment. Now you know the wet dreams of business executives who are in it for the money. I agree. But that has never stopped anybody with enough greed and not enough smarts in a position of power. (Psychopaths are overrepresented in high management, BTW.) From what I understand, the content was free, just lately they tried to lock it up for a cash grab and/or to drive people to the online version where microtransactions rule. T2 has a lot to lose. Reputation, sales, ... The question is if the deciders at T2 can grasp that truth. Somebody used a machete to attack and hurt people. Let's not go after him. Let's outlaw all knifes and knife-like objects instead ... steak knifes, butter knifes, chef's knifes ... That (probably) works. OpenIV was (AFAIK) so deep into the game code that it accessed unencrypted data for cars that had been freely available in single player. T2 then decided to make their GTA V no longer read the files until some condition indicated a microtransaction had happened. Morally that sucks. It is also as effective as locking the door behind you ... while you have no walls, so walking around the door is trivial. You are right, that is piracy. Perpetrated by T2, though: taking away what they had given to their SP players and asking for money to get it back. Let's say you are a preacher for religion X and you offer your holy book(s) for free for anyone who pays for and visits your convention. Later, you decide that everybody has to either return the holy book(s) or pay a fee for them. Now, who is the thief? "making content available for all" and "proprietary ARR-licensed software" are clearly the opposite of each other. "making content available for all" and changing a 'share-alike' license to a 'do what you want' license means that the former 'available for all' becomes a 'some things available for some people', which obviously is contrary to making content available for all. For many proprietary libraries you have to pay money, for the GPL you have to share knowledge if you distribute it. And in which way exactly does the Gnu Public License license prohibit that? Are you talking "look and feel" or are you talking "patents"? Corporate Stupidity. Short-sighted money grab. Just look around, read the news ... it's everywhere. I am pretty sure that, unless that interface is well and completely documented, you still need to reverse engineer and therefore see the code ... and I can see lawyers trying to make up a case out of hot air. It's good to have something making them reconsider such an attack. I don't know about you, but a court battle against a company with 3.700 employees, $1.7 billion revenue and $3.1 billion in assets sounds expensive and taking over your life for however long it takes. The gain, if they win? Zero. They are not modding for the money. Yes, OpenIV damaged their "turn already handed out freebies into micropay stuff" plan. And of course the "force people to go online and spend money by making SP way less attractive". Yes, the lawyers always play ball, as long as they get paid, no matter if it's the own side or the other side. However, if you are small fry, losing the case will ruin you. "... the study found that in recent years only about one in three hate crimes are ever reported to law enforcement officials." By your logic 2/3rds of hate crime are no crime at all, because they would be reported if they were. And that is when >90% of the hate crimes are violent, versus 13% of all crime. Sort of like Gutenberg telling the world how the printing press can and cannot be used. Or your favourite band declaring that their music may only be heard while bathing (and you only having a shower) ... it's not like the band are the IP owners or anything ... Yes, that is "commercial quality code". It's not like Open Source where everyone can see how shoddy your code is!
  11. Take-Two Kills "Essential" Grand Theft Auto V Mod

    CKAN does not auto-update. It asks you for everything. Also I see no legal way at all for T2 to exert force on CKAN. It does not run KSP, it does not touch it files ... all it does is move some files in and out of a directory. If they could, they could also force any other random program and every game could force Microsoft to do whatever.
  12. Take-Two Kills "Essential" Grand Theft Auto V Mod

    Well, if you do The Music Industry, then everyone who "pirated"[1] a copy would certainly have bought one. Because everyone has $50 or $100 to spend on games every week. They just do this because they don't want to "squander" their millions. If you ask the real world ... some. Maybe some. But you have more costs due to supporting a DRM, and the more intrusive it is, the worse. After all, only your paying, legitimate customers are forced to endure your DRM, they are basically punished for not "pirating" your software! [1] Especially when they clench their teeth to hold the cutlass while they climb up the rope to the ship transporting the digital data and, using superior weapons, force the crew to make a non-DRM-encumbered copy of the game ... before they remember they are pirates, "neutralize" the crew, make off with anything valuable (including sailors or passengers which can fetch a price at a slave auction and the chest of jewellery from under the captain's bed) and leave the ship behind, sinking, so there'll be no witnesses. Let us all remember that computers, too, enable malicious mods ... in fact, you could not run your malicious mods without a computer, but you clearly can run your malicious mods without OpenIV --- OpenVI does not even work with GTAO. Do they have the right? I don't know, I am not a lawyer. Copyright may or may not work here --- reverse engineering to archive interoperability seems to be allowed in many jurisdictions. As to EULAs ... some have really questionable terms, but I am not a lawyer, never mind one for Russian Copyright and Contract laws. OpenIV and GTA IV ... Oh, just pointing out that OpenIV was first made for GTA IV, not for GTA V or GTAO.
  13. Take-Two Kills "Essential" Grand Theft Auto V Mod

    Obviously, being sane, Squad (read, however the company developing KSP is called now) has absolutely zero interest in slaying the goose that lays golden eggs. They might ask to not provide EVA parachutes to people not buying a DLC that offers those --- which is understandable --- but they know how much mods have given them ideas, showed what could be done and how much people would (or would not) pick up on that, just by keeping an eye on the mods. And apart from hiring some of the modders, they have implemented quite a few of the ideas explored by modding, in their own take of the thing. Unfortunately, they might be overruled by T2; we don't know their agreements, and I certainly do not know the loopholes in all the relevant laws. Maybe replace the board and the CEXses for ones that are ... more malleable? Also, I am not so sure that all the T2 suits and execs are grounded to reality instead of freely drifting with the wind. And that is what is worrying --- they might want to squeeze the goose hard, harder, harder, much harder ... to get more golden eggs as the goose suffocates. Suffocates without them noticing. From what I understand (pure hear-say, though), the "online-only" content was free to use offline until recently (it was distributed as part of the game). I believe that for using it online you'd have to go through a microtransaction, and I understand that they extended that handling to offline as well. They could easily *not* have distributed the objects until you paid for them ... they opted not to. So, hmmm, ... OpenIV took great pains to not be able to interact with GTA Online (GTAO) in any way, exactly because in any MP game that's going to be used for cheating. So what T2 did is make the offline game less enjoyable, trying to force people to use GTAO. However, without GTAO being detoxed, foamed, washed, dried and waxed --- i.e. getting rid of most the spoilers and cheaters there as well as making the tools they use (which do not use OpenIV in first place) non-functional or even toxic to use (loss of money and equipment, account blocked, etc) --- they are not going to get what they want, but they will get some bad rep. Which may not be good for the bottom line, only time will tell. Yes, the creator of OpenIV admits to clean room reverse engineering -- which basically means that you have one team go, decompile, root through, etc. the internals of the object (often binary code) and properly document the behaviour, but not the implementation, of the object. A second team --- with no contact or connection of the first team --- takes just the produced documentation, and is given the task: build something that acts just like that described behaviour. Since the team does not know anything about the internals of the object described, they cannot copy or derive any code. The new 'something' that works according to the documentation was created in a 'clean room' with no contact with the copyrighted implementation. As to the EULA, they basically are designed to prohibit everything, even if some of that is not legally possible in first place. But I am not a lawyer, so ... T2 has shut down a tool that took great pains not to work in GTAO. And there are already tools that hack GTAO today. It's sort of ordering the removal of a few cardboard boxes (which happen to be in a fireproof safe) in the cellar as a fire risk --- even though not even the safe is accessible to anyone but the owner --- while above the whole building is enveloped in flames. The interest of the (honest, non-griefing) players of GTAO is to quench the fire that is burning sky high ... There are very many cases where business decisions harmed the business. Even when anybody sane could see that coming. Sure. Here we go: "Our DLC has Gas Giant Nr 2. C&D distributing 'Kopernicus'." "The entry costs for many of the more advanced parts in the game have been changed from Funds to USD. C&D any mods changing the tech tree, or items therein or changing prices or science costs for the items." "Out new model is somewhat Kerbal Construction Time based. (And BTW: C&D for Kerbal Construction Time.) All items need to be manufactured. As we are a F2P game now, this will take hours (real time!) for a simple FL-T200, and obviously much longer for more complex parts. Kerballses (in game real money, which you are totally free not to buy if you don't mind waiting for months) can, obviously, speed that up. (Also, no reverting!) BTW: 100 Balls for only $1.99, 300 Balls only for $2.99, only while the promotion lasts. And obviously, all parts that are similar in function in any way to any in game part are C&D." "100 FL-T200 now for only $1. If you want to go anywhere, you need this. And lots of it. Because you can only reuse them, if you can land them (at less than 2m/s)." "New: Tanks: Fuel and Oxidiser not included. Buy a van full of LiquidFuel barrels for only $1.35. (Careful, explosive*)" * Will explode if you take any bump at more than crawling speed. You have to drive it from it's spawn point, somewhere in the mountains to your base. No, you cannot use a plane or rocket. No, the claw does not work either. (C&D on anything that makes it easier/cheaper/...) "New Feature: Driver for hire! It turns out that exploding fuel vans are not quite as well liked, as they take up too much time. Just hire a Kerbal Driver (only $3.99 for a limited period!) who will drive that van home to you*. No more driving and exploding, just waiting. Of course you can speed that up with some Kerballses ..." * the driver has initially a 1% chance of failing, in which case van and driver are lost. Each drive doubles the chance for a slight mishap. (C&D on anything that makes it cheaper/less crash prone) "New feature: We lowered the cost of many items by 2.5%, but to build a rocket you now need bolts to rivet parts together. 1 Bolt: only $0.01." * between 4 and 25 bolts needed for each joining of parts. Bolts are heavy, too. Luckily, they rarely break. "New feature: save weight and use welding instead of riveting. One weld costs now only $0.30 - $0.90, depending on the items to join. Welds are lighter than bolts, but tend to take much longer to be finished. Why not stock up on Kerballses? They are 50% in the next 4 hours!" ... See? From buying an occasional DLC to paying for every part, connection, Kerbal, ... and then extra to not wait real-time days. It's just like printing money! I most certainly have the right to disagree! Or are we already in a world where having any opinion against businesses is a crime? Also, notice the IV in "OpenIV"? Like GTA IV? Rather large changes? "Crash when you find a file or folder in GameData that is not named 'Squad' (or a few others)" ? "Crash when you find a file anywhere in your game folder that does not give the same answer to the cryptographic hash as recorded in 'hashsums.hs'"? "Crash if hashsums.hs is not signed with the matching private key to my public key in the .exe"? Trivial. Will freeze out modding just fine. Well, if a DLC basically copies a mod and then C&D's the mod instead of paying & naming the mod maker as (one of) the author(s) ... Yes, but that very much appears not to be what they are doing ... Let's just say that certain elected leaders sing a completely different tune after the election ... and they have to answer to the people in the next election, while suits only have to answer to the board. Make a backup folder for the KSP folder? You are making regular backups, too, right? He's about making money. He doesn't care about gamers, games or anything unless it helps or impedes his way to make more money. He may also not see that certain things will come home to roost, or misjudge them. Money ... and a rubber hose. And members of your family. And your race-horse's head on your pillow. It's so nice to have integrity I'll tell you why If you really have integrity It means your price is very high You're right there. OpenIV, if done "right" --- and the servers are done cheap, not checking what the clients (player computers) tell them, just inviting something like that ... --- then yes, OpenIV could do that. Yes, they removed the lower jaw, because a single tooth was rotten --- in the upper jaw.
  14. … nobody would have gone to the moon. Too expensive, too risky, let probes do it, if at all. Only the need to out-macho each other made them go these lengths, money no objection …