linuxgurugamer

[1.8.x] Kerbal Object Inspector Continued- View all game objects in KSP!

Recommended Posts

This is a revival of the old Kerbal Object Inspector mod.  Original thread is here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/129030-ksp-10x-kerbal-object-inspector-view-all-game-objects-in-ksp/&do=findComment&comment=2344482

The new version for KSP 1.4.1 has new dependencies

New Dependencies

CKAN has been updated to install the dependencies, if needed

The original author, Nifty255, had an ambiguous license reference, he listed two licenses which were 
contradictory.   After consultation with Squad, I have decided to release this using the GPLv3, which
is the original license listed.

In the event that Nifty255 contacts me and requests that I discontinue this mod, I will do so.
 

L7qzKqX.png

FEATURES:

Kerbal Object inspector is a plugin which allows mod developers to see exactly what's going on in the background of any game scene by listing every game object and their properties.

Easy to use interface.

  • Lists all game objects, mesh or not.
  • Organizes game objects based on the Unity hierarchy. Child objects are displayed indented under parent objects.
  • Displays transform and other component information for any game object.
  • Efficiently renders a wireframe on any game object with a mesh.
  • Objects that are a parent of the selected object have dimmer wireframes.
  • Highlights part mouse is over (in Object Inspector window)
  • Selects the part the mouse is over in the Object window
  • Can lock object window to not change when moving mouse over scene

Download:  https://spacedock.info/mod/1040/Kerbal Object Inspector Continued

Source code:  https://github.com/linuxgurugamer/KerbalObjectInspector

License:  GPLv3

Patreon.png

https://www.patreon.com/linuxgurugamer

Improvements over the original:

  • Fixed Nullrefs
  • Added toolbar button to activate/deactivate it
  • Made it active only in game scenes
  • Fixed display of wireframes
  • Added display of part mouse is over
  • Added locking of display (so that moving the mouse over something else won't change the display)

 

 

Edited by linuxgurugamer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This one's my favorite :3

@linuxgurugamer Thanks you for so many 'quality of life' improvements to this mod.

Edited by Enceos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it is so awesome that you made this working again, huge thanks.

Will need it to finally get my welding properly scaled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/11/2016 at 0:14 AM, Waz said:

If anyone is interested, I've posted a pull request which adds Sorting and Searching. https://github.com/linuxgurugamer/KerbalObjectInspector/pull/1

thanks.

Just merged, I'll get a new release in a day or so

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New release with @Waz's addition:  0.1.2:

  • Adds Sorting, Searching, and to MainMenu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@linuxgurugamer Is it possible to make Object Inspector display material properties like shader name and texture name while inspecting a mesh?

WztMuJJ.jpg

Edited by Enceos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would assume that if it is in the file. It could be displayed

Could you open an issue on Github?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@linuxgurugamer

So I came here to report possible bugs but I before I was going to do that I was checking the version I have for this and requirements just in case there had been updates. Turns out I downloaded version 1.1.1 on the 22nd of April from the link in the opening post which is some versions ago, hehe. I imagine my issues relate to this since one of them was click through blocking not working ;D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Manwith Noname said:

@linuxgurugamer

So I came here to report possible bugs but I before I was going to do that I was checking the version I have for this and requirements just in case there had been updates. Turns out I downloaded version 1.1.1 on the 22nd of April from the link in the opening post which is some versions ago, hehe. I imagine my issues relate to this since one of them was click through blocking not working ;D

Thanks, I updated the OP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick install question @linuxgurugamer:

I'm going to add this mod on a 1.3.1 KSP install.
I grabbed the version
related to it (not the latest, obviously) but I'm unsure if it should work as it is, or there are some mod dependencies different to those stated in the OP (being related to the 1.4.1 and subsequent ones).

Apreciated any suggestion about ;)
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Araym said:

Quick install question @linuxgurugamer:

I'm going to add this mod on a 1.3.1 KSP install.
I grabbed the version
related to it (not the latest, obviously) but I'm unsure if it should work as it is, or there are some mod dependencies different to those stated in the OP (being related to the 1.4.1 and subsequent ones).

Apreciated any suggestion about ;)
 

The 1.3.1 version does not have any dependencies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, linuxgurugamer said:

The 1.3.1 version does not have any dependencies

Thank you for the fastest answer ever in this forum

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/5/2016 at 1:44 PM, linuxgurugamer said:

The original author, Nifty255, had an ambiguous license reference, he listed two licenses which were 
contradictory.   After consultation with Squad, I have decided to release this using the GPLv3, which
is the original license listed.

Not that it's important by now, but I think it worths to mention: the licenses presented in the original fork are not contradictory - and the ambiguity is superficial.

By the Vienna Agreement (WIPO), every copyrightable work is already "All Rights Reserved". It's the default, and it's redundant to state that.

The code is GPL3, what grants additional rights to the licensee. In the even the GPL become "null and void", the original licensing terms (All Rights Reserved") are applied and it's how it works for everybody no matter what. It's simple like that, the original author just decided to be verbose on it.

However, every public repository on GitHub grants to GitHub Inc additional rights, being them: to fork and to redistribute whatever is committed on the repo. And GitHub grants us these same rights - so, as long as you keep the repository on GitHub, the "All Rights Reserved" is not that "all rights" as it appears.

Off course, this argument assumes that the original copyright holder effectively have all the rights on the published material - if the guy are in copyright infringement himself, the infringement 'taints' all the food chain.

Edited by Lisias
yeah. typos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Lisias said:

However, every public repository on GitHub grants to GitHub Inc additional rights, being them: to fork and to redistribute whatever is committed on the repo. And GitHub grants us these same rights - so, as long as you keep the repository on GitHub, the "All Rights Reserved" is not that "all rights" as it appears

Actually, you are incorrect.  The default license on Github is ARR.  Which doesn't mean you can't copy it, but you can't redistribute it in any form.  Quoting Github:

Quote

However, without a license, the default copyright laws apply, meaning that you retain all rights to your source code and no one may reproduce, distribute, or create derivative works from your work. 

Regarding forks:

Quote

other GitHub users have the right to view and fork your repository within the GitHub site.

and, the complete reference:  https://help.github.com/articles/licensing-a-repository/

Edited by linuxgurugamer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

Actually, you are incorrect.  The default license on Github is ARR.  Which doesn't mean you can't copy it, but you can't redistribute it in any form. 

Sorry, but you are incorrect. :) 

From the text of the link I provided (the Terms of Service of the GitHub repository):

Quote

3. Ownership of Content, Right to Post, and License Grants

You retain ownership of and responsibility for Your Content. If you're posting anything you did not create yourself or do not own the rights to, you agree that you are responsible for any Content you post; that you will only submit Content that you have the right to post; and that you will fully comply with any third party licenses relating to Content you post.

Because you retain ownership of and responsibility for Your Content, we need you to grant us — and other GitHub Users — certain legal permissions, listed in Sections D.4 — D.7. These license grants apply to Your Content. If you upload Content that already comes with a license granting GitHub the permissions we need to run our Service, no additional license is required. You understand that you will not receive any payment for any of the rights granted in Sections D.4 — D.7. The licenses you grant to us will end when you remove Your Content from our servers, unless other Users have forked it.


<snip>

5. License Grant to Other Users

Any User-Generated Content you post publicly, including issues, comments, and contributions to other Users' repositories, may be viewed by others. By setting your repositories to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to view and "fork" your repositories (this means that others may make their own copies of Content from your repositories in repositories they control).

If you set your pages and repositories to be viewed publicly, you grant each User of GitHub a nonexclusive, worldwide license to use, display, and perform Your Content through the GitHub Service and to reproduce Your Content solely on GitHub as permitted through GitHub's functionality (for example, through forking). You may grant further rights if you adopt a license. If you are uploading Content you did not create or own, you are responsible for ensuring that the Content you upload is licensed under terms that grant these permissions to other GitHub Users.

In a nutshell: if you fork the thing, compile it and make a new release on the GitHub, you are fine. If you forked it into somewhere else, you need the additional licensing terms.

As long as you want to use GitHub to host your code, you are giving GitHub and their users the rights that the link I mentioned states.

Edited by Lisias
yeah, some more grammar glitches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the text you quoted:

1 hour ago, Lisias said:

use, display, and perform Your Content

 It specifically says "Use, display and perform", NOT change and distribute. So, while a secondary user can make changes and leave those changes on Github, uploading compiled versions for distribution are not necessarily allowed

Regardless, I consulted with Squad because it was extremely unclear, as evidenced by our disagreement here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As the right to "use" the source code, I understand the right to recompile and eventually fix it - as long as this stays on GitHub, my understanding is that I'm allowed. To exercise the right of "performing" a program in source code, I must have the right to compile it. And once I commit the binary on the GitHub, the act of "redistributing" is being executed by GitHub.

Committing my changes on GitHub is part of the "use" of the forked source - the 5th Paragraphs, in my understanding, says this clearly (emphasis is mine):

Quote

If you set your pages and repositories to be viewed publicly, you grant each User of GitHub a nonexclusive, worldwide license to use, display, and perform Your Content through the GitHub Service and to reproduce Your Content solely on GitHub as permitted through GitHub's functionality (for example, through forking).

Note that GitHub allows me to commit changes on my fork - it's a GitHub functionality.

As long as one do not pretend to be the original copyright holder, and anything he/she does on the code is forwarded in the exact same terms (as he/she can't relicense the original code and it's cumbersome to double license only your changes, besides possible), I really don't understand how the GitHub ToS would be used to prevent anyone of doing this.

Ideally, we should talk to GitHub Inc. They wrote the Terms of Use and they are the ones that would, hypothetically, enforce it.

May I forward this thread to them for analysis?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Lisias said:

As the right to "use" the source code, I understand the right to recompile and eventually fix it - as long as this stays on GitHub, my understanding is that I'm allowed. To exercise the right of "performing" a program in source code, I must have the right to compile it. And once I commit the binary on the GitHub, the act of "redistributing" is being executed by GitHub.

Committing my changes on GitHub is part of the "use" of the forked source - the 5th Paragraphs, in my understanding, says this clearly (emphasis is mine):

Note that GitHub allows me to commit changes on my fork - it's a GitHub functionality.

As long as one do not pretend to be the original copyright holder, and anything he/she does on the code is forwarded in the exact same terms (as he/she can't relicense the original code and it's cumbersome to double license only your changes, besides possible), I really don't understand how the GitHub ToS would be used to prevent anyone of doing this.

Ideally, we should talk to GitHub Inc. They wrote the Terms of Use and they are the ones that would, hypothetically, enforce it.

May I forward this thread to them for analysis?

Please do, I'd like to hear what they have to say.  it's a grey area, I understand what you are saying, but I disagree with you.  Then again, I'm not a lawyer.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:

Please do, I'd like to hear what they have to say.  it's a grey area, I understand what you are saying, but I disagree with you.  Then again, I'm not a lawyer.

Thanks.

I'm failing on understanding your point of view, but that's all - even lawyers I know make mistakes on this matter now and then, so… Yeah, better safe than sorry. :D 

I'll follow up as soon as I have any response from them.

Feel free to poke me out now and then, so I can poke them back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well… It ended up that you are right. This is the answer I got from GitHub:

Quote

Hello Lisias,

Thanks for reaching out! Under the GitHub Terms of Service, you are allowed to view and fork any public repository. After that, what you can do with it is determined by the project's owner. If their license is "all rights reserved," or if they have no license at all, it's best to assume that all default copyright law applies. And these laws would generally prevent you from modifying a fork of the repository.

If you're ever unclear about what you can or can't do with code found in a specific repository, it's always best to reach out to the owner with your questions.

Please let me know if we can help in any other way.

So. Yeah, I'm wrong on what they meant, but - really - not in what they wrote. I mentioned this to the GitHub support suggesting that the TOS must be changed to make this explicit.

In the USA at least, a TOS is a Contract, and Contracts are Law between the parts. They must be explicit about what I can and can't do on a Contract.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.