Khatharr

Hey, I'm trying to get ATM to stop murdering all my icons, but it's fighting me. I tried adding the following to the cfg: but that only fixes one icon. There are others that are severely blurred or pure white. Any suggestions?

FYI: AVC is naming this mod as the IRC mod instead of Ambient Light mod. May want to check the xml.

Here's a plan: let's gripe about people asking harmless questions until the page changes again. That way someone else will ask again. It's a self-feeding cycle... If we can just extract power from it we'll have a perpetual motion engine!

Is it acting up? Actually, I'll just download it and see. Edit: This appears to be working perfectly in 0.90. There are no warnings and the behavior is correct. The license is WTFPL, so if it acts up just post in here and someone will probably fix it.

The code is licensed in such a way as to allow usage in order anyone to implement that kind of solution if it's what they prefer. If, for instance, you were to change the _version to 5, then write in your mod-checking methods, then write in the 20-starts behavior, you could use that as a CC fork with your desired behavior implemented. Most probably users will be far less bothered by the popup in that case, and they won't see any need to look for a blocker. My preferred solution is one where no one feels the need for this mod. Any method that makes that happen is 100% good with me. Does that make sense? If you're okay with it, I can write up the 20-run method and send it to you to do with as you please. My honest estimation is that popup blocker will actually reduce the number of reports. When people see the warning, they look for a new version. If there isn't a new version available they won't feel compelled to post in the thread asking how to disable the popup.

Nice. Thank you.

I don't use firespitter, but I do have some mods that use the dll. AFAIK there's an up-to-date dll for it, because I'm not getting warnings from it. I'll see if I can find it. Oh, right. snjo has it on the firespitter github. It's kind of a pain in the butt, but if you go here: https://github.com/snjo/Firespitter On the lower-right there's a 'download' link. It will download the whole 40mb thing because github. The updated dll is in the "For release/Firespitter/Plugins" folder once you unzip the downloaded file. Note that I have no clue whether or not it will work correctly with the release version of firespitter, but it works correctly for other stuff like Nothke's service compartments or infernal robotics, etc.

Please review the popup blocker 1.0.2 behavior and let me know what you think. If you need something to test it with: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/55625-0-25-In-game-notes-notepad-checklist-v0-10-26-07-14 http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/66881-0-25-In-game-scientific-calculator-Kalculator-v0-2-27-07-14 These mods, despite claiming 0.25 compatibility and functioning perfectly, trigger a CC warning. (The author is aware and is working on an update.)

I think you may be vastly overestimating the time I've spent on it. Additionally, while I understand and agree with (and indeed considered beforehand) the thrust of the XKCD strip, time-to-value is not necessarily a 1:1 relationship. I like the time I spend on the popup blocker. I don't like the time I spend clicking away a redundant warning. Additionally, I'm considering not only the amount of time I spend on the trivial task, but the amount of time that everyone collectively spends on it. I'm still ahead of the game by orders of magnitude.

Ah. My mistake. You labelled them oppositely to what I would have. If you're sincere about it, then sure. The option of taking away the popup blocker is not on the table, but I've already demonstrated that I'm willing to consider revisions when not addressed with malice. That was my proposal. People who clearly don't want to work with me are saying they don't want it. I'm amenable to it, but I'm not forking CC for it. CC forks require adoption, but any modder who decides to use the fork has to deal with the possibility of social or practical retaliation by the "I'd rather just destroy everything than come to a compromise" group. That brand of malice has actually been expressed here. This is why I proposed opening a dialog with Majiir. He's not done anything against me, and If he's willing to talk to me without malice then I can give him solutions that would involve a scant minimum of work on his part. I trust him to handle the code better than I would, since C# is not one of my commonly used languages. I'd much rather let him handle integration since he's the coder for CC, and I think it might reduce the risk of retaliation if he's the one presenting it because it would signal at least a token level of acceptance from the people directly involved in CC.

How convenient that the very person who was the first to dish out abuse is the one to respond. You linked NathanKell's condescending post, but your abusive post is immediately above it. That's real nice. And yes; My post was edited for language, because I called BS when I saw BS, and apparently I didn't censor the word sufficiently. This has nothing to do with the subject matter. After that I was told to move on. With the dialog stopped, I made my own solution. I never implied that ferram4 is or was the representative of all modders, but he is the OP of CC thread and he certainly had a lot to say about it. When the popup blocker was released suddenly it was no longer an issue of 'no', but 'why not fork CC?'. So we're re-opening a dialog? Okay. I agreed and started work. My problem is already solved. I was catering to him. But then in the middle of that it's back to 'I don't like it' and 'I'm not responsible for it anyway'. Why would I continue doing something for him at that point? Again, my problem is already solved. Again, I never 'burned anything to the ground'. I solved a problem, and you're flipping out because it involves taking back control of my system from you because I don't see you handling it responsibly. If you don't like my solution then supersede it with a better one instead of continuing to antagonize me. You have many options available to you. Why not pick a better one? It's sad, because I was a lot happier with your style of response to MaHuJa's proposal, which was informational rather than accusatory, and eventually led to a very reasonable segway into what looks like an optimal solution. We could, and can, have that here, but I'm not disposed to cater to anyone who is intentionally trying to agitate me. The original line indicated that people who think users are too stupid to be allowed a choice would be angry about it. Was I wrong? Anyway, I'm going to dinner.

Awesome! I'm glad to see this finally happening. I bought Don't Starve on Steam the other day and the way the Steam workshop integrates with the game is really enviable. This also saves me some trouble, since I recently started work on an information aggregator for mod update statuses (to get around the search-through-every-post-of-every-thread-for-every-update problem). This system will solve the problem much more neatly and I don't have to think about how to find a free host for the aggregator, lol.

This is true. I understand the distinction between an implementer and a user in the practical sense. I'm trying to point to the moral dichotomy where one group's convenience/acceptance is valued more highly than another group's convenience/acceptance. That one. This whole thing was started when the question, "How do I make it stop?" was posed in the CC thread and the immediate response was abuse and condescension. I'm in support of a user-friendly CC version, but I've been told that mod makers are not. That's the divisive distinction, and I have some amount of evidence that it's a false one. Some modders are clearly against the suggested changes, but I know that not all of them are. To add fuel to the fire, some of the people who are against it have basically said that the reason they're against it is that users are too stupid to have that kind of power. Well, now they have it. That makes some people mad, but it makes other people glad. The difference is that the roles are reversed. If we can decide to treat convenience and acceptance as a common resource instead of an entitled resource then the moral distinction is gone, the problem very rapidly resolves itself, and we're all be better off. To this end I have made offers and done work toward such a solution, but in the first instance was abused in the interim so stopped, and in the second instance I have yet to receive any form of response.

I suggest to you that this dichotomy may be the very root of the issue.

Tohou Torpedo kind of hit it on the head, although I've already hinted at it pretty strongly. The existence of a mod does not imply that the whole universe has installed it. People choose to install this mod at their own discretion. If they install this mod it's specifically because they want to stop the popup. If the CC maintainer(s) provide a solution that allows users to override the offending behavior without a disproportional amount of work then people will no longer download the popup blocker because there will simply be no need for it. I'm glad to hear that Majiir is working on a CC-side solution. If he wants to PM me I may have something he's interested in, or if he doesn't want that specifically, then I can also tell him about a very simple but effective alternative idea for solving the problem (inspired by the excellent proposal from Master Tao that led to version 1.0.1). He hasn't been among the people who have flipped out at me or called me stupid so far, so I'm quite willing to work with him. You're posting a hostile response in order to say that hostile responses should be a reason for ignoring the rules. In other words, you think there should only be rules when things are going the way you think they should? There have also been supportive responses, and people are still downloading the mod. Angry people tend to make more noise than happy people.

Update posted. Enjoy.

I added a license statement to the previously posted code snippet. You can do whatever you want with it or not do whatever you want with it. It's not intended as a CC fork. As previously stated, I stopped work on that when you decided to snark at me about it before I even completed it. Additionally, in the CC thread you (and others) were more than gung-ho about telling me no, a disable option is not okay, and more or less calling me (and all other users) stupid. Now that the context has changed, you suddenly declare that CC is no one's baby. Well... Here we are. Firstly, as previously stated, this plugin remains regardless. Try to think about this for a moment. You're viewing this as an "interference plugin". Myself and may others view intentionally annoying popup boxes as "interference behavior". You yourself stated in the CC thread that the behavior was intentionally designed to force the user into compliance. Well, now there's a plugin that gives users the ability to avoid being forced into anything. This is provision of a service. If you're afraid that it will somehow cause millions of people to suddenly forget that updates may potentially break mod compatibility, even though they had to explicitly download a plugin to deal with that very fact, then maybe you should revise your general strategy. You are free to do whatever you want. My advice to you is to implement some form of user control over the dialog - as was suggested - so that the popup blocker will become irrelevant because users will still get their warnings, but won't feel harassed. It will take you (or anyone else) a half hour and then you'll never have to worry about it again. You can include the code snippet I posted if you want, or not. Everybody wins. That's only my advice. You are free to do whatever you want. At this point, I am in no way convinced that the popup blocker is doing more harm than good. I will not remove the popup blocker unless and until the time arrives that I feel that this is the case. Originally I was prepared to trust you lot to do the right thing and adopt the optional behavior, but clearly that's not the plan, so I'll simply maintain the blocker. If at some point in the future I see that CC implementation of user suppression options has become common, then I'll begin to consider whether the popup blocker still has merit. To everyone posting here: I'd like to thank those of you have stated clearly why you want to use the mod, or why you don't want to use the mod. I'm happy because you're making your own choice in the matter, regardless of which choice you make. For those of you who are just here to complain about the sky falling, please consider this the next time someone comes to you with a complaint about high-handed behavior. Try to understand their position and try to pay them the respect that you would like to be paid in that same position. They may make their own solution and it may not be the one you wanted. I understand your intent, but one of my goals here is to provide the option to people who may not have an IDE or compiler handy. This I like. This I will do. Update should come a little later tonight.

Actually, there's a more recent workaround. Some outrageously handsome devil has made a mod that simply disables the popup altogether. It's called "Compatibility Popup Blocker", and I'm told it even has a thread in this very forum!

Irony at its finest. You don't get to choose what happens on my machine. Keep complaining or start adapting. See you tomorrow.

LOL As soon as I even begin to be nice we're back to "the users are stupid" and "we won't allow it!". Fine, then. As I mentioned, it's effortless for me to mutate the popup blocker. I'll give you what I have so far for the feature change. This was a snippet to be spliced into the existing code. In its current state it shows a warning once and then suppresses it until there's a change, which is close to the target behavior except that it always assumes that the user wants to suppress the warning. I was going to change the dialog out to one with a check-box that defaults to 'off' and then set the bool according to the state of the check-box when 'OK' is pressed. It doesn't matter at this point. Since you can't grasp the concept of respecting the user, the popup blocker mod stays and will be mutated as often as necessary any time a user reports a mod that is bypassing it. As long as people feel inconvenienced by CC they can come use this mod to circumnavigate it. POPUP BLOCKED Here's your code. The only way to get away from the popup blocker at this point is to make the end users stop resenting your intentionally annoying behavior. Good luck. if ((incompatible.Length > 0) || (incompatibleUnity.Length > 0)) { /////////////////////////////////// //LICENSE - Khatharr (the author) hereby relinquishes all rights to this code to the extent permitted by law. Good grief. const String suppressionFileName = "GameData/CompatCheckSuppress"; bool warningSuppressed = false; String silencedMessage; try { silencedMessage = System.IO.File.ReadAllText(suppressionFileName); warningSuppressed = Equals(message, silencedMessage); if (!warningSuppressed) { //messages didn't match, so there's been a change - remove the suppression System.IO.File.Delete(suppressionFileName); } } catch (Exception) { Debug.Log("Compatibility Checker suppression file not found. (This is not an error.)"); } if (!warningSuppressed) { bool suppressionRequested = true; //~~_ need to replace this with a different dialog that allows the bool to be set PopupDialog.SpawnPopupDialog("Incompatible Mods Detected", message, "OK", true, HighLogic.Skin); if (suppressionRequested) { System.IO.File.WriteAllText(suppressionFileName, message); } } /////////////////////////////////////////// }

It's easier for me to mutate this than it is for modders to try and work around it. The path of least resistance at this point is to implement the feature. Meanwhile, since you're visiting my intentions, I made this mod in order to solve a problem for users. If that creates a problem for modders then frankly I'm not obligated to care about that, especially taking into account the attitude toward inconveniencing users that was demonstrated last night. I was being told by everyone involved that the feature in question was unacceptable, essentially because it robbed them of their power to coerce users into specific behaviors - with the justification provided more or less being that users are stupid. This is called irony. Now CC is inconvenienced (though by phantoms, to be frank) and the users have the power. When you play dirty you get dirty. There's a significant difference in magnitude, though. Firstly, the revision to CC is a once-and-done affair, whereas the work they were demanding from users was on a per-mod, per-user basis, and god help any user that doesn't have an IDE installed to make the necessary changes, or if the mod doesn't include full source code. Since the tune has changed a bit and the feature is suddenly no longer anathema, I'm prepared to work it out and send it to the CC team to do with as they please, which I shall begin presently.

Ball's in your court.

It's not the popup that bothers me so much as the fact that there's no convenient method to say "Okay. Please don't show me this again unless there's a change in the report." I talked about adding such a check-box to the popup in the Compat Check thread, but was told 'no' by the OP and then told to drop the matter by a moderator. If the CC implementer(s) decide to add such a feature, I'll gladly remove this mod, because warnings are good, but continual harassment is not.

DOWNLOAD HERE - Version 1.0.2 "Some installed mods may be incompatible with this version of Kerbal Space Program. Features may be broken or disabled. Please check for updates to the listed mods." Are you tired of seeing this message? You've checked for updates, but none are available? The mods listed are working just fine anyway? You don't want to bother downloading the source, rebuilding the project and recompiling the mod just to get rid of an annoying popup? Compatibility Popup Blocker is for YOU! All you have to do is install the mod as instructed in the included txt. The popup will be disabled and you can get on with your life and take responsibility for your own actions like a grown-up. If you want to re-enable the compatibility check, just remove the dll and restart KSP. No muss, no fuss, no recompiling mods. If any mod you have rejects this popup blocker or exhibits bad behavior in response to its presence, just post in this thread which mod has the problem and I'll mutate the popup blocker and upload the revision. It should only take a few minutes at most. Source code included in download. WTFPL license. Use this mod at your own discretion. "But Khatharr! How does it work?" I'm glad you asked. That annoying popup is a source code section that mod authors can include in their mod if they want to "lock it to a specific version". Since several installed mods may have that source segment, and they may have different versions of it, they all load, and then they compare version numbers with one another to find the highest version. Only the one that has the highest number shows the dialog. This plugin works by telling KSP that it's a part of that collection and then setting its version number to the highest possible value. Before anyone comes along to tell you differently, this does not actually prevent the internal behavior of the other mods. They may still internally disable some of their features if they think that they are incompatible. All this does is block the popup window.

Except that the statement you quoted there was not in the context of the notification. It was in the context of you saying things like "Letting them" (because you decide what I may or may not do) "get them to" (that's called coercion) "put users in the position of" (who the hell do you think you are?) "should have in the first place" (kay mom - still ignoring the fact that if there's no update you're stuck with the nag) I am not, nor have I ever, suggested that no warning be issued, and you know it. Fantastic. I hope it helps them. This is completely irrelevant, since - again - I'm not arguing that no notification should be given. SOME people do. That's their problem. [snip.] Not only would no one complain about it, they clearly never have, since it's never been implemented. Fine. using System; using System.Collections.Generic; using System.Linq; using System.Reflection; using UnityEngine; namespace Compatibility { [KSPAddon(KSPAddon.Startup.Instantly, true)] internal class CompatibilityChecker : MonoBehaviour { public static bool IsCompatible() { return true; } public static bool IsUnityCompatible() { return true; } private static int _version = 99; public void Start() {} } } It's just about as horrible as your nonsense about how terrible it would be if the user could have control over the behavior of their program. KNOCK KNOCK KNOCK KNOCK KNOCK KNOCK KNOCK KNOCK KNOCK KNOCK KNOCK KNOCK KNOCK KNOCK KNOCK KNOCK KNOCK KNOCK KNOCK KNOCK KNOCK KNOCK KNOCK KNOCK KNOCK KNOCK KNOCK KNOCK KNOCK KNOCK KNOCK KNOCK KNOCK