RoverDude

I'm actually with @AlphaAsh here. I had pre-release versions of everything I make day one for the specific purpose of letting folks help me find bugs (and with about a dozen mods and over 400 parts... yeah, there are lots of little things that got missed). But then I also made sure I kept the last stable 1.0.5 and made it clear that these were pre-release ones so folks could help me find issues.

Ok thanks! I have an idea of what's going on, sit tight till the next update.

@Matuchkin - I find the implications in your last post incredibly rude. You are becoming a prime example of the problem you're railing against. Cheers, I'm out.

Why is it that someone doing what they wish with their own IP seen as unfriendly? And sorry, we've been telling you for several pages now exactly what to do if you want to encourage folks to keep sharing and establish continuity. It's really not that hard.

What @Stone Blue said. For any mod with even a bit of traction, finding an interested party from among the enthusiastic fans and contributors is not a big deal (for example, MKS has at last count 47 contributors). I'm just failing to see the problem space here.

The thread has as much to do with forking a mod as ham does with hamsters If it's open licensed, and is pretty much deceased (i.e. no OP) and you want to revive it, kick off a new thread. done. No offense intended at all, but if I were to deliver my mods to someone, it would be one of the current collaborators that has already proved themselves through pull requests, helping with support, etc. We do not need a list of volunteers. We need actual volunteers to go in and help users, fix stuff for us, etc. And this is what I mean when I say we already have the resources we need.

In which case, if the stuff was not open licensed, no amount of 'resources' in the world will change the fact that said mod is dead unless someone can hunt down the author. An addendum. This is why all posts here require licenses, and the various hosting sites also require this. So if someone vanishes, the license is there so the community knows what it can and cannot do. Easy peasy.

With all due respect, we already have the resources we need to do this. Whether it's open licensing, or (as I have seen happen a few times) calls for folks to take a mod over within it's thread. This is a solved issue.

Or to put it another way. The point of this thread seems to be about providing some way for modders to better provide continuity/succession of their IP. This is already a solved problem. And at some point you need to accept that the answer is simply that the mod dies. There's nothing a player can offer that will change that, other than being decent and kind and hope the person either stays interested, or decides on their own that the best thing for their IP is an open license. No matter how many times we beat this horse, it is not going to budge the needle closer to a world where users are guaranteed continuity, regardless of how popular a mod is, or it's perceived level of criticality.

We're already doing the things that we prefer tho You keep implying we don't have options on the table and for whatever reason cannot do whatever we want with our IP. We have a wealth of options available, although some of them might not be options that you like. I don't find @stupid_chris 's position radical at all, I find it truthful and frank. It may not be what you want to hear, but it's how things are.

tbh, I have yet to see any license used out there in any mod ever that implies any level of support, suitability, or continuity - in fact, every one I have read has explicitly stated that you get nothing, and everything is as-is. Which is a pretty safe assumption to make with any mod you download for a game.

1. Drills turning off is likely due to physics hop (check if you have the same problem once 1.1 hits) 2. Life support issues are fixed in the next 1.1 release 3. This is how stock handles solar over warp (it's a long story, but short version is that I wrote it in stock to be optimistic not pessimistic WRT solar power and catch-up mechanics)

@Matuchkin I think it's been explained pretty clearly (Both @Snark and @stupid_chris have been abundantly clear. This implies (and I say this with all due respect) that whether your mindset progresses or not really matters. It does not change who owns the IP, nor does it change their right to do with it what you will. If the question is 'how do I better encourage people to stick around, use open licensing, and potentially pass a torch', that bit's been spelled out a few times Be nice and be respectful. It's pretty easy, though it doesn't always work out... and that's ok too.

Of course it is. Yet that does not stop stupid support requests from coming in, because everyone knows what it was forked off of. Especially when your 'fork' is just turning off guard clauses explicitly put in by the modder (which has happened a few times here) to prevent support issues. And yeah, all paths still lead to 'don't act like a spoiled brat', be nice, ask nicely, respect modder's wishes. While it probably sounds like a broken record by now, it's something that sometimes this community forgets.

But it's within his rights, even if we disagree with it. And @soundnfury - @stupid_chris is 100% correct - I remember that particular kerfluffle. Modders asked nicely, users got entitled and did stuff, using the 'but the license says I can so tough' excuse, and they got locked down mods as a result. Any attempt to force or coerce creative folks to serve your interests instead of theirs will, pretty consistently, blow up in your face. Be nice. Be respectful. Ask for things nicely, understand when a modder says no. Pretty easy stuff really, and goes a long way.

@PolecatEZ - we do not need new licenses. The selection we have out there is perfectly fine. If a modder wishes to allow others to redistribute or modify their stuff, awesome. There are licenses for that. If they feel they are being abused by the community, they can change it as well. And sorry, @Andem - being nice is pretty much the only solution you have. Trying to figure out ways of roping in the intellectual property of others at their expense for your benefit is just going to annoy people, and guarantee more restrictive licensing. I think @stupid_chris summed it up pretty well above. It's not pretty, but it's reality.

That last bit... no. That's just rude, and an excellent example of what NOT to do. You kinda need to let it go - people are going to do what they wish, and pressuring them to do something they don't want to is just going to liquid them off. Add semi-related... 'No pics no clicks' is rude. 'I won't download your mod unless you host it on site X' is also rude. I'll say it again. Your best bet is to just be nice. Everything else follows from that.

Let me quote you then As noted above, about the only thing you can do is encourage open licensing. That's it. And the best way the community as a whole can encourage open licensing is to consistently respect the modder's wishes beyond the boilerplate of a license (i.e. don't fork my project please while I am still around, don't fork it just to circumvent locks I put in place or to be a jerk, don't take credit for my work, don't put it in a modpack, don't list it on CKAN, etc.).

There is none, and that's kinda the point. It is the modder's personal work that they happen to share with other people. If a modder wants to lock it in a restrictive license, or just delete the files and forbid all forks, etc. - then that is absolutely their prerogative. There is no inherrant right of the community to the intellectual property of others. you're free to ask nicely all you wish, but nobody is beholden to it. And even 'asking nicely' is irrelevant. Just like the times modders 'ask nicely' not to do certain things with our properties (list them in CKAN, create forks that bypass Win64 causing support problems, bundling them in modpacks, etc). This kinda works both ways. A very vocal portion of the community has shown that it does not respect 'asking nicely' (we're told 'tough luck - you chose your license'), why should the people creating content for themselves be held to a higher standard just because they decided to share their stuff with someone? This is a hobby. We do it for our own enjoyment, whether it's playing the game, or using it as a creative outlet or a learning experience for modelers/coders. While it's great that people enjoy things we share, it's still a voluntary exchange without expectation or obligation.

If needed, sure. As I recall KSPI measured it but never did anything with it. And it's relatively easy to calculate this stuff.

See 'shielded'. The U.S. experimented with putting a nuke reactor on a bomber once... one major issue was the weight required to properly shield the crew from getting killed.

First - you're welcome Second - If you're using Regolith, then you have a REALLY old version of it since it was deprecated with 1.0 - given this mod is just config files, something else is probably causing the issue. See Streetwind's note - essentially it's there to be used for tank switching and as reference data for modders. The stock converters can now optionally work with mass vs. units (which is not relevalt to volume but tossing that out there). As noted below, this is by design Regarding IFS - you should ask over in that thread as it is going to be a bug on that end (CRP did not change much at all with 1.1) Thanks @goldenpsp for helping with the cat herding

I agree (it's why I open license my stuff), but on the flip side, some elements of our community have not quite learned how to play well with others yet, and forget that just because you can does not mean you should - for example, the rash of cases where people forked win64 'unfixed' versions directly contrary to the wishes of the original (and still very active) author, resulting in a mess of support for them that they were specifically trying to avoid by locking out win64. Folks were crying foul and saying that it was tough luck, they chose their licenses poorly (i.e. ones that allowed derivative works) thus encouraging closed licensing because folks could not be trusted to have a dialogue and respect the original author's wishes regarding how their work was used (and forcing the author to explicitly seal it up). Or, to paraphrase the philosoraptor, 'Just because a tomato is a fruit does not mean you should put it in a fruit salad'. And even then, no guarantees. Folks are free to quit any time they want, or choose not to enter/renew a contract. Sorry, you can't force people to work for you if they don't want to.

Worked fine when I tested it a bit ago, you will need to confirm which KSP version you are on and which mod version you are on.

And this is why all of these can be turned off if one is so inclined. (To elaborate a bit further) Bear in mind, that everything I make, I make for myself - it's stuff I want in KSP (and tbh if you're making things for any other reason than (first and foremost) your own personal use, you're doing it wrong). TAC-LS has depth in one aspect - consumables. USI-LS has, for quite some time, been intended to have breadth across several aspects. It's also meant to be used more like a spice rack - take a pinch and dash of the bits you want, whether that's penalties or even entire subsystems (hence the very large number of dials). You can make hab (for all practical purposes) infinite with one tweak... or just turn it off. Your call. Me, I like all of the dials on because that's how I play with it, and all of those bits are bits that I want in my own games.