Alshain

I don't manage it anymore though. If someone wanted to succeed it they would have my support (not that they would need it). I don't visit here as often as I used to. In the end it was quite difficult to keep updated, the forum isn't exactly the right tool for such a thing.

It's Squads fault, they pandered to the "'sploshuns are cool" crowd and advertised it as that. It lost a lot of credibility as a fun and educational game because of their choices.

Regarding the state of this thread, I simply don't have time to fight with the awful forum software in order to continue to add new patches to the original post. If someone out there has the time on their hands and wants to continue in a new thread (or better, find a good platform to host it rather than here) you have my blessings to do so. I'm afraid it just became too successful for it's own good and without any kind of markup editing like BBCode, it's become un-maintainable.

I don't have a lot of time these days due to a new job, so while I do plan to update this mod I'm not keen on doing it 20 times while the developer tries to figure out how to make a stable game. There will be an update, just not until I'm convinced this version 1.4 has had it's actual release.

You just click the app launcher button again. Maintaining the separate button caused a lot of inefficiencies in the old Unity system because it had to constantly check to keep the two buttons in sync. With only one button, it knows when it has been pressed so no need to run checks every frame.

Not as far as I am aware. We could use a Chinese translation.

I have finally managed to get time to update the thread to this point. I apologize for it taking so long. New job has been keeping me busy.

No, they said it was stock. Several of us asked that question. That's the issue, it doesn't technically have what you would consider and "API". It just leaves it's members public for us to access. A true API is a 'translator' between the primary code and the mod developer, the code of an API serves no purpose but to format the inputs of the primary code and make them accessible to the mod developer. If the primary code changes, the API code is changed to adapt without changing the method headers (as much as possible, sometimes you just have to but then you use deprecation) and that way the mod developer never needs to see the change. That's an API. KSP doesn't have that and you can't avoid changing the primary code headers.

We do know 1.4 will have a stock texture switcher.

DStaal is right, though in my context I was trying to differentiate between assembly (like the Lunar rovers which had to be built on the Moon) and actual onsite fabrication (like the proposed "3D Printed" bases by NASA and ESA.) USI would seem to favor the former, while Pathfinder along with OSE Isa better match for the latter.

Pathfinder is the best one I've seen if you want to construct bases insitu. USI is moving away from the idea of insitu construction. While it technically supports it, the developer has been working with other mods like Ground Construction that emphasize insitu assembly, rather than construction. That goes for EPL too, while it supports it, the USI developer really wants to support Ground Construction which requires you to ship a box for every craft you want to build and then assemble in place after it has landed. It's also tends to be very buggy in my experience. I've never played with Planetary Base Systems, so I can't say how it would compare, on paper it looks pretty good. Add KIS/KAS for with that and you can construct and assemble. The USI construction parts are a neat idea, and they extend the range abilities of KIS, but in my experience using them with the mechanical parts is just too difficult (though the mag lifter is probably the most useful if you can keep it from dropping the payload). The big problem is not necessarily the mod or the parts, but the controls that we are resigned to with KSP and servos. I long for a mod that can add Farming Simulator style servo controls to KSP. In any case, I found when using Konstruction, I never used the servo's and instead just used their KIS range extending abilities. You might consider adding OSE Workshop to that list for constructing new base parts insitu.

Just be aware if your mod had bugs in that version it is unlikely to ever be fixed in that version. Assuming the new author uses Github. A lot of people don't know how to use Git (though I strongly recommend reading the book) so they just abandon it entirely.

- Version 2.2.1 Released - No changes, just a fix for 1.3.1.

That is correct, AGM does not actually interface with the MiniAVC DLL, it is a standalone mod included in the package. Also, I just want to point out there are ~450 mods that use it (and that's just the ones using Cybutek's service, you can host the version file anywhere) and I doubt half of them are GPL. I'm not sure why this is an issue in my mod, this whole conversation seems a bit silly.

Well, anyway. There is a 4th option. As the copyright holder he can give written permission to circumvent a part of his license. So all I need to do is get written permission from Cybutek to include it my package.... http://ksp.cybutek.net/miniavc/Documents/README.htm " Bundle the MiniAVC.dll file into your packaged add-on directory along with your version file. " Done.

BSD-2 Clause is compatible with MIT and thus should be safe. In fact the only restriction that applies is that it retains the copyright notice, which it does here, and here. Including and modifying source from a GPLv3 project would certainly break the license, however distribution of GPLv3 libraries would not. Since AGM does not include MiniAVC source, only unaltered binaries are included with the distribution, the license is still properly honored as long as I follow the other rules, such as including the license, and include instructions on how to obtain the original. Bear in mind, the authors of both these tools wrote them with the expressed intent for users to include them with their mod. They wouldn't (and didn't) put a license on them that would prohibit that Regarding updates: I was planning to work on it this weekend... and on the way home, my alternator died. So that's gotta get replaced this weekend, and I'm working a new job which takes up all my time so bear with me. I'll try and get it done as soon as I can.

I agree with @Deddly and prefer it that way, and in fact I wish they would remove a few (for example CKAN, which doesn't even belong in this forum, as it's a Tool or Application but it certainly doesn't need to be stickied) It just creates a bunch of clutter at the top. The database of mods is important and should stay, and of course threads from squad and moderators (though logical consolidation of information in some cases might be useful), other than that, the TOTM and that's it. By the way, I'm not ignoring people. I've been a bit busy but if your patch is posted here, it will make it to the front page eventually. Fear not!

Yes, as Steve_v said, whether you think the mod has something to do with it or not, the only way to be certain is to reproduce the issue with no mods installed. Please do that before adding issues to the bug tracker, that just consumes developer time.

It should be. I've slept since then. I'll have to go back and look at your implementation. One thing you might want to add to the delegate is the event unregistration though. GameEvents.onGUIApplicationLauncherUnreadifying.Remove() My implementation is a bit different, I treat buttons as interfaced objects so I can treat the App Launcher and Blizzy's Toolbar as single Interface (IButtonBar). Never the less, if it helps, here is the code I use. I also registered the onGUIApplicationLauncherDestroyed event which looking at it now, I don't seem to have unregistered that one in my code... hmmm. https://github.com/Alshain01/KSP-AdvancedTweakablesButton/blob/master/AdvancedTweakablesButton/AppLauncher.cs this one is from AGM, it's basically the same but instead of altering a setting in the game, it controls the visibility of a window. It also has documentation and better code style (I took the time to run through StyleCop on it). https://github.com/Alshain01/ActionGroupManager/blob/master/AGM-VisualUI/UI/ButtonBar/AppLauncher.cs

Depends. What do you most? Fly in the atmosphere? Scatterer Spend time in orbit of the body or nearby moon? EVE.

I think the biggest reason this didn't happen has nothing to do with play styles, it is because this is insanely difficult to program correctly and Squad didn't feel it was worth the dev time.. Even the RemoteTech flight computer is terrible mess. It only works half the time, not well enough to turn on signal delay as a game option because it is too ignorant to fly your probe correctly even when you tell it exactly what to do. As much as I love RemoteTech, I use quickload far more often when I try to use the flight computer because half the time it either won't stop when it is supposed to and spins the craft in circles, or gets confused as to which direction is prograde (which I think is actually a stock issue when having multiple probes on one craft, even if all the probes are facing the same correct direction). The worst part is, even if you see it messing up, you can't stop the maneuver. Even if signal delay is off, you can't stop the maneuver, deleting it does nothing, you have to force shut down the engine, try to stop the maneuver, return to the space center and then come back to the craft for it to be finally deleted. Now if the RT developers have been working on this mod for years and it is a complete mess, imagine if Squad tried to do it in stock in one patch. That isn't to say it couldn't be done and done better, but it would take dev resources that would detract from development on other things.

We have a guide for this in the Addon Discussion forum.

You know, at the very least they could release it as a mod or just release the assets like they did with the Porkjet parts.

The only way this could really work and look half way decent would be similar to how Farming Simulator handles dirt. It's basically a transparent layer on top of the tractor and when they want the dirt to show, they just make it more opaque. The problem is, you would have to create this layer for every part, which would be a massive undertaking.

Splashdown? Its not touching the ground and its never going to be stable.