freerunnering

I've been having overheating problems too, I gave up looking for a solution and just edited a load of the parts config files too. It works, but will be a pain to do again when I have to update KSP to the next version.

I have always played with FAR installed and so far I'm liking the new aero system. I like reentry heating, it's realistic and fun (though really weak). The need for strong heat shields for interplanetary missions makes going to the mun easy. It'd be better to have different classes of heat shields. Cheaper weaker ones you unlock earlier. And then more expensive better ones for deep space unlocked later? Now the thermal system: I hate the new engine/craft heating system. We have no radiators, no means of cooling anything down. There's no button I can press to say "pay more and make heavier to withstand more heat" it just doesn't work, and besides lots of ugly hacks with spamming girders and wings/solar panels, there's nothing I can do. Am I meant to just guess which parts act as radiators (as I believe solar panels do, despite that being the opposite of real life) and spam them? When building a craft there is no indication if the engine I've picked will produce too much heat and blow the rest of my craft up straight after launch. Does lifting off the throttle reduce heat production? I guess, but the UI game doesn't tell me how much heat the engine is producing anywhere and the heat gauges on parts are slow to update, so... guess. I want reentry heat because it adds to the game. Craft overheating just infuriates me. I really want an option to disable engine/craft heating without turning off reentry heat. This has sucked a lot of the fun out the game for me and made me regret updating KSP. Managing overheating is not a gameplay mechanism I want, unless I'm reentering the atmosphere or skimming close to the Sun. P.S: If I turn off reentry heating will the craft engine also be turned off, or am I stuck with this? P.P.S: Sorry this reads a bit like a rant. Yesterday was the first time I have updated KSP and then regretted updating and got annoyed at the changes.

I really dislike applications using custom cursors. For me this isn't an improvement but a problem to be fixed.

Wow, this looks MAGNIFICENT! I can't wait to give it a go (if my computer can handle it). B9 has more parts than the stock game now.

Is there? Where? (I've been looking)

I like that this exists and can exist. This has changed the name (slightly), but in a way that looks like the beta development version (at least it did to me before reading the thread). I'm criticising the name choice but I like that this can exist. As it is we have a 0.24 version of Interstellar that is, in my opinion nerfed, but without the open licensing players would have nothing (as they couldn't even try patching the old one).

I agree. I think if this isn't maintaining the original mod but instead diverging and changes parts, balance and the way the mod works then it should renamed as it is very confusing otherwise. I'm actually (trying) to learn KSP part making and modding (in a hurry! but not likely before 0.25) in order to do just this. I.E: https://www.flickr.com/photos/54569473@N06/15066339865/ I have a little 3D blender experience, and Unity (minimal) experience and know C# ok (I'm an ObjC programmer normally).

And this ^^^ is the inevitable end of this sort of conversation, and the future I really fear and want to avoid.

The problem is there is no licence that fits what authors want. And it is impossible to create one. Take Interstellar for example. It has a permissive licence that (basically) says you can do stuff with it (without asking the author), but yours has to be open source too & must refer back to the original work as being the original that yours is based on. That sounds similar to "CC ShareALike Attribution" to me (but I'm not an expert on licences). Now the original author has disappeared. But as the licence says you can modify it without his permission the community can pick up the project and carry on using and updating it. I think we can all agree this is a good thing? The problem is an author isn't going to like some things people could do to their work. Think about it, you can do anything to it as long as you refer back to the original work. You could take that work, find something the author hates, modify their work to insult them and then spread it around. You could deliberately cause them problems. Or you could just go off making random changes, causing conflicts, confusion and all sorts of trouble for the author. We can agree these things are bad? So your argument is that to avoid problems, people doing things to annoy, cause trouble for, or just people doing things they dislike, the author should make their licence one that requires their permission. But then what happens in the (real life) Interstellar example? Well in that case, the author disappears and the project dies. No one is allowed to touch it because no one can contact the author for any sort of permission. Maybe they got run over as they crossed the road and no one will ever hear from them again. (you'd never know if you only contacts people through a forum) Here is the ideal licence. People that want to do good things with my work can, without needing my permission. People that want to do bad things to my work need to ask, so I can say no. That licence CAN'T exist. Instead we have to presume that most people are nice, polite and good people. They like something and so don't want to offend or cause problems for the person that made it (or anyone). Presuming this we licence things under permissive licences and grant people the rights to do what they like with them, hoping that having people be polite and considerate will be enough to deal with most problems this could cause. This is where we are now. Permissive licences, presume people are considerate, and moan about the people that aren't or abuse your kindness. The other option is to lock down the licences, All Rights Reserved (ask my if you want to do anything to it and I might say yes). The problem with this is it locks down what can happen. It removes the freedoms from everyone to stop possible abuse by a few (though you seem to be arguing it isn't "abuse" if its allowed by the licence), and a lot of the problem people will just ignore licences anyway. TLDR: The ideal licence is "If you want to do something good you can without permission. If you want to do something bad you aren't allowed to." It can't exist so instead we use open permissive licences on the biases that most people will be nice and considerate. Then we just leave dealing with problems that arise with that by complaining and hoping the social pressure of community disapproval help keep people within reasonable lines. Because the alternative is restrictive licences that hamper creativity and only solve some of the problems. + the sort of people that authors are likely to moan about abusing the permissiveness of the licence would likely ignore a more restrictive licence anyway. P.S: this is much bigger than I originally planned (and I'm not as persuasive written down as I am in my head).

Seriously?!? As a developer I've seen this sort of thing happen quite often. I know quite a few developers that start of open sourcing their stuff with very permissive licences, then it causes them trouble, so they restrict the licence. And then (for quite a few projects I've seen) they get people just recompiling the code and pretending it's their own so the original developers just end up close sourcing it completely. A good rule of thumb if you want things to say open source with permissive licences: "Don't cause problems for the developers!"

I know WaveFunctionP has a modified version of Interstellar that works on 0.24: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/91867-0-24-2-Interstellar-Experimental-Tweakscale-Integration-v0-12exp-Aug-25 However, this version has messed with the scaling & performance of the engines. Made them less realistic, and nerfed the later stages to be much less powerful. So we have the original KSP Interstellar (doesn't work on 0.24 properly): [0.23.5]KSP Interstellar (Toolbar Integration, New Models, New Tech) Version 0.11 The new fork of KSP Interstellar (fixed KSP, but messed with the balance, nerfed parts, and removed some parts): http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/91867-0-24-2-Interstellar-Experimental-Tweakscale-Integration-v0-12exp-Aug-25 Has anyone started working on a fork of WaveFunctionP's version (for 0.24) that puts the stats back to the original values?

Is there an API? I was going (and started) to make my own open source space port rewrite. The main reason being I wanted a backend for mod managers. I have about 20+ mods installed and keeping track of them (especially as their folders are named badly sometimes) is very hard. If not would you be willing to expect a pull request if I forked it and added an API to access: the users account details; the users list of mods; the support version for each mod; the mods version. This would let me write a mod manager to automatically keep track of what mods I have installed and also when each mod is updated to support a new version of KSP. (as my current update plan consists of deleting my GameData folder and reinstalling KSP)