AetherGoddess

there are known issues with KSP's built-in texture scaling, which is part of the reason ATM exists at all. set the textures to full res and retest. it should be fine with minimal memory loss (in fact, almost exactly the memory lost by those small button textures that ATM intentionally excludes).

it's close.

This mod has been around since .18, i think? it was on version 8 when i started modding in .22. the dependencies of this mod are outdated because they used to not be and time is unrelenting.

no tailfins at all. nothing to stop it rotating like a boomerang. most flying wings use lots of small tail fins (like the YB-49) or complex computer throttle control (B-2) to keep the thing from rotating. the other thing you can do is make sure that the far outside control surfaces are the only ones enabled for Yaw control, but there is a reason why there is only one production flying wing, and it's a bomber, and it's heavily computer controlled.

So that's really a balance issue for squad, since the same applies to stock. i don't think they ever adjusted their science values after adding all those planets and muns and biomes and junk. i also don't think they thought through declaring reputation and science to be resources in the same way as funds, and a frangible one at that. the reason for Interstellar parts to be locked behind higher cost nodes is to require more effort for more advanced parts. also, by "Kerbin local space", i ment Kerbin's SOI, i.e. Kerbin, the Mun, and Minimus.

there's a fixed DLL on page 90 in NK's post, as it says on the top of this page. the download on the main page isn't updated because the maintainer is busy

yup, you are exactly correct. however, you can't learn that sequence by reading the treeloader source. you have to research it from scratch. therefore, Clean Room Re-implementation. it's not really about the possibility of doing the thing a different way, its about using the code or research under protection. the law is kinda dumb about this and doesn't make distinctions for short sequences, but it does make distinctions for obvious solutions. if you can prove the solution was obvious to anyone examining the problem (say, by building the same solution without reference or knowledge of the protected solution) then it's not protected.

the B9 parts are balanced for FAR/NEAR. using them with stock will result in exactly the kind of power curve issues you describe. the craft you posted before is going to have a very very hard time flying for two reasons, #1 the nose and canards are sloped slightly down, so forward air is going to push the nose down and#2 the tail fins are too small by half, likely to result in a flat spin. pitch the canards about 5 degrees upwards, make the rear landing gear slightly lower and the nose gear slightly higher so it sits on the runway slightly pitch up, and replace the tail fins with the next larger part and it should be fine.

unless you're using RSS, you won't get up the speed to use them. scramjets start working above Kerbin's orbital speed.

yes, you are technically correct. copyright is for art; patent is for an idea, method or system. code exists in a weird middle ground between those two, and is subject to both.

Welcome to lifetm, the unfairest thing.

i've done this myself with just FAR. any amount of lift, even lifting bodies, becomes a problem at orbital speeds.

i had started to do the exact same thing, but never got much further then forking.

uh, no, that's not how copyright works. if practical considerations overrode copyright, then no one would ever claim copyright, because any practical consideration would invalidate it. there is a concept called a "clean room" re-implementation, i.e. you find a programmer (or group) who hasn't been exposed to the existing code, give them the functional requirements (i.e. find a way to convert these config files into this tech tree) and lock them in a room. the clean part is that you are preventing the old code getting in, in physical fact, or by peventing people who have been exposed to the old code from get involved with the project, so you have some form of protection when the inevitable copyright or patent claim comes from the old code's maintainers. This is what Tfin was proposing, but it means, to abuse an apt colloquialism, reinventing the wheel.

this isn't a bug with interstellar; this is by design because of the way squad designed the ElectricalCharge resource. standard electrical parts can't draw power without a battery; the charge must be made first (i.e. in a solar panel, reactor, etc), then stored in a battery, and then consumed by parts. this typically isn't a problem as every command pod and probe core has a battery, but it limits the way EC can be used. The whole point of the Megajoules resource was to give reactors a way to generate huge power that could be consumed without being stored first.

try it with Bang, or exclamation mark, (!) instead of minus (-).

there are three conditions that satisfy :NEEDS[MOD]: there is a folder "KSP\GameData\MOD" There is a plugin loaded MOD.dll (regardless of location) There is at least one MM patch declaring it is :FOR[MOD] if you do any of those, you're fine. if you do more then one, then you have some backups in case you change something, (i.e. rename your plugin ala RemoteTech2.dll)

There's enough science in Kerbin local space to unlock all of the stock science tree. adding more nodes with higher science costs makes sense in that you are essentially unlocking easier methods to get to places you are forced to go to with crap methods first.

Site is ok, File is ok, everything's perfectly all right now. We're fine. We're all fine here now, thank you. How are you?

He Doesn't. What he does hold is rights to his method to use Squad's code, which is where this part of Tfin's summary kick's in: a similar thing happened with Microsoft's leaked source. a lot of coders looked at MS's source and figured out how to do things based on how microsoft was doing things, and got their projects into hot water about unlicenced reuse.

Are you using the SP+ surfaces that come with .25, or do you have left-over, possibly colliding parts from .24.2's version of SP+?

Yes, that's true, for a perfect condition where no one experiences a problem that could have been prevented by CC. one instance of a person getting a crash that they have to trace down to a out-of-date plugin that CC would have warned them about will push you back into negative effort:value ratio territory. but that's kinda beside the point, since this is already incentivizing modders to recode around it, because of the a fore mentioned "CC no longer does what i intended it to" issue. So modders are going to spend time finding and implementing another version check package, developing other version mismatch code. code is harder then clicking, and let's just assume it takes 30 minutes of research, 10 minutes of code and thought, one recompile, one test, and one package and distribution pass, call it an hour for safety's sake (this is generous, i spent an close to 6 hours developing, packaging, testing and distributing a single 140 line powershell script that had no IDE, no SDK, and no dependencies). this means that, in order to break even for one modder dropping CC, you need 36,000 clicks. i have 47 mods, let's assume half of them use CC, so to break even for my install alone, everyone who uses a similar mod set would need to start KSP 864,000 times between now and when the modders release their next sans-cc version​.

if you're getting fast enough while low enough to get serious mach effects, then your turn is too shallow or your TWR is too high. consider waiting till 5k-10k before starting the turn, turning about 1 deg/second after that. all of this is off the top of my head, so YMMV + the management assumes no responsibility.

to address your specific point, no, i did not, and i have no intention too. that being said, i also can't rely on CC to do anything. allow me to repeat that for emphasis: I, as (technically) a mod maker, can't trust CC to act as i expect it to. that's it, that's the entire argument. it doesn't matter if that mistrust is founded, unfounded, paranoia, or prophecy; there is no trust. as a developer, CC is no longer a useful tool, not because there is a subverting mod, but because i can't rely on it to act as i predict. any code that i can't predict is worse then useless. at least i can understand and work around a NOOP, or a Null(), but UNDEFINED("Here be dragons") is like a little bomb in my codebase, waiting for an unsuspecting user to trip into an corner case and suffer from dragons, or kracken, or worse. yes, 99% of users won't pull this down, and 99% of the users who use it won't ever experience any problems. the greater tragedy is that 100% of the modders who are aware of it have now marked CC with a little footnote in their minds. †"don't use this, unpredictable for some". regardless of how you feel about it, or how honorable or despicable you believe Khatharr's intent, CC is dead, and whatever control users had over CC alerts is now gone as all of those mods that used it must now wander into the wilderness to find another solution. this is the way of things when the nuclear option becomes the first option; nobody wins.

i appreciate what your intending, that users should control, to the fullest extent possible, their own experience. however, simply asserting that "any modder [who] abandons CC because of this and makes their own warning system [is] completely retarded" won't make it true. if you make a mod, and feel a compatibility warning is required, then you're going to make a compatibility warning. full stop, bar none. you have to remember, most of the people writing code for mods are taking someone else's (Squad's) API, to which they have very little documentation, and by pure force of will and intellect, making it dance like a ballerina. FAR completely replaces the entire atmospheric physics system; you don't do that without having some serious oomph behind your will and intellect. Principia is replacing the orbital mechanics system with N-Body, research grade, simulation systems; that person isn't going to accept "no popups or retarded" as an answer after ripping and rebuilding (from scratch) a core game system. The harm isn't actually from popups or no popups. the harm is the fact that a tool which mediated communication between users and mod makers is now unpredictable. The harm is already done, and we (you and i both) are simply arguing over the ashes. it kinda doesn't even matter if it is actually destroyed or not, since the mod maker must act as if it is broken; see NathanKell post above: there is no point in using CC while this exists, so mod makers wishing to display a compatibility warning cannot rely on CC to do it. the incentives in play acting upon various community members don't respect your viewpoint of what is or is not retarded behavior. The pop-up, the blocking, the warnings, user choice vs modder choice; all of that is immaterial in the face of the fact that people who are writing code can't rely on CC to act as they expect it to, and so can't use it.