Snark

Thanks, I appreciate the full context... but I find the code pretty hard to follow (there's a lot of stuff in there, with lots and lots of nested clauses in one big monolithic block, and no code comments). Fair 'nuff if that's your comfort zone ... just makes it a bit harder for others to follow (well, at least my tired old brain, anyway), particularly if the reader doesn't have the broader context of the overall design of the mod. So I haven't really read your code in detail, other than glancing briefly at it. The following is based on my understanding of what you're trying to do, based on what you've said here. That oughta do it, yes. Though, if you don't mind my asking... any particular reason you're using latitude / longitude / altitude for all this stuff, which imposes the the need for trigonometric conversions? For example, Vessel.GetWorldPos3D() hands you the XYZ coordinates as a handy Vector3d right there. Not sure what your "target" is (a vessel? something else?), but if you have a way of getting its world position as a Vector3d, then that would solve your problem for you right there: For example, Vector3d vesselPos = FlightGlobals.ActiveVessel.GetWorldPos3D(); Vector3d targetPos = whateverTheTargetIs.SomehowGetWorldPos3D(); double distanceToTarget = (vesselPos - targetPos).magnitude; // All done! If what you have is just latitude / longitude / altitude, and you don't have a way of getting the XYZ coords directly, then yes, that's what you'd do, yes. There, I'm not really in a position to give you an answer, because the code's pretty complicated and I honestly have trouble telling what "the math I am doing in my code above" is trying to accomplish-- it has a whole bunch of if-else statements for "if this thing is bigger than that thing" and so forth, the motivation for which I don't understand if all you're trying to do is answer the question "what's the straight-line distance between these two things". But if you have two points in 3D space, both defined as XYZ coordinates, then it's just the simple Pythagorean distance given by double dX = x1 - x2; double dY = y1 - y2; double dZ = z1 - z2; double distance = Math.sqrt(dX*dX + dY*dY + dZ*dZ); Or, if they're already stored as a Vector3d, you can just do (v1 - v2).magnitude, which amounts to the same thing.

Moving to Mission Reports.

My understanding is that actually, FOR is more important than you think. I believe the best practice is that you should alwaysinclude :FOR[MyMod] for all the config files for MyMod The reason's a bit subtle. It's not the end of the world if you don't follow it... however, apparently ModuleManager's handling of :BEFORE and :AFTER depend on your using :FOR appropriately. If you omit it, then I think (IIRC) BEFORE won't work-- if someone else makes a mod and then tries to do :BEFORE your mod... it actually will ignore that and end up getting applied after your mod anyway. So for maximum friendliness and compatibility with other mods that may want to set their order relative to yours, always include this.

Sorry I'm a bit late to the party, but... looks to me like you're wrong. As far as I can tell, it looks as though you're trying to use the Pythagorean theorem to calculate the distance between two things, using latitude and longitude as "coordinates". That doesn't work. The Pythagorean theorem only works in linear Cartesian space, not in a polar coordinate system. If you try to use it with latitude / longitude, you'll get wrong answers. It doesn't work over long distances, because the curvature of the sphere becomes a bigger and bigger error factor. It doesn't even work as a first-order approximation for small distances, if you're away from the equator, because a degree of longitude isn't the same size as a degree of latitude. (Easy way to see this: picture two points that are one meter apart, on opposite sides of the north pole. Longitude distance is 180 degrees. It'll tell you they're "far apart" when they're not.) It would work as an approximation for very short distances if you're on the equator, but that's the only situation where it would. "Hypotenuse" isn't a thing on the surface of a sphere. It's only a thing in linear coordinates. ^This. ^ This. This is it, exactly. If you still don't believe this, here's a very simple test case for you to try your math on. Anyway, enough about what's wrong. What does "right" look like? Detailed explanation of correct solution is below, but it boils down to this: First convert your two points to Cartesian XYZ coordinates Then apply the three-dimensional Pythagorean theorem, sqrt(dx2 + dy2 + dz2) I'll start with the simple case and then work up to the case I think you're trying to solve. To actually find the straight-line distance between two points in 3D space, if you have Cartesian coordinates to begin with, it's simply the Pythagorean theorem: // suppose your two ships are at x1,y1,z1 and x2,y2,z2 double dX = x1 - x2; double dY = y1 - y2; double dZ = z1 - z2; double distance = Math.sqrt(dX*dX + dY*dY + dZ*dZ); That much is simple enough. But that's assuming you have the positions in Cartesian XYZ coordinates. What if they're given as spherical polar coordinates, instead? Well, in that case, you need to convert from polar to Cartesian, then apply the Pythagorean solution given above. // suppose your two ships are at latRad1,lonRad1,r1 and latRad2,lonRad2,r2 // where latitude and longitude are in RADIANS // and radius r is in distance from center of planet double cylindricalR1 = r1 * Math.cos(latRad1); double cylindricalR2 = r2 * Math.cos(latRad2); double x1 = cylindricalR1 * Math.cos(lonRad1); double x2 = cylindricalR2 * Math.cos(lonRad2); double y1 = cylindricalR1 * Math.sin(lonRad1); double y2 = cylindricalR2 * Math.sin(lonRad2); double z1 = r1 * Math.sin(latRad1); double z2 = r2 * Math.sin(latRad2); // we now have their positions x1,y1,z1 and x2,y2,z2 in Cartesian space, // so we can plug those numbers into the Pythagorean code from the // previous example Now, this second example assumes that your latitude/longitude are conveniently in radians, and that you conveniently have the radius as distance-from-center-of-planet. If what you actually have are latitude/longitude in degrees, and an altitude above sea level, then you'd need to do some conversion first: // let's say you have *degree* coords latDeg1,lonDeg1 and latDeg2,lonDeg2 // and altitude above sea level (in meters) alt1 and alt2 // and that the radius of the planet is rPlanet double latRad1 = latDeg1 * Math.PI / 180.0; double latRad2 = latDeg2 * Math.PI / 180.0; double lonRad1 = lonDeg1 * Math.PI / 180.0; double lonRad2 = lonDeg2 * Math.PI / 180.0; double r1 = rPlanet + alt1; double r2 = rPlanet + alt2; // we now have spherical polar coordinates suitable for plugging // into the polar-to-Cartesian code in the above example So that ought to give you the correct answer. Per the above three examples, Take your lat/lon in degrees and altitude in meters, convert them to lat/lon in radians and radius from center of planet Take those numbers, and use trigonometry to convert to cartesian XYZ coordinates Take those numbers and use the Pythagorean theorem to find the linear distance between the two points. Does this help?

Hi @HyperFun, and welcome to the modding community! Moved out of Tools & Applications (since that's for external tools, not KSP mods). I've put your thread into Add-on Development, rather than Add-on Releases, since it sounds as though it's not quite "ready" yet. We've also removed your download link, since it looks as though you have some licensing issues that need fixing (see below). Licensing issues are pretty important, they're an absolute requirement, so please take some time to learn about how this stuff works. Sounds like you've included various other people's work with your mod? That's not necessarily a problem... but it often is. And even when it's okay, there are some hoops you need to jump through, in order to keep things legit and aboveboard. The issue is licensing. Every single mod listed in the forums (including yours, if you make one) must specify a license. The license states what other people can or can't do with the mod. Some mods have fairly permissive licenses, that allow you to package them with your stuff. Other mods are more restrictive, and don't allow you to do that. Even the ones that do allow you to repackage, may have restrictions on what kind of license you can use, if you include their stuff. In short: it's complicated. Before you try to publish this or any other mod, I strongly recommend that you read this post, in its entirety, and make sure you understand the details: In particular, pay close attention to the requirements around licensing. Executive summary looks like this: If your mod is entirely your own work (i.e. doesn't include anything from other people): Then you have to pick a license to use, and you have to properly document it for people to see. If you're including anyone else's work: Then you still have to do the above, But also, for each individual other-mod-you-include, you need to make sure their license allows you to include it, and that their license is compatible with your license, and that you've appropriately documented the original author. Depending on what kind of mod you're making, you may or may not need to have any C# at all. Broadly speaking, the game consists of: Functionality (game features) Content (parts, planets) If your mod works with the former (e.g. adding new features to the game), you'll generally need C# to do that. On the other hand, if you're just producing content (e.g. new parts or planets), then that involves working with other stuff (e.g. models, textures, config files) and likely doesn't require any C# at all. If you're brand-new to C# programming in general, I'd suggest downloading Visual Studio (it's free), installing it, and working from the online help. There are also good books out there, I'd suggest picking one up. If you're looking for specifically applying C# to KSP mods, then a great resource is to just look at existing mods. One of the mod-posting rules here is that every mod must post a link to its complete source code, which means you have full access to every line of code in every code-using mod that's out there. Good luck!

You mean like this prominently stickied post, sitting right at the top of the Add-on Discussions forum? It's an essentially insoluble problem. The reason that mod-pestering is such an issue is that many people don't bother "doing their homework" before posting a question-- for example, reading the mod's OP, or the last page or so of comments in the thread. There will always be people like that-- even well-meaning folks can make mistakes when they're newbies. And if a person's problem is that they don't bother to read stuff... well, obviously you can't fix that by posting something and expecting them to read it. Which is why the above-linked thread doesn't (and can't) solve the issue, though I'm glad it exists. Here are some unpleasant but inevitable facts of life, that are permanent and unavoidable because they stem from human nature (which never changes) and math (likewise): For any mod, there will always be mod-pesterers, who do so through cluelessness even if they're well-meaning. There's essentially no way to proactively stop this. The more popular a mod is, the bigger its mod-pestering problem will be. Kopernicus gets hit so hard all the time because it's so popular. All we can do is try to behave ourselves... and when we witness some well-meaning person cluelessly coloring outside the lines, gently and politely fill them in about how things work (in a friendly way), so they'll know better in the future. And if someone is being obnoxious / combative and seems unlikely to respond to friendly overtures, then don't engage them-- just report it to the moderators, and we'll sort it out. In short: Be a positive role model Be patient with the innocently clueless... and help them learn better Report bad actors to the moderators. Thanks!

I play KSP, a lot, fairly often, pretty much to the exclusion of other computer games. I'll dabble in other games from time to time, but usually get bored with them within a few days or weeks. KSP is what I keep coming back to. My favorite mods are mine, of course-- that's why I wrote 'em. Other than my own mods: Navball Docking Alignment Indicator. This oughta be stock, in my opinion. Simple, elegant, gets the job done. It's a don't-play-KSP-without-it mod for me. scatterer - it's just so pretty. I'll play KSP without it, but only if it's temporarily unavailable due to a KSP update or something. TAC Life Support - I don't run this in every career, since I don't always do life support. But when I'm in the mood for a life-support game, this is my go-to solution. For some careers, I'll run Kopernicus with some solar-system-altering mod. I like trying out various ones. Examples I've enjoyed are: Outer Planets; New Horizons; Galileo's Planet Pack; JNSQ. Occasionally, for variety's sake, I'll play a career that has some gameplay-altering mod or mods tossed into the mix, such as Karbonite, Karbonite+, Extraplanetary Launchpads, etc. Pretty much all over the map. This is where my variety comes in. I tend to fly rockets almost exclusively-- I'm not a spaceplane guy, I just don't care for 'em, so I tend not to build them unless there's some strong reason to (e.g. Laythe). My typical KSP career goes like this: I pick a set of mods, and get a "story arc" in mind (which may be influenced by which mods I'm running). What does "done" look like? What's the goal of this career? I decide all this in advance, before I even launch my first vessel. I then spend a few weeks working my way through the story arc. All the missions are in service to the overall goal. Once I achieve the goal... I'm done. Time to spin up a new career. My typical KSP career runs a month or two IRL-- they're definitely "closed" story arcs, not open-ended goes-on-forever things. That's a big part of how I keep KSP fresh and interesting for me; I'm always starting new careers, and I alter the goals and mods each time to keep each career different from the others. Pretty often, as you can see from my post count. I really like the KSP forums, and hang out here a lot-- this is basically the only Internet forum that I spend any time at all in. (I've been a bit scarce and haven't been posting as much over the last couple of months, as I've been quite busy IRL, but I'm still around and reading the forums quite a bit, and expect to be writing more again once things IRL settle down.) Completely, other than the word "lounge". It's basically just a forum where we post moderation-related stuff that's only visible to us (and Squad), not to the general forum population. Discussion of proposed policies, organizing TOTM nominations, discussion threads for particularly sticky/controversial issues that come up, a thread for letting other moderators know in advance if we'll be absent for a while, that sort of thing.

That's actually a great question! It's basically impossible for any sort of simple bot to reliably spot "things needing moderation". Insults, threats, license violations, flamebaiting, trolling, political rants-- these are all things that require human intelligence to discern (well, until/unless AI gets a lot better, anyway). And there are only a tiny handful of us moderators, and we're just part-time volunteers, so it's not even vaguely possible for us to read everything in the forums, and we don't even try. The only posts that reliably get a moderator's attention are from folks who are "queued" (i.e. the first few posts of new users, or occasionally if there's some user who's been temporarily queued for repeated bad behavior), and that's a tiny minority of total traffic on the forum. So the fundamental dilemma, here, is that it's basically impossible for moderators to actually fully moderate a forum that has any sort of reasonably large user base, like this one. Which is why your question's such a good one. The answer, as Vanamonde mentions above, is: we rely on reports from the users. If something doesn't get reported, there's a strong chance that no moderator will ever see it, regardless of how heinously rule-breaking it might be. So... in other words: in a manner of speaking, yes, we do have ...and that "bot" is you. Yes, and you! And you over there. And you, too. All of you! (...okay, sorry, this is starting to sound like a scene from It's A Wonderful Life) We basically have to rely on the eyes and ears of all the users of the forums. There are only a few of us, but there are tens of thousands of you. You guys, in the aggregate, are far more vigilant than we can ever possibly hope to be-- the math is just overwhelming. So, the way it works is: you fine folks supply most of the eyes and ears, and we supply the judgment call. It generally seems to work out pretty well, largely because most of you are really, well, nice. If there were tons and tons of bad-behavior posts, we'd get bogged down dealing with them all. However, because the vast majority of folks here are so darn nice, then our workload dealing with the small number of "strays" is fairly manageable, and we can properly devote time and attention where it's actually needed. So: on behalf of the moderator team, please allow me to say a big "thank you" to all of you for doing so much to keep an eye on things for us... and also for being such good people, in the aggregate, that there's not all that much stuff that actually needs to have an eye kept on it.

Terminology issue. Not technically a "fork" in the github sense, but absolutely a fork in the common parlance of KSP mod users, i.e. "a different version, concurrently released, separately from the main project by the original author." Sorry, didn't realize that wasn't obvious. Which is itself a violation of the forum's policy. Any released mod must expose its code. Simply recompiling a DLL after tweaking some code, and then releasing the DLL, is not allowed. In this case, it's not about being "helpful", it's about following the rules that all mod authors here do. The rules are posted here. Those rules are there for a reason, and all mod authors here must abide by them. Yes, those rules can be inconvenient sometimes, but there are reasons for them (including legal ones), and they're not optional. It's not as though the author of this Kopernicus fork is entitled to any special treatment; they need to follow the same rules as everyone else. In any case, this matter is off-topic for this thread, so please drop the subject here. If you disagree with the mod-posting rules and would like to discuss them, you can always spin up a topic in Add-on Discussions to talk about it. Thank you for your understanding.

Many posts have been removed from this thread, due to completely derailing the thread into off-topic discussion. Folks, this is the "Ask the Mods Questions About the Forums" thread. It is not any of the following: the "I Think We Should Discuss Security Issues Here" thread the "How We Should Protect Ourselves From Viruses In Mods" thread the "Why I'm Right And Everyone Else Is Wrong" thread If folks want to discuss other topics in other places, feel free to do so-- if there's no thread that addresses the topic you want to discuss, you can spin up your own. (Also, please don't try to "backseat moderate" by telling others what they should or shouldn't do. If you see something that you think is out of line, please just report the post and we'll have a look, thanks.) And to be crystal clear about the exchange that derailed everything, Vanamonde pretty much summed it up when he said, We are not going to discuss any security-related matters about the forums, now or in the future. Sorry, folks. "No comment" means "no comment". So don't bother asking. The above is all the answer you're gonna get. Thank you for your understanding.

Hello @T.Lago, and welcome to the forums! Actually, no it isn't. We're still waiting on Kopernicus to release its KSP 1.8.1 update. Sorry, but we had to remove the link to the unauthorized fork you mention, since it appears to be in violation of Kopernicus' license and is therefore not allowed to link to in this forum. (Also, please note that anybody spreading around unauthorized unlocked versions of Kopernicus is going to make life a living hell for the Kopernicus maintainers, who put that version lock in for a good reason. So, it's generally not a good idea to spread such links, unless of course one simply doesn't care about the Kopernicus authors, or what they do for us, or whether they're going to want to keep maintaining the mod when people do this sort of thing. Just something to think about.)

Basically, it can be anywhere in GameData you like. As long as it's either in that folder or in some sub-folder thereof, and is named with the .cfg file extension, then it ought to work. If you'd like to see a working example of how this sort of tweaking comes together, you might like to check out the Snarkiverse mod, specifically the config files that come with it. That mod just re-jiggers the solar system in various ways, adjusting the orbits of stock bodies, so it's pretty much the same type of thing you're trying to do. You may like to look at the file Mun.cfg in particular-- it adjusts the Mun's orbital size, eccentricity, and inclination, so it may be a good model to work from.

Moving to Gameplay Questions.

No. Important things to bear in mind: It'll be ready when it's ready. They'll say when it's ready. If you haven't seen it announced in the OP of this thread, then it's not a thing yet and no need to ask. Any time you see a modder saying "soon" or "nearing completion", you should take that with a very large grain of salt. Modders do this in their spare time, it can be difficult for them to predict how much time they'll be able to spend on it, and it can be very unpredicatable how much time will actually be required. It's not like painting a house, where one can look at it and know "we're 90% done now". Software's often unpredictable that way. All of which basically boils down to "there's nothing to do but wait for an announcement, and be patient until then."

Putting on the moderator hat for a moment: Some content has been removed. Folks, let's please try to confine our discussion to the problem at hand, and not speculate off-topic about people who are posting here. The issue is probably yours, not KSP's. 3832 ModuleManager patches is a lot-- you're clearly heavily modded. And the overwhelming likelihood is that this has nothing to do with KSP itself, and that one or more of your mods is causing this problem, either because there's a bug in the mod somewhere, or because you're running an incompatible version of it, or you might not have installed correctly, or such-like. So, yelling about it isn't super helpful and is unlikely to get traction here. Main thing is to focus on figuring out what you've done that's causing the problem, and then address that. Here is what you should do: Try running KSP unmodded. The stock game, with no mods at all. Does it start up? Or does it refuse to start and you have this problem? If starting up the stock, unmodded game runs into problems, then you should post an issue about that over in the "tech support for unmodded installs" forum, with screenshots / logs /whatever from your unmodded game. On the other hand, if (as seems much more likely) it starts up fine when unmodded, then the problem is with one or more of your mods. In that case, what you should do is use process of elimination to figure out which mod it is, and then go post your issue in the thread for that mod.

Hey, that's a great idea! Gosh, why didn't we think of that? ...Oh, wait:

Oh sure, absolutely. It's just that if you use it alone, the only stuff you can put in the .cfg files is stock stuff. If the config refers to custom code, then the code has to be there for it to work.

Do bear in mind that this whole discussion was over six years ago, and everyone involved has presumably long since moved on to other things-- not to mention that KSP has gone through many version updates in the meantime, and is now quite a different game. So, not much more to be said about this topic now. Accordingly, locking thread to prevent further confusion. If someone would like to talk about tiny planes in today's KSP, feel free to spin up your own thread.

Moving to Technical Support.

You don't need the KAL-1000 for this; you can just bind the rotor directly to the throttle. The important thing is to make sure you bind it in absolute mode and not incremental mode. (For most control axes, you'd want the defailt "incremental", but for throttle you want absolute.) I'd suggest leaving the torque maxed out (i.e. don't bind it to the throttle), and just bind RPM to the throttle.

Yah, it's a function of UI scaling and so forth. (And it could potentially be even worse, depending on which language your KSP is in-- some languages are more "verbose" than others, and need more screen real estate to convey the same message.) Would be nice if they had a hover tooltip or something, so that if it's cut-off on your screen, you could hover over it to see the full text. Seems like more of a missing feature than a poor design, to me. Maybe post a suggestion in the suggestions forum about it?

No, not even slightly. The concept of "hypocrisy" isn't even relevant here. Because hypocrisy implies some sort of moral judgment, which isn't what we're doing. First of all, please do bear in mind that we moderators don't actually SEE most stuff, unless someone tells us about it (i.e. files a report). We're just a small handful of part-time volunteers, and it's not even vaguely possible for us to read everything that gets written here. That's why we rely on reports. You folks have a whole lot more eyes and ears than we do. When we act on "problem posts", it's usually because someone reported it. So, if you find yourself thinking "well, this is dumb... the moderators came down hard on A, but why are they allowing B?" ... just because nothing got done on B doesn't necessarily mean that we "allowed" it. There's an excellent chance that we never saw it because nobody reported it. So... when in doubt, report. We'll have a look. Beyond that, though: Bear in mind that the reasons for the forum rules are pragmatic, not idealistic. For example, the reason why political content is strictly forbidden is that experience has shown that posting politics ALWAYS results in nasty flame wars, which in turn derails threads, devolves into name-calling and personal abuse, and in general causes an unholy mess in which everyone loses. And that is not okay. If the general population were capable of discussing politics without losing their cool, then it wouldn't be a problem and we wouldn't have to put it off-limits. But that's just one of those "hot button" topics that can be relied on to always go off the rails, which is why it's not allowed here. Mostly, moderators (and the forum rules) are reactive rather than proactive-- we wait until a problem actually happens before taking action. After all, any topic could potentially result in a flame war... but most of them don't, most of the time. It depends on who is participating in the discussion. Most of the time, most people in the forums comport themselves as civil, mature adults, and can handle the discussion, so we generally act on the presumption that "folks here are grown-ups, let them talk about whatever they like until and unless it gets nasty." As much as possible, we want users to be able to discuss things freely as mature adults-- we're "fire fighters" more than "police"-- so we have a strong "bias for inaction" and prefer, where possible, not to act on anything unless there's a clear need to do so. Politics, however-- like religion-- is proactively banned just because experience has shown that it will always blow up. No point in waiting until after the firestorm to clean up the damage, there. If there's some particular subject or post that you, personally, find offensive, then by all means please report it and we'll have a look to see whether we think it needs action. (Don't automatically assume that just because something happened months ago means it gets a free pass.) Maybe we'll agree with you, maybe we won't-- it's case by case. Please do bear in mind, however, that the way we make our decision isn't "could anyone be offended by this", since pretty much everything is offensive to somebody; if we did that, we'd have to ban all discussion completely. Rather, it's a practical decision of whether we believe the content is potentially harmful to children, and/or is it causing (or very likely to cause) flame wars and forum meltdowns.

Keep an eye on the contracts that flow by (new ones pop up every few days). Some contracts are enormously more profitable than others. For example, make sure you've researched docking ports and solar panels-- that will cause "space station" and "surface outpost" contracts to start popping up, and those can be quite lucrative. (In particular, if you see a "new station on solar orbit" contract, those are seriously profitable; you can make well over 500K on a contract that only takes a couple of minutes of your time to slap together and launch.) Leave a satellite with an antenna and a thermometer parked in orbit around Kerbin, and around Mun, and around Minmus (and any other body you visit). That way, if you get a "Science data from space around X" contract, you can instantly make cash in just a few seconds by switching to the craft, transmitting a temperature reading, and done. Tourism contracts can be lucrative, too. The first ones you get are generally fairly cheap and don't pay much (e.g. the ones just for suborbital hops) ... but after you've landed on Mun and Minmus, you'll start seeing contracts for taking tourists there, and that can pay quite a bit.

That's right. It's because you've got steerable fins, and you're flying backwards. It's trivially easy to fix: just change the control authority of the fins to be negative when you're flying backwards. It's one of those things that's surprising to encounter, but makes sense in hindsight. Explanation of what's going on in spoiler, for the curious. The executive summary is that the game's "control surface management" code assumes you're flying . If you're flying backwards, i.e. , this means that the control inputs will be precisely backwards. This applies to all control input, whether it's the player hitting the QWEASD keys, or SAS making automatic "corrections". So, you end up in a spin because what happens is, when your craft just randomly happens to roll a little bit, SAS goes "oh noes, it rolled clockwise, Imma make it go counterclockwise" ... and then tweaks the fins in the wrong direction, which makes it roll more, which makes SAS tweak them harder in the wrong direction, and now you're spinning. By changing the control surfaces to have negative control authority when you're flying backwards, that un-munges it and then they behave the way you want to.

Yes, it's straightforward to remove an indicator mesh via ModuleManager. Basically, would just need some config with an AFTER[IndicatorLights] directive, that deletes the Nth MODEL node, where N would depend on which mesh you're removing. Out of curiosity, though... have you tried installing IndicatorLights Community Extensions? That already contains a patch that's supposed to make IndicatorLights work with ReStock. Does that not solve your problem?