Boris-Barboris

Yes. But, please, test it.

There's no direct way, only iterative approximation. Anyway, it's your call.

Keep in mind that CorrectCoL math is not precise: mod did not search for equilibrium control surface position to maintain this particular AoA and always assumed default (neutral) pitch\roll\yaw. If you desire correctness, you should tackle this.

What are the names of control surface modules in the craft file? Try manually renaming them to SyncModuleControlSurface, see if it helps with AA. Strange thing, probably installing/uninstalling FAR does this.

Load game, reproduce problem, pause game - full log file. Screenshots of the situation when you have this problem, with AA windows Open. Flight Model AA window is very important, make sure it is visible.

No. Screenshots and logs should tell.

@AlchemicRaven it is an unfortunate technical limitation, caused by my need to use custom control surface class. When you reconfigure your crafts and save them, settings will persist. With AA it has to be done unfortunately.

I don't know exactly too, but probably not. However, I just noticed, that Corresponding Source is needed for non-executable work as well, if it's distributed in object form. Here is the exact quote: "The "Corresponding Source" for a work in object code form means all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control those activities..." I guess I missed the absense of "executable" in that part.

In no way assembly_csharp.dll is a general-purpose tool. If there was a special clause in GPL that said that corresponding source also exclude platforms for plugins, this thread would not exist. It does diffirentiate beteween executable work and non-executable work. Models are not executable. "Corresponding Source" is only for executable work. (fixed) "...compiler used to produce the work, or an object code interpreter used to run it." GPL is okay with that. GPL is also ok with visual studio as well, because it's just an interface to compilers, and is not strictly required to build the library, and the compilers are specified as an exception. If GPL contained a wording like "or anything that you can stretch and twist your way of thinking to call a compiler", that would be ok. Game dll is not a compiler. assembly_csharp is a library the plugin depends on, it's as simple as that. And GPL is well-known to disallow linking to non-free libraries and then distributing it. It's no news.

Just like you can violate some law when you are not subject to it. You are not breaking the law, but you violate it. It's just semantics, I take the word "violate" quite differently than you apparently. He violates the term of the parole "Not using the internet", yes. It doesn't mean he's breaking some law by it. There is a clause "no internet", there is his action "uses internet". He violates the clause. It does not mean he can't, or the clause was for him. But his actions violate it. I would rather prefer a better-suited license. Are you ready to quote something? Or is that just a figure of speech? I just described it in the post you quote, how the author being subject to his ARR license bears no logical contradiction whatsoever. ARR license explicitly names the author\developer\etc and reserves all the rights to him, making him perfectly capable of distributing binaries without violating the license. If the license needs special remarks for your specific case, you should probably use some other license. I don't understand the last question. Nothing. But there is no point in distributing source, players need a binary to use the plugin, so someone has to distribute the binary under the GPL terms. Under GPL - yes. Such case need another license. Want to stay half-closed-sourced? Don't use GPL.

No. My position is that developer violates GPL, not that he is bound to it. But I certanly do expect the developer to honor the license, in the same way I expect the government to respect it's own laws. Because if he does violate some GPL clauses, nobody but him can exercise the rights it gives. This makes licensing meaningless in my opinion. Nothing so far. ARR contains developer's or other copyright holder's name and "all rights reserved" clause (wich is absent in GPL by the way, although implied by copyright law) wich reserves these rights to him. No contradiction here, bad example. Now this is a good point. I was wrong on that apparently.

KSP is not providing hardware resources to the plugin. Not even Unity or Mono does it. OS does it. Plugin does not run on KSP. Plugin code is dynamically compiled by Mono in linkage with KSP code, and then run by the OS. No. Out of an infinite set of interactions between two entities you have chosen the most abstract one and have proclaimed "see, very similar". I don't share this opinion at all. I see no resemblance. They are not guaranteed to be present on an arbitrary computer. Factually wrong. Mod depends on all of the following: system calls and primitives, provided by OS and wrapped into C# API by Unity Mono fork (non-GPL), Unity Mono fork CLR implementation iteslf (non-GPL), Unity Engine functionality (non-GPL), and finally, at the entirety of KSP game logic library (non-GPL). KSP itself is just a part of the dependency. I have no problem here. Imagine standing in the court and saying that planet Earth is an operating system for humanity. You use abstractions that are so far-fetched that they bear no conclusion. Operating system is not a thing, that is required for other things to run. This is too broad. GPLv3: " The "System Libraries" of an executable work include anything, other than the work as a whole, that (a) is included in the normal form of packaging a Major Component, but which is not part of that Major Component, and (b) serves only to enable use of the work with that Major Component, or to implement a Standard Interface for which an implementation is available to the public in source code form. A "Major Component", in this context, means a major essential component (kernel, window system, and so on) of the specific operating system (if any) on which the executable work runs, or a compiler used to produce the work, or an object code interpreter used to run it. " "Executable work" is our plugin. Now there are two tems left: Major component and System Libraries. Scenario 1 - you say that Major component is KSP+Unity+Mono as a bundle, leaving System Libraries empty. But this bundle is not an essential component of operating system, neither it is a compiler (only Mono is, in a way (JIT)), not is it an interpreter (once again, only Mono is (in a JIT way)). Scenario 2 - you say that Major compooent is Unity+Mono, and KSP game dll is System Library. But KSP game dll does not only serve to enable use of our plugin, because plugin uses both OS\Mono and KSP data structures. KSP dll is not a wrapper or utility around Unity, it is a complex program in itself, that is being manipulated by the plugin, so clause (b) fails, even if you stretch clause (a) and manage to twist yourself of of the fact, that Mono\Unity is not generally distributed with KSP.dll

Can you please demonstrate deductive chain that establishes Unity or KSP AssemblyCSharp.dll as an operating system in any of it's academical or legal definitions? Because I don't see any. Your understanding does not give you any weight on the subject of widely-used definitions. Words were there long before you, and their meaning is up to your interpretation at best, but not definition.

Not by writing, by distributing dlls that are bound to non-GPL KSP. No it's not. The culture of licensing the code. By that logic, there's no point to licensing code in the first place, if the terms of the license are not respected. No it's not. Stop pulling new definitions out of thin air.

Operating system is explicitly named as exception in the text of the license, KSP is not.

KSP exposes everything. Plugin assembly is loaded into game's address space and is given complete control when they receive CPU time during special callbacks. All KSP classes that are written for KSP are visible and available for any intent and purpose, even if they are not supposed to be used by any kind of mod. It's a big stretch to call this thing API. It is as deeply interlinked as it is possible for a userspace program. When modded KSP has booted to the main menu, it is pretty much one united pile of tightly-coupled classes. "...The "Corresponding Source" for a work in object code form means all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code... For example, Corresponding Source includes ... the source code for shared libraries and dynamically linked subprograms that the work is specifically designed to require, such as by intimate data communication or control flow between those subprograms and other parts of the work." Literally what most GPL-ed KSP plugins do, while being distributed without any way to download KSP source, wich they are specifically designed to require.

In this case the rights of mod authors and contributors are not in danger at all. It is the mod users that are being misleaded, in a way. As I understant it, when I as a pedantic user see GPL-licensed mod, I would expect to be able to download all of the "Corresponding Source", wich would imply KSP game sources, because KSP executable is required to run most plugins and is very tightly coupled with it. User does not posess a freedom the GPL promises - he is incapable of examining (arguable, given ease of C# reversing) and modifying (unity checks game dlls signature iirc, so this one is technically hard) the behaivour of the executable running the mod, only part of the behaviour he is observing is actually available for examining and modification, wich contradicts the license.

hmmmmm

@Terryl can't reproduce, "Works on my machine"™. Let's go the standard log+a_couple_of_screenshots_with_AA_windows_open road.

does it work? in 1.4 i mean

i tend to always double quote the search string: https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/search/&q="research icon"&sortby=newest

thinking.jpg Are you talking about Pilot Assistant by any chance?

lol. GameData/AtmosphereAutopilot/Global_settings.txt should contain window coordinates, look for cruise controller and window_x\y fields there and set them to zero or something like that. Config should be reloaded on each scene change. If not, restart the game.

I'm fine with keeping it compilable throughout patches. I'd say the mod is in need of a very specific kind of developer. There will be no suprise if he never comes. @linuxgurugamer offered his help, but, realistically, AA needs full attention, and a lot of it. Yeah, see the above. Probably will not happen.

Not really, it's completely inadequate for control in my experience. If you're optimizing, you should do everything right.