Jump to content

TiktaalikDreaming

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,972

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by TiktaalikDreaming

  1. TiktaalikDreaming
    Oh. Their font is clearly missing the full Unicode set. I don't happen to knowhow to either extend their font or get the game to use another, but this is the topic to ask in. Sadly, it doesn't look like it will be as easy as I thought it might be. Sorry.
  2. TiktaalikDreaming
    I'm fairly sure it's just replacing placeholders with text strings. A few things might look a bit of being left justified, but I can't see why you shouldn't leap into this and just see.
  3. TiktaalikDreaming
    They say you learn someting new every day. I've recently learned about ambient occlusion baking. This is just shape and AO baking. No actual texturing yet.
  4. TiktaalikDreaming
    The module for this are not compatible with 1.4.X, nor is it a simple recompile. I currently don't know how long it will be until a working 1.4 edition will be available.
  5. TiktaalikDreaming
    The module for this are not compatible with 1.4.X, nor is it a simple recompile. I currently don't know how long it will be until a working 1.4 edition will be available.
  6. TiktaalikDreaming
    I imagine most part mods should still be fine. The paint job switching requires a working firespitter core, which I believe is not yet updated. Similarly, the Speedo and such won't function (they still appear) unless there's a working RPM core. Neither of those are hard dependencies though. Just extra features if they're installed. I keep trying to write mm code to get KSP wheel to take over the wheels if it's installed, but as yet, I only have very squishy suspension or kraken suspension. But again, I'll generally only add such things as mm patches that require the other mod exists. And I haven't really got to looking at 1.4 yet. Maybe this weekend
  7. TiktaalikDreaming
    Awesome. Did you create that user account just to post links to Pastebin?
  8. TiktaalikDreaming
    The problems usually start when someone posts a download link to a personal recompile. I don't think I've seen anyone who's personally compiled a mod of someone else's raise bug reports for it.
  9. TiktaalikDreaming
    Considering there's a release of 1.4.1 planned for one week after 1.4.0, it would seem prudent for mod authors to not spend much effort updating to 1.4.0. It's likely the not a big difference between those two versions, some bug fixes etc. But anyone who's spent time diagnosing an issue in one area to find it was a big elsewhere knows that you wait for the core bug fixes before addressing what's wrong with an add-on. That said, some add-ons just needed recompiling, so no real effort there. I suspect KJR will need more work than that.
  10. TiktaalikDreaming

    This is just a quick note that, although I mostly do part mods which aren't really affected, I won't be checking compatibility or updating to 1.4.0.  1.4.1 is expected only a week after, and I really don't have the time to do the update dance twice so close together.

  11. TiktaalikDreaming
    Well, apart from the slim chance they'd force you to argue the format change via Part Tools constituted something more in court, this has been the case since the beginning of the argument. However, when the EULA popped up in 1.4 it made it abundantly clear it applies ONLY to the software that comes packaged with said EULA, aka, NOT Part Tools, so that last tiny loophole went away in my opinion. And let's face it, it's all pretty standard stuff. The other "concerning" bits indemnify them for sending some info back, aka collecting info on the systems running their game. I think this is generally OK, as people have looked at the content (thanks Sarbian) and it's pretty darn benign. I think they should have made that Opt In, not so much because I think it's evil, but because some countries will have laws about it and require it to be opt in. So, I'm going to act as if nothing changed in Mod Ownership/Licensing. If I'm wrong, I'd appreciate some word from T2 on the matter, but until then, I'm going to continue modding (at a glacial pace) as before. Except right now. Updating to 1.4.0 is daft.
  12. TiktaalikDreaming
    That's pretty much it, plus a few broad things about the system running it, like operating system
  13. TiktaalikDreaming
    The ToS of the forum are different from the software EULA. I think the only question about modding was ambiguity about whether "the Software" included part tools. And the 1.4 EULA has some specific language about what constitutes the software, so I suspect the modding concerns are moot. Privacy and user created derivative art posted to the forums are still shakey, but they were anyway.
  14. TiktaalikDreaming
    Well, new Forum terms points at the existing "license yer mod" FAQ. So, that pretty much ends my concerns really. It needs a bit of inference, but if they're still saying license your work, then the terms we were worried about probably aren't a concern.
  15. TiktaalikDreaming
    Yesterday I updated the main version. This restructured the folders (to make it easier if people want just the EEM and not the MEM, or whatever) and includes the EEM and a very beta mission module. Certain things like the IVA for the EEM aren't 100% done, but the same goes for all my IVAs. They're never finished. The following parts should be considered unsafe to use; MM Logistics Vehicle Tunnel Mission Module
  16. TiktaalikDreaming
    And therein lies the problem. This is why I figured we'd be in for a significant wait. Certain topics you should never give advice in, due to the ramifications, include legal matters, right at the top. If they come back with something, I expect it will be prefaced with "In <country A>, this can be ...." as well. Because the terms will vary from place to place, as will how enforceable certain clauses are. Well, here's the thing. Part Tools isn't third party. It's produced by Squad. Yes, it's a set of scripts for Unity. But it's most definitely made by the KSP dev team, for KSP only, and is presumably owned by Squad/Take2. Take note that similar sized script bundles for various tasks are available for Unity as paid software. Unity is quite happy for you to license things based on Unity, it is after all, their business model. And I do actually think any of our concerns would die a slow death if ever tested in court, for all sorts of reasons. I'd just like the clarification before anyone needs to go to court. I don't think they could defend the "but it was made in Part Tools" in a court. But the thing is, they could try, and most of us would cave in because we can't afford to fight it.
  17. TiktaalikDreaming
    HAVE YOU TRIED ALL CAPS????? That fixes everything.
  18. TiktaalikDreaming
    As you say, the cases being brought up aren't generally relevant. For things like the GTA case, that was obviously a breach. And, as much as I'd like to be anti-corporate and all, the only cases tend to be obvious breaches. And, in KSP's case, modding has been actively encouraged, and the tools to do so have been made available. There's a whole bunch of "implied" that extends off that. I don't think for a second that Take2/Squad are going to try to stop modders, or steal all their stuff. The questions arise because Squad have been so good. In two ways. 1: They made their own Unity tool available, PartTools, and thiscould possibly be construed to be part of the "Software". It's a hazy possibility. There's been plenty of arguments around that. Point 2: Squad were good people and told us all about software licenses, and we should all have them for our mods, and they should all be some sort of open license (which includes things like non-commercial licenses). This I think could cause an issue, because those licenses are contradictory with the new EULA for what is obviously, and should be, commercial software. What's more, how much of an issue depends upon point 1. The issue doesn't necessarily arise just from modders needing to change their licenses either. But from the content used in mods, that's covered by licenses that allows their use, in the open licenses that were previously being used. Basically, Modder A can't accept the new EULA on the behalf of content producer B that produced works used in Modder A's mod. If, however, mods are not included, and Squad/Take2 say this doesn't apply to content parsed through Part Tools, then I think the issue goes away. Or, that's my reading of it.
  19. TiktaalikDreaming
    No, it's like crossing your particle accelerator streams. All of reality could cease to exist. No, should be fine
  20. TiktaalikDreaming
    Yep. This in particular needs clarification because we the modder, can't make agreements on the behalf of others. Most of they other concerns are mild technicalities that I doubt anyone really expects to ever mean anything real.
  21. TiktaalikDreaming
    They had the time. But they clearly didn't use that time. That's not to say they should now hastily cobble together responses everyone might regret later. I'm firmly in the camp of "raise polite questions and wait patiently for the answers". Anything else is just [expletives deleted].
  22. TiktaalikDreaming
    Yes and no. While it would be great to get clarification, they can't really just jump in and give that clarification without checking with the lawyers and so on. Obviously it would have been nice if they'd done a bit of research first and had the answers ready to go. But that ship has clearly sailed. We just need to wait.
  23. TiktaalikDreaming
    While I totally agree with everything there, clarification is needed because all the mods have licenses. We need something explicit regarding how the new EULA interacts with mod licenses. Especially for old mods that have been through several developers.
  24. TiktaalikDreaming
    Part tools is the system for exporting parts into also usable format. In a very real way, all parts are created using part tools. N very much the same way the missions will be created in the mission creator. There's intellectual property before it gets to part tools, but there could be construed to be intellectual property before ideas get to the mission creator. Ithink you misunderstood the role ksp part tools takes. it doesn't read parts, it creates them from assorted resources.
  25. TiktaalikDreaming
    Yes and no. Hopefully that's the way it will be treated. But all parts (unless someone's using asset bundles and some cleverness) are essentially created by PartTools. Sure, they utilise content created outside part tools, but part tools is an integral part of all parts. I agree it's a grey area, which is why all the questions. I think the intent as far as content created with the mission maker, but that's just a matter of degrees. How much spreadsheet work and number juggling will go into some people's missions? I know KSP players. Some of those missions (not all) will have massive chunks of research behind them. But I think we're all in agreement that the resultant missions are created using the software. And thus subject to the clause. The difference between that and the Part Tools is significant, yes, but it's still just a variation in scale, not totally different
×
×
  • Create New...