Jump to content

Galileo

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    7,298

  • Joined

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Galileo

  1. Galileo
    You can find an RGB to float converter if you google it. Should make it easier for you
  2. Galileo
    That's the same as 1,0,0,1. 255,0,0,255 is RGBA values 0-255 1,0,0,1 is the same thing but in float values which range from 0-1
  3. Galileo
    What do you mean? Like what color is it? 1,0,0,1 is red those 4 digits translate to Red, Green, Blue, and Opacity
  4. Galileo
    Doesn't matter. It could be green with orange polka dots if you want it to be.
  5. Galileo
    Loved it. I did notice the jittery terrain on Augustus and it is fixed in the next update. If anyone was wondering. I just got home and plan on putting in some long over due work tonight. It's been like 2 weeks since I had any serious free time.
  6. Galileo
    Make your color map blue, your heightmap black, and your normal should be featureless, more or less. Then it's just like any other planet for that matter.
  7. Galileo
    Absolutely wrong and fearmongering does not help your argument. Licensing already keeps mod packs from happening for the most part and KSP is still going strong so your suggestion that ksp and its modding community will suffer doesn't make sense
  8. Galileo
    Dodgy tactics? Care to expand?
  9. Galileo
    @eddiew I'll have to fix that in the next update. I know what's causing it but I can't for the life of me remember what needs to change to fix that issue with scatterer eclipses. I won't be home until tomorrow night to give you the answer. Although I bet if you check back a dozen or so pages on scatterers thread you will find the fix. I had the same issue with SVE a while back
  10. Galileo
    Do you have scatterer eclipses off by chance?
  11. Galileo
    Oh, I didn't take it as an attack but I did feel the need to explain myself. I always respect the Crown. As for the requirements as to how to define the rule, it hard to make it black and white. I think the most we can do is simply ban it, then continue to be vigilant. Or use the CKAN script approach
  12. Galileo
    Even if the mod pack creator put in big bold letters on each page "DO NOT BOTHER ORIGINAL DEVS" it wouldn't matter. People can't be bothered to read and in all probability, the mod pack guy won't be able to fix issues anyway. Typically the mod pack creator is a newish forum goer that doesn't understand the etiquette quite yet, doesn't know how to mod and likes meaningless internet points.
  13. Galileo
    It is a problem with mod packs. It wastes modders time to troubleshoot a mod packs problems because their mod is included in an unsupported download. This will probably be the case
  14. Galileo
    Because that wouldn't stop users from going to the original modder and complaining. I can't speak for other modders but I don't have time or the patience to troubleshoot an older version of my mods. All that would create is more work for me. And unless the mod pack creator knows the ins and outs of each mod (they probably don't) they are bundling, they would be zero help in the troubleshooting department.
  15. Galileo
    Yes they change atmosphere height
  16. Galileo
    I get what you are saying, and i would distribute stand alone with my visual mods if the dependencies would work with module manager. I have zero control over that. I have also received permission from each modder to include them even if it's not necessary. This is for convenience and I have never claimed a dependency as my own and always give credit. I understand I come off as if I'm contradicting myself but I think you are stretching to include me in this. I believe there is a major difference in including a dependency (with permission) for convenience with your mod, and just repackaging your favorite mods for the hell of it. And please take a look at how often I am answering questions on the threads of the mods I bundle. I know I change a lot in each mod I bundle, so I don't leave the other devs high and dry. It's not their job to fix what I break. I pride myself on that. I can assure you these forum users that make these mod packs have absolutely zero intention of troubleshooting any issue that arise from their bundle. As to where to draw the line, perhaps a Permissions section needs to be added to the OP of a mod, just like a license is required to be, if you intend to bundle a mod.
  17. Galileo
    I say we should control what we can control here in this community and ban mod packs. We can't control if someone redistributes on a 3rd party site, but we can remove links to those sites here. If we could get the spacedock guys on the same page it would help quite a bit. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure curse verifies if you are the owner of your mod and you aren't just repackaging someone else's work (probably due to the monetization aspect). Perhaps the same concept could be applied to spacedock?
  18. Galileo
    So are you just redistributing entire mods? Perhaps the proper thing for you to have done is ask permission before doing so even if the license allows you to. I for one, do not want any of my mods included in this pack. Mod packs like this are redundant and I also can guarantee you will not be prepared/willing to deal with the flow of bug reports headed your way. I highly recommend you remove the download and include just a list of Manleys mods with links. @sal_vager recently dealt with same issue with another mod pack and will likely tell you the same. so with that being said, please remove GPP from this pack. I would also recommend you tag the other mod devs whose mods you redistribute and see what their stance on it is. I'll let you know now, mods packs are generally frowned upon. Lists however, are encouraged.
  19. Galileo
    Yes, FOR[Kerbalism] could very well cause issue. in this case, the OP has created a new kerbalism profile and is serving it up as a stand alone mod, so FOR[HisModName] would work fine. you are absolutely right though about FOR always running. My mistake. NEEDS:[HisModName] would also be a good option and would be what I would use more than likely.
  20. Galileo
    He is writing for a mod, and it's linked in the OP? Proper use of FOR won't break anything. @Kerbalism:FOR[HisModName] won't hurt a thing. In fact I would highly recommend he uses FOR so that in the off chance that someone leaves his cfg installed, it won't run unless his mod folder is there. id say an uneducated use of FOR can break mods. that goes for AFTER, FOR, BEFORE, NEEDS, etc...
  21. Galileo
    Yeah, basically you are running this patch BEFORE kerbalism, so when kerbalism loads, it is overwriting your patch. If you want to make a change to the kerbalism cfg, you will need to use FOR or AFTER
  22. Galileo
    It is possible with kopernicus time. We plan on using it in the next update of GPP. It does exactly what you want
  23. Galileo
    For those who want city lights, give this a go. GPPCityLights
  24. Galileo
    You have to go into the tracking station and choose the desired launch site
  25. Galileo
    short answer is no. Long answer is :not unless you change the altitude, longitude and latitude of each static to work with GPP. if you try to use it without making the necessary changes the sites will likely end up way underground or floated above the terrain. Just use KSCSwitcher which is included in GPP unless you are willing to do the work to make them compatible
×
×
  • Create New...