Kerbart

I used the support pack on Nils' excellent planetary base systems. But i didn't when it worked. As I updated the post before, which likely just crossed your response, I have it working when I remove all other mods, so one of them is interfering. I'll figure out which one, and I'll keep you updated. Appreciate that you're looking into it. For now no action on your side needed (I'd rather have you spend your energy on more important stuff), but I'll let you know what the cause is. UPDATE 1: In my sandbox game it works just fine. In my career saves it doesn't, even with no other mods (except for Engineer and Module Manager) loaded. UPDATE 2: New career saves work just fine, even with the plethora of mods that I have. It's the existing career saves where Windowshine doesn't work. But it does work fine in the existing Sandbox mode. Well, at least now I know where it works and where it doesn't. UPDATE 3: Despite my best efforts and downloading the package, I'm not able to get reflective windows on the Planetary Base Systems, Inc mod parts. That's it for now!

EDIT: Ok, it has to be some mod. I just removed all mods and it works fine. I'll keep you posted and I will update this post as I go along. Ok, I'm running KSP 1.3 I got windowshine 1.3b from here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/x3egw12bwvn63gm/WindowShineTR-v13.0.zip?dl=0 And I used Ger's githubspace link for his Texture Replacer for 1.3 from here: https://github.com/GER-Space/TextureReplacer/releases/tag/2.7.0 I copied the "default" folder from windowshine (and the cfg file, of course) into the "texture replacer" folder and placed them in gamedata, like this: That's my full gamedata folder, here are the parts that I think are relevant: And here's the contents of the TextureReplacer root folder: ...and remember, I had it working. Meanwhile, I've removed everything and replaced it with fresh copies. Just in case.

I got it to work. Once. Next time I loaded KSP, no bueno. Is there something secret needed in the installation to "make it stick?" Edit: this is not an install in the steam folder, but rather a separate copy.

There's a few issues with these claims. Yes, “Clean room design” is a thing. It's used to copy a design without infringing on copyrights. The word here is copy. If you're programming against an interface there's nothing to copy, so using a clean room design to develop a GTA V mod doesn't make any sense. I'm sure Open IV would have won a case against copyright infringement in court. They didn't copy anything. So why did they not deal with that? Ooh, wait, this is not about copyrights. Clean room design approaches are usually lawyer-loaded events with notaries documenting it, and painful care taken to prove that the two design teams have not had any contact with each other (to the point of putting them in different buildings, and so on). The whole point of clean room design is to successfully fight a court case of copyright infringement. So the claim that OpenIV went through all the trouble of building their software in a Clean room design approach and then decide that they lack the money to fight the case... It's like building your own aircraft and then deciding to not fly it because you don't have a pilot's license. The case wasn't about reverse engineering. The case was about breaking the license outlined in the EULA, a legally binding contract. It's the same reason Squad is handing out the DLC for free to those early buyers, as they're bound to a EULA that worded it ambiguously (yes, they might win each individual court case. But court cases are expensive). What happens when you break the EULA? In most cases, actually, nothing; it's not worth it for the license holder to take you to court.. What happens when you break the EULA in such a way that it's causing significant financial damage to the owner of the EULA? They'll take you to court. It's not rocket science. And even if it were, given that this is the KSP forum, we can safely discuss it. There's legislation against legal muzzling. A big company trying to shut a small legal operation down in court? Your lawyer will happily play ball, knowing that she can succesfully sue the big company for damages and have them pay for her. All that's stopping her from doing so is if your case is likely to lose. So there's how "legal" OpenIV's operation was. Coming up with the claim that these mods were legal... there's a lot of claims out there of people who claim certain things are legal. Claiming legality doesn't make things legal; a court order does. These mods were all breaking the EULA.

Given that the geometry remains the same, I hope it's doable. I wouldn't be asking if I thought it was too hard. Then again, nothing is impossible for the man who doesn't have to do it himself

Well doh. Considering that the Mk-I lander can has enouh RCS for docking at least a dozen times before you need to refill it, of course I use it. Beats adding external RCS tanks by a long shot. And the rest of the pods have bigger RCS tanks (except the Mk I capsule maybe, but there's another "more than you'll ever need" case)

I wouldn't know. I never look at the screen while docking, because it's too easy otherwise, so I can't tell if I'm using RCS or not.

Would it be feasible to give the eva-struts an option, once put in place, to "weld" them in place, which really means just replacing them with the stock struts? Say, you win the lottery for a ticket to Mars, and you'd stop developing the eva-struts, it would give us the ability to convert EVA-struts with regular ones without having to worry about breaking a save when a new version of KSP comes around (or for sharing a "stock only" save).

It's very hard to interpret those numbers though. Aside from certainty on how many copies KSP has sold (other sources than Steam, etc): While mod downloads do not represent unique installs, there are also multiple places where mods can be downloaded. Depending on how that 1.5M was measured, the actual number of downloads might be even higher than that. The 2 million copies sold do not represent active players. I think that there's a good chunk that bought it at a Steam sale, played it twice and went “meh” (I know. Heretics!) It's not far fetched to assume that the same audience that installs mods is the audience where you can find the DLC buyers. That is not to say that all mod-installers will buy the DLC, but the likelyhood that a DLC customer has mods installed will be much, much higher than that they're playing 100% stock. Even when the mod downloads, after taking multiple version downloads etc, represent “only” 10% of total sales, it would easily translate to 50% or more of the active players that T2 will try to sell DLC to, I think. But I will admit that I pulled those numbers out of the Mohole (where the sun don't shine).

It's not inconceivable you missed the undertone of my post. Yes, that is exactly my point. The C&D had to do with limitations in GTA that the involved mod (unintended, but still) allowed to bypass. Whether such limitations are Evil Capitalism is besides the point; KSP has no such limitations and there's no reason to assume T2 would kill them. Microsoft didn't kill mods on Minecraft when they bought it; it would kill the game. T2 is not going to kill their acquisition either. There are many ways they can monetize the Kerbals; why jeopardize their flagship game?

I'm the reverse (ain't opinions great?!). DLC practically is stock, or at least "officially endorsed™ mods." Using a 2-kerbal capsule? “Some will prefer the Zynox XL, others the Adiabitnics SLRPR mod. But hey, we can all agree on the Gemini one from Squad!” My main "issue" with part mods is that the author has lost interest (perhaps due to all the “1.x has been out for 45 minutes, when are you going to release an upgrade to your mod, you lazy sod?” encouragements posted on the forums here) and it breaks my save (despite me starting a new save with every new release, hahaha). I have the illusion that DLC mods will not suffer from such effects, time will tell. With that in mind I regard DLC parts “as good as stock.” And that reminds me to put up a suggestion for one particular mod, but I digress.

I wonder if you actually read what this is all about. Not implying anything, of course. But yes, I agree, there is a serious chance that T2 will send out cease and desist orders to mod makers of KSP who provide mods that, even if it's just an unintended side-effect, will bypass KSP's DRM and allow mod makers to do things that are outside the realm of what mods are allowed to do in KSP. Now, pray tell me: What are the DRM limitations that exist in KSP? What mods are bypassing said DRM limitations? What mods exist that cause tension with Squad because they're modding KSP in a way that they're not supposed to? Surely you will have no problem providing us with such a list, as you clearly imply (just saying you don't doesn't make it so) that this will be the case for KSP.

I have a slight variation on this theme. I have no unions, and I'm fine with automated controls. But... if there's no Kerbal on board to provide visual feedback I only control ships from map mode, because that's all mission control has at hand.

Consider installing Kerbal Engineer. You can see how swapping out engines affects DV. I often use a Skipper on lighter 2.5m rockets. If you don't need the thrust it wil save you tons of weight (literally!) There's no best engine. There's a "most suitable for the job" engine. And that... depends on the job.

You'll have to match orbits for a rendez vous. Unless there's a time constraint with doing it at Ap there's no gain energywise. What you save by not raising your apo for an intercept, you lose by matching higher velocity. Whatever is most convenient.

Even more accurate, the barycentre is inside Earth's surface. If it were outside (like Pluto/Charon) one can argue that it's a binary planet system, but it's not.

I just deleted all RT antennas and started a new career. Will let you know how it works out!

Looking foward to examples of "nearly all cases."

To be honest, and I'm paraphrasing from memory here, I think it was originally stated along the lines of "we will not charge your for anything, ever" or something along those lines. I'm pretty sure about this, because it seemed incredibly short-sighted to make such a statement, and I worried that KSP development would stop at one point, as the only source of income was "new sales" and that will, eventually, dry up. At least they had the foresight to correct this. Paid DLC is perfectly understandable and a far more pallatable option in regards to keeping KSP development funded than charging for bug fixes or applying a subscription model.

I love mods but I hate extra parts. They give me a feeling of dependency and "lock in" whenever a new version arrives, and everything breaks when a new KSP version arrives and mods haven't been updated. That's an irrational leftover from the 0.2x days, but I wish I could play RT with just the stock antennas.

Well, to be fair, if you look at the vast majority of PC games recently published by Take Two, then... ... ...dang. That argument doesn't work, either.

That's like saying you've been using Windows right from the first version, Windows XP. You will also remember that the game was much, much cheaper (even free!) back then. We got a significant discount from Squad, so there's your reward.

No. Early on, the promise was made that KSP was sold on a "pay once" basis, and that you'd never had to pay for any expansion/upgrade. That promise was dropped and changed for and "only upgrades are free" model, implicitly stating that expansions are not. The original agreement was honored for those who bought the game under the early promise and changed with a generous cut-off date (generous towards customers). Those who bought the game after May 2013 never had that expectation and it would be silly to expand the offer to them. They bought the game fully aware (or at least could have been aware) that Squad could charge for expansions. It should also be noticed that Squad continued to considerably upgrade the game, instead of declaring it "finished" on that date and releasing further updates as "expansions," so it's hard to claim foul play in that respect as well. One might argue that the "finished" we got was far less than the "finished" most of us expected, but looking back I feel far from short-changed and it is my expectation to see future 1.4, 1.5, etc releases in which many features will be improved, albeit not added; I don't expect multiplayer or ringed planets. But I would not be surprised over ever imrpoved aero models, driving and sailing, for instance.

Nothing is impossible... for the man who doesn't have to do it himself! The fact that the game doesn't offer multiplayer should be a hint that implementing it is not as trivial as it seems, Yes, there are mods out there, and apparently they are semi decent. But for MP to be stock that's not enough, and bridging the gap between semi-decent and "working for the entire userbase" (because that is what a stock function has to do) might be a complete nightmare. There's performance issues, how to deal with doens of playerson one server, who pays for the server, etc, etc. There are ways to deal with that but they all result in "Squad made MP useless! Bad Squad!" And for what? For a fairly limited group of players. In the end, it's apparently not worth the effort right now (or we would have had it already).

I'm going to assume you have purpose for random numbers or you wouldn't be going through the trouble that you're describing. In that case, look at the library of your programming language of choice; there's usually a module that does what you want (the latest Python releases have a secrets module for generating pseudo-random numbers that are "safe" to use for cryptography, for instance). If you're looking for more academic purposes (classroom assignment?) consider using a webcam. Set the ISO to high and shutterspeed to fast (a guarantee for lots of noise), use the standard random generator to pick an x,y coordinate, and collect the least significant (noisy) bit from that pixel. Repeat for as many bits as you need. Random, simple, no keylogger needed, and fast.