Yilmas

Rather than telling it directly where to look, I recommend you to mess around with the orbit of the vessel, when setting an orbit for a vessel, you automatically set its position and rotation... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_inclination#mediaviewer/File:Orbit1.svg

You shouldn't need to set the rotation directly... Have a look at Orbit and OrbitDriver... Set the orbit and use: vessel.orbitDriver.pos = vessel.orbit.pos.xzy; vessel.orbitDriver.vel = vessel.orbit.vel;

Indeed Personally, I do ("modnameLOCK"+windowID)

Many modders know of the very annoying issue where a user clicks on a part underneath their mod's windows, and end up activating something. Personal worst event was a decouple, ending in my carrier releasing its main engine, while on intercept with Moho... The following have been tested to work in 0.23.5 Flight click through: (Part menu) Put this snippet at the end of your OnGUI() // Hide part rightclick menu. if (!GUIUtility.hotControl.IsNull()) { if (windowPosition.Contains(Input.mousePosition) && GUIUtility.hotControl == 0) { foreach (var window in GameObject.FindObjectsOfType(typeof(UIPartActionWindow)) .OfType<UIPartActionWindow>().Where(p => p.Display == UIPartActionWindow.DisplayType.Selected)) { window.enabled = false; window.displayDirty = true; } } } The way it works is by first determining if the mouse' current position is within the bounds of the window and that the mouse is not currently clicking. If true, it will cycle through all active UIPartActionWindows and set each to disabled and refresh it. Notes: If you don't destroy your windows when closing them, you will need an if statement before this, to return. ie: if(windowIsHidden) return; There can seem to be some flickering on the parts window, however it is only cosmetic. This happens because the part's window is rendered before the mod's, therefor it will open, and then the mod will tell it to close again. if (windowPosition.Contains(Input.mousePosition) && GUIUtility.hotControl == 0 && Input.GetMouseButton(0)) { ... } If you dont like the flickering, you can change the initial if statement with the code above to change the behaviour of the code. Instead of hiding the window, it will simply not allow the user to left click on any part window buttons. However, they will still open. Editor Click through: Put this snippet in your OnGUI() // Lock editor while mouse is over the window. if (windowPosition.Contains(Input.mousePosition)) { EditorTooltip.Instance.HideToolTip(); EditorLogic.fetch.Lock(false, false, false, "UniqueLock"); } else if (!windowPosition.Contains(Input.mousePosition)) { EditorLogic.fetch.Unlock("UniqueLock"); } This basically locks the editor when the mouse moves over the window, and unlocks it again when the cursor leaves the window. However, this can at times be carried over into the Flight view, and so you must use the code below to make sure that parts are unlocked when the window is destroyed. Put this snippet in your OnDestroy() EditorLogic.fetch.Unlock("UniqueLock"); Finally, put this snippet in your Awake() InputLockManager.RemoveControlLock("UniqueLock"); Important!: Change the string "UniqueLock" to something unique of your mod. This is to prevent other mods from messing with yours. If they happen to use the same approach. Any comments, bugs or alternative scripts are welcome.

Plus some more explanation about the rules. Otherwise we could just mod the hell out of the ball... He did say, any skills... Anyway, cheering for the Forum(IRC) Team (Crotchety Old Modders)...

I'm doing that with my upcoming mod. Though it will only be the secondary way of using the resource.. More info, when the mod is closer to a release, and it will ofc be in its own thread, rather than highjacking this

The principle is that a 32bit program can run on a 64bit OS. While a 64bit program cant run on a 32bit os. So generally you can apply this to KSP as well...

Worked for me, took a while to get it above 4gig, though I'm currently running at 6gig for ksp...

Wouldn't it be fixable with an assembly policy file? http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/8f6988ab(v=vs.110).aspx

Interesting...

Well, that is true to some point, though I don't demand squad to do anything. I request it. The word "demand" is a bit too strong/aggressive, I'd say. When I created this thread, that was the idea. Since then, the topic has evolved, myself and others have gained insight. And through that, the general topic or red-line in this has changed to some degree. However, I refuse to change titles or edit the first post, simply because it is outdated. It is important information, considering where this "idea" started at. Well, I might very well do that. Most likely together with the release of my own mod. This is gonna sound counter-logical compared to my previous statement. But you can work on 2 sides at the same time. And yes, I am putting in my ideas with the different repo projects. 2 sides meaning, mod and repo... Though, if the two sides are not ready, there is no point in having a connection between them ready. Plus, when they do become ready, you will most likely end up having to revisit many parts of said connection, to counter-act any flaws, that have been brought forth. And at the end of the day, many people, modders and end-users alike, are not involved with any of the repo projects or mod-creation, and with these kinds of threads, they might end up becoming interested.

Posting and talking is cheap, yes. But that is generally how ideas are formed. But regarding your idea: - Auto-versioning tool that will generate this file for modders So instead of the modder copy/pasting or writing the links and so on into a file, you want them to do it into a program. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that illogical, I don't even think it would save the modder any time. - Packager Can't argue about that, however I do not personally have the skills nor the idea of how to make that. Though, I agree that it would be a good feature. - Mod Downloader With all the chaos of different mod repositories, I don't think now is the time to make such an app. At least not 3rd-party, though I heard O-Docs project mention it. But still, without actual mod repo's, again it would be much better to focus the time on the repo's. (In my mind).

Yes, made 2 mods for Eve-Online, and in the process with one for KSP... And on the side line, I have developed and managed a website for a community with little over 650 daily users for 4 years(Eve-Online). So I am fully aware of the stress and pain that is involved in the process. People like me that doesn't always know how to manage personal time, end up sacrificing time with family or loved ones for others.. With that said, lets try and control our self's for a proper discussion. We are all grown ups, we should be able to calmly talk about this. If I offended anyone, please do remember, that I meant no disrespect to anyone.

How ? If I may ask such a bold question. If you only do the automatic versioning with the revnumber I cant really see the problem...

I am one of those people that simply use to many mods to even bother to count them. I like my game modded. And quite frankly, if a person like his game stock, his opinion on the use of mod managers or this thread for the matter, shouldn't really matter, as that person would never be in a position where it would influence him. Now, if said person were thinking of using mods, then I cant see the reason why not to use a mod manager right from the start. Some one said in the other thread that this is basically like the "chicken and the egg". Well, why must it always be the service providing company, that takes the first step. Why cant we as a community take the first step ? Now, I wont change the subject of this thread, though I will bring in an old topic, just bare with me for a moment. Curse. Many hates curse, and the way Squad has tried to give us a new platform. However, it wasn't until the announcement of curse(or there about) that the community took action; action in ways it could create something else, something better. Please refer from hijacking this thread into a curse thread. But instead look at the principle of who takes the first step, the first real step. Yes, modding is a time consuming task. However, I really cant take it serious about the reference to time when it comes down to a single file, containing mainly non-changing information(set only once), except a number which the modder may change as he or she so desires depending on the type of versioning that they use. Even if, we were looking at time, well, why don't we look at common programming practice, assembly information for any library can by default include a version. Located in Properties/AssemblyInfo.cs, it contains what we need, yet so few modders actually uses it. It can even be set to auto version. And the auto doesn't have to be the main version, like: [assembly: AssemblyVersion("1.0.0.*")], it is that simple, so now visual studio will auto manage your revision number, but you may control the actual version(Major, Minor and Build). Unless I'm mistaken about our access to System.Diagnostics.FileVersionInfo, we should be able to pull it through that then. But it would still require the modders to actually use the feature. (by default a library's version will always be "1.0.0.0").