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...

This... Could this be considered as the first real steps ?

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").

Before a moderator goes ahead and closes this thread, if such a fate should arise (Looking at the previous thread). First I'd like to mention, that I do NOT propose a standardized versioning. I just propose a mandatory field for the version number, what ever format it is in. If this could be fixed with a readme, then by all means go ahead. But still as a mandatory thing. Someone brought up the license part being mandatory, but hey that is so Squad doesn't get into trouble with laws in the different countries, and to some degree help protect the modders. Again, someone said that "the modders had unanimously vetoed the proposal" well, they didn't, since this request keeps popping up. "No mod nor KSP itself uses these data" - Well, isn't that basicly like when somebody creates a mod, to begin with, the modder in question will have no idea whether or not it will be populate or even used, yet they make it anyway. At the end of the day, this feature may end up becoming the first step to providing a "KSP that is mod friendly", perhaps in the form of a mod launcher, idk. And then, if modders still disagrees with this, then perhaps, one should ask the question. Am I asking the wrong audience, this is also something the end-user would like, so perhaps it should be asked in the general section of this forum. So IF the end-user likes it, then the modders might see reason. This is as much a Request as a Proposal.

Would it be possible for Squad to make it mandatory for all mods no matter how simple it is (even part only mods), to include a config file. It would simply need to describe a few things about the mod. such as: - Name - Version - Author - Forum Link - Link to license - Download Link (Curse, Private, whatever) - Github (or rather a bug reporting link) - Whatever else Squad may think of. Besides the hassle of updating mods, where you are not always entirely certain what version of the mod, you are currently running. It would also make it a lot easier to find information about said mod on the forum, because as we all know, the current search function on the forum, is crap at the best. Even something like reporting a bug, becomes a hassle to many users, because they need to first find the forum thread, and then we are back at the search function. I'm also guessing, that such a feature would make it a lot easier for all the Mod Managers out there. Would anybody have anything against this, and why ? Because, personally, I cant see any reason what so ever, to dislike such a feature. Yes, I tried to search the forum, to see if this was old news/an old request, but no such luck.

First, when ever a user needs to report an issue, they first need to locate the mods forum thread, which is really annoying to do with the way searching functions here on the forums, after which some writes it in the forum while others goes the next step and puts them on the github, again having to spend time to find it. And in this process a lot of issues are lost because of the complexity or rather the time needed to report such an issue can become a long one. Second, if a mod contains many unsolved issues combined with no recent updates the user will become aware of its inactivity and may be persuaded to think twice before installing (and submitting yet another issue for something that already is submitted by others, wasting more time.) Though this can also work in the advantage of old mods, if it has no clear signs of issues, even if it is outdated, users might wonder "Does it still work" and try it out. As far as I'm aware of, Github contains an API which you can use to embed the issue tracker of a certain project. Generally, I would really love it if Squad would go out and make it a requirement for ANY mod that goes in the GameData folder to include a settings.cfg, which includes basic information about the mod. ie, name, version, forum link, license and so on..

Seems like an honest idea, though I would really love it if you were (at some point) able to build a common framework through the website for issue tracking... So that user would be able to see not only the popularity but also the frequency of updates and the risk of failure. I'm well aware that you have currently signed it off as non-viewable by the common the user, but I still believe something like this could be very helpful to not only the end-user but also the modders. Especially anyone that wants to go over the border between stock to modded.

Just making sure here... This mod's development is far from over right ? There are people that are willing to step up to the task ? Because my upcoming mod release will be dependent on this mod for all components to work in a "perfect" symmetry.

Could you provide me with a direct link to any documentation for your API or if non exist, the direct link for the API itself. I'm currently writing this post from my mobile, sweaty fingers and touchscreen not a good combination. Well, wouldn't it be rather simple to just make 3 feeds, Popular(Most downloaded), Recently Updated and New Creations. If you do it this way, no can accuse you of favoritism, and we all walk away happy As it should be, any other ideology would be highly counter-logical, and wouldn't it break a couple of licenses and perhaps even KSP EULA/ToA. Don't get me wrong, I'm all in for a unified API. And even though I've had multiple bad experiences with salted encryption I'm willing to give it another go, as long as I'm not the one having to take responsibility. You may call it being ignorant or lazy, but hobby and real-life work should be separated. What I was referring to was the need for this? I mean why make the mod-manager need a pass-phrase to access the data if it is going to be the same pass-phrase for each end-user. An ex. of a good use of authentication for mod-manager access to an API is Eve-Online, in this case it not only makes sense, but it would be highly improbable if not used. In this example it is a needed part for logical reasons to get an auth. But with your(we need a name for this project) site, I simply cant see the reason for using it. Please do, either by direct link or a code snippet here. Perhaps you/we should make use of the spoiler tag for code. As to not cram everything up. PM Sent, and looking forward to a favorable and productive project. ---------- PS: I'd like to just say that I'm currently working very heavily on a rather large mod-pack/overhaul for KSP. Which I'm getting close to releasing an alpha for. So my time spent on this project and yours wont be 50/50, but I will pitch in as much as possible. ----------

Not too sure I like the idea of using raw/semi-raw data on the URI. Also, is that a real mirror of what it's gonna look like ? (In the case of a ModManager in KSP, I dont see the need to audit its every movement through the database.) Regarding the downtime of the forums, and for future small talk, any thoughts on using irc ? Personally, I've always had great experience with that, and when fx. we are talking about small talk, the forum will quickly get flooded.

Need some help here. I updated the mod from 2.4.4 to 3.0.2, after which I re-researched the different parts that were highlighted. However, when I go to the VAB/SPH the new parts are still greyed out and says they need to be researched, however every part has already been researched. Oh, and it's career mode, if it makes a difference..

What mods do you use for that VTOL ?