[1.8.1-1] [PLEASE FORK ME] Kopernicus & KittopiaTech

[AdjectiveNounNumber]

21 minutes ago, Stone Blue said:

Moar like mebbe (I am only specculating), waiting a month or so for a Final™ 1.8.x version/patch.

IIRC, for 1.6.x or 1.7.x, the team got bit in the butt, by doing a ton of work on an update for 1.6.0 or 1.7.0/.1/.2, only to have the next patch break a bunch of stuff...and then having to do a bunch moar work... vOv

Yeah. Seeing as 1.8 was so buggy, it makes sense for the mod devs to wait for 1.8.1. Saves work and time. They have lives too.

[Cruesoe]

[snip]

You can see from the GitHub that it is being worked on.

Let's just all agree that it will be out when it's out and we shall all thank the modders with wine and beer.

Edited November 5, 2019 by Vanamonde
Quoting removed post.

[Galileo]

14 minutes ago, Cruesoe said:

with wine and beer.

I wish 

[Jognt]

[snip]

I’m waiting for 1.8.3 tbh. Something tells me that’ll be the final stable 1.8 build. 

Edited November 5, 2019 by Vanamonde
Quoting removed post.

[Stone Blue]

1 hour ago, Jognt said:

I’m waiting for 1.8.3 tbh. Something tells me that’ll be the final stable 1.8 build. 

I'll also put my $$ on that
I have a feeling 1.8.1 wont be the final 1.8 build, and the last *final* x.x.2 stable we had was 1.2.2, and before that, the last was 0.24.2 

[Mircea The Young]

You know, given how vital this mod is to planet packs, I'd assume more people would be interested in helping to support and update it. Most mods can still work even after game updates, but with this one, you quite literally can not play the updated game until this mod gets updated as well.

[Galileo]

17 minutes ago, Mircea The Young said:

but with this one, you quite literally can not play the updated game until this mod gets updated as well.

What's keeping you from playing a stock game until this is updated? Kopernicus is not a dependency of stock. I know it feels like it, but it's not.

Edited November 5, 2019 by Galileo

[Mircea The Young]

1 minute ago, Galileo said:

What's keeping you from playing a stock game until this is updated? Kopernicus is not a dependency of stock. I know it feels like it, but it's not.

The 100+ mods I use. Besides, anyone who plays with a planet pack or any mod that changes planets will require this mod updated before being able to play the latest game version. Kopernicus is a dependency for far too many mods, and again, while plenty of mods can still work even after a game update, any mods that require Kopernicus will not and can even break saves if used without the proper version. Hell,  planet packs and the sort are the reason why I've had to restart my career multiple times as changes in the mods I used damaged my saves.

Also, stock has no dependencies to begin with, so that's a rather silly argument to make.

[Jognt]

41 minutes ago, Mircea The Young said:

You know, given how vital this mod is to planet packs, I'd assume more people would be interested in helping to support and update it.

I've offered my help to the dev a while back. Considering he doesn't frequent the forums/KSP itself much I'm guessing he missed it.

 

41 minutes ago, Mircea The Young said:

with this one, you quite literally can not play the updated game until this mod gets updated as well.

Though I share this opinion I do realize that modders aren't paid for modding. Once you assume that every mod is distributed "as is" and that working on it depends 100% on the author's "Do I code or do I watch a movie with my wife?" decision then every update becomes a gift.

'Expected support' is actually a big part of why I don't do public mods. I have ADHD and am very much aware of the fact that my interests can suddenly shift elsewhere which means it would become a "job" (unpaid!) to keep working on it.
Once it stops being fun/challenging for me, I find something else.

TL:DR: Expecting updates from people under no obligation to provide them is a recipe for disappointment, so why do it? At least we've had the pleasure of playing with mods like Kopernicus for a long time.

 

Edited November 5, 2019 by Jognt

[releansol]

Chill your rockets guys...it comes when it comes  moarrr time!

Edited November 5, 2019 by releansol

[Galileo]

2 hours ago, Mircea The Young said:

The 100+ mods I use. Besides, anyone who plays with a planet pack or any mod that changes planets will require this mod updated before being able to play the latest game version. Kopernicus is a dependency for far too many mods, and again, while plenty of mods can still work even after a game update, any mods that require Kopernicus will not and can even break saves if used without the proper version. Hell,  planet packs and the sort are the reason why I've had to restart my career multiple times as changes in the mods I used damaged my saves.

So what's keeping you from starting a separate play through with stock?

2 hours ago, Mircea The Young said:

Also, stock has no dependencies to begin with

That's my point. Go play stock until kopernicus updates. If you want to play in 1.8, then that is your only choice. Otherwise, roll back to 1.7.3 and be patient.

2 hours ago, Mircea The Young said:

so that's a rather silly argument to make.

What's silly is your statement saying the game is "literally unplayable" because the game is in fact playable without kopernicus if you just play stock until kopernicus is updated.. 

Edited November 5, 2019 by Galileo

[Vanamonde]

Folks, updates will come when the volunteer mod maker feels like getting around to them and/or has time to work on them. Demands won't make it come any faster. And arguing with people who make demands won't make it come faster, but do clog up the thread with off-topic posts. 

For the third time, please, stop arguing about this. 

[Mircea The Young]

 

1 hour ago, Galileo said:

the game is in fact playable without kopernicus if you just play stock until kopernicus is updated.. 

Well of course the game is playable! unless you have planet packs and Kopernicus is out of date that is. Sure, I can play stock, but that entails an entirely new save, meaning I'd have to start from scratch all over again and ignore the progress I've already made in my modded save. You are essentially suggesting playing two entirely separate games, one of which will in fact be unplayable with the latest game release, until this mod gets updates as well and another which will inevitably be abandoned once the mod does get updated.

[snip]

Edited November 5, 2019 by Vanamonde

[Logicsol]

32 minutes ago, Mircea The Young said:

 

Well of course the game is playable! unless you have planet packs and Kopernicus is out of date that is. Sure, I can play stock, but that entails an entirely new save, meaning I'd have to start from scratch all over again and ignore the progress I've already made in my modded save. You are essentially suggesting playing two entirely separate games, one of which will in fact be unplayable with the latest game release, until this mod gets updates as well and another which will inevitably be abandoned once the mod does get updated.

[snip]

You know you can just roll back KSP to 1.7.3 right?
Playing on 1.8.1 is optional.

Edited November 5, 2019 by Logicsol

[Mircea The Young]

Just now, Logicsol said:

You know you can just roll back KSP to 1.7.3 right?
Playing on 1.8.1 is optional.

Of course I'm playing 1.7.3. I only ever meant to express my surprise at the fact that there aren't more people involved in this mods' upkeep.

[Snark]

Yet more content has been removed, due to unproductive arguing-about-arguing. Please keep the discussion on-topic, folks.

Thank you for your understanding.

[Emilius73]

Will there be a 1.8 update?

[Gargamel]

58 minutes ago, Emilius73 said:

Will there be a 1.8 update?

I would think the last few pages of the thread would answer that question. 

[Tegmil]

I've managed to recompile kopernicus for KSP 1.8.1 ! Seems to work fine after some brief testing with outer planets mod.

It's a bit of an experimental version as I had to remove the planetary particle emission system that is no longer compatible with Unity 2019. I've also had to cut the "alreadyLightmapped" config option which may or may not cause issues.

It has been compiled with ModularFlightIntegrator 1.2.7.0

[ link removed by request from Galileo ; just wait on the official version ]

Edited November 11, 2019 by Tegmil
see message below

[Vortinium]

Thank man, I can work on my planet update. So when kopernicus 1.8.x is out  my planet is ready to be publish.

RIP particle system

[Guest]

Is this compiled from the 1.8.1 dev branch from GIT, or the latest stable edited for 1.8.1? 

[Galileo]

13 hours ago, Tegmil said:

I've managed to recompile kopernicus for KSP 1.8.1 ! 

This is a no no. There is a reason kopernicus 1.8.x has not been released.

How many times do we have to to tell people not to do this? It's ridiculous.

You are only making life harder for the real dev. 

Edited November 11, 2019 by Galileo

[PyjackMeat]

14 hours ago, Tegmil said:

I've managed to recompile kopernicus for KSP 1.8.1 ! Seems to work fine after some brief testing with outer planets mod.

It's a bit of an experimental version as I had to remove the planetary particle emission system that is no longer compatible with Unity 2019. I've also had to cut the "alreadyLightmapped" config option which may or may not cause issues.

It has been compiled with ModularFlightIntegrator 1.2.7.0

 

Doesn't work with GEP. Something to do with it's template?
 

Failed to load Body: Grannus: Exception has been thrown by the target of an invocation.

 

[Galileo]

28 minutes ago, PyjackMeat said:

Doesn't work with GEP. Something to do with it's template?
 

Failed to load Body: Grannus: Exception has been thrown by the target of an invocation.

 

Oh, you mean that it was compiled and released without enough testing aside from probably just booting up the game, and probably has unresolved issues? You don't say? There is also no source, so who knows what it's doing to your system.

This will not turn into a thread about support for an unsupported release 

And you can expect zero support from myself or OhioBob about GEP with this release.

Edited November 11, 2019 by Galileo

[Snark]

16 hours ago, Tegmil said:

I've managed to recompile kopernicus for KSP 1.8.1 ! Seems to work fine after some brief testing with outer planets mod.

It's a bit of an experimental version as I had to remove the planetary particle emission system that is no longer compatible with Unity 2019. I've also had to cut the "alreadyLightmapped" config option which may or may not cause issues.

It has been compiled with ModularFlightIntegrator 1.2.7.0

[ link removed by request from Galileo ; just wait on the official version ]

I see you removed the link on your own, thanks for that. 

We know you mean well, but perhaps it's time for a refresher course (for everyone, not just you, since this is a common situation) about the the add-on posting rules:

It's important to understand that simply recompiling a mod and posting a link to the DLL (or a .zip containing it) is against the forum rules, quite aside from any issues you might cause the mod authors.  So please don't ever do that, for this mod or any other.

It is possible to legally fork a mod, if the mod's license allows it.  However, if anyone is ever considering doing that, there are two very important things to understand:

• There are significant rules you need to follow if you're going to do that.
• You should really consider whether it's a good idea to do that, before doing so.  (Hint:  If it's a "live" mod that's still being actively maintained, then it's almost certainly a really bad idea.)

Additional explanation about these two points in spoilers, below, but the TL;DR is:  Forking a mod by the rules is more hassle than you think.  And you may think you're doing people a favor by doing so, but if it's an actively maintained mod, you're actually causing problems and it's probably a good idea not to.

 

Concerning the rules you have to follow if you want to fork a mod (e.g. release your own version of it):

Spoiler

If you ever release anything intended to be used as a mod in KSP-- whether it's your original work or a fork of someone else's-- then that means you are publishing a mod, whether you want to or not.  This, in turn, means that you have to jump through the same hoops that all mod authors do, specifically the add-on posting rules.

Some of the important bits of those rules:

1. You must include a link to your source code in the place where your download link is.  (Simply publishing a link to a DLL or .zip file violates this rule.)  This, in turn, means that you have to have a source code repository set up somewhere public that people can get to so they can download it.
2. You must specify what the license is at the place where your download link is.  (Simply linking to your download, without saying the license, violates this.)

Furthermore:  If you do decide to fork someone's mod-- and even if you do take the necessary steps to follow all the mod release rules-- please don't post your link in someone else's thread, because you're hijacking it.

Each mod gets its own release thread for a reason.  The mod author releases a mod, so they create their own release thread for their own mod, so that their users can go to their thread with questions, support requests, bug reports, etc.

When you release your fork, then that's your mod.  A user who has problems with your mod needs to go to you with questions, support requests, bug reports, etc.  If you were to post a link to your mod in the original author's thread, then you're basically hijacking their thread. It means that your users will end up going to their thread for support, which is an absolute showstopper nightmare for mod authors.

Seriously, if you release your mod in someone else's thread, you're going to be turning the original author's life into a living hell.  So please don't do that.  If you must fork a mod-- and please consider carefully whether it's a good idea to do so, see the section below-- then the appropriate thing to do is to make your own release thread about it, with a separate name so people won't confuse it with the original.

 

Concerning whether it's a good idea to fork a mod that's still actively supported by the original author (hint:  it generally isn't):

Spoiler

If a mod has a license that allows people to fork it-- as Kopernicus does-- then yes, you're legally allowed to fork the mod.

However... if it's a mod that's still actively supported by the original author-- as Kopernicus is-- then you should really ask yourself whether it's a good idea to fork.  It almost certainly isn't.

The urge to try to "help" people is totally understandable.  When a "must have" mod like Kopernicus goes inactive for a while, people get really frustrated waiting for an update so they can continue to play their savegames.  That's just human nature, and I think everyone understands that frustration.

And when you observe, on the one hand, a bunch of people being really frustrated by something ("oh noes, people can't play their Kopernicus saves!"); and, on the other hand, what seems like an "easy fix" ("here, Imma help, I'll just recompile and release")... well, we totally understand the temptation to try to "help".

The problem is... if you do this to a live mod (i.e. one that's still actively supported, and not an abandoned one), then you're really not helping.  You're most likely actually causing problems by doing so.  Here's why:

First, remember that people don't just need the mod now.  They need it tomorow, and a month from now, and a year from now, and beyond.  They need the mod to keep being supported.  Which, in turn, means that the mod author needs to keep supporting it.  Remember that modding is hard and thankless work, and mod authors aren't getting paid for this.  They do this simply because modding is fun for them.

When you release your own fork of a mod that the mod author is still supporting, you are making the mod author's life a living hell.  Because thousands of clueless, impatient users are going to eagerly grab your version of the mod, and then any problems they have, they will go and pester the original mod author about it.  (If you're thinking "no they won't, I'll just clearly label it"-- you're wrong.  Remember there are literally thousands of users out there, and most of them just grab the first download link they see and don't bother to read the fine print.)

Now put yourself in the modder's shoes.  It's hard enough to keep your own stuff running, identify and fix bugs, etc.  What do you suppose happens to your life when suddenly you're flooded with bogus bug reports and support requests from people who are using someone else's stuff but don't realize it and come to you instead?

It's a nightmare.  Seriously.  This is the kind of thing that makes modding really un-fun.  And since modders only do this for the fun of it, then when you hurt that fun, you raise the risk that the modder might decide "to heck with it" and just abandon the mod. And then everyone loses, including all the users you were trying to "help".

Furthermore, there's a good chance that by directly releasing, you may be directly causing problems for the users, as well.

For example, ask yourself this:  KSP 1.8 came out weeks ago, now... so why is it that Kopernicus still hasn't updated, despite the inconvenience to thousands of users.  Do you suppose that it's because the authors are lying around doing nothing and simply can't be bothered?  No... the reason is that Kopernicus is complicated and is easily broken in subtle, difficult-to-detect ways by KSP updates.  Furthermore, the nature of Kopernicus' role is such that if it does cause problems, it has the potential to corrupt people's saves and make them lose everything.

That's why Kopernicus has a version lock on it.  And that's why it generally takes a while for the Kopernicus authors to release an update when KSP updates:  because updating Kopernicus is time-consuming.  It's not just "does it compile"-- it also has to be thoroughly tested to make sure it's not causing subtle problems.  The authors are doing this to protect everyone (themselves, and the users).  It's slow because it's risky.

So... if you short-circuit that by just recompiling and releasing willy-nilly, without going through a thorough testing regimen as the original authors do... there's a strong chance you're releasing something buggy that will cause huge problems for users.  Which doesn't seem like doing them a favor.

To summarize:  Forking mods is a time-honored tradition in KSP, and people do it all the time... but they generally do so for abandoned mods, where there's a big upside and basically no downside.  If you fork a mod that's still a going concern, though, there's a strong chance that you're actually making life worse for both users and authors, despite an honest desire to help people.  So in practice, it's usually best avoided.

 

In conclusion:

1. Thank you to everyone for following the rules. 
2. For anyone who uses a forked mod (this, or any other), please address any questions or support requests to the author of the fork, not to the original mod author (i.e. don't use the original mod's thread for this).

Thank you for your understanding. We now return you to your original thread, already in progress.