Jump to content

[Airships in 1.12.3] HooliganLabs Mods

JewelShisen

By JewelShisen
in KSP1 Mod Releases

 Share

Recommended Posts

Major999

Major999

Posted
Posted (edited)

My game has been crashing more often than it usually does, and i keep getting this in the unity player's log:

Missing method .ctor in assembly /Applications/KSP_osx/GameData/HooliganLabs/Plugins/HLAirship.dll, type System.Runtime.Versioning.TargetFrameworkAttributeThe class System.Runtime.Versioning.TargetFrameworkAttribute could not be loaded, used in HooliganLabs
Can't find custom attr constructor image: /Applications/KSP_osx/GameData/HooliganLabs/Plugins/HLAirship.dll mtoken: 0x0a000001

Does anyone know what this is?

Edited by Major999
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mołot

Mołot

Posted
Posted
Okay, I've fixed it.

Thanks! Worked like a charm. Could I ask you two more things?

  1. Make it Toolbar - independent as 0.90 has it's own toolbar. Using mod toolbar should be an option, not requirement.
  2. Share full archive with VisualStudio project, if you can. I'm new to C# so having more than just .cs file would be lovely.

I mean, having only one of these two should be enough, I'm pretty sure I can do the first if you'll give me the second... Hacking around using other projects as references. Probably I should be able to anyway, but it would take me longer than absolutely needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JewelShisen

JewelShisen

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
Thanks! Worked like a charm. Could I ask you two more things?

  1. Make it Toolbar - independent as 0.90 has it's own toolbar. Using mod toolbar should be an option, not requirement.
  2. Share full archive with VisualStudio project, if you can. I'm new to C# so having more than just .cs file would be lovely.

I mean, having only one of these two should be enough, I'm pretty sure I can do the first if you'll give me the second... Hacking around using other projects as references. Probably I should be able to anyway, but it would take me longer than absolutely needed.

It was never intended to be mandatory toolbar but it was the only way to do it for 0.25. Once I talk to the coder then we can look into using the stock toolbar.

As far as sharing the archive? That would have to wait until I decide on the new license that this mod will be packaged with as the MIT one is just a bit too broad and open.

EDIT: For now the license is being switched over to Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).

Edited by JewelShisen
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mołot

Mołot

Posted
Posted
As far as sharing the archive? That would have to wait until I decide on the new license that this mod will be packaged with as the MIT one is just a bit too broad and open.

Well, the package Khatharr posted was, is, and will be MIT license, as you can't effectively revoke it, you can only apply new license on new releases (even if you don't change code). And he released under MIT, forking your release under MIT, so we are free to work on it further. That says the license you used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JewelShisen

JewelShisen

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Well, the package Khatharr posted was, is, and will be MIT license, as you can't effectively revoke it, you can only apply new license on new releases (even if you don't change code). And he released under MIT, forking your release under MIT, so we are free to work on it further. That says the license you used.

That is very true. It is not a retroactive change and i can't require him to change the license he released his fork under.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mołot

Mołot

Posted
Posted

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to make a fork, not really. But CC Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives may be interpreted in many ways. For sure I cannot release any patches, for example. So no-no for me hacking out toolbar requirement. Or, more truthfully, no-no for me to share it with you or anyone. Maybe even no for compiling code as-is. And using things like Active Texture Management starts to be dubious, as it creates uniform textures on people's computers - derivative for sure! Possibly legal as it's only cache and it's not distributed but that's grey area.

If you want to develop DLL and everything on your own, good luck. But the licence you are thinking about would stop great people like Khatharr from contributing, and people like me from tinkering and sharing ideas. The latter is of no particular worth yet, but the former got this mod running again whilst you did not have time to do it. That's something, ain't it?

CC for crafts would make sense, with the problems described above. For code (and parts' cfg files), if MIT is not what you want, there is a lot of opensource licences available. GPL or LGPL for example. I understand that if someone works on code for free, he may want this code to stay free, and that's something MIT licence does not ensure. But licence that makes you the only legal developer when you apparently could use some help?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JewelShisen

JewelShisen

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Don't get me wrong, I don't want to make a fork, not really. But CC Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives may be interpreted in many ways. For sure I cannot release any patches, for example. So no-no for me hacking out toolbar requirement. Or, more truthfully, no-no for me to share it with you or anyone. Maybe even no for compiling code as-is. And using things like Active Texture Management starts to be dubious, as it creates uniform textures on people's computers - derivative for sure! Possibly legal as it's only cache and it's not distributed but that's grey area.

If you want to develop DLL and everything on your own, good luck. But the licence you are thinking about would stop great people like Khatharr from contributing, and people like me from tinkering and sharing ideas. The latter is of no particular worth yet, but the former got this mod running again whilst you did not have time to do it. That's something, ain't it?

CC for crafts would make sense, with the problems described above. For code (and parts' cfg files), if MIT is not what you want, there is a lot of opensource licences available. GPL or LGPL for example. I understand that if someone works on code for free, he may want this code to stay free, and that's something MIT licence does not ensure. But licence that makes you the only legal developer when you apparently could use some help?

Actually that license doesn't stop you from messing in the code and certainly doesn't stop you from sharing anything you do with me. It simply means that others can't take the code, make a few little changes, and call it their own. It's not there to stop others from helping.

Also this isn't set in stone. I am still looking at licenses and deciding which one is best. That is simply the more restrictive one and so it is the one being used as a temp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mołot

Mołot

Posted
Posted
Actually that license doesn't stop you from messing in the code and certainly doesn't stop you from sharing anything you do with me.

True, to some extent, but (as can be seen in official description ): "If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you may not distribute the modified material." so it does prevent me from sharing my changes on the forum, or even from sharing them with my friends. If sharing it back with original author / maintainer is legal is somewhat gray area, there is no explicit exception for him in the licence.

It simply means that others can't take the code, make a few little changes, and call it their own. It's not there to stop others from helping.

I believe that's what you meant, but that's not what licence text says. Also, most of other licences require attribution - so no "claiming as their own". For forking - do you really want to prevent that? Why, exactly? I mean, original authors didn't mind, in the first place. And if someone over there will show he can keep this up to date and enrich it's features, why not? If you will go GPL, you will be able to take his changes back as you please. And he'll be forced to mention all previous authors in his fork's description, so no "claiming".

The problem with CC licences is that they were never really designed for code. Using any kind of it will make merry law hell to any kind of teamwork. See their own recommendation. If anyone knows where not to use CC, they do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JewelShisen

JewelShisen

Posted
  • Author
Posted
True, to some extent, but (as can be seen in official description ): "If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you may not distribute the modified material." so it does prevent me from sharing my changes on the forum, or even from sharing them with my friends. If sharing it back with original author / maintainer is legal is somewhat gray area, there is no explicit exception for him in the licence.

I believe that's what you meant, but that's not what licence text says. Also, most of other licences require attribution - so no "claiming as their own". For forking - do you really want to prevent that? Why, exactly? I mean, original authors didn't mind, in the first place. And if someone over there will show he can keep this up to date and enrich it's features, why not? If you will go GPL, you will be able to take his changes back as you please. And he'll be forced to mention all previous authors in his fork's description, so no "claiming".

The problem with CC licences is that they were never really designed for code. Using any kind of it will make merry law hell to any kind of teamwork. See their own recommendation. If anyone knows where not to use CC, they do.

Indeed and that is why I am still looking for a better one. Likely GPL but I am not fully sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Khatharr

Khatharr

Posted
Posted (edited)
My game has been crashing more often than it usually does, and i keep getting this in the unity player's log:

Missing method .ctor in assembly /Applications/KSP_osx/GameData/HooliganLabs/Plugins/HLAirship.dll, type System.Runtime.Versioning.TargetFrameworkAttributeThe class System.Runtime.Versioning.TargetFrameworkAttribute could not be loaded, used in HooliganLabs
Can't find custom attr constructor image: /Applications/KSP_osx/GameData/HooliganLabs/Plugins/HLAirship.dll mtoken: 0x0a000001

Does anyone know what this is?

It may be saying that I forgot to lower the .NET version before compiling.

I dropped it to 3.5 and rebuilt, but it broke one of the HLA references. The reference in question wasn't actually being used anywhere, so I was able to repair it, but it suggests that HLA was originally compiled with a higher .NET version, so this may not actually be the problem. If it's not then I think the best thing to do would be for you to try and rebuild it locally and reference the assemblies from your own KSP. If that doesn't fix it then it should fail to build and give a more informative error message. In any case, link at end of post.

Thanks! Worked like a charm. Could I ask you two more things?

  1. Make it Toolbar - independent as 0.90 has it's own toolbar. Using mod toolbar should be an option, not requirement.
  2. Share full archive with VisualStudio project, if you can. I'm new to C# so having more than just .cs file would be lovely.

I mean, having only one of these two should be enough, I'm pretty sure I can do the first if you'll give me the second... Hacking around using other projects as references. Probably I should be able to anyway, but it would take me longer than absolutely needed.

Toolbar integration is for the owner to play with, sorry. I just wanted to post the quick repair, not take over the mod.

KSP mods are projects of type 'Class Library'. You should target .NET Framework 3.5 when creating the project and then include the 'Assembly-CSharp' and 'UnityEngine' reference assemblies from the 'KSP_Data/Managed' folder. In this case it's also necessary to include the Toolbar dll as a reference assembly, since the mod uses toolbar.

In any case, I need to rebuild anyway to see if it fixes Major999's issue, so I'll include the full project with it. You'll still need to repair the assembly references, since they're likely in a different location on your machine.

http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=05000925397382543923

If the link breaks again send me a PM.

Edited by Khatharr
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Major999

Major999

Posted
Posted
It may be saying that I forgot to lower the .NET version before compiling.

I dropped it to 3.5 and rebuilt, but it broke one of the HLA references. The reference in question wasn't actually being used anywhere, so I was able to repair it, but it suggests that HLA was originally compiled with a higher .NET version, so this may not actually be the problem. If it's not then I think the best thing to do would be for you to try and rebuild it locally and reference the assemblies from your own KSP. If that doesn't fix it then it should fail to build and give a more informative error message. In any case, link at end of post.

Toolbar integration is for the owner to play with, sorry. I just wanted to post the quick repair, not take over the mod.

KSP mods are projects of type 'Class Library'. You should target .NET Framework 3.5 when creating the project and then include the 'Assembly-CSharp' and 'UnityEngine' reference assemblies from the 'KSP_Data/Managed' folder. In this case it's also necessary to include the Toolbar dll as a reference assembly, since the mod uses toolbar.

In any case, I need to rebuild anyway to see if it fixes Major999's issue, so I'll include the full project with it. You'll still need to repair the assembly references, since they're likely in a different location on your machine.

http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=05000925397382543923

If the link breaks again send me a PM.

Thanks, man! This has slowed my memory leaks by an enormous amount (I can now change scenes, like, 10 times before everything goes wrong)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrimDarknight

GrimDarknight

Posted
Posted

Squid and a few other addons are not working in 64b Linux.

1) Does anyone know why this may be?

2) Can anyone help me get them working?

The most important ones I want to get back to full functionality are Squid and Science Alert.

Note: The parts show up but there is no functionality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JewelShisen

JewelShisen

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Squid and a few other addons are not working in 64b Linux.

1) Does anyone know why this may be?

2) Can anyone help me get them working?

The most important ones I want to get back to full functionality are Squid and Science Alert.

Note: The parts show up but there is no functionality.

SQUID right now is not updated at all. I am trying to get in touch with my coder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
JewelShisen

JewelShisen

Posted
  • Author
Posted
I didn't see anything in this thread and Google didnt turn up anything, is there any way to fix the GUI for 0.90?

(In case this wasnt already mentioned, the GUI doesnt appear, either via Toolbar or rightclick>>>Toggle GUI. (Not the part right-click menus... Those work fine.))

Odd since I play with it quite a bit and it is working just fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...