rsparkyc
-
Posts
258 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by rsparkyc
-
-
On 11/4/2018 at 10:10 PM, Electrocutor said:
I got a little carried away while working on giving this full TU recolor treatment. You can use any, none or all of what I've done here:
- Standardized mod folder to have things in the normal places
- Disabled the stock fairing replacement patch by default
-
Remade part variants on Fairing (Ogive) and Fairing (Conic)
- Changed 'Original' to 'White' and hooked it up to the stock 'White' variant theme
- Changed 'Fuselage' to 'Gray and White' and hooked it up to the stock 'Gray and White' variant theme
-
Added additional variants to Fairing (Ogive) and Fairing (Conic) using stock resources
- Variant 'Gray and Orange'
- Variant 'Dark'
-
Created part variants on Base Ring and Base Interstage using existing content
- Variant 'White' is now the base for Base Ring
- Variant 'Dark' is now the base for Base Interstage
- Variant 'Dark' added as second option to Base Ring
- Variant 'White' added as second option to Base Interstage
-
Added Textures Unlimited variants
- Created mask texture for Fairing (Ogive) and Fairing (Cone)
- Created mask texture for Base Standard
- Created mask texture for Base Ring and Base Interstage
- Created mask texture for Thruster Plate
-
Variant 'TU Recolor' added to all parts
- Each part was broken into 2-3 regions via mask to allow proper separation and recoloring of different regions
- Normalization values were set for all regions
- Default colors were set, but current TU version has a bug with this, so they appear white until recolored
- TexturesUnlimited currently throws a number of benign messages into the log that can be ignored
- I am told that both these issues have been resolved in the current dev branch and will be fixed in the next release
- Note that there is a bug with stock PartVariants that somehow removes some attachment nodes when switching between variants. I didn't find this out until further testing, so for now you can only use the base variant for the bases, but the fairings can switch around just fine. When the TU version that fixes the default color settings is released, I will enable TU against the base variants, so that they can be recolored without running into that stock bug.
Wow, sounds like you were busy! Sorry for my absence, but any chance you can submit a PR against this? Otherwise I can probably overlay your changes
-
1 hour ago, Gordon Dry said:
Thanks.
I still wonder why there are
-
the referenced textures in
GameData\ProceduralFairings\Textures\fairing.dds
GameData\ProceduralFairings\Textures\fairing_NRM.dds -
and the not referenced and different, 136 bytes non-detail textures still in
GameData\ProceduralFairings\Parts\fairing.dds
GameData\ProceduralFairings\Parts\fairing_NRM.dds
I already asked this question months ago
I'm not sure. I'm just trying to maintain this mod, and don't really have much experience with the texture aspect of it (I'm mainly just a code guy). I'd love it if you wanted to play around with that folder structure and offer up a PR to fix it
Also, I can't seem to find the post where you asked about that. I was hoping to get a bit more context around the issue.
-
the referenced textures in
-
When will this be updated for 1.5.0?
Oh wait, just now
-
@FreeThinker, I'm having a similar issue with doing a part filter. I'm trying to validate that my craft has a part that has a science experiment. This is my contract, however it's saying that I have a part which contains the experiment even when it doesn't.
CONTRACT_TYPE { name = Test title = Test description = Blah synopsis = Blah completedMessage = Congratulations! You Blahed sortKey = 902 cancellable = true declinable = true autoAccept = false minExpiry = 0 maxExpiry = 0 maxCompletions = 0 maxSimultaneous = 1 deadline = 365 // 1 year targetBody = HomeWorld() prestige = Trivial advanceFunds = 20000 rewardScience = 1 rewardReputation = 5 rewardFunds = 10000 failureReputation = 5 failureFunds = 10000 PARAMETER { name = Test type = VesselParameterGroup title = Test Satellite PARAMETER { name = NewVessel type = NewVessel title = Launch a New Vessel hideChildren = true } PARAMETER { name = Crewmembers type = HasCrew minCrew = 0 maxCrew = 0 title = Uncrewed hideChildren = true } PARAMETER { name = Orbit type = Orbit minAltitude = 80000 title = Just get to orbit } PARAMETER { name = PartValidation type = PartValidation FILTER { MODULE { name = ModuleScinceExpirement experimentID = barometerScan } } minCount = 1 } } }I'm guessing this is just plain broken?
-
On 9/19/2018 at 8:27 PM, Brigadier said:
It would be wise to post a link to the entire log file since the problem can actually exist elsewhere. For example, it is not known if you have other mods installed and what their versions are. Please read this thread and follow the steps offered there - How To Get Support (READ FIRST) - Technical Support (PC, modded installs) - Kerbal Space Program Forums.
14 hours ago, GrayTech said:@Brigadier I believe I have the same problem as @BadManiac. I created an issue report on the github page.
I believe this is fixed by this PR: https://github.com/jrossignol/ContractConfigurator/pull/668 (though perhaps this is a different issue?)
In addition, does anyone know if there's a way to escape parameters when defining contracts? An example is I have an experiment with a dash it it. When CC tries to parse it, it tried to subtract the two parts of the experiment name instead of just treating the whole thing as a string.
-
Hello,
I bought KSP many years ago, and bought it directly from Squad (and not through Steam). I was interested in getting the making history expansion pack, and actually have some steam credits, and so I thought I would buy it on steam. When I was about to purchase it, I saw it said "This content requires the base game Kerbal Space Program on Steam in order to play." Is there a way for me to by it on steam, but still have it work with the game I downloaded from kerbalspaceprogram.com directly?
-
1 hour ago, linuxgurugamer said:
You have a syntax error in the file, no comma after the download line
I suggest using the following website to validate the JSON:
Wow...I feel like an idiot. Fixed
-
@linuxgurugamer Just released 1.4.3.2, which now has a .version file within it. Can you tell me if that looks better?
-
On 5/16/2018 at 9:24 AM, linuxgurugamer said:
Did you change the version numbering of Procedural Fairings? I see it went from v5 to 1.4.3.1
If so, please let me know and I will fix CKAN to understand the change
It would be helpful if you could add a .version file, it's easy to make and maintain, and will help both CKAN and AVC to keep track of new releases without any other work.
Yes, a version format change came in from the work that @Phineas Freak did. I can work on adding a .version file and put that in the 1.4.3.2 release
-
I'm seeing similar issues with the PEG guidance not always working.
One specific thing I noticed is that PEG fails to work if I have a mammoth as my first stage. It will throw exceptions in the logs, which I've documented here: https://github.com/MuMech/MechJeb2/issues/1029EDIT: It looks like I actually just had my number of stages in the ascent guidance config set too high.In addition, I've also noticed that some craft will fail to achieve orbit using PEG guidance mode, and when doing so, also spams the logs with exceptions, as documented here: https://github.com/MuMech/MechJeb2/issues/1026
I'm assuming these issues are what you all are seeing as well, so hopefully having open issues will help get this some traction.
-
I wonder if KER also things you're going to keep your fairings on the whole time. What happens if you stage your fairing deployment before upper stage engine ignition? Does Mechjeb give similar numbers?
-
3 minutes ago, CodeFantastic said:
I'm having a strange problem. I started to replace some of my rockets fairing with the procedural ones, but now the Dv is lower then before. The rocket with stock fairings has 3,758 Dv, but with PF it haves a little over 3,100. Any idea what's causing the this because both fairings have little to no mass.
Perhaps the fairing base is adding weight? Care to post pictures of your rockets?
-
Updated OP with changes from @Phineas Freak
-
@Gordon Dry, I was unaware that @Phineas Freak had done a lot of work to maintain this mod. Sounds like he's done a lot of work in my absence! @Phineas Freak, do you want to continue maintaining this, or should I merge your changes into my fork?
EDIT: Apparently I'm an idiot, because I can see earlier in this thread where I talked with you about you taking it over... I'm going to at least work on getting your stuff merged over, should make future PRs be much cleaner. I can also tag this as a pre-release as well. Overall, it's looking much better than the project I inherited!
-
28 minutes ago, Gordon Dry said:
@rsparkyc
the github download is the source code plus the plugin but without parts. I can merge, but I prefer to have a proper archive.
Edit:
sorry, forget it, all files are in one folder "plugin" now, also parts and textures ...
Actually, that's my bad. I created a proper release, but forgot to tag in on the releases page. I'll do that now.
EDIT: Updated, that should be better. Thanks for letting me know!
-
Hey everyone. I'm trying to get back into the swing of things, and part that process is that I updated this for 1.4.3
-
I'm not gone entirely, but was gone for a while. However, I'm more than happy to let @Phineas Freak take over this mod if he so desires. His fork is newer, but I haven't seen him cut any releases off of it yet.
-
1 minute ago, MatBailie said:
Apologies and thanks, I didn't see that
haha, no problem, it's tucked way down at the end, and I couldn't even remember how i got some of those values, so I had to look them up.
One thing that needs to change is the ability to configure the battery in the part. that would change the empty weight and cost
-
Just now, MatBailie said:
But still, how were these three figures worked out? Is there a formula, or lookup or something?
- PartVolume
- EmptyWeight
- EmptyCost
So this is in the readme:
-
Create a part roughly the same size and shape of an existing avionics module unlocked in that tech node.
- Take note of its volume. Enter this in column G of the spreadsheet. (Note: the KSP UI normally shows liters, but in the spreadsheets it's kiloliters.)
- Slide the utilization slider down to 0, and take note of its empty weight and empty cost. Put those in columns H and I respectively.
-
1 hour ago, MatBailie said:
Most of what I wanted seems to be in the spreadsheet, thanks
How do you arrive at the figures for PartVolume, EmptyWeight and EmptyCost?
Without really understanding those figures all I can notice for now is that the values for EarlyProbeCore(Stability) appear to be an order of magnitude smaller than the others...
EDIT:
It appears that the spreadsheet is editable publicly, I thought I was editing a copy, but it appears to be the "master". This may mean other people have also accidentally made changes?
As it stands, I can also see that:
- Agena's empty weight is higher than its desired mass?
- Same goes for Saturn 1 IU
- GuidanceUnit's (Starting) and (Early) have very low Empty Weight (< 10% of desired mass)
- Early Probe Core has even lower Empty Weight (< 2.5% of desired Mass)
Yeah, everything was based off of the non-procedural versions, which don't always correlate well to a procedural counterpart. The version for 1.3 will have a re-worked tech tree, and with that, re-worked procedural avionics configs that hopefully make more sense.
-
On 6/18/2017 at 9:25 AM, MatBailie said:
I've not had time to look at it in more detail yet, but what I've realised is that the parts don't scale linearly, so probe cores are very effective at small sizes. I was just using a probe core for "too big a size". What I want to do is look up (or reverse engineer) the formulae so I can graph out where the tipping points / envelope boundaries are. It might be perfect, just a matter of expectations vs reality... Will be a few days before I do that though
All the formulas I use should be in the RP-0 readme
2 hours ago, Temeter said:edit: No, still not getting any science, even after updating everything to make sure correct versions are installed.
----
Hey, I've just installed RP-0 again atop my RSS install, and I've got a weird new issue: Transmitting science does not give any science points. IE, my unmanned early rocket (using two reflectrons) is transmitting temperature/pressure/telemetry data, which works fine, goes to 100%, says Done!, but there is no confirmation message telling me the actual report is unlocked at R&D. I'm not getting science points, and there is also no entry in the science archieves.
Only science points I've gotten was by recovering a craft that was in flight/in space. Contract rewards itself work.
---
output.log, if it helps: https://www.file-upload.net/download-12561483/output_log.txt.html
Has a whole bunch of nullrefs (most annoying FAR ones), but they don't seem to affect science. (also tried without kerbokatz science sampler, same result)
what version of remote tech are you using? There was a bug that dealt with that that I fixed a while ago: https://github.com/RemoteTechnologiesGroup/RemoteTech/pull/715
-
2 hours ago, evileye.x said:
@rsparkyc , congrats and thank you very much for giving PF fairing some love!
Do accept feature requests? If you do, then:
1) Now PF fairing side panels works in that way that you cannot have stack node below side panels attached points. Which means those wonderful KW fairing bases cannot be used properly. I mean those https://goo.gl/images/nnfnPK
I use
to have variety on bases/shapes/textures
2) An idea for career. For PF fairing now there are limitation for fairing base diameter, but it would be cool to have limitations for PF fairing a) length b) expansion rate
Many people love challenges implied by limited fairing sizes, you will make a lot of people happy I guess. Even if limited in config file...
3) Can be those additional nodes (stock-a-like) be disabled by default (please
). Even cooler to have trussed non-physicless procedural adapter part instead of bunch of nodes floating in the air
Thank for reading anyway!
The best way to get traction on things like that is to open up an issue in my repo here: https://github.com/rsparkyc/ProceduralFairings/issues
Since I'm focused mainly on RO/RP-0 development, adding these features are kinda low on the priority list, but having them tracked there mean that anyone can work on them and submit PRs, and then I can handle getting the new versions out.
-
9 hours ago, MatBailie said:
Is there anything I can read up on about procedural avionics? Particularly how power, mass and cost are calculated, and when each variant is intended to be "better" than another?
The reason I ask is that I'm not finding the probe cores particularly useful. I've unlocked most of the 20-30 science techs, and now have 3 booster variants, 2 upperStage variants and 1 probeCore variant.
When I try to make avionics for a 400mm diameter ~250kg probe...- UpperStage(Stability) @ 3T capability & 200% utilisation = 35W/1W, 46.63kg, 312.4584 kredits, 1184mm long
- ProbeCore(Stability) @ 300kg capability & 200% utilisation = 56W/1W, 55.33kg, 6004.836 kredits, 235mm long
- ProbeCore(Stability) @ 300kg capability & 100% utilisation = 75W/2W, 86.23kg, 1514.09 kredits, 470mm long
- ProbeCore(Stability) @ 300kg capability & 43.3% utilisation = 120W/2W, 116.3kg, 312.5878 kredits, 1078mm long
- ProbeCore(Stability) @ 300kg capability & 38.9% utilisation = 130W/3W, 120.7.23kg, 262.4207 kredits, 1200mm long
The UpperStage (Stability) Avionics are lighter, cheaper and use less power than the ProbeCore(Stability) Avionics. Sure, they take up a lot more space, but mass is much more of a factor than volume.
Am I missing something? Am I doing something wrong? Under what circumstances are ProbeCore(Stability) Avionics -intended- to be better than UpperStage(Stability) Avionics?
One thing that the probe core has that the upper stage does not (at least in some configurations) is a sample return container. Still, it looks like it could use some balancing (perhaps raising the minimum tonnage of the upper stage?)
-
32 minutes ago, Edwin1993 said:
Sure but it's just an empty window
Ok, so that shows that it's not that contracts are broken, but that they're just gone entirely. What's in your /GameData/RP-0/Contracts folder?
). Even cooler to have trussed non-physicless procedural adapter part instead of bunch of nodes floating in the air
[1.6.1] EMRController: v1.6.1 3/12/19
in KSP1 Mod Releases
Posted
Just getting back into KSP, but I did some work on the J-2 engine in realism overhaul, might be worth taking a look. You could make the above curve using MM, but I find it interesting that your curve has ISP dropping below a 5:1 ratio. IRL, the reason your getting reduced thrust as your reduce oxidizer is that you're getting incomplete combustion, and have extra (unburnt) hydrogen leaving in the exhaust gasses. The extra (high velocity) hydrogen atoms are what wind up boosting ISP. While it is lower thrust, I think ISP would continue to rise. Another good chart is figure 5-8 on page 5-11 here: https://history.nasa.gov/afj/ap12fj/pdf/a12_sa507-flightmanual.pdf. There it shows ISP continuing to rise. You can see what I did for realism overhaul here:
https://github.com/KSP-RO/RealismOverhaul/blob/master/GameData/RealismOverhaul/RO_SuggestedMods/EMRController/J2.cfg