Jump to content

Inqie

Members
  • Posts

    66
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Inqie

  1. Thanks for the update! I just got a much better computer and my first save on it will be with this installed :D
    I have a question though:

    39 minutes ago, Knight of St John said:

    • Engine lighting added to all configured engines.

    Is this compatible with, or replace the functionality of, the Engine Lighting [Relit] mod (atleast for stock)?

  2. On 3/9/2021 at 6:43 AM, JadeOfMaar said:

    This new issue is due to my expecting that users would have System Heat's generic extras patch that changes all supported ModuleResourceConverter into ModuleSystemHeatConverter. The errors point at my patch for a B9PS module that changes the options of an EC-consuming converter in the Dark Drive engine.

    Am I misunderstanding this? Are the SystemHeat extras the cause or fix of this problem? I have all the extras installed (via CKAN) and can confirm they are in GameData, yet I am still getting a similar problem: https://pastebin.com/xMRVjPea 

  3. On 2/27/2020 at 11:26 PM, Stone Blue said:

    Actually, the hatch meshes (the part you *see*) and colliders (invisible; the part that triggers the EVA/boarding action of the kerbal), are two seperate objects...
    That means the hatch mesh could be animated to open, seperately from the hatch collider, which would not change the function of hatches at all... the only issue is, the hatch mesh would pass thru any kerbal or object in front of it... unless the mesh had its *own* collider... but then, you get into the conflict of two colliders interfering with each other. :(

    Well, I imagine the kerbal would immediately disappear as soon as you activate the hatch, which is what normally happens. And if there's another object in front of it, the hatch will be inaccessible anyway (or tagged as obstructed).

  4. Sorry for not clearly explaining earlier ^^; 
    I did mean closest in the part tree. Distance wouldn't make sense. I suggested it because placing the kerbal into a random seat on the vessel may bypass structural parts that would otherwise not be traversable, which could totally ignore CLS standards. However it couldn't be done with *just* a part tree check. If there's no seat between the port and a non-traversable area, the port shouldn't be enterable. And you would have to check every part tree direction (and send to seat with the least nodes between) to avoid being sent to one end of a long craft if there's a seat one node over in the other direction. The checks would also have to work if the part tree changes mid-flight (docking or decoupling).

    On 1/17/2020 at 7:10 AM, Martian Emigrant said:

    On the subject of making sense. I always thought hat it was a pity that when Kerbals go EVA that the hatch isn't opened

    Maybe someone can make a radially-attached door with an opening animation that happens when a kerbal exits (or enters) a craft right next to it.
    The open door could just have a black texture on the inside to imitate an opening, and the hinge could be the only hitbox so kerbals could still enter without obstruction.

  5. I don't mean to be too much of a bother but this is the final sequence of the contract I'm working on.

    Spoiler
    
    	PARAMETER // distance check
    	{
    		name = DistanceCheck
    		type = Rendezvous
    		
    		vessel = @/craft
    		vessel = Derelict Ship O75A
    		
    		distance = 15000.0
    		
    		disableOnStateChange = true
    		hidden = true
    	}
    
    	PARAMETER
    	{
    		name = Any
    		type = Any
    		title = (Optional)
    		
    		disableOnStateChange = true
    		completeInSequence = true
    		
    		PARAMETER
    		{
    			name = TargetDestroyed
    			type = TargetDestroyed
    			title = and destroy the target before its sensors detect you!
    			
    			vessel = Derelict Ship O75A
    				
    		//	disableOnStateChange = true
    			rewardFunds = Random(80000.0, 95000.0)
    		}
    		
    		PARAMETER // Destroy timer
    		{
    			name = Timer2
    			type = Duration
    			startCriteria = PARAMETER_COMPLETION
    			parameter = DistanceCheck
    			duration = 15s
    			preWaitText = Target's sensors need calibration
    			waitingText = Target's sensors calibrated in
    			completionText = Target's sensors have detected you
    		//	disableOnStateChange = true
    		}
    	}

     

    Destroying the target is optional and nets bonus funds, and if the player decides to do it, they'll have to do it in 15s. 

    However with my current code, when the TargetDestroyed parameter (and thus the Any) completes, it sometimes appears in the UI as failed, and whether or not it visually shows as failed, it must internally fail because the timer does not stop (which it should as Any contains disableOnStateChange = true) and the contract does not complete immediately.

    Weirdly though, you immediately get the bonus funds when TargetDestroyed completes, suggesting it in fact hasn't failed.
    Anyone know whats going on here?

    Full contract (above code near bottom): https://pastebin.com/1i00y2XU

  6. On 2/11/2019 at 3:21 AM, Grigetio said:

    Anyway, can you put that in a vessel parameter group, which is checked afterward, using define and such. This should delay the check:

    Unfortunately for me, putting it all in a VesselParameterGroup hasn't affected when the check occurs. 

    Spoiler
    
    	PARAMETER // Define craft parameters
    	{
    		name = @/craft
    		type = VesselParameterGroup
    		title = Your craft must
    		
    		define = @/craft
    		dissassociateVesselsOnContractCompletion = true
    		disableOnStateChange = false
    
    		PARAMETER // be Manned by atleast 1 Kerbal
    		{
    			name = HasCrew
    			type = HasCrew
    			title = be manned by atleast 1 Kerbal
    			
    			minCrew = 1
    		
    			disableOnStateChange = false
    			hideChildren = true
    		}
    		
    		PARAMETER // and be fitted with a warp-capable engine
    		{
    			name = PartValidation
    			type = PartValidation
    			title = and be fitted with a warp-capable engine
    
    			part = USI_WarpDrive
    			part = USI_WarpDrive_625
    			part = ZWarpDrive25
    			part = ZWarpDrive125
    			part = ZWarpDrive375
    			
    			disableOnStateChange = false
    			hideChildren = true
    		}
    	}

    ... other parameters like matching target's orbit etc. ...

    
    	PARAMETER // limit thrust to 25%
    	{
    		name = thrustVesselParameterGroup
    		type = VesselParameterGroup
    		title = Limit your warp engine thrust to 25%
    		
    		vessel = @/craft
    		hideVesselName = true
    		disableOnStateChange = true // doesn't affect check
    		completeInSequence = true // "
    		
    		PARAMETER
    		{
    			name = PartValidation
    			type = PartValidation
    			
    		//	hidden = true
    		//	hideChildren = true
    			
    			FILTER
    			{
    				partModule = ModuleEngines
    			}
    			
    			VALIDATE_ALL
    			{
    				MODULE
    				{
    					thrustPercentage = 25
    				}
    			}
    		}
    	}
    	
    	PARAMETER // activate warp engine
    	{
    		name = activateVesselParameterGroup
    		type = VesselParameterGroup
    		title = Activate your warp-capable engine
    		
    		vessel = @/craft
    		hideVesselName = true
    		disableOnStateChange = true // doesn't affect check
    		completeInSequence = true // "
    		
    		PARAMETER
    		{
    			name = PartValidation
    			type = PartValidation
    			
    		//	hidden = true
    		//	hideChildren = true
    			
    			FILTER
    			{
    				partModule = USI_ModuleWarpEngine
    			}
    			
    			VALIDATE_ALL
    			{
    				MODULE
    				{
    					IsDeployed = True
    				}
    			}
    		}
    	}

     

    I honestly don't know if I'll have to resort to just giving the player a 10sec timer telling them to do it manually and just hoping they do it. 

  7. 10 hours ago, Grigetio said:

    @Inqie

    Maybe something like this:

    Spoiler
    
    
    PARAMETER
    {
    	name = all
    	type = All
    	
    	PARAMETER
    	{
    		name = PartValidation
    		type = PartValidation
    
    		title = Do warp engine stuff
    		hideChildren = true
    
    		FILTER
    		{
    			partModule	 = USI_ModuleWarpEngine
    		}
    		
    		VALIDATE_ALL
    		{
    			isEnabled = True
    			IsDeployed = True				
    		}
    	}
    }

     

     

    Thank you for the suggestion @Grigetio :) . Can I ask if you know where I can find documentation of the syntax which FILTER / VALIDATE_ALL / NONE etc. nodes are a part of?

    Apart from that, the solution you presented works, with a slight edit in code, if your ship matches at launch:

    FILTER
    {
    	partModule = USI_ModuleWarpEngine
    }
    
    VALIDATE_ALL
    {
    	MODULE
    	{
    		isEnabled = True
    		IsDeployed = True
    	}
    }

    But unfortunately, once a validation check fails once (ie. at launch), it won't detect a change in it mid-flight, even with "disableOnStateChange = false". Another problem is that using operators like < <= => > instead of = cause the contract to just ignore the argument, immediately causing the parameter to succeed. 

    Edit: I forgot to mention "completeInSequence = true" doesn't affect when the validation occurs (it will still happen at launch)

    I hope someone or yourself can clear things up. 

  8. @nightingale I'm trying to use extended PartValidation - and as I've seen in a previous post, I've put MODULE {} behind a FILTER {} node.

    Spoiler
    
    	PARAMETER
    	{
    		title = Activate your warp-capable engine
    		...          
    		FILTER
    		{
    			MODULE
    			{
    				name = USI_ModuleWarpEngine
    				isEnabled = True
    				IsDeployed = True
    			}
    		}
    	}

     

    However neither hidden nor hideChildren seem to hide anything when placed anywhere in the above nodes, so the result in the contract menu in-game ends up: 

    Spoiler
    
    Activate your warp-capable engine: Incomplete
    	With Name: U S I_ Warp Engine: Incomplete
    	With Is Enabled: True: Incomplete
    	With Is Deployed: True: Incomplete

     

    (Note the change in the module name) Rather than just:

    Activate your warp-capable engine: Incomplete

    EDIT: Even putting all of the code inside of an All clause and putting hidden or hideChildren in that doesn't work. 
    !!EDIT: It doesn't seem like the MODULE node is detecting changes in the parts until I enter the physics load distance of another craft - and when it does, it returns incorrectly (ie. displays "Is Deployed" as failed when the part is clearly deployed)

    Can someone give me advice on how to properly set this up?
    Entire relevant part of the script here: 

    Spoiler
    
    	PARAMETER // limit thrust to 25%
    	{
    		name = PartValidation
    		type = PartValidation
    		title = Limit your warp engine thrust to 25%
    		
    		disableOnStateChange = false
    		completeInSequence = true
    		
    		FILTER
    		{
    			MODULE
    			{
    				name = ModuleEngines
    				currentThrottle >= 1
    				thrustPercentage >= 20
    				thrustPercentage <= 30
    			}
    		}
    
    		minCount = 1
    	//	hideChildren = true
    	}
    	
    	PARAMETER // activate warp engine
    	{
    		name = PartValidation
    		type = PartValidation
    		title = Activate your warp-capable engine
    		
    		disableOnStateChange = false
    		completeInSequence = true
    		
    		FILTER
    		{
    			MODULE
    			{
    				name = USI_ModuleWarpEngine
    				isEnabled = True
    				IsDeployed = True
    			}
    		}
    		
    		minCount = 1
    	//	hideChildren = true
    	}

     

     

  9. Hi, I was just wondering, has anyone has made a User Defined Language for Contract Configurator yet? A .xml file you can import into a program like Notepad++ to highlight keywords.
    I attempted to make one myself, here is the link to it (it will be updated as I refine it): https://www.dropbox.com/s/od8sku0wkpceh79/contractcfg.xml?dl=0
    +Edit: I added a Lite version which supports folding/collapsing, but text may be highlighted out of place: https://www.dropbox.com/s/uueo4pykr2cqmar/contractcfg_lite.xml?dl=0

    It has a couple of problems, like some brackets and/or comments directly after DATA or PARAMETER nodes don't get coloured, and Code Folding is messy, but that's the sacrifice I had to make to be able to colour expressions ie. HomeWorld() or type = PartUnlocked without them being highlighted outside of their correct positions (ie. if you named something that included an expression or node title).

    If you would like to help fix the problems with it, I've been sorting out the initial issues on the Notepad++ forum: https://notepad-plus-plus.org/community/topic/17019/how-to-setup-udl-keyword-style-overwrites

  10. 25 minutes ago, Geonovast said:

    Unfortunately, it doesn't appear to.  I just did a quick test and I'm getting an "Unknown Part Modules" error on the craft when you go to open it.

    This is the unfortunate result of part module edits. The same problem occurs if you attempt to open a craft built with 'Mechjeb and Engineer for All' or 'RemoteTech' without having the mod installed. 

  11. 2 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:

    If it is fixed, then I’ll continue this mod.

    has it been released yet?

    Yes it has been released. In fact v0.30.2 was released which added:

    Quote

    - The inverted MFD problem in DX12 has also been resolved. Issue #665.

    Hopefully we won't encounter that problem anymore. 

  12. Been playing around with my custom rings, and I can't say it hasn't been interesting. I have a couple questions though. 
    Only the second value of the InnerRadiusMultiplier key seems to be having an effect (size multiplier) on either 2d or 3d rings. I'm not sure in what form, exactly, the ring is supposed to deform with the degree value. 
    The other question I have is, will we be seeing the dust and fading mentioned in January/February in a release?
    Thanks for such a fun mod to play around with. 

  13. 4 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:

    See the previous message

    Sorry for maybe not being as clear as I could have: I'm asking what part of the .dll actually needs a rewrite to function? I opened the source in VS, and to my (admittedly untrained) eye I could not find anything obvious to be rewritten to work with MAS. I would assume, as it's just another mods prop, that it would just be referenced in the config file/s. Is there something else that needs plugin rewriting for 1.4.x that is unrelated to RPM/MAS? 

    I honestly understand not wanting to spend a lot of time focusing on fixing this mod, as you clearly have a lot of other mods to handle, being the great eater of all poor abandoned modlets. But if this can be updated without a major .dll rewrite then I would like to see where I or others can take it. 

  14. If the main problem with updating this is that it needs a new IVA to incorporate MAS, I'm currently trying to create a 'more accurate to KSP cinematics' alternate internal space for this mod. If I'm able to provide that with MAS in mind (though no promises), would that be all that's needed for a 1.4.x update? What changes on the plugin-side would need to be made - Was RPM not optional for this?

  15. On 4/25/2018 at 2:09 AM, Snark said:

    Essentially it's a bug in the orbital scanner, easily fixed with a change of logic.  I've run into this problem enough times that when I'm playing with a modded solar system that has tiny moons in it (e.g. OPM, New Horizons, etc.), it becomes a significant limitation, and I wouldn't be surprised if other folks have run into it, too.

    It bugged me enough that I wrote a tiny little "modlet" to fix the problem.  It's located here:

    https://github.com/KSPSnark/SnarkTweaks/tree/master/OrbitalSurveyScanning

    That is actually quite useful. I would replace 'bug' with 'limitation' though in the github descriptions, unless the 25km limit was unintended by devs. And even though it's a small modlet, a proper release is always useful to expose it to anyone who hasn't found a solution elsewhere (rather than it being on p124 of another mod >.>). 

    Also, still no example cases for InnerRadiusMultiplier and OuterRadiusMultiplier from 1.4.2-1?
    I've been testing for hours and can't seem to find the proper syntax required. 

×
×
  • Create New...