Jump to content

Krzeszny

Members
  • Posts

    286
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Krzeszny

  1. GTX 1070 Ti in minimum specs is still too high, but could be ok during EA. There's a lot of room for improvement.

    The performance of large crafts could be significantly improved by adding the option to enable "simplified internal physics" which would disable joint flexing whenever the player wants. I've never really understood the point in flexing. In KSP 1 there's the mod Kerbal Joint Reinforcement Next and I was hoping for KSP 2 physics to be more rigid without struts, but that's just a personal thing.

  2. On 9/22/2022 at 4:08 AM, Nertea said:

    I'm retired, I work on what I want when I want.

    Whoa there, I'm not suggesting you should work on anything. In fact, me and Rodger have done all the work. I only wanted to remind you about a one-character pull request I've made, and not for myself (I've already fixed it months ago on my PC), but for all other Kerbonauts who use SystemHeat and might not know how to fix it.

    Anyway, if anyone else wants to fix the harvester addon which enables SystemHeat for modded drills, all you need to do is edit the file in Kerbal Space Program/GameData/SystemHeatHarvesters/genericHarvesters.cfg  and change `Thermalefficiency ` into `ThermalEfficiency ` (as mentioned a few posts above).

  3. 11 hours ago, Rodger said:

    A bit late, but try editing line 29 in genericHarvesters.cfg, capitalizing the E:

     !ThermalEfficiency {} vs !Thermalefficiency {}

     

    Wow you're amazing. It finally works, after nearly 1 year from my report. I'm making a pull request on GitHub.

    There's also another problem, but this time not game-breaking by any means:

    The first time you start mining, `Ore rate` shows `Load <value>`. When you restart it, it'll only show `Operational`.
    I tested it without SystemHeat and it only doesn't show Load in vanilla when the temperature is optimal. With SystemHeat installed, it'll never show Load after initially starting a given drill, even if the system has cooled down, even after time warping (tested in KRASH, didn't test reloading a save). I'm also reporting this in SH's GitHub (not expecting it to be fixed tbh.)

  4. On 9/15/2021 at 12:51 AM, zer0Kerbal said:

    Thank you  @JadeOfMaar! +1 :rep:

    Thank you@Krzeszny! +1 :rep:

    https://github.com/zer0Kerbal/SphericalTanks/issues/2 (Normals)

    https://github.com/zer0Kerbal/SphericalTanks/issues/1 (B9 patches)

    this will be propagated to all four part packs.

    Track progress of next release here, issues here, and discuss here.

    There's no progress though :(
     

    In the meanwhile I found a bug that breaks GAP contracts if AJE isn't installed.

    https://github.com/zer0Kerbal/Fuselage/issues/5

    Using :FOR[external mod] is a big no-no!

    ModuleManager's wiki says: "It is not recommended to use the :FOR directive to refer to other mods than the one you are writing."

     

    There's also this suspicious line in ODFC.cfg (the patch) that could be ok or could be not ok. Since :FOR ignored :NEEDS, maybe this one also ignores it? I don't know.

    @PART[DM-RFC]:NEEDS[ODFC,DaMichel/AeroRadial]:BEFORE[ODFC]

     

  5. 2 hours ago, etmoonshade said:

    I haven't had enough caffeine or I'd have pointed that out earlier. Check my edit that your post didn't catch. :D

    Mentioning HAS was a mistake on my part, my bad.

    I can't read either. Ok, so it's FOR. I looked for :FOR[Ferram and [AJE in GameData and found something.

    First, there's a file called Custom_FARAeroData.cfg in GameData root directory and it contains the line "@FARAeroData:FOR[FerramAerospaceResearch]"

    Second, there's AJE.cfg in DaMichel/Fuselage/Patches and it contains "@PART[DM-fuselage-intake]:NEEDS[AJE]:FOR[AJE]"

    The first file obviously shouldn't be in GameData but is the second one also coded wrong? It would seem like MM loads FOR despite the NEEDS part not being correct. Anyway, I'm removing both and seeing if KSP works now.

    EDIT: It works! So this is what was causing the bug that prevents the Wright group contracts from appearing.

  6. 31 minutes ago, etmoonshade said:

    ah.

    Search under <KSP directory>\Logs\ModuleManager\ModuleManager.log for "HAS:[FerramAerospaceResearch]" maybe? See if something's mistakenly providing it?

    btw it's :HAS, not HAS:

    (to be clear, the same error is caused by missing FerramAerospaceResearch and AJE)

    I checked the last ModuleManager.log without launching the game and there's no :HAS[Ferram or [AJE

    The only [AJE] mentions are these

    [LOG 00:08:12.064] :BEFORE[AJE] pass
    [LOG 00:08:12.064] :FOR[AJE] pass
    [LOG 00:08:12.066] :AFTER[AJE] pass
  7. 27 minutes ago, etmoonshade said:

    Based on that error, it looks like FARControllableSurface doesn't exist in your game anywhere. It may be that FAR has changed and no longer uses that.

    It might be worth downloading an old version of FAR, seeing what part(s) this was attached to, and then comparing it to the new one and replacing.

    And then report back here so we know :D

    You don't understand and I didn't explain it well.

    FAR isn't installed. AJE isn't installed either. Those folders don't exist in GameData. That's why the requirements that cause the errors shouldn't be trying to load at all.

    In other words, 

    NEEDS[FerramAerospaceResearch]

    is not functioning properly (same with the one that needs AJE).

  8. I'm getting a bug I can't debug. It shouldn't be happening.

    Wright group contracts aren't loading because CC can't find modules from FerramAerospaceResearchand AJE. But the config files have proper requirements so these errors shouldn't be showing up.

    bhxvFSU.png

    Spoiler

    kzsN3P4.png

     

     

    		REQUIREMENT:NEEDS[FerramAerospaceResearch]
    		{
    			name = PartModuleUnlocked
    			type = PartModuleUnlocked
    			title = Aileron or Elevon
    			
    			partModule = FARControllableSurface
    
    		}
  9. On 11/29/2021 at 11:27 PM, linuxgurugamer said:

    New release, 1.11.0.2

    • Removed some log spam
       

    Can you please remove the log spam for real?

    It generates exactly 2 copied of the same message per second and that really disturbs debugging when you're trying to read the logs.

    Nvm, I read the OP and found a way to disable the log spam. I assume it's disabled by default?

  10. Maneuver Node Evolved is bugged at least in 1.12.3, causing input locks when you create more maneuver nodes than 1 (in a  rendezvous?). With 1 node it works fine, so this mod is mostly usable.

    SVbKSj8.png

    Bug information:

    Spoiler
    [EXC 23:51:29.984] OverflowException: Negating the minimum value of a twos complement number is invalid.
    	System.Math.AbsHelper (System.Int32 value) (at <9577ac7a62ef43179789031239ba8798>:0)
    	System.Math.Abs (System.Int32 value) (at <9577ac7a62ef43179789031239ba8798>:0)
    	UnityEngine.Mathf.Abs (System.Int32 value) (at <12e76cd50cc64cf19e759e981cb725af>:0)
    	KSPUtil+DefaultDateTimeFormatter.get_date_from_UT (System.Double time, System.Int32 year_len, System.Int32 day_len) (at <39c0323fb6b449a4aaf3465c00ed3c8d>:0)
    	KSPUtil+DefaultDateTimeFormatter.GetKerbinDateFromUT (System.Double time) (at <39c0323fb6b449a4aaf3465c00ed3c8d>:0)
    	KSPUtil+DefaultDateTimeFormatter.GetDateFromUT (System.Double time) (at <39c0323fb6b449a4aaf3465c00ed3c8d>:0)
    	KSPUtil+DefaultDateTimeFormatter.PrintTime (System.Double time, System.Int32 valuesOfInterest, System.Boolean explicitPositive, System.Boolean logEnglish) (at <39c0323fb6b449a4aaf3465c00ed3c8d>:0)
    	KSPUtil+DefaultDateTimeFormatter.PrintTime (System.Double time, System.Int32 valuesOfInterest, System.Boolean explicitPositive) (at <39c0323fb6b449a4aaf3465c00ed3c8d>:0)
    	KSPUtil.PrintTime (System.Double time, System.Int32 valuesOfInterest, System.Boolean explicitPositive) (at <39c0323fb6b449a4aaf3465c00ed3c8d>:0)
    	BetterManeuvering.ManeuverSnapTab.UpdateTimers () (at <200cb0fefb0242d08290965190a38d43>:0)
    	BetterManeuvering.ManeuverSnapTab.UpdateUIElements () (at <200cb0fefb0242d08290965190a38d43>:0)
    	BetterManeuvering.ManeuverSnapTab.SetInitialValues () (at <200cb0fefb0242d08290965190a38d43>:0)
    	ManeuverNodeEditorManager+<ManNodeCreateCooldown>d__54.MoveNext () (at <39c0323fb6b449a4aaf3465c00ed3c8d>:0)
    	UnityEngine.SetupCoroutine.InvokeMoveNext (System.Collections.IEnumerator enumerator, System.IntPtr returnValueAddress) (at <12e76cd50cc64cf19e759e981cb725af>:0)
    	UnityEngine.DebugLogHandler:LogException(Exception, Object)
    	ModuleManager.UnityLogHandle.InterceptLogHandler:LogException(Exception, Object)
    	UnityEngine.Debug:CallOverridenDebugHandler(Exception, Object)

    This (with an input lock) happens when I have a target vessel and create a second maneuver node behind the first one. The MNE mod forces the alternative maneuver UI to stay open (as seen in the screenshot) and prevents most interactions.

    Just FYI, you can't: open the Esc menu, close the solar view with M,  remove the node,  quicksave, warp or steer.

    You can: open the debug menu to clear input locks (do it when you encounter this bug), open the quickload menu (I think it's only because my quickload menu is modded), interact with UI (but not with maneuvers).

    It happens consistently in this particular scenario. I didn't test it in other scenarios. Input lock shown in the screenshot:

    MBogDDP.png

    KSP.log

    Player.log

     

  11. Oh, that's good to hear.

    Here's something not so good to hear, errors I found while trying to find why MM doesn't let KSP launch (and it's most likely not those):

    [WRN 16:36:28.034] Cannot create config from file 'E:\SteamLibrary\steamapps\common\Kerbal Space Program\GameData\FuelTanksPlus\Probe\000_TPtankP_MM.cfg'.
    [ERR 16:36:28.040] Error: Empty part config file
    
    [WRN 16:36:28.040] Cannot create config from file 'E:\SteamLibrary\steamapps\common\Kerbal Space Program\GameData\FuelTanksPlus\Size0\000_TPtank0m_MM.cfg'.
    [ERR 16:36:28.044] Error: Empty part config file
    
    [WRN 16:36:28.044] Cannot create config from file 'E:\SteamLibrary\steamapps\common\Kerbal Space Program\GameData\FuelTanksPlus\Size1\000_TPtank1m_MM.cfg'.
    [ERR 16:36:28.052] Error: Empty part config file
    
    [WRN 16:36:28.052] Cannot create config from file 'E:\SteamLibrary\steamapps\common\Kerbal Space Program\GameData\FuelTanksPlus\Size2\000_TPtank2m_MM.cfg'.
    [WRN 16:36:28.062] Cannot create config from file 'E:\SteamLibrary\steamapps\common\Kerbal Space Program\GameData\FuelTanksPlus\Size3\000_TPtank3m_MM.cfg'.
    [ERR 16:36:31.021] Error: Empty part config file

    Those files are empty. Why are they even there?

  12. I tested the Resource Harvester Configuration addon again today (in KSP 1.12.2.3167) to see if anything has changed, just in case. It hasn't. I've created a ticket on GitHub, too https://github.com/post-kerbin-mining-corporation/SystemHeat/issues/91

    For those who don't know, SystemHeat doesn't work with modded drills (for example with SME) because the Resource Harvester Config addon is broken (don't install it).

     

  13. 23 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:

    How about a separate set of contracts directly addressing these parts?  Forcing all space station contracts to use one of these core parts restricts a player's ability to do his own thing with his own parts, etc.

    Well, new station contracts already force players to have a docking node, 4 crew spaces, power generation and at least 1 unit of supplies. If the contract is meant to be a station core, I see nothing wrong with challenging players to bring 1 out of 5 cores of their choosing, if they have SSPXR installed.

    I think it would make more sense to require a station core part but not require 4 crew spaces and supplies, perhaps not even power generation if it's just a literal station core with docking ports, when it comes to restricting players.

  14. On 9/27/2021 at 6:53 PM, Caerfinon said:

    And the light comes on... Once a contract is offered it is recorded in the form it was offered in into the contract section of the persistent.sfs file of your game. It works on the same principal as a ship you have in orbit when you remove a parts mod. If the stored offered contract is looking for the part but the mod is removed then CC has a hissy fit that the part is gone. Meanwhile any new offered contracts should ignore the part as per the new version of the loaded contract.

    You're not saying the exception is normal and it's ok that the message that says "Avoid saving your game and backup yous save immediatelly", right?

    If this exception doesn't break anything, it shouldn't be an exception.

  15. 9 minutes ago, Caerfinon said:

    So the contract Configurator log shows the contract parsed correctly with only the science lab present;

    		PARAMETER
    		{
    			name = ScienceModuleValidation
    			type = Any
    			optional = true
    			completeInSequence = true
    			targetBody = @/targetBody
    			PARAMETER
    			{
    				name = ScienceLab
    				type = PartValidation
    				title = Include a TEST LAB SO CHECK IT OUT, NAOW
    				rewardFunds = 75000.0
    				hideChildren = true
    				partModule = ModuleScienceLab
    				targetBody = @/targetBody
    			}
    		}

    That should be the contract that is offered in-game as it loaded successfully  without the StationPartsExpansionRedux parameter.  Do you see it as offered?

    (lol, I forgot to change that test name.)

    No, I see all of them:

    qkILgbc.png

    And the CC debug menu shows only what should be there without SSPXR installed:

    Spoiler

    L80QOpx.png

    I'm pretty sure it's because I uninstalled the mod that adds those labs and I keep loading a save that has a contract for them.

    At the same time I wasn't expecting CC to throw an exception because of uninstalling a mod.

  16. 14 minutes ago, Caerfinon said:

    Have you turned on Contract Configurator debugging? If so post a copy of the log for the contract.  If not look at the file ContractConfigurator.cfg.default and follow instructions to turn on debug logging and generate the error again.

    Here's the log from these settings (triple DEBUG because I didn't know what to choose):

    Spoiler
    CC_DEBUGGING
    {
    	// Possible LogLevel: VERBOSE, DEBUG, INFO, WARNING, ERROR
    	logLevel = DEBUG
    	
    	ADD_LOGLEVEL_EXCEPTION
    	{
    		// Type name
    		type = ContractConfigurator
    		// Possible LogLevel: VERBOSE, DEBUG, INFO, WARNING, ERROR
    		logLevel = DEBUG
    	}
    	
    	ADD_LOGLEVEL_EXCEPTION
    	{
    		// Type name
    		type = ContractType
    		// Possible LogLevel: VERBOSE, DEBUG, INFO, WARNING, ERROR
    		logLevel = DEBUG
    	}
    }
    
    

     

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-QmLtpFuqF8NzSZphk17B7XttWIa4fJ4/view?usp=sharing

  17. Stockalike Station Parts Expansion Redux adds 5 new station core parts:

    • 1.25m station core
    • 1.875m station core
    • 2.5m station core
    • 3.75m station core
    • 5m station core

    Do you think the "Launch the Space Station!" contract should require a station core if at least one of those parts is researched?

    If not, how much should including a station core part pay?

×
×
  • Create New...