• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Creat

  1. I have a bit of feedback for the placement of the parts in the tech-tree. The stock tanks were moved around quite a bit, so the KW-tanks now provide much more fuel than the stock tanks from the same nodes, especially for 1.25m parts. Generally, part placement seems to be as it was in the old tech tree (pre-1.0), not adjusted for the overhauled version. The first node that unlocks any LF/O tank (Basic rocketry) only gives the stock FL-T100 (45/55 units), but includes SA-05 and both SA-1 tanks (up to 108/132 units). The stock 1.25m decoupler is unlocked with Engineering 101, but the KW-equivalent is still in basic rocketry. (all are just some very early examples, there are more like this obviously). Can we expect a the tree to be reshuffled soon(ish) or should we just write a MM-config to fix it in the meantime?
  2. @DMFirmy: Sorry that I kinda disappeared after specifically asking you to put up the sources. Unfortunately I had a suprising and very inconvenient stay at the hospital for a couple of days (nothing serious, as it turns out though). So I might get around to looking at them tomorrow or (more likely) on the weekend, just wanted to let you know that I haven't actually just vanished
  3. Well, I'm glad you're taking charge of this, and I'll gladly offer to help/collaborate, if you want. There is of course GIT/GitHub integration for VS, which means you can use it more or less the same as TFS. Fortunately the license is rather permissive, so just taking over while the original author isn't around is no problem at all. He hasn't posted anything since august '14, where the last commit to the GHud repository was in July. As for what changes I've made to the code, they're actually rather minor (added 42 and deleted 22 lines or so), but as I said the performance implications were quite significant for me. You can see and look over the specific changes here, and all of them are in GHud.cs. There's also a comment that links to the relevant documentation about coroutines, and most of my source should also contain comments where necessary. All things considered, the patch is rather minor though and you should be able to trivially integrate them on your end. I do hope you put your code up somewhere in a repository (or even just in a zip or something) so I can (hopefully) help or at least compile it on my end with the coroutine changes, as I simply have to do that or the whole game lags constantly. I haven't tried your build with the KSP 1.0 release so far (haven't had the time), there might've been something fixed on the KSP side such that it no longer causes any problems, but switching over to using coroutines should be done anyway if possible: it's just the better approach for this kind of plugin that doesn't actually interact with the images/frames on the monitor. Should the original author not return (soon-ish), I'd recommend starting a new thread so that the discussion is separate from this one. Also adding support for the more recent management-plugins might be nice (I could probably also provide that, if you want me to). By that I mean things like CKan or KSP-AVC.
  4. As far as I can tell the contracts that have "autoaccept = true" don't seem to count toward your max. active contracts counts. So that's a plus. More relevantly though, I know that contract was accepted for me as I has it in my active contract list (see screenshot in my other thread), so that part had worked. I assume something went wrong with the completion trigger somehow, since the quicksave and (later) reload just caused it to vanish. I'd presume it was in some sort of intermediate state, not that I have any idea what specifically might have caused it or what made it "intermediate". I'd assume that when writing the quicksave, it didn't pass some sanity tests or something and the entry was possibly just discarded? Very likely this is something Squad themselves have to look into.
  5. For at least one of my attempts I was outside of the atmosphere, it still didn't complete. At the time I wasn't much over the required speed, but I was over (both for Orbit and for Surface readings). I wasn't much outside of the atmo either, but still outside (71 km or so). So after that try I basically gave up and reentered (where I took the screenshot), and I went over by a whole lot and it still didn't complete. It was just confusing, but this whole thing makes it much more unlikely that it has anything to do with ContractsWindow+, which is the only mod I use that has anything to do with contracts... I'm having a look at the 1.0.1 thread now.
  6. Thanks you very much for stepping in while BGog42 is away. I also had a quick look, but couldn't get it to run immediately and didn't have the time to check why... I had previously migrated the code from using update(), which is called on every frame, to a coroutine, which is called in much slower intervals and (mostly) prevented some severe stutters for me. Basically, we don't need the small LCD to refresh on every real frame, a much slower rate is perfectly fine. Please note that I didn't update the tests in the project, but that should be quite trivial as well. If you want to read about why I did that and what I did, it's in this thread and starts round about here. Unfortunately, he never got around to merge my pull request, but it's basically ready to go. You can just merge it if you want, and if you need (for whatevery reason) I can also send you a .patch file, or you can just have a look at my fork of the repository (the only changes are those mentioned). It would also be nice if you could put your source code up somewhere (GitHub?) so others can have a look at it (and/or help with the project). If you had a GitHub, I could merge the changes myself and all you'd have to do was click a button to apply them
  7. The specific ones I wanted in a mission were two surveys I wanted to do together (so not the achievement-style auto-added contracts from the beginning). I added them in the SPH, clicked launch, and they were already un-assigned again. Later the same with the VAB. Then I'd assign them (just before launch, but on the pad/runway), fly/test some things and (eventually) I might revert, and they'd be gone from the category once again. I added them often, and they were gone on basically every scene change. For some reason, it hasn't happened in a while though. Maybe those contracts were just 'special' somehow? At the moment the issue seems resolved for me (at least everything I've stuck somewhere actually stayed there). As a second (slightly more worrying consideration) I also had some issues with contracts disappearing completely (specifically the 2500 m/s achievement-style contract). Since this is the only mod I've got that handles contracts, it may or may not have anything to do with that. I've made a thread about it here, but haven't gotten any replies yet (and I suspect I won't). Really, no idea how that could happen and I really don't think it's this mod, but I thought I might just as well mention it just the same.
  8. While doing an early orbital mission in my new career game, somehow the "Speed Record"-contract for 2500 m/s vanished. I did reload a quicksave (or two) during the mission, but otherwise it was nothing special. I surely didn't cancel it, it was just suddenly gone after loading a quicksave. I even have a screenshot of me going faster than the required speed, with the goal not completed. The screenshot was taken (relatively deep) in atmo, but I also reached a high enough speed outside / in space. Also note that it's a prograde orbit, so the displayed "surface" velocity is lower than the orbial velocity would be. I had to reload a quicksave, and the contract (or goal) was just gone. I checked mission control, it's not in the archives (speed records ends at 1050 m/s), it's not available or active, and when manually checking the savegame files (both various quicksaves and the persistent file) this entry is also nowhere to be found. So all in all I'm just mostly confused now. What could've possibly happened that vanished this entry? As far as I know you can't manually cancel them or even fail them. I don't know how important that goal is, but the larger milestones usually have a significant payout (which I wouldn't mind) I do have a couple of mods installed, mostly GUI-stuff or tools though: kerbal engineer, PlaneMode, WaypointManager, Enhanced NavBall, ContractsWindow Plus, Alternate Resource Panel KSP-AVC and Module Manager. Everything is up to date as of noon CEST today.
  9. I've only just discovered this mod (very helpful btw!), but for me the "Mission Lists" are not persistent. I assume this isn't intentional? I can add missions to lists as I desire, but every scene change resets all lists to be empty (though the lists themselves persist). So if I add the missions I want to do to a list in the VAB or SPH, I have to re-add them once I actually launch. If I have to abort/revert to change the craft, I have to add them again. I'm on version 5.0 (installed via CKAN), obviously with KSP 1.0. Edit: one thing I wanted to add is that I find it somewhat confusing that the icons associated with a contract are shown ABOVE the title. Especially since clicking the title collapses the contract, I'd like to also hide those displays. Could there maybe be a switch in the options, that moves them below?
  10. The .version file has the wrong information (still says which makes AVC complain that it isn't up to date. Otherwise it seems to work perfectly fine!
  11. Why? Since this pack has been reworked it requires very little memory (~250 MB or something?) compared to it's size, part count and even previous versions. Whatever other mods/packs you are using that cumulatively put you over the memory limit for 32 bit, you're much more likely to get more mileage out of texture-reducing the others as they are probably bigger (or you wouldn't be over the limit). You could also just use the 64 bit version (if you have enough physical RAM), it works reasonably well with few exceptions (there are some, but very few, plugins that won't work with it).
  12. If I manage to play a little later today or tomorrow, I'll install it to have a look at that, thank you
  13. With stock engines that shouldn't be a problem, but if you're using KW Rocketry, those now have a spool-up-time, similar to jets. So for those it's often necessary to do this. I usually readjust the staging to check my Delta-V, and then switch the clamps back to the second stage for the actual launch. It's a bit tedious though, so I'm also looking forward to a fix
  14. Yes, multiple entries of RT2 options in the context menu are basically always just multiple modulemanager dlls. Just search your GameData, you should only ever have exactly one (preferably the newest, 2.2.0 I think).
  15. From what I understand, KER handles KW boosters correctly (since rather recently though, check the thread). So either head over to the MJ thread and ask them to handle them correctly (I'm sure these are not the only ones using non-zero-minthrust), or just come over to KER Well, I don't know if it's recommended as such, I've also used the fairings just for pretty lookin' rockets before I've ever used either, but they do work correctly with both if that's what you're asking. FAR and NEAR detect objects as shielded when inside a KW-fairing and act accordingly.
  16. I've very recently started using NEAR and I'd love to have the 'Aerodynamic efficiency' rating working (or whatever it's called in the interface). Basically the information weather I'm spending too much delta-v on air-drag when going too fast, or gravity-drag when going too slow. I know FAR and NEAR provide interfaces for other plugins, could you do something with the drag information I'm sure you can get there and get me that precious info?
  17. Yes, that does indeed sound like a problem with something not expecting the design of your ship and going into a loop (possibly the connection via docking port or something, no clue). But just to be sure, from roughly what base memory usage does it rise and at value does it crash. Are you on 32 or 64 bit and how many (big) mods, and which, do you have installed? To diagnose this, it might help the devs very much to have a savegame/quicksave of the thing before it breaks. Depending on what/how many mods you're using, this may also be unreasonable to reconstruct though. At the very least a screenshot of the ship (and/or the VAB files) might give an idea though (and it's much less hassle than loading a save with many mods).
  18. Open it in your zip program (or windows explorer), find the sub-folder named GameData (inside of the one that says "Open, do not extract") and extract this to the KSP Directory, like every other mod. What's in GameData in the zip belongs in GameData on your KSP install.
  19. Just the altitude of stationary orbits was changed, because the rotational period has changed and you want to remain over a certain bit of land (which is the only special property of these orbits). I'm doing my best not to go on a rant how useless stationary orbits are for RemoteTech though, so I'm gonna skip over that now... Btw I think the day was 6hr50s or something and it's now exactly 6hr for simplicity. The altitudes at which you have a certain orbital period (like you go round exactly once every 6 hours or once every 3 hours) are still the same, as the gratitationally relevant parameters are still the same.
  20. About that, wouldn't it make sense to add a link to this from FAR? I doubt everyone even knows by now that NEAR exists, while most might know about FAR. When those hesitant to try that go check out the thread, maybe a hint that there is a toned down version wouldn't be a bad idea
  21. Sure, just send me a PM in german, I'll try to help that way (I'm also german). Should be much easier. (Note for the PM: Versuch bitte so genau zu beschreiben, was du schon gemacht und probiert hast.)
  22. Did you type this on your phone without reading it or used google translate? I have no idea what you're asking, as that post makes no sense (at least to me, sorry)...
  23. Biomes is coming very soon, please do check at least the last few pages before posting, it's barely been 10 posts since this was made clear. I would actually love that as an advanced feature down the line, once the functionality of the 1.0-branch has caught up with the 0.6-branch. I think it might be out of scope though, or just too complicated or fiddly to allow this in the interface. There already is a combined readout (or at least in the 0.6 version there is) for Ap/Pe, but I think only combining the altitude readouts, not combining the alt and time-to into a line. That alone would already be a great option though, and I'd also love that
  24. YAY Seriously happy it's happening! Official partless flight engineer! So exited
  25. I already had that with 0.24.0 and .1, but never could reproduce it reliably. Even with the same parts on the same ship, it just wouldn't happen again for some reason. But yes, I've also seen this, but no clue what's causing it. My guess is that it's a stock bug, as it only happens occasionally