• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

158 Excellent


About seanth

  • Rank
    Sr. Spacecraft Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

2,055 profile views
  1. I have been unable to delete nodes placed in the mission maker. Every tutorial I have seen says you clink on a placed node and hit the delete key. Doing that does nothing on my Mac. Can anyone else confirm this? MacBook Pro Retina 15in Mid 2015 macOS 10.13.3
  2. This is so frustrating. After so much flailing around I literally cut and pasted values from the Galileo Planet Pack AND it matches what was recommended by @Thomas P. here. Take ScaledIntensityCurve values and multiply them by 6000. In my testing things seemed to look good when I was in orbits and landed on exoplanets. Could it be that you are visiting dimmer brown dwarf/red dwarf stars and that's influencing what you are seeing? I made a new galaxy that is pretty much just made of yellow Kerbol-like stars. Maybe this will seem better? For those playing at home, maybe you can see what I'm doing wrong:
  3. Soooo, did I fix it or no? I'm confused. If it's fixed I'll put a new complete version up for download.
  4. If someone could test out this galaxy file and confirm the lighting problem is fixed, I would very much appreciate it.
  5. Your log makes me think you are using mods that add other planets and stars to the game "TheCreator" isn't a body name that TBG would generate.
  6. So, there has been a hold up. I do all my dev on Apple hardware, and my upgrade to mac os 10.13.3 broke all the winewrappers I have, including the QB64 build that lets me make the .exes for all you Windows users out there. I'm working on it....
  7. I am, I've just been super busy. I have a revision that I am testing and I hope to release it by this weekend.
  8. I might have to walk away from TBG if there was a compelling reason to move it to C#. It's not a language I know, and I'm not ready to pick up a new one right now. Having said that, the current TBG code is written in a very straight forward way and should be easily ported to basically any language. There are a few code blocks that are imho clunky (for example: my attempt at implementing a python-like string replacement method), but most of it is very simple and uses templates where ever possible.
  9. I've been sick over the holidays and am getting back on my feet, but wanted to put a list out there outlining where I'd like to see TBG go in the coming months. In no particular order, the pressing : Fix the star lighting problem. This is the largest outstanding problem. Changed to Kopernicus changed how stars light objects, which has led to problems in TBG. Unfortunately, I am a modeling guy, so if anyone wants to volunteer to help out with this aspect, it would let me work on adding new features such as... Tidally locked bodies. I can implement tidally locked moons and bodies using real-world calculations--I just need the time to implement it. Habitable-zones. I finally understand how to model this, and can put it into game. This means TBG would be able to realistically place water worlds around stars. Custom bodies. @daniel l. wrote the code to implement this some time ago, but it hasn't worked it's way in. I'm told that making too many custom bodies using PQSMods can make the game lag. Integrate other planet/star packs. An undocumented feature of TBG is the ability to take stars and planets from other Kopernicus packs and use them in the generated universe. It still needs testing and streamlining, but the basics are in place. Lower priorities: Warp drives. I have messed around with some ideas about how warp drives could be used along along with TBG. Seems pretty straight forward. Integrate more ideas from Stellarator. I've looked at Stellarator off and on to understand some parts of Kopernicus, but maybe it's time to more aggressively borrow code. Python version? I'm much more comfortable with python than the current TBG language. I'd like to keep TBG as a separate application--not a in-game mod written in C#. Maybe use a browser as the UI for it? For now, it makes sense to keep it in its current language. A story! I have some thoughts about a storyline that could go with TBG and give players a tech tree path AND reason to go to other stars. Think 2001 meets Engines of God meets Contact meets Defying Gravity. Ancient, alien tech? Following bread crumbs in the Kerbin system? Breakthroughs that allow travel to other stars? I'm imagining something that would use Kerbin Side and RemoteTech for a lot of the story elements. My priority is actual TBG features, but if you find the vague hints here interesting, ping me.
  10. I'm in the process of finishing up obligations related to the end of the semester. By Tuesday, I should have some free time to dedicate to looking into the lighting problem. I also have some new code that will allow TBG to correctly make planets/moons tidally locked depending of their orbital distance from their primary, AND define whether planets are in the habitable zone around a star. The habitable zone calc isn't useful yet, but it'll hopefully be used to determine where water worlds will show up.
  11. I'm not sure what you are saying. Are you saying Kerbol's light is too bright galaxy wide? If you want, DM me and maybe I can work this out pretty quickly
  12. If you have some O, B, or A class stars in your galaxy, try visiting those. I think what you might be seeing is just amount of light coming off M or smaller stars (i.e. they are pretty dim). I could be wrong. Maybe things are just too dim.
  13. Ok. I have worked out what the problem is. Good news is that it's a trivial fix; I didn't even need to change any code. I had included an IntensityCurve section in the templates but commented them out because, at the time, they didn't seem to do anything. That's changed with the newer versions of Kopernicus. So all I needed to do was remove the comments on the relevant block in the templates. Red hot: