Questioning output.log contents...

[LordFerret]

KSP: v1.0.4, Win8.1 64-bit

Problem: I'm unsure/questioning output I'm finding in my output.log file. I was running some tests to see if an NRE problem was resolved from one of the mods I use, and I discovered what seems to be excessive 'errors'(?) ... and I'm wondering if they are indeed "errors".

Mods installed:

Clamp-O-Tron_APAS-1.0,

FreeEVA-0.5.2,

Hullcam_VDS-0.40,

SCANsat-v14.1,

StockBugFixModules.v1.0.4a.1,

x-science-v4.6

Reproduction steps:

A test I did was to start KSP, load my saved Science game - which then opens the KSC overview, switch to the Tracking Station, switch back to the KSC overview, switch to the VAB, switch back to the KSC overview, and then exit the game. No other actions were performed other than switching to the screens mentioned.

Log file entries I'm questioning:

There are dozens of entries of this form -

Serialization depth limit exceeded at 'ThermalLink'. There may be an object composition cycle in one or more of your serialized classes.

(Filename:  Line: 67)

Serialization depth limit exceeded at 'OcclusionData'. There may be an object composition cycle in one or more of your serialized classes.

(Filename:  Line: 67)

And there are dozens of entries of this form -

Serialization depth limit exceeded at 'Contracts.Agents::AgentMentality'. There may be an object composition cycle in one or more of your serialized classes.

(Filename:  Line: 67)

Serialization depth limit exceeded at 'Contracts.Agents::AgentStanding'. There may be an object composition cycle in one or more of your serialized classes.

(Filename:  Line: 67)

Are these normal informative messages or indication of a problem?

Edited July 19, 2015 by LordFerret
solved (but not)

[NathanKell]

They're normal.

http://forum.unity3d.com/threads/4-5-serialization-depth.248321/

[LordFerret]

They're normal.

http://forum.unity3d.com/threads/4-5-serialization-depth.248321/

Thanks for the link. Long read, and a bit out of my scope being I've no experience with Unity ... however, it seems to me that it's 'not a problem but a warning' that actually is 'a problem'. Some of what I read indicates it can lead to a crash, which I've experienced but I'm not sure if it was attributed to that specifically. No question the indication of what I read says it's a performance hit, especially when hundreds of such 'warnings' are issued and written to log. In either case, it doesn't bode well with most reporting in that thread. A solution is given, but it will be up to Squad to enact the fix.

There will be no immediate resolution to this one; Thread marked as solved.