Galileo

[KSP 1.4.5] Galileo's Planet Pack [v1.6.3.1] [03 Aug 2018]

Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, OhioBob said:

Looking at the configs, the only bodies for which I see custom science definitions are Gael, Iota and Ceti, and then only for surface sample, crew report, EVA report, and mystery goo.  If those aren't working, then there's a problem.  (It's possible the Gael ones might have to be renamed Kerbin.)  Otherwise the lack of custom science defs is normal behavior.  As far as I know, there has never been custom defs for anything outside the Gael system.

I found a config that has all of the science defs.

 

For me, The ingame science defs only show the ones for Kerbin like "underwater topography" and the unnecessary space suit def.

 

Even Kerbal Engineer thinks that Gael is Kerbin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only the Gael system has custom science definitions. It’s never extended beyond that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, OhioBob said:

Looking at the configs, the only bodies for which I see custom science definitions are Gael, Iota and Ceti, and then only for surface sample, crew report, EVA report, and mystery goo.  If those aren't working, then there's a problem.  (It's possible the Gael ones might have to be renamed Kerbin.)  Otherwise the lack of custom science defs is normal behavior.  As far as I know, there has never been custom defs for anything outside the Gael system.

I found a config that contains all of the defs.

But, only Iota and Ceti had custom science defs.

Gael still has Kerbin's def and, even if this config is here, the planets still show that boring and unimaginative basic def.

Edited by Darkspace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Darkspace said:

I found a config that contains all of the defs.

I have no idea what cfg you're talking about.  If you're using a cfg that didn't come packaged with the current GPP download, then don't expect any support from us in trying to make it work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, OhioBob said:

I have no idea what cfg you're talking about.  If you're using a cfg that didn't come packaged with the current GPP download, then don't expect any support from us in trying to make it work.

a big old woopsie, i was looking at the wrong sector in en-us.cfg.

Found that only Gael, Iota and Ceti had science defs.

Spoiler

There's a science def inside that, If you don't want to get spoiled, i recommend you to turn around.

 

Spoiler

Second warning, That's going to spoil a science def for you, if you don't get spoiled, just turn around already!

 

Spoiler

Ok then... You asked for it, Here it is.

 

GaelSpaceLow: The clouds once mocked you with their altitude and speed... My, how the tables have turned!

 

 

 

Someone tell Galileo to add Science defs for the other planets.

Edited by Darkspace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/22/2018 at 2:52 AM, Darkspace said:

It was once working as far as i remember. The custom sciencedef were working. But for some reason, it randomly stopped working.

On 9/22/2018 at 12:10 PM, Darkspace said:

Even Kerbal Engineer thinks that Gael is Kerbin.

Concerning the above 2 points, the custom Gael science worked while the homeworld was internally called Gael (planets have the internal/real name and a separate display name which usually always match). As far as I can tell, GPP has been the only planet pack that changed the internal name and called Kerbin something else.

The Gael science stopped working  near our first release for KSP 1.4, as, for compatibility reasons, we decided to turn the internal name back to Kerbin and leave just the display name for the tracking station and whatever utility mod happens to recognize and prefer display names when using planets in their info.

 

26 minutes ago, Darkspace said:

Someone tell Galileo to add Science defs for the other planets.

 

If you had the money to, you couldn't pay us to do this. :sticktongue: Building GPP is no longer fun, and the time has passed for adding very large features like science defs for planets.

Edited by JadeOfMaar
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It sounds like a pretty big job, and actually for me would be three jobs -- one for each of GPP, GEP and OPM? Or does OPM already have the work done? Other than volume of work, why did others quit at this after starting? Was there other issues other than volume of work? And if someone would like to PM me (or write here if they like), what all is involved with doing something like this as a contribution?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Darkspace said:

Someone tell Galileo to add Science defs for the other planets.

I estimate that's there's somewhere around 5,000 individual science definitions.  Are you volunteering to write them for us?  If not, it's not happening.

 

Edited by OhioBob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, OhioBob said:

I estimate that's there's somewhere around 4000 individual science definitions.  Are you volunteering to write them for us?  If not, it's not happening.

I'm looking to see if I can volunteer, but looking for a ramp up to figure out if its within scope for me to do. I'm also looking to see if I need to do this for either of GEP and/or OPM as well, but I understand its off topic for here -- except the same maintainers seem to be here. I'm checking out definitions right now, but would appreciate any direction someone might be able to give.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, TimboDyne said:

It sounds like a pretty big job, and actually for me would be three jobs -- one for each of GPP, GEP and OPM? Or does OPM already have the work done? Other than volume of work, why did others quit at this after starting? Was there other issues other than volume of work? And if someone would like to PM me (or write here if they like), what all is involved with doing something like this as a contribution?

OPM has science defs, but they're not all unique; it looks like many biomes share the same description.  I have no plans to add science defs to GEP.  As far as I know, science defs for GPP were never completed simply because of the sheer volume of work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, OhioBob said:

OPM has science defs, but they're not all unique; it looks like many biomes share the same description.  I have no plans to add science defs to GEP.  As far as I know, science defs for GPP were never completed simply because of the sheer volume of work.

So just so I can estimate the work required, would this be a fair assessment of what needed to be done -- or am I missing other work?

// NOTES: for Define science unit of work...
//  square brackets [] indicate the name of a physical file
//  curly brackets {} indicate the name of a configuration section within a file


For each Planet in GPP\GPP_Planets\{*}
    Define $PlanetName as {*}
    For each Biome in GPP\GPP_Planets\[$PlanetName.cfg]\{Body}\{Properties}\{Biomes}\[Biome}\{name}
        Define $BiomeName as {name}
        For Each $ExpType In ExperimentType = (SurfaceSample, CrewReport, EVAReport, MysteryGoo, MaterialsLab, temperatureScan, 
                                BarometerScan, GravityScan, SeismicScan, AtmosphereAnalysis)
            For Each $Situation In Situation = (Landed, SplashedDown, SrfLanded, SrfSplashed, FlyingLow, FlyingHigh, InSpaceLow, InSpaceHigh)
                // Filter out impossible $Situation depending on {Body}\{Properties}\{Ocean} existing
                // Filter out impossible $ExpType depending on {Body}\{Properties}\{Atmosphere} existing
                In GPP\GPP_Localization\[en-us]\[{#LOC_GPP_ScienceDefs section}]
                    Add entry to GPP\GPP_Configs\GPP_Science_Defs.cfg
                    In {@RESULTS} Section
                        For Each section [$ExpType] 
                            Science Situation: {$PlanetName}\{$Situation} = #LOC_GPP_ScienceDefs_{$ExpType}_{$PlanetName}{$Situation}{$BiomeName}

                          End For
                    End
                                                
                    Add entry to GPP\GPP_Localization\en_us.cfg
                        Under {Localization}\{en-us}\{//GPP/GPP_Configs/GPP_Science_Defs.cfg}
                        Science Event Description: #LOC_GPP_ScienceDefs_{$ExpType}_{$PlanetName}{$Situation}{$BiomeName} = "US English text science experiment event description"
        
            End For
        End For
    End For
End For 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using RemoteTech I'm trying to determine which antenna is sufficient for a specific planet.   Is there a formula where I could plug in the orbital parameters of two planets and get the max and min separation between the bodies.   Or is that information already available somewhere?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, eberkain said:

Using RemoteTech I'm trying to determine which antenna is sufficient for a specific planet.   Is there a formula where I could plug in the orbital parameters of two planets and get the max and min separation between the bodies.   Or is that information already available somewhere?

I think @Poodmund may have computed that at one time, but I don't have a link to it.  If he has that information, perhaps he can share it.

But if you just want to know what the maximum and minimum values could be at their most extreme, do this:

  • Minimum separation = Outer planet's periapsis - Inner planet's apoapsis
  • Maximum separation = Outer planet's apoapsis + Inner planet's apoapsis

You can compute the periapsides and apoapsides like this:

  • Periapsis = semimajor axis * (1 - eccentricity)
  • Apoapsis = semimajor axis * (1 + eccentricity) 

You can get the semimajor axes and eccentricities from CelestialBodies.pdf packaged in the GPP download.

The above method is only approximate because it doesn't take into account the longitude of periapsis and the inclination of the orbits.

EXAMPLE

What's the maximum possible separation between Gael and Gratian?

Gael apoapsis = 13,982,767 * (1 + 0) = 13,982,767 km

Gratian apoapsis = 39,156,200 * (1 + 0.06) = 41,505,572 km

Maximum separation = 13,982,767 + 41,505,572 = 55,488,339 km
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did: 

Although its a bit dated now and only shows the stock system but you should be able to make a copy to your own Google account and change the system stats to GPP's own (and edit the other necessary dependables).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

I was wondering if there was a version of protractor for GPP? I'm trying to plan a trip outside of gael but I don't want to play with nodes for hours to get a window. And the mechjeb's transfer to another planet is not user friendly enough ;)

What I liked with protractor was the ability to compute all the departure windows and integrate them in alarm clock with one click.

Plus the fact that you didn't need to launch a ship to get access to the calculator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay...really trying to get rid of the starting Galilean astronauts...no offence folks, but I don't want my kerbals named after the devs. :P 

I've made some changes to Renamer.cfg to try to get rid of them. After making the changes I edited my persistent file to remove all of them. YET...they still come back!!!  

KERBALRENAMER
{
  preserveOriginals = true //set to true to get back the original 4 Kerbals
  generateNewStats = true
  femalePercent = 0.5
  badassPercent = 0.05
  useBellCurveMethod = true
  dontInsultMe = true

<MORE STUFF HERE>  }

Please help me to evict the dreaded dev kerbals from my game! thanks!  :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Tyko said:

Okay...really trying to get rid of the starting Galilean astronauts...no offence folks, but I don't want my kerbals named after the devs. :P 

I've made some changes to Renamer.cfg to try to get rid of them. After making the changes I edited my persistent file to remove all of them. YET...they still come back!!!  

KERBALRENAMER
{
  preserveOriginals = true //set to true to get back the original 4 Kerbals
  generateNewStats = true
  femalePercent = 0.5
  badassPercent = 0.05
  useBellCurveMethod = true
  dontInsultMe = true

<MORE STUFF HERE>  }

Please help me to evict the dreaded dev kerbals from my game! thanks!  :D

Delete the renamer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Galileo said:

Delete the renamer

Thanks. I was hoping to keep it. I've created over a dozen custom last names and it's pretty cool. Are the dev names baked into the DLL?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Tyko said:

Thanks. I was hoping to keep it. I've created over a dozen custom last names and it's pretty cool. Are the dev names baked into the DLL?

Yes they are

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Galileo said:

Yes they are

 

Okay thanks for the reply  :)  It's a great little tool, if it ever gets worked on I'd request that the default names get moved to a .cfg.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's fine for a general usage plugin but this was written for GPP, hence the way it has been done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Poodmund said:

That's fine for a general usage plugin but this was written for GPP, hence the way it has been done.

But...every game will have the exact same kerbals in it??? what if I kill them off? Will they still come back?  :D 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well...this may be the absolute funnest workaround for a game issue I've ever had :D 

Galileo Gaelan "Well folks it's a beautiful day for a flight! So nice that we all get to be on a mission together!"

Poody Gaelan "Yea, we've been harassing HR for years trying to get hired and they finally decided to give us a chance. I'm so excited"

9ybB4b4.jpg

Jade Gaelan "This is kind of an odd design...who signed off on this?"

Raging Gaelan "The idea came from our international partners over at the KSC...an engineer named Bill lead the design team..."

Sigma Gaelan "ummm...guys...I've read about the KSC and Bill in particular...they don't have a great safety record over there."

Poody Gaelan "Relax all, what could possibly go wrong?"

Galileo Gaelan "This is fun! I always wanted flames on the side of my rocket!"

2hstV5m.jpg

Bobert Gaelan "I can't be positive without my slide rule, but I believe our reentry angle is a bit too steep. Who ran the atmosphere calculations anyway??"

Galileo Gaelan "That would be @OhioBob over at the KSC"

Uk8TPRW.jpg

Jade Gaelan "Was that part that just blew up important?"

Galileo Gaelan "Nah! Bill said a rocket launch is really just one long controlled explosion! Everything is fine!"

Sigma Gaelan "umm...the operative word there is "controlled"..."

PL7wfv7.jpg

Poody Gaelan "That water is coming up mighty fast...well guys, I'm not sure, but it might be time to say our goodbyes."

Galileo Gaelan "Look at the bright side, at least we won't be stuck hanging around the Astronaut Center waiting for a job anymore"

ie4AlQi.jpg

-- Here lies the remains of 10 brave Kerbals who insisted on being hired. Now they've learned the value of persistence --

NOTE: This is a work of fiction. No actual modders were exploded, squished or incinerated in the creation of this story

N3VxW1m.jpg

Edited by Tyko

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tyko said:

-- Here lies the remains of 10 brave Kerbals who insisted on being hired. Now they've learned the value of persistence --

I knew we shouldn't have trusted Bill

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now