Galileo

[KSP 1.5.*] Outer Planets Mod[2.2.1] [25 April 2018]

Recommended Posts

 

On ‎10‎/‎30‎/‎2017 at 7:46 AM, Smarti said:

I play OPM with Custom Barn Kit, wich is broken. CBK doe`s give you reputation even when you kill Kerbals, instead of taking it away. And you get full reputation even when you start a new rocket from editor, and without launching remove it.

You had me running a check to see if CBK was crashing in the current version :o

FYI, @Smarti "broken" has a meaning in software that it fails critically, doesn't run at all or causes crashes.  CBK is not broken - it runs and generally does what it is supposed to do.  I think what you meant to say was that CBK has a bug regarding how it handles rep for missions recovered on the pad and penalties for killing a kerbal.  This is more properly called a non-fatal defect.  And FYI, if you say something is broken, its generally a good idea to post a message to the mod's own thread so they can look at it.  Remember to post and link to logs when you do that, and the mod authors will be even more helpful (they need logs to figure out what's causing the problem)

Edited by Murdabenne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Pethos said:

Hi, I have installed this mod with Researchbodies. I started a new career with Hard difficulty. The settings screen declares that there are only three bodies already discovered: The Sun, Kerbin and the Mun. However I have got Sarnus already discovered and 100% researched too. I already posted this problem in the researchbodies thread and @JPLRepo didn't find any problem in my log file. In the observatory the string "#autoLOC_rbodies_discovery_sarnus" is displayed.

Remember, if you have GPP and OPM installed, Sarnus is around a different star, and until you research that star, it will not be revealed.  There was a discussion about this, right at the top of page 2 of this topic.

Do you have logs? What other addons do you have installed, what version? Is everything up to date?  Have you posted logs? Do you have a listing (or screen cap) of the GameData directory, and of the apps in question?
 


 

Edited by Murdabenne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ignore this post

Edited by Zekario
problem went away on its own

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Galileo Is Custom Asteroids still supported, and, if so, should I use the "Stockalike.cfg," "Basic Asteroids.cfg," and "Trans-Jool.cfg" with the .cfg that comes with OPM, or should I delete any of the latter that came with the CA mod?

Thank you!

Share this post


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

@Galileo Is Custom Asteroids still supported, and, if so, should I use the "Stockalike.cfg," "Basic Asteroids.cfg," and "Trans-Jool.cfg" with the .cfg that comes with OPM, or should I delete any of the latter that came with the CA mod?

Thank you!

Tbh I haven’t even looked to see if those cfgs work. I would post the cfg on the CA thread and ask. Or I can later, and included any needed changes in a quick update

Share this post


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

Tbh I haven’t even looked to see if those cfgs work. I would post the cfg on the CA thread and ask. Or I can later, and included any needed changes in a quick update

I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but I'll go ahead and say, okay! :D

If you are referring to the .cfgs included with the CA mod, I am not sure. I have not progressed far enough in my save yet to really test it. Which is actually why I was kind of confused, thinking about it, with OPM and those .cfgs, I have no idea which would take priority or if they even work at all. In my save, I saw some asteroids orbiting a little out of Kerbin's SOI, however, I don't know if that was a direct result of CA.

I also went through CA and saw that it doesn't support "Kopernicus asteroids" although I can't find a reference to that anywhere through searching, hence, why I wasn't sure if CA was supported anymore since OPM uses Kopernicus.

Edited by Jalaris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Galileo said:

Tbh I haven’t even looked to see if those cfgs work. I would post the cfg on the CA thread and ask. Or I can later, and included any needed changes in a quick update

Would it be better to switch to the inbuilt Kopernicus asteroid-spawning system, to remove the need for players to install CA to get asteroids? I can't see an advantage the CA system has over Kopernicus, and it's just another mod to deal with.

In other news, you say in the OP it's not your place to make changes outside of mod compatibility. Does this mean you're only going to be accepting PRs for mod compatibility/bugfixes and nothing else (e.g. scidefs)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Jalaris said:

I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but I'll go ahead and say, okay! :D

If you are referring to the .cfgs included with the CA mod, I am not sure. I have not progressed far enough in my save yet to really test it. Which is actually why I was kind of confused, thinking about it, with OPM and those .cfgs, I have no idea which would take priority or if they even work at all. In my save, I saw some asteroids orbiting a little out of Kerbin's SOI, however, I don't know if that was a direct result of CA.

I also went through CA and saw that it doesn't support "Kopernicus asteroids" although I can't find a reference to that anywhere through searching, hence, why I wasn't sure if CA was supported anymore since OPM uses Kopernicus.

Custom Asteroids has or is its own asteroid spawner engine and is of course, separate from and not involved with Kopernicus. From its thread, CA seems to require more patience from the user (you have to wait longer for them to appear? Or there's some trick to them appearing.) OPM's CA config is still present in OPM_Galileo, and CA itself is back from the dead so it's up to you (preferably before Galileo reports on it, as I'm sure you have OPM and CA installed) to confirm that everything is working. :) 

4 hours ago, voicey99 said:

Would it be better to switch to the inbuilt Kopernicus asteroid-spawning system, to remove the need for players to install CA to get asteroids? I can't see an advantage the CA system has over Kopernicus, and it's just another mod to deal with.

In other news, you say in the OP it's not your place to make changes outside of mod compatibility. Does this mean you're only going to be accepting PRs for mod compatibility/bugfixes and nothing else (e.g. scidefs)?

That can be done. The asteroid configs can coexist as well with the proper NEEDS setup. One question comes to mind and that is if CA ignores the apparent global limit of 99 untracked asteroids (implied by the counter in the Map View vessel filter bar). If CA ignores this limit then it has a great thing going-- you can have several, densely populated asteroid fields especially if you have many planet packs installed that have asteroid fields. The other thing is CA allows for asteroid groups (flavors, essentially) which possess certain groups of resources and related science blurbs (Carbonaceous, Metallic, Icy...)

The main thing about Galileo's restriction on updating this mod is, he's not going to change the settings and textures that make the planets, i.e., no cosmetic facelift, orbital adjustments or overall revamp of any sort can happen. Feel free to make your visuals pack like @Poodmund did with OPM-VO, or an OPM "expansion" that adds moons and so on, or any modlet that adjusts OPM to fit with another planet pack as GPP does, but it won't be accepted to be integrated into OPM itself. OPM expands stock perfectly, (except for the issue of its antenna range booster) and it's his desire to preserve that as much as possible.

Concerning science defs specifically, you're free to post a PR adding science for non-stock parts, but he might not accept changes to the original science defs except for grammar checks.

TL;DR

In most cases yes, he'll be restrictive on receiving PRs here. If you have something to offer, just ask before you start working on it. :) 

Share this post


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

Custom Asteroids has or is its own asteroid spawner engine and is of course, separate from and not involved with Kopernicus. From its thread, CA seems to require more patience from the user (you have to wait longer for them to appear? Or there's some trick to them appearing.) OPM's CA config is still present in OPM_Galileo, and CA itself is back from the dead so it's up to you (preferably before Galileo reports on it, as I'm sure you have OPM and CA installed) to confirm that everything is working. :) 

That can be done. The asteroid configs can coexist as well with the proper NEEDS setup. One question comes to mind and that is if CA ignores the apparent global limit of 99 untracked asteroids (implied by the counter in the Map View vessel filter bar). If CA ignores this limit then it has a great thing going-- you can have several, densely populated asteroid fields especially if you have many planet packs installed that have asteroid fields. The other thing is CA allows for asteroid groups (flavors, essentially) which possess certain groups of resources and related science blurbs (Carbonaceous, Metallic, Icy...)

The main thing about Galileo's restriction on updating this mod is, he's not going to change the settings and textures that make the planets, i.e., no cosmetic facelift, orbital adjustments or overall revamp of any sort can happen. Feel free to make your visuals pack like @Poodmund did with OPM-VO, or an OPM "expansion" that adds moons and so on, or any modlet that adjusts OPM to fit with another planet pack as GPP does, but it won't be accepted to be integrated into OPM itself. OPM expands stock perfectly, (except for the issue of its antenna range booster) and it's his desire to preserve that as much as possible.

Concerning science defs specifically, you're free to post a PR adding science for non-stock parts, but he might not accept changes to the original science defs except for grammar checks.

TL;DR

In most cases yes, he'll be restrictive on receiving PRs here. If you have something to offer, just ask before you start working on it. :) 

@JadeOfMaarSo, if I am understanding you correctly, if I delete CA, then Kopernicus' asteroid spawning system will take over? What is the difference between the two?

Edited by Jalaris

Share this post


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

if I delete CA, then Kopernicus' asteroid spawning system will take over?

I don't know if CA suppresses Kopernicus' asteroid spawner. I haven't installed it since it became active/usable again... 

As far as I know, OPM does not have a Kopernicus asteroid config, which was implied when I said "That can be done" below. 

Quote

That can be done. The asteroid configs can coexist as well with the proper NEEDS setup.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Jalaris said:

So, if I am understanding you correctly, if I delete CA, then Kopernicus' asteroid spawning system will take over? What is the difference between the two?

No, because OPM does not have a Kopernicus asteroid config. The two systems are similar, except they can't use each others' configs and Kopernicus allows for more customisation, like asteroid size distribution (I don't think CA has this) and a more advanced spawning interval.

7 hours ago, JadeOfMaar said:

I don't know if CA suppresses Kopernicus' asteroid spawner. I haven't installed it since it became active/usable again... 

As far as I know, OPM does not have a Kopernicus asteroid config, which was implied when I said "That can be done" below. 

CA states on its page that it does not interact with Kopernicus, meaning you can have two asteroid setups running simultaneously. I use CA, and the config I wrote for Cyran works perfectly, but all the asteroids spawned via Kopernicus are of Stony type (makes sense, since that's the default and they do not have a setup to be a particular class). Speaking of that, the CA patch does not have parameters dictating asteroid class - could those be written in?

And I forgot OPM already had a scidef for every situation. I must have been confusing another mod.

Edited by voicey99

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Galileo I've got both GPP and OPM installed but can't seem to find eeloo or dres anywhere? Is there a way to fix this?

Edited by RobinVerhulstZ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, RobinVerhulstZ said:

@Galileo I've got both GPP and OPM installed but can't seem to find eeloo or dres anywhere? Is there a way to fix this?

I don't know about Dres, but OPM makes Eeloo a moon of Sarnus.  Have you looked for it there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, RobinVerhulstZ said:

@Galileo I've got both GPP and OPM installed but can't seem to find eeloo or dres anywhere? Is there a way to fix this?

Eeloo is broken and I never fixed it. :P

GPP deletes the stock planets by default which is mostly why I didn't fix Eeloo.

Why do you ask about Dres. What business has OPM with Dres?

Edited by JadeOfMaar

Share this post


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

Eeloo is broken and I never fixed it. :P

GPP deletes the stock planets by default which is mostly why I didn't fix Eeloo.

Why do you ask about Dres. What business has OPM with Dres?

Hmm,i must've gotten confused, i vaguely remember dres being put around a different body in a planet pack,but it might've been some other pack than OPM

 

Edited by RobinVerhulstZ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, RobinVerhulstZ said:

Hmm,i must've gotten confused, i vaguely remember dres being put around a different body in a planet pack,but it might've been some other pack than OPM

 

Planet Cyran moves Dres (and transforms it).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JadeOfMaar said:

Planet Cyran moves Dres (and transforms it).

Ohh,that could be it. i used to go haywire on ALL the mods, but now i have calmed down because the garbage collection stutters became too much to bear...

BTW, what do you mean by "i didn't fix eeloo"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Concerning GPP which deletes the stock planets, I respected GPP's premise of "the stock planets never existed" so I never arranged for Eeloo to continue to exist as part of OPM in GPP+OPM. That'll change soon though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, RobinVerhulstZ said:

Ohh,that could be it. i used to go haywire on ALL the mods, but now i have calmed down because the garbage collection stutters became too much to bear...

Do you use MemGraph? It can cause a huge amount of garbage collection stutter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, voicey99 said:

Do you use MemGraph? It can cause a huge amount of garbage collection stutter.

i used to,but the stutter was too prominent without it anyway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, voicey99 said:

Do you use MemGraph? It can cause a huge amount of garbage collection stutter.

Memgraph is supposed to do the exact opposite. I would read through the OP of that mod and through the thread pages a bit to understand how it works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Galileo said:

Memgraph is supposed to do the exact opposite. I would read through the OP of that mod and through the thread pages a bit to understand how it works.

techinically it is, but my experience with it is that padding the heap size increased both min and max values canceling eachother out mostly while still using up more resources,might be a bug though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, RobinVerhulstZ said:

techinically it is, but my experience with it is that padding the heap size increased both min and max values canceling eachother out mostly while still using up more resources,might be a bug though.

It’s worked wonders for me, and many others and I have never seen anyone else say it creates garbage before. Experiences may vary I suppose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doing some work improving/modernising the CustomAsteroids patch, and I've noticed the asteroid spawning altitudes for the Sarnus and Urlum ring bands are very low and do not correspond to the rings at all. It it permissible to raise these altitudes so they actually spawn in and throughout the rings?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.