Jump to content

Chatterer


fragtzack

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Galileo said:

Are people on Mars yet?

Where do you think i came from?

Yeah, I had a fix.  Sorry, can't share right immediately.  I'll make a pull request later, but I won't share the dll.  Too many toes here, and I have big feet.

Watch the official a few days.

Edited by R-T-B
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, fragtzack said:

Can anyone fix Chatter for 18.0? 

I tried it with 18.0 and it worked for like half a mission and then stopped.

Pretty much all mods with code in them have broken with KSP 1.8.  It's a thing.

15 hours ago, fragtzack said:

Can anyone fix Chatter for 18.0?

The usual approach in such cases is to be patient.  Modders are busy with IRL things, and obviously a spare-time hobby like modding has to take a back seat to that.  KSP 1.8 has only been out just a few days, so it's not at all surprising that not all the mods are updated yet.

So just give it some time to allow the modder to come up with a fix.  Watch the mod's release thread and follow along with the discussions there.

We all understand how frustrating it is to have a beloved mod go belly-up for a while... but trying to rush these things tends to be counter-productive.  So... basically, just be patient and wait for the modder to come up with a fix.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Snark said:

Pretty much all mods with code in them have broken with KSP 1.8.  It's a thing.

Largely because linking .net 3.5 to .net 4.7.2 code is an awful idea that seldom ends well.  It is...  technically doable with unity, but it's not a good idea, at all, and it introduces some kind of performance penalty I can only assume is due to translation or something.

Unfortunately, All pre-1.8 mods are .net 3.5.  All 1.8 mods are 4.7.2.  Thus, all mods not being rebuilt (and tested too) are currently on shaky foundations.

That being said, it's not a magic fix to just recompile...  (just ask my old builds), given unity was upgraded too, so much more can break if it even builds and appears to load.  DLL paths moved and even if you update them, things can change there too.  But FWIW:  In Chatterer's case it really does appear to just fix it, as far as my testing indicated (I played for hours and mod didn't miss a beat, and all it does is babble really so I don't see what could be broken).  On the original build I got the same audio timeouts you reported, only sooner, like within minutes (probably because PulseAudio on linux does not help). 

My best guess is that the audio APIs it used to use have moved to a new DLL (I mean that part is not a guess, they did), and though modern unity does some kind of mapping to the old ones obvious by virtue of the fact it works at all,  the fact that it is .net 3.5 AND using old mappings to the unity interfaces makes it really really likely to break at some point during gameplay due to latency-driven timeouts from all the translation going on...   given the fact audio communication is treated as "low latency" most of the time, it probably stops trying at first failure to meet a deadline.  At that point, it probably gives up and shuts down.

Still, post a log when it goes silent.  If you do, it'll confirm or deny my suspicions and that'll be helpful.  Unless it shows something out of line with what I said, a simple recompile should completely fix the mod.  I had one already, but it's long gone, and I won't be posting another recompile because there is enough drama without me stirring this pot again (someone else can brave this kettle's waters if they want, and no I can't do a pull request because there is nothing to change other than the compile target to .net 4.7.2 and updating assembly references.  After that, it just works.)

 

That was my findings.  Between this and MonthlyBudgets as well as ShowFPS, this was one of the cleanest mods to recompile, coming in I'd say Second (ShowFPS beats it just because it does almost nothing, so WCGW?).  It just worked afterwards with little to no fireworks and absolutely no discernable behavioral changes or logged errors.  Heck, Visual Studio didn't even indicate any additional warnings.

Yes, patience is a virtue.  In some cases it's really really going to be needed (oh my god does Scatterer need it.  Probably Kopernicus too from what little I understood).  But for this mod, if someone is brave enough to try what I did, I'm 90% sure it'll just work.

Edited by R-T-B
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, R-T-B said:

Largely because linking .net 3.5 to .net 4.7.2 code is an awful idea that seldom ends well.

.NET version is one concern.  Another is that the new version of Unity factors a bunch of stuff into separate DLLs, which used to all be lumped together in one big mother-of-all-DLLs.  So another thing that mods generally need to do is to update assembly references.

My guess is that most mods are pretty simple and easy to update.  For example, for all of my own mods, all I had to do was to update the .NET version and assembly references, and they all just worked-- no further code changes required.  And most of my mods only had to make one specific change to assembly references (to add UnityEngine.CoreModule.dll); I just had one mod that touched some areas of Unity that required adding some other assembly references as well.

So anyway, the point is that for most mods, the actual update process should be pretty simple.  Hopefully, this means that mod authors will be able to come out with updates relatively Soon™.

It'll be case-by-case, though.  Some mods will require more detailed attention, and of course not all modders are equally busy.  So hopefully most mods will update fairly quickly, but some mods will take longer until it happens-- and for such mods, we just need to be patient.  Give the modders the time that they'll need, they'll get there in time.

57 minutes ago, R-T-B said:

All 1.8 mods are 4.7.2.

Not so.  The only stated requirement is that they be anything 4.x.  But if you substitute "4.x" for "4.7.2", then yes, point taken.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Snark said:

Not so.  The only stated requirement is that they be anything 4.x.  But if you substitute "4.x" for "4.7.2", then yes, point taken.

That may be the only requirement, but i've yet to see anyone else pick anything lower, that's why I used that phrasing.  I can't think of one release in existence that is using lower, and again, you shouldn't if you link dependencies because crosslinking .net code versions tends to get weird.

Yes, technically you could.  But there is no real reason.  I mean, I guess you could have a reason and use case if you REALLY needed to support Windows Vista or something...

32 minutes ago, Snark said:

.NET version is one concern.  Another is that the new version of Unity factors a bunch of stuff into separate DLLs, which used to all be lumped together in one big mother-of-all-DLLs.  So another thing that mods generally need to do is to update assembly references.

I said as much. ;)

 

1 hour ago, R-T-B said:

DLL paths moved and even if you update them, things can change there too. 

I didn't explicitly say they seperated, but I think we all know that. 

Honestly, I'd worry less about updating the references.  That's nothing.  It's more about the internal unity changes we don't see, and have to adapt to.  Like, I'm pretty sure scatterer's horizon code imploded because of some simple constant change...  What constant?  Dunno.  But something went wacky. 

But yeah, we are agreeing basically.

32 minutes ago, Snark said:

Give the modders the time that they'll need

I hope you only apply that to mods that you know, actually have issues after a recompile testrun.

I'm really not sure anymore though.  It's so weird around here I'm sort of scared to try anything.  So I'm just saying what I learned and hoping someone else will jump off the iceberg into the shark infested waters below...  (it's fun, really.  Honest.)

In the end, scatterer seems to work after a recompile.  That is really all I can confirm.

Edited by R-T-B
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm having trouble finding the extra content packages I installed (Chatterer+ 0.4, Chatterer Extended 0.6.2).  I don't see the control where I should be able to add new content in (evidently, there's supposed to be a "Chatter" tab under "Show advanced options").  Where should I ask for help on this?

Edited by Nikolai
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Nikolai said:

I'm having trouble finding the extra content packages I installed (Chatterer+ 0.4, Chatterer Extended 0.6.2).  I don't see the control where I should be able to add new content in (evidently, there's supposed to be a "Chatter" tab under "Show advanced options").  Where should I ask for help on this?

You must write folder names of sound sets manually. I'm out of home, so I can't do a screenshot to help you more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, maja said:

You must write folder names of sound sets manually. I'm out of home, so I can't do a screenshot to help you more.

Yeah, thanks, I understand that.  I'm having trouble getting to a place where I can enter the folder names of sound sets in the first place.  No such place presents itself when I select "Show advanced options".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Complete noob here... KSP opened with a message saying that Chatterer has an update to download. When I click on the link it goes to a page in here saying...

Sorry, there is a problem

The page you requested does not exist

Error code: 1S160/2

Is there a solution to this? I've been ill & haven't played KSP for a week or so. Is this why the page with the download on it has been taken down? Am I too late?

Anyway, Hi everyone! It's good to be back :o)

Lazarus42

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me see if I can successfully embed an image to show what I mean.

There's "Show advanced options" checked, but no "Chatterer" tab to enter new chatter sets.

EDITED TO ADD: Never mind, I'm an idiot.  Apparently, you need to be running a manned mission for the "Chatterer" tab to show up.

Kyvg9ri.jpg

Edited by Nikolai
Corrected bad image link
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TheKSPBeginner said:

Is it an SSTO

Nope.  It has eight SRBs that help it to orbit.  But we're getting substantially off-topic here.  Feel free to send me a PM; I'll answer any questions related to the design or flight of this thing that you want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...