rasta013
-
Posts
664 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by rasta013
-
-
Okay so I've been doing some testing and have some results on the Science Definitions front...
#1. Custom definitions have made every single problem I've had go away once I've written them into the definitions file or MM'd them in via #id tag.
#2. I also found a problem between [x]Science! and GPP which I've reported on that thread. Summation: Educated guess is that it has a problem with the missing sun. Adding in custom definitions still did not allow [x] to detect there were eligible experiments to run in test cases. I was testing with Sounding Rockets as it has been problematic for me personally.
#3. I verified both #1 & #2 by installing Experiment Tracker (without [x] installed). Without the custom definition, ET was unable to detect there was an eligible experiment just like [x]. However, once I added the custom definition ET saw the experiment just fine and ran it with no problem while [x] still did not see it.
Conclusion: Z-Key needs to get [x]Science updated to handle whatever is going on behind the scenes that is preventing it from seeing some experiments. Furthermore, the proposed solution of writing custom definitions appears to solve most of the problems that are, at least in part, seemingly related to the missing sun. The best way of course is the method that is already used in the GPP config files by MM patching them in via #id tag. That should prevent any issues that may arise related to masks which are set in the experiment ID already.
Caveat: Someone needs to go through every experiment that will have a custom definition written and identify the Experiment ID and the situation/biome masks in order to have the definition file built properly. This can be...welllllll....rather frustrating at times. Many mods that add science experiments do not write complete definition files and will frequently be missing entries that are eligible for the experiment to run. For instance, an experiment with a situation mask allowing it be run while landed but have none of the surface definitions written. The authors chose to rely on a "default" definition instead to cover them all like Sounding Rockets. This means that the situation and biome mask needs to be translated into entries (e.g. GaelSrfLandedPligiaShores) for the custom definition file and it has to be done for every single experiment...painful to say the least and very time consuming. This also relies on having a knowledge of each body and its associated biomes to make sure all cases are covered.
If a list of mods which have experiments in them can be provided to me I will volunteer to extract the information we need to build the definition file. This DOES NOT mean I will write all the definitions but I will extract the fields we need in order to begin writing them.
I think that covers it all...LOL.
Thoughts, ideas, input? I'll test anything else you may feel I missed along the way.
-
@Z-Key Aerospace I've been working with the guys over at GPP in tracking down a science related issue for that planet pack and came across a small issue with [x]. It appears (a small educated guess on my part) that any solar system that has moved/renamed the sun (in GPP's case the sun is replaced in whole by Ciro) that [x] will have problems detecting that some experiments can be run. It goes a bit deeper though...
For this test I was using Sounding Rockets since those 4 experiments have a history of misbehaving for me in various circumstance. All 4 experiments have both situation and biome masks set to 63 (run anywhere/any situation) but only have a "default = " definition and no custom definitions by body. When I add the custom definitions for a body in GPP, [x] still does not detect that the experiment can be run. However, it will show up under Experiment Tracker which behaves identically to [x] when the custom definition is not present (no experiment shows as eligible). You can see some screenshots below. These were taken at separate times with only [x] or Experiment Tracker installed (never both).
SpoilerYou can see the experiments are available to run in Gael High Space...
Yet despite being present and available to run they do not show up as available on the list once I leave Gael (home planet)...
And the same vessel with Experiment Tracker in Iota High Space as in the previous image with [x]
I discovered this quite by accident but since I use [x] instead of Experiment Tracker it would be lovely to see this little issue go away.
I'm not sure of what other mods may be affected in this way but will inquire with other GPP users to see if they know of any off hand. I'm still not entirely sure what could be the root of this issue though since there are other experiments out there that do not have custom definitions for GPP and have both masks @ 63 but behave as expected...
Also, if this isn't something readily found/fixed would you prefer that I open this as a GitHub issue to track and test it properly? I will be more than happy to provide you with any additional information or perform any tests you may like just let me know.
-
2 hours ago, Shadowmage said:
I also spotted a worrying bug (that I thought I had already fixed) -- one of my test craft would refuse to be recovered on the runway. Only occurred after I had retracted and re-deployed the landing legs (was actually deployable wheels in this instance, but legs should have the same effect). Is there anyone else who has experienced and/or can confirm this bug? (It could just be a quirk of the part I was testing)
I've been staying up to date with all the changes you've been making and have been regularly going back to the KSPWheel testing install I have to do quick tests after updates. I've quickly tried all the retractable parts and couldn't get it to trigger. These were quick and dirty tests but on first pass I've seen nothing. Will keep digging to see if I can reproduce...
-
Well it's official now if it wasn't before...you maintain about 1/3rd of all mods I'm using! Amazing...
Thanks much for reviving this one also. I missed it when you brought it back a few weeks ago but since I just borked my career save with an untimely uninstall I'm starting new so can use this properly! Love the fact that you've asked for and are adding new governments. It was something that was always missing for this mod. In an effort to make sure that @Rock3tman_'s SpaceK doesn't run away with the commercial ventures here's their competition...
SpoilerItem
{
name = KLA
longName = Kerbal Launch Alliance
poModifier = 1
poPenaltyModifier = 3
scModifier = 2
scPenaltyModifier = 6
startingPO = 50
startingSC = 75
budget = 0.1
gdp = 16000000
budgetPeriodsPerYear = 12
description = KLA is a joint venture between Klockheed-Martin and Bloeting Aerospace. It was formed to provide (mostly)reliable service for various state agencies primarily in the USK as well as provide cost-efficient access to space for commercial ventures. KLA's primary competition comes from Elon Kerman and his SpaceK organization who have recently won several government contracts previously held by KLA. In an effort to spur public interest in space exploration CEO Bruno "Kory" Kerman recently announced plans to expand KLA's civilian commercial offerings including plans for a "Space Hotel". Only time will tell if KLA can retain a large enough share of the government contracts while trying to impress a seemingly oblivious public more than SpaceK.
}Similar to SpaceK with the high risk problems of failure but offering a modicum of balance between Public and State for funding purposes. The short term test I ran with it was very similar to SpaceK but with lower payouts on average over the longer term and it tends to favor a more probe heavy style of play.
-
Just a note of gratitude for the latest addition to the engine line up...that RD-180 is amazing. I've rebuilt my Soyuz 3.125m heavy lift core where I had been running the RD-170s from Real Engines but it was massive overkill and I always ran the engines with a thrust nerf down to 75%. Your latest additions made for a 1-to-1 swap and now I don't have to finagle it to make it feel right. Thank you so much for this as it will see a stupendous level of use. Now for a tiny amount of eye candy...
Spoiler
-
7 minutes ago, JadeOfMaar said:
The skybox is Minmatar #4 from my EVE Online skyboxes. Link in signature.
Wow...I have no idea how I missed these. For some reason in my head I had your's and Galileo's skyboxes being one and the same so just never checked your sig link...
Especially considering I'm a former 6 year vet of EVE you'd think I would've looked...LMAO...anyway Thanks!
-
15 minutes ago, JadeOfMaar said:
BEEEEEUUUUTIIFUUULLLLL!!!
I love it. Got a quick question for you though - what skybox are you using? That one looks awesome!
-
14 minutes ago, Angel-125 said:
Try taking a look at the PartDatabase.cfg in your game's root directory. There should be drag cubes there.
DUH! Shows how well my brain is working today...
-
2 hours ago, Angel-125 said:
Yeah, the Korona Light has always had drag issues. Try copying the drag cube from the stock science return capsule and see if that helps.
Ok will do. Will report back on results...
EDIT: @Angel-125 Hmmm...there is no defined drag cube for the stock science return unless I'm looking at the wrong part (Experiment Storage Unit)? The only thing re: Drag in the CFG for this part is:
SpoilerdragModelType = default
maximum_drag = 0.2
minimum_drag = 0.3
angularDrag = 2These are the exact same values in the Korona Lite. Seemingly the only difference is that the Lite has the drag cube defined and the stock box does not. As an aside, I also checked several other stock parts and can't find a single defined drag cube in any stock config including the command pods.
Thoughts or ideas on how to move forward with this test? Also, is the Drag_Cube module essential to the Lite's operation?
-
4 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:
Thanks, I'll get on it.
Also, I found a bug in the editor with reaction wheels, it is assuming the wheels are using a lot more EC than they do.
Re the solar panels, is the problem only in the editor, or in flight as well?
It's in both editor and flight...
...and just saw the new version and will start banging on this today...
-
It's 4:50 AM so please forgive me as I haven't searched the thread to see if this has been reported...
Drag cube on the MOLE sample return capsule is messed up. With no chutes I was all the way down to 28 m/s @ 13km. If you look in the image you'll a second arrow below my craft just about to impact the surface. That was my engine/tank that was decoupled @ 59km and you can see that it beat me to the ground despite being far less aerodynamic...
Spoiler
EDIT: Does RealChutes play nice with your setup? I ask because I haven't searched but it's been my culprit in a few drag cube related incidents recently...
-
3 hours ago, CatastrophicFailure said:
Hi, quick (hopefully) question here. I'm a bit confused after searching thru the thread, does SSTU play nice with SMURFF and/or KR&D? Running a 6.4-scale game here, and despite the tremendous utility of the SSTU setup I'm starting to regret not going with Real Fuels like my last game.
I can't speak to SMURFF (although I'd have my doubts) but I know that KR&D does not work. With SMURFF you might be able to get it working with MM patches but KR&D changes stats of engines and tanks and that will definitely not play nice with SSTU.
-
3 minutes ago, JadeOfMaar said:
The problem is that it appears that once a custom science definition is written for an experiment the experiment becomes valid/repeatable only for the instances that the custom science was written for, and not in an easily acceptable way. For example I wrote 3 possible results for GaelFlyingHigh (no biome specifics) and by consequence, the experiment appears to only be good once ever for FlyingHigh... If I had written GaelFlyingHighLowlands and GaelFlyingHighMidlands then most likely the experiment would be repeatable for each biome too. There's nothing in my science files with mask paramaters or any fancy stuff --just experimentID, PlanetSituationBiome and Statement. I never took the time to lookup those mask things.
Ok - I'm gonna start playing with it to see if I can narrow down the specific behavior for what's happening and how it operates. I've written whole ScienceDef files from scratch for both BDB and ProbesPlus including custom biome definitions and masking. This is in addition to adding OPM definitions for many others so I'm intimately familiar with how they work on both a mask level and custom definition level. Gimme a couple days to do some detailed testing with it and I'll report back with what I can find.
-
2 hours ago, AndreZero said:
And I just tried docking two things on the surface with the gemini docking adapter and the agena... and it worked fine. I must be doing something wrong when I dock in space. I'll try it again later (I reverted my previous save since the gemini knocked my agena out of control).
Thanks for the help!
1 hour ago, Jso said:It's definitely TweakableEverything. I have no clue how to correct the behavior. I think @linuxgurugamer is maintaing that.
It is the problem and I do know how...
Go into \GameData\TweakableEverything\Plugins\
Delete TweakableDockingNode.dll.
Problem solved. This .dll file gives almost nothing you want to adjust making mostly uneeded and it can cause quirky problems with non-stock docking ports, especially gendered ports and others with deployable stuff as mentioned above. Remove it. All the rest of TweakableEverything works fine and removing that single .dll will not cause a problem.
-
So you asked about mods that aren't getting picked up by Fusebox. Since both of these are handled through custom plugins I'm not sure what may or may not be exposed to hook onto for data. So far it's only...
WildBlue solar panels from Pathfinder/MOLE etc...specifically the ones @Angel-125 is handling through Wild Blue Tools like the the Sombrero Solar Array or SPF-6
SSTU Solar panels - all of them. @Shadowmage handles all of his solar panels through his plugin so none of them are picked up by Fusebox.
-
16 minutes ago, KerbalSaver said:
Oh, I was under the impression that if you had CKAN then the mod wouldn't work even if you did install it manually.
No. CKAN is just a mod manager for installing and updating mods. It works for about 98% of all mods with no problem. But there are those (like Angel's set or Galileo Planet Pack) that are so complicated on the install side that CKAN will never get it right. So instead, the authors request CKAN to never index it, which it doesn't, and require that players install manually. But no mod "looks" for whether CKAN is installed per se...
-
OUTSTANDING! While I've generally been using AmpYear for EC monitoring it leaves a lot to be desired when it comes to other mods. I used Fusebox all the way up until Ratzap stopped supporting it and have missed it ever since. Once again thanks for your herculean efforts in the maintenance and revival of some really great mods!
-
44 minutes ago, KerbalSaver said:
Apologies if this has been asked before, but does this mod work with CKAN installs? A lot of your other mods don't, but unless I'm blind there's nothing in the OP about it.
Nope sure doesn't. All of Angel's mods are installed manually due to the complexity level involved and the problems CKAN can introduce.
-
@JadeOfMaar @Galileo I LOVE the idea of the community writing any ScienceDefs you need and will gladly make an effort on helping since I've already begun to write my own for other mods as well...but on that note...
Let me see if I understand this whole ScienceDefs thing properly because it's not making sense to me atm...
If you DON'T have a custom GPP Body science definition written for any given experiment that has situationMask = 63 and biomeMask = 63 then it WON'T show up as an eligible experiment? Or what? Typically, when you have both of those masks set to 63 and the experiment finds a body it doesn't have a specific definition for it uses the "default = " definition written in ScienceDefs. What causes GPP to interfere with masks?
I ask because I've never experienced the problem related to Crew Report/EVA Report but I've been trying to track down why Sounding Rockets refuses to allow its experiments to be detected by [x]Science as eligible to be run away from Gael. In both high and low orbits at Gael I get notifications like I should and all is well. Once I leave Gael though the experiments will still run properly and I get the correct amount of science out of them, I just get zero notification they can be run. These are the only 4 experiments I've ever had this issue on so far and under stock or even with OPM they work just fine and give notifications like they should no matter where I'm at. As a note, in the ScienceDef files, they have NOTHING custom written. The only definition is the "default = ".
Is this similar too/seem related too this other ScienceDefs problem you're hoping to address by writing them? Is that what it takes to get them to give notification? I will make an effort to test that with this particular mod if that is supposed to be the solution.
-
1 hour ago, tater said:
I've certainly gotten far more than the $20 I paid worth of value from KSP...<snip>...I'll buy two---if buying you, @Shadowmage, a copy eases your annoyance, any
(and just because I've gotten more value out of SSTU than my addition to the coffee jar).
I'm also highly conflicted over this release since I feel it will end up being something I buy to avoid compatibility problems. BUT, like @tater already mentioned I've gotten way more than my original $20 out of this game and I'll support Squad to keep 'em going at this point. Likewise, I'd willingly contribute to that effort to get you a copy to help ease your annoyance since this has got to feel like a bit of a slap to you with as much as you know about the stock code and its associated problems now...
Even if I understood it 100% seeing you retire due to a poor Squad decision would be a real bummer...
-
1 hour ago, akron said:
Happy Birthday ProbesPlus!
WOOHOO!!! I still remember the first release way back then. Congrats on the 1 year and thank you so much for sticking with it!
-
6 hours ago, Shadowmage said:
*snip* nothing is gained by denying the player access to simple quality of life parts.
And this is why I have several custom tech trees but I think my favorite so far was where I literally threw all the parts in a single node and then played with part research costs turned on. That way I had every single part I had installed available too me but I had to pay the funds to unlock each one. Gives me control over design decisions and when running with a controlled contract reward plus mod to turn science to funds and I've got a fun path that makes me work to unlock stuff without being artificially tied down.
-
1 hour ago, Toyotawolf said:
Long time no see Angel, hope this gets updated for ckan soon
It is no longer on CKAN. Too much headache to support it because of the complicated install.
-
27 minutes ago, ISE said:
Im not 100% but I think I had issues with particle reentry with most planet packs or enhancement packs.
I've been running Re-Entry Particle Effects from day 1 when using GPP and have never had an issue...just an FYI...
Thoughts, ideas, input? I'll test anything else you may feel I missed along the way.
I'm not sure of what other mods may be affected in this way but will inquire with other GPP users to see if they know of any off hand. I'm still not entirely sure what could be the root of this issue though since there are other experiments out there that do not have custom definitions for GPP and have both masks @ 63 but behave as expected...
[Min KSP: 1.12.2] Mark One Laboratory Extensions (M.O.L.E.)
in KSP1 Mod Releases
Posted
I've seen this same behavior myself. At the time I was in the middle of shuffling around mods and updating a few I maintain manually so blew it off as an compatibility problem at the time. I've never seen it do it again but FWIW, I have seen this same behavior.