Jump to content

Lisias

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    7,446

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Lisias

  1. Lisias
    Got it! Let's crack this nut: [LOG 02:57:01.800] [TweakScale] INFO: WriteDryCost Concluded : 2737 parts found ; 0 checks failed ; 0 parts with hotfixes ; 0 parts with issues overruled ; 2 Show Stoppers found; 9 Sanity Check failed; 1165 unscalable parts. Yep. 2 Fatalities.That 9 "Sanity Checks" are what I talked about on that "yellow" thingy. You also have 1165 unscalable parts, what means parts that no one had written patches for, so TweakScale can't scale them. About that two casualties: [LOG 02:57:01.468] [TweakScale] ERROR: **FATAL** Part bluedog.CXA.APAS.A.L04F (CADS 0.9375m Docking Port (Active)) has a fatal problem due having duplicated properties - see issue [#34]( https://github.com/net-lisias-ksp/TweakScale/issues/34 ). [LOG 02:57:01.468] [TweakScale] ERROR: **FATAL** Part bluedog.CXA.APAS.P (CADS 0.9375m Docking System (Passive)) has a fatal problem due having duplicated properties - see issue [#34]( https://github.com/net-lisias-ksp/TweakScale/issues/34 ). I think I had handled this already, let me check the ^Knowledge Base" (hitting the search button, being warned by forum I need some seconds between searches, hitting the search again a bit too early, bring warned again… ok, you got the drill. ). Here: Unfortunately, it's a bug on CxAerospace (that I confirmed you are using). It have a rogue patch messing up a bit with Bluedog's ones. The real problem is that CxAerospace is restrictive - I can't fix the thing myself, as the copyright forbids me to redistribute the fixes. And the original Author is not available anymore to submit patches (at least, it wasn't the last time I checked - I think on November last year? However, TweakScale is not only about scaring messages, we provide some solutions (most of them without providing you with new problems bundled! ). Do as follow: This should fix the parts so you can use them safely!
  2. Lisias
    Full KSP.log published on some file sharing service. More than less the Module Manager Cache files are also useful (mainly to cook fixes), so doesn't hurt to include them. It's better to delete the caches, launch KSP until you see the Houston, close KSP (extremely important if you use Hyperspace.dll) and then shove KSP.log and the MM caches (put them all and call it a day) on a zip file and upload it to dropbox or something.
  3. Lisias
    Or perhaps categorising them on KSP 1.7 and KSP 1.8 entries, so you don mix them on the scoring. Of course TweakScale alters the drag cube - it alters the size of the part! How would you shrink or expand a part without doing the same with the drag? It's the whole point of scaling things! You scale down a wing part, you will get less weight and less drag - and also, less lift! The deflectionLiftCoeff is scaled with the part.
  4. Lisias
    KSP 1.7.3. Half my crafts misbehave on 1.8, so I decided to stick on 1.7 and just go to 1.8 when my current gaming had run their curse. I didn't managed to migrate any of my old savegames, and this wasn't due Add'Ons - with a new Physics engine, apparently Squad didn't managed to replicate exactly the behaviour (not to mention new glitches and oversights, terribly common on such endeavours).
  5. Lisias
    I'm believing you. I'm trying to figure out why things happens this way. Long term advices, by the way, should be taken with a grain of salt. Once I was advised to use control surfaces as wings as they are better - but empirically my designs proves and proves again that it doesn't matter at all - all what matters are the lift factor and the associated drag. Once you are used to scaling things up and down, that advice doesn't works anymore and then you start to pay attention to things like thermal convection, irradiation and conduction. Long term advices also tells me to avoid current stock wheels and landing struts as the plague - but, again, I'm getting good results on them to a point that I'm not relying on KSPWheels anymore (except by the extra parts). Things change, people make mistakes on inferring things, and so on. Always challenge all the knowledge by experimentation.
  6. Lisias
    As a rule of thumb, if the Warning is a "yellow" one, it's an annoyance - nothing will break, as the glitch was detected and the affected part had TweakScale withdrawn from it. You cannot scale it, but by trying to scale it the game would break or crash, so you are not loosing anything (but headaches). The red ones (the "Houston"s), however, demands immediate action. If you are "houston'd", cry for help here on the spot and don't proceed with the game - at least, without using S.A.V.E. first. Most of the time nothing bad will happen [nowadays] , but sometimes the savegame can be corrupted (and this is the reason I created that Houston stunt). There's a screenshot of one of these here if you are curious. New parts using current unsupported modules will earn an "Yellow". So not necessarily a "new problem", only a new issue from the same old problem. My main debits on the matter nowadays are the buoyancy module from FireSpitter and the MODULE PART VARIANT that some Stock parts uses. As soon as I get time (and the mood - boy, I'm still recovering...) to analise these things, most of the warnings will just disappear for good.
  7. Lisias
    Try scaling them down with TweakScale 2.5 Beta. I'm testing (correctly) scaling Wheels form some time, and this code is working fine until now, it's stable enough to be in use on my "production" KSPs, but, as usual, try the thing on a disposable copy of your instalment.
  8. Lisias
    Interesting. I'm getting good results on the Mk2 platform for heavy planes, but I agree that using them on small ones need some tweaking. There're two "kinds of lift" on KSP, that dark blue one, and the cyan one. The blue are the lift factor some parts have, while the cyan is the lift applied to any part that is going fast enough, the kitchen's sink included. Perhaps, and this si something to be tested yet, your problem is that two different lifts generating two different "instances" of dragging?
  9. Lisias
    You must define "outdated". There are some mods made for 1.3.1 that are still working flawlessly, even on 1.8.x
  10. Lisias
    Hi, @Ser. I issued two pull requests into your github: https://github.com/SerTheGreat/NavInstruments/pull/1 - adding the Dessert Airfield into the ILS, as suggested by @Sppion1 above ; https://github.com/SerTheGreat/NavInstruments/pull/2 - fixing a weird thing that started to happen to me today. I don't really understand the issue, but the patch fixed it to me and apparently this is consistent with some similar issues I found on the Net. Cheers! Try pressing just Alt! The code that handles that click looks only for Alt. Alt+Ctrl has a special meaning on some X11 Window Managers, I think your keystroke is being intercepted by X.
  11. Lisias
    I'm working on some entries for the Around Kerbin in 80 Minutes Challenge. Making a working new design is already hard enough, but making one that lands easily is the worst part. It was a perfect approach, except by being a bit too high and hot - after [redacted] minutes flying at Mach [redacted], descending from [redacted] meters high in so small time demanded too much from the control surfaces on an airplane now with a heavy nose. The previous craft (that managed to accomplish the same stunt) had more control surfaces... Obviously I occluded the craft as I didn't applied her yet to the challenge. (no Kerbals were - permanently -- injured on the stunt after the quick-loading) As you can see, had KSC be 5 meters lower, I think I would had landed her! I managed to explode the craft ONE METER BELOW THE TARMAC!!! And got a perfect addition to my "Perfect Landings that Didn't Happened" Album Collection! Well.... I had made so many rounds around Kerbin due these... "hard landings"... that I don't need the Map anymore, I know where I am by looking to the ground! And now, I'm going to do it again. Should I try to do it blinded this time?
  12. Lisias
    I'm toying with this concept, but concluded that any gains are marginal and easily occluded by the problems. The Mk2 parts are lifting bodies, they add some lift, so they add the equivalent parasitic drag. Oh well, you can easily compensate it by adding a smaller wing and taking advantage of the lift (as you will suffer the drag anyway).
  13. Lisias
    Well, it's a bit laborious, but yeah, you can do it. You will ending up doing manually what the Welding Tool needs to implement - and you will learn by trial and error what needs to be learnt (see my previous post for the link to that thread about Module Part Variant!). Please share your findings here! It will help to implement the thing!
  14. Lisias
    Yep! One thing I like to do is just copy & paste the KSP dir into a backup, and then after updating, copy everything (but Squad/ and SquadExpansion/ !) from the backup's GameData to the new instalment (as well the saves/ too!). Be sure to copy and not to move (hit ALT, so you can see a "+" signs on the icons being dragged). Of course, if you use CKAN, just let the tool do it for you. Scale Safe!! (had I mentioned today that I strongly advise to use S.A.V.E. ?)
  15. Lisias
    It's a bug on the prefab on KSP 1.8.0 . Nothing bad happens, other than making your life a misery while trying to use the controls. Please upgrade to KSP 1.8.1. Not only the UI widgets, but some other annoying glitches were also fixed:
  16. Lisias
    Finally! This is my (valid! ) entry for the Challenge, on the Thunder Division. Craft available on Kerbal X and the (full) Mission Report is here. This craft flew 48 Passengers and 2 Crew at 1.3Km/Sec average around Kerbin in 54 Minutes from take off to full stop on landing. A hand-full, random, screenshots: Due the touristic nature of the flight, no maneuverer over 5G was allowed. Think on the children! Damn.... Too high, too fast! But everything ended well. By a tad... Technically, the craft stopped on the runway =P, just a tad after the paved part of the runway... - Please tell me it's ok, this is the FOURTH time I do this Challenge with this vessel! (first one, I used parts from SXT by accident, the second I blew the craft due overheat - 1375 m/s is too much! , the third I run out of fuel but made a marvellous landing, but empty tanks is against the rules). — — — DISCLAIMER — — — TweakScale was used on Wings, Control Surfaces and Landing Gears -- -- -- MISSING PICTURE -- -- -- Forgot to include the SPH Picture here!
  17. Lisias
    No, due licensing and political issues. They need to hire the guy to do the job for them, otherwise they would be using non exclusive assets on the game, what it's bad from the business point of view - just imagine Simple Planes using the same MK2 models as KSP? From an old fart developer, I need to tell you that most (but not all) Add'Ons around here are crafted by non professionals. Some of them abuse Unity in a way that Squad can not dare to do so, as they pay for support and by doing such stunts, the Unity guys would [insert your non forum compliant favorite expletive here] them big time. When you pay support to someone, you do what they say - otherwise they are not responsible for the outcome. And corporations work by paying people to be responsible by the outcome. So, even if the licensing allows, they need to rewrite the thing to meet their constraints - and so we have again the problem of hiring workforce not only to built the thing, but to maintain it too as KSP evolves. What's another source of problems, as Squad, apparently, is having a bad time on evolving the product without breaking a lot of working things - switching Engine's version is already hard enough, but I think there's a lack of methodology (perhaps due cultural issues) on their process that ends up with a lot of loose ties on the final product, with the consequential breakage on the field. It's a insightful though. Congrats.
  18. Lisias
    I can only speculate, but there're a kind of shortage of professionals able to carry such jobs. Writing games demands some skills not usually valued on other fields of the trade, and writing space computer games demands yet more unusual skills - as advanced maths. Most people I known or get in touch never laid a foot on a College, and the ones that did usually stayed away from Calculus and Algebra, focusing on social and political classes as Project Management. I can count using my fingers the guys I known that really studied Software Engineering, what to say about Advanced Calablculus and Astrophysics? (google about STEM crisis and similar wording) And once you find such a guy, well... You need to hire him somehow. The game industry is not exactly known to provide a good quality of life for the employees together a good payment and convenient working models (of course, there're honorable exceptions) - so hiring talented and experienced old farts are somewhat tricky, making hard to build an heterogeneous team with different talents that would sustain a self-learning, self-improving culture.Homogeneous teams tends to close themselves in a self-reference, self-indulging culture, usually ending in disasters. Blaming Unity is an explanation, not a solution - but boy, Unity just don't help on it. The atrocities these guys pushed on us are.... laughable sometimes. But yet, you are only the victim on the first time - from the second strike and beyond, you are an accomplice of the problem. (had I mentioned self-indulgence recently?)
  19. Lisias
    So you are abusing the gears. You need MOAR GEARS wisely placed on the hull to correctly spread the load. See, this is used on real life: If you are a TweakScale user, the current 2.5 Beta are scaling (stock) gears correctly, if you want to try it. On the other hand, there's nothing wrong on hating such "engineering challenges" neither - so that patch above applying KSPWheels on the stock parts is also a valid way out for your problem.
  20. Lisias
    I think I'm the only one that likes the new gears? Adjusting the springs and the dumpers are needed too on real life, and I enjoy such engineering challenges. What I think it's missing it's a decent automatic adjuster. The automatic settings are the one to be blamed, not the gears itself - once you set them correctly, they works.
  21. Lisias
    Look again. https://github.com/net-lisias-kspu/New_Horizons/releases/tag/RELEASE%2F2.0.1.1 Also keep in mind that this is on the KSPU hierarchy - are things I'm doing for me for fixing things by me (since all of them being "Unofficial"). It's essentially the forks I use on my own gaming. Use at your own risk. http://ksp.lisias.net/add-ons/Unofficial-Initiative
  22. Lisias
    Try an EAS Strut linking each engine to the main fuselage. I think the engine weight is too much for that wing.
  23. Lisias
    "I have a bad feeling about this." - Luke Skywalker, Hans Solo, Leia et all. Star Wars.
  24. Lisias
    The funny thing is... It's not that hard. We need to learn the rules in which the VARIANT are applied, then apply them manually on a temp config, and them weld the temp config into the target one. The datum "mass" should be added, the datum "scale" appears to replace if the config has one, resources too and so on. The hard part is to learn and apply such rules. What I do with meshes? Replace or insert it together the config ones? We are lucky enough that someone already made the worst part, to document the thing so we don't need to try and err our way on it. But, yet, someone still need a good amount of free time to implement that on the Welding tool.
  25. Lisias
    The problem is that some parts depends on the VARIANT to get his real data. From TweakScale, I learnt that some parts are defined more or less as follows: PART { name = fancyPants mass = -1.2525 <yaddayaddayadda> VARIANT { scale = 1.0 mass = 25.00 <yaddayaddayadda> } VARIANT { scale = 1.5 mass = 30.00 <yaddayaddayadda> } VARIANT { scale = 0.5 mass = 15 <yaddayaddayadda> } } So, in order to get the final mass of the part, you need to apply a VARIANT first.
×
×
  • Create New...