Jump to content

Lisias

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    7,600

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Lisias

  1. Lisias
    Reduce the Textures quality to half or even to a quarter. You will find the option on the Settings / Graphics in the Main Menu. Just it helped a lot on my old potatoes. Additionally, activate the transparent file compression on the GameData directory. It also helps a bit on loading times. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/fileio/file-compression-and-decompression
  2. Lisias
    We need help in order to help you. Please reproduce the problem then publish the KSP.log into Dropbox or similar. You will find instructions about how to locate the KSP.log in the following thread:
  3. Lisias
    No. There was never such a claim. Please read again - or, alternatively, pinpoint where it was stated. And we still don't have the numbers about users that asked for a refund - so, to tell you the true, all bets are off anyway.
  4. Lisias
    [snip] Which Squad, the one before the exodus after KSP 1.1.3, or the new dev team that assumed development on 1.2.0? Besides sharing the same employer, there's nothing else connecting these two teams. It's like they would be two completely different companies sharing the name and administration. It's safe to declare that KSP (the franchise) had, until this moment, 4 different Companies developing it: Squad before the 1.2 times Squad from 1.2 to 1.12.5 times Star.Theory Intercept Games Agreed. Being the reason I addressed them about my failure on reaching them, implicitly asking for the development of the argument. You don't put a fire down with more gasoline. [snip]
  5. Lisias
    Agreed. But where is the Knight on a White Horse to save the day? (under EULA and Forum Rules, of course) Insisting in how KSP¹ is slow is meaningless without understanding why people still prefer to load their preferred content slowly then anything else faster. (hint: preferred content) Right now, complaining on how KSP¹ is slow to load things is beating a dead horse. We don't know if KSP2 will still be developed, what hope should one have about KSP¹ having its bugs and weaknesses ironed out? Another detail you are missing is that Squad already had the free pass and used it. They walked. There's nothing else to be done or said, it's a done deal. So, unless you think that T2 could hire Squad again to retake KSP development, I'm really failing to reach you on this subject. [snip]
  6. Lisias
    You know, publishing the KSP.log would had saved a lot of time, as all the information I could need is there
  7. Lisias
    Yes, because it's automatically regenerated on every boot when missing. If you don't have any ConfigCache in your GameData, it's because you have a way worst problem that it's preventing MM from regenerating the cache. Publish your KSP.log on dropbox or something and I will check what's wrong.
  8. Lisias
    No. KSP2 is failing on delivery fast content to be used, KSP¹ is failing on loading fast the content it's already delivered. Both are problems, no doubt. However, Steam Charts is telling me that the lesser of the two evils is still KSP¹: https://steamcharts.com/cmp/220200,954850 Right now, 2024-0519T22:22Z, there're 2286 concurrent KSP¹ players on Steam, while KSP2 is bittering at 340. This means that a lot of people is willing to wait to load KSP¹ to play with the content it already have, and comparatively very few are willing to play KSP2 right now besides loading pretty fast the few content it have at this point. Make no mistake - if KSP 1.13 would be launched with lighting fast loading times (without alienating the mods), you can bet your mouse it will be a huge success over 1.12.5. But loading fast content no one wants to play is... slightly less appealing. This just reminded me a nice song I enjoyed in the past (as well the movie, by the way): Going to nowhere fast is still going to nowhere.
  9. Lisias
    Going no where fast. So many remembrances.
  10. Lisias
    How about waiting 12 months 9 Months and 18 Days for having Science?
  11. Lisias
    So you are probably using the last release from Blackheart - and this also means that this file is not involved on the mess. Meno male, one less thing to worry about. Fire up KSP and see if you get the Lotus back. If it's still missing, I will need some files from your rig in order to try to figure out what's happening: KSP.log , that you will find on the same directory in which the KSP_x64.exe is (and not inside GameData or any other place). Unless you are a Steam user and had applied an unfortunately hack to get rid of the PD-Launcher, that screws up things badly ModuleManager.ConfigCache If needed, Zip them and shove the zip file into a file sharing directory like drobox or google drive, and post the link here. Be sure to check that the Lotus is missing from the Part Manager. Please remember to quit KSP before zipping these files, or the log may ended up being trucated.
  12. Lisias
    NOTAM TweakScale 2.4.8.0, with a lot of important regressions fixed, is almost out of the oven. I originally planned to publish it today, but this dawn I had finally diagnosed something on KSP-Recall, and it made me wonder if would not be a better idea to further test the damned thing again and see if I don't find anything new now that I know where to look. I have mixed feeling about this one - on a hand, it's something I could had done slightly better, but on the other hand such a subtle but critical change on how things behave on the game (like having the PartModule enabled during Merge, when it wasn't before) should had been listed on the release notes for sure. I wish I could had detected this way earlier, this appears to explain some pretty interesting misbehaviours in the past that I tackled down by brute force - what worked at that time, but aged pretty badly. In a way or another, a lot of pesky glitches and misbehaviours that are plaguing TweakScale since 2.4.7.2 were identified, fixed, and are currently under heavy testing. Scale safe!!!
  13. Lisias
    The ConfigCache and the PartDatabase are regenerated on demand, and are known to cause trouble when out of sync. The Category.cfg from AirplanePlus will remove your ability to look for a part using the AirplanePlus Category Filter. I noticed that this file is somewhat outdated, because it have parts not present anymore on A+, but also is missing the cfm56. So in a hunch I removed it too to see what happens. In a way or another, this fixed the problem for me, so it's obviously safe to do it. Once the Lotus is back, you can try to put back the Category.cfg and see what happens. Cheers!
  14. Lisias
    Things are simpler than I though! Looks like a Module Manager glitch and/or something in KSP (too). Delete the following files from your KSP, and then restart it: PartDatabase.cfg GameData/ModuleManager.ConfigCache GameData/AirplanePlus/Parts/Category.cfg I managed to get the Lotus back after doing it - I didn't figured out exactly which one(s) of these files did the trick (kinda busy Sunday), but after removing these files and restarting KSP, I got Lotus back. (firing up the wrong KSP test bed in the process also didn't made me any favours!! ) --- -- - POST EDIT - -- -- Be extremely careful to do not delete anything else by accident. You delete the ModuleManager.x.y.z.dll (where x.y.z is the MM version) together (or instead) the ModuleManager.ConfigCache, and you will screw up your savegames for good!!! Seriously!
  15. Lisias
    Well, the Rotorwing is not a file, is a directory and it's full of engines, all of them related to helicopters - so you, indeed, accomplished what you intended. The CFM56 (big Lotus) is on the Modern one, and shouldn't had been effected - it doesn't share any assets with the Rotorwing ones. So I removed the Rotorwing directory too and fired up my test rig to see what I get and... The damned thing is M.I.A! So you appears to be right... So I put the Rotorwing thingy back, and the Lotus is still missing. I think this thing is not being displayed on KSP 1.12.5 at all, and you only realized it after deleting that directory. Now... Why, in Kraken's name, the cfm56 (internal name) is M.I.A. on KSP 1.12.5? I'm trying to figure it out.
  16. Lisias
    Hi, @Trollkowski! I just fixed a weird misbehaviour on KSP-Recall that, perhaps, may be related to the problem you reported. Kraken knows it "fixed" a problem I'm having the whole week on TweakScale, and ended up chasing my own tail because the problem wasn't on TweakScale... Well, give it a try - I just updated all the Distribution Channels.
  17. Lisias
    ANNOUNCE KSP Recall 0.5.0.1 0.5.0.2 Fixes an unexpected misbehaviour on KSP >= 1.9.x that, frankly, I don't know how I had missed for so much time. Closes issues: #80 Merge Craft is getting its surface attachments screwed on 1.9.x and newer Somehow, while trying to merging crafts from KSP 1.9.0 to the latest became screwed due an exception happening due an internal data structure being fed twice when loading the craft for merge. Apparently the PartModules are being enabled before the subassembly is attached to the host, while in KSP <= 1.8.1, the behaviour was to have it disabled until attachment - or, at least, it's what I had inferred from the logs while debugging. In a way or another, the problem is fixed. I still don't understand how in hell 0.4.0.3 did this breakage on KSP 1.12.x (and only on 1.12.x, the damned thing worked on the previous ones!). (release 0.5.0.1 was withdrawn due a minor mistake on the versioning - sleepy developers should do more sleeping and less releases! ) — — — — — This Release will be published using the following Schedule: GitHub, reaching manual installers and users of KSP-AVC first. Right Now. CurseForge. Right Now. SpaceDock. Right Now.
  18. Lisias
    Dude, you need some sleep. And perhaps a good chat with a good friend. If I have 1000 apples, and someone says me that between 3.85% and 16.48% of them are rotten, I have a loss somewhere between 38.5 and 164.8 rotten apples. If some other dude by some reason guessed that perhaps about 1% of the apples were rotten, then that guess would be about 10 rotten apples. Now please tell me: 10 is a number more near 35.8 or more near 164.8? Anyway, I think that enough is enough. At this point, absolutely nothing that I can say will change anything, so the best option is just to... Ignore. I see no reason to keep feeding the trolls - and some people here are trolling.
  19. Lisias
    I'm not trying to make anything work. I just mentioned that 1% is not that far off from 3.8%, the bottom line of the estimation. I didn't said the dude was right on that 1%, I just said it was not that far off the 3.8% bottom line, I didn't claimed it was a new bottom line. I just said what I said, it was not that far off, without any judgement of value. I fail to understand why so much grudge and vitriol about something that may be, at worst, a misunderstanding about what I was meaning to say. Again, I just said that with a so gross margin for errors (from 3.85% to 16.48%), that 1% was not that off. English is not my native tongue, but as far as I understand saying that something is not THAT off is still meaning that this something IS off. As far as I seeing, you being (apparently at least) a native English speaker may be being ignorant or dishonest about the representation of what I'm saying. -- -- -- POST EDIT -- -- Apparently, this drama started with this post:
  20. Lisias
    Yes!
  21. Lisias
    Exactly what did you deleted? (I.e., what files)
  22. Lisias
    Meno male. Check Kerbal Konstructs first. It was the one directly involved on the crash.
  23. Lisias
    Granted, I my had made a mistake. This is my reasoning. On my post, I took the "less favorable" KSP2 stats as well the "most favorable" ones, observed the gap and established that we have a huge margin for errors, from KSP2 selling ~3.58% of the KSP¹ copies to ~16.48%. I compared the values from the same sources. I used Play Tracker's KSP2 values against KSP¹, then I used Steam Spy's to do the same. I'm not averaging values from different sources because I don't know their sources neither the methodology they used to reach these values. I just assumed all them are equally competent to report these values, but without knowing their sources, I could irresponsibly use the same mass of data more than one time, contaminating the sample space. So I ruled out averaging the different sources reports on the spot (seriously, this should be a no brainer). Where is the error on declaring that we have a margin for errors from 3.85% to 16.48% ?
  24. Lisias
    You are claiming a 95% of confidence on an average number between (278.9k - 836.9k) ?
  25. Lisias
    Your arguing sounds like that, no doubt. Average? You are using average to support your claim? You still have a margin of error between 3.85% and 21.2%!! If you cared to check at least ONE of then, you would find a very, very interesting data: Stats Copies sold: 557.9k (278.9k - 836.9k) Gross revenue: $25.6m ($12.8m - $38.4m) Source: https://gamalytic.com/game/954850?utm_source=SteamDB Do you see that two values between parenthesis on copies sold and gross revenuw? What do you think they mean? You are averaging numbers already averaged, damn it!
×
×
  • Create New...