Jump to content

R-T-B

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,019

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by R-T-B

  1. R-T-B
    Good. The monkey squad did the right thing, I appreciate. Squad tends to need one good bugfix as of late, IMO. Unlike us... uh, we try, ok?
  2. R-T-B
    That is indeed very good performance, and very cool news. I wonder if the latest update helped: It walks the star list less times during light calculations so maybe? (in old releases it was mistakenly walking it too many times) What really needs testing right now, is situations in which solar panels are getting light from two stars. Make sure the EC values "make sense" if you could, at various orbital distances. I know, it's hard to tell what two stars should naturally do given both humans and kerbals live in a sort of uni-star system and we're used to that, but ideally, we should see results within the realm of reason. Also, auto tracking should pick a sensible star... ideally the one that makes the most ECs.
  3. R-T-B
    We have release 5 gentlemen/women! The new feature for this, eagerly being tested for a push to the stable branch, is a fix for the insanely high EC output in multistar enviornments. It should be more reasonable now. See the changelog for details, and report bugs if you would, please: Kopernicus R-T-B Unified "Bleeding Edge" Edition Release 5 R-T-B released this 2 minutes ago This is R-T-B's "Bleeding Edge" branch of Kopernicus, intended to support the latest features, KSP editions, and also the latest bugs. Please keep in mind this branch may be more buggy than Prestja's mainline Kopernicus branch, but it also supports more KSP versions and has more features implemented for testing reasons. Many features that make it into mainline Kopernicus are born, tested, and trialed by fire here. This is release 5. It contains the following changes: 1.) Fix for a lack of clamping on ECs of solar panels. This was especially notable in multistar environments, where EC output could become absurd or even wrap to a negative (ouch). Please download the right output zip for your version. "191" zips are for 1.9.1, while "110" zips are for 1.10. This was a pretty heavy change, might want to check the EC math... it'll be high if anything, so it won't wreck savegames, but I'd appreciate reports. Thanks and as always, report bugs! -RTB
  4. R-T-B
    That's fair. I was just letting you know our policy (I'm not about to spam you with issues outside your control) and I too would strongly discourage people from coming here and for lack of a better term, threadcrapping you with unrelated issues. You should know that 1.10 Kopernicus is intended to function in it's end product (which it is not yet) just like 1.9.1, and furthermore, 1.9.1 is SUPPOSED to function just like 1.8.1. We are trying to keep compatibility, not break it meaning no changes should be needed. Right now though, there are issues, and they ARE NOT for this thread. Report them to the Kopernicus threads on the respective posts. That's really my main point. Keep doing what you do, we'll take care of our stuff.
  5. R-T-B
    Ah, that bug. You have the bugged copy of release 6 from the stable branch. Please redownload it as there were some "silent fixes", I think that's your only issue. The bugged copy was only up for about an hour but I think you snagged it. My fault more than yours, really. 1.10 looks fine, I think?
  6. R-T-B
    Actually, there is. You can report bugs like that on our stable Kopernicus bug tracker if it's happening in the 1.9.1 build, because it really shouldn't be there (the only change we have really made is to gas giants, which slate is not, so it should be rendering them the same). We'd love a detailed report on something like that so we can fix it properly, rather than forcing terrain/planet artists to work around issues they shouldn't have to. It looks like Poodmund may already have done that, which is nice, but that's really not the best way to fix the bug globally so we could still use a report if anyone is able. I actually encourage this (it's how we find Kopernicus bugs), but there's a caveat: Report bugs to me if using an unsupported version, not poor Poodmund. It's my fault almost certainly, not his, and there is really little he can do (or, as we just saw, it can just make it harder for us to replicate by patching it for just his mod with workarounds). You can do so here for my 1.10 builds: https://github.com/R-T-B/Kopernicus/issues And yes, I know this Kopernicus update is messy and has so... many... releases... vs the previous. Keep in mind we are all learning a very complex machine here, and patience will yield a good product at the end of the day.
  7. R-T-B
    Yeah, the logs I got there aren't the ones I'd really need. See above.
  8. R-T-B
    Not that I know of. But there are a lot of bugs, so almost certainly has to be one. Don't say things like that... It's not like we are dealing with a real monkey squad. *laughs nervously*
  9. R-T-B
    Thanks. I will assume other mods or maybe even hardware issues are at play until told otherwise in a reproducible fashion. This is not to say this pack runs perfectly, I've no idea, but at least that bug doesn't seem valid.
  10. R-T-B
    The reporter is known to run on a potato PC so that would be appreciated (no offense to him). EDIT: Wait, I have him confused with someone else, still, do test to rule out potential potato PC interference.
  11. R-T-B
    Yeah, we version check now. It was always supposed to be on. True ready and proper 1.10 is available though, in my bleeding edge branch. It's not as scary as it sounds, it's basically the same features as here with just an occasional experimental patch for a bug here and there: We are waiting to officially support 1.10 until patch 1 or whatever comes out.
  12. R-T-B
    We have some who have been filing reports against it though. We have an issue right now, as a matter of fact, we are trying to interpret and deal with. The issue report is here, and includes an image of the body and summary of the issue: https://github.com/prestja/Kopernicus/issues/26 Could anyone here just tell me the following so i can try to get a handle on this? What body is this? (that's the big one) Is flickering/glitching on this body a "known issue?" (I noted some bodies do have known "physics issues in local space" in OP, which could mean bug is on your end.). BTW, the goal by CKAN release is for Kopernicus 1.9.1 to be "Drop in ready" to use with 1.8 planet packs, so there is no reason it should behave any different here than the old 1.8.1 Kopernicus, behaviorally. We'll let you know when we get there.
  13. R-T-B
    What grade of issue? If the game loads it may be some change they have to make, but if it's a full "crash and burn" I should probably fix it...
  14. R-T-B
    Thanks, I will revert that bit of the change.
  15. R-T-B
    I appreciate you taking this on! I was trying to do it but couldn't work it out, mainly due to lack of time from mainline Kopernicus.
  16. R-T-B
    Pretty much. This is why it's important to "clean your room" as a coder. Basically, not updating a comment led to all of this. I must admit it really could've been avoided, and it was my fault. The bottom line is though, the one that's up now, works, and this won't happen again, because I have a good list of testers now to run it by first... (thanks guinea pigs!) Serious thanks to @OhioBob too, guy almost sacrificed lunch-break to get this fixed. The horror!
  17. R-T-B
    That's... really weird. Especially considering this release is using the same code as my bleeding edge in the section the error occurs, and you told me it loads fine on bleeding edge. I will fix this, but I need more time. I'd advise you to stay a release back for now, as you are dealing with some new bug seperate from my build bugs (not that cleaning my environment was bad, needed to happen anyways). I will make a bug for you and get to work on it. If you could PM me SIrona's config, that would probably help. EDIT: Wow that's a pretty plain gas giant as far as config... um, I'm going to pull this build. Sorry guys, but my build environment or something, is all out of whack and we need to determine what before making another release. EDIT AGAIN: WE FIXED IT! Please redownload if you downloaded this morning before 10:30ish PST. No more redownloading though, I promise. This one works. Appologies, I'll keep my build environment less messy in the future. Special Shoutout to @OhioBob for debugging through starvation at lunchtime... https://github.com/prestja/Kopernicus/releases
  18. R-T-B
    I actually found a few residual files (from 1.10 builds no less) in my local tree that were causing havoc. If your file for release 6 you downloaded was downloaded earlier than this post (approx 9:20am PST), please redownload the release 6. It had a few things broken, as noted above. EDIT: Release pulled due to build environment issues. Expect it tomorrow or the next day. Now the work for me is to find out how that happened, friggin ghosts in the machine I swear...
  19. R-T-B
    Good. Try redownloading now (same releaase link), I think I fixed the bug in our build system but need a test. Is there a link to your planet pack i can get btw, for testing to avoid things like this.
  20. R-T-B
    I heard reports of this last release but assumed I had just botched the bundling process due to lack of sleep or something... Does it load ok with my bleeding edge? That'd be a good place to start comparing and see what's different (other than particles, which I know aren't causing it) if so. EDIT: Nevermind, I am 99% certain I know what's going on here. I will reupload in a moment. If you are having issues, just wait a few minutes and redownload. It's my build environment, not the source. Easy fix.
  21. R-T-B
    I appreciate the testing you were surely doing @StoneWolfPC, but I got results elsewhere if you got distracted by gameplay (not mad, it happens). All the fixes that were implemented to test are now in the mainline branch. I'll be playing with some new feature ideas here, soonish. Joolian gas giant shader controls, anyone?
  22. R-T-B
    That was my understanding then, and it seems correct. Thanks for backing me up with a "just because it looks right, doesn't mean it is right" confirmation. To prevent further burden to planet pack authors, I won't be implementing a work around for this. At least not now. For right now though, there is a new release. It's actually that old bugfix that was pulled for solar flux calculations (important to multistar systems and proper solar tracking/power output) but this time, it actually works and has been well bugtested over several days. Please feel free to download at the OP's link, or here: EDIT: Release pulled due to build environment issues. Expect it tomorrow or the next day. My uncle who wrote manuals for a living (and so speaks a ton of languages, but is rather more a jack of all trades, master of none), said it was ok, so sadly, it's already been merged. Was anything glaringly wrong or was it just minor stuff? I may make corrections in next release.
  23. R-T-B
    I tried to update it, but it's... hard. The shaders are proving tricky (I hate having to update shaders). Maybe soon, but we aren't sure. It's not ready yet anyways. I will certainly let everyone here know if we ever "crack the code" to updating this.
  24. R-T-B
    Ok, I will test it out later today, thanks.
  25. R-T-B
    Honestly, only post a log if you see a bug like nonvarying temps (or something else unexpected). Any form is fine just post them as soon as bug is noticed so it is at logs end. Hopefully there’ll be nothing to post.
×
×
  • Create New...