katateochi

Hey guys, I'm updating the KerbalX mod for 1.4.0, it uses UnityWebRequest and in KSP 1.3.1 I could call .isError on an instance of UnityWebRequest, but in 1.4.0 that method doesn't exist, but instead I can use .isNetworkError or .isHttpError. I could just make that change but then the latest version of the mod won't be backwards compatible with 1.3.1 and as it's just this one change I'd prefer to maintain a single version that supports 1.3.1 and 1.4.0. Is there anyway to say something like; bool request_error = false; try{ request_error = request.isNetworkError; }catch{ request_error = request.isError; } That won't compile against either version, but is there some cunning C# way of checking if a method exists before trying to call it and if not falling back to another method?

Current version of the mod (0.1.3) doesn't work with KSP 1.4.0, but I've got a fix and I'm just testing it to make sure all's good. Should have that posted soon......

yeah I noticed this on KSP linux, was wondering if it was linux specific, or general. not had a chance to check that yet. It's like there is a statically placed box, half an icon tall, at the top of the scrolling section, which covers whatever is at the top of the scrolling list.

There's an issue with the dropdown menu for adding #tags (and I've just been super slow at getting to fix it, been moving house and then trying to get other things ready for the DLC release). I will fix it though!! It shouldn't have anything to do with images on the craft page. Uploading 1.4.0 craft should be a go, although it might initially think the craft is a mod craft, but that will sort itself out when it learns about the new parts (it will figure that out mostly on it's own, but as soon as my horrifically slow net downloads 1.4.0, I'll manually push the new stock part info to it). But upload anyway, even if it marks a stock craft as mod to start with that will get resolved without you having to do anything.

So trying to download 1.4.0 from the store and after accepting the new terms (*discontented mumbling) I get this error; Fatal error: Call to a member function updateAcceptNewTerms() on null in /usr/share/nginx/html/kspstore/app/src/Controllers/TermsController.php on line 33 Something bad happened :(string(56) "Call to a member function updateAcceptNewTerms() on null" reloading page takes me back to login, login again accept terms again, after a few passes of doing that I got passed it, then it redirects back to the front page when trying to go to my account. Went through process again and finally was able to get to the downloads page.....so yeah....someone has installed some pasta into the store's routing, that should be a very simple bit of request handling, but it feels like something overly complicated (or just messy) is going on. Anyway, it's downloading now, so no biggie, just with the new "we're a big professional company" EULA we've had to sign, kinda also expect a bit more high grade in the infrastructure.

@swjr-swis answer is right, it's too intensive, both from a computational point of view but also from the point of maintaining all that info. In an ideal world I'd say the best thing is; do config tweaks on your own stuff, but don't ever share it because however you do it you've got to share your tweaks along with the craft (and that could result in you running foul of licensing rules). If you really want to share it, move your tweaks into a module manager patch and release it as a mod (and it's really quite easy once you get into it). tbh, even for your own hacking on things I'd really recommend doing them with module manager because it saves you a headache when you get the next release of KSP as your tweaks are isolated from the main game files.

ok so it's being really inconsistent; after going to the store and logging in and then clicking download it would just return me to the front page. It did that several times and on a few of the passes clicking on my account would also take me to the front page. Then finally (after going through the process like 5 times) it took me to the download page. So yeah, I stand by my original sentiment that the whole site needs to be torn down and rebuilt!

I really hope they chuck the existing site and rebuild it from the ground up. Hopefully without those annoying loading screens and other UI elements which just delay the page loading. So...what happens in the meanwhile if for some strange reason I lost my local copy of KSP (and all my many backups)? At the moment it seems like I can't download a fresh copy from the store. Not really a problem for me as I've got backups and the chance of losing everything is low, but still, just curious.

1# yes, would be nice to have clarification on that. #2 and clarification on that too! #3 obviously this point is of some interest to me , but I can't imagine that would be a problem. With both #2 #3, people in the community are essentially providing a wide coverage of free advertising for the game so putting restrictions on that would seem rather counter productive. I think by saying do not "commercially exploit the Software", that means you can't reverse engineer, or take modules/sections of the software and use that for profit. I wouldn't take that to mean anything about using in game footage in monetized videos/streams. But then, I'm no legal expert so I could be wrong. If this updated TOS is a modification on the original then a `git diff` of the two could be used to highlight the changes, but git is really a code tool, not so great for human friendly text (not that legal text is particularly human friendly!)

I will be adding mission sharing to KerbalX, but until the expansion is released I won't have any information about how missions are structured/stored so I can't start building that aspect yet.

I tried to right click and pan, then was like "doh, I'm an idiot", then thought "hmmm, I wonder what it's current altitude is" and hit m to go into map mode, I think I genuinely expected to see it's blue trajectory line...it's been a long day.

I can see the points of both sides of the argument; KSP's performance compared to "prettier" games is somewhat lacking, but given what KSP is actually doing it's quite impressive. But the question I have is; does KSP need to be doing all that it's doing? I think KSP sometimes forgets that it's a game first and simulation second (something IIRC @HarvesteR once said it should be). A simulation should be as accurate as possible, but a game should try and fake it and take shortcuts wherever possible. I don't know how certain things are actually implemented but I get the feeling that some of the approaches are what I'd called the "naive approach". That's not to say that the devs are being stupid, most first implementations are a naive solution, and often that is what seems the most logical or most representative of the real world aspect it's trying to mimic, but with coding the optimal solution is often quite different and even counter intuitive to the system that you're trying to model. Take part heating as an example. (I've gotta caveat this with I don't actually know how it's done, this is just speculation, I may be wrong). It seems like parts are engaged in transferring heat between their neighbouring parts and this makes perfect sense as this is what would happen in RL, hot thing next to cooler thing will transfer heat to cooler thing. but this means that at every tic each part has to first calculate which it's neighbouring parts are and then calculate what the exchange should be. Just working out for each part what it's neighbouring parts are is a lot of stepping up and down the part-association tree and unless there is a state/part change to the craft (ie from staging, docking, crashing etc) the result of that calculation won't change between frames. So does each part maintain a temporary cache index of which is neighbours are (and clears that cache on any event which changes the craft's state)? I'd hope so as that would be a small optimisation to that process. But perhaps having each part transferring heat to its neighbouring parts isn't the right way to go about it (even though it's the best representation of RL)? I think the way I'd try to approach this would be to have a "heat layer", a sort of bounding box that represents a 3D gradient (or set of vectors) and have each part interact with this heat layer rather than with its neighbouring parts. Each part can then either impart of extract heat from it's position in the heat layer depending on whether that position in the layer is hotter or colder than the part and as parts impart/extract heat that adjusts the position of the vectors. So the heat layer is a representation of sources and sinks of heat and at each tic of the game each part only has to perform a single interaction with the heat layer, rather than as many interactions as it has neighbours (and there is no need to do any walking up/down the part-tree to find adjacent parts). The heat layer could be very simple and only represent a single source/sink (which would be a poor representation, but quick to calculate), or it could have multiple sources/sinks which essentially increases it resolution/accuracy (at the cost of more calcs, but I think that would still be much less CPU intensive than doing part-to-part transfers). Part-to-part transfer of heat is also not something that lends itself to being multi-threaded as each thread would have to interact with parts that may be being interacted with by other threads and having a shared resource that could be updated by multiple threads is bad (aka non-threadsafe). tbh I'm not sure the heat-layer approach could be multi-threaded either as the heat layer becomes the common resource that each thread would have to interact with and update. Another aspect (which kinda annoys me) is landed craft/bases still have all their physics calculated at every step. Sure in RL a parked car still has a bunch of physics acting on it, but in the game context there's no need for that. When a craft/base is on the ground and stopped it should become "locked" and it should stop calculating physics for each part. The only thing it should be doing is checking to see if any internal or external forces are being exerted on it as a whole and if that force goes above a certain threshold then it should switch back to calculating physics on each part. Not only would this increase the performance and enable much larger bases to be built, it would also get rid of that annoying issue of craft sliding around on the surface. That's the kind of "faking it" that I think KSP should be doing more of and those are just two examples. I think there are several other places which could benefit from a change in mindset towards faking it rather than simulating it.

*cold outside, no kinda atmosphere, all alone...more or less..... (great now I'll have that stuck in my head for the next 24 hours)

So, apart from the essential modifications to the Tesla (adding a copy of the guide and a towel) what other modifications were made to it. Obviously some mounting points added, but what I'm getting at is, if you got the car back on the ground (an in an atmo), how much would it take to get it running again? Just fuel it up, or did they do other things that would make that harder ?

oh no way, I didn't realise Scott Manley suggested that! That's so cool, the KSP community had an impact on the payload!

I actually did a little jump of joy when I saw "Don't Panic" on the Tesla dashboard.

That was the bit that I was most worried about, which is prob just because most of my KSP launch fails happen at booster sep. Was interested to hear that the design was to have a few ms delay between the top and bottom release.

That twin landing!! Looked sooooo amazing. so.....what happened with the 2nd stage landing?

I like this approach, it's just like making a film set and "faking it". It also takes care of those annoying little details like needing artificial gravity for internal enterprise scenes, and you can get rid of all your lag problems.

Ages ago I made a large house for the three to live in. I think a lot of the parts I used in that came from the B9 aerospace pack. but perhaps more what you're looking for, (also from ages ago though), SWDennis made this:

The KerbalX thing is still very much in working order and would love to have your Mech designs on it. Upload away! and if you've got any Qs give me a shout.

While paying (and...in fact, throughout most of my life) I keep my brain suspended in a strong Brownian Motion producer, say a nice hot cup of tea. Yeah, tea, lots of tea (after all, I am half British, and the other half is Sri Lankan, so my heritage basically demands that I drink tea).

No that's a glitch. For some reason the versions off a group of craft were incorrectly parsed. I shall sort that later. (Been away for a few days so playing catch-up with things that need sorting, but I will get to this soon).

from what I understand (which might not be that much); The problems are worse for database related applications (with the vulnerability being a particular problem for machines running multiple virtual machines, so cloud computing platforms), and that's where the 30% performance hit might be seen with the fix implementation. I think that for general client end use the hit isn't going to be so bad, so from a running KSP point of view it should be much of an issue. https://security.googleblog.com/2018/01/todays-cpu-vulnerability-what-you-need.html https://googleprojectzero.blogspot.com/2018/01/reading-privileged-memory-with-side.html

I got rather angry with my last HP printer....I might have voided its warranty since then I've gone paperless.