seanth

Too awesome I guess New release that should "fix" the bugs reported by @Ecdragonz https://github.com/kjoenth/To-Boldly-Go/releases

I think you use generation mode "auto" you will get the similar results. I just ran it using your seed on auto and got: Same numbers of stars, but the planet numbers differ. This is probably due to changes in planet generation code between 0.3 and 0.3.0.5. I might be able to advise you on how to change your original galaxy to include the brightness fixes.

Weird. The only code change had to do with star brightness. What was the previous version of TBG you had used? I'm not sure why the change I made would introduce planet jitter.

Bonus video

To Boldly Go 0.3.0.5c: Fixes the overly bright stars and makes the stars less visible in the sky https://github.com/kjoenth/To-Boldly-Go/releases Known bug: White Dwarfs and the supermassive black hole look different than other stars in the map view This was a quick fix because I know that things were completely unplayable. I would appreciate feedback on what people think of the dimmer stars

I don't think it should, though it depends on whether you made your galaxy with a 0.2.x or 0.3.x version. This is an update to 0.3.x. No actual generation code has been changed: only templates. So it you make a galaxy with the same seed, you should get the same stars, planets, moons, etc.

Seems less like a rave and more like a put scopolamine in my eyes. I have a fixed version and am uploading things now. I'll put links here in a few minutes. There is a bug related to white dwarf stars and the supermassive black hole, but it's minor and I'll squash it this week

There's a lot of "behind the scenes" things that changed having to do with planets. The goal of 0.3.x of TBG is going to focus on planets: their orbits, moons, procedural planets, etc. This update shouldn't actually change much that the user will see, but lays the groundwork for more interesting things to come.

I have finally managed to build a windows version of the latest experimental TBG version. For those who are Bold, Go To https://github.com/kjoenth/To-Boldly-Go/tree/Janet I have removed the mac version for now until I can figure out what is going on, and I'll make an actual release version of the 0.3.x (Janet) build soon

I will try and look tonight. I was hesitant about messing with the brightness curves because they weren't well documented, but that seems to have been rectified.

I am back from a summer of mostly being AFK, and the plan is to start getting updates rolling again. @Trekkie148: This problem has shown up before. Would you be willing to DM me info about you mac? What version of the OS you are running, etc. It'd be nice to understand why the mac os apps work for me, but not necessarily other people.

You can try https://github.com/kjoenth/To-Boldly-Go/blob/Janet/GalaxyGen.app but it is experimental

I'm currently in transit from one geographic location to another and don't have access to anything that would let me help troubleshoot. I should have access to a real computer by Monday or Tuesday, and can looksie then

Known problem:

There is, but it's experimental. You can give it a shot though: https://github.com/kjoenth/To-Boldly-Go/tree/Janet That Mac OS version is actually slightly ahead feature wise. I'm still working on how to make window's .exe versions from my development mac.

Thank you so much for posting this. It probably makes sense to cut/paste that post into the Kopernicus wiki (https://github.com/Kopernicus/Kopernicus/wiki/Syntax-for-stars) What about for newly added stars? Should sunAU be the average distance between Kerbin and the newly placed star?

When you make a disc type galaxy, the stars are arranged around a point that is the center of the Kerbals' home galaxy. Kerbol is on the edge of the galaxy, so you'll see a cluster in a certain region...sort of like how our galaxy on edge shows up. Put another way: the stars don't cluster around Kerbol; Kerbol is one of many that orbits a distant point. I, too, have looked at the brightness curves, but have yet to find documentation on exactly what values do. Maybe someone more familiar with Kopernicus could volunteer and offer some advice/help?

Have you also installed Kopernicus? To Boldly Go requires Kopernicus to work.

I'm with @daniel l. here: if Kopernicus works with 1.3, TBG should work unless Kopernicus radically changed something

Oh yeah. Stars, planets, moons, and astroids

Dearest Koogie, I'm been pretty quiet lately, mainly becuase I've been working on other things. I certainly have _not_ been playing Factorio. Anyway, the end of the semester is here and I thought I'd send you something talking about the roadmap for getting to TBG 0.4 First, I wanted to point out that the latest branch on github is "Janet" (https://github.com/kjoenth/To-Boldly-Go/tree/Janet). All the planet related work will show up there and get merged into the main version as we go along. I encourage people that are interested to go ahead and jump in to help. Here's the current plan for getting to 0.4: 0.3.0.1: DONE! Planet and "astroid" generation streamlining. We move all the planet generation code to a sub in a separate file like @bunjatec did for astroids, but we don't touch any of the "how". Just streamline things to remove the repetitive code. Again, thanks to @bunjatec. 0.3.1: MOSTLY DONE! Planetary discs. Each star has a plane, and the planets orbiting it will be in that plane (with some variation). There can be a few planets with oddball orbits (rogue planets that were captured, but they will be rare. This will cut down on the crazytime looking systems. 0.3.2: MOSTLY DONE! Unique/custom planets. This will be the first release with unique planets being placed. Code for it can be worked on before this, but this will be the first official announcement. We should probably have some video tutorials showing how to do it. Planets still being placed using current semimajor axis calc system. If this is done correctly, it should be possible for people to download planet/star packs, edit a few text config files in TBG, and it will generate a procedural universe that has those planets/stars. The code for doing this is more-or-less already in place, but needs closer testing And now the hard stuff: 0.3.3: Better placement of planets. Start trying to have smarter placement of planets based on their qualities. Make sure planets are in locations that makes sense (habitable worlds in habitable zones, etc). This will be complicated, mainly because QBasic is not a language I am fluent in and I keep thinking in python and need to mentally translate it. 0.3.4: Better placement of moons. Take the work done on planet placement and apply it to moons. Make sure there is some smarter calculation of relative mass of moon:parent so the moon isn't so be that you have a binary planet system. 0.3.5: True procedural planets? @daniel l.has some existing code for this, and I think it would be great to get it into the main code. It sounds like some people are using other mods to travel to these stars. It might be time to include some things that will improve gameplay with telescope mods. The biggest problem I am encountering is that I do all my work on Mac OS. The QB64 software lets me make a binary application that works on (at least) Mac OS 10.12, but I cant easily make a version for Windows. I need to get this worked out. Yours, -seanth

That makes sense to me. My understanding is that boats with aircraft jets on them tend to run bow down. This is something I've seen a lot in my hydroplane designs. https://books.google.com/books?id=8NsDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA70&lpg=PA70&dq=aircraft+jet+boat+nose&source=bl&ots=wNAszTls7P&sig=vTnP825-t13QcyPEk186rTrx9nY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjO48PNi5rUAhWE2YMKHbV4CsYQ6AEIPzAH#v=onepage&q=aircraft jet boat nose&f=false It seems like your design compensated for this tendency with the mass toward the back.

Finally updated the waypoint, mechjeb, and google earth files to include @gilflo points. Congrats again! Amazing run. I need to find some time and try to update a craft to incorporate the "wing-deck" idea. @life_on_venus: did you ever end up trying this out?

Absolutely.

Really excellent job by @gilflo! Here's the score breakdown: Engine type: J-33 "Wheesley" Turbofan Engine, so it's a "level 2" entry Distance: 2998000 meters Time : 1 day 3 hrs 50 min 29sec = 35429 seconds Total crew: 10 Flags placed: 10 (Distance/Time)*(flag placed/crew) = (2998000m/35429sec)*(10flags/10crew)= 84.62 Which is the current highest score regardless of entry level. Well done! On a related note, I like the idea of using specific range. Let me play with some numbers and see if there's enough info from previous scores to recalculate them. Edit: I'll incorporate your waypoints and kml points into the file available on github soon. Any chance of getting the craft file for inclusion on github for other people to improve on?