Jump to content

allista

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,208

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by allista

  1. allista
    ConfigurableContainers is not a mod per se, but a library for modders. It is a part of my AT_Utils library and I use it in the Hangar. It may appear when you install AT_Utils from CKAN (as a dependency for TCA, for example) or if you install the Hangar itself. The only link that exists so far is its GitHub repo: https://github.com/allista/ConfigurableContainers
  2. allista
    Hangar-2.9.9.3-BETA for KSP-1.1.3 Changelog: Updated AntennaRange and RemoteTech patches. If anyone plays with these modes, please, test them. All the hangars should have builtin antennas with appropriate ranges. Fixed heatshields in both stock and DeadlyReentry configurations. If anyone plays with DR, please, test the shields. Updated TankTypes configurations of ConfigurableContainers. Removed: FAR MM config, GroundAnchor MM config, Resources.cfg. They're not needed anymore. Opening/Closing of the hangar gates automatically Activates/Deactivates the hangar. Added CoMCurves to smoothly change part's CoMOffset on geometry animation (currently used in inflatables). Added Recompressible option to the Inflatable module that allows to use the same body of the compressed gas repeatedly. Added InflatableSpaceHangar part. Sorry, it's too boring to just fix things; I needed to make something new for a change. Hope you'll like it. Fixed automatic flipping of hangar-space normals. By the way, since I removed container parts from the Hangar (and only use ConfigurableContainers to store resources in a mined asteroid), does anyone by any chance want to make a part pack or a patches for existing containers in other mods for CC? I know there're a popular FSFuelSwitch with the similar functionality, but CC provide a more systematic approach for resource management and the TankManager module with GUI for in-editor compartmentalization of a container part.
  3. allista
    Well, configuration of the ConfigurableContainers is the old one, pre-KSP-1; this error means you would not have the Components tank type ingame. And you probably right about why this is not working. In any case, This whole file needs revising as the resource definitions and their usage by the mods have likely changed. Right now I would offer you this likely-fixed version for testing: https://www.dropbox.com/s/g630vcezvjcs2pn/TankTypes.cfg?dl=0 Please, tell me if it does or doesn't produce any errors. And I in the meantime will start a full-scale revision of tank types...
  4. allista
    This property tells you one simple thing: if this PartModule resides in the first part that contains a RoverScience module within the current vessel. This is a standard way to elect a single working instance, making others idle. So in general there are always multiple instances, but they decide among themselves who's gonna do the work. What seems strange to me is that you're mixing this with the singleton pattern. Usually you use a static T Instance field to make a singleton class which will indeed have only a single existing instance. This is appropriate e.g. for a GUI window, a scenario module, etc. But the whole point of a PartModule is that it is tied to a particular part instance and should operate independently from another one on another part, on another vessel. Consider this: 1) you have a single loaded vessel with several RoverScience modules. They, by means of IsPrimary property, elect one of them to do the work; and after that you set this module instance as the static Instance. Then you could use this Instance to access the active RoverScience (as you do now). 2) you have two (or more) such vessels in close proximity. But there's only one static Instance in the whole ApplicationDomain. So either you need to set the Instance each time a vessel is switched or modified, or you need to query the active vessel for its active RoverScience module in singleton classes that are currently use the Instance field. I would prefer the later, as it moves the responsibility of tracking the active instance to classes that require such active instance; while a vessel should not care if there are other vessels running RS. In any case, what you need is to use the GameEvents.onVesselChange and probably GameEvents.onVesselWasModified events to handle vessel switches and changes of vessel's part content (staging, part destruction, etc.). This will also allow you to cache the IsPrimary state (and many other things), as it can only change when a vessel is modified so there's no need to compute its value each frame.
  5. allista
    Well, I've briefly looked at RS code and your logs and what I see is that RS PartModule somehow fails to initialize properly when a rover is launched from a hangar: [FLIGHT GLOBALS]: Switching To Vessel Untitled Space Craft ---------------------- RoverScienceGUI started [FLIGHT GLOBALS]: Switching To Vessel Mun Rover I ---------------------- RoverScience 2 initiated! RoverScience version: 2.0 RS Instance set - roverBrain (RoverScience.RoverScience) [FLIGHT GLOBALS]: Switching To Vessel Untitled Space Craft ---------------------- RoverScience OnDestroy() RoverScienceGUI started ONSTART - Not primary [FLIGHT GLOBALS]: Switching To Vessel Mun Rover I ---------------------- NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object at RoverScience.RoverScience.OnUpdate () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at Part.ModulesOnUpdate () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at Part.Update () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 I don't know why there's two vessel switches to "Mun Rover I" (did you switched back and forth after the launch?), but the second switch breaks things as, obviously, the OnStart code under if(IsPrimary) is not run the second time, resulting in null reference to rover instance, I guess.
  6. allista
    In my experience MultiEdit don't work with complex trees of animated objects. But I found another blender plugin that worked in this case perfectly, so I add it to the list: Multi-Object-UV-Editing
  7. allista
    Ouch! And thanks I've reuploaded the archive with the missing file. You may download it again using the same link and reinstall.
  8. allista
    Glad to hear! Just do remember that at the moment the Hangar is under heavy re-development and is not stable. Use with caution and backup your saves.
  9. allista
    Hangar-2.9.9.2-BETA for KSP-1.1.3 Changelog: Fixed many problems with vessel launching. Fixed many issues with the Fairings. Fixed usage of convex hulls in clearance checks when a vessel is stored. Fixed inflatable hangars. Changed Fairings model. I hope you'll like it more than the old one. The position of the CoM and attach node have changed, so existing ships that use it may have some problems, like empty space between parts. Sorry! Asteroid Drill works again. It now uses stock modules and their derivatives. Converted all modules that modify part mass to the stock IPartMassModifier framework. Matched the maximum temperature of the parts with the current Squad's range. Removed the Heavy Radial Engine part from this mod as it is irrelevant to hangars. If you use it, you may obtain the one from the previous version (you will need the HeavyRadialEngine.cfg, corresponding .mu and the radial-sabre*.png files under Hangar/Parts/ and Hangar/Parts/Models respectively).
  10. allista
    Poll: User Interface and Functionality of TCA After all the discussion I feel the need to get a more detailed and objective picture of usage patterns and current problems of this mod. I will not guarantee that I will directly implement its results, for I still have my own opinions on the matter; but I also believe there's no smoke without a fire. So I ask you all to participate. *the poll will be open at least a month, and you are allowed to edit your responses.
  11. allista
    Thank you for your support, I really appreciate it. I tend to reflect emotionally when faced with an accusatory attitude (or at least something that feels like one). This is not a good thing, I know. Moral support helps to feel confident and cool down. And yes, I do have an account at Patreon and would be grateful for any support there as well
  12. allista
    This particular computer game is indeed a simulation. But since it's a good simulation, the engine balancing and autopilot algorithms are not -- they're the real thing. I can more or less easily transfer them to, say, a real life multicopter and it will fly. That's what I mean saying that this mod is not a simulation of an autopilot. After all, autopilot is a program Yea, right, sorry. I myself got too emotional with this. Fortunately, @Morse managed to talk some sense into me
  13. allista
    Have you ever saw a helicopter control panel? If you're trying to fly a rocket, or a VTOL, or a plane, you're not a "user", you're a pilot. You have to learn what prograde is, you have to read the manual to learn about engine configs and autopilots. And if you don't like the complex play tetris, for crying out loud! I don't care what a user has in its head if it's not the brains which can think and learn. I make the mod for myself and other people who are nerdy enough to play a game that demands some knowledge of physics and engineering, not for someone who wants a "make me happy" button (no, unfortunately, I don't know the joke). I don't sell it. Your interface is good. For a mod that performs a single task for a single situation. Go back to the first 5-10 pages of the thread and see how many would complain because this would not accommodate their designs and needs. I do not say that the current interface is good; it's just the best I can produce having limited amount of time and being focused on functionality. And in my experience it's good enough to do everything that TCA does more or less easily.
  14. allista
    Are you bloody kidding me?! D'You really think this is some kind of simulation? Do you realize how complex and intricate the physics model in KSP is? How hard it is to squeeze an efficient algorithm in a Unity's fixed update, let alone to find one in some paper on the arXiv and adapt it? You imply I deliberately make the controls so complex that, oh boy, several people of some five thousand users come and complain they cannot handle a control panel with two dozens of buttons. Well then, have a look at TCA config files, see how much is under the hood and hidden from a user as to not frighten the poor sod. Better yet, don't look anywhere, just write me a good working interface that will satisfy not these particular five good men/women/children, but every user. Can't write -- draw it in an image editor, whatever. As for the primary aim of TCA, it's as with any other mod: one makes a mod to alleviate one's own problems, having the fun of solving some mathematical and programming challenges in the process. One's glad if the result is helping someone else, but if one starts to perceive a mod as a work, bad things will happen. Because if you start to do things for someone else, you start to want something in return. Dixi.
  15. allista
    The key thing here is: TCA2 was. The best anyone can do about it is to fork it at the turning point and develop separately. I however do not agree with the contradistinction of "pilot assist" and "full autopilot"; all TCA3 functions are built atop the base functionality of TCA2 which is unchanged except for the fact that TCA3 can simultaneously work on several ships, while with TCA2 that was impossible. But that's all the difference that is. Everything else is just addition, not replacement.
  16. allista
    @Fobok, @RedParadize, @DStaal, folks. To be honest, even after all the discussion I fail to see the problem. You play the game whose core purpose is to be challenging and complex. You play it with FAR (probably), RO and RSS, which make it even more difficult. And we all use (the great and mighty) MechJeb, which is much, much more complex and powerful, has (I say this as a user) a learning curve at least as steep as TCA has, and in contrast to TCA, I daresay, has nothing that one may call a manual. Yet no one complains because, first, we accept that KSP is a difficult game, and second, mods like MJ have been around for so long that instead of complaining we just search the internet for howtos. So, if you encounter a bug (like the things @DStaal describes with the orbital modules, which are new and may contain bugs), you just make a bugreport and I try to fix things. If you have some proposals or usability issues, propose, we'll discuss it and if you manage to convince me (which is not so hard, judging by the fact that almost every feature you're now complaining about was someone's request) I try to (re)implement things. And if you can't make things work at first, RTFM. And if that doesn't help, ask for help here. No need to get emotional (well, that was addressed to the guy that started the whole thing and got insulted by a cited joke; way to go). Believe me, I'm trying my best to make the interface as usable (and even intuitive, whatever that means) as possible. That's why it's handmade and not procedural. But TCA is and will be a complex piece of software, so you have to learn. No way around it. Two things I can do to help with the learning curve, though: 1) I will make a series of video tutorials on how to fly VTOL, build a shuttle, etc. When I have time. 2) I can add the switches to toggle TCA modules in a given ship (but I'm inclined to restrict this to construction time only, with varying cost). This will effectively remove corresponding buttons from the GUI, making it simpler. I'm not sure if it'll make much difference, but at least this way you could disable, say, orbital module for a purely atmospheric craft, and so on. @RedParadize, I'm not sure I understand what exactly you mean, saying that many "advanced features" are enabled by default. The only things that are -- VTOL Assist and Flight Stabilizer -- for obvious reasons. And I'm not sure how many users would appreciate these be off by default.
  17. allista
    I don't have resources to maintain another version, so it's up to you. Just remember to use the correct licence (it's CC-BY-SA) and credit me and the original creators of the TCA-1 (@qfeys and @Zenka). Aside from that... that's how the Open Source works: you like it, you fork it, you change it; the code lives. By the way, have you tried TCA in career mode? If you want simplicity and gradual learning, it's just the thing: the core TCA subsystem that you get in the first tech tier only balances engines; everything else is modularized and distributed along the tree. On the other hand, if you play sandbox, you should be prepared for some complex stuff, at least psychologically.
  18. allista
    "User -- a humanoid being that is afraid to use an elevator because of the inability to learn its complex control system." (c)
  19. allista
    The only reason for this I can think of is that TCA "parts" are not real parts, but fakes. Yet technically this shouldn't be a problem, so I really don't know why this happens. Will try to figure that out when the time allows.
  20. allista
    Heck! After I wrote this I'm unable to reproduce this bug anymore. @mechanicH, could you please describe some details on how you "manage" to get this behaviour?
  21. allista
    Thank you for the report! I have reproduced this; it's a bug which I'll fix in the next version.
  22. allista
    No, no simplified GUI, sorry. You don't have to enable or have RCS. You just need to set some off-axis engines to either "Thrust" (then they will provide thrust, but will respond to attitude controls) or "Maneuver" (then they will only fire for attitude changes, like RCS).
  23. allista
    I have just made a clean install of TCA through CKAN and all went perfectly well; TCA was working. So this should be some kind of local fluctuation. As for the SAS, that may be a bug, but I can't reproduce it The SAS is blocked by many TCA autopilots, but as soon as TCA is disabled, it becomes active (if it was on before) and togglable again. Edit: I've just tested it again, several times. Works as it should.
  24. allista
    So it seems CKAN somehow installs it wrong again. Which is strange, for the versions of both mods are reported correctly by CKAN. I'll have to investigate...
  25. allista
    The log says that: 1) You don't have GameData/000_AT_Utils folder, hence you don't have AT_Utils installed. 2) You have the older version of TCA: v3.2.1.1
×
×
  • Create New...