[1.12.x] Connected Living Space v2.0.2.0 (12 Feb 2022)

[DStaal]

31 minutes ago, Papa_Joe said:

Believe it or not, I had someone wishing they could have passability with an engine.   I mean you do have a fairing covering it, right?    I agree though, I had this conversation a while back.  If you look back through the thread, when I discussed adding the customization feature, there was quite the discussion on what to include in the part selection algorithm.

I have at least two engines that are passable, as set in the manufacturer's config.   Of course, both are engines with a ring of nozzles around a central tube - the tube is passable.

 

I don't mind the idea of adding an option to tweak any part's passibility.  On the other hand, I think that might reduce the number of people who ship CLS patches with their mods - at the moment, if I have a part that needs passibility I'll write a patch and typically I'll pass it along as a PR.  If it was just a switch to turn on passibility in each part, I suspect a lot of times 'official' support would be forgotten and the default response to be 'just turn on passibility in that part'.  Path of least resistance and all that.  Honestly, *most* mods have good support for CLS at this point - and I've even talked one author to include a patch that set passible to false so that you could switch that part in the VAB if you wanted to.  (Since it looked passible, but probably wasn't designed for it.)

 

5 hours ago, Bit Fiddler said:

well windows does that natively no need for a new program.  that is how I do it now, however the problem is the .cfg file name is not always named similar to the part in game..  so it becomes a game of digital hide and seek.

If you have to look for the .cfg file after searching - or are searching for the name of the config file - then Windows doesn't do what I'm suggesting.   I'm suggesting to look in the *contents* of the config files for the part name in the game - which should get you the name and path of the cfg file.

(And even if it does do it natively, it might be worth taking a look at a program that gets you better/easier to use results.  I know MacOS's find can in theory do this for instance - but isn't very good at it, so I typically use BBEdit's search instead.)

[Papa_Joe]

7 minutes ago, DStaal said:

I have at least two engines that are passable, as set in the manufacturer's config.   Of course, both are engines with a ring of nozzles around a central tube - the tube is passable.

 

I don't mind the idea of adding an option to tweak any part's passibility.  On the other hand, I think that might reduce the number of people who ship CLS patches with their mods - at the moment, if I have a part that needs passibility I'll write a patch and typically I'll pass it along as a PR.  If it was just a switch to turn on passibility in each part, I suspect a lot of times 'official' support would be forgotten and the default response to be 'just turn on passibility in that part'.  Path of least resistance and all that.  Honestly, *most* mods have good support for CLS at this point - and I've even talked one author to include a patch that set passible to false so that you could switch that part in the VAB if you wanted to.  (Since it looked passible, but probably wasn't designed for it.)

 

I understand your concerns.  I know we discussed this idea as well when I first implemented custom vessel configurations.   I'm constantly trying to balance the needs of those that wish the greatest realism possible against those that wish more "playability" while preserving the sense if immersion that CLS can provide.  

The truth is that specific configs for modder parts are neccessary, to preserve the "intent" of the modder's part. Those are what "set the standard" for realism. However, given that this game is designed to play it the way you want, I'm thinking that a switch to allow those that desire it, the freedom to "do it their way" is not such a bad thing.

I'm only proposing the idea to see what everyone thinks.   It is certainly doable, and adds a layer of freedom to your designs for a specific vessel.

The other thing I thought about would be to add a "weight penalty" to those parts that are made passable, as there certainly would be the need to additional structures to support crew movement through a part...

Edited May 29, 2017 by Papa_Joe

[Bit Fiddler]

I have found that something like half of the part mods I have installed have CLS support, and some of the CLS support I have for them is from other users who made their own MM patch.  so to say most mods have CLS support is a bit of a stretch I think.   Due to the fact I load every part mod I can find that will work in my current version, as I like to build new and interesting things.  I hate it when all my craft look the same.  thus I have many parts that have no CLS support for them in my gamedata directory,  and therefore I am always searching them out to make a MM config.

[Papa_Joe]

2 minutes ago, Bit Fiddler said:

I have found that something like half of the part mods I have installed have CLS support, and some of the CLS support I have for them is from other users who made their own MM patch.  so to say most mods have CLS support is a bit of a stretch I think.   Due to the fact I load every part mod I can find that will work in my current version, as I like to build new and interesting things.  I hate it when all my craft look the same.  thus I have many parts that have no CLS support for them in my gamedata directory,  and therefore I am always searching them out to make a MM config.

Yes.  my thought is to "esse your burden" a bit, as you have the part in your hand when in the editor.  you could then tweak it right there...

Finally another thought.  In the info section for the part, I could include the Part name.  that would make it easier to locate/create the part config...

[Bit Fiddler]

either of those options work.    that will make finding the part easy, then I just have the 30 min. load time to restart the game, but that is better than what I do now.    I am fine with making my own MM patch, it is just the searching for that part name that makes it really painful sometimes.

[DStaal]

2 minutes ago, Bit Fiddler said:

I have found that something like half of the part mods I have installed have CLS support, and some of the CLS support I have for them is from other users who made their own MM patch.  so to say most mods have CLS support is a bit of a stretch I think.   Due to the fact I load every part mod I can find that will work in my current version, as I like to build new and interesting things.  I hate it when all my craft look the same.  thus I have many parts that have no CLS support for them in my gamedata directory,  and therefore I am always searching them out to make a MM config.

My impression of course on 'most'.  Typically a new mod coming out will not have CLS support - but will quickly add it in if you're willing to create the patch for them.  I try to be somewhat selective in what mods I install, so I only have ~160 mods.   

5 minutes ago, Papa_Joe said:

I understand your concerns.  I know we discussed this idea as well when I first implemented custom vessel configurations.   I'm constantly trying to balance the needs of those that wish the greatest realism possible against those that wish more "playability" while preserving the sense if immersion that CLS can provide.  

The truth is that specific configs for modder parts are neccessary, to preserve the "intent" of the modder's part. Those are what "set the standard" for realism. However, given that this game is designed to play it the way you want, I'm thinking that a switch to allow those that desire it, the freedom to "do it their way" is not such a bad thing.

I'm only proposing the idea to see what everyone thinks.   It is certainly doable, and adds a layer of freedom to your designs for a specific vessel.

The other thing I thought about would be to add a "weight penalty" to those parts that are made passable, as there certainly would be the need to additional structures to support crew movement through a part...

Fair enough - I basically thought of the concern as I was typing and wanted to bring it up.

I do really like the idea of a weight penalty.  (Though now I want to be able to specify it in the MM config, if non-default...  My thought is something like NFC's octo-girder probe core would basically need some aluminum foil, but other parts not designed for it might need more.)

[Bit Fiddler]

1 minute ago, DStaal said:

My impression of course on 'most'.  Typically a new mod coming out will not have CLS support - but will quickly add it in if you're willing to create the patch for them.  I try to be somewhat selective in what mods I install, so I only have ~160 mods.   

 

yes my install has something like 400 mods on it.  and most of those are part mods obviously.

[Papa_Joe]

New release. 

release v 1.2.5.1 release date: 29 May 2017
* New: Added support for Recoupler.  Modders can now request to merge spaces on reconnect of parts.  (Thanks to @Booots!)
-------Note to Modders:  This changes the CLSInterface.dll, so if you use this and want the new features please include the latest CLSInterface.dll with your mod.
* Misc:  Cleaned up text rendering to consistently use C# string interpolation.

Enjoy

Edited May 29, 2017 by Papa_Joe

[Bit Fiddler]

seems 1.2.5.1 the version file is out of date.  KSP-AVC thinks it is still 1.2.5.  installed from CKAN

[Wyzard]

1 hour ago, Bit Fiddler said:

seems 1.2.5.1 the version file is out of date.  KSP-AVC thinks it is still 1.2.5.  installed from CKAN

I get the same thing after installing manually, downloaded from SpaceDock.  The .version file still says:

"BUILD": 0

(I've changed it to 1 in my copy of the file as a workaround.)

[cakepie]

On 5/29/2017 at 11:23 PM, Papa_Joe said:

If you do a PR, please place it against the Develop Branch, so I can merge into that branch.  That is my working branch.

I look forward to seeing the PR!

Note:  I just added support for Recoupler (thanks @Booots!), so I'll push that up to the Develop Branch in the next few minutes.  I will be doing another release very soon with Recoupler support added.

Update:  Code on develop branch is now current.

Thanks for fresh code to work with. PR is up!

[Papa_Joe]

10 hours ago, cakepie said:

Thanks for fresh code to work with. PR is up!

PR merged.  going through testing and some other minor additions.

[Papa_Joe]

Update: New release.

release v 1.2.5.2 release date: 31 May 2017
 - New:  Added compatibility with Airlock Plus. (thanks to @cakepie!)
 

 

[Deltathiago98]

@Papa_Joe here it is : https://github.com/codepoetpbowden/ConnectedLivingSpace/compare/master...Deltathiago98:patch-1

[Papa_Joe]

1 minute ago, Deltathiago98 said:

@Papa_Joe here it is : https://github.com/codepoetpbowden/ConnectedLivingSpace/compare/master...Deltathiago98:patch-1

Amazing!  Thank you so much for your efforts and the contribution!  I will get to merging this in.  

[Papa_Joe]

New release:

release v 1.2.5.3 release date: 1 Jun 2017
 - New:  Added Spanish translation. (Thanks to Deltathiago98!)
 

[Bit Fiddler]

Ok, so I am now very confused.   all of these parts, as you can see, are set to "Passaable" on all 3 of the CLS clickies on their menus.  yet CLS still reports them as 3 separate spaces, and indeed if I launch it, crew can't transfer between the parts.   what is going on here?  what have I missed?

 

Edited June 3, 2017 by Bit Fiddler

[DStaal]

49 minutes ago, Bit Fiddler said:

Ok, so I am now very confused.   all of these parts, as you can see, are set to "Passaable" on all 3 of the CLS clickies on their menus.  yet CLS still reports them as 3 separate spaces, and indeed if I launch it, crew can't transfer between the parts.   what is going on here?  what have I missed?

 

Try detaching/reattaching the parts in the VAB once.  I've occasionally seen CLS not update passibility correctly until the parts reattach.

[cakepie]

@Papa_Joe, looks like 1.2.5.3 reverted the changes required for AirlockPlus. Did you build/release from the wrong branch by accident?

[Papa_Joe]

12 minutes ago, cakepie said:

@Papa_Joe, looks like 1.2.5.3 reverted the changes required for AirlockPlus. Did you build/release from the wrong branch by accident?

I don't think so But I'll take a look...

Update:  It sure looks like I missed merging Dev into Master... I don't know how I could have done that... OH!.  yes.  the localization was against Master, So I must have forgotten the dev changes... Opps sorry.

New release to follow.  Man.  some days....

Update released.  1.2.5.3a  Release notes are the same as last version.  For almost everyone, except those that are using Airlock Plus this update will have no impact on you.

Edited June 3, 2017 by Papa_Joe

[cakepie]

I was going to post that I found the problem, but you already dealt with it. Thanks for the quick fix!

15 minutes ago, Papa_Joe said:

For almost everyone, except those that are using Airlock Plus this update will have no impact on you.

I only have 3 downloads on the latest AirlockPlus so far, so the damage is minimal to none. No worries!

[Papa_Joe]

54 minutes ago, DStaal said:

Try detaching/reattaching the parts in the VAB once.  I've occasionally seen CLS not update passibility correctly until the parts reattach.

Good to know.  I will investigate.

[Gordon Dry]

I found this in the log during load:

PartLoader: Compiling Part 'SSTU/Parts/ShipCore/Series-E/SC-E-DAX/SSTU-SC-E-DAX'
 
(Filename: C:/buildslave/unity/build/artifacts/generated/common/runtime/UnityEngineDebugBindings.gen.cpp Line: 42)

Module ModuleDockingHatch threw during OnLoad: System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object
  at ConnectedLivingSpace.ModuleDockingHatch.IsRelatedDockingNode (.ModuleDockingNode dockNode) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
  at ConnectedLivingSpace.ModuleDockingHatch.CheckModuleDockingNode () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
  at ConnectedLivingSpace.ModuleDockingHatch.isInDockedState () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
  at ConnectedLivingSpace.ModuleDockingHatch.OnLoad (.ConfigNode node) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
  at PartModule.Load (.ConfigNode node) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 

Full log:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/zl0qzcrzsxjetgt/2017-06-14-1 KSP.log.zip?dl=1

[strudo76]

Hey there

Just thought I'd let you know that the link to USI MKS in the OP points to an invalid thread.

Correct link is 

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/154587-13-modular-kolonization-system-mks/

 

[DStaal]

Bug report:

In the right-click menu in the VAB (at the very least), for 'CLS Passable' 'No' means it's passable, and 'Yes' means it isn't passable.

Took me a while to figure out what was going on there.   (Note this could also be @Bit Fiddler's problem.)