Balto-the-Wolf-Dog Posted September 25, 2017 Author Share Posted September 25, 2017 (edited) Mk2 pod (now titled Jalakag) maiden voyage photo dump incoming Spoiler Climbing out of KSC Waiting to Circularize Descending (Far too shallowly) Approach and landing at KSC Fun fact: This was legitimately Jalakag's maiden voyage. By some miracle my off-the-cuff SSTO proved SSTO capable, and I managed not to screw up flying! I think this may be the first time an SSTO design has worked for me first try. I'm quite happy with Jalakag. She was built entirely in 3ds max with nice, congruent geometry and no cut corners, and wound up being my most successful emulation of stock style so far. Production even went smoothly with only one surprise: a brief fiasco in which I discovered I had profiled her to the physics outline of a MK2 rather than the visual model, which was panic inducing but wound up being easy to fix. Since it's been a long time, I'm going to polish up Jalakag (crew entry/exit, etc), make sure everything is still functioning properly, then release a 1.3 version. I could try to push Ke'Setshan out too, but I learned a lot about 3ds between she and Jalakag, and honestly I should rebuild her from the ground up. Edited September 25, 2017 by Balto-the-Wolf-Dog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpaceMouse Posted September 25, 2017 Share Posted September 25, 2017 (edited) On 3/21/2017 at 5:37 AM, Balto-the-Wolf-Dog said: A much earlier offering from Prakasa Aerosworks (Then Prakasa Aircraft Company), coming to a KSP snap-together and hopefully an FSX near you provided I can figure snap togethers out and/or have any luck with FSX. Yaaaaay! Flight-Sims! I started on a ultralight a while ago I was trying to export to X-plane but, I'm doing something wrong and all the tutorials seem to be grossly out of date. Their forum support seems to be lacking as of late. Maybe it's time to switch sims... Got a VR headset recently and even with a 1080 it seems I'd need a supercomputer to run it. Meh. Edited September 25, 2017 by SpaceMouse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balto-the-Wolf-Dog Posted September 25, 2017 Author Share Posted September 25, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, SpaceMouse said: Yaaaaay! Flight-Sims! I started on a ultralight a while ago I was trying to export to X-plane but, I'm doing something wrong and all the tutorials seem to be grossly out of date. Their forum support seems to be lacking as of late. Maybe it's time to switch sims... Got a VR headset recently and even with a 1080 it seems I'd need a supercomputer to run it. Meh. I cannot recommend Flyinside enough. I bought a vive almost exclusively for flight simming, and it's totally been worth it. Having simmed for years and done about 150 hours of the real thing, VR bridges a lot of the "comfy gap" that you usually have to rely on imagination for, while enhancing realism with respect to visual references. FSX will run better for you, but it's single threaded by default. There's a config edit to give it a hacky sort of multithreading; this is a must for VR. You should also know that, while the community is a lot stronger in FSX, the Sim itself isn't nearly as strong. FSX flight model is stock KSP shallow, such that some stock airplanes don't even respond to aerodynamic stalls and simply have an airspeed at which they stall. You won't notice the flaws under most normal flight circumstances, but if you look for them they're pretty glaring. All that said, FSX is still my main by virtue of add-on quantity, community, ease of use, and multiplayer community. That WIP airplane did wind up in sim after a lot of cursing and frustration. FSX is hell to develop for. She's actually pretty close to being done, with the exception of a startup sequence, a few broken polys on a wing strut I added, and calibrated gauge animations. Sorry for all the edits. Mobile posting is a nightmare. Edited September 25, 2017 by Balto-the-Wolf-Dog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpaceMouse Posted September 25, 2017 Share Posted September 25, 2017 (edited) 28 minutes ago, Balto-the-Wolf-Dog said: I cannot recommend Flyinside enough. I bought a vive almost exclusively for flight simming, and it's totally been worth it. Having simmed for years and done about 150 hours of the real thing, VR bridges a lot of the "comfy gap" that you usually have to rely on imagination for, while enhancing I'm actually using it in XPlane with FlyInside and I can only break 50PFS with everything cranked waaaaaay down. It's kinda a big deal when wizzing over things at 200MPH... I bought a Rift which it seems may have lost the platform war. lol I feel VR was worth it even for racing sims alone. Wish I could get flight sims going smoothly. meh. Edited September 25, 2017 by SpaceMouse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpaceMouse Posted September 25, 2017 Share Posted September 25, 2017 (edited) 6 hours ago, Balto-the-Wolf-Dog said: FSX will run better for you, but it's single threaded by default. There's a config edit to give it a hacky sort of multithreading; this is a must for VR. You should also know that, while the community is a lot stronger in FSX, the Sim itself isn't nearly as strong. FSX flight model is stock KSP shallow, such that some stock airplanes don't even respond to aerodynamic stalls and simply have an airspeed at which they stall. You won't notice the flaws under most normal flight circumstances, but if you look for them they're pretty glaring. All that said, FSX is still my main by virtue of add-on quantity, community, ease of use, and multiplayer community. That WIP airplane did wind up in sim after a lot of cursing and frustration. FSX is hell to develop for. She's actually pretty close to being done, with the exception of a startup sequence, a few broken polys on a wing strut I added, and calibrated gauge animations. Sorry for all the edits. Mobile posting is a nightmare. X-Plane has a massive collection of aircraft and scenery that's been my main reason for continuing to support it, and perhaps that Laminar Research is a independent developer. That said, ALL the major sims rendering systems seem to be significantly out of date. I belive X-planes dates back to at least XP 6 or 7... possibly earlier. It's majorly annoying that things as varied as No Mans Sky, ARK: Survival Evolved, Star Citizen even Space Engineers or the glorified tech demo Outerra, heck, probably even KSP can render a whole world at easily double the framerate. I've been looking into newer ones on Steam with native VR support. Edit* X-Plane mod making is easy by comparison. There's a provided program that lets you make a plane with a mostly visual interface. Exporting is where I'm having my issue. I'm pretty sure my export issue is user error but, user error is hard to fix when you can't find the answer. I wish companies took us simmers more seriously. Edited September 26, 2017 by SpaceMouse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balto-the-Wolf-Dog Posted September 30, 2017 Author Share Posted September 30, 2017 (edited) On 9/25/2017 at 2:44 PM, SpaceMouse said: X-Plane has a massive collection of aircraft and scenery that's been my main reason for continuing to support it, and perhaps that Laminar Research is a independent developer. That said, ALL the major sims rendering systems seem to be significantly out of date. I belive X-planes dates back to at least XP 6 or 7... possibly earlier. It's majorly annoying that things as varied as No Mans Sky, ARK: Survival Evolved, Star Citizen even Space Engineers or the glorified tech demo Outerra, heck, probably even KSP can render a whole world at easily double the framerate. I've been looking into newer ones on Steam with native VR support. Edit* X-Plane mod making is easy by comparison. There's a provided program that lets you make a plane with a mostly visual interface. Exporting is where I'm having my issue. I'm pretty sure my export issue is user error but, user error is hard to fix when you can't find the answer. I wish companies took us simmers more seriously. I know. Outerra is incredible; a Sim that looks and runs like that would be absolutely stunning, and it pains me to no end that none exists. Even Laminar doesn't seem to be talking about it. Meanwhile that engine sits there being perfect, but useless. I get that the topography isn't perfect, but interpolations are a lot more believable than blotchy play-doh terrain, even if the points of said terrain that are accurate are more accurate. Also, I'm probably going to do an X-plane export of that airplane, replacing the wings with planemaker's and .obj'ing the rest on top of a roughed fuselage. Mostly curious as to whether it comes out anywhere near the performance I've estimated for it. I used a program called AirWizEd to write the aero configs for FSX based on dimensions etc, but it isn't perfect, and I think it's a bit optimistic in the stability department. FSX depicts the model as inherently roll stable, and given the anhedral on the main wing, I am very skeptical of that. Edited September 30, 2017 by Balto-the-Wolf-Dog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpaceMouse Posted October 1, 2017 Share Posted October 1, 2017 On 9/29/2017 at 8:10 PM, Balto-the-Wolf-Dog said: I know. Outerra is incredible; a Sim that looks and runs like that would be absolutely stunning, and it pains me to no end that none exists. Even Laminar doesn't seem to be talking about it. Meanwhile that engine sits there being perfect, but useless. I get that the topography isn't perfect, but interpolations are a lot more believable than blotchy play-doh terrain, even if the points of said terrain that are accurate are more accurate. Also, I'm probably going to do an X-plane export of that airplane, replacing the wings with planemaker's and .obj'ing the rest on top of a roughed fuselage. Mostly curious as to whether it comes out anywhere near the performance I've estimated for it. I used a program called AirWizEd to write the aero configs for FSX based on dimensions etc, but it isn't perfect, and I think it's a bit optimistic in the stability department. FSX depicts the model as inherently roll stable, and given the anhedral on the main wing, I am very skeptical of that. I bought it like 5 years ago and no longer have access to the email to reset the password. the paid version has or used to have a option to run Flightgear's sim engine on top, giving you the best of both worlds. I haven't been into it in 5 years or so. I cannot guarantee that's still the case. I have no idea if it supports VR. I'm not sure if it's even being developed anymore. Ooooo. Planemaker's wings are the actual physics, but you can hide them and use far prettier 3D program geometry. As far as I understand it, X-Plane gets pretty damn close as long as the numbers are correct. Let me know if you have any questions... X-Plane was my previous obsession before KSP and Space Engineers. Anhedral is a bit surprising for something that looks 20's ish... Thought pretty much everything was bi-winged or strut-braced. Not a plane I'm too familiar with. I watched a few airforceproud95 videos a few days ago and those FSX physics.... are beyond words. I didn't know a 747 could climb vertically at 500kts.... Or do 500 kts when not at altitude. Here's my very unfinished Aerolite 103. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balto-the-Wolf-Dog Posted October 1, 2017 Author Share Posted October 1, 2017 (edited) If you give a mouse a mk2 cockpit, he'll probably want some thrusters to go with it The lower nozzle is a SCRAM in the Chikna vein; I think the top will be a rapier style bi-modal 3 hours ago, SpaceMouse said: I bought it like 5 years ago and no longer have access to the email to reset the password. the paid version has or used to have a option to run Flightgear's sim engine on top, giving you the best of both worlds. I haven't been into it in 5 years or so. I cannot guarantee that's still the case. I have no idea if it supports VR. I'm not sure if it's even being developed anymore. Ooooo. Planemaker's wings are the actual physics, but you can hide them and use far prettier 3D program geometry. As far as I understand it, X-Plane gets pretty damn close as long as the numbers are correct. Let me know if you have any questions... X-Plane was my previous obsession before KSP and Space Engineers. Anhedral is a bit surprising for something that looks 20's ish... Thought pretty much everything was bi-winged or strut-braced. Not a plane I'm too familiar with. I watched a few airforceproud95 videos a few days ago and those FSX physics.... are beyond words. I didn't know a 747 could climb vertically at 500kts.... Or do 500 kts when not at altitude. Here's my very unfinished Aerolite 103. The airplane is fictitious, though based somewhat loosely on French interwar designs. The short explanation is that I write sci-fi, but modelling out the things in my head is a very effective way to procrastinate on writing, and one which I don't find myself feeling very bad for doing. I borrowed the name Prakasa from my writing project, which happened to require an airplane from an alien "1920s". Canonically, the material science available there is similar to ours for the time, but aerodynamic understanding is somewhat older and more advanced, hence a tandem wing stick-and-fabric airplane with a anhedral main and dehedral secondary. The Aft wing is supposed to switch between symmetric neutral lift and lift-generating on the fly via a set of boots under the fabric that shift the geometry in a wright flyer sort of way to adjust the chord. This allows the pilot to shift the CL around at will and play with induced drag. Unfortunately FSX isn't capable of doing any of this. If at all possible, pulling something like that off would require some crazy XML writing that I have no idea how to approach. I know X-plane is a lot more versatile aerodynamically (tilt-rotor and aerostat support out of the box!) so it might be workable there. We'll see. On the subject of FSX, the really crazy physics you're seeing in the videos are the result of slew-enabled multiplayer. Slew locks the sim and re-positions the aircraft manually, so watching a player using it results in hilarious UFO movement. The actual flight is pretty watertight as far as bugs go, it's just shallow. Nice ultralight; looks like it's shaping up well! You've got some clipping issues on your prop disk though. I'd assume you knew, only I've managed to miss that exact sort of thing again and again, making my life considerably more difficult in the process. I'm sure I'll be taking you up on that offer of advice going into X-plane. Since my last post I've corrected the strut geometry, so all that's really left to be done is the rest of the gauge animation and maybe some texture cleanup. Unfortunately calibrating gauges isn't particularly ergonomic, and guess-and-check is as good as it gets. In a mostly unrelated question, does anyone in this thread know anything about planet creation? Figured I'd ask here before bothering opening threads about it. Edited October 1, 2017 by Balto-the-Wolf-Dog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpaceMouse Posted October 1, 2017 Share Posted October 1, 2017 (edited) 16 hours ago, Balto-the-Wolf-Dog said: The airplane is fictitious, though based somewhat loosely on French interwar designs. The short explanation is that I write sci-fi, but modelling out the things in my head is a very effective way to procrastinate on writing, and one which I don't find myself feeling very bad for doing. I borrowed the name Prakasa from my writing project, which happened to require an airplane from an alien "1920s". Canonically, the material science available there is similar to ours for the time, but aerodynamic understanding is somewhat older and more advanced, hence a tandem wing stick-and-fabric airplane with a anhedral main and dehedral secondary. The Aft wing is supposed to switch between symmetric neutral lift and lift-generating on the fly via a set of boots under the fabric that shift the geometry in a wright flyer sort of way to adjust the chord. This allows the pilot to shift the CL around at will and play with induced drag. Unfortunately FSX isn't capable of doing any of this. If at all possible, pulling something like that off would require some crazy XML writing that I have no idea how to approach. I know X-plane is a lot more versatile aerodynamically (tilt-rotor and aerostat support out of the box!) so it might be workable there. We'll see. On the subject of FSX, the really crazy physics you're seeing in the videos are the result of slew-enabled multiplayer. Slew locks the sim and re-positions the aircraft manually, so watching a player using it results in hilarious UFO movement. The actual flight is pretty watertight as far as bugs go, it's just shallow. Nice ultralight; looks like it's shaping up well! You've got some clipping issues on your prop disk though. I'd assume you knew, only I've managed to miss that exact sort of thing again and again, making my life considerably more difficult in the process. I'm sure I'll be taking you up on that offer of advice going into X-plane. Since my last post I've corrected the strut geometry, so all that's really left to be done is the rest of the gauge animation and maybe some texture cleanup. Unfortunately calibrating gauges isn't particularly ergonomic, and guess-and-check is as good as it gets. In a mostly unrelated question, does anyone in this thread know anything about planet creation? Figured I'd ask here before bothering opening threads about it. The more i dig into 3D, the more i realise my understanding on how to make stuff look good is grossly lacking. I think i need a few art classes. X-plane has options to shift the center of mass, but i havent played with it much. Not sure about changing airfoils, but im sure you could accomplish your rear wing through either adjustable incidence or, you could probably even do two sets retract one and deploy another... if you wanna get fancy. Suspected the FSX issues might have had to do with MP. Lol Thanks. Im aware of the clipping, the prop-disc and the wings are placeholders currently. My refrence 3-view is only 2 and not great... Edited October 1, 2017 by SpaceMouse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balto-the-Wolf-Dog Posted October 6, 2017 Author Share Posted October 6, 2017 (edited) Some more Jalakag images while I finish up the mk2 engine. Does anyone know if the exterior model can be hidden from the interior (or preferably, the FOV culling eliminated?) Pre 1.0, or so, the exterior used to render properly from the interior so exterior-side window bezels wouldn't phase in and out of existence with the camera pan as seen in the first panel image, but since that update objects near the camera origin seem to phase out. annoying me to no end. I did notice that this doesn't seem to happen on stock pods, so I think there may be a workaround, I just don't know what it is Quick update: Some images with the Mk2 thrusters Edited October 6, 2017 by Balto-the-Wolf-Dog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpaceMouse Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 (edited) 4 hours ago, Balto-the-Wolf-Dog said: What kind of engine this is supposed to be? The bottom part tells me SCRAMJET, not sure about the top though. I assume semi-fictional? Also, It's cool you've made your engines a proper size. KSP's barely a few feet long turbines irk me. Edited October 6, 2017 by SpaceMouse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balto-the-Wolf-Dog Posted October 7, 2017 Author Share Posted October 7, 2017 10 hours ago, SpaceMouse said: What kind of engine this is supposed to be? The bottom part tells me SCRAMJET, not sure about the top though. I assume semi-fictional? Also, It's cool you've made your engines a proper size. KSP's barely a few feet long turbines irk me. There are two completely distinct engines here. The one up top is a bi-modal similar to the RAPIER and about 70% more powerful. Not quite as good as two rapiers, but considering TWR, probably close. The lower one is a SCRAM that won't fire at low altitudes or airspeeds, much like chikana. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balto-the-Wolf-Dog Posted October 13, 2017 Author Share Posted October 13, 2017 Version 0.7! Now featuring Mk2 parts and confirmed 1.3.1 compatibility! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balto-the-Wolf-Dog Posted October 13, 2017 Author Share Posted October 13, 2017 (edited) 6 hours ago, Balto-the-Wolf-Dog said: Version 0.7! Now featuring Mk2 parts and confirmed 1.3.1 compatibility! Sorry guys, screwed up a config file for the science module. See Spacedock for a file with the issue hotfixed. 50% uploaded at time of posting. Edited October 13, 2017 by Balto-the-Wolf-Dog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbalfreak Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 (edited) Isn't a 1.3 version? How the 1.3.1 works in 1.3 KSP? Edited October 16, 2017 by kerbalfreak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balto-the-Wolf-Dog Posted October 22, 2017 Author Share Posted October 22, 2017 On 10/15/2017 at 5:01 PM, kerbalfreak said: Isn't a 1.3 version? How the 1.3.1 works in 1.3 KSP? 1.3.1 is just a localization fix AFAIK. No affect to Prakasa Meanwhile: Keeping the momentum up this time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balto-the-Wolf-Dog Posted November 7, 2017 Author Share Posted November 7, 2017 (edited) Kalpana fans rejoice! After making a rather poor showing of an attempted three-view rebuild, I'm now working with the original and redrawing every single polygon! Making surprisingly decent time too. Toward the fore and aft you can still see the horrifying knot of polygons that were responsible for the original Kalpana's "inconsistent" appearances, but they're being replaced row by row and I'm quite happy with how things are coming along. That said, I admittedly have absolutely no idea how I'm going to do the windows, so if anyone has any pointers when it comes to modeling large, curved, geometrically complicated holes, that would be greatly appreciated. My plan is to finish reworking the whole airplane, then rebuild the original 2.5 Kalpana as close as I can to the original. I don't expect the results to be exact, but if you're a Kalpana user, they shouldn't be too jarring either. They should also be much, much nicer to look at and use. The aircraft as a whole I mostly want for FSX development, but she's a strong snap-together candidate too. What I'll probably do is release a companion pack containing snap-togethers for full scale Kalpana and the tandem wing airplane from earlier in the thread, or perhaps simply dedicate an update to them. I don't care for release clutter, so I prefer the latter option between them, but that would add a firespitter dependency to Prakasa for the propellers used only in those models. As such, I'll separate if preferred. For those unfamiliar with Kalpana's origins, the spoiler below contains some nice big images of the three-year-old, horrifically polygoned SketchUp model. I've always loved her lines, and I'm finally confident enough to clean her up and make her presentable. I can't wait to fly her, and that's always good for productivity. Spoiler Side note: You may have noticed that Jalakag has a bit of a belly. That's a side effect of my originally having built to the physics profile instead of the visual one, and I didn't catch it until recently. It's corrected now, but since it's a fairly minor visual anomaly and I've already got some update-worthy work sitting in the wings, I probably won't bother hotfixing for it in the meantime. That is, unless someone wants me to. It would be as simple as writing the part file one more time and uploading. Edited November 7, 2017 by Balto-the-Wolf-Dog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balto-the-Wolf-Dog Posted December 3, 2017 Author Share Posted December 3, 2017 Welcome to Prakasa Aeroworks v0.8: "Southern Cross Plays Softly In the Distance"! Now with: Two more Mk2 pods! My very own fuselage profile! Adapters! Yet another 2.5m pod! 2.5m pods now have a new look, but the same great taste! There are two completely distinct engines here. The one up top is a bi-modal similar to the RAPIER and about 70% more powerful. Not quite as good as two rapiers, but considering TWR, probably close. The lower one is a SCRAM that won't fire at low altitudes or airspeeds, much like chikana. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpaceMouse Posted December 3, 2017 Share Posted December 3, 2017 14 hours ago, Balto-the-Wolf-Dog said: Looks awesome as usual. Getting a Definite Catalina vibe here. Needs 'nonfunctional' turret blisters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKurgan Posted December 3, 2017 Share Posted December 3, 2017 Just wondering why there is a file called ModuleManager.2.6.8.dll in GameData\PrakasaAeroworks\parts\Mk2Thruster? It's causing NREs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balto-the-Wolf-Dog Posted December 4, 2017 Author Share Posted December 4, 2017 40 minutes ago, TheKurgan said: Just wondering why there is a file called ModuleManager.2.6.8.dll in GameData\PrakasaAeroworks\parts\Mk2Thruster? It's causing NREs Oh hell, I probably accidentally dragged my copy of MM in there at some point ages ago while doing something else. Weirdly it doesn't error me, so I never noticed. Just delete it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKurgan Posted December 4, 2017 Share Posted December 4, 2017 Exception detector picks it up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caddilacbob Posted February 26, 2018 Share Posted February 26, 2018 (edited) if your looking for user input i would love some more mk2 cockpits particularly with living space etc. Ideally in the style of the Ankhen or the Dhyana, though i do rather like the jaklag p.s. LOVE your mod your IVAs are amazing Edited February 26, 2018 by caddilacbob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mindseyemodels Posted September 25, 2018 Share Posted September 25, 2018 im sorry to resurrect this thread but I have a problem that needs to be addressed in the form of this unhandled exception that occurs when I try to install this mod via ckan could not find a part of the path C:\USERS\MINDS\appdata\local\temp\CdFileMgr\5f7674d4-4c1f-41.json System.IO.DirectoryNotFoundException: Could not find a part of the path 'C:\Users\minds\AppData\Local\Temp\CdFileMgr\5f7674d4-4c1f-41.json'. at System.IO.__Error.WinIOError(Int32 errorCode, String maybeFullPath) at System.IO.File.InternalCopy(String sourceFileName, String destFileName, Boolean overwrite, Boolean checkHost) at ChinhDo.Transactions.WriteAllTextOperation.Execute() at ChinhDo.Transactions.TxFileManager.EnlistOperation(IRollbackableOperation operation) at CKAN.RegistryManager.Save(Boolean enforce_consistency) at CKAN.ModuleInstaller.InstallList(ICollection`1 modules, RelationshipResolverOptions options, IDownloader downloader) at CKAN.Main.InstallMods(Object sender, DoWorkEventArgs e) at System.ComponentModel.BackgroundWorker.OnDoWork(DoWorkEventArgs e) at System.ComponentModel.BackgroundWorker.WorkerThreadStart(Object argument) ************** Loaded Assemblies ************** mscorlib Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0 Win32 Version: 4.7.3163.0 built by: NET472REL1LAST_C CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/Microsoft.NET/Framework64/v4.0.30319/mscorlib.dll ----------------------------------------ckan Assembly Version: 1.24.0.0 Win32 Version: 1.24.0 CodeBase: file:///C:/Users/minds/Desktop/ckan.exe ---------------------------------------- System.Core Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0 Win32 Version: 4.7.3160.0 built by: NET472REL1LAST_C CodeBase: file:///C:/WINDOWS/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.Core/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b77a5c561934e089/System.Core.dll ---------------------------------------- System Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0 Win32 Version: 4.7.3151.0 built by: NET472REL1LAST_B CodeBase: file:///C:/WINDOWS/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b77a5c561934e089/System.dll ---------------------------------------- System.Configuration Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0 Win32 Version: 4.7.3056.0 built by: NET472REL1 CodeBase: file:///C:/WINDOWS/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.Configuration/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b03f5f7f11d50a3a/System.Configuration.dll ---------------------------------------- System.Xml Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0 Win32 Version: 4.7.3056.0 built by: NET472REL1 CodeBase: file:///C:/WINDOWS/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.Xml/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b77a5c561934e089/System.Xml.dll ---------------------------------------- System.Windows.Forms Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0 Win32 Version: 4.7.3056.0 built by: NET472REL1 CodeBase: file:///C:/WINDOWS/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.Windows.Forms/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b77a5c561934e089/System.Windows.Forms.dll ---------------------------------------- System.Drawing Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0 Win32 Version: 4.7.3056.0 built by: NET472REL1 CodeBase: file:///C:/WINDOWS/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.Drawing/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b03f5f7f11d50a3a/System.Drawing.dll ---------------------------------------- System.Transactions Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0 Win32 Version: 4.7.3056.0 built by: NET472REL1 CodeBase: file:///C:/WINDOWS/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_64/System.Transactions/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b77a5c561934e089/System.Transactions.dll ---------------------------------------- System.Numerics Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0 Win32 Version: 4.7.3056.0 built by: NET472REL1 CodeBase: file:///C:/WINDOWS/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.Numerics/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b77a5c561934e089/System.Numerics.dll ---------------------------------------- System.Runtime.Serialization Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0 Win32 Version: 4.7.3160.0 built by: NET472REL1LAST_C CodeBase: file:///C:/WINDOWS/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.Runtime.Serialization/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b77a5c561934e089/System.Runtime.Serialization.dll ---------------------------------------- System.Data Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0 Win32 Version: 4.7.3160.0 built by: NET472REL1LAST_C CodeBase: file:///C:/WINDOWS/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_64/System.Data/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b77a5c561934e089/System.Data.dll ---------------------------------------- Microsoft.GeneratedCode Assembly Version: 1.0.0.0 Win32 Version: 4.7.3056.0 built by: NET472REL1 CodeBase: file:///C:/WINDOWS/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.Xml/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b77a5c561934e089/System.Xml.dll ---------------------------------------- Anonymously Hosted DynamicMethods Assembly Assembly Version: 0.0.0.0 Win32 Version: 4.7.3163.0 built by: NET472REL1LAST_C CodeBase: file:///C:/WINDOWS/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_64/mscorlib/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b77a5c561934e089/mscorlib.dll ---------------------------------------- Microsoft.CSharp Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0 Win32 Version: 4.7.3056.0 CodeBase: file:///C:/WINDOWS/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/Microsoft.CSharp/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b03f5f7f11d50a3a/Microsoft.CSharp.dll ---------------------------------------- System.Dynamic Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0 Win32 Version: 4.7.3056.0 CodeBase: file:///C:/WINDOWS/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.Dynamic/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b03f5f7f11d50a3a/System.Dynamic.dll ---------------------------------------- System.EnterpriseServices Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0 Win32 Version: 4.7.3056.0 built by: NET472REL1 CodeBase: file:///C:/WINDOWS/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_64/System.EnterpriseServices/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b03f5f7f11d50a3a/System.EnterpriseServices.dll ---------------------------------------- Accessibility Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0 Win32 Version: 4.7.3056.0 built by: NET472REL1 CodeBase: file:///C:/WINDOWS/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/Accessibility/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b03f5f7f11d50a3a/Accessibility.dll ---------------------------------------- what do I do? can I do anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisias Posted September 25, 2018 Share Posted September 25, 2018 (edited) 34 minutes ago, mindseyemodels said: [CUT by me] I have a problem that needs to be addressed in the form of this unhandled exception that occurs when I try to install this mod via ckan could not find a part of the path C:\USERS\MINDS\appdata\local\temp\CdFileMgr\5f7674d4-4c1f-41.json [CUT by me] what do I do? can I do anything? It's CKAN related, you should ask for help there. On a wild guess, I imagine that the remote .json file was not found, the downloading thread ignored the problem and the consumer thread stomped on a file not found error. But, again, I'm wild guessing and CKAN people is the one that will help you for sure. In time, may I give you a sugestion? Use the Spoiler button to hide all that log details from your post? This make things easier to read and follow, as only the ones really interested on the log data would open the Spoiler - all the others would not have to scroll a huge post in order to get to the next! Something like this: Spoiler Line! Line! Line! Line! Line! Line! Line! Line! Line! Line! Line! Line! Line! Line! Line! Line! Line! Line! Line! Line! Line! Line! Line! Line! Line! Line! Line! Line! Do you see what I mean? In time, you can always download the thing manually, unzip it and then move the PrakasaAeroworks folder into your game's GameData. Edited September 25, 2018 by Lisias adding the correct folder name Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts