[1.12.x] FTL Drive Continued

[Nupol]

nice to see this mod again. i still have a finished modeled Stargate wich could be implemented as a beacon but i am just a modeler & no programmer. if someone wants the model i can post a downloadlink. 

it can be split in seperate pieces (to make it more challenging so you have to assamble it in orbit)

https://sketchfab.com/models/e9b30de412fb47628964ac41a1e276a0

i still dont know why noone tried to make a stargate since it is so iconic in sciencefiction. but who knows

Edited November 24, 2016 by Nupol

[g_BonE]

so... i guess the config does not really work. i played around with maxGeneratorForce and maxChargeTime but even if i set this to ridiculously high values for force (50000) and chargetime (20) it does not seem to change the part or outcome. best educated guess is that those values are hardcoded and not taken into consideration. please enlighten me if i dont get the concept

[steedcrugeon]

Just been having a play with this (0.15) and the game drops FPS horrendously when you you spin up a series of stacked drives (in my instance i was using this:

The craft jumped as expected after the required amount if iN had been generated. As soon as the jump is complete the frame rate goes back to normal.

This wasn't happening with the 0.13 Beta (the last version I tested this craft's drives on).

Edited November 24, 2016 by steedcrugeon
typos

[linuxgurugamer]

35 minutes ago, steedcrugeon said:

Just been having a play with this (0.15) and the game drops FPS horrendously when you you spin up a series of stacked drives (in my instance i was using this:

The craft jumped as expected after the required amount if iN had been generated. As soon as the jump is complete the frame rate goes back to normal.

This wasn't happening with the 0.13 Beta (the last version I tested this craft's drives on).

Can you be a bit more specific?  Also, the craft file and the log file would be useful.

2 hours ago, g_BonE said:

so... i guess the config does not really work. i played around with maxGeneratorForce and maxChargeTime but even if i set this to ridiculously high values for force (50000) and chargetime (20) it does not seem to change the part or outcome. best educated guess is that those values are hardcoded and not taken into consideration. please enlighten me if i dont get the concept

More information is needed.

Did you have multiple drives?  Can you please post the config you modified?

 

[linuxgurugamer]

4 hours ago, g_BonE said:

so... i guess the config does not really work. i played around with maxGeneratorForce and maxChargeTime but even if i set this to ridiculously high values for force (50000) and chargetime (20) it does not seem to change the part or outcome. best educated guess is that those values are hardcoded and not taken into consideration. please enlighten me if i dont get the concept

The stacking of the drives is new, and somewhat complicated.

It's being worked on

[linuxgurugamer]

New release:  0.1.6:

• Fixed issues with config values not appearing properly in mod
• Fixed issues with stacking drives not working properly
• Fixed stacking scale
• Pre-calculated exponents to save time

@steedcrugeon I used GCMonitor to watch the FPS.  Using 3 drives, there was 0 drop on my system.  It may have been the exponents causing the problem, I took care of that

[g_BonE]

Just compared 0.1.6 to 0.1.5 and i cant see any changes - are you sure you packed up the right files? As for more information - i tested the 650iN part with the following changed settings:

	MODULE
	{
		name = FTLDriveModule
		maxGeneratorForce = 75000
		maxChargeTime = 20
		requiredElectricalCharge = 49.5

		animationNames = spin
		animationRampSpeed = 0.005
		customAnimationSpeed = 2
	}	

...but it does not seem to make a difference from the default values in terms of generated gravity (force?) - the charge time seems to be higher tho. Thus i was thinking that the changed value might not actually get used in the DLL code?

[linuxgurugamer]

10 minutes ago, g_BonE said:

Just compared 0.1.6 to 0.1.5 and i cant see any changes - are you sure you packed up the right files? As for more information - i tested the 650iN part with the following changed settings:

	MODULE
	{
		name = FTLDriveModule
		maxGeneratorForce = 75000
		maxChargeTime = 20
		requiredElectricalCharge = 49.5

		animationNames = spin
		animationRampSpeed = 0.005
		customAnimationSpeed = 2
	}	

...but it does not seem to make a difference from the default values in terms of generated gravity (force?) - the charge time seems to be higher tho. Thus i was thinking that the changed value might not actually get used in the DLL code?

Which files are you editing?  

In the editor, when you right-click the drive module in the parts list, it should show the drive information with the updated values.  If you aren't seeing it, I'm wondering if you are updating the correct parts.

I know the correct version is there, becuase it fixed the FPS issue for @steedcrugeon

Please delete the entire directory and reinstall before testing again

Edited November 25, 2016 by linuxgurugamer

[g_BonE]

okay, tested some more. i edited FTLDriveSmall.cfg with the changes posted above, here is the screensnip:

and here with the default values:

the changes were:

maxGeneratorForce = 625 <- default

maxGeneratorForce = 60250 <- test value

yes, the change show up in the VAB when right clicking the part.

[steedcrugeon]

@g_BonE upping the maxGeneratorForce won't increase the likelihood of success or the force required, it will simply change the amount of stuff the FTL drive can shift and how long it will take to generate sufficient force,

I should point out that your Duna Beacon is in quite low obrit for FTL jump. The first post mentions about jumping near a gravitational forces. It does mean at both ends! to increase your likelihood of success your beacon needs to not be too close to a large gravity source too.

[g_BonE]

yes, tested this a while ago with a orbit of about 10.000.000km from both bodies - which gives a probability of 100%. I was hoping that changing that "maxGeneratorForce" value would influence how much "gravity" the FTL drive generates and thus allow for closer orbits. Guess im mistaken here. And also guess that the only way to jump from closer orbits would be to add more ftl drives to the craft and spool them up simultaneously. Speaking of which - it does not seem to be possible to activate the drives via action group? Found it.

Edited November 25, 2016 by g_BonE
typos ;(

[linuxgurugamer]

23 hours ago, Nupol said:

nice to see this mod again. i still have a finished modeled Stargate wich could be implemented as a beacon but i am just a modeler & no programmer. if someone wants the model i can post a downloadlink. 

it can be split in seperate pieces (to make it more challenging so you have to assamble it in orbit)

https://sketchfab.com/models/e9b30de412fb47628964ac41a1e276a0

i still dont know why noone tried to make a stargate since it is so iconic in sciencefiction. but who knows

If you can make it as a Unity model (ie:  in a .mu format), I'd be happy to take alook at it.

 

[g_BonE]

some more testing - constructed a dockable FTL drive section, got a 100% jump probability (1.5Mm beacon orbit / 2.0Mm FTL ship orbit), this is the outcome every time i try to jump:

Guess i'll give up on this mod as im getting slightly frustrated ;(

Edited November 25, 2016 by g_BonE

[linuxgurugamer]

54 minutes ago, g_BonE said:

some more testing - constructed a dockable FTL drive section, got a 100% jump probability (1.5Mm beacon orbit / 2.0Mm FTL ship orbit), this is the outcome every time i try to jump:

Guess i'll give up on this mod as im getting slightly frustrated ;(

Post the craft file, please.  also the log file.  And what did the F3 screen say?  Is it possible there was a vessel there already?

Also, for everyone, I just uploaded a slight update, removes some bad files from the zip:

0.1.6.1

Edited November 25, 2016 by linuxgurugamer

[steedcrugeon]

1 hour ago, g_BonE said:

some more testing - constructed a dockable FTL drive section, got a 100% jump probability (1.5Mm beacon orbit / 2.0Mm FTL ship orbit), 

 

Does this happen when you try with a single stack of inline drives? i once built a vessel (in the 0.13 version) which had one of the Size 2 FTL drives and 4 Size 1 drives. The size 1 drives didn't know what the Size 2 was up to and i got similar results to you. 

So really my question is do you still get jump failures with a single stack?

[drtarr1962]

On ‎11‎/‎25‎/‎2016 at 9:26 AM, g_BonE said:

Just compared 0.1.6 to 0.1.5 and i cant see any changes - are you sure you packed up the right files? As for more information - i tested the 650iN part with the following changed settings:

	MODULE
	{
		name = FTLDriveModule
		maxGeneratorForce = 75000
		maxChargeTime = 20
		requiredElectricalCharge = 49.5

		animationNames = spin
		animationRampSpeed = 0.005
		customAnimationSpeed = 2
	}	

...but it does not seem to make a difference from the default values in terms of generated gravity (force?) - the charge time seems to be higher tho. Thus i was thinking that the changed value might not actually get used in the DLL code?

That's the way it use to work a while ago.  I can't remember if I tried this in KSP version 1.0 or not.  But changing maxGeneratorForce and maxChargeTime use to let you use it in lower orbits.  I just tried it my self, on the large drive, and the part spools up to default 2500 then boom.  lol  @linuxgurugamer This is from the cfg file for the part.

[linuxgurugamer]

1 hour ago, drtarr1962 said:

That's the way it use to work a while ago.  I can't remember if I tried this in KSP version 1.0 or not.  But changing maxGeneratorForce and maxChargeTime use to let you use it in lower orbits.  I just tried it my self, on the large drive, and the part spools up to default 2500 then boom.  lol  @linuxgurugamer This is from the cfg file for the part.

you know, it would really be useful if, instead of saying it doesn't work, you actually provide me with a log file.  There can be any number of reasons which would cause the problem.

And while you are at it, why not save the game and send me the save file as well so I can attempt to reproduce your issue.

I just went back through this entire thread, and NO ONE HAS POSTED A LOG FILE.

So, stop complaining unless you are willing to provide me with what I need to help you.

And yes, I'm annoyed.  I spend a lot of time doing all these mods, and, in this thread at least, no one is attempting to provide any significant information

Edited November 27, 2016 by linuxgurugamer

[linuxgurugamer]

Please be sure to install the latest version 0.1.6.2.  I've added additional debugging statements, and some additional on-screen messages to try to help identify the source of your problems.

I have been unable to reproduce these issues.

[drtarr1962]

13 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

you know, it would really be useful if, instead of saying it doesn't work, you actually provide me with a log file.  There can be any number of reasons which would cause the problem.

And while you are at it, why not save the game and send me the save file as well so I can attempt to reproduce your issue.

I just went back through this entire thread, and NO ONE HAS POSTED A LOG FILE.

So, stop complaining unless you are willing to provide me with what I need to help you.

And yes, I'm annoyed.  I spend a lot of time doing all these mods, and, in this thread at least, no one is attempting to provide any significant information

Sorry about that.  I didn't mean to annoy you, and I understand why any information you can get will be helpful trouble shooting it.  On to some good news though.  I think I figured out most of my problem.  The first problem was that for some reason my Modular Manager patch wasn't changing any values.  Which is probably some typo on my part.  So I edited the FTLDriveLarge.cfg file directly.  I reloaded KSP and now the new value was showing up when I right clicked on the part in VAB.  So I loaded up my test ship and boom again.  That's when it dawned on me that the old value was probably saved with the ship save.  So I swapped out the FTL drive, and it works perfectly.  Now time to find my typo in my MM patch.

I can still send you a log file if you want, but this was purely user error on my part. 

[linuxgurugamer]

On 11/25/2016 at 2:59 PM, steedcrugeon said:

Does this happen when you try with a single stack of inline drives? i once built a vessel (in the 0.13 version) which had one of the Size 2 FTL drives and 4 Size 1 drives. The size 1 drives didn't know what the Size 2 was up to and i got similar results to you. 

So really my question is do you still get jump failures with a single stack?

Very strange, because until I added it, there was no stacking of drive modules, and one didn't know anything about any other FTL drives on the vessel.

So, what are you talking about?

[linuxgurugamer]

1 hour ago, drtarr1962 said:

Sorry about that.  I didn't mean to annoy you, and I understand why any information you can get will be helpful trouble shooting it.  On to some good news though.  I think I figured out most of my problem.  The first problem was that for some reason my Modular Manager patch wasn't changing any values.  Which is probably some typo on my part.  So I edited the FTLDriveLarge.cfg file directly.  I reloaded KSP and now the new value was showing up when I right clicked on the part in VAB.  So I loaded up my test ship and boom again.  That's when it dawned on me that the old value was probably saved with the ship save.  So I swapped out the FTL drive, and it works perfectly.  Now time to find my typo in my MM patch.

I can still send you a log file if you want, but this was purely user error on my part. 

No need if you found the problem.  My annoyance was more than just your report, it was also at @g_BonE and anyone else who had a problem and didn't bother to include a log file.

Try the update anyway.  It added a few more screen messages

[steedcrugeon]

4 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:

So, what are you talking about?

I was wondering if @g_BonE still had vessel destruction when using a single stack, rather that the triple arrangement pictured.

[linuxgurugamer]

5 hours ago, steedcrugeon said:

I was wondering if @g_BonE still had vessel destruction when using a single stack, rather that the triple arrangement pictured.

Understood, thanks.

[g_BonE]

Sorry, i have not experimented with the mod. Also, im running ~60 mods so it might be hard to load a save i post somewhere. The log is a different story and yes, sorry i did not provide that. I've moved to the ESLD beacons mod which is quite a challenge due to the karborundrum requirement but allows lower orbits due to its addon modules and a quite different approach. Also i wanted to mention, @linuxgurugamer sorry if it offended You in any way. I respect Your hard work and huge amounts of tíme that goes into these mods. Im running quite a few of those in my save too. Thanks for doing this for the community mate!

[Warezcrawler]

@linuxgurugamer I have a suggestion I've been considering since I started using this mod way back. Making it possible to use alternative resources instead of electric charge would be nice addition. That way it could be augmented to be more powerfull if some rare resource was available like karborundum or something.

If you are pressed for time, I could consider doing the research on what to change if you agree that it would be a nice addition.

In any case thanks for keeping this mod alive.

Edited December 31, 2016 by Warezcrawler
Typo