CatastrophicFailure Posted October 25, 2017 Share Posted October 25, 2017 Cool, so will Bird Strikes now be a risk during launch? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JadeOfMaar Posted October 25, 2017 Share Posted October 25, 2017 But wait. There's more! There are reports of ships launching on the shoreline without the aid of any form of carrier or stabilizer or HyperEdit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iso-Polaris Posted October 25, 2017 Share Posted October 25, 2017 Any plans to add planets to Grannus? Maybe a super close one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OhioBob Posted October 25, 2017 Share Posted October 25, 2017 (edited) 52 minutes ago, Iso-Polaris said: Any plans to add planets to Grannus? Maybe a super close one? Yep, but not part of GPP per se. Although the GPP team has helped me out, it's mainly my personal project. It will be released as a separate add-on. I have no schedule for getting it done, progress has been in spurts and lulls. Edited October 25, 2017 by OhioBob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AG5BPilot Posted October 25, 2017 Share Posted October 25, 2017 I found something odd... I'm playing my new 1.5.3 career game, and the MechJeb landing autopilot just isn't working. It's really messed up. So I build an install with just MechJeb. It turns out that landing from "high" orbit is totally borked. From "low" orbit, however, it's working just fine. I then tried the same tests with just MechJeb, GPP, Kopernicus, and whatever CKAN automatically installs ("depends on", not "recommends"), and tried landing on Iota from low orbit. And it landed... on exactly the opposite side of Iota. Well, almost exactly the opposite side. On my full install, I set a waypoint, then entered the coordinates of the waypoint into Mechjeb, changing the latitude from N to S and adding 180 degrees to the longitude. It landed 22 km from the waypoint. It's as if something is wrong with the coordinates. The problem with MechJeb not working from high orbit clearly has nothing to do with GPP, but landing on the other side of the planet could be either mod. Let me know if you want logs and I'll create some from a minimal installation. (Note that Hyperedit wasn't used at all, or even installed. In my experience it causes problems when teleporting.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galileo Posted October 25, 2017 Author Share Posted October 25, 2017 (edited) @AG5BPilot I have noticed this too, but nothing has changed on our part since we made the cfgs almost a year ago. I would bring it up with Sarbian.. good luck!!! i will see what and if I can do anything on our part. Edited October 25, 2017 by Galileo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuldaralagh Posted October 26, 2017 Share Posted October 26, 2017 Hey, This mod is great, I love it, but I'm having a problem with it. It's so crammed with good stuff that it takes me forever to load anything. I mean over 10 minutes to load a 10 part rocket. I have tried everything, advanced config to lower resolution, 2d clouds, have nothing but GPP, all the configurations I could find to reduce the load on my old Cpu. Nothing gets loading minutes under 10 minutes. So here is my question, is there a dumbed down version of this with crappy graphics that might load faster? Otherwise it's next to unplayable for me. I load small craft in under 1 minute without GPP, even heavily modded. Any ideas? I was thinking of scaling down every texture in the mod trying to reduce the loading, then I've figured there might be extra config twitching I might find asking here. I have no clue on how to make it lighter for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnMcLane Posted October 26, 2017 Share Posted October 26, 2017 5 hours ago, Kuldaralagh said: I load small craft in under 1 minute without GPP, even heavily modded Sometimes you have to compromise. No idea how to scale down the textures, but SSRSS-Continued for example lets you choose your Texture resolution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AG5BPilot Posted October 26, 2017 Share Posted October 26, 2017 10 hours ago, Kuldaralagh said: I mean over 10 minutes to load a 10 part rocket. How much memory does your computer have? Just a hunch: if you have 8 GB, you will see a dramatic improvement if you upgrade to 16 GB. 8 GB simply isn't enough, and the computer is spending all its time swapping memory between RAM and disk. That's also not great for the longevity of your disk or SSD. If you have 8 GB and upgrading is not an option, unfortunately your best option is probably to stay away from memory intensive mods such as big planet packs. Even smaller textures will only delay the problem. 8GB is barely enough. If you have more than 8 GB, you probably shouldn't be having problems like that and might want to investigate why. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gilph Posted October 26, 2017 Share Posted October 26, 2017 10 hours ago, Kuldaralagh said: Hey, This mod is great, I love it, but I'm having a problem with it. It's so crammed with good stuff that it takes me forever to load anything. I mean over 10 minutes to load a 10 part rocket. I have tried everything, advanced config to lower resolution, 2d clouds, have nothing but GPP, all the configurations I could find to reduce the load on my old Cpu. Nothing gets loading minutes under 10 minutes. So here is my question, is there a dumbed down version of this with crappy graphics that might load faster? Otherwise it's next to unplayable for me. I load small craft in under 1 minute without GPP, even heavily modded. Any ideas? I was thinking of scaling down every texture in the mod trying to reduce the loading, then I've figured there might be extra config twitching I might find asking here. I have no clue on how to make it lighter for me. You have not mentioned your hardware. TBH, if you are using minutes as a metric to load small craft when it should take seconds would indicate you may be very underpowered somewhere. Look through the install instructions and the posts regarding performance. A clean install and adding the Kopernicus/GPP components one at a time is usually recommended to find the issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuldaralagh Posted October 26, 2017 Share Posted October 26, 2017 So, yeah. I was pretty vague. I'm not even sure what is my hardware now after my last breakdown and quick motherboard swap. I'd have to look it up. This rig was great in 2007 when i started getting parts for it. So yeah, I'm limited to 8gb ram. 1066 Hz if I'm not mistaken. I'm not sure about my cpu, but it used to be a Q6600 but I've swapped it for something similar in the motherboard swap. So I'm pretty much running a 10 year old machine. The memory swapping seems to be it, because HD is constantly running. Too bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eggzy Posted October 27, 2017 Share Posted October 27, 2017 Hey guys! I must say this mod is what I felt KSP was meant to be and I cannot get enough play time on this mod. I hope y'all keep working it and make it the go to PP for KSP. I'd like to point out that I see a lot of stress over this mod really needing 16G of RAM. I'm running 53 mods on 8GB of RAM (my board does have room for another 2 sticks) and see virtually no issues beyond a totally bearable seconds wait while loading ships onto the launchpad or runway. My rig is in its 4th year and its GPU and processor are as follows : intel i3-4330 3.5GHz processor, NVIDEA GTX 750 Ti I think it's worth noting I run KSP through a 1T SSD that isn't even a quarter full. I run texture replacer on default settings (I haven't really tried messing around with it on what is now my 3rd career start on GPP but I do notice a difference in quality with it installed) and KSP graphics settings on high/max. I admit I haven't really tried to stress the PC and I do have the processor overclocked a bit so perhaps I should try to test its limits to give you guys some feedback on what the limits of 8GB RAM truly are. Looking forward to what y'all are working next! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JadeOfMaar Posted October 27, 2017 Share Posted October 27, 2017 In KSP 1.3.1 with frosty Kerbal Komets and @Poodmund Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wintergreen Posted October 27, 2017 Share Posted October 27, 2017 Not sure why, but I get a ridiculous amount of lag near Iota's surface. Like, ten frames per second, compared to an unflinching 60fps basically everywhere else. Even a small probe kills my frame rate. Ceti and Niven are both completely fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AG5BPilot Posted October 27, 2017 Share Posted October 27, 2017 On 10/25/2017 at 7:28 PM, Galileo said: @AG5BPilot I have noticed this too, but nothing has changed on our part since we made the cfgs almost a year ago. I would bring it up with Sarbian.. good luck!!! i will see what and if I can do anything on our part. I found this issue on MechJeb's Gitbhub: https://github.com/MuMech/MechJeb2/issues/940 I think I'll wait until the it's definitely fixed (and possibly released) before seeing if it fixes the specific problem with GPP. The thread does talk about the reason for MecJeb's autoland trouble, specifically a change in KSP's API. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gilph Posted October 27, 2017 Share Posted October 27, 2017 2 hours ago, AG5BPilot said: I found this issue on MechJeb's Gitbhub: https://github.com/MuMech/MechJeb2/issues/940 I think I'll wait until the it's definitely fixed (and possibly released) before seeing if it fixes the specific problem with GPP. The thread does talk about the reason for MecJeb's autoland trouble, specifically a change in KSP's API. 940 was partially fixed with the latest dev release (747?), but there are a few issues with Landing that have been discussed in the Mechjeb forum that may require a few fixes. The partial fix for 940 was to change some method calls that supplied data to the module. Squad had changed some of these in 1.3.1 and now MJ is using the correct calls, getting the data it expects, and the recent problems have been fixed. But that did not fix all of the legacy Landing module issues that existed prior to 1.3.1. It appears the MJ team understands the issues and I'll assume they'll address them whenever they are able. These affect both stock and GPP, so it's not a specific GPP issue, as far as I can tell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AG5BPilot Posted October 27, 2017 Share Posted October 27, 2017 18 minutes ago, Gilph said: 940 was partially fixed with the latest dev release (747?), but there are a few issues with Landing that have been discussed in the Mechjeb forum that may require a few fixes. The partial fix for 940 was to change some method calls that supplied data to the module. Squad had changed some of these in 1.3.1 and now MJ is using the correct calls, getting the data it expects, and the recent problems have been fixed. But that did not fix all of the legacy Landing module issues that existed prior to 1.3.1. It appears the MJ team understands the issues and I'll assume they'll address them whenever they are able. These affect both stock and GPP, so it's not a specific GPP issue, as far as I can tell. On the plus side, my landing skills have been improving lately. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JadeOfMaar Posted October 27, 2017 Share Posted October 27, 2017 6 hours ago, Wintergreen said: Not sure why, but I get a ridiculous amount of lag near Iota's surface. Like, ten frames per second, compared to an unflinching 60fps basically everywhere else. Even a small probe kills my frame rate. Ceti and Niven are both completely fine. Old version of GPP? We fixed that a long time ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chocolat Oreos Posted October 27, 2017 Share Posted October 27, 2017 @Galileo Is this random spike on Iota suppost to be an easter egg, because it looks pretty awesome: http://prntscr.com/h2vdex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galileo Posted October 27, 2017 Author Share Posted October 27, 2017 10 minutes ago, Chocolat Oreos said: @Galileo Is this random spike on Iota suppost to be an easter egg, because it looks pretty awesome: http://prntscr.com/h2vdex No, it’s actually something that happens when altering PQS mods lol. Akin to the Mohole in the stock game or something of that nature. I guarantee there are a handful of spikes on other bodies as well, but I can’t fly around the entire body and scout for them unfortunately. I guess you can call them an Easter egg that even the devs don’t know about Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UranianBlue Posted October 27, 2017 Share Posted October 27, 2017 3 hours ago, Galileo said: No, it’s actually something that happens when altering PQS mods lol. Akin to the Mohole in the stock game or something of that nature. I guarantee there are a handful of spikes on other bodies as well, but I can’t fly around the entire body and scout for them unfortunately. I guess you can call them an Easter egg that even the devs don’t know about It can be easy to make these spikes, especially if the heightmap was made in Gimp / Photoshop and not in KittopiaTech. They often show up at the poles because the texture maps are cylindrical projection. I can count at least two objects that I've made where the spike is visible from 1000km away (one hasn't been released yet). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galileo Posted October 28, 2017 Author Share Posted October 28, 2017 1 hour ago, UranianBlue said: It can be easy to make these spikes, especially if the heightmap was made in Gimp / Photoshop and not in KittopiaTech. They often show up at the poles because the texture maps are cylindrical projection. I can count at least two objects that I've made where the spike is visible from 1000km away (one hasn't been released yet). I don’t use kittopia to make my maps. Kittopia planets tend to all look somewhat alike. So if it is indeed caused by using PS to make my maps, then that’s something everyone will have to live with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 So, ummm.... Where, exactly, is this Iotan spike? Y’know, because... reasons... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UranianBlue Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 13 hours ago, Galileo said: I don’t use kittopia to make my maps. Kittopia planets tend to all look somewhat alike. So if it is indeed caused by using PS to make my maps, then that’s something everyone will have to live with. Really? You must be talking about planets that are made with 100% KittopiaTech. I noticed that drawing a heightmap in Gimp and adding PQS Mods to the heightmap will make a much better planet. Then, I often generate a color map using Kittopia; I create the final color map in Gimp after editing the map created in Kittopia. Using this method, I've been able to make this: https://imgur.com/a/0IiJn Kittopia is most useful when it is used to assist the maps drawn up in image editors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chocolat Oreos Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 @Galileo Can you make a mod where you start with the space center on tellumo? If you could then move the 2 moons around gael to tellumo, it would also be kindof fun to do career there! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.