[KSP 1.12.1+] Galileo's Planet Pack [v1.6.6] [23 Sept 2021]

[Temeriki]

On 12/7/2018 at 3:14 PM, OhioBob said:

Those types of changes are not happening.  GPP is already complex enough with all its different installation options.  Trying to add anything more is just asking for trouble.

Aside from minor updates and bug fixes, GPP is complete.  The development team has no further motivation to work on it.

Does the lack of motivation apply to version updates?  I guess what Im asking is are you guys planning on releasing an official 1.5.x version or should I just square peg round hole my own?  Love this planet pack, thank you for all your hard work!

[OhioBob]

1 hour ago, Temeriki said:

Does the lack of motivation apply to version updates?

As far as I know, we plan to continue version updates.  I heard some chatter about releasing a 1.5.1 update weeks ago, but I don't know what the hold up has been.  Maybe we put it off long enough that now we're just waiting for 1.6.  The current version of GPP works in 1.5.1 just fine.  Just ignore any messages about incompatibility.

[Temeriki]

4 hours ago, OhioBob said:

As far as I know, we plan to continue version updates.  I heard some chatter about releasing a 1.5.1 update weeks ago, but I don't know what the hold up has been.  Maybe we put it off long enough that now we're just waiting for 1.6.  The current version of GPP works in 1.5.1 just fine.  Just ignore any messages about incompatibility.

Ignoring warning messages is what I do best!

[Soldraconi_IV]

Hello I am new on the forum. Just here to say thank you Galileo and all modders who spent their time to build this amazing mod. Of the several planet packs I have tested, this is probably the one I enjoyed the most so far. I have also a few remarks/questions to note : 

- although I have a 8GB RAM laptop with an i7 7700 HQ, GPP with its visuals seems to run somewhat smoother than Stock + OPM including scatterer and SVE at some moments in KSP 1.4.5.

-  just out of Curiosity, if someone has a tab listing lowest and highest points of celestial bodies in this mod (maybe to try to make a submarine and send it to Tarsiss or Hadrian ?)

- Also what happened to the older version of Hadrian (I've read and seen that it was a pink/reddish desert with a thin atmosphere) as I think, but it is a big maybe due to lack of time, that I might attempt to customize for myself GPP and add this version back to replace some airless bodies to save room on my computer. Testing Grannus primary gave me almost no lags with full visuals. 

Now time for screenshots of my favorite celestial body in this mod 

Spoiler

My first successful lander to Tarsiss, sandbox and customized moderate difficulty. I still have to return from Gauss system however. Oddly when splashed in the methane sea near south Pole, my ship sank at a faster rate than in the atmosphere to the point parachutes were still active while descending through liquid methane. Full stock except a JX2 antenna on my orbiter part (as a newbie I still have a lot to learn about ship design).

Bonus image from a previous failed attempt : 

 

Last,Trajectories works nicely with GPP. 

Thank you again for making this game beautiful, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year !

[OhioBob]

5 hours ago, Soldraconi_IV said:

-  just out of Curiosity, if someone has a tab listing lowest and highest points of celestial bodies in this mod (maybe to try to make a submarine and send it to Tarsiss or Hadrian ?)

This using Sigma Cartographer:

	Lowest Point			Highest Point
	Latitude	Longitude	Elevation	Latitude	Longitude	Elevation
Agrippina	26.1425	168.0470	-2	-62.5920	19.0220	628
Argo	-44.0335	118.2130	0	-57.3925	-117.1580	2214
Augustus	-59.0890	29.6925	0	-34.0680	161.1115	5613
Catullus	69.6815	-5.7505	-27	-75.8450	-15.9685	15883
Ceti	-76.8140	-176.1335	0	-17.4700	171.8105	4182
Eta	58.8865	-38.5925	0	41.2845	-96.4080	719
Gael	-45.2135	-43.9249	-1699	6.3535	168.0115	6377
Geminus	-67.3175	-74.8830	0	14.9415	2.3730	4041
Gratian	79.9805	99.3735	0	-16.4660	159.1700	5792
Hadrian	-63.6135	174.3740	-1560	-70.7520	-41.3965	4242
Hephaestus	67.9075	-19.2680	0	40.7390	166.4650	5737
Hox	-39.6280	-117.4120	0	27.1425	-133.7675	4866
Icarus	31.4650	144.5200	0	3.0345	50.0265	3039
Iota	38.4975	-73.5625	0	27.0705	87.7150	1778
Jannah	2.3870	-48.9495	0	19.1325	45.2330	3160
Julia	-37.5295	-20.0225	-2	45.4390	67.4115	488
Leto	-63.5450	2.4055	0	-4.0400	-122.1345	2677
Lili	39.1225	-171.5275	0	-0.4275	89.2975	6005
Loki	-16.6510	34.0895	0	59.4385	-118.4765	4934
Minona	-39.4240	-109.4135	0	8.9190	-162.8385	4068
Muse	59.7780	32.5420	0	-36.7150	-147.7190	4353
Narisse	-54.9405	18.5515	-4	49.1050	-22.6760	1050
Niven	-13.5720	100.0195	0	-37.0000	-153.8525	7407
Tarsiss	48.2500	56.8345	-1615	60.2055	-28.2700	3626
Tellumo	-38.9985	-71.0275	-3894	-53.3495	125.5075	13428
Thalia	-1.3290	-70.6090	0	-43.1540	13.5395	5753

Note that Cartographer scans the surface of celestial bodies in a finite grid pattern, so it could be off a tiny bit in the exact location and magnitude of the highest and lowest points.
 

Quote

- Also what happened to the older version of Hadrian

I have no recollection of what Hadrian use to look like.  I do remember that it didn't have an ocean in the very earliest versions of GPP, but it looks like it was changed in v1.0.2.  The GitHub release archive only goes back to v1.1, so I know of no way to retrieve the old version of Hadrian.

[Soldraconi_IV]

@OhioBob, thank you for your kind reply, I did not know about Sigma cartographer. I was wondering about depth as I have been quite surprised to see how deep lakes were when looking at Tarsiss. I also liked the way you have tweaked liquid properties so that even a Kerbal can sink.  

[OhioBob]

15 minutes ago, Soldraconi_IV said:

I also liked the way you have tweaked liquid properties so that even a Kerbal can sink.  

I didn't know kerbals sank on Tarsiss.  I just know that we gave the oceans realistic densities based on the type of liquid it is.  Tarsiss is methane, so it has a specific gravity of 0.423, and Hadrian is nitrogen, so it has a specific gravity of 0.807.  The lower the specific gravity, the more likely it is an object will sink.

The lower density of the liquid along with the low surface gravity also means you should be able to dive much deeper on Tarsiss and Hadrain then you can on Gael (assuming part pressure limits is turned on in the difficulty settings).  On Gael the maximum depth is only 408 meters, and on Tellumo it's only 215 meters.  But on Tarsiss and Hadrain you should be able to easily dive all the way to the seafloor.

[Soldraconi_IV]

@OhioBobThank you for reminding me these reasons. I felt a little bit confused as in French specific gravity is directly assigned to density. Concerning Hadrian's old version, I was also considering it as a possible reference to maybe start modding planets (in the case it happens I will send you a message before to ask for authorization and advice concerning the realism about it).

[lBoBl]

On 12/26/2018 at 7:44 PM, OhioBob said:

This using Sigma Cartographer:

	Lowest Point			Highest Point
	Latitude	Longitude	Elevation	Latitude	Longitude	Elevation
Tellumo	-38.9985	-71.0275	-3894	-53.3495	125.5075	13428

Oh my, I think I have accidently found the highest point of Tellumo in the past. It was definitely over 13Km high, and the atmosphere was so thin there that I just thought that there has to be a bunch of fun and very difficult things you can do there.

Edited December 30, 2018 by lBoBl

[JadeOfMaar]

On 12/26/2018 at 8:31 AM, Soldraconi_IV said:

- Also what happened to the older version of Hadrian (I've read and seen that it was a pink/reddish desert with a thin atmosphere)

Pink Hadrian. I have a wiki format image of that. Many of the other GPP worlds changed majorly as GPP grew. Hadrian in particular, was tossed around for whether it and certain other worlds should have lakes and geysers and which gas giant should have a moon hosting whole oceans. We wanted to avoid having a perfect Laythe-alike or couldn't see reason for that to exist in the GPP system so Hadrian ended up the way it is. Also, pink Hadrian would be pretty plain and boring for a world with atmosphere if it stayed. And it would be quite redundant coexisting with Niven and Augustus.

The current released version of Gauss is #3. I think the release versions of Gratian and Nero are also 3.

#2

#1 (with scatterer haze)

Spoiler

You're gonna want Tarsiss Augustus with polar lakes too, right?

 

[Soldraconi_IV]

41 minutes ago, JadeOfMaar said:

 

  Hide contents

You're gonna want Tarsiss Augustus with polar lakes too, right?

 

Haha no, Augustus is good as it is (we have Tarsiss). Thank you for explaining me how the mod evolved, originally I wanted to reuse old Hadrian for myself to customize GPP and/or ask for authorization to maybe in the future reuse it as a quality reference to build one or two planets. But :

- first I realized it would not be respectful for you as you spent a lot of time to make it

- second I have a fair idea of how long it takes to make a decent planet pack with visuals and I am not sure to have enough time and motivation for that

Anyway, thank you again for taking time to reply, Happy New Year 

 

[lunaris69]

i feel like a pioneer! though it doesnt really make sense that i would be one, considering the thing i found.
this planet pack is noted a few times to work very well with the usi mods, and it does, except for one, the life support mod. it was actually noted on the page for USI LS once, in the middle or so that the renamer part of the GPP mod doesn't play nice with the veteran namer function of the life support mod because of the last name changer.  given that i havent found a single other mention of this before or since, is there some secret way to make them work together that i somehow missed? it seems really strange to have one of the recommended mods for the pack not fully work with it natively and have no one else made a peep ever

[kraden]

@lunaris69 I use both, but I never set my veterans up with different settings, so it's never really mattered to me.

As far as "not fully work[ing]". Both mods are quite significant and change the game drastically. There are probably other bits that don't work quite right, it's just that no one has noticed, or they aren't game breaking. The mods weren't built for each other, they just compliment each other well. 

Suffice it to say, the mods work fine, you just likely can't have vets. 

[lunaris69]

ah, thats pretty hardcore, i dunno how i would get a kerbal to tellumo like that.  i was hoping that there was either an easy fix that people usually find quick and don't bother posting about or there was a bug with my game specifically and it normally works fine. does it work in your game if you change the settings?

[kraden]

@lunaris69  Yeah, it can be tough, but I imagine doing it in real life isn't easy either.  I can totally change the settings per usual, just with the exception of listing veterans.  It might be a bit cheaty, but you could change your settings for the duration of a single mission.  And fyi, I am a bit of a glutton for punishment.  Among other things I also play in 2.5 scale and use deadly reentry.

[OhioBob]

@lunaris69, you can probably just remove GPP_Renamer from GPP, though I'm not sure what that might mess up if you do it mid-game.

 

[Aodhan]

On 1/6/2019 at 11:40 AM, lunaris69 said:

i feel like a pioneer! though it doesnt really make sense that i would be one, considering the thing i found.
this planet pack is noted a few times to work very well with the usi mods, and it does, except for one, the life support mod. it was actually noted on the page for USI LS once, in the middle or so that the renamer part of the GPP mod doesn't play nice with the veteran namer function of the life support mod because of the last name changer.  given that i havent found a single other mention of this before or since, is there some secret way to make them work together that i somehow missed? it seems really strange to have one of the recommended mods for the pack not fully work with it natively and have no one else made a peep ever

I've also tried many things but I never got it to work...

Edited January 7, 2019 by Aodhan

[lunaris69]

oh jeez! no wonder you never noticed. i think removing the renamer won't end well, though it might work if you removed it at the start then put it back, or maybe that keep originals setting would do it

 

Edited January 8, 2019 by lunaris69
adding info

[Tyko]

@lunaris69 I'm with @kraden in that I don't give Kerbal veterans any magical survival capabilities. I have them set with the same USILS requirements as any other Kerbal. This removes the concern about Renamer.

Just because a kerbal is a veteran doesn't mean they can survive without oxygen for weeks. Figuring out how to keep Kerbals alive on long missions is the entire point of USILS. If you're having problems with long missions another route would be to ask for help on how to keep them alive because it's very doable.

Supplies alone works for shorter missions. Supplies plus recyclers can often double your mission lengths. For even longer missions greenhouses can provide life support nearly indefinitely.

There are other strategies that work well too...One trick I've used is to send a re-supply ship ahead to my destination. That can sit in orbit around the destination until my crewed ship arrives then dock and top off my ship's supplies. This means that the crewed ship only has to carry enough supplies for one leg of the journey instead of the full round trip.

Edited January 9, 2019 by Tyko

[AG5BPilot]

Did anyone happen to catch last night's episode of Fox's "The Orville"?

The planet (high gravity, but atmosphere and temperature similar to Earth) looked uncannily like Tellumo, even down to the gap in the rings where Lili orbits.  Even the shots from the ground with the faint rings overhead looked oh so familiar.

[Galileo]

6 hours ago, AG5BPilot said:

Did anyone happen to catch last night's episode of Fox's "The Orville"?

The planet (high gravity, but atmosphere and temperature similar to Earth) looked uncannily like Tellumo, even down to the gap in the rings where Lili orbits.  Even the shots from the ground with the faint rings overhead looked oh so familiar.

Perhaps they took reference.. would be pretty cool!

[AChambers1006]

I am having a weird graphical glitch on planets with an atmosphere? Any ideas what could be causing this so I can fix it? Doesn't seem to affect planets with no atmo, like Iota and Ceti. Once close enough, these glitches go away. They seem to only appear during certain orbital heights. Picture and mod directory are included down below:

https://imgur.com/a/13l65to

[whitespacekilla]

On 1/6/2019 at 4:40 AM, lunaris69 said:

this planet pack is noted a few times to work very well with the usi mods, and it does, except for one, the life support mod. it was actually noted on the page for USI LS once, in the middle or so that the renamer part of the GPP mod doesn't play nice with the veteran namer function of the life support mod because of the last name changer.  given that i havent found a single other mention of this before or since, is there some secret way to make them work together that i somehow missed? it seems really strange to have one of the recommended mods for the pack not fully work with it natively and have no one else made a peep ever

@lunaris69 USI LS is interestingly coded and looks for hardcoded astronaut names to exempt from life support processing in what I remember to be a fragile/inflexible way. I haven't played since the updates started coming too frequently for my tastes so I'm running on a little bit of long term memory here but I know I worked around this and it was either by a) trying name strings until it worked or b) custom compiling USI LS to not hardcode a last name onto your veteran list before checking.

I was working on a mod that could move ships, astronauts, and cargo around the system once you had the technology and strong enough infrastructure at both endpoints for a dynamic cost and USI LS gave me a really hard time. It's interface was not friendly to interrogation or use by other mods and many of its pieces that could have been useful to call on their own or override were jammed into rather large methods that couldn't be broken apart without recompiling, so, making the veteran name checker more flexible would have been a pretty simple fix at the time for me.

If you were planning to depend on your veterans for pioneering/long range missions, thus circumventing the hardest part of USILS, maybe lighten up the settings instead and just deal with it on even the toughest/longest range missions?

[OhioBob]

13 hours ago, AChambers1006 said:

I am having a weird graphical glitch on planets with an atmosphere? Any ideas what could be causing this so I can fix it? Doesn't seem to affect planets with no atmo, like Iota and Ceti. Once close enough, these glitches go away. They seem to only appear during certain orbital heights. Picture and mod directory are included down below:

https://imgur.com/a/13l65to

I don't think that's a glitch, it's just the way it works.  It looks the same for me.

[AChambers1006]

2 hours ago, OhioBob said:

I don't think that's a glitch, it's just the way it works.  It looks the same for me.

Really? Even the slight glitching on the upper right of the planet is normal? This planet pack is the only one that has that graphical glitch. Its not a huge deal (It definitely does not lessen the amount of work that went into this) but it does draw my eye. Interestingly, I do not see this glitch with Gael. Only atmo planets that I have to travel to.