[KSP >= 1.3.0] TweakScale - Under Lisias' Management - 2.4.8.8 - 2024-1117

[kcs123]

6 minutes ago, pmborg said:

I also have those warnings... but always ignored them, are you sure that you want to see them @Lisias

Uh, that same piece of code from TS seems to be much needed to integrate within MM. Not only to throw error in log, but also to give same/similar scary message on UI too. Not much developers and users use TS, although there is plenty, but MM is mandatory for everyone. That might help developers to find faulty patches prior publishing mod.

[Lisias]

3 minutes ago, pmborg said:

I also have those warnings... but always ignored them, are you sure that you want to see them @Lisias

It's another kind of Warning, let me explain to you:

 

5 minutes ago, pmborg said:

[LOG 21:24:42.984] [TweakScale] WARNING: Removing TweakScale support for FSfloatEnd (FS4SFN Seaplane Float (Nose)).

This is the one that triggers the message you posted. (hey, pinky Kerbals?  ). These ones are things in need to be fixed, implemented or revised on TweakScale due Modules that changed and stoped behaving as TweakScale expects. What's slightly undesirable, as when TweakScale is fooled by such Modules, it can inject zero or negative numbers on the Mass, and this is essentially the Kraken's favorite food.

 

14 minutes ago, pmborg said:

[LOG 21:24:42.991] [TweakScale] WARNING: NULL ConfigNode for HLAirships/Parts/Aero/Lifting Body/part/ProtoLiftBody (unholy characters on the name?). Trying partConfig instead!

This one is not an warning anymore. At the time i wrote this, I didn't knew yet this was harmless. Good catch, I need to transform this on a INFO message.

-- -- -- 

Now, the warnings I'm talking about on this post is like these one:

It's the bottom right Dialog Box. And the warnings in question is like this one:

[LOG 19:11:07.729] [TweakScale] ERROR: part=roverBody.v2 (Probodobodyne RoveMate) Exception on Sanity Checks: System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object
  at ConfigNode.CopyToRecursive (.ConfigNode node, Boolean overwrite) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0
  at ConfigNode.CopyToRecursive (.ConfigNode node, Boolean overwrite) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0
  at ConfigNode.CopyToRecursive (.ConfigNode node, Boolean overwrite) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0
  at ConfigNode.CopyToRecursive (.ConfigNode node, Boolean overwrite) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0
  at ConfigNode.CreateCopy () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0
  at GameDatabase.GetConfigNode (System.String url) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0
  at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter.GetMeThatConfigNode (.Part p) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0
  at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter.checkForOverrules (.Part p) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0
  at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter+<WriteDryCost>d__3.MoveNext () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0

And they generate a Report on the logfile as follows:

[LOG 19:11:07.775] [TweakScale] INFO: WriteDryCost Concluded : 459 parts found ; 1 checks failed ; 0 parts with hotfixes ; 0 parts with issues overruled ; 0 Show Stoppers found; 9 Sanity Check failed; 97 unscalable parts.

See the "1 checks failed".

Until today, I didn't had properly diagnosed this thing. In the past, it was happening due Making History adding some entries on GameDatabase at the Main Menu launch, that it's also where TweakScale does the Sanity Checks and the Dry Mass calculations - and so I had to overcome a race condition (ugly code, but it did the job).

But now I have yet a new problem with the same symptom. But this one, I know how to fix properly now!

[pmborg]

Thank you for the detail explanation, I understand now a little bit more how to check these sever errors.

I am reloading all main installation in order to have a clean log just after a full load at main menu.

I will share my log, just after the login, in case you need to get more detail data... one minute...

 

About the pinkies... I am trying to do it for all faces, but no luck until now...

I have diff. suits also for professions

Edited February 11, 2020 by pmborg

[Lisias]

22 minutes ago, kcs123 said:

Uh, that same piece of code from TS seems to be much needed to integrate within MM. Not only to throw error in log, but also to give same/similar scary message on UI too. Not much developers and users use TS, although there is plenty, but MM is mandatory for everyone. That might help developers to find faulty patches prior publishing mod.

Yep. And there's a lot more of needed features on MM that would make life easier for a lot of people too. Not to mention avoiding breaking Add'Ons for no reason.  

Spoiler

https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/50533-18x-module-manager-413-november-30th-2019-right-to-ludicrous-speed/&do=findComment&comment=3604730

https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/50533-18x-module-manager-413-november-30th-2019-right-to-ludicrous-speed/page/258/&tab=comments#comment-3604416

https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/50533-18x-module-manager-413-november-30th-2019-right-to-ludicrous-speed/&do=findComment&comment=3613980

 

 

https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/50533-18x-module-manager-413-november-30th-2019-right-to-ludicrous-speed/&do=findComment&comment=3605423

https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/50533-18x-module-manager-413-november-30th-2019-right-to-ludicrous-speed/&do=findComment&comment=3611228

 

 

 

[pmborg]

So I got:

[LOG 22:38:46.937] [TweakScale] INFO: WriteDryCost Concluded : 3248 parts found ; 0 checks failed ; 0 parts with hotfixes ; 0 parts with issues overruled ; 0 Show Stoppers found; 15 Sanity Check failed; 1118 unscalable parts.

Log file here:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/6hcqgt1obmpyl7i/KSP.log?dl=0

[Lisias]

1 hour ago, pmborg said:

So I got:

[LOG 22:38:46.937] [TweakScale] INFO: WriteDryCost Concluded : 3248 parts found ; 0 checks failed ; 0 parts with hotfixes ; 0 parts with issues overruled ; 0 Show Stoppers found; 15 Sanity Check failed; 1118 unscalable parts.

Log file here:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/6hcqgt1obmpyl7i/KSP.log?dl=0

You are OK. What had failed is the Sanity of the part, and so the TweakScale module was ripped off in runtime to avoid unleashing the Kraken. The problem was worked around, you are ok to go.

It's the checks failed thingy the problem, as the check itself had borked, and so I could not check the Sanity of that part, and the unknownness is the problem. (philosophical).

I think I need to rephrase these warnings...

[Lisias]

METAR

Users of TweakScale are advised to DO NOT update their game to 1.9 for while - or try the update after a FULL BACKUP of all his crafts and savegames (the the KSP itself too!).

The following line from the Release Notes may imply that parts being scaled down may (pending confirmation, I will download and check it myself in the next hours) not be cheaper and lighter that the specified "minimumMass" and "minimumCost", breaking your current craft files and also the living ones on the savegame!

* Part Mass and Cost now clamp their value to avoid negative numbers results from Mass/Cost Modifiers - configured per part via minimumMass and minimumCost in each parts cfg.

This precautionary measure are needed because once KSP loads a craft and savegame, all missing data are injected on the living parts and from that point, the craft and savegames will be saved with the new data - and so, TweakScale could not be able to change it back.

An emergencial release, with a lock preventing it to work on KSP 1.9 may be released soon, depending from what I find on the testings.

- -- --  POST EDIT -- -- -- 

Found not evidence of problems. To tell you the true, I found no  evidence of the feature itself!

 

Edited February 13, 2020 by Lisias
Post edit - No evidences of misbehaviours. Nor the feature. =P

[kcs123]

And bug hunting starts over again ...

[Drew Kerman]

1 hour ago, Lisias said:

METAR

That's a weather report. I'm pretty sure you mean NOTAM

[Lisias]

28 minutes ago, Drew Kerman said:

That's a weather report. I'm pretty sure you mean NOTAM

Dude, given the marvellous storm (and I will refrain to mention what could be falling from the skies) if by some reason I'm right, METAR is the word - believe me!!

[Lisias]

NOTAM

Our meteorological satellites had gone paranoid and detected storms of less than aromatic substances over our KSP 1.9 instalments.

Analysis and checks found no evidence of problems - or at least, noticeable problems - leading to the conclusion that our meteorological satellites need a good revision, or at least to consult a shrimp. The hard part will be to find a psychiatrist willing to be belted on a tin can and be controllably exploded into space.

The airspace over KSP 1.9 is open for TweakScale crafts, but proceed with caution until a full featured test session could be executed, probably on the weekend.

Now an explanation about the stunt:

TL;DR : Proceed with cautious optimism. Nothing exploded, but I didn't tested it thoroughly yet.

On KSP 1.6 or 1.7 (I don't remember), a trick I used to use while tweaking craft files ceased to work. I was editing the craft file and switching fuels on some tanks, essentially doing the work of a fuel switch manually, trying to optimize the ratios for the crazy doohickeys I do. What I discovered is that from 1.6 or 1.7 and forward, the data from the prefab started to be injected on the craft file [and living crafts from the persistent.sfs] with default values on the missing data. As an example, I edited a LFO tank and switched it to be oxidiser only. On KSP 1.4 it worked fine, but on 1.7 (and perhaps 1.6?), KSP started to inject back the Fuel on the part, but with 0 units.

Now, the Release Notes stated that minimumMass and minimumCost would be defined on the part's cfg. On vanilla parts this would not be a problem, but on TweakScaled parts the minimumMass would make scaled down parts get more mass on KSP 1.9 than on previous games. For example, a Rockomax fuel tank scaled to 1% would be clamped on the physics engine with that minimumMass thingy instead of the 1% of the original mass.

This could surely make cubesats and small probes broken. Big crafts would probably not be affected, however.

On the bottom line, I found no evidences of minimumMass and minimumCost on any CFG file on the Squad and SquadExpansion folder [using automated tools]. To tell you the true, the few config files I eyeballed are virtually identical to the previous release (1.8.1). 

minimumMass and minimumCost are defined on the API, however. The default for minimumCost is 0f, and for minimumMass is not defined on the API, but it states that no value less than 0.0001 will be accepted.

In a way or another, I found no evidence that these values would be persisted on the persistent.sfs or the craft files.

So, even if this is not working properly for scaled down parts (my time window for further testing is over by today), the savegame and the craft file is not being mangled, so no immediate damage will be infringed to these files. But a batch of proper testings are still in need to be done - and I need to teach TweakScale about these values too, what would demand yet more tests.

Cheers!

Edited February 13, 2020 by Lisias
Tyops, as usulla...

[FreeThinker]

8 hours ago, Lisias said:

Found not evidence of problems. To tell you the true, I found no  evidence of the feature itself!

Have your tried to make the final mass and cost negative after applying negative modifiers? By that I mean implemented IPartCostModifier and IPartMassModifier and make  GetModuleCost and GetModuleMass return negative values that would previously result in a final negative number?

Edited February 13, 2020 by FreeThinker

[Lisias]

7 hours ago, FreeThinker said:

Have your tried to make the final mass and cost negative after applying negative modifiers? By that I mean implemented IPartCostModifier and IPartMassModifier and make  GetModuleCost and GetModuleMass return negative values that would previously result in a final negative number?

No. I had looked on the config parts from Squad (both 1.9 as 1.8.x and 1.7.x), and the craft files and persistent.sfs files before and after being converted to 1.9, as well ones created on KSP 1.9 itself.

My concerning wasn't about the clamp itself - of course the feature would be working, as some minimal testing is expected to be done by the developers before the code is kicked through the door.  

The problem I was concerned was the possibility of that value be shoved on config files with default values that could break expected behaviour from living crafts on the persistent.sfs. But since I couldn't find evidences on the feature on that files, this meant that even if we find a bug somewhere on TweakScale about this feature, it will be not a killer one and the crafts file and persistent.sfs will be safe.

This is one of that weird situations in which absence of evidence (of the feature) is an evidence of absence of the problem (corruption of the data files). Carl Sagan, forgive me.  

Complex (sub)systems integration tests is where, historically, KSP was consistently failing in the past. I couldn't be happier by being wrong about this one.  

[zer0Kerbal]

On 2/11/2020 at 8:40 PM, Lisias said:

Would be a waste of I/O, the needed info is already available somewhere else!

found a plugin for npp that 'filters' files. only issues are that is only filters one thing at a time, and can't remember filters. It does filter into a new file which is great. now maybe I have to find a script to fix what I don't like about the plug in.

[Lisias]

48 minutes ago, zer0Kerbal said:

found a plugin for npp that 'filters' files. only issues are that is only filters one thing at a time, and can't remember filters. It does filter into a new file which is great. now maybe I have to find a script to fix what I don't like about the plug in.

Since I'm very comfortable with the command line, I use this only now and then, but TextWrangler (MacOS) have a very handy feature, customisable filters. It's simply a bash script where TextWrangler pipes it the document's content (or only the current selected text) and then takes the script output into a new document (or replacing the current one, its configurable). Check if NPP has something like this.

See, this is the KSP.log from my last test run for KSP 1.9:

And this is the custom filter I run when I'm on the mood for a GUI:

It has the advantage to forcing you to write REGEX Mambo Jambo only once, if you are more a GUI than a TUI guy.

And, of course, there's way more things you can do with this trick:

[zer0Kerbal]

figured it out in npp --- simple, only two issues: can't store commands, and only one at a time - but still - fast:

 

Spoiler

Quote

Just for info : you can, easily enough, simulate the two commands Keep lines with selection and Remove lines with selection of the Linefilter plugin, with N++, without any plugin :-). You just have to :

• Copy the contents of your current file, in a new tab

• Move to this new tab

• Mark the lines, containing a specific string, or matching a specific regex, ( Menu Search - Mark…). Don’t forget to check the Bookmark line option !

• Use the commands Search - Bookmark - Remove Unmarked Lines OR Search - Bookmark - Remove Bookmarked Lines to filter your text

 

 

[DarkNounours]

Hi all and hi Lisias. 

Sorry for being away for such a long time but I had a lot of personal set backs (father and aunt passed away in january) & I have a lot of work these days, but I am still willing to contribute.

I saw Lisias that you created a TweakScaleCompanion_NFS new repo in Github, I have a few questions on this.

• could it be a model to be compliant with for creating for example a TweakScaleCompanion_Restockplus nice add on ?
• If yes what are the key steps so that CKAN can take into account such another plugin ?

BR

 

[Lisias]

2 hours ago, DarkNounours said:

Sorry for being away for such a long time but I had a lot of personal set backs (father and aunt passed away in january) & I have a lot of work these days, but I am still willing to contribute.

Wow. Sorry for your loss. I know how it can be hard, my father passed away not too many years ago. 

 

2 hours ago, DarkNounours said:

I saw Lisias that you created a TweakScaleCompanion_NFS new repo in Github, I have a few questions on this.

• could it be a model to be compliant with for creating for example a TweakScaleCompanion_Restockplus nice add on ?

It's exactly as I intend to pursue this thing.

The prefix "TweakScaleCompanion" I intend to reserve to add'ons I personally curate (not necessarily own), so people knows it's something cared by a paranoid stand-up guy like me that do his best to avoid breaking things and purse bugs as they were vampires and he, the current Van Helsing reincarnation.  (it's the reason I asked for co-authorship at that time).

 

2 hours ago, DarkNounours said:

If yes what are the key steps so that CKAN can take into account such another plugin ?

Before adding these stunts to CKAN, I need to finish and kick TweakScale 2.4 trough the doors. Our fellow Kerbonaut @Jammer-TD gave a hell of a bashing on the Beta Release, and his reports hinted me that I should change my previous Road Map, pushing the :FOR thingy on TweakScale sooner. I need the next local holidays on Brazil (Carnival) in order to properly release this stunt to the Wild Wide Web.

With :FOR properly used by TweakScale, more complex interactions between different Add'Ons are possible and safe, and so I can focus on CKAN . Ideally, TweakScale should suggest/recommend all the Companions, and CKAN would prevent the installation of the Companions that doesn't have all the requirements met (TweakScale and the target Add'On). But since Everybody Borks  , the :AFTER and :BEFORE thingies can help us to write more bulletproof patches (and so the need to have :FOR on Wild first).

And the recent minimumMass and minimumCost features on KSP 1.9 surely will make our lives a lot easier from now on. This surely lifted a hell of a weight from my shoulders, at least.

Edited February 14, 2020 by Lisias
Tyops, as usulla...

[DarkNounours]

39 minutes ago, Lisias said:

Wow. Sorry for your loss. I know how it can be hard, my father passed away not too many years ago. 

Thanks dude.

39 minutes ago, Lisias said:

It's exactly as I intend to pursue this thing.

The prefix "TweakScaleCompanion" I intend to reserve to add'ons I personally curate (not necessarily own), so people knows it's something cared by a paranoid stand-up guy like me that do his best to avoid breaking things and purse bugs as they were vampires and he, the current Van Helsing reincarnation.  (it's the reason I asked for co-authorship at that time).

Ok so what would be the process?

• I would need to create a TweakScaleCompanion_stuff and you are invited to be a contributor ?
• You create a TweakScaleCompanion_stuff and you invite the willing guy (me) to be a co-author ?
• 3rd option ?

Sorry if I missed something on the last 5 pages, have you already asked for co-authoring for NFS ? I have my own addon for NFS :p

 

39 minutes ago, Lisias said:

Before adding these stunts to CKAN, I need to finish and kick TweakScale 2.4 trough the doors. Our fellow Kerbonaut @Jammer-TD gave a hell of a bashing on the Beta Release, and his reports hinted me that I should change my previous Road Map, pushing the :FOR thingy on TweakScale sooner. I need the next local holidays on Brazil (Carnival) in order to properly release this stunt to the Wild Wide Web.

With :FOR properly used by TweakScale, more complex interactions between different Add'Ons are possible and safe, and so I can focus on CKAN . Ideally, TweakScale should suggest/recommend all the Companions, and CKAN would prevent the installation of the Companions that doesn't have all the requirements met (TweakScale and the target Add'On). But since Everybody Borks  , the :AFTER and :BEFORE thingies can help us to write more bulletproof patches (and so the need to have :FOR on Wild first).

And the recent minimumMass and minimumCost features on KSP 1.9 surely will make our lives a lot easier from now on. This surely lifted a hell of a weight from my shoulders, at least.

Okay I stay tuned. 

On 2/2/2020 at 12:05 AM, Turbo Ben said:

HI, I'm trying to add tweakscale properties to a couple of parts in the restock+ mod. I managed to successfully get it working on the tine 3.75m fuel tank, but when I tried to do it on the 3.75m battery, I started getting the "houston we have a problem" message on loading the game.

I'm running KSP 1.7.3 with the relevant version of tweakscale installed through CKAN.

Two lines from the log confirming it is the battery causing the issue:

[TweakScale] ERROR: **FATAL** Part restock-battery-375-1 (Z-10K Rechargeable Battery Bank) has a fatal problem due having duplicated properties - see issue [#34]( https://github.com/net-lisias-ksp/TweakScale/issues/34 ).

[TweakScale] INFO: WriteDryCost Concluded : 749 parts found ; 0 checks failed ; 0 parts with hotfixes ; 0 parts with issues overruled ; 1 Show Stoppers found; 0 Sanity Check failed; 136 unscalable parts.

 

Code I added to ...Tweakscale/patches/squad/Squad_Util:

@PART[restock-battery-375-1] // restock 3.75m Battery
{
    %MODULE[TweakScale]
    {
        type = free
    }
}

OR

@PART[restock-battery-375-1] // restock 3.75m Battery
{
    %MODULE[TweakScale]
    {
        type = stack
        defaultScale = 3.75
    }
}

Code I added to the battery config:

  MODULE
  {
    name = TweakScale
    type = free
    scaleFactors = 0.625, 1.25, 1.875, 2.5, 3.75, 5.0, 7.5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 40
  }

OR

  MODULE
  {
    name = TweakScale
    type = stack
    defaultScale = 3.75
    scaleFactors = 0.625, 1.25, 1.875, 2.5, 3.75, 5.0, 7.5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 40
  }

 

I'll be honest, I have no idea how this mod works. I may have missed something simple, or might just not have a clue what I'm doing.

It's not a big issue, I can just scale up one of the stock batteries if needed, but if I've missed something simple I'd prefer to get this working.

Any suggestions?

Well I should have been more present these last weeks 
I have developed a plugin for Restock+ and rigid legs. It is automatically (well almost) generated by parsing the Restock+ mod with a perl program.

All the details (program + generated/curated files) are here :

https://github.com/xot1643/TS-Restockplus

I've been using the generated file for almost 2 months now, it is now part of my Career Game.

Edited February 14, 2020 by DarkNounours

[Lisias]

48 minutes ago, DarkNounours said:

• You create a TweakScaleCompanion_stuff and you invite the willing guy (me) to be a co-author ?

This one.

The NOTICE file will credit TweakScaleCompanion-* as my Trade Mark, but you will own the patches as the original Author. I suggest cloning the repo and issuing Pull Requests, once I incept it, so you will have github supporting you in the years to come about the original authorship of the patches. Of course, we need to settle on a licensing terms that make both of us happy - but since parches are not code, it will be easy to find a common ground on the matter!

[DarkNounours]

8 minutes ago, Lisias said:

This one.

The NOTICE file will credit TweakScaleCompanion-* as my Trade Mark, but you will own the patches as the original Author. I suggest cloning the repo and issuing Pull Requests, once I incept it, so you will have github supporting you in the years to come about the original authorship of the patches. Of course, we need to settle on a licensing terms that make both of us happy - but since parches are not code, it will be easy to find a common ground on the matter!

It's where you want whenever you want dude  (yeah it's still Valentine day afterall ). You can have a look at the link provided earlier to see how the cfg file i've generated/curated is made.

I have not many requirements, as long as end users are happy with more fun with their games

Edited February 14, 2020 by DarkNounours
spelling

[Lisias]

METAR

After some hours of tinkering and good laughs on committing absurdities on scaled parts, the current weather report is:

Clear skies, with no expected thunderstorms (of any substance, aromatic or not) for TweakScale aircrafts - as long you scale things using the U.I,

Some windshear can caught you from behind , however, if you try to brute force your way working around the U.I.

Brute forcing my way on craft files revealed some glitches and funny moments.  But since these situations are not reachable by the user interface, it's not considered relevant. AND KSP didn't blew up anyway, so no damage is done.

Cost and Mass, as expected, didn't underflow and so no crashes were induced on/by the physics engine or problems related to costs are expected (at lest, due this).

But the colliders started to misbehave on scales about 100 times less than the default (1% on free scale, defautScale/100 on stack). Crafts at that small scale suffered the Jumpin' Jack Effect - somewhat hard to visualise as the craft essentially has the size of a flee by now (had to turn aerodynamics on to see something, the camera's zoom was not enough).

The following entries on the log were detected for (almost?) all the absurdly scaled down parts:

[WRN 15:07:44.755] BoxColliders does not support negative scale or size.
The effective box size has been forced positive and is likely to give unexpected collision geometry.
If you absolutely need to use negative scaling you can use the convex MeshCollider. Scene hierarchy path "strutCube/strutCube/strutCube/strutCube/strutCube

As well some complains from KSP on ground contact (again, for the absurdly scaled down parts):

[LOG 15:07:49.035] [Arrow-E]: ground contact! - error. Moving Vessel  down -0.430m

This last one being known to be associated to the Jumpin' Jack Effect (inclusive on Firespitter wheels!).

I see no reasons to believe that any bug we could find on TweakScale would not affect also KSPs from 1.4 to 1.8, and nothing on KSP 1.9 induced any collateral effect that would make it behave differently from what we have on previous KSPs.

So let's light that candles, boys. Our Kerbals are eager to fly!

Edited February 17, 2020 by Lisias
Better phrasing. :P

[zer0Kerbal]

On 2/15/2020 at 6:39 PM, Lisias said:

So let's light that candles, boys. Our Kerbals are eager to fly!

light the upscaled fires, and kick the downscaled tires!

[Lisias]

3 hours ago, zer0Kerbal said:

light the upscaled fires, and kick the downscaled tires!

And if you use the current Beta for TweakScale 2.5, you can scale the wheels and get the expected behaviour too!!

[Mortimer Kerman]

On 10/17/2018 at 1:36 AM, Lisias said:

As from 2018-1016 and under @pellinor agreement, I'm the New Management for TweakScale. From now on, it's all officially my fault!  

Notice: it's recommended to read this post before updating to KSP 1.9. TL;DR: nothing wrong was detected until the moment, but use S.A.V.E.  just in case.

In a Hurry:

• Help Wanted!
  • See this post.
• IMPORTANT
  • read this post before updating!
    • Addendum 1.
    • Addendum 2.
  • TweakScale strongly advises you to use S.A.V.E.
    • Use the release that matches your KSP version.
    • (the release for 1.8 is known to work on 1.9)
• RELEVANT
  • A new and nasty Kraken Food (unholy interactions between Add'Ons) is now being detected on startup, and a proper (and scary) Warning is being shown. Pay attention to that message, and reach me here for help!
    • Overrules and HotFixes can be issued to workaround the problems if needed. See this post.
    • A PhD thesis about the current problems can be found on this post.
    • An article about how new patches will be handled is here.
  • For users of Infernal Robotics:
    • The Classic Infernal Robotics has a showstopper bug. See this post for details.
    • TweakScale strongly advise using Infernal Robotics/Next where these issues were solved.
• Current Release:  2.4.3.10 for KSP >= 1.4.1(2019-1030)
  • Yes, it works with KSP 1.9  
    • How to check Compatibility on CurseForge.
  • on GitHub (and KSP-AVC users)
  • on CurseForge
  • on SpaceDock and CKAN
• Old thread: on Forum.
• Project:
  • Source: on GitHub
    • License: WTFPL
  • This project makes use of KSPe.Light for TweakScale,
    • SKL1.0 License
    • and GPLv2 too
    • yeah, this thing is DOUBLE LICENSED.
      • The SKL grants you essential rights for binary use and redistribution. Non revokable but restricted for use and redistribution.
      • GPLv2 grants you additional rights when applicable.
  • Current Roadmap.
  • Change Log.
  • Known Issues Mandatory Reading
  • Issue Tracking (You can check what I'm doing here!)

Description:

TweakScale lets you change the size of a part. Not just that, but it will figure out how much fuel is in the resized part. And if it's an engine, it will become more powerful by scaling it bigger, or weaker by scaling it smaller.

(Pictures are eternal work in progress!  )

Credits:

Contributions From:

• Goodspeed and Biotronic. [original release thread]
• Pellinor [previous release thread]

And future new features/bugs/mishaps from yours truly.

Support:

I need help in order to proper help you.  So I ask that on asking for support:

• A concise, textual description of the problem
  • Mentioning the KSP version and the TweakScale version involved
• A screenshot of the problem
• When applicable, the .craft file with a vessel that have the problem
• When asked, the KSP.log and output_txt log from Unity.
  • See this article for instructions.
  • The Player.log changed location:
    • On MacOS
      • For KSP < 1.8, they are on ~/Library/Logs/Unity
      • On KSP >=1.8, you will find the Player.log on ~/Library/Logs/Squad/KSP/
    • On Windows
      • On KSP >=1.8, you will find the Player.log on C:\Users\<USERNAME>\AppData\LocalLow\Squad\KSP\
    • On Linux
      • On KSP >=1.8, you will find the Player.log on ~/.config/unity3d/Squad/KSP/

Using the Issue Tracker is highly encouraged, as GitHub provides services that make everything above easier. You can open an issue there, and call me here pinpointing there to be sure to get my attention.

Thank you.

YaY!