[1.8.1-1] [PLEASE FORK ME] Kopernicus & KittopiaTech

[alex_1313]

7 hours ago, Sigma88 said:

I will need a full bug report then

click on the nyan cat in my sig and follow the instructions

Here are my bug report files: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6q_MpFJa9qddU0zd0t1Ty1QWkU/view?usp=sharing

[Sigma88]

5 hours ago, EricL said:

Try adding intensity curves and see if that helps, I did this for my own Intergalactic mod:

This issue is not caused by missing curves.

It could be caused by bad curves however, but with no curves the new star should work, hence why I need the full report to see what's going on

Edited August 31, 2017 by Sigma88

[Tynton]

I'm trying to get a LightCurve to work. With any previous questions asked, I haven't necessarily found a proper solution (which works for me thus far), though if anyone has one, let me know. I'm getting the constant 'light-curve' being the same for the Sun, though implementing the code I've seen hasn't worked.

ScaledVersion
        {
            Light
			{
				IntensityCurve
				{
					key = 0 45.0
					key = 250000 35.0
					key = 500000 17.5
					key = 750000 8.75
					key = 1000000 5.0
					key = 4000000 4.0
					key = 9000000 3.0
					key = 18000000 1.5
					key = 45000000 0.75
					key = 90000000 0.35
					key = 180000000 0.0
					key = 90000000000 0.0
				}
				scaledIntensityCurve
				{
					key = 0 45.0
					key = 250000 35.0
					key = 500000 17.5
					key = 750000 8.75
					key = 1000000 5.0
					key = 4000000 4.0
					key = 9000000 3.0
					key = 18000000 1.5
					key = 45000000 0.75
					key = 90000000 0.35
					key = 180000000 0.0
					key = 90000000000 0.0
				}
				ivaIntensityCurve
				{
					key = 0 45.0
					key = 250000 35.0
					key = 500000 17.5
					key = 750000 8.75
					key = 1000000 5.0
					key = 4000000 4.0
					key = 9000000 3.0
					key = 18000000 1.5
					key = 45000000 0.75
					key = 90000000 0.35
					key = 180000000 0.0
					key = 90000000000 0.0
				}
				sunlightColor = 1.75,1.5,1.85,1.0
				sunlightIntensity = 1.0
				scaledSunlightColor = 1.75,1.5,1.85,1.0
				scaledSunlightIntensity = 1.0
				IVASunColor = 1.75,1.5,1.85,1.0
				IVASunIntensity = 0.8
				//sunLensFlareColor = 0.55,0.65,2.0,1.0
				sunLensFlareColor = 0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0
				ambientLightColor = 0.0,0.0,0.015,1.0
				sunAU = 23482184120
			}

            Material
            {
                emitColor0 = 1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0
                emitColor1 = 0.55,0.75,1.0,1.0
                sunspotColor = 1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0
                rimColor = 1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0
            }

            Coronas
            {
                Corona
                {
                    rotation = 0
                    speed = -1
                    updateInterval = 5
                    scaleLimitX = 5
                    scaleLimitY = 5
                    scaleSpeed = 0.007

                    Material
                    {
                        texture = Aszowiec/Coronas/BBC
                        inverseFade = 2.553731
                    }
                }
            }
        }

I'd like to know what I'm doing wrong.

[seanth]

1 minute ago, Tynton said:

I'm trying to get a LightCurve to work. With any previous questions asked, I haven't necessarily found a proper solution (which works for me thus far), though if anyone has one, let me know. I'm getting the constant 'light-curve' being the same for the Sun, though implementing the code I've seen hasn't worked.

<snip>

I'd like to know what I'm doing wrong.

I think your keys need be flushed out more. If it helps, here's an example of what I have found to work for me:

Spoiler

                //ScaledIntensityCurve stops the star brightness from being overwhelming
                ScaledIntensityCurve
                {
                    key = 0 1 0 0
                    key = 87500 1 0 -1.65E-06
                    key = 175000 0.9 -8.24E-07 -8.24E-07
                    key = 350000 0.8 -4.12E-07 -4.12E-07
                    key = 700000 0.7 -2.06E-07 -2.06E-07
                    key = 1400000 0.6 -1.03E-07 -1.03E-07
                    key = 2800000 0.5 -5.15E-08 -5.15E-08
                    key = 5600000 0.4 -2.58E-08 -2.58E-08
                    key = 11200000 0.3 -1.29E-08 -1.29E-08
                    key = 22400000 0.2 -6.44E-09 -6.44E-09
                    key = 44800000 0.1 -3.22E-09 -3.22E-09
                    key = 89600000 0 -1.61E-09 0
                }
                IVAIntensityCurve
                {
                    key = 0 0.7 0 0
                    key = 87500 0.7 0 -1.15E-06
                    key = 175000 0.63 -5.77E-07 -5.77E-07
                    key = 350000 0.56 -2.89E-07 -2.89E-07
                    key = 700000 0.49 -1.44E-07 -1.44E-07
                    key = 1400000 0.42 -7.21E-08 -7.21E-08
                    key = 2800000 0.35 -3.61E-08 -3.61E-08
                    key = 5600000 0.28 -1.80E-08 -1.80E-08
                    key = 11200000 0.21 -9.02E-09 -9.02E-09
                    key = 22400000 0.14 -4.51E-09 -4.51E-09
                    key = 44800000 0.07 -2.25E-09 -2.25E-09
                    key = 89600000 0 -1.13E-09 0
                }
                brightnessCurve
                {
                    key = 0.0014 0.035 0 25
                    key = 0.01 0.5 50 50
                    key = 0.1 5 50 50
                    key = 0.45 22.5 50 -50
                    key = 0.5 0 -50 -50
                }

 

 

[Tynton]

@seanth

How did you generate those curves?

[Sigma88]

11 minutes ago, Tynton said:

I'm trying to get a LightCurve to work. With any previous questions asked, I haven't necessarily found a proper solution (which works for me thus far), though if anyone has one, let me know. I'm getting the constant 'light-curve' being the same for the Sun, though implementing the code I've seen hasn't worked.

ScaledVersion
        {
            Light
			{
				IntensityCurve
				{
					key = 0 45.0
					key = 250000 35.0
					key = 500000 17.5
					key = 750000 8.75
					key = 1000000 5.0
					key = 4000000 4.0
					key = 9000000 3.0
					key = 18000000 1.5
					key = 45000000 0.75
					key = 90000000 0.35
					key = 180000000 0.0
					key = 90000000000 0.0
				}
				scaledIntensityCurve
				{
					key = 0 45.0
					key = 250000 35.0
					key = 500000 17.5
					key = 750000 8.75
					key = 1000000 5.0
					key = 4000000 4.0
					key = 9000000 3.0
					key = 18000000 1.5
					key = 45000000 0.75
					key = 90000000 0.35
					key = 180000000 0.0
					key = 90000000000 0.0
				}
				ivaIntensityCurve
				{
					key = 0 45.0
					key = 250000 35.0
					key = 500000 17.5
					key = 750000 8.75
					key = 1000000 5.0
					key = 4000000 4.0
					key = 9000000 3.0
					key = 18000000 1.5
					key = 45000000 0.75
					key = 90000000 0.35
					key = 180000000 0.0
					key = 90000000000 0.0
				}
				sunlightColor = 1.75,1.5,1.85,1.0
				sunlightIntensity = 1.0
				scaledSunlightColor = 1.75,1.5,1.85,1.0
				scaledSunlightIntensity = 1.0
				IVASunColor = 1.75,1.5,1.85,1.0
				IVASunIntensity = 0.8
				//sunLensFlareColor = 0.55,0.65,2.0,1.0
				sunLensFlareColor = 0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0
				ambientLightColor = 0.0,0.0,0.015,1.0
				sunAU = 23482184120
			}

            Material
            {
                emitColor0 = 1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0
                emitColor1 = 0.55,0.75,1.0,1.0
                sunspotColor = 1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0
                rimColor = 1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0
            }

            Coronas
            {
                Corona
                {
                    rotation = 0
                    speed = -1
                    updateInterval = 5
                    scaleLimitX = 5
                    scaleLimitY = 5
                    scaleSpeed = 0.007

                    Material
                    {
                        texture = Aszowiec/Coronas/BBC
                        inverseFade = 2.553731
                    }
                }
            }
        }

I'd like to know what I'm doing wrong.

the distance is in units of 6km

which means, if you have

key = 250000 35.0

 

the distance you chose is 1500000000 meters

 

the "intensity" instead is a multiplier for the light, the stock sun has 0.9 everywhere so you probably will want to have 0.9 at the level of kerbin, a little bit more closer to the sun and a little bit less for the outer planets

Edited September 1, 2017 by Sigma88

[Tynton]

I'm assuming it's 250000*6?

I was initially confused when reading some other posts about the subject, though.

Also, thanks seanth.

http://imgur.com/a/IFa91

Reference image in a binary star system

Edited September 1, 2017 by Tynton

[Sigma88]

1 minute ago, Tynton said:

I'm assuming it's 250000*6?

I was initially confused when reading some other posts about the subject, though.

250000*6 km = 250000*6000 m

 

1500000 km = 1500000000 m

 

[OhioBob]

9 hours ago, Tynton said:

@seanth

How did you generate those curves?

This might help:

 

Edited September 2, 2017 by OhioBob

[alex_1313]

On 8/31/2017 at 7:57 AM, Sigma88 said:

This issue is not caused by missing curves.

It could be caused by bad curves however, but with no curves the new star should work, hence why I need the full report to see what's going on

Only the atmosphere of planets are lit by Kerbol.

When i remove the curve nothing changes.

Screenshots of Duna and Kerbin:

https://imgur.com/a/b1cSC

[Sigma88]

I'll take a look at the full bug report as soon as I have some free time

[gamerscircle]

I recently started a new KSP career and am "role playing' that the scientists on Kerbin have made a discovery beyond their known solar system.

I have installed Galileo's Planet Pack via GPP Secondary and all seems to be in order except that the solar panels are not tracking the correct sun and that this a Kopernicus bug?

This is the first time that I have used GPP and  Kopernicus and the information that I did get came from smarter people that me.  [ smile ]

Is there anything that I can do to help address this?  [aside from packing lots of batteries and fuel cells ]

thank you for your time.

[Sigma88]

32 minutes ago, gamerscircle said:

I recently started a new KSP career and am "role playing' that the scientists on Kerbin have made a discovery beyond their known solar system.

I have installed Galileo's Planet Pack via GPP Secondary and all seems to be in order except that the solar panels are not tracking the correct sun and that this a Kopernicus bug?

This is the first time that I have used GPP and  Kopernicus and the information that I did get came from smarter people that me.  [ smile ]

Is there anything that I can do to help address this?  [aside from packing lots of batteries and fuel cells ]

thank you for your time.

 

https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/140580-0/&do=findComment&comment=3153498

https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/140580-0/&page=95&tab=comments#comment-3153498

https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/140580-0/&page=27#comment-2793409

 

for this particular issue we are already in contact with GPP devs

Edited September 3, 2017 by Sigma88

[MaxxQ]

8 hours ago, gamerscircle said:

I recently started a new KSP career and am "role playing' that the scientists on Kerbin have made a discovery beyond their known solar system.

I have installed Galileo's Planet Pack via GPP Secondary and all seems to be in order except that the solar panels are not tracking the correct sun and that this a Kopernicus bug?

This is the first time that I have used GPP and  Kopernicus and the information that I did get came from smarter people that me.  [ smile ]

Is there anything that I can do to help address this?  [aside from packing lots of batteries and fuel cells ]

thank you for your time.

Aside from what Sigma88 wrote above, a quick and easy workaround until the issue is fixed is to retract your panels (assuming they can retract), point your ship at Ciro (or whatever direction the panels will face when opened, as long as they point towards the sun), then extend the panels.  This isn't a permanent fix, as sometimes when the ship goes into the shadow of a planet, the panels will end up trying to track on Grannus again, but at least you now know one way to have a temporary fix.

This has worked for me, and every so often, I'll check my ships to see if I need to correct the panels.  Most of the time, they're fine, so it's not like you'll need to babysit your ship.

[gamerscircle]

I do appreciate the input, I have gotten a couple of visits in my stream with suggestions and I am also packing a fuel cell, just in case.

[Poodmund]

@Sigma88, after our discussions yesterday I had a thought... does Kopernicus currently our will it implement a new Solar Panel module?

If so, how would that affect contract generation for those that require a solar panel to be on the vessel. As far as I know, the contracts work by monitoring the stock solar panel module and if, by a MM config, all of those are stripped out and replaced with a new module it may affect how the contracts are offered/behave.

[Sigma88]

8 minutes ago, Poodmund said:

@Sigma88, after our discussions yesterday I had a thought... does Kopernicus currently our will it implement a new Solar Panel module?

If so, how would that affect contract generation for those that require a solar panel to be on the vessel. As far as I know, the contracts work by monitoring the stock solar panel module and if, by a MM config, all of those are stripped out and replaced with a new module it may affect how the contracts are offered/behave.

as you can see here the Kopernicus Solar Panels are based off of Stock Solar Panels

 

this means that all kopernicus solar panels are also stock solar panels,

which also means that a piece of code checking for the presence of stock solar panels will return 'true' even if it finds only kopernicus solar panels

 

or at least this is the expected behaviour, if you don't see this happen feel free to open an issue on github or report it in here

Edited September 4, 2017 by Sigma88

[Poodmund]

2 hours ago, Sigma88 said:

or at least this is the expected behaviour, if you don't see this happen feel free to open an issue on github or report it in here

Ah okay, that's good to know. Ive not seen anything it was just a musing but I'll keep it in mind.

[Maelstrom Vortex]

On 9/3/2017 at 10:17 AM, gamerscircle said:

I recently started a new KSP career and am "role playing' that the scientists on Kerbin have made a discovery beyond their known solar system.

I have installed Galileo's Planet Pack via GPP Secondary and all seems to be in order except that the solar panels are not tracking the correct sun and that this a Kopernicus bug?

This is the first time that I have used GPP and  Kopernicus and the information that I did get came from smarter people that me.  [ smile ]

Is there anything that I can do to help address this?  [aside from packing lots of batteries and fuel cells ]

thank you for your time.

You've run into the same problem I fought with when I used multiple solar systems. I ended up removing the extra star systems as they're not really applicable to the campaign until I get warp drives unless I want to time warp hundreds of years. I was using Interstellar Adventure. So far as I can tell Koppernicus team nor the mod Curator for Interstellar adventure have been able to resolve this as of yet other than a work around that will only work a fraction of the time and leave solar pretty much an unreliable resource at best.

Until a fix is found, expect to be fighting with all solar powered craft, a  lot, if you use multiple stars.

My solution, and it's really my own work around that will generate any form of reliable power source, is to use beamed power from KSPIE to set up my own "suns" in each foreign star system before arrival at each planet. My space stations, which will eventually become interstellar star ships, have the ability to produce the relay satellites in situ to allow me to ring a planet in beamed power until this problem gets resolved. Should have entitled my campaign, "KSP, when the stars go out."

Edited September 4, 2017 by Maelstrom Vortex

[seanth]

Is there a way to get some sort of loading screen feedback letting people know that KSP hasn't crashed but is writing files to the cache folder?

There are times when it _appears_ the game has hung, but files are being written. Some sort of visual feedback would at least let people know they should cultivate patience.

[Sigma88]

6 hours ago, seanth said:

Is there a way to get some sort of loading screen feedback letting people know that KSP hasn't crashed but is writing files to the cache folder?

There are times when it _appears_ the game has hung, but files are being written. Some sort of visual feedback would at least let people know they should cultivate patience.

cache files are created only once (with some exceptions)

if it's the first time you installed a planet pack, or if you just updated one, you should expect the loading time to be longer.

to check the progress you can go to <KSP Install>\Logs\Kopernicus

you will see a new file being created every time a planet has finished loading

 

Thomas just added (for the next release) some pretty clear visual indication that will pop up when Kopernicus fails to create some planets, but sometimes it's still possible to go past that check and end up frozen in the black loading screen, so the Logs/Kopernicus trick will be useful then

[seanth]

6 hours ago, Sigma88 said:

if it's the first time you installed a planet pack, or if you just updated one, you should expect the loading time to be longer.

to check the progress you can go to <KSP Install>\Logs\Kopernicus

you will see a new file being created every time a planet has finished loading

Yup. That is certainly something that people somewhat (EDIT) familiar (end EDIT) with Kopernicus can do, but casual players are still faced with an apparently unresponsive game when loading a lot of stars/planets for the first time.

I suppose one can use LoadingTipsPlus to try and get text up on the screen.

Edited September 6, 2017 by seanth

[Sigma88]

4 minutes ago, seanth said:

Yup. That is certainly something that people somewhat with Kopernicus can do, but casual players are still faced with an apparently unresponsive game when loading a lot of stars/planets for the first time.

I suppose one can use LoadingTipsPlus to try and get text up on the screen.

with my reply I was giving a solution that is currently available rather than commenting on your request

 

I do think it could be useful to have some kind of indication on the screen, but I haven't looked to see if it's possible yet.

I will definitely look into it, but I have no ETA

[adsii1970]

@Sigma88 -

I have a question about one of the planet property lines in the Kopericus wiki:

Quote

coreTemperatureOffset = ?

Is this command necessary and what does it exactly do? Is it similar to emissivity = ?scale from 0 to 1? 

I'm working on a mod pack using Kopernicus  - and it's my first one. I hope I don't drag the thread down with too many questions... ( @OhioBob)

Edited September 6, 2017 by adsii1970

[Galileo]

1 minute ago, adsii1970 said:

I'm working on a mod pack using Kopernicus  - and it's my first one. I hope I don't drag the thread down with too many questions... ( @OhioBob)

This is a good place to ask questions. It's the "I can't get this word document to wrap around my planet, and when I get too close, my neck starts to itch. How do I fix that?" questions that get ignored.

however, I don't know what that parameter does.