Jump to content

[1.3.1 - 1.12.x] Outer Planets Mod [v2.2.11] [31st Aug 2024]

Poodmund

By Poodmund
in KSP1 Mod Releases

 Share

Recommended Posts

Warhorse

Warhorse

Posted
Posted (edited)

I'm getting an error trying to unzip v2.2.8 after downloading. When I try to unzip the file, it says "The compressed (zipped) folder is empty." When I look at the archive using 7zip instead of the built in  Windows 10 "Extract all" function, it appears to contain CTTP but not OPM. Am I doing something wrong here?

Update: I get the same issue with 2.2.7 and 2.2.6, as well.

Edited by Warhorse
more information
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
theJesuit

theJesuit

Posted
Posted
31 minutes ago, Relonsk said:

No, thats Pluto analog, i'm talking about the proposed Planet 9 that may have a orbit beyond Neptune and may have caused the Outer solar system Asteroids highly eccentric orbits.

https://www.gizhub.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/a1-1.png

I'm proposing that someone code Planet 9 into real life.  Just so we can all feel less of a loss about Pluto.

Peace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sturmhauke

sturmhauke

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, theJesuit said:

I'm proposing that someone code Planet 9 into real life.  Just so we can all feel less of a loss about Pluto.

Peace.

I object to the demotion of Pluto on the following grounds:

  1. The definition of "clearing the neighborhood" as one of the planetary criteria is not well defined enough. There are three major candidate formulas that were proposed for a more rigorous definition, but none of them has been officially selected.
  2. The vote was cast in a way that I believe was improper; it was held at the end of a conference when people were already leaving, and many eligible astronomers could not attend in the first place. (My wife likes to make fun of me on this point, saying that my objection comes down to a question of parliamentary procedure. Well, she's not wrong.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
theJesuit

theJesuit

Posted
Posted
30 minutes ago, sturmhauke said:

I object to the demotion of Pluto on the following grounds:

  1. The definition of "clearing the neighborhood" as one of the planetary criteria is not well defined enough. There are three major candidate formulas that were proposed for a more rigorous definition, but none of them has been officially selected.
  2. The vote was cast in a way that I believe was improper; it was held at the end of a conference when people were already leaving, and many eligible astronomers could not attend in the first place. (My wife likes to make fun of me on this point, saying that my objection comes down to a question of parliamentary procedure. Well, she's not wrong.)

Pluto has in fact cleared its neighborhood by collecting adopting a  twin and adopting some other moons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
etmoonshade

etmoonshade

Posted
Posted
43 minutes ago, sturmhauke said:

I object to the demotion of Pluto on the following grounds:

  1. The definition of "clearing the neighborhood" as one of the planetary criteria is not well defined enough. There are three major candidate formulas that were proposed for a more rigorous definition, but none of them has been officially selected.
  2. The vote was cast in a way that I believe was improper; it was held at the end of a conference when people were already leaving, and many eligible astronomers could not attend in the first place. (My wife likes to make fun of me on this point, saying that my objection comes down to a question of parliamentary procedure. Well, she's not wrong.)

I think someone just needed an excuse to sell some new textbooks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
R-T-B

R-T-B

Posted
Posted (edited)

Hello @Poodmund,

Just a heads up, Kopernicus now defaults to shader level 2 (high) enforcement rather than ultra (3) to avoid the 1.9 atlas retrocompatability issues with nonsupporting atlas packs.  You seem to nicely navigate around these issues in your pack, so you may want to enable atlas support.  To do so, you'd simply need to ship a modulemanager config, similar to as follows: 

@Kopernicus_config:FOR[OPM]
{
	EnforcedShaderLevel = 3
}

Up to you if you want to do this yourself or simply advise your users who wonder where their pretty stock atlas-textures went, but just thought you should know.

Edited by R-T-B
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Poodmund

Poodmund

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

Thanks for the heads up, OPM does not implement and of the atlased texture shaders and as such I feel this terrain quality setting should be left up to the user to enforce themselves.

You say that Kopernicus now enforces level 2 by default... so if I go into my settings, set it to Ultra, save the settings then close and restart the game, the setting will revert to High upon the new load?

I feel that Kopernicus should not enforce ANY setting upon the user by default, this should be left to the planet pack author if they wish to do so.

Edited by Poodmund
Link to comment
Share on other sites
R-T-B

R-T-B

Posted
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Poodmund said:

You say that Kopernicus now enforces level 2 by default... so if I go into my settings, set it to Ultra, save the settings then close and restart the game, the setting will revert to High upon the new load?

Yes, it does.

It also informs them it is doing this (thus allowing them to edit the config file if needed).  But out of the box, I do understand your concern that it may be an overreach, and am honestly reconsidering it in hindsight.  As such next release will most likely not force any setting by default, and allow the pack to choose to do this only if needed.  We were mainly doing this to prevent buggy pack/setting combos, but...  the pack should test that really.  And anyways, I mean that'll get logged and I can manage the bug reports.  I think the harm outweighs the benefit of enforcing it on stock.

tl;dr:  If you aren't using atlas, don't worry about it, I'll remove the hardlock to "high" pretty soon here.

Edited by R-T-B
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Poodmund

Poodmund

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I just saw the release. Thanks for doing that. I feel that a band aid solution to act as a crutch for I'll informed users should not be a hindrance to well informed users. I think this is the right approach. Thanks for highlighting this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Poodmund

Poodmund

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
On 10/8/2020 at 4:27 AM, nsgallup said:

Is there a way to easily remove the added procedural craters on eeloo from the pack after download?

Not *easily* but:

  • Delete Kerbal Space Program/GameData/OPM/Cache/Eeloo.bin

Delete these lines from Kerbal Space Program/GameData/OPM/KopernicusConfigs/SarnusMoons/Eeloo.cfg:

&

Then re-run the game and it should remove those procedural craters and also revert back to the stock scaledspace textures.

5 hours ago, upbeattomorrow8 said:

Hi @Poodmund,

Sorry for the dumb question, but does this mod work on 1.10? If so, are there any other mods I need/strongly recommend? Thanks so much for the help!

It works with KSP 1.10.1 if you satisfy the dependencies as listed in the OP, specifically, for KSP 1.10.1 this means you need to use RTB's Kopernicus Bleeding Edge edition for 1.10.1.

Edited by Poodmund
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...