Jump to content

Now-defunct-thread-that-should-not-appear-in-google-search.

Cilph

By Cilph
in KSP1 Mod Releases

 Share

Recommended Posts

Spuds

Spuds

Posted
Posted

I'd like to clarify what Cilph wrote about his slowed development. Does this mean that he'll only be working on bug-fixing and patching, and not any new features? Or is he taking a short term break until 0.24 comes out? Or is he stopping development for a long time to get his stuff together? I'm fine with any of these options, don't think that I prefer one over the other. As long as Cilph enjoys developing RT2, I'm happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
R0cketC0der

R0cketC0der

Posted
Posted
Openings for: leads (if either JDP or Cilph decline), programmers (all), modellers (at least one!), a documentation writer, and a you tube tutorial.

I'm in as a programmer. I know C# for a while and have already made a small test mod for ksp, but it was just a pretty useless mod that was just to learn how to make a mod for ksp. I never had any good ideas for mods since then, so I haven't been making mods for ksp for a couple of months now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rokker

Rokker

Posted
Posted (edited)

Ok, so I've run into a problem. Essentially, RT is no longer working. The connection bar says N/A for probes, I cant activate/deactivate any RT antennas and the squad antennas have reverted back to the old options of extend and transmit. The map does however show that there are connections between the antenna and whatnot and the dishes are still pointed at the bodies. On a possibly related note, the map has also started occasionally failing on me, by which I mean when I go to the map, be it through M button or the tracking station, it is just a pitch black screen with nothing visible. Im not sure if this bug is due to RT itself or something else as it also appears to have partially broken mechjeb as well. The only changes made to gamedata before the issue were an update to FAR 13.3, then a revert to FAR 13.2 (long story), and the addition of Krag's Planet Factory and the Active Texture Management mod.

I tried uninstalling and then reinstalling RT and the RT patch.

If I need to provide more info, I can, just let me know, I just didn't want to make this message any longer than it already is. Anyone have any idea of what is happening?

Edited by Rokker
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ExplorerKlatt

ExplorerKlatt

Posted
Posted
The only changes made to gamedata before the issue were an update to FAR 13.3, then a revert to FAR 13.2 (long story), and the addition of Krag's Planet Factory and the Active Texture Management mod.

Anyone have any idea of what is happening?

Did you try uninstalling the new mods, ie Planet Factory and or ATM?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rokker

Rokker

Posted
Posted (edited)
Did you try uninstalling the new mods, ie Planet Factory and or ATM?

Yup, nothing happened.

Edit: I guess installing Mechjeb again might have fixed it...

Edited by Rokker
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grunf911

Grunf911

Posted
Posted
Some have stepped forward actually. I may take up on the offer once I get something stable going that can be iterated upon.

Would like to check it myself. Have little time, but like RT2 so much, i can maybe give the project a look and see if i can contribute somehow as well.

Sent you a PM BTW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cilph

Cilph

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Proposal:

As others have said, I'd like to see this continue, ideally as a community project with multiple contributors.

Let's take some inventory:

I'm in -- experienced game dev with C#/Unity experience. However, I've also a full-time job, an unpublished mod I'm working on, and a child, so I can't commit at the ferram4 level of support. I'd be happy to take on a leadership role, managing a github, pull requests, etc, and working on it as much as my time allows, but I'd need plenty of support.

If I might suggest, and if they are willing, maybe JDP, Cilph, and I as 'moderators' of a github repo, with the community supporting via pull request. This removes any single-point of failure if somebody goes absent; pays homage to the gentlemen who have invested plenty of authorship in it; reduces the pressure on any single individual; and sets us up in more of a team/democratic style than an autocratic one.

I'd also like to have a "highly active" forum member commit to take on an "official build" role; this would be somebody committed to turning around a quick release of master after Squad makes a release. (E.g., if that happens during a workday, none of the three of us would be able to jump on it immediately). This person would compile against the new build, test locally to ensure that things work, proficient enough as a coder to get past any small changes that are required to get things working. They would then post to thread, upload to Spaceport + one other location, and submit a pull-request with any changes back to master.

Who else is "in", and what skills can you contribute?

Openings for: leads (if either JDP or Cilph decline), programmers (all), modellers (at least one!), a documentation writer, and a you tube tutorial.

As said, not entirely stepping down yet, I'd like to finish what I'm currently working on even though it might have a bit overkill architecture. Though perhaps I should let everyone in on that mess of a build instead of keeping it till it's done. I'd like to take a lead position still as it requires less time than coding the damn thing. For documentation, starstrider42 was working on a full user guide, and my go-to guy for modelling is Kommit, who did an amazing job on the KR-7 and KR-14 dishes.

So, should we convert the project to a community effort then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grunf911

Grunf911

Posted
Posted
As said, not entirely stepping down yet, I'd like to finish what I'm currently working on even though it might have a bit overkill architecture. Though perhaps I should let everyone in on that mess of a build instead of keeping it till it's done. I'd like to take a lead position still as it requires less time than coding the damn thing. For documentation, starstrider42 was working on a full user guide, and my go-to guy for modelling is Kommit, who did an amazing job on the KR-7 and KR-14 dishes.

So, should we convert the project to a community effort then?

I'm in, I work as Quality Assurance professionally, and would be happy to contribute in that manner. I could try to contribute in other manners, but i think there are way more experienced/skilled people in other areas in this forum. I am good at finding bugs though ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Amaroq

Amaroq

Posted
Posted
So, should we convert the project to a community effort then?

I think so, yes. JDP has informed me (via PM) that he's up for a joint lead role, in the way described earlier (such that any given lead can disappear for a month without compromising the team, as long as we're not all gone concurrently), and it sounds like we have a decent community consensus -- several programmers, a QA lead, a documentation expert, and if Kommit is in for modelling, then I think we've got a full team, minus the "release engineer".

Would you like to do that on your existing repo, or shall I fork & host?

I'd definitely like to see and work on polishing the re-architecture - you've put a lot of work into it. If you've made good use of git on your local, we might even be able to tease apart the finished from the unfinished. I can promise not to judge: no matter what mess you've made, I guarantee I've either made or inherited worse. :D

If we make good use of git branching, we can knock "master" into a stable supported release w/ bug fixes on 0.23.5 -> 0.24.0, and bring a "rearchitecture" branch to maturity with a beta tag once you're willing to see the community start on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SHiRKiT

SHiRKiT

Posted
Posted
I think so, yes. JDP has informed me (via PM) that he's up for a joint lead role, in the way described earlier (such that any given lead can disappear for a month without compromising the team, as long as we're not all gone concurrently), and it sounds like we have a decent community consensus -- several programmers, a QA lead, a documentation expert, and if Kommit is in for modelling, then I think we've got a full team, minus the "release engineer".

Would you like to do that on your existing repo, or shall I fork & host?

I'd definitely like to see and work on polishing the re-architecture - you've put a lot of work into it. If you've made good use of git on your local, we might even be able to tease apart the finished from the unfinished. I can promise not to judge: no matter what mess you've made, I guarantee I've either made or inherited worse. :D

If we make good use of git branching, we can knock "master" into a stable supported release w/ bug fixes on 0.23.5 -> 0.24.0, and bring a "rearchitecture" branch to maturity with a beta tag once you're willing to see the community start on it.

If you want to make a community driven project, the best would be to create a Github Team/Organization, add the core members to it, and allow pull requests from random users (like me).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
erendrake

erendrake

Posted
Posted
If you want to make a community driven project, the best would be to create a Github Team/Organization, add the core members to it, and allow pull requests from random users (like me).

We have done this with KOS and other than the separation anxiety for me the biggest issue has been having to start over with issue backlog. I could not find a way to copy issues to the new account.

Its a good thing in the long run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Amaroq

Amaroq

Posted
Posted
If you want to make a community driven project, the best would be to create a Github Team/Organization, add the core members to it, and allow pull requests from random users (like me).

If this works for you, Cilph, I will create such this evening (~10-12 hours from time-of-this-post). Let me know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NathanKell

NathanKell

Posted
Posted

Sounds like a good plan.

Also, losing the old issues isn't all bad--a few would be good to keep (for example, the lengthy ionosphere thread) but given the near-total rewrite a lot of the specific bug reports probably won't be relevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SHiRKiT

SHiRKiT

Posted
Posted
We have done this with KOS and other than the separation anxiety for me the biggest issue has been having to start over with issue backlog. I could not find a way to copy issues to the new account.

Its a good thing in the long run.

If he really wants to migrate the issues, there's a more radical solution located here (https://help.github.com/articles/how-to-transfer-a-repository) that can deal with this. He can be the owner of the organization, so he never loses the control over the repository, and he can even take it back to him if he wants to, but also removes the bounds to his account. He creates a backup repository if he really wants to in his account (forking back from the new transfered repository) and everyone starts working with the Organization repo.

Or one can copy the issues using an automated tool for that (there are a few), or manually copying the ones that are judged important, and batching up the ones not so important.

From the both, I think the 1st is the easiest for everyone, since it leaves the current owner in charge (as he wants), and the new organization is not independet of the old repository, but it maintains the history of everything (wiki, pages and issues). But as NathanKell said above, deleting old issues can also be good (or at least reviewing them).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Starstrider42

Starstrider42

Posted
Posted
Or one can copy the issues using an automated tool for that (there are a few), or manually copying the ones that are judged important, and batching up the ones not so important.

I think a manual copy might be best. There are a lot of open issues, and ignoring them until the rewrite is done seems risky. On the other hand, there are a lot of duplicate or underdocumented issues, so an excuse to clean up the issue tracker would probably speed up development.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cilph

Cilph

Posted
  • Author
Posted
If this works for you, Cilph, I will create such this evening (~10-12 hours from time-of-this-post). Let me know.

GitHub should have project transferring functionality. I'll handle it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DivisionByZero

DivisionByZero

Posted
Posted

You guys are awesome and this is a testament to how awesome the added gameplay is. Cilph, you might want to jot down a design doc so everyone knows what your vision is and so that people can make suggestions for new gameplay. This could help everyone work together on things beyond architecture and bug squashing. Just a thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David H

David H

Posted
Posted

Is there a way to get just the parts.

I thought if I removed the dll. It would work the same as the normal game.

The parts are still there however it locks the antennas and you can't transmit anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Starstrider42

Starstrider42

Posted
Posted (edited)
Is there a way to get just the parts.

I thought if I removed the dll. It would work the same as the normal game.

The parts are still there however it locks the antennas and you can't transmit anything.

You need to remove the RemoteTech_*.cfg files from the mod directory. Among other features, those files remove the stock antenna functionality before putting in RemoteTech's version. That will let you use the stock antennas again.

To make the new antennas function like stock ones, you'd need a new .cfg file that looks something like:

@PART[RTShortAntenna1]
{
	TechRequired = flightControl
	MODULE
	{
		name = ModuleDataTransmitter

		packetInterval = 0.18
		packetSize = 2

		packetResourceCost = 20.0
		requiredResource = ElectricCharge
	}
}

@PART[RTLongAntenna2]
{
	TechRequired = largeElectrics
	MODULE
	{
		name = ModuleDataTransmitter

		packetInterval = 0.18
		packetSize = 2

		packetResourceCost = 20.0
		requiredResource = ElectricCharge

		DeployFxModules = 0
	}
}

@PART[RTLongAntenna3]
{
	TechRequired = specializedElectrics
	MODULE
	{
		name = ModuleDataTransmitter

		packetInterval = 0.18
		packetSize = 2

		packetResourceCost = 20.0
		requiredResource = ElectricCharge

		DeployFxModules = 0
	}
}

@PART[RTShortDish1]
{
	TechRequired = electrics
	MODULE
	{
		name = ModuleDataTransmitter

		packetInterval = 0.18
		packetSize = 2

		packetResourceCost = 20.0
		requiredResource = ElectricCharge
	}
}

@PART[RTShortDish2]
{
	TechRequired = electrics
	MODULE
	{
		name = ModuleDataTransmitter

		packetInterval = 0.18
		packetSize = 2

		packetResourceCost = 20.0
		requiredResource = ElectricCharge
	}
}

@PART[RTLongDish1]
{
	TechRequired = largeElectrics
	MODULE
	{
		name = ModuleDataTransmitter

		packetInterval = 0.18
		packetSize = 2

		packetResourceCost = 20.0
		requiredResource = ElectricCharge
	}
}

@PART[RTLongDish2]
{
	TechRequired = largeElectrics
	MODULE
	{
		name = ModuleDataTransmitter

		packetInterval = 0.18
		packetSize = 2

		packetResourceCost = 20.0
		requiredResource = ElectricCharge
	}
}

@PART[RTGigaDish1]
{
	TechRequired = advScienceTech
	MODULE
	{
		name = ModuleDataTransmitter

		packetInterval = 0.18
		packetSize = 2

		packetResourceCost = 20.0
		requiredResource = ElectricCharge

		DeployFxModules = 0
	}
}

@PART[RTGigaDish2]
{
	TechRequired = specializedElectrics
	MODULE
	{
		name = ModuleDataTransmitter

		packetInterval = 0.18
		packetSize = 2

		packetResourceCost = 20.0
		requiredResource = ElectricCharge
	}
}

I have no idea how to balance the packetInterval, packetSize, and packetResourceCost values, since I don't see much of a pattern in the stock values. :P

Edited by Starstrider42
Added tech requirements
Link to comment
Share on other sites
David H

David H

Posted
Posted
You need to remove the RemoteTech_*.cfg files from the mod directory. Among other features, those files remove the stock antenna functionality before putting in RemoteTech's version. That will let you use the stock antennas again.

To make the new antennas function like stock ones, you'd need a new .cfg file that looks something like:

I have no idea how to balance the packetInterval, packetSize, and packetResourceCost values, since I don't see much of a pattern in the stock values. :P

What features are those.

Step1 Remove all the cfg?

Step2?

I'm not a programmer. I can copy and paste. So do I copy and paste the code over or delete and make a new one.

If I have to make a new one. I'm not even going to bother.

Bad part is. I already have a ship with one of the antennas. So either I delete the whole thing and loose the ship or I just play with antennas not working.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...