[0.23] Crowd-sourced Science Logs: SCIENCE NEEDS YOU!

[codepants]

Well, I'm not about to start approving my own entries. xD

Attach the baskets to decouplers and allow the use of RCS packs, and I think we have a winner. GO KERBIN KRAKENS! xD

You should probably start approving something, because there are 75 entries today.

Also, I don't think many people would cheer for the Krakens... just saying.

[astropapi1]

Can this get rid of the ugly "This report doesn't work because you're in sandbox" science logs? I want to do science.

[codepants]

I found a missing entry option. I was submitting some Eve barometric scans and noticed the lack of a "EveFlyingHigh" option.

Just added a load of options ("just" = less than a minute ago).

Yeah I think I found some missing entry options as well. I think Kerbin has landed for each of it's biome's. I am adding some Seismic data (which you can only log while landed) and noticed that while you have "FlyingLowMountains" you don't have the landed option.

Is there KerbinSrfLanded for each of the biomes? Can someone confirm?

Can this get rid of the ugly "This report doesn't work because you're in sandbox" science logs? I want to do science.

I'm betting that's coded in and has nothing to do with the amount of available options.

On that note, if anybody is good with plugins, I'm interested in code that can:

- Solve this problem

- Choose a new log every time any experiment is run. Currently the way it seems to work is that a log is chosen upon entering a new biome, and used until the ship enters a new biome. Even in the same biome, I'd like a different report every time.

?

Edited November 14, 2013 by codepants

[Tanya Sapien]

Attach the baskets to decouplers and allow the use of RCS packs, and I think we have a winner. GO KERBIN KRAKENS! xD

The Vall-holla's gonna wipe the court with ya'll!

Oh, about that edit before, no, I wasn't saying you lacked comprehension of then vs. than, I was hoping that my lengthy disclaimer made that known. I was merely being prophylactic to future errors. The edit you made which made me think of it in fact contained no errors, it just closely resembled a news headline I saw on CNN which contained the then vs than typo (personally I'm ashamed at them for that; you're supposed to be representing your entire country's media here, people!)

Perhaps I should have mentioned that I'm ADHD, it's not uncommon for one thing to remind me of something else that's largely or completely unrelated.

[Tanya Sapien]

Currently the way it seems to work is that a log is chosen upon entering a new biome, and used until the ship enters a new biome. Even in the same biome, I'd like a different report every time.

?

As a hotkeyed science spammer (mash that number key!), I can confirm this is not the case. It most likely feels that way due to the scarcity of vanilla logs to choose from.

[Tanya Sapien]

I just noticed that seismic, barometric, and atmospheric scans are still atrophied. Give me twenty minutes for coffee, techno, and inspiration, I'll mill off a whole bunch of lines to help them catch up with the others.

[astropapi1]

Guys, get away from Kerbin and write something else.

[codepoet]

I play kerbal with my 8 year old son. If the official version of this mod now child safe?

[codepants]

Guys, get away from Kerbin and write something else.

Agreed. The amount of logs for each planet seems inversely proportional to amount of science actually done there.

I play kerbal with my 8 year old son. If the official version of this mod now child safe?

I just have a page or two left in my final proofread. Give me 'till Monday morning to confirm, or maybe another mod has gone through it all already. *looks around...*

[Outlander4]

I just have a page or two left in my final proofread. Give me 'till Monday morning to confirm, or maybe another mod has gone through it all already. *looks around...*

I remember deleting child-unsafe entries from the last two experiments; they still contain errors and illogical statements though.

[Tanya Sapien]

I play kerbal with my 8 year old son. If the official version of this mod now child safe?

I haven't submitted any that were unsafe for children, so no worries about those slipping past the mods.

I remember deleting child-unsafe entries from the last two experiments; they still contain errors and illogical statements though.

Don't worry, all the ones I submitted are based on actual science, and not star-trek tomfoolery.

So, back to the submission form for me!

[codepants]

I play kerbal with my 8 year old son. If the official version of this mod now child safe?

Done. It's clean and will be from now on. Thanks for checking.

I haven't submitted any that were unsafe for children, so no worries about those slipping past the mods.

I know you've submitted *a lot* of entries but don't flatter yourself as the only one.

[Tanya Sapien]

Well I gave the submissions a sweep and approved/denied a lot, but unfortunately I counted 25+ of my own in there, so I can't process those.

Guys, barometric scans are sorely lacking! more submissions in that field would be appreciated.

Guys, get away from Kerbin and write something else.

seconded.

[Tanya Sapien]

Well I gave the submissions a sweep and approved/denied a lot, but unfortunately I counted 25+ of my own in there, so I can't process those.

Guys, barometric scans are sorely lacking! more submissions in that field would be appreciated.

Guys, get away from Kerbin and write something else.

seconded.

[mossman]

So is this mythical experiment chart ever going to be making an appearance? I assume that it was either removed from the OP or I just can't see it for some reason.

[codepants]

So is this mythical experiment chart ever going to be making an appearance? I assume that it was either removed from the OP or I just can't see it for some reason.

It's there... I tried logging out of my G+ account and it still shows up, so I don't think it's permission related. Try right-clicking and viewing the image in a new tab.

Since the chart is dynamic (changes as the data does), I imagine either the forum or Google has trouble displaying it as a static image.

[mossman]

I just saw a blank white space (Nothing clickable). Had to look into the raw text to find a link but that seems to be working, so thank you.

[Tanya Sapien]

I just saw a blank white space (Nothing clickable). Had to look into the raw text to find a link but that seems to be working, so thank you.

I've been having a similar issue, something between the squad servers and google docs makes it go crosseyed and insist pages don't exist. Just keep trying different approaches until one works.

[Hurry- Starfish!]

This is a great project. It makes me sad that moderation to the point of having a submission form is necessary, but thanks for doing this!

[Gaiabladegold]

Lovely idea, I've submitted at least two dozen already. XD

[SirJodelstein]

just restarted a career game and wondered why a second surface sample from the same biome returned much more science than in my first stock game. Checking the file vs the original, i found out that someone has modified the science value of surface samples. (ScienceCap from 40 to 160). Quick diff for the other experiments (because now i got suspicious) revealed that MobileMaterialsLab ScienceCap was also increased from 35 to 55 (again making repeated experiments more valuable).

To whoever that was: Seriously wtf? If you want to make your science harvesting even easier do these edits in your personal file, this project is about enhancing variety and not about personal balancing issues. Guess its another reason why the submission system is preferrable.

@OP/Proofreaders: Please correct these trolling edits.

@Synapse86: Thank you for your wonderful "R&D Overview plugin", the suspicious values in the "remaining science" column were the first clues that something was off here.

[John.E]

A great idea, love it Have just sent a dozen or so in.

[Outlander4]

just restarted a career game and wondered why a second surface sample from the same biome returned much more science than in my first stock game. Checking the file vs the original, i found out that someone has modified the science value of surface samples. (ScienceCap from 40 to 160). Quick diff for the other experiments (because now i got suspicious) revealed that MobileMaterialsLab ScienceCap was also increased from 35 to 55 (again making repeated experiments more valuable).

Hmm, something tells me it came from the first (available for anyone to edit) file, which was used as a base for the current file. Thanks for pointing that out!

[123nick]

maybe we should start adding science definitions for mod science parts? like the bargain rocketry stuff, the Ltech science, the station science, and so on.

[FoxKit]

just restarted a career game and wondered why a second surface sample from the same biome returned much more science than in my first stock game. Checking the file vs the original, i found out that someone has modified the science value of surface samples. (ScienceCap from 40 to 160). Quick diff for the other experiments (because now i got suspicious) revealed that MobileMaterialsLab ScienceCap was also increased from 35 to 55 (again making repeated experiments more valuable).

To whoever that was: Seriously wtf? If you want to make your science harvesting even easier do these edits in your personal file, this project is about enhancing variety and not about personal balancing issues. Guess its another reason why the submission system is preferrable.

@OP/Proofreaders: Please correct these trolling edits.

You're right. Looks like some edits were made to these values before we shut off public editing. I flagged them in the file and Kyle can take care of them when he gets a moment. Good catch. :3