codepants Posted November 22, 2013 Author Share Posted November 22, 2013 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).@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. :3Done. Thanks for the catch, Jodelstein, and comments, Kit. Hope that didn't ruin the game for anybody.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.I guess I'm okay with this as long as it doesn't affect those playing the stock game. Anybody know? (I'm amidst a move right now or would experiment myself)- - -Mods: If you could spend an hour with the spreadsheet today that would be great, as there's more than 100 awaiting approval. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanya Sapien Posted November 23, 2013 Share Posted November 23, 2013 Mods: If you could spend an hour with the spreadsheet today that would be great, as there's more than 100 awaiting approval.Yeah, I was gone for a few days, but I'm back now. However, I'm surprised that when I came back I saw about two dozen of my previous approvals still sitting there with no second signature to put them through. Either I'm approving stuff that nobody else likes, or I'm the only one processing them lately. Both scenarios are disconcerting, to say the least :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaltak Posted November 24, 2013 Share Posted November 24, 2013 Without hyperbole, this is one of the greatest ideas for this game I've seen yet (and my join date for the forums does not reflect when I became interested in the game and its community ). I've submitted several (hopefully good) ideas and am preparing an application to become a moderator for this project.Keep it up, gentlemen. This project is the reason I created a forum account. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codepants Posted November 24, 2013 Author Share Posted November 24, 2013 Yeah, I was gone for a few days, but I'm back now. However, I'm surprised that when I came back I saw about two dozen of my previous approvals still sitting there with no second signature to put them through. Either I'm approving stuff that nobody else likes, or I'm the only one processing them lately. Both scenarios are disconcerting, to say the least :/I was out of town for a week and am busy prepping for a move, but did 100+ today. Looks like Alex also did some this morning. Another mod might be welcome though... *ahem*Without hyperbole, this is one of the greatest ideas for this game I've seen yet (and my join date for the forums does not reflect when I became interested in the game and its community ). I've submitted several (hopefully good) ideas and am preparing an application to become a moderator for this project.Keep it up, gentlemen. This project is the reason I created a forum account.Well hey, thanks. And keep in mind there is a gentlewoman on this project as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FoxKit Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 Sorry, I've been working on finals. I'll be back to editing next week. :c Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanya Sapien Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 keep in mind there is a gentlewoman on this project as well. I find "gentle" to be misleading. I don't want to give people false impressions. >:3Sorry, I've been working on finals. I'll be back to editing next week. :cHey, schooling comes first. If you've got exams, then by all means do them and don't rush on our account. We won't shrivel up and die without your aid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanya Sapien Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 Kyle, I can't help but notice that you've overwritten some of my sign-offs with yours. Please double-check that you're not writing over top of somebody else's initials before entering your own. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galacticruler Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 Well, the entries should drop in number when the script runs, so long as no one adds more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gm537 Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 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.Also I don't think all the kinds of entries need to be equal. I mean that I know of there are only 5 planets on which Barometer and Atmosphere scans can be done. So of course there will be fewer of those. Just my two cents. As a whole love the project. I kinda wish the graph was growing faster though. Oh also I was wondering if there was a way to know if my contributions were getting approved? I want to write a lot of logs but don't want to waste time if I'm running a low approval rating. And yes I have read the rules and am doing my best to follow them but some are a bit subjective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outlander4 Posted November 27, 2013 Share Posted November 27, 2013 Oh also I was wondering if there was a way to know if my contributions were getting approved? I want to write a lot of logs but don't want to waste time if I'm running a low approval rating. And yes I have read the rules and am doing my best to follow them but some are a bit subjective.Well, it's difficult because the logs you submit are not traced back to you in any way. And it's not because we respect your privacy (which we do), but because of how the system works. All being said, we are trying to modify entries which are not good enough to fit the mould to use them anyway. So, if you can't find your entry but can see something that is quite similar there is a good chance it's your entry after some editing, so your work won't be totally wasted.If you want to be sure, send me a PM with several entries that can characterise general style and degree of scientific accuracy of the entries you'd like to submit, and I'll tell you if they are fine. Please note that I live in Europe which may be very different from your time zone and result in me answering you at some rather inconvenient time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codepants Posted November 28, 2013 Author Share Posted November 28, 2013 (edited) Kyle, I can't help but notice that you've overwritten some of my sign-offs with yours. Please double-check that you're not writing over top of somebody else's initials before entering your own. Thank you.Well, the entries should drop in number when the script runs, so long as no one adds more.What he said. I can't recall ever having overwritten anybody else's initials... nor can I see the benefit... but I will be more careful in the future.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.Also I don't think all the kinds of entries need to be equal. I mean that I know of there are only 5 planets on which Barometer and Atmosphere scans can be done. So of course there will be fewer of those. Just my two cents. As a whole love the project. I kinda wish the graph was growing faster though. Oh also I was wondering if there was a way to know if my contributions were getting approved? I want to write a lot of logs but don't want to waste time if I'm running a low approval rating. And yes I have read the rules and am doing my best to follow them but some are a bit subjective.The landed biomes on Kerbin will get added shortly. See the bottom of this post.I agree and disagree about experiment inequality. I don't mind there being more logs for bodies that get more experiments. My qualm is the inverse. I would bet less than 5% of all experiments are run on Kerbin, yet currently 21% of logs are done on Kerbin. And atmosphere analysis being the most valuable (stock) experiment, getting 1000+ science in some cases with 90% retention for transmission, has only 6.4% of the logs.Even if we didn't get a single additional entry from today on, we've already tripled the count from the original file. I think that's pretty awesome. Anyways, for the past week we've averaged 7 entries a day, which I don't think is too bad. What matters most to me though, is that you have to do a lot of frickin' science before you see even half the entries.If you follow all the rules and your logs "make sense" then they are probably getting added. We probably cut less than 5% of entries but only after discussing the possibility of re-purposing them (moving to a different biome, using for a different experiment, rephrasing if confusing). If people are interested I could add an entry for e-mail and have the script e-mail you when your log is approved/rejected.- - -Personal note: Along with the holiday (Thanksgiving here in the US) I am moving this weekend and starting a new job next week. So I'll be out of the picture for a while. The script is automatic so if the mods want to pick up my slack (please and thank you) things should proceed as normal. Once back I'll return the favor. Edited November 28, 2013 by codepants Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanya Sapien Posted November 30, 2013 Share Posted November 30, 2013 And a special thanks, of course, to the current moderators (those that wish to be recognized, anyways):- ThrFoot- FoxKit- Outlander4- Galacticruler- (one more)q..pone more? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JewelShisen Posted November 30, 2013 Share Posted November 30, 2013 I have a request~ I'm about to release a probe that can do some science and I would like it to have its own pool of science logs to pull from. Any chance of that happening? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanya Sapien Posted November 30, 2013 Share Posted November 30, 2013 I have a request~ I'm about to release a probe that can do some science and I would like it to have its own pool of science logs to pull from. Any chance of that happening?currently the game itself only pulls global logs, you'd need a local log manifest for that. That would require writing a custom .dll, something this mod does not contain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JewelShisen Posted November 30, 2013 Share Posted November 30, 2013 currently the game itself only pulls global logs, you'd need a local log manifest for that. That would require writing a custom .dll, something this mod does not contain.Not really. The science logs are split up based on what is pulling it so it would just take adding a new section to that right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanya Sapien Posted November 30, 2013 Share Posted November 30, 2013 (edited) The sections are based on experiment type, not on specific vessel or part which is making the request. it calls the events from the baseID from which the parts are compiled into the game from. You cannot have any one instance of a said part call data which other instances of the part cannot call as the sciencedefs file is a global asset, not a local asset. In order to call specific lines or restrict accessing of the sciencedefs file to specific instances of the parts within the game file would require for those parts to be assigned their own tags inside the persistence file, files which would work as event call overrides, pulling data from separate locations or definitions.The current coding does not support that.The current plugin does not support that.The current part compilers do not support that.Only a custom .dll file inserted into the mod directory could support that. Edited November 30, 2013 by Tanya Sapien Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanya Sapien Posted November 30, 2013 Share Posted November 30, 2013 I gave what you said a second pass, and there is *one* way it could be done, but you'd need to write up your own .cfg files to make it work. you'd need to make dopplegangars of the original science parts, then go into the config and rename the experiment being conducted. then go into the sciencedefs file and clone the desired field into a new field, rename it to match the dopplegangar's ID, and then replace the conditional branches with your own desired logs.Other than doing all that, I can't think of any way to solve the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JewelShisen Posted November 30, 2013 Share Posted November 30, 2013 The sections are based on experiment type, not on specific vessel or part which is making the request. it calls the events from the baseID from which the parts are compiled into the game from. You cannot have any one instance of a said part call data which other instances of the part cannot call as the sciencedefs file is a global asset, not a local asset. In order to call specific lines or restrict accessing of the sciencedefs file to specific instances of the parts within the game file would require for those parts to be assigned their own tags inside the persistence file, files which would work as event call overrides, pulling data from separate locations or definitions.The current coding does not support that.The current plugin does not support that.The current part compilers do not support that.Only a custom .dll file inserted into the mod directory could support that.That is my point. Making a seperate experiment type just for probes. That could be done with ease right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanya Sapien Posted December 1, 2013 Share Posted December 1, 2013 That is my point. Making a seperate experiment type just for probes. That could be done with ease right?if you mean something like "crew report" but a probe core report, yes, that's nothing but a thing, but it would require injecting the experiment into the .cfg files of every probe meant to carry it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaltak Posted December 1, 2013 Share Posted December 1, 2013 Well hey, thanks. And keep in mind there is a gentlewoman on this project as well. My bad on that - I wouldn't dare to minimize Tanya Sapien's help with the project Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JewelShisen Posted December 1, 2013 Share Posted December 1, 2013 if you mean something like "crew report" but a probe core report, yes, that's nothing but a thing, but it would require injecting the experiment into the .cfg files of every probe meant to carry it.You make it sound like this is a massive challenge. It would be a simple MM cfg to make. Then just crowd source the logs with you all and viola~ Job done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaltak Posted December 1, 2013 Share Posted December 1, 2013 Would it be possible to have a graph similar to the second one that organizes the reports by planet first, then experiment? That would be more useful to me in determining where to focus.If it'd take anything more than, say, five minutes to pull off, don't worry about it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xzabath Posted December 1, 2013 Share Posted December 1, 2013 Love it gives me a laugh here and there, cant wait to see if my submits made it to final cut hehe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
O Nerd Posted December 2, 2013 Share Posted December 2, 2013 I just have one question: Where's the frickin' download button? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jagun Posted December 2, 2013 Share Posted December 2, 2013 You just go to the doc and press File > Download. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts