Jump to content

[1.0.4] ScienceAlert 1.8.9: Experiment availability feedback (July 13)

xEvilReeperx

By xEvilReeperx
in KSP1 Mod Releases

 Share

Recommended Posts

AetherGoddess

AetherGoddess

Posted
Posted
Well I think I'll be OK once I set it to ignore < 1 science gains.

A suggestion would be as follow: If I already have a sample stored on my craft (say flying at Kerbin's Shores), no matter what is left, do not alert me again.

Not sure if doable, but that would be a great tool. I can set it to bug me all it wants, even for 0.1 science. But as soon as I have a sample of the place in question, no matter how much is left and what I have the alert set to, do not bother me again... at least for this mission or unless I dump the sample.

Your mod is great tho, I love it :)

Here's a complication you might not be thinking about: if you have two samples on your ship, you get science credit for both. i.e. if you take a gravity reading, and store it in one command pod, and then take THE SAME GRAVITY READING and leave it in the detector, and then recover that vessel, you get the same credit as if you had recovered both of them in separate missions. this is why xEvilReeperx specified:

[...] after calculating the value of any other similar samples onboard [...]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Francois424

Francois424

Posted
Posted

Well as soon as you get the first one, Science alert would not alert you of any other gain with the same biome

Nothing prevents you from taking more reading in different pods if you want... I know it can be done. unless I am mis-understanding ?

Anyways the checkbox would be optional so ppl that wants multiple notifications per biomes can leave it unchecked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Khatharr

Khatharr

Posted
Posted
Updating for .25 soon? I can't wait for the most recent release! ^.^
I'm working on it as we speak. It's taking a bit since I'm rolling in all the features I had planned but didn't have time for and clearing out the current list of known bugs (18 atm) as well, plus rewriting any bits in which I can take advantage of new events or methods to make things simpler or faster.

We should really try to come up with some kind of convention for dealing with this. It's annoying that every time there's an update I have to crawl through so many different threads to try and find out whether or not the mod still works and if not whether or not an update is coming. Thinking about the fact that there are so many other people out there doing the exact same research make my skin crawl. The compatibility list is a step in the right direction, but it's never complete and doesn't have a place for things that are in limbo. -.-

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AetherGoddess

AetherGoddess

Posted
Posted
We should really try to come up with some kind of convention for dealing with this. It's annoying that every time there's an update I have to crawl through so many different threads to try and find out whether or not the mod still works and if not whether or not an update is coming. Thinking about the fact that there are so many other people out there doing the exact same research make my skin crawl. The compatibility list is a step in the right direction, but it's never complete and doesn't have a place for things that are in limbo. -.-

there is a convention. if a mod's author is satisfied that the mod will work, or has released a version that will work, they should update the version number in the threads title. if the mod isn't updated or tested, then the old verison remains. if the author is working on a fix, then the old version remains.

this thread is working as intended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Maeyanie

Maeyanie

Posted
Posted
there is a convention. if a mod's author is satisfied that the mod will work, or has released a version that will work, they should update the version number in the threads title. if the mod isn't updated or tested, then the old verison remains. if the author is working on a fix, then the old version remains.

this thread is working as intended.

The problem is, this does not differentiate between the cases of "it does not work but is being updated," "it does not work and is not being updated," and "it works but the author is MIA and hasn't updated the thread," all three of which are common.

It also seems someone already requested the feature I came here to request, more or less:

I have a feature request. If I have a probe that can transmit but isn't going to return, then I only want to be alerted if there's something I can transmit. "Not maxed" will still alert even when there's zero transmit value. I guess I want a "Not maxed transmittable" option. :)

An alternative would be to have a saved-per-vessel "will not return to Kerbin" button which toggles between % of recoverable and % of transmittable science in the alert logic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AetherGoddess

AetherGoddess

Posted
Posted
The problem is, this does not differentiate between the cases of "it does not work but is being updated," "it does not work and is not being updated," and "it works but the author is MIA and hasn't updated the thread," all three of which are common.

and all three of which, in actuality, result in "no support, you're on your own". working as intended. it's not that those are the same case, they are all different, but from the perspective of the mod consumer, the results are indistinguishable. if you care enough, you can read the thread and dig in to the gritties, but the net-net is that it's not supported, use at your own risk, your milage may vary and results not typical.

It also seems someone already requested the feature I came here to request, more or less:

An alternative would be to have a saved-per-vessel "will not return to Kerbin" button which toggles between % of recoverable and % of transmittable science in the alert logic.

this might actually have some legs to it. a per-vessel marker of "x-mit only" would make long probe missions easier. i could get behind that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
glek

glek

Posted
Posted

If you check the source repository (listed in the opening post), the last commit was October 11, 2014, so the mod is still being worked on. There's also a commit on October 10, 2014 with the message 'Rebuild for 0.25'. If you're so inclined, you could probably grab the source from the repository and rebuild it yourself. Just keep in mind that custom builds are not supported, you use them at your own risk and your mileage may vary depending on the state of the source code.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Maeyanie

Maeyanie

Posted
Posted
and all three of which, in actuality, result in "no support, you're on your own".

Very true, but not the topic at hand. The original subject which started this chain of posts was:

It's annoying that every time there's an update I have to crawl through so many different threads to try and find out whether or not the mod still works and if not whether or not an update is coming.
it's not that those are the same case, they are all different, but from the perspective of the mod consumer, the results are indistinguishable.

No they are not. If it's being updated, the mod consumer should be patient. If it's not being updated, the mod consumer should look elsewhere. If it still works, the mod consumer can use it.

if you care enough, you can read the thread and dig in to the gritties,

Also entirely true, but again, the original message read:

It's annoying that every time there's an update I have to crawl through so many different threads to try and find out whether or not the mod still works and if not whether or not an update is coming. Thinking about the fact that there are so many other people out there doing the exact same research make my skin crawl.

"Working as intended" may indeed be the case, but I agree with Khatharr, there is still room for improvement. Not that I have any idea of a better way, though, that wouldn't involve a huge amount of work keeping updated.

Anyhow, this is a bit off-topic, so sorry to everyone else for cluttering the thread. I'll shut up now. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Emeketos

Emeketos

Posted
Posted
Very true, but not the topic at hand. The original subject which started this chain of posts was:

No they are not. If it's being updated, the mod consumer should be patient. If it's not being updated, the mod consumer should look elsewhere. If it still works, the mod consumer can use it.

:)

(whiny voice) but I want it NOW...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AetherGoddess

AetherGoddess

Posted
Posted
[...]No they are not. If it's being updated, the mod consumer should be patient. If it's not being updated, the mod consumer should look elsewhere. If it still works, the mod consumer can use it.

Patience for an update that might not come, because the author gets busy or has a life, or simply looses interest. look elsewhere and switch over just in time for the original to update? both of these things have happened; in one mod; in the last 3 months. Additionally, the users can't control the threads, so we'd be relying on moderators "declaring" a mod dead. this is even more problematic, because of the false authority situation. The future is unpredictable; information about the future, whether from the source, an authority, or the community, is definitionally unreliable.

[...]"Working as intended" may indeed be the case, but I agree with Khatharr, there is still room for improvement. Not that I have any idea of a better way, though, that wouldn't involve a huge amount of work keeping updated.

wait, how can you estimate the cost of a solution you don't have a design for?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Khatharr

Khatharr

Posted
Posted (edited)
Not that I have any idea of a better way, though, that wouldn't involve a huge amount of work keeping updated.

Maybe something like a simple report-based crowdsourced database of mods and their status. Forum integration may not be possible, but that's not actually necessary. I'll put a bit more thought into it and work out something feasible. It shouldn't be too hard to get a basic framework worked out.

(nonsense)

http://psychology.about.com/od/piagetstheory/p/formaloperation.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_fixedness

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstructionism

Edited by Khatharr
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CeeJayMI

CeeJayMI

Posted
Posted
Maybe something like a simple crowd-sourced database of mods and their status. Forum integration may not be possible, but that's not actually necessary. I'll put a bit more thought into it and maybe start a thread for it later.

Like WordPress' plugins site? https://wordpress.org/plugins/buddypress/ (see the "compatibilty" section, bottom right)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AetherGoddess

AetherGoddess

Posted
Posted

i'm not being obstructionist, i am not fixating on the current behavior, i don't appreciate being called immature and incapable of abstract though, and i CERTAINLY don't appreciate having my comments reduced to "(nonsense)"

i AM telling you the problem is harder then you are estimating, the solution we have is already near optimal, and getting it closer to optimal will require more effort and produce more problems then it will save or prevent. If you can come up with a solution that gets closer to optimal, without entailing the complications i am outlining, then i would be glad to hear it, but i strongly suspect you are on a snipe hunt, and i'm attempting to save you effort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Claw

Claw

Posted
Posted

There's really no reason to point fingers at each other. Just be patient and let people have their lives. It can take a long time for people to feel comfortable releasing an add-on, especially when there is so much consternation about it.

If you feel there should be a source or some sort of "updated mods" list, then start building one. Crowd sourcing is a great idea. As is a thread (or multiple threads). These things all take time. So if your gut reaction is "I'm not doing all that!" then please try to avoid getting mad at others for not doing it either. Even better, take the suggestion about how to track updates to be debated elsewhere, and leave this thread or it's intended purpose (this add-on).

~Claw

Link to comment
Share on other sites
xEvilReeperx

xEvilReeperx

Posted
  • Author
Posted

1.8rc1 is released. Consider this to be a beta version since it's only seen a few hours of actual ingame testing. It shouldn't be possible to ruin a save with it but make a backup just in case

I decided to axe some features intended for this version such as recovery method (transmission/return), a more robust debug window and another small feature for the sake of getting something useable since everybody has been waiting so long already. I'll update the OP with more info tomorrow since it's late and I'm tired, but here's a quick rundown on how profiles work:

There are two types of profile:

  • Vessel-specific profiles, denoted by asterisks, and
  • Stored profiles

Vessel-specific profiles are what they sound like. You can toggle a particular experiment off, change filter or threshold settings, animation options and such for a specific vessel. You don't need to save these with the disk button; just flip the options you want and it'll be remembered for that vessel.

Stored profiles are shared across all vessels. If you save a vessel-specific profile, it will become a stored profile. If you overwrite an existing profile, any other ships set to use the same profile (and aren't vessel-specific, remember the asterisks) will inherit those changes.

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