[1.3.0] OPT Space Plane v2.0.1 - updated 29/07/2017

[King Something]

2 hours ago, flipperstar3745 said:

help. i can't get this mod to work and its not on ckan

 

8 hours ago, stali79 said:

 

 

[AmpCat]

13 hours ago, M_Ouellette said:

Be advised, your texture problems could be driver related, I had recently updated my ATI video drivers and the graphics were horrible, the gpu seemed to be choosing the lower resolution mip maps to render, showing graphics very much like what is being illustrated here, I rolled back to a known good version of the drivers and the textures were crystal clear.

Hm. Not sure about that. I noticed the change as soon as I installed the latest release (I had been using the last one the original author posted), and I'm using an nVidia video card. Also, no other parts have this issue, just the new OPT parts.

[stali79]

2 minutes ago, AmpCat said:

Hm. Not sure about that. I noticed the change as soon as I installed the latest release (I had been using the last one the original author posted), and I'm using an nVidia video card. Also, no other parts have this issue, just the new OPT parts.

Will take a look over the weekend

[Chase842]

Hi,

 

I'm wanting to add Xenon as a possible fuel for the Juno parts. I'm very inexperienced with editing code, but I think I found the right place to make the addition. I think the only file I need to edit is, "OPT\MM_Patches\OPT_FS", but someone please correct me if I'm wrong. 

Anyways, I was looking around that file for the parts(Juno fuselage parts), and I noticed that the amounts of fuel for different fuel set-ups were inconsistent. Since Liquid Fuel and Oxidizer have the same density, the a tank with full Liquid Fuel should be equal to a tank with Liquid Fuel+Oxidizer. 

I was just going to take the amount of liquid fuel I saw and multiply it by(7 I think) to get the number units that Xenon would be accurate for the volume of the fuselage part, but now I don't know if fuel amounts for LF, LF+OX, or etc. took volume into consideration when determining the amounts of fuel. Which leaves me in a tough spot, since I can't find a statistic for volume in the cfgs for any of the parts or anywhere else I looked.

 

While poking around in the OPT\MM_PATCHES folder, I noticed a patch for Modular Fuel Tanks and Real Fuels, and they have a volume attribute for the tanks, but they are different from each other. Is there a way to make OPT use Modular Fuel Tanks to decide fuel tank set-ups, instead of Firesplitter? I don't really know if this will fix things or not, since it has a different/inconsistent volume than Real Fuels, but it's worth a try!(I think) Again, I am new to editing code, and I hardly know what I'm doing most of the time, I just use educated guesses and guides online, but this has got me stumped, and I could really use some help!

I'm looking for some help. Could someone either tell me where the volume of the parts can be found, or figured out? Or preferably, if someone has already gone through the trouble of putting xenon(and any other gases like Argon, Lithium, or Liquid Fuel) into their cfgs, and would like to share that with me, I would be very appreciative! 

 

 

On another note I wanted to say I absolutely love OPT! It's been my number 1 favorite mod for months and months now(maybe over a year!), and I can't imagine KSP without it. So, thank you K.Yeon, Stali79, Winchester, and everyone else that's contributed their free time, energy, and patience to make this mod happen!

 

NOTE: I use the regular Community Resource Library, and not RealFuels

 

[AmpCat]

11 hours ago, stali79 said:

Will take a look over the weekend

Just to clarify, I see it in the new versions of all OPT parts. Other mod parts don't have it. I don't know if it's a different texture format or something. Let me know if you would like pictures or anything else. 

[stali79]

11 hours ago, Chase842 said:

Hi,

 

I'm wanting to add Xenon as a possible fuel for the Juno parts. I'm very inexperienced with editing code, but I think I found the right place to make the addition. I think the only file I need to edit is, "OPT\MM_Patches\OPT_FS", but someone please correct me if I'm wrong. 

Anyways, I was looking around that file for the parts(Juno fuselage parts), and I noticed that the amounts of fuel for different fuel set-ups were inconsistent. Since Liquid Fuel and Oxidizer have the same density, the a tank with full Liquid Fuel should be equal to a tank with Liquid Fuel+Oxidizer. 

I was just going to take the amount of liquid fuel I saw and multiply it by(7 I think) to get the number units that Xenon would be accurate for the volume of the fuselage part, but now I don't know if fuel amounts for LF, LF+OX, or etc. took volume into consideration when determining the amounts of fuel. Which leaves me in a tough spot, since I can't find a statistic for volume in the cfgs for any of the parts or anywhere else I looked.

 

While poking around in the OPT\MM_PATCHES folder, I noticed a patch for Modular Fuel Tanks and Real Fuels, and they have a volume attribute for the tanks, but they are different from each other. Is there a way to make OPT use Modular Fuel Tanks to decide fuel tank set-ups, instead of Firesplitter? I don't really know if this will fix things or not, since it has a different/inconsistent volume than Real Fuels, but it's worth a try!(I think) Again, I am new to editing code, and I hardly know what I'm doing most of the time, I just use educated guesses and guides online, but this has got me stumped, and I could really use some help!

I'm looking for some help. Could someone either tell me where the volume of the parts can be found, or figured out? Or preferably, if someone has already gone through the trouble of putting xenon(and any other gases like Argon, Lithium, or Liquid Fuel) into their cfgs, and would like to share that with me, I would be very appreciative! 

 

 

On another note I wanted to say I absolutely love OPT! It's been my number 1 favorite mod for months and months now(maybe over a year!), and I can't imagine KSP without it. So, thank you K.Yeon, Stali79, Winchester, and everyone else that's contributed their free time, energy, and patience to make this mod happen!

 

NOTE: I use the regular Community Resource Library, and not RealFuels

 

LF and LFO may have the same density, but their consumption rates are different. hence why tanks are set with a 0.9:1.1 ratio of LF/LFO. 

As for finding the volume of the tanks, I think @Starwaster was using the 3d modelling software to calculate the physical volume of the tanks and he is the one who did most of the MM Patches

[Chase842]

On 9/9/2016 at 9:13 PM, stali79 said:

LF and LFO may have the same density, but their consumption rates are different. hence why tanks are set with a 0.9:1.1 ratio of LF/LFO. 

As for finding the volume of the tanks, I think @Starwaster was using the 3d modelling software to calculate the physical volume of the tanks and he is the one who did most of the MM Patches

I took a closer look and I cross referenced some numbers and it seems to add up, so I add Lithium and Xenon to the MFT patch with appropriate "utilization" values to correlate with what the volume is for LF/OX's density. Success! I'm super new to this, so I'm just glad I pulled that off.

 

I just finished my SSTO with Near Future Propulsion Magnetoplasmatic engines for high vacuum isp . I'll post an image of it later if anyone might be interested. It is the best SSTO I've ever made so far.

[Moggiog]

Is it just me, or is the textures of some parts a bit Jpegged? http://imgur.com/ZAPZujQ

[AmpCat]

7 hours ago, Moggiog said:

Is it just me, or is the textures of some parts a bit Jpegged? http://imgur.com/ZAPZujQ

Eeeeexcactly. That's what I've been seeing too. It's on the latest version of the OPT parts. The original 1.8 test didn't have this issue. @stali79 said he'll look into it.

14 hours ago, Chase842 said:

I took a closer look and I cross referenced some numbers and it seems to add up, so I add Lithium and Xenon to the MFT patch with appropriate "utilization" values to correlate with what the volume is for LF/OX's density. Success! I'm super new to this, so I'm just glad I pulled that off.

 

I just finished my SSTO with Near Future Propulsion Magnetoplasmatic engines for high vacuum isp . I'll post an image of it later if anyone might be interested. It is the best SSTO I've ever made so far.

A little off topic, but I've been wanting to add new fuels to OPT parts in general. Is there a good example of an independent .cfg file I can add to my directory to add a new fuel types to the parts?

[siliconworm]

Hi, I just want to ask: Why is every update of this mod a disaster?

Good job on ruining all the crafts I've spent hundreds of hours making, AGAIN!!!!

EVERY CRAFT I'VE MADE WITH OPT 1.8 ARE NOW INVALID IN 1.8.5 BECAUSE PARTS ARE MISSING!!!!

SAME WITH WHAT HAPPENED WHEN I UPGRADED FROM OPT 1.7 TO 1.8!!!

OMG!

Last time you said it would be the last cleanup and you guaranteed from then on, all the part names would be persistent! But this time it's "[REDACTED]" again? Seriously, what is wrong with this mod and its developers?! Can you please stop renaming anything in the future updates????? That's just not the right modding attitude!!!!!

 

[King Something]

LOUD NOISES!!!!3.14159!

 

If you were paying attention over the past few months, or reading the past dozen or so pages, you would have known that the latest community maintenance update would break all previously built OPT vessels. You would also know that the fact that OPT 1.7 is not compatible with OPT 1.8 is a major reason why the community maintenance version exists in the first place -- name changes and various other under-the-bonnet changes have been made to the parts from the various official OPT releases so that they could all be used together in a single parts pack.

It's a large project and by no means an easy one. We should all be thankful that @stali79 et al put forth the effort to put it all together. Constructive criticism is welcome, but I don't think the modders would very much appreciate you complaining that the update would break all pre-existing vessels when they themselves said that it would happen weeks before actually releasing that update.

Oh, and the OPT landing gear from earlier versions, designed to work in KSP 1.0.x, have been temporarily removed due to incompatibility with KSP 1.1.x.

[siliconworm]

1 minute ago, King Something said:

LOUD NOISES!!!!3.14159!

 

If you were paying attention over the past few months, or reading the past dozen or so pages, you would have known that the latest community maintenance update would break all previously built OPT vessels. You would also know that the fact that OPT 1.7 is not compatible with OPT 1.8 is a major reason why the community maintenance version exists in the first place -- name changes and various other under-the-bonnet changes have been made to the parts from the various official OPT releases so that they could all be used together in a single parts pack.

It's a large project and by no means an easy one. We should all be thankful that @stali79 et al put forth the effort to put it all together. Constructive criticism is welcome, but I don't think the modders would very much appreciate you complaining that the update would break all pre-existing vessels when they themselves said that it would happen weeks before actually releasing that update.

Oh, and the OPT landing gear from earlier versions, designed to work in KSP 1.0.x, have been temporarily removed due to incompatibility with KSP 1.1.x.

But what about the changes from OPT 1.8 to 1.8.5????

For example, I see in the part files that that the name of "opt.stabilizer.a" has now been changed to "stabilizer.a", is this really necessary if they are the same thing????

Also, why are the rescale options all gone? Is 1.8.5 an upgrade from 1.8 or a downgrade?

[King Something]

Just now, siliconworm said:

But what about the changes from OPT 1.8 to 1.8.5????

For example, I see in the part files that that the name of "opt.stabilizer.a" has now been changed to "stabilizer.a", is this really necessary if they are the same thing????

You'd have to ask stali about that. I haven't looked at the coding for the various versions of OPT (partly because I'm not a modder) but I would imagine that he has a reason for changing that part's name (perhaps because there are other parts in the various OPT releases with that name?).

And in any case, he said weeks before releasing 1.8.5 that he was changing the names of all the parts and that that change would break all vessels with OPT parts. I don't think that this change should come as a surprise.

[Starwaster]

@siliconworm  

@King Something

Most likely what happened is this: A decision was made and implemented to do a mass renaming of parts by prepending OPT_ to all OPT parts. After some discussion on the matter it was decided not to do the mass renaming after all and action was taken to reverse the previous change via another mass renaming. The way in which this was done probably resulted in an accidental renaming of parts that had previously/always started with opt_. (note that in the actual part file it is underscores but in the save files those underscores are periods / dots. You can fix your preexisting save files by removing the opt. and change opt.stabilizer.a to stabilizer.a)

[stali79]

I suspect that is what happened @Starwaster, when I did the second mass rename its highly probably that the 2 stabilizers were already had the OPT_ prefix and ended up being removed.

As for tweakscale I have no idea, I never tested with it, as to why they don't scale now I have no idea, I know I wouldn't have changed anything directly related to it intentionally.

@siliconworm do you have ANY idea of just how much work went into this release?!  This release is a rebuilt compendium of ALL previous releases, and I did warn of the probability of craft breaking with this release due to the changes we had to make to get it all working properly.

As for the texture issue, am still investigating it.

[AccidentalDisassembly]

 

10 hours ago, siliconworm said:

IDIOTIC RED TEXT

Christ. Did it ever occur to you that no one forced you to update? That you could have paid a tiny bit of attention to the changes? That no one is beholden to your personal view of what constitutes the right "modding attitude"? Speaking of attitudes, you might reflect on your own. Maybe take a deep breath next time and think for one tiny second before spewing asinine rage in the most irritating way possible - which accomplishes nothing, to boot, other than making yourself seem irrational and incapable of controlling your emotions.

If you don't like the changes, don't use them. None of your crafts are ruined - go install a previous version of OPT and enjoy. Or change the part names back yourself. Or, hell - go do all the work that Stali did, and share it with everyone else. That way you can show us all a shining example of your oh-so-special and completely correct "modding attitude." Show us the way, o anointed one!

[Denko666]

11 hours ago, siliconworm said:

Hi, I just want to ask: Why is every update of this mod a disaster?...

 

OY mr "I'm the center of the universe": Fork it and make your own mod! 

Fitting nickname u got btw...

[stali79]

11 hours ago, siliconworm said:

Obligatory stupid red text

 

Pushing a minor update, resolved the worst of the texture issues.

1.8.5.1

* Minor MM patch updates
* Texture issues mostly revolved
* Removed unneccesary textures in 2.5m folder

Uploading to spacedock now.

[Mycroft]

Well I was wondering why everyone was jumping on siliconworm, until I read the post.... Ummm yeah.... Now I'm thinking nobody went far enough. I'd gladly flame him (that's what I'm good at) but I'd end up breaking about every forum rule. Needless to say, this post is in direct violation of at least four rules: 2.2 section D, 2.2 section H, 2.3 section B, and last but not least, 2.3 section F. 

Reported.

 

[stali79]

I know i could have behaved more appropriately in this.

[siliconworm]

1 hour ago, AccidentalDisassembly said:

 

Christ. Did it ever occur to you that no one forced you to update? That you could have paid a tiny bit of attention to the changes? That no one is beholden to your personal view of what constitutes the right "modding attitude"? Speaking of attitudes, you might reflect on your own. Maybe take a deep breath next time and think for one tiny second before spewing asinine rage in the most irritating way possible - which accomplishes nothing, to boot, other than making yourself seem irrational and incapable of controlling your emotions.

If you don't like the changes, don't use them. None of your crafts are ruined - go install a previous version of OPT and enjoy. Or change the part names back yourself. Or, hell - go do all the work that Stali did, and share it with everyone else. That way you can show us all a shining example of your oh-so-special and completely correct "modding attitude." Show us the way, o anointed one!

The correct modding attitude is you should at least play the mod made by yourself! And the maker of this mod clearly hasn't! So just shut up if you are not the maker of this mod!

 

[stali79]

Just now, siliconworm said:

The correct modding attitude is you should at least play the mod made by yourself! And the maker of this mod clearly hasn't! So just shut up if you are not the maker of this mod!

 

The "maker" of this mod is officially away from active development persuing his career. The team who have been updating/maintaining this mod are ACTIVE PLAYERS of the game.

 

We spent OUR unpaid time to rebuild this mod from the ground up.

[Mycroft]

1 minute ago, siliconworm said:

The correct modding attitude is you should at least play the mod made by yourself! And the maker of this mod clearly hasn't! So just shut up if you are not the maker of this mod!

 

First... Umm @stali79 is one of the dev's! And he didn't like your post. Second, you might wanna cool off. I don't want to have to report you again. You can redesign your ships! Do you think the rest of us are exactly extatic that the ships we worked hard on are incompatible? But each and every one of us downloaded this mod knowing full well that the next update would break our ships. @stali79 went to great lengths to make sure that people knew the next update would break their ships for MONTHS ahead of time. I was told that before I even downloaded this mod for the first time when 1.1.2 was in its infancy. Your reaction and behavior are severely out of line. Please calm yourself before posting here again, for our sake and yours. I seriously don't wanna report you again, but I will if I have to.

I think Stali's behavior was exemplary for this update. He was great for making the mod as nice as possible and making the community happy. He was also humble about his knowledge of modding, though he did a great job.

[stali79]

2 minutes ago, Mycroft said:

First... Umm @stali79 is one of the dev's! And he didn't like your post. Second, you might wanna cool off. I don't want to have to report you again. You can redesign your ships! Do you think the rest of us are exactly extatic that the ships we worked hard on are incompatible? But each and every one of us downloaded this mod knowing full well that the next update would break our ships. @stali79 went to great lengths to make sure that people knew the next update would break their ships for MONTHS ahead of time. I was told that before I even downloaded this mod for the first time when 1.1.2 was in its infancy. Your reaction and behavior are severely out of line. Please calm yourself before posting here again, for our sake and yours. I seriously don't wanna report you again, but I will if I have to.

I also tried to minimize the impact of broken ships. There was a MINOR editing issue in the bulk edit that inadvertantly removed the OPT_ prefix on 2 parts that already had it in the previous version. The 1.8.1.x versions were NEVER release versions, they were always betas. 1.8.5 is the first official release since @K.Yeon suspended active development. @siliconworm you have been told what you need to have your ships functional again.

[Mycroft]

Ummm @stali79 something I've had on my mind... The new engine... I seriously LOVE it, but if I'm honest, it seems awfully OP. I mean I put two of them on my basic fighter platform, which is rather small, and it's on KerbalX if you've a mind to look, but it literally accelerated at 8, count them, 8 gees climbing straight up! Also, I actually landed it on the Mun with those engines and it had enough Delta-V to get back. I mean 4,000+ kN of thrust seems huge for an engine of this size. I never thought I'd ask for a nerf, but to be honest, I think it needs it... 

What do you think?

Edited September 12, 2016 by Mycroft