[WIP] TweakScale - Development Thread

[Space_nico]

Hi everybody.

Just a simple question : the auto-rescalling is normal? Because, I put a rocket under a satellite and all my rocket rescale to the satelite's size. There is a posibility to switch off this option?

[Mecripp]

Think it F11 or something like that maybe ctrl f11.

EDIT- Whoops that was off

<string name="Toggle Autoscale">LeftControl+L</string><bool name="Autoscale">0</bool><string name="Toggle Scale chaining">LeftControl+K</string><bool name="Scale chaining">1</bool><string name="Disable Autoscale">LeftShift</string><string name="Disable Scale chaining">LeftShift</string></config>

Edited March 3, 2015 by Mecripp2

[Space_nico]

Thank you very much!

[pellinor]

A quick status update for everyone, I made a custom tweakable to allow increments of varying size. Moved TweakScale over to it and am very happy about the result. But there's a problem. I used the floatEdit Tweakable from KSPApiExtensions as a template, so the new one is now part of a custom KAE version. So it is not a good idea to give out (a compiled version of) the current dev version until the new tweakable is either

* accepted into KSPApiExtensions or

* separated from it.

At the moment I'm still waiting for an answer about the first, and fail at doing the second. I described the problem here, and would be thankful for any help. The problem seems to be about item-prefab registration in unity.

[MatterBeam]

Hello,

I'm using this mod, but I've hit a small issue with rescaled engines.

When upscaling, they become extremely massive.

Is there a way to tweak... Tweakscale so that the upscaled engines move to masses and thrusts of similar sized engines instead of purely following the square/cube law with perfectly equal density and TWR?

[AccidentalDisassembly]

Hello,

I'm using this mod, but I've hit a small issue with rescaled engines.

When upscaling, they become extremely massive.

Is there a way to tweak... Tweakscale so that the upscaled engines move to masses and thrusts of similar sized engines instead of purely following the square/cube law with perfectly equal density and TWR?

The answer is yes, if you're willing to write a lot of configs. You can either:

1) Change the mass = X variable in scaleExponents.cfg to be 2.0 rather than 2.5, or something, and that will make engines' TWR increase as a square function (I think thrust also follows square, so if mass increases as square...).

2) You can write new tweakscale configs where engine parts are assigned either a) a new scaletype with mass = 2 (or whatever), or given TWEAKSCALEEXPONENTS{} with appropriate mass = X in their individual patches.

3) If you REALLY want to personalize it, you can write configs that define the exact mass/thrust of a given engine at a particular size.

[Ricardo79]

You really should make a configuration window for this autostackscale stuff.

I cannot turn it off.

So maybe last time we just missunderstanded each other.

My problem is simple: try attaching a jumbo tank directly for example to 0.625 part (maybe another tank) under in stack and bammm babyjumbo or even worse A rockomax tank and put under that tiny '47 engine. It gives you automatically a Jumbo '47 engine with ridicoulous thrust.

So this is the one I'd like to permanently turn off. I'd like to be the only one in charge responsible for Kerbals stole materials out of the jumbos.

How can I manage it? I mean PERMANENTLY not just for the given workflow.

Thank you in advance.

[pellinor]

Is there a way to tweak... Tweakscale so that the upscaled engines move to masses and thrusts of similar sized engines instead of purely following the square/cube law with perfectly equal density and TWR?

Look into the scaleexponents config file. This is where you find the current behavior, and this file is probably what you want to change (preferably with MM patches instead of editing the file). But check the current values first, the exponents for mass and thrust are not that different, which already surprised a few people (including me).

If you want to keep densities constant, mass needs to scale with scale^3. If you also want to keep TWR constant, thrust also needs to scale with scale^3. As I understand, the consensus is that thrust should be more like scale^2, density is not that important, and TweakScale patches should be as generic as possible (otherwise they are a mess to maintain). So the current situation is a compromise between several conflicting things.

- - - Updated - - -

You really should make a configuration window for this autostackscale stuff.

I cannot turn it off.

It should be off by default in the new version. Otherwise there's the hotkeys which also should are persistent as far as I know (they might not save their state correctly if you exit with alt-f4 instead of through the main menu).

One thing you can try is to edit the .xml file in the TweakScale/.../plugindata/scale/ folder. This is where those states are saved. If autoscale/chainscale is set to 1, set it to 0. This also works for olderversions of TweakScale.

[Ricardo79]

Thank you.

Than I should download a newer version I think. (isn't it has KSP AVC kompatibility?)

I'll look into it.

I downloaded it.

Note: MM 2.5.11 is out there already and stable. The package contains 2.5.10

And this new one have AVC version file.

So I had an outdated one.

Thank you for pointing it out.

Edited March 6, 2015 by Ricardo79

[crashy]

Have any of you noticed that any parts with air intake get an NRE when trying to symmetry? I had this problem in the past:http://imgur.com/a/0NkuB

[pellinor]

Have any of you noticed that any parts with air intake get an NRE when trying to symmetry? I had this problem in the past:http://imgur.com/a/0NkuB

I am not aware of any issues related to TweakScale and air intakes. Your screenshot looks like the exception happens in kerbal engineer. TweakScale only appears in the call stack because it notifies kerbal engineer of a part rescale.

[pellinor]

New dev version is up!

The scaleFactors now define the slider intervals, so they work in exactly the same way for discrete and continuous scaletypes. If you ignore the slider, the buttons of the free tweakable now have the same behavior as the discrete one.

A side effect of this change is that tech requirements now also work for free scaling. If you set a tech requirement that is not researched yet, some of the scaleFactors are filtered from the list and you can freely scale between the remaining ones.

MinScale and MaxScale are obsolete now (I still look for them if there are no scaleFactors defined), as well as incrementLarge and incrementSmall. incrementSlide can be given as a single value or as a list, allowing for different step sizes for different intervals. Sorry for removing stuff that I just introduced in 1.50! I am convinced that the new tweakable allows a better way of configuration with less room for confusion (now all scale types get their limits from the same list).

This version is labeled as 1.52, but it is still on the dev branch, so AVC will not yet nag everyone to update. Please test this with your favourite mods, and tell me what you think about the usability of the new tweakable! I will do an official release when I know there are no mayor bugs.

ChangeLog

* New Tweakable with more flexible intervals.

* Better handling of incomplete or inconsistent scaling configs.

* Vessels now survive a change of defaultScale.

* less persistent data (i.e. less spam in craft and save files)

[Ricardo79]

It has nagged me

But without the usual (download) button.

Anyway I downloaded it right now manually.

And triing out as soon as KSP loads

thank you.

edit:-----

It is contains an outdated MM 2.5.11 is out there long time ago.

also right now I am getting log spamming -> [Error]: Coroutine couldn't be started because the the game object 'ksp_pad_cylTank' is inactive!

And with each and every part on the current vessel as I can see it.

Is it related to this particular release? or this mod anyway? I didn't get anything like this before.

Edited March 8, 2015 by Ricardo79

[Sandworm]

One suggestion: A 1.875 default stack scale, at least for fairing parts. The 1.875 size works well with the HGR packs but also for any plus-sized kerbin players who want to maximize space under fairings. 1.875 parts fit nicely under KW 2.5m fairings, and 1.25m parts under 1.875 fairings.

Achieving this manually with KW's mulitpart fairings is fiddly. So I added in a 1.875 default scale.

Also, I had problems with KW fairings when running both TweakableEverythings and TweekScale. Removing the TweakableEcerything DLL and cfg for decouplers fixed the issue. The same logic appears to work for SAS units, as does the inverse. De-tweakscaling SAS units allows TweakableEverything to alter them without issue. So now I am running some parts (decouplers) de-TweakableEverything, and others (SAS and docking ports) de-tweakscaled.

Edited March 8, 2015 by Sandworm

[pellinor]

It has nagged me But without the usual (download) button.

Now it should, since I brought it to the main branch where it looks for updates. I'll have to look into the download thing.

It is contains an outdated MM 2.5.11 is out there long time ago.

The MM release thread lists 2.5.10 as the current official release, is there some other place to look?

[Error]: Coroutine couldn't be started because the the game object 'ksp_pad_cylTank' is inactive!

And with each and every part on the current vessel as I can see it.

Haven't seen anyting like this yet. Do you have more info? Your output log would help, errors and exceptions usually come with a call stack there.

Has anyone else had this problem?

One suggestion: A 1.875 default stack scale, at least for fairing parts.

Have you tested the new freescale interface? The slider increment is meant to be large enough so that you can easily reach the exact intermediate sizes like 1.875m. I'd like to avoid an extra main size that costs usability for everyone else.

Also, I had problems with KW fairings when running both TweakableEverythings and TweekScale. Removing the TweakableEcerything DLL and cfg for decouplers fixed the issue. The same logic appears to work for SAS units, as does the inverse. De-tweakscaling SAS units allows TweakableEverything to alter them without issue. So now I am running some parts (decouplers) de-TweakableEverything, and others (SAS and docking ports) de-tweakscaled.

I haven't looked into interactions with tweakable everything yet. I think there was some code specifically for this, but I am not familiar with that part of TweakScale yet.

[BudgetHedgehog]

ModuleManager 2.5.11 is basically the same as 2.5.10, it just has some extra debug logging (to help people who experience crashes with MM) and one bugfix. Hardly worthy of needing to update it, to be honest. Though, if people are blind idiots and copy across the whole Gamedata folder rather than the files they actually need inside Gamedata, you risk overwriting a needed MM with an older version. Your call - do you keep 2.5.10 and hope people aren't idiots or do you take time out to update all files just in case?

Also, Ricardo is wrong - the latest version MM 2.5.12 exists which is purely even more debug logging.

As for why the OP still lists 2.5.10 as the latest, that's because the ones after it are just "for finding a bug".

Note: 2.5.12 still doesn't fix the bug present 2.5.11 was meant to log so, apart from that one other bugfix in 2.5.11 (has wildcards not working properly), there's no point in updating. Probably because said bug is a result of other things being wrong and MM having to patch unexpected configs.

Edited March 8, 2015 by ObsessedWithKSP

[Sandworm]

Have you tested the new freescale interface? The slider increment is meant to be large enough so that you can easily reach the exact intermediate sizes like 1.875m. I'd like to avoid an extra main size that costs usability for everyone else.

I did. It works. It's just that the KW fairings have many parts, making for lots of clicking around.

I've been going through the cfgs hacking out parts that I don't want scaled, which is most of them, and adding parts that were missed (ie some RLA tanks). Would anyone be adverse to me releasing cfg covering only specific part categories? Imho liquidfuel tanks don't need to be scaled, and things like command pods and reactor (NFP) simply shouldn't.

[Ricardo79]

Hello.

For the MM I don't know how but I have called 2.5.11 one maybe from some other mod. I am sorry but can't remember where I was found it.

Today I am not started KSP yet.

That coroutine cames up since yesterday. and I didn't changed any other thing but this mod. If you not suspect what the heck could be it. maybe it is not coming from your mod.

That was in the debug log. and doesn't seem to make anything bad, just spamming a bit of the debug log.

But sure I can send you my latest output_log.txt uploaded here.

And thank you for your fast reply.

[pellinor]

I did. It works. It's just that the KW fairings have many parts, making for lots of clicking around.

I've been going through the cfgs hacking out parts that I don't want scaled, which is most of them, and adding parts that were missed (ie some RLA tanks). Would anyone be adverse to me releasing cfg covering only specific part categories? Imho liquidfuel tanks don't need to be scaled, and things like command pods and reactor (NFP) simply shouldn't.

Feel free. If there are parts missing from the config files bundled with TweakScale, I would prefer to add them there. Just tell me what is missing. This mod was missing some attention for quite a while, so it is probably not up to date with all the supported mods.

By the way, I don't consider scaling of crew parts as cheaty from a gameplay perspective. The crew capacity scales too, so a scaled down one man pod has capacity zero, but still won't provide control without a kerbal. And I do like the added detail when scaling down fuel tanks.

Edited March 9, 2015 by pellinor

[Sandworm]

By the way, I don't consider scaling of crew parts as cheaty from a gameplay perspective. The crew capacity scales too, so a scaled down one man pod has capacity zero, but still won't provide control without a kerbal. And I do like the added detail when scaling down fuel tanks.

It's not about cheating for me. It's just that differently-scaled command parts look silly when they meet in space. The textures get blurry when expanded and the size discrepancies just look wrong imho. I see tweekscale more as a problem-solving tool for slight adjustments rather than a major construction tool. Lego isn't lego once all the pieces start changing size.

Anyway... here are some additional tanks for RLA.

Updated cfg for RLA:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/7wu1e2nchl066dm/RLA_TweakScale_0903.cfg

@PART[RLA_x_s_tank] // PB-X450 Xenon Container
{
	MODULE
	{
		name = TweakScale
		type = stack
		defaultScale = 0.625
	}
}
@PART[RLA_l_mptank] // FL-R200 Monopropellant Tank
{
	MODULE
	{
		name = TweakScale
		type = stack
		defaultScale = 2.5
	}
}
@PART[RLA_m_mptank] // FL-R50 Monopropellant Tank
{
	MODULE
	{
		name = TweakScale
		type = stack
		defaultScale = 1.25
	}
}
@PART[RLA_s_mptank] // FL-R15 Monopropellant Tank
{
	MODULE
	{
		name = TweakScale
		type = stack
		defaultScale = 0.625
	}
}

[FreeThinker]

I'm recieving some alarming report's people have a lot of problems with the newest release of Tweakscale (Version v1.52), what is going on?

Edited March 10, 2015 by FreeThinker

[Ricardo79]

I am using ExceptionDetector, and TS 1.52.

I got all kind of warnings but not a single TS related stuff.

Also my playtimes doubled for each and every go since I updated it.

[pellinor]

Fix for the part cost issue is up! Please grab the new version v1.52.1 !

Stupid error that should not survive proper testing. I really miss an automated testsuite for KSP.

[Ricardo79]

Fix for the part cost issue is up! Please grab the new version v1.52.1 !

Stupid error that should not survive proper testing. I really miss an automated testsuite for KSP.

I see it. Again. AVC notified me. But there is no download button, just close on that message.

May I include screenshot? or you know what I am writing about?

Where can I get more info on that "Part cost issue" ?

I have a strange thing with FSfuelswitchable part to go negative on price, but I never tweaked them.

So I didn't thought it can cause by TS.

[pellinor]

AVC is supposed to nag you about official releases, and v1.52.1 is one because I consider the part cost bug as critical. Due to a change in the way parts are set up, TweakScale falsely thought it had already done the dryCost calculation so the value was never written. Unfortunately dryCost is persistent (as well as probably the stock part cost), so this can corrupt new craft files. I'd guess it only affects parts you added while using v1.52.

I haven't looked at the download button yet, surely some missing config line on my side.

I deleted v1.52 from KerbalStuff since I had the impression that there were still people downloading it while the fix was already up. Unfortunately I can not do anything about curse, who is still distributing the buggy version 6 hours after uploading the fix.

So what do we learn from this? Maybe I should wait a bit longer before pushing out releases, and be clearer about which version is worth testing. The thing is, there usually is no positive feedback. So if a anounce a pre-release version and nobody complains for a day or two, I can not tell if people are content or if noone has looked at it.

Edited March 10, 2015 by pellinor