Version 0.2.1.3 for Kerbal Space Program 1.12.3 See KNOWN ISSUES file for more information. Got a bug with a subassembly here on Forum.I failed to find a viable automated process for salvaging them. Currently, there's no other alternative but to redo your SubAssemblies.Problem: I solved the problem for SubAssemblies and Craft files saved after installing the newest Release of KSP-Recall, but didn't managed to cook a way to salvage the pre-existent ones. I realised that the problem is that the Positions on the Attachment Nodes are not being initialised by the vanilla Parts - apparently the initialisation was moved to the ModulePartVariant module.It was determined that when Parts without ModulePartVariant is the root of the SubAssembly, the parts attached to it must have the ModulePartVariant otherwise the problem will be triggered. #34 NEW Misbehaviour on KSP introduced by AttachedOnEditorĪ new problem was found, affecting Editor since KSP 1.9, where some parts are triggering a strange misbehaviour when you Alt+Click a part for a duplicate, when Loading a craft for Merge or when loading a SubAssembly.#35 AttachedOnEditor is not working for SubAssemblies.With non-preemptive MTs, like the KSP, this is probably not the case.Version 0.2.2.1 for Kerbal Space Program 1.12.3 In a pre-emptive multitasking system, all tasks are' put to sleep' when a clock interrupt occurs and all time-critical processes are updated in a very timely fashion. If a long compute-bound process with no waits occur, ENGINE_UPTIME is not updated either! If the same thing is true of the KSP_TIMER, then we can't count on it either. Part of the problem seems to center on the KSP's non-preemptive multitasking system. I don't have any hard data on KSP_TIMER yet but I do know that ENGINE_UPTIME was not too stable. So, until we have more experience with the LCB (and learn to use it properly), I'll delay coming to any conclusions as to whether or not it can produce superior results over wait-paced loops. Whether or not the LCB can deliver the kind of stable performance that a true time-driven interrupt can provide remains to be seen (at least I haven't yet run any quality tests and haven't heard of anyone who has). However, with the KSP we don't have a real time-driven interrupt (nor even full access to the task scheduler, etc). I too have found that wait-paced loops can be made to do a reasonable job, but never as well controlled as a quality time-driven interrupt. However, many scripters are not able to easily recognize re-entrance problems and for them, it is perhaps best to avoid techniques that can easily lead to such 'potholes' to fall into :lol: I personally never have 'problems' with re-entrance because I can usually forsee where they will occur and either avoid them or provide for them in the initial design. So my experience then is just do it and dont worry about the, their addition is so minimal as to be inconsequential, especially compared to those much sought after hardware sequencers/drum machines from the 1980's. I did an experiment to see how much drift I got and over a 30 min run I saw no perceivable timing slow downs. I did a version using Bob's idea of utilizing the on listener callback but in the end a simple wait(step-period) in the NCB worked just as well. This is careful design rather than anything else.incoming notes are all intercepted and managed just outside the wait() loop and values poked into in-loop conditions to get interactivity happening. etc.įirst, it's clearly not suffering any re-entrant issues. I'd guess about 400+ lines of code moving the graphics about, playing the correct note, modulating all of the effects etc. As you'll see in the video there's a fair amount potentially happening between each step of the "sequencer". and I spent A LOT of time fiddling with the issues discussed. OK, so I used this approach in the GridMachine here:
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |