MattG's Observatory plugins

Thanks for the feedback.

I was loading the installer version before launching ED. The other apps I use (EDD, EDOMH) seemed to work OK when I did this, so I figured this would as well. Launching Core after I'm in the game (not at the menu) resolves the issues. I thought I'd tried that before, but I was apparently mistaken.

I now have the options for "try re-load current system" and "start monitor on launch" enabled. "Reload all" is disabled. BioInsights appears to be working perfectly now, and it even auto-switches when I switch commanders.

I just looked for any documentation stating Core should to be run after loading the game. I failed to find it. Is that just a common practice, or did I miss the documentation?
 
Thanks for the feedback.

I was loading the installer version before launching ED. The other apps I use (EDD, EDOMH) seemed to work OK when I did this, so I figured this would as well. Launching Core after I'm in the game (not at the menu) resolves the issues. I thought I'd tried that before, but I was apparently mistaken.

I now have the options for "try re-load current system" and "start monitor on launch" enabled. "Reload all" is disabled. BioInsights appears to be working perfectly now, and it even auto-switches when I switch commanders.

I just looked for any documentation stating Core should to be run after loading the game. I failed to find it. Is that just a common practice, or did I miss the documentation?
Actually would expect it to work better when run before game - that’s what I do, but the “try reload current system” is doing most of the work here I think. Hopefully new Core UI will give more options to flag things.
 
Does it read the results, or do I need to remove my goggles to have a look on the monitor
If you're using SteamVR, than you can install Desktop+ application from Steam store. It's freeware tool to make overlay any desktop window to VR scene.
I'm VR player too. And add EDCoPilot window and Observatory window direct in to cabin. It's perfectly function and no need to remove HMD from eyes.
 
MattG, hello.

Thank you for a great tool. Just one question - are you have in plans to add font settings? It will be great to have possibility to change font size, colour and etc.
 
MattG, hello.

Thank you for a great tool. Just one question - are you have in plans to add font settings? It will be great to have possibility to change font size, colour and etc.
Possibly. Waiting to see what is possible in Core UI once that is finished but also mulling a couple of other things that might improve output
 
Actually would expect it to work better when run before game - that’s what I do, but the “try reload current system” is doing most of the work here I think. Hopefully new Core UI will give more options to flag things.
It's working perfectly for my needs now (3 commanders). I have no issue with launching Core after ED is loaded. We'll see what happens when the new Core UI is done. For now, I'm happy :)
 
I have just struck an odd BioInsight report (see attached image).

I'm revisiting this system after a couple of months, so FSS scan was at 100% on entry (confirmed by log examination). As far as I recall, BioInsight did not report anything at first, so when I found 2 bio signals I had to check them. I'm pretty certain the attached report is based only on the DSS scan + some post scan sampling.

This seems likely to confuse BioInsight to give an incorrect report instead of saying that there is no star or planetary info to go on. (Guess, only.)

Not likely to be very common problem, but ...
 

Attachments

  • Image1.png
    Image1.png
    45 KB · Views: 40
Understandable ... but in that case it would make better sense to say so for this particular planet, perhaps something like '2 biological signals present.' and also add something about no prediction could be made because star and/or body information not being available ... or whatever.

The important thing is to make it clear that this something outside intended use had happened, not present rubbish information that leads to postings like mine
 
I have just struck an odd BioInsight report (see attached image).

I'm revisiting this system after a couple of months, so FSS scan was at 100% on entry (confirmed by log examination). As far as I recall, BioInsight did not report anything at first, so when I found 2 bio signals I had to check them. I'm pretty certain the attached report is based only on the DSS scan + some post scan sampling.

This seems likely to confuse BioInsight to give an incorrect report instead of saying that there is no star or planetary info to go on. (Guess, only.)

Not likely to be very common problem, but ...
There are plans to improve this. In theory, older systems should populate correctly - if you have all necessary journals and have done a Read All if prompted to do so after an upgrade (and journals aren't ancient). I am aware of an issue where this doesn't work properly that I'm investigating, and eventually I'll also add spansh support to further enhance predicitons.

If/when we get improved UI, I hope to improve output for edge cases like this - but it's hard to predict which information is missing. Give me a scenario, and I can throw a spanner at it to stop it working...
 
The important thing is to make it clear that this something outside intended use had happened, not present rubbish information that leads to postings like mine
Well, that makes sense IF the program had access to all the data in the game, which it does not. All it has is the journal entries that are created when you FSS the planets, and then DSS them afterwards. It cannot reach into the past, because it operates on the incoming journal entries.

I don't think there's much more it can do than what it does now.
 
Here's a slight mystery I've seen recently:

On FSS I get a report of a body having two potential variants of, say, Fonticulua Digitos, one probable (marked as green) and one unlikely (marked as red). I then DSS scan the planet: the unlikely variant disappears, and only the likely one remains. As the unlikely colour variant was the reason I went for the planet, it's a bit disconcerting to have it vanish like that ... :)

I see nothing in log entries that explains this, so I get the impression that one analysis is done on FSS, and a slightly different one after DSS, with a slightly different result.

The latest instance is Pencil Sector HW-W c1-5 A 5 c (Bacterium and Fonticulua), where FSS produces Fonticulua Digitos Emerald and an uncommon colour variant I didn't record. After DSS only Fonticulua Digitos Emerald (common) remained.

A bug?

BioInsight latest version (v0.2.23060.2034 [ P.S. I wish I could just copy that from somewhere ])

There should be a record on EDMS, but I include my FSS log entries just in case:

JSON:
{"timestamp":"2023-10-10T07:02:01Z","event":"Scan","ScanType":"Detailed","BodyName":"Pencil Sector HW-W c1-5 A 5 c","BodyID":47,"Parents":[{"Planet":43},{"Star":1},{"Null":0}],"StarSystem":"Pencil Sector HW-W c1-5","SystemAddress":1459651351242,"DistanceFromArrivalLS":3408.928156,"TidalLock":false,"TerraformState":"","PlanetClass":"Icy body","Atmosphere":"thin methane atmosphere","AtmosphereType":"Methane","AtmosphereComposition":[{"Name":"Methane","Percent":100.0}],"Volcanism":"","MassEM":0.000519,"Radius":710179.9375,"SurfaceGravity":0.409839,"SurfaceTemperature":98.84713,"SurfacePressure":8461.016602,"Landable":true,"Materials":[{"Name":"sulphur","Percent":26.413378},{"Name":"carbon","Percent":22.210915},{"Name":"phosphorus","Percent":14.21981},{"Name":"iron","Percent":11.755417},{"Name":"nickel","Percent":8.891305},{"Name":"chromium","Percent":5.286802},{"Name":"manganese","Percent":4.854868},{"Name":"selenium","Percent":4.133917},{"Name":"niobium","Percent":0.80342},{"Name":"ruthenium","Percent":0.725972},{"Name":"tin","Percent":0.704194}],"Composition":{"Ice":0.825887,"Rock":0.158807,"Metal":0.015306},"SemiMajorAxis":5557706058.02536,"Eccentricity":0.004481,"OrbitalInclination":0.762742,"Periapsis":182.714988,"OrbitalPeriod":22256404.7575,"AscendingNode":131.701518,"MeanAnomaly":150.867513,"RotationPeriod":134452.01699,"AxialTilt":-0.386935,"WasDiscovered":true,"WasMapped":true}

{"timestamp":"2023-10-10T07:02:01Z","event":"FSSBodySignals","BodyName":"Pencil Sector HW-W c1-5 A 5 c","BodyID":47,"SystemAddress":1459651351242,"Signals":[{"Type":"$SAA_SignalType_Biological;","Type_Localised":"Biological","Count":2}]}
 
Here's a slight mystery I've seen recently:

On FSS I get a report of a body having two potential variants of, say, Fonticulua Digitos, one probable (marked as green) and one unlikely (marked as red). I then DSS scan the planet: the unlikely variant disappears, and only the likely one remains. As the unlikely colour variant was the reason I went for the planet, it's a bit disconcerting to have it vanish like that ... :)

I see nothing in log entries that explains this, so I get the impression that one analysis is done on FSS, and a slightly different one after DSS, with a slightly different result.

The FSS draws from the data supplied by the algorithm from the galaxy map with data about the system, which includes of course gravity, temperature range, atmosphere type, orbit etc, it can only use the supplied data from that algorithm to draw a conclusion about what might be there. There are details of the planetary geology that aren't available from that data but only from scanning using the DSS, the data supplied from the DSS gives much greater detail about the planet. For instance lets say atmospheric density determines whether or not a particular type of Digitos appears and that atmospheric density only occurs at the top of high mountains, but the FSS can't determine that data, only that the atmospheric composition, maximum pressure and temperature is right. Once you DSS the scan determines there are no areas of high enough altitude where the atmospheric density is low enough for the particular digitos to exist on the planet, therefore it doesn't exist.

Note the above is an example and I don't actually know that's a valid example, but I have come across Digitos types that only exist on mountains and not on the flat planes, so that's a possibility that determines existence of a particular type, the atmospheric pressure being lower. So yes, the analysis of the DSS is ipso facto different from that of the FSS because they are drawing data from two different sources, one uses the algorithm that generates the galaxy map, the other uses the algorithm that generates the planetary details.

At least that's my take on that problem.
 
Here's a slight mystery I've seen recently:

On FSS I get a report of a body having two potential variants of, say, Fonticulua Digitos, one probable (marked as green) and one unlikely (marked as red). I then DSS scan the planet: the unlikely variant disappears, and only the likely one remains. As the unlikely colour variant was the reason I went for the planet, it's a bit disconcerting to have it vanish like that ... :)

I see nothing in log entries that explains this, so I get the impression that one analysis is done on FSS, and a slightly different one after DSS, with a slightly different result.

The latest instance is Pencil Sector HW-W c1-5 A 5 c (Bacterium and Fonticulua), where FSS produces Fonticulua Digitos Emerald and an uncommon colour variant I didn't record. After DSS only Fonticulua Digitos Emerald (common) remained.

A bug?

BioInsight latest version (v0.2.23060.2034 [ P.S. I wish I could just copy that from somewhere ])

There should be a record on EDMS, but I include my FSS log entries just in case:

JSON:
{"timestamp":"2023-10-10T07:02:01Z","event":"Scan","ScanType":"Detailed","BodyName":"Pencil Sector HW-W c1-5 A 5 c","BodyID":47,"Parents":[{"Planet":43},{"Star":1},{"Null":0}],"StarSystem":"Pencil Sector HW-W c1-5","SystemAddress":1459651351242,"DistanceFromArrivalLS":3408.928156,"TidalLock":false,"TerraformState":"","PlanetClass":"Icy body","Atmosphere":"thin methane atmosphere","AtmosphereType":"Methane","AtmosphereComposition":[{"Name":"Methane","Percent":100.0}],"Volcanism":"","MassEM":0.000519,"Radius":710179.9375,"SurfaceGravity":0.409839,"SurfaceTemperature":98.84713,"SurfacePressure":8461.016602,"Landable":true,"Materials":[{"Name":"sulphur","Percent":26.413378},{"Name":"carbon","Percent":22.210915},{"Name":"phosphorus","Percent":14.21981},{"Name":"iron","Percent":11.755417},{"Name":"nickel","Percent":8.891305},{"Name":"chromium","Percent":5.286802},{"Name":"manganese","Percent":4.854868},{"Name":"selenium","Percent":4.133917},{"Name":"niobium","Percent":0.80342},{"Name":"ruthenium","Percent":0.725972},{"Name":"tin","Percent":0.704194}],"Composition":{"Ice":0.825887,"Rock":0.158807,"Metal":0.015306},"SemiMajorAxis":5557706058.02536,"Eccentricity":0.004481,"OrbitalInclination":0.762742,"Periapsis":182.714988,"OrbitalPeriod":22256404.7575,"AscendingNode":131.701518,"MeanAnomaly":150.867513,"RotationPeriod":134452.01699,"AxialTilt":-0.386935,"WasDiscovered":true,"WasMapped":true}

{"timestamp":"2023-10-10T07:02:01Z","event":"FSSBodySignals","BodyName":"Pencil Sector HW-W c1-5 A 5 c","BodyID":47,"SystemAddress":1459651351242,"Signals":[{"Type":"$SAA_SignalType_Biological;","Type_Localised":"Biological","Count":2}]}

My guess is you scanned A 5 c before A 5 and it was therefore unable to determine exactly where A 5 c was in the system so throws out the other variant as a possibility. By the time you'd mapped A 5 c, you'd since FSSed A 5 and it was then able to determine position and rule out other variant.

The logic for this is improved in next release, to hopefully be a bit better about knowing when a dependant scan has been performed and updating dependants accordingly - but it still might not be perfect. That said, it's extremely unlikely it's ever the variant marked in red, just save yourself the time and skip it :)
 
The FSS draws from the data supplied by the algorithm from the galaxy map with data about the system, which includes of course gravity, temperature range, atmosphere type, orbit etc, it can only use the supplied data from that algorithm to draw a conclusion about what might be there. There are details of the planetary geology that aren't available from that data but only from scanning using the DSS, the data supplied from the DSS gives much greater detail about the planet.

I had some similar idea, but ... I could not confirm it, and that was one of the reasons I posted. But I should have included the DSS scan data:

JSON:
{"timestamp":"2023-10-10T07:41:37Z","event":"Scan","ScanType":"Detailed","BodyName":"Pencil Sector HW-W c1-5 A 5 c","BodyID":47,"Parents":[{"Planet":43},{"Star":1},{"Null":0}],"StarSystem":"Pencil Sector HW-W c1-5","SystemAddress":1459651351242,"DistanceFromArrivalLS":3408.917097,"TidalLock":false,"TerraformState":"","PlanetClass":"Icy body","Atmosphere":"thin methane atmosphere","AtmosphereType":"Methane","AtmosphereComposition":[{"Name":"Methane","Percent":100.0}],"Volcanism":"","MassEM":0.000519,"Radius":710179.9375,"SurfaceGravity":0.409839,"SurfaceTemperature":98.84713,"SurfacePressure":8461.016602,"Landable":true,"Materials":[{"Name":"sulphur","Percent":26.413378},{"Name":"carbon","Percent":22.210915},{"Name":"phosphorus","Percent":14.21981},{"Name":"iron","Percent":11.755417},{"Name":"nickel","Percent":8.891305},{"Name":"chromium","Percent":5.286802},{"Name":"manganese","Percent":4.854868},{"Name":"selenium","Percent":4.133917},{"Name":"niobium","Percent":0.80342},{"Name":"ruthenium","Percent":0.725972},{"Name":"tin","Percent":0.704194}],"Composition":{"Ice":0.825887,"Rock":0.158807,"Metal":0.015306},"SemiMajorAxis":5557706058.02536,"Eccentricity":0.004481,"OrbitalInclination":0.762742,"Periapsis":182.714988,"OrbitalPeriod":22256404.7575,"AscendingNode":131.701518,"MeanAnomaly":150.905944,"RotationPeriod":134452.01699,"AxialTilt":-0.386935,"WasDiscovered":true,"WasMapped":true}

In this particular case, I find no clear differences. Both FSS and DSS emit a 'Detailed" scan record, the only differences between which I am able to detect (using software comparer) concerns timestamp, DistanceFromArrivalLS and MeanAnomaly. I ignore timestamp. DistanceFromArrivalLS is FSS: 3408.917097, DSS: 3408.928156, which I interpret as reflecting the time it took me to go from the FSS point to the DSS point. (If I'm very unlucky, there's a limit exactly there ... but I doubt that that is the case, as I have noted this behaviour in about half a dozen cases.) MeanAnomaly is related to the position of a body in its orbit, so also reflecting travel time.
 
My guess is you scanned A 5 c before A 5 and it was therefore unable to determine exactly where A 5 c was in the system so throws out the other variant as a possibility. By the time you'd mapped A 5 c, you'd since FSSed A 5 and it was then able to determine position and rule out other variant.

The logic for this is improved in next release, to hopefully be a bit better about knowing when a dependant scan has been performed and updating dependants accordingly - but it still might not be perfect. That said, it's extremely unlikely it's ever the variant marked in red, just save yourself the time and skip it :)

Interesting! Your guess seems to be right: A 5 c was indeed FSS scanned before A 5.

That means I am able to check up scan order for any unlikely stuff on planetary moons, and that's enough for now.

Thanks!
 
Last edited:
Hey there,
Just to dropping by to add my thanks for this great collection of tools. I've been a happy user especially of the BioInsights plugin for a while now, really appreciate your hard work.

Two questions, if I may:

- I'm really enjoying the BioInsights feature to mark biologicals that I'm still missing from my codex, it really tickles my completionist itch. Would it be feasible at all to come up with a similar feature/plugin for geological features, i.e. a GeoInsights plugin that alerts you to potentially still uncodexed geo features? Apologies if this is asked from a naive non-coder perspective.

- I may have missed this on your website, but do you have an official donation/support link?
 
Top Bottom