MattG's Observatory plugins

Codger

Codger
I've been using Evaluator and it works nicely.

One thing I'd like to see is a way for it to tag planets to map based on something other than just credit value. I usually want to scan and map landable planets with atmospheres, especially if there are life signs, for example.

Thanks for making all this stuff. It's quite useful.
 

MattG

MattG
Codger said:
I've been using Evaluator and it works nicely.

One thing I'd like to see is a way for it to tag planets to map based on something other than just credit value. I usually want to scan and map landable planets with atmospheres, especially if there are life signs, for example.

Thanks for making all this stuff. It's quite useful.
Click to expand...
I think to do this dynamically in a relatively light-weight plugin is going to be overkill. But I could add some extra explicit settings to do this. Would adding options for "landable + atmosphere" and "landable + atmosphere + bios" be enough, or did you have other things in mind?
 

Codger

Codger
MattG said:
I think to do this dynamically in a relatively light-weight plugin is going to be overkill. But I could add some extra explicit settings to do this. Would adding options for "landable + atmosphere" and "landable + atmosphere + bios" be enough, or did you have other things in mind?
Click to expand...
That would be great!
 

MattG

MattG
New version of Evaluator now live.

You can now optionally mark landable atmospheric planets or just landable atmospheric planets that have Bios. You can set a maximum distance you'll travel for atmospherics - but note that atmospherics don't honour the minimum value requirement (as most will fail this criteria).
Atmospherics will be marked "Atmospheric" in the Map column to help distinguish them from the high value bodies - unless they also meet the value criteria in which case they will be marked "Yes" as before.

Also added a button in Settings to Check For Update, and built against latest Observatory Framework.
 

MattG

MattG
Also updated BioInsights:

  • Fixed a couple of incorrect variant criteria
  • Added button to Check For Updates
  • Improved handling of unpredicted codex entries

There's still a small handful of discrepancies I need to resolve in the underlying Codex data, but this version should help collate that information.
 

Ultra Fluffy

Ultra Fluffy
BioInsights: I just scanned a plant and it did not register on BioInsights, either with the SRV scanner or the hand held one. ED sees it (Which is a bit of a miracle with update 9.1)

The plant type is Clypeus Lactrimam - Grey
 

MattG

MattG
Ultra Fluffy said:
BioInsights: I just scanned a plant and it did not register on BioInsights, either with the SRV scanner or the hand held one. ED sees it (Which is a bit of a miracle with update 9.1)

The plant type is Clypeus Lactrimam - Grey
Click to expand...
Can you confirm the version of BioInsights you're using. And are you able to get the CodexEntry and ScanOrganic lines from the journal for these scans and send them to me (or paste them here). I can't see anything obviously wrong in BioInsights - but I've not encountered Clypeus since update 9, and update 9 brought some... peculiararities.

I'm wondering if they fixed the typo in Clypeus in the ScanOrganic lines.
 

Ultra Fluffy

Ultra Fluffy
I'm using BioInsights 0.21.342.1708

Journal entries are:

{ "timestamp":"2021-12-14T23:03:32Z", "event":"ScanOrganic", "ScanType":"Log", "Genus":"$Codex_Ent_Clypeus_Genus_Name;", "Genus_Localised":"Clypeus", "Species":"$Codex_Ent_Clypeus_01_Name;", "Species_Localised":"Clypeus Lacrimam", "SystemAddress":1500185108170, "Body":30 }


{ "timestamp":"2021-12-14T23:04:09Z", "event":"CodexEntry", "EntryID":2340106, "Name":"$Codex_Ent_Clypeus_01_K_Name;", "Name_Localised":"Clypeus Lacrimam - Grey", "SubCategory":"$Codex_SubCategory_Organic_Structures;", "SubCategory_Localised":"Organic structures", "Category":"$Codex_Category_Biology;", "Category_Localised":"Biological and Geological", "Region":"$Codex_RegionName_19;", "Region_Localised":"Hawking's Gap", "System":"Blaea Aip OY-H c23-5", "SystemAddress":1500185108170, "Latitude":23.476801, "Longitude":43.158791 }
 

MattG

MattG
Ultra Fluffy said:
I'm using BioInsights 0.21.342.1708

Journal entries are:

{ "timestamp":"2021-12-14T23:03:32Z", "event":"ScanOrganic", "ScanType":"Log", "Genus":"$Codex_Ent_Clypeus_Genus_Name;", "Genus_Localised":"Clypeus", "Species":"$Codex_Ent_Clypeus_01_Name;", "Species_Localised":"Clypeus Lacrimam", "SystemAddress":1500185108170, "Body":30 }


{ "timestamp":"2021-12-14T23:04:09Z", "event":"CodexEntry", "EntryID":2340106, "Name":"$Codex_Ent_Clypeus_01_K_Name;", "Name_Localised":"Clypeus Lacrimam - Grey", "SubCategory":"$Codex_SubCategory_Organic_Structures;", "SubCategory_Localised":"Organic structures", "Category":"$Codex_Category_Biology;", "Category_Localised":"Biological and Geological", "Region":"$Codex_RegionName_19;", "Region_Localised":"Hawking's Gap", "System":"Blaea Aip OY-H c23-5", "SystemAddress":1500185108170, "Latitude":23.476801, "Longitude":43.158791 }
Click to expand...
Perfect, thank you. And yes, looks like they've fixed the typo in the ScanOrganic lines so BioInsights no longer recognizes it. I will get it fixed in next couple of days (and work out a way to make it still work for older logs that have the typo...)

Thanks again.
 

MattG

MattG
Eahlstan said:
I'm curious: what typos are you referring to?
Click to expand...

This is an older, pre-Update 9 ScanOrganic line:
{ "timestamp":"2021-09-21T16:53:41Z", "event":"ScanOrganic", "ScanType":"Analyse", "Genus":"$Codex_Ent_Clepeus_Genus_Name;", "Species":"$Codex_Ent_Clypeus_02_Name;", "Species_Localised":"Clypeus Margaritus", "SystemAddress":7260231110307, "Body":8 }

Note how the Genus key is "$Codex_Ent_Clepeus_Genus_Name;" yet in the post-Update 9 ones it's been fixed and reads "$Codex_Ent_Clypeus_Genus_Name;"

If you built your plugin on the basis they wouldn't change important things like that, it might suddenly stop working when they do :rolleyes:. Oh, I just noticed they also added the missing Genus_Localised key on ScanOrganic - the fact that was missing was the whole reason I changed over to the non-localised keys in the first place (which I know I should've done from the start, but hey ho).

Hoping to get the fix for this out today, anyway.
 

MattG

MattG
OK, new BioInsights available here

Should fix the Clypeus issue - but could do with verification. In particular, I'd like to know if the distance notifications for Clypeus still work.
 

MattG

MattG
Bunch of updates here

Signal Monitor
  • Rebuilt on latest Framework

Evaluator
  • Minor bugfixes
  • Minor performance improvements
  • Extra sanity checking

Boxel Stats
  • Speculative fix for a possible crash cause

BioInsights
  • Fixed an issue where non-main stars were not always being counted as possible parents
  • Turquoise Stratum variant was missing, now added.
  • Minor bug fixes
  • Tweaked handling of unexpected bios
  • Secret new feature?
 

MattG

MattG
New version of BioInsights here
  • Tightened criteria for a couple of species
  • Preliminary attempt at defining regions for the species that have region-specific requirements.

Accordingly, I'm particularly interested in reports of "NOT PREDICTED" at the moment in case the region bits are wrong.
 

varonica

varonica
MattG said:
New version of BioInsights here
  • Tightened criteria for a couple of species
  • Preliminary attempt at defining regions for the species that have region-specific requirements.

Accordingly, I'm particularly interested in reports of "NOT PREDICTED" at the moment in case the region bits are wrong.
Click to expand...

Updated, will keep an eye open for "NOT PREDICTED" messages.
 

Ultra Fluffy

Ultra Fluffy
MattG said:
New version of BioInsights here
  • Tightened criteria for a couple of species
  • Preliminary attempt at defining regions for the species that have region-specific requirements.

Accordingly, I'm particularly interested in reports of "NOT PREDICTED" at the moment in case the region bits are wrong.
Click to expand...
Likewise I will let you know if I see any unpredicted.

Out of interest, what criteria were tweaked and where did you get region information from? EDSM or Codex?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom