• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

488 Excellent


About Tyko

  • Rank
    Space Pirate! Aaargh!

Profile Information

  • Location Seattle, WA
  • Interests Learning how to mod, Mobile technology/wearables, Tabletop and Board gaming, Science fiction and non-fiction reading.

Recent Profile Visitors

1906 profile views
  1. I ran 10 identical launches from a new save. I captured the failure % (below) on the launch pad. Launched each rocket and let the engine burn for 1 minute. I then separated the pod, did a parachute descent and recovered the pod. No parts were re-used, so each rocket was entirely of unused parts. I can see the numbers decreasing and also the effects of the randomization. L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9 L10 Parachute Failure 21 17 12 10 10 9 7 7 7 7 Capsule Battery 7 15 12 10 9 7 7 7 7 7 Capsule Reaction Wheel 12 20 17 15 14 12 12 12 12 12 Capsule Resource (monoprop) 9 18 15 12 11 10 10 9 9 9 FLT-800 Fuel Tank 19 23 18 15 14 17 11 10 10 9 Swivel Engine 38 15 14 12 12 11 10 10 10 10 I think failure chances should drop more rapidly though and I'm surprised they plateau'd so high. I think your previous failure model roughly halved the chance every launch and got down to 1%(ish). This felt more reasonable. Having a 10% failure rate after 10 launches seems really high. As an interesting side note, I had zero parts failures over my 10 launches. Each flight lasted about 3 minutes with the first minute being the boost phase and the last 2 being descent.
  2. @severedsolo this is progressing nicely. I like the new dialog box. The new model feels odd though. It seems like you're really focused on modeling re-usable parts, but most parts aren't actually re-used and the new model seems to start parts off with a "new part" failure rate even if I've used the same type of part before. The 50th Swivel engine I build should not have the same initial failure rate as the very first I ever built. I thought your old model for new versions of the same parts - in which subsequent builds became more reliable - felt more correct.
  3. I scaled Sigma's @Atmosphere = 0.88312 - so Earth's atmosphere was 85,000m SSRSS default value for @Atmosphere = 0.8
  4. I re-downloaded...Now the engineer can repair the parts, but several parts showed 100% chance to repair and the repairs failed. Also, the glow is back for some parts, but other damaged parts still don't glow.
  5. Thanks for the update. Just tried 0.9 an I noted three things that I wasn't sure about: The glow for failed parts is gone, but I can't figure out how to toggle it back on. Currently there's no way that I could figure out to tell a part was broken - there's no glow and the right-click menu doesn't give any details. The new UPFM dialog box is great for giving a ship-wide readout, but it just says "XXX has failed, YY% chance to repair", but doesn't say which XXX failed or provide me any way to identify which XXX. Once I figured out which was broken I tried to repair. EVA'd got close enough to the part to bump it, but the right-click menu didn't offer a repair option. In 0.8 I was able to use a lvl 1 engineer to repair a part. I tried using the same engineer in 0.9 and he didn't get a repair option. Do I need a certain engineer level now? if so, how do I know what level I need? New failure model is confusing me Why do parts that are designed for launches have have longer lifetimes than a part that's intended to go on a 3 year mission? that seems backwards, or maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean? I think it makes sense that lower tech parts have higher failure rates. A lot more Atlas missiles failed than SpaceX rockets because we've gotten better at avoiding issues... Thanks! Also just found out that if I re-load a ship, the UPFM dialog box no longer reports previous failures. Is this expected? (sorry for all the questions, I hope they are helpful)
  6. @Ven, I believe you're working on an update and wanted to share a part idea in case you're looking for suggestions...if not, I'll just keep using my custom config. I really loved the model for the 105-7P engine, but found that it's stats didn't lend itself to that many uses. So, I created a mid-late-game vacuum engine for small ships. I scaled it to 1.25m and with 150Kn of thrust and a 345 vacuum ISP it fits really nice into the tech tree and fills in the gap between the existing 1.25m vacuum engines and the Poodle:
  7. I've finished a few changes to the SSRSS system and want to make them available for others to try out. Here are the changes made by each of 4 configs: SSRSS_Sigma2.5x24Hour_Tyko.cfg - Scales the system to 2.5x (approx 1/4 size of real solar system) to make it more challenging and bring the Delta-V requirements more in alignment with the capabilities of Stock parts - it's much more difficult to SSTO. To use this, replace the SSRSS_Sigma.cfg file in SSRSS/Configs. KSC_Brazil_1x.cfg - relocates the KSC to Northern Brazil. If you want your Kerbals to speak Portuguese and launch with 0.0 inclination, this change is for you KSC_Brazil_Sigma2.5x.cfg does the same move, but is designed to work with the Sigma2.5x config above. Stockalike_Inclinations_Tyko.cfg - builds on @Galileo's changes. His adjusted the planets to stockalike inclinations. Mine also adjusts the moons to be much closer to co-planar with the system by using real world inclinations for them. This replaces Galileo's version. I might change it so that it's just an add-on mod and doesn't require the other to be disabled. I might consider publishing these as an official mod, assuming I got @Galileo and @OhioBob's blessings. The files can be downloaded below: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/v6iw9qvwqs12mgu/AAB7pzxmhQBO4KGxBZvkiuBka?dl=0 By the way, in case you're wondering why I would make the game more challenging by scaling it up, but less challenging with my inclination changes...I did it because I launch all my flights manually and adding an inclination change to almost every launch wasn't interesting for me. Conversely, the 2.5x scaling gives me a chance to build rockets that look and behave a lot more like real historical rockets while still using Stock parts. Any feedback is welcome
  8. This...My bigger ships are built to be launched in parts with mostly dry fuel tanks to save weight. I assemble and fuel them in orbit. This allows me to build much larger ships without having monstrous booster stages.
  9. I actually own the Kerbal Player's Guide, I've read it, and it's really well-done. it's based on KSP 1.2.x which is really close to 1.3 in terms of play. I can't think of anything a newer player would try that's changed with 1.3. The first half of the book teaches you how to play with useful tips and examples. further back in the book it touches on all kinds of detail like writing your own Module Manager config files and a lot more. If you want a structured step by step guide, I'd recommend it.
  10. I want to change the default values for USI-LS in the Settings.cfg file. I tried writing the MM script below as a test, but it didn't change the values for a new game. Is my syntax wrong or do I have to over-write the Settings file in the USI-LS folder to make changes? %LIFE_SUPPORT_SETTINGS:FINAL { %SupplyTime = 172800 // 48 hours before Kerbals are affected by no supplies }
  11. @OhioBob Thanks for your advice the other day on modding this to 2.5x. I spent most of my weekend fooling around with it and I'm positive I've created a franken-system I was annoyed that USI-LS, TWP and KAC were calculating days and years based on a 24 hour clock while my system was running on a 12 hour clock. It threw off launch window dates compared to system dates. It also meant that life support estimates were off by a factor of 2. To fix this I've moved the system back to a 24 hour clock to align with what the mods expect. The only obvious issue was that the Earth's orbit was only half a year long, so I forced the year in Kronometer to a number of seconds equal to 1/2 of a real year. I checked my transit times to Mars and they come out to ~133 days for a Hohmann Transfer according to TWP - I believe this is correct for quarter scale because 2 x 133 days is just under 9 months. My question is - what did I break that I'm not thinking of? Thanks again for your advice, here's my config:
  12. @NathanKell thanks for explaining. I had the misunderstanding that a game day could be adjusted by mods. Playing with scaling SSRSS to 2.5x was the first time I'd actually dug into mucking with time via SigmaDimensions. As I was checking the changes I was making, I noted that USI-LS, TWP and Precise Maneuver were off compared to the day as defined by a rotation of Kerbin/Earth. Going back and checking other solar system setups (Stock w/Sigma 2.5x, GPP w/Sigma 2.5x) I see that this is a consistent problem that I'd just missed before. Maybe I was better off before when I didn't notice
  13. Okay, that makes sense...TWP and Precise Maneuver are also "locked" at 24 hours regardless of the rotation period of Kerbin/Earth... Can you please point me to how I could force the time format to a different length? I couldn't find the relevant code in any of the RSS configs. Thanks!
  14. Is there a way to force USI-LS to use a specific time-scale for number of hours in a day? the default is 6 for stock and looks like RSS has it set at 24. Wondering how to adjust it for other solar system scales. Thx