[0.23] [PLUGIN] RoverScience ALPHA 4.0 - Upgrades! - Open for Playtesting!

[theSpeare]

When the rover is "Searching for science spots..."

Added as issue #18

The bearings themselves give you more information than you strictly need.

Added as issue#19

Thanks for this. I was just gonna keep it as "TURN LEFT" and "TURN RIGHT" as a simplification thing for the code (lazy) but now that there's someone who actually requests it I don't have an excuse!

"Total dist. travelled while searching"

This should be renamed to "Total dist. traveled searching for next spot". It's an intended behavior. I wanted to represent how long someone's driven for one spot, rather than in total for the entire mission.

Issue #20

Another thing that I noticed is that there is no incentive to build bigger rovers with more instruments.

At the moment I'm not too fussed on trying to figure this out. Before implementation of something like this I'd have to spend a day or two with design brainstorm/solution before jumping into this. Something like this large enough that it'll have to be a future feature. Right now I'm considering this as a "well, you love to build rovers, so here's another reason to use them over other science solutions".

The science from this needs to be scaled down.

Definitely. This is one of the things that I need most help with. Here's the issue which is very open to discussion. Right now the percentages are:

2% (400, 700);
14% (150, 400);
45% (70, 150);
70% (20, 70);
else (0, 10);

And the scalar values to reduce these are:

Kerbin: 0.01
Sun: 0
Mun: 0.3
Minmus: 0.2
default: 1

For example, at 14% chance, the maximum science to be received from the Mun would be 400*0.3 = 120. It'd be 210 at the very highest (only 2% chance). This HOWEVER does not take into account the amount of times you can analyze! This means, with an unhindered science output over three analyses (before it begins to decay) the maximum you'd get from 14% would be 360 science. This is a little crazy, but there's a little bit of a struggle here for me:

That 14% is something I'd ideally know as "difficult to get"; those high potential spots don't come up all the time, but you can keep driving to get them if you're really that motivated. Which is where my stance comes in: if the player is willing to drive repeatedly over and over again to really soak up those high potentials, then are they not deserving of that high science output? And I mean high, I don't mean an extra 10% science or so. Something that's really worth the effort.

So the question for balancing, at least in my perspective, is should the 14% or 2% chance be changed for balancing? Maybe it's too easy to find that 14% high potential spots? The only way my perspective would hold true is if that high potential spot is sufficiently difficult enough to get, and the normal potentials are very common.

Cheers so much for your feedback, it helps immensely. I currently have very little to work with, and I'm hesitant to release until the balancing is done.

[Ralathon]

Definitely. This is one of the things that I need most help with. Here's the issue which is very open to discussion. Right now the percentages are:

2% (400, 700);
14% (150, 400);
45% (70, 150);
70% (20, 70);
else (0, 10);

And the scalar values to reduce these are:

Kerbin: 0.01
Sun: 0
Mun: 0.3
Minmus: 0.2
default: 1

For example, at 14% chance, the maximum science to be received from the Mun would be 400*0.3 = 120. It'd be 210 at the very highest (only 2% chance). This HOWEVER does not take into account the amount of times you can analyze! This means, with an unhindered science output over three analyses (before it begins to decay) the maximum you'd get from 14% would be 360 science. This is a little crazy, but there's a little bit of a struggle here for me:

That 14% is something I'd ideally know as "difficult to get"; those high potential spots don't come up all the time, but you can keep driving to get them if you're really that motivated. Which is where my stance comes in: if the player is willing to drive repeatedly over and over again to really soak up those high potentials, then are they not deserving of that high science output? And I mean high, I don't mean an extra 10% science or so. Something that's really worth the effort.

So the question for balancing, at least in my perspective, is should the 14% or 2% chance be changed for balancing? Maybe it's too easy to find that 14% high potential spots? The only way my perspective would hold true is if that high potential spot is sufficiently difficult enough to get, and the normal potentials are very common.

Cheers so much for your feedback, it helps immensely. I currently have very little to work with, and I'm hesitant to release until the balancing is done.

Hmm, I see your dilemma here and I don't see an easy solution. I personally feel that the 14% and 2% values are too high. Finding those spots takes maybe 15 minutes while launching another probe can take 20 minutes. Therefore there is no dilemma between "Do I go for low science and launch another probe, or do I get the big spots".

Maybe scaling down the curve helps here? The 14% and 2% values just skyrocket which just unbalances the whole system. Rewarding people for their perseverance is great and all, but people are willing to do a surprising amount of work for very small gains. MMO's where people grind for weeks to get a very minor upgrade are a prime example. The sunken cost fallacy and the urge to minmax can make that 10% extra science worth it for a lot of people. And that's without external factors, like Mission Controller's currency.

In either case, don't be too scared about releasing this mod. It works great as is and you'll probably gather a lot more feedback when it gets released. You can always tweak the values in response to that. When you have 1 halve complaining that it's OP and the other half yelling that it needs buffs you know you have a good balance

[theSpeare]

How often are you finding the 2% "very high" spots?

From my testing I've found 14% ones a little too frequently, so in this case I might leave the 2% and lower the 14% to maybe 7%, and that will probably take care of it. Perhaps even change the "normal" to a little lower, that way the normal potential becomes even more favorable if you're not up for travelling extra distances.

Yeah, I'm keen to release soon as this pre-release development stage isn't really getting much feedback. I'd just like to get the balance to somewhere where it sounds sensible and then later fight over about the values.

At the moment I guess my primary concern is functionality - if it's bug free, easy to set up and understand, and somewhat balanced, then it's going to be released!

Much thanks for your detailed feedback.

[Ralathon]

How often are you finding the 2% "very high" spots?

From my testing I've found 14% ones a little too frequently, so in this case I might leave the 2% and lower the 14% to maybe 7%, and that will probably take care of it. Perhaps even change the "normal" to a little lower, that way the normal potential becomes even more favorable if you're not up for travelling extra distances.

Yeah, I'm keen to release soon as this pre-release development stage isn't really getting much feedback. I'd just like to get the balance to somewhere where it sounds sensible and then later fight over about the values.

At the moment I guess my primary concern is functionality - if it's bug free, easy to set up and understand, and somewhat balanced, then it's going to be released!

Much thanks for your detailed feedback.

Yea the 2% ones are just too rare to reliably farm. They're more like a random bonus. The 14% ones are the problem. If I had to spitball some new values I'd rearrange the curve into:

2% (200, 400);

10% (150, 200);

45% (110, 150);

70% (70, 110);

else (0, 70);

My reasoning is that smoothing out the curve makes the low science spots less useless, the high science spots less mandatory and still gives you a rare chance for "2 measurements for the price of 1" that you can farm if you're really dedicated.

[theSpeare]

Alright, I'll play around with those values. Cheers.

EDIT: I'll try pushing out another release tonight

Edited March 9, 2014 by theSpeare

[longslide9000]

I am having some trouble analyzing the science spots, can you please explain what to do please? Thanks, and great mod!

[theSpeare]

Sure thing! Can you please clarify what you are having trouble with? Are you just unable to analyze at all, etc?

The readme is here and it should answer a few questions if you feel like reading through it.

Otherwise, here's the brief explanation for how to use the plugin:

To do science with a rover, you must have a vessel with at least one wheel in contact with the ground. Wherever you land first with your wheels will establish a landing spot. Science is analyzed from science spots. To find a science spot you simply have to drive around. However, the farther you are from the landing spot the higher the chance of finding a science spot. Once a science spot has been found, the terminal will show the distance and bearing to the spot; heading and rel. heading will be shown as well. Simply drive to the spot (within 3m) and information will be shown about the spot.

Once you are above the spot, you can just press analyze, and then if you're happy with the potential science, click confirm.

If you're having trouble getting to the spot itself, make sure you orient the Rover Brain part properly such that the pointy protrusion on the model points FORWARD. Once you want to begin driving around, simply "control from here" with the rover part's right-click, or you can press the "reorient" button on the GUI. For a better demonstration for how the part should be oriented, please look at the readme as it contains pictures.

Thank you

[Horus]

The updated 0.2 version is much better, imho. Bearing data was smth I wanted to propose

It seems to me that current version is quite good for a gameplay. Not sure that it needs some additional complexity. Well, something like targeted science point view monitor (same like in SCAN Sat mod - BTDT scanner) could be added, but it will be just a pleasant addition.

[theSpeare]

Cheers, the monitor view thing might not be a thing I'd want to go in. I'd prefer to actually draw maybe glowing spheres on the map that designate the science points. But that'll only come when I decide to go with the feature of spawning more than one science spot at a time.

At the moment (see milestone Pre-release 3) I will just be working on GUI touch-ups, balancing of the science values returned (just a bit lower again), and then once pre-release 3 is tested fine by me and you guys, I shall do an official release. Thank you so much for your help I might not be able to get pre-release 3 out tonight, but maybe tomorrow instead. Stay tuned.

[kiwiak]

Not entirely sure what you mean?

In ground survey, part "doing science" on unmanned rover can be every part with hullcam module.

By they way, will it work with bobcat rovers?

[theSpeare]

Still not sure what you mean, sorry :S

Bobcat rovers I'm guessing don't use ModuleWheel which means at this moment they don't. I will try to go for compatibility after release, as it shouldn't be too hard as long as they have a "groundcontact" bool I can use.

[Ralathon]

Still not sure what you mean, sorry :S

Bobcat rovers I'm guessing don't use ModuleWheel which means at this moment they don't. I will try to go for compatibility after release, as it shouldn't be too hard as long as they have a "groundcontact" bool I can use.

He's asking if it is possible to add Roverscience to all parts with the Hullcam module. Hullcam is a mod that adds cameras into the game so you can see what's going on from IVA (in combination with rasterprop) or to just make nice shots.

And yes, that should be possible with the following bit of Modulemanager script:

@PART
[*]:HAS[@MODULE[HullCamera]]{
	MODULE
        {
	name = RoverScience
        }

        MODULE
        {
	name = ModuleScienceContainer

	reviewActionName = Review Stored Data
	storeActionName = Store Experiments
	evaOnlyStorage = True
	storageRange = 1.3
	capacity = 1


	allowRepeatedSubjects = False
        }
}

[theSpeare]

Ah yes, it's very possible to do so. Thanks Ralathon. The only thing you have to worry about is the orientation of your hullcam part, because it may not point forward as its UP orientation. If it does, then that's great, but otherwise you're gonna have to use another command part that points forward, otherwise the heading is going to be messed up.

[theSpeare]

I've been a little busy but alas, I am in the progress of completing issue #19.

Shouldn't take too long. I've made a few changes with the science/potential curve and left the analysis decay curve alone. I will hopefully be letting out pre-release 3 by tonight. After, I'll just let you guys send the last bit of feedback to see if everything is going okay, and then I can release fully to the showcase forum and up into SpacePort for proper packaging without all the source file mumbo-jumbo.

Last stretch guys, thanks so much for the help!

[theSpeare]

Pre-release 3 complete, pushed to Github. OP updated with the new pre-release download link. Changelog as follows:

Mostly a GUI fix-up. Now ConsoleGUI will show if landingSpot hasn't been established yet and print out the number of wheels your vessel has.

Science values has been further adjusted, now we have an adjusted curve. See:

1% 400-500
8% 200-400
45% 70-200
70% 30-70
else 0-30

A lot of strings has been changed to be clearer, such as "total distance traveled FOR THIS SPOT".

A keyboard shortcut to open the console has now been added. CTRL+R+S now opens the console - keep wary that this will still toggle RCS.

Science decay per analysis has been left alone.

This is the last pre-release (unless some major issues pop up) so I'm gonna need the help I can get! Let me know what you think so far, especially if there's anything that feels particularly broken or horrible. Thank you guys so much again, I wouldn't be releasing a plugin I'm happy with without you guys.

[User Unrelated]

Downloaded, I'll try this out tomorrow, this'll give me some incentive to start making rovers! I always WANT to, but there's never really a point besides just looking cool

[theSpeare]

Cheers! I really appreciate it. Don't hesitate to give any feedback

[User Unrelated]

I did a little bit of testing...

and I got some not-so-good results.

The heading and everything worked fine, and I was able to analyze a science point

but:

*It did not warn me about, nor did it give me a cool down time.

*The first science spot I analyzed, the science window (where it pops up how much you got, a description, etc) was all wonky

*The second spot I analyzed, I only got .3 science (and I drove quite a ways away, and re-set the science zone to get a new one nearby)

I like the idea, and I'm sure you have plans to change this, but the science points were way too close to the current location of the rover, imo.

I reset the science zone 4 or 5 times, and every time, there was a new zone within 30 or 40m.

[theSpeare]

Hi, thank you so much for your feedback!

1. The cooldown has been removed since pre-release 2. It is now replaced by a system that reduces the science gain PER analysis that you do (From 0-3 analyses it does not decay.).

2. This is VERY weird. I'm assuming it's because the value that's been put into AddData() was just off or something. Can you please send your KSP.log that's in your installation folder?

3. It looks like you analyzed a science spot on Kerbin. The reduction factor for Kerbin science is VERY high. Try sending your rover out to the Mun. Pretty much anywhere not-Kerbin. That's probably why #2 occurred - because the value must have been way too low, or something like that. I've added a limit now, where if the data is below 0.1, the data isn't allowed in and the data is scrapped.

4. The minimum distance for a science spot is 25 meters, and the maximum is 75. Do you think 25 is way too close? I'll raise it to 40 and raise maximum to 90.

Edited March 12, 2014 by theSpeare

[User Unrelated]

Is it possible to change the distances in the config?

Me, personally, I'd prefer a maximum of like, a few kilometers (maybe even 10 or 11), and a minimum of 800m or something like that. (look at my first screenshot... I moved almost 5 Km when that sample got taken, it didn't take long at all)

I'd want to actually have to TRAVEL to a location, not just happen to be right near it. (but that's just me, I'm sure a lot of other people wouldn't like that)

And I have booted my game up again since this happened, so my log doesn't contain last sessions data anymore, sorry about that.

I'll try it again tonight, and see what happens.

Also: If you could find someone to get some modeling done for you (if you couldn't just do it on your own), the rover science part would look really cool as a camera stack like on the older Mars rovers (maybe in 2 size variants for larger and smaller rovers?)

Edited March 12, 2014 by User Unrelated

[bulletrhli]

Can someone tell me how to download this without downloading the source?

[theSpeare]

At the moment distances are hard-coded, but I'll think about adding a configuration file for it. The reason why they're relatively short is due to balancing with science-to-effort. This will probably be implemented when distances are included in calculating the potential of a site. Plus there's the issue with what you're really doing during that long trek. It'd become a bit of an idle drive almost. I want players turning all about constantly.

I was also a little afraid of science spots generating too much in Mountain sides and you wouldn't really know until you get relatively close. You'd then have to reset and repeat. Imagine travelling out that far for kilometers only to reset again. This can be possible once I can draw visual indicators in game.

Cheers. Let me know if you still have any problems, it helps immensely.

[theSpeare]

Can someone tell me how to download this without downloading the source?

Sorry! For the time being I'm just packaging everything together as it is faster and more convenient for me to just push updates. However if it's really bothering you I will upload the GameData onto Dropbox later today.

[bulletrhli]

Sorry! For the time being I'm just packaging everything together as it is faster and more convenient for me to just push updates. However if it's really bothering you I will upload the GameData onto Dropbox later today.

It isn't that its bothering me, I do not know how to compile a source code like many other users so its more of a convenience thing for more people to try it. I do appreciate you doing that though and it is very much appreciated. When I see it is up, I will do a test of my own and return my results when I figure out everything Thanks!

[theSpeare]

Oh! In that case then, the entire package from github (the whole zip you download) actually contains a folder called GameData. It has the mod folder you just need to move into your GameData like most other mods are installed.

You don't actually need to compile anything from the download