Yemo

Members
  • Content count

    1530
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

591 Excellent

5 Followers

About Yemo

  • Rank
    Senior Rocket Scientist
  1. I do not know of any actual incompatibilities so far, but I have not tested. That is just a warning that compatibility has not yet been fully checked with the newer version. From a modding perspective, 1.3 is the stable version for the general public, while 1.3.1 is the dev version for mod creators and beta testers. Due to the nature of the SETI mods, they will stay with 1.3 until 1.3.1 is more widely supported. Oh, I forgot about that. Will have to take a closer look. Cant help you without at least screenshots of your gamedata folder (or ckan install list) and the log file. Also seems like ckan can not access spacedock at the moment.
  2. I consider the settings in this thread to be the default challenge for myself. It also goes into more details on what to expect and what changes compared to stock. Especially the house rules are important to me, eg not exploiting KSC science. Also the Anomaly Survey mod and RCS build aid were not available on ckan last I checked. While nearly no one is interested in installing a mod pack for challenges, I did specify 3 so far for the SETI meta mod pack, the links to those are also in the OP of the SETI main thread (this one). I have ideas for 4 more of them, but well, maybe some time... For bases, I actually prefer Pathfinder from Angel-125. Learn it once and it pretty much works, with a limited number of parts. USI Kolonization is now too complex for my taste. Unfortunately Angel-125 disliked ckan when I last checked, so I cant justify the effort to support it via SETI. If every compatibility issue with 50+ mods needs a manual download for this mod or that one, etc. I would be unable to support anything.
  3. I now only support TAC Life Support, since USI changed too much too often for me to keep track of. I liked USI Life Support when it was small and steady and intuitive. I just cant be bothered to recheck the values every time I come back to ksp and learn which part gives a supply duration bonus. In TAC there are recyclers which simply do what you would expect. In USI (at least when I last checked), the mobile processing lab gives a bonus to supply usage?
  4. [1.3] USI Life Support [0.5.0]

    SETIcontracts (I guess that is what you are referring to) only specifies "72 hours". No changes to the internal workings of USI life support from any SETI mod.
  5. Whoops, yeah, there seems to be an issue with that. I added a "No answer to this question" for every sub poll.
  6. Looking at career streams/youtube videos, there are a lot of people skipping the early tech tree by using the KSC science exploit. I m wondering how many do this and what are the reasons to do so?
  7. modded science tree mostly empty

    Yes, many later tech nodes are used by interstellar (which has some learning curve comparable to colonization mods ). But also keep in mind that CTT is a framework for modding in progress, so for some nodes there might not even be mods (yet).
  8. Done, SETIremoteTechConfig should now self-deactivate when GPP is installed.
  9. Hey all, I ll probably have time for ksp again soon (and thus the end of the quarter). Will have to catch up on the thread and all the accumulated issues, thank you all for your feedback and especially for the support you provided here. I can not test it myself at the moment, but I just made a micro update to SETIremoteTechConfig which should make it self-deactivate when GPP is installed. The rest I will have to check at the end of the week.
  10. SETIremoteTechConfig and SETIcontracts were made quite some time ago, before CommNet and GPP were a thing and the latter one when ContractConfigurator was brand new. Imho both SETI and GPP touch further than the usual (part) mod, no need to blame the older of them for not adjusting quick enough to the newer. These things happen, especially when changing the core game instead of just adding stuff on top of it (eg there is no issue with OPM). I m thankful for all the feedback and sorry for the inconveniences caused, but such problems are the inherent price of modification over addition. I m just coming back from a long hiatus and reading up on stuff, so might not have all the info. But it seems that for the SETIremoteTechConfig issue, changing the @RemoteTechSettings:FOR[SETIremoteTechConfig] { line to @RemoteTechSettings:NEEDS[!GPP] { would fix the issue by deactivating the mod when GPP is installed? I can not test it myself until probably the weekend, but if someone could confirm that, I could simply change it on github.
  11. Hm, that sounds like an installation issue. Try a new, separate ksp install. Then only install UnmannedBeforeManned via ckan. That should work. For the old install, I would need a screenshot of your gamedata folder and your log file. There were some issues with old module managers, so please delete the old module manager tech caches as well. And make sure you do not have any other tech tree mods installed except CTT. UbM will deactivate itself if it detects folders of conflicting tech tree mods (ETT, Historical, etc)! Yep they should have a combined thrust of 1.5 in one direction, half of the small linear ones. Plenty for tiny probe directional and translation control. Hm, what other mods do you have installed? Maybe real plume? Do you use the newest version of SETIprobeParts? Thank you! Adding to the other replies, (thank you very much @kcs123 for the detailed responses!), perphaps you accidentally switched the control mode or something similar? The linear ports do not provide rotation if placed normally. I m not sure about your design/positioning of the rcs ports, especially for the last stage. For best attitude control, they need to be placed as far away from the center of mass as possible. And there is no need to have multiple sets. So for minimal control you could have 4 at the very nose placed normally plus 2 placed eg around the center of mass rotated by 90 degrees to have one way rotation (4 for rotation in both directions). Or you use the black Inline RCS Block from VenStockRevamp, that one has attitude, rotation and monoprop tank in one part. Works great if placed as fas away from the center of mass as possible. As an example, this is all the attitude control I need for my spaceplane sat launcher design: Or for this mun probe, where monoprop is also used for propulsion. I think I even deactivated the thrusters on one of the inline rcs blocks because it was overkill. What can be done with this? Without SETI-BalanceMod loaded without errors. What logs do I need to show? I apologize for my bad english Hm, will need a list of mods/screenshot of your gamedata folder and a log file. I guess you have a lot of mods from the number of mm patches. So what you could do is just delete half of the module manager patches within the SETI-GeneralSettings.cfg file and load the game again. If there are still errors, you know that the problem is in the mm patches you left, if there are no problems any more, the errors are in the deleted half. Then reinstate the file and delete half of the half which has the problematic ones. And with that method, you could narrow it down pretty fast with a handful of restarts.
  12. Hey, anyone know where the experimental motors node went? should be at the same position as the new specialized landers node.
  13. @Tux1 Looks good, added to leaderboard! Did you have any issues with the challenge or the mod pack? What were your biggest obstacles for completing the challenge? My main issue was going too high and then burning up on the steep descent. There are 2 more SETI challenges released so far, one to the mun and one to deploy a mini sat with a plane. The even numbers are probe-focused while the odd numbers have a manned focus. Challenges 4 and 5 are in the making as well, which should make it worthwhile to install the mod pack.
  14. Hm, no idea, I do not check with real fuels or mft. But I can of course change my MM statements to check for real fuels and mft as you suggested and when they are detected, to not apply the patches. Interesting, I ll have to check how that search works. I ll have to do something about the SETIcontracts. It seems they are a bit buggy due to new ksp versions. Saw some problems when Quill18 used them last week or so. It is a standalone, no other files needed. Hm, I might have to lower that level. Thank you! I ll check the costs of the building upgrades again. What difficulty settings do you use? Especially the funds penalty slider should never be above 100%, as that is a pure grindiness slider which increases the cost of building upgrades. To be honest, I m not much of a fan of having another small mini mod for the mechjeb settings. But you could just create a textfile called "whatever.cfg" directly in your GameData folder and then copy this code into it: @PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleCommand]]:NEEDS[MechJeb2]:FINAL { %MODULE[MechJebCore] { !MechJebLocalSettings,* {} MechJebLocalSettings { MechJebModuleCustomWindowEditor { unlockTechs = flightControl } MechJebModuleSmartASS { unlockTechs = flightControl } MechJebModuleManeuverPlanner { unlockTechs = advFlightControl } MechJebModuleNodeEditor { unlockTechs = advFlightControl } MechJebModuleTranslatron { unlockTechs = advFlightControl } MechJebModuleWarpHelper { unlockTechs = advFlightControl } MechJebModuleAttitudeAdjustment { unlockTechs = advFlightControl } MechJebModuleThrustWindow { unlockTechs = advFlightControl } MechJebModuleRCSBalancerWindow { unlockTechs = advFlightControl } MechJebModuleRoverWindow { unlockTechs = fieldScience } MechJebModuleAscentGuidance { unlockTechs = unmannedTech } MechJebModuleLandingGuidance { unlockTechs = unmannedTech } MechJebModuleSpaceplaneGuidance { unlockTechs = unmannedTech } MechJebModuleDockingGuidance { unlockTechs = advUnmanned } MechJebModuleRendezvousAutopilotWindow { unlockTechs = advUnmanned } MechJebModuleRendezvousGuidance { unlockTechs = advUnmanned } } } } That should revert the unlocks to the original tech positions. Not great, but should work and be independent of SETIrebalance updates.
  15. Unfortunately I lack the time to work on SETIcontracts. From viewing the last stream by Quill18, there are some bugs in the contracts which I intend to fix, but otherwise I try to focus on other mods. Especially SETIrebalance, for which there is no alternative except for full realism overhaul. SETIcontracts is also extremely basic. For underwater missions I would recommend a new procedural contract pack specifically for that purpose, like what GAP does for early planes. @JadeOfMaar: Good idea, can just put it where USI puts its greenhouses, if that is installed. And otherwise keep it at the higher tech node. @Technologicat : Hm, I really dislike such scientist boni, because they make the game less predictable. I like to be able to calculate once and then remember it, if at all. Otherwise it becomes to complicated for my personal taste. Which is also one of the reasons I dislike CommNet implementation, where you have to consult a spreadsheet/calculator for every connection between two vessels/situations. I d say just put in what you think will work best, and in the worst case, it can be fixed. Not perfect, but time efficient. The 70% do indeed stack with the settings (eg 60%). I tested the SETI-MetaModPack with a setting of 50% and no KSC biome rover exploits to be safe. But if playing for fun I would probably set it to 60% and do a bit of rover KSC science if I m not in the mood for planes and such. The most important thing is, to leave the penalties at 100% since that is a pure grindiness slider. Its change for different difficulties is as strange to me as the default setting which hides the navball every time you enter map view (which can only be turned off from the main menu settings)... Hm, PartOverhaulsSETI should work fine without TweakScale, I ll have to check if I missed a :NEEDS statement or something.