Yemo

Not sure but maybe you had SETIrebalance installed last time, which introduces telemetry "experiments". Other mods might do this as well, but I dont remember which.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Whoops, yeah, there seems to be an issue with that. I added a "No answer to this question" for every sub poll.

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?

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).

Done, SETIremoteTechConfig should now self-deactivate when GPP is installed.

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.

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.

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.

Hey, anyone know where the experimental motors node went? should be at the same position as the new specialized landers node.

@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.

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.

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.

@DMagic Hm, this should do it, but there are no ingame changes. @ScienceConfigValuesNode[*]:NEEDS[ScienceParamModifier]:FOR[aatest] { @bodyDefaltConfigs[*] { @Item[*]:HAS[#bodyName[Kerbin]] { @adjustedParams[*] { @landedData = 0.01 } } } } Does you plugin access the values from the database after module manager has a chance to modify them? Or something in my code is wrong.

Hello, is it possible to change the default stats in the "Celestial Body Science Editor" config file using module manager patches? That would be a great help. Eg for balancing a tech tree against the abundance of KSC science or mun biome hopping, I could just massively lower the Kerbin/Mun etc landed modifiers via module manager patch when your mod is installed.

Looks good, thank you very much for the configs! Though I m really not sure about the tech node. I have no idea why CTT put a node called "hydroponics" on the same science cost level as the 3 kerbal command pod it the first place. ShortTermHabitation should have been at 300 science, hydroponics at 550 science and long term habitation at 1000 science, so that it makes some historical sense. For TAC Life Support, anything below 550 science ought to be air scrubbers, sabatier reactors and so on. I know USI does not make that distinction. Will have to look about that for Unmanned Before Manned as well. Space greenhouses well before Mk3 shuttles just feels completely out of whack.

@Technologicat, @JadeOfMaar SETI-Greenhouse files uploaded to github. I moved the non life support mm patches to a separate file in the root directory (nutrients, CTT, connected living spaces). Also the next challenge: Launch at least one satellite (essentially just a probe core) from a plane (airplane or rocket plane) into orbit and land safely back at KSC. The plane must be above 5km altitude when it launches the satelllite(s). I went for the rocket plane / high launch concept. Two mini satellites launched into Orbit. basicRocketry node

Daredevil Satellite Launcher While work on crew capsules for spaceflight is progressing slowly and cost overruns are common, the recent probes prompted a debate on whether it is cheaper to simply stick to an unmanned spaceprogram for now. Fearing for their future opportunities, a few daredevil pilots brought about the idea of reusable planes as a means to launch small satellites. The idea is, that a manned plane launches one or two mini satellites, and then safely lands back in the vicinity of the KSC. While more economically thinking kerbals call the concept a wasteful publicity stunt without any benefit, some politicians recognized it as an opportunity to shift public scrutiny away from their own performances. So the idea was quickly approved. The challenge Your challenge, should you accept it, is to launch at least one mini satellite (essentially just a probe core) from a manned plane into an orbit around kerbin (periapsis above 70km). The plane must be over 5km altitude above sea level when you launch the satellite. Thus you can use an air breathing plane and launch the sat at 5km altitude above sea level, or a rocket plane and launch the sat at 75km altitude. The plane must then land back around KSC. Note that the FMRS mod is now part of the mod recommendations and should be used to switch between the plane and the satellite. Ranking is done by non-recovered mass per satellite. For example in my entry below, I started with 8455kg mass (8555kg minus launch clamp 100kg), had a mass of 3312kg when landed and launched 2 mini satellites into orbits around kerbin. This results in a mass expenditure of 2571.5kg per mini satellite. Minimum picture requirements for a ranking are 1. Design showing KER readouts in SPH/VAB, especially total vessel mass. 2. In flight, showing KER readouts roughly when launching the satellite(s). Must be over 5km altitude above sea level. 3. The satellite in flight, showing KER readouts with periapsis above 70km. 4. The plane, landed back on kerbin with KSC visible in the background, showing KER readouts, espcially the vehicle mass when landed. HINT : The Small Hardpoint functions as a separator. If you adjust the ejection force to 0, it does not mess up the vector of the launched object. Of course additional pictures, videos, etc are very welcome. As is a link if you stream it. The restrictions 1. No R&D, SPH/VAB, Runway/Launchpad facility upgrades! (=> 30part / 9ton mass limit, other facility upgrades are allowed) 2. Tweakscale is only allowed for wings/control surfaces/landing gear/adapters. 3. No mods except the ones specified below. Visual and similar mods are exempt from this rule. 4. No cheating. 5. Science/parts restrictions as shown here (thus no parachutes, reaction wheels, etc.) basicRocketry node provides a basic liquid fuel engine The mods 1. Install CKAN for a separate, clean KSP install. 2. Only select the "SETI-MetaModPack". Click "ApplyChanges". 3. Leave all recommendations selected. Click "Continue". 4. From the suggestions, only SETIprobeControlEnabler is allowed, so that you dont have to worry about a RemoteTech connection. Click "Continue" and wait for the the mods to be installed. 5. RCS Build Aid is among the recommendations, but is currently not available via ckan. You may (highly recommended) install that manually from here: https://github.com/linuxgurugamer/RCSBuildAid/releases 6. Visual mods are allowed at your own discretion. The ranking By spent mass per mini satellite: 1. @Yemo with a spent mass of 2571.5kg per mini satellite to kerbin orbit (8455kg launch mass, 8555kg minus launch clamp 100kg, 3312kg mass when landed, 2 mini satellites launched into orbits around kerbin. Thus a mass expenditure of (8455kg - 3312kg) / 2 =2571.5kg per mini satellite. I went for the rocket plane / high launch concept. Ejection force on Small Hardpoints set to 0 for a clean launch:

Fixed, thank you very much! @Technologicat I think I will just upload the SETI greenhouse files to github, since I very rarely touch them myself. That should make it easier to contribute and change stuff around. Will try to do that over the weekend. There have been more mods added to the SETI-MetaModPack as well, ckan should pick that up in the next few hours. The next challenge will also be published tomorrow. SETI ProbeParts v1.3.0.2 (for KSP 1.3.x, use CKAN for a clean install) Fixes Fixed the Shielded Docking Port Jr., thank you very much @DStaal Porkjets PartOverhauls SETIconfig v0.9.2.0 (for KSP 1.3.x, use CKAN for a clean install) Fixes Bulkhead Profiles fixed, thank you very much @evileye.x Decoupler fixed, thank you very much @strudo76

Ah, yes, I should take another look at the contract restrictions. Not sure if the landing at coordinates is worth it, after doing the same thing unmanned. Thank you very much! I ll also have to check out the career evolution contract pack by @pap1723. Well, I would gladly include a config file for snacks, though all my ksp modding time goes into other areas at the moment. @JadeOfMaar also proposed a USI config for the next SETIgreenhouse version. As usual, happy to include configs, but I have little knowledge of snacks and current USI, since I use TAC myself. Will be corrected in the next version, thank you very much! Whoops, there is a comma where it does not belong. Thank you very much! On a related note, I ll have to take a look at RealPlume configs for the engines as well... SETI Rebalance v1.3.0.2 (for KSP 1.3.x, use CKAN for a clean install) Rebalances Small Hardpoint and Structural Pylon behave as Separators, category adjusted to couplers Decouplers and Separators rebalanced in terms of mass, cost Early EVA possible with CustomBarnKit SETI ProbeParts v1.3.0.1 (for KSP 1.3.x, use CKAN for a clean install) Fixes Real Plume configs for Pomeranian and RT-3 SRB Alkaline Fuel Cell Mini model fixed, especially for VenStockRevamp Fixed radial attachment distance of RT-3 SRB RT-3 SRB now uses VenStockRevamp textures if that is installed

Feedback: 1. Sound quality is most important for any commentary, a decent microphone is thus the top priority if you want to spend money on streaming/youtubing. People rather watch 720p than listen to sub-standard sound quality. 2. The first episode is most important for any kind of series. People upload a 20 part series on youtube, where something in the first episode is even a little off (sound, video) and wonder why no one watches episodes 2 - 20, which are fine. 3. Unmodded KSP career start has been done a bazillion times and is not even visually appealing. Search for a niche and exploit that, rather than following the beaten path. edit: Your video is a solid start, hope to see more of you in the future.

Some stuff I forgot in the last update Unmanned before Manned v1.3.0.2 (for KSP 1.3.x, use CKAN for a clean install) TechTree changes HG-5 High Gain Antenna and stock Fuel Cell earlier @engineering101 Surface Sampler (SETIrebalance) from unmannedTech to advConstruction Radial Chutes earlier @survivability, no reason to put them later with Mk1 Retro Cockpit ModSupport HullCameraVDS And the second challenge: Your challenge, should you accept it, is to reach an periabsis as low as possible above the mun, under the facility upgrade and technological limits described below. No R&D, SPH/VAB, Runway/Launchpad facility upgrades! (=> 30part / 9ton mass limit, other facility upgrades are allowed). Tweakscale is only allowed for wings/control surfaces/landing gear/adapters. To the Mun with only 17 science spent, 30 parts and well below 9 tons. Science restrictions with the new "Unmanned Before Manned" + "Unmanned Before Manned Challenge" mod Engineering101 node, use the "Alkaline Fuel Cell Mini" to provide EC when lower than 10% capacity Structural Parts node Stability Node, the "Place-Anywhere 1 Linear RCS Port" can be used as an engine