FirroSeranel

Members
  • Content Count

    341
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

83 Excellent

1 Follower

About FirroSeranel

  • Rank
    Barefoot Rocket Scientist

Contact Methods

  • Skype Array

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Interesting... I was mostly just looking for a more realistic way to gain experience, to replace the need for long, involved training missions, and so a kerbal who's done dozens of fuel station delivery runs, or outpost supply runs can still be an experienced operator. I hadn't thought of changing what the experience levels actually *do*. It's a neat thought... although I'm not sure that I, as a player, would actually want random control inputs. That edges too far into the territory of my skill as a player, to me. Still, the craft size limitations are interesting. I can think of similar ideas for engineers and scientists, but now we're getting into some pretty major overhaul territory, reimagining the entire game as far as the purpose and usage of kerbals. Mostly, though, I'm just so tired of having to either bring a probe core for full control, or run pilots through complicated training missions every time I want a new one trained up, that I'd started a career mode with kerbal levels disabled altogether. I like the idea of experience mattering for kerbals in principle, I just think the way they implemented it makes no sense. So I guess there are two elements to my motivation to make this mod... philosophical and practical. Philosophically, it makes no sense that a kerbal who rode along as a more experienced pilot launched, landed on Minmus, planted a flag, dipped the ship's nose outside of Kerbin's SoI for all of an hour, then gravity assisted around the Mun and landed on kerbin, has more skills than a kerbal who's done six or seven Mun missions and a handful of Minmus missions to every biome, constructed several space stations and a mining colony on Minmus, and then done a bunch of delivery runs, but just never took that little nose dip out of the Kerbin system. That still exists... but with KSP2 on the horizon (which will hopefully do away with this abysmal XP system and replace it with something sensible), I'm not sure that's enough by itself. Practically, I'm just -tired- of doing that "Minmus Flag Plant, SoI change, Mun-flyby" mission to get a pilot to be able to hold maneuver and point at another ship to dock, after doing it dozens and dozens of times. -That- problem is solved by the Kerbalnaut Training mod sufficiently that I think it kills my motivation to learn the inner workings of KSP to the extent I'd need to to create my own mod for this. It isn't solved in an ideal fashion, or how I would personally do it, but... it works, and it's good enough for me, for now. Hmm... though looking at the Star levels and what they do... they could use some extra stuff. Maybe not random control inputs (or make that an option), but maybe a staged approach to adding SAS locks by ship size... so that for small ships (what you'd reasonably need to complete the tech tree in a normal sense), it's like it is now, but for 100t ships and above to get each unlock takes +1 star (so 4* for Maneuver/Target for 100t ships), and for 1000t plus requires +2 stars, so 5*. I've seen other mods make pilot levels 4 and 5 start adding bonuses to engine ISP, but the engineer in me just can't quite get around the lack of realism there. I can -almost- do it, like maybe the pilot is so good they're taking a more optimal trajectory through the system, but... at the end of the day what the engine can do is what the engine can do. Scientists already have (or I thought they did; the wiki is saying they get basically nothing) a nice smooth progression of extra science recovered when they gather it, which makes sense. A better scientist takes better quality samples, doesn't contaminate samples during transfers, understands what details to notate, etc. And engineers get substantial progression with mining, with what they can repair, etc. Anyway, I'm rambling at this point. Point being, there are a lot of things I'd change if I could, but I don't know enough about the game's architecture, or about how to program for it, to do it without tons of effort. I could learn, but with KSP 2 not too far off, and a solution to at least the practical side already existing, I just don't think I'm up for it. Edit: I just strikes me that like so many things about KSP 1 (which I love, don't get me wrong, I have many thousands of hours in the game!), the XP system (along with the science system especially) feels tacked on and half-baked, and ends up being an obstacle to the fun of the game rather than a part of it, to me. I really hope KSP 2 really fully integrates both science and XP right from the get-go, along with colonization, to make a "complete experience" rather than a "core game plus tacked-on elements and mods making up the difference where they can" feel of KSP 1.
  2. Yeah, I was worried that the stock XP system would be baked in pretty deep. What if you discarded the flight log, but then kept the relevant stuff stored inside the mod somehow? Maybe a renamed variable that other mods could adapt to with a simple MM redefine, but that the game itself won't recognize to use for the XP system?
  3. Training costs by class... Scientists requiring science makes a lot of sense, but pilots? Engineers? What about: Scientists = Science (giving them research materials that would otherwise go toward advancing science to get them familiar with what they'll find on other worlds, etc) Pilots = Reputation (spending political capital to promote pilots and make them famous, have them do interviews, etc) Engineers = Roots (straight-up additional training in engineering, money to buy parts for them to tinker with and learn to repair, etc) Also, maybe discounted rates for Kolonization kerbals (from USI)?
  4. Oh, hey, nice! Thanks for pointing it out! And making it, it looks like. That may be close enough for what I want. Not quite as immersive as what I proposed, but functionally it'll let me get higher level kerbals without having to send them on really complicated interplanetary missions every time (especially complex because of life support mods). Is it working in 1.8 currently?
  5. So I've been in the modding scene for a while... assisted on a few mods, done some playtesting and bug-hunting, and made a few small mods of my own. There's one aspect of KSP though that bothers me to no end, yet nobody I'm aware of has made a mod for it yet: experience. I don't just mean leveling up as you play, as that's now just a menu option... in my opinion the entire experience system (being location-based) is just garbage. To illustrate, let me ask a question. Let's say you're a space tourist. You're looking to spend hundreds of thousands of roots (hundreds of millions of dollars in my estimation) to go on a tour and land on Minmus. You have two choices of pilot: Pilot A: Abel Kerman. Abel has over one hundred Minmus landings under his belt. He's done this exact mission dozens of times before, plus multiple Mun landings. He has almost a year of flight time aboard a Minmus-orbiting fuel and science station, has dozens more precision landings on Minmus with a fuel freighter, and boasts hundreds of launches and de-orbits from Kerbin. Pilot B: Baker Kerman. Baker has only ever gone on one mission. Though he's a pilot, he's never actually touched the controls himself; on his single mission, he basically rode shotgun for an AI probe core that actually did the flying because he can't figure out how to point toward a maneuver node or a targeted vessel. He's launched once, happened to ride to Duna and back, and landed once, and... well that's it. One mission, ever, zero actual flying time, just a year or so of floating in space as a fifth wheel. Obviously you'd want Abel, right? Clearly he's the more experienced kerbal, the obvious man for the job. In fact, if you wanted to send a mission to Laythe, I'm guessing you'd want Abel for that, too, wouldn't you? He's obviously a vastly better and more experienced pilot. Though he's not yet left Kerbin's SOI, he's seen all kinds of crazy scenarios and emergency situations, and come out of all of them alive, while Baker... pushed a button once, then watched the pretty pictures go by as the probe core flew the mission for him. Yet in the game, Abel is level 2, and the novice ride-along guy is level 4. See the problem? The XP has nothing to do with, y'know... experience. So what I would like to create, or to inspire someone who knows their way around the deeper working of KSP than I do into creating, would be a total overhaul of the XP system. It would ideally use some weighted average of total flight time, number of landings (with more distant bodies weighted more heavily than Kerbin but not obscenely so like it is now), number of docking maneuvers or rendezvous... Maybe that could even just be for pilots... Scientists would be total time working in an active laboratory module, number of surface samples returned (again weighted for distance of body), total science points earned. Engineers could be total resources mined, flight time aboard space stations, and (with KAS/KIS installed) number of EVA construction operations or something like that. Obviously those would take some fine-tuning, and -that- is the kind of thinking and work that I'd be happy to do, to game out statistically etc. What I don't know is if the experience system is even possible to modify at all. I'm 99% sure it can't be just using .cfg file editing, and unfortunately I've never gone into scripting at all. I probably could learn, but that'd be probably a several-hundred-hour project, where I suspect a more experienced modder could do that part of it (assuming it's possible) in more like 10-20 hours. Is anyone interested in this? Either in taking it on themselves, or in co-authoring a mod with me? Or even just guiding and mentoring me to learn in as efficient way as possible? Does anyone know of any mods in the annals of abandoned mod history that could be resurrected for 1.8?
  6. I'm having some problems with some of the models, specifically with the plumes... Most engines are fine, but the Poodle is only showing 2 plumes instead of 4. Then the Mainsail's plume is a good 20 meters from the nozzle! D: Is this a known issue? (I do have RealPlume installed). Or is my installation borked? I did try reinstalling ReStock and ReStock+, though... using CKAN, so that may not mean much. Edit: This is a RealPlume issue... uninstalling it fixed the problem. I guess RealPlume hasn't updated for ReStock yet, which is sad. Oh well.
  7. This also depends greatly on your de-orbit trajectory. In FAR (I don't play with it anymore, but I used to exclusively for several years), you can easily hit the ground at 800m/s if you come in too steep. Even in stock, the Mk1 capsule has issues slowing down enough compared to larger craft. The reason for this is that it is very dense. This makes total sense. A one-man capsule is just barely big enough for that one man and a little bit of air around him. If you splash one down with just a parachute on top, it floats right around the window in the door. This is true in Stock and in ReStock alike. Comparatively, the 3-man capsule (Mk 1-2, I believe) has plenty of space for three kerbonauts and lots of air space around them so they can maneuver within the cabin. Thus it is not very dense, and floats just half a meter or so up from the bottom. Now translate this to reentry, and you see the problem. A 2.5m, 3-man capsule can take whatever reentry trajectory it wants to, and if you're used to that, you're not used to good reentry discipline. If you then start a new career save (perhaps to take advantage of the shiny new DLC like I did ^.^) it's easy to toss a Mk1 carelessly back down to the lithosphere like you would the larger, less-dense capsule. But you can't. A Mk1 needs a reentry profile with an initial periapsis above or just below sea level. I try to keep it between 30k and -30k in general. Try that, and you'll have better luck. But with a ballistic suborbital reentry... good luck! You'll need some extra drag parts or drogue chutes, at the very least. A typical reentry strategy of "burn over the desert peninsula until your orbit line splashes into the ocean near the peninsula east of KSC" by comparison has a periapsis closer to -200k, and therein lies your problem. This... did change significantly at some point, previous to which the Mk1 was about the same density as the Mk 1-2, IIRC. I think it was around the time of Making History, though don't quote me on that. As for the drag models... Stock uses drag cubes. If I'm remembering correctly, in the current version it calculates whether or not each part is occluded by a part in front of it relative to the current velocity vector, and by how much. It then multiplies the default drag cube size by a ratio according to that occlusion to get that part's drag vectors. This works fine for simple craft built primarily via node attachments. When you start building complex, visually striking craft using lots of surface attachments and partial clipping, however, it becomes pretty inaccurate pretty fast. It also doesn't do anything at all in terms of transonic and hypersonic drag, (both of which are radically different from subsonic drag). FAR uses a voxelization method. That is, every physics frame the game takes the current model of the craft as a whole and runs calculations that find the surface of the craft at basically every vertex to form a three-dimensional map of the craft's surface only (discarding any interior parts). It then converts that into a voxel format (VOX-EL = VOlumetric piXEL) to form a model of a solid object. It then uses decent approximations of real aerodynamic laws to calculate the lift and drag of the craft as a whole, including real-time deflection of control surfaces, landing gear, cargo bay doors, etc. Anything that changes the craft's shape has a fully realistic effect on the craft's flight characteristics, in real-time. Basically FAR converts KSP into a cutting-edge flight simulator in terms of its aerodynamic model, only one in which you can design the aircraft yourself. That's amazing! So... why don't I use it anymore? Two reasons (aside from the obvious massive performance hit in an already CPU-heavy game). 95% of the time in KSP, I'm flying rockets, not flying planes. For a rocket, the increased accuracy of FAR only really matters for maybe 30-40 seconds during ascent, and then during reentry. Even during these times, Stock aero is "good enough" for a satisfying play experience. Another 4% of the time I'm flying spaceplanes. While yes, in FAR spaceplanes are handled much, much more realistically this also means that they are realistically hard to design and fly, bordering on impossible. (And that's with FAR's default behavior, which is actually modified to be very forgiving. Try flying a spaceplane with FAR on fully realistic settings with 100% strict area ruling and 100% dynamic pressure failure settings, and you'll start to understand why nobody's flown one successfully in the real world. Try the same with Realism Overhaul and with Real Solar System at 100% scale, and you won't be going to space today with your SSTO spaceplane, just like nobody has in the real world*.) For me, flying an SSTO with the stock aero system is just... much more fun. After all, it's considered quite an accomplishment to get an SSTO to orbit with a little useful cargo capacity in FAR. In Stock, it's pretty easy to get an endgame-tech SSTO to do missions to Minmus, Mun, or Duna, and many players do entire Jool-5 tours or runs to Eeloo or even Eve with them. Sounds more fun to me! * discounting ballistic suborbital flights using air-launched, rocket-powered craft, which... isn't really even close to the spirit of a classic KSP SSTO spaceplane. The remaining 1% of the time in which I'm flying aircraft (during which, admittedly, FAR is infinitely more fun, satisfying, and realistic-feeling) is just not critical enough to justify the performance hit, risk of crashes (the glitch kind, not the lithobraking kind), incompatibilities with other mods (including most autopilot systems which cannot handle FAR's gradual control surface movements and set up severe oscillations accordingly), and so forth. If I could switch FAR on and off at will, I'd still use it for aircraft only. But I can't, so I just don't bother with it anymore.
  8. So I went to the Mun, I found a Mun Stone, I picked it up (right-clicked the kerbal, got the science dialog), returned it to Kerbin... and the contract did not complete. Removed KIS, thinking maybe the two inventory systems were conflicting with each other. No joy, still doesn't complete. Any other ideas? I was thinking maybe Contract Configurator could be messing with it... does it touch stock contract code? I mean obviously I can use the cheat menu to complete it manually, but that's kinda immersion-breaking. If there's a mod that's making the new features not work right, I'd like to know what it is so I can disable it or repair it... Any ideas?
  9. I'm having a problem where in the stock contracts from Breaking Ground, I can pick up a mun stone (I get the science confirmation dialog), but when I get back to Kerbin, it doesn't complete the contract. Could that be something to do with CC's contract completion detection code?
  10. Is there an easy way to do that? If I just delete a certain part of it, will Steam detect it and re-download it? I tend to do some QoL tweaks to some of the Squad parts (fixing some bugs, increasing speed/power of wheels because I'm impatient, etc). Edit: Yes, Steam did detect and re-download individual folders, so I just deleted and re-downloaded all but Wheels. (Hopefully they fixed the lack of surface attachment on the big ISRU unit. <.< That's the main bug I always go in and fix.) About to try again and see if the node glitch is still happening. Edit Edit: That seems to have fixed it. Thanks!
  11. Hmm... couple of small bugs/incompatibilities. The 0.625m inline Reaction Wheel has an issue with the lights from IndicatorLights being positioned floating in space and extra-large. This appears to be because the stock 0.625 Reaction Wheel has a Rescale Factor of 0.5 built in, while the ReStock part does not... so the Indicator Lights people doubled the scale and position coordinates for the lights. It's easily corrected by undoing this doubling in their config file. A patch could do the same... just not sure if that would be more appropriate to put here or there. Second, the FL-T400 and FL-T800, for me, have their attachment nodes misplaced, well inside the models. I also don't see any "newness" of those models/textures... they just look like the Making History models. Is there some way to force the game to use ReStock parts even if Making History is installed? Edit: Okay, I removed Community Part Titles, thinking something with renaming the parts might have broken the model replacements... The result is baffling. Now the FL-T800 is fine, nodes in the correct places. The FL-T400 is still off... And now the FL-T200 is off. The proportion that the nodes are misplaced seems proportional to the length of the fuel tank, as if maybe it's using one model file and it's just stretching the length dimension and applying different textures? But... why would different ones be misplaced depending on a part renaming mod?
  12. Yeah, looks like it's up to date. Still worth trying deleting ModuleManager.ConfigCache, ModuleManager.ConfigSHA, ModuleManager.Physics, and ModuleManager.TechTree just to see what happens. Those aren't downloaded with MM, they're built when it runs, and I've had issues where they collect garbage from time to time. The reason I mentioned it though is that Kerbalism recently had a very similar issue, where some of its modules weren't working with Module Manager 4.0.1. That's why 4.0.2 exists, because something new that MM was doing was conflicting with Kerbalism. So you might check the Module Manager page to see if anyone is mentioning similar issues there, and of course the USI-LS page. Other than that, that isn't that extensive of a mod list, so a clean reinstall would probably be easier than extensively digging into logs and such. Sorry I couldn't be of more help! Oh, also... if you have had other mods installed in the past in this installation of KSP, but removed them, I recommend going through and making sure to manually delete their folders. Sometimes CKAN isn't perfect about removing files that the mods generated themselves in runtime, and sometimes those can mess things up. Check for 000_ModName and zzzModName varieties as well.
  13. I have a career that I recently switched over from Kerbalism to USI (which necessitated uninstalling one mod and installing I dunno... 15-20 others that USI required). Since this change, aside from the expected (craft files complaining about missing modules), and a few crafts that got deleted because of missing parts (which I'm fine with and can replace), I'm having one very specific odd issue. In a command module in any craft loaded from a file, I cannot click the Reaction Wheels button reliably to change its mode from Normal to Pilot Only and then to SAS Only. Sometimes it does work, sometimes it doesn't, but even when it works, it doesn't update the display in the context-menu for the craft. I.e. I have to click it, click somewhere else, and right-click the command module again to see if it worked. Even in the same part, if I launch a brand-new one, it works fine. Only loaded craft files that once complained about missing modules have this issue. Which would be fine... I can always just redesign the craft -- and do for most missions anyway. But this particular design is a very complicated and finely tuned rover I put probably 5 hours into, and I'd really rather not have to scrap it and rebuild it. Any ideas of what in the craft file might be causing this?
  14. This sounds a little like a Module Manager problem. Are you running the most recent ModuleManager.dll? Make sure you only have the most recent version in your GameData directory, and try deleting all Module Manager files except the dll. That'd be my first suggestion. Kind of like the KSP version of "Have you tried turning it off and on again?" XD
  15. I second this. I recently discovered this mod, and while it's a really neat idea, it isn't working anything like I would expect. I'm having the exact same issues. Sometimes a satellite with a dedicated antenna will relay through the comm network satellites (with relay antennae). Sometimes not so much. Built-in antennae never seem to relay through comsats at all. This is definitely *not* the same behavior as stock, as in stock, even a built-in antenna in a pod or probe core will relay through any relay antenna in range just fine. Also, the first post and the tutorial seem to imply that you can set a single antenna to multiple channels to form a relay link. I don't see any way to do that either. In fact, it's exceedingly difficult to do anything but set all antennae to the same channel on a given craft, from the Tracking Station. I end up having to switch to each ship one at a time and use the right-click menu for each antenna individually... and even then it doesn't end up working much of the time. I do also have Kerbalism installed... could that be changing how the communication system logic is working somehow?