Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

13 Good

About seregheru

  • Rank
    Bottle Rocketeer

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. @ShotgunNinja That looks like a pretty neat solution. You'd lose the long tail of rare unexpectedly long-lived parts, but that's possibly a good thing. I can't think of a reason why it won't work. You would have to experiment to see how sudden the onset of wear-out failures feels, but you could always add an extra point or two to the curve to soften it up. Looks promising anyway - would be interested to see how it plays.
  2. Calculating the CDF means you DON'T calculate over and over at 60Hz. Calculating at every time step is much, much simpler but obviously has a huge performance penalty. Calculating the CDF lets you set the lifetime once and then just test "(age>lifetime)" in each step. You are already doing this - the code you have is exactly what you would get if you calculated then inverted the CDF for a uniform probability density function. Age is not on both axes of the CDF. The x-axis is the age and the y-axis is the probability of failure before that time. You generate the y-axis value from random numb
  3. @ShotgunNinja [Ah, inverted plot in edit is more clear] Approximating the bathtub function still leaves you the survival function to calculate and the integral to do. The cumulative distribution is the important one, as that's the one that gives you the lifetime value. That will start at zero and grow towards 1. The gradient is always non-negative. I'm not totally sure on the exact shape in between - I think its a curve that starts steep, curves off and then straightens slightly.... but I'd need to put some numbers in a spreadsheet to be sure.
  4. @ShotgunNinja Regarding malfunctions - have you considered a "bathtub curve"? From what I can see in the source, every part is guaranteed to fail eventually, some time between min_lifetime and 10*min_lifetime... Under the current system, it looks like a part that *could* fail on a trip to Minmus would *always* fail on a trip to Duna, whereas a part that *could* survive on a trip to Duna would *never* fail on a trip to Minmus. [If I've understood this correctly] it will be very hard to set a malfunction rate that gives a total number of failures that isn't at one extreme or the other - which ex
  5. @ShotgunNinja - that was some quick work! Even hoping this might happen, I didn't expect it would happen quickly. Thanks for all the work!
  6. @pip12345 Water can be recycled. This means that a vessel does not need to carry the weight of its water requirements for the entire mission. Instead you carry the food you need and recycle the water. Combining water and food into a single resource was something that I could live with, but it was still a real disappointment. Be careful about making statements about balance between realism and fun as clearly there is no objective scale. Stock strikes the perfect balance between realism and fun - for some people. TACLS struck the perfect balance between realism and fun - for some people. Kerbali
  7. This looks like a really great mod and clearly took a lot of work. I'm struck by the scale of it. I've been playing around with it for a day, not really long enough to see much of it, but was quite excited about some of the features. Unfortunately, it was only after grinding the science I needed to launch a keostationary relay network, that I realised this mod completely kills RemoteTech functionality. Sadly, that means game over. Most mods add some additional seasoning to an already excellent stock game but, without a communications mod and a life support mod, playing vanilla feels
  • Create New...