• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Kozzy

  1. Hi, Thanks for great mod. Iv spend lot of time using it already. Completed maned mun and minmus. I see one problem tho and that is antennas. To be able to get to planets with probe I need better Athena but one that has 25Gm range costs 1000 research. That means I have to get money to max research building and jump 3 tiers higher in research. Im now only getting first 300RP tier nodes unlocked. I need 1500 RP. Probably doable with one scientist on minmus but I will have to poor all RP into anthenas. I would suggest shifting interplanetary capable Athenas one tier. Also rebuilding com relays every time I unlock new Athena is bit bore.
  2. For some reason it accumulates more heat than other parts that have even lover temperature tolerance in tool tip and that might make it behave seemingly imbalanced compared to other parts. Maybe has tiny larger diameter than shields I dont know. Im not kerbal vet. but wasn't idea of this bay to hide components like antennas or goo container inside it to protect them from reentry ? And if I agree argument that its not realistic for 1.2 parts being protected behind 1.2 shield, than all structural components should explode similar way not just service bays no ? But science jr. or fuel tanks or even pods that have 0 abl. can survive reentry just fine with shields. Service bay melts more easy than batteries or ladders wich are completely sticking outside of the shields. It melts nearly as fast as unprotected antennas or solar panels. I find that fishy and hard to believe its design choice. I did unmounted test using only kerbal eng heat tab and service bay takes bit more heat than other parts in the stock game as well but since its threshold is so high it does not matters but with this mods it makes any similar component like bays useless unless they are 100% protected from reentry heat. But if answer is its by design I take it as I got no idea what is realistic or not. Game balance and logic wise I would say that bay should hold at least similar way as science jr.
  3. After number of tests. Im 90% positive service bays reaction weels and similar components are bugged or misconfigured. I made reentry using different components attached right behind stock 1.25 heat shield and everything survives reasonably well even batteries attached around the science jr but 1.25 service bay that has description that its special designed to protect components against heat blows up.
  4. thanks for re. Tech tree is not very balanced to take this into consideration I got only same heat shields diameters as my body parts witch is make it bit tricky. I need to save some delta v for return to kerb every time if I cary more stuff than back. science jr. is able to hold reasonably but service bays burn nearly as fast as solar panels. I keep testing it but I would consider changing service bay temps bit back towards default. (I dont use FAR). ... I got service bay right behind heat shield returning from orbit Ap 7mil meters Pe 50Km ... service bay melts down .... with Pe 52Km service bay makes it but it would take about 10 orbits to fully land. If i try any stepper dive in than 51Km service service bay explodes. Now since I play carrier I got no bigger heat shields. ... ok I did try 25 28 30 33 40 Km Conclusion is there no chance for service bay to return with 1.25 heat shield without spending like 300 dV extra. I have not tested yet using extra larger heat shied. But that would make whole ship look ridiculous and not sure if this is where this mod aims. Some other ship structural components are very week as well. Im leaning toward opinion that service bay temperatures are probably too much making them useless. Maybe its realistic and intended I dont know but its does not goes together with other components and tech tree. Its just my impression after couple of tests. one more thing service bay should withstand temp. 1450K same size fuel tank should be able hold only 1000K according tool tip. yet service bay explodes when I place it behind heat shield and fuel tank is fine on same place. It looks as bad tool tip or bug to me.
  5. I think i managed to learn now how to reenter I have to use stock heat shields that was one problem second I cant use service bays. Im facing problems that any service bays like modules breaks during reentry if I go as you suggested with bit stepper angle even that they are behind shields. Other ship parts wont even start heating and service bays explode few seconds after extended solar panels. I tried with "service bay 1.25" and mod "universal storage tapered fairing" But Again it is possibly something im not used to from stock old versions of game and not imbalance my reentry ship is bit longer and Im suspecting that might cause upper bits to heat more
  6. not sure how to tell which mod is which part from but I made bit more test with stock shield and that one seems to work better it has 200 abl. Im still not very confident that I can return my kerbals or satelites using only airobreaking. I let you know when I play few more returns.
  7. for my other comment I got suggestion for another mod that can hid buttons ... problem solved sort of. One question tho. I can stage and enable chutes without having connection. (normal stock chutes but using real chute mod) Is that intentional ?
  8. Im using 1.25 shield with 100 ablative shielding (I think its from some mod) under Science Jr. at Pe 54K ship breaks and does not even slow down enough to land. Ap was under moon. (I was returning from moon) and speed bit abowe 3000. I was able to do it with 57K Pe and 4-5 extra orbits. On last orbit shield ablator was gone but Science Jr. was able to hold. But true is I have not even considered using steeper entry. Reason for fail was always that ablator cooked very fast so maybe if I enter more quickly it will have no time to burn but It does seems it will burn faster. well mod says its deadly but either im doing it wrong or its bit too much deadly for me. Good work and thanks for the mod btw Im sure you have to be clever person to be able to do programming and understand reentry physics at same time.
  9. Hi Im new user of this mod. is it still possible even to air break from mon back to kerb without using ton of delta V to slow down ? I have probe with hear shield and it melts no matter how gently I reenter at speed 3000. ... .... Iv managed to get back from mon but took 5 extra orbits and about 150 extra delta v to slow down during airobreaking. + I did used engine instead of heat shield as shield melted down more easy than Science.Jr under it. Not sure if this is realistic but it aint very fun. On the other side when I played unmoded heat shields nearly never melted no matter what and that was quite boring as well.
  10. wow I did not imagined there are so many mods for this. Thanks for tips. for far I have manual added big red X on each button I dont want but this will be better
  11. Seems as I got all working so far with few other mods. Found only one annoyance I don get why so many mods do this as its completely ridiculous . I would really love to have option to disable cluttering GUI buttons that are serving no purpose other than cheat or debug/change options of the mod. Feels like playing in debug mode. It would be totally fine to see options during new game creation only or have it in text file only. I do not need to see 10 buttons in GUI for various mods during game play that allows me cheat or reconfigure advanced mod options. Its too easy to break settings during game play. Or its Like having shooter game with left click = shoot gun, right mouse click = enable god mode.
  12. sorry I feel bad for misleading post. I have posted this on wrong mod topic. This configuration buttons are from other mods: Remote Tech, Deadly reentry, reallchute , science params modifier. This mod has no mentioned problem. I was referring to mods that are spamming buttons on the GUI with vagarious parameters that should be hidden in config files only or options menu and should be locked out from easy tampering.
  13. I have tested this mod today for hour and it is great help. Any chance it will get integrated with remote tech mod to prevent cheating with probes and activating science experiments when there is no connection ? Or at least some simple workaround where we can disable ability to execute experiments via this mod at all. (having at least notifications).
  14. this post can be ignored .... / deleted Hi there, is there some way how to disable configurator button in fly in game GUI ? I constantly click there by mistake and I might break some settings mods set there. I believe this settings should be either hidden in options or only in config file not in game at all. It just clusters and screen and confuses people. Not sure why kerbal mods have this habit sticking all advanced options or debug buttons right at the gameplay screen. I get that if dev. is doing debugging but otherwise it should be not there in carer mode. thanks you for the mod
  15. thanks for great mod. there is one item that is making my brain itch tho. Why for god sake are some mods putting button directly in game control gui that does really not serving any game play function but is basically mods advanced configuration and should be nicely sitting under options. Its like having 5 buttons in game like doom all the time on HUD with walking speed gun damage configuration and various cheats. My gui is like spaghetti after installing few mods + when I give same mods to my fried she always thinks all this buttons are part of the game play controls and messes up all mods config I carefully set.
  16. thanks for fast reply and sorry if this was asked already I did checked FAQ but was lazy to search this 180 page treed. I think I have my first personal kerbal mods pack complete now thanks to this mod. Only thing I noticed that I find ridiculous in moded kerbal world that many mods add button directly in game witch looks like part of the game controls but in reality is only "cheat" button to change mods advanced settings and variables used in calculation and is totally not needed to be there. Should be hidden in options only. It really itches my brain. Its like having big button all time in battlefield or doom game where you can configure guns damage or health to 1000000. Thanks again for the mod tho.
  17. does this mod affect also normal base chutes or only ones added by this mod ? I wonder if I have to disable somehow stock chutes
  18. thanks for tip. Thing is "global construction core" this is not listed as recommandeed but as dependency. It is sub mod or library for to mod called "global construction" global construction mod itself is not listed in dependencies at all. There is another mod listed in dependency called Konstruction with "K" that one is fine and compatible with 1.6. So this is quite confusing I would suggest maybe changing this mod from dependency to suggested category in CKAN and list possible replacement mods in here. Possible that this dependency core mod is listed completely by mistake in ckan.
  19. Hi, mod dependencies in ckan for this mod are bit strange. It lists "global construction core" mod as required dependency but manual install guide does not mention this mod at all. Is this mod really needed or not as its out of date and does not supports 1.6. Do I have to install this "global construction core" or should I skip ? (few people on forums reported that its bugged for 1.6) Thanks
  20. so we say we can safely remove whole procedural mod and should be fine ? Simple solution would be to remove procedural mod from suggested parts and move it to supported to make it clear SETI by default can work without them. What worries me more is this broken MM configs and bugged contracts Iv mentioned. Would be nice to have it fixed before 1.4. This is what I hate on moded based games like minecraft. Constant compatibility balance issues and wating for last missing mod update or bug fix ... and once it seems its really close for all mods being up to date they release new kerbal or minecraft version and all goes to ... again... I know how difficult it is. You start mod for fun and it becomes chore.
  21. so maybe it was too hasty comment I did played just like 4 hours but it does not feels right from tech tree unlocking perspective to have all sizes right away. larger or super small parts should be unlocked via research. But Im person that likes games with balanced to the dota level and locked rules .... rather than only rule being define yours own rules.
  22. Hello again and sorry for being so active today on forum, so I have reconfigured configs best I could according my above post to remove all MM errors and did try to play. a)First there is bug with base game contracts. I do see some basic contracts like reach orbit in when I click on "available" button. Same contract is not visible on sorted contract view. If I accept it I get cash but soon as I click on hangar building contract is gone from my active contract and is again in offers. I use just 1.3.1 base game + CKAN installed meta modpack ... no other mods. So was are base game contracts meant to be disabled in SETI by design or not ? Is there way to fix it ? b)option to resize components as I need seems to me like cheating research system. But I dont want to disable that procedural parts mod as I presume it could break intended balance design or my ability to progress in game properly. Every one who has balance in mind would design SETI without this mod or restrict it to allow just few parts resizing and only certain sizes. Otherwise it breaks whole point of balanced tech tree and makes lot research useless like large tanks. .... I do not take for any helpful reply answer "Do not resize components if you not like it" If it does not make sense it should be corrected not ignored. o and one short note. there is 1.4 release coming in March and if SETI for 1.3.1 does not get stabilized than this pack becomes unusable mess. Some of the mods will be on 1.4 not supporting 1.3.1 properly and few will be not even up to date to support 1.3.1. .... Would be great to have some somewhat stable build without major annoying bugs and obvious balance issues before 1.4. Lot of the issues are items that could be fixed in few minutes for person who cares to test and play ... if any one cares any more that is. I doubt that SETI mod author has played SETI last year for more than 2 hours. (this is not meant as criticism but as feedback and impression after testing MOD)
  23. Thanks I have figured out that part. I have some doubts about some changes I made. Can someone please doble check that changes are made are correct ? (I have no idea what am I changing) ------------------------------------------------------------------- 166: @PART[*]:HAS[~name[RetroMk1inline],@MODULE[ModuleCommand],#CrewCapacity[*],~CrewCapacity[0],~author[*RoverDude*]]:NEEDS[TacLifeSupport]:AFTER[TacLifeSupport]:AFTER[SETIrebalance] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And this is what I did with probestack cfgs to get no longer errors: Can you confirm that it is correct ? @PART[setiProbeStack2]:NEEDS[RemoteTech,!SETIrebalance]:AFTER[RemoteTech]:FOR[SETIprobeParts] { %MODULE[ModuleSPU] {} } @PART[setiProbeStack2]:NEEDS[RemoteTech]:AFTER[RemoteTech]:FOR[SETIprobeParts] ........---------------------------------------------------------------------- @PART[setiProbeStack1]:NEEDS[RemoteTech]:AFTER[RemoteTech]:FOR[SETIprobeParts] { !MODULE[ModuleDataTransmitter] {} } @PART[setiProbeStack1]:NEEDS[RemoteTech,!SETIrebalance]:AFTER[RemoteTech]:FOR[SETIprobeParts] ..........------------------------------------------------------------------------ Also I have found folowing changes on this forum they do not affect MM errors but qestion is should I change things like this ? @PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleCommand]]:NEEDS[KerbalEngineer]:FOR[zzzzSETIrebalance] { %MODULE[BuildEngineer] {} } @PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleCommand]]:NEEDS[KerbalEngineer]:FOR[zzzzSETIrebalance] { %MODULE[FlightEngineer]{} !MODULE[FlightEngineer]{} %MODULE[FlightEngineerModule]{} }
  24. Thanks for re, I got no other mods I want just SETI mods. I think I can manage to change configs. I have list of .cfg files from logs that are affected. Just its not clear to me if I need to remove all FORs or just some but I try to see if I can figure that out. Does it makes any gameplay changes for me even I fix this FORs in configs ? Or it just cosmetic to not have errors ?