• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,704 Excellent


About severedsolo

  • Rank
    Junior Rocket Scientist

Recent Profile Visitors

6,784 profile views
  1. Parts look good, but can we please talk about your variant names (and subsequently the " theme painter" in the Editor.) This is "white" This is "Black and White" A) They wouldn't look out of place together, so they could have the same variant name. B) the first image is clearly alot closer to black and white than the second one (honestly though, they should both be "white" there isn't enough grey/black on either of them to justify calling it "black and white" There just seems to be no consistency at all (including in the 1.25m/Making History parts - I could give you half a dozen examples I found while making Consistent Variants)
  2. So just a little update on where I am with this. I've been doing some serious balance testing, and I think by jove I've finally got it right. I just need to investigate an issue where repair rolls are always succeeding, and I will be ready to push a release candidate. Also, I mentioned before that I was going to release my spreadsheet that I use to do the balancing. I've decided not to do this, just simply because it's not useful to you guys. I have the advantage that I can pull data directly out of the mod in real time, unless your willing to compile it yourself, that's not going to work for you. So instead, I've put it in the mod instead! With the next release, if you have "extra logging" enabled, it will also tell you the chances of a failure happening in the next x amount of time. With a few caveats: 1) The calculation breaks down in space mode. Basically, according to the maths, the chance of a failure event happening approaches 100% so closely that it makes no odds in 30 days (which is my benchmark for space mode) this means that a reliable ship will report itself as having a 40%+ chance of failure in the next 30 days. Real life testing does not support this.TLDR: Take space mode calculations with a pinch of salt as the formula can't handle such a large amount of events. I recommend balancing for atmospheric and planes and letting space sort itself out. 2) It takes a shortcut when calculating the "per part" rates. It assumes that all parts have the "average" failure rate. This means that it will never be 100% accurate but should give you a good "ballpark figure".
  3. severedsolo

    [1.5] Monthly Budgets 4.7 (16/10/2018)

    No but I watched the stream, and saw it happening so I'm aware - once Oh Scrap settles down (it's nearly there now, thank god) I plan to get back to working on the big feature update for MB, at which point I'll fix that bug too. Also, just for anyone else reading this: MB does not like it when you start a new save without restarting KSP. This has actually been the case for a very long time, I've just never done anything about it because it's never come up until now. (it's one of those "I know but it doesn't seem to be actually effecting anyone so I'll leave it alone" things.)
  4. severedsolo

    [1.5] Monthly Budgets 4.7 (16/10/2018)

    Yup that's it, just copy and paste that into a new cfg file. It will probably effect new contracts only.
  5. severedsolo

    [1.5] Monthly Budgets 4.7 (16/10/2018)

    Sorry but I don't see the issue. That's 30 days between each one. It's "D31" rather than "D30" if that's what you mean, because KSP starts on D1 not D0. Known issue - create a new alarm in KAC (anything will do) and it will then generate it's alarm. Basically it doesn't generate a new alarm if there are none in the list. Also, you should win a prize or something. That bug has been there for over 2 years, and you are the first person to mention it. Is that Tourism Plus? You have to add a MM patch for that one: MB_DISABLED_AGENTS { Agent = Kerbal Space Tourism } (check the agent hasn't changed, it's been a while since I wrote that)
  6. Oh Scrap 1.4 Beta 6 is now available get it here Changed initial failure rate generation (again) Logger will no longer log when nothing happened. Add option to remove funds that StageRecovery gives you if that mod is installed. (UNTESTED) "Worst part" will now display the worst part in terms of failure rate, rather than guessing by safety rating. Rebalanced atmospheric/plane failure rates a little Barring any unforseen circumstances, this will probably be the last beta before I put out a Release Candidate. Things I need to look at: SRBs dont highlight on failure. Not sure repair checks are working (succeed too often) Probably need to rebalance planes again.
  7. That's a good point, and one I hadn't considered. I will change it so it auto-generates, thanks.
  8. I wish it were that easy. Also, I just want to clarify something as a few people have mentioned this now: right now at default settings "plane mode" and "rocket mode" for atmosphere are exactly the same thing. However, there is an option for "plane mode" to have different check times to "rocket mode" (I need better names for these things) - it just happens that they are set to the same thing right now (that will probably change though)
  9. That's a problem with changing over to the new system. The "worst part" checks the safety ratings and if the rating is lower than the one it knows about, it sets that one as the worst part instead. This used to be acceptable because the safety rating was directly tied to the failure chance. Now the safety rating is relative to the part, so a part with a lower base failure chance (like cockpits which are full of reaction wheels and batteries) can still report itself as "terrible" even though your engines will be worse. I'll change it so it actually checks failure chance rather than just the safety rating. This one is a craft specific issue, and one which I don't have a good answer to right now. Please note this is all guesswork at this point, I will load that craft up in debug mode later, so I can examine exactly what's happening, but this is my best guess: I think what's happening is that when the list is being sorted by failureChance it's putting the engines above the control surfaces (they have the same failure rate). The tanks will also be lower down in the list, because they have a slightly lower chance of failing anyway. As your craft has a large number of engines, you are getting a disproportionate number of rolls against the engines. Once it finds a part to fail, it stops looking. - In short, you have too many engines The reason this didn't happen in 1.3.5 was because each part rolled for itself individually. The thing is, every part rolling for itself is really awful for performance (noticeably so, and I have a really good computer). That''s the main reason we roll against the vessel rather than each part now. The only way I can think of around this right now, is to roll every part anyway, record which ones failed, then pick one of those at random. That brings it's own problems though (like, we have no guarantee that the bad parts are going to fail first)
  10. And another one Oh Scrap Beta 5 Revision 2 is now available. Get it Here Fixed infinite loop in some situations while checking for a part failure. Added option to define length of time before "plane mode" kicks in under DefaultSettings.cfg
  11. I've just posted 1.4 Beta 5 revision 1 which just fixes a small error that snuck in last night, where an already failed part could fail again. Full changelog for Beta 5 (sorry, it was late last night and I just wanted to get to bed) Fixed next check not resetting on situation change Added DefaultSettings.cfg to PluginData - this allows you to configure failure settings to your liking Added option for a separate timeBetweenChecks for Planes (and technically reentry too, but it's mostly geared towards planes). This kicks in when the vessel is in atmosphere and has a MET of >5 minutes. It's set the same as "rockets" (<5 minutes) right now, but the option is there if you want it. Logger will now delete logs more than 24hrs old Initial failure rate is now baseChance/generation. Fix parts magically repairing themselves (dont ask)
  12. Beta 5 now available
  13. I'm actually doing the maths on probabilities of failures now, and I think you are right, planes need to be treated differently. Thing is, no two peoples "ideal" is ever going to be right or the same. So here's what I'm going to do (in the next 2-3 hours at most hopefully, should be sooner, but can't guarantee) All the figures that the mod uses to balance the probabilities, time between failures, minimum failure chance, etc I'm going to put in the settings (I'll probably do a cfg file for it, as the sliders will have a fit if I try and scale it between seconds and potentially days). That way, you guys don't have to wait for me to get my figures right and can configure them to your own liking. I'll also post my spreadsheet, so you can plug your own figures into it and see what the chances are going to be, and find your acceptable figures. Also, Das - I just want to say thanks for your and your viewers patience this last week, it can't have been fun for them waiting for me to get my act together (I'll also fix the bug Muddr posted when I do the release).
  14. severedsolo

    [1.2.2] Contract Pack: Exploration Plus 1.0 (12/02/2017)

    Not officially supported any more, but it does work in 1.5, I use it myself. It won't be getting any updates though.
  15. severedsolo

    [1.5] Monthly Budgets 4.7 (16/10/2018)

    The contract interceptor fires when the contracts generate. Any contracts previously generated will still have the funds stripped out but new contracts will have funds. If you are planning on playing like that I also recommend deleting the MM patch that converts world firsts to rep