Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

121 Excellent

About Fraz86

  • Rank
    Sr. Spacecraft Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. @Nertea A new version of KerbalHealth was just released, with some significant changes that render my previous compatibility patch out-of-date. The new patch below adjusts to these changes and addresses a MM patch-order problem: // KerbalHealth functions // Authored by Fraz86 @PART[sspx-habitation-125-1]:NEEDS[KerbalHealth]:FOR[KerbalHealth] { MODULE { name = ModuleKerbalHealth space = 0.8 } MODULE { name = ModuleKerbalHealth resourceConsumptionPerKerbal = 0.75 multiplyFactor = Crowded multiplier = 0.4 crewCap = 2 } } @PART[sspx-utility-125-1]:NEEDS[KerbalHealth,!USILi
  2. @garwel It looks like there's another issue with General.cfg, such that it still isn't excluding cupolas and cockpits. Apparently MM requires "~name" rather than "!name." I can confirm that with this modification, it does indeed work as intended. On an unrelated note, I thought it might be neat if airlock modules had an EVA multiplier, reducing the health drain for nearby Kerbals on EVA (representing the greater convenience/practicality of EVA when an airlocks is available). I have no idea if this would be technically difficult to implement, but if it happens to be easy, I would enjoy it.
  3. I look forward to trying out the new release! Might you be able to post the latest version of your spreadsheet?
  4. @garwel From General.cfg, the following does not work as intended: @PART[*]:HAS[#CrewCapacity[>0],!name[*Cockpit*],!name[*cupola*],!RESOURCE[RadiationShielding],!MODULE[KerbalSeat]]:AFTER[KerbalHealth] { RESOURCE { name = RadiationShielding amount = 0 maxAmount = #$../CrewCapacity$ } } In MM syntax, "*" can't represent nothing. For example, *Cockpit* looks for strings with at least one character before the "C" and after the "t", which happens to exclude all of the cockpits in the game. In order to function as you intended, I suggest the following modification: @PART[*]:H
  5. @Nertea Perhaps it's intentional, but I noticed a part name anomaly: the PTD-1 Pressurized Crew Tube is named sspx-125-1, rather than the expected sspx-tube-125-1. I discovered this issue because the PTD-1 is missing its CLS module (because the CLS patch attempts to apply the module to sspx-tube-125-1).
  6. I made my case to the KerbalHealth dev (garwel), and now his latest test version substantially limits the abusability of the recuperation mechanic. Recuperation-providing parts now have a limit on the number of Kerbals to whom benefit is provided, and each Kerbal may only benefit from the single best available recuperation bonus (i.e., the bonuses are no longer additive). Given these changes, it is now possible to write a compatibility patch in which SSPX parts have meaningful use without overwriting any of KerbalHealth's own behavior. Still, I found myself confronted with a minor dilemma
  7. @garwel A few thoughts have come up in the course of playing with your spreadsheet (which is awesome, by the way) and working on a compatibility patch for Nertea's new SSPX mod. The use of "Eff t/k" as the primary determinant of habitation modules' "Crowd" factor yields intuitive results for most parts. However, unintuitive results arise for some large hab modules - clearly intended for much longer habitation than a Hitchhiker - that end up with unimpressive Crowd multipliers due to their very high crew capacities. The problem, in my view, is that the crew capacity for such parts is meant to r
  8. I would love to see your spreadsheet, or even just your most up-to-date formulas. It would be very helpful for writing compatibility patches.
  9. I'm not seeing any calculation patch (at least, not as a MM file). It looks like all of the crowded multipliers are specifically set. It's just that the multipliers chosen for other stock parts approximately match the value given by the formula. See below: Predicted multiplier Actual multiplier Hitchhiker 0.4 0.4 Mk1 Crew Cabin 0.953 0.75 Mk2 Crew Cabin 0.488 0.5 Mk3 Crew Cabin 0.449 0.45 The multipliers for other
  10. Thanks for the update! For the purpose of creating compatibility patches, I was hoping to get additional details regarding any values that are now determined formulaically. For instance, I saw your post from page 11 where you gave the following formula: Does a hab being a centrifuge have a defined impact on the CrowdedFactor (e.g., in terms of modifying EffCrew like CommandModule or SciLab)? How is EC use calculated? What about "space"? Are there formulae for calculation of RecuperationBonus, or connected/loneliness/sickness multipliers multipliers? EDIT: Upon further review, it a
  11. Thank you for considering the issue. I believe the problems become apparent when attempting to apply KerbalHealth to mods that add larger/better/more complex habitation modules (as I am currently attempting to do for Nertea's new SSPX pack). Consider the microgravity penalty. The penalty is appropriately small (-0.5 HP/day), such that it only needs to be addressed for longer missions, which makes good sense. Long missions, in which compensation for microgravity is needed, would be an intuitive use case for centrifuges. Unfortunately, as it stands now, adding one additional Cupola can more
  12. Below is a draft of my KerbalHealth compatibility patch. I am quite happy with the outcome, though as I mentioned before, it should be noted that this patch rebalances the native behavior of KerbalHealth. Unfortunately, I do not believe it is possible to achieve a satisfactory result without rebalancing. ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// // Experimental KerbalHealth Compatibility Patch For SSPX // // By Fraz86 // //
  13. @garwel I just discovered your mod, and I am very excited to try it out! However, I am concerned about a balance issue with respect to recuperation. Currently, there appears to be no limit on the number of Kerbals who benefit from the recuperation bonus provided by cupolas. Every Kerbal on board gains the full 1% HP regeneration, whether it's a crew of 1 or 100. This stands in contrast to parts that reduce crowdedness or microgravity, which appear to have limits on the number of Kerbals allowed to benefit. Furthermore, the recuperation effect is fully additive, with no diminishing returns
  14. Thanks for the link. I've been away from KSP for about a year, so I wasn't aware of Kerbal Health. It appears to have just about everything I'm looking for. Strange that it doesn't involve food as a factor in maintaining health, but I suppose that's easily enough addressed with a separate mod (e.g., USI-LS or Snacks). Luckily, I happen to be a MM expert with experience writing configs for Nertea's mods in the past. I'd be happy to write a compatibility patch, however, I do have a couple concerns. As it stands, the "recuperation" mechanic makes it mathematically more efficient to just s
  15. @Nertea The new SSPX is a masterpiece - it might be my favorite parts pack ever. The parts are absolutely beautiful, thoughtfully designed, and cover a wide range of applications. I am very excited for finished IVAs (and I love what you've already done, especially the PXL-F). Plus, the need to move large interplanetary craft composed of these parts will provide me with a pragmatic reason to use all of your fancy end-game engines & reactors! I only wish that there was a crew health mod capable of giving SSPX a real sense of purpose and interesting gameplay mechanics. Unfortunately
  • Create New...