[1.3.1] [v1.1.1] PanzerLabs AeroSpace K-Sat Series

[JohnnyPanzer]

I don't know what to tell you. I've now tested both released builds on four different installs, covering both 1.1 and 1.0.5, modded and clean, and I can't replicate this bug. My best guess would be that it's down to compatability issues with one or more of those 700 mods. Could it be that one of them changes the way data transmitters are handled and then patches the stock antennas while my probe cores are left unpatched?

Again, if anyone else is having similar problems I would love to hear about it. Same goes for theories on what could be causing this. @Snark, you're always helpful and you know your way around modding to a much greater degree than me. Any ideas?

Edited April 14, 2016 by JohnnyPanzer

[Snark]

Sorry, I don't have any specific advice to @JohnnyPanzer, wish I could be more helpful!

However, to everyone who's a mod user here (including users of this mod), and who may not be familiar with the vagaries of software development and debugging:  As the number of mods goes up, the number of potential interactions among those mods skyrockets.  It goes up with the square of the number of mods you're using.  This vastly increases the chance of some obscure bug that happens due to some interaction among mods, rather than a bug in one particular mod by itself.

So by all means, if you're using a particular mod and you see what looks like a bug, report it in that mod's forum thread-- helpful mod authors like Johnny here would love to know if there's something wrong with their mod, so they can fix it.  However, if you post, and then the author has trouble reproducing, you can save the author a lot of hassle if you do this simple thing:

1. Take a clean copy of KSP with no mods installed at all (this is easy to do, without disturbing your modded KSP version:  just copy your entire KSP directory to a new folder, and then get rid of all the mods)
2. Install only the mod that you're having trouble with
3. Now try to reproduce the bug.

@xandertifft54321, can you try the above steps?  If you run KSP with no mods at all except this one, can you reproduce the bug?  I notice that you mentioned,

2 hours ago, xandertifft54321 said:

it would take literal weeks to test every mod

...nobody's asking you to test every mod!  Just test without all those mods, with just this one installed.  Can you still reproduce the problem?

• If you can:  then this is a legitimate bug in this mod, and hopefully JohnnyPanzer can find a way, perhaps if you share a .sfs file or something.
• If you can't:  then this means the problem has to do with one of those many, many mods you're running.

It's worth taking a moment to discuss that latter case.  This is the real lesson here:

If you have a problem that shows up only when you're running this mod alongside hundreds of other ones... well, you need to understand that the chance of the mod author being able to help you with your problem will be virtually zero.  If you think it would be a hassle to test all of those mods, think how impossible it would be for the mod author to do so, when he doesn't even know what you're running (and please don't tell him, there's no point in giving him a list of 700 things, it would be useless to him), let alone have them installed.

TL;DR:  when you choose to run hundreds of mods, you're basically doing so at your own risk.  You're increasing the chance that something will go wrong, and making it almost impossible for someone to help you when it does go wrong.

[JohnnyPanzer]

Thank you @Snark, great input as always.

Just to be crystal clear to @xandertifft54321 though, I very much AM interested in this if you can indeed replicate it in a clean install. What you're decribing is what I would consider a game breaking bug for my little mod, so if it turns out to be down to an error on my end, I would like to fix it for sure. Even if it turns out to be a compatability issue with another mod, I'd still love to hear any results you might have tracking it down. Perhaps something could be done, you never know.

If you feel it would be a hassle to create a clean install to test it, I fully understand that. You are in no way under any sort of obligation to do so. But please understand that without such a test there's nothing more I can do.

And on a final note, I will once again say that I welcome any and all feedback from all users. Not just bug reports, but opinions. What do you like most about the mod? What don't you like? What would you like to see changed? Have you found new and interesting ways to use the mod? I realise that this mod is limited in it's scope (it's a rather simple part pack), but going forward it's great to know what people liked and didn't like, since that knowledge can be used in future endevours. Even simple things like "the engine looks stupid" or "I like the color scheme" can provide helpful insight. And this applies to most, if not all, mod authors I think. Looking at some of the greats within this modding community, you'll often find that 90% of the posts in their threads boils down to "next update please?". But there is often a great lack of solid feedback, even for hugely popular mods.

[Snark]

2 minutes ago, JohnnyPanzer said:

If you feel it would be a hassle to create a clean install to test it, I fully understand that. You are in no way under any sort of obligation to do so. But please understand that without such a test there's nothing more I can do.

^^ This.  This right here.  Anyone who ever finds a hard-to-reproduce bug in any mod, ever, should frame this and put it up on your wall.

...Okay, 'nuff said, I'll duck out now. 

[xandertifft54321]

 

22 hours ago, JohnnyPanzer said:

I very much AM interested in this if you can indeed replicate it in a clean install. What you're decribing is what I would consider a game breaking bug for my little mod, so if it turns out to be down to an error on my end, I would like to fix it for sure. Even if it turns out to be a compatability issue with another mod, I'd still love to hear any results you might have tracking it down. Perhaps something could be done, you never know.

If you feel it would be a hassle to create a clean install to test it, I fully understand that. You are in no way under any sort of obligation to do so. But please understand that without such a test there's nothing more I can do.

I will go test with just this, even tho i dont have any antenna mods instalded soo, it could be realted to the bug im have with LLL whaere none of the trasmiter worked, and i cant deploy the bays so i will go test!

[FreeThinker]

I think the K-Sat Pzl-BB 888 comes available way too early. Since this probe essentially contains an active RTG, it shouldn't be available until Experimental Electronics

Edited April 17, 2016 by FreeThinker

[BT Industries]

These look so pleasing to the eye.

Goodbye stock probes you shall never be used again.

These are just soooooo superior.  

[JohnnyPanzer]

7 hours ago, BT Industries said:

These look so pleasing to the eye.

Goodbye stock probes you shall never be used again.

These are just soooooo superior.  

Thank you very much, I'm glad you like them.  

On 2016-04-17 at 9:43 PM, FreeThinker said:

I think the K-Sat Pzl-BB 888 comes available way too early. Since this probe essentially contains an active RTG, it shouldn't be available until Experimental Electronics

Yeah, the tech tree has been trying to balance test, in particular due to the internal power generation. This is the main reason for the very high price of the probes, to discourage their use as an early RTG. The way I see it, the probes are too expensive, too heavy and too awkward to place (no radial attachment, stacking only) for them to be used as early versions of a standalone RTG. With that said, I'm still considering various balancing methods:

• When used with Remote Tech, the internal power merely puts a dent in the power consumption of the internal antennas. But since antennas in stock only requires power when transmiting, this leaves the cores with a rather large power surplus in stock. One way to go would be to lower the power output in stock, leaving just enough to provide a small trickle of elextricity and then patch the current power output to RT only.
• Another possibility is to simply lower the power output of the 888. It lacks the internal antennas of the other probes and is therefore left with a power surplus even when using RT.
• Moving the 888 back in the tree like you suggested is also possible, but it is by far the least enticing option for me.

Currently I'm leaning towards option one. It seems like the best solution to a problem that is mainly caused by the probes having different power demands placed upon them in stock vs RT.

And as a final update to everyone, I'm still working on the next update. I can assure you all that it's not forgotten, but work is eating up most of my time right now. Whenever I get a few minutes of spare time over I tend to sit down with the new parts, but as a single father with two small kids and a full time job I'm afraid those moments don't come nearly as often as I would like them to.  

[FreeThinker]

Well you could use a different method of balancing your Probe. THere is a reason why RTG are usualy on a stick outside the scaft, it's because most of their energy, will be waste energy, which you need to get rid off as quick as possible.  In practical therms, your Probe core should produce 10 times the amount of waste Heat than it produces usefull electrical energy. This effectely means the user needs to add radiators to your vessel or the RTG will stop producing power, your probe will overheat in a matter of minutes, and melt a few minutes later. So instead of  Solar panels, it will need to fit the vessel with radiators. THe advantage is that you now can use your vessel anywhere, the disadnatage is that it is havier than solar panels with batteries

Edited April 19, 2016 by FreeThinker

[SFCGunny313]

Patiently waiting for the update for 1.1.2 and population on CKAN

[Genolution]

14 hours ago, SFCGunny313 said:

Patiently waiting for the update for 1.1.2 and population on CKAN

Thumbing through the files of this mod, I don't see any reason why it wouldn't work. It would just require a manual install.

[SFCGunny313]

Waiting for population on CKAN

[Kwarazi]

@SFCGunny313 Just download it from Space dock and copy what's in the game data folder to your game data folder and your done.... I have been using current version ever since KSP updated to 1.1.2 and have had no problems.

A lot of modders don't use or don't rush to update CKAN connections and TBH its quicker to keep up to date using KSP AVC Checker.

[SFCGunny313]

If they don't use CKAN, then I don't use their mod.  It may be quicker to do manual installs, but it's more time consuming and more of a hassle in the long term.

[Enceos]

@JohnnyPanzer Hey dude! Your K-Sat pack had certainly the most cool looking probe models out there. Are you playing KSP? Planning on updating your pack with the latest stock comm system modules?

[Enceos]

These are very lovely probe parts, wish someone adopts this mod. It just need some config updates to enable Kerbnet and Commnet functionality.

[JohnnyPanzer]

Sorry for the delayed reply, I haven't played KSP for some time.

I'll see what I can do, I'm very busy IRL at the moment, and I'd like to include some balance changes while I'm at it. But if I have the time, I'll try to release an interim patch this weekend with nothing but the config changes needed to make it run on 1.3.1

Thank you for your continued interest. I know it kinda sucks when mods go dark, but that's life I guess. Stupid adulting getting int he way of all the fun. 

[drtedastro]

sounds great.

good luck and thanks.

cheers.

[JohnnyPanzer]

Mod Updated for KSP 1.3.1

Changelog:

-=::::::\1.1/::::::=-

-Included MiniAVC support
-Included support for Decal Stickers
-Updated all antennas for KSP 1.3.1
-Updated the MM patch for Remote Tech 1.8.9
-Changed folder structure
-Changed category for the inline battery, from Utility to Electrical
-Made the small dish (PzL-COM D1) physicsless

-K-Sat PzL-BB 888
    *Added "Marble" to the name
    *Added internal launch antenna
    *Added hibernation option
    *Added KerbNet access
    *Changed RT omni range to 2.5Mm

-K-Sat PzL-LO 242
    *Now allows surface attachments (on it, not with it)
    *Added "Lancelot" to the name
    *Added internal launch antenna
    *Added hibernation option
    *Added KerbNet access
    *Changed RT integrated omni range to 150km

-K-Sat PzL-LO 1138
    *Added "Cobra" to the name
    *Added internal launch antenna
    *Added hibernation option
    *Added KerbNet access
    *Changed RT dish range to 90Mm
    *Changed RT integrated omni range to 150km

-K-Sat PzL-LO 1142
    *Added "Crabhead" to the name
    *Added internal launch antenna
    *Added hibernation option
    *Added KerbNet access
    *Changed RT dish range to 50Gm
    *Changed RT integrated omni range to 150km

Edited January 21, 2018 by JohnnyPanzer

[JohnnyPanzer]

A small gremlin managed to crawl inside one of the .cfg flies and added a typo. That typo is now fixed. This patch is pretty much optional if you don't mind the lowered cost of the LO-242, no other changes were made.

Changelog:

-=::::::\1.1.1/::::::=-

-Fixed a typo that lowered the cost of the LO-242 by almost 75%.

[JohnnyPanzer]

Work has begun on the next update which will include a complete rebalancing of old parts and several new parts, as well as an overhaul of the part quality.

As part of the rebalancing, the BB-series now requires new parts to be able to perform it's role, and two of those are allready finished. The BB-888 was also the first model to recieve the 'redux' treatment. I've been extremely stingy with polycounts and texture sizes, and not very efficient with the way I packaged the parts. Therefore, I've been able to double both polycount and texture size without much of a performance hit. More or less all parts will recieve this treatment, and all new parts are produced with the new quality in mind.

So without further ado, allow me to present a very small sample of what K-Sat 'redux' will bring. The new parts shown is the Medium Range Dish 'K-Sat BB-COM D2' and the Short Range Antenna 'K-Sat BB-COM O1':

Edited January 29, 2018 by JohnnyPanzer

[JohnnyPanzer]

The update is coming along nicely. All the old parts have recieved the "redux" treatment and are looking a lot better, and I feel like I'm pretty satisfied with the way the rebalancing is going. Without going into details, the new setup will see the three black & white probes function exclusevily as com relays, while the orange BB probe will fill the exploratory role, with a small range of optional equipment.

For this purpose, I recently finished the last optional direct antenna for the BB-series, pictured below. I've begin work on a scaled down version of the resource scanner, and once that is finished I might just call it a day. We'll see. Anyway, here's the new K-Sat BB-COM D3:

 

 

Edited February 12, 2018 by JohnnyPanzer

[JohnnyPanzer]

Here's the finished lineup of 1.2, in all it's reduxed glory. As soon as I've playtested the balancing changes and finished a small KSPedia entry, I'll release the update. Should be within the week.
 

[LucidPixels]

Looking sharp.

[CobaltWolf]

oh dam those are nice.