[1.3.0] Kerbalism v1.2.9

[nosscire]

1 hour ago, Nightside said:

 

The TAC converters require the TAC dll to be loaded in order to function because TAC predates the stock resource system and had to create its own modules.

That said, you can replicate the functionality of the TAC converters and generators using the stock resource system, just take a look at the converters in Universal Storage.

 

The TAC ones I already got working. I'm using the Kerbalism "Recycler" modules. Works as TAC, but as mentioned without creating "waste" from CO2 conversions.

My questions were more around the Electric generators from US and Near Future. It would definitelly work to create a EC generator using the "Recycler" module, but I'm wondering if it would also show up correctly in Kerbalism.

The main issue with US and NF atm is that the resources generated doesn't work in the background. I'm considering trying to fix that.

Also, main reason for posting was to see if it's possible that we could get 2 output resources from the Recycle module.

 

Edit: Actually, nevermind. I now realized that NF ones actually work as is? Did they always do that? I definatelly remember NF reactors not working in background before?

Edited June 16, 2016 by nosscire

[DarkonZ]

So its my first attempt to use github with anything kerbalism related. Oh what fun. For those of you that use the realism profile, and also use KPBS (PlanetaryBaseSystems) this is my attempt to integrate KPBS and the realism profile. I think this link should do it:

https://github.com/Skaxly01/Kerbalism_KPBS

This simple config should work well enough with everything not already in orbit. Right?

[RattiRatto]

2 hours ago, DarkonZ said:

So its my first attempt to use github with anything kerbalism related. Oh what fun. For those of you that use the realism profile, and also use KPBS (PlanetaryBaseSystems) this is my attempt to integrate KPBS and the realism profile. I think this link should do it:

https://github.com/Skaxly01/Kerbalism_KPBS

This simple config should work well enough with everything not already in orbit. Right?

I'll test it later today. Just browsing quickly in the file, what's going on with the scrubber and CO2? Isn't that quite high?

[Toonu]

Have someone done USI LS profile for Kerbalism, or not yet?

Because I m doing one right now...idk if it will work correctly.

Yep, it is working quite good in VAB, going testing it in simulations...

Edited June 18, 2016 by Toonu

[DrazharLn]

@Toonu, did you get over the problems in this thread:

Or am I misunderstanding what you're doing?

[Toonu]

I'm asking if someone did USI LS configuration for kerbalism...I haven't any problems and because on first main post ist modes for TAC and Snacks and not UKS LS, I'm asking if it is somewhere or not.

[Razorfang]

I finally got to the point in my career save where I'm landing my first mining lander and I found that the KSPIe reactors are not generating any EC in the background. Is KSPIe supported?

[animanatole]

Hey, this mod changes things in the tech tree, like, changing the places of the parts in the nodes, exmple:

The Comms DTS-M1 instead of being in the node "Basic Science", is in "Precision Engineering".

Is this a bug ?

How can I fix this ?

[Zeroroller]

Just wanted to say I LOVE THIS MOD!! A question I had was: I use Simple Construction Mod and the pods/habitats have shielding. From the tests I've done in game, I cannot get Shielding to be added to my construction outside of the VAB. Would you know of a fix for this? Just so I'm not sounding too crazy, when i build a ship that will contains Kerbals it has a Shielding attribute that I have not been able to get to add into my builds outside the VAB. It does not transfer similar to monoprop, food, etc. Thanks for the awesome mod and thanks for your time.

[BashGordon33]

Is there a way to get the realism profile water reclaimers to have varying efficiency like the scrubbers, or is that all in the don't touch .dll programs?

[leomike]

@ShotgunNinja Just found a minor bug with the planner/vessel information. I have a rule (mostly copied from the realism profile) that consumes 1 water and converts it to 0.99 waste water per day. I then created a recycler that converts 1 waste water back to 0.98 water. This creates two issues:

• With 5 units of water, the VAB planner gives me 167 days of supply (which is correct), but as soon as I add any amount of waste water, the VAB planner predicts the craft is perpetual
• Once I launch the vessel, the vessel information pane tell me that I will run out of resources in 5 days as it doesn't seem to take the recycler into account

[leomike]

@animanatole I don't know off the top of my head what tech nodes are changed by the mod but these wouldn't be a bug.

@BashGordon33 That's in the dll. Alternatively you can use a scrubber instead of a recycler but that means it won't use filtration material and you will have unlimited water in atmosphere (condensation?).

@Razorfang Last I checked it is not and there was no short term plan to add support, simply too many modules.

@Zeroroller It is possible, change the shielding definition to transfer = PUMP, it is under GameData/Kerbalism (not sure what file exactly). To be able to generate from ore, look a few pages back in the thread.

[jlcarneiro]

Hello! Long time without playing KSP!

I've tried the latest mod versions last night and I think I've got a problem with Kerbalism and Universal Storage: to support a kerbal for 30 days, I've used a Mk1 Lander Can with two Kerbalism small food containers and two US small Oxygen tanks. In the VAB, I've got something like 32 days of food and 34 days of O2. It seemed nice, so I launched it.

When in orbit, I switched to another vessel (the contract asked me to mantain a kerbal in orbit for 30 days) and a few days later was startled with a warning that I had little O2! I switched back to the ship (Endurance) and saw that food seemed ok, but O2 had decreased too fast: while I still had 16 days of food, I only had 4 or 5 days of O2 left!

I installed US, CRP and Kerbalism zips and made no change to them... What did I do wrong?

[leomike]

@jlcarneiro Do you have module manager installed? Also make sure the scrubber was not turned off on your vessel. Are you running KSP 1.1.2?

[enlait]

After playing a while with Kerbalism, and ending up going away from it, I hope I can help somehow by providing feedback, even if it's not all praise.

First of all, @ShotgunNinja thank you for you hard work and impressive result. I certainly don't consider my time playing KSP with Kerbalism wasted, I did enjoy it quite.

A little background: I started playing with Kerbalism about when it was released, because coincidentally at the time I decided to with some life support mod (and maybe more hardcore stuff to boot) in order to somehow compensate for mobile lab being a bit too OP. I don't quite buy the idea of playing without mobile lab altogether, because you know, stations are awesome, and I'm too practical to have stations just for looks. And I was disappointed with station science mod. Soo, I stumbled across Kerbalism, and while it has some minor bugs it was awesome. I didn't start a new career back then though, and had a lot of advantage, even if some kerbals on the missions rapidly unscheduledly kicked the bucket because of LS requirements kicking in.. Well, as the time went by I had some issues here and there, and this weekend I decided to start a new career after all, taking in account the stuff I learned about Kerbalism, and tweaking some settings here and there to better suit what I'd like gameplay-wise.

I ended up removing Kerbalism altogether and going with TAC-LS (and some other mods of course), because, as I was switching off features, I realized there's little left of Kerbalism I actually wanted in a new game.

Here were my concerns, in no particular order:

• game performance suffers somewhat, there's very slight, but constant stutter
• it does not always play well with other mods, because these mods are balanced for vanilla, and Kerbalism rebalances some stuff. For example solar panels. So one has to make patches. There are compatibility patches bundled for some mods, but even these are not perfect, for example near future solars ec/weight/cost ratios are kinda inconsistent (they are not scaled as of latest versions, and instead have coded replacement values). It is not really hard to make patches, but overall it's a work, either for players or modders (or you) and begs the question - why was it even needed to rescale solars in the first place? Why not change ec only consumption values instead, main culprits here being life support, resource converter and ion engines, as far as I see it (and you scale engines' ec consumption anyway). Even if some consumer is not rescaled, I imagine it would average to a lesser effect compared to poorly scaled ec generation. There was the same issue with LS resources, but that one you did fix.
• malfunction mechanic, while fun at first, was most detrimental to gameplay. It makes strong point of having an engineer (which is nice) but:
  1. it makes unmanned long-range missions WAY too much pain. By the time a probe reaches some planet it is broken heavily, even worse if it's a lander and it can no longer land
  2. it makes skipping time (interplanetary travel / waiting for a good launch window) painful if I have ongoing missions, because stuff just rots, so I ended up having a lot of missions simultaneously, with poor launching schedule and ETA times and so on
  3. and these two points resonate with each other heavily. I could not wait for good interplanetary launch conditions because my other stuff would rot and I ended up with much longer approach routes which resulted in my missions failing even worse because of malfunctions
  4. there's also build quality, which adds to "I'd rather stay home" because by the time one would reasonably send an interplanetary mission, build quality is sub-par.
• insanity mechanic is pretty much the same thing but for kerbals, it has less effect within Kerbin SOI because rotating crew is not that hard, but overall prevents skipping time.
• radiation mechanic... again. And this one can result in kerbals dying without one having reasonable expectations, so it's kinda scary. How many storms will I have on a route to Jool? Who knows. Too scary. I'd better send a probe first, but oh wait, even if I make it a hedgehog of antennas all of them will break anyway.
• as a result, it seems the least painful way would be to only have at most one mission at a time. And no stations to housekeep :/

I am afraid I don't have good ideas to offer on how to make all of the stuff work. Well, maybe making some parts more "delicate" (science stuff) and other more resilient, maybe add a possibility of remote repair (software fix) with a chance of irreversible and complete failure.

[jlcarneiro]

1 hour ago, leomike said:

@jlcarneiro Do you have module manager installed? Also make sure the scrubber was not turned off on your vessel. Are you running KSP 1.1.2?

Yes, @leomike, I have its latest version (2.6.25). To be true, I didn't remember the scrubber, but I think it's on by default, right?

On another topic...

1 hour ago, enlait said:

[...]

• game performance suffers somewhat, there's very slight, but constant stutter

[...]

I've also noticed this stuttering. It's indeed slight, but constant (when doing delicate maneuvers it can give some trouble)...

If someone replied to me and I missed it, sorry... 

 

[leomike]

@jlcarneiro Scrubbers are enabled by default, but it's possible it was accidentally turned off or if you forgot EC generation (but that would also kill your Kerbal if you have climate enabled). Do you still have the save game?

@enlait I think each LS mod has it's own play style. Radiation, stress and malfunctions are major reasons why I love Kerbalism (along with the amazing interface). But I do agree that certain tweaks are annoying when trying to integrate with other mods.

[enlait]

@leomikeI don't dislike idea of malfunctions altogether, but it somehow did not work for me.

Actually, I just got an idea. What bothered me about malfunction mechanic was that stuff breaks mercilessly on interplanetary timescale, but just decreasing malfunction chance would make it too unlikely Kerbin-scale, and having many missions sucks because stuff breaks just as much in background. And logically speaking, why does stuff break so much in the first place, when it's not even used? So, maybe bring that background malfunction chance down by a lot (malfunctions caused by radiation) and introduce a chance of malfunction when a module is used instead, or something happens (like fiery atmospheric landing). Though I'm not quite sure how to handle modules that are used passively (solars) or continuously (refinery, reactors, lab, etc). But the general idea is to break more when it's active and less when it's just a space brick of hardware. That would make malfunctions less tied to the actual time and more to "events" on the mission.

Edited June 21, 2016 by enlait
better wording. Why is it so much trouble :/

[BashGordon33]

17 hours ago, leomike said:

@BashGordon33 That's in the dll. Alternatively you can use a scrubber instead of a recycler but that means it won't use filtration material and you will have unlimited water in atmosphere (condensation?).

Thank you, I've been trying to get that to work for hours. It seems every time I have a problem with this mod, their is an incredibly easy solution and I am just a dumbass. I once spent a whole day trying to add water and inline storage, but all I needed was to enable the realism

[leomike]

@enlait That's an interesting approach. For passive parts perhaps extend a bit the life span (right now parts will malfunction between 20 to 2000 days after launch) or offer a "sleep mode" on probes where we don't have any control (except turn sleep mode off) but with lower or no malfunctions. That could also help with the lag you experienced by disabling background processing for those vessels.

[brusura]

I am playing in sandbox, I have built a base on the mun and I never had a part breaking, I know that I have max quality and 5 stars engineering, but nothinig is breaking ever... is it normal? What are your breaking rate in sandbox?

Thanks

[leomike]

@brusura I don't have any experience in sandbox but from my understanding (which may be wrong) of the malfunction calculation, with maximum quality parts will break between 160 to 16,000 days after launch. Depending on how long your base has been there, it's possible you didn't reach the 160 mark yet and even if you did, malfunction happens randomly between those two times.

[brusura]

33 minutes ago, leomike said:

@brusura I don't have any experience in sandbox but from my understanding (which may be wrong) of the malfunction calculation, with maximum quality parts will break between 160 to 16,000 days after launch. Depending on how long your base has been there, it's possible you didn't reach the 160 mark yet and even if you did, malfunction happens randomly between those two times.

Oh thanks for the explanation

[dboi88]

I too have pulled the plug on Kerbalisim tonight. I just wanted to see how much of a performance hit i was actually getting and once Kerbalisim was removed KSP was running so so smooth i can't bring myself to reinstall it.

I mean it's literally gone from3-4 fps on the smallest ships to 20fps on the biggest. 

 

I'll be looking to give it another try if @ShotgunNinja manages to do any further optimization. @ShotgunNinja Are you still planning on developing the mod? I know it's only been 10 days since we last heard from you but that is 10 times longer than we've ever gone before without hearing anything.

[Rik]

Hey @ShotgunNinja

The sleep option could be a pretty nice addition to the gameplay mechanic and reduce background processing.  Sleep inactive probes or ships to avoid malfunctions and add an initial check on wake-up, NASA had more than a few probes that where fine when they left but had issues once they tried to initialize systems once they arrived on station.  You can remove them from background processing in transit but that doesn't guarantee everything is perfect when you wake it up.

The sleep option could extend to other processes, put pre-staged equipment on Duna to sleep to take it out of the background processing while your crewed ship is in transit or you put your mapping satellite to sleep after it's mission is complete taking it out of processing but leaving the option to turn it back on later if you need to use it as a relay.  Orbital stations or ships could be placed in sleep mode when empty or all Kerbals are frozen to simulate a caretaker status, the crew may need to fix stuff when they get to the ship/station wake up but it reduces the necessary tracking in the interim.  Probably a little more complicated since it may need to check for Kerbals and disable the sleep option when they're present.

The only loss to Kerbalism gameplay impacted by pulling sleeping craft from background processing is EC consumption, that could probably be explained away as reduced requirements while in caretaker mode or some other purely made up rationalization.

Just a thought born from the last few entries.