[1.8.x] Oh Scrap!- A ScrapYard based Part Failure and Reliability Mod 2.0.1 (07/12/2019)

[magico13]

6 hours ago, severedsolo said:

So UPFM is I think basically ready to be released. To that end, I will be putting up a Release Candidate very shortly (once I iron out a couple of display issues).

Any other requests for ScrapYard? I've been considering moving it to release as well since all the main parts of it are done except some UI stuff and overriding funds. Especially if you're intending on having CKAN support then I'll prioritize getting ScrapYard finished up.

[severedsolo]

13 hours ago, magico13 said:

Any other requests for ScrapYard? I've been considering moving it to release as well since all the main parts of it are done except some UI stuff and overriding funds. Especially if you're intending on having CKAN support then I'll prioritize getting ScrapYard finished up.

Nothing that I can think off of the top of my head. The official release is not going to happen until at least 1.4 drops, so no rush.

[theonegalen]

On 2/25/2018 at 5:27 AM, severedsolo said:

Nothing that I can think off of the top of my head. The official release is not going to happen until at least 1.4 drops, so no rush.

As of right now, I'm wondering if we'll even have mods for 1.4. The idea of TT being able to sell anything I post on the forums after working on it for two years for free rankles.

Edited February 26, 2018 by theonegalen

[severedsolo]

25 minutes ago, theonegalen said:

As of right now, I'm wondering if we'll even have mods for 1.4. The idea of TT being able to sell anything I post on the forums after working on it for two years for free rankles.

I'm not going to jump off the deep end just yet. I was being serious with what I said on the discussion thread though. If Squad don't start clarifying, everything is coming down on 5 March.

[severedsolo]

At the moment Oh Scrap! is winning the poll - that doesn't mean it's the final name, but at this point in time it's looking likely:

Oh Scrap! Release Candidate 1 (0.99) Released!

• Added RadiationShielding from Kerbal Health to the resource blacklist (by github user dramsey-rcs - give me your forum name and I'll credit you properly)
• Vessel rating GUI will now be shown when you switch to flight view (and will actually display ratings, rather than just always giving you a 5).
• Some parts can now be repaired "remotely" (ie without requiring EVA) as long as you are connected to the homeworld by CommNet.
• To balance the above change: - Parts will become more likely to fail if they are repaired more than twice on the same mission (unsure about this change, doesn't seem to bad in my testing though).
• Fixed broken parts not disappearing from the GUI once fixed.
• Fixed messages always saying "100% chance of repair" (not sure if this made it into the last release, but added to changelog anyway).
• Tanks will no longer indicate that they can fail if they contain no resources that can leak (including displaying Safety Ratings etc, it should be as if UPFM is not there at all on those parts).
• License changed to All Rights Reserved
• Solar Panels will now start tracking again once the failure is repaired.
• Repaired parts will now automatically deactivate the highlight without having to mouse over.

 

RECOMMENDED YOU USE SCRAPYARD BUILD 72 ONLY DUE TO BUGS THAT DIRECTLY AFFECT UPFM IN BOTH EARLIER AND LATER BUILDS

Edited March 3, 2018 by severedsolo

[severedsolo]

PSA:

14 hours ago, UomoCapra said:

We are excited for the 1.4 release and look forward to the launch of the Making History Expansion next week. For our mod creators, please note an additional update 1.4.1 will come alongside that release and will need to be integrated as well.

None of my mods will be updated for 1.4, I will wait for the 1.4.1 release next week. At this point of time I don't know if any of them work and no support will be offered to users running 1.4.

There may be UPFM dev builds available for 1.4 because the build server automatically creates them when either I or Magico13 push to Github. Use at your own risk.

[severedsolo]

So this was supposed to be the release, but 1.4.1 and Making History really put the boot into this mod, I've had to make quite a few change under the hood, so I think I need one more release candidate.

Oh Scrap! Release Candidate 2 released

• Updated for KSP 1.4.1
• Fixed Solar Panel Tracking not being repaired
• Repaired parts will now turn off the highlight automatically
• GUI will now display the parts actual name, rather than the model name (ie "LV-909 "Terrier" Liquid Fuel Engine" rather than liquidEngine3)
• Implemented much simpler way of handling "broken" status (and will persist between loads)
• Future builds of parts that have failed will get a buff to their reliability.

 

[headstone]

21 hours ago, severedsolo said:

Oh Scrap! Release Candidate 2 released

What about backward compatability to 1.3.1 in this RC?

[severedsolo]

2 hours ago, headstone said:

What about backward compatability to 1.3.1 in this RC?

Sorry, as I said there have been some big under the hood changes both in this and ScrapYard, backwards compatibility is just not practical/feasible.

[severedsolo]

Let's do a release shall we?

Oh Scrap 1.0 Released!

Changes from RC2

• Tweaked failure rates (again) - target is now for any part to be able to achieve a safety rating of at LEAST 4 by the 5th new build.
• Fixed bug where new parts couldn't achieve a safety rating higher than 3 (I bloody knew the balance was off, I just couldn't figure out why!).
• Changed folder structure and mod name (sorry, you'll have to delete the old "UntitledFailures" folder manually and install this mod from scratch)

So, now that we have an official release, and ScrapYard is stable I'm going to change slightly the way I do things:

Release builds of Oh Scrap will only be targeted against the latest stable (release) build of ScrapYard. Where this is not possible/recommended (say if ScrapYard has a bug that breaks Oh Scrap!) I will bundle the relevant version with it. Otherwise, you can assume the release version is the one I'm targeting.

This is probably better for you guys anyway, because you know what version of ScrapYard I've built against rather than "whichever I happen to have sitting in my GameData folder today"

I'll update the OP in a bit, but I'm finally happy with it. Thanks for all the suggestions and feedback along the way.

Edited March 21, 2018 by severedsolo

[theonegalen]

Congratulations!

I have downloaded the mod.

[magico13]

I've added this to the save I've started for 1.4.1 (along with Monthly Budgets) and will let you know any suggestions I have/bugs I find. I might make a pull request every now and then if there's anything I really want tweaked.  Are you planning on adding it to SpaceDock/CKAN? CKAN would make using stable ScrapYard builds simple for end-users.

Congrats on the release, and thanks for all the input when working on ScrapYard! You making this mod against ScrapYard while I was developing it resulted in ScrapYard turning out much better than it would have otherwise!

 

Edit: It looks like you forgot to update your paths to reference the new folders. For instance, the button in the editor is just white. Also everything still says UPFM in-game.

More Edits: Found a bug: using the Apply option of ScrapYard does weird things to the generation (which might affect other things too). You probably need to listen to the new event I made for that button when KCT had similar issues with not recalculating. It's OnSYInventoryAppliedToPart. Also feature request, which I can help with: resizing the window (the line wrap is really bugging me) and remembering if the window is open separately in the editor and the flight scene. It's always open in the flight scene for me so far and never in the editor and I'd rather have the opposite, but if it just remembers the last state then that works for me. Another feature request (haven't tried this since RC2) when I press the button to trash a part in flight, let me unset that in case I press it accidentally. Also, are batteries supposed to be considered batteries and resource containers? I don't know what the different fail modes are yet so I don't know the difference.

Edited March 22, 2018 by magico13

[NoShotz]

Yeah, it would be nice if it were on CKAN.

[zekew11]

So I've been using this mod for a while now, and I have a kind of basic functionality question, as well as some balance input. If your interested in some things I'd love to see in the future, I can toss those out as well.

The question I have is whether number of failures on my vessel is a function of total mission time or total focused time. For example, I was running a moon mission on my career save. First a lander is sent un-crewed to munar orbit, and if it get there in a flight-worthy state, a crewed capsule is sent to rendezvous in low munar orbit. For the lander, I warped to the moon with the ship focused. I must have had 5 failures on my way there... my space program is cash strapped and doesn't really believe in test flights. With the lander only partially crippled, the crewed flight was a go. This time I had other business to attend to, and the trip to the moon was spent focused on other vessels or at the space center. Naturally, stuff didn't fail on the way out while the ship was unfocused, so at first glance it seems like I want to minimize time spent focused on my warping vessel... I'm wondering if this is true, or if, upon refocusing, the mod will attempt to "make up the difference" with a high failure rate... I'm a minmaxer, and I don't like when things like "am I focusing the vessel while I warp" factor into my strategy. It feels unfair to, for instance, go to the tracing station every time a vessel is en-route to the moon, but I'm also not going to sit with my duna ship all the way out... I've got a space program to run!

My balance input is pretty straightforward. My tanks keep leaking! I have a lot more tanks on my vessels than engines/batteries/solar panels etc, but it feels like the base failure rate is higher even than that of these other, more complex components. I would love to see this sort of failure integrated with something like kessler syndrome, but in my space-debris free career mode it's getting a bit silly.

 

[severedsolo]

11 hours ago, zekew11 said:

So I've been using this mod for a while now, and I have a kind of basic functionality question, as well as some balance input. If your interested in some things I'd love to see in the future, I can toss those out as well.

Always happy to take feature requests (doesn't mean they will make it in, but I'll listen!)

11 hours ago, zekew11 said:

The question I have is whether number of failures on my vessel is a function of total mission time or total focused time.

Basically the way it works is this: you load the vessel, we roll the dice. If the check fails, you get a failure at some point in the next 30 minutes (2 minutes if it's an engine). It won't play "catchup" when you reload, but it will roll the dice again.

 

11 hours ago, zekew11 said:

My balance input is pretty straightforward. My tanks keep leaking! I have a lot more tanks on my vessels than engines/batteries/solar panels etc, but it feels like the base failure rate is higher even than that of these other, more complex components. I would love to see this sort of failure integrated with something like kessler syndrome, but in my space-debris free career mode it's getting a bit silly.

Is this still happening with 1.0? There was a bug that was making fresh parts never reach their full potential after subsequent builds, which should now be fixed. For me it was solar panels that kept doing it, but I'm 99% certain I've squashed it now. Obviously if it's a build with brand new, never been used before parts (ie you've never used that kind of tank before), that's kind of working as intended. The only thing I can think of that may be an issue is that I made some changes to the shufflebag (random number generator) that might cause a few too many low rolls, so if it's still happening in 1.0 let me know and I'll roll that change back.

13 hours ago, magico13 said:

Edit: It looks like you forgot to update your paths to reference the new folders. For instance, the button in the editor is just white. Also everything still says UPFM in-game.

Whoops. That's now fixed.

13 hours ago, magico13 said:

using the Apply option of ScrapYard does weird things to the generation (which might affect other things too). You probably need to listen to the new event I made for that button when KCT had similar issues with not recalculating. It's OnSYInventoryAppliedToPart.

Bleh. That's what you get for trying to turn a debug feature into a release feature without testing it. Fixed thanks I also accidentally shipped a debug build by mistake.

Edit: actually looking at it again, the entire code for determining the generation is not fit for purpose. I'll rewrite it later today.

13 hours ago, magico13 said:

Another feature request (haven't tried this since RC2) when I press the button to trash a part in flight, let me unset that in case I press it accidentally

Done.

13 hours ago, magico13 said:

Also, are batteries supposed to be considered batteries and resource containers? I don't know what the different fail modes are yet so I don't know the difference.

That's one of the things I meant to fix up before release. The game treats them as resourse containers, so the module gets added, but electric charge is on the blacklist so the failure will never happen. I just need to update the MM patch to exclude them. Unfortunately I forgot by the time I spent TWO FREAKING HOURS trying to figure out why it kept failing to load because it couldn't find ScrapYard, before remembering that KSP loads folders in alphabetical order.

13 hours ago, magico13 said:

lso feature request, which I can help with: resizing the window (the line wrap is really bugging me) and remembering if the window is open separately in the editor and the flight scene.

Yeah I'll do this soon

Many thanks for all the feedback, new dev build is up that addresses 99% of these points.

Regarding CKAN - it's on the todo list, once I get the post release bugs hammered out.

Edited March 22, 2018 by severedsolo

[severedsolo]

Oh Scrap 1.0.1 Released!

• Updated paths and all references to UPFM to reference Oh Scrap! instead (god I love Visual Studios "rename all" feature)
• Fixed issue with generations being calculated incorrectly (and only being taken into account in calculations 50% of the time)
• Clicking "Trash Part" again will undo it (assuming the part isn't broken)
• Widened the GUI, re-enabled the button in the flight scene, made it remember whether you had it open or closed in each scene.

I'm also raising a PR for CKAN right now.

Edited March 22, 2018 by severedsolo

[magico13]

48 minutes ago, severedsolo said:

I'm also raising a PR for CKAN right now.

If you just put it on SpaceDock then they'll handle adding it to CKAN for you. But if you don't like SpaceDock and want to just use GitHub then you have to make the PR yourself. It's not too bad since you have a version file and can read most data out of that.

[zekew11]

On 3/21/2018 at 11:39 PM, severedsolo said:

Always happy to take feature requests (doesn't mean they will make it in, but I'll listen!)

The biggest things that feel missing from the mod are failure modes for 1) SRB's. 2) Antennas. and 3) Probe Cores. Redundant Avionics and Communications are a given on real spacecraft, becasue they break sometimes. The early game doesn't feel very balanced when liquid rockets break all the time with engine and tankage failures, while SRB's work every time. I think that SRB's should represent a more generally reliable option - they're much less complex, but they're also an option that holds potential for pretty much unrecoverable catastrophic failure.

Down in the details, decoupler and fairing seperation failures make sense for eventual implementation. A possible failure mode for both liquid and solid engines is failure to ignite on startup, in both destructive and benign varieties.

I know some things about how rockets break. I don't know how many things you know about how rockets break, but based on your progress here it would seem you also know a fair bit. I'm happy to share knowledge, have conversation in PM's, if you're interested. I hesitate to do so without you soliciting such: I've developed a game before, and there was a fine line between constructive feedback and people projecting their vision on me and expecting me to do the hard work implementing it. I want to stay respectful of your effort, ownership, and vision.

Edited March 27, 2018 by zekew11

[severedsolo]

14 hours ago, zekew11 said:

The biggest things that feel missing from the mod are failure modes for 1) SRB's. 2) Antennas. and 3) Probe Cores. Redundant Avionics and Communications are a given on real spacecraft, becasue they break sometimes. The early game doesn't feel very balanced when liquid rockets break all the time with engine and tankage failures, while SRB's work every time.

This catastrophic enough for you? (actual screenshot of testing SRB failures) - SRB and Antenna failures are now in the latest dev build - not going to do an official release just yet as I'm doing some balance testing.

I also remembered why I didn't do it in the first place - they needed a few things that the standard failure module I wrote couldn't handle. So obviously I wrote it, which now puts a framework in place for decoupler/fairing failures etc when I get a chance.

 

[zekew11]

16 minutes ago, severedsolo said:

This catastrophic enough for you? (actual screenshot of testing SRB failures) - SRB and Antenna failures are now in the latest dev build - not going to do an official release just yet as I'm doing some balance testing.

I also remembered why I didn't do it in the first place - they needed a few things that the standard failure module I wrote couldn't handle. So obviously I wrote it, which now puts a framework in place for decoupler/fairing failures etc when I get a chance.

 

I am extremely disappointed that I won't be getting back to my desktop for another week. Vacation is over rated.

[Jade_Falcon]

So far so good!  The only thing Ive noticed is that you get the SRB failed to ignite warning before youve actually started the SRB. 

[Jade_Falcon]

On 3/27/2018 at 1:02 PM, severedsolo said:

This catastrophic enough for you? (actual screenshot of testing SRB failures) - SRB and Antenna failures are now in the latest dev build - not going to do an official release just yet as I'm doing some balance testing.

I also remembered why I didn't do it in the first place - they needed a few things that the standard failure module I wrote couldn't handle. So obviously I wrote it, which now puts a framework in place for decoupler/fairing failures etc when I get a chance.

 

 

Re: Antenna failures, I did have one, but it still let me deploy and transmit science with it.  It was a Coatl Aerospace CA-A10 antenna, so I don't know if that was the cause. Its the only antenna that's failed so far, so Ill have to equip some stock antennas and see how those go.

[severedsolo]

20 minutes ago, Jade_Falcon said:

Re: Antenna failures, I did have one, but it still let me deploy and transmit science with it.  It was a Coatl Aerospace CA-A10 antenna, so I don't know if that was the cause. Its the only antenna that's failed so far, so Ill have to equip some stock antennas and see how those go.

I'm not entirely suprised it let you deploy it (I'm targeting ModuleDataTransmitter not ModuleDeployableAntenna), but it should have stopped the transmission. Tbh I barely tested that though (one of the reasons I've not done a release yet) so I'll take anohter look.

Worst case I'll do what DangIt! does and just break the deployable ones, but I liked the idea of all transmitters (including the ones in pods) being able to fail.

6 hours ago, Jade_Falcon said:

So far so good!  The only thing Ive noticed is that you get the SRB failed to ignite warning before youve actually started the SRB. 

The on screen message? or the one in the messages app?

Edited March 29, 2018 by severedsolo

[Kwebib]

I just posted this in the ScrapYard thread as I thought it was an issue there at first.

1 hour ago, Kwebib said:

It looks like if you build something and immediately recover it, Oh Scrap still calls the parts "new" (as it should) because they weren't tested. However, the KCT build time remains high because the parts are "new" even though you technically already built them, just didn't test them.

I also just noticed that this seems to happen in the SPH but not the VAB. I'm confused.  Is there some difference in the code between the two buildings? Let me know if I can help troubleshoot in anyway.

Edit: I did some more testing and posted my results in the ScrapYard thread:

https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/160257-141-scrapyard-the-common-part-inventory-110107-2018-03-18/&do=findComment&comment=3338670

Edited March 29, 2018 by Kwebib
Didn't want to spam another post.

[severedsolo]

17 hours ago, Jade_Falcon said:

So far so good!  The only thing Ive noticed is that you get the SRB failed to ignite warning before youve actually started the SRB. 

I've not been able to reproduce this. Could you provide a (preferably stock) craft where this happens?