severedsolo

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

Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, Beetlecat said:

This is a weird and brilliant way to be OCD about part / engine testing. :D  --Though only doable once docking ports are unlocked. And no, I wasn't meaning to cheat the system by just deploying/recovering. My usual engine tests run for a couple minutes and varying thrust levels to allow for the expected failure or explosion. :)

Test stand test roleplay is actually really fun, and as it is it's got a pretty cool balancing effect: I think it's going to come more into play as rockets get bigger and more expensive. Early in career, it's easy to just advance gens by launching missions, which tend to be small/rather inexpensive, not a huge penalty on (uncrewed) failure. As you move to larger, more expensive rockets, it becomes more prohibitive to just throw rockets away for generations, so I'm all about a static fire test stand.

Already tested deploying a "stand"out of the SPH using launch clamps, but way off the runway so it doesn't get cleaned up. Stand is rooted to the ground, you can still deploy to runway, drive over, and integrate the part for testing. Hardwired to KSC electrical grid too haha :cool:

Edited by DasValdez

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DasValdez said:

Test stand test roleplay is actually really fun, and as it is it's got a pretty cool balancing effect: I think it's going to come more into play as rockets get bigger and more expensive. Early in career, it's easy to just advance gens by launching missions, which tend to be small/rather inexpensive, not a huge penalty on (uncrewed) failure. As you move to larger, more expensive rockets, it becomes more prohibitive to just throw rockets away for generations, so I'm all about a static fire test stand.

Already tested deploying a "stand"out of the SPH using launch clamps, but way off the runway so it doesn't get cleaned up. Stand is rooted to the ground, you can still deploy to runway, drive over, and integrate the part for testing. Hardwired to KSC electrical grid too haha :cool:

I'm really digging this idea! Do you mean you were able to place launch clamps off the runway-- or an actual craft you moved out of the way to avoid clean-up?

This goes really well with another thing I started to do, which was to house Kerbals in stationary basses/craft at the KSC, which forced me to deal with USI resources, and part failures of batteries, etc. and incur penalties using the Crew R&R mod, so I had to do crew rotation, too. Anything to make it wildly complicated even before making it to orbit... ;)

Edited by Beetlecat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Beetlecat said:

I'm really digging this idea! Do you mean you were able to place launch clamps off the runway-- or an actual craft you moved out of the way to avoid clean-up?

This goes really well with another thing I started to do, which was to house Kerbals in stationary basses/craft at the KSC, which forced me to deal with USI resources, and part failures of batteries, etc. and incur penalties using the Crew R&R mod, so I had to do crew rotation, too. Anything to make it wildly complicated even before making it to orbit... ;)

Dragging a craft including launch clamps off the side of the runway, so it's actually over by the VAB on the higher terrain. Doing the same for the field training mod for KSC facilities to give Kerbals basic training, but we digress from the thread topic. Happy to report first Kerbal in orbit today in UHC. Had a small issue on a previous mission with the gen 20 Terrier that rocked the safety rating of 1 after pad fit check, but no issued manifested during crewed launch. Whew.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, severedsolo said:

Eh... I keep thinking about this, but the conclusion I come to nearly every time is "not worth it" - alternator failure is really only a problem at launch, and chances are whatever you are launching has enough charge to get it to orbit in the 2 minutes or so it takes anyway, at which point your alternative power source would kick in. (If you disagree, please say so though - I would like a reason to change my mind)

Really liked TGApple's' other suggestions, too --  I agree alternator failures on rockets are kind of edge-case for what effect they have. Alternators in jet engines (on the other hand) are useful, and a failure for an aircraft could be wildly impactful. Planes don't often carry solar arrays, or means of generating power other than the engine itself.  Unless you were *only* speaking of rocket engines. :D

Oh, and confirming that static tests *do* indeed still work/work again. TY! I left a note on the github issue as well.

Edited by Beetlecat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Beetlecat said:

 Alternators in jet engines (on the other hand) are useful, and a failure for an aircraft could be wildly impactful.

See, that's what I was forgetting. For me planes are a necessary evil in the early game, I always forget that some of you nutters actually like flying around Kerbin - once I get the tech to land on/get to Mun, planes no longer exist to me.

Now for my next question, does EC failing on a plane actually do anything? I'm assuming reaction wheels mean it can't hold attitude or something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, severedsolo said:

See, that's what I was forgetting. For me planes are a necessary evil in the early game, I always forget that some of you nutters actually like flying around Kerbin - once I get the tech to land on/get to Mun, planes no longer exist to me.

Now for my next question, does EC failing on a plane actually do anything? I'm assuming reaction wheels mean it can't hold attitude or something?

Guilty as charged. I actually enjoy the tooling around Kerbin in planes aspect. :)

Off the top of my head, lack of EC would affect:

  • Reaction wheels, yes -- though a "good" plane design wouldn't want/use them
  • Use of powered wheels/landing gear, lights, and motorized components (Infernal Robotics?)
  • Probe/drone control (if unmanned craft)
  • Antennas & Science transfer (Does it affect CommNet connectivity?)
  • Cool IVA cockpits (w/ASET & RPM)
  • Life support mods TAC/USI(only some aspects-- I think they don't consume it if below a certain altitude on Kerbin)
  • Everything else would just be role-play considerations for things that aren't actually reliant on power in KSP: Hydraulic landing gear, air brakes, FBW controls.

Granted, this effect also happens with the loss-of-power failure on jet engines, but that prompts a different kind of emergency. Considering that an alternator failure could happen would mean adding battery capacity for emergency power to get to safety before losing nav/coms, etc.

Thanks for considering it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Beetlecat said:

Granted, this effect also happens with the loss-of-power failure on jet engines, but that prompts a different kind of emergency. Considering that an alternator failure could happen would mean adding battery capacity for emergency power to get to safety before losing nav/coms, etc. 

I just had a poke in the API, and assuming that outputRate does what I think it does, this looks easy enough to implement. Looks like I may even be able to make it a "slow burn" failure too (so have the alternators output gradually drop off).

Speaking of TAC Life Support.... I may just have a little fun with that, and have the "scrubbers" start to burn more EC when they fail etc (kinda like TGApple's "faulty wiring" for probes, but on manned missions too)

Edited by severedsolo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there,

I am having a lot of SRB failures (Gen 9, 9 safety rating). On a craft with 2 SRBs, I am getting a failure about once every two or three launches.

I'd show you my console output from this mod but uh, I'm not getting anything..?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect there may be an issue with the thrust reduction failure mode for liquid engines. Specifically, after leaving the craft and coming back to it I was able to set the thrust slider back up to maximum in the GUI, which seemed to reset the steady tick-down of thrust. It may be that reloading wasn't needed and just cutting throttle would reset it.

 

EDTI: I'm also seeing my generation 31 new terriers come out at "safety rating 1". As far as I can tell the number isn't correct, and failure part highlighting doesn't pick it up as the worst part: it picks a tank with rating 8.

Edited by TGApples

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, jospanner said:

I'd show you my console output from this mod but uh, I'm not getting anything..?

Can you zip up your SeveredSolo/OhScrap/Logs folder and send it (without starting the game, as that will delete old logs) please. This is a known issue, but I am still trying to track down what's causing it.

 

8 hours ago, TGApples said:

I suspect there may be an issue with the thrust reduction failure mode for liquid engines. Specifically, after leaving the craft and coming back to it I was able to set the thrust slider back up to maximum in the GUI, which seemed to reset the steady tick-down of thrust. It may be that reloading wasn't needed and just cutting throttle would reset it. 

 

EDTI: I'm also seeing my generation 31 new terriers come out at "safety rating 1". As far as I can tell the number isn't correct, and failure part highlighting doesn't pick it up as the worst part: it picks a tank with rating 8.

Raised under #12 and #13 - I changed the space engine calculation in the last build, I probably broke something

Edited by severedsolo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/16/2019 at 4:56 PM, severedsolo said:

I keep thinking about this, but the conclusion I come to nearly every time is "not worth it" - alternator failure is really only a problem at launch, and chances are whatever you are launching has enough charge to get it to orbit in the 2 minutes or so it takes anyway, at which point your alternative power source would kick in. (If you disagree, please say so though - I would like a reason to change my mind)

It would affect my orbital tugs; because they use a very limited amount of charge (and only really when using the engine as well) and have a big engine with an alternator, I rarely bother with the expense of Solar Panels, just a battery to make use of the alternator output.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/19/2019 at 6:48 AM, severedsolo said:

Can you zip up your SeveredSolo/OhScrap/Logs folder and send it (without starting the game, as that will delete old logs) please. This is a known issue, but I am still trying to track down what's causing it.

Ah I was having a problem with it not logging anything, it turns out you have to create this folder if it does not already exist.

Here is the test - 18 little SRBs, gen 7, only 3/18 ignite, which is identical to gen 1 performance.
https://imgur.com/a/a3wbXz4

And this is the extent of the log under the OhScrap/Logs folder. No errors appear in the KSP log....

Using Oh Scrap 1.4b5.1
[OhScrap]: Calculated chance of failure in next 2 minutes is 14%
Failure Chance: 0.06, Rolled: 0.229457926577636 Succeeded: False
[OhScrap]: Calculated chance of failure in next 30 days is 27%
Failure Chance: 0.06, Rolled: 0.549675670242717 Succeeded: False
[OhScrap]: Calculated chance of failure in next 30 days is 27%
Failure Chance: 0.06, Rolled: 0.798579691349799 Succeeded: False

...except possibly this? But it is after recovery.

[ScrapYard] Recovered
 
(Filename: C:/buildslave/unity/build/artifacts/generated/common/runtime/DebugBindings.gen.cpp Line: 51)

NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object
  at ScrapYard.InventoryPart..ctor (.ProtoPartSnapshot originPartSnapshot) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
  at ScrapYard.EventListeners.VesselRecovered (.ProtoVessel vessel, Boolean someBool) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
UnityEngine.DebugLogHandler:Internal_LogException(Exception, Object)
UnityEngine.DebugLogHandler:LogException(Exception, Object)
UnityEngine.Logger:LogException(Exception, Object)
UnityEngine.Debug:LogException(Exception)
ScrapYard.Logging:LogException(Exception)
ScrapYard.EventListeners:VesselRecovered(ProtoVessel, Boolean)
EventData`2:Fire(ProtoVessel, Boolean)
VesselRetrieval:recoverVessel(Vessel)
VesselRetrieval:recoverVessels()
<OnLevelLoaded>c__Iterator0:MoveNext()
UnityEngine.SetupCoroutine:InvokeMoveNext(IEnumerator, IntPtr)
 
(Filename:  Line: -1)

Here is the entire output log, in case you want it:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ra69xw8tj3mru2w/output_log.txt?dl=0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, jospanner said:

Here is the test - 18 little SRBs, gen 7, only 3/18 ignite, which is identical to gen 1 performance.

Yeah definitely something strange going on there... I'll set up a test later and see if I can figure it out, thanks for the logs - I haven't had a chance to look at them properly yet, but will take a good look tonight when my kid goes to bed.

Raised under #14 - I plan to work through all the issues on Github today and then do a release

Edited by severedsolo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it just me or do engines fail far too often on first use?  I put 6 SRBs out on the test stand before I started using them and 5 of them failed.  what?

 

Edited by Eugene Moreau

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

another question regarding failing SRBs.  I've had an SRB on the pad and it fails before launch.  I've tried rolling it back in, editing it, replacing it with a different SRB from inventory and then rolling it back out again.  Fails again.  The only way I can get it to not fail is to do a normal recovery and rebuild who ship from scratch.  

Is this intended behaviour?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Eugene Moreau said:

another question regarding failing SRBs.  I've had an SRB on the pad and it fails before launch.  I've tried rolling it back in, editing it, replacing it with a different SRB from inventory and then rolling it back out again.  Fails again.  The only way I can get it to not fail is to do a normal recovery and rebuild who ship from scratch.  

Is this intended behaviour?

There is a bug with some people's installs at the moment, if you read up a couple of comments I've posted about it as well. Can you provide your log file? It might help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Eugene Moreau it's related to the other SRB bug I was talking about earlier (same root cause). My best guess at the moment is that the code is being called from somewhere it shouldn't be and breaking things.

I need to get into Windows and run it through VS so I can use the breakpoints to see where it's being called from, but on Wednesday (when I planned to do this) my Windows install decided to break, so I had to reinstall and reinstall Unity/Visual Studio - by the time all that was done I ran out of time. I will try to find time to get it looked at over the weekend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tried this mod on my fresh career... and unfortunately, had to uninstall it.

Maybe I don't understand how it works. But... I've testfired an engine at launchpad, like, ten times, without any failures - and it still says its safety rating is "terrible"? Come on? This isn't how it works in real life.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, biohazard15 said:

Tried this mod on my fresh career... and unfortunately, had to uninstall it.

Maybe I don't understand how it works. But... I've testfired an engine at launchpad, like, ten times, without any failures - and it still says its safety rating is "terrible"? Come on? This isn't how it works in real life.

 

There may be something specifically glitchy with the mod, or possibly in how you're using it -- were you being sure to re-use your tested engines? Selecting it from the scrapyard inventory in the VAB/SPH? Otherwise it grabs a new engine, and you get the same high % of failure chance at first-run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Beetlecat said:

There may be something specifically glitchy with the mod, or possibly in how you're using it -- were you being sure to re-use your tested engines? Selecting it from the scrapyard inventory in the VAB/SPH? Otherwise it grabs a new engine, and you get the same high % of failure chance at first-run.

Hmm. Maybe. I was (and still am) under impression that you don't need to use already used parts to increase reliability rating...

I've disabled ScrapYard inventory for this save (I want a non-reusable career, except shuttles, which are covered by stock recover mechanic) - I've probably done something wrong, isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, biohazard15 said:

Hmm. Maybe. I was (and still am) under impression that you don't need to use already used parts to increase reliability rating.

While figuring out why you were still seeing "Terrible" ratings for your craft (maybe an average, or least-sturdy part rating?) is a different thing -- Parts do improve each generation, but Engines also have an individual reliability that improves after testing (the tested indicator).

At one point in this mod's development, it was something like a 50% chance to fail for a brand new engine the first time you start it up/stage it. Recovering and re-using that same engine reduces it to 25% (or something significantly lower), etc. This simulates the testing and tuning of a specific powerplant.

Maybe severedsolo can offer some more insight.

Edited by Beetlecat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

46 minutes ago, biohazard15 said:

I've disabled ScrapYard inventory for this save (I want a non-reusable career, except shuttles, which are covered by stock recover mechanic) - I've probably done something wrong, isn't it?

Do you still have the part tracker turned on? You should be seeing increases in safety ratings on parts... but yeah, you are going to be hampered without the inventory turned on.

You may also have been hit by #13 - from what I remember of that report, the displayed number is incorrect, but the actual underlying number is right (so it's not actually that likely to fail, it's just reporting that it is)

Also, I realise I've been saying this for a week and a half, but I REALLY AM going to sit down and give these reports some love tomorrow.

Edited by severedsolo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, biohazard15 said:

Tried this mod on my fresh career... and unfortunately, had to uninstall it.

Maybe I don't understand how it works. But... I've testfired an engine at launchpad, like, ten times, without any failures - and it still says its safety rating is "terrible"? Come on? This isn't how it works in real life.

For low generation parts, you do have to "preflight" them... basically run them out to the pad and recover them. You don't actually have to fire them, but you can pretend if you want. For a Gen 1 brand new part, that will move the reliability rating from 1 to like 5 or 6, so the second time you use THAT ACTUAL RECOVERED PART (not build a new copy of the same part) it will be less likely to have an issue. 

Once your parts get to a high enough generation (ie in the 8-10 range), they'll start off with a high reliability rating, and you no longer need to preflight them, just built them and go. 

When you start mixing part generations and start really reusing things (like pods), it gets a little confusing: there are some parts that need to be preflighted, and others that don't. In fact, if you preflight a rocket to increase the reliability rating of one part, that actually counts as an actual use for other parts on the rocket, which will DECREASE their reliability. 

My process is to buy disposal things like boosters in blocks, then preflight them all at once (without their capsule/payload). You "scrap" the block buy via KCT or just use stock recovery function on the pad, which puts those "tested" parts into your part inventory. Then you reuse the capsule/payload (already in part inventory) and add the tested booster parts to the craft, so the entire thing is either reused or properly preflighted... and you're go for launch. 

Once the entire vessel (I mean, all the part types on the vessel) are used enough times, their generation will be high enough that you can just built it all from scratch, skip the preflight, and just launch at max reliability.

 

Just now, severedsolo said:

You may also have been hit by #13 - from what I remember of that report, the displayed number is incorrect, but the actual underlying number is right (so it's not actually that likely to fail, it's just reporting that it is)

From my UHC, anecdotally, in 7 tourism missions using the Terrier we had 2 failures (an underthurst and a gimbal lock, neither critical). Missions were on-orbit for just over an hour, launch, 2 laps, reentry. We didn't get any other failures during that campaign. I didn't check the log to see any "saved" rolls, where it craft failed but parts all saved. We're sort of operating for now under the "terrier reliability is a known mod bug", UHC will review it if it fails and determine if we proceed or rollback the mission... even though we don't know if its just a display problem or not. 

As always, thanks for all the work on this @severedsolo !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems I've got it totally wrong... you have to re-use parts to get less fails, is that right? If so, this mod isn't for me, unfortunately. I was looking for something that increases reliability with every flight, successful or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, biohazard15 said:

It seems I've got it totally wrong... you have to re-use parts to get less fails, is that right? If so, this mod isn't for me, unfortunately. I was looking for something that increases reliability with every flight, successful or not.

It does both. You get more "bang for your buck" by reusing though - to get really reliable parts you need to build them around 10(? - it's been a while since I actually played) times to get maximum reliability if you aren't reusing. Reusing bumps the reliability massively (as Das said)

Edited by severedsolo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.