[1.12.2] BARIS - Building A Rocket Isn't Simple

[Geschosskopf]

13 hours ago, White Owl said:

Let's say I wanted to tweak the overall integration time, to make the default longer or shorter. Would changing the min and max number of workers in the constants file be a good way to accomplish that?

The fewer workers on a single ship, the more time it takes to integrate.  So you could just not hire so many, rather than messing with the files, which might cause other problems.

[Angelo Kerman]

16 hours ago, White Owl said:

Let's say I wanted to tweak the overall integration time, to make the default longer or shorter. Would changing the min and max number of workers in the constants file be a good way to accomplish that?

That's one way you could do it. The other way is to pile more workers onto a single project.

[Geschosskopf]

On 9/30/2017 at 3:31 PM, Angel-125 said:

That's one way you could do it. The other way is to pile more workers onto a single project.

I tried adjusting the numbers of workers in the constants.cfg file and it had no effect.  I'm guessing those numbers are read once at the creation of the save and never used again.

I was actually trying to speed things up, not slow things down.  Integration time is becoming a SEVERE bottleneck.  Right now, I've got the VAB fully upgraded so have 100 workers, 4 bays, and a max of 50 workers per bay.  Using 50 workers/bay gives the following integration times for relatively simple, 2-stage rockets:  1.25m ~10 days, 1.8m ~15 days, 2.5m ~20 days.  Adding a stage or a more complex payload adds 5-10 days to all these times.  I shudder to think how long it would take to do any thing meaningful at another planet.

Because of this, there's no point in having 4 bays.  The only way to use 4 bays is to decrease the workers in each bay, say to 25, which more than doubles integration time.  Thus, no benefit from doing any thing in parallel.

So, what I wanted to do was increase the total number of VAB workers to 200, so I could have 50/bay in each bay, and thus gain the benefits of parallel work.  But as mentioned, no matter what I did with the max total workers and number of workers per bay, I was still limited to the previously established values of 100 max and 50/bay.

It would be nice if the worker numbers, even the number of bays, were accessible from the in-game BARIS settings menu, so they'd actually have effect in games.  Right now, I'm seriously considering turning integration off simply because of the time lag it's forcing on me.  I like to do flotillas, so I need to make lots of ships at once

[Angelo Kerman]

 

I tried adjusting the numbers of workers in the constants.cfg file and it had no effect.  I'm guessing those numbers are read once at the creation of the save and never used again.

I was actually trying to speed things up, not slow things down.  Integration time is becoming a SEVERE bottleneck.  Right now, I've got the VAB fully upgraded so have 100 workers, 4 bays, and a max of 50 workers per bay.  Using 50 workers/bay gives the following integration times for relatively simple, 2-stage rockets:  1.25m ~10 days, 1.8m ~15 days, 2.5m ~20 days.  Adding a stage or a more complex payload adds 5-10 days to all these times.  I shudder to think how long it would take to do any thing meaningful at another planet.

Because of this, there's no point in having 4 bays.  The only way to use 4 bays is to decrease the workers in each bay, say to 25, which more than doubles integration time.  Thus, no benefit from doing any thing in parallel.

So, what I wanted to do was increase the total number of VAB workers to 200, so I could have 50/bay in each bay, and thus gain the benefits of parallel work.  But as mentioned, no matter what I did with the max total workers and number of workers per bay, I was still limited to the previously established values of 100 max and 50/bay.

It would be nice if the worker numbers, even the number of bays, were accessible from the in-game BARIS settings menu, so they'd actually have effect in games.  Right now, I'm seriously considering turning integration off simply because of the time lag it's forcing on me.  I like to do flotillas, so I need to make lots of ships at once

There are too many in game settings as it is but I will look into construction worker fixes and improvements this weekend. Gotta get ready for a job interview first.

[Angelo Kerman]

Just thought of a use for Reputation: as a bonus to worker productivity!

[dboi88]

 

Just thought of a use for Reputation: as a bonus to worker productivity!

I really like this idea

[Geschosskopf]

5 hours ago, Angel-125 said:

Just thought of a use for Reputation: as a bonus to worker productivity!

Good idea.  And maybe have rep buff quality if it doesn't already.

Also maybe tweak max workers to be 50x number of bays so you can actually use all bays, without making that an in-game setting.

[Athur Dent]

Is it posible to view your building up quality for certain parts? The MTBF rates in the part descriptions of the VAB stay the same even after several launches, so where should i look? 

[kewcet]

On 5.10.2017 at 6:02 PM, Athur Dent said:

Is it posible to view your building up quality for certain parts? The MTBF rates in the part descriptions of the VAB stay the same even after several launches, so where should i look? 

I have the question. Any ideas?

[Angelo Kerman]

On 10/7/2017 at 4:36 AM, kewcet said:

I have the question. Any ideas?

 

On 10/5/2017 at 9:02 AM, Athur Dent said:

Is it posible to view your building up quality for certain parts? The MTBF rates in the part descriptions of the VAB stay the same even after several launches, so where should i look? 

You can use the Test Bench to improve individual parts.

Big Angry Ravenous Ingestor of Spacecraft (BARIS) 1.4 is now available. Alternate nomenclature by @Geschosskopf

- Max workers increased to 200.
- You can adjust worker productivity in the configuration file. See IntegrationPerWorker.
- Reputation now affects worker productivity during vehicle integration.
- Facility level now affects worker productivity. See FacilityIntegrationMultiplier in the constants file.
- Fix for images not matching up properly with vehicle in the bay.
- Fix for error message requiring equipment when material requirements are disabled.
- Removed quality checks that happened when a fuel tank was emptied or filled to capacity- it was causing spam upon vehicle load.
- Timers are now reset when you activate or deactivate BARIS to prevent reliability check spamming when you leave BARIS off in your save for long periods of in-game time.
- In the options screen, clarified that any part that stores resources, not just fuel tanks, can spring leaks and fail.
- Add ability to customize the ModuleBreakableFuelTank leak messages.
- Parts with the Ablator resource now have more appropriate resource leak messages.
- Added option to allow command pods, cockpits, and probe cores to fail. If unchecked, they will never fail.
- Added option to allow parts to fail if they have crew capacity. If unchecked, a part with crew capacity will never fail.
- Command pods, cockpits, and probe cores are no longer excluded from part failures- unless they're not allowed to fail.
- Parts with ElectricCharge can now fail.
- Removed overall vessel reliability check that was set up during launch; it wasn't doing much except causing people to complain that their launches failed near the end of their flight to orbit.
- Fixed vessel modified spam that occurs when you attempt to modify a vessel after it has been integrated.
- Vessel integration completed dialog no longer shows integration bays that are empty.
- Edited vehicle integration status messages to improve clarity.
- Fixed missing title in "Has suffered another component failure" message.
- Fix for KCT vehicle integration.
- KSP 1.3.1 Update

 

[Geschosskopf]

16 minutes ago, Angel-125 said:

You can use the Test Bench to improve individual parts.

This is a feature I've found too expensive to ever use.  It costs significant amounts of both money (which is a painful but usually affordable) and science (which is WAY more than I usually have at the time, because I just blew my wad on unlocking the new parts I need to test).  Plus, on top of this, it takes lots of game time to get results.

What I do instead is make a girder framework to mount all the parts I want to test, with all the engines set up as 1 stage.  All the engines point down with thrust limiters set to 0.5, all the fuel tanks have minimum fuel.  I launch this without integration, stage it, let it run 15 seconds or so to see if anything fails, then recover it.  Over and over again.  The only money this costs is the price of any parts that explode, plus whatever fuel gets burned in the short time it runs.  In this way, I can get lots of flight experience on many parts at once in very little elapsed gametime for very little expense (including zero science).

Of course, the things still fail anyway, so I'm not sure how much good this does.  But I still find it way more attractive than the test bench  

 

16 minutes ago, Angel-125 said:

Big Angry Ravenous Ingestor of Spacecraft (BARIS) 1.4 is now available. Alternate nomenclature by @Geschosskopf

 

Will this work with 1.3.0 or only 1.3.1?  I'm holding off on taking my AKTC game to 1.3.1 until all the mods are updated, but I'd like to update BARIS before then.

 

16 minutes ago, Angel-125 said:

- Removed overall vessel reliability check that was set up during launch; it wasn't doing much except causing people to complain that their launches failed near the end of their flight to orbit.

All the changes look good, but I have a question about this one....   There have been several times now that I've gotten the message "(craft name) has suffered a catastrophic failure" as opposed to "(part name) as suffered a catastrophic failure".  When it says "craft name", the entire ship explodes and that's the only entry in the F3 list of events, other than noting that each crew member was killed.  No mention of individual parts.

When this happens, is it the result of this overall vessel check or is BARIS mistaking the craft name for a part name?

[Angelo Kerman]

16 minutes ago, Geschosskopf said:

This is a feature I've found too expensive to ever use.  It costs significant amounts of both money (which is a painful but usually affordable) and science (which is WAY more than I usually have at the time, because I just blew my wad on unlocking the new parts I need to test).  Plus, on top of this, it takes lots of game time to get results.

What I do instead is make a girder framework to mount all the parts I want to test, with all the engines set up as 1 stage.  All the engines point down with thrust limiters set to 0.5, all the fuel tanks have minimum fuel.  I launch this without integration, stage it, let it run 15 seconds or so to see if anything fails, then recover it.  Over and over again.  The only money this costs is the price of any parts that explode, plus whatever fuel gets burned in the short time it runs.  In this way, I can get lots of flight experience on many parts at once in very little elapsed gametime for very little expense (including zero science).

Of course, the things still fail anyway, so I'm not sure how much good this does.  But I still find it way more attractive than the test bench  

 

 

Will this work with 1.3.0 or only 1.3.1?  I'm holding off on taking my AKTC game to 1.3.1 until all the mods are updated, but I'd like to update BARIS before then.

 

All the changes look good, but I have a question about this one....   There have been several times now that I've gotten the message "(craft name) has suffered a catastrophic failure" as opposed to "(part name) as suffered a catastrophic failure".  When it says "craft name", the entire ship explodes and that's the only entry in the F3 list of events, other than noting that each crew member was killed.  No mention of individual parts.

When this happens, is it the result of this overall vessel check or is BARIS mistaking the craft name for a part name?

The preferred method of improving part quality is flight/static fire testing, so the test bench is working as intended. As for the craft failure, that's correct. Sometimes you just have  a bad day and everything falls apart.

BARIS 1.4 isn't compatible with KSP 1.3.0. There were significant changes.

Edited October 8, 2017 by Angel-125

[Geschosskopf]

45 minutes ago, Angel-125 said:

The preferred method of improving part quality is flight/static fire testing, so the test bench is working as intended. As for the craft failure, that's correct. Sometimes you just have  a bad day and everything falls apart.

I'm having a bad week right now   My luck with BARIS is very streaky.  Sometimes I might get 3 or 4 launches in a row that work perfectly with zero failures of any kind.  Then the next 5 or 6 explode on the way up, or lose their sustainer engines and fall back.  I'm currently having one of the latter runs.

 

45 minutes ago, Angel-125 said:

BARIS 1.4 isn't compatible with KSP 1.3.0. There were significant changes.

Oh well, guess I'll have to wait a bit longer to upgrade the game itself.

[Tyko]

I set up Integration processes and they add a deadline to KAC - awesome...but BARIS says I have a 1 day integration time and the alarm BARIS added to KAC is for 3 days in the future...

Any idea why that's happening?

[panarchist]

19 hours ago, Tyko said:

I set up Integration processes and they add a deadline to KAC - awesome...but BARIS says I have a 1 day integration time and the alarm BARIS added to KAC is for 3 days in the future...

Any idea why that's happening?

I had something similar - 6 days in the VAB integration screen became 8 days in KAC in the space center scene.

[ble210]

I don't have anything really substantive to say, but I just wanted to say that this mod looks really fantastic.  All the features, and all the customization options, is just great.

I have been looking for a part failure mod, and I'll probably try this one and Dangit.  Anyone here have any experience playing them both, and their thoughts?

[Athur Dent]

While i quite enjoy playing with this mod, it seems to have stopped working for me...

I reinstalled KSP for the 1.3.1 update, and launched my first rockets without vehicle integration but got not one single failure.

i even turned up the staging-failure chance to 100%, still i launched without problems.

 

Are there any incompabilities that could cause this? Or do i need to follow some special procedure after installing and enabeling the mod?

[Galileo]

48 minutes ago, Athur Dent said:

While i quite enjoy playing with this mod, it seems to have stopped working for me...

I reinstalled KSP for the 1.3.1 update, and launched my first rockets without vehicle integration but got not one single failure.

i even turned up the staging-failure chance to 100%, still i launched without problems.

 

Are there any incompabilities that could cause this? Or do i need to follow some special procedure after installing and enabeling the mod?

Are you using the latest release? v1.4 is the only version compatible with 1.3.1. If you updated KSP, and didn’t update BARIS, that may be your issue.

[Athur Dent]

10 hours ago, Galileo said:

Are you using the latest release? v1.4 is the only version compatible with 1.3.1. If you updated KSP, and didn’t update BARIS, that may be your issue.

Thanks for your reply, but i assure you that i completly wiped my ksp install and downloaded the v1.4 for the new 1.3.1 installation

[Athur Dent]

To further clarify this, in my log you can find multiple entries where BARIS produces errors.

[Death Engineering]

(btw played original BARIS on floppy when it was new!)

Having weird situation where in sandbox the mod seems to perform normally where the Integration timer counts down normally but when in career mode it is as if integration never commences. ie the number of days does not count down.   

 

Log:  https://1drv.ms/u/s!AlN5OvBh91ORtxVy8UMrNSOB2rn-

 

[Athur Dent]

i just confirmed the bug on a clean install, only with BARIS 1.4 and ModuleManager.  Failures do not happen at all. if needed, i can provide the log for the clean install too

[Bombaatu]

FYI, the OP still has this listed as 1.3 instead of 1.3.1

[Bombaatu]

I'm having an issue where the reliability isn't going up, even though I've gone through vehicle integration. Initial build, VI complete, showing reliability of 5/25. 

Any ideas? What info do you need?

[Angelo Kerman]

11 hours ago, Bombaatu said:

I'm having an issue where the reliability isn't going up, even though I've gone through vehicle integration. Initial build, VI complete, showing reliability of 5/25. 

Any ideas? What info do you need?

I'd need to see the exact steps you're taking, I don't see any issues on my end.