[1.12.x] MissingHistory v1.9.3: Handy parts to complement Making History.

[Tonka Crash]

3 hours ago, Barzon Kerman said:

And are you able to take the radiators from Atomic Age as well?

@linuxgurugamer has the radiators from Atomic Age parts in one of his recycled part mods. I've been using them successfully in 1.5.x & 1.6.  

@Snark I'm seeing an error thrown for a missing texture with the new parts:

[ERR 10:31:41.264] Texture 'MissingHistory/PorkjetParts/AtomicAge/KANDL/plasma' not found!

Edit to add: I don't know how KSP is supposed to work with duplicate parts, but linuxgamerguru's recycled Atomic Age parts has versions of the nuclear engines. It has the "Candle" engine with the same part name Missing History uses.

Edited January 2, 2019 by Tonka Crash
More Info

[linuxgurugamer]

It doesnt, the second part found with the same name is ignored

[Snark]

4 hours ago, Barzon Kerman said:

I don't know about what other people think, but a 2.5m nuclear engine might be better?

No idea what other people think.  Personally, though, I prefer to add a 1.875m engine, so that's that I'm adding. 

Seriously, though-- thank you for the suggestion.  It's not a bad idea, and actually I did consider it.  However, I decided to go with 1.875m, for a few reasons:

• I think it's a logical size-step up from 1.25m.  If I'd simply added a 2.5m engine, then it would have felt like there's a "hole" at the 1.875m level.  And the whole point of this mod is not to leave behind such holes.
• Even with Making History out for a year now, I often feel as though the 1.875m size is kinda under-utilized.  I like giving players (such as myself) more reason to use it.
• I kinda like having no nuke engine at 2.5m size-- it gives me something to design around when I'm building a really big interplanetary ship.
• I think the game does have room for a 2.5m nuclear engine... but it kinda feels to me like such an engine would be a significant step up in technology, maybe with significantly better stats in some way, and located on a new, higher-tier tech node in R&D.  Which would be closer to Porkjet's original 2.5m vision for the part, with its game-balance-changing stats (1500 Isp!!!)  There's nothing wrong with that as an idea... but it doesn't feel like it really fits here in this mod.  The aim of this mod is not to significantly rebalance the game; I want any new parts here to be balanced fairly similarly to stock.  (It's the same reason I didn't bring in Porkjet's LANTRN engine from Atomic Age.  Great part, neat idea.  It simply happens not to fit well with this mod's purpose.)

So that's why I did it the way I did, nor do I have any immediate plans to change that.

4 hours ago, Barzon Kerman said:

And are you able to take the radiators from Atomic Age as well?

Could, but won't.  No reason to.  Again, bear in mind that the purpose of this mod is not to just "provide all kinds of cool parts"-- I'm deliberately trying to keep it focused to a fairly stockalike experience and fill in "gaps".  Porkjet's radiators were, and still are, nifty.  However, they were produced in an older version of KSP where "active radiators" weren't a thing, and filled a gameplay gap at the time.  Since then, the stock game has given us deployable active radiators that do (IMO) a great job of serving that purpose, so there's not really any need for the extra radiators that Porkjet provided.  So I'm not putting them into this mod, in the interest of parsimony.  If folks want those radiators, they can always get them from some other mod,

1 hour ago, Tonka Crash said:

@linuxgurugamer has the radiators from Atomic Age parts in one of his recycled part mods. I've been using them successfully in 1.5.x & 1.6.

^ such as this one.

1 hour ago, Tonka Crash said:

I'm seeing an error thrown for a missing texture with the new parts:

[ERR 10:31:41.264] Texture 'MissingHistory/PorkjetParts/AtomicAge/KANDL/plasma' not found!

Argh.  Yep, I missed a spot.  Doesn't appear to hurt anything (you should be able to play just fine), but it's a wart, I'll tidy it up.

1 hour ago, Tonka Crash said:

I don't know how KSP is supposed to work with duplicate parts, but linuxgamerguru's recycled Atomic Age parts has versions of the nuclear engines. It has the "Candle" engine with the same part name Missing History uses.

48 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

It doesnt, the second part found with the same name is ignored

Sigh.  Yep, excellent point, that's a goof on my part.  Moral of the story:  when resurrecting / repurposing someone else's publicly available part, which other folks may already be using... change the part name to avoid potential collisions.

What I should have done was just change the name of the part when I added it.  I meant to do that, and I did do that for the BKN-7, but forgot to do it with the KANDL.  Oops.  Anyway, I'll fix it, thanks for calling it to my attention.  I can't simply rename it at this point, because anyone who already grabbed version 1.7 of this mod and launched a ship with a KANDL in it would get hosed if I just did that (i.e. if they updated to my new, "fixed" version, then they'd have a broken save with ships that contain no-longer-existing parts).  So, what I'll do is to rename the part, and add an MM patch that clones a "hidden" version of the part if @linuxgurugamer's mod isn't installed.  That should sort out the problem and prevent anyone from breaking.  Anyway, totally my bad, I just "missed a spot" while getting this out the door.  Oh well.

Stand by, new version incoming shortly.

[Snark]

Hi all,

I've released version 1.7.2 of MissingHistory.  Changes:

• Update the KANDL's plume to use the new FX kindly provided by @JadeOfMaar.  Accidentally left this out of yesterday's 1.7 release.
• Rename KANDL engine to avoid collision with other mods.  No visible effect in-game.  Includes a patch to protect anyone who may have already launched ships with this part from yesterday's release of 1.7.
• Tidy up a stray file that was causing errors in the log file.

Thanks to @Tonka Crash for pointing out both of the above problems! 

(And to @JadeOfMaar, again, for providing the new plumes.)

(And to all my users, for being patient with me when I goof.)

(And to anyone who is paying close attention and wondering, "um, what?  '1.7.2'? What about 1.7.1?" ... just move along.  Go about your business, citizen.  Nothing to see here.  It certainly couldn't possibly be the case that Snark tried to release a fix and called it 1.7.1 and screwed that up, too, because nobody could possibly be such a doofus as to release a fix for something-that-got-left-out and somehow leave something else out.  Nope, that would never happen.  It must be your imagination.)

[linuxgurugamer]

38 minutes ago, Snark said:

What I should have done was just change the name of the part when I added it.  I meant to do that, and I did do that for the BKN-7, but forgot to do it with the KANDL.  Oops.  Anyway, I'll fix it, thanks for calling it to my attention.  I can't simply rename it at this point, because anyone who already grabbed version 1.7 of this mod and launched a ship with a KANDL in it would get hosed if I just did that (i.e. if they updated to my new, "fixed" version, then they'd have a broken save with ships that contain no-longer-existing parts).  So, what I'll do is to rename the part, and add an MM patch that clones a "hidden" version of the part if @linuxgurugamer's mod isn't installed.  That should sort out the problem and prevent anyone from breaking.  Anyway, totally my bad, I just "missed a spot" while getting this out the door.  Oh well.

Thank you 

[OhioBob]

58 minutes ago, Snark said:

I'm deliberately trying to keep it focused to a fairly stockalike experience and fill in "gaps".

Which is why I really like this mod.  You and I seem to have a very similar philosophy when it comes to parts.  I'm generally not a big fan of part mods, but there are a few gaps here and there that are just begging to be filled.  I think you've done a nice job with this mod addressing those issues.  Thanks for that.  MissingHistory and BetterSRBs are really the only part mods I use anymore.

[flart]

Another compatibility change is needed , this time for the Community Parts Titles: 
"Tanks" have a different title pattern than "Structural" (the 06-12 adapter belong between FL-S40 Oscar-B Fuel Tank and FL-T100 Fuel Tank)
Could you make a separate localization tag for the fueled adapter (ex  #MissingHistory_adapterSmallMiniTall_title)?
Another possibility is changing the @name of the modified part to something new, then I could make changes in the spoiler on my side

UPD. Was you considering Ven's atomic small engine (Shiba) before integrate Porkjet's one? Just curious.

 

Spoiler

I can't do something like this on my side

@PART[adapterSmallMiniTall]:NEEDS[MissingHistory]
{
	@Title = #MissingHistory_adapterSmallMiniTall_title
}

Localization
{
    en-us
    {
        #MissingHistory_adapterSmallMiniTall_title = FL-ST060 Adapter 06-12  // Adapter 06-12-B
    }
}

 

because this way it will not be correct for people using an older ksp, with an older version of MH, where the adapter is still Structural

 

Edited January 4, 2019 by flart

[Snark]

5 hours ago, flart said:

Another compatibility change is needed , this time for the Community Parts Titles:

Sorry, I'm a little confused by the word "needed"?  Needed by whom for what?  Frankly, it looks like it's doing just fine with the current title, for me.

5 hours ago, flart said:

"Tanks" have a different title pattern than "Structural"

Nope.  This is completely wrong.  Because there is no "pattern".

For the record, there is no consistency or naming convention in stock KSP for fuel tanks that are also adapters.  Sure, I'll agree that it might be kinda nice if there were one, but there simply isn't one.  They're all over the map.  It's a total free-for-all:

• Some call themselves simply "Adapter".  Examples:  C7 Brand Adapter, C7 Brand Adapter Slanted, Mk2 to 1.25m Adapter, Mk3 to Mk2.5 Adapter, NCS Adapter, etc.
• Some call themselves "Fuel Tank Adapter".  Examples:  FL-A150 Fuel Tank Adapter, FL-A151S Fuel Tank Adapter, FL-A215 Adapter, etc.
• Some call themselves "Adapter Tank".  Examples:  Kerbodyne S3-S4 Adapter Tank, Kerbodyne Engine Cluster Adapter Tank
• Some don't have the word "Adapter" or "Tank" at all.  Examples:  Kerbodyne ADTP-2-3, Mk2 Bicoupler

So, since there's absolutely no rhyme or reason to any of this, nobody is able to say that a name "should" be something different.  Because there is no "should" here, alas.

I actually thought about this very issue when I repurposed the FL-A10 as a fuel tank, and considered renaming the part.  "Hmm, I changed its purpose from structural to fuel tank," thought I.  "There must be a naming convention," thought I (naively).  "I should go look at the existing parts and find the naming convention and then follow that," thought I.  So I went off and looked at the existing parts and immediately determined that there's absolutely no convention whatsoever.  They're all over the place.  There isn't even a "clear majority winner", really.  Nor is there a reliable chronological pattern, either (i.e. "they used to name stuff like this, but recently they've been naming stuff like that.")  There's simply no consistency anywhere.

So, if there's no guidance for what it "should" be named based on first principles, I decided that the correct thing to do is don't change the part title to avoid confusing people.  And it's worth noting that there's precedent for that.  In KSP 1.6, Squad just did exactly the same thing that I just did.  They changed the Kerbodyne ADTP-2-3 from being a structural part to being a fuel tank-- and they didn't change the title when they did so.

So, as far as I'm concerned, it has the correct title now, and changing it as you suggest would be wrong, so I'm not going to do that. 

5 hours ago, flart said:

Could you make a separate localization tag for the fueled adapter (ex  #MissingHistory_adapterSmallMiniTall_title)?

Nope, I like it the way it is, thanks.  By keeping Squad's title on it, I get the benefit of Squad's localization into various languages for free.  If I made my own tag, then I'd lose that (since I don't release this mod in any other language besides English).  So, not gonna do that.

6 hours ago, flart said:

Another possibility is changing the @name of the modified part to something new, then I could make changes in the spoiler on my side

No, I like it the way it is, to prevent having a proliferation of parts.  It's got the same model, there's no reason to clone it.  Besides, even if I did clone it, I'd still use Squad's localization tag in the cloned version and you'd still have the same "problem".  So, not gonna change that.

6 hours ago, flart said:

Was you considering Ven's atomic small engine (Shiba) before integrate Porkjet's one?

Nope, because I never heard of Ven's thing.  (Not to put too fine a point on it, I still haven't heard of it, since you haven't provided a link to a description or screenshot or anything.  Though if you have one, I'd love to see it, just out of curiosity.) 

In any case, I've already released MissingHistory 1.7, so it's a moot point now.

[Gapone]

the kandle engine has gimbal on pitch and roll (it rotates around) but no yaw gimbal i fixed it using the original model

Edited January 4, 2019 by Gapone

[flart]

1 hour ago, Snark said:

Needed by whom for what?

Needed by me for making a Community Parts Titles support

 

1 hour ago, Snark said:

Because there is no "pattern".

you have quoted only a second part of the sentence, the pattern is in the Community Parts Titles, that why I put a colon before.

 

1 hour ago, Snark said:

For the record, there is no consistency or naming convention in stock KSP for fuel tanks that are also adapters.  Sure, I'll agree that it might be kinda nice if there were one, but there simply isn't one.  They're all over the map.  It's a total free-for-all:

• Some call themselves simply "Adapter".  Examples:  C7 Brand Adapter, C7 Brand Adapter Slanted, Mk2 to 1.25m Adapter, Mk3 to Mk2.5 Adapter, NCS Adapter, etc.
• Some call themselves "Fuel Tank Adapter".  Examples:  FL-A150 Fuel Tank Adapter, FL-A151S Fuel Tank Adapter, FL-A215 Adapter, etc.
• Some call themselves "Adapter Tank".  Examples:  Kerbodyne S3-S4 Adapter Tank, Kerbodyne Engine Cluster Adapter Tank
• Some don't have the word "Adapter" or "Tank" at all.  Examples:  Kerbodyne ADTP-2-3, Mk2 Bicoupler

So, since there's absolutely no rhyme or reason to any of this, nobody is able to say that a name "should" be something different.  Because there is no "should" here, alas.

I actually thought about this very issue when I repurposed the FL-A10 as a fuel tank, and considered renaming the part.  "Hmm, I changed its purpose from structural to fuel tank," thought I.  "There must be a naming convention," thought I (naively).  "I should go look at the existing parts and find the naming convention and then follow that," thought I.  So I went off and looked at the existing parts and immediately determined that there's absolutely no convention whatsoever.  They're all over the place.  There isn't even a "clear majority winner", really.  Nor is there a reliable chronological pattern, either (i.e. "they used to name stuff like this, but recently they've been naming stuff like that.")  There's simply no consistency anywhere.

It is the pretty wordy arguments why Community Parts Titles is so cool 
 

1 hour ago, Snark said:

It's got the same model, there's no reason to clone it.

I am talking about a new name for the part, because MH makes the new part, despite it has the same model. 
Beside my problem, somewhere in the universe can be a patch, what assume, what the stock structural part adapterSmallMiniTall hasn't any resources.
 

1 hour ago, Snark said:

even if I did clone it ... you'd still have the same "problem".

If the new part has the new unique @name, I can make the CPT compatibility MM patch

 

UPD. Getting rid of the stock name also will not work... new localization tags is the best solution. I can find stock titles for all languages for that part and post .cfg there.

Edited January 4, 2019 by flart

[Snark]

9 hours ago, flart said:

Needed by me for making a Community Parts Titles support

Ah, okay.  This is your mod that you're creating?

So, I'm confused.  Do you have the ability to tinker with stock part titles?  Or not?

• If you do, then you've got no problem because you can do what you want with this part and with any other part.
• If you don't, then you'd be hosed even if I did what you want, because all the other stock parts have the exact same issue as this one.

Look-- I'd love to help you, if there's a way I can do so without inconveniencing myself too much or making this mod do something I don't want to do.  But this is now at the point of delving into technical minutiae of compatibility support, and is starting to completely derail this thread.  I'm happy to continue discussing the matter, but why don't we take this to a PM thread so that this mod thread doesn't get all tied up in technobabble?

[EDIT] After some discussion, we found an answer, folks.  MM filters FTW! 

[EchoLima]

@Snark , the services bays aren't balanced properly. The costs of the 1.25m and 2.5m versions are both 500, but the 1.875m part costs 1500. It also has the same mass as the 2.5m bay.

[theJesuit]

Just saying I really like this now that I've come to know it through getting it into the Simplex Techtree.  Also, it is in the Simplex Techtree 1.7 now.

Hoping for that custom IVA though... someone... please? 

Thanks for the good work @Snark.

Peace.

[Snark]

19 hours ago, EchoLima said:

@Snark , the services bays aren't balanced properly. The costs of the 1.25m and 2.5m versions are both 500, but the 1.875m part costs 1500. It also has the same mass as the 2.5m bay.

Thanks, I'll have a look!

This isn't the sort of thing I'd release an entire new MissingHistory version over, but if the stats for the part are out of whack, I'll roll a fix into the next release.  Thank you for pointing it out!

15 hours ago, theJesuit said:

Hoping for that custom IVA though... someone... please? 

Yep, I'd love to have one myself.  It'll have to wait until I've been able to recruit some modeler who's willing and able to do it (and by "do it", I mean not just model it, but have the time to collaborate with me on the design ideas), since I myself don't have the skill set to produce one.  So I definitely want this at some point, but it may be a while.  It'll be there when it's there.

[MaverickSawyer]

Nice! Love the return of the little RTG NTR...

Onne question, though... are you responsible for any MM patches to add additional functions to parts (i.e. switching the NTRs to run on LH2 from Cryo Engines instead of LF), or is that something I should take up with the maker of the mod whose functionality I wish to add (i.e., Nertea for my example above)?

[Snark]

Hi folks,

Just a note that I've just now released a new mod, SimpleFuelSwitch, which MissingHistory users may find useful.

It lets you switch the fuel type of stock tanks in the editor (e.g. any fuel tank can be an LF-only tank, if you want.)  Like this:

I don't usually use my mod threads to plug my other mods, but I'm making an exception in this case because I think it's specifically relevant to MissingHistory:  with 1.7, I added the 0.625m and 1.875m nuclear engines, but there aren't really any good LF-only tanks in the right size for those engines; it's annoying.  Well, this new mod takes care of that, so any tank you want can be an LF tank.  And now I can build ships like this. 

On 1/7/2019 at 12:39 PM, MaverickSawyer said:

Onne question, though... are you responsible for any MM patches to add additional functions to parts (i.e. switching the NTRs to run on LH2 from Cryo Engines instead of LF), or is that something I should take up with the maker of the mod whose functionality I wish to add (i.e., Nertea for my example above)?

It's one of those ad-hoc things, depends entirely on the predilections of the people involved.

For example, if I were in the habit of running Cryo Engines myself, then I'd probably go ahead and add that compatibility here.  But I don't, so I haven't.    You could ask Nertea about it, but I'm not sure how interested he'd be-- his mods are hugely popular, and I don't know if he'd have the bandwidth or inclination to add compatibility to his thing (just as I haven't added compatibility to his).  Usually when a cross-mod compatibility patch is needed, it's more common for the "smaller" (i.e. less well-known) mod to add a compatiblity patch for the "bigger" one.  Which would be me, except that I don't have the time to do that work.

Nothing stopping a third party (e.g. you, or anyone else) from making your own compatibility patches, though. 

[MaverickSawyer]

Okay, I'll look into what's involved in making such a patch.

[EchoLima]

Seeing as you've added Porkjet's engines to the Missing History, would you have interest in adding the Pork-alike Rapier mod as well?

It looks significantly better than the stock texture, IMO.

 

[Marxon]

Seems the download is not working properly for me, just got a 0 kb zip from spacedock that never finishes.

[Tonka Crash]

47 minutes ago, Marxon said:

Seems the download is not working properly for me, just got a 0 kb zip from spacedock that never finishes.

I just checked Spacedock and it worked, so it's on your end. You could also try to install using CKAN.

[Marxon]

1 minute ago, Tonka Crash said:

I just checked Spacedock and it worked, so it's on your end. You could also try to install using CKAN.

Will use CKAN then.

[Snark]

9 hours ago, EchoLima said:

Seeing as you've added Porkjet's engines to the Missing History, would you have interest in adding the Pork-alike Rapier mod as well?

I'm leaning towards "not"-- this mod is primarily intended as a "fill in the functional gaps" kind of thing, not really as a visual overhaul.  We already have plenty of visual overhauls, and the mod you allude to is already downloadable as a standalone mod by anyone who wants it.  So, no need to include it here-- this is not a mod pack, and that revamp-- while indubitably pretty-- is just a visual reskin, not filling a new role in the game.

When I added Porkjet's engines, it was for a few reasons:

• Had some new engines in it (the Valiant and the Pug), which I really liked and wanted to have.  Filled a good role in the 1.25m engine lineup, IMO.
• Didn't have one clear place to download them from as a standalone mod-- they were just a set of art resources, basically.  So there seemed to be value in making them available.
• Squad had not yet shown that they have "reskin the stock engines" on their agenda, nor had they made the commitment to provide quarterly releases.  It's clear now that they're intending to continue plowing effort into the game.  They've already replaced several of them by now in 1.5 and 1.6, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if they continue that trend over the next few releases.  So even though they haven't announced anything about it, I wouldn't be surprised if the remaining engines get an overhaul in the not-too-distant future, so I'd rather just wait and let manna arrive from heaven than spend time and effort now to try to "jump the gun", then just have to go back and undo it in a few months.
• The overhaul you link to is nice, yes, but (at least to my eye) isn't a quantum leap nicer over the current model.

So, basically, I guess that's a "no".

Thank you for suggesting, though! 

[Marxon]

Okay, missing history doesn't want to show up on ckan either...

Edit: it shows under incompatible...

Edited January 11, 2019 by Marxon

[Snark]

22 minutes ago, Marxon said:

Edit: it shows under incompatible...

Incompatible how?  I literally just clicked the "mark as 1.6.1 compatible" button on SpaceDock just a few minutes ago.  Perhaps it needs time to propagate?

The SpaceDock download works for most folks, so I'm not sure what issue you're having.  But if your browser has some sort of difficulty with the SpaceDock website, perhaps you could try downloading the zip directly from github?

[Marxon]

1 minute ago, Snark said:

Incompatible how?  I literally just clicked the "mark as 1.6.1 compatible" button on SpaceDock just a few minutes ago.  Perhaps it needs time to propagate?

The SpaceDock download works for most folks, so I'm not sure what issue you're having.  But if your browser has some sort of difficulty with the SpaceDock website, perhaps you could try downloading the zip directly from github?

I think CKAN is just being drunk, its not the only one falsely labelled incompatible that I've got installed. Aside from a little glitch in the editor where opening the advanced tab freezes the part selection grid, I got literally no issues.