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

[Snark]

9 minutes ago, Cavscout74 said:

Thanks for checking.  I tried reinstalling, with the MM 3.0.7 out of your zip instead of the one I already had, and no difference.  The older MH still works for me at least.

And you've got Making History installed in the standard place, in GameData/SquadExpansion/MakingHistory, yes?

[Cavscout74]

 

3 minutes ago, Snark said:

And you've got Making History installed in the standard place, in GameData/SquadExpansion/MakingHistory, yes?

Oh, I did not realize it was supposed to go in the SquadExpansion folder, I have it in base GameData.  I will give that a try in a minute - I'm in the middle of sending a small Jool fleet off to their destination right now.

[Snark]

35 minutes ago, Cavscout74 said:

 

Oh, I did not realize it was supposed to go in the SquadExpansion folder, I have it in base GameData.  I will give that a try in a minute - I'm in the middle of sending a small Jool fleet off to their destination right now.

Careful!  I said MAKING History,  not MISSING History!  my post above is just checking to make sure that you have the DLC correctly installed.

This mod, MissingHistory, goes directly into GameData, same as any other mod.  Nobody should be putting anything into SquadExpansion except Squad.

[Cavscout74]

Oops, my mistake.  Didn't get much in the way of sleep last night.  But yes, the DLC is in the correct location

[MacGregor]

Just wanted to say great mod! Thanks for making it. 

[Snark]

Hi everyone,

I've released version 1.3.3 of MissingHistory.  No new features or parts, just a couple of small updates:

• Fix a bug with the ejection force on the 1.25m engine plate.  (Thanks to @wile1411 for catching!)
• Make all the parts localizable.  (Thanks to github user yalov for suggesting!)

Note that MissingHistory isn't actually localized into any other languages yet (it's only English)... but this makes it localizable, so it'll be easy to add localization to other languages if-and-when desired.

[Fireheart318]

I have two suggestions; Mk0 fairings/structural tubes, and Mk0 engine plates. They have very niche uses like protecting parachutes on SSTO escape pods and stuff like that, but they're still uses nonetheless.

[Snark]

56 minutes ago, Fireheart318 said:

I have two suggestions; Mk0 fairings/structural tubes, and Mk0 engine plates. They have very niche uses like protecting parachutes on SSTO escape pods and stuff like that, but they're still uses nonetheless.

It's an interesting idea, but personally I have trouble finding use for them.

• Mk0 fairings:  Well, maybe not zero use, but I've been playing KSP a long time and never found myself wanting one.  Any time I have a 0.625m craft, I pretty much always have it sitting on top of a 1.25m stack at least, and it's easy just to put the whole shebang in a 1.25m fairing.
• Mk0 structural tube:  Have never needed it.  If I want a tall, skinny, rigid assembly that weighs basically nothing and is 0.625m, I just use a stack of octagonal struts.  Also, the structural tubes are a pain in the patookus to try to rescale because they have a bunch of custom drag cubes on them and it's incredibly tedious to work with.
• Mk0 engine plate:  I just don't see this as being a thing.   There's nothing smaller than 0.625m to mount on it!  If I want to put something below a 0.625m stack, I just stick a 0.625m  stack decoupler under it.  Also engine plates are a pain to rescale, same as for the tubes.

So thank you for the suggestion, but I don't think I'll be adding them here.  My goal with MissingHistory isn't to try to "make all the parts", but rather just to stay focused on specific parts that I think are highly needed and are kind of a "hole" for not being there.   I expect if demand is high, someone else will get around to making a mod with those in them. 

[Superfluous J]

1 hour ago, Fireheart318 said:

I have two suggestions; Mk0 fairings/structural tubes, and Mk0 engine plates. They have very niche uses like protecting parachutes on SSTO escape pods and stuff like that, but they're still uses nonetheless.

 

59 minutes ago, Snark said:

Mk0 structural tube:  Have never needed it.  If I want a tall, skinny, rigid assembly that weighs basically nothing and is 0.625m, I just use a stack of octagonal struts.  Also, the structural tubes are a pain in the patookus to try to rescale because they have a bunch of custom drag cubes on them and it's incredibly tedious to work with.

I have many times grabbed the smallest tube and attached it to mk0 parts, been slightly surprised it was too big, remembered they didn't make one, and then made do without. So I'd happily take one of those.

Fairings and plates I agree with, though I've yet to find a use for the plates in the game already so my opinion may be skewed there.

[canisin]

The plate could be useful for an ant engine which doesn't have a shroud or a parachute

[Snark]

17 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:

I have many times grabbed the smallest tube and attached it to mk0 parts, been slightly surprised it was too big, remembered they didn't make one, and then made do without. So I'd happily take one of those.

Agreed that a size-0 structural tube has non-zero utility.  It would be a reasonable part to have, and if it weren't such a massive pain in the butt to try to set up, I might consider it.  But the extreme tedium of trying to get it to work, plus the existence of the Octagonal Strut as an easy workaround, plus the fairly rare circumstance that I ever need a "massless spacer" like this anyway, puts it fairly low on my priority list.  Not saying that it'll never happen, just that it's a lot of work for a relatively modest benefit, is all.

 

2 hours ago, canisin said:

The plate could be useful for an ant engine which doesn't have a shroud or a parachute

The Ant engine doesn't have a parachute?  Could you explain what you mean?  None of the engines have parachutes.  I'm very confused.

Anyway, yes, I'm aware of the Ant's existence, but to me it still doesn't justify adding a 0.625m engine plate.

I'm a big fan of "part parsimony", i.e. I don't want there to be a gazillion parts in the game.  I find it elegant and appealing to have a relatively small number of parts which can be used to fulfill a wide variety of purposes, Lego-style.  In other words, to me, parts are "guilty until proven innocent", i.e. if I'm considering a potential part, I think the default decision should be that it shouldn't exist, unless there's a strong demonstrated need that it should.

And mainly I have two criteria for that:

• There should be at least one single reason why it's strongly needed (i.e. there's an awkward hole in the game without it)
• There should be multiple possible uses to put it to (i.e. not just one special-purpose way to use it).

To my mind, having a 0.625m engine plate satisfies neither one of these.

First, it's not really necessary (to me, anyway).  I rarely use the Ant, and on those occasions when I do, I almost always have a 1.25m shroud around the whole thing anyway.  Not once in the entire time I've been playing KSP has the Ant's lack-of-shroud discommoded me at all.  Either I happen not to be using Ant anyway, or else it's inside a 1.25m fairing.  And if somehow I ever did have a case that might come up where I need an unbroken 0.625m stack... probably the easiest workaround would be to just switch it out for a Spark.

Second, it's too special-purpose.  The Ant is the only little bitty engine without a shroud.  It simply isn't worth it.  To me, I would actively prefer not to have a 0.625m engine plate, simply because it would be an additional part cluttering up the parts tab which I never use.  It would have negative value to me:  adding clutter without adding utility.  So I just don't see any way I would ever add this part.

I recognize that other people have other play styles, and that just because a size-0 plate would have negative value for me doesn't necessarily mean it would for other folks.    So I'm not making light of the request, and thank you for the suggestion.  It's just not in the cards, is all.

[canisin]

Hello @Snark, thanks for the lovely explanation and actually I quite agree with it. When adding mods to my game I go through a similar thought process and usually decide not to add "heavy" part packs for the same reason. Or sometimes I add a pack and then trim out parts from it. As for the .625 engine plate, I for one wouldn't be bothered by it, because even though it might not be that useful, I would allow it in my game base on precedent. That is, there already is a line up of engine plates and this would be a part of it and as such the scrutiny for its guilt, as you have put it, would be waived.   ---- Why the hell does new line sometimes does not work in the post editor??!!? ---- Now, as for my silly sentence in my quoted post: It reads as: "the ant does not have a shroud" and "the .625 engine plate could also be useful for attaching parts above a mk1 parachute" Chalk it up to me not being a native speaker and failing at constructing a complicated sentence.

[Snark]

50 minutes ago, canisin said:

It reads as: "the ant does not have a shroud" and "the .625 engine plate could also be useful for attaching parts above a mk1 parachute" Chalk it up to me not being a native speaker and failing at constructing a complicated sentence.

Ah, okay, oops.  Sorry about that, my bad. 

Well, I suppose one could attach a parachute that way... but when I want a parachute, I just attach it on top.  That's kinda where it's designed to go anyway.  Agreed that there can occasionally be circumstances where putting the parachute on top is a little awkward, but in my boat the answer to that would be for someone to design a different parachute (e.g. one that's friendlier to small probes) rather than cobbling together an engine plate for that one specific purpose.

[Fireheart318]

5 hours ago, Snark said:

Ah, okay, oops.  Sorry about that, my bad. 

Well, I suppose one could attach a parachute that way... but when I want a parachute, I just attach it on top.  That's kinda where it's designed to go anyway.  Agreed that there can occasionally be circumstances where putting the parachute on top is a little awkward, but in my boat the answer to that would be for someone to design a different parachute (e.g. one that's friendlier to small probes) rather than cobbling together an engine plate for that one specific purpose.

1

I guess that's another reason for the Mk0 fairing I suggested as well. You could turn it upside down and put the engine on the second node.

[YourAgony]

nice Parts

[JH4C]

I finally bought the expansion in the last Steam sale, and am now able to make best use of this. One thing that worried me about installing it was regarding the PorkJet parts; I have them already from another add-on and was concerned about conflicts. Thank you for putting all the related files into a single subdirectory, it made it very easy to prune them out!

[Snark]

6 hours ago, JH4C said:

Thank you for putting all the related files into a single subdirectory, it made it very easy to prune them out!

Quite welcome, and no, that wasn't an accident.    I'm very cognizant that not everyone always wants everything, when a mod does multiple things, so I always try to factor them in a way that makes it easy for people to lop off the bits they don't want, where possible.  Glad it worked out for you!

[RealKerbal3x]

This mod looks great. I’m surprised I haven’t found it yet! I just have one question: I have a couple of craft currently in flight using the Terrier engine, and I see that this modifies the Terrier. Will my craft break or be deleted?

[Snark]

36 minutes ago, RealKerbal3x said:

I have a couple of craft currently in flight using the Terrier engine, and I see that this modifies the Terrier. Will my craft break or be deleted?

I believe that it ought to be okay.

However... I'd suggest doing a test first, just to verify:  make a backup copy of your persistent.sfs file, before installing the mod.  Then try it out.  That way, if there do turn out to be any issues, you can always just quit KSP, uninstall the mod (or just delete the config that pertains to the Terrier), restore your old persistent.sfs, and be on your way.

(I think it ought to be okay for ships that are already in flight, and also ought to be okay for new ships that you build in the VAB.  I'm not sure about ships that are already designed-and-saved in the VAB but not launched yet-- it may require "refreshing" the designs by opening them in the editor, deleting the Terrier, replacing it with a fresh copy, and re-saving.)

Sorry I don't have a more definitive answer-- I have such a horror of potential career breakages, myself, that I never install new mods in mid-career (I always pick my set of mods as I'm preparing to start a new career).  I sometimes forget that not everyone's as paranoid as me. 

To be clear:  If for any reason you have issues with the Terrier-- or simply just plain don't like what this mod does with it-- it's easy to snip it out of the mod so that you get everything else intact.  Just delete the following file from your MissingHistory install:

• GameData\MissingHistory\PorkjetParts\Engine\liquidEngineLV-909.cfg

...if you do that, then the mod will leave the Terrier alone and not touch it.

[RealKerbal3x]

So @Snark I tried installing the mod to my game, and checked both a vessel in flight and an unlaunched vessel and both seemed to be fine. There was no weirdness, which is good

[linuxgurugamer]

@Snark

I found an incompatibility with this mod and the following:

• Color Coded Cans (CCC)
• FuelTanksPlus (FTP)

It seems that this mod replaces the model for the tanks, and so does CCC, but only when FTP is installed.  The end result is that the attachment points are far outside the tanks in this case.

I would suggest that your changes to the stock tanks be disabled if both CCC and FTP are installed, since CCC also replaces the textures, and has more variants.

The following takes care of this issue (repease on all 4 of the configs):

@PART[fuelTankSmallFlat]:NEEDS[!ColorCodedCans&!FuelTanksPlus]

The alternative would be to delete the file:   ColorCodedCanisters-MM-FTP-size1, in order to let this mod take precedence, but then there would be no need for CCC

What I don't know is about the models, is there an advantage to using the models included with this mod (ie:  PortJet's revamped parts)?  

[Snark]

3 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:

I would suggest that your changes to the stock tanks be disabled if both CCC and FTP are installed

Okay, but the MM snippet above would disable it if either one is installed, yes?  "needs not CCC and not FTP"... should that be a | rather than a &?

 

3 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:

What I don't know is about the models, is there an advantage to using the models included with this mod (ie:  PortJet's revamped parts)?

Well, the models aren't all that big a deal-- yes, they're different from the stock models, but not hugely so.  I think most of the value is in the textures, and the model just comes along for the ride.  Have never tried out CCC and/or FTP myself, so I'm in no position to judge aesthetics, but certainly "disable MissingHistory in that case" seems like a reasonable thing.  If people are running CCC + FTP, presumably they're doing so for a reason, so letting that be the default would make sense.  And if they want to have CCC + FTP + MissingHistory, and want the MissingHistory tanks for some reason, they can just delete the relevant file that you mention.

[linuxgurugamer]

10 minutes ago, Snark said:

4 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:

I would suggest that your changes to the stock tanks be disabled if both CCC and FTP are installed

Okay, but the MM snippet above would disable it if either one is installed, yes?  "needs not CCC and not FTP"... should that be a | rather than a &?

No, it should only be disabled if BOTH were installed, which is why I have an &

The problem only happens when both are installed

[Snark]

1 minute ago, linuxgurugamer said:

No, it should only be disabled if BOTH were installed, which is why I have an &

Right.  So if CCC is not installed, OR FTP is not installed, then it should be active.  Correct?  You said,

NEEDS[!ColorCodedCans&!FuelTanksPlus]

...which is saying "needs not-CCC AND not-FTP".  In other words, I read the MM as saying "this needs both of them to be not installed".

Here are the possible cases,:

1. Neither CCC nor FTP are installed
2. CCC is installed, but not FTP
3. FTP is installed, but not CCC
4. Both CCC and FTP are installed

So, if I understand you correctly, MissingHistory is supposed to be enabled for cases 1, 2, and 3, but disabled for case 4, correct?

Except that the snippet you gave me looks like it would be enabled only for case 1, and would be disabled for 2, 3, and 4.  Thus my confusion.

[linuxgurugamer]

The snipit I gave was a "not A and not B"

Yes, for your cases 1,2 3 it should be enabled and not  4.

This only applies to the 1.25m tanks

Edited July 29, 2018 by linuxgurugamer