Snark

[1.8.x] MissingHistory v1.8: Handy parts to complement Making History.

Recommended Posts

19 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:

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

Okay, so in that case the actual syntax I'd need would be,

NEEDS[!ColorCodedCans|!FuelTanksPlus]

...with a | instead of a &.  Thanks, got it.

Share this post


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

Okay, so in that case the actual syntax I'd need would be,


NEEDS[!ColorCodedCans|!FuelTanksPlus]

...with a | instead of a &.  Thanks, got it.

I dont understand, you keep using an "or" instead of an "and", which is wrong.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

I dont understand, you keep using an "or" instead of an "and", which is wrong.

No, what I'm saying is that an "and" is wrong, and "or" is correct, given the behavior you've stated is desirable here.

Suppose CCC is installed, and FTP isn't installed.

In that case, we want MissingHistory to be enabled, yes?  In other words, we want the "NEEDS" clause to evaluate to true, correct?

Your proposed snippet is this (spaces added for emphasis),

NEEDS[  !ColorCodedCans   &   !FuelTanksPlus ]

So, that's an "&".  Therefore, the overall expression evaluates to true only if both of the clauses are true (because that's what "and" means).

So, what happens when CCC is present, and FTP isn't?  Let's look at those two clauses-- call them A and B:

  • Clause A:  CCC is present --> therefore !ColorCodedCans evaluates to false.
  • Clause B:  FTP isn't present --> therefore !FuelTanksPlus evaluates to true.

So, since A is false and B is true, the expression A&B is false, and therefore MissingHistory would be disabled.  Which according to you is not what we want.  Right?

 

It sounds to me as though what you want is essentially !(A&B).  But what you're saying is !A & !B, which is not the same thing as !(A&B).

I put the "or" there because !A | !B is equivalent to !(A&B).

Share this post


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

Facepalm!!!!

Absolute correct

Thanks. Having been on the other end of conversations like that, at work as a software engineer, I feel your pain.  ;)

Since I know you well enough to know that you're perfectly aware of how boolean expressions work, I was guessing this was simply the sort of temporary brain fart that I'm often prone to, myself.  Just wanted to make sure that there wasn't something obvious I was missing.

Anyway, TYVM for the heads up!  Glad we got it sorted, I'll look into patching.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey @Snark, I would like to suggest a feature. KSC2 (otherwise known as Baikerbanur) has always seemed to be an analogue of the historic Baikonur launch site in Kazakhstan. Would it be possible to make KSC2 a launch site using the MH launch site switcher?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, HansonKerman said:

This mod does that.

Would be nice to have KSC2 in the stock launch site switcher, without having to install another mod.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RealKerbal3x said:

Hey @Snark, I would like to suggest a feature. KSC2 (otherwise known as Baikerbanur) has always seemed to be an analogue of the historic Baikonur launch site in Kazakhstan. Would it be possible to make KSC2 a launch site using the MH launch site switcher?

I can see how some folks would find that fun, so thank you for the suggestion.  :)  However, it's not really on the table for MissingHistory.  The intent of this mod is to provide parts, nothing more-- it's deliberately limited in scope.

Putting in extra gameplay features like that isn't something I particularly want to spend bandwidth on creating and maintaining-- particularly given that there's already a mod out there that does it.  It only takes a few seconds to install a mod, so anyone who wants that can have it trivially easily with a couple of mouse clicks.  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about a probe core which has the golden record? Kinda like Voyager I and Voyager II?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Snark said:

I can see how some folks would find that fun, so thank you for the suggestion.  :)  However, it's not really on the table for MissingHistory.  The intent of this mod is to provide parts, nothing more-- it's deliberately limited in scope.

Putting in extra gameplay features like that isn't something I particularly want to spend bandwidth on creating and maintaining-- particularly given that there's already a mod out there that does it.  It only takes a few seconds to install a mod, so anyone who wants that can have it trivially easily with a couple of mouse clicks.  ;)

Yeah, makes sense :) Just parts for this mod then.

Share this post


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

Also some 1.875m adapters.

A 1.875m x 1.25m adapter can be made by duplicating and rescaling the Kerbodyne ADTP-2-3.  I've done this in my BetterSRBs mod.  I also wanted to have a 1.875m x 2.5m adapter, but unfortunately there are no existing parts that can be duplicated that has this size ratio.  It would take a new model to do that.

 

Edited by OhioBob

Share this post


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

Also some 1.875m adapters.

2 minutes ago, OhioBob said:

A 1.875m x 1.25m adapter can be made by duplicating and rescaling the Kerbodyne ADTP-2-3

I'm confused.  We already have 1.875m x 1.25m adapters.  Two of them, in fact-- one short and one long.  I use 'em all the time.  Am I missing something, here?

3 minutes ago, OhioBob said:

I also wanted to have a 1.875m x 2.5m adapter, but unfortunately there are no existing parts that can be duplicated that has this size ratio.

You mean, except for the one that's already in Making History?  I use it all the time, it's a very useful tank.

20 minutes ago, adsii1970 said:

What about a probe core which has the golden record? Kinda like Voyager I and Voyager II?

The 1.875m already has a golden record.  Y'know, inside it where it's not visible.  :sticktongue:

...sorry, couldn't resist.  ;)   Anyway, no, not here.  The intent of this mod is a purely functional one:  provide parts in sizes that would be useful when building ships, which are conspicuous by their absence.  For example, MissingHistory provides a whole bunch of miscellaneous 1.875m parts, simply because Making History doesn't, and it's awkward to build a 1.875m rocket without them.

MissingHistory does not and will not add stuff just for historical "color".  It adds exactly one probe core-- a 1.875m one-- because there's a need for being able to have a probe core in a 1.875m stack.  So, there's no reason to add any other probe cores.

There's nothing wrong with the idea of adding stuff like the probe core you describe-- and thanks for the suggestion.  It just happens to be the case that that sort of thing is not really what this mod is about.  This is a "functional" mod, not a "color" one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Snark said:

I'm confused.  We already have 1.875m x 1.25m adapters.  Two of them, in fact-- one short and one long.  I use 'em all the time.  Am I missing something, here?

You mean, except for the one that's already in Making History?  I use it all the time, it's a very useful tank.

Really?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, HansonKerman said:

Really?

Sure.  There's a "short" 1.875-to-1.25 adapter that holds a little under one ton of fuel, and then there's a "tall" 1.875-to-1.25m adapter that holds 3 tons.  Then there's the 1.875m-to-2.5m adapter that holds 5 tons of fuel.

They're really useful, I use 'em all the time.  "Skipper plus 16-ton Rockomax tank plus 5-ton 1.875m-to-2.5m adapter" makes a really great lower stage for boosting a 1.875m rocket stack, for example.  And that 3-ton adapter for 1.25m-to-1.875m is great-- I often use them in early career for radial boosters.  I'll take the conical Soyuz tank (whose bottom end is 1.875m), then put one of those 3-ton adapters upside-down on the bottom of it (thus narrowing it to 1.25m), then a Swivel or Reliant on that.  Super aerodynamic, pretty good fuel capacity, easy to build at low tech.

That was one of the things I really love about Making History-- it provides lots of nice conical adapter fuel tanks, which KSP had rather a shortage of, before.  The one conspicuous "gap" that they left was a fueled 2.5-to-3.75m tank, which is why I added one in MissingHistory by rescaling the 1.25-to-1.875m adapter tank.  But that's the only one I added... because it's the only missing piece.  Every other size transition has an adapter already-- we don't need any more, seems to me.

 

Share this post


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

I'm confused.  We already have 1.875m x 1.25m adapters.  Two of them, in fact-- one short and one long.  I use 'em all the time.  Am I missing something, here?

You mean, except for the one that's already in Making History?  I use it all the time, it's a very useful tank.

There are conical fuel tanks, but there aren't any simple structural adapters of that size.  I use the fuel tank adapters all the time, they are quite convenient.

Structural adapters would be useful when you don't need propellant.  Such as adapting a 1.875m SRB to an inline stack.  (This is why I added the adapter to my SRB mod.)  Of course the fuel tank adapters could be used for this purpose with the fuel removed.  But a dedicated structural adapter can be made cheaper and lighter to give it some advantage over the fuel tanks.
 

Edited by OhioBob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, OhioBob said:

structural adapters

Ah, okay, now I understand.  :)  Sorry, to me, "adapter" means "fuel tank adapter"-- if I ever want to specifically indicate a structural (i.e. fuel-less) adapter, that's "structural adapter" to me.

39 minutes ago, OhioBob said:

Structural adapters would be useful when you don't need propellant.

Makes sense.  It's the sort of situation that basically never, ever comes up in my own gameplay-- ever-- which is why I tend to blindly assume "fuel tank adapter" whenever the word "adapter" pops up by itself.

I simply have no use for unfueled conical adapters-- I always want fuel in them, and the only time I ever use an unfueled one is when a fueled alternative isn't available.

  • Central LFO stack?  I want fuel.
  • Radial booster?  I want fuel, regardless of what kind of booster it is.  Even if the radial booster were a 1.875m SRB, I'll just put a fullly-fueled conical adapter on top, then enable crossfeed on the radial decoupler so that I get some asparagus-style benefit.  My center-stack LFO engine can drain that conical adapter while the SRB is burning.
  • SRB under the main central stack?  I never need any conical adapter at all there, because the SRB is the same diameter as the LFO stack above it.
39 minutes ago, OhioBob said:

Such as adapting a 1.875m SRB to an inline stack.

^ Okay, that's a legitimate place where there's not really any good way to leverage having LFO inside the adapter.  But it doesn't come up in my own gameplay, ever, because I never ever put a bigger-diameter SRB under a smaller-diameter stack.  If I had a 1.25m rocket, I'd put a 1.25m SRB under it, not a 1.875m SRB-- just to reduce drag, if nothing else.

I suppose it comes down to a question of player-utility versus player-cost, when considering whether a given part should be added.  I really like the "Lego" nature of KSP, i.e. the way it's possible to construct an endless variety of rockets with only a few basic parts.  I really like that there are a relatively small number of parts-- i.e. that the variety in the game comes from the way the player assembles them, rather than from having thousands of different, ultra-specialized parts.

So for me, there's a "principle of parsimony" that states "fewer parts are better"-- a part should only exist if it's conspicuous by its absence, i.e. if the benefit it brings to gameplay outweighs the unavoidable clutter it causes merely by existing.

Based purely on my own gameplay, therefore, I'd never want to add more unfueled adapters, simply because I have no use for them.  Heck, in my own gameplay I've added MM config to hide the unfueled 2.5m-to-3.75m adapter, simply because I never ever have any use for it and therefore its mere existence offends me.  :)

I recognize that other players have different play styles-- for example, the use case you bring up is clearly a relevant one for you.  I'm kinda curious how often it comes up for players-in-general, though.  Is having a wider variety of unfueled adpaters something that people want, in general?  Or would most people not use them?

(In the particular case of, for example, a "Stomper" 1.875m SRB with a short 1.875m-to-1.25m adapter on top of it, such as you suggest:  I note that the fuel-empty weight of the short fueled adapter in that size is only 0.1 ton, compared to the more than 19 tons for the SRB.  So using that tank empty is a trivial bit of mass-- having an unfueled adapter instead might save, say, 0.03 tons or something?  To me, that seems like a pretty small savings in one very specific edge case, compared with the "clutter factor" of adding a new part to the game.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Snark, unlike your mod, my SRB mod does not guarantee that the user has the Making History DLC.  Without the DLC, there are no 1.875m parts of any kind in the stock game, including the fuel tank adapters.  Since my SRB mod introduces 1.875m parts into the game, I felt it vital that I provide some means to adapt them to other sized parts.  That's why I introduced the 1.875 x 1.25 adapter (a rescaled version of the stock 3.75 x 2.5 adapter).  I would have also really liked a 2.5 x 1.875 adapter, but there's nothing in the non-DLC game that has that size ratio from which I could make a new part.

Since Missing History is designed specifically to supplement the DLC, then your users are guaranteed to have the 1.875m tank adapters available to them.  That makes having the extra structural adapters largely unnecessary.  I agree with your decision not to add them.

(edit)  My mod also adds a 1.875m nosecone, but I cloned the 2.5m Protective Rocket Nose Cone Mk7 just to differentiate from Missing History.

 

Edited by OhioBob

Share this post


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

@Snark, unlike your mod, my SRB mod does not guarantee that the user has the Making History DLC.  Without the DLC, there are no 1.875m parts of any kind in the stock game, including the fuel tank adapters.  Since my SRB mod introduces 1.875m parts into the game, I felt it vital that I provide some means to adapt them to other sized parts.  That's why I introduced the 1.875 x 1.25 adapter (a rescaled version of the stock 3.75 x 2.5 adapter).  I would have also really liked a 2.5 x 1.875 adapter, but there's nothing in the non-DLC game that has that size ratio from which I could make a new part.

Since Missing History is designed specifically to supplement the DLC, then your users are guaranteed to have the 1.875m tank adapters available to them.  That makes having the extra structural adapters largely unnecessary.  I agree with your decision not to add them.

(edit)  My mod also adds a 1.875m nosecone, but I cloned the 2.5m Protective Rocket Nose Cone Mk7 just to differentiate from Missing History.

Ah, okay, that makes sense-- thanks for the explanation!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was reading back through this thread and saw several comments on changing colors on shrouds. Decoupler Shrouds has this functionality.  It also deals with shrouds around engines that don't match the stack size which is why I got it, but use it more than default engine shrouds to match the rest of the stack.

 

It's also simple to add new textures, drop your texture into the textures directory and update ShroudTexturesConfig.cfg file in the same directory and they are added to the list of possibilities. I didn't know anything about textures before today, but was familiar with GIMP. Using info from this non-KSP thread  I was able to create color matches to the gray and orange in the Missing History pack in about an hour.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Snark in KSP weekly, it has been leaked that version 1.5 will revamp the FL-T series tanks, including a texture switch for them.

How do you think this will affect you and @Jarin‘s changes to those tanks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, RealKerbal3x said:

How do you think this will affect you and @Jarin‘s changes to those tanks?

The simplest thing would be to just say "oh, okay, we've got snazzy new official ones from SQUAD now so this particular piece is no longer 'missing' and therefore doesn't need to be in MissingHistory anymore" and just remove them as having outlived their usefulness.  :)

If there turned out to be shrill screams of protest from happy MissingHistory users who still prefer these remodeled Porkjet-tanks-with-Jarin-textures over whatever comes out with KSP 1.5... well, the easy thing to do there would be to just rearrange the zip file so that the files for these tanks would be in the "Optional" folder.  That way, MissingHistory users will get the KSP 1.5 tanks by default, but if someone wants the Porkjet version, they could just install the optional config.

Anyway, that's my knee-jerk reaction upon hearing about this for the first time from you, just now.  ;)  Exactly what I end up doing will depend on what actually happens with 1.5 and what the new stuff looks like and so forth. Here's their initial screenshot about the revised tanks that they posted in the article you link:

tumblr_inline_pcwiyzSg561rr2wit_540.png

...we'll see how they look when they finish getting them ready.  :)

My initial impression from glancing at the above is that the black-white tanks look pretty close to what Porkjet released (perhaps not surprising).  The orange/gray texture is completely different from Jarin's (also not surprising).  My own impression is that personally I prefer Jarin's to the orange/gray scheme shown above... but I only just now saw it and I haven't yet convinced myself whether I like Jarin's better because I actually like it better, or just because I saw it first and I'm used to it.  I'm sure various players will have different preferences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My general opinion is a vague preference for an official reskin, but that's only because I know just how half-assed my recolor was. (seriously, it was a green and orange box overlayed on the base texture and set to "multiply" in photoshop; that's basically it). 

Edited by Jarin

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.