N70

[1.5.0 <-> 1.8.1] Kerbalism v3.2

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, AVaughan said:

Somewhere on the wiki they mentioned that Radiation can also damage an engine

Nope. Radiation damage only affects solar panels, transmitters and RCS wheels (not thrusters). Engines are immune to radiation. Unless, of course, you change the config files.

1 hour ago, AVaughan said:

(Somewhere on the wiki I think they also said that apart from ignition failures, engines are unlikely to fail before about 35(?)% of their rated burn time.  So for engines that are mission critical and beyond LKO, I'm using high quality engines and planning to only use them for about 30% of their rated burn time. 

Engines are guaranteed to get 35% of the rated burn duration without a failure to material fatigue, and after that the probability of a failure raises exponentially. If my math doesn't fail me, this means that you will get, roughly rounded:

  • 0% failures up to 35% of the rated duration
  • 3% failures at 50% of the rated duration
  • 20% failures at 75% of the rated duration
  • 56% failures at 100% of the rated duration
  • 80% failures at 110% of the rated duration
  • 100% failures at ~117% of the rated duration

So, for mission critical engines, I'd suggest you plan to burn it not longer than 50% of the duration, plan the ignitions very very conservatively and hope for the best.

From what I can see based on the feedback I get the feeling that engine failures might be happening a bit too frequent. What do you think, should they be changed to be more reliable?

Share this post


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

<snip>

From what I can see based on the feedback I get the feeling that engine failures might be happening a bit too frequent. What do you think, should they be changed to be more reliable?

I have personally halved the sliders in the options and always use high quality engines now money isn't a problem.   I felt they occurred a little to often. It felt like an engine failure was likely to happen on every mission and the surprise was when it didn't rather than when it did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sir Mortimer said:

Nope. Radiation damage only affects solar panels, transmitters and RCS wheels (not thrusters). Engines are immune to radiation. Unless, of course, you change the config files.

Engines are guaranteed to get 35% of the rated burn duration without a failure to material fatigue, and after that the probability of a failure raises exponentially. If my math doesn't fail me, this means that you will get, roughly rounded:

  • 0% failures up to 35% of the rated duration
  • 3% failures at 50% of the rated duration
  • 20% failures at 75% of the rated duration
  • 56% failures at 100% of the rated duration
  • 80% failures at 110% of the rated duration
  • 100% failures at ~117% of the rated duration

So, for mission critical engines, I'd suggest you plan to burn it not longer than 50% of the duration, plan the ignitions very very conservatively and hope for the best.

From what I can see based on the feedback I get the feeling that engine failures might be happening a bit too frequent. What do you think, should they be changed to be more reliable?

Looking at the wording "rated", to me it feels like that is where they have been tested to for reliability during development. If I had to shoot from the hip and suggest numbers I would think 0.5% failure up to 35% of burn time (to allow freak accidents, like a broken fuel line or something), 3% rate up to 50% burn time, 5% up to 75% of burn time, 15% after 75% - then maybe 25% at 100%, 75% at 110%, 90% at 120%, 95% above that.

To me that would let the rated number make more sense, in that failures can happen below that, but that it is a reasonable ballpark for how long an engine actually can be used safely. Having a real utility above 100% I think makes "out of parameter" missions, Apollo 13 style, more fun as they have a real chance of success . I guess looking at real space missions most don't suffer engine failures, but a significant minority do. Thinking more about it my numbers above are probably way too low, but the idea is that redundancy is there for the odd time something goes wrong, but is usually not needed - rather than it being standard to go through three spare engines. 

 

Overall take what I say with a pinch of salt. Haven't used kerbalism before - I tried a while ago but it killed my framerate - I really enjoy it now though!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there an updated list somewhere of supported mods to use in conjunction  with Kerbalism 3.1 running in KSP 1.8.1?  What I found on the Kerbalism Wiki seems to be a bit seemed to be more in line with pre-1.8.1/3.1 combinations.  Also the wiki says to check inside the support folder but every time I click on that link I get a 404 error message.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Galland1998 said:

Is there an updated list somewhere of supported mods to use in conjunction  with Kerbalism 3.1 running in KSP 1.8.1?  What I found on the Kerbalism Wiki seems to be a bit seemed to be more in line with pre-1.8.1/3.1 combinations. 

The compatibility between mods did not change with 1.8.1, but it might be that some of the mods on that list don't yet support KSP 1.8.

5 minutes ago, Galland1998 said:

Also the wiki says to check inside the support folder but every time I click on that link I get a 404 error message.

Whoops, thanks for that - fixed the link! (go there -> https://github.com/Kerbalism/Kerbalism/tree/master/GameData/KerbalismConfig/Support

28 minutes ago, plausse said:

Overall take what I say with a pinch of salt. Haven't used kerbalism before - I tried a while ago but it killed my framerate - I really enjoy it now though!

Nah that's perfect, thanks. I'd like to have values that work for the game: failures should not be the first and foremost consideration, but bite you occasionally - just enough to be a constant reminder that they can and will happen. The 10th landing on mun should still feel like a small achievement, instead of routine. And one should have at least a bad feeling when launching a crewed rocket without considering the possibility of a booster ignition failure.

The burn duration failure rate is probably a bit too agressive right now, and I'm thinking about lowering the possibility of an ignition failure on subsequent ignitions (relatively high probability on very first ignition, lower on ignitions after that).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Sir Mortimer said:

Yes, see https://github.com/Kerbalism/Kerbalism/wiki/FAQ#q-how-can-i-turn-off-kerbalisms-science-system-or-failures-or-radiation

Just to make sure, did you perhaps copy the contents of the updated KerbalismConfig zip file into an existing, older KerbalismConfig folder in your GameData? If so, you might have duplicate configurations because a few files have been renamed / moved. If that is the case, I suggest delting your Kerbalism and KerbalismConfig folders from your game data and then reinstall the latest release.

Thanks for the tip - I'll check and verify that, and if it still has issues, I'll log an issue on GitHub with the requisite details and log. I'll edit this post if that turns out to be the case.

EDIT: Looks like I need to get those screenshots and logs together - will try later today. Did the following:

1. Removed everything from GameData except Squad, SquadExpansion, Kerbalism, KerbalismConfig, DMagicOrbitalScience, CommunityResourcePack, and ModuleManager.4.1.2.dll.
2. Deleted settings.cfg and PartDataBase.cfg from the KSP root directory
3. Deleted all save games
4. Launched KSP, created new save
5. Opened new save, built a rocket with DMagic and Stock science parts
6. Launched rocket. None of the science parts are showing up now in Kerbalism, and the PAW have none of their normal interactions

That's different behavior than what I saw before, which leads me to believe either I did something wrong, missed some sort of temporary files, or am unknowingly missing a dependency. In any case, at this point, the issue needs a proper bug report with screenshots and logs, and I'll probably do a complete KSP install from scratch and without DLC just to be thorough. Thanks again for the help, @Sir Mortimer, and I'll pop into the Discord server once I'm able to get that info ready to post - right now I need to do actual work today in my day job.

Edited by panarchist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about this:

  • Added slider in preferences to tweak engine burn failures
  • Ignition failure preset is now reduced, but the very first ignition on the launch pad has a higher failure probability
  • Engine failure probability due to burn duration failures lowered a bit

Bildschirmfoto_2019-11-21_um_21.51.29.pn

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That seems a lot better. I agree that part of the problem is the general perception of "Rated" burn time. It's fairly unintuitive for there to be a greater than 50% failure rate at levels just under the rating. That should be rare, under 5% below 100% of the time rating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, panarchist said:

Thanks for the tip - I'll check and verify that, and if it still has issues, I'll log an issue on GitHub with the requisite details and log. I'll edit this post if that turns out to be the case.

EDIT: Looks like I need to get those screenshots and logs together - will try later today. Did the following:

1. Removed everything from GameData except Squad, SquadExpansion, Kerbalism, KerbalismConfig, DMagicOrbitalScience, CommunityResourcePack, and ModuleManager.4.1.2.dll.
2. Deleted settings.cfg and PartDataBase.cfg from the KSP root directory
3. Deleted all save games
4. Launched KSP, created new save
5. Opened new save, built a rocket with DMagic and Stock science parts
6. Launched rocket. None of the science parts are showing up now in Kerbalism, and the PAW have none of their normal interactions

That's different behavior than what I saw before, which leads me to believe either I did something wrong, missed some sort of temporary files, or am unknowingly missing a dependency. In any case, at this point, the issue needs a proper bug report with screenshots and logs, and I'll probably do a complete KSP install from scratch and without DLC just to be thorough. Thanks again for the help, @Sir Mortimer, and I'll pop into the Discord server once I'm able to get that info ready to post - right now I need to do actual work today in my day job.

So, it looks like the behavior only happens in a sandbox game, which is what I usually play. So the lack of a science tab in the PAW seems "normal". What's undesired is not being able to extend any of the instruments, since stock behavior allows normal functionality (except for gathering science points) while in SB. I don't recall it being an issue in Kerbalism prior to the science rework.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really like the new science transmission system, but I still feel like those (useless) science messages were part of the fun. Is there a way to have those science messages to pop up again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bersagliere81 said:

I really like the new science transmission system, but I still feel like those (useless) science messages were part of the fun. Is there a way to have those science messages to pop up again?

I believe they do pop up just in a different style. Bottom middle of the screen on successful transmission.

You can adjust how long the message is displayed in the settings I think.

Share this post


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

I believe they do pop up just in a different style. Bottom middle of the screen on successful transmission.

You can adjust how long the message is displayed in the settings I think.

You are right. Nice one

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A question for people using the mod. Do others have issues with losing way too much Nitrogen when doing EVA's? It seems like it takes waaay more Nitrogen to get atmo back than the mod estimates.

Now, I do have a shedload of mods installed, so it wouldn't surprise me if it's something else that causes this issue, but wanted to know what other people are seeing? Anyone else having the same issue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi !

For some reason my kerbals are dying of excess CO2 a few hours into my mission, even though CO2 scrubbers are working just fine. It's 2 kerbals in the BDB Gemini pod. All ressources are good (EC, hydrogene, oxygen...)

  I guess I'm missing something, someone could tell me what ?

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Carni35 said:

Hi !

For some reason my kerbals are dying of excess CO2 a few hours into my mission, even though CO2 scrubbers are working just fine. It's 2 kerbals in the BDB Gemini pod. All ressources are good (EC, hydrogene, oxygen...)

  I guess I'm missing something, someone could tell me what ?

Thanks

I don't believe BDB is a supported mod...

That said do you have one scrubber in the pod or two?

Share this post


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

I don't believe BDB is a supported mod...

That said do you have one scrubber in the pod or two?

There is no explicit configuration for BDB, which means Kerbalism will run on some rough estimates regarding volume and surface of crewed parts. But it will work, maybe some numbers aren’t realistic but that won’t be game breaking.

I recall someone having the same issue with CO2 scrubbers, but don’t remember what was causing it. Probably a mod conflict, I think they also had TAC LS installed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After check, the Gemini pod have the same stats that his stock equivalent MK2.

I did the mission one again and no problem with the scrubber.

I don't have TAC LS but but when the bug occure, the vessel was unloaded and I was using hyper warp (With Better Time warp).

I guess hyper warp might be the source of the problem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, 

talking of Gemini - TRAILS mod was released recently with some nice Gemini style parts. However, two pods that come with it are not pressurized in Kerbalism and scrubber is not required for some reason. I'd like to try to write Kerbalism configs for them and add those. Is there some tutorial or template that shows how to configure a pod for Kerbalism?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok so after some tests it appear that every time the vessel is unload the fuel Cell stop produce electric charges. It work only when the vessel is loaded.

Is it due to to BDB parts or that happen every times ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Carni35 said:

Ok so after some tests it appear that every time the vessel is unload the fuel Cell stop produce electric charges. It work only when the vessel is loaded.

Is it due to to BDB parts or that happen every times ?

Just to be sure: you did update to version 3.1, right? If so, I think it would be best to troubleshoot this on Discord

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi @Sir Mortimer,

Yes I did the uptade to 3.1

Thanks for your help ! For know I'll just add some solar panel to do the trick

If I see this kind on behavor on stock or supported parts I'll come back to you ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/23/2019 at 6:22 PM, Bersagliere81 said:

You are right. Nice one

since it appears in the screen text, you can also use One Window to review any messages you may have missed or want to read again without having to leave them up on the screen for very long

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello, I'm getting "random" EC drain of 20 EC/seconds. I just started a Kerbalism playthrough and this is happening when all electrics are turned off. Is this meant to happen or is it a bug?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, qwert13357 said:

Hello, I'm getting "random" EC drain of 20 EC/seconds. I just started a Kerbalism playthrough and this is happening when all electrics are turned off. Is this meant to happen or is it a bug?

Uninstall ResearchBodies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.