[1.5 - 1.10] Kerbalism 3.11

[urturino]

Jet Engines should have 86400 second of operation duration

Quote

// jet engines
@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleEngines*]:HAS[@PROPELLANT[IntakeAir]]]:NEEDS[FeatureReliability]:FOR[KerbalismDefault]
{
    @MODULE[Reliability]:HAS[#type[ModuleEngines*]] {
        @rated_operation_duration = 86400
        @rated_ignitions = 0
        @repair = true
    }
}

but for some reason they have only 10 minutes, it's like their numbers are calculated as they were normal rocket engines.

 

Ion Engine have similar problem, it should "@rated_operation_duration = 0",  but it have 10 minutes too.

 

There is something i can do?

Edited January 9, 2023 by urturino

[kerbnub]

 

8 hours ago, urturino said:

Jet Engines should have 86400 second of operation duration

but for some reason they have only 10 minutes, it's like their numbers are calculated as they were normal rocket engines.

 

Ion Engine have similar problem, it should "@rated_operation_duration = 0",  but it have 10 minutes too.

 

There is something i can do?

Are they mod parts? The code you linked should cover it, unless something else is overwriting them afterward.

I recently changed some of my burn durations/number of ignitions for mod parts with  a patch very similar to what you linked.  It uses FINAL to make sure it comes last. Maybe not the most context smart, but it works.

@PART[M2X_Pluto|M3X_NuclearJet|M3X_Hades|M2X_AtomicJet|kare_eng_ntj_mk2|kare_eng_ntj_s1a|kare_eng_ntj_s1b|kare_eng_ntj_s2]:Final
{
    @MODULE[Reliability]
    {
        @rated_operation_duration = 3600    //1 hour
        @rated_ignitions    = 0        //infinite
    }
}

Just replace the engines/durations which whatever you need.

[OnlyLightMatters]

11 hours ago, urturino said:

Jet Engines should have 86400 second of operation duration

but for some reason they have only 10 minutes, it's like their numbers are calculated as they were normal rocket engines.

 

Ion Engine have similar problem, it should "@rated_operation_duration = 0",  but it have 10 minutes too.

 

There is something i can do?

I suspect you have an interaction with another mod in your game installation. Here is what I get:

[urturino]

13 hours ago, kerbnub said:

 

Are they mod parts? The code you linked should cover it, unless something else is overwriting them afterward.

I recently changed some of my burn durations/number of ignitions for mod parts with  a patch very similar to what you linked.  It uses FINAL to make sure it comes last. Maybe not the most context smart, but it works.

@PART[M2X_Pluto|M3X_NuclearJet|M3X_Hades|M2X_AtomicJet|kare_eng_ntj_mk2|kare_eng_ntj_s1a|kare_eng_ntj_s1b|kare_eng_ntj_s2]:Final
{
    @MODULE[Reliability]
    {
        @rated_operation_duration = 3600    //1 hour
        @rated_ignitions    = 0        //infinite
    }
}

Just replace the engines/durations which whatever you need.

 

I copied the Reliability.cfg from the zip file and then re-add my modification, for some reason now works. Thanks for the help.

Edited January 10, 2023 by urturino

[OnlyLightMatters]

Made a pull request for the volume of the kerbalism parts. https://github.com/Kerbalism/Kerbalism/pull/844

 

[urturino]

Issue #811 https://github.com/Kerbalism/Kerbalism/issues/811 is marked as closed, but if i understand correctly that patch isn't in the 3.16 release.

 

Is there a way to add that patch in my installation without wait the release of a new version?

Edited January 20, 2023 by urturino

[Gotmachine]

New release : Kerbalism 3.17 for KSP 1.8.x to 1.12.x

• Fixed issue #811 : MP transferred to jetpack when going on EVA is not registered correctly (@gotmachine)
• Fixed issue #500 : Process dump settings aren't handled/persisted correctly (also fix #337 and #834) (@gotmachine)
• Fixed issue #833 : Ensure VesselData can always be created even if ProtoVessel is null (@gotmachine)
• Fixed issue #845 : Make isSerenityGroundController persistent to prevent loosing comms when vessel type is changed manually (@gotmachine)
• Tweaked automatic DataRateDampingExponent calculations so result in stock is ~6, matching original value in Kerbalism 3.14 (@gotmachine)
• Performance tweak : Prevent PartModule PAW update code from running when PAW isn't shown, provide very significant perf gains (-0.7ms / frame on a basic space station) (@gotmachine)
• Added stock cargo part support for Kerbalism parts (@OnlyLightMatters)
• SSPX support : Added greenhouse to aquaculture-375-1, changed cupola-greenhouse-125-1 from 1/90 to 1/6 of kerbalism greenhouse (@DangerNoodle9000)
• SSPX support : Tweaked analysis speed of some labs (@DangerNoodle9000)
• US2 support : Added support for sabatier reactor (@DangerNoodle9000)
• Science : Added back automatic conversion of all modded labs to the Kerbalism version (see issue #762) (@DangerNoodle9000)
• Added body/biome localization in a few additional places (@tinygrox)
• Improved zh-cn localization (@tinygrox)
• Improved ru localization (@deVDem)
• Added partial fr-fr localization (@vinix38)

Thanks to @R-T-B for triggering my will to work on all this

[Vl3d]

Thank you all devs for this awesome mod!

[R-T-B]

Heh, I couldn't play KSP1 without Kerbalism.  The persistent resource sim is addictive once you have had it.  Thank you for fixing the dump specs.

[JoeSheridan]

6 hours ago, R-T-B said:

Heh, I couldn't play KSP1 without Kerbalism.

I totally agree with that. I played with Kerbalism the first time it was there, there wasn´t any radiation-related stuff in it yet and i already loved it. It´s really really good that there came new people to take that little thing over and make it even greater.

[OnlyLightMatters]

Honnestly, from my point of view, the way the science is collected with kerbalism is a such an enhancement and a relief regarding the stock way that don't play anymore without it in career or science games.

[Vl3d]

Do you guys play with parts and engine failures turned on? Doesn't it slow down the game too much?

[king of nowhere]

35 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

Do you guys play with parts and engine failures turned on? Doesn't it slow down the game too much?

yes, it does slow the game. it depends, though. if you launch a single small mission, having to run maintenance every once in a while is not a big deal. if you launhch a big mission, it's a lot worse. if you have a career with a dozen missions simultaneously, it's awful.

however, having to plan for possible failures - making ships capable of surviving multiple malfunctions - is part of the fun

[Vl3d]

I don't have any issue with parts or engines failing on the currently controlled craft. But having parts fail in the background forces you to give up on the playstyle of completing an interplanetary mission (or iterating until successful) before moving on to something else. You're forced to set alarms and launch every possible mission you can with the current tech level before time warping. Is this the way Kerbalism should be played? It kind of breaks the flow and you forget what you were doing.

[king of nowhere]

46 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

I don't have any issue with parts or engines failing on the currently controlled craft. But having parts fail in the background forces you to give up on the playstyle of completing an interplanetary mission (or iterating until successful) before moving on to something else. You're forced to set alarms and launch every possible mission you can with the current tech level before time warping. Is this the way Kerbalism should be played? It kind of breaks the flow and you forget what you were doing.

well... yes?

it's not like in reality we only have one active mission at a time.

frankly, I don't understand the issue. if you are playing career, then I suppose you will want to feel like you are building something, hence multiple active missions at the time. some people just takes centuries to explore the solar system, but I can't watch the clock and pretend everything is fine.

otherwise, if you want to play one mission at a time, why play career in the first place? why not sandbox?

wait, why you say that you are forced to launch every mission with the current tech level? if you really want to play one mission at a time, can't you just do it? maybe it's because of a relay network? never had one of those myself.

anyway, it doesn't matter how you are supposed to play. kerbalism adds a lot of realism changes, you can take those you want and not the rest. you can set part failure to 0%. you can remove radiations. you can do whatever you please.

me, I was looking for an extra challenge, and part failure provided exactly that. plus, if I have to include multiple redundancies for every part, it just gave me the perfect excuse for the humongous megaships I had always wanted to build but could never justify.

[Vl3d]

17 hours ago, king of nowhere said:

well... yes?

it's not like in reality we only have one active mission at a time.

frankly, I don't understand the issue. if you are playing career, then I suppose you will want to feel like you are building something, hence multiple active missions at the time. some people just takes centuries to explore the solar system, but I can't watch the clock and pretend everything is fine.

otherwise, if you want to play one mission at a time, why play career in the first place? why not sandbox?

wait, why you say that you are forced to launch every mission with the current tech level? if you really want to play one mission at a time, can't you just do it? maybe it's because of a relay network? never had one of those myself.

anyway, it doesn't matter how you are supposed to play. kerbalism adds a lot of realism changes, you can take those you want and not the rest. you can set part failure to 0%. you can remove radiations. you can do whatever you please.

me, I was looking for an extra challenge, and part failure provided exactly that. plus, if I have to include multiple redundancies for every part, it just gave me the perfect excuse for the humongous megaships I had always wanted to build but could never justify.

There's no issue, I was just curious how other players prefer to do things. Generally yes with part failures turned on, your relay networks go down.

The best way to play I think would be to finish a whole mission then go back in time and continue with other missions. And the science points would come in the future, thus respecting the timeline.

I think this would be useful for space races also.

Later edit: this idea from the previous two paragraphs is where it all started. See the KSP2 suggestion it evolved into.

Edited February 2, 2023 by Vl3d

[R-T-B]

7 hours ago, king of nowhere said:

well... yes?

it's not like in reality we only have one active mission at a time.

frankly, I don't understand the issue. if you are playing career, then I suppose you will want to feel like you are building something, hence multiple active missions at the time. some people just takes centuries to explore the solar system, but I can't watch the clock and pretend everything is fine.

otherwise, if you want to play one mission at a time, why play career in the first place? why not sandbox?

wait, why you say that you are forced to launch every mission with the current tech level? if you really want to play one mission at a time, can't you just do it? maybe it's because of a relay network? never had one of those myself.

anyway, it doesn't matter how you are supposed to play. kerbalism adds a lot of realism changes, you can take those you want and not the rest. you can set part failure to 0%. you can remove radiations. you can do whatever you please.

me, I was looking for an extra challenge, and part failure provided exactly that. plus, if I have to include multiple redundancies for every part, it just gave me the perfect excuse for the humongous megaships I had always wanted to build but could never justify.

This is how I view it too.

Keep in mind long term failures can be managed a bit with the MTBF option, at an mass expense of course.  I often do that option with longterm orbital relays, things like that.  I got 15 years out of my last one, but then, it had 8 antennas too.

[OnlyLightMatters]

20 hours ago, king of nowhere said:

yes, it does slow the game. it depends, though. if you launch a single small mission, having to run maintenance every once in a while is not a big deal. if you launhch a big mission, it's a lot worse. if you have a career with a dozen missions simultaneously, it's awful.

however, having to plan for possible failures - making ships capable of surviving multiple malfunctions - is part of the fun

This is exactly what I do when I have to.

This is a special mission I did to complete several contracts in KSRSS x2.7 + Kerbalism + Near Future mods + Cryo Tanks (mainly used to fill stock tanks with 100% LF). There were 4 tourists that had to land on the Moon + I built a rover in situ to scan a BG surface feature + I collected EVA Report+Crew Report+Surface Samples for an unvisited biome + planted a flag.
I had not a lvl 2 engineer available at this time, actually he did this very mission to get his second star so he could not repair a faulty engine or even service a used one. So I came up with this architecture with extra cost and mass:

• If the core engine fails, you have 2 left 
• If a side engine fails, you deactivate the opposite one and the core engine can still do the job even if the thrust has become low and you need a lot of time to perform maneuvers.
• If you have a double failure, there are 30+ days of food and water to wait for a rescue mission.

Here, this engine failed during a TLI midcourse burn. Could manage the rest of the mission without it

[king of nowhere]

3 hours ago, OnlyLightMatters said:

This is exactly what I do when I have to.

This is a special mission I did to complete several contracts in KSRSS x2.7 + Kerbalism + Near Future mods + Cryo Tanks (mainly used to fill stock tanks with 100% LF). There were 4 tourists that had to land on the Moon + I built a rover in situ to scan a BG surface feature + I collected EVA Report+Crew Report+Surface Samples for an unvisited biome + planted a flag.
I had not a lvl 2 engineer available at this time, actually he did this very mission to get his second star so he could not repair a faulty engine or even service a used one. So I came up with this architecture with extra cost and mass:

• If the core engine fails, you have 2 left 
• If a side engine fails, you deactivate the opposite one and the core engine can still do the job even if the thrust has become low and you need a lot of time to perform maneuvers.
• If you have a double failure, there are 30+ days of food and water to wait for a rescue mission.

Here, this engine failed during a TLI midcourse burn. Could manage the rest of the mission without it

 

This is my A'Twin mothership. I used it to do a rss grand tour, which lasted 360 years - equivalent to more than 1000 kerbal years.

Every piece has at least a 6-fold redundancy. The ship mines new fuel over many years with 12 large chemical plants over 4 years if there is enough ore in the ground; losing chemical plants would proportionally increase refueling time. There are 36 ore drills, 12 water drills, 12 uranium drills to feed 12 large nuclear reactors, in all cases refueling speed would be acceptable with half of them broken and sucks-but-the-mission-can-go-on with three quarters of them broken. The ship can split in two, leaving the heavy mining equipment behind to gain deltaV and reach some expensive targets; both subships have at least 6 life support systems and 6 copies of all the chemical plants needed for food production - 1 being enough. The exploration module has 6 small nuclear reactors for power, plus two more in storage containers. 90 reaction wheels split between the two ships. Propulsion is by 24 large nuclear engines (nervs scaled to 3x the size and power), they are mounted on docking ports so that I can detach one and attach a spare - I got 3 - grabbing it with a claw and moving it with a purpose-built probe. I also use six 3x wolfhound engines and six cougar engines for higher thrust during landing and takeoff, with one spare each.

Once orbiting the target planet, the mothership releases a taxi that will carry a lander to low orbit, and the taxi also has 6 redundant life support systems, multiple redundant engines (I fixed the issue of asymmetrical thrust by using more reaction wheels) with three spare engines back on the mothership. Aside from that, the taxi carries less redundat parts, because those parts - mostly reaction wheels and antennas - can be swapped by eva construction, and I had containers stuffed full with spare parts. All the landers are tested to function with a broken engine, and they have spare parts on the mothership. Landers do NOT have  backup life support, because without it the crew can still breathe for 10 hours, which is more than enough to land and return; putting 6 backups would have added too much mass on the small landers. The taxi and landers are powered by RTGs, so no need for backup there.

Finally, the ship also includes 3 escape pods for emergencies, each one with 6 redundant life support and backup engines and reaction wheels in storage containers, and two science/relay probes, each with backups.

Fully loaded, it totals a bit over 7000 tons and 1000 parts, which - considering what this ship does - isn't unreasonable.

Conceiving and projecting this jewel has been one of my most fulfilling ksp experiences. Flying it was a total lagfest, but ultimately worth it.

It broke some 40 parts during the trip, and the worst consequence was some slower refueling.

Edited February 2, 2023 by king of nowhere

[KrakenBeGone]

Thinking of giving Kerbalism another try, really did like the science mechanism. This time I'm trying to plan ahead. Last time it took me a lot of time to troubleshoot what mods I could use, took me forever to figure out which mod along with kerbalism left Kerbin without an atmosphere for instance (ok lesson learned, you start with a vanilla GameData folder and add mods one by one and test).

Are Restock and Restock Plus now well supported? With SSPX do I ignore the inflatable modules since I see in github that code is semi broken? Am I best off deleting those parts? What of the artificial gravity modules? And what of the HabUtil.dll can it be left in or should it be deleted?

I see there are compatibility issues with the boiloff mechanism in Nertea's Cryogenic Engines mod? Am I better off just keeping the nice hydrogen tank parts and enabling the cryogenic engines in Restock? Apart for using different boiloff mechanism and electrical simulations are the deployable engines in this mod a problem? 

I see Benjee's Planetside Exploration mod doesn't have a Kerbalism Config profile. Apart for the wind turbine items, does anyone foresee problems beyond creating a profile? Same deal with the inflatable dome, it might give me trouble, or is it just an animation and I can forgo the whole pressurization issues?

If I want a less punishing ISRU game, anyone playing with Rational Resources + Scansat and not be limited to breaking down regolith and water? How well do these alternate isru chains work along with Kerbalism?

I gather because of radiation and stress you can't just create a base for Kerbals somewhere and park them 10+ years. Or is that a wrong assumption? I'm not planning to install mods that make ship manufacturing possible outside of Kerbin. Does the SSPX off world experience gain in some of the 3.75m parts work? Are there places where stress and radiation do not accumulate? I won't have to build a base with 30+ habitation modules just to keep 4 kerbals alive, fed and sane?

Is it recommended to use one of the mods that favor remote exploration first? Which one? Should I play with the default comms?

[Vl3d]

12 minutes ago, KrakenBeGone said:

Is it recommended to use one of the mods that favor remote exploration first? Which one? Should I play with the default comms?

Definitely. I use Unkerballed Start. Default comms are OK. Unfortunately the Kerbalism Companion Calculator is broken now. Use AntennaHelper. But RealAntennas is better that stock antennas.

[Kwebib]

40 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

Definitely. I use Unkerballed Start. Default comms are OK. Unfortunately the Kerbalism Companion Calculator is broken now. Use AntennaHelper. But RealAntennas is better that stock antennas.

I actually recently discovered Kerbalism Companion Calculator. There is a pull request that claims to fix it for Kerbalism 3.15+, but I haven't confirmed it.

https://github.com/ValentinBischof/KerbalismCompanionCalculator/pull/5

[OnlyLightMatters]

On 2/2/2023 at 3:29 PM, KrakenBeGone said:

Is it recommended to use one of the mods that favor remote exploration first? Which one? Should I play with the default comms?

I play with Probe Before Crew which makes more sense to me and default coms.

Edited February 4, 2023 by OnlyLightMatters

[Dinkledash]

Engine reliability using Kerbalism 3.16 using Un Kerballed Start 1.3.0, Restock 1.4.3, SIMPLEX 3.10 - Even using high quality engines, it seems that my long range probes are doomed to failure because the engines go into "requires maintenance" in under a year, despite having a MTBF of 32 years.  Twice I've failed to get my flyby to Eve to work because of a high quality engine failure.  They're small probes so I'm using a Pug, could that be an issue? I just noticed the Kerbalism update to 3.17 and updated, but I didn't see any reliability fixes in the changelog.   Any suggestions would be appreciated. 

Also is there a way to repair a part through the debug menu? It's annoying that I'll have to wait for a new launch window for Eve.  Of course, my ships will be better this time around.

Edited February 10, 2023 by Dinkledash

[king of nowhere]

38 minutes ago, Dinkledash said:

Engine reliability using Kerbalism 3.16 using Un Kerballed Start 1.3.0, Restock 1.4.3, SIMPLEX 3.10 - Even using high quality engines, it seems that my long range probes are doomed to failure because the engines go into "requires maintenance" in under a year, despite having a MTBF of 32 years.  Twice I've failed to get my flyby to Eve to work because of a high quality engine failure.  They're small probes so I'm using a Pug, could that be an issue? I just noticed the Kerbalism update to 3.17 and updated, but I didn't see any reliability fixes in the changelog.   Any suggestions would be appreciated. 

 

engine reliability didn't depend on time in the version i'm still using, so they changed it, and maybe there are bugs.

but engine reliability does depend on ignitions and burn time. so if your probe has a low thrust engine requiring very long burns, you may have exceeded its burn time. or maybe you turned it on and off too many times, exceeding the ignitions. i cannot know with the limited information you provide.

in any case, my standard policy in kerbalism is redundancy for everything. never use a single engine if you can use two.

Quote

Also is there a way to repair a part through the debug menu? It's annoying that I'll have to wait for a new launch window for Eve.  Of course, my ships will be better this time around.

alt-f12 an engineer in rendez-vous with the probe.

you can also adjust the probabilities of remotely fixing the issue from the difficulty level options