EVA Repairs

[Angelo Kerman]

On 11/21/2021 at 12:07 AM, dave1904 said:

I thought when parts reach MTBF 0 they cannot be repaired or am I mistaken? Atleast that is what seems to happen to me in my save game. I like it but I am just wondering if everything is working as intented.

Was also wondering if it is normal that all parts are showing MTBF -1 in the editor. They seem to work perfect in flight. 

When a part reaches 0 MTBF, it ceases to function and required Repair Kits to return it to operation. The -1 MTBF is a bug that I need to fix.

[dave1904]

On 11/22/2021 at 11:29 PM, Angel-125 said:

When a part reaches 0 MTBF, it ceases to function and required Repair Kits to return it to operation. The -1 MTBF is a bug that I need to fix.

Ok cheers, one more thing. Any tips on extending the life of reaction wheels?  Tbf it's real they only last a few years. I have them disabled but the MTBF still goes down. Now I am worried they wont last the mission length. 

Edit: NVM its in the descripion....Had SAS on..... 

Edited November 24, 2021 by dave1904

[NateDaBeast]

Is there a way to make it so only engines specifically fail? (Don't want to bother with interstage parts failing)

[panarchist]

10 hours ago, NateDaBeast said:

Is there a way to make it so only engines specifically fail? (Don't want to bother with interstage parts failing)

Yes - one way is to edit BaselineConfig.cfg

Replace the line: EVAREPAIRS_BASELINE_CONFIG

with: @PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleEnginesFX]]

The downside to this approach is you'd need to do it every time you update EVA Repairs. A better way would be to write a Module Manager patch to remove the EVAREPAIRS_BASELINE_CONFIG module from all parts except engines. I usually mess those patches up, so implementing that is best left as an exercise for the intrepid reader.

[NateDaBeast]

4 hours ago, panarchist said:

Yes - one way is to edit BaselineConfig.cfg

Replace the line: EVAREPAIRS_BASELINE_CONFIG

with: @PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleEnginesFX]]

The downside to this approach is you'd need to do it every time you update EVA Repairs. A better way would be to write a Module Manager patch to remove the EVAREPAIRS_BASELINE_CONFIG module from all parts except engines. I usually mess those patches up, so implementing that is best left as an exercise for the intrepid reader.

Thanks for sharing, hopefully this is save compatible. Is it possible to make it so solar panels can also fail?

[Starwaster]

Oh god.... that bot.... that's horrible.... 

He has to stay locked up in that tiny little cabinet? No wonder he looks unhappy.

And I bet he's got a pain in all the diodes on his left side that he's asked to have replaced...

[panarchist]

22 hours ago, NateDaBeast said:

Thanks for sharing, hopefully this is save compatible. Is it possible to make it so solar panels can also fail?

Yes, after making the changes for engines, copy that whole block of text and paste it in below itself, then change the second  @PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleEnginesFX]] line with  @PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleDeployableSolarPanel]]

There's almost certainly a more elegant way to do it, but that will work.

[Beetlecat]

9 hours ago, Starwaster said:

Oh god.... that bot.... that's horrible.... 

He has to stay locked up in that tiny little cabinet? No wonder he looks unhappy.

And I bet he's got a pain in all the diodes on his left side that he's asked to have replaced...

Rude! ;D

[Angelo Kerman]

On 12/6/2021 at 3:29 PM, NateDaBeast said:

Thanks for sharing, hopefully this is save compatible. Is it possible to make it so solar panels can also fail?

@panarchist EVAREPAIRS_BASELINE_CONFIG is used by the built-in part loader to know how to configure EVA Repairs. You'll need to remove the BaselineConfig.cfg file, and then create a new ModuleManager patch to do the following:

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleDeployableSolarPanel]]
{
	MODULE
	{
		name = ModuleEVARepairs

		// In hours, how long until the part needs maintenance in order to function. Default is 600, unless you update the srarting value in
		// the Game Difficulties section. You can override the mtbf by setting this value.
		// Time is counted even when the vessel isn't active!
		// Note: The part module is smart and if the part has at least one engine, generator, drill, or resource converter 
		// then the engine/generator/drill/converter needs to be running for the current mtbf to be reduced.
//		mtbf = 600

		// Percent of MTBF lost each time the part is repaired. If a part has no MTBF remaining then it has worn out and is permanently disabled. 
		// Default is 0, which means no MTBF is lost.
		mtbfPercentLostPerCycle = 10

		// The skill required to perform repairs. Default is RepairSkill (Engineers have this).
		repairSkill = RepairSkill

		// The minimum skill level required to perform repairs. Default is 1.
		minimumSkillLevel = 1

		// The part name that is consumed during repairs. It MUST be a part that can be stored in a stock inventory part.
		// Default is evaRepairKit (the stock EVA Repair Kit).
		repairKitName = evaRepairKit

		// The number of repair kits required to repair the part. Default is 1.
		repairKitsRequired = 1
	}
}

If you follow the above steps, EVA Repairs won't auto-add the part failure plugin to parts, and you'll only have the part failures on parts that you specify with your ModuleManager patch. You can also disable some parts through the Settings menu:

But engines, drills, generators, and converters are still enabled by default, so that MM patch will definitely kill everything but what you specify.

[akron]

This look like a great and more concise mod for part failures!

Any thoughts about adding it to an existing save mid-way through the tech tree with on-going flights?

[JadeOfMaar]

2 hours ago, akron said:

This look like a great and more concise mod for part failures!

Any thoughts about adding it to an existing save mid-way through the tech tree with on-going flights?

From what I know, you'll need to build up a supply of repair kits in advance for any vessel that's not already built with redundant breakable parts [especially reaction wheels and engines. These get the most painful and really fast.] Once you have these supplies, you're good for installing EVA Repairs mid-game. But... due to the feature: "parts can wear out" and the low starting reliability, you will find that such breakable parts in-flight will have particularly short lifespans and you'll need to be prepared to replace them if they haven't done their most important task already, like a Duna insertion burn or a Duna lander's descent. You risk getting absolutely crippled and losing your crew or science grab then.

To build up that supply, you'll want to have a stock science lab (or other appropriate parts) and Angel's SandCastle mod which works like OSE Workshop and will let you print repair kits into the nearest (or a random) stock inventory container.

Edited December 8, 2021 by JadeOfMaar

[panarchist]

13 hours ago, JadeOfMaar said:

From what I know, you'll need to build up a supply of repair kits in advance for any vessel that's not already built with redundant breakable parts [especially reaction wheels and engines. These get the most painful and really fast.] Once you have these supplies, you're good for installing EVA Repairs mid-game. But... due to the feature: "parts can wear out" and the low starting reliability, you will find that such breakable parts in-flight will have particularly short lifespans and you'll need to be prepared to replace them if they haven't done their most important task already, like a Duna insertion burn or a Duna lander's descent. You risk getting absolutely crippled and losing your crew or science grab then.

To build up that supply, you'll want to have a stock science lab (or other appropriate parts) and Angel's SandCastle mod which works like OSE Workshop and will let you print repair kits into the nearest (or a random) stock inventory container.

Reply directed to @akron - this can be mitigated if you have some technical confidence, by using an editor like KML or opening the persistent.sfs file in a text editor and editing the reliability numbers on your existing parts. To do that, back up your save, then open the save in KSP with EVA Repairs installed. Immediately close the save and quit, then edit the file. What I don't know is if the reliability effects are added on initial game launch or after the vehicle is loaded into memory - if it's the latter, then you'd need to switch control to each vehicle, quit, and then edit the file. As long as you have a backup ahead of time, you're fine. Then you just have to go up and repair things as they fail - adding repair kits to existing vehicles is a more complex procedure that I'm not going to attempt to outline.

[Bombaatu]

13 hours ago, JadeOfMaar said:

To build up that supply, you'll want to have a stock science lab (or other appropriate parts) and Angel's SandCastle mod which works like OSE Workshop and will let you print repair kits into the nearest (or a random) stock inventory container.

Ok, I admit I haven't followed SandCastle yet (will fix that!) but does this mean SC can replace OSE?

[JadeOfMaar]

2 hours ago, Bombaatu said:

Ok, I admit I haven't followed SandCastle yet (will fix that!) but does this mean SC can replace OSE?

It can. That's part of the point of SandCastle. The one disadvantage I can think of is that it prints into stock inventory and not KIS. This shortcoming can be reduced by installing Part Volumes and letting it auto calculate for all parts that don't have a volume config... But I don't know of any mod that provides cargo parts larger than stock. You're left to spam the low profile 2.5m one at best if you ever need to print lots of parts and that'll get ugly fast.

That reminds me... SandCastle doesn't recognize custom categories (whether from config or from dll's like CCK) so you won't be able to get to parts that are in those and not also in the built-in categories, I think.

Edited December 9, 2021 by JadeOfMaar

[Bombaatu]

Huh - for some reason I thought Sandcastle was just about base-building. Good to know.

9 minutes ago, JadeOfMaar said:

The one disadvantage I can think of is that it prints into stock inventory and not KIS.

Is there any way this could be made a config option to use KIS instead of stock?

[JadeOfMaar]

Angel would have to code it in.

[Angelo Kerman]

On 12/8/2021 at 1:27 PM, akron said:

This look like a great and more concise mod for part failures!

Any thoughts about adding it to an existing save mid-way through the tech tree with on-going flights?

I have done this in my own save. I don’t turn on reliability because I have already advanced through most of the tech tree. Hence parts will only break down when they run out of mtbf. I also have parts wear out turned on so as they get repaired they will eventually have to be replaced.

5 hours ago, Bombaatu said:

Huh - for some reason I thought Sandcastle was just about base-building. Good to know.

Is there any way this could be made a config option to use KIS instead of stock?

You would be better off using OSE Workshop to print kits to store them in KIS containers. 

[panarchist]

On 12/9/2021 at 8:19 AM, Bombaatu said:

Huh - for some reason I thought Sandcastle was just about base-building. Good to know.

Is there any way this could be made a config option to use KIS instead of stock?

The new KIS in development works with stock - but it's currently VERY MUCH "in development". Doesn't help a lot right now, but in theory it would eventually.

[Galileo chiu]

Compatible with Kerbalism?

[JadeOfMaar]

10 hours ago, Galileo chiu said:

Compatible with Kerbalism?

Try it (and turn off Kerbalism's own mechanism) and find out.

[Beetlecat]

5 hours ago, JadeOfMaar said:

Try it (and turn off Kerbalism's own mechanism) and find out.

They both work fine at the same time if you don't mind the occasional double work...

[dave1904]

Ive been using this mod for a while now and I have to say that failures are just odd. When reliability is not 99% you are still basically guarantied to have a failure. If an engine has 87% reliability it is going to fail 50% of the time. If your max tech level only allows you to reach 87% then the failures are far less common. I have the feeling those percentages are not working correctly. As long as you max out the reliability for your current tech level you seem to be fine. I have a heavily modded game so it could be other mods. Problem is this mod takes time to test and I do not want to play a stock game for hours to get data. Anyone else notice this? 

 

[Beetlecat]

5 hours ago, dave1904 said:

Ive been using this mod for a while now and I have to say that failures are just odd. When reliability is not 99% you are still basically guarantied to have a failure. If an engine has 87% reliability it is going to fail 50% of the time. If your max tech level only allows you to reach 87% then the failures are far less common. I have the feeling those percentages are not working correctly. As long as you max out the reliability for your current tech level you seem to be fine. I have a heavily modded game so it could be other mods. Problem is this mod takes time to test and I do not want to play a stock game for hours to get data. Anyone else notice this? 

 

Could this also be the perception of failure being high, since it's happening at all? Sort of the opposite of the "XCOM Effect" happening?

An 85% reliability still seems pretty risky, especially for an engine, since at any point there's a roll of the "failure" die (activation, etc.), it's a 15% chance of losing that roll. The more rolls you make with that same engine, the wider the failure window becomes, even if the percentage is the same. And then the MTBF counter is always ticking down.

From my somewhat limited game-duration playthrough, it seemed to be 'working as intended' and as long as I "charged up" reliability with engine and component test flights before putting them on a mission, they performed adequately.

My perception could be foggy, though

[dave1904]

On 12/21/2021 at 11:14 PM, Beetlecat said:

Could this also be the perception of failure being high, since it's happening at all? Sort of the opposite of the "XCOM Effect" happening?

An 85% reliability still seems pretty risky, especially for an engine, since at any point there's a roll of the "failure" die (activation, etc.), it's a 15% chance of losing that roll. The more rolls you make with that same engine, the wider the failure window becomes, even if the percentage is the same. And then the MTBF counter is always ticking down.

From my somewhat limited game-duration playthrough, it seemed to be 'working as intended' and as long as I "charged up" reliability with engine and component test flights before putting them on a mission, they performed adequately.

My perception could be foggy, though

I do not know myself because after testing over and over again its hard to get consistent results. Thats good because I do like the unpredictability. Have you had any issues on long term missions? For example after a while parts will just fail over and over again even though their MTBF is still quite high. 

[Bit Fiddler]

Am I misunderstanding something?  I have performed several engine runs on the craft I am integrating, and have boosted the LFO engines up to 90% (which I believe is max for my current tech level).  However, the SRB does not seem to go above 83%.  This means that one of the 3 SRB will fail every time I run them up, but I never get any more reliability on them.