[KSP 1.0.X] Kerbal Mechanics: Part Failures and Repairs v0.6.4.1

[Silent_Thunder]

For the altimeter breaking, is there any way for those to also apply to IVA? I run RasterPropMod for IVAs and both the stock altimeter and the RPM data views display the correct altitudes.

[IRnifty]

FreakyCheeseMan, The longer missions will have a higher chance of failure, but only if focus is kept on them. I haven't yet figured out how to handle unfocused vessels, so no calculation is done on them. Spare parts are stored in a container which is unlocked in General Construction. Repairs bring reliability up somewhat, but free repairs barely do anything at all even if they succeed. All mod parts need my mod applied to them via config file. Currently, I'm a bit busy so I haven't had the time to create configs for some of the more popular mods, but it's on the to do list.

Silent_Thunder, it is possible, but as I remember, it is extremely difficult, and even worse if you're running RPM. That involves basically manually replacing internal props all the way up to manual texture modifications for RPM. Sorry, but it's a bit out of my expertise right now.

[Silent_Thunder]

Is there somewhere we can get all the various mod configs made?

[Z3R0_0NL1N3]

Because this was updated to 1.0 before DangIt!, I decided to give it a try. I quite like it! However, one of the things I liked about DangIt was its Entropy pack. Do you think you could consider adding some of those features to this?

Secondly, for repairing failures (I'm in a career save and haven't gotten that far yet), could you consider using KIS support?

Edited April 30, 2015 by Z3R0_0NL1N3

[Silent_Thunder]

When decouplers fail, is there an alert message or does it just fail to decouple? The reason Im asking is I've had some times where the decoupler staged without actually activating and I need to know if it was a Mechanics failure or a bug.

[Cleric2145]

I had a creative moment today about the reliability of engines:

The overall cost of the engine essentially reflects its complexity and generally its effectiveness. A very expensive engine might have great gimbal and efficiency, but requires a lot of moving parts to create this efficiency. A very cheap engine might not perform as well but is actually just an ice cream cone filled with kerosene and lit on fire and virtually never fails.

This in mind, would it be possible to implement a reliability gradient for engines based on their cost?

For instance, a super cheap engine (e.g. a Russian hypergolic engine) might be overall less reliable, but more corners can be cut without sacrificing as much reliability. A complex engine (let's say the SSMEs) might be overall more reliable, but you can't cut really any corners without severely affecting the safety of the engine.

In essence this might play out as the first engine being able to reduce it's price by 25% at the cost of only 10% reliability, but the latter engines lose 30% reliability at the same discount--however, at base cost the costlier engine would be more reliable, and conversely would benefit more from increased QA than the first (you can polish a turd etc.)

I'm not sure if this would be easy to implement, but if so it should be fairly simple to apply to all engines using a formula taking into account their base reliability and cost.

Edited May 4, 2015 by Cleric2145

[Drake1500]

Hey, I recently tried this mod and it is great! However, I noticed that it doesn't automagically work with other plugins, so I went through to see if there are any injection configs for other mods. I only found a few in this thread, and those being for older versions, so I've decided to go through and make injection configs for the mods that I'm using, and if others find them useful, well, that's good too.

As a note, I generally just used whatever the values were in the original injections, and for the engines, I tried to match them with what seemed reasonable (most of the values for other parts were pretty standard across the board; the engines were really where there was any degree of variation).

You can get the injection configs here:

Fuel Tanks Plus: https://www.dropbox.com/s/jgbnhm9dmhtdn4k/injections_FuelTanksPlus.cfg?dl=0

Modular Rocket Systems: https://www.dropbox.com/s/v2iuaf0yxaf972y/injections_ModRocketSys.cfg?dl=0

Near Future: https://www.dropbox.com/s/cdamlo8lw2afoek/injections_NearFuture.cfg?dl=0

SpaceY Heavy Lifters: https://www.dropbox.com/s/jjc6t02vt3xa88o/injections_SpaceY.cfg?dl=0

Stockalike Station Parts: https://www.dropbox.com/s/z8ism9m2sgxwm9f/injections_StationPartsExp.cfg?dl=0

Surface Lights: https://www.dropbox.com/s/j2fsswbfxskwwht/injections_SurfLights.cfg?dl=0

TAC Life Support: https://www.dropbox.com/s/zme1q87ahoa56jk/injections_TACLS.cfg?dl=0

Universal Storage: https://www.dropbox.com/s/k4089y6bpfw69ek/Injections_UniversalStorage.cfg?dl=0

Umbra Space Industries: https://www.dropbox.com/s/t779czzzfggees6/injections_USI.cfg?dl=0

All you should need to do is download the file(s) for the mod(s) you have, and add it to the KerbalMechanics folder in your GameData folder. Don't overwrite the original, as none of these have the original injections!

If I missed anything, let me know and I might be able to update the config. If you want to take what I've done, and change it for balance, go right ahead.

Edited May 8, 2015 by Drake1500
Adding extra links for more mods

[Artfact]

Thanks for that Drake! I'll the ones for TAC, Universal Storage and Near Futureout.

[Vigilante96]

Is it a possibility that we could have a config for testing purposes? Like maybe include options to disable or change the frequency of failures for certain part categories that are problematic? Or possibly disable failures below a certain altitude? I love the idea behind the mod, but I have a rocket with multiple fuel stacks, therefore needing multiple (up to 6) decouplers activating in unision in the 1-2 and 2-3 stage transitions. However, this mod causes about half to fail on every launch, even with the quality at 100%. Please fix this issue or add a config for player to fix bugs, because this mod had amazing potential, but I havent really been able to use it yet.

[IRnifty]

Vigilante96, maybe the default decoupler chance of failure is still too high then? Try going into the main injections config and lowering them. Add these lines to each decoupler, inside each injection's MODULE node:

chanceOfExplosion = 0.03

chanceOfNothing = 0.08

That gives each decoupler a 3% chance of explosion, and a 5% chance of silent failure (0.08 - 0.03 = 0.05). Change as you like.

[Hyomoto]

DangIt just got featured in a PCGamer article, so apparently this idea is at least a mildly popular one, but I think there's a lot of us who would love to see one with integration for KIS. It has the capability to turn your 'rocket parts' into actual parts that we would then use to repair the craft during EVA. This could lead to all sorts of really cool launches and missions. After all, instead of just using some anamalous rocket part to repair the alternator, why not use an alternator? It would be an excellent way to differentiate your mod from DangIt since they are functionally similar, and add a layer of 'next level' functionality that represents pretty much what everyone probably hoped for when they thought 'wouldn't a repair mission be cool'?

As an aside, it would also be nice if the problems were more visually represented. For example, let's say there is an issue with the gimbal. You might be able to use something like the sparks in Collision FX to show that the gimbal is moving but maybe with reduced range. If the player continues to use it without some sort of repair, it might get stuck in whatever position it was when it finally gave out. Without repair parts it might be possible to still adjust the gimbal to zero it out, or as you've already done, perform more proper repairs. In the case of something like a fuel tank, an effect that shows it's leaking, like a wisp of smoke out in space, just a visual indicator that you may or may not catch, would be cool. Perhaps something like a fuel line is leaking, rather than the tank.

The issue I have with problems in KSP is they simply occur and a big contributor to any issue is the human factor. Whether it have been improper maintenance, improper installation or maybe just improper operation, we're pretty much responsible for all our problems. That said, in a game like KSP you have no control over that element and are pretty much relying on the factor of Kerbals being a bit absent-minded or parts being fished out of a river to be the culprit. As such, I think it's important there has to be a wide distinction between malfunctioning and broken so that the player can be somewhat in control of these problems. For example, what if your landing gear sticks? In an actual plane there are several options available, such as back-up hydraulics, manual extension, gravity extension, or the most dangerous option someone once suggested 'see if it could be knocked loose by a touch-and-go'. In KSP those options aren't really available, so I think if you want to take the malfunction route you should really consider ways in which the player is able to work around these emergencies, especially in situations where they are rapidly running out of options. Does the parachute that tears have a back-up chute? Perhaps there is a way to fire the engine but once started you'll have no throttle control and it's going to go until it burns itself out. Can you close up a leaking tank? The player can really only be required to plan for these contingencies so much, how many chutes do I have to put on my craft just in case? Having to manually deploy a reserve chute is plenty stressful without simply rolling the dice to tell the player they lose.

The best example I can give is the 1.0 release trailer. That thing is dark. The rocket explodes, but Jebidiah and Valentina are like, whatever, pop the chute. Then the chute flies off. Everyone dies, the installing technician is like 'crap!'. Unless you get to perform some sort of total diagnostic to let you know your rocket isn't full of problems waiting to kill everyone on board, there should definitely be some built in safeties.

Edited May 14, 2015 by Hyomoto

[Shaymes]

dont know why you 2 guys work at the same project but i like it - maybe make it KIS compatible that you need items like ducktape screwdriver things like that, but dangit or kerbal mechanic will be very interesting in cooperation with Kerbal inventory system

[nezumi]

I've been really enjoying this mod. I actually started thinking about this because Scott Manley had an idea where pieces of equipment have a very high risk of damage the first time you use them, which goes down each time, to represent testing. The result is that you have your older, less efficient, but far more reliable pieces, and your newer, experimental ones which are prone to failure. It also makes your early game more hilarious and stuff blows up all the time, but you can conduct more complex missions with your late game without worrying quite as much about triple-redundancy adding another 20 tons. Is this something that would be possible?

Also I noticed Drake kindly posted updated files for a bunch of mods. Any chance of Interstellar support in the near future?

Thanks! Back to blowing up kerbals

[Drake1500]

Any chance of Interstellar support in the near future?

If that question was towards me... unlikely, but possible, as I've been playing around with adding more mods than the ones listed above, with Interstellar being one of them. However, I have added a LOT of mods, and were I to add KM to that install, I'd want to add it to everything, and that would be quite a bit of work, more than I'm willing to put in at this moment.

I've been thinking about the failure on decouplers, though, and I've realized that this is annoying in the late game, but crippling in the early game. In the very first stages of the space program, once you unlock decouplers you have a short period where if they fail in the atmosphere, your mission fails. Jeb dies. End of story. Until you revert to launch. Then, once you get a bit farther, you can handle the failure, but the mission has to be aborted. There's no way around it (and I don't enjoy being forced to abort a mission because of something I had little control over - if it's my fault, it's my own fault, but these failures aren't really my fault, just my bad luck). Once you start getting out of the Kerbin system, though, (towards Duna/Eve etc) you can deal with the failures of decouplers inside the atmosphere. Sure, you lose that second stage, but you have another that could possibly take you into orbit anyway. You can afford to pay for backup systems. Thing is, out of the gate you can't afford to pay for those backup systems. One solution could be to remove the failure rate entirely from the first decoupler you unlock (and only that decoupler), although that is less than ideal (and probably would warrant increasing the cost of that decoupler significantly). Alternatively, it could be hard-coded that if that decoupler is purchased at 100% quality, its failure rate is insignificant (as in, 0.1% chance or less) or even 0% (although this could be simulated by adding a new, failure-proof decoupler that is more expensive). This, however, is a lot of work. Also a lot of work would be to "unlock" failure rates on decouplers at some point in the tech tree (I don't even know if this is possible). Anyways, I'm seriously considering just taking the failure rate off of the original decoupler for my games.

[IRnifty]

Hyomoto and Drake1500, I get that there are issues with the current method of decoupler failures. I realize now I should have programmed them the same as everything else: With the ability to determine chance of failure before the time for critical use.

Currently, they are literally a random number the instant they are used. I get that this was wrong, and should I find the time to fix that, I will. Promise. However, I've come to the conclusion that I will need to rewrite most if not all of the mod in order to add in failures while not actively steering. Don't worry, I'll make sure that this is at least somewhat balanced. But as it is right now, I'm working on a few other things and beginning the planning phase of Kerbal Mechanics 2.

I really appreciate all of the feedback, and I will take it to heart when working on the next iteration. As far as KIS integration goes, I thought about that as well, and will likely make that an option, but I don't want it to be the only option because I'm sure there are those who don't want KIS in their game for whatever reason. If this proves to be too difficult, I'll have to make the decision about which direction to go.

[Drake1500]

Hyomoto and Drake1500, I get that there are issues with the current method of decoupler failures. I realize now I should have programmed them the same as everything else: With the ability to determine chance of failure before the time for critical use.

Currently, they are literally a random number the instant they are used. I get that this was wrong, and should I find the time to fix that, I will. Promise. However, I've come to the conclusion that I will need to rewrite most if not all of the mod in order to add in failures while not actively steering. Don't worry, I'll make sure that this is at least somewhat balanced. But as it is right now, I'm working on a few other things and beginning the planning phase of Kerbal Mechanics 2.

My apologies if I sounded like I was ranting about the decouplers. I understand that this is something that you are working on in your spare time, because you enjoy it, and I respect you for that. I appreciate all the hard work that you have put into this, and I was just putting my $0.02 into the discussion, and trying to throw some ideas out there to see what's possible and what's workable.

Whatever work does get done, at the end of the day, is the work that is done. And we will all be grateful for it. Keep up the good work.

[Z3R0_0NL1N3]

When an engine has multiple engine nozzles (like in Tantares parts or the stock Mammoth), is there a way for your mod to make one engine burn out (perhaps using a Module) and make the rest continue firing?

[Filigan]

Annoying Bug here: My Female (and only Female!) Kerbals dont get the "ressource entry" for Rocket Parts and therefore cannot pick them up => can not repair any damage.

Tested on an unmodded (except Kerbal Mechanics of course) install.

[gamerscircle]

I also like the idea that something can go wrong [with the option to be able to fix it]; however - Since I am new to KSP, which of the two mods are the most compatible? [if that is a question that can be asked?] I just found out about Dang It a couple of days ago and now this one.

So.. can someone give me the high levels? Pros and Cons?

Thank you,

Andy

[panarchist]

Is Kerbal Mechanics still being actively maintained? I love this mod, but last update was in April - anyone tried it yet with 1.0.5?

[anxcon]

just wandered into this mod

what are the differences between this and TestFlight mod?

TF has reliability system, a data system (more you use a part the more data, so you learn to make more reliable engine), repair system

reading original post, this looks to have the same functionality

failure wise, both mods are 90% the same, minor missing failures

browsing code, testflight looks like a superior framework (just opinion)

would be nice to know a more detailed comparison

[IRnifty]

I am unfamiliar with the TestFlight mod. In all honesty, this mod is fairly old and I've moved on to others. It's still up because it still functions in 1.0.5 and I'm not about denying access to even a single person because I don't want to make the effort to maintain its pages. In the event that I get vast amounts of additional time to do what I want and complete about 5 other projects, I may come back and completely redo this mod and even include it into a custom-made and developed series of mods which would vastly expand the game. But until then.... Life...

Edited February 24, 2016 by IRnifty

[YoshiFanZ123]

Does this support wings? If it doesn't, please add it.

[IRnifty]

14 hours ago, IRnifty said:

In all honesty, this mod is fairly old and I've moved on to others.

 

[Deimos Rast]

I have to give you props for honesty and for taking the time to put it up on spacedock, even if you don't actively work on this any more.

Would that all mod authors would do the same...

Cheers.