[0.90] TestFlight [0.4.6.1][04FEB15] -Configurable, extensible, parts research & reliability system

[JeffreyCor]

Absolutely! and I'll be crying some things as well to see if the configs need some fine tuning. If that is the case I'll get you updates examples once I have them ironed out. I thought it was odd that it wouldn't come up on any screen (space center, VAB, SPH, flight) so thought it could be something goofy going on. If you need any specific tests or anything just let me know.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/pub08umcq9snlq5/output_log.txt?dl=0

[Agathorn]

Just noticed this thread today...

And noticed I was working on a similar mod, except it is complicated for dev but simpler for players =S...

Should I just throw away my project and cheers?

Well I am obviously biased That said, I feel my mod will be very easy for both player's and developers alike, especially as it matures. Maybe you would be interested in helping out on this side?

- - - Updated - - -

Absolutely! and I'll be crying some things as well to see if the configs need some fine tuning. If that is the case I'll get you updates examples once I have them ironed out. I thought it was odd that it wouldn't come up on any screen (space center, VAB, SPH, flight) so thought it could be something goofy going on. If you need any specific tests or anything just let me know.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/pub08umcq9snlq5/output_log.txt?dl=0

Right now the only scene it should probably work in is Flight and Map, mainly because I have done little to no testing, or UI for, multi-vessel tracking.

I'll take a look at your log here in a little bit.

- - - Updated - - -

Absolutely! and I'll be crying some things as well to see if the configs need some fine tuning. If that is the case I'll get you updates examples once I have them ironed out. I thought it was odd that it wouldn't come up on any screen (space center, VAB, SPH, flight) so thought it could be something goofy going on. If you need any specific tests or anything just let me know.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/pub08umcq9snlq5/output_log.txt?dl=0

Ok so nothing is jumping out at me in your log, though I think most of the Debug statements I would be looking for I have unfortunately turned OFF at the moment lol. I do notice you are using Blizzy's toolbar, which I don't support yet. Do you still have the stock applauncher as well? Do you see the TestFlight Icon in it if you do?

[JeffreyCor]

Yes on the stock launcher bar and the TestFlight icon shows up as it should. Both hovering over it and clicking on that icon however gives just a very quick small (approx 1/2" x 1/4") grey square that quickly vanishes. I'm about to do come config testing and see if it wakes up.

[Agathorn]

Yes on the stock launcher bar and the TestFlight icon shows up as it should. Both hovering over it and clicking on that icon however gives just a very quick small (approx 1/2" x 1/4") grey square that quickly vanishes. I'm about to do come config testing and see if it wakes up.

Ok I will be releasing a new version soon with some extra debugging enabled to track this down.

[JeffreyCor]

It looks like it is indeed a config issue. I'll see what i can do about fixing that. Oddly my fuel tank came up with 160% reliability Not sure if something got checked twice there or what hehe

[Agathorn]

It looks like it is indeed a config issue. I'll see what i can do about fixing that. Oddly my fuel tank came up with 160% reliability Not sure if something got checked twice there or what hehe

Reliability is cumulative through all reliability modules. Since the default minimum for a fuel tank is 80% it very much sounds like you are applying TWO reliability modules to it that aren't intended to work together.

- - - Updated - - -

By the way, any chance of seeing the config that broke it? If you know which one.

[JeffreyCor]

Yep, that's what caused the fuel take one Was using your cfg's along with mine for troubleshooting and to my surprise mine actually worked That put 2 on the tanks. Tank broad configs look good now, as long as other mod makers remember to use the new FuelTank category rather than the old Propulsion. Come to think of it a second entry can be done specifying Propulsion to cover those just in case. In the process of working on the engine ones now. I'd like to get you come good general ones while doing a crash course in getting familiar with this mod at the same time

EDIT: Fuel take codes

New method:

@PART[*]:HAS[#category[FuelTank],@RESOURCE[*]]:AFTER[squad]

Old/legacy for mods that are still using .25 and lower method

@PART[*]:HAS[#category[Propulsion],@RESOURCE[*],!MODULE[ModuleEngines]]:AFTER[squad]

Will work on getting ones for the engines now

EDIT2: The engine codes have arrived

Liquid Fuel:

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleEngines]:HAS[@PROPELLANT[LiquidFuel]]]:AFTER[squad]

Solid:

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleEngines]:HAS[@PROPELLANT[solidFuel]]]:AFTER[squad]

Sorry about the errors on my first ones. Any other ones you need if it would help let me know and I'll be glad to come up with the header code for them for you.

Edited December 31, 2014 by JeffreyCor

[Agathorn]

I appreciate your help. I'm wrapping things up for another release, now that I have the repair code pretty much working. I'll see about getting the configs updated.

- - - Updated - - -

Or at least I thought I Was until I discovered that my math for calculating reliability is all fubared.

- - - Updated - - -

v0.2.0 Alpha Release

This is an alpha release and thus should be assumed to be buggy, and capable of breaking your game and game saves.

https://github.com/jwvanderbeck/TestFlight/releases/tag/v0.2.0

• New Recorder module, FlightDataRecorder_Resources, only records flight data while the part has stored resources.
  
• New Failure module, TestFlightFailure_ResourceLeak, leaks a named or random resource in the part. Initial leak amount, and amount per second can be configured in config node
  
• Changes to ITestFlightFailure interface to allow mod authors of Failure modules more flexability
  
• Added Tooltips to UI part status that indicate repair requirements for part
  
• Don't poll any parts on a new vessel until at least 10 seconds after mission start
  
• Made MasterStatusDisplay GUI window a bit wider
  
• Documentation updates
  
• Fix to bug preventing REPAIR{} nodes from loading and persisting properly
  
• Updated all existing failure modules to use new failure API interface
  
• Removed old TestFlightFailure_LiquidFuelLeak Failure module. Use the new TestFlightFailure_ResourceLeak instead
  
• All new configs to apply TestFlight to Stock Engines and Fuel Tanks. Many thanks to JeffreyCor for the help here.
  
• Changed calculation for base reliability based on flight data. Now uses only one variable, reliabilityMultiplier with higher numbers being easier to obtain 100% reliability and lower numbers being easier. Value of 1 puts 100% reliability at 10,000 units of flight data
  
• Implemented repair systems, as well as initial repair requirements. Note that some repairs have a part they require for repair. These parts can't be made, yet, but are not required. They are optional and give a repair bonus if present. These parts will soon be available through my companion AddOn MaterialPrinter.
  

(god I wish this forum supported markdown so I could just copy & paste from GitHub)

[JeffreyCor]

You've been busy Quick note on the configs, that code isn't limited to stock engines and tanks. It automatically applies to any installed mods that use the same resources as well Two poll voting options addressed in one shot

Noticed on the tanks, you do not have any tanks that are liquid fuel only being added so this wouldn't apply to jets just to rockets. Was that intentional?

Edited December 31, 2014 by JeffreyCor

[Agathorn]

Noticed on the tanks, you do not have any tanks that are liquid fuel only being added so this wouldn't apply to jets just to rockets. Was that intentional?

For the moment yes, but only for the moment.

[Agathorn]

Ok so my focus now is going to move to the GUI. I've got some ideas on improving things, and I need to add in things like settings and the ability to see more than active vessel. So yeah, that's where I will be focusing now. But please let me know if any issues that everyone runs into with the current version!

[Agathorn]

Just a ping in here to say that I have started on the GUI revamp as voted for. It will be a couple days probably as I tear a lot of pieces apart and put them back together again. I might post an experimental or two to get some feedback on the UI work. In the meantime any bugs or issues with the released versions, please let me know!

[kujuman]

Ooh this looks fun. I'm thinking of what modules I could write. Solar panels not deploying/retracting, engines using a dofferent mix of resources (ie running rich or lean), running hot, thrust pulsing, antennas not working, etc.

This system seems like it would reward ground testing of engines etc

[Agathorn]

This system seems like it would reward ground testing of engines etc

Yes. and no. It is definitely a smart thing to do, and I specifically designed the system so that you can run engine stands. That took a teeny bit of extra work because the game apparently doesn't start the mission clock in those case.

Anyway yes definitely worth doing to get those engines more reliable in Kerbin's atmosphere and make launches safer for your Kerbals. That said, bear in mind that all the testing in the world down on the planet won't tell you how an engine runs, or what problems might occur, in space

- - - Updated - - -

Ooh this looks fun. I'm thinking of what modules I could write. Solar panels not deploying/retracting, engines using a dofferent mix of resources (ie running rich or lean), running hot, thrust pulsing, antennas not working, etc.

All are possible! If you decide to tackle any of these and need any help let me know.

[Nowater]

How can i repair a leak? Part shows ok, but the Debug Gui shows a leak and it looses the oxidzer some other fluid.

Edited January 1, 2015 by Nowater

[Agathorn]

Are you saying that the part said "Status OK" in the window, yet it was actually failed?

[razark]

I'm just trying this out. I love the idea, especially as I'm in the process of rereading The Right Stuff right now.

I'm really looking forward to seeing where this mod will go in the future. It adds a sense of actually doing something to advance Kerbal knowledge, aside from the "clicky-clicky, now you've got a new part" science system.

I have a couple of questions and issues, though.

Do I need to recover a part to keep the flight data? For example: I launch a ship with a booster. During flight, the part gains data. Once the booster burns out, I drop it and continue the flight with the rest of my ship. The booster falls down, and gets removed as debris, or explodes on hitting the ground. Does the data gained by the SRB during the flight persist?

Do/can part failures give a data bonus? Sometimes, a failure can lead to greater understanding of what's happening during flight, or about the materials used. For example, before STS-107, foam shedding was not considered a major issue because the foam density was believed to be too low. After the loss of OV-102, the engineers looked at the insulation and realized more about the actual nature of it. Would you consider a possible chance of additional data after a failure?

Are you saying that the part said "Status OK" in the window, yet it was actually failed?

I can confirm this happened to me. The capsule showed "Status OK", but the debug window said Monopropellant leak, and the level of MP was dropping. There was no repair option showing, either.

Another issue I saw was with the part highlighting. If I click the "H" button, the part would get the bright green outline. If I click the button again, the outline disappears, but the part is still glowing green. With the propellent leak, the "H" button gave a yellow outline, I assume to highlight the failure (even though the main window didn't show it). However, the capsule continued to have the green glow.

[Agathorn]

I'm just trying this out. I love the idea, especially as I'm in the process of rereading The Right Stuff right now.

I'm really looking forward to seeing where this mod will go in the future. It adds a sense of actually doing something to advance Kerbal knowledge, aside from the "clicky-clicky, now you've got a new part" science system.

Yes this is one of the reasons behind the mod. This one and another I haven't announced yet both aim to make progression actually be game play rather than clicky whack-a-mole.

I have a couple of questions and issues, though.

Do I need to recover a part to keep the flight data? For example: I launch a ship with a booster. During flight, the part gains data. Once the booster burns out, I drop it and continue the flight with the rest of my ship. The booster falls down, and gets removed as debris, or explodes on hitting the ground. Does the data gained by the SRB during the flight persist?

Currently the data persists automatically, so you need do nothing extra to retain the data. I have considered a requirement to transmit the data back, and while the idea of having to recover the part didn't occur to me, I like that as well. Both options are doable, though add complexity, and difficulty. I would like to see what people think about this. I could probably add it as an optional thing as well. For now, though you need do nothing special just fly the part.

Do/can part failures give a data bonus? Sometimes, a failure can lead to greater understanding of what's happening during flight, or about the materials used. For example, before STS-107, foam shedding was not considered a major issue because the foam density was believed to be too low. After the loss of OV-102, the engineers looked at the insulation and realized more about the actual nature of it. Would you consider a possible chance of additional data after a failure?

Do they currently? No. Could they? Absolutely. I think right now with the current API you could probably write a failure module that does it, though it would require a teeny bit of hacking. This is a great idea though so I will expand the API to make it easy for a Failure module to implement this.

I can confirm this happened to me. The capsule showed "Status OK", but the debug window said Monopropellant leak, and the level of MP was dropping. There was no repair option showing, either.

Another issue I saw was with the part highlighting. If I click the "H" button, the part would get the bright green outline. If I click the button again, the outline disappears, but the part is still glowing green. With the propellent leak, the "H" button gave a yellow outline, I assume to highlight the failure (even though the main window didn't show it). However, the capsule continued to have the green glow.

Excellent. Thanks for the extra details. I will take a look and see what might be going on there. The Master Status Display doesn't update right away, so I can see them maybe getting out of sync for a moment, but the update delay is pretty short so it really shouldn't be noticeable, and it sounds like what you experienced is something else. As for the highlighting things, I am actually scrapping that system in favor of something better with the new UI.

[razark]

Yes this is one of the reasons behind the mod. This one and another I haven't announced yet both aim to make progression actually be game play rather than clicky whack-a-mole.

This sounds interesting.

Currently the data persists automatically, so you need do nothing extra to retain the data. I have considered a requirement to transmit the data back, and while the idea of having to recover the part didn't occur to me, I like that as well. Both options are doable, though add complexity, and difficulty. I would like to see what people think about this. I could probably add it as an optional thing as well. For now, though you need do nothing special just fly the part.

It would make sense to me to have the data saved as it currently is. After all, those folks in Mission Control are looking at screens of telemetry being sent back. What would make more sense to me would be a requirement for either an antenna to stream the data or part recovery to get the data after flight (or to get additional data to represent what couldn't be transmitted). The problem I see is the automatic deletion of "debris" parts making it hard to implement the second one. It might work for planes or SSTOs that don't drop stages.

Excellent. Thanks for the extra details. I will take a look and see what might be going on there. The Master Status Display doesn't update right away, so I can see them maybe getting out of sync for a moment, but the update delay is pretty short so it really shouldn't be noticeable, and it sounds like what you experienced is something else. As for the highlighting things, I am actually scrapping that system in favor of something better with the new UI.

I'll try to remember to capture screenshots if I notice anything odd again. I just happened to try your mod, and then found the post reporting it immediately afterwards.

[Agathorn]

It would make sense to me to have the data saved as it currently is. After all, those folks in Mission Control are looking at screens of telemetry being sent back. What would make more sense to me would be a requirement for either an antenna to stream the data or part recovery to get the data after flight (or to get additional data to represent what couldn't be transmitted). The problem I see is the automatic deletion of "debris" parts making it hard to implement the second one. It might work for planes or SSTOs that don't drop stages.

Yeah which is why I was thinking originally about the idea of it being transmitted like you say. But with mods like RemoteTech that opens up a huge can of worms of extra work, so its down the road type stuff.

[FennexFox]

With this and KCT mode, kerbals know what "conservative" design is for. Great! I really like it.

[Agathorn]

With this and KCT mode, kerbals know what "conservative" design is for. Great! I really like it.

Hahaha yeah. If you are playing with KCT and this I might recommend bumping up the global data rate a bit. Just so you get a little bit more data from your flights since it takes so long to build them. Right now you have to edit the settings file to do that though. It will be exposed in the new UI here soon.

[kujuman]

Alright, so V1.0 seems to load engines just fine on my computer, but V2.0 is super bugged for me (on windows 7), including interfering with other KSP windows. I'll test my test modules in V1.0 until 3.0 comes out

---Original Text---

I've tried adding a very basic custom Failure module, but so far no luck in getting it to work. I also experience the Status OK msg even after failures. In addition, none of the engines appear to have the modules applied, only fuel tanks.

I'll do some more looking on my dev computer today, as I had just been messing around on my laptop. If I still have no progress I'll just wait until v 3.0 comes out

Still, very promising

Edited January 2, 2015 by kujuman
new info

[Agathorn]

I've tried adding a very basic custom Failure module, but so far no luck in getting it to work. I also experience the Status OK msg even after failures. In addition, none of the engines appear to have the modules applied, only fuel tanks.

I'll do some more looking on my dev computer today, as I had just been messing around on my laptop. If I still have no progress I'll just wait until v 3.0 comes out

Still, very promising

I have a feeling my last round of configs I did just before releasing 0.2.0 are FUBARed. I'm looking into it now. Unfortunately yesterday was a busy day for me so I didn't get much done.

[kujuman]

I have a feeling my last round of configs I did just before releasing 0.2.0 are FUBARed. I'm looking into it now. Unfortunately yesterday was a busy day for me so I didn't get much done.

Looks like we crossed posts. I updated my prior message.