magico13

[1.4.1] Kerbal Construction Time 1.4.0.69 (2018-03-24) - Unrapid Planned Assembly

Recommended Posts

I don't think it's that difficult to get into. I'll admit, I DID have to read the manual.. but hey, a bit of light reading never hurt anyone. Except if you try and read the sun....

In all seriousness though, I would maybe be interested? I turn off research times, reconditioning etc. I just use the "core features" - ie simulations, part inventory, and of course build times. I obviously upgrade the build times.

Don't know if this is possible, but maybe some of the part inventory stuff could be offloaded to Stage Recovery? So, if you say had KCT Lite and SR installed, you could still recover stages/build an inventory, but not have to deal with the other stuff? If you just want times, then don't install SR. Or you could do what I do and switch them off I guess, but I'm just floating ideas.

If this becomes a thing, (and especially if you remove things like upgrade points) - you need to up the build times. At 0.7BP/s when I start the game (I upgrade the first two slots of the VAB, with slot 1 having twice as many BP as slot 2), it take nearly 4 days to just construct a MKI pod, with nothing else on it. I wouldn't like to guess how much an actual rocket would take.

Edited by severedsolo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just one thing... if this is going to be a thing, then you should probably up the build times. In the early days, at 0.7BP/s speed, it still takes nearly 4 days just to build a MKI pod.

Up the build times as in decrease the build times? :P For the lite version there'd be not part tracking/inventory/upgrades so the total build times would be set to something reasonable (there's also no build list, so they can't be TOO long). Probably balanced to take 1/2 to 1/4 as long as the same ship in a brand new KCT game. KCT itself likely wouldn't receive any changes to the build times (partly because they're very configurable).

edit2: Do also keep in mind that build times drop off fairly steeply at first. 4 builds with the same part cuts the build time in half and the inventory drops things as well. Also, since build times follow a square root law, increasing cost doesn't 1:1 correlate to longer times. New games have exceptionally long builds that even out later on.

As for reading the sun, for short times you'd be alright ;)

Edit: Aaaaaaannnndddd you edited :P

For inventory stuff, installing The ScrapYard by itself when that eventually gets released would be sufficient for building an inventory that full KCT could use later, but you'd have to accept the ramifications of that (changes in how funds work with parts).

Alternatively, I could include an optional basic inventory system, but I'd rather keep it as simple as possible, so that goes under the "maybe" category.

Like I said, I don't think most KCT users in this thread would use it (maybe a few would switch) but its more for new people who don't want to have to learn a bunch of new stuff/do a bunch of configuration changes to get into the basics.

Edited by magico13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh I agree, it's a good idea. I can certainly see a use for it. Back in the day, when I came looking for your mod, KCT Lite sounds like exactly the sort of thing I was looking for. I launched missions to every Mun Biome in one go, and they were getting backed up as I couldn't land them faster than they were arriving in orbit. I wanted something to stretch out the builds for me and make me wait between launches. I also think making the build times independent to KCT's is a good idea. (configurable maybe?)

edit2: Do also keep in mind that build times drop off fairly steeply at first. 4 builds with the same part cuts the build time in half and the inventory drops things as well. Also, since build times follow a square root law, increasing cost doesn't 1:1 correlate to longer times. New games have exceptionally long builds that even out later on.

That was kind of my point, I'm assuming that a Lite version would not have the time bonus for re-using the same parts (or the inventory) - so build times would stay constant. Without the bonuses (and therefore the encouragement to re-use designs) this could quickly become a chore unless the times were well balanced.

Edited by severedsolo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@magico13, Maybe you should just have presets when you first start a game with KCT. Those presets then adjust the already in place settings. So "Build Time Only" would remove all the features except for build time. That way you wouldn't have nearly as much work to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's another idea to implement build times for a KCT Lite, could it be possible to affect the build times with how many nodes of the tech tree are unlocked? This would slowly improve the build times in the background to prevent the issue presented by severedsolo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding reconditioning/rollout time, would it be worth a consideration to split it into a period before/after launch, say 25% rollout time before, 75% launchpad reconditioning time after launch, and possibly an option to configure the split percentage? That way everybody could be satisfied with a simple config modification.

EDIT:

This is awesome, as I'd intended to ask.

Also, I like playing with Final Frontier http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/67246-0-23-5-Final-Frontier-kerbal-individual-merits-0-3-15. For those unfamiliar, it's a per-kerbal achievement tracker, most notably tracking "firsts" (first launch, first orbit, first SOI change, first landing on X / Y / Z, etc.) I noticed today in a relatively new save that the ribbon window (where it tracks the achievements for my kerbonauts) keeps getting reset. I have more troubleshooting to do, as I do have a metric butt-ton of mods active, but the Simulate option from KCT seems like it might be a culprit. Is there any known interactivity issue between these two mods?

I ran into that same issue recently and suspect the problem is on FF's end, since it uses a separate save file instead of using KSP's integrated save mechanism. If anything, FF needs to modify the way it keeps track of its information.

Edited by Corax

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I ran into that same issue recently and suspect the problem is on FF's end, since it uses a separate save file instead of using KSP's integrated save mechanism. If anything, FF needs to modify the way it keeps track of its information.

Same here, FF keeps a hall of fame separate file, it has some backups and when you load a previous file it tends to revert back, however it has some limitations and issues. And it can only revert back to the oldest backup and immediately replaces the newest and current files. We should head over there to report this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think where it is likely having issues is because KCT's version of reverting the save file after a simulation is manually overwriting the current save prior to it being loaded by KSP. Which when you think about it is actually kind of terrifying and malware-ey if it were applied to anything other than a game. KSP has no idea that it's loading a different file, so FF has no indication saying that it should reload its own database.

Maybe I can switch up KCT's post-simulation load code to make the game load from the backup instead of manually overwriting the save. That's probably safer anyway and might fix any issues that FF is having regarding simulations/KCT (since KSP would be fully aware that it were loading an older file)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've noticed some unusual values in the revert menu after running a KCT simulation (or 5).

the revert to launch is ballpark right - (~15mins), but the revert to VAB seems to be in the order of 5 hours.

is the simulation going buildtime ahead of "current" time as part of the process?

I've never had any issues as a result, so it doesnt matter one way or the other, just curious as to where the value is coming

_______________________________________

I'm using remote tech and TAC (and a whole host of other mods), and i have to say, adding your mod was the best thing i've done so far with KSP.

I've got into the habit of having a LKO rescue craft always ready to go, both for the rescue missions and because the construction times make a reactive rescue mission almost completely untenable. i feel the pain of NASA when it looks like theres gonna be a stranded astronaut!

I'm just eeking out beyond the mun, so sending a probe to everywhere i plan to visit with a scansat and emergency supplies to unlock the new test location and allow for future problem solving! TAC makes duna so scary, recovery takes ages to get there!

Thanks again for a fantastic mod :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've noticed some unusual values in the revert menu after running a KCT simulation (or 5).

the revert to launch is ballpark right - (~15mins), but the revert to VAB seems to be in the order of 5 hours.

is the simulation going buildtime ahead of "current" time as part of the process?

I've never had any issues as a result, so it doesnt matter one way or the other, just curious as to where the value is coming

Make sure you don't have anything in the UT box in the simulation configuration window. There's a chance that it's changing the time if there's something in there (since that box lets you change the time of the simulation). Otherwise there shouldn't be discrepancies in time like that.

I'm glad you've enjoyed playing with KCT :) I also find that TAC + KCT leads to a far more rewarding gameplay experience since rescue missions require delicate planning. You can't just send up new rescue missions when your previous one fails, and if there's any time at all to send a rescue it's probably only enough for one anyway!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah i think i have "0" in there, that would explain it! ta. i think it was my original attempt to test things in the day. (probes like electricity for circularisation, and i like to use ion drives as final stage for contract sats)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think where it is likely having issues is because KCT's version of reverting the save file after a simulation is manually overwriting the current save prior to it being loaded by KSP. Which when you think about it is actually kind of terrifying and malware-ey if it were applied to anything other than a game. KSP has no idea that it's loading a different file, so FF has no indication saying that it should reload its own database.

Maybe I can switch up KCT's post-simulation load code to make the game load from the backup instead of manually overwriting the save. That's probably safer anyway and might fix any issues that FF is having regarding simulations/KCT (since KSP would be fully aware that it were loading an older file)

Sounds like a good thing to do in any case.

I have also cross-posted to Final Frontier, so Nereid should be aware of the issue as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still say KCT-lite defies logic. There IS a button to fly immediately, it's called 'simulate'. Either you have an idea that isn't being expressed well or you are taking the advice of idiots. Design is tricky business, people don't really give it enough credit because sometimes a lot of what works is on accident, not through a protracted development and integration cycle like Apple uses. If your goal is to encourage people to use your system, designing a second one isn't going to help. If you asked the majority of players what they like or don't like, most of them will give you useless "I don't like career, it doesn't feel meaningful to me". What the hell does that even mean? They aren't trained to articulate what they like or don't like about something, let alone recognizing good ideas they don't like. People have a "I like it, it's good. I don't like it, it's bad." viewpoint into the world.

KSP has time but it has very little basic value; it's a resource without merit. Time moves forwards, but really only explains the movement of planets around the solar system. Despite contracts, it's heavily underutilized because it rarely affects most players beyond using time warp. KCT attempts to turn time into a resource the player can manipulate. You know you need it for building and research and is therefore implied to be semi-finite by contracts can expire both in availability and completion, and the movement of vessels and bodies while it happens. However, sometimes you get decades to complete some of these contracts. In the grand scheme of time, does forty days REALLY have a significant impact? When you have ten years to make a four day journey, nothing shy of a year of building and research is going to put a dent in that. So, who cares if you have to simulate something in an excel spreadsheet or on the pad? At the end of the day, mechanically speaking, the only thing you are doing is making the player wait a little bit.

What the player experiences, however, is more abstract. As a governing factor, time becomes something the player plans their actions around. They can manipulate and interact with it. Normally the only time a large amount passes is simulating a long mission in the vacuum. With the requirement of time to fuel building and research means that any time the player warps, they essentially 'lose'. If it's not being applied on projects it wasn't being utilized fully. This allows the player to feel intelligent and involved when they click space center to queue up new research and designs while missions take place overhead. Allowing used parts to speed up craft allows them to be 'thrifty'. Journeys that span a year aren't hampered by one day missions on the ground since they can spend months building and researching. The player can meaningfully multitask. So while the time you spend isn't necessarily more valuable in the sense of 'cost', it is still infinite, it provides more meaningful interaction with time itself. The movement of the planets and the rotation of the bodies is now a challenge met by proper planning; you create ideal conditions, not wait for them. Time is still infinite though, the player can ignore all of this and still proceed but it provides a framework in which they can interact with time in more meaningful ways.

If anything, the system can be expanded and polished. For instance, interfaces that match the default Kerbal interfaces would be less jarring for the player to interact with. Better integrating your UI to match stock makes it a natural extension of the game. If there is one place you could stand to make bigger improvements, it's with the upgrade system. It works, and it's somewhat enjoyable, but it's just something you dump points into. Even if you were to get the same effects, more specialized options allows the player to feel like they are tailoring the system to their play style rather than just upgrading things because they need to. After all, you can do everything without putting a single point into the upgrade system, it just happens a little faster.

As an example, instead of flat VAB/SPH improvements, why not allow the player to invest in various types of construction? For players who enjoy trying to recover all of their vessels, being able to refurbish the parts the save faster allows them to feel even more thrifty as they are explicitly rewarded for the behavior on their own terms. Those who don't might speed up constructing new parts so they don't feel penalized for not saving every part falling off their ships. Perhaps you can put limitations on the max BP that each hangar can handle? Or perhaps a gradient where bonuses to construction speed in the hangar is based on a base number of points it applies to and continues in a progressive curve beyond that? Small constructions could be very quick to produce without expanding your facilities, but players who enjoy very large builds could progress towards having the space to do so more easily. The point is not static limitations, but expressing the system in a way to allow the player to decide how to tackle the system. Heck, maybe after so many points you can pick a part specialization and you get a bonus on time building those parts, or bonuses like a refund on refurbished pieces so it's even more thrifty to save parts. Maybe discounts on parts from certain manufacturers?

That's a long enough post so I'll leave it at that. You have to keep in mind that the best mods act as an extension of the base game and fill a hole in the experience. It's the reason part mods are so popular: everyone has a part they'd like to see! I'm not just patting you on the back when I say that KCT does a really good job of integrating with the base game, but instead of looking at ways to strip away things that work, I think you should be looking at ways to make it feel more like it's always been part of the game.

Edited by Hyomoto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not just patting you on the back when I say that KCT does a really good job of integrating with the base game, but instead of looking at ways to strip away things that work, I think you should be looking at ways to make it feel more like it's always been part of the game.

Hyomoto, thank you for that well constructed post (something I generally am not good at doing)!

I still feel that KCT-Lite has some merit. It gives you an introduction to the gameplay aspects that time as a valued resource brings about without everything else. Some people who want a semi-casual experience may find it appealing as it wouldn't require significant config reworking while you try to figure out how the mod works. I know that I don't always want to try out a mod and immediately have to start doing configurations of a bunch of things I don't understand (something KCT could certainly do better).

Someone suggested presets for the configs, and I think that might help a lot for newcomers. There'd be presets for feature settings (easy disables reconditioning and tech unlocks, etc) and for time setttings (shorter, normal, "realistic", "reuse-centric"). One or two custom presets would probably be good too. Click two buttons and you're on your way, no fuss with configs. Probably also something for quickly spending the first upgrade points (All VAB (1 or 2 lines), All SPH (1 or 2 lines), split evenly)

I agree that the GUIs need improvement. One of my weakest abilities is making anything visual look good. I've tried to improve their quality over time, but I'm thinking it might be time to do a total overhaul of the system now that I have a better idea of what I'm doing. I think something more minimal would be good, like Mission Controller's funds windows in the editor (pre 0.24) which are unobtrusive yet informative. Perhaps have the build list be like the drop down menus for resources/contracts in the stock toolbar (with a separate window probably for detailed interaction with it)

Regarding visual things and mostly unrelated to the rest of this post: Would anyone like to make a banner and/or flag for KCT? I need something nice to put up on the forum page and KerbalStuff and you don't want to see what I would come up with. It could be made from screenshots (preferably just stock+KCT) or drawings or both (or anything else really).

Upgrades could definitely use improvements and I don't know the best way of going about that, so thank you for your suggestions. I'll think about how to implement something along those lines. I like giving the player choices and having those choices mean something, and while the current system does that to a degree it's also kind of, well, bland. If I had unlimited time and resources I'd love to integrate with Kerbal Konstructs to have physical building upgrades, but it looks like Squad is going that way themselves. I may wait for that to be released and then tie KCT upgrades to KSP upgrades, so better VABs can build faster/more ships. Either way, the upgrade system "works" as is, so I likely won't make any massive changes to it for some time.

I have time off (I think) in mid-late November that I could use to make some larger changes to various systems. I'm far from a game designer (and didn't actually become a modder entirely of my own volition, but am certainly glad I did) so I have a hard time making things fun. Functional, sure, but fun is a different story.

Because I have such little time as of late, I've really considered either a) partnering with someone or B) handing KCT off to someone else. I don't want to do either (especially B) because I enjoy working on it and like having control over it (I know that sounds bad, but it's been my labor of love for months and I'm reluctant to let other people change a bunch of things on their own). If I get a particularly good offer I'd probably be willing to work with someone else (even if it's just for a feature set), but I'm definitely not ready to hand anything over.

Edit: You've made a few edits (mostly for clarity/expansion) but I think my responses all apply just as well. Just acknowledging that I've re-read everything (twice now in fact ;) )

Edited by magico13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll try to leave a short reply; You may not believe me, but you've done an good job of integrating with the stock game. I like how launch goes to build or simulate, and I haven't found any buttons "You can't push or it will break." like Mission Controller had. As for doing better, the stock toolbar is a big one but using GUI elements that match is also important and really what I'm driving at. The basic unity 'smoke' skin (or whatever it's called) basically screams 'MOD'! Building static drop-downs into the basic toolbar would make a lot of sense, integration wise. (Honestly, that's just theory as I'd have to test it out to really get a feel for it, but I can't see the current space center window being a problem if it appeared under the toolbar instead). The floating window screams mod.

As for simplicity, I watched your video before I installed KCT and despite being a bit dull, it does a great job of covering the basic aspects of the mod. I didn't feel overwhelmed at all. In-game tutorials are harder to do because like solitaire, it's easier to just SHOW someone what they need to do. But, making things easy and intuitive will help with the bull-headed or casual players who don't care for 'the instructions'. Even so, some abstract concepts are and you just have to find a way to present them with more simplicity. I can give you a really good example: right now there is VAB building and VAB storage. Why? Is it not possible to show all VAB vessels under the VAB tab? If it needs to be built it could show a countdown, and if you can fly it, a 'launch' button instead. It's simple, avoids confusion and makes the system less obtuse. Even a simple "No ships in storage or building, use the VAB to get started" message when a tab is empty encourages the player without explicitly instructing them should they be exploring the interface.

I like that you want to keep things straightforwards for the player, but there are ways to simplify without damaging the integrity of what you want to do. For instance, some people like myself choose to start a new game with mods like this. If you want to make it less confusing for newcomers, consider giving the player less points to spend right off the bat. Hell, what about none? With fifteen you have to start asking "Where do I put these?" You are immobile before you even began because you don't know what you want to spend them on. So, why not bring it up later? Like once the player has earned a point? That's another shortcoming is the system doesn't do a good job of explaining how to get more points. You can pay for them but perhaps a "progress until next point" bar as well? A 'show me', don't 'tell me' rule is best for combating confusion.

If you'd like, I'm willing to comb the interface and share some notes with you. I might even be motivated enough to throw together some mock-ups, but rest assured the basic idea of KCT is fine. If complexity turns some people off, often you only need to find other ways to present the same information, not remove parts. Simplification doesn't mean dumbing down. KCT is a pretty succinct idea; it's ideas could be presented a little better, you might tweak the formula to favor newbies a bit more, but letting the player simply turn off parts they dislike is a slippery slope. Either a feature is necessary for the mod to accomplish it's intended role or it isn't. KCT can be improved, yes, but I strongly insist it doesn't have a lot of dead weight. Presently of course. Mods sit at #1 in the 'feature bloat' and 'needless complexity' categories of bad design choices. I respect the fact you want to make it more accessible but I have to insist that KCT isn't FAR and a lite version serves only to fracture your user base and increase your workload. If one mod is giving you trouble, maintaining two separate versions isn't going to help that.

EDIT: Well, I gave it a shot. Maybe I'll come up with something better another time.

kct.png?_subject_uid=256265391&w=AAD2PoVYHFj2v61Tyf7rIEgYCnaev-yT6anfnvvrnW1uPA

Edited by Hyomoto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently the original intention of my post dropped under the radar after that edit...

I would like to point out that it takes time to fuel up a vessel. The Saturn V's longest individual fuel type filling appears to be the LOX at over 45 minutes, but the whole filling process starts at T-13 hours and is pretty much continually doing something until T-72 seconds (usually just keeping things topped off).

[...]

If people show enough interest I can add it. If it's something only a few people want then, to me, it doesn't really seem like a feature I want to add. It would make more sense to just remove reconditioning and replace it with this, so instead of waiting after a launch you wait before it. Which doesn't sound fun at all to me after waiting days for the ship to build.

Let me ask a question. How many people would do anything other than Warp to Complete if you had to wait after pressing the launch button?

That of course depends on what else there is currently to do in the game. If there are other vehicles or colonies, that's the perfect time to do maintenance or go into "story mode". I don't see it as anything different than waiting for the ship to build, or tech to unlock.

For me, having to wait for the next launch to roll out would mostly help to increase immersion, just the same as it is now with KCT, or even with stock KSP - nobody would wait a year in RL for their ship to arrive at Duna, but if there are missions going on in parallel, the game feels more immersive and less "warpy".

So yes, I might Warp to Complete, but I'd still feel there was more going on at the KSC.

If you simply replace refurbishment time after with roll-out time before, I don't think that would be worth the effort of even considering.

However, if whenever a vehicle is to be launched, there was a portion of what is currently "refurbishment time" scheduled before the vehicle is out on the pad ready to launch to simulate roll-out, and the other portion post-launch before the next vehicle can be scheduled for launch to simulate pad refurbishment, I'd see that as a definitive improvement to the mod.

If there were a config file setting or GUI option, the split could be adjusted to whatever preferences each individual player has - all before, all after, or some mixture of both.

Regarding KCT lite, basically what Hyomoto said :)

I wonder if it's worth the effort. You seem to say it would be simple to do as it would basically be stripping down the current project, but then you'd have to maintain two separate mods. It really depends on how large a user base there is for a light version.

I think in FAR's case, there's a lot more complexity that warrants a light version; with KCT, the time might be better spent on the "work flow" which seems to be what puts off those potential "light" users (whom I don't agree with, I think the mod is fine functionally as well as usability-wise)

Edited by Corax

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Corax, sorry didn't mean to ignore the original content. I did see it and register it, but forgot to mention anything about it.

Rollout is for sure, definitely, 100% going to be added (it is in fact my number 1 priority), so don't worry about that. There was enough interest to warrant its inclusion. For simplicity I was going to have one or the other (or both) be options, but the idea of a configurable split is something I will take under consideration. The two require substantial differences internally, so splitting the time is not trivially easy, but having both be separate options is definitely doable (and then you'd just probably reduce the reconditioning time yourself). Rollout time will not be very long (minutes to hours likely by default, maybe max of a day, the VAB is pretty close to the launchpad).

I'm thinking about the split thing more though. If I precalculate the reconditioning BP (I'm gonna have to anyway), then apply the split to that, then build the rollout object out of that split BP, then do the same for reconditioning afterward, it'd probably work. Then there's one reconditioning time setting (and corresponding maximum) and a slider from 0 to 100% for how much is considered rollout. I do like the end user simplicity of that.

Fine, I'm sold on it. It's easier than I had originally thought and I like the end result.

It brings up the question of how to handle reconditioning and rollout at the same time. From a "realism" perspective you can't rollout a vessel onto a launchpad that is being fixed (probably), so should you not be able to start rollout until after reconditioning is finished? I like the idea of both happening at once from a gameplay perspective, but it doesn't make sense to have a rollout finish before reconditioning. Launch will still be prevented for sure until reconditioning is complete.

Next question, what if you rollout a vessel, then change your mind and want to send a different one out. Do you have to take the time to roll the first one back, then roll the second one out? For gameplay do you just rollout the second one and insta-magic the first back into the inventory? Should the added rollback time be reduced from the original rollout time (simulating that you can have both travelling at the same time)?

I'm curious as to what all of you think about those questions.

As for KCT Lite, I've decided to scrap the idea for now and instead improve KCT's integration with Stock, while making the initial configuration setup simpler with presets (like KSP's preset difficulties, but likely after starting the game instead of beforehand).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your answer and happy to hear your point of view.

Considering aborted rollouts, I'd lean towards requiring the same duration that has passed so far for the vehicle to be rolled back again. Maybe even add another fixed amount of time for bringing the crawler to a halt and starting again in reverse - a penalty for not going through with the rollout, if you will. Allow rollout of the new vehicle only after the rollback is complete, as there is only one crawlerway and one launchpad. That said, if it doesn't complicate things too much, providing for multiple crawlerways and pads might be sensible, who knows what the future (or Kerbinside) might bring...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It brings up the question of how to handle reconditioning and rollout at the same time. From a "realism" perspective you can't rollout a vessel onto a launchpad that is being fixed (probably), so should you not be able to start rollout until after reconditioning is finished? I like the idea of both happening at once from a gameplay perspective, but it doesn't make sense to have a rollout finish before reconditioning. Launch will still be prevented for sure until reconditioning is complete.

I'd say there's two options

1.) Only 1 happens at a time. Reconditioning has to be completed prior to rollout.

2.) Both happen at once, but you can only complete a certain percentage of rollout prior to reconditioning being complete. Part of the rollout time is literally that, rollout. Physically moving the craft from where ever it is hangered to the pad. Then the next part of rollout would be putting it onto the pad and fueling it up. Clearly you could complete most of the first part of the rollout (from storage to beside the pad) regardless of what shape the pad is in but it's pretty hard to plop down a 75ton rocket on top of a maintenance worked who is laying some new metal grate. Implementation may be to have half (or any other percentage) of the rollout able to be completed simultaneously with reconditioning, but the rest of it has to wait.

Obviously #2 is more work from a development perspective, but perhaps you could solve it internally by having two 'build queues' for the launch pad. The first handles reconditioning and fueling in a first come first serve method, the second handles 'rollout' Ships have X bp of rollout, and Y bp of fueling. When they're done with the first queue they're moved to the second.

Next question, what if you rollout a vessel, then change your mind and want to send a different one out. Do you have to take the time to roll the first one back, then roll the second one out? For gameplay do you just rollout the second one and insta-magic the first back into the inventory? Should the added rollback time be reduced from the original rollout time (simulating that you can have both travelling at the same time)?

If you implement option 1 above, IMO, you should have to spend time to rollback a vessel (perhaps just count the percentage back to zero at the same rate it was counting up) and then rollout the next one.

If you implement option 2 above, you should be able to roll out the second second one while the first is defueling or being rolled back (pretend you have multiple movers), but again, only 1 vessel would be able to use the 'recondition and fuel' queue at a time.

Lets take 2 vessels as an example. Vessel 1 takes 10 minutes to roll out and 10 minutes to fuel. Vessel 2 takes 3 minutes to roll out and 8 to fuel. You choose to launch vessel one and send it through the system, but when you go to launch you realize that you need vessel 2 in orbit first (maybe it's a com satellite that's needed for the first). At that point you choose to swap the vessels. Vessel 1 begins to unfuel, taking 10 minutes to do so. Vessel 2 begins to be towed out, taking 3 minutes to reach the pad. At that point there's still 7 minutes left of unfueling for Vessel 1 so it simply sits there and waits. Vessel 1 finally finishes unfueling and starts being towed back to storage while Vessel 2 is loaded onto the launchpad and begins fueling. 8 minutes later Vessel 2 is fully fueled. Here, you could either launch, or be forced to wait an additional 2 minutes for Vessel 1 to finish its rollback (under the guise of safety, and not having 2 things at once). Because Vessel 1 was occupying the pad the full rollout (from storage to fueled) for Vessel takes a total of 3 + 7 + 8 (+2) = 18(+2) minutes instead of the base 11 so it gives you some 'punishment' for not planning, but it's not adding a full additional 20 minutes that it would take to store Vessel 1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thank you soo much for making this mod, without it the game is only half as fun!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Might this mod be compatible with Flight Manager for Reusable Stages? Has anybody tried it?

I'm thinking specifically of a launch stage that needs to be piloted through reentry and landing, so just adding a parachute and getting funds back isn't as good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been meaning to try it, but haven't gotten around to it. I too am curious about their compatibility. The only incompatibility I can think of is that KCT has its own funds recovery method, but if you set the recovery percentage to 0% then you won't have to worry about getting funds for the stage, then flying it down and recovering it giving more funds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Signed up to let you know your mod is awesome!

One thing I must nitpick: Add an indicator that says the simulation is currently running with no time limit, like an overlay across the screen that says "THIS AINT REAL"! I kept forgetting its in simulation mode and end up doing hour long missions just to "wake up" with "hell no".

Still, your mod is good stuff!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, that's not a half bad idea but you could maybe take it even further. There are so many complicated and interesting ideas you could do, such as a screen overlay that blinks SIMULATION RUNNING..., or in the corners maybe do a console style scroll like you might see running in a server command window. I have had plenty of times where I knew I was in simulation when I took off and then forgot about it ten minutes later. Not a bad suggestion at all. This is probably well beyond your scope, but maybe you could see if someone else could try it, is do a wireframe shader for simulation mode. That would be completely awesome and it would be pretty unmistakable. How awesome would it be to combine all of them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wanted to join the 'this mod is awesome' chorus! I've been a fairly diehard stock player until now, so I'm very glad indeed that somebody posted a link to this thread in another topic I was reading. So yeah - KCT - the first mod I've installed since before Career Mode was introduced.

I've actually played a couple of career mode games using a (much simplified) pen and paper version of KCT, so I'm stoked to have a mod that does a much more detailed version for me, adds in Space Centre upgrades, and throws in some quality-of-life improvements like Warp to Event!

Thank you!

Share this post


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