magico13

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

Recommended Posts

magico13: Profuse apologies for not Reading The Fine Thread re: Kerbal Konstructs. :]

I will try it with RSS (6.4x, to eliminate RO shenanigans). As regex is on hiatus, and even before that (i.e. months ago) shuttered the campaign system I don't foresee the pad cooldown stuff getting written any time soon. I would *love* it if KCT stored state for each individual launch site--indeed, complete state, upgrades to one VAB shouldn't carry over to another.

Your sandbox methodology sounds great to me, for the record.

EDIT: After searching and not finding any hits for procedural, have procedural parts been discussed? How are they handled? IMO the best bet would be to store the "OnSave" confignode as a fingerprint, and not count a part as a rebuild unless its OnSave confignode matched the stored one. But that would mean you could have potentially hundreds of different Proc Part entries in the Stored Parts list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd like to see the log file for that so I know precisely what the error is and how to avoid it in the future. I was afraid something like that might happen at some point if people removed mods and still had craft in the list/storage. The fix is relatively simple if you've done anything in the save file before. Just find where the craft is in the SPH storage (ie, it's the 3rd item in the list). This is referred to as SPHWH# (where # is the position in the list, with a zero index, so # = 2 in this example). Just delete the entire SPHWH# section and rename all the later ones (SPHWH3 becomes SPHWH2, SPHWH4 becomes SPHWH3, etc). You'd also need to remove the whole Item {} section from the SPHWarehouse section.

If you get me the log file I can probably just write a quick patch to let you scrap it normally (and get what parts still exist back in your inventory).

So yeah, I thought to check out save file and just try to remove any references to it, pretty much without knowing what I'm doing. But I didn't found it, so I've checked on the backup and there it was, loading the game successfully So I'm guessing KCT just erased it somehow, maybe trying to scrap or unsuccessful edit. (this happened before the vessel was complete)

On another note, I really don't think you need to check for full recovery of vessel so they go straight into the hangar. The way it is, is already cool. Instead I was thinking of leaving the plane sort or parked somewhere on the KSC, recover the naut, have some sort of refueling station( pretty cool if you have KAS). All that is needed is to spawn kerbals directly without a vessel or build time, and maybe reset sci experiments too. I don't know which would easier or best to do.

On yet another note, Does anyone play this along with remotetech? Doing a space simulation doesn't quite work because you don't have time to open dishes and establish communications, and may be on a non-optimal place. Best thing would be to disable temporally RT, or maybe cheat as if the vessel is locally controlled. I'll also check on RemoteTech's thread if they have ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On yet another note, Does anyone play this along with remotetech? Doing a space simulation doesn't quite work because you don't have time to open dishes and establish communications, and may be on a non-optimal place. Best thing would be to disable temporally RT, or maybe cheat as if the vessel is locally controlled. I'll also check on RemoteTech's thread if they have ideas.

I do actually play with this and RemoteTech so I know how you feel. Ones in orbit around Kerbin aren't too bad if you make sure to open the omnidirectionals in the VAB, but you can't target dishes directly in the VAB. In the advanced simulation configuration there is a button called "Delay move to orbit". Activating that will give you three seconds on the launchpad before moving to orbit, which may give you enough time to target the dish somewhere useful.

<edit> RT used to have a feature where if you turned on one of the debug menu settings (infinite EVA fuel I think) you would always have communications. That feature would be ridiculously useful during simulations if it still worked, but last I checked it didn't. Does RT have it's own debug menu? </edit>

@NathanKell, I will give you a more elaborate response after I get to work. In short, the only procedural parts that are taken into consideration are tweakscaled parts. Everything else counts as one part (since they're stored by part name).

<edit> I haven't given much thought to procedural parts since the only ones I've ever used up until now have been Procedural Fairings, which I generally don't recover (except the bases). It's still fair to me to have the reductions in time due to the part tracker (repeated uses) since they're still fairings, but I can see where the inventory might be a bit weird. Procedural fuel tanks and wings is a bit more questionable, but in general I tend to prefer simplicity and gameplay over strict realism. Since I don't want to have individual tracked items for tanks that are 1.5 meters long, 1.55 meters long, ... cluttering up lists and occupying massive amounts of the save file (if I saved the whole confignode), I'm personally in the favor of not treating them too differently. At the moment you still have to pay for them at full price and you still have to build them (maximum reductions in build times are only around 1/10 for ships built entirely from the inventory. When you mix parts it suddenly takes much, much longer than that because newer parts are far more heavily weighted). Tweakscale was an exception because the parts suddenly start varying wildly from their stock versions, but for the most part are in discrete sizes. I personally don't like tweakscale and never use it except for mods that require it, like Infernal Robotics.

As for multiple launch sites, I've added an issue on GitHub for it and will try to get it in the next release. Which probably won't be until after next week at the earliest, as I have some exams coming up and definitely need to do better than I did on my last ones.

</edit>

Edited by magico13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that proc parts can be anything from a 10cm x 10cm sphere, to a 10m x 50m Saturn S-IC stage tank (or much, much more, like ferram's Eotena). I understand the constraints you want to operate under, and you're right that it might not be worth the effort, but if you think a mere doubling in size is worth special handling, a factor of a thousand also warrants it. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suggest are compromised sollution. Allow construction learning but disable part reuse for procedural parts. That way every procedural part is always custom made, but construction time can be accelerated by building while at the same time now allow it to be abused.

I think this can be easily achieved by simply filtering on procedural in the part name

Edited by FreeThinker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still having a big problem with using this with real fuels; the volatiles keep disappearing when I bring the vessel out of storage, even when I attach launch clamps. Looking in the persistent, the tanks show they are full, but real fuels drains them once I hit fly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm still having a big problem with using this with real fuels; the volatiles keep disappearing when I bring the vessel out of storage, even when I attach launch clamps. Looking in the persistent, the tanks show they are full, but real fuels drains them once I hit fly.

Do you have launch clamps fitted? I posted earlier as I looked into this, and it's an interaction between kct and real fuels that I can't see an easy way for the kct guys to fix, but in theory at least, including launch clamps resolves it, as real fuels makes launch clamps into boil off topper-uppers (yes that's the technical term).

I don't recall seeing this issue myself since adding launch clamps to my designs, and in any case, when it was happening, an amusing non launch followed by a revert resolved things, so unless you are in hard mode , this isn't the most fatal error?

Timmers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I suggest are compromised sollution. Allow construction learning but disable part reuse for procedural parts. That way every procedural part is always custom made, but construction time can be accelerated by building while at the same time now allow it to be abused.

I think this can be easily achieved by simply filtering on procedural in the part name

This seems like a reasonable compromise to me. Your engineers gain familiarity with how the parts work still but they have to be "custom ordered" to fit.

I'm still having a big problem with using this with real fuels; the volatiles keep disappearing when I bring the vessel out of storage, even when I attach launch clamps. Looking in the persistent, the tanks show they are full, but real fuels drains them once I hit fly.

I've got that listed as a bug on GitHub and will probably be looking into it today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This seems like a reasonable compromise to me. Your engineers gain familiarity with how the parts work still but they have to be "custom ordered" to fit.

Indeed that way you engeneer learn how to customise it. I thing resizing a oart should function is a similar way, in the sense if I lean how to build it in one size, it should also be able to do in a small or larger size and not learn from scratch how to build it. That's just silly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I figured the current implementation was fine but I suppose I understand why people would want something more succinct. That seems like a good compromise and might be the 'disadvantage' over using readily available mass produced parts. If you get to the point where you can recover the whole craft without rebuilding, it will be a perfect compromise since you are only 'penalized' if you build it from scratch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think I found a bug.

It appears you can build craft with parts you have not yet unlocked in the tech tree. (I don't know if this applies also to things you simply haven't purchased in the tech tree.)

Steps to reproduce:

1) Take a craft from a different save or the stock folder that has parts you have not yet unlocked. Move the craft file into your personal save's craft repository. (I recommend using a spaceplane, because that's how I found the issue.)

2) Load up that craft in the appropriate building.

3) Hit the 'Launch' button.

4) In the KCT popup, select build. It should get added to the build queue.

5) Wait until the craft is built.

6) Launch the craft using the KCT dialog.

Interestingly, it appears you can't simulate the craft, so some logic somewhere is checking whether parts are restricted.

ETA: I'm on version 1.0.3, using the KSP 0.25 for Win32. I do have a bunch of other mods installed, but this is purely with stock parts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the report, though it's already in the Known Issues. I can't fix it (and it would be a simple fix) until I fix the other bug where once you start researching a piece of technology you lose access to it. The reason you can't simulate it is because that uses a totally different method for placing the ship on the pad (identical to pressing the launch button in a stock game).

It's been mentioned a few times in the thread, but until I can make it so you can still complete part testing contracts when researching the tech I won't be able to fix it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, glad to know you've got it covered! Sorry I didn't see it in the thread; my search-fu is weak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes I have built craft and put them on the pad and warped to get a good launch window but because I have solar, my batteries have drained by launch time. (It also seems RF boils off some stuff from all accounts)

What I would like is to have the option to recover the craft and launch the exact same craft but with charged batteries and full tanks. Instead I have to disassemble the craft and completely rebuild it.

Would it be possible to have a `resupply` option to keep the craft whole and put it back into the VAB/SPH queue but only use up the much lower time it takes to just refuel/recharge it?

It could be very useful for SSTO craft. If you recover them on the runway or pad (maybe within KSC perimeter) then you could have the option to just refuel them and fly again instead of totally building another from scratch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK, glad to know you've got it covered! Sorry I didn't see it in the thread; my search-fu is weak.

No worries, I'd rather hear similar reports twice than never at all!

Sometimes I have built craft and put them on the pad and warped to get a good launch window but because I have solar, my batteries have drained by launch time. (It also seems RF boils off some stuff from all accounts)

Why wouldn't you just warp to the right time and then launch the craft? But beside that point, recovering straight into an inventory and refilling resources is a confirmed feature that will be in the 1.1 release, which I feel I have mentioned many times recently. I have not yet decided how to handle refilling resources with regards to time. It either won't require any time, or will require a small amount of time. With the rollout feature, requiring time doesn't seem important.

In general, check the known issues and GitHub issues to see what are known problems and what is confirmed for future releases (and even which release they'll be in!) Many of the GitHub issues even have links to corresponding forum posts, and are a great place to discuss the implementation of a feature. You can make issues to report bugs or suggest features and it won't get lost to the many pages of posts on the forums. Any changes I make related to a particular GitHub issue will automatically be tagged so you'll be able to track the progress easily. With Milestones you can see how close the next version is to release.

I apologize if I sound short tempered, I'm not feeling particularly well right now and I have some tests later this week that have me a bit stressed out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why wouldn't you just warp to the right time and then launch the craft?

Because once you have pressed `launch` you are committed, that being one of the features of your mod, hehe ;). You then either have the option of launching right now, using valuable resources if you warp or completely rebuilding the craft, none of which are ideal.

"Pretty self-explanatory. You should have the ability to recover vessels straight into the warehouse/inventory without rebuilding and without being able to make repairs. Not sure how to handle fuel levels though. Probably let you fill them up for no time."

This is very cool and exactly the solution I hoped for. I`ll check the GitHub page before I post any more suggestions in future. I would say that a refuel should take about as long as a launchpad repair for a particular size of craft or at least that sort of range (a few hours).

You did not sound short tempered. I sometimes wonder at the ability to remain calm that is shown by mod makers in the face of a constant stream of requests, bugs and complaints often a lot of them repeated. One of my favourite responses to repeated questions is along the lines of "post#427", that being the entirety of the response which leads the poster to the conversation they were looking to repeat (and hopefully saves time for the Dev).

Yours is one of the mods that I now regard as the minimum required for the game to have features that should be stock. Some of the others are KAC, DRE, FAR, RealChutes, RT, and KER. It just adds some flesh to the bones of the game.

EDIT :

"Have a new window when you click on the launchpad/runway to allow you to configure simulations or build ships that already have craft files."

I like this idea.

Edited by John FX
PEBKAC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a thought that this functionality would work well in the VAB/SPH construction and storage lists, selecting a craft being built or stored could bring up an option to simulate/build another one just like it. Then you could build a copy of a unique craft that was not saved (which exploded during launch due to a PEBKAC error). After failing to launch a particular craft a few times, I would find an option to `Put another copy of the last craft launched into the build queue` very handy.

Some of this already exists in that you can "Duplicate" any craft that's building or is in storage (press the "*" button and then the "Duplicate" button). You can also save any craft by using the edit button and then saving it in the editor (that's actually the only button I left available, so that you could make edits and save it as a new version, or overwrite the existing craft file in case it's something that should be in future versions of the build). A "rebuild last launched" could be handy, but more often then not you either already have it saved or it is saved as the "Autosaved Craft" (I need to verify if the craft gets saved as that when you launch or if it's only for simulated craft). The new window feature is super low priority but something I would like to have eventually as it would help with the overall integration with the stock game.

Possibly little known feature that's half Stock's doing and half mine: If you revert to the editor after pressing Launch then the vessel will return to storage ;) Doesn't work in no revert saves, but does for sure otherwise. I purposefully designed the launch system to work that way (the vessel isn't removed from the inventory until after flight starts and the persistence is loaded, rather than before switching to the flight scene). It led to some fun where launching from the Tracking Station wouldn't remove ships for a version or two :D

As for sounding short tempered, I worry sometimes because it's very difficult to determine the tone of someone else over the internet and I generally don't want to sound combatative. It's hard sometimes when I feel like I've been answering the same question for months. I'm pretty sure that the most requested feature has been recovering straight to storage in some form or another. Generally people are OK when I explain that the part inventory covers almost exactly what they're asking for, but then other people want it to not take a bunch of extra time. I finally caved but just haven't had the time lately to add it since it isn't a necessary feature :P

Which reminds me, I spent a bit of time working on what's needed for RSS and KK support (with different KSCs having their own sets of build lists and upgrades) and it basically resulted in a total rewrite of how data is stored to the save file. I'm gonna do my best to not break existing saves, but there is a slight chance. The good news is that the new system will make more sense and that the actual ships will be saved with the rest of their data (currently, ships in lists are saved in a different section of the save file from their KCT specific data and are linked to each other based on their order of appearance. The new system will save the ships as a subset of their KCT specific data, which makes a lot more sense). In order to allow a transition from the old system to the new one, I'll have to load the old data from the save, add it to the default KSC, delete all the old data, then save it the new way. It's shouldn't be hard and it will be tested somewhat thoroughly, but I figured I'd at least mention it.

TL;DR: I said nothing that important in this wall of text, I apparently am just feeling like talking. I think I'm excited because I actually got to do some modding over the weekend and fixed some bugs :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some of this already exists in that you can "Duplicate" any craft that's building or is in storage (press the "*" button and then the "Duplicate" button). You can also save any craft by using the edit button and then saving it in the editor (that's actually the only button I left available, so that you could make edits and save it as a new version, or overwrite the existing craft file in case it's something that should be in future versions of the build). A "rebuild last launched" could be handy, but more often then not you either already have it saved or it is saved as the "Autosaved Craft" (I need to verify if the craft gets saved as that when you launch or if it's only for simulated craft). The new window feature is super low priority but something I would like to have eventually as it would help with the overall integration with the stock game.

Possibly little known feature that's half Stock's doing and half mine: If you revert to the editor after pressing Launch then the vessel will return to storage ;) Doesn't work in no revert saves, but does for sure otherwise. I purposefully designed the launch system to work that way (the vessel isn't removed from the inventory until after flight starts and the persistence is loaded, rather than before switching to the flight scene). It led to some fun where launching from the Tracking Station wouldn't remove ships for a version or two :D

I have since seen that I can duplicate a craft from the menu in the control centre screen, I was looking in the VAB to try and do it there but all there is is an X to delete it. The `*` context menu may have a place in the VAB menu next to the `X`? (It is very handy)

I am playing a game with no revert, no quicksave currently so no easy workaround for me! ;)

TYVM for letting me know I can save a prototype ship by editing it again. If the latest launched craft is in fact saved as the autosaved craft then there is no reason to bother with new coding, I will see if I can just click `launch` from the launchpad window and build another one...

I have been promoting craft building and node unlocking taking time in the various discussions about the future of the game, maybe such a thing could be stock?

Who knows...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been promoting craft building and node unlocking taking time in the various discussions about the future of the game, maybe such a thing could be stock?

Who knows...

I think we've both seen Harvester's response to the suggestion of build times and it's pretty obvious it won't be added to Stock. Which I mostly agree with because a lot of people wouldn't want to play with build times, but I definitely think that Squad is missing out on some really great gameplay potential by actually making time mean SOMETHING in KSP. They're so convinced that time could never become a meaningful resource in a game with timewarp, so they very clearly have never played with KCT or watched KSP-TV on Mondays with OverloadUT (who has posted multiple times in this thread). I feel sorry for them in some respects and sometimes question the direction KSP is headed. I haven't been particularly impressed with the past few updates' "major" features, but I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt and am hoping things work out well in the end. It seems a bit of a shame that some of the best new features are done by mod developers and not Squad themselves.

As for the things more directly related to KCT in your post :P The BuildList+ window as I internally refer to it as isn't available in the editor because most of the functions aren't applicable there or will break things there and I figured going to the space center was easy enough. That might change in 1.1/1.2. It depends on how crazy I get with the GUI overhaul. Duplicating a ship in the VAB is as easy as loading the saved one and pressing the build button, so it didn't seem necessary to make the duplicate functionality available there. You're really not supposed to use the build list in the editor at all, but it was requested enough.

I'm not positive about the last launched ship being saved as the autosaved ship, so take that with a grain of salt. There is a way to get a useful ship out of that though. The last launched ship is saved as a file called temp.craft in the save folder (go into the ships folder and you should see it next to the VAB and SPH folders). Just copy/move that and rename it and you should have a valid craft file.

I'm getting excited about how I am planning on doing upgrades, but don't have enough to go into detail about it and it won't be for a little while. The basic premise will be a progression web (a tech tree in some regards) with a single unlocked starting node and several branches going off in varying directions (current model has 5 branches: VAB, SPH, R&D, Recovery, Simulations). You can unlock nodes down a branch to get more features (more assembly lines, discounted time on brand new parts, etc for the VAB/SPH) but will also be able to upgrade certain unlocked nodes (for instance, to increase build rates for an assembly line). Some nodes will have alternative ways of unlocking them (i.e. simulation bodies can be unlocked by purchasing them or by transmitting science from them). What have typically been considered core features will need to be unlocked (specifically the part inventory system and parachute based recovery of parts) and can be enhanced beyond their current capabilities (somehow :P).

This opens up a lot of freedom in my mind. If you don't care about recovering and reusing parts, then you can purchase upgrades to reduce build times for vessels using non-inventory parts. If on the other hand you recover everything (including fairings...) then you can spend some cash on upgrades that enhance that. You could simulate your important Jool mission by sending a small science probe around the system or just unlock the corresponding nodes with funds/science. Additionally, I'll be moving away from the point based system in science and career modes (but possibly using it, or a derivative, for Sandbox mode). I hope it will prove to be a straightforward system for users that enables a lot of choice, but it's probably going to suck on the back end. I am not that great at making GUIs so it likely won't be that pretty at first. I would gladly accept artwork to use for the nodes and background, assuming I can figure out how to display them, but I don't yet have anything to show to start from. I REALLY want to start working on it but I can't yet with school (in fact, I have a test I should be studying for...) but come Thanksgiving break I likely won't be moving from my computer for a few days :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your mod is good. Squad uses and enjoys mods, and in some cases you know they have had their opinions influenced by them. Lots of people don't get this, but it isn't about integration into stock. You cannot tell me the better aerodynamics will not be in some way influenced by how popular FAR is. While the eventual addition of atmospheric effects and clouds cannot be solely attributed to rbay (after all, who HASN'T wanted them?), you can bet the developers are using them and have plans of their own. In some cases, such as Fine Print or SPP, they might just absorb it wholesale with their own modifications.

What I'm getting at is if your mod is fun, and people play it, and we talk about it, Squad may change their minds and look at ways to integrate this style of gameplay. Maybe not to the level you have, but in some way.

Edited by Hyomoto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your mod is good. Squad uses and enjoys mods, and in some cases you know they have had their opinions influenced by them. Lots of people don't get this, but it isn't about integration into stock. You cannot tell me the better aerodynamics will not be in some way influenced by how popular FAR is. While the eventual addition of atmospheric effects and clouds cannot be solely attributed to rbay (after all, who HASN'T wanted them?), you can bet the developers are using them and have plans of their own. In some cases, such as Fine Print or SPP, they might just absorb it wholesale with their own modifications.

What I'm getting at is if your mod is fun, and people play it, and we talk about it, Squad may change their minds and look at ways to integrate this style of gameplay. Maybe not to the level you have, but in some way.

Nicely said. This is why I continue to spout the benefits to gameplay and pace that this mod provides. Sometimes people reject things because they cannot see the benefit until they are shown what the benefit actually is

I reckon they could do much worse than putting large chunks of this mod right into stock...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having searched this time (woo!) I want to add some belated support for a rollout mechanic. We've been considering how to change rescue missions for Realism Overhaul career mode, and one of the sticking points is that, even if you have another capsule and LV "on hand" as it were (in VAB storage), there still should be the final integration check / rollout / fueling / checkout delay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi magico, is it possible to reduce the length of the pad reconditioning? I'm having some issues with 6.4 rescaled kerbin, since my launchers tend to have insane masses. The result is an odd combination where it takes 1 month to build the ship, and 3 months to rebuild the launchpad... Thanks! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nicely said. This is why I continue to spout the benefits to gameplay and pace that this mod provides. Sometimes people reject things because they cannot see the benefit until they are shown what the benefit actually is

Hyomoto has a way with words that I've found to be pretty unmatched. In some regards I like that KCT has many mechanics that won't become stock, because then I can control them how I want them. I do hope they change their mind somewhat about the value of time, from the current mindset of "It means nothing because of timewarp" to one that utilizes it as a valued resource. Maybe KCT will end up being the harbinger of that.

Having searched this time (woo!) I want to add some belated support for a rollout mechanic. We've been considering how to change rescue missions for Realism Overhaul career mode, and one of the sticking points is that, even if you have another capsule and LV "on hand" as it were (in VAB storage), there still should be the final integration check / rollout / fueling / checkout delay.

Oh yeah, rollout is definitely a planned feature for the next major release. I am planning a smaller release first with mostly bug fixes and some basic RSS support (which will be 1.0.4) before a larger feature release with rollout time and either a GUI overhaul or the upgrade overhaul (or at least the beginnings of those). That first release will hopefully be out this weekend, while next weekend will be when I focus on the bigger feature release.

Or I may throw rollout time into the thing I'm working on this weekend and call that 1.1. Who knows!

Edit: @Ippo Just go into the Time settings and change the mass listed in there for reconditioning time (you'll want to increase it by at least 3 fold I would imagine, but it might be better to go 4 fold or higher [so 200 tons or more]). A future version will also have a maximum time for reconditioning. It won't affect the current one (since the BP is already calculated) so if the current one bugs you you'll have to disable reconditioning, save the settings, then go back in and re-enable it. That will "clear" the current one (so, it's technically cheating but I think that's excusable in this case)

Edited by magico13

Share this post


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