Ven

[1.2.2] Stock Part Revamp, Update 1.9.6. Released Source Files!

Recommended Posts

Here's my changelog for updating to 1.2:

  • Tags added to all new parts (and some modified parts, like the relay antennas which otherwise lack tags of their own). We can search the engines by nickname now!
  • The Size 0 heatshield is no longer a separate part, but a reskin of the stock size 0. (Their names were colliding anyway.)
  • Engines with extra top nodes now use ModuleStructuralNode and ModuleStructuralNodeToggle, so if we're having trouble getting the Poodle on the right node (for example) we can turn off the upper node in the editor.
  • Solar panel configs corrected to generate power and not spam exceptions (may require one-time retraction/redeployment to fix existing vessels).
  • Antennas all work now, with ranges and properly-referenced transforms in their configurations.
    • The fixed antenna models are used to replace the relay antenna models.
    • Per user feedback (and, frankly, my preference), Ven's 88-88 model is now a separate part, the 88-88-V, rather than reskinning the stock 88-88. Because it lacks the cosmetic fairing, it is slightly lighter and cheaper.
    • The Communotron-32 dish is now called the HG-20, and is a "big brother" to the HG-5 relay with 4x the power (20M).
    • The "old" fixed antenna parts (88-X, DTS-M5, DTS-M7, whose models I'm now using for the relays) are now unresearchable and unbuildable, so they are ready to be deprecated in a future version (but won't break any existing vessels just yet).
    • The MK2VA pod has a built-in antenna like other capsules.
    • Pruners updated accordingly.
  • RCS thrusters (including the builtin thrusters on the Mk1-2 pod) have the new sound effects.

I think I've hit all the key points, so my PR is in.  Anyone who is eager to use it now can clone the KSP_1.2 branch of my fork of the VSR repo on GitHub, but because I have changed up some part names and definitions, I'm not going to publish a release without some review from Ven or NathanKell.

When the release happens, if you've got vessels with non-retractable panels that need retracting, here's the patch for it:

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleDeployableSolarPanel]]:FINAL
{
	@MODULE[ModuleDeployableSolarPanel]
	{
		%retractable = true
	}
}

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Kerbas_ad_astra Great work. The only other thing I can think of is the lights on crewed parts. Squad added lights to several parts in 1.2 so the revamp should only modify the transform name of the stock part rather than add an entirely new module. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, I just took out the ModuleColorChanger from the crew pods, but I'll see if that other way works.

Edit: it does!  Didn't even have to change any transform names or anything.  All committed.

Edited by Kerbas_ad_astra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Kerbas_ad_astra said:

Here's my changelog for updating to 1.2:

  • Tags added to all new parts (and some modified parts, like the relay antennas which otherwise lack tags of their own). We can search the engines by nickname now!
  • The Size 0 heatshield is no longer a separate part, but a reskin of the stock size 0. (Their names were colliding anyway.)
  • Engines with extra top nodes now use ModuleStructuralNode and ModuleStructuralNodeToggle, so if we're having trouble getting the Poodle on the right node (for example) we can turn off the upper node in the editor.
  • Solar panel configs corrected to generate power and not spam exceptions (may require one-time retraction/redeployment to fix existing vessels).
  • Antennas all work now, with ranges and properly-referenced transforms in their configurations.
    • The fixed antenna models are used to replace the relay antenna models.
    • Per user feedback (and, frankly, my preference), Ven's 88-88 model is now a separate part, the 88-88-V, rather than reskinning the stock 88-88. Because it lacks the cosmetic fairing, it is slightly lighter and cheaper.
    • The Communotron-32 dish is now called the HG-20, and is a "big brother" to the HG-5 relay with 4x the power (20M).
    • The "old" fixed antenna parts (88-X, DTS-M5, DTS-M7, whose models I'm now using for the relays) are now unresearchable and unbuildable, so they are ready to be deprecated in a future version (but won't break any existing vessels just yet).
    • The MK2VA pod has a built-in antenna like other capsules.
    • Pruners updated accordingly.
  • RCS thrusters (including the builtin thrusters on the Mk1-2 pod) have the new sound effects.

I think I've hit all the key points, so my PR is in.  Anyone who is eager to use it now can clone the KSP_1.2 branch of my fork of the VSR repo on GitHub, but because I have changed up some part names and definitions, I'm not going to publish a release without some review from Ven or NathanKell.

When the release happens, if you've got vessels with non-retractable panels that need retracting, here's the patch for it:


@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleDeployableSolarPanel]]:FINAL
{
	@MODULE[ModuleDeployableSolarPanel]
	{
		%retractable = true
	}
}

 

Hey Kerbas, fairly new with using GitHub, how do i clone your branch and then use it in game? Where would i go exactly?

 

Edit: I beleive i found it, this is your repo, yes?

https://github.com/Kerbas-ad-astra/Stock-Revamp/tree/fdd1f97dd50e9c5b2f6042e2c4e3256f6caed41a

Then i just click download zip, or what? Github always confuses me.

 

Second edit: Thank you SO much man. Everything seems to be functioning. Incredible job!

Edited by HazyHexagon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, HazyHexagon said:

Hey Kerbas, fairly new with using GitHub, how do i clone your branch and then use it in game? Where would i go exactly?

 

Edit: I beleive i found it, this is your repo, yes?

https://github.com/Kerbas-ad-astra/Stock-Revamp/tree/fdd1f97dd50e9c5b2f6042e2c4e3256f6caed41a

Then i just click download zip, or what? Github always confuses me.

That's the correct fork, you just need to select "KSP_1.2" in the "Branch" list (underneath where it says the number of commits. You know you are in the right branch when it says the latest commit was an hour ago). Upon selecting that branch, just click "Clone or Download" and then "Download ZIP". When that is downloaded, extract the archive and copy the contents of the GameData folder into your KSP GameData folder.

By the way, thank you for all of the hard work you've contributed to updating this mod for use in 1.2, @HazyHexagon!

 

Edited by fallout2077

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Kerbas_ad_astra The following patch needs to be added to RCSBlock in Squad\Parts\Engine.cfg to enable the ModuleRCSFX effects for the reskinned RCS block

@EFFECTS
	{
		@running
		{
			@AUDIO_MULTI_POOL
			{
				@transformName = RCSthruster
			}
			@MODEL_MULTI_PARTICLE
			{
				@transformName = RCSthruster
			}
		}
	}

I've never done a github pull request before but I might have time to learn how tomorrow.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good to know there's a 1.2 compatible version being worked on :)

This mod is pretty much the last one I need to start a new sandbox game (yet again).

In the meanwhile I'm still playing 1.1.3, at least I get my all my stuff designed and ready to launch with minor modifications required by the comms network.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Kerbas_ad_astra said:

It's never too late to learn git.  :)

I'll put it in myself if you haven't worked it out by Sunday.

Kerbas, this may be beyond me. I initially thought I could your fork your fork and make a pull request directly to your fork but that apparently isn't a thing. So here is what I did:

  • Forked and cloned the master branch
  • Created a new branch 
  • Copied all your changes into the cloned repo on my desktop
  • Committed and synced those changes to the new branch
  • Made my changes
  • Commited and synced those changes

At this point I'm at a loss for what to do.  My forked branch is here:  https://github.com/tarheel1999/Stock-Revamp/tree/1.2-Fixes.  It has the following changes:

  • Changed categories of mk1 Cargo pay, Octo service bay, and para docking port
  • Added the "Light" action group to all of the new command pods/crew containers
  • Added effects to the RCSBlock
  • Changed the charge rate of the new large 1x3 solar panels to the value from 1.9.3 (3.7 vs 0.72)

Sorry about the reverts. It took me a couple of tries to figure out to how to fix a mistake I made in the initial commit. Let me know if I can do anything else. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in 1.9.5 you still have 2.6.25 module manager bundled. 

also i dont think you used the updated utility file that seemed to fix the problem with those dishes that were stopping ksp. 

thanks for all this appreciate it. 

Edited by COL.R.Neville

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did some very rudimentary testing on a clean 1.2 install with the above linked VSPR. It seems the drag models may need to be tweaked (or reverted to stock). I had the following very basic craft:

- Mk 1 command pod

- 1x RT-5

- 1x Mk16 parachute

I was able to get into the upper atmosphere. On a 100% stock game, the same craft will get to around 14k, not 25k. Additionally, I added a single goo pod in a separate test. The asymmetric drag from the goo pod causes significant pull with Ven's installed. This could be due to the increase speed achievable with Ven's, which subsequently increases the drag the goo pod produces, but the vessel pulls hard almost immediately from launch, before the speed has a chance to build significantly more than when compared to stock. The 100% stock install SAS is able to overcome the asymmetric drag and keep the vessel pointed straight up, while with Ven's installed, the vessel pitches over around 10-15 degrees before the SAS can keep up. 

I took a look at the config files to see what I could find. I found the drag models for the parachutes tweaked, but it dealt with deployment drag, which explains why they generally behave differently from stock. I couldn't find anything changing the drag on the Mk1 pod or goo pod, which is what I think is causing the increase in performance. I didn't look into the RT-5 too much, but in the VAB the thrust and weight are identical, so I don't think that is it.

I found this, hopefully its helpful:

Cheers,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tarheel1999 said:

Kerbas, this may be beyond me. I initially thought I could your fork your fork and make a pull request directly to your fork but that apparently isn't a thing. So here is what I did:

  • Forked and cloned the master branch
  • Created a new branch 
  • Copied all your changes into the cloned repo on my desktop
  • Committed and synced those changes to the new branch
  • Made my changes
  • Commited and synced those changes

At this point I'm at a loss for what to do.  My forked branch is here:  https://github.com/tarheel1999/Stock-Revamp/tree/1.2-Fixes.  It has the following changes:

  • Changed categories of mk1 Cargo pay, Octo service bay, and para docking port
  • Added the "Light" action group to all of the new command pods/crew containers
  • Added effects to the RCSBlock
  • Changed the charge rate of the new large 1x3 solar panels to the value from 1.9.3 (3.7 vs 0.72)

Sorry about the reverts. It took me a couple of tries to figure out to how to fix a mistake I made in the initial commit. Let me know if I can do anything else. 

You had the right idea at first, but instead of manually adding my changes to your fork, what you should have done is make a "pull request" via the Github interface.  (Much as you can make a pull request from your repo's parent, you can also select "sibling" repos.)  As it is, Git sees that we both started from Ven's master branch, and then I made a bunch of changes in my branch and you made a bunch of changes in yours, and now are trying to smash our branches together, so it throws its hands in the air and says "You're both trying to change the same files in the same places, they conflict, sort it out manually!"  I'd do that for one file, but not sixty-eight.  Probably the best way to move forward (that requires minimal git magic) is:

  1. Set aside the files you've modified.  Copy them somewhere outside your repo, for example.
  2. Create a new branch from master (i.e. before you started tinkering), switch to it, and then make a pull request from my KSP_1.2 branch into it.
  3. Put your changed files back, and then commit.  Git should now see clearly that you're only making changes on top of mine, and it won't see a conflict between our branches.

Also, I disagree with changing the 1x3 panel rate -- it should be half (ish) of the charge rate of the 2x3 and 1x6 panels.

1 hour ago, Stratickus said:

I did some very rudimentary testing on a clean 1.2 install with the above linked VSPR. It seems the drag models may need to be tweaked (or reverted to stock). I had the following very basic craft:

- Mk 1 command pod

- 1x RT-5

- 1x Mk16 parachute

I was able to get into the upper atmosphere. On a 100% stock game, the same craft will get to around 14k, not 25k. Additionally, I added a single goo pod in a separate test. The asymmetric drag from the goo pod causes significant pull with Ven's installed. This could be due to the increase speed achievable with Ven's, which subsequently increases the drag the goo pod produces, but the vessel pulls hard almost immediately from launch, before the speed has a chance to build significantly more than when compared to stock. The 100% stock install SAS is able to overcome the asymmetric drag and keep the vessel pointed straight up, while with Ven's installed, the vessel pitches over around 10-15 degrees before the SAS can keep up. 

I took a look at the config files to see what I could find. I found the drag models for the parachutes tweaked, but it dealt with deployment drag, which explains why they generally behave differently from stock. I couldn't find anything changing the drag on the Mk1 pod or goo pod, which is what I think is causing the increase in performance. I didn't look into the RT-5 too much, but in the VAB the thrust and weight are identical, so I don't think that is it.

I found this, hopefully its helpful:

Cheers,

I'm not sure what the problem is, here.  VSR isn't necessarily going to perfectly imitate the particulars of a part's shape, or therefore its drag properties.  I could manually define the drag cubes to be the same as stock, but that doesn't feel right to me.

Edited by Kerbas_ad_astra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi
I do not know if only I have the BUG with RCS 105-Model works fine but there is no Audio and Particle effects, the rest of the RCS is working well.

 

Edited by pawulonn1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kerbas_ad_astra said:

I'm not sure what the problem is, here.  VSR isn't necessarily going to perfectly imitate the particulars of a part's shape, or therefore its drag properties.  I could manually define the drag cubes to be the same as stock, but that doesn't feel right to me.

I knew some of the models were redone, but I thought most were just re-textures so as to not drastically effect game play. Just looking at them, the Mk1 Command pod and Goo pod, seem to be superficially re-textures, I hadn't realized the physical shape was altered. I'll test the same craft in 1.1.3 to see if I get similar results. I honestly don't remember if there were aero tweaks in 1.2.

Cheers,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea, I think its a 1.2 thing. I just tested the same simple 3 part craft in 1.1.3 and got a 14.9k apoapsis (with Ven's). I didn't write it down, but I think I got 14.2k with a vanilla 1.2 vessel and 25k with Ven's in 1.2. Not sure if this helps or hurts..

Edited by Stratickus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Stratickus said:

I knew some of the models were redone, but I thought most were just re-textures so as to not drastically effect game play. Just looking at them, the Mk1 Command pod and Goo pod, seem to be superficially re-textures, I hadn't realized the physical shape was altered. I'll test the same craft in 1.1.3 to see if I get similar results. I honestly don't remember if there were aero tweaks in 1.2.

Cheers,

We may speak of parts as being "re-skinned", but it really is the entire model being replaced (which may not have the same geometry as the original model).  The attachment nodes stay in the same place, but everything in between is up for revision.

I don't see aero tweaks mentioned in the changelog, but that doesn't mean they didn't happen. :/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Kerbas_ad_astra I tried again.  Hopefully I got it right this time.  My bad about the panels I must have edited the 1x3 small panels instead of the 1x3 wide panels which are about twice as big and weigh 3x more.  I went ahead and included a commit increasing the charge rate on the bigger values to 3.7 which is what they were in the KSP 1.1.2 version of the revamp.

Edited by Tarheel1999

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll check the models to be sure, but I recall thinking they have the same area as the 1x6 and 2x3 panels -- they're just 3x2 vs. 2x3 squares.  It may be better to revise the mass and cost numbers down.  (Or perhaps make the model's scale bigger.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bit more testing/investigating..

Stock 1.1.3 vs 1.2:

1.1.3 max apo: 11k  // 1.2 max apo: 14k

So it would appear that something was done to the aero. This was done under identical conditions and 3 times each with very consistent results. Slightly less soupy maybe?

Ven's improvement in performance vs stock went from about 30% in 1.1.3 to 50% in 1.2 which is how I noticed. 

EDIT..

I also found that Ven's Mk1 pod weighs 0.04t less than stock, which also undoubtedly contributes. I'll probably drum up a MM patch to make it weigh a bit more so it is slightly less OP for my game.

The 'ven' pod did not have Monopropellant while the stock one did, accounting for the 0.04t weight difference..

Cheers,

Edited by Stratickus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Kerbas_ad_astra I see you're also working on a patch to make stock antennas' range suitable for OPM which gives me an idea...

Could you make a patch for the Ven's Stock Revamp extra antennas so they have the range for OPM and/or repurpose them as relay antennas? Or even make the replacement antennas into new parts instead of stock replacements? Don't take this as a request but as a suggestion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, void_error said:

@Kerbas_ad_astra I see you're also working on a patch to make stock antennas' range suitable for OPM which gives me an idea...

Could you make a patch for the Ven's Stock Revamp extra antennas so they have the range for OPM and/or repurpose them as relay antennas? Or even make the replacement antennas into new parts instead of stock replacements? Don't take this as a request but as a suggestion.

That patch for OPM will apply to all antennas (so long as they have a range defined in their configuration), so it's not necessary to make a special set of OPM-specific antennas.  (Or RSS-specific, when RSS uses a similar patch, and so on.)

Also, @Tarheel1999, the new solar panel is clearly the same area as the 1x6 and 3x2:

0fd71f16-9967-11e6-97e0-763bb7d0f2e8.png

It should have the same charge rate (and mass and costs and tech required) as its 6-cell counterparts -- just take out the lines that modify them from Extra_Electrical.cfg (and take out that extra bracket from Engines.cfg) and we'll call it good and I'll merge ya.  (I could make that commit directly to your repo myself, since you've opened a pull request to a repo of mine, but that's a new "feature" of GitHub's that I don't like, so I won't do it.)  I've also found that I missed a couple tags, but since GitHub doesn't think the PPD-20's config is a text file, I'll wait until I've merged in your changes so the changes don't step on each other.

@Stratickus, thanks for the data.  I don't plan on changing up the qualities of the parachute, but it's good to know what's going on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Kerbas_ad_astra said:

That patch for OPM will apply to all antennas (so long as they have a range defined in their configuration), so it's not necessary to make a special set of OPM-specific antennas.  (Or RSS-specific, when RSS uses a similar patch, and so on.)

I know that, I was thinking more along the lines of having more antennas to play with, not just multiply the range of existing antennas to reach all further out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.