Jump to content

[1.0.2] Entropy: DangIt hardmode

Coffeeman

By Coffeeman
in KSP1 Mod Releases

 Share

Recommended Posts

Coffeeman

Coffeeman

Posted
Posted (edited)

Entropy

It's like Ippo's DangIt! but worse

THIS MOD DEPENDS ON IPPOS DANGIT! GET IT HERE:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/81794

As of v0.3 of Entropy, you NEED at least DangIt! 0.5 to use it!

Have you seen Ippo's DangIt? Well you should! It's a great mod that adds random failures. This mod adds even more, in a vein of more dangerous failures!

BIG WARNING: BALANCE IS... INCOMPLETE! ALWAYS BACK UP SAVES!

I make no guarantees that the balance of these failures is OK! Use only if you are OK with testing unfinished code!

No pix no clix:

k6KhZ4x.png

Currently adds:

  • Animations getting stuck
  • Generators losing efficiency
  • Intakes being clogged (Part of base DangIt now)
  • Engine coolant failures (Part of base DangIt now)
  • Parachute failures (Stock: Chute gets stuck predeployed, RealChutes: Halves area)
  • Solar panel tracking failing (Stops pointing toward sun)
  • SRB O-Ring failures (overheat and explode + overthrust)

Known Issues:

  • Repairing RealChutes parachutes decreased instead of restoring drag FIXED IN v0.1.2, GET IT NOW!
  • TweakableEverything allows you to re-enable sun tracking on solar panels (On Github) Fixed in 0.5

For modders: If you want to make it so your parts have no chance of failure (e.g. escape towers) just add the module NoFailureModules, and no reliability modules will be added!

NoFailureModules currently implemented (thru ModuleManager) for (I plan to add a couple part packs here):

  • Stock
  • FASA As of 0.4.2

Install with CKAN :

ckan install Entropy

and for realchutes support on CKAN:

ckan install EntropyRealChute

Source Code: Github

Download (please use CKAN instead! | has RealChute support bundled): Kerbalstuff

Edited by Coffeeman
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BLUESTREAK

BLUESTREAK

Posted
Posted

Mother of god...!

Thanks for breathing life into this - Ippo, Dang It! is undeniably my favorite mod and probably adds more depth to the game than anything else. Was very sad to hear that you were abandoning development, but real life is more important after all so can't blame you - well done for starting such a superb mod.

Coffeeman - Glad you're picking this up and running with it. When you say animations getting stuck - How do you mean? Things like cargo bays failing to open, undercarriage not coming down, that sort of thing? Also, would there be any scope to add in forces from leaking resources? Another area to possibly consider would be solar panels slowly losing the ability to generate power over years in space, as well as slowly getting covered in dust when on a planets surface - a percentage efficiency rating, which slowly decreases, as opposed to a binary functional/failure setting...?

Anyway, sounds good! Once my assignments are over I'll definitely be giving this one a whirl!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
diomedea

diomedea

Posted
Posted

Nice to see Ippo's DangIt! given more breath.

I'd like to ask, could a increased possibility of failures be associated to experimental parts (which, in a career game, are the object of part testing contracts?). I'd even say those parts should perform less well than the ones fully developed, one of more of their performance metrics to be randomly reduced in flight, until experimented enough. Any possibility to see experimental parts given "special" care?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Coffeeman

Coffeeman

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Released this at 1am then went to bed... Lets see...

@CatastrophicFailure : LFO engine failures are covered by DangIt!, Ippo's plugin, off which Entropy extends. To make Entropy work you need to install that too!

@BLUESTREAK : RE: Animation, yeah thats what I mean (but undercarriage always works, its actually a different PartModule) :) . RE: Tank leak force... That would be something to be added to the base plugin (DangIt!), but yeah, I'll look into that. RE: Solar panels... I'll definitely be looking into that sort of gradual failure, but I will have to fiddle with Ippo's code more before that, but that is definitely planned.

@diomedea : That is a great idea! I'll look into that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Paul Kingtiger

Paul Kingtiger

Posted
Posted
Nice to see Ippo's DangIt! given more breath.

I'd like to ask, could a increased possibility of failures be associated to experimental parts (which, in a career game, are the object of part testing contracts?). I'd even say those parts should perform less well than the ones fully developed, one of more of their performance metrics to be randomly reduced in flight, until experimented enough. Any possibility to see experimental parts given "special" care?

I wonder if having the number of times the part has been launched improve the reliability, so that well used parts are more reliable than ones used for the first time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
diomedea

diomedea

Posted
Posted
I wonder if having the number of times the part has been launched improve the reliability, so that well used parts are more reliable than ones used for the first time.

Sure, accounting for how many times a part was used would help in fine-tuning both performance and failure rate. However, this would come at the price of further data to be tracked ingame, and I'd leave to the author to decide if/when Entropy's plugin should take this twist. But, I'd personally love to see this :).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Coffeeman

Coffeeman

Posted
  • Author
Posted

RE: Usage improving reliability: This would be a very interesting thing to see! Additionally, I think maybe having Strategies that increase/decrease the reliability of your parts (at expense of money of course) would be cool. For example you could have the "Safety Culture" strategy that would make everything safer, but also cost mode, and the "Go-Fever" strategy that would do the opposite. Both of these would more fit the scope of DangIt! proper, and I'll ask Ippo about them :)

@zekes: YIKES! [in reality, reentry failures are the domain of deadly reentry]

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Norpo

Norpo

Posted
Posted
<cringes>

(complete destruction of a plane/rocket thing totally falling apart)

That is one of the more impressive destruction screenshots I have seen. Ever. I don't build with enough parts to get nice looking screenshots like that. :( (Actually, my computer just doesn't like hi-res texture, probably just that..)

Take my rep.

Anyways, nice to see an expansion of the DangIt mod, though I personally don't use it. I did in the past, I was more of a sandbox player back then and it always messed with my designs, but now that i'm mainly a career player I might look back into it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ippo

Ippo

Posted
Posted
I wonder if having the number of times the part has been launched improve the reliability, so that well used parts are more reliable than ones used for the first time.
Sure, accounting for how many times a part was used would help in fine-tuning both performance and failure rate.
RE: Usage improving reliability: This would be a very interesting thing to see! [...] I'll ask Ippo about them :)

Well, I didn't want to mess with someone else's business, but since you want to ask me... :)

Personally I've always been against that feature. It's been proposed multiple times in my thread and I've always shot it down :) The reason is that I feel it's just a "game-y" feature that does not really model anything sensible, plus I think it makes for bad gameplay.

I think you might have seen that I don't want people to be able to pay funds to increase the reliability of a part. The reasoning behind this is that it would allow you to just pay your way out of a problem, and funds are anything but scarce in KSP right now: so it would basically amount to "let's increase the price of the engines". The plan (still unrealized: alpha, remember?) is to use the reliability stats to counterbalance efficiency and differentiate engines even more. Why would anyone choose a LV909 over a nuclear engine for a mars mission, right now? If the nuclear engine was significantly more unpredictable, you might want to reconsider your choices.

Tracking part usage is no different: time is money, so you can just invest a lot of "resources" (i.e, time) and ignore the problem. You run 10 Mun missions with 50-engine abominations and puf!, you are good forever, no need to choose different engines for different mission durations.

BUT

Coffeeman, remember the terms of our agreement: you need my permission to add new features only in DangIt, Entropy is 100% yours and you can do whatever you like with it regardless of my opinion on the matter :)

So if you like the idea and people like the idea, by all means, do it... as long as it stays out of my repo :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Coffeeman

Coffeeman

Posted
  • Author
Posted
...plus I think it makes for bad gameplay...

Hm... Yeah, I can see this being a problem! However, I think that some kind of reliability improvement would be good. Maybe you could spend some science when repairing a failure to analyze it (if you had the perks) and permanently improve that part (by some small margin.)

In other news... @dzikakulka : No auto-staging, they can only fail while ignited. What happens is the thrust increases by quite a bit and they overheat in about 20 seconds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
djnattyd

djnattyd

Posted
Posted

Well... I just got thrown into a flatspin when a jet engine quit on me. It was GLORIOUS!

FYI, Module manager is throwing up an error in the RealChutes patch during the load up, I don't know enough about it to be able to identify what the issue is though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Coffeeman

Coffeeman

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
FYI, Module manager is throwing up an error in the RealChutes patch during the load up

Yay! My first bug! :D

Questions:

Do you use realchutes?

Did you install from KerbalStuff?

Can you tell me what you have in your game data folder? (Including ModuleManager version)

Can you send me KSP.log?

Can you send me Gamedata/z_Entropy_realchutes/ModuleManager/parachutes.cfg?

I'll get this sorted right away!

Good luck with your plane!

Edited by Coffeeman
Link to comment
Share on other sites
djnattyd

djnattyd

Posted
Posted
Yay! My first bug! :D

Questions:

Do you use realchutes?

Did you install from KerbalStuff?

Can you tell me what you have in your game data folder? (Including ModuleManager version)

Can you send me KSP.log?

Can you send me Gamedata/z_Entropy_realchutes/ModuleManager/parachutes.cfg?

I'll get this sorted right away!

Good luck with your plane!

Answers:

Yes - it's up to date as well.

Yes.

A metric ton of mods, however none seem to conflict with Ippo's DangIt!. ModuleManager is the version before the very newest one

At the moment I'm not at home and using mobile internet.

Yes, I still have the downloaded file sat on my phone, Link incoming next post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

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.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...