[1.3.x] SETI, Unmanned before Manned [Patreon]

[SwGustav]

Another thought: the very early rocket flights with the starting probe core are a lot more annoying than they should be because of the lack of SAS, in real life the V1/V2 rockets had a simple stability system that would at least keep it pointed in the right direction. I don't agree with Squad's decision to remove it from the beginning probe core, it doesn't really make sense from a gameplay standpoint, especially given that most players are using a keyboard so I always edit a basic stability assist back in.

I understand about not wanting to mess with the biome science, I might still try throw together a quick config for myself to tweak the science experiments and link it here for anyone who is interested. Glad to hear that you're considering adding telemetry and a science camera. More options for science are always appreciated (one of my enduring goals is to make a universal science lander that can land and return from anywhere and do all the available science while it's there).

That reminded me about how my early launches were frustrating. I had to use manned vessels to enter the orbit first few times - FAR was very hard on probes with no stabilization, and I'd always lose control even though I had a lot of torque. I wish Yemo would add simplest SAS to the smallest reaction wheel.

On topic of science experiments, would be cool to see EVA experiments and tools, like in FASA, since we have KAS and portable science container.

[Lord Aurelius]

It's really easy to add SAS to a probe if you want to go ahead and do it yourself like I did, just open up the SETI MM file for stock probes (GameData\SETI\MM-PartModding\SETI-PartMod-SQUAD-ComConElectrics.cfg) in your favorite text editor and find the section beginning with

//Probodobodyne HECS

@PART[probeCoreHex]:FOR[sETI]

Scroll down to the end of the section and add this module right before the closing brace

MODULE

{

name = ModuleSAS

SASServiceLevel = 0

}

Save the file and the starting probe will now have basic SAS the next time you start up the game.

[Basilio]

I have always thought this is caused by stock SAS hold. Whenever I use remote tech hold, it's ok (as it doesn't use SAS). Mechjeb also uses non-SAS hold by default.

Nah, I checked that - this effect showed itself both with stock SAS and with MJ. Also checked about RemoteTech, as I thought this might be caused by signal delay - nope, turning off signal delay didn't help as well.

Maybe it would be possible to make the SAS torque adjustment configurable?

[SwGustav]

Save the file and the starting probe will now have basic SAS the next time you start up the game.

Thank you, I'll definitely use this in new 0.8.0 career, if it won't be added by then.

Nah, I checked that - this effect showed itself both with stock SAS and with MJ. Also checked about RemoteTech, as I thought this might be caused by signal delay - nope, turning off signal delay didn't help as well.

Maybe it would be possible to make the SAS torque adjustment configurable?

I had the exact same thing in non-SETI game, and it was caused by stock SAS hold. SO it's not SETI problem, but seems to be fixable as you said previously.

[Yemo]

I will be sure to respect the Retractable flag if set in Realism on Solar panels. A working Solar Panel Management window is already in place in my DEV copy.

The author of CLS also uses Module manager configs for most of the popular parts packs, and provides directions on adding the necessary configs to allow passability, etc. If you submit your requests to CLS, likely they can be added to the config packs he already provides.

[...]

Here you go, a quick config to allow procedural structural element transfer.

Edit: darn, beaten a little by Papa_Joe

Thank you both, it will be part of 0.7.7, and I m checking the other mod command pods for CLS compatibility as well.

That science method is basically what I was doing, part of the reason I was frustrated is because I'm not very good at landing planes (probably should dig my joystick out at some point and figure out how airbrakes/flaps/spoilers work in FAR so I can actually slow down to land...) so I do lots of quicksaves/reverts which ends up crashing the game on a regular basis and making the plane missions a lot more tedious than they should be. That and I sometimes randomly get scene crashes when flying over new terrain (I had one quicksave that was bugged on my flight to the desert temple where the game would crash every time I flew close to the temple, finally fixed it by turning all the detail settings down to minimum and landing to get the game to update the persistence file, the crash report kept complaining about not having enough memory to create a new vertex, squad really needs to fix their memory leaks). Anyways, I got the science I need so I can focus on space now.

While I can land with FAR, carefully, it is just too tedious without airbrakes (even with them, it requires the right terrain).

So I nearly exclusively land vertically with parachutes in the early career, thats also the reason why the provided SETI SPH craft have very carefully placed parachutes for one landing, if you want to land a second time, just place a second set of chutes in similar positions ;-).

Another thought: the very early rocket flights with the starting probe core are a lot more annoying than they should be because of the lack of SAS, in real life the V1's and V2's had a simple stability system that would at least keep it pointed in the right direction. I don't agree with Squad's decision to remove it from the beginning probe core, it doesn't really make sense from a gameplay standpoint, especially given that most players are using a keyboard so I always edit a basic stability assist back in.

[...]

That reminded me about how my early launches were frustrating. I had to use manned vessels to enter the orbit first few times - FAR was very hard on probes with no stabilization, and I'd always lose control even though I had a lot of torque. I wish Yemo would add simplest SAS to the smallest reaction wheel.

On topic of science experiments, would be cool to see EVA experiments and tools, like in FASA, since we have KAS and portable science container.

Yeah, while the initial altitude contracts are ok without SAS (just increase the TWR and disable wing control surfaces, so with a good start, heading does not change after a few hundred meters), the orbit one starts to be annoying.

I wanted SAS to be a tech unlock for the first probe core @ stability, but until that is implemented, maybe SAS for the first probe core is better than what we have now, in terms of frustration.

Nah, I checked that - this effect showed itself both with stock SAS and with MJ. Also checked about RemoteTech, as I thought this might be caused by signal delay - nope, turning off signal delay didn't help as well.

Maybe it would be possible to make the SAS torque adjustment configurable?

Tweakable Everything allows you to put twice as much torque power on, compared to the specified number. That should help. And the 3.75m reaction wheel planned for 0.7.7.

About the Better Buoyancy, the Mk1 command pod is very dense now, so it would be more like an SSSR command pod intended for landings on the ground, though it does barely swim in water if splashed down.

But the Kerbals floating 1m below the surface annoy me a lot, will have to strongly recommend Kerbal Mass Changer (which is relatively new and in alpha), if it is installed. Will have to test it for another version after 0.7.7, too much other stuff to do.

[SwGustav]

But the Kerbals floating 1m below the surface annoy me a lot, will have to strongly recommend Kerbal Mass Changer (which is relatively new and in alpha), if it is installed.

What is Kerbal Mass Changer? Can't find anything about it

[Yemo]

What is Kerbal Mass Changer? Can't find anything about it

Sorry, forgot the link:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/109790

It basically changes craft masses if kerbals are inside. But it also allows the tweaking of the mass of a kerbal via a settings.cfg.

Which affects kerbal mass in EVA as well, changing the density and thus the "floatability".

Kerbals can not swim with Better Buoyance, because they weigh over 90kg! So I would tweak that to 50 or less...

[Lord Aurelius]

Kerbals can not swim with Better Buoyance, because they weigh over 90kg!

Someone's been eating too many snacks...

[Papa_Joe]

Someone's been eating too many snacks...

Funny, they don't "look" that heavy...

Must be the suit...

[Lord Aurelius]

Funny, they don't "look" that heavy...

Must be the suit...

Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever seen a Kerbonaut (in game at least) not wearing a spacesuit...

Either it's some crazy compression material, or just lined with lead and the Kerbals themselves aren't really that heavy, or the Kerbals are subject to the same mysterious forces that produce earth-like gravity on a body 1/10th the size.

Edited February 16, 2015 by Lord Aurelius

[SwGustav]

A suggestion for the future update changelogs: please, write that autopruner list has been updated.

No need to be specific, just something like "Updated the AutoPruner config: new unused parts".

Edit: would be also great to know (if that happens) if there are any parts brought back from unused. "Updated the AutoPruner config: *part name* is now used again".

Also a part tweak that bugged me in stock - Mk3 cockpit has a ridiculous weight (less than your balanced Mk1-2!). Increased weight will help shuttle building a lot .

Edited February 17, 2015 by SwGustav

[Assassin215k]

Yemo, some contracts for delivery probe on orbit give target orbit close to Mun, and as a result of the orbit is broken. Moreover, I now have 3 of the contract for probe and they all lead to orbits which close to Mun. This is a bug or feature ?))

[SwGustav]

Yemo, some contracts for delivery probe on orbit give target orbit close to Mun, and as a result of the orbit is broken. Moreover, I now have 3 of the contract for probe and they all lead to orbits which close to Mun. This is a bug or feature ?))

It's a feature, those contracts are stock and random

I advice avoid such orbits with RemoteTech, because every sat counts

Edited February 17, 2015 by SwGustav
Doh, random, not procedural

[Assassin215k]

It's a feature, those contracts are stock and procedural

I advice avoid such orbits with RemoteTech, because every sat counts

Complicated contracts, thanks

[Lord Aurelius]

I'm also annoyed by the ridiculous orbit parameters required for the random satellite contracts. It makes them basically not worth doing for the most part.

Is it possible to tweak the parameters for the random satellite contracts? Does contract configurator support randomized contracts?

[SwGustav]

I'm also annoyed by the ridiculous orbit parameters required for the random satellite contracts. It makes them basically not worth doing for the most part.

Is it possible to tweak the parameters for the random satellite contracts? Does contract configurator support randomized contracts?

FinePrint contracts can be hard sometimes, but you can just like, ignore them or decline. They follow your progression too. Most of them are sane (IMHO), offering a worthy reward.

Besides, after you complete a basic RemoteTech network contract, the satellite contracts are very useful for further profit. Expand your network and get money for it, what's not to love.

[Lord Aurelius]

I'm aware that I can just ignore/decline them, I was just curious if these particular contracts are configurable, but if they're using FinePrint then I assume that they are.

I just would like to see a little more progression in terms of the contracts, i.e. the early satellite contracts should be for basic LKO satellites in simple orbits (available right after you complete the exploration contract to put something in orbit) and then move up from there instead of having the satellite contracts start out asking for orbits that have a good chance of colliding with the Mun when you haven't even made it near the Mun yet (who would want put a satellite in that kind of orbit anyways?).

That reminds me of another nitpick: the speed requirements on the test parts at a given altitude contracts are often annoyingly slow so I basically have to build a rocket to stall just above the contract altitude instead of being able to complete them realistically with aircraft or as part of a normal launch. The payouts on these contracts are usually pitiful as well (I've had some with an advance of less than 200, and a payout less than 100). I know declining them is an option (which I frequently take advantage of) but the fact that they're there cluttering up the screen still bugs me.

A lot of times the actual good contracts are hidden behind poor contracts so I frequently have to decline a bunch of junk contracts to get the next exploration/anomaly/remotetech contract to show up.

(sorry for the partial rant, the broken stock contracts have annoyed me since I first played a game with them)

That said, I really like the new exploration contracts that SETI adds, it provides a nice progression from early sounding rockets to reaching orbit and then the Mun, and the available contract packs also work well.

[Paradisio]

Just curious, on the original post, do the mods in bold have any special meaning? Particularly recommended or anything like that?

[Lord Aurelius]

Just saw this on the mod of the day and after some of my failed experiments with jump jets I figured it could be quite useful:

Throttle Controlled Avionics [link]

It looks like it dynamically adjusts the thrust on all vtol engines to keep your craft stable so you don't have to worry about lining up the center of thrust exactly with the center of mass.

[Yemo]

About stock contracts:

Yep, they are annoyingly unbalanced. Like the stock progression, which sends you to Duna (not declinable) after landing on the Mun for the first time.

And the sat contracts...

It is like the internet, some great ones, lots of good/ok ones, and a bunch of crap for good measure.

I might deal with the stock progression contracts in the future, but I m not sure the sat ones are within my "scope". Maybe some other contract configurator mod will deal with them.

Funny, they don't "look" that heavy...

Must be the suit...

Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever seen a Kerbonaut (in game at least) not wearing a spacesuit...

Either it's some crazy compression material, or just lined with lead and the Kerbals themselves aren't really that heavy, or the Kerbals are subject to the same mysterious forces that produce earth-like gravity on a body 1/10th the size.

Given the size of their heads, it is probably an exosceleton with life support functions (if the head is not largely bone, it would need life support in addition to the exoskeleton).

But 90kg... Their head bones must be made of gold or so for that kind of density.

A suggestion for the future update changelogs: please, write that autopruner list has been updated.

No need to be specific, just something like "Updated the AutoPruner config: new unused parts".

Edit: would be also great to know (if that happens) if there are any parts brought back from unused. "Updated the AutoPruner config: *part name* is now used again".

Also a part tweak that bugged me in stock - Mk3 cockpit has a ridiculous weight (less than your balanced Mk1-2!). Increased weight will help shuttle building a lot .

Will do that in the next update, thx.

Yeah, even after decreasing the Mk1-2 pod weight by 10%, the Mk3 cockpit is still relatively unbalanced.

Just curious, on the original post, do the mods in bold have any special meaning? Particularly recommended or anything like that?

Just edited them, they are strongly recommended.

New mod recommendation:

Tweakable Wheels

It lets you change the braking power of landing gear and wheels, thus preventing tip overs!

- - - Updated - - -

Just saw this on the mod of the day and after some of my failed experiments with jump jets I figured it could be quite useful:

Throttle Controlled Avionics [link]

It looks like it dynamically adjusts the thrust on all vtol engines to keep your craft stable so you don't have to worry about lining up the center of thrust exactly with the center of mass.

That is an outstanding mod, not only for VTOL, but also for non-Landertron powered landings!

Added to the OP!

Edited February 17, 2015 by Yemo

[Motokid600]

So im building up a new experience for my new play through and this time around id like to try a tech tree mod. However id like to know if my setup may conflict with SETI here. I plan on getting rid of 99% of Squads parts. And then adding Chaka Monkey/LazTek as my only major part packs. Then theres ProcParts and maybe some bits of others that are actually listed as suggestions for SETI. However Chaka and LazTek are not. What troubles would I face trying to use this tech tree with that setup?

[Lord Aurelius]

I'm not familiar with the mods in question, but in general the way SETI is designed it works pretty well with any mod balanced against stock, so as long as you have the minimal SETI install you'll have all the parts you need and the parts from the mods in question will appear in their normal places in the tech tree.

[SwGustav]

What troubles would I face trying to use this tech tree with that setup?

You can use any part packs with SETI, however they will be disbalanced in terms of progression. I remember my Chaka campaign, I felt like parts were just randomly crammed into tech nodes.

A great mod to be put into recommendations.

[RobertJPowell]

Whelp, there goes B9 procedural wings for me. Even though I put my COL behind my COM my rockets still flip out. I've tried everything to stabilize them from altering the ascent profile I'm using to altering the position of the 'tail fins' on the rocket. All to no avail. I give up. Whatever SQUAD did that required the developer of the B9 procedural wings to require FAR, it's ruined my enjoyment of this mod. - This makes me very sad.

(simply put, I am frustrated and annoyed with FAR. B9 procedural wings now require FAR. (That's not Ferram's fault, it's mine! I must be missing something but having read the guides and following them, I don't know what it is.)

[SwGustav]

Whelp, there goes B9 procedural wings for me. Even though I put my COL behind my COM my rockets still flip out. I've tried everything to stabilize them from altering the ascent profile I'm using to altering the position of the 'tail fins' on the rocket. All to no avail. I give up. Whatever SQUAD did that required the developer of the B9 procedural wings to require FAR, it's ruined my enjoyment of this mod. - This makes me very sad.

(simply put, I am frustrated and annoyed with FAR. B9 procedural wings now require FAR. (That's not Ferram's fault, it's mine! I must be missing something but having read the guides and following them, I don't know what it is.)

Can you post your design? Have you tried using stock winglets or going slower?