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

[Yemo]

On 15.10.2016 at 6:37 PM, Axela said:

I checked a few minutes ago: it's still the older version...

Looks like ckan did not like the removal of the craft files, thank you for your report, should work now.

[Tyko]

On 10/14/2016 at 8:43 AM, Yemo said:

 

 

SETI ProbeParts v1.2.0.0

0.65m HeatShield removed, since a similar sized stock one is now available

thanks! Are you planning on adding Hibernation and basic radio to the two probes? The relevant code is bolded below...the first is just an addition to ModuleCommand. The second is an additional Module. I tried it and it seems to work just fine

MODULE
    {
        name = ModuleCommand
        minimumCrew = 0
        RESOURCE
        {
            name = ElectricCharge
            rate = 0.04
        }
        hasHibernation = True
        hibernationMultiplier = 0.00125
    }

MODULE
    {
        name = ModuleDataTransmitter
        antennaType = INTERNAL
        packetInterval = 1.0
        packetSize = 2
        packetResourceCost = 12.0
        requiredResource = ElectricCharge
        antennaPower = 5000
        optimumRange = 2500
        packetFloor = .1
        packetCeiling = 5
    }    

 

Edited October 17, 2016 by tjt

[Jiraiyah]

umm considering that green house didn't get anyupdate, can i assume that is working ok in 1.2 or does it need a recompile or anything like that?

oopse didn't pay attention to op page, ignore me

Edited October 20, 2016 by Jiraiyah

[Jashin]

Hi Yemo, I've been using your mod for quite a while and I'm now beginning a new 1.2 career mode. I tried to use Porkjet's overhauled parts but there is a slight compatibility issue with UbM here: basically the overhauled parts seem to create duplicates in the tech tree causing me to have a Mk1 pod in the first node thus defeating the purpose of your mod. Is there a way to write a quick MM patch to solve that?

I know how to make one to hide the stock counterparts but I do not know how to proceed for this. A simple compatibility fix would be greatly appreciated if you can have a look at it. Thanks for your hard work on this great mod!

[MaxwellsDemon]

I noticed that the most recent version includes ModuleManager.2.7.2 bundled with it... I thought the current version was only 2.7.1?

[Yemo]

@tjt: Thank you very much, will be implemented in next version!

@Jashin: Thank you for the request, something I nearly forgot with all the remotetech transition going on. It is planned to support the part overhaul, though first they would need balancing, second the (currently badly implemented and thus troublesome) part upgrade functionality has to be removed and third the equivalent stock parts have to be hidden (those are all things that could/would be done by SETIrebalance, though there is already a MM patch floating around, which hides the stock parts). When/if that is done so that they do not create gameplay/balance issues anymore, I ll write a config for UbM.

@MaxwellsDemon: Hm, I just bundled the module manager which was downloaded via ckan, no idea why it has a different version number than the one distributed in the forum thread.

[PayadorPerseguido]

I did not go through after about 5 pages from this one, searching for the issue i'm about to tell. 
I installed around 65 mods, and had KSP working perfectly. As soon as i installed SETI parts pack, both the VAB and the other hangar (forgot the name) have massive fps drops, and it goes worse after i select whatever part it may be. Any clue?

[kcs123]

3 hours ago, PayadorPerseguido said:

I did not go through after about 5 pages from this one, searching for the issue i'm about to tell. 
I installed around 65 mods, and had KSP working perfectly. As soon as i installed SETI parts pack, both the VAB and the other hangar (forgot the name) have massive fps drops, and it goes worse after i select whatever part it may be. Any clue?

Never have this with SETI. Probably some wierd interaction of other mod and SETI. Post a list of installed mods. You can do that with CKAN if you using it or with AVC.

Even better, you can make another copy of KSP, install SETI first and add other mods one by one, to figure out which one cause conflict.
That will save a lot of time for developer to figure out what is wrong and solve issue you are experiencing.

After you found problematic mod, log file can be of great help too to iron out your issue.

[PayadorPerseguido]

6 hours ago, kcs123 said:

Never have this with SETI. Probably some wierd interaction of other mod and SETI. Post a list of installed mods. You can do that with CKAN if you using it or with AVC.

Even better, you can make another copy of KSP, install SETI first and add other mods one by one, to figure out which one cause conflict.
That will save a lot of time for developer to figure out what is wrong and solve issue you are experiencing.

After you found problematic mod, log file can be of great help too to iron out your issue.

Alright, will do. Thanks for the answer, buddy

[nobodyhasthis2]

On 10/14/2016 at 4:43 PM, Yemo said:

EntryCosts all set to 1

• Rather not having a "feature" than a severely unbalanced one
• Especially as long as it is part of the "difficulty" presets

 

A bit of late night thinking.....Not sure if I like this. Although I really do understand why it has been done. We can not stick with the stock values and I really like the idea of setting a generic replacement value on everything.

I am just going to try setting a higher value. This is purely a personal choice on my part but.  Since I play a different modded variation of SETI anyway. I am going to set the nominal value to 100 instead. Just to see how it feels.

 

[Farix]

If you happen to be using PorkJet's Parts Overhaul in this tech tree, then you are going to end up with a command pod in the very first node and engines and tanks not matching their stock counterparts.

[1990eam]

Damn, I had enough trouble deciding between CTT and ETT and now I found this

[Yemo]

On 27.10.2016 at 1:08 PM, PayadorPerseguido said:

I did not go through after about 5 pages from this one, searching for the issue i'm about to tell. 
I installed around 65 mods, and had KSP working perfectly. As soon as i installed SETI parts pack, both the VAB and the other hangar (forgot the name) have massive fps drops, and it goes worse after i select whatever part it may be. Any clue?

KSP 1.2 has newly introduced issues with too many parts in VAB and SPH. Might have just been the straw that broke the camels back. Even though SETIprobeParts does not even introduce new textures, just reuses the stock ones.

20 hours ago, nobodyhasthis2 said:

A bit of late night thinking.....Not sure if I like this. Although I really do understand why it has been done. We can not stick with the stock values and I really like the idea of setting a generic replacement value on everything.

I am just going to try setting a higher value. This is purely a personal choice on my part but.  Since I play a different modded variation of SETI anyway. I am going to set the nominal value to 100 instead. Just to see how it feels.

 

Good idea, 100 would just provide an additional money sink without creating balancing issues. Curious to hear about your experiences with it, will mark this for the next version.

18 hours ago, Farix said:

If you happen to be using PorkJet's Parts Overhaul in this tech tree, then you are going to end up with a command pod in the very first node and engines and tanks not matching their stock counterparts.

Yep, the part overhaul parts are still unbalanced, so they are not supported at this moment.

4 hours ago, 1990eam said:

Damn, I had enough trouble deciding between CTT and ETT and now I found this

It is recommended to use CTT + UbM together. They make a more stockish combo, ETT is a truly different tech tree. Depends on your personal preference.

 

So, while there have only been very minor visible changes, there is some stuff going on in the background.

For example you might have noticed that the 1.8 version of RemoteTech uses antenna/dish masses very similar to the ones in SETIrebalance, which is no coincidence. Although I expect some more balance changes with the adjustment to stock commnet and the newly provided stock antennas/dishes. There are still some issues with RT, which are due to be adressed in 1.8.1, thus I will wait with the recompile of the support mods. And with the mini mod which will simplyfy RT to the point where it is much easier and less confusing than stock commnet...

Similar news for TAC life support. The recyclers from TAC life support are planned to have the SETIrebalance masses in the future, which makes them much more useful and balanced than before. Also the converter module code will change. This means that SETIrebalance and SETIgreenhouse will have to be adjusted to this new code once the next TAC life support version is released.

edit: Both of those mass adjustments should also make it easier to install and uninstall SETIrebalance during a game, especially concerning the 2 main gameplay altering mods for life support and communications.

 

SETI Contracts v1.2.0.0 (for KSP 1.2.x)

Simple recompile for KSP 1.2

 

SETI ProbeParts v1.2.0.1 (for KSP 1.2.x)

Added Hibernation and data transmission functionality to probe cores, thank you very much @tjt

 

 

Edited October 30, 2016 by Yemo

[nobodyhasthis2]

6 hours ago, Yemo said:

Good idea, 100 would just provide an additional money sink without creating balancing issues. Curious to hear about your experiences with it, will mark this for the next version.

I am still sitting on the fence with this one. I have cranked it up to 2000 now. So the average outcome over stock is things still cost less overall. However in nodes with lots of parts. I think twice about buying everything straight away. Especially early in the career.

It is not much of a change but it feels better somehow. There now some budgeting skill required at medium game difficultly level. Which makes it stand out from easy game difficultly level. This is a very subjective assessment of a game play "feeling" and it would be nice to hear what other think of parts costs should be set to.

Just a thought. Another idea is to have the cost scale by tech level in direct proportion to how science points work. So lower levels are really cheap but later on parts generally become really expensive in the late game. This seems unfair at first but players can also usually generate much larger profits later in the game. It is similar game mechanic to increasing science points along a the length of the tech tree. They start off with very cheap components but it gently becomes harder though out the game. This means that some tactical strategic planning is still required beyond easy game difficultly level. Without the roller coaster ride that stock currently presents by having seeming random part prices. It also seems like a better alternative to going back in and setting @entryCost in MM for each component. Which is time consuming. Although as always I am very keen to hear what other have to say about this.

6 hours ago, Yemo said:

Yep, the part overhaul parts are still unbalanced, so they are not supported at this moment.

Ok, this could be a dumb idea. It is very late here as I type this but here goes.... 

The names of the parts have not changed in the overhaul. So I am thinking it possible to just change the load order of the modified Squad stock parts to fix things. Right now for example SETI-PartMod-SQUAD-Command.cfg sets up the stock command pod with 

@PART[mk1pod]:FOR[SETIrebalance]

Could that be made to come AFTER PorkJet's Parts Overhaul (I hate to use FINAL). Right now I think we fix stock and that folder is restoring the original values. I suspect this will fix both the original Squad parts and the newer replacements. Without having to write another brand new set of config files just for the new parts.

Am I just being lazy here in coming up with a quick solution. Not sure 

Edited October 31, 2016 by nobodyhasthis2

[Farix]

16 hours ago, Yemo said:

Yep, the part overhaul parts are still unbalanced, so they are not supported at this moment.

I'm not sure what you mean, unless it's because the overhauled parts are less powerful than their stock counterparts. Or that the Mk1 Command Pod needs the ModuleDataTransmitter code added to it. Or is it the Valiant and Pug engines? Valiant is just too underpowered to be of much use and while the Pug is a good orbital engine do to it's light weight, its low thrust doesn't leave much room for error. However, that is besides the point. If someone is using these parts with the UBM tech tree, a command pod will be available in the very first node defeating the entire purpose of the tech tree.

 

9 hours ago, nobodyhasthis2 said:

Could that be made to come AFTER PorkJet's Parts Overhaul (I hate to use FINAL).

PorkJet's overhauls didn't touch the stock parts. They are entirely new parts.

[TaxiService]

@Yemo I am letting you know in advance that I revised the RemoteTech's preset functionality (replace a player's current RT settings with a third-party mod's GameData/ExampleMod/RemoteTech_Settings.cfg). I took a look at your SETI RemoteTechConfig v1.0.9.0. All you need to update is use RT's Default_Settings.cfg as a base and add your ground stations there, and then wait for the next release of RT (1.8.1 I think) to release your SETI RT settings.

Edited October 31, 2016 by TaxiService

[nobodyhasthis2]

4 hours ago, Farix said:

PorkJet's overhauls didn't touch the stock parts. They are entirely new parts.

Yes indeed. I thought I was barking up the wrong tree last night. Thanks for the correction. 

Obvious now that I have had a sleep on it. Too much tinkering late at night is a bad. Must have been just looking at pod file names last night. Which is also reflected in game. Silly me. It is going to need a config to overwrite. With name = mk1podNew. Oh drat !

Added to the list modifications to modifications...

[steddyj]

I'm running into a bit of an issue and I'm hoping someone might be able to help me solve it.  I started a new playthrough for 1.2 using a variety of mods, the most important for this conversation being SETI, Modular Fuel Tanks and Procedural parts. I've also used the Janitors Closet mod to prune out all parts that can be replaced by a procedural to keep my part counts down.  I just unlocked some LFO tanks and engines, which means my only tank option is the procedural tank, and I was very surprised when I found my simple rocket hat a 19 TWR.  I was more surprised when that TWR went *UP* when I added another tank.  Looking at the tank stats, I found that there are two weight displays on the tank, and one of them shows a negative value.

I've been picking this apart for the past several hours.  Removing MFT solves the issue, so it's some interaction with that mod.  I've been reviewing both the stock PP configs and the MFT, and everything looks good there.  So I searched my install for any other configs that alter the proceduralTankLiquid part, which led me to the configs in SETI-Rebalance.  Removing/renaming that config file also fixes the issue, and I notice that the tank actually shows as a very different part with and without this config.  I want to keep as much of the SETI functionality in place for this playthrough, and the config seems to add some config I like to the tank, so I don't want to just leave it out.  I can't see anything obviously wrong with the config file, though.  

I've installed SETI via CKAN, if anyone was wondering. 

 

EDIT:

I noticed that there were also two type selectors, as you can see in the image above.  I went back and pruned out the MFT config file in the procedural parts directory, and this has the tank working properly.  The two must not be playing nice together, although I'm still not sure why.  There were no other issues with any of the other procedural parts. 

Second EDIT:

Belay that, now I can select a tank type as usual, but not use MFT.  Seems I still need to figure out a MFT-friendly config for this tank if I want it to work 'right' 

Edited November 4, 2016 by steddyj

[steddyj]

So I've figured out the problem, but I'll probably work on the actual solution tomorrow.  Short version, the TankContentSwitcher component of Procedural Parts does not directly play nice with ModuleFuelTanks.  The MFT config included with Procedural parts actually disables the TankContentSwitcher module, then adds ModuleFuelTanks in to replace it.  The SETI Rebalance config then adds the TankContentSwitcher module back in.  So, at face value the fix is to remove the rebalance config.... except that it seems to make some cost adjustments. 

I'm pretty sure that ModuleManager has syntax to allow you to only make changes if a particular mod is or isn't installed.  Actually, I know it can account for requiring a mod, I'm not sure if it can say "only do this if this mod ISN'T installed" (but I think that it does.)  I'm going to dig through the documentation later and see if I can't re-adjust the procedural parts rebalance config to make sure this won't be an issue for anyone else, as well as making an MFT-compatible rebalance config that will still provide the same benefits.   

[blnk2007]

10 hours ago, steddyj said:

So I've figured out the problem, but I'll probably work on the actual solution tomorrow.  Short version, the TankContentSwitcher component of Procedural Parts does not directly play nice with ModuleFuelTanks.  The MFT config included with Procedural parts actually disables the TankContentSwitcher module, then adds ModuleFuelTanks in to replace it.  The SETI Rebalance config then adds the TankContentSwitcher module back in.  So, at face value the fix is to remove the rebalance config.... except that it seems to make some cost adjustments. 

I'm pretty sure that ModuleManager has syntax to allow you to only make changes if a particular mod is or isn't installed.  Actually, I know it can account for requiring a mod, I'm not sure if it can say "only do this if this mod ISN'T installed" (but I think that it does.)  I'm going to dig through the documentation later and see if I can't re-adjust the procedural parts rebalance config to make sure this won't be an issue for anyone else, as well as making an MFT-compatible rebalance config that will still provide the same benefits.   

Module manager does allow for this.

[Sol Invictus]

@Yemo I'm using SETI Contracts in KSP 1.2.1, and even after disabling stock "exploration" contracts in Contract Configurator settings, I'm still getting stock "Escape the atmosphere!" and later "Orbit Kerbin!" contracts along the SETI Contracts equivalents. Perhaps I should talk about it on Contract Configurator thread, but nonetheless, It would be great if SETI Contracts could somehow disable all stock exploration contracts by default.

edit: by the way, stock exploration contracts appear alongside SETI Contracts only after I complete the first SETI contract, ie. reach altitude 18000m unmanned, or something like that. Before that, there are only contracts from SETI available.

Edited November 5, 2016 by Sol Invictus

[Lant]

The way input/output resources for TAC LS have changed recently, so the SETI Greenhouse wasn't properly converting resources.
Attached are fixed versions of Greenhouse1.cfg and Greenhouse3.cfg. Note that currently TAC LS 0.12.6 doesn't support the conversionRate field, but it has been added back in with https://github.com/KSP-RO/TacLifeSupport/commit/7c12db475f21d87edd65623a8d39a324f3a69155

I've decided to leave the numbers as is, so until the next TAC LS release the greenhouses will under produce what is expected.

I couldn't find a repo to fork, so the changes can be downloaded from: https://www.dropbox.com/s/3yak4y3nij8yy3o/Greenhouse.zip?dl=0

[Yemo]

On 31.10.2016 at 0:28 PM, Farix said:

I'm not sure what you mean, unless it's because the overhauled parts are less powerful than their stock counterparts. Or that the Mk1 Command Pod needs the ModuleDataTransmitter code added to it. Or is it the Valiant and Pug engines? Valiant is just too underpowered to be of much use and while the Pug is a good orbital engine do to it's light weight, its low thrust doesn't leave much room for error. However, that is besides the point. If someone is using these parts with the UBM tech tree, a command pod will be available in the very first node defeating the entire purpose of the tech tree.

 

PorkJet's overhauls didn't touch the stock parts. They are entirely new parts.

For example the new LV-909 is currently very OP, as far as I can tell. Also the part upgrade functionality is problematic for craft sharing. Also the old parts look great, once VenStockRevamp is installed, so there is no visual incentive to fully replace the old ones.

I m thinking about using both sets, but only the "upgraded" values for the new porkjet parts, to be unlocked later than the current stock/Ven equivalents. But that requires some work with SETIrebalance.

 

On 31.10.2016 at 5:25 PM, TaxiService said:

@Yemo I am letting you know in advance that I revised the RemoteTech's preset functionality (replace a player's current RT settings with a third-party mod's GameData/ExampleMod/RemoteTech_Settings.cfg). I took a look at your SETI RemoteTechConfig v1.0.9.0. All you need to update is use RT's Default_Settings.cfg as a base and add your ground stations there, and then wait for the next release of RT (1.8.1 I think) to release your SETI RT settings.

Thank you! I'll include the additional field from the new default settings cfg within the next SETIremoteTechConfig!

 

On 4.11.2016 at 5:03 AM, steddyj said:

So I've figured out the problem, but I'll probably work on the actual solution tomorrow.  Short version, the TankContentSwitcher component of Procedural Parts does not directly play nice with ModuleFuelTanks.  The MFT config included with Procedural parts actually disables the TankContentSwitcher module, then adds ModuleFuelTanks in to replace it.  The SETI Rebalance config then adds the TankContentSwitcher module back in.  So, at face value the fix is to remove the rebalance config.... except that it seems to make some cost adjustments. 

I'm pretty sure that ModuleManager has syntax to allow you to only make changes if a particular mod is or isn't installed.  Actually, I know it can account for requiring a mod, I'm not sure if it can say "only do this if this mod ISN'T installed" (but I think that it does.)  I'm going to dig through the documentation later and see if I can't re-adjust the procedural parts rebalance config to make sure this won't be an issue for anyone else, as well as making an MFT-compatible rebalance config that will still provide the same benefits.   

Hm, then I could deactivate the TankContentSwitcher module manager config if MFT is installed. Though I really do not want to miss the balancing changes...

Any help is greatly appreciated, since I have too little experience with MFT myself.

 

On 5.11.2016 at 4:05 PM, Sol Invictus said:

@Yemo I'm using SETI Contracts in KSP 1.2.1, and even after disabling stock "exploration" contracts in Contract Configurator settings, I'm still getting stock "Escape the atmosphere!" and later "Orbit Kerbin!" contracts along the SETI Contracts equivalents. Perhaps I should talk about it on Contract Configurator thread, but nonetheless, It would be great if SETI Contracts could somehow disable all stock exploration contracts by default.

edit: by the way, stock exploration contracts appear alongside SETI Contracts only after I complete the first SETI contract, ie. reach altitude 18000m unmanned, or something like that. Before that, there are only contracts from SETI available.

SETI Contracts v1.2.1.0 (for KSP 1.2.x)

Fixed deactivation of stock exploration contracts, thank you very much @Sol Invictus & @nightingale

Added numbering scheme in contract titles

 

11 hours ago, Lant said:

The way input/output resources for TAC LS have changed recently, so the SETI Greenhouse wasn't properly converting resources.
Attached are fixed versions of Greenhouse1.cfg and Greenhouse3.cfg. Note that currently TAC LS 0.12.6 doesn't support the conversionRate field, but it has been added back in with https://github.com/KSP-RO/TacLifeSupport/commit/7c12db475f21d87edd65623a8d39a324f3a69155

I've decided to leave the numbers as is, so until the next TAC LS release the greenhouses will under produce what is expected.

I couldn't find a repo to fork, so the changes can be downloaded from: https://www.dropbox.com/s/3yak4y3nij8yy3o/Greenhouse.zip?dl=0

SETI Greenhouse v1.2.1.0 (for KSP 1.2.x)

Fixed TAC-LS converters, thank you very much @Lant

• Please note that the current TAC-LS 0.12.6 does not recognize the conversion rate
• So until that is updated, the big greenhouse will only produce as much as the small one

[steddyj]

2 minutes ago, Yemo said:

Hm, then I could deactivate the TankContentSwitcher module manager config if MFT is installed. Though I really do not want to miss the balancing changes...

Any help is greatly appreciated, since I have too little experience with MFT myself.

Well, honestly I stopped looking into this because I decided to try out Configurable Containers instead, and it doesn't cause the same issues, although I think that's just by chance.  That said, I had hit a brick wall before deciding to switch mods.  The balance changes you are trying to make are to reduce the cost structure of Procedural Parts, but from what I can tell that variable can only be defined within the TankContentSwitcher module, although the cost calculation obviously happens elsewhere.  If you're using either Modular Fuel Tanks or Configurable Containers, the trade off is that you're going to have to pay full price for your procedural tanks.

I resigned myself to this issue, so I stopped digging into it further in order to get back to playing and it seems a little unclear who is currently maintaining Procedural Parts, other than just getting it pushed to new versions. 

[Sol Invictus]

@Yemo I tested new SETI Contracts just now, and the bug that I described before is still there. It seems to me that all that was changed in this regard, is that "Exploration" ballot box in Contract Configurator difficulty settings is now being automatically unchecked. That's great and all, but I was doing that myself all this time. Problem is that despite of "exploration" ballot box being unchecked, stock exploration contracts, like "Escape the atmosphere!" and "Orbit Kerbin!", are still appearing alongside their SETI equivalents. It starts happening as soon as I finish first SETI contract (reach 18km unmanned).

I'm attaching screenshot of my mission control: https://www.dropbox.com/s/90zdlwgud8u4h73/escape1.png?dl=0

edit: I believe that it has nothing to do with SETI Contracts after all, and all about how Contract Configurator is dealing with contracts in KSP 1.2.1. Thank you for your help nonetheless.

Edited November 8, 2016 by Sol Invictus