Yemo

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

Recommended Posts

If I would start an epic/progression game, I would use my maxMods testing folder as a basis, which contains all mods listed in the OP.

Then I would probably add the major mods, like

some version of KSPI, eg KSPI NF Integration

Karbonite,

MCM/MKS/OKS,

ExtraPlanetaryLaunchpads

and some parts/part mods depending on personal preference, like

Airbrakes from B9,

various other parts from B9,

inline goo container from STX,

Cargo Transportation Solutions fairings,

USI Exploration and Survivability,

Mark IV Spaceplane System,

Universal Docking Port Set,

and so on...

Linux KSP64bit or ATM required...

All of them.... as in the recommended ones (bolded) or literally all of them? I love KSP but wouldn't that crash constantly even with ATM/Linux 64? o_o

Yea I'm trying to come up with a long term career mode pack, but stability has been an issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All of them.... as in the recommended ones (bolded) or literally all of them? I love KSP but wouldn't that crash constantly even with ATM/Linux 64? o_o

Yea I'm trying to come up with a long term career mode pack, but stability has been an issue.

I'm running a SETI install with the whole mod list + some graphics mods (clouds even, though low quality for everything except Kerbin) with aggressive ATM and DX11 (saves like ~80 mb), and so far no crashes. However I didn't do much RAM-hungry tasks yet, so I'll see about that. Current full SETI install isn't actually that bad for RAM, there are no large part packs + procedurals replacing tons of stock parts (if you prune them ofc).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just give it a very low decoupling force? (like, 30-20 or even lower) I don't know why would you use bases in other places, i.e. in between launcher stages. There's also a rare game-breaking bug (experienced myself) because of using bases without fairings.

Or at least give it to the base with raised surface only. Would make more sense as this one is best used for sat launches.

Edit: I can see your point. That people will use bases instead of decouplers for weight saving (but not the one with raised surface due to FAR). Is weight that seriously different? I find that kinda silly

Welp, sad news, but I didn't really need KSPI that much honestly. It just adds some gameplay aspects that would be better to experience from a new career. SO that's why I was waiting (2 mods worth starting a new career in one update - bingo). I'm ok with RLA only for now.

Edit 2: What's your view on achievement mods like Final Frontier or Achievements?

The fairing bases would be used if they are not weight balanced with decouplers/separators. Which would lead to problems, like the game braking bug you described, or the fact that a 1.25m fairing base put on a 3.75m part, makes this aerodynamically (FAR) less resistant than a 0.625m nose cone (tested that), killing vessels on reentry...

And since it is not part of the Procedural Fairings config, I would have to deal with the ramnifications, which is imho not worth it.

I m exploring the options regarding KSPI and discussing them with FreeThinker. But it would definately be based on the CTT.

Final Frontier and Achievements look great, together witch KerbalContructionTime they would greatly increase the feeling of progression beside tech unlocks.

Not sure if I should recommend them, little time at the moment and I wanted to support more parts in the next update.

hmm must thinking to go 64 bit linux as second install
All of them.... as in the recommended ones (bolded) or literally all of them? I love KSP but wouldn't that crash constantly even with ATM/Linux 64? o_o

Yea I'm trying to come up with a long term career mode pack, but stability has been an issue.

Well, my maxMods test install uses literally all of the ones in the OP without ATM, AutoPruned files or any beautification mods. When I start a new career and visit all buildings, I m at 2.3GB, compared to 1.5GB after the same procedure with Stock. So there is quite some room there, with AutoPruner and ATM...

For an epic career I would add the ones listed above, but would heavily use AutoPruner and ATM and even swap mods depending on progression (like KAX vs ExtraPlanetaryLaunchpads).

Also, I forgot the IR model rework and foundries in the list above...

About the difference between Linux64bit and Win32ATM:

For Win32ATM I would select the B9 parts I want/need, to save RAM.

For Linux64, I would install the complete B9 pack and then just remove the wings and such stuff, to remove clutter from the assembly building...

I'm running a SETI install with the whole mod list + some graphics mods (clouds even, though low quality for everything except Kerbin) with aggressive ATM and DX11 (saves like ~80 mb), and so far no crashes. However I didn't do much RAM-hungry tasks yet, so I'll see about that. Current full SETI install isn't actually that bad for RAM, there are no large part packs + procedurals replacing tons of stock parts (if you prune them ofc).
I have been running regular ATM, thanks SW, I'll try aggressive and see if that fixes up things.

Yep, the squad folder is really inefficient with regards to RAM. SXT is nice in that regard, it adds lots of parts using the squad textures, thus making them more efficient. Unfortunately it conflicts with pruning them. Will have to work on SXT compatibility in the long run. Still other stuff to do before and STX is a massive pack...

Edited by Yemo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Loving this so far! Career is always better when it takes you so many attempts to succeed!

However I'm having VAB problems; the fuel line is missing even though I researched it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Loving this so far! Career is always better when it takes you so many attempts to succeed!

However I'm having VAB problems; the fuel line is missing even though I researched it.

Thank you!

Are you sure you researched the fuel lines?

They have been shifted back to specializedConstruction (thus needing an upgrade of the R&D center to prevent early asparagus).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again, thanks for producing such an excellent mod and for the continued active development and for considering our suggestions and feedback.

I've been playing through my career today and had a few ideas on probe core differentiation:

In my mind, I've always thought that there should be two categories of probe cores: small, lightweight power sipping cores for actual satellites/probes, and large power-hungry control systems (like the Saturn V Instrument Unit) for upper rocket stages.

The earliest probe core in my mind should be the rocket control type, i.e. it has a fairly high power draw and won't last more than an hour or so on its internal batteries and is inefficient for longer missions compared to an actual satellite/probe core. A few pages back you mentioned about repurposing the oscar fuel tank into a round core, I like that idea since the HECS core looks a little strange on my rockets and real rockets almost always had cylindrical control units.

In the second tier of probe cores (the OKTO2 and QBE) both are completely identical in terms of specs. It seems to me that the QBE should have larger internal batteries and possibly tiny reaction wheels so it's basically a self-contained box satellite (just slap solar panels on the outside) with a higher weight to reflect more internals.

I also seem to remember seeing a mod that added a variant of the stayputnik that basically made the ball a detachable probe core and the supporting structure a decoupler. I'm blanking on the name of the mod, but I always thought that the stayputnik was basically useless compared to the other probe cores since it didn't have a top attach node. Making it into an early satellite core (even before the OKTO2 and QBE) with decent sized internal batteries would give it some use for the early orbit contract. Earlier fairings would also be nice, Sputnik used detachable fairings so having them available for early satellite contracts wouldn't be immersion breaking and would make for nicer looking early rockets.

Also, what do you think of moving the 1.25m and 2.5m probe cores earlier in the tech tree? In my mind, these cores were primarily designed for rocket control, and by the time you get them you've had the rocket sizes they would be useful on for ages already.

To balance the relative inefficiency of the rocket control cores, they could be cheaper (less miniaturization) and have good sized reaction wheels built in to save parts early in the game. This would also mean that dedicated reaction wheels could come a bit later when the other probe cores (like the OKTO2) are introduced.

I also think that science data transmission EC requirements need to be rebalanced, it should not take an entire z-100 battery pack to transmit the temperature or pressure. This would also help with the low part limit early on by reducing the absurd numbers of batteries needed. Sputnik managed to transmit constantly for 3 weeks, even if we scaled things down a basic satellite probe should be able to stay powered and in communication for at least a few days on its internal batteries.

Edit: The new 2-man pod also seems a bit heavy for what it is, it weighs 3 tons and the 3 man pod is 3.7 and the 1 man is 1.1 so there's not a compelling reason to use it over the existing pods other than the fact that it looks a lot nicer.

Edited by Lord Aurelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those are some great ideas and suggestions Lord Aurelius, I support them. I think that Stayputnik version is from SXT.

BTW Yemo, Kerbonov Part Pack has a mini-jet. Could it be used as a model for the new 0.625 jet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you!

Are you sure you researched the fuel lines?

They have been shifted back to specializedConstruction (thus needing an upgrade of the R&D center to prevent early asparagus).

Yes I got specialised construction. I tried reloading the game twice. I realised the name was changed with a '0' at the front of the title, looking around and spotted SETI was the reason for this change. I duplicated the stock fuel line, renamed it to fuelline2 and it worked from there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Once again, thanks for producing such an excellent mod and for the continued active development and for considering our suggestions and feedback.

I've been playing through my career today and had a few ideas on probe core differentiation:

In my mind, I've always thought that there should be two categories of probe cores: small, lightweight power sipping cores for actual satellites/probes, and large power-hungry control systems (like the Saturn V Instrument Unit) for upper rocket stages.

The earliest probe core in my mind should be the rocket control type, i.e. it has a fairly high power draw and won't last more than an hour or so on its internal batteries and is inefficient for longer missions compared to an actual satellite/probe core. A few pages back you mentioned about repurposing the oscar fuel tank into a round core, I like that idea since the HECS core looks a little strange on my rockets and real rockets almost always had cylindrical control units.

In the second tier of probe cores (the OKTO2 and QBE) both are completely identical in terms of specs. It seems to me that the QBE should have larger internal batteries and possibly tiny reaction wheels so it's basically a self-contained box satellite (just slap solar panels on the outside) with a higher weight to reflect more internals.

I also seem to remember seeing a mod that added a variant of the stayputnik that basically made the ball a detachable probe core and the supporting structure a decoupler. I'm blanking on the name of the mod, but I always thought that the stayputnik was basically useless compared to the other probe cores since it didn't have a top attach node. Making it into an early satellite core (even before the OKTO2 and QBE) with decent sized internal batteries would give it some use for the early orbit contract. Earlier fairings would also be nice, Sputnik used detachable fairings so having them available for early satellite contracts wouldn't be immersion breaking and would make for nicer looking early rockets.

Also, what do you think of moving the 1.25m and 2.5m probe cores earlier in the tech tree? In my mind, these cores were primarily designed for rocket control, and by the time you get them you've had the rocket sizes they would be useful on for ages already.

To balance the relative inefficiency of the rocket control cores, they could be cheaper (less miniaturization) and have good sized reaction wheels built in to save parts early in the game. This would also mean that dedicated reaction wheels could come a bit later when the other probe cores (like the OKTO2) are introduced.

I also think that science data transmission EC requirements need to be rebalanced, it should not take an entire z-100 battery pack to transmit the temperature or pressure. This would also help with the low part limit early on by reducing the absurd numbers of batteries needed. Sputnik managed to transmit constantly for 3 weeks, even if we scaled things down a basic satellite probe should be able to stay powered and in communication for at least a few days on its internal batteries.

Edit: The new 2-man pod also seems a bit heavy for what it is, it weighs 3 tons and the 3 man pod is 3.7 and the 1 man is 1.1 so there's not a compelling reason to use it over the existing pods other than the fact that it looks a lot nicer.

Thank you for the detailed suggestions.

The QBE was intended to be the "KAS" probe core. I wanted to scale it down, make it KAS compatible and radially attachable. But it got forgotten when I supported KAS thus besides the radially attachability, the rest was not implemented.

I will have to rethink if it fits, given the proposed BoxSat and other probe core mod addons.

The stayputnik is actually my most used probe core, I use it for nearly every non-massive ComSat. I just like the shape of it and ComSats usually do not need the top node, since I tend to launch them in a side by side configurations using the 1 to 2/3/4 adapters from generalConstruction.

I made it lighter for 0.8.1, so now it is 10% lighter compared to the OKTO, less structural integrity necessary with only one node.

The rocket control vs lightweight probe core concept sounds great, however it will take some more rebalancing. May have to wait a few versions when introducing more probe core mods, so that I do not have to rebalance them twice. Moving the larger probe cores forward also leaves the problem of the 2 unmanned tech nodes being so far back in the CTT. Not sure what else would fit there.

Yeah, the data transmission is a bit strange, but I generally feel the whole electric power concept could use a major rebalance. 1ec/s fulfills the life support needs of 20 kerbals or so... That is totally imbalanced. I understand where it comes from, the reason that solar panels do not generate electricity when the vessel is not in focus. But with the Background Processing mod, there is a solution at hand.

So that is definately on the agenda, but it is a major piece of work with massive balancing effects.

I ll do the transmission costs in between, however after the 0.8.0 rebalance, I kind of want to primarily work on the accumulated backlog, mainly concerning part mod support.

The earlier fairings are a good idea, I shifted around some parts in the north-western corner of the tech tree for 0.8.1.

Those are some great ideas and suggestions Lord Aurelius, I support them. I think that Stayputnik version is from SXT.

BTW Yemo, Kerbonov Part Pack has a mini-jet. Could it be used as a model for the new 0.625 jet?

Since I moved the Basic Jet back to Aerodynamics (or wanted to, somehow it ended up in flightControl, will be fixed in 0.8.1), I needed a Jet for stability, which does not depend on any mods.

So the Kerbonov MiniTurboJet would be kind of redundant there. I therefore rebalanced it to be a small TurboJet instead of the small Basic Jet it was originally balanced as, despite its name.

The normal TurboJet was sent back to supersonicFlight in 0.8.0, while I intend to leave the Kerbonov MiniTurboJet at aerodynamics.

In fact, that config is already in 0.8.0 (SETI-PartMod-SH_mods-Kerbonov.cfg), I just wanted to make configs for the other Kerbonov parts before announcing the support in the changelog.

Yes I got specialised construction. I tried reloading the game twice. I realised the name was changed with a '0' at the front of the title, looking around and spotted SETI was the reason for this change. I duplicated the stock fuel line, renamed it to fuelline2 and it worked from there.

That is odd, the Fuel Line is the the first part in my Fuel Tanks catalog in the VAB.

I added the 0 for part catalog sorting, like I did for the procedural parts, launch clamps and so on. So that the basic parts are always at the start and users do not need to search for them after every tech unlock/mod install.

@Lord Aurelius/SwGustav:

Regarding the backlog, this is an implementation of the HybridRocketBooster concept based on Lord Aurelius Hybrid Booster concept and the ProceduralParts SRB.

The code can just be copied into a .cfg file within the GameData folder of your SETI install. Any feedback appreciated, it is only rudimentary balanced for SETI.

If you are ok with that, I can include it into 0.8.1 for testing. Will post it into your Hybrid Rocket Booster thread as well, for exposure and of course if you want to distribute the config file.

Given the changes to procedural parts by SETI, especially now with the textures from SwGustav and the HybridBoosters from LordAurelius (and probably more coming), I m also thinking about a separate download. Like the Initial Contracts for other TechTree mods, If you two are ok with that?. There is another microMod I want to publish first, so it will be for the medium run when some other changes are made as well.


//------\\
//---SETI-BalanceMod---\\
//------\\
//---HybridRocketBooster, concept based on Hybrid Rocket Booster by Lord Aurelius: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/104236 ---\\
//---Config structure based on Procedural Parts SRB by AncientGammoner, NK, Tiberion, NathanKell, Swamp Ig: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/106975 ---\\


//------\\
//---HRB---\\
//------\\

PART:NEEDS[ProceduralParts]
{
// --- general parameters ---
name = proceduralTankHRB
module = Part
author = Yemo, Lord Aurelius, AncientGammoner, NK, Tiberion, NathanKell, Swamp Ig

// --- asset parameters ---
MODEL
{
model = ProceduralParts/Parts/cylinderTank
scale = 1,1,1
}
// The model is positioned so it looks right in the icon for the VAB
// If you alter the default params, then change the position
MODEL
{
model = ProceduralParts/Parts/SRBBell
position = 0.0, -1.25, 0.0
scale = 1,1,1
}
// If you want to make another SRB bell, you'll need to have a good look at
// the structure of these ones and keep it the same. You can add an extra
// SRB_BELL node to the ProceduralSRB module below.
MODEL
{
model = ProceduralParts/Parts/HighRatio
position = 0.0, -1.25, 0.0
scale = 1,1,1
}
MODEL
{
model = ProceduralParts/Parts/LowRatio
position = 0.0, -1.25, 0.0
scale = 1,1,1
}
scale = 1
rescaleFactor = 1

// --- node definitions ---
node_stack_top = 0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 1
node_stack_bottom = 0.0, -0.5, 0.0, 0.0, -1.0, 0.0, 1
node_attach = 0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1

fx_exhaustFlame_yellow = 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, running
fx_exhaustSparks_yellow = 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, running
// fx_exhaustLight_yellow = 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, running
fx_smokeTrail_medium = -5.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, running

sound_vent_medium = engage
sound_rocket_hard = running
sound_vent_soft = disengage
sound_explosion_low = flameout

// --- editor parameters ---
cost = 0 // 4000
category = Propulsion
TechRequired = basicRocketry
entryCost = 5000
subcategory = 0
title = 0 Procedural HRB
manufacturer = Kerbchem Industries
description = The Hybrid Rocket Booster uses liquid oxidizer in conjunction with solid fuel. This configuration leads to higher a ISP and more importantly to thrust controllability and improved safety. Unfortunately it is also more expensive than the standard SRB.
// attachment rules: stack, srfAttach, allowStack, allowSrfAttach, allowCollision
attachRules = 1,1,1,1,0

// --- standard part parameters ---
mass = 0
dragModelType = default
maximum_drag = 0.3
minimum_drag = 0.3
angularDrag = 2
crashTolerance = 7
breakingForce = 200
breakingTorque = 200
maxTemp = 3600

stagingIcon = SOLID_BOOSTER

MODULE
{
name = ProceduralPart
textureSet = German

diameterMin = 0.125

// Lengths for the stock tanks are approximate as one needs to account for the bell.
TECHLIMIT {
// RT-10 - 1.25 x 2.4 m = 2.95 kL
name = start
diameterMin = 0.25
diameterMax = 0.5
lengthMin = 0.25
lengthMax = 2.5
volumeMin = 0.03
volumeMax = 1.0
}
TECHLIMIT {
name = basicRocketry
diameterMax = 1.25
lengthMax = 3.5
volumeMax = 3.5
}
TECHLIMIT {
// BACC - 1.25 x 7.1 m = 8.71 kL
// Sepatron - 0.15 x 0.5 = 0.009 kl
name = generalRocketry
diameterMax = 1.25
lengthMin = 0.125
lengthMax = 5.0
volumeMin = 0.001
volumeMax = 6.0
}
TECHLIMIT {
name = advRocketry
lengthMax = 8.0
volumeMax = 12.0
}
// Seems fair that heavy rocketry should enable 2.5 dia
TECHLIMIT {
name = heavyRocketry
diameterMax = 3.0
lengthMax = 11.0
volumeMax = 20.0
}
TECHLIMIT {
name = heavierRocketry
lengthMax = 14.0
volumeMax = 40.0
}
TECHLIMIT {
name = veryHeavyRocketry
lengthMax = 16.0
volumeMax = 52.0
}

TECHLIMIT {
// Make everything unlimited for metaMaterials
name = metaMaterials
diameterMin = 0.01
diameterMax = Infinity
lengthMin = 0.01
lengthMax = Infinity
volumeMin = 0.01
volumeMax = Infinity
}
}
// Don't change the default length without also altering the default position above.
MODULE
{
name = ProceduralShapeCylinder
displayName = Cylinder

length = 2.5
diameter = 1.25
}
MODULE
{
name = ProceduralShapeCone
displayName = Cone

// We need the bottom mode to be limit min so that it doesn't
// get to small to allow the bell to be attached nicely
coneBottomMode = LimitMin

length = 2.5
topDiameter = 0.625
bottomDiameter = 1.25
}
MODULE
{
name = ProceduralShapePill
displayName = Fillet Cylinder

length = 2.5
diameter = 1.25
fillet = 0.25
}
MODULE
{
name = ProceduralShapeBezierCone
displayName = Smooth Cone

// We need the bottom mode to be limit min so that it doesn't
// get to small to allow the bell to be attached nicely
coneBottomMode = LimitMin

selectedShape = Round #1

length = 2.5
topDiameter = 0.625
bottomDiameter = 1.25
}
MODULE
{
name = TankContentSwitcher
useVolume = true

TANK_TYPE_OPTION
{
name = SolidFuel
// The RT-10 and BACC both have similar dry density.
// When you work it out, the mass of the bell is negligible.
// from originall 0.174
dryDensity = 0.162
// As per StretchySRB. This is way higher than stock
// dryDensity = 1.5

costMultiplier = 0.8

RESOURCE
{
name = SolidFuel
//isTweakable = false
// Again no real consistency in stock KSP. Have gone with a bit lower than RT-10 dry/wet
unitsPerT = 405
// As per StretchySRB
//unitsPerKL = 125
}

RESOURCE
{
name = Oxidizer
//isTweakable = false
// Again no real consistency in stock KSP. Have gone with a bit lower than RT-10 dry/wet
unitsPerT = 495
// As per StretchySRB
//unitsPerKL = 125
}
}
}

MODULE
{
name = ModuleEngines
thrustVectorTransformName = thrustTransform
throttleLocked = False
exhaustDamage = True
ignitionThreshold = 0.1
minThrust = 0
maxThrust = 52
heatProduction = 157
useEngineResponseTime = False
engineAccelerationSpeed = 10.0
engineDecelerationSpeed = 10.0
allowShutdown = True
fxOffset = 0, 0, 0
PROPELLANT
{
name = SolidFuel
ratio = 0.9
DrawGauge = True
}
PROPELLANT
{
name = Oxidizer
ratio = 1.1
}

atmosphereCurve
{
key = 0 10
key = 1 20
}

}
MODULE
{
name = ProceduralSRB
costMultiplier = 1.0

srbBellName = SRBBell
thrustVectorTransformName = thrustTransform
bottomAttachNodeName = bottom

selectedBellName = Surface

// Thrust for the SRB on part place (default thrust).
thrust = 250

// The thrust that an SRB with a 1m base could put out.
// Make this higher to allow for more powerful SRBs at the same diameter.
// If you don't want tiny bells, use a smaller number. If you want a higher thrust limit, use a bigger number.
// Note that this goes up on the square of diameter, so a 2m diameter part will give you 2^2 * thrust1m = 2000kN max thrust.
// Does not affect ships in flight (as in their bells will not rescale)
thrust1m = 500

// To replicate Advanced Booster SRB
// See thread here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/70676-WIP-Procedural-Parts-The-next-phase-of-Stretchy-SRBs?p=1116650&viewfull=1#post1116650
// Changing this will not affect ships in flight (but will affect anything loaded into the VAB)
//thrust1m = 1500

// Heat Produced = heatPerThrust * sqrt(thrust) / (1+total mass).
// All stock parts are around 50
// I realize this model is not very physical, but the way heat is handled in the game is pretty daft
// Note anything with heat production much above 700 tends to explode.
// Does not affect ships in flight (as in their heat production will not rescale)
heatPerThrust = 40

// If heat is still causing you issues, use the old equation from stretchy SRBs which is easier
//useOldHeatEquation = true

// This is to enable any ships that used the old version (0.9.3 and prior) to update cleanly.
// Once you've saved the ship then it's updated. The heat production will use the new version, as the old one was buggy.
deprecatedThrustScaleFactor = 256

SRB_BELL
{
name = Surface

// ISP in vacuum and kerbin surface
atmosphereCurve
{
key = 0 280
key = 1 260
}
// Degrees of gimble
gimbalRange = 0.25


// Config intrinsic to the model, don't change unless you know what you're doing
modelName = LowRatioBell
// Diameter of the bell's choke (in the unscaled model)
bellChokeDiameter = 0.55
// Ratio between the bell choke and the bottom of the SRB
// Should never be > 1.0. Ideal depends on the model somewhat, but big numbers look funny.
chokeEndRatio = 0.55
}
SRB_BELL
{
name = Vacuum

atmosphereCurve
{
key = 0 294
key = 1 245
}
gimbalRange = 0.1

modelName = HighRatioBell
bellChokeDiameter = 0.32
chokeEndRatio = 0.32
}
}
MODULE
{
name = ModuleGimbal
gimbalTransformName = SRBBell
gimbalRange = 0.25
}
}

Edited by Yemo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Yemo

I noticed that the QBE was radially attachable, I stuck it in my science plane as a makeshift avionics module so Bob could fly it more easily (SAS) while Jeb was setting a manned orbit record. I like the idea of a KAS probe core, maybe something like that could be put into the later unmanned tech nodes. Another probe mod that could help fill the later nodes is NanoKube [link]. Although I still like my top nodes (I like giant dishes on my satellites), those tweaks should help differentiate the Stayputnik as more of a pure satellite core instead of a satellite/lander hybrid. Maybe that could be another subcategory as well, have very lightweight but fragile satellite cores and heavier, tougher and more expensive cores that can be used on landers/rovers. Looking forward to seeing how you implement this and the EC rebalancing in a later update and I totally understand wanting to get new parts in before trying to balance everything.

For the hybrid booster script, I think it would make sense to have it as a separate microMod. There's nothing SETI specific about it and it would allow more people to be able to use it with whatever combination of mods they prefer. I'm still surprised that nobody else has done much with hybrid boosters up to this point (aside from the even more niche aluminum rocket in KSPI).

I'll put the code in a file and give it a try, thanks for combining it with procedural parts (I thought about doing this myself but had trouble figuring out the procedural parts format). Now to see how long it takes someone to build a WhiteKnightTwo/SpaceShipTwo replica (I would try but I haven't figured out how to control two aircraft at the same time...). Bonus points for a working feathering mechanism.

Edit: Just loaded up the booster script and did a quick test, they function as expected and are actually decently balanced for the time being. In general they come out cheaper (don't have to pay for an additional engine) with lower dV, but in a few test craft they actually had the same dV for a lower price due to not needing a separate engine. I do think that fuel and engine costs need to be rebalanced, engines should be one of the most expensive components and fuel should be significantly cheaper than it is which would highlight the HRB and SRB as a low cost alternatives since right now a large fuel tank is significantly more expensive than the engine needed to lift it. To further balance the HRB, the base cost could be increased a bit due to the oxidizer plumbing and throttle control, but should still be much cheaper than a LF engine.

Once the microMod version is ready, I'll update the OP in my thread with a link to the download.

Edited by Lord Aurelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Given the changes to procedural parts by SETI, especially now with the textures from SwGustav and the HybridBoosters from LordAurelius (and probably more coming), I m also thinking about a separate download. Like the Initial Contracts for other TechTree mods, If you two are ok with that?. There is another microMod I want to publish first, so it will be for the medium run when some other changes are made as well.

That is rad :) You have my ok for textures.

I'll give a go for booster later.

Also, you never answered this

Is this possible to allow procedural decoupler length tweaking with tech levels? Because a 5m flat pancake doesn't look right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@Yemo

I noticed that the QBE was radially attachable, I stuck it in my science plane as a makeshift avionics module so Bob could fly it more easily (SAS) while Jeb was setting a manned orbit record. I like the idea of a KAS probe core, maybe something like that could be put into the later unmanned tech nodes. Another probe mod that could help fill the later nodes is NanoKube [link]. Although I still like my top nodes (I like giant dishes on my satellites), those tweaks should help differentiate the Stayputnik as more of a pure satellite core instead of a satellite/lander hybrid. Maybe that could be another subcategory as well, have very lightweight but fragile satellite cores and heavier, tougher and more expensive cores that can be used on landers/rovers. Looking forward to seeing how you implement this and the EC rebalancing in a later update and I totally understand wanting to get new parts in before trying to balance everything.

For the hybrid booster script, I think it would make sense to have it as a separate microMod. There's nothing SETI specific about it and it would allow more people to be able to use it with whatever combination of mods they prefer. I'm still surprised that nobody else has done much with hybrid boosters up to this point (aside from the even more niche aluminum rocket in KSPI).

I'll put the code in a file and give it a try, thanks for combining it with procedural parts (I thought about doing this myself but had trouble figuring out the procedural parts format). Now to see how long it takes someone to build a WhiteKnightTwo/SpaceShipTwo replica (I would try but I haven't figured out how to control two aircraft at the same time...). Bonus points for a working feathering mechanism.

Edit: Just loaded up the booster script and did a quick test, they function as expected and are actually decently balanced for the time being. In general they come out cheaper (don't have to pay for an additional engine) with lower dV, but in a few test craft they actually had the same dV for a lower price due to not needing a separate engine. I do think that fuel and engine costs need to be rebalanced, engines should be one of the most expensive components and fuel should be significantly cheaper than it is which would highlight the HRB and SRB as a low cost alternatives since right now a large fuel tank is significantly more expensive than the engine needed to lift it. To further balance the HRB, the base cost could be increased a bit due to the oxidizer plumbing and throttle control, but should still be much cheaper than a LF engine.

Once the microMod version is ready, I'll update the OP in my thread with a link to the download.

Unfortunately the SRBs in procedural parts are very costly, so with the mulipliers in the script, the HRB would probably be cheaper than the SRB without SETI.

I havent gotten around to fully balancing the whole SRB, liquid fuel, engines stuff. It heavily depends on the size of the payload. The SRBs get very heavy and need lots of volume compared to relatively small standard engines. And I m not sure about the PP SRBs ISP values either...

It is all a bit messy, imho.

That is rad :) You have my ok for textures.

I'll give a go for booster later.

Also, you never answered this

I m not sure about the procedural decoupler length.

There is this comment in the PP file: // Only the diameter is tweakable, not the length or the curve

So I have not tried to change the value. No idea what will happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I also forgot to address the 2-kerbal pod mass question:

The Mk1-1 pod for 2 kerbals actually has a weight of 2.4 tons compared to the 1.1 ton Mk1 single seater, so the difference between two Mk1 and a single Mk1-1 is only 200kg.

The weight difference to the 3 tons is entirely made up of the monoprop (which the Mk1 lacks totally) and the much increased ablative shielding (which is much more than I usually need, I often put only 200 in, instead of the 300 standard ones). Though 300 help when you return a little faster from interplanetary missions.

Also the Mk1-1 has functioning, integrated RCS and quite a lot of KAS storage. And a little bit more life support reserves (10 days instead of 1, though that is marginal in terms of weight).

The Mk1-2 weighs 3.4 tons empty, but has less KAS storage and only the same 80 monoprop without working RCS thrusters (until I support Vens StockPartRevamp).

Also it has no integrated heat shield (again, until StockPartRevamp support), and thus no ablative armor to weigh it down in default configuration.

Personally, the Mk1-1 is very versatile and thus it became my standard pod.

Edited by Yemo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That makes sense, I forgot that the Mk1-2 didn't include a heat shield, when I add one it brings the weight up to 4.5 tons. Glad to hear that stock revamp is still in the works, looking forward to using those parts.

Edited by Lord Aurelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just tried HRB, it's super fun! Really love how it's done. No output on balancing though, sorry! (was toying around in sandbox)

Definitely worth a separate download

Edit: jets from latest update are insane. I landed the advanced one horizontally on island runway on the first try (tail chute was a big help)

Edited by SwGustav

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just tried HRB, it's super fun! Really love how it's done. No output on balancing though, sorry! (was toying around in sandbox)

Definitely worth a separate download

Edit: jets from latest update are insane. I landed the advanced one horizontally on island runway on the first try (tail chute was a big help)

Thank you,

I plan to replace the SRBs on the Basic & Advanced Jets with HRBs in 0.8.1, so that they are useful for multiple short boosts without increasing part count.

Glad you like the jets, it was quite a design process based on the Me 262.

I have another addition in mind, but I need to release a micro mod for that.

Unfortunately, it would require 1 additional part, maybe I ll need to change the Basic Jet again...

Edited by Yemo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't HRBs make more sense on Advanced Jet only?

You know, I think you should add another RemoteTech antenna, with less range than DTS-M1 but also lower electricity consumption, for earlier simple networks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with SwGustav, the DTS-M1 is overkill for early comm networks, but the remotetech contracts require a dish and that's the earliest one we can get. Maybe repurpose one of the .625m fixed dishes and move it earlier in the tech tree?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hm, I m generally not sure about the dishes.

The DTS-M1 covers even Minmus, so I m not sure I understand the need for the KR-7, except for the small "High above the Sun" peak.

On the other hand, I m not sure if a step between Mun and Minmus in terms of communication makes sense.

And if we are talking about an even shorter range Dish, that only covers KEO sats, then upgrading for Mun seems to be a bit of an artificial progression step.

While the old Advanced Jet was more capable than the Basic Jet, the new is just more complex to build. And since the HRB is available at basicRocketry (between SRB and liquids) before the jet parts anyway, a restriction would imho be odd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having the early dish reach out to Minmus is a good distance, although with the recommended tweaks to remotetech (in the remotetech xf thread) it ends up being functional quite a bit farther out than that. In my mind a fancy folding dish like the DTS-M1 should be higher tech than a fixed dish, but currently the fixed dishes are unlocked later in the tech tree. Maybe things could be balanced where the fixed dishes are heavier but quite a bit cheaper and more efficient (right now there's really no reason to use the fixed dishes) and in the early game (until the EC use gets rebalanced) power is at a premium and a heavier dish isn't as much as an issue since we're not trying to go very far yet. Since fairings are being moved earlier, it wouldn't be a big deal to launch a satellite/probe with a fixed dish for the early comm network.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You know, I think you should add another RemoteTech antenna, with less range than DTS-M1 but also lower electricity consumption, for earlier simple networks.
I agree with SwGustav, the DTS-M1 is overkill for early comm networks, but the remotetech contracts require a dish and that's the earliest one we can get. Maybe repurpose one of the .625m fixed dishes and move it earlier in the tech tree?
yeah it is a bit overkill early

Really? You need a dish to reach the Mun, so we'd be talking about a comms network that is only for local Kerbin orbit. I guess when I did the contract pack I didn't think there was a reason to have a non-dish comms network, since it gets obsoleted too fast. Or is it that SETI's progression is such that there's more early gameplay to make it worthwhile as a player to set up a LKO comms network without dishes?

Maybe I can split out the "early comms network" and "comms network that can reach the Mun" into two contracts. That would probably be a workable solution for both stock and SETI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would then like to recommend AIES. AT least for the antenna. I believe it has some smaller dishes that could be configured to suit that purpose.

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.