Yemo

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

Recommended Posts

Here is what CKAN outputted for me in BB code mode. Seems to work pretty well!

  • Alternate Resource Panel (AlternateResourcePanel 2.7.2.0)
  • Chatterer (Chatterer 0.9.6)
  • Coherent Contracts (CoherentContracts 1.02)
  • Color Coded Canisters (ColorCodedCans 1.1.1)
  • Community Resource Pack (CommunityResourcePack 0.4.3)
  • Community Tech Tree (CommunityTechTree 2.1)
  • Contract Configurator (ContractConfigurator 1.5.2)
  • Contract Window + (ContractsWindowPlus 5.2)
  • Crossfeed Enabler (CrossFeedEnabler v3.3)
  • Crowd Sourced Science (CrowdSourcedScience v3.0)
  • Custom Barn Kit (CustomBarnKit 1.1.1)
  • DMagic Orbital Science (DMagicOrbitalScience 1.0.7)
  • Docking Port Alignment Indicator (DockingPortAlignmentIndicator 6.2)
  • Engine Lighting (EngineLighting 1.4.0)
  • Environmental Visual Enhancements (EnvironmentalVisualEnhancements 7-4)
  • Environmental Visual Enhancements - High Resolution (EnvironmentalVisualEnhancements-HR 7-4)
  • Filter Extensions - Default Configuration (FilterExtensionsDefaultConfig 2.3.1)
  • Filter Extensions - Plugin (FilterExtensions 2.3.1)
  • Firespitter Core (FirespitterCore v7.1.4)
  • Fuel Tanks Plus (FuelTanksPlus 0.11.2)
  • Hot Spot (HotSpot 0.4.4)
  • HotRockets (HotRockets 1.0.4.1)
  • Interstellar Fuel Switch (InterstellarFuelSwitch 1.15)
  • Interstellar Fuel Switch Core (InterstellarFuelSwitch-Core 1.15)
  • Kerbal Engineer Redux (KerbalEngineerRedux 1.0.18.0)
  • Kerbal Joint Reinforcement (KerbalJointReinforcement v3.1.4)
  • KSP Interstellar Extended (KSPInterstellarExtended 1.2.6)
  • Landing Height Display (LandingHeight 1.4)
  • MechJeb 2 (MechJeb2 2.5.3)
  • Modular Rocket Systems - Parts Pack (ModularRocketSystem 1.7.3)
  • Module Manager (ModuleManager 2.6.6)
  • Near Future IVA Props (NearFutureProps 0.4.3)
  • Near Future Solar (NearFutureSolar 0.5.3)
  • Part Commander (PartCommander 1.0.2.2)
  • RCS Build Aid (RCSBuildAid 0.7.2)
  • RCS Sounds (RCSSounds 4.3)
  • RealChute Parachute Systems (RealChute 1.3.2.3)
  • SafeChute (SafeChute v1.7.1)
  • ScienceAlert (ScienceAlert 1.8.9)
  • SETI-CommunityTechTree (SETI-CommunityTechTree 0.9.1.2)
  • SETI-Contracts (SETI-Contracts 0.9.3)
  • SmokeScreen - Extended FX Plugin (SmokeScreen 2.6.6)
  • SpaceY Heavy Lifters Parts Pack (SpaceY-Lifters 0.17.5)
  • StageRecovery (StageRecovery 1.5.7)
  • Station Science (StationScience 1.5)
  • Stock Bug Fix Modules (StockBugFixModules v1.0.4a.1)
  • Stockalike Station Parts Expansion (StationPartsExpansion 0.3.3)
  • Toolbar (Toolbar 1.7.9)
  • TweakScale - Rescale Everything! (TweakScale v2.2.1)
  • Universal Storage (UniversalStorage 1.1.0.6)
  • Ven's Stock Part Revamp (VenStockRevamp v1.8.1)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just accidentally glitch-killed Bob in my preliminary test career (I think it's an issue with TakeCommand, or at least an issue with running into something on a rover so hard that the kerbal falls out of the EAS-1 Command Seat and gets treated as Debris instead of as a Kerbal), so it might be time to finally start this thing. Will do some work and hopefully get it started later tonight.

Not your fault. It is a known bug which can be fixed as part Claw's stock bug fixes. See http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/97285-KSP-v1-0-4-Stock-Bug-Fix-Modules-(Release-v1-0-4a-1-1-Jul-15)

As far as using FAR goes. It makes the game easier in the long run but requires a user learning curve. However I would avoid it in your current project. From a narrative standpoint it is not going to add to the story. For this the stock aerodynamics are "cool" enough not to get in way of the plot. See http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuleOfCool

Another good reason to avoid FAR right now is it is great at finding the rare Heating Kraken. A bug that causes overhearing failure with small parts in bays. This present in stock and hard to find. FAR helps. See http://bugs.kerbalspaceprogram.com/issues/5174

Edited by nobodyhasthis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is also new export function in CKAN. So you can share the same mods you are using for yourself or export to text file, even with BB code that makes nice list of installed mods.

Ready to copy-paste for fast usage on forum. Also good thing is that each version of mod is included too :)

Version numbers might be ok/good for lets plays/mission reports, but they are very bad for mod packs (.ckan files) and mod recommendations.

Unfortunately (for the Mission Log's purposes, at least), I don't actually use CKAN, so I can't screenshot it or export the list.

I will update the Mission Log's original post with, to the best of my ability, a complete list of mods in play as soon as I finish writing up the first actual mission (which was as resounding a success as an 18km-altitude suicide probe can be!)

Very detailed mission report!

I usually get help here so I thought i'd try.

In my Windows 64-bit install using a number of mods my game freezes regularly when I go inbetween scenes.

For example, I will launch a vessel, revert to VA and relaunch it but instead of getting control the game freezes with a weird screen shown here: http://i.imgur.com/6sO48uH.png

Checking the output_log this is what fills the bottom of it:

Distant Object Enhancement v1.5.7 -- BodyFlare (null bodyflare?) Destroy

Here's my output_log: https://www.dropbox.com/s/5iht89g3khmjw91/output_log.txt?dl=0

Hm, there are quite a lot of exceptions in that log. You might want to take a look at the exception detector plugin.

I also noticed quite some null refs concerning clouds. I remember there was something about clouds. Maybe something with texture compression.

Here is what CKAN outputted for me in BB code mode. Seems to work pretty well!

*snip

If only I could disable the version number from being added to such lists/.ckan files.

Not your fault. It is a known bug which can be fixed as part Claw's stock bug fixes. See http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/97285-KSP-v1-0-4-Stock-Bug-Fix-Modules-(Release-v1-0-4a-1-1-Jul-15)

As far as using FAR goes. It makes the game easier in the long run but requires a user learning curve. However I would avoid it in your current project. From a narrative standpoint it is not going to add to the story. For this the stock aerodynamics are "cool" enough not to get in way of the plot. See http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuleOfCool

Another good reason to avoid FAR right now is it is great at finding the rare Heating Kraken. A bug that causes overhearing failure with small parts in bays. This present in stock and hard to find. FAR helps. See http://bugs.kerbalspaceprogram.com/issues/5174

Which reminds me, I forgot to add Stock Bug Fixes to the ModPack.

Download: SETI ModPack 1 Basic v0.9.3 (for KSP 1.0.4)

* Stock Bug Fix Modules added to the list

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Very detailed mission report!

I'm all about the detail. ;) Which is why it takes me an outrageous amount of time to write up each mission report, unfortunately. I'm gradually developing "templates" that I can use to help expedite my end of it, though, so hopefully as I get into the swing of things it won't take me an hour to write-up a report for an uncrewed high-altitude probe mission. :P

Not your fault. It is a known bug which can be fixed as part Claw's stock bug fixes. See http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/...4a-1-1-Jul-15)
Which reminds me, I forgot to add Stock Bug Fixes to the ModPack.

Thanks for the tip! I've added Claw's Stock Bug Fixes to the Kerpublican Space Agency career as well. Hopefully it'll prevent me from glitch-killing poor Bob the first time I get a "Science from around KSC" Field Research contract. (Would also help if I designed KSC rovers that weren't prone to flipping onto their front grill when reaching the bottom of a hill or running into a minor change in elevation...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I m currently working on some example craft.

The modular MicroRover @0.37t

Easy to extend by putting stuff between the chassis frames. Vertically fits inside 1.25m diameter.

DcpJPLP.png

And the more specialized MiniRover @2.2t, wet

Complete with LFO/Mono Propulsion for VTOL and getting up again after toppling over on Mun/Minmus.

avhhsAN.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the NanoRover "Unicorn" @162kg

Including a light on the other side and the gravimax behind the battery. Easily fits like that inside a 1.25m cargo bay.

hFCmJC4.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello all. I am a big fan of the SETI mod series. I found a limitation with the current SETI CTT in regards to CryoEngines. The file SETI-PartMod-PP-TankLiquid.cfg seems to override the liquid hydrogen CryoEnginesProceduralFuelTanks.cfg addition. I was able allow for Liquid Hydrogen on procedural parts by adding this snippit from the cryo engine cfg to the SETI-PartMod-PP-TankLiquid.cfg file.

        TANK_TYPE_OPTION:NEEDS[CryoEngines]
{
name = LqdHydrogen
dryDensity = 0.1
costMultiplier = 0.035
// Based on observation that LH2 is 1/20 the cost of LF
RESOURCE
{
name = LqdHydrogen
unitsPerT = 8800
// Based on nertea's 5.5x total of mixed tank
}
}
TANK_TYPE_OPTION:NEEDS[CryoEngines]
{
name = LqdHydrogen+Oxidizer
dryDensity = 0.1
costMultiplier = 0.785
// Based on observation that LH2 is 1/20 the cost of LF and adding the cost mult for oxidizer only
RESOURCE
{
name = LqdHydrogen
unitsPerT = 8000
// Based on nertea's 5x total of mixed tank
}
RESOURCE
{
name = Oxidizer
unitsPerT = 800
// Based on nertea's 1:10 ratio for mixed tank
}
}

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello all. I am a big fan of the SETI mod series. I found a limitation with the current SETI CTT in regards to CryoEngines. The file SETI-PartMod-PP-TankLiquid.cfg seems to override the liquid hydrogen CryoEnginesProceduralFuelTanks.cfg addition. I was able allow for Liquid Hydrogen on procedural parts by adding this snippit from the cryo engine cfg to the SETI-PartMod-PP-TankLiquid.cfg file.

        TANK_TYPE_OPTION:NEEDS[CryoEngines]
{
name = LqdHydrogen
dryDensity = 0.1
costMultiplier = 0.035
// Based on observation that LH2 is 1/20 the cost of LF
RESOURCE
{
name = LqdHydrogen
unitsPerT = 8800
// Based on nertea's 5.5x total of mixed tank
}
}
TANK_TYPE_OPTION:NEEDS[CryoEngines]
{
name = LqdHydrogen+Oxidizer
dryDensity = 0.1
costMultiplier = 0.785
// Based on observation that LH2 is 1/20 the cost of LF and adding the cost mult for oxidizer only
RESOURCE
{
name = LqdHydrogen
unitsPerT = 8000
// Based on nertea's 5x total of mixed tank
}
RESOURCE
{
name = Oxidizer
unitsPerT = 800
// Based on nertea's 1:10 ratio for mixed tank
}
}

Cheers

Thank you very much!

I will take a look at CryoEngines and at the procedural parts configs. Isnt the name of the LxdHydrogen+Oxidizer tank type option too long for that field in the VAB?

Apropos procedural parts, the procedural probe core somehow went missing. It will return in the next small update tomorrow.

And apropos tanks, I recently went through some stock tanks and I can only say *censored!

The mass/volumes do not have any balance at all. For example the monoprop tanks...

Together with all the mass, volume, reaction wheel, EC, cost imbalances I wonder how people can play career at all. It is like hitting yourself on the head. Repeatedly. All the time!

I also did take a short look at github. It seems it does not allow me to configure the zip file, which it produces for a release (at least from the web-interface), as far as I can see. Which is pretty horrible for a release/dev platform.

It always wants to add the version number to the folder within the zip file. Which of course is totally unacceptable for KSP.

I see other github mods not having that issue, if anyone knows how to fix this, please tell me.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh, and I m also thinking about reintroducing automatic record contracts for SETIcontracts.

Of course fewer and less OP.

Any suggestions?

Maybe altitude with jet engines (although I already recommend a contract pack for jets).

Speed records for air breathers/rockets.

They should be relatively simple and mainly for the early career.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you very much!

I will take a look at CryoEngines and at the procedural parts configs. Isnt the name of the LxdHydrogen+Oxidizer tank type option too long for that field in the VAB?

The name is indeed too long. I did not edit the name for the post since I wanted it to reflect the original code from Nertea's CFG file. I have just renamed mine to LOX+LH2 for the combo and LH2 for the single fuel type.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The name is indeed too long. I did not edit the name for the post since I wanted it to reflect the original code from Nertea's CFG file. I have just renamed mine to LOX+LH2 for the combo and LH2 for the single fuel type.

Might I suggest LH2/OX for the combo name and LiquidHydrogen for the normal one (just to be in line with the others, but I m fine with LH2 as well)?

Since LH2/OX is the name used for the normal tanks using interstellar fuel switch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
picture

I can tolerate having to re-buy a bunch of locked parts, but is there any way to not shoot holes in an in-progress tech tree between updates?

fuelLine moved up another notch - took me a while to realize that although it was shown as "owned" in AdvFuelSystems it was also shown in high performance fuel systems... and the latter took priority, entirely removing it from availability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Might I suggest LH2/OX for the combo name and LiquidHydrogen for the normal one (just to be in line with the others, but I m fine with LH2 as well)?

Since LH2/OX is the name used for the normal tanks using interstellar fuel switch.

I would agree that LH2/OX would be a better choice since it aligns with IFS as you stated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And apropos tanks, I recently went through some stock tanks and I can only say *censored!

The mass/volumes do not have any balance at all. For example the monoprop tanks...

Together with all the mass, volume, reaction wheel, EC, cost imbalances I wonder how people can play career at all. It is like hitting yourself on the head. Repeatedly. All the time!

For me, at least, this is a simple answer: I don't look at the masses, volumes, etc. I just slap what I need to together and call it a rocket. :D

I wonder, are there any non-PP fuel tanks mods that you recommend as being particularly well-balanced? I'd like to still be able to use the non-procedural tanks, but I do like me some balance, too. That's assuming, of course, you didn't already tackle stock tank balance with SETI-CTT.

(And what's the issue with reaction wheels and EC? I've never looked at them closely. I assume you've already tackled them in SETI-CTT, just curious what the problem actually is because I can't be bothered to look that closely at what I'm building. :P)

Oh, and I m also thinking about reintroducing automatic record contracts for SETIcontracts.

Of course fewer and less OP.

Any suggestions?

Maybe altitude with jet engines (although I already recommend a contract pack for jets).

Speed records for air breathers/rockets.

They should be relatively simple and mainly for the early career.

I guess it depends on what they end up being. I'm neutral on them, but I use enough contract packs that I can still pick up a some low-hanging fruit early on (like Field Research and Anomaly Surveyor for KSC science collection and a puddle-jump to the island airfield). Not that I'd complain about free money early in the game by any means!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No problem for me either to have those automatic records contracts for early start.

Both speed record and altitude record are fine with me to be automatic, it is kind of tedious to pick any one of those in administrative building.

Should not bring too much money, bit it is kind of feedback to player to give him info that is on good track, that he accomplished something "important". It adds to overall immersion a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this has been mentioned before, but making Goo and Science Jr non-collectible and non-re-runnable is just too much frustration for the average gamer, in my mind. This means that if I fly a mission to Duna, or any of the other far away planets, I not only have to bring back the Goo and Science Jr physical objects (as well as having them survive reentry into Kerbin's atmosphere), but I also have to make a single flight for every biome in the game, unless I bring more than one Goo/Jr with me. It also relegates the role of Kerbal Scientist to one of simply giving a science bonus.

I like the mod(s), just not that part of it. I will be editing that out. Of course, that's not to say that some people might enjoy the limitations. I myself like to play with science gains set to 10-20% in most of my playthroughs (a bit of a grind-sadist I suppose). This is another reason I dislike non-resettable/rerunnable experiments, since I get so little science from them anyway. Just venting/stating my opinion I suppose, since it's easy enough to edit the cfg files... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know this has been mentioned before, but making Goo and Science Jr non-collectible and non-re-runnable is just too much frustration for the average gamer, in my mind. This means that if I fly a mission to Duna, or any of the other far away planets, I not only have to bring back the Goo and Science Jr physical objects (as well as having them survive reentry into Kerbin's atmosphere), but I also have to make a single flight for every biome in the game, unless I bring more than one Goo/Jr with me. It also relegates the role of Kerbal Scientist to one of simply giving a science bonus.

I like the mod(s), just not that part of it. I will be editing that out. Of course, that's not to say that some people might enjoy the limitations. I myself like to play with science gains set to 10-20% in most of my playthroughs (a bit of a grind-sadist I suppose). This is another reason I dislike non-resettable/rerunnable experiments, since I get so little science from them anyway. Just venting/stating my opinion I suppose, since it's easy enough to edit the cfg files... :)

While we're on the subject, this always struck me as a bit odd, too. Admittedly, I've never actually used a mobile science processing lab before, but my impression was that they're so heinously slow that it's practically not worth it (especially when you start factoring in things like life support). For a non-MPL person like me, being able to reset and re-run Mystery Gooâ„¢ and Science Jr. experiments is literally the only reason to have scientists (since they don't actually provide a bonus to science collection).

As Targa says, I'm sure it's been mentioned before (although I can't be bothered to look through 130 pages of posts for it), and I'm sure (or at least, assume) that there's a valid reason for it. But that doesn't mean I have to like it. :P

P.S. The question about realistic and/or well-balanced fuels still stands, for anyone who knows the answer. I know there's the Real Fuels mod, but I don't know how nicely it plays with SETI, and honestly don't know for sure if SETI hasn't already handled the balance issues, just using the stock fuel system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fuelLine moved up another notch - took me a while to realize that although it was shown as "owned" in AdvFuelSystems it was also shown in high performance fuel systems... and the latter took priority, entirely removing it from availability.

Yep, ksp tech tree modding "feature", nothing I can do about it.

I would agree that LH2/OX would be a better choice since it aligns with IFS as you stated.

Alright, implemented.

I also readjusted the values, they are now perfectly in line with the fuel switch values. In relative terms, the absolute values are still based on the stock tanks, which makes them as horribly imbalanced as stock tanks are...

For me, at least, this is a simple answer: I don't look at the masses, volumes, etc. I just slap what I need to together and call it a rocket. :D

I wonder, are there any non-PP fuel tanks mods that you recommend as being particularly well-balanced? I'd like to still be able to use the non-procedural tanks, but I do like me some balance, too. That's assuming, of course, you didn't already tackle stock tank balance with SETI-CTT.

(And what's the issue with reaction wheels and EC? I've never looked at them closely. I assume you've already tackled them in SETI-CTT, just curious what the problem actually is because I can't be bothered to look that closely at what I'm building. :P)

I guess it depends on what they end up being. I'm neutral on them, but I use enough contract packs that I can still pick up a some low-hanging fruit early on (like Field Research and Anomaly Surveyor for KSC science collection and a puddle-jump to the island airfield). Not that I'd complain about free money early in the game by any means!

I guess not looking at the specific values is the only way to go at the moment. Non of this is adressed in SETIctt (nearly everything was adressed in the old BalanceMod).

No problem for me either to have those automatic records contracts for early start.

Both speed record and altitude record are fine with me to be automatic, it is kind of tedious to pick any one of those in administrative building.

Should not bring too much money, bit it is kind of feedback to player to give him info that is on good track, that he accomplished something "important". It adds to overall immersion a bit.

Alright, I ll work on some initial automatic record contracts for the next version. I ll try to adjust them to the FinalFrontier ribbons...

I know this has been mentioned before, but making Goo and Science Jr non-collectible and non-re-runnable is just too much frustration for the average gamer, in my mind. This means that if I fly a mission to Duna, or any of the other far away planets, I not only have to bring back the Goo and Science Jr physical objects (as well as having them survive reentry into Kerbin's atmosphere), but I also have to make a single flight for every biome in the game, unless I bring more than one Goo/Jr with me. It also relegates the role of Kerbal Scientist to one of simply giving a science bonus.

I like the mod(s), just not that part of it. I will be editing that out. Of course, that's not to say that some people might enjoy the limitations. I myself like to play with science gains set to 10-20% in most of my playthroughs (a bit of a grind-sadist I suppose). This is another reason I dislike non-resettable/rerunnable experiments, since I get so little science from them anyway. Just venting/stating my opinion I suppose, since it's easy enough to edit the cfg files... :)

While we're on the subject, this always struck me as a bit odd, too. Admittedly, I've never actually used a mobile science processing lab before, but my impression was that they're so heinously slow that it's practically not worth it (especially when you start factoring in things like life support). For a non-MPL person like me, being able to reset and re-run Mystery Gooâ„¢ and Science Jr. experiments is literally the only reason to have scientists (since they don't actually provide a bonus to science collection).

As Targa says, I'm sure it's been mentioned before (although I can't be bothered to look through 130 pages of posts for it), and I'm sure (or at least, assume) that there's a valid reason for it. But that doesn't mean I have to like it. :P

P.S. The question about realistic and/or well-balanced fuels still stands, for anyone who knows the answer. I know there's the Real Fuels mod, but I don't know how nicely it plays with SETI, and honestly don't know for sure if SETI hasn't already handled the balance issues, just using the stock fuel system.

It is a progression:

Transmit: 30%, non-repeatable

Scientist+Transmit: 30%, repeatable

Return: 100%, non-repeatable

Cyclotron (from StationScience): 100% transmission, repeatable (when cleaned out by scientist)

So you do not have to return them to kerbin, just to the Science Station (eg in orbit around Kerbin) with the Cyclotron, you could refuel them there as well. So you can send out fully reuseable science probes in 0.625m with a docking port jr on top. Or a larger one with multiple of those experiments.

PS: Scientists do not give additional science in SETIctt. The XP system is totally broken, I try to remove its effects wherever I can. I refuse to accept that having to send a kerbal to another planet to teach him/her how to repair rover wheels is a gameplay improvement...

SETI CommunityTechTree v0.9.1.3 (for KSP 1.0.4)

Procedural Parts

  • Procedural Tanks cost rebalances (much lower dry costs)
  • Procedural Probe Core is now showing up
  • Procedural Fuel Tank and Nose Cone have LH2/OX & LH2 options for CryogenicEngines

SETI-CTT Mod Support

  • AB Launchers (5m Energia parts)
  • Cryo Engines

Fixes

  • TweakScale removed from probes

edit: Also, I m really thinking about Tantares. Is anyone working on a config for that? With Beale on "vacation", there is at least a chance I can catch up with the new part production of this pack :wink:.

Edited by Yemo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess not looking at the specific values is the only way to go at the moment. Non of this is adressed in SETIctt (nearly everything was adressed in the old BalanceMod).
Ah, I see. I've been wondering about giving Real Fuels a shake, but I don't know how well it actually balances things (as opposed to replacing them). Or for that matter, how well it integrates with other mods I'm using, like HGR, Fuel Tanks Plus, etc. Probably best for now for me to just stick with the stock system and not look at it too closely, unless anyone has any particular recommendations.
It is a progression:

Transmit: 30%, non-repeatable

Scientist+Transmit: 30%, repeatable

Return: 100%, non-repeatable

Cyclotron (from StationScience): 100% transmission, repeatable (when cleaned out by scientist)

So you do not have to return them to kerbin, just to the Science Station (eg in orbit around Kerbin) with the Cyclotron, you could refuel them there as well. So you can send out fully reuseable science probes in 0.625m with a docking port jr on top. Or a larger one with multiple of those experiments.

PS: Scientists do not give additional science in SETIctt. The XP system is totally broken, I try to remove its effects wherever I can. I refuse to accept that having to send a kerbal to another planet to teach him/her how to repair rover wheels is a gameplay improvement...

Ah, I see. I didn't realize the progression was there, and (although I'm using StationScience) I haven't gotten anywhere remotely near a Cyclotron. My main gripe with not letting scientists repeat the experiments by default is that it ends up favoring exactly what you provide as an example: Sending out small, reusable probes on multiple missions, because having a scientist "on-site" doesn't actually provide any benefit. What's the point of sending a scientist on a munar landing mission if they can't actually do anything?

(That said, I won't argue with the absurdity of the XP system. Because it's absurd.)

It's entirely possible that I'm just not understanding the utility of scientists, though.

edit: Also, I m really thinking about Tantares. Is anyone working on a config for that? With Beale on "vacation", there is at least a chance I can catch up with the new part production of this pack :wink:.
I've glanced at Tantares and would certainly not object to it being worked in with SETIctt. Nowhere near the chops to actually do any work related to it, so all I can offer is a vote of "yea". :P Of course, if I ever start using a N1-inspired rocket, I feel like I'm obligated to also start using the Dangit! mod to make sure it almost never successfully launches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know this has been mentioned before, but making Goo and Science Jr non-collectible and non-re-runnable is just too much frustration for the average gamer, in my mind. This means that if I fly a mission to Duna, or any of the other far away planets, I not only have to bring back the Goo and Science Jr physical objects (as well as having them survive reentry into Kerbin's atmosphere), but I also have to make a single flight for every biome in the game, unless I bring more than one Goo/Jr with me. It also relegates the role of Kerbal Scientist to one of simply giving a science bonus.

I like the mod(s), just not that part of it. I will be editing that out. Of course, that's not to say that some people might enjoy the limitations. I myself like to play with science gains set to 10-20% in most of my playthroughs (a bit of a grind-sadist I suppose). This is another reason I dislike non-resettable/rerunnable experiments, since I get so little science from them anyway. Just venting/stating my opinion I suppose, since it's easy enough to edit the cfg files... :)

Sounds like you have this handled, but for anyone else who wants to make the Goo and Materials resettable, make a file called GameData/_Patches/fix-science.cfg (or whatever you call your folder for your own modifications) containing:

@PART
[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleScienceExperiment]:HAS[#experimentID[mysteryGoo]]]:Final
{
@MODULE[ModuleScienceExperiment]
{
@dataIsCollectable = True
}
}
@PART
[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleScienceExperiment]:HAS[#experimentID[mobileMaterialsLab]]]:Final
{
@MODULE[ModuleScienceExperiment]
{
@dataIsCollectable = True
}
}

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hooray for the CryoEngines support :) I noticed an interaction bug between SCAN and SETI. It appears at least for my Linux x64 install that the file 'SETI-Contracts-General.cfg' overwrites the default Squad Agents. This prevents SCAN SAT missions packs from loading as they are dependent on the agent 'Research & Development Department' which is a Squad agent. I added the agent information from the Squad Agent.CFG to the SETI-Contracts-General file and my SCAN-Sat contracts are now loading properly by Contract Configurator.

I think I am getting to the point with this game where I spend more time focused on finding new mods/finding bugs then actually playing the game. It's a viscous cycle for me.

Edited by Trolllception

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a bug with the way the tech tree mod alters the procedural tanks nose cones and decouplers. At least with FAR and possibly in stock too it seems they are immune to aero forces. This is most obvious but noting the skin temp on a part doesn't change during re entry. Also if you set a procedural part on say a 100km ap 2km pe orbit it passes through the atmosphere unaffected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ah, I see. I've been wondering about giving Real Fuels a shake, but I don't know how well it actually balances things (as opposed to replacing them). Or for that matter, how well it integrates with other mods I'm using, like HGR, Fuel Tanks Plus, etc. Probably best for now for me to just stick with the stock system and not look at it too closely, unless anyone has any particular recommendations.

Ah, I see. I didn't realize the progression was there, and (although I'm using StationScience) I haven't gotten anywhere remotely near a Cyclotron. My main gripe with not letting scientists repeat the experiments by default is that it ends up favoring exactly what you provide as an example: Sending out small, reusable probes on multiple missions, because having a scientist "on-site" doesn't actually provide any benefit. What's the point of sending a scientist on a munar landing mission if they can't actually do anything?

(That said, I won't argue with the absurdity of the XP system. Because it's absurd.)

It's entirely possible that I'm just not understanding the utility of scientists, though.

I've glanced at Tantares and would certainly not object to it being worked in with SETIctt. Nowhere near the chops to actually do any work related to it, so all I can offer is a vote of "yea". :P Of course, if I ever start using a N1-inspired rocket, I feel like I'm obligated to also start using the Dangit! mod to make sure it almost never successfully launches.

I recommend against RealFuels with SETIctt at the moment (and have no idea about other mods with real fuels).

Scientists are only for resetting experiments and special functions (labs).

I would make all those arbitrary distinctions irrelevant, if I could. Until then, I make them irrelevant whereever I can do so with little effort.

Hooray for the CryoEngines support :) I noticed an interaction bug between SCAN and SETI. It appears at least for my Linux x64 install that the file 'SETI-Contracts-General.cfg' overwrites the default Squad Agents. This prevents SCAN SAT missions packs from loading as they are dependent on the agent 'Research & Development Department' which is a Squad agent. I added the agent information from the Squad Agent.CFG to the SETI-Contracts-General file and my SCAN-Sat contracts are now loading properly by Contract Configurator.

I think I am getting to the point with this game where I spend more time focused on finding new mods/finding bugs then actually playing the game. It's a viscous cycle for me.

Overwriting agents?

Hm, I only add an agent, as far as I understand it.

Maybe CC deactivates an agent if certain stock contract types are deactivated?

That is the only other interaction with stock which comes to mind:

CONTRACT_CONFIGURATOR

{

disabledContractType = RecordTrackContract

disabledContractType = ExploreBody

disabledContractType = WorldFirstContract

}

I have a bug with the way the tech tree mod alters the procedural tanks nose cones and decouplers. At least with FAR and possibly in stock too it seems they are immune to aero forces. This is most obvious but noting the skin temp on a part doesn't change during re entry. Also if you set a procedural part on say a 100km ap 2km pe orbit it passes through the atmosphere unaffected.

Whoops, sorry. I did not know that FAR now adds modules. In that case, the current MM patches form SETIctt break (inadvertently remove) them for some parts.

Will be fixed for the next version. Thank you for the bug report.

Edited by Yemo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few observations:

Switching crew reports to be biome-specific and EVA reports to be global is only a time-saver if you take a crew report and immediately transmit it back to KSC. Otherwise you have to take a crew report, keep it, go EVA, take reports, store experiments, re-board vessel (assuming you want to store a number of reports). Whereas previously, since you were already EVA to get the biome-specific reports, all you had to do was right-click the command pod and select "store experiments", then wait for the next biome. Really a six-of-one, half-a-dozen-of-the-other argument for myself. I suppose it suits different playstyles differently.

With regard to the contracts pack, it would be nice if the unmanned and manned contracts actually said in the description text something along the lines of "send a probe" or "a manned flight". Not all of them mention this. Perhaps I don't understand how the contracts system works, but I got the contract for "powered landing" (not accepted, just showing in the list), but next time I looked, it was gone and had been replaced by "fly by Minmus and Kerbol". I don't recall doing a powered landing with no parachutes on my ship, so I don't see why this contract should have vanished. I also don't quite understand the "Minmus and Kerbol" unmanned contract. All I've done so far in my game is a Mun flyby and Mun orbit. This contract wants me to fly a ship (a probe actually, although that's not mentioned in the contract) to Minmus, gather science, then leave Kerbin's SOI and orbit the sun, gather science and I'm guessing I'm meant to transmit this science back to KSC, since it'd be difficult if not impossible to retrieve an early probe that's orbiting the sun. I'm really far away from this capability, since I'm using Remote Tech and I have yet to set up any type of satellite network, especially one that's capable of transmitting from outside Kerbin's SOI. As far as progression goes, perhaps it would be better if this contract simply requested science data from a Minmus flyby or orbit.

Edit: Looking at the contracts again, the one that vanished for me (unmanned) "Kerbin Powered Landing!" appears that it was supposed to be followed by the manned contract, "Manned Kerbin Landing!". The flavor text for that one says "We now understand the procedure of a powered landing with probes, but the real test for a manned Mun mission is a manned powered landing on Kerbin". Clearly it was meant to follow the previous one. However, as I said, the unmanned one vanished from the list of available contracts, so this line of progression appears to be broken for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I recommend against RealFuels with SETIctt at the moment (and have no idea about other mods with real fuels).

Scientists are only for resetting experiments and special functions (labs).

I would make all those arbitrary distinctions irrelevant, if I could. Until then, I make them irrelevant wherever I can do so with little effort.

Roger. Thanks for clarifying on both counts.

I do like the "different kerbals have different specialties" concept, but not always the way it's implementedâ€â€the way leveling/XP works, the fact that by stock untrained engineers are basically deadweight (at least Pilots can use SAS and Scientists can collect and reset observation experiments). Having specialist kerbals gives a sense of a group being an actual crew where everybody has their particular roles, instead of just being clones of each other. Hopefully when 1.1 rolls around the Kerbal "Class System" will be much improved.[sup[1 At least, I can hope. :P

I'll stay away from RealFuels and any parallels for now and just stick with the stock fuels, imbalance and all. If it gets too much on my nerves, maybe at some point I'll sit down and hammer out what the fuel situation "should be," but for now I think I'm okay. I'm also going to refrain from changing the way SETI handles the scientists and experiment collection/resetting for nowâ€â€it may not be as convenient for me by any stretch, but I can understand the thought behind it and want to get far enough into the career to have more experience with how the new setup works before I go and throw it out. I signed up for some SETI, so I'm going to stick with it as it was created. :wink:

  1. I kind of wish the kerbals advanced in a sort of "skill tree" format, accessible through the Astronaut Complex. Want a generalist kerbal? Grab lots of different skills. Want a pilot? Load up on piloting skills. Etc.

Edited by Landwalker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A few observations:

Switching crew reports to be biome-specific and EVA reports to be global is only a time-saver if you take a crew report and immediately transmit it back to KSC. Otherwise you have to take a crew report, keep it, go EVA, take reports, store experiments, re-board vessel (assuming you want to store a number of reports). Whereas previously, since you were already EVA to get the biome-specific reports, all you had to do was right-click the command pod and select "store experiments", then wait for the next biome. Really a six-of-one, half-a-dozen-of-the-other argument for myself. I suppose it suits different playstyles differently.

With regard to the contracts pack, it would be nice if the unmanned and manned contracts actually said in the description text something along the lines of "send a probe" or "a manned flight". Not all of them mention this. Perhaps I don't understand how the contracts system works, but I got the contract for "powered landing" (not accepted, just showing in the list), but next time I looked, it was gone and had been replaced by "fly by Minmus and Kerbol". I don't recall doing a powered landing with no parachutes on my ship, so I don't see why this contract should have vanished. I also don't quite understand the "Minmus and Kerbol" unmanned contract. All I've done so far in my game is a Mun flyby and Mun orbit. This contract wants me to fly a ship (a probe actually, although that's not mentioned in the contract) to Minmus, gather science, then leave Kerbin's SOI and orbit the sun, gather science and I'm guessing I'm meant to transmit this science back to KSC, since it'd be difficult if not impossible to retrieve an early probe that's orbiting the sun. I'm really far away from this capability, since I'm using Remote Tech and I have yet to set up any type of satellite network, especially one that's capable of transmitting from outside Kerbin's SOI. As far as progression goes, perhaps it would be better if this contract simply requested science data from a Minmus flyby or orbit.

Edit: Looking at the contracts again, the one that vanished for me (unmanned) "Kerbin Powered Landing!" appears that it was supposed to be followed by the manned contract, "Manned Kerbin Landing!". The flavor text for that one says "We now understand the procedure of a powered landing with probes, but the real test for a manned Mun mission is a manned powered landing on Kerbin". Clearly it was meant to follow the previous one. However, as I said, the unmanned one vanished from the list of available contracts, so this line of progression appears to be broken for me.

Then you are missing this mod: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/119971

It automatically stores crew reports into the science container without the EVA dance.

Manned and unmanned SETIcontracts:

Manned contracts say so in the title/description, if there is no such specification, contracts can be completed by probes and manned vessels. Attempting an unspecified contracts with a manned vessel is mostly a bad habit from stock, no space agency would send a manned mission if that is not part of the requirements.

Also, I wanted to keep the contracts as open as possible. So if users really want to send a manned mission for such a contract, they can do so. It would not be logical that they have to EVA the kerbal to complete the contract.

Powered Kerbin Landing:

I m not sure why the landing contract disappeared, but generally try declining 2 and 3 star contracts if you are missing SETI contracts. It is a ksp limitation that I can not force them to show up, if the 2 and 3 star slots are blocked by other contracts.

If you did not accept the powered landing contract, it should become available and stay so until completed. If declining other 2 star contracts does not bring it back, please upload your savegame, I ll try to find out what happened.

Minmus&Kerbol:

Leaving Kerbin SoI (thus reaching high Kerbol orbit) only requires about 100 more deltaV than a Mun intercept, so should be comparable to getting to space low above the Mun. You can do a Minmus gravity assist (though the dV saved is miniscule) to complete the mission in one go.

The only limitation is the RemoteTech connection. But with basicScience and SETIctt, you already get the KR-7 dish (which is needed for Mun anyway). That one has a range of 90Mm, while Kerbin SoI ends at less than 85Mm (when high Kerbol begins).

Essentially you should be able to complete the Minmus&Kerbol mission with about the same craft, which you used for the Mun flyby mission (provided you used a KR-7 on that).

It mostly a matter of getting rid of bad stock habits/limitations in thinking.

Roger. Thanks for clarifying on both counts.

I do like the "different kerbals have different specialties" concept, but not always the way it's implementedâ€â€the way leveling/XP works, the fact that by stock untrained engineers are basically deadweight (at least Pilots can use SAS and Scientists can collect and reset observation experiments). Having specialist kerbals gives a sense of a group being an actual crew where everybody has their particular roles, instead of just being clones of each other. Hopefully when 1.1 rolls around the Kerbal "Class System" will be much improved. At least, I can hope. :P

I'll stay away from RealFuels and any parallels for now and just stick with the stock fuels, imbalance and all. If it gets too much on my nerves, maybe at some point I'll sit down and hammer out what the fuel situation "should be," but for now I think I'm okay. I'm also going to refrain from changing the way SETI handles the scientists and experiment collection/resetting for nowâ€â€it may not be as convenient for me by any stretch, but I can understand the thought behind it and want to get far enough into the career to have more experience with how the new setup works before I go and throw it out. I signed up for some SETI, so I'm going to stick with it as it was created. :wink:

Yep, but I hoped for improvements to the class system for many versions now. They only made it worse with every version.

About the experiments, I d say give it a try. It is certainly something to get used to, but as from the response above, in many cases we just got accustomed to bad stock habits/gameplay/incentives.

On the other hand, I removed the partial values from mystery goo and science jr and so on. You do not only get 70% or so for your first return and then get diminishing returns for repetitions.

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.