[1.2.2] TestFlight - v1.8.0 - 01 May 2017 - Bring Flight Testing to KSP!

[TailDragger]

@linuxgurugamer This is exactly the mod I've been hoping for! Thanks for resurrecting it!  I'd be more than happy to test, I just doubt I'd be available enough to be worth while.

[billgarlic]

Has there been any movement on this?  Do you need additional testers?

[linuxgurugamer]

2 hours ago, billgarlic said:

Has there been any movement on this?  Do you need additional testers?

I need to fix one bug, will then release a beta.

Rather busy with all the mods I deal with

[billgarlic]

Understood.  Had some cycles free up and thought I could help.  Thanks for all your mod efforts.

[Sandworm]

17 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:

I need to fix one bug, will then release a beta.

Rather busy with all the mods I deal with

I've got some time tonight/tomorrow for testing on linux64.

[linuxgurugamer]

I just found the problem I was having, hope to have another, public beta ready soon

[linuxgurugamer]

Public beta 2:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/hnyw606bs75ufta/TestFlight-beta2.zip?dl=0

Please note:

All Settings have been moved into the new KSP settings page.  To access the settings for an active game, do the following, at any scene:

1. Hit Esc
2. Click the Settings button
3. Click the Difficulty Options button
4. Click the Test Flight button in the left column

 

Following stock engines are not yet configured, and no mod engines are configured.  To see what is configured, look at the file: Config.Squad_Engines.cfg:

ionEngine     turboJet     JetEngine     turboFanSize2
turboFanEngine     smallRadialEngine     liquidEngineMini     toroidalAerospike
microEngine     radialEngineMini     nuclearEngine     SSME
miniJetEngine     omsEngine     RAPIER     Size2LFB
Size3AdvancedEngine     Size3EngineCluster     sepMotor1     vernierEngine

Edited November 20, 2016 by linuxgurugamer

[billgarlic]

Where would you like bugs reported?  (the GitHub looks stale so I wanted to ask first).

Minor: KSP-AVC reports that Test Flight is built for 1.1.3.

 

 

[linuxgurugamer]

2 minutes ago, billgarlic said:

Where would you like bugs reported?  (the GitHub looks stale so I wanted to ask first).

Minor: KSP-AVC reports that Test Flight is built for 1.1.3.

 

 

Thanks, I just deleted the version file.

Please report issues here:  https://github.com/linuxgurugamer/TestFlight/issues

and please see my previous message, I updated it since the original post

[nx01]

Just wanted to say thank you for this awesome mod. It's one of the few I can't live without. 

[TailDragger]

I'm pretty sure this is just a config issue, and not a real bug, but I just had all of my heat shield "leak" out into space. That's definitely a new one for me.

[linuxgurugamer]

15 hours ago, TailDragger said:

I'm pretty sure this is just a config issue, and not a real bug, but I just had all of my heat shield "leak" out into space. That's definitely a new one for me.

And here I was thinking it was ready for a release.

Craft file and log file, please.  Most importantly, I need to know which heat shield, from which mod

Edited November 26, 2016 by linuxgurugamer

[linuxgurugamer]

4 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:

And here I was thinking it was ready for a release.

Craft file and log file, please.  Most importantly, I need to know which heat shield, from which mod

No need, I see the problem

[linuxgurugamer]

Another beta:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/7unzqou67i95af0/TestFlight-beta3.zip?dl=0

This fixes the heat shields leaking resources, and adds a button to force a failure.  Heat shields have their own configs, so they can fail when in use (in use defined as heat > minimum level specified in config)

[linuxgurugamer]

If I don't hear about any other problems, I'll do a release in a day or so.  At that time I'll get it updated in CKAN as well

[TailDragger]

Attempting to write my own configs for some of the parts not yet covered. Wish me luck.

[Gnoyze]

@linuxgurugamer I'll gladly test the testflight mod, though I'll be using it in a modded career save. So expect me to break things.

Edited December 12, 2016 by Gnoyze
Derp.

[linuxgurugamer]

Here is a beta build of TestFlight 1.8.1 for 1.2.2:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/zq8t5ynyluwu7cz/TestFlight-1.8.1-beta.zip?dl=0

Following changes thanks to Stanislav Kogut:

• Implemented failures for WheelMotorSteering
• motor steering is also broken when motor is not working
• Burned motor no longer produce any torque
• Implementation for Motor/Brake/Steering failures
   

[Sol Invictus]

@linuxgurugamer Do you think it will work with upcoming 1.2.x version of Realism Overhaul? After all, TestFlight is one of the pillars of RP-0 career.

Edited December 12, 2016 by Sol Invictus

[linuxgurugamer]

1 hour ago, Sol Invictus said:

@linuxgurugamer Do you think it will work with upcoming 1.2.x version of Realism Overhaul? After all, TestFlight is one of the pillars of RP-0 career.

Probably, but I don't play with RO

[MisterFister]

On ‎11‎/‎27‎/‎2016 at 9:32 PM, linuxgurugamer said:

If I don't hear about any other problems, I'll do a release in a day or so.  At that time I'll get it updated in CKAN as well

Greetings, and Happy New Year!  I'm curious if you ever got around to working on CKAN's listing for this (you have so many... wow!)  Did you publish it under a slightly different name perhaps?

[MisterFister]

I see in the deprecated thread this comment:

Indeed, the OP here still references a simulation-mode in KCT that no longer exists since @magico13 jettisoned simulation-coding in favor of a different standalone simulations mod, "KRASH" ...:

  Is there any development on furthering this mod's ability to let a player derive some TF benefits from simulations, even if as @magico13 suggests that it would be at a reduced rate and with a cap?

Also, KCT is supposed to have a feature wherein previously recovered parts are retained in an "inventory" for the benefit of reduced build time on future craft designs that might reuse them (longer to build a new component than to recondition one that's been flown and recovered before.)  That inventory feature was temporarily suppressed for reasons that I only dimly understand to be due to issues introduced by KSP v1.2.x, I think, but I am led to understand that this removal of that inventorying feature is intended to be temporary, pending updates to that mod in other areas.

Would it be possible for this mod to help out in that regard?  Inventorying parts could be useful for TestFlight purposes, as it might provide the ability to work against a reduced-benefit accrual in simulations.  Since simulations are capped (say, at 50% of whatever the maximum attainable reliability level from real-world testing) because they cannot model unknowns, perhaps the first recovered copy of a new pod can increase that global cap to 70%?  Second inventoried copy would afford 80% cap, and third recovered copy would allow for a simulation-cap of 85% of the maximum-attainable.  Since there's an incentive in KCT to invest in the effort of slowly building extra craft copies in the background (either to act as potential rescue launches, or simply to build up a slight inventory buffer for speed gains against future build orders) maybe there can be a distinction for TF's purposes between never-launched inventory-parts and launch-recovered copies.  (Even something built and wheeled to the Launchpad on a scrapped mission can be at least partially informative as to potential defects during manufacture).  Launch-recovered parts might bump the simulation cap to 70/80/85%, but never-launched copies might yield 60/65/70% gains?

Ultimately, what I'm suggesting here is that maybe mod-tracked "inventories" of previously-built launch hardware could fall better in the feature domain of TF than KCT.

I'm curious to hear feedback on this idea.

Edited January 1, 2017 by MisterFister

[linuxgurugamer]

7 hours ago, MisterFister said:

Greetings, and Happy New Year!  I'm curious if you ever got around to working on CKAN's listing for this (you have so many... wow!)  Did you publish it under a slightly different name perhaps?

No, got sidelined, hope to get to it later today or tomorrow

[gonzo98x]

Just in case I missed it. Was the update ever published? 

[chrisl]

Maybe this has already been asked but are there any plans to attempt to make TF more compatible with engine clusters?  For example, if you use an engine cluster part (i.e., a single part that represents multiple engines) and test flight determines there should be a failure of some kind, the entire cluster fails.  Versus using multiple individual engines were you might only have a single engine fail.