Jump to content

Yemo

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,486

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Yemo

  1. Yemo
    Yes, I felt that it offered too little to warrant the maintenance of another mod. But with 1.1 out I guess I can upload it to github and just leave it there. Will probably do so later today. While I respect @RoverDude's right to his opinion, constantly twisting words as a pretext to flamebaiting is probably not the most productive or community friendly way to behave. And fearing/dreading the workload and balancing issues an announced feature brings (based on the information provided), with regards to certain own mods, can hardly be constructed as being rude... That said, given the state and handling of the 1.1 update, there is cause for optimism. Imho the UI needs some work (especially that VAB/SPH scroll function), but some issues can be expected when migrating. PS: You can not activate batteries anymore, if you do not have electricity.
  2. Yemo
    Fair enough! Personally I hope that @Malah can bring back the old functionality with his QuickScroll mod! I would also like to thank the Patrons of SETI and welcome new patron @Daelkyr! Thank you very much for your support! Just wrote the patreon post for this month, providing an overview of the KSP 1.1 related dev plans.
  3. Yemo
    Hm, unfortunately there is not one folder or file or so to delete, due to the structure of the mod being part centered, not feature centered. There is also not an easy way to get the SAS back to the original levels by eg a multiplication by a factor of 10, since that would be overkill for probe cores and only work where SAS was not totally removed. At least the weirdness when mixing with other part mods is temporary, since I plan to nerf those as well. The easiest workaround at the moment would be, to just have those 3 specific reaction wheel parts (eg Small Inline Reaction Wheel and so on) back at their old values. And then just add one of those to your vessels, while keeping the rebalancements for all the other parts, like command and probe cores. That could be achieved pretty easily by deleting one file: GameData\SETIrebalance\MM-PartModding\SETI-PartMod-SQUAD-Control.cfg Though keep in mind that you would have to delete that file every time after updating SETIrebalance. Also expect rebalancements for the parts of other mods, eg NearFutureSpacecraft and so on. Instead of deleting that file, you could also write a module manager statement which patches the properties of those 3 parts back to their original values. For your private use you would copy paste that SETI-PartMod-SQUAD-Control.cfg file directly in the GameData folder, then replace the values with the original values and change the 3 line endings from ":FOR[SETIrebalance]" to ":Final" and that should prevent the need for deleting the original file. edit: SETIrebalance is far from finished which makes further splittings/alternate downloads as well as manually changing the SETI files themselves very impractical. Deleting one specific config each update might be tolerable, otherwise module manager "repatches" are the only time efficient way.
  4. Yemo
    Yes, though I will wait until the teething problems are ironed out. Anyway it might not be to everones taste, so I d just like a way to deactivate those horribly imbalanced stock strategies. Whoops, somehow forgot to update the feature list regarding reaction wheels. Thank you for the notice! About KSP 1.1: First of all let me say that I welcome the update and there are many great improvements! Unfortunately unmotivated disimprovements, while much fewer than previously (also due to the lack of "new" features), are not absent. Especially that new scrolling "feature" in the VAB is aggravatingly tedious. There are no more "pages", instead it is a vertcally scrollable column, 3 items wide. Each "scroll" with the mouse wheel reveals about 2.5 additional parts. While that is barely acceptable witht the stock parts in the utility category, imagine it with hundreds of mod parts in that category. Or they could have just made it like QuickScroll did. A "scroll" with the mouse wheel turns the page, revealing dozens of new parts each time. "Optimization" for stock, disregard of modded games, again. edit: And not speaking of that font, well, mess. The VAB cost display is huge, while the cost in the R&D part overview are tiny. What does KSP 1.1 mean for the mods within this thread? As far as I can see, nothing at all. Since that dreaded connection feature did not make it for 1.1, there seems to be little or no direct effect. Though there will probably be some indirect effect when the other mods update, since that is an opportunity to make changes. And I want to use this opportunity for changes as well (especially for SETIctt), so I will not rush to update the mods, they seem to be working anyway for people who really want to use them now. Just so that no one can complain when the big SETIctt update is released. Since SETIctt will take a while, Unmanned Before Manned is "updated" first, for people who want to derp around in a new 1.1 career. By the way, the CommunityTechTree will probably update as well, though I found no issue at all when using the current CTT version 2.3 together with UnmannedBeforeManned in a KSP 1.1 game. Unmanned before Manned v1.0.8 (for KSP 1.1) KSP 1.1 compatibility TechTree cost changes basicRocketry 12 instead of 5 engineering101 4 instead of 5 generalRocketry 16 instead of 18 stability 8 instead of 12 Part placement changes Modular Girder Segment to structuralParts LV-T45 to generalRocketry 24-77 Twitch engine earlier @propulsionSystems FAT wings earlier @advAerodynamics/subsonicFlight 2.5m service bay earlier @spaceExploration/storageTech
  5. Yemo
    Plead for continuation of your QuickScroll mod, restoring how it works in 1.0.5 (page turning by button/scrolling) instead of the horribly tedious ksp 1.1 way (continuous list with each scroll revealing not even a new 3 part row...). Especially for overcrowded (by mods) categories the new way is an extremely annoying disimprovement even over the 1.0.5 stock way without ability to use the mousewheel.
  6. Yemo
    Hey, just to reiterate my previous suggestion for custom barn kit development: Would it be possible to allow modders to reassign the building restrictions? Currently: maxDimensions and maxMass depends on launch pad/runway updgrade level maxPartCount depends on VAB/SPH upgrade level Suggested: Allowing a reassignment like that: maxDimensionsVAB = VAB //---instead of launch pad maxMassVAB = launchPad //---as it is at the moment maxPartCountVAB = none //---so unrestricted maxDimensionsSPH = SPH //---instead of Runway maxMassSPH = runway maxPartCountSPH = none This would be especially helpfull for more realistic careers as there is no real reason to eg prevent people from adding 2 thermometers instead of 1 massive fuel tank based on the size of the assembly hall .
  7. Yemo
    Because it does not properly autosave the game.
  8. Yemo
    It currently requires 6 clicks and 2 loading screens to exit the game from the VAB. Could this be streamlined a bit without Alt+F4?
  9. Yemo
    The only config to modify those tech tree positions (as far as I know) is the CTT.cfg within the UKS folder, which is triggered when module manager detects the CommunityTechTree (SETIctt also triggers the CommunityTechTree configs). Thus the part placement should be the same for CTT and SETIctt, as long as CTT is installed correctly ("CommunityTechTree" folder directly within the GameData folder. Imho totally independent bases make sense to be somewhere along the last technological advances in game, with FTL engines being the last one.
  10. Yemo
    The M-700 should be able to detect karbonite in orbital scanning mode. And then you can use the surface scanning module from karbonite once landed. The KA-100 is something like a very advanced all inclusive version of both those components. It even allows surface scans from orbit in addition, while only having 1/4 the mass of the M-700. I did not mess with the placement of the OKS stuff so far. As far as I remember, the OKS Pioneer is not necessary for station/base operations but instead makes them somewhat independent. Thus being one of the components which transforms a short term base/station, to a long term base/station. And while we have quite some "nuke propulsion" capability in real life, we are nowhere close to self sustaining bases. That is the exploit I m talking about: You can surely continue with your career. I m just saying that the SETIcontracts progression is not adaptive enough to seemlessly adjust to your current, extreme situation. Leading to scenarios that do not make much sense and thus adversely affect the immersion, especially for streaming. Thus my recommendation to take the one time immersion hit of correcting that ridiculously imbalanced bailout strategy via cheat menu, rather than suffering the multiple immersion hits of getting offered contracts which should have been offered long ago. I just looked at those strategies. The "Research Rights Sell-Out" offers me 30500 funds for 725 science... I m sorry, but I can not even see a hint of "balancing" when looking at those numbers at career start. And the only reason that this imbalance is not affecting gameplay is, that science can not go below 0, so you can not take it at career start. While players can use the equally imbalanced "Bail-Out Grant" (eg 12200 funds for 145 reputation) just because the reputation can go negative. I wish the "Sane Strategies" mod from KSP 0.90 would still be around.
  11. Yemo
    There is no general "problem" introduced by the mod pack. Some stock imbalances/issues are just more visible/affecting than in stock itself. It is just like building on sand. If the building itself is made out of sand, it is more or less ok, even if you dig some minor holes in the sand foundation. If you start reinforcing crumbling parts of the building with eg steel, it increases the load on the sand foundation. And thus digging holes in the sand foundation has a possibly more severe impact on the reinforced building on top of it. Not returning multiple extremely expensive (imho unbalanced) barometers when they are available in stock is not a problem, since funds are largely irrelevant at that point. But when their tech tree position is changed to a point where funds actually matter, the stock habit of not caring about them becomes somewhat problematic. Same goes for unlocking costs of many parts. The grindiness part was a comment on the penalty difficulty slider, I should have left out that part as it might be confusing. It was just an example of a "difficulty" slider having undocumented and unexpected consequences. I think you misunderstood. The problem is not about the "grinding" contracts, as SETIcontracts has nothing to do with them. You can still grind your way out. The problem is, that you might not get the progression contracts offered, which correspond to your situation in game from a tech and exploration perspective. For example consider a situation where you are able (tech & funds) and willing to land a probe on the mun. However due to low reputation the contract for that task is not offered to you. But since you have exhausted most of the easily accessible science from "nearer" places in terms of deltaV, you decide land a probe on the mun without the contract. And then land a kerbal on the mun and so on. And once you have built up your reputation again, you get a contract offered to land a probe on the mun with the text that it is a big step for kerbalkind or so. Such a contract would just not make sense anymore. Thus defeating the whole purpose of the contract pack, to offer a more believable progression than the stock contracts, which frequently sent you to do a crew report on duna before visting minmus for the first time... As above, when the order of the stock progression contracts under perfect conditions makes little sense itself (duna before minmus), underlying structural issues (slot unlocks based on reputation) are hardly noticeable. I have never used that stock strategy myself, due to the no debt "exploit". If you conduct that test, please share your findings!
  12. Yemo
    I m not sure where it is, but you can install the Quick Search mod from @Malah to search for it in the tech tree, if you know the title of the part. It should be somewhere below the command pod line and above the recycling/colonization line. The underlying problems are from the stock game (including the lack of explanation what reputation actually does), and then it was just bad luck that this specific set of circumstances were triggered in your particular game/setup. This SETIcontracts update should at least somewhat diminish this issue, though due to stock ksp restrictions it can, as far as I know, not be solved at the moment. The "cost for unlocking parts" problem/imbalance remains. I recommend just switching it off in the persistent.sfs, it should be the "BypassEntryPurchaseAfterResearch = True" dummy variable (though I have not tried). Oh and while on topic of imbalanced and undocumented settings, the "penalty" slider in the difficulty customization screen not only affects the penalty when canceling a contract, but also the costs of building upgrades. Thus it is more of a slider of "grindiness" than "difficulty", therefore I recommend leaving it at 100% and only changing the "rewards" sliders. SETI Contracts v0.9.6.1 (for KSP 1.0.5) Adjustments Most (unmanned) contracts set to be 2-star category Also a bit higher reputation payout for some early contracts This should alleviate the repututation/slot problems to some extent, especially for higher difficulties Do not use the funds for reputation strategy in the early game! KSP progression is not balanced for that
  13. Yemo
    Yep, that is quite a problem, unfortunately I m not sure how to solve it other than the separation "recommended" and "suggested". The part unlocking costs, being a special difficulty setting, can only be taken into account by the player and set off with starting funds and payouts, which is always problematic with a new mod setup. There is no way for me to take that into account from a tech tree perspective. I considered putting SETIrebalance in the "recommended" list like VenStockRevamp, but since that does much more than rebalancing starting costs, it would be too much just to offset this custom difficulty setting. However the main issue, the progression-reputation issue is solely on my part, I just did not take that possibility into account, since I have never seen that strategy being used in the early game (there is no debt, so most people just cancel contracts and then take the advanced of new contracts if they run out of money. Which gives a much smaller reputation penalty and virtually no funds penalty, as funds can not go below 0). Due to the "quick and dirty" setup of the contract system by squad, it is extremely hard to balance around some possibilities, especially with reputation affecting the number of slots and how those interact with the available contracts and their payouts. For example if I make those contracts 1 and 2 star versions, people with high reputation payout settings will not have enough of those slots and will not see the contracts, while at the moment it is the other way around in your case. edit: What we really need is either an abolishment of that horrible 3 star system or a fixed number of available slots for 1, 2 and 3 star contracts. And then reputation could be a multiplier on the actual payouts (not advances) of contracts, instead of currently preventing people from getting those contracts in the first place...
  14. Yemo
    Just watched a another episode and it seems like your reputation seriously derailed the progression. I have never seen anything like it before, especially in the early game, but with that low of a reputation, you have too few 2star slots and no 3 star contract slot at all. Which effectively prevents you from getting the progression contracts suitable for your tech and achievement level. I ll have to adjust the SETIcontracts for that, but since payouts are affected by this as well, it wont happen before ksp 1.1. I strongly recommend giving yourself suitable reputation via cheats again to continue the progression. At least to get one 3 star contract slot... The base problem seems to be the funds (which you traded for giving away reputation). Unlocking parts is probably the main reason for that. KSP is just totally imbalanced in that respect, especially since you do not use the SETIrebalance mod. This is compounded by the tech tree, which moves parts to the front which come much later in stock while their unlock costs are not (re)balanced. Essentially what happened is, that you chose settings (part unlock costs) and strategies (funds for reputation) which are already horribly imbalanced in stock, while selecting mods which compound those stock imbalances (Unmanned Before Manned, SETIcontracts) and then leaving out recommended/suggested mods which are intended to diminish the imbalances again (SETIrebalance, VenStockRevamp for part selection). Looking forward to the next episode!
  15. Yemo
    @Chippy the Space Dog: The problem is the ProbeControlEnabler mod, that removes the basic remote tech module from probe parts and thus deactivates integrated omni antennas (which are added by SETIrebalance, so they could not show up in the second test install where you did not use SETIrebalance) as well. Unfortunately ProbeControlEnabler uses a "Final" statement, so it is hard to circumvent. I ll move the DP-10 to the start even when SETIrebalance is installedm, that should at least provide a workaround. Thank you for the notice! SETI CommunityTechTree v0.9.6.7 (for KSP 1.0.5) Compatibility updates kOS 0.19+ RemoteTech DP-10 to start even if SETIrebalance is installed That should provide a workaround for ProbeControlEnabler deactivating the integrated omnis
  16. Yemo
    No worries, pleasing everyone is not on my todo list and I agree that a bit of roleplaying or writing a personal MM statement would be fine is such instances. Fixed (including legacy support), thank you very much! Great to hear, I watched a part of it afterwards and I can only recommend taking another look at the mods recommended via ckan. Especially not having VenStockRevamp deprives you of parts especially suited for probes. Like the all in one inline RCS and the 0.625m heat shield. Nope, that whole post is just a reminder of 0.90. Unfortunately I m not aware of an updated list for 1.0.5. Though generally fuel tanks, solid boosters and wings can be easily replaced by procedural parts. Nose cones and adapter paths are harder to identify. Generally sure, that should be possible. Although keep in mind that there is no angle snap, thus it might result in asymmetric positioning. Though I did not test whether the radial science and mystery goo support KIS at the moment. Yep, exactly. Hm, can't check right now, but that should not happen, you should either have access to the DP-10 without SETIrebalance or the probe core should have an integrated 160km antenna with SETIrebalance. In CKAN, could you please go to "File/Export installed mode..." and export it as a ckan file, and then show me the contents of this file (eg by copy pasting it into this thread). That would be the easiest way to replicate your install on my end.
  17. Yemo
    @bos, @Miravlix Alright, I ll take a look at the hybrid again. Though I ll have to keep it in line with the procedural hybrid booster, which should be between srbs and liquid fuel propulsion in terms of efficiency and costs. Unfortunately procedural SRBs are bugged, especially the costs, so I have to keep that in consideration. Oh, and about that early progression, there are some changes planned for the early SETIctt. Among them splitting better engines (eg hybrid) and decouplers into two nodes. Hm, will have to take a look at the cryo config again as well, did not notice the change. Thank you very much for the notice.
  18. Yemo
    @Nori: Great to see you back at ksp, looking forward to your contract pack!
  19. Yemo
    @Miravlix: It is aimed to provide a meaningful progression as an aide to roleplay (since ksp is so unbalanced anyway, roleplay is necessary) within the ksp situation. The low deltaV requirements are just part of the kerbin setup. If you want all out realism, this is the wrong mod, realism overhaul is what you are looking for (it is even linked in the OP together with recommendations for other similar projects). ad1: Stock SRBs are the RT-5 and the RT-10, just moving the RT-10 one node back would work, but as it is at the moment, players who want to roleplay that in between step can do so, others can skip it. Up to you. And that saved one additional launch is not more immersion breaking than the stubby SRB. ad2: Hitting space is not the problem, staying there (orbit) is. Merging step one and two is imho ok, you can use VenStockRevamp and roleplay for a slower progression, if you want to. But I want to have similar restrictions whether you use procedural parts or not. And limiting the the volume of the procedural SRB even further is annoying for every mission after that, for the benefit of a single mission in the very early career, thus not worth it. ad3: The concept of Kerbin SoI is artificial anyway, since there are no n-body physics. And it is out of my scope that it requires so little deltaV. The big 800 fuel tank makes no difference, since you can simply stack two 400 tanks for the same result. That is just pseudo progression. Since you have simple liquid fuel engines anyway at basic rocketry, the hybrid is not op there. There are many aspects and mod combinations which need at least some consideration, procedural parts among them. I can't perfectionize one particular setting (especially not if it is about 1 additional mission or so) and then create 5 more problems in other places, that is just the case with any open system. If you want total balancing, you need a closed system, take a look at BetterThanStartingManned if that is what you wish for. What reward/penalty settings do you use for your career? Are you sure you are not looking for realism overhaul?
  20. Yemo
    Non atmospheric/aerodynamic control is one of the major issues in early rocketry and imho orbit should take some progression. At start you can get to space. With tier 1 tech, you have rovers at engineering and aircraft at earlyAviation, as well as rocket parts good enough to leave kerbins SoI. Tier 2 gives recoverability (small heat shield and parachutes), control (rcs and gimbal) as well as probe propulsion and more staging options (radial decouplers, sepratrons). If you prefer more stockalike capabilities, you may want to take a look at UnmannedBeforeManned, which is the less challenging brother (magic reaction wheels from the start, earlier fuel lines than SETIctt and so on). SETI RemoteTech Config v1.0.5 (for KSP 1.0.5) Ground stations behind body are not visible Transparency adjusted for better visibility Names of ground stations adjusted for recognition Map in SETI thread updated with new ground station names
  21. Yemo
    While only TAC Life Support is modified, it seems I forgot to specify that the patch should only apply if TAC Life Support is installed. But I guess the order of the patches means, that this is not an immediate problem. Yeah, the change for the new USI-LS should come from UniversalStorage itself. Oh, and concerning USI-LS, it seems that if it is installed via ckan, USI tools are not specified as a dependency. I made a pull request, but it has not been merged or commented on so far. Dont want to get involved too much. For KSP 1.1 I plan to return to TAC-LifeSupport as the recommended life support mod for SETIrebalance/SETIctt. While USI-LS started out to be very simple, I find it pretty confusing in its current state (mobile processing lab to reduce supply consumption for 5 kerbals by 30% without alternate parts doing similar things, except for SETIgreenhouse...). Possibly in combination with KeepFit, I hope they will be updated to 1.1. UnmannedBeforeManned can keep USI LifeSupport. Until ksp 1.1 public pre-release (a great idea btw), I plan to get at least one more SETIrebalance update out and some minor adjustments to SETI-RemoteTechConfig (hiding ground stations behind the planet and a bit less transparancy for the ground stations for streaming and monitors with lower contrast).
  22. Yemo
    They should already be supported, there is a config for them specifically. Although that was done quite some time ago, I probably just forgot to include them in the ckan suggestions.
  23. Yemo
    Hm, sounds like an install problem. You must make sure that the 80KB SETI-CommunityTechTree.cfg file is the only file with that name within your gamedata folder. Also note that you can not really use it in game, since there are no parts assigned to the new nodes. Thus if you have the hide empty nodes plugin from ev0 installed, those nodes are hidden. This update takes some lessons from UnmannedBeforeManned and merges them with the SETIctt, including the rudimentary FASA config. With ksp 1.1 not far away, there will be little more change to SETIctt and the big update is planned for ksp 1.1 as well. SETI CommunityTechTree v0.9.6.6 (for KSP 1.0.5) Science Experiment Transmission Values Simple stock experiments transmit for 100%, even without SETIrebalance Since parachutes are available so late, 50% transmit was a balancing nightmare Part Position Changes Mk-55 earlier @advRocketry O-10 later @precisionPropulsion LV-1 variants earlier @generalRocketry Many docking ports & Hubs moved back, as well as MobileProcessingLab Lights to engineering101 Accelerometer to engineering101 0.625m Fuel tanks to generalRocketry LV-T30 to basicRocketry, if VenStockRevamp is not installed Avionics Hub @unmannedTech Rudimentary config for FASA
  24. Yemo
    It looks great, but it also looks massive. Those are my requirements for mod support: 1. Is it available via CKAN? Does it provide a KSP-AVC version file? Relevant for testing and minimizing support issues. 2. Is it moddable by module manager statements? Eg no:Final statements. 3. Does it at least try to fit into the game or does it provide OP components, which replace current choices instead of adding to them? 4. How is the relation between the necessary integration workload and the benefit it provides in terms of choices? Since it is not yet on CKAN, I will wait for that to take a more detailed look at it. Though I would certainly prefer a modular release, instead of one giant pack. The secondary stations have a range of 9Mm, while the mun is 12Mm away from Kerbin, so only the KSC would be able to connect to a dish on the mun pointed at kerbin/MissionControl.
  25. Yemo
    @Loren Pechtel: Different case, same principle I guess. It seems to follow a strict rule (like if apo 10m below threshould, start burn) regardless of the actual effect of that action. However mech jeb is a really big project and the circumstances changed a lot recently (atmo, heating) and 1.1 will nearly certainly break stuff again. So it is very understandable that putting effort to optimize it now has small rewards considering it does not last very long until it needs to be touched again. Under those circumstances mech jeb dev is really great! And after 1.1 hits, offering support by feedback, suggestions and contributions (in code or otherwise) will make it great again.
×
×
  • Create New...