Yemo

SETI-BalanceMod v0.8.8 Removed ProceduralParts dependencies This allows players to avoid the ProceduralParts/TweakScale bug and makes SETI a more viable choice for existing games, especially based on the CommunityTechTree. Together, those factors allow for SETI-KSPIextended joint usage. Only some minor surface optimizations still to do for full support, like naming scheme and maybe very minor technode shuffling. I m still searching for an adequate washer component, but since procedural parts are no longer required, this is not crucial anymore. Please note, that it might take some time until the CKAN dependency list is updated.

Great! REMOVED ProceduralParts Dependencies! The new SETI version drops the procedural parts dependencies, thus lowering the problem with the TweakScale/ProceduralParts bug, which is one of the main problems for SETI-KSPIextended. It also makes SETI more viable for existing games. If procedural parts are installed, nothing will change. But if they are not installed, the normal fueltanks/adapters/wings can be used. If you want to use both, just delete the "SETI/MM-UnusedParts-B9ProceduralParts" and "SETI/MM-UnusedParts-ProceduralParts" folders/configs. New Version 0.8.8 IMPORTANT: AutoPruner file If you are missing parts, you might have missed an Autopruner update, reintroducing decouplers and separators So with all the 0.8.x changes, please make sure to unprune everything, before repruning again with the recent SETI.prnl For unpruning, use the SETI.prnl from 0.8.5, available from kerbalstuff changelog IMPORTANT: Removed Procedural Parts Dependency If ProceduralParts are installed, fuel tanks and adapter are hidden like before and can be pruned If B9 Procedural Parts are installed, wing parts are hidden like before and can be pruned If procedural parts are not installed, the normal fuel tank/adapter/wing clutter is not hidden If you want to use procedural parts and the normal clutter, please remove the subfolders of SETI/MM-UnusedParts The normal fuel tanks/adapters/wings are only roughly balanced for SETI, but they are moved around a bit This should allow easier SETI integration of existing games, especially regarding KSPI extended games It also allows avoiding the ProceduralParts/TweakScale bug, resulting in functional KSPI extended compatibility IMPORTANT: Monoprop and general fuel tank rebalance Procedural RCS tank discountinued, new tank type option for procedural liquid tank and liquid tank cone The old Procedural RCS tank is only hidden, so that your current vessels will still work All (hopefully) Monoprop tanks now have the same dry mass as liquid tanks Monoprop tank capacity is 1.2 times the dry mass (procedural RCS tank now has about half the mass and capacity) Liquid fuel, mixed tanks and karbonite tank capacity is about 1.6 times the dry mass (like current procedural tanks) Aircraft and Shuttle tanks rebalanced with this formula, they were all over the place until now Many non-procedural tanks rebalanced with this formula (not sure if I got all of them) Extended Mod Support, updated AutoPruner file GingerCorp Stock-alike Station Hubs Habitat Pack, requires Layered Animations KipEng Universal Docking Ports, requires AdaptiveDockingNode KipEng Low Profile Structural Hub Set Mk3 Mini Expansion Pack Mark IV Spaceplane System (Semi-)Saturatable Reaction Wheels USI Exploration Pack Science Experiments Probe Core Telemetry Experiment by Lord Aurelius Extended Barometer usability by Lord Aurelius Rebalances & Adjustments New 1.875m diameter step for procedural parts @advRocketry Rebalanced KAX electric prop LT-5 Micro Landing Leg earlier @survivability Most Girders earlier @generalConstruction, rebalanced Girders (Impact Tolerance!) Some Docking Port renaming and some of them earlier (eg Inline) Mk1-2 command pod lighter, 3.2 tons dry instead of 3.3 tons Mk3 Cockpit 4.1 tons instead of 3.8, reaction wheel 12torque instead of 6, 120 monoprop instead of 40 Mk3 Mini Expansion Pack cockpit takes the role of the stock Mk3 cockpit @3.8 tons Rebalanced KAX Jump Jet Engine Minor Changes and Fixes Fixed Rockomax Brand Decoupler if VenStockRevamp is not installed

This is a fantasic mod, especially with LayeredAnimations. However I m wondering if there is a way to stop the rotation once activated?

Since I rebalanced the fuel tanks as well due to removing the procedural parts dependency, the update is more work than expected, so I have to shift the release to tomorrow UTC. As a side effect, this allowed me to normalize the masses/fuel capacities of aerospace parts as well, especially the monoprop tanks were all over the place. I m also phasing out the Procedural RCS Tank. It will just be made invisible, which also protects most existing vessels from the general monoprop rebalance. The Procedural Liquid Tank and Nose Cone gets a new Monoprop option. This new option will have the same dry mass as the other liquid fuel tank options (about half as much as the previous procedural RCS) but will provide about 60% of the Monoprop. The Habitat Pack by Porkjet will also be supported, allowing for inflatable station building even without MKS/OKS, which will be useful eg for the Tourism ContractPack. edit: Also changed the OP again.

Judging from my experience with mod releases, such warnings have to be as close to the download button as possible and best in a signal color like red or so ;-)

There are selection options on your screenshot for liquid fuel, oxidizer and monoprop, could you please tell me which mod adds those?

Hey, I remember a message from you about your modified firespitter fuel switch, but could not find it anymore. With the next SETI version I will drop the dependencies on procedural parts to give players an option to avoid the tweakscale/proceduralparts bug while I m still looking for an appropriate workaround. This should also make SETI a more viable choice for existing KSPI extended games (but I need one in-between version to properly make the CKAN changes and test for issues). Also twitch streamer igor_perusco has offered to provide firespitter fuel switch configs for spaceplane parts, which I thought about using as an experiment/stop gap until an automatic version could be developed. With that background, I would like to further develop the fuelswitch from firespitter and interstellar and try to implement something of an automatic MM statement, which could allow for the support of other fuel tanks without manually writing each config. My intitial attempts failed, but I decided to start from scratch and try to incorporate your interstellar options as well as possibly adding new ones. Of course the results (if it works) will be made available. Unfortunately I did not find the source code of your interstellar fuel switch and wanted to ask you for it/its location. Thank you very much, Yemo

Sorry, I do not have experience with KOS, but as Lord Aurelius suggested, the Exception Detector is great and helped me a lot before. Also since I use windows only for testing and modding but prefer Linux for playing (because there I do not have to worry about memory), I usually do not play long enough on windows to encounter memory/memory leak bugs. In other news, 0.8.8 is making progress. As announced, ProceduralParts and B9ProceduralParts will no longer be required, though if installed, nothing changes in terms of clutter hiding and pruning ability. Though the affected clutter removal configs are now moved to separate folders for easy deletion, if you want to use the procedural parts packs and the clutter parts (eg fuel tanks, adapters, stock wings). This step is also important for making SETI a viable choice for existing careers, eg KSPI extended ones. Still no luck yet for a washer or a real solution for the TweakScale/ProceduralParts problem. I also inquired in the TweakScale thread (since ProceduralParts is hardly maintained at the moment). So removing the ProceduralParts dependency is also a fallback for KSPI support. And I need one version before official support anyway to make the CKAN dependency shift without breaking stuff. Those are the planned mod support additions for 0.8.8 so far (still working on some, not sure if I can finish them for 0.8.8), I already changed the OP to bring some more structure into the Mods section. * GingerCorp Stock-alike Station Hubs (very little changes) * KipEng Universal Docking Ports, requires AdaptiveDockingNode by toadicus (very little changes) * KipEng Low Profile Structural Hub Set (very little changes) * Mk3 Mini Expansion Pack * Mark IV Spaceplane System * (Semi-)Saturatable Reaction Wheels * USI Exploration Pack

Hey, I m working on supporting your hubs and docking ports for the SETI-BalanceMod. While browsing through your configs, I noticed that you use :FINAL statements to add TAC life support. This is causing some problems, for example your kipihub does not have the amount of resources specified by you. I think the problem is, that TAC life support checks whether the parts with crew capacity (which the kipihub has) do have food. But because you use the :FINAL statement, your modulemanager patch is not applied at this time. So TAC does not find food and adds some. Then your MM patch adds food resources as well, but now there are 2 food resource definitions within the part and only the first one from TAC life support is used. Removing those :FINAL statements solves the problem for me and I can not see adverse effects.

I m not sure what to use as a logo in general and it is very low priority at the moment (due to needing lots of time because I m not good at it while only providing very little benefit), so it may take quite some time. About the girders, I m not sure I want ot tweak the IR rework parts yet and I also hesitate to change the landing gear stuff, so there is still plenty of opportunity for exploits. House rules are still necessary, but with the micro landing struts, there is at least a viable alternative. Looks like I can just add this to the mods list, without changes on the SETI side. I ll take a quick look anyway and then add it. Thank you for the suggestion. Rocket engine prices were normalized, which increased the LV-T45 costs and entry prices were based on the new prices. Basically for those using non-instant tech unlocks I wanted to create a real dilemma between using the stuff you have and investing into new unlocks. Maybe a bit high for the LV-T45? About 0.8.8: After feedback from twitch streamers igor_perusco and tommyterrific22, I decided to remove the SETI dependency on procedural parts (bot the normal procedural parts and the B9 procedural parts). It should work like this: 1. With Procedural Parts mods installed: MM statements hide the fuel tanks, adapters and stock wings. Those parts can be pruned. 2. Without Procedural Parts mods installed: Fewer parts are hidden, mainly those which can be substituted by using tweakscale Those will be the 2 defaults. So nothing will change by default. You would have to uninstall the procedural parts mods to be affected by the change. If you want to use procedural parts together with the normal fuel tanks, you have to delete the MM statements/configs from the SETI-unusedParts folder, or just delete that whole folder. At least this non-procedural mode does not have problems with KSPI extended tweakscaled parts.

Hey, now that you are back, will you resume work on the konquest modules? They look fantastic and would make a for great bases.

I was planning to do so. That was one of the reasons why I chose SETI as an acronym. For the SETI-BalanceMod it stands for Scope, Economy & Tech Integration. For the SETI-Greenhouse it stands for Space Exploration & Technology Initiative. Originally I planned to use the latter one for the contracts, but I m not good at graphics design and there was so much other stuff to do first, so I stayed with the Kerbin record whatever company for the contracts. So it kind of is one of those "forever planned, never realized" things at the moment. On another topic, 0.8.8 is getting bigger than expected, again... Mostly because of mod support, but there are also some smaller rebalances/technode reshuffles. I gave the Modular Girder Segment a mass of 50kg, since the procedural structural element has a mass of 70kg or so when it gets the stronger standard connection node. Also impactTolerance of 8m/s for most girders, many are also moved to generalConstruction and the micro landing legs are moved to survivability.

Well, BetterBuoyancy already increased water density by a factor of 2 I guess. The fact remains, the stock kerbals are way too dense for balanced gameplay/mods.

Oh, I see. Have to check that, but I generally just moved the roverwheels to an earlier node, so it should work for now, just not as well as it could. The USI Exploration enclosed command pods are actually so small, that even a kerbal without helmet barely fits in. There is certainly no space for a helmet in one of them. As far as I understand it, they work just like normal cockpits/capsules. Hm, the volume change is annoying, although not as annoying as the buggy command pod mass calculation. Thank you for mentioning it. Hey, you should choose the CommunityTechTree, if you installed the CommunityTechTree and the TechManager mods, as stated in the OP. There is no option called SETI TechTree. For a more detailed support, please provide info on the version you are using (win/linux, 32bit/64bit KSP) and a screenshot of your GameData folder.

Ah, I did not look within the Utilities package. I did not touch the stock wheels functionality so far and I did not change anything about the stock surface sample, so it should work as before?

I noticed that it provides a newer CIT util file, but does it also provide the ActiveStruts parts? I was only considering changing the enclosed cockpits, where kerbals sit without helmets. Have not though about the "outdoor" seats yet. Will probably only put USI Exploration into the "additional mods" category anyway, but the enclosed cockpits are really bugging me in terms of balance.

Without changing, Kerbals are much too dense. Which is a problem when mods like BetterBuoyancy are used, because stock Kerbals behave like fish, floating beneath the surface. So actually it is a bug fix and not a cheat. Unfortunately the EVA thrust and fuel capacity is designed for the ridiculous stock mass...

Dr. Jet's Chop Shop has something like the Modular Girder Adapter but without the bottom plate. It is a very interesting mod pack, but I would need some time for support, especially due to the 2-axis solar panels (which are a very interesting concept and the original reason for me to look at that mod). There are quite a lot of other great parts in that pack... For a simple core SETI fix, I could bring the LT-5 Micro Landing Legs to survivability, allowing for earlier probes.

Hm, imho the 80m/s impact tolerance is absurd. What about setting the impact toleranced to 8m/s for non-landing parts? I m not sure I can set them lower for landing gear without serious gameplay problems, but at least the landing on girders instead of landing legs would stop. I think it is a general wet mass/dry mass issue with KIS. Infernal Robotics Rework (plugin and models) And while you mentioned IR, I will shift the IR support from standard InfernalRobotics to InfernalRobotics Plugin Rework and InfernalRobotics Model Rework. No SETI changes required, I ll just update the OP.

Hey, I rephrased my post, with the adding twice I actually meant added to dry mass and then added again to wet mass on top of it.

Might be, but I ll see if I can implement 1.875m diameter in the next update anyway. It is an odd diameter, because the adapters are not really useful for it and engines do not fit either, so it is not really a problem for general progression. WARNING: SERIOUS Kerbal Inventory System BUG! When KIS is installed, the mass of command parts is drastically increased. Ablative Shielding and Monoprop are twice added to the mass of the command part, instead of only one time. Thus eg a command part with a mass of 2 tons dry and 2.8 tons with monoprop and ablative shielding now has a mass of 2.8 tons dry and 3.6 tons wet. This is a serious issue for ongoing missions as well as gameplay balance.

SERIOUS MASS BUG: When KIS is installed, the mass of command parts is drastically increased. I m not sure what parts are affected, eg maybe only parts with MM changes? Anyway, for the affected parts, Ablative Shielding and Monoprop are added to the dry mass and then additionally to the wet mass, thus they are counted twice. Thus eg a command part with a mass of 2 tons dry and 2.8 tons with monoprop and ablative shielding now has a mass of 2.8 tons dry and 3.6 tons wet. This is a serious issue for ongoing missions as well as gameplay balance. edit: Rephrased for clarity.

Good to know, I ll write it in the OP, thank you. I m trying to balance the USI Exploration Pack, but one of the problems are the command pods. They only weigh 150kg, yet they provide all the functionality of a full cockpit at 1000kg. And they can be used for space flight although that would require a fully pressurized cockpit and life support. Especially since the kerbals take off their helmets... Really not sure what to do about them, maybe increase the mass to something like 800kg? But that would make them far less useful. You are welcome! From your screenshots I can see that you are not using Ven's Stock Revamp. I highly recommend it, since it not only provides better textures, but also new parts which, together with RLA Stockalike, greatly increase your options for building rockets. Especially the solar panel selection is increases, which is really helpful with Background Processing. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/78894495/Mun%20Rocket.jpg https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/78894495/Tech%20Tree.jpg The biggest annoyance at this low tech level is the low limit on the procedural tank diameter (1.25m at this point) which inflates the part count and results in the interesting upper stage. The 20m height limit in the level 2 VAB was also an issue, right now the rocket is barely under it. Still, I managed to get a working Mun lander. It has all the science experiments available at that point (barometer/thermometer combo, magnometer, 2 science bays) and has plenty of life support and fuel cell resources for extended missions. Not sure how to deal with that diameter annoyance. Imho the 2.5m diameter is ok at heavyRocketry node, since it really is a great step forward and not too close to liquid fuel engine introduction itself. Maybe a 1.875m diameter unlock before heavyRocketry? At least you could put a fillet tank on the lander and/or V2 shaped fuel tanks on the lower stages? Personally I use the 1x3 or 1x4 adapters from generalConstruction for heavy early landers. Well, as I still do not have a viable solution for the TweakScale-ProceduralParts issue, and KSPIextended makes excessive use of TweakScale while SETI makes escessive use of ProceduralParts, there will be some more update(s) before 0.9... Since I always forget to update the dev list, I only put major mods/modpacks in there. But those 2 specifically might be in the next update if I can not find a TweakScale-ProceduralParts solution first...

Yep, seems like a good idea with the FAQ, Not sure where to place it though, I have a feeling that the guide is not read by many of those who would profit from it. About the mod suggestion: The capsule looks great, but I m not sure about the trunk and the solar panel problem. Maybe I just disable the trunk for now? I also went back in the thread and found your post, where you recommended the Mk2 Essentials (they sounded familiar, but I forgot, sorry) and will take a look again at those mods. Since I was not able to find a sufficient workaround for the TweakScale-ProceduralParts issue yet, which is absolutely required for KSPI extended support, I will probably release another 0.8.x update. Also the IR plugin and model reworks made great progress with the newest releases and I will recommend that one in the OP from now on: IR plugin rework: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/114014 IR model rework: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/65365 I have no knowledge of the Kerbal ISP Difficulty Scaler, but I will keep that in mind if someone else reports the issue, thank you! Also, your problem with coming in too fast for parachutes is based on the shape of your rocket. It is too aerodynamic when going down. You can solve that by puttin a decoupler below the cockpit and discard the bottom. You also might want to take a look at the SETI-craft files provided within the manual download. The SETI High Altitude Rocket looks very much like your craft, but with the added decoupler and different TWR/deltaV based on whether you choose the minMods or FAR+partMods variant. You can actually take a look at its FAR values in the second post of this thread, which contains the SETI Guide.

I m wondering if the procedural parts - tweakscale bug is related to those problems. Basically you take a procedural structural element (or fuel tank or whatever) and attach a part to it, for example the stackQuadCoupler (from one 1.25m node on top to four 1.25m nodes at the bottom). Then you TweakScale the stackQuadCoupler to 2.5m, save the vessel and reload the vessel. What happens now is, that the stackQuadCoupler clipps in the procedural part, as if the original not tweakscaled size was used for positioning the part and only after that the model is upscaled. If the stackQuadCoupler is downscaled to 0.625m, it leaves a large gap, instead of clipping into the procedural part. Now it gets interesting: When you use the adapterLargeSmallQuad (from one 2.5m node to four 1.25m nodes) instead of the stackQuadCoupler, that issue does not exist. You can rescale the adapterLargeSmallQuad as much as you want. The main difference between parts which show that problem and parts which do not show the problem is, that the problematic parts have an offset node_stack_top, while the unproblematic parts do not have an offset node_stack_top definition. Eg stackQuadCoupler: node_stack_top = 0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 1 adapterLargeSmallQuad: node_stack_top = 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 2 Notice the 0.5 from the stackQuadCoupler. If you change that into 0.0, the node is within the part model, but the attachment bug does not appear. That is also the case with all other parts. Those with such an offset have the problem (like basicJetEngine) and those without offset do not show the issue. Also notice, that the problem only exists for the node with which you attach the tweakscaled part to a procedural part (which is usually the node_stack_top). Thus attaching procedural parts to tweakscaled parts with offset nodes is no problem.