Yemo

While working on mod integration for the SETI-BalanceMod I once again hit the ec definition bump. Too many mods with different ec assumptions, so I asked in the CommunityResourcePack about it, any input from you guys is very welcome!

While not technically part of the community resource pack, this thread seems to be a good fit for standardizing ec. As ec is the resource most used by the community and the one most desperately needing standardization among mods. Currently there are a plethora of ec definitions floating around, leading to one perpetuum mobile after the other (eg water splitter/electrolysis from tac life support and alkaline fuel cell from universal storage, together they "produce" massive amounts of ec out of thin air). Universal Storage seems to use 1ec = 33J, TAC life support seems to use 1ec = 1kJ, I do not know about KSPI ec assumption, Stock battery specific energy seems to indicate something around 1ec = 18kJ - 47kJ, I do not know what stock solar panels seem to indicate, And then there are the alternators on the engines @Freethinker and Northstar1989, what are your assumptions regarding ec? @RoverDude, you seem to have the best overview (considering the community resource pack and your involvement) and a direct link to Squad, what ec definition do you follow? Thank you very much for your input!

Ah, good to hear. I m working on something like a SETI-Guide in the second post of this thread, any feedback is appreciated! Also, for FAR aircraft design, I recommend this guide by keptin: Basic Aircraft Design

I actually suggested the implementation of a deceleron design to bac9, in his procedural B9 thread. But I would not get my hopes up, splitting parts seems like a quite a challenge for procedural parts. But on the topic of airbrakes, I just saw airbrake models in Ven's StockPartRevamp thread. One of them is a cylinder part with 2 small brakes coming out of the sides of it.

There is no reference in the contract config to the provided vessels. But, as far as I remember, the manned contract logs the name of the manned vessel which launches/reaches 18km (not sure). It then wants that same vessel to be landed again in order to recognize the contract as completed. The basic idea behind it was, that you can not just launch a kerbal above 18km and claim the reward while letting the kerbal crash after "fulfilling" the contract. Basically after accepting the contract, you only have to launch a kerbal beyond 18km and then let at least the kerbal containing part of the vessel land on kerbin again, using parachutes. If you use the provided SETI High Altitude Rocket, you essentially just have to launch that with SAS activated, then stage when you are at the highest point to decouple the lower part and arm the parachute (right click on the parachute and select "Arm"). Everything else should be automatic.

That is weird, I did not encounter a problem with the 18km missions. Maybe a corrupted download for one of the involved mods (SETI, ContractConfigurator 0.7.2)? Or did you install other contract configurator non-mod specific progression contracts (which you shouldn't)?

You have to right click on parts to customize them, after you attached them to your vessel.

Found another option for the Greenhouse: SETI-download + SeparateDownload same folder but outside of SETI That would fix all cons. 1. CKAN ignores stuff outside of the SETI folder 2. Manual SETI downloaders can still decide if they want to copy the SETI-Greenhouse folder 3. Double install not possible, since you would overwrite 4. I do not have higher maintenance, since I would just select one more folder when making a new SETI update 5. SETI users do not have to do a second download, just drag and drop one more folder into GameData The greenhouse concept is very intriguing, I really want to add it for 0.8.6... And the 2.5m engine shift to heavierRocketry.

Well, we explained what to do about the antenna (the DP-10 model is a bit weird, it leaves a visible space, so it seems to "hover"). About your boosters, I guess you did not adjust their thrust with the TWR info in KER?

The multiengine rockets were one of the reasons why I changed the 3.75m diameter restrictions to advMetalworks, so they are available before the 3.75m engines at veryHeavyRocketry. Though I could not fit the 2.5m diameter upgrades before the 2.5m heavyRocketry engines, because it would have been too early after unlocking the basic rocket engines. But your Saturn IB reference brought me to another idea: What if it is done the other way around? The 2.5m procedural unlocks stay at heavyRocketry, while the 2.5m engines are moved to heavierRocketry and thus after the R&D upgrade. Multi engine rockets are a side effect/possibility at the moment, though they were very common in reality. With that change, players would routinely have to use the adapters at generalConstruction, to make use of 2.5m rockets before the R&D upgrade. And it would set a real pattern, reflecting the historcal challenge that larger fuel tanks were available, but sizing up rocket engines proved to be difficult! The greenhouse mod seems to be really easy to do, only the balancing will take some effort (and maybe some iterations). Inspired by some requests on the MKS/OKS thread, it will not require life support, if people just want it for "flair". Corrected the USI Srv placement, thank you! Great! I will wrap up some loose ends in 0.8.6 and then I can fully concentrate on KSPI extended for 0.9.0, thank you very much! - - - Updated - - - Thank you for the suggestion, I will take a look at it! While I deleted monoprop from the command pods in earlier versions, most of them got it back. LanderCans have an especially large amount of monoprop storage at the moment, this mod would further increase it's usefulness. Though I'm not sure I want to give the Mk1 pod monoprop, it is already very cramped/dense. But maybe that makes sense as well, since in early career (when the Mk1 is first available), you can not EVA. So EVA fuel would not have been a requirement in the Mk1 design and needs to be added separately.

Yep, but I figured if he asks this question, he is not proficient at modding/editing configs.

I only know about FAR, but maybe it is the case for stock as well: In the atmosphere, you have to use the DP-10 pointed vertically, if you use another antenna, it breaks, if you use the DP-10 not with one end pointed towards the direction of travel, it breaks. It also likes to break when clipped into another part. Or you could use the SETI-BalanceMod in my signature, in which every command pod/probe core has an integrated always on 160km antenna, enough to leave the atmosphere.

Whoops, I somehow got confused and didnt read/click properly, edited my post.

After the first few space missions, I tend to put Jeb, Bill and Bob into a pod, which I place somewhere at the KSC, so they can not sneak on missions anymore. They are just too valuable as propaganda subjects, to risk their lifes in space. Hopefully they do not die in a plane crash on Kerbin...

In addition to Svm420: When KerbalMass is installed and the mass of a Kerbal is changed in the settings file of Kerbal Mass (eg from the default 0.09something to 0.04, so Kerbals still float with BetterBuoyancy), the change does not work if KIS is installed. You can test it by having KerbalEngineer and EVA eg on the launch pad. Without KIS and the change to 0.04 kerbal mass, it shows 0.04 as the vessel mass on EVA. With KIS and the change, it shows the stock mass of 0.09something and thus the Kerbal plays fish with BetterBuoyancy.

Hey, I was wondering whether you recieved my pm about SETI integration? Basically, supporting real fuels would essentially double the "versions" of the game for which I would have to test when releasing updates. Currently I have the "maxMods" version, the sub-version "boldMods/FAR" which goes along with it and the minMods version (only required mods). While the boldMods/FAR version can be easily maintained together with the maxMods version, I simply do not have the time to properly test the minMods version. The latter one just kind of just moves along with the rest. Since each one of them could be combined with RealFuels, it would drastically complicate my testing and maintenance effort, especially considering the craft files and the guide I m working on at the moment. However I really want to stay compatible with RealFuels and especially your modded version. So although I can not test it myself due to time constraints, I can provide you with the info you need and I will introduce changes to my cfgs, if you need them. In the last version 0.8.5 of SETI, I changed the tech unlocks for procedural parts. Except for SRBs/HRBs and structural parts (which are now unlimited from the start), all procedural fuel tanks get introduced without length and volume restrictions. The basic maxDiameter is now 1.25m, the 2.5m maxDiameter is unlocked at heavyRocketry and the 3.75m maxDiameter is unlocked at advMetalWorks. Also there is no tech unlock required for the different shapes. These are the new size and shape modules for the procedural liquid tank in SETI: MODULE { name = ProceduralPart textureSet = RedstoneStripes TECHLIMIT { //starting node for the part through SETI-TechTree-ProceduralParts.cfg: @TechRequired = basicRocketry name = basicRocketry diameterMax = 1.25 } TECHLIMIT { name = heavyRocketry diameterMax = 2.5 } TECHLIMIT { name = advMetalworks diameterMax = 3.75 } TECHLIMIT { // Make everything unlimited for metaMaterials, will be changed in the future, for the later part of the CTT name = metaMaterials diameterMin = 0.01 diameterMax = Infinity lengthMin = 0.01 lengthMax = Infinity volumeMin = 0.001 volumeMax = Infinity } } MODULE { name = ProceduralShapeCylinder displayName = Cylinder //no tech requirements for any of the shapes length = 2.0 diameter = 1.25 } MODULE { name = ProceduralShapeCone displayName = Cone length = 1.0 topDiameter = 0.625 bottomDiameter = 1.25 } MODULE { name = ProceduralShapePill displayName = Fillet Cylinder length = 1.0 diameter = 1.25 fillet = 0.25 } MODULE { name = ProceduralShapeBezierCone displayName = Smooth Cone selectedShape = Round #1 length = 1.0 topDiameter = 0.625 bottomDiameter = 1.25 } So my question is, do you want to use this system as well? Otherwise I would write MM configs for your parts, which would adjust them to this if SETI is installed. If you do want to use this system also if SETI is not installed, please let me know, I can provide you with dummy parts, showing the upgrade nodes in the tech tree. If you have any other suggestions/adjustment needs for SETI-RealFuelStockTankPrices integration, please let me know.

As far as I know, that is already possible with RemoteTech without further modding (I certainly did not mod that). I remember having at least one battery switched off for emergencies (no connection/wrong positioning for solar panels) long before RemoteTech XF and SETI. I really like the no length, no volume restrictions as implemented since 0.8.5. Though I m still hesitant about the no diameter restrictions. With 0.8.5 they have been changed, so that 3.75m is available at advMetalworks (so earlier than veryheavyRocketry). If they were to be abolished alltogether (so that 3.75m tanks are available, but only 1.25m engines), I bet many new users would make a giant fuel tank and strap lots of radial engines on it, or many stack engines with the multi-thrust plate... About SETI development: While I commented out the Karbonite-unused changes for 0.8.5, this time I forgot to delete the half-done TechTree-Karbonite and PartMod-Karbonite configs... So if anyone is wondering about changed stats/tech tree locations for Karbonite, that is the reason. Having to watch out for 2 versions is just a pain. But, most chances are opportunities. With the problems/changes regarding MCM/MKS/OKS, the half-way released Karbonite and the KSPI extended info from Freethinker, this is the new release plan: 0.8.6: Karbonite 0.9.0: KSPI extended When in a more suitable state: MCM/MKS/OKS/EPL Until MCM/MKS/OKS/EPL is "rebalanced" by SETI, I will list them in the "Additional Mods" section in the OP. There will be inconsitencies, especially regarding life support containers/masses. But it is just not time/work-efficient for me to half-way rebalance them and then have to do it again when MKS/OKS is rearranged/changed by RoverDude. And I can not really support/rebalance MCM until the mass calculation bug is fixed by Angel-125. Maybe I ll release some minor configs for them, to keep the inconsistencies with SETI to a minimum, thus making them "inofficially supported". Nothing drastic or functionality altering. I will also take a look at USI Exploration and USI FTT after Karbonite is done and add those somewhere in-between, depending on workload. Imho makes sense for base/station building, regardless of whether you use MCM or MKS/OKS or something else. SETI-Greenhouse Because of the development/support changes above, SETI is left without an officially supported "food producing life support module" for the near future. I looked around and found various greenhouse mods, though none of them did exactly what I wanted them to do, providing a simple yet adaptive (to different mod installs) greenhouse. There were some which came close, but they were not updated/supported for a while. So I will most likely make a Greenhouse mini-mod, using the model by zzz. Since zzz released his models into the public domain, that only leaves the config, which I estimate to be very short work (though I want it to not skew the balance if MCM/MKS/OKS is installed). For the release, there are essentially 4 options: [TABLE=width: 880] [TR] [TD][/TD] [TD]Pro [/TD] [TD]Con[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]1. Included within the SETI download [/TD] [TD]No additional download necessary.[/TD] [TD]Can only be used by SETI players. Increases SETI minimal RAM usage.[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]2. SETI-download + Separate download, both within SETI folder [/TD] [TD]No additional download necessary. Can be used by everyone.[/TD] [TD]Increases SETI minimal RAM usage. Higher maintenance effort for me. CKAN incompatibilities (overwrite).[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]3. SETI-download + Separate download, different folders[/TD] [TD]No additional download necessary. Can be used by everyone.[/TD] [TD]Increases SETI minimal RAM usage. Higher maintenance effort for me. Double Installs possible.[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]4. Separate download only[/TD] [TD]Can be used by everyone.[/TD] [TD]Additional download necessary for SETI users.[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] So, 1 to 3 increase the minimal RAM usage of SETI, regardless of whether players want to use the greenhouse or not (which kind of goes against the SETI clutter reducing maxims). 2 and 3 both increase incompatibilities, possible issues and my maintenance effort (which in turn decreases the time I can spend on supporting other mods). Also, since I would essentially only write/modify a small config, while the model itself was released to the public domain by zzz, restricting it to SETI users would only feel ok, if there were other maintained, similar Greenhouse only mods around (using this model). Which does not seem to be the case. Considering the points above, the additional download for SETI users appears to be the smallest con and leaves SETI users with the choice.

New Version 0.8.5 IMPORTANT Update your Ship Manifest version, older versions do not show that they need updates with KSP-AVC KIS/KAS transition, see patch notes from 0.8.3 KIS still needs the first round of bug fixes, so you might want to hold out until then New maxMods craft pack, see v0.8.4 patchnotes New SETI-Guide in the second Post of the Forum Thread Procedural Parts Changes Karbonite TankTypeOption added to Procedural Liquid Tank and Procedural Liquid Tank Cone, in preparation for 0.9.0 Procedural Parts only limited by diameter, from now on (except SRBs and HRBs in the beginning) Changed Diameter upgrade techs HeavyRocketry: 2.5m, advMetalworks: 3.75m SRBs and HRBs upgrade to 3.75m diameter at veryheavyRocketry Minor Changes and Fixes BugFix: Hiding of normal Karbonite tanks reverted until 0.9.0 ProceduralParts modding file moved to 0ProceduralParts folder and broken up into the different pieces

The volume restrictions are already much less limiting than stock for that reason. But I have to say I thought about this limitation problem as well, when I started with procedural parts and then I just forgot about it. It really appears to be just a restriction for its own sake, like the career action group restriction, which I simply do not understand. And if the restriction would have been implemented now, without the stock game in the background, I probably would be as bewildered as I am regarding the action groups. What about removing the restrictions alltogether from procedural parts? length, volume, diameter everyhing The user still has to deal with the launch pad and vab restrictions. Also stack engines do not work well with tweakscale. However it would be possible to just put 4x1 adapters beneath massive fuel tanks and then use 4 smaller diameter engines before unlocking the bigger ones. Which would not be far from reality, especially looking at the early soviet rockets (while the us/von braun got a bit lucky with the large engine problems). I ll think about that radical idea (including diameter restrictions abolishment) a bit more and wait for feedback about the proposal in this thread. But I will discard the volume and length restrictions in the next update, like you suggested.

You can use KerbalMass to tweak the mass of a Kerbal, but it does not work if the new KerbalInventorySystem is installed.

A fuel pump is indeed interesting! About the config, in a similar case, I remember nightingale writing about running your monobehaviours on the "main menu" instead of instantly, would allow MM statements to alter those configs before they are read out by your plugin. I m not sure about that, but if you would structure your config like a part, it would make MM editing easier. Like ShipManifestSettings { name = ShipManifestSettings //eg 1.6 energy costs to pump one liter of resources fuelpumpelectricity = 1.6 } Oh, that reminds me. Be sure to check for different resource definitions, eg from the community resource pack. Since one unit of liquid fuel is much more than one unit of Oxygen.

Great additions! About the resource transfer energy costs: Can those settings be manipulated with MM statements? So the config file in general is only read after MM did its thing.

That is basically what I did in my SETI BalanceMod (link in my signature, I posted about those changes somewhere here in this thread a while ago). From memory, that is how it looks like with SETI installed: All 1.25m converters adjusted for 3 kerbals and mass adjusted to 0.48t (not sure I did something to the AirFilter, isnt 0.25t too low?). All 2.5m converters still at 9 kerbal support and mass adjusted to 1.44t. I also adjusted the Universal Storage Converter wedges to support 1 kerbal and have a mass of 0.16t. Converters, which were present in one mod but not the other one were added. The TAC ls Sabatier formula was changed to the real Sabatier Reaction formula, using Hydrogen (thus needs the CommunityResourcePack or at least its Hydrogen definition) This rebalance comes on top (but independent) of the standard SETI approach of replacing VAB part clutter with procedural parts, so there is only 1 procedural life support tank in SETI instead of the plethora of tanks with standard TAC ls.

Forgot to update that in the OP, will do it now, thanks! Whoops, I m working on Karbonite support for the next version (with lots of rebalances, especially for the converters/generators), and I must have forgotten to delete the SETI-TechTree-USI-Karbonite-unused.cfg file from the SETI\MM-UnusedParts folder. You can delete that file to get the normal Karbonite tanks back until 0.9.0, when they will be replaced by procedural tank type options for the liquid fuel tank. I will make a small update later today, to correct that oversight. Thinking about it, I might introduce the Karbonite tank type option with that update, but I will not remove the normal tanks until 0.9.0.

New Version 0.8.4 IMPORTANT Update your Ship Manifest version, older versions do not show that they need updates with KSP-AVC KIS/KAS transition, see patch notes from 0.8.3 KIS still needs the first round of bug fixes, so you might want to hold out until then Extended Mod Support USI Survivability (temporarily without DERP) New maxMods craft pack, including new SETI MunProbe (only for maxMods) and updated BasicJet, for Ven's StockPartRevamp Rebalances & Adjustments Many part volumes changed for KIS inventory, all done by Enceos Procedural HeatShield rebalanced, procedural dry mass instead of mass constant, more expensive Rebalanced Parachutes in terms of mass and costs, especially RealChutes, which are now case independent Lowered transmission energy costs for integrated 160km antennae from 15 to 5 energy per packet Rebalanced the 2 rather new DMagic experiments Universal Storage Waste, WasteWater and CarbonDioxide tanks moved to recycling in CCT Minor Changes and Fixes Fixed integrated omni antennae for command pods