WuphonsReach

Note for @Ruedii , I believe that's how KSP works - unless the DLL has special logic? Anyway, I'm seeing the same exception as Ruedii -- in AddonInfo.IsKspExcludedVersion(). Somehow there's a NRE in there. (I say "somehow" because I was looking at the wong AddonInfo.cs in the KSP-APC folder. I found the NRE in MiniAVC and submitted a PR.)

Thanks. Pretty sure you're right. Now I'm wondering if there are alternate Scatterer configs or if I should just remove the Scatterer directory entirely. I'll have to poke around.

So far, I'm having no issues with Kerbal_Construction_Time-1.4.0.69 on KSP 1.5.1. I've not tried to launch from desert/woomer yet (keep forgetting). I run a very slow preset. 8-12 day roll-outs, dozens to hundreds of days for builds and research.

Was the code to automatically trim out low-reliability parts from Scrapyard ever implemented? (First post is a bit out of date. The posts that I've +1'd this week had information not in the first post.) I don't see anything in DefaultSettings.cfg which would let me say "auto-recycle parts with a reliability under 2/10". I'd still want the funds from StageRecovery, but would want them to be auto-trimmed instead of being put into Scrapyard's inventory. I think SRBs are the lightning rod because of how they get used (radial, multiple) and how fatal to the launch that loss-of-thrust failure at lift-off is (due to imbalanced thrust combined with low altitude giving little to no time to recover). I've had a bit of luck adding more verns/RCS ports to the tail of the rocket. In situations where I have 6 radial SRBs, it can be enough to overcome the loss of one off the pad. But staging early can still be a better choice (and praying that the SRBs don't impact the stack as they fly away).

I've head a gander (I'm using OS 1.4 release version), and the SRB base chance of failure is 0.6 compared to liquid engines of 0.11. So a SRB is about 5x-6x more likely to fail. Combine that with most SRBs being radially mounted, used at lift-off, in sets of 2-6; and it results in making SRBs noticeably less reliable. If they were more subtle failures like off-axis thrust, broken/limited gimbal, 5-15% shorter burn time, part heating then that higher failure rate would be less noticeable. For now, since they don't have those additional failure modes, I've kicked my reliability down to 0.11 and boosted expected life to 8 (should probably be 10-12).

Thanks. How many failure modes are there for SRBs? So far, all of my failures have been complete loss of thrust. Wonder if there are ways besides reducing the thrust to zero to represent a failure: Crack in casing causes the casing to heat up (possibly causing nearby parts to overheat). Thrust gets offset +/- 30 degrees Represent loss of total dV performance by a "fuel leak" type mechanic so the fuel runs out early (maybe "poor casting of the propellant" as a cause) Make it go boom sometimes Muck with the Isp / thrust total values (-10% to -50%)

Not sure what's going on with Kerbin. Everything works, but performance dives by a goodish amount whenever Kerebin is in the view. This is a stock AVP install (EVE, Scatterer, 2k textures). What would be the most likely culprit and can it be tuned down to give better framerate?

I'd possibly agree that SRB failure rates might be a bit high, so far the rest feels ok but I'm still in Kerbin's SoI. Still experimenting (only been using Oh Scrap! for 2 days now). Took about 10 launches before I felt like SRB XYZ was reliable. (I run with Scrapyard and KCT. My KCT is turned up to 11 with 100-300 day build times, 10-20 day roll-outs, takes years and years to research stuff.)

SRBs and some engines make a horrible audio racket when they fail. Not sure if it's something with KW mod parts, or if it's Linux64 bit issues, or if there's something that can be done in Oh Scrap to stop playing the failure sound after a while (or at least tone down the volume over time).

Contract Configurator is updated for 1.5.1 -- so far, in my play testing, everything is working as-is in 1.5.1. I just need to merge any PRs (hint hint) or look for things that should be updated based on feedback.

Spacedock still points at the old github repo. I'm also not seeing a GameData/ folder in the repo.

Posting to keep an eye on NIMBY for when it gets an in-game way to create and place beacons.

Thanks @Jesusthebird Also, guessing that the contracts do not work in 1.5.1 at the moment due to ContractConfigurator being behind.

I usually create a copy of my KSP directory with just UbioZur Welding installed along with just the part mod (if non-stock) that I want to weld. It cuts down loading time drastically. Once I have the part finalized and I'm happy with it, I'll copy it over to my primary play directory.

(running BDDB master branch in 1.4.5) I don't use the kicker SRBs because I find it easier to just use LF/Ox engines that have more control. Even when I'm low in the tech tree I have not used the kicker SRBs. I do heavily use the 0.935/1.875 radial SRBs along with a 1.5-1.8m central core LF/Ox tank. Seems like I have enough LF/Ox engines unlocked (even in CTT). I'm not one for building replicas though, so it's a mix/match of Tantares, stock, MRS, SpaceY, BDDB.

Wishlist items: An "empty" button that would drain the selected part of all of the selected resource. Pushing it to other parts of the same vessel (according to flow priority?). I like to empty out various resources from a ship prior to returning to Kerbin in order to maximize the amount of resources in orbit. Increase the height of both windows so that I can see more like 8-10 things at a time to select from.

Pushed out 1.4.4.0 (just in time for KSP 1.4.5 to release, go me). It should still function just fine in KSP 1.4.5 (and probably works fine in all variants of KSP 1.4 and probably KSP 1.3). I did not get a chance to look at @canisin suggested adjustments yet.

There are two or three other packages (listed in the KRASH thread) which are dependencies and have to also be installed.

Well, my personal settings are: https://gist.github.com/WuphonsReach/c350695cff3cc11f59772f0da5f2cdb7 Four to eight years before you get a vessel into orbit (if you start with 15k funds and zero science). Twenty to thirty years to escape Kerbin's SoI. I usually have comm sats and science probes at Duna/Eve by about year 25. I do play with CTT, so upgrade points are more plentiful, but I need more science to unlock everything. But I also have various part packs installed that add more science experiments. The upper limit on purchasing upgrade points is higher (money/science sink for late game). Vessel build times are measured in hundreds of days for the first build, gradually going down to 50-250 days (part re-use, more VAB build lines, faster VAB build lines). Rolling out to the launch pad will take tens of days. It will take more upgrade points to get science speed up to 1/day (300 point node takes 300 days). If you're researching multiple nodes at once, the lower priority nodes research slower. Stage Recovery + Kerbal Alarm Clock + KRASH + Scrapyard + ScienceParamModifier (to nerf Mun/Minmus values) work well together for this. You're going to be jumping time forward 100-300 days at a time the first 20-30 years. On the flip side, you spend more time in the lower nodes of the tech tree, which forces me to be creative. This also makes using life-support mods harder because you can't build a rocket to re-supply Jeb on a day's notice. (There's a folder in "GameData/KerbalConstructionTime/KCT_Presets/" where you can put additional preset files or keep your own copies of the existing presets.)

Balance it in what fashion? What's your balance goal?

Looking at the part, that probe core does indeed have two antennas. The 5km antenna is used during lift-off, then once you get above ~50km, you'd right-click the part and extend the 2nd antenna which is the one with 62.5km power.

UI scaling is working okay, but not great on a 4k display. Anything above a value of 1.2 causes some values to wrap in the various orbit/surface/vessel windows. There's a few handful of values that have issues at 1.3 scale (e.g. the LAN) and a lot that have issues at 1.4x (Vessel wet/dry mass, angle to prograde, G force, inclination) and above.

Parse results for the master branch as of today. Nothing stands out at the moment, but I'm still looking at it. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1axgs3b5hIq_haGTgmcuim6GYd4HfIxlqHBECQ7DI49M/edit?usp=sharing This has antenna data and probe core information, from a vanilla copy of KSP 1.4.4 w/ just ModuleManager and BDDB installed.

@CobaltWolf Ah, that makes sense. It just looked odd in the change log to see a fuel tank with a probe core. I'd lean towards making it a probe core with some fuel rather than categorizing it as a fuel tank with a probe core? (Currently running off the BDDB master branch in my save.) The omnis with the long range and low EC/Mit (most KSP antennas use 5-7 EC/Mit) is tricky. Adding a bit of EC storage here or there may be what is needed (so that there's enough EC to transmit a 2Mit packet). Maybe I should parse the config files, looking for command cores along with their EC storage values (plus mass, costs). I have a tool to do so.

Possible oddity in that one of the fuel tanks is a probe core? https://github.com/CobaltWolf/Bluedog-Design-Bureau/blob/master/Gamedata/Bluedog_DB/Parts/Delta/bluedog_DeltaK_ShortTank.cfg See this for the diff that changed it since the last release: https://github.com/CobaltWolf/Bluedog-Design-Bureau/compare/v1.4.2...master#diff-d93c7565b2313a7125c34606d6d353e9