garwel
-
Posts
1,105 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by garwel
-
-
Christmas update!
Kerbal Health 1.6.3
- Changed: In-flight training now works differently: kerbals now always gradually increase their training level for the vessels they are in, without a hard cap but with diminishing returns, so that they never actually reach 100%. The speed of training depends on the kerbal's stupidity (the higher, the slower), current situation (more challenging locations yield more training, and being on the ground on Kerbin stops training) and the current training level. See more details in readme.
- Changed: KSC training caps have been reduced. Based on the Astronaut Level facility, they've been reduced to 30%, 50% and 60% for levels 1 to 3 (from 40%, 60% and 75%, respectively).
- Changed: EVA now also requires training, which currently can only be done in flight.
- Changed: EVA health factor reduced from 10 to 8 HP/day to compensate for the above change.
- Changed: Default Stupidity factor for training speed is now 50%
- Improved: Training Info UI
- Fixed: Events would almost never happen. Also event checks are conducted much more often now, which is especially important for probable events.
-
3 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:
If the game is easy to you then why not just make it to a planet?
Wait so is the game too easy or too hard?
Like I said, the stock game is very easy (although it wasn't at first, of course), so I'm adding more challenge with mods. I just don't see a point in visiting every planet, neither from the gameplay perspective (I can probably earn all the money and science I need without even leaving the Kerbin system) nor for personal satisfaction: once you've been to one planet, the difference is only the size of the rocket and the textures you see on the screen. So instead I challenge myself to more realistic gameplay: with life support, signal delay, parts failures etc. etc. I wish the stock game in KSP2 offered me more of this, but I'm afraid it will instead offer less in an attempt to make early game even easier and interstellar travel more accessible to the proverbial "average player".
3 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:All of those outside parts failures are likely to be in the game though.
I hope you're right, but so far I've seen very little details of these plans. I don't see it (with the exception of colonization, which is also supposed to very late game in my book) in the roadmap, and it may never really materialize.
-
20 hours ago, Master39 said:
The point here is that you're presenting your personal preference as some sort of objectively better option, a deeper and more meaningful game, when it's really just that, a personal preference.
You're proposing to make doing the same things people used to do in KSP1 more difficult, instead of adding any real new destinations or objectives. They choose to focus on expanding the game further, fully knowing that the kind of gameplay you seek is going to be covered by mods anyway. I've launched from Kerbin for every kind of mission countless times, I don't care about making Kerbin bigger or adding more stuff I have to put on the rocket to keep my Kerbals alive or adding the possibility for my rocket to randomly explode. Building a colony on the Mun and running a whole space program from there? That's intresting. Want a more hardcore experience? Let's build a colony on EVE, and run every mission from there.
I started by saying that this is about my playstyle, but I also think that it applies to many other players who like the complexity and realism in KSP (especially as augmented by mods). In the same manner, you and other people talk about your preferences: you want new destinations, for instance. It's fine by me, and I'm a bit surprised by people who get aggressive simply because I have different opinions about a video game. But well, it's the Internet.
There is one premise I disagree with though: my desires and fears make no sense, because modders will add everything the base game lacks. The very same argument applies to other planetary systems and new parts. In fact, adding new celestial bodies, engines etc. is easier than adding completely new mechanics in the sense that you are only changing game's resources, not its code. If KSP2 has something like a built-in Kopernicus (IIRC, it's been promised) and better engine support for multiple solar systems, anyone will be able to add new planets, stars, moons and whatnot as well as all sorts of realistic or completely fictional engines and other parts. We've even seen with KSP1 that modders are often better at that than game devs.
OTOH, adding completely new mechanics to the game works much worse. In KSP 1, it usually involves various hacks, custom interfaces that feel alien to the stock game and to other mods, lots of compatibility issues, performance impact etc. There is a limit to what you can do with gameplay mods and how well optimized they can be without completely breaking the game or other mods. So in fact, game developers who actually write its code are best placed to add such features. Maybe even more importantly, designing these features, making them balanced, fun and easy to interact with also takes a lot of effort. Unpaid modders who usually work alone or in very small groups can hardly replace a full-fledged game dev studio here. It's kind of unfair to expect them to.
-
2 minutes ago, Master39 said:
Just to pick two, neither random part failures nor signal delay would make the game more challenging. The first one is just a dice roll randomly killing your missions for reasons out of your control and the second it's an extreme feature that either makes the game easier by forcing automation for everything or turns it into a Zachtronics programming game in which you have to program everything manually.
This is why you need a game designer: to find interesting and creative solutions instead of just making a few Blender models and adopting some latest DirectX effects. There are ways to make part failures challenging and fun other than just adding an RNG "mission over". This could encourage such essential practices in real-life space engineering as redundancy (not needed at all in stock KSP) or testing. Or it could be overcome with maintenance, repairs (manual or robotic) etc. This might make possible whole new types of missions and spacecraft.
The same applies to signal delay, which (as an optional feature) may incentivize actually having crewed missions and habitable colonies. The game designers could come up with interesting ways to implement automation of tasks, not necessarily an equivalent of kOS. This is their job, after all. Of course, it is harder to do when you deal with interstellar distances, where delays may be years-long, but hey, it wasn't my idea to add these!
-
3 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:
My point's that they don't know how to do a Hohmann transfer from Kerbin to Duna and they haven't taken the initiative to learn how to do things like this, and yet they're commenting on how the game would need dumbing down for interstellar (hint: it doesn't) and making comments on these game mechanics you're best only commenting on if you understand it.
Apparently, you haven't read the OP well. I do know how to make Hohmann transfers, and I suppose I can pull off more complex things in KSP than 95% of players, but it's not about my skills. Like I said elsewhere, it's about the devs' choice to take the (relatively) easy road of making a wider game rather than a deeper game with more interesting mechanics. Ok, now we'll have some more fancy engines with cooler GFX and will be able to visit a few planets looking more exotic. But the gameplay itself will remain mostly the same (apart from colonization/ISRU, which I welcome): launch a rocket, get new science, discover a new tech, add more boosters, send another rocket and so on.
4 hours ago, Zozaf Kerman said:It’s a bit late to say this… your post won’t change anything because the devs are already developing interstellar.
I know. I've been thinking for quite some time whether to post it or not, 'cause obviously it's been a strategic choice they aren't going to reverse because of somebody's rant. But then maybe at least some kind of feedback is better than nothing. The game hasn't even entered Early Access yet, so apparently not everything about it is decided.
-
2 hours ago, bcink said:
My dude.............The game is now 11 years old. Real life space programs have been created and sent rockets to orbit in this time. You have the option of stopping messing around with mods for 45 minutes to watch a YouTube video to complete a successful Mun mission of some kind if you really wanted to.
Real life space programs were also usually done by more than one people, if I remember correctly. In KSP 1, there isn't much of an incentive to just visit many other celestial bodies. "Moar boosters" stops being fun at some point. So instead I add challenge by having more realism through mods. Then even a simple landing on the Mun may require more effort, and brings more feeling of accomplishment, than going to Eeloo.
I know not everyone plays like this, and it's ok. However, I'm disappointed that my play style seems to be discouraged by KSP 2's design. This is what my rant is about.
-
On 12/9/2022 at 12:12 AM, Domonian said:
This is the case with most space games, unfortunately. It's hard to deepen a bunch of rocks out in the middle of nowhere. Although this does depend on how you define "deepen." How would you deepen KSP2, or rather, what is your ideal sequel to KSP1?
There are so many mechanics missing or being incomplete in KSP 1, which don't seem to be addressed (or at least paid attention to) in KSP 2. I mentioned some of them: life support, parts reliability, radiation. These are all major elements of space exploration, but nearly absent from KSP. The science system and, more generally, career progression is rather bland at the moment and doesn't really incentivize exploration. All kerbals are largely the same, differing only in their professions and experience levels. Planning gravity assists and other complex maneuvers is extremely difficult with the way the map works. There is no signal delay or probe automation (even more nonsensical for interstellar distances). There is no such a thing as wind, and aerodynamics are quite basic. The electricity system is not realistic. I could go on, but I think you get my point.
It doesn't mean these things must be on for every player; they may be optional for those who have covered the basics and want a more interesting gameplay (the same way as interstellar travel is probably meant for the players who have already explored the kerbal system). Some of these features may be implemented as mods, but it's always less efficient, more buggy and sometimes not really possible with the existing engine. If anything, adding new parts and celestial bodies is less intrusive and could be more easily done by modders.
-
Ok, I see that most of the commenters are much more optimistic about KSP 2. It's good to see, and maybe my fears won't materialize. And yet, from what I've seen so far (admittedly, I probably missed some info), the approach is to expand the game, not deepen it. It's not a bad thing per se, but for me, KSP 1 is already huge, especially with the multitude of mods adding celestial bodies and parts. Even if I'm wrong, and the game won't be dumbed down, it's sad to see that most of the devs' effort goes into features I'll probably never even see. At the same time, many features that might make KSP2 more realistic and immersive won't be in the game or will only receive little attention. Of course, modders will come to aid, but new mechanics added through mods are never as smooth and seamless as something existing in stock.
That said, there are some things in KSP 2 I'm looking forward to: new fuel types, improved modding capabilities, better GFX, and colonization if it's well-implemented. Many other features (science & tech, economy) are still not clear enough to tell if it's going to be a step forward or backwards.
-
I have mixed feelings about KSP 2. It may be to do with my playstyle, but I suspect I'm not alone there.
I've clocked over 4000 hours in KSP 1 and I'm yet to land a kerbal on another planet (not to mention return). There are still planets I haven't even visited. I like the challenge that comes with planning and implementing complex missions, and I like realism of it. As soon as I see that things are getting too easy, I add a mod or change settings to make things more difficult but also more plausible and fun.
Now, with the imminent introduction of interstellar travel, I'm afraid KSP will go in a different direction. To make interstellar travel a relevant part of the game, devs will have to make solar system exploration much easier. Otherwise, what's the point in having these crazy sci-fi engines if the player must spend 100s of hours just to land on the Mun? So instead of adding realism, we'll see "streamlining" of many aspects of the game to rush the player towards colonies and interstellar travel. Instead of a more nuanced simulation of various aspects of spaceflight (life support, radiation, parts failure, thermal regulation, gravity assists, you name it), we'll see far-future or speculative techs that will quickly make space travel trivial.
And then we'll have space trade and whatnot, so the game will evolve in the direction of Elite or EVE Online losing much of the charm of the original, nerdy KSP.
I know the devs want to expand their user base and probably believe all hardcore KSP 1 fans will buy the game anyway, but competing in the mainstream isn't always a wise choice. Anyway, I only have to hope that I got their intentions wrong and/or that modders will augment what the stock game lacks.
-
On 11/19/2022 at 7:10 PM, 610yesnolovely said:
From what I can see there's no tracking, scoring of contracts, I'm assuming because that's something you can already see/work out from Mission Control?
TBH, I never really thought of that. You can see all your completed (and failed) contracts in stock, so I never had a need to add this functionality to the mod. But maybe someday I'll do it.
-
Space Age 1.3.7
- Compiled for KSP 1.12.4
- Improved: No longer saving unused vessels data
- Improved: Optimized some loops to be a bit faster
- Changed: Updated metadata to require KSP 1.12
- Fixed: Error in the log and possible memory leak when leaving scene
-
On 11/14/2022 at 5:17 AM, linuxgurugamer said:
I found a small bug in SpaceAge, I've pushed a PR to the repo. Essentially, a game Event (OnScienceChanged) was being added instead of removed in the OnDisable method
Thanks! Actually, I've already fixed it in the dev branch, but been too lazy... er, busy to release the update yet.
-
Great idea! I've been using hacks (like manually entering the burn duration time) for my scripts, and now I can automate this part. A few more requests, if I may:
- suicide burn ETA & delta V
- TWR
- heating data (e.g. critical part's temperature)
-
Kerbal Health 1.6.2
- Various under-the-hood optimizations (caching of some frequently used values, switching from double to float fields, using more efficient loops etc.)
- Added: Showing conditions the kerbal had before they died of poor health
- Fixed: Incorrect calculation of training levels in Editor
- Fixed: Missing localization of Training Complete message
- Fixed: NRE when CLS is missing
-
On 8/20/2022 at 2:13 PM, infinite_monkey said:
I have both Kerbal Health and Kerbalism installed, with the radiation model set to Kerbalism. But now I have 2 shielding resources available: Shielding and RadShield. Which one do I need? Should I disable Kerbalism's health status?
The real choice is whether you want Kerbalism or Kerbal Health to show radiation effects; you should then disable the other mod's radiation features (you may of course keep both, but then you'll double your worries). If you keep Kerbal Health's, IIRC, both Shielding and RadShield will be taken into account for shielding calculations, even when the raw (outside the spaceship) radiation data is taken from Kerbalism. If you choose to keep Kerbalism's radiation only, I think RadShield will be ignored.
On 9/6/2022 at 5:59 PM, Syczek said:Its there any way to use it with Remote Tech(i am used to this mod),even if it is a crutch way to do so??
Well, you may assume that your kerbals always have a connection home and just set the Isolation factor to 0. I don't think there is any other option.
-
I'm having an issue with the latest KCT version. After updating, the KCT dialog window doesn't show up in KSC and I get a full log of KeyNotFoundException. I suspect it may be due to a conflict with HETTN (which was also recently updated). The log: https://file.io/2De1zrJve4YZ
-
On 2/6/2022 at 11:41 AM, flart said:
side effect of a new system: panicking Meg, that became tourist, has better health change than others
Yes, it's quite likely and even, to a degree, intended. After all, when you give up on your obligations, you can at last chill out.
-
7 hours ago, flart said:
a radiation of the in-flight kerbal is reset to small values (33 and 47),
4 in-flight kerbals for some reason got new quirks
2 of the quirks message has an empty effects field<...>
Thanks for reporting this. This bug was due to Connected factor disappearance which prevented correct load of kerbals who were currently on a mission and had this factor active. As a result, these kerbals were re-registered as new ones; their health, accumulated doses, quirks and training levels were reset. This is fixed in the new release.
Kerbal Health 1.6.1
- Fixed: Error when loading pre-1.6 versions of Kerbal Health with kerbals on assignment, which caused their health, radiation and other stats to reset
-
Kerbal Health 1.6
- Compiled for KSP 1.12.3. Should be compatible with KSP 1.8+
- Streamlining of training mechanics. Instead of training for individual parts, kerbals now train for part types (such as Mk1 Command Pod). The new system is more straightforward, intuitive and compact. All training-related UI has received an uplift.
- Training caps (based on the level of the Astrounaut Complex) have been nerfed. Training times have changed. Training at KSC and in flight now takes the same time.
- There is a new way to reduce Stress: it is now divided by the number of crewmates of the same profession on the vessel. For example, if you have one Pilot on the vessel with Stress taking 0.8 HP/day, you can add another Pilot to reduce Stress to 0.4 HP/day. Of course, you'll have to provide that other crew member with living space etc. But, in theory at least, you can now reduce Stress to tiny amounts if you are ready to have a large crew. It also gives you a gameplay reason to have multiple crew members of a specific profession.
- Tourists have a slightly different mechanic: their Stress is reduced by the number of professional crew members on the vessel. If the Tourist is alone, they experience 100% Stress; if there is 1 crew member, it falls to 50%, for 2 crew members, it falls to 33%, and so on.
- Exhaustion is now semi-random instead of automatic. When the crew member's health falls below 20%, they now have a chance of turning into a Tourist. The mean time to happen (MTTH) starts at 6 hours and reduces as health gets lower. So you probably have a few additional hours to evacuate your kerbal(s) before they give up work. Recovering after exhaustion works similarly when health goes above 20%.
- Connected factor (which gave you +0.5 HP/day for having a connection to home) has been replaced with Isolation factor (which takes away 0.5 HP/day for not having such a connection). All related bonuses were removed.
- Confinement factor was reduced from a base of -3 HP/day to -2 HP/day to compensate for the previous point.
- Many parts' Living Space has been updated (usually with slight nerfs) and Recuperation increased. SSPXr and some other mods now have Recuperation parts.
- Mod's settings have been overhauled: instead of setting manually each factor's HP per day, you now change their relative effects between 0 and 200%.
- A setting to allow Decontamination when not at KSC has been added (off by default) as well as a setting for minimum required health.
- Many other small and not-so-small changes and bug fixes.
Notes for updating a current game:
- The familiar parts (ones your kerbals have been fully trained for) should be retained. But ongoing training progress will be lost.
- It is recommended that you return home and recover all your kerbals before updating. Changes in balance and loss of training progress may affect your missions.
- Settings for factors and some other things will be reset, so you should check them and tweak if necessary.
- Due to KSP's limitations, you should load all your manned vessels at least once after updating the mod to ensure their data is correct.
- Downgrading to pre-1.6 Kerbal Health is not supported.
-
9 hours ago, flart said:
v1.5.6, on accepting the asteroid Tourism Contract
Thanks for the report. I (hopefully) fixed this error, in the next release.
-
Here comes the beta of the next release. I'm looking for the adventurous types who want to test it and report any issues!
Kerbal Health 1.6 Pre-release (beta!)
This is a beta pre-release for the upcoming Kerbal Health 1.6. It is not backward-compatible with previous versions and, being a beta, may have bugs. Make sure to backup your save! Please report all encountered issues.
- Compiled for KSP 1.12.2. Should be compatible with KSP 1.8+
- Streamlining of training mechanics. Instead of training for individual parts, kerbals now train for part types (such as Mk1 Command Pod). The new system is more straightforward, intuitive and compact. All training-related UI has received an uplift.
- Training caps (based on the level of the Astrounaut Complex) have been nerfed. Training times have changed. Training at KSC and in flight now takes the same time.
- There is a new way to reduce Stress: it is now divided by the number of crewmates of the same profession on the vessel. For example, if you have one Pilot on the vessel with Stress taking 0.8 HP/day, you can add another Pilot to reduce Stress to 0.4 HP/day. Of course, you'll have to provide that other crew member with living space etc. But, in theory at least, you can now reduce Stress to tiny amounts if you are ready to have a large crew. It also gives you a gameplay reason to have multiple crew members of a specific profession.
- Tourists have a slightly different mechanic: their Stress is reduced by the number of professional crew members on the vessel. If the Tourist is alone, they experience 100% Stress; if there is 1 crew member, it falls to 50%, for 2 crew members, it falls to 33%, and so on.
- Exhaustion is now semi-random instead of automatic. When the crew member's health falls below 20%, they now have a chance of turning into a Tourist. The mean time to happen (MTTH) starts at 6 hours and reduces as health gets lower. So you probably have a few additional hours to evacuate your kerbal(s) before they give up work. Recovering after exhaustion works similarly when health goes avobe 20%.
- Connected factor (which gave you +0.5 HP/day for having a connection to home) has been replaced with Isolation (which takes away 0.5 HP/day for not having such a connection). All related bonuses were removed.
- Confinement factor was reduced from a base of -3 HP/day to -2 HP/day to compensate for the previous point.
- Many parts' Living Space has been updated (usually with slight nerfs) and Recuperation increased. SSPXr and some other mods now have Recuperation parts.
- Mod's settings have been overhauled: instead of setting manually each factor's HP per day, you now change their relative effects between 0 and 200%.
- A setting to allow Decontamination when not at KSC has been added (off by default) as well as a setting for minimum required health.
- Many other small and not-so-small changes and bug fixes.
A few words on updating Kerbal Health in an ongoing game. It is possible, and the mod will do its best to pick up your old settings (such as familiar part types from the old training system). But due to KSP's limitations and the nature of some updates, you should (1) check your settings, especially if you've tweaked them; (2) load all your manned vessels at least once to update their data. It is recommended that you return and recover all your kerbals before updating to ensure your vessels don't suddenly become unsuitable for the missions.
-
23 hours ago, Back0 said:
Hi, first I want to say great mod. I've really had great fun with it and it made me consider missions more carefully than before when a rescue mission can be done anytime I want.
But I have a question regarding the training mechanic. I saw that there is both TRAINED_PART which is for the crew module part and TRAINED_VESSEL. Does TRAINED_VESSEL matter in terms of stress reduction or is it just trained part?
Reason I ask is because I noticed that if I rename a vessel it starts tracking on a new altogether from zero. So if I have a Kerbal that has experience with a certain rocket, next time I launch him with the same rocket I have to keep the same name in order to keep TRAINED_VESSEL high without re-training .
Renaming the vessel shouldn't restart the training, in theory. But the old training system was bugged and confusing; this is why it will be replaced by a much more intuitive one in the next release. The vessel's name will only stay for UI and immersion purposes, all the training will be done for part types, not for individual vessels.
-
3 hours ago, panarchist said:
Did you check to make sure neither of them have a hatch? The Command Pod might. (it's not likely, but it would cause that behavior) On the parts I've looked at, I'm not seeing that behavior - but I didn't check the inflatable.
They don't as far as I can tell (from the part.cfg files at least). And the problem is apparently not in the stock Mk1-3 Pod, because I've tried attaching to different parts. If you attach a Hitchhiker instead, they are considered connected.
Maybe the problem is due to the parts being inflatable? By default, they have CrewCapacity = 0 and use a custom part module (ModuleDeployableHabitat) to change that. However, as seen on the screenshot, the part is recognized as a habitable, it just isn't getting connected to its neighbours.
-
Hi, I want to report an issue I encountered between CLS and SSPX. I don't know which side this problem is on, so I've reported it at the SSPX thread and here too.
The problem is, CLS doesn't recognize SSPX parts as passable even though they seem to be configured this way and the part info tip says they are passable. Here is an example screenshot: the two parts should form one CLS space, but they don't for some reason. The same thing happens to other SSPX parts and for both top and bottom nodes.
I've had a superficial look at the patch (provided by SSPX) and the part config and compared them to those that work correctly, and I don't see any obvious errors. Hope you'll have a moment to look at it.
I'm using KSP 1.12.2, CLS 2.0.1, SSPX 2.0.6.
[1.8+] Kerbal Health 1.6.8 (2024-01-22)
in KSP1 Mod Releases
Posted · Edited by garwel
This release marks 6 years since Kerbal Health, my first game mod ever, was published. It's been quite a ride! I want to thank everyone who enjoyed this mod, criticized it (in a civil manner), provided ideas and other feedback and especially helped with pull requests. With KSP2 around the corner, I don't know if I'm going to do any more significant releases of Kerbal Health, but I do plan to issue fixes and rebuilds when necessary.
Kerbal Health 1.6.4
Download here