ashcanpete

Thanks for the reply! Just so I'm understanding correctly, I would need to install Rational Resources Companion in addition to the base Rational Resources to get surface water in the crust when using Kerbalism?

Sorry to dig this post back up, but I'm having a related problem where no water (extractable surface water in the crust) is showing up anywhere in the Kerbol system. I even used SCANSat to cheat resource maps of all bodies, and water isn't a resource on any of them. I see the same with a fresh save (same mods). I'm not asking for help troubleshooting my setup or looking at logs or anything at this point, I just have some simple questions: I see that kerbalism only includes configs for Ammonia and Nitrogen but not water. I don't think the stock game has drillable water, so without a config from a mod like kerbalism, does that mean CRP would just not put crust water in the game then? Is it possible harvestable resources are broken in kerbalism right now (as this post seems to indicate), or am I misunderstanding something about how resource configs work? Also, Arzielle, if you still have those configs you made, I'd be grateful if you would share them. I also was interested in Rational Resources but didn't want any of the ISRU changes. Thanks!

Hi, I'm loving Kerbalism but have a question about the 'incentivize redundancy' option. From what I read, the idea is that building redundancy into a system should be better than simply choosing the "high quality" part option for increased reliability. I got curious as the the specific numbers and in the code it seems that it works the following way: when one component fails in a redundancy group, the other components in that same group have the time until their next failure doubled. I gathered that from the following bit of code: if (m.redundancy == redundancy) { m.next += m.next - m.last; } and also the similar bit for unloaded vessels. So I actually modeled out this formula to try to get accurate reliability estimates for parts. However, I noticed that even with the incentivization bonus, redundancy isn't often the best option as far as I can tell. Here's some plots I made for an antenna component: As you can see, the high quality part is barely worse than double normal components for the short term, and better after about the MTBF is reached. Considering the weight savings of using the high quality parts (seems to only add 10% in this case), it seems that I would always chose high quality. If I needed really good reliability I'm guessing 2 high quality components beats 3x and 4x redundancy, but I didn't actually model that. Also, I should note I assumed single part failure times are calculated assuming a constant failure rate, so thus an exponentially decaying survival function i.e.: S(t) = e^(-t/MTBF). Is this how the option was intended? Also, perhaps have I missed something or misinterpreted the code? I really like the idea of needing redundancy, but right now it just doesn't seem worth it.

Sorry, I meant KSP 1.0.5, not 1.0.99, I misinterpreted what CKAN was telling me.

Hi, Thanks for all your work on this great mod. The accuracy is quite a bit off for me with the latest FAR (v0.15.5.4 'Hoerner') and the latest Trajectories. Even using a simple command pod and heat shield, the mod constantly overshoots my actual landing site (I land far short of the prediction). Once, I touch the atmosphere, i can watch the red cross drifting constantly shorter and shorter. I made sure to check the Retrograde box and I hold that AoA during reentry. I'm not sure if I'm doing something wrong, I can post an example ship if needed, but I have this issue on multiple very simple command pod setups. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Maybe I should also mention I'm using the latest KSP (1.0.99). I figured that since FAR is still controlling the aerodynamics, that shouldn't matter, but possibly I'm wrong.