CaribeanSoul

Ok ... I feel like an idiot. I am a a major space nerd. I grew up watching shuttle launches from my back yard. I've been a ham radio operator for 25 years. I have hundreds of hours playing KSP. I can't make heads or tails of these charts. I understand the distance scale on the left and the DSN levels but I don't get what the numbers in the middle are supposed to mean. Could someone help me out here?

I was wondering what was up with nano gauges. I'd never tried it until recently and uninstalled it after it appeared unreadable. Could this also be the cause of my mission flags appearing extremely pixelated now? "isMipmapGenEnabled = never" doesn't seem to have any effect on the flags either.

I've seen this happen on quite a few flags. They are mostly custom ones that I've used without issue in previous versions of the game. I think I've seen it on a vanilla game flag as well but I'm not 100% sure of that. The custom flags are all 256x160 png files. My mod list is huge. I'm not really asking for someone to diagnose this ... was mostly hoping for someone to say "Oh yeah, I've seen that before..." I'm just looking for a place to start. I'll try to post the mod list later anyway in case it sparks an idea. Mod list:

I have a heavily modded 1.4.3 install I set up recently. I haven't played since 1.3.1. I'm seeing a weird issue where my mission flags are all pixelated/low-res both on decals placed on ships and on the banners on the interior walls of the VAB and SPH. My google-fu seems to be failing me in finding a starting point in explaining this. Has anyone else seen this happening or know what the issue might be? EDIT: In case anyone wanders in looking for the answer to this: Texture Replacer Replaced is responsible for the pixelated flags. It's not intended behavior so you'll have to check out the thread for that mod for further info.

Just getting back to KSP after a break and working on a 1.4.3 install ... then I see this. Are you kidding me with this? This is insanely impressive. Have some coffee on me.

In the update just posted to spacedock there is a mistake in PartTweaks\KSP stock\Aero\wings\wingConnector2.cfg: resourceGui = LiquidFuel,Oxidizer;LiquidFuel;MonoPropellant resourceNames = LiquidFuel,Oxidizer;LiquidFuel;MonoPropellant resourceAmounts = 95;45,55;120 should be: resourceGui = LiquidFuel;LiquidFuel,Oxidizer;MonoPropellant resourceNames= LiquidFuel;LiquidFuel,Oxidizer;MonoPropellant resourceAmounts = 95;45,55;120 Could also have LFO as the first (default?) setup but either way the current version the names and gui lines don' t match the amounts line.

Humor removed. Won't happen again.

............

Well your google docs spreadsheet lists 73

linuxgurugamer is a god among modders and this mod is very good stuff. Squad should really be paying him under the table, if they aren't already.

I think a lot of people have been really hoping for a parts failure mod with the great features that Angel-125 has built in BARIS. Many of us probably have a vision of how OUR ultimate parts failure mod would work. I think that Angel's vision for how BARIS is supposed to work is just different than what some people had been searching for. Nothing wrong with that. A bunch of folks saw the amazing list of features and piled in here with different expectations for the mod than what Angel is building. Many of us were just looking for an improved and more feature-rich version of dang-it or kerbal launch failure but from what I've seen this is not what this mod is. BARIS is much more involved ... much more (forgive the term) invasive to our normal play styles. To use BARIS you have to make big changes to how you play a career in KSP. It's more than just designing redundancy in your crafts. I think people should have made a better effort to understand that and it also (in hindsight) could have been emphasized more when introducing the mod. I've not had time to play with the latest builds and the config files that have been added. It may very well be that there are enough options in there to create a config for this mod (a lite version, if you will) for people who just wanted to add a little danger without the shift in how you have to proceed through a career. If we want to use a mod in a way that is different than the author's vision then it's on us to play around with the provided config options and explore if it's possible. I don't think there's anything wrong with politely requesting additional configuration options and I think Angel's responded very well to that. The rest is up to the users to really dive in to those provided options and see if we can make the mod do what we want, or explore the author's vision of the mod to see if we would like that better. If we can't quite adapt the mod to our purpose, and it's a matter of a just providing a small config option then I think that's a good request ... it expands the usefulness of the mod and might be something Angel hadn't thought a user would want to change. But we should be careful about asking to fundamentally change the way the mod works without understanding what the author was trying to create. I'm as guilty as anyone with my initial expectations. I just didn't understand the full scope of the mod. I think I have a better idea now after closely following this thread. @Angel-125, I hope maybe you'll be able to see that many of us just didn't understand the intent of the mod and our feedback was meant to be helpful as many of use are super excited about this mod. I can see how getting a ton of excited feedback trying to push the mod away from your initial intent would be very frustrating and I apologize if I contributed to that frustration. You're doing really great stuff here. Your mods are absolutely essential to my KSP games. Really amazing work. I can't thank you enough for providing them to us. I wish you the best of luck in getting BARIS tweaked to be exactly what YOU want it to be.

So ... the "Manage Operations" button has disappeared from my MOLE parts. I haven't had a lot of time to play lately and when I have I've been doing "mod stuff" rather than launching any rockets. So I decided to just disable BARIS and continue with my bigby orbital workshop (sKylab) station. I went to do a final check of the craft before telling KCT to build it and noticed the "Manage Operations" option was gone from the menu. I confimed it was also happening in a sandbox save. I reinstalled the latest versions of MOLE and BARIS to make sure I hadn't messed something up. No dice. I did notice that I could get the manage operations option on my Blue Dog parts and the gui worked fine. I rolled back Pathfinder, MOLE, and Buffalo to pre-BARIS release and Manage Operations button reappeared. I'm an idiot though and didn't grab the logs before I rolled back to the old release. If I have some time tomorrow I'll put the latest release back and grab the logs ...

Perhaps the ability to flag a craft as interplanetary or interstellar (perhaps by the inclusion of some small part in the design) could cause the integration time to become considerably longer (and perhaps cost?) and then increase the MTBF for all parts to much higher values.

Well ... that part seems likely. I was hoping for an explanation of the math/mechanics behind that. Does it add a flat bonus to all quality check rolls? Does it check quality less often? Does it affect the max quality on parts? etc...

I think the addition of a config file is a great idea. Putting as many configurable values in there as possible would allow advanced users to tweak and test things without you going crazy adding all of that to various guis. Could someone, anyone, please tell me what the difficulty slider really does? The suspense is killing me...

I'm sorry if I missed it but did you ever explain how the difficulty slider changes the failure chances? (I looked for it in the wiki but didn't find anything.)

The price of progress...

Ok, I see it now. For some reason I have a mental block on github wikis where the pages list on the right has "Show x more pages" at the bottom. So check my understanding if you will for the following scenario: VAB/SPH both level 3 = +10 facility bonus Astronaut complex level 3 = +10 facility bonus Lvl 5 astronaut present with relevant skill = +10 bonus In this scenario a part with 70 quality should never fail until is starts to degrade after the MTBF expires ...? Will a critical fail always fail no matter what bonuses? Only thing I didn't see in there was how the difficulty slider affects the quality checks... maybe I missed it. On the price calculations ... how hard would it be to re-create the gui with the list of parts and their quality and add a small button for both science and funds with the prices next to them and do it by individual part? That way KCT users would have access to a list of parts and their quality and also solves the price calculation...?

Test Bench certainly provides a way for me to get what I want out of BARIS so thanks for that. I do have some feedback if you don't mind: With KCT installed the test bench window will tell me how many breakable parts I have that can be improved but I have no way of seeing what parts they are or what their current quality ratings are aside from clicking the button to improve them and trying to read the popup text really quick. If I have a vessel loaded that has only one breakable part the funds/science needed to increase the quality seem to be based on the total vessel cost rather than the part cost. For example I have a little rover that I use to gather science around the KSC that has a probe core on it. The probe core is the only breakable part. When I load the rover I have the option to increase the quality of the one part for ~33k funds. If I just have the probe core in the editor with no other parts the cost to increase quality is ~500 funds. It would be nice to have a way to see when I'm using test bench what the part qualities will be after vehicle integration. If I need to increase the quality of a part by quite a bit it becomes a little click-spammy. Obviously not a big deal but an option to do +5 (or a slider or something) would be a nice addition. Also, if you don't mind, would you some light on how the math works for the part checks vs. the quality ratings? And how the difficulty slider affects those checks?

Well it doesn't sound like it is working as intended for you. I'm not sure what to tell you to change. My first guess is that it doesn't think you've done vehicle integration and thus your terrible reliability number. Hopefully I'll have some time to play today and see if anything is amiss for me using KCT. All I can tell you for now is that I'm pretty sure that's not how things are supposed to go and you must have an install issue, a compatibility issue, or a bug.

Your screenshot shows the vessel reliability at 8 ... which is really bad. What level are your facilities at? I was getting pretty constant failures with everything at 35 so not surprising that 8 is failing badly. I can't really say any more than that though. I've not had any time to play with the last release.

This looks great. My budget has been a little tight but that's nothing a little tweak to the difficulty sliders won't fix. This will very likely resolve my issue. My only question is: will I be able to get to this gui with KCT installed? BTW: do you have a patreon? I've looked for it before but never seen a link. Your mods are an essential part of my Kerbal experience.

I'm using KCT so I don't have a vehicle integration window. I expected higher than 35 since when I added flight experience from the debug buttons the parts went to 95 on the existing craft ... and then I got 35 on new craft built after that. I can remove KCT and see what things look like in the VAB gui if that helps.

The 35 quality is what I was getting before adding the flight experience from the debug menu. After adding flight experience (to where the parts show 95/100 quality) when I build a new vehicle with the same parts they all show 35 quality again. The builds were started after the flight experience was added. I can provide logs if you want but l'm running ~170 mods so I may be having all manner of interactions. What I meant by flight-experience features is the need for parts to gain quality through flight experience (or other factors I guess.) I want parts to have the potential to break, especially during staging events. I was just hoping for a way to have that happen much less frequently without spending almost all of my time doing test fires and such. (I'm not sure if that'll be true for parts other than engines because I've not been able to launch anything with BARIS enabled as my engines fail every time even on SuperEasy.) My ideal scenario is this: I'd be fine doing 2-3 test fires of an engine to get it to an acceptable quality level. By acceptable I mean (for me) it needs to be no more than a 5% failure rate. Ideally more like 2-3% but you're using 5% increments in the settings so we'll go with 5%. For me that is enough to ensure that I build safety features into my crafts but any more than that and it's too frustrating for me to put expensive payloads or kerbals on that craft. The only way I can currently see to do this is to run in debug mode and add flight experience (or quality I guess) to each craft from the debug buttons every time I build something. (Which is why I brought up the menu clutter incurred from always running in debug mode.) Is it possible I can do anything with MM patches to get to what I'm looking for? So ... am I just way off from what you're trying to do here? If so, that is perfectly fine and I'll turn it off and stop with the feedback. I just got real excited when you released this but somewhat frustrated that I couldn't launch anything. I'm running a career with a fairly tight budget and I take losing kerbals very seriously. NASA won't human rate a vehicle unless a loss on ascent is expected no more than 1 in 500 launches. This is KSP though so 1 in 20 isn't so bad. The line in the save file for the event card issue did not change even after exiting my save (and therefore definitely having the game saved.)

I like the slider for parts gaining experience on failure. The more configurable the better I say. As for the part flight experience sutff: I only have one vehicle in orbit since installing BARIS so I went to that one and added flight experience. My part quality numbers went up rather quickly so that's good. I went back to the space center and built a new copy of that vehicle and rolled it out to the pad but found that the quality numbers were back to 35. So I added the flight experience again and recovered the vessel. Built another one and still found it to be 35. I can confirm that the no. of flights are going up in the save file: PartFlightLogNode { name = ROUND-8 Toroidal Fuel Tank flights = 90 } PartFlightLogNode { name = 48-7S "Spark" Liquid Fuel Engine flights = 30 } Does this have something to do with the fact that I am adding the experience in the flight scene rather than in the editor? I don't have access to the BARIS gui in the editor because I have KCT installed. Adding +5 to flight experience seems to add it for each copy of that part on the vehicle. For instance in the above vehicle I have one spark engine and 3 of the toroidal fuel tanks. Not sure if you intended that or not. I'm good with it either way. One other minor thing is that turning debug mode on to enable adding the flight experience really clutters up the BARIS gui and the part right-click menus so in that way something in the settings menu would be less invasive. In fact, due to this and KCT possibly adding complexity, I would be fine with just an option to turn the flight experience features off and just be able to use all the other excellent features of BARIS. Parts could just default to whatever the maximum quality slider is set to. I have so many parts mods installed that the thought of doing tests on all of them is a bit daunting anyway to be honest. Also: The static fire tip card is showing every time I enter a flight scene. The following line in my save file never gets updated: showedStaticFireTooltip = False