CaribeanSoul

Ok, so first of all I've read all the KSPedia pages three or four times now so I'm aware of what they say. I very quickly switched to doing static test firings of the engines after the first couple of attempts at launching. Those test firings have been successful less than 10% of the time, meaning that more than 90% of them don't result in any increase in quality for the engine I am testing. If what I am seeing is how things are intended to work I would have to suggest that perhaps the SuperEasy setting could use some tweaking. Let's assume for the moment that since my sample size isn't very big that it's not really a 92% failure rate. Since the quality numbers max out at 100 I'll say for the sake of argument (since I don't know how it works behind the scenes) that a 35/100 quality part will launch or test without a failure 35% of the time. To get that part up to any kind of reasonable reliability is going to take hundreds of test firings for every engine I want to use. That's a lot of clicking around (especially if using KCT) ... not particularly engaging gameplay for me. Some people might want to do that and that's fine ... but please keep in mind that I have my settings set on "SuperEasy" and my SPH/VAB are levels 2/3 so I wouldn't classify my current game as "early on" in career mode. It's entirely possible that I'm just missing the point here. For a parts failure mod I'm just looking for something that is going to require me to build a certain amount of either redundancy or safety systems (LES) into my rockets and have failures happen just often enough to make me want to design for emergencies and to add a little spice to the game here and there. I'm not looking for something that's going to have me spending the vast majority of my time testing parts. If that is the intent here then I'll simply disable these features and move on, no worries. If not then I think some of the math needs some tweaking. EDIT: Thinking about it a bit I have the following suggestions. First include an option to get quality improvements from failed launches/tests as well as successful ones. In the real world a failure is just as likely (if not more so) to provide data leading to an increase in reliability. Secondly I would include a slider (perhaps 1-50) of how many quality points a test flight will add to a part. This way things can be set up so that I would need to run some tests on my parts before using them for a mission but that it would just be one step in designing (for instance) a booster rather than a long process. I could then use the maximum quality slider to tweak just how often I want the game to be throwing me a curve ball.

I didn't expect the frequency of failures I'm getting either. I have added this mid-save. I have a lvl 2 SPH, lvl 3 VAB, and lvl 3 astronaut complex. (My VAB and SPH have 7 levels each due to SETI and CustomBarnKit mods but Angel-125 says BARIS assumes 3 levels of each facility only.) I'm getting +5 from each facility and my crafts come out with 35/100 for each part. I've put BARIS on the easiest setting for quality checks and my engines still fail on almost every launch. I put the number of flights to increase quality to only one and have gotten the engines only to 36/100 because I've only had one flight without them failing. (Been using the same rocket.) I'm using KCT instead of vehicle integration but I tried removing KCT and the vehicle integration results in the same quality and reliability. Is this expected? Is this what everyone else is seeing? My install may be off because I started mid-career and I'm running around 170 mods so I'm just wanting to compare what I'm seeing in my game. I'm a bit concerned that this is happening on the easiest setting. Doing test firings for one point at a time to raise engine quality is going to be incredibly tedious. I'm fine if this is expected from the mod, I just want to make sure I don't have something messed up. If it is expected I might ask that the easiest setting for the checks possibly be more forgiving...? I like how this mod works and I've been wanting to add part failure to my game but I'd rather it be an occasional thing. BTW, Angel-125, thanks for the clarification on the KCT integration. Much clearer now.

Thanks for the answers. USI does have a huge set of parts so I can see that being a lot to do if you don't use them yourself. You'll have to forgive me though, because I seem to be a little slow on the uptake with this one. I'm not sure what patches would need to be made for BARIS to support USI parts. I haven't looked at the configs for the event cards because I wanted to be surprised so perhaps it's something in there? (Maybe you were referring to M.O.L.E instead of BARIS here but you already support USI-LS.) I can move any further questions to the BARIS thread if you like. I was asking in here because it was a followup to an ongoing discussion.

Nope @Angel-125, Could you expand on that? Is there specific issues with the USI mods or have you just not done anything in particular to ensure compatibility? This is great stuff btw. I have looked around at other mods that introduce part failures and such but have never been really happy with the other implementations. This one seems like it's going to be pretty much exactly what I've been looking for. One other question: If I'm using KCT, does building a craft in KCT have the same effect on part quality as taking the full amount of (without KCT) vehicle integration time? EDIT: One more question: I'm using CustomBarnKit to add additional levels to various facilities (using the SETI configs.) When calculating the bonus for the VAB/SPH facility level does it take into account the number or possible levels for the facility or does it assume it is the default three levels? EDIT2: And another, if using KCT do the "Workers cost money" or "Astronauts cost money" options have any effect? I'm assuming workers don't but astronauts isn't so obvious. If the astronauts cost money is there anywhere we can see the costs in the gui? (Assuming I'm using KCT so no gui in the VAB.)

Is there a way to add in 1.875m size categories through the config files? I've got several mods using that size now and it would be really cool to have the size there when searching for an adapter or something.

What's the word on using this with KRASH? I don't know what all this does behind the scenes but I can certainly imagine the potential for weird/confusing interactions with both running.

I have finally made the move to 1.2.2 (from 1.1.3) and in the course of investigating some performance issues I'm having I noticed that having KER installed drops my typical (40-50 parts, LKO) on-orbit FPS from 35-40 to 20-25. Is this performance hit normal? I've had KER installed since my first week of playing KSP, so I'm not sure if there was a performance difference in previous versions. Is anyone else seeing this? I have a somewhere around 100 mods installed so it's perfectly reasonable to assume this may be unique to my install. I just wanted to see if it's out of the ordinary before I spend too much time troubleshooting further. Thanks for any help or insights anyone can provide.

There is a typo in SXT/Patches/ModCompatibility/CCT/SXT-CCT.cfg file. Second part from the bottom: @PART[LMkIIAircaftTail]:NEEDS[CommunityTechTree] { @TechRequired = advConstructions } should be: @PART[LMkIIAircaftTail]:NEEDS[CommunityTechTree] { @TechRequired = advConstruction } It was driving me crazy. I use this part all the time but couldn't get it unlocked in a career save.

Thanks!

So is there a version that works well with 1.1.3? There was a link for a 1.1.x version earlier in this thread but it doesn't lead anywhere anymore.