Frostiken

Can I ask why you didn't just roll back Recall to BEFORE the VAB totally broke? What exactly was whatever catastrophically broke in Recall here?

I nominate the Soyuz capsules, the MEM, and the Escape Tower. The Soyuz capsules are so draggy they're useless and will flip your rocket 90% of the time, and the MEM is just overbuilt and too heavy for no actual reason. The Escape Tower could be fun if it were usable. Why don't the parachutes have a node on top to attach the tower?

Damn that's what I was afraid of. Indicator Lights is cute and cool. Poo.

Could anyone familiar with the guts of Kerbalism answer this?

What the hell is "Generator" and why is it draining 0.750/s?

Can someone explain the engine plate boattail design? I have no idea how to use it. It's a static-length, has weird little things that look like something is supposed to mount to it... is this only intended to be used at the bottom of a stack with nothing staged below it? What needs to be done to do this?

Can you tell me what lines you saw what you saw? Whenever I look through logs I see lots of errors but I know many of them can be ignored, and my log there is pretty huge. I gave a cursory look through and didn't see anything totally catastrophically outstanding. I don't think...

Pictures: https://drive.google.com/file/d/17baSHLj1ZSsL2orNMsQ-sei_CbKrJj9Z/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FunWfAuLtUp0O9NTXfQDJ_rM5KPFEWTf/view?usp=sharing Log: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fTNu6DTCjhWZZ0cRfqPJpiungD0Hl3NE/view?usp=sharing I'm really racking my brain on this one. For some reason my crafts have nodes just disappearing on the bottom of parts. The modes may work and allow me to place a few parts;... but then I try to drop a new part on the stock, but the bottommost part's node just disappears. I can put a new part in its place and it changes nothing. Then, I can even pull off old parts from the stock and suddenly nodes will stop working farther up the chain, that were working prior. In these example pictures, the decoupler on the ship actually had a fuel tank originally on it... when I pulled off the tank, the node it was originally coupled to just totally disappeared.

Are you using the EVA Enhanced mod?

I've noticed that the electric drain for the 1.875 SAS module is off. It's set to 0.675 / s with 22.5 kN torque, however, the 2.5m stock SAS module is set to 0.600 / s with 30 kN torque. Doesn't seem right. 0.625 = 0.05 EC/kN. 1.25 = 0.03 EC/kN. 1.875 = 0.03 EC/kN. 2.5 = 0.02 EC/kN. I'd say 1.875 should be refactored at 0.025 EC/kN giving it an electric drain of 0.5625 EC/kN.

What are thoughts on how to change the Wheel-O-Decoutrons (god I HATE THAT NAME CAN WE CHANGE IT PLEASE)? Right now they're a decoupler + a SAS module, the strength of which seems to vary. Some are half strength, some are full strength, relative to their associated SAS part. The cost and mass is identical to just a decoupler. Power drain is less (this could be a result of vanilla patches). I was thinking to baseline them a half SAS power relative to their size, increase the power drain, increase the costs considerably, but I don't know what to do about mass. (SAS+Decoupler)* 0.8? So it would be lighter than a decoupler + SAS module, in a smaller form factor, but it's a much less efficient module overall. More wasted power for less SAS strength. But it's compact, so there you go. EDIT: Here's the ACD parts. Check the comments, there is an issue with the 0.1875m Restock part. I took some liberties on that one. Also, again - I don't have an 1.5m parts to compare to. So I'm just setting it to be identical to 1.25m for now.

I finally found some time to play and yeah, I don't know how I missed the US2 decouplers.

I wasn't sure if I really wanted to tackle modding the parts directly, since LGG is maintaining this baby, for now, I wanted the patch to be at least something people could drop into the game right now and fool around with. If this turns into an overall 'Yeah this is kind of broken' (which we both are in agreement many things are pretty broken, and we both found some actual bugs while fixing this) thing that should be part of the core experience, then hell yeah. But for now since that's going to be down the line a bit, for now I just wanted my current game experience to be a bit more enticing with US2. US2 *is* generally less space efficient since you are limited to n parts per cake layer, one of the reasons I wanted to slash the weight of the cores and fairings was to not make people feel punished. Except for fuel tanks, you can fit almost everything into a 1.25m service bay that would take two or more layers of US2 cake to fit. I mean, hell, a fuel cell alone is three wedges.

USSolarSwitch.cs is for the toggle that goes onto the Soyuz and 1500 cylindrical shroud. They shouldn't be factored into the base mass, because you can turn them off at your leisure. There is a hook in it for increasing the cost of the part - consummate to the dimensions of the panel it adds - which works fine. However, you can't make it increase the mass because the code to do so doesn't exist in the module. Since the solar panels are toggled via a tweakable button and not a "mode" like the fairing length, it's its own thing and is handled differently. PS: Just doing that little patch was a lot of work. How do you handle this for the 8,523 mods you maintain? You're a legend.

So I'm going to "publish" my rebalance. It's not done, but it at least met the minimum of items I need it to meet. Hopefully someone else can chip in a bit on it to fix some other issues that are known or tackle some of the stuff below. WHAT IT DOES: - Significantly reduces the weights of most shrouds and cores. In general, the quad, hex, and octo cores are designed to be balanced in equivalence to what a full-sized LFO or Mono tank would cost for the same size. So for example, a quad core with 4x LFO tanks is the same dimensions as an FL-12-100 tank, so the fuel capacity was changed to match. For Hex and Octo cores, to make up the difference, the center tank was overfilled to match. There is still a weight penalty for US2, but it's nowhere near as severe as it used to be. You're still better off with a regular tank if that's what you're doing. Keep in mind for tanks like the 2.5m size, a single layer of US2 is actually half the size of the smallest 2.5m tank, so you need two stacks to match. - Radial tank had Nitrogen added for Kerbalism. LFO dry mass greatly reduced. - The 'bulkhead' and 'toroidal' fuel quantities and dry masses of the Vostok, Soyuz, and brown cylinder shroud are ENORMOUSLY slashed. The weight penalty was so extreme, you'd sometimes lose delta-V just for adding them! - Cost increased for adding solar panels to shrouds that have them, with a 10% penalty on top of it to boot. - US2 'probe' cores adjusted to be closer to the Octo and Octo2 cores which is their equivalence. Kerbalism data storage rates adjusted as well. - For Kerbalism, the goo and material bay weights were halved. They were double because in vanilla, they have two experiments in one, but for Kerbalism this advantage doesn't exist, so their weight was reduced to compensate. - Data storage wedge now has data storage for Kerbalism. - Part of this fixed a few odd bugs, ie: the octo core Xenon filler had such broken costs that if you drained the Xenon completely, the cost went into the negative. WHAT IT DOES NOT DO: - For the most part, the adapter-type shrouds are unchanged. The weights were pretty competitive with the existing stock adapters. - Life support systems are not balanced for anything but Kerbalism. I don't use anything but Kerbalism. Feel free to upgrade this patch if you use some other alternative config. This patch right now is mostly just for me. - The Alkaline generator and Fuel Cell generator are basically the same part if you use Kerbalism, because the mode of operation is the same. I can't think of any function to add to differentiate them, so they're unchanged. - Monoprop wedges are unchanged. Believe it or not they were actually perfectly balanced as-is. - Someone informed me that the heat resistance of parts is off. This may need to be looked at. - Wheel-o-decoutrons probably need to be fixed as well. WHAT I WANT IT TO DO: - The USAdaptorShroud1250Soyuz is BUGGED. If you extend the length of the shroud, the weight doesn't change. What I need to do is pull the code over from the Vostok tank, however, I cannot get Module Manager to do what I want. You can see a huge chunk of commented-out code. Maybe someone can make it work? I'm not very good at this kind of stuff. The code kind of sort of works, but it exhibits some anomalous behavior that is incorrect, like it's referencing things in the wrong order. Someone can probably sort this out. - The 1.5m Pentacore is NOT CHANGED. I have no idea what parts are 1.5m fuel tanks, so I have no comparison. I got one mod pack with a 1.5m tank but the density of the tank was so low it made no sense to me. Maybe someone wants to take a swing and see how they feel about it? At any rate, the LFO wedges have more fuel so maybe it'll be good enough as-is. - The balance for the oxygen tanks is not fair for Kerbalism compared to the Kerbalism radial oxygen tanks. I don't know what to do here. Technically a quad-height oxygen tank is the same dimensions of the biggest radial Kerbalism tank, but if I scaled it to that, you have way too much oxygen at the smallest size. The fault is in the Kerbalism tanks. So I changed nothing. WHAT I CAN'T DO: - It was my desire to add Geiger Counter experiment to the atmospheric test module but Kerbalism is locked down pretty hard on custom experiment modules (ie: I wanted to keep it having only two experiments, but you can switch between the three (geiger, atmo, temp). - I really want the solar panels added to the parts to have weight, unfortunately USSolarSwitch.cs does not have a hook for 'AddedMass'. Could someone who is better with C (I only barely know enough to kind of read some stuff) recompile the .dlls? Or add this to Github? I honestly don't know anything about Github and Pull Requests or anything. I know enough to see what the problem is, but I don't want to edit any core files. At any rate, I feel like less of a freeloading boob, having gotten the ball rolling on this instead of just asking for @linuxgurugamerto do all the work Code is below.

That's why I'm just making my own patch completely. It's up to you if you want to include it or not. Everything in US2 is still a *bit* heavier than the equivalent stock tank dimensions, but it's usually within about 10% penalty, and the gap tends to shrink if you opt for quad-sized stacks. Most of the weight is still around the tanks, not the fairings and cores, so going without fairings doesn't really help you all that much. So far I've finished up the 1.25m and the 1.875m stuff. It was at this point I realized there actually are not Xenon wedge tanks. I need to do the 2.5m 8-core stuff, and I still need to figure out the 1.5m, and check all the other US2 gizmos to standardize them. I don't use any 1.5m mods and I have no idea what does, so I don't know how to balance the 1.5m stuff. Maybe someone else can help me out on that one? The patch won't be totally complete, if you want it compatible with other life support systems someone will have to do it themselves. I use Kerbalism and that's all I'm orienting this around. At any rate, I've found a lot of stuff in US2 that makes even less sense than I originally thought. The 1.875m fuelable fairings (really, the 1.5m fairing it was scaled up from) has a bug with the masses based on how you toggle things, but this was apparently a known issue documented in the part itself. At any rate, for example, the old 'bulkhead' fairing carried only 176/215 LFO and had a wet mass of a whopping 5 tons! I've changed the scaling of the fuel it contains to be roughly similar to an FL-18-220+FL-18-440 as they're roughly the same dimensions as the bulkhead fuel tank. So now the part holds 270/330 LFO (up from 176/215, which was criminally underfueled given the size of the tank) and the fairing+tank has a wet mass of 3.445T, a dry mass of 0.445T which is basically the dry mass of standard fuel tanks, plus the quad-length fairing. Again, following my logic, you're better off with the FL tanks instead of the payload bay, but it's a gentle penalty that shouldn't be insurmountable to the player, unlike the old dimensions and sizes, which immediately would raise a red flag. I also found another bug - the Octo Xenon core costs vastly less than the fuel it contains, so if you drain the part, you get negative money!

I'm not disagreeing that balancing the US2 tanks to be more competitive will require density/volume cheating, but so what? The Oscar-B is a vanilla fuel tank that is pure cheat, and the radial monoprop tanks make absolutely zero sense and the "middle" Roundified monoprop tank is by far the worst. However, if you compare them to the US2 wedges, they're vastly better than the Minified and Roundified, but are *maybe* competitive with the cylindrical, except their density is very much cheated. The single-stack US2 monoprop is smaller than the Minified monoprop tank, but it holds more than three times as much monoprop. Point is, who cares? The game should be usable first and foremost, and just because @Daishi makes adorable models doesn't mean the gameplay should suffer. Right now, outside of equipment (and even that's arguable), there honestly isn't any reason to use US2 parts except for aesthetics. What a US2 fuel stack is doing is basically just 'building' a regular fuel tank piece by piece. The final size is basically the same as the monobody stock fuel tanks, so what is the harm? And no matter how you slice it, the built-in fairing and core fuel tanks are 100% indefensible. The dry masses are staggeringly unfair.

@linuxgurugamer - I found an easily repeatable bug which... may have been around in US2 since forever. I believe it's related to the USMassSwitch and USCostSwitch module. You can duplicate this in five seconds. 1) Drop a quad-core or a fairing that uses USMassSwitch and USCostSwitch . Change it to something besides 'single'. Note the mass and cost of the craft. 2) Click a part like the wedge fuel tank from the parts menu, or clone an existing tank, and watch the mass and cost. The core or fairing should immediately drop to the level of a 'single' height. Changing the height no longer changes the mass. This appears to be permanent - the bug persists even through launching and recovering. 3) This doesn't seem to happen if you have the tanks plopped into the editor before you place the core or fairing, unless you clone the parts. NOTE: - This only happens with wedge modules that can be stretched. Static wedges like the combo food pack do not reset the stats. - This only happens on fairings and cores that use USMassSwitch and USCostSwitch, that is, only those that don't have upgradable fuel tanks. So only the quad-core stack, but not any of the others, as they use a different module. This is unrelated to my patch, as I've removed it for testing. The ONLY mod I have installed in US2 (and ModuleManager, of course).

Here is the beginning of a US2 rebalance patch. It definitely is not working properly but it's probably just MM syntax because I don't really know what I'm doing. I don't think the Module overwrites are happening properly. What this does: - Halves the weight of the goo and material bays if you use Kerbalism, because the double experiment feature is worthless there. - Adds Nitrogen to the radial tank (no custom skin, sorry) for Kerbalism. Also, I took a stab at rebalancing the weight of the radial tank. For the gasses, it should be balanced to fit in right between the small Kerbalism radial tank and the medium Kerbalism radial tank. - I created an Excel sheet to help me pick a balance. It's attached below, though it's not pretty. Right now I'm focusing on LFO tanks. What I did was load in all the values of the stock tanks, program in the fuel math, and then made it so I can play with the values. One of the tabs is for a 'calculator', an ugly page where you can pick the parts you want to build a US2 fuel core out of, and then compare it to a stock tank, and then see what the difference is. With the patch changes below, I can confirm that US2 quad-core tanks are NOW BALANCED. The capacity of the wedge tanks was increased as was the mass, while the mass and cost of the core and fairings was dropped SIGNIFICANTLY. There is a minor (3%ish) weight penalty for using US2, and a pricetag penalty that does get less steep if you build a bigger tank, but at the end of the day, the FL-125 series of tanks compared to a US2-built stack around a quad-core, are close enough that you won't feel like you're being robbed. I also fixed the LF/O ratio bug. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1OmzjBWhpDwJ0kKtXEXS3smAwyP9Qt9I1/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=100917613268634610249&rtpof=true&sd=true Can anyone lend a hand? My fairings are still going off of the default weight, instead of my 0.008 mass changes that are in the patch below.

Since we're talking about mod compatability oddity, Universal Storage 2 could use a bit of attention. 1) There's some new experimental parts that have no Kerbalism configs set up. 2) The radial goo and material experiments weigh twice as much as the regular parts because by default they're supposed to have double experiment capacity (ie: like carrying two goo units in one). This doesn't translate to Kerbalism. The simplest fix is to just halve the weight and return them to standard experiments.

Both of these components contain two experiment modules, so they're like two Goo Samplers in one, though you are correct that a toggle to remove one unit to bring the mass back down would be a nice feature. For Kerbalism these components don't even seem to get the benefit of extra experiment capacity. So I think the easiest way to fix the balance with the least amount of work would be this: 1) Severely cut the weight of dry cores and fairings. The weight should be in the modules. As long as you have weighted cores and fairings, doing something like slapping a wedge goo on is just going to punish the player, when they could just use a regular radial goo without the slots, and save themselves a ton of wasted weight. 2) Increase the fuel quantity of the fuel wedges to 11.25L. Now, a 4-core single-stack US2 fuel tank will hold exactly the same amount of fuel as the FL-12-100 tank. With just the radial wedges, your dry mass should be 56kg, vs. 63kg for the dry FL-12-100. If you really crank the weight of the cores and fairings down (6kg / height for each?), you could make up that weight difference (if US2 is very slightly less efficient, that's okay, US2 is more flexible and maybe there should be a tiny tradeoff) and the assembled tank would be 56kg + 6kg core + 6kg fairing = 68kg, making the FL-12-100 more efficient, but only just. 3) For 'tank' cores (and fairings like the Vostok), expand the amount of resources that they carry to "fill the gaps" to make an assembled core competitive with a full-sized tank. This will unfortunately require 'cheating' on the density. ie: if you wanted to recreate an FL-25-800 (the squat 2.5m tank) you would use a double-stack 2.5m 8-bay core and tank assembly. However, the US2 model only carries up to 260/312 LFO with as much fuel as you can put in, vs. 360/440 LFO. We need to find an extra 100 LF. If we increase the fuel of the fuel wedges as mentioned above, you're now carrying 180 LF. The current 8-core fuel tank holds 50 LF/height, so with a double-height (again, we're trying to match the dimensions of the equivalent 2.5m tank), just shove an extra 80 LF in there. It is density cheating (the actual tank part matches the dimensions of the FL-12-200, which holds 90 LF, so we're basically doubling the tank density here, sorry). Fix the dry mass. I can only assume that the dry mass of the 'core/fairing' tanks are broken because of a bug, as the weights are PSYCHO. The current 8-core double-height fuel tank has a dry mass of 0.826T, but if you replace the tank with a crew tunnel, the whole core assembly is only 0.200T. Since this core currently matches the FL-12-200, the dry mass should be around 0.125T! We're being punished 0.700T just for using US2! 4) The surface-attachable radial tank's LFO has the same broken dry mass. Way too heavy for way too little fuel. It's fine to have a little penalty for radial attachment, but this is too much. Currently the dry mass is a whopping 0.05T for the LFO radial tank. Compare to the Oscar-A from Restock, which carries the same amount of LFO, with a dry mass of 0.004T. Again, I almost think these dry masses are bugged. 5) Adjust Kerbalism configs. Radial tanks are too low-density for the oxygen/hydrogen resources compared to the size of the model. Also, Kerbalism removes the value of the "double" science in the Goo and Material bays, so you're wasting weight. Halve the weights and return them to just regular Goo/Material experiments, or apply a patch to make them more powerful with more internal slots or something. Funny enough, the monoprop wedges are already perfectly balanced, with a 4x wedge having the same capacity, weight, and almost the cost as the 1.25m squat RCS tank. Except for the excessive weight of the fairing and core, of course. I think doing this would be the easiest way to fix the mod's balance with the least amount of edits. I have no idea how to write MM patches, but at the very least I have the capability to build a spreadsheet of info with what should be adjusted. UPDATE: Funny enough I found a minor bug with the LFO ratios, the player is being slightly cheated. A single LFO wedge is 10L/12O. However, the correct ratio should be 10L/12.22O. For a single wedge, that's probably not going to be noticed, but if you were do a 4x quad-stack of LFO, you would have 160L/192O. But in order to burn at 100%, the quantities should be 160L/195O.

I'm so glad to see this mod finally getting finalized. I would like to ask for one thing - a balancing pass on mass. Most of the US2 parts are *heavy*. VERY VERY heavy. As a basic example is the simple 1.875m fairing. The KSP Making History 1.875 service bay weighs 150kg, while a double-height 1.875 US2 fairing clocks in at 179kg - and that doesn't even include a further 150kg for the core while the "core" of the MH service bay is already built in. A basic 4-core+fairing 'fuel tank' configuration holds 40/48 LF/O and tips the scales at 596kg, while the FL-12-100, the first LFO tank available, is 45/55 and only weighs 563kg. Adjusting the fuel volume down to match the US2 configuration (same footprint) it weighs 502kg. Okay, yes, logically you have a lot more 'metal' in the US2 core configuration, but KSP isn't really about that when it comes to other parts, even in other mods, for the most part everything tries to maintain a sense of scale except for very special parts with unique properties. If that is the argument, it's not even consistent. The humble US2 Monoprop tank has the exact same weight ratios as the standard radial monoprop tank, albeit in a slightly smaller form factor, but you still need the weight of the core (fairings are technically optional, I suppose). I don't know, options just feel a little unfairly hobbled when it comes to some US2 parts that limits my creativity a bit, because why use radial fuel cans to power a probe when even a non-cheat Oscar-B tank provides an immense weight savings? I may eventually begin tinkering with my own balancing pass. As-is some of the really heavy US2 items are kind of a result of unknown decision-making that doesn't add much enhancement, only limitations. Even if we want to keep the overall efficiency a little 'less', there's still some pretty overboard weight penalties, like the weight of the cores and fairings themselves were never factored into the balance. In the case of the 4-core LFO, the fairing alone adds a whopping 50kg, which is alone a 10% overhead over the standard FL-100, and the core is another 50kg. I go from a delta-V, with a spark engine, of 3674m/s down to 3254m/s for a 4-LFO US2 configuration WITHOUT the fairing. The exact same volume of fuel. The exact same dimensional footprint. There's absolutely no advantages to using US2 like this. But I'm losing 425 delta-v! That's an enormous difference. The 'fuelable' fairings like the Soyuz are utterly TERRIBLE if you use the fuel options, with the weight skyrocketing for almost no gain at all. You were basically worse-off using them in every regard. I made US2 landers using some of them, and then would make a stock lander with identical capabilities, but the stock lander was vastly more efficient. The Vostok fairing in the 'structural' configuration goes from 100kg to 445kg, just to add 40 units of Monoprop! Slapping on two radial monoprop tanks gives me 40 units, but at only 300kg. God help you if you use the LFO - you get 40/48 but your weight is a whopping 1046 kg! That's insane! An FL-12-200 tank takes me to 1,225 but my delta-V efficiency is increased FOUR FOLD.

Hey, sorry for not getting back to you, I had a second support channel through GU I closed but forgot about this one. The issue was 100% mine, GU's downloadable files really screwed with the file structure kind of making an unnecessary workload to install it correctly. I had things out of order. Sorry for wasting your time!

Can I suggest that some of the aero tree be reorganized a bit when it comes to the ducted fans, blades, and motors to use them? Right now the Tier-5 node gives you a micro duct, but a medium fan blade that, even if you had a motor, doesn't fit in that duct housing. Tier-6 Advanced Aerodynamics gives you the micro ducted blade (for the duct you unlocked at Tier-5) and the medium duct (for the duct blade you unlocked at Tier-5). Additionally, the rotor engine you need to even use this is in a completely separate tech tree for not really any good reasons, under Tier-6 Advanced Landing. The ducts, blades, and rotors should be matched a bit better so you can actually *use* them when you unlock them. Instead, even if you just matched the medium or micro ducts/blades in Tier-5, they're 100% unusable until the Tier-6 rotor is unlocked.

Using GU 1.2 with OPM and MPE, I get the following infinite loop of errors in my KSP.log. Simply removing GU fixes this. It looks like it's not enjoying a second star?