Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by kerbnub

  1. This actually seems to break something for crew modules that only have 1 option, making it so the slots can't be swapped out like this : I can't figure out why this happens, so I just made the patch apply to parts that have only both RDU and TV module options. @PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[Sickbay]:HAS[#title[TV]],@MODULE[Sickbay]:HAS[#title[RDU]]]:FINAL { @MODULE[Configure]:HAS[#title[Sickbay?Modules]] { @slots = 2 } } As usual I have very little confidence in my MM skills but it seems to work properly. The last thing I couldn't figure out is how to prevent the game from allowing 2 RDUs or 2 TVs on one part. Not a huge deal since I can just not use 2.
  2. Ahh, thanks again. I should have caught that, but after spending like an hour on it originally, was prepared to believe it was just cursed....
  3. Appreciate the reply but that one doesn't work either >.<
  4. I didn't like that the 3.18 change (Fix #851) made it impossible to have both RDU and TV on the same part, as was previously the case, so I wanted to increase the number of configure slots to 2. I tried the following MM patches (and tried messing with the filter too ) but couldn't get it to work. I can't seem to get my MM patches to work half the time anyway. I ended up just directly editing the slots in the original sickbay.cfg in GameData\KerbalismConfig\System Just posting this in case anyone might want to do the same or knows why patches didn't work. // Increases the number of sickbay slots from 1 to 2 so you can have both RDU and TV @PART[*]:HAS[#AddConfigurableSickbay]:Needs[Kerbalism]:FINAL { -MODULE[Configure] MODULE { name = Configure title = Sickbay Modules slots = 2 //1 SETUP { name = None desc = Empty slot for mass and cost savings. } } } // Increases the number of sickbay slots from 1 to 2 so you can have both RDU and TV @PART[*]:HAS[#AddConfigurableSickbay]:Needs[Kerbalism]:FINAL { @MODULE[Configure] { @slots = 2 //1 } }
  5. Is it possible to have only the scatters without the terrain tessellation, or are they tied together? I'd like to disable everything except Kerbin's trees.
  6. They celebrate by having a wholesome meal at home with family....... What did you expect, they're not animals! Everyone needs a break from chaos and near death.
  7. My favorite thing about Kerbalism is probably the science rework. Is there anything else that does science similarly? I like pretty much everything about it really, not sure how I could play without it. Sure, there are other mods for LS and part failures, but none as in depth as Kerbalism, and they don't have persistent simulation for unloaded vessels as well afaik. Ironically I probably have the most problem with radiation. I love the belts, but feel like there should be a better way to handle solar storms especially on planetary bases and rovers, where you would basically have to make a hugely impractical protective belt or abuse some part clipping to shield it properly. Imo, crewed parts should have radiation exposure calculated individually, and only those parts occupied with kerbals should be calculated during a storm, so you can have them in a sheltered area while also having a greater living area otherwise that's less shielded. And I sometimes get weird spikes of radiation, even with properly oriented vessels. Also the RDU feels kind of out of place. I don't think there are any actual real solutions to radiation yet, but it feels kind of like a magic wand just to make interstellar travel feasible without even more ridiculously large vessels.
  8. No it wouldn't. It would just be a a different, lesser cost, but it's still finite and a mass penalty, while malfunctions really aren't. I'd say it's arguable which one is more realistic to expect by the time we're actually doing interplanetary missions, in a time where I'd expect 3d printers to be much more advanced. The main reason I want it though is for station or other infrastructure maintenance. With EVA construction, you can literally bring spares and replace broken parts, but that can be cumbersome to impossible if the broken part is deeper in the craft's part tree. I had some fun designing with this in mind at first, making sure parts like chemical plants or reaction wheels or engines are node attached with no child parts, where they could be seamlessly swapped, as I can imagine this being a design consideration/constraint IRL as well, but this leads to higher part counts in making sure I have enough attach nodes. It also gets silly with crewed modules' LS systems, where I would have to use external ECLSS modules to continue this. I would happily do this if high part counts didn't tank performance, but they do, and my save is starting to drag. So I'd rather abstract it out into repair kits. Maybe kerbalism just isn't compatible with the "space program" style of gameplay. I'm not sure how things will work when I go to Jool, let alone Nara (outermost planet in JNSQ).
  9. Well I really wanted all of Kerbalism's functionality too in terms of tracking, MTBF, radiation, etc. What does it take to edit and rebuild a dll?
  10. BTW, does anyone know how hard it would be to make permanent failures repairable with the stock repair kits? Would this be something doable with a MM patch?
  11. It sucks on the part count end, I just ended up using a bunch of chemical plants instead. Doing the math, they're strangely much much more efficient than the convert-o-tron 125 anyway (haven't unlocked the big one yet). The convert-o-tron 125 is 31.25 times the mass of the chemical plant (1.25t vs 0.04 t) but only runs processes at 18.12 times the rate, AND the chemical plants get 3 slots vs 2 for the convert-o-tron, so it's really more like 12 times the rate, if your processes are distributed well. Sheesh.
  12. Oh well, thanks anyhow. The liquification isn't really the problem; it's the 2:1 hydrogen: oxygen production ratio from electrolysis vs the 1:1 hydrogen:oxygen consumption ratio from anthraquinone. With just those two processes running, oxygen is depleted. I also tried running more liquification to push the H2:O2 consumption ratio higher than 2:1, but it just prioritized the anthraquinone and drained my O2 anyway. Even if I figure that out, I'll have the problem of draining water. I'm also playing with lower resource abundance, so having greater raw production than consumption isn't really an option, unless I use a bunch of small chemical plants in place of the stock ISRUs.. I'll try that. I think the easiest and most flexible addition to Kerbalism would be to have a way to lower any converter process rate by some percent; that way one could always ensure some surplus of whatever you want. Trying to balance ratio with raw capacity is strangely crude compared to everything else Kerbalism does.
  13. I should have probably specified that I'm using LH2 + oxidizer fuels from cryoengines and kerbal atomics, so I'm only mining water, running electrolysis, H2 liquefication (H2-->LH2), and anthraquinone (O2+H2-->oxidizer) processes, so there is no CO2 requirement. Electrolysis outputs double the H2 as O2, and anthraquinone consumes them at an equal rate, so O2 always is depleted.
  14. Is there a way to have a crewed craft running drills and ISRU processes that also use water and oxygen (like electrolysis and anthraquinone) not kill the kerbals? The drills produce far more than the kerbals need, but the ISRU processes use water and O2 faster than the drills produce it, so if I turn both on, the kerbals end up dying. It should be in theory possible to save some for the kerbals use the rest for the ISRU (and I could turn the ISRU on and off to accomplish this), but there seems to be no practical way to lower the ISRU production rate to accomplish this. Also, why does the splitter (water) process work so much faster than electrolysis?
  15. Awesome mod! I was going to ask why the recycler doesn't conserve mass, as I was seeing the mass numbers in KER mass tick up when I recycle a part, but I've realized that it instantly deletes the recycled part (and thus its mass) before gradually adding the recycled ore, and I was missing that first part. It looks weird, but you do always end up with less mass than you started with. I'll just leave this in case anyone else is easily confused Is there any way to edit the speed of production through the configs?
  16. I have a weird one here. When I rightclick on a DaMichel Cargo Bay part, my PAW shows up corrupted as seen in the screenshot below (mid left side). I can't do anything to it but close it by clicking elsewhere, and then after that, I can't bring up any other PAW from clicking on that part or any other parts until I exit and reload the scene. This only happens in the VAB or SPH, I can bring up the window in flight without issues. This also only seems to happen in career saves in my heavily modded install. It works fine in sandbox. Anyone seen anything like this? This is the log after right clicking: [snip]
  17. Are they mod parts? The code you linked should cover it, unless something else is overwriting them afterward. I recently changed some of my burn durations/number of ignitions for mod parts with a patch very similar to what you linked. It uses FINAL to make sure it comes last. Maybe not the most context smart, but it works. @PART[M2X_Pluto|M3X_NuclearJet|M3X_Hades|M2X_AtomicJet|kare_eng_ntj_mk2|kare_eng_ntj_s1a|kare_eng_ntj_s1b|kare_eng_ntj_s2]:Final { @MODULE[Reliability] { @rated_operation_duration = 3600 //1 hour @rated_ignitions = 0 //infinite } } Just replace the engines/durations which whatever you need.
  18. Until someone does, if Kerbalism is still being developed, this mod automatically adds inventory configs to anything that's missing them. EDIT: I'm an idiot and was testing inside Kerbin's magnetosphere . Radiation works as the post describes and does update in real time based on orientation. On a totally different note, does anyone know why I seem not to be getting any radiation from CME's? I've seen the post linked below on how to shield against them, but in trying to test myself, I'm not seeing any difference in habitat radiation based on ship orientation, and it seems like either I'm getting either an irrelevant amount of radiation or no radiation during the storm in the image, even on a lone unshielded kerbal. So: 1. Are storms broken or inconsistent? 2. Does the habitat radiation display update in real time based on your craft's orientation? For example, showing tons of radiaton if there's nothing shielding the crewed parts, and less radiation if you turn it such that it's shielded?
  19. This is actually what I had been doing before, not realizing you had to select someone. It did nothing, which makes sense. Having used it properly now, I'm rather surprised. It seems OP enough to remove the need for any shielding, kind of out of place in Kerbalism.
  20. Holy excrements, this must be it! I've always used an mk1 pod as a command pod because it had the lowest mass with max shielding... And I thought 30.3 kPa was the normal pressure (all other parts were pressurized). I have to say I love kerbalism, but there are many unintuitive things and so much important undocumented information like this. With this missing piece of information, the way the stress system works sounds perfect to me. Does the TV effect only apply to kerbals in the pod with the TV, btw? Or the whole ship? And the RDU looked like it can clean everyone in it. Does it, or if you have it active on multiple kerbals, what does it do? Know of any other commonly misunderstood things in Kerbalism, lol? Thank you so much!
  21. Is it possible to have a crew that doesn't break down periodically, say for a 20 year mission? Is it possible to be in a situation while assigned where their stress actually decreases? I've been testing in JNSQ (where years are 1.7x longer than stock) in a large ship with all the comforts, putting them in a hitchhiker with TV, and even my best kerbal so far can't make it 2 years before the first breakdown, with breakdowns less than every year after, which is not sustainable with multiple crew. It seems like an active shield solves radiation problems for the most part, but stress breakdowns seem to be a pretty hard limit in the default configs. Also random question, but what does the RDU do?
  22. I'll continue chugging along my heavily modded career game for the foreseeable future, as KSP2 can't possibly match its features anywhere near release. I wouldn't be surprised if I don't touch 2 until a year after release, as so many modded things (mainly larger scale and FAR) have become must haves for me. And I'm still waiting to see if they deliver on significant performance improvements.
  23. Thank you for the reply, but the issue was that the missing things are not parts, but experiments and upgrades from Kerbalism and automation functions from MechJeb. I eventually found that I only need fieldScience restored and figured it out. I added it back in as a 1 research point branch from Scanning Tech, which it had been merged into. Here's the cfg if anyone else might want it. //Adds fieldScience node back, needed either for kerbalism or MechJeb RoverAutopilot @TechTree:NEEDS[CommunityTechTree,zzzUnKerballedStart]:AFTER[zzzUnKerballedStart] { RDNode { id = fieldScience title = #autoLOC_501098 //#autoLOC_501098 = Field Science description = #autoLOC_501099 //#autoLOC_501099 = Freedom to roam as far as curiosity will take you, or as long as batteries last. cost = 1 hideEmpty = False nodeName = node6_fieldScience anyToUnlock = True icon = RDicon_science-field pos = -2600,962.5,0 scale = 0.6 Parent { parentID = scienceTech //AKA ScanningTech lineFrom = TOP lineTo = BOTTOM } } }
  24. Is there any way to add the removed tech tree nodes (field science, automation, storage tech, specialized science tech) back into the game? Halfway into my heavily modded career game, I've found that this mod removing Field Science and the Automation nodes makes some experiment modules in Kerbalism and rover autopilot in Mechjeb inaccessible. I tried looking through the configs but don't have enough ModuleManager competency to trust myself in figuring out how to change those experiments to use the new UKS nodes, and I don't know what else I might find missing in the future, so I figure the easiest thing is to just restore the nodes. I tried going into TechTreeEdits.cfg and commenting out these lines -RDNode:HAS[#id[fieldScience]]{} //merged with Scanning Tech -RDNode:HAS[#id[automation]]{} //merged with Advanced Unmanned Tech -RDNode:HAS[#id[storageTech]]{} //merged with Recycling -RDNode:HAS[#id[specializedScienceTech]]{} //merged with Experimental Science but it seemed to have no effect and I don't know what else to try.
  • Create New...