magico13

It used to have one, but the feature was deemed useful outside of just this mod and so now the KRASH mod is used for simulations. Going with a third party mod means faster updates and better quality, plus no strict dependencies.

Here's the code: https://github.com/magico13/ScrapYard It's MIT licensed (the license isn't in there yet, but it will be) in case you want to use any of it, but I am still planning on developing it. You're welcome to submit PRs if you end up working on it. The current state is that it adds things to the inventory when you recover and it removes things when the vessel is put on the pad. It has no actual part tracking, but I'm considering using a part module to handle that.

No, you're right it's supposed to have one. Feel free to create one yourself. I'll fix it tonight. It won't actually hurt anything either way at least. Edit: Fixed. Since CKAN is based on SpaceDock for W9 it should start picking up the fixed version within an hour or so. Manual downloads are just sneakily updated. Just fixed the file structure, nothing new.

Honestly it's been a while, but I'm pretty sure I set it up to be taking the funds when you recover so you can't game it like that. That log looks like the wrong one (KSP 1.0.5). If you're running KSP 64 bit then you need to grab the one from KSP_x64_Data. But don't worry too much, I can probably recreate it pretty easily if it's consistently broken (and not just an issue with your setup). I updated the modlets tonight and will try to take a look at this tomorrow or Wednesday.

Hey look an update! I'm not dead!

I actually have a functional inventory, but there's no UI. It's designed so that upgraded parts (and procedural parts and related part mods) are all stored separately as their full versions. Hence the need for a UI, since you need to be able to select individual parts out of the inventory. It even has the option of overriding stock funds, hence more UI to let you sell parts. Other than the UI, I need to still add configuration and individual part tracking. The old one wasn't designed for individual parts, and 1.2 added stock upgradeable part support which was definitely not going to work under the old system. Tweakscale and procedural parts were hackily supported, and now it'll be natively. I honestly should just release the dev version of KCT as the release. I wanted to fix some things with vessel recovery since the inventory isn't in and that's the only way to save time right now, and I just haven't sat down to do it. Also, I don't recommend json, just use the ConfigNode structure since it's native to KSP and everything already uses it. Oh wait, you mean an actual other game. C# has deserializers for XML and JSON so that would work. Adding them into my inventory system wouldn't probably be too hard. Are we talking basic stock parts only? If so that's trivial and all we need are a list of part names and counts. Modded parts get trickier, since we might not be able to get a part prefab if the mod isn't loaded, meaning we can't turn a name into a full part. In that case you could just not import them. KCT's old inventory would be fine with that but the new one needs more stuff from the part itself.

I hadn't gotten around to testing them, so I hadn't uploaded them anywhere yet. I really need to do that... Glad that they appear to be working though, and if you see any issues let me know. I'm tentatively planning on trying to actually come back to KSP this week.

Hmm, that's funky. Someone recently made a PR that fully removes all the simulation code and other outdated things, so I'm guessing that bug won't exist after I pull that in.

I'm pretty sure that's an expected exception because the vessel isn't fully loaded. It's during the terminal velocity calculation when using stock chutes (or no chutes). It shouldn't really affect much, but if you notice things not behaving as expected then let me know. Thanks. 1. No, this mod is (almost) purely reactive and only comes into effect when a vessel is destroyed by being in atmosphere. That means less than 25km altitude and more than 22.5km from the active vessel for Stock. Powered recovery should let a jet be recovered, but there's a TWR requirement of >=1.0 that is configurable, which jets might not meet. 2. I generally only support one version of KSP at a time since any breaks are caused by the KSP binaries changing, which I am not in control of. Even if code works in both versions, the .net framework may not let the mod's binaries work with the different KSP binaries. If that's a problem, bring it up with Microsoft Generally small updates like 1.2.0 to 1.2.1 will work in both, but sometimes they like to make major changes in supposedly small updates that cause me to have to rewrite entire sections of the mod (see 1.0.2 as an example). Also, regarding FMRS, StageRecovery is designed to work with it (though that hasn't been tested in a while). If FMRS is active then StageRecovery will only recover uncontrolled stock parachuted vessels and let FMRS handle the rest. If FMRS is turned off then StageRecovery will try to recover everything.

The dev builds are pretty stable but I wanted to do a bit more with them before release. Nothing that should break anything if you use the dev build now. I've been really preoccupied with real life stuff, and honestly I think I won't be able to support 1.3 myself.

Hmm, I'll look into it. I think that visibility logic is tied to the window, not the scene. It's the same window in the Space Center, Tracking Station, and Flight so if you close it in flight then it will save the closed state. I should be able to make it per-scene, but it'll require a bit of reworking how it's set up.

There's a dev version here that does. It sounds as if it's as stable as ever, but there are a few quirks I wanted to try to sort out before a full release.

The latest dev build should already be doing that (*_3.dll I believe). If you exit the KSC scene with it open, it should still be open when you come back. It won't have a tab selected though. Adding that wouldn't probably be all that hard to do.

In KCT it should reset them though. It should be easy enough to add it to the list of things to reset. In fact, that list is easily altered by the user. https://github.com/magico13/KCT/wiki/Tutorial:-Adding-New-Modules-to-be-Reset-on-Recovery-to-Storage

It used to show up properly as the square root symbol (what is used for currency) but some update of KSP broke all that. Science used to show up correctly too. I'm not sure what the correct procedure for getting those icons out of the game is anymore, but I can just manually put in the root symbol.

It isn't updated to KSP 1.2 yet so it definitely won't work yet. I've barely been at a computer for the past two weeks so I haven't gotten a chance to work on these.

Known issue for a long time. Grabbing the root part in Edit mode will cause it to flip to the correct orientation. I'll try to look at this, and the "ships can be in ceiling" bug since recovering to storage is going to be more important this update without the part inventory. See this related github issue: https://github.com/magico13/KCT/issues/82

It's fine. It's not even derailed, since balance, and balance with other mods in mind, is definitely a relevant topic

It was planned but never fully implemented. I was going to write an API, which would really just require a total rewrite to be done correctly. There is a way to do it, by modifying either: public static int KCT_GameStates.TemporaryModAddedUpgradesButReallyWaitForTheAPI; or public static int KCT_GameStates.PermanentModAddedUpgradesButReallyWaitForTheAPI; The former is reset to zero when the main menu is loaded and the latter is saved in the save file. So you can use reflection (or build against KCT directly) to modify those and it will add upgrade points that the player can spend.

EPL has ground based construction too and it's not any different in terms of speed. And there's only a handful of people building the rockets (the Kerbals you put up). I guess if you had a really well stocked workshop and a huge amount of space it'd be reasonable to think a handful of people could build a rocket from raw materials, but it's fair to assume that should take a while. Easier conditions for assembly doesn't necessarily equate to faster creation. With that said, I don't really care either way. I know KCT provides the tools to balance times with EPL's but I don't know that the inverse exists since I haven't played with EPL in a while. The ideal system would probably make EPL's stuff take longer and change KCT to use formulas that line up more 1:1.

More sensible maybe, but probably not easier unless EPL offers a method to change the times in a config.

It should have been updated when I updated it on SpaceDock, but you are more than welcome to. I guess they added an override since I didn't officially update for 1.1.3.

A few times people have volunteered to create a Preset that has them line up, but nobody has done it. KCT provides all the tools to have the build times line up for anyone that wants to take the time to make it work. Check out the wiki to learn about Presets and the formulas if you're interested. You'd need to change the BP Formula and the Effective Part Formula to be mass based, but that's easy to do, getting them to be reasonably synced is harder, but if you take the time to read through the algorithms used internally in EPL then I don't think it'd honestly be that hard. If you, or someone else, does it I'd gladly include it either in the base download, as an extra optional download, or recommend it to be included with EPL (since other mods can include KCT Presets with their downloads)

It uses the surface velocity, which should be relative to the planet and independent of any active vessels. If you can recreate it in stock and send me a save file, or at the very least send the output_log.txt file from that specific play session then I can look into it. Otherwise I can't do much about it.

The forum software is really crappy on mobile :/ @DiEvAl check the Development branch. The code was updated several times today. And plug your costs directly into the BP formulas. You make the very invalid assumption that BP is linearly related to cost, but BP is related to the square root of total cost. Just the parts by themselves will take much longer than if you put those parts on a big vessel. Sqrt(100)=10, but sqrt(10000)-sqrt(9900)~0.5