NathanKell

Do you have a MCESettings.cfg file in the MissionController folder?

I really wouldn't call it a consensus. Consensus of a faction, sure, but not of all of us.

Wait, it doesn't? I had the same idea but hadn't sat down to try it yet; I thought sarbian's had support for not(has(key(keyname))) like stuff, in the same way as not(has(module(modulename)))

Regarding part costs, now is a perfect time to CROWDSOURCE, whoopie! The way I've set it up, to handle a new part module (like a RemoteTech SPU, or MechJeb, or...) all you have to do is add a node to MCESettings.cfg. The file is fully documented, but ask away if you have questions, or if you think a module needs special handling (or, very importantly, if that partmodule is NOT derived from class PartModule. But, most are, whew). Same goes for resources, like Kethane or Ore or SpareParts. The point is this: I need help adding support for mods. Adding support for mods is non-destructive, so any mod support in MCESettings.cfg can safely be used by someone who doesn't have that mod. Further, the cost function is pretty flexible--there's a lot of stuff in there you can do without special handling. For instance, I could (I planned to but didn't have time) add support for a RemoteTech antenna of type ModuleRTModalAntenna by adding this to the MODULESCOST node: ModuleRTModalAntenna { FLOATS { antennaRange0 = 5 antennaRange1 = 1 EnergyDrain1 = -1000 } } That means multiply the value antennaRange0 in the partmodule by 5, multiply the value antennaRange1 in the partmodule by 1, and EnergyDrain1 by -1000, and sum them all together to get the module cost. Note this is read from the partmodule ingame, not values from the part.cfg, so if the part is procedural this will be correct. For a simple 500km antenna with range0 of 0km, and energy drain of .02/sec, this would lead to a module cost of 480. EDIT: Guess I just did it. So don't do that module. Though feel free to chime in if you think the cost I just hacked together isn't right for that antenna module.

So...has it _not_ worked for you?

By the way, I have a modulemanager cfg for this that adds TACLS support to Modular Fuels (tanktype Default, tanktype ServiceModule, and adds three life-support specific tanks, for regular, waste, and both[closed-cycle]), and appropriately-sized MFS-based Lifesupport tanks to most stock/mod pods. Let me know if you want it, if it'd be helpful.

Unless a node in the new tree shares the same name as that node, I doubt it. But I haven't looked at the code more than to skim.

Work started on them before I even knew R&D would be in .22, and they are half for their own sake, and half just so I can easily categorize engines. At the moment, the don't correspond to nodes at all; the MFSC tech levels are a linear progression from least advanced to most advanced. When my desktop is running again I'll try to link them to propulsion-related nodes, so MFSC TLs only become available when you've researched the right nodes.

Sorry, spent all my time last night on getting part costs working as read from cfg (for MCE) and then my hard drive started dying. I'll try to get the MFSC change done today!

because doing SCIENCE! is fun? because it'd be nice to test out the new mechanic in a sandboxy way?

Why would one ever not have even crewed craft be nodes? I suggest proposal #0: just add SPUs to pods.

Given it's bloody useless as an L, I look favorably upon that change. Nice as an OMU for spaceplanes, too, if it's that type.

I calculate the Isp by guessing engine type (from the list some posts up, like lower, orbital, upper, aerospike, solid), deciding on a tech level, and doing a lookup to my techlevel-type Isp table (MFT/TechLevels.cfg). Given its values in game compared to other engines, I assumed it would be a L at best...

Yup. Chestburster and I haven't gotten there yet. Well, he had, but my spreadsheet ate the result. We'll get to it soonish, promise.

Oh good gracious yes! EDIT: Ninja'd: what Glaucus said.

You can use MJ's blacklisting feature to make parts that don't feature all the MJ features.

The latest version of Modular Fuels has one. And I included, in the MFSC thread in sig, a modified MJ2 DLL that works with thrust correciton. asmi asked me to make one for KER, so I'm going to do that too. Ferram and I are working on compatibility for this (Isp Scalar) with MFS; I need to implement a hook on my end, which I haven't done yet today. I plan to finish it this evening.

Are you using a thrust corrector (either Arcturus or my own)? Because that really shouldn't happen.

Both those sound right. Any remote science lab would still have to transmit its own data back to KSC anyway.

My aim in life is that, basically.

Yup. Realistic means 3-3.5km/s to orbit from Kerbin, tanks that are much lighter, and engines with about 5x the TWR. Want that? This whole dang thing is half about all the people complaining that realistic is too _easy_, that FAR makes it too darn easy to get to orbit. And you want realistic TWR on top of that? If you want Earth-realistic, it means 9-9.6km/s to orbit, but still those other changes. Or you can use the "adjusted" values in this mod, rather than "raw real", which fakes those changes by cutting Isp in less than half to simulate how KSP mass ratios are screwy. Dragon01: MFSC does this, as does Arcturus. And I already released a patch for MJ, at least, so the TWR is shown correctly.

They're not "balanced" for stock Isp values. That's really the point of this whole thread. CorlW said the TWR was displayed wrong. I asked wrong how. I didn't ask whether you felt your engines should somehow give you more thrust to make it easier--this _whole mod_ is about making it _harder_.

How's the TWR wrong? Changing Isp shouldn't make a difference.

Yup, cute is definitely the word!

Just checks if enough chutes. You can look at your KSP log afterwards to see. Whenever a vessel is destroyed it will log "*MC* Vessel NAME destroyed. Alt ALTITUDE, body BODY, sit = SITUATION." If it's Kerbin, etc., it will trawl through the parts, logging their mass and any parachute drag found. (Real parachute drag = fully deployed drag * parachute mass. Gawd I hate KSP aerodynamics.) You need 70 parachute drag per ton of stage (not including fuel, which is assumed to be vented) for the stage to recover.