[1.4.3] [(Re^4)visited!] Science Revisited 1.7.0

[zekew11]

The lab rebalance has been reimplemented! In other news, toadicus has been providing fantastic support of my efforts to use his plugin, EVA manager, to rebalance surface samples. Give him internet cookies while I iron out details: hopefully this patch will be an option very soon!

[theonegalen]

I've learned that :FINAL is usually not a great thing to use in MM, due to the likelihood of major errors if anything else that modifies the same part also using :FINAL.

[zekew11]

I've learned that :FINAL is usually not a great thing to use in MM, due to the likelihood of major errors if anything else that modifies the same part also using :FINAL.

That's interesting, the documentation would suggest that :FINAL be used for this sort of thing. Does an error occur any time a part is modified twice in the FINAL pass; or is it a latent result one mods :FINAL pass being applied second to last, when it really did need to be the last patch applied? regardless; I'll consider changing this in the next version. It would be nice to have a :LATE pass or something similar.

[Maelin]

I don't know how easy or worthwhile this would be, but what if the mod could re-map the *already performed* sciences into the new scheme?

I just installed this into my running save, and it seems like I'm now double-dipping on all the crew reports that I already took on EVAs.

[maculator]

Is there a way to have you do the experiments only once? For example while landed in a biome you must do like 3 goo observations to may out the science. I like going places and doing science stuff but i dont like to go over it again and again ....

[zekew11]

I don't know how easy or worthwhile this would be, but what if the mod could re-map the *already performed* sciences into the new scheme?

I just installed this into my running save, and it seems like I'm now double-dipping on all the crew reports that I already took on EVAs.

Unfortunately the way this data is structured, this would almost require an independant save file editing program, outside of ksp.

Is there a way to have you do the experiments only once? For example while landed in a biome you must do like 3 goo observations to may out the science. I like going places and doing science stuff but i don't like to go over it again and again ....

This patch would be pretty simple to toss together. If there's interest I'll gladly do this, and include it with it off by default.

[maculator]

This patch would be pretty simple to toss together. If there's interest I'll gladly do this, and include it with it off by default.

Thank you if you'd answered a few days earlier, I would never have learned all that stuff about ModuleManager and Ckan!

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/125827-No-More-Science-Grinding

[zekew11]

Thank you if you'd answered a few days earlier, I would never have learned all that stuff about ModuleManager and Ckan!

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/125827-No-More-Science-Grinding

Nice work, glad my unhelpfulness proved helpful I added a small link in the OP to your mod.

[draeath]

Complements No More Science Grinding; a simular mod which eliminates the need to re-run expiriments.

When you say this, what exactly do you mean by complements? Looking at the configs I don't see any nasty conflicts for sure, but I'm not really savvy on what the attributes mean. I'm thinking these just play together by virtue of what they do.

How do they interact (in particular the difference between a physical return and a transmission)? Or, am I misunderstanding completely and I shouldn't use both mods at the same time?

here's what I think happens...

NMSG simply makes an experiment always worth the full value of the experiment, instead of the fraction it may have had before. This mod, then, turns around and just changes parameters for biome associations and such, and tweaks the coefficients for returned vs transmitted? My read then is that you might still need to repeat, depending on those transmission/return scalers, in that a transmission may leave a segment of science that may only be satisfied by a return, BUT you wouldn't gain anything from additional transmissions and a single return should fill the gap?

Now, what I don't get. Why on earth would numeric instruments like the thermometer/barometer/gravimetric/seismic not have an xmitDataScalar of 1? I can understand the atmospheric analysis as that might involve keeping a physical sample (and in that case I would have actually scaled it more like the mystery goo or materials bay) , but these other things are just data. I really feel you should have gone all the way on those.

It's easy to fix to be the way that I want, but should you ever update I'll have to remember to go back in and tweak it all again

Edited August 10, 2015 by draeath

[zekew11]

When you say this, what exactly do you mean by complements? Looking at the configs I don't see any nasty conflicts for sure, but I'm not really savvy on what the attributes mean. I'm thinking these just play together by virtue of what they do.

How do they interact (in particular the difference between a physical return and a transmission)? Or, am I misunderstanding completely and I shouldn't use both mods at the same time?

There is no overlap between the mods (your "what I think happens" was basically correct). No More Science Grinding modifies re-runable experiments on the experiment definition level so that they only need to be run once to reach their full value. For example, if you launch and recover a mystery goo from low orbit over biome y, performing another mystery goo study in the same situation will yield no further gains: all science possible was awarded on the first go. Science Revised modifies the rate at which the experiment will transmit at the per-part level. The reason the mods "compliment" each other is that both seek to "fix" parts of the stock science system that many found unintuitive or unfriendly for gameplay.

Now, what I don't get. Why on earth would numeric instruments like the thermometer/barometer/gravimetric/seismic not have an xmitDataScalar of 1? I can understand the atmospheric analysis as that might involve keeping a physical sample (and in that case I would have actually scaled it more like the mystery goo or materials bay) , but these other things are just data. I really feel you should have gone all the way on those.

This is a rationalized gameplay decision. I have a minmaxer playstyle, so for me, it's good gameplay to have to have the opportunity to take risks (data return on a mission where the craft [hopefully] returns) for a slightly improve science reward. I figured that for non-minmaxers, the trivial amount of science lost would be inconsequential. However, the rationalization, which I think is a sound one, is that the results can be verified and calibrated if the instrument itself is returned to kerbin for analysis.

I'm considering adding a feature in the next patch that removes the ability to "take data" from these numeric sensors. This would better suit the rationalization, but would still allow the experiment to be re-run indefinitely for repeated data transmission. If I include this option, I'll also include a patch, disabled by default, that sets the data scalers to 1 and re-enables data removal as an alternative to my system.

[LitaAlto]

I really love this mod, and I'm using it in my current Science game, MOAR SCIENCE, HI! It really solves a few of the science headaches I've experienced previously.

But I noticed that it doesn't seem to buff the Planetary Lab from Kerbal Planetary Base Systems. It still caps out at 500 research points.

It also doesn't apply the microgravity experiments to the mod's habitats--something I'm somewhat less worried about given this is a planetary base mod, not a space station mod. Nonetheless maybe you feel differently.

[zekew11]

I really love this mod, and I'm using it in my current Science game, MOAR SCIENCE, HI! It really solves a few of the science headaches I've experienced previously.

But I noticed that it doesn't seem to buff the Planetary Lab from Kerbal Planetary Base Systems. It still caps out at 500 research points.

It also doesn't apply the microgravity experiments to the mod's habitats--something I'm somewhat less worried about given this is a planetary base mod, not a space station mod. Nonetheless maybe you feel differently.

I've been kindof on hiatus from ksp for a while: my windows ten upgrade has been playing hell with my graphics drivers. I'd be more than happy to whip up a quick compatibility patch for Kerbal Planetary Base Systems though; I'd been meaning to do it anyway. Expect it by the weekend!

[LitaAlto]

I've been kindof on hiatus from ksp for a while: my windows ten upgrade has been playing hell with my graphics drivers. I'd be more than happy to whip up a quick compatibility patch for Kerbal Planetary Base Systems though; I'd been meaning to do it anyway. Expect it by the weekend!

Cool, thanks!

[zekew11]

[snip] Expect it by the weekend!

Oh dear. I managed to completely forget about this. lets just say its been a long weekend. The update is live now!

[LitaAlto]

Oh dear. I managed to completely forget about this. lets just say its been a long weekend. The update is live now!

No worries, thank you!

[John Nowak]

My apologies if this is already included, but the one science experiment I've always added by hacking the persistence file is "Longest duration in space."

Basically, the science value of this experiment is the time of the longest flight (defined as launch to return to Kerbin) in hours, take the square root of that, maxing out at 100 science. So, for example, a 9 hour flight would return 3 science; a 16 hour flight 4.

The Science returned is not cumulative. So if Jeb's first orbital flight were nine hours long, we'd get 3 Science. If Bill then goes up for 16, when he returns we get an additional 4 - 3 = 1 Science for the slightly longer duration.

Obviously, this is to simulate long term biomedical experiments to see how Kerbals adapt to space, and vice-versa.

[davidy12]

What about OPM support?

[zekew11]

My apologies if this is already included, but the one science experiment I've always added by hacking the persistence file is "Longest duration in space."[snip]

PM me; I'm intrigued

What about OPM support?

I use OPM; and this should work just fine with it. If there seems to be any incompatibility, please report that to me.

[davidy12]

No I meant any science defs.

[Prezombie]

One tweak that I've wanted for a while since I tried then dropped BTSM is the lower bound on the flyinglow situation. It's absurd to get extra science by simply bouncing the rover into the air a tiny bit. Just a hundred meters above the surface should be enough. To force the use of something that actually flies without significantly shrinking the flyinglow situation's volume.

If it's possible, it would be even better to make the science for flyinglow require the kerbal/vehicle to be airborne for at least ten seconds. Gathering in the air on the way down would always be valid, and it would make the rover designs ever so much more interesting.

[zekew11]

Hi Folks! I am in fact still alive; as is this mod. I've been in a sort of maintenance stasis, but having just migrated to spacedock, I figured I'd throw together a couple of the things that were easily attainable.

1.4.0

• Added a (disabled by default; alpha) patch which nerfs the transmission rate of surface samples; Note: requires "EVA Manager" by toadicus
• Added an alternate configuration for "numeric" experiments
• Re-added previously missing 1.3.1 patch changes
• Removed Module Manager Redistribution; Module Manager is still required

As always, feedback is welcomed!

[severedsolo]

Can I just confirm, these are basically module manager patches right?

I could say, drop just the Crew Report/EVA Report swap patch, and not bother with the rest of it, and that would be fine?

[zekew11]

On 4/20/2016 at 4:53 AM, severedsolo said:

Can I just confirm, these are basically module manager patches right?

I could say, drop just the Crew Report/EVA Report swap patch, and not bother with the rest of it, and that would be fine?

Absolutely. This is the intent behind modularity: to allow you to pick and choose what changes you want.

[Cetera]

With these all being module manager patches, there isn't anything that really needs to be tweaked to make them 1.1 compatible, is there?

[zekew11]

On 4/26/2016 at 6:44 PM, Cetera said:

With these all being module manager patches, there isn't anything that really needs to be tweaked to make them 1.1 compatible, is there?

That is correct. I wanted to go ahead and boot 1.1 with it installed just to verify before officially declaring compatibility. I still haven't tested exhaustively or anything; but I wouldn't think anything would be borked.