[1.3.0] Kerbalism v1.2.9

[RzTen1]

Hi.  I just switched to this mod since TAC isn't working in 1.1 yet and I gotta say it's pretty awesome. 

I had one comments: It would be nice if the status window shows which parts are broken on the dropdown, or they glowed a bit like in DangIt.  It's a bit of a pain to find which solar panel has failed on a craft that has 20 of them.

Also, do the antenna's have different ranges now?  It's not clear what the range is from the description and it kinda looks like the basic antenna will work for the entire solar system.  I'm not sure if that's correct, but I did like the part of RT that longer ranges required bigger dishes.

[Box of Stardust]

14 minutes ago, RzTen1 said:

Hi.  I just switched to this mod since TAC isn't working in 1.1 yet and I gotta say it's pretty awesome. 

I had one comments: It would be nice if the status window shows which parts are broken on the dropdown, or they glowed a bit like in DangIt.  It's a bit of a pain to find which solar panel has failed on a craft that has 20 of them.

Also, do the antenna's have different ranges now?  It's not clear what the range is from the description and it kinda looks like the basic antenna will work for the entire solar system.  I'm not sure if that's correct, but I did like the part of RT that longer ranges required bigger dishes.

The antenna ranges are actually noted in set distances (Mm). The quic tool tip (Our planetary system) entails just the Kerbin system. 

There's also tech level that improves performance, which might modify the displayed distance value. 

4 hours ago, -Medved- said:

Greetings!

I have a problem - when my kerbal go to EVA and then back - Kerbalism mod is crushed and duplicate kerbals. I have two Jebedians instead of one! )) Game partially crashed too and need to be restarted

Its soooooo bad

I was going to report this myself, but never got to. 

I actually discovered it in orbit, so then there was suddenly a copy of s if Bill floating around the station. 

But dead. It gives me these notifications that he's out of Oxygen and Electricity.

It's kind of like transporter technology- you 'kill' the original and make a copy in the new destination.

Except since 'Bill' is still on a ladder, I can't exit to the space center. 

Oh, and it also breaks the Kerbalism UI/status panel.

The only thing I'm not sure about is if it's because of a mod conflict, which is possible. 

Edited April 23, 2016 by Box of Stardust

[Fraz86]

16 hours ago, ShotgunNinja said:

@Fraz86  I'm doing these changes:

• retractable and non-retractable panels output the same
• the big fixed panel output 0.32, mass tweaked
• reduce RTG to 0.32
• increase small fuel cell to 1.0

Excellent! These are good changes.

However, I remain confused by your values for the OX-STAT-XL. The XL is 8x the cost and surface area of the regular OX-STAT, but you gave it only 3x the EC output and mass. Why would I ever use an OX-STAT-XL when I could just use 3 regular OX-STAT for less than half the cost, and requiring less than half the space? I would encourage you to revert the mass to its stock value and adjust the EC output accordingly, to 0.64.

[Charlie_Zulu]

On 4/22/2016 at 11:39 AM, ShotgunNinja said:

@Charlie_Zulu It's not technically difficult to make them directional, I'll just have to evaluate if a dot product is inside some value boudaries. The problem is that then you need an UI to point them, and also it become more complex to manage. I can think of something like this: you don't point them explicitly, the part orientation is used automatically. And the field of view is pretty much between 90 and 180 degree, so you can eyeball the orienting. What you think about that?

That would be great, but it would require an autopilot to re-orient the vessel after exiting timewarp, since the antenna will have moved off-target.

Speaking of autopilots, even without signal delay, there still needs to be one.  Right now, I can't execute a maneuver on the far side of the Mun unless I've got a communications satellite in Mun orbit or parked just outside the SoI.  Would it be possible to allow for MechJeb, kOS, and the RT autopilot to circumvent the control lock so that we can still execute pre-set actions?  I really want to find a way to use your radio propagation rules instead of RT's, since it seems more in-depth for omni antennas; it just needs some polish.   

As well as directional antennas, it would be nice if there were more antenna scopes; specifically, one that's below 'orbit' and only good for low orbit/cismunar communication intended for extremely small/light antennas, one that's in between 'near' and 'far' for the equivalent of trans-joolian probes, and one past far for interstellar communication (if you ever get it working).  

The one remaining feature of RT that you haven't replicated is ground stations; it seems like you just take distance from Kerbin.  It would be nice if there was a ground station at the tracking station that has to relay your signals, and upgrading the tracking station increases the range of the tracking station's relay antenna. 

If you're adding a generic ModuleLifeSupport, could you add an option for the crew dying not if the resource runs out, but instead if there's no more room on the vessel for any of the resource?  That way we could implement a CO2 system if we want where filling the tanks with CO₂ kills the crew, instead of having to do the workaround of anti-CO₂ running out which is really weird.

Looking at your CME system, it seems like it won't target vessels in interplanetary space; would there be a way to add this so that CMEs are randomly fired at (groups of) vessels not near a planet?

Finally, it would be nice if you could add a geiger counter that reports the ambient radiation the same way as the original stock experiments reported their respective attributes.  That would make understanding what's happening with the radiation much easier.    

40 minutes ago, FatherLawrence said:

Wow, what an entry! I've been a die-hard RT/TAC man and the idea of dropping those initially didn't sit well with me, but your integration of so many systems together with all the new things you've done is worth overhauling my modlist to fit this.

 

One thing I absolutely would love is support for multiple star systems, like Galactic Neighborhood. I have an idea for how you could possibly support those. Because stars are often much larger than planets and much hotter, you could run checks for each body on their radius and temp and if they passed both thresholds, consider that a star. Since scales differ between RSS, stock, etc, make those settings available to the user so they can change the thresholds if Jupiter accidentally pulled a 2001. Alternatively, allow users to name which bodies will be considered stars and then MM patches could accompany planet/system packs and ensure compatibility.

 

I'm also curiou: what do you plan to do when SQUAD gets their telemetry/comms system integrated into stock?

Why not just do a check to see if it's a star or a planet?  Kopernicus has to have a field where the body is defined as being either being a star or planet.  The issue then would probably be changing the mod from assuming that the universal parent body is the only star and modelling in the heliopause/heliosheath and their effects on radiation.  

[ShotgunNinja]

Guys some quick replies that Im a bit short of time today

• duplication bug, send me log/savegame if you can
• panels balance: small panel i had to overpower it a bit to make early game possible. Compare the big fixed panel with the extendible ones, they match surface
• antenna scopes: i'll add a 'scope_multiplier' to Antenna modules, so they can be tweaked more
• ground station: not really necessary
• CME interplanetary space: yes, i'm going to add those
• geiger: this too, its on the todo list
• mutiple stars: you have to replace ModuleSolarPanel completely, and much more

[-Medved-]

28 minutes ago, ShotgunNinja said:

Guys some quick replies that Im a bit short of time today

• duplication bug, send me log/savegame if you can

Im found the cause - this is a mod conflict. Conflict with KerbalKrushSystem mod by Enzo Meertens.

[Fraz86]

41 minutes ago, ShotgunNinja said:

panels balance: small panel i had to overpower it a bit to make early game possible. Compare the big fixed panel with the extendible ones, they match surface

I see what you mean, however, it remains a significant problem that the XL panel currently has zero rational use cases; it is unequivocally inferior to the regular OX-STAT. I believe that balance and consistency within a subgroup (e.g., static panels) is more important than between subgroups (OX-STAT-XL vs deployable panels), though of course I agree it would be nice to have consistency between groups as well.

If you want better consistency in regard to EC per surface area without changing current EC per mass, you could simply double the EC output and mass of all deployable panels.

Edited April 23, 2016 by Fraz86

[ShotgunNinja]

@Fraz86 this is the situation now, i'll leave it like that i think

Spoiler

// the small fixed panel
@PART[solarPanels5]:FOR[Kerbalism]
{
  @MODULE[ModuleDeployableSolarPanel]
  {
    @chargeRate = 0.08
  }
}


// the retractable panels
@PART[solarPanels1]:FOR[Kerbalism]
{
  @MODULE[ModuleDeployableSolarPanel]
  {
    @chargeRate = 0.16
  }
}
@PART[solarPanels2]:FOR[Kerbalism]
{
  @MODULE[ModuleDeployableSolarPanel]
  {
    @chargeRate = 0.16
  }
}


// the non-retractable panels
@PART[solarPanels3]:FOR[Kerbalism]
{
  @MODULE[ModuleDeployableSolarPanel]
  {
    @chargeRate = 0.16
  }
}
@PART[solarPanels4]:FOR[Kerbalism]
{
  @MODULE[ModuleDeployableSolarPanel]
  {
    @chargeRate = 0.16
  }
}


// the big fixed panel
@PART[LgRadialSolarPanel]:FOR[Kerbalism]
{
  @mass = 0.02
  @MODULE[ModuleDeployableSolarPanel]
  {
    @chargeRate = 0.32
  }
}

 

 

@medved thanks, you know more about it?

[Taki117]

What does  - technologies can be customized  mean in the latest update?  Does this mean selected modules can be disabled?

[ShotgunNinja]

@Taki117 You can customize the technologies that unlock scrubbers efficiency etc, with a MM patch.

Edited April 23, 2016 by ShotgunNinja

[-Medved-]

8 minutes ago, ShotgunNinja said:  Reveal hidden contents

// the small fixed panel
@PART[solarPanels5]:FOR[Kerbalism]
{
  @MODULE[ModuleDeployableSolarPanel]
  {
    @chargeRate = 0.08
  }
}


// the retractable panels
@PART[solarPanels1]:FOR[Kerbalism]
{
  @MODULE[ModuleDeployableSolarPanel]
  {
    @chargeRate = 0.16
  }
}
@PART[solarPanels2]:FOR[Kerbalism]
{
  @MODULE[ModuleDeployableSolarPanel]
  {
    @chargeRate = 0.16
  }
}


// the non-retractable panels
@PART[solarPanels3]:FOR[Kerbalism]
{
  @MODULE[ModuleDeployableSolarPanel]
  {
    @chargeRate = 0.16
  }
}
@PART[solarPanels4]:FOR[Kerbalism]
{
  @MODULE[ModuleDeployableSolarPanel]
  {
    @chargeRate = 0.16
  }
}


// the big fixed panel
@PART[LgRadialSolarPanel]:FOR[Kerbalism]
{
  @mass = 0.02
  @MODULE[ModuleDeployableSolarPanel]
  {
    @chargeRate = 0.32
  }
}

 

 

@medved thanks, you know more about it?

No, im dont dig to the reason of this conflict at least for now )

[Fraz86]

14 minutes ago, ShotgunNinja said:

@Fraz86 this is the situation now, i'll leave it like that i think

  Reveal hidden contents

// the small fixed panel
@PART[solarPanels5]:FOR[Kerbalism]
{
  @MODULE[ModuleDeployableSolarPanel]
  {
    @chargeRate = 0.08
  }
}


// the retractable panels
@PART[solarPanels1]:FOR[Kerbalism]
{
  @MODULE[ModuleDeployableSolarPanel]
  {
    @chargeRate = 0.16
  }
}
@PART[solarPanels2]:FOR[Kerbalism]
{
  @MODULE[ModuleDeployableSolarPanel]
  {
    @chargeRate = 0.16
  }
}


// the non-retractable panels
@PART[solarPanels3]:FOR[Kerbalism]
{
  @MODULE[ModuleDeployableSolarPanel]
  {
    @chargeRate = 0.16
  }
}
@PART[solarPanels4]:FOR[Kerbalism]
{
  @MODULE[ModuleDeployableSolarPanel]
  {
    @chargeRate = 0.16
  }
}


// the big fixed panel
@PART[LgRadialSolarPanel]:FOR[Kerbalism]
{
  @mass = 0.02
  @MODULE[ModuleDeployableSolarPanel]
  {
    @chargeRate = 0.32
  }
}

 

 

Well, it's a step in the right direction, though unfortunately it still leaves the OX-STAT-XL without any legitimate use cases. If you don't want to further modify the EC or mass properties, perhaps you could just decrease the XL's cost to 225. Then the XL would be like getting 4 OX-STATs for the price of 3, but requiring twice the surface area - a reasonable trade-off in some situations.

[TheUnamusedFox]

Seems that this is incompatible with CRP, as the resources have the exact same name as the CRP resources. Seeing as most people playing with mods probably have CRP, this mod's resources won't be loaded. And confirmed it, Food/Oxygen are have essentially no impact on the total vessel mass.

Edited April 23, 2016 by lagcity613

[lude]

If I want to try this out, I need to remove USI-LS?

[goldenpsp]

5 minutes ago, lude said:

If I want to try this out, I need to remove USI-LS?

Likely. It is largely silly to ever run 2 life support mods at the same time. 

[Fraz86]

@ShotgunNinja I thought I'd share a couple compatibility patches I drafted for NFE and NFP; might make things a little easier when you put together your official version.

NearFuturePropulsion:

// All ion engine power requirements cut to 25%
@PART[ionEngine,ionArgon-*,ionXenon-*,mpdt-*,pit-*,vasimr-*]:AFTER[NearFuturePropulsion]:NEEDS[NearFuturePropulsion]
{
	@MODULE[ModuleEnginesFX],0
	{
		@PROPELLANT[ElectricCharge]
		{
			@ratio *= 0.25
		}
	}
}
@PART[pit-*]:AFTER[NearFuturePropulsion]:NEEDS[NearFuturePropulsion]
{
	@MODULE[VariablePowerEngine]
	{
		@PowerCurve
		{
			@key,0[1, ] /= 0.25
			@key,1[1, ] /= 0.25
		}
	}
}
@PART[vasimr-*]:AFTER[NearFuturePropulsion]:NEEDS[NearFuturePropulsion]
{
	@MODULE[ModuleEnginesFX],1
	{
		@PROPELLANT[ElectricCharge]
		{
			@ratio *= 0.25
		}
	}
	@MODULE[VariableISPEngine]
	{
		@EnergyUsage /= 0.25
	}
}

NearFutureElectrical:

// Fission reactors cut to 25% power generation
@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[FissionGenerator]]:AFTER[NearFutureElectrical]:NEEDS[NearFutureElectrical]
{
	@MODULE[FissionGenerator]
	{
		@PowerGeneration *= 0.25
	}
}

// Nuclear waste recyclers cut to 25% power requirements
@PART[nuclear-recycler-*]:AFTER[NearFutureElectrical]:NEEDS[NearFutureElectrical]
{
	@MODULE[ModuleResourceConverter],0
	{
		@INPUT_RESOURCE[#ResourceName[ElectricCharge]]
		{
			@rate *= 0.25
		}
	}
	@MODULE[ModuleResourceConverter],1
	{
		@INPUT_RESOURCE[#ResourceName[ElectricCharge]]
		{
			@rate *= 0.25
		}
	}
	@MODULE[ModuleResourceConverter],2
	{
		@INPUT_RESOURCE[#ResourceName[ElectricCharge]]
		{
			@rate *= 0.25
		}
	}
}

// RTG output tweak applied to Nertea's custom decay module
@PART[rtg]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleRadioisotopeGenerator]]:AFTER[NearFutureElectrical]:NEEDS[NearFutureElectrical]
{
	@MODULE[ModuleRadioisotopeGenerator]
	{
		@BasePower = 0.32
	}
}

// Tweaks for Nertea's larger RTG, placing its EC/mass ratio above the stock RTG but below solar panels, with a corresponding cost adjustment
@PART[rtg-0625]:AFTER[NearFutureElectrical]:NEEDS[NearFutureElectrical]
{
	@cost = 69900  //3x PB-NUK
	@MODULE[ModuleGenerator]
	{
		@OUTPUT_RESOURCE[ElectricCharge]
		{
			@rate = 0.8  //2.5x PB-NUK
		}
	}
	@MODULE[ModuleRadioisotopeGenerator]
	{
		@BasePower = 0.8  //2.5x PB-NUK
	}
}

// Capacitor charge/discharge rates cut to 25%
@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[DischargeCapacitor]]:AFTER[NearFutureElectrical]:NEEDS[NearFutureElectrical]
{
	@MODULE[DischargeCapacitor]
	{
		@ChargeRate *= 0.25
		@DischargeRate *= 0.25
	}
}

 

Edited April 25, 2016 by Fraz86

[seregheru]

This looks like a really great mod and clearly took a lot of work. I'm struck by the scale of it. I've been playing around with it for a day, not really long enough to see much of it, but was quite excited about some of the features.

Unfortunately, it was only after grinding the science I needed to launch a keostationary relay network, that I realised this mod completely kills RemoteTech functionality. Sadly, that means game over.

Most mods add some additional seasoning to an already excellent stock game but, without a communications mod and a life support mod, playing vanilla feels like cheating. For me, RemoteTech is the centre-piece around which the rest of my game is organised. It is the premier communications mod currently in existence for KSP. It's a non-optional requirement of all of my career saves. Completing a 4-satellite keostationary relay network is always the first major landmark achievement of my space program. Without it - without signal delay and the flight computer - unmanned launches are just a cheaper, lower-risk alternative to manned missions. With RemoteTech, unmanned missions play in a fundamentally different way. RemoteTech changes the *character* of KSP, in a way that the communications system of Kerbalism simply does not. I think it's dangerous to imagine that there is a quick fix that you can implement yourself to encourage users of RemoteTech to use your system instead. RemoteTech has years of development, over 20 contributors, and iteration upon iteration incorporating player feedback. It is also highly configurable for users with different tastes and tolerances.

No doubt similar arguments can be made by fans of other mods that Kerbalism overrides. I appreciate that Kerbalism took an awful lot of unpaid time and effort, and that I have no right to expect anything from it. But at the same time, I'm uninstalling it now and starting a new career save without it. I think that's sad. I'm disappointed that I won't get to experience radiation sickness or capsule fever or being struck with a coronal mass ejection. Kerbalism feels like a realism oriented mod, and that's a tough audience, as everyone has their own ideas about which concessions towards gameplay are acceptable. Compatibility with other mods goes a long way towards solving that issue. I understand that full inter-operability with other mods is a daunting amount of work, but a simpler on/off toggle for certain systems may have direct advantages to your own mod. Generally, tightly coupled systems end up being a real maintainability headache further down the line. Not being able to deactivate the conceptually distinct components of this mod without breaking others sounds like an early warning sign.

Thanks for the time and effort, good luck for the future. Hope to play again one day.

[DarkonZ]

ShotgunNinja,

Glad to see you popped in before taking a break. You deserve it, and we can wait.

As for MeVed and Box of Something and everyone else:

Go back up in this thread and re-read the post from ShotgunNinja that has the image. That was placed there for a reason. If core KSP110_1230 is suspect, everything built after that is suspect! -->[Unless you two think KSP is now perfect?]

The more people do this kind of thing the harder it gets on the modder. Esp. when the modder suspects core KSP110_1230 isn't quit right. Does anyone try to reproduce things under vanilla KSP? Does anyone try to reproduce things under vanilla KSP + the mod in question? Does anyone check the logs (2 of them?) Really?

Actually, it's not that difficult to do. An extra 30 minutes on OUR part is not a big deal. For SN, he's probably trying to shoot down bugs that don't exist and never did! Not his fault. This ultimately leads to a huge amount of wasted time on his part. Time better used to Dev the mod.

Just say'in...

--

ShotgunNinja,

I've recently decided the ETT was the tech tree I want to stick with. Of course, you know it spreads stuff all over the place. I was shocked to see a tiny black box show up telling me I just increased my scrubber tech when the tech node was called 6.5 rocketry. Clearly, ETT needs some Kerbalism love. Unfortunately, I'm not qualified enough to make the decisions needed to fit Kerbalism into ETT.

Would it be possible I can just put up "z_EngineeringTechTree.txt". Yup, notice how I spelled that. At least I can save you a massive 18.6 seconds of time. Well, at least until someone drops by with far more knowledge of what ETT intends. Since it isn't an actual config file, I don't suppose it would matter. But you'd have the model for a config ready to go when needed.
 

[Box of Stardust]

@DarkonZ Medved said he's searching for the issue (which he determined to be KerbalKrashSystem, and I concur, as I also have it installed).

I'm continuing testing of/playing around with Kerbalism for possible immediate improvements that can be made (e.g., ease of usage, mechanics issues, etc.) that ShotgunNinja may not realize/be aware of.

Edited April 23, 2016 by Box of Stardust

[TheUnamusedFox]

Here are some patches to make KPBS support Kerbalism https://www.dropbox.com/s/9zsz5q8mzs8fse0/KerbalismFoxPatches1.2.7z?dl=0

 

Edited April 24, 2016 by lagcity613

[RzTen1]

5 hours ago, Box of Stardust said:

The antenna ranges are actually noted in set distances (Mm). The quic tool tip (Our planetary system) entails just the Kerbin system.

Ah, I found it.  I wasn't expecting it to be on the right click menu after it had been attached.

Do you think you could add base ranges to the right click description in the builder?  It would make things easier to compare without having to attach every antenna to the craft.

[iguana_man]

49 minutes ago, lagcity613 said:

Here are some patches to make KPBS support Kerbalism https://www.dropbox.com/s/s5k622iww3ay9a0/KPBSFoxPatches1.1.7z?dl=0

 

You mentioned recently that there is a conflict with CRP, what did you do about that?  Is there a fix you know of?

[TheUnamusedFox]

7 minutes ago, iguana_man said:

You mentioned recently that there is a conflict with CRP, what did you do about that?  Is there a fix you know of?

It won't make the mod stop working - but the resources won't weigh anything like they should. No fix I know of, the mod maker has to change the resource names.

Edited April 23, 2016 by lagcity613

[criverod1988]

I have a really strange bug and I have detected it is caused by this mod. With all other mods running everything works perfectly, but when I add this one, the bug appears.

When I generate an EVA report while in space near Kerbin, if Kerbalism mod is running the report does not depend on the biome below the ship. That means I can get the science of just one EVA report, instead of one per biome. Without that science my career is stuck.

In this image you can see the EVA report does not mention the biome as usual:

I'm using all this mods:

KSP: 1.1 (Win32) - Unity: 5.2.4f1 - OS: Windows 10  (10.0.0) 64bit
Flight Manager for Reusable Stages [FMRS] - 1.0.1
Kerbal Attachment System - 0.5.6.7
Kerbal Engineer Redux - 1.1.0.2
Kerbal Inventory System - 1.2.7.6
KSP-AVC Plugin - 1.1.6.1
Docking Port Alignment Indicator - 6.3
Kerbal Planetary Base Systems - 1.0.8
SCANsat - 1.1.6
StageRecovery - 1.6.4.1
Kerbal Alarm Clock - 3.6
Kerbalism
MechJeb2

Any idea what's happening?

[iguana_man]

6 minutes ago, criverod1988 said:

I have a really strange bug and I have detected it is caused by this mod. With all other mods running everything works perfectly, but when I add this one, the bug appears.

When I generate an EVA report while in space near Kerbin, if Kerbalism mod is running the report does not depend on the biome below the ship. That means I can get the science of just one EVA report, instead of one per biome. Without that science my career is stuck.

That's intentional https://github.com/ShotgunNinja/Kerbalism/wiki/Science-Tweaks