[1.3.0] Kerbalism v1.2.9

[Terensky]

8 hours ago, ShotgunNinja said:

- check if NearFuture reactors, fission generators and radioisotope generators work in background

I've tested with the MX-4 Garnet and the MX-EXP Kerbopower. The good news is that, yes, they work in background: or so it seemed to me. But, after warping at Space Center for 10 days, I got back to the vessel that was mining on Minmus using the aforementioned reactors for power and I could no longer access the context menu of the two (that is, the buttons for starting/stopping the reacton and transferring waste/fuel were gone). Granted, I've a ton of other mods, but removing Kerbalism and starting another game with the same vessel seemed to solve the issue: the buttons were still there even after I warped first 10 days and then (always at Space Center) for another 20 days. So maybe it's a conflict with some other mod in Gamedata or it's an issue for Kerbalism: maybe someone else could test it.

Then, the readouts in the VAB regarding these fission reactors seem off-scale by a factor of 100:

I didn't have the time to test much else, and until confirmed I can't rule out that it could be a conflict with some other mod I have. When I get some more time I'll test again with just Kerbalism, KER, Hyperedit and NearFutureElectric.

[Runolite]

Could you please explain how to disable notifications about coronal mass ejection? I launched few probes to different planets and now that notifications killing warp every few seconds when I fly to another planet and its VERY annoying.

Edited May 6, 2016 by Runolite

[Rhedd]

4 hours ago, dboi88 said:

I'm downloading now.

I'm surprised you've never run into this before, i see it all the time although never knew the cause. Use Notepad++ and you'll never see this issue again.

Yep, I've run into it before, but it was easier to deal with than when I was trying to make sense of this new unfamiliar code.

I already had Notepad++, so I tried it found that it solved the problem, so I felt pretty silly. I had already edited the complaint and question out of my post before you answered, but thank you for your help!

[ShotgunNinja]

Thanks to all the brave testers!

 

@sp1989 SQUAD is on vacation so 1.1.2 should remain for at least a few weeks ah!

@mav5781 They were missing from the planner? Were you using the default profile? Thanks.

@Terensky I was able to reproduce it, will look what's causing this.

@Runolite How often does storms happen for you? How many bodies do you have a vessel around? Storm messages can't be disabled right now, I'll add a flag for them.

 

I have a couple questions:

- Is the antenna malfunctions still bothering you?
  Should I make that increase EC cost of data transmission and relay instead of reducing the range?
  Or should I reduce the range less at each malfunction? (eg: 25% instead of 50%)

- Are malfunctions in general still too frequent?
  Keep in mind that you will see the changes only on new vessels (or after a part malfunction in an existing vessel).

Edited May 6, 2016 by ShotgunNinja

[Runolite]

@ShotgunNinja I have vessels on Eve, Duna and Dres and when I turn warp on maximum, storms happen almost every 5-10 seconds in real time. This is very annoying during an interplanetary flight where I need to turn warp back again and again because notifications kill it every time.

[PieBue]

@ShotgunNinja: I like your mod very much. I started using it with KSP 1.1.1. After I updated to 1.1.2 I learned the first problems. I sent Bob to space and he died. I repeatet twice. Then I switched to Jebediah. He died too. Then I looked everywehre. Found out that there was neither oxygen nor food in the capsula. I went to design building again. What I saw I post here as Picture. The used version of Kerbalism is actual.

Edited May 6, 2016 by PieBue

[FatherLawrence]

1 hour ago, ShotgunNinja said:

  Should I make that increase EC cost of data transmission and relay instead of reducing the range?
  Or should I reduce the range less at each malfunction? (eg: 25% instead of 50%)

As a guy who uses Kerbal Construction time and has save-games several Kerbal-years in length even before real mid-game, any malfunctions that will eventually ruin craft after a couple years would make my life super tedious. So I vote on increased EC cost. If the range is reduced, there's nothing I can do to accommodate that failure for a satellite beyond the malfunction range. If there's increased EC cost, I can plan redundancy in my power generation or I could even use KIS to slap extra power generation onto the satellite after.

On that note, I know that you're redoing malfunctions in a way that will make them toggle-able, but I'm curious if we'll be able to modify the timescale of malfunctions? A person playing with KCT and another playing without will have drastically different experiences with time, and the appropriate malfunction rate for one will be either unbearable or insignificant for the other.

[ShotgunNinja]

@Runolite Understood, thanks for the details. Right now there will be a storm every 2/8/12 months on Eve/Duna/Dres, could you confirm those times? Also could you confirm that the storms you see refer only to those 3 planetary systems? Meanwhile I'm adding a per-vessel storm messages config flag.

 

@PieBue You are missing ModuleManager. Put that DLL in your GameData folder and you shold be good to go.

 

@FatherLawrence Vote noted. To decrease malfunction frequency you can use this:

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[Malfunction]]:FINAL
{
  @MODULE[Malfunction]
  {
    @min_lifetime *= 10.0
    @max_lifetime *= 10.0
  }
}

 

[Wattsits]

@ShotgunNinja Is the latest release of Kerbalism compatible with 1.1.2 yet?

[ShotgunNinja]

@Wattsits The release in the first post, 0.9.9.4, should run fine in KSP 1.1.2.

[PieBue]

@ShotgunNinja thanks, solved the issue. I'm asking myself how the dll was removed in the first place. Forgive my noobishness.

Edited May 6, 2016 by PieBue

[dboi88]

4 hours ago, FatherLawrence said:

As a guy who uses Kerbal Construction time and has save-games several Kerbal-years in length even before real mid-game, any malfunctions that will eventually ruin craft after a couple years would make my life super tedious. So I vote on increased EC cost. If the range is reduced, there's nothing I can do to accommodate that failure for a satellite beyond the malfunction range. If there's increased EC cost, I can plan redundancy in my power generation or I could even use KIS to slap extra power generation onto the satellite after.

On that note, I know that you're redoing malfunctions in a way that will make them toggle-able, but I'm curious if we'll be able to modify the timescale of malfunctions? A person playing with KCT and another playing without will have drastically different experiences with time, and the appropriate malfunction rate for one will be either unbearable or insignificant for the other.

@ShotgunNinja

I completely disagree with this idea. Your original design of the malfunctions is well thought through and makes complete sense, it is only the frequency they occurred that needs tweaking.

He says he will plan for malfunctions with redundancy built into the power generation, this makes sense and we should already be doing that for when the solar panels fail, we need extra generation ability to deal with aging panels but lumping the game mechanics for broken antennas in only reduces the overall scope of the mod. We should also already be planning for redundancy with our antennas, either by carrying a back up, which is what you would do IRL or by building networks that have more range than required and can cope with a few shorter range nodes until they can be replaced/fixed by an engineer.

If once an antenna failed on one ship it was highly unlikely for another antenna malfunction on the same ship this would make long range mission completely plausible with only a very small chance that you'd lose the entire mission. I believe this follows the same logic you followed with each individual part failure, the part will fail but is still usable, the ship should break but should still be usable but with small penalties attached.

Also if you could go and add more storage capacity with KIS, well then you can just go and fix the broken part with an engineer as the mod intends.

 

My vote is against this change.

[ShotgunNinja]

@dboi88 I tend to agree, mostly because many of the malfunctions are going to happen on electricity-related components and the Antenna range penalty add something different. Right now I opted for the reduction of the range penalty, from 0.5^malfunctions to sqrt(0.5)^malfunctions. That will reduce the range to 71% at the first malfunction, and to 50% at the second one (the pow/sqrt is related to the particular way I implement the penalties). In addition I'm clamping the number of malfunctions per-component to 2 now, so you get a part to malfunction at worst twice if you don't repair it. I'm testing these changes, together with the overall reduced rates, and it seems to behave correctly.

Also I'm going to try to reduce failure rates to half if another component of same type already malfunctioned on the same vessel. It should be doable in these terms.

[gonzo98x]

@ShotgunNinja I just started using the mod after logging over 2,000 hours in KSP. I really enjoy its simplicity and completeness. You've dine an incredible job here.

Quick question, when it comes to antennas and their range I can't figure out the range an antennae affords me until after I launch the craft from the VAB and its sitting on the pad. 

Essentially, is there a way I can learn it's range from the parts menu?

 

Also, the stayputnik probe from SXT has an antennae (separate part) that is a starting antennae with a range close to 75 giga meters. Is that not a supported part?

Not at home right now but if you need a screen shot of it I'll get one for you.

[dboi88]

1 hour ago, ShotgunNinja said:

@dboi88 I tend to agree, mostly because many of the malfunctions are going to happen on electricity-related components and the Antenna range penalty add something different. Right now I opted for the reduction of the range penalty, from 0.5^malfunctions to sqrt(0.5)^malfunctions. That will reduce the range to 71% at the first malfunction, and to 50% at the second one (the pow/sqrt is related to the particular way I implement the penalties). In addition I'm clamping the number of malfunctions per-component to 2 now, so you get a part to malfunction at worst twice if you don't repair it. I'm testing these changes, together with the overall reduced rates, and it seems to behave correctly.

Also I'm going to try to reduce failure rates to half if another component of same type already malfunctioned on the same vessel. It should be doable in these terms.

That all sounds perfect to me. This would let you build in almost complete redundancy, for a long range probe or forgo the redundancy when you have an engineer to hand, and yet still keep everything hobbling along until the engineer arrives. A perfect balance, it'll let the user decide on the type of game play to use.

[ShotgunNinja]

@gonzo98x Unfortunately I can't show the actual range on the part tooltip, because I generate the ranges based on solar system features. And essentially the celestial bodies are generated after the parts are compiled, so I have to generate these ranges after as well.

You can RMB click on the part in the VAB however (when placed on the vessel) and it will show the range. Also you should have a Signal panel in the editor planner, that will show you the range of the best antenna on the vessel.

In an effort to support arbitrary antennas, all the unsupported antennas get some 'sane defaults'. That include the extreme range, unfortunately, as there is no way for me to discern what kind of range would make sense for the antenna.

[gonzo98x]

@ShotgunNinja thank you so much for the quick response. In fact, you're answers are great. Being able to check the range of the antennae in the VAB works just as well as the part menu so thank you.

 

Also, I love the little pop ups during gameplay. Like when power is restored and it says you can relax and watch some more TV now. (Or something) very kerbal-like.

 

I really like this mod. If its OK as I get deeper into it I'd like to touch base with you on some more points. Eva propellant, knowing ahead of time what tech unlocks what in this mod, etc.

[dboi88]

@ShotgunNinja

Ok i've had a couple of hours down with the new version now.

I noticed on loading an old save that;

• All existing ships had updated food and oxygen amounts.
• all had their malfunctions reset
• all saved craft however don't have food and oxygen values updated so when loaded in the VAB the command pods now only hold 1 minute of oxygen (fixed in craft file or by swapping the part out, could be difficult with a lot of surface attached parts though)
• Some strange occurrences with parts on launched vessels with Kerbal Planetary Base Systems parts, they now have an insane amount of resources and the stations i had now show an indefinite supply of oxygen and food. He has MM patches for Kerbalism so i guess something is being doubled up somewhere maybe?
• All the existing ships loaded but my saved ships with the small black food containers are now locked when i try to open them in VAB.

All new ships seem to launch as expected, On my crew transfer saved ship i had 5154ms d/v and with the change i now have  5507ms d/v, i guess this is from weight differences in the CRP definitions as the amounts of each resource have increased but weight decreased? In my opinion the food especially was way over weight before so i see this as a fix and assume intended?

Didn't notice anything different with the entertainment or antenna systems.

Long range probe test, engine malfunction after 71 days, second engine malfunction at 114 days, solar panal at 115 days, reaction wheel at 229 days, third engine malfunction at 251 days, first engine had a major malfunction at 289 days, 4th enigne malfunction at 260days, first antenna malfunction at 291 days, second antenna failed at 345 days, mission lost. I think the changes discussed above to the malfunction mechanics would improve this some way, although this itself is a massive improvement from before, i lost most missions by 50 days and this one without the second antenna failure was still an workable craft with 25% of the original TWR and i was still able to balance the quad engines properly.

The part malfunction highlighter is marvelous! Single best improvement

I performed 2 rescue missions, both rescued kerbals were gifted EC but not EVA propellant both floated off into oblivion before i could formulate a plan to rescue them.

The bug with Kerbals when on a command seat on a rover they still have their EC drained by the wheels (wheels drain from all sources equally) and then when they leave the seat they don't take any EC with them, this leaves them dead soon after.

Overall, great improvements! Definitely a massive step in the right direction. 

[ShotgunNinja]

@dboi88 Thanks for the detailed report.

13 minutes ago, dboi88 said:

all saved craft however don't have food and oxygen values updated so when loaded in the VAB the command pods now only hold 1 minute of oxygen (fixed in craft file or by swapping the part out, could be difficult with a lot of surface attached parts though)

Ooops. I don't know if fixing this one is even possible.

14 minutes ago, dboi88 said:

Some strange occurrences with parts on launched vessels with Kerbal Planetary Base Systems parts, they now have an insane amount of resources and the stations i had now show an indefinite supply of oxygen and food. He has MM patches for Kerbalism so i guess something is being doubled up somewhere maybe?

I know what's going on. KPBS parts had some food and oxygen amounts already adapted for CRP, I multiplied the food by 10 and the oxygen by 1000 on all existing vessels.

16 minutes ago, dboi88 said:

All the existing ships loaded but my saved ships with the small black food containers are now locked when i try to open them in VAB

Do you mean the high-tech 1.25m one? I'm phasing it out in this version so I guess that part result not researched now when you try to load a vessel with it in the VAB.

18 minutes ago, dboi88 said:

Long range probe test, engine malfunction after 71 days, second engine malfunction at 114 days, solar panal at 115 days, reaction wheel at 229 days, third engine malfunction at 251 days, first engine had a major malfunction at 289 days, 4th enigne malfunction at 260days, first antenna malfunction at 291 days, second antenna failed at 345 days, mission lost. I think the changes discussed above to the malfunction mechanics would improve this some way, although this itself is a massive improvement from before, i lost most missions by 50 days and this one without the second antenna failure was still an workable craft with 25% of the original TWR and i was still able to balance the quad engines properly.

Thanks for this. This is still too frequent, I wonder what's going on because on average a part should malfunction after 500 days (at basic manufacturing quality). Maybe the radiation influence is messing with it too much, or maybe its the new aging curve. I'll check everything again (aaaargh!)

20 minutes ago, dboi88 said:

I performed 2 rescue missions, both rescued kerbals were gifted EC but not EVA propellant both floated off into oblivion before i could formulate a plan to rescue them.

Well... I forgot to include that after the refactor. 

21 minutes ago, dboi88 said:

The bug with Kerbals when on a command seat on a rover they still have their EC drained by the wheels (wheels drain from all sources equally) and then when they leave the seat they don't take any EC with them, this leaves them dead soon after.

Mmmm, maybe when they leave the seat the game doesn't consider that going 'on eva', else they should grab EC from all the vessel... I'll do some tests.

 

Thanks so much!

[dboi88]

1 hour ago, ShotgunNinja said:

@dboi88 Thanks for the detailed report.

Do you mean the high-tech 1.25m one? I'm phasing it out in this version so I guess that part result not researched now when you try to load a vessel with it in the VAB.

Confirmed, this is the issue. I'll amend the config so i can get it loaded and then remove the part.

1 hour ago, ShotgunNinja said:

Thanks for this. This is still too frequent, I wonder what's going on because on average a part should malfunction after 500 days (at basic manufacturing quality). Maybe the radiation influence is messing with it too much, or maybe its the new aging curve. I'll check everything again (aaaargh!)

Sorry i forgot to include there were 5 solar storms during that time, i ran the test orbiting kerbin just out past minmus. Maybe i should have ran the test in solar SOI? either way it is still too many failures for a satellite in kerbin SOI.

1 hour ago, ShotgunNinja said:

Well... I forgot to include that after the refactor. 

At least that's an easy fix lol.

1 hour ago, ShotgunNinja said:

Mmmm, maybe when they leave the seat the game doesn't consider that going 'on eva', else they should grab EC from all the vessel... I'll do some tests.

Cheers i appreciate it, i use rovers for mass experiment collections to send onto science labs on a regular basis and so having to Hyperedit them some EC does break the RP.

 

1 hour ago, ShotgunNinja said:

@dboi88 

Thanks so much!

No problem at all, thanks for all your hard work.

[MisterFister]

On ‎2016‎-‎04‎-‎24 at 11:41 PM, MisterFister said:

@ShotgunNinja I stumbled upon your mod for the first time tonight, and I must say that I really like the concept.  However, I'm diehard TACLS (and am kinda butthurt about TACLS not continuing development) and a diehard RT user. [Edit: TACLS appears to be alive again!]

I'm curious what your plans are surrounding TACLS, including the discussion on CRP compatibility, and I'm curious how you'd suggest I interpret what I've been reading that your system here entirely supplants RT.  The rest of your mod sounds absolutely faboo, but I'm nervous to make the switch without those two mods considered.  I also plan heavily around mods such as DangIt, StationScience, and I am somewhat ambivalent as between Kethane and Karbonite.  Do I understand correctly that you generally intend to replace those mods with your own integrated package instead of making something that can work with or without them, compatibly, as desired by a user?

@ShotgunNinja I thank you for your reply.  I realize that I utterly failed to clearly ask part of what I was trying to find out.  I'm curious if your mod foresees either suppressing sections of itself in the presence of other mods, or at least coexisting with shared or overlapping enhancements?  For my own career saves, I'd be interested in using TACLS and RemoteTech.

I'm actually asking a question that I don't think has been asked here before.  I'm reminded of @FlowerChild's technique to make exclusive-bundled mods, such as Better Than Starting Manned for KSP, or his Minecraft mod "Better Than Wolves," which I'm rather fond of.  I think he justifies rather well his creative decision to intentionally and consciously prevent other mods from working with or modifying his (either by flat refusing to provide support for coding conflicts, or simply in his decision to perform in-game balance of his mod internally, only against itself).  The issue I'm asking about is that his decision to do that is perfectly fine, but simply uncommon when it comes to considering other mods in any game -- KSP, Minecraft, or any other.

So I'm respectfully asking a specific question here: Kerbalism has a life support segment, and a "RemoteTech"-ish segment.  For players like me who might prefer to use their own mods for those segments, is that something you foresee accommodating (unintended inter-mod conflicts notwithstanding)?  Or do you find yourself of the vision that Kerbalism is designed against itself and only against itself for in-game balance purposes?

Keep in mind, I'll try your mod either way, and if you're of the "standalone vision" mindset, I'll simply set aside a specific install of KSP to play this mod if need be.  I'm just curious to get your thoughts on this.

[Nansuchao]

@MisterFister The next version of Kerbalism will disable his signal segment if RemoteTech/AntennaRange is installed, and already support Kerbal Planetary Base System, Deep Freeze and soon Near Future. I think it's easy to understand that kerbalism will support other mods. Remember that this mod is still in beta (!!??), so you can expect news on the development very often. Just give Shotgun Ninja the time to work on this beautiful mod on his free time, for his and our joy.

[MisterFister]

Just now, Nansuchao said:

@MisterFister The next version of Kerbalism will disable his signal segment if RemoteTech/AntennaRange is installed, and already support Kerbal Planetary Base System, Deep Freeze and soon Near Future. I think it's easy to understand that kerbalism will support other mods. Remember that this mod is still in beta (!!??), so you can expect news on the development very often. Just give Shotgun Ninja the time to work on this beautiful mod on his free time, for his and our joy.

And I appreciate the response, as it goes to about 85% of what I was asking.  I'll simply (and very congenially, I don't try to be a know-it-all) await a direct response from @ShotgunNinja as to his overall vision for this mod.  I'll remind you that I was drawing observation from a very unique other mod that is very intentionally designed to be self-contained, and mod-interactivity with that one is either incidental, very specifically thought out, or very small.  (For example, BTSM does list DRE as a hard prereq, mostly as a mechanism of convenience that it was already out in the wild and FC would've wanted to make a version of it himself had it not already been publicly available.)  That Kerbalism will simply subordinate to RemoteTech is awesome news, if it's an intended behavior of Kerbalism to do so.

As for giving him time to work, I wasn't making any feature requests, I was simply following up on my own original question (which was unclear in what I was actually trying to ask) that he'd already attempted to answer.  Hours or weeks to hear back, I'm in no rush. 

[dboi88]

1 hour ago, MisterFister said:

I'm actually asking a question that I don't think has been asked here before. 

There are loads of posts and discussions about how he is planning on allowing people to write their own profiles that will allow compatibility with other mods. Take a read through the thread, i'm sure you'll feel completely updated. He's done a great job with communication.

[MisterFister]

Also -- does anyone else have advice on how I can split a quote-box when I reply?

Just now, dboi88 said:

There are loads of posts and discussions about how he is planning on allowing people to write their own profiles that will allow compatibility with other mods. Take a read through the thread, i'm sure you'll feel completely updated. He's done a great job with communication.

I read this entire thread, browsing quickly though pages maybe 5-25 or so, but I read the first five and last nine pages thoroughly.  This is why I wanted to make specifically clear that I'm asking if this mod is intended to be a "total conversion mod," specifically.  Just a yes / no question for the original author @ShotgunNinja, specifically.    Not trying to make a kerfuffle.