[1.3.0] Kerbalism v1.2.9

[ShotgunNinja]

On 3/25/2017 at 3:06 PM, John Nowak said:

If you know the volume of the part your kerbal is leaving on EVA, you know how much air is lost. Then I assume you could expend the air lost, in the same way you already calculate air used by respiration. I'm not clear on why multiple habitats are needed, although obviously I didn't write the code. 

Ah ok. So simply lose atmosphere from an hab part when going out on EVA, that could be interesting: simple to implement, and will incentive the player to use small habitats as airlocks. I'll think about it.

In my replies I was talking about a more complex mechanic where: you enter the airlock hab, isolate it from the rest of the vessel, equalize the airlock pressure to the external one, and finally go on eva. Then invert the process when returning from eva.

 

@Iso-Polaris, @CatastrophicFailure You can disable the reliability warning (and associated stopwarp) from monitor -> vessel config panel. You can also 'kind of retire' vessels by setting them to debris, that has the additional advantage that you will not see them in the monitor list anymore (and they aren't processed at all by the mod, so some performance benefit too).

I see what you guys meant. If you have an hundred vessels and you didn't the above gradually, it will be a pain to change all of them at once. But I got a 'solution' : the warning configs are in the savegame, and you can change them all with a text editor: replace all occurrences of the string 'cfg_malfunction = True' to 'cfg_malfunction = False'. You can do the same for all other warning configs (cfg_ec, cfg_supply, cfg_signal, cfg_storm, cfg_script).

 

@popos1  As explained above, that is how the signal mechanic of this mod work. A clear distinction is present between low-gain and high-gain antennas. More info is on the wiki. If you don't like how this work, you can disable the signal mechanic completely by going in the file Settings.cfg and setting signal = false.

 

Edited March 27, 2017 by ShotgunNinja

[ShotgunNinja]

 

10 hours ago, DavidHunter said:

is there a way of adding life support resources (e.g. food, water, nitrogen, oxygen, etc.) to a part from a different mod

Absolutely. Find out the unique name of the part (eg: 'spaceXpod'), then create a .cfg file like this:

@PART[spaceXpod]
{
  RESOURCE
  {
    name = Food
    amount = 100
    maxAmount = 100
  }
  
  RESOURCE
  {
    name = Water
    amount = ...
    maxAmount = ...
  }
  
  // ...
}

 

7 hours ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

do multiple Omni antennas "stack," or just it just figure for the single best one

All antennas are used at the same time, each one with its current data transmission rate. So we can say that the transmission rate 'stack', in that sense. But transmission distance doesn't.

 

@JWS Thanks, I'll check it out. I got a number of issues with KIS on my TODO list for next version.

Edited March 27, 2017 by ShotgunNinja
'maxAmount' instead of 'capacity'...

[John Nowak]

 

9 hours ago, ShotgunNinja said:

Ah ok. So simply lose atmosphere from an hab part when going out on EVA, that could be interesting: simple to implement, and will incentive the player to use small habitats as airlocks. I'll think about it.

In my replies I was talking about a more complex mechanic where: you enter the airlock hab, isolate it from the rest of the vessel, equalize the airlock pressure to the external one, and finally go on eva. Then invert the process when returning from eva.

 

Right, gotcha. 

A more elaborate solution might be workable if you approached it from the notion that a ship has one habitat, but that habitable modules can be "shut down" removed from that habitat, or turned back on. In that case, you wouldn't really have multiple habitats in one ship; you have one habitat, with a tweakable size. 

Messing about with different atmosphere mixes might be interesting, but unfortunately it wouldn't add much to the gameplay. Adding a "you need to decompress to wear a space suit" would be educational, but I don't think adding a six hour delay after pressing EVA would be a good thing. 

 

 

 

[babale]

Does anyone know of a config that would let me harvest fuel more easily (or maybe I'm just missing something?). I have reached the 550 tier techs in my career saves and I would like to go to Minmus and build a robotic refinery but it seems like I can't do this without shipping tons of CO2 to space. I'm not saying I want to go back to using raw ore to make fuel, but if I could make everything I need to make LF/O on Minmus I would be having a lot more fun.

[DavidHunter]

20 hours ago, ShotgunNinja said:

 

Absolutely. Find out the unique name of the part (eg: 'spaceXpod'), then create a .cfg file like this:

@PART[spaceXpod]
{
  RESOURCE
  {
    name = Food
    amount = 100
    maxAmount = 100
  }
  
  RESOURCE
  {
    name = Water
    amount = ...
    maxAmount = ...
  }
  
  // ...
}

 

Thanks!

[DavidHunter]

On 3/27/2017 at 6:20 PM, ShotgunNinja said:

 

Absolutely. Find out the unique name of the part (eg: 'spaceXpod'), then create a .cfg file like this:

@PART[spaceXpod]
{
  RESOURCE
  {
    name = Food
    amount = 100
    maxAmount = 100
  }
  
  RESOURCE
  {
    name = Water
    amount = ...
    maxAmount = ...
  }
  
  // ...
}

 

Hmm, actually I can't seem to get this to work. Whenever I do this, I just get the default amounts in the part, as if the .cfg file has been ignored...

I'm using the correct part name from the mod...:

@PART[KK_SPX_ITS_ship]
{
  RESOURCE
  {
    name = Food
    amount = 10000
    maxAmount = 10000
  }
  
  RESOURCE
  {
    name = Water
    amount = 10000
    maxAmount = 10000
  }

  RESOURCE
  {
    name = Nitrogen
    amount = 1000000
    maxAmount = 1000000
  }

  RESOURCE
  {
    name = Oxygen
    amount = 1000000
    maxAmount = 1000000
  }
}

Is my code above correct or have I botched something?

Thanks.

[Iso-Polaris]

On 2017/3/27 at 3:07 PM, ShotgunNinja said:

Ah ok. So simply lose atmosphere from an hab part when going out on EVA, that could be interesting: simple to implement, and will incentive the player to use small habitats as airlocks. I'll think about it.

In my replies I was talking about a more complex mechanic where: you enter the airlock hab, isolate it from the rest of the vessel, equalize the airlock pressure to the external one, and finally go on eva. Then invert the process when returning from eva.

 

@Iso-Polaris, @CatastrophicFailure You can disable the reliability warning (and associated stopwarp) from monitor -> vessel config panel. You can also 'kind of retire' vessels by setting them to debris, that has the additional advantage that you will not see them in the monitor list anymore (and they aren't processed at all by the mod, so some performance benefit too).

I see what you guys meant. If you have an hundred vessels and you didn't the above gradually, it will be a pain to change all of them at once. But I got a 'solution' : the warning configs are in the savegame, and you can change them all with a text editor: replace all occurrences of the string 'cfg_malfunction = True' to 'cfg_malfunction = False'. You can do the same for all other warning configs (cfg_ec, cfg_supply, cfg_signal, cfg_storm, cfg_script).

 

@popos1  As explained above, that is how the signal mechanic of this mod work. A clear distinction is present between low-gain and high-gain antennas. More info is on the wiki. If you don't like how this work, you can disable the signal mechanic completely by going in the file Settings.cfg and setting signal = false.

 

thx ill try that out

[Drew Kerman]

Since there aren't ground stations (yet?) in Kerbalism I've made a simple kOS script you can run to draw a line vector back to the KSC tracking station and then use Camera Tools to run along the line and see if it clips into any terrain to determine if you have LoS. Right now I just use it for aircraft flying around area and science balloons rising up over the horizon. Would also suggest KSP Trajectory Optimization Tool (Mission Architect) as a means of determining ground station visibility for craft in orbit around any body.

[babale]

So I created a custom profile to try and add back the stock 1 ore > .45 LF/.55 Oxidizer option, mostly as a first step to see if I can build off of that. I added the following to the different sections, between other resources (so I know the placement is right):

Spoiler

 

Process
  {
    name = Ore Refining
    modifier = _ORE
    input = ElectricCharge@30
    input = Ore@1
    output = [email protected] output = [email protected]
   }

 

MODULE
  {
    name = ProcessController
    resource = _ORE
    title = ORE
    capacity = 1
  }

 

  MODULE
  {
    name = Configure
    title = Chemical Plant
    slots = 1

    SETUP
    {
      name = ORE

      MODULE
      {
        type = ProcessController
        id_field = resource
        id_value = _ORE      }
    }

 

SETUP
    {
      name = Ore Refining
      desc = Transform <b>Ore</b> into <b>Fuel</b>.
      tech = experimentalScience

      MODULE
      {
        type = ProcessController
        id_field = resource
        id_value = _ORE
      }
    }

 

RESOURCE_DEFINITION
{
  name = _ORE
  density = 0.0
  isVisible = false
}

 

 

The result is that I can see the transaction in Resource Conversion when I hover over the item, but I can't access Configure menu for ANY part.

 

Any ideas?

[babale]

So I messed with the configs a bit more -- it works fine now, almost. I have every two slots, but every process is enabled by default... Not sure what I am doing wrong as I didn't touch any of that stuff!

[fourfa]

On 3/25/2017 at 5:53 AM, eberkain said:

Just pull up the vessel info page and look at the Auto tab. 

Looking for more info on how to disable the automatic kill-time-warp on losing control.  I'm a nuub with this mod.  Vessel info page in the Tracking Station? I don't see anything like that.

Further info: I'm running the Kerbalism Simplified mod/profile, Signal = false, Science = false.  In the Kerbalism tab (in VAB/SPH/TS/wherever) there is a gear icon that doesn't do anything when I click it.

[babale]

I figured it out! Apparently having Default1 in the Profile folder (since I didn't want to delete the original default) caused the game to load my config AS WELL AS the original, doubling up how many slots I had (including in stuff like oxygen tanks!). Removing Default1 from the folder fixed the problem.

[eberkain]

5 hours ago, fourfa said:

Looking for more info on how to disable the automatic kill-time-warp on losing control.  I'm a nuub with this mod.  Vessel info page in the Tracking Station? I don't see anything like that.

Further info: I'm running the Kerbalism Simplified mod/profile, Signal = false, Science = false.  In the Kerbalism tab (in VAB/SPH/TS/wherever) there is a gear icon that doesn't do anything when I click it.

Anywhere, doesnt' matter.   Just pull up the list of vessels, click one of the vessel names and you should get detailed info about that vessel, along the bottom are tabs, go over to auto and click up, then you should see some labels with checkmarks, there are mouse pointer tooltips to help explain everything, you can uncheck the different things to disable the messaging, which disable the time warp stop. 

[Crimeo]

Quote

 So simply lose atmosphere from an hab part when going out on EVA, that could be interesting: simple to implement, and will incentive the player to use small habitats as airlocks. I'll think about it.

That would be a really dumb way to design a spaceship though, and is not how that works / doesn't feel more realistic at all to me. If you were a kerbal who only had one capsule, you wouldn't just put your spacesuit on and randomly open the door... You'd put your spacesuit on, then pump all the atmosphere into a tank, THEN open the door, so you don't lose all that gas for no reason. Even if you only have one module with 2 kerbals in it, they could simply both put their suits on even if only one is going out, and thus still lose no atmosphere.

Maybe lose like a couple of % for imperfect vacuum pumps, but that should be about it.

Edited March 29, 2017 by Crimeo

[eberkain]

40 minutes ago, Crimeo said:

That would be a really dumb way to design a spaceship though, and is not how that works / doesn't feel more realistic at all to me. If you were a kerbal who only had one capsule, you wouldn't just put your spacesuit on and randomly open the door... You'd put your spacesuit on, then pump all the atmosphere into a tank, THEN open the door, so you don't lose all that gas for no reason. Even if you only have one module with 2 kerbals in it, they could simply both put their suits on even if only one is going out, and thus still lose no atmosphere.

Maybe lose like a couple of % for imperfect vacuum pumps, but that should be about it.

The only real reference I could find was on the Wiki page for the ISS Airlock which says...

Quote

 It was derived from the Space Shuttle airlock, although it was significantly modified to waste less atmospheric gas when used. It was attached to the starboard CBM of the Unity during STS-104. It has mountings for four high-pressure gas tanks, two containing oxygen and two containing nitrogen, which provides for atmospheric replenishment to the American side of the space station, most specifically for the gas lost after a hatch opening during a space walk.

To me that implies that the space shuttle airlock would loose quite alot of air when used, and that even the current airlock on the ISS is not 100% loss free.  Wish I could find some real numbers. 

[The-Doctor]

@ShotgunNinja hey, for Galileo's, the radiation field doesn't appear, any ideas?

[blakemw]

17 hours ago, babale said:

I figured it out! Apparently having Default1 in the Profile folder (since I didn't want to delete the original default) caused the game to load my config AS WELL AS the original, doubling up how many slots I had (including in stuff like oxygen tanks!). Removing Default1 from the folder fixed the problem.

That's not it. What it comes down to is the rules like these:

@PART[*]:HAS[#CrewCapacity[>0]]:NEEDS[ProfileDefault]:FOR[Kerbalism]
{

You need to copy these rules from Default.cfg and change the :NEEDS[ProfileDefault] to match the name you use for your profile (if indeed, you want that aspect in your profile).  Then when you change the profile in settings.cfg, the rules in Default.cfg won't be loaded, but the rules in your new profile will be loaded: the required stuff gets loaded, with no doubling up.

Edited March 29, 2017 by blakemw

[eberkain]

21 minutes ago, The-Doctor said:

@ShotgunNinja hey, for Galileo's, the radiation field doesn't appear, any ideas?

GPP 1.1 doesn't support Kerbalism, but 1.2 will, and it is about to get released, I see activity on github in the last couple hours for them gathering updates for the 1.2 release.

[CatastrophicFailure]

22 minutes ago, The-Doctor said:

@ShotgunNinja hey, for Galileo's, the radiation field doesn't appear, any ideas?

Poke around in the GPP thread, I posted a stop-gap config that adds them, until Galileo & crew bring on official support. 

[babale]

9 minutes ago, blakemw said:

That's not it. What it comes down to is the rules like these:

@PART[*]:HAS[#CrewCapacity[>0]]:NEEDS[ProfileDefault]:FOR[Kerbalism]
{

You need to copy these rules from Default.cfg and change the :NEEDS[ProfileDefault] to match the name you use for your profile (if indeed, you want that aspect in your profile).  Then when you change the profile in settings.cfg, the rules in Default.cfg won't be loaded, but the rules in your new profile will be loaded: the required stuff gets loaded, with no doubling up.

I modified the Default config and left all of that stuff the same, using the profile name Default. I saved a copy of the original default profile as Default1. When I removed Default1, the issue was resolved. 

Good to know why it didn't work as OreToFuel though!

[fourfa]

10 hours ago, Crimeo said:

That would be a really dumb way to design a spaceship though, and is not how that works / doesn't feel more realistic at all to me. If you were a kerbal who only had one capsule, you wouldn't just put your spacesuit on and randomly open the door... You'd put your spacesuit on, then pump all the atmosphere into a tank, THEN open the door, so you don't lose all that gas for no reason. Even if you only have one module with 2 kerbals in it, they could simply both put their suits on even if only one is going out, and thus still lose no atmosphere.

Randomly opening the door (100% cabin depressurization) is precisely how Gemini, Apollo CSM, and Apollo LM worked (and I'm sure many other historical craft).  Pumps that can scavenge ~5psi of gas are heavy, draw from a limited power reserve, get hot, and have failures.  All of those things have downstream effects.  I'd be frankly shocked if all that pump apparatus and up-rating the power and thermal control systems wasn't much heavier than just bringing more disposable gas.  In the case of Gemini and Apollo - these are reasonable phases for a KSP career save to go through.

If we're talking future sci-fi, Star Trek class ships or permanent planetary outposts, then I 100% agree with you - why not try some gas recovery machinery? I still think you're likely to find the mass ratios disappointing though.  Just some thoughts.

@eberkain thanks for the interface pointers, I got it now.

Edited March 30, 2017 by fourfa

[JadeOfMaar]

@CatastrophicFailure @eberkain Poor internet due to weather was holding Galileo back. GPP 1.2 is up now and Kerbalism support is fully present.  Be sure to install the GPP_CareerSaver patch and into GameData. There's a very large new feature that will break your game if ignored.

[Crimeo]

KSP does not have the same considerations on this issue as those real life missions. The weight and complexity of an air pump in KSP is irrelevant, because we objectively already HAVE pumps for every resource installed on all KSP vessels, as you can see by alt-right clicking any two parts and using the "in"/"out" pump interface.

Considering you have pumps aboard already, not using them would be dumb. I mean, if you wanted to make them explicit in kerbalism and expose them to the part breaking / maintenance minigame in this mod, that would seem reasonable, then if they break, you now start losing much more atmosphere. But not routinely.

(It also makes a lot more sense anyway to have pumps in KSP for these generic modular parts used in all sorts of missions from little more than manned sounding rockets up to interstellar voyages.As compared to something like gemini, where they knew ahead of time they'd only be losing like a couple of cubic feet of air or whatever between docks and that's it. Designing parts for specific mission profiles is a fundamentally lighter weight design philosophy than the global application modular overengineering kerbals use. Also reflected in the reasonable decision in the kerbalism mod, for example, to have scrubbers on every pod, regardless of whether a particular mission might only be going to the launchpad for 30 seconds)

Edited March 30, 2017 by Crimeo

[John Nowak]

 

 

19 hours ago, Crimeo said:

That would be a really dumb way to design a spaceship though, and is not how that works / doesn't feel more realistic at all to me. If you were a kerbal who only had one capsule, you wouldn't just put your spacesuit on and randomly open the door... You'd put your spacesuit on, then pump all the atmosphere into a tank, THEN open the door, so you don't lose all that gas for no reason. Even if you only have one module with 2 kerbals in it, they could simply both put their suits on even if only one is going out, and thus still lose no atmosphere.

Maybe lose like a couple of % for imperfect vacuum pumps, but that should be about it.

Afraid not. That pump masses a lot more than the air you lose by pumping the air back in. With a pressurized volume of 6.7 m^3 the Lunar Module would lose only about two kilos of oxygen when venting into space. 

Note that this reference

https://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/shutref/structure/airlock.html

specifically states that the air in the Shuttle airlock was vented overboard. 

It's possible that the ISS airlocks have pumps, but that's a case where the airlocks will be in use for a large number of EVAs. 

 

[blakemw]

58 minutes ago, John Nowak said:

With a pressurized volume of 6.7 m^3 the Lunar Module would lose only about two kilos of oxygen when venting into space. 

 

Altough in Kerbalism a nitrogen/oxygen atmosphere is used, presumably at 1atm, and would mass in at 8kg.

Pure oxygen atmosphere at low partial pressure is very favorable to venting/leaking compared with oxygen+nitrogen.