[1.12.x] Kerbal Launch Failure Revived

[linuxgurugamer]

On 3/3/2017 at 2:31 PM, Fobok said:

Okay, I'm a pretty amateur programmer, having only taken an introduction to programming and a portion of a Unity course on Udemy last year before I got sick. However, looking at the code on GitHub, it appears that the part failure calculation happens only once, with an altitude set at random for each launch that fails. So it's not the length of time in atmosphere, and, I can't see, really, where it's failing every time. Especially when it's often the same altitude and particularly an underthrust. 

I'm pretty sure you are correct, the mod was designed with rockets in mind, after all.

I'm not sure what to do right now about planes, and am rather busy with other mods, but I'll open an issue on Github to keep track of this

12 minutes ago, evileye.x said:

@linuxgurugamer hello again!

I'm into planes for now in career, So I noticed - even with 2% initial and 3% exp. failures settings, my control surfaces getting failures. Not a single time engines though.

Also, science gain is somehow bugged. I have set it to minimum and it's 10. But I get something like 100-200 science per failure... Something is wrong. May be Strategia messes things up or maybe it's mod itself.

I would love to have option to disable science gain completely.

Other than that, I'm enjoying the mod, thank you!

Can you post a log file to the issue I just created:  https://github.com/linuxgurugamer/ksp-KerbalLaunchFailure/issues/10

[evileye.x]

20 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

 

Can you post a log file to the issue I just created:  https://github.com/linuxgurugamer/ksp-KerbalLaunchFailure/issues/10

Trying to look deeper... Looks like may be something else throwing science on me  I'll investigate more and sorry if I reported false...

For last flight I got about 8 science with setting set to 10, which is more reasonable...

Still would be nice to have setting limit to 0 to disable gain completely.

[linuxgurugamer]

54 minutes ago, evileye.x said:

Trying to look deeper... Looks like may be something else throwing science on me  I'll investigate more and sorry if I reported false...

For last flight I got about 8 science with setting set to 10, which is more reasonable...

Still would be nice to have setting limit to 0 to disable gain completely.

I'll keep it in mind, thanks

[Jake_IV]

Can't one simply deselect the Failure Generates Science button on the option screen to disable science rewards?

[Fobok]

2 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:

I'm pretty sure you are correct, the mod was designed with rockets in mind, after all.

I'm not sure what to do right now about planes, and am rather busy with other mods, but I'll open an issue on Github to keep track of this

1

I wasn't talking about planes, however. (That was @evileye.x, who you quoted just after me.) I'm talking about how pretty much all of us who have been using Gravity Turn to launch rockets (which makes us spend a lot more time in atmosphere) have failures pretty much every launch, and just about always an underthrust. In the thread before my post we'd discussed how, if the checks were being made more often after launch that might explain it, but since the check is just at launch that isn't an issue. I wasn't reporting an issue, I was saying no, that isn't the issue.

[evileye.x]

1 hour ago, Jake_IV said:

Can't one simply deselect the Failure Generates Science button on the option screen to disable science rewards?

I have no such button...

https://www.dropbox.com/s/e6h4zmco5wwi13l/screenshot_2017-03-10--01-35-56.png?dl=0

[linuxgurugamer]

43 minutes ago, evileye.x said:

I have no such button...

https://www.dropbox.com/s/e6h4zmco5wwi13l/screenshot_2017-03-10--01-35-56.png?dl=0

That's a bug. I'll fix it this evening.

1 char is wrong :-(

[linuxgurugamer]

2 hours ago, evileye.x said:

I have no such button...

https://www.dropbox.com/s/e6h4zmco5wwi13l/screenshot_2017-03-10--01-35-56.png?dl=0

You have no button because it is false (that's the bug).

But, when it's false, you shouldn't be getting any science from the mod after a failure.

Is there anything which says:

"xxx  Science gained due to lessons learned" in the flight log?

Edited March 9, 2017 by linuxgurugamer

[linuxgurugamer]

New release, 0.4.3:

•         Fixed bug on settings screen, which was returning wrong value for enabled when ScienceOnFailure was true
•         Fixed bug on settings screen, where the time between failures could be 0, causing a divide by zero error

I've confirmed that when Scence On Failure is false, that no science is added from this mod.  If you are seeing science added, it's coming from something else

[kerrigan778]

So I love the idea of this mod, I wonder if a future feature could be possible where similar to how Kerbal Construction Time makes parts build faster and more cheaply as you make that part more times this mod could make parts more reliable the more times you use them, especially if you have a failure. Personally I would even get a huge kick out of having to expend resources to study why a part failed to be able to correct the flaw in that part therefore cutting the chance of that part failing again dramatically.

[Nightside]

12 minutes ago, kerrigan778 said:

So I love the idea of this mod, I wonder if a future feature could be possible where similar to how Kerbal Construction Time makes parts build faster and more cheaply as you make that part more times this mod could make parts more reliable the more times you use them, especially if you have a failure. Personally I would even get a huge kick out of having to expend resources to study why a part failed to be able to correct the flaw in that part therefore cutting the chance of that part failing again dramatically.

You might want to check out the Test Flight mod, it goes WAY in depth for part reliability. I have used that in the past in a realism overhaul modded game and found it to be interesting.

I just started using this mod and it seems to be far simpler, which I appreciate since I have less time to play lately, but still want to be challenged to design for various failures.

Thanks @linuxgurugamer for keeping this going!

[kerrigan778]

46 minutes ago, Nightside said:

You might want to check out the Test Flight mod, it goes WAY in depth for part reliability. I have used that in the past in a realism overhaul modded game and found it to be interesting.

I just started using this mod and it seems to be far simpler, which I appreciate since I have less time to play lately, but still want to be challenged to design for various failures.

Thanks @linuxgurugamer for keeping this going!

Wow, yeah if that was being actively developed that would just about be my perfect setup for that. Thank you I'll keep an eye on it. 

[linuxgurugamer]

5 hours ago, Nightside said:

You might want to check out the Test Flight mod, it goes WAY in depth for part reliability. I have used that in the past in a realism overhaul modded game and found it to be interesting.

I just started using this mod and it seems to be far simpler, which I appreciate since I have less time to play lately, but still want to be challenged to design for various failures.

Thanks @linuxgurugamer for keeping this going!

I had started to take over the Test flight mod, since it was way out-of-date, but the author contacted me and had resumed it, so I let it go.

The two mods have different  goals.

[Coriform]

Just FYI the calculation for failure is bugged. The failure probabilities and the failure check generated are off by two orders of magnitude, and so any set probability will always 100% guarantee a part failure. The failure chance that is generated is in a range from 0-1, whereas the InitialFailureProbability and ExperPartFailureProbability values are never converted, and remain in the range 0-100.

[eightiesboi]

1 hour ago, Coriform said:

Just FYI the calculation for failure is bugged. The failure probabilities and the failure check generated are off by two orders of magnitude, and so any set probability will always 100% guarantee a part failure. The failure chance that is generated is in a range from 0-1, whereas the InitialFailureProbability and ExperPartFailureProbability values are never converted, and remain in the range 0-100.

I was just about to post and I saw this above. Since installing the mod, I have made 9 launches with the exact same ship (three SRBs), and every launch has resulted in a launch failure of one of the SRBs. I'll happily post whatever log files will help you.

BTW - linuxgurugamer, have I mentioned that all of the modded KSP community (read: everyone who plays KSP) owes you a true debt for the breadth and width of mods you've taken over and updated? Thank you very much for all you've done and continue to do. I've not seen anyplace where I can donate you a coffee or ten, but I'd like to.

 

Update--found your Patreon page.

Edited March 29, 2017 by eightiesboi
Update

[ZalgoWaits]

Oh, so it's not just me getting part failures, also usually underthrusts, every single time? Good to know.

[-MadMan-]

I have svaegame without this mod. Install this mod. Change setting:

underththrust -2%; fail gen some science - false

Every flight I have underthrust and science...

 

 

 

[linuxgurugamer]

Log files, please, and save game if you can

[-MadMan-]

4 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:

Log files, please, and save game if you can

No science. But still underththrust

Save; Log

[Qwarkk]

Hi Linux, I too am having an engine fail every single launch. But yesterday I had an engine failure during a burn at geostationary altitude, as far as I'm aware this mod limits failures to take place within the atmosphere?

I will edit this post to include an output log when I am home. 

[doggonemess]

Greetings,

I love this mod, and hope to see it continue. One thing I'm not to fond of is the warning icon. So I remade mine, and wanted to share in case anyone else would like to replace theirs, too.

Thanks to linuxgurugamer for all of your hard work in the KSP modding community! I don't know how you keep on top of so many projects.

EDIT AGAIN: So it 'forgot' my image url and I gave up and uploaded them to my own webserver. I also found a "part failed" indicator that I made before, but I'm not that fond of it.

Jamie

Edited May 8, 2017 by doggonemess

[funkcanna]

I am also getting a failure on every single launch when the mod is turned on.

[linuxgurugamer]

On 5/5/2017 at 4:38 PM, doggonemess said:

Greetings,

I love this mod, and hope to see it continue. One thing I'm not to fond of is the warning icon. So I remade mine, and wanted to share in case anyone else would like to replace theirs, too.

Thanks to linuxgurugamer for all of your hard work in the KSP modding community! I don't know how you keep on top of so many projects.

EDIT: For some reason, it isn't letting me post the link to the other image. I'll have to see what I can do about that.

 

Jamie

I just made a new post and re-shared the image. Hopefully this works for people.

 

Jamie

@doggonemess

Still no go.

Send it to me via email or dropbox, I'll add it to the mod if I like it.  I'll at least include it as an alternative icon

 

On 4/30/2017 at 8:04 AM, Qwarkk said:

Hi Linux, I too am having an engine fail every single launch. But yesterday I had an engine failure during a burn at geostationary altitude, as far as I'm aware this mod limits failures to take place within the atmosphere?

I will edit this post to include an output log when I am home. 

Do you have DangIt or TestFlight installed?

On 5/6/2017 at 1:59 AM, funkcanna said:

I am also getting a failure on every single launch when the mod is turned on.

Do you have DangIt! or TestFlight installed?

[doggonemess]

Just now, linuxgurugamer said:

@doggonemess

Still no go.

Send it to me via email or dropbox, I'll add it to the mod if I like it.  I'll at least include it as an alternative icon

 

I just uploaded it to my own personal webserver, which will never stop hosting it or change the URL. So it's good now.

Thanks!

Jamie

[linuxgurugamer]

Just now, doggonemess said:

I just uploaded it to my own personal webserver, which will never stop hosting it or change the URL. So it's good now.

Thanks!

Jamie

Link?  and, if I like it, is it ok for me to include it?