[1.12.2] BARIS - Building A Rocket Isn't Simple

[Angelo Kerman]

The intent is for players to take the time to build up the part quality, either through flight experience, the Test Bench, or both. I don't expect players to be able to fly off into interplanetary space at the start; that's something you have to build up to. With the new changes, the more times you launch or test, the more reliable your parts will become. With the upcoming changes, where deactivated parts will lose MTBF slower than activated parts, I expect things to fail less often as well.

Kermanned spacecraft have the advantage over unkermanned probes and can effect repairs; the real-world has very high reliability ratings for space probes, but in KSP, since we use the same parts for both kermanned and unkermanned vehicles, a high reliability will make the game boring. Thus, it's best to design redundancy in your probes and deactivate any part not in use.

For long journeys, definitely put your vehicles into hibernation mode- turn off engines, RCS, SAS, drills, any ISRU converters, lock your fuel tanks, and so on. Your parts will not be added to the list of failure candidates if your vessel fails its reliability check. Additionally, in the next release, their MTBF values will degrade more slowly.

Since I know that BARIS's default settings might not appeal to everyone, I expect players to change settings to suit their own play styles, either through the Difficulty settings, the Constants file, or both. If, after modifying settings in both places still doesn't work, then it's time to discuss things. If players can't be bothered to adjust settings to their play style and then complain, then they might as well be tilting at windmills.

As for me, I added BARIS into an existing save, I do lots of static-fire testing, use the Test Bench, adjust the settings as needed, and fly both crewed and uncrewed vessels.

[Bombaatu]

Some feedback from a usability perspective. Currently the "Vehicle Integration" dialog you can load at the KSC just shows craft in integration, with the reliability & time to completion. It would be handy if we could also load integrated craft onto the runway/launchpad from this dialog, rather than having to go into the VAB/SPH, then click load from BARIS dialog. 

 

Also, is it beneficial for static-fires to go through integration?

[Angelo Kerman]

25 minutes ago, Bombaatu said:

Some feedback from a usability perspective. Currently the "Vehicle Integration" dialog you can load at the KSC just shows craft in integration, with the reliability & time to completion. It would be handy if we could also load integrated craft onto the runway/launchpad from this dialog, rather than having to go into the VAB/SPH, then click load from BARIS dialog. 

 

Also, is it beneficial for static-fires to go through integration?

I actually did that originally, but changed it so that you can fill the craft with crew. If you know of a way to fill the craft outside of the normal KSP screen, then I can do what you're suggesting.

Technically static fires would benefit, yes. Of course, this is Kerbal, so you aren't restricted to testing just one engine or part at a time...

[Bombaatu]

I know you can add crew when you load craft from the launchpad/runway; is there a way to invoke that dialog programmaticly?

[TheRagingIrishman]

44 minutes ago, Angel-125 said:

I actually did that originally, but changed it so that you can fill the craft with crew. If you know of a way to fill the craft outside of the normal KSP screen, then I can do what you're suggesting.

KCT has it's own method of adding crew to ships, perhaps look to that for inspiration?

[Angelo Kerman]

46 minutes ago, TheRagingIrishman said:

KCT has it's own method of adding crew to ships, perhaps look to that for inspiration?

Hm, wasn't aware of that, I could look into it after getting the part breakage functionality stabilized.

[Joal ban Kluane]

13 hours ago, Angel-125 said:

The intent is for players to take the time to build up the part quality, either through flight experience, the Test Bench, or both. I don't expect players to be able to fly off into interplanetary space at the start; that's something you have to build up to. With the new changes, the more times you launch or test, the more reliable your parts will become. With the upcoming changes, where deactivated parts will lose MTBF slower than activated parts, I expect things to fail less often as well.

Kermanned spacecraft have the advantage over unkermanned probes and can effect repairs; the real-world has very high reliability ratings for space probes, but in KSP, since we use the same parts for both kermanned and unkermanned vehicles, a high reliability will make the game boring. Thus, it's best to design redundancy in your probes and deactivate any part not in use.

For long journeys, definitely put your vehicles into hibernation mode- turn off engines, RCS, SAS, drills, any ISRU converters, lock your fuel tanks, and so on. Your parts will not be added to the list of failure candidates if your vessel fails its reliability check. Additionally, in the next release, their MTBF values will degrade more slowly.

Since I know that BARIS's default settings might not appeal to everyone, I expect players to change settings to suit their own play styles, either through the Difficulty settings, the Constants file, or both. If, after modifying settings in both places still doesn't work, then it's time to discuss things. If players can't be bothered to adjust settings to their play style and then complain, then they might as well be tilting at windmills.

As for me, I added BARIS into an existing save, I do lots of static-fire testing, use the Test Bench, adjust the settings as needed, and fly both crewed and uncrewed vessels.

This is a very interesting intent statement, actually. Maybe you should copy/paste this (with some minor adjustments) in the OP and/or the wiki (or even in the KSPedia). It would probably help and attract a number of prospective players

I don't have a chance myself much to play KSP at all at the moment, but I am looking forward to test this (on easy mode, given how little I get to play, I'll be forever a rookie).

[Angelo Kerman]

BARIS 1.3.0 is now available:

MTBF
- Deactivated parts will lose MTBF at a slower rate (default: 1/10th) than activated parts. Think hibernation mode...
NOTE: the hibernating MTBF decay rate is varied per part. Deactivated engines lose MTBF slower than deactivated fuel tanks, for instance. Look at MM_BARIS.cfg for examples.

Launch Escapes
- Base chance to escape an exploding vehicle is now based on the kerbal with the highest Stupidity in the crew.

Fuel Tanks
- Additional MM patches for fuel tanks- thanks Hotaru!
- Fuel tanks will make quality checks when the player locks or unlocks its resources.
- Fuel tanks will make quality checks when a resource is emptied or filled to capacity.
- Fuel tanks will be considered deactivated if all their resources are locked.
- You can toggle the lock/unlock state of all resources in a tank using the new "Toggle Resource Locks" context menu button and Action Group button.

Bug Fixes
- Fixed bug where parts were losing MTBF faster than intended.
- Fixed bug where some parts were allowed to break even when prevented from breaking.

Edited August 31, 2017 by Angel-125

[Norcalplanner]

@Angel-125

I just finished poking around the wiki, and must say that you've put an awful lot of thought and effort into this. As a result, and combined with some of the other things I'm seeing your mods do in various videos, I've decided that my next career will focus on your suite of mods, including this one. Well done!

[IggyHitokage]

I recently started using BARIS on a new save file and I've noticed something that seems a bit off. Even after doing a full integration, it's pretty much guaranteed my craft explodes before it gets back to Kerbin. Using the USI Sounding Rockets seems complete out of the question and I had multiple antenna fail only minutes after a launch. I haven't changed any difficulty settings beyond enabling parts breaking.

 

Is this normal?

[Hotaru]

12 minutes ago, IggyHitokage said:

Is this normal?

For a brand-new game on BARIS default settings, yes.

New, untested parts are expected to fail often. The more flights you do, the more reliable the parts will become. If you want that to happen faster, either do lots of tests (static tests on the pad work as well as actual flights) or decrease the "Flights Per Part Quality Bonus" slider in the BARIS difficulty options.

[IggyHitokage]

Just now, Hotaru said:

For a brand-new game on BARIS default settings, yes.

New, untested parts are expected to fail often. The more flights you do, the more reliable the parts will become. If you want that to happen faster, either do lots of tests (static tests on the pad work as well as actual flights) or decrease the "Flights Per Part Quality Bonus" slider in the BARIS difficulty options.

Thanks, I just wasn't sure about it. I'm running over a hundred mods, so I would understand entirely if it were some kind of conflict somewhere.

[jpkerman]

FYI, i am using the ALMOST FREE LAUNCH CLAMPS mod which allows launch clamps to refill tanks.  This lets me empty the fuel tanks in the VAB (saving money) and fill the tanks on the launch pad for an pre-launch ready experience.  With BARIS this will produce tank failures which is fairly realistic.  My observation however, is if it is a probe or has no engineer in the crew I have to roll it back into the VAB (I'm using KCT) and take off/ put on a new tank because there is no provision for workers on the launch pad.  Any way to allow repairs while on the pad? 

   Love the mod even if KCT helps attain reliability without working at it. 

Edited September 1, 2017 by jpkerman

[Epiphanic]

I'm not sure if the "wage" system is working properly. When I hire workers on the BARIS window on the Astronaut Center, the worker section reflects my new payroll. (by $100/worker -- as it should). However when those workers are "employed" during vehicle integration, the payroll summary goes to zero. A similar thing happens with Astronauts. If they are available for a mission, their wage is reflected, however if they are on a mission ("employed"), the payroll summary goes to zero. I also didn't notice my funds going down at all when the pay period switches.

Although the default pay period is 12 days, I edited the Constants.cfg file to be 1 day. As far as I could tell no funds were deducted for wages at any time. The pay period summary also doesn't reflect the edited Constants.cfg for the new DaysPerPayroll value.

[Hotaru]

5 minutes ago, jpkerman said:

 My observation however, is if it is a probe or has no engineer in the crew I have to roll it back into the VAB (I'm using KCT) and take off/ put on a new tank because there is no provision for workers on the launch pad.  Any way to allow repairs while on the pad?

What I'd do is build the rocket with a launch tower allowing access to it on the pad, then if something goes wrong during fueling-up or engine startup, send some engineers out in a rover car to go fix it. Or skip the tower and build a sort of fire truck type thing, that works too.

Edited September 1, 2017 by Hotaru
Car. It's called a CAR when it's not in space. You know you've been playing KSP too much when you just automatically call it a "rover."

[Bombaatu]

I had a craft with numerous failures. It had plenty of equipment and a zero-star Engineer on board. Clicking Repair Part did nothing; part still broken, no equipment consumed. Does the Engineer have to have at least one star for this to work?

[kerrigan778]

Loving this mod, have two feature requests or suggestions if you care, (could be a single feature not sure), thank you regardless.

1. In real life you have manned rated and unmanned rated parts, they may not last any longer necessarily but they have a significantly lower chance of premature failure, they are built with more careful tolerances and higher safety factors and they are inspected more carefully. Something to this effect can be accomplished simply by not waiting as long for VI on basic probes but it would be nice if it were an some sort of selectable grade.

2. Along a similar vein, parts that are rated for re-use (somewhat already in there as you can have an engineer make repairs) as well as more importantly parts that will be designed to do exceptionally long missions autonomously ought to be able to be built to a much higher standard for longevity. Perhaps a selectable modifier that increases the part costs but makes them lose condition slower.

Short version: A modifier for adjusting quality (likelihood of premature catastrophic failure) and longevity (ie, rate of condition deterioration through use (EDIT: Or I guess just a factor applied to MTBF maybe?)) of parts in exchange for higher or lower part cost.

 

Thank you for listening to me ramble. This mod has already brought the game a nice jump towards how I always wanted it to be. 

Edited September 1, 2017 by kerrigan778

[kerrigan778]

Also got to say it would be nice to know what caused something to fail. Like a message on the notification saying "x part has suffered catastrophic failure during operation due to an engineering mistake (low quality" or optionally with some sort of flavor message. Having a lot of probe failures during launch that sometimes feel pretty random and I'm not sure what's causing them.

[Angelo Kerman]

8 hours ago, kerrigan778 said:

Loving this mod, have two feature requests or suggestions if you care, (could be a single feature not sure), thank you regardless.

1. In real life you have manned rated and unmanned rated parts, they may not last any longer necessarily but they have a significantly lower chance of premature failure, they are built with more careful tolerances and higher safety factors and they are inspected more carefully. Something to this effect can be accomplished simply by not waiting as long for VI on basic probes but it would be nice if it were an some sort of selectable grade.

2. Along a similar vein, parts that are rated for re-use (somewhat already in there as you can have an engineer make repairs) as well as more importantly parts that will be designed to do exceptionally long missions autonomously ought to be able to be built to a much higher standard for longevity. Perhaps a selectable modifier that increases the part costs but makes them lose condition slower.

Short version: A modifier for adjusting quality (likelihood of premature catastrophic failure) and longevity (ie, rate of condition deterioration through use (EDIT: Or I guess just a factor applied to MTBF maybe?)) of parts in exchange for higher or lower part cost.

 

Thank you for listening to me ramble. This mod has already brought the game a nice jump towards how I always wanted it to be. 

The best way to ensure that your probes don't fail is to uninstall BARIS. I have bent over backwards to address complaints and I am done. Moderators please lock the thread.

Edited September 1, 2017 by Angel-125

[NISSKEPCSIM]

Edited September 1, 2017 by NISSKEPCSIM

[dboi88]

I'm sad people have made Angel sad 

[TheRagingIrishman]

imo, everyone needs to stop telling Angel to make stuff less breakable. This is a mod designed to give you failures, if you can't handle that, change the settings or don't install it.

[Beetlecat]

A base misunderstanding of what the mod is intending to do is causing "everyone" to think it's broken.  This is like calling KSP broken because you can't get to space on the very first rocket you built, no matter how many rockets, or fuel tanks, or struts, or boosters added.

[larkvi]

52 minutes ago, TheRagingIrishman said:

imo, everyone needs to stop telling Angel to make stuff less breakable. This is a mod designed to give you failures, if you can't handle that, change the settings or don't install it.

Well, I think that the intent/level of failure was poorly communicated, and the mod was put in 'release' before it was out of beta, giving the appearance that it was more finished than it was. It is great idea, but the the gameplay and implementation seem like they need a lot of work and tuning, and the settings do not communicate intent well ('Very Easy' isn't, by the numbers).

FWIW, I cannot get the newest version (1.3) to work properly, as my ships have tons of reliability in the VAB but always start out poor on the launchpad. It may simply be a mod conflict, but it seems from testing that it is the dev version of KCT (a suggested mod) that is incompatible, since integration is not happening.

[Hotaru]

@Angel-125 I haven't been here to complain. I never ask for support--I solve problems on my own, by changing settings, editing config files, sometimes even editing code and recompiling plugins. I could've, and now I guess I will, just quietly downloaded and used BARIS on my own, fixing, ignoring, or working around the problems as they came up and never posting here about any of it. But I was (and am!) really, really excited about this mod, because it was exactly the failure mod I've wanted for a long time, and I just wanted to help make it better.

I apologize for trying to help. It won't happen again.