[1.5.1] Baha EPL Redrilled v1.3.02 (12/21/18)

[Eskandare]

Been away from my computer sorry for the late update. Config clean up. attach nodes fixed and removed crew compartment. Added probe core.

I'll be updating to 1.6.0 once that version has stabilized and all dependencies have been updated.  

[Ryujin no Mai]

Considering baha3dprinter and ExpRParts2m needs EPL to have any use, would it be possible to add a :NEEDS[Launchpad] clause to them?

[theJesuit]

On 12/22/2018 at 5:33 AM, Eskandare said:

'll be updating to 1.6.0 once that version has stabilized and all dependencies have been updated.  

Hi @Eskandare

Looking forward to the 1.6.1 update :).  

Just a note as I'm looking at streamlining my game, the ksp.log has an error saying that the

Texture 'BahaEPL/scienceDrill/nrm_NRM' not found!

Thanks for ongoing work on this

EDIT: also the Extra planetary Launchpad has changed some of its things so ExLaunchpad has changed to El Launchpad or something.

Peace.

Edited January 16, 2019 by theJesuit

[Critter79606]

@theJesuit Put the below in a .cfg file to fix any old Ex/El issues.  I have several mods that aren't updated, and created this when I got tired of waiting for them to get updated.

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ExTarget]]:NEEDS[Launchpad]:Final
{
    @MODULE[ExTarget]
    {
        @name = ELTarget
    }
}

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ExWorkshop]]:NEEDS[Launchpad]:Final
{
    @MODULE[ExWorkshop]
    {
        @name = ELWorkshop
    }
}

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ExLaunchPad]]:NEEDS[Launchpad]:Final
{
    @MODULE[ExLaunchPad]
    {
        @name = ELLaunchpad
    }
}

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ExRecycler]]:NEEDS[Launchpad]:Final
{
    @MODULE[ExRecycler]
    {
        @name = ELRecycler
    }
}

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ExSurveyStation]]:NEEDS[Launchpad]:Final
{
    @MODULE[ExSurveyStation]
    {
        @name = ELSurveyStation
    }
}

 

[Eskandare]

On 1/16/2019 at 11:31 AM, theJesuit said:

Hi @Eskandare

Looking forward to the 1.6.1 update :).  

Just a note as I'm looking at streamlining my game, the ksp.log has an error saying that the

Texture 'BahaEPL/scienceDrill/nrm_NRM' not found!

Thanks for ongoing work on this

EDIT: also the Extra planetary Launchpad has changed some of its things so ExLaunchpad has changed to El Launchpad or something.

Peace.

I'll look into that.

 

On 1/28/2019 at 3:54 PM, Critter79606 said:

@theJesuit Put the below in a .cfg file to fix any old Ex/El issues.  I have several mods that aren't updated, and created this when I got tired of waiting for them to get updated.

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ExTarget]]:NEEDS[Launchpad]:Final
{
    @MODULE[ExTarget]
    {
        @name = ELTarget
    }
}

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ExWorkshop]]:NEEDS[Launchpad]:Final
{
    @MODULE[ExWorkshop]
    {
        @name = ELWorkshop
    }
}

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ExLaunchPad]]:NEEDS[Launchpad]:Final
{
    @MODULE[ExLaunchPad]
    {
        @name = ELLaunchpad
    }
}

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ExRecycler]]:NEEDS[Launchpad]:Final
{
    @MODULE[ExRecycler]
    {
        @name = ELRecycler
    }
}

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ExSurveyStation]]:NEEDS[Launchpad]:Final
{
    @MODULE[ExSurveyStation]
    {
        @name = ELSurveyStation
    }
}

 

Mind if I include this patch in the 1.6.1 update?

[theJesuit]

2 minutes ago, Eskandare said:

I'll look into that.

 

Mind if I include this patch in the 1.6.1 update?

Great to see you @Eskandare.  Just check to make sure it does actually launch with EPL.  I'm not sure it did with me.

Peace.

[Krakatoa]

7 minutes ago, Eskandare said:

I'll look into that.

 

Mind if I include this patch in the 1.6.1 update?

I went through and just fixed my copies of the cfgs. May work better than relying on a patch as far as making it so no warnings show up.

[DStaal]

Also the patch affects parts that aren't part of this mod, so it's a of a blunt instrument.  If you're updating the mod, I'd say update the config files.

[Eskandare]

New update coming soon, just maintenance.

[Krzeszny]

In KSP 1.11 everything is functional with the only bigger issues being the cost and mass of expanding containers.

@Eskandare Here are the issues I discovered:

• The Expanding Metal and Rocket Parts containers have negative costs when empty and cost 0 credits when full.
  That's because the game assumes `cost = X` for full parts, even if it's a fuel tank or an ore tank, while the cost in the configs has been calculated for empty parts.
  Here's some help with calculations (I suggest making the containers cost at least 6000 + the value of contents listed below)
  • The Expanding Metal Container costs -37440 (negative) when empty
  • The Expanding Rocket Parts Container costs -6000 (negative) when empty
  • The Expanding Ore Container costs 120 when empty (because ore is almost free, so it costs 200 when full)
  • The Expanding Kethane Container costs -320 (negative) when empty.
• The ore container costs only 120 when empty which is an issue in career mode. 2.66 stock ore containers (same 4000 volume) would cost 8000.
• The mass is much too low, although I don't know if the stock ore tanks are balanced because of how heavy they are.  2.66 large stock KSP ore containers weigh 5.5 tons when empty, while the expanding containers weigh merely 0.2 tons for the same volume. (at the same time, 5.5 t seems like too much, it's better to balance them against EPL tanks, I think.)
• The Ex. Ore container should hold more ore than it does because it expands, see screenshot. Its unexpanded size suggests a volume of 4000, so its size when expanded should allow it to hold more than 4000, at least 6000.
• All the parts have 0 entry cost (the cost to unlock them after researching them in career mode.)
• Almost non-issue: the "3D Rocket Part Printer" should probably be in the category "EL Items", not "Utility".
• The last minor issue that doesn't necessarily need to be fixed is that this mod has Interstellar Fuel Switch Core as a dependency, which has TweakScale as a dependency (which has KSP-Recall as a dependency.) That's a lot of seemingly unnecessary dependencies, esp. TweakScale.

Anyway, the models from this mod are awesome 
I would create a pull request to fix the values but unfortunately this mod isn't on GitHub.

Edited July 14, 2022 by Krzeszny
Formatting, small changes

[Lisias]

On 6/4/2021 at 10:26 AM, Krzeszny said:

In KSP 1.11 everything is functional with the only bigger issues being the cost and mass of expanding containers.

@Eskandare Here are the issues I discovered:

• The Expanding Metal and Rocket Parts containers have negative costs when empty and cost 0 credits when full.
  That's because the game assumes `cost = X` for full parts, even if it's a fuel tank or an ore tank. 
  Here's some help with calculations (I suggest making the containers cost at least 6000 + the value of contents listed below)
  • The Expanding Metal Container costs -37440 (negative) when empty
  • The Expanding Rocket Parts Container costs -6000 (negative) when empty
  • The Expanding Ore Container costs 120 when empty (because ore is almost free)
  • The Expanding Kethane Container costs -320 (negative) when empty.
• The ore container costs only 120 when empty which is an issue in career mode Two and two-thirds stock ore containers (same 4000 volume) would cost 8000.

These ones as KSP bugs, and there's nothing a Parts Add'On can do about. KSP is ignoring a thingy called IPartCostModifier, that are used by PartModules to communicate KSP how they are changing the base cost of a part.

You need a dedicated PartModule to fix this one.

Since the problem is exactly the same for everyone, KSP-Recall can be used to "fix" this problem. I think I tackled down the most used use cases at least, and even some others not exactly common.

[Krzeszny]

8 hours ago, Lisias said:

These ones as KSP bugs, and there's nothing a Parts Add'On can do about. KSP is ignoring a thingy called IPartCostModifier, that are used by PartModules to communicate KSP how they are changing the base cost of a part.

You need a dedicated PartModule to fix this one.

I wouldn't agree it's a KSP bug. It might have been because of a KSP update and how KSP now calculates the prices of resource-containing parts but it's normal. Even fuel tank costs in stock KSP and mod configs are set as "wet" costs (the game calculates "dry" costs.)

IMO those containers shouldn't only cost 200 credits a piece (they have cost = 200) but that's subjective.

However, if you for example set

cost = 43440

for the Expanding Metal Container, everything works perfectly fine, just like with any fuel tanks.

The parts list displays 43440. When you spawn it, it's empty and costs 6000 and when it's full it costs 43440. I don't see the point in overcomplicating it with a PartModule unless it's relatively simple, since it's enough to just modify `cost` (assuming that the cost of Rocket Parts, Ore, Metal Ore and Kethane won't be modified by other mods – and normally mods don't ever modify the costs of resources.)

Unless... the bug you're referring to is the parts list always showing the cost of full resource-containing parts, even if they spawn as empty. Then I'd agree it's a bug.

8 hours ago, Lisias said:

Since the problem is exactly the same for everyone, KSP-Recall can be used to "fix" this problem. I think I tackled down the most used use cases at least, and even some others not exactly common.

I have Recall installed and it didn't modify the displayed costs. I had to modify the configs myself.

Edited June 7, 2021 by Krzeszny

[Lisias]

17 hours ago, Krzeszny said:

I wouldn't agree it's a KSP bug. It might have been because of a KSP update and how KSP now calculates the prices of resource-containing parts but it's normal. Even fuel tank costs in stock KSP and mod configs are set as "wet" costs (the game calculates "dry" costs.)

What you described is essentially the bug on KSP 1.11 that Recall works around when used with Fuel Switches. Let's use an example based on TweakScale, a Module I know pretty well:

Let's pretend that we have a tank costing 1.000F and this tank is capable of withhold 900 units of a resource that costs 1F each unit. We have a 100F dry cost for the tank, so.

By Empirical Tests, it's known that the Cost of a Part (both for launching as for recovering) should be:

TotalCost = DryCost + ResourcesCost + SUM(IPartCostModifier() for every PartModule on the Part)

Where DryCost is

DryCost = Prefab.Part.Cost - SUM(Resource.MaxAmount * Resource.Price for every Resource on the Part's Prefab)

The test consist of launching this single part as a craft and then immediately recovering it.

The simplest test, take the part as is and launching it, works. No module is modifying the part,  so the IPartCostModifier would not be called anyway (and, so, that first SUM on the first equation will always be 0).

Now we scale it to ~1.2 (+20%) the original size, with twice the cargo and, also, twice the Dry Cost: we have now a 2.000F tank, being 200F the Dry Cost and 1800F the cost of the resource. Well, this tank would render you -800F on recovering (i.e., you would lose 800F on recovering), because without the IPartCostModifier being called, TweakScale could not inform KSP that such part is now costing 200F when empty and it's holding 1800 units of the fuel (instead of 100F when empty and holding 900 units of the fuel as specified on the prefab), and so KSP will subtract the current resources price from a unscaled part and get the wrong results.

Similar things happens when using Fuel Switches, as it changes the Resources a part can hold and, so, the total cost of the part -without the IPartCostModifier, the Fuel Switch can't counter-act the "default" cost calculation when the new fuel have a different cost: reusing that hypothetical part, if I change the Resources to something costing 2F by unit, we will have a Prefab Cost of 1.000F, but a "new" runtime cost of 1.900F (1.000 - 900 + 1800 == OriginalCost - OldResCost + NewResCost). But on recovery (on KSP 1.11) you will have a -800F (OriginalCost - NewResCost) refund.

What you describe fits on this description, so IMHO there's a  pretty high change of it being this problem. Or at least, part of the problem (we can have two problems in cascade...)

The best way to double-check this hypothesis is to build two test beds with the same (minimal) set of Add'Ons needed to reproduce the craft that it's suffering from this problem: one test bed using KSP 1.10.1, and another one using 1.11.2. If you can reproduce the problem on both KSPs, then you are right. If the thing works on KSP 1.10.1 and not on KSP 1.11.2, then I'm probably right.

 

17 hours ago, Krzeszny said:

I have Recall installed and it didn't modify the displayed costs. I had to modify the configs myself.

Additionally, it may be a use case Recall is missing. Please build the simplest craft file you manage to build with this problem and publish it with the KSP.log and Module Manager Patch Log on Recall Thread and I will give it a look.

In a way or another, I can help on the diagnosing.

Cheers!

-- -- -- POST EDIT -- -- -- 

As reported on the Recall thread, @Krzeszny's assessment of the situation was accurate. I ended up getting fooled by some similarities of a previous problem I had solved ("A scalded cat is afraid of cold water.") and just got in the way.   

For the sake of curiosity, this problem is present at least since July 2017, the apparent date of the latest release of the previous maintainer.

Edited June 8, 2021 by Lisias
Post edit.

[Krzeszny]

@Eskandare Are you still maintaining this mod?

[zer0Kerbal]

  

21 hours ago, Krzeszny said:

Since @Eskandare seems to have abandoned the maintenance of @BahamutoD's Baha EPL Redrilled, maybe it could be incorporated into EPL (if that's allowed) or someone else could adopt?

That mod adds really cool parts to EPL and still works, just with minor config bugs that I've found in 2021

 

@KrzesznyIF @Eskandare/@BahamutoDagree, I would be willing. 

[theJesuit]

No idea if this is currently being maintained atvthe moment...

But I'm using with Kerbalism Simplex and Simplex Resources to extract the Natural Ore and RareOre using these against stock drills which collect only HydrateOre and Saturate.

Kerbalism Simplex allows for the surface sample drill to work properly.

But the reason I've posted this here is that in using this mod, i have also reduced the size and mass of the smaller Auger/drill using Kerbalism Simplex.