[1.12.x] MissingHistory v1.9.3: Handy parts to complement Making History.

[severedsolo]

3 hours ago, scottadges said:

I'm liking a lot of the mod so far, but I'm wondering if there's a way that I can go back to the stock versions of the Reliant and Swivel? I actually prefer those models, but I'd rather not drop the whole mod.

Alas, I'm only marginally familiar with KSP under the hood, but I can find lines of text in a .cfg file, if there's something to tweak? If not, I totally understand. Appreciate any help you can provide! 

Just either delete or rename GameData/MissingHistory/PorkjetParts/Engine/liquidEngineLV-T30.cfg and liquidEngineLV-T45.cfg and you should be good. (I'd recommend renaming them just in case you change your mind). You just need to change the extension. So for example: liquidEngineLV-T30.cfg.disabled should do it.

Edited February 16, 2019 by severedsolo

[scottadges]

11 hours ago, severedsolo said:

Just either delete or rename GameData/MissingHistory/PorkjetParts/Engine/liquidEngineLV-T30.cfg and liquidEngineLV-T45.cfg and you should be good. (I'd recommend renaming them just in case you change your mind). You just need to change the extension. So for example: liquidEngineLV-T30.cfg.disabled should do it.

Awesome, thanks for the reply. That's a big help!

[linuxgurugamer]

On 3/14/2018 at 1:30 AM, Snark said:

Atomic engines from Porkjet

Introducing 0.625m and 1.875m nuclear engines, for all your interplanetary needs:

Were you aware that I've had all those nuclear engines from Porkjet available in the following mod for a long time now?  In fact, I have the entire mod Atomic Age here, and updated (ie:  gimbels have been fixed): 

I was confused when I saw the Atomic Lightbulb in a game and I knew I hadn't installed my mod.

I did notice that you made your version of the Lightbulb a 1.875m engine and adjusted the stats, while mine is 2.5.

Edit:  I just looked and it seems that the gimbeling is still broken in your models of the LightBulb and the Candle.

Feel free to grab the models from RecycledParts

Finally, I see two copies of the Candle in the editor in the parts list, not sure what's going on with that

Edited February 18, 2019 by linuxgurugamer

[Snark]

3 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:

Were you aware that I've had all those nuclear engines from Porkjet available in the following mod for a long time now?

Wasn't aware on the day I released the mod, though the fact then came up here in the thread the next day and we discussed it (you were part of the conversation at that time, as you'll recall). 

Good to know that Atomic Age has a home; that was a fun mod, and it's nice to know that players who want to play with that mod, and its significant game-rebalancing features, have a place to do so.

(Not especially relevant here, though-- what I'm doing in this mod is quite different, which is why I only took two specific parts and significantly rebalanced them.)

3 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:

I was confused when I saw the Atomic Lightbulb in a game and I knew I hadn't installed my mod.

<jogs memory to when you discussed this here, last month> 

3 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:

I did notice that you made your version of the Lightbulb a 1.875m engine and adjusted the stats

Yep.  I wasn't trying to replicate Atomic Age at all-- my goal was to fill in a few "size holes" without significantly rebalancing the game, whereas Atomic Age takes a very different approach.  It's apples and oranges.  That's why I just grabbed the two models, and significantly rebalanced them in the process.  I only wanted the models, not the gameplay changes.

3 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:

Edit:  I just looked and it seems that the gimbeling is still broken in your models of the LightBulb and the Candle.

Feel free to grab the models from RecycledParts

Thanks for the heads-up.  "Broken" how?  I've noticed them gimbaling when in use.  (Admittedly, I don't notice it much, since I've found that the gimbaling on these engines isn't super relevant when it comes to actual gameplay.  The place where gimbaling tends to really matter is during ascent, as a matter of attitude control to avoid flipping-- which doesn't come up for these engines, since they're low-TWR vacuum engines and generally are never used during the thick-atmosphere part of ascent.  Since they only gimbal a tiny amount, and it's a low-TWR engine such that reaction wheels tend to overwhelm the gimbal anyway, I just never notice them much.)

Anyway, good to know that there's a gimbal-fixed version out there, will bear that in mind, thanks.

3 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:

Finally, I see two copies of the Candle in the editor in the parts list, not sure what's going on with that

No idea.  I don't see that, myself, nor have I seen anyone else mentioning it up to now (which someone presumably would have by now, if it were a widespread situation).  My guess would be that it's an interaction between mods, of some sort?

I'd guess it has something to do with this discussion from last month.  Here's the relevant config that I'd guess would be pertinent.

Can't really say anything beyond that, since I can't reproduce the problem myself.

[linuxgurugamer]

They gimbel quite a bit in the fixed models.

I was very happy to see that you renamed them.

Sorry about forgetting, too many mods to keep track of

[Snark]

34 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

They gimbel quite a bit in the fixed models.

Bear in mind that in my own config for the parts, I reduce the gimbal range by a lot. (Porkjet's original models had a huge gimbal range, especially the Lightbulb, which I didn't want.) So that particular aspect of it is a feature in MissingHistory, not a bug.

34 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

Sorry about forgetting, too many mods to keep track of

Heh, no worries.  Quite understandable, given how many mods you maintain!

[Starhawk]

 

Among the peculiarities of certain Making History parts, this one still remains and bugs the heck out of me.

It just makes no sense.  Not only is it nonsensical from a physics point of view, the RCS ports don't work properly with CoM way down there.

Do you have any interest in providing a correction to the CoM as part of the optional tweaks in this mod?

 

Happy landings!

[linuxgurugamer]

1 hour ago, Snark said:

guess it has something to do with this discussion from last month.  Here's the relevant config that I'd guess would be pertinent.

Can't really say anything beyond that, since 

I'll see if I can figure it out

[Tyko]

2 hours ago, Starhawk said:

 

Among the peculiarities of certain Making History parts, this one still remains and bugs the heck out of me.

It just makes no sense.  Not only is it nonsensical from a physics point of view, the RCS ports don't work properly with CoM way down there.

Do you have any interest in providing a correction to the CoM as part of the optional tweaks in this mod?

 

Happy landings!

This thread below has info about improving the CoM. This makes it work better.

1. You may want to tweak this further to balance it with the engine attached
2. There's still an issue that the RCS thrusters aren't positioned properly to give balanced thrust. So you're still going to get some off-axis thrust, but that can only be fixed by changing the model itself.

 

 

Edited February 18, 2019 by Tyko

[linuxgurugamer]

4 hours ago, Snark said:

4 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:

They gimbel quite a bit in the fixed models.

Bear in mind that in my own config for the parts, I reduce the gimbal range by a lot. (Porkjet's original models had a huge gimbal range, especially the Lightbulb, which I didn't want.) So that particular aspect of it is a feature in MissingHistory, not a bug.

Understood, but the gimbal directions are wrong.  Try this.  Put the engines on a tank with a probe core and a battery, have the engines pointing up.

Launch it, and stage, have the throttle set to 0

now, use the wasd keys to enter control, and you will see that the gimbaling is not in the correct direction

[linuxgurugamer]

2 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:

I'll see if I can figure it out

I think I see what's going on.  I'm playing sandbox, and I did a search for "candle", it still showed both copies

[Snark]

1 hour ago, linuxgurugamer said:

I think I see what's going on.  I'm playing sandbox, and I did a search for "candle", it still showed both copies

Ah, okay. Have never once ever used the search feature in KSP, which is why it didn't occur to me. The simple fix is to remove the search tags from the hidden cloned part. I'll try to remember to do that in the next update.

[Snark]

5 hours ago, Starhawk said:

Among the peculiarities of certain Making History parts, this one still remains and bugs the heck out of me.

It just makes no sense.  Not only is it nonsensical from a physics point of view, the RCS ports don't work properly with CoM way down there.

Do you have any interest in providing a correction to the CoM as part of the optional tweaks in this mod?

No way to know for sure why they placed the CoM as they did. Bug? Perhaps. Or maybe they figured "this is a dedicated lander part, let's make it lander friendly by giving it a nice low CoM," for all I know.

In any case, I think any fixes for the MEM are outside the scope of this mod. MissingHistory is about filling in gaps, not rebalancing the game. @Tyko kindly provided a nice link above, for anyone who may be interested.

As for myself: another reason I'm not inclined to "fix" this part is that I never, ever use this part myself. It's completely useless to me. I'll concede that it's kinda neat looking and does a pretty good job of evoking the Apollo LEM, but that's about it. I find the design singularly useless in my gameplay, and I object to its design in game terms (rationale would be a lengthy rant not germane here). The point, though, is that since I don't use the part myself, I'm singularly ill qualified to be doing any tinkering with it to "fix" it.

The closest I've come to "fixing" the part is to write a little MM snippet to delete it from my game, so that it's not cluttering up the parts tab in the VAB. Which is obviously not something I'd do in a published mod!

[Tyko]

@Snark yea agreed. I have no idea what the devs were thinking when they decided CoM and RCS placement and I never use the part.   

[Starhawk]

41 minutes ago, Snark said:

I never, ever use this part myself. It's completely useless to me

There would indeed be no point then.

43 minutes ago, Snark said:

No way to know for sure why they placed the CoM as they did. Bug? Perhaps. Or maybe they figured "this is a dedicated lander part, let's make it lander friendly by giving it a nice low CoM," for all I know

Yeah, I wasn't really concerned with the why, more just that it bugs me like the hanging down node for the Cheetah bugs you.

Thanks, Snark.  There was no harm in asking anyway.

4 hours ago, Tyko said:

This thread below has info about improving the CoM. This makes it work better.

1. You may want to tweak this further to balance it with the engine attached
2. There's still an issue that the RCS thrusters aren't positioned properly to give balanced thrust. So you're still going to get some off-axis thrust, but that can only be fixed by changing the model itself. 

Thanks, Tyko.  With the CoM change it will be close enough to use, at least.

Happy landings!

[OHara]

On 1/24/2019 at 6:33 PM, klesh said:

I quite enjoy using the "Size 1.5 Decoupler" and would love to see it available across all sizes [but it needs those poorly-documented drag cubes].

I have been meaning to start a thread with the information I have collected on drag, which has changed a bit since Claw's introduction (thread link) and causing a lot of trouble due to mis-configurations in the newer parts. 

Making an example for this case is an easy first step

Spoiler

DRAG_CUBE { // for a cylinder of thickness T, diameter D, with the center of a box surrounding the model at coordinates x,y,z
	// dimensions in meters
 	//              D×T, 0.75,D/2, D×T, 0.75,D/2, 0.79D², 1, D/2, 0.79D², 1, D/2, D×T, 0.75,D/2, D×T, 0.75,D/2, x,y,z,   D  , T  , D
	cube = Default, 0.44,0.75,1.0, 0.44,0.75,1.0, 2.36,0.98,0.14, 2.36,0.98,0.14, 0.44,0.75,1.0, 0.44,0.75,1.0, 0,0,0, 1.875,0.24,1.875
	//
	// the example comes from the cfg for the Making History 1.875-meter "size 1.5" truss decoupler
}
// and, even though Squad forgot this, if there are variants that don't change the shape,
MODULE {
	name = ModulePartVariants
	useMultipleDragCubes = false // so that we use the 'Default' cube instead of '1' '2' etc. for each variant
    // ...
}

 

Edited February 26, 2019 by OHara
spoiler

[Espatie]

@OHara Your commented version doesn't match the actual numbers below. D*T should be 0.45, D/2 should be 0.9375, 0.79*D*D should be 2.77, surely? Or am I missing something?

[OHara]

58 minutes ago, Espatie said:

0.79*D*D should be 2.77m²

... as you would expect for a D=1.875-meter cylinder, whereas the corresponding entry on the size-1.5 truss decoupler has only 2.36m².

Squad works in mysterious ways.  Auto-generated drag cubes for size-1.5 tanks have 2.76m²  = D×D×π/4.  The size-1.5 monoprop is a bundle of tanks with gaps in between leaving about 2.36m² in the auto-generated drag-cube  Maybe Squad referred to the monoprop tanks to make the drag-cube in the cfg for the truss decoupler.

Klesh wanted to scale such parts, Snark might or might not want to include such things in the mod of this thread, so I kept my response here brief. One of us can start another thread to figure all this out, soon.

Edited February 26, 2019 by OHara
guess at Squad's mysterious ways

[klesh]

Thank you for the wisdom, OHara!  You seem to really have a handle on this drag cube stuff. Bravo.

I think I should've paid more attention in Math class those decades ago.   If anyone needs a jazz theory explanation, I'm your man. 

Snark, to explain a little about my previous request, I just like them because I think they look cool. I realize though, and agree there is no benefit to that 1.5 Decoupler other than the enjoyment of using a part one personally finds as cool. No worries about not including it.

[Tonka Crash]

@Snark It's probably somewhere on your todo list to update Missing History to account for Restock/Restock+. I do have a request if you do. Restock+ adds it's own version of the Pug and Valiant that have different part names and stats than the Missing History versions. Would it be possible for Missing History to update the the Restock+ versions so the stats match Missing History and then hide the MH versions like you've done with the Porkjet Terrier? (category=none, etc.).

My thinking Missing History has been around longer, so its stats for the techtree and engines should take precedence over Restock+.

You have something similar happening with Porkjet models for the Reliant and Swivel being duplicated between the mods, but since those have official stats defined by Squad, both MH and Restock should already match. In this case MH just shouldn't try to load it's versions of the Swivel and Reliant and default to the Restock versions.

Really with Restock, the Porkjet LFO engines aren't needed in MH other than to keep saves from breaking.

Personally, I've changed the Restock+ parts to use the same stats and names from Missing History and then deleted all the Porkjet revamps from MH. I'm not convinced this is the best for all players, but it works for me until mod authors add Restock support. Honestly my install is a mess right now with custom patches to allow a mix of Squad and Restock parts. I lean toward Restock on engines that squad hasn't revamped recently and some smaller parts (docking ports/reaction wheels/payload bays), but stick to Squad and older truly stock looking mods for most everything else.

I also set all the Restock patches to run with :FIRST so they happen before MH copies and rescales parts. This allowed MH to create it's rescale parts with the Restock models. The only MH change I did here was in the ReactionWheel_1p5.cfg. You need to avoid reloading the Squad model if Restock is present. You end up with both models merged for to one part.

Spoiler

@PART[reactionWheel_1p5]:NEEDS[!IndicatorLights,!Restock] {
	MODEL {
		model = Squad/Parts/Command/inlineAdvancedStabilizer/model
		scale = 1.5, 1, 1.5
	}	
}

 

[Snark]

Yep, ReStock compatibility is a known issue, and the intention is to get things working.  It's just a matter of scraping together the necessary time.

[adm-frb]

Hey, was just wondering if you'd considered adding new Launch Escape Systems for the mk1 command pod, the mk2 command pod and a redone stock launch escape system for the stock mk1-3 command pod?

[Snark]

On 3/14/2019 at 2:35 AM, adm-frb said:

Hey, was just wondering if you'd considered adding new Launch Escape Systems for the mk1 command pod, the mk2 command pod and a redone stock launch escape system for the stock mk1-3 command pod?

No, I don't particularly see those as needed, and this isn't intended to be a general "parts pack"-- the goal is to fill in some "holes" that Making History seemed to leave in the lineup.  Thank you for the suggestion, though.

[Snark]

Hi all,

I'm pleased to announce the release of MissingHistory, version 1.7.3.  Updates in this release:

• ReStock compatibility.  (Many thanks to @Nertea for kind assistance!)
• Fixed a no-longer-accurate description in the 1.25m engine plate. (Thanks to @rwilkinson for spotting!)
• Update to latest ModuleManager version (4.0.2).

Details about the ReStock compatibility patch in spoiler.

Spoiler

Here's what's been done, i.e. what you'll see if you have both ReStock and MissingHistory installed:

• The "new" parts that MissingHistory adds, which ReStock doesn't know about, are still there and appear the same as they do without ReStock.  (This means, for example, they're still based on the original stock models from Squad, and are not rescaled versions of the ReStock update.)
• The MissingHistory re-do of the Swivel, Reliant, and Terrier simply go away, in deference to the ReStock version.
• The MissingHistory re-skins of 1.25m and 3.75m fuel tanks also go away, in deference to the ReStock version.

Enjoy!

[RealKerbal3x]

@Snark Thanks for the update

Edited March 18, 2019 by RealKerbal3x