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

[Tonka Crash]

22 minutes ago, VoidSquid said:

As per my understanding - see the IL mod - you did what you wanted to have, and let others like me participate from the mod.

Knowing you just a little bit, I'm pretty sure you won't be "offended" by someone just having a different opinion, and why would you? We aren't little kids anymore, hehe

You didn't contribute to the Indicator Lights Mod itself, but to the Indicator Lights Community Extensions which installs as a separate mod that is there just for contributions like what you provided.

18 minutes ago, VoidSquid said:

Snark, do me a favor please: stop justifying and explaining yourself, ok? 

Would you do the same if forced, to please others?

So what?

I see a lot of questions like you are still seeking answers. Snark is notoriously long winded, so if you don't want a wall of text, you shouldn't be asking questions. At the same time reading his posts provide a much more nuanced and reasonable explanation than you get from most forum members.

[VoidSquid]

17 minutes ago, Tonka Crash said:

You didn't contribute to the Indicator Lights Mod itself, but to the Indicator Lights Community Extensions which installs as a separate mod that is there just for contributions like what you provided.

And what's your point here, I don't understand, sorry.

 

17 minutes ago, Tonka Crash said:

you shouldn't be asking questions

I didn't, save for rhetorical questions. Like " Why do that in the first place?" and "why would I want to have that extra work in the first place if I simply want to have additional parts that should but aren't in the MH expansion? Why not put changes to stock part in a separate mod?" I thought it to be obvious that these are rhetorical questions, especially in light of "why would I want", first person.

Do me a favor too, please, speak plain and direct with me, I'm not good with "reading between the lines", for reasons.

Edited June 5, 2019 by VoidSquid

[Tonka Crash]

10 minutes ago, VoidSquid said:

And what's your point here, I don't understand, sorry.

Quote

As per my understanding - see the IL mod - you did what you wanted to have, and let others like me participate from the mod.

It appeared from this comment you were under the impression you contributed to the Indicator Lights mod. I was just pointing out that was not the case there is Snark's IL mod and a separate Community Extensions add on for public contributions. It appeared you want the same experience here. IF that is the case go write it yourself. 

10 minutes ago, VoidSquid said:

Do me a favor too, please, speak plain and direct with me, I'm not good with "reading between the lines" for reasons.

I would love to, but I don't want to waste my time as anything I have to add at this point is likely to edited by a moderator.

 

[VoidSquid]

38 minutes ago, Tonka Crash said:

It appeared from this comment you were under the impression you contributed to the Indicator Lights mod

No, and I have zero idea what gave you this impression.

If you want to discuss this further, send me a PM.

For my part, I'm sick of this "discussion", and this "reading between the lines".

Edited June 5, 2019 by VoidSquid

[KSPrynk]

@Snark, I found a couple of Exception Errors when using MH with Kerbal Atomics, the associated LH2 NTR patch for MH, and RealPlume.  I wasn't sure whether @Nertea wrote his own patch or whether you're feeding them to him.  In any case, I posted in the KA forum here: 

 

 

[Streetwind]

Goodness gracious, I should have installed this mod sooner. It's so good. The Pug, in particular, is so good.

...Perhaps it is a bit too good, even You see, since installing Missing History, I have no used the Terrier even once. Before, I've always had the choice between it and downsizing to something like a Spark or a cluster of Ants, which in some configurations is superior due to the lowered mass, even if the Isp is worse. Now, I have an engine with a lot less mass but almost the same Isp, so it handily beats both of those options. Add to it that I routinely throttle the Terrier down for most applications anyway... I just landed a 2.5m sized lander on the Mun even, with a single Pug, and it wasn't even that awkward. I suppose that the Terrier will make a return as a lander engine on worlds with slightly higher gravity, like Vall, Duna and Moho, but for anything in Kerbin's SOI, the Pug is better every time.

Example: a simple 1.25m upper stage with a pod, parachute, heatshield, decoupler, FL-T400 tank, and an engine:

Terrier: 2320 m/s, 1.52 TWR
Spark: 2481 m/s, 0.56 TWR
Pug: 2562 m/s, 0.82 TWR (with onboard fuel removed)
Pug: 2736 m/s, 0.78 TWR (with onboard fuel included)

In my experience, when one engine completely crowds out all others in the same niche, it's deserving of some adjustment. I recommend lowering its vacuum Isp by 5, to 335. And/or consider moving it to either Propulsion Systems or Fuel Systems (it carries onboard fuel, after all) for research.

Note: these are recommendations based on my own limited viewpoint. If you are happy with the Pug as it is, that's okay.

 

Edited June 10, 2019 by Streetwind

[adella]

Hey Snark.

This mod is great! Awesome models and adds a lot of wonderful parts. I especially love the "palici" command pod.

 

Is there any chance your thinking of adding the Nuclear Turbojet engine from atomic age? That engine has always been one of my absolute favorite engines that I have ever played with. The sound is so nice, the functionality of it and such. I saw you had the other two engines from atomic age so I thought perhaps you would consider adding this one as well. I know it doesn't really fit the theme of this mod but it really would be such a nice addition to have in the game again. 

 

I remember I made a spaceplane with this engine that could cruise along Tekto from OPM and it was so cool. I think its this plane if I remember correctly https://imgur.com/a/ZZexb .

 

Anyway its just something to consider! None of this is to take away from how amazing you mod already is! Keep up the awesome work I cant believe how many good mods you make! I really appreciate all the work you do. 

 

Thanks!

Al

[Tonka Crash]

@adella Linuxgurugamer adopted Atomic Age and it should be working in current KSP.  I use the wraparound radiators but haven't needed the engines. I do know the two engines Snark included from that mod are rescaled to a different size than the original Atomic Age engines, so they don't have same properties. 

 

[Beetlecat]

On 6/5/2019 at 11:56 AM, Tonka Crash said:

Snark is notoriously long winded

I rather prefer to say that @Snark is "Delightfully detailed" in responses and explanations

Edited July 14, 2019 by Beetlecat

[fragtzack]

Much need mod, Making History parts were so annoying to be missing a battery, reaction wheel,  cargo module, etc. 

 

Thanks!

Spoiler

 

 

[Jognt]

On 3/15/2018 at 4:40 AM, Snark said:

That's a great idea!  Would love to do it.  (If nothing else, would save me from having to use stacks of Octagonal Struts for rover bodies.)  However... when I go look at the config, ugh.  They've got custom drag cubes, which are needed for proper aerodynamics.  And those drag cubes are big complicated walls of numbers like this:

DRAG_CUBE
{
	cube = default, 0.7813,0.7782,0.7051, 0.7813,0.7782,0.7051, 1.217,0.9582,0.1003, 1.217,0.9582,0.1003, 0.7813,0.7778,0.7051, 0.7813,0.7778,0.7051, 0,-0.3125,0, 1.25,0.625,1.25
	cube = 0, 0.7813,0.7782,0.7051, 0.7813,0.7782,0.7051, 1.217,0.9582,0.1003, 1.217,0.9582,0.1003, 0.7813,0.7778,0.7051, 0.7813,0.7778,0.7051, 0,-0.3125,0, 1.25,0.625,1.25
	cube = 1, 1.563,0.7779,0.7051, 1.563,0.7779,0.7051, 1.217,0.9582,0.1024, 1.217,0.9582,0.1024, 1.563,0.7777,0.7051, 1.563,0.7777,0.7051, 0,-0.625,0, 1.25,1.25,1.25
	cube = 2, 2.362,0.7719,0.6767, 2.362,0.7719,0.6767, 1.217,0.9582,0.09765, 1.217,0.9582,0.09765, 2.362,0.7717,0.6767, 2.362,0.7717,0.6767, 0,-0.9375,0, 1.25,1.875,1.25
	cube = 3, 3.125,0.7774,0.688, 3.125,0.7774,0.688, 1.217,0.9582,0.09529, 1.217,0.9582,0.09529, 3.125,0.7775,0.688, 3.125,0.7775,0.688, 0,-1.25,0, 1.25,2.5,1.25
	cube = 4, 4.724,0.7711,0.5971, 4.724,0.7711,0.5971, 1.217,0.9582,0.09294, 1.217,0.9582,0.09294, 4.724,0.7712,0.5971, 4.724,0.7712,0.5971, 0,-1.875,0, 1.25,3.75,1.25
}	

...24 numbers per line, and clearly they're dependent on size in some fashion, and I suppose given sufficient time and elbow grease I could deduce how they vary and come up with a set of numbers for a 0.625m tube.  But it would be a big hairy tedious undertaking that I don't have the gumption for, right now.

Of course, if someone else were to figure it all out and save me the trouble, then I'd have to reconsider. 

So uhm, I remembered having read this waaaay back and I kept thinking "Gee, maybe I should figure that one out".

Well, I didn't. Until I did for other reasons and remembered this again.

// Miniature (0.625m) Structural Fuselage

+PART[Mk1FuselageStructural]:FOR[personalTweaks]
{
	@name = miniFuselageStructural
	@rescaleFactor = 0.5
	@entryCost = 2800
	@cost = 135
	@title = Mk0 Structural Fuselage	
	@mass = 0.01
	@bulkheadProfiles = size0, srf
	
	!DRAG_CUBE {}
	DRAG_CUBE
	{
		cube = Default, 0.6233,0.7669,0.3979, 0.6233,0.7669,0.3979, 0.3054,0.9359,1.2, 0.3054,0.9359,0.1318, 0.6233,0.7669,0.3979, 0.6233,0.7669,0.3979, 0,0,0, 0.625,1,0.625
	}
}

// TechTree-mods compatibility
@PART[miniFuselageStructural]:LAST[personalTweaks]
{
	@TechRequired = #$@PART[Mk1FuselageStructural]/TechRequired$
	
}

And now I finally remembered to share it here (if you're still interested that is   )

You can ignore the last @PART bit, that's just so it's always placed wherever the regular structural fuselage is for techtree compatibility.

What I did was copy the dragcube for the Mk0 fueltank verbatim and modify weight a bit based on the Mk1 variant. The Mk1 fuselage has a dragcube that (afaik) is only slightly different from the Mk1 fuel tank, so using the Mk0 tank dragcube with the Mk1 fuselage scaled down should be 'best of both worlds'.

Edited September 5, 2019 by Jognt

[Snark]

Hi gang,

Just a note that I've released MissingHistory v1.8, for KSP 1.8 compatibility.  It includes the following changes:

• Deprecated the two 1.875m nosecones (as those have now been superseded by a stock one).
• Updated the 1.875m service bay to use the spiffy new model from KSP 1.8.
• Adjusted the position of the Palici pod's IVA (thanks @linuxgurugamer for pointing it out & supplying a fix).
• Update to ModuleManager 4.1.0.

I did not get rid of the Stomper 1.875m SRB, because the "Pollux" SRB that KSP 1.8 adds doesn't supersede it, really.  The Pollux is a huge beast, over 50 tons; I think there's still a good niche for a smaller 1.875m SRB, so the Stomper shall stay.

(Note, the deprecated parts are still there, so your existing ships won't be broken.  However, those parts will no longer show up in the "available parts" tab of the VAB.)

Enjoy!

[RealKerbal3x]

@Snark I think there's another little place where Missing History can chip in - orange texture variants for the 5m MH tanks. You see, 1.8 introduced orange Space Shuttle-style variants for the 3.75m parts (as well as rounded variants for the 2.5m and 3.75m nosecones to match), but they didn't touch the 5m ones, which are the best sized for making Space Shuttle external tanks. Since you've done it before for the 3.75m tanks, I reckon it would be rather easy to upscale the existing models to give the 5m tanks/nosecone the same treatment as their smaller brethren.

[ethan2226]

9 hours ago, RealKerbal3x said:

@Snark I think there's another little place where Missing History can chip in - orange texture variants for the 5m MH tanks. You see, 1.8 introduced orange Space Shuttle-style variants for the 3.75m parts (as well as rounded variants for the 2.5m and 3.75m nosecones to match), but they didn't touch the 5m ones, which are the best sized for making Space Shuttle external tanks. Since you've done it before for the 3.75m tanks, I reckon it would be rather easy to upscale the existing models to give the 5m tanks/nosecone the same treatment as their smaller brethren.

The 5m Orange Tanks would be good for the SLS as well as the Space Shuttle.

[webward]

@Snark I just popped open a new 1.8 game, and your mod (plus module manager 4.1.0) are the only mods that I have installed. There's some weirdness with the texture selection on the 3.75m Kerbodyne tanks.

 

[Waxing_Kibbous]

Well, I was going to play stock for a bit, looks like ole Snark has other plans for me!

Edited October 19, 2019 by Waxing_Kibbous

[Snark]

15 hours ago, webward said:

I just popped open a new 1.8 game, and your mod (plus module manager 4.1.0) are the only mods that I have installed. There's some weirdness with the texture selection on the 3.75m Kerbodyne tanks.

Oh hey, thanks for the heads up! 

I'll have a look.  I assume that what happened was that they did something with the 3.75m tanks, and hopefully it'll be a simple fix to make.  No promises about exactly when, but hopefully it'll be easy and I can have a fix out sometime Soon™.

On 10/17/2019 at 4:52 AM, RealKerbal3x said:

@Snark I think there's another little place where Missing History can chip in - orange texture variants for the 5m MH tanks. You see, 1.8 introduced orange Space Shuttle-style variants for the 3.75m parts (as well as rounded variants for the 2.5m and 3.75m nosecones to match), but they didn't touch the 5m ones, which are the best sized for making Space Shuttle external tanks. Since you've done it before for the 3.75m tanks, I reckon it would be rather easy to upscale the existing models to give the 5m tanks/nosecone the same treatment as their smaller brethren.

Hm, interesting idea!  I'll have a look and see how practical it seems.

[Snark]

On 10/17/2019 at 4:52 AM, RealKerbal3x said:

Since you've done it before for the 3.75m tanks, I reckon it would be rather easy to upscale the existing models to give the 5m tanks/nosecone the same treatment as their smaller brethren.

Okay, I looked into this a bit.

The practical upshot is that I've found that it's trivially easy to add an orange variant for the 5m nosecone, but not so simple to do the 5m tanks.  Those models are a bit more complicated than the smaller tanks' models, and the half-hour or so of trial-and-error tinkering I've done has not shown me how to get it to work reliably.  I've been able to get them so they have two variants, and make one of the variants be the same as their current appearance... but I can't get the new orange variant (upscaled from 2.5m tanks) to work right.  I get a corrupted-looking thing that still has the 5m model but tries to wrap the 2.5m texture around it, with comical results.

That's not to say that it's impossible, just that I don't know how to make it work.  And given that I rarely use the orange variants myself, I don't have a lot of motivation to spend hours and hours figuring out  by trial-and-error how to do this.

So, I don't expect to be doing this any time soon, unless some helpful soul can figure it out first to take the guesswork out of it for me.  Your mission, should you choose to accept it:  Figure out how to make an MM patch that adds an orange variant to the 5m tanks, which is an upscaled version of the corresponding 2.5m tank... but with the other (default) variant still having the appearance of the original 5m tank.

If anyone can get this to work, let me know and give me your config that does it, and I'll look into integrating it into the mod. 

 

19 hours ago, webward said:

There's some weirdness with the texture selection on the 3.75m Kerbodyne tanks.

Okay, I see what happened here.  These were parts that previously had no variants (and MissingHistory added them)... and then 1.8 came along and added variants in stock, so now they're arm-wrestling.

The fix, I believe, is to simply remove the variants from MissingHistory, since they're no longer needed and have been superseded by stock.  Therefore, what I propose to do is to release an updated MissingHistory version that removes the following three files:

• rescaled/Size3LargeTank.cfg
• rescaled/Size3MediumTank.cfg
• rescaled/Size3SmallTank.cfg

...Before I actually go and do the release, however, I'd like to make sure that this doesn't badly break anybody who has a previously-launched ship with these parts in it.  (I define "break" as "can't load the game" or "can't load the ship in the VAB" or "can't switch to a ship that's already in flight".  I do not consider it a "break" if it simply makes an already-launched ship look ugly because now it's showing the wrong variant or something.)

So.... could someone who already has some already-launched ships using the 3.75m parts try deleting the above three .cfg files, launching the game, and letting me know what happens?  Does it break, or can you still load the ships?

[RealKerbal3x]

@Snark Sorry for not quoting you, I’m currently posting from my phone which makes it difficult to edit quoted posts down to the relevant content.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but from your explanation it sounds like you’re trying to fit the upscaled 2.5m tank textures on the 5m models. When you originally hacked together Missing History’s 3.75m tank orange variants from the 1.875m tanks, did you not simply upscale the models themselves, rather than trying to apply only the textures to the existing models? The fuel tanks are all proportioned identically anyway, so it would make sense for you to do this for the 5m ones too.

[Snark]

6 minutes ago, RealKerbal3x said:

Correct me if I’m wrong

You're wrong. 

6 minutes ago, RealKerbal3x said:

from your explanation it sounds like you’re trying to fit the upscaled 2.5m tank textures on the 5m models.

No.  That's exactly precisely what I'm trying not to do.

That's what's happening, but I have no idea why or how to stop it from happening.  Thus the trial-and-error part.

7 minutes ago, RealKerbal3x said:

When you originally hacked together Missing History’s 3.75m tank orange variants from the 1.875m tanks, did you not simply upscale the models themselves, rather than trying to apply only the textures to the existing models? The fuel tanks are all proportioned identically anyway, so it would make sense for you to do this for the 5m ones too.

Why yes, that's what I did for the 3.75m tanks.

You'd think that I'd just do the same thing this time around, e.g.

24 minutes ago, Snark said:

I can't get the new orange variant (upscaled from 2.5m tanks) to work right

You'd think that if there were something different here from doing it for the 3.75m tanks, which makes it hard or vexing, I'd say something about that, huh?  e.g.

26 minutes ago, Snark said:

not so simple to do the 5m tanks.  Those models are a bit more complicated than the smaller tanks' models

In short:  Yes, I do in fact remember what I did last time.  Yes, I have enough basic common sense to try doing the same thing as last time.  No, the same thing as last time doesn't work, because the 5m models are more complex (and different from the smaller tanks) in a way that I haven't been able to figure out how to make work.

Thus my plea for someone else to figure out how to make this work, since I don't have the time or inclination to spend many hours on it myself.

[RealKerbal3x]

@Snark thanks for the correction...I have very little knowledge of this kind of stuff. I’m also a complete novice on Module Manager - I’ve no idea how the stock variant system is manipulated using patches. I also don’t really have the time to learn everything at the moment...but if anyone is more knowledgeable then I would certainly welcome orange 5m tanks

Edited October 19, 2019 by RealKerbal3x

[zer0Kerbal]

maybe include a ghost.cfg for the now depreciated parts?

example:

Spoiler

// Ghost.cfg v1.0
// KGEx/JSCDecoupler
// created: 05 Oct 19
// updated: 05 Oct 19

// allows renaming part without damaging save games and not cluttering editor parts list

+PART[monoPropDecoupler-250]:NEEDS[KGEx/OrionSpaceIndustries/RadialHeatShields]:AFTER[OrionSpaceIndustries]
{
    @name = monopropdecoupler2

    !TechRequired = DELETE
    !entryCost = DELETE
    @category = none // -1
    %TechHidden = True
    %entryCost = 0
//    @cost = -1
}

// CC BY-NC-SA-4.0

// zer0Kerbal

 

[Snark]

Just now, zer0Kerbal said:

maybe include a ghost.cfg for the now depreciated parts?

They're already there, as stated in my post above.

[zer0Kerbal]

Just now, Snark said:

They're already there, as stated in my post above.

oh, missed that - apologies.

[fragtzack]

Thanks for fast update. This mod is so essential (and missing) from the original DLC.