Jump to content

[1.12.x] Dang It! Continued

linuxgurugamer

By linuxgurugamer
in KSP1 Mod Releases

 Share

Recommended Posts

Z3R0_0NL1N3

Z3R0_0NL1N3

Posted
Posted

I don't know if you've been re-writing code for this, or if you've just been updating it, but, if you get into the process of re-coding it, there's some features from Kerbal Mechanics that I personally think could very well be included with Entropy; for instance the thrust gauge or altimeter can fail. It also functions due to gee forces and heat, rather than random failures (unless I'm mistaken how DangIt works).

DangIt Mechanics as the merger name? :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites
linuxgurugamer

linuxgurugamer

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Entropy was merely additional failure modules for additional types of parts

I'm currently in the process of getting TestFlight working again.  There is no need to add yet another type of failure mod.  If anything, I'll be looking to merge TestFlight and DangIt!, but, DangIt is a simpler mod, both in concept and in implementation

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Deimos Rast

Deimos Rast

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Puppy_The_Pup said:

How do i make stuff happen more often? for all parts? is there any easy way?

Also is this incompatible With Kerbal Launch Failure?

check settings > MTBF multiplier (Mean Time Between Failure). Lower it.

2nd question: seeing as LGG maintains both mods, they are probably compatible. But my understanding is they work on different levels.

--------------------------

@linuxgurugamer

If you do go with TestFlight, you'll be entering the Realm of RO. Thar be dragons! Also, if you have Kerbal Launch Failures, DangIt and TestFlight, people will start calling you the "King of Failures.":D (I thought that was funny. No? Bah.)

But why I'm here: Your blacklist is currently only for resources. Any chance it could be extended to parts and/or modules? I'm using the Surface Experiment Package mod, and it has parts with batteries and such, which DangIt currently targets. But the parts need to run (at least in the background) for months at a time, and I'm thinking that's a guaranteed failure waiting to happen. The mod has unique/proprietary modules (for most parts), so it'd be easy to except the parts by module if you go that route, but being able to do it by part specific means wouldn't be half bad either.

Is it also possible to make a MM patch to add things to the blacklist?

Cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
linuxgurugamer

linuxgurugamer

Posted
  • Author
Posted
12 hours ago, Puppy_The_Pup said:

How do i make stuff happen more often? for all parts? is there any easy way?

Also is this incompatible With Kerbal Launch Failure?

Not incompatible per se, but unaware of it.  They don't work together, so it is conceivable that the same part can fail  in each mod

7 hours ago, Deimos Rast said:

check settings > MTBF multiplier (Mean Time Between Failure). Lower it.

2nd question: seeing as LGG maintains both mods, they are probably compatible. But my understanding is they work on different levels.

--------------------------

@linuxgurugamer

If you do go with TestFlight, you'll be entering the Realm of RO. Thar be dragons! Also, if you have Kerbal Launch Failures, DangIt and TestFlight, people will start calling you the "King of Failures.":D (I thought that was funny. No? Bah.)

But why I'm here: Your blacklist is currently only for resources. Any chance it could be extended to parts and/or modules? I'm using the Surface Experiment Package mod, and it has parts with batteries and such, which DangIt currently targets. But the parts need to run (at least in the background) for months at a time, and I'm thinking that's a guaranteed failure waiting to happen. The mod has unique/proprietary modules (for most parts), so it'd be easy to except the parts by module if you go that route, but being able to do it by part specific means wouldn't be half bad either.

Is it also possible to make a MM patch to add things to the blacklist?

Cheers.

 

7 hours ago, Deimos Rast said:

check settings > MTBF multiplier (Mean Time Between Failure). Lower it.

2nd question: seeing as LGG maintains both mods, they are probably compatible. But my understanding is they work on different levels.

--------------------------

@linuxgurugamer

If you do go with TestFlight, you'll be entering the Realm of RO. Thar be dragons! Also, if you have Kerbal Launch Failures, DangIt and TestFlight, people will start calling you the "King of Failures.":D (I thought that was funny. No? Bah.)

But why I'm here: Your blacklist is currently only for resources. Any chance it could be extended to parts and/or modules? I'm using the Surface Experiment Package mod, and it has parts with batteries and such, which DangIt currently targets. But the parts need to run (at least in the background) for months at a time, and I'm thinking that's a guaranteed failure waiting to happen. The mod has unique/proprietary modules (for most parts), so it'd be easy to except the parts by module if you go that route, but being able to do it by part specific means wouldn't be half bad either.

Is it also possible to make a MM patch to add things to the blacklist?

Cheers.

You can make a part reliable by adding a NoFailureModules, for example, look in the directory:  DangIt/ModuleManager/Entropy/Ignores, one is as follows: 

@PART[KWsrbUllageLarge]:BEFORE[DangIt]
{
    MODULE
    {
        name = NoFailureModules
    }
}
@PART[KWsrbUllage]:BEFORE[DangIt]
{
    MODULE
    {
        name = NoFailureModules
    }
}

And yes, you could add more resources to the blacklist using a MM patch

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NotAgain

NotAgain

Posted
Posted (edited)

Is there a way to make failures less likely? Because although I love the functionality of the mod, I'm getting seriously bored with going EVA every five minutes to fix something. That's nowhere near realistic.

I noticed something in the last few posts about changing the MTBF multiplier, but I can't find it. It says to change it in settings, but I suppose I'm looking in the wrong place, 'cause I can't find it.

Edited by NotAgain
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jim Kernan

Jim Kernan

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, NotAgain said:

Is there a way to make failures less likely? Because although I love the functionality of the mod, I'm getting seriously bored with going EVA every five minutes to fix something. That's nowhere near realistic.

I noticed something in the last few posts about changing the MTBF multiplier, but I can't find it. It says to change it in settings, but I suppose I'm looking in the wrong place, 'cause I can't find it.

In the Space Center view press Esc. Press settings and then at the top of that window press difficulty options. There should be a selection for Dangit in the next window.. Choose that then toward the bottom of that window is a MTBF slider. Mine is set at 1.00 currently. Yours may be as well. I suggest sliding it to the left, maybe set it at 50%. Below that is a Lifetime multiplier. I have no idea what it does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
linuxgurugamer

linuxgurugamer

Posted
  • Author
Posted
3 hours ago, Jim Kernan said:

In the Space Center view press Esc. Press settings and then at the top of that window press difficulty options. There should be a selection for Dangit in the next window.. Choose that then toward the bottom of that window is a MTBF slider. Mine is set at 1.00 currently. Yours may be as well. I suggest sliding it to the left, maybe set it at 50%. Below that is a Lifetime multiplier. I have no idea what it does.

When a part exceeds it's lifetime, failures become more common

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lordcirth

lordcirth

Posted
Posted (edited)

Sorry if this is a dumb question, Is there a way to see a part's used-hours compared to lifetime hours, in flight?

EDIT: Also I remember trying DangIt a long time ago, if the vessel was focused and you timewarped to Duna, everything would break, but if the craft wasn't active nothing would ever break.  Has this been fixed?

Edited by lordcirth
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lordcirth

lordcirth

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:

Not at the present time.

I'm not aware of the issue with timewarping, but if you could try it out (since you know what you are looking for) and let us know, that would be great

The bug/lack of feature/whatever is still there.  Perhaps you already knew about it and I just described it poorly.

Test procedure: 2 identical craft with tanks, engines, solar panels, etc.  Set DangIt MTBF multiplier to 0.25 to speed things up.

Craft 1: Cheat into high Kerbin orbit, extend panels, timewarp 100 days while focusing the craft.

(This is a 4x scaled career so I think that's actually even longer in stock days)

Result: 3 solar panel servo failures.

 

Craft 2: Same orbit, extend panels, go to space center, timewarp 100 days.

Result: 0 failures, ie, parts only fail when you are looking at them.

 

My experience I mentioned with DangIt a long time ago was that my big, complicated rockets never failed during launch (the interesting bit) but a tiny probe would be smashed to bits by the time it reached Duna, since failure chance was linear regardless of conditions.  But, if you put a satellite up, still with fuel tanks and such, and left it there without looking at it, it was perfect forever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
linuxgurugamer

linuxgurugamer

Posted
  • Author
Posted
20 minutes ago, lordcirth said:

The bug/lack of feature/whatever is still there.  Perhaps you already knew about it and I just described it poorly.

Test procedure: 2 identical craft with tanks, engines, solar panels, etc.  Set DangIt MTBF multiplier to 0.25 to speed things up.

Craft 1: Cheat into high Kerbin orbit, extend panels, timewarp 100 days while focusing the craft.

(This is a 4x scaled career so I think that's actually even longer in stock days)

Result: 3 solar panel servo failures.

 

Craft 2: Same orbit, extend panels, go to space center, timewarp 100 days.

Result: 0 failures, ie, parts only fail when you are looking at them.

 

My experience I mentioned with DangIt a long time ago was that my big, complicated rockets never failed during launch (the interesting bit) but a tiny probe would be smashed to bits by the time it reached Duna, since failure chance was linear regardless of conditions.  But, if you put a satellite up, still with fuel tanks and such, and left it there without looking at it, it was perfect forever.

Well, that isn't really a bug, it a factor of the way the game works.  and it's not worth the time to code around it.  when a vessel is not in focus, essentially nothing is going on, very few of the modules do anything while the vessel is on rails

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
TC One

TC One

Posted
Posted (edited)

I guess I have a bug to report. Not sure though if it's a Dang It! bug or some sort of incompatibility with my other installed mods...

So, the problem is that part failure is not persistent. If something fails and you unload and reload the scene the part is likely to be perfectly fine. It doesn't happen to all parts though. A bit of examples:

1. One of 6 antennas on my unmanned probe failed. It got red highlight and stuff, however it wasn't too critical, so I just ignored it. After certain time when I needed that probe again and switched to it from KSC said antenna was broken phisically, no red highlight, just part of the antenna missing (vanilla Communotron 16, when you break it you lose all telescopic parts and all that left will be the base). So... while not exactly the expected behavior it's at least persistent, good.

 

2. One of my solar panels servos malfunctioned during the unmanned mission. And again, it wasn't critical, so I continued the mission and after switching back to KSC to let the satellite do it's job for some time (SCANSat mapping) I switched back to it to transmit science and... both solar panels were perfectly fine. Worth mentioning that it was vanilla solar panel, nothing fancy.

 

3. And again - unmanned mission, battery malfunction this time, but unlike previous examples this one was critical. It happened to my rover that actually had exactly 1 battery and more so, it had like 50% of the contract complete, so I actually prepared an expedition to get an engineer there and fix the damn thing. As you may have guessed by the fact that I'm righting this bug report, when engineer arrived to fix the battery... it was 100% okay. "Inspection" stated that it's "As good as new". Part in question: Vanilla RoverMate body.

(engineer died during re-entry after that mission, which doubles the grief :()

 

It appears that the mod only keep failures persistent if the part itself have a "broken" state. Like that antenna, I mentioned above. However, I can be very wrong, anyway I hope it can be fixed (relatively) easy.

And thanks a lot, btw, for bringing old good mods back to life, you're doing the great job!

 

UPD:

Just an idea regarding the thing discussed above. While "on rails" malfunctions will cost some coding to you and some performance to users, I'm unsure if mod checks mission duration when deciding on failures. In my experience, craft that spent 2 years in orbit awaiting for crew to arrive was good as new and performed it's mission perfectly fine. If I time accelerate for 2 years with the craft in focus I'm sure I'll get some failures, or at least parts won't be "good as new" anymore. So... maybe instead of background failures it would be a good idea adjusting parts condition based on mission time at the moment you focusing your space craft? Doesn't sound as something hard to implement.

 

UPD 2:

I just copied over the latest version which is 0.7.7 rewriting my old 0.7.7 (pointless, I know) and... my rover's battery is in fact damaged. So it appears that mod does save the failures. Now I can't explain why engineer had nothing to repair, because I did inspect the battery and it 100% was "good as new".

Edited by TC One
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ippo

Ippo

Posted
Posted
16 hours ago, TC One said:

UPD:

Just an idea regarding the thing discussed above. While "on rails" malfunctions will cost some coding to you and some performance to users, I'm unsure if mod checks mission duration when deciding on failures. In my experience, craft that spent 2 years in orbit awaiting for crew to arrive was good as new and performed it's mission perfectly fine. If I time accelerate for 2 years with the craft in focus I'm sure I'll get some failures, or at least parts won't be "good as new" anymore. So... maybe instead of background failures it would be a good idea adjusting parts condition based on mission time at the moment you focusing your space craft? Doesn't sound as something hard to implement.

It's not hard to implement... in fact, it already is :) The failure chance is computed according to the age of the part. The age of the part increases as time passes, and can be modified by usage and temperature. Could it be that you had disabled the batteries you are talking about? IIRC, when you "close" a battery I stopped counting it as in use.

As for on rails malfunctions, CoffeeMan and I had a mind to use this other mod to implement them, but we never got around to it. I never looked at it or tested it, but if it works as advertised, it should be fairly minimal coding to implement them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
canisin

canisin

Posted
Posted

Hello All,

Thanks for maintaining such an interesting mod. 

I have one suggestion to make about failures on unfocused craft. First of all, I have no idea what I am talking about, so I apologize in advance if I am missing something obvious or not getting how the game functions. But here goes anyways :)

From your description of the situation, I get the idea that the chance for failure is probably re-calculated and re-rolled every so often to see if a part fails. Such a simulation is problematic when a craft is not focused/loaded. Now, if you "roll the dice" in advance, maybe you can get around this limitation. You calculate the chance for failure and then model the probability distribution and then roll a single dice to determine, when, in the future, the part will fail and "set an alarm" for that future date. When the alarm rings, you generate a message to the player as you currently do.

It might seem like the suggested model is not compatible with ageing based on usage or temperature, but all you need to do is to re-do the calculation whenever an effect causes the age of the part to change. As no such affect can happen while the part/vessel is unloaded, all of your pre-calculated failures remain valid during the whole time that the vessel was unloaded.

I have been using the mod only for a short range of time, so I suspect that some kinds of failures are not suitable for happening on the background. Or maybe even all of them, but I think it might be possible to find ways around those limitations. Here are a couple of examples:

Example1: Engine failure that causes the engine to start thrusting uncontrollably. Impossible while the vessel is not loaded.

Example2: Tank leakage. I understand that the game is not simulating resource usage while vessel is not loaded. So, you record the precalculated time of failure and as soon as the vessel loads, multiply time difference with leakage rate and deduct the resources.

Example3: Stuck parts like control surfaces and solar panels. Nothing special. Part will be stuck when vessel is loaded. Electric charge loss due to this can be ignored.

That's just my 2cents, but please let me know what you think and whether the idea is useful or not.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...