[1.12.5] Restock - Revamping KSP's art (August 28)

[Jognt]

Okay.. So after wondering why some old crafts weren't capable of what they used to be capable of I figured it was due to the recent Spark mass nerf. It seemed like a big difference for that small mass change, but meh.

Now I just read in another thread that ReStock+ does one little thing besides adding awesome parts: It nerfs the Oscar B into the ground to be "consistent with everything (it isn't)".
It explains why I couldn't find a reason to use ANY Oscar tanks recently due to the SimpleFuelSwitch'd Mk0 tank being vastly superior.

Could you guys make this either optional, or at least advertise it on the tin? IMO a single 'rebalance' has no place in a parts pack, regardless of whether it's a 'good' fix or not.

Edited June 5, 2019 by Jognt

[Nertea]

2 minutes ago, Jognt said:

Okay.. So after wondering why some old crafts weren't capable of what they used to be capable of I figured it was due to the recent Spark mass nerf. It seemed like a big difference for that small mass change, but meh.

Now I just read in another thread that ReStock+ does one little thing besides adding awesome parts: It nerfs the Oscar B into the ground to be "consistent with everything (it isn't)".
It explains why I couldn't find a reason to use ANY Oscar tanks recently due to the SimpleFuelSwitch'd Mk0 tank being vastly superior.

Could you guys make this either optional, or at least advertise it on the tin? IMO a single 'rebalance' has no place in a parts pack.

No.

1. This change is necessary to make larger 0.625m tanks that function logically. Because the volume ratio is off by so much (2.5x) there are issues. 
   1. If you scale up the basic Oscar B to 8x its size (the new Oscar E), you get a fuel tank that is volumetrically superior to the 1.25m tanks in a quite obvious way, which doesn't show when you only have the one tank. This is undesirable.
   2. If you adjust only the new tanks and you get an Oscar-C that's of similar volume to an Oscar B... and almost an Oscar D. So that doesn't make much sense.
   3. ???
2. The mass ratio does not change - there is no performance penalty.
3. It has no effect on in-flight craft.
4. Restock+ is not purely a parts pack - you're thinking of it wrong. Restock is a pack that has a minimum effect on the game when it is uninstalled. Restock+ is the companion that does that have a negative effect when uninstalled. 

I don't like doing this, I have done it one other time with the ion engine and NFP when there was no other reasonable option. All changes like this have to be explored in great detail to see if the all options have been considered. They were considered for many days in this case. 

Lastly, just delete ReStockPlus\Patches\FuelTanks\restock-oscar-b-volume-fix.cfg if you can't live with it. 

[Jognt]

1 minute ago, Nertea said:

No.

1. This change is necessary to make larger 0.625m tanks that function logically. Because the volume ratio is off by so much (2.5x) there are issues. 
   1. If you scale up the basic Oscar B to 8x its size (the new Oscar E), you get a fuel tank that is volumetrically superior to the 1.25m tanks in a quite obvious way, which doesn't show when you only have the one tank. This is undesirable.
   2. If you adjust only the new tanks and you get an Oscar-C that's of similar volume to an Oscar B... and almost an Oscar D. So that doesn't make much sense.
   3. ???
2. The mass ratio does not change - there is no performance penalty.

Hnngg.. Okay I get your logic.

I'll probably add a patch to nerf the Mk0 tank in a similar manner then.

Though I still think it should at least be mentioned in the OP. That could link to this post of yours for clarification if people are wondering.

[FirroSeranel]

On 5/24/2019 at 5:57 AM, JebIsDeadBaby said:

Hi, 

I hope this ain't a dumb question but I don't know much about inner workings of KSP. Am I right that models have drag cubes that the game uses to calculate drag or is it FAR only? Anyway, I seem to have a problem with Restock Mk1 pod. Without an additional heat shield it seems to have very little drag, e.g. when returning from 80k Kerbin orbit it hits the ground at 600+ m/s, about 3x the usual terminal velocity. I play KSP 1.7 and use FAR. Is it possible that drag problems are caused by ReStock?

This also depends greatly on your de-orbit trajectory. In FAR (I don't play with it anymore, but I used to exclusively for several years), you can easily hit the ground at 800m/s if you come in too steep.

Even in stock, the Mk1 capsule has issues slowing down enough compared to larger craft. The reason for this is that it is very dense. This makes total sense. A one-man capsule is just barely big enough for that one man and a little bit of air around him. If you splash one down with just a parachute on top, it floats right around the window in the door. This is true in Stock and in ReStock alike. Comparatively, the 3-man capsule (Mk 1-2, I believe) has plenty of space for three kerbonauts and lots of air space around them so they can maneuver within the cabin. Thus it is not very dense, and floats just half a meter or so up from the bottom.

Now translate this to reentry, and you see the problem. A 2.5m, 3-man capsule can take whatever reentry trajectory it wants to, and if you're used to that, you're not used to good reentry discipline. If you then start a new career save (perhaps to take advantage of the shiny new DLC like I did ^.^) it's easy to toss a Mk1 carelessly back down to the lithosphere like you would the larger, less-dense capsule. But you can't. A Mk1 needs a reentry profile with an initial periapsis above or just below sea level. I try to keep it between 30k and -30k in general. Try that, and you'll have better luck. But with a ballistic suborbital reentry... good luck! You'll need some extra drag parts or drogue chutes, at the very least. A typical reentry strategy of "burn over the desert peninsula until your orbit line splashes into the ocean near the peninsula east of KSC" by comparison has a periapsis closer to -200k, and therein lies your problem.

This... did change significantly at some point, previous to which the Mk1 was about the same density as the Mk 1-2, IIRC. I think it was around the time of Making History, though don't quote me on that.

As for the drag models...

Stock uses drag cubes. If I'm remembering correctly, in the current version it calculates whether or not each part is occluded by a part in front of it relative to the current velocity vector, and by how much. It then multiplies the default drag cube size by a ratio according to that occlusion to get that part's drag vectors. This works fine for simple craft built primarily via node attachments. When you start building complex, visually striking craft using lots of surface attachments and partial clipping, however, it becomes pretty inaccurate pretty fast. It also doesn't do anything at all in terms of transonic and hypersonic drag, (both of which are radically different from subsonic drag).

FAR uses a voxelization method. That is, every physics frame the game takes the current model of the craft as a whole and runs calculations that find the surface of the craft at basically every vertex to form a three-dimensional map of the craft's surface only (discarding any interior parts). It then converts that into a voxel format (VOX-EL = VOlumetric piXEL) to form a model of a solid object. It then uses decent approximations of real aerodynamic laws to calculate the lift and drag of the craft as a whole, including real-time deflection of control surfaces, landing gear, cargo bay doors, etc. Anything that changes the craft's shape has a fully realistic effect on the craft's flight characteristics, in real-time.

Basically FAR converts KSP into a cutting-edge flight simulator in terms of its aerodynamic model, only one in which you can design the aircraft yourself. That's amazing!

So... why don't I use it anymore?

Two reasons (aside from the obvious massive performance hit in an already CPU-heavy game).

1. 95% of the time in KSP, I'm flying rockets, not flying planes. For a rocket, the increased accuracy of FAR only really matters for maybe 30-40 seconds during ascent, and then during reentry. Even during these times, Stock aero is "good enough" for a satisfying play experience. Another 4% of the time I'm flying spaceplanes. While yes, in FAR spaceplanes are handled much, much more realistically this also means that they are realistically hard to design and fly, bordering on impossible. (And that's with FAR's default behavior, which is actually modified to be very forgiving. Try flying a spaceplane with FAR on fully realistic settings with 100% strict area ruling and 100% dynamic pressure failure settings, and you'll start to understand why nobody's flown one successfully in the real world. Try the same with Realism Overhaul and with Real Solar System at 100% scale, and you won't be going to space today with your SSTO spaceplane, just like nobody has in the real world*.) For me, flying an SSTO with the stock aero system is just... much more fun. After all, it's considered quite an accomplishment to get an SSTO to orbit with a little useful cargo capacity in FAR. In Stock, it's pretty easy to get an endgame-tech SSTO to do missions to Minmus, Mun, or Duna, and many players do entire Jool-5 tours or runs to Eeloo or even Eve with them. Sounds more fun to me!
   1. * discounting ballistic suborbital flights using air-launched, rocket-powered craft, which... isn't really even close to the spirit of a classic KSP SSTO spaceplane.
2. The remaining 1% of the time in which I'm flying aircraft (during which, admittedly, FAR is infinitely more fun, satisfying, and realistic-feeling) is just not critical enough to justify the performance hit, risk of crashes (the glitch kind, not the lithobraking kind), incompatibilities with other mods (including most autopilot systems which cannot handle FAR's gradual control surface movements and set up severe oscillations accordingly), and so forth.

If I could switch FAR on and off at will, I'd still use it for aircraft only. But I can't, so I just don't bother with it anymore.

Edited June 6, 2019 by FirroSeranel

[FirroSeranel]

I'm having some problems with some of the models, specifically with the plumes...

Most engines are fine, but the Poodle is only showing 2 plumes instead of 4.

Then the Mainsail's plume is a good 20 meters from the nozzle! D:

Is this a known issue? (I do have RealPlume installed). Or is my installation borked? I did try reinstalling ReStock and ReStock+, though... using CKAN, so that may not mean much.

Edit: This is a RealPlume issue... uninstalling it fixed the problem. I guess RealPlume hasn't updated for ReStock yet, which is sad. Oh well.

Edited June 6, 2019 by FirroSeranel

[curiousepic]

༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ give girders plz ༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ

Seriously I feel like the Modular Girder Segment, it's XL version and its adapter are in the most desperate need of a makeover and would be really impactful considering how often they're used. The smaller ones look amazing and I'd love to see similar work on these. Anyone know of other mods with decent remodels them in the meantime?

Edited June 7, 2019 by curiousepic

[Tyko]

1 hour ago, curiousepic said:

༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ give girders plz ༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ

Seriously I feel like the Modular Girder Segment, it's XL version and its adapter are in the most desperate need of a makeover and would be really impactful considering how often they're used. The smaller ones look amazing and I'd love to see similar work on these. Anyone know of other mods with decent remodels them in the meantime?

They're on the list to redo and being worked on. They'll be released at some point in the future.

[blowfish]

On 6/5/2019 at 5:13 PM, FirroSeranel said:

FAR uses a voxelization method. That is, every physics frame the game takes the current model of the craft as a whole and runs calculations that find the surface of the craft at basically every vertex to form a three-dimensional map of the craft's surface only (discarding any interior parts). It then converts that into a voxel format (VOX-EL = VOlumetric piXEL) to form a model of a solid object. It then uses decent approximations of real aerodynamic laws to calculate the lift and drag of the craft as a whole, including real-time deflection of control surfaces, landing gear, cargo bay doors, etc. Anything that changes the craft's shape has a fully realistic effect on the craft's flight characteristics, in real-time.

That's not quite correct.  FAR doesn't recalculate the vessel's shape every frame.  It does so when it detects changes that require re-voxelization (staging/decoupling, animations, etc).  It's a very computationally expensive process that may take several frames to complete, but it also runs on background threads so as to minimize the effect on game performance.

[Nertea]

On 6/5/2019 at 7:46 PM, FirroSeranel said:

I'm having some problems with some of the models, specifically with the plumes...

Most engines are fine, but the Poodle is only showing 2 plumes instead of 4.

Then the Mainsail's plume is a good 20 meters from the nozzle! D:

Is this a known issue? (I do have RealPlume installed). Or is my installation borked? I did try reinstalling ReStock and ReStock+, though... using CKAN, so that may not mean much.

Edit: This is a RealPlume issue... uninstalling it fixed the problem. I guess RealPlume hasn't updated for ReStock yet, which is sad. Oh well.

 

There is a link in the OP to a PR that has files for compatibility .

2 hours ago, curiousepic said:

༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ give girders plz ༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ

Seriously I feel like the Modular Girder Segment, it's XL version and its adapter are in the most desperate need of a makeover and would be really impactful considering how often they're used. The smaller ones look amazing and I'd love to see similar work on these. Anyone know of other mods with decent remodels them in the meantime?

You can always check progress on our git repo for the next major version. Currently this version is targets the resource parts, remaining structural parts, thermal parts, and most of MH's 1.875m parts. 

[crowsnose]

Hey, anyone know what the deal with this is? 

https://imgur.com/a/s27CtJE

log file if needed: https://www.dropbox.com/s/e7b75lqr1zvwgrl/output_log.txt?dl=0

Mod works great from what I can tell otherwise though.

Edit: the Mk16 Chute doesn't seem to be deploying. 

Edited June 11, 2019 by crowsnose

[Jognt]

Your log is filled with NullRefExceptions, warnings, and errors. If I were you, I'd do the usual troubleshooting to find out what mod trips up all the the other mods, because I think the errors are snowballing and tripping everything up.

Edit: You can press ALT+F12 and go to debugging and select to show errors and warnings onscreen. That should give you an idea of what is going on when stuff goes wrong in your install. (which is going to be.. quite often.. from the looks of it)

Edited June 11, 2019 by Jognt

[whitespacekilla]

Looks to me like there was a patch update to KSP which caused the old structure of the basic fuel-tank configs to reappear. Restock has a built in warning for it so I took a look and didn't see anything interesting in the configs but I was also not incredibly thorough in my forensics. Deleted the folders (the expected configs are still available at the newer location so they were duplicate definitions), game continued to work fine, no more warning. Don't know if anyone else has encountered anything similar.

Edited June 12, 2019 by whitespacekilla

[gsamelon]

my chutes are jacked as well.  won't deploy and null-reffed to the beezkneez.  Not posting files, because im not looking for support, I have a workaround.  Just wanted @crowsnose to know he wasn't alone.

Edited June 13, 2019 by gsamelon

[Streetwind]

Might be worth going back to specific version notation in the thread title, instead of "1.7.x". Count on it that .2 won't be the last patch of this version cycle...

 

Edited June 13, 2019 by Streetwind

[panarchist]

On 6/5/2019 at 5:13 PM, FirroSeranel said:

This also depends greatly on your de-orbit trajectory. In FAR (I don't play with it anymore, but I used to exclusively for several years), you can easily hit the ground at 800m/s if you come in too steep.

Even in stock, the Mk1 capsule has issues slowing down enough compared to larger craft. The reason for this is that it is very dense. This makes total sense. A one-man capsule is just barely big enough for that one man and a little bit of air around him. If you splash one down with just a parachute on top, it floats right around the window in the door. This is true in Stock and in ReStock alike. Comparatively, the 3-man capsule (Mk 1-2, I believe) has plenty of space for three kerbonauts and lots of air space around them so they can maneuver within the cabin. Thus it is not very dense, and floats just half a meter or so up from the bottom.

Found that out the hard way today in pure stock. Regardless of inaccuracy, the drag model is still way better than it was in the 1.0.x release.

[Zero266]

Im having trouble mixing this with Stockalike Station Parts Redux. Has anyone else had trouble with these and found a solution?

[Nertea]

On 6/10/2019 at 11:54 PM, crowsnose said:

Hey, anyone know what the deal with this is? 

https://imgur.com/a/s27CtJE

log file if needed: https://www.dropbox.com/s/e7b75lqr1zvwgrl/output_log.txt?dl=0

Mod works great from what I can tell otherwise though.

Edit: the Mk16 Chute doesn't seem to be deploying. 

Your install is exploding when Kopernicus and Sigma Dimensions load - lots of things going on. I'd check these first. 

9 hours ago, Streetwind said:

Might be worth going back to specific version notation in the thread title, instead of "1.7.x". Count on it that .2 won't be the last patch of this version cycle...

 

There really aren't any confirmed issues in any of the 1.7 releases though. Lots of people with broken installs from other reasons. 

1 hour ago, Zero266 said:

Im having trouble mixing this with Stockalike Station Parts Redux. Has anyone else had trouble with these and found a solution?

There are no known issues, can you elaborate? I do maintain both mods...

[Zero266]

2 hours ago, Nertea said:

There are no known issues, can you elaborate? I do maintain both mods...

I'm sorry, I reinstalled it and the issue was resolved. Thank you for trying to help, sorry I wasted your time.

[Cooper42]

Is this likely to work with 1.4.x?

 

I'm going through the process of removing some older parts mods & replacing them so I can eventually update my KSP version. Being able to use this for my 1.4.x game whilst I wait for a couple of other mods to update would be great!

[Dafni]

8 minutes ago, Cooper42 said:

Is this likely to work with 1.4.x?

 

I'm going through the process of removing some older parts mods & replacing them so I can eventually update my KSP version. Being able to use this for my 1.4.x game whilst I wait for a couple of other mods to update would be great!

 

I'm not the creator of this mod, nor am I even a modder. But I believe there is no way this mod can work in 1.4.x, as it uses some part variant magic or some such thing that was introduced in 1.6 IIRC

Somebody with more knowledge will chime in for sure, but at least that is how I remember it. (because it was one of the main reasons I left 1.3.1 behind and maintain some 1.6.1 installs now too)

Please dont hold it against me if I am wrong, just quoting from the best of my memory here.

[Jognt]

While skimming through my output log for JNSQ I noticed this one bit from when I removed a ReStock (plus?) decoupler:

BoxColliders does not support negative scale or size.
The effective box size has been forced positive and is likely to give unexpected collision geometry.
If you absolutely need to use negative scaling you can use the convex MeshCollider. Scene hierarchy path "restock-decoupler-radial-tiny-1/model/ReStock/Assets/Coupling/restock-decoupler-radial-4(Clone)/Pivot/TinyDecoupler/COLLIDER"

I haven't noticed anything bad/negative and it's just that one message, but I thought I'd mention it here. (I have no idea what it means)

[Nertea]

3 hours ago, Cooper42 said:

Is this likely to work with 1.4.x?

 

I'm going through the process of removing some older parts mods & replacing them so I can eventually update my KSP version. Being able to use this for my 1.4.x game whilst I wait for a couple of other mods to update would be great!

It will not work well. Squad replaced many part models in 1.5, 1.6 and 1.7, which Restock targets in terms of proportions and part names. These parts will not work. In addition several parts use the features (like shaders) that were introduced in a later versions, so you'll have issues there. 

1 hour ago, Jognt said:

While skimming through my output log for JNSQ I noticed this one bit from when I removed a ReStock (plus?) decoupler:

BoxColliders does not support negative scale or size.
The effective box size has been forced positive and is likely to give unexpected collision geometry.
If you absolutely need to use negative scaling you can use the convex MeshCollider. Scene hierarchy path "restock-decoupler-radial-tiny-1/model/ReStock/Assets/Coupling/restock-decoupler-radial-4(Clone)/Pivot/TinyDecoupler/COLLIDER"

I haven't noticed anything bad/negative and it's just that one message, but I thought I'd mention it here. (I have no idea what it means)

It's worth looking into I suppose. 

[MechBFP]

If I blacklist the Making History parts I don't like the texture for, will it use the Restock+ version instead?

[Nertea]

12 hours ago, MechBFP said:

If I blacklist the Making History parts I don't like the texture for, will it use the Restock+ version instead?

If you install Restock with MH installed, it will already replace the covered parts. If you install RS+ too, the new parts that overlap with MH will be hidden to avoid duplication.

[cantab]

I spent a couple of playing sessions just looking through both Restock and some of your other parts mods. I have to say, the Restock parts just almost immediately feel right. It's like stock, but better. OK there's one or two things I could grumble about, but overall it's excellent.

And then of course I go and hide your remodelled Nerv inside a structural tube, ahem. And get caught out by those little vents you added, but a quick rotate hides that on the lander design in question.