[1.5 - 1.10] Kerbalism 3.11

[jebalicious]

On 11/24/2023 at 2:33 AM, king of nowhere said:

right click on the hitchhicker container with the detox unit, there is the option. just like you can turn it on from there, you can also turn it off from there.

@Thatguywholikesionengines I'm also getting the same issue.

Using PMA "Dawn" Habitation Module from Stockalike Station Parts Redux. When I load the craft as a save file it shows the radiation detox unit as active as you can see in the image. When I take it off and reattach it, it disappears. However its still a problem as I will load crafts already in orbit and the radiation detox unit will show as consuming electricity again. I dont have an option to turn it off as you can see in the image. if anyone knows whats causing this it would be appreciated.

 

Also, not sure if you can weigh in on this @Sir Mortimer

Edited November 25, 2023 by jebalicious

[ashcanpete]

Hi, I'm loving Kerbalism but have a question about the 'incentivize redundancy' option. From what I read, the idea is that building redundancy into a system should be better than simply choosing the "high quality" part option for increased reliability. I got curious as the the specific numbers and in the code it seems that it works the following way: when one component fails in a redundancy group, the other components in that same group have the time until their next failure doubled.  I gathered that from the following bit of code:

if (m.redundancy == redundancy)
  {
  m.next += m.next - m.last;
  }

and also the similar bit for unloaded vessels.

So I actually modeled out this formula to try to get accurate reliability estimates for parts. However, I noticed that even with the incentivization bonus, redundancy isn't often the best option as far as I can tell. Here's some plots I made for an antenna component:

 

As you can see, the high quality part is barely worse than double normal components for the short term, and better after about the MTBF is reached. Considering the weight savings of using the high quality parts (seems to only add 10% in this case), it seems that I would always chose high quality. If I needed really good reliability I'm guessing 2 high quality components beats 3x and 4x redundancy, but I didn't actually model that.  Also, I should note I assumed single part failure times are calculated assuming a constant failure rate, so thus an exponentially decaying survival function i.e.: S(t) = e^(-t/MTBF).

 Is this how the option was intended? Also, perhaps have I missed something or misinterpreted the code? I really like the idea of needing redundancy, but right now it just doesn't seem worth it.

[king of nowhere]

3 hours ago, ashcanpete said:

As you can see, the high quality part is barely worse than double normal components for the short term, and better after about the MTBF is reached. Considering the weight savings of using the high quality parts (seems to only add 10% in this case), it seems that I would always chose high quality.

why not high quality and two parts? or three high quality parts?

ok, I suppose if one wants to run a realistic space program one has to account for cost and mass.

me, using kerbalism for grand tour challenges, I never had to worry about mass and cost but I did have to worry about lasting for centuries. So I went for 6 redundant high quality parts.

3 hours ago, ashcanpete said:

when one component fails in a redundancy group, the other components in that same group have the time until their next failure doubled

and I finally understand why at some point the ship just stopped getting broken. after a dozen malfunctions the remaining time of every other piece is just so long that it stops mattering.

[xtasy]

In 3.19 version of Kerbalism any engine with a built-in tank causes errors!

https://github.com/Kerbalism/Kerbalism/issues/879

Edited December 12, 2023 by xtasy

[GlitchyTypo]

Something I cant find online that I am curious about. Can the failures degrade over time? For example, can a "needs repair" degrade into a "busted" if not repaired?

[king of nowhere]

4 hours ago, GlitchyTypo said:

Something I cant find online that I am curious about. Can the failures degrade over time? For example, can a "needs repair" degrade into a "busted" if not repaired?

No. 

My longest mission lasted 1000 kerbal years. I kept some "needs repair" components that way as a backup, because they could not break further and i could reactivate them as needed. Never had any further issue

[jebalicious]

I have a problem where rescue contract Kerbals are spawning with 330 monopropellant / RCS. This only affects Kerbals that are being rescued as standalone. When they are located inside a ship/command module etc they spawn with correct resources (Electric Charge & Oxygen). If I rescue them on a craft then the resource disappears and they return to having normal resource values. From the stock resources tab (on the right) you can see that the Monopropellant does not reflect the amount showing on the Kerbal (2.89 vs 330). So I am not actually sure what the 330 is representing.  The problem I run into with this scenario is that in space rescued Kerbals have very little RCS power as the 330 weighs them down significantly. In addition if its on kerbin and its a sea rescue the Kerbals begin to sink as the 330 is too heavy for them to be able to float.

I have had a look in the kerbalism folder and located "GameData\KerbalismConfig\Profiles\Default.cfg" which specifies what resources rescued Kerbals are meant to spawn with. Every resource is there (Food/Water/Electric Charge/Nitrogen/Oxygen) but there is nothing there that shows where the monopropellant value comes from.  If anyone can help with this it would be appreciated.

 

 

 

[JadeOfMaar]

I did a thing. Folks here may find it very useful.

 

[GlitchyTypo]

On 12/14/2023 at 5:30 AM, king of nowhere said:

No. 

My longest mission lasted 1000 kerbal years. I kept some "needs repair" components that way as a backup, because they could not break further and i could reactivate them as needed. Never had any further issue

Darn.
Kind of annoying cause I had this whole system in place ready to de-orbit my comms satellites as they failed.

[king of nowhere]

5 hours ago, GlitchyTypo said:

Darn.
Kind of annoying cause I had this whole system in place ready to de-orbit my comms satellites as they failed.

what's annoying about it? your comms satellites are still getting malfunctions. being unmanned, they can't be fixed when they malfunction. even if they could, some malfunctions are critical and can't be fixed anyway. your deorbiter can still make itself useful.

wait, are we talking about the same thing or there was a misunderstanding? I understood you asking if a part with the reversible malfunction - yellow - can become red, and no, it cannot. maybe you mean you sent a kerbal in inspection on a functioning part and got told that a part needs maintenance, in that case yes, it will eventually break and get yellow or red. likelyhood and timing of either scenario depends on settings and difficulty level

in any case, if you let yourself get stopped by game mechanics, you wouldn't make a deorbiter because you can always delete debris from the tracking station anyway.

[GlitchyTypo]

34 minutes ago, king of nowhere said:

what's annoying about it? your comms satellites are still getting malfunctions. being unmanned, they can't be fixed when they malfunction. even if they could, some malfunctions are critical and can't be fixed anyway. your deorbiter can still make itself useful.

wait, are we talking about the same thing or there was a misunderstanding? I understood you asking if a part with the reversible malfunction - yellow - can become red, and no, it cannot. maybe you mean you sent a kerbal in inspection on a functioning part and got told that a part needs maintenance, in that case yes, it will eventually break and get yellow or red. likelyhood and timing of either scenario depends on settings and difficulty level

in any case, if you let yourself get stopped by game mechanics, you wouldn't make a deorbiter because you can always delete debris from the tracking station anyway.

I think it would be more interesting to where if you left a module/part alone in a damaged state for long enough, it would degrade again to the point where it reaches the "busted" state. I'm trying a "semi"realistic run right now and enjoy sqeezing the use out of a limited functionality satellite when on a tight budget. The deorbiter is part of that, trying to not use the debris delete option.

[king of nowhere]

21 hours ago, GlitchyTypo said:

I think it would be more interesting to where if you left a module/part alone in a damaged state for long enough, it would degrade again to the point where it reaches the "busted" state. I'm trying a "semi"realistic run right now and enjoy sqeezing the use out of a limited functionality satellite when on a tight budget. The deorbiter is part of that, trying to not use the debris delete option.

again, for the sake of clarity: what do you mean by "damaged" and "busted"? because i thought by "damaged" you meant "yellow", but if you instead mean "needs maintenance", then it will break.

this engine is red, it is broken, it does not function, it cannot be fixed by an engineer. hence I am decoupling it and will place a new one on the docking port, i prepared those engines to be interchangeable. the drill on the left is equally broken.

the convert-o-tron is yellow, also the engine on the lower right. they are broken, they do not function, but they can be fixed by an engineer.

now, if you have a yellow part, it will stay yellow. it will not become red.

but you talk like you do not mean yellow and red, you talk like you mean a part without color, i.e. a part that is not broken and that functions. and in that case, those parts will eventually become yellow or red.

[GlitchyTypo]

12 minutes ago, king of nowhere said:

again, for the sake of clarity: what do you mean by "damaged" and "busted"? because i thought by "damaged" you meant "yellow", but if you instead mean "needs maintenance", then it will break.

this engine is red, it is broken, it does not function, it cannot be fixed by an engineer. hence I am decoupling it and will place a new one on the docking port, i prepared those engines to be interchangeable. the drill on the left is equally broken.

the convert-o-tron is yellow, also the engine on the lower right. they are broken, they do not function, but they can be fixed by an engineer.

now, if you have a yellow part, it will stay yellow. it will not become red.

but you talk like you do not mean yellow and red, you talk like you mean a part without color, i.e. a part that is not broken and that functions. and in that case, those parts will eventually become yellow or red.

Hoping that yellow would degrade to orange would degrade to red, although it would still have the chance to go straight to a higher damage state (y,o,r)

[king of nowhere]

1 minute ago, GlitchyTypo said:

Hoping that yellow would degrade to orange would degrade to red, although it would still have the chance to go straight to a higher damage state (y,o,r)

there is no orange, only yellow and red.

wait, i did not upgrade the latest kerbalism versions, maybe they changed it?

[GlitchyTypo]

On 12/16/2023 at 5:51 PM, king of nowhere said:

there is no orange, only yellow and red.

wait, i did not upgrade the latest kerbalism versions, maybe they changed it?

I think theres a diconnect here. When I say orange, I mean the text that says "needs repair" not the highlight color of the part

[king of nowhere]

14 hours ago, GlitchyTypo said:

I think theres a diconnect here. When I say orange, I mean the text that says "needs repair" not the highlight color of the part

I suspected something like that, which is why I asked twice to clarify that part. I'm glad we can finally be on the same page.

So, you mean the malfunctions tab you can open in the kerbalism menu. I never used it, because it's unreliable when using very large ships. anyway

yellow and red. both refeerring to a ship in orbit, not shown here.

orange, i didn't have any, I had to break my own engine here to create one. corresponds to yellow highlight.

 

so, color-coding malfunctions the way you prefer:

- yellow means the part is still functioning, but it may get broken eventually. it shows in the tab, saying "needs maintenance" (or something similar, I have the italian translation), but the part is not colored in game.

- orange means the part has malfunctioned. it is highlighted yellow in game, as shown in the second picture. An engineer can still fix the part in this state; indeed, the tab says "needs repair"

- red means the part is broken and cannot be repaired, period.

 

Then I can use this color coding to clarify.

yellow parts are still working. your probes are fine for now. with time, yellow parts will degrade further, and they will become either orange or red; in both cases they will not work. for my manned missions, orange or red are completely different beasts - one entails a short eva with an engineer, the other entails losing the part for good - but for your unmanned probes there is no difference; even if a malfunction could get fixed, you'd be better off sending a shiny new satellite rather than an engineer to fix it. in this case, you'll make full use of your deorbiter.

when i said malfunctions do not progress, i was saying that orange does not become red. i do not consider yellow to be malfunctioning at all, because - due to some quirks of game settings and really large ships that the devs never thought someone would make - those yellow parts, in my games, will stay there for centuries. but it's a quirk of how i use the mod, in your case they should last the nominal time of a few years.

hope that clears things up

[septemberWaves]

I'm trying to create a custom Kerbalism profile. If I edit the "default" profile, my changes work with no apparent issues. If I instead create a copy of the "default" profile, change the profile name to something new, and change the setting in the config file to use the profile with this new name, many features of Kerbalism go missing despite the fact that I have not removed them. Why is this happening, and how can it be fixed? Does the setting for "profile used" in the config file affect things outside of the "Profiles" folder, or is something else going wrong?

Edited December 20, 2023 by septemberWaves

[BryanAM7]

Hello i cant use cockpit view C key is not working at all is the only mod installed.... cant see kerbals on the right botttom corner either... i sthat normal?

The bug consist that no kerbals get loaded inside the ship is rare...

Edited December 24, 2023 by BryanAM7
solved

[king of nowhere]

6 hours ago, BryanAM7 said:

Hello i cant use cockpit view C key is not working at all is the only mod installed.... cant see kerbals on the right botttom corner either... i sthat normal?

The bug consist that no kerbals get loaded inside the ship is rare...

what bug? there were no kerbal in the ship, that's no bug. sometimes they load authomatically, sometimes you have to choose them

[18Watt]

Hello @BryanAM7, and welcome to the KSP Forums!

It looks like you tried to reply to @king of nowhere's post.  The way to do that is to just start typing at the bottom of the page, where it says 'Reply to this topic'

@king of nowhere, here is @BryanAM7's reply to your post:

Hi! ty for the reply!!

i mean i cant load any scenario propely cause it got lot of bugs, from indestructible vessels to kerbals not loading inside ship. "like dynawing re entry" cant load it propely with this mod. i have to go career mode load a pilot inside and then go back main menu and load scenario to kerbs to load. i guess this mod only works properly in career and sandbox mode.

[king of nowhere]

17 hours ago, BryanAM7 said:

i mean i cant load any scenario propely cause it got lot of bugs, from indestructible vessels to kerbals not loading inside ship. "like dynawing re entry" cant load it propely with this mod. i have to go career mode load a pilot inside and then go back main menu and load scenario to kerbs to load. i guess this mod only works properly in career and sandbox mode.

yes, of course. making mods compatible with scenarios is a lot of work, for something that very few players will even notice

[BryanAM7]

On 12/24/2023 at 6:56 PM, king of nowhere said:

yes, of course. making mods compatible with scenarios is a lot of work, for something that very few players will even notice

i see didnt know that,  and i was using them for fast mod testing... career mode is working like a charm ty!

Edited December 27, 2023 by BryanAM7

[ashcanpete]

On 8/19/2023 at 8:17 PM, Arzielle said:

well, I tried rational resources but it messed with some of the ISRU parts and other stuff from Kerbalism in ways I didn't want it to/didn't make sense so in the end I decided to use RR to take readings of all the planets including OPM cause I am playing with that, and manually rewrote the resource configs for Oxygen, CO2, Nitrogen, Ammonia and Water, I even managed to make biome specific concentrations, basically increased the ground water at the poles of kerbin and duna, I've been really busy with work this past week so only just got back to KSP and finishing it off, seems to be working exactly as I want it to now.

if mortimer ever wants to re-include the configs into kerbalism so the resource harvesters work properly, I got it all done for them, or whoever is currently maintaining the mod

also I am curious what the compatibility issue with remotetech is, as I kinda want to play with it, and may be willing to dive into some of the code to get it to work, depending on the complexity of the issue

Sorry to dig this post back up, but I'm having a related problem where no water (extractable surface water in the crust) is showing up anywhere in the Kerbol system. I even used SCANSat to cheat resource maps of all bodies, and water isn't a resource on any of them. I see the same with a fresh save (same mods). I'm not asking for help troubleshooting my setup or looking at logs or anything at this point, I just have some simple questions:

I see that kerbalism only includes configs for Ammonia and Nitrogen but not water. I don't think the stock game has drillable water, so without a config from a mod like kerbalism, does that mean CRP would just not put crust water in the game then? Is it possible harvestable resources are broken in kerbalism right now (as this post seems to indicate), or am I misunderstanding something about how resource configs work?

Also, Arzielle, if you still have those configs you made, I'd be grateful if you would share them. I also was interested in Rational Resources but didn't want any of the ISRU changes. Thanks!

Edited December 28, 2023 by ashcanpete
typo and clarification

[king of nowhere]

23 hours ago, ashcanpete said:

Sorry to dig this post back up, but I'm having a related problem where no water (extractable surface water in the crust) is showing up anywhere in the Kerbol system. I even used SCANSat to cheat resource maps of all bodies, and water isn't a resource on any of them. I see the same with a fresh save (same mods). I'm not asking for help troubleshooting my setup or looking at logs or anything at this point, I just have some simple questions:

I see that kerbalism only includes configs for Ammonia and Nitrogen but not water. I don't think the stock game has drillable water, so without a config from a mod like kerbalism, does that mean CRP would just not put crust water in the game then? Is it possible harvestable resources are broken in kerbalism right now (as this post seems to indicate), or am I misunderstanding something about how resource configs work?

Also, Arzielle, if you still have those configs you made, I'd be grateful if you would share them. I also was interested in Rational Resources but didn't want any of the ISRU changes. Thanks!

Water is rare, some planets never have it, but it should be present. I always had water, at least in some biomes. But i haven't updated to the latest version, it is possible that one could be broken. Or it could be a mod conflict.

Regarding rational resources, it should be included wuth kerbalism already. But i found it anything but rational; you get no water in place that are literally supposed to be balls of ice, like vall or minmus. And you often get percentages exceeding 100%. I did some ranting on the topic in some of my mission reports. I also left a message in the mod thread, but got no answer

[JadeOfMaar]

On 12/28/2023 at 5:56 PM, ashcanpete said:

Sorry to dig this post back up, but I'm having a related problem where no water (extractable surface water in the crust) is showing up anywhere in the Kerbol system. I even used SCANSat to cheat resource maps of all bodies, and water isn't a resource on any of them. I see the same with a fresh save (same mods). I'm not asking for help troubleshooting my setup or looking at logs or anything at this point, I just have some simple questions:

I see that kerbalism only includes configs for Ammonia and Nitrogen but not water. I don't think the stock game has drillable water, so without a config from a mod like kerbalism, does that mean CRP would just not put crust water in the game then? Is it possible harvestable resources are broken in kerbalism right now (as this post seems to indicate), or am I misunderstanding something about how resource configs work?

Howdy. CRP used to include baseline resource placement configs, but at some point, RoverDude decided to have these configs ship with MKS, as a result of a rough period for me and him where players wanted to use RR and MKS together but some of the difficulties brought on by RR will gum up the works with MKS. Now, players have to choose between RR, MKS or planet packs (home system switchers) that have custom configs for resource placement.

On 12/28/2023 at 5:56 PM, ashcanpete said:

I also was interested in Rational Resources but didn't want any of the ISRU changes. Thanks!

You may install just Rational Resources for the resource placement and easily skip Rational Resources Companion which delivers the ISRU changes. I intended from the beginning for Companion to be totally avoidable if you want just the resource placement. But for the things that depend on that (including Rational Resources Kerbalism)... it can't be helped.

On 12/29/2023 at 5:14 PM, king of nowhere said:

Regarding rational resources, it should be included wuth kerbalism already. But i found it anything but rational; you get no water in place that are literally supposed to be balls of ice, like vall or minmus. And you often get percentages exceeding 100%. I did some ranting on the topic in some of my mission reports. I also left a message in the mod thread, but got no answer

Sorry about that. I believe I found your rant and answered it. Feel free to point out more issues if they persist. I'll take them on.

The percentages exceeding 100% are in case of the off chance that players use the resource abundance nerf in the difficulty settings menu. The value, post-nerf, would still be > 100% so certain resources that are meant to always be available continue to be always available.

Edited December 31, 2023 by JadeOfMaar