[1.5 - 1.10] Kerbalism 3.11

[infinite_monkey]

4 hours ago, Sir Mortimer said:

What contract is it? Stock, or a mod?

It's from the Field Research contract pack.

Another question: how does SCANsat science work? I can see different completeness bars in R&D archives for Kerbin, Mun and Minmus, but all of them are completely scanned.

[garwel]

Moving the discussion form the Kerbal Health forum (as it has more to do with Kerbalism's system), I wanted to ask for some advice about adapting Kerbalism's settings.

Basically, I want to disable two Kerbalism's features: radiation and stress + change or disable their associated mechanics (part modules, resources, processes).

What is the best way to do it with minimum side effects (e.g. when Kerbalism updates and everything breaks)?

A custom profile? Can I disable radiation from there (I think it's in the Settings.cfg)? Can I just put it in any folder inside GameData or does it have to be in Profiles folder? Is there any way to change the profile chosen in Settings.cfg from 'default' to another name?

Also, I see in some Kerbalism patches references to tags like KerbalismDefault or FeatureComfort. Is there any explanation of what they mean and how to manipulate them?

[Sir Mortimer]

19 hours ago, infinite_monkey said:

Another question: how does SCANsat science work? I can see different completeness bars in R&D archives for Kerbin, Mun and Minmus, but all of them are completely scanned.

That sounds like a bug. Could you open an issue on github for this?

[Sir Mortimer]

18 hours ago, garwel said:

Also, I see in some Kerbalism patches references to tags like KerbalismDefault or FeatureComfort. Is there any explanation of what they mean and how to manipulate them?

This is the somewhat unique way that Kerbalism is loaded into the game: depending on the configuration in Settings.cfg and the things that are defined in the Profile, Kerbalism injects definitions like FeatureComfort, FeatureRadiation, FeatureScience etc. into ModuleManager before MM applies configuration patches. That way, you can write configurations for Kerbalism that only apply when the respective Feature in Kerbalism is actually turned on and is in use. This also means that you cannot change Kerbalisms settings and/or profile with ModuleManager patches.

18 hours ago, garwel said:

Basically, I want to disable two Kerbalism's features: radiation and stress + change or disable their associated mechanics (part modules, resources, processes).

Some of the Kerbalism features are directly linked to a boolean switch in Kerbalism.cfg, like Science, Failures or coronal mass ejections. Others, like radiation, will be enabled if there exists any rule in the Profile that uses radiation as a modifier. I know, it's convoluted and a bit too complicated, and I have to look these things up in the code myself - but that's the current implementation:

			// detect features from modifiers
			Radiation = modifiers.Contains("radiation");
			Shielding = modifiers.Contains("shielding");
			LivingSpace = modifiers.Contains("living_space");
			Comfort = modifiers.Contains("comfort");
			Poisoning = modifiers.Contains("poisoning");
			Pressure = modifiers.Contains("pressure");

			// habitat is enabled if any of the values it provides are in use
			Habitat = Shielding || LivingSpace || Poisoning || Pressure
			  || modifiers.Contains("volume")
			  || modifiers.Contains("surface");

			// supplies is enabled if any non-EC supply exist
			Supplies = Profile.supplies.Find(k => k.resource != "ElectricCharge") != null;

So to disable radiation and comfort mechanics, you have to remove all rules from your profile that use "radiaiton" or "comfort" as a modifier.

19 hours ago, garwel said:

What is the best way to do it with minimum side effects (e.g. when Kerbalism updates and everything breaks)?

A custom profile? Can I disable radiation from there (I think it's in the Settings.cfg)? Can I just put it in any folder inside GameData or does it have to be in Profiles folder? Is there any way to change the profile chosen in Settings.cfg from 'default' to another name?

It needs to be a separate profile, there is no other way. A profile can be anywhere, but it needs to be a config file that contains a Profile{} node, and the name has to match what's set in Settings.cfg. Kerbalism will complain if there is no profile or more than one profiles installed.

Kerbalism comes with a default profile that contains supporting configurations for a lot of mods (~80 files at the moment). This is the preferred way because this way, we can and will maintain those configurations and keep them up to date when Kerbalism changes, and don't have to rely on other mod updates. It does not happen often that those configs need to be adapted, the profile has been quite stable for a long time now. But as luck would have it, we're currently doing exactly that in the dev branch: some things are changing, and we'll update these configs and remove some of them now that they're redundant.

There's also a second configuration package that is maintained by us: KerbalismScienceOnly, which disables everything in Kerbalism except the science mechanics. It essentially is a copy of the default profile, minus almost all rules and processes in the profile, and minus almost all of the parts. It can be recreated from the default profile by executing a script, so updates won't be a burden.

There's also a profile for RealismOverhaul, but that's in a different ball park

I think we could publish another Profile, something in between the default (which enables everything) and science only (which disables everything). If you come up with a template and a spiffy name for it, I'll add a github repository for that profile in the Kerbalism project and add you as a collaborator there. Future updates can be handled via a similar script as we have for the science only profile, so you can focus on what the profile should and should not do, and we can keep the support configs and parts up to date.

[papuchalk]

My ship became totally uncontrollable, when pilot reached 33% of stress. I could not turn it, or do burns.

Is that OK? I mean, it was only 23 days in space for the pilot(or so), and he became completely crippled : )

Is it a bug, or a correct realism settings ?

I though that only after reaching 100% there could be some "reliability issues"

Edited February 26, 2020 by papuchalk

[Sir Mortimer]

41 minutes ago, papuchalk said:

My ship became totally uncontrollable, when pilot reached 33% of stress. I could not turn it, or do burns.

Is that OK? I mean, it was only 23 days in space for the pilot(or so), and he became completely crippled : )

Is it a bug, or a correct realism settings ?

I though that only after reaching 100% there could be some "reliability issues"

There's nothing that Kerbalism does to a vessel or a crew member when stress is at 33%. Only at 100% it starts getting interesting

[garwel]

3 hours ago, Sir Mortimer said:

It needs to be a separate profile, there is no other way. A profile can be anywhere, but it needs to be a config file that contains a Profile{} node, and the name has to match what's set in Settings.cfg. Kerbalism will complain if there is no profile or more than one profiles installed.

Kerbalism comes with a default profile that contains supporting configurations for a lot of mods (~80 files at the moment). This is the preferred way because this way, we can and will maintain those configurations and keep them up to date when Kerbalism changes, and don't have to rely on other mod updates. It does not happen often that those configs need to be adapted, the profile has been quite stable for a long time now. But as luck would have it, we're currently doing exactly that in the dev branch: some things are changing, and we'll update these configs and remove some of them now that they're redundant.

There's also a second configuration package that is maintained by us: KerbalismScienceOnly, which disables everything in Kerbalism except the science mechanics. It essentially is a copy of the default profile, minus almost all rules and processes in the profile, and minus almost all of the parts. It can be recreated from the default profile by executing a script, so updates won't be a burden.

There's also a profile for RealismOverhaul, but that's in a different ball park

I think we could publish another Profile, something in between the default (which enables everything) and science only (which disables everything). If you come up with a template and a spiffy name for it, I'll add a github repository for that profile in the Kerbalism project and add you as a collaborator there. Future updates can be handled via a similar script as we have for the science only profile, so you can focus on what the profile should and should not do, and we can keep the support configs and parts up to date.

What I've done so far in my own install is just edited the Default.cfg by removing all references to radiation, shielding and stress (+ making a couple edits in Settings.cfg). I know it's bad practice, but simply adding another profile to the Profiles folder messes things up (e.g. resources and modules disappear from parts, because they require default profile).

So far I hesitate to create a completely new config, because it'll require more support in the future, which I'm not sure I can provide. Perhaps, as step 1 I will just publish the modified default profile and see if there is demand for something more.

[papuchalk]

omg my mistake. I had ship combining MK-1 command module and KV-1 command module (from making history expansion).

I separated both command modules after 30days on orbit, and i forgot that KV-1 command module does not have any torque. So the ship became uncontrollable.

Nooby mistake

[Drew Kerman]

can anyone give me a hand getting Kerbin's radiation belts back to their original size and shape, or at least as close as possible? I've already made too many observations to retcon this for my roleplay and I prefer the original environment anyways. I checked the links at the top of the radiation config but I have no idea how that plot is supposed to represent the belts. I already did a MM config to reset the values to the old model but there are new parameters that mess with the original values so I don't get a similar result:

What it used to look like:

what it looks like in newer Kerbalism with older values:

MM patch:
 

@RadiationModel[earth]
{
  @inner_dist = 2.0
  @inner_radius = 0.4
  @inner_compression = 1.1
  @inner_extension = 0.9
  @inner_quality = 50.0
  @outer_dist = 2.0
  @outer_radius = 2.0
  @outer_compression = 1.1
  @outer_extension = 0.8
  @outer_border_start = 0.1
  @outer_border_end = 1.0
  @outer_quality = 60.0
  @pause_radius = 4.5
  @pause_compression = 1.1
  @pause_extension = 0.2
  @pause_height_scale = 1.5
  @pause_quality = 30.0
}

 

[Varses]

Ok, so I've been struggling with making a .cfg patch for the last couple hours but I'm kinda confused about adding reliability modules to engines, especially multi-mode engines.

First, I'm trying to make it so there are different reliability levels for the different modes in multi-mode engines. Basically the idea is that if you use it in the standard mode it produces much less wear on the engine than during the afterburner-type mode. The packaged Kerbalism patch for KerbalAtomics gives the trimodal engines (the ones that can burn LF only or LF+Ox for more thrust) only a single reliability number that's much lower than the single-mode engines.

Also, I'm trying to hack my own patch for NearFutureAerospace which has a multi-mode nuclear jet/NTR and I have a similar problem, but this time with the number of rated ignitions. It would be nice if it had infinite ignitions in jet mode (like other jets) but limited when in NTR mode.

Anyone have any thoughts? I'm pretty inexperienced at this and have mostly been doing copy and pasting and tweaking numbers.

[Drew Kerman]

getting to know this new science system, read the wiki, watched the whole video on it and was chasing down what I thought was a bug but turned out to be poor communication from the mod. See here:

I had a capsule with an "always on" antenna and starting the crew report I saw it generating data but not being stored, it would just stay blank. I brought out just the Mk1 pod without the antenna and started the experiment and saw data being stored. Then I tried a retractable antenna and with it retracted I could see data being stored but then when I extended it I saw the data decrease back to blank and that's when I finally understood it was being transmitted by default. I think I was misled also by the capsule having a default 5km antenna but still storing data - I guess it's not a transmission antenna.

Anyways my point here is that the "Data:" field should really be saying something like "Data Transmission Active" or something once the data hits 0 instead of just being blank

[Silent1_87]

On 2/21/2020 at 6:55 PM, Gotmachine said:

@Silent1_87@Athur Dent@angelatthetomb
Just released 3.7, with a fix to the antenna ec consumption :
https://github.com/Kerbalism/Kerbalism/releases/tag/3.7

Should be available on CKAN shortly.

still high ec consumption in 3.7. back with 3.5

[papuchalk]

Hey guys, i have an idea how to make maneuver nodes more "realistic", and it could be part of Kerbalism mode. Maneuver nodes were calculated by real people at times of Apollo (maybe they are up today?) So it always takes time to calculate it, and also to check if the calculations were correct.

When setting up a maneuver nodes, it could take several seconds before they are fully displayed to you with line of trajectory.

Longer burns, for example from kerbin to Mun or Minmus, could take around 10-15 seconds to calculate exactly. Small corrections of that course could be much faster - between 2-3 seconds.

I know it would drive some people nuts to have such long delay between setting up maneuver node and seeing where it actually aims -  but i would appreciate to have that kind of realism. It would make you think more about your planned trajectories and how to save time when calculating them.

Also, the line showing you maneuver nodes could be showing you slightly different result than you will do in reality. Calculations are never so perfect, right? I find myself doing too exact burns in ksp, so i would welcome some margin of error

 

On 2/28/2020 at 12:48 PM, Drew Kerman said:

getting to know this new science system, read the wiki, watched the whole video on it and was chasing down what I thought was a bug but turned out to be poor communication from the mod. See here:

I had a capsule with an "always on" antenna and starting the crew report I saw it generating data but not being stored, it would just stay blank. I brought out just the Mk1 pod without the antenna and started the experiment and saw data being stored. Then I tried a retractable antenna and with it retracted I could see data being stored but then when I extended it I saw the data decrease back to blank and that's when I finally understood it was being transmitted by default. I think I was misled also by the capsule having a default 5km antenna but still storing data - I guess it's not a transmission antenna.

Anyways my point here is that the "Data:" field should really be saying something like "Data Transmission Active" or something once the data hits 0 instead of just being blank

actually, i recommend reading Kerbalism manual, which might be a little outdated today, but basic stuff like antenas are still the same. Read page 25 - only external antenas are useful for transmitting data, also only these give your crew comfort bonus for Call home 

https://readthedocs.org/projects/kerbalism/downloads/pdf/latest/

 

 

Edited March 1, 2020 by papuchalk

[musubk]

Question: I'm trying to run the BIRDIE laboratory experiment on Kerbin, and it keeps telling me I'm missing a resource. I see in the BIRDIE description that it requires 'Intake ATM'. None of the intakes provide 'Intake ATM', they all provide 'Intake Air'. I know in a past playthrough I did with Interstellar Extended that the intakes provided both resources, but it seems that isn't true in my save file. I'm wondering if this is a problem with my install or if it's something that's been overlooked in Kerbalism? SHOULD the intakes be providing Intake ATM? As it is now, I see no way to actually run this experiment.

[IceCube]

I was really surprised to see Remote Tech now tagged as supported in the mod compatibility list.

I installed it and still get a warning about "partial support". Checked the change log and cannot see any recent change indicating remote tech compatibility other than in the compatibility list.

Is this likely to break my game at some point or am I good to go? So excited about that integration lol

[mcwaffles2003]

On 2/28/2020 at 6:48 AM, Drew Kerman said:

getting to know this new science system, read the wiki, watched the whole video on it and was chasing down what I thought was a bug but turned out to be poor communication from the mod. See here:

I had a capsule with an "always on" antenna and starting the crew report I saw it generating data but not being stored, it would just stay blank. I brought out just the Mk1 pod without the antenna and started the experiment and saw data being stored. Then I tried a retractable antenna and with it retracted I could see data being stored but then when I extended it I saw the data decrease back to blank and that's when I finally understood it was being transmitted by default. I think I was misled also by the capsule having a default 5km antenna but still storing data - I guess it's not a transmission antenna.

Anyways my point here is that the "Data:" field should really be saying something like "Data Transmission Active" or something once the data hits 0 instead of just being blank

That's what the blue arrow means, click the arrow and it wont transmit that set of data. In AUTO you can turn off automatic transmission as well

[Drew Kerman]

8 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

That's what the blue arrow means, click the arrow and it wont transmit that set of data. In AUTO you can turn off automatic transmission as well

My point is there's no reason it should rely on other parts of the UI (that are probably hidden, as in this screenshot) to tell the player what is happening when it can simply say "Transmitting..." instead of showing nothing and looking like it isn't working

[infinite_monkey]

Can anyone tell me how to handle samples? I have enough slots in my capsule, and have a mystery goo container and materials bay on board. I took the data from there to the capsule like in stock, but after separation from the service-and-acience module the samples were gone.

[mcwaffles2003]

2 hours ago, Drew Kerman said:

My point is there's no reason it should rely on other parts of the UI (that are probably hidden, as in this screenshot) to tell the player what is happening when it can simply say "Transmitting..." instead of showing nothing and looking like it isn't working

it shows the upload rate already next to the blue arrow (the number that doesn't change), I don't feel its that hard to understand an up arrow means uploading. Also if you hover over the wifi symbol it shows the transmission rate

[Drew Kerman]

11 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

it shows the upload rate already next to the blue arrow (the number that doesn't change), I don't feel its that hard to understand an up arrow means uploading. Also if you hover over the wifi symbol it shows the transmission rate

you're still talking about things not in the screenshot and still missing my point. "look somewhere else" shouldn't have been necessary at all when there is a perfectly reasonable place to communicate what is happening with the data to the user right there in that space that is for some reason blank of any information. If, if I had the kerbalism window in the upper-right open at the time I would have seen what was going on. Because that window can be (and is, by default) hidden it shouldn't be relied on to tell the user what is happening

[mcwaffles2003]

2 hours ago, Drew Kerman said:

you're still talking about things not in the screenshot

Dude, there are 2 tabs for kerbalism... Just like any other mod, click the tab, everything you need is in the tab...

 

3 hours ago, Drew Kerman said:

"look somewhere else" 

If you're going to put quotes around something as a response to someone, the person you are responding to should have said it >.>

3 hours ago, Drew Kerman said:

If, if I had the kerbalism window in the upper-right open at the time I would have seen what was going on. Because that window can be (and is, by default) hidden

What do you mean "hidden" it's not that hard to find...It's right in the tab bar where all the mods put their tabs. Also, if you have found it, then why are you here asking for where the info is? It isn't hard to find

Spoiler

3 hours ago, Drew Kerman said:

it shouldn't be relied on to tell the user what is happening

It's better than spreading that tabs contents into everything and making everything into a disorganized mess

On 2/28/2020 at 6:48 AM, Drew Kerman said:

Anyways my point here is that the "Data:" field should really be saying something like "Data Transmission Active" or something once the data hits 0 instead of just being blank

I feel this is the crux of your argument, correct me on that if it is not.

First off, did you try pressing the button next to data? It kind of tells you what you would like to know, if you're having trouble finding the button it's to the left of data, it's big and blue. Secondly, there's a lot more info in there than a yes or no to whether the data is being currently transmitted and if it were all put into that right-click window, that window would be big with lots of stuff and hard to navigate. For instance, which data is being transmitted? How much space is left to hold data? Which sets of data are there?

[Xt007]

In all due respect, let's not cajole this conversation into a disparaging discussion about what "people should know" about the layout of information and modus operandi regarding a mod authors choices.  It's incumbent on the player to experiment and discover a mods information, usefulness and quirks.  Beyond bugs, innovative ideas, or game playing borks, the player should sit back and enjoy what has been created and revel in the discovery of what a mod can do and how to make it do that.  Did I mention the mod developers do this because they care about the community?  

Edited March 3, 2020 by Xt007

[Drew Kerman]

1 minute ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

I feel this is the crux of your argument, correct me on that if it is not.

it is, and it seems like you're saying there's no point filling this empty space with information when that information exists elsewhere. I mean, it's empty space. Why argue against making it useful? Plenty of room there to just print "Transmitting..." without having to fill it up with any more information. There doesn't need to be more information. The only time that field is blank is when there is no stored data, but no reason why it can't also inform the user there is no stored data because it's being actively transmitted. All I'm doing is making a suggestion here and if the devs don't like it they can just ignore it. There's no reason to argue so I'm done talking about it

[Sir Mortimer]

On 3/2/2020 at 11:51 PM, IceCube said:

I was really surprised to see Remote Tech now tagged as supported in the mod compatibility list.

A fix (of sorts) is currently in development, but not yet released. The wiki is up to date with development, which is ahead of the latest released version.

[evileye.x]

@Sir Mortimer, thank you very much for continuing development of such great mod.

I started a new career with core mods : Kerbalism, JNCQ with KK addons, ResearchBodies, Bureaucracy, KCT,  Crew R&R, ProbesBeforeCrew, Restock +, Universal Storage 2, Grounded, Persistent Rotation with RW nerf (torque *=0.01; cost *=5; consumption *=10; all in-built RW removed from capsules and probe cores) -- and I'm having a total blast. This is my great return to KSP.  At some point I'll add KAS/KIS, B9 or OPT and Interstellar and maybe DeepFreeze?..

One of main reasons to feel like it's KSP Renaissance is Kerbalism 

Kerbalism adds so many things to consider, and I really love science rework and background processing. This is what I actually wanted from KSP.

Even if I don't feel I praised this mod enough, I've noticed 2 bug you may consider look into:

1) when I use Kerbalism go to vessel in orbit button from the Kerbalism list, it breaks EVE/Scatterer. May be some event not fired properly....

2) Kerbalism allows EVA samples at level 2 of Research facility, even if EVA samples moved to higher tiers of building level (Custom Barn Kit does this in my case, config comes from Bureaucracy), maybe it is worth to do additional checks.

Edited March 4, 2020 by evileye.x