[1.5 - 1.10] Kerbalism 3.11

[jimmymcgoochie]

Getting some weirdness with fuel cells while landed on Kerbin- I deployed some labs to get some long-term experiments done on Kerbin’s surface, with solar panels to power them during the day and fuel cells at night; the fuel cells didn’t work correctly even when they were set to automatically turn on in the dark or when power was low, resulting in repeated power loss and the labs not gaining science at the right speed. They also seemed to barely trickle up when using time warp (a few minutes per game day) and ultimately I abandoned the idea when installing Community Tech Tree fouled up a lot of experiment unlocks and deleted some vessels’ onboard experiments.

[caipi]

edit: Never mind. Turns out a clean install fixed the original issue (see spoiler). I still don't know what caused it. But it must have been some kind of error during my initial install. Kopernicus and Kerbalism are still compatible.

 

Spoiler

 

Hi @Sir Mortimer

I'm currently using Kopernicus Bleeding Edge with KSP 1.10.1, JNSQ and Kerbalism 3.11. I noticed that the SolarPanels are basically not recognized by Kerbalism because one of Kopernicus' MM-Patches (\Kopernicus\Config\SolarPanels.cfg) renames the MODULE ModuleDeployableSolarPanel to KopernicusSolarPanels. So, vessels that are merely powered by solar panels are basically without power generator when they are not loaded, as far as Kerbalism is concerned. This means I had to frequently load them before the power ran out (more batteries, more time...). I, uhm, 'fixed' it by deactivating the aforementioned patch.

My question now is, would it be possible for you to include the KopernicusSolarPanels as power generator? I know it's not your mod that is causing the issue. But to me (as a dilettante ), it seems easier if you could just somehow integrate it - if that's possible. I think this patch is already supposed to recreate the compatibility, but is no longer working because of the patch I linked above.

Also paging @R-T-B, considering that this might potentially be fixed on his end.

I apologize if I missed something, especially if it was something obvious. This isn't a major issue for me. As initially mentioned, I found a workaround. And I'd also understand if neither of you felt responsible for the mod compatibility here. But I figured a) others might run into the same issue and not know what caused it or how to fix it and b) deactivating a core Kopernicus patch might create other issues along the line which could be averted and which I just don't see yet.

 

/Edit: I almost forgot to say: I really, really like this mod. First time I'm trying it and it's like a completely new game experience. For the better of course. Sorry for kissing a**

 

 

Edited September 19, 2020 by caipi
Issue resolved

[R-T-B]

1 hour ago, caipi said:

Also paging @R-T-B, considering that this might potentially be fixed on his end.

The froggy went down to Kerbin, looking for a soul to steal.  He was in a bind, he was way behind and was willing to make a deal:

Boy you may not know it but I'm a Kerbalism player too...  and I bet a Kerbal of gold against your soul that I can out kerbalism you.

I was feeling sing-songy tonight, sorry (hope that isn't too dated a reference song).  Seriously though I do play with Kerbalism and have no idea how I haven't noticed this until now.

Yes, we caused this.  It was needed, but it's still our doing.  The official way to fix this is to use a module manager patch in your mod to turn off KopernicusSolarPanels functions, like this is aparently trying to do in the stock Kerbalism configs:

File KerbalismConfig\Support\Kopernicus.cfg

// We have our own handling of Kopernicus multiple stars (in the SolarPanelFixer module) so we don't need / support the kopernicus one
@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleDeployableSolarPanel]]:NEEDS[Kopernicus]:FOR[zzzKerbalismDefault]
{
    %useKopernicusSolarPanels = false // for kopernicus 1.8+
    @MODULE[ModuleDeployableSolarPanel]
    {
        %useKopernicusSolarPanels = false // for kopernicus 1.7-
    }
}

This should work as far as I can see unless I'm missing something.  I take it you aren't using the Kerbalism stock configs?  That's part of the problem, I suppose.  You can always work around it with your own patch...  or just rip that part of Kopernicus out, yeah.

Edited September 19, 2020 by R-T-B

[caipi]

I am using the stock Kerbalism config. I'm also using a lot of different mods though and first thought KSPIE (interstellar expended) might be the culprit.

Maybe, and I realize I'm walking on thin ice here because I never really bothered familiarizing myself with MM patches, maybe it's because the Kopernicus patch comes first with a :FINAL and the kerbalism patch comes later, but is ignored because of the final? idk...

If you want me to, I'll do a clean install later* with only Kopernicus, maybe JNSQ, Kerbalism, and all of their dependencies to see if I still get the issue or if there's some other mod interfering somewhere. But if you are using both (which I actually knew because you recently wrote (bragged ) it somewhere else ), you should already see it in the VAB. Just use any pod, add any deployable solar panel and check the Kerbalism planner at the bottom to see if you have a power generator or not.

*currently working (sort of, don't tell my boss, i.e. ME, that I'm hanging around in some video game forum chatting - again!)

Oh, and about my soul: it ain't worth much, so that's a bad bet to begin with. But it also already belongs to somebody else, so I can't really bet with it anymore. Also that's not really a fair bet, now is it? I stated that I just started using Kerbalism and you're an experienced Kerbalism player. That's quite a devilish bet you proposed there. KUDOS!

Edited September 19, 2020 by caipi

[R-T-B]

1 hour ago, caipi said:

I am using the stock Kerbalism config. I'm also using a lot of different mods though and first thought KSPIE (interstellar expended) might be the culprit.

Maybe, and I realize I'm walking on thin ice here because I never really bothered familiarizing myself with MM patches, maybe it's because the Kopernicus patch comes first with a :FINAL and the kerbalism patch comes later, but is ignored because of the final? idk...

If you want me to, I'll do a clean install later* with only Kopernicus, maybe JNSQ, Kerbalism, and all of their dependencies to see if I still get the issue or if there's some other mod interfering somewhere. But if you are using both (which I actually knew because you recently wrote (bragged ) it somewhere else ), you should already see it in the VAB. Just use any pod, add any deployable solar panel and check the Kerbalism planner at the bottom to see if you have a power generator or not.

*currently working (sort of, don't tell my boss, i.e. ME, that I'm hanging around in some video game forum chatting - again!)

Oh, and about my soul: it ain't worth much, so that's a bad bet to begin with. But it also already belongs to somebody else, so I can't really bet with it anymore. Also that's not really a fair bet, now is it? I stated that I just started using Kerbalism and you're an experienced Kerbalism player. That's quite a devilish bet you proposed there. KUDOS!

Hmm...  It's late where I am, but you could be right.  I always get confused around the ModuleManager stuff.  I'll investigate tomorrow.  Regardless, I am certain this is something that either a simple config change should handle, at absolute worst, or a real simple change on our end.  Maybe it doesn't even need that, we'll see.

EDIT:  Just did a quick test because insomnia, and yeah, it seems to be generating in the VAB planner for me?

Edited September 19, 2020 by R-T-B

[R-T-B]

1 hour ago, caipi said:

bragged

nah, I don't brag.  Mostly my kerbals just die.

oops, now I have two posts.  Oh well.

Edited September 19, 2020 by R-T-B

[caipi]

$#!t. Just did a clean install, seems like you are right. I'll investigate further later today (tomorrow for you, get some sleep - evil frog gods and their priests need sleep too) and see if I can find the culprit. I'll keep you aprised.

I was really hoping it were just a Kerbalism <-> Kopernicus (<->JNSQ) issue, especially after I had deactivated that Kopernicus Solarpanel patch.

 

Edit a few hours later: After over an hour of installing mod by mod and checking the game for the issue, I came up empty. I was unable to recreate the issue despite having all the same mods installed as before. I still don't know what caused the issue initially. I can only assume that it must have been a human error on my part. I am happy though that the error is gone now! Sorry for bothering you with it! If anybody else encounters the same issue (which seems doubtful at this point), the only advice I could give, is: do a clean reinstall. *shrugging my shoulder in disbelief about myself*

Edited September 19, 2020 by caipi
error resolved

[mcwaffles2003]

On 8/2/2020 at 2:58 AM, Sir Mortimer said:

It's in the works (and actually working) - but in the not yet playable 4.0 version. It will be a while.

Any summation of what features you guys are hoping to implement in 4.0?

[R-T-B]

1 hour ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Any summation of what features you guys are hoping to implement in 4.0?

More dead kerbals?

 

I jest, sorta...  ok not really.  It's gonna happen.

Edited September 19, 2020 by R-T-B

[salajander]

I have a rover on Duna with an antenna just barely strong enough to connect directly back to Kerbin. I have a big relay satellite in a tundra orbit around Duna. If Kerbin's not visible, the rover connects through the relay with a pretty good signal is transmitting data back at close to 1 kb/s. When Kerbin comes into view, however, the rover chooses the more direct path and connects directly to a Kerbin DSN station, with a much lower strength and about 0.2 b/s throughput.

Is there a method I can use to force the rover to use the relay satellite all the time? Or choose the stronger signal over the more direct one, I guess.

 

[R-T-B]

2 hours ago, salajander said:

I have a rover on Duna with an antenna just barely strong enough to connect directly back to Kerbin. I have a big relay satellite in a tundra orbit around Duna. If Kerbin's not visible, the rover connects through the relay with a pretty good signal is transmitting data back at close to 1 kb/s. When Kerbin comes into view, however, the rover chooses the more direct path and connects directly to a Kerbin DSN station, with a much lower strength and about 0.2 b/s throughput.

Is there a method I can use to force the rover to use the relay satellite all the time? Or choose the stronger signal over the more direct one, I guess.

 

Maybe something like CommNetConstellations would work?

[Gordon Dry]

7 hours ago, R-T-B said:

Maybe something like CommNetConstellations would work?

I second this - CommNetConstellations is not listed on https://github.com/Kerbalism/Kerbalism/wiki/Home-~-Mod-Support so I can assume that it's still the old state of knowledge that I gathered before my latest hiatus.

In my CommNetConstellation archive from KSP 1.8.x which is in the subfolder "_not sure" I got a text file which says:

Quote

So Kerbalism does not differ between internal (telemetry) and direct/relay (science data).
In other words, as soon as any internal antenna is using the same channel as any DSN ground station also the direct/relay connections do.
CommnetConstellation does not care if antennas are radially 3x for example, each can have a different channel by default (without removing symetry). <- perhaps that means anything code related.
With the actual behaviour I cannot force Kerbalism to use a specific data transmission path but I can force the use of preferred backup paths (when direct connection is gone).

I could remove that mod and use the simpler CommnetVisualisation mod from the same author - but that is not KSP 1.8.x compatible yet...

I guess I got this from Discord, I forgot to add the info from whom and when I got this - the timestamp of the text file is Nov. 24, 2019

Edit: the second part of the quote are my own words, I remember.

Edited September 20, 2020 by Gordon Dry

[Gordon Dry]

I guess the magic words are RealAntennas - also for stock Kerbalism.

There is still a PR open from my branch with additional configs for generic patching (not only dedicated part patches):
https://github.com/Gordon-Dry/RealAntennas/tree/RealAntennas-another-config-clean-up

This branch contains no .dll - only the configs, .png files and an outdated version file.

Take the official release and overwrite the .cfg files with those from my branch.

[salajander]

CommNet Constellations seems to be working (so far as I can tell) with my existing save, and has solved my Duna rover connectivity problem.

[Gordon Dry]

On 9/1/2020 at 12:34 PM, HansAcker said:

I didn't know that Kerbalism already includes some mechanism for that, the "KerbalismSupport" profile. At least it allows adding content to the profile, not changing it (duplicates ignored).

Third edit's the charm: a resource definition for the _ProcessName pseudo-resource was missing. So that's a way to add custom converter recipes without editing the profile cfg.

Thank you, I knew that I knew that Kerbalism works like that - but the hiatus...

I just forgot that fact, also because I did not stumble upon the fact for some time that the profile is parsed before MM starts to work.

 

Now I need to finetune my question:

Does using the "KerbalismSupport" profile and putting in exact clones of modules but with slighly different contents (one or two variables) overwrite the original module?

This would be the purpose, otherwise I would not have any chance to alter the Process as described here:

https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/50533-18x-110x-module-manager-414-july-7th-2020-locked-inside-edition/&do=findComment&comment=3857664

 

Edit:

Hmm, it should be possible to delete a node within ProfileDefault ... MM works after it was created ... hmmm.

Edited September 22, 2020 by Gordon Dry

[HansAcker]

1 hour ago, Gordon Dry said:

Does using the "KerbalismSupport" profile and putting in exact clones of modules but with slighly different contents (one or two variables) overwrite the original module?

As far as I understand it, it does not. The support profile can add rules, supplies and processes with new names but not remove or change existing definitions.  I'm locally testing a patch that allows overriding definitions, yet it still does not allow removing nodes completely as I haven't found a neat way to signal deletions. Eventually I'd like to have a way to replace and remove some converter processes, too, so mods like RR and others could define their own set of recipes without cluttering up the selection.

Edited September 22, 2020 by HansAcker

[Gordon Dry]

@HansAcker it looks good, I just added clones of the modules to the KerbalismSupport profile and removed the original modules.

[salajander]

On 9/19/2020 at 12:59 PM, mcwaffles2003 said:

Any summation of what features you guys are hoping to implement in 4.0?

The devs, when they were working on things, had been tracking 4.0 features here: https://github.com/Kerbalism/Kerbalism/projects/2

Obviously I wouldn't think of any of these as any sort of promise, if they're even done at all.

[infinite_monkey]

I'm in a new career, and I just experienced a bad surprise: After returning from Minmus with some surface and other samples, I lost all of them after returning to the main ship. Unlike with stock science, I got no warning that I'd lose my samples for lack of storage. The reason for the lack of storage is that Tundra Exploration's Crew Dragon only has 1 slot for samples, while e.g. the Mk1-3 Command Pod has 36 - I didn't check that first. For now I added a MM-Patch. Would it be possible to automate that based on crew capacity or something like that?

[MassoudGL]

I've been noticing an issue with the Gravmax detector. It seems to be not recording, or the timing is repeatedly reset. Ex. I have a probe on Gilly, it's been there for 243 days, yet the experiment (which lasts 90 days) shows that there is 79 days remaining. Anyone else have this problem?

[infinite_monkey]

On 2/14/2020 at 9:13 AM, Sir Mortimer said:

We use a generic formula that tries to find out if an engine is a big first stage lifter (that will get 1-2 ignitions) or a maneuvering engine (30+ ignitions) or something in between. Hypergolic engines (monoprop) should have no ignition limit.

Has this changed in the meantime? I noticed that Tundra Exploration's Rodan capsule (Crew Dragon), which runs on monopropellant, only has 1 ignition. Also, how wo I write a patch so that my Falcon 9 booster has more than 1 ignition, so I can land it? This doesn't seem to work:

@PART[TE_19_F9_S1_Engine]:NEEDS[FeatureReliability]:AFTER[zzzKerbalism]
{
    @MODULE[Reliability] {
        @rated_ignitions = 40 
    }
}

 

[hemeac]

44 minutes ago, infinite_monkey said:

Has this changed in the meantime? I noticed that Tundra Exploration's Rodan capsule (Crew Dragon), which runs on monopropellant, only has 1 ignition. Also, how wo I write a patch so that my Falcon 9 booster has more than 1 ignition, so I can land it? This doesn't seem to work:

@PART[TE_19_F9_S1_Engine]:NEEDS[FeatureReliability]:AFTER[zzzKerbalism]
{
    @MODULE[Reliability] {
        @rated_ignitions = 40 
    }
}

 

That may be failing if there is no zzzKerbalism pass.  I was just looking at the Reliability.cfg and engine reliability runs in the KerbalismDefault pass, so you may want to set either it :AFTER[KerbalismDefault] or :FOR[zzzKerbalism]

[infinite_monkey]

1 hour ago, hemeac said:

That may be failing if there is no zzzKerbalism pass.  I was just looking at the Reliability.cfg and engine reliability runs in the KerbalismDefault pass, so you may want to set either it :AFTER[KerbalismDefault] or :FOR[zzzKerbalism]

Thanks, with :FOR[zzzKerbalism] it's working fine

[JadeOfMaar]

@infinite_monkey This is what the patches for Endurance (Interstellar) look like:

@PART[ENenduranceEngine|ENrangerBody|ENrangerEngine|ENlanderBody|ENlanderVTOL|ENminiRanger]:AFTER[KerbalismDefault]
{
	@MODULE[Reliability]:HAS[#type[ModuleEngines*]]
	{
		@rated_operation_duration = 1800
		@rated_ignitions = 120
	}
}

My ordering pass is different than yours and I target a specific Reliability module as parts can have more than one of this with different types.

[MassoudGL]

In running both Kerbalism and KSPIE, I keep getting the incoherent error messages on vessels with reactors. For example that a producer of electricity is incoherent at warp, and to unload it first. Which would be totally fine, but Kerbalism's science system isn't simulating at warp for those vessels. So if I have an experiment going, it looks like it pauses when I go at high warp, regardless of if the vessel is selected or not. I can just cheat the science in for those experiments, but this pretty much breaks any 90d+ experiments on all vessels with reactors.

Is there any fix for this?