[1.12.4] OhScrap! (OHS) A ScrapYard (SYD) based Part Failure and Reliability Mod - 2.2.99.0-prerelease `<允许降落伞损坏>` edition [28 Dec 2022

[FasterThanFlourite]

I love this mod, it makes routine journeys much more exciting.

Although I do agree with @infinite_monkey, a pay to test feature would be great. I've put in a little more detailed feature request on Github.

[uglyduckling81]

Scrap seems a little aggressive on default settings.

Really by accident I ended up with a lot of redundancy with this build but it still wasn't enough. 3 of the 5 tanks died, 3 of 6 control surfaces, one engine exploded and the other just died. Losing the second engine obviously forced me to land, I was already quite worried if I lost the last control surface on the right side I might not be able to control the aircraft anyway and was thinking about landing before that happened.

51 mins into a 80min flight. The rate of attrition on parts feels a bit ridiculous.

edit:

Yeah I've tried this flight with this same aircraft 4 times and it's always the same thing. The parts are all gen 4 or 5 with most of them having several reuses.

Is there a way to tone down OhScrap failure occurrences?

This is the moment before I landed in the water. I just remembered to screenshot it. 8 failures in less than 20mins of flight. It's unplayable like this. I'm scared to launch a probe as the last two I have launched get instant failures in one of the boosters and caused asymmetric launch and rapid disassembly.

I want a chance of a failure here and there, not catastrophic results every single launch.

I haven't play KSP in a fair while but this isn't how this mod used to work.

 

edit again: Ok so I figured I must be doing something wrong since no one else has reported this problem. Seems like I didn't fully understand how this worked or I had forgotten, who knows.

So things get more safety rating by being tested but also by being later generations. So my well tested plane is still unsafe because it's all first gen items. I noticed a 4th gen engine might get a safety rating of 4 without being tested, whereas my engine with 6 uses but first gen is still safety rating 1 or something like that.

It means I have to launch every part en-masse for static testing before adding the actual build to the KCT queue. It's a little annoying but I like the realism of testing parts.

 

Yet another edit: The extreme failure rate still happens even with a tested and later gen parts aircarft. I'm onto the 6th launch of the same aircraft with new parts which i launched for a test run first. Then rebuilt the aircraft and went on the mission i've been trying to finish. Ended up having to cheese save my way through it. Any failure that stopped the mission from being completeable got reloaded. Ended up with about 6 failures in the 2 cockpits, both external batteries, 3 of the 7 control surfaces and 3 of the 5 fuel tanks, 1 engine also failed. The second engine failed several times requiring a quick load. some of the additional critical control surfaces failed requiring a quick load. I had to crash land and it took a quick load to not get the science part i needed for the mission to be exploded or the Kerbals killed. Surely parts of quality level 8 and higher should rarely be failing. I shouldn't be getting about 25 failures in a 1hr flight should I?

Edited May 2, 2020 by uglyduckling81
spelling

[FasterThanFlourite]

@zer0Kerbal I'm curious, what do you think of implementing the pay to test feature?

[FasterThanFlourite]

I've had another idea: What do you think about a contract pack for OhSnap?

Simple goal: Testing part x enough times to get it to reliability y.

 

That would encourage one to tinker with certain parts much more, while also atleast getting paid to do some of the reliability grinding for OhSnap.

[Corax]

IMO reducing risk of failure is incentive enough to encourage part testing; developing new ideas into reliable parts should not yield free money, quite the contrary; and if all of that is too tedious, maybe this mod is not the right one to use. There are others that introduce random failures, without the grind... just my two cents.

[severedsolo]

On 5/1/2020 at 5:03 AM, uglyduckling81 said:

So things get more safety rating by being tested but also by being later generations. So my well tested plane is still unsafe because it's all first gen items. I noticed a 4th gen engine might get a safety rating of 4 without being tested, whereas my engine with 6 uses but first gen is still safety rating 1 or something like that.

Your parts have reached EOL. There is a penalty for pushing parts beyond their life - scrap them in SY and build new ones.

If you are getting high failure rates with a high safety rating (5 or better) then you probably need to zip up your Logs folder from the OhScrap directory after it happens.

[FasterThanFlourite]

I just checked the configs, since I was a little annoyed by how often the SRBs failed and I am surprised to see that the failure rate is so high:

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleEngines*]:HAS[@PROPELLANT[SolidFuel]]]
{
	MODULE
	{
		name = SRBFailureModule
		baseChanceOfFailure = 0.5
		expectedLifetime = 5
	}
}

 

Where every other base chance of failure is either 0.1 or 0.11.

I do understand that SRBs are supposed to be instable, throw-away items, but my only gripe with this mod is that the SRBs are quite annoying, since they fail so often which leads to a guaranteed catastrophically failed launch unless you test. If I interpret the numbers correctly, with 0.5 base chance, with four untested SRBs you have only a 6.25% chance of all working as intended. And I do think it is rather frustrating to have SRBs fail so often and ruin all your launches without you having the chance to repair it or to adjust for the mistake (as you can usually when other parts fail every now and then).

So for now I've set it the base chance of failure to 0.11.

I will see how that plays out, since I really like this mod. It adds so much excitement and potential for unexpected stories and encourages the use of Kerbals to repair things (which probes cannot!). So it gives me an incentive to try and use Kerbals. With the Probes Before Crew mod you otherwise almost never want to use Kerbals.

 

 

[zer0Kerbal]

Been on vacation - and moving into a new-to-me machine - apologies for the hiatus and slow reply

once am settling into the new-to-me machine I will be pushing out the pre-release to release that is on github with slight modifications. I need to (once again) update and modernize my backend processes and files. I swear, this DOES save me time and headaches... *chuckle*

 

 

On 5/8/2020 at 8:16 AM, FasterThanFlourite said:

@zer0Kerbal I'm curious, what do you think of implementing the pay to test feature?

Interesting. Am always open to github PR's.

On 5/10/2020 at 2:27 PM, FasterThanFlourite said:

I've had another idea: What do you think about a contract pack for OhSnap?

Simple goal: Testing part x enough times to get it to reliability y.

 

That would encourage one to tinker with certain parts much more, while also atleast getting paid to do some of the reliability grinding for OhSnap.

Am open to contract packs - either included directly or separately. I currently do not know how to write one, will eventually get around to learning how - but my plate is mostly full at the moment. Again, always open to github PR's.

On 5/10/2020 at 2:39 PM, Corax said:

IMO reducing risk of failure is incentive enough to encourage part testing; developing new ideas into reliable parts should not yield free money, quite the contrary; and if all of that is too tedious, maybe this mod is not the right one to use. There are others that introduce random failures, without the grind... just my two cents.

Maybe not but or even maybe .

I agree with you @Corax; which would have me amend my statement above - any possible contract pack would have to be released separately - so those who want it could have it; and those who don't - wouldn't have it.

This is core to my design principles: there are many style of play; all are valid to the person playing that style. I design for my style; but don't exclude other styles.

On 5/10/2020 at 3:08 PM, severedsolo said:

Your parts have reached EOL. There is a penalty for pushing parts beyond their life - scrap them in SY and build new ones.

If you are getting high failure rates with a high safety rating (5 or better) then you probably need to zip up your Logs folder from the OhScrap directory after it happens.

@severedsolo well said.

As you said - Log files would be very helpful.

On 5/14/2020 at 7:57 AM, FasterThanFlourite said:

I just checked the configs, since I was a little annoyed by how often the SRBs failed and I am surprised to see that the failure rate is so high:

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleEngines*]:HAS[@PROPELLANT[SolidFuel]]]
{
	MODULE
	{
		name = SRBFailureModule
		baseChanceOfFailure = 0.5
		expectedLifetime = 5
	}
}

 

Where every other base chance of failure is either 0.1 or 0.11.

I do understand that SRBs are supposed to be instable, throw-away items, but my only gripe with this mod is that the SRBs are quite annoying, since they fail so often which leads to a guaranteed catastrophically failed launch unless you test. If I interpret the numbers correctly, with 0.5 base chance, with four untested SRBs you have only a 6.25% chance of all working as intended. And I do think it is rather frustrating to have SRBs fail so often and ruin all your launches without you having the chance to repair it or to adjust for the mistake (as you can usually when other parts fail every now and then).

So for now I've set it the base chance of failure to 0.11.

I will see how that plays out, since I really like this mod. It adds so much excitement and potential for unexpected stories and encourages the use of Kerbals to repair things (which probes cannot!). So it gives me an incentive to try and use Kerbals. With the Probes Before Crew mod you otherwise almost never want to use Kerbals.

 

 

I trust that the failure rate for SRB's are correct; albeit  correctly annoyingly correct - and hopefully @severedsolo agrees.

I would love to make the bCoF and eLt be adjustable in game  (game settings/difficultlies) (https://github.com/zer0Kerbal/OhScrap/issues/7)

this might help:

Spoiler

 

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleEngines*]:HAS[@PROPELLANT[SolidFuel]]]:AFTER[OhScrap]
{
	@MODULE[SRBFailureModule]
	{
		@baseChanceOfFailure = 0.11
		@expectedLifetime = 5
	}
}

// zer0Kerbal
// GPLv2

 

Edited May 22, 2020 by zer0Kerbal

[Corax]

Welcome back, hope you had a pleasant vacation.

Maybe not :funds:but :rep: or even maybe :science:.

I like that idea; currently, KerbalConstructionTime awards (or at least can be configured to) Science for constructing vessels, which I always considered a bit odd, although I have to admit, not entirely unwelcome ;)
Awarding Science for testing makes more sense IMO; I'd definitely prefer that over construction. Don't know about Rep though. I can see it on either side of the coin.

Edited May 22, 2020 by Corax

[severedsolo]

On 5/14/2020 at 8:57 AM, FasterThanFlourite said:

I just checked the configs, since I was a little annoyed by how often the SRBs failed and I am surprised to see that the failure rate is so high:

 

1 hour ago, zer0Kerbal said:

I trust that the failure rate for SRB's are correct; albeit  correctly annoyingly correct - and hopefully @severedsolo agrees.

 

It's not quite as bad as the figures suggest (because SRBs only roll once. The others  are balanced for multiple rolls).

Gen 1: Chance of event not occurring over 4 SRBs is 0.5 (chance of event not occuring) ^4 (number of events) = 0.0625 = 6.25%

Failure rate halves with each generation and to get the chance of a single event not occurring you do 1-<chance of failure>.

Gen 2: 0.75^4 = 0.3164 = 31%

Gen 3: 0.875^4 = 58%

So really, you need to be Gen 3 before you have a reasonable chance of getting off the ground with 4 SRBs.

Whether or not that's acceptable is up to you of course, but I will say, Oh Scrap is generally balanced around the premise that Gen 1 and Gen 2 parts are absolutely terrible.

These figures also assume that you don't do a static fire test first. If you do, you'll find them much more reliable when you do the actual launch.

 

Edited May 22, 2020 by severedsolo

[Phoenix-D]

So if I wanted to have wear-out failures only, would changing the base change to 0 work? Or would that end up being a 0*(weartime) = neverfail thing.

[infinite_monkey]

7 hours ago, severedsolo said:

These figures also assume that you don't do a static fire test first. If you do, you'll find them much more reliable when you do the actual launch.

As far as I know, there's no static fire test for SRBs, and it's not needed, as they are so reliable... Is there a way to make them always behave like there was a static fire test?

By the way, my Titan III failed almost every time with Gen 3 and just 2 boosters. For some reason, generation did not increase and stayed at 3 even after scrapping them. Is that normal?

[Phoenix-D]

4 hours ago, infinite_monkey said:

As far as I know, there's no static fire test for SRBs, and it's not needed, as they are so reliable... Is there a way to make them always behave like there was a static fire test?

By the way, my Titan III failed almost every time with Gen 3 and just 2 boosters. For some reason, generation did not increase and stayed at 3 even after scrapping them. Is that normal?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30KSt4Iy9Q8

Static fires are common during development. Just not the kind you get with liquid engines where they fire the actual engine they're using right before takeover. For obvious reasons I do think the stock settings of the mod are kind of pessimistic on SRB reliability though. Once they're finished designing they're often more reliable than liquids.

 

[severedsolo]

@zer0Kerbal - I think I may have found the cause of @uglyduckling81's issue, and he's right. It's failing too much.

Noticed myself that the failure rate seemed a little high, but couldn't put my finger on why - then I noticed that debug mode was reporting that the sampleTime for rockets in atmosphere was 5 minutes. The cfg says it's supposed to be 2.

Here's your culprit. https://github.com/zer0Kerbal/OhScrap/blob/01f61757d97e40e96cd267ad3d58b24b8b6a50a8/Source/UPFMUtils.cs#L68

It's trying to read /GameData/OhScrap/PluginData/DefaultSettings.cfg but the file is actually at /GameData/OhScrap/Plugins/PluginData/DefaultSettings.cfg

Also - and this one is my fault but never got picked up because the cfg was being read before. The hardcoded default settings are way too aggressive. Plane mode is checking every 10 seconds.

 

[infinite_monkey]

17 hours ago, Phoenix-D said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30KSt4Iy9Q8

Static fires are common during development. Just not the kind you get with liquid engines where they fire the actual engine they're using right before takeover. For obvious reasons I do think the stock settings of the mod are kind of pessimistic on SRB reliability though. Once they're finished designing they're often more reliable than liquids.

That's what I mean. As far as I know, these boosters never gonna fly. So in OhScrap terms, this is a gen 0 to gen 2 booster. You test it, and you throw it away. But specific boosters shouldn't need to be tested.

[zer0Kerbal]

10 hours ago, severedsolo said:

@zer0Kerbal - I think I may have found the cause of @uglyduckling81's issue, and he's right. It's failing too much.

Noticed myself that the failure rate seemed a little high, but couldn't put my finger on why - then I noticed that debug mode was reporting that the sampleTime for rockets in atmosphere was 5 minutes. The cfg says it's supposed to be 2.

Here's your culprit. https://github.com/zer0Kerbal/OhScrap/blob/01f61757d97e40e96cd267ad3d58b24b8b6a50a8/Source/UPFMUtils.cs#L68

It's trying to read /GameData/OhScrap/PluginData/DefaultSettings.cfg but the file is actually at /GameData/OhScrap/Plugins/PluginData/DefaultSettings.cfg

Also - and this one is my fault but never got picked up because the cfg was being read before. The hardcoded default settings are way too aggressive. Plane mode is checking every 10 seconds.

 

Excellent!

+1 - Thank you.

I've made an issue and should be out soon (2.1.1.1)

just waiting for a new-to-me graphics card to add to the new-to-me computer - and will then correct and push!

[Corax]

It's trying to read /GameData/OhScrap/PluginData/DefaultSettings.cfg but the file is actually at /GameData/OhScrap/Plugins/PluginData/DefaultSettings.cfg

Thanks!

The obvious workaround of moving or symlinking the directory from where it is installed to where OhScrap expects it to be seems to work for me. Proceed with caution, YMMV, etc. pp.

[zer0Kerbal]

7 minutes ago, Corax said:

Thanks!

The obvious workaround of moving or symlinking the directory from where it is installed to where OhScrap expects it to be seems to work for me. Proceed with caution, YMMV, etc. pp.

the issue might even be resolved in the pre-release version on github; I say this because when I went to update the code - it was already updated.

[zer0Kerbal]

3 hours ago, Corax said:

The obvious workaround of moving or symlinking the directory from where it is installed to where OhScrap expects it to be seems to work for me. Proceed with caution, YMMV, etc. pp.

forgot to say : excellent SpaceTape moment - if Jeb can't find the Mountain, then drop him on it!

[crowsnose]

Hey y'all,

Been enjoying this mod for a while and reported an issue a while back on the previous thread with the in-flight trash part button not working. Started up a new install on 1.9 with nothing but OhScrap + dependencies and DLC, and the issue persisted. 

To test the issue, I started a new save and stuck an SRB on a probe core. I launched it and reverted the launch until the engine failed. Then, I clicked "trash part." Recovered, and went back to VAB to check the booster's Generation number to see it was still the same. Hope this helped if you need to replicate it. 

output log here

My files are a little scuffed so I hope this is an issue for only me and not one y'all have to fix. As always, thanks for the fantastic support and have a great day!

[kirmie44]

I don't know if this is an issue with KCT or Oh scrap. I'm posting it in both areas to be certain. I have an issue where whenever I recover a craft, I still get the funds for the craft. Even if I recover to the VAB/SPH (a KCT feature). I am pretty sure that with both of these mods installed, I shouldn't be getting any funds back no matter where I recover too. I also have FMRS and Stage Recovery. Sorry for the messy log file, There are a few separate issues I am trying to solve right now.

KSP Log: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hzfoj7xVsr-0k0vROBqV08CLG-sZQndK/view?usp=sharing

[Bongotastic]

On 4/11/2020 at 4:43 AM, infinite_monkey said:

Would it be possible to combine this with OhScrap or add a similar option, so that after paying these funds new parts get a reliability of 10 / start with generation 10? Of course this should be optional.

It would be elegant to bypass manual testing of parts for money and or time. it is fun to be able to do it, but at some point, testing parts is ultimately not the goal of the game in term of player time. I like to have to worry about it, however.

Edited May 27, 2020 by Bongotastic

[kirmie44]

Is it possible to set limits on parts you keep. Like Don't keep the first 10 generations or a part after 3 uses?

[infinite_monkey]

2 hours ago, kirmie44 said:

Is it possible to set limits on parts you keep. Like Don't keep the first 10 generations or a part after 3 uses?

Or a part below a certain safety rating. Although, that doesn't seem to be very accurate. Sometimes I get high ratings (9 or so) on some parts that are only generation 3 or 4, because I've flown them repeatedly early in my career. But they most definitely fail very soon after reaching orbit...

[AfterLyfe]

On 5/23/2020 at 11:20 AM, severedsolo said:

@zer0Kerbal - I think I may have found the cause of @uglyduckling81's issue, and he's right. It's failing too much.

Noticed myself that the failure rate seemed a little high, but couldn't put my finger on why - then I noticed that debug mode was reporting that the sampleTime for rockets in atmosphere was 5 minutes. The cfg says it's supposed to be 2.

Here's your culprit. https://github.com/zer0Kerbal/OhScrap/blob/01f61757d97e40e96cd267ad3d58b24b8b6a50a8/Source/UPFMUtils.cs#L68

It's trying to read /GameData/OhScrap/PluginData/DefaultSettings.cfg but the file is actually at /GameData/OhScrap/Plugins/PluginData/DefaultSettings.cfg

Also - and this one is my fault but never got picked up because the cfg was being read before. The hardcoded default settings are way too aggressive. Plane mode is checking every 10 seconds.

 

Oh man! I thought I was going crazy with "9 safety rating" parts failing every 5-7 minutes of flight. Thank you for the find!