The Skyhawk Science System - a new, realistic tech tree for KSP, now including Kerbalism support - [v1.1.1 - "For Science!" 8/11/22)]

[CessnaSkyhawk]

13 hours ago, bigyihsuan said:

The latest v1.1.1 release has compat for Benjee10's Orion: https://github.com/CessnaSkyhawk/SkyhawkScienceSystem/releases/tag/v1.1.1

EDIT: After loading it up in  KSP, it seems that the service module engine (in-game it's KJ-10b "Viking") is not patched for the new fuel types, defaulting to kerolox. It's from Benjee10_sharedAssets, so that needs to be patched.

1 hour ago, bigyihsuan said:

Dug around in the code, it seems SSS is patching the deprecated DIRECT_KJ10 rather than the new benjee10_AJ10_v2. Here's a patch that will fix this:

@PART[benjee10_AJ10_v2]:FIRST:NEEDS[Benjee10_sharedAssets] 
{
	%SSS_Hypergolic = True
}

 

Thanks for catching this - I must of forgot that the new engine would have be hypergolic. I'll add this in next time I do a release

On 8/29/2022 at 8:53 PM, Socowez said:

I found this string in KerbalismConfig/System/Reliability.cfg. 

  Reveal hidden contents

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleEngines*],!MODULE[Reliability]:HAS[#type[ModuleEngines]]]:NEEDS[FeatureReliability]:FOR[KerbalismDefault]
{
    MODULE
    {
        name = Reliability
        type = ModuleEngines
    }
}

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleEngines*]]:NEEDS[FeatureReliability]:FOR[KerbalismDefault]
{
    @MODULE[Reliability]:HAS[#type[ModuleEngines*]]
    {
        title = Engine
        redundancy = Propulsion
        repair = Engineer
        mtbf = 0
        extra_cost = 1.5
        extra_mass = 0.05
        turnon_failure_probability = 0.007
        rated_operation_duration = 600
        rated_ignitions = 1
    }
}

// this calculates ignitions from thrust, and vac/atm ISP ratio:
// - the lower the thrust, the higher the ignition count.
// - the higher the difference between vacuum and atmosphere ISP, the higher the ignition count.
// thrust 0-350 gives 64-1 ignitions (custom exponential-ish scale).
// vac/atm ratio gives no bonus if below 150%, and then a linear bonus of +1 ignitions for every extra 20%.
// some specific engine types will receive further bonus.
@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleEngines*]:HAS[#maxThrust,@atmosphereCurve]]:NEEDS[FeatureReliability]:FOR[KerbalismDefault]
{
    @MODULE[Reliability]:HAS[#type[ModuleEngines*]]
    {
        // Parse and store atmosphere ISP as a temporary value
        __tmp_isp_atm = #$../MODULE[ModuleEngines*]/atmosphereCurve/key,1$
        @__tmp_isp_atm ^= :^[\d\.]* (\d+) *.*$:$1:

        // Parse and store vacuum ISP as a temporary value
        __tmp_isp_vac = #$../MODULE[ModuleEngines*]/atmosphereCurve/key,0$
        @__tmp_isp_vac ^= :^[\d\.]* (\d+) *.*$:$1:

        // Give ignitions based on the ratio between vacum and atmosphere ISP
        // ----
        // Example results for typical stock engines:
        // Spider => 1
        // Ant => 13
        // Twitch => 1
        // Terrier => 13
        // Thud => 1
        // LV-T30 => 1
        // Poodle => 12
        // Mainsail => 1
        @rated_ignitions = #$__tmp_isp_vac$
        @rated_ignitions /= #$__tmp_isp_atm$ // Get the ratio between vacum and atmosphere ISP
        @rated_ignitions -= 1.5 // Zero the curve to a ratio of 1.5
        @rated_ignitions ^= :^-.*$:0: // If negative, set to zero
        @rated_ignitions *= 5 // Give a power of 5 to the curve
        @rated_ignitions += 1 // Set a minimum value of 1

        // Give extra ignitions the smaller the engine is
        // ----
        // Example results for typical stock engines:
        // Spider => +64
        // Ant => +64
        // Twitch => +32
        // Terrier => +10
        // Thud => +8
        // LV-T30 => +4
        // Poodle => +2
        // Mainsail => +0
        __tmp_thrust_factor = #$../MODULE[ModuleEngines*]/maxThrust$
        @__tmp_thrust_factor ^= :^[0-9]$:_64: // if thrust between 0 and 9, give +64 ignitions
        @__tmp_thrust_factor ^= :^1[0-9]$:_32: // if thrust between 10 and 19, give +32 ignitions
        @__tmp_thrust_factor ^= :^[2-4][0-9]$:_16: // if thrust between 20 and 49, give +16 ignitions
        @__tmp_thrust_factor ^= :^[5-9][0-9]$:_10: // if thrust between 50 and 99, give +10 ignitions
        @__tmp_thrust_factor ^= :^1[0-4][0-9]$:_8: // if thrust between 100 and 149, give +8 ignitions
        @__tmp_thrust_factor ^= :^1[5-9][0-9]$:_6: // if thrust between 150 and 199, give +6 ignitions
        @__tmp_thrust_factor ^= :^2[0-4][0-9]$:_4: // if thrust between 200 and 249, give +4 ignitions
        @__tmp_thrust_factor ^= :^2[5-9][0-9]$:_2: // if thrust between 250 and 299, give +2 ignitions
        @__tmp_thrust_factor ^= :^3[0-9][0-9]$:_1: // if thrust between 300 and 349, give +1 ignitions
        @__tmp_thrust_factor ^= :^[^_].*$:_0: // if thrust is 350 or more, give +0 ignitions
        @__tmp_thrust_factor ^= :_:: // remove the "_" prefix

        // Combine the two ignitions values
        // ----
        // Final sum for the previous examples:
        // Spider => 65
        // Ant => 77
        // Twitch => 33
        // Terrier => 23
        // Thud => 9
        // LV-T30 => 5
        // Poodle => 14
        // Mainsail => 1
        @rated_ignitions += #$__tmp_thrust_factor$
        @rated_ignitions ^= :\.\d+:: // Floor value to get an integer

        // Remove all temporary variables
        !__tmp_* = dummy
    }
}

// SRBs
@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleEngines*]:HAS[@PROPELLANT[SolidFuel]]]:NEEDS[FeatureReliability]:FOR[KerbalismDefault]
{
    @MODULE[Reliability]:HAS[#type[ModuleEngines*]]
    {
        @rated_ignitions = 0
        @rated_operation_duration = 0
        @turnon_failure_probability = 0.005
    }
}

// NERV
@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleEngines*]:HAS[@PROPELLANT[LiquidFuel]]]:NEEDS[FeatureReliability]:FOR[KerbalismDefault]
{
    @MODULE[Reliability]:HAS[#type[ModuleEngines*]]
    {
        @rated_operation_duration = 800
        @repair = Engineer@2
    }
}

// your standard garden variety rocket engine
@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleEngines*]:HAS[@PROPELLANT[Oxidizer]]]:NEEDS[FeatureReliability]:FOR[KerbalismDefault]
{
    @MODULE[Reliability]:HAS[#type[ModuleEngines*]]
    {
        @rated_operation_duration = 350
        @turnon_failure_probability = 0.007
        @repair = true
    }
}

// ion engines
@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleEngines*]:HAS[@PROPELLANT[XenonGas]]]:NEEDS[FeatureReliability]:FOR[KerbalismDefault]
{
    @MODULE[Reliability]:HAS[#type[ModuleEngines*]] {
        @rated_operation_duration = 0
        @turnon_failure_probability = 0.002
        @repair = Engineer@2
    }
}

// jet engines
@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleEngines*]:HAS[@PROPELLANT[IntakeAir]]]:NEEDS[FeatureReliability]:FOR[KerbalismDefault]
{
    @MODULE[Reliability]:HAS[#type[ModuleEngines*]] {
        @rated_operation_duration = 86400
        @rated_ignitions = 0
        @repair = true
    }
}

// hypergolic or monoprop engines
@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleEngines*]:HAS[@PROPELLANT[MonoPropellant]]]:NEEDS[FeatureReliability]:FOR[KerbalismDefault]
{
    @MODULE[Reliability]:HAS[#type[ModuleEngines*]] {
        @rated_operation_duration = 0
        @rated_ignitions = 0
        @repair = true
        @turnon_failure_probability = 0.001
    }
}

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleEnginesRF]]:NEEDS[FeatureReliability]:FOR[KerbalismDefault]
{
    MODULE
    {
        name = Reliability
        type = ModuleEnginesRF
        title = Engine
        redundancy = Propulsion
        repair = Engineer
        mtbf = 0
        extra_cost = 1.0
        extra_mass = 0.1
        rated_operation_duration = 12000
    }
}

It appears the engine ignition and rated burn times are based on modifiers set in the config, which could very easily create oddities with burn times and ignitions because of... well, hell if I know.

I noticed this block of code is missing in Reliability.cfg in SkyhawkKerbalism, which is how I'm guessing you disabled the engine configs for kerbalism. Can I just copy/paste this into Reliability.cfg in SkyhawkKerbalism (changing mentions of KerbalismDefault to zzzKerbalismskyhawk), or would you think there are other steps I need to do first?

Or, you know, you could upload a different version of SkyhawkKerbalism that restores kerbalism engine support to those that want it. Wink wink.

5 hours ago, Socowez said:

Actually, please do this. I can't figure the first thing about it.  After messing with the code a short bit, I managed to get the Reliability option to show up in the PAW. However, every engine had the same burn times and number of ignitions.

pretty please?

Yes that is the section that handles engine reliablity, so you're own the right track. Unfortunately, I'm not planning on doing anything with it at this time - I don't feel comfortable releasing work unless its up to my (pretty dang high) standards, and unfortunately, Kerbalism's engine reliability stuff is a tad too wonky for me to get it to that level without sinking a decent amount of time into it, which I'm not really interested in doing right now, and honestly, I'm pretty much burnt out with modding and don't expect to be doing anymore major updates for a good long while, if ever again. I'm always open to pull requests, but I wouldn't expect any support outside of those. 

Edited August 31, 2022 by CessnaSkyhawk

[Socowez]

9 hours ago, CessnaSkyhawk said:

Unfortunately, I'm not planning on doing anything with it at this time - I don't feel comfortable releasing work unless its up to my (pretty dang high) standards, and unfortunately, Kerbalism's engine reliability stuff is a tad too wonky for me to get it to that level without sinking a decent amount of time into it, which I'm not really interested in doing right now, and honestly, I'm pretty much burnt out with modding and don't expect to be doing anymore major updates for a good long while, if ever again. I'm always open to pull requests, but I wouldn't expect any support outside of those. 

Alrighty, I can’t argue with that. 
back to what you mentioned earlier, Less Real TestFlight. I could’ve sworn TestFlight was a simulation type mod (where you can try flying your rocket without actually launching it, useful for KCT). If that’s a reliability and failure mod, would it overlap with Kerbalism’s reliability/failure plugin (like getting the same failure on a part from both mods)? If it does, would disabling kerbalism’s reliability option in the cfg a good workaround?

 

Edit: Minor clarification, I mean reliability for command modules and solar panels and such. I have no worry for engine reliability as that’s not implemented.

Edited August 31, 2022 by Socowez
Clarification

[RKunze]

2 hours ago, Socowez said:

I could’ve sworn TestFlight was a simulation type mod (where you can try flying your rocket without actually launching it, useful for KCT).

No, TestFlight is a reliability/part failures mod. Parts accumulate "flight data" when they are actually used in flight (hence the name), and get more reliable with more flight data. 

2 hours ago, Socowez said:

If that’s a reliability and failure mod, would it overlap with Kerbalism’s reliability/failure plugin (like getting the same failure on a part from both mods)? If it does, would disabling kerbalism’s reliability option in the cfg a good workaround?

Yes, it overlaps with Kerbalisms reliability feature, and yes, "Reliability=false" in settings.cfg works fine (that's what I am using in my current JNSQ/SSS/Kerbalism/LRTF career).

If you are lazy, you can also simply switch off reliability in Kerbalisms in-game settings (in the game settings UI). Works just as well, but clutters up the PAW a bit because it keeps the (now redundant and non-functional) Kerbalism reliability settings for the parts.

[guto8797]

I have attempted to give this a fair shot, as a "overhaul" like mod that handled compatibility, added a good tree, etc was very much something that I was looking forwards to, but idk, I just can't get past BDB.

Everything feels bloated. Not even three nodes into the tree and it feels like every page in the VAB is chock full of parts and components for realistic craft, which is something that I am not particularly interested in. Just looking at the science page and trying to figure out which ones work where, which ones are part of a set etc saps my will to play.

Is it possible at all to run SSS withouth BDB? Or is it too fundamental to the whole system? I quite like many other features, such as experiments being mostly transmissible at 100%, among others.

Otherwise, maybe i just need to soldier through to get used to it. In that case, any chance I could take a peek at what mods you usually run when playing, or advice on what settings to use? Perhaps I am just missing something incredibly obvious on the settings, or some QnA mod.

[Socowez]

6 minutes ago, guto8797 said:

I have attempted to give this a fair shot, as a "overhaul" like mod that handled compatibility, added a good tree, etc was very much something that I was looking forwards to, but idk, I just can't get past BDB.

Everything feels bloated. Not even three nodes into the tree and it feels like every page in the VAB is chock full of parts and components for realistic craft, which is something that I am not particularly interested in. Just looking at the science page and trying to figure out which ones work where, which ones are part of a set etc saps my will to play.

Is it possible at all to run SSS withouth BDB? Or is it too fundamental to the whole system? I quite like many other features, such as experiments being mostly transmissible at 100%, among others.

Otherwise, maybe i just need to soldier through to get used to it. In that case, any chance I could take a peek at what mods you usually run when playing, or advice on what settings to use? Perhaps I am just missing something incredibly obvious on the settings, or some QnA mod.

I know how you feel, and I share your frustration. 

However, BDB is a hard dependency of SSS, and without it, a good chunk of all the nodes in the tech tree will be empty. I switched quite often between BDB/SSS and stock with TETRIX tech tree because of just how much the loading times and VAB part list is impacted. But there are essential parts in BDB that I can't live without (the Gemini Landing Legs being a huge one, because there are no other flat landing legs in any other mod), so I eventually got used to ignoring a significant amount of the parts in BDB. 

I would suggest Janitor's Closet mod to filter out BDB parts or the entire mod itself.  It might not be very helpful in early game, because of essential parts for progression are from BDB, but it helps

[thunder175]

So I've noticed that the BDB Kerablism compatibility file is missing a lot of entries from the current Kerbalism Default BDB support file. Is this intentional or is it just based on an earlier version of the KerbalismConfig baseline?

[bigyihsuan]

On 9/2/2022 at 8:28 PM, guto8797 said:

I have attempted to give this a fair shot, as a "overhaul" like mod that handled compatibility, added a good tree, etc was very much something that I was looking forwards to, but idk, I just can't get past BDB.

Everything feels bloated. Not even three nodes into the tree and it feels like every page in the VAB is chock full of parts and components for realistic craft, which is something that I am not particularly interested in. Just looking at the science page and trying to figure out which ones work where, which ones are part of a set etc saps my will to play.

Is it possible at all to run SSS withouth BDB? Or is it too fundamental to the whole system? I quite like many other features, such as experiments being mostly transmissible at 100%, among others.

Otherwise, maybe i just need to soldier through to get used to it. In that case, any chance I could take a peek at what mods you usually run when playing, or advice on what settings to use? Perhaps I am just missing something incredibly obvious on the settings, or some QnA mod.

It's not possible to run SSS without BDB, as mentioned before, because SSS was built around BDB as a hard dependency.

As mentioned before, you can use Janitor's Closet to filter out BDB parts. However, some nodes will be empty because of the hard dependency on BDB.

But, I highly recommend playing with BDB, as the progression in SSS highly matches the IRL progression of American space rockets (orbit, then probes, more probes, Mercury, Gemini, interplanetary probes, Apollo, modern day rockets).

[Socowez]

4 hours ago, thunder175 said:

So I've noticed that the BDB Kerablism compatibility file is missing a lot of entries from the current Kerbalism Default BDB support file. Is this intentional or is it just based on an earlier version of the KerbalismConfig baseline?

Engine reliability has been removed from Skyhawk Kerbalism because its calculations for burn time and ignitions are, well, unreliable. My best guess is that is what all the missing entries are related to.

[ProCrast]

Hi , i need help please .
SSS ScienceExperiments.cfg seem to prevent module manager to patch ...
I have this error message during loading screen :
https://imgur.com/yDG4rmA
Once in the R&D menu i can't buy any node from the tech Tree and empty text node appears .
I tried to search if something was "off" in my Ksp.log but i can't  find something relevant .
Here's my KSP.log :
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RcWmXztn6_XKxufUbNuuesacDnaYqww6/view?usp=sharing
and MMPatch.log :
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AozvSKlkTJL-0MXLn_9eT77zqLQG2nRS/view?usp=sharing

Also here's my gamedata :
https://imgur.com/7ObOiS4

Edited September 4, 2022 by ProCrast

[CessnaSkyhawk]

3 hours ago, ProCrast said:

Hi , i need help please .
SSS ScienceExperiments.cfg seem to prevent module manager to patch ...
I have this error message during loading screen :
https://imgur.com/yDG4rmA
Once in the R&D menu i can't buy any node from the tech Tree and empty text node appears .
I tried to search if something was "off" in my Ksp.log but i can't  find something relevant .
Here's my KSP.log :
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RcWmXztn6_XKxufUbNuuesacDnaYqww6/view?usp=sharing
and MMPatch.log :
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AozvSKlkTJL-0MXLn_9eT77zqLQG2nRS/view?usp=sharing

Also here's my gamedata :
https://imgur.com/7ObOiS4

Alright - thanks for the info, looks like it was a singular small typo - suprised it actually never came up before. I'll release the fixed version in a moment

7 hours ago, thunder175 said:

So I've noticed that the BDB Kerablism compatibility file is missing a lot of entries from the current Kerbalism Default BDB support file. Is this intentional or is it just based on an earlier version of the KerbalismConfig baseline?

That is intentional - Skyhawk Kerbalism completely reworks the BDB-Kerbalism compatibility in a way that is different from the old Kerbalism support, so naturally the support files are going to look vastly different. SK/SSS's Kerbalism integration is a whole different animal from stock Kerbalism

[MagicCuboid]

Thank you for continuing to support this mod! I feel like Skyhawk might be the last big experience I will have before KSP2  comes out, and it feels really polished and fun.

[ProCrast]

Thanks for the correction, module manager can now patch.
Unfortunately, I encountered other problems:
 - The empty technology nodes are still there ,looks like nodes from the stock CTT : https://imgur.com/kX7wdvX
 - When I buy a node, I have to leave the R&D menu and then come back for them to actually be validated ( nodes don't turn green directly ) .
 - HideHemptyTechTreeNodes seems to work incorrectly : https://imgur.com/TlAvFL5

GameData : https://imgur.com/JKYd3gU
KSP.Log : https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qNJOPYkVdVJPWkvmGrJvHlYo12woy8jW/view?usp=sharing

 

[guto8797]

On 9/4/2022 at 5:59 PM, bigyihsuan said:

But, I highly recommend playing with BDB, as the progression in SSS highly matches the IRL progression of American space rockets (orbit, then probes, more probes, Mercury, Gemini, interplanetary probes, Apollo, modern day rockets).

The thing is that to me it straight up doesn't. The amount of science I get from the very first few missions launching a suborbital rockets, orbiting for the first time, launching a small airplane, and orbiting a polar satelite for SCANSAT get me enough tech points to research several nodes ahead. So now I have all of those historical probe cores that I have never once used since the unique experiment they seem to possess does not justify an individual launch. Since I am fund, rather than science, bottlenecked, its more effective for me to launch a custom satelite cramming as much science equipment in it as possible (and if possible completing a few contracts along the way) rather than the several launches emulating the real space program. This leads to me having pages of parts which I haven't used and which usually are part of some specific ensemble. Perhaps I should change my settings, or try to use the Bureaucracy mod or Kerbal Construction Time. Suggestions?

[CessnaSkyhawk]

1 hour ago, ProCrast said:

Thanks for the correction, module manager can now patch.
Unfortunately, I encountered other problems:
 - The empty technology nodes are still there ,looks like nodes from the stock CTT : https://imgur.com/kX7wdvX
 - When I buy a node, I have to leave the R&D menu and then come back for them to actually be validated ( nodes don't turn green directly ) .
 - HideHemptyTechTreeNodes seems to work incorrectly : https://imgur.com/TlAvFL5

GameData : https://imgur.com/JKYd3gU
KSP.Log : https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qNJOPYkVdVJPWkvmGrJvHlYo12woy8jW/view?usp=sharing

 

Ah - therein lies the other issue. SSS is incompatible with CTT, so naturally, having both installed at once is gonna lead to them fighting over stuff. Try deleting CTT and see how it works. 

7 minutes ago, guto8797 said:

The thing is that to me it straight up doesn't. The amount of science I get from the very first few missions launching a suborbital rockets, orbiting for the first time, launching a small airplane, and orbiting a polar satelite for SCANSAT get me enough tech points to research several nodes ahead. So now I have all of those historical probe cores that I have never once used since the unique experiment they seem to possess does not justify an individual launch. Since I am fund, rather than science, bottlenecked, its more effective for me to launch a custom satelite cramming as much science equipment in it as possible (and if possible completing a few contracts along the way) rather than the several launches emulating the real space program. This leads to me having pages of parts which I haven't used and which usually are part of some specific ensemble. Perhaps I should change my settings, or try to use the Bureaucracy mod or Kerbal Construction Time. Suggestions?

That was the thing that I had a lot of difficulty while balancing - i wanted to make it harder to encourage people to do more realistic missions, but not so hard that it limits flexibility and railroads people in to one specific way of playing. That and depending on what your solar system is, stuff may be thrown off as well - I have custom science multipliers set for most popular planet packs, but the issue is that they require kopernicus to function properly, so if you're playing in stock then they might not be applying correctly (that, and also if you're at 1x scale, the rockets are just more powerful which makes it much easier to progress to higher tech levels) 

[guto8797]

4 minutes ago, CessnaSkyhawk said:

That was the thing that I had a lot of difficulty while balancing - i wanted to make it harder to encourage people to do more realistic missions, but not so hard that it limits flexibility and railroads people in to one specific way of playing. That and depending on what your solar system is, stuff may be thrown off as well - I have custom science multipliers set for most popular planet packs, but the issue is that they require kopernicus to function properly, so if you're playing in stock then they might not be applying correctly (that, and also if you're at 1x scale, the rockets are just more powerful which makes it much easier to progress to higher tech levels) 

I do have Kopernicus, and the OPM planet pack. I am also at 1x scale, I presume, since I haven't changed anything regarding planet sizes. Should I then just lower science rewards?

[CessnaSkyhawk]

13 minutes ago, guto8797 said:

I do have Kopernicus, and the OPM planet pack. I am also at 1x scale, I presume, since I haven't changed anything regarding planet sizes. Should I then just lower science rewards?

That's probably the best bet then. Lower science rewards should make it harder to progress and thus encourage you to do more BDB-style missions

[guto8797]

7 minutes ago, CessnaSkyhawk said:

That's probably the best bet then. Lower science rewards should make it harder to progress and thus encourage you to do more BDB-style missions

Any recommended values? And for other settings, any that you personally recommend?

[ProCrast]

27 minutes ago, CessnaSkyhawk said:

Ah - therein lies the other issue. SSS is incompatible with CTT, so naturally, having both installed at once is gonna lead to them fighting over stuff. Try deleting CTT and see how it works. 

That was the thing that I had a lot of difficulty while balancing - i wanted to make it harder to encourage people to do more realistic missions, but not so hard that it limits flexibility and railroads people in to one specific way of playing. That and depending on what your solar system is, stuff may be thrown off as well - I have custom science multipliers set for most popular planet packs, but the issue is that they require kopernicus to function properly, so if you're playing in stock then they might not be applying correctly (that, and also if you're at 1x scale, the rockets are just more powerful which makes it much easier to progress to higher tech levels) 

Thank you , it works perfectly for now .
I thought since its a techTree mod that CTT was a dependencie ... newbie mistake i guess

[Friznit]

1 hour ago, guto8797 said:

Any recommended values? And for other settings, any that you personally recommend?

Science progression is notoriously hard to balance given the way the tech tree game mechanic is built.  You zoom through the early nodes in a few launches then it slows to a long grind for the late game stuff.  I typically play with 50% science returns then ramp it up to 80% for the later game (basically once you get beyond your first Jool flyby).

Bureaucracy basically adds a funding cap, which in the early game does encourage lots of cheaper launches (Thors and whatnot) to maximise your returns within available time & budget.  KCT on the other hand essentially adds a time restriction, so you can't simply launch multiple cheap rockets in one day.  Combine the two and the game can get quite challenging, at least until you reach a certain threshold.  I recommend playing  with the History of Spaceflight contract pack  (pocket edition is sufficient), as it chimes well with SSS & BDB.

[HawkEngineer]

Is anyone else getting a B9 PartSwitch Fatal Error for no tank type found: SSS_Food.  I have installed the latest v1.1.2 of SSS and running on KSP version 1.12.3.  I have doubled checked the dependencies and did a clean install twice, but keep getting the error as soon as I install Kerbalism.  

[CessnaSkyhawk]

On 9/9/2022 at 5:30 PM, HawkEngineer said:

Is anyone else getting a B9 PartSwitch Fatal Error for no tank type found: SSS_Food.  I have installed the latest v1.1.2 of SSS and running on KSP version 1.12.3.  I have doubled checked the dependencies and did a clean install twice, but keep getting the error as soon as I install Kerbalism.  

Are you using SkyhawkKerbalism or just stock Kerbalism?

[guto8797]

Sorry to be a bother again, but is there any way to essentially sort the science parts by what experiment they perform in the VAB, or something similar, via native functionality or other mods? Even very early into the tree, and the science tab is chock full parts and antennas, and its damn near impossible to keep track of it all, like which experiments are present in my vessel, if there is new equipment that is an upgrade of previous ones. I have spent over half an hour now just designing the probe for a kerbostationary orbit

[Probird_23]

@CessnaSkyhawk Thanks for adding my patches!
There are a couple things to note though:
B9 procedural wings are located at the end of the aerodynamics tech tree to suit my personal needs and "lore", you might want to move it to some earlier tech nodes for other people
OPT patches do not include Legacy
USI-LS is unfortunately incomplete, its is missing some greenhouse modules
MoldaviteMachines were patched to suit my needs (USI-LS at the time), rebalancing may be needed

Thanks!

[Bigant]

I'm going to do it... Ckan/kerbalx mod list integration yet? i dont trust myself to get it all right manually. 

 

[Friznit]

21 hours ago, guto8797 said:

Sorry to be a bother again, but is there any way to essentially sort the science parts by what experiment they perform in the VAB, or something similar, via native functionality or other mods? Even very early into the tree, and the science tab is chock full parts and antennas, and its damn near impossible to keep track of it all, like which experiments are present in my vessel, if there is new equipment that is an upgrade of previous ones. I have spent over half an hour now just designing the probe for a kerbostationary orbit

[x]Science has a feature to 'show experiments available on this vessel'.  It's very useful for figuring out which parts do what experiment (and finding out that you have 15 redundant magnetometers).