Any way to get the intended amount of science for the high-ranked science devices?

[tfabris]

There is an open bug where, the science items that are high on the technology tree (The atmopshere nose cone, the gravity detector, and the seismic detector), do not register as much Science points as intended: http://bugs.kerbalspaceprogram.com/issues/1578

I tried editing the sciencedefs.cfg file and reducing the multipliers to 1 (as described in the bug) and it didn't give me the result I was looking for. I wanted it to give me the number of points shown in the dialog boxes. Instead, it simply reduced the number of points shown in the dialog boxes to match the number of points that I'd actually receive if I retrieved the spacecraft.

Since these science items are so high on the technology tree, I believe that the multipliers in sciencedefs.cfg were actually *intended* by the designers, and that a code bug is preventing those multipliers from actually being applied. In other words, I believe the designers intended for these science devices to give you high points, and the bug is preventing the high points from being applied. Changing the multipliers to 1 in sciencedefs.cfg doesn't fix the bug, it just displays the (unintended) low point value in the dialog boxes.

My question is:

Is there any way, via editing existing game files, to work around the bug and allow the high point values to actually be applied? Perhaps by editing some other value other than the multipliers.

The reason I'm asking is because I'm mid-way through playing the career mode, having a lot of fun, and I just bought these items and thus hit this bug. This is a show-stopper for me: unless I can earn the intended amount of science points from these devices, I don't want to play career mode any more. I want to keep playing, but the amount of science required to buy the other items high in the technology tree is prohibitive unless I can earn more points from these devices.

[tfabris]

From looking at the sciencedefs.cfg file, it looks like I could work around it by editing the baseValue and perhaps the scienceCap value.

Can someone explain the difference between and the relationship between those values?

For instance, the dataScale for the Atmosphere Analysis was 10 (if I recall correctly before I changed it to 1), with a baseValue of 20 and a scienceCap of 24. When I first ran an atmosphere analysis, the dialog box said I'd get a ton of points. I don't remember how much but maybe it was 240? I don't recall. The actual amount of points applied was miniscule though.

So I'm wondering, whatever the original dataScale value was, should I multiply that by the baseValue and plug that in there? How does the scienceCap affect it and how does it relate to the baseValue?

[Eric S]

The value you're getting is the intended value, the bug is in the display popup, as confirmed by Harvester (I'd link to it, but I don't have the link handy, and it explains the values a bit better as well). Basically, one of the attributes (dataScale, I think), increases the amount of data that the experiment will generate, but it's not supposed to increase the science reward. The popup that shows the results and lets you keep/transmit/discard the results isn't taking this into consideration, so is thinking that all that data would return more science than it should.

[tfabris]

I see your point about how I'm making an assumption about the nature of the bug.

But without the multiplier, those particular science items generate a paltry reward. How is one supposed to afford the more expensive levels of the tech tree, if they are not rewarded for buying the more expensive science devices? I had to scour multiple biomes on Kerbin and Mun just to be able to afford those devices, and now you're saying that they didn't intend for ownership of those devices to be richly rewarded.

I'm also not understanding the relationship between generating an amount of data versus generating an amount of science reward. Are you saying that those devices were supposed to generate more kilobytes of data to send home, *without* the player receiving a corresponding increase in the science reward?

[KerbMav]

I think the scaling is for making it more difficult to send back data from high sci-value areas?

Something to do with the time an antenna needs to transmit?

Yup!

Edited October 29, 2013 by KerbMav

[tfabris]

Okay, I see, from your linked thread, that the dev did in fact intend for the science from those experiments to be harder to transmit, without getting any corresponding reward for having been up higher in the tech tree.

I'm disappointed by this, and I find it surprising considering the exponential nature of the prices in the techtree, but at least I know now that I'm getting the amount of science that they intended for me to get.

[Eric S]

I'm also not understanding the relationship between generating an amount of data versus generating an amount of science reward. Are you saying that those devices were supposed to generate more kilobytes of data to send home, *without* the player receiving a corresponding increase in the science reward?

Correct, the purpose of the extra data was to make it harder to transmit the results.

It's the first pass of the tech tree and science, I don't know if the devs hit the mark they were aiming at for how easily the tree is unlocked.

Personally, depending on how hard I push, I usually unlock the whole tree in 4-6 missions, so even at the current values for those high end experiments, it's quite doable. First mission, Polar orbit (you get more EVA reports that way) and at least one orbit with a "high orbit" apoapsis, maybe a swing by the Mun/Minmus or even the solar SoI if I'm feeling aggressive. Second mission, a Minmus landing. Third mission, a Munar landing with EVA reports over at least 8 biomes and surface samples/EVA reports from at least two biomes (three is pretty easy). Fourth mission is Duna or Eve plus the corresponding moon. Then maybe the other one, maybe a trip to Jool and one or more moons there. If I push the first mission hard enough, I might combine the 2nd/3rd missions, but I usually don't do that because a first-node-only ship that can go that far tends to be a pain to launch.