[1.8.x] DMagic Orbital Science: New Science Parts [v1.4.3] [11/2/2019]

[TinyPirate]

Awesome! Love these parts, thanks!

[DMagic]

Awesome! Love these parts, thanks!

Thanks.

And what do we have here.

This is about the hackiest way of doing it that I can think of. My more clever method wasn't working, but it's a start.

[CaptainKipard]

Looking forward to this.

[DMagic]

Anyone have any ideas on how asteroid science should be conducted? Should they act like another biome, allowing science to be collected around each planet? Or should they be like their own planet, with multipliers that can maybe be changed based on asteroid size?

The biome method is pretty easy to setup, that's what I'm basically doing above. This would end up with results like "KerbinSrfLandedAsteroid" for each experiment, with results for each planet being possible.

The other method is more trouble, I'm trying to coax the game into thinking that the asteroid is a celestial body with different multipliers for different situations (detecting a landed craft is easy, I'm not sure about getting it recognize something merely nearby yet).

The celestial body method would allow for science reports like "AsteroidSrfLanded" or "AsteroidInSpaceNear" for each experiment, and they would ignore what body you are actually orbiting. I've got this method partially working, but it doesn't seem to fully accept the existence of my newly constructed CelestialBody parameters.

[CaptainKipard]

I can't think of a realistic reason why being "near" an asteroid would yield useful data. The biome method seems just fine to me. Would that allow for variation in science results based on asteroid class?

[mdapol]

I don't see why where the asteroid is should make any difference. I say that each class should be it's own biome. Perhaps a single asteroid cannot max out science for that class and you need to visit several, say class "C" asteroids before you max out science for class "C".

[biohazard15]

The biome method seems fine, but it should be limited, or you could just take an asteroid, rebuild it into interplanetary ship, and go collect science. There is no need for "KerbinSrfLandedAsteroid" results for each surface biome, but there should be a reward if you recover asteroid (via button) that landed on Kerbin.

A question: would either of these methods allow use of third party (stock and other mods) scientific instrumens, if someone adds definitions for asteroid situations? I can think of at least one mod (LTech and its orbital cameras) that could make use of "Near asteroid" biome.

[mdapol]

The biome method seems fine, but it should be limited, or you could just take an asteroid, rebuild it into interplanetary ship, and go collect science. There is no need for "KerbinSrfLandedAsteroid" results for each surface biome, but there should be a reward if you recover asteroid (via button) that landed on Kerbin.

A question: would either of these methods allow use of third party (stock and other mods) scientific instrumens, if someone adds definitions for asteroid situations? I can think of at least one mod (LTech and its orbital cameras) that could make use of "Near asteroid" biome.

BTW, when I said "biome" I meant that each class of asteroid should be it's own Biome. Independent of where it is or whether it's landed or orbiting.

[kiwiak]

Anyone have any ideas on how asteroid science should be conducted? Should they act like another biome, allowing science to be collected around each planet? Or should they be like their own planet, with multipliers that can maybe be changed based on asteroid size?

The biome method is pretty easy to setup, that's what I'm basically doing above. This would end up with results like "KerbinSrfLandedAsteroid" for each experiment, with results for each planet being possible.

The other method is more trouble, I'm trying to coax the game into thinking that the asteroid is a celestial body with different multipliers for different situations (detecting a landed craft is easy, I'm not sure about getting it recognize something merely nearby yet).

The celestial body method would allow for science reports like "AsteroidSrfLanded" or "AsteroidInSpaceNear" for each experiment, and they would ignore what body you are actually orbiting. I've got this method partially working, but it doesn't seem to fully accept the existence of my newly constructed CelestialBody parameters.

I have some suggestion, related to asteroids. Include material composition in reports. Stock science system doesnt discerns asteroids by composition, but you coudl just simulate this - player woudl have random chance to get science report about rocky, metal or icy composition near each asteroid. Each with its own science value.

[smunisto]

I think you should limit the amount of experiments to be honest. Too much science will make the mod feel more than the mild "cheaty" feeling at the moment. Of course this is due to the fact that the tech trees are planned with amounts that are in direct correlation with the available stock experiments, but still...

[DMagic]

I should probably clarify what I mean by biome method. For the sciencesubject you need to input a biome string value. If the experiment doesn't use biomes then the string is empty, but it's still there. I can put in whatever I want for that string. My anomaly scanner takes the name of the anomaly, turns it into a string and uses that. In my sciencedefs file I have results named "KerbinSrfLandedKSC" and so on for each anomaly.

So when I say biome method it doesn't actually have anything to do with the regular biomes, you wouldn't be able to get repeat results based on which biome of Kerbin you're flying over.

BTW, when I said "biome" I meant that each class of asteroid should be it's own Biome. Independent of where it is or whether it's landed or orbiting.

I was thinking the same thing. I don't know where the asteroid class is stored, or if I can access it, but I should at least be able to get the mass and make up different results based on that.

I can't think of a realistic reason why being "near" an asteroid would yield useful data.

I agree, but for practical reasons I think it's easier to try and separate them into two different experimental situations. That way experiments that are meant to be used only in space can behave properly, while surface experiments can work while docked to the asteroid. This would allow for the experiment definition in the sciencedefs file to be easier to setup and more consistent.

I can probably get this to work by determining what your target vessel is (ie the asteroid) and its distance from you. That way you would need to be targeting the asteroid and in close proximity for the experiment to work.

The biome method seems fine, but it should be limited, or you could just take an asteroid, rebuild it into interplanetary ship, and go collect science.

This is my thinking for why I prefer the celestial body method. I don't want people to just drag an asteroid around to different planets to get repeat science from it. The problem is, that this might be mutually exclusive with the biome method.

The options might be: Get repeat results for each class (or mass range) of asteroid around each planet, or get one set of results for each class. I might be able to get it working my preferred way with either method though, I just need to spend more time with it.

[mdapol]

The options might be: Get repeat results for each class (or mass range) of asteroid around each planet, or get one set of results for each class. I might be able to get it working my preferred way with either method though, I just need to spend more time with it.

I prefer the second option.

[DMagic]

Ok, ignore all that business about not being able to get it to recognize the asteroid as a celestial body. I don't need to make a new CelestialBody, I can just temporarily reassign an existing one, change its name and some of the values associated with it (hopefully based on class/mass), and I should be good to go. A quick test shows this to be at least mostly working.

[CaptainKipard]

The options might be: Get repeat results for each class (or mass range) of asteroid around each planet, or get one set of results for each class. I might be able to get it working my preferred way with either method though, I just need to spend more time with it.

I prefer one set of results for each class.

Ok, ignore all that business about not being able to get it to recognize the asteroid as a celestial body. I don't need to make a new CelestialBody, I can just temporarily reassign an existing one, change its name and some of the values associated with it (hopefully based on class/mass), and I should be good to go. A quick test shows this to be at least mostly working.

I know little about programming, but that looks nasty.

[DMagic]

I have some suggestion, related to asteroids. Include material composition in reports. Stock science system doesnt discerns asteroids by composition, but you coudl just simulate this - player woudl have random chance to get science report about rocky, metal or icy composition near each asteroid. Each with its own science value.

Yeah, this is something I have already been thinking about a little. A lot of the existing results for the laser scanner refer to different types of asteroid composition. I could try to add something like this for the actual asteroids.

For now though, I think have the basic system working. It was more complicated than I thought to figure out if an asteroid is nearby, but I got it working. You can get results while latched onto the asteroid or in space nearby (within 2km for now) based on how the experiment is setup in the ScienceDefs file. Aside from a single true/false field in the part.cfg file, nothing needs to be changed for this to work, though custom reports would be nice.

I have broken the asteroids down into their classes by mass, I don't know how accurate the values I'm using are, but that can be fixed later. Larger asteroids give more science, and each class represents a different result. The surface experiments give twice as much science.

The results can be transmitted and seem to be accepted by the R&D center, they also show up in the persistent file. The results windows shown below are for reports taken again after transmitting it once (as you can see in the debug window).

Edit: I also fixed the bug that was causing a mismatch between the title displayed in the result window and the title being sent to the R&D center, it was actually an underlying bug that affects all of my experiments, though I'm not sure if it actually matters.

Edited April 4, 2014 by DMagic

[JeffreyCor]

Once again you're making the good into great

[kiwiak]

Cool, now im waiting for your update and ksp interstallar and i can start new career mode save for 0.23.5

[gooddog15]

I love you're magnetometer boom, it looks awesome on spacecraft

[Djolox]

Can you add compatibility to the Urania and Sentar Expansions for Planet Factory?

[DMagic]

Can you add compatibility to the Urania and Sentar Expansions for Planet Factory?

Assuming that science works for the Urania planets my parts should also work. They will all give default results, but the science values should be correct. I have already added custom reports for all of the default Sentar planets, but I don't think I'm going to be adding more for other planet packs, that could balloon into a lot of results very quickly.

Once again you're making the good into great

I love you're magnetometer boom, it looks awesome on spacecraft

Thanks. The magnetometer was my first part, and I think still my favorite.

Cool, now im waiting for your update and ksp interstallar and i can start new career mode save for 0.23.5

It's doubtful that I'll get this updated again before 0.24 (unless that takes a lot longer than I'm expecting to be released). Everything else should be working, but the asteroids will have to wait.

For now though, I still need to find out if I can directly access the asteroids' class values, or if I have to determine it myself based on the mass (and I'll need accurate mass ranges in that case).

[Vesparco]

Just to state two things:

First, It's a very nice mod. I wanted something for more robotic exploration of the kerbal system and this is the one.

Second, I would suggest to put it on the mod list at the stick on the forum as I almost go nuts through mod pages in order to find it to donwload.

[Inconvenience]

I really like the implementation of your parts into SCANsat parts. I was curious if you could do something similar for the magnetometer in the Interstellar mod. This might allow for some more expansion of your mod.

Overall, this mod is really great. Thanks for making it!

[mdapol]

I really like the implementation of your parts into SCANsat parts. I was curious if you could do something similar for the magnetometer in the Interstellar mod. This might allow for some more expansion of your mod.

Overall, this mod is really great. Thanks for making it!

You can do this yourself with a little ModManager magic. I prefer the DMagic Magnetometer so I just gave it the Interstellar magnetometer functionality.

[Inconvenience]

You can do this yourself with a little ModManager magic. I prefer the DMagic Magnetometer so I just gave it the Interstellar magnetometer functionality.

How would I go about doing this? Would I just replace the Magnetometer .cfg with the one from Interstellar?

[mdapol]

How would I go about doing this? Would I just replace the Magnetometer .cfg with the one from Interstellar?

No, it's a bit more involved. You need the model and animation from the DMagic one, but the magnetometer module from Interstellar. Unfortunately you can't just replace one MODULE block with the other. Look for something with a line that says "animName = ????" and -change the name of the animation- to match the other MODULE. I can try to share my edit when I get home (moderators: assuming this is ok??)