Kerbal Construction Time/StageRecovery Dev Thread

[Kalista]

I use most of the major realism mods ( with the exception of RSS ) and the build times with kerbal time right now feel about right ( a 10-20% increase in time wouldn't hurt but overall feels about right).

[JeffreyCor]

Regarding the MCE support, does reused parts (or learning to build better for that matter) also effect the cost in funds as well as build time? Since cost has been used in regards to time I'm not sure if it applies to both or only to the time

[magico13]

Regarding the MCE support, does reused parts (or learning to build better for that matter) also effect the cost in funds as well as build time? Since cost has been used in regards to time I'm not sure if it applies to both or only to the time

I think MCE has its own way of handling reuse. If that changes the actual part costs in game, then it will also affect build times (in addition to the changes in build time from this mod's reuse protocols). I don't play with MCE, so I honestly have no idea what it will do. The only cost I reference is the part cost given by the stock game, not the total MCE cost (which is based on that with additional modifiers, such as for fuel). If you notice anything particularly weird, let me know, but like I said, I don't use MCE personally so the support is only fairly minor. Though now I'm considering making a new KSP instance and playing around with it

[JeffreyCor]

I haven't been using MCE either, primarily because of the (I feel) unrealistically high cost of subsequent builds. Your great mod is what made me consider trying it again rather than waiting on .24

And not I'll be trying MCE again due to your mod See the effect you have

Edited April 7, 2014 by JeffreyCor

[magico13]

I haven't been using MCE either, primarily because of the (I feel) unrealistically high cost of subsequent builds. Your great mod is what made me consider trying it again rather than waiting on .24

And not I'll be trying MCE again due to your mod See the effect you have

I am killing real world productivity everywhere I go!

Do note that MCE doesn't support RealChutes yet for booster recovery. I had him take a look at my code and he should be implementing it for a future version, though. He's been really great whenever we've needed to collaborate on anything. That's why I like the KSP community, everyone is friendly and works together well (well, most everybody)

[curiousepic]

As long as build time is dependent on the Cost value, I feel like we need a way (or another mod) to rebalance cost across parts. The new version of Module Manager allows limited math to be used, and I was hoping I could create an MMCFG that calculates what the cost should be depending on other values of the part, but I don't think those can be referenced, not to mention other problems with this method.

..Maybe something like a living Google sheet where people could vote on the cost of parts, in addition to allowing them to add part names from other mods, which could then easily be exported into an MMCFG that overrides the cost in-game? Is this too crazy?

Edited April 8, 2014 by curiousepic

[magico13]

As long as build time is dependent on the Cost value, I feel like we need a way (or another mod) to rebalance cost across parts. The new version of Module Manager allows limited math to be used, and I was hoping I could create an MMCFG that calculates what the cost should be depending on other values of the part, but I don't think those can be referenced, not to mention other problems with this method.

..Maybe something like a living Google sheet where people could vote on the cost of parts, in addition to allowing them to add part names from other mods, which could then easily be exported into an MMCFG that overrides the cost in-game? Is this too crazy?

It might be a little out of scope of this mod directly, at least for now. The only reason that time is based on cost is so that more "complex" parts (which should have higher cost) take more time to build. This works nicely with mods as nothing has to be hard coded for them and as long as the mod authors set reasonable costs then everything will be balanced. When the economy becomes a thing then mods will have to pay attention to cost and it will balance out even more then. Some mods, like MCE, do change the cost of parts based on their own complexity algorithms, which then is translated into this as build time. (A ship I built in with MCE took 3 times as long as one without MCE, in my testing). Though, perhaps I should look into developing a new algorithm for build time based on some method of determining complexity other than cost. The cost method is what Ekku implemented and I've just stuck with it because it's simple and I've been focusing on getting other features implemented.

I could possibly reference the modules that a part contains and alter build times based on the modules. Then fuel tanks would be cheap but maybe science equipment would cost more. Or I could reference the category the part belongs to (propulsion, science, utility, etc). Or both. I haven't looked into it much as the cost method has seemed to work relatively well so far.

What you propose is certainly possible though. And at the very least if you feel certain parts aren't balanced you can change the cost in their config or with MM. If it's more of "everything builds too quickly/too slow" then changing the Time Modifiers in the config is probably a simpler solution.

[malkuth]

It might be a little out of scope of this mod directly, at least for now. The only reason that time is based on cost is so that more "complex" parts (which should have higher cost) take more time to build. This works nicely with mods as nothing has to be hard coded for them and as long as the mod authors set reasonable costs then everything will be balanced. When the economy becomes a thing then mods will have to pay attention to cost and it will balance out even more then. Some mods, like MCE, do change the cost of parts based on their own complexity algorithms, which then is translated into this as build time. (A ship I built in with MCE took 3 times as long as one without MCE, in my testing). Though, perhaps I should look into developing a new algorithm for build time based on some method of determining complexity other than cost. The cost method is what Ekku implemented and I've just stuck with it because it's simple and I've been focusing on getting other features implemented.

I could possibly reference the modules that a part contains and alter build times based on the modules. Then fuel tanks would be cheap but maybe science equipment would cost more. Or I could reference the category the part belongs to (propulsion, science, utility, etc). Or both. I haven't looked into it much as the cost method has seemed to work relatively well so far.

What you propose is certainly possible though. And at the very least if you feel certain parts aren't balanced you can change the cost in their config or with MM. If it's more of "everything builds too quickly/too slow" then changing the Time Modifiers in the config is probably a simpler solution.

I think a good idea would be to base it off a few factors.

First Part Mass.. (the bigger the part longer it takes)

And part type.. take real life examples of pods, they seem to take forever to build (because they are complex and require support for crews)

So part type command would have some sort of Scalar

And so would science parts (little complex too)

so baseCost = mass * cost

then if say part is comman baseCost * scalar..

Should be pretty simple. Could even make a config file for people can change there values to what fits their play style.

That way you don't have to rely on the Part Cost in config.. Which above you mentioned since nobody pays attention to it causes all kinds of issues. (why MCE has its own algorithm)

But all parts have Mass.... Well not all I guess. Mechjeb and others would be problematic. But ways around that too.

And the config file is for the people that complain it takes to long.. Or to expensive..

I can only imagine that the last update to MCE totally fubared the Time it takes to build things (IE longer) because fuel was reduced to real life % examples.. And parts were hiked up to fill the gap left by lower fuel cost..

Oh by the way the next build will have the realchutes update in it. you can thank magico for showing me the way to add it in.

Edited April 9, 2014 by malkuth

[magico13]

I think a good idea would be to base it off a few factors.

--snip--

Oh by the way the next build will have the realchutes update in it. you can thank magico for showing me the way to add it in.

I may have to mess around with these suggestions. It's sort of along the lines I was thinking anyway.

As for realchutes, I only figured out how to do it because of Deadly Reentry, so thank NathenKell for that He used reflection with the realchute module and I took that one step further to get the drag coefficient and the total area.

I need to make a list of things I want to get done for the next release. I just successfully defended my thesis today, so this weekend I may get a chance to do some serious work on KCT (yay!). I've got a fun idea for simulations that will add a natural progression and incentive to explore, though that might take a while to implement. I've also got a couple bugs to fix (I'm looking at you Editor Trap bug!) and build list improvements to make.

[malkuth]

I may have to mess around with these suggestions. It's sort of along the lines I was thinking anyway.

As for realchutes, I only figured out how to do it because of Deadly Reentry, so thank NathenKell for that He used reflection with the realchute module and I took that one step further to get the drag coefficient and the total area.

I need to make a list of things I want to get done for the next release. I just successfully defended my thesis today, so this weekend I may get a chance to do some serious work on KCT (yay!). I've got a fun idea for simulations that will add a natural progression and incentive to explore, though that might take a while to implement. I've also got a couple bugs to fix (I'm looking at you Editor Trap bug!) and build list improvements to make.

Yup I changed it up a little bit for MCE. taking Area * DragC = total drag.

Then Total drag * part.mass (this bit of code gets every single part on the vessel that is going to be auto recycled) = Pdrag.

Then from there I just used the regular values for MCE vanilla which is the Total Tonage of all parts * Tons per drag which is 70 by default. if this value is less than Pdrag.. The vessel will be recycled.

I was surprised how close the values actually were to original Vanilla Parachutes. For instance mk16 (which I based lots of test off) has a Area of 490... in vanilla the MK16 has total Drag of 500.

The only place it gets strange is radials.. they seem to have a very very low Area... A lot lower then vanilla version. And the inline Chute has crazy area. LOL seems to work though.

Nathan is good at that math stuff.

[magico13]

Yup I changed it up a little bit for MCE. taking Area * DragC = total drag.

Then Total drag * part.mass (this bit of code gets every single part on the vessel that is going to be auto recycled) = Pdrag.

Then from there I just used the regular values for MCE vanilla which is the Total Tonage of all parts * Tons per drag which is 70 by default. if this value is less than Pdrag.. The vessel will be recycled.

I was surprised how close the values actually were to original Vanilla Parachutes. For instance mk16 (which I based lots of test off) has a Area of 490... in vanilla the MK16 has total Drag of 500.

The only place it gets strange is radials.. they seem to have a very very low Area... A lot lower then vanilla version. And the inline Chute has crazy area. LOL seems to work though.

Nathan is good at that math stuff.

Do keep in mind that you can resize the chutes (in the action group setup page). The defaults tend to be WAY more than what is needed to land under 10 m/s. For a majority of my testing I used a radial chute on a small SRB. It has an empty mass of 0.5 tons so that's what I used for the mass and set the touchdown speed to just under 10 m/s. That's how I came up with the 8:1 drag:mass ratio. I should probably go through and do some thorough calculations to come up with a proper value, but what I use for the drag calculation is straight from the real chute source.

[Vim Razz]

Grats on defending your thesis! (Assuming it went well, at least. If not, then.. well, anyway...)

Just played around a little bit with the current build, and I thought I'd share some feedback. I've tried out earlier versions, though I haven't used it regularly.

- The new BuildEffect config option is great! The base rate falls off a little too quickly for my preference, and I like being able to change that. I'm currently experimenting with it at 0.1, and I like the feel of it.

- As for general build times in RSS, they feel pretty well balanced in their current state, tbh. For example: a basic, stock-part tier 1 orbiter for career mode with RSS takes about 10 days to build (24 hr days), just re-using the pod used to unlock the t1 tech -- long enough to feel substantial without being onerous. That's for 154 fuel tanks, 31 LV-30's, 32 decouplers, 5 command pods (one recycled), 6 goo cans, a girder piece, a heat-shield, and a parachute. We'll see how things go as I dig further into the tech tree, but it seems pretty good so far.

- The "warp to complete" function doesn't work properly with RSS for some reason. It starts warping just fine, but then it doesn't stop when building is complete.

- The one feature I'd really love to see, though I have no idea what the feasibility of it might be, would be to have currently-built VAB/SPH ship inventories loaded into the mission-prep window you get when you click the landing pad or runway in the space center screen (rather than the saved-ship-type list). I keep clicking on them to prep duplicate/standard-type missions, THEN remembering you can only run simulations from there with KCT installed... It's really annoying, to say the least. If you could find some way to implement this, then I'd probably keep the mod installed for regular play.

Anyway, I love the concept behind this mod, and it's fun to see it develop. Thanks for all your hard work!

[magico13]

Grats on defending your thesis! (Assuming it went well, at least. If not, then.. well, anyway...)

Just played around a little bit with the current build, and I thought I'd share some feedback. I've tried out earlier versions, though I haven't used it regularly.

- The new BuildEffect config option is great! The base rate falls off a little too quickly for my preference, and I like being able to change that. I'm currently experimenting with it at 0.1, and I like the feel of it.

- As for general build times in RSS, they feel pretty well balanced in their current state, tbh. For example: a basic, stock-part tier 1 orbiter for career mode with RSS takes about 10 days to build (24 hr days), just re-using the pod used to unlock the t1 tech -- long enough to feel substantial without being onerous. That's for 154 fuel tanks, 31 LV-30's, 32 decouplers, 5 command pods (one recycled), 6 goo cans, a girder piece, a heat-shield, and a parachute. We'll see how things go as I dig further into the tech tree, but it seems pretty good so far.

- The "warp to complete" function doesn't work properly with RSS for some reason. It starts warping just fine, but then it doesn't stop when building is complete.

- The one feature I'd really love to see, though I have no idea what the feasibility of it might be, would be to have currently-built VAB/SPH ship inventories loaded into the mission-prep window you get when you click the landing pad or runway in the space center screen (rather than the saved-ship-type list). I keep clicking on them to prep duplicate/standard-type missions, THEN remembering you can only run simulations from there with KCT installed... It's really annoying, to say the least. If you could find some way to implement this, then I'd probably keep the mod installed for regular play.

Anyway, I love the concept behind this mod, and it's fun to see it develop. Thanks for all your hard work!

Well, I wouldn't say it went totally well, but I passed it and that's all that really matters at this point

Occasionally in the past people have had issues with the Warp to Complete function. I haven't been able to track anything down in particular that causes it to not work. Were you warping in the space center scene or tracking station? Or was it with a flight active (and what type, like a flag/landed ship or something in orbit where max timewarp can't be reached)? I suspect it's issues with something changing the current timewarp, which I then stop controlling it if something else takes over (for KAC compatibility). Though, does RSS change the default timewarp speeds? If it did, that might be the cause. (Checking out the source on GitHub and it looks like it does change the timewarp speeds.) If it goes too fast then it will overshoot, then it will just keep going and forget to stop. I thought I had done a workaround to kill all timewarp when a ship finishes, but I may have to go back and do a bit more work with it. It should work nicely in stock KSP or at least with stock timewarp settings. I'll try to fix it for next release.

I don't currently know a way to rewrite what appears in that screen. Though I could maybe have it open a different window that I control to launch things from the proper storage (VAb storage for launchpad, etc). At the very least, I could have it open the current build list window to the right tab. That might be an easy change. Though it might be nice to have a separate window with the finished vessels as one tab and all saved ships in another (for simulations). Also, I'm glad it forces you into simulation mode, that means that's working properly. I had forgotten to account for that for a little while so there was a time when you could launch from the pad directly for free. I ended up adding some code in to make it simulate instead, but couldn't test it (my test KSP has like 4 parts in it. It makes it not let me launch by clicking the launchpad for some reason).

I'm glad you appreciate my work! I have had a lot of fun working on this up to this point and am excited to get to have a chance to do some work on it again soon. Possibly tomorrow even! Though I do want to try to take my telescope out and get a look at Mars and Jupiter. Maybe Saturn depending on when I go out. I haven't used my telescope in months

[vidboi]

Hmm, just had an odd bug which caused the space centre screen to not load (i.e all black, time warp bar and KCT menu present). Series of events was launching a craft through the launchpad (probably a bad idea) to simulation, reverting to VAB, adding to the build list and then leaving the VAB. Threw a ton of null reference errors. Log is here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6-QPW5ZXeYhaXBSQmJvTldHWGc/edit?usp=sharing

[Probus]

Love both the MCE and KCT mods and they play well together. The real point of my previous message was if you two could link them or combine them into one mod using both of your part cost/build time algorithms and recycle features. It is probably too difficult at this time, but I thought I would ask. It would add a lot more flavor to the already awesome game.

[meve12]

Booster recovery doesn't seem to work for some reason. I added three of the blue radial chutes to each RT-10 I use, but while the "parts recovered" message appears in the alt-f2 log, they don't appear in the part inventory.

Edited April 14, 2014 by meve12

[magico13]

Hmm, just had an odd bug which caused the space centre screen to not load (i.e all black, time warp bar and KCT menu present). Series of events was launching a craft through the launchpad (probably a bad idea) to simulation, reverting to VAB, adding to the build list and then leaving the VAB. Threw a ton of null reference errors. Log is here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6-QPW5ZXeYhaXBSQmJvTldHWGc/edit?usp=sharing

There for whatever reason are always a bunch of null references when the ship gets destroyed. Chances are I may have averted this with the new way I'm handling simulations, so it will probably be fixed in the next update, but thank you for the bug report!

Love both the MCE and KCT mods and they play well together. The real point of my previous message was if you two could link them or combine them into one mod using both of your part cost/build time algorithms and recycle features. It is probably too difficult at this time, but I thought I would ask. It would add a lot more flavor to the already awesome game.

Yeah, the likelihood of the two being merged, while it would be awesome, is pretty low. Not only would it be difficult to simply merge the code, but since they're being developed by two different people it would continue being difficult to develop. There's also a lot of people who would want one functionality but not the other (I personally I do not play with MCE in my main save, though it is an awesome addon that I do play with in another). With that said, I am trying to link the two together better, as they complement each other well. I am concerned about what 0.24 will mean for MCE, as it seems like 0.24 will be implementing most of the core aspects of MCE, meaning I don't know how much its worth to spend time working on elaborate cross-implementation. Even if MCE exists after 0.24, it will likely be very different in the core code.

Booster recovery doesn't seem to work for some reason. I added three of the blue radial chutes to each RT-10 I use, but while the "parts recovered" message appears in the alt-f2 log, they don't appear in the part inventory.

I was noticing this when I was playing stock+MCE. Are you using MCE at all? I need to look into this more, since I have no idea why they aren't being added (they definitely used to be). I'm not sure yet if it's Stock parachutes only (unlikely, the same recovery code is being called) or if it's even related to MCE. It's possible that when I fixed some previous booster recovery issues it resulted in new issues, or that 0.23.5 changed some things that aren't obvious. EDIT: Tested it in stock. Not related to MCE, but should be fixed in the next version. I'm thinking I may do one more bug fix release before doing a new feature release, as I've fixed several bugs lately.

Btw, I've gotten very little sleep so please excuse any spelling/grammar/sentence flow issues.

Edited April 14, 2014 by magico13

[meve12]

No, I'm not using MCE. Thanks anyway.

[karamazovnew]

- Implemented MCE compatibility. Upon simulation revert you should be given 100% of your money back. There is an issue with this in a new game where your first launch is a simulation: The MCE save file isn't created yet so when you revert you don't get your money back. I think going into the VAB then back to the Space Center and then back into the VAB will fix it. Only needs to be done on brand new games and only once.

Works, but in a strange way. By using your revert button (either restarting or going to VAB) I don't get any refunds. However, MCE doesn't seem to SAVE that budget, so as long as I keep making simulations, no matter how long it takes, the first time I use MCE's revert button, my budget goes back to the correct value (-1k, but I actually like simulations to cost a bit). If the game crashes (which happens a bit much when using your revert button or the start simulation one), the budget resets to the correct value, without even subtracting MCE's fee of 1k. However, if I start a normal flight (or exit the game), the budget saves normally and I loose the ability to get refunded. I'm not sure if this is the intended way for it to work.

But it does give me an idea. MCE desperately needs this "simulation" idea, it's actually what brought me to your mod in the first place (although I came to love it in it's own right). So why not cooperate with Malkuth and implement a shared simulation mod, included in both mods? Every time you want to test a rocket, you go into simulation mode which costs you 1k in MCE, once per activation (but not per flight!). As long as you're in simulation mode, you can not save or do science, but you are allowed to revert for free, using the mod's revert buttons. However, when you start a normal mission, you loose MCE's revert button completely, so if you screw up, you really have to pay for it (pun intended). In my opinion, MCE only needs a revert button for launch testing, screwing up your mission later is solved with normal quickloads.

[magico13]

Works, but in a strange way. By using your revert button (either restarting or going to VAB) I don't get any refunds. However, MCE doesn't seem to SAVE that budget, so as long as I keep making simulations, no matter how long it takes, the first time I use MCE's revert button, my budget goes back to the correct value (-1k, but I actually like simulations to cost a bit). If the game crashes (which happens a bit much when using your revert button or the start simulation one), the budget resets to the correct value, without even subtracting MCE's fee of 1k. However, if I start a normal flight (or exit the game), the budget saves normally and I loose the ability to get refunded. I'm not sure if this is the intended way for it to work.

But it does give me an idea. MCE desperately needs this "simulation" idea, it's actually what brought me to your mod in the first place (although I came to love it in it's own right). So why not cooperate with Malkuth and implement a shared simulation mod, included in both mods? Every time you want to test a rocket, you go into simulation mode which costs you 1k in MCE, once per activation (but not per flight!). As long as you're in simulation mode, you can not save or do science, but you are allowed to revert for free, using the mod's revert buttons. However, when you start a normal mission, you loose MCE's revert button completely, so if you screw up, you really have to pay for it (pun intended). In my opinion, MCE only needs a revert button for launch testing, screwing up your mission later is solved with normal quickloads.

It should load the MCE backup save whenever you press any of my revert buttons during a simulation, effectively returning the entire cost of the rocket. This file doesn't exist in a brand new game, so you have to enter the VAB/SPH, then go back to the space center, then go back into the VAB/SPH for it to be created. After that you don't need to do that anymore. The game shouldn't really crash any more often than normal, as the function I use to revert is the same one KSP uses, but I've made a few changes to how simulations work that should make it so even if the game crashes, things shouldn't get totally messed up (right now you'll end up with a free ship on the launchpad. Not good.) So it sounds like it's kind of working properly, but not quite. Basically, it will charge you during a simulation for the ship when you take off, but then when you revert you should have ALL of your MCE money back.

If Malkuth wants to implement simulations into MCE then I will gladly work with him, but for now I have a bunch of changes I want to make to them and don't have the time to do a total rewrite as a new mod. One thing I can do is make them cost a little bit of money, if other people want that too (might run into an issue trying to do that though with the current method). Also, with 0.24 relatively near I'm wary of spending too much time on integration with MCE, as it will likely be very different after 0.24 is released.

Speaking of simulations, open question to everyone: If given the choice between a time limit or a "can't leave SOI" limit, which would you prefer? How about having the option to choose the end conditions? I'm planning on making you unlock more simulation features (longer time limits, new starting locations [i know I said I wasn't going to implement hyper-edit functionality, but I changed my mind because I have a nice (not cheaty) way of doing it] and am not sure what to do about end conditions.

I'm planning on releasing a bug fix version tomorrow (which I've only gotten to test a little bit) before I start working on new features.

[JeffreyCor]

I was thinking the same thing regarding this, MCE, and .24. It's hard to gauge without knowing when .24 might be coming around, but in general it may be better to wait on connections between this and MCE to find out if such a connection would even be needed with .24. There is also the possibility that added compatibility with MCE could make updates more cumbersome when .24 does come out. I'm actually very interested in seeing what you'll do with this in relation to .24

[karamazovnew]

Thanks for the reply. I eventually found out the problem, I was using the older version of the mod (D'oh! facepalm). But this "trip" did teach me how to hack my budget, in case I ever need it I also realized that since your mod is basically one dll, a shared separate one would be a pain. My opinion is that anybody who's playing MCE should use your mod, they go very well together (especially if you're playing with FAR and ISP Difficulty Scaler like I do). And for those that don't play MCE, or are waiting for 0.24, your mod adds that little extra touch of realism that makes me wonder "why didn't squad think of that"?! And no, I'm not expecting 0.24 to have build time included.

As for your question, having other starting locations would be fantastic. There are a few cases in which I'd find the "SOI" option more helpful than any time limit, like testing if your batteries can last you a Mun night with your dish opened, things like that...

[magico13]

Just uploaded PR4e. This should hopefully be the last one without any major new features. Primary changes include:

- Fixed a booster recovery bug where parts weren't being recovered when they said they were

- Hopefully fixed issues with timewarp and RSS

- Part Inventory is sorted by category now.

- Finer control of build list order. There are up/down arrows now. The build list needs a bit of GUI work and looks kinda goofy for now.

- Simulations now create a backup save which is loaded when the simulation ends. This fixes issues with resuming the game after a crash and means you don't have to revert with my buttons anymore. If you go to the Space Center or Tracking Station, the simulation ends. Should work with MCE as well.

- Fixed a bug where you couldn't exit the VAB/SPH after adding a ship to the build list and pressing the New or Load buttons.

Also, the source is no longer included in the download as I am now hosting it on GitHub! I'll put a link in the OP.

[Tigermisu]

I have a suggestion for space planes, make it so if they land on the runway the are re-added to the available vessel list =)

[magico13]

I have a suggestion for space planes, make it so if they land on the runway the are re-added to the available vessel list =)

Because every part gets recovered and placed into the part inventory, adding a new plane takes minimal time, where the time is a result of refueling and reconditioning. For example, a plane that takes 72 hours to build originally will take 7.2 hours to be ready for launch again. If this is too long, you can increase the effect that the inventory has on reducing the time by setting InventoryEffect = 100 to something higher in the KCT_TimeSettings.txt file (the square root will be how much it changes, so 100 means 10 times less, 400 means 20 times less, and 10000 means 100 times less).