regex's I'm not developing here anymore thread

[regex]

All development is done

My laptop GPU decided to revolt and I am now left with my Kubuntu work computer. Although it is vastly superior to my gaming laptop in almost all areas, it lacks a proper GPU and crashes on bone-stock KSP. While I try to work out a new computer situation, one way or another, I cannot do any development, whether on the campaign system or even tweaking 6.4:1 Kerbin.

Update: My work laptop, which is vastly superior to my old gaming laptop in every area sans graphics, is now working out as a KSP box. I'm setting up a development environment and will hopefully be ready for 0.24.

I'm done here (this thread). 6.4:1 Kerbin and anything else you want to scavenge is free to whomever, license permitting. Explanation in last post. Thanks for your time.

KSC Switcher (in beta, RSS coded)

Fourth round iteration, now considered "beta" code:

This is meant to allow you to use multiple different launch sites from within KSP; that is, without exiting the game and editing config files. There have been some changes since and I'll probably make another video later this week, having finally found a use for my YouTube account.

Part of Real Solar System

Campaign System (in planning)

KSC Switcher leads into the campaign system, and is the entire reason it was written. The idea here is that, with multiple launch sites available, managing a space program can be made more complex and, potentially, more challenging with delays and other restrictions. I've never been one for "build times"; I don't find them believable because spacecraft and launchers take much longer than days to build and are generally planned far in advance. Since stating my intentions a lot of good suggestions have been made and the current design is pretty solid, I feel.

• Each launch site will have a "quality" rating that will determine its turn-over time.
  
• Quality ratings, while set by me, will be user-configurable for a personalized experience. I'm thinking "A" through "F" or something.
  
• Once a craft is launched from a site, another cannot be launched from that site until the turn-over time has passed.
  
• Each site will also has a maximum launch weight (on-pad) that cannot be exceeded.
  
• Launch weight and quality will be configurable per site.
  
• Sites have available from and to dates, and will appear and disappear from the selection based on Planetarium time.
  
  • Some sites, like KSC under 6.4:1 or Baikonur under RSS, will likely always be available

  [*] I am still thinking over allowing multiple "pads" per site, each having their own quality and weight ratings, but if so it will be a later feature.

As an example, let's assume I have a site named Uoruok under 6.4:1 Kerbin that sports a B rated pad with a 775,000kg maximum launch weight . Depending on how I define things, an B pad might have a turn-over time of a week and a half (10 days). Uoruok could therefore launch a 775 ton rocket every ten days. During the turn-over time I might have to use a lesser launch site at a totally different latitude. Planning thus hinges not only on time but also on the launch delta-V budget and proper launch technique.

While this campaign system will be included with RSS because all the code I wrote for the KSC Switcher feature is required for the system, it will also be disabled by default in an RSS install because it might not be for everyone. If you want to use this system for a stock-ish install without using RSS, you can install RSS and remove the RealSolarSystem.cfg file; it will leave the solar system alone but allow you to define launch sites and use the campaign.

(will be) Part of Real Solar System

6.4:1 Kerbin RSS Config (working, ongoing)

This is my personal config file that I use for RSS. While I really like the idea of RSS, I also like the idea of exploring a totally alien solar system. I also really enjoy stock KSP and the way the game is played; RSS and ROV take things a bit too far for my tastes. I have my own engine and ModuleManager configs for how I play and will not be releasing them because I don't care to maintain them, deal with dumb little nitpicks, and add in everyone else's mod of the month. If you're not willing to roll your own configs, using select parts of ROV with 6.4:1 Kerbin will give you a pretty nice stock-ish experience with a solar system that at least looks proper; it's how I used to play and it's pretty fun.

You'll need about 7km/s to make LKO on this Kerbin. This post contains some useful numbers about the system.

Required Mods:

Real Solar System

Recommended Mods:

Ferram Aerospace Research

Deadly Reentry Continued

Realism Overhaul (engine configs, mainly)

Real Fuels (to use with those engine configs)

There are some good parts mods out there, but I'm only going to mention one:

Procedural Parts (get Stretchy SRB if you're wary of using development code)

Alternate Mods:

If you're not interested in the ROV mods for whatever reason, Lack suggests you use KIDS with a multiplier setting of 1.125 vacuum, 0.85.atmosphere, or change it to your taste.

Download 6.4:1 Kerbin v5

RandomCrew (probably working, maybe ongoing)

Sick of Jeb, Bill, and Bob? Disgusted by Jeb always getting in the Kod-danged pilot's seat? So am I. That's why I wrote this little mod. I don't know how buggy it is, but apparently people use it and they haven't been PM'ing me about it, so it's probably fine. It works by generating a random crew on game load until you have the first flight achievement. This hack was necessary because SQUAD uses the same function to load a game as they do to start a new one, and there is no function that I could find that told me otherwise. So really, start a new game, launch an SRB, enjoy your Random Crew.

Download RandomCrew v1

HardMode

When Jeb dies, do you want him to stay dead? Do you have the stones to play without quick saving or loading? Does the revert function nauseate you? Do you look down on all pansy gamers who need their security blankets and pacifiers? I have the answer to your disgust of this weak gameplay, HardMode! HardMode automatically sets the following options for you and enforces them on every visit to the Space Center, so you don't have to edit persistence files and can go about being your badass self:

Difficulty:

• AllowStockVessels = false
  
• MissingCrewsRespawn = false

Flight:

• CanQuickLoad = false
  
• CanQuickSave = false
  
• CanRestart = false
  
• CanLeaveToEditor = false

Includes a window that lets you choose just how awesome you are per save game.

Download HardMode v2

Edited July 31, 2014 by regex

[White Owl]

I've been house ruling some restrictions to launches, using the single launchpad of KSC. I set different schedules for my rockets according to their overall lifting capacity, although I'm certain a simple tonnage system would work just as well. It's a continual WIP to get the balance right, but here's what I have right now.

1 ton = 7 days

3 tons = 11 days

5 tons = 17 days

10 tons = 26 days

15 tons = 39 days

20 tons = 58 days

>20 tons = 77 days

KSC launchpad takes time to reset.

1 ton = 1 day

3 tons = 2 days

5 tons = 3 days

10 tons = 4 days

15 tons = 5 days

20 tons = 6 days

>20 tons = 7 days

The result is the little rockets are available every few days, but there's a significant wait for the bigger ones. Makes the heavies into a more memorable event. Maybe there's something there you can use. I know you don't like the whole concept of build times... I'm just imagining that each size rocket has its own dedicated VAB, and it takes time to assemble the pre-made components into the whole vehicle. Maybe there's an idea here that could work for you; maybe not.

Oh, and your cfg for RSS is great. For anybody who enjoys the planets of the stock game, but wants their space travel to be more simulator and less game.

[kiwiak]

I have a suggestion, maybe some mechanism that punishes players for dropping boosters directly over launchpad?

If some object hits launchpad, outside 2.4 km sphere too (just calculate trajectory) it will be disabled for some longer time, until repairs are made.

[Lack]

I've been using your 6.4x Kerbin rescale for a while now, I'm very much enjoying it, makes KSP as hard as it felt when I first started. Did a bit of tweaking to planet deformities to stop them being quite so flat and raised the snow-level.

I've found that you can largely eschew things like real-fuels and config files (I've got a few of the realise overhaul configs for things like solar panels and the stock rebalance) by using the KSP difficulty scaler. Vac Isp Mult.: 1.125, Atm Isp Mult.: 0.85 seems to be a good balance.

Screenshots from my current campaign, I've got a lot of kerbals killed, and Jeb trapped in a munar orbit after I underestimated the return delta-v cost.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Edited May 5, 2014 by Lack

[acc]

KSC switcher: Are the KSCs present all the time or is just one KSC at the last chosen location?

[TheKosmonaut]

Hey. I have been playing w/ RSS (the RO version) and decided I wanted to give 6.4 a try because I find that the full size Kerbearth is a little toooo big for my taste unless I am feeling a more simmy mood.

Anyways, I tried to place the rss cfg that you uploaded and the game will get past the loading screen but the game freezes at a black screen. The .log just says "[LOG 22:51:10.997] *RSS* useLegacyAtmosphere = False but pressureCurve not found!" and then goes on about CBTs for various planets.

Wondering if any of you guys can help me out here? If I remove the 6.4 cfg and replace it with the normal cfg the game will load just fine.

[regex]

The result is the little rockets are available every few days, but there's a significant wait for the bigger ones. Makes the heavies into a more memorable event. Maybe there's something there you can use. I know you don't like the whole concept of build times... I'm just imagining that each size rocket has its own dedicated VAB, and it takes time to assemble the pre-made components into the whole vehicle. Maybe there's an idea here that could work for you; maybe not.

That's an interesting, and slightly punishing, way to do it, but I'm not sure if I want to go the route of weight determining turn-over (although I am intrigued and will probably read up on whether it affect RL launches significantly). Obviously I'd be using on-pad weight since it's very hard to figure out what, exactly, is the payload programmatically.

I have a suggestion, maybe some mechanism that punishes players for dropping boosters directly over launchpad?

Dropping boosters on the launch pad is largely a function of what aerodynamic model you're using. If you're using the stock "pea-soup" setup you build horizontal velocity late (8km or higher) and the boosters meant to get you into the thinner upper atmosphere will probably be jettisoned when you are still climbing vertically and have little horizontal velocity. Under a more realistic model like FAR you will begin building horizontal velocity early (1km or so, but around there) and the boosters meant to get you into the thinner upper atmosphere will most likely be moving horizontally, with you, when you jettison them.

TL;DR: If you don't like jettisoning boosters over KSC, get FAR. Besides, it's out of the scope of this project.

I've found that you can largely eschew things like real-fuels and config files (I've got a few of the realise overhaul configs for things like solar panels and the stock rebalance) by using the KSP difficulty scaler. Vac Isp Mult.: 1.125, Atm Isp Mult.: 0.85 seems to be a good balance.

Screenshots from my current campaign, I've got a lot of kerbals killed, and Jeb trapped in a munar orbit after I underestimated the return delta-v cost.

Fantastic shots, Lack! Also, it never occurred to me to use KIDS, I'll make a note of that in the OP, great solution!

KSC switcher: Are the KSCs present all the time or is just one KSC at the last chosen location?

Only the last one. If you want more persistent locations and such, KerbTown is the way to go.

Anyways, I tried to place the rss cfg that you uploaded and the game will get past the loading screen but the game freezes at a black screen. The .log just says "[LOG 22:51:10.997] *RSS* useLegacyAtmosphere = False but pressureCurve not found!" and then goes on about CBTs for various planets.

Wondering if any of you guys can help me out here? If I remove the 6.4 cfg and replace it with the normal cfg the game will load just fine.

Change the RealSolarSystem.cfg file to look like this:

REALSOLARSYSTEM
{
    spheresOnly = true

    // Kerbol 6.4:1 Scale v3

I need to push that change, tonight probably, been so excited writing this Switching app that I forgot to do that.

Edited May 5, 2014 by regex

[Lack]

Fantastic shots, Lack! Also, it never occurred to me to use KIDS, I'll make a note of that in the OP, great solution!

Change the RealSolarSystem.cfg file to look like this:

REALSOLARSYSTEM
{
    spheresOnly = true

    // Kerbol 6.4:1 Scale v3

Thanks, and thanks for the update, now to mess around with alternate launch sites.

Also, it's 1.125, not 1.25 for the Vac ISP. Boosts the most efficient stock engines up to about the same ISP as the most efficient chemical engines. Although looking at the list of orbital engines on wikipedia, 1.15 might be a slightly better fit.

[Lack]

Been working on alternative launch sites for the 6.4 rescale. I'm keeping latitude (there'll be one or two cases of switching the sign, i.e. Boscombe Down, there's a nice little UK like land mass at -51, 125) the same as the RL launch-sites but changing longitudes to places of similar geography (land-mass wise, not exact location) to their real-life counterparts. Made some light modifications to the RSS code for Kerbin, makes the scenery look a bit nicer I think.

Screenshots:

KSC.

Baikonur (excuse the stock craftfile)

I real like the valley here, still need to play around with that one. I have to say, you've spoilt me here. Stock Kerbin just looks far too small now.

[regex]

Been working on alternative launch sites for the 6.4 rescale. I'm keeping latitude (there'll be one or two cases of switching the sign, i.e. Boscombe Down, there's a nice little UK like land mass at -51, 125) the same as the RL launch-sites but changing longitudes to places of similar geography (land-mass wise, not exact location) to their real-life counterparts. Made some light modifications to the RSS code for Kerbin, makes the scenery look a bit nicer I think.

Looks great! Would you mind sharing your locations and any changes you've done to Kerbin? I'd love to check it out. I've been writing up a very short summary of Kerbin "geopolitics" so I can place launchpads and have them appear and disappear for ~reasons~ instead of ~no reason at all~. I want the default "campaign" to at least have a modicum of fluff. I only have two additional sites defined, myself, they take some time to fine-tune.

I real like the valley here, still need to play around with that one. I have to say, you've spoilt me here. Stock Kerbin just looks far too small now.

I really like that valley too.

Edited May 6, 2014 by regex

[Lack]

Looks great! Would you mind sharing your locations and any changes you've done to Kerbin? I'd love to check it out. I've been writing up a very short summary of Kerbin "geopolitics" so I can place launchpads and have them appear and disappear for ~reasons~ instead of ~no reason at all~. I want the default "campaign" to at least have a modicum of fluff. I only have two additional sites defined, myself, they take some time to fine-tune.

Yeah, I'll share them once it's a little less broken. Trying to get it to just be on the surface is turning out to be a battle in itself, about half of them have 2km tall cliffs all round them.

Here's the Kerbin section though: http://pastebin.com/VLHZTNnH

How drastic the changes are for the kerbin code are, I'm not so sure, I haven't compared them side by side. But I get the impression that mountains and valleys look a bit better defined.

[White Owl]

I slightly modified KSC's location:

PQSCity
                {
                    KEYname = KSC
                    latitude = -0.076
                    longitude = -74.425
                    repositionToSphereSurface = false
                    repositionRadiusOffset = 101
                    lodvisibleRangeMult = 6
                }

Simply moved it a little closer to the beach at a suitably flat spot, so it's very similar to the stock game.

And I'm definitely interested in any other locations people are willing to share.

[Lack]

Bit of flying around the Baikonur latitude KSC

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Experimenting with height map offset at the moment, and it needs bring down to ground-level and probably re-orientating.

Location:

latitude = 45.81

longitude = -146.98

[NathanKell]

Following this with interest (obviously).

As for multiple pads per site, this I'd very much like to see. I mean, the Saturn / Shuttle pad *complex* was Launch Complex 39 (of which there were multple pads). Space centers are *big*.

There is also something to be said for having turnover time related to launch weight: you launch an Aerobee, no one bats an eye (ready to launch tomorrow), you launch a Saturn V MLV, the ground crew lose their minds for months re-readying the infrastructure.

[regex]

As for multiple pads per site, this I'd very much like to see.

I'll post my thoughts on this when I get home. In order for the campaign to work the way I want it to pads will have to be implemented. Fortunately there should be a lot of time to get things ready before an economy shows up, which is what I eventually want to tie into. FYI, I'm working on persistence right now, although fixing the camera should probably come first. :/

And I did have some thinking time about weight influencing turn-over time and I'll probably make it happen.

E:

Campaign

I was trying to figure out how to handle upgrading a site and realized that having multiple pads would solve the issue, if they also had operational dates. For instance, KSC might start out with a small class C pad capable of 125,000kg launches, but after a year that pad would shut down for a few months and be upgraded to a class B pad with a 750,000 kg maximum launch weight. Then, a few more years down the road, it could upgrade again to a class A with an unlimited launch weight. During that time an additional, smaller class B pad could be built with a 500,000kg max weight limit. And so on. The neat thing about using the "pads" paradigm is that we can have a site show up on the map but not be operational for some time (while it's being constructed) or only be used as an airfield or small pad.

Do you think it would be better to have the site itself handle the quality or the pads? Obviously the pads would define the maximum weight allowed. Maybe it would be better for the pads to have quality rather than the facility and just have an unspoken rule that qualities amongst the site never really stray beyond one step from the others. Or maybe give the facility an overall quality that no pad can exceed.

Do airfields have maximum take-off weights?

I have also given thought to pad turn-over being influenced by launched weight. I think this might end up being something like using the maximum launch weight ?tripling? the turn-over, with anything under being a percentage. Not entirely accurate, I'm sure, but it's easy to code.

6.4:1 Kerbin

I'll be adding several launch sites to the config file along with descriptions and "upgrade paths", multiple pads and fields, etc... This entails writing some background fluff. Following the current "Kerbaleze" all of the launch sites will probably just be reversed names of real world sites but that doesn't mean they'll show up in the same sorts of places. For instance, Uoruok (Kourou), isn't on a coast, it's smack-dab inland, while Runokiab (Baikonur) is on a northern-eastern coast. Anyway, this brings me to the subject of Kerbal politics.

Kerbals seem to be excitable, naive, a bit rough with each other, resourceful, mostly intelligent, and not at all safety-concious. Interestingly, despite some of their characteristics (and perhaps because of some), Kerbals don't strike me as particularly violent towards each other, aside from the ocassional rough-housing, which greatly simplifies the world. I imagine they probably settle disputes through simple contests of whatever type, not necessarily physical. Looking at a map of Kerbin, I figure there are maybe seven different "countries" or "counties", or whatever, that Kerbals could organize under. I don't, however, think they have a central world government because they seem quite competitive.

With that in mind, I envision the "campaign" to be a space race of sorts. After the first launch of a Kerbal into space, Kerbalkind gets quite excited and competitive, and we see spaceports popping up all over the place. Some countries will probably focus more on advanced airfields that will show up later in time while others will focus primarily on launching rockets. Of course, we'll always have the "balanced" original country that hosts Kerbal Space Center itself, which will host the first year of actual spaceflight. All countries will have the capacity to launch sounding rockets and basic aircraft from early on, so you can pick a "side" and have fun with it.

Just to stress, this will only really be "fluff" text, I won't be having the game launch phantom ships and stuff. Maybe once an economy is implemented we can have different sites have different launch costs, maybe based on what "country" your program is based in, etc...

Edited May 6, 2014 by regex

[Whirligig Girl]

For the Real Kerbin/KSCswitcher mod could you use this map for the planning of launch sites?

Also, can some launch sites not be available unless they are in similar countries

Edited May 6, 2014 by GregroxMun

[regex]

For the Real Kerbin/KSCswitcher mod could you use this map for the planning of launch sites?

http://i.imgur.com/MjWmrtN.jpg

Where's that from, the KSP roleplaying forum or something?

No. It's "too much", quite literally. The KSP roleplaying forum will be able to make their own configs and launch sites, though. Besides, the whole point of me writing the campaign fluff is really just to introduce people to the idea of how to use the mod (and for my own use), it's not for me to build a story for you to follow.

[Whirligig Girl]

Where's that from, the KSP roleplaying forum or something?

No. It's "too much", quite literally. The KSP roleplaying forum will be able to make their own configs and launch sites, though. Besides, the whole point of me writing the campaign fluff is really just to introduce people to the idea of how to use the mod (and for my own use), it's not for me to build a story for you to follow.

It's not from role-play, it's just for fun by it's maker. It was shown on Fanwork Fridays once.

[Lack]

Speaking of maps. To help placement of alternative launchsites, here's the latitude of the various alternative sites in RSS on the Kerbin map. Normal on the left-handside and inversed on the right.

Large image:

http://i.imgur.com/gi7ydLR.png

If you boost Baikonur up 5 or 10 degrees there's quite a nice substitute for the Caspian or what's left of the Aral sea.

[Cooly568]

Will KSC Switcher be able to work with stock KSP and not require real solar system?

[NathanKell]

It already does. RSS can have whatever config you feed it. Both Better Atmospheres and Proot's KSPRPC use it to change atmospheres.

[Superfluous J]

Will KSC Switcher be able to work with stock KSP and not require real solar system?

I was wondering this as well. It's listed as Required which implies not, but my non-modder eyes see no reason why the switcher wouldn't work with an appropriate config file.

However I like the idea of a Kerbin that is bigger than the stock one but not as big as Earth. I may have to give this a try when it comes time to re-roll my universe parameters

Edited May 7, 2014 by 5thHorseman

[NathanKell]

See above. RSS is a *plugin*, and *everything* it does can be enabled or disabled as desired.

[regex]

I was wondering this as well. It's listed as Required which implies not, but my non-modder eyes see no reason why the switcher wouldn't work with an appropriate config file.

KSC Switcher is a part of RSS because I feel the functionality goes along with it and they share a lot of code.

My Campaign System will use the KSC Switcher code because it involves switching KSCs around, and therefore will be included in RSS.

If you want to use KSC Switcher with normal KSP, you simply download RSS and remove RealSolarSystem.cfg (you may also have to edit RealSolarSystemSettings.cfg), adding some launch sites as appropriate.

If you want to use the Campaign System, once written, with normal KSP, you would do the same and enable the Campaign System in RealSolarSystemSettings.cfg (I'm assuming that's where the setting will live). In the interests of being nice to everyone, the Campaign System will be disabled by default since some RSS users may not want to use it.

If you want to use the Campaign System with a normal (or 6.4:1, or whatever) RSS install, you would enable the setting.

In other words, you need RSS, but RSS is a very flexible mod that you can use in many fantastic, different ways.

[Superfluous J]

See above. RSS is a *plugin*, and *everything* it does can be enabled or disabled as desired.

Oh, sorry. You didn't quote so I didn't know you were replying to Cooly as well

I have never used RSS, so I assumed based on its name that it implemented a Real Solar System and nothing more. I did not know you could install it, disable everything, and play in a normal sized Kerbin. Or enable one thing or another and have pieces parts. Maybe it should be named Infinite Variability or something else?

But anyway, this sounds even better to me now!