[WIP] [Dev thread] Dang it! A random failures mod

[autumnalequinox]

Starting with the next update, you won't be able to repair a part unless its temperature is lower than 100°C (212°F).

This comes from a very reliable source that sets the maximum operating temperature for a space suit to about 150°C, so I imagine that you could still operate somewhat safely up to 100°C. Maybe our Scientific Advisor would like to pitch in on this?

Honestly I don't really think this case is going to come up very often, but you know, added realism*

* over time I want to balance it more towards RSS rather than stock. Sorry folks, but that's the way I'm playing it now

I figure I will play RSS eventually, it just worries me that with all my mods it may overload my memory usage. Otherwise I would love to try it.

Just let us know where the cut-off is, like at what point it transfers fully over from stock.

But more realism is always good.

Is there even a functional RSS for KSP 0.24.2 yet? I thought it was still stuck in 0.23.5.

And Kerbalpunk... I love it. Those steampunk parts are amazing

Edited August 30, 2014 by autumnalequinox
whoopsies

[goldenpeach]

I just had a idea for the mod: pre-launch failures(yes, it's as sadistic as it sound).

Basically, it simply that a part could be in a failure state before you even launch the rocket(due to manufacturing problem or something like that) or have the reliability reduced(for the same reasons).

[Ippo]

I'm not sure how I feel about that - it would be definitely the most realistic part of the mod, since failures are usually caught before launch - but I'm not sure how to do it, how to balance it, and I definitely need to think about it. But not now: I needed to empty the bottles for the next brew, and it had exactly the consequences you imagine from such an operation.

[mic_e]

IMHO, right-out pre-launch failures would just encourage the 'Before launch, EVA and inspect every single part' behaviour, which is really tedious and doesn't add anything to the gameplay.

Random drastic MTBF/Part age reductions, on the other hand, would be interesting...

Another sadistic idea (probably harder to implement, though): Avionics failure. A random instrument, such as the altimeter, or navball, will stop displaying data, stop updating, or, even worse, display right-out wrong data. Control inputs might be reversed, or SAS do something like this.

[Ippo]

Another sadistic idea (probably harder to implement, though): Avionics failure. A random instrument, such as the altimeter, or navball, will stop displaying data, stop updating, or, even worse, display right-out wrong data. Control inputs might be reversed, or SAS do something like this.

Kerbal Mechanics has those: IRnifty is an actual developer with actual unity experience and he has figured out how to make those fail

[Ippo]

Also, quick dev update: I have implemented the perks feature, and, surprise surprise, it's bugged as hell

Unfortunately, just having the perks means nothing if you don't have a GUI to check what skills they have, and to train them more, so that's what I'm working on right now.

But considering that I'll be on vacation next week, I don't think it's going to be finished very soon (I'll go trekking on the Dolomites). But it's coming together

[Ippo]

Progress! Unity GUI is a little weird, but pretty swift when you start understanding its quirks. Also, today I learned that C# doesn't have static local variables, but VB does. They are both compiled to CIL, so I really don't see what is C#'s excuse. W/e, it's time to pack now. See you next week!

[Paul Kingtiger]

I'd go for assuming that all maintenance and pre-flight checks are automatic and repairs carried out, otherwise you're just introducing a grind to launch.

You could introduce a random launch delay to represent faults being found and fixed, maybe basing the delay chance and amount by crew skill level (ground crew would be great but we don't have those).

[Noio]

I thought about adding some of the MKS resources to your blacklist.

I was wondering why my antenna was leaking punch cards.

[Ippo]

I am back from the vacation and have started working again. After a much needed rewrite of the GUI code, I am finally knee deep in the actual perks code.

Now each part has its own set of perks needed to interact with it*, and new kerbonauts spawn with their own set of perks which is based on how intelligent they are.

At this particular moment you just can't repair ANYTHING, since most kerbals are untrained in everything (by design) and so even a gimbal is black magic to them. Next in queue: a way to train them

* By the way, I would need some help deciding what perks each part requires. There are 4 levels (Untrained, Unskilled, Normal, Skilled) and 2 specialties (Electrician and Mechanic). Each part can specify either perk level, or both. Later I'll post the essentially-random-and-not-balanced values I am using atm, but I could use your opinion on what needs what.

[Ippo]

I'd go for assuming that all maintenance and pre-flight checks are automatic and repairs carried out, otherwise you're just introducing a grind to launch.

You could introduce a random launch delay to represent faults being found and fixed, maybe basing the delay chance and amount by crew skill level (ground crew would be great but we don't have those).

EVA'ing before launch might also be borderline impossible unless you put ladders ERRYWHERE, which is just not good. I like the idea of the ground crew though... Something to think about

I was wondering why my antenna was leaking punch cards.

I promise I'll fix that in the next release

[Athlonic]

...

* By the way, I would need some help deciding what perks each part requires. There are 4 levels (Untrained, Unskilled, Normal, Skilled) and 2 specialties (Electrician and Mechanic). Each part can specify either perk level, or both. Later I'll post the essentially-random-and-not-balanced values I am using atm, but I could use your opinion on what needs what.

My suggestion would be to make needed perk related to part's position in the tech tree.

This way you won't have to deal with each single part and mods parts should be compatible on the fly.

Same with specialties, maybe link them to [Module] present in concerned part (ie if part has module [Antenna] : specialtie required = Electrician, ...)

[Ippo]

Uh, I didn't explain myself clearly. My bad, I used the wrong term.

When I said part, I actually meant module (as in, the component they are supposed to represent inside a part).

The perk is tied to a module, not a specific part: for example, all engines require a skilled mechanic who is also an unskilled electrician, all alternators require a normal electrician, gimbals require a normal mechanic and so forth

Sorry for the mess, my bad.

[Athlonic]

Oh ok, no problem then !

I knew this sounded a bit too easy to be true ^^

Does someone have a list of the different modules available ?

[Ippo]

I do

[TABLE=class: grid, width: 500, align: center]

[TR]

[TD=align: center]Component[/TD]

[TD=align: center]Perks[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Alternator[/TD]

[TD]Electrician: Normal

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Battery[/TD]

[TD]Electrician: Unskilled[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Control Surfaces[/TD]

[TD]Mechanic: Unskilled[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Engines[/TD]

[TD]Mechanic: Skilled

Electrician: Normal[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Gimbal[/TD]

[TD]Mechanic: Normal[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Lights[/TD]

[TD]Electrician: Untrained

(equals "none")[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]RCS[/TD]

[TD]Mechanic: Skilled

Electrician: Normal[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Reaction Wheels[/TD]

[TD]Mechanic: Normal

Electrician: Normal[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Tanks[/TD]

[TD]Mechanic: Normal[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

This list is *very* open to feedback, it's just a first rough working guess so that I could go and test it, it doesn't have to be final.

[autumnalequinox]

I just went over the list... based on experience (been using Dang it for months now wee!!).. could tanks be reduced to unskilled? I consider tanks one of the most crucial, mission destroying, messed-up'ed things that can happen. I also see them as the simplest fix due to severity. The other values I like. This is based on the default failure rates, which I have not messed with.

[Ippo]

Duly noted. Also, tanks will be buffed (again:/ ) just in case. I was thinking about increasing the MTBF by 25%, what do you think?

P.S: but actually, that's why they shouldn't be "unskilled"... Otherwise, what's the point if what you can't repair is the stuff you don't need anyway?

[OldMold]

Idea for consideration: When failures happen they pick a RANDOM combination of mechanic and/or electric perk requirements to fix, weighted so that the easier breakages tend to happen more often and the hardest critical failures (require both skilled mechanic AND skilled electric to fix) tend to happen least often? This way not all failures are uniform, and the player can take a chance by bringing along crew that is not completely skilled, making a trade-off of doing an immediate mission with increased risk of critical failure. This would pair super great with something like LS mods and Kerbal Construction Time mod, where a rescue mission might have to be done ASAP even if a crew is not fully trained. Possibility for some nail biting gameplay

Clarification: can the player fix one issue with two kerbals? Say I have a skilled mechanical engineer and a skilled electrical engineer as separate kerbals, can I fix an issue with two EVAs? That would be neat.

Also - any plans to have TAC LS failures? Would be nice to have to design for life-support redundancies for long voyages.

Great stuff, keep up the good work!

[Ippo]

Idea for consideration: When failures happen they pick a RANDOM combination of mechanic and/or electric perk requirements to fix, weighted so that the easier breakages tend to happen more often and the hardest critical failures (require both skilled mechanic AND skilled electric to fix) tend to happen least often?

This might actually be a good idea. I need to reflect on this a while, I like the sound of it but I want to think it through before choosing.

Clarification: can the player fix one issue with two kerbals? Say I have a skilled mechanical engineer and a skilled electrical engineer as separate kerbals, can I fix an issue with two EVAs? That would be neat.

Sorry, not possible at the moment. That's another good idea though, it's not really possible in my framework right now though.

Also - any plans to have TAC LS failures? Would be nice to have to design for life-support redundancies for long voyages.

They have always been in - after all, tac resources are just normal resources. It might need some particular care when doing the generators (I know taranis has rolled his own code for that), but at the moment it's as poorly supported as anything fully supported.

Great stuff, keep up the good work!

Thanks

[OldMold]

It might need some particular care when doing the generators (I know taranis has rolled his own code for that), but at the moment it's as poorly supported as anything fully supported.

Ah yeah - should have specified I meant the generators How about solar panels?

[Ippo]

Coming, eventually. I still haven't implemented all the failures I want (not even your BRAKES will be safe from my wrath!), I just have a lot to work on first

As we speak I am tweaking the GUI that you'll be using to manage the crew

[autumnalequinox]

Duly noted. Also, tanks will be buffed (again:/ ) just in case. I was thinking about increasing the MTBF by 25%, what do you think?

P.S: but actually, that's why they shouldn't be "unskilled"... Otherwise, what's the point if what you can't repair is the stuff you don't need anyway?

Ooo sorry I got back to you so late! Sounds good to me Those tank leaks can be murderous I like them to happen VERY rarely, otherwise I risk a panic attack. I have sat at my desk pulling on my blanket just hoping they don't go sometimes. Next career game after 0.25 comes out is gonna be iron-man, no save, hardcore, so any reduction of anxiety is a good one

[Ippo]

Let me introduce you to the GUI that will let you manage the perks

Also, if anyone has any suggestions to improve the layout, I'd like to hear them. I'm not a fun of the width of that window... then again, this layout makes sense (to me).

P.S: disregard that CF client, it's a test window for CrewFiles that I forgot to remove.

[Daishi]

Let me introduce you to the GUI that will let you manage the perks

http://i.imgur.com/c3vDDU6.png

Also, if anyone has any suggestions to improve the layout, I'd like to hear them. I'm not a fun of the width of that window... then again, this layout makes sense (to me).

P.S: disregard that CF client, it's a test window for CrewFiles that I forgot to remove.

Very nice!

[theonegalen]

Let me introduce you to the GUI that will let you manage the perks

http://i.imgur.com/c3vDDU6.png

Also, if anyone has any suggestions to improve the layout, I'd like to hear them. I'm not a fun of the width of that window... then again, this layout makes sense (to me).

P.S: disregard that CF client, it's a test window for CrewFiles that I forgot to remove.

the only thing I can think of is that it would be cool if you integrated the GUI with the Astronaut Complex.