[1.0.5 - Alpha 6] Dang It! (12 september 2015)

[SaSquatch]

I hate modding.

It happens... Love the work so far Ippo. Great job.

[marce]

I hate modding.

You should visit the #kspmodders IRC chan. Topic (currently): We hereby declare war on SQQQUAAARRRRRRRRRDDD!!!!!11

I feel your pain...

[Ippo]

I'm actually using mods for my space station. The probe core is a BOMP, and the crew capsules are the 1.25m hitchhikers Sam Hall made. I also have a mechjeb and Kerbal Engineer module on it. I feel bad because all those command parts adds up to a total of 150 spare parts max. I'm only at 100 on the station and 49 on the crew pod.

Actually you should be able to load 250 on each of them. The default is 25 but you can tweak it in the VAB.

It happens... Love the work so far Ippo. Great job.

We'll see if I live up to the challenge As I mentioned, I have an exam on monday. Next week I'll give top priority to re-checking again everything in the base framework and see what's going wrong.

In the meantime, you can always check out Kerbal Mechanics by IRnifty. I haven't tried it myself and it's still in development (we are actually sharing tips and tricks as we go), so I can't comment on its stability, but it might be an alternative until I fix my code.

[Ippo]

You should visit the #kspmodders IRC chan. Topic (currently): We hereby declare war on SQQQUAAARRRRRRRRRDDD!!!!!11

I feel your pain...

I do sometimes. But then I peek at the list and see ramon, ferram, chris, sarbian and the rest of the pantheon and I feel like I'm not worthy of them

[marce]

I do sometimes. But then I peek at the list and see ramon, ferram, chris, sarbian and the rest of the pantheon and I feel like I'm not worthy of them

Ahh, don't worry, they need a lot of peons!

And I see you just joined

[Cleric2145]

 MODULE
    {
        name = ModuleBatteryReliability
        MTBF = 8000
        LifeTime = 100000
        RepairCost = 1
		Silent = false
    }

And

        name = ModuleTankReliability
        MTBF = 24000
        LifeTime = 100000
        RepairCost = 1
        MinTC = 60
        MaxTC = 240
		Silent = false

I don't think the MTBF is the problem itself. The issue really is that MTBF is calculated for each part individually instead if all parts at once. This means everything could feasibly fail at once since failures are totally independant of each other (= no fun). What *I* think should happen--at least for probes--is that MTBF is calculated for the entire craft, then once the system decides to roll a failure on the craft, it draws from all the fail-able elements on the craft with each part's MTBF increasing or decreasing its likelihood of being drawn. Imagine having a bowl of tags, and each part has a tag. The lower the part's MTBF, the more 'tags' it has in the bowl. Find a method to determine a random drawing cycle (average of all MTBFs? Increasing freq with increase in parts/low tech parts?) .

Edited June 15, 2014 by Cleric2145

[Ippo]

The issue really is that MTBF is calculated for each part individually instead if all parts at once. This means everything could feasibly fail at once since failures are totally independant of each other (= no fun).

This is by design: I'm trying to model everything to be realistic-ish.

MTBF buff it is, then.

[Albert VDS]

With the upcoming money system maybe a cost quality slider for each part would be a nice addition.

If quality is set to high then the reliability and cost are also high.

Or maybe a research addition, where parts become more reliable after more research has put in to them.

[Ippo]

With the upcoming money system maybe a cost quality slider for each part would be a nice addition.

If quality is set to high then the reliability and cost are also high.

Or maybe a research addition, where parts become more reliable after more research has put in to them.

This has been suggested many times over. As said before, I can't comment until the system is out and I can see what I can do with it.

[VaporTrail]

Couple of thoughts, not sure if they've been mentioned:

Transferred to Dev thread.

Edited June 15, 2014 by VaporTrail

[Ippo]

Everybody please post his suggestion and ideas in the dev thread.

Leave this thread for issues related to the current release, thank you.

[erbmur]

Glad to see a mod of this type in circulation and must say I am enjoying using it so thank you. I do have a few questions.

1) - Is it possible to turn off the red glow that appears when a part fails?

2) - When either the engine or RCS thursters fail, would it at all possible to have it remain in the state it was in when it failed? i.e. If using RSC and one of the parts fail while firing, then it continues to fire and can't be turned off?

3) - Will you at any point implement any sounds to accompany any of the failures?

[Ippo]

Glad to see a mod of this type in circulation and must say I am enjoying using it so thank you. I do have a few questions.

1) - Is it possible to turn off the red glow that appears when a part fails?

Setting the silent flag in the cfg will prevent notifications. However it will also disable the onscreen message. If enough people request it I might split it in two separate flags however.

2) - When either the engine or RCS thursters fail, would it at all possible to have it remain in the state it was in when it failed? i.e. If using RSC and one of the parts fail while firing, then it continues to fire and can't be turned off?

It might be, I haven't looked into that. An engine locked thrusting would be far too dangerous for the intended scope of this mod (try to go on EVA with an engine running...)

3) - Will you at any point implement any sounds to accompany any of the failures?

At some point, yes. Not sure when though.

[erbmur]

It might be, I haven't looked into that. An engine locked thrusting would be far too dangerous for the intended scope of this mod (try to go on EVA with an engine running...)

Thats where the fun of kerbal is though

Thanks for replying to my questions so quickly.

[Cleric2145]

It might be, I haven't looked into that. An engine locked thrusting would be far too dangerous for the intended scope of this mod (try to go on EVA with an engine running...)

On the contrary, I think it would be a great opportunity for alternate methods of fixing failures. Instead of linking all repairs to EVAs, allow locked thrusters/engines to be forcibly shutdown by closing all of the fuel valves and/or draining all of the fuel from the connected or nearest tank. This might even qualify more as a tank failure (pumps in the tank lock open and fail.) Potentially add more 'temporary' failures, such as a throttle sticking open, fixed by restarting the engines or cutting the throttle to zero and then back up. Engine ignition failures that simply require a remote restart. Just as in real life, not all failures should be critical and permanent. Variety is the spice of life and KSP has a tendency to link all actions to one system (e.g all experiments work instantly through dialogues, all repairs are made through EVA).

Apologies for posting speculation outside of the Dev thread but it's pertinent to this thread's course. c:

[montyben101]

Could you make this KAC compatible, i mean allow spare parts to be stored in containers or something?

Edit: lots of mod engines dont seem to have engine or gimbal fails could you add it for the CSS shuttle?

Edited June 16, 2014 by montyben101

[Ippo]

Could you make this KAC compatible, i mean allow spare parts to be stored in containers or something?

Edit: lots of mod engines dont seem to have engine or gimbal fails could you add it for the CSS shuttle?

Lots of modded engines probably are using ModuleEnginesFX instead of ModuleEngines; long story short, they are not considered engines as far as my mod is concerned. Support will be included in the next update, it will be released whenever*.

* whenever = I just came home drunk from my last exam and I haven't watched Game of Thrones yet, I don't even know the current year at the moment let alone the release date of an update I haven't prepared yet

[J_Davis]

I just got

"A tank of solid fuel is leaking!"

There might be something wrong with the "don't leak this" code.

[Cleric2145]

I just got

"A tank of solid fuel is leaking!"

There might be something wrong with the "don't leak this" code.

I feel like if an SRB leaks, it as well as any parts it's attached to should explode.

[J_Davis]

Like the challenger? :/

He didn't want this mod to include catastrophic failures.

[Cleric2145]

And a strapon liquid booster failing, sending the whole rocket sideways at Mach 1 isn't? c: But I understand why not--it's totally unrecoverable and is essentially a quick-load/revert situation.

[Raptor9]

I don't say this about many mods, but I hope this one makes it into the stock game. Kudos.

[Dielos]

Congratulations for appearing on Modding Mondays!

[regex]

I just came home drunk from my last exam and I haven't watched Game of Thrones yet, I don't even know the current year at the moment let alone the release date of an update I haven't prepared yet

Sounds like you have a bright future of modding ahead of you! Congrats on the Modding Monday, BTW!

[Daishi]

Congrats for being featured