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

[Ippo]

...

Exactly: the save will still work as usual, but you will find that your crews might not have the training you need, and then you are stuck. For example, you might find that by chance every member of your crew is an electrician, but an engine just broke.

I am not yet very sure of the details of the perk system: in fact, I am very open to hear everyone's feedback about the preliminary idea I presented in the dev thread.

Each kerbal will be given a random set of perks when my mod first sees him in game; subsequent training will require (A LOT) of funds. These perks will be stored in your persistent file so you can go and edit them if you see fit.

If anyone cares to give me some advice about the perk system, you are all very welcome in the dev thread! (Seriously though, I could use some advice)

Edited August 21, 2014 by Ippo
typo

[Paul Kingtiger]

Next version sounds incredible! Really looking forward to giving it a go!

[klgraham1013]

Just installed 3.2.1 and had my first failure. A leak in a fuel tank. I've gone on EVA and right clicked on the SP+ cockpit and get several options (replace battery, lubricate reaction wheel), but I can't take any spare parts. I'm assuming the other dialog confirm I'm in range. Any thoughts?

[Miro Beero]

How does this mod work with the RemoteTech2 mod?

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/83305-Development-Resumed-RemoteTech-2

If I have to create a network of satellites, can anyone break at any time once everything has been setup? Or does it only break ships you are "currently flying" ?

[Ippo]

Just installed 3.2.1 and had my first failure. A leak in a fuel tank. I've gone on EVA and right clicked on the SP+ cockpit and get several options (replace battery, lubricate reaction wheel), but I can't take any spare parts. I'm assuming the other dialog confirm I'm in range. Any thoughts?

Please see some posts above, it's a bug in the current version. The only solution is to edit your save file to increase the range of the spares container module.

How does this mod work with the RemoteTech2 mod?

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/83305-Development-Resumed-RemoteTech-2

If I have to create a network of satellites, can anyone break at any time once everything has been setup? Or does it only break ships you are "currently flying" ?

Only the vessels in range can fail, once they are on rails they are safe. Maybe one day I will figure out a way to update unloaded vessels, but that's a plan for an eventual Dang It 2.

[Ippo]

Alpha 3.3 is now available!

I decided to push an intermediate update because of that kinda serious bug with the spares that could not be taken from the command pods. Alongside with that fix, this is the complete changelog:

Fixes:

* the spares container now responds correctly to the distance settings;

* changed the default max distance to 2m to allow interaction with parts up to 3.75m;

* tank leaks now ignore empty resources.

Improvements:

* the temperature now makes parts age even when they are not in use;

* the TemperatureMultiplier is now included in the computation of Lambda for all parts;

* unmanned command pods don't get spare parts. Supports up to 7 crew members.

* the atmospheric density is now used as LambdaMultiplier for control surfaces: this means they are less likely to fail at high altitudes.

Before you ask, no, this is NOT the savebreaking update. That will be alpha 4, this is still alpha 3. Happy failing!

P.S: as with the previous update: if anyone is using KSP-AVC, could you please confirm that you were notified of the update? Thanks!

[togfox]

Thanks for the update!! This is my fav mod (after MJ).

What's this bit mean?

Supports up to 7 crew members.

Like, you have 'unmanned' and '7 crew' on the same line. Just not sure what you're referring to.

Love ya work!!!

[Ippo]

Yeah, not the best explanation maybe.

I tried to write a MM patch to exclude unmanned pods, but no luck. So I had to write specific configs for each crew capacity, and I stopped at seven because that's the biggest pod I know of.

This also means that pods will now have 50 spares per kerbal, which makes more sense. Unmanned pods don't have any... Mech Jeb included

[JeffreyCor]

I just started trying this after using Kerbal Mechanic. I really like how the maintenance functions work on this and wide support for mods! I do like how the quality is selectable and affects costs in KM though. I did see you have it on your future plans, is that something that is expected in the next release?

[Ippo]

I just started trying this after using Kerbal Mechanic. I really like how the maintenance functions work on this and wide support for mods! I do like how the quality is selectable and affects costs in KM though. I did see you have it on your future plans, is that something that is expected in the next release?

Actually, the more I think about it, the less I like that idea. The problem is that you are buying parts from third parties (rockomax, kerbodyne, and such) "off the shelf", so it doesn't really make sense that you can get the same engine with a better quality. After all, the reliability is a consequence of the design and construction quality: if you go to buy a car, you can't custom-order a "better" instance of the same exact model.

So it definitely won't be in the next release... and I'm not sure it's coming ever. That's the advantage of not merging our mods, we can do things differently and you guys can choose the one that fits your style better

[Ippo]

Alpha 3.3.1 Hotfix

So last night I was just about to go to sleep, and I had a sudden realization that there was a big mistake in a formula.

This error was introduced with yesterday's update (yay agile development!), and it basically means that parts can't fail, EVER.

I apologize for the mistake, it's a very stupid one, too. Specifically, this:

return LambdaFromMTBF(this.CurrentMTBF) * TemperatureMultiplier() * LambdaMultiplier() * InspectionMultiplier();

was actually supposed to be this:

return LambdaFromMTBF(this.CurrentMTBF) * (1 + TemperatureMultiplier()) * LambdaMultiplier() * InspectionMultiplier();

You see that (1 + TemperatureMultiplier()) ? Well, the temperature multiplier is 0 most of the time, and when it's not zero, it's usually lower than 10^-5.

Yay quality!

[JeffreyCor]

Actually, the more I think about it, the less I like that idea. The problem is that you are buying parts from third parties (rockomax, kerbodyne, and such) "off the shelf", so it doesn't really make sense that you can get the same engine with a better quality. After all, the reliability is a consequence of the design and construction quality: if you go to buy a car, you can't custom-order a "better" instance of the same exact model.

So it definitely won't be in the next release... and I'm not sure it's coming ever. That's the advantage of not merging our mods, we can do things differently and you guys can choose the one that fits your style better

Well that's disappointing, that makes neither one fit without having to do major changes to the MK config. Looks like it's the only option though. Can't agree with your logic, as rocket parts are not "off the shelf" and ordered parts even of the same model can have different sub assemblies etc which result in lower cost or tighter tolerances effecting both final price and quality inversely. It is also more a convenience of gameplay to not have 5 companies offering the same part and competing for a contract, that would be one VERY long parts list

Thank you for the quick reply!

[Ippo]

Well that's disappointing, that makes neither one fit without having to do major changes to the MK config. Looks like it's the only option though. Can't agree with your logic, as rocket parts are not "off the shelf" and ordered parts even of the same model can have different sub assemblies etc which result in lower cost or tighter tolerances effecting both final price and quality inversely. It is also more a convenience of gameplay to not have 5 companies offering the same part and competing for a contract, that would be one VERY long parts list

Thank you for the quick reply!

Well, yes, rocket components are not "really" off the shelf... kinda. They are made to order, true, but they are designed according to some specifications that are specific to the model, and can't vary so much between configurations.

So if you think about it, what does it really mean that you want to pay for a more reliable engine... but it has the same exact shape, weight, thrust, Isp, and is apparently built of the same components as the normal one?

IMHO, it's better (both for realism and for gameplay) to have each engine with its own specific reliability and use it to differentiate. For example, the LV-45 is an obvious choice over the LV-30 because it has thrust vectoring with basically the same stats... but what if the LV-30 was significantly more reliable? With this, you have to choose between control authority and reliability; if you can pay to increase the stats, well, then you just have to throw money at the problem until it goes away, and judging from the general feedback on the contracts, money is something that you are rarely short on.

[CatastrophicFailure]

Well, yes, rocket components are not "really" off the shelf... kinda. They are made to order, true, but they are designed according to some specifications that are specific to the model, and can't vary so much between configurations.

So if you think about it, what does it really mean that you want to pay for a more reliable engine... but it has the same exact shape, weight, thrust, Isp, and is apparently built of the same components as the normal one?

IMHO, it's better (both for realism and for gameplay) to have each engine with its own specific reliability and use it to differentiate. For example, the LV-45 is an obvious choice over the LV-30 because it has thrust vectoring with basically the same stats... but what if the LV-30 was significantly more reliable? With this, you have to choose between control authority and reliability; if you can pay to increase the stats, well, then you just have to throw money at the problem until it goes away, and judging from the general feedback on the contracts, money is something that you are rarely short on.

This.

Now that would make for some interesting gameplay choices. One big expensive reliable engine or a cluster of smaller but more prone to failure ones? Even better would be some sort of gained reliability, ie, once you've used an engine half a dozen times it become significantly more reliable than that first iffy prototype.

[autumnalequinox]

Alpha 3.3.1 Hotfix

So last night I was just about to go to sleep, and I had a sudden realization that there was a big mistake in a formula.

This error was introduced with yesterday's update (yay agile development!), and it basically means that parts can't fail, EVER.

I apologize for the mistake, it's a very stupid one, too. Specifically, this:

return LambdaFromMTBF(this.CurrentMTBF) * TemperatureMultiplier() * LambdaMultiplier() * InspectionMultiplier();

was actually supposed to be this:

return LambdaFromMTBF(this.CurrentMTBF) * (1 + TemperatureMultiplier()) * LambdaMultiplier() * InspectionMultiplier();

You see that (1 + TemperatureMultiplier()) ? Well, the temperature multiplier is 0 most of the time, and when it's not zero, it's usually lower than 10^-5.

Yay quality!

Ohhh I'm so glad I came to check things out here. So I've been humming along, only one failure to speak of in a looong time. Thought I was just lucky. Used to leaky tanks and combined with KCT I've been struggling to manage time (multi-part rockets for transfer window.. 30 day launchpad refurbish.. so timing is EVERYTHING so I don't have modules degrading in orbit). Buuut this explains everything now.

I have a major Duna mission coming up.. 5 module interplanetary super ship. I'm almost... afraid to put on the hotfix. ::tremble:: Oh gods of RND number generators please leave my hydrogen fuel tanks alone if I lose this transfer window I blame YOU Ippo mwhaha

[Ippo]

By the way, this mod supports Addon Version Checker: I strongly recommend that you install it, you will be notified when an update is available

[autumnalequinox]

By the way, this mod supports Addon Version Checker: I strongly recommend that you install it, you will be notified when an update is available

awww but then how can I haunt all of these mod threads?? it would take away the human interaction.

[Riverey]

Oh. It`s very sad to see what it doesn`t work with Bahamuto dinamics=(

[Ippo]

Oh. It`s very sad to see what it doesn`t work with Bahamuto dinamics=(

And no idea why, too! I'm on a forced hiatus (exams inbound <.< ), maybe I'll figure it out when I can get some time to work on it. It's very strange by the way, I really have no idea what that might be.

[PeteTimesSix]

Yes, as a matter of fact VesselView is already on my list of cool things I'd like to do

Funny you should mention that...

[Ippo]

Funny you should mention that...

Well, this is lovely news Thank you, you basically did all the work for me already

[autumnalequinox]

I dunno if you messed with the failure rates but they seem just right now .

I am averaging a few part failures per mission. Instead of "NOT AGAIN!" it's more like "HOLY CRAP!".. there is drama there. Very Apollo 13. Especially when they happen in the middle of an auto-dock or maneuver (lost half my fuel cell O2 during the last minute of very, very critical docking).

I like it this way!! Keeps you on your toes without the frustration. Can't wait to see what new stuff you'll break next.

[Ippo]

Just wait until I add the force caused by the leaking resources...

[Mister Spock]

Ahh, now I know why I've had no failures of late. Dang it! I guess I'd better install the hotfix.

One thing I love about this mod is that it makes it harder to get away with using unmanned probes for everything. I use TAC-LS, MKS/OKS, RemoteTech2, KAS, and I'm thinking about adding Snacks! My life-support requirements make me reluctant to use Kerbals, but Dang It and KAS require me to use Kerbals. So there's some nice tension there. For those of you using life-support mods along with Dang It, what's your thinking about the ratio of manned to unmanned flights?

[Spacepetscompany]

For those of you using life-support mods along with Dang It, what's your thinking about the ratio of manned to unmanned flights?

I don't know about everyone else, but I typically do things in a 3:1 ratio. Unmanned:Manned.