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

[VenomousRequiem]

I'm not sure if this has been addressed, but is there any way I can change it to make an engine failure or something... more... likely? It's for... science...

[autumnalequinox]

@Coffeeman: Any plans for expansions of Dang it and entropy? It's been quiet around here and I love both mods. Tried to play a "lean" career for testing purposes and couldn't without them, had to cram them in again.

Minor suggestions for future expansion of the mods: Sliders for failure rates and the ability to disable part failure modules. Based on comments and the sometimes rarity of failures it seems like this would be enjoyed for in-game tweaking purposes. I've been using Dang it since the beginning and muck around in the configs myself but others may not understand the numbers.

Part quality and etc should be left to other failure mods I think.

However, a simple way to represent "quality" and different from the other failure mods out there: A possible check against total Science gained, techs unlocked, or game time played and then an adjustment to failure rates. Simple and effective without ganking from other mods.

I'd love to help but I'm still in the process of learning the mod process for a few projects of my own. But in time, however..

[Atreiu]

I would like so much to see failures in IVA with RPM. Any chances of having it?

[Paul Kingtiger]

Hi Coffeeman,

I came up with a feature request the other day that I've been thinking about.

Some parts need a high MTBF because they are going to be on mission for a long time, like probes and long range missions. Other things need a high MTBF because they are mission critical, like life support equipment.

However parts making up a booster can have a shorter MTBF because they complete their job in a short amount of time, so you wouldn't need to spend money making them reliable over time.

So the idea is to have a tweakable slider in the VAB/SPH for parts, which allow you to lower or raise the MTBF for the part, with a appropriate adjustment of the port cost. Of course you may not want to tweak the setting for hundreds of parts, so the default value should be in the middle and represent the standard cost and reliability. Sub assemblies would make this feature more useful as you could design say a booster stage, tweak the part reliability and then save it for future craft.

This would give players an opportunity to effect the reliability of their craft in a meaningful, non-random way.

I've no idea how hard this would be to implement, or if it's something you'd be interested in for the mod, I'm just leaving it hear as an idea.

[autumnalequinox]

@Paul: Totally agree. As per my post above. As it is, I had to remove the engine failure module (left coolant failure alone) because my probes could never fire their engines after the long drift. I tried tweaking the MTBFs but then it made my lifting engines too reliable. Being able to flag parts or expand to user inputed part classifications would be sweet. Would cut down on mod integration and allow us to set our own numbers. A simpler approach could perhaps be a tweakable that allows each module to have a low, medium, and high reliability module (so a low engine, medium engine, high engine). With all defaulted to medium. This way the players could set them based on how they want the modules to work. Not sure exactly but that would likely cut down on processing instead of having a custom module tied to each and every relevant part type (and keep our save files from getting bloated).

Of course one could simply set everything to the highest, but what's the fun in that?

=

[cyberKerb]

Hi Coffeeman,

So the idea is to have a tweakable slider in the VAB/SPH for parts, which allow you to lower or raise the MTBF for the part, with a appropriate adjustment of the port cost. Of course you may not want to tweak the setting for hundreds of parts, so the default value should be in the middle and represent the standard cost and reliability.

Great idea Paul, but could I add a suggestion (if possible) to your suggestion? Make the Default value for value for parts tied to the level of the VAB. Having the tweakable slider also tied to the cost of the part would also be an interesting mechanic. The down side to this is you'd see more problems early on - at the time when you wont have a level 3 Engineer around to fix those high end issues. But that could be worked around by either paying more cost for the better reliability part which would drive you to complete more contracts.

edit: just saw Ippo's post about "pay your way out of a problem" - so forget I mentioned it

- - - Updated - - -

Could of questions on a seperate note:

What mod are people using to monitor their parts temperature levels? I've tried the two on ckan and they were so-so. Just thought I'd ask in case there was something else.

Also, other than the config files, does this mod list the parts/level required when issues happen? I installed this on a whim and I'm having a blast, but finally got my first issue with a tank leak and couldn't work out the required level from the in game information. There is also no easy reference for this information on the mod wiki or this thread for what level was required. The Failure modes page list 'what' will fail, but doesn't list the repair level requirement.

Is it possible to add / update the list to the front page so people know what parts will fail with this mod and what is required to fix it?

Engineer Level - - - Part Failure

0 - - - - - - - - - - - Battery

0 - - - - - - - - - - - Lights

1 - - - - - - - - - - - Alternator

1 - - - - - - - - - - - ControlSurface

1 - - - - - - - - - - - Tanks

1 - - - - - - - - - - - WheelMotor

1 - - - - - - - - - - - WheelTire

2 - - - - - - - - - - - Coolant

2 - - - - - - - - - - - ReactionWheel

2 - - - - - - - - - - - Gimbal

2 - - - - - - - - - - - Intakes

3 - - - - - - - - - - - Engines

3 - - - - - - - - - - - Engines_ion

3 - - - - - - - - - - - Engines_jet

3 - - - - - - - - - - - RCS

(Apologies if I've got any of the above wrong. All were copy pasted from the config files as of 18-Aug-15.

Edited August 18, 2015 by wile1411

[Rokanov]

Couldn't find a config for Semi-Saturatable Reaction Wheels so made this one

Just add to DangIt/ModuleManager and it should work

p.s. Pretty new to making configs, so wouldn't mind someone checking it.

@PART
[*]:HAS[@MODULE[RWSaturatable],!MODULE[NoFailureModules]]:NEEDS[DangIt]:AFTER[DangIt]:FOR[RWSaturatable] 

And would it be better to have it this way round (set up in Semi-Saturatable folder) or does it not really make a difference?

[Z3R0_0NL1N3]

It would be great if this mod or Entropy, even, added failure rates to decouplers. There've been failures on separation before. Such as Soyuz 18a. The failure for this could be two-sided, though. On the one hand, it could cause a decoupler to stick and not separate; on the other, it could just snap and separate. Maybe you could add a G-Force model for that?

[ThatOneBritishGuy...]

It would be great if this mod or Entropy, even, added failure rates to decouplers. There've been failures on separation before. Such as Soyuz 18a. The failure for this could be two-sided, though. On the one hand, it could cause a decoupler to stick and not separate; on the other, it could just snap and separate. Maybe you could add a G-Force model for that?

That's actually not a bad idea. Consider it seconded.

[SmarterThanMe]

Great idea Paul, but could I add a suggestion (if possible) to your suggestion? Make the Default value for value for parts tied to the level of the VAB. Having the tweakable slider also tied to the cost of the part would also be an interesting mechanic. The down side to this is you'd see more problems early on - at the time when you wont have a level 3 Engineer around to fix those high end issues. But that could be worked around by either paying more cost for the better reliability part which would drive you to complete more contracts.

I like this way of building more reliability into a part to begin with, but can I suggest a way of dealing with part failures in flight, particularly part failures on probes or major failures that overwhelm the Engineering skill of any crew?

You should be able to sink some money/time/Engineering (if there's an Engineer/s on board) into a project to fix up a major failure. The more money/time you put in, and the more skill levels of on-board engineers you have, the higher the chance of fixing it. If we went this way, then it could allow us to have much more catastrophically bad breakages that onboard engineers can't just pop out into IVA and fix. It would also be fun to have a critical failure making something completely irreparable and/or subject to rapid unplanned disassembly and/or break connected parts.

I see this working as follows: The failure pops up a dialog asking if you want Mission Control to try and prepare and deliver a workaround, and asking how much money you want to sink in, and how much time you want to spend to fix it. At that point, a calculation is made and the dice rolled to determine if the repair will be successful after the allotted time. If the roll is "1", then someone in the workgroup decides the solution is MOAR BOOSTERS and something goes catastrophically wrong.

edit: just saw Ippo's post about "pay your way out of a problem" - so forget I mentioned it

I suppose I should look for this, but I can't see it..?

[eightiesboi]

Hi Ippo and Coffeeman (and others),

I love the mod, and it makes for some stressful and interesting situations. I have two suggestions:

1. It would be nice that if a part were disabled in the GUI that it would have a positive effect on the reliability of the part. For example, if I have a backup oxygen supply (thanks TAC-LS!) and I have it disabled, it would not have as much time on its operating clock as my main O2 supply and therefore serve as an effective backup. Enabling the supply would begin accruing time.

2. It would also be nice if I could get an engineer's report on what items are in need of inspection due to a probable imminent failure. This could be graphic, IVA, textual, or a computer voice telling me that it just picked up a fault in the AE-35 unit and that it's going to go 100 percent failure within 72 hours. This way, Frank Kerman can head on out in an EVA pod ahead of time to fix (inspect) it.

Thank you for all your hard work. This mod adds so much to the game that I can't understand why Squad didn't include something like it.

[baldamundo]

Am I understanding the present skill system correctly such that there's absolutely no way of fixing e.g. an engine failure until you have some engineers who have been to the moon and back?

[goldenpeach]

We can break the mod experience in several parts:

part one: you just installed it and wait frantically for a failure

part two: you had some failures and you are happy because it add some challenge about decision making

part three: AAAAAAAAAAAARG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Why does that fuel leak had to happen now?!

part four: you are trying to strangle the computer after it decided to make you crash just before landing.

And let's not forget the brief phase of happiness when a critical failure happen(like, control surface is stuck) when you are safely on the ground, permitting you to fix it without worry.

(But it's still a good mod to add some challenge and novelty if you are bored to do the same missions: wait until you have a tank place on the size of your plane leak and you'll see how hard it can be to land it!)

Edited September 26, 2015 by goldenpeach

[Ippo]

I suppose I should look for this, but I can't see it..?

It was a while back when people asked for a sort of "tier" system for the same part. Basically, if you spend more money on a part it gets more reliable (and I mean the same part: take for example a poodle and you can spend some money to make it more reliable than a standard poodle). I don't think that's a good thing though: this mod is about limitations, what's the point in paying to relax them? Most kerbal designs are inherently unreliable (how many of your rockets are multi-engine, and how many of them can lose an engine and still complete the mission?), so you'd just end up paying more for ~every part.

1. It would be nice that if a part were disabled in the GUI that it would have a positive effect on the reliability of the part. For example, if I have a backup oxygen supply (thanks TAC-LS!) and I have it disabled, it would not have as much time on its operating clock as my main O2 supply and therefore serve as an effective backup. Enabling the supply would begin accruing time.

Tanks risk explosions because of micro-meteorites, temperature stress and the fact that they are pressurized in a vacuum: all these dangers are still present if you shut the valve

2. It would also be nice if I could get an engineer's report on what items are in need of inspection due to a probable imminent failure. This could be graphic, IVA, textual, or a computer voice telling me that it just picked up a fault in the AE-35 unit and that it's going to go 100 percent failure within 72 hours. This way, Frank Kerman can head on out in an EVA pod ahead of time to fix (inspect) it.

That would actually be pretty disappointing given that we have timewarp.

I could calculate the probability of a failure in the next X hours / days / whatever, however given that we have timewarp you'll be basically skipping time from one failure to another and you'll likely never see this report.

Thank you for all your hard work. This mod adds so much to the game that I can't understand why Squad didn't include something like it.

Because it's pretty annoying, actually

Am I understanding the present skill system correctly such that there's absolutely no way of fixing e.g. an engine failure until you have some engineers who have been to the moon and back?

Not sure about going to the moon and back (I haven't played this game in months), but that sounds about right. You'll need an experienced engineer to fix an engine, not sure what you have to do to gain enough XP.

...

Eheh

[baldamundo]

Hmmm...If I uncheck the "check experience" box in the options, will that make it so any problem can be fixed by any engineer? I figure an engineering degree and training's liable to teach them more than the somewhat arbitrary KSP experience system (this is why mod authors like you who include customisable options are super cool <3)

[Trekky0623]

So what's up with the Hello Kitty reading the Communist Manifesto picture?

[Ippo]

So what's up with the Hello Kitty reading the Communist Manifesto picture?

What!?

BEST.

EASTER EGG.

EVAH.

10/10 would communism again.

[goldenpeach]

We can break the mod experience in several parts:

(...)

part four: you are trying to strangle the computer after it decided to make you crash just before landing.

And let's not forget the brief phase of happiness when a critical failure happen(like, control surface is stuck) when you are safely on the ground, permitting you to fix it without worry.

(...)

ok, I discovered that this part appear when you are testing a plane and that [redacted] fuel tank decide to leak D: Or the engine fail, and, of course, you needed that engine because it was the only one you had D: D:

no, I do NOT talk for experience, that sort of thing didn't happening for me , and I did not have to revert the flight a few seconds after take-off because fuel tanks and engines are mean.>

Oh, and you can't imagine how happy you feel when you managed to complete the mission perfectly despite that one important control surface suddenly stuck. Pure happiness and a feeling of "BAM! You thought you could kill me Dang-it? well, I managed to land despite you trying to kill me!"

also: when the control surface was stuck, you can't imagine how happy I was to fly a VTOL at that time: no need to land using any control surface!

[Trekky0623]

I made this alternative alarm sound if anyone wants it. It's supposed to sound like the master alarm from the movie Apollo 13, but it's not an exact match.

[Prezombie]

Can RCS parts with multiple jets have only one jet fail? Are there any failures for EVA'ed kerbals?

I've got a mental image of a poor eva kerbal losing one of his jets, and getting stuck in a hilariously unstable spin.

[million_lights]

Hey Folks,

Like a good and responsible Forum member would do, I searched this thread first, but I couldn't find an answer to the question I have.

Here we go:

Is it possible to force an instant failure to happen as you fly a craft (maybe by editing specific files)?

If there is ANY WAY. Please tell me

*crosses all his fingers and prays like a mad man, while waiting for an answer*

- Million Lights

[Ippo]

Hey Folks,

Like a good and responsible Forum member would do, I searched this thread first, but I couldn't find an answer to the question I have.

Here we go:

Is it possible to force an instant failure to happen as you fly a craft (maybe by editing specific files)?

If there is ANY WAY. Please tell me

*crosses all his fingers and prays like a mad man, while waiting for an answer*

- Million Lights

You can enable manual failures in the settings.

This will let you trigger failures using the right click menu of a part. Unfortunately I never got around to make them bindable to action groups... :/

[Kertherina]

A second question relates to my hitherto experience with the mod:

• 1st launch: one of the 15 fuel tanks (MTBF=350400h, LifeTime=131400h) breakes within the first 5 minutes of flight
  
• 2nd launch: one of the four wheel tires (MTBF=350400h, LifeTime=131400h) breakes within first 10 hours of flight
  
• just a minute ago: one of the two batteries (MTBF=175200h, LifeTime=87600h) has gone short-circuited after 12h of mission
  

According to your intuition and your intentions while programming this mod: would you say this a normal behaviour of the process at these parameters? I have a feeling that these failures happen way too early and too often.

I have looked into my savegame file and I see that all the parts have the "Age" parameter values set to quite high values. For example, a fuel tank has Age of 60467.11, and the wheel tires Age is 1345.39. Maybe here is something not right.

Regards,

Majo339

I also have a problem with engines specifically breaking way more often than they should. I basically haven't had a craft where nothing fails for a while now. What really got me suspicious now was a Duna lander with twelve 24-77s, where eight ( ! ) broke after just a short deorbit burn, landing assist burn to help the chutes, and attempt to hop a few hundred meters so in the span of being active for maybe a minute and a couple restarts (not sure if relevant). Age also shows ridiculous values like 40000 which is about the total mission time if this is in hours, and MTBF of 0.16 despite the fact that engines are supposed to only age while being active. Not sure if there's a problem with mod interactions, i do have a lot of other mods installed too, but don't really have the energy to figure this out at the moment so i'm just gonna uninstall it for now, but i wanted to let you know.

Cheers for an otherwise great mod that enhances the atmosphere a lot.

[Coffeeman]

..

Can you post a mod list? Preferably CKAN, or a screenshot of your GameData folder.

[Kertherina]

Can you post a mod list? Preferably CKAN, or a screenshot of your GameData folder.

I don't use CKAN so here's a screenshot of the GameData folder: http://i.imgur.com/oC3koi2.jpg

(The Mainz_EngineAttachRules.cfg allows for surface attachment of all engines, not sure if relevant but just so you know what that does. Also, i think i added KJR afterwards)