[1.0.4] BoxSat vA.02f - Updated 09/16/2015

[Vorg]

One of the things that always bugged me about this mod is the science parts. They are both larger and more costly then the stock parts. Each one takes a slot when you could fit all the stock parts in 1 slot and for way less cost. There is no point in using the boxsat parts other then for looks. I would like to see modules that combine the parts into one slot for only a slight increase in cost as it should be.

[Deimos Rast]

4 minutes ago, Vorg said:

One of the things that always bugged me about this mod is the science parts. They are both larger and more costly then the stock parts. Each one takes a slot when you could fit all the stock parts in 1 slot and for way less cost. There is no point in using the boxsat parts other then for looks. I would like to see modules that combine the parts into one slot for only a slight increase in cost as it should be.

From the changelog...I did exactly that. Slight increase in cost, nothing major. Technodes however are still a bit up in the air (I don't like where barometer sits at advExploration for example), but I think that might require actually playing with the mod to come up with a better idea.

 

EDIT: Or do you mean an "All-In-One" part? In the past I combined modules (barometor/temp & accel/grav) to cut down on the module requirements. The only issue with that is picking which part fits visually with the combined theme, as each module has a label on it. I could make up some configs to do that again if people want.

//-------------------------Science------------------------------------//
Accelerometer Module
- Reduced entryCost from 20410 to 8500 (stock is 8200)
- Added drag
- Increased crashTolerance from 3 to 8
- Added tags
- Increased experiment interactionRange from 1.2 to 1.5
- Added usageReqMask's

Barometer Module
- Reduced entryCost from 11932 to 2500 (stock is 2200)
- Reduced cost from 3800 to 1000 (stock is 880)
- Added drag
- Increased crashTolerance from 3 to 8
- Added tags
- Increased experiment interactionRange from 1.2 to 1.5
- Added usageReqMask's

Gravimeter Module
- Reduced entryCost from 29202 to 15000 (stock is 12200)
- Added drag
- Increased crashTolerance from 3 to 8
- Added tags
- Increased experiment interactionRange from 1.2 to 1.5
- Added usageReqMask's

Thermometer Module
- Fixed typo in "Thermomometer"
- Added drag
- Increased crashTolerance from 3 to 8
- Added tags
- Increased experiment interactionRange from 1.2 to 1.5
- Added usageReqMask's

 

[Deimos Rast]

Alright, I'm done tooling around. Been trying to add a ModuleCargoBay to the frames but it doesn't like not having ModuleAnimateGeneric (an open/close mechanic).

Anyway, here's the 1.2 update. Oh wait. It's 1.2.1 as of 1 hour ago. This changes changes everything! Better start over.

Big thank you to @LeLeon for your input. I took a number of your suggestions.

Too tired to write out anything lengthy. Read the changelog.

I ended up balancing a fair bit, but nothing too severe - no change in functionality, mainly cost. A lot of the modules were way over priced, so now things are "generally" cheaper, but still in line with stock levels. Things now also have drag (not sure they ever didn't but they were missing values, which they now have). I also generally increased thermal thresholds (maxTemp and such) and crashTolerance (which were set to a lowly 3). You should now have a more well rounded, well adjusted, mild mannered prober overall.

Everything tested and working. If you have issues, or more importantly, feedback on my balancing, please give out a loud yelping noise and leave a comment.

Enjoy.

 

Installation Extract into GameData directory. The folder is titled "BoxSatPatches". ModCompatability patches can be deleted if desired, as they are essentially identical to patches already within the mod (but rewritten to not conflict if run along side, with a couple of fixes/changes thrown in). See changelog for more info. Module Manager required for this update to work.

Credit Credit for BoxSat belongs to @DasPenguin85 and @orcmaul. Credit for these patches and update belongs to @Deimos Rast (although the ModCompatability patches are essentially just cleaner rewrites of the originals), with input from @LeLeon. Much appreciated.

Changelog here

Download here

[Vorg]

Yes, an all in one. The Box parts cost more then the stock parts and use a full slot for each when the stock parts should just about fit in 1 slot. It was better and CHEAPER to just stick the stock parts on the outside.

A module should have sections in it, one for each part. Could maybe even make them a sub part for the science/sensor module.

Edited November 2, 2016 by Vorg

[Deimos Rast]

5 minutes ago, Vorg said:

Yes, an all in one. The Box parts cost more then the stock parts and use a full slot for each when the stock parts should just about fit in 1 slot. It was better and CHEAPER to just stick the stock parts on the outside.

A module should have sections in it, one for each part. Could maybe even make them a sub part for the science/sensor module.

In the mean time, there is an Empty Module, which is just a tray. Should be able to cram a bunch of stuff in there. IIRC, I increased the price to $50 though. Pretty steep I know, but I was just reading about how inflation is on the rise.

Also, there are two all in one parts in the 3Sat mod by CTN if you really want a  premade solution. All 4 sensor modules for $25,500 in a size0 and a size1 packaged disc. Pretty slick. I'm unsure what the math works out to if you bought the components piecemeal though, but meh.

[LeLeon]

40 minutes ago, Vorg said:

Yes, an all in one. The Box parts cost more then the stock parts and use a full slot for each when the stock parts should just about fit in 1 slot. It was better and CHEAPER to just stick the stock parts on the outside.

A module should have sections in it, one for each part. Could maybe even make them a sub part for the science/sensor module.

Understand logic. i use stock science parts too and fill frame with core + reaction wheels + 2 x battery almost everytime. 2 foldable solar panels, 2 sides for science and top for scanner and antenna.

Followed by payload frame with LFO engine.

To compensate the disadvantage of 3 science slots in a case, there have to be an advantage in price/ overall weight. weight is not useful, so it have to be a price drop. but thermo and baro are already cheap.. So a combined science part would be useful. I'm not a 3D artist nor a coder. so i'm out here.

[Virtualgenius]

This is a popular mod has anyone contacted the author and see if they want pass it on to someone else to expand and maintain

[Deimos Rast]

7 hours ago, LeLeon said:

Understand logic. i use stock science parts too and fill frame with core + reaction wheels + 2 x battery almost everytime. 2 foldable solar panels, 2 sides for science and top for scanner and antenna.

Followed by payload frame with LFO engine.

To compensate the disadvantage of 3 science slots in a case, there have to be an advantage in price/ overall weight. weight is not useful, so it have to be a price drop. but thermo and baro are already cheap.. So a combined science part would be useful. I'm not a 3D artist nor a coder. so i'm out here.

pffft, get out of here with that logic! My thinking is along similar lines, although Vorg already correctly pointed out that the science trays are significantly larger than their stock counterparts. I think a fair compromise is if we/I offer an optional patch that combines Pressure/Temp and Accel/Grav (goo/mat bay might be a bit of a stretch). I should point out DMagic does the same in his Universal Storage portion of his Orbital Science mod. The only downside to this is I'm not a 3D artist, so you won't be getting new models, just new configs - but considering they're likely to be in an enclosed box out of sight anyway, I don't think anyone will care too much.

I'll sit on the matter for a day or two, so more people can chime in; mainly to recuperate and because I have Halloween candy to eat.

 

6 hours ago, Virtualgenius said:

This is a popular mod has anyone contacted the author and see if they want pass it on to someone else to expand and maintain

I have not. Considering it hasn't been updated since 1.0.4 and has an "All Rights Reserved" license...I wouldn't get hopes up on this one making a graceful transition. As for me, for any curious, I'd only likely ever be a maintainer, lacking 3D skills. I don't mind doing patches, but I'm a little hesitant to say with certainty that I'll always and forever be able to keep them current, as that's a daunting prospect, and "tomorrow's not promised today" and all that.

[Drew Kerman]

@Deimos Rast thanks for this. I'm getting a login request from Dropbox to view the change log though.

Also did you incorporate any changes from @DigitalProeliator here? Haven't looked to see if there would be any problems having both installed yet

[LeLeon]

57 minutes ago, Drew Kerman said:

Also did you incorporate any changes from @DigitalProeliator here? Haven't looked to see if there would be any problems having both installed yet

The BoxSat_MM_Tweaks.cfg from @DigitalProeliator works with rcs nodes patch. But delete the antenna lines in BoxSat_MM_Tweaks.cfg.

@Drew Kerman here is the config for side nodes without light/ antenna cfg. lights work as they should stock with patch files from @Deimos Rast. 

https://1drv.ms/u/s!ApRhxICouh6ag-RUZ-dNRJ9hXIBOZQ

Edited November 2, 2016 by LeLeon

[Deimos Rast]

5 hours ago, Drew Kerman said:

@Deimos Rast thanks for this. I'm getting a login request from Dropbox to view the change log though.

Also did you incorporate any changes from @DigitalProeliator here? Haven't looked to see if there would be any problems having both installed yet

Completely forgot about that patch. I'll look it over again and see.

As to the dropbox error, that makes sense, but I'm not sure a way around it, so I think I'll transition to github, which I had planned to do eventually. If you're desperate for it in the meantime (I'll post it in a few) it's included in the download in the Extras folder.

[Drew Kerman]

3 hours ago, Deimos Rast said:

Completely forgot about that patch. I'll look it over again and see.

As to the dropbox error, that makes sense, but I'm not sure a way around it, so I think I'll transition to github, which I had planned to do eventually. If you're desperate for it in the meantime (I'll post it in a few) it's included in the download in the Extras folder.

whoo, Github FTW. Also if you change the 0 to a 1 at the end of Dropbox links it'll be a direct download.

Also also, see the post above yours

[Deimos Rast]

On 11/2/2016 at 8:36 PM, Drew Kerman said:

whoo, Github FTW. Also if you change the 0 to a 1 at the end of Dropbox links it'll be a direct download.

Also also, see the post above yours

So I heard you like Github......

Also the changelog should work now.

New version, no changes to the configs.

Added credits file, and added a few community patches. I tweaked them slightly, mainly because they overlapped, and for added modularity. Added appropriate attributions to patches and the new credits file.

The first & second patch are by @LeLeon (originally a single patch) which adds nodes on the sides of the box and makes the box surface attachable. The third is @DigitalProeliator 's work light patch. They are in a new folder called "CommunityAdditions" where all the patches you submit will live.

Cheers.

BoxSat_Continued repo here

Changelog here (forgot to fully update changelog in download, still reads v0.2)

Download v0.2.1 here

[dtoxic]

@Deimos Rast Take a look at the issue at git hub, thx

[Deimos Rast]

2 hours ago, dtoxic said:

@Deimos Rast Take a look at the issue at git hub, thx

To answer your question you posed on github: "Why no bottom nodes on the engines?" (paraphrasing) - it probably has to do with the fact that it has four engine nozzles. Compare it to the stock Mammoth's 4 nozzles, which also lacks a bottom node, or the Twin-Boar's 2 nozzles, which also lacks a bottom node. All the engines with nodes have a single nozzle (to the best of my knowledge). That said, none of those are really designed to be stuffed in a box.

TLDR: It probably shouldn't have a bottom node, but if you want one badly, I can make an optional patch for you.

Out of curiosity, what scenario are you in where you just have to have that node?

[dtoxic]

4 minutes ago, Deimos Rast said:

To answer your question you posed on github: "Why no bottom nodes on the engines?" (paraphrasing) - it probably has to do with the fact that it has four engine nozzles. Compare it to the stock Mammoth's 4 nozzles, which also lacks a bottom node, or the Twin-Boar's 2 nozzles, which also lacks a bottom node. All the engines with nodes have a single nozzle (to the best of my knowledge). That said, none of those are really designed to be stuffed in a box.

TLDR: It probably shouldn't have a bottom node, but if you want one badly, I can make an optional patch for you.

Out of curiosity, what scenario are you in where you just have to have that node?

Well i don't need it that badly, it's just for so it's easier to build a tiny satellite, after adding the box with all the modules in it,solar panels and Dish Antenna, the small engine at the bottom then you could use a decoupler to add another stage here is an example.

http://imgur.com/a/MafO2

[LeLeon]

thats what payload frame was made for. they perfectly fit inside this frame and the bottom can be noded as always.

[Vorg]

But the frame is more mass

[Deimos Rast]

well I found kw rocketry and spaceY with multi nozzle engines and bottom attach nodes, so it's not unheard of it seems. More importantly, I now have a working copy of nodehelper so it'll be super easy to do....tomorrow.

[Deimos Rast]

 

@dtoxic how does that look?

There is a second node slightly lower down (commented out) if you want a tad more spacing. If you want even more spacing, let me know, or just add some numbers to the end of -0.27...(leave the rest of the node alone).

I haven't tested this patch (just the node locations), so let me know if it doesn't work.

Just copy and paste this into notepad and save it as "EngineNodes.cfg" (or anything) and throw it in the AIES_Continued folder (or whatever github named it).

If you want to use the second node, put "//" in front of the other node (so it looks like the bottom one does currently) so you don't get a duplicate - although it won't hurt anything if you forget.

Cheers.

//This patch adds a bottom attach node to the LFO and MONO engines.
//The first node has the engines touching the decoupler.
//The second node (commented out) has the engines slightly raised off the decoupler.
//Use one or other.
@PART[62cm_BoxSat_LFOEngine_PayloadModule|62cm_BoxSat_MPEngine_PayloadModule]:NEEDS[BoxSatPrototypes]
{
  %node_stack_bottom = 0.0, -0.27, 0.0, 0.0, -1.0, 0.0, 0
  //%node_stack_bottom = 0.0, -0.275, 0.0, 0.0, -1.0, 0.0, 0
}

 

 

[dtoxic]

6 hours ago, Deimos Rast said:

 

@dtoxic how does that look?

There is a second node slightly lower down (commented out) if you want a tad more spacing. If you want even more spacing, let me know, or just add some numbers to the end of -0.27...(leave the rest of the node alone).

I haven't tested this patch (just the node locations), so let me know if it doesn't work.

Just copy and paste this into notepad and save it as "EngineNodes.cfg" (or anything) and throw it in the AIES_Continued folder (or whatever github named it).

If you want to use the second node, put "//" in front of the other node (so it looks like the bottom one does currently) so you don't get a duplicate - although it won't hurt anything if you forget.

Cheers.

//This patch adds a bottom attach node to the LFO and MONO engines.
//The first node has the engines touching the decoupler.
//The second node (commented out) has the engines slightly raised off the decoupler.
//Use one or other.
@PART[62cm_BoxSat_LFOEngine_PayloadModule|62cm_BoxSat_MPEngine_PayloadModule]:NEEDS[BoxSatPrototypes]
{
  %node_stack_bottom = 0.0, -0.27, 0.0, 0.0, -1.0, 0.0, 0
  //%node_stack_bottom = 0.0, -0.275, 0.0, 0.0, -1.0, 0.0, 0
}

 

 

Looks excellent, was trying to do it my self but i just could not hit the right position of the node, tell me what program do you use for this. it;s been a long time since i played with cfg files i know there was a Node Editing program,and the one i could find here wont work in 1.2.1, btw thx for the patch!

[Deimos Rast]

47 minutes ago, dtoxic said:

Looks excellent, was trying to do it my self but i just could not hit the right position of the node, tell me what program do you use for this. it;s been a long time since i played with cfg files i know there was a Node Editing program,and the one i could find here wont work in 1.2.1, btw thx for the patch!

Check one of the last pages, LGG recompiled it for 1.2.1.

[Vorg]

I went to install boxsat last night using a download that was posted here a few days ago and found it was just a collection of cfg's. So now we have the package from curse and a package from here that gives you 4 folders in the data folder. It's getting messy. Any plans to combine/clean it up so it's not a bunch of cfg's patching cfg's? or is DP un-reacheable to get permission?

[CobaltWolf]

17 minutes ago, Vorg said:

I went to install boxsat last night using a download that was posted here a few days ago and found it was just a collection of cfg's. So now we have the package from curse and a package from here that gives you 4 folders in the data folder. It's getting messy. Any plans to combine/clean it up so it's not a bunch of cfg's patching cfg's? or is DP un-reacheable to get permission?

Yeah no getting a hold of them.

[Deimos Rast]

26 minutes ago, Vorg said:

I went to install boxsat last night using a download that was posted here a few days ago and found it was just a collection of cfg's. So now we have the package from curse and a package from here that gives you 4 folders in the data folder. It's getting messy. Any plans to combine/clean it up so it's not a bunch of cfg's patching cfg's? or is DP un-reacheable to get permission?

the issue is licensing. The mod is All Rights Reserved. The best I could do is do what HGR does and make a new thread and point to the curse link and my repo, but it'd still be two downloads.

I didn't know it gave you 4 folders though; would have thought it'd be just one. Truthfully, I've never checked how github bundles it - I suppose I could add another folder layer.

For the record, it's not a bunch of cfg's patching cfg's. There are no duplicates - everything is integrated and clean. You might be referring to the optional patches, though, which add additional components.

If you have any specific suggestions on improvements (besides the folder structure), I'm all ears.

17 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

Yeah no getting a hold of them.

oh? they gone gone?