[0.24.2] Interstellar Lite - Tweakscale Integration [v0.12.3][Sept 7]

[forsaken1111]

It moves quite far from the original work. A bunch of part are gone, some mechanics changed a lot and balance is totally different. Peoples are even asking for a version with the original balance. To me this look like a different mod (even more so since the only mechanics and part I used are gone, but that's not my point).

Changing the name would make it clearer (and "Experimental" just make it sound like a dev version).

No one is forcing you to use this mod, nor stopping you from making your own. Changing the name wouldn't actually change anything. It's not as if Wave is attempting to pass this off as being the same as KSPI. He is pretty clear about the changes and differences in the OP for this thread.

[Taki117]

So I have a question: I discovered This mod which reorganizes some of the stock parts in the tech tree, unfortunately the Tree for KSPI completely negates it, I was wondering if there was a way to get it to work with the Modified Interstellar Tree.

[BlackSoldierB]

I posted a video guide on installation and how to report bugs. I'm not the best speaker, but if you follow the advice I give, it will help me resolve your issue.

It's working now.

I tested it first on a clean install. Installed Kerbonite, MKS, Interstellar and PartCatalog in this order. Then copied those folders to my normal install.

[PringleMan]

So I have a question: I discovered This mod which reorganizes some of the stock parts in the tech tree, unfortunately the Tree for KSPI completely negates it, I was wondering if there was a way to get it to work with the Modified Interstellar Tree.

Actually it would just take a module manager patch to define the tech nodes for the various parts. There are tons of tutorials on that so I wont post the specific code (it is good to learn it eventually ) but it is just tedious

[Rabada]

Actually it would just take a module manager patch to define the tech nodes for the various parts. There are tons of tutorials on that so I wont post the specific code (it is good to learn it eventually ) but it is just tedious

Or replace the tree.cfg in your save game folder and the Interstellar folder in gamedata/

[undercoveryankee]

So I have a question: I discovered This mod which reorganizes some of the stock parts in the tech tree, unfortunately the Tree for KSPI completely negates it, I was wondering if there was a way to get it to work with the Modified Interstellar Tree.

TreeLoader does completely override any TechRequired setting on any parts mentioned in tree.cfg, even if TechRequired has been updated with a ModuleManager patch before TreeLoader runs. It's designed for trees that completely replace the stock tree instead of extending it like Interstellar does.

If you go into the active tree.cfg in your save and remove any stock parts that are listed in their stock nodes, then other mods that move them around with ModuleManager patches will work again.

[Boamere]

Meh, The only thing I'm "miffed" about is the fact that AM tanks have been nerfed... and the tanks are full on launch, I really liked the idea of shipping antimatter around the solar system :/

Otherwise good work!

[BLUESHADOW125]

the tech tree worked for me, about 2-3 nodes were empty but i can still unlock them. altogether the tech tree now takes about 40,000 science to complete

[Haifi]

No pun intended, but I really do hope Fractal will be back someday. I will continue to use the v0.11ex as long as it will continue functioning. But sorry I dont like the changes you made Wave. I think the reactors were never meant to be primarily "on board" solutions, but to add a huge amount of power (thermal and megajoules) to the network, so you dont have to bother with their mass. I agree with you going for a declutter by adding tweakscale support, but not with the loss in power coming along with silly high prices for the hardware.

Best regards

[forsaken1111]

No pun intended, but I really do hope Fractal will be back someday. I will continue to use the v0.11ex as long as it will continue functioning. But sorry I dont like the changes you made Wave. I think the reactors were never meant to be primarily "on board" solutions, but to add a huge amount of power (thermal and megajoules) to the network, so you dont have to bother with their mass. I agree with you going for a declutter by adding tweakscale support, but not with the loss in power coming along with silly high prices for the hardware.

Best regards

iirc someone is already working on a MM config for the .12exp to restore the values to Fractal's original numbers (or as close as possible)

[caipi]

Hey wave,

thanks for keeping this mod up to date and for all the effort you put into it.

I noticed that you dismissed a lot of parts and while I appreciate the reduction of parts, it also creates a few issues. For example the plasma engines: There is no benefit in using proper sizes anymore. If you use the smallest plasma engine, you will get the highest TWR because all sizes have the same energy limit (277.8GW), which results in the same max thrust for all sizes. If you use a satellite network with remote power, it is very easy to use the full thrust even without heavy reactors. But even with heavy reactors there is a benefit in using the small engine, because the appropriate size is usually rather heavy. Same goes of course for turbojets and thermal rockets. I think you will have to reintroduce the versions in different sizes with different power caps.

Furthermore: I really miss charged particles and I think that 50% carnot efficiency is a bit too low. Guess I have to put a 400GW transmitter into orbit again

/edit: BTW: I like the idea of full AM tanks! I always put a few labs and an extra reactor on my rocket before the launch, fast forwarded and filled my AM tank. It just seemed silly that you can generate AM anywhere, even on the ground, detach it and start but you cannot fill your tanks in the VAB.

Edited August 28, 2014 by caipi

[WaveFunctionP]

Hey wave,

thanks for keeping this mod up to date and for all the effort you put into it.

I noticed that you dismissed a lot of parts and while I appreciate the reduction of parts, it also creates a few issues. For example the plasma engines: There is no benefit in using proper sizes anymore. If you use the smallest plasma engine, you will get the highest TWR because all sizes have the same energy limit (277.8GW), which results in the same max thrust for all sizes. If you use a satellite network with remote power, it is very easy to use the full thrust even without heavy reactors. But even with heavy reactors there is a benefit in using the small engine, because the appropriate size is usually rather heavy. Same goes of course for turbojets and thermal rockets. I think you will have to reintroduce the versions in different sizes with different power caps.

Furthermore: I really miss charged particles and I think that 50% carnot efficiency is a bit too low. Guess I have to put a 400GW transmitter into orbit again

/edit: BTW: I like the idea of full AM tanks! I always put a few labs and an extra reactor on my rocket before the launch, fast forwarded and filled my AM tank. It just seemed silly that you can generate AM anywhere, even on the ground, detach it and start but you cannot fill your tanks in the VAB.

The power cap for electric engines scale according to size. Thermal engines require a matching size to get full output in the same manner that generators do. Both of these behaviors I have not changed from fractal's design.

50% is intended to be a baseline efficiency. I plan to have radiators have a larger impact on efficiency in a later update.

Resource costs are preliminary, and while I haven't nailed down a design completely yet, the intent is that AM will be something that you won't be able to just spam contacts to buy. You will need to build infrastructure to have large quantities of it.

[scottpaladin]

Edit: Nevermind this comment. Move along. Nothing to see here.

[caipi]

The power cap for electric engines scale according to size.

Mhm, it doesn't scale in my version! I get 3636,4kN of thrust at 277,8GW power with all versions, from 0.625m all the way to 5m.

BTW: The Plasma thruster (formerly known as ATTILA) have a button called "enable QVP", but they don't use quantum vacuum power.

Edited August 28, 2014 by caipi

[undercoveryankee]

50% is intended to be a baseline efficiency. I plan to have radiators have a larger impact on efficiency in a later update.

I've seen several people, including some text in the mod, refer to "Carnot efficiency" as a property of a generator. That's not quite right. "Carnot efficiency" refers to the efficiency of a Carnot cycle between the reactor temperature and the radiator temperature, which is the physical limit of efficiency that any heat engine can produce between those temperatures. The final efficiency in-game is then the generator's efficiency times the Carnot efficiency, which gets confusing to explain if it looks like the generator's efficiency is being labeled "Carnot efficiency."

I'm curious whether you have any designs in mind yet for giving radiators a larger impact on efficiency than the current Carnot-based calculation, because I'm not sure of any simple approach.

[undercoveryankee]

The power cap for electric engines scale according to size. Thermal engines require a matching size to get full output in the same manner that generators do. Both of these behaviors I have not changed from fractal's design.

I don't see TweakScale exponents for the ElectricEngineController module in Interstellar_TweakScale.cfg. The Interstellar plugin just uses whatever max power is in the .cfg file, so to get max power to scale you'll need to have TweakScale handle it.

[WaveFunctionP]

WaveFunctionP you should rename the project.

This is not Interstellar but a mod parented to it that change a lot of the mechanics and part of the original mod. It's good for players who like where you are going but it's still a quite different mod and if Fractal_UK comes back it will conflict with his updates.

This is the name I used back when Fractal was around and he never took issue with it. I believe that I have been overtly clear that it is not FractalUK's version everywhere that I have listed it. I've offered my modified version for about a year now. Long before FractalUK disappeared. When interstellar broke in .24, I offered my version to fill the gap until he returned. This remains the case. But I can't play the "What Would FractalUK Do" game. I can only make the best decisions I can make for this version.

Let's be clear. Had I not developed this version. Someone would either have had to fix the last version of kspi and left actual development complete stalled, or continued development of another "not fractaluk's" version with best faith, which is exactly what I am doing. I would have done much of what I've done to my branch had fractal been here or not. The difference is that it wouldn't have as much attention as it has now. And it wouldn't likely have it's own thread because I was always happy to just develop my own personal version. I received a lot of feedback from players that wanted to see me post a new thread. And just so that we are on the same page. Noone has heard a peep from Fractal since May despite many many pages of forum post in the thread, his mailbox is completely full and many issue's posted to the official repo go with response. Not one single peep.

So here we are in this ackward situation with you accusing me of something bad (plagarism?) and me being mortified that another developer that I respect would even think that has happened. I've done my best to conform not only to the letter of FractalUK's license, but common decency as well.

Let's review:

1. The name is different. It is common to retain a portion of the original name to indicate where it was derived. (If I hadn't it would seem like I was taking credit for FractalUK's original work IMO.)

2. Fractal expressed no issue when I was developing it. (This branch of kspi predates his absence.)

3. He left a license that clearly allows my derivative work.

4. He wouldn't have done so if he didn't intend for works such as mine to exist.

5. FractalUK has been gone since May without a word.

6. KSP v.24.1 broke the mod and mine has been the only working version available since then.

7. This version in some capacity would still exist without or without FractalUK's presence.

I think that I have been pretty forthright about everything all in all, and certainly as best that I am aware. In any case, it isn't my intent to cause a stink, but I also have enough self respect to defend myself against claim against my character. I hope that you or anyone else can see that I have been honest and fair.

[WaveFunctionP]

I don't see TweakScale exponents for the ElectricEngineController module in Interstellar_TweakScale.cfg. The Interstellar plugin just uses whatever max power is in the .cfg file, so to get max power to scale you'll need to have TweakScale handle it.

Weird, I was pretty sure that I tested electric engine power scaling before release. :/

[Taki117]

TreeLoader does completely override any TechRequired setting on any parts mentioned in tree.cfg, even if TechRequired has been updated with a ModuleManager patch before TreeLoader runs. It's designed for trees that completely replace the stock tree instead of extending it like Interstellar does.

If you go into the active tree.cfg in your save and remove any stock parts that are listed in their stock nodes, then other mods that move them around with ModuleManager patches will work again.

I'd like to do this with a MM patch so that others can use it. Here's what I have so far, and while it loads just fine, it doesn't move any of the parts around.

	@NODE[node1_basicRocketry]
	{

		@PARTS
		{
			!name = GooExperiment
			name = sensorAccelerometer
			name = radialRCSTank
			name = linearRcs
			name = liquidEngine3

		}
	}
	@NODE[node5_advExploration]
	{	
		@PARTS
		{
			!name = sensorBarometer
			name = science_module
		}
	}
	@NODE[node4_spaceExploration]
	{
		@PARTS
		{
			!name = sensorThermometer
		}
	}
	@NODE[node3_scienceTech]
	{
		@PARTS
		{
			name = GooExperiment
			name = roverWheel1
		}
	}
	@Node[node7_advScienceTech]
	{
		@PARTS
		{
			!name = avionicsNoseCone
		}
	}
	@NODE[node2_stability]
	{
		@PARTS
		{
			!name = radialDecoupler
			name = tailfin
			name = sweptWing
		}
	}
	@NODE[node4_landing]
	{
		@PARTS
		{
			name = landerCabinSmall
		}
	}
	@NODE[node5_specializedConstruction]
	{
		@PARTS
		{
			!name = dockingPort2
			name = dockingPortLateral
		}
	}
	@NODE[node7_metaMaterials]
	{
		@PARTS
		{
			!name = dockingPortLateral
		}
	}
	@NODE[node6_fieldScience]
	{
		@PARTS
		{
			!name = seatExternalCmd
			!name = roverWheel1
		}
	}
	@NODE[node2_survivability]
	{
		@PARTS
		{
			name = seatExternalCmd
			!name = liquidEngine3
		}
	}
	@NODE[node4_spaceExploration]
	{
		@PARTS
		{
			!name = ladder1
			name = dockingPort2
		}
	}
	@NODE[node3_flightControl]
	{
		@PARTS
		{
			!name = probeCoreSphere
			!name = sasModule
			name = smallCtrlSrf
			name = sensorBarometer
			name = smallCtrlSrf
		}
	}
	@NODE[node7_advUnmanned]
	{
		@PARTS
		{
			!name = probeStackSmall
			!name = probeStackLarge
		}
	}
	@NODE[node4_aerodynamicSystems]
	{
		@PARTS
		{
			!name = smallCtrlSrf
			!name = sweptWing
			!name = tailfin
			!name = JetEngine
			!name = airScoop
			!name = MK1Fuselage
			name = CircularIntake
		}
	}
	@NODE[node7_hypersonicFlight]
	{
		@PARTS
		{
			!name = CanardController
		}
	}
	@NODE[node6_advAerodynamics]
	{
		@PARTS
		{
			name = CanardController
		}
	}
	@NODE[node2_generalRocketry]
	{
		@PARTS
		{
			name = JetEngine
			name = MK1Fuselage
			name = airScoop
			name = radialDecoupler
		}
	}
	@NODE[node4_heavyRocketry]
	{
		@PARTS
		{
			name = largeAdapte
		}
	}
	@NODE[node5_heavierRocketry]
	{
		@PARTS
		{
			name = rocketNoseCone
		}
	}
	@NODE[node0_start]
	{
		@PARTS
		{
			name = probeCoreSphere
			name = ladder1
		}
	}
	@NODE[node4_advConstruction]
	{
		@PARTS
		{
			!name = largeAdapter
		}
	}
	@NODE[node5_supersonicFlight]
	{
		@PARTS
		{
			!name = CircularIntake
		}
	{

[Evis03]

How balanced are the part costs? Judging by the mod info post there's been some tweaking, but are we talking 'basically not career mode compatible' or 'needs another pass or two to fine tune'?

[sarbian]

So here we are in this ackward situation with you accusing me of something bad (plagarism?) and me being mortified that another developer that I respect would even think that has happened. I've done my best to conform not only to the letter of FractalUK's license, but common decency as well.

Hey, I m not accusing you of anything. I express my opinion that this mod is moving away from the original Interstellar and I feel that a new name would be better. Nothing more.

[Brucey]

This is the name I used back when Fractal was around and he never took issue with it. I believe that I have been overtly clear that it is not FractalUK's version everywhere that I have listed it. I've offered my modified version for about a year now. Long before FractalUK disappeared. When interstellar broke in .24, I offered my version to fill the gap until he returned. This remains the case. But I can't play the "What Would FractalUK Do" game. I can only make the best decisions I can make for this version.

Let's be clear. Had I not developed this version. Someone would either have had to fix the last version of kspi and left actual development complete stalled, or continued development of another "not fractaluk's" version with best faith, which is exactly what I am doing. I would have done much of what I've done to my branch had fractal been here or not. The difference is that it wouldn't have as much attention as it has now. And it wouldn't likely have it's own thread because I was always happy to just develop my own personal version. I received a lot of feedback from players that wanted to see me post a new thread. And just so that we are on the same page. Noone has heard a peep from Fractal since May despite many many pages of forum post in the thread, his mailbox is completely full and many issue's posted to the official repo go with response. Not one single peep.

So here we are in this ackward situation with you accusing me of something bad (plagarism?) and me being mortified that another developer that I respect would even think that has happened. I've done my best to conform not only to the letter of FractalUK's license, but common decency as well.

Let's review:

1. The name is different. It is common to retain a portion of the original name to indicate where it was derived. (If I hadn't it would seem like I was taking credit for FractalUK's original work IMO.)

2. Fractal expressed no issue when I was developing it. (This branch of kspi predates his absence.)

3. He left a license that clearly allows my derivative work.

4. He wouldn't have done so if he didn't intend for works such as mine to exist.

5. FractalUK has been gone since May without a word.

6. KSP v.24.1 broke the mod and mine has been the only working version available since then.

7. This version in some capacity would still exist without or without FractalUK's presence.

I think that I have been pretty forthright about everything all in all, and certainly as best that I am aware. In any case, it isn't my intent to cause a stink, but I also have enough self respect to defend myself against claim against my character. I hope that you or anyone else can see that I have been honest and fair.

I see nothing wrong here at all. Besides all the points you just made, at the end of the day, you do all this in your spare time, for free, and to everyone's benefit. On top of that you are collaborating with Roverdude to prevent conflicts and improve compatibility with his mods. All good stuff.

[sober667]

could u write how looks tech tree?

[Gecko99]

Hi Wave

Just something I have come across in the last two mins : when using the mod ken (alt) to duplicate an object and place it on your ship, the weight of the newly cloned piece doubles. Been messing around with stock space planes and when adding thermal rockets to them this error pops up. Easily corrected by going back to the parts bin and reselecting the part fresh, but just thought this might be something you might want to look at

Thanks

The Gecko

[freerunnering]

It moves quite far from the original work. A bunch of part are gone, some mechanics changed a lot and balance is totally different. Peoples are even asking for a version with the original balance. To me this look like a different mod (even more so since the only mechanics and part I used are gone, but that's not my point).

Changing the name would make it clearer (and "Experimental" just make it sound like a dev version).

I agree. I think if this isn't maintaining the original mod but instead diverging and changes parts, balance and the way the mod works then it should renamed as it is very confusing otherwise.

Yet despite people asking for a version with the original balance... nobody is stepping up to maintain that fork?

I'm actually (trying) to learn KSP part making and modding (in a hurry! but not likely before 0.25) in order to do just this. I.E: https://www.flickr.com/photos/54569473@N06/15066339865/

I have a little 3D blender experience, and Unity (minimal) experience and know C# ok (I'm an ObjC programmer normally).