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

[RoverDude]

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.

And I'll go back to the fact that this mod has existed under this name for quite some time now. Fractal apparently didn't have an issue with it, and neither should we. I agree 100% with Wave's comments above. I've had my own stuff derived with the same name and didn't even blink (even though in some cases it completely changed systems and the only thing left in common was the models). That's how this usually works.

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).

Then by all means rock on. But of course the second you change a single thing, you're going to be in the same boat Wave is, and have folks asking you to change your name (unless you already plan a name that does not include Interstellar in it...).

[WololoW]

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.

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).

I find it very off-putting that you came into the licensing discussion using interstellar as a shining example of why everyone should use open-licensing, and then here you are condemning the only released project to come of that open licensing. The saying "you can't have your cake, and eat it too" comes to mind.

[freerunnering]

I find it very off-putting that you came into the licensing discussion using interstellar as a shining example of why everyone should use open-licensing, and then here you are condemning the only released project to come of that open licensing.

I like that this exists and can exist.

This has changed the name (slightly), but in a way that looks like the beta development version (at least it did to me before reading the thread). I'm criticising the name choice but I like that this can exist.

As it is we have a 0.24 version of Interstellar that is, in my opinion nerfed, but without the open licensing players would have nothing (as they couldn't even try patching the old one).

[drswagboss]

I started up a sandbox mode game to get familiar with the changes and new parts before I dive into a new career mode game. Build a warp ship and flew it to Duna. It was going to require 15k delta-v to get into orbit and I didn't have the megajoules for that long of a burn so I was attempting several micro warp jumps to try to get closer to the planet. On the 3rd try this happened:

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-W5OyazLcqHc/U_1pBo_eFtI/AAAAAAAACZQ/o1Cc8_1j8Gw/w1160-h653-no/KSP%2B2014-08-26%2B21-57-46-36.jpg

The D/T tanks pulled off the ship and floated behind it, still acting like they were attached. Turning with it as I turned. Has anyone had a similar issue?

ya, within hte VAB or SPH it happens with the interstellar parts,they attach but still follow my mouse

[forsaken1111]

As it is we have a 0.24 version of Interstellar that is, in my opinion nerfed, but without the open licensing players would have nothing (as they couldn't even try patching the old one).

Excellent. Good. You have stated your opinion. There is a 0.24 version which still works and does not include these changes. You may use that if you like.

[freerunnering]

Excellent. Good. You have stated your opinion. There is a 0.24 version which still works and does not include these changes. You may use that if you like.

Is there? Where? (I've been looking)

[forsaken1111]

Is there? Where? (I've been looking)

In Wave's sig is a link to his releases. .12 is this latest experimental with tweakscale but .11 is the previous release which mirrored KSPI and pretty much just updated it to 0.24

https://github.com/WaveFunctionP/KSPInterstellar/releases

Scroll down to .11

[Ixonal]

And I'll go back to the fact that this mod has existed under this name for quite some time now. Fractal apparently didn't have an issue with it, and neither should we. I agree 100% with Wave's comments above. I've had my own stuff derived with the same name and didn't even blink (even though in some cases it completely changed systems and the only thing left in common was the models). That's how this usually works.

I'm thinking people were fine with the name previously, as the experimental version would have mirrored the regular version's mechanics, so not much confusion would come about from using one or the other. With the new direction (balancing for this being a game rather than for realism), there is a much wider divergence. As the two versions no longer resemble each other nearly as much, having such similar naming conventions can be confusing. That being said, I have no personal stance on this... mainly just like a good argument.

[WaveFunctionP]

I'm attempting to address some simple bugs. Expect a small patch soon.

[MinorInconvenience]

WaveFP:

I just wanted to say I love what you've done and hope you keep up the good work and don't get discouraged by some of the comments I have seen on here. This is the "bestest" mod community (including you) I have ever seen.

[BFGfreak]

Well if you all are going on about names, what about changing it to "Interstellar Lite"?

That said after playing this a little bit more I'm warming up a bit more to this, I'm sure I'll start thinking of balance changes once I get bigger fleets going, but other than that I haven't noticed any issues.

[Dal]

The only major issue I have with the balancing changes is that the endgame has been completely gutted. Instead of setting up a thorough antimatter infrastructure (and enjoying the obscene power in return) it's treated no different from regular rocket fuel. In previous versions you fought your way up the tech tree and had to use fission and fusion because each step got you further along. Instead of this compelling gameplay, the mod is reduced to a high-end part pack, taking a lot away from the experience.

Two main things can be done to resolve this:

1. Restoring the tech-level upgrade system, including (most of the) reactor output.

2. Removing antimatter from tanks and making it untweakable. (The little that comes with AM reactors seems fair)

Doing this would maintain the gameplay that Fractal's KSPI brought to the table, while still removing the excess part and function bloat. In addition, making antimatter a costly resource would provide incentive to set up a harvesting industry all the way from KSC to Jool and back again. How cool is that?

Edited August 29, 2014 by Dal
Suggestions

[caipi]

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. :/

This one should do it (tested and worked, but I guess you might want to change the scale factor, or not, since you seem to be rather comfortable with the 3).

    
TWEAKSCALEEXPONENTS
{
    name = ElectricEngineController
    maxPower = 3

}

Belongs of course into the interstellar_tweakscale.cfg

It also fixes the Plasma thruster engines. It doesn't fix the Thermal Rocket/Turbojet though. They also need to be scaled because of the Thermal receiver! But it should be an easy equivalent to the fix above.

I'm also putting it on github.

Edited August 29, 2014 by caipi

[Sophistry]

I have to say this version of Interstellar seems a lot trimmer, which is good on the RAM front.

I do have to ask though, can someone explain the changes to the reactor stats in layman's terms? The description given in the OP, is, I hesitantly assume, given in terms of how the reactors behave when hooked up to a thermal engine. I don't tend to use the thermal drives, so I'm a bit confused. And because I tend to only use reactors for energy generation, what effect do the changes have on the energy density of the reactors, and their lifetimes?

[WaveFunctionP]

This one should do it (tested and worked, but I guess you might want to change the scale factor, or not, since you seem to be rather comfortable with the 3).

    
TWEAKSCALEEXPONENTS
{
    name = ElectricEngineController
    maxPower = 3

}

Belongs of course into the interstellar_tweakscale.cfg

It also fixes the Plasma thruster engines. It doesn't fix the Thermal Rocket/Turbojet though. They also need to be scaled because of the Thermal receiver! But it should be an easy equivalent to the fix above.

I'm also putting it on github.

The thermal nozzles scale based on relative size. It is hard coded to look at the size. There is not similar value to modify for thermal nozzles.

if (radius > myAttachedReactor.getRadius ()) {
					heat_exchanger_thrust_divisor = myAttachedReactor.getRadius () * myAttachedReactor.getRadius () / radius / radius;
				} else {
					heat_exchanger_thrust_divisor = radius * radius / myAttachedReactor.getRadius () / myAttachedReactor.getRadius ();
				}

				if (myAttachedReactor.getRadius () == 0 || radius == 0) {
					heat_exchanger_thrust_divisor = 1;
				}

Maybe radius isn't getting scaled properly, but the support is there already. Are we talking about actual behavior in game or assumed behavior there?

[WaveFunctionP]

New patch is up.

Interstellar Lite v0.12.1

- Fixed tech tree configuration

- Cleared treeloader part tech overrides for compatibility

- Move tech requirements to the appropriate parts

- Fixed minor part config errors

- MM provided for backwards vessel compatibility. (Copy your save just in case.)

I decided that changing the name to be more clearly different than KSPI vanilla was reasonable.

[WaveFunctionP]

I have to say this version of Interstellar seems a lot trimmer, which is good on the RAM front.

I do have to ask though, can someone explain the changes to the reactor stats in layman's terms? The description given in the OP, is, I hesitantly assume, given in terms of how the reactors behave when hooked up to a thermal engine. I don't tend to use the thermal drives, so I'm a bit confused. And because I tend to only use reactors for energy generation, what effect do the changes have on the energy density of the reactors, and their lifetimes?

I'll do a video soon. I'm still putting out fires.

Each tier is twice the power, with a 100% bonus to power density.

[Ixonal]

I decided that changing the name to be more clearly different than KSPI vanilla was reasonable.

I was actually about to say I liked the interstellar lite idea. Really seems to fit where you're going with it, but still nods to the original.

[WaveFunctionP]

Thermal nozzles are scaling appropriately unless I am missing something...

[expert700]

Why can I not turn on any of the reactors? All it shows when I right click them is the resources in it, no option to activate them...

[Taki117]

What does this mean?

- Cleared treeloader part tech overrides for compatibility

[WaveFunctionP]

What does this mean?

Treeloader no longer has definitions to place parts in certain nodes. The part files have them defined like they do stock. You you want to modify part placement, simply modify the part configs. One more step to removing treeloader dependance.

[caipi]

Maybe radius isn't getting scaled properly, but the support is there already. Are we talking about actual behavior in game or assumed behavior there?

So far I only assumed it, sorry. But when I tried to recreate it, I encountered another bug: Each time I scale the Turbojet or the Thermal rocket, it is displayed correctly in the VAB/SPH. But once I try to launch the rocket, the engine resizes back to its default value.

I'm not certain if this is merely a display bug or something else. I could therefore not determine if different sizes produce the same amount of thrust with a thermal receiver (btw: I am not talking about thermal power from reactors - those are automatically scaled due to the power scaling of the reactor).

Edited August 29, 2014 by caipi

[WaveFunctionP]

So far I only assumed it, sorry. But when I tried to recreate it, I encountered another bug: Each time I scale the Turbojet or the Thermal rocket, it is displayed correctly in the VAB/SPH. But once I try to launch the rocket, the engine resizes back to its default value.

I'm not certain if this is merely a display bug or something else. I could therefore not determine if different sizes produce the same amount of thrust with a thermal receiver (btw: I am not talking about thermal power from reactors - those are automatically scaled due to the power scaling of the reactor).

I've done a LOT of rescaling of those engines without issue. Have you tried with a clean install?

[Taki117]

Treeloader no longer has definitions to place parts in certain nodes. The part files have them defined like they do stock. You you want to modify part placement, simply modify the part configs. One more step to removing treeloader dependance.

Oh cool, so I can get rid of my non working config for the original it's based off of? You sir are awesome!