[1.3.x] SETI, Unmanned before Manned [Patreon]

[Yemo]

So, first add Interstellar, and then Near Future + its integration into Interstellar.

How about creating a showcase KAX craft? At least something like this (my remake of SETI advanced jet)

Now that I've remembered BoxSat, I also remember now you haven't done anything about proposed Better Buoyancy. Just a reminder

Yep, thats roughly the plan, based on the configs by FreeThinker and Olympic1 for the CTT.

I plan to shift aircraft engines towards B9 values for balance and compatibility in 0.7.7.

That will result in quite some changes from the current state and will necessitate a redesign of most aircraft.

I like your design , but I ll have to wait, if bac9 wants to comment on prop balance and based on that, the props will change as well.

edit: So the sample craft will get updates including the new engine stats.

edit2: Isnt the center of mass now too far forward on your plane? Offsetting the wings to a more forward location would probably increase flight characteristics, if I m not missing something.

About the Better Buoyancy, I wanted to do that together with USI Survivability (and the floaties it provides).

Thinking about it, that might be a nice little mod support package for 0.7.7, together with the aircraft engine balance and some fixes.

Edited February 14, 2015 by Yemo

[SwGustav]

I like your design , but I ll have to wait, if bac9 wants to comment on prop balance and based on that, the props will change as well.

edit: So the sample craft will get updates including the new engine stats.

edit2: Isnt the center of mass now too far forward on your plane? Offsetting the wings to a more forward location would probably increase flight characteristics, if I m not missing something.

Thank you! Wasn't much of work though.

Engine balancing then, I see.

I didn't tweak much yet, it was quickly done as an example, so you're right that it can be improved.

About the Better Buoyancy, I wanted to do that together with USI Survivability (and the floaties it provides).

Wow, you plan things so good. I'm jealous

Also, I'm certain cockpit from Kerbonov pack I proposed previously would fit SO good with KAX engines. (Pic if you still haven't checked it out)

Edit: I have a suggestion to add decoupling feature to Procedural Fairings bases, here's a config (decoupler force can be changed) - Download

I also shall add that this feature can be turned on and off with Tweakable Everything.

Edited February 14, 2015 by SwGustav

[Arachnidek]

This is what i have experienced while trying to integrate Initial Contracts into Adios.

I've tried this a few times and every time it's the same - Initial Contracts hangs the game. You can click anywhere in the contract window but you can't get out of it. What's interesting is that i actually found the solution in Contract Configurator documentation.

https://github.com/jrossignol/ContractConfigurator/wiki/Parameters#altituderecord

It clearly says altitute.

To be honest I have no idea why but it works.

[Yemo]

[...]

Also, I'm certain cockpit from Kerbonov pack I proposed previously would fit SO good with KAX engines. (Pic if you still haven't checked it out)

Edit: I have a suggestion to add decoupling feature to Procedural Fairings bases, here's a config (decoupler force can be changed) - Download

I also shall add that this feature can be turned on and off with Tweakable Everything.

The Kerbonov Cockpit looks straight forward and thus relatively easy to adjust, will take a closer look at it.

Also, the fairings base would greatly profit from a decoupler which is often on top of it anyway, thank you for the config!

Especially the part saving would be nice, will have to take a look at the weight to not make procedural decouplers obsolete.

Thank you for the suggestions!

This is what i have experienced while trying to integrate Initial Contracts into Adios.

I've tried this a few times and every time it's the same - Initial Contracts hangs the game. You can click anywhere in the contract window but you can't get out of it. What's interesting is that i actually found the solution in Contract Configurator documentation.

https://github.com/jrossignol/ContractConfigurator/wiki/Parameters#altituderecord

It clearly says altitute.

To be honest I have no idea why but it works.

Hm, that is strange.

I tried a minimal setup with CC 0.6.5 and Initial Contracts as well, but it gave 5 or so "Input is null" errors per set, instead of the 2 "Input is null" errors and the exception "Null Reference Exceptions" you got per "set".

So when nightingale and I were talking about harmless errors, we meant the "Input is null" ones. Exceptions are much more serious, but they didnt show up when I tried it.

About the wiki, "Altitude" is part of the "AltitudeRecord" parameter type, while "minAltitude" and "maxAltitude" are part of the "ReachState" parameter types.

I have no idea how you were able to mix one into the other and it works.

I used the ReachState minAltitude contract for many patches now, and there were no bug reports, just the harmless errors in the debug log.

The "AltitudeRecord" parameter afaik references the stock altitude records, which can only be completed by manned vessels.

Replacing that parameter type was actually the main intent behind the initial contracts, so people could complete the 18km contract by using probes.

In the post a few pages back, you somehow used ReachState with Altitude, while in the video you used AltitudeRecord with Altitude and a manned vessel, to complete it (which would just work like the stock contracts).

I hope nightingale reads this, no idea where the exceptions with ReachState and minAltitude come from, I can not reproduce them.

edit: You are not using KSP 64bit for windows, by any chance?

Edited February 14, 2015 by Yemo

[nightingale]

This is what i have experienced while trying to integrate Initial Contracts into Adios.

I've tried this a few times and every time it's the same - Initial Contracts hangs the game. You can click anywhere in the contract window but you can't get out of it. What's interesting is that i actually found the solution in Contract Configurator documentation.

https://github.com/jrossignol/ContractConfigurator/wiki/Parameters#altituderecord

It clearly says altitute.

To be honest I have no idea why but it works.

I hope nightingale reads this, no idea where the exceptions with ReachState and minAltitude come from, I can not reproduce them.

edit: You are not using KSP 64bit for windows, by any chance?

Yup, not something I've been able to reproduce either. All I need is the ksp.log or output_log.txt - that will have the full stack trace and then I can work from there. As discussed above the "input is null" business is a complete red herring. The null reference exception is the issue. There are many, many places where when an exception happens stuff in the squad code just breaks - so things like not being able to enter buildings, quit, etc. are actually fairly "normal".

Anyway, provide the log file, then I can investigate.

The "AltitudeRecord" parameter afaik references the stock altitude records, which can only be completed by manned vessels.

Replacing that parameter type was actually the main intent behind the initial contracts, so people could complete the 18km contract by using probes.

Note that it no longer references the stock one (since that was broken and didn't seem to always fire). But it's still based on the stock "achievement", which still only fires for a manned vessel.

[Arachnidek]

Ok I did it. I finally managed to get Initial Contracts to work with ADIOS. First i figured that something written in the code was creating that exception but i was wrong. I couldn't get the ReachState parameter work so i went with the altituderecord one. That worked but i didn't test it with unmanned. It turns out i was wrong. It wasn't the altitude parameter. It was the lack of a situation parameter that gave that exception. I was trying to fix it from the wrong way around.

This is the current code in the "Reach 18km" contract:

    PARAMETER
    {
        name = ReachState
        type = ReachState

        minAltitude = 18000
    }

And that gave me the exception errors and caused the game to hang. After a few tries with the documentation for the ReachState parameter i made this modification:

    PARAMETER
    {
        name = ReachState
        type = ReachState

        minAltitude = 18000
        situation = FLYING
    }

And now it works fine both for manned and unmanned. It still gives those null warnings but like you said it's not important

Edited February 15, 2015 by Arachnidek

[nightingale]

Ok I did it. I finally managed to get Initial Contracts to work with ADIOS. First i figured that something written in the code was creating that exception but i was wrong. I couldn't get the ReachState parameter work so i went with the altituderecord one. That worked but i didn't test it with unmanned. It turns out i was wrong. It wasn't the altitude parameter. It was the lack of a situation parameter that gave that exception.

<snip>

See GitHub issue #90: ReachState is broken without a situation, will throw a NullPointer

The fix for this was released in Contract Configurator 0.5.5, which was released on January 13th - so please, please make sure you're up to date next time you have weird issues (also, KSP-AVC comes highly recommended). Oh, and not to be a pain about this, but if you'd provided the logs the first time around, the version of Contract Configurator is usually one of the first things I check.

Anyway, all's well that ends well - I think this confirms that the Initial Contracts package are working as-is on the current version (as both Yemo and I checked it and had no issues).

[Arachnidek]

True that.

Interestingly i've downloaded Contract Configurator on the 10th of Ferbuary (after Yemo pointed it out in the Adios thread). The problem is i don't remember where from but true it's the 0.5.3 version. Sorry about that.

Anyway back to modding. It's time to fully integrate IC into Adios.

[nightingale]

True that.

Interestingly i've downloaded Contract Configurator on the 10th of Ferbuary (after Yemo pointed it out in the Adios thread). The problem is i don't remember where from but true it's the 0.5.3 version. Sorry about that.

Anyway back to modding. It's time to fully integrate IC into Adios.

No problem, glad that it got sorted out (I was half worried you'd come back and say that you were on the correct version).

[Basilio]

I would like to say BIG thank you to the mod author, as this is really one of the best mods I've seen, it totally changes the feel of the game.

However, I noticed a rather strange side effect caused by SAS torque decrease. All heavy vessels (generally everything larger than 2.5m in diameter) when turning on stabilization (either stock SAS or MechJeb's) and RCS are doing a rather quick rolling from side to side, very slight but noticeable, consuming insane amounts of MP. If I comment out all "moduleReactionWheel" sections in SETI/MM-PartModding/SETI-PartMod-SQUAD-ComConElectrics.cfg - then this effects goes away. Seems that without enough SAS torque the vessels are unable to fix their position around the roll axis with high enough precision. Did anyone else encounter this issue? I'm not sure this is not caused by some other third-party mod.

[SwGustav]

About KAX being overpowered, AJE fixes that but also adds a big layer of complexity. So kinda skeptic if it's worth it. (but that's my opinion)

You may also want take a look at another mod I forgot to list yesterday - Cargo Solutions. Fits nice with my other suggestions.

Did anyone else encounter this issue? I'm not sure this is not caused by some other third-party mod.

I have always thought this is caused by stock SAS hold. Whenever I use remote tech hold, it's ok (as it doesn't use SAS). Mechjeb also uses non-SAS hold by default.

You wrote me as GwGustav 2 times

Also,

- if those parts are deleted (currently only manually)

should be

- if those parts are deleted (manually or via autopruner)

now (it's on kerbal stuff too. it's not necessary but kinda bugs me)

Edited February 15, 2015 by SwGustav

[Yemo]

True that.

Interestingly i've downloaded Contract Configurator on the 10th of Ferbuary (after Yemo pointed it out in the Adios thread). The problem is i don't remember where from but true it's the 0.5.3 version. Sorry about that.

Anyway back to modding. It's time to fully integrate IC into Adios.

No worries, I ve raised a few false flags myself and I got quite some ideas while bug hunting .

I would like to say BIG thank you to the mod author, as this is really one of the best mods I've seen, it totally changes the feel of the game.

However, I noticed a rather strange side effect caused by SAS torque decrease. All heavy vessels (generally everything larger than 2.5m in diameter) when turning on stabilization (either stock SAS or MechJeb's) and RCS are doing a rather quick rolling from side to side, very slight but noticeable, consuming insane amounts of MP. If I comment out all "moduleReactionWheel" sections in SETI/MM-PartModding/SETI-PartMod-SQUAD-ComConElectrics.cfg - then this effects goes away. Seems that without enough SAS torque the vessels are unable to fix their position around the roll axis with high enough precision. Did anyone else encounter this issue? I'm not sure this is not caused by some other third-party mod.

Thank you!

Hm, I ll take a look. But that reminds me, I wanted to scale the 2.5m reaction wheel to 3.75m as a new part for the "heavyControl" node.

About KAX being overpowered, AJE fixes that but also adds a big layer of complexity. So kinda skeptic if it's worth it. (but that's my opinion)

You may also want take a look at another mod I forgot to list yesterday - Cargo Solutions. Fits nice with my other suggestions.

I have always thought this is caused by stock SAS hold. Whenever I use remote tech hold, it's ok (as it doesn't use SAS). Mechjeb also uses non-SAS hold by default.

You wrote me as GwGustav 2 times

Also,

should be

now (it's on kerbal stuff too. it's not necessary but kinda bugs me)

AJE looks like a good solution, from the technical point of view. I will probably "strongly recommend" it when using FAR. Which takes the engine balancing off my workload.

Although the "engine" values follow the real world engines very closely, the balance in-game seems to be off. If I build a plane using the AJE balanced engines, but only weighing half as much as the real world plane, the performance is abysmal. When the real world jet could go 550km/h at sea level without afterburner, the half weight ksp jet could barely get to 400km/h...

And it was certainly not fun.

Considering SETI-BalanceMod is a gameplay mod, not a realism one, I consider boosting the FAR thrust of air breathers by 30%-40% through the SETI-Settings.cfg (so air breathers have 65%-70% instead of 50% of their stock thrust with FAR).

So people who want realism can comment it out/remove it via settings, everyone else (using FAR) should use AJE with it and still have fun flying aircraft...#

edit: Fixed the mistakes, sorry for the wrong name. Will take a look at cargo solutions!

[SwGustav]

Today I viewed all available contracts with cheats, and I must say, this is already outstanding, Yemo. Are you planning to expand them after finishing the current plan? (IMO, with mods intended for more interplanetary in the near future there should be more manned missions to planets)

And the second thing I've done today, I went on Obsolete Part Hunt.

1.

C7 Brand Adapter - fuel tank that can be recreated with procedurals. However, slanted version can't be

2. Landing Gear - left adjustable gear is very similiar to KAX gear, and is superior. IIRC they're in the same tech even. Only obsolete with both mods so not sure

3. Extended Mk2 and Mk3 cargo bays - there is a double version of mk2 cargo bay and double&triple versions of mk3 bay. Not sure too: part saving, easier opening and all, but by the moment you reach them (at least mk3 bays) you don't need to save parts, also action groups

4. Large versions of recyclers - What's their story? I couldn't find them in tech tree for some reason. Small ones can be tweakscaled (although weight screws up by big + didn't test for functions scaling). Even without TweakScale large version supports 9 instead of 8 kerbals. So I don't see the point.

All but first are kinda nitpicking, but Utility category is the biggest currently. Just trying to help reduce it.

Edited February 15, 2015 by SwGustav

[Yemo]

Today I viewed all available contracts with cheats, and I must say, this is already outstanding, Yemo. Are you planning to expand them after finishing the current plan? (IMO, with mods intended for more interplanetary in the near future there should be more manned missions to planets)

And the second thing I've done today, I went on Obsolete Part Hunt.

1.

C7 Brand Adapter - fuel tank that can be recreated with procedurals. However, slanted version can't be

2. Landing Gear - left adjustable gear is very similiar to KAX gear, and is superior. IIRC they're in the same tech even. Only obsolete with both mods so not sure

3. Extended Mk2 and Mk3 cargo bays - there is a double version of mk2 cargo bay and double&triple versions of mk3 bay. Not sure too: part saving, easier opening and all, but by the moment you reach them (at least mk3 bays) you don't need to save parts, also action groups

4. Large versions of recyclers - What's their story? I couldn't find them in tech tree for some reason. Small ones can be tweakscaled (although weight screws up by big + didn't test for functions scaling). Even without TweakScale large version supports 9 instead of 8 kerbals. So I don't see the point.

All but first are kinda nitpicking, but Utility category is the biggest currently. Just trying to help reduce it.

Thank you!

For the near future I want to concentrate on part mod support, so even the current plan in the OP will take quite some time to complete. I will implement the odd contract here and there (eg manned Duna landing), but some of the contracts, like the stations ones, need more part mods anyway (especially colonization/habitat). And then I want to review/flesh out the existing contracts.

Though the plan is not set in stone (I added 5 nodes or so since the first iteration), I currently do not plan to extend the scope of it.

My preference is for compatibility with other contract systems, like RemoteTech, Anomalies, "Interstellar" (with the awesome CC, I guess that it is only a matter of time until someone makes such a config). The SETI-Contracts are just planned as a core system for the main progression.

ad1. The non slanted C7 looks good to go. That reminds me, the Rockomax Brand Adapter 02 might be worth bringing back. Although procedural parts can take the spot, it is quite useful for station building, requiring less clicks than setting up a procedural part for only one part catalog slot.

ad2. I want to leave the landing gears in the game for compatibility. Also, KAX will most likely get a bogie 4wheel landing gear in the future, which would better compliment the normal KAX one, than the adjustable ones.

ad3. While part saving in terms of launch restrictions would not be a point at this stage, part count is the thing that brings the pc to its knees with larger vessels, eg when docking a major transport to a major station.

ad4. That is a good question. I do not know, never really looked at the larger versions. Thinking about it, I could rebalance the 1.25m versions for 3 kerbals, so it could be used for the manned Duna mission and smaller stations, while leaving the 2.5m version for 9 kerbals.

[nightingale]

For the near future I want to concentrate on part mod support, so even the current plan in the OP will take quite some time to complete. I will implement the odd contract here and there (eg manned Duna landing), but some of the contracts, like the stations ones, need more part mods anyway (especially colonization/habitat). And then I want to review/flesh out the existing contracts.

Though the plan is not set in stone (I added 5 nodes or so since the first iteration), I currently do not plan to extend the scope of it.

My preference is for compatibility with other contract systems, like RemoteTech, Anomalies, "Interstellar" (with the awesome CC, I guess that it is only a matter of time until someone makes such a config). The SETI-Contracts are just planned as a core system for the main progression.

... which aligns very nicely with my own plans around contract packs - since I don't plan to play in the space that's been defined in Yemo's roadmap at all. I'll be doing more contracts packs that add to other mods (like the RemoteTech one did) or ones that provide "interesting" gameplay (like the Anomaly one did). So hopefully in the next few months you guys will have a lot of contracts to choose from in your career playthroughs.

[Lord Aurelius]

Once again, thanks for creating such an excellent mod. I started a new game a few days ago right after the most recent update and I have a few thoughts on the progression system.

In the stock game, the first few tech levels are basically a grind and in the late game you end up drowning in science. The science bonuses from the contracts in the stock game alleviated this to some degree, although it exacerbated the drowning in science problem later on. In my game, I play on a custom moderate/hard with 50% science rewards in addition to the contract science modifier to make the science more sensible later in the game, but I have to give myself a large science bonus at the beginning otherwise it's just plain tedious for the first bit. The funds aren't as big of an issue since there's regularly recurring easy contracts to return science from orbit that give a steady income fairly early on and the new contracts always ensure that I'm getting paid to do something.

Better Than Starting Manned did some nice tweaks with the early science experiments where the altitude based experiments on Kerbin were worth a lot more than in stock (enough to unlock a tech tree tier), and the landed/low altitude biome experiments weren't worth anything to balance it so that you were rewarded for going higher instead of just running around grinding all the science out of the Kerbin biomes. I also liked that it added low orbit experiments for the barometer (how else would you know that a body is airless?). Something along these lines in SETI would make the early science gathering much less tedious. A basic probe core science experiment (something probe report/telemetry) would be nice as well for the return science from orbit contracts.

Additionally, the various reach space/anomaly contracts could reward a significant amount of science to provide a reason to explore even if the regular biome science were further reduced.

I'm not sure if these ideas fit into SETI itself or would be better served by another science mod.

Looking forward to KSPI integration so I have something to spend all that endgame science on.

Edit: It seems like almost every time I post on this thread I end up starting a new page...

Edited February 16, 2015 by Lord Aurelius

[PeterPan]

I agree with Lord Aurelius regarding BTSM. I played it a lot and it's very carefully balanced, which in many cases means that possibilities are removed or reduced.

Another little thing - but very handy - is the possibility to open ALL solar panels via the right-click menu. Maybe you could include that?

For explanation: this was not my idea, it's a thing which FlowerChild (the creator of BTSM Mod) did.

Edited February 16, 2015 by PeterPan
clarification

[Paradisio]

So while B9 (main mod)/KW aren't on the list... I see these recommended a lot, but I am interested in the career overhaul parts of SETI... can anyone give me input if I should include these or not?

[Papa_Joe]

I agree with Lord Aurelius regarding BTSM. I played it a lot and it's very carefully balanced, which in many cases means that possibilities are removed or reduced.

Another little thing - but very handy - is the possibility to open ALL solar panels via the right-click menu. Maybe you could include that?

I really like this idea. Brilliant! Does it make sense to place it in SETI, or would it make sense in Ship Manifest? Since I added a hatch management panel, creating a panel to manage solar panels could be done easily...

Upon rereading the post, it likely makes sense in both places...

Update: I have a working Solar Panel Management window in my DEV copy of Ship Manifest. Next version will include Solar Panel Management.

Edited February 16, 2015 by Papa_Joe

[SwGustav]

So while B9 (main mod)/KW aren't on the list... I see these recommended a lot, but I am interested in the career overhaul parts of SETI... can anyone give me input if I should include these or not?

Nope, those two are not supported and probably won't be. Only omni lights from main B9 are supported (see first post).

If not mistaken, I remember them being included in late phases in early development. What Yemo can say on this? It's not that I want them back, just interested.

I really like this idea. Brilliant! Does it make sense to place it in SETI, or would it make sense in Ship Manifest? Since I added a hatch management panel, creating a panel to manage solar panels could be done easily...

If you decide to create it, do remember that SETI has made unshrouded panels unretractable.

That reminds me, the Rockomax Brand Adapter 02 might be worth bringing back. Although procedural parts can take the spot, it is quite useful for station building, requiring less clicks than setting up a procedural part for only one part catalog slot.

Took me like 30 seconds to set up properly, with alt-duplicating. I don't know why would you need to create an adapter specifically this way, as with procedurals you have far more options, i.e. even simple 2.5>1.25 cone should do.

Edited February 16, 2015 by SwGustav

[Yemo]

Once again, thanks for creating such an excellent mod. I started a new game a few days ago right after the most recent update and I have a few thoughts on the progression system.

In the stock game, the first few tech levels are basically a grind and in the late game you end up drowning in science. The science bonuses from the contracts in the stock game alleviated this to some degree, although it exacerbated the drowning in science problem later on. In my game, I play on a custom moderate/hard with 50% science rewards in addition to the contract science modifier to make the science more sensible later in the game, but I have to give myself a large science bonus at the beginning otherwise it's just plain tedious for the first bit. The funds aren't as big of an issue since there's regularly recurring easy contracts to return science from orbit that give a steady income fairly early on and the new contracts always ensure that I'm getting paid to do something.

You are welcome!

In general, 50% rewards should make the game "harder". So that is working as intended, I guess.

The problem is, that the current late game tech tree is only the middle of the community tech tree. And even up to this point, there are lots of unused science nodes at the moment, especially concerning research extraction and habitation.

KSPI integration should seriously restrict that fealing of late game science abundance with "normal/moderate" settings, and Kolonization would add to that.

About the 50% science reward specifically, I m testing the game progression, running with 50/50/50 rewards and 100/100 costs.

I have quite some early game "routine" consisting of the following steps:

1. Temp and Pressure from launch pad

2. 18km contract: Temp and Pressure from flying and from flying high

3./4. manned18km: Crew reports from launch pad, flying and flying high, Temp&Pressure&Crew report from splashed down (the high altitude rocket will use a decoupler in 0.7.7)

3./4./5. reachSpace: Temp from space

4./5.+ Use (rocket)planes to get science from other Kerbin biomes, shores and grassland is easy, desert after getting materials bay/magnetometer, so that it is worth it

after that, materials bay/magnetometer in space

and then crew reports from space

Those 7-12 science missions should yield more than enough to allow flights to the mun.

Better Than Starting Manned did some nice tweaks with the early science experiments where the altitude based experiments on Kerbin were worth a lot more than in stock (enough to unlock a tech tree tier), and the landed/low altitude biome experiments weren't worth anything to balance it so that you were rewarded for going higher instead of just running around grinding all the science out of the Kerbin biomes. I also liked that it added low orbit experiments for the barometer (how else would you know that a body is airless?). Something along these lines in SETI would make the early science gathering much less tedious. A basic probe core science experiment (something probe report/telemetry) would be nice as well for the return science from orbit contracts.

Additionally, the various reach space/anomaly contracts could reward a significant amount of science to provide a reason to explore even if the regular biome science were further reduced.

I'm not sure if these ideas fit into SETI itself or would be better served by another science mod.

Looking forward to KSPI integration so I have something to spend all that endgame science on.

Edit: It seems like almost every time I post on this thread I end up starting a new page...

I m hesitant about changes to the biome science, because I want to stay compatible with other mods (and hopefully an updated science library) without too many alterations.

The crew/eva biome switch was a worthy exception, also because it is easy to remember.

There are however 2 major stock issues bugging me, for which I would make exceptions:

1. Photo recon

Honestly, the most prolific/publicly available science report concerning space exploration, and no trace of it in the stock game. I want a camera which I can put on probes and then take pictures.

I know about mods adding cameras, and they will certainly be included!

2. Telemetry

Sputnik had no science experiments on board, but the telemetry data alone provided lots of information about the upper atmosphere...

The thread is definately moving faster, since it is in the release forum .

I agree with Lord Aurelius regarding BTSM. I played it a lot and it's very carefully balanced, which in many cases means that possibilities are removed or reduced.

Another little thing - but very handy - is the possibility to open ALL solar panels via the right-click menu. Maybe you could include that?

I really like this idea. Brilliant! Does it make sense to place it in SETI, or would it make sense in Ship Manifest? Since I added a hatch management panel, creating a panel to manage solar panels could be done easily...

Upon rereading the post, it likely makes sense in both places...

Update: I have a working Solar Panel Management window in my DEV copy of Ship Manifest. Next version will include Solar Panel Management.

A great idea! While I do not have the time for it at the moment, Ship Manifest is strongly recommended anyway and I welcome the addition to it!

So while B9 (main mod)/KW aren't on the list... I see these recommended a lot, but I am interested in the career overhaul parts of SETI... can anyone give me input if I should include these or not?

Nope, those two are not supported and probably won't be. Only omni lights from main B9 are supported (see first post).

If not mistaken, I remember them being included in late phases in early development. What Yemo can say on this? It's not that I want them back, just interested.

[...]

Took me like 30 seconds to set up properly, with alt-duplicating. I don't know why would you need to create an adapter specifically this way, as with procedurals you have far more options, i.e. even simple 2.5>1.25 cone should do.

Imho KW Rocketry and B9Aerospace are more like mod packs than mods. They open their catalog/buffet and you are "supposed" to choose from it.

For example KW has those fairings, which are entirely substituted by procedural fairings. B9Aerospace has lots of wings, most of them are substituted by the B9 procedurals.

That said, they will both work well (more or less) with SETI, I just did not have the time (yet) to sort them out and break off the redundant parts (and make some balance adjustments, looking at you, reaction wheels...). Edit: Given my backlog, full support in the next weeks is very unlikely.

For the near and mid term future: Especially the B9 part catalog has many interesting and gameplay changing/influencing options, most are already fully compatible/balanced for 0.7.7.

In fact, I just spoke with bac9 on the weekend, and will use the B9 stock jet engine rebalances (made by Taverius) from version 0.7.7 onwards.

This will not only be a step towards engine balance, it will also make it easier to pick and choose from the B9 catalog without integration issues.

0.7.7 will also strongly recommend the usage of the B9 airbrakes, they just make landings so much easier/realistic.

Hm, will take another look.

At the moment, the procedural structural parts do not count for "connected living space", will have to work on that.

Edited February 16, 2015 by Yemo

[Papa_Joe]

...

A great idea! While I do not have the time for it at the moment, Ship Manifest is strongly recommended anyway and I welcome the addition to it!

Hm, will take another look.

At the moment, the procedural structural parts do not count for "connected living space", will have to work on that.

I will be sure to respect the Retractable flag if set in Realism on Solar panels. A working Solar Panel Management window is already in place in my DEV copy.

The author of CLS also uses Module manager configs for most of the popular parts packs, and provides directions on adding the necessary configs to allow passability, etc. If you submit your requests to CLS, likely they can be added to the config packs he already provides.

Example configs:

@PART[mk3Cockpit_Shuttle]:HAS[!MODULE[ModuleConnectedLivingSpace]]{
    MODULE
    {
        name = ModuleConnectedLivingSpace
        passable = true
    }
}


@PART[mk3CrewCabin]:HAS[!MODULE[ModuleConnectedLivingSpace]]
{
    MODULE
    {
        name = ModuleConnectedLivingSpace
        passable = true
    }
}

Edited February 16, 2015 by Papa_Joe
Added MM config example for CLS

[SwGustav]

Here you go, a quick config to allow procedural structural element transfer.

Edit: darn, beaten a little by Papa_Joe

Edited February 16, 2015 by SwGustav

[Papa_Joe]

Here you go, a quick config to allow procedural structural element transfer.

Edit: darn, beaten a little by Papa_Joe

I disagree. I only showed folks how to do it.... you actually created the needed config

[Lord Aurelius]

That science method is basically what I was doing, part of the reason I was frustrated is because I'm not very good at landing planes (probably should dig my joystick out at some point and figure out how airbrakes/flaps/spoilers work in FAR so I can actually slow down to land...) so I do lots of quicksaves/reverts which ends up crashing the game on a regular basis and making the plane missions a lot more tedious than they should be. That and I sometimes randomly get scene crashes when flying over new terrain (I had one quicksave that was bugged on my flight to the desert temple where the game would crash every time I flew close to the temple, finally fixed it by turning all the detail settings down to minimum and landing to get the game to update the persistence file, the crash report kept complaining about not having enough memory to create a new vertex, squad really needs to fix their memory leaks). Anyways, I got the science I need so I can focus on space now.

Another thought: the very early rocket flights with the starting probe core are a lot more annoying than they should be because of the lack of SAS, in real life the V1's and V2's had a simple stability system that would at least keep it pointed in the right direction. I don't agree with Squad's decision to remove it from the beginning probe core, it doesn't really make sense from a gameplay standpoint, especially given that most players are using a keyboard so I always edit a basic stability assist back in.

I understand about not wanting to mess with the biome science, I might still try throw together a quick config for myself to tweak the science experiments and link it here for anyone who is interested. Glad to hear that you're considering adding telemetry and a science camera. More options for science are always appreciated (one of my enduring goals is to make a universal science lander that can land and return from anywhere and do all the available science while it's there).

As always, thanks again for making such an excellent mod (these things are primarily nitpicks with the stock systems that you haven't gotten around to fully addressing yet) and for taking the time to interact with us on the thread and consider our feedback as you continue to develop this mod.

Edited February 16, 2015 by Lord Aurelius