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

[Rokanov]

Hey all,

I probably have Time to continue dev at the end of next week.

I ll try to include all the bugfixes and Feedback from the last pages.

That's great news! I'm loving SETI right now

[Rybec]

So I've been toying around with the whole "integrated omni antennas eating animations" thing, and I believe it to be a bug in RemoteTech. The RT antenna should only bind to an animation if told to, and the SETI MM patch isn't telling it to.

It also isn't setting any EC usage for keeping the antenna on, so I figured why not just make it a passive antenna and be done with it. I never shut the integrated antenna off anyway.

Anyone wishing to make the same change to regain proper control of their command pod animations can use the following workaround:

In SETIctt-Settings.cfg, replace the first block with the second:

//------\\
//---160km Omni Antenna on Probe Cores and Command Pods---\\
//------\\

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleCommand]]:NEEDS[RemoteTech]:AFTER[RemoteTech]:FOR[SETIctt]
{
	!%MODULE[ModuleRTAntennaPassive]{}
	%MODULE[ModuleRTAntenna] 
	{
		%IsRTActive = true
		%Mode0OmniRange = 0
		%Mode1OmniRange = 160000

		%TRANSMITTER {
			%PacketInterval = 0.3
			%PacketSize = 2
			%PacketResourceCost = 5.0
		}
	}
}

//------\\
//---160km Omni Antenna on Probe Cores and Command Pods---\\
//------\\

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleCommand]]:NEEDS[RemoteTech]:AFTER[RemoteTech]:FOR[SETIctt]
{
	%MODULE[ModuleRTAntennaPassive] 
	{
		%TechRequired = "None"
		%OmniRange = 160000

		%TRANSMITTER {
			%PacketInterval = 0.3
			%PacketSize = 2
			%PacketResourceCost = 5.0
		}
	}
}

[Rokanov]

So I've been toying around with the whole "integrated omni antennas eating animations" thing

Pardon me, but what is that? Sounds like your code is something I want, but I have no idea what it does

[Rybec]

There's an... interesting interaction that occurs if you have Remotetech installed. SETIctt adds a 160km omni antenna to all command modules. However, due to what (as far as I can tell) is a bug in Remotetech, that new antenna takes over any animations the capsule may have. If you've installed the SETI modpack, you'll notice this immediately with the window lighting added by Ven's Stock Revamp. When an antenna is not provided the index of an animation module, it's supposed to not use any of them. Instead, it's attaching to ALL of them. This can be seen with Ven's replacement cupola which has two animations; one to toggle the window shutters, and one to toggle the window lights. As-is, the 160km omni antenna will attach to both of these things and you loose control over them. Turning the antenna on/off opens and closes the shutters and toggles the lights.

Remote tech allows two broad categories of antenna: Active and passive. Actual antenna and dish parts are active, and passive antennas are what makes that "tech perk" where your probe cores can be given built-in 3km antennas (in stock Remotetech)

Passive antennas are always on and cannot be turned off, but they only consume power when transmitting science. However, SETI's active 160km antenna isn't being set to consume any power either, so I made them be passive antennas instead to get around the animation issue (since passive antennas can't have animations). There'd be no reason to turn them off since they weren't consuming power anyway and I never do, personally.

Long term, what would need to happen is the built in antennas SHOULD consume power (so there's a reason to turn them off), and Remotetech has a bug to fix.

[Rokanov]

Great explanation, thanks! I know exactly what you're talking about (have noticed lights on/off, though just considered it a 'feature') and I'll give your config a try!

Edit: Gave it a try, works great! Made a couple of changes so that it only affects manned parts (AFAIK no probes in my game have any animations, so the bug doesn't matter). Did this to avoid issues when starting a new career (No DP-10 unlocked).

//------\\
//---160km Omni Antenna on Probe Cores and Command Pods---\\
//------\\


@PART
[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleCommand]]:NEEDS[RemoteTech]:AFTER[RemoteTech]:FOR[SETIctt]
{
    !%MODULE[ModuleRTAntennaPassive] {}
    %MODULE[ModuleRTAntenna] 
    {
        %IsRTActive = true
        %Mode0OmniRange = 0
        %Mode1OmniRange = 160000

        %TRANSMITTER {
            %PacketInterval = 0.3
            %PacketSize = 2
            %PacketResourceCost = 5.0
        }
    }
}


@PART
[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleCommand],#CrewCapacity
[*],~CrewCapacity[0]]:NEEDS[RemoteTech]:AFTER[RemoteTech]:FOR[SETIctt]
{
    !MODULE[ModuleRTAntenna] {}
    %MODULE[ModuleRTAntennaPassive] 
    {
        %TechRequired = "None"
        %OmniRange = 160000

        %TRANSMITTER {
            %PacketInterval = 0.3
            %PacketSize = 2
            %PacketResourceCost = 5.0
        }
    }

Edited August 18, 2015 by Rokanov
Gave it a try

[Rokanov]

Noticed a bug when using Semi-Saturatable Reaction Wheels: some probes have two reaction wheels. Couldn't find a fix so made a config (based off of SETI-Balance for 0.9) and thought I'd share

//------\\
//---Saturatable Reaction Wheels---\\
//------\\


@PART
[*]:HAS[@MODULE[RWSaturatable]]:NEEDS[RWSaturatable]:AFTER[RWSaturatable]:BEFORE[SETIctt]
{
    @MODULE[RWSaturatable],*
    {
        @name = ModuleReactionWheel
    }
}
@PART
[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleReactionWheel],!MODULE[RWSaturatable]]:NEEDS[RWSaturatable]:AFTER[SETIctt]
{
    @MODULE[ModuleReactionWheel]
    {
        @name = RWSaturatable
        %saturationScale = 10
        !bleedRate,* {}
        bleedRate
        {
            key = 0 0.025 0 0
            key = 1 0.025 0 0
        }
        !torqueCurve,* {}
        torqueCurve
        {
            key = 0 1 -1 -1
            key = 1 0 -1 -1
        }
    }
}

Add to the end of SETIctt-Settings.cfg, or create a new .cfg in MM-PartModding

[nobodyhasthis]

A big thank you to Rybec. Good spot of the root cause of the animations bug. Thanks for a solution whilst RT gets fixed.

//---160km Omni Antenna on Probe Cores and Command Pods---\\

//------\\

@PART

[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleCommand]]:NEEDS[RemoteTech]:AFTER[RemoteTech]:FOR[sETIctt]

{

%MODULE[ModuleRTAntennaPassive]

{

%TechRequired = "None"

%OmniRange = 160000

%TRANSMITTER {

%PacketInterval = 0.3

%PacketSize = 2

%PacketResourceCost = 5.0

}

}

}

Have put that in straight away. Also a would like to make a special request. Can we please have a community push for Tantares parts CTT conversion.

Hello Yemo!

I have just stumbled upon the tantares pack, could you at some point, when time permits, right up a cfg for the ctt for it? Please!

I think until Tantares is ready for SETI I've probably about tapped out on parts-focused mods for now.

I am not the only one that misses Tantares. Although I am pushing the RAM limit as well and getting picky about what I parts focused mods are used.

I seriously miss Project Gemini. A lot of 2 man pods are not reported as 1.0.4 compatible yet. Apart from good old Corvus.

Hey all,

I probably have Time to continue dev at the end of next week.

I ll try to include all the bugfixes and Feedback from the last pages.

Yay!

However is there is any chance we could help Yemo out a bit?

Right now just getting Tantares and Tantares LV on the right part of the tech tree would help. Although there is a lot of balancing tweaks to be done.

Edited August 19, 2015 by nobodyhasthis

[Nori]

Well I'm willing to provide the configs I've done...

For instance, if you go to this spreadsheet I've laid out all of the tantares control pods (plus a few other pods) and then the second tab has all of the changes I made.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LmxqtedVEelWKrStBAapaLnH0cSaq60dH6apLsL841w/edit?usp=sharing

My balance file is about 560 lines long for just Tantares.

[Rybec]

Do not use my cfg edit, it is not working correctly with career mode. Currently trying to fix this.

Expected behavior is that all pods have a 160km antenna that cannot be shut off. Instead it is display the tech perk in the VAB but it is not operational in flight.

Should be as easy as changing "None" to "Start", loading game to confirm this as I type.

EDIT: No, that's not working either.

EDIT2: Got it! It's not supposed to be in quotes.

%TechRequired = None

Edited August 19, 2015 by Rybec

[Yemo]

Thank you all for the help!

I ll try to put bug fix versions together starting tomorrow.

Not sure how much time I have for extensions.

RLA Stockalike and so on are on the list, I m not sure I ll have the time for the tantares tech tree changes.

@Nori:

I hope to be able to restart the BalanceMod for that in the future and thus would be very greatful if I could use your rebalances for this, I ll bookmark the spreadsheet if you dont mind.

Github is planned for that restart, at the moment I just lack the time to do it properly.

[Nori]

Thank you all for the help!

I ll try to put bug fix versions together starting tomorrow.

Not sure how much time I have for extensions.

RLA Stockalike and so on are on the list, I m not sure I ll have the time for the tantares tech tree changes.

@Nori:

I hope to be able to restart the BalanceMod for that in the future and thus would be very greatful if I could use your rebalances for this, I ll bookmark the spreadsheet if you dont mind.

Github is planned for that restart, at the moment I just lack the time to do it properly.

You definitely can. I can provide the actual files too if wanted. I actually tried to follow your MM style.

Tantares is a real beast though. So many parts to look at and try to fit in places. That's why I started small with just the command pods.

[WLLP]

Hey any updates on the other 2 modpacks/ Balancing 1.0.4?

I know KSP modder comunity isnt really keen on Mod packs in general but this one is awsome! I just would like some more content. In the past I have added the mods in myself using CKAN and what not. But now it seems like I am spending more time tring to get my game to work and less time actually playing it so a prepacked (or mostly prepackaged) solution is very appealing to me. Am I right in thinking you are going to use the mods suggesting and bundled them up with a CKAN file?

Edited August 21, 2015 by WLLP

[Rybec]

You know, spreadsheets seem like a great way to keep track of everything.

It should be possible to make a parser script that reads the spreadsheets and spits out the .cfg files. Maybe even parse formulas into MM math.

I'm with WLLP on the whole spending more time tweaking than playing. I've spent basically all week setting up an install, pruning unneeded parts, trying to make things mesh together better, and I'm not even done. I still need to figure out what I'm doing for EPL (because the parts that come with it.... no. Just no.) and I think I'll have to make tech tree adjustments because the part that does ore->metal comes way later than the one that does metal->rocket parts, and what am I storing the resources in...

I really liked the balance mod for 0.9 because all I had to do was drop it in and it went. Being able to snag all the mods at once via ckan will be extravagant icing on the cake.

EDIT: Oh, and FYI Yemo, you may want to consider manually overriding the KIS volume of the stock radial batteries. KIS is seeing them at their full size instead of the little parts you've shrunk them down to. You can verify this by pulling one out of the inventory and trying to place it; it displays at full size in the placement preview then shrinks down once actually placed.

Edited August 21, 2015 by Rybec

[FreeThinker]

How is phase 9 getting along?

[Yemo]

You definitely can. I can provide the actual files too if wanted. I actually tried to follow your MM style.

Tantares is a real beast though. So many parts to look at and try to fit in places. That's why I started small with just the command pods.

Thank you very much.

The configs would be very helpful when the BalanceMod is rebooted.

Yep, the size of Tantares is very challenging. I ll probably try the tech tree integration following your suggestion, starting with command pods.

Hey any updates on the other 2 modpacks/ Balancing 1.0.4?

I know KSP modder comunity isnt really keen on Mod packs in general but this one is awsome! I just would like some more content. In the past I have added the mods in myself using CKAN and what not. But now it seems like I am spending more time tring to get my game to work and less time actually playing it so a prepacked (or mostly prepackaged) solution is very appealing to me. Am I right in thinking you are going to use the mods suggesting and bundled them up with a CKAN file?

Balancing of 1.0.4 is out of the question, it is like fighting windmills.

The devs made it absolutely clear that they are only interested in adding to the feature list and that (part-, gameplay-) balance is not even remotely considered for new patches.

For example they already announced a new feature (antenna range) for 1.1. It took me literally 2 minutes to spot horrible balancing issues which are totally avoidable. They just do not care the slightest about balancing and I m tired of fighting windmills (every patch).

I wanted mod pack 2 to add some complexity (antenna range, usi life support and so on) and then take it up a notch for pack 3 (eg remote tech, tac life support).

With the announcement that they will basically introduce a disimproved antenna range / remote tech ....... to stock, I ll probably wait for 1.1 to reconsider the mod packs.

You know, spreadsheets seem like a great way to keep track of everything.

It should be possible to make a parser script that reads the spreadsheets and spits out the .cfg files. Maybe even parse formulas into MM math.

I'm with WLLP on the whole spending more time tweaking than playing. I've spent basically all week setting up an install, pruning unneeded parts, trying to make things mesh together better, and I'm not even done. I still need to figure out what I'm doing for EPL (because the parts that come with it.... no. Just no.) and I think I'll have to make tech tree adjustments because the part that does ore->metal comes way later than the one that does metal->rocket parts, and what am I storing the resources in...

I really liked the balance mod for 0.9 because all I had to do was drop it in and it went. Being able to snag all the mods at once via ckan will be extravagant icing on the cake.

EDIT: Oh, and FYI Yemo, you may want to consider manually overriding the KIS volume of the stock radial batteries. KIS is seeing them at their full size instead of the little parts you've shrunk them down to. You can verify this by pulling one out of the inventory and trying to place it; it displays at full size in the placement preview then shrinks down once actually placed.

Yep, I miss the BalanceMod as well, hopefully at some point squad is less hostile towards gameplay balance.

I ll look at the KIS values, thank you for the notice.

How is phase 9 getting along?

The old dev is basically suspended. The second post is now just a reminder of the old BalanceMod. That something like that existed before it got shut down by squads "mindless feature list extensions above everything" policy.

At the moment I only really expand the SETI-CTT mod integration and try to keep SETI-Contracts and the greenhouse compatible.

[Yemo]

SETI ModPack 1 Basic v0.9.4 (for KSP 1.0.4)

No mod changes.

It just uses the new "favorite" ckan structure.

Which basically allows you to view and select/deselect the recommended mods from the pack, instead of installing everything at once without further user review.

[FreeThinker]

The old dev is basically suspended. The second post is now just a reminder of the old BalanceMod. That something like that existed before it got shut down by squads "mindless feature list extensions above everything" policy.

At the moment I only really expand the SETI-CTT mod integration and try to keep SETI-Contracts and the greenhouse compatible.

Sorry, but your not making sense. You say you won't work on it anymore because something Squad did???

[Nori]

Sorry, but your not making sense. You say you won't work on it anymore because something Squad did???

I think he is more frustrated with the major changes lately and wants to wait for a more "stable" version before going all out.

[Yemo]

Sorry, but your not making sense. You say you won't work on it anymore because something Squad did???

I think he is more frustrated with the major changes lately and wants to wait for a more "stable" version before going all out.

Yep, I can not possibly recheck everything and redo many changes every patch without knowing when it ends and/or what changes next and what is somewhat stable.

Also Squad clearly stated/showed that they do not care for balancing new features/patches at all, let alone rebalance old parts, which they promised for 1.0.

Eg Mk1 command pod: 0.8tons, 1 kerbal

Mk1-2 command pod: 4 tons, 3 kerbals

Hitchhiker + probe core: 2.5 tons, 4 kerbals

As I said above, it took me about 2 minutes to find horrible, totally avoidable balancing issues with the antenna range mechanic proposed for 1.1.

And I still can not see any gameplay advantage provided by the 1.0.x implementation of the heat mechanic. It was a bug party without any tangible gameplay gain. A feature for its own sake, instead of just asking the Deadly Reentry modder...

A balance mod needs a basis to work upon.

[goldenpsp]

Yep, I can not possibly recheck everything and redo many changes every patch without knowing when it ends and/or what changes next and what is somewhat stable.

Also Squad clearly stated/showed that they do not care for balancing new features/patches at all, let alone rebalance old parts, which they promised for 1.0.

Eg Mk1 command pod: 0.8tons, 1 kerbal

Mk1-2 command pod: 4 tons, 3 kerbals

Hitchhiker + probe core: 2.5 tons, 4 kerbals

As I said above, it took me about 2 minutes to find horrible, totally avoidable balancing issues with the antenna range mechanic proposed for 1.1.

And I still can not see any gameplay advantage provided by the 1.0.x implementation of the heat mechanic. It was a bug party without any tangible gameplay gain. A feature for its own sake, instead of just asking the Deadly Reentry modder...

A balance mod needs a basis to work upon.

Just out of curiousity, since you brought it up in your example, how do you classify "balance"? It seems to me if you are only looking at the tons, as in your example, you are certainly not taking the whole picture into consideration.

For example, yes the Mk1-2 pod is far heavier than a Hitchhiker+ probe core. But the Mk1-2 pod's crash tolerance is 45 vs 6 for the Hitchhiker. That is a significant difference, and I would suspect would account for the Mk1-2 pod's extra weight.

[Nori]

Just out of curiousity, since you brought it up in your example, how do you classify "balance"? It seems to me if you are only looking at the tons, as in your example, you are certainly not taking the whole picture into consideration.

For example, yes the Mk1-2 pod is far heavier than a Hitchhiker+ probe core. But the Mk1-2 pod's crash tolerance is 45 vs 6 for the Hitchhiker. That is a significant difference, and I would suspect would account for the Mk1-2 pod's extra weight.

That's true. But lets look at a different example. 3 Mk1 pods would weigh 2.4t vs the Mk1-2's 4t. Granted crash tolerance is lower. If you want similar crash tolerance look at the mk1inline, 3 of those would weigh 3t.. Still 1t lighter despite having more total surface area.

Another good example is the Mk1 lander can vs the mk2. 0.6 for 1 kerbal, 2.5 for 2. You may say the MK1 Lander is too light as is, but consider that 2 MK1 pods are still 0.9t lighter than 1 MK2 lander.

"Balance" is pretty much all over the place...

[goldenpsp]

That's true. But lets look at a different example. 3 Mk1 pods would weigh 2.4t vs the Mk1-2's 4t. Granted crash tolerance is lower. If you want similar crash tolerance look at the mk1inline, 3 of those would weigh 3t.. Still 1t lighter despite having more total surface area.

Another good example is the Mk1 lander can vs the mk2. 0.6 for 1 kerbal, 2.5 for 2. You may say the MK1 Lander is too light as is, but consider that 2 MK1 pods are still 0.9t lighter than 1 MK2 lander.

"Balance" is pretty much all over the place...

Also again looking at just weight. I'm not saying it is perfect, but I don't see it as far "all over the place" as I guess you guys do.

The only last thing I will throw out there, is a comparison to RL (I know KSP isn't real life). But it is probably the "closest" comparison we can make based on things actually built.

The Mercury capsule is probably the closest and likely what the MK1 pod is based on. The Mercury capsule came in at 1,355kg while the MK1 pod is 1,200 kg. Fairly close actually. The Apollo Command module is probably the closest analog to the MK1-2 pod. They even look pretty similar. The Apollo CM came in at 5,900kg while the Mk1-2 pod is 4,000kg.

Excellent forum avatar btw.

[Svm420]

Also again looking at just weight. I'm not saying it is perfect, but I don't see it as far "all over the place" as I guess you guys do.

The only last thing I will throw out there, is a comparison to RL (I know KSP isn't real life). But it is probably the "closest" comparison we can make based on things actually built.

The Mercury capsule is probably the closest and likely what the MK1 pod is based on. The Mercury capsule came in at 1,355kg while the MK1 pod is 1,200 kg. Fairly close actually. The Apollo Command module is probably the closest analog to the MK1-2 pod. They even look pretty similar. The Apollo CM came in at 5,900kg while the Mk1-2 pod is 4,000kg.

Excellent forum avatar btw.

See that is a poor way to gauge balance when parts are all massively heavier in KSP cause we play at toy scale. They may match real life but nothing else does so you can't use that as a measuring stick when it's convenient and throw it out when it isn't. That probably how we got the number we have. Good game design may correlate with RL, but likely should not be based on it. Also to add as well I wish the cockpits were lighter as it's impossible to build close replica aircrafts as the cockpit can weigh as much as many ultra light aircrafts total. I think all mk1 cockpits should have a relatively low crash tolerance and heat resistance and should absolutely not be able to survive reentry. That would allow them to be lighter without invalidating command pods. Mark2 should be the star of space planes IMO.

[Nori]

Also again looking at just weight. I'm not saying it is perfect, but I don't see it as far "all over the place" as I guess you guys do.

The only last thing I will throw out there, is a comparison to RL (I know KSP isn't real life). But it is probably the "closest" comparison we can make based on things actually built.

The Mercury capsule is probably the closest and likely what the MK1 pod is based on. The Mercury capsule came in at 1,355kg while the MK1 pod is 1,200 kg. Fairly close actually. The Apollo Command module is probably the closest analog to the MK1-2 pod. They even look pretty similar. The Apollo CM came in at 5,900kg while the Mk1-2 pod is 4,000kg.

Excellent forum avatar btw.

It is hard to not look at mass when mass, size and crew capacity are pretty much the only differentiation between pods. I suppose you can add crash tolerance on that. I rarely will consider it since I try not to crash.

Interesting info on the Apollo and Mercury. Definitely does look like they modeled after those pods. Sadly many of the extra features the Apollo CM has aren't on the Mk1-2, like integrated parachutes, advanced navigation, integrated heatshield, significant life support and various other things. Though that really just goes back to there isn't a lot to differentiate between pods.

The last point I would make is that as you said, KSP isn't real life and when it comes down to it, squad needs to (and in many cases has) balance for gameplay. If you can take 3 MK1 pods to get the same number of crew and save 1.6t then there is a balance issue. I could get behind the MK1-2 being heavier overall, but an additional 1.6t is a little much IMHO.

Yeah love that show! Garibaldi is one of my all time favorite characters.

[goldenpsp]

See that is a poor way to gauge balance when parts are all massively heavier in KSP cause we play at toy scale. They may match real life but nothing else does so you can't use that as a measuring stick when it's convenient and throw it out when it isn't. That probably how we got the number we have. Good game design may correlate with RL, but likely should not be based on it. Also to add as well I wish the cockpits were lighter as it's impossible to build close replica aircrafts as the cockpit can weigh as much as many ultra light aircrafts total. I think all mk1 cockpits should have a relatively low crash tolerance and heat resistance and should absolutely not be able to survive reentry. That would allow them to be lighter without invalidating command pods. Mark2 should be the star of space planes IMO.

Ok let me try and steer this back on track.

First, I am not a balance expert, nor am I claiming to be. On the other hand, this thread and Yemo seem to be the defacto expert on balance.

So, when I saw Yemo throwing out arguments of bad balance in post #1419 comparing only weight, which seemingly was ignoring that some of that weight difference is that the MK1-2 pod is 6 times more crash tolerant than the hitchhiker, it simply brought me to ask the question of how Yemo is coming to "balance".

This is because if you are just going to base your balance on one set of parameters you are being fairly arbitrary and it ends up coming down to balance based on Yemo's arbitrary feeling of what's right, which isn't necessarily any "better" than Squads, just different.

I used the RL numbers only that they tend to correlate to the game (not just weights but their comparable ratios, which is actually better for KSP) as they at least show that maybe squad tried to use some non-arbitrary baseline to start from.

TLDR: Yemo's post #1419 caused me to ask for some insight into his balance "process".