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

[Nori]

As strange as it may seem to say, the game just isn't complex enough to have really dynamic balance (like steel body vs aluminum vs xyz and so on). So in the end I think a lot of stuff will come down to personal preference.

[goldenpsp]

As strange as it may seem to say, the game just isn't complex enough to have really dynamic balance (like steel body vs aluminum vs xyz and so on). So in the end I think a lot of stuff will come down to personal preference.

Maybe not. It just seemed to me that Yemo's post was a bit off the cuff for someone who is so serious about the game balance. His example was completely off the mark IMO. One last thing, to go back to his original statement, namely the MK 1-2 vs Hitchhiker + probe core.

Mk1-2 command pod: 4 tons, 3 kerbals

Hitchhiker + probe core: 2.5 tons, 4 kerbals

This isn't even an apples to apples comparison

I already pointed out the huge difference between crash tolerances.

But in addition, the Mk1-2 has 150 charge built in, and 30 monoprop fuel. It also has 15.0 torque. The hitchhiker setup has 10 electric charge, no monoprop, and .3 torque.

So to add some parts to make the hitchhiker closer to the MK1-2 in all of these values, (adding a reaction wheel, some monoprop and battery). brings me to about 3T. Yes it is still 1T lighter.

But then I slapped a MK16-XL chute to the top, and yet my kerbals all died, as the chute only slowed the Hitchhiker to 7 m/s which is higher than it's crash tolerance.

Now I'm not saying the game is perfect, but I do think Yemo chose very poorly when he posted his example of how unbalanced it is, which is what caused me to question his own balance process.

[Yemo]

The example given was very simplified (I listed most of the command parts some time ago, this time I just picked 3). Also the hitchiker combo has space for 4 kerbals instead of 3 and if you consider cockpits (and their torque) and other parts like the lander cans mentioned above, it only gets worse.

The underlying problem is, that there is no overall concept of gameplay balance.

On top of the simple stat issues, the underlying mechanics are not balanced.

Electric Charge vs itself (only made bearable by the lack of stock background processing)

ReactionWheels vs ControlThrusters

CrashTolerances vs Parachutes vs LandingLegs

Manned vs Unmanned (based on the proposed 1.1 "feauture" description, this one even gets a lot worse!!)

Atmospheric vs SpaceFlightComponents

Fuel tanks vs themselves (eg compare the monoprop empty masses to capacity)

and so on...

And as soon as you deal with the Manned vs Unmanned imbalance by installing eg TAC LifeSupport you can not use the 45m/s crash tolerance anymore, because of the g-forces.

Thus by dealing with one imbalance, you increase other imbalances.

My idea of a good base balance is, that the parts are balanced for gameplay as they are and are not made more imbalanced by adding complexity/balancing mods on top of that.

[Gfurst]

Heya there!

Just pooping, pop-in in to see how development is. Letting you know going to begin playing new career with SETI tree

Edited August 29, 2015 by Gfurst

[Yemo]

Heya there!

Just pooping in to see how development is. Letting you know going to begin playing new career with SETI tree

RL interfered with modding on the last weekend, but I hope to finish 0.9.2 this weekend.

That is the current status, though I still have the problem with procedural SRBs and HRBs having the same ISP...

**Fixes**

* SRB rebalance, thank you for the notice innomin8

* MobileProcessingLab is now considered a "station", thank you for the notice Targa

* ProbeCore EC changes only if original EC is below 200, thank you very much Shaggygoblin and Nori

* Integrated 160km antenna (with RemoteTech) fixed, thank you very much Rybec

* Semi-Saturatable Reaction Wheels compatibility config, thank you very much Rokanov

**SETI-CTT Mod Support**

* RLA Stockalike

* Lithobreak Exploration Technologies

If I m missing any fixes, please tell me. It has been quite some time since the last version.

Tantares will have to wait since I need to do some work on the contracts first.

[Gfurst]

Cheers, by the way what are those HRB? Aren't they a bit cheaty? If that some kind of recent technology that developed later, don't you think would be better suited later on the tree as an "efficiency upgrade"?

On that note, the integrated antennae is also overkill, that thus makes the first omni way too powerfull, don't ya think?

disclaimer: I just began playing so I really did just have an over look of pieces.

[Yemo]

Cheers, by the way what are those HRB? Aren't they a bit cheaty? If that some kind of recent technology that developed later, don't you think would be better suited later on the tree as an "efficiency upgrade"?

On that note, the integrated antennae is also overkill, that thus makes the first omni way too powerfull, don't ya think?

disclaimer: I just began playing so I really did just have an over look of pieces.

The HRBs use solid fuel + oxidizer instead of just solid fuel with integrated oxidizer. Thus they can be throttled and switched off. It seems that due to ProceduralParts limitations, they will have to get the same ISP as the SRBs, though they retain the advantage of the separate oxidizer (which can be provided in with a procedural fuel tank, thus allowing a split of masses).

I currently face the problem that procedural SRBs have some kind of baseCost of roughly 255 funds. I do not know how to deactivate/change that.

If anyone knows, please let me know.

The 160km integrated just saves you the DP-10 for launches and other short range com. I rebalanced the DP-10 to be more useful for eg low orbit networks and espcially atmospheric craft connecting to low orbit networks.

[nobodyhasthis]

Tantares will have to wait since I need to do some work on the contracts first.

Good. I have been looking into Tantares some more and perhaps there needs to some careful planning here for a number of reasons. This is a bit of a ramble as posts go. Sorry about that but trying to get a few thoughts down before we commit to Tantares.

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.

It is indeed a beast. However even now putting it on the tech tree and moving it around a bit I can see problems. I am not balancing anything here. Just speculating what the finished result would be. Progression feels awkward it places and there is some seriously OP parts need cut back. The thing also feels cluttered alongside stock parts. Running in half res the textures are washed out and look unfinished to me (on 32 bits with aggressive ATM, fighting the 4 gig limit). So perhaps that is why it looks cluttered to me. So I started thinking what do we need here exactly. Forgetting all limitations on coding and SETI balancing. What looks stock like and adds fun. There is a lot of specialist decouplers that don't see a lot of action or can be abused latter on. Then I came to a bit of an awkward decision. I put Tantares down and tried working with HGR http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/60974-1-0-2-HGR-1-875m-parts(v1-3-0-released). Which is listed as not 1.0.4 compatible. I thought that since the Corvus and HGR props was working why not try this. It worked and got me a Tantares like Soviet program alongside a Gemini pods. With a lot less parts. So now I am not so sure. I like Tantares a lot and would like to see it converted into the SETI framework. However another look at HGR might save some time. Any thought on this guys?

Edited August 30, 2015 by nobodyhasthis

[Yemo]

Good. I have been looking into Tantares some more and perhaps there needs to some careful planning here for a number of reasons. This is a bit of a ramble as posts go. Sorry about that but trying to get a few thoughts down before we commit to Tantares.

It is indeed a beast. However even now putting it on the tech tree and moving it around a bit I can see problems. I am not balancing anything here. Just speculating what the finished result would be. Progression feels awkward it places and there is some seriously OP parts need cut back. The thing also feels cluttered alongside stock parts. Running in half res the textures are washed out and look unfinished to me (on 32 bits with aggressive ATM, fighting the 4 gig limit). So perhaps that is why it looks cluttered to me. So I started thinking what do we need here exactly. Forgetting all limitations on coding and SETI balancing. What looks stock like and adds fun. There is a lot of specialist decouplers that don't see a lot of action or can be abused latter on. Then I came to a bit of an awkward decision. I put Tantares down and tried working with HGR http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/60974-1-0-2-HGR-1-875m-parts(v1-3-0-released). Which is listed as not 1.0.4 compatible. I thought that since the Corvus and HGR props was working why not try this. It worked and got me a Tantares like Soviet program alongside a Gemini pods. With a lot less parts. So now I am not so sure. I like Tantares a lot and would like to see it converted into the SETI framework. However another look at HGR might save some time. Any thought on this guys?

HGR is supported since 0.9.1, especially because of the great 1.875m diameter, which imho fits perfectly. Although it has some balancing issues, that is not much of a problem right now, since KSP has no balance anyway.

And while we are on the topic of balance, I tried my best in making the procedural SRBs and HRBs "balanced". Unfortunately procedural parts is bugged, so the procedural SRB always has a base cost of 256 funds, which I can not get rid off. Also I can not define separate ISPs for SRBs and HRBs...

If you are using ckan, I also added some part mod recommendations. Mostly the ones which are already in the SETI-ModPack-1-Basic.

SETI CommunityTechTree v0.9.2 (for KSP 1.0.4)

Fixes

• Rough SRB/HRB rebalance, thank you for the notice innomin8
  
• Procedural SRBs are bugged, they have a base cost of 256 which I can not change
  
• MobileProcessingLab is now considered a "station", thank you for the notice Targa
  
• ProbeCore EC changes only if original EC is below 200, thank you very much Shaggygoblin and Nori
  
• Integrated 160km antenna (with RemoteTech) fixed, thank you very much Rybec
  
• Semi-Saturatable Reaction Wheels compatibility config, thank you very much Rokanov
  

SETI-CTT Mod Support

• RLA Stockalike
  
• Lithobreak Exploration Technologies
  

[gerishnakov]

Not sure what needed to be fixed about the integrated RemoteTech antenna, especially as it now doesn't work at all for me. The HECS doesn't have the usual SETI 160km antenna or a RemoteTech SPU, so even the standard 3km RemoteTech always on antenna doesn't work.

[Nori]

Yeah rolled back as the antenna doesn't seem to work now. Not sure what it was supposed to fix as it was fine before.

[gerishnakov]

OK so I've 'fixed' the RemoteTech problem with this latest update.

The section in SETIctt-Settings.cfg dealing with the 160km antenna should look like this:

@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

}

}

}

I've also taken the liberty there of changing the SETI antenna to a true always on RemoteTech antenna.

Next the part adding the Signal Processing Unit to every probe should look like this:

@PART

[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleCommand]:HAS[~minimumCrew[0]]]:NEEDS[RemoteTech]:FOR[sETIctt]

{

%MODULE[ModuleSPU] {}

}

The problem there was that the SPU module being added by SETI (ModuleSPUPassive or whatever) was the one meant for use on just antennae, not probe cores and command pods.

[nobodyhasthis]

Yeah rolled back as the antenna doesn't seem to work now. Not sure what it was supposed to fix as it was fine before.

I see !%MODULE[ModuleRTAntennaPassive]{}

is that starting ! supposed to be there?

EDIT: checked again and tweaked as suggested. Now going to bed since SETI has provided wonderful KSP tonight / this morning despite this minor little snafu (Now 3.30 am). Might post a play through report else where on the forums. Since I am running with no stock contracts at all and must pay to unlock tech. SETI leads a merry dance.

Edited August 31, 2015 by nobodyhasthis

[Yemo]

@gerishnakov: Thank you very much for the fixes.

@all: Sorry for the inconveniences.

SETI CommunityTechTree v0.9.2.1 (for KSP 1.0.4)

Fixes

• Fixed RemoteTech compatibility, thank you very much gerishnakov
  

[Gfurst]

So there seems to be another issue:

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[KerbalSeat]]:NEEDS[RemoteTech]:FOR[SETIctt]
{
	%MODULE[ModuleRTAntennaPassive] 
	{
		%TechRequired = None
		%OmniRange = 24000

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

	%MODULE[ModuleSPU] {}
}

This is causing some weird effects that a vessel with only a Kerbal seat for command will not allow certain actions... For example on my weird ass attempt as first monoprop plane XD

[RobertJPowell]

Well the Procedural SRB re-balance worked - No more getting the 18km and escape the atmosphere contracts on the first go

[gerishnakov]

@gerishnakov: Thank you very much for the fixes.

@all: Sorry for the inconveniences.

SETI CommunityTechTree v0.9.2.1 (for KSP 1.0.4)

Fixes

• Fixed RemoteTech compatibility, thank you very much gerishnakov
  

Hey no worries - I have no desire at all to play KSP without SETI so keep up the great work!

[Rybec]

Is there any particular reason why KSP AVC is now a listed as a dependency in CKAN?

[Gfurst]

The front page and recommended mods are in need of a desperate tidy up.

Nowadays considering that mods did not keep up... what are the most necessary for decent progression gameplay. ie contracts packs and whatnots...

[Yemo]

So there seems to be another issue:

@PART
[*]:HAS[@MODULE[KerbalSeat]]:NEEDS[RemoteTech]:FOR[SETIctt]
{
    %MODULE[ModuleRTAntennaPassive] 
    {
        %TechRequired = None
        %OmniRange = 24000

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

    %MODULE[ModuleSPU] {}
}

This is causing some weird effects that a vessel with only a Kerbal seat for command will not allow certain actions... For example on my weird ass attempt as first monoprop plane XD

Damn.

I m not at the computer with the game installed at the moment. If anyone can come up with a config to resolve this and test it, I could copy paste and upload it.

Well the Procedural SRB re-balance worked - No more getting the 18km and escape the atmosphere contracts on the first go

Good! Unfortunately SRBs are still more expensive than HRBs due to the procedural SRB bug...

Is there any particular reason why KSP AVC is now a listed as a dependency in CKAN?

Many mods distribute a .version file, but not the mini KSP-AVC plugin. That dependency makes sure that users are are aware of newer versions, in case they have manually installed mods in addition to the ckan ones. Or if the ckan version is, for whatever reason, not updated.

The front page and recommended mods are in need of a desperate tidy up.

Nowadays considering that mods did not keep up... what are the most necessary for decent progression gameplay. ie contracts packs and whatnots...

How so?

The .ckan SETI-ModPack-1-Basic from the front page should include the most necessary mods (except for SXT MiniPack Mk3 Cargo Ramp, which is not on ckan). Then just the usual suspects (eg KIS, KAS, ...) depending on how much complexity you want (eg USI Life Support vs TAC Life Support, up to KSPIextended).

[Gfurst]

Damn.

I m not at the computer with the game installed at the moment. If anyone can come up with a config to resolve this and test it, I could copy paste and upload it.

Oh I'm sorry I forgot to mention, just remove the "%MODULE[ModuleSPU] {}" from the external seat patch... the external seat shouldn't need a SPU module. Tried and solved it.

How so?

The .ckan SETI-ModPack-1-Basic from the front page should include the most necessary mods (except for SXT MiniPack Mk3 Cargo Ramp, which is not on ckan). Then just the usual suspects (eg KIS, KAS, ...) depending on how much complexity you want (eg USI Life Support vs TAC Life Support, up to KSPIextended).

Well I have to take more time to look overall.

But for starters I do recommend a change with the modpack.... Turn it into a overhaul maybe. Make use depends, recommends and suggest properly. In package manager their meaning:

• Depends: are other packages that without them, the original simply won't work.
  
• Recommends: are packages that may be needed for some functionality.
  
• Suggests: are the ones that enhance some functionality but are not need entirely.
  

I will take a better look at the OP better to see if I can come up with some suggestions.

Apart from that I have some playability questions (and anyone can answer these):

The contract pack "advanced progression", not needed at all and better without it?

Have you thought about instead of getting individual contracts for record braking, to have them like stock does? Highest altitude, first orbit, first manned orbit, etc. (helps with clutter and having to do some of them twice)

I'm really annoyed at how some contracts asks for impossible things like: "ferry two tourist to orbit" or "survey at 18k altitude" when I've yet to the first capsule or jet plane. Is there a contract pack to deal with those?

edit: and one last question, I'm really struggling to get money with the "research single parts" option, as some of the prices are quite excessive. Does anyone tried playing this way?

Edited September 1, 2015 by Gfurst

[Yemo]

Oh I'm sorry I forgot to mention, just remove the "%MODULE[ModuleSPU] {}" from the external seat patch... the external seat shouldn't need a SPU module. Tried and solved it.

Well I have to take more time to look overall.

But for starters I do recommend a change with the modpack.... Turn it into a overhaul maybe. Make use depends, recommends and suggest properly. In package manager their meaning:

• Depends: are other packages that without them, the original simply won't work.
  
• Recommends: are packages that may be needed for some functionality.
  
• Suggests: are the ones that enhance some functionality but are not need entirely.
  

I will take a better look at the OP better to see if I can come up with some suggestions.

Apart from that I have some playability questions (and anyone can answer these):

The contract pack "advanced progression", not needed at all and better without it?

Have you thought about instead of getting individual contracts for record braking, to have them like stock does? Highest altitude, first orbit, first manned orbit, etc. (helps with clutter and having to do some of them twice)

I'm really annoyed at how some contracts asks for impossible things like: "ferry two tourist to orbit" or "survey at 18k altitude" when I've yet to the first capsule or jet plane. Is there a contract pack to deal with those?

edit: and one last question, I'm really struggling to get money with the "research single parts" option, as some of the prices are quite excessive. Does anyone tried playing this way?

Looking at the file without the ability to test today, what about this part?

@PART
[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleCommand]:HAS[~minimumCrew[0]]]:NEEDS[RemoteTech]:FOR[SETIctt]
{
    %MODULE[ModuleSPU] {}
}

It has been a while since I modded remote tech and I m not sure anymore what this is for. Could anyone check please? Does it give probe functionality to command pods (eg if they are empty)? I really cant remember.

For the mod packs I only want to use recommend and suggest, the depends are handled by the mods themselves. Previously, ckan exported mod packs only used depend.

Originally there were at least 3 mod packs planned, in order of complexity, but with squads 1.1 announced "features", I ll wait for that to develop them further.

If you have any suggestions, I ll keep them in mind for KSP 1.1+.

Advanced progression seems to have redundancies with SETI contract, though I havent taken a look at it in a long time.

For KSP 1.1+, I consider changing the contracts from the current click-to-accept to the auto-accept (record type) one. That would solve the issue of having to decline regular ones if eg the 2-star slots are filled up. Though it means that users have to check their active contracts in addition to checking available contracts.

The SETIcontracts are intended to be a progression campaign. For players who just want to get paid for whatever mission they do, SETIcontracts might not be the right pack.

The tourism pack deals with the tourist contracts. While I dislike many stock contracts, imho they should not come after the right tech is available, but a bit before. So that tech can be developed to fulfil missions. Also keep in mind, that you can build rocket planes very early, or prop planes using KAX (eg with SRBs/HRBs to hop to 18km altitude).

In KSP 0.90 with the SETI-BalanceMod, I always played that way. Unfortunately the squad cost unlock "balance" is non-existant, so I would not recommend it.

[nobodyhasthis]

I'm really annoyed at how some contracts asks for impossible things like: "ferry two tourist to orbit" or "survey at 18k altitude" when I've yet to the first capsule or jet plane. Is there a contract pack to deal with those?

edit: and one last question, I'm really struggling to get money with the "research single parts" option, as some of the prices are quite excessive. Does anyone tried playing this way?

Advanced progression seems to have redundancies with SETI contract, though I havent taken a look at it in a long time.

For KSP 1.1+, I consider changing the contracts from the current click-to-accept to the auto-accept (record type) one. That would solve the issue of having to decline regular ones if eg the 2-star slots are filled up. Though it means that users have to check their active contracts in addition to checking available contracts.

The SETIcontracts are intended to be a progression campaign. For players who just want to get paid for whatever mission they do, SETIcontracts might not be the right pack.

The tourism pack deals with the tourist contracts. While I dislike many stock contracts, imho they should not come after the right tech is available, but a bit before. So that tech can be developed to fulfil missions. Also keep in mind, that you can build rocket planes very early, or prop planes using KAX (eg with SRBs/HRBs to hop to 18km altitude).

In KSP 0.90 with the SETI-BalanceMod, I always played that way. Unfortunately the squad cost unlock "balance" is non-existant, so I would not recommend it.

Contract Configurator lets you force bad missions types off the current queue in KSC screen. There is also a No Stock Missions that will block them. I tend to add back mission types at appropriate times. A quick and dirty list what I use this for.....Start with only...

SETI Contracts

Historic Missions

Advanced Progression

Unmanned Contracts

Aircraft Builders

N3h3mia Kemnini Science

Before moving onto

N3h3mia Material Science

Station Science

Scan Contracts

Useful Stations

Tourism Plus

Remote Tech

Then I start to open the game up to all the contract packs including stock

This does cause overlapping progress but in a meaningful way. You will need several early orbital missions to complete the early contracts. So although you might get asked to do a simple orbit. The specifications and payload will change.

As far a science and funding goes. I have an odd choice which is deliberately designed to make a weird progress curve. I have to pay to unlock items but also get paid to do just science. Science Funding lets to carry on the campaign without contracts. It does however only pay once and funding and science points are 70%. Technically it can be set at %60 to make thing more interesting with suggested extra science mods. This causes funding to bounce around a lot. Upgrading buildings is difficult because the tech tree takes cash. However it also brings in a windfall of cash now and again. Also the occasional financial crisis. Although not an ideal solution it gives a different SETI based playing experience that is worth trying. Certainly more better than stock progression. Although technically not exactly in the spirit of SETI it a fun experience.

Edited September 2, 2015 by nobodyhasthis

[Gfurst]

Just noticed something! Why some of the experiments been marked as non collectable?

Me so sad, I was clicking that mystery goo thinking something was wrong with my game...

All in all, why wouldn't you want it to be recoverable and resettable by scientist?

[RobertJPowell]

Just noticed something! Why some of the experiments been marked as non collectable?

Me so sad, I was clicking that mystery goo thinking something was wrong with my game...

All in all, why wouldn't you want it to be recoverable and resettable by scientist?

you have limited space on a manned vessel (especially if trying to be realistic) - You can still transmit and reset the experiment with a scientist, but once you've collected it, it's done!

Edited September 2, 2015 by RobertJPowell
correction