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

[nobodyhasthis2]

4 hours ago, Antonio432 said:

I require a bit of help here, please. So, I am not sure how to fix the Science Jr. observation bay, i read the previous post where the guy had the issue too but i can't find the fix anywhere. And also, can I revert the new (old) Mk1 Inline cockpit to the default one ? I like the newer one and TAC life support can't find any resources in the retro Mk1 Inline cockpit, so how can i change it to the vanilla one ? EDIT: Ok I found the fix for the Science bay.

On the ven's stock revamp thread there is a patch if I remember correctly.

The retro Mk1 Inline cockpit is not supposed to work with TAC LS on purpose. You can't fly a early technology normal plane cockpit in space. Well we can't stop you in game but that what the assumption is here. This represents development of stuff up to X-15 style planes. Eventually higher up the technology tree you get the stock inline cockpit. Which is rated for space use and should work with TAC LS. 

So you should starting at early atmospheric flight then developing rockets into space. Then back to designing space planes if that makes sense.

Edited February 28, 2016 by nobodyhasthis2

[Ant432]

3 hours ago, nobodyhasthis2 said:

On the ven's stock revamp thread there is a patch if I remember correctly.

The retro Mk1 Inline cockpit is not supposed to work with TAC LS on purpose. You can't fly a early technology normal plane cockpit in space. Well we can't stop you in game but that what the assumption is here. This represents development of stuff up to X-15 style planes. Eventually higher up the technology tree you get the stock inline cockpit. Which is rated for space use and should work with TAC LS. 

So you should starting at early atmospheric flight then developing rockets into space. Then back to designing space planes if that makes sense.

I figured the Ven's problem out, and i understand the Retro Mk1 Cockpit, but I want the new Mk1 texture, how do I change it ?

[Yemo]

@nobodyhasthis2: Exactly, the normal Mk1 Inline Cockpit is available at commandModules together with the Mk1-2 command pod.

 

44 minutes ago, Antonio432 said:

I figured the Ven's problem out, and i understand the Retro Mk1 Cockpit, but I want the new Mk1 texture, how do I change it ?

The best way would be to make a config file in your gamedata folder which includes a module manager patch replacing the mesh reference of the "RetroMk1inline" with the model path of the stock cockpit. You probably need to adjust the nodes as well.

Pretty much what VenStockRevamp does to so many stock parts (Science Jr. included). You only need to do this once and it will continue to work if you update SETIctt.

You can also do it quick and dirty, but that requires manual work every time you update SETIctt, so (much) more work over time. Essentially editing the RetroMk1inline.cfg within SETIctt.

Personally I would do the module manager way following how VenStockRevamp does it, but keep in mind that mesh and model work differently concerning the rescale factor.

[Ant432]

36 minutes ago, Yemo said:

@nobodyhasthis2: Exactly, the normal Mk1 Inline Cockpit is available at commandModules together with the Mk1-2 command pod.

 

The best way would be to make a config file in your gamedata folder which includes a module manager patch replacing the mesh reference of the "RetroMk1inline" with the model path of the stock cockpit. You probably need to adjust the nodes as well.

Pretty much what VenStockRevamp does to so many stock parts (Science Jr. included). You only need to do this once and it will continue to work if you update SETIctt.

You can also do it quick and dirty, but that requires manual work every time you update SETIctt, so (much) more work over time. Essentially editing the RetroMk1inline.cfg within SETIctt.

Personally I would do the module manager way following how VenStockRevamp does it, but keep in mind that mesh and model work differently concerning the rescale factor.

I'm not too sure how to do that, i know how to adjust the nodes , but I don't know how to change the texture. Which specific cfg should I change and how ? I first tried to remove the Retro texture and replace it with vanilla one, but that just made it white so I reverted it. 

Edited February 28, 2016 by Antonio432
Additional notes

[Yemo]

26 minutes ago, Antonio432 said:

I'm not too sure how to do that, i know how to adjust the nodes , but I don't know how to change the texture. Which specific cfg should I change and how ? I first tried to remove the Retro texture and replace it with vanilla one, but that just made it white so I reverted it. 

Just like Ven does it, eg with this config (though you want to change the part with @PART, not create a copy with +PART:  \GameData\VenStockRevamp\Part Bin\ExtraTanks.cfg

The relevant "name" of the part you want to edit is RetroMk1inline, so @PART[RetroMk1inline]:AFTER[SETIctt]

Then you need to change those model and rescale values to the ones from the normal cockpit from squad which you find here: \GameData\Squad\Parts\Command\mk1Cockpits\mk1InlineCockpit.cfg

[Ant432]

On 28.02.2016. at 0:40 AM, Yemo said:

 

Edited March 1, 2016 by Antonio432

[SpaceBadger007]

I know its not released yet but would you consider intergrating the sstu mod? It got a lot of good stuff!

Edited February 29, 2016 by SpaceBadger007

[Ant432]

On 28.02.2016. at 0:40 AM, Yemo said:

Just like Ven does it, eg with this config (though you want to change the part with @PART, not create a copy with +PART:  \GameData\VenStockRevamp\Part Bin\ExtraTanks.cfg

The relevant "name" of the part you want to edit is RetroMk1inline, so @PART[RetroMk1inline]:AFTER[SETIctt]

Then you need to change those model and rescale values to the ones from the normal cockpit from squad which you find here: \GameData\Squad\Parts\Command\mk1Cockpits\mk1InlineCockpit.cfg

Sorry if I am annoying, I got the Mk Cockpit stuff but I have a bug when using this with remotetech, if i get near the Mun my dishes can't reach stations on Kerbin and I am using the 90MM dish.

[Yemo]

On 29.2.2016 at 8:13 PM, SpaceBadger007 said:

I know its not released yet but would you consider intergrating the sstu mod? It got a lot of good stuff!

It looks great, but it also looks massive.

Those are my requirements for mod support:

1. Is it available via CKAN? Does it provide a KSP-AVC version file? Relevant for testing and minimizing support issues.

2. Is it moddable by module manager statements? Eg no:Final statements.

3. Does it at least try to fit into the game or does it provide OP components, which replace current choices instead of adding to them?

4. How is the relation between the necessary integration workload and the benefit it provides in terms of choices?

Since it is not yet on CKAN, I will wait for that to take a more detailed look at it. Though I would certainly prefer a modular release, instead of one giant pack.

 

19 hours ago, Antonio432 said:

Sorry if I am annoying, I got the Mk Cockpit stuff but I have a bug when using this with remotetech, if i get near the Mun my dishes can't reach stations on Kerbin and I am using the 90MM dish.

The secondary stations have a range of 9Mm, while the mun is 12Mm away from Kerbin, so only the KSC would be able to connect to a dish on the mun pointed at kerbin/MissionControl.

[meuqsaco]

Hello, thank you very much for your mod

 

I've tried to use the developer version of the tech tree, but it does not look like the one you posted in the last page. I tried downloading 0.9.6.4 and copying the file from one folder to another, but nothing. I then tried with version 0.9.6.5 and copied the file from last version and also nothing. Could you help me?

[Yemo]

On 1.3.2016 at 11:30 PM, meuqsaco said:

Hello, thank you very much for your mod

 

I've tried to use the developer version of the tech tree, but it does not look like the one you posted in the last page. I tried downloading 0.9.6.4 and copying the file from one folder to another, but nothing. I then tried with version 0.9.6.5 and copied the file from last version and also nothing. Could you help me?

Hm, sounds like an install problem. You must make sure that the 80KB SETI-CommunityTechTree.cfg file is the only file with that name within your gamedata folder.

Also note that you can not really use it in game, since there are no parts assigned to the new nodes. Thus if you have the hide empty nodes plugin from ev0 installed, those nodes are hidden.

 

This update takes some lessons from UnmannedBeforeManned and merges them with the SETIctt, including the rudimentary FASA config.

With ksp 1.1 not far away, there will be little more change to SETIctt and the big update is planned for ksp 1.1 as well.

 

SETI CommunityTechTree v0.9.6.6 (for KSP 1.0.5)

Science Experiment Transmission Values

• Simple stock experiments transmit for 100%, even without SETIrebalance
• Since parachutes are available so late, 50% transmit was a balancing nightmare

Part Position Changes

• Mk-55 earlier @advRocketry
• O-10 later @precisionPropulsion
• LV-1 variants earlier @generalRocketry
• Many docking ports & Hubs moved back, as well as MobileProcessingLab
• Lights to engineering101
• Accelerometer to engineering101
• 0.625m Fuel tanks to generalRocketry
• LV-T30 to basicRocketry, if VenStockRevamp is not installed
• Avionics Hub @unmannedTech
• Rudimentary config for FASA

[meuqsaco]

Hello Yeemo. Yes, that's exactly what happened. I have Hide Empty Nodes mod installed and since the new nodes are empty, I couldn't see them.

 

Thanks for your support.

 

Also, are there any plans that the MK4 spaceplane parts could be supported by your tech tree?

[Yemo]

2 hours ago, meuqsaco said:

Hello Yeemo. Yes, that's exactly what happened. I have Hide Empty Nodes mod installed and since the new nodes are empty, I couldn't see them.

 

Thanks for your support.

 

Also, are there any plans that the MK4 spaceplane parts could be supported by your tech tree?

They should already be supported, there is a config for them specifically. Although that was done quite some time ago, I probably just forgot to include them in the ckan suggestions.

[nobodyhasthis2]

@Yemo Just a quick question about USI life support configuration. Can you remember changing supplies in Universal Storage wedges. I know Universal Storage had it's basic config removed for a while and was not supported. Is it back in there and does it reflect the much higher Supplies consumption in USI-LS? 

Looking through I think only TAC-LS is modified. So does that mean going directly to the Universal Storage to make changes for USI-LS?

Edited March 3, 2016 by nobodyhasthis2

[Yemo]

25 minutes ago, nobodyhasthis2 said:

@Yemo Just a quick question about USI life support configuration. Can you remember changing supplies in Universal Storage wedges. I know Universal Storage had it's basic config removed for a while and was not supported. Is it back in there and does it reflect the much higher Supplies consumption in USI-LS? 

Looking through I think only TAC-LS is modified. So does that mean going directly to the Universal Storage to make changes for USI-LS?

While only TAC Life Support is modified, it seems I forgot to specify that the patch should only apply if TAC Life Support is installed. But I guess the order of the patches means, that this is not an immediate problem.

Yeah, the change for the new USI-LS should come from UniversalStorage itself. Oh, and concerning USI-LS, it seems that if it is installed via ckan, USI tools are not specified as a dependency. I made a pull request, but it has not been merged or commented on so far. Dont want to get involved too much.

 

For KSP 1.1 I plan to return to TAC-LifeSupport as the recommended life support mod for SETIrebalance/SETIctt. While USI-LS started out to be very simple, I find it pretty confusing in its current state (mobile processing lab to reduce supply consumption for 5 kerbals by 30% without alternate parts doing similar things, except for SETIgreenhouse...). Possibly in combination with KeepFit, I hope they will be updated to 1.1.

UnmannedBeforeManned can keep USI LifeSupport.

 

Until ksp 1.1 public pre-release (a great idea btw), I plan to get at least one more SETIrebalance update out and some minor adjustments to SETI-RemoteTechConfig (hiding ground stations behind the planet and a bit less transparancy for the ground stations for streaming and monitors with lower contrast).

[Miravlix]

I start a fresh carrier with SETI-CTT installed and my second rocket goes into Kerbol orbit, that hybrid sure contain a lot of power. o.O

 

Great I think, time to orbit something, so I aim for orbiting this time, all goes well and I hit 70K and realize I have no RCS, no reaction wheels, not even gimbal. I can prolly build a rocket that could do a flyby of Eloo, but I can't do anything in Kerbin's sphere??

 

First thing that gives me the ability to turn a ship in 0g seems to be a RCS thruster in Stability that requires Engi 101 and Early Aviation.

[meuqsaco]

9 hours ago, Miravlix said:

I start a fresh carrier with SETI-CTT installed and my second rocket goes into Kerbol orbit, that hybrid sure contain a lot of power. o.O

 

Great I think, time to orbit something, so I aim for orbiting this time, all goes well and I hit 70K and realize I have no RCS, no reaction wheels, not even gimbal. I can prolly build a rocket that could do a flyby of Eloo, but I can't do anything in Kerbin's sphere??

 

First thing that gives me the ability to turn a ship in 0g seems to be a RCS thruster in Stability that requires Engi 101 and Early Aviation.

Yeah, it is hard to do anything precise until you get your first reaction wheel. Until that point I usually use gimbals to move my aircraft.

[Yemo]

12 hours ago, Miravlix said:

[...]

First thing that gives me the ability to turn a ship in 0g seems to be a RCS thruster in Stability that requires Engi 101 and Early Aviation.

 

2 hours ago, meuqsaco said:

Yeah, it is hard to do anything precise until you get your first reaction wheel. Until that point I usually use gimbals to move my aircraft.

Non atmospheric/aerodynamic control is one of the major issues in early rocketry and imho orbit should take some progression. At start you can get to space. With tier 1 tech, you have rovers at engineering and aircraft at earlyAviation, as well as rocket parts good enough to leave kerbins SoI. Tier 2 gives recoverability (small heat shield and parachutes), control (rcs and gimbal) as well as probe propulsion and more staging options (radial decouplers, sepratrons).

If you prefer more stockalike capabilities, you may want to take a look at UnmannedBeforeManned, which is the less challenging brother (magic reaction wheels from the start, earlier fuel lines than SETIctt and so on).

 

SETI RemoteTech Config v1.0.5 (for KSP 1.0.5)

• Ground stations behind body are not visible
• Transparency adjusted for better visibility
• Names of ground stations adjusted for recognition
• Map in SETI thread updated with new ground station names

 

[Miravlix]

8 hours ago, Yemo said:

Non atmospheric/aerodynamic control is one of the major issues in early rocketry and imho orbit should take some progression. At start you can get to space. With tier 1 tech, you have rovers at engineering and aircraft at earlyAviation, as well as rocket parts good enough to leave kerbins SoI. Tier 2 gives recoverability (small heat shield and parachutes), control (rcs and gimbal) as well as probe propulsion and more staging options (radial decouplers, sepratrons).

If you prefer more stockalike capabilities, you may want to take a look at UnmannedBeforeManned, which is the less challenging brother (magic reaction wheels from the start, earlier fuel lines than SETIctt and so on).

You're completely missing the point here.

 

If the point is to create a progression like Earths, your failing completely, by giving us silly monster rockets and the ability to fly to Kerbol sphere of influence with the second rocket.

 

It's beyond ridiculous with the current setup, it should be something like:

1: Non guided rockets, can't hit space. (Give us the smallest SRB)

2: Non guided rockets, can hit orbital and then fall back to the planet. (Give us a larger SRB, still no decouplers)

3: Non guided rockets, can get future out, but DEFINITELY not leave Kerbin's sphere. (Larger SRB, maybe first non-SRB, might want to delay decouplers more and DEFINITELY not giving us the big 800 L/O tank yet.)

 

That the early progression fail to accomplish because of that silly hybrid rocket. Stock is actually more challenging, because of it's progression. That was the point you seem complete blind to and actually think you have created a challenge... I'm astonished, I thought it was simply a silly oversight because that part of the tech tree can be passed in seconds.

 

[Yemo]

@Miravlix:

It is aimed to provide a meaningful progression as an aide to roleplay (since ksp is so unbalanced anyway, roleplay is necessary) within the ksp situation. The low deltaV requirements are just part of the kerbin setup. If you want all out realism, this is the wrong mod, realism overhaul is what you are looking for (it is even linked in the OP together with recommendations for other similar projects).

 

ad1: Stock SRBs are the RT-5 and the RT-10, just moving the RT-10 one node back would work, but as it is at the moment, players who want to roleplay that in between step can do so, others can skip it. Up to you. And that saved one additional launch is not more immersion breaking than the stubby SRB.

ad2: Hitting space is not the problem, staying there (orbit) is. Merging step one and two is imho ok, you can use VenStockRevamp and roleplay for a slower progression, if you want to. But I want to have similar restrictions whether you use procedural parts or not. And limiting the the volume of the procedural SRB even further is annoying for every mission after that, for the benefit of a single mission in the very early career, thus not worth it.

ad3: The concept of Kerbin SoI is artificial anyway, since there are no n-body physics. And it is out of my scope that it requires so little deltaV.

The big 800 fuel tank makes no difference, since you can simply stack two 400 tanks for the same result. That is just pseudo progression.

 

Since you have simple liquid fuel engines anyway at basic rocketry, the hybrid is not op there.

 

There are many aspects and mod combinations which need at least some consideration, procedural parts among them. I can't perfectionize one particular setting (especially not if it is about 1 additional mission or so) and then create 5 more problems in other places, that is just the case with any open system. If you want total balancing, you need a closed system, take a look at BetterThanStartingManned if that is what you wish for.

What reward/penalty settings do you use for your career? Are you sure you are not looking for realism overhaul?

Edited March 5, 2016 by Yemo

[bos]

On the hybrid front, I'd say adding around 200 kg of dry mass per 100 kn of thrust would improve balance quite a bit. A big part of the issue with these is they have 3500 dV with no payload, which is around SSTO range. This much extra dry mass would drop them to 2800 dV before payload with almost no impact to their utility as a booster.

It also makes sense that the oxidizer pumping / throttling mechanics would add some weight vs an SRB. 

Edited March 5, 2016 by bos

[bos]

One other minor item, the 'Cryogenic Engines' mod now uses a 15:1 ratio of units LqdHydrogen : oxidizer, but SETI-PartMod-PP-TankLiquid.cfg has a patch for procedural tanks that reverts it to 10:1 ratio. Probably Cryo used that ratio sometime in the past?

        TANK_TYPE_OPTION:NEEDS[CryoEngines]
        {
            name = LH2/OX
            dryDensity = 0.0764478
                        costMultiplier = 0.5625
            RESOURCE
            {
                name = LqdHydrogen
                unitsPerT = 10256.41
            }
            RESOURCE
            {
                name = Oxidizer
                unitsPerT = 1025.641
            }
        }

Can work around in-game by removing the excess oxidizer until KER reports max dV. Or just use non-procedural tanks. Those have the right ratio.

Edited March 5, 2016 by bos

[Yemo]

@bos, @Miravlix Alright, I ll take a look at the hybrid again. Though I ll have to keep it in line with the procedural hybrid booster, which should be between srbs and liquid fuel propulsion in terms of efficiency and costs. Unfortunately procedural SRBs are bugged, especially the costs, so I have to keep that in consideration.

 

Oh, and about that early progression, there are some changes planned for the early SETIctt. Among them splitting better engines (eg hybrid) and decouplers into two nodes.

 

Hm, will have to take a look at the cryo config again as well, did not notice the change. Thank you very much for the notice.

[nobodyhasthis2]

On 3/5/2016 at 11:43 PM, Yemo said:

@bos, @Miravlix Alright, I ll take a look at the hybrid again. Though I ll have to keep it in line with the procedural hybrid booster, which should be between srbs and liquid fuel propulsion in terms of efficiency and costs. Unfortunately procedural SRBs are bugged, especially the costs, so I have to keep that in consideration.

Ok, but just remember you can't please everybody. There will always be players that don't realise that the procedural parts are completely optional. After all the original non-procedural Hybrid booster is still present. Also we are going get those that can't understand the logic behind using procedural parts in the first place.

There seems to be still a lot of judgement here based on stock SRB performance. Which is handed out on the tech tree in artificial performance chunks during the early stock game. With each node giving moar booster. This is also see in parts packs like RLA Stockalike. Which do the same SRB performance jump in other sizes, The trouble with this approach is most players end up with a clutter of seldom used sizes later in the game. Every extra part also adds it's own little bit of memory footprint into the 32 bit limit we currently have. 

Procedural parts fixes that of course. Along with tweak scale it gets rid of seldom used parts are completely. Not only does this reduce the clutter but it also uses a lot less memory. When we consider all the extra parts we don't need. The only downside. Is for those that can't get past the habits of the stock game and will not introduce some extra role playing. There is effectively nothing stopping a player from making ridiculous sized parts and then claiming the game is not balanced. It also does not stop at the HRB here. Giving the capability to make early V2 style rockets opens to door to even more ridiculous oversized procedural parts. The best solution here is to realise the mod authors original intent and exercise some self imposed constraints. 

After all there will always be some sour grape resentment handed out over the loss of the magic stock reaction wheels. In favor of RCS thrusters. Or the most common question on the lack of science collection and subsequent claims that SETI is somehow broken because it is not stock. So we will be dammed in the eyes of some minority group what ever we do.

All that can be done is to explain the design choices and show people how to fix things to satisfy more personal preferences. I really hope that approach will please the majority and will still be inclusive to those with their own ideas. 

Edited March 9, 2016 by nobodyhasthis2

[Dunbaratu]

kOS version 0.19.0 and up has changed the name in the "name = " field of the Part.cfg file for the small diameter computer from "kOSMachine0m" to "KR-2042".  The old name "kOSMachine0m" only ships with the mod as a legacy fallback so you can load old saved games without the game doing a forced deletion of existing vessels due to them containing a now-missing part.

This rename has had the effect of effectively breaking that part in the tech tree in UnmannedBeforeManned.  UnmannedBeforeManned, from the look of it, is meant to give you that part right away at the bottom of the tech tree at the start of the career, but it's trying to give you the old named part, which has been disabled in the VAB/SPH in favor of the new version.  The new version is identical in functionality to the old, but the old one had some messy mesh and attachment points on it that have been refined.  Sorry for the 'breaking' of the config to this mod, but the new version had to be given a new name in order to prevent old vessels already in people's saved games from trying to be rebuilt using the new part's dimensions and attachment points.

I think it can be made compatable with kOS v0.19.0 and up by changing this line in UnmannedBeforeManned.TechTree.cfg from this:

@PART[kOSMachine0m]:NEEDS[kOS,!SETIctt,!ETT,!OpenTree,!RP-0]:AFTER[kOS]
{
    @TechRequired = start
}

to this:

@PART[KR-2042]:NEEDS[kOS,!SETIctt,!ETT,!OpenTree,!RP-0]:AFTER[kOS]
{
    @TechRequired = start
}

I *think* - I haven't tested to prove it.

I only just started playing around with UnmannedBeforeManned today and only just now realized what the reason may have been for that part not working right.  The effect I was seeing is that the R&D center said I had the part unlocked and could use it, but in the VAB the part wasn't there.

EDIT: I just verified that the edit did fix the problem, although I'd leave both versions in there for legacy support.

Edited March 11, 2016 by Steven Mading