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

[Dunbaratu]

Now that I fixed the problem mention above, I'll be able to start my unmanned-before-manned career play (using kOS) on Twitch tonight: https://www.twitch.tv/dunbaratu

I'll be starting in a few hours (7pm in UTC-6 timezone) if anyone is interested.

Edited March 11, 2016 by Steven Mading

[senord]

Is the list of unused parts in post #2 (for 0.90) still accurate? If not, does anyone have an updated list of parts files that I can trash in 1.05?

[Ant432]

I had a crazy idea. Is it possible to detach science experiments from vessels you can't recover with KAS and then attach them to another vessel so you can return them since you can't collect science with Kerbals anymore ?

[kcs123]

On 17.03.2016. at 7:23 PM, Antonio432 said:

I had a crazy idea. Is it possible to detach science experiments from vessels you can't recover with KAS and then attach them to another vessel so you can return them since you can't collect science with Kerbals anymore ?

Do you mean KAS or KIS ? I don't see a reason why you could not do that. Just design craft properly, attach scientifict parts trough dockport or some other available (staging) parts that allows you to deatach parts that you don't need.

(Dis)Assembling craft in space with help of KIS/KAS is slightly different story though.

[Ant432]

11 hours ago, kcs123 said:

Do you mean KAS or KIS ? I don't see a reason why you could not do that. Just design craft properly, attach scientifict parts trough dockport or some other available (staging) parts that allows you to deatach parts that you don't need.

(Dis)Assembling craft in space with help of KIS/KAS is slightly different story though.

I use both KAS (kerbal attachment system) and KIS (kerbal inventory system) , KAS allows you to attach or detach parts from one vessel to another, you can even make a rover on your mission, it works with KIS, which adds containers in which you can place smaller parts, you take parts from KIS containers and you can assemble them into something or move them to another vessel .

[goldenpsp]

21 minutes ago, Antonio432 said:

I use both KAS (kerbal attachment system) and KIS (kerbal inventory system) , KAS allows you to attach or detach parts from one vessel to another, you can even make a rover on your mission, it works with KIS, which adds containers in which you can place smaller parts, you take parts from KIS containers and you can assemble them into something or move them to another vessel .

Actually to be accurate KIS contains all of the attachment functionality. KAS is essentially a parts pack at this point. 

[kcs123]

5 hours ago, goldenpsp said:

Actually to be accurate KIS contains all of the attachment functionality. KAS is essentially a parts pack at this point. 

@Antonio432, that is a reason why I asked is it about KIS or KAS. And for origin question, it is more a metter of KIS, if it allow to put some scientific part in container and grab back, rather than something for SETI to deal with it.

To allow some scientific part to be grabed or put into container, it is just a metter of proper MM patch. Should such MM patch be written by original mod part author, KIS or it will come along with SETI is different story.

Personaly, I think it is good to have things like it is. It brings some chalenge to design carefully craft, so you can for example jetisson whole service bay with scientific parts in it when you no longer need it. Although, I have to admit, sometimes it might be usefull to create some rover on distant planet and attach sci parts on it.

But again on other hand, due to limitation of KIS, I would preffer ability like EL, or USI MKS/OKS to manufacture whole craft in space if you have proper equipment and enough engineers. Trough KIS it is not always possible to align properly wheels, properly set RCS engines and so on. Don't get me wrong, I like KIS and KAS, those are more/less essentials mods that I install, it is just that I use those in slightly different way.

[Chippy the Space Dog]

 

Hello Yemo,

Firstly, thank you for all the goodies that this mod promises.  It looks awesome!

So, today I took a fresh install of KSP and used CKAN to set me up for hours of SETI goodness.  Starting n career mode I came to an instant grinding halt. I saw it had been raised elsewhere but I have the same problem a previous user had with the initial probe core and Remote Tech.  Looking through my Remote Tech folder I cant find an entry anywhere that configures the probodobodyne stack to communicate in that mod.  As it's the only command module available and the Comm 16 is unlaunchable (being like it just falls off when extended on a rocket in atmos) it's impossible to get off the ground.  No matter how hard I stare at the command communication light it refuses to go green. According to the thread elsewhere you put in a fix in version 0.9.6.3 but if so it seems to have fallen out again. At least it seems to be missing on my CKAN supplied install.

If things look okay from your side and you need any info from me, I'd appreciate any insight you could give

 

Many thanks!

[Yemo]

On 9.3.2016 at 1:03 AM, nobodyhasthis2 said:

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.

[...]

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. 

No worries, pleasing everyone is not on my todo list and I agree that a bit of roleplaying or writing a personal MM statement would be fine is such instances.

On 11.3.2016 at 7:53 AM, Steven Mading said:

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.

[...]

 

 

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

Fixed (including legacy support), thank you very much!

On 11.3.2016 at 10:16 PM, Steven Mading said:

Now that I fixed the problem mention above, I'll be able to start my unmanned-before-manned career play (using kOS) on Twitch tonight: https://www.twitch.tv/dunbaratu

I'll be starting in a few hours (7pm in UTC-6 timezone) if anyone is interested.

Great to hear, I watched a part of it afterwards and I can only recommend taking another look at the mods recommended via ckan. Especially not having VenStockRevamp deprives you of parts especially suited for probes. Like the all in one inline RCS and the 0.625m heat shield.

On 11.3.2016 at 10:29 PM, senord said:

Is the list of unused parts in post #2 (for 0.90) still accurate? If not, does anyone have an updated list of parts files that I can trash in 1.05?

Nope, that whole post is just a reminder of 0.90. Unfortunately I m not aware of an updated list for 1.0.5. Though generally fuel tanks, solid boosters and wings can be easily replaced by procedural parts. Nose cones and adapter paths are harder to identify.

On 17.3.2016 at 7:23 PM, Antonio432 said:

I had a crazy idea. Is it possible to detach science experiments from vessels you can't recover with KAS and then attach them to another vessel so you can return them since you can't collect science with Kerbals anymore ?

Generally sure, that should be possible. Although keep in mind that there is no angle snap, thus it might result in asymmetric positioning. Though I did not test whether the radial science and mystery goo support KIS at the moment.

On 20.3.2016 at 9:19 AM, kcs123 said:

@Antonio432, that is a reason why I asked is it about KIS or KAS. And for origin question, it is more a metter of KIS, if it allow to put some scientific part in container and grab back, rather than something for SETI to deal with it.

To allow some scientific part to be grabed or put into container, it is just a metter of proper MM patch. Should such MM patch be written by original mod part author, KIS or it will come along with SETI is different story.

Personaly, I think it is good to have things like it is. It brings some chalenge to design carefully craft, so you can for example jetisson whole service bay with scientific parts in it when you no longer need it. Although, I have to admit, sometimes it might be usefull to create some rover on distant planet and attach sci parts on it.

But again on other hand, due to limitation of KIS, I would preffer ability like EL, or USI MKS/OKS to manufacture whole craft in space if you have proper equipment and enough engineers. Trough KIS it is not always possible to align properly wheels, properly set RCS engines and so on. Don't get me wrong, I like KIS and KAS, those are more/less essentials mods that I install, it is just that I use those in slightly different way.

Yep, exactly.

5 hours ago, Chippy the Space Dog said:

 

Hello Yemo,

Firstly, thank you for all the goodies that this mod promises.  It looks awesome!

So, today I took a fresh install of KSP and used CKAN to set me up for hours of SETI goodness.  Starting n career mode I came to an instant grinding halt. I saw it had been raised elsewhere but I have the same problem a previous user had with the initial probe core and Remote Tech.  Looking through my Remote Tech folder I cant find an entry anywhere that configures the probodobodyne stack to communicate in that mod.  As it's the only command module available and the Comm 16 is unlaunchable (being like it just falls off when extended on a rocket in atmos) it's impossible to get off the ground.  No matter how hard I stare at the command communication light it refuses to go green. According to the thread elsewhere you put in a fix in version 0.9.6.3 but if so it seems to have fallen out again. At least it seems to be missing on my CKAN supplied install.

If things look okay from your side and you need any info from me, I'd appreciate any insight you could give

 

Many thanks!

Hm, can't check right now, but that should not happen, you should either have access to the DP-10 without SETIrebalance or the probe core should have an integrated 160km antenna with SETIrebalance.

In CKAN, could you please go to "File/Export installed mode..." and export it as a ckan file, and then show me the contents of this file (eg by copy pasting it into this thread). That would be the easiest way to replicate your install on my end.

[Chippy the Space Dog]

3 hours ago, Yemo said:

Hm, can't check right now, but that should not happen, you should either have access to the DP-10 without SETIrebalance or the probe core should have an integrated 160km antenna with SETIrebalance.

In CKAN, could you please go to "File/Export installed mode..." and export it as a ckan file, and then show me the contents of this file (eg by copy pasting it into this thread). That would be the easiest way to replicate your install on my end.

Thanks for the reply.  Umm.. I hope it isn't too much of a nightmare when you see the list. I notice in the Remote Tech folder there is a cfg file from each of the mods that have custom probes, and I was kind of hoping that there not being one from Seti was the answer. Having said that, I do see in the Stack probe properties infos that aren't in the new parts cfg in the SETI folder, so I know it may not be so simple. Anyway, close your eyes and take a deep breath..

 

 

Spoiler

"kind": "metapackage",
 "abstract": "A list of modules installed on the default KSP instance",
 "name": "installed-default",
 "license": "unknown",
 "version": "2016.03.23.01.11.53",
 "identifier": "installed-default",
 "spec_version": "v1.6",
 "recommends": [
  {
   "name": "ModuleManager"
  },
  {
   "name": "SETI-BalanceMod"
  },
  {
   "name": "SETI-CommunityTechTree"
  },
  {
   "name": "SETI-Contracts"
  },
  {
   "name": "SETI-Greenhouse"
  },
  {
   "name": "UnmannedBeforeManned"
  },
  {
   "name": "AdjustableLandingGear"
  },
  {
   "name": "AlternateResourcePanel"
  },
  {
   "name": "AutoAction"
  },
  {
   "name": "BackgroundProcessing"
  },
  {
   "name": "BetterBurnTime"
  },
  {
   "name": "CapCom"
  },
  {
   "name": "CommunityTechTree"
  },
  {
   "name": "ContractConfigurator"
  },
  {
   "name": "ContractConfigurator-AnomalySurveyor"
  },
  {
   "name": "ContractConfigurator-FieldResearch"
  },
  {
   "name": "ContractConfigurator-KerbinSpaceStation"
  },
  {
   "name": "ContractConfigurator-RemoteTech"
  },
  {
   "name": "ContractConfigurator-Tourism"
  },
  {
   "name": "ContractsWindowPlus"
  },
  {
   "name": "CrowdSourcedScience"
  },
  {
   "name": "CustomBarnKit"
  },
  {
   "name": "DMagicOrbitalScience"
  },
  {
   "name": "DockingPortAlignmentIndicator"
  },
  {
   "name": "EnhancedNavBall"
  },
  {
   "name": "FilterExtensionsDefaultConfig"
  },
  {
   "name": "FinalFrontier"
  },
  {
   "name": "GAP"
  },
  {
   "name": "GCMonitor"
  },
  {
   "name": "KerbalAlarmClock"
  },
  {
   "name": "KerbalEngineerRedux"
  },
  {
   "name": "KerbalJointReinforcement"
  },
  {
   "name": "KAS"
  },
  {
   "name": "KIS"
  },
  {
   "name": "LandingHeight"
  },
  {
   "name": "xScience"
  },
  {
   "name": "MechJeb2"
  },
  {
   "name": "PreciseNode"
  },
  {
   "name": "ProceduralFairings"
  },
  {
   "name": "QuickScroll"
  },
  {
   "name": "QuickSearch"
  },
  {
   "name": "RCSBuildAid"
  },
  {
   "name": "RealChute"
  },
  {
   "name": "RemoteTech"
  },
  {
   "name": "RemoteTech-ProbeControlEnabler"
  },
  {
   "name": "SAVE"
  },
  {
   "name": "SETI-RemoteTech"
  },
  {
   "name": "ShipManifest"
  },
  {
   "name": "StageRecovery"
  },
  {
   "name": "TacFuelBalancer"
  },
  {
   "name": "TakeCommand"
  },
  {
   "name": "ThrottleControlledAvionics"
  },
  {
   "name": "Toolbar"
  },
  {
   "name": "Trajectories"
  },
  {
   "name": "TransferWindowPlanner"
  },
  {
   "name": "TweakableEverything"
  },
  {
   "name": "TweakScale"
  },
  {
   "name": "USI-LS"
  },
  {
   "name": "VenStockRevamp"
  },
  {
   "name": "WaypointManager"
  },
  {
   "name": "Workshop"
  },
  {
   "name": "EnvironmentalVisualEnhancements-HR"
  },
  {
   "name": "PlanetShine-Config-Default"
  },
  {
   "name": "ProceduralParts"
  },
  {
   "name": "CargoTransportationSolutions"
  },
  {
   "name": "InfernalRobotics"
  },
  {
   "name": "Karbonite"
  },
  {
   "name": "KerbalAircraftExpansion"
  },
  {
   "name": "KerbalPlanetaryBaseSystems"
  },
  {
   "name": "KSPInterstellarExtended"
  },
  {
   "name": "NearFutureConstruction"
  },
  {
   "name": "NearFutureElectrical"
  },
  {
   "name": "NearFuturePropulsion"
  },
  {
   "name": "NearFutureSolar"
  },
  {
   "name": "SCANsat"
  },
  {
   "name": "Service-Compartments-6S"
  },
  {
   "name": "StationPartsExpansion"
  },
  {
   "name": "UKS"
  },
  {
   "name": "USI-SRV"
  },
  {
   "name": "KSP-AVC"
  },
  {
   "name": "BDAnimationModules"
  },
  {
   "name": "TriggerAu-Flags"
  },
  {
   "name": "ProgressParser"
  },
  {
   "name": "ContractParser"
  },
  {
   "name": "RasterPropMonitor"
  },
  {
   "name": "RasterPropMonitor-Core"
  },
  {
   "name": "FilterExtensions"
  },
  {
   "name": "ToadicusTools"
  },
  {
   "name": "EVAManager"
  },
  {
   "name": "USITools"
  },
  {
   "name": "CommunityResourcePack"
  },
  {
   "name": "FirespitterCore"
  },
  {
   "name": "EnvironmentalVisualEnhancements"
  },
  {
   "name": "PlanetShine"
  },
  {
   "name": "USI-Core"
  },
  {
   "name": "FirespitterResourcesConfig"
  },
  {
   "name": "InterstellarFuelSwitch"
  },
  {
   "name": "InterstellarFuelSwitch-Core"
  },
  {
   "name": "NearFutureElectrical-Core"
  },
  {
   "name": "NearFutureSolar-Core"
  },
  {
   "name": "NearFutureProps"
  },
  {
   "name": "USI-UKS-Shared"
  },
  {
   "name": "Fusebox"
  },
  {
   "name": "KerbalConstructionTime"
  },
  {
   "name": "USI-ART"
  },
  {
   "name": "USI-EXP"
  },
  {
   "name": "USI-FTT"
  },
  {
   "name": "B9"
  },
  {
   "name": "B9AerospaceHX"
  },
  {
   "name": "B9AerospaceLegacy"
  },
  {
   "name": "B9AnimationModules"
  },
  {
   "name": "B9PartSwitch"
  },
  {
   "name": "B9-props"
  },
  {
   "name": "B9-PWings-Fork"
  },
  {
   "name": "KlockheedMartian-Gimbal"
  },
  {
   "name": "SmokeScreen"
  }
 ]

 

Edited March 23, 2016 by DuoDex
get spoilered, son!

[Chippy the Space Dog]

Ok, I took pity and tried with this...

 

Still no connection on probe stack

 

{
 "kind": "metapackage",
 "abstract": "A list of modules installed on the default KSP instance",
 "name": "installed-default",
 "license": "unknown",
 "version": "2016.03.23.01.45.36",
 "identifier": "installed-default",
 "spec_version": "v1.6",
 "recommends": [
  {
   "name": "SETI-CommunityTechTree"
  },
  {
   "name": "SETI-RemoteTech"
  },
  {
   "name": "RemoteTech"
  },
  {
   "name": "KSP-AVC"
  },
  {
   "name": "ModuleManager"
  }
 ]
}
 

 

Connected fine with DP10 fitted btw. 

[Yemo]

@Chippy the Space Dog: The problem is the ProbeControlEnabler mod, that removes the basic remote tech module from probe parts and thus deactivates integrated omni antennas (which are added by SETIrebalance, so they could not show up in the second test install where you did not use SETIrebalance) as well. Unfortunately ProbeControlEnabler uses a "Final" statement, so it is hard to circumvent.

I ll move the DP-10 to the start even when SETIrebalance is installedm, that should at least provide a workaround. Thank you for the notice!

SETI CommunityTechTree v0.9.6.7 (for KSP 1.0.5)

Compatibility updates

• kOS 0.19+
• RemoteTech DP-10 to start even if SETIrebalance is installed
• That should provide a workaround for ProbeControlEnabler deactivating the integrated omnis

[Chippy the Space Dog]

 

You da man, Yemo!

 

[Yemo]

On 11.3.2016 at 10:16 PM, Steven Mading said:

Now that I fixed the problem mention above, I'll be able to start my unmanned-before-manned career play (using kOS) on Twitch tonight: https://www.twitch.tv/dunbaratu

I'll be starting in a few hours (7pm in UTC-6 timezone) if anyone is interested.

Just watched a another episode and it seems like your reputation seriously derailed the progression. I have never seen anything like it before, especially in the early game, but with that low of a reputation, you have too few 2star slots and no 3 star contract slot at all. Which effectively prevents you from getting the progression contracts suitable for your tech and achievement level.

I ll have to adjust the SETIcontracts for that, but since payouts are affected by this as well, it wont happen before ksp 1.1.

I strongly recommend giving yourself suitable reputation via cheats again to continue the progression. At least to get one 3 star contract slot...

 

The base problem seems to be the funds (which you traded for giving away reputation). Unlocking parts is probably the main reason for that. KSP is just totally imbalanced in that respect, especially since you do not use the SETIrebalance mod. This is compounded by the tech tree, which moves parts to the front which come much later in stock while their unlock costs are not (re)balanced.

Essentially what happened is, that you chose settings (part unlock costs) and strategies (funds for reputation) which are already horribly imbalanced in stock, while selecting mods which compound those stock imbalances (Unmanned Before Manned, SETIcontracts) and then leaving out recommended/suggested mods which are intended to diminish the imbalances again (SETIrebalance, VenStockRevamp for part selection).

Looking forward to the next episode!

[Dunbaratu]

19 minutes ago, Yemo said:

Essentially what happened is, that you chose settings (part unlock costs) and strategies (funds for reputation) which are already horribly imbalanced in stock, while selecting mods which compound those stock imbalances (Unmanned Before Manned, SETIcontracts) and then leaving out recommended/suggested mods which are intended to diminish the imbalances again (SETIrebalance, VenStockRevamp for part selection).

Looking forward to the next episode!

The problem is that the mod pack makes no distinction whatsoever between "changing the tech tree around broke the game balance and it needs to be put back" and "in our opinion the base game is wrong in the first place and the costs should change regardless of the rearrangement of the tech tree".  I do not want the second kind of change.  But there's no way to tell which kinds of suggested mods are being suggested for what reason.  Another suggested mod that is utterly wrong for what I'm trying to do with a kOS based game is the one that destroys the whole point of Remote Tech by making remote probes controllable while out of contact, which was also a suggested mod in the pack.  So I had to go through and try to figure out which mods are suggested and why.  Anything that smacked of "this mod exists because the mod author has a disagreement with the base game that is utterly unrelated to trying to change the tech tree around" I left out.  I can't tell which kind is which.

I didn't really see any big difference between the game balance of this play through and previous ones.  The only difference is that this time I was trying harder to only use manual human control from the WASD keys when it thematically seemed reasonable - like when there's a pilot on board or the vehicle is really close to the KSC so it's easy to picture someone able to drive it by handheld remote control.

For anything that it makes sense for the rocket to have to have its own software to fly itself, I was trying to do it by scripts, and I made a few more errors a little bit more often than I do when doing it by hand, thus had a bigger percentage of early failures than I usually do.  In hard mode, even in stock, it doesn't take a lot of early failures to run your budget into the ground.  To be honest I didn't really notice that big of a difference, in terms of game balance, between this and other hard mode careers, other than the additional challenge I set for myself of having to do all that scripting, and thus causing a higher failure rate : more launches that didn't succeed at hitting the contract goals.

I'd rather live with the consequences of those failures than restart or enter a cheat to up the reputation.

Edited March 24, 2016 by Steven Mading

[Yemo]

27 minutes ago, Steven Mading said:

The problem is that the mod pack makes no distinction whatsoever between "changing the tech tree around broke the game balance and it needs to be put back" and "in our opinion the base game is wrong in the first place and the costs should change regardless of the rearrangement of the tech tree".  I do not want the second kind of change.  But there's no way to tell which kinds of suggested mods are being suggested for what reason.  Another suggested mod that is utterly wrong for what I'm trying to do with a kOS based game is the one that destroys the whole point of Remote Tech by making remote probes controllable while out of contact, which was also a suggested mod in the pack.  So I had to go through and try to figure out which mods are suggested and why.  Anything that smacked of "this mod exists because the mod author has a disagreement with the base game that is utterly unrelated to trying to change the tech tree around" I left out.  I can't tell which kind is which.

 

Yep, that is quite a problem, unfortunately I m not sure how to solve it other than the separation  "recommended" and "suggested".

The part unlocking costs, being a special difficulty setting, can only be taken into account by the player and set off with starting funds and payouts, which is always problematic with a new mod setup. There is no way for me to take that into account from a tech tree perspective. I considered putting SETIrebalance in the "recommended" list like VenStockRevamp, but since that does much more than rebalancing starting costs, it would be too much just to offset this custom difficulty setting.

However the main issue, the progression-reputation issue is solely on my part, I just did not take that possibility into account, since I have never seen that strategy being used in the early game (there is no debt, so most people just cancel contracts and then take the advanced of new contracts if they run out of money. Which gives a much smaller reputation penalty and virtually no funds penalty, as funds can not go below 0).

Due to the "quick and dirty" setup of the contract system by squad, it is extremely hard to balance around some possibilities, especially with reputation affecting the number of slots and how those interact with the available contracts and their payouts. For example if I make those contracts 1 and 2 star versions, people with high reputation payout settings will not have enough of those slots and will not see the contracts, while at the moment it is the other way around in your case.

 

edit: What we really need is either an abolishment of that horrible 3 star system or a fixed number of available slots for 1, 2 and 3 star contracts. And then reputation could be a multiplier on the actual payouts (not advances) of contracts, instead of currently preventing people from getting those contracts in the first place...

Edited March 24, 2016 by Yemo

[Chippy the Space Dog]

 

Hi folks!

Okay, so.. I have this awesome new tech tree and having loads of fun. I'm about ready to start doing SCANsat stuff, and wanted to be efficient and add on the USI Karbonite scanner too. I normally sits in the 'Advanced Construction' branch. but alas it seems to have moved. I've looked and looked but I can't seem to find it anywhere. But then again, it's a big tree.. I see things around like Karbonite containment tanks, so the rest of the mod seems to be there.

So, what I'm kind of hoping for, is someone to fess up and tell me where they hid it.  Please don't tell me I've fallen for some newbie engineering trick, like sending me to get a left hand screwdriver...

[Dunbaratu]

5 hours ago, Yemo said:

edit: What we really need is either an abolishment of that horrible 3 star system or a fixed number of available slots for 1, 2 and 3 star contracts. And then reputation could be a multiplier on the actual payouts (not advances) of contracts, instead of currently preventing people from getting those contracts in the first place...

Keep in mind that most players, myself included, have no clue how the mechanics of the reputation stat actually work in the stock game.  The game never actually tells you in the user interface.  We get some fuzzy notion that it's meant to have something to do with how nice the offered contracts are, and that's it - no idea what that means or in what way it supposedly affects them.  Therefore I have no idea if you're talking about how the normal game works, or about something the mod is doing differently from the stock game.

[Yemo]

2 hours ago, Chippy the Space Dog said:

Hi folks!

Okay, so.. I have this awesome new tech tree and having loads of fun. I'm about ready to start doing SCANsat stuff, and wanted to be efficient and add on the USI Karbonite scanner too. I normally sits in the 'Advanced Construction' branch. but alas it seems to have moved. I've looked and looked but I can't seem to find it anywhere. But then again, it's a big tree.. I see things around like Karbonite containment tanks, so the rest of the mod seems to be there.

So, what I'm kind of hoping for, is someone to fess up and tell me where they hid it.  Please don't tell me I've fallen for some newbie engineering trick, like sending me to get a left hand screwdriver...

I m not sure where it is, but you can install the Quick Search mod from @Malah to search for it in the tech tree, if you know the title of the part. It should be somewhere below the command pod line and above the recycling/colonization line.

1 hour ago, Steven Mading said:

Keep in mind that most players, myself included, have no clue how the mechanics of the reputation stat actually work in the stock game.  The game never actually tells you in the user interface.  We get some fuzzy notion that it's meant to have something to do with how nice the offered contracts are, and that's it - no idea what that means or in what way it supposedly affects them.  Therefore I have no idea if you're talking about how the normal game works, or about something the mod is doing differently from the stock game.

The underlying problems are from the stock game (including the lack of explanation what reputation actually does), and then it was just bad luck that this specific set of circumstances were triggered in your particular game/setup.

This SETIcontracts update should at least somewhat diminish this issue, though due to stock ksp restrictions it can, as far as I know, not be solved at the moment. The "cost for unlocking parts" problem/imbalance remains. I recommend just switching it off in the persistent.sfs, it should be the "BypassEntryPurchaseAfterResearch = True" dummy variable (though I have not tried).

Oh and while on topic of imbalanced and undocumented settings, the "penalty" slider in the difficulty customization screen not only affects the penalty when canceling a contract, but also the costs of building upgrades. Thus it is more of a slider of "grindiness" than "difficulty", therefore I recommend leaving it at 100% and only changing the "rewards" sliders.

 

SETI Contracts v0.9.6.1 (for KSP 1.0.5)

Adjustments

• Most (unmanned) contracts set to be 2-star category
• Also a bit higher reputation payout for some early contracts
• This should alleviate the repututation/slot problems to some extent, especially for higher difficulties
• Do not use the funds for reputation strategy in the early game! KSP progression is not balanced for that

Edited March 24, 2016 by Yemo

[Dunbaratu]

3 hours ago, Yemo said:

The underlying problems are from the stock game (including the lack of explanation what reputation actually does), and then it was just bad luck that this specific set of circumstances were triggered in your particular game/setup.

This SETIcontracts update should at least somewhat diminish this issue, though due to stock ksp restrictions it can, as far as I know, not be solved at the moment. The "cost for unlocking parts" problem/imbalance remains. I recommend just switching it off in the persistent.sfs, it should be the "BypassEntryPurchaseAfterResearch = True" dummy variable (though I have not tried).

Oh and while on topic of imbalanced and undocumented settings, the "penalty" slider in the difficulty customization screen not only affects the penalty when canceling a contract, but also the costs of building upgrades. Thus it is more of a slider of "grindiness" than "difficulty", therefore I recommend leaving it at 100% and only changing the "rewards" sliders.

It's because of descriptions like this that I really struggle with trying to differentiate your opinion of stock progression from any actual new problems introduced by this mod pack in what you're describing to me.  I disagree with much of what you're saying about stock balance here, but fear there may still be an actual problem in how the mod pack changed things around.  For example, the notion that 3-star contracts are necessary in stock isn't true.  I do quite well without them for a while.  But here it sounds like you're saying they're necessary with this mod pack.

To be clear, I don't see the grindiness of stock as a problem.  At all.

I do, however, see it as a problem if I'm in a situation where contracts that would improve reputation don't get handed out when your reputation is low, therefore there isn't even a "grinding" path available to improve reputation at this point.  That's not a grinding problem, it's a catch-22 problem where the career is effectively impossible to continue now, regardless of willingness to grind or not.

As I've never actually tried using the bailout package in a stock game before I have no idea if that's how it normally works and it is basically utterly impossible to use for that reason.  I may fire up a stock career and deliberately fail missions a few times until cash is gone, take the strategy, and see what it does to the stock game so I have a comparison point.

 

 

Edited March 25, 2016 by Steven Mading

[Yemo]

1 hour ago, Steven Mading said:

It's because of descriptions like this that I really struggle with trying to differentiate your opinion of stock progression from any actual new problems introduced by this mod pack in what you're describing to me.  I disagree with much of what you're saying about stock balance here, but fear there may still be an actual problem in how the mod pack changed things around.  For example, the notion that 3-star contracts are necessary in stock isn't true.  I do quite well without them for a while.  But here it sounds like you're saying they're necessary with this mod pack.

There is no general "problem" introduced by the mod pack. Some stock imbalances/issues are just more visible/affecting than in stock itself.

It is just like building on sand. If the building itself is made out of sand, it is more or less ok, even if you dig some minor holes in the sand foundation. If you start reinforcing crumbling parts of the building with eg steel, it increases the load on the sand foundation. And thus digging holes in the sand foundation has a possibly more severe impact on the reinforced building on top of it.

Not returning multiple extremely expensive (imho unbalanced) barometers when they are available in stock is not a problem, since funds are largely irrelevant at that point. But when their tech tree position is changed to a point where funds actually matter, the stock habit of not caring about them becomes somewhat problematic. Same goes for unlocking costs of many parts.

 

1 hour ago, Steven Mading said:

To be clear, I don't see the grindiness of stock as a problem.  At all.

The grindiness part was a comment on the penalty difficulty slider, I should have left out that part as it might be confusing. It was just an example of a "difficulty" slider having undocumented and unexpected consequences.

1 hour ago, Steven Mading said:

I do, however, see it as a problem if I'm in a situation where contracts that would improve reputation don't get handed out when your reputation is low, therefore there isn't even a "grinding" path available to improve reputation at this point.  That's not a grinding problem, it's a catch-22 problem where the career is effectively impossible to continue now, regardless of willingness to grind or not.

I think you misunderstood. The problem is not about the "grinding" contracts, as SETIcontracts has nothing to do with them. You can still grind your way out. The problem is, that you might not get the progression contracts offered, which correspond to your situation in game from a tech and exploration perspective.

For example consider a situation where you are able (tech & funds) and willing to land a probe on the mun. However due to low reputation the contract for that task is not offered to you. But since you have exhausted most of the easily accessible science from "nearer" places in terms of deltaV, you decide land a probe on the mun without the contract. And then land a kerbal on the mun and so on. And once you have built up your reputation again, you get a contract offered to land a probe on the mun with the text that it is a big step for kerbalkind or so. Such a contract would just not make sense anymore.

Thus defeating the whole purpose of the contract pack, to offer a more believable progression than the stock contracts, which frequently sent you to do a crew report on duna before visting minmus for the first time...

As above, when the order of the stock progression contracts under perfect conditions makes little sense itself (duna before minmus), underlying structural issues (slot unlocks based on reputation) are hardly noticeable.

 

1 hour ago, Steven Mading said:

As I've never actually tried using the bailout package in a stock game before I have no idea if that's how it normally works and it is basically utterly impossible to use for that reason.  I may fire up a stock career and deliberately fail missions a few times until cash is gone, take the strategy, and see what it does to the stock game so I have a comparison point.

I have never used that stock strategy myself, due to the no debt "exploit". If you conduct that test, please share your findings!

[Chippy the Space Dog]

5 hours ago, Yemo said:

I m not sure where it is, but you can install the Quick Search mod from @Malah to search for it in the tech tree, if you know the title of the part. It should be somewhere below the command pod line and above the recycling/colonization line.

 

 

Woot, I found them!  Both the scanners are in the level 9 (1000 point unlock) "Experimental Science". 

This is pretty much long after all the other tech for Karbonite has been unlocked, and the kethane scanners unlock at level 7 (300).  The highest level of scansat scanners unlock at level 8 (550)

I'm not sure how intentional this is, and I'm something of a newb when it comes to KSP, but it seems odd to me that you acquire most of the resource converting and implementing tools before you have the ability to find it.

 

That said, I don't know if other resource scanners can find karbonite too, so it may not even be an issue. 

Looking at greater depth at the tech tree though, the first stock orbital modules start appearing with 'Early Orbital Stations' at tier 6 (160 points).  The OKS Pioneer, and most OKS stuff, doesn't start to appear until tier 9 (1000).

By comparison advanced nuclear pulse engines are level 8 (550). 

This essentially means easy transit to the rest of the Kerbol system can be implemented before orbital industries become available. My feeling is that's a little backward from an industrial/commercial standpoint, whatcha think?

[Dunbaratu]

1 hour ago, Yemo said:

I have never used that stock strategy myself, due to the no debt "exploit". If you conduct that test, please share your findings!

 

I would much rather have gone into a bit of debt and then crawled back out of it, than go into a lot of reputation hit that takes longer to crawl back from.  How is lack of debt an "exploit"?  Lack of a debt mechanic is the very reason I resorted to the bailout package.  If anything not having a debt mechanic feels more like a hard challenge than an "exploit".

In hard mode, contracts' advance payments don't usually cover all the cost of building a ship to fufill the contract.  It's only the advance *plus* the end-reward that makes it profitable.  Generally speaking the ratio I'm used to is about 2 attempts per contract means making a small but still sufficient profit.  1 attempt per contract means good profit was made, and 3 attempts means money was lost overall.  The only real change the mod caused is that I was putting more science devices on than I should have, to squeeze out extra science from contracts that didn't really require it, and that meant that with 3 attempts per success, without reverts, I was making a net loss, which I don't see as broken at all, but in fact I see it as correct reaction to the fact that I played it badly.

(The tl;dr version of it is this:  When playing hard mode, and I'm averaging 2 failed attempts for every 1 successful one, I don't really see it as incorrect game balance that doing so tanked my funding.  It *should*.  The only question is whether or not the bailout grant is implemented in a way that makes it totally unusable and I should never have used it.  If it's still possible to play on, then it's fine.  If it literally breaks the ability to progress, then I'll need to undo it and try something else.)

Edited March 25, 2016 by Steven Mading

[Yemo]

10 hours ago, Chippy the Space Dog said:

Woot, I found them!  Both the scanners are in the level 9 (1000 point unlock) "Experimental Science". 

This is pretty much long after all the other tech for Karbonite has been unlocked, and the kethane scanners unlock at level 7 (300).  The highest level of scansat scanners unlock at level 8 (550)

I'm not sure how intentional this is, and I'm something of a newb when it comes to KSP, but it seems odd to me that you acquire most of the resource converting and implementing tools before you have the ability to find it.

 

That said, I don't know if other resource scanners can find karbonite too, so it may not even be an issue. 

Looking at greater depth at the tech tree though, the first stock orbital modules start appearing with 'Early Orbital Stations' at tier 6 (160 points).  The OKS Pioneer, and most OKS stuff, doesn't start to appear until tier 9 (1000).

By comparison advanced nuclear pulse engines are level 8 (550). 

This essentially means easy transit to the rest of the Kerbol system can be implemented before orbital industries become available. My feeling is that's a little backward from an industrial/commercial standpoint, whatcha think?

The M-700 should be able to detect karbonite in orbital scanning mode. And then you can use the surface scanning module from karbonite once landed.

The KA-100 is something like a very advanced all inclusive version of both those components. It even allows surface scans from orbit in addition, while only having 1/4 the mass of the M-700.

I did not mess with the placement of the OKS stuff so far. As far as I remember, the OKS Pioneer is not necessary for station/base operations but instead makes them somewhat independent. Thus being one of the components which transforms a short term base/station, to a long term base/station.

And while we have quite some "nuke propulsion" capability in real life, we are nowhere close to self sustaining bases.

9 hours ago, Steven Mading said:

 

I would much rather have gone into a bit of debt and then crawled back out of it, than go into a lot of reputation hit that takes longer to crawl back from.  How is lack of debt an "exploit"?  Lack of a debt mechanic is the very reason I resorted to the bailout package.  If anything not having a debt mechanic feels more like a hard challenge than an "exploit".

In hard mode, contracts' advance payments don't usually cover all the cost of building a ship to fufill the contract.  It's only the advance *plus* the end-reward that makes it profitable.  Generally speaking the ratio I'm used to is about 2 attempts per contract means making a small but still sufficient profit.  1 attempt per contract means good profit was made, and 3 attempts means money was lost overall.  The only real change the mod caused is that I was putting more science devices on than I should have, to squeeze out extra science from contracts that didn't really require it, and that meant that with 3 attempts per success, without reverts, I was making a net loss, which I don't see as broken at all, but in fact I see it as correct reaction to the fact that I played it badly.

(The tl;dr version of it is this:  When playing hard mode, and I'm averaging 2 failed attempts for every 1 successful one, I don't really see it as incorrect game balance that doing so tanked my funding.  It *should*.  The only question is whether or not the bailout grant is implemented in a way that makes it totally unusable and I should never have used it.  If it's still possible to play on, then it's fine.  If it literally breaks the ability to progress, then I'll need to undo it and try something else.)

That is the exploit I m talking about:

You can surely continue with your career. I m just saying that the SETIcontracts progression is not adaptive enough to seemlessly adjust to your current, extreme situation. Leading to scenarios that do not make much sense and thus adversely affect the immersion, especially for streaming. Thus my recommendation to take the one time immersion hit of correcting that ridiculously imbalanced bailout strategy via cheat menu, rather than suffering the multiple immersion hits of getting offered contracts which should have been offered long ago.

I just looked at those strategies. The "Research Rights Sell-Out" offers me 30500 funds for 725 science... I m sorry, but I can not even see a hint of "balancing" when looking at those numbers at career start.

And the only reason that this imbalance is not affecting gameplay is, that science can not go below 0, so you can not take it at career start.

While players can use the equally imbalanced "Bail-Out Grant" (eg 12200 funds for 145 reputation) just because the reputation can go negative.

 

I wish the "Sane Strategies" mod from KSP 0.90 would still be around.

Edited March 25, 2016 by Yemo

[Chippy the Space Dog]

3 hours ago, Yemo said:

The M-700 should be able to detect karbonite in orbital scanning mode. And then you can use the surface scanning module from karbonite once landed.

The KA-100 is something like a very advanced all inclusive version of both those components. It even allows surface scans from orbit in addition, while only having 1/4 the mass of the M-700.

I did not mess with the placement of the OKS stuff so far. As far as I remember, the OKS Pioneer is not necessary for station/base operations but instead makes them somewhat independent. Thus being one of the components which transforms a short term base/station, to a long term base/station.

And while we have quite some "nuke propulsion" capability in real life, we are nowhere close to self sustaining bases.

Aha.  Ok, I haven't looked at where the M-700 is on the tree yet, but I can't fault your argument there otherwise.

The point I was trying to make about the OKS/MKS modules is they're all at tier 9. I'm not sure how they ended up there though if you haven't placed them, as in the community tech tree and stock they appear at tier 5 (90 points)  While I dom't think they should all necessarily be that low, there's a heap of difference in their placement from stock/Community. and the SETI tree, and it would sure be nice to be able to aim at sustainable stations before the very end of tech advancement.

At least it would for me.