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

[kcs123]

7 hours ago, Benji13 said:

Does the 'Unmanned before Manned' tech tree support mkIV spaceplane parts?

Stock tech tree nodes still exist, so any mod that was not put in consideration to support or not will be availabe trough tech tree as it would be without UBM.

Worst thing you might encounter that it have reaction wheels overpowered (by UBM standards) or something similar if those parts are not altered by UBM. Other than that, any other part mod should be compatible with UBM.

[Yemo]

In preparation for ksp 1.2, I did some changes/consolidation to the ckan recommendations/mod packs.

UbM now focuses on the tech tree, thus it simply recommends CTT, TakeCommand and SETI-ProbeParts (to fill in stock part gaps). Suggestions will possibly be extended in the future.

SETIContracts focuses on contracts, recommending CustomBarnKit, AnomalySurveyor, FieldResearch, KerbinSpaceStation, Tourism, GAP and Waypoint Manager.

SETIrebalance is the (only) meta mod pack (consolidating former SETI-BalanceMod and UbM meta mod packs), acting as a sort of "conversion" mod pack. The "recommendations" focus on real gaps of the stock game, in terms of comfort and missing parts (station, probes, very light remote tech implementation similar to the one proposed for 1.2), while the suggestions offer further improvements (LifeSupport, ProceduralParts etc).

 

I also changed some descriptions in the OP, eg writing about the differences between UbM and SETIctt.

 

Further dev depends, as usual, on the state of the base game. Especially in terms of fixes (wheels), implementation of new features and reliability.

Edited September 7, 2016 by Yemo

[Malah]

2 hours ago, Yemo said:

In preparation for ksp 1.2, I did some changes/consolidation to the ckan recommendations/mod packs.

UbM now focuses on the tech tree, thus it simply recommends CTT, TakeCommand and SETI-ProbeParts (to fill in stock part gaps). Suggestions will possibly be extended in the future.

SETIContracts focuses on contracts, recommending CustomBarnKit, AnomalySurveyor, FieldResearch, KerbinSpaceStation, Tourism, GAP and Waypoint Manager.

SETIrebalance is the (only) meta mod pack (consolidating former SETI-BalanceMod and UbM meta mod packs), acting as a sort of "conversion" mod pack. The "recommendations" focus on real gaps of the stock game, in terms of comfort and missing parts (station, probes, very light remote tech implementation similar to the one proposed for 1.2), while the suggestions offer further improvements (LifeSupport, ProceduralParts etc).

 

I also changed some descriptions in the OP, eg writing about the differences between UbM and SETIctt.

 

Further dev depends, as usual, on the state of the base game. Especially in terms of fixes (wheels), implementation of new features and reliability.

Hello, for UbM, KSP-AVC is in "depends", I don't understand why, UbM can work without KSP-AVC (as many others mods can work without MiniAVC). I like KSP-AVC, I support it but I don't use it. Is it planned to delete this depends ?

[Yemo]

20 hours ago, Malah said:

Hello, for UbM, KSP-AVC is in "depends", I don't understand why, UbM can work without KSP-AVC (as many others mods can work without MiniAVC). I like KSP-AVC, I support it but I don't use it. Is it planned to delete this depends ?

Hm, KSP-AVC was added as a dependency a long time ago, due to the nature of SETI, CKAN, KSP and user behaviour (eg not reading threads). I guess I can remove it from UbM, since that has a broader audience and the issues with old module manager versions and stuff not working for tech tree modding was quite some time ago. On the other hand, I dont want to those times to return, especially considering ksp updates coming out soon.

Edited September 8, 2016 by Yemo

[nobodyhasthis2]

A note for @Yemo as a placeholder for some CKAN tech support stuff coming up. Nothing to do with me but it is an area of tech support I watch with interest. 

CKAN is all ok a few bad user behaviour loopholes have been closed in the latest/next release. The one we need to watch for is how it now removes empty folders. This should help SETI when the NEEDS statement is used to detect installed mods. Hopefully there be less problems from people that do not clean out old folders when uninstalling unwanted mods. Not a total solution but a big help to reduce the problem 

The existing ability to use a empty folder within the actual mod should be preserved. This means users can still switch off the SETI reaction wheel nerfing by deleting the folder if they with to do so. Without any need for more work in either the mod or CKAN. 

In short it should appear to work like it did before for everyone. However we will get less complains from people that don't read the forum threads. 

On 9/8/2016 at 7:12 PM, Yemo said:

Hm, KSP-AVC was added as a dependency a long time ago, due to the nature of SETI, CKAN, KSP and user behaviour (eg not reading threads). I guess I can remove it from UbM, since that has a broader audience and the issues with old module manager versions and stuff not working for tech tree modding was quite some time ago. On the other hand, I dont want to those times to return, especially considering ksp updates coming out soon.

The alternative solution is to set it as "Recommends". So it will be ticked for install. So most users will get it. However if people really do not want it. They don't have to take it and simply untick the box. 

Just trying to give you options and ideas. Happy with any choice you make @Yemo 

Edited September 10, 2016 by nobodyhasthis2

[Yemo]

On 10.9.2016 at 11:58 PM, nobodyhasthis2 said:

A note for @Yemo as a placeholder for some CKAN tech support stuff coming up. Nothing to do with me but it is an area of tech support I watch with interest. 

CKAN is all ok a few bad user behaviour loopholes have been closed in the latest/next release. The one we need to watch for is how it now removes empty folders. This should help SETI when the NEEDS statement is used to detect installed mods. Hopefully there be less problems from people that do not clean out old folders when uninstalling unwanted mods. Not a total solution but a big help to reduce the problem 

The existing ability to use a empty folder within the actual mod should be preserved. This means users can still switch off the SETI reaction wheel nerfing by deleting the folder if they with to do so. Without any need for more work in either the mod or CKAN. 

In short it should appear to work like it did before for everyone. However we will get less complains from people that don't read the forum threads. 

The alternative solution is to set it as "Recommends". So it will be ticked for install. So most users will get it. However if people really do not want it. They don't have to take it and simply untick the box. 

Just trying to give you options and ideas. Happy with any choice you make @Yemo 

 

That is great news. Removing folders is vital for not messing up installs. I shall have to put a file into SETIreactionWheelRebalance or whatever it was called, explaining that the folder is empty but not useless.

 

I guess I stay with the current opt-out in this case, since it is just a simple trigger folder, not a mod itself. And I guess that people who actually find SETIrebalance are generally interested in tackling this imbalance in stock.

 

It also seems like 1.2 is in pre-release. I ll check on that and then take a look at which mods need updating. First focus is most likely on UbM.

[theonegalen]

When you look at the 1.2 prerelease, make sure to grab Porkjet's 1.25m parts from this thread, too.
 

 

Edited September 15, 2016 by theonegalen

[Yemo]

18 hours ago, theonegalen said:

When you look at the 1.2 prerelease, make sure to grab Porkjet's 1.25m parts from this thread, too.
 

 

 

Will do, thank you! I took a brief look at it, but will take a more detailed look in the future.

 

 

So, I just took a look at 1.2 prerelease, especially the commnet. It feels like being somewhere in the middle between RT + SETIremoteTechConfig + SETIprobeControlEnabler which is very simple and RT with some options which makes it very hard. Personally I prefer the extremes, either simple to fool around, or realism to go all the way. Was true for RT options as well, one of the reasons why I created the addons, to offer a very simple version/option. However I like the added features from commnet (map). Just my personal preference.

Tracking Station / Kerbin side of range restrictions seems to be intended to scale nicely with career, so that comm sats are only necessary for coverage, not for range (at least in stock, not really compatible with NewHorizon/OPM distances...). I do not yet understand the part balancing of the antennas, but I only took a brief look. Since I personally prefer (modded/customized) RT (flight computer, range model, etc., and because I m already very used to RT), I do not plan to touch/rebalance the stock antennas for CommNet/stock anyway. I definately like the fact that command parts now have an inbuilt antenna with useful range, so I m happy that this part of SETIrebalance modifying RT is now also in the stock game.

From what I have seen so far, I think that it is a great new feature with sound implementation (especially due to the ingame documentation, ie part range shown for tracking station upgrades), which really enriches stock gameplay. Personally I just prefer RT, mainly due to familiarity, flight computer and existing customization.

 

 

SETI update plans so far:

1) UbM needs some minor adjustments to account for the new parts

2) SETIrebalance needs some minor compatibility adjustments (at the moment it adds transmitters to command parts, so those MM statements simply need to be removed for ksp 1.2, no plan to touch new comm net parts/functionality)

3) SETIctt reboot makes no sense at the moment, with uncertainty about upcoming engine rebalance, part upgrade feature, mod reactions to that and commnet and thus impact on tech tree, etc. But I already have a contingency plan for that. Since imho the main gameplay difference between UbM and SETIctt is the increased challenge at the career start (control/reaction wheels), I will just make a mini mod which can be added to UbM to alter that part of the progression and increase the gameplay challenge of UbM. While SETIctt adds more nodes, UbM has its science parts further down the tree, so gathering science is more difficult, which kind of cancels out. And when (if) things settle down and are thus more plannable, it can be revisited.

4) The other mods are either fine or depend on other mods to update, to see what changes are necessary.

 

edit: So I will take SETIctt out of the OP since it is not really suited for ksp 1.2 with the new antennas/dishes and UbM + the new mini mod will be a good approximation with much better mod support. The last version should still be available on spacedock.

Edited September 15, 2016 by Yemo

[kcs123]

Stock CommNet is not all the way bad. I was able to do just quick test though, and some of features might be adjusted based on prerelese feedback, prior full release. Be sure to check out advanced difficulty option on starting new game, you can adjust to have or not control over craft if there is no signal.

Signal delay and flight computer are only things missing in stock, but those are not necessary for me in my playtroughs. Does not bring much to game except a bit of annoyance until you get used to timing of flight computer and signal delay. Once you gat hang on it, it is almost same as you play without signal delay, you still need to time out maneuver nodes properly and execute it properly to not waste dV.

RT mod will probably be on hiatus, until someone else step in and take over torch, so better to plan that RT will not be available for some time and balance out everything against stock CommNet.

There might be need for some more antennas, to cover stock gaps, but those from DMagic orbital science might be used for that once it is updated.

[Yemo]

@kcs123

But it also seems to offer very few advantages for my personal preference over current RT + addons. While there is quite some stuff about current RT + addons + rebalance which I personally prefer to current stock CommNet as far as I have seen of it.

It might be possible to adjust some of the stock CommNet features to my personal preferences, but why do so?
I ve not yet seen much of CommNet, but what are the features that are improvements over RT + addons + rebalance? I m genuinely curious.

 

I read about the RT mod lacking dev with the possibility of hiatus. That is very unfortunate.
But I m not really eager to dedicate a lot of time to reach a state which is marginally better in some aspects while being marginally worse in other aspects compared to the 1.1.3 fully modded experience.

I already had that experience and it was not pleasant, so I d rather wait for the options to improve/the difference to be large enough to justify the extra work.

[theonegalen]

Yemo, what did you think of the additional early tier engines included in Porkjet's pack? There's an LV-303 (early upper stage) and an LV-T15 (early gimballing lift engine) in basic rocketry if you use the pack, plus upgrade nodes to improve both thrust and efficiency further down the tree.

According to the devs, all the stock commnet features are intended to be easily moddable to produce a wide range of difficulty options. NathanKell said in recent Squadcasts that it's relatively easy to set up the commnet to provide RT-style gameplay, even with signal delay, though without the flight computer, which is one of the reasons signal delay isn't present in the base game. All the different ranges should be easily modifiable as well. Unless I misheard what he was saying.

[Yemo]

4 hours ago, theonegalen said:

Yemo, what did you think of the additional early tier engines included in Porkjet's pack? There's an LV-303 (early upper stage) and an LV-T15 (early gimballing lift engine) in basic rocketry if you use the pack, plus upgrade nodes to improve both thrust and efficiency further down the tree.

According to the devs, all the stock commnet features are intended to be easily moddable to produce a wide range of difficulty options. NathanKell said in recent Squadcasts that it's relatively easy to set up the commnet to provide RT-style gameplay, even with signal delay, though without the flight computer, which is one of the reasons signal delay isn't present in the base game. All the different ranges should be easily modifiable as well. Unless I misheard what he was saying.

They seem to fill some gaps, but as far as I can see, their stats are not (yet?) balanced (looking at you, LV-T30 and LV-T45...), so I ll take a look at them when they are ready. Otherwise they are pretty much less interesting versions of VenStockRevamp (LV-T15). Same goes for the different "butts". VenStockRevamp had a feature which allowed you to attach the same engine on different tank sizes, with auto adjusting fairings, quite some time ago. I welcome the additions in those 2 areas, but they are nothing new in terms of a fully modded game.

The natively supported upgrade is the real difference, though it is a very ambiguous one. For me it all depends on the implementation and compatibility with mods. The general idea is nice, to have different stats for the same part. Possible issues are eg compatibility with tech tree mods and tweakscale, especially when a lot of part mods add a whole bunch of upgrades based on stock. Also makes it a nightmare to balance.

 

Flight Computer is a control workaround when there is no instant connection. A loss of instant connection can not only be caused by signal delay, but also by having no connection at all, eg because of occlusion. As far as I can see, there is an option to have control issues due to occlusion, but no workaround by eg a flight computer. I m personally not a fan of signal delay, but I still want to have a method of control for a probe which does not have a connection at the moment, even when playing with realistic difficulty settings which simulate a total instantenous loss of control on loss of connection.

Some things from current modded/adjusted RT I would look for in a modded/adjusted commnet, to my knowledge it only provides some of them:

1. Flight Computer for reasons stated above.
2. Option that no connection only restricts science transmission, not control
3. Customizable range model, eg root, additive, fixed, and so on
4. Balanced parts in terms of mass, costs, range/signal strength, etc.
5. Possbility of command stations for local control of unmanned craft
6. Variable origins of main connection (ground stations, whole planet - which can be simulated for certain altitudes/orbits in RT with enough ground stations)
7. Fixed/variable relay networks
8. Visualization of information
9. Signal Delay for total realism

So far I see CommNet as being only strictly better in 8. Visualization of information, while being equal (though different) in some aspects and strictly inferior in others, most importantly the lack of a flight computer as a workaround for not having an instant connection while playing with control restrictions on loss of connection.

 

If there is anything not quite right or plain wrong about my assessment, please do tell, I m eager to get it right!

 

 

edit: From what I have seen so far, the main advantage of 1.2 over a fully modded 1.1.3 is the "fix" of the landing legs, even though/because they can now be used as cannon springs. The improvements compared to stock 1.1.3 are just not interesting for me personally.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Yemo

[kcs123]

On 16.09.2016. at 2:33 AM, Yemo said:

I read about the RT mod lacking dev with the possibility of hiatus. That is very unfortunate.
But I m not really eager to dedicate a lot of time to reach a state which is marginally better in some aspects while being marginally worse in other aspects compared to the 1.1.3 fully modded experience.

I already had that experience and it was not pleasant, so I d rather wait for the options to improve/the difference to be large enough to justify the extra work.

I wanted to try 1.2. a bit more before I answer here, but I was unable to advance much in game. Stock communications are still subject to change trough test phase, so it is good decision to wait for final release, before start to work on modification of it.

Both, stock and RT mod have their own advantages/drawbacks, no simple answer which one is better than other. Tweaking stock parts might need some time until you get used to all new systems, but there is advantages in 1.2. trough possible "upgrade" system on parts. Not sure how everything works though, need to study that new thread that theonegalen linked in above post, but looks prommising.

RT relay network become quickly mess, even before you send probes outside of Kerbin SOI. You need to specify each antenna on each craft where it is pointed at. While it is more realistic, it quickly brings more confusion in game than it add to fun. My subjective, personal opinion on this is that stock game handles this better, while it still bring reason to send probes with antennas deep in space, before you start larger missions.

Acording for squad responses, signal delay will be possible to easy simulate, probably someone will create mod for that quickly after release.
Flight computer - I didn't even used it in RT. I prefer kOS over it, makes you to re-learn some math as side-effect for playing a game. I assume that MJ will have some options for it too. There is no too much difference from flight computer and MJ maneuver node execution. As long as you have remote connection to probe you can assign maneuver node and let MJ to execute it.

While we are all more/less sad on RT status, turning to stock system have their own advantages on long run. Less likely that it will be put on hiatus.
Sure, there will be some changes back and forth until final release, but after that, there should no longer be major gamebreaking changes. Meaning, it will be more stable platform to mod against it.

 

That being said, I understand your feelings very well. Such is software development. I'm involved in software development for small/medium busieness companies, mostly bookkeeping and similar. As soon as you develop something, goverment change laws and you need to adjust aplications or develop new one for same thing. Even that is no case, Microsoft release some patch or even new OS version and your software no longer works properly for no apparent reason. Then you are forced to upgrade developer tool, whatever programming language you use. Often there is also some breaking new things, so you can't just recompile software, you need to rewrite large piece of it. List goes on and on. It is quite discouraging for developer, you need a lot of mental strength to "reinvente wheel" again and again.

 

So, take your time, no need to rush, wait a while until thigs are settled down and start working on mod when it brings you at least some pleasure to do it. If there is no joy while you doing it, no money can replace time wasted on development.

Start with UBM first. Some part rearangment as it was in 1.1.2 and 1.1.3. might be just enough. Thermometer and barometer earlier in tech tree, goo and mat.bay pushed slightly higher are things that I missing in stock game, for example. (Haven't tried stock game for a long, long time)

While it is discouraging at first, judging from very low experience with 1.2., it will be much more stable and meaningfull for moding than previous releases.

[Yemo]

So I read about and tested the new version a bit more and have some additions to my statements above:

The upgrade system is really a two-edged sword. In addition to the balancing nightmare, it is also a severe problem for craft file sharing. Previously you simply checked whether you had the right parts unlocked. Now you have to have the right upgrade unlocked as well. As far as I can tell (so I could be wrong about this), a design which is constructed eg with a LV-T45 upgrade 1, can not be used if you eg only have upgrade 0 unlocked, and, confusingly, also not when you have upgrade 2 unlocked...

Anyone can confirm this? This would be a serious issue.

Apropos craft files, due to the new comm net feature, I ll have to remove the example craft files from UbM.

 

@kcs123

Something like a flight computer from MechJeb would be awesome.

I dont agree with the discussions in the remote tech thread about priorities. Imho a working (old) remote tech with 1.2 is much more desireable than commnet + flightcomputer + signal delay. If that is the route RT is going, I ll have to switch to CommNet alltogether. Especially if MJ implements a flight computer as well. Though with those options, it is likely that I ll personally stay on 1.1.3 until the options improve...

Oh, and while on the RT topic, the "requirement to point dishes in RT" can be easily changed by a small MM statement which converts all dishes to omni-antennas and thus makes RT much simpler than current CommNet, with its destinction between relays and the other antennas/dishes. If the old RT functionality is restored for ksp 1.2, I could just make another small mini-mod which does that.

 

It seems that squad decided to reorder some experiments in the direction of UbM (thermo and baro earlier, materials bay later). There is also that science return capsule, though I do not particularly like the form factor and that there is no distinction between returning values (eg thermometer readings) and more complex samples (surface sample). Imho a half-hearted implementation. I ll check whether I can simply give that functionality to probe cores and reuse the sample return part for something else. To restore some balance, I recommend the SETIrebalanceMaterialsGoo mini mod anyway.

 

I agree with the technical stability part, though with the "new" features and open ends (part upgrades), it seems to be less feature/modding stable than 1.0...

 

 

[kcs123]

Well, part upgrade feature is still WIP, everything is prone to change and is not something that comes with stock immediately. Those upgradeble parts are just example for moders how upgrade system might work. Probably it will be possible to remove upgrade features trough MM patches if someone desire to do that.

Upgrade system might not be so bad, have to see final result to be able to give fair judgment. TAC, KER and MJ already have something similar even in current KSP release. You don't get immediate access to all MJ features until you unlock certain tech tree nodes. Similar upgrade feature might be useful for kOS parts too, for example.

Speaking of MJ, might be quite simple to use it features as replacement of RT flight computer. Stock CommNet system allow you to create maneuver node only if you have connection to Kerbin. So i think that might be possible to create maneuver node that is behind line of sight while still have signal, tell MJ to execute node and block MJ user interface if you lost signal, but allow MJ to execute maneuver node as you were able to do before.

Pretty much similar as RT flight computer was doing. Personaly, I prefer kOS as autopilot, it has slightly higher learning curve, so it is not recommended for everyone, but it is also much more satisfactory and more fun to use on the long run. Have yet to see how thing will be developed after final KSP 1.2. release.

2 hours ago, Yemo said:

t seems that squad decided to reorder some experiments in the direction of UbM (thermo and baro earlier, materials bay later). There is also that science return capsule, though I do not particularly like the form factor and that there is no distinction between returning values (eg thermometer readings) and more complex samples (surface sample).

Yep, they were shifted some parts back and forth trough tech node tree, indeed, it is much closer to UbM setup. Science return capsule is not necessary bad thing. At the same time they have created some parts more vunerable to "g" forces and material bay also have low heating tolerance.
I found it quite difficult to preserve on re-entry trough atmosphere. That means you either need to transmit data with lower science value, or put data in science return capsule that have also penalty in additional weight you need to carry on craft. I don't find it too much gamebalance breaking.

It is often hard to implement a lot of customizable features in game that everyone is able to customize for personal usage and have simple job in terms to gamebalance tasks. It need a lot of consideration from various point of view to do everything properly. Cutting off some of features or limiting them makes gamebalance task easier, but also it limits ways that someone want to customize his own game for personal better experience.

I just started new career game due to parts shifting trough tech tree, to be able to see differences in latest patch. For example, I would move Sputnik one or two nodes earlier in tech tree, as you are able to quickly unlock next higher probe (I think it ius HEKS), making Sputnik quickly obsolete.

Also I try to do everything this time without any additional ground stations except KSC. If you choose to have more ground station, those are covering entire planet, polar caps too. That also removes need to have any kind of comm satellite in Kerbin orbit, you only need some in Mun and Minimus orbit to cover blind spots. Ground stations with only equators covered are something in the middle between having or not having ground stations at Kerbin.

Speaking of it, might be a good idea, balancing wise, to create some mod that will allow you to use some ground station only if you have bought it tropugh some additional UI, similar to upgrade tracking station at KSC. So, instead of having all ground stations or only one at KSC, you might choose to invest money in some specific ground station on Kerbin, one by one, only those you need the most, to cover some necessary blind spots.

Anyhow, even with flaws, I found that 1.2. is much more balanced compared to 1.1.3 stock game only, without any mods. Those flaws could be more easy to balance trough customizations for personal preference. Parts upgrade system can be enabled/disabled trough advanced settings menu, for exaple. And we still have to wait what other moders will bring, once things become more stable.

All in all, some significant progress is made from previous release. I skiped lot of things from 1.1.3 due to lack of free time to play KSP, so lot of experience are still from my comparison towards 1.1.2., so I might miss something from previous official release.

[theonegalen]

6 hours ago, Yemo said:

The upgrade system is really a two-edged sword. In addition to the balancing nightmare, it is also a severe problem for craft file sharing. Previously you simply checked whether you had the right parts unlocked. Now you have to have the right upgrade unlocked as well. As far as I can tell (so I could be wrong about this), a design which is constructed eg with a LV-T45 upgrade 1, can not be used if you eg only have upgrade 0 unlocked, and, confusingly, also not when you have upgrade 2 unlocked..

Hmm, I only checked on a single save, not with craft file sharing through multiple saves. That might be a problem.

[Jiraiyah]

Hi

I know what I am asking for is hugely unbalanced but that is what I want to have in my sandbox game, I am using USI life support and I want to tweak the seti-greenhouse so that it would make a deep space station completely self sustained without any additional need to support it with life support material, how should i change the setting to have it?

I fount this : RecyclePercent = .5

If i change it to be RecyclePercent = 1.0, would it mean that it would recycle for 1 kerbal completely without a need to resupply the station in future? if so, do i need to change any additional settings?

[kcs123]

You might have better luck if you look in USI config files. I'm pretty sure that you can find some part module in USI files that you can put in SETI greenhouse. To make it crate some supplies, recycle etc. Can't be more specific, I haven't look in those for a while and Roverdude update those more quickly than I was able to track down all of changes.

IIRC, USI was created in a way that is created that you almost never can do full closed self sufficient circle. You will need to send some supplies to colonies from time to time.
Perhaps you will need to tweak more than one part to be able to accomplish full self sufficient circle for station or colony base.

[Tyko]

Hi @Yemo First, really like the updates you've made to your info pages on this thread. They do a great job of explaining what each of your mods are about!

On UbM (1.0.9.6) , CKAN shows it's updated for 1.2, but AVC says it's not compatible and I'm seeing some whackiness in the tech tree. For example, the Mk1 capsule is still in start and Ladders are in Engineering 101.

Is this expected or are you still working on it?

EDIT: I have two copies of the Mk1 Capsule. 1 is in Start, the second is in Flight Control

EDIT EDIT:  somehow the Save I referenced above got borked resulting in the whackiness I was seeing. I started a new Save and things look like they're back where they should be.

Edited October 13, 2016 by tjt

[Yemo]

1 hour ago, tjt said:

Hi @Yemo First, really like the updates you've made to your info pages on this thread. They do a great job of explaining what each of your mods are about!

On UbM (1.0.9.6) , CKAN shows it's updated for 1.2, but AVC says it's not compatible and I'm seeing some whackiness in the tech tree. For example, the Mk1 capsule is still in start and Ladders are in Engineering 101.

Is this expected or are you still working on it?

EDIT: I have two copies of the Mk1 Capsule. 1 is in Start, the second is in Flight Control

EDIT EDIT:  somehow the Save I referenced above got borked resulting in the whackiness I was seeing. I started a new Save and things look like they're back where they should be.

Hey,

I had to set the mods in ckan to be compatible with all versions to reduce install issues. The mods are not yet updated to ksp 1.2, though most should work. The only one possible producing real issues would be SETIrebalance, which I m in the processs of updating.

The double parts in the tech tree are just due to general ksp tech tree modding issues. If you alter/mod the position of a part, which you have already researched in your savegame, the part is still displayed where you formerly researched it, in addition to the new modded location. Though that is only a graphical anomaly in the tech tree, functionally the part is only available at the new tech node position.

Edited October 13, 2016 by Yemo

[Tyko]

32 minutes ago, Yemo said:

Hey,

I had to set the mods in ckan to be compatible with all versions to reduce install issues. The mods are not yet updated to ksp 1.2, though most should work. The only one possible producing real issues would be SETIrebalance, which I m in the processs of updating.

The double parts in the tech tree are just due to general ksp tech tree modding issues. If you alter/mod the position of a part, which you have already researched in your savegame, the part is still displayed where you formerly researched it, in addition to the new modded location. Though that is only a graphical anomaly in the tech tree, functionally the part is only available at the new tech node position.

Thanks! I saw that when I went into the VAB and the part was no longer available to build.

 

[Yemo]

So, a few more or less minor updates for ksp 1.2. The other mods should work as well, though I will wait with the recompiles until their base mods are updated (ContractConfigurator, RemoteTech and TAC life support).

 

Also note, that the ckan meta mod pack is now part of SETIrebalance instead of UnmannedBeforeManned!

 

 

Unmanned before Manned v1.2.0.0

Minor changes for KSP 1.2 (new antennas/dishes)

Also removed the vessels, as I can't maintain them for 2 different comm systems

 

SETI Rebalance v1.2.0.0

Minor compatibility fixes for KSP 1.2

Crewed parts costs increased by a factor of 5

EntryCosts all set to 1

• Rather not having a "feature" than a severely unbalanced one
• Especially as long as it is part of the "difficulty" presets

 

SETI ProbeParts v1.2.0.0

0.65m HeatShield removed, since a similar sized stock one is now available

[Graploos]

Unmanned before manned from ckan is not version 1.2.0 but an older one.

[kcs123]

Give CKAN boot some time to refresh repository. Depending on time of mod update, CKAN may or may not catch changes quickly as it check files on server for updates once in few hours to reduce server loads.

[Axela]

18 hours ago, kcs123 said:

Give CKAN boot some time to refresh repository. Depending on time of mod update, CKAN may or may not catch changes quickly as it check files on server for updates once in few hours to reduce server loads.

I checked a few minutes ago: it's still the older version...