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

[Eldaris]

It seems that SETI-CustomBarnKit is not compatible with Research bodies, most cost upgrade are not available.

[Misucat]

Hello all 

I have a problem with the facilities upgrade. In carrer mod, If I upgrade the runway (for exemple Tech 2: 9t to 18t), I change the KSC scene (SPH for exemple) and I return to KSC scene, the runway not upgrade and I lose my money invests... And the problem is apparently for all third upgrade added.

 

My configuration is: KSP 1.3 64 bits on Windows 10.

SETI metamod pack, CKAN installation and all mods (recommended and suggested). Any fix exist please?

Thank you and sorry for my english!  

 

[Eldulac]

I have experienced similar problems with my modded career game. For me the launch pad kept reverting back to level 1 whenever I entered the VAB. If I upgraded the launch pad to level 3, it would actually jump up to level 4 when entering the VAB. There were probably similar problems with all the other buildings in KSP as well.

I found the problem to be the following component:

SETI-CustomBarnKit-Config (EXPERIMENTAL) (SETI-CustomBarnKit 0.9.1.0)

After uninstalling that mod everything worked fine, but I would like to keep using that mod so a fix would be nice.

[Jacke]

8 hours ago, Eldulac said:

I have experienced similar problems with my modded career game. For me the launch pad kept reverting back to level 1 whenever I entered the VAB. If I upgraded the launch pad to level 3, it would actually jump up to level 4 when entering the VAB. There were probably similar problems with all the other buildings in KSP as well.

There's also a new version of Custom Barn Kit out.  Perhaps see if that resolves the bug.  Available from here.  https://ksp.sarbian.com/jenkins/job/CustomBarnKit/

[MR L A]

On 04/01/2015 at 7:25 PM, Yemo said:

Download: Porkjets PartOverhauls SETIconfig v0.9.2.0 (for KSP 1.3.x, use CKAN for a clean install)

Configures and redistributes Porkjets PartOverhauls (CC-BY-NC-3.0), so that it fits into stock and VenStockRevamp without replacing parts.
Some parts are now 1.875m sized, two engines augment the 0.625m collection, Boattail versions stay 1.25m sized.

Hi, love the work! 

Is there any chance of getting a patch for this... patch? As far as I can tell, it doesn't play well with RealPume  the miniaturised pug engine has a stock plume and I believe the Valiant does too 

Thanks

[Misucat]

14 hours ago, Jacke said:

There's also a new version of Custom Barn Kit out.  Perhaps see if that resolves the bug.  Available from here.  https://ksp.sarbian.com/jenkins/job/CustomBarnKit/

After tests, yes, this update solve the problem 

[Dexx]

I'm having an issue with duplicate contracts after installing SETI Contracts v1.3.0.0 (for KSP 1.2.x). The default exploration contracts still show up alongside the new SETI ones, even though exploration contracts are disabled in the contract configurator menu.

For example after completing the first contract (reach 18km unmanned) I get the default contract to do science on Kerbin, then 2 different contract offers for reaching space, and after that 2 contracts to orbit Kerbin, etc.

This is on 1.3 with a brand a new save and all mods updated to their latest versions. I initially thought the issue was a conflict with another contract mod, but even after removing all other contract related mods the issue still persists on new saves.

Any idea what's causing this? Thanks.

 

As a side note: What's up with the contract rewards? 50k cash, 6 science and 50 rep just for orbiting Kerbin? (On normal difficulty settings) That's insane! I know rewards can be turned down, but by the time it's low enough for SETI contracts to pay a reasonable amount, all other contracts reward basically nothing.

Edited August 18, 2017 by Dexx
Updated with new info

[FutureMartian97]

I installed SETI Contracts, Probe Parts, and Unmanned before manned along with Galileo's Planet Pack and I don't get any contracts when I start the game up. Is SETI not compatible with Galileo? 

[strudo76]

7 hours ago, FutureMartian97 said:

I installed SETI Contracts, Probe Parts, and Unmanned before manned along with Galileo's Planet Pack and I don't get any contracts when I start the game up. Is SETI not compatible with Galileo? 

Have you also installed module manager and contract configurer?

[FutureMartian97]

 

15 hours ago, strudo76 said:

Have you also installed module manager and contract configurer?

Yes. I have both installed. 

Here is what my ckan looks like. Galileo's Planet Pack I installed manually. I was playing it without SETI contracts and the contracts were there. 

http://i.imgur.com/TkQASo5.png

[ThreePounds]

On 20/08/2017 at 7:26 PM, FutureMartian97 said:

 

Yes. I have both installed. 

Here is what my ckan looks like. Galileo's Planet Pack I installed manually. I was playing it without SETI contracts and the contracts were there. 

http://i.imgur.com/TkQASo5.png

Yes, because in the definitions it mentions Kerbin instead of Gael. I'll try to replace every instance of Kerbin with Gael and report back.

Edited August 22, 2017 by Three_Pounds

[terminalmonky]

Since Sarbian has been updating CustomBarnKit, I have been having issues with SETI-CustomBarnKitConfig.  I know it is just experimental but I threw some logs together in hopes it would help.  

The custom configs from the original CustomBarnKit default.cfg are being applied but nothing from SETI-customBarnKit-Config,cfg

I have not deep dived into the logs yet but have looked several times before.  Not sure if this is more floating point number issues but who knows.  Very new to the modding / C# / troubleshooting KSP scene.  Hopefully this info is useful in helping in some way.

 

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B3tLMNmF1UxvU05oOEFGcWFqMWc?usp=sharing

 

 

[V0lchik]

Hi!

I cannot make sounding rocket based on RT-5 "Flea" Solid Fuel Booster (tech node 0 in Unmanned before Manned - RT-10 unavailable.)

Posted this here, because I think that my problem may be UBM+FAR issue (or lack of balance). 

Spoiler

Jumper-0

 

Jumper_0_MK2

As you can see, it's based on Probodobodyne OKTO, with 0.3 KN*m SAS. FAR mod is active. KSP version 1.1.3 (BECAUSE  ) (Just prefer this version because ~90 mods was installed and tested for compatibility and so. Have no time to do this again with 1.3 version. May be later. Also, I prefer this version balance.)

Anyway - with 1.1.2 physics (as I can remember FAR was broken that time - it was just disabled by auother or so) - it wored fine even with Probodobodyne Stayputnik (no SAS).

Now at speed ~100 m/s even with 4-6 Basic Fins it becomes unstable (why? The center of mass moves UP. The center of drag stays in place. So, I think it's air drag...) and overturns. TWR change (1.2-1.66-2.0) makes no efect.

What can I do? Add 1-2 more Probodobodyne OKTO ? Or make rotating rocket (roll movement due to the tilt of the Fins)? May be UBM supposed to be installed with some other mods. Alternatively, maybe there is mod boosting reaction wheels (I can do it manually in part file anyway... However, it's unfair.)

So what's wrong? My design, UBM part order or characteristics, lack of mods?

Edited August 27, 2017 by V0lchik
errors...

[kcs123]

1 hour ago, V0lchik said:

So what's wrong? My design, UBM part order or characteristics, lack of mods?

Your design. If you go with FAR, it does what it suppose to do - better modeled physics compared to stock game. Rocket is unstable aerodinamicaly, you can check it with FAR stability derivates in SPH. Meaning slight turning of rocket will lead to even more turning until it flips.

To solve that, you need better parts. Fins that can be moved/controled, RCS or engine with gimbal. Also, set TWR no more than 1.2 - 1.4 on launchpad, try to aim that rocket go supersonic near 10 km of altitude, not much sooner.

When you play with SETI, you should not be sorry if your first flights are not sucessful. It is best to not even try to reach goal on first flight. But, instead put thermometer, baromether and squeze as much science as possible from first flight. Then research better parts that would allow to reach goal easier.

And you are on right track. Put those fins on slight angle, to make it spin, it will be much more stable without steering wheels.
It is more chalanging, but much more rewarding experience, it will force you to think "out of the box" to overcome difficulties.

Welcome to forums, btw.

[V0lchik]

25 minutes ago, kcs123 said:

Your design. If you go with FAR, it does what it suppose to do - better modeled physics compared to stock game. Rocket is unstable aerodinamicaly, you can check it with FAR stability derivates in SPH. Meaning slight turning of rocket will lead to even more turning until it flips.

Thank you.

It's also luck of balance in UBM, as I can see now. I mean: 

Quote

When you play with SETI, you should not be sorry if your first flights are not sucessful. It is best to not even try to reach goal on first flight.

Anyway I have to find out more about FAR stability derivates and aerodinamic forces simulation. Really "raising the level of education" game. SO INTERESTING

In addition to reaction (RCS, engine with gimbal) control systems, there is partly "magic" reaction wheels system. Where is best place for it - near center of mass or as far as possible? It produces moment of force, so it seems that best place for it in COM... Right?

And is there any "well known" link with FAR derivates and force(air speed, angle) dependencies explanation?

[nobodyhasthis2]

17 hours ago, V0lchik said:

In addition to reaction (RCS, engine with gimbal) control systems, there is partly "magic" reaction wheels system. Where is best place for it - near center of mass or as far as possible? It produces moment of force, so it seems that best place for it in COM... Right?

If you using SETI the "magic" reaction wheels system is nerfed. Really nerfed with SETI challenge. The only real control comes from gimbal thrust and moving wing surfaces with this tech tree. Therefore as @kcs123 just said put those fins on a slight angle with rotation tool. You want the whole rocket spinning right after launch to keep it straight. It is the best low tech solution until there is enough science to have proper control systems.

 

Edited August 28, 2017 by nobodyhasthis2

[kcs123]

17 hours ago, V0lchik said:

In addition to reaction (RCS, engine with gimbal) control systems, there is partly "magic" reaction wheels system. Where is best place for it - near center of mass or as far as possible? It produces moment of force, so it seems that best place for it in COM... Right?

KSP game engine does not care where you have placed it on craft. It just care that you have it somewhere and have sufficient power for it.

In real life craft I belive it is used near COM, but I'm not expert on this. My best guess is that it depends from design to design and not necessary all of axes have to be on same place on craft.

There is some info about usage on ISS and with a bit more detail on Control moment gyroscope page. But as any other wikipedia, use it with caution if it provide reliable info or not. You should always use more info sources, but wikipedia is reasonable good starting point.

As for FAR, good start is to check FAR wikipedia.

https://github.com/ferram4/Ferram-Aerospace-Research/wiki/Notes-on-stability-derivatives

Home page is empty, link for other wiki pages are on right side. Other than that, google is your best friend. You can also check official FAR craft repository thread and ask questions there. Someone is always willing to answer. Link is in my signature.

But main thing is to figure out how to read FAR graphs and extract most valuable info from it. It does not apply only for FAR graph, but pretty much any other graphs used in manth and physics. Don't belive everyone who say graph must look like this or like that. It depends what you expect from craft and what is designed for in the first place. If you design stable craft don't expect to be very maneuverable and oposite is true too. Learning meaning of those graph lines in FAR graph is more than half of successful craft design.

EDIT:

Almost forgot. Does not hurt to check this thread:

Both of mentioned threads does not apply only on planes. It also provide valuable info for building rockets too.

Edited August 28, 2017 by kcs123

[DStaal]

17 hours ago, V0lchik said:

In addition to reaction (RCS, engine with gimbal) control systems, there is partly "magic" reaction wheels system. Where is best place for it - near center of mass or as far as possible? It produces moment of force, so it seems that best place for it in COM... Right?

For stability and integrity of ships, it's generally considered best to put it at the COM - it will generate torque at it's location, so it will both be most effective there and will have the least side-effects.

[The-Doctor]

@Yemo does SETI contracts work with Galileo's planet pack?

[ThreePounds]

2 hours ago, The-Doctor said:

@Yemo does SETI contracts work with Galileo's planet pack?

No. The contracts are body specific, so they won't work. We talked about this literally on this page.

Please, for the sanity of everyone, check the thread before you ask a question if it has come up previously. And please read at least one or two pages back, especially on the fast moving threads.

[TranceaddicT]

I'm wondering if there is a way to incorporate creation of GroundStations into the TechTree.  Much like MechJeb releases functionality SETI would "build" GroundStations.

Here's my thought process:

When we begin we have the KSC Mission Control.  

First, we research Tier 2 and build KSC Northern Control &  KSC Mountains, since they're close-by and on the same continent.

Next, we get build KSC NE Island at Tier 4.  This is our first experience building something with more logistical requirements as it's not on our primary continent.

With each successive even Tier (6,8,10) we build the next two stations further away in either direction (East&West).

 

Would this be possible to do?

[Jaff]

Hey, great mod, love the way it works. makes KSP make a bit more sense in career mode.

 

can anyone help me with regards to the mystery goo & material bay please? i may have missed it and i just realised I cant collect the science as usual, so how am i supposed to get the full amount of science?

do I have to return it in the canisters?

[strudo76]

3 hours ago, Jaff said:

do I have to return it in the canisters?

You do

[Jaff]

Well that ruins my beautifully designed rovers and non returnable landers then ha! 

 

Thanks for the reply, I may take that part of it out of the game if it doesn’t mess the whole thing up. 

 

I still consider the goo and the bay something that you would be able to download data from and return it home even though I see the merits of it being a must return. 

 

 

[TranceaddicT]

I have a question about SETIrebalance and (Semi)Saturable Reaction Wheels.

In particular, I'm looking at the config of  SXT375mProbe

Here are the pertinent MMConfig codes:

Here RW.cfg creates a new MODULE[RWSaturatable].

//	RW.cfg

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleReactionWheel],!MODULE[RWSaturatable]]:FOR[RWSaturatable]
{
	MODULE
	{
		name = RWSaturatable
		saturationScale = 10 // axis saturation limit is scale * avgTorque
		bleedRate
		{
			key = 0 0.025 0 0 // with 0% saturation, 2.5% of torque per second (0.25% total with the default scale of 10)
			key = 1 0.025 0 0 // with 100% saturation, 2.5% of torque per second (0.25% total with the default scale of 10)
		}
		torqueCurve
		{
			key = 0 1 -1 -1 // with 0% saturation, full torque
			key = 1 0 -1 -1 // with 100% saturation, no torque
		}
	}
}

Now, this is where I get confused.  Here it seems SETI should either:

1) if RWSaturatable exists, SETI duplicates and renames MODULE[RWSaturatable] as MODULE[ModuleReactionWheel] 

or

2) if RWSaturatable DOES NOT (!MODULE[RWSaturatable]) exists, it just creates it.

//	SETI-GeneralSetting.cfg

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

These are creating the following entries in the respective config files.

		MODULE
		{
			name = RWSaturatable
			PitchTorque = 3
			YawTorque = 3
			RollTorque = 3
			saturationScale = 10
			RESOURCE
			{
				name = ElectricCharge
				rate = 0.25
			}
			bleedRate
			{
				key = 0 0.025 0 0
				key = 1 0.025 0 0
			}
			torqueCurve
			{
				key = 0 1 -1 -1
				key = 1 0 -1 -1
			}
		}


		MODULE
		{
			name = ModuleReactionWheel
			saturationScale = 10
			bleedRate
			{
				key = 0 0.025 0 0
				key = 1 0.025 0 0
			}
			torqueCurve
			{
				key = 0 1 -1 -1
				key = 1 0 -1 -1
			}
		}

Is this the desired outcome?  It seems that there is a duplication of MODULES. 

 

Again, I'm really confused about what is happening here.