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

[Yemo]

Karbonite is much heavier and less efficient than LFO, so all the engines using Karbonite got a boost to their thrust.

Hm, ok, thank you.

Then I will rather boost their efficiency somewhat and set their thrust to the same levels as the liquid fuel counterparts (which will most likely become better than the stock KSP ones).

So the Karbonite Airbreathers with SETI will be somewhere between the liquid fuel and the Karbonite thrust levels.

Edited March 2, 2015 by Yemo

[SwGustav]

I tried to take on special fuels tank, but can't get the MM coding structure right (really ought to read full documentation on weekend), so I hope that's okay it's a straight file edit, not a patch (it's just for showcase anyway).

I forgot the SETI changes part name, so it shows as xenon tank only. LF and MP are examples.

Pic 1

Pic 2

Pic 3

I marked the most important part with bold.

PART
{
// --- general parameters ---
name = proceduralTankXenon
module = Part
author = AncientGammoner, NathanKell, Swamp Ig, Eggman360


// --- asset parameters ---
MODEL
{
model = ProceduralParts/Parts/cylinderTank
scale = 1,1,1
}
scale = 1
rescaleFactor = 1


// --- node definitions ---
node_stack_top=0,0.5,0,0,1,0,1
node_stack_bottom=0,-0.5,0,0,-1,0,1
node_attach=0,0,0.5,0,0,-1,1


// --- editor parameters ---
cost = 0 // 4000
TechRequired = ionPropulsion
entryCost = 4000
category = Utility
subcategory = 0
title = Procedural Special Fuels Tank
manufacturer = Kerbchem Industries
description = This tank is specifically designed for pressurized gases and other exotic fuels. Unfortunately we haven't found anything exotic -yet-, so you'll have to stick with monopropellant and liquid fuel for now.




// attachment rules: stack, srfAttach, allowStack, allowSrfAttach, allowCollision
attachRules = 1,1,1,1,0


// --- standard part parameters ---
mass = 0
dragModelType = default
maximum_drag = 0.2
minimum_drag = 0.2
angularDrag = 2
crashTolerance = 7
breakingForce = 50
breakingTorque = 50
maxTemp = 2900


MODULE
{
name = ProceduralPart
textureSet = Copernicus

TECHLIMIT {
// FL-R25 - 1.25 x 0.5706054 m = 0.700238177 kL
name = ionPropulsion
diameterMin = 0.125
diameterMax = 0.75
lengthMin = 0.1
lengthMax = 0.75
volumeMin = 0.02
volumeMax = 0.2
}
TECHLIMIT {
// Make everything unlimited for metaMaterials
name = metaMaterials
diameterMin = 0.01
diameterMax = Infinity
lengthMin = 0.01
lengthMax = Infinity
volumeMin = 0.01
volumeMax = Infinity
}
}
MODULE
{
name = ProceduralShapeCylinder
displayName = Cylinder
techRequired = start

length = 0.3
diameter = 0.625
}
MODULE
{
name = ProceduralShapeCone
displayName = Cone
techRequired = start

length = 0.3
topDiameter = 0.162
bottomDiameter = 0.625
}
MODULE
{
name = ProceduralShapePill
displayName = Fillet Cylinder
techRequired = advConstruction

length = 0.3
diameter = 0.625
fillet = 0.25
}
MODULE
{
name = ProceduralShapeBezierCone
displayName = Smooth Cone
techRequired = advConstruction

selectedShape = Round #1
length = 0.3
topDiameter = 0.162
bottomDiameter = 0.625
}[B]
MODULE
{
name = TankContentSwitcher
useVolume = true

TANK_TYPE_OPTION
{
name = XenonGas
dryDensity = 0.5801
RESOURCE
{
name = XenonGas
unitsPerT = 14000
}
}
TANK_TYPE_OPTION
{
name = LiquidFuel
// Display name, replace with argon or karborundum
dryDensity = 0.1
costMultiplier = 0.65
RESOURCE
{
name = LiquidFuel
// Replace with argon or karborundum
unitsPerT = 800
// FOr argon I think it will be close or same to xenon's value. Less for karborundum
}
}
TANK_TYPE_OPTION
{
name = RCS
// Display name, replace with argon or karborundum
dryDensity = 0.22
RESOURCE
{
name = MonoPropellant
// Replace with argon or karborundum
unitsPerT = 1000
}
}
}
}[/B]

Your offered tank split up is the best option.

I think these launch towers might fit into SETI. What do you think Yemo?

On that matter, any status on testing previous mod suggestions (for recommended mod list)? You haven't even added FuseBox, so I wonder.

Also a suggestion to put SETI in here (Funds and Career).

[SwGustav]

[WIP] Procedural Probe Core

Please excuse me for pixelated text

Note: it's also designed as control unit right now (scaling up to 5m), but due to inability to scale torque & energy consumption (unless I miss something), price errors and other bad things, I'll probably split it up into procedural probe core and procedural control unit (remote guidance unit or drone core) just like in stock.

Texture is nothing fancy (yet) and there are balancing issues (most of them are due to a problem above), but I'm slowly getting there.

Any opinions/suggestions?

[Yemo]

ProbeCore:

For the basic SAS functions (no reaction wheel), you could limit the volume of the part. Thus a small diameter probe core is relatively long, a high diameter one would be very slim. But they would both cost the same.

Not sure about the reaction wheel, but SRBs have variable thrust and cost dependent on thrust, not sure how it is implemented.

General Procedural Parts:

Looking at the rough shape of the Sat image above (top left), I wonder if such a form is possible with only 1 part, using something like the fillet. This would come in handy for the creation of small radial attachable tanks, eg with fixed volume. Right now we are lacking KAS portable tanks. Karbonite has canisters, but they do not fit on everything.

In the future I would like a small radial tank procedural part form, that can be set to contain any resource, has fixed volume and is KAS portable. Especially for bases and station. I already asked the guy from the OSE workshop if it is possible to select procedural parts tank type options when his workshop creates KAS parts. But I did not follow up yet.

The launch towers look good for a bit more variety. Hm, not sure why I missed it, will put FuseBox in.

Adding SETI to the thread is a good idea!

On the progress of the SETI-BalanceMod:

I will be unable to mod for the next week or so, thus I ll try to push out a quick and dirty Karbonite/MCM/MKS/OKS integration later on. Not sure if I can finish it.

The real balancing will have to wait until after the break.

[SwGustav]

I want to limit dimensions to avoid silly looks. And SRBs seem have their thrust cost from plugin..

I've sorted procedural probe and RCU, there is now a separate Procedural Control Unit.

After some tweaking, I'll probably release both procedurals, if someone wants to give them a try.

Also tried to make a KAS container. It's likely impossible to make storage space stretch.

[Yemo]

Looks good!

I meant this mod, which lets you fabricate KAS parts. So you would be able to manufacture volume locked procedural parts, which are usable with KAS.

But a procedural KAS container is a great idea, will have to investigate when I m back at modding in a week or so.

[Lord Aurelius]

I was just reading this and it reminded me of the Hooligan Labs mods which add submarines and airships. The airships especially are kind of unbalanced (you can adjust the lift by simply moving a slider and it magically floats up) so it would need a lot of work, but it would open up a lot of neat mission possibilities, especially if there's a way to add underwater biomes.

[Yemo]

@Lord Aurelius:

I like the idea of the airships, especially for Eve and Jool. Makes sense with Karbonite and Habitation as well. I ll put it on my list, thank you for the suggestion.

SETI-BalanceMod Development:

While it would have been great to get MCM/MKS/OKS/Karbonite out before the break, there is just too much to rebalance to reach an an acceptable state before tomorrow.

And a quick release of such a major update without the ability to fix bugs for the next 10 days or so is not something I want to do.

So I will be able to check the forum from time to time, but the planned update will not be released within the next two weeks.

[Lord Aurelius]

Another quick thought: could we get some non-universal storage inline/radial fuel cells? Having to use a universal storage frame just to get a fuel cell is annoying sometimes since you need at least two modules to balance the craft and tends to bloat the part count if you don't need the other modules.

[Svm420]

Another quick thought: could we get some non-universal storage inline/radial fuel cells? Having to use a universal storage frame just to get a fuel cell is annoying sometimes since you need at least two modules to balance the craft and tends to bloat the part count if you don't need the other modules.

+1 I felt the same way I always end up taking more parts than I need juts to fill the darn thing so I don't fell i'm wasting space. I modded the Kees container from OMS just for some 2.5m storage.

[PeterPan]

If you are thinking of supporting airships you may have a look at http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/99132-0-90-Procedural-Airships-1-3-dec-20th-2014 which has a little more "realistic" touch, but are not easy to fly with.

[SwGustav]

Got an idea as well, with all the talk about KAS, US, Karbonite, etc. - Storage category. Similiar to RealChute parachutes but with crate icon. Moves all (huge amount) US parts to itself, also KAS containers and future Karbonite and MKS storages. Less Utility clutter, easier part finding. I'll try to implement it later.

[Crzyrndm]

@SwGustav

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/104231-0-90-Filter-Extensions-1-17-%28Feb-9%29

Comes with plenty of configs that you can treat as examples (cause SETI is different enough the lot will probably need to be redone from scratch).

Edited March 4, 2015 by Crzyrndm

[SwGustav]

@SwGustav

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/104231-0-90-Filter-Extensions-1-17-%28Feb-9%29

Comes with plenty of configs that you can treat as examples (cause SETI is different enough the lot will probably need to be redone from scratch).

Eh, no luck. Even with help of your mod.

I guess this category will stay as suggestion only then.

Here it goes - [Alpha] Procedural Probe Core & Procedural RGU - Download

It's more proof of a concept than anything, but already quite functional and can be used in gameplay. Basic career implementation.

Expect it to be both overpowered and underpowered - a lot of stuff can't scale, so I set something like average.

Only requires Procedural Parts, takes a texture from SETI but can run without it.

[Lord Aurelius]

Here it goes - [Alpha] Procedural Probe Core & Procedural RGU - Download

Nice, I'll give that a try. One quick question: do these procedural cores come with a remotetech omnidirectional antenna like the other cores?

[Crzyrndm]

Eh, no luck. Even with help of your mod.

SUBCATEGORY
{
category = Filter by Function
oldTitle = Utility
}


SUBCATEGORY
{
name = Utility
category = Filter by Function
icon = stock_Utility

FILTER
{
CHECK
{
type = folder
value = UniversalStorage,USI,KAS
invert = true
}
CHECK
{
type = category
value = utility
}
}
}


SUBCATEGORY
{
name = Storage
category = Filter by Function
icon = Crate

FILTER
{
CHECK
{
type = folder
value = UniversalStorage,USI,KAS
}
CHECK
{
type = category
value = utility
}
}
}

Insert the correct folder names and it should be reasonably close to what you're after. It removes the old Utility category, adds a new one which excludes parts from certain GameData folders, and then adds another one with all the excluded parts (NOTE: I'm doing this from memory, some of it may not work quite as advertised. Can't test right now). If you want the order of the stock subcategories to remain the same you'll need to delete and recreate the science tab in the appropriate order as well.

Edited March 4, 2015 by Crzyrndm

[SwGustav]

Nice, I'll give that a try. One quick question: do these procedural cores come with a remotetech omnidirectional antenna like the other cores?

Oops, I forgot about RemoteTech. Sorry for the long answer, I just updated the download. Now both core and unit have SETI's 160 km omni antenna and RemoteTech support.

SUBCATEGORY
{
category = Filter by Function
oldTitle = Utility
}


SUBCATEGORY
{
name = Utility
category = Filter by Function
icon = stock_Utility

FILTER
{
CHECK
{
type = folder
value = UniversalStorage,USI,KAS
invert = true
}
CHECK
{
type = category
value = utility
}
}
}


SUBCATEGORY
{
name = Storage
category = Filter by Function
icon = Crate

FILTER
{
CHECK
{
type = folder
value = UniversalStorage,USI,KAS
}
CHECK
{
type = category
value = utility
}
}
}

Looks cool! Deleting and replacing categories is tricky, I'd never thought of that. I guess it's impossible to do it without FilterExtensions?

Edited March 4, 2015 by SwGustav

[Crzyrndm]

You have to do it in code, which I think is complete BS and is the reason I wrote FE in the first place (didn't have to be anything to the level of FE either. Just simply having the categories and subcategories in configs so you could MM in a new one for your parts would have been plenty. All the stuff FE can do is more like "while I'm here...")

EDIT

And I do wish I could edit filters in place, but there is all sorts of wierd and wonderful things that popped out of the woodwork when I tried it

EDIT2

The other problem with things being defined in code is mod interop (Imagine USI, TACLS, Snacks, and ioncross all defining a Life support category). It's very awkward to manage if everyone starts defining their own without a common interface. Doing it via. configs would have meant Module Manager can be used to handle the conflicts

tl;dr

Squad missed a big opportunity with the new part UI IMO

Edited March 4, 2015 by Crzyrndm

[SwGustav]

I made a small version of N1 replica:

Javascript is disabled. View full album

While building it, got few insights and notes on maxmod SETI game:

1. Deadly reentry decoupler is gone for some reason?? It was really convenient, also the version for mk1 pod would be great; procedural and Ven's revamp heat shields lack cover, so you have to clip decoupler in which might result in it being stuck

2. Small landertron would be great. Current ones are too big for small pods

3. Decoupler length tweaking better be implemented, also something like passable decoupler for CLS (perhaps a new part with CLS installed, has 40-50% of decoupling force, can't be less than 0.625 in diameter)

4. Make a tiny dish (like on orbital module of Soyuz) for landers, with communotron-16 stats or similiar

5. I support the inline fuel cell suggestion. Right now the only option is some tinkering with radial attachment points, tweakscale and compartment tubes (like on my LK)

6. Not sure if it's Ven's or something, but Intake: Engine Nacelle and Intake: Mk1 Fuselage are very similar (same model) yet they have different intake stats.

7. Ven's NCS Adapter is useless

[Prismatech]

Have all in op installed mods on (testet without Activ compression) now the ask can i with out CTD danger but with Activ compress instal follow 3 mods : 1. mks/oks ,ksos and extra lounchpad?

[Yemo]

Inline fuel cell is planned. I will try to do it procedurally, maybe a small One as stop gap.

New categories will only work through Filter extensions. But i strongly prefer to not have to do something separate for seti in that regard.

Edit: i like the proc Probe core, planned for next Version.

I made a small version of N1 replica:

http://imgur.com/a/2m0vn

While building it, got few insights and notes on maxmod SETI game:

1. Deadly reentry decoupler is gone for some reason?? It was really convenient, also the version for mk1 pod would be great; procedural and Ven's revamp heat shields lack cover, so you have to clip decoupler in which might result in it being stuck

2. Small landertron would be great. Current ones are too big for small pods

3. Decoupler length tweaking better be implemented, also something like passable decoupler for CLS (perhaps a new part with CLS installed, has 40-50% of decoupling force, can't be less than 0.625 in diameter)

4. Make a tiny dish (like on orbital module of Soyuz) for landers, with communotron-16 stats or similiar

5. I support the inline fuel cell suggestion. Right now the only option is some tinkering with radial attachment points, tweakscale and compartment tubes (like on my LK)

6. Not sure if it's Ven's or something, but Intake: Engine Nacelle and Intake: Mk1 Fuselage are very similar (same model) yet they have different intake stats.

7. Ven's NCS Adapter is useless

1. mk1-2 had a Cover, afair it was only deactivated until fixed.

2. That is a Problem with the refill. Maybe easier when landertrons are developed further.

3. See comment in original pp file, but i will enable cls for them.

4. Not sure about the usefullness.

5. See above.

6. Has to do with radial fuel Tank transfer bug.

7. It has a Heat shield for Shuttle Building.

Have all in op installed mods on (testet without Activ compression) now the ask can i with out CTD danger but with Activ compress instal follow 3 mods : 1. mks/oks ,ksos and extra lounchpad?

Mks will be Supported based on ctt and mcm from next Version on. Mks Moduls themselves will Not be supported. Nö RAM issues with mcm.

[RoverDude]

Mks will be Supported based on ctt and mcm from next Version on. Mks Moduls themselves will Not be supported. Nö RAM issues with mcm.

That's only a little bit incorrect. MKS is required for MCM to function. And assuming you delete all of the MKS parts, etc, it's actually heavier than 0.22.9 given that MKS uses some pretty extreme texture compression techniques (0.22.9 shaves another 5MB of texture memory).

To put this in perspective, you will have more RAM used up by MKS/OKS models and config files than you will textures.

So... let's talk brass tacks. Space on disk aside (because that's a pretty lousy indication of space in RAM), I ran some tests. The test was to load the game, hit the space center, and measure RAM usage while in that scene over time and averaged it out, mostly because with KSP just being KSP, and doing things like garbage collection and object creation, you can easily have a 20mb swing in usage over time.

With neither MKS/OKS or MCM installed, RAM usage was 1717.2

With MKS/OKS out of the box, RAM usage was 1849.7 MB

I then deleted ALL MKS/OKS parts and textures (I am not sure which ones MCM reuses, so erred on the side of deleting too much). I then installed MCM, and RAM usage was 1850.2

So with either one of them, you're looking at a bump of 133MB of so. Note that this number on no way correlates to what each of our respective ZIPS are, nor their uncompressed size

So yeah. RAM usage as a reason for MCM vs. MKS/OKS is pretty much invalid.

Now - part catalog count is a valid reason (I do not nor will I support module functionality switching as the roadmap includes each bit getting a unique model), but RAM usage certainly is not And even with unique models, due to the texture reuse (and even more reuse the more bits of the USI mods you use), we'll still be landing in the same place (models are pretty cheap).

So at that point, your tradeoff is part catalog count and aesthetic (assuming you prefer MCM looks to MKS/OKS looks). The downside is you're losing any kind of support for MKS as I do not provide support for MCM, or for any modified configs (again, I am cool with folks playing with the legos, just don't expect me to support you if you glue a tinker toy to it).

Just wanted to clear that up and nip misinformation in the bud.

[Yemo]

The decision for mcm was based on the Part count, reducing that is one of the seti aims.

I stated the no RAM issues with mcm, because i just did Not Test RAM usage with mks, so i can not comment on that.

And at the Moment i only have Time to rebalance One of them for seti.

[RoverDude]

Your implication came off as quite different

RE 'Rebalancing' note that there will be zero support for SETI in the MKS thread, you will need to handle it here.

[Yemo]

Your implication came off as quite different

RE 'Rebalancing' note that there will be zero support for SETI in the MKS thread, you will need to handle it here.

As i wrote above, i will rebalance based on mcm, so it will be 2 steps away from mks anyway.

Edit:

For clarification: mks alone will Not be supported, so i expect People to come here as is the case with procedural Parts on the previous pages.

Edited March 6, 2015 by Yemo