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

[kcs123]

13 hours ago, nobodyhasthis2 said:

So I am forced to reject a lot of good stuff. I think we all be crying tears of joy if Squad does get out a stable 64 bit version with better memory usage. 

Second this. Just yesterday I come across with serious memory leak problem. Found that it was due to terain detail set to highest settings. Low terain detail cured this issue. But, yes, 32bit limitation forces you to throw out a lot of suggested mods. Switching to linux is possible for me, but I get used to use CTRL and SHIFT for throttle controls and can't do that on linux because CTRL is mod key

[nobodyhasthis2]

sorted

Edited January 18, 2016 by nobodyhasthis2

[nobodyhasthis2]

7 hours ago, kcs123 said:

Second this. Just yesterday I come across with serious memory leak problem. Found that it was due to terain detail set to highest settings. Low terain detail cured this issue. But, yes, 32bit limitation forces you to throw out a lot of suggested mods. Switching to linux is possible for me, but I get used to use CTRL and SHIFT for throttle controls and can't do that on linux because CTRL is mod key

I have never seen the terrain setting, scatter settings or anything above half resolution. I can't even play full screen with open gl.

[eupraxo]

7 hours ago, kcs123 said:

Switching to linux is possible for me, but I get used to use CTRL and SHIFT for throttle controls and can't do that on linux because CTRL is mod key

Linux on a PC? I play 64-bit KSP with SETI + extra mods and CTRL and SHIFT work fine (as does the game memory wise, although sometimes it freezes at launch and I have to restart it, but after that it's fine).

I actually made a whole small Linux partition on my SSD (Linux Mint) just to play 64-bit KSP. 

And since you guys are talking about memory and performance, I'm on a 5 year old i5-2500K OC'd to 4.5, GTX 460 and 8 megs of ram and my performance is pretty okay on maximum quality, even including some visual enhancement mods.

Edited January 19, 2016 by eupraxo
More info

[nobodyhasthis2]

6 hours ago, eupraxo said:

Linux on a PC? I play 64-bit KSP with SETI + extra mods and CTRL and SHIFT work fine (as does the game memory wise, although sometimes it freezes at launch and I have to restart it, but after that it's fine).

I actually made a whole small Linux partition on my SSD (Linux Mint) just to play 64-bit KSP. 

And since you guys are talking about memory and performance, I'm on a 5 year old i5-2500K OC'd to 4.5, GTX 460 and 8 megs of ram and my performance is pretty okay on maximum quality, even including some visual enhancement mods.

Oh the irony of it. Memory and performance have nothing to do with hardware here. Unity 4 turns any non Linux system into a desktop calculator. 

Right have taken at look at MOLE for a two man pod. Initial changes that spring to mind 

//------\\
//---SETI-CTT---\\
//------\\
//---Part Modding MOLE---\\
//------\\


//---
@PART[WBI_Backseat]:NEEDS[WildBlueIndustries]:AFTER[WildBlueIndustries]:FOR[SETIctt]
{
	@TechRequired = simpleCommandModules
}

//--- MK-85 Heat Shield
// Has hatch to allow crew through, placed one node higher that standard shield of same size.
@PART[WBI_MK85HeatShield]:NEEDS[WildBlueIndustries]:AFTER[WildBlueIndustries]:FOR[SETIctt]
{
	@TechRequired = CommandModules
}


//--- Appaloosa ISC
// Enchanced service bay has cooling system that requires radiator technology
@PART[WBI_MK85ISC]:NEEDS[WildBlueIndustries]:AFTER[WildBlueIndustries]:FOR[SETIctt]
{
	@TechRequired = storageTech
}


//--- MC-1000 Buckboard
@PART[WBI_Buckboard]:NEEDS[WildBlueIndustries]:AFTER[WildBlueIndustries]:FOR[SETIctt]
{
	@TechRequired = storageTech
}

//--- MC-2000 Buckboard
@PART[WBI_Buckboard2]:NEEDS[WildBlueIndustries]:AFTER[WildBlueIndustries]:FOR[SETIctt]
{
	@TechRequired = storageTech
}

//--- MC-3000 Buckboard
@PART[WBI_Buckboard3]:NEEDS[WildBlueIndustries]:AFTER[WildBlueIndustries]:FOR[SETIctt]
{
	@TechRequired = storageTech
}

Still need to move the tanks around to make 1.875m tanks early down to about tier 3. I will run through a game to see how it plays out first. Most of the other parts are kind of ok but the jury is still out 

[kcs123]

15 hours ago, eupraxo said:

CTRL and SHIFT work fine

Are you use trim controls ? I have binded CTRL to throttle down and SHIFT to throttle up on windows platform. I get used for that kind of settings, so binding this to something else is awkward to me. You can throtlle down just fine with CTRL despite being mod key at the same time on linux, but if you try to use trim controls (<mod_key> + W,A,S,D) it will throttle down engines too, and you don't want to do that when you take off or land.

15 hours ago, eupraxo said:

Linux on a PC? I play 64-bit KSP with SETI + extra mods and CTRL and SHIFT work fine (as does the game memory wise, although sometimes it freezes at launch and I have to restart it, but after that it's fine).

I actually made a whole small Linux partition on my SSD (Linux Mint) just to play 64-bit KSP. 

I'm quite opposite here. I use linux for "important" stuff like e-mails and suff for my regular job, but i have kept windows partition mostly for entertainment - internet browser and games. Tried to run few games on linux, some of those worked fine, some not so much. Most of problem I have with mods in some games that use their own installer created for windows platform and those didn't worked on linux properly. I gave up at some point because I have kept windows partition.

[nobodyhasthis2]

On 1/4/2016 at 11:03 PM, Yemo said:

@kcs123 

Yep, the splitting of the life support parts/branches is a bit unintuitive.

Imho the bottom 2 tech lines belong somewhere else.
For the 1.1 tech tree revisit I plan to move the container line somewhere between fuel tanks and construction.
And the recycling/spacestation/colonization line should imho be right below the command pod line. Which also brings it much closer to the exploration and resource extraction nodes for the later colonization techs.

Another planned feature will be the modularization of fuel tank clutter parts along the lines of the current wing and tac life support special clutter nodes. So users can skip those 1 science nodes if they use procedural tanks preventing clutter in the VAB while still advancing the general tech tree.

All sounds good to me for a 1.1 overhaul. Have expanded the search for mods that break the above schema. So far it seems to hold out under a wide variety of mods. In all the whole idea of 1 point science nodes to declutter things in favour of procedural parts is great. I tend to favour a choice of gameplay and functionality over simple aesthetics. So long as it progress is logical I go along with it. If it looks good to that is a bonus.  

On 1/6/2016 at 3:11 PM, Yemo said:

Need input from the community:

Is there some kind of consensus at the moment, which contract packs work well to replace the bad stock contracts for a unmanned & airplanes first career (like SETI)?

I m not up to date and due to time restrictions I can't really test it as well as I would like to. Though I would like to recommend those packs when someone installs the SETI-BalanceMod or the UnmannedBeforeManned mods via CKAN.

Current thoughts (in order of CKAN appearance):

1. Anomaly Surveyor
2. Bases and Stations
3. Field Research
4. Giving Aircraft a Purpose
5. Remote Tech
6. Rover Missions Redux
7. Tourism Plus

Are any of those above not working well with others, or are there any problems with the list above, in general?

I m not sure about a general progression pack, on CKAN there are SETIcontracts (and Initial Contracts), AdvancedProgression, GrandTours, Historic Missions and Unmanned Contracts.

Without bias (since I made SETIcontracts), which of them provides the best progression for a tech tree starting unmanned, given their current state? And works well enough together with the special contract packs above?

Have done some investigating. All packs in the list are highly recommended alongside SETI. I consider them essential.

As for the alternatives to SETI. I have some reservations. On the whole I like them all but with the context of a mod that focuses on a logical progression of technology there is a few issues.Some have features that are better that standard SETI progress but overall the essential feeling is not there for me at present.

SETI Initial Contracts  I have not tried last update. The milestones still play in SETI contracts. So I am not sure if this even works anymore.

Historic Missions Really good and educational pack. However not recommended with SETI. The progress is too lumpy. Good for historic reenactment but feels unnatural in a proper career game.

Unmanned Contracts The older brother of Rover Missions Redux. Sits in well with SETI sometimes. If the contracts appear at the right point in a career. It has a more granular approach where instead of just getting mun flyby. It goes flyby / orbit / impact missions. Overall the framework of missions is not there. This is about patching a hole in stock regarding the use of probes rather that a complete career solution.

Advanced Progression The best alternative to replacing SETI Contracts. If we needed one. Overall I like how it sets goals and encourages certain player behaviours. For example encourages the growth to the use of a three man missions. Where as SETI could in theory all be done with a Mk1 pod. However again I feel there is something missing overall. I could be bias because I have seen the pattern of SETI contracts. The original diagram that maps out progress has similarities to the technology progression. If we draw lines across it each row represents a growth in technology it seems to be reflected in the tech tree modifications . Advanced Progression on the other hand feels more like a list of game achievements. Neither approach is better. There just both brilliant in their own ways.   

[Ixenzo]

The Laythe landing contract requires an actual landing and not a splashdown. Is this WAD? 

Edited January 20, 2016 by Ixenzo
A letter

[Yemo]

@nobodyhasthis2:

The MOLE mod looks nice, though there is the issue that it does not quite fit VenStockRevamp textures, as you said especially the Mk1 pod. It would be great if there was an alternate texture for that second person module based on Ven's textures, eg replacing the stock one with an MM statement once VenStockRevamp is detected. Though that does not preclude supporting it, thank you very much for the config. I d put the 1.875m tanks where I put the HGR tanks for that diameter.

The NearFuture 2 crew pod should go up a bit, agreed. It is far more advanced than corvus, k2 and such. I ll try to remember it for the next SETIctt update.

Not sure about N3h3mia, maybe as a "passive" config, thus not openly advertising compatibility, since even the maintenance version is for 1.0.4 and not easily accessible.

If you think the science funding mod works in general, I'll put it in the suggested ckan list. Funds are not balanced anyway, so far. They are all over the place in stock (parts, contracts and unlocks) and balancing them now is of little use (I tried for ksp 0.90), since squad will nearly certainly mess around with them again.

 

On 18.1.2016 at 9:48 AM, eupraxo said:

Hey Yemo! I can only pledge a few dollars (USD) a month right now, but I was so overjoyed to see that SETI got updated. I think I had an earlier version, lost my Kerbal install, and when I went to install it, it didn't work. I tried to build something similar myself by just adding various mods, but it was buggy as hell.

Cue finding out that SETI was back for 1.0.5 and with a single click (and clicking on all the suggested mods), I had an awesome set-up that just seems to work. I added a bunch of other mods I like or found useful and it all seems to be working smoothly so far.

So thanks. I'm getting some enjoyment and I'll definitely support you on some level as long as I'm playing Kerbal regularly!

Thanks again!

Thank you very much for your pledge!

Unfortunately it is far from the old BalanceMod for ksp 0.90, but at least it works more or less. Please keep in mind that both USI and TAC life support are suggested, and sadly there is no warning if both are installed, although having both does not work.

 

1 hour ago, Ixenzo said:

The Laythe landing contract requires an actual landing and not a splashdown. Is this WAD? 

Hm, I can't remember. But possibly yes, since I planned to do a Laythe survey contract afterwards, which would include landing in all biomes. Thus landing on solid ground would be the logical first step in a real space program, and would also make it a bit more difficult than just activating parachutes, since you would really have to aim for a landing zone.
I ll adjust the description for the next update to specify that. Thank you!

 

Speaking about SETIcontracts, since Nori is on hiatus at least until ksp 1.1, I'll do some minor work on them as announced, based on the comment above by @nobodyhasthis2, that they there is no strictly better alternative around.

Proposed Changes:

1. Fixing the Laythe description as pointed out by @Ixenzo above.
2. Adding restriction to manned orbit, that it can not be completed with the Mk1 cockpit. I can not restrict the usage of this cockpit for atmosphere at the moment, so that might at least prevent the most obvious shortcut for people who do not use more cockpits. So a limited use work-around for the most obvious exploit.
3. Restricting the completion of "unmanned" contracts to probes. Nearly always new players (twitch/youtube) using SETIcontracts will attempt to do the non-starting unmanned contracts with a manned vessel, eg flyby to mun and so on. Only to be offered the manned version after completing the "unmanned" one. It seems people are so used to the horrible stock mess, that you have to force entice them to think rationally, even if there is a neat little chart in the OP.
About the implementation, I could check for maxcrew = 0, but that is completeable by just going on EVA. When checking for "probe", you could send a manned vessel and then detach a micro-probe, but that would need planning. Which sounds fair to me. You can still do a "workaround" and launch a manned craft, complete the unmanned contract by detaching a probe and then do the manned contract with the same mission, but you would need to plan for the workaround.

Costs are unbalanced as well, but as I said above, they are unbalanced for everything and squad is just too unpredictable to make serious cost balancing worth the effort when there is so much other unbalanced stuff around. Though if someone has more appropriate values for some or all contracts, I'd be happy to use those instead of the current ones.

[inigma]

16 minutes ago, Yemo said:

Though if someone has more appropriate values for some or all contracts, I'd be happy to use those instead of the current ones.

This is a discussion point to bring up to CCF as well. I think a number of us contract developers are looking for some base standards. If you have ideas, feel free to share in the CCF thread too.

[Yemo]

17 minutes ago, inigma said:

This is a discussion point to bring up to CCF as well. I think a number of us contract developers are looking for some base standards. If you have ideas, feel free to share in the CCF thread too.

I haven't looked at them for quite some time, since there are so many issues with them and I planned to concentrate on non-contract issues.

Oh, and by the way, I changed the CKAN recommendations for the SETI-BalanceMod, though I m not sure when CKAN will take them into account.

It is now something like "What-Stock-KSP-Could/Should-Have-Been".

Including RemoteTech, RemoteTech-ProbeControlEnabler and RemoteTech-SETIconfig. Which essentially makes it like squads plans for ksp 1.1 in that regard, but with a lot more advantages and far less imbalances/issues.

Also KIS and USI LifeSupport (which naturally has to be deselected if TAC LifeSupport is preferred) and so on. Making it a "one-click" mod pack.

[nobodyhasthis2]

Why is there no SETI contracts detection in Contract Configure settings tab?

Normally this allows packs to be switched on and off to set up different games.  So far all the contract packs are there except SETI. Don't understand if this an intentional feature, bug or something else. I don't mind but am curious to learn more. 

[nobodyhasthis2]

The connection nodes on sc 9001 Materials lab look wrong. Can somebody else test in VAB and confirm please?

Have looked at the nodes and compared against previous SETI files. I can't see a change. So no idea if this a dodgy instal issue or a genuine bug.   

[Yemo]

15 hours ago, nobodyhasthis2 said:

Why is there no SETI contracts detection in Contract Configure settings tab?

Normally this allows packs to be switched on and off to set up different games.  So far all the contract packs are there except SETI. Don't understand if this an intentional feature, bug or something else. I don't mind but am curious to learn more. 

Not yet implemented, though I plan to do so for the next version.

9 hours ago, nobodyhasthis2 said:

The connection nodes on sc 9001 Materials lab look wrong. Can somebody else test in VAB and confirm please?

Have looked at the nodes and compared against previous SETI files. I can't see a change. So no idea if this a dodgy instal issue or a genuine bug.   

That is a bug from VenStockRevamp, there is a fix floating around the later pages of that thread. I hope it gets fixed soon.

 

Anyway, while working on SETIcontracts update, I noticed that World First Milestones appear, which should not be the case. Do they appear for you as well?

The update is ready, but I m waiting until the World First Milestones issue is resolved (I notified nightingale), in case I have to change something on my side.

[nobodyhasthis2]

36 minutes ago, Yemo said:

Not yet implemented, though I plan to do so for the next version.

That is a bug from VenStockRevamp, there is a fix floating around the later pages of that thread. I hope it gets fixed soon.

 

Anyway, while working on SETIcontracts update, I noticed that World First Milestones appear, which should not be the case. Do they appear for you as well?

The update is ready, but I m waiting until the World First Milestones issue is resolved (I notified nightingale), in case I have to change something on my side.

Thanks for feedback on my observations. Patching up VenStockRevamp now.

Yes the World First Milestones appear 1.0.5. Some how SETI is not nerfing them. Sorry if I did not make this clear in the quick summary of alternative contract packs posted above. Just to recap I suggested that SETI Initial Contracts also looks like it would not work anymore because of the new behaviour. 

[Yemo]

17 minutes ago, nobodyhasthis2 said:

Thanks for feedback on my observations. Patching up VenStockRevamp now.

Yes the World First Milestones appear 1.0.5. Some how SETI is not nerfing them. Sorry if I did not make this clear in the quick summary of alternative contract packs posted above. Just to recap I suggested that SETI Initial Contracts also looks like it would not work anymore because of the new behaviour. 

Just got a reply from nightingale, it seems that squad has effectively deactivated the ability to easily deactivate those milestones by making them not contracts anymore.

I really can not understand why a company would continuously disimprove their game/moddability with such dedication. I guess it is overtime for some competition...

Anyway, nothing I can do about it. Nightingale said that he will check how/whether it is possible to restore that functionality. Another time a modder has to invest time just to restore something which worked previously, because of squads unmotivated disimprovements...

Really annoying.

[Svm420]

@Yemo You can reduce the rewards received from the world's first. Just use MM and make a patch for the contracts n the squad folder. I did and made it a max of 10k for all the records.

[Yemo]

28 minutes ago, Svm420 said:

@Yemo You can reduce the rewards received from the world's first. Just use MM and make a patch for the contracts n the squad folder. I did and made it a max of 10k for all the records.

Thank you very much! At least I can neuter their effect.

Though I m still angry that I had to spend over half and hour to search for the issue to make it like it was before. Again.

Next on the update list is SETIctt again, some maintenance at least for the now recommended part mods.
@nobodyhasthis2 Oh, and I noticed that VenStockRevamp has a 2 kerbal command pod. Though I do not like the size, the stats and textures are good for an intermediate role between the Mk1 and the Mk1-2.

I also want to take a look at mech jeb and make functions and the part available earlier, since kOS is available at the start and even early rockets had some kind of ascent guidance (and people using mech jeb have already decided on using it, no need for an "artificial progression"). Though I m not too familiar with all the components of mech jeb, if anyone can recommend a progression which fits with that idea?

This is the current one:

    MODULE
    {
        name = MechJebCore
        MechJebLocalSettings {
            MechJebModuleCustomWindowEditor { unlockTechs = flightControl }
            MechJebModuleSmartASS { unlockTechs = flightControl }
            MechJebModuleManeuverPlanner { unlockTechs = advFlightControl }
            MechJebModuleNodeEditor { unlockTechs = advFlightControl }
            MechJebModuleTranslatron { unlockTechs = advFlightControl }
            MechJebModuleWarpHelper { unlockTechs = advFlightControl }
            MechJebModuleAttitudeAdjustment { unlockTechs = advFlightControl }
            MechJebModuleThrustWindow { unlockTechs = advFlightControl }
            MechJebModuleRCSBalancerWindow { unlockTechs = advFlightControl }
            MechJebModuleRoverWindow { unlockTechs = fieldScience }
            MechJebModuleAscentGuidance { unlockTechs = unmannedTech }
            MechJebModuleLandingGuidance { unlockTechs = unmannedTech }
            MechJebModuleSpaceplaneGuidance { unlockTechs = unmannedTech }
            MechJebModuleDockingGuidance { unlockTechs = advUnmanned }
            MechJebModuleRendezvousAutopilotWindow { unlockTechs = advUnmanned }
            MechJebModuleRendezvousGuidance { unlockTechs = advUnmanned }
        }
    }

 

 

SETI Contracts v0.9.5 (for KSP 1.0.5)

Adjustments

• World First Milestones nerfed, since squad (again) felt the need for unmotivated disimprovements...
• Unmanned contracts now require probes for completion
• Contracts do not expire anymore
• ContractConfigurator Groups are now supported
• Some reward/advance adjustments, especially concerning reputation

[nobodyhasthis2]

11 hours ago, Yemo said:

@nobodyhasthis2 Oh, and I noticed that VenStockRevamp has a 2 kerbal command pod. Though I do not like the size, the stats and textures are good for an intermediate role between the Mk1 and the Mk1-2.

I also want to take a look at mech jeb and make functions and the part available earlier, since kOS is available at the start and even early rockets had some kind of ascent guidance (and people using mech jeb have already decided on using it, no need for an "artificial progression"). Though I m not too familiar with all the components of mech jeb, if anyone can recommend a progression which fits with that idea?

Suggest moving VenStockRevamp has a 2 kerbal command down one level. However I don't balance it. It is ugly and with a crap size. Exactly what I expect from a prototype. Apparently if throw more money and research it will get to Near Future coolness eventually  

On mech jeb. To future proof it I don't use the parts included but instead assume it is in all probe core software. So if I have to pull the mod from an existing save file it will not crash because the parts are missing. This go through the Mechjeb for all mod. It just applies the functionality to anything with a command module for now. Now because that config takes precedence over the default one it provides a clue on how to change Mechjeb functionality.  I modify this with my own technology progression like this.  

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleCommand]]:Final
{
	%MODULE[MechJebCore]
	{
		MechJebLocalSettings
		{
			MechJebModuleCustomWindowEditor { unlockTechs = flightControl }
			MechJebModuleSmartASS { unlockTechs = flightControl }
			MechJebModuleManeuverPlanner { unlockTechs = advFlightControl }
			MechJebModuleNodeEditor { unlockTechs = advFlightControl }
			MechJebModuleTranslatron { unlockTechs = unmannedTech }
			MechJebModuleWarpHelper { unlockTechs = advFlightControl }
			MechJebModuleAttitudeAdjustment { unlockTechs = advFlightControl }
			MechJebModuleThrustWindow { unlockTechs = advFlightControl }
			MechJebModuleRCSBalancerWindow { unlockTechs = advFlightControl }
			MechJebModuleRoverWindow { unlockTechs = fieldScience }
			MechJebModuleAscentGuidance { unlockTechs = specializedControl }
			MechJebModuleLandingGuidance { unlockTechs = unmannedTech }
			MechJebModuleSpaceplaneGuidance { unlockTechs = unmannedTech }
			MechJebModuleDockingGuidance { unlockTechs = advUnmanned }
			MechJebModuleRendezvousAutopilotWindow { unlockTechs = advUnmanned }
			MechJebModuleRendezvousGuidance { unlockTechs = advUnmanned }
		}
	}
}

Original work done by @nadseh Credit due to him and not me. I just tweaked it a bit for my SETI playthrough

Will show real world technical example of why this works inside SETI. Stay tuned  

Edited January 23, 2016 by nobodyhasthis2

[nobodyhasthis2]

The SETI mission to do powered landing is a waste of time with Translatron. It does automatic landings two technology nodes early. So I moved it up to the rest of the automatic landing software. So now my early research in powered landings is like this in SETI

Scary, but somebody has soon or later has to test the prototype

On the plus side. AscentGuidance comes down one node. I can crack the software after about the first 10 manual launches. The basic probe core SAS or MJ Smart A.S.S system helps but is has limitations. The game affect is it still needs unlocked but is less "grindy" that default setting. It also give a reward on the way to proper unmanned tech node. When MJ research finally starts to pay off. 

Landing on the mun can be done but those 1202 alarms are a pain in my MJ Smart a.s.s till I get a better computer and software. 1202 Alarm. Go / no go Houston?

 

Edited January 23, 2016 by nobodyhasthis2

[nobodyhasthis2]

I can also suggest the alternative KOS explanation for those that want to actually do the real programing of a MJ Translatron 

5 hours ago, Yemo said:

since kOS is available at the start and even early rockets had some kind of ascent guidance

This mainly about safe automatic powered landings. This part of the software controls engine throttles. Through a feedback loop from the vertical speed output an accelerometer. You can get this working much earlier and without all the extra buildings, part cost and science points that MJ will suck up. You will need do the home work of course. I would suggest a start in PID loops found here:

PID Loops in kOS

the trick part is getting a negative rate of descent that gently lets the craft touch down. Bonus if you can find a way to smooth off any surface speed to prevent tipping over on touch down.    

Edited January 23, 2016 by nobodyhasthis2

[kcs123]

20 minutes ago, nobodyhasthis2 said:

the trick part is getting a negative rate of descent that gently lets the craft touch down. Bonus if you can find a way to smooth off any surface speed to prevent tipping over on touch down.

I did just that with kOS

Proper calculations of vertical velocity speed, so script knows how much vertical velocity engine thrust can counterpart as well as gravity on any celestial body. Script have adjustable settings at what altitude you want start hovering and descent only at -1m/s so you can land very gently and have some time for fine adjustment of landing if terrain is not flat enough. I plan to publish it today along with some more info about used calculation.

Regardless, using kOS or TAC or neither of above is not a big deal for powered landing contract. It is not too difficult to do it without any autopilot help. So, if someone have invested already some science points to unlock those, can be rewarded with power landing contract to squeeze some money from it.

Never paid too much attention for MJ. It does not work properly with FAR, so I mainly use it for information purposes - to didplay craft dV in editor and in flight, to know if some maneuver is safe to do or not. Besides that it is also useful to create maneuver nodes for rendezvous in orbit. You can place maneuver node only for one orbit period due to odd GUI, while MJ can place node for several days in future to minimize dV cost.
Execution of maneuver nodes by MJ also works properly only with perfectly balanced crafts. With some minor unbalance of thrust and COM, mechjeb can behave much worse than if you execute maneuver by your own.

But it is up to each individual how someone want to play game, some seek for more chalange while some of players still learning how to play game. With so many mods out there it is impossible to perfectly balance everything and for everyone taste.

[nobodyhasthis2]

7 hours ago, kcs123 said:

I did just that with kOS

Proper calculations of vertical velocity speed, so script knows how much vertical velocity engine thrust can counterpart as well as gravity on any celestial body. Script have adjustable settings at what altitude you want start hovering and descent only at -1m/s so you can land very gently and have some time for fine adjustment of landing if terrain is not flat enough. I plan to publish it today along with some more info about used calculation.

Regardless, using kOS or TAC or neither of above is not a big deal for powered landing contract. It is not too difficult to do it without any autopilot help. So, if someone have invested already some science points to unlock those, can be rewarded with power landing contract to squeeze some money from it.

Never paid too much attention for MJ. It does not work properly with FAR, so I mainly use it for information purposes - to didplay craft dV in editor and in flight, to know if some maneuver is safe to do or not. Besides that it is also useful to create maneuver nodes for rendezvous in orbit. You can place maneuver node only for one orbit period due to odd GUI, while MJ can place node for several days in future to minimize dV cost.
Execution of maneuver nodes by MJ also works properly only with perfectly balanced crafts. With some minor unbalance of thrust and COM, mechjeb can behave much worse than if you execute maneuver by your own.

But it is up to each individual how someone want to play game, some seek for more chalange while some of players still learning how to play game. With so many mods out there it is impossible to perfectly balance everything and for everyone taste.

Totally agree with every word of that. That the is exactly the what we are after. A clarification that this is all open ended . This is all highly subjective and subject to personal taste. There are multiple solutions. It is a beautiful sandbox of ideas and people can play anyway the want. I am not advocating anything be forced and people are always welcome people to share their personal goals. Yes there there are many flavours of KSP and I like them all .   

My actual specific approach will change depending on my mood and any plan for any particular play through. I change the starting conditions a lot. What I would suggest is the methodology and ability to change the unlock levels in MJ be as transparent as the campaign starting conditions are. I still think there is a lot of people out there that are totally unaware that it can be modified so easily to fit a range of duties and play styles.  

Yay for your win in KOS . There is a few examples on how to do it and it is all great stuff for those want to explore early programming. I went in as a total noob found it highly educational when doing a KOS version of my playthroughs. I thought the PID tutorial was brilliant and the community help was awesome too. Not my normal thing but it there on the days I want to do that stuff. Ironically it was this that gave me a wonderful appreciation of the MJ technology progress naturally present on the SETI progress tree. I like how it gets staged hardware and software upgrades. 

As far as getting MJ to work FAR goes. There is a another tweak available that can be put in for basic support for a control surface inside of MJ. This means MJ will not wobble as much when given more realistic wings. People are still going to have to tweak any particular craft ascent profile. As they should be doing anyway. There is a cool window in MJ to pick the the ascent curve which should be checked out. MJ starts with a generic flight curve but is fully adjustable. Some of my larger space station cores get very picky about force roll. Whilst the rescue / resupply craft are very tolerant of shallow curves in FAR. It is just kind of neat we can get to play with all these options.

Finally there is my other ksp version. Just to show how subjective the choices can be. I decided to try a version where KER is functionality broken by removal of the special parts. To see what if feels like for the Engineering Kerbals to lose the cool parts provided. The result was a desperate need to go for bigger crew pods as soon as possible. I had KER functionality loss unless Bill was onboard. The whole tone of the space program changed. It was just another one of those days of curiosity and the playing of "what if" scenarios.

  

 

     

Edited January 23, 2016 by nobodyhasthis2

[nobodyhasthis2]

11 hours ago, Yemo said:

I also want to take a look at mech jeb and make functions and the part available earlier

oh almost forgot.

The above method can of course move it the other way if people want to remove the default progress options. Just use it to set 

unlockTechs =

to the Start node.

There is a cleaner way to do this in a few lines of code but I like the transparency of including a similar config as the original.  

[randomone]

Are there any good ways to get the downgraded mods needed  for the 0.90 version? I want to mess with the full-balance mod a bit