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

[Yemo]

@Holyvision, @kcs123:

Not having Station Science really leaves a gap in the orbital station department, I m just not sure what a lightweight replacement for the time being would be. Preferably very few parts, so it can easily be recommended without much testing. Stockalike from Nertea imho has too many for a quick inclusion. Any suggestions?

 

@kcs123:

The "tech node shadows" are a bug feature of ksp 1.0.x tech tree modding. Changing the tech tree during a game was probably not considered by squad...

There is a complete tech tree rewrite planned after ksp 1.1, which is the main reason why the changes of 0.9.6 were restricted to the early tree. With the rewrite I plan to make some more radical changes. Additional outsourcing of fuel tanks are among them and per your suggestion I'll add the big wings as well. I also plan to move some tech "lanes" around. Like the orbital stations and colonization line right next to the command modules, thus making a "manned space parts" cluster.

Making part stats dependent on KSC upgrades is problematic, since that would create a dependency between SETIctt, SETIrebalance and CustomBarnKit. Also I m hoping that CustomBarnKit allows the addition of more "steps" in the building upgrade progression. Especially the VAB and LaunchPad would imho benefit from more than 3 levels.

Temperature is so unbalanced in stock, that I can't really build upon it unless I balance it first, which imho is not worth the time at the moment, with so much other stuff to do. As you said, that is more like a CCF topic at the moment.

Refraining from starting a new career until 1.1 reminds me of people waiting for ksp 1.0 for a new career. I would definately make and keep a proper 1.0.5 install (including manual kerbal engineer and station science download), since some 1.1 features look really broken even from the design stage, like the new probe connection mechanic without flight computer. Not to speak of the ksp track record regarding implementation, especially since 1.0...

I ll have to take a look at those early craft. Which reminds me, that I wanted to post some craft pictures in this thread to reduce the "walls of text" impression.

 

@gerishnakov:

I really like the shape of the stock stayputnik, so my reasoning behind the current balancing was, to keep it attractive for more than 2 missions. In fact it is my favorite probe core for everything not neading a top attachment node. Since it lacks the top node, I figured it would need less structural mass, so I made it more mass efficient than any other probe in terms of capabilities (taking a look at it, it should be 0.07tons, will have to correct that in the next update). Since the early days of the SETI mod, the stayputnik is balanced to be the lightest probe core with reaction wheel, which kind of picks up on part of the design emphasis of sputnik, to be extremely mass efficient in terms of mission focus.

It was planned to have the "stayputnik" from SXT as a representation of the real sputnik, since that one actually has the ability to detach the sphere. I hope the SXT pack will be a little more modular for 1.1, decreasing the hurdle for supporting parts of it. The starting core should have been 60kg (currently 70kg), so the SXT sputnik could be 50kg, though the real one was 82kg or so.

 

@Sovek:

 One day I might even manage to rebalance the KIS space of the command modules, as was done for the old SETI-BalanceMod.

 

So, current list of planned fixes:

1. MechJeb config
2. STACK (70kg->60kg) and Stayputnik (65kg->70kg) masses
3. Small adjustable landing gear earlier (earlyAviation?, stability?)
4. Bathymetry to engineering101
5. SRB rebalance (though that might not happen in the next small update). It is just bad that the RT-1 provides more dV than the 2.5 times as heavy RT-2 from VenStockRevamp...

Any suggestions for a really lightweight station parts mod until StationScience is properly available (which will nearly certainly not be for 1.0.5)?

 

I'll also have to update the SETI-Greenhouse for USI Life Support.

Edited January 30, 2016 by Yemo

[Sovek]

@Yemo BTW, is there any reason why the 2 kerbal capsule from NFT is still bundled on the same node with the 3 kerbal capsule? I noticed others (Like from HGR) you got in the node previously but that Mk2-3 is still on the same node as the Mk1-3.

[kcs123]

I refrain to start new career only because I afraid that I would not have much time to test middle to high tech node tiers before 1.1 is published. Just want to be able to provide proper feedback, otherwise I have no problem of starting new game each time some major change require it.

I also miss station science mod to provide more sense to build orbital stations, other than just for refueling purposes. Not so much for part looks, but more for science grinding game mechanics. You need to figure out how to put and assembly station parts in orbit, need to provide supplies from time to time and recover science material on Kerbin after finishing experiments to got some science points.

Anyway, even without it, USI life support have change overall gameplay mechanic too. Kerbals now need more room for living quarters, it is no longer enough to have cabin that provide exact numer of seats for each kerbal you have on board. Now each kerbal need to have some area for sleep/rest as well as working space(pilot cabin) due to new homesickness/habitation mechanics.

Because of this, I was thinking of having PPD-12 Cupola module, PPD-10 Hitchhiker container and Mobile processing lab available on the same tech tree level, somewhere between 160 and 300 science points. PPD-12 Cupola module still can be in command module node, while PPD-10 Hitchhiker container and Mobile processing lab should be available at the same time, as there is no much sense to have one without other. Just to make creating first parts of space station feasible and meaningfull even without any additional mods.

3D print lab, greenhouse and recycler part types can be slightly higher in tree, along with inflamables parts (station rings and such). After that comes drilling, resource collecting stuff and so on.

[gerishnakov]

11 hours ago, Yemo said:

I really like the shape of the stock stayputnik, so my reasoning behind the current balancing was, to keep it attractive for more than 2 missions. In fact it is my favorite probe core for everything not neading a top attachment node. Since it lacks the top node, I figured it would need less structural mass, so I made it more mass efficient than any other probe in terms of capabilities (taking a look at it, it should be 0.07tons, will have to correct that in the next update). Since the early days of the SETI mod, the stayputnik is balanced to be the lightest probe core with reaction wheel, which kind of picks up on part of the design emphasis of sputnik, to be extremely mass efficient in terms of mission focus.

It was planned to have the "stayputnik" from SXT as a representation of the real sputnik, since that one actually has the ability to detach the sphere. I hope the SXT pack will be a little more modular for 1.1, decreasing the hurdle for supporting parts of it. The starting core should have been 60kg (currently 70kg), so the SXT sputnik could be 50kg, though the real one was 82kg or so.

...

So, current list of planned fixes...

2. STACK (70kg->60kg) and Stayputnik (65kg->70kg) masses

@Yemo You're right of course, the real life Sputnik was just over 80kg. In game though I consider that mass to include both the probe core itself, as well as the four Communotron 16s I always attach to further mirror Sputnik. Coincidentally the four Communotrons add just enough to mass to bring the total to just over 80kg, if the Stayputnik's mass is about 0.05. As for the STACK, I do feel it should remain heavier than the Stayputnik, given that it is relatively more useful than it (you can attach some science parts, as well as antennae). It is the reduced mass of the Stayputnik that incentivises you to use it on earlier missions, instead of the STACK (or formerly the HECS).

Edited January 30, 2016 by gerishnakov

[Yemo]

12 hours ago, Sovek said:

@Yemo BTW, is there any reason why the 2 kerbal capsule from NFT is still bundled on the same node with the 3 kerbal capsule? I noticed others (Like from HGR) you got in the node previously but that Mk2-3 is still on the same node as the Mk1-3.

It is sort of a high tech 2 kerbal capsule and would clash with the 2 person low tech capsules in that node.

 

3 hours ago, kcs123 said:

I refrain to start new career only because I afraid that I would not have much time to test middle to high tech node tiers before 1.1 is published. Just want to be able to provide proper feedback, otherwise I have no problem of starting new game each time some major change require it.

I also miss station science mod to provide more sense to build orbital stations, other than just for refueling purposes. Not so much for part looks, but more for science grinding game mechanics. You need to figure out how to put and assembly station parts in orbit, need to provide supplies from time to time and recover science material on Kerbin after finishing experiments to got some science points.

Anyway, even without it, USI life support have change overall gameplay mechanic too. Kerbals now need more room for living quarters, it is no longer enough to have cabin that provide exact numer of seats for each kerbal you have on board. Now each kerbal need to have some area for sleep/rest as well as working space(pilot cabin) due to new homesickness/habitation mechanics.

Because of this, I was thinking of having PPD-12 Cupola module, PPD-10 Hitchhiker container and Mobile processing lab available on the same tech tree level, somewhere between 160 and 300 science points. PPD-12 Cupola module still can be in command module node, while PPD-10 Hitchhiker container and Mobile processing lab should be available at the same time, as there is no much sense to have one without other. Just to make creating first parts of space station feasible and meaningfull even without any additional mods.

3D print lab, greenhouse and recycler part types can be slightly higher in tree, along with inflamables parts (station rings and such). After that comes drilling, resource collecting stuff and so on.

Makes perfect sense, just wanted to mention that 1.1 most likely contains disimprovements as well and it will probably take some time until it is playable on the same standard as a modded 1.0.5.

Agreed, mpl and hitchiker do not make much sense at the moment. That line will change with the tech tree rewrite but I'll see what can be done for the moment (although that would probably result in empty nodes with the currently available non-station-science mod pack.

 

3 hours ago, gerishnakov said:

@Yemo You're right of course, the real life Sputnik was just over 80kg. In game though I consider that mass to include both the probe core itself, as well as the four Communotron 16s I always attach to further mirror Sputnik. Coincidentally the four Communotrons add just enough to mass to bring the total to just over 80kg, if the Stayputnik's mass is about 0.05. As for the STACK, I do feel it should remain heavier than the Stayputnik, given that it is relatively more useful than it (you can attach some science parts, as well as antennae). It is the reduced mass of the Stayputnik that incentivises you to use it on earlier missions, instead of the STACK (or formerly the HECS).

Don't forget that the STACK lacks a reaction wheel. With current balancing, the Stayputnik 0.2 torque reaction wheel is worth 20kg. With the planned SXT sputnik the progression would be like this:

60kg STACK
50kg SXT Sputnik
60kg OKTO2
70kg Stayputnik & 80kg OKTO + QBE

Which reminds me, the RemoteTech dishes need rebalancing as well as that big "golden" probe core from somewhere (Ven?). I would also like a radially attachable probe core, which does not have physics significance, so it does not unbalance the craft. Though I m not sure about the stats. Maybe I ll repurpose the small radial reaction wheel model from VenStockRevamp and just give it the same stats as the OKTO2...

[kcs123]

No need to rush, take your time, some of changes will make more sense when 1.1 comes out, I just wrote down observations before I forget about those. In current career game I just need to grind some more science points before I start to build space station for training/tourism purposes while I wait for proper transfer window and actualy send some kerbals on distant planets.

When 1.1. comes out it will bring some new elements in game. You will need to build some kind of relay network to be able to control probes/rockets, similar to RT mod. That would probably require some more part rearangment on nodes. Probably a lot of people would continue to play 1.0.5. until most of popuplar mods were properly updated.

[miromed]

There is a proposal more logical (in my opinion) location of antennas:

EXP-VR-2T - basic science
DAS-1, DTS-M1, Comm 32 - electrics
KR-7 advanced electrics
KR-14 High-Power electrics

[Yemo]

On 30.1.2016 at 5:27 PM, kcs123 said:

No need to rush, take your time, some of changes will make more sense when 1.1 comes out, I just wrote down observations before I forget about those. In current career game I just need to grind some more science points before I start to build space station for training/tourism purposes while I wait for proper transfer window and actualy send some kerbals on distant planets.

When 1.1. comes out it will bring some new elements in game. You will need to build some kind of relay network to be able to control probes/rockets, similar to RT mod. That would probably require some more part rearangment on nodes. Probably a lot of people would continue to play 1.0.5. until most of popuplar mods were properly updated.

From what I read some months ago, the new stock connection feature is strictly worse that what you get with the current RemoteTech +  RemoteTech-ProbeControlEnabler/RemoteTechXF + SETI-RemoteTechConfig.

Restricting probe control without providing a flight computer or including a life support feature is a sure recipe for a balancing disaster.

So I'll probably just ignore that "feature" and disregard any support requests from players who use it, since it adds nothing to the modded game as it is at the moment except for problems and imbalances.

 

On 30.1.2016 at 6:54 PM, miromed said:

There is a proposal more logical (in my opinion) location of antennas:

EXP-VR-2T - basic science
DAS-1, DTS-M1, Comm 32 - electrics
KR-7 advanced electrics
KR-14 High-Power electrics

Thank you for your feedback!

Though I did not follow every part of your proposal (I did put the antennae earlier as you suggested), it prompted me to look at the tech tree positions of the remote tech dishes again.

The reasoning for the current locations in 0.9.6.1 is the ability to send probes roughly in the time frame in which they did so historically, which means much earlier probe visists to far away bodies. Also I wanted to allow lighter foldable dishes later than fixed ones.

Though their stats are still unbalanced until that is fixed with a SETI BalanceMod update (not sure if I can include it in the next one).

 

edit: Oh and I forgot to mention it so far, the Basic Mk1 Cockpit has specially low buoyancy. While originally I hoped that this would prevent people from recovering it after misusing it for spaceflight and splashing down in the water, I left it in since it makes it useful for submarines.

 

SETI CommunityTechTree v0.9.6.1 (for KSP 1.0.5)

Please support continued SETI maintenance & development via Patreon

MechJeb

• Artificial capability restrictions deactivated, thank you nobodyhasthis2
• Like artificial action group restrictions were deactivated
• MechJeb pod moved to artificial intelligence

Tech tree changes

• RemoteTech dishes much earlier
• Adjustable landing gear earlier
• Hitchhiker earlier
• GORESat to electrics
• HECS-2 probe moved to large probes
• Radial reaction wheel later @precisionEngineering
• Material Extractor later @experimentalScience
• Workshop much later @automation
• Anomaly Sensor @electronics

Edited February 1, 2016 by Yemo

[nobodyhasthis2]

My personal tweaks. If the following is on recommended. 

Chopshop ---- parachutes moved to survivability (If real chute loaded move to Parachutes + to declutter as procedural alternatives available)

Deadly reentry if still used should be reconsidered. Heating is stock and Keepfit has better g-meter recording. ----Has heat shields removed / moved to to Parachutes + in favour of procedural shield. UP125 & UP0625 decouplers moved to Basic Rocketry +

Personal choice on additional  SXT tweaking. As reported before SXT will be broken up into separate down loads after 1.1. ---- BA8 to General Rocketry. Candle Wax  Basic Rocketry + Other changes in there but I can't remember what they where

On 1/30/2016 at 4:27 PM, kcs123 said:

When 1.1. comes out it will bring some new elements in game. You will need to build some kind of relay network to be able to control probes/rockets, similar to RT mod. That would probably require some more part rearangment on nodes. Probably a lot of people would continue to play 1.0.5. until most of popuplar mods were properly updated.

Quote

From what I read some months ago, the new stock connection feature is strictly worse that what you get with the current RemoteTech +  RemoteTech-ProbeControlEnabler/RemoteTechXF + SETI-RemoteTechConfig.

Agree with this. I am not going to be jumping over to 1.1 until the hotfix for it is released to fix the bugs. Plus any time required to find a way to remove the forced implementation broken features. I did stay on to 1.0.4 for a long time. With most of the 1.0.5 features already present through mods. With a hot fix released and better 1.0.5 support I have finally moved across.

Will go to 1.1 after new communications features have been hacked back to 1.0.5. There will be no relay network to control probes/rockets, similar to RT mod. It will be ring of ground stations. A building upgrade to increase ground base range and the annena diversification mod. That's it.

This is just not been thought through. The users that don't have RT now will have a feature that they don't want. The users that do have RT now get a massively dumbed down version. Hopefully the new features can be turned off for people that don't' want them. Or for for those that already have the more sensible RT mod installed. 

 

Edited February 2, 2016 by nobodyhasthis2

[nobodyhasthis2]

On 1/28/2016 at 2:50 PM, Yemo said:

pack, because it kept generating contracts (visible in debug window) as soon as the parts were unlocked (eg thermometer, barometer and so on), which resulted in severe and frequent lags. Does anyone else experience this as well? I plan to take another look at this over the weekend to provide @nightingale with a clean savegame.

I reported this and my observation was verified. Nightingale says feedback on this provides a clue. There was already an established PR. Hopeful this tricky little bug will get squashed soon. So far it does not appear to cause any significant harm.     

[nightingale]

28 minutes ago, nobodyhasthis2 said:

I reported this and my observation was verified. Nightingale says feedback on this provides a clue. There was already an established PR. Hopeful this tricky little bug will get squashed soon. So far it does not appear to cause any significant harm.     

Already squished, just not released.  Expect 1.9.5 in the next day or two.

[gerishnakov]

What happened to the tech tree config for Deadly Reentry? I swear there was one before this latest update, and now there isn't.

[kcs123]

59 minutes ago, gerishnakov said:

What happened to the tech tree config for Deadly Reentry? I swear there was one before this latest update, and now there isn't.

Deadly Reentry have been updated, but SETIctt haven't I suppose. There is node for advanced survability for real chutes, IIRC deadly reentry shields were in similar/same nodes.

I haven't checked deadly reentry with latest version, so take this with a grain of salt. Most probably heat shields were no longer arranged properly trough tree as they were before. Also there is stock version of heat shields now in game, so it might be that deadly reentry no longer deals with those.

Most effect from deadly reentry is that kerbals can get killed due to too high G forces, craft parts can be set on fire and you need engineer to repair craft from fire effect. Also overall heat managment is slightly better than stock version. But regarding parts, most of former DRE parts are now available trough stock parts.

[nobodyhasthis2]

7 hours ago, gerishnakov said:

What happened to the tech tree config for Deadly Reentry? I swear there was one before this latest update, and now there isn't.

As I have posed before there has been a few changes in DR a while back. They are only really noticeable now after using the new SETI clean up nodes. Chop shop is the same.

18 hours ago, nobodyhasthis2 said:

My personal tweaks. If the following is on recommended. 

Chopshop ---- parachutes moved to survivability (If real chute loaded move to Parachutes + to declutter as procedural alternatives available)

Deadly reentry if still used should be reconsidered. Heating is stock and Keepfit has better g-meter recording. ----Has heat shields removed / moved to to Parachutes + in favour of procedural shield. UP125 & UP0625 decouplers moved to Basic Rocketry + 

I was going to post a config file as a suggestion to fixing this but thought about pulling DE out. As the G force is tracked in the more comprehensive Keep Fit mod.

6 hours ago, kcs123 said:

Most effect from deadly reentry is that kerbals can get killed due to too high G forces, craft parts can be set on fire and you need engineer to repair craft from fire effect. Also overall heat managment is slightly better than stock version. But regarding parts, most of former DRE parts are now available trough stock parts.

Correct as always @kcs123 .

DE has reinstated extra thermal effects by tweaking the parts. I am worried it does not seem to cover procedural parts. Also any other mods that don't consider the changes in DE may have parts that don't fit it well with the changes and therefore there might be a balance issue in there.

But hey ho lets poke a badger with a spoon.

Use at own risk. Not official part of SETI. Provided here for community feedback only. Use of the following may destroy the known universe or at the very least make Bob & Bill pee their pants. Jeb will of course find computer crashing fun.

//------\\
//---SETI-CTT---\\
//------\\
//---Suggested Tech Tree changes for Deadly Reentry---\\
//------\\



//---1.25m Heatshield
@PART[1.25_Heatshield]:NEEDS[DeadlyReentry]:AFTER[DeadlyReentry]
{
	@TechRequired = parachutes0
}
//---2.5m Heatshield
@PART[2.5_Heatshield]:NEEDS[DeadlyReentry]:AFTER[DeadlyReentry]
{
	@TechRequired = parachutes0
}
//---3.75m Heatshield
@PART[3.75_Heatshield]:NEEDS[DeadlyReentry]:AFTER[DeadlyReentry]
{
	@TechRequired = parachutes0
}
//---0.625m Heatshield
// as alternative it could be in start + but lets put in above PP shield.
@PART[0625_Heatshield]:NEEDS[DeadlyReentry]:AFTER[DeadlyReentry]
{
	@TechRequired = parachutes0
}
//---UP0625 Decoupler
@PART[decoupler_ftr_smaller]:NEEDS[DeadlyReentry]:AFTER[DeadlyReentry]
{
	@TechRequired = basicRocketry0
}
//---UP125 Decoupler
@PART[decoupler_ftr_small]:NEEDS[DeadlyReentry]:AFTER[DeadlyReentry]
{
	@TechRequired = basicRocketry0
}
//---UP250 Decoupler
@PART[decoupler_ftr]:NEEDS[DeadlyReentry]:AFTER[DeadlyReentry]
{
	@TechRequired = basicRocketry0
}
//---UP375 Decoupler
@PART[decoupler_ftr_4m]:NEEDS[DeadlyReentry]:AFTER[DeadlyReentry]
{
	@TechRequired = basicRocketry0
}

What this does is pulls all DE parts off the main tech tree. There is already Procedural Parts that get unlocked and this cleans up the tree. Just one possible solution but may not be an optimum one.

All note the use of new Parachutes + node. It would suggest that perhaps this should be Survivability +. As they may be more non parachute parts we wish to take out of Survivability. 

 

 

Edited February 2, 2016 by nobodyhasthis2

[Sovek]

@Yemo Hey, is there any reason why you have CKAN overwrite the RemoteTech settings file and not just put in a config file for it anyway?
 Also, you should probably add in an [AFTER] or something so that mods that modify RT wont foul up your changes... like any rescale mod. I just solved two days of pure frustration in trying to disable signal delay, only to have Harder 3x re-enable it from its own config.

[Yemo]

On 2.2.2016 at 4:11 AM, nobodyhasthis2 said:

My personal tweaks. If the following is on recommended. 

Chopshop ---- parachutes moved to survivability (If real chute loaded move to Parachutes + to declutter as procedural alternatives available)

Deadly reentry if still used should be reconsidered. Heating is stock and Keepfit has better g-meter recording. ----Has heat shields removed / moved to to Parachutes + in favour of procedural shield. UP125 & UP0625 decouplers moved to Basic Rocketry +

[...]

This is just not been thought through. The users that don't have RT now will have a feature that they don't want. The users that do have RT now get a massively dumbed down version. Hopefully the new features can be turned off for people that don't' want them. Or for for those that already have the more sensible RT mod installed. 

Hm, I m very uncertain regarding the tech tree rewrite. On one hand I want to keep the stock resemblance, on the other hand the early tech tech nodes are a bit cluttered now. Also I see people unlocking many early nodes at once, which kind of defeats the purpose. Of course that is hard to balance for people who use additional science parts or different science settings.

Currently I m leaning towards a small expansion of the early tree.

That last paragraph is unfortunately spot on. As far as I know, the new feature can be turned off in the settings, but that does not solve the issue regarding the problems with balancing, if it is on by default. Most players just do not look to much into the settings.

 

On 2.2.2016 at 6:44 AM, nightingale said:

Already squished, just not released.  Expect 1.9.5 in the next day or two.

Great, thank you very much!

 

On 2.2.2016 at 3:44 PM, gerishnakov said:

What happened to the tech tree config for Deadly Reentry? I swear there was one before this latest update, and now there isn't.

Hm, there was one, but not for quite some time now. Certainly not in 1.0.4, I can not remember if it was there after ksp 0.90. There were problems with DeadlyReentry in the early days of 1.0.x, especially with SETI.

 

13 hours ago, Sovek said:

@Yemo Hey, is there any reason why you have CKAN overwrite the RemoteTech settings file and not just put in a config file for it anyway?
 Also, you should probably add in an [AFTER] or something so that mods that modify RT wont foul up your changes... like any rescale mod. I just solved two days of pure frustration in trying to disable signal delay, only to have Harder 3x re-enable it from its own config.

As far as I remember, RemoteTech did not allow module manager changes to the settings file. And since the settings file was not installed but auto-generated when RemoteTech was first loaded (afair), that seemed to be a sensible choice. So that people who wanted to change the settings could just go to the normal location of the config, eg for signal delay or mode or colors and so on. I guess with RemoteTech settings it is the same as with life support mods, using more than one is trouble. I m not even sure how the ground stations would work on a resized kerbin. I ll try to change the description for CKAN to warn people not to use the config with resize mods.

 

Oh, and regarding CKAN:

The new balance mod (reaction wheels) does not feel balanced with all the suggested mods, it is really narrowed down to the recommended ones at the moment. I m thinking about having SETIctt suggesting all the part mods while SETIrebalance recommends the current package of part and gameplay mods.

[nobodyhasthis2]

6 hours ago, Yemo said:

Hm, I m very uncertain regarding the tech tree rewrite. On one hand I want to keep the stock resemblance, on the other hand the early tech tech nodes are a bit cluttered now. Also I see people unlocking many early nodes at once, which kind of defeats the purpose. Of course that is hard to balance for people who use additional science parts or different science settings.

 

I think the extra side nodes are great. They helped me get cleaned up before with the problem of aircraft wing clutter. Expanding this to other nodes was really good.

However beyond that. I agree this difficult. I don't know if changes to the early tree is time well spent. I have noticed that even deviating a little. With science parts or different science settings can dramatically change things. For example anyone using Interstellar Extended has access to an modified accelerometer. Which can be used to generate about 50 points of science. This simply does away with a lot of the early changes

7 hours ago, Yemo said:

Oh, and regarding CKAN:

The new balance mod (reaction wheels) does not feel balanced with all the suggested mods, it is really narrowed down to the recommended ones at the moment. I m thinking about having SETIctt suggesting all the part mods while SETIrebalance recommends the current package of part and gameplay mods.

Yes you have to kind of scope lock this. If that is the appropriate terminology. It should be narrowed down the central part mods and balance issues. 

 

 

[mcm001]

I'm having a bit of a problem with the radial MysteryGoo and radial Science Jr. I can't seem to find the data to take/transmit/recover. The only option that shows up after observing the goo is to reset it, but I want to keep the data! I've tried a completely clean verson of KSP, but that didn't help at all. Is this my fault or a mod bug?

 

[nobodyhasthis2]

1 hour ago, mcm001 said:

I'm having a bit of a problem with the radial MysteryGoo and radial Science Jr. I can't seem to find the data to take/transmit/recover. The only option that shows up after observing the goo is to reset it, but I want to keep the data! I've tried a completely clean verson of KSP, but that didn't help at all. Is this my fault or a mod bug?

 

It is a feature not a bug.

This is the most common question from people that come over from playing stock. For play balance/ roleplay/ realism reasons given earlier in the thread. You can't collect data by default with SETI. So it is a bit of a technical challenge to overcome and makes for interesting choices in mission planning. 

However if you are struggling or don't like this feature. Ship manifest lets you move science to a command pod. There also a way to turn it off but someone else will have to jump in here. @kcs123 can you help?

Edited February 4, 2016 by nobodyhasthis2

[kcs123]

Don't know what to add and that is not already said. Don't have time to check in game right now, telling this form top of my head, so use info with grain of salt.
IIRC, you can get "review data" button on command pod and when you click on it it will display all data that is not already transmitted. You can choose on that poped up dialog do you wish to keep that data, transmit or reset experiment.

Some other scientific items, mostly Dmagics science stuff have option to review data on scientific part, but not all of items have such option. I didn't really pay attention for MysteryGoo and Science Jr. material bays, playing with SETI for quite a while so I no longer recall how vanilla career game look like
Not that I miss vanilla game too much either .

[nobodyhasthis2]

Anybody seeing additional memory usage through changes to USI LS?

It is had recently had quite a large update. I have seen the default SETI pack memory footprint growing as the new habitation feature was added into life support requirements. As USI LS moves from a simple life support mod to a more complicated resource management style system. 

Could be wrong here. What is certain in the SETI Greenhouse needs to be updated. I suggest that this should be put off to after 1.1 changes made..

[kcs123]

Trough latest USI life support and MKS/OKS it might be 10-20Mb difference in memory usage. Didn't watched closely as I didn't noticed any major changes in memory usage/behaviour than in previous releases.

A lot of things were changed lately with Roverdudes mods, there is lack of good reliable other station/bases mods.
All kind of changes were needed to reflect that, not only Greenhouse, but also tech tree part rearangment. And of course there is upcoming mods for underwater exploration, even stock game encourage it.

[RoverDude]

13 hours ago, nobodyhasthis2 said:

Anybody seeing additional memory usage through changes to USI LS?

It is had recently had quite a large update. I have seen the default SETI pack memory footprint growing as the new habitation feature was added into life support requirements. As USI LS moves from a simple life support mod to a more complicated resource management style system. 

Could be wrong here. What is certain in the SETI Greenhouse needs to be updated. I suggest that this should be put off to after 1.1 changes made..

Your bump in RAM is likely because it bundles an additional DLL that handles all of the shared logistics and shared state.  This is used in two placed with USI-LS:  First, scavenging.  So if you drop a container of supplies nearby a ship full of Kerbals they will grab from it automatically (which is very handy if your Kerbals became tourists due to a lack of snacks).  Second, it lets me share some state with UKS - specifically, the Kolony Reward that increases hab time (which in turn affects life support, but only if you have it installed) and lets other mods tap into that modifier.

[nobodyhasthis2]

4 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

Your bump in RAM is likely because it bundles an additional DLL that handles all of the shared logistics and shared state.  This is used in two placed with USI-LS:  First, scavenging.  So if you drop a container of supplies nearby a ship full of Kerbals they will grab from it automatically (which is very handy if your Kerbals became tourists due to a lack of snacks).  Second, it lets me share some state with UKS - specifically, the Kolony Reward that increases hab time (which in turn affects life support, but only if you have it installed) and lets other mods tap into that modifier.

Thanks @RoverDude for helping out here. You are awesome.

I only noticed bump in memory because there not a lot space alongside the other mods. This is pretty cool anyway and the new features are great. I can hardly wait for KSP 1.1. Where hopefully we be free of the 32 bit limitations that make us too picky over what mods to use.

[senord]

I'm having an issue with the manned orbit mission from the seti contracts pack- when I'm actually orbiting, it acknowledges that the state: destination: kerbin and state: situation: orbit goals have been met, but of course the craft hasn't landed, but then when I land the craft, it acknowledges it as having landed, but doesn't maintain the orbit information. Is this a general problem, or is it just in my install?

EDIT: I figured it out- seems to be related to not having the capsule as the root part of the craft

Edited February 7, 2016 by senord
issue resolved