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

[Olympic1]

@Yemo Looks like the SETIrebalanceReactionWheels folder isn't included anymore in the dowload which causes CKAN to fail inflating the mod. Removing L92-L95 will fix this.

[Yemo]

On 7.11.2016 at 0:44 AM, steddyj said:

Well, honestly I stopped looking into this because I decided to try out Configurable Containers instead, and it doesn't cause the same issues, although I think that's just by chance.  That said, I had hit a brick wall before deciding to switch mods.  The balance changes you are trying to make are to reduce the cost structure of Procedural Parts, but from what I can tell that variable can only be defined within the TankContentSwitcher module, although the cost calculation obviously happens elsewhere.  If you're using either Modular Fuel Tanks or Configurable Containers, the trade off is that you're going to have to pay full price for your procedural tanks.

I resigned myself to this issue, so I stopped digging into it further in order to get back to playing and it seems a little unclear who is currently maintaining Procedural Parts, other than just getting it pushed to new versions. 

No problem ;-). I ll perhaps look into it some time in the future.

 

On 8.11.2016 at 6:30 PM, Sol Invictus said:

@Yemo I tested new SETI Contracts just now, and the bug that I described before is still there. It seems to me that all that was changed in this regard, is that "Exploration" ballot box in Contract Configurator difficulty settings is now being automatically unchecked. That's great and all, but I was doing that myself all this time. Problem is that despite of "exploration" ballot box being unchecked, stock exploration contracts, like "Escape the atmosphere!" and "Orbit Kerbin!", are still appearing alongside their SETI equivalents. It starts happening as soon as I finish first SETI contract (reach 18km unmanned).

I'm attaching screenshot of my mission control: https://www.dropbox.com/s/90zdlwgud8u4h73/escape1.png?dl=0

edit: I believe that it has nothing to do with SETI Contracts after all, and all about how Contract Configurator is dealing with contracts in KSP 1.2.1. Thank you for your help nonetheless.

Hm, then it looks like an issue with CC or something else entirely.

I would redownload KSP and then install the latest CC and work from there, to avoid any hidden issues, eg previously compromised files.

Good luck!

 

6 hours ago, Olympic1 said:

@Yemo Looks like the SETIrebalanceReactionWheels folder isn't included anymore in the dowload which causes CKAN to fail inflating the mod. Removing L92-L95 will fix this.

Whoops, must have missed it when I uploaded the last version, corrected it. Thank you very much!

PS: It would be great if the lastest mod version could be deleted on spacedock.info to revert. At the moment I only see the functionality to delete an older version.

 

SETI Rebalance v1.2.1.0 (for KSP 1.2.x )

EntryCosts all set to 1000 instead of 1, thank you very much @nobodyhasthis2

Minor fixes

 

 

I went with 1000 for the moment, to avoid too problematic imbalances in the early career with all the plane parts. For the future it might be possible to adjust that based on tech tree unlocks. Though since I (slowly) started working on SETItechtree again (as converting UbM was imho just not worth the issues, for a stop gap solution), I m hesitant to introduce such complexity for SETIrebalance at the moment.

 

[Olympic1]

40 minutes ago, Yemo said:

PS: It would be great if the lastest mod version could be deleted on spacedock.info to revert. At the moment I only see the functionality to delete an older version.

Just to be sure: You want me to delete v1.2.0.2 ?

[Sol Invictus]

@Yemo

Reaction wheels in stock KSP are about 10 times stronger than they should be realistically. Usually, in order to fix it, I just use simple config file like this:

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleReactionWheel]]
{
    @MODULE[ModuleReactionWheel]
    {
        @PitchTorque *= 0.1
        @YawTorque *= 0.1
        @RollTorque *= 0.1
    }
}

So, my question is

how much is SETI Rebalance weakening reaction wheels in the game?

Does it make sense to still use my config file with conjunction with SETI Rebalance?

[Yemo]

7 minutes ago, Olympic1 said:

Just to be sure: You want me to delete v1.2.0.2 ?

No, since I uploaded a new version, I could now delete 1.2.0.2 on my own, just for the future a button to delete the newest version and thus revert to the previous version.

I wanted to upload a new version for Unmanned Before Manned (1.2.0.1). Unfortunately with many tabs open and UbM and SETIrebalance both being version 1.2.0.0, I uploaded the new UbM zip file on the SETIrebalance page of spacedock.info. When I noticed my error, I could not simply delete the wrongly uploaded file for SETIrebalance. I had to upload another version for SETIrebalance (1.2.0.2), to be able to delete the wrongly uploaded file. Including updating the version file and so on.

 

5 minutes ago, Sol Invictus said:

@Yemo

Reaction wheels in stock KSP are about 10 times stronger than they should be realistically. Usually, in order to fix it, I just use simple config file like this:

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleReactionWheel]]
{
    @MODULE[ModuleReactionWheel]
    {
        @PitchTorque *= 0.1
        @YawTorque *= 0.1
        @RollTorque *= 0.1
    }
}

So, my question is

how much is SETI Rebalance weakening reaction wheels in the game?

Does it make sense to still use my config file with conjunction with SETI Rebalance?

Hm, the problem is, that SETIrebalance does not provide a change to all reaction wheels eg the ones introduced by mods which are not yet fully supported. Instead it rebalances reaction wheels individually. For example the probe core reacction wheels are pretty much what the stock probe cores have (but the probe core masses were often adjusted), while the larger ones are drastically nerfed, but always corresponding to the mass of the part (or more precisely the mass of the reaction wheel sub-component if the part has multiple functions). My rebalancing guideline was afair 2 torque for 200kg and 1EC/s, to keep it simple.

So it is a trade-off at the moment. If you have many reaction wheels which are not touched by SETIrebalance, you might want to simply delete the SETIrebalanceReactionWheels folder and apply the all-inclusive nerf.

[Olympic1]

1 minute ago, Yemo said:

No, since I uploaded a new version, I could now delete 1.2.0.2 on my own, just for the future a button to delete the newest version and thus revert to the previous version.

I wanted to upload a new version for Unmanned Before Manned (1.2.0.1). Unfortunately with many tabs open and UbM and SETIrebalance both being version 1.2.0.0, I uploaded the new UbM zip file on the SETIrebalance page of spacedock.info. When I noticed my error, I could not simply delete the wrongly uploaded file for SETIrebalance. I had to upload another version for SETIrebalance (1.2.0.2), to be able to delete the wrongly uploaded file. Including updating the version file and so on.

Ok, I get it. We didn't add the delete button for the latest release on purpose. You can bypass this by setting a previous release to default and then you'll be able to delete the latest version.

[Yemo]

Just now, Olympic1 said:

Ok, I get it. We didn't add the delete button for the latest release on purpose. You can bypass this by setting a previous release to default and then you'll be able to delete the latest version.

Ah, then I simply missed how to do it. Will remember for the future. Thank you very much!

 

[steddyj]

7 hours ago, Yemo said:

No problem ;-). I ll perhaps look into it some time in the future.

 

Eh, this started itching in my brain again this afternoon.  I posted in the Procedural Parts thread to see if my assumption that costMultiplier cannot be defined outside of the TankContentSwitcher module is correct.  If that holds true, then I see two options for providing some level of balance

1. Remove the MFT config for procedural parts in SETI, and meaning the cost for having procedural size is a bit less freedom in the contents (but this provides less support for other fuel mods, unless otherwise also defined in config for additional tank content modes) 
2. Allow the use of MFT for procedural parts, but accept that they will cost more than other parts in the mod

[Sol Invictus]

On 10.11.2016 at 8:02 PM, Yemo said:

EntryCosts all set to 1000 instead of 1, thank you very much @nobodyhasthis2

 

So, it is intentional that every single part in the whole tech tree costs exactly 1000 funds? Can someone tell me what is the reason behind it? Why not just leave it as it is in the stock game?

Edited November 12, 2016 by Sol Invictus

[Yemo]

On 11.11.2016 at 3:27 AM, steddyj said:

Eh, this started itching in my brain again this afternoon.  I posted in the Procedural Parts thread to see if my assumption that costMultiplier cannot be defined outside of the TankContentSwitcher module is correct.  If that holds true, then I see two options for providing some level of balance

1. Remove the MFT config for procedural parts in SETI, and meaning the cost for having procedural size is a bit less freedom in the contents (but this provides less support for other fuel mods, unless otherwise also defined in config for additional tank content modes) 
2. Allow the use of MFT for procedural parts, but accept that they will cost more than other parts in the mod

Hm, I really have to take a closer look at MFT!

 

On 12.11.2016 at 4:56 PM, Sol Invictus said:

So, it is intentional that every single part in the whole tech tree costs exactly 1000 funds? Can someone tell me what is the reason behind it? Why not just leave it as it is in the stock game?

Those are entryCosts, which are extremely unbalanced in stock. They seem to be set according to the parts position in the stock tech tree. So a simple adapter, which for some reason is placed very late in the stock tech tree, has very high entry costs. Unfortunately those entryCosts are a part of the stock "difficulty" presets. Which themselves are about as gameplay balanced as the stock tech tree. In effect the "difficulty" presets are mostly a "grindiness" slider.

So anyone interested in real gameplay balance (as I infer from installing SETIrebalance) does not use those unbalanced presets. The entry cost option is a simple money sink for unlocking parts. And since the stock entry Costs are based on the stock tech tree positions, but a balanced gameplay would use anything but the stock tech tree, the stock entry costs make no sense.

But, I agree that 1000 flat is not optimal. Though I m not sure what is, while still being easy to implement for that niche specific money sink option.

Perhaps
1, Parts in "fuel" category have entryCosts of 0
2. Every other part is set to have entryCosts equal to a faktor times costs.

[nobodyhasthis2]

On 11/12/2016 at 3:56 PM, Sol Invictus said:

So, it is intentional that every single part in the whole tech tree costs exactly 1000 funds? Can someone tell me what is the reason behind it? Why not just leave it as it is in the stock game?

Yes it is.

Although I did try help out by play testing other values. With some speculation that long term perhaps it the value linked to tech level. Although that is easier said that done. Honestly could tell if that is the best number but having tried 1 and 2000. It seemed reasonable that we would settle on 1000. I don't want the game to feel like a 'grind'. I also could see the point in the default prices which feel like they give a 'lumpy' progression curve. 

This a very subjective thing. Especially considering what other mods are being used. Which is why I encourage others to try other values. Right now setting is to 1000 seems ok but always open to suggestions.

[kcs123]

Something just poped up, but I don't know if it feasible with MM only in KSP.

Let say we have some part defined like this:

StockPartPrice = 5000
StockPartNodeScience = 300
 

Part in question is moved to different node, could be higher or lower in tech tree. For this example I will assume that part is moved in lower tech node, but should work in both ways.

NewPartNodeScience = 90

We should calculate new part price like this:

NewPartPrice = (NewPartNodeScience / StockPartNodeScience) * StockPartPrice

NewPartPrice = (90/300) * 5000 = 1500

 

So, basicaly, entry price will be changed based on percentage, how much is science purchase is changed by moving part into different tech tree node.

[nobodyhasthis2]

2 hours ago, kcs123 said:

Something just poped up, but I don't know if it feasible with MM only in KSP.

Let say we have some part defined like this:

StockPartPrice = 5000
StockPartNodeScience = 300
 

Part in question is moved to different node, could be higher or lower in tech tree. For this example I will assume that part is moved in lower tech node, but should work in both ways.

NewPartNodeScience = 90

We should calculate new part price like this:

NewPartPrice = (NewPartNodeScience / StockPartNodeScience) * StockPartPrice

NewPartPrice = (90/300) * 5000 = 1500

 

So, basicaly, entry price will be changed based on percentage, how much is science purchase is changed by moving part into different tech tree node.

Yes that is what I was kind of think of. Linking the value to tech level. Easier said that done of course 

Quote

 

cost scale by tech level in direct proportion to how science points work. So lower levels are really cheap but later on parts generally become really expensive in the late game. This seems unfair at first but players can also usually generate much larger profits later in the game. It is similar game mechanic to increasing science points along a the length of the tech tree. They start off with very cheap components but it gently becomes harder though out the game. This means that some tactical strategic planning is still required beyond easy game difficultly level. Without the roller coaster ride that stock currently presents by having seeming random part prices. It also seems like a better alternative to going back in and setting @entryCost in MM for each component. Which is time consuming.

 

Right now setting a generic value in SETI-GeneralSettings.cfg is the quick way to do it for everything. Whilst the tree science value is in the UbM mod under @TechTree. I wonder if @entryCost could be set in here too?

Certainly having a formula would help as I think it would have to go each new tech node. Not really sure at this late hour 

[nobodyhasthis2]

Whilst I am up late. My latest crazy idea is to "have cake and eat it" by using something like SXT parts. Some of those parts have been balanced against SETI in the past. Some important gaps are filled in. Is a great boost in IMHO......but there is a catch. There is too many parts duplicating stuff. At least that is what it feels like and I think @Yemo is thinking along the same line (Please correct me it I am wrong. It is late and it been such a long time since we talked about clutter).

So what has changed my mind?

Janitor's Closet

Highly recommended if you want just a few parts to appear in the VAB from any particular mod. Right now I have parts for aircraft and the inline the goo pod. But everything else is gone from SXT. It is the auto-pruner days all over again 

[NemesisBosseret]

I've got an issue with remote Tech and seti groundstatons . .... they are on the wrong planet lol how do you move them if ur using korpinicous 

.

[Yemo]

On 21.11.2016 at 11:45 PM, nobodyhasthis2 said:

Whilst I am up late. My latest crazy idea is to "have cake and eat it" by using something like SXT parts. Some of those parts have been balanced against SETI in the past. Some important gaps are filled in. Is a great boost in IMHO......but there is a catch. There is too many parts duplicating stuff. At least that is what it feels like and I think @Yemo is thinking along the same line (Please correct me it I am wrong. It is late and it been such a long time since we talked about clutter).

So what has changed my mind?

Janitor's Closet

Highly recommended if you want just a few parts to appear in the VAB from any particular mod. Right now I have parts for aircraft and the inline the goo pod. But everything else is gone from SXT. It is the auto-pruner days all over again 

Yep, that was exactly my problem with SXT so far. I ll take a look at the Janitors Closet, looks great.

 

1 hour ago, NemesisBosseret said:

I've got an issue with remote Tech and seti groundstatons . .... they are on the wrong planet lol how do you move them if ur using korpinicous 

.

Answered in RemoteTech thread, if anyone else experiences this issue.

[SirBriguy]

Hello Yemo. I want to try out the new Galileo's Planet Pack mod but I like to run with your Unmanned Before Manned contracts.

Would you mind if I worked on converting the contract pack to make it more 'generic' so that it would work for other systems? I am more than happy to work with you to get the stock version of the changes back into the source (not sure if it was on Github or not).

[Yemo]

On 29.11.2016 at 8:53 PM, SirBriguy said:

Hello Yemo. I want to try out the new Galileo's Planet Pack mod but I like to run with your Unmanned Before Manned contracts.

Would you mind if I worked on converting the contract pack to make it more 'generic' so that it would work for other systems? I am more than happy to work with you to get the stock version of the changes back into the source (not sure if it was on Github or not).

Great idea!

One question: Do you intend to release your own contract pack or do you intend to work on the SETI contract mod?

If the latter: It is not on github, but you would be essentially the only one working on SETIcontracts, so I could either upload it to github or you could send me the files.

If the former: I m not really working on SETIcontracts anymore, only maintaining them until a viable (small, unmanned first) alternative comes along, which ideally works for multiple planet packs. @Nori wanted to work on a general contract progression, which works for new horizons and stock, but afair, it was not released. So if you go this route, you are welcome to use the stuff within the contracts, either for reference or as a base or whatever. My only stipulations would be, to change all the values which could lead to conflict with the existing SETIcontracts pack (and thus lead to support issues). That would be the 1. name/group especially the SETI name to prevent confusion about support (and SETIcontracts in mm statements/folders and such), 2. agency (space exploration technology initiative), 3. contract names (not titles), eg

    name = OrbitRecovery
    group = SETIcontracts

    title = 03.1 Orbit & Recovery!

the name and group should be changed, the title is just what is displayed, so no problems with using that, and 4. variables for behaviours and requirements, eg

BEHAVIOUR
    {
        name = Progression
        type = Expression
        
        CONTRACT_COMPLETED_SUCCESS
        {
        setiOrbitRecovery = 10
        }
    }

and

        REQUIREMENT
        {
            name = Progression
            type = Expression
            title = Completion of "Orbit around Kerbin!" contract
    
            expression = setiOrbit == 10
        }

 

Other than those 4 (or any other functional/name things which might cause functional/support issues) feel free to work with the actual content. Just name me as a contributor. From my perspective, it would be great if your contract pack would work in stock (and perhaps other solar systems) as well. I would then just recommend your contract pack, and would not have to continue maintaining SETIcontracts. Which would allow me to spend more time on other stuff, where there is no viable alternative at the moment (SETIrebalance).

 

Whatever you decide, good luck and endurance!

Edited December 4, 2016 by Yemo

[Yemo]

Unmanned before Manned v1.2.1.0 (for KSP 1.2.x)

After watching the painfully unbalanced Galileo Conquest video from Scott Manley:

• Due to unsupported parts (SXT), no science adjustments as recommended, etc:
• Temperature and Barometer experiments adjusted to SETIrebalance values
• Materials Bay earlier at basicScience, to allow probe only progression
• SXT mystery goo to the place of stock mystery goo
• Most problematic early SXT engines moved to more appropriate nodes considering their stats
• Early stock landing gear moved to start if SXT is installed...
• Porkjet new Mk1 pod moved to the place of the 1 kerbal lander can (since this pod is the most problematic part)

 

SETI RemoteTechConfig v1.2.1.0 (for RemoteTech 1.8.2+)

Just config modding adjustments for RemoteTech 1.8.2 settings format

Needs MM to be able to influence RT now, but RT itself needs MM, so no need to provide it in the download

[SirBriguy]

Yemo, I will probably make a whole separate mod, that mimics the SETI one. At the moment, I think the easiest way will be to make global variables to designate the important planets/moons. Then those variables and be overridden with patches based on the system.

[Nori]

On 12/4/2016 at 11:24 AM, Yemo said:

If the former: I m not really working on SETIcontracts anymore, only maintaining them until a viable (small, unmanned first) alternative comes along, which ideally works for multiple planet packs. @Nori wanted to work on a general contract progression, which works for new horizons and stock, but afair, it was not released. So if you go this route, you are welcome to use the stuff within the contracts, either for reference or as a base or whatever. My only stipulations would be, to change all the values which could lead to conflict with the existing SETIcontracts pack (and thus lead to support issues). That would be the 1. name/group especially the SETI name to prevent confusion about support (and SETIcontracts in mm statements/folders and such), 2. agency (space exploration technology initiative), 3. contract names (not titles), eg

I have frequently thought of reviving it in the last several months, but with Strategia and the improvements to stock contracts, I haven't seen quite the need for it as I did back in 1.0.x/1.1x

@SirBriguy What is missing in contracts that you want? Have you tried using Strategia?

[SirBriguy]

I mostly wanted it for more sensible progression and need it to work for GPP which I am about to start. I just learned about Strategia yesterday. I will check it out.

[Nori]

On 12/6/2016 at 1:39 PM, SirBriguy said:

I mostly wanted it for more sensible progression and need it to work for GPP which I am about to start. I just learned about Strategia yesterday. I will check it out.

Strategia scratched my itch for proper progression honestly. Though some parts of the contracts I had planned would still be a nice addition. I can send you a link to the ones I finished if you are interested in looking it over.

[eupraxo]

Hi @Yemo. Glad to still be a patreon member (as little as it is), even though I haven't played Kerbal in ages. Getting back into it now due to the recent death of John Glenn .

So, I have a copy of Kerbal 1.2.0, and 1.2.2. The mods don't seem to work with 1.2.2, but they do with 1.2.0, but I have one major problem. I updated CKAN and loaded it up, but there doesn't seem to be the default SETI rebalance mod, even if I select "filter" to "all". Which means that a great majority of SETI and it's recommended additions are not installed. Here's what I get:

Any ideas? Thanks. Really looking forward to playing again!

EDIT: I googled CKAN repository and ended up on GitHub, which seemed to have a commit of the latest repository of all the mods, and it has something called "BalanceMod", but neither that nor SETI-rebalance show up in my CKAN. Thanks!

Edited December 9, 2016 by eupraxo
Updated info about CKAN repository

[Yemo]

@eupraxo: Thank you very much for your support, ksp community and patreon support dropped a lot in the last few months, happy for everyone still around!

 

About SETIrebalance not showing up in ckan: Even when selecting "ALL", ckan does not show mods for which the dependencies are not compatible with the current version. So remote tech not being compatible at the moment hides SETIremoteTechConfig and SETIprobeControlEnabler, even from the ALL listing.

The strange thing is, KSP-AVC seems to be listed under "compatible", though SETIrebalance still does not show up (the only other dependency is ModuleManager). I do not know what is going on at this time, but I changed KSP-AVC from "dependency" to "recommendation". That might fix it when the bot picks up the change. The balance mod / rebalance thing is a historical artefact, since the rebalance mod was originally called balance mod. Should only be an internal thing now.

 

Oh, and something about starting a new career:

Since there has been a ksp version update, that might be a good point in time to implement some changes:

SETIcontracts gets some science payouts back.

SETIrebalance reduces all experiment science to 60%, since realistically everyone installing SETIrebalance also installs Dmagic. And together with SETIcontracts getting some science payouts back, that would result in something like the OP recommended setting for normal gameplay, without touching the difficulty slider in the game options (which is unbalanced itself and more like a grindiness slider).

For existing savegames, I ll provide the exact locations of the science change in the patchnotes, so that it can be altered/removed with a few clicks.

 

Those 2 updates will be released later today.

Edited December 9, 2016 by Yemo