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

[nobodyhasthis2]

10 hours ago, Yemo said:

Interesting concept. I guess it does not work with the reaction wheel nerf from SETIrebalance? Since SETIrebalance only nerfs reaction wheels when the SETIrebalanceReactionWheels folder is detected, I could simply add the condition that the nerf does happen when this mod is detected and it should work as intended?

Yes that would work.  SETI is not mentioned but in line with other mods that do show incompatibilities with Mandatory RCS ....

• (Semi-)Saturatable Reaction Wheels : can still be used but the reaction wheels features will be automatically disabled.
• Persistent Rotation : can still be used but the SAS and rotation persistence features will be automatically disabled.

For the purposes of testing the mod to see if in makes into my regular games. I have just moved the SETIrebalanceReactionWheels folder to turn off the reaction wheel nerf from SETIrebalance. To cut a long story short. This is also a nerf for reaction wheels but works different that how SETI does it. Instead of capping performance. Reaction wheels are turned into "stabilizers" that work at full strength to keep orientation. However they are terrible at roll and yaw maneuvers. The bigger the maneuver the worst they get because they hate too much change. So I didn't want to risk mixing the two together. I wanted to evaluate Mandatory RCS on it's own.  

What this means for SETI ---- ( I think, so far RL is getting the way of testing). The normal reaction wheels hold the probes on a vector very well. The mini RCS modules become mandatory on early probes for maneuvering. Just like SETI the really small designs fly like stock because they rotate with really weak wheel forces. Anything bigger that a small probe becomes a problem. As an added bonus coming out of time warp will not fix a craft that spinning end of end. 

I honestly don't know at this stage if this worth keeping in my regular SETI build. So far I like the results but it still needs look at. In one sense it saves development time because the SETI nerf only applies to stock wheels and others need to added MM patches. So this might stop me shaving a yak or two later on.

Edited January 21, 2017 by nobodyhasthis2

[Ant432]

On 20.01.2017. at 7:13 PM, Yemo said:

SETIctt reboot was planned, than not, than again and so on. Everytime it was not planned anymore, the reason was that most of the changes (with slight alterations) made sense for UbM + CTT as well, so they were integrated into UbM. And the main difference was only the reaction wheels and fuel lines available later. Which I then released as the UbM Challenge mini mod available via ckan.

Also note that stuff like mystery goo being available later were planned for SETIctt as well, so there would not be much difference there. I wanted baro and thermometer to come first, but then there would be too much science available in the early game, even with crew reports being available a bit later (though manned airplanes are possible for very little science). So one of the high yield experiments had to be pushed far back. I chose mystery goo, because materials bay (with SETIrebalance) was much more compatible with probes (0.625m diameter container & external pod).

 

 

Well, RIP SETI-CTT then. The issue I have with Ubm is simply that it doesn't arrange parts into nodes as well as SETI-CTT did. In SETI-CTT you also unlock RCS earlier, and UBM Challenge makes it impossible to go to orbit early since the RCS is unlocked a science node later than in SETI-CTT and it moves reaction wheels to a 90 science node. From the start UbM was meant as a "casual" alternative to SETI-CTT. SETI-CTT was a completely new tech tree, while UbM was the normal CTT tech tree with the early nodes changed to fit the "Unmanned before manned" gameplay. SETI-CTT also included some new parts, like the old aircraft cockpit with an attachable node in front of it which made starting with a propeller engine from KAX instead of immediately using jet engines possible. Now I can't use KAX propellers becase the cockpit isn't inline. It's livable with UbM but it won't ever replace SETI-CTT for me. It's like replacing an apple with an orange.

Edited January 22, 2017 by Antonio432

[kcs123]

It is quite possible to reach orbit early, although it is a bit chalanging and require some more thinking "out of the box" as someone mentioned earlier. It is even possible using only one ground station at KSC without pilot at all.

[SiCaRiO31]

So im not sure if this is from Kerbalism or SETI UBM, but I dont know what this "Resource analysis" option does, it has 2 options: ignore, or simulate.

Any ideas on what it does?

[baldamundo]

Just now, SiCaRiO31 said:

So im not sure if this is from Kerbalism or SETI UBM, but I dont know what this "Resource analysis" option does, it has 2 options: ignore, or simulate.

Any ideas on what it does?

I think this is from Kerbalism and determines whether the part will be factored in in the calculations for Kerbalism's planning window.

[branbo]

Can somebody tell me why my game is always so ugly and dark with SETI? 

http://imgur.com/a/vD8Yu 

thanks

[kcs123]

10 hours ago, branbo said:

Can somebody tell me why my game is always so ugly and dark with SETI? 

http://imgur.com/a/vD8Yu 

thanks

Welcome to forums.

I doubt that SETI have anything with it. It does not mess with graphics at all and on picture is only stock parts as much as I can recall.

SETI change some of part properies, like mass, removes monopropelant from command pods and some other minor tweaks for gamebalance purpose.
Beside that there is rearange of parts trough tech tree and tweaking of contract rewards.

Issue you have comes from something else, could be some mod that SETI recommend or something else. We can only throw blind guess what it could be.
To help you further, list of all installed mods is needed as well as "output_log.txt" file. You can find output log inside KSP_x64_Data folder if you are using windows, on other OS location is slightly different.

Do not post log file on forum, upload it on some cloud service like dropbox or pastebin and just post link for it here.
Can't promise that issue will be instantly revealed, but it is at least starting point for anyone, to be able to help you further.

[branbo]

13 hours ago, kcs123 said:

Welcome to forums.

I doubt that SETI have anything with it. It does not mess with graphics at all and on picture is only stock parts as much as I can recall.

SETI change some of part properies, like mass, removes monopropelant from command pods and some other minor tweaks for gamebalance purpose.
Beside that there is rearange of parts trough tech tree and tweaking of contract rewards.

Issue you have comes from something else, could be some mod that SETI recommend or something else. We can only throw blind guess what it could be.
To help you further, list of all installed mods is needed as well as "output_log.txt" file. You can find output log inside KSP_x64_Data folder if you are using windows, on other OS location is slightly different.

Do not post log file on forum, upload it on some cloud service like dropbox or pastebin and just post link for it here.
Can't promise that issue will be instantly revealed, but it is at least starting point for anyone, to be able to help you further.

There is no "output_log.txt"... what can i do?

When its on "early morning" it's barely unplayable, cause its so dark that i can't even see the horizon.

And that stretchd texture are so dismotivating...

Edited February 8, 2017 by branbo

[kcs123]

12 hours ago, branbo said:

There is no "output_log.txt"... what can i do?

When its on "early morning" it's barely unplayable, cause its so dark that i can't even see the horizon.

And that stretchd texture are so dismotivating...

Here is post that contains info how to find important stuff so moders can help you with troubleshooting further:

Like I said, I doubt that is related with SETI at all.

First, try to reproduce same bug with fresh install of KSP without any mods. Copy current install elsewhere, to have backup of installed mods and saved games.
If you have same bug with stock game then try to change graphic settings in game, could be some conflict between ingame settings, GPU driver settings, driver version, etc. Also you can have different results if you are forcing open gl or DX10. Way too many "if" to be to tell what exact problem is.

Besides of output log you can't find, info about your hardware, OS, version of KSP and list of mods installed can give some more clue what is going on. Without enough info it is hard to help anyone.

[branbo]

12 minutes ago, kcs123 said:

Here is post that contains info how to find important stuff so moders can help you with troubleshooting further:

Like I said, I doubt that is related with SETI at all.

First, try to reproduce same bug with fresh install of KSP without any mods. Copy current install elsewhere, to have backup of installed mods and saved games.
If you have same bug with stock game then try to change graphic settings in game, could be some conflict between ingame settings, GPU driver settings, driver version, etc. Also you can have different results if you are forcing open gl or DX10. Way too many "if" to be to tell what exact problem is.

Besides of output log you can't find, info about your hardware, OS, version of KSP and list of mods installed can give some more clue what is going on. Without enough info it is hard to help anyone.

I'll test it without mods when i get to home. I have all SETI (and recommended by SETI) installed using CKAN... it's like... 83 mods. I'll post it later too.

Anyway, you know anything about Seti RemoteTechConfig and SETI ProbeControlerEnabler messing with remote tech antenna connections? When i use it, i just can't transmit my experiments (made a "antena hedgehog" to test if it was me doing something wrong...)

Edited February 8, 2017 by branbo

[kcs123]

4 hours ago, branbo said:

Anyway, you know anything about Seti RemoteTechConfig and SETI ProbeControlerEnabler messing with remote tech antenna connections? When i use it, i just can't transmit my experiments (made a "antena hedgehog" to test if it was me doing something wrong...)

Not much more than @Yemo anounced here:

That sounds like a bug, I haven't using RT in my last atempt of career game before real life kicked in and preventing me to play KSP for a while.
Part of reason might be that RT was updated few times too, so configs no longer match.

[branbo]

12 hours ago, kcs123 said:

Here is post that contains info how to find important stuff so moders can help you with troubleshooting further:

Like I said, I doubt that is related with SETI at all.

First, try to reproduce same bug with fresh install of KSP without any mods. Copy current install elsewhere, to have backup of installed mods and saved games.
If you have same bug with stock game then try to change graphic settings in game, could be some conflict between ingame settings, GPU driver settings, driver version, etc. Also you can have different results if you are forcing open gl or DX10. Way too many "if" to be to tell what exact problem is.

Besides of output log you can't find, info about your hardware, OS, version of KSP and list of mods installed can give some more clue what is going on. Without enough info it is hard to help anyone.

Heres a pic of a clean install: http://imgur.com/a/gnPWh it looks ok, and the textures so.

My PC: Core i5 3470 - 3.4ghz, 8gb ram ddr3, evga gtx 1050. Running on Windows 7 64. Kerbal 1.2.2.

Here's the mod list exported from ckan http://pastebin.com/QmG6skQw

Here's the mod list directly from KSP: http://pastebin.com/LFyMKZEF

Edited February 9, 2017 by branbo

[goldenpsp]

9 hours ago, branbo said:

Heres a pic of a clean install: http://imgur.com/a/gnPWh it looks ok, and the textures so.

My PC: Core i5 3470 - 3.4ghz, 8gb ram ddr3, evga gtx 1050. Running on Windows 7 64. Kerbal 1.2.2.

Here's the mod list exported from ckan http://pastebin.com/QmG6skQw

Here's the mod list directly from KSP: http://pastebin.com/LFyMKZEF

Well I'm no rocket scientist, but I would first try removing any mods that try and change visuals, like planetshine etc.

[branbo]

21 minutes ago, goldenpsp said:

Well I'm no rocket scientist, but I would first try removing any mods that try and change visuals, like planetshine etc.

I think i found the problem... was something related to Real Solar System. I don't know why it was installed, if it's not listed on SETI main post...

There is any 'ckan list' to install "all seti related things"? I made a clean install yesterday with SETI-Rebalance-List provided on the main post, now it have 51 mods, against 81 of my "problematic instance". But on the "recommended mods" part, there's a lot of mods that weren't installed by this list. (?)

And, what can i use to make visual even prettier/realistic? (didn't noticed any changes at all... maybe it's about configuration...) I see a lot of people making lives/videos with very nice visual effects, and i just can't realize how. 

[nobodyhasthis2]

On 2/9/2017 at 1:39 PM, branbo said:

I think i found the problem... was something related to Real Solar System. I don't know why it was installed, if it's not listed on SETI main post...

There is any 'ckan list' to install "all seti related things"? I made a clean install yesterday with SETI-Rebalance-List provided on the main post, now it have 51 mods, against 81 of my "problematic instance". But on the "recommended mods" part, there's a lot of mods that weren't installed by this list. (?)

And, what can i use to make visual even prettier/realistic? (didn't noticed any changes at all... maybe it's about configuration...) I see a lot of people making lives/videos with very nice visual effects, and i just can't realize how. 

Welcome to the forum !

There is no list that you should be using with CKAN. Also the OP has be changed many times (much to frustration of @Yemo). First off you need to confirm what version of KSP you are playing?

Please notice It does say : "Some of the mods recommended in this meta mod pack might not be marked as compatible by CKAN for the current KSP version. It is recommended that you check on them manually."

Start with a proper clean install. A brand new game in a brand new KSP folder. The current approved mods get selected if they are available. Take everything by the author (y3mo) except remote tech mods (come back later and we explain why remote tech configs should be done with care, short answer here is they come in different flavors) 

To make it pretty. Load the two mods by WazWaz. It looks like your missing out on the config files for Environmental Visual Enhancements for a start. Warning that there is more that one type here. This where I suggest you do your homework first and check the details. Don't just go click happy with CKAN without reading all the small print.

On the other hand if you going down the Stock Visual Enhancements route instead ( a bigger higher end add on). Then I suggest a manual install of the lot straight off GitHub. It gets complicated with visual stuff and there more perks for a manual install here. It can be done in CKAN but you will get the cut down bare bones version. If your new to all of this just stick to advice given below and don't install anything else.

 

Edited February 12, 2017 by nobodyhasthis2

[MatBailie]

Is it correct, in SETI, for the command pods to generate lift (from Relative Wing Area)?

• Mk1 Command Pod has a relative wing area of 0.35?
• Mk1-2 Command Pod has a relative wing area of 1.4?

The reason I ask is that it's making all of my rockets really unstable.  It's like putting a winglet on the nose:

• Even RCS + Winglets + multiple Swivel engines can't control it beyond about 2 degrees AoA.
• I end up having to put everything inside fairings...
  • Which is annoying when Fairing Base Ring can't reach the same diameter as your fuel tanks
  • And also annoying because Airstream Protective Shell needs to build the fairing manually

If it's not normal then I'm going to have to begin uninstalling mods to see what made that change

 

EDIT:

Just found the 4m Fairing upgrade (in Advanced Aerodynamics), should there also be a 2.5m upgrade somewhere?

Edited February 15, 2017 by MatBailie

[SpacedInvader]

I haven't found any reference to this through searching so i will bring it up here. The SETI-PartMod-ThunderAerospace.cfg file is using an old syntax for the TAC-LS generic converter which is resulting in the changes breaking those parts such that they convert nothing:

I'm currently working on updating the file syntax so that they work again and should have something to share shortly.

 

EDIT: While working on this, I'm wondering if how long its been since these numbers were created and whether or not they are still valid. Does anyone know?

 

EDIT2: I'm planning on including the new TAC-LS 3.75m converters as well, but I'm not sure of how much power to give them. Originally I was thinking that the best course of action would be to simply follow the factor of 3 approach established by the first two parts such that 1.25m supports 3 kerbals, 2.5m supports 9 kerbals, and then 3.75m would support 27 kerbals, but I'm not sure if that would make the large parts too unbalancing. I'd like some input from others as to how much more powerful the 3.75m parts should be.

Edited February 15, 2017 by SpacedInvader

[MatBailie]

1 hour ago, SpacedInvader said:

EDIT2: I'm planning on including the new TAC-LS 3.75m converters as well, but I'm not sure of how much power to give them. Originally I was thinking that the best course of action would be to simply follow the factor of 3 approach established by the first two parts such that 1.25m supports 3 kerbals, 2.5m supports 9 kerbals, and then 3.75m would support 27 kerbals, but I'm not sure if that would make the large parts too unbalancing. I'd like some input from others as to how much more powerful the 3.75m parts should be.

 

I'd just base it on mass.  If the 3.75m part is triple the mass of the 2.5m part, then your suggestion makes sense.

Assuming the part is a third thicker, then triple the mass scales linearly with part volume.

[SpacedInvader]

41 minutes ago, MatBailie said:

 

I'd just base it on mass.  If the 3.75m part is triple the mass of the 2.5m part, then your suggestion makes sense.

Assuming the part is a third thicker, then triple the mass scales linearly with part volume.

Hmm.... based on that, the 3.75m should be about 1.6x more effective. I'm thinking 1.5x is a nice round number... what do you think?

[MatBailie]

6 minutes ago, SpacedInvader said:

Hmm.... based on that, the 3.75m should be about 1.6x more effective. I'm thinking 1.5x is a nice round number... what do you think?

double diameter = quadruple area.

=> 3.75m part is 2.25 times the area of the 2.5m part.

If it's also a third thicker, and density stays the same, that's 3 times the mass.

EDIT:

I also see that the 2.5m part is both triple the mass and triple the capacity of the 1.25m part.

Edited February 15, 2017 by MatBailie

[SpacedInvader]

25 minutes ago, MatBailie said:

double diameter = quadruple area.

=> 3.75m part is 2.25 times the area of the 2.5m part.

If it's also a third thicker, and density stays the same, that's 3 times the mass.

EDIT:

I also see that the 2.5m part is both triple the mass and triple the capacity of the 1.25m part.

I'm going solely off the initial, unmodified mass of the 3.75m parts. As released, the 2.5m parts mass 1.44 and the 3.75m parts mass 2.4.

Edited February 15, 2017 by SpacedInvader

[MatBailie]

3 minutes ago, SpacedInvader said:

I'm going solely off the initial, unmodified mass of the 3.75m parts. As released, the 2.5m parts mass 1.44 and the 3.75m parts mass 2.4.

Then that's 15 kerbals.

Edited February 15, 2017 by MatBailie
duh, me no good maths

[SpacedInvader]

1 hour ago, MatBailie said:

Then that's 15 kerbals.

So does that sound like a decently balanced part? Add 1 ton and the extra diameter to support 6 extra kerbals, or should it be heavier / less efficient?

[KerbalMaster2016]

How to fix how much electric charge use doing transmission 

[SpacedInvader]

On 2/16/2017 at 7:18 AM, KerbalMaster2016 said:

How to fix how much electric charge use doing transmission 

What do you mean by "fix"?