[1.2.2] TestFlight - v1.8.0 - 01 May 2017 - Bring Flight Testing to KSP!

[NathanKell]

How is it not?

[gleedadswell]

Hello

Any chance to see this mod compatible with 64bits Linux please?

I've been running it in 64 bit linux. Seems to work just fine.

[GigaG]

I don't see TestFlight on CKAN yet. Can somebody send the request? I'm not experienced in doing that.

[NathanKell]

Made an issue on the repo.

[anxcon]

has this mod (or something extending this mod) added anything beyond tanks and engines yet?

[codepoet]

I have installed this mod via CKAN on my RO game, but do not get any new GUI elements that indicate it is there to interact with (with the exception of KCT having a "disable failures" button now). The log has a line in it saying "

TestFlightInterface: Could not find TestFlightInterop module"

What an I missing?

[anxcon]

I have installed this mod via CKAN on my RO game, but do not get any new GUI elements that indicate it is there to interact with (with the exception of KCT having a "disable failures" button now). The log has a line in it saying "

TestFlightInterface: Could not find TestFlightInterop module"

What an I missing?

sounds like you have the configs but not the core (the plugin itself)

[codepoet]

sounds like you have the configs but not the core (the plugin itself)

I have got:

TestFlight.dll

TestFlightAPI.dll

TestFlightContracts.dll

TestFlightCore.dll

in the plugin directory.

[NathanKell]

That's weird indeed. I'll give it a check on my end...

[MisterFister]

Are there any plans to make this compatible with the Dangit! mod (or one of the other failure and EVA repair mods)? It carries on some of the same principles but I think it could be made way better if it used progressive reliability vs everything having a set reliability the whole game

No, and frankly I don't understand why people keep asking me this? This and DangIt! basically do the same thing in totally different ways. How could they possibly work together? TestFlight is designed to simulate failures in a more realistic rather than random way, and to allow parts to improve in reliability through flight testing. AFAIK DangIt! is the exact opposite, making parts get worse with age based on an inventory system.

EDIT: Ok the above comes off more upset than it really is Really it isn't anger, its confusion. I honestly don't see how the two could possibly work together.

I can explain EXACTLY why people ask this. (In fact, I visited this thread to ask this very question.)

DangIt allows for part failures on a rather random basis, but does so for pretty much any part on a craft. Your mod allows for a specific pattern to be applied to the logic of when a part fails, but that pattern can only be applied / exploited (with test flights) by physically running the part, i.e., with engines and boosters running, mostly (according to your YouTube test footage -- I just discovered this mod on CKAN and haven't run it yet.)

By running both mods simultaneously, we can now have a realistic DangIt across all parts, but without it being totally arbitrary and random. Indeed, it might even allow for KIS specialization of the single-gender DangIt inventory resource, "spare parts." For example, different part failures (or different types of failure for the same part) can necessitate a different type of repair, perhaps even requiring a different type of SparePart resource / inventory item. It would then force designers and mission planners to anticipate what repairs might be more likely, or even if unlikely, would be so mission-critical that carrying a specific spare part would be justified despite a low likelihood of needing it. At the same time, while it's easy to "test fire" an engine with three orange tanks of fuel, or a booster, all on a set of un-released launch clamps on the launch pad, or even organically in flight with risk of failure (having to plan for abort contingencies) etc., it's rather difficult to "run" a floodlight, or to "run" a solar panel, or to "run" a parachute. So while TestFlight data can be "gamed" by simply investing in a few tanks of fuel to fire an engine on the launchpad, lights and life support parts and KAS winches and solar panels and parachutes really DO have to be strapped to missions and flown in realworld scenarios before being certified for use as primary systems on dangerous interplanetary missions. (To be sure, the TestFlight module curve for those occasional use items such as parachutes can have a different accrual constant as a balancing issue.) With DangIt alone, I just need to split my engineering; instead of sending an automated Eve probe with a single large capacity battery beyond the 10ec built into the probe core (See

from 8:47-10:25) I'll send a probe with two or three smaller batteries for the same overall ec capacity. Combine your mod here, and that workaround becomes slightly less viable, since not only could the batteries be tested beforehand so as to reduce this possibility to begin with (perhaps at 80% reliability, failures on non-engine-type-parts could be just as frequent as at 50%, but likely to be less severe) or, at the very least, sending multiple batteries along afford me greater opportunity to amass du for analysis, thereby providing an incentive to return the craft to Kerbin and recover it on the surface (not only do I get greater Science and Funds that way, but physically recovering the used parts is how I make the parts more reliable in the future.)

I'll even go beyond that -- we have TACLS, which I mentioned; what about things like BDArmory, or Kerbal Construction Time? With KCT, what if I'm planning an emergency rescue mission because I accidentally hit the spacebar while in munar orbit and detached my primary capsule from my service module that housed all of my TACLS resources? (See http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/92377-1-0-4-Kerbal-Construction-Time-1-2-2-%288-26-15%29-Unrapid-Planned-Assembly/page8?p=1405649#post1405649) I need to design a rescue craft that I can not only afford with funds in career mode (RO or stock-scale); that can rush to the launchpad and achieve orbit before the in-capsule resources are exhausted; but I also have to worry about using untested equipment on said rescue craft design? This is closer to RO-type safety margins, where if I'm sending a mission to the Mun, I need to pre-launch my potential automated rescue craft almost before the staging incident occurs in order to achieve my safety margin. Allowing for emergency reconnect procedures, such as with a KAS winch cable, so as to suckle off the staged resource levels, prolly wouldn't hurt either. KCT already allows me to enjoy faster build times for often-built parts, and faster than that for parts recovered and in inventory from previous missions; your mod allows for those parts to also be more reliable if they're not even ORDERED until after my test flight is recovered at KSC.

I see a LOT of potential with this truly awesome mod, man, and I'm very excited to see how it turns out. I often play very mod-heavy, but often in stock-scale, or possible 64k.

tl;dr: Yes, DangIt and TestFlight do the same thing in different ways. Both ways are cool. I intend to experiment with installing both at once and will report back to you. That said, it would be nice if your reliability curve could be used by DangIt.

Separate question: The CKAN metadata file has your old, LOCKED forum thread linked to it. Would it be imposing for me to ask that you update the respository metadata file so as to point users like me to this thread directly? Thanks, man!

[razark]

Is anyone actively working on this, or did it die out?

[MisterFister]

Is anyone actively working on this, or did it die out?

I'm not entirely sure myself, but recent activity on this thread seems to be less than two weeks old.

[razark]

I'm not entirely sure myself, but recent activity on this thread seems to be less than two weeks old.

But the mod author has been absent for three months, at least from here. I don't know if there's some activity on this mod elsewhere.

[Sampa]

Hey, what mods are supported under this? Does this somehow affect the in flight characteristics and general stability of a rocket (like raidernick's Proton)?

[nablabla]

I am sorry, but this is no good.

It was added by ckan automatically, I did not even realize that it existed, it just drives me nuts. If a rocket fails, the mission is garbage, that is the not fun part of rocket science, why would you add that to a game?

You have to do it again because of a not-your-own-fault. I already have to do every thing 4 times due to bugs of the game, so this is problems².

Then it destroyed 4 rockets which i brought into orbit, it said airobee sustainer failed (to ignite ur something else)

And the reward I got for doing was that its reliability was increasted from 180 to 200 seconds, really?

I understand that some people want to have this, but why is it included in realistic progression/realistic overhaul?

[NathanKell]

First of all, you may be confusing this mod with the ullage simulation and limited ignitions in RealFuels itself.

Second, I agree it's not for everyone, but it certainly does add to the realism factor, and this *is* Realism Overhaul, and Realistic Progression Zero. If it bugs you, though, uninstall it--it's that simple.

[Viper_607]

I'm curious as to how the R&D (Use R&D teams to improve a part) part of the mod works as currently, that screen seems to be blank.

[NathanKell]

Don't think it ever got added...

[anxcon]

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/137450-1-0-x-WIP%21-TestFlightExtended-v1-0-2

extending testflight to include more failure options, any part that can fail i'm gonna make it fail

any suggestions / wants post em in my thread

also i only play RO (rather a custom install of it) so anyone who wants to add configs for failures to parts is welcome

[Agathorn]

BBCode Change Log
-----------------------------


[SIZE=4][B]Release 1.4 (v1.4.0.2)[/B][/SIZE]
[URL="https://github.com/KSP-RO/TestFlight/releases/tag/1.4.0.2"]GitHub[/URL], or [URL="https://kerbalstuff.com/mod/572/TestFlight"]KerbalStuff[/URL]

[SIZE=3][B]Highlights[/B][/SIZE]

[B]KSP v1.0.5 Compatible[/B]

[B]Project is now part of KSP-RO![/B]
First I want to apologize to everyone for, well, just vanishing, like I did. I started a new job a while back and quickly just got completely busy and overwhelmed and just stopped doing anything KSP related, including working on my mods. Things aren't as busy for me anymore, but frankly in all this time I have drifted far away from KSP and in fact am now working on my own game!

Now what does that mean for TestFlight? While I am not actively working or support this mod anymore, I am still around. TestFlight has been moved into the KSP-RO family where it can be more easily maintained by multiple people, and I will continue to provide support and pieces of development *when able*. In short, you can still enjoy this wonderful (if I do say so myself) mod, but it will be in more of a maintenance mode rather than mad active development like it was in the past.

New configs will be coming down the pipe shortly to allow TF to be used in even more parts.

[B][SIZE=3]Change Log[/SIZE][/B]

•[B]FIX[/B]: Fixes Issue #82 LR-105 engine misconfigured in RO configs
•[B]CONFIGS - RO[/B]: Added LR-91 (-5, -7, -9, -11, -11A models) configs to the FASA Gemini LR-91 model. [B]Thanks @stratochief66![/B]
•[B]API[/B]: baseFailureRate and momentaryFailureRate, as well as momentary failure rate modifiers are all treated internally as doubles now for extra precision with very small failure rates. All API calls utilizing any of these values now return and expect doubles.
•[B]CONFIGS - ALL[/B]: Added new property to TestFlightCore, failureRateModifier which defaults to 1. This is a flat, fixed, modifier applied to the calculated baseFailureRate which can be used to force smaller values than is possible normally due to 32 bit restrictions in KSP.
•[B]NEW[/B]: In order to accommodate very small failure rates, the core has been reworked to use 64 bit double precision floats internally. This allows failure rates as low as .00000000000001. However, KSP itself will not persist doubles, only floats. Further more, by their very nature FloatCurves, which are used to define the failure rate curves, have to be floats. This means that while internally the failure rate can be much lower than before, KSP will still only allow you to specify failure rate values down to .0000001 (This is one significant digit lower than previous). In order to get even smaller values than that, use the new property on TestFlightCore failureRateModifier to force it even lower. Setting both the failureRate and the failureRateModifier to the smallest float value of .0000001 will result in a calculated failureRate internally of the min rate, .00000000000001
•[B]CONFIGS - RO[/B]: Update RO configs for RO 10.0
[INDENT]
•Aerobee configs were renamed
•RL, AJ, and LR no longer have a dash (Only the last was relevant here)
[/INDENT]
•[B]NEW[/B]: Recompiled for KSP v1.0.5
•[B]CHANGED[/B]: Updated ContractConfigurator to 1.8.1
•[B]NEW[/B]: Added support for lots of different parts thanks to the awesome work of @anxcon. New part support includes: Avionics, Docking Rings, FAR Control Surfaces, Gimbals, Reaction Wheels, Solar Panels, Heat Shields and more! [B]Major thanks to @anxcon![/B]

[lextacy]

is there an "engines overheated" section available in this mod to add to my engines?

[MajorLeaugeRocketScience]

Question: does this come with engines or does it add different variations to other modded engines?

[lextacy]

[quote name='MajorLeaugeRocketScience']Question: does this come with engines or does it add different variations to other modded engines?[/QUOTE]

no engines, but it offers configs to use for mods and stock enignes

[singesavant]

hi there,

 

I am new on the forum even though I ve been playing on ksp for a while now... and always been willing to run this mod!

Unfortunately I can t get to work on my 1.05...

 

I am trying to run the stock version since I do not use realism overhaul, but no success... I tried using ckan to uninstal, reinsatall...

While ingame it shows the tab and menu options but I can not select no GUI on the craft and get no data out of the parts.

 

Any advices anyone?

 

Thanks in advance

 

Davy

 

 

[GhostMonkeyNKHI]

Cool mod idea.

I've been playing around with it, and the failure rate seems pretty high, though.  Maybe that's intended, in which case fair enough, or maybe I am doing something wrong?

I feel like I've hit 10,000du pretty early on with many of the early tier parts, and yet the batteries and fuel tanks only have 833 minutes MTBF.  It feels like I am dealing with Apollo 13 style catastrophies on nearly every Mun trip, and there is nothing I can do about the parts that seem to have reached max reliability.  I am beginning to feel like Minmus is a stretch, and can't even comprehend putting a anything on Duna.

Is this the intended play mode?  Have I broken the configuration (I used "Stock", since I don't play with RO) somehow?  Is this a bug?
Help!