search

KSP-RO / RP-1

Realistic Progression One - Career mode for Realism Overhaul
Other
345 stars 215 forks source link

ReStock vs Ven's in 1.6 and Beyond #1078

Closed pap1723 closed 3 years ago

pap1723 commented 5 years ago

I am leaning towards making Restock a dependency for the 1.6+ versions of RP-1. We currently rely on Ven's to replace the "not great stock items" but it is not a mod that has seen a real release on CKAN since the 1.3.1 days. It still has some updates and can be a manual download, but the quality of the stuff is not as good as Restock. I went through all of the parts for Ven's vs Restock and have my notes below.

Here is my proposal...(but I can talked out of this if you have compelling reasons why)

I have gone through all of the Ven's, Restock and Stock parts and have comments on them below. Please let me know your thoughts. All of the ones I have listed below as integrate come out to 31 parts. This adds a lot of overhead to RP-1 and is not ideal. I guess we could package it as a separate RPO-Vens mod?

The challenge of trying to support both Restock and Ven's is how the model replacements are handled by both mods. We could do it, and it might be the best option, but it will take a lot of wrangling and changes to get it to work.

Ven's Additional Parts

These are the parts that do not exist in stock, so we need to decide whether to integrate them into RP-1 or not. I have my recommendations on them, but will listen to all ideas.

CREW

ENGINES

CONTROL

STRUCTURAL

OTHER

POWER AND COMMS

UTILITY

Superior Models to Stock / Restock

Most of these are ones that Restock does differently, or does not yet touch. These should also be included.

Support as Part Variants Possibly

PhineasFreak commented 5 years ago

Other notes as part of a personal "RO-Restock-VSR" integration foray:

(holy cow, a wall of text!)

Edit: also, the more i look at what SSTU provides the more i believe that it could be the ideal replacement for a ton of other mods that provide engines/tanks/habitats. It would be a huge undertaking to get it fully compatible with RO but not impossible. Other mods could then be used to add models for other purposes (like the engine clusters).

kurgut commented 5 years ago

However, for restock & restock plus, I noticed on almost every engine some inconsistencies in relation to FAR: eg, take the lvt-45, the botail variant should give way better performance (aera cross section smthg, don't remember exactly the name, it's in transonic design tab), whereas it doesn't. the " standard mounted" version does however : can see it when displaying debug voxels, which are consequently kinda messed up. Don't know if it matters, but it did at least when I tested it in stock.

PhineasFreak commented 5 years ago

What version of FAR are you using? The latest FAR release includes fixes for various voxelization issues, including many that were previously present on 100% stock parts but were caught just because of RS.

kurgut commented 5 years ago

0.15.10.1, from few days, as latest restock

PhineasFreak commented 5 years ago

That sounds like a bug. I'd report the findings to the Restock repository.

blowfishpro commented 5 years ago

All Restock parts use the original part’s collider at least for the default variant. They may need to force FAR to use meshes over colliders.

MikeOnTea commented 5 years ago 
* Communotron 88-88-V (remove, not currently used -> Pending Comms Overhaul?)

I've looked at all the antennas and i prefer the restock versions, i don't think we need to keep vens here for anything antenna related. Restock+ adds a few more antennas including one that is similar but looks better than the 88-88 from Vens.

* The Restock versions of the LV-1 is much better than the VSR one (allows more realistic versions of the Generic 1 & 2 kN Thrusters, along with TD-339 and Aerobee).

Have you checked our current 1/2 kn thrusters? They don't use Ven's LV-1 model but its OMS-Large model, which i think is very decent. The restock LV-1 on the other hand has a huge base which has a much larger diameter than the nozzle itself, so i prefer Ven's model here i think.

Also, shouldn't parts rather be added to RO (or some RO suggested mod created by us) instead of RP0 instead? RO isn't supposed to be a part mod, but shouldn't that apply even more to RP0? You shouldn't need to install RP-0 when all you want to do is building beautiful rockets, you should only need to install rp-0 for the career/contracts/tech tree.

PhineasFreak commented 5 years ago

They don't use Ven's LV-1 model but its OMS-Large model, which i think is very decent.

My bad, forgot that you updated the parts to use the "Astris" model. I concur, the new model is better.

Also, shouldn't parts rather be added to RO (or some RO suggested mod created by us) instead of RP0 instead?

Of course! I have been pointing that out for a long time, especially since many newer RP-1 parts are locked behind it and making it impossible to open craft files if you don't have RP-1 (+ a ton of other dependent mods) installed.

pap1723 commented 5 years ago

@MikeOnTea you are right about the engines and what I actually did was add the Vens OMS and Sepatron model to RO since they are so much better.

As to why parts are not typically added to RO... RO has no dependencies other than what is necessary for it to function. That isn't going to change. On the other hand, RP-1 requires Vens and SXT so having new parts added to it makes sense.

PhineasFreak commented 5 years ago

And again, RP-1 is about:

And not for:

Otherwise why not just merge the two mods? It will be much easier, since you could configure directly a part for both the above major categories and cut down on repository maintenance. But a long time ago they got separated, and for good reasons (nothing in common, ease of mod maintenance, can be released even if the other mod does not require updating, cuts down on dependent mods that need to be installed if someone does not want career mode).

Now, what happens if you have RO parts in RP-1? If someone wants these parts then he/she is forced to install RP-1. And Contract Configurator. And CBK. And KCT. And having to apply 25000 MM patches instead of just 8000. And having unnecessary overhead on sandbox mode.

Just my 2 cents.

DRVeyl commented 4 years ago

Given VSR is actively maintained again, and we have resolved some compatibility issues with ReStock as well, is this still an open issue? I've done a fair bit of work on the RO side addressing ReStock + VSR/VNP patching to ensure consistent part stats. VSR core and ReStock do not create any parts, just improve the visual appearance. I don't know that making either a requirement makes sense.

We have made VNP a requirement for some parts. There are a few custom parts we make that we construct from multiple VSR/VNP models. (Currently, some compressors on a few AJE engines.)

If you want to address preferences for one model supplier over another, especially where your preferences change based on the part... I think we'll suffer a lot of headaches trying to sort out the direct conflict between ReStock and the VSR/Squad patches. Also that they (correctly) mark themselves as conflicting via CKAN.

siimav commented 3 years ago

I think the VSR vs Restock situation should be mostly solved now? Some VSR jet engine bits were moved directly to RO so both of the mods should be equivalent.