[DISPLAY] Hardware % Gauge inconsistency (Mercury)

Moderators: Nacho84, N_Molson

Post Reply
N_Molson
SPM Contributor
SPM Contributor
Posts: 233
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 2:55 pm
Location: Toulouse, France

[DISPLAY] Hardware % Gauge inconsistency (Mercury)

Post by N_Molson » Sat Nov 02, 2013 12:56 am

As the screenshot shows, it seems there are some inconsistencies between the hardware safety factor and the % displayed by the "Safety Gauge" : as you can see here, the Gauge displays around 53%, while the actual safety factor of the capsule is 76%, as correctly shown in the down-right box.

This is a manned suborbital flight, that came after the now working unmanned suborbital flight.

Image

Config :

- BASM v0.7.3 (Nov 1 2013)
- Windows 7 Premium Home edition (x64) SP1 (French)
- AMD Athlon II X2 245 Processor 64 bits-able 2.91Ghz
- 4MB RAM
- NVIDIA GT240
Nicolas Escats
Buzz Aldrin's Space Program Manager Contributor

Nacho84
SPM Moderator
SPM Moderator
Posts: 1382
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 6:32 pm
Location: Brighton, UK

Re: [DISPLAY] Hardware % Gauge inconsistency (Mercury)

Post by Nacho84 » Sun Nov 03, 2013 9:25 am

Hello N_Molson,

Thanks for reporting this. Do you have a savefile?

Cheers,
Ignacio Liverotti
Lead Developer of Buzz Aldrin's Space Program Manager

Polar Motion
Twitter

N_Molson
SPM Contributor
SPM Contributor
Posts: 233
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 2:55 pm
Location: Toulouse, France

Re: [DISPLAY] Hardware % Gauge inconsistency (Mercury)

Post by N_Molson » Sun Nov 03, 2013 4:49 pm

Hello,

I was able to reproduce it, same outcome :

- Mercury unmanned suborbital : gauge works well. Mission successful.
- Mercury manned suborbital : gauge displays a good -10%. Mission failure (Ascent). I wonder if the penalty for skipping the unmanned flight could apply when it shouldn't.

Here's a savefile, autosave right before the failed manned suborbital :
Attachments
AutoSave-2013-11-03-173158-1961-1.zip
(8.46 KiB) Downloaded 162 times
Nicolas Escats
Buzz Aldrin's Space Program Manager Contributor

Nacho84
SPM Moderator
SPM Moderator
Posts: 1382
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 6:32 pm
Location: Brighton, UK

Re: [DISPLAY] Hardware % Gauge inconsistency (Mercury)

Post by Nacho84 » Sun Nov 03, 2013 5:55 pm

Oh, I see. No, the value you're getting in the gauge is correct, the problem is that the associated label is a bit misleading. For manned missions, the components' reliabilities get multiplied by the astronauts skills used in that missions step, so it's fine. I've changed the label to "Mission Step Probability Of Success %", though, as it better reflects the meaning of that value.

Cheers,
Ignacio Liverotti
Lead Developer of Buzz Aldrin's Space Program Manager

Polar Motion
Twitter

N_Molson
SPM Contributor
SPM Contributor
Posts: 233
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 2:55 pm
Location: Toulouse, France

Re: [DISPLAY] Hardware % Gauge inconsistency (Mercury)

Post by N_Molson » Sun Nov 03, 2013 6:34 pm

So assuming Mercury is fully researched and tested, plus my astronaut skill of 94% (if I remember well) it is :

0.76 * 0.94 = 0.7144... ?

But the gauge looks lower than that, more 66%... Then maybe penalties are added for the flight controllers involved in the current step ?

I tried again and it seems that the figures doesn't add up. The unmanned mission was a success again, the manned mission failed again. Here's what I get :

- Astronaut skill : 94%
- Hardware average reliability : 73%
- Redstone booster reliability : 71%
- Mercury capsule reliability : 75%
- Gauge displays 61% while the Redstone booster is active, and 65% while the Mercury is active.

Is there a problem with the mission controllers then (they are all very skilled, though) ?
Nicolas Escats
Buzz Aldrin's Space Program Manager Contributor

Nacho84
SPM Moderator
SPM Moderator
Posts: 1382
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 6:32 pm
Location: Brighton, UK

Re: [DISPLAY] Hardware % Gauge inconsistency (Mercury)

Post by Nacho84 » Fri Nov 08, 2013 9:38 am

N_Molson wrote:So assuming Mercury is fully researched and tested, plus my astronaut skill of 94% (if I remember well) it is :

0.76 * 0.94 = 0.7144... ?

But the gauge looks lower than that, more 66%... Then maybe penalties are added for the flight controllers involved in the current step ?

I tried again and it seems that the figures doesn't add up. The unmanned mission was a success again, the manned mission failed again. Here's what I get :

- Astronaut skill : 94%
- Hardware average reliability : 73%
- Redstone booster reliability : 71%
- Mercury capsule reliability : 75%
- Gauge displays 61% while the Redstone booster is active, and 65% while the Mercury is active.

Is there a problem with the mission controllers then (they are all very skilled, though) ?
Apologies for the late reply, I got sidetracked with other issues.

The problem with the inconsistency you spotted had to do with the fact that I was not showing the right astronauts skills and their associated values in the lower right panel. In a typical mission simulation file for a manned mission, we have an entry for each astronaut involves in said step. For example:

<AstronautInvolved SlotID='0' Amount='100' NumSkillsUsed='3' SkillUsedIndex0='0' SkillUsedIndex1='1' SkillUsedIndex2='4'/>

The problem with the mission you pointed out was that I was only showing one of the skills and the value associated with it. I've changed that and now it shows the names of all skills in use (3 skills for this example) and their average value, which is effectively the astronaut's contribution on this mission step. The fix made it to the patch I'm uploading now to Matrix servers, which (fingers crossed) will go live today.

I still need to do some heavy editing on the script files, but we're one step closer.

Cheers,
Ignacio Liverotti
Lead Developer of Buzz Aldrin's Space Program Manager

Polar Motion
Twitter

Post Reply

Return to “Buzz Aldrin's Space Program Manager : Tech Support”