SQUAD staff
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

7153 Excellent

About RoverDude

  • Rank
    Cat Herder
  1. No, but USI-LS is what turns things into tourists Hence why I say you are barking up the wrong tree on this one. Also, this was a USI-LS bug fixed in the 1.3.x version, not sure if it was fixed in a 1.2.x compatible version (it's probably noted in the USI-LS changelog) And I am investigating supplies not resetting things even as we speak - but please note that this will only be a fix in 1.3 So I've investigated the return of supplies not properly resetting Kerbals and cannot repro this on a 1.3.x save. So if anyone is experiencing this in KSP 1.3 with 1.3 compatible versions of USI-LS, etc. please let me know (and ideally show me a save).
  2. I expect you are barking up the wrong tree on this one. Do you have USI-LS installed? Bear in mind because you're on an older version there's very little we can do to help.
  3. parts

    If you replaced it with the newest version, it would totally not work in 1.2.x - it is all 1.3 now, which is probably why you are having a problem
  4. I'll have to assume this is sarcasm since we don't publish release dates prior to stuff going into experimentals (And even then... all we announce is that 'Experimentals have started' and the community begins various rounds of guessing on release dates). Huh, no idea why we have an entire team working on it then
  5. parts

    You would need a 1.2.2 version of USI_Tools as well then, since that is what handles the custom category.
  6. This is completely false. Good thing most modders really don't care whether a user thinks they are serious about their hobby or not. Because this is an unreasonable expectation.
  7. Hey @allista Sorry for the late reply, but here are some thoughts. Context wise, I'll be focusing on Core (the bit that MKS includes) understanding that there may be some differences with the full GC version First RE mass/balance. Mass should be the same - a 10 ton part should be assembled from 10 tons of resources. The reason you'd use GC is to reduce launch mass by leveraging local ISRU for MatKits, and to make it a lot easier to land something stuffed in a box or two vs. a more complex assembly. i.e. I like things the way they are For MKS, I also assume that the DIYKit itself is made up of the SpecializedParts component of any part that's built. I've had no issue with the costing of the DIYkit, as long as it's in the same ballpark we're good. Any variances will even out in the mix. For MatKits, as noted, the ISRU version is slow, but I would agree that this should be a fallback and overridden when other mods that provide their own chains are used. In the case of MKS, production speed is traded for resource complexity and infrastructure. Most of the time, I just ship the MatKits out until I have better infrastructure built up. Re de novo kit production. To paraphrase the flowchart, you need SpecParts to make a DIYkit. This is exactly how I would envision it for MKS (including the Machinery requirement). the only diff between GC with MKS and without is that without, you'd use ISRU to make everything (Machinery, matKits, SpecParts) where MKS has separate bits and workflow for this. From there, I agree with the flow RE spawning, etc. For transport, this IMO is an exercise for the user. the kit spawns, and is either in orbit (via hanger or attached to some other part with a decouple option like a dry dock), or spawns as a vessel on the ground (same way I do resouce lodes today in MKS - feel free to borrow any code!). You could also do the attach method on the ground I suppose. And in theory could also limit orbital vessel size to the dry dock dimension, thus encouraging more bootstrapping for larger and larger space docks. Transport in core GC could be as simple as running over with a claw. In MKS land, you would probably do something Akita based. Remember there's also the Osprey in the wings which can easily move some massive DIYKits.
  8. @Kerbal101 - You don't, it will need to be localized and a new release put out.
  9. You are confusing blunt criticism with unnecessary rudeness. As noted, PR's are welcome.
  10. Sorry that hard work that I do for free makes you want to stab yourself in the eye with a fork. What an inspiring post. [snip]
  11. @Gordon Dry - yep, what @goldenpsp said. I do not personally use FAR, so the best way to get additional mod interop is via a pull request.
  12. Point still stands though... It's one of those long-standing (though thankfully, diminishing) falsehoods that TAC-LS is *more* challenging than USI-LS. This was true at launch, but false once all of the config dials were added ages ago.
  13. I'd even add that I am unsure what challenge TAC-LS has that USI-LS does not given the multitude of configuration options
  14. Use the official version as that's the one I will be including in the next update
  15. @Delimetrius - I don;t see MKS in that list. Also are you using CKAN or installing manually? If manually, where are you getting your download? Lastly, be sure to use the newly released version of Ground Construction (with AT Utils) that just got released today.