DStaal

Members
  • Content count

    1766
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

816 Excellent

1 Follower

About DStaal

  • Rank
    Capsule Communicator
  1. Can you try with and without Angle Snap on in EEX? (And try with various angles it's snapping to?)
  2. Quote, delete what you don't want, Quote, delete what you don't want... Ad nausium. I'm sure you can stick a Kerbal in a workbench, EVA them from there, and deploy a module with them using the resources in the workbench. That does depend a bit on how a particular player builds bases. I tend to land out smaller pieces that may not have enough to do things on their own and join them up. It's not uncommon to have my first crew of Kerbals sit out half a night with no power... Later on, sure - I'll have added on more power and generation to handle things. But that may not have been my top priority. In RoverDude's code, yeah. It's not something in the config file however. (And honestly, if this is the type of thing you're looking for - install Pathfinder and ignore this mod. You'll get this type of behavior out of the KPBS parts.) It's not exposed to modification though. There would need to be a change in the plugins we're piggybacking on. (I'm not writing a plugin for this mod. It kinda would defeat the purpose.) No particular coding reason - but as a player, if I saw these three parts that had the same size and form factor, and deployed in the same way, I'd expect them to have the same cost to deploy. These aren't inflatables, and their IVAs show layouts that are designed to not interfere with each other in their collapsed state (and are bolted in), so I don't think we need to account for interior furnishings. I'm open to the idea of specific costs on top of that - but you'd have to really talk me into it if you want more resources, as even just playing around with both MaterialKits and SpecializedParts was easily more than twice as annoying in my opinion. I made the point earlier that there's no real gameplay difference between 1 and 100 units of any resource - either one means you can deploy multiple from one of the smallest container available. There's also no real gameplay difference between 2 units of different resources and *400* units of one resource - either way you need two of the smallest containers. You can always recover MaterialKits from discarded parts however - that's a zero-tier solution for small amounts. (And we are talking small amounts.) Water is first-tier - if you have a drill. Which is 0.9 tons of equipment that will be useless once the Greenhouse is deployed - because the Greenhouse doesn't use water. (Ok, the two planetary cultivators we add based on the greenhouse do. But the actual 'Greenhouse' doesn't. ) Oh, and of course you can't depend on water everywhere you'd want a base. So it'd become actually *easier* to ship it up. In a container. Which you'll never use again, until you expand to having a Central Hub, most likely. So it's annoying - It's a hoop that doesn't have anything to do with the part, and which doesn't add to anything that the part will be useful for down the road. It *might* be useful in a large base - but it doesn't have to be, and it's usefulness is entirely situational and dependent on your later plans. Whereas MaterialKits - you almost always have a couple of descent engines you never plan on using again. They'll provide enough MaterialKits to deploy a part or two, and then you can use what's left over to do routine maintenance on your production equipment - including your Greenhouse. If you're using a Workshop for that storage, it has enough for the initial deployment, and your Engineer can then make that their work post to keep your base in good shape. It all builds on each other, instead of being an extra piece off to the side.
  3. I believe no license means All Rights Reserved - that's basically the default under copyright law. The BSD license is actually very open - Open it's very close to public domain, except that you retain copyright and that must be acknowledged. Two things make it less common: First off, it's open enough that people can actually take your code and use it in *non* open-source products. They have to credit you, but that's it. Secondly, 'BSD License' referrers to (as on the Wikipedia page you linked) four similar but not exactly the same licenses, some of which are incompatible with GPL for instance. Quite often people will go with other equivalent licenses just to prevent confusion. (My KPBStoMKS mod for example: The MIT license is essentially the same as a BSD license - but only one variant. So it's therefore less ambiguous.)
  4. It's almost completely stand alone: It can receive power via local logistics. Other than that, it's just a solar-powered light source.
  5. I'm guessing there was a force-transfer as the parts attempted to dock - and KSP just gave up on working it all out.
  6. I think you're misunderstanding 'deployment' - it's not a noun, it's a verb. You don't produce it, it's something you do. The parts don't produce *anything* unless they are deployed, because they're in a stowed state. And the volume of a part doesn't have any direct relation to it's mass, so you can't say 'I need this much mass to gain this much volume' - some parts are denser than others.
  7. You wouldn't happen to be using my KPBStoMKS pack by any chance, would you? It re-uses that model for a power distribution part.
  8. Yep. Linked earlier in the thread, and I have a downloaded version. Note quite: Inflatables mass up by using MaterialKits. So to double your mass you need your mass in MaterialKits. We don't want to do that, because we're pretty set on our mass already. The productivity bonus is a separate mechanic. Nope. RD's calculations don't link mass to volume directly. (There are often linked indirectly by what you are setting up, but you don't spend mass to get volume.) 200 MK's are 0.2 tons. How many kilograms that is depends on which 'ton' you're using. It's also 200 liters of storage space, which is how we're tending to think of things. Current thought is to use ~100 MK's to deploy one module - which seems reasonable for materials to secure and seal the deployment.
  9. Because there's a big difference between 'I can fit the screws we'll need in my pocket' and 'we need to be able to refit the entire interior when we get there'. The main question is: How *many* resources do you need? A Workbench can hold ~200. Is that enough for one module's deployment? Two? Twenty? Or do you need more than that?
  10. I haven't had any trouble with it.
  11. Yep, all of the above discussion only applies if MKS is installed. And if you have this mod (and MKS) you have both the Workbench - a part with a seat and MaterialKits storage, among other things - and several sizes of Kontainers that can hold all of the MKS resources, just like USI's Kontainers - except in KPBS form. That includes both sizes of rack-mount container, as well as two larger sizes in the full KPBS form factor. All of the above is dependent on having MKS and this mod installed. So we've got that covered.
  12. The gas turbine is basically a generator, right? Could you just run using ModuleGenerator or ModuleResourceConverter instead of making it an engine?
  13. Sounds good. I've started a feature branch for stage 3, if you want to start playing around. Yeah, I don't think several Kerbals is possible. (I suspect requiring EVA is a bit of a hack in that making it 'EVA-only' means you can require there to be a Kerbal there to do EVA...) Would still like to have some concept of what '1 EC' is though.
  14. Thanks, @Hofelinger. It's good to get some ideas bounced around. If nothing else, it helps make sure you don't overlook something. I believe so. I may do a test run a bit later this afternoon before pushing it, just to make sure I didn't mess anything up with merging. Sounds decent to me. It wouldn't get to the problem we have with the main greenhouse: That's because we wanted one USI module (the habitation) to stay constant while we switch the others. USI's switchable converters apparently can't do that - they just allow you to switch between any USI modules present. I haven't looked to closely at the efficiency part mechanic myself, but we should have one in that size at the very least. Likely swapping that part is a good way to do it. Point... I'd forgotten about that. I was thinking about them running around inside securing everything - which would be a drill or electric screwdriver - but the actual expansion is probably the biggest user of EC. (You probably *could* make it possible to do by hand, with clever engineering and leverage, but putting it on a motor is likely easier.)
  15. I believe the KPBS part recycler should work exactly the same as EL's - It's just a different part which uses the same part modules behind the scenes. (Basically: It *is* an EL recycler. It just looks different.)