Merkov

Members
  • Content count

    473
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

207 Excellent

About Merkov

  • Rank
    Sr. Spacecraft Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

2330 profile views
  1. @Hofelinger if there is one thing I'm good at, it's talking! Cool. I don't recall reading much about efficiency parts. I'll try to get some research done into them, see what I can come up with. If we could somehow make expansion require several kerbals, I'd be okay with that and a much lower EC cost. I don't think that's doable without writing our on DLL. I mean, it's possible to argue that the base parts are very smartly designed to use some crank system or something, I think it's reasonable to assume that there is a decent amount of motorized assistance.
  2. Sweet. Those commit comments you have look perfect. I don't think there's any point in getting any more detailed than that. If you want more info, look at the commit. Does that mean that everything we want to push to Nils is done...? Off topic: for the stage 3 release, how do you feel about the greenhouse container getting a swappable efficiency part setting? Or does that just run us into the same problem as with the greenhouse config issue? I think we discussed this already, but cultivation in the greenhouse container doesn't make much sense to me, nor does swapping to such modes, since you'd have to access it from the outside, through a vacuum. I don't know exactly how the "efficiency part" mechanic is supposed to mean to work, but I think it might make sense that it doesn't need to change substantially to go from being a converter to supporting another. Maybe. I don't know how much EC 1 EC is, but I'm not sure if the EC required would just be a couple of drill batteries. Is there any power involved in the actual deployment of the base sides? They seem like they should be more massive than 1 kerbal can pull out on his or her own. Maybe I'm wrong.
  3. Okay, how would you like me to start? Should I make a new document in the USI_LS folder and just list changes? Okay. Still have no idea how much EC we should use. I suppose the big thing with EC is that whatever amount we decide on, you would need to have as much storage available, right? I don't think the DLL doesn't let you can't put 500 in now, and then recharge a bit and put in another 500 later. In that case, we have to decide how much EC storage we want to 'force' the player to have on the ground. Unless I'm blind, the only K&K battery is the 3K one? I'm almost thinking 1000 EC. That way, if you have a KPBS container rack with a 3K battery, the cost is trivial. If you're trying to do it with radial-attached z-100s, it isn't trivial. I think this rewards being somewhat prepared. You don't need any crazy resource chain, but you can't just use a pile of debris to set up your habitat and greenhouse. As an aside, I always loved the huge batteries that NFE adds, but never liked the rest of NFE. I actually made a folder called NFEBatteries in my GameData folder and just put the batteries in there so I can add them to my stations. My habit of doing things like that makes me wish that there was a huge KPBS battery, but I also don't think there's actually any need for one, I just have a problem. Edit: I just noticed that you renamed my silly refresher to scrubber. I'm going to be honest, in order to remind myself that this was supposed to be a low tech, low efficiency part, I was looking for the least scientific name possible for that thing. When I started playing with my own numbers, the spreadsheet I had saved was called "Febreze module". Scrubber sounds better
  4. Sweet! I have been rather stuck away from my own computer lately, so I haven't really done anything useful for a while. How specific do we want the changelog to be? Also, since the USI-LS specific tweaks are going into KPBS proper, how do we (or perhaps, do we) document those on our side? On the one hand, it seems weird to have two "mods" both listing the exact same changes listed, when really only KPBS will have the changes. On the other hand, Nils will likely put a "updated USI-LS configs (thanks DStaal)" sort of a thing, so maybe having a specific listing of what we have done on this side, while making it clear that the changes were merged directly into KPBS is the right thing to do? I like your idea of making the Workbench a handy way to deploy a part. The Workbenches each hold 200 MaterialKits. My thinking is: even if it shouldn't take a lot of "stuff" to deploy these parts, I'm not sure if I like the idea of being able to scrap a few solar panels off of a transit stage and suddenly having enough MaterialKits to deploy something. If I was to suggest a gameplay:realism balance suggestion, I'd probably go with 100 MaterialKits? You're still likely able to get everything you need by scrapping an entire transit stage, but it isn't completely trivial. I also don't think that 100 is overly onerous, either. Like you said earlier, gameplay-wise, there really isn't much difference between 1 and 100 MaterialKits.
  5. Yeah, they attach in the sense that they have attachment nodes, so they can be hooked together in the editor, same way two fuel tanks can be attached in the editor. Just to re-iterate, the issue with docking isn't going to be from CLS, but from Konstruction (if you don't recognize that mod name, you might have gotten it as a part of MKS, if you have that).
  6. Ah, I see. But it's just 5 extra moduley-bits in one config. I forgot to consider that my proposal makes agroponics the only version of supply generation that also includes hab, which is a bit weird. I didn't think adding 5 other modes would be a big deal, since it's just one config file and a bunch of spreadsheet work, but it looks a bit weird now that I look at it. As soon as I typed Ikea, it suddenly occurred to me that if important bits can fit in a Ground Construction DIY kit, they can fit into a base structure. The only thing I don't really know is how would one go about sealing this thing? Those joints have to be able to handle an atmosphere of pressure (from both the inside, on an atmosphereless world, and the outside, say on Eve) and not leak even if they are hit with debris and the like. Do the structures themselves have the sealing baked into the mating surfaces, and its just a matter of holding everything together with rivets? In that case, we're probably talking a lot of rivets, but JUST rivets. I'm thinking of airplane parts. Those things are COVERED in rivets.
  7. I don't think the hatches are why you're having trouble docking, I think it's the construction port that's giving you grief. They come from RoverDude's Konstruction mod. They can only dock with another construction port (that is, not a regular clamp-o-tron) and, if snap is enabled on one, then it must also be enabled on the other. If snap is enabled on both, then there are only certain orientations that will allow them to dock, which is somehow managed using the "angle" tweakable. If snap is disabled on both, then they should mate in any orientation. As for the hatches, I'm pretty sure CLS does not allow you to open hatches on docking ports that are not docked, since that would mean exposing the inside of your vessel to the vacuum of space.
  8. I still don't... quite... understand, but I am going to defer to you on this. I think I'm learning, but I'm still at the 'any day my computer doesn't catch fire is a good day' level of modding. This also goes with your comment just above this. I think mainly I just like RDs deployment method because it costs resources, but also requires a kerbal on EVA. I like the gameplay element of needing something to do the deployment vs just landing a K&K Science Lab and it autonomously deploying. Part of me wishes that it was a big number so that you actually have to have some prep work in place to deploy the parts. Then again, part of me thinks it should only be 5 because the modules are already mostly solid, so the parts are things like bolts and seals. Still another part of me thinks that most of your specialized equipment wouldn't be transported in the base parts itself, so the material cost should be higher... I'm all over the place. I think EC cost should be high for the reasons you mentioned above. I still don't know what that will mean, but it may depend on what we decide on for the MaterialKit cost. If these things cost 1/5 as many MaterialKits to inflate as a Ranger Hab or Ag module, maybe it costs 5 times as much EC? I don't know. The Hab and Greenhouse should probably have the same deployment cost, but I'm wondering if the Science Lab shouldn't cost SpecializedParts instead/as well. The idea being that your specialized scientific equipment isn't just crammed inside the module. (Then again, maybe KPBS is the kerbal version of Ikea and they're just really good at that.) I think a lab costing SpecializedParts to deploy instead of MaterialKits would also add a nice "stage 3 similar-but-different" to MKS feel, but that's just me. If I had to throw out a random number for the MaterialKits, I'd say 100. I can't defend that number, but that's what I'd come up with.
  9. Just a small FYI: On page 63 of the Kopernicus thread there is a bit of a discussion about Kopernicus-induced lag. Poodmund had a user test his base on Minmus as well as Eeloo. When the lag appeared on the Mun and Eeloo, but not Minmus, he had this to say: I have NO idea as to what that means, but I have a feeling you guys may be chasing a bit of the same bug. It may be worth having a quick scan of the Kopernicus thread. Maybe some of this info can help the guys there figure out what's going on?
  10. I'm confused. I listed 4 swappable functions that the second greenhouse would have (Mulch + Fertilizer = Supplies; Dirt + Water + Fertilizer = Supplies; Substrate + Water + Fertilizer = Supplies; Pure hab bonus; and efficiency part). If they were not swappable, wouldn't that mean 4 more greenhouses for a total of 6? Yeah, a small MaterialKits + EC cost seems like the right way to go.
  11. One option, though not a perfect one, is to mention it explicitly in the part description.
  12. I imagine one would be our current agroponics + hab. The other would swap between agroponics, dirt farming, substrate farming, maybe pure hab, and being a greenhouse efficiency part. I think Organics ought to be its own, later tech tier part.
  13. I'm a bit torn on this. If anything, my preference would be for a combination of 3 and 4, where we have 2 greenhouses. One is what we've got now, and one has swappable converters. I just think that we run the risk of having way too many greenhouse variants otherwise.
  14. It looks like you're missing the "URL" field in your .version file. Without that, AVC doesn't know where to look to compare the user's .version file with the most up-to-date .version file.
  15. Hey @cybutek, I have a quick question: What would it take/how difficult would it be for AVC and .version files to be able to recognize mods versions that only work with certain versions of mods, dependencies, etc.? I know that this is not a function of AVC at this time, but a couple of us are working on a mod/patch set that basically allows KPBS and MKS to play nicely together. We decided that our little interoperability mod ought to have a .version file because .version files and AVC are awesome. It occurred to us, though, that it doesn't really matter, for the sake of our mod, what version of KSP a player is running. What matters is what version of KPBS and MKS a user is running. Since AVC can already see what version of a mod you have installed through its .version file, how complicated would it be to implement a system where a .version file could reference another mod, and then have AVC confirm that the other mod's version is not outside of what is acceptable? Not being particularly computer-savvy, I don't want to come across as demanding features, but I am curious if such a thing would be feasible. Thanks,