RoverDude

SQUAD staff
  • Content count

    12271
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

7463 Excellent

About RoverDude

  • Rank
    Cat Herder
  1. [1.3] USI Life Support [0.5.0]

    use a claw.
  2. [1.3] USI Life Support [0.5.0]

    It's kinda an overlap, but the mechanic would be in life support. Also, if I were to (hypothetically) add in aging/death, it would be an optional setting and turned off by default.
  3. [1.3] - Modular Kolonization System (MKS)

    The biggie is that with TAC-LS, all of the habitation parts are just aesthetic. And yep, the patch is community maintained. One of the main drivers in USI-LS is that life support was/is a core dependency, and there were a few KSP versions where a lack of TAC-LS updates tied my hands on my own releases, so it made sense to do my own, and also extend it in new ways (habitation, etc.)
  4. Not sure, but in any download you can look at the version file to see what KSP version it works with.
  5. [1.3] Community Resource Pack

    tbh, this would be a USI-Core discussion vs a CRP discussion. That being said - within a kontainer the quantities should be consistent based on volume for that kontainer (the 5:1 is because stock LF/O is stored in 5 liter units). So that bit is correct. But I would not mess with the other resources since in some cases, I trade off durability for capacity, etc. unless there is a volume discrepancy between resources in the same tank.
  6. [1.3] - Modular Kolonization System (MKS)

    No. EL was dropped because as noted, the EL chain is simply not realistic, and replacing with an MKS resource chain caused too many support issues. Got tired of waiting (literally) years to see what the EL 'detailed' mode was going to be, even offered up to redo the entire MKS chain to whatever Taniwha wanted... never happened. So I found a more cooperative and collaborative modder to work with, problem solved. As noted - NOTHING stops you from using EL. EL parts work, the EL resource chain works. But I see no point in expending my efforts on integration work on a mod for whom integration ends up causing support issues, when I can expend that same effort working with someone genuinely interested in collaborating. Use EL, rock on, all of its bits work. But the officially supported construction mod for MKS is and will always be Ground Construction, since there's pretty much zero impedence mismatch there. Bingo. I left bits there, but will in no way be expanding or updating EL support. EL works out of the box as is. If folks want to do PR's for a compatibility patch, rock on. But as noted, it is not something I would focus on, nor do I have any intention of maintaining the old parts (to be honest, the models should have been dropped a while ago and likely will be dropped eventually).
  7. [1.3] - Modular Kolonization System (MKS)

    Yep, already have nice orbital Tundra parts
  8. [1.3] - Modular Kolonization System (MKS)

    The form factor they used is no longer used on any MKS parts, plus the textures were pretty rough. Once @allista has a version of GC that works in orbit, new parts will be created
  9. [1.3] - Modular Kolonization System (MKS)

    EL comes with its own parts... you would have had to install it for this to work anyway. Just don't depend on the old MKS parts as those models are eventually going to be deleted.
  10. [1.3] USI Life Support [0.5.0]

    Hopping in... I did have that 2,000 year save once... but I think that was an aberration Whether this gets added or not depends either on a pull request (or more likely someone wanting to join the USI team to do this, as it is a bit involved), or it becoming something that makes sense in the context of other things I am doing in the constellation.
  11. [1.3] USI Life Support [0.5.0]

    Sorry, I don't understand what you are saying.
  12. [1.3] USI Life Support [0.5.0]

    This mod. Up for debate I suppose Tho I would lean towards somewhere between 50 and 75 years.
  13. [1.3] USI Life Support [0.5.0]

    Yep
  14. [1.3] - Modular Kolonization System (MKS)

    Bingo. Probably a better question would be to ask why Kerbalism does a blanket override of core stock functions vs. using an opt-in model. No, there are no compatibility plans (if anything, I need to get around to including an explicit lack of compatibility via CKAN).
  15. Sorry, can you post stuff like this to DropBox or a bit less sketchy file download site?