Jump to content

RoverDude

KSP Team
  • Content Count

    8,731
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by RoverDude

  1. The reverse chain calculations would be brutal, or you'd end up wasting something else (like maintenance, life support, etc.) and tracking the chains goes against what WOLF is solving. The Planner is there to assist with that, and if you want a more forgiving save, crank up the resource abundance in stock since WOLF derives off of that. Subsystem of MKS. Best bet is to also look on the WIKI as there are updates going on there as well.
  2. You'll end up with infrastructure updated based on what you fed it. I'd suggest using the planner in the VAB, it's pretty awesome. To the rest... you've chosen to play RSS - it's 10x larger. It's massive. So to have to scale out correspondingly massive fuel refineries to support correspondingly massive routes makes sense.
  3. That's kinda what you sign up for with RSS... I thought that was the point
  4. It's going to be random per save unless someone is putting in overrides, and I have no control over that. Nothing - you're using the system as designed. Gone like keys in lava. It's something else causing that, not me. Works fine with stock. Not off the top of my head. @DoktorKrogg may know something I do not though.
  5. Use 1.11, use the latest MKS release. Problem solved.
  6. It's definitely gravity dependent. I'll be adding more amplifiers as part of the main release.
  7. FYI - MKS modules use stock thermal (for those that even use heat), and all converters derive from stock modules (ModuleResourceConverter/ModuleResourceHarvester) - we just include an option to swap out the inputs and outputs, which does not affect thermal) - so the core guts can be accounted for in the same way stock converters / drills are, provided you're looking for things that implement the base class. If there's something I'm doing weird with the stock modules that's causing a headache, by all means let me know if it opens the path to better interop.
  8. Yeah, I cull through them periodically - and stuff gets buried in forum threads
  9. Make sure you have Community Category Kit also there - that's what puts the Rover category there. I assume you see them in Sandbox?
  10. No idea tbh - don't use TAC-LS I just take pull requests
  11. Transport credits are an abstraction of the infrastructure required to handle the logistics of transportation, which is why they are paid by the source. And you already do make different legs for Kerbin to the Mun. Do a route from Kerbin to Kerbin Orbit. Then the leg from Kerbin Orbit to Mun Orbit. And then your last leg to the surface. This is already how it works.
  12. @TheSuMa - sorry, should have reminded you to put any PRs against the DEVELOP branch vs MASTER as Dev is where we work on the next release. I'll sort this first batch and reverse integrate for you since I think we're in a (relatively) safe place to do this, but putting it out there for any other PRs
  13. hmm... if you launch a super simple vessel (KonFab, MatKit storage, crew, and something with inventory) on the launchpad does it work?
  14. @TheDog - ping me if you have any questions
  15. Indeed. My philosophy is that if you (a) use Stock as the yardstick and leverage it's systems, and (b) make it a point to not do wholesale module manager replacements, you're doing right by the community with your mod.
  16. @Murdabenne There's nothing wrong with agreeing to disagree At the end of the day, modders make stuff to enhance their own gameplay experience. And both @DoktorKrogg and I are in the camp of not liking the long construction delays and twiddling with that specific aspect - other folks are. So while Konstruction will be bundled (and a first class citizen) in MKS and the USI Constellation as a whole, you can still use it side by side with other mods if that's more your flavor. Just that you'll need to use those other mod's support channels vs USI, and it would be up to either that mod (or t
  17. No idea. Certainly there is no consideration for it, if that's the question.
  18. Nope. Not required. Some of the parts would just be aesthetic but the whole in-situ building play is still there without LS.
  19. Not at this time, though if you have Konstruction there are already allowances for beefing up Kerbal EVA weight limits.
  20. Nope. MKS has part recycling built in, but that's not part of Konstruction.
  21. The idea with the MPUs is they were meant for quick deployables that could pump out missing resources for your main base. So having an MPU purely for PlanLog is by design
  22. @TheSuMa - Grouping would be excellent - it's something we should clean up over time.
×
×
  • Create New...