jd284

Members
  • Content count

    508
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

222 Excellent

About jd284

  • Rank
    Rocketry Enthusiast
  1. This is possibly a bug in the part config. It's missing the setting "FillAmount = 0.95" that all the other USI reactors have, except for the Duna and Tundra PDUs. Should be easy to fix it with a quick MM patch. This is intended, I believe.
  2. In addition to the other point above, note that if you have a Ranger Sifter (the small one), it can only extract resources with at least 1% average abundance on the planet/moon. To extract the less abundant resources you need the large Tundra sifter. Or mine them directly with a drill, after you've found a good deposit.
  3. Interesting, I like the idea of doing the underground model as IVA to avoid collider and clipping issues. I look forward to that mod getting a release. But I still maintain that MKS is lacking in large scale ground habitation, spamming the ranger habs just looks boring, and the hab rings on the ground is just silly.
  4. Another thing that occured to me regarding habitation, and how there's no large-scale parts for ground bases as opposed to orbital bases that have the hab rings. At some point I wanted to just land a large asteroid and hollow it out for living space, which got me to thinking about alternatives... I believe the idea for most long-term settlements in space would be to burrow into the ground, for protection from radiation as well as meteoroids on planets like Mars with little atmosphere to stop them. So I think it would make sense to designate some Duna-like parts to function as entrance to such burrows. It would only function when landed, and ideally take some time/effort for the needed earth works, but then providing habitation similar to that of the orbital rings. The "landed" check would probably require some code, and would need to robust enough to ignore physics hops on load and such. Possibly it would just be the "expand" action that requires the "landed" check for simplicity. For the earth works, probably requiring a large EC construction cost plus some MatKis and SP like for the rings would already work. What do you think?
  5. So about the Colonization Module (3.75m). If I put in three pairs of kerbals, only one pair seems to breed, and I only got one new crew member after the gestation period. I'd have expected three, or however many females are in the module. Is this intentional? If the module is supposed to be some sort of maternity support module, I think it'd be better if it worked according to the number of females present (as long as there's at least one male on the base?). To make it more interesting, this could also require the presence of a medic, and without a medic maybe only one pair can breed, or even none. (I think pregnancies would be pretty dangerous in space without a medic...)
  6. You don't necessarily have to visit them every X days. Just make sure to visit them before you go to your crew base, at least after any period exceeding the local base storage. That way all the "background" production will catch up and produce sufficient PL stockpiles.
  7. You only need water if you want to build up a large surplus of supplies ahead of your colonists or to resupply visiting ships. Otherwise you just need Mulch + Fertilizer(from Gypsum), which will give you 10% more supplies than your kerbals consume: 10 Supplies -> 10 Mulch + 1 Fertilizer -> 11 Supplies It doesn't "check back". At least, stock doesn't, some other mods like Kerbalism do that at a large cost. What happens in stock instead is that when you visit your vessel again, the production backlog is "played back" in chunks of 6 hours. But there's no stock production when the vessel isn't in physics range, and thus nothing to put in PL until you visit the vessel.
  8. Yes, because you hit a bug in USI-LS and the change back didn't work as a result. No other USI mod changes kerbal professions however.
  9. Sorry to be so blunt, but you're wrong. USI-LS turns kerbals into tourists when they run out of supplies or hab. Looks like you triggered a bug in an older version of it. Anyway, the USI-LS thread has plenty of posts about how to deal with this.
  10. I would like a larger form factor. I sometimes use the drive to maneuver large asteroids into an elliptical Earth orbit (6400 x 200) where they can be aerobraked to my space factory. But the maximum asteroid size is limited by the warp bubble size to about 800t. Keep in mind that currently only one part in a craft can have the warp drive or things will break. So adding nacelles to expand the field would require code changes to add this behavior, basically the actual drive at the center of the bubble would have to scan for nacelles and enlarge its field if it finds them. This would be a nice way to expand an existing ship though.
  11. Like the others said, don't expect any support if you go that way. But you can probably get by with only having USITools installed and copying the parts and assets you want. Without USITools you won't be able to deploy the ring.
  12. The wrench is in KIS actually. KAS is winches and harpoons and such.
  13. OK, 42 at 60% is a good deal, and that makes sense since you only need a single part with a high percentage, for the bulk you just need throughput. The high efficiency recycler obviously would be a specialized part, but for bulk, a low percentage with high number of kerbals supported would be ideal. Basically you'd want to maximize the product of percentage times kerbal count. I haven't looked at the spreadsheet to see if there's an optimal percentage... could be that the "optimum" would be a million 1% recyclers... which would be a bit broken.
  14. Then I guess the RT-500 doesn't follow the guidelines, because that can do 60% for 20 kerbs in 2t... so it's still by far the superior choice to spam it.
  15. I added #1293. I'm more looking for something like a 50%/20+ person recycler, since after you have a high-efficiency recycler to set the cap, you just need to spam low-efficiency recyclers according to crew count. Of course Deimos is there, but at least in my game it didn't have a lot of resources, and is kind of annoying to reach with the warp drive (at least compared to Phobos with its low orbital period). Well it does cut down on the transfer times, which aren't particularly exciting gameplay wise, although life support does change that. Still, adding some more fertilizer containers isn't very exciting either. Personally I found the warp drive interesting because it adds completely new maneuver mechanics, due to the way it conserves momentum and requires often large velocity adjustments. After having done quite enough Hohmann transfers over the years, I found this an interesting new challenge. But each to their own, of course.