Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


280 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

4,435 profile views
  1. I'm pretty sure it's just the compress-rotate function that isn't working right now. Last I tried, regular compressing (welding) in Konstruction works just fine. To be fair, my understanding is that it isn't really that compress-rotate is broken per se, but that KSP doesn't like when entire vessels rotate non-trivial amounts in the span of only a frame or two.
  2. @RoverDude, would you consider adding a link to and brief mention of the rescue pod validator to the OP? Not everyone will see it, but some will. It might even get some people to install it BEFORE they run into this issue. @Physics Student Be advised that the rescue pod validator won't change the pods from any existing contracts (I think that includes contracts that are offered but not yet accepted) but will stop bad contracts from generating going forward.
  3. As was mentioned in the FTT thread, USI Tools has been 1.3 compatible for a while. Make sure you're using the most current version.
  4. I'm not a fan of this. Volume and mass-wise, the greenhouse should perform roughly as well as a 25000-I. There's no need for it to work 2.5 times better simply by adding two Kerbals. The point if USI-LS patches for KBPS isn't to make KPBS parts better than USI-LS ones; the goal for most of us working on the patch was to try to be similar but different. Nils' suggestion accomplishes that. Also, you mentioned being able to support 5 Kerbals without a recycler. My question is... Why? Recyclers are pretty critical to USI-LS. We added a variety of different recyclers and purifiers to KPBS; use them. Even temporary bases ought to have some recycling.
  5. Look at that; I run some errands, and everything's done by the time I get back.
  6. @DStaal I'm away from my computer so I can't check now, but I remember us discussing what MODULE was used as a converter for the greenhouse part (it should be mentioned in the greenhouse issue on GitHub). My recollection was that the greenhouse used a special module (KPBS specific maybe?) instead of the stock ModuleResourceConverter. Perhaps this includes a crewed requirement? If this is the case, I'm not sure RoverDude's spreadsheet would have a nice way of dealing with it. There is a provision for crew to influence efficiency by trait and skill level, but I don't know if we can modify the spreadsheet to simply look at if a Kerbal is present or not. We could give this part another pass based on a crew requirement, or we could look at using the regular ModuleResourceConverter (or whatever module USI-LS uses).
  7. I don't remember if we took the need for Kerbals to man the greenhouse into consideration (I don't think we did; there's a section to the spreadsheet that handles that) but I will point out that the greenhouse also adds a hab multiplier which the 25000-I doesn't.
  8. I can't really see that happening. While WBI and USI integration would bring up some issues to be addressed, at least they aren't actually incompatible with each other. As it stands now, MKS is completely incompatible with Kerbalism since the former heavily relies on the stock catch-up mechanic that the latter removed in favour of its own background processing mechanic. It's been mentioned more than a few times in the various USI mod threads.
  9. I've always felt that some way of making MKS + USI-LS/Pathfinder + MOLE play nicely with each other would be the holy grail of KSP mod compatibility patches.
  10. Sounds perfect. The easier it is on everyone, the better. As @TheRagingIrishman mentioned, close enough is good enough in this case, especially when dealing with any weird shapes, such as extendable parts. Oh, and also a huge thanks for agreeing to offer this info. I really appreciate it.
  11. Hey @Nertea, is there any chance that some of us could get the dimensions and masses of the new parts prior to release? That way, I can run the numbers through the USI-LS spreadsheet to get balanced habitation times and costs for a USI-LS patch to be included when your updated is released, rather than sending you a pull request a week after release. Not that there's anything wrong with submitting a patch after the fact. Whatever's more convenient for you.
  12. Hi, welcome to the forums! I know that you're not trying to be rude, but asking about mod updates tends to be a bit of a sore subject with many mod makers, especially when they are asked over and over. Before asking questions in general--and about updates specifically--in the forums, try to read back over the last couple of pages of posts. You'll see that Nertea has actually been asked about mod updates several times lately, including on this page. It becomes very frustrating for mod makers to work hard to create and maintain mods, and then have users ask questions that, with a little bit of searching, they could answer for themselves. Nertea has indicated that an update is coming, but honestly the current version should work on 1.3 as long as all of your dependencies are up to date.
  13. @mivanit exactly what goldenpsp said. The only thing I would add to this is that you may want to consider making a folder inside your GameData folder (with whatever name you want) specifically for MM patches. It makes it a bit easier to keep things organized if you start adding more and more MM patches.
  • Create New...