[1.2.1] SimpleConstruction - Stock rocket building v3.3

[MatterBeam]

12 hours ago, gamerscircle said:

If I have EPL installed and then install Simple Construction. I now  have two epl.dll, do I need both installed in their perspective folders?

If you want a side-by-side install, you have to do the following:

-Delete SimpleConstruction's Plugins folder

-Delete SimpleConstruction's Settings.cfg folder.

[gamerscircle]

1 hour ago, MatterBeam said:

If you want a side-by-side install, you have to do the following:

-Delete SimpleConstruction's Plugins folder

-Delete SimpleConstruction's Settings.cfg folder.

Appreciate that information, I will still get the simple construction functionality?

[MatterBeam]

1 hour ago, gamerscircle said:

Appreciate that information, I will still get the simple construction functionality?

Yes, the stock parts will have their EPL modules.

[gamerscircle]

Again, thank you for that.  I think, with both MKS and SC both using EPL, they are fighting in the background.  I say that as I went to do a simple test with the MPL and the Construction port, when I used the "SHOWUI" only the MKS SpecializedParts and MaterialKits were shown.  Or.. am I doing this wrong

[Mekan1k]

Can you make a version of SimpleConstruction that doesn't need kerbals to build the rocket? I really want to build Von-Neumann Probes.

[MatterBeam]

1 hour ago, Mekan1k said:

Can you make a version of SimpleConstruction that doesn't need kerbals to build the rocket? I really want to build Von-Neumann Probes.

It is not possible, since I rely on Extraplanetary Launchpad's dll, and the author refuses to implement it even as an experiment.

5 hours ago, gamerscircle said:

Again, thank you for that.  I think, with both MKS and SC both using EPL, they are fighting in the background.  I say that as I went to do a simple test with the MPL and the Construction port, when I used the "SHOWUI" only the MKS SpecializedParts and MaterialKits were shown.  Or.. am I doing this wrong

Does this occur even after following the instructions I posted?

[gamerscircle]

@MatterBeam Yes, there is no plugin folder or setting.cfg
 

http://imgur.com/VjSUu4e

[MatterBeam]

4 minutes ago, gamerscircle said:

@MatterBeam Yes, there is no plugin folder or setting.cfg
 

http://imgur.com/VjSUu4e

I mean, are there still errors with your current set-up?

[gamerscircle]

33 minutes ago, MatterBeam said:

I mean, are there still errors with your current set-up?

Umm, I wasn't getting errors.  When I would go to the construction port and activate the "GUI" I only saw the MKS materials and not the rocket parts.

[goldenpsp]

2 hours ago, MatterBeam said:

It is not possible, since I rely on Extraplanetary Launchpad's dll, and the author refuses to implement it even as an experiment.

And it is also GPL licensed so you could always make the change yourself.

1 hour ago, gamerscircle said:

Umm, I wasn't getting errors.  When I would go to the construction port and activate the "GUI" I only saw the MKS materials and not the rocket parts.

That is because MKS changes the EPL recipes because it has a different resource chain to manufacture the parts, and also to work well with OSE workshop, which also uses material kits.  If you want to hack your install you need to remove the EPL config inside MKS (not I don't recall which file offhand, I'm sure you can find it).

[gamerscircle]

15 minutes ago, goldenpsp said:

And it is also GPL licensed so you could always make the change yourself.

That is because MKS changes the EPL recipes because it has a different resource chain to manufacture the parts, and also to work well with OSE workshop, which also uses material kits.  If you want to hack your install you need to remove the EPL config inside MKS (not I don't recall which file offhand, I'm sure you can find it).

@goldenpsp Thank you for chiming in on this.  So, it sounds like in this case that EPL can't be used by the two mods simultaneously ?   As @MatterBeam adviced, I removed the epl.dll from the SC mod and the setting.cfg file.

Since I have setup a warehouse/distro operation on the Mun using MKS.  Rather than going to drastic route and just removing the MKS mod and taking the losses on the Mun.  You think that I can replace the files mentioned above and remove a certain MSK file.  Allowed EPL to now see the SC resources and not the MKS ones?  Yet still maintaining the mun operation, minus the EPL ability for right now?

Poking around in \..GameData\UmbraSpaceIndustries\UKS there are EL_USI.cfg and a MKS_EL.cfg files.  These?

Edited July 7, 2016 by gamerscircle

[goldenpsp]

2 minutes ago, gamerscircle said:

@goldenpsp Thank you for chiming in on this.  So, it sounds like in this case that EPL can't be used by the two mods simultaneously ?   As @MatterBeam adviced, I removed the epl.dll from the SC mod and the setting.cfg file.

Since I have setup a warehouse/distro operation on the Mun using MKS.  Rather than going to drastic route and just removing the MKS mod and taking the losses on the Mun.  You think that I can replace the files mentioned above and remove a certain MSK file.  Allowed EPL to now see the SC resources and not the MKS ones?  Yet still maintaining the mun operation, minus the EPL ability for right now?

Not sure how you got that from what I wrote.  Let me try more simply.  MKS has an EPL config file that changes it to use material kits etc.  Remove that file and it will use rocketparts.

[gamerscircle]

4 minutes ago, goldenpsp said:

Not sure how you got that from what I wrote.  Let me try more simply.  MKS has an EPL config file that changes it to use material kits etc.  Remove that file and it will use rocketparts.

Perhaps it was a little wordy, but don't have to put back what i removed from the SC mod as well?

[goldenpsp]

26 minutes ago, gamerscircle said:

Perhaps it was a little wordy, but don't have to put back what i removed from the SC mod as well?

Well that would be a @MatterBeam  question.  You certainly don't want to put back the .DLL  (which is poorly packaged to begin with IMO) but as I don't use this mod I don't know what his settings do.

[Mekan1k]

I posted the same request for a truly automated launch pad setting to the creator of EL. Hopefully he will respond.

[hab136]

13 hours ago, gamerscircle said:

Poking around in \..GameData\UmbraSpaceIndustries\UKS there are EL_USI.cfg and a MKS_EL.cfg files.  These?

Yes, if you delete EL_USI.cfg, then EPL will go back to using RocketParts instead of MaterialKits+SpecializedParts.

[MatterBeam]

35 minutes ago, hab136 said:

Yes, if you delete EL_USI.cfg, then EPL will go back to using RocketParts instead of MaterialKits+SpecializedParts.

Yes, RocketParts is the original resource pathway, taken from EPL.

9 hours ago, Mekan1k said:

I posted the same request for a truly automated launch pad setting to the creator of EL. Hopefully he will respond.

I have responded. Doing so requires modifying the dll, and it requires knowledge and tools I do not have. It might be a simple fix, but the only person able to do it is the dll's original author, and if he refuses out of principle, then I can't do anything.

13 hours ago, goldenpsp said:

Well that would be a @MatterBeam  question.  You certainly don't want to put back the .DLL  (which is poorly packaged to begin with IMO) but as I don't use this mod I don't know what his settings do.

SimpleConstruction is meant to be stand-alone, hence the duplicate dll if someone tries to install it alongside the mods it is supposed to replace. 
My Settings file only adds the necessary EPL modules to command pods to give then a productivity rating. 

14 hours ago, gamerscircle said:

Perhaps it was a little wordy, but don't have to put back what i removed from the SC mod as well?

No. 

[goldenpsp]

1 hour ago, MatterBeam said:

SimpleConstruction is meant to be stand-alone, hence the duplicate dll if someone tries to install it alongside the mods it is supposed to replace. 

My Settings file only adds the necessary EPL modules to command pods to give then a productivity rating. 

 

I get that. However it would still be more neighborly to preserve the dll path of the original mods so if someone does install the other mod you aren't creating a multiple dll headache on purpose 

[gamerscircle]

Hi there - me again.

Please bare with me, as I am more of a player/gamer vs the modder.  I am assuming that I have the SC mod working.  Meaning that

1.) If RMB click on the construction port and get the ShowGUI
2.) if I have the correct amount of Rocket Parts
3.) If I have an qualified Engineer
4.) If I click on build
5.) I get what I wanted... That means that I got this MOD to work?  Basically?

I do understand that the position / orientation of the construction port does matter on what you are trying to do.  With that said, can I use the EPL Survey Stakes?  I ask this, because I tried and the CP only saw itself.

Any suggestiond on if I am trying to have a smaller structure [using the SC mod] to make larger structures remotely?

[MatterBeam]

On 08/07/2016 at 4:51 PM, goldenpsp said:

I get that. However it would still be more neighborly to preserve the dll path of the original mods so if someone does install the other mod you aren't creating a multiple dll headache on purpose 

Next update, for sure.

1 hour ago, gamerscircle said:

Hi there - me again.

Please bare with me, as I am more of a player/gamer vs the modder.  I am assuming that I have the SC mod working.  Meaning that

1.) If RMB click on the construction port and get the ShowGUI
2.) if I have the correct amount of Rocket Parts
3.) If I have an qualified Engineer
4.) If I click on build
5.) I get what I wanted... That means that I got this MOD to work?  Basically?

I do understand that the position / orientation of the construction port does matter on what you are trying to do.  With that said, can I use the EPL Survey Stakes?  I ask this, because I tried and the CP only saw itself.

Any suggestiond on if I am trying to have a smaller structure [using the SC mod] to make larger structures remotely?

If you are able to spawn a vessel, then the mod works. Survey stakes work differently, and I am unsure how to implement it in stock, so I left them out.

My suggestion is, if you are on land, to add launch clamps to your construction. They will spawn and hold the construct in place while you decouple. 

[gamerscircle]

15 minutes ago, MatterBeam said:

Next update, for sure.

If you are able to spawn a vessel, then the mod works. Survey stakes work differently, and I am unsure how to implement it in stock, so I left them out.

My suggestion is, if you are on land, to add launch clamps to your construction. They will spawn and hold the construct in place while you decouple. 

OH oh.. so, so the direction that the Construction Port really matter?  Adding Launch Clamps and then "release" from EPL and then stage normally?  if I understand that.. this can work.  

[gamerscircle]

I have returned as I have done some testing.

Putting the Construction Port on the side of anything, just doesn't work because of the orientation, unless you do some magic placement in the editor.

Putting the CP on top of something, will work, but if this is a "rocket" or something that clips, will cause a problem.  In fact, if you use clamps and they are not correctly positioned , they will clip and cause problems.

So, with my limited understanding of KSP and Engineering.  I took some girders and struts and extended the CP away from anything and this appeared to work.

It does present a problem when it comes to trying to land something on say.. Duna [yes, I am attempting to do a remote colonization using SC] and risk snapping the extension.

Looking for suggestions.. I will send screenshot of what I made, as a bare minimum remote startup.

[Orange Nakor]

I have been having trouble with this mod (and IFS) endlessly. Tanks couldn't switch, construction port did nothing, etc. Even after I finally got it all to work, it broke when I updated IFS. A fresh install of KSP, loaded with fresh mods didn't even work. Then I noticed that my antivirus had like 15 security alerts. Apparently some antivirus will take out scaleredist.dll and launchpad.dll, so you'll need to exclude them from antivirus if that is your issue. It was driving me crazy, so I hope this helps anyone else with mysterious problems.

[Crabman]

Does anyone have any tips about how to launch a relatively big craft upwards from the construction port without blowing it up? Besides throttling down, of course, because even putting launch clamps very high, it still launches from just above the construction port.

 

Another thing: I've transfered a lot of fuel to one craft I made, but I think the mod doesn't allow to transfer more fuel than it can hold. Example:

Vessel 1: Constructor - Can hold 100 fuel

Vessel 2: New Vessel - Can hold 500 fuel

Even if Constructor can mine and produce 500 fuel and transfer to New Vessel with no problem, when I click "Release", to release New Vessel, it loses 400 fuel and have only 100 fuel now.

Is it a bug? Intended? Am I doing something wrong?

Edited August 17, 2016 by Crabman
Adding a bug report (maybe bug)

[hab136]

On 8/17/2016 at 3:14 AM, Crabman said:

Does anyone have any tips about how to launch a relatively big craft upwards from the construction port without blowing it up? Besides throttling down, of course, because even putting launch clamps very high, it still launches from just above the construction port.

On the ground or in space?  In space it shouldn't be a problem, unless I'm not understanding the problem.

On the ground, you could add it support braces, either on the construction ship itself, or some huge brace thing to hold your new ship above the construction ship.

 

On 8/17/2016 at 3:14 AM, Crabman said:

Even if Constructor can mine and produce 500 fuel and transfer to New Vessel with no problem, when I click "Release", to release New Vessel, it loses 400 fuel and have only 100 fuel now.

Is it a bug? Intended? Am I doing something wrong?

Did you produce the fuel after creating the new vessel, but before releasing?  If not, then it's working as intended - you didn't actually create any fuel while the new vessel was being built because there was no place to put it.