[1.9-1.10] Global Construction

[RoverDude]

@allista - I can do a new texture that removes the words, etc (basically plain with a normal map) to make it a bit more stretch friendly

[allista]

3 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

@allista - I can do a new texture that removes the words, etc (basically plain with a normal map) to make it a bit more stretch friendly

Personally, I don't see a big problem here. Some stretching is alright, but if one wants to make a long rod out of the kit, well, there should be a downside, shouldn't it?

I also like the letters and all

[RoverDude]

Fair enough then

[DStaal]

I only wish the texture wasn't completely symmetrical.  I keep believing that if I just knew where the 'front' was, I'd be able to plan which orientation things would be in when I get them built...

[allista]

1 hour ago, DStaal said:

I only wish the texture wasn't completely symmetrical.  I keep believing that if I just knew where the 'front' was, I'd be able to plan which orientation things would be in when I get them built...

Orientation is dynamic. I can move the debug visualization of the spawn transform into release and fine-tune it a little, so that it could be displayed on-demand (a button in GC's main window, perhaps).

[Beetlecat]

5 hours ago, allista said:

@juanml82, just to tease you! 

https://gfycat.com/gifs/detail/DrearyForsakenChrysalis

Hahah!  Reductio ad absurdum

[allista]

18 hours ago, DStaal said:

I only wish the texture wasn't completely symmetrical.  I keep believing that if I just knew where the 'front' was, I'd be able to plan which orientation things would be in when I get them built...

It's a little boring today... 

https://gfycat.com/KindlyImmediateHypacrosaurus

 

[DStaal]

1 hour ago, allista said:

It's a little boring today... 

https://gfycat.com/KindlyImmediateHypacrosaurus

Nice - though it'd be very nice to be able to know that *before* touchdown.

[allista]

1 hour ago, DStaal said:

Nice - though it'd be very nice to be able to know that *before* touchdown.

OK, how about at altitude of about the size of the vessel itself?

It's meaningless to draw it too high, because like I said, the transform is dynamic and is only "fixed" when you deploy the kit.

Oh well, I can remove the "landed" restriction entirely. Look at the green arrow whenever you like. But it could flicker depending on vessel's movement.

What's best for you?

EDIT: or maybe when vessel's surface speed is small? < 5m/s

Edited March 30, 2018 by allista

[DStaal]

For my flying preference, I'd probably say something along the lines of 1.5 to 2km altitude - generally when you're in physics range of the ground.  I like to have the orientation set up well before final approach, if possible.  Much higher and you're right - direction and orbit will be questions, but that gives time for a maneuver, and you have to be thinking about the ground then anyway.

Personally I typically don't have the surface speed that small until I'm basically landed - there's no real reason to stop more than a few meters up, after all.

[DoktorKrogg]

@RoverDude Couldn't the text on the DIY kits be applied as decals?

[LatiMacciato]

Unsure if theres the new EL 6.0 release already adressed but GC only needs this change:

./GameData/GroundConstruction/Patches/EPL.cfg

Spoiler

@PART[MobileWorkshop]:NEEDS[Launchpad]
{
	MODULE
	{
		name = ELWorkshop
		ProductivityFactor = 2 // Less than a true EPL workshop, but still better than a generic lab.
		IgnoreCrewCapacity = false
	}
	
	MODULE
	{
		name = ELSurveyStation
	}
}

 

 

[allista]

1 hour ago, LatiMacciato said:

Unsure if theres the new EL 6.0 release already adressed but GC only needs this change:

./GameData/GroundConstruction/Patches/EPL.cfg

  Hide contents

@PART[MobileWorkshop]:NEEDS[Launchpad]
{
	MODULE
	{
		name = ELWorkshop
		ProductivityFactor = 2 // Less than a true EPL workshop, but still better than a generic lab.
		IgnoreCrewCapacity = false
	}
	
	MODULE
	{
		name = ELSurveyStation
	}
}

 

 

Thanks!

[allista]

Introducing the Feature Wishlist for all my mods.

>>> Feature Wishlist (for all mods) <<<

Rules are simple:

1. Open the spreadsheet,
2. At the bottom find the tab of a mod,
3. Look through requested features,
   1. if there's no feature corresponding to your wish, add a record and set the votes to 1
   2. if there is a feature that suits your, vote for it, increasing the number by 1 (please, no cheating, all changes are recorded)
4. At some point I'll look at the lest and try my best to estimate the work cost of the features and comment on the ones I don't like for some reason.
5. Then I prioritize them as votes/cost and will use as a guide in the development.

EDIT: to all who use the wishlist, It's very important to describe the feature in detail, otherwise I won't be able to handle it

Edited April 14, 2018 by allista

[pippo_jedi]

Hi,
first of all Great Mod!

Second: I have a question... i don't seem to get how DIY kit works. I built a DIY Kit on minmus, I want now to "load" the specs for a rover I need, then I will build it with a workshop and material kits...

but I cant load the blueprint in the DIY kit... I have a engineer by it, the only thing i can do is renaming it, which accomplishes nothing, or disassemble it...

It is possible to do this? I assumed it is as it stands to reason: i build a empty kit, load the specs, then build it... what I'm doing wrong? @_@

 

thank your for your time!

[Kit the kite]

Hi, I'm still pretty new to the whole modding thing, so I've managed to get a thing called CKAN running but it says your mod isn't compatible with the current version of KSP? I dunno if it's true or if I'm just going crazy, but if I try to figure stuff out myself any longer I'm going to give myself a bad headache. So is there any way to get the mod running, am I out of luck, or is there a patch coming out soon?

[Kwarazi]

7 hours ago, Kit the kite said:

Hi, I'm still pretty new to the whole modding thing, so I've managed to get a thing called CKAN running but it says your mod isn't compatible with the current version of KSP? I dunno if it's true or if I'm just going crazy, but if I try to figure stuff out myself any longer I'm going to give myself a bad headache. So is there any way to get the mod running, am I out of luck, or is there a patch coming out soon?

@Kit the kite Ok CKAN is a lovely mod and very convenient for some but it relies on every Mod having compatible version no. to match the current KSP version no. if it doesn't it says no.. The problem is most mods don't need to be updated every time a patch is released most will still work perfectly ok, the best way to know if your mod works is just to read back a few pages on each mod page you will soon know if it doesn't work by the comments from the users and the author of the mod.

That's why a lot of us don't use CKAN and use the download links on every mod page and combine it with following each mod on the forum so we get updates via email and also using a mod called KSP-AVC which checks version numbers and provides links for updates if required or available, 

[allista]

13 hours ago, pippo_jedi said:

Hi,
first of all Great Mod!

Second: I have a question... i don't seem to get how DIY kit works. I built a DIY Kit on minmus, I want now to "load" the specs for a rover I need, then I will build it with a workshop and material kits...

but I cant load the blueprint in the DIY kit... I have a engineer by it, the only thing i can do is renaming it, which accomplishes nothing, or disassemble it...

It is possible to do this? I assumed it is as it stands to reason: i build a empty kit, load the specs, then build it... what I'm doing wrong? @_@

 

thank your for your time!

You load the specs and high-tech parts in VAB/SPH, then you bring the kit somewhere and build the thing inside using a workshop and material kits, like a wardrobe from IKEA.

If you haven't loaded the rover in VAB/SPH, then nothing could be done.

If you have done it, you need to switch to a workshop nearby (closer than 300m from the kit) and open the construction window either from the part menu of the workshop or via main GC window (toolbar button).

There you'll have to find your kit in the list of nearby unbuilt kits, add it to construction query and start constructing it.

Naturally, the workshop should have access to electric energy, material kits and have some engineers onboard.

[Kit the kite]

Thanks! I'm still learning all this stuff. but I think I got it. @Kwarazi

Edited April 15, 2018 by Kit the kite
forgot to put a bit in

[ottodeluxe]

I know the topic of materials needed for construction of the DIY kits has been brought up before, but some extreme numbers has brought it to my attention lately. I wanted to construct a bsae on Duna, which is more unwieldy than it is heavy:

The Vessel in the VAB

It is ~90 tons dry mass, with some machinery.

Now, if I put that into a DIY-kit, the mass ratio is sensible, as is the build cost for the kit itself from EL:

The kit in the VAB

Again, the masses add up and the Mkits and SP costs are reasonable. However, the kit reports it needs just above 700k of material kits to unpack! The mass difference should be around 40-50 tons in material kits, if you include the machinery already stored in the DIY kit.

The Mkits required weigh more than 700 tons, according to EL:

The Mkits in Kontainers in the VAB

 

So, I wonder how can you need 700 tons of Mkits to construct a base with a mass of ~100 tons, where roughly 50 tons are already in the DIY-Container? I did not change any settings or configs, I use the recent MKS + GC + EL (all full versions). Is there a conflict in the definitions of material kits between those? Is this amount of material kits really intended? I was planning on launching the DIY and material kits to Duna, but there is no way I can easily launch 8 times the mass of the actual base, nor does it seem reasonable. A solution would be to launch the Mkits and SP needed to build the actual thing with EL, but GC seems to be more stable in deploying the vessel. The material kit ratio is not configurable IIRC, so is there any solution, is this a bug or actually working as intended?

 

 

 

[Terwin]

5 hours ago, ottodeluxe said:

So, I wonder how can you need 700 tons of Mkits to construct a base with a mass of ~100 tons, where roughly 50 tons are already in the DIY-Container? I did not change any settings or configs, I use the recent MKS + GC + EL (all full versions). Is there a conflict in the definitions of material kits between those? Is this amount of material kits really intended? I was planning on launching the DIY and material kits to Duna, but there is no way I can easily launch 8 times the mass of the actual base, nor does it seem reasonable. A solution would be to launch the Mkits and SP needed to build the actual thing with EL, but GC seems to be more stable in deploying the vessel. The material kit ratio is not configurable IIRC, so is there any solution, is this a bug or actually working as intended?

I'm not sure about the 8:1 ratio you mentioned, but the biggest advantage of GC is allowing the use of locally sourced materials for building parts/bases.

And if you use KIS/KAS you can ship several smaller kits, with the first barely able to produce material kits and provide short-term habitation while you build more kits with parts that can provide more capability and longer habitation.

(or you could add OSE Workshop and use GC to build the initial 'starter' base and use OSE to add parts one at a time as wanted/needed)

While I believe that there is a plan to allow on-site construction of DIY kits eventually, I find that OSE Workshop is a good stand-in until that is available.

 

Edited April 16, 2018 by Terwin

[allista]

21 hours ago, ottodeluxe said:

I know the topic of materials needed for construction of the DIY kits has been brought up before, but some extreme numbers has brought it to my attention lately. I wanted to construct a bsae on Duna, which is more unwieldy than it is heavy:

The Vessel in the VAB

It is ~90 tons dry mass, with some machinery.

Now, if I put that into a DIY-kit, the mass ratio is sensible, as is the build cost for the kit itself from EL:

The kit in the VAB

Again, the masses add up and the Mkits and SP costs are reasonable. However, the kit reports it needs just above 700k of material kits to unpack! The mass difference should be around 40-50 tons in material kits, if you include the machinery already stored in the DIY kit.

The Mkits required weigh more than 700 tons, according to EL:

The Mkits in Kontainers in the VAB

So, I wonder how can you need 700 tons of Mkits to construct a base with a mass of ~100 tons, where roughly 50 tons are already in the DIY-Container? I did not change any settings or configs, I use the recent MKS + GC + EL (all full versions). Is there a conflict in the definitions of material kits between those? Is this amount of material kits really intended? I was planning on launching the DIY and material kits to Duna, but there is no way I can easily launch 8 times the mass of the actual base, nor does it seem reasonable. A solution would be to launch the Mkits and SP needed to build the actual thing with EL, but GC seems to be more stable in deploying the vessel. The material kit ratio is not configurable IIRC, so is there any solution, is this a bug or actually working as intended?

I may be missing something, but from your screenshots I see that the kit requires 64403.9u of MatKits, not 700k 

I don't know about that MatKit tank either -- it says it has 128ku of MK and weights 800t, so, given the density of MK 1t/ku it should weight 672t dry 

[Terwin]

On 4/16/2018 at 6:37 AM, ottodeluxe said:

It is ~90 tons dry mass, with some machinery.

Now, if I put that into a DIY-kit, the mass ratio is sensible, as is the build cost for the kit itself from EL:

 

Again, the masses add up and the Mkits and SP costs are reasonable. However, the kit reports it needs just above 700k of material kits to unpack! The mass difference should be around 40-50 tons in material kits, if you include the machinery already stored in the DIY kit.

I think I see your problem:

Kit cost is the cost in funds for the DIY kit in the VAB.  700K fund for the kit vs 800K funds for the entire base.

Kit Res is the number of material kits (64.4K in your image)

It looks like Kit weight and required mass of material kits are both about 70% of the dry mass of the vessel in your example.

Not terribly unreasonable as one would expect some waste in packaging and assembly in a hostile environment, especially if you are including some resources in the DIYKit.

 

[allista]

33 minutes ago, Terwin said:

I think I see your problem:

Kit cost is the cost in funds for the DIY kit in the VAB.  700K fund for the kit vs 800K funds for the entire base.

Kit Res is the number of material kits (64.4K in your image)

It looks like Kit weight and required mass of material kits are both about 70% of the dry mass of the vessel in your example.

Not terribly unreasonable as one would expect some waste in packaging and assembly in a hostile environment, especially if you are including some resources in the DIYKit.

Now this is strange: required MK mass should match exactly the difference between Kit Mass and full mass (including non-strippable resources) of a complete vessel. But 64.4+64.4 > 106. It's also strange that kit volume is also 64.4m3, because kit density is always 0.5t/m3, so it should be twice as much. Too much for coincidence; I'll have to investigate this. 

[ottodeluxe]

I see, thanks for your comments! Seems I got the numbers mixed up, I thought the cost would be the unpack cost.

Allista, the 106 tons could make sense, since I'm packing some machinery, which brings the total mass to 106 tons. The density I cannot comment on, though.