[1.9-1.10] Global Construction

[cyberKerb]

2 minutes ago, Nergal8617 said:

Just did some digging and testing of my own.  Ended up using a slightly different bit of code from the stock decouplers but it works like a charm, thanks for pointing me in the right direction.

What code did you use? Wouldn't mind trying other things if works better

[Nergal8617]

Just now, wile1411 said:

What code did you use? Wouldn't mind trying other things if works better

Don't know about better but it works.

sound_vent_large = decouple

If you so desire you can also add that little puff of white smoke you get with the stock decouplers by adding this.

fx_gasBurst_white = 0.0, 0.0650517, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, decouple

I have both of those in a MM patch if you want them.

[B-STRK]

Heya @allista, I could use a bit of help orienting craft on deployment. (I've read the prior discussion a few pages back and had the impression that the craft deploys oriented as if it were on the pad or runway, e.g., planes face east always). In the SPH I built it such that a specific part would be oriented northward if it were launched on the runway, and I was hoping the same would be the case on site. I however loaded the kit in the VAB for the delivery vehicle though, and I noticed the split-second image of the craft prior to its loading, oriented not in the same way as the SPH--as in the part I want north was pointing... I think west? Thinking it was how it would be deployed onsite, I added a decoupler pylon on that side of the box so that I could point it north. On site at Minmus, I landed it pointing the decouoler side north, deployed, built... and the launch vessel was oriented south instead. 

I guess what I'm asking is if there's a reliable way to make a kit face the way I need it to face, especially considering cross-loading SPH vessels into kits in the VAB. I guess paint a side of the box with the words "This faces east" (since we tend to launch eastwards from both the VAB and SPH) and have the vessel (ecen if cross-loaded) loaded into the kit appropriately (north parts in SPH are north parts in VAB)? Or edit the orientation of the vessel prior to deploying the kit (using perhaps the same wireframe model used in Hangars)?

For now, I'm gonna load a previous save where I have the opportunity to twist the kit about and see what the effect could be. 

UPDATE: yeah, twisting the kit 180 did the trick. Deployment is oriented as desired. 

Edited September 25, 2017 by B-STRK

[gamerscircle]

Hi all -

I am slowly migrating my current 1.3 game to 1.3.1 and what would I be missing if I get all the parts, but in the editor [aka VAB & SPH] that isn't a Ground Construction category?  I thought it would be the CCK, but I am wrong.

I see that functionality in the parts, I just don't see the separate editor category is all.

 

[allista]

1 hour ago, gamerscircle said:

Hi all -

I am slowly migrating my current 1.3 game to 1.3.1 and what would I be missing if I get all the parts, but in the editor [aka VAB & SPH] that isn't a Ground Construction category?  I thought it would be the CCK, but I am wrong.

I see that functionality in the parts, I just don't see the separate editor category is all.

 

That's a known bug in AT_Utils. Category simply isn't created. Nothing more.

[RoverDude]

54 minutes ago, allista said:

That's a known bug in AT_Utils. Category simply isn't created. Nothing more.

If you need help I can toss a PR as I found out what caused this

[allista]

26 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

If you need help I can toss a PR as I found out what caused this

Thanks, I've already merged another PR just yesterday that fixes this. This also how I became aware of the issue 

What troubles me more is this:

https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/80225-13-hangar/&do=findComment&comment=3203726

[RoverDude]

4 minutes ago, allista said:

Thanks, I've already merged another PR just yesterday that fixes this. This also how I became aware of the issue 

What troubles me more is this:

https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/80225-13-hangar/&do=findComment&comment=3203726

I've passed it on

[allista]

On 9/24/2017 at 11:53 PM, B-STRK said:

Heya @allista, I could use a bit of help orienting craft on deployment. (I've read the prior discussion a few pages back and had the impression that the craft deploys oriented as if it were on the pad or runway, e.g., planes face east always). In the SPH I built it such that a specific part would be oriented northward if it were launched on the runway, and I was hoping the same would be the case on site. I however loaded the kit in the VAB for the delivery vehicle though, and I noticed the split-second image of the craft prior to its loading, oriented not in the same way as the SPH--as in the part I want north was pointing... I think west? Thinking it was how it would be deployed onsite, I added a decoupler pylon on that side of the box so that I could point it north. On site at Minmus, I landed it pointing the decouoler side north, deployed, built... and the launch vessel was oriented south instead. 

I guess what I'm asking is if there's a reliable way to make a kit face the way I need it to face, especially considering cross-loading SPH vessels into kits in the VAB. I guess paint a side of the box with the words "This faces east" (since we tend to launch eastwards from both the VAB and SPH) and have the vessel (ecen if cross-loaded) loaded into the kit appropriately (north parts in SPH are north parts in VAB)? Or edit the orientation of the vessel prior to deploying the kit (using perhaps the same wireframe model used in Hangars)?

For now, I'm gonna load a previous save where I have the opportunity to twist the kit about and see what the effect could be. 

UPDATE: yeah, twisting the kit 180 did the trick. Deployment is oriented as desired. 

That's actually a complicated matter: you see, the biggest orientation problem is not the west-east, it's the up-down. If I were (in fact I was, in the first release of GC) to bound the orientation of the spawned ship to orientation of the kit in editor, the kit would have to be placed just right on the surface. And you know how hard it is, even with TCA. A single bad move and your kit is toppling on its side and your plane spawns on its wing. So what I do is: I choose the spawn orientation at the time of deployment. Technically, each side of the kit contains an invisible transform that is oriented the right way if the kit lies on this side. When you deploy the kit, the lowest transform is chosen and remembered, while the kit is fixed to the ground. Therefore, where you've loaded the ship into the kit (VAB or SPH) is irrelevant.

But the problem is: which side is east depends on which side is down, so I cannot paint it on the box. Or, rather, I could paint it, but then three sides of the six would contain this text.

[gamerscircle]

Two questions.

1.) Since I am not using or have any of GC parts on bases or stations and I removed the mod, I would loose the smelting function?

2.) If I kept mod in a 1.3.1 build, can I build stuff with Material Kits?

 

[allista]

Version 1.2.1 for Kerbal Space Program 1.3.1

Released on 2017-11-09

• Recompiled for KSP-1.3.1
• Remove ISRU patch if USI is detected.
• Fixed PartCost calculation.

 Download 

[gamerscircle]

17 hours ago, allista said:

Version 1.2.1 for Kerbal Space Program 1.3.1

Released on 2017-11-09

• Recompiled for KSP-1.3.1
• Remove ISRU patch if USI is detected.
• Fixed PartCost calculation.

 Download 

Thank you for the update....

As one that uses USI and was RolePlaying in the area of automated advance kolony placement, having the ISRU smelt and having material kits available to built some kits, was pretty cool vs hauling bunches.

Am I assuming that I can add it manually and still maintain some of the automation?

Edited November 10, 2017 by gamerscircle

[allista]

7 minutes ago, gamerscircle said:

Thank you for the update....

As one that uses USI and was RolePlaying in the area of automated advance kolony placement, having the ISRU smelt and having material kits available to built some kits, was pretty coo vs hauling bunches.

Am I assuming that I can add it manually and still maintain some of the automation?

Well, since USI has is own path to MatKits, it was somewhat cheaty to provide them that easy; it was, and is made for standalone GC installations. But of course you can alter the MM patch for ISRU to suit your needs.

[gamerscircle]

1 minute ago, allista said:

Well, since USI has is own path to MatKits, it was somewhat cheaty to provide them that easy; it was, and is made for standalone GC installations. But of course you can alter the MM patch for ISRU to suit your needs.

I understand how people though that; but it is hard enough to get a self sustaining USI base up with getting the path to machinery and supplies let alone material kits.  Will the old MM patch still work or does a whole new one need to be written.  [is a KSP gamer and not a mod author / hacker  ]

btw - thank you for taking the time for updating the mod and the reply.

[DStaal]

5 minutes ago, gamerscircle said:

I understand how people though that; but it is hard enough to get a self sustaining USI base up with getting the path to machinery and supplies let alone material kits.  Will the old MM patch still work or does a whole new one need to be written.  [is a KSP gamer and not a mod author / hacker  ]

btw - thank you for taking the time for updating the mod and the reply.

At the top of the patch you'll see this line:

Quote

@PART[ISRU]:NEEDS[!KolonyTools]

Change it to read like this:

Quote

@PART[ISRU]

 

[gamerscircle]

Just now, DStaal said:

At the top of the patch you'll see this line:

Change it to read like this:

 

Hey @DStaal - thank you for the assit, appreciate it very much.

[Wyzard]

29 minutes ago, gamerscircle said:

I understand how people though that; but it is hard enough to get a self sustaining USI base up with getting the path to machinery and supplies let alone material kits.

FWIW, MaterialKits are one of the inputs to make Machinery, and are much easier to make than the other input (SpecializedParts).

[gamerscircle]

It is a brutal circle of life cycle , you need machinery for everything, but to make machiery, you need Mat Kits and Spec. Parts, when you also need machinery for ....  [see where I am doing with this?  So, having Mat. Kits waiting via an automated process seems okay to me.]

[RoverDude]

Speaking purely from the MKS side... the whole point is that you have to do some pretty heavy initial bootstrapping.  Building your first colony should be hard... your second, not so much  

[bounty123]

I have an issue with GC, using the MKS bundled version, but tried it with the full latest as well, with the same results. I'm trying to build a huge interplanetary rocket, spent most of my career money on it.  But now I'm stuck on Minmus with the expanded DIY kit, as after completing the build, GC says not all parts could be built. Tried to check the process as the parts are being built, it seems to me that when it reaches the Orion Pulse unit magazine, it jumps to the next part and Materialkit requirement jumps from 76k to 18k instantly. Can you suggest a solution according to this, or should I provide some files? Thanks a lot.

[allista]

2 hours ago, bounty123 said:

I have an issue with GC, using the MKS bundled version, but tried it with the full latest as well, with the same results. I'm trying to build a huge interplanetary rocket, spent most of my career money on it.  But now I'm stuck on Minmus with the expanded DIY kit, as after completing the build, GC says not all parts could be built. Tried to check the process as the parts are being built, it seems to me that when it reaches the Orion Pulse unit magazine, it jumps to the next part and Materialkit requirement jumps from 76k to 18k instantly. Can you suggest a solution according to this, or should I provide some files? Thanks a lot.

Could you share the save file in question? I'll try to figure out why that happened and, in any case, will fix the save button hand.

Oh, and a mod list, please

[bounty123]

2 hours ago, allista said:

Could you share the save file in question? I'll try to figure out why that happened and, in any case, will fix the save button hand.

Oh, and a mod list, please

 

Thanks a lot! I kept just the necessary addons, linked below the list of them and the save file for testing. That Orion magazine is really suspicious to me, but I have no clue what's happening there. I'd be really happy if it could be saved, I worked so hard to get this built

save file

addon list

 

 

[Murdabenne]

First off, @allista do tell any news about any new Kerbal Space engineer that may have joined your crew recently.

I like the way GC works, and I think it translates well to the way a "Space Construction" should work.  The "Hi-Tech" parts are sent up in a kit, but the bulky and structural parts are assembled in place.  This need not be a gross (large) chunk only problem like KIS/KAS.  It should be sone with a Kit/Blueprint and Materials, with the work done in a space dock or orbital hangar as a solution (for example, The Expanse orbital shipyards near the moon). This way the kit is sent up from the planet or base, then the ship is built in Spacedock/Hangar and launched from there.  This way you can create ships that are purely used in low-g/zero-g and never in an atmosphere, created to live in space and never see anything but that.  This way things like Solar Sails and latticework ships of low mass make sense.  They would never survive the boost to orbit but would do well in space with low accel and no drag. 

At least that's the rationale I see, and I think it works.  What remains to be seen is if/how GC (and by extension MKS) can be tweaked to allow it.  Also, there is an abandoned (I think) project called Space Dock that might be the orbital solution if anyone were to look at it.  Would that seem to be a reasonable expansion to this?  The reason I am asking is that I have been tinkering, and once my Master's Degree work is done, I am inclined to do a bit of tinkering with that.

Edited November 16, 2017 by Murdabenne

[allista]

5 hours ago, Murdabenne said:

First off, @allista do tell any news about any new Kerbal Space engineer that may have joined your crew recently.

I like the way GC works, and I think it translates well to the way a "Space Construction" should work.  The "Hi-Tech" parts are sent up in a kit, but the bulky and structural parts are assembled in place.  This need not be a gross (large) chunk only problem like KIS/KAS.  It should be sone with a Kit/Blueprint and Materials, with the work done in a space dock or orbital hangar as a solution (for example, The Expanse orbital shipyards near the moon). This way the kit is sent up from the planet or base, then the ship is built in Spacedock/Hangar and launched from there.  This way you can create ships that are purely used in low-g/zero-g and never in an atmosphere, created to live in space and never see anything but that.  This way things like Solar Sails and latticework ships of low mass make sense.  They would never survive the boost to orbit but would do well in space with low accel and no drag. 

At least that's the rationale I see, and I think it works.  What remains to be seen is if/how GC (and by extension MKS) can be tweaked to allow it.  Also, there is an abandoned (I think) project called Space Dock that might be the orbital solution if anyone were to look at it.  Would that seem to be a reasonable expansion to this?  The reason I am asking is that I have been tinkering, and once my Master's Degree work is done, I am inclined to do a bit of tinkering with that.

The new member of my crew is a girl named Litha. But she's not yet decided if she'll be an engineer or a pilot; or maybe even a scientist, walking her father's steps 

You can look at her here:

As for the space construction - this is the thing I'm at last actively working on right now. But the scheme we're agreed upon with @RoverDude includes one more element: in situ kit production. So you'll have the way to make kits in a colony or even in a space station (now that's really high tech!), then assemble them on the surface or in a space dock of appropriate size. Looks like I'll have to rename the mod after all. Global Construction? 

[Brigadier]

37 minutes ago, allista said:

Global Construction?

Planetary Construction?  Interplanetary, Galactic, Universal??