[1.9-1.10] Global Construction

[LatiMacciato]

Voted!

[Critter79606]

@allista any ideas why I would not be getting correct Material Kit counts, and while building it goes into the negative?

 

[allista]

4 hours ago, Critter79606 said:

@allista any ideas why I would not be getting correct Material Kit counts, and while building it goes into the negative?

Yea, I have an idea 

Thanks for the report 

[Critter79606]

6 hours ago, allista said:

Yea, I have an idea 

Thanks for the report 

Ok, it was late when I captured that, and forgot to grab a log.  I can replicate it if you need and grab a log. 

I forgot to note that I have USI-LS installed, but not MKS.

I also wanted to give you this in case you wanted to add it to your supported mods.  It adds USI life support to the mobile workstation for while you are building your first parts of a base.  I lifted it pretty much directly from a USI capsule, changing the CrewCapacity to the value of the workshop.

@PART[MobileWorkshop]:AFTER[GroundConstruction]:NEEDS[USILifeSupport]
{
    MODULE
    {
        name = ModuleLifeSupportRecycler
        CrewCapacity = 8
        RecyclePercent = 0.79
        ConverterName = Life Support
        tag = Life Support
        StartActionName = Start Life Support
        StopActionName = Stop Life Support

        INPUT_RESOURCE
        {
            ResourceName = ElectricCharge
            Ratio = 18.75
        }
    }
}

 

Getting ready to build my base on the Mun.  Two landers, a mobile workshop, a DIY mining trailer for the workshop, and a DIY main base.

[allista]

4 hours ago, Critter79606 said:

Ok, it was late when I captured that, and forgot to grab a log.  I can replicate it if you need and grab a log. 

I forgot to note that I have USI-LS installed, but not MKS.

I also wanted to give you this in case you wanted to add it to your supported mods.  It adds USI life support to the mobile workstation for while you are building your first parts of a base.  I lifted it pretty much directly from a USI capsule, changing the CrewCapacity to the value of the workshop.

@PART[MobileWorkshop]:AFTER[GroundConstruction]:NEEDS[USILifeSupport]
{
    MODULE
    {
        name = ModuleLifeSupportRecycler
        CrewCapacity = 8
        RecyclePercent = 0.79
        ConverterName = Life Support
        tag = Life Support
        StartActionName = Start Life Support
        StopActionName = Stop Life Support

        INPUT_RESOURCE
        {
            ResourceName = ElectricCharge
            Ratio = 18.75
        }
    }
}

Getting ready to build my base on the Mun.  Two landers, a mobile workshop, a DIY mining trailer for the workshop, and a DIY main base.

Yea, thanks a lot for the patch! Handy, will include it in the next release 

Nah, the logs won't help much, as it's a simple calculation problem (my fix for Kit.Res==Kit.Mass backfired). Does it affect the consumption of the Material Kits by the way, or is it purely a display problem?

Anyway, I currently up to my neck in making the DIY Kit on-site manufacturing possible, and since the internal mechanics of the building process have completely changed, this bug won't be around much longer; much more notorious ones will come up instead 

That said, does anyone want to help me with testing of the work-in-progress? 

So far there isn't much in terms of new features (aside from loading of subassemblies into Kits), but the whole framework was rewritten from scratch and we need to make sure everything is backward-compatible (i.e. BACKUP YOUR SAVES) and that current functionality has not regressed.

4 hours ago, Critter79606 said:

Getting ready to build my base on the Mun.  Two landers, a mobile workshop, a DIY mining trailer for the workshop, and a DIY main base.

Also, it's a joy indeed: seeing your work in use like that 

*wish I could have time to actually play KSP these days...

[Critter79606]

6 hours ago, allista said:

Yea, thanks a lot for the patch! Handy, will include it in the next release 

Nah, the logs won't help much, as it's a simple calculation problem (my fix for Kit.Res==Kit.Mass backfired). Does it affect the consumption of the Material Kits by the way, or is it purely a display problem?

Anyway, I currently up to my neck in making the DIY Kit on-site manufacturing possible, and since the internal mechanics of the building process have completely changed, this bug won't be around much longer; much more notorious ones will come up instead 

That said, does anyone want to help me with testing of the work-in-progress? 

So far there isn't much in terms of new features (aside from loading of subassemblies into Kits), but the whole framework was rewritten from scratch and we need to make sure everything is backward-compatible (i.e. BACKUP YOUR SAVES) and that current functionality has not regressed.

Also, it's a joy indeed: seeing your work in use like that 

*wish I could have time to actually play KSP these days...

It's purely display.  I designed a trailer using the Lynx Rover hitch that I connect to the Mobile Workshop that makes the whole thing mobile, that has a drill, large ISRU, some storage, heat etc.  I do a dry run on Kerbal to let me know how many Material Kits I need to bring with me.  This is where this value comes in.  I just let it run, took the starting value, the ending value and did the math.  This value looks to be really close.  I rounded up a little just to make sure, and built it no problem, it just took longer to get the value.  Taking that many kits with me, I can then make the one part on arrival, and produce what I need to for the actual base.  I then use Extraplanetary Launchpads to build the rest of the base.

I'm not sure if it's possible yet (or if something is hard coded), but I was going to look into making some patch files for the following, detecting if EP and USI MKS are installed:

Neither EL or MKS are installed - Leave config alone, but add in support for stock alike ISRUs.  Right now you pretty much only have the two canned ones by name.  I use K&K for most of my base parts, as I love the look of the base, but there a lot of stock alike ISRUs in different  mods.

EL installed, MKS not installed - switch Material Kit to Rocket Parts, disable ISRU changes.  This adds a little complexity to the build chain, increasing the difficulty just a little bit.  (Metal Ore Drill->Metal Ore->Smelter->Metal->Workshop->Rocket Parts)

EL & MKS installed - Disable ISRU patch, and use the USI building model.  This increases the building complexity and chain a whole lot, in line with RoverDudes vision. (You need to pre-position autonomous drilling rigs across the planet to mine what you need ahead of time)  

If I do, would you want them?

 

Edited May 14, 2018 by Critter79606

[leatherneck6017]

7 hours ago, allista said:

That said, does anyone want to help me with testing of the work-in-progress? 

I can test the WIP.

[allista]

45 minutes ago, Critter79606 said:

It's purely display.  I designed a trailer using the Lynx Rover hitch that I connect to the Mobile Workshop that makes the whole thing mobile, that has a drill, large ISRU, some storage, heat etc.  I do a dry run on Kerbal to let me know how many Material Kits I need to bring with me.  This is where this value comes in.  I just let it run, took the starting value, the ending value and did the math.  This value looks to be really close.  I rounded up a little just to make sure, and built it no problem, it just took longer to get the value.  Taking that many kits with me, I can then make the one part on arrival, and produce what I need to for the actual base.  I then use Extraplanetary Launchpads to build the rest of the base.

I'm not sure if it's possible yet (or if something is hard coded), but I was going to look into making some patch files for the following, detecting if EP and USI MKS are installed:

Neither EL or MKS are installed - Leave config alone, but add in support for stock alike ISRUs.  Right now you pretty much only have the two canned ones by name.  I use K&K for most of my base parts, as I love the look of the base, but there a lot of stock alike ISRUs in different  mods.

EL installed, MKS not installed - switch Material Kit to Rocket Parts, disable ISRU changes.  This adds a little complexity to the build chain, increasing the difficulty just a little bit.  (Metal Ore Drill->Metal Ore->Smelter->Metal->Workshop->Rocket Parts)

EL & MKS installed - Disable ISRU patch, and use the USI building model.  This increases the building complexity and chain a whole lot, in line with RoverDudes vision. (You need to pre-position autonomous drilling rigs across the planet to mine what you need ahead of time)  

If I do, would you want them?

The figures: you can always look at the part menu of a Kit, where the Kit Res. figure should now be accurate.

As for the patches, now, that's the tough one.

MKS already ships a cut-down version of GC without ISRU patch and most of the parts (except the DIY Kit box itself), so you probably wouldn't want to touch that.

Patch for EL is somewhat awkward, considering where everything is going: GC will have DIY Kit production on site (soon), including space, and eventually even orbital construction (becoming Global Construction instead of Ground Construction), and it will completely replace EL in USI universe.

Patches for other ISRUs, on the other hand, will be a great addition, only improving game experience.

[Critter79606]

3 minutes ago, leatherneck6017 said:

I can test the WIP.

I completely missed this.  I can help test too.  I can test in both my play (185 mods) and a clean environment.

I decided that since I don't have the graphics skill to create a mod, I can at least help test those that make them, and write cfg files for cross support where I see the need.

[allista]

8 minutes ago, leatherneck6017 said:

I can test the WIP.

Thanks! I'll make a build in a few hours when I'm home.

There were no time in the morning, when I was writing the post  

[leatherneck6017]

3 minutes ago, allista said:

Thanks! I'll make a build in a few hours when I'm home.

There were no time in the morning, when I was writing the post  

Glad to help. I'll probably be playing Far Cry 5 today, so take your time!

[Critter79606]

3 minutes ago, allista said:

The figures: you can always look at the part menu of a Kit, where the Kit Res. figure should now be accurate.

As for the patches, now, that's the tough one.

MKS already ships a cut-down version of GC without ISRU patch and most of the parts (except the DIY Kit box itself), so you probably wouldn't want to touch that.

Patch for EL is somewhat awkward, considering where everything is going: GC will have DIY Kit production on site (soon), including space, and eventually even orbital construction (becoming Global Construction instead of Ground Construction), and it will completely replace EL in USI universe.

Patches for other ISRUs, on the other hand, will be a great addition, only improving game experience.

I'll start with the ISRU one then.  Are you working with RoverDude on the USI stuff?  I know he fully supports the EL mod, and I actually like the EL model for building after a base is established.  Your boxes get way too big compared to the part on deployment, and you never know how big they will be for placement.  I know how big (generally) the part will be after complete, but if you miss calculate, the box pushes and damages other things if it grows too big.  With EL you build on a launch pad, or at a stake placed by a kerbal.  Since I know the center point (the stake or launchpad) and the general size, I know where I need to build it.  I'll get a before/after screen shot of building my trailer.

Maybe instead of the box growing, it could just unfold, keeping it's size in tact.  When it is launched, the box poofs like it does now. 

For establishing a base though GC is the way to go.  Dump everything in a box and ship it, build it.  It's nice and compact for launch.  It would take 2x the launch capacity for my first base part w/o GC, and I'd have to break it up into segments using docking ports, which you can never get straight.

[DStaal]

2 minutes ago, Critter79606 said:

I know he fully supports the EL mod, and I actually like the EL model for building after a base is established

While I agree with you on the second part, the first part is actually false: EL in MKS is entirely user-supported at this point.  RoverDude is willing to include the patches as long as they don't break things, but he's not putting any effort into them.

[Critter79606]

1 minute ago, DStaal said:

While I agree with you on the second part, the first part is actually false: EL in MKS is entirely user-supported at this point.  RoverDude is willing to include the patches as long as they don't break things, but he's not putting any effort into them.

Makes sense.

 

[allista]

44 minutes ago, Critter79606 said:

I'll start with the ISRU one then.  Are you working with RoverDude on the USI stuff?  I know he fully supports the EL mod, and I actually like the EL model for building after a base is established.  Your boxes get way too big compared to the part on deployment, and you never know how big they will be for placement.  I know how big (generally) the part will be after complete, but if you miss calculate, the box pushes and damages other things if it grows too big.  With EL you build on a launch pad, or at a stake placed by a kerbal.  Since I know the center point (the stake or launchpad) and the general size, I know where I need to build it.  I'll get a before/after screen shot of building my trailer.

Maybe instead of the box growing, it could just unfold, keeping it's size in tact.  When it is launched, the box poofs like it does now. 

For establishing a base though GC is the way to go.  Dump everything in a box and ship it, build it.  It's nice and compact for launch.  It would take 2x the launch capacity for my first base part w/o GC, and I'd have to break it up into segments using docking ports, which you can never get straight.

Yea, USI is actually in the process of switching from EL to GC.

Now, you've touched an important topic. I've had an apparently false feeling that the build-in-the-box model is way better (and was actually made to solve some of EL problems) in that it pushes things away instead of blowing them up when the built ship is spawned. Because the box has exactly the size of the bounding box of the ship inside it, to the inch.

As for "you never know" part, that's a simple wish request: I'll add the display of the fully deployed kit. Like that arrow that shows the forward direction, a rectangle that shows the actual boundaries. Or, if you prefer, the whole box, including sides and the top to see the height.

And I haven't entirely understand the last thing about 2x launch capacity and braking things down.
The kit is always lighter that the parts-to-be inside would be. The kits (if you need a bunch of them) could be stacked without the use of docking ports, because each one can be detached as is from the previous one using its part menu (they have decoupler on the top node). And with the bulkhead constraint you can make a train with the same cross-section everywhere. And, most importantly, GC can build things that are not ships -- not regular shapes, attached to the ground et cetera.

[DStaal]

39 minutes ago, allista said:

And I haven't entirely understand the last thing about 2x launch capacity and braking things down.
The kit is always lighter that the parts-to-be inside would be. The kits (if you need a bunch of them) could be stacked without the use of docking ports, because each one can be detached as is from the previous one using its part menu (they have decoupler on the top node). And with the bulkhead constraint you can make a train with the same cross-section everywhere. And, most importantly, GC can build things that are not ships -- not regular shapes, attached to the ground et cetera.

I suspect it's because with GC, you have to be able to launch the kit as one piece.  With EL, you only need to launch the materials and work space - and the materials can be done in as many pieces as you want.

So he has enough launch capacity to launch the work space, but not enough for the kit he wants to build - while with EL he can just keep shipping resources in small chunks.

[Critter79606]

3 minutes ago, allista said:

Now, you've touched an important topic. I've had an apparently false feeling that the build-in-the-box model is way better (and was actually made to solve some of EL problems) in that it pushes things away instead of blowing them up when the built ship is spawned. Because the box has exactly the size of the bounding box of the ship inside it, to the inch.

As for "you never know" part, that's a simple wish request: I'll add the display of the fully deployed kit. Like that arrow that shows the forward direction, a rectangle that shows the actual boundaries. Or, if you prefer, the whole box, including sides and the top to see the height.

 

I've not found this to be the case. The box grew way bigger (10x or more) than the size of my trailer.  I'm going to get a screen shot of this tonight for you.  I've had broken solar panels and heat parts, making me backup days to relocate the box and start over.  I need to be able to place the box exactly where I need it, without growing the box.  Most of my bases are X shaped, and the box growing doesn't allow me to place them (overlap box corners where no parts are) where I want, because the placement will cause overlap. 

Because of the gravity bug in KSP that jacks parts of a large base into the air, causing your landing legs to fail on the ones touching the ground, I generally use the USI stuff to distribute power and resources between (physically) unconnected  smaller base "Hubs", as part of a base "Complex".  Small independent buildings working as a city. 

I'd much prefer a box that unfolds (6 pieces flat on the ground to show the unpacked state), and an outline of the part to be produced in a highlight on the ground, not as a physical thing.  The square shape is fine to say with.  If I know my base is X shaped, there is nothing in the corners of the square and I can overlap those areas.  No need to get fancy.  If you don't like the placement, you can close the box, move it, and re-open it.  All this without going into time warp.  This would also eliminate the time it would take to grow the box.  I think with KIS/KAS and enough IVA kerbals, you can even spin the box if need be (you should have engineers anyway). 

You can click it, the box unfolds to the exact size of the DIY box (not the part being built), and a bright line (yellow, red, maybe configurable?) comes out to show the final size in a square that represents the old growing box.  If the line overlaps where you don't want it to, you can click it again to close the box, move it, and re-open it.  If I don't pay attention to the bright line, that's my fault.   If I overlap the opening DIY box with a part, that's my fault, I know how big the DIY box is.  I like the forward direction arrow as I do want certain parts close to eachother (Power dist parts), but also, the center bottom square panel of the box (opened) should be directly under the root part.  This would help in determining exactly where to place the box.  In my bases where one leg is longer than another, that would help a lot.

If this, and actually building DIY in the field could work, I'd drop EL entirely, but right now, it's the only way to build from scratch on a planet.

24 minutes ago, allista said:

And I haven't entirely understand the last thing about 2x launch capacity and braking things down.
The kit is always lighter that the parts-to-be inside would be. The kits (if you need a bunch of them) could be stacked without the use of docking ports, because each one can be detached as is from the previous one using its part menu (they have decoupler on the top node). And with the bulkhead constraint you can make a train with the same cross-section everywhere. And, most importantly, GC can build things that are not ships -- not regular shapes, attached to the ground et cetera.

This is if I tried to launch w/o using GC.  I was trying (not successfully) to say how great this mod is! LOL

12 minutes ago, DStaal said:

I suspect it's because with GC, you have to be able to launch the kit as one piece.  With EL, you only need to launch the materials and work space - and the materials can be done in as many pieces as you want.

So he has enough launch capacity to launch the work space, but not enough for the kit he wants to build - while with EL he can just keep shipping resources in small chunks.

Actually it's the other way around.  Launching a lopsided base from Kerbal to get EL shop on the Mun is a pain.  GC is way better to start off with.

I launch GC DIY to build a EL base.  Much easier.

[allista]

@Critter79606, i see.

The box being 10 times greater is certainly a bug. So a screenshot would help, as well as some account of constructed parts.

As for the growing vs outlying... That's somewhat of a taste issue. You, for one, agree to take responsibility, but I can bet that the outlining would cause the outcry of "you blew my base into pieces!" from much larger audience.

I can draw the resulting box, or its "shade"on the ground before unpacking. I can even draw a convex hull of the thing inside (like in Hangar). I can also decrease (actually, you also can via GroundConstruction.user config file) the speed of the deployment, so that everything went smoother. But I'm very reluctant to physically allow anything to get into construction site. Consider also a role-playing aspect: the box is not just a don't-go-there hedge, it's also a space for kerbals to work within.

[Critter79606]

2 minutes ago, allista said:

@Critter79606, i see.

The box being 10 times greater is certainly a bug. So a screenshot would help, as well as some account of constructed parts.

As for the growing vs outlying... That's somewhat of a taste issue. You, for one, agree to take responsibility, but I can bet that the outlining would cause the outcry of "you blew my base into pieces!" from much larger audience.

I can draw the resulting box, or its "shade"on the ground before unpacking. I can even draw a convex hull of the thing inside (like in Hangar). I can also decrease (actually, you also can via GroundConstruction.user config file) the speed of the deployment, so that everything went smoother. But I'm very reluctant to physically allow anything to get into construction site. Consider also a role-playing aspect: the box is not just a don't-go-there hedge, it's also a space for kerbals to work within.

I can understand that, and I can continue using EL for building that way.  I also like the fact I can use EL to build a DIY box, load it and my trailer up on my mobile workshop and take it to where ever I need to build it.  It does add some real time aspects to the game that I enjoy.  Especially when I've added the MKS.  I've not loaded it yet, as I'm still ensuring all the mods I use work correctly since the 1.4.x.  I've found a few minor things broke here and there, and can't wait to start up a career with everything again.

I'll get you a screen shot of the box around my trailer tonight after work.  I'll also try tweaking the cfg to speed up the deploy.

The shading would definitely help.  In this case the final size of the box would be the best, as that way I could make sure everything will be clear before growing the box.  Maybe just while that is the active vessel.  I could then spin around and see if anything is in it's way.  Having the box the right final size would fix some of the issues I'm having as well.

 

[Critter79606]

@allista  Finally got my ships back to the Mun.  Here is the Mobile Workshop with the trailer attached on the runway.  I will build the trailer after landing.  As you see the trailer is roughly the same size as the cab.  The trailer hitch works really good keeping all my wheels on the ground for anyone looking for one.

 

 

Now here is the box that will build the trailer.  It is way too big....  I can understand it being a little bigger than the craft so kerbals can move around, but this is as big as the Cowboy's stadium to build a VW Bug...  You can see the mobile workshop can hanging from my lander still.  When the base is deployed (small box on left) it will be 3x the size of the box on right... 

 

Here is a ground level shot. 

 

Here is my craft file for just the trailer...  Let me know if you need anything else.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1qrxzmBHs7vL0wlEP24dj3dePgKBb6tKX

 

Here is my base box

 

 

Here is the base completed

Edited May 15, 2018 by Critter79606

[allista]

2 hours ago, Critter79606 said:

@allista  Finally got my ships back to the Mun.  Here is the Mobile Workshop with the trailer attached on the runway.  I will build the trailer after landing.  As you see the trailer is roughly the same size as the cab.  The trailer hitch works really good keeping all my wheels on the ground for anyone looking for one

Now here is the box that will build the trailer.  It is way too big....  I can understand it being a little bigger than the craft so kerbals can move around, but this is as big as the Cowboy's stadium to build a VW Bug...  You can see the mobile workshop can hanging from my lander still.  When the base is deployed (small box on left) it will be 3x the size of the box on right... 

Here is a ground level shot. 

Here is my craft file for just the trailer...  Let me know if you need anything else.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1qrxzmBHs7vL0wlEP24dj3dePgKBb6tKX

Here is my base box

Here is the base completed

Waaay too big indeed! But what mods are those parts from? Something called Lynx and some trusses by TAL, neither of which I cannot find on CKAN. Something else?

[allista]

!!! VOTE: SkyCrane decoupler fate !!!

The vote is closed, as no more votes are coming for a day or so, and results are conclusive:

14 voted to remove the decoupler and leave the plain attach node

2 voted against it

Majority rules.

https://goo.gl/forms/sz3SURFK9WUAkVxf2

[allista]

Nightbuilds (well, more like Morningbuilds) 

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/m3pkpgxpo9dbd40/AABq5MCRI-JDmQJiZyh-ZUTla?dl=0

 

There are versions of all my mods, because invariably the AT_Utils code is updated. So if you happen to use any of those beside GC, use the nightbuild flavor.

Now, If you find a bug, report it here with all additional information you can gather.

Screenshots are often more descriptive than words, and if the bug is an actual exception, the output_log.txt (Player.log for mac/linux) are indispensable.

Save files and .craft files could also help, especially if they're not too modded.

Anyway, thanks for the help, and enjoy new stuff and new bugs (and even some fixes of old ones) 

Cheers!

[Critter79606]

5 hours ago, allista said:

!!! VOTE: SkyCrane decoupler fate !!!

The vote is closed, as no more votes are coming for a day or so, and results are conclusive:

14 voted to remove the decoupler and leave the plain attach node

2 voted against it

Majority rules.

https://goo.gl/forms/sz3SURFK9WUAkVxf2

What is this, a democracy? LOL

5 hours ago, allista said:

Waaay too big indeed! But what mods are those parts from? Something called Lynx and some trusses by TAL, neither of which I cannot find on CKAN. Something else?

The Lynx parts are the hitch components that are +2 on tweakscale due to the weight of the rover and trailer 

There are 2 USI containers.  The trusses are from 

 

The heat components are from 

 

The drill is from 

The solar panel is from Near Future Solar

I think that's all of em.

 

 

[Critter79606]

@allista  I loaded your nightly build, and I'm not sure what happened, but the DIY boxes no longer have a Select Vessel button, and my saved craft that had a loaded craft were all default sizes.