[1.12.x] - Modular Kolonization System (MKS)

[goldenpsp]

I know others say it isn't necessary but I can't be bothered to balance my VTOL craft. I use TCA

https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/97154-13-throttle-controlled-avionics/

[Terwin]

11 hours ago, rspeed said:

Is it possible to simply exclude airlocks?

Airlocks are just one example, there are many ranger parts that are well under 1t that could be spammed to artificially increase the MKS part count of a base for the sake of increasing colony rewards(The smelt-o-matic and sifter are under 0.1 tons each and it would not be implausible to have several of them working as efficiency parts for example).

Even if you excluded all Ranger parts, it still seems like a large base with 3-4 20m parts should have greater colonization effects than a base that is half the size but uses twice as many Duna and Tundra parts(presumably with less than half of the habitation/production of the larger base).

Basically I would like it if using larger/more massive parts to achieve the same productivity as a group of smaller parts did not have penalties when it comes to colonization bonuses/rewards.

 

[Wyzard]

For VTOL things: remember that the CoM can change as fuel tanks drain.  It helps to use RCS Build Aid, which is useful for more than just RCS: it shows you the CoM both with and without fuel, and the average of the two.  Position the fuel tanks so that those markers are close to each other — meaning that the CoM doesn't change much, regardless of fuel level — and then position the engines so that the CoT is aligned with the CoM.

Note that you want to pay attention to the Center of Thrust, not the Center of Lift.  The CoL only matters when you're flying in atmosphere.  You want the CoT to be positioned such that the CoM is directly along the thrust axis, because any anywhere else will exert torque.  The distance between CoM and CoT doesn't matter, nor which one is in front.  Just how they're aligned.

Edited September 29, 2017 by Wyzard
Oops: CoT, not CoL

[DStaal]

I regularly hand-land or use Mechjeb to land Karibou rovers.  My hints:

• Balance the thrust around the center of mass.  Obvious, but can be finicky.
  • Remember both thrust and resources can be limited.  Tweaking by putting a thin slice with SpecalizedParts or something at one and and adjusting how much it's holding can help get final balance.
• Balance the fuel around the center of mass.  Again, semi-obvious but finicky.
• Balance the fuel *drain* around the center of mass.  This one's a bit harder to spot - but remember the fuel flow rules and note where the fuel tanks are.  If they won't balance equally as you drain them, you'll have an 'interesting' flight.
• Typically all of the above tends to mean 'fuel in the center, engines near the ends'.  It's tempting to put the engines in the center, but you'll lose a lot of control authority that way.
• Orient the Karibou so that it points across the most important axis of rotation.  With the engines at the ends, it's fairly stable and can maintain that orientation the easiest.
• Do *not* expect the engines to be able to help in any other axis of rotation.  They'll flail around, but won't be much help.  Give it lots of RCS, and don't be afraid to use it.  (Note that the Karibou engines generate monoprop as they run...)
• Place the Karibou landing control core above the center of mass.   It's possible to land using the command cab, but the radial control point makes it much easier - and it's best if it's over the center of mass/thrust.

TCA is also good, but note that the Karibou engines are not enough then - they don't provide enough roll control under TCA to do much.  RCS will help, but TCA doesn't tend to apply it.  Also, the independent thrust vectors of the Karibou engines aren't something TCA works well with.  I typically find that it's easier to build a good craft and land it under MechJeb then to rely on TCA for the Karibou, personally.

[DStaal]

21 hours ago, Cynor said:

Hi all, I'm having a bit of an oddity that I think is user error, so I'm hopeful that maybe someone has encountered it before and can help me out.

Basically I'm working on building up my first small (ok not that small really) surface base. I'm using mainly tundra parts connected with Flex Tubes to the ball anchor hubs. The issue is that even though the flex tubes seem to stay attached at first, it's extremely easy to literally knock them off the ball hubs and sometimes they just will fall off at random. This is using the "top" node and attaching it vs just dropping it.

If anyone could help I'd appreciate it. Thanks.

A: Yes, they do that sometimes. 

B: Make sure you're actually attached, using the tool.  Also note that anything you attach to the ground gets handled as a separate vessel in some places, and it's possible for KSP to detach them from the other vessels it's attached to.  (Basically: Attaching something to the ground and then attaching it to your current ship via KIS attachments will work until it doesn't.  Be ready to do the occasional repair.)

[ss8913]

Quick question; if I want to use ground construction with MKS, do I need to install the ground construction mod in its entirety, or just "ground construction core" ?

[goldenpsp]

3 minutes ago, ss8913 said:

Quick question; if I want to use ground construction with MKS, do I need to install the ground construction mod in its entirety, or just "ground construction core" ?

Neither.  Everything you need for Ground Construction is included in MKS

[ss8913]

1 hour ago, goldenpsp said:

Neither.  Everything you need for Ground Construction is included in MKS

Is there a tutorial on how to use the mks version?  The wiki page thats supposed to have that, does not.  I dont see some of the parts from the original gc mod, like the diy kit, so im unsure how to proceed.

[goldenpsp]

55 minutes ago, ss8913 said:

Is there a tutorial on how to use the mks version?  The wiki page thats supposed to have that, does not.  I dont see some of the parts from the original gc mod, like the diy kit, so im unsure how to proceed.

It works basically the same way.  Just read the part desciptions for which have the GC functions.

[ss8913]

17 hours ago, goldenpsp said:

It works basically the same way.  Just read the part desciptions for which have the GC functions.

ok found it, got it, it works... only thing is.. dropping one of these kit things near my base on Mun tanks the frame rate, worse than anything else I have ever done in KSP.  Is this normal/expected?  get rid of that box, and the frame rate goes back up by a factor of 3-4x.  If I drop a box somewhere new, ie, away from other existing structures, I don't seem to have this problem, but I thought I'd add some extra hab space to the mining base, and ... this happens.  I can get some log info, didn't do that last night, but wanted to see if this was anyone else's experience as well or just me?

[rspeed]

On 9/29/2017 at 9:07 AM, Terwin said:

Airlocks are just one example, there are many ranger parts that are well under 1t that could be spammed to artificially increase the MKS part count of a base for the sake of increasing colony rewards

Okay, I'm understanding a bit better now. I was under the impression that only (ker)manned parts applied towards kolony rewards, in which case an airlock really shouldn't count since it's only supposed to be a temporary location. In fact… I can't seem to find any documentation (even on the wiki) about how that mechanic functions.

[Terwin]

4 minutes ago, rspeed said:

Okay, I'm understanding a bit better now. I was under the impression that only (ker)manned parts applied towards kolony rewards, in which case an airlock really shouldn't count since it's only supposed to be a temporary location. In fact… I can't seem to find any documentation (even on the wiki) about how that mechanic functions.

I believe the metric is something long the lines of X*Y where X is the number of parts and Y is the number of kerbals on board.

I *think* X is the total number of parts on the craft so long as there is at least 1 MKS part present.

It should be mentioned somewhere in this thread(unless it was last mentioned before the thread was lost and re-created which seems likely)

[Loren Pechtel]

18 minutes ago, Terwin said:

I believe the metric is something long the lines of X*Y where X is the number of parts and Y is the number of kerbals on board.

I *think* X is the total number of parts on the craft so long as there is at least 1 MKS part present.

It should be mentioned somewhere in this thread(unless it was last mentioned before the thread was lost and re-created which seems likely)

That metric really needs changing.  Don't base it on part count, base it on mass or cost.  If anything one big part should be more desirable than many small ones of the same total capacity.

[notthebobo]

@RoverDude, I see that KSP 1.3.1 is Coming Soon (TM), and I'm making an assumption that you'll have a release shortly thereafter. While I understand (and appreciate) there are no commitments, do you see any major re-balancing changes to the resources in the next release?  I'm trying to figure out how out-of-date the Wiki will be.

[SchrottBot]

Okay, fist of all: Thanks a million for al lot of input to consider. some things I was was already aware of but as always one or two word can add up a lot. =) I will test it all in the next weeks to improve thr rovers. Basically COT / COW Balancing is quite tricky with the Karibou part, as I cannot move the engines or tanks freely, so I guell I#ll have to add length and payload mass just for the sake f balance. Anyway, I'll just gonna catch me some roids for fuel. =)

On 29.9.2017 at 6:19 PM, DStaal said:

• Do *not* expect the engines to be able to help in any other axis of rotation.  They'll flail around, but won't be much help.  Give it lots of RCS, and don't be afraid to use it.  (Note that the Karibou engines generate monoprop as they run...)

Oh! Never seen that before! Interesting. Thanks for the hint.

Regards

SchrottBot

Edited September 30, 2017 by SchrottBot
Don't drink and type ... =)

[Kerbinidiel]

hi, I've installed the MKS...

inside the folders i see the "akita" and the "karibou"

but in game i cant see theese rovers

[voicey99]

19 minutes ago, Kerbinidiel said:

hi, I've installed the MKS...

inside the folders i see the "akita" and the "karibou"

but in game i cant see theese rovers

Are the other MKS parts visible? Akita/Karibou/Malemute stuff should be found in the (MKS-added) Rovers tab in the VAB/SPH.

[Kerbinidiel]

13 minutes ago, voicey99 said:

Are the other MKS parts visible? Akita/Karibou/Malemute stuff should be found in the (MKS-added) Rovers tab in the VAB/SPH.

ahahahah my fault... i searched with the "search bar" but nothing... they are all in rovers tab... thanks

[voicey99]

Just now, Kerbinidiel said:

ahahahah my fault... i searched with the "search bar" but nothing... they are all in rovers tab... thanks

MKS parts are iffy when it comes to the searchbox. Not entirely sure why.

[Flutifioc]

Hello,

First of all, I'm having loads of fun with this mod. Congratulations on the awesome work.

I have recently built a station on Minmus divided in two parts (one with drills / refineries and the main base), using planetary logistics to transfer resources between the two. All was working perfectly and resources are nicely piling up in the planetary warehouse. However, at one unknown point in time, my main base "lost" all connection with the planetary warehouse : impossible to pull resources, but also to push them ! This is very strange, since it used to work perfectly before and I haven't done any major changes to the base since its creation. Does someone have already encountered a similar problem or have any advice to solve it ? 

Thanks in advance !

[cyberKerb]

On 8/17/2017 at 11:49 PM, maja said:

I don't see any change in kolonist hire cost. Still 50k regardless of a profession. Also, that bug, that kerbal hire form is not changing it's size depending on global UI scale, is there again. I can raise GitHub issue, if you want.

I saw #1180 in the Github issue log and figured it was worth adding screenshots to help highlight this issue.

[voicey99]

16 hours ago, Flutifioc said:

Hello,

First of all, I'm having loads of fun with this mod. Congratulations on the awesome work.

I have recently built a station on Minmus divided in two parts (one with drills / refineries and the main base), using planetary logistics to transfer resources between the two. All was working perfectly and resources are nicely piling up in the planetary warehouse. However, at one unknown point in time, my main base "lost" all connection with the planetary warehouse : impossible to pull resources, but also to push them ! This is very strange, since it used to work perfectly before and I haven't done any major changes to the base since its creation. Does someone have already encountered a similar problem or have any advice to solve it ? 

Thanks in advance !

Is warehousing enabled on your kontainers? Do you have an MPU or logistics module to push or a manned (by a pilot/quartermaster) logmod to pull?

If your bases are >150m away (or are both >2km from a Malemute/Karibou rover with resource storage for the transferred resources), consider using local logistics instead.

Edited October 4, 2017 by voicey99

[Flutifioc]

12 minutes ago, voicey99 said:

Is warehousing enabled on your kontainers? Do you have an MPU or logistics module to push or a manned (by a pilot/quartermaster) logmod to pull?

If your bases are >150m away (or are both >2km from a Malemute/Karibou rover with resource storage for the transferred resources), consider using local logistics instead.

Thank you for your help !

Yes, all (relevant) containers are set to yes for "Planetary logistics" (and also "local logistics" since I sometimes transfer resources to shuttles). I also have a Duna Pioneer module with a pilot onboard. I tried placing the pilot inside the module itself, to no avail. 

The most worrying fact IMO is that I can't even push resources in the warehouse. Which is usually, if I'm not mistaken, doable even without a logistics module.

The bases are quite far apart (probably something like 100-200km) since both are exploiting different resources that could not be found at the same spot, so local logistics are sadly out of the question for this base...

I however noticed something : in the tech tree, I have not yet unlocked the Duna logistics module. Could it be possible that a recent patch transfered the "planetary logistics" functionality from the Duna pioneer module to the Duna logistics module ?

[voicey99]

42 minutes ago, Flutifioc said:

I however noticed something : in the tech tree, I have not yet unlocked the Duna logistics module. Could it be possible that a recent patch transfered the "planetary logistics" functionality from the Duna pioneer module to the Duna logistics module ?

I can't see any references in the code or changelog to that. Also, the last MKS update was 6 weeks ago, so nothing has changed in a while anyway.

The Duna Pioneer module isn't actually a logistics module. The Tundra logistics module being titled the Pioneer + Logistics Module is somewhat confusing (it was once even worse, being titled the Pioneer-Logistics Module), as it implies the Duna Pioneer should do the same (Duna Pioneer and Logistics are separate).

Edited October 4, 2017 by voicey99

[Flutifioc]

 

The Duna Pioneer module isn't actually a logistics module. The Tundra logistics module being titled the Pioneer + Logistics Module is somewhat confusing (it was once even worse, being titled the Pioneer-Logistics Module), as it implies the Duna Pioneer should do the same (Duna Pioneer and Logistics are separate).

Hum... That could explain it, but how was I able to use logistics before, without any proper module ? Anyway, I know have an idea on how to fix my base, even though I'm still not understanding what happened...

I'll try that and update you. Thanks !