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

[tsaven]

Is Machinery intentionally not transferable via Local Logistics, or have I run into a bug on my old 1.2.2 version?

[DStaal]

5 minutes ago, tsaven said:

Is Machinery intentionally not transferable via Local Logistics, or have I run into a bug on my old 1.2.2 version?

Not transferable, but an engineer (or appropriate sub-class) in a workshop will automatically 'preform maintenance' to transfer it where needed.  Or an engineer on EVA can transfer it by preforming maintenance on the part that needs it.

[voicey99]

38 minutes ago, tsaven said:

Is Machinery intentionally not transferable via Local Logistics, or have I run into a bug on my old 1.2.2 version?

As said, it is on the baked blacklist, but it's worth mentioning that Machinery can still be manually transferred with alt-click. Enriched Uranium and Depleted Fuel however, are on that list as well as not being able to be transferred manually, so you will need to use the maintenance function to transfer them around (use this patch) I wrote to jury-rig the maintenance function to transfer between uranium canisters), use KIS to detach and move them with a kerbal or use the Near Future Electrical containers (you can delete everything else in the mod you don't want), which can have stuff transferred between them on different vessels and NFE comes with a patch to apply that to USI canisters as well.

Just now, tsaven said:

Well I just landed a vessel with nine Industrial Refineries, and to make the mass manageable I only filled one of them with Machinery on launch.  I've landed a Kontainer full of machinery 50m away, but when I do "Perform Maintainence" via an EVA all it does is move that 2,000 machinery around from one refinery to the next, it never pulls from the Kontainer right next to it with 16,000 machinery in it.

Am I doing something wrong?

It shouldn't be doing that.

Edited November 14, 2017 by voicey99

[tsaven]

27 minutes ago, DStaal said:

Not transferable, but an engineer (or appropriate sub-class) in a workshop will automatically 'preform maintenance' to transfer it where needed.  Or an engineer on EVA can transfer it by preforming maintenance on the part that needs it.

Well I just landed a vessel with nine Industrial Refineries, and to make the mass manageable I only filled one of them with Machinery on launch.  I've landed a Kontainer full of machinery 50m away, but when I do "Perform Maintainence" via an EVA all it does is move that 2,000 machinery around from one refinery to the next, it never pulls from the Kontainer right next to it with 16,000 machinery in it.

Am I doing something wrong?

[RoverDude]

Just now, tsaven said:

Am I doing something wrong?

Enable warehousing on the kontainer.

[tsaven]

5 minutes ago, voicey99 said:

As said, it is on the baked blacklist, but it's worth mentioning that Machinery can still be manually transferred with alt-click.

Right, but I can't use Local Logistics to move it around.  I'll have to get my lander close enough to plug it in with a KIS connector, and risk the Kraken.

5 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

Enable warehousing on the kontainer.

Both Planetary and Local warehousing is on on the kontainer.  It's possible I'm running into a bug?  As I mentioned I'm still running 1.2.2 and 0.5.16 (I think)

[RoverDude]

Just now, tsaven said:

Right, but I can't use Local Logistics to move it around.  I'll have to get my lander close enough to plug it in with a KIS connector, and risk the Kraken.

See above.  Enable logistics on the kontainer then perform maintenance and you will be good to go.

Semi-related side note, there's some discussion of this mechanic and some ideas floating about - will post more details once we've hashed them out

Also - usual call-out if folks are interested in joining the team (toss me a PM if interested).  Even if you can't code, folks that can help with Github issues and config files are always appreciated!

2 minutes ago, tsaven said:

Right, but I can't use Local Logistics to move it around.  I'll have to get my lander close enough to plug it in with a KIS connector, and risk the Kraken.

Both Planetary and Local warehousing is on on the kontainer.  It's possible I'm running into a bug?  As I mentioned I'm still running 1.2.2 and 0.5.16 (I think)

Oh... certainly a possibility then if you are on an older version

[voicey99]

7 minutes ago, tsaven said:

Right, but I can't use Local Logistics to move it around.  I'll have to get my lander close enough to plug it in with a KIS connector, and risk the Kraken.

Both Planetary and Local warehousing is on on the kontainer.  It's possible I'm running into a bug?  As I mentioned I'm still running 1.2.2 and 0.5.16 (I think)

It should be being pulled from the kontainer into the refineries though by maintenance - I wrote a patch for transferring machinery between kontainers with maintenance as well, if needed.

There are more up-to-date versions available for 1.2.2 on the releases page (the latest is 0.50.18, I am using the special 0.50.19 version that came with the final 1.2.2 Constellation release and I can confirm there's no bug with this in 0.50.19) that may have been released after the bug was fixed. 0.50.17 mentions something about a modification to how Machinery interacts with logistics, but the more up to date, the better.

Edited November 14, 2017 by voicey99

[tsaven]

8 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

Oh... certainly a possibility then if you are on an older version

I can either enjoy playing KSP, or I can struggle to keep all my mods compatible with your never-ending stream of releases.    At some point I have to call it "good enough" and play the dang game!

[sh1pman]

1 hour ago, voicey99 said:

Yeah, and I would have submitted to DEVELOP were it not for the fact that I already had another pull request pending for DEVELOP, and I was unsure over whether it would be included and I only just figured out how to open new branches so I did the changes in Master instead to keep the two changes separate and not submit a PR full of all the commit baggage that comes from PRing between branches.

You can just add more commits to your existing PR and then rename it to include all of the changes. (that's what I just did with my reactor fix PR)

Edited November 14, 2017 by sh1pman

[voicey99]

26 minutes ago, sh1pman said:

You can just add more commits to your existing PR and then rename it to include all of the changes. (that's what I just did with my reactor fix PR)

Commits are automatically added on to PRs, you don't have to rename them. The fix I wrote for the Karibou habitation was showing signs of being held up by a bug, so I decided not to associate my other changes with it.

[sh1pman]

Just now, voicey99 said:

Commits are automatically added on to PRs, you don't have to rename them. The fix I wrote for the Karibou habitation was showing signs of being held up by a bug, so I decided not to associate my other changes with it.

I mean rename the whole PR to reflect all of the commits, nvm, it's not important anyway

[juanml82]

I was reading about Kerbal Health and its combination with MKS and it mentioned something about disabling MKS habitation mechanic in order to use Kerbal Health's mechanic. But where is the options panel to disable functions of MKS/USI-LS?

[sh1pman]

Just now, juanml82 said:

I was reading about Kerbal Health and its combination with MKS and it mentioned something about disabling MKS habitation mechanic in order to use Kerbal Health's mechanic. But where is the options panel to disable functions of MKS/USI-LS?

It's either in KSP difficulty options or in USI-LS options in KSC view.

[voicey99]

Just now, sh1pman said:

It's either in KSP difficulty options or in USI-LS options in KSC view.

It's the applet with the green cube in KSP view (elsewhere it displays current timers).

[tsaven]

Am I correct in understanding that the resource ReplacementParts has been depreciated and can be completely removed from other mods looking to balance with USI?

[voicey99]

4 minutes ago, tsaven said:

Am I correct in understanding that the resource ReplacementParts has been depreciated and can be completely removed from other mods looking to balance with USI?

Yes, it has been that way for quite a long time. The last references to them were removed in v0.50.18.

[RoverDude]

1 hour ago, juanml82 said:

I was reading about Kerbal Health and its combination with MKS and it mentioned something about disabling MKS habitation mechanic in order to use Kerbal Health's mechanic. But where is the options panel to disable functions of MKS/USI-LS?

That would be USI-LS.  And will also probably make a lot of modules kinda weird as their production chains and capabilities won't do anything anymore.  Curious why it has things disabled instead of layered on top tbh

[Wyzard]

11 hours ago, RoverDude said:

For the benefit of those tossing in PR's...

I work off of Develop.  All PRs should go there.  Once a release is ready, it is merged into Master (which is what CKAN and KSP-AVC check).  So on release day, Dev and Master are the same.  Where stuff gets shaky is when people do code changes in Master, because the DLL will be stomped by the DEV one (I compile on DEV then merge the DLL into Master).

FWIW, you might want to take a look at "GitFlow considered harmful", particularly the part about the master/develop split.  If all the work is done on develop, and releases are built from develop, and every commit on master is intended to be identical to one on develop, master isn't really adding any value compared to just tagging commits on develop.  (And if master isn't needed, it could be deleted, and then "develop" renamed to "master".)

[RoverDude]

Except for the whole rub that you need a specific branch for external tools to key off of (CKAN/KSP-AVC/etc) - as well as a simultaneous place to prep the release (i.e. Dev).   The easiest solution is to just kick back every PR against Master and tell folks to go against the correct branch.  I'm (sometimes) more flexible on this because I do realize people are being nice and doing stuff for free.

[Wyzard]

Hmm, didn't know CKAN requires a separate branch.  But that could maybe be accomplished by  having a branch head called "release" that just gets fast-forwarded to each new tagged release commit, instead of creating actual merge commits.

Anyway, I won't nag you about it — I'm not starting a campaign to change the USI development process.    Just wanted to toss out the idea for consideration.

[RoverDude]

It doesnt... but it requires pointing to a version file... and the instant that file is checked in at that location/branch, it is eligible for indexing.  I generally make the version files and changelogs weeks in advance.

And yeah, Git is pretty lousy at centralized version control.   

[BadWorksFun]

There is a problem with the dependencies this has... AT Utils... which  Depends on Configurable Containers... that relies on Kethane and kethane doesn't currently support 1.3.1 at least the version this uses.

[sh1pman]

51 minutes ago, BadWorksFun said:

There is a problem with the dependencies this has... AT Utils... which  Depends on Configurable Containers... that relies on Kethane and kethane doesn't currently support 1.3.1 at least the version this uses.

You don’t need to download anything not already bundled with MKS.

[RoverDude]

3 hours ago, BadWorksFun said:

There is a problem with the dependencies this has... AT Utils... which  Depends on Configurable Containers... that relies on Kethane and kethane doesn't currently support 1.3.1 at least the version this uses.

I think you're confusing dependencies with... something else.  AT Utils does not require CC, it's the opposite.  And no idea what the heck Kethane has to do with any of this as I have not supported Kethane in years.