RoverDude

[1.3] - Modular Kolonization System (MKS)

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Wragie said:

I haven't used this mod before and have been trying to assemble a small base on Minmus to work things out (how to make it work ). I landed the Pioneer module and then more Kerbals and more components. Not a big base but enough to figure out how this works.

Ok first problem is that the Pioneer module behaves like a lightweight bouncy castle. If I drop something on the ground in the wrong place it will jump into the air a hundred meters or so and surprisingly land without kerploding. I saw mention of this but no fix or cause from posts a year or so old. Does anyone know how to fix or fix it to the ground lol? I managed to attached a larger hab unit and a greenhouse as well as a power unit once but Bozo struck again regardless and up it went lol. I tried setting the ground tethers but had the same result.

I see pictures of bases many times what I am trying to do. Wondering if the builder experienced this or managed to fix it on their install.  Can anyone say if this is a mod conflict or a bad setting or if this is a known bug ?

 

I think there's an "attach ground tether" option in the right-click menu on most of these parts now...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Wragie said:

I haven't used this mod before and have been trying to assemble a small base on Minmus to work things out (how to make it work ). I landed the Pioneer module and then more Kerbals and more components. Not a big base but enough to figure out how this works.

Ok first problem is that the Pioneer module behaves like a lightweight bouncy castle. If I drop something on the ground in the wrong place it will jump into the air a hundred meters or so and surprisingly land without kerploding. I saw mention of this but no fix or cause from posts a year or so old. Does anyone know how to fix or fix it to the ground lol? I managed to attached a larger hab unit and a greenhouse as well as a power unit once but Bozo struck again regardless and up it went lol. I tried setting the ground tethers but had the same result.

I see pictures of bases many times what I am trying to do. Wondering if the builder experienced this or managed to fix it on their install.  Can anyone say if this is a mod conflict or a bad setting or if this is a known bug ?

Any chance of some pictures of what is going on?  I build most of my bases on Minmus and don't run into this problem, especially with the ground tether turned on(side note, you only need to turn it on for one part per vessel).  The only time I get issues with things jumping is when there are weird colliders when I attach something with KIS/KAS, when that happens things get launched thanks to the low gravity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick question, since I haven't really played KSP since Ground Construction replaced EPL in MKS:

Isn't it possible to build things completely on-site? Is the giant box really required? It seems to (mostly) defeat the purpose when I have to ship in a 40 ton container to build a 100 ton vehicle.

I really liked how EPL allowed me to do things with a hammer and a stake, and then just tons of resources and kerbals happily slaving away for my dark purposes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Shawarmakriger said:

Quick question, since I haven't really played KSP since Ground Construction replaced EPL in MKS:

Isn't it possible to build things completely on-site? Is the giant box really required? It seems to (mostly) defeat the purpose when I have to ship in a 40 ton container to build a 100 ton vehicle.

I really liked how EPL allowed me to do things with a hammer and a stake, and then just tons of resources and kerbals happily slaving away for my dark purposes.

I had to go look up what you were talking about, and yeah, EPL was dropped in favor of GC, and I totally get the reason.  That happened months ago from the look up it, but the wiki still lists EPL as a recommended mod.  https://github.com/UmbraSpaceIndustries/MKS/wiki/Helpful-Mods

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

If you like EL, use EL - nothing changes or blocks it.

The parts are going to be removed though, yes? The orbital shipyard and the mobile launch platform?
But perhaps I can just save them and use them later?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Shawarmakriger said:

The parts are going to be removed though, yes? The orbital shipyard and the mobile launch platform?
But perhaps I can just save them and use them later?

Or use the EL parts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/17/2018 at 11:37 PM, Crimor said:

For some reason my extractor, agriculture, and drills get turned off whenever I go out of loading range of my mining rover, what am I doing wrong? It's nuclear powered with over 1k of buffer energy just in case so I doubt it's a power problem.

 

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/132503638793912320/403316444902981643/unknown.png

Figured out a likely culprit of this,

unknown.png

I'll get ya a clean log when I have time but I should technically be working right now. Using the Constellation pre-release.

Went back to the latest github release of usitools and it seems to have fixed it for now.

Edited by Crimor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Shawarmakriger said:

The parts are going to be removed though, yes? The orbital shipyard and the mobile launch platform?
But perhaps I can just save them and use them later?

 

They don't work without EPL anymore, IIRC, so as mentioned, you can just use the EPL parts. Just like there's no inherent reason why you can't use- for example- Planetary Base System modules alongside MKS ones, presuming you find a way to connect them without it looking odd ( specifically, PBS modules tend to be semicircular, while MKS ones tend to be circular, so an adaptor is usually necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, sstabeler said:

They don't work without EPL anymore, IIRC, so as mentioned, you can just use the EPL parts. Just like there's no inherent reason why you can't use- for example- Planetary Base System modules alongside MKS ones, presuming you find a way to connect them without it looking odd ( specifically, PBS modules tend to be semicircular, while MKS ones tend to be circular, so an adaptor is usually necessary.

You can fetch the EPL parts from an earlier version of MKS and use them, since I think they still work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, voicey99 said:

You can fetch the EPL parts from an earlier version of MKS and use them, since I think they still work.

However, they don't match the form factors of *any* other parts at this point.  There are other parts packs with EL parts - and there is still a patch to allow some of the MKS parts to operate as Survey Stations, so surveyed builds still work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, DStaal said:

However, they don't match the form factors of *any* other parts at this point.  There are other parts packs with EL parts - and there is still a patch to allow some of the MKS parts to operate as Survey Stations, so surveyed builds still work.

Were the old parts perfectly octagonal? If they were the same profile as the kontainers, the MKS EPL stuff would fit near Future Construction trusses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, voicey99 said:

Were the old parts perfectly octagonal? If they were the same profile as the kontainers, the MKS EPL stuff would fit near Future Construction trusses.

They weren't the same profile as the Kontainers.  They were very close at least to perfectly octagonal.  (And they were a size factor larger than NFC's oct-trusses.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem I see with only using GroundConstruction is that it's the last thing that forces you to use KSC launches in the lategame, and sometimes it can take literal years for a box to get to the planet your base is on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fortunately orbital and in-place construction are coming to GC :wink:

And as noted - absolutely nothing in MKS stops you from using EL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh boy, can't wait for that, currently using SimpleConstruction but I do prefer the GC style.

 

For some reason when I buy these three 3.75m parts they don't stay bought:

https://i.imgur.com/0qAm1Cz.jpg

https://www.dropbox.com/s/xwh9l18k5ts25fj/output_log.txt?dl=0

(Constellation prerelease with newest usitools from github instead of the prerelease version that breaks drills)

Edited by Crimor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@RoverDudeLittle issue:

cLrY46X.png

I added MKS using also the "Colonist" trait mod ( https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/149488-12-colonists/ ), meanwhile I stopped to use TRP-Hire ( https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/163315-131-trp-hire-formerly-ksi-hiring/& ) as being functionally included in MKS, but now I have the trouble that the "Colonist" (the mix-up about the 3 stock traits) is not showing in the hire panel...

The same problem (probably caused by a shared function) is present also in TRP-Hire mantained by @linuxgurugamer, but now it has added some new features (like making "new" kerbals as veteran/orange too):

... I know that asking could be bold, but should it possible to cross-develope the "hiring function" between both, to adress the issue about "new custom traits" but also add here too the possibility to make orange/veteran kerbals??

Edited by Araym

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Araym said:

@RoverDudeLittle issue:

cLrY46X.png

I added MKS using also the "Colonist" trait mod ( https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/149488-12-colonists/ ), meanwhile I stopped to use TRP-Hire ( https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/163315-131-trp-hire-formerly-ksi-hiring/& ) as being functionally included in MKS, but now I have the trouble that the "Colonist" (the mix-up about the 3 stock traits) is not showing in the hire panel...

The same problem (probably caused by a shared function) is present also in TRP-Hire mantained by @linuxgurugamer, but now it has added some new features (like making "new" kerbals as veteran/orange too):

... I know that asking could be bold, but should it possible to cross-develope the "hiring function" between both, to adress the issue about "new custom traits" but also add here too the possibility to make orange/veteran kerbals??

The version that I maintain is incompatible with what @RoverDude includes and maintains on his own.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the colonist mod has pretty much been integrated- Kolonist is the "jack of all trades" MKS kerbal.

If you want to allow kerbals to become veterans, then Earn Your Stripes allows you to- just set it so that a kerbal gets veteran status after a single flight and you functionally have new veteran kerbals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sstabeler said:

Because the colonist mod has pretty much been integrated- Kolonist is the "jack of all trades" MKS kerbal.

If you want to allow kerbals to become veterans, then Earn Your Stripes allows you to- just set it so that a kerbal gets veteran status after a single flight and you functionally have new veteran kerbals.

I would disagree with that.  Colonists and Kolonists have a very different skill set.  Colonists can do a lot of things that Kolonists can't, and Kolonists help your efficiency grow a lot more than Colonists do.

 

Both this mod and TRP-Hire hard-code their list of Kerbal classes into the mod.  It's a limitation at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't remember if engineers have to be in the same vessel as the drills for them to receive the efficiency bonus. If you know, you would spare me half an hour to make experiments to find out. thank you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DStaal, that's true, but what you want- the ability to add new types of Kerbal to recruit- would probably require rewriting a surprising amount of code from scratch. it's not as simple as writing an MM patch for a part- at it's most basic, how would you identify what files to get the list of Kerbals to recruit from? how would you handle a case where there are duplicate entries in the list? it's far from simple, for something that doesn't actually add that much to MKS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, sstabeler said:

DStaal, that's true, but what you want- the ability to add new types of Kerbal to recruit- would probably require rewriting a surprising amount of code from scratch. it's not as simple as writing an MM patch for a part- at it's most basic, how would you identify what files to get the list of Kerbals to recruit from? how would you handle a case where there are duplicate entries in the list? it's far from simple, for something that doesn't actually add that much to MKS.

True...  But stock manages it, as simply as writing an MM patch for a part.  :wink:

And I do feel it detracts from MKS that it can't support this stock feature.  I have several custom classes I've written, and that I get just fine via rescue contracts which are fun little additions to the game (and to MKS), but you can't hire them, and that's entirely because of MKS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes but:

1. Stock doesn't allow you to customise the kerbals you recruit- it gives you a list of applicants. That simplifies the code.

2. That's one of the reasons why you'd need to rewrite a surprising amount of code- it'd probably be simplest to start from scratch in coding the recruitment screen, which would take a lot of work. for MKS, it makes little sense. However, either a restructured TRP-Hire, or a new mod that was essentially a Community Kerbal Recruitment Pack, along the lines of the CRP or CTT that MKS could make itself compatible with fairly simply, could make far more sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now