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

[RoverDude]

No, it just means you will have a means of creating new boxes, thus separating the creation of new kits (hard) from the creation of vessels from those kits (easy - relatively).  Think Knock Down Kit vs Assembly Plant.

[gowthamn]

Does this mod support TAC very well including recycling waste etc?

Also what farm / ore mods does this support?

[Terwin]

1 minute ago, gowthamn said:

Does this mod support TAC very well including recycling waste etc?

Also what farm / ore mods does this support?

I believe there is a config file for TAC(or at least in progress), but the USI-LS mod is more tightly integrated and more challenging(it includes things going stir-crazy from being cooped up in a too-small pod for too long and home-sickness when you have not-so-great accommodations for example)

MKS makes use of many of the community resources, including ways to mine, refine and manufacture using locally sourced materials.

MKS and USI-LS both have farms of various sorts without additional mods.

The USI-LS parts cover both closed cycle recycling(reducing the rate of resource consumption) and open cycle recycling(needing a resource to let you turn waste back into supplies)

[goldenpsp]

6 minutes ago, gowthamn said:

Does this mod support TAC very well including recycling waste etc?

Also what farm / ore mods does this support?

There is a great wiki linked in the OP that should answer most of your questions.

[gowthamn]

5 minutes ago, Terwin said:

I believe there is a config file for TAC(or at least in progress), but the USI-LS mod is more tightly integrated and more challenging(it includes things going stir-crazy from being cooped up in a too-small pod for too long and home-sickness when you have not-so-great accommodations for example)

MKS makes use of many of the community resources, including ways to mine, refine and manufacture using locally sourced materials.

MKS and USI-LS both have farms of various sorts without additional mods.

The USI-LS parts cover both closed cycle recycling(reducing the rate of resource consumption) and open cycle recycling(needing a resource to let you turn waste back into supplies)

I thought USI LS is not strict when it comes to running out of food. Also, I thought it does not separate resources like oxygen, food, etc.

 

6 minutes ago, goldenpsp said:

There is a great wiki linked in the OP that should answer most of your questions.

Where is the link?

[goldenpsp]

2 minutes ago, gowthamn said:

I thought USI LS is not strict when it comes to running out of food. Also, I thought it does not separate resources like oxygen, food, etc.

 

Where is the link?

USI-LS is highly configurable and can be deadly strict.  USI-LS "supplies" is more than just oxygen, food, etc and no it is not split out.

 

Link is um right in the OP under the "Is there documentation?" question.

[Fobok]

1 minute ago, gowthamn said:

I thought USI LS is not strict when it comes to running out of food.

That's entirely configurable. If you like, you can set it up so they die.

1 minute ago, gowthamn said:

Also, I thought it does not separate resources like oxygen, food, etc.

That's true. But what's added in separating them? You calculate how much you need of each for mission duration and add it in TAC anyway. The only difference is all three are stuffed into containers together.

[Terwin]

Just now, gowthamn said:

I thought USI LS is not strict when it comes to running out of food. Also, I thought it does not separate resources like oxygen, food, etc.

 

USI-LS has settings to allow death, desertion(going back to the Astronaut complex), grumpiness(becoming a tourist, the default), and nothing.  All available on a per-save basis and editable from inside the game.

From what I understand, the weight and volume of life support resources required for both is roughly the same, but USI-LS combines them into a single 'supplies' resource because they will always be consumed at the same rate and there is no point in separating them.

[Kobymaru]

Hi guys, silly question: how do you connect Duna-Style modules with 3.75m Tundra modules on the ground?

Do you use a ranger ball hub and a 3.75m cradle like this?

 

I ask because I find the Tundra module awkwardly high in the air (you can see me having filled the space from the ground with a KIS container). Also, the ball hub looks awkward because it is not "flush" against the Tundra module (Round ball vs flat tundra surface)  and there is a visual gap at the top of the Duna module.

All in all, it doesn't look like a hermetically sealed pathway where Kerbals can crawl through.

I would use the KAS tubes, but I'm getting a vibe from RoverDude that they are soon to be deprecated. 

Is there a nicer way of attaching them? How do you guys incorporate your 3.75m modules? 

[Gilph]

While everyone is busy with the good stuff, I'd like to ask a boring power management question.

I know that power needs to be available for catch up processing.  Some discussion in the old threads about drills that were not producing as expected, and it was due to not enough battery.  In my bases, some have over 50k battery and some have 8.  All pull from 2 PDUs, but they all seem to use only one of the two.  And, some bases pull 700 EC/sec., needing to pull power every 5 sec.

What is the proper way to deal with power management.  Is there an optimal amount of local battery needed if you are relying on an external PDU? And is there a way to balance the draw?

Thanks

[Terwin]

On 2/8/2017 at 4:32 PM, Kobymaru said:

Hi guys, silly question: how do you connect Duna-Style modules with 3.75m Tundra modules on the ground?

I generally put the Duna modules on top of the Tundra modules.

Seems to work pretty well:

Spoiler

Duna Base still in the VAB:

Minmus Base:

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 10, 2017 by Terwin
images were not all in spoiler; on top of Tundra, not Ranger

[goldenpsp]

@Kobymaru The short answer is I don't.  I generally try to keep my bases as disconnected as possible, and I haven't yet found a time I really had to have a ranger and 3.75 Tundra physically connected to each other.

Also, where did you get the vibe of the KAS pipes being deprecated?

Edited February 9, 2017 by goldenpsp

[kochie_07_88]

Hello everyone I know El is not supported any more but its the only mod i like for building ships. So just wondering if there is a way to remove the materail kits and SP and have just rocket parts?

 

Also I cant seem to change the Habitat or any other modules in the VAB or in orbit, any help would greatly be appreciated. THANKS

[WuphonsReach]

3 hours ago, Kobymaru said:

Hi guys, silly question: how do you connect Duna-Style modules with 3.75m Tundra modules on the ground?

Do you use a ranger ball hub and a 3.75m cradle like this?

 

I ask because I find the Tundra module awkwardly high in the air (you can see me having filled the space from the ground with a KIS container). Also, the ball hub looks awkward because it is not "flush" against the Tundra module (Round ball vs flat tundra surface)  and there is a visual gap at the top of the Duna module.

All in all, it doesn't look like a hermetically sealed pathway where Kerbals can crawl through.

I would use the KAS tubes, but I'm getting a vibe from RoverDude that they are soon to be deprecated. 

Is there a nicer way of attaching them? How do you guys incorporate your 3.75m modules? 

90% sure that what you want is the 'Tundra' multi-hub.

The top mounting point works for 3.75m horizontal modules, the middle node on the sides works for 2.50m modules, and the lower node (I think) works for the 'Duna' series.

1 hour ago, kochie_07_88 said:

Also I cant seem to change the Habitat or any other modules in the VAB or in orbit, any help would greatly be appreciated. THANKS

Likely an already known issue in USI Core DLL in the recent released versions.  If you look at your KSP.log (or Shift-F12 console) you'll see lots of NullReferenceException (NRE) errors.  No updated version exists yet:

https://github.com/BobPalmer/USI_Core/releases

 

[revolioclockbergjr]

4 hours ago, Terwin said:

From what I understand, the weight and volume of life support resources required for both is roughly the same, but USI-LS combines them into a single 'supplies' resource because they will always be consumed at the same rate and there is no point in separating them.

See direct comparison of TAC and USI-LS requirements: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/154587-122-modular-kolonization-system-mks/&do=findComment&comment=2941908

 

[Terwin]

15 minutes ago, revolioclockbergjr said:

See direct comparison of TAC and USI-LS requirements: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/154587-122-modular-kolonization-system-mks/&do=findComment&comment=2941908

 

That is without using any recyclers or agroponics pieces, if you use a RT-500, it reduces consumption to 40%, then if you add a nom-o-matic 500, you can have just a few units of supplies and then 1/11th of what would normally be needed for supplies as fertilizer.

I am pretty sure that over 1 year that the nom-o-matic would save you even more than the recycler, even if the life support window does not currently account for agroponics.

RT-500 savings: 2760 fewer supplies for a cost of 0.1t

Using your 4600 supplies number for 1 year, that should only require 168 units of fertilizer and perhaps 10 supplies to get the process started.

Edited February 9, 2017 by Terwin

[RoverDude]

9 minutes ago, Terwin said:

That is without using any recyclers or agroponics pieces, if you use a RT-500, it reduces consumption to 40%, then if you add a nom-o-matic 500, you can have just a few units of supplies and then 1/11th of what would normally be needed for supplies as fertilizer.

I am pretty sure that over 1 year that the nom-o-matic would save you even more than the recycler, even if the life support window does not currently account for agroponics.

True, tho I'd probably compare it mass to mass with TAC-LS recyclers as well.  Not saying either way is right or wrong, just different.

[revolioclockbergjr]

1 hour ago, Terwin said:

life support window does not currently account for agroponics.

I think this is a major source of confusion -- certainly was for me. And it further distinguishes USI-LS from TAC. TAC is utterly predictable, and recycling its resources is simple and clearly documented. USI's documentation is catching up (THANKS ALL). But USI/MKS is largely about resource conversion; USI-LS forces the use of recyclers for missions, whereas TAC's simplicity encourages bringing more of the resources in the first place. Recyclers are an additional layer of abstraction/complexity a user has to learn about, very early on. So I'd say TAC is "easier" in most ways in that it requires... 1 part added to a ship, basically, until you leave the starting system.

 

I mean, I'm highly motivated and basically live in this thread now, and I still only half understand the calculations in this set of mods. Of course, the complexity contributes to the appeal!

 

Actually, if you guys could walk through how one might calculate life support stuff for an example base, what with efficiency and all other effects, I'd really appreciate it!

 

[RoverDude]

Agroponics are some pretty easy math - fertilizer becomes supplies at a 10:1 ratio, and consumption per day is already shown.

[Kobymaru]

7 hours ago, WuphonsReach said:

90% sure that what you want is the 'Tundra' multi-hub.

The top mounting point works for 3.75m horizontal modules, the middle node on the sides works for 2.50m modules, and the lower node (I think) works for the 'Duna' series.

Oh, you are absolutely right. Silly that I didn't think of it. Thanks for pointing it out!

[MaxRebo]

@Kobymaru:

10 hours ago, goldenpsp said:

Also, where did you get the vibe of the KAS pipes being deprecated?

^ I'd still like some clarification of the above... I'd hate to see them go, especially with the much more flexible and robust KAS 1.0 on the horizon.

Edited February 9, 2017 by MaxRebo
derp

[Kobymaru]

23 hours ago, MaxRebo said:

^ I'd still like some clarification of the above... I'd hate to see them go, especially with the much more flexible and robust KAS 1.0 on the horizon.

On 9.2.2017 at 1:43 AM, goldenpsp said:

Also, where did you get the vibe of the KAS pipes being deprecated?

Maybe it's just my memory that's playing tricks on me, i don't know.

However, I believe that the whole Konstruction business with the Trusses and the Konstruction ports were meant to replace the KAS tubes. I believe RoverDude was unhappy with KAS for some reason. And I don't know if the KAS pipes will even work in KAS 1.0, somebody should check that out.

What I do know is that they NullRef all over the place when attaching, linking, delinking, and even quicksaving. They're not my favorite parts anymore - I have since switched to bolted-together Mini-Truss-based Vessels.

But I might be wrong. Best to ask the maker.

@RoverDude, are the KAS pipes here to stay or did you think of deprecating them?

Edited February 10, 2017 by Kobymaru

[Terwin]

51 minutes ago, Kobymaru said:

Maybe it's just my memory that's playing tricks on me, i don't know.

However, I believe that the whole Konstruction business with the Trusses and the Konstruction ports were meant to replace the KAS tubes. I believe RoverDude was unhappy with KAS for some reason. And I'm don't know if the KAS pipes will even work in KAS 1.0, somebody should check that out.

From what I recall, Flex-o-tubes are not recommended for long term use because they tend to summon the kraken during scene changes and game loading.

I do not know if it is still an issue with ground Tethers, but it would not surprise me.  I think it is an issue with the game wanting an entire vessel to be on a single plane when loading a scene, so bumpy terrain and flexible joints tend to cause issues, the more bumpy/flexible the worse the issues.

[DStaal]

2 hours ago, Kobymaru said:

Maybe it's just my memory that's playing tricks on me, i don't know.

However, I believe that the whole Konstruction business with the Trusses and the Konstruction ports were meant to replace the KAS tubes. I believe RoverDude was unhappy with KAS for some reason. And I'm don't know if the KAS pipes will even work in KAS 1.0, somebody should check that out.

What I do know is that they NullRef all over the place when attaching, linking, delinking, and even quicksaving. They're not my favorite parts anymore - I have since switched to bolted-together Mini-Truss-based Vessels.

But I might be wrong. Best to ask the maker.

I believe your memory is confusing Flex-O-Tubes with Expand-O-Tubes: The latter have been depreciated and removed.  They were the ones based on the claw.  I believe they were removed because they were unsatisfactory, and the same mode of construction can be filled by the construction ports much better.

I still like the Flex-O-Tubes, and hope they stay.  For some things, they are really the only solution.  I don't remember RoverDude saying anything about removing them - but I am watching the new version of KAS, which is completely reworking pipes, which may mean they have to change in some form.

 

[Gilph]

34 minutes ago, DStaal said:

I believe your memory is confusing Flex-O-Tubes with Expand-O-Tubes: The latter have been depreciated and removed.  They were the ones based on the claw.  I believe they were removed because they were unsatisfactory, and the same mode of construction can be filled by the construction ports much better.

I still like the Flex-O-Tubes, and hope they stay.  For some things, they are really the only solution.  I don't remember RoverDude saying anything about removing them - but I am watching the new version of KAS, which is completely reworking pipes, which may mean they have to change in some form.

 

I think the implementation of Local Logistics will affect this a lot. There are a lot fewer scenarios on landed bases that need tubes.  The Flex tubes are also quite large compared to the regular KAS ones, and, in this particular case, size doesn't really matter. When the mechanics around transferring Machinery, EU and DF get sorted, pipes can pretty much disappear.