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

[TinfoilChef]

Around a year or more back this mod was basically plug n play compatible with TAC Life Support.  Is this still the case?   I've spent like 20 min searching the thread and haven't seen any mention one way or the other.

[DStaal]

5 minutes ago, TinfoilChef said:

Around a year or more back this mod was basically plug n play compatible with TAC Life Support.  Is this still the case?   I've spent like 20 min searching the thread and haven't seen any mention one way or the other.

At the moment, no, as far as I understand.  RoverDude is willing to ship TAC configs if someone sends some to him - but as far as I know none of the projects to generate one has actually completed.

[JadeOfMaar]

8 hours ago, voicey99 said:

Wrote a new Rock CRP cfg for PRing that takes into account planetary and biome geology (so icy planets areas will have less, if any, rock)-I'm not sure why I'm so hyped for this, given the limited uses of Rock (aside from mass drivers, they're awesome).

If konfigurating resource configurations are your thing I totally feel for you.  If Rock really does refine down into several other resources then while its uses are limited on the surface it's far more valuable after some deep thinking. I'm looking at:

• Scout/nomad IPVs that (if practical enough) carry loads of Rock first and then 'just enough' capacity for what you get out of it.
• Concept industry built upon Rock itself. A Dres colony built on the faces of the Dres-teroids.
• What if you enter a planetary system now where Rock is all you have...
  • Rock is all you need.

 

[TinfoilChef]

17 minutes ago, DStaal said:

At the moment, no, as far as I understand.  RoverDude is willing to ship TAC configs if someone sends some to him - but as far as I know none of the projects to generate one has actually completed.

I guess maybe someone must have.  I was just looking through the MKS_0.50.18.0.zip and it turns out there is a TAC-LS.cfg in it's GameData\UmbraSpaceIndustries\MKS directory.    seems I should have looked there first before asking.

[DStaal]

2 minutes ago, TinfoilChef said:

I guess maybe someone must have.  I was just looking through the MKS_0.50.18.0.zip and it turns out there is a TAC-LS.cfg in it's GameData\UmbraSpaceIndustries\MKS directory.    seems I should have looked there first before asking.

I am not sure if that's up-to-date, balanced, or even functional.     (I believe at least at one point in the past it wasn't.)

[RoverDude]

There was a separate thread somewhere for a pretty solid TAC-LS setup, if someone can find that I can add it to the OP and/or bundle it

 

[voicey99]

1 hour ago, RoverDude said:

There was a separate thread somewhere for a pretty solid TAC-LS setup, if someone can find that I can add it to the OP and/or bundle it

I had a look around, there was a thread that discussed integrating TAC/MKS, but nothing actually came of it beyond four pages of arguing over mod superiority.

2 hours ago, JadeOfMaar said:

If konfigurating resource configurations are your thing I totally feel for you.  If Rock really does refine down into several other resources then while its uses are limited on the surface it's far more valuable after some deep thinking. I'm looking at:

• Scout/nomad IPVs that (if practical enough) carry loads of Rock first and then 'just enough' capacity for what you get out of it.
• Concept industry built upon Rock itself. A Dres colony built on the faces of the Dres-teroids.
• What if you enter a planetary system now where Rock is all you have...
  • Rock is all you need.

Rock can be refined within ART into Water, Minerals, MetallicOre, Substrate and Karbonite, but the efficiency of the converters is godawful (0.1%) and the rate of production is so slow you could get to Jool and back before it finished filling a 5m kontainer (9/hr). Dirt sifting is usu. a much better bet (but that's not saying an awful lot)-though I do have an idea concerning the Mass Drivers. Maybe they could run on not raw rock, but rock dust, which would require the raw rock to be refined in a module capable of crushing the rock down and picking out the stuff of a high enough grade to use in the drivers (since you can't really just stick a few pebbles in and blast off, like the car from BTTF II). This would counterbalance the new, much easier ways of getting Rock in a much greater variety of places, since you would need to lug a special ISRU around and wait some time to fill up rather than touch down, drill for a couple of minutes and go. The Jaw would produce dust by default (while having an alternate configuration to produce raw rock instead with the bonus of a higher production rate; and the surface-drilled and byproduct rock would be raw), and the three processing modules would gain Rock (R) and Rock (D) modes to enable them to process both raw and crushed rock. If someone would make the model for the crusher, I could do the rest.

Edited March 31, 2017 by voicey99

[ZachPruckowski]

Quote

[ERR 15:27:59.374] Coroutine couldn't be started because the the game object 'Tundra.Workshop250' is inactive!

[ERR 15:27:59.375] Coroutine couldn't be started because the the game object 'Tundra.AssemblyPlant' is inactive!

[ERR 15:27:59.377] Coroutine couldn't be started because the the game object 'Ranger.Workshop' is inactive!

[ERR 15:27:59.378] Coroutine couldn't be started because the the game object 'Hangar2' is inactive!

[ERR 15:27:59.422] Coroutine couldn't be started because the the game object 'Tundra.Workshop250' is inactive!

[ERR 15:27:59.423] Coroutine couldn't be started because the the game object 'Tundra.AssemblyPlant' is inactive!

[ERR 15:27:59.425] Coroutine couldn't be started because the the game object 'Ranger.Workshop' is inactive!

[ERR 15:27:59.426] Coroutine couldn't be started because the the game object 'Hangar2' is inactive!

Hey, so I'm seeing the above in my log right before my velocity suddenly stops changing (even though my engine with decent TWR is still firing) and my lander slams into the Mun. Those seem to be mostly MKS parts, but I don't have any on my lander or even have many of those parts unlocked. What could cause that and how can I resolve it? Here's my full log

I realize this probably isn't your fault since I'm running about 100 mods, but any guidance you could provide would be appreciated.

Edited March 31, 2017 by ZachPruckowski

[TheRagingIrishman]

7 minutes ago, ZachPruckowski said:

Hey, so I'm seeing the above in my log right before my velocity suddenly stops changing (even though my engine with decent TWR is still firing) and my lander slams into the Mun. Those seem to be mostly MKS parts, but I don't have any on my lander or even have many of those parts unlocked. What could cause that and how can I resolve it? Here's my full log

I realize this probably isn't your fault since I'm running about 100 mods, but any guidance you could provide would be appreciated.

This is a Ground Construction problem that has been reported a few times but hasn't been solved. The strange thing is that I've never had it cause any actual glitches, only a little log spam. I'd repost this in the GC thread and see what @allista has to say. 

[TDplay]

On 1/6/2017 at 2:05 PM, RoverDude said:

you are going to need a few more rockets

I say, if someone fits a self-sustaining colony in one launch, I'd love to see their rocket/spaceplane. Seriously. I bet they use HangarExtender.

[ZachPruckowski]

41 minutes ago, TheRagingIrishman said:

This is a Ground Construction problem that has been reported a few times but hasn't been solved. The strange thing is that I've never had it cause any actual glitches, only a little log spam. I'd repost this in the GC thread and see what @allista has to say. 

Yeah, it looks like that might not be my main problem, it might just be a coincidence.

[voicey99]

38 minutes ago, TDplay said:

I say, if someone fits a self-sustaining colony in one launch, I'd love to see their rocket/spaceplane. Seriously. I bet they use HangarExtender.

'fraid you've been beaten to the punch.

On 21/02/2017 at 9:19 PM, PolecatEZ said:

So for the Mun base I used a different approach with the help of SpaceY, just build the sucker entirely self-contained and drop it in one go.  It uses about half the parts as a piecemeal base.  Another pro-tip is to use a passenger compartment to keep most of your kerbals in one place.  Very few functions require a kerbal to be in a specific part (training, medical).  I would even go so far as to say drop the base, and then hook up a lander with just the kerbals later so you can rotate them out easily.

 

[TDplay]

Just now, voicey99 said:

'fraid you've been beaten to the punch.

It was a funny joke though. But the second bit was serious. The rocket would look like a massive sprawling mess of Vector engines, tightly packed so it can get enough lifting power in a mildly reasonable space.

[voicey99]

Just now, TDplay said:

It was a funny joke though. But the second bit was serious. The rocket would look like a massive sprawling mess of Vector engines, tightly packed so it can get enough lifting power in a mildly reasonable space.

I reckon that lot weighs about as much as my Omega Station (without launch vehicle) from Page 44, which weighed 6kt, cost 2M and looked like this:

 

[TDplay]

Just now, voicey99 said:

 

Yes, like that. A sprawling mess of engines. Perfect. I dare you to use that to launch a self-sustaining Mun colony in one launch and see how it goes

[Djohaal]

Spoiler

My newly designed munbase which minimizes useless parts (such as support struts). Also orange (ripe) kerbal because I can.

Spoiler

Top view. I'm also working on deploying a seed factory to duna, a prebuilt colony with all the required stuff for bootstraping with OSE workshop.

[voicey99]

25 minutes ago, TDplay said:

Yes, like that. A sprawling mess of engines. Perfect. I dare you to use that to launch a self-sustaining Mun colony in one launch and see how it goes

Oh, I'm not going to the Mun-I kinda bypassed it in the progress tree (with only a single mission that biome-hopped through just 3 biomes before realising it had only just enough DV to get back to Kerbin (I finished with under 10m/s to spare)) on the way to Minmus, and now I have a fully functional Minmus Base (Boogie Base, also pictured on page 62), the Mun is too high-gravity, cratered and otherwise boring for me to bother with. As you can see from the picture, I'm a heavy user of SRBs (I always stick on >2kms of ASL booster DV with an ASL TWR of >2 at launch), and you can imagine my delight when I discovered the gigantic 2.5m boosters from SXT (so now they look a lot less messy)-a launch vehicle for a base would probably be much bigger given that Omega Station is designed to get to Dres orbit under its own power (the boosters and KS-25x4s only got it about 3/4 of the way to orbit, the KR-2Ls circularised it and will take it the rest of the way to Dres orbit, where it will latch onto a 'roid and act as a refuelling and resupply (refining fertiliser from minerals from asteroid rock) waystation for outer system missions, so the dry mass is a lot lower than the base pictured. Perhaps @PolecatEZ could donate a screenshot of the launch vehicle?

PS @Djohaal what is that contraption on the left?

Edited March 31, 2017 by voicey99

[TDplay]

1 minute ago, voicey99 said:

I'm a heavy user of SRBs

Personally, I never EVER use SRBs, they can't be shut down and I like control. I use LFBs instead.

[voicey99]

8 minutes ago, TDplay said:

Personally, I never EVER use SRBs, they can't be shut down and I like control. I use LFBs instead.

When you're on launch ascent you will have the throttle wide open anyway (I don't use them beyond ascent, that would be absurd), and with a few fins (or using the SXT "Linebacker" gigantic boosters, which have some gimbal) you can achieve enough control to perform a decent enough gravity turn until the boosters burn out, and you can straighten up and maneuver with flywheels/RCS to orient your LFO engines while coasting to the circularisation burn (the SRB way is slightly less efficient owing to the reliance on high initial acceleration, costing ~3500m/s to get into orbit compared with the optimum ~3400m/s, but this is pretty marginal). The whole point of SRBs is to provide a cost-efficient kick to get craft to a high enough altitude to circularise-provided you can use them correctly.

Edited March 31, 2017 by voicey99

[TDplay]

Just now, voicey99 said:

When you're on launch ascent you will have the throttle wide open anyway (I don't use them beyond ascent, that would be absurd), and with a few fins (or using the SXT "Linebacker" gigantic boosters, which have some gimbal) you can achieve enough control to perform a decent enough gravity turn until the boosters burn out, and you can straighten up and maneuver with flywheels/RCS to orient your LFO engines while coasting to the circularisation burn. The whole point of SRBs is to provide a cost-efficient kick to get craft to a high enough altitude to circularise-provided you can use them correctly.

I get that, but if I abort the launch, say because I did a turn too sharp and the rocket falls, I can't stop the SRBs even through action groups, so I use LFO engines. Then I say "on abort, turn them off".

[voicey99]

2 minutes ago, TDplay said:

I get that, but if I abort the launch, say because I did a turn too sharp and the rocket falls, I can't stop the SRBs even through action groups, so I use LFO engines. Then I say "on abort, turn them off".

I just Save Scum it and click that famous little button "Revert To Launch" .

(this is a probably a little offtopic now)

Edited March 31, 2017 by voicey99

[TDplay]

Just now, voicey99 said:

I just Save Scum it and click that famous little button "Revert To Launch" .

(this is a probably a little offtopic now)

I consider "Revert To Launch" a bit 'cheaty' if you get what I mean - real rocket scientists don't get a "Revert To Launch" option when a crew dies or a million dollar probe is destroyed.

(yes it is off-topic)

[Djohaal]

18 minutes ago, voicey99 said:

PS @Djohaal what is that contraption on the left?

An KSPI-E reactor with umbrella radiator. Beneath it a 10m KAS storage tank which can fit entire modules in it. I can produce add-ons via OSE workshop and deploy them in-situ with some kerbal elbow grease (helps I gave them pockets that fit 30 cubic meters and superstrengh carry weight of 10 tons) 

[JadeOfMaar]

@voicey99 I've been aware of a small issue with resources for some time. Ammonia. I believe it's currently only defined in a liquid state (LqdAmmonia) and not as a gas in CRP. Can you deal with that, please?

[goldenpsp]

1 hour ago, TDplay said:

I consider "Revert To Launch" a bit 'cheaty' if you get what I mean - real rocket scientists don't get a "Revert To Launch" option when a crew dies or a million dollar probe is destroyed.

(yes it is off-topic)

Real Rocket scientists also model the crap out of their launches long before the real thing.  I consider the use of revert to launch the KSP version of computer modeling.