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

[sh1pman]

Just now, RoverDude said:

Parts fall off of any inflated Bigelow model   

Yeah, it's just weird that they attach normally in VAB and then fall off immediately upon construction.

[dboi88]

@RoverDude I just ran my first habitation module through the balance spreadsheet, i'm super impressed. (i don't pretend to understand the math)

The first attempt through out what look to be absolutely perfect numbers, the resulting mass suggestion was even within 5% of my own estimations. Mine were based on nasa data.  And it made setting up the converters an absolute breeze 

[Gilph]

Would you consider a short 2.5m reactor with 750ec? There is a large EC gap with the nukes: the 1.25 is 230 and the 2.5 is 1550. Something in the middle could be very useful

[voicey99]

3 minutes ago, Gilph said:

Would you consider a short 2.5m reactor with 750ec? There is a large EC gap with the nukes: the 1.25 is 230 and the 2.5 is 1550. Something in the middle could be very useful

That would be useful for building a non-top-heavy vertibird now the fans from FTT have swung from using almost no power to sucking up colossal amounts of it. Just a medium will push a 1.25m reactor to near its limits.

[RoverDude]

22 minutes ago, dboi88 said:

@RoverDude I just ran my first habitation module through the balance spreadsheet, i'm super impressed. (i don't pretend to understand the math)

The first attempt through out what look to be absolutely perfect numbers, the resulting mass suggestion was even within 5% of my own estimations. Mine were based on nasa data.  And it made setting up the converters an absolute breeze 

Good deal

19 minutes ago, Gilph said:

Would you consider a short 2.5m reactor with 750ec? There is a large EC gap with the nukes: the 1.25 is 230 and the 2.5 is 1550. Something in the middle could be very useful

Sure, toss a Github issue on USI Core

14 minutes ago, voicey99 said:

That would be useful for building a non-top-heavy vertibird now the fans from FTT have swung from using almost no power to sucking up colossal amounts of it. Just a medium will push a 1.25m reactor to near its limits.

They might get a slight tweak the other direction

[jofwu]

I was playing with a base design on the launchpad last night that had deployed Ranger warehouse parts. I had the Ship Manifest window open and noticed that the warehouses were listed as an option for sending a Kerbal to the part. I gave it a shot out of curiosity, and turns out it just destroyed the Kerbal.

I'm assuming the fault is on the side of MKS for having the warehouses listed by Ship Manifest. Happy to create an issue report on github, but I wanted to make sure I'm not crazy in assuming Ship Manifest isn't to blame.

[RoverDude]

If you could have transferred that Kerbal manually without it being killed, then it is a ship manifest problem.

[RoverDude]

Umbra Space Industries is hiring!

Well, not really hiring since we have an operating budget of zero... but you get the idea

So here's the deal.

I have a lot of mods... Hundreds of parts, and tons of code.  Not to mention things like config files, compatibility layers, etc. - and a pretty sizeable backlog of ideas, changes, and feedback to execute on.  

For several years now, it's been a solo operation, supplemented by hundreds of pull requests from dozens of contributors.  What I am looking for is a handful of passionate folks to help form a middle ground between these two extremes, and move USI from being a solo effort into a team model.  Part of this is just the reality of having more ideas and designs than time, and part is making sure that if I am hit by a bus, there's a clear path of continuing the work I've started.

Specifically, I'd like to get a few folks who are interested in being involved on a regular, more formal basis.  Of course this is a lot more than just 'hey, can you code this or model this'.  Rather, I'm interested in folks who are as passionate about KSP and the USI offerings as I am, and who want a direct hand in helping shape the direction the constellation takes.  

We'll hash through design, prioritize stuff we'd like to see in the constellation, and work together to bundle stuff for regular releases - whether that's updating old content, or creating new stuff.  

The specific skills folks should have would be... well.. all of them  C# Developers, modelers, texture artists, or folks interested in setting up better compatibility patches, etc.

The ideal team mate would be someone who has solid technical chops and wants to be part of a team, especially if they are skilled in one area (say, modeling) but could use the support of a developer (or vice versa).  

There's not much fine print here, other than to reiterate that this really is a mod-team effort, not solicitation for one-off contributors (we have tons of folks that do that already, and it is greatly appreciated!).  As such, I'd expect USI to be the primary effort.  So if you're actively working on your own stand alone mods, we'd probably want to cover how we roll those into the constellation.  So make sure you're comfortable with this before tossing me a PM

And that's it.  If you're interested, send me a PM and we can talk.  To reiterate, I am really looking to assemble a solid team.  It helps the longevity of the USI mods (in case I get hit by a bus), and provides an opportunity for some great collaboration.

[TheJollyDodger]

Im having a strange problem (not sure really what it means) but when i display certain objects in the vab or if i am flying and either crash, decouple a booster or pretty much do anything that involves collisions or physics etc. i get a log display on my screen (i turned this capability on through the debug menu) that reads:

Coroutine couldn't be started because the the game object 'Tundra.Workshop250' is inactive!

Coroutine couldn't be started because the the game object 'Tundra.AssemblyPlant' is inactive!

Coroutine couldn't be started because the the game object 'Ranger.Workshop' is inactive!

 

I have also noticed that the objects mentioned (ranger.workshop/tundra.workshop/tundra.assemblyplant} are nowhere to be seen in the tech tree or vab. I'm not really sure what this means hopefully someone can point me in the right direction... 

Edited April 13, 2017 by TheJollyDodger

[RoverDude]

3 minutes ago, TheJollyDodger said:

Im having a strange problem (not sure really what it means) but when i display certain objects in the vab or if i am flying and either crash, decouple a booster or pretty much do anything that involves collisions or physics etc. i get a log display on my screen (i turned this capability on through the debug menu) that reads:

Coroutine couldn't be started because the the game object 'Tundra.Workshop250' is inactive!

Coroutine couldn't be started because the the game object 'Tundra.AssemblyPlant' is inactive!

Coroutine couldn't be started because the the game object 'Ranger.Workshop' is inactive!

 

I have also noticed that the objects mentioned (ranger.workshop/tundra.workshop/tundra.assemblyplant} are nowhere to be seen in the tech tree or vab. I'm not really sure what this means hopefully someone can point me in the right direction... 

Need to ping @allista for this one   I believe it is related to GC.

 

Also... doing some work today on the new logistics framework today, sorting out orbital to ground transfers, transportation costs, and the ability to use trade profits to fund purchases from Kerbin.

 

[TheJollyDodger]

First off thx for the immediate response! hadnt expected that! Secondly, pardon my extreme noobishness but what do u mean by ping allista? haha srry. and whats GC?

Edited April 13, 2017 by TheJollyDodger

[RoverDude]

9 minutes ago, TheJollyDodger said:

First off thx for the immediate response! hadnt expected that! Secondly, pardon my extreme noobishness but what do u mean by ping allista? haha srry. and whats GC?

Ground Construction (it's bundled as part of MKS) - Allista is the author

[TheJollyDodger]

Roger that. Thank you very much!

[DStaal]

1 hour ago, RoverDude said:

Also... doing some work today on the new logistics framework today, sorting out orbital to ground transfers, transportation costs, and the ability to use trade profits to fund purchases from Kerbin.

(Emphasis added.)

Wait, what?  Where do trade profits come from?  (And what's the likelyhood they'll cover the idea I'd like to eventually make a mod on?)

[RoverDude]

42 minutes ago, DStaal said:

(Emphasis added.)

Wait, what?  Where do trade profits come from?  (And what's the likelyhood they'll cover the idea I'd like to eventually make a mod on?)

Short version - you can have scheduled deliveries back to Kerbin for profit that you can either cash out on, or use to buy stuff to send out.   i.e. sending back refined exotics and buying specialized parts.  Though the framework is pretty open, so you could do things like paid tourism, etc.

[SniperPilot]

Out of curiosity, on the Original Post the second "photo" box to the left has a large command module part... I used to use it all the time but now I can't find it after looking for it all day- Has it been discontinued or is it part of another mod that I'm missing?

[RoverDude]

Probably an Orca from FTT

[voicey99]

26 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

Short version - you can have scheduled deliveries back to Kerbin for profit that you can either cash out on, or use to buy stuff to send out.   i.e. sending back refined exotics and buying specialized parts.  Though the framework is pretty open, so you could do things like paid tourism, etc.

Would sending deliveries back to Kerbin have a base cost, to stop you making money off exporting stuff like dirt?

[RoverDude]

2 minutes ago, voicey99 said:

Would sending deliveries back to Kerbin have a base cost, to stop you making money off exporting stuff like dirt?

A little bit more complex than that... but  yeah, sending a supply route of dirt to Kerbin will be just as profitable as it would be if you did it manually.

[voicey99]

1 minute ago, RoverDude said:

A little bit more complex than that... but  yeah, sending a supply route of dirt to Kerbin will be just as profitable as it would be if you did it manually.

To say, not at all (since you cant actually ship dirt offworld and it has a value of zero anyway)

Edited April 13, 2017 by voicey99

[RoverDude]

8 minutes ago, voicey99 said:

To say, not at all (since you cant actually ship dirt offworld and it has a value of zero anyway)

Bingo

But even something like Ore... you're going to find transportation costs exceed your potential profits

[voicey99]

2 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

But even something like Ore... you're going to find transportation costs exceed your potential profits

...That sounds like a challenge to the tryhard pros out there.

[DStaal]

Just now, voicey99 said:

...That sounds like a challenge to the tryhard pros out there.

Go ahead.  But the new system likely won't help them.  (It's automated, and probably has some fixed proportional costs - if you think you can do better manually, go ahead.)

If you think you can make money shipping Ore home right now, go ahead. 

[voicey99]

1 minute ago, DStaal said:

Go ahead.  But the new system likely won't help them.  (It's automated, and probably has some fixed proportional costs - if you think you can do better manually, go ahead.)

If you think you can make money shipping Ore home right now, go ahead. 

It might just about be possible with a huge SSTO and ISRU kit from Minmus, but I can't be bothered.

[DGerry]

Is there a limit to the number of different things that can be stored in the Planetary warehouse?  For some reason I can't push water into planetary storage on Minmus, but I can on Kerbin - the vessel in question on Minmus happily pushes all sorts of other things into planetary storage just fine, so I don't think it's a question of not having the right modules/crew etc.