DStaal

[1.2.2] [0.9.5] KPBS/MKS Integration Pack

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, DoktorKrogg said:

My goal would be to keep the number of adapters to a minimum and give them multiple attach nodes to accommodate the various combinations, similar to how the ends of the Tundra modules work already. I could see that being tricky if one was trying to attach an adapter via KIS though. It's something I would test for sure before getting too invested an a specific model design.

Oh, I wouldn't want more than one or maybe two adapters - just saying to be aware that there are multiple heights you could work with on *both* sides.

And multiple attach nodes closely placed can be dealt with in KIS - try attaching a structural tube to a Tundra multi-hub for an example.  (And something I've done quite a bit of.  It's actually fairly easy once you figure out a few tricks.)  Biggest help is to name the nodes nicely.

6 hours ago, DoktorKrogg said:

An idea just came to mind... The standard KPBS 1.25m adapter mated to the bottom node on an MKS multi-hub, while not perfect, is close enough for bases that just sit directly on the ground. So what if, instead of adapters, I created longer KPBS-style legs to match the height of a Duna module when it's deployed and then maybe something akin to the Tundra cradle that snaps to the bottom of KPBS modules to hoist them up to Duna-height as well? I might still want to create an adapter or two (the KPBS garage comes to mind) but it seems like simply having longer legs would eliminate a lot of the need to have multiple adapter combos.

I'm not particularly fond of this idea, actually: First off, the look of the KPBS parts is definitely designed to be directly placed on the surface.  Secondly, legs/wheels are something that get tweaked fairly regularly in newer versions of KSP, meaning they would be a hassle to keep updated.  (Especially since several times the updates have meant the models have needed to be changed.)

Also: I think the bottom node of the multi-hub and the Duna heights are *supposed* to match.  They don't quite, but they are off by very little - and on Ranger parts there's mostly no noticeable problem.

Share this post


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

I'm not particularly fond of this idea, actually: First off, the look of the KPBS parts is definitely designed to be directly placed on the surface.  Secondly, legs/wheels are something that get tweaked fairly regularly in newer versions of KSP, meaning they would be a hassle to keep updated.  (Especially since several times the updates have meant the models have needed to be changed.)

Fair points. Adapters would require far less maintenance patch-to-patch. For any part I would make, I would of course try to match the "look and feel" of both KBPS and MKS.

39 minutes ago, DStaal said:

Also: I think the bottom node of the multi-hub and the Duna heights are *supposed* to match.  They don't quite, but they are off by very little - and on Ranger parts there's mostly no noticeable problem.

@RoverDude is this something we could fix by just shifting the location of the attach nodes on the Duna bits?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What part of the lower node or duna nodes are  not matching?  those should all be standard, and moving those nodes around can have some serious consequences.

Share this post


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

 

@voicey99 - fixed now.  The sheet did not reflect the 90% EC cost reduction for habs.  @DStaal you probably want to check that one too.  It came as a result of feedback that not everyone has nuclear reactors and there were a lot of Kerbals freezing to death in USI-LS saves :D

Having some issues with forum on mobile, but based on the above quote from the MKS thread, looks like we may have work to redo. 

On a personal note, I'm currently on a bit of a hiatus of sorts. Work hasn't been going well, and I'm also going back to school, which is a bit exciting. Anyway, all this means I haven't fired up KSP in quite a while. Since it's only EC usage that should have changed in the spreadsheet, it shouldn't be too time sensitive to get updated. I'll try to putter away on some numbers as I find time, but it may take a while. 

Having said all of that, I do check the forum daily, so I am always reachable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Super easy, just reduce all habitation EC costs by a factor of 10.  I did all of mine by hand in a few minutes.

(Hab only not recyclers)

Share this post


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

What part of the lower node or duna nodes are  not matching?  those should all be standard, and moving those nodes around can have some serious consequences.

I think it might just be an optical illusion with a black Duna module next to the white/grey multi-hub. If you put a straight edge across them, they line up perfectly. I checked to see if the node helper was clipping into the hub but it's not.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RoverDude said:

What part of the lower node or duna nodes are  not matching?  those should all be standard, and moving those nodes around can have some serious consequences.

I noticed it in combination with a structural tube and an Anchor Hub (in a cradle) - when I attached the anchor hub to the lower node of the multi-hub, it clipped into the ground, just a bit: The feet were entirely under, but it was close enough I could place via KIS and there was only a slight jump.  Closer inspection had me noticing the Ranger ILM's I had attached to various points around the base also appeared to clip slightly into the ground, very slightly.

1 hour ago, Merkov said:

Having some issues with forum on mobile, but based on the above quote from the MKS thread, looks like we may have work to redo. 

On a personal note, I'm currently on a bit of a hiatus of sorts. Work hasn't been going well, and I'm also going back to school, which is a bit exciting. Anyway, all this means I haven't fired up KSP in quite a while. Since it's only EC usage that should have changed in the spreadsheet, it shouldn't be too time sensitive to get updated. I'll try to putter away on some numbers as I find time, but it may take a while. 

Having said all of that, I do check the forum daily, so I am always reachable.

Yep, and thanks.  It doesn't sound like it should be too much work - just slight tweaks to the EC input on some of the hab parts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ILMs clip slightly by design - the collider is actually a bit further up so they appear to settle in the dirt.

Share this post


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

ILMs clip slightly by design - the collider is actually a bit further up so they appear to settle in the dirt.

I actually thought that might be the case - part of the reason I didn't bring this up in the MKS thread directly is that I wanted to double-check with other parts/bases, and hadn't had a chance yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/11/2017 at 4:58 PM, RoverDude said:

Super easy, just reduce all habitation EC costs by a factor of 10.  I did all of mine by hand in a few minutes.

(Hab only not recyclers)

Just wanted to comment that I made the changes for this in the patch we're pushing upstream to KPBS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI - in what I think (hope) is the latest version of the patches, MM says there are 4 errors in New_Parts/USI_Cargo_Switch.cfg.

I looked a little, but could not figure out what the errors were, sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Downloaded the latest pack last night and tried it. Was excellent, thank you for your hard work. Couldn't find the power transmitter / receiver elements anywhere though?

Share this post


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

FYI - in what I think (hope) is the latest version of the patches, MM says there are 4 errors in New_Parts/USI_Cargo_Switch.cfg.

I looked a little, but could not figure out what the errors were, sorry.

No problem - that's actually a known issue, and the error is that there's a typo in CRP that means I can't refer to it correctly for one resource.  There's a fix merged upstream, but I believe it hasn't been released yet.

The error itself is fairly harmless, but annoying.  If you want to fix it, change line 399 of CommunityResourcePack/CommonResources.cfg from 'cost = 0.00001' to 'unitCost = 0.00001'.  (So that 'Rock' has a cost like every other resource in the pack.)

If you're using the latest version of the patches, how well are the LS values working?  They are designed to work against the patches we submitted upstream to KPBS (which also haven't been released) so I'm not sure how well they'll work without those changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, sinaarrgghh said:

Downloaded the latest pack last night and tried it. Was excellent, thank you for your hard work. Couldn't find the power transmitter / receiver elements anywhere though?

Hmm.  Just as a double-check (though it shouldn't be necessary) could you try with SEP installed?  (I'm dual-purposing one of the SEP-specific parts for one of them.)

Otherwise, if you could get your log someplace where I could download it I can take a look.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, DStaal said:

No problem - that's actually a known issue, and the error is that there's a typo in CRP that means I can't refer to it correctly for one resource.  There's a fix merged upstream, but I believe it hasn't been released yet.

The error itself is fairly harmless, but annoying.  If you want to fix it, change line 399 of CommunityResourcePack/CommonResources.cfg from 'cost = 0.00001' to 'unitCost = 0.00001'.  (So that 'Rock' has a cost like every other resource in the pack.)

If you're using the latest version of the patches, how well are the LS values working?  They are designed to work against the patches we submitted upstream to KPBS (which also haven't been released) so I'm not sure how well they'll work without those changes.

Haven't had a chance to try that out yet, actually; I had started a new career, and now 1.3 has just come out! Distractions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AccidentalDisassembly said:

Haven't had a chance to try that out yet, actually; I had started a new career, and now 1.3 has just come out! Distractions.

Heh.  So I'll actually have to get working on the next version of this. :wink: (As I knew that it was going to be dependent on the 1.3 version of KPBS at the very least.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So: KPBS has just updated to include the USI-LS fixes we pushed upstream, but I still don't have 1.3.  (GOG hasn't updated yet, from what I can see.)  Can someone test the latest pre-release to make sure it works?  If so, I'll turn it into an 'official' stage-2 release.

https://github.com/DanStaal/KPBStoMKS/releases

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 01/06/2017 at 2:18 PM, DStaal said:

So: KPBS has just updated to include the USI-LS fixes we pushed upstream, but I still don't have 1.3.  (GOG hasn't updated yet, from what I can see.)  Can someone test the latest pre-release to make sure it works?  If so, I'll turn it into an 'official' stage-2 release.

https://github.com/DanStaal/KPBStoMKS/releases

Hi,

Just seen your mod. I'm using KPBS and MKS and was looking just for better integration of KPBS. I love the docking ports. I would suggest the normal one should be included in KPBS.

The Stage 2 beta 2 seems running fine on my normal install (1.3.0 with about 75 mods) in an empty sandbox. I will try in my normal save.

Thanks for this work.

Vive_moi

 

EDIT: Did not find out how to install it. So I installed the beta first then copy/replace with the beta 2.

Edited by Vive_moi

Share this post


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

Hi,

Just seen your mod. I'm using KPBS and MKS and was looking just for better integration of KPBS. I love the docking ports. I would suggest the normal one should be included in KPBS.

The Stage 2 beta 2 seems running fine on my normal install (1.3.0 with about 75 mods) in an empty sandbox. I will try in my normal save.

Thanks for this work.

Vive_moi

 

EDIT: Did not find out how to install it. So I installed the beta first then copy/replace with the beta 2.

Thanks.  Yeah, I think I took an export of the github to make the beta 2 - which is fine, except that it didn't include the models and textures.  :rolleyes:  But they hadn't changed, so just using them from beta 1 should be fine.  (I noticed this a while back actually - but since no-one was commenting I didn't do anything about it...)

One of these days I need to circle back to this.  I've got the configs for stage 3 pretty much in place - they just need an intensive balance pass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DStaal said:

I've got the configs for stage 3 pretty much in place - they just need an intensive balance pass.

Ready to test it when available. :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/22/2017 at 11:54 PM, Murdabenne said:

...aaaaaand? Is this done now?

I'm being a very bad mod author.  :blush:  The link at the start is to a complete and working version without the 'industrial' parts.  One of these days I need to get around to balancing the industrial parts, but since I haven't been playing as much KSP it hasn't bugged me much, and I keep putting it off.

You *can* grab the first pass of the industrial parts off of GitHub if you want, but I'm sure they're horribly unbalanced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks! I'll play with the industrial parts in sandbox. I'm looking forward to when you finish and we have a full and complementary amalgamation of KPBS and MKS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it ok when I do a PR for some LFO/Monoprop/LF adjustments, including some fixes for the liquids rack containers?

.. yes I couldn't wait :DPR #43

hope this one works out for you guys too!

Edited by LatiMacciato

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/7/2017 at 4:22 AM, LatiMacciato said:

Is it ok when I do a PR for some LFO/Monoprop/LF adjustments, including some fixes for the liquids rack containers?

.. yes I couldn't wait :DPR #43

hope this one works out for you guys too!

No problem.  Thanks for the PR.  :wink:  Am I correct the issue you're trying to solve is that the parts don't have the same fuel capacity as their pure KPBS equivalents?  If so, I see your point, but I think that's probably the wrong solution - we've likely got *all* of the contents undersized...   (CRP resources all standardized on what '1 unit' means - but base KSP resources aren't standardized.  Looks like I've made the dumb mistake of not compensating for that on the initial creation of these parts, while still compensating on the calculations, meaning everything's too small.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.