Universal Storage II [1.3.1 and 1.4.5 - 1.7.0]

[StevieC]

I remember in the old Universal Storage, the Sabatier reactor would take Hydrogen & Carbon Dioxide as inputs, yielding LiquidFuel & Water as outputs. Might that be feasible to implement as an alternate configuration in Universal Storage 2? Along that line, a part that converts Oxygen to Oxidizer at a rate (relative to the rate the Sabatier reactor outputs LiquidFuel) matching the rate an engine consumes Oxidizer relative to how fast it consumes LiquidFuel. Just a suggestion.

[Paul Kingtiger]

5 hours ago, StevieC said:

I remember in the old Universal Storage, the Sabatier reactor would take Hydrogen & Carbon Dioxide as inputs, yielding LiquidFuel & Water as outputs. Might that be feasible to implement as an alternate configuration in Universal Storage 2? Along that line, a part that converts Oxygen to Oxidizer at a rate (relative to the rate the Sabatier reactor outputs LiquidFuel) matching the rate an engine consumes Oxidizer relative to how fast it consumes LiquidFuel. Just a suggestion.

Yes that probably is going to change in the next content release (as opposed to bug fix).  TAC LS handles the Sabatier with Water as an input because it doesn't use the Hydrogen resource and has Oxygen as the output, so that's what we have currently.  But I prefer Water as the output as it's more realistic and Water is a useful Life Support resource with TAC LS and Kerbalism.  Plus Universal Storage has the Elektron to crack that into Hydrogen and Oxygen.

Converting Oxygen to Oxidizer is a little more tricky because we don't know what Oxidizer is, could be liquid oxygen, could be Nitrogen tetroxide in which case we'd need to get Nitrogen from somewhere.  Honestly the same can be said for Liquid Fuel, and I'm toying with keeping the Sabatier output as Meathane (it's a CRP resource) and having it vent into space if no used, or treat it as Waste (like the TAC LS Sabatier).  The attraction of having it as Liquid fuel is that you can use the Sabatier to produce rocket fuel in the style of Mars Direct.

UPDATE:  We are discussing some plans for the Sabatier internally which will make it a more useful piece of equipment.

Edited November 13, 2018 by Paul Kingtiger

[Bombaatu]

Are the stock experiment parts (material science, mystery goo, etc.) still broken?

[danielboro]

last night i discovered how OP US1 fuel cell is

i was updating my mun/minmus rover for a duna mission

i have in it a US1 4 hub whit 1 fuel cell, 1 H2 tank, 1O2 tank, and elecktron
this setup gave me ~23 days of 16EC/s
using USII i had to add 2 2hight  4hub for 2 fuel cells and 4 H2 tank and 2 O2 tanks to get 9 EC/s for ~2 days

[StevieC]

My reasoning is that the manufacture of LiquidFuel is of limited utility in the absence of oxidizer to burn it with.

[Paul Kingtiger]

On 11/15/2018 at 5:50 PM, StevieC said:

My reasoning is that the manufacture of LiquidFuel is of limited utility in the absence of oxidizer to burn it with.

This is a diagram we've been looking at as a possible end goal for the Sabatier.  Essentially it's the ISRU from Mars Direct, except the engines on that burn Methane directly where as we have a part to turn Oxygen and Methane into more KSP friendly Liquid Fuel and Oxidizer (with the bonus that it would work with real fuels 'out of the box').   Some of the parts in the diagram don't exist yet in Universal Storage, this is all in the early concept stage.

On 11/15/2018 at 1:20 PM, danielboro said:

last night i discovered how OP US1 fuel cell is

i was updating my mun/minmus rover for a duna mission

i have in it a US1 4 hub whit 1 fuel cell, 1 H2 tank, 1O2 tank, and elecktron
this setup gave me ~23 days of 16EC/s
using USII i had to add 2 2hight  4hub for 2 fuel cells and 4 H2 tank and 2 O2 tanks to get 9 EC/s for ~2 days

Universal Storage 1 was balanced vs the Apollo and Shuttle fuel cells.  Universal Storage 2 is balanced against the stock fuel cells.

I'm currently working on a big balance update so these values may change.  I've already updated the capacity of resource tanks ready for the next release and am working on the processors.

[Wyzard]

6 hours ago, Paul Kingtiger said:

This is a diagram we've been looking at as a possible end goal for the Sabatier.

FWIW, I think this sort of stuff would make more sense as a separate mod that integrates with US2 but has other parts too.  A whole new resource cycle seems like scope creep in a mod that's primarily about storage, and I currently have the US2 electrolysis stuff deleted from my game because it feels out-of-place; nothing else uses the hydrogen or oxygen resources.  But if this resource cycle were more fully-integrated into the game — like 1.25m/2.5m tanks for the resources, maybe letting the stock ISRU do the methane+oxygen thing, etc. — that'd be a pretty useful addition.

(It'd still be weird to have both Hydrogen from here and the LqdHydrogen from Nertea's CryoTanks, though.  I'd probably write myself an MM patch to change all the Hydrogen stuff to use LqdHydrogen instead.)

[Paul Kingtiger]

6 hours ago, Wyzard said:

But if this resource cycle were more fully-integrated into the game — like 1.25m/2.5m tanks for the resources

Bulk storage tanks are currently being designed and will be in a future release.  They will be configurable both in looks and content using the same system as the current Universal Storage 2 parts.

[StevieC]

One other thing that'd be cool if possible would be Universal Storage Wedge form-factor capacitor banks using Nertea's NearFuture Electricity mod

[Sokol_323]

I think this has already been written, but I will ask the question again. In version 1.5.1, there is a problem with using the EVA X kit: it does not appear on kerbal after selecting attach. Prior to this, in version 1.4.5, there were no problems neither on the stock spacesuits nor on the modified ones. I can't do that right now. Kerbal can take this set from an external container and it is displayed in the inventory, but in fact it is not and there is no way to manage it. Similarly, it happens with another item from another mod: EVA MechJeb (in the inventory is, but can not be used). I tested on different installations, including clean, where apart from this mod and KIS was nothing. the result is the same. Prompt in what there can be a problem or how to localize it?

[Daishi]

4 hours ago, Sokol_323 said:

I think this has already been written, but I will ask the question again. In version 1.5.1, there is a problem with using the EVA X kit: it does not appear on kerbal after selecting attach. Prior to this, in version 1.4.5, there were no problems neither on the stock spacesuits nor on the modified ones. I can't do that right now. Kerbal can take this set from an external container and it is displayed in the inventory, but in fact it is not and there is no way to manage it. Similarly, it happens with another item from another mod: EVA MechJeb (in the inventory is, but can not be used). I tested on different installations, including clean, where apart from this mod and KIS was nothing. the result is the same. Prompt in what there can be a problem or how to localize it?

I think  KIS\KAS  the stock rigs got changed and broke the bone system KAS used to stick parts to the kerbals. There's a post here i just found. We'll start working on a patch.  

Edited November 19, 2018 by Daishi

[Paul Kingtiger]

5 hours ago, Sokol_323 said:

I think this has already been written, but I will ask the question again. In version 1.5.1, there is a problem with using the EVA X kit.

The issue effects all wedges and the EVAx, the fix looks simple enough but I need to do additional testing.  
If you want to give it a go open EVAExtender.cfg the find the line:

equipBoneName = bn_jetpack01

And change it to:
 

equipBoneName = aliasJetpack

 

This fixes the issue, but I need to make sure it doesn't cause any problems elsewhere.  Let me know how you get on.

[Sokol_323]

Paul Kingtiger , Daishi

Thank you! Everything works fine!

[bartekkru99]

I have a question that might seem dumb, but do I need to install US 1 for this to work as intended, or are they mutually exclusive?

[DStaal]

7 minutes ago, bartekkru99 said:

I have a question that might seem dumb, but do I need to install US 1 for this to work as intended, or are they mutually exclusive?

Neither.  They are separate mods, and will work independently.  (Though odd things happen when you try to mix-and-match on the same ship.)

[bartekkru99]

2 minutes ago, DStaal said:

Neither.  They are separate mods, and will work independently.  (Though odd things happen when you try to mix-and-match on the same ship.)

Ok thanks!

[Daishi]

7 hours ago, bartekkru99 said:

Ok thanks!

Sorry about all the confusion, we seem to get these questions about the two mods quite a lot :\

It was only to keep legacy crafts from breaking, so we just decided to keep the old mod around to make it easier for people to upgrade their saves. I don't really think US1 has anything in it that US2 doesn't do better.

[Gunslinger1]

Is there an air filter/carbon extractor part? I remember it being in 1.0 but is there a 2.0 equivalent? I didn't see one looking though my parts menu. 

[Paul Kingtiger]

1 hour ago, Gunslinger1 said:

Is there an air filter/carbon extractor part? I remember it being in 1.0 but is there a 2.0 equivalent? I didn't see one looking though my parts menu. 

The closest we have is the Sabatier which will convert Carbon Dioxide and Hydrogen into Water and other products.  You can then use the Elektron to split the Water into Hydrogen and Oxygen.
The Sabatier will be changing in the next release to make it more realistic but it'll still be good for converting CO2 to O2

[bobvodka]

I've hit upon an interesting little problem with US2.0 and Connected Living Spaces and I figure this is a good place to start with the whole 'trying to track down what is going on'.

I've got to the point on my most recent play through where I'm putting together the first space station; dead centre of that station is a "Universal Storage: Eight bay service core (2.5m)" which is enclosed by a "Universal Storage: Cylindrical fairing (2.5m)" - above and below that are other parts and everything was either CLS passable or inhabitable. At this point CLS showed everything as one living space and all was good 

I saved it as a craft and as a sub-assembly and got on with building the launcher. I pulled the subassembly in and, to my surprise, suddenly my station core was two separate living spaces. I swore. I dissembled things and put them back together. Triple checked that the original craft, saved it and pull it back in with nothing going.

The living space was always being split at joint/node where the service core and fairing where connecting.

So, being programmer myself I the next logical thing and pulled the source for CLS to see about turning some logging on to see what was going on.

Checking between the two craft I saw this, as expected;
Craft that is ok;

[LOG 21:20:45.980] [CLS]:  Processing part: USCylindricalShroud250 Navigable: True Habitable: False
[LOG 21:20:45.980] [CLS]:  Considering the connection between Universal Storage: Cylindrical fairing (2.5m) (266598497) and Universal Storage: Eight bay service core (2.5m) (780669135)
[LOG 21:20:45.980] [CLS]:  the attachment on 'this' part is defined by attachment node InnerNode and had been given passable=True
[LOG 21:20:45.980] [CLS]:  the attachment on the child part is defined by attachment node StackNodeCentral and had been given passable=True

Craft that is broken;

[LOG 21:22:36.332] [CLS]:  Considering the connection between Universal Storage: Cylindrical fairing (2.5m) (1659521487) and Universal Storage: Eight bay service core (2.5m) (2974851233)
[LOG 21:22:36.332] [CLS]:  the attachment on 'this' part is defined by attachment node InnerNode and had been given passable=True
[LOG 21:22:36.332] [CLS]:  The two parts are NOT considered to be docked together - concluding that the child part is suface attached

OK, odd...

So next step was the craft files themselves, which I can provide the whole file as required, but the import bits are as follows;

Working;

In fairing config;
{
    link = USOctocore_4290949664
	attN = OuterNode,USACDLarge_4291638566_0|-0.2|0
	attN = InnerNode,USOctocore_4290949664_0|-0.05|0
}

In service bay;
{
    link = USKASWedge_4290889578
	link = USFoodWedge_4290858034
	link = USFoodWedge_4290854338
	link = USHydrazineWedge_4290765240
	link = USHydrazineWedge_4290760976
	link = USBatteryWedge_4289834228
	link = USBatteryWedge_4289830658
	link = USGuidanceComputer_4291802408
	link = sspx-core-25-1_4291909982
	attN = StackNodeUpper,sspx-core-25-1_4291909982_0|0.612|0
	attN = StackNodeCentral,USCylindricalShroud250_4290738858_0|-0.2040291|0
}

Broken;

In the not working case the service bay/core is missing the attN that points back to the fairing which would explain why CLS can't find the link.

At which point I'm stumped; I don't know enough about KSP modding to see what else I can do to track things down, or even if your code controls that serialisation in any way?

Unfortunately between now and Monday I'm not about so don't have the time to try with a more stripped down/lower mod count build just to double check it isn't something else causing oddness, although my gut tells me it probably isn't and could well be a strange KSP bug if you guys don't control part serialisation at all.

[Wyzard]

8 hours ago, bobvodka said:

In the not working case the service bay/core is missing the attN that points back to the fairing which would explain why CLS can't find the link.

On a related note, I also noticed a missing attN link on the octo core in an in-flight vessel (not a craft file) recently.  IIRC, the StackNodeUpper link was correct, but StackNodeTwo, StackNodeThree, StackNodeFour, and StackNodeCentral were all -1 (despite the octo core being within a US2 cylindrical fairing attached at the bottom).  I was focused on something else at the time so I didn't investigate closely, but it seemed strange so I tried to reproduce it later with a new spacecraft in the VAB, and was unable to: the node links came out correctly in the new design.  Unfortunately, I reverted the flight (again, was investigating something else) and later overwrote the save where I'd noticed the problem.  But maybe I should spend some time trying to reproduce it again.

On a possibly-related note, I have another spacecraft in flight that has a US2 octo core housed within the cylindrical fairing, and the connection between the two always visibly compresses a little  when I do an engine burn; it's not as rigid as node connections between other parts.  But I just checked and that spacecraft's attN links in my .sfs file look correct.

[sjbuggs]

I've been looking forward to US2 dropping and haven't been disappointed.  I mean seriously, pegboard in the Radial Attached KIS module?  Beautiful.

I do have a couple ideas.  First, a wedge version of the Experiment Storage Unit seems like an great fit for the mod.

The other idea is more involved, but perhaps a radially attached bay for wedges so they could be attached as clean looking blisters.  I did something sort of like that outside of US way back by getting a tweakscaled MK3 Cargo bay radially attached to a ship to hide the science experiment clutter. 

Regardless, thanks for the amazing mod, and look forward to your next updates.

 

 

[Optimus Princeps]

Hi guys, hope u can help me with my little problem here.

Im trying to mount a cylindircal fairing with a central core but im having probelms with structural integrity of the ship. When I throttle the stages on top of the fairing go "inside" of the fairing and dont let me close bays.

What I'm doing wrong or missing here? Capture to show my problem:

https://i.gyazo.com/4a2adbe5aba889cf7da00bac89732058.png

As u can see the lab above the fairing is getting inside and when I speed up or down the ship in that section behaves like an accordion.. Can someone help me? 

[Paul Kingtiger]

On 11/24/2018 at 5:13 PM, Optimus Princeps said:

Hi guys, hope u can help me with my little problem here.

Im trying to mount a cylindircal fairing with a central core but im having probelms with structural integrity of the ship. When I throttle the stages on top of the fairing go "inside" of the fairing and dont let me close bays....

I can recreate the problem and it's been a known issue for a while, I can only get it to happen when pulling about 10g, which is a lot of acceleration for a rocket.

I'm not sure what causes it or why it happens to some parts and not others. Sorry.

On 11/22/2018 at 6:58 AM, Wyzard said:

On a related note, I also noticed a missing attN link on the octo core in an in-flight vessel (not a craft file) recently.  IIRC, the StackNodeUpper link was correct, but StackNodeTwo, StackNodeThree, StackNodeFour, and StackNodeCentral were all -1 (despite the octo core being within a US2 cylindrical fairing attached at the bottom).  I was focused on something else at the time so I didn't investigate closely, but it seemed strange so I tried to reproduce it later with a new spacecraft in the VAB, and was unable to: the node links came out correctly in the new design.  Unfortunately, I reverted the flight (again, was investigating something else) and later overwrote the save where I'd noticed the problem.  But maybe I should spend some time trying to reproduce it again.

On a possibly-related note, I have another spacecraft in flight that has a US2 octo core housed within the cylindrical fairing, and the connection between the two always visibly compresses a little  when I do an engine burn; it's not as rigid as node connections between other parts.  But I just checked and that spacecraft's attN links in my .sfs file look correct.

I've checked the part.cfg files and everything looks as it should, and I'm wondering if they code that switches the part sizes is causing this.  That's a bit of the mod I don't know much about so it's probably better for @DMagic to take a look and comment.

[StevieC]

@Paul KingtigerI'm currently watching @TheReadPanda's KSP stream and he mentioned wondering about the possibility of a retractable solar panel in a Universal Storage II wedge form-factor. He also mentioned it'd be nice to have a comms antenna in wedge form-factor (I thought, perhaps two each for direct and relay, with the more powerful ones needing to be deployed but the less powerful ones not needing deployment to work?) I also imagined that some wedge-form-factor radiators (retractable or otherwise) might also be a useful thing to have. Just suggesting, is all.