Jump to content

RoverDude

Parts Hero
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    9,074

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by RoverDude

  1. RoverDude
    Ok good deal Feel free to ping me with questions
  2. RoverDude
    I'd agree. There's absolutely nothing wrong with crafting your own sandbox, and the author has a very nice (and consolidated) vision. Just that some aspects of that vision are driven by compromises that are not compatible with the differing set of compromises we made for stock.
  3. RoverDude
    Thermal is actually pretty important for some mods (heck, it's really important for stock), so I'm not sure on the answer there for ya. And yes, there's a whole set of optionally required resources that have an impact on overall efficiency (so you can simulate things like machinery wearing down, or actinides clogging up a reactor). You also have ancillary bits unrelated to stock resource that will also break down - i.e. the handling of disconnected resources for background ships, etc. (plus other modules that work off of the base converter class or make assumptions based on chunking delta time during warp or return to focus). (edit) Again, I don't want to have this come off as negative, just helping out and hopefully pointing out some potential problem spaces.
  4. RoverDude
    heh, no worries I can do some more experiments and see if I can sort this.
  5. RoverDude
    @ShotgunNinja - you seem to be missing a lot of the calculations like efficiency bonuses (both base and override), skill bonuses/penalties, required resources (which are pretty critical to how MKS works)), etc. - also, handling of core heat when you leave focus during warm-up (especially for long-running initial cycles like the large ISRU) is missing. While I totally get that this is your mod, etc. - the omission of some of those bits pretty much renders this incompatible with UKS (i.e. efficiency updates and required resources are absolutely core to how it works). (Edit) just because tone can sometimes come off weird on the internet I am in no way disparaging your mod - it's a nice piece of work. Building performant software means we do a lot of compromises. We make some compromises for stock, you make a different set of compromises. Neither way is right nor wrong. My only note is that mods that lean on one set of rules are not necessarily going to work with mods that lean on a different set. If you did it every hour or so for unloaded vessels, you are essentially back to a catch-up mechanic ala stock
  6. RoverDude
    I'd say at this point, given that Kerbalism out of the box has a conflict with the Community Resource Pack, that it's incompatible with anything that uses CRP - tho my understanding is that the author is sorting it. I also have some of the same concerns as @Streetwind , and also concerns on performance (tho that depends on how many bases you have, how complex they are, and also assumes the resource issue is sorted). To be honest, for MKS I'd recommend either using USI-LS or (once updated) TAC-LS. (Addendum) After seeing in the Kerbalism thread what they are replacing the converter code with, I can say without a doubt that due to several things being ignored (core heat, efficiency bonuses, required resources, etc.) that it is fundamentally incompatible with MKS/UKS. No knock against the mod at all, it's a nice piece of work - but the compromises made for (I assume) performance also have an impact on compatibility.
  7. RoverDude
    Ahh ok let me take another peek, I thought your issue was supplies not hab
  8. RoverDude
    As the fellow who wrote the stock resource system, I would say that doing the calcs every frame may not be a good idea at scale with long resource chains and multi-step conversions.
  9. RoverDude
    @brocko - I was unable to repro your issue, can you confirm which mod version and KSP version you are using?
  10. RoverDude
    I'd say at the moment, this mod and anything that uses CRP is pretty much incompatible (or at the very least, will break in some really unpredictable ways). For UKS I'd recommend USI-LS or (once it's updated) TAC-LS. Even with a resource sorting, I'm not sure how this will play with the UKS production chains as those all use stock converts (or stuff based on stock converters), and as I recall, Kerbalism changes some of that. I have not heard of folks mixing them yet, but likely that's mostly because of the resource conflict.
  11. RoverDude
    Only caveat I would add... A manual install is at least guaranteed to get the right versions And even though I maintain my own metadata, CKAN can be more than a bit... finnicky.. at times. To be honest, the best, most reliable way to install any of my mods is to install them manually directly from the ZIP file into GameData, and then use KSP-AVC if you're unsure if you accidentally got a version out of whack. KSP-AVC also makes support a LOT easier.
  12. RoverDude
    @brocko - Thanks, will see what I can do to repro this.
  13. RoverDude
    Ahh, got it.
  14. RoverDude
    What @sumghai said (multiple simultaneous animations on the same part).
  15. RoverDude
    Not familiar with Kerbalism so I'd need more specificity (i.e. better describe what it is you want)?
  16. RoverDude
    Yes the avionics package has a built in antenna.
  17. RoverDude
    Grab the configs from UKS - tho I need to take a bit of a holistic peek on things, and see if I can sort a better upgrade path. The old parts will not be available, old bases will still work tho. Agree I'm doing some noodling on this front tho. Nope, part of CRP. You can choose to just ignore them tho
  18. RoverDude
    Thanks - please put that info in a GitHub issue and I will take a look at that. I'm working on several things for a release on Friday.
  19. RoverDude
    While not related to this thread, just wanted to clear up two bits of misinformation. CRP in no way was ever reliant on TAC-LS... it was it's own thing, and implying TAC-LS 'made CRP possible' is a bit of a head scratcher. We just happen to include the TAC-LS resources as a courtesy, since everyone decided to standardize on those definitions for water, food, etc. Also - totally get that it is not your cup of tea, but USI-LS is just as deadly (if you so desire) as TAC-LS, and has other more interesting ways to have bad things happen to your Kerbals (i.e. habitation - and I believe Kerbalism has a similar mechanic). Sorry, just have to debunk the 'TAC-LS is more challenging' bit. Nothing personal, it's just something I hear a lot by folks who have not used USI-LS (or have not used it recently). Now back to the thread in progress.
  20. RoverDude
    Yep, I'll be adding volume to the ones I curate, and it will be up to the other mods to submit pull requests for their changes. You must have some other conflict - as noted, this is just resource configs.
  21. RoverDude
    That will be sorted with the next release
  22. RoverDude
    If you have any suggestions RE engine configs, I'm very open to adding those to the main pack (i.e. if that entails switching the SR SRBs to be lower ISP, but higher thrust I am totally ok with that) Nope, no antenna, sorry
  23. RoverDude
    Odd, I'll take another peek at my metadata. Tho it was a recent change. When did you last install USI-LS?
  24. RoverDude
    You are missing CommunityResourcePack Grab it from my sig. @tomf same thing.
  25. RoverDude
    Close TAC-LS was one of the first to switch to 1L units, CRP followed suite, and we include it (and still do), with TAC-LS being the basis (tho if that mod ends up deprecated it would move to CRP curation like LqdCO2 and a few others). And in general, the golden rule is that we don't mess with them - tho *how* a modder uses them is up to them. I'd also join in and recommend @ShotgunNinja either consider CRP (for compatibility) or change the resources used by Kerbalism to something else, otherwise there are going to be conflicts, and given how prolific CRP is, his values are going to get overwritten a lot (which can cause some serious hilarity) with pretty regular frequency.
×
×
  • Create New...