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
    A few minor things. Karborundum is now half the mass (same as Karbonite). Also... here's your finished torch drives. The 3.75 and 5m have been replaced with 3.75 and a 1.25m 'Candle' drive
  2. RoverDude
    Both the fabricator (MK-III) and the Workshop (Mk-V)
  3. RoverDude
    Heya, for clarity, I'll be switching from MaterialKits to RocketParts in MKS for consistency. RocketParts in MKS being the combination of Metals, Chemicals, and Polymers (so three refined resources vs. just one refined resource from EL, or one raw resource in the current OSE). (Summary for folks just because the MKS thread hurtles forward at a very brisk pace) The MKS fabricator will have a much larger volume (4K) and faster conversion rate, and use RocketParts vs MaterialKits. The MKS inflatable workshop will have a smaller volume (1K) and work slower, but also use RocketParts vs MaterialKits. The existing OSE printer will have the same stats but use RocketParts vs MaterialKits. The existing OSE converter will replace the Ore=>MaterialKits conversion with a Metals+Chemicals+Polymers+SpecialtyParts=>RocketParts conversion (same one that exists on the inflatable workshop, but is inferior to the full size fabricator). The existing OSE containers will be converted from holding MaterialKits to holding an even mix of SpecializedParts/RocketParts.
  4. RoverDude
    The large one can
  5. RoverDude
    What that guy said
  6. RoverDude
    Yep, there's a small supply pack that comes with this
  7. RoverDude
    UKS recognizes TAC-LS just fine (I include configs for it, lots of folks use it), I saw your initial troubleshooting posts from May.
  8. RoverDude
    This is some truly lovely work! First - have rep. Second - let me add this to my twitch playthroughs
  9. RoverDude
    Could not help you without specific tbh
  10. RoverDude
    This already has CTT integration, just have to fix said typo
  11. RoverDude
    Pull request please Not random at all - odds are you're running out of power and freaking the Kerbals out. They normally go for supplies as a last ditch if they can't meet their life support needs Nope.. Pull request or Github issue please
  12. RoverDude
    Not sure on a how-to for VTOLs... best bet is to watch me stream as I've built several VTOLs. No idea what a space train is... log a github issue. This particular mod is due a refresh, but it's in the queue
  13. RoverDude
    Ahh, yeah that's a bit out of date.
  14. RoverDude
    Thanks for that MM patch btw
  15. RoverDude
    It switched from 5L units to 1L units.
  16. RoverDude
    Yeah you have a part that's draggy with massive surface area. I would not recommend aerobraking it.
  17. RoverDude
    Sure, well the first fun bit is the time slices - because quantity of kerbals can vary (EVAs, landers, refueling stations, etc.) in conjunction with the 'recycler' capacity. How does it behave when overstuffed? Understuffed? Do we calculate by the second? How do we present this to the user? How does a modder impact the process? In short... it gets really really weird. To no real benefit.
  18. RoverDude
    The problem though is you don't have state. A greenhouse in a one-resource system would be JIT, and effectively just increase consumption rate (or similar schemes where you attempt to do some extrapolation), and would have to adjust this rate dynamically based on the greenhouse state. Then, assuming you don't include a greenhouse with stock, you have a fairly inconvenient interface for modding, so stuff gets weird. At that point, just add the second resource and call it a day.
  19. RoverDude
    Point 1 is incorrect. If your resource is massless, it does not matter if you have 1 or 100,000. It's the same weight. So you're kinda hosed RE reducing weight. And regardless of how much recycling you do (unless it's 100% in which case you need a 0.001 ton part...), you will eventually have loss of mass which is horribly unwieldy with a single massless resource. Point 2 is also incorrect. Take a look at how many mods extend TAC-LS or Snacks! or USI-LS. Life Support mods are probably among the most extended mods out there, and I would expect stock to be the same (without a total replacement). Point 3 is incorrect... I have never heard of EVA propellant being in any way tied to the animations. The very fact that mods that change this to monoprop and/or add more resources to EVA kerbals kinda points to this as well. Trust me when I say that a massless life support resource is a really bad idea.
  20. RoverDude
    Insufficient specificity, but given it's shape, etc. I expect there's a spectacular amount of drag. So pretty much stock thermal mechanics doing their thing.
  21. RoverDude
    Massless != Mass neutral. Also, imagine a container for your 20 year trip. Your container weight never changes - you have no option of jettisoning waste, even though in a one resource system you have zero use for said waste. A single resource system also severely limits what modders can do with life support (it's one of the issues with the Snacks! mod that led me to make my own LS mod). In short, a massless single resource system gives you the worst of both worlds... no way to save weight, and no way to extend it without a wholesale replacement. Also, you can happily add resources to Kerbals just fine, this is a pretty trivial operation already done by several mods. Side note... I know a tiny bit about mods, and dealing with resources
  22. RoverDude
    There are lots of reasons why massless is a bad idea. Completely invalidates supplementary life support containers, makes for some really weird conservation of mass issues, and the presence of an output is critical if you want to allow any kind of recycling part.
  23. RoverDude
    What life support would add to stock would be the appropriate counterbalance to the probe control and antenna relays you are getting with 1.1 - so now there are some interesting choices regarding manned vs unmanned flights.
  24. RoverDude
    Actually, I'd say that life support is one of those large missing pieces in the stock game - it's a pretty important part of space travel, so it would be nice to see it make it's way in at some point. It's not adding a complication for the sake of complication, it's adding in a missing constraint for the sake of completeness.
  25. RoverDude
    The reboot is going to be all about making these guys a lot more modular.
×
×
  • Create New...