RoverDude

The ratio of stuff you get out of a lode (not iode :)) is based on planetary concentrations.

Does not matter - whatever works best

Sure, that one is easy peasy. Log a ticket on the Konstruction repo so I don't forget!

@Merkov - I have all of this accounted for in the giant balance sheet I am (attempting) to finish off. Including how to properly scale drill capabilities, mass, volume, etc. (to include number of bays). So once that is out, it should be super easy to make MKS patches, at which point, I would welcome a pull request

Log a ticket please. What I can do to fix that is just make efficiency parts work at the baseline 100% vs being tied to specialties, which will leave the main converter to handle it's specialty bonus. Draw me a picture and I will be happy to, and will give it to @allista to bundle with Hanger And the plan is that I will make a few of the 'pods' that will be analogues for all of the Tundra modules. The new vessel, by the way, will be dubbed the Osprey Construction Platform. Bigger brother to the Akita (which is how I refer to the entire Konstruction part family), and also fully compatible. But can be flown in (once all of the parts are done) like an Eagle from Space 1999 - and yes, I will include an Eagle command pod for fun Here's one, including a Konstruction truss for scale:

FYI - been modeling the new mobile workshop The game plan is that since GC will be bundled with Konstruction, the stand-alone version will have the workshop model-welded into something similar to what @allista has today, but will also be available as separate pieces in Konstruction (the cab, the workshop pod, ground mobility chassis, etc. - a.k.a. the Osprey Construction Platform). In MKS, the only change will be that the Ore->MaterialKits path will be replaced with the current MKS->MaterialKits path, plus some alternate pods for the Osprey. Here's the workshop pod model thus far. There will be a chassis section to attach wheels to, and a cab attached to the front (along with end caps and such for aesthetics).

You already have those included. The round gray ones.

Can you toss that into an issue?

huh, well it is not resource leveling... I just saw that code all in green a minute ago.

@jd284 - that was my thought

Is it going via PS?

None taken at all, just providing the boilerplate

This is where I put my obligatory response. I make these for me, and for my playstyle. And while I am happy to share, I am going to optimize for my personal convenience (which includes interdependencies and bundling). Peace out.

Note these details on the ticket and I will take a look

That's a really awesome mod, @Skalou! And sure, I would be happy to include a patch. Feel free to send a PR.

@sh1pman - if nobody else gets to it first, attach a save to the github issue.

Scientist can be anywhere in the base

Great! Let me know if you need anything!

Ok gang! Back from my conference, and I get a three day weekend to work on stuff (btw @allista - a good chunk of that will be some modeling for the Ground Construction / Konstruction collaboration!) Bu first let me catch up with all of the questions and such. Orbital lodes are fair game (the ones that are huge and spawn anywhere on Kerbin). This gives you a fun minigame to play before going interplanetary, and to make some funds. The smaller lodes generated by the pioneer module should not work on Kerbin since that would be too unbalancing. Thanks! there will likely be a release today/tonight, just have to bundle some other things. Right now, no. What will probably happen is I will do some config juggling so that Botany is a Scientist skill (as it is in MKS) without MKS, but Botanists remain a strictly MKS thing. Design constraint that I will sort out Even better if someone can log a github issue on USI-LS so I don't forget in the shuffle. Less that it is nerfed, and more that it takes a LOT of water. That being said - if you want Karbonated oceans, you can fix this easily by adding a more generous planetary resource config. Have the Galileo folks ping me and I can help them with that. It is (literally) the addition of a new config file. Going to be sorting that one this weekend probably today 1. Nope, it will not. EL has no knowledge of planetary logistics, or really any of the USI/MKS logistics. So add local storage. 2. To go from Mun to Minmus... you are moving these manually. And yeah you probably want warehousing disabled 1. Disabling of transfer is done on the kontainer, easy peasy. 2. It could, but the whole idea is that this stuff is automagic with a minimal UI. Just turn the kontainer warehousing back on. 3. This is automagic though you will find a few interesting schemes around here to get where you want. 4. I expect some people will provide very helpful ideas remember that the goal here is to have most of this stuff work with intelligent defaults to avoid clutter. With the right combination of parts, you can build out some really interesting (and complex) logistics schemes. This is going to get REALLY interesting with the new resource logistics and production feature set that I am working on 1. Thanks for the pic! These are always helpful! I would double check that tube - I know that KAS can be a bit weird with resource transfers (i.e. it has to be enabled last I checked). 2. Ground tethers coming in the next release will sort this. 3. That one is odd... can you send me a save? It looks like your vessel is USI+Stock (if not let me know). Konstruction is pretty integral to MKS since it is how you construct bases It will also be where the Ground Construction integration takes place. Trust me tho... you want Konstruction For ground bases it's going to make it a lot easier to move things around and build harvesting rigs. For orbital bases it's going to make station assembly a lot easier. Stock will scale out power needs to account for interim battery storage.

This too was a very specific design choice Harvester and I had a lot of chats on this. Be happy to go over the details in slack. The super short version - we felt that the need for people to be able to make LFO at the correct ratios as well as just LF (to support nukes) without 'dumping' oxidizer (and wasting reaction mass) was worth having the dual converters. Player feedback during 1.0 experimentals confirmed this, so that's why they are the way they are. The Convert-O-Trons (and really, all resource mechanics in stock) are based on Regolith (which was a resource mod I wrote prior to joining the dev team after 0.90) that was integrated into stock.

Nope, non-breaking. Just adding new capabilities but have to noodle through a few of the issues, and it is a back burner to Ground Construction integration.

The crane is a single part with a magnet node on it. One way to lift is to use a combination of claws, wheels, and stabilizers.

Ok - doing some catch-up as I am at a software conference for the rest of the week. @LatiMacciato - log a ticket if the drill particle effect is messed up and I will look at it. @Wyzard- I am ok if people want to turn KSP into 'Kerbal Metal and Fuel Refinery Simulator' @voicey99 - Tethering simply kills velocity and angular momentum of a vessel's parts. Since joints and such are kraken bait @Amnesy - I thought there was a setting on KAS pipes that blocked fuel flow or enabled it.. check that maybe? @toric5- that's probably a CRP question which would involve digging through configs to see if anything uses atmospheric bands. MKS does not use any atmospheric resources. @dboi88 - log an issue and the use case for warehouse distributors that can't be solved with current mechanics and I will consider it. The big thing was to simplify logistics and have it work with intelligent defaults. @fenderzilla - if you are having production issues, I would say it is worth posting in the EL thread @Caithloki - inflatable tanks are a custom code module I wrote. @DStaal - It was a call between doing push/pull settings vs having it automagically push/pull based on capacity. I chose the latter because it makes for some clean menus, then added in local logistics so folks can handle the one-off cases Longer term I have a new system planned that will completely revolutionize all of this, but there's a lot of code to do on that one. And for all of you folks who have been answering questions, thanks

This is the correct answer. Stock has no mechanism for converter swapping, so the cost of running multiple modules simultaneously is increased cost.

Kerbalism is incompatible because it overrides some core stock systems that MKS depends on. Has nothing to do with life support. @tseitsei89 - please check the attitude a bit. You will find people more receptive if you don't start off by insulting people or their work.