Terwin

That depends on how long the kerbal has been a tourist(ie without whatever made them a tourist) from : https://github.com/UmbraSpaceIndustries/MKS/wiki/Functions-(Med-Bay-and-Colony-Supplies) I believe that means that if you have a single tourist in a 3.75m med-bay they should recover after approximately one hour of treatment for every two days they were a tourist. I'm pretty sure that you need a scientist on board as well(possibly needs to be in the med-bay, not sure if they will take part of the time multiplier). Colonization modules will affect all kerbals in the craft, if there are enough active hab modules, to cover all kerbals on board, then none of their hab timers will count down so long as the hab modules are active and supplied.(if you do not have enough modules, I think the timers are all slowed down by the appropriate percentage)

I find that after flying a rocket around for a while, I generally need to re-acclimate to the translation controls before I can use them without smashing things together or flinging them apart. As I never use them long enough for that to happen, I have found that it takes less effort for me to dock without RCS translation, and if I don't need that, why bother with RCS at all? These days I generally have a nose mounted klaw on anything I may want to dock to another vessel, so generally docking for me is to rendezvous within about 200m, come to a relative stop, make minor adjustments as needed to ensure I am at roughly a 90 degree angle from a nice open space for grabbing my target vessel, then pulse the engines and coast in at about 0.5m/s(time accelerated until within about 20m), and dock. I generally only use docking ports for delivery vessels. I'll land, release the cargo from the lower half, use the skycrane in the top half to deliver to the desired location, decouple top half, use skycrane to return top half to bottom half(refuel and load commodities as needed), then return my delivery drone to the airstrip. Even large tugs can get a good position by facing the back of a vessel that is pointing away from the tug.

If you have a kerbal that is about to go stir-crazy, and then you cut their hab-space in half, why would that not push them over the edge. If you want to re-set the 'current' you need to actually let them leave the vessel(I think that even a short space walk is enough).

Perhaps I missed it, but as far as I am aware, there is not currently any method to take EU from a reactor and place it into EU storage. The only way I know to get EU into a EU storage pod is to either use a nuclear fuel refinery or to fill it in the VAB. I am not even sure it is currently possible to transfer from one EU storage to another.

It is simple enough to set the 'bad stuff' of no supplies to nothing, but this V Suggests that the things that TAC-Ls does with your kerbals may not be compatible with the things USI-LS does to your kerbals. So if for example, you have some kerbals that went unhappy due to hab, and then ran out of a TAC-LS resource, you may need to either manually edit your save game or discard it entirely due to 'bad stuff' happening to your game state. On the other hand, if you only have MKS and TAC-LS then you may find that hab-rings can only be used as giant green-houses for example(which may or may not be useful with TAC-LS), but you can still use them just because they look cool.

Last I heard there is an up to date config file for using MKS with TAC LS that is included in the deployment, but a lot of MKS parts will not be very useful as they are designed to work with USI-LS(TAC has no habitation limits for example, so large hab-rings with lots of hab-time are pretty useless without USI-LS, there are also several parts with switcher mechanics in place but cannot switch without USI-LS due to their other modes being irrelevant without it)

The description from GC is telling you which parts you should look at to try to find the highest efficiency rating. It does not provide a way to improve a part that has a given rating. I believe there was a recent change in GC to allow multiple workshops to recognize that there were other workshops working on the same part when calculating the time to completion, but that does require that you have more engineers than fit into the one workshop part for it to be useful(putting two engineers into each of two four-engineer workshops does no make things any faster than all four in one workshop) If all of your engineers are already in MKS assembly plants or inflatable workshops(which have 300% ratings), then the only way to speed up the project further is to add more engineers. There is no in-game way to change the workshop efficiency of a given part. (you could edit the config files, but I doubt that is what you mean) GC is very fast as far as realistic in-situ construction goes(hours per part and days/weeks per vessel), but it by no means works at the speeds of RTS unit creation(seconds/minutes). After all, you had four moderately skilled(2-star) engineers build a highly reliable electric vehicle out of circuit boards and steel pipes in only 3 days, an electric vehicle that is not only able to re-charge it's own battery(I assume) but also expected to work in the vacuum of space with no prepared roads or repair facilities(other than fixing the occasional flat tire). I would consider than a pretty heroic feat considering that they probably had to do a lot of that work wearing space suits. If you had any sort of scientific equipment or enclosed modules, then that makes it only more impressive.

Did you fix it?

Available Living space affected MKS production efficiency in previous versions of MKS, and has nothing to do with GC. The workshop efficiency of the part that your engineer is in will affect the amount that that engineer contributes to the task. Also be aware that a 2 star engineer contributes twice as much as a 1 star engineer, and a 5 star engineer contributes 5 times as much as a 1 star engineer. Basically it is engineering stars * workshop part efficiency contributed towards the build task each hour.(Engineers must be in the workshop part to be counted, and you need to assign that workshop to work on the project) I believe a recent update also allows 0 star engineers to contribute, but I do not know how much impact they have. I could easily see 3 0-star engineers taking a very long time to build something. I have a fairly large rover that I will be using as a mobile assembly plant that will take almost 7 days to complete for a 3 star engineer in a 300% workshop, so several-day build times are perfectly normal. Also, each part has it's own build time, so a large rover that mostly consists of an empty fuel tank may well get built faster than a tiny rover with two of each science module.

Thanks for pointing that out, apparently I had incorrect or out of date information. Does this mean that a single TCS will handle arbitrary amounts of heat for a landed vessel? If that is the case, I have a bunch of excess parts I need to get rid of...

Carrying stuff around is KIS/KAS functionality. I think the graphic of the item being on the kerbals back was present in an earlier version, but now it just puts a 'carried' label in the inventory. As far as DIY Kits, yep pretty much. I will design a base in the SPH, load it onto a standard DIY Kit delivery vessel(some times adding boosters if it is too heavy), then plop it in place with a sky-hook(I attach it to the vessel with 2 large docking ports so I can re-attach the nose after the delivery). I believe the automated drills have a production somewhere between that of having a 3 or 4 star engineer on board compared to the other drills. All of the stock non-expanding radiators need to be either on the part itself, or on the part that the part that needs cooling is attached to, so if it is too far away on the vessel, then as far as the drill is concerned, the radiators do not exist. Looks like your radiators are too far away on the base with the large drills, so the large drills are probably over-heating. (If you are already modding the radiators, look for 'parentCoolingOnly = true' and remove it if you want it to cool the entire vessel) Be careful about transmitted power, you may need 6 hours of batteries for background drilling because of catch-up happening in 6 hour chunks. The automated drills provide push-only logistics, so yes that would work fine.(automatic Drill, storage set to planetary, power supply and thermal could be combined for a 4 part automated mining base) I like having a full logistics module present so that I can drop in with a pilot if there is anything I need to pull from planetary logistics. Of course having all of those pilots on mining rigs does help your colonization bonus grow... The ranger thermal control system is just like the other non-extending radiators as far as what they will cool, it must be on the part or a part connected to the part that needs cooling. Unfortunately most of my current mining stations were built before unmanned logistics was released(and long before GC was added), so they are mostly landed vessels with engineer/pilot and hab. The only new one I have is on Moho and has habitation and an assembly bay so I can haul up an engineer for a few days to build DIY kits for further expansion. I can try to come back and attach an image this evening. I like OSE Workshops(I started using it just before 1.3 came out), but unfortunately it does not seem to be working with 1.3 just yet. (Come to think of it, it may be time to replace some of those old mining stations...)

Look under GameData\Squad\Parts\Engine\ Each directory(named for an engine), has a .cfg file with all the details of the engine. This is a text file and can be edited to change the properties of whichever engine you like. Cost, sound information, science node, category, mass, drag, crash tolerance, max temp, thrust, heat, propellant, ISP at various air densities(including vacuum), gimbal range, electricity production, and even how far away from the surface you will see the blowing dust effect. Not a lot you can't change by just using a text editor(mostly the model) @ChipmunCAT

Sounds like it was low density due to empty tanks(low terminal velocity), had a very high TWR, and the last bit of fuel has the highest dv due to the very low remaining mass. A tiny bit of fuel in a mostly empty ship can still have quite a lot of braking power.

GC: Ground construction It lets you bring DIYKits, containing all of the expensive/hard to make bits, from kerbin and then an engineer in a workshop can use Material kits to turn the DIYKit into whatever vessel you loaded into it in the VAB. I generally use it to build large self-sustaining bases without having an enormous fairing and lots of engines/stabilizers on the base itself(or an excessively huge rocket as much of the mass is also set aside to be replaced by material kits on-site). Using KIS, I can generally send up a base in stages and just attach all the new parts to the existing base after I build the kit. I would recommend looking at adding engineers to your mining bases, as they can provide a pretty massive bonus if you are not using the automated drills. (Also, Pilots are only needed if you want to pull in resources from the planetary stores, I have several completely automated mining bases where I can send a pilot every now and again if I want to re-fill the local machinery(I will refill both the automated processors which have a large storage buffer so that they can be left unsupervised for long periods and a storage module for machinery that can be filled form the Planetary stores when a pilot is present, giving me additional time between visits)) I generally use mid-sized drills. I currently have self-sustaining bases on Mun, Minmus, Moho, and Duna, and I do not think any of them have strip-miners. (I may have sent a DIY kit for an automated base expansion with one, but it has not been built yet, and I forget) Enriched Uranium can be produced by the nuclear fuel processing Tundra module(3.5 only I think) it can take either depleted uranium or urinite as the input. With one of these on board, I can add new nuclear reactors by just shipping out an empty reactor and fuel it up it on site. I believe that the assembly plant is on the construction tab further down. Warning on drills: they have a multiplier based on your Geology colonization score for the body in question, and that can cause them to draw a lot more power than is listed in the VAB when you have a high multiplier(and the heat/energy listed in the VAB is per-converter, so the medium one actually uses 3x energy and produces 3x heat when all 3 slots are used. Also, to deal with the increased heat dissipation needs with higher multipliers, drills got a 10x boost in maximum cooling, which can keep other parts from using the expanding vessel-wide stock radiators. I recommend using a lot of the Ranger thermal control systems for landed bases that use drills, they provide 4500(I think) cooling on the part they are attached to and any directly connected parts. I have a number of 2-high nuclear stacks with a tundra cooler on top of the top one.

I believe the initial round was done with the hardest languages to accommodate(Chineese, Japaneese, and Russian all have very different character sets), and the one with which Squad is most familiar(Spanish) in order to minimize code changes for additional language packs. I would not be surprised if additional languages were released either as they are completed, by incorporating user created language packs, or with both minor and major releases, as even a badly failed language pack for an additional language should have no detrimental impact on users for other languages at this point(aka, no need to QA anything beyond the language pack itself). They just had to make sure all their bases were covered by doing the hardest ones first.

KSP version? MKS version? Any other mods installed? Can you reproduce the issue with just USI mods installed? Can you provide a save game with the problem with only USI mods installed? (the standard set of questions to help diagnose a problem)

I never add RCS thrusters, but I often forget to empty the command pod tanks. I do most of my docking with the Klaw or KAS, so the extra lateral precision is not worth the bother of using a second control scheme that I rarely use. (admittedly I use Sr ports for my DIY Kit delivery rockets with one on each side of the kit so that I can re-attach the nose(with a sky-hook for placing the kit and re-docking), but I still find it easier to re-connect by having SAS set on 'up' and tweaking direction with quick taps on the keyboard while the engines are throttled to a TWR close to 1.0; fuel at this point is not a concern as this is a drone placing either a base or a base expansion, and so happy to wait for the base to refuel it)

As far as the Assembly yard, I thought that was a reference to the vessel with the assembly module, but the idea of an inflatable scaffolding that is removed to expose the completed DIY Kit is appealing. Personally, I would use a DIYKit deployment node on any assembly yard module that is capable of producing kits, sort of like the EL does. Due to the ability to combine workshops, you could even make a 'deployment module' that has the deployment node and perhaps a place for the science kerbal that is required for making the kits, then use the already existing Engineering workshop modules to provide the engineer-time inputs. Having a deployment node approach means that users can plan to have this elevated with a path underneath it to allow for a flat-bed truck equivalent(possibly with a klaw mounted in the bed) to catch the kit when it detaches and carry it to it's destination(in addition to all the other options). The possibilities of uneven terrain, and the potential complexities of things like survey stakes, make me cautious about the prospect of just spawning a kit that is not attached to anything(this would also make it harder to use in orbit). In orbit, my understanding was that there would need to be a 'hangar' type module where the kit could be expanded and assembled, and if you allow detaching an un-deployed kit for delivery elsewhere, I see no reason that you would not just populate any new kits(possibly starting with a scaffolding again) inside a Hangar module.

MKS is compatible with the community tech tree, and if RO has a different tech tree, and there is not yet a config to support it, then RoverDude accepts Pull Requests if you would like to add it yourself.

As far as using stock ISRU modules to produce material kits, I think the rate of production makes this option little more than an after-thought in any scenario where you can already produce material kits unless your MKS production line is severely resource constrained. But it can also be very helpful when trying to kick-start a colony. While aerodynamics are a non-trivial problem to address for bases, GC also either allows you to break apart your base delivery vessel into multiple parts(DIY Kit and one or more MK cargo vessels), or produce part of the mass on-site(if using locally produced Material Kits). And launching multiple smaller payloads is much easier than launching fewer larger ones, especially when you need a large dV budget such as interplanetary transfers. @allista I would probably transfer the kit either by attaching a Klaw to a sky-hook type apparatus, or by using KAS to put it in place on the transit vehicle(may require construction vehicles to have enough mass capacity to move it, possibly even a crane on the transit vehicle).

There is a whole thread just for discussing GTA Moding concerns and how that may or may not affect KSP: Spoiler: no one knows anything definitive unless you are willing to take Squad at their word.

A month ago, I had at least 23, and I know I also currently have a 1.3 install, so: no less than 2 dozen, going back to 0.90

If you want a fast turn-around(as in hours), landing back on the pad can save a lot of time and remove opportunities for damage to the landed vehicle(especially with how big this booster is expected to be). Refueling and mounting the tanker second stage will need to be done no matter what else you do, but if you are able to remove every other step beyond a quick visual/telemetry inspection, then you can get turn-arounds where the pumping speed of your fuel pipes becomes a major contributor to your ground-time. There was also a tweet earlier in this thread where musk mentions the accuracy of the landing improving with every return. There is also the option of adding heavy-duty shock-absorbers to the launch-clamps to allow a few extra m/s variance in the landing without damage to the booster.(not feasible when they need to be carried with the rocket, but only needing a flame-resistant cover if it stays on the launch-pad) Admittedly, I would not have considered it even plausible a few years ago, but we are currently living in a world where it is no longer remarkable to have the first stage of an orbital rocket to land within a few meters of it's target, be that a pad near the original launch-pad or a barge floating out at sea.

Adding the change to MKS may be a hard sell as neither LH2 nor O2 are used or useful in MKS. The sky-hooks use LFO and I do not immediately recall any other parts that use fuel at all.

I believe he is pointing out that any time you change the number of crew members actually on the ship while in the VAB, the results of the 'hab time at max crew' changes. You would expect the 'hab time with current crew' to change, but not the 'hab time with max crew' when you change the number of crew actually in the ship. As the only way to get an accurate measure of the hab time with the max crew involved actually adding that many kerbals to the vessel, having the 'max crew' line does not provide any useful information. I reported this previously as issue #224, and it was supposed to be fixed, so I'll go check real quick... Looks like it was fixed for supplies but not hab-time.