Terwin

Reported issue: https://github.com/BobPalmer/MKS/issues/1174 Looks like the 2.5 and 3.75 converters are currently making Chemicals when set to Fertilizer(G). Looks like just a copy/paste error in the config. Really liking the idea of the automated parts and looking forward to getting them deployed so I can test them out. Not sure if it is worth sending out new base kits to Duna though, I'll probably try something faster to get to like Moho, not any bases there yet... I also like how the inflatable workshop seems like the go-to part for building out your first base component. I am hoping that the 300% workshop efficiency is not also a typo... Question: does the level of Kolonists have any impact on colony rewards? Anything else?

I think this may be an issue with the new max cooling numbers claiming all of the available radiator capability, leaving some parts without any radiator access(even if the radiators are only actually cooling a small amount) I saw this on an automated base I had previously set up. Before, my 2 large radiators were plenty to run four medium pulse drills, two ore drills, ISRU, and a 2.5M nuclear reactor, now my ore drills shut down because they overheat. The radiators only show 8% usage, but I suspect that only relates to cooling from ambient heat not active cooling of drills and such.

Is this just for productivity-affecting resources like Machinery and Organics, or will this mean that if one of my ag modules runs out of fertilizer it will shut-down instead of pull from another ag-module?

That explains why they are so much happier when I spam the observation modules. Too bad they do not have a light that can turn on like windows in the hitch-hiker can.(The one with hab-time might, I mostly use the one with a 0.7 multiplier)

Before Ground Construction, I just used the 'build a new station' and 'build a new base' contracts. Fulfill the contract with the new parts I was delivering, then use KAS to add them to the base.(You could also use a disconnected base, but I prefer having fewer vessels in the area)

If you want cheap rockets, use solid fuel boosters for the first stage. I do not have great launch profiles(usually pretty much straight up until 35km), but generally anything in LKO works with a kick-back first stage and a terrier powered orbit/manuver/deorbit stage. (a long 1.25m tank with a terrier, a few instruments, and a parachute or three tends to have all the d-v I need, especially for satellites which do not need parachutes, crew cabins, or deorbit burns) When I have a larger rocket, I will often go with 2.5 stages, Kickbacks around the sides, a LF engine in the middle that also ignites at launch(usually main-sail with any excess thrust being used for more fuel), and an upper stage that can get wherever I need to go in the Kerbin SOI(often with a push from the LF core of the launch stage). If I am still low on d-v, I may attach tanks to the tops of the kick-backs so that my LF core is near full when they disengage after ~62 seconds. I have used a twin boar liquid core on occasion, but not very often. I think the last time I used twin boar boosters was when I was delivering a pre-assembled self-sufficient MKS base somewhere. Generally my ships have ISRU and will be launched with just enough fuel to land Minmus on nuclear engines where their fuel and ore tanks will be topped off before they head to their destinations. (My vacuum landings are also pretty inefficient: I try to come to a relative stop over my intended landing place from low orbit(< 10km) and use the KER suicide burn distance to slow down when I get close(drop speed to 20m/s at 200m remaining then <5m/s at 50m remaining and eye-ball it from there, on heavy bodies I may slow down at 1Km or 500m remaining to make sure I do not accidentally over-shoot the 200m mark))

The MKS Lite configuration has not yet been delivered, so the only option currently available is MKS. There is a new release due shortly(probably today), but I have not heard anything about MKS Lite being in it. I think it is mostly GC integration(adding GC Workshop modules to MKS Workshops and assembly plants for example).

It looks like the new version with the reduced dependencies may be released as early as tomorrow morning(as per the comments on the GC thread), before that, I do not think that there is a 'GC core' mod to use, and as such you will at least need CC core to support the full GC mod. Note: CC core only has configurations for the GC parts so it should not conflict with fuel switch.

Looks good. A 5m container now costs the same regardless of the content type. Most parts holding resources also populate empty, even if they were full when designing the ship(not sure if this is new) Resources identified in the config file(including EU, solid fuel and ablator) will increase the weight and cost of the kit if present on the vessel design and will then populate in the launched vessel.

As USI-MKS pre-dates RoverDude's employment with Squad, it is more a matter of leveraging his familiarity with is mod to make new things for KSP(like ISRU) then leveraging his familiarity with the KSP code to make his mod better(like using the stock catch-up mechanic to catch-up his harvesting and manufacturing processes) Also, the mod is highly configurable on a per-save basis using an in-game UI(click on the icon in the KSC view to edit settings)

For anyone else who wants to comment. multiple workshops: (both timers ignoring other workshops and needing to start each workshop part on a vessel) https://github.com/allista/GroundConstruction/issues/6 Pricing concerns: https://github.com/allista/GroundConstruction/issues/7

After a comment in the MKS thread I did some testing and it seems that sending a DIY kit to build a return cargo vessel to be filled with expensive resources on-site(Rare Metals/Exotic Minerals/Refined Uranium in MKS) actually costs you as much for the kit for the empty cargo vessel as you can get by retrieving the fully loaded cargo vessel on the launch pad. Is this intentional? I have verified that if you package up an empty nuclear reactor that it is still empty when it is deployed out of the kit, meaning that it may well cost me *more* to send the nuclear fuel up with the Material kits as opposed to inside the DIY kit. Is there a reason for this, or perhaps a way to configure it?

Ok, did some testing, turns out that the cost is approximately the cost of the fully loaded vessel. Doing things like emptying out EU will reduce the weight and thus the number of material kits needed for reconstruction, but not the cost of the vessel. After trying it out in-game, I would be forced to agree that building your cargo-return vessel on-site with GC will not let you make any profit unless you repaint the cargo container after building it.

I find that this page has most of what I need: https://github.com/BobPalmer/USI-LS/wiki/Mission-Planner-Example:-Supplies And this one is useful if I am using something other than Nom-o-Matics: https://github.com/BobPalmer/USI-LS/wiki/Parts:-Converters edit: quoted wrong post, it was supposed to be the one above yours... the (+15d) in the LS window is how long you have between running out of something(EC/Supplies) and when 'bad-stuff' happens

USI-LS timers do not account for *any* production. Supplies, electricity, etc. But negative effects are only applied during/after catch-up so you do not actually lose anything when the timers runs out if you have production running on the base.

I only tested it a couple of times, so it is entirely possible that my empty cost was 1/2 of my full cost... does not make a lot of sense to pull out those resources then I guess...

Are you sure about that? I have found that my kits cost almost exactly 200% of the 'empty' price of the vessel being built.(I manually empty all containers except EC) I'll need to check that out tonight...

USI-LS Issue #224 logged

I ran into something unexpected when I loaded up the Kolonists into my way-station base: the hab-time was well below the hab-time listed in the VAB for maximum occupancy. So after ensuring all of my Habitation modules were active, I loaded the ship up in the VAB to double-check and make sure I did not forget something. Nope, Hab-time with 34 Kerbals should be several years, and I only had 23 with a hab-time of 320 days. So I tried adding all 18 of my kerbals currently in the Astronaut complex to the ship, and the max hab time kept going down. 'Must be a conflict' I thought, so I opened up my USI-testing save, removed the old mods and added everything the ship might need(Tools: 8.15, Core 3.8, MKS 50.16, LS 5.22) Lo and behold, it happens in my USI-only install as well: Way-station with 2 of 34 kerbals in VAB: (Hab-time for 34 kerbals listed as 4y:91d) http://imgur.com/bnlCqU2 Way-station with 22 of 34 kerbals in VAB: (Hab-time for 34 kerbals listed as 416d) http://imgur.com/V6KbqGP (The album has similar images from my current game, including one on the Mun with LS and all hab parts open to show they are active. Forums do not want to in-line the images for some reason) Is this a known problem, or should I create a USI-LS issue? Parts: Pioneer/Logistic module, 2x2.5m hab modules, 2x Ranger Hab Modules, 2x Ranger ag modules, 4x hitchhiker containers, and non-hab parts(reyclers, wheels, cradles, antennas, reactor, batteries, solar panels, storage)

I have no idea if it is modeled at all, but generally speaking cooling something off is much easier in an atmosphere where you get conduction and convection as opposed to in space where you only have radiation(the weakest of the 3). Sort of like comparing how long it takes a turkey to thaw when it is sitting in a sink full of water as opposed to sitting in a sealed ice-chest. I would not be surprised if the numbers were for cooling in a vacuum. (I have only ever used the stock radiators so I have no specific information to give)

@Gilph If your container starts full/empty then you may not see the behavior you were describing in just one day. Remember that PL will only take the container to half full, so if you are making 75% of your container's capacity per day, then if it starts empty, it may be 2 days before anything is lost during catch-up.

Update: When deployed the way-station had the correct orientation, it was just the expanded box that was oriented wrong, and that just means you should have extra space around your box when you deploy it. It looks like each Workshop works on one piece at a time, so a vessel made mostly out of welded pieces may get minimal benefits from multiple workshops. The time remaining seems to be an estimate based on how long it would take to build all the pieces that have not yet been built by other workshops plus time remaining on the current piece. On the whole it seems to work pretty well, just a few bits that could use some refinement.

I was trying to build a way-station on the Mun(my bases are too far from the equator to be convenient, so it is a large habitation base with logistics and a few inflatable storage modules to make it quick and easy to refuel/refill ships, also plenty of habitation and LS, with a plan to ship up 1-2 dozen Kolonists when it is done). My assembly vehicle has 4 50% 1 engineer modules and a ~45% 2 engineer module(along with storage to pull supplies and material kits from PL; One 4 star engineer in a 50% module, the rest have 3 stars, total should be ~9 skill hours). * Is there a reason I need to associate and start each potential Workshop module independently, even when on the same vessel? * Is there a way for the 'time remaining' to reflect the total number of kerbals currently working on the project instead of only reflecting the ones in the selected workshop module? At first I thought that each time I activated a module, it was deactivating the others, but I remembered something about multiple workshops working together from reading this thread, so I watched the 'time remaining' closely and saw that it was going down much faster than the game clock(with the workshop windows open from several workshops at the same time on the active vessel; if just looking at the dash-board from KSC, they are all going down at the same speed as the game clock) The completion estimates for that project range from >90 days to <50 days depending on which module you look at, and my math suggests that ~15 days is closer to correct(which is good, as I only have ~30 days of habitation on the assembly ship) Admittedly, this is my first assembly effort which is not taking place on the runway, so I may have missed a few steps. I am also wondering why the expanded Way-Station box looks like the Way-Station will be standing on-end instead of resting on it's wheels, which is the orientation I saved it in in the VAB. (Could be related to loading the ship into the box while the box was on it's side in the VAB, then setting it down upright on the mun) On the plus-side my split-ship design worked quite well if you account for an over-abundance of attitude control(top part with sky-hook engines and a small fuel tank, bottom part with main engines and fuel tank, both attached to the DIY kit with a large docking port. After landing, disconnect the top, fly top to the side, extend landing legs on the DIY kit, tilt bottom to the side to get DIY kit on it's feet then detach and right bottom part, then try to land the top part on the bottom part, refuel as needed and send home)

That depends primarily on Management and how they handle it. If Management includes a reasonable amount of development time and buffer to the schedule, and is understanding of reasonable delays, then missing a release date would be uncommon but something that is expected on occasion.(which could be met with either a delayed release or a reduction in planed features) If Management likes to treat developers as an expendable resource with inadequate time to complete assigned tasks and harsh punishment for missing deadlines, you will have a much more anxious environment with high rates of burn-out and code defects. It can be hard to get good estimates on how long a piece of code will take, as any time you have made that piece of code in the past, you do not need to re-make it, you just copy the old code, so all code that needs to be written is either new, or new-to-me type of work to a lesser or greater extent. I have no doubt that the high level of uncertainty causes management types no end of headaches.

I thought the Academy was the only part where you could give Kerbals XP for places they have not yet been(with a suitable teacher) and all the other parts just let you recognize XP for places they *have* been(assuming you do not have instant leveling turned on)