Gilph

Ahhh, OK I have just been through this recently. The life support resources that TAC defines and uses do not include or need Fertilizer. The TAC converters take the resources that TAC defined and will convert them to other TAC resources, like Waste Water to Water. or CO2 to Oxygen. The only thing it doesn't do is make Food. So. you have to rely on other mods, and they may introduce other resources, like Fertilizer If you use SSPXr, you have two types of parts: the fish tank and the greenhouses. As you found out, the greenhouses need Fertilizer as one of the inputs. The fish tank has an algae farm that creates Fertilizer from Waste and Ore. So you need the fish tank if you want to make Fertilizer for those greenhouses. Or, you can use another greenhouse, like the SETI one, that uses TAC resources and Nutrients, which the part makes itself, so you dont need anything else. Also, you can edit the config of the greenhouses and remove the Fertilizer requirement and use something else.

Not sure what the question is...

Hi, Started using TAC LS in 1.5.1. I have a small issue with EC usage in background processing. I have three space stations that use solar panels and a lander on the surface of Minmus that uses two Near Future MX-0 generators. During warp (never higher than 7), the stations update their EC usage nicely, but the lander never updates. I read that generators should also work in background. Is there a way you check for a generator part on a vessel to include in background processing? If so, I can look at the part config to see if it's compatible.' Thanks

Hi, In a clean install of 1.5.1 and the constellation from 21 October, I get a lot of: [EXC 19:56:27.950] NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object LifeSupport.LifeSupportMonitor_SpaceCenter.GuiOn () LifeSupport.LifeSupportMonitor_SpaceCenter.GenerateWindow () LifeSupport.LifeSupportMonitor_SpaceCenter.OnWindow (Int32 windowId) UnityEngine.GUILayout+LayoutedWindow.DoWindow (Int32 windowID) UnityEngine.GUI.CallWindowDelegate (UnityEngine.WindowFunction func, Int32 id, Int32 instanceID, UnityEngine.GUISkin _skin, Int32 forceRect, Single width, Single height, UnityEngine.GUIStyle style) The life support window is blank when I open it to configure and it'd really not usable. I have not seen anyone else report this. Is everyone else getting USI suite to work under 1.5.1? Thanks edit1: Found the issue. Had to delete the WarpDrive directory under UmbraSpaceIndustries. Module Manager threw 4 warnings about the scaledsystems.cfg and caused some errors that affected USILS. Seems to be working so far. edit2: I did the same fix in my modded USI install but still had the problem. Based on the log, I removed @Nerteamods Cryogenic Engines and Kerbal Atomics and everything started working. Not sure what the real issue was, but it looked like some sort of resource definition conflict or MM parsing issues with the newer versions.

OK...but in a clean 1.5.1/Constellation install, there are over 200 errors still, mostly reflecting the same error that the old converter partmodules are not found. I put those logs in the same link i have above

Having the same issue. Also, the LS home screen is blank when try to configure it in the Home station screen. Edit1: logs are here

May be a stock issue. I am getting a lot of them and not running contract configurator

no no no no no. Not what I said. If you read the OP and the update post that the mod usually creates, there should be enough information to let you know whether the upgrade is compatible. But, if you ask whether a 1.4.4 update is compatible with 1.4.3 (or any other 1.4.x previous version), the answer is usually: Not sure...try it out and let us know older versions are not supported, but it might work. If it doesn't, you're out of luck etc. There is no need to post on every mod thread asking for compatibility. That is not the way to win friends and influence people.

The answer is...you have to look and pay attention. CKAN is a great tool, but there is a tendency to rely on its logic a bit too much. Whenever there is an update flagged in CKAN, it's always a good idea to look at the forum for that mod to make sure you really want to update it. Even better, wait a bit to see whether any issues arise with your particular version before updating. Also, many mods listed as 1.4.4 compatible might also work on any 1.4.x version, but the mod config file only lists the latest version for simplicity (with Kopernicus and planet mods as notable exceptions). this is why checking first is a good thing.

Hi, read through this a few times and I think I know what you were getting at. There was a very old bug that would only give one bays worth of output, even though there were multiple bays defined, but that has been fixed for a while. It is normal to have only one button that says "Start resource" even when more than one bay is configured, it just starts all of the bays together and you should see that in the percent load. If you have 2 bays configured the same and they run at 100%, you should see a 200% load. I'm not sure what you mean by splitting productivity, but each bay will run at its defined rate regardless if other bays are also running. I dont always trust launch pad tests because things on Kerbin sometimes get treated differently. Maybe run it up to Minmus and see how it behaves. I just looked at my 1.3.1 MKS save (I dont have one for 1.4.x) and my multi bay Tundras are working OK.

I am so sorry... Yes. KSP is not a requirement. Follow the instructions in the OP carefully and it runs fine. But it will be very time consuming to manually transfer parameters back and forth. The only issue I can think of is whether the Xbox version is fully compatible with the stock bodies.ini file.

Yep... I have noticed that the large stock ISRU is the best to use in most situations. Based on feedback in the forums, the small stock ISRU was not well received by the players and only useful in rare cases. Also, there are some MM patches that change the behavior of the small ISRU to eliminate the overheating part that made it a bit more useful. Using a MPU for LFO also is a very specialized scenario. The fact that is consumes Machinery means that you have to have a scenario to replenish the Machinery when it runs out. I used a MPU for LFO for the first time when I made an orbital logistics base to produce items to replenish my station in orbit, since OL needs LFO. That base also produced Machinery, so I had no issues with running out, and the lower ore conversion rate was not a problem.

Yes, and I do use it a lot also. I have to balance parts in a certain way with the governor in my all-in-one factory. After that, I'll play around with the kerbal levels.

Remember that Pilots skills are applicable to all vessels within the 150m range and bigger with rovers, without consideration of connectivity With the other crew skills, I'm kinda glad they don't apply to anything other than the current vessel. Things can get out of control really easily when you start earning crew and Kolonization bonuses. So I'll move crew out of vessels where they boost output to vessels where they don't, just to prevent power and heat issues. Also, I believe another objective is to give the kerbals something to do, for people who like having a large kerbal population.

I did, but I'm still using a 1.3.1 version. My workaround was to do a x100 warp with the base in focus to generate enough T credits for what I needed.

MKS was designed to eliminate the need for this. Why would you feel you need to connect anything?

Fired up my original 1.3.1 GPP career just to finish this. Could have used that science about 97 years ago.

Hi, Using 1.4.3 and Scansat 18.6, finally got around to starting a career and started scanning. Have a weird bug on the map. All of the lat/lon readouts when I put a cursor over the map will have the same digit in the lat, and a same digit for the lon (ex. 3 3 3.23, 20 20 20.49). the fractions will change, but the values will only update to the same number Also, no N,S,E,W indicators. I have Mun scanned to 99%, 100% low res at only 1% remaining on hi res, but it also shows up in the hi res parts of the map. Logs/pic are here Thanks

True...the initial orbit was a bit non standard, but it highlighted issues with this approach to landing. I read through the changed code and the comments a bit, and unless I misread it, there can be problems. I have also successfully landed vessels with 801 that did have RCS and found it very awkward. Firstly, RCS is really needed for docking. A user used to be able to select whether RCS is used for landing, but it enabled automatically in 801. If I needed to save my RCS for docking on return, and it all got used up on landing, I'd be in trouble. Also, when I touched down, all these attitude control screens popped up and I'd have to go and disable and close them, which is a bit tedious. I really did not need any of that enabled. I know the problem of eliminating that last fraction of horizontal speed was difficult sometimes, causing vessels to flip wildly to zero it out. But I think these new approaches need to be selected as options, and there needs to be an additional check to see whether the vessel actually has RCS thrusters, and if so, the user enabled them to be used.

Hi, I recently had to revert back to dev 800 from dev 801 due to some severe issues with the new landing changes. Scenario in 1.4.3 with dev 801: Smallish Mun lander in circular 400k orbit around the Mun. No RCS on vessel Changed Pe to 15k at 15k, selected Land Anywhere Just above the surface, the craft oriented itself vertically but still had a large horizontal speed (~10m/s). It slowly lost altitude while skimming over the surface for about a minute and crashed into the side of a hill, killing 7 tourists. It seems the new code has some heavy reliance on RCS and does some auto enabling of attitude control. I'm not sure that's the best way to handle most cases. TBH, I always found the Land Anywhere code to be very good, with only occasionally minor hiccups. I would suggest: Auto Enabling RCS is a mistake. In Career mode, it is common to make landers that to not need docking, so RCS is not added. Also, RCS should not play a role in Land Anywhere, unless the user enables the RCS button and RCS is present.. Main engines should always kill horizontal speed. The only thing that needed attention was the occasional flipping of the vessel excessively at the end to eliminate the last bit of horizontal velocity. Maybe raising the altitude a little and a gentler deceleration at the very end will fix that. If you detect that RCS button is pushed and RCS is actually present on the vessel, it can be used. Especially with Land at Target, where you are descending from a 500m height and you are a bit off, RCS can help on the way down Thanks

@dlrk,Thanks for doing that. I did get started on using the MKS balancing spreadsheet for SSPRx parts and ran into a lot of things that confused me. if you could post a download, I'd love to see your results.

@LatiMacciato, @draculthemad, thanks so much for figuring this out. I thought that the OL screen being borked was an incompatible mod because I'm still on 1.3.1. I deleted a previous OL transfer that was successful and everything works again.

@Poodmund, Happy Sunday I downloaded today and tried this using the newest Sigma Replacements Skybox 0.3.0, and it did not work. The Sigma comments state that there was a syntax change to make it compatible with TR/TRR, but does not seem to explain the syntax change. I tried playing around with the syntax but could not get it to work. Reverted to the sigma version just prior and everything was fine. Would you know what to change to make it compatible? KSP 1.4.3, MM 3.0.7 Thanks

Hi, All. Have a question about the resource balancing spreadsheet and the Duna Kerbitat. The Duna Kerbitat has three modes: Recycler (no water input), Purifier (water input), and Habitat. When I start plugging the recycle numbers in the ss to get the rated conversion percentages, they do end up close or exact to mass, volume, EC and water rate numbers. Then, I put in the hab numbers to see if they match the numbers in the config (some of the VAB numbers are wrong) and thing look very strange. The EC and volume results are fine, but the mass is only 2.856 and the part is 4.45. The hab function is 64% below it's mass but consistent with it's volume. that seems really off. It's a really lousy habitat, considering it's the Duna Habitat. Is this by design and are there any guidelines on how to balance better? Thanks

With only SSPXr, all you need to do is have the correct number of engineers inside the vessel to inflate it, as @Cyrious has said. If you have other mods installed, they sometimes include patches to modify the default behavior. If you have MKS, it adds a requirement of MaterialKits to inflate. MKS also has a mechanic that some of the MKS parts must be inflated by a Kerbal on EVA, but that's not the case with SSPXr parts.