Gilph

Great. Since you are looking at this, I believe the Verniers were not working at all in 1.3.1. I believe that's the only part that had an issue unrelated to visuals.

Sorry..was going to take a pass on the USI mods but RL is in the way. Don't know when I can pick it up again.

I could not get USI Tools 10.2 to work. I reverted to 10.1.

Having to go back to my 1.6.1.2 version. The 1.3.1 USI MKS Orbital Logistics function does not like the update. All the other USI stuff seems to work fine. Since my goal with this save is to prototype stuff for a 1.4 USI career, I'm content with using the old version for now. Roverdude is not supporting 1.3.1 anymore. If you are interested, logs are here Thanks

Yea...not really sure why it happened. Only change was the GPP update. But, if it does happen, fix is easy.

As an FYI, had huge log spam from KAC complaining about not being able to calculate transfer windows. I went to the TriggerTech directory and searched down to the directory that has settings.cfg and deleted it. Seems ok after a quick test but I'll test more thoroughly later.

Got it, thanks. All the configs I'm interested in are 1L so far, but I'll pay attention. I'm doing this for a manufacturing base that makes everything in the Machinery/CS chain (except for Organics). The chains have high consumption mats (like Minerals), medium (like Polymers), low (like SP), and really low (like Recyclables). I'm going to see whether I can balance all of that into 3 ISMs, so I can lose all of the tanks that are stuck on all over the place. Thanks

I went through all of the configs, and read through a lot of the old CRP thread.. As I understand your post, having all of the units as 1L means that I can have the same number of things in storage tanks, only the mass will be different. Looking through the existing ISM choices, I noticed that all of the starting values in the storage defs add up to between 66 and 69. Inflated, that translates to 46200-48300 units. I assume that is the target for any changes or edits for this part? Thanks

so an logistics module and a distributor is needed, then if crewed it can pull otherwise just push to planetary warehouse. does that sound right now?

Blarg...thanks for clarifying. I make that mistake all the time.

A vessel needs to have a Logistics module to be eligible to push to PL (ignoring MPLs for the moment). There needs to be a pilot in range of the vessel (usually 150M), there is no requirement that the pilot actually be onboard a Logistics vessel. Say you have 4 vessels: 3 have Logistics modules and one that does not, and all within 150m of each other. If the pilot is in the non Logistics vessel, the other three can still push to PL.

Hi, Wanted to locally change the Ranger ISM definitions to suit my manufacturing base. What was the metric used to determine the proper sizing of the storage for all those existing definitions?

tyvm, Updated everything, removed scatterer, added KK. Here is my new MKS farm landing on Ceti, with Gael and Iota in the background.

Hi, sorry to be a noob, but how do you change the default base in the new setup?

Really good stuff One of my strategies is that I send a space station first, with a lot of hab/home time. Not really that difficult to do, just need some heavy lifters. With the right amount of recycling and fertilizer, the Kerbals will be safe for a long time. The station also has an ISRU and an ore lander with drills that can lift ore into orbit to be processed for fuel for later ships. That will transition to the surface eventually, but it works well in the short term. Dres is fairly easy, but Laythe is hard unless you use SSTOs. Instead of landing Machinery first, I'll land MK. If you land inflatable Ranger parts or surface habs, you will need MK first. Machinery is used very slowly, and the machinery shipped in the parts is usually sufficient until you can make it on your own. My process is, generally: Send Hab/ISRU space station with initial Kerbals, mining lander and large MK Kontainer. Land Kontainer at base site Find nice ore locations and start making round trips to the surface to fill your empty space station tanks with fuel. Next launch cycle, send the Assembly building that is capable of making SP and Machinery. Inflate everything you need. Use EPL to make a facility to manufacture MK and larger Hab bases. If there is any MK left over from the container, start making Machinery (I don't use EPL, I would fly both assembly and MK separately). At some point, your MK factory will replenish the MK used from the Kontainer and you are good.

Just delivered 8000 MK using OL to my orbiting station so I can inflate my habs. Took 2 days and 2 hours. Very cool.

I found a neat little workaround. To support logistics, every one of my vessels has a Tundra logistics module, which has 400 machinery for the recycler. Since I have other vessels in range with very good recyclers, i dont use the ones on the Logistics modules. So, I'll use them as Machinery tanks that are refillable by PM. Their Machinery storage is unlocked, and I'll lock all the others, and put my Engineer back into the workshop. The auto maintenance will fill the parts. It also works nice for my Ranger agroponics, which is less than 1% load on another vessel.

Hi, dev #793 seems to be missing the parts.

OK I guess I could tune for mass and not volume, knowing that what should be a very large piece is now a much smaller, albeit heaver piece. Mass efficiency is the thing that will cause most people to decide what part to use. A 10 ton recycler should be able to recycle an awful lot, even if it's a smaller part.

I downloaded @RoverDude balancing spreadsheet and started playing with it, with the goal of adding to @JadeOfMaar patches for USILS and MKS support. @Nertea , will it be OK if the module patches change things like mass? I had done a first pass with the 3.75 fishtank because I thought Jade's numbers seemed a little low. In short, if I did it right, the numbers can be increased a bit to match the volume of the part, but the mass of the part is 45% higher than the calculated mass in the spreadsheet. That's a big change. If people add USILS and MKS to an existing, it can greatly affect their designs. Thanks

Yes, I'm doing some VAB design modifications, and it's not terribly hard. It does change my smaller, more distributed designs a little, but it's not bad. I was just curious if that would be the intended behavior going forward, so I can plan for it. I'm prototyping designs in 1.3.1 while the Kopernicus/GPP guys are working on 1.4.1 releases.

Looks really good, thanks for that. Seems like Transfer Credits are only local to the vessel that makes them. They are not shared within the warehousing range. Will that always be the case? If so, then every facility that manufactures something to be transferred by OL needs a fuel tank and MK storage.

Yes, but that mechanic is not really relevant for me anymore. I have no use for PM at all. Since you can't define the source, it will take from unexpected places. If I only have one warehouse tank in my manufacturing base as the only possible source, I now give up all possibility of controlling the load using locked Machinery settings, or I'll always be less than 100% load because I cant fill a Machinery warehouse tank to use as the source and it will just consume the Machinery on the part. That really limits your options. That is useful in exactly one use case, and one I don't use.

True, but that is now a problem. Consider this. Base2 has 4 AM modules making Organics. All 4 have a full level of Machinery to work at full speed. To keep them at full speed, I lock the Machinery storage. But it has to consume from somewhere. So, I add a USI_Warehouse tank, but it's empty. If I start conversion, it will complain there is no Machinery. I want to fill that tank with Machinery so it's consumed from that storage, not the part storage. How do I fill it? If I move Machinery from one of the parts to the tank, lock the tank, and PM the part, it just takes it from the tank, even though I locked it. There are other Machinery warehouse containers in range, but they are not being used for the transfer. Now consider i have 5 of these bases, all with warehouse tanks that are partially full. If I PM a part, it will take from those tanks, and I really dont want that.

We really should discuss the lack of a Machinery transfer mechanism. My old workarounds don't work anymore and the perform maintenance is no longer useful. I'm testing flying vessels and landing them with a smaller amount of Machinery, and then transferring from a vessel that manufactures Machinery, but it does not work. Say I have 3 vessels all in range. Base 1 is a large manufacturing vessel that makes Machinery, and stores them in a USI_Warehouse tank, like a 1.25 tank that holds 600. Bases 2 and 3 have parts that consume Machinery that also has an extra USI_Warehouse tank. I want to manually move Machinery from the tank in Base 1 to the tank in Base 2, and there is no way to do that. If I could do that, I can then move it locally to the parts, or if I lock the Machinery level in the part, the part will consume the Machinery from the tank. I dont really want to perform maintenance anymore for a few reasons, not the least of which it takes it from random sources and not just the Base 1 tank. Would you consider a screen in Logistics just for machinery transfer? It would not list the whole Machinery level/capacity of the vessel, just the USI_Warehouse tank level/capacity. So the levels of machinery in the parts themselves are ignored, preventing manufacturing issues. ATM, I am using save file editing and Hyperedit to move it, which is not ideal. Thanks