DStaal

That's actually all possible with the stock system: You can specify biomes to have maximum and minimum ranges of resources. For most of these, go over to the Community Resource Pack thread and try to talk them into your proposals - for their resources, they set the defaults. I know that for instance they've set Duna's poles to always have water, while the rest of Duna is fairly unlikely to have much. Etc. As for brown and rocky not have silicates being absurd - *iron* is (reddish)brown and rocky when found most times...

Both MKS and Pathfinder have some local-power transfer mechanics. Wireless - well, at least by modeling - since it's not really possible to do non-rigid cords.

Do you have the latest version of Community Category Kit installed? (If not: install it.)

Thanks. Note that related, they don't hold Mulch either. Though if you wanted to say that's intentional I'd believe you.

Also: If you're running MechJeb, check your MechJeb utilities settings. Make sure it isn't auto-deploying for you.

Just want to comment that I find it odd that the Freight Containers carry all kinds of resources, including Fertilizer and Dirt and such - but not Supplies.

And for the Greenhouse: Our plan was to have a small habitation bonus, and have it swappable between the different MKS modes when MKS was installed. This apparently isn't possible: If you make it swappable, then habitation becomes a mode, and can only be run independently from the rest. Options: Drop the habitation. Simple and straightforward. Drop the swapping. Also simple - it just becomes a USI-LS style greenhouse only. (Note this is currently the plan for what to push upstream to KPBS.) Clone into different parts for MKS - a bit less flexible, but you'd be able to choose which type of greenhouse you want. Upgrade the habitation bonus to a full habitation mode with MKS. (That is: It becomes a habitation-only part in that mode.) Something else? Anyone have thoughts? I'm leaning towards #3, but only slightly. Its more work and could be confusing to the player, but preserves options and gives a different feel.

Kinda what I expected. Thanks for the reply.

@RoverDude, is there a way to exclude a module from `ModuleSwappableConverter`, or assign it to a specific bay? (I'm trying to write a config for 'has a small habitation bonus as well as main swapable converters', but at the moment it looks like it groups in habitation and the ModuleResourceConverter_USI configs into one swapable list.)

It was fine for me. (East coast USA.)

Wouldn't the answer to that be entirely dependent on what your editor considers a collapsible region? I've worked with some that were hard coded to work with curly braces, and others that would let me specify multiple regrexs of my choosing per language.

It looks gorgeous. Just don't burn yourself out.

If it's possible, this is the mod that'll do it:

The trick is that they don't actually need to be aligned - they just have to have the same numbers of pipe characters. (Also, while starting with '>' appears to work, it's not a good idea, as that typically means 'blockquote'. ) So this is technically identical to the first table above: | Inputs | `Fertilizer` | `Mulch` | `ElectricCharge` | `Machinery` | |--------:|:------------------:|:------------------:|:------------------:|:------------------:| | 2.5m | 0.00021 | 0.0021 | 4.62 | 0.000002 | | 3.75m | 0.000375 | 0.00375 | 8.25 | 0.000008 | And if you want them all to line up nicely, you feed it through a tool that can reformat. I use Pandoc, set into GitHub mode for output. (Note that if you have a preferred input format, Pandoc can probably read it...)

Ok, as part of the 'one touch' philosophy I'm putting in costs to deploy the MK2 hab, the Greenhouse, and the Science Lab. RoverDude usually uses high costs as a way to balance the mass of the inflatables - but these aren't inflatable, they're deployable, and they really don't need the mass to balance. Anyone have suggestions on how much/many resources they should need to deploy? I'm leaning towards mostly SpecializedParts and EC - the idea being it's brackets and such to hold things in place, so they would be specialized. However, a good argument could be made that it's screws and bolts, which should be MaterialKits. But amounts... Obviously we don't want high amounts, but do we want something that just feels nominal? Or should it be 'not quite nominal, but not much either'?

It will (and does) show up in the CCK life-support tab - but not the KPBS one. I have both.

Just wanted to say thanks, and that it doesn't really shed any more light on what's going on, unfortunately. I see it load the intial config where it should create the part, and then nothing else mentions it, and no errors were logged in loading it. I'll keep digging, but I'm lost on what could be going on.

Yep, it's got a category of 'none'. What category should it be in? (This is an existing part that we're just re-balancing.)

I'd say *most* of the changes: I've been trying to think in terms of a both a pure USI-LS patch - that's an adjustment to the current patches in KPBS - and a separate addon that covers some of the more MKS mechanics. The issue is that the pure USI-LS part - which is the majority of it - is really a diff against the compatibility patches in KPBS - so to run them you need to remove the parts of the KPBS patches that they modify. We're getting close to done with stage 2. Most of the parts work, and are balanced. There's just a we corner cases left, really.

If you want to do a custom model, fine (your models are always gorgeous), but RoverDude uses the stock model for his and I'm using the normal KPBS models for them in my KPBStoMKS pack. (I didn't even recolor...) Honestly, even a four-line MM patch version would be fine in my opinion.

Ok, effort has largely been going into supply base building and the KPBStoMKS pack, but I do have a couple of beauty shots to show that I haven't totally forgotten about this: First is the test survey sat from the first post - an iteration was sent to Minmus as testing, and returned to Kerbin. (Where it was recovered by a sending up a Hanger.) Here it is during the final burn back into Kerbin orbit. (Note that due to low TWR, it took three burns to enter a circular orbit from Minmus.) Next we've been iterating the science rover platform some, and this is likely to be the final version: This has it's 'rollover recovery device' extended, as it's drive up the mountain resulted in it flipping over. It is believed that new plans for the lander should work - but the most recent variant (addressing a couple small deficiencies in the previous design) has yet to be assembled. You'll notice that compared to the initial version above we've upgraded the wheels for more speed, as well as adding more power production in the form of another large RTG. It also now has docking ports on both the front and rear - these are needed for the system to get the rover in and out of the lander. However, it actually attaches to the lander using the docking port on the top. The folded up wheel on the side is another attempt to enable it to get out of poor situations on it's own: lowering it should allow for a slightly different traction footprint, hopefully meaning that if it's 'stuck' on a ridge or similar it has a way to recover. (Since there will be a *very* limited number of rovers for a lot of planets, and it will be operating autonomously, it's important that it can recover from failures on it's own.) Here is a longer shot of that same rover, this time showing that it has reached one of Kerbin's communication dishes: (What's people's feeling on anomalies here? The intent is to visit every one in the system if possible, do people want me to take pics of all of them, or should I be hiding spoilers?)

I'll admit I'm mostly in 'fire up, look at parts in SPH, shut down' mode myself...

I'm still working on the issue for @birimbecas - as there's nothing in the KSP.log, I know there's a fuller log that's avalible. (Instructions on how to get it are here.) Anyone know how to read it? I'll take a shot if birimbecas provides it - something's obviously going on, and I'd like to know what.

I got PM'd a bug report saying that the rack-sized liquid containers weren't showing up for someone - anyone else seeing this? They sent me a KSP.log, and it looks like MM hits the create rule, and then nothing.

It's a new part - added in the most recent MKS release.