DStaal

As a non-modder who's read a bit reading over this: First off, on Regolith: Squad hired RoverDude to essentially re-implement Regolith in stock - so you should be able to convert that code over to using the stock resource model. Secondly: I actually like the +15-for-one-Kerbal part. It's a mainstay of my early build stations - when I'm still limited by the number of Kerbals I have on staff. It's bulky and awkward to use, plus it holds only one Kerbal, so later on I start trading in for larger parts with lower multipliers - but higher total productivity, and they integrate better into ship designs. Up to you how you want to balance it, but I'd argue it's moderately well balanced as is - and if you added a high electric consumption you could balance it a bit better without losing the part altogether. (I'll also admit that part of the balance to me is a CLS config for it: I've got one limiting you from passing through it - you can only enter or exit from one side. Makes stacking them or anything else with it much harder.)

Yes and yes. I also have a couple of patches here which will bring in some minimal support for UKS wear as well as EL. (Which I should tweak some more...) Attachment heights don't quite line up with the UKS standard, but things work fairly nicely together.

Ok, took a quick look in-game: There are not three nodes at the front and back - there are two sets of two nodes each, for a total of four. Two of them face outwards, and line up with each other on the horizontal axis. Those I described previously - they are for whether you want the fairings or not. The other two face inwards, and line up on the vertical axis. I presume they are for cargo attachment - giving you a couple of different options for heights. One is the perfect height to hold a small Kontainer. (I presume the other is along the center line or something.)

Actually, the answer is similar - There's one for 'with fairings' and one for 'without fairings' - so you can get the nice looking end, or get nothing in between when you want a larger flatbed. (I'm not sure about the third - I'll have to go look at it. Though I can't quickly find it in the config... You sure it's not just an artifact of the two overlapping nodes?)

Well, as I said - the part I'm duping doesn't actually *have* an IVA, so unless you decide to change that... (And, of course, take my part idea. Which I still don't know how to balance in the absence of a habitation mechanic.) If you do decide to take it and do an IVA, what I'm envisioning would be a few rows of seats, suitable for unhelmented kerbals. And a locker in the corner labeled 'helmets'. (I'm trying to remember - I actually had it measured out, somewhat. I put a kerbal on the roof of a crew cab and walked off the space needed. I had one interupped row I think - space for the locker.)

Just to mention that I don't have experience - but I know that RoverDude put a lot of work into working out how much supplies were being used, so I figured keeping that would be good. Hab time is more a 'this looks like enough space' thing, as we really don't have good numbers for that from real life yet. (We have some estimates, but nothing that doesn't have severe structural flaws in the data gathering. Essentially we won't know the minimum required for an average human until we start shipping average humans around the solar system and start seeing them go crazy.)

Personally I'd say try leaving the supply consumption alone, but increase the base hab time a bit. That will mean you don't have to pile on parts to get hab time, which would be your biggest problem. Of course, you'll have to still send in plenty of supplies - but you've got a bigger system, presumably you wanted more challenge. In general it'll mean that recyclers and greenhouses are more important, and worthwhile for more missions.

Do the LaunchSite stakes always go into the ground facing the same way? If so, can we get them with one arm a different color? It'd be nice to be able to lay out +X is that direction.

As I said: it came up for me. Partly it was that I'd installed Autorove, so traveling long distances by land no longer had the real-time penalty it does in the stock game - this made the concept of a separate launch/refuel site much more appealing: I could have two smaller bases, each focused around one thing, and shuttle Kerbals between them. Most of my bases are smaller, but a Munar training Akademy benefits a large staff in a couple of different ways. (And it's one you're likely to change Kerbals through on a regular basis.) You can build a Karibou with the equivalent seating capacity, of course, but it gets long and hard to maneuver. I wanted to be able to drive in fairly close (Autorove to the general area, then manually position near a hatch), and I figured this part wouldn't be much work for @RoverDude - it reuses the model from the Crew Cabin, and he doesn't have an IVA for that, so the only thing to keep current is one config file - and by design it's a config file without many 'extras'.

Since the plan is to do rover PRs when I get home from work today: I've got a part to suggest for this pack, but I want opinions, as I'm not sure how to balance it in the absence of USI-LS. Here it is as a patch (if I do a PR for it, I'll be creating a full file, but this gets the idea better): +PART[KER_CrewCab] { @name = DS_KER_PassengerCab @title = Karibou Passenger Cabin @description = Some of the accountants were going over the numbers for the Mun missions, and wondered why we needed so many TVs for short drives. So Bill went and tore out everything from a Crew Cab, and filled it with seats. It fits a lot more Kerbals now, though there's been some grumbling about a 'sardine can'. @CrewCapacity = 10 -MODULE[ModuleScienceExperiment]{} -MODULE[ModuleScienceContainer]{} -MODULE[ModuleHabitation]{} { name = ModuleConnectedLivingSpace passable = true } } The basic idea is that the normal Crew Cabin is like a motorhome - a lot of space is taken up by creature comforts. This is the 'bus' version of the same cabin - strip out all the creature comforts, and stack in as many seats as possible. If my calculations are correct, it should add less overall habitation to a ship than the Crew Cabin, but it holds a lot more Kerbals. I've even considered making it cheaper than the Crew Cabin in light of that - which would cause even more issues with non-LS balance. The use-case that made me think of it was that I built a large Munar base using EL and then had to crew it. To keep the local part count down, I set up a landing site a few kilometers away and landed a big lander with the crew - and then had to take three/four trips back and forth to get the crew from one to the other. I realized that the Karibou was big enough to fit more Kerbals, but it was designed more for habitation. One of these would have crewed an entire Akademy in a single trip.

I get the same, @drhay53 - Nuclear Thermal Rockets appears to have everything, or close. I also have a Nuclear Rockets - which doesn't have all of the nuclear rockets - just a couple that use liquid hydrogen instead of liquid fuel. (They are from some USI mod - so it's possible something's going on there as well.) I mostly use stock, but have a few tweaks - generally expanding categories to include a few things they wouldn't. (I have a lot of trusses that wouldn't go in the truss category without help...) I've tried to set up a radiator category (biggest missing category, in my opinion) a couple of times without success - I'll be seeing if I can use one of the configs in this thread for my next try.

Anyone else have it dance the jitterbug on the smaller wheels? It's steady as a rock on the main ones, but on the small I get it bouncing around all over the place - even with the brakes on on the runway. Oh, and I've got configs for CLS and AntennaRange - I'll set up a PR for them tomorrow, but for the moment I'll put them here for comment. They appear to work in my install. CLS: https://github.com/DanStaal/KSP-Configs/blob/master/Malmute_CLS.cfg AntennaRange: https://github.com/DanStaal/KSP-Configs/blob/master/AntennaRange_configs/Malemute.cfg

I say we pool together and hire someone via TaskRabbit or something similar to paint his house for him.

It makes some sense - but on the other hand, there are parts which definitely shouldn't be passable, like the cargo bed. So not all configurations expect you to use the rear airlock for entry/egress. I'll take a look at the rear airlock - that could be useful. Though unless the behavior has changed in 1.1.x, it doesn't help in what I'd consider the standard case of starting building at the front of the rover - when you try to merge it in to your transit ship, only open attach points on your root part will be available. Oh: One other question for Rover: Do those expandable docking ports (well, the mount for them anyway) match heights with anything in MKS? I haven't had a chance to check yet. (I'll check eventually - but if they don't, I don't think I'll be using them much, despite how cool they are.)

There are AR antenna packs - or adaptations for RemoteTech antenna packs. Some with more range than the standard antennas, I know that. Though if it'd be enough to be useful I don't know. Really, if you think about it, sending the science back is likely the way we'd try to do it in real life - the time delay would be huge on it's own, as well as the engineering challenge of building the antennas. If you can go there, sending back the science is probably as easy as transmitting it. I'll recommend the science crates from RoverDude's exploration pack - you can stuff the science in one of those and send a small probe back, instead of your whole ship.

And Nils has said he's going to try to get the garage to fit the PackRat, at the very least... (Which *nearly* fits - it's within the suspension limits on the wheels to get through the door.) --- Finally got a chance to actually play around with the rover a bit - even it was just a test build at the KSC. Some quick thoughts: I'm going have to write up CLS and AntennaRange patches for this. (Should the Service Bay be passable? I'm not sure how wide the center section is.) I love the extra attachment points on the undercarriage - a great place to put some RTG's to power this whole thing. (Though the big RTG's I put in blocked the wheel on that section. I kinda expected that.) Though I do wonder if that was your intended use. Could we get an attachment node on the front of the main cabin? It's useful to secure it in cargo bays for shipping - I'm not actually sure how to ship one of these at the moment, though I'm sure I can figure out something. Also, it makes it easier to build a rover in the SPH, and then attach it to a transit vehicle. For some reason I was expecting the Geology Lab to have a built-in ScanOMatic/resource scanner. Though being able to pull up a map is nice. Still, looking forward to deploying it in the field.

That sounds about right. Note however that by default you won't lose control of the probes - you'll just lose *connection*. (There is a setting to lose control as well, but I don't think it's checked by default.) You can get a bit more range by spending power, or by setting up an outer relay probe - or you can look into some of the other antenna packs around - especially ones that support OPM - and see if any have more range. But on the whole - I'm not actually sure what type of antennas you would need to attach to a probe for something like that in real life. It would definitely be something designed just for the purpose.

The exact file name will be EL_USI.cfg. As for where you place it - anywhere in GameData should work.

That's wrong - Disconnected is just that: not connected. By anything. You put the sections of the base close together (max of 150 meters), and the Kerbals will run around transferring stuff on their own. (Or maybe they build transfer carts, who knows. The point is that resources and things like habitation for USI-LS get shared among all the nearby ships.) On number 3 - If you take on of the parts and attach it to the ground using KIS (I suggest the inflatable hub), then it should be anchored to that spot. It won't completely prevent it moving around, but it'll help. I play normal MKS, so I'm not entirely sure what parts are in this pack, but if it's the same mini-wheels, they surface attach. In MKS there's some girders on the bases in the right places, but I'm not sure those parts are in this pack.

All of RoverDude's mods can be downloaded from his Github account: https://github.com/BobPalmer?tab=repositories

Hmm. Yes. Again, I haven't had a chance to look at the version released yesterday... (And I tend to just delete those files without looking - I have a persistent one I keep elsewhere.) I guess I need to poke around a bit more. I'm guessing that the consequences will be the same for both - if you can only set one in either location. As I said, I'll have to poke around. Anyway, I hope my explanation of what they are helped.

Looks awesome, RoverDude. Looking forward to it.

Correct. You're missing something - the config file I know has consequences for both in it. Haven't had a chance to look at the new UI, but I suspect it's there as well. But basically: Habitation time is the amount of time they can be comfortable in their current vessel. Homesickness is the amount of time they are comfortable away from Kerbin. They start the same, because they are based on the same things: Space in your current ship, rec facilities, etc. However, Habitation resets every time they enter a new ship, while Homesickness never resets. It can however be increased by going into a larger ship - and it will not decrease just because you've gotten into a smaller ship afterwards. So for a single ship, they are equal. Over the course of a longer mission they'll be different. I'll leave the others because I'm not 100% certain on them, but it's also worth checking out the wiki - a lot of it has been reworked in the last day or so, and I think it has much better info now.

Your problem really sounds like you're running into a bug/limitation in the physics engine. Basically, KSP does limited precision floating point math for physics calculations on a scheduled basis, which can be off. Larger ships/bases are more likely be slightly off, and more likely to make that noticeable. When you dock a force is applied to pull the ships together. That force can cause things to wobble slightly. If the physics is off enough that wobble will increase every time the physics is recalculated, eventually destroying the ship if allowed. A quick mitigation is to enter time-warp when you see the wobble start - physics isn't run during time-warp, so all forces and positions get reset. There are a few other things that could get done to mitigate the issue, but arbitrary precision physics calculations is the type of thing you build supercomputers for, so as a general issue it's not going to go away anytime soon.

My thought - if you want to try it a moment first, before the clean install - is to try removing the MM caches and the PartDatabase.cfg. They'll regenerate on load, and it's possible that FilterExtensions had something in there which is interfering.