DStaal

At the top of the patch you'll see this line: Change it to read like this:

Looking at that landing sequence, may I ask for Landertron integration? It looks like an ideal case for it.

Can I have someone check something for me please? I have an interaction I'd report as a possible bug, but I haven't gotten 1.3.1 to successfully load for me yet so I'm not sure if it's still an issue in the most recent versions. It's also an interaction between two mods, which may or may not be something that matters long-term. (Though note it likely affects Scott Manly's Galileo Conquest, as he's using both of the mods involved...) With both MKS and Strategia installed, in Career mode activate one of the high-level profession focuses. (I noticed it using Scientist III.) Then go into the astronaut complex and you won't be able to see any Kerbals, or hire anyone. I believe this is because both MKS and Strategia are trying to modify hiring at that point - the high-level profession bonuses mean that new Kerbals come in with more stars.

If I may, this might suit you:

KPBS at this point should actually be fairly well balanced for pure USI-LS on it's own. (I actually was part of the team that wrote those patches...) It contains analogs for most of the hab and greenhouse parts, including a large variety of recyclers. (It doesn't have some of the more complex greenhouses or medical facilities that MKS has.) I was mostly commenting on 'yeah, I can see if you wanted *some* of the challenge that's not a bad way to tune things a bit'. It makes most flights the same, but makes it so bases and stations aren't as much of a worry. I don't think the parts pack makes much of a difference in that consideration, if he's thinking of it as a difficulty issue. Building a large long-term base using KPBS parts actually may be slightly easier than using MKS parts, as many parts have slight multipliers included, and there are some major multipliers available. In general though they should be comparable in this.

I can see turning down the perma-hab. You'd still have to deal with habitation as a challenge, in both forms, but you'd need less base building to surmount it. On the other hand, I'd suggest you try it as-is first. You'd be surprised how quickly some hab parts add together.

Hmm. I wonder if such a thing could be integrated with Indicator Lights... (Probably, if you make the flag accessible. )

Um, because it's still in heavy development, and may change at any point?

Honestly, what I'd expect to happen if you have two drives on the same ship - and activate them both - is for the drives to interfere with each other and for the ship to explode... (If you left one of the drives inactive of course you could carry it along.)

I'd also recommend you share a picture of your GameData and USI folders.

That idea I like. I never have trouble with fitting a science jr on - but then I have several parts packs that provide alternate parts for it. But the idea that it's designed to fit the same universal racks as the capsules, and that you can move those parts back and forth... That's interesting. Might want to check how Universal Storage 2.0 is coming along though - I know they're working on a full revamp.

It increases the *rate*, not the *output*. So you'll get 3.47x the output for 3.47x the input - in the same time. (I'm not 100% sure the multiplier is quite that simple, but I am sure the input and the output will go up at the same ratio.)

Yep, basically. Perform Maintenance will also pull from nearby vessels, so you don't have to connect on that end. Wish I had some pics of the last time I did this: I had some flatbed rovers with nuclear fuel containers mounted on them that had KAS ports on the side. Hook them up to the production facility, fill them up, then run them across (take a look at Bon Voyage for that) and perform maintenance.

This mod already has some EL parts for ground-based construction. Space-based construction would be out of scope for this mod: It's *planetary* base systems, after all. Might I suggest the mod below? It hasn't seen any updates since 1.2.2 - but it's just a parts mod, so it hasn't needed any:

Most mods at this point often work between versions. Mods that are just collections of parts - like this mod - almost always work between versions.

If you want examples, old versions of MKS used a hidden resource to track a 'wear' mechanic.

Here's a quick coded-in-browser version: @PART[OrbitalColonyGardenBiosphere*|OrbitalColonySmallGarden]:NEEDS[CommunityCategoryKit] { @category = none tags = cck-lifesupport } Of course, if you ever add other tags you'd want to edit that a bit, as this assumes there's no `tags` field at all. (Which is currently the case.)

I'm not sure how reliable #3 is - it's a simple MM patch, about four lines long, so it's not complex in that sense. The reliability question is all about 'what does KSP do if it's parts change categories mid-game?'. I'm not sure of the answer to that. And there's the 'outside' complexity of 'what category are the parts in?' Where then the answer is 'well, it depends...'. And yeah, creating a manufacturers tab seems to require some coding, from what I've been able to gather around the forum.

I was just planning on putting the greenhouses in the LifeSupport category, which is simple enough.

I'm looking at doing a small patch/PR to add Community Category Kit support to this mod, and I realized there's three choices on how to do so: Parts in both CCK (when installed) and normal category. Parts in CCK category and CCK required. Parts change to CCK category when CCK is installed. The simplest is #1, which would work fine. It also has the advantage of leaving the parts findable by the standard search function. (Which doesn't seem to handle custom categories.) The only real disadvantage is that some people get offended if a part is in two places. #2 is also fairly simple, but more overhead for RealGecko, as either you have to bundle and keep up to date CCK or explain why the parts don't show up to people who forgot to install it. #3 is a bit more complex, and means that 'are the parts working' is a bit less deterministic, as they could be in different places depending on what else is installed. (And I'm not sure how well KSP handles parts changing categories after unlocking, if people add mods mid-game.) I personally lean towards #1, but I've seen a number of reports in different threads for that type of behavior being a 'bug' that needs to be fixed, so I wouldn't want to put the PR in without letting the maintainer know that they're likely to see that (in my mind, erroneous) report. As far as I can tell, *none* of the choices is completely clean - with the search function issue/bug the latter two will have issues as well, the question is what's intended and what RealGecko prefers. (And this post is probably longer than the PRs for all three choices put together...)

Props is a variety of IVA props he's using among all his mods. Technically it has it's own package somewhere I think, but it's a separate thing than the Propulsion, which is an engine package.

Good reasons.

Out of curiosity, what's the reasoning behind this change? It sounds more brittle, and I know the 1.2.2 version of this mod works fine on 1.3, which I assume means the reflection code works. (Or at least worked.)

Just to actually answer the question: (BTW: The easiest way to answer is usually to download the pack and take a look inside.) Yep, It's been rolled in. Kontainers are part of USI-Core, see below. It is not - but is fairly deeply integrated. Most people use both together, and discussion on this forum tends to blur them together. It's included, and is included in *most* of the USI mods. It has the Kontainers, USI-tools, etc. I don't believe they are needed for that pack. If they are, they are included in the download. They provide VAB/SPH categories and resource definitions, respectively, and you will need them for MKS, and many other USI and non-USI mods. They are included in any USI download that needs them, and nearly every other mod that needs them. (I say nearly because I'm not sure. It's possible that's an *all*.) Typically only modders need to download the bare package of either of those, as they include them in their mods. Depends on how it's set up. Typically no, but if they have the correct permissions to the repository they could - but they would essentially be a co-author at that point.

Well, in that context KPBS is probably light-assembly: They are really designed as 'rigid expandables' - Less set up than an inflatable, but still not quite as bulky as shipping the entire thing pre-assembled. I know it has support for both EL and GC (including some very nice EL parts...), but the design is probably 'ship-in and connect up'; after all, it's just a parts pack and in theory you could use it with nothing else but stock. Of course, nothing is stopping you from building them via EL, and I often do. I think RoverDude's end goal is full onsite fabrication - but as a very late-game ability, not something you're going to be sending your first Kerbals to the Mun with. But that will require the next planned stage of GC, which isn't here yet.