Merkov
-
Posts
460 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Merkov
-
-
Out of curiosity, which stock part was that?
-
4 hours ago, dboi88 said:
@RoverDude, would you consider adding a link to and brief mention of the rescue pod validator to the OP? Not everyone will see it, but some will. It might even get some people to install it BEFORE they run into this issue.
Be advised that the rescue pod validator won't change the pods from any existing contracts (I think that includes contracts that are offered but not yet accepted) but will stop bad contracts from generating going forward.
-
1 hour ago, Kilo60 said:
USI TOOLS causes CTD's during game load.
Had to delete the folder from my Game data folder to be able to load the game and this mod...
Is there gonna be a 1.3 compatible version?
As was mentioned in the FTT thread, USI Tools has been 1.3 compatible for a while. Make sure you're using the most current version.
-
2 hours ago, Rafael acevedo said:
Nils
I agree with you in principle, the only issue I have is with the last point in reality it should be enough for 5 kerbals and it is from the mission planner standpoint. Lets say you are planning a mission where you need a pilot, two scientist for the lab. You ask yourself what is the better solution that matches your mission parameters and mass criteria
Choice 1 nomomatic 25000I and one of the smaller nomomatics 5000 plus the lab, hab and command pod with a crew of 3 which does have a direct impact in consumables and hab requirements, and everything operating and 100%
Choice 2 (using the 4 Kerbal) KPBS greenhouse, I need 1 greenhouse, 1 lab, hab and command pod with a crew of 3 operating at 50% efficiency or i can go with 4 kerbals and operate only the greenhouse at 100% but increased 1 crew with direct impact into hab requirements, however if i want to operate the lab at 100% I need to add two greenhouses and a crew of 4 which impacts throw weight, engine size etc.
Choice 3 (using the 5 Kerbal) kbps greenhouse, I need 1 lab, 1 hab and command post with 5 kerbals) everything operates at 100% efficiency and it becomes more attractive than Choice 1
in reality you are already doing this since the greenhouse supports 2.5 kerbals when operating at 100% so does the nomomatic so using your example for simplicity
0 kerbals- operates at 33% it produces 3.135 Noms/hr enough for 1.74 Kerbals (mission planner and senior KSP engineer gene and wherner State 'if we add a recycling module, we can fly a scientist for the lab)
1 Kerbal- operates at 66% it produces 6.67 Noms/hr enough for 3.48 Kerbals (mission planner and senior KSP engineer gene and wherner salivate at the prospect of having a fully functioning lab however they say " we still need a place for the pilot and to do so we need a recycler but we are getting closer")
2 kerbals- operates at 100% efficiency, it produces 9.5noms and hour enough for 5.27 kerbals (mission planner and senior KSP engineer gene and wherner state "Eureka we achieved self sufficiency without needing a recycler this is the way to go" Jebediah heard the comment and stated yes but if you add the recycler then we can be a crew of 6 and i can tell bill to conduct science experiments from the rover at the face of Duna , while i try to figure out how to jump over it" )
I'm not a fan of this. Volume and mass-wise, the greenhouse should perform roughly as well as a 25000-I. There's no need for it to work 2.5 times better simply by adding two Kerbals.
The point if USI-LS patches for KBPS isn't to make KPBS parts better than USI-LS ones; the goal for most of us working on the patch was to try to be similar but different. Nils' suggestion accomplishes that.
Also, you mentioned being able to support 5 Kerbals without a recycler. My question is... Why? Recyclers are pretty critical to USI-LS. We added a variety of different recyclers and purifiers to KPBS; use them. Even temporary bases ought to have some recycling.
-
Look at that; I run some errands, and everything's done by the time I get back.
-
50 minutes ago, Rafael acevedo said:
Dstaal
what I understand you are saying is, that if I have a KPBS greenhouse and I have no kerbals in it it should still produce 4.75 noms and hour, and wether I have 1 or 2 kerbals in the greenhouse it should still produce 4.75 noms per hour (if this is so then the 50 efficiency and the 100% efficiency listings on the KPBS greenhouse are superfluous and just cosmetic). however when I run it the KPBS greenhouse produces 0 noms with no kerbals, with 1 Kerbal it produces around 2.8 noms (my Kerbal consumed 1.8 in one hour and my base storage when up by 1 nom at the same time) this means that the greenhouse is only producing about half of the 4.75 noms it should produce in an hour or operating at 50% efficiency (exactly what the module description says). It for sure is not producing the 4.5 noms an hour with one Kerbal.
I'm away from my computer so I can't check now, but I remember us discussing what MODULE was used as a converter for the greenhouse part (it should be mentioned in the greenhouse issue on GitHub). My recollection was that the greenhouse used a special module (KPBS specific maybe?) instead of the stock ModuleResourceConverter. Perhaps this includes a crewed requirement?
If this is the case, I'm not sure RoverDude's spreadsheet would have a nice way of dealing with it. There is a provision for crew to influence efficiency by trait and skill level, but I don't know if we can modify the spreadsheet to simply look at if a Kerbal is present or not.
We could give this part another pass based on a crew requirement, or we could look at using the regular ModuleResourceConverter (or whatever module USI-LS uses).
-
2 hours ago, Angel-125 said:
...the 000ABARISBridgeDoNotDelete FOLDER...
That folder name alone is worth rep.
-
4 hours ago, Rafael acevedo said:
Nils
i remember when you, dstaal, and other forum members where trying to balance kpbs parts with usi- ls and in my humble opinion you guys did a great job. However, I think we missed the boat with the green house. the usi- ls nom-o-magit 25000-I and the Kpbs green house both produce 4.75 noms per hour, the issue is that the nom o magic requires no crew to do so and kpbs requires two crew members. Why is this important, let's say you want to set up a base on a planet with a lab to conduct science manned by to kerbals. Using usi-ls this requires two modules ( not counting storage and consumables) A nom o magic 25000-I and a lab module (and only a two kerbal crew) to accomplish the same task using kpbs modules it would require 4 greenhouses and the lab module ( and crew of 10 with corresponding impact to storage hab ,etc). Let's do the math
1 kerbal consumes 1.8 noms and hour
The aforementioned green house produce 4.75 noms and hour or enough to feed slightly more than 2 and a half kerbal
the nomomatic requires no crew so you need 1 nomomatic to support the two kerbal scientists.
The kpbs green house requires a crew of two to feed 2.5 kerbals, so in order to have two scientist working, you need 4 greenhouses (2.5x 4=10) operating at 100% efficiency. That gives you 8 farming kerbals and two scientist
I know part of the charm of your mod is to have the kerbals using the parts, so if you allow me to make a suggestion, that will restore the balance, we can do this:
a deployed greenhouse can produce 4.75 noms an hour when empty, just like the nom o matic, but if occupied by 1 kerbal it produces 25% more noms and by 2 50% more. Or 5.875 noms and 7.125. Or you can do 12 and 25% or 10 and 20%. No need to modify anything else, and it can be explained by farmers ensuring enough light hit the plants using mirrors to reflect minimize showdow, etc all those things that a non ai computer would think to do. Your thoughts?
I don't remember if we took the need for Kerbals to man the greenhouse into consideration (I don't think we did; there's a section to the spreadsheet that handles that) but I will point out that the greenhouse also adds a hab multiplier which the 25000-I doesn't.
-
3 hours ago, Vaga said:
If you get that fixed up add kerbalism to the mix
I can't really see that happening. While WBI and USI integration would bring up some issues to be addressed, at least they aren't actually incompatible with each other. As it stands now, MKS is completely incompatible with Kerbalism since the former heavily relies on the stock catch-up mechanic that the latter removed in favour of its own background processing mechanic. It's been mentioned more than a few times in the various USI mod threads.
-
3 hours ago, DStaal said:
USI mods use either ModuleResourceConverter, or a slightly-extended decedent that inherits from it. (I get the feeling that RoverDude may have written ModuleResourceConverter, actually...) Categories is more likely to be a problem: USI uses it's own categories extensively, though some parts show in the stock categories as well.
(Sorry, I haven't actually done much in KSP the last couple of weeks, and haven't even gotten around to taking a look at BARIS to see what might be needed...)
I've always felt that some way of making MKS + USI-LS/Pathfinder + MOLE play nicely with each other would be the holy grail of KSP mod compatibility patches.
-
50 minutes ago, Nertea said:
Ok, I'll provide that eventually. Mostly things are just multiples of hitchiker lengths, so that's fairly simple. Eg. all the short parts are 1x hitchiker, all the long are 2x hitchiker, with some exceptions
Sounds perfect. The easier it is on everyone, the better. As @TheRagingIrishman mentioned, close enough is good enough in this case, especially when dealing with any weird shapes, such as extendable parts.
Oh, and also a huge thanks for agreeing to offer this info. I really appreciate it.
-
Hey @Nertea, is there any chance that some of us could get the dimensions and masses of the new parts prior to release? That way, I can run the numbers through the USI-LS spreadsheet to get balanced habitation times and costs for a USI-LS patch to be included when your updated is released, rather than sending you a pull request a week after release.
Not that there's anything wrong with submitting a patch after the fact. Whatever's more convenient for you.
-
5 hours ago, Plegeus said:
Hello!
I just wonder, since 1.3 is out if/when this mod will be updated. I don't know how much time creating a mod consumes, don't anything of modding, that's why I ask, I would have no problem playing on an older version, but it's always more intersting to play updated games, but if it's not going to happen, I know I need to make my modpack for 1.2
I realy want to play this mod, but I also know patience!
Thx,
Plegeus o7
Hi, welcome to the forums!
I know that you're not trying to be rude, but asking about mod updates tends to be a bit of a sore subject with many mod makers, especially when they are asked over and over.
Before asking questions in general--and about updates specifically--in the forums, try to read back over the last couple of pages of posts. You'll see that Nertea has actually been asked about mod updates several times lately, including on this page. It becomes very frustrating for mod makers to work hard to create and maintain mods, and then have users ask questions that, with a little bit of searching, they could answer for themselves.
Nertea has indicated that an update is coming, but honestly the current version should work on 1.3 as long as all of your dependencies are up to date.
-
7 hours ago, goldenpsp said:
you take that text and save it under your gamedata folder as a Whateverfilenameiwant.cfg
modulemanager patches are not directory independent. Just make note of it so in the future if this is included you can remove your old one.
@mivanit exactly what goldenpsp said. The only thing I would add to this is that you may want to consider making a folder inside your GameData folder (with whatever name you want) specifically for MM patches. It makes it a bit easier to keep things organized if you start adding more and more MM patches.
-
28 minutes ago, fatcargo said:
I've hijacked this thread with my github learning curve long enough.
For what it's worth, I would rather see ten pages of people learning GitHub than a single "broken pls fx" or "needs update" post.
Likes for everyone; this has been a pleasure to watch.
-
28 minutes ago, Trekkie148 said:
Can this mod work for 1.3? I really want this mod for ksp 1.3 please?
Please read the last two pages of this thread.
-
2 hours ago, DStaal said:
Yep, that's one fix. Whether it's the best is the question - it then requires me to keep track of where the docking ports are placed, and update my configs if they get moved.
(And if something else moves them they might not be moved as well.)
I'm thinking if I put in :AFTER[PlanetarySurfaceStructures] on the creation nodes (the +PART line), then they'll get moved automatically in most cases.
The only other decent alternative I can think of is having a seperate CTT config for the integration patch, but that requires manually editing nodes every time there's a change in the KPBS side. Not that those should be terribly frequent anymore.
-
Hello!
I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this, but is it possible to make a copy of the "How to Get Support" thread pinned to the Add-on Releases forum? Lots of people who have bugs with modded installs will post in the release thread for the mod in question (and rightly so) but a new player might not yet have stumbled upon the support thread yet.
If the thread (even just a locked thread with the OP copied would do Nickey) was pinned on the Add-on Releases forum, it would make it a bit easier to refer to, and possibly increase visibility for newer forum users.
-
49 minutes ago, Trekkie148 said:
I use this addon a lot but it glitches out the solar panels in the game a lot. I need help and soon please? and a fixed download
In what way do you think MM glitches solar panels?
-
4 hours ago, overkill13 said:
I must correct myself. I reread your comment and had another look at the folder structure in KPBS. It is indeed unusual, but not unheard of, to split the mod inside itself BEFORE setting up parts folders.
I still stand by my previous "pay no attention to me" statement.
-
42 minutes ago, overkill13 said:
Almost every mod I use has multiple folders for parts. Some for different part categories, others for different vehicles within the mod itself.
Really? Oh. Alright then. I guess I pay more attention to KPBS's setup than those other mods' then. Pay no attention to me!
-
8 hours ago, Nils277 said:
@ParcivalQuestion to everyone: Is there something I do differently in KPBS and FUR compared to other mods? There are a lot Questions about the missing parts due to problems with the installation.
Please ignore the tag. Mobile forum troubles.
To be fair, I see intall issues on plenty of threads, not just yours.
The one thing I notice you seem to do differently than some others is the way your file structure is set up in KPBS with regards to having folders for different categories of parts. Lots of mods will only have one "Parts" folder, but you have a few, each located inside your various category folders. This shouldn't lead to install issues, but it is one difference.
-
10 hours ago, Parcival said:
Alright, I'm new to KSP and this is my first mod... So bear with me if im doing something stupid.
- I downloaded the files per instructions, the parts dont show up (version 1.3)
- I looked at the file structure to make sure it was correct, everything looks to be in order minus the fact that there is a "localization" folder included in the download that according to the instructions shouldn't be there.
- I tried deleting the file so that the file structure matches the instructions exactly, but then when i open KSP none of the buttons work.
Sorry if someone has solved this problem previously but i didnt see it when i skimmed the forum.
Welcome to the forums! Also welcome to modding KSP! You've picked a great parts pack to be your first.
To start figuring this out, would you be able to post a screenshot of your GameData folder? Last I checked, the forum doesn't let you insert images, so you might have to upload your screenshot to Imgur or something like that then post the link. Seeing you GameData folder is a quick way to rule out most common install errors and other weirdness. Also, can you confirm which version of KPBS you're using?
Finally, since you mentioned this is your first mod, do you have Module Manager installed? Parts mods don't always need it, but since KPBS comes with/integrates with Community Category Kit, I'm pretty sure it will be needed. That shouldn't stop all of your parts from appearing, but it's still in your best interests to grab it.
-
1 hour ago, SpacePilotMax said:
Could this be bundled into a single pack for ease of use?
See @JadeOfMaar's post a little above yours. That question has already been asked and answered on this page.
(And if something else moves them they might not be moved as well.)
[Minimum KSP version - 1.11] Kerbal Attachment System (KAS) v1.12
in KSP1 Mod Releases
Posted
I'm pretty sure it's just the compress-rotate function that isn't working right now. Last I tried, regular compressing (welding) in Konstruction works just fine.
To be fair, my understanding is that it isn't really that compress-rotate is broken per se, but that KSP doesn't like when entire vessels rotate non-trivial amounts in the span of only a frame or two.