voicey99

TBH detonating a several-thousand-tonne asteroid in low orbit would be a really dumb idea in reality.

I would probably say that asteroids should not be dismantleable by Kerbals. They are giant lumps of rock, not fragile spaceship parts, and it would take a Kerbal days to demolish it with a jackhammer. As for the demo charge bit, I think it should only be able to destroy the asteroid when the asteroid is either below 10% resources remaining or weighs <1000t (if that is even possible to code in), whichever is the greater, since there is no way a couple of sticks of dynamite is going to even make a crack in a 5-megatonne boulder. As for resources, maybe it could be blown up into rock with a low efficiency (~20%?) since detonating it over lasering it would give some recoverable resources but most of that rock is not going to be collectable or usable.

I started the install in 1.1.3, so it's been through one major change. It did have that line in, but was set to 0.2-changed to 20. EDIT .....which works, and they are now offset ridiculously to the side in midair. It would still be better if that wasn't necessary in the first place, but bugs be bugs.

With ART, that means serveral MILLION tonnes of rock. Overkill much?

Assuming you mean hold lshift and drag the arrows around, that doesn't work. Not using EE either.

Holding shift while offsetting the gear does not disable the offset limit for that part, it offsets the entire ship.

BTW if you aren't manufacturing uranium yet and want to save cash on reactor fuel, Near Future Solar has some massive solar arrays that should be sufficient to take over during the day and give the reactors a break.

Making a Mk2 SSTO and, on adding any kind of landing gear to anywhere but the main fuselage of the plane, it begins oscillating madly from side to side and sliding around on the runway like its on a tiltboard. Originally this bug cropped up when placing the gear on the Spaceplane Tail Fins I use as wings (so I can use the flaps as heat-resistant aerobrakes) on a modded vessel but, even after removing all mod parts from the vessel and all mods full stop from the game, I have no option but to give the plane a dangerously narrow wheelbase since I cannot place any landing gear at all far from the centre (on any part) without summoning the kraken and making it impossible to take off or even taxi thanks to the shaking (unless the landing gear is retracted, which makes it useless). How do I circumvent this kraken (or is this a Gameplay Question)?

I believe @dboi88 is making a (still indev) mod along those lines i.e. large-scale resupplying of extraplanetary bases. Once you get that gypsum->fertiliser->food production line set up, all that really matters is hab time. I would go for the absolute best recycler (i.e. the water-fuelled kerbitat) since water should be very common (though bizarrely in my save water had a Minmus average abundance of 0.3% despite the ENTIRE MOON being made of ice), but the RT-5000 is generally the next best suited to colonies. I also recommend giving all your bases a hab time of at least 10x the average trip length+launch window gap to the relevant planet, since you don't want to be constantly shuttling homesick kolonists to and from Kerbin and keeping tract of loads of launch windows and who is where.

Engineers' repair, drillboost and converterboost abilties can be done by mechanics, miners and technicians respectively. It's more a case of these three kerbals rolled into one for simplicity and less LS load, as with the other two main professions to a degree. Scientists and Pilots have eight "unique" skill-traits between them that cannot be done by any kolonists, engineers on the other hand can be entirely replaced. (Unless, of course, you feel like editing Kolnonsts.cfg) And @RoverDude might want to link that video in the OP. I never even knew he had a YT channel.

According to the desc for the TCS, the cooling rate depends on the temperature and time of day-whatever the formula is, the result is going to vary wildly from the VAB data. Not that I've ever used the thing.

That's Advanced Construction (if you can't find a part, just check its cfg file and it should say what tech it is in there)

You're thinking of the other gyro (the Gyroscope (small)). This one is supposed to enable Stability Assist as a function of SAS (I have the flywheels elsewhere on the craft).

Trying to learn how to DLL, this may as well be a good place to start. Assuming this is the GameData/USI/MKS KolonyTools, for me, there is no Source/KolonyTools/KolonyTools/PlanetaryLogistics subsection according to the decompiler and Source/KT/PL/ModulePL doesn't specify the interval. (unless this is too offtopic?) And @Merkov I'd do this myself if I had any clue how to make more than just SigmaBinary patches. Maybe this is as good an incentive as any to learn?

Out of interest, which DLL is that in? I can't find that in KolonyTools which is where PL is handled(?).

Just a thought: will the new TRPalike hiring system break the policies from Strategia that affect Kerbal hiring (namely increased hiring costs in exchange for Kerbals coming pre-XPd and a monthly payment in exchange for reduced hiring costs)?

Assuming it's compatible, that's this mod: (the OP is pretty outdated btw) On its own, USI-LS is a very simple LS mod ((fertiliser->)supplies->kerbals), but when used with MKS (as is intended), USI-LS is still simpler but harder than TAC, the main thing being habitation. In TAC you can just pack them off on a ship with all the various types of supplies they need and that's that, but in USI-LS/MKS you have to give them both food (and power) and living quarters-while supplies are easily renewable, their habitation timers will constantly tick down and, unless you are very far along the MKS manufacturing tree, cannot be replenished without returning to Kerbin, though they can be extended with certain parts from MKS. It depends on your personal preference really, either you stick a load of TAC supply containers on your ship and be done with it or have to build a proper mothership with USI-LS/MKS to stop your kerbals going nuts.

The FS2G gyro apparently doesn't actually provide any SAS functionality, I have a craft with one mounted but it still refuses to engage SAS. This screenshot shows what I mean, unless I'm doing something wrong.

I've had this issue in vanilla before, just clear the input locks in the debug menu (I think the input lock causing this is UIMasterController:ModelDialog, which also seems to disable clickables and tweakables for me).

Could the vesselType=Base tags on the Kerbitat modules, hubs and airlock be removed, by any chance? They are not designed just for bases, but Kerbitats especially are a must on all interplanetary ships and stations with LS installed-and renaming all my stations from Base back to Station every time something docks with them is getting very irksome (This is just a couple of cfg lines, so will PR this one if you want).

The cylindrical kontainers still collect materialkits made from disassembling parts in the vicinity though, even w/o the bin module.

[derp, oops-ignore prev post, didn't notice the page had turned over] Yes, that is MKS. You need to have MaterialKits storage within 150m, though

Uh, does that mean the 21K EU floating around in my Minmus Planetary Storage from before it was explicitly blacklisted is now irretrievable and I will now have to transfer it by hand from base to base?

Hm, I can't make either my reactors or PDU go over 100% even with a high-level engineer on board. The last time it did go over 100% was thanks to one of the bees in 0.50.12 that sent all the production multipliers on Kerbol escape velocity. And @Gilph maintenance/scavenging range is 150m by default.

According to my calculations, when running at full steam, the 0.625m reactor should require refuelling every 772 days (1.8yrs), the 1.25m every 1,306 days (3.1yrs), the 2.5m every 1,188 days (2.8yrs), the 3.75m every 1,240 days (2.9yrs), the Duna PDU every 309 days (0.72 yrs) and the Tundra PDU every 193 days (0.45 yrs). EDIT: And, speaking of PDUs, the costs of the Tundra and Duna PDUs seem especially low compared to their non-PDU reactor counterparts of comparable output. The Duna PDU costs just 2K on ts own and the Tundra costs just an eighth of the comparable 2.5m reactor.