Omnipius

Mostly, I had all of that fuel available for new ship construction... PL doesn't provide a means of completely filling a kontainer for shipment or completely emptying it on delivery the way that LL does. Are you planning to add that manual push-pull function to PL?

OK....so adding Xenon as an output resource (and balancing the mass in and out) seems to prevent the reactor from operating registering as being online (thus not producing heat and subsequently no power). This is despite the desired conversion change actually working. I'm confused as to why this is. Ummm...halp?

That is an interesting idea. I like the NFE reactor management, but I would really like to bring back byproducts like Xenon. I may futz with my config files a bit to see if I can make that happen. Speaking of NFE+USI, I think I found a bug in the integration patch. Namely, the Duna and Tundra PDU reactors burn through fuel at insane speeds (0.96/day on the Tundra) such that they only last about 65 days. I did some digging, comparing the config parameters applied to the different reactors, and it looks like these two parts are missing one (or more?) zeros in their fuel consumption ratios. So, a typo. I would also think that the fuel capacity should be 70 on the Duna and 200 on the Tundra given the capacity of the comparable-output stand-alone reactors.

@RoverDude: I know that this issue has been raised several times, but would there be any chance of making it so that EnrichedUranium and DepletedFuel can be pulled from PL (though still not pushed) as a soft-deprecation of nuclear PL storage? I think this would be a good idea for at least for a few versions so folks have a chance to build and fill local storage with everything that had been dumped to PL. Also, could you explain your rationale for requiring a hard-dock to transfer machinery? I get that maintenance will auto-distribute it to converters locally, but why make it impossible to load a shipping kontainer without a direct connection?

I am using NFE, though something still seems out of whack with the Tundra PDU. In the VAB, it says that it uses fuel at a rate of 0.96/day (which isn't a number I can get to from either the MKS or NFE config file data). So, with a fuel capacity of 20, that only lasts about 25 days. The odd thing is that the NFE integration says the capacity should be 60...so something the broken there. I'll do some digging and report up that chain. I would concur with this. A reactor capable of 1200 EC/s should have a fuel capacity in in the hundreds, somewhere just above the 2.5m standalone reactor. Same for waste heat.

Yikes! No wonder my Minmus City construction ground to a crawl. Is there any way to temporarily disable this? I've got 9000 units of EnrichedUranium that I need to pull out of PL.... BTW - It's not so infrequent. The Tundra PDU reactor chews through fuel like crazy. The biggest problem I've had with that is the DepletedFuel. It pretty much requires an attached Breeder module or it will shut down due to no dump space after about a month. You also cannot be running a centrifuge, which now without PL fills up EU storage fast and which in turn prevents the breeder from functioning. EDIT: I'm going to drop in my own personal plea for EL integration not to be deprecated or removed. The ability to produce items whole without shipping anything from Kerbin is essential to my kolonization/diaspora gameplay arc. I get the idea that there are specialty parts that are hard to produce, but I feel that should be a resource that can be produced if you build up sufficient industrial capacity. The existing MKS+EL integration simulates that chain nicely. However, I will admit GC's deploy step is way more stable than EL's survey stakes and the MKS resource chain is not nearly kerbal-labor intensive enough (or really at all). Actually, I would love to see either an integration with or analogous functionality to the Civilian Population mod, specifically the ability to "recruit" a Kerbal off-world. That would be the dream: Kolonize Laythe with a ship and crew build and born on Duna. (OK, maybe more like crew born on Duna flies a Duna-built shuttle to Ike, boards a Kolony ship built in Ike orbit, flys to Pol, sets up an industrial complex on Pol, builds and uses a Laythe lander, then sets up shop on Laythe and receives shipments from Pol until the colony is self-sufficient)

I'm trying to build an unmanned garbage scow to treat my ever-worsening Kessler syndrome using the EL recycling bins. I figured that the MKS EL integration would mean that the bin would convert material ingested into Recyclables, but that doesn't seem to be working. Do the recycling bins convert to anything with the MKS integration or I am going to have to send up a Kerbal to do the job manually?

Some of us, such as myself, had not even started playing KSP back in October and therefore were blindsided by this. I think the moral of the story here is that forcibly taking away functionality will always anger users of any system. Such changes should be done in a way that makes them an install-time option for the user. This would avoid episodes like this.

Definitely the former. You load the game, your active vessels get deleted. The latter would be expected given the release notes. I copied over the orbitalEngine folder with that of NFS 0.5.4 and now have LFO and MonoProp engines in blissful harmony. Not sure if I'll ever actually use the monoprop versions though. They're just silly.

Soft deprecation NFS is likewise failing for me. Imagine my horror loading up the first time and seeing my entire fleet on the unloaded list when I hadn't removed anything. My question is: Why on (or off) earth do this at all? I don't understand in the slightest why you would take away LFO engines and replace them with what are basically giant RCS thrusters. This makes no sense to me and I design spacecraft for a living. IMHO, you should put out a patch bringing back the LFO engines and let players make their engineering/gameplay decisions accordingly.

Yup. That was exactly the problem. Old USI to NFE config hanging around. Thanks!

Actually, you're absolutely right. I found an old USI to NFE cfg that was removed from MKS in November. Removing that fixed the issue. Sad to see the Xenon production go away though. Ah ha! I guess this is why the old file hanging around wasn't an issue in 0.8.2.

No extra copies that I was able to find and reverting to NFE 0.8.2 does correct the issue. One thing that I noticed is that the 0.8.2 version of NFElectricalUSI.cfg has an easily readable structure whereas the 0.8.3 version appears to be one giant run-on line. Maybe that's what's causing the problem? The text is right, but the structure of lines and indents somehow got lost in the released copy?

There seems to be an issue with the USI reactors following the recent update to NFE. Now, the reactors show two instances of "Fission Reactor" converters, each with it's own Start/Deactivate and Reactor Control Panel buttons. One of these seems to activate the NFE core life tracking and the other activates electric generation. The real issue is that the two different converter instances show wildly different stats that appear to be impacting part performance. For example: The USI 1.25m Reactor now shows 3 separate stat blocks of: Fission Generator - 200 EC/s Fission Reactor - Required Cooling: 9kW, Inputs: EnrichedUranium 0.01/day, Outputs: DepletedFuel 0.01/day, EC 115/s, XenonGas 0.00/day Fission Reactor - Required Cooling: 150kw, Inputs: EnrichedUranium 0.01/day, Outputs: DepletedFuel 0.01/day When you operate this same reactor, the reactor control panel says it's max output is 12.3 EC/s! What is this? A reactor for ants? So, something is broken, though I'm not sure if its on the USI or NFE side. I'll try reverting to an earlier version of NFE for now to see if that sorts out the issue.

There seems to be an issue with the USI reactors following the recent update to NFE. Now, the reactors show two instances of "Fission Reactor" converters, each with it's own Start/Deactivate and Reactor Control Panel buttons. One of these seems to activate the NFE core life tracking and the other activates electric generation. The real issue is that the two different converter instances show wildly different stats that appear to be impacting part performance. For example: The USI 1.25m Reactor now shows 3 separate stat blocks of: Fission Generator - 200 EC/s Fission Reactor - Required Cooling: 9kW, Inputs: EnrichedUranium 0.01/day, Outputs: DepletedFuel 0.01/day, EC 115/s, XenonGas 0.00/day Fission Reactor - Required Cooling: 150kw, Inputs: EnrichedUranium 0.01/day, Outputs: DepletedFuel 0.01/day When you operate this same reactor, the reactor control panel says it's max output is 12.3 EC/s! What is this? A reactor for ants? So, something is broken, though I'm not sure if its on the USI or NFE side. I'll try reverting to an earlier version of NFE for now to see if that sorts out the issue.

Has anyone noticed that the Tundra multi-hub is actually too short to accomplish the task of stepping down from 3.5m Tundra modules to 2.5m, Duna, and Ranger modules? So, I connect a 2.5m Tundra (sitting in a 2.5m cradle) to the "middle" node of the a multi-hub (sitting in the 2.5m cradle). So far, so good. Everything is sitting flat on the ground. Add a ranger inflatable on the other side of the mutlihub to the lower node. Still good. Then, I connect a pair of 3.5m Tundras (sitting in the 3.5m cradle) to two of the upper nodes of the multi-hub. Now, the multihub, the 2.5m tundra, and the ranger are all hanging about 0.5m off the ground (The Kraken is hungry...). Monkeying around with lowering and raising cradle legs seems to have no effect. Am I missing something or is this a design "bug"?

Ok, noob question: How exactly does one go about generating a relevant log file?

I still have no parts even after a clean install. Fix is ineffective. Rolling back for now.