kerbnub

This actually seems to break something for crew modules that only have 1 option, making it so the slots can't be swapped out like this : I can't figure out why this happens, so I just made the patch apply to parts that have only both RDU and TV module options. @PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[Sickbay]:HAS[#title[TV]],@MODULE[Sickbay]:HAS[#title[RDU]]]:FINAL { @MODULE[Configure]:HAS[#title[Sickbay?Modules]] { @slots = 2 } } As usual I have very little confidence in my MM skills but it seems to work properly. The last thing I couldn't figure out is how to prevent the game from allowing 2 RDUs or 2 TVs on one part. Not a huge deal since I can just not use 2.

Ahh, thanks again. I should have caught that, but after spending like an hour on it originally, was prepared to believe it was just cursed....

Appreciate the reply but that one doesn't work either >.<

I didn't like that the 3.18 change (Fix #851) made it impossible to have both RDU and TV on the same part, as was previously the case, so I wanted to increase the number of configure slots to 2. I tried the following MM patches (and tried messing with the filter too ) but couldn't get it to work. I can't seem to get my MM patches to work half the time anyway. I ended up just directly editing the slots in the original sickbay.cfg in GameData\KerbalismConfig\System Just posting this in case anyone might want to do the same or knows why patches didn't work. // Increases the number of sickbay slots from 1 to 2 so you can have both RDU and TV @PART[*]:HAS[#AddConfigurableSickbay]:Needs[Kerbalism]:FINAL { -MODULE[Configure] MODULE { name = Configure title = Sickbay Modules slots = 2 //1 SETUP { name = None desc = Empty slot for mass and cost savings. } } } // Increases the number of sickbay slots from 1 to 2 so you can have both RDU and TV @PART[*]:HAS[#AddConfigurableSickbay]:Needs[Kerbalism]:FINAL { @MODULE[Configure] { @slots = 2 //1 } }

Is it possible to have only the scatters without the terrain tessellation, or are they tied together? I'd like to disable everything except Kerbin's trees.

They celebrate by having a wholesome meal at home with family....... What did you expect, they're not animals! Everyone needs a break from chaos and near death.

My favorite thing about Kerbalism is probably the science rework. Is there anything else that does science similarly? I like pretty much everything about it really, not sure how I could play without it. Sure, there are other mods for LS and part failures, but none as in depth as Kerbalism, and they don't have persistent simulation for unloaded vessels as well afaik. Ironically I probably have the most problem with radiation. I love the belts, but feel like there should be a better way to handle solar storms especially on planetary bases and rovers, where you would basically have to make a hugely impractical protective belt or abuse some part clipping to shield it properly. Imo, crewed parts should have radiation exposure calculated individually, and only those parts occupied with kerbals should be calculated during a storm, so you can have them in a sheltered area while also having a greater living area otherwise that's less shielded. And I sometimes get weird spikes of radiation, even with properly oriented vessels. Also the RDU feels kind of out of place. I don't think there are any actual real solutions to radiation yet, but it feels kind of like a magic wand just to make interstellar travel feasible without even more ridiculously large vessels.

No it wouldn't. It would just be a a different, lesser cost, but it's still finite and a mass penalty, while malfunctions really aren't. I'd say it's arguable which one is more realistic to expect by the time we're actually doing interplanetary missions, in a time where I'd expect 3d printers to be much more advanced. The main reason I want it though is for station or other infrastructure maintenance. With EVA construction, you can literally bring spares and replace broken parts, but that can be cumbersome to impossible if the broken part is deeper in the craft's part tree. I had some fun designing with this in mind at first, making sure parts like chemical plants or reaction wheels or engines are node attached with no child parts, where they could be seamlessly swapped, as I can imagine this being a design consideration/constraint IRL as well, but this leads to higher part counts in making sure I have enough attach nodes. It also gets silly with crewed modules' LS systems, where I would have to use external ECLSS modules to continue this. I would happily do this if high part counts didn't tank performance, but they do, and my save is starting to drag. So I'd rather abstract it out into repair kits. Maybe kerbalism just isn't compatible with the "space program" style of gameplay. I'm not sure how things will work when I go to Jool, let alone Nara (outermost planet in JNSQ).

Well I really wanted all of Kerbalism's functionality too in terms of tracking, MTBF, radiation, etc. What does it take to edit and rebuild a dll?

BTW, does anyone know how hard it would be to make permanent failures repairable with the stock repair kits? Would this be something doable with a MM patch?

It sucks on the part count end, I just ended up using a bunch of chemical plants instead. Doing the math, they're strangely much much more efficient than the convert-o-tron 125 anyway (haven't unlocked the big one yet). The convert-o-tron 125 is 31.25 times the mass of the chemical plant (1.25t vs 0.04 t) but only runs processes at 18.12 times the rate, AND the chemical plants get 3 slots vs 2 for the convert-o-tron, so it's really more like 12 times the rate, if your processes are distributed well. Sheesh.

Oh well, thanks anyhow. The liquification isn't really the problem; it's the 2:1 hydrogen: oxygen production ratio from electrolysis vs the 1:1 hydrogen:oxygen consumption ratio from anthraquinone. With just those two processes running, oxygen is depleted. I also tried running more liquification to push the H2:O2 consumption ratio higher than 2:1, but it just prioritized the anthraquinone and drained my O2 anyway. Even if I figure that out, I'll have the problem of draining water. I'm also playing with lower resource abundance, so having greater raw production than consumption isn't really an option, unless I use a bunch of small chemical plants in place of the stock ISRUs.. I'll try that. I think the easiest and most flexible addition to Kerbalism would be to have a way to lower any converter process rate by some percent; that way one could always ensure some surplus of whatever you want. Trying to balance ratio with raw capacity is strangely crude compared to everything else Kerbalism does.

I should have probably specified that I'm using LH2 + oxidizer fuels from cryoengines and kerbal atomics, so I'm only mining water, running electrolysis, H2 liquefication (H2-->LH2), and anthraquinone (O2+H2-->oxidizer) processes, so there is no CO2 requirement. Electrolysis outputs double the H2 as O2, and anthraquinone consumes them at an equal rate, so O2 always is depleted.

Is there a way to have a crewed craft running drills and ISRU processes that also use water and oxygen (like electrolysis and anthraquinone) not kill the kerbals? The drills produce far more than the kerbals need, but the ISRU processes use water and O2 faster than the drills produce it, so if I turn both on, the kerbals end up dying. It should be in theory possible to save some for the kerbals use the rest for the ISRU (and I could turn the ISRU on and off to accomplish this), but there seems to be no practical way to lower the ISRU production rate to accomplish this. Also, why does the splitter (water) process work so much faster than electrolysis?

Does this apply to FAR at all?