Heinoceros

yea, as long as the route costs zero, you can do it before you get the transport module. I have a nice reasonably bulky electric prop plane, and its a bit sluggish but it will happily cruise at 150m/s. But the warp is really hard on prop planes, so it takes a while in 1x. But you can hit the nearest 4 biomes relatively quickly. That is exactly the rationale i have settled on. They have essentially just transferred to another agency (or in your example private contractor).

In the code right now there is just one orbit biome per world, and you have to be in a low and un-eccentric orbit for it to be happy. the fuel hopper has different recipes, LH2,LH2+Ox,Mono from the same FUEL resource. Xenon gas from the Xenon resource. It costs some SP and MK to switch after launch. there is a 2 fuel cost hopper (2.5) and a 5 fuel cost hopper (3.7). It looks like the 5 fuel cost hopper has a mistake in the liquid fuel recipe, it produces it at 400 instead of 1000. Other than that they are linear. the rest will have to be answered by someone who actually knows whats going on I agree with you that it seems like hoppers would benefit from some sort of combinability, since at the end of the day they really represent a transport hub, and its not like you would have so many visitors you couldnt double up your fuel deliveries in the same spot as your life support deliveries or whatever. The hoppers are where the WOLF abstraction comes back into the real world, and you could really get the part count and mass down with some combining. But so far at least in my use of the system, i wouldnt say thats been a significant hardship. the extra tonnage of a few extra hoppers has not really caused any problems for me at least.

would you really need an orbital one though? I mean i havent thought about it much, but i am currently using the orbital depot just as a resource passthrough. It allows you to essentially just break your routes into two sections. If you for instance wanted to make use of resources in orbit like as a fuel depot you would need a hopper, and so there you have an anchor part. i guess if you were doing conversions in orbit it might be nice, but would you actually do that in orbit instead of on the ground?

I am assuming this is all your baby? It was nice to see someone using c# interfaces correctly etc, i know that sounds like a low bar but i work in a field where i think probably at least half of the code is written by people who just have the most vague understanding of how to safely hook these things together. Need a reference to your entire context inside a trivial window dialog? no worries just send it!

thats perfectly fair. I really just wanted something to play with. My reading of the how the transport credits and trips work would also imply some really no-fun things, like once you already performed a route that used up 5 credits for 3 cargo space, you should be able to just double it, since you have established the ship that can make the trip already (maybe using up the cost of that ship). That would definitely take away from the play of the game. Its difficult to balance the realism of modeling transport busses and the joy of the game.

i now see why there is no way to delete a route. It would be all but impossible to do, since all of the current transfers that are using that route would have to be zeroed out first. The Wolf system does not appear to allow you to remove allocated resources that are being used downstream (which makes sense, but the consequences of this are pretty extensive). So for instance, if i have a transfer that is transfering 25 water from the grasslands to the KSC, and the KSC is currently using 20 of those water to create fuel, there is no way to turn off that 25 water transfer. There doesnt even seem to be a way to reduce it to 20 from 25, which seems like an issue thats going to cause some grief. I tried adding a transfer of -5 water, but it didnt allow that. That seems like maybe the easiest fix for reducing resource usage. Obviously i could also have missed the method to do this, as i have only been using it for a short time, but if there is a way to reduce these transfers gracefully it isnt obvious. yikes, also the transport cost isnt actually stored in the route at all, so there is no actual way to delete a route even if there are no transfers, since there is no way to work out how many of the spent transport credits were for a particular route. also there is no way to implement my replacement strategy suggestion, since that also requires knowing the per route allocation of transport credits. I implemented the change i suggested here, also i implemented a straight up delete that only works if there are no transfers in progress. But adding the transport cost into the route adds a hundred lines of changes to the unit testing code, since each addRoute now has to have an expectedTransportCost associated with it. Its just not going to be worth it i suspect. It looked originally like it was going to be 10 lines of logic to fix. I still think at some point something should be done here. If you are just playing around with the system and try sending a big ship from the KSC to the water biome next door and blow 10 transport credits on it before you understand how the system works, you have just blown like 500000 credits worth of WOLF transport credit support parts on something you can never get back. (i mean you can edit the save file directly, and its a pretty straightforward fix, but that always feels like cheating)

what i am suggesting would not keep you from having a mix of vessel sizes, since it would only do the replacement logic if you tried to do a route that you couldnt afford to just add on. IE if you had 20 transport credits, and you already have a route that uses up 6 credits with a small craft, you could then do a craft twice as big for 12 credits, and you would have a 6 and a 12, which adds to 18 (and your cargo max would be the sum as well). This would act exactly as it does currently. The replacement would only trigger if you then decided your routes were not using those credits all that efficiently, and you then did a route that took between 18 and 20 credits. This would then replace your existing route with the new one. (in a perfect world, i would argue the new route should replace the least efficient routes up until the transport cost is reached, but that would require knowledge of the individual routes, which are already rolled up into a single route. I suspect this is why its not possible to remove routes in the first place, although i do find it a little strange you cant just delete the route entirely) (also in a perfect world, a confirmation dialog that warns you that if you accept this new route, you will be deleting the previous route on between these two locations would help to avoid confusion) yea clearly its not a big deal, since i think most of the time you will just be adding more transport credits. But it makes taking advantage of more efficient nuclear engines etc after you have started down the WOLF path significantly more expensive since you cant upgrade your existing routes with higher cargo values, you can only add new cargo space through adding more transport credits. With the WOLF parts all at the far right edge of the tech tree, you pretty much have the most efficient engines mostly in place by then, and since the cargo values look like they are determined by raw mass loss, additional transport credits should allow your cargo space to increase pretty linearly with the new credits. I just like to play with stuff, i have no expectation of pushing to the trunk. If there isn't any interest from other users its clearly not needed.

Yep, I downloaded the code and checked. The interface doesnt even have a capability to delete a route, only create or add to an existing route. I would argue a quick fix to that would be when you attempt to add a new route, if the cost is greater than what is left in transport credits, but not greater than the total amount of transport credits available from that origin minus the amount spent on the existing route (ie you remove the credits used to get to other destinations from the total), then it could use the current route and cost in its place. It should only work when the new route has a larger payload and larger or same transport credit cost, so it would always be adding to the routes payload, and subtracting from the total transport credits (that doesnt cover all possible new routes, but probably the vast majority of what folks would actually be doing) This fix would not require any dialog rework, and requires no knowledge of the past route details other than the total route cost and payload. I may give it a shot and see if i can get the source code up and working here, but its been a while since i messed with unity.

RoverDude asked a few pages back how people were liking this new WOLF system. I have played hundreds of hours with MKS, and I understand the general system limitations you were up against, and this is in my opinion a brilliant way to get around it. I especially am loving maximizing the transport functionality by trying to connect between the various biomes using as little mass as possible. That is a great new mechanic. You prove you can do it once, and you get it forever going forward. And the WOLF planning screen in the VAB is fantastic. The only thing that feels truly weird is disappearing the people for geologist/pilot etc, but it makes sense to anyone struggling with it, just build up your infrastructure on Kerbin to support transport credits and then jump to minimus. The build count and cost to get your first transport credits is huge, but it has to be for balance. If it was cheap it would be far too OP. I was worried right after getting my first 10 transport credits that they were not going to be granular enough, but then i discovered how quickly you burn through them with even a relatively small ship. But also i have a question! It wasnt obvious to me how to delete an existing route. Is there any way to delete it once once you add more transport credits to an origin and want to make a single larger more efficient trip?