[1.1.2] Kerbal Inventory System (KIS) 1.2.12

[Selentic]

You can transfer fuel from the EVA-X just like transferring between any other kinds of tanks in the game. Right click on either the Kerbalnaut or the EVA-X pack and then alt-right click on the other and use the in/out buttons to transfer fuel.

Thanks, sometimes I miss the obvious... But I'm still trying to figure out whether I can use the KIS resource use code for things other than EVA Propellant!

I just had that clone issue happen myself, I don't know if it is KIS/KAS, it could just be KSP. In my case, I had Val clone herself while entering the KSO25, but she was not carrying a tank. After I hit board, nothing happened, I tried again and it said the capsule was full, I switched to the shuttle, and Val was inside. When I realized that Val had been cloned, I backed out to the space center and entered the tracking station (so I could try to terminate the duplicate), all the vessels were greyed out, so I quit and reloaded the save a couple of times until it let me click on the repli-Val, then when I tried to switch to her, I got an invalid part error and she went poof.

I'm pretty sure it's a KIS issue, because I've usually had it happen where the item the Kerbal is equipped with disappears into the pod (along with the clone), and my "original" kerbal outside the pod is now missing the KIS item... but who knows! >_> Glad to know it's not just me, tho. Sometimes I manage to break KSP in the most ridiculous ways - one game in .90 ended up with water that would instantly cause anything that touched it to spin itself to death...

[Bomoo]

Hey, so, I was trying to make an ATV out of the KIS large storage container, and it struck me as a bit too long for the purpose. Would you consider making a half/two-thirds length section styled to look like an ATV's cargo compartment? That would be neat! It could even be just a regular old 2/3rds version of the existing storage container and it'd be fine; it's the length that's a little problematic.

Sorry for essentially double posting, but I wanted to add this as an illustration of what I meant. Long ATV is long.

[Zeetje]

>How do you put KIS objects back into a Kerbal/Container's Inventory once you've drop/attached them out?<

Please share the answer if you find it. I'm having a hard time as well with trying to put items back into inventory

[goldenpsp]

Please share the answer if you find it. I'm having a hard time as well with trying to put items back into inventory

Click drag to inventory. Don't let go of the mouse button.

[curiousepic]

Has anyone put together a set of subassemblies with useful, full containers for download?

Edited May 23, 2015 by curiousepic

[Perry Apsis]

I present to you The Golden Retriever: A rescue and salvage ship capable of missions to Kerban, Münar, or Minmar orbits. The cool part is how it uses KIS/KAS, and the flexibility that gives you. Here, I was retrieving Sanisa and her craft, a science lab inexplicably marooned 8km ASL on Minmus. After attaching a Clampotron to one end, I maneuvered my ship around the derelict, only to find I had not left enough space to fit it, so I sent Bill out to jigger things around a bit.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Why were that engine and fuel tank in there? Sometimes I like to rehabilitate the craft and let the rescuee fly it back home.

As for the ship itself, well, it's a lot like its namesake. Way too playful on the ascent; just loves to flip, roll, and spin on the way back in; and maybe not the best choice for a young family. Also like its namesake, you can land one if you put a bunch of parachutes on it.

Thanks again for a terrific mod that is literally a game-changer.

[sharpspoonful]

Sorry for essentially double posting, but I wanted to add this as an illustration of what I meant. Long ATV is long.

http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/534020142363440717/3B33869F5349C6EC2F0180AD0B2224FD2F11174D/

You could just DL the Tanteres pack, and ad the KIS module to it's config.

[winn75]

Sorry for essentially double posting, but I wanted to add this as an illustration of what I meant. Long ATV is long.

The problem is having many version of inline containers will make them too versatile and will decrease the use of radial one.

So I didn't planned to make a smaller version of inline container yet but i'll keep the idea in mind

[Moon Goddess]

Please share the answer if you find it. I'm having a hard time as well with trying to put items back into inventory

Which fires your RCS in the direction that your dragging sending you out of control away from the box you're trying to put things in.

[sober667]

i just merget two rockets on minimus into one good THAT MOD IS AWESOME

and option if thing is to havy need to have more kerbals close by ... just WOW

Edited May 23, 2015 by sober667

[Ironitaly]

Does this version have the pipe points and struts??

[ExplorerKlatt]

No that is KAS.

[Selentic]

The problem is having many version of inline containers will make them too versatile and will decrease the use of radial one.

So I didn't planned to make a smaller version of inline container yet but i'll keep the idea in mind

So now I feel bad about putting a 100L container on every Crew seat! >_>

[Bomoo]

You could just DL the Tanteres pack, and ad the KIS module to it's config.

"just"

- - - Updated - - -

The problem is having many version of inline containers will make them too versatile and will decrease the use of radial one.

So I didn't planned to make a smaller version of inline container yet but i'll keep the idea in mind

When has being versatile ever been a problem?

I hope you'll reconsider because I think there's surely a niche there for smaller-sized inline containers. The ATV situation I suggested, for one. You'd use the larger inline for space stations and large interplanetary craft and things, and the smaller one for supplying these while also keeping part counts down, as well as for smaller stations. The radial tanks would still have a niche for things like surface vehicles, landers, various internal payload bays, and as additional bolt-on storage space for large craft.

[taniwha]

The radial container is not well suited for anything that needs to go through the atmosphere at high speed. It was fine before 1.0, but now shape matters even in stock.

That said, the radial container shines wherever aerodynamics is not relevant (this includes surface vehicles, as Bomoo mentioned).

Tool for the job, tool for the job .

[Bomoo]

Heh, sorry for the flurry of suggestions, but this one is to do with Mk2 payload bays and KIS radial containers. Simply put, they don't fit. Yes, they technically don't stick out of the fuselage, but their corners do clip into it in a way the old KAS containers did not when everything's packed away. The way I'm placing them in the Mk2 payload bay is side by side with their bases attached to either end of a centrally-running flat structural beam. In this way they end up poking through the fuselage.

Now, I'm not sure if it's possible or in line with your plans to change the shape of the current container, but the solution there would be to taper the top sides just slightly in a similar way to the old KAS containers. If you also created some alternate mounting brackets especially for payload bays, and specificially for Mk2 and those new inline cylindrical storage bays, I would love you even more.

As you can see, they're both clipping through the fuselage and leaving a bunch of space in between each container. A custom mounting bracket for the Mk2 fuselage that keeps them neatly arranged and minimizes dead space would be wonderful here, though only in addition to a small change in container shape, or possibly a small size reduction to keep them from clipping the walls.

The situation with the cylindrical storage bay is quite a bit better, with four containers fitting quite comfortably wihtout any clipping thanks to the cut corners. Though it's still a little fiddly building mounting brackets in there - I had to use offset magic to get them fitting like that. I think for those, we might get away with using the same hypothetical Mk2 payload bay double-sided mounting bracket and sticking it to the ceiling or floor of the storage bay, attached radially as pictured here. So really one double-sided catch-all payload bay mounting bracket would be all that is needed.

Edited May 24, 2015 by Bomoo

[winn75]

When has being versatile ever been a problem?

I hope you'll reconsider because I think there's surely a niche there for smaller-sized inline containers. The ATV situation I suggested, for one. You'd use the larger inline for space stations and large interplanetary craft and things, and the smaller one for supplying these while also keeping part counts down, as well as for smaller stations. The radial tanks would still have a niche for things like surface vehicles, landers, various internal payload bays, and as additional bolt-on storage space for large craft.

It become a problem when one part remove the purpose of other parts. As if you'd have an ultimate engine (high/isp+power ; low profile/mass). It would remove a lot of interest/complexity of KSP.

IMO even best parts need to have drawback even in sandbox mod ( it's easy to create something overpowered and add it at the end of the tech tree or set an high cost for it).

So, what about something like that?

Inline container (mostly used for : space stations, cargo ships etc...)

advantage : keep you ship center of mass balanced, can be accessed from IVA.

disadvantage : low weight/cargovolume ratio (have extra mass). Max volume limited (have smaller version as you sugested).

Radial "crate" : (mostly used for : ground operations as truck payloads)

advantage : high weight/cargovolume ratio. Bigger max volume (maybe extra volume bonus?). Can be interchangeable using mounts.

disadvantage : Need "weight symetry".

[goldenpsp]

Heh, sorry for the flurry of suggestions, but this one is to do with Mk2 payload bays and KIS radial containers. Simply put, they don't fit. Yes, they technically don't stick out of the fuselage, but their corners do clip into it in a way the old KAS containers did not when everything's packed away. The way I'm placing them in the Mk2 payload bay is side by side with their bases attached to either end of a centrally-running flat structural beam. In this way they end up poking through the fuselage.

Now, I'm not sure if it's possible or in line with your plans to change the shape of the current container, but the solution there would be to taper the top sides just slightly in a similar way to the old KAS containers. If you also created some alternate mounting brackets especially for payload bays, and specificially for Mk2 and those new inline cylindrical storage bays, I would love you even more.

As you can see, they're both clipping through the fuselage and leaving a bunch of space in between each container. A custom mounting bracket for the Mk2 fuselage that keeps them neatly arranged and minimizes dead space would be wonderful here, though only in addition to a small change in container shape, or possibly a small size reduction to keep them from clipping the walls.

http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/534020142368556071/58E2F55896757D72578014234FAC2D5D165EC8C8/

The situation with the cylindrical storage bay is quite a bit better, with four containers fitting quite comfortably wihtout any clipping thanks to the cut corners. Though it's still a little fiddly building mounting brackets in there - I had to use offset magic to get them fitting like that. I think for those, we might get away with using the same hypothetical Mk2 payload bay double-sided mounting bracket and sticking it to the ceiling or floor of the storage bay, attached radially as pictured here. So really one double-sided catch-all payload bay mounting bracket would be all that is needed.

http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/534020142368556690/21542CA50C966CCF804946A1B6AB6AF7AE5407FF/

TBH I'd say the issue is they don't fit the way you want them to. I don't personally see a problem if you can't jam that many containers into one cargo bay.

[Bomoo]

So, what about something like that?

Inline container (mostly used for : space stations, cargo ships etc...)

advantage : keep you ship center of mass balanced, can be accessed from IVA.

disadvantage : low weight/cargovolume ratio (have extra mass). Max volume limited (have smaller version as you sugested).

Radial "crate" : (mostly used for : ground operations as truck payloads)

advantage : high weight/cargovolume ratio. Bigger max volume (maybe extra volume bonus?). Can be interchangeable using mounts.

disadvantage : Need "weight symetry".

The "accessible from IVA" is a nice touch and represents an ATV's pressurized cargo compartment quite nicely. I'd also like to add "minimal part count" to the list of advantages you provided, as well as a corresponding "moderate-high part count" disadvantage to the containers.

Really, what I'm suggesting isn't so much "overpowered" or an "ultimate" KIS storage bay so much as an intermediate step between the massive station bay and the small radial containers that just happens to fill the niche for smaller vessels like ATVs. If I'm reading your post correctly, your balancing idea, that it should be less efficient than the existing two cargo storage solutions, sounds good to me - a less favourable ratio between volume and mass devoted to structure, insulation, radiation shielding, etc. and storage capacity from its bigger cousin.

- - - Updated - - -

TBH I'd say the issue is they don't fit the way you want them to. I don't personally see a problem if you can't jam that many containers into one cargo bay.

How do you place them in an Mk2 bay that they manage to fit without clipping, without wasting a huge amount of space?

[goldenpsp]

How do you place them in an Mk2 bay that they manage to fit without clipping, without wasting a huge amount of space?

2 per bay, attached to the front and rear nodes. Sure there is wasted space around the sides, but that is the nature of the MK2 bays, most cargo ends up with wasted space.

Now that being said, I'd be all for a MK2 specific container, that matched the Mk2 profile. I'd bet if someone made the model KosPy would be happy to use it.

[Bomoo]

2 per bay, attached to the front and rear nodes. Sure there is wasted space around the sides, but that is the nature of the MK2 bays, most cargo ends up with wasted space.

Now that being said, I'd be all for a MK2 specific container, that matched the Mk2 profile. I'd bet if someone made the model KosPy would be happy to use it.

That's 12 16 small KAS containers without any of them clipping the fuselage, mostly thanks to their shape. If they had been straight-edged rectangular boxes, the story would've been very different. Also allow me to include this image. Efficient use of available space is the name of the game, and, realistically, these kinds of cargo containers are designed around the aerodynamic restrictions of the aircraft fuselage and not the other way around.

Of course I recognize that the KIS containers need to be highly versatile and not solely designed around Mk2 bays, but they're really the only option for carrying KIS cargo up with an Mk2 craft, and as such, I'd request that their compatibility and efficiency when used with Mk2 be particularly looked at. Not nearly so much as with conventional spacecraft or the Mk3 payload bay.

Edited May 24, 2015 by Bomoo

[goldenpsp]

Ya know, one option is to just grab the KAS_Old Parts zip and then you can use the old KAS containers all you want. Just keep in mind due to their size they only have a KIS storage size of 500.

[Vorg]

When taking a few solar panels and batteries up, you don't need a large container. Just one that won't add a lot of drag to the rocket trying to get it into space.

[NeoAcario]

Another option is to use tweakscale.... make the KIS cans a hair smaller.

~Steve

[-ctn-]

Not to downplay an idea, but why in the world would you need 16 cargo containers?!