RoverDude Posted March 15, 2016 Author Share Posted March 15, 2016 3 minutes ago, merlinux said: ahah I guess Ill stick to using my alarm clock and do this engineer rotation.... Or just add some habitation closer to the base Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaa253 Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 (edited) On 15/03/2016 at 11:11 PM, RoverDude said: Yup, settings changed. I'd disagree. It's one thing to walk 100m to take a nap. It's quite another to walk 2KM. Without rovers or logistics parts (in which it's inferred there are bit for moving things arond), resources also have a pretty short range (as does maintenance, and a few others. I am very pleased to find it working as designed. The Mk II/V off-world habitation studies station on Minmus is now in place and kerballed (crew of three). Three structures, Command Pilot, Mining Engineer and the Bio Scientist buildings. There is an unmanned warehouse consisting of a few Kontainers behind the camera position along with the crew return lander. The site has good substrates, gypsum and hydrates and looks like it will have no shortage of supplies for a lot longer than Homesickness (1y 195d) and Habitation (1y 215d - the same in all 3 structures ) will allow. The base could possibly benefit from another Engineer (to occupy a workshop seat) and another Scientist (for the Mk V Com-Lab) bringing the total crew complement up to 5. Extra resources dug up and sifted out should soon begin contributing to planetary logistics. This model is now the blueprint for further exploration on distant planets (passing mid techtree point in career mode game) including heavier Mk III versions. The now recycled skycrane delivery systems (4 landings for what you can see) all demonstrated capability to land nearly anywhere, not just on "easy" Minmus. Actually, I had to roll (modular wheels) some elements over a kilometer into position and the low Minmus gravity was a real disadvantage for that. The agency is considering abandoning an earlier alpha test base on the Mun on account of it being an ill-conceived, ugly beehive and a downright hazardous and inefficient KAS pipe infested mess. @RoverDude Awesome! Edited March 16, 2016 by Kaa253 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omelaw Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 (edited) Can I assume that there won't be an update(unless there is an critical bug) for USI until 1.1 is released? 1.1 enter experiment, so.. Edited March 16, 2016 by omelaw Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoverDude Posted March 16, 2016 Author Share Posted March 16, 2016 That would be a very fair assumption. I will be doing pre-releases with the 1.1 public pre-release. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glaran K'erman Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 Just a quick question, are the life support tanks considered "passable". Currently when building stations I use them as end-caps (sometimes with adapter/docking port and use it to exclusively dock resupply missions(no crew)) or can a kerbal squeeze through the middle with all the stuff packed around? I don't use CLS, just personal curiosity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoverDude Posted March 16, 2016 Author Share Posted March 16, 2016 28 minutes ago, Glaran K'erman said: Just a quick question, are the life support tanks considered "passable". Currently when building stations I use them as end-caps (sometimes with adapter/docking port and use it to exclusively dock resupply missions(no crew)) or can a kerbal squeeze through the middle with all the stuff packed around? I don't use CLS, just personal curiosity. No reason why they could not be - they have to get into them to get the goodies out, and they can be stacked. If someone tosses a PR I'd be happy to include it with the next update. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glaran K'erman Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 6 minutes ago, RoverDude said: No reason why they could not be - they have to get into them to get the goodies out, and they can be stacked. If someone tosses a PR I'd be happy to include it with the next update. That's great news, I'll adjust my construction accordingly Always had the nagging suspicion they could/should just got used to treating them as such. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PickledTripod Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 Another person who builds stuff logically without using CLS? Wow, I thought I was the only one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garibaldi2257 Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 (edited) 10 hours ago, RoverDude said: That would be a very fair assumption. I will be doing pre-releases with the 1.1 public pre-release. wouldn't mind seeing an earlier release with those fertilizer tanks included. no pressure though, obviously entirely up to you. E: Or, just a release of those as a separate zip file, since that's probably easier. Edited March 17, 2016 by Garibaldi2257 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoverDude Posted March 17, 2016 Author Share Posted March 17, 2016 tbh 100% focused on 1.1 right now. Patience is a virtue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kowgan Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 (edited) Rover, quick question: When adding KerbalMonths/HabMultiplier to a part with mass < 1, will the "0.xx" result decrease the overall vessel habitational value? This question is based off assuming that when multiplying things by something < 1, the result is smaller than the original. Thanks. @Garibaldi2257 *hint hint* Jofwu's fertilizer tanks are pretty neat. Edited March 17, 2016 by Kowgan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garibaldi2257 Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 15 minutes ago, Kowgan said: Rover, quick question: When adding KerbalMonths/HabMultiplier to a part with mass < 1, will the "0.xx" result decrease the overall vessel habitational value? This question is based off assuming that when multiplying things by something < 1, the result is smaller than the original. Thanks. @Garibaldi2257 *hint hint* Jofwu's fertilizer tanks are pretty neat. have them, had to fix the cfg files, the 2.5 and 3.75 tanks were still supplies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PocketBrotector Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 On March 17, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Kowgan said: Rover, quick question: When adding KerbalMonths/HabMultiplier to a part with mass < 1, will the "0.xx" result decrease the overall vessel habitational value? This question is based off assuming that when multiplying things by something < 1, the result is smaller than the original. Thanks. I believe that the vessel's hab multiplier equals (1 + the sum of all parts' hab multipliers), before overall habitation time is calculated. I.e. multipliers are additive (and the vessel has an intrinsic multiplier of 1). So more multipliers are always a good thing, even if < 1. Same thing for KerbalMonths. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bokrif Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 Can you tell me which was the most up-to-date version for KSP 1.04. (Still using that because I decided I will update my gazillion mods when 1.1 comes out.) Thanks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenpsp Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 12 minutes ago, bokrif said: Can you tell me which was the most up-to-date version for KSP 1.04. (Still using that because I decided I will update my gazillion mods when 1.1 comes out.) Thanks! There is so little difference between 1.0.4 and 1.0.5 I fail to grasp why you wouldn't just load 1.0.5 and be done with it. All 1.0.4 mods still worked fine with 1.0.5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDog Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 Issue "log spam in VAB" I noticed that when I add a command module (any module) in the VAB into the editor, then open the LifeSupport window, I get a massive log spam: [LOG 17:38:14.484] ERROR Object reference not set to an instance of an object IN ModuleLifeSupport [LOG 17:38:14.485] ERROR Object reference not set to an instance of an object IN ModuleLifeSupport [LOG 17:38:14.501] ERROR Object reference not set to an instance of an object IN ModuleLifeSupport [LOG 17:38:14.517] ERROR Object reference not set to an instance of an object IN ModuleLifeSupport [LOG 17:38:14.534] ERROR Object reference not set to an instance of an object IN ModuleLifeSupport [LOG 17:38:14.550] ERROR Object reference not set to an instance of an object IN ModuleLifeSupport [LOG 17:38:14.593] ERROR Object reference not set to an instance of an object IN ModuleLifeSupport Using the current version of USI-LS (v0.3.15.0). ... Oh, never mind, I just checked the github issues, and there is already issue #97 logged for this. If needed I can supply additional logs for this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azrael the Sorrowful Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 (edited) On 3/4/2016 at 3:35 PM, Kielm said: Funny you should ask! I've been encountering a couple of problems with some lag in the VAB when using Life Support enabled parts, it turns out it's the logfile being spammed with the following error. ERROR Object reference not set to an instance of an object IN ModuleLifeSupport I have a copy of the output log if you need it (although it's pretty much the same repeated many thousand times), I'll log it as an issue on github as well. To reproduce, just start a new craft and add a Mk1-2 command pod and watch the debug screen while you do. Issue "log spam in VAB" I noticed that when I add a command module (any module) in the VAB into the editor, then open the LifeSupport window, I get a massive log spam: [LOG 17:38:14.484] ERROR Object reference not set to an instance of an object IN ModuleLifeSupport [LOG 17:38:14.485] ERROR Object reference not set to an instance of an object IN ModuleLifeSupport [LOG 17:38:14.501] ERROR Object reference not set to an instance of an object IN ModuleLifeSupport [LOG 17:38:14.517] ERROR Object reference not set to an instance of an object IN ModuleLifeSupport [LOG 17:38:14.534] ERROR Object reference not set to an instance of an object IN ModuleLifeSupport [LOG 17:38:14.550] ERROR Object reference not set to an instance of an object IN ModuleLifeSupport [LOG 17:38:14.593] ERROR Object reference not set to an instance of an object IN ModuleLifeSupport Using the current version of USI-LS (v0.3.15.0). I am having this exact issue. I was thinking it might be because I converted over from TAC LS to this mod but it's happening with both old and new ships. Edited March 25, 2016 by Azrael the Sorrowful Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
releansol Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 "Orange suited Kerbals (Jeb, Bill, Bob, and Val) are immune to the ill effects of life support. They will still consume supplies if given, but do not leave the job, because they are just that awesome" I sent Val in a Vessel before I installed the mod. Now after Suplies -15days she becomes a "Tourist". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenpsp Posted March 26, 2016 Share Posted March 26, 2016 3 hours ago, releansol said: "Orange suited Kerbals (Jeb, Bill, Bob, and Val) are immune to the ill effects of life support. They will still consume supplies if given, but do not leave the job, because they are just that awesome" I sent Val in a Vessel before I installed the mod. Now after Suplies -15days she becomes a "Tourist". The defaults changed in a recent release. Best to combine reading the OP with the release notes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vardicd Posted March 27, 2016 Share Posted March 27, 2016 (edited) Comment removed, because I'm an idiot that didn't notice I was using an old version. updated. Edited March 27, 2016 by vardicd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PDelta41 Posted March 28, 2016 Share Posted March 28, 2016 Is each kerbal really supposed to eat 16kg of food a day? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merlinux Posted March 28, 2016 Share Posted March 28, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, PDelta41 said: Is each kerbal really supposed to eat 16kg of food a day? 16kg of supplies, not food that includes food, water and air. It reduces to around 4kg/day with some LS activated Edited March 28, 2016 by merlinux Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PDelta41 Posted March 28, 2016 Share Posted March 28, 2016 1 hour ago, merlinux said: 16kg of supplies, not food that includes food, water and air. It reduces to around 4kg/day with some LS activated Ahh, that makes more sense! Of course. What sort of LS can I activate, other than sticking Nom-O-Matics everywhere? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExplorerKlatt Posted March 28, 2016 Share Posted March 28, 2016 4 hours ago, PDelta41 said: Ahh, that makes more sense! Of course. What sort of LS can I activate, other than sticking Nom-O-Matics everywhere? The stock science lab has a recycler. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pthigrivi Posted March 28, 2016 Share Posted March 28, 2016 I added this to the large ISRU unit and its completely changed the game for me. MODULE { name = ModuleResourceConverter ConverterName = Fertilizer StartActionName = Start ISRU [Ftz] StopActionName = Stop ISRU [Ftz] AutoShutdown = true TemperatureModifier { key = 0 100000 key = 750 50000 key = 1000 10000 key = 1250 500 key = 2000 50 key = 4000 0 } GeneratesHeat = true DefaultShutoffTemp = .8 ThermalEfficiency { key = 0 0 0 0 key = 500 0.1 0 0 key = 1000 1.0 0 0 key = 1250 0.1 0 0 key = 3000 0 0 0 } UseSpecialistBonus = true SpecialistEfficiencyFactor = 0.2 SpecialistBonusBase = 0.05 Specialty = Engineer EfficiencyBonus = 1 INPUT_RESOURCE { ResourceName = Ore Ratio = 0.55 FlowMode = STAGE_PRIORITY_FLOW } INPUT_RESOURCE { ResourceName = ElectricCharge Ratio = 30 } OUTPUT_RESOURCE { ResourceName = Fertilizer Ratio = 5.5 DumpExcess = false FlowMode = STAGE_PRIORITY_FLOW } } Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.