[Min KSP 1.12.2] Buffalo: NASA Inspired Modular Space Exploration Vehicle

[capi3101]

31 minutes ago, infinite_monkey said:

Not sure where to put this, as it's probably from WildBlueTools, not Buffalo: I have a "Research Temperature Study" contract and don't know how to complete it. It says I should satisfy all experiment conditions (check experiment for details), but I can't find any details, and I don't even know which experiment I should check.  Anyway, that part is already complete, it now wants me to "complete the experiment". What is the experiment? Just temperature readings?

Which set of WildBlue mods are you running? Are you using Pathfinder and/or MOLE in addition to Buffalo?

[infinite_monkey]

9 hours ago, capi3101 said:

Which set of WildBlue mods are you running? Are you using Pathfinder and/or MOLE in addition to Buffalo?

Only Buffalo. I had some other WBI mods installed temporarily. Do you think it's a leftover from another mod?

9 hours ago, Krakatoa said:

That's one of the Wild Blue research experiments that you put in a slot in a lab with the science template. It requires lab time (a resource produced internally while running the experiment) and some other experiments require certain conditions for the craft, like landed, orbiting, whatever, and in this case a thermometer so the Kerbals can do the research projects.

In a MPL-LG-2? Although KSP thinks I already installed the experiment, I have no idea how to do that (maybe I did some time ago?). There are no Science Parts from Wild Blue, and I don't see any slots in the MPL-LG-2.

[JadeOfMaar]

It is known that contracts for WBI experiments will appear just by having any WBI mod installed (the contract configs should be in WBT, the core of all the WBI mods). These contracts generally suggest or require that MOLE be installed because that's the WBI science parts mod. So either install MOLE or just decline these contracts until they stop appearing (KSP learns your preferences in accepting/declining them per savegame).

[smotheredrun]

@Angel-125  How different are the versions of KSP? (1.4.x to 1.3.x)  I've been away from playing KSP for almost a year and a half now.   Even if the version file for Buffalo  v2.5.0 says "min version 1.4.1", will it actually "talk" to KSP 1.3.1?  or will it just cause issues?

I'm specifically looking at grabbing the Recycler Arm...

 

[JadeOfMaar]

@smotheredrun They are very, very different. The Unity version under KSP changes at 1.4. That's big enough of an entry in the changelog all by itself. Sadly, no support will be provided for 1.3.1 but apart from his UFO mod, you can possibly get away with nothing critical breaking.

If recycling is all you want, install Extraplanetary Launchpads, delete most of its parts, and change EL's recycler recipe to produce Equipment and not ScrapMetal. (And always be sure to turn off the recycler when you're not using it. It will eat kerbals and it will eat things when you don't want it to.)

Edited February 8, 2019 by JadeOfMaar

[smotheredrun]

On 2/8/2019 at 4:59 PM, JadeOfMaar said:

@smotheredrun They are very, very different. The Unity version under KSP changes at 1.4. That's big enough of an entry in the changelog all by itself. Sadly, no support will be provided for 1.3.1 but apart from his UFO mod, you can possibly get away with nothing critical breaking.

If recycling is all you want, install Extraplanetary Launchpads, delete most of its parts, and change EL's recycler recipe to produce Equipment and not ScrapMetal. (And always be sure to turn off the recycler when you're not using it. It will eat kerbals and it will eat things when you don't want it to.)

Thanks.  Love the eating kerbals part.  I remember hearing about that

[smotheredrun]

@Angel-125 Grabbed the 2.6.12 version for KSP 1.6.1.  Loaded 1.6.1.  Got a message saying that this verion was unsupported by 1.6.1.  Looked at the version file in th eWBT/Buffalo folder.  It says version 1.5.0 and 1.5.99 for Min and Max versions respectively.

Edited February 12, 2019 by smotheredrun
spelng

[RealKerbal3x]

@Angel-125 Lovely mod!

One thing though...I’ve looked through the thread and it appears that the smaller wheels (can’t remember their name off the top of my head) are able to retract to fit inside a Mk3 cargo bay. However, there doesn’t seem to be any button on their PAW that allows them to do that. Was that functionality removed or something?

[Angelo Kerman]

On 2/12/2019 at 2:53 PM, smotheredrun said:

@Angel-125 Grabbed the 2.6.12 version for KSP 1.6.1.  Loaded 1.6.1.  Got a message saying that this verion was unsupported by 1.6.1.  Looked at the version file in th eWBT/Buffalo folder.  It says version 1.5.0 and 1.5.99 for Min and Max versions respectively.

Should get fixed in the next update, thanks for pointing that out.

9 hours ago, RealKerbal3x said:

@Angel-125 Lovely mod!

One thing though...I’ve looked through the thread and it appears that the smaller wheels (can’t remember their name off the top of my head) are able to retract to fit inside a Mk3 cargo bay. However, there doesn’t seem to be any button on their PAW that allows them to do that. Was that functionality removed or something?

At one point the game supported animated wheels and the Mountain Goat did indeed retract to fit the mk3 cargo bay. But when KSP switched the wheel plugin, that capability was lost.

[RealKerbal3x]

4 minutes ago, Angel-125 said:

At one point the game supported animated wheels and the Mountain Goat did indeed retract to fit the mk3 cargo bay. But when KSP switched the wheel plugin, that capability was lost.

OK, thanks for the info. Though if animated wheels don't work anymore, I wonder how the retractable wheel from Making History works?

[Angelo Kerman]

3 minutes ago, RealKerbal3x said:

OK, thanks for the info. Though if animated wheels don't work anymore, I wonder how the retractable wheel from Making History works?

The difference is that the retractable wheel doesn’t function as a wheel when retracted. It used to be that I could animate the position of the wheel and it would still function as a wheel. Can’t do that anymore.

[RealKerbal3x]

7 minutes ago, Angel-125 said:

The difference is that the retractable wheel doesn’t function as a wheel when retracted. It used to be that I could animate the position of the wheel and it would still function as a wheel. Can’t do that anymore.

Ah, didn't think of that. Thanks anyway

[MaverickSawyer]

Question regarding the Buffalo omni-converter...

I have tried twice, both in the VAB and on the launch pad, to configure the converter to see what it can make.

Both times, I get a GUI window and nothing else. No options, no buttons, nothing. Can't even "X" out of it or drag it around the screen.

Is this a bug, or am I missing something?

[JadeOfMaar]

@MaverickSawyer If you install your mods manually, be sure to delete the mod folders for WBI when you update.  If you use CRP mode then you may have somehow triggered the bug where Classic Stock configs and CRP configs are active at the same time and will break all the WBI mods. If you go into the Templates folder and then into Classic Stock or CRP and you see identical .cfg and .txt files, there's the root of the problem.

On 2/12/2019 at 10:33 AM, capi3101 said:

Okay - <writing notes /> 'replace TBD Material Kit Buckboard with Equipment Buckboard'. Got it.

Might want to double-check the code that switches between modes - when I installed 1.32.2, I did the usual rigmarole of switching it over to Pristine mode then on to CRP mode, to keep it consistent with the way my bases had been operating up to that point. As I was playing yesterday, I noted my Iron Works were wanting to use the Classic Stock formula for Equipment printing, so this morning I double-checked the Pathfinder/Template/Classic Stock and .../CRP directories just for the hell of it. I've been in these directories enough times to know that the files in inactive play modes sit as .txt files while the active mode has .cfg files.

Right now, in both the Classic Stock and CRP directories, I've got .cfg and .txt files:

I'm assuming as a temporary fix that I can just remove the .cfg files from the Classic Stock directory (not going to delete them, just move them to my diagnostic directory) and everything will start working properly for CRP mode again.

Definitely felt this was worth reporting; is anybody else seeing this same sort of thing?

Apart from this, maybe there's the issue of two OmniConverters for an EL metalwork function having the exact same name value which breaks the OmniConverter and also leads to your bug. This was recently fixed.

If you have the latest version of everything and you still get this problen then there's something very wrong that you're doing as that kind of bug has been fixed maybe twice already and I haven't suffered it for a long time.

Edited February 16, 2019 by JadeOfMaar

[MaverickSawyer]

Clean install of MOLE and Buffalo successfully cleared the fault. Thanks for the assistance.

[capi3101]

15 hours ago, MaverickSawyer said:

Clean install of MOLE and Buffalo successfully cleared the fault. Thanks for the assistance.

Glad to have been of assistance to y'all......I think......

[Angelo Kerman]

Buffalo MSEV 2.6.13 is now available.
GitHub URL: https://github.com/Angel-125/Buffalo/releases/tag/v2.6.13
 
Changes
 
- Fixed min/max version requirements
- Buffalo ISRU transformed into an OmniConverter. It has twice the efficiency of the Micro ISRU.

[RealKerbal3x]

@Angel-125 Thanks for the update! Just a thing: building a V-22-ish aircraft with this mod has always seemed weird to me because you have to use the normal flat-fronted command cab. I suggest an aerodynamic cab of some kind, or even just a nosecone to fit the normal cab.

EDIT: A question: Do I need the 'ClassicStockResources' folder if I'm using a different resource system?

Edited February 20, 2019 by RealKerbal3x

[Angelo Kerman]

6 hours ago, RealKerbal3x said:

@Angel-125 Thanks for the update! Just a thing: building a V-22-ish aircraft with this mod has always seemed weird to me because you have to use the normal flat-fronted command cab. I suggest an aerodynamic cab of some kind, or even just a nosecone to fit the normal cab.

EDIT: A question: Do I need the 'ClassicStockResources' folder if I'm using a different resource system?

At one point I had thought of a Huey-like cockpit for Buffalo aircraft, like what I have for the Guppy, but never got around to it. Maybe someday if I ever revamp the Buffalo (first release in 2015!) then I can make a new cockpit. At one point I toyed with retiring the existing design in favor of something based on NASA’s Mars concept rover...

https://blogs.nasa.gov/kennedy/wp-content/uploads/sites/246/2017/06/KSC-20170605-PH_KLS01_0135a.jpg

Right now though, my time is very limited.

Edited February 20, 2019 by Angel-125

[RealKerbal3x]

Just now, Angel-125 said:

At one point I had thought of a Huey-like cockpit for Buffalo aircraft, like what I have for the Guppy, but never got around to it. Maybe someday if I ever revamp the Buffalo (first release in 2015!) then I can make a new cockpit. At one point I toyed with retiring the existing design in favor of something based on NASA’s Mars concept rover...

https://blogs.nasa.gov/kennedy/wp-content/uploads/sites/246/2017/06/KSC-20170605-PH_KLS01_0135a.jpg

I quite like the current boxy design and the way it has a family resemblance to the utility vehicles around the KSC. Though that design might be nice as a smaller counterpart to the Buffalo with maybe one kerbal in the cockpit.

[infinite_monkey]

Well, there is this mod: https://spacedock.info/mod/590/Version_2.0 Industries Rover Pack

[DStaal]

1 hour ago, Angel-125 said:

At one point I had thought of a Huey-like cockpit for Buffalo aircraft, like what I have for the Guppy, but never got around to it. Maybe someday if I ever revamp the Buffalo (first release in 2015!) then I can make a new cockpit. At one point I toyed with retiring the existing design in favor of something based on NASA’s Mars concept rover...

https://blogs.nasa.gov/kennedy/wp-content/uploads/sites/246/2017/06/KSC-20170605-PH_KLS01_0135a.jpg

Right now though, my time is very limited.

IIRC, that one wasn't actually NASA's, it was some off-road vehicle manufacturer's that they made and got NASA to let them show off.  There were a number of major flaws for it to be an actual Mars rover (mostly in that the design pretty much assumed an Earth-type atmosphere...).

[smotheredrun]

4 hours ago, DStaal said:

IIRC, that one wasn't actually NASA's, it was some off-road vehicle manufacturer's that they made and got NASA to let them show off.  There were a number of major flaws for it to be an actual Mars rover (mostly in that the design pretty much assumed an Earth-type atmosphere...).

Yeah, I remember DeGrasse Tyson saying something like it looked as if it was the Space Batmobile

 

 

More of a Classic Batman and pre-Disney Marvel fan myself....

[RealKerbal3x]

On 2/20/2019 at 5:23 PM, infinite_monkey said:

Well, there is this mod: https://spacedock.info/mod/590/Version_2.0 Industries Rover Pack

That looks interesting, but it seems to be defunct and I’d like to see what @Angel-125 could do with his nice ‘almost stockalike’ art style anyway

[infinite_monkey]

How are you guys landing your rovers/bases? I recently installed Heisenberg Airships. It's fun to play around, but not very useful for space... But I really liked some of the parts, such as the cargo ramp, the cargo lift and the various elevators. @Angel-125 are there any plans to make something similar for rockets? At least a ramp and/or a crane? I was trying to build a lander similar to this one from NASA's Mars Exploration Zones video:

It doesn't show a ramp, the vehicles are already on the ground. But the lander is low enough for a ramp, so I guess this is how they got there in the first place. I was looking for mods containing a ramp without some sort of garage around it, but couldn't find one. Plus, I like the crane on the drone rover. I think something like this would fit nicely on the Buffalo. I'll try TweakScaling the crane that comes with one of your mods (don't remember which one).