MKS Documentation Development

[jon chef]

Hello i see up on the MKS github DStaal has put up a new Duna class craft file it is a txt file i was wondering how i use it ??? A big thank you to you all for great on going work with the Wiki a great help been using rovers mods for a few years just getting back into looking so good      Ta ta jon 

[dboi88]

2 minutes ago, jon chef said:

Hello i see up on the MKS github DStaal has put up a new Duna class craft file it is a txt file i was wondering how i use it ??? A big thank you to you all for great on going work with the Wiki a great help been using rovers mods for a few years just getting back into looking so good      Ta ta jon 

In your save folder you will have a ships folder, then two folders VAB & SPH that's where your craft files are saved. So just save the file in one of them.

[jon chef]

db thanks for quick response   Thing is i did what you stated and the craft file shows up as a "txt document" and not showing up in game VAB  Big thank you jon

[dboi88]

2 minutes ago, jon chef said:

db thanks for quick response   Thing is i did what you stated and the craft file shows up as a "txt document" and not showing up in game VAB  Big thank you jon

change the extension to .craft

Looks like github is adding a .txt on the end when you download the file, will have to look into that.

We might have to add craft files as .zip's

[jon chef]

Tried changing to .craft no joy Is no real big Deal just  heads up thanks again

[dboi88]

24 minutes ago, jon chef said:

Tried changing to .craft no joy Is no real big Deal just  heads up thanks again

It's appreciated. 

I've found the easiest way is to save the file from the web again but change the save file type from text document to all files, and delete the .txt. This should then save as a proper craft file.

[jon chef]

Yes dboi88 that worked a dream Thank You 

[DStaal]

44 minutes ago, jon chef said:

Yes dboi88 that worked a dream Thank You 

Good to hear.  Tell me what you think of the craft, once you get a chance to use it.   

[dboi88]

OK I've changed the 'craft file to a .zip so that github doesn't force the .txt file type on the downloads. I'd recommend all craft file's being uploaded this way.

It's also possible for me to sync the repo, add new images with the same names and then not have to go back and and edit the wiki page. So i guess it'd be easiest for people to just upload their images as they create their page and i'll just replace images as and when i can rather than anyone having to ask and wait for images to be supplied.

@DStaal what do you think of the images https://github.com/BobPalmer/MKS/wiki/Example-Craft-Files

[DStaal]

5 hours ago, dboi88 said:

OK I've changed the 'craft file to a .zip so that github doesn't force the .txt file type on the downloads. I'd recommend all craft file's being uploaded this way.

It's also possible for me to sync the repo, add new images with the same names and then not have to go back and and edit the wiki page. So i guess it'd be easiest for people to just upload their images as they create their page and i'll just replace images as and when i can rather than anyone having to ask and wait for images to be supplied.

@DStaal what do you think of the images https://github.com/BobPalmer/MKS/wiki/Example-Craft-Files

Looks good - and I'll try to remember to create zip files in the future.  (And I think the idea of 'load images and change when you have time' sounds like a good plan to me.)

I'll work on my Karibou craft sometime soon, but I want to see how RoverDude is going to integrate Ground Construction a bit.

[Temeriki]

Guys I just want to say thank you for all the work youve been putting in to update and make the wiki current.  Im pretty new to MKS and its been a GODSEND!

[DStaal]

On behalf of those who worked more on this than me, thanks, @Temeriki.    It's always nice to know your efforts aren't being wasted.

----

As a separate topic: I've been working on my Karibou basebuilder, but I'm looking at one thing I'd like to discuss: My current version includes an Akita, but there's no good part for docking it into the hold in stock+USI.  I've normally used a part from the Buffalo mod, but that's a bit overkill for this.  (And out of place.)  On the other hand - one of the docks from 'PicoPort' would work nicely, and that's a very small mod.  What's people's opinions?  The way I see it, I have three options:

1. Build a version without the Akita utility rover.  Fairly simple, but not quite as fun. 
2. Build using a separator to hold the Akita in during transport - works for initial transport, but driving around with the Akita loose might be kraken bait.
3. Build using PicoPort (or some other similar option), which requires a non-USI mod.

[Temeriki]

12 minutes ago, DStaal said:

As a separate topic: I've been working on my Karibou basebuilder, but I'm looking at one thing I'd like to discuss: My current version includes an Akita, but there's no good part for docking it into the hold in stock+USI.  I've normally used a part from the Buffalo mod, but that's a bit overkill for this.  (And out of place.)  On the other hand - one of the docks from 'PicoPort' would work nicely, and that's a very small mod.  What's people's opinions?  The way I see it, I have three options:

1. Build a version without the Akita utility rover.  Fairly simple, but not quite as fun. 
2. Build using a separator to hold the Akita in during transport - works for initial transport, but driving around with the Akita loose might be kraken bait.
3. Build using PicoPort (or some other similar option), which requires a non-USI mod.

What about using a docking port jr to secure it inside the bay, or the konstruction magnets?

[DStaal]

3 minutes ago, Temeriki said:

What about using a docking port jr to secure it inside the bay, or the konstruction magnets?

The first is to big (IMHO), the second is basically option #2 from above, with addition of being to big, and not being as secure during initial transport.   

[dboi88]

28 minutes ago, DStaal said:

On behalf of those who worked more on this than me, thanks, @Temeriki.    It's always nice to know your efforts aren't being wasted.

----

As a separate topic: I've been working on my Karibou basebuilder, but I'm looking at one thing I'd like to discuss: My current version includes an Akita, but there's no good part for docking it into the hold in stock+USI.  I've normally used a part from the Buffalo mod, but that's a bit overkill for this.  (And out of place.)  On the other hand - one of the docks from 'PicoPort' would work nicely, and that's a very small mod.  What's people's opinions?  The way I see it, I have three options:

1. Build a version without the Akita utility rover.  Fairly simple, but not quite as fun. 
2. Build using a separator to hold the Akita in during transport - works for initial transport, but driving around with the Akita loose might be kraken bait.
3. Build using PicoPort (or some other similar option), which requires a non-USI mod.

1. not enough fun

2. all the fun but not reusable, but i'd say anyone who's got the to point they are going to want to redock and go somewhere else is probably going to have their preferred method

3.we don't want any mods that aren't already supported is my opinion

Number one's the way to go.  Sorry number 2

Edited January 18, 2017 by dboi88

[Merkov]

Is it worth perhaps going with option number 2 but mentioning in text somewhere (we had discussed listing ways vessels could be modified at one point) that a part available in another mod would allow extra usability?

[Kobymaru]

Hey, @dboi88 it seems that Life-Support -> Converters is missing. If I click the page in KSPedia, I immediately jump to Rovers.

Life Support -> Recyclers is present though.

[dboi88]

1 hour ago, Kobymaru said:

Hey, @dboi88 it seems that Life-Support -> Converters is missing. If I click the page in KSPedia, I immediately jump to Rovers.

Life Support -> Recyclers is present though.

I know what has caused this and it's a bloody pain! Grrr!

There's a Unity bug that stops the XML file being updated when any text is changed. So every time i want to change 1 character on the page i have to delete the whole object and recreate. This then removes the page from the KSPedia Hierarchy and i then have to update everything and then re do the Hierarchy. I must have missed this one page before i completed the final build.

If anyone with more Unity experience can explain a better work around i'd be eternally grateful. 

I'm in the process of adding all the new pages for crew professions, local logistics and craft examples along with a few other extra bits of info. I'll ensure i do a full once over in KSP putting in the PR to ensure this doesn't happen again. I might even send you a copy to do a once over if you would be happy to help.

Thanks for letting me know about this, it's appreciated.

[DStaal]

Ok, I've got my Karibou Mobile Build station just about ready to upload - but it can't be deployed in the current version of MKS, because the attach force on the Anchor hubs is to light, and the hub will fall over.  I've sent a PR to RoverDude to fix the issue, should I upload the craft anyway?  (And make a note in the usage notes?)

[dboi88]

I don't see why not. You can just remove the note once the PR is merged.

[notthebobo]

I renamed a lot of the pages to remove the colon per this bug request.  As far as I can tell, I fixed all the inter page links.

Like where you guys are going with the craft files.  I haven't had much success lately with my own builds so I'm looking forward to trying some of these out.

Re: builds with mod dependencies, I think that they should be included as long as they clearly indicate what mods are required.  Perhaps the Example Craft Files page could be modified to include a section for "Required Mods" that would list any other mods.  This would be in addition to the Parts section.

 

[notthebobo]

@RoverDude, do you have any objection to removing the ZAPPED AS OBE pages in the Wiki?  I don't know if you were wanting/needing to retain them for their history of the descriptions of the earlier parts (MK-II, -II, etc).

[Merkov]

On ‎2017‎-‎01‎-‎25 at 4:57 PM, notthebobo said:

@RoverDude, do you have any objection to removing the ZAPPED AS OBE pages in the Wiki?  I don't know if you were wanting/needing to retain them for their history of the descriptions of the earlier parts (MK-II, -II, etc).

Not sure if this helps, but I remember when MKS was updated to version 0.44 (or whatever it was...) I was doing a lot of wiki updates, and I created an "obsolete info" page where I basically copied everything I was removing from other pages. At the time, I don't recall seeing any previous archives/pages for obsolete info. I mainly kept the old stuff because I didn't think I should be deciding to just delete things outright. Point is, I'm pretty sure that prior to UKS 0.44 the only wiki pages were the ones with the most up to date info (even if that info was out of date).

Unless RoverDude says otherwise, I always thought that he sort of left the wiki to the users to manage, so I would guess that we in this thread can probably make the call to remove the zapped stuff. Personally, my vote would be to get rid of them. I don't think it's feasible to keep wikis for past versions of MKS that are both comprehensive and coherent, and as such I don't think there is any value in keeping fragments of past features.

[dboi88]

1 hour ago, Merkov said:

Not sure if this helps, but I remember when MKS was updated to version 0.44 (or whatever it was...) I was doing a lot of wiki updates, and I created an "obsolete info" page where I basically copied everything I was removing from other pages. At the time, I don't recall seeing any previous archives/pages for obsolete info. I mainly kept the old stuff because I didn't think I should be deciding to just delete things outright. Point is, I'm pretty sure that prior to UKS 0.44 the only wiki pages were the ones with the most up to date info (even if that info was out of date).

Unless RoverDude says otherwise, I always thought that he sort of left the wiki to the users to manage, so I would guess that we in this thread can probably make the call to remove the zapped stuff. Personally, my vote would be to get rid of them. I don't think it's feasible to keep wikis for past versions of MKS that are both comprehensive and coherent, and as such I don't think there is any value in keeping fragments of past features.

Agreed. 

[DStaal]

Besides, it's not like there isn't a 'revisions' link at the top of every page that can show you all the old info...