[1.9-1.10] Global Construction

[RoverDude]

aaaand... a new model   I expect this will be the final form (unless @allista has additional feedback).  Those flaps above the wheels are also solar panels.

[DStaal]

Aw, I liked the bogeys. 

[allista]

1 hour ago, RoverDude said:

aaaand... a new model   I expect this will be the final form (unless @allista has additional feedback).  Those flaps above the wheels are also solar panels.

Super! I like it!

One question: does the cabin have windows?

[gamerscircle]

The times that I have used MKS with the mobile launch pad, was a blast.  After reading that GC is now going to use Material Kits, means that KSP is going to get that much more fun.  After watching the "Mars 2016" series and how they mentioned using a 3D printer.. well, that is what my take is using the GC will be.  Like.. sort of.  Hey!  it is my KSP.. right?

 

[RoverDude]

49 minutes ago, allista said:

Super! I like it!

One question: does the cabin have windows?

Nope.  That's one of the unique bits about it - figure something involved in heavy construction with lots of bits flying around probably makes more use of cameras than panes of glass.

[allista]

1 hour ago, RoverDude said:

Nope.  That's one of the unique bits about it - figure something involved in heavy construction with lots of bits flying around probably makes more use of cameras than panes of glass.

Thought so. And totally agree.

[gamerscircle]

Hi @allista - I ran into a conflict with another mod [[1.1.3, 1.2.2] GPOSpeedFuelPump continued v1.8.7] and was curious if you might be able to help out, based on his suggestions?

 

 

[Fobok]

I'm really loving the look of this mod. Other than my lack of skill in landing things close together, this seems way more user-friendly than EPL. Definitely adding it to my mod list.

[allista]

6 minutes ago, Fobok said:

I'm really loving the look of this mod. Other than my lack of skill in landing things close together, this seems way more user-friendly than EPL. Definitely adding it to my mod list.

Try TCA for landing 

 

[Fobok]

 

5 minutes ago, allista said:

Try TCA for landing 

 

 

Oh, right! I'd just started to figure out how powerful TCA was when I stopped playing 1.1.x, and I forgot now that I'm compiling my 1.2.2 list. Also added, thanks. :-)

[allista]

Question: do you, folks, need some kind of debris salvager that would process existing vessels and produce small amount of MaterialKits?

I imagine this to be a capability of a properly manned Workshop, meaning that kerbals themselves would disassemble vessels and salvage materials from the parts.

This could also lead us to using whole parts salvaged from another vessel, if a Kit's blueprint contains such a part; though as much as this is tempting, it will be very hard to implement, considering tweakscaled and procedural parts.

@RoverDude, join the discussion?

[RoverDude]

@allista - I have some code that does this already in USITools (which bundles with all of my mods).  I think some of the bits also RE logistics, etc. (i.e. being able to push and pull from disconnected containers) would also be useful as folks on the MKS side are already used to this and will be taking advantage of it with GC as it will be bundled.  Since USITools is a separate download, and if it is (close) to what you need, feel free to bundle it, and I can give you write access to the repo if you need to tweak anything (and avoid some wheel re-inventing).

 

(Some addendum)

If we're talking mass->materialKits, this is what USI Tools does.  If we're going down the path of Parts->Parts then that is a whole different kettle of fish

 

(Last addendum) I'm going to be doing the GC bundle with USI this weekend, the only thing to see will be if I can texture the new mobile workshop in time

Edited February 1, 2017 by RoverDude

[allista]

23 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

@allista - I have some code that does this already in USITools (which bundles with all of my mods).  I think some of the bits also RE logistics, etc. (i.e. being able to push and pull from disconnected containers) would also be useful as folks on the MKS side are already used to this and will be taking advantage of it with GC as it will be bundled.  Since USITools is a separate download, and if it is (close) to what you need, feel free to bundle it, and I can give you write access to the repo if you need to tweak anything (and avoid some wheel re-inventing).

 

(Some addendum)

If we're talking mass->materialKits, this is what USI Tools does.  If we're going down the path of Parts->Parts then that is a whole different kettle of fish

 

(Last addendum) I'm going to be doing the GC bundle with USI this weekend, the only thing to see will be if I can texture the new mobile workshop in time

That's great! I had a feeling that USI might have something for that. Could you point me to that particular code? I'm a little lost in there 

I was thinking of something resembling the look-and-feel of GC: decouple single part from the vessel (and destroy it immediately), "process" it over some time to salvage resources (mass->kits, modified by part's complexity as computed by GC), then go to the next. In contrast to construction, this could be done in orbit.

Edited February 1, 2017 by allista

[RoverDude]

Yup, that is exactly how part scrapping works in USITools.  The relevant module is USI_ModuleRecycleablePart, and I just added you as a collaborator on the USI repo 

EDIT:

Currently complexity is not a factor, but something that can be added in, and passed down the dependency chain to GC

 

Edited February 1, 2017 by RoverDude

[DStaal]

Well, I was going to say that currently USI's version is a bit more 'explody' than what Allista seems to be thinking, but I suspect that's a front-end detail. 

[allista]

34 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

Yup, that is exactly how part scrapping works in USITools.  The relevant module is USI_ModuleRecycleablePart, and I just added you as a collaborator on the USI repo 

EDIT:

Currently complexity is not a factor, but something that can be added in, and passed down the dependency chain to GC

Thanks!

Ok, so the basic idea is to automate the use of the ScrapPart method. This will require additional layer of abstraction in GroundWorkshop to have a single queue for construction/salvage tasks. And as always, I would like to make USITools a soft dependency... so either I need additional PartModule in a separate dll for that, or a reflection-based wrapper.

On the USI side: I'll make my modifications to include complexity in a separate brunch for you to review.

[RoverDude]

There's also a separate part module for demolition there that's queue based that may also help.  Handles full and partial vessels.

[allista]

1 hour ago, RoverDude said:

There's also a separate part module for demolition there that's queue based that may also help.  Handles full and partial vessels.

You mean USI_ModuleDemolition? 

Well, given the simplicity of the module, I think it would be easier to reimplement the demolition part inside GC, while reusing the logistics.

The major difference is not part complexity, which is just another multiplier; but the time. I want to make demolition a process, like construction, not an instantaneous event. So that at the cost of some time and energy any kerbal engineer in any workshop-qualified part can recycle any debris out there part by part (using the same catch-up technique for unloaded operation). Or would it be too hindersome for enjoyable gameplay? @DStaal, what's your opinion?

[DStaal]

I was mostly commenting that what you were envisioning was a lot more controlled and processed than the normal 'Explode! Explode! Explode!' of recycling parts in MKS, where I sometimes have to wait for three or four explosions to clear just so I can see the *next* part I want to explode.

I think making it a process, with a slightly higher return rate than the demolition block, would make sense - the only thing I worry about is that EL's equivalent mechanic (which does process over time) is the buggiest part of EL in my experience.  Of course the details matter: Are they taking minutes to break something down?  Days?  In general the longer they take to break something down, the higher the return rate I'd expect.

Also be aware that doing things like this in space would require you to actually dock the parts into place, which is where EL tends to have issues.  Better would be to integrate it with Hanger and abstract it: Allow you to recycle your stored vessels.  Then you may not need USITools - but you'll want to balance against it, for people who are using both.  (Again, I’d expect disassembly in a controlled setting to be more efficient.)

[gamerscircle]

I am happy to report, Yesterday I got a DYI Kit up on the Mun, had the material and kerbal power to start construction with a 17 day wait time.  I was also able to use the GC Icon to see the DIY kit and see the 'details'

Today, I was not able to see the craft in the GC Panel, but it is listed in the tracker.

Can I get some guidance on what I should do next?

[RoverDude]

@allista / @DStaal - my only feedback would be that it would be odd for similar processes (stuff -> MaterialKits) to have different return rates.  It makes things really weird for interop since GC will be bundled with MKS, and starting that off with a conflict is probably not a good idea.  Also, time is really never much of a lever in KSP, so people would just choose the path with the best rate.  Now, if it is a different process (i.e. stuff-> stored parts) then that's a different story.

[allista]

2 minutes ago, DStaal said:

I was mostly commenting that what you were envisioning was a lot more controlled and processed than the normal 'Explode! Explode! Explode!' of recycling parts in MKS, where I sometimes have to wait for three or four explosions to clear just so I can see the *next* part I want to explode.

I think making it a process, with a slightly higher return rate than the demolition block, would make sense - the only thing I worry about is that EL's equivalent mechanic (which does process over time) is the buggiest part of EL in my experience.  Of course the details matter: Are they taking minutes to break something down?  Days?  In general the longer they take to break something down, the higher the return rate I'd expect.

Also be aware that doing things like this in space would require you to actually dock the parts into place, which is where EL tends to have issues.  Better would be to integrate it with Hanger and abstract it: Allow you to recycle your stored vessels.  Then you may not need USITools - but you'll want to balance against it, for people who are using both.  (Again, I’d expect disassembly in a controlled setting to be more efficient.)

I agree: controlled slow demolition should have higher yield. Timescale should be much shorter than for construction, but again, the complexity factor should play its role here (one thing is to scrap a fuel tank, the other -- to disassemble a rocket engine). I think something like 1:5-1:10; what takes 5-10 hours to construct will require 1 hour to demolish.

Docking is not required: as far as the demolished ship stays loaded I can process parts remotely. So if the two ships are close enough with ~0 relative velocity, they'll stay that way throughout the full orbit. So I can safely switch to somewhere else, then return back after a time. The drift of some 100-1000m is not an issue. The most that could happen is that ships will drift beyond loading range. In that case demolition will just pause.

USITools provide wireless logistics, which is more complicated that demolition, so I don't want to reimplement it. But I still can have soft dependency and, if without USITools, distribute resulting resources through current ship only.

[allista]

2 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

@allista / @DStaal - my only feedback would be that it would be odd for similar processes (stuff -> MaterialKits) to have different return rates.  It makes things really weird for interop since GC will be bundled with MKS, and starting that off with a conflict is probably not a good idea.  Also, time is really never much of a lever in KSP, so people would just choose the path with the best rate.  Now, if it is a different process (i.e. stuff-> stored parts) then that's a different story.

Hm... I always thought that trading amount for time is fair. On one hand you have a bomb and the ability to catch some of the pieces flying away. On the other you have a lone astronaut with the wrench huddled inside a can. And in my experience time does have an impact on the gameplay. Not everyone are willing to just skip a week or two in the time-warp to get +15% of a resource. And when you're trying to fill such time with action, it quickly becomes pretty hard. So I don't really see a conflict here. 

But I'm not holding that hard onto my idea, just discussing; with the exact purpose of preventing conflicts.

[allista]

37 minutes ago, gamerscircle said:

I am happy to report, Yesterday I got a DYI Kit up on the Mun, had the material and kerbal power to start construction with a 17 day wait time.  I was also able to use the GC Icon to see the DIY kit and see the 'details'

Today, I was not able to see the craft in the GC Panel, but it is listed in the tracker.

Can I get some guidance on what I should do next?

GC panel should provide the info about any workshop and its status. If it misses one, it's a bug.

But construction is done the workshop itself, so if you can switch to it from tracking station, you can summon the Construction Window from its part menu and see the status of or control the construction.

31 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

@allista / @DStaal - my only feedback would be that it would be odd for similar processes (stuff -> MaterialKits) to have different return rates.  It makes things really weird for interop since GC will be bundled with MKS, and starting that off with a conflict is probably not a good idea.  Also, time is really never much of a lever in KSP, so people would just choose the path with the best rate.  Now, if it is a different process (i.e. stuff-> stored parts) then that's a different story.

Also, demolition module provides more flexibility. GC would only handle whole vessels, without ability to select parts.

[gamerscircle]

6 minutes ago, allista said:

GC panel should provide the info about any workshop and its status. If it misses one, it's a bug.

But construction is done the workshop itself, so if you can switch to it from tracking station, you can summon the Construction Window from its part menu and see the status of or control the construction.

HI @allista, I could have swore that I started it from an MKS "Tundra" Pioneer Logistics Module.  While that was working, I also had to move things around in that base, so I am not sure if that might have caused a reset or not?  [moving kerbals around too]

I then landed a 2nd DIY Kit and I was getting the error [No Engineer in the workshop] and I did in fact have one in the MKS "Tundra" Pioneer Logistics Module , but was still getting the error.  I just thought I would try the same thing from the MKS "Tundra" Assembly Plant and well. that worked!!

and.. the GC Panel is showing the status .. again.

Am I allowed to start 2 DIY kits at the same time?