totm may 2024 [1.12.x] - Modular Kolonization System (MKS)

[voicey99]

2 minutes ago, dboi88 said:

It was called PlanetaryLogistics.

.....Orbital Logistics?

[dboi88]

Just now, voicey99 said:

.....Orbital Logistics?

Yes. 

[voicey99]

Speaking of Orital Logistics, I've not been around long enough to remember OL-did it only shuttle stuff between stations in the same SoI or did it send stuff between other SoIs or the planetary surface?

[goldenpsp]

19 minutes ago, voicey99 said:

Speaking of Orital Logistics, I've not been around long enough to remember OL-did it only shuttle stuff between stations in the same SoI or did it send stuff between other SoIs or the planetary surface?

Anything in the same SOI.  

[voicey99]

35 minutes ago, goldenpsp said:

Anything in the same SOI.  

Just other stations or between the stations and PL as well?

[DStaal]

3 minutes ago, voicey99 said:

Just other stations or between the stations and PL as well?

It was just other ships/stations - but the other ships could be using PL, so you could play with it.

[goldenpsp]

9 minutes ago, voicey99 said:

Just other stations or between the stations and PL as well?

between vessels.  But it could go surface to orbit, orbit to orbit, IIRC you could do surface to surface but i think it was sometimes buggy with that.

[Bored971]

I've been using alot of your mods for awhile now but I've only recently picked up MKS.  I love the parts in it but the other classes (biologist, geologist, etc.) were a surprise to me.  Is there a way to get the parts from this mod in my game but to get just the Pilot/Engineer/Scientist job types only back?  The problem I'm running into is that I have only a couple scientists and all these other classes and can't run a science lab at all!

[sh1pman]

Just now, Bored971 said:

I've been using alot of your mods for awhile now but I've only recently picked up MKS.  I love the parts in it but the other classes (biologist, geologist, etc.) were a surprise to me.  Is there a way to get the parts from this mod in my game but to get just the Pilot/Engineer/Scientist job types only back?  The problem I'm running into is that I have only a couple scientists and all these other classes and can't run a science lab at all!

You should hire the scientists from the Kolonization dashboard, not from AC.

[Bored971]

Just now, sh1pman said:

You should hire the scientists from the Kolonization dashboard, not from AC.

D'oh!  Thanks for that.  Usually I just take those "save a kerbal" missions and use what I get from those instead of hiring them at all lol.  I'll give that a try.  Thanks!

[zabieru]

So, here's a thought. You know that occasional "why are the Ranger expandables not balanced as starter parts, smaller and cheaper and worse than Duna parts" question we get? Well, obviously the answer is "because they're not meant to be," but it's a reasonable (wrong) assumption to make, and we CAN make it more obvious.

For one thing, SOME Ranger parts are starter bits, while others are advanced. The Crusher/Smelter/Sifter set are starter parts, quite obviously. The habs and greenhouse are advanced parts (the starter hab parts are either Duna or the Karibou/mini-ranger parts, while the starter greenhouse is essentially the nom-o-matic).

So one thing we can do is make this clear on the wiki. Our example craft should probably include "starter" examples using Duna hab parts and Ranger industrial ones. The current example shows an all-Ranger base first, then a mixed Ranger/Duna. I'm awful at pictures, but I might take a crack at talking through some layout/design ideas in the next couple days, see what people think.

I also suggest a move away from the current "product line" setup, because it's confusing. Ranger->Duna->Tundra isn't the way, not really, it's more like [Ranger+Duna+other]->[Duna+different Ranger]->[Tundra+Ranger].

Roverdude, what do you think about de-emphasizing the "Ranger" name on the Hab and Greenhouse and maybe Workshop, and giving a new name to the expandable lineup? Or coming up with a new name for the Ranger/Karibou mini-habs and the current Ranger industrial parts?

[Baladain]

@RoverDude  @DStaal

I ran into a similar problem with the agricultural module (3.75) to what @revolioclockbergjr encountered.

Single vessel, agriculture model set to cultivate, water in storage on the same vessel, AG module reports no water.

The difference was, there were no docking ports or contruction ports between my AG module and my water storage.  However, there were flexotubes and ground ball hubs.  I think water is not flowing across the flexotubes.

[revolioclockbergjr]

17 hours ago, damerell said:

Huh. Do you have some sort of Supplies to/from TACLS conversion, or just try to meet the requirements of both independently?

There are no direct conversion parts for TAC to/from USI-LS. Both sets of requirements have to be met independently.

I play with tons of mods, many of which offer TAC integration, or USI-LS integration.. And most mod authors don't expect someone to play with multiple life support mods. But I've not seen any real conflicts. If a parts mod has converters that work with TAC or USI-LS, those parts end up with converter-modules for both systems. And usually both can be activated at the same time.

Frankly I expected it to be more of a challenge using multiple life support mods, and I did it mostly as an experiment. I tend to build more unmanned missions than I probably would without the LS mods, but very little else has changed.

1 hour ago, Baladain said:

@RoverDude  @DStaal

I ran into a similar problem with the agricultural module (3.75) to what @revolioclockbergjr encountered.

Single vessel, agriculture model set to cultivate, water in storage on the same vessel, AG module reports no water.

The difference was, there were no docking ports or contruction ports between my AG module and my water storage.  However, there were flexotubes and ground ball hubs.  I think water is not flowing across the flexotubes.

See if reloading fixes it. Quicksave & quickload. I haven't done empirical tests, but I have noticed crossfeed of some resources behaving differently after a reload, if I've been KIS/KAS modifying the craft.

[billybob579]

I'm encountering some weird behavior with the calculations for habitation time, but I'm not sure if it's a bug or I'm just missing something obvious. Here's a link to three photos, showing VAB's estimation of hab time versus what is shown once the vessel is built. The kerbal on the deployed vessel has less than 1/3 of the habitation time that the VAB predicted, and I cannot figure out why.

[sh1pman]

26 minutes ago, billybob579 said:

I'm encountering some weird behavior with the calculations for habitation time, but I'm not sure if it's a bug or I'm just missing something obvious. Here's a link to three photos, showing VAB's estimation of hab time versus what is shown once the vessel is built. The kerbal on the deployed vessel has less than 1/3 of the habitation time that the VAB predicted, and I cannot figure out why.

Did you put enough machinery into your habitation parts?

[billybob579]

58 minutes ago, sh1pman said:

Did you put enough machinery into your habitation parts?

That was the problem. Thank you! I'd never realized they required it, and that they didn't start with the maximum amount.

[Kertech]

Hey, I'm planning a colonization effort and am using mks/oks for the first time, was just wondering if anyone had any tips (using tac lifesupport, kerbalism, remote tech and 64k)

[Merkov]

1 minute ago, Kertech said:

Hey, I'm planning a colonization effort and am using mks/oks for the first time, was just wondering if anyone had any tips (using tac lifesupport, kerbalism, remote tech and 64k)

Best tip I can think of is to just start a sandbox game with all of the MKS parts and make a few bases beside the KSC to get a feel for what you need and what does what. It's really unfortunate when you get a piece of a base onto Minmus only to realize that you forgot to put a power coupler on it to receive power from your nearby reactor and now you need to send another mission to remedy that. It's even more unfortunate if it's a Duna mission. Another thing I'm really good at forgetting is to add machinery to parts that need it. Eventually, you can manufacture it on-site, but at the beginning you have to either include it in your parts (which adds a lot of mass/cost) or ship it up separately (still adds a lot of mass and cost, but might be easier to do/you can ship up a bunch of machinery for multiple vessels).

The point is, once you do the wrong things in a sandbox game placing things next to the KSC, you'll have a better grasp of how to do the right things in your colonization game. Of course, in KSP, failure is always an option.

[Kertech]

4 minutes ago, Merkov said:

Best tip I can think of is to just start a sandbox game with all of the MKS parts and make a few bases beside the KSC to get a feel for what you need and what does what. It's really unfortunate when you get a piece of a base onto Minmus only to realize that you forgot to put a power coupler on it to receive power from your nearby reactor and now you need to send another mission to remedy that. It's even more unfortunate if it's a Duna mission. Another thing I'm really good at forgetting is to add machinery to parts that need it. Eventually, you can manufacture it on-site, but at the beginning you have to either include it in your parts (which adds a lot of mass/cost) or ship it up separately (still adds a lot of mass and cost, but might be easier to do/you can ship up a bunch of machinery for multiple vessels).

The point is, once you do the wrong things in a sandbox game placing things next to the KSC, you'll have a better grasp of how to do the right things in your colonization game. Of course, in KSP, failure is always an option.

thanks, kind of reminds me of my first Interstellar career, just loads of parts that somehow work together...

II'll open up a skunkworks

[gamerscircle]

I am using blizzys tool bar for a couple of mods that I find a little easier to access via the stock tool bar.  Do I have something setup wrong if I don't have the USI Kolony button in blizzy and am not getting the button on the stock tool bar?

So, I suppose - my direction question is - can I have the USI Kolony icon/button on the stock toolbar if I am using blizzys?

Edited February 3, 2017 by gamerscircle

[DStaal]

5 minutes ago, gamerscircle said:

I am using blizzys tool bar for a couple of mods that I find a little easier to access via the stock tool bar.  Do I have something setup wrong if I don't have the USI Kolony button in blizzy and am not getting the button on the stock tool bar?

So, I suppose - my direction question is - can I have the USI Kolony icon/button on the stock toolbar if I am using blizzys?

I don't believe you can, actually.  It should be available in blizzy's, and I don't believe RoverDude ever put in an option to switch between the two.  (Other than installing Blizzy's.)

[gamerscircle]

9 minutes ago, DStaal said:

I don't believe you can, actually.  It should be available in blizzy's, and I don't believe RoverDude ever put in an option to switch between the two.  (Other than installing Blizzy's.)

okay. one or the other... thanks.

[WuphonsReach]

Should planetary storage be infinite and eternal?

Maybe the maximum capacity of planetary storage should be capped based on what parts are landed on the surface (e.g. if you have warehouse enabled storage containers enough to hold 1000 units of water, you might get planetary storage of 10,000 units).  It would give a purpose to landing those large spherical tanks.

Maybe a leak rate for inventory that exceeds that value which starts at 1% per month and gradually increases to 10% per month if you are grossly exceeding your planetary storage capacity.  So if you have 1000 units of water warehouse storage on the surface, you can store up to 10,000 units without loss.  Then it starts getting lossy on a time-basis and by the time you hit 100,000 units in storage you would be losing 10% per month.  This would also deal with "I configured for 1000 units of X on the surface, but now I repainted and only have 500 units of storage".  The excess above the storage capacity would slowly fade away.

[voicey99]

33 minutes ago, WuphonsReach said:

Should planetary storage be infinite and eternal?

Maybe the maximum capacity of planetary storage should be capped based on what parts are landed on the surface (e.g. if you have warehouse enabled storage containers enough to hold 1000 units of water, you might get planetary storage of 10,000 units).  It would give a purpose to landing those large spherical tanks.

Maybe a leak rate for inventory that exceeds that value which starts at 1% per month and gradually increases to 10% per month if you are grossly exceeding your planetary storage capacity.  So if you have 1000 units of water warehouse storage on the surface, you can store up to 10,000 units without loss.  Then it starts getting lossy on a time-basis and by the time you hit 100,000 units in storage you would be losing 10% per month.  This would also deal with "I configured for 1000 units of X on the surface, but now I repainted and only have 500 units of storage".  The excess above the storage capacity would slowly fade away.

My best guess for what PL represents is Kerbals simply chucking all the stuff out the airlock into a big heap outside the base for Kerbals from other bases to nip over and fetch stuff from when needed, in which case it wouldn't make much sense for it to have a storage limit-at least for solid cargoes. Maybe liquid or gaseous cargoes would still be transferable via PL, but shouldn't have infinite storage.

As for Kontainer cargoes, maybe instead of all resources being stored planetwide, the stockpile would be per base instead of per planet and only stuff produced by that base would he added to it. As each base would have its own local PL stockpile, transfer rates to other bases could vary based on the sending and receiving bases' logistics capability and distance-by that, I mean each base would issue pull requests to each stockpile separately for each resource. The frequency at which resources could be requested from each stockpile would be determined by distance (so faraway bases would experience longer intervals between deliveries, to simulate Kerbals actually having to go halfway around the planet to pick them up), and the max resources transferable per request would be determined by the combined logistics capabilities of the sender and receiver (i.e. how many logistics modules they have, what sort of modules they are, quartermaster/pilot skill etc.). These stats could be buffed in certain ways, e.g. having a nearby rover with the relevant resource would decrease the time between deliveries and increase the max amount per delivery. Overall, a system like this would mean you actually have to have substantial storage capabilities for each resource to buffer between deliveries, and make logistics considerations more important than just "stick a logistics module and a few redi-paks on the thing and forget about it".

Edited February 3, 2017 by voicey99

[jd284]

7 hours ago, Kertech said:

Hey, I'm planning a colonization effort and am using mks/oks for the first time, was just wondering if anyone had any tips (using tac lifesupport, kerbalism, remote tech and 64k)

Out of my own experience with TAC-LS and MKS, and if you're starting a new game anyway, I'd suggest you might consider switching to USI-LS if you like a challenge. With MKS, TAC-LS is actually easier since its supplies are much lighter and it doesn't have the habitation mechanic which makes everything a lot more interesting. Like half the MKS parts have useless functions without USI-LS. Also TAC-LS isn't very well integrated into MKS. It works, so you can definitely play like that, but it's a bit klunky.

Not trying to force you to switch or anything, but at least consider what would be right for you. Personally I'm glad I switched for my 1.2 game.

Also I think Kerbalism is not supported and breaks some MKS functionality. Never played with it so I can't say for sure.

1 hour ago, WuphonsReach said:

Maybe a leak rate for inventory that exceeds that value which starts at 1% per month and gradually increases to 10% per month if you are grossly exceeding your planetary storage capacity.

To be somewhat credible the leak rate would have to be different for each resource. Like for example, Organics would probably spoil much faster than Metals would disappear. Unless you have some rogue kerbals doing some copper scavenging on the side, where would it even go?