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

[RoverDude]

2 hours ago, voicey99 said:

Just a thought: will the new TRPalike hiring system break the policies from Strategia that affect Kerbal hiring (namely increased hiring costs in exchange for Kerbals coming pre-XPd and a monthly payment in exchange for reduced hiring costs)?

No idea... probably?  

2 hours ago, Omnipius said:

Exactly. I do the same thing. However, with Machinery blacklisted from LL, you have to hard-dock your Machinery kontainer to something with PL and a small warehouse in order to fill it up instead of just landing (or parking) within logistics range.

You should still be able to refill machinery without PL from a disconnected USI Kontainer... if you cannot, it is a bug (and a GitHub issue ensures it gets fixed)

1 hour ago, TauPhraim said:

I had similar experiences but with supplies, so I put them on recycler bugs (and they seem more or less solved now).

From what you describe, it seems to me the cause is PL being too slow to keep up during catchup.

Looking at the code, ModulePlanetaryLogistics has a CheckFrequency of 12 seconds.

By design unless you want slow bases   Usual deal, log a github issue and I will look.

[Mikki]

uuups...couldn`t resist to give like. 

[Merkov]

3 hours ago, voicey99 said:

Just a thought: will the new TRPalike hiring system break the policies from Strategia that affect Kerbal hiring (namely increased hiring costs in exchange for Kerbals coming pre-XPd and a monthly payment in exchange for reduced hiring costs)?

 

17 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

No idea... probably?  

As a user of both MKS and Strategia, I will be sure to let you know!

If the TRP stuff doesn't play nice with Strategia, It's possible that some MM shenanigans might make things work. Once I get a chance to play with both of them, I'll see what/if anything needs to be done and let Nightingale know. I think any applicable MM patch would make more sense on the Strategia side.

Edit: All bets are off if it would require a change to the DLL file. Code is magic.

Edited February 16, 2017 by Merkov

[voicey99]

25 minutes ago, TauPhraim said:

I checked a bit quickly, in the MKS repo you have 2 copies of the file:

Only the second has the delay used, but the first seems to have changed more recently, so I don't know

Actually it reminds me a bit of what happened with recyclers, where it was KSP not calling every module callback immediately, during catchup. Could be something similar here (PL's FixedUpdate not called soon enough).

 

Trying to learn how to DLL, this may as well be a good place to start. Assuming this is the GameData/USI/MKS KolonyTools, for me, there is no Source/KolonyTools/KolonyTools/PlanetaryLogistics subsection according to the decompiler and Source/KT/PL/ModulePL doesn't specify the interval.

(unless this is too offtopic?)

And @Merkov I'd do this myself if I had any clue how to make more than just SigmaBinary patches. Maybe this is as good an incentive as any to learn?

[Screaming Candle]

18 hours ago, Screaming Candle said:

Back from being away for a very long time.  And hey, I'm done with my Masters degree!

I've been looking back through the pages and consulted the wiki but I haven't figured out the use of geology research.  Is that TBD or am I missing something?  I understand that the geologists are good at using the sifters, but since the malamute has a geology research and my super sweet geology lander/rover has it on board, I wanted to see what I could accomplish.  

Incidentally, running the current constellation the geology lab can start habitation but the crew cab can't.  That seems either backwards or robbing the crew cab.  

Awesome mod.  hard as hell, but awesome.

 

SC

Hi.  bumping my question.  Also, the wiki has a dead link describing the functions "as described by Bob".  Is that available somewhere?

 

SC 

[TauPhraim]

3 hours ago, voicey99 said:

Trying to learn how to DLL

Not sure what you mean, but you should rather do the other way around: find the source and compile it. (But your investigation might clarify which of the 2 copies is used, although if the 12 seconds delay is not there, then there's no explanation to the problem).

[Gilph]

5 hours ago, TauPhraim said:

I checked a bit quickly, in the MKS repo you have 2 copies of the file:

Only the second has the delay used, but the first seems to have changed more recently, so I don't know

Actually it reminds me a bit of what happened with recyclers, where it was KSP not calling every module callback immediately, during catchup. Could be something similar here (PL's FixedUpdate not called soon enough).

 

@TauPhraim, thanks very much.

One of the reasons i used Chemicals and Silicon, other than both having 3 bays of production, is that they are supplied differently.  There are no Minerals in my base location, so I always have to pull from PL.  But, I do drill for silicates only a few meters away in the Mining rig, so that actually should be using scavenging.  I'll double check over the weekend running them both at the same time to see if they are exactly equal.

[RoverDude]

2 hours ago, Screaming Candle said:

Hi.  bumping my question.  Also, the wiki has a dead link describing the functions "as described by Bob".  Is that available somewhere?

 

SC 

Geology gives a bonus to resource extraction.  And which crew cab is giving you problems?  I have a few

2 hours ago, TauPhraim said:

Not sure what you mean, but you should rather do the other way around: find the source and compile it. (But your investigation might clarify which of the 2 copies is used, although if the 12 seconds delay is not there, then there's no explanation to the problem).

The outlier directories are incorrect (they should have and will be deleted).  Odds are you're running out of stuff before PLog kicks in.  Usual deal, provide me a save with USI/Stock parts, and I can sort it   

[zabieru]

4 hours ago, RoverDude said:

Geology gives a bonus to resource extraction.  And which crew cab is giving you problems?  I have a few

He's talking about the Malamute geology lab, though, which is completely separate. It's just a science part called a "geology lab," it doesn't have anything to do with the Kolony-Geology score (which gives a bonus to resource extraction). It's about as related as the reactor/drill/ISRU/radiator core heat system and the thermometer science part.

At a guess, probably the Malamute crew cab, but I'll let the OP confirm that.

[Starfire70]

Where's the Inflatable Workshop located on the tech tree? I can't find it in my career game.

Thanks,

[voicey99]

3 hours ago, Starfire70 said:

Where's the Inflatable Workshop located on the tech tree? I can't find it in my career game.

Thanks,

That's Advanced Construction (if you can't find a part, just check its cfg file and it should say what tech it is in there)

Edited February 17, 2017 by voicey99

[Gilph]

On 2/16/2017 at 9:56 AM, Gilph said:

Hi, been doing some sandbox testing on some new manufacturing bases on a version of MKS before the GC integration (14 I think?). Will get a save and Github issue after I finished.

In summary, scavenging/PL transfers seem to slow down manufacturing output when it is in the background/catch up mode.  In trying to balance inputs and outputs, I found I am negative in some resources when it is in background, but positive if it's the active vessel.

With a 3.75 Tundra refinery and 2.5m storage tanks, I tested these scenarios:

1. 3 bays configured as Chemicals, 4200 Minerals in a tank and empty Chemicals tank, both with warehouse disabled. After 6 hours as active, produced 670 Chemicals, which is correct based on 508% load
2. Same scenario as 1, in background, also produced 670 Chemicals
3. Same scenario, but changed Mineral tank to warehouse enabled with 100,000 Minerals in PL, active vessel: 670
4. Same scenario as 3, in background: 450

Did the same with Silicon/Silicates, same result. Did Chemicals and Silicon at the same time, same results.

The reason why I looked at this is this base has three big refineries and a big assembly. I got to the point of making Refined Exotics, which need a lot of Chemicals.  When it is active, I produce RE at full speed and had a +180/day surplus of Chemicals.  When it does background/catch up, I lose 220/day of Chemicals.  Instead of seeing a nice surplus of Chemicals after a few days, I go to zero.

If anyone has similar experiences, please let me know? Thanks

 

I made a save of this and started a new save with a new manufacturing base.  I upgraded four tanks from 2.5 to 3.75 (4500 to 15K capacity), Minerals being one of them. Redid these tests.  Chemical production now works, but not sure why.

I tested having the Minerals tank with warehouse enabled and put only 4200 in it. Since the bays consume about 3500 Minerals/day, it will do a PL sometime during the day.  Warped at KSC for 6 hours, returned to base, and it made the exact amount of Chemicals it should have.  Minerals were 7495, larger than when I started, so I know the PL transfer took place.

So, whats the difference? Both tanks have enough capacity for 6 hours, both did a PL, but only the larger tank worked.  The smaller may have needed to do 2 transfers, but no more than that.

Will put this on Github once I finish all the different scenarios on both saves.  Thanks for the help.

Edited February 17, 2017 by Gilph
only tested Chems so far

[Terwin]

@Gilph If your container starts full/empty then you may not see the behavior you were describing in just one day.  Remember that PL will only take the container to half full, so if you are making 75% of your container's capacity per day, then if it starts empty, it may be 2 days before anything is lost during catch-up.

Edited February 17, 2017 by Terwin

[adgriff2]

Not sure if this is an MKS misunderstanding or a general KSP misunderstanding. I'm trying to figure out how many MKS Ranger Thermal Control Systems I need to cool a given reactor. If you compare the required cooling of the reactors to the max cooling of the TCS, it seems you need a ton of TCSs. However, when i set up a reactor with a single TCS outside, it seems to work fine for long time periods, not even getting up to 1k degrees.

[voicey99]

1 minute ago, adgriff2 said:

Not sure if this is an MKS misunderstanding or a general KSP misunderstanding. I'm trying to figure out how many MKS Ranger Thermal Control Systems I need to cool a given reactor. If you compare the required cooling of the reactors to the max cooling of the TCS, it seems you need a ton of TCSs. However, when i set up a reactor with a single TCS outside, it seems to work fine for long time periods, not even getting up to 1k degrees.

According to the desc for the TCS, the cooling rate depends on the temperature and time of day-whatever the formula is, the result is going to vary wildly from the VAB data. Not that I've ever used the thing.

[adgriff2]

2 minutes ago, voicey99 said:

According to the desc for the TCS, the cooling rate depends on the temperature and time of day-whatever the formula is, the result is going to vary wildly from the VAB data. Not that I've ever used the thing.

I assumed the "Max Cooling" would be under ideal conditions and on the ground around KSC would be far from ideal. However, it seems to be cooling well in excess of the ideal max if i'm understanding the concept.

[Terwin]

1 minute ago, adgriff2 said:

I assumed the "Max Cooling" would be under ideal conditions and on the ground around KSC would be far from ideal. However, it seems to be cooling well in excess of the ideal max if i'm understanding the concept.

I have no idea if it is modeled at all, but generally speaking cooling something off is much easier in an atmosphere where you get conduction and convection as opposed to in space where you only have radiation(the weakest of the 3).

Sort of like comparing how long it takes a turkey to thaw when it is sitting in a sink full of water as opposed to sitting in a sealed ice-chest.

I would not be surprised if the numbers were for cooling in a vacuum.  (I have only ever used the stock radiators so I have no specific information to give)

[adgriff2]

Just now, Terwin said:

I have no idea if it is modeled at all, but generally speaking cooling something off is much easier in an atmosphere where you get conduction and convection as opposed to in space where you only have radiation(the weakest of the 3).

Sort of like comparing how long it takes a turkey to thaw when it is sitting in a sink full of water as opposed to sitting in a sealed ice-chest.

I would not be surprised if the numbers were for cooling in a vacuum.  (I have only ever used the stock radiators so I have no specific information to give)

I agree, conduction and convection physically transfer heat at a higher rate than radiation physically. I just assumed the max cooling parameter was some hard coded speed limit irrespective of physics. I guess i'll just throw some extras in a KIS can and use them as needed. Thanks.

[Kerbal101]

On 01.02.2017 at 7:20 PM, Toonu said:

Actually I had in version 1.1.3 Kerbalism and Kerbalism+USI LS+MKS(+other USI mods) together and it worked nice together. I just disabled all aspects of Kerbalism except radiation and malfunctions. But now, when I have Kerbalism, its incopatible with some mods, so I have to use DangIt instead malfunctions. But there isn't any other radiation mod, so I just suggested one small idea to filll the gap.

 

Are there any oher radiation or malfunctions mod nowadays?

I would pretty much second this and I am in the same position. I would like more complex habitation and comfort with base building properties of USI, but with added Radiation, Part Reliability and Oxygen - which are only supported in Kerbalism.  If I pick Kerbalism, then I leave the complexity and tools to build such detailed bases.

If anyone knows a mod that adds these three features and is compatible with USI, please respond.

 

[jd284]

20 minutes ago, adgriff2 said:

Not sure if this is an MKS misunderstanding or a general KSP misunderstanding. I'm trying to figure out how many MKS Ranger Thermal Control Systems I need to cool a given reactor. If you compare the required cooling of the reactors to the max cooling of the TCS, it seems you need a ton of TCSs. However, when i set up a reactor with a single TCS outside, it seems to work fine for long time periods, not even getting up to 1k degrees.

I had the same reaction. I think the confusion comes from the fact that the TCS doesn't radiate the heat (which is its "max cooling") but simply pumps it into the planet (which is its "core heat xfer").

Because of that, can it remove up to 3000kW heat when landed, but only radiate 12kW in space? I'm not sure if it can actually do 3000kW or if that really depends on the temperature of the body it's landed on.

I have a Duna PDU landed at the Moon running at 240% load so it should generate about 480 kW heat, and the TCS is at 56% load. But then again the TCS load seems fairly indifferent to the PDU load, so maybe that's just 56% of the 12kW radiative cooling?

Either way it's a very confusing part and a lot more powerful than you think. I've never needed more than one.

10 minutes ago, Terwin said:

I have no idea if it is modeled at all, but generally speaking cooling something off is much easier in an atmosphere where you get conduction and convection as opposed to in space where you only have radiation(the weakest of the 3).

Well the TCS is not doing radiative cooling, it's a heat pump that uses the planet as a giant heat sink. So its cooling capability is limited only by heat conduction within the planet.

[DStaal]

21 minutes ago, adgriff2 said:

Not sure if this is an MKS misunderstanding or a general KSP misunderstanding. I'm trying to figure out how many MKS Ranger Thermal Control Systems I need to cool a given reactor. If you compare the required cooling of the reactors to the max cooling of the TCS, it seems you need a ton of TCSs. However, when i set up a reactor with a single TCS outside, it seems to work fine for long time periods, not even getting up to 1k degrees.

Also worth noting on this is that the reactor will generate heat dependent on it's load - If you aren't using much EC, it won't generate much heat.  (It'll generate some, but not it's max amount.)

[PolecatEZ]

 

17 minutes ago, DStaal said:

Also worth noting on this is that the reactor will generate heat dependent on it's load - If you aren't using much EC, it won't generate much heat.  (It'll generate some, but not it's max amount.)

That changes entirely if you also have Near Future Electric installed, the RoverDude reactors suddenly get their full stats and outputs that make sense...it will also screw the colony-based systems as their default fuel only lasts a few days.  When I installed it I was happy to see the reactors from the other packs had thermal stats and all, but then I had to emergency drop new reactors to all my bases and tweak the temp/EC output loads.

[RoverDude]

1 hour ago, adgriff2 said:

Not sure if this is an MKS misunderstanding or a general KSP misunderstanding. I'm trying to figure out how many MKS Ranger Thermal Control Systems I need to cool a given reactor. If you compare the required cooling of the reactors to the max cooling of the TCS, it seems you need a ton of TCSs. However, when i set up a reactor with a single TCS outside, it seems to work fine for long time periods, not even getting up to 1k degrees.

They operate exactly like radiators do for core heat, but only operate landing.  Just look at the max cooling and compare it to the required cooling for the parts in quesiton.

38 minutes ago, Kerbal101 said:

I would pretty much second this and I am in the same position. I would like more complex habitation and comfort with base building properties of USI, but with added Radiation, Part Reliability and Oxygen - which are only supported in Kerbalism.  If I pick Kerbalism, then I leave the complexity and tools to build such detailed bases.

If anyone knows a mod that adds these three features and is compatible with USI, please respond.

 

There are other mods for part reliability.  I think Nertea was working on radiation (and USI-LS will be adding a simplified version down the road).  Oxygen is rolled into Supplies in USI-LS already (no need for it as a separate resource IMO, as USI-LS has already abstracted all of this).

[adgriff2]

I'm trying to get a handle on the resource flow so I can plan out my base instead of adding things haphazardly as I have been doing. The resource flow chart on the wiki and associated descriptions below have been very helpful: https://github.com/BobPalmer/MKS/wiki/Resources It's missing a few things (such as minerals to fertilizer) but overall it's pretty complete.

However, what I'm unable to find on the wiki is what my converter options are. If you poke around enough, you can find the MKS Ranger Crush-O-Matic Portable Extractor can convert gypsum and minerals to fertilizer, but are there other options? I'm unable to find any reference to Hydrates -> water for example. Currently the only way I know to get this planning info is to hover over every single MKS part in-game and see if it has a conversion module. Is there a better way to get a list of all converters' capabilities?

[DStaal]

26 minutes ago, adgriff2 said:

I'm trying to get a handle on the resource flow so I can plan out my base instead of adding things haphazardly as I have been doing. The resource flow chart on the wiki and associated descriptions below have been very helpful: https://github.com/BobPalmer/MKS/wiki/Resources It's missing a few things (such as minerals to fertilizer) but overall it's pretty complete.

However, what I'm unable to find on the wiki is what my converter options are. If you poke around enough, you can find the MKS Ranger Crush-O-Matic Portable Extractor can convert gypsum and minerals to fertilizer, but are there other options? I'm unable to find any reference to Hydrates -> water for example. Currently the only way I know to get this planning info is to hover over every single MKS part in-game and see if it has a conversion module. Is there a better way to get a list of all converters' capabilities?

You want this page:

https://github.com/BobPalmer/MKS/wiki/Functions-(Manufacturing)