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

[strongest_2hu]

30 minutes ago, StarConquest said:

I'd love to see a file where I could chose to have kerbals die when they run out of resources.

You can change that behavior from the Life Support control panel at the Space Center overview screen.

[gamerscircle]

Since I am confused still.. in regards to the new Automated drills, do I need an MPU for "push" the resources?

[RoverDude]

Yes - only MPUs have push built in, drills do not.

 

[Jebs_SY]

3 hours ago, Tuko said:

OK, that's what I thought.......I'm not gonna cry but I just learned a hard lesson......but definitively a breaking bad moment, lol.

For that you can use the S.A.V.E mod, that can backup all games from the KSP main menu (also automatically).
And/or the "Automated Screenshots and Saves" mod, which can backup the game all x minutes (good if you forget F5). (I am using both.)

You can still have luck and find a backup directory in KSP\Saves\YourGameName from a backup made by Kerbal Alarm Clock vessel switching.

[Gilph]

4 hours ago, Gilph said:

Tried out some things:

A single 2.5 MPU, both bays making Chemicals, two Meu500-A, all 6 separators set to Minerals. I only needed two surface radiators and a single ranger TCS. Total EC was 210/sec which fits just under a 1.25 nuke.

Using the 500s, you drill way faster than you can make. I was drilling 1.6 per sec minerals, but making less than .01/sec Chemicals.

So, from a design perspective, the MPU cant replace a refinery bay for high volume production like Chemicals or Silicon. You can still use big drills to push resources to PL and feed your big refinery bays, and the MPU replaces the Logistic module and can also make a fractional amount of Tier 1 mats, which helps a little. For the smaller resources, using small drills and the new short nuke can be a good solution.

OK...i learned the dangers of testing on different installs, especially when you have no bonuses in the test instance.

I took the above config into my career save, where it kinda melted down.  One 500-a drill was running at close to 1200%.

Changed to three 100-A drills, all minerals, one 2,5 MPU, one Ranger TCS, and a 1.25 nuke with 2 surface panels.  Each drill runs at 423%, Ranger TCS at 60%, nuke at 77%, MPL at 846% Chemicals. No thermal issues.

Conclusion is still the same as above.  I drill .55/sec minerals but still only make .01/sec chemicals. The big advantage is mining at a higher unattended rate to feed my remote refineries and the ability to contribute some chemicals once in a while.

Here it is:

[DStaal]

Just wanted to note that since the official MKS EL parts are now depreciated, I've sent in a PR to allow EL's parts through.  I propose the rest of that file (the recipes, requiring MKS resources) be treated like TAC-LS support: Present, and if anyone submits PR's it'll get updated, but RoverDude will make no effort himself to make sure it still works.

[gamerscircle]

Alright, so I did it again..

I setup a rover with [hopefully] the correct about of EC and Cooling and tested it on Kerbin:

https://youtu.be/ySziMwC0tgk?t=35m49s

I go through each part and wait as the heat and power ramp up.. it works!  I was very happy.  [like I actually read the manual and listened tot he smarter people in the forums]

However;  I make a very slight modification to the rover.  I remove a unneeded reactor and put in the MPU [didn't know I needed this] and ship it off to the Mun, the heating/cooling is all out of wack.

https://youtu.be/ySziMwC0tgk?t=1h32m21s

Again, looking for some assistance here?

[Hofelinger]

New user here, if I'm unable to see MKS on the CKAN repository should I contact the good folks over at CKAN? Or post a troubleshooting request here?

[ExavierMacbeth]

38 minutes ago, Hofelinger said:

New user here, if I'm unable to see MKS on the CKAN repository should I contact the good folks over at CKAN? Or post a troubleshooting request here?

As mentioned over the last couple of pages, there was an update that changed the MKS requirements in reguards to Ground Construction. The problem is that the new Ground COnstruction Core that it requires hasn't been approved and added to the CKAN list yet. We just have to wait.

[jd284]

14 hours ago, Baladain said:

If it is, please don't fix it.

It's not game breaking, since your converters still consume the resources, they just consume it from storage instead of from the supply on the converter itself.

This also has the added benefit of being able to lock machinery at a specific level on each converter, thus allowing it to function as a governor.

Agreed, being able to lock Machinery levels is extremely useful. All my bases have machinery production capabilities, so if I don't lock it the production will fill up all parts which messes up their carefully balanced loads.

Honestly I'd consider this a breaking change and would stop updating MKS if this changed without having governors for each part.

And yeah, it isn't a cheat or anything either. They still consume the same amount of machinery. Basically it just means that as soon as some machinery breaks, the engineer takes a replacement part from the stores and install it right away instead of waiting for the daily maintenance. What's the big deal?

[stk2008]

Hi there so sorry if this is the wrong place but may I get some help please?

 

Basically I am getting a load of red errors come up when loading the game eg

Texture `UmbraSpaceIndustries/MKS/Assets/DustParticle not found

Texture `UmbraSpaceIndustries/MKS/Assets/Shared_NRM not found

 

I am also getting these errors

 

Cannot find a PartModule of typename `ModulelifeSupportRecycler`

I have installed the mods correctly as I have a few other mods that all work with out errors

 

There is a fair few more please advise

 

thanks in advance

 

EDIT

I was going to install Konstruction as well but then see that it is already in the umbra folder?.

I would also like to instal a few other mods from

http://bobpalmer.github.io/UmbraSpaceIndustries/

but am unsure what modular Kolonization actually contains as it seems to have some of the USI mods already in it is this correct?

 

Edited February 26, 2017 by stk2008

[Aaron Also]

I"m having an issue with some parts not allowing me to change the configuration in the VAB. i.e. the inflatable hab modules. They default to greenhouses, but I cannot switch them to living space. Am I just missing something here or is this the USI tools issue?

I have removed and updated USI tools many times, current version 0.20.16   --    MKS 0.50.16.0

I feel like in all the updating I've done recently I may have messed something up.

[RoverDude]

Do you use USI-LS?  If not, then those configs don't really matter as the extra ones are USI-LS specific 

[voicey99]

26 minutes ago, stk2008 said:

Basically I am getting a load of red errors come up when loading the game eg

Texture `UmbraSpaceIndustries/MKS/Assets/DustParticle not found

Texture `UmbraSpaceIndustries/MKS/Assets/Shared_NRM not found

 

<schnip>

I was going to install Konstruction as well but then see that it is already in the umbra folder?.

I would also like to install a few other mods from

http://bobpalmer.github.io/UmbraSpaceIndustries/

but am unsure what modular Kolonization actually contains as it seems to have some of the USI mods already in it is this correct?

 

USI is actually a wide collection of mods, and MKS, being part of the greater USI set, comes bundled with a few of them that work best with it or are essential for it to function (Konstruction for assembling bases, the Karibou for scouting and logistics, Kontainers for logistics etc.). The only absolute necessity mods are CRP/CCK, FX, Firespitter (?), Kontainers and USITools, but the others will make your life a lot easier when using MKS. If you want the whole lot, get it here, but be aware some mods might update in between Constellation bundle releases.

As for the missing textures, it might be referring to the known bug that the ME-100 Pulse Drill produced grey squares instead of dust particles when drilling.

7 minutes ago, Aaron Also said:

I"m having an issue with some parts not allowing me to change the configuration in the VAB. i.e. the inflatable hab modules. They default to greenhouses, but I cannot switch them to living space. Am I just missing something here or is this the USI tools issue?

I have removed and updated USI tools many times, current version 0.20.16   --    MKS 0.50.16.0

I feel like in all the updating I've done recently I may have messed something up.

You've desynced your MKS and USITools versions. USITools 0.20.16 is for MKS 0.50.17. Not sure if that's the problem, but it certainly won't help.

Edited February 26, 2017 by voicey99

[RoverDude]

10 hours ago, DStaal said:

Just wanted to note that since the official MKS EL parts are now depreciated, I've sent in a PR to allow EL's parts through.  I propose the rest of that file (the recipes, requiring MKS resources) be treated like TAC-LS support: Present, and if anyone submits PR's it'll get updated, but RoverDude will make no effort himself to make sure it still works.

The only rub... is that any included community config will have to MM edit the EL parts to use an MKS chain, or we just don't include alternate configs at all.  Otherwise, stuff gets wonky (and we head down the path of why I ultimately dropped native EL support anyway).

[stk2008]

Thanks for the reply great work btw love USI stuff

[justspace103]

i bet this question is asked alot since the release of the last update but can i run extraplanetary launchpads and ground construction with MKS at the same time without breaking everything?

[RoverDude]

Just now, justspace103 said:

i bet this question is asked alot since the release of the last update but can i run extraplanetary launchpads and ground construction with MKS at the same time without breaking everything?

Yep, they do not conflict.

 

[justspace103]

Just now, RoverDude said:

Yep, they do not conflict.

 

Awesome! thanks so much and love USI  

[ISE]

kerbalism and MKS, any conflicts with those?

[Aaron Also]

1 minute ago, ISE said:

kerbalism and MKS, any conflicts with those?

That would be a clear NO GO

It is in the release notes. TAC-LS and USI-LS are the only supported life support mods I think. Kerbalism is not supported.

[voicey99]

1 minute ago, ISE said:

kerbalism and MKS, any conflicts with those?

Absolutely. Kerbalism overrides some pretty important stock mechanics MKS relies on. One of these is the resource catchup (since Kerbalism tries to simulate all unloaded vessels instead, which doesn't work with MKS), not sure about any others.

[RoverDude]

I would add - and more for the folks that do not watch me stream and chat about stuff like this...

The intent was always to have native base construction (one way or the other) as part of MKS.  I have a pretty hard and fast rule that I make no assumptions about installed mods - it's why that while MKS supports KAS/KIS, it works fine without it.  So whenever there's a core bit I depend on, I either make it myself (USI-LS, CRP), help maintain it (CCK, Firespitter), or have access to the repo to help out with releases in case I need a day-zero compile (or someone gets hit by a bus (Ground Construction).

This is important because there are a lot of things I want to do that explicitly depend on certain features existing - namely, reliable in-situ construction of large base components - that I needed in place before they could be released.  So when I can operate on the assumption that stuff will always be there, it opens up options.

I was originally going to roll my own (and was just about to...) when it turns out @allista made like... 90% of what I wanted.  More importantly, we share the same philosophy regarding the importance of constraints, and there was a willingness to collaborate and make sure that the experience with Ground Construction was the same (or very similar) with or without MKS.  This is the same approach I took with OSE workshop.  In that case, I had no problem completely reworking MKS to work with MaterialKits (the resource @ObiVanDamme created with OSE Workshop), since it made for a seamless experience.  The key takeaway being that both of these experiences (GC Integration and OSE Workshop integration) have resulted in far better interop than was really possible with EL.  

The good news being that with GC being as much a part of MKS as Firespitter or CRP, it means that I can focus on some other parts, but also invest time helping @allista make GC a better mod, and by extension, increase it's functionality in MKS, without having to worry about mismatches in interop.

 

For EL, it will be just like any other mod - there are no direct conflicts, but no assumed support.  Patches will be community based, and very likely, optional.  Because by definition, any EL patch is going to mess with how EL works, and will require either new parts or configs to EL - i.e. the entire reason, with the lack of an official EL 'detailed mode' I could dovetail off of, that got us to where things stand now.

5 minutes ago, voicey99 said:

Absolutely. Kerbalism overrides some pretty important stock mechanics MKS relies on. One of these is the resource catchup (since Kerbalism tries to simulate all unloaded vessels instead, which doesn't work with MKS), not sure about any others.

To dig in a bit - and this may have changed - to handle the performance tradeoffs Kerbalism uses for this, it cuts a few of the less-used stock mechanics out.  Mechanics that MKS very much depends on to work, as MKS is very tightly coupled to the stock resource and converter system.  So anything that fundamentally changes this or swaps it out is going to have some really weird effects.  

@DStaal - going to hold off on merging anything EL related since either (a) we assume that there's no EL config change to the MKS production path (in which case, all we need to do is remove the current EL config entirely), or (b) if an optional EL config is included, it will need to override the behavior of EL parts to match the MKS production chain.   I am ambivalent on this, either one works, since it's kinda in the same boat as TAC-LS (i.e. it works... but it is not native).

[Aaron Also]

14 minutes ago, voicey99 said:

You've desynced your MKS and USITools versions. USITools 0.20.16 is for MKS 0.50.17. Not sure if that's the problem, but it certainly won't help.

OK let me clarify cause I'm not sure what I'm missing here.

I just deleted USI Tools folder, downloaded MKS 0.15.17 and installed it all, including the USI Tools folder from the zip. No change for me.

I can switch to "Next Cargo" on parts like Storage Modules

I cannot switch to "Next Bay" on parts like the Expandable Habs

 

What am I missing now?

[voicey99]

2 minutes ago, Aaron Also said:

OK let me clarify cause I'm not sure what I'm missing here.

I just deleted USI Tools folder, downloaded MKS 0.15.17 and installed it all, including the USI Tools folder from the zip. No change for me.

I can switch to "Next Cargo" on parts like Storage Modules

I cannot switch to "Next Bay" on parts like the Expandable Habs

 

What am I missing now?

Are you using USI-LS? If you're not, then the hab function (which is the other type of bay) on the expandable habs (or kerbitats, for that matter) won't work.

Edited February 26, 2017 by voicey99