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

[shinobi614]

28 minutes ago, TheRagingIrishman said:

post your KSP.log and a screenshot of your GameData and UmbraSpaceIndustries folders and I'll see if I can help

Here ya go

Log

USI Folder

Gamedata Folder

[TheRagingIrishman]

@shinobi614 you can't use mods made for 1.2 in 1.1.3. and the constellation pack is only for 1.2.x. To use the USI suite in 1.1.3 you will need to download older versions of the mods individually (links are in the spoiler) but I'd recommend simply moving to KSP 1.2.2.

Spoiler

https://github.com/BobPalmer/ExplorationPack/releases/tag/0.5.4.0

https://github.com/BobPalmer/FTT/releases/tag/0.5.4.0

https://github.com/BobPalmer/Karbonite/releases/tag/0.7.4.0

https://github.com/theRagingIrishman/KarbonitePlus/releases/tag/0.6.4.0

https://github.com/theRagingIrishman/Karibou/releases/tag/0.2.4.0

https://github.com/BobPalmer/Malemute/releases/tag/0.1.4.0

https://github.com/BobPalmer/MKS/releases/tag/0.40.4.0

https://github.com/BobPalmer/SrvPack/releases/tag/0.5.4.0

https://github.com/BobPalmer/SubPack/releases/tag/0.1.4.0

2 of these are on my own Github because RD's removed their repos and bundled them into other mods

Edited April 17, 2017 by TheRagingIrishman

[shinobi614]

Ah, that would make sense! Yup, just caved and upgraded, hopefully nothing save breaking happens. Thanks again!

[Baladain]

@RoverDude I understand that when you disassemble a part into material kits you lose mass in the process (50% return, I think?) because getting 100% recyclability of old parts into new is just silly.  But wouldn't it make more sense to have the remaining mass turn into recyclables rather than simply vanishing?  My apologies if this is a rehash.  I think it may improve the value of recycling center as well.

Spent several hours filling a 3.75 kontainer with kits from all the junk I left orbiting minmus, and my inner physicist kept screaming at me about conservation of mass.

Edited April 18, 2017 by Baladain

[jd284]

1 minute ago, Baladain said:

@RoverDude I understand that when you disassemble a part into material kits you lose mass in the process (50% return, I think?) because getting 100% recyclability of old parts into new is just silly.  But wouldn't it make more sense to have the remaining mass turn into recyclables rather than simply vanishing?

You lose even more mass with the alternative, when you just crash it into the surface instead...

However rather than creating a new resource for useless junk, it's just not carried into the vessel and discarded. It's not that the "missing" mass is destroyed, though. It just doesn't become part of the vessel like the rest.

[goldenpsp]

7 minutes ago, Baladain said:

@RoverDude I understand that when you disassemble a part into material kits you lose mass in the process (50% return, I think?) because getting 100% recyclability of old parts into new is just silly.  But wouldn't it make more sense to have the remaining mass turn into recyclables rather than simply vanishing?  My apologies if this is a rehash.  I think it may improve the value of recycling center as well.

Spent several hours filling a 3.75 kontainer with kits from all the junk I left orbiting minmus, and my inner physicist kept screaming at me about conservation of mass.

I put it in line with power couplers that Kerbals "plug in" and other things that happen without us actually seeing it.

When you disassemble anything you almost never recover 100% useful material.  some of it has to be broken/discarded in the process.  It isn't "vanishing" it is simply unusable junk, and why would the kerbals "store" that junk rather than just dispose of it in the background.

@jd284 types faster than me.

Edited April 18, 2017 by goldenpsp

[Baladain]

1 minute ago, jd284 said:

You lose even more mass with the alternative, when you just crash it into the surface instead...

However rather than creating a new resource for useless junk, it's just not carried into the vessel and discarded. It's not that the "missing" mass is destroyed, though. It just doesn't become part of the vessel like the rest.

What new resource?  Recyclables is already a thing in MKS.  Everything that uses machinery produces it, and there's a recycling center that turns it bank into useful stuff.

[voicey99]

1 minute ago, jd284 said:

However rather than creating a new resource for useless junk, it's just not carried into the vessel and discarded. It's not that the "missing" mass is destroyed, though. It just doesn't become part of the vessel like the rest.

What I think @Baladain is suggesting is that half the mass would become MKTs and half would become recyclables. Isn't that what "recyclables" are anyway-bits of broken machinery, discarded nuts and bolts, components too worn to be useful.... Bits of parts that aren't useful (the "lost" mass) would make perfect sense to be turned into recyclables, because they are all going to have reclaimable materials in them.

[Baladain]

2 minutes ago, goldenpsp said:

I put it in line with power couplers that Kerbals "plug in" and other things that happen without us actually seeing it.

When you disassemble anything you almost never recover 100% useful material.  some of it has to be broken/discarded in the process.  It isn't "vanishing" it is simply unusable junk, and why would the kerbals "store" that junk rather than just dispose of it in the background.

@jd284 types faster than me.

Isn't broken/discarded unusable junk the basic definition of the recyclables resource?

[goldenpsp]

Just now, Baladain said:

Isn't broken/discarded unusable junk the basic definition of the recyclables resource?

Not everything is always recyclable.  I think that is the point.  Even IRL recycling has its limits.

[jd284]

Just now, voicey99 said:

What I think @Baladain is suggesting is that half the mass would become MKTs and half would become recyclables. Isn't that what "recyclables" are anyway-bits of broken machinery, discarded nuts and bolts, components too worn to be useful.... Bits of parts that aren't useful (the "lost" mass) would make perfect sense to be turned into recyclables, because they are all going to have reclaimable materials in them.

Presumably it was @RoverDude's choice not to do it like that, especially since the demo charge gives you the choice of either 50% Materialkits or 50% recyclables.

Getting both at the same time would mean you'd have a 100% recycling rate, which nobody has achieved even on earth, let alone in space, so that'd be rather broken.

[voicey99]

4 minutes ago, jd284 said:

Presumably it was @RoverDude's choice not to do it like that, especially since the demo charge gives you the choice of either 50% Materialkits or 50% recyclables.

Getting both at the same time would mean you'd have a 100% recycling rate, which nobody has achieved even on earth, let alone in space, so that'd be rather broken.

Point taken. I guess you need to blow it up to be in a condition suitable for feeding into the recycler.

[Baladain]

5 minutes ago, jd284 said:

 

Getting both at the same time would mean you'd have a 100% recycling rate, which nobody has achieved even on earth, let alone in space, so that'd be rather broken.

False.  Recycling "recyclables" into metals/polymers/chemicals has a 40% loss built in

[goldenpsp]

5 minutes ago, Baladain said:

False.  Recycling "recyclables" into metals/polymers/chemicals has a 40% loss built in

Change @jd284's quote from recycling to "recovery rate" and it still holds true.

Bottom line, for gameplay/balance reasons you don't get it all back.  It isn't going poof and breaking physics laws.  It is just being dealt with in an abstracted way like so many other things in KSP.

[Baladain]

8 minutes ago, goldenpsp said:

Change @jd284's quote from recycling to "recovery rate" and it still holds true.

Bottom line, for gameplay/balance reasons you don't get it all back.  It isn't going poof and breaking physics laws.  It is just being dealt with in an abstracted way like so many other things in KSP.

The initial point of the question was to get @RoverDude's opinion on whether or not it is currently play balanced properly.

[voicey99]

2 minutes ago, Baladain said:

The initial point of the question was to get @RoverDude's opinion on whether or not it is currently play balanced properly.

The best way to gauge that would be to submit a pull request with the changes you want to make and see whether or not he accepts it.

Edited April 18, 2017 by voicey99

[goldenpsp]

1 minute ago, Baladain said:

The initial point of the question was to get @RoverDude's opinion on whether or not it is currently play balanced properly.

Well then you may have been better off leaving it to the question rather than adding the somewhat obviously distracting comments about it messing with your inner physicist.  When given multiple components to a post people will invariably latch onto the wrong part (including me).

[Gilph]

Made my first base from a DIY box. Started like:

Spoiler

Then went to:

Spoiler

4.5 days later, deployed it and it bounced pretty good

Spoiler

But settled nicely, now I can make organics:

Spoiler

Pretty cool stuff.

 

[JadeOfMaar]

15 hours ago, Gilph said:

Pretty cool stuff.

Fabulous* stuff.  

[voicey99]

16 hours ago, Gilph said:

Made my first base from a DIY box.

Wait, you can ship entire designs as DIY Kits? I have to try out GC ASP.

Just add water, right?

[RoverDude]

Yep now you see why I bundle it!

 

[JadeOfMaar]

4 minutes ago, voicey99 said:

Wait, you can ship entire designs as DIY Kits? I have to try out GC ASP.

Just add water, right?

Not water. Elbow grease. But you get the point. It's that convenient, lol.  

[sh1pman]

@RoverDude I tested the new cradle250.mu. Cradles do shake still, but it's much better than it was before. Sadly, nothing seems to fix the base sliding issue. I don't think cradles have anything to do with sliding, though.

[voicey99]

5 minutes ago, sh1pman said:

@RoverDude I tested the new cradle250.mu. Cradles do shake still, but it's much better than it was before. Sadly, nothing seems to fix the base sliding issue. I don't think cradles have anything to do with sliding, though.

Have you tried anchoring it with KIS?

[RoverDude]

7 minutes ago, sh1pman said:

@RoverDude I tested the new cradle250.mu. Cradles do shake still, but it's much better than it was before. Sadly, nothing seems to fix the base sliding issue. I don't think cradles have anything to do with sliding, though.

Ok, going to try one other thing though it is a tethering change.  Will toss you a test DLL