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

[Grobluk]

15 hours ago, jd284 said:

What was your old version? If it's older than March 28, then this FPS drop may be temporary.

If I remember right, the fix to bug #1233 requires that the first time after upgrading, catchup processing with efficiency parts has to run for quite a bit longer for each vessel. This can mean some noticeable FPS drop for a minute or two (of physics time, not game time so time warp won't help). After that it should stabilize however.

So check if your FPS gets better after a while. If you save afterwards it should be normal from then on, and only lower during the actual catchup processing after coming back to a vessel that you hadn't focused for a while.

But if it doesn't get better after 5 or 10 minutes, this is some different issue though that should be looked into after all.

Thanks for the reply jd284. The "old" version is the lastest release on Github (0.50.18.0). Installing the pre-release on top of 0.50.18.0 / deleting 0.50.18.0 and manually installing the pre-release causes the drop in framerate when focussing large bases. I tried letting it run for about 30 minutes real-time without seeing any improvement. The drop in framerate does not make the game unplayable, it's just annoying. 

Re-installing 0.50.18.0 completely removes the problem. 

[voicey99]

6 hours ago, N3N said:

Nice one, but what is with this pink (?) color?

You can adjust the RGB values on light to change their colour (adv. tweakable?). In this instance, they just reduced the green component to zero to make pink.

[Voodoo8648]

8 hours ago, RoverDude said:

No, nor can it ever be.  Kerbalism is an example of a mod that solves the background processing issue by completely overriding all stock converters, and cutting features of stock that MKS relies on.  So the two mods are fundamentally incompatible.  No patch is going to solve this.

Ok! Thanks you for replying

Is MKS compatible with Tac LS? Example, will the greenhouse supply the food requirements that TAC imposes? Or is MKS made specifically for USI life Support? 

Edited May 5, 2017 by Voodoo8648

[DStaal]

22 minutes ago, Voodoo8648 said:

Ok! Thanks you for replying

Is MKS compatible with Tac LS? Example, will the greenhouse supply the food requirements that TAC imposes? Or is MKS made specifically for USI life Support? 

That's definitely in the 'supply a patch and RoverDude will include it' camp.  I think there's an old patch in there, but I'm not sure how well it works at this point.

MKS is definitely made to work best with USI-LS, but aside from Kerbalism I don't think there's any reason it couldn't support another LS mod - but RoverDude has plenty to keep himself busy with stuff he *does* use, so anything else would only be supported if someone else submitted it.

[voicey99]

1 hour ago, Voodoo8648 said:

Ok! Thanks you for replying

Is MKS compatible with Tac LS? Example, will the greenhouse supply the food requirements that TAC imposes? Or is MKS made specifically for USI life Support? 

I've never used USI LS. Is it better?

Feedback from anybody is welcome

MKS comes with TAC-LS support out of the box, but it is still only a half-unofficial compat patch and RD does not actively develop it, but the community occasionally does, so the compatibility status is unknown (I think it works atm).

As for which LS mod, TAC is more 'realistic' with separate food, water and oxygen, while USI rolls all these together under generic 'supplies', which means it's simpler to transport and produce. However, USI also includes the 'habitation' caveat, which means you actually have to give your kerbals some space instead of just sticking them in a tin can and blasting them off to Eeloo for a century. It also has the (by default) option to turn kerbals into tourists when their supply (plus a 15-day grace period after they run out) or habitation timer (can be extended with additional seats and parts that have ModuleHabitation i.e. the PPD-4, bits from MKS and various crew modules from SXT) ticks down to zero , so it's a bit more 'kerbal' instead of the only outcomes being 'die, die or die'.

MKS is engineered around the demands of USI-LS and without it parts such as kerbitats and the habring are just heavy and expensive eyecandy and I would recommend using USI-LS for MKS and a normal game, and TAC-LS for use with a more KSP-ROish mod suite.

Edited May 5, 2017 by voicey99

[Voodoo8648]

@voicey99 Thank you for the explanation. Given that Tac LS is already included into MKS, I think I will stick to TAC... Unless both, USI LS and TAC are compatible at the same time, then I'll download USI LS as well

I have another question: Is EPL needed or required or is MKS a replacement for EPL? 

[Danilo Coelho]

After this last update i`m also having problems with low fps ratios near bases.

[Terwin]

5 minutes ago, Voodoo8648 said:

@voicey99 Thank you for the explanation. Given that Tac LS is already included into MKS, I think I will stick to TAC... Unless both, USI LS and TAC are compatible at the same time, then I'll download USI LS as well

I have another question: Is EPL needed or required or is MKS a replacement for EPL? 

MKS includes GC which is a (partial) replacement for EPL.

TAC LS and USI-LS can be run together, but you probably want to set the 'bad stuff' for not enough supplies or EC to 'none' as I think TAC-LS handles that part already.  That just leaves you with the habitation and home-sickness parts of USI-LS.

(if you really want you can have your kerbals consuming both supplies and TAC-LS supplies, but that seems excessive)

[RoverDude]

Ok probably want to avoid the pre-release then till I see why we're getting lower FPS

[Plecy75]

i've noticed a bug with the inflatable rings: they will not inflate outside the VAB. this kinda defeats the purpose of inflatable rings...

[TheRagingIrishman]

8 minutes ago, Plecy75 said:

i've noticed a bug with the inflatable rings: they will not inflate outside the VAB. this kinda defeats the purpose of inflatable rings...

You need to EVA a kerbal and then right click on the ring. You'll also need 46000 Material Kits in order to deploy the hab.

[Plecy75]

1 minute ago, TheRagingIrishman said:

You need to EVA a kerbal and then right click on the ring. You'll also need 46000 Material Kits in order to deploy the hab.

oh, that makes more sense now. where do you get the material kits?

[Voodoo8648]

1 minute ago, Plecy75 said:

oh, that makes more sense now. where do you get the material kits?

Here... I'm watching this right now as we speak. I am also new to MKS

 

[TheRagingIrishman]

Just now, Plecy75 said:

oh, that makes more sense now. where do you get the material kits?

any of the rectangular prism shaped or white cylindrical Kontainers can be configured to hold Material Kits. There is a production chain you can use to get them from resources you drill out of planets but it's very complicated (more details-->https://github.com/UmbraSpaceIndustries/MKS/wiki/Functions-(Mining) and https://github.com/UmbraSpaceIndustries/MKS/wiki/Functions-(Manufacturing)) so I'd recomend just shipping them from Kerbin to start.

[Voodoo8648]

I'm noticing that a lot of the parts are not searchable in the search bar,

For example: If I search for 'kontainer' nothing shows up... this is just one example.

What's wrong?

[TheRagingIrishman]

2 minutes ago, Voodoo8648 said:

I'm noticing that a lot of the parts are not searchable in the search bar,

For example: If I search for 'kontainer' nothing shows up... this is just one example.

What's wrong?

Bug between stock game and using custom categories. RoverDude's looking into it.

Edited May 6, 2017 by TheRagingIrishman
spelling

[Mandella]

So with MKS giving me so many real materials to mine and process, do I really need Karbonite in my RSS game?

[TheRagingIrishman]

23 minutes ago, Mandella said:

So with MKS giving me so many real materials to mine and process, do I really need Karbonite in my RSS game?

MKS doesn't do anything for making fuel. Karbonite is all about fuel resources.

[FrontLineFodder]

I'm having trouble with the GC packaged with the Constellation.

my Workshops keep pausing construction around 31% complete with the error message

Quote

Not enough energy. Construction of Mining Rover was put on hold

I have two Scout 200-Power Pack's that is able to provide 2x the energy for the interim colony, how much energy is required for GC ?

[RoverDude]

3 hours ago, FrontLineFodder said:

I'm having trouble with the GC packaged with the Constellation.

my Workshops keep pausing construction around 31% complete with the error message

I have two Scout 200-Power Pack's that is able to provide 2x the energy for the interim colony, how much energy is required for GC ?

Grab the nuclear reactors, the scout power packs are pretty low efficiency and are there more as an initial bootstrap option

[FrontLineFodder]

2 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

Grab the nuclear reactors, the scout power packs are pretty low efficiency and are there more as an initial bootstrap option

Should I remove the Scout power packs once a nuclear reactor is in place ? (i'm thinking of the PDU logic)

[voicey99]

12 minutes ago, FrontLineFodder said:

Should I remove the Scout power packs once a nuclear reactor is in place ? (i'm thinking of the PDU logic)

You shouldn't need it in the first place, the standard reactors are vastly superior to the SPP in all ways-the 1.25m reactor weighs the same (after radiator addition), generates 4.6x as much power, costs less than half and can be refuelled with fuel that costs a fifth as much and does not decrease output as it depletes. The SPPs need a serious buff if they are to be competitive with the standard reactors, because atm the only advantages they have is a more Ranger-y look and a lower profile.

Edited May 6, 2017 by voicey99

[RoverDude]

1 minute ago, voicey99 said:

You shouldn't need it in the first place, the standard reactors are vastly superior to the SPP in all ways-the 1.25m reactor weighs the same (after radiator addition), generates 4.6x as much power, costs less than half and can be refuelled with fuel that costs a fifth as much.. The SPPs need a serious buff if they are to be competitive with the standard reactors, because atm the only advantages they have is a more Ranger-y look and a lower profile.

they should also be earlier in the tech tree, and they also serve as couplers/distributors

[FrontLineFodder]

3 minutes ago, voicey99 said:

You shouldn't need it in the first place, the standard reactors are vastly superior to the SPP in all ways-the 1.25m reactor weighs the same (after radiator addition), generates 4.6x as much power, costs less than half and can be refuelled with fuel that costs a fifth as much.. The SPPs need a serious buff if they are to be competitive with the standard reactors, because atm the only advantages they have is a more Ranger-y look and a lower profile.

funny thing is, the Karabou rover i'm trying to build, has a 1.25M reactor in the service bay

 

21 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

Grab the nuclear reactors, the scout power packs are pretty low efficiency and are there more as an initial bootstrap option

is there a set amount of energy needed for Ground construction ? or is it dependant on the vehicle being built ?

Edited May 6, 2017 by FrontLineFodder

[voicey99]

4 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

they should also be earlier in the tech tree, and they also serve as couplers/distributors

Sure, but there is no place for them in the late game after inventing reactors, which is the sort of time people generally start thinking about colonies over getting out and doing science.