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

[jd284]

6 minutes ago, voicey99 said:

The spreadsheet says it should weigh 0.119t, so it almost does. The law of diminishing returns applies strongly with USI-LS recyclers, since adding 1% to 60% adds a LOT more weight than adding 1% to 50%. The big SXT cabin can support 42 kerbs at 60% for 21.5EC/s

OK, 42 at 60% is a good deal, and that makes sense since you only need a single part with a high percentage, for the bulk you just need throughput. The high efficiency recycler obviously would be a specialized part, but for bulk, a low percentage with high number of kerbals supported would be ideal. Basically you'd want to maximize the product of percentage times kerbal count. I haven't looked at the spreadsheet to see if there's an optimal percentage... could be that the "optimum" would be a million 1% recyclers... which would be a bit broken.

[voicey99]

35 minutes ago, jd284 said:

OK, 42 at 60% is a good deal, and that makes sense since you only need a single part with a high percentage, for the bulk you just need throughput. The high efficiency recycler obviously would be a specialized part, but for bulk, a low percentage with high number of kerbals supported would be ideal. Basically you'd want to maximize the product of percentage times kerbal count. I haven't looked at the spreadsheet to see if there's an optimal percentage... could be that the "optimum" would be a million 1% recyclers... which would be a bit broken.

I'd rather not add 42 at 60% (since there are so few situations that would need to support such a massive population), but it's more of proof-of-concept to show that this approach is viable.

The mass added by each additional % uses a slab system, so each additional % from 0-50 adds 1kg to the mass, from 51-60 it adds 5kg, from 61-70 it adds 25kg, from 71-80 it adds 100kg, from 81-95 it adds 500kg and from 96-100 it adds 100kg. Excluding the mass added for crew slots (0.1t per slot), the crew affected mult (a simple multiplier) and the crash tolerance mult (±5% for each m/s away from 8), a 100% recycler would weigh a minimum of 9.35t. EC/s also follows a similar slab system (except no dip in cost at the end).

[JadeOfMaar]

On 6/10/2017 at 9:03 AM, voicey99 said:

The 750-series propellers from Karbonite are referred to ingame as 'turboprops' but, judging from their design, I'm almost certain they're propfans instead. Could someone clarify?

When I went renaming those open-bladed engines I ran into this same confusion and had to jump-rope through related Wikipedia articles to decide which it was that one of those particular engines is.  

3 hours ago, jd284 said:

So here's my current obsession, the Wernher von Kerman MkIII:

That. That, is a ship. I salute you.

1 hour ago, voicey99 said:

I consider it cheaty (as the AD is a piece of very contentious and highly theoretical science), but I don't whinge about it-I just don't use it myself. I'll refer to it as 'highly speculative warp drive' from now on, then.

I wouldn't call the Alcubierre Drives a cheat. Once you know what the drawback is, it's technically clearly no longer a cheat. Some others have mentioned that (and I've seen for myself through personal use) when you use that thing you have to account for conservation of velocity. When you warp from Kerbin to Moho, you still need to have a fully fueled Karborundum Fusion Drive to deal with the escape path that you find yourself on, or worse yet, you have zero horizontal velocity and are already falling very very fast at the planet.

50 minutes ago, voicey99 said:

The spreadsheet says it should weigh 0.119t, so it almost does. The law of diminishing returns applies strongly with USI-LS recyclers, since adding 1% to 60% adds a LOT more weight than adding 1% to 50%. The big SXT cabin can support 42 kerbs at 60% for 21.5EC/s

About the LS recycler thing, I've run into the same issue. I'm wondering how to configure the recycler part I'm writing among the coming Mk3 parts for my mod, Airline Kuisine. It currently supports 8 kerbals at 70% but I'm unaware of the mass relation to efficiency. It can contain at least 8x RT-500s... Maybe I should nerf the efficiency. I'm a little nervous about making it weigh as much as a Vector engine cluster...

[voicey99]

2 hours ago, JadeOfMaar said:

When I went renaming those open-bladed engines I ran into this same confusion and had to jump-rope through related Wikipedia articles to decide which it was that one of those particular engines is.  

I wouldn't call the Alcubierre Drives a cheat. Once you know what the drawback is, it's technically clearly no longer a cheat. Some others have mentioned that (and I've seen for myself through personal use) when you use that thing you have to account for conservation of velocity. When you warp from Kerbin to Moho, you still need to have a fully fueled Karborundum Fusion Drive to deal with the escape path that you find yourself on, or worse yet, you have zero horizontal velocity and are already falling very very fast at the planet.

About the LS recycler thing, I've run into the same issue. I'm wondering how to configure the recycler part I'm writing among the coming Mk3 parts for my mod, Airline Kuisine. It currently supports 8 kerbals at 70% but I'm unaware of the mass relation to efficiency. It can contain at least 8x RT-500s... Maybe I should nerf the efficiency. I'm a little nervous about making it weigh as much as a Vector engine cluster...

I think the distinction between turboprops and propfans is that in turboprops the propeller is the intake fan, and in propfans the blades are more directly coupled to the turbine axle and are *always* counter-rotating, and the blades are built into the nacelle as opposed to hanging off the front of a gearbox.

I see your point, but to me the alcubierre is still bad physics and shouldn't exist. Can we put this storm in a teacup to rest now? We can call it what we want.

I described how the mass-efficiency system equates above, but check out the balance spreadsheet (and instructional video) and plug in the numbers. Assuming your crash tolerance is 50m/s and you have no crew slots, a 70% recycler for 8 crew should only weigh 3.388t.

Edited June 11, 2017 by voicey99

[cyberKerb]

Gah! I've scanned and searched through this thread and it must be elsewhere - but I'll ask the question here none-the-less...

There was a recent-ish @RoverDude post somewhere in the last month or so (might of even been on a stream) mentioned a possible re-balance to Karborundum while also not being fillable in the VAB again. Is this still being considered or was the idea abandoned?

Also - is there a config option for this so I can stop tempting myself getting easy Karborundum from the VAB? Don't might if the default is allowable - I just need to stop eating this delicious chocolate covered Karborundum and I can't stop myself!

I DID found a @DStaal February post here referencing that restricting Karborundum was in place at one point and then removed for various reasons, but this was a few months older than the post I was thinking of.

Edited June 12, 2017 by wile1411

[DStaal]

1 hour ago, wile1411 said:

Gah! I've scanned and searched through this thread and it must be elsewhere - but I'll ask the question here none-the-less...

There was a recent-ish @RoverDude post somewhere in the last month or so (might of even been on a stream) mentioned a possible re-balance to Karborundum while also not being fillable in the VAB again. Is this still being considered or was the idea abandoned?

Also - is there a config option for this so I can stop tempting myself getting easy Karborundum from the VAB? Don't might if the default is allowable - I just need to stop eating this delicious chocolate covered Karborundum and I can't stop myself!

I DID found a @DStaal February post here referencing that restricting Karborundum was in place at one point and then removed for various reasons, but this was a few months older than the post I was thinking of.

Not a config option that I know of, but I believe this should stop you from getting Karborundum from the VAB:

@RESOURCE_DEFINITION[Karborundum]
{
	@isTweakable = false
}

 

[obi_juan]

I like a lot this mod, for me without MKS probably I will not play more with Kerbals. 

But I don't like the new way produce ships or other stuff in my bases. Ground construction is a good mod, but  it have two basic problems for me:

1) Only allow to make ships on the surface of the planets. I Like make orbital shipyard to make new ships (I send the MaterialKits and SpecializedParts to them from the surface bases).

2) To make a New ship I need to fill the box at KSC and send to the base where I wanted to construct it. So it is not local construction, I send all the MaterialKits in the box, I only use the fuel refined form ORE.

With EL I can construct any design in any of my bases (I suppose that I send the blueprints to the computers of the new production line).  Some times I found that the design that I made at Kerbin, it is not useful  at Jool. So If can make the new design there is more quick than send from Kerbin.  

So after to try all the options for ground constructions, I come back to EL.

I just instal the last version of EL and I think that everything is working correctly. 

[allista]

1 hour ago, obi_juan said:

I like a lot this mod, for me without MKS probably I will not play more with Kerbals. 

But I don't like the new way produce ships or other stuff in my bases. Ground construction is a good mod, but  it have two basic problems for me:

1) Only allow to make ships on the surface of the planets. I Like make orbital shipyard to make new ships (I send the MaterialKits and SpecializedParts to them from the surface bases).

2) To make a New ship I need to fill the box at KSC and send to the base where I wanted to construct it. So it is not local construction, I send all the MaterialKits in the box, I only use the fuel refined form ORE.

With EL I can construct any design in any of my bases (I suppose that I send the blueprints to the computers of the new production line).  Some times I found that the design that I made at Kerbin, it is not useful  at Jool. So If can make the new design there is more quick than send from Kerbin.  

So after to try all the options for ground constructions, I come back to EL.

I just instal the last version of EL and I think that everything is working correctly. 

The first problem is currently a topic we discuss with @RoverDude. We realize the need for orbital construction. But ground construction is called and made so for a reason.

As for the second, I'm currently implementing de novo kit production, which is the exact thing you want. Also, you don't ship material kits (these you're supposed to produce on site), only the equivalent of specialized parts. Kits are much lighter than the resulting vessels.

In any case, you're always free to use EL alongside with GC. There's no conflict between them, only synergy.

 

[voicey99]

1 hour ago, obi_juan said:

I like a lot this mod, for me without MKS probably I will not play more with Kerbals. 

But I don't like the new way produce ships or other stuff in my bases. Ground construction is a good mod, but  it have two basic problems for me:

1) Only allow to make ships on the surface of the planets. I Like make orbital shipyard to make new ships (I send the MaterialKits and SpecializedParts to them from the surface bases).

2) To make a New ship I need to fill the box at KSC and send to the base where I wanted to construct it. So it is not local construction, I send all the MaterialKits in the box, I only use the fuel refined form ORE.

With EL I can construct any design in any of my bases (I suppose that I send the blueprints to the computers of the new production line).  Some times I found that the design that I made at Kerbin, it is not useful  at Jool. So If can make the new design there is more quick than send from Kerbin.  

So after to try all the options for ground constructions, I come back to EL.

I just instal the last version of EL and I think that everything is working correctly. 

To add, MKS' EPL patch is not officially supported, so it may not work properly.

[DStaal]

13 minutes ago, voicey99 said:

To add, MKS' EPL patch is not officially supported, so it may not work properly.

On the other hand - if it isn't, mention it here and one of us who does work with the two together will probably be willing to take a look at it.    (I believe the patch works fine at the moment - though I haven't tested under 1.3 yet.)

[goldenpsp]

26 minutes ago, DStaal said:

On the other hand - if it isn't, mention it here and one of us who does work with the two together will probably be willing to take a look at it.    (I believe the patch works fine at the moment - though I haven't tested under 1.3 yet.)

Not to mention that unless something major change on the MKS or EL side, the patch should be fine for the forseeable future.  Both mods have been pretty stable in terms of their core resources and mechanics for quite awhile.

[obi_juan]

5 hours ago, allista said:

The first problem is currently a topic we discuss with @RoverDude. We realize the need for orbital construction. But ground construction is called and made so for a reason.

As for the second, I'm currently implementing de novo kit production, which is the exact thing you want. Also, you don't ship material kits (these you're supposed to produce on site), only the equivalent of specialized parts. Kits are much lighter than the resulting vessels.

In any case, you're always free to use EL alongside with GC. There's no conflict between them, only synergy.

 

I think that is pretentious by myself that I was sure that you are working on it, I will keep ground construction... Usually my orbital shipyard is in an asteroid. 

5 hours ago, voicey99 said:

To add, MKS' EPL patch is not officially supported, so it may not work properly.

Probably, but I am almost sure that I am not alone to choose this option.  

5 hours ago, DStaal said:

On the other hand - if it isn't, mention it here and one of us who does work with the two together will probably be willing to take a look at it.    (I believe the patch works fine at the moment - though I haven't tested under 1.3 yet.)

Yes, I was sure... I will be another player that plays at least 1 hour all the days... And If I find problems I have basic knowledge on programing to understand the problem... I'm not sure if I can solve it...

But is a mod made by @RoverDude and @allista I am sure than in 3 months I will use only their mod...

[DStaal]

31 minutes ago, obi_juan said:

Yes, I was sure... I will be another player that plays at least 1 hour all the days... And If I find problems I have basic knowledge on programing to understand the problem... I'm not sure if I can solve it...

Honestly, even in the worst case scenario at the moment all that would happen would be that there wouldn't be any parts that can do both GC and EL, so you'd need to send up separate construction vehicles.

[Terra1]

After installing MKS, every single solar panel stopped working, they can't be deployed and aren't generating electricity.

Edited June 13, 2017 by Terra1

[Krakatoa]

3 minutes ago, Terra1 said:

After installing MKS, every single solar panel stopped working, they can't be deployed and aren't generating electricity.

General thing is that it's hard to help without a bit more information, so would you mind showing your GameData folder structure and, if you can, a log where you experienced the issue?

[Tabris]

4 hours ago, Terra1 said:

After installing MKS, every single solar panel stopped working, they can't be deployed and aren't generating electricity.

do you have any planet packs?

 

usually a kopernicus update does this.

[Robert DeLuca]

RE: rescue missions that spawn Kerbals in MKS parts that lack functioning hatches. There was some confusion about this in the KSP (fan made) Facebook page today.

Is the eventual plan to add hatches to these parts, or would it be better to just prevent these parts from spawning in those rescue missions?

Or maybe a third option: a Wiki entry specifying the suggested behavior is to use the KLAW on rescue vehicles?

I'd be willing to try and tackle any of these approaches (or whatever else), I just need some direction.

[goldenpsp]

1 hour ago, Robert DeLuca said:

RE: rescue missions that spawn Kerbals in MKS parts that lack functioning hatches. There was some confusion about this in the KSP (fan made) Facebook page today.

Is the eventual plan to add hatches to these parts, or would it be better to just prevent these parts from spawning in those rescue missions?

Or maybe a third option: a Wiki entry specifying the suggested behavior is to use the KLAW on rescue vehicles?

I'd be willing to try and tackle any of these approaches (or whatever else), I just need some direction.

 

[Robert DeLuca]

8 minutes ago, goldenpsp said:

 

Why does this need to be a separate mod though? Why can't the base mod just handle this correctly?

Edited June 14, 2017 by Robert DeLuca
missing quote

[FrontLineFodder]

42 minutes ago, goldenpsp said:

 

Recommend this when playing with part packs &/or MKS.

I personally like to disassemble the stranded pod after going EVA and then spacewalking over to the rescue vehicle. takes care of the debris issue.

[goldenpsp]

1 hour ago, Robert DeLuca said:

Why does this need to be a separate mod though? Why can't the base mod just handle this correctly?

For one it isn't the mods fault, it is a shortcoming in the stock contract system.  And the issue the pod validator mod fixes isn't just for MKS.  There are other mods and parts packs that have crewed parts without hatches.

[Robert DeLuca]

1 minute ago, goldenpsp said:

For one it isn't the mods fault, it is a shortcoming in the stock contract system.  And the issue the pod validator mod fixes isn't just for MKS.  There are other mods and parts packs that have crewed parts without hatches.

Well if it's the design intent of the mod to allow another mod to fix this, so be it. I'll find another way to contribute

[ragusila]

curious if anyone got a RO/RSS config for this. I think i will try to write one myself, but wanted to check if it had been done. 

[voicey99]

9 hours ago, ragusila said:

curious if anyone got a RO/RSS config for this. I think i will try to write one myself, but wanted to check if it had been done. 

It doesn't have a special RSS cfg-does it need one? It has some for some of the other RO mods though (CLS, DRE, FilterExt, RemTech, TAC-LS and KAS plus a few more non-RO mods).

If you write any patches for one of the mods not yet integrated, be sure to refer to the balance guidelines (watch the instructional video, and download the doc in the desc). Help is always appreciated so it would be great if you could pull them into the github repo if you feel like sharing them (if you don't know how, send them to me and I'll do it for you).

Edited June 14, 2017 by voicey99

[Terwin]

14 hours ago, Robert DeLuca said:

Well if it's the design intent of the mod to allow another mod to fix this, so be it. I'll find another way to contribute

I find that before unlocking the Klaw, you can generally also use a KAS wrench to surface-attach the pod to your vessel and either carry it down with you, or transfer the kerbal over and release the pod to drift again.

This does require that you take up an engineer with a wrench however.

(in my first 1.3 Game, Bill is rapidly catching up with Jeb and Val in flight hours as I expand my roster)