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

[nhnifong]

On 7/1/2017 at 0:39 PM, howkong said:

I have a question about the USI nuclear reactors...

What should I do if I want to tweak the core life of a reactor? There doesn't seem to be a "core life" in the cfg file.

The core life is a prediction of how long the EnrichedUranium would last if the reactor were running a full power the whole time. To make it last longer, either turn down the power level in the reactor's context menu (also available in flight) or bring more EnrichedUranium in fuel containers.

[voicey99]

1 minute ago, nhnifong said:

The core life is a prediction of how long the EnrichedUranium would last if the reactor were running a full power the whole time. To make it last longer, either turn down the power level in the reactor's context menu (also available in flight) or bring more EnrichedUranium in fuel containers.

Is this 'context menu' a 1.3 feature? Regardless, jacking down the governor (as I'm assuming it is) means you need more reactors and so you have to add more reactors anyway, which would reduce the load, limited or not.

[DStaal]

36 minutes ago, sh1pman said:

As of right now, the EL has much more functionality than GC. Why would anyone prefer the latter when EL/MKS patches are still working?

There are a couple of advantages to GC.  First off, it's easier to set up, as basically any part with crew capacity will work as a low-quality workshop - and all you need is single workshop.  (High quality workshops will greatly speed things up, of course...)  I'll have to double check tech tree placement, but I think GC is a bit earlier, at least in CTT.  Also, GC has several things that fit the MKS philosophy better: You can have multiple different ships working on the same DIY kit (works with the distributed bases MKS encourages) and it can fill the newly constructed ship with resources and crew directly - while the equivalent survey builds from EL require you to do that manually.  (And occasionally on the run, if you just built a rover on a small slope...)

Just now, voicey99 said:

Is this 'context menu' a 1.3 feature? Regardless, jacking down the governor (as I'm assuming it is) means you need more reactors and so you have to add more reactors anyway, which would reduce the load, limited or not.

It's a NFE feature.  USI's reactors on their own will auto-scale down to whatever your actual use is.

[sh1pman]

1 minute ago, DStaal said:

and it can fill the newly constructed ship with resources and crew directly - while the equivalent survey builds from EL require you to do that manually. 

Local logistics makes it trivial. Unless, of course, you want to transfer machinery or uranium, but  even then it isn't much of a problem anyway.

[voicey99]

2 minutes ago, DStaal said:

It's a NFE feature.  USI's reactors on their own will auto-scale down to whatever your actual use is.

In that case @nhnifong they were asking about USI reactors, not NFE reactors. The only way to extend a reactor core life (i.e. time between refuels) is to add more reactors or an alternate power source to take some of the load e.g. solar.

[RoverDude]

 

@Alshain - Not dumb, more realistic.  Stock is a more graduated prospecting approach - you are not going to be able to get infinite detail in space.  At some point you need some boots on the ground to unlock higher detail.  

18 hours ago, Loren Pechtel said:

Oh, I misunderstood how it handled it.  Still, couldn't PL link into that, though?

As others noted, it requires a focused vessel regardless.  PL is best used to build up stockpiles.  There's a new system in the works that will account for unloaded ships, but that is under development still.

18 hours ago, DStaal said:

Is there any way to hire other defined professions?  I have a couple from other places that I would like to use (and am trying to define a few more), but the new hiring screen doesn't seem to allow anything but the stock three and the MKS professions.

Not without a code change.

17 hours ago, halx said:

Is there a way to tell how many resources your producing? supplies,electricty, processing materials etc?

There used to be a screen I could access that would tell me ex.  producing 100 supplies per day, using 80 supplies per day +20 supplies positive flow of supplies etc..   can't seem to find this now.    Am I missing something?

There will be an updated version of this screen at a later date.

13 hours ago, DStaal said:

To answer my own question: The list of professions is hardcoded here, along with their skills.  I'm not entirely sure if 'Kolonists.cfg' even does anything at this point, based on that code.

Sounds like a feature request: To support extra professions as defined in .cfg files, like in stock.

Edit: Feature request submitted.

Kolonists.cfg contains all of the traits, so it's pretty necessary

12 hours ago, Ivan Cheung said:

MKS is causing crashes while loading KSP 1.3 

No, something else is causing crashes   Provide more info next time please.

10 hours ago, Alshain said:

Ok, so I just gave this a try and they are the same cost regardless of profession.

Known issue, sorted in upcoming release

1 hour ago, OldSedan said:

I've been out of the loop for a while; coming back, it seems like the new ground construction mechanics are more limited than the extraplanetary construction options were. Does GC have a mechanism for off-planet construction, e.g. in LKO? The need for predefined DIY kits also seems to precludes off-kerbin construction of vessels de novo, correct? Like you can no longer load up a couple containers with materials and shoot a construction yard off to jool and figure out what you want to build with it later?

Both of these features are planned.

[DStaal]

8 minutes ago, voicey99 said:

In that case @nhnifong they were asking about USI reactors, not NFE reactors. The only way to extend a reactor core life (i.e. time between refuels) is to add more reactors or an alternate power source to take some of the load e.g. solar.

NFE includes a patch to make USI reactors use NFE-style mechanics, if both are installed.  Probably where the confusion is coming from.

[voicey99]

Just now, DStaal said:

NFE includes a patch to make USI reactors use NFE-style mechanics, if both are installed.  Probably where the confusion is coming from.

In that case this should probably be one for the NFE thread,

[Alshain]

If anyone is interested.  First phase complete!  Fully assembled insitu (the docking port was scavenged just to complete a contract).  Thanks again to everyone for your help.

[voicey99]

1 minute ago, Alshain said:

If anyone is interested.  First phase complete!  Fully assembled insitu (the docking port was scavenged just to complete a contract).  Thanks again to everyone for your help.

<schnip>

Looking like a pretty good basic base. I might point out that an LS recycler would be a good thing to have to reduce supplies consumption, unless there's one out of shot. (YMMV, but you're going to need more than a few PV panels eventually and diddly rovers liable to flipping could always do with a flywheel in case of sharp turns).

[Dolkramp]

2 hours ago, voicey99 said:

GC cannot built in space at the moment (coming soon^TM). You also have to ship the DIYKit boxes from Kerbin in order to assemble their contents (DIYKit manufacturing also coming soon^TM)-however, unless there's been some major changes, the bundled-but-no-longer-developed EPL/MKS patch should still be functional and the EPL parts are still in MKS (for now, anyway).

I'm using normal EPL mechanics for orbital construction, but the spacedock part is the 'stock' EPL spacedock vs. The MKS styled ones. I can see the cfg and .mu for them in the USI/MKS folder. Is there a line that needs to be added/removed from an MM patch? This is purely aesthetic, but the MKS models look much better  

[voicey99]

3 minutes ago, Dolkramp said:

I'm using normal EPL mechanics for orbital construction, but the spacedock part is the 'stock' EPL spacedock vs. The MKS styled ones. I can see the cfg and .mu for them in the USI/MKS folder. Is there a line that needs to be added/removed from an MM patch? This is purely aesthetic, but the MKS models look much better  

What are you trying to do?

[DStaal]

4 minutes ago, Dolkramp said:

I'm using normal EPL mechanics for orbital construction, but the spacedock part is the 'stock' EPL spacedock vs. The MKS styled ones. I can see the cfg and .mu for them in the USI/MKS folder. Is there a line that needs to be added/removed from an MM patch? This is purely aesthetic, but the MKS models look much better  

You can change the required tech if you must - but be aware that they will be removed entirely at some future point.  They're currently there just so that legacy ships don't get deleted on load.

[Alshain]

Why are they being removed?

[goldenpsp]

1 minute ago, DStaal said:

You can change the required tech if you must - but be aware that they will be removed entirely at some future point.  They're currently there just so that legacy ships don't get deleted on load.

By the same token I don't see @RoverDude necessarily removing them anytime super soon, at least not until he gets around to model updates. Even then I plan to keep a copy of the parts as they should continue to work at least until some point that KSP updates that breaks attachment nodes.

[voicey99]

Just now, Alshain said:

Why are they being removed?

Because EPL support is being depreciated in favour of GC. I believe they will still be available as a separate download after this, though.

[goldenpsp]

Just now, Alshain said:

Why are they being removed?

@RoverDude has stopped officially supporting EPL, so I would assume he also no longer wants to maintain EPL specific parts he made.

[DStaal]

It should also be noted that the EL parts match a form factor and style of a line of parts that has *already* been removed from MKS.

[RoverDude]

1 minute ago, Alshain said:

Why are they being removed?

Because their form factor doesn't fit with any of the newer MKS bits.  I expect as GC starts doing orbital bits, etc. it would be a matter of someone submitting an updated EL config file.

The closest analogue is USI-LS vs TAC-LS.  I build MKS for USI-LS only, but bundle the community maintained TAC-LS config.  But no concessions are made part-wise for TAC-LS vs USI-LS specific things.

[DStaal]

For those looking for nicer EL parts:

 

[Alshain]

But no more construction at space stations?  That was the main reason I wanted to learn this mod in the first place. If that's gone, then I'm done here.

[goldenpsp]

2 minutes ago, Alshain said:

But no more construction at space stations?  That was the main reason I wanted to learn this mod in the first place. If that's gone, then I'm done here.

you can still use the EPL parts.  

[voicey99]

Just now, DStaal said:

It should also be noted that the EL parts match a form factor and style of a line of parts that has *already* been removed from MKS.

Were they the old MkWhatever parts from the pre-0.50 era? I don't remember any.

1 minute ago, Alshain said:

But no more construction at space stations?  That was the main reason I wanted to learn this mod in the first place. If that's gone, then I'm done here.

If you're just in it for the in-space construction. what do you need MKS for? EPL does that on its own.

[DStaal]

4 minutes ago, voicey99 said:

Were they the old MkWhatever parts from the pre-0.50 era? I don't remember any.

Yep.  The Mk-III, IIRC.  Hexagonal 3.5m profile.

9 minutes ago, Alshain said:

But no more construction at space stations?  That was the main reason I wanted to learn this mod in the first place. If that's gone, then I'm done here.

Eventually GC might have that again, but yeah, EL on it's own is likely what you're looking for there.  Note that MKS does include a cfg file that's likely to stay updated which integrates EL into the MKS production chain - so using the two together does mean a slightly more realistic/complex experience than just using EL alone.

[Alshain]

5 minutes ago, voicey99 said:

If you're just in it for the in-space construction. what do you need MKS for? EPL does that on its own.

I liked what I read about the manufacturing process in MKS.  EPL is much more simplistic on it's own.  I don't care so much if it's EPL or GC, I've never used GC though and I don't see anything about orbit construction in it's thread.