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

[voicey99]

Just now, techgamer17 said:

It is, but only has fairings and some universal storage stuff.

Eh, check around for it. It might even be in the starting node if it has no cfg.

Note that I think Janitor's Closet stops parts from showing in the VAB if you haven't paid the unlock fee (if you have it enabled).

Edited July 22, 2017 by voicey99

[techgamer17]

3 minutes ago, voicey99 said:

Eh, check around for it. It might even be in the starting node if it has no cfg.

Note that I think Janitor's Closet stops parts from showing in the VAB if you haven't paid the unlock fee (if you have it enabled).

I dont think I have that enabled, im not sure, but what does the material processing unit look like as I really dont know. I do know there is a 2.5 and a 3.75m version of it i think.

 

I might just end up sending a logistics module and be done with it if i cant find it.

Edited July 22, 2017 by techgamer17

[voicey99]

33 minutes ago, techgamer17 said:

I dont think I have that enabled, im not sure, but what does the material processing unit look like as I really dont know. I do know there is a 2.5 and a 3.75m version of it i think.

It's a slightly retextured reactor.

EDIT: @techgamer17 They look like these:

Edited July 22, 2017 by voicey99

[Ivan Cheung]

On 7/11/2017 at 4:39 PM, RoverDude said:

This is insufficient information.  What KSP version?  What MKS version?

KSP 1.3 on Windows 10 (Installed through Steam) and MKS 0.37

[Nergal8617]

10 hours ago, techgamer17 said:

I dont think I have that enabled, im not sure, but what does the material processing unit look like as I really dont know. I do know there is a 2.5 and a 3.75m version of it i think.

 

I might just end up sending a logistics module and be done with it if i cant find it.

All three show up in the Advanced Construction node in my CTT install.

Edited July 23, 2017 by Nergal8617

[Merkov]

10 hours ago, Ivan Cheung said:

KSP 1.3 on Windows 10 (Installed through Steam) and MKS 0.37

MKS 0.37? Are you sure? That's really out of date. KSP 1.3 requires MKS 0.52.0 or newer. I didn't think you could even find versions of MKS that old on the repository anymore.

[voicey99]

11 minutes ago, Merkov said:

MKS 0.37? Are you sure? That's really out of date. KSP 1.3 requires MKS 0.52.0 or newer. I didn't think you could even find versions of MKS that old on the repository anymore.

You can't. You can get v0.33.8 and 0.33.9 (and then nothing until 0.40) on Spacedock, though.

[Cavinaar]

I don't know if this is a bug or not, but I am having an issue with some of the Karibou rover parts.  Almost every part that has the 'landing legs' starts out deployed when I add it in either the SPH or the VAB.  I have to right-click it and click 'deploy' before 'retract' is available.

Then when I 'launch' it, the 'landing legs' are deployed again, and once again I have to click 'deploy' then 'retract'.  It does this every time I launch it, even if I have added it to another craft for actual launching.

I have made a video showing the issue.  Yes, I know the rover is not particularly useful, and the back is set to low but it isn't a rover I am actually going to use anyway.  I threw it together only to show the issue.

https://youtu.be/O29Gc6boKys

[voicey99]

2 hours ago, Cavinaar said:

I don't know if this is a bug or not, but I am having an issue with some of the Karibou rover parts.  Almost every part that has the 'landing legs' starts out deployed when I add it in either the SPH or the VAB.  I have to right-click it and click 'deploy' before 'retract' is available.

Then when I 'launch' it, the 'landing legs' are deployed again, and once again I have to click 'deploy' then 'retract'.  It does this every time I launch it, even if I have added it to another craft for actual launching.

I have made a video showing the issue.  Yes, I know the rover is not particularly useful, and the back is set to low but it isn't a rover I am actually going to use anyway.  I threw it together only to show the issue.

https://youtu.be/O29Gc6boKys

This is a known bug, it does this after switching away from and then switching to the rover as well. It was brought up here a while back but nothing came of it.

[peluche399]

Are reactors (which are functioning normally otherwise it would seem) supposed to be able to recharge batteries? The reactor is making enough power to keep the power consumption on this station at 0 but it doesnt seem to want to actually put any charge back into the batteries. 

[DStaal]

2 minutes ago, peluche399 said:

Are reactors (which are functioning normally otherwise it would seem) supposed to be able to recharge batteries? The reactor is making enough power to keep the power consumption on this station at 0 but it doesnt seem to want to actually put any charge back into the batteries. 

They will - but not all the way.  That way if you have solar or some other power source it'll be preferred, and you can use reactors as backup.

[peluche399]

1 minute ago, DStaal said:

They will - but not all the way.  That way if you have solar or some other power source it'll be preferred, and you can use reactors as backup.

Cool, but they wont allow the batteries to drain to 0 either? (assuming of course sufficient output) If so thats totally fine.

Edited July 24, 2017 by peluche399

[voicey99]

2 minutes ago, peluche399 said:

Cool, but they wont allow the batteries to drain to 0 either? (assuming of course sufficient output) If so thats totally fine.

Check the flow priority on them (enabled advanced tweakables if you can't see it). Higher priority batteries discharge last and recharge first. The reactors will only fill a vessel's overall EC storage up to 95% full so if they form under 5% of the overall storage and have the highest priority number they won't fill.

Edited July 24, 2017 by voicey99

[DStaal]

1 minute ago, peluche399 said:

Cool, but they wont allow the batteries to drain to 0 either? (assuming of course sufficient output) If so thats totally fine.

Yep.  They should fill them to something in the 85-95% full range, IIRC.   (And of course if you have power distribution parts around you can use them to feed power to other ships - which may mean the steady-state will be lower yet.)

[voicey99]

1 minute ago, DStaal said:

Yep.  They should fill them to something in the 85-95% full range, IIRC.   (And of course if you have power distribution parts around you can use them to feed power to other ships - which may mean the steady-state will be lower yet.)

They have FillAmount = 0.95, so they fill to 95%. You can apply this to stock fuel cells if you want them to leave some headroom too.

[peluche399]

1 minute ago, voicey99 said:

Check the flow priority on them. Higher priority batteries discharge last and recharge first. The reactors will only fill a vessel's overall EC storage up to 95% full so if they form under 5% of the overall storage and have the highest priority number they won't fill.

I understand now.

 

Thank you both! Question answered.

[voicey99]

Just now, peluche399 said:

I understand now.

 

Thank you both! Question answered.

Amendment:

4 minutes ago, voicey99 said:

...so if they form under 5% of the overall storage and have the lowest priority number they won't fill.

[Jhaxxar]

I would like to build a Space Station using the Kerbaltate and the Habitat Wheel. Is there a tutorial about how to build an orbital Ranger Station?

[voicey99]

6 minutes ago, Jhaxxar said:

I would like to build a Space Station using the Kerbaltate and the Habitat Wheel. Is there a tutorial about how to build an orbital Ranger Station?

Why would you need one? Ranger parts are no different to any others, except that they look silly in space.

[NermNermNerm]

I've been doing some experiments on the catch-up mechanic lately.  Is how it works documented anywhere?  In my current play-thru, I'm going to be obliged to try it.

I ran a few experiments and seemed to find that the small container tanks (Kontainer Tank Flat, 1.25m), are lossy.  That is, I believe it's the case that if you have a mining drill (MEU-500-A) and a logistics capable tank (Kontainer Tank Flat), that you'll only get about 10% of the resources that you should be getting.  With a 2.5m container, it also seemed to be lossy, but there I got 80% of the resources I would get if I was timewarping with the ship in-focus.

It feels to me like other factors are involved as well, but I haven't tested enough to have a good handle on them.

Also, I think that the only time planetary logistics totals get moved is by the ship that's currently in-focus...  But I swear I saw them move without that a time or two.

Can anyone confirm or deny?

[thadeausmaximus]

On 7/13/2017 at 5:09 PM, voicey99 said:

Then that means your production or consumption is jumping around as well, and your equations will add up to a different total every time. If you insist on production formulas, here they are. Multiply the end result by their VAB-stated values to get /s rates for cnsmptn/prod. These are what I remember, I'm away until sat so they may not be correct.

DRILLS [0.05 + 0.2 * (lvl of most skilled miner/engineer on board + 1)] * [local resource abundance] * [thermal multiplier] * [geology rating as a decimal squared] * [num bays set to resource].

CONVERTERS [0.05 + 0.2 * (lvl of most skilled technician/engineer on board + 1)] * [machinery level as a proportion of full] * [thermal multiplier] * [governor] * [efficiency part bonus¤] * [geology rating a a decimal squared¤¤] * [num bays set to resource].

¤Explained here.

¤¤Supplies or Organics production uses [geo rating * botany rating] instead

I setup a little refinery base to test production. It has a tundra industrial refinery all 3 bays set to polymers, 2 x MPU 375 (with 3 smelters in 1 and 1 smelter in the other to test efficiency), and 2 x ranger smelt-o-matics, a lvl 3 engineer, and 116% geology. Without any smelters turned on I get the expected 343.24% load and matching production rate. When I turn on all of the smelters it should be 16.728 eMultiplier and should have 1281.63% load but I get 368.88% load and matching production rate. Testing with combinations of the smelters turned on each smelter adds to the production but only at 1:50 of what the documentation says it should. Any idea what is going on?

No smelters turned on:

1 mpu375 smelter bay turned on and 1 ranger smelt-o-matic turned on 4.579 eff points. should double output:

4 mpu375 smelter bay turned on and 2 ranger smelt-o-matic turned on 16.728 eff points. should be 5x output:

[DStaal]

39 minutes ago, NermNermNerm said:

I've been doing some experiments on the catch-up mechanic lately.  Is how it works documented anywhere?  In my current play-thru, I'm going to be obliged to try it.

I ran a few experiments and seemed to find that the small container tanks (Kontainer Tank Flat, 1.25m), are lossy.  That is, I believe it's the case that if you have a mining drill (MEU-500-A) and a logistics capable tank (Kontainer Tank Flat), that you'll only get about 10% of the resources that you should be getting.  With a 2.5m container, it also seemed to be lossy, but there I got 80% of the resources I would get if I was timewarping with the ship in-focus.

It feels to me like other factors are involved as well, but I haven't tested enough to have a good handle on them.

Also, I think that the only time planetary logistics totals get moved is by the ship that's currently in-focus...  But I swear I saw them move without that a time or two.

Can anyone confirm or deny?

While I believe there's a small tax to PL, what you're seeing is mostly consistent with not having enough storage.  You need to have enough storage to half-empty it every six hours - so my rule of thumb is 13 hours worth.  Larger single containers are a bit easier for KSP to work with, so you can trim that closer to the ideal 12 hours, but if you have less than that you *will* lose production as your production parts will effectively *shut down* for remainder of the time during catch-up.

And yes the PL totals should only get moved by the ships currently in-focus.  (Note that if you have a logistics unit in your current physics area, everything within ~2km is potentially 'in-focus' for this.)

[Alshain]

Is it safe to remove Ground Construction?  I gave it a shot but either I did something really wrong or you have to send up a DIY kit for every craft you want to build which completely defeats the purpose of off-world construction.  Anyway, KSP AVC keeps telling me it is out of date (the version that comes with MKS) and I have no more desire to use it so can I remove it without breaking MKS?

[Aelfhe1m]

2 hours ago, thadeausmaximus said:

I setup a little refinery base to test production. It has a tundra industrial refinery all 3 bays set to polymers, 2 x MPU 375 (with 3 smelters in 1 and 1 smelter in the other to test efficiency), and 2 x ranger smelt-o-matics, a lvl 3 engineer, and 116% geology. Without any smelters turned on I get the expected 343.24% load and matching production rate. When I turn on all of the smelters it should be 16.728 eMultiplier and should have 1281.63% load but I get 368.88% load and matching production rate. Testing with combinations of the smelters turned on each smelter adds to the production but only at 1:50 of what the documentation says it should. Any idea what is going on?

I don't see any radiators in those images (maybe I'm blind) could it be an overheat issue?

[Alshain]

1 minute ago, Aelfhe1m said:

I don't see any radiators in those images (maybe I'm blind) could it be an overheat issue?

There is one right there on the side of that Tundra module.