voicey99 Posted September 27, 2017 Share Posted September 27, 2017 1 minute ago, RoverDude said: that will likely change Will the machinery requirement be extended to the fixed modules, removed from the inflatables or something else? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoverDude Posted September 27, 2017 Author Share Posted September 27, 2017 Just now, voicey99 said: Will the machinery requirement be extended to the fixed modules, removed from the inflatables or something else? Removed, to make it consistent with USI-LS parts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sh1pman Posted September 27, 2017 Share Posted September 27, 2017 4 minutes ago, RoverDude said: Removed, to make it consistent with USI-LS parts. Which means that Kerbitat configured to Hab will be functionally identical to Ranger and Tundra inflatable habs and USI-LS parts with hab bonuses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoverDude Posted September 27, 2017 Author Share Posted September 27, 2017 Yep Which simplifies some things. The reason for not going the other direction is USI-LS - i.e. people use it without MKS, so I did not want to tie an MKS mechanic to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
voicey99 Posted September 27, 2017 Share Posted September 27, 2017 4 minutes ago, RoverDude said: Yep Which simplifies some things. The reason for not going the other direction is USI-LS - i.e. people use it without MKS, so I did not want to tie an MKS mechanic to it. Even though the parts are from MKS? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DStaal Posted September 27, 2017 Share Posted September 27, 2017 3 minutes ago, voicey99 said: Even though the parts are from MKS? Balance - He wants to keep the two sets of parts that do basically the same thing working basically the same way. Otherwise why would you use parts from MKS, as the USI-LS parts are better? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terwin Posted September 27, 2017 Share Posted September 27, 2017 Question: has a mechanic been decided on so that building a 20m hab will give better colonization rewards than having a couple of ranger airlocks? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoverDude Posted September 27, 2017 Author Share Posted September 27, 2017 1 hour ago, Terwin said: Question: has a mechanic been decided on so that building a 20m hab will give better colonization rewards than having a couple of ranger airlocks? No, but I am listening Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DStaal Posted September 27, 2017 Share Posted September 27, 2017 31 minutes ago, RoverDude said: No, but I am listening Hmm. If you're thinking about it, how about a straightforward multiplier, based on the mass of the ship? (Ideally without resources, if that's available...) Or, for a bit more complex: have the multipliers be at the part level, with the default being based on the mass of the part, with a possible override in the cfg. I'd probably start by thinking something like '(mass-10) * colonization'. Initial landers won't help much; you have to put significant resources into it to actually get a result... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoverDude Posted September 28, 2017 Author Share Posted September 28, 2017 Yep, I was considering something along the lines of raw part mass as a baseline, possibly with an upper cap Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terwin Posted September 28, 2017 Share Posted September 28, 2017 2 hours ago, RoverDude said: Yep, I was considering something along the lines of raw part mass as a baseline, possibly with an upper cap Is there a cap with the current metric of kerbals on board*part count(I forget if this is limited to USI/MKS parts or not)? Or would the mass multiplier be on top of that calculation? The 'Construction' resource should probably be considered as part of the part mass for colonization purposes(dirt and rock probably not so much). Should Machinery be considered as well? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cynor Posted September 28, 2017 Share Posted September 28, 2017 Hi all, I'm having a bit of an oddity that I think is user error, so I'm hopeful that maybe someone has encountered it before and can help me out. Basically I'm working on building up my first small (ok not that small really) surface base. I'm using mainly tundra parts connected with Flex Tubes to the ball anchor hubs. The issue is that even though the flex tubes seem to stay attached at first, it's extremely easy to literally knock them off the ball hubs and sometimes they just will fall off at random. This is using the "top" node and attaching it vs just dropping it. If anyone could help I'd appreciate it. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bottle Rocketeer 500 Posted September 28, 2017 Share Posted September 28, 2017 @RoverDude Is this compatible with TAC-LS/Kerbalism? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
voicey99 Posted September 28, 2017 Share Posted September 28, 2017 1 minute ago, Bottle Rocketeer 500 said: @RoverDude Is this compatible with TAC-LS/Kerbalism? It is compatible with TAC-LS, but Kerbalism changes some fundamental KSP mechanics and as such is totally incompatible. PLEASE use the search button in future, this question is asked CONSTANTLY. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bottle Rocketeer 500 Posted September 28, 2017 Share Posted September 28, 2017 OK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damerell Posted September 28, 2017 Share Posted September 28, 2017 9 hours ago, Terwin said: Is there a cap with the current metric of kerbals on board*part count(I forget if this is limited to USI/MKS parts or not)? Or would the mass multiplier be on top of that calculation? Well, what we'd like to measure is the mass per kerbal, leaving aside the mass of the part devoted to other functions.This is a hard problem to solve in general... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rspeed Posted September 29, 2017 Share Posted September 29, 2017 14 hours ago, RoverDude said: Yep, I was considering something along the lines of raw part mass as a baseline, possibly with an upper cap Is it possible to simply exclude airlocks? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SchrottBot Posted September 29, 2017 Share Posted September 29, 2017 14 hours ago, Cynor said: Hi all, I'm having a bit of an oddity that I think is user error, so I'm hopeful that maybe someone has encountered it before and can help me out. Basically I'm working on building up my first small (ok not that small really) surface base. I'm using mainly tundra parts connected with Flex Tubes to the ball anchor hubs. The issue is that even though the flex tubes seem to stay attached at first, it's extremely easy to literally knock them off the ball hubs and sometimes they just will fall off at random. This is using the "top" node and attaching it vs just dropping it. If anyone could help I'd appreciate it. Thanks. I can only offer a guess what might have happened, so forgive me if I#M completely on the wrong track. =) To connect the Flex-O-Tubes you'll need to use KAS. In order to attach them correctly make sure you have a tool (Screwdriver or wrench equipped), your Kerbal is an engineer and press "H" to attach the tube correctly. as you don't get any notice if a part was correctly attached or not, you might overlook it sometimes. At least it happens to me frequently. =) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SchrottBot Posted September 29, 2017 Share Posted September 29, 2017 I too got a question or two into the round of well experienced Kerbonauts regarding the Karibou Rover which I just started using recently. First I wondered if I misunderstood the hab calculation of the crewed parts. So with the Karibou cockpit an crew cabinet (not the passenger cabinet!) and seveb Kerbals on board alltogether, I only get 16 days of hab / home time. Is that meant to be? Hab-converters are both switched on. Second question is regarding the VTOL engines: How do you get these fu ... zzy things balanced? I tried days an hours to use them until I went mad with them spinning the rover everey time and I finally attached a skycrane to the roof after all. I've no idead what I do wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoverDude Posted September 29, 2017 Author Share Posted September 29, 2017 17 minutes ago, SchrottBot said: I too got a question or two into the round of well experienced Kerbonauts regarding the Karibou Rover which I just started using recently. First I wondered if I misunderstood the hab calculation of the crewed parts. So with the Karibou cockpit an crew cabinet (not the passenger cabinet!) and seveb Kerbals on board alltogether, I only get 16 days of hab / home time. Is that meant to be? Hab-converters are both switched on. Second question is regarding the VTOL engines: How do you get these fu ... zzy things balanced? I tried days an hours to use them until I went mad with them spinning the rover everey time and I finally attached a skycrane to the roof after all. I've no idead what I do wrong. How many Kerbals do you have? And as long as the VTOL is balanced you will be fine... COM a tick forward of COT. And make sure the fuel tanks are also balanced. Adding in the Karibou's control modules also help (SAS+RCS) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
voicey99 Posted September 29, 2017 Share Posted September 29, 2017 28 minutes ago, RoverDude said: And as long as the VTOL is balanced you will be fine... COM a tick forward of COT. And make sure the fuel tanks are also balanced. Adding in the Karibou's control modules also help (SAS+RCS) Hm. I tried to make a (non-winged) VTOLcopter with them a while back, with the COT perfectly in line and well above the COM, and for whatever reason it tipped over and flew into the ground whenever I tried to tilt it to go places. Given the thing is essentially suspended under the fans, I thought it would be impossible to tip like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maja Posted September 29, 2017 Share Posted September 29, 2017 @SchrottBot Try to reduce their TWR and disable gimbaling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
voicey99 Posted September 29, 2017 Share Posted September 29, 2017 1 minute ago, maja said: @SchrottBot Try to reduce their TWR and disable gimbaling. Wait, what gimbal? Do you mean the ducted fans from FTT or has MKS added its own VTOL engines? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maja Posted September 29, 2017 Share Posted September 29, 2017 (edited) 4 minutes ago, voicey99 said: Wait, what gimbal? Do you mean the ducted fans from FTT or has MKS added its own VTOL engines? Oh, sorry. I was under impression, that @SchrottBot was talking about Karibou engines. Edited September 29, 2017 by maja Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
voicey99 Posted September 29, 2017 Share Posted September 29, 2017 Just now, maja said: Ah, sorry. I was under impression, that @SchrottBot was talking about Karibou engines. Oh dangit, I forgot about those. Yes, they were taking about them, but I thought they were talking about the fans from FTT. Derp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.