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

[tsaven]

Is it intentional that plain "Oxidizer" isn't an option anymore for any of the Kolonization tanks?   I thought it used to be, but I could be wrong. 

I'm still on KSP 1.3.1, USI core 0.5.0.0 and MKS 0.53.0.0.

[sstabeler]

I'd imagine so, because oxidiser is only ever used either with LF or- with mods that add hybrid boosters- with solid rocket fuel in hybrid rocket boosters. There's simply never actually a reason to have a separate Oxidiser tank over a combined LF/O tank. (there are reasons to have just an LF tank, but never really to have just Oxidiser.)

However, for fuel tanks, it can be worth considering using the Modular Fuel Tanks mod, since that allows you to customise a fuel tank to hold more-or-less any combination you want. (though a specific tank can disallow a specific fuel, any tank intended for rockets as opposed to jets that stores LF will allow you to store oxidiser)

[Nicky21]

I think i found a bug or something.

 

The life support window, when running warp for a long time keeps consuming my supplies, ignoring the fact that i have agroponics and fertilizer on that station. The same is true for energy cells, it consumes the existing stock then the kerbals go tourist, ignoring the fact that i have solar panel on that station. As soon as i switch to that station, i find that the agroponics has been working and the solars have been working as intended, the stores are in fact full, and my kerbals go promptly back to work.

This bug has been consistent with 1.3.1 and the latest 1.4.3 .

Do you need screenshots or logs or something ?

[DStaal]

2 minutes ago, Nicky21 said:

I think i found a bug or something.

 

The life support window, when running warp for a long time keeps consuming my supplies, ignoring the fact that i have agroponics and fertilizer on that station. The same is true for energy cells, it consumes the existing stock then the kerbals go tourist, ignoring the fact that i have solar panel on that station. As soon as i switch to that station, i find that the agroponics has been working and the solars have been working as intended, the stores are in fact full, and my kerbals go promptly back to work.

This bug has been consistent with 1.3.1 and the latest 1.4.3 .

Do you need screenshots or logs or something ?

Not so much a 'bug' as a 'known limitation': The window itself is just a counter, and counts down from last-known state.  Treat it as a good but pessimistic estimate - It should never tell you that you have *less* life support than you actually do, but you typically will have *more.*

The alternative is to model everything that could come into play for life support - which with planetary logistics, mining, etc. is basically running a full KSP - with all ships - in the background.  Even KSP itself doesn't do that.

2 hours ago, sstabeler said:

I'd imagine so, because oxidiser is only ever used either with LF or- with mods that add hybrid boosters- with solid rocket fuel in hybrid rocket boosters. There's simply never actually a reason to have a separate Oxidiser tank over a combined LF/O tank. (there are reasons to have just an LF tank, but never really to have just Oxidiser.)

You'd think that.  But it's fairly easy to set up a refueling station, send a variety of ships and refuel tankers up to it, and then find it's got full LF tanks, but is drained empty of Oxidizer...

[sstabeler]

I'm guessing that the issue is the refuelling tankers having some of the tanks LF-only. replace those with LF/O tanks and it should clear up the issue.

[tsaven]

6 hours ago, sstabeler said:

I'd imagine so, because oxidiser is only ever used either with LF or- with mods that add hybrid boosters- with solid rocket fuel in hybrid rocket boosters. There's simply never actually a reason to have a separate Oxidiser tank over a combined LF/O tank. (there are reasons to have just an LF tank, but never really to have just Oxidiser.)

However, for fuel tanks, it can be worth considering using the Modular Fuel Tanks mod, since that allows you to customise a fuel tank to hold more-or-less any combination you want. (though a specific tank can disallow a specific fuel, any tank intended for rockets as opposed to jets that stores LF will allow you to store oxidiser)

Well, it would be very useful to have it be able to store just Oxidizer for situations (like my current build) where I've got an SSTO with plenty of liquid fuel in the wings, but I'm very short on storage space for Oxidizer.  I end up having to waste a ton of internal space with fuel tanks and carrying way more LF than I need.

[sh1pman]

@RoverDude Sup! I like the Anchor Hub, and it's great that it's attachable to terrain, which can prevent bases from slowly drifting around (even ground tether doesn't fully prevent that!). However, it can be easily detached from the ground due to phantom forces (physics hop) when the scene is loaded. So maybe it can be remedied by increasing the staticAttachBreakForce parameter from 10 to maybe 100? Concrete base from KIS has a breaking force of 200. I can make a PR with the fix, if you don't mind.

Edited May 16, 2018 by sh1pman

[DStaal]

9 minutes ago, sh1pman said:

@RoverDude Sup! I like the Anchor Hub, and it's great that it's attachable to terrain, which can prevent bases from slowly drifting around (even ground tether doesn't fully prevent that!). However, it can be easily detached from the ground due to phantom forces (physics hop) when the scene is loaded. So maybe it can be remedied by increasing the staticAttachBreakForce parameter from 10 to maybe 100? Concrete base from KIS has a breaking force of 200. I can make a PR with the fix, if you don't mind.

Have you tested?  I know that setting that too high can cause explosions as well.

(But I've had issues with the current number as well - it's so low it makes assembling a base tricky.)

[sh1pman]

18 minutes ago, DStaal said:

Have you tested?  I know that setting that too high can cause explosions as well.

(But I've had issues with the current number as well - it's so low it makes assembling a base tricky.)

Testing right now at 500, no issues so far.

[Storywalker4]

Could someone explain to me how space construction would work with the new adoption of GC as the primary building mechanic?

[psamathe]

Hi,

I've been having some issues with heat on MKS drills with multiple separators. Basically if I start a second separator the drill begins to overheat, irrespective of how much cooling I have. I can start additional drills with no issue as long as I only ever start one of the separators on each drill.

I'm on KSP 1.4.3, using MKS 0.55 from CKAN. I'm using a number of other mods as well (several of the USI ones, Near Future stuff, some planet packs, plus more)

To reproduce (for me anyway):

• I start with a Duna Power unit, add some dirt storage (I'm using a ranger unit), a ranger thermal control system, as well as two MEU-500A pulse drills (left as default dirt).
• Then launch, start the cooling, start the reactor, and deploy both drills. On the first drill I start one separator, and I see temperature stabilise at 500K. If I then start a second separator on that same drill it starts to overheat.
• If I now start the first separator on the second drill it will stabilise on 500K.
• When I switch off the second separator on the first drill, it will gradually drop back down to 500K. Both drills will run quite happily provided I never start a second separator.

I've tried adding (a lot) more cooling but it doesn't seem to help. Is this a bug or am I doing something dumb?

 

[LatiMacciato]

unsure if this is already reported but I experience some spam while opening the orbital logistics window and the window seems very wrong placed .. like something is not right. (following log I took from the KSP-dev logs)

Spoiler

180518T100908.474 [ERROR] [UNKNOWN] GUI Error: You are pushing more GUIClips than you are popping. Make sure they are balanced)
180518T100908.563 [EXCEPTION] [KolonyTools.OrbitalLogisticsGuiMain_Module.DrawWindowContents] NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object
   at KolonyTools.OrbitalLogisticsGuiMain_Module.DrawWindowContents (Int32 windowId)
   at KolonyTools.Window.PreDrawWindowContents (Int32 windowId)
   at UnityEngine.GUILayout+LayoutedWindow.DoWindow (Int32 windowID)
   at UnityEngine.GUI.CallWindowDelegate (UnityEngine.WindowFunction func, Int32 id, Int32 instanceID, UnityEngine.GUISkin _skin, Int32 forceRect, Single width, Single height, UnityEngine.GUIStyle style)

 

I just can't do any orbital logistics and can't figure how that happened or why so plz any help is appreciated. Thanks!

EDIT: seems GH issues seem to be more useful #1413

Edited May 20, 2018 by LatiMacciato

[sh1pman]

Don't know if it's been reported yet, but there's something wrong with the swappable converter on Ranger Hab module. I can run both converter types at the same time, even though there's only one bay.

[Kaa253]

13 hours ago, sh1pman said:

Don't know if it's been reported yet, but there's something wrong with the swappable converter on Ranger Hab module. I can run both converter types at the same time, even though there's only one bay.

https://github.com/UmbraSpaceIndustries/MKS/issues/1405

It has been reported but, some time ago, so thanks @sh1pman as it is good to have a reminder / heads-up that the bug is still there

[Bakkerbaard]

I've been going a little nuts with mods, but I think the Mercury Centrifuge is in this one, yes? 

If so, how the hell do I get that to fly? I know I can get 15t in orbit, but I have no clue on how to streamline that shape so it won't drag the front end down. Or is it meant to be constructed in a workshop in orbit? In which case, I need to review my planning stages...

Maybe some sleep will help too.

Edited May 21, 2018 by Bakkerbaard

[Esendis]

1 hour ago, Bakkerbaard said:

I've been going a little nuts with mods, but I think the Mercury Centrifuge is in this one, yes? 

If so, how the hell do I get that to fly? I know I can get 15t in orbit, but I have no clue on how to streamline that shape so it won't drag the front end down. Or is it meant to be constructed in a workshop in orbit? In which case, I need to review my planning stages...

Maybe some sleep will help too.

Mercury Centrifuge is in Stockalike Station Parts Redux if im not mistaken.

As to how to get it in orbit, think big. (Triangular thruster formation with payload at center bottom. Enough twr and aerodynamics really dont matter... )

[NorthernBruce]

@Bakkerbaard

What's worked for me with big poorly streamlined loads is to fly vertically to about 20K and then start tipping over into a gravity turn. Air effects seem to reduce around that height.

[sstabeler]

Um, guys? I don't think streamlining is the problem as much as the fact that as fuel gets burned during the ascent, the reduction in weight on the opposite side to that of the 15 ton part could be causing a rotational force that can cause the nose of the rocket to point back towards Kerbin. I'd think a more useful solution would be either add more reaction wheels to the craft, or replace them with more powerful ones. (I say using reaction wheels since RCS thrusters both use monoprop and can only be used at full power. Reaction Wheels are a little more flexible. Yes, Reaction Wheels use EC, but that's less of a problem than adding extra monoprop tanks, since batteries don't lose weight midflight, while monoprop tanks would. hence additional batteries wouldn't contribute to a shifting CoM as much as additional monoprop tanks would.)

[Loren Pechtel]

8 hours ago, NorthernBruce said:

@Bakkerbaard

What's worked for me with big poorly streamlined loads is to fly vertically to about 20K and then start tipping over into a gravity turn. Air effects seem to reduce around that height.

Yup, this is my experience, also.  Make it as symmetric as feasible, get the COM in line with the rocket and I haven't found anything I can't fly with using a very steep trajectory in MechJeb.  Costs fuel but it gets the job done.

[Bakkerbaard]

@Esendis @NorthernBruce @sstabeler @Loren Pechtel

Thanks for the help, even though my question apparently didn't belong here.

[Smurfalot]

I am using the newest USI constellation download labeled for 1.3.1, but when I start the game the version checker says it was compiled for 1.4, and it crashes to desktop before getting to the main menu.

I am using a pretty heavily modded game, but it loads/plays successfully without the USI constellation.

 

[RoverDude]

1 hour ago, Smurfalot said:

I am using the newest USI constellation download labeled for 1.3.1, but when I start the game the version checker says it was compiled for 1.4, and it crashes to desktop before getting to the main menu.

I am using a pretty heavily modded game, but it loads/plays successfully without the USI constellation.

 

Probably a mod too far.

[Smurfalot]

1 hour ago, RoverDude said:

Probably a mod too far.

Exactly what I thought.  Instead of the constellation bundle I tried to use just MKS 54.1 and crashed to desktop.

The crash log is literally empty.  And the version checker still says various things (Konstruction, MKS, USI-Core etc.) were compiled for 1.4. 

[LatiMacciato]

@RoverDude could it be that my issue I mentioned earlier can be caused by just a single unmanned LM?

I managed to exchange all 3 LM's to Tundra's but just have my mun orbital one unmanned (I simply forgot to bring a Pilot there yet). If so then the bug is gamebreaking because I have to switch scenes to have the planetary overview window go back to normal.

Edited May 22, 2018 by LatiMacciato

[Gilph]

Hi, All. Have a question about the resource balancing spreadsheet and the Duna Kerbitat.

The Duna Kerbitat has three modes: Recycler (no water input), Purifier (water input), and Habitat. When I start plugging the recycle numbers in the ss to get the rated conversion percentages, they do end up close or exact to mass, volume, EC and water rate numbers. Then, I put in the hab numbers to see if they match the numbers in the config (some of the VAB numbers are wrong) and thing look very strange. The EC and volume results are fine, but the mass is only 2.856 and the part is 4.45. The hab function is 64% below it's mass but consistent with it's volume. that seems really off. It's a really lousy habitat, considering it's the Duna Habitat.

Is this by design and are there any guidelines on how to balance better?

Thanks