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

[Djohaal]

Rover, what are the determinants for the sifter efficiency. I've set up an operation on duna and I'm getting at most 65% efficiency, even with several geologists onboard. The output feels a bit wrong if compared to what is on the wiki too.

[GlitchHound]

16 hours ago, voicey99 said:

Try editing this bit of the dll (under KolonyTools/KolonyTools.AC/CustomAstronautComplexUI) and changing the two values to what you want:

if ((double) this.ACLevel == 5.0 || !this.kerExp)
        {
          newKerbal.experience = (__Null) 9999.0;
          newKerbal.experienceLevel = (__Null) 5;
          Debug.Log((object) "KSI :: Level set to 5 - Non-Career Mode default.");
        }

WARNING: This could break things if done badly!

Thanks for guiding me. In the end that's not actually what I changed, but you told me the right file and encouraged me to muck about in the DLL! In the end I replaced the lines setting ACLevel = 5 with the line which actually checks the game for current ACLevel. Then I removed any check for ACLevel == 5 as the only thing that still needs checking is kerExp. Haven't done thorough playtesting yet but the Astronaut Complex is giving me options for level 0, 1, and 2 rather than forcing me to get level 5 only, so everything seems good!

I really can't imagine needing to test much outside of checking the AC in all different game types and with AC at all different levels... once I've done so, is this the kind of change I should submit a PR for or am I the only oddball who cares?

[The Aziz]

18 hours ago, voicey99 said:

True. but I was talking about MKS on its own. Without any other mods or its bonus ancillary plugins (konstruction etc.), the functions you described are indeed still useful, but the core essence of what MKS is for (to me, anyway) no longer serves a purpose.

I packed a lot of different mods (so  game loading time is up to 8 minutes sometimes). Just no signs of life support. I am all behind the theory of Kerbal photosynthesis, so yeah, the only way they would die/become useless is when they pop or boom or get stranded somewhere in space.

[sh1pman]

6 hours ago, Djohaal said:

Rover, what are the determinants for the sifter efficiency. I've set up an operation on duna and I'm getting at most 65% efficiency, even with several geologists onboard. The output feels a bit wrong if compared to what is on the wiki too.

Sifters don't seem to benefit from colonization scores. Also, you only need one kerbal with the geology skill to increase the sifters efficiency.

[TauPhraim]

1 hour ago, sh1pman said:

Sifters don't seem to benefit from colonization scores. Also, you only need one kerbal with the geology skill to increase the sifters efficiency.

I think if anything should benefit from geology bonus it's the sifters (I volunteer myself for implementing it, if it's accepted). Although from a gameplay point of view, sifters are a bit of a cheat (they give you access to resources you wouldn't have in some locations).

[sh1pman]

37 minutes ago, TauPhraim said:

I think if anything should benefit from geology bonus it's the sifters (I volunteer myself for implementing it, if it's accepted). Although from a gameplay point of view, sifters are a bit of a cheat (they give you access to resources you wouldn't have in some locations).

They work very very slowly, so they're balanced with drills. What's not balanced is that they don't receive any bonuses, while drills and refineries do.

[TauPhraim]

2 hours ago, sh1pman said:

They work very very slowly, so they're balanced with drills. What's not balanced is that they don't receive any bonuses, while drills and refineries do.

It's true they are much slower than drills, but except for life support production chain, time is not critical. On the other hand, being able to acces every resource from a single point, without caring about biomes/scanning is a game-changer. (I play without hab so this is exacerbated in my view, but even with hab, the difference is not just speed).

[sh1pman]

7 minutes ago, TauPhraim said:

On the other hand, being able to acces every resource from a single point, without caring about biomes/scanning is a game-changer.

Of course it is. But you seem to be missing the point of colony rewards. As @RoverDude said, they're meant to reduce part spamming in late game. So instead of having 15 drills mining the same thing, you only need one.

Now, the sifters are already balanced with drills by having much lower efficiency. However, while the drills do become more efficient with time, sifters don't. This increasing efficiency gap makes sifters less and less useful, breaking the balance. 

[goldenpsp]

18 minutes ago, TauPhraim said:

It's true they are much slower than drills, but except for life support production chain, time is not critical. On the other hand, being able to acces every resource from a single point, without caring about biomes/scanning is a game-changer. (I play without hab so this is exacerbated in my view, but even with hab, the difference is not just speed).

Time is always critical.  It factors into Life support (if you have to stay somewhere longer), travel windows (missing a return window could mean huge things in both Life support and habitation).  You get the idea.

[voicey99]

To me, sifters are really just a means to an end, a way to get you started with resource lodes and supply small quantities of resources for small-scale operations. Making them better would make good base placement and resource considerations a moot point, since you would just be able to place a base anywhere and get masses of everything in one spot. If you really have to get your critical LS resources from a sifter and can't just mine them up directly, you seriously should have picked a better spot to settle (or at least built an unmanned mining outpost for gypsum, substrate, water etc.).

[sh1pman]

Just now, voicey99 said:

To me, sifters are really just a means to an end, a way to get you started with resource lodes and supply small quantities of resources for small-scale operations. Making them better would make good base placement and resource considerations a moot point, since you would just be able to place a base anywhere and get masses of everything in one spot. If you really have to get your critical LS resources from a sifter and can't just mine them up directly, you seriously should have picked a better spot to settle (or at least built an unmanned mining outpost for gypsum, substrate, water etc.).

Nobody's talking about making them better. I'm talking about making them scale better with time, just like drills and refineries do.

You can't just drop a sifter anywhere and expect to generate a decent amount of resources. You'll have to work for it and improve the geology rating first. The alternative to making them receive geology bonus is to spam more sifters, and I'm not really a fan of spamming parts. 

[TauPhraim]

I agreed with giving bonuses to sifter, and actually proposed to do it I just think they are a bit cheaty (from the very start): just land in a spot with water and either minerals or gypsum, and you can survive and (eventually) strive.

[sh1pman]

10 minutes ago, TauPhraim said:

I agreed with giving bonuses to sifter, and actually proposed to do it I just think they are a bit cheaty (from the very start): just land in a spot with water and either minerals or gypsum, and you can survive and (eventually) strive.

You won't be able make enough material kits to build more habs. For that, you still need drills. 

[Space Kadet]

so heres my question\suggestion, Mks is now a lot of other mods thrown into one, from an organizational point of view would it be possible to split mks into separate folders for the parts so you could take out what you done use, much like you can remove karibu, have the duna and tundra parts in separate folder and one for the kerbal thing it dose now with the new kerbals. 

i use the tundra parts and the old ranger parts (i miss the black ranger) but the rest is ancillary, and the kerbal replacement is close to game breaking for career mode because you don't increase pilots in the normal rescue fasion(62 recoveries and only one engineer, no scientists or pilots) 
i use the rest of the constellation parts too except the sub pack, but mks is huge and accounts for 4 minutes of loadup out of a 7 minute ksp start.

Love what you do, and please bring back the parts that tundra replaced, i loved them for surface things

[Warezcrawler]

@RoverDude I found a syntax error in "MKS_Processor125.cfg" where the "TemperatureModifier" node name is missing for the "MonoPropellant" in "ModuleResourceConverter_USI". I do think the "250" and "375" versions are ok.

Spoiler

    MODULE
    {
        name = ModuleResourceConverter_USI
        ConverterName = MonoPropellant
        StartActionName = Start MonoPropellant
        StopActionName = Stop MonoPropellant
        Efficiency = 1    
        AutoShutdown = true
        GeneratesHeat = true
        UseSpecialistBonus = false
        {
            key = 0 10000
            key = 500 5000
            key = 1000 2500
            key = 1250 2500
            key = 1500 500
            key = 2000 0
        }        
        ThermalEfficiency 
        {
            key = 0 0
            key = 500 0.25
            key = 1000 1.0
            key = 1250 0.5
            key = 1500 0.1
            key = 2000 0
        }
        INPUT_RESOURCE
        {
            ResourceName = Ore
            Ratio =  0.013
        }
        
        INPUT_RESOURCE
        {
            ResourceName = ElectricCharge
            Ratio = 1.56
        }
        
        OUTPUT_RESOURCE
        {
            ResourceName = MonoPropellant
            Ratio = 0.0026
            DumpExcess = False
        }
        INPUT_RESOURCE
        {
            ResourceName = Machinery
            Ratio = 0.00000045
        }
        OUTPUT_RESOURCE
        {
            ResourceName = Recyclables
            Ratio = 0.00000045
            DumpExcess = true
        }
        REQUIRED_RESOURCE
        {
            ResourceName = Machinery
            Ratio = 90
        }
    }            

 

[voicey99]

51 minutes ago, Warezcrawler said:

@RoverDude I found a syntax error in "MKS_Processor125.cfg" where the "TemperatureModifier" node name is missing for the "MonoPropellant" in "ModuleResourceConverter_USI". I do think the "250" and "375" versions are ok.

  Reveal hidden contents

    MODULE
    {
        name = ModuleResourceConverter_USI
        ConverterName = MonoPropellant
        StartActionName = Start MonoPropellant
        StopActionName = Stop MonoPropellant
        Efficiency = 1    
        AutoShutdown = true
        GeneratesHeat = true
        UseSpecialistBonus = false
        {
            key = 0 10000
            key = 500 5000
            key = 1000 2500
            key = 1250 2500
            key = 1500 500
            key = 2000 0
        }        
        ThermalEfficiency 
        {
            key = 0 0
            key = 500 0.25
            key = 1000 1.0
            key = 1250 0.5
            key = 1500 0.1
            key = 2000 0
        }
        INPUT_RESOURCE
        {
            ResourceName = Ore
            Ratio =  0.013
        }
        
        INPUT_RESOURCE
        {
            ResourceName = ElectricCharge
            Ratio = 1.56
        }
        
        OUTPUT_RESOURCE
        {
            ResourceName = MonoPropellant
            Ratio = 0.0026
            DumpExcess = False
        }
        INPUT_RESOURCE
        {
            ResourceName = Machinery
            Ratio = 0.00000045
        }
        OUTPUT_RESOURCE
        {
            ResourceName = Recyclables
            Ratio = 0.00000045
            DumpExcess = true
        }
        REQUIRED_RESOURCE
        {
            ResourceName = Machinery
            Ratio = 90
        }
    }            

 

Oops, dunno how that crept in. That was my PR, I'll fix that.

EDIT: Added on to my existing PR about Rock (I really need to learn how to put multiple changes into one commit).

Edited April 4, 2017 by voicey99

[TauPhraim]

Is anyone actually against sifters benefiting from the geology bonus ? (reminder: drills now benefit from the bonus, so sifters would always be weaker than drills, either way).

 

Unrelated: to people using Galileo Planet Pack: what planets have you kolonized ?

[voicey99]

1 minute ago, TauPhraim said:

Is anyone actually against sifters benefiting from the geology bonus ? (reminder: drills now benefit from the bonus, so sifters would always be weaker than drills, either way).

 

Unrelated: to people using Galileo Planet Pack: what planets have you kolonized ?

I would actually be more for a higher geology rating increasing the yield of sifters rather than the raw speed, but speed would be ok I guess.

Unrelated: I don't use GPP, but I am planning to kolonise Slate, Tekto and Thatmo from OPM at some point.

[TauPhraim]

4 minutes ago, voicey99 said:

I am planning to kolonise Slate, Tekto and Thatmo from OPM at some point.

These have very high travel times. Do you plan to use DeepFreeze (or some other mod) ? I think it has a problem in that freezing a Kerbal resets their hab timer. (but it's relatively easy to resist abusing from that).

[Gilph]

11 minutes ago, TauPhraim said:

Unrelated: to people using Galileo Planet Pack: what planets have you kolonized ?

Just started 10 days ago. Have a Ranger base on Iota.  Since I also started using CTT, havent unlocked the Refinery or Assembly plant yet

18 minutes ago, TauPhraim said:

Is anyone actually against sifters benefiting from the geology bonus ? (reminder: drills now benefit from the bonus, so sifters would always be weaker than drills, either way).

 

Unrelated: to people using Galileo Planet Pack: what planets have you kolonized ?

Not really against sifters getting Geology bonus, but I think the bonus amount that gets applied to drilling and resource conversion really needs a nerf.

[voicey99]

16 minutes ago, TauPhraim said:

These have very high travel times. Do you plan to use DeepFreeze (or some other mod) ? I think it has a problem in that freezing a Kerbal resets their hab timer. (but it's relatively easy to resist abusing from that).

I don't plan to use DF, I plan to floor it with no flying farts given whatsoever to fuel efficiency . With 1.5km/s of extra DV I can cut the travel time to Sarnus to just 2 years (-75%) and 900m/s will bring the Neidon travel time to "only" 9 years (-60%). Even Plock can be shaved down to 8 years (-88%) with a semi-reasonable 3km/s extra.

Edited April 4, 2017 by voicey99

[Phil Kerman]

It´s getting serious  

 

[voicey99]

14 minutes ago, Phil Kerman said:

It´s getting serious  

<schnip>

How come you can take such high-quality screenshots? Mine are always in glorious 480p.

And what is that green drill?

[Phil Kerman]

the green one is a regolith drill. 

 

about the screenshots, don´t know. Have every graphic setting on maximum and using an Eizo WQHD screen and a 1080gtx (I´m not sure if it has s.th. to do with the quality of the screenshot). 

 

the filesizes of the screenshots are around 4-5MB

Edited April 5, 2017 by Phil Kerman

[voicey99]

12 minutes ago, Phil Kerman said:

the green one is a regolith drill. 

 

about the screenshots, don´t know. Have every graphic setting on maximum and using an Eizo WQHD screen and a 1080gtx (I´m not sure if it has s.th. to do with the quality of the screenshot). 

 

the filesizes of the screenshots are around 4-5MB

Hm, I also have everything on max and a 750ti gfx card, but each of my SSs are only about 100-300KB. The quality isn't awful but you can definitely see the pixels when you put it fullscreen. Maybe it's because I'm taking the screenshots via Steam rather than KSP.

And regolith drill? Which mod?

Edited April 5, 2017 by voicey99