N3N Posted May 4, 2017 Share Posted May 4, 2017 16 minutes ago, RoverDude said: Just don't expect it to be free, or remotely as efficient as doing your own launches. No, why should I? It's more realistic to cost something, like for example LF+Ox+Mono for "virtual" launches. Just more practical than ship it with many "real" manual launches. And maybe you have to actual start every launch by yourself at a base and it consumes a procedural part of LF+Ox+Mono+Machinery/MK/SP and take some time to arrive at the space station. So that it takes longer and cost more for it, if the space station is in a higher orbit and it works only in the same SOI. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johould Posted May 4, 2017 Share Posted May 4, 2017 30 minutes ago, N3N said: And maybe you have to actual start every launch by yourself at a base and it consumes a procedural part of LF+Ox+Mono+Machinery/MK/SP and take some time to arrive at the space station. I haven't tried it with MKS, but that sort of sounds like what Routine Mission Manager is supposed to do - fly a mission once yourself, and then you can just order up a repeat mission delivering the same payload for the same costs. Maybe only missions from KSC? I don't think it's very flexible about letting you switch to a different payload of similar mass, or automatically combining several recorded flights to deliver along a new route. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johould Posted May 4, 2017 Share Posted May 4, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, RoverDude said: Background processing (i.e. running processes on unloaded vessels) is generally a really really bad idea, especially given the number of bases, converters, etc. you typically see in late game with colonization. But there *is* a new logistics system in the works How is that different from the usual catch-up processing? Does the usual catch-up run with all the models and physics loaded? I just assumed it was sort of just checking converters. Remembering to visit bases in the right order sounds like a pain, I wouldn't want to waste a few years' production by loading a main base before touring the mining outposts. Do you know of any fixes that might be feasible? Edited May 4, 2017 by Johould Typo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terwin Posted May 4, 2017 Share Posted May 4, 2017 2 hours ago, N3N said: Can you transfer resources via planetary logistics from a mun base to a mun space station? Is it that what you mean by "Mun manufacturing base -> Mun Way-station"? no, that is a list of the bases I need to visit in the correct order to make sure that all required resources are available for the catch-up processing. 34 minutes ago, Johould said: How is that different from the usual catch-up processing? Does the usual catch-up run with all the models and physics loaded? I just assumed it was sort of just checking converters. Remembering to visit bases in the right order sounds like a pain, I wouldn't want to waste a few years' production by loading a main base before touring the mining outposts. Do you know of any fixes that might be feasible? MKS uses the 'usual catch-up processing' which is why things like the background processing mod cause problems for MKS: they change the catch-up process, potentially breaking needed functionality that is not used much by stock processes. the best fixes I know of are either self-sufficient bases, or large stocks of materials in the planetary stores so that there is little or no lost processing time(good argument for over-producing supporting bases so that they can build up those stocks in case they are needed). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terwin Posted May 4, 2017 Share Posted May 4, 2017 2 hours ago, RoverDude said: Just don't expect it to be free, or remotely as efficient as doing your own launches. Considering how little attention I pay to transfer-windows, you will have to go pretty inefficient to get worse than my interplanetary transfers... I often take > 5km/s getting from lko to Duna orbit for example... (There is a reason I have nerva-powered ore hauler/refiners in systems where I am active, even with GC many of my bases would not get down to the surface without a refuel) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
voicey99 Posted May 4, 2017 Share Posted May 4, 2017 3 hours ago, Terwin said: Considering how little attention I pay to transfer-windows, you will have to go pretty inefficient to get worse than my interplanetary transfers... I often take > 5km/s getting from lko to Duna orbit for example... (There is a reason I have nerva-powered ore hauler/refiners in systems where I am active, even with GC many of my bases would not get down to the surface without a refuel) Heh, I do similar. I do wait for the windows to come around but instead of pootling around from a to b, I do the spacecraft equivalent of flooring it with zero regard for efficiency. This means an express trip to Duna from LKO can cost >6KMS DV, an especially challenging challenge as I only ever use LFO engines unless where absolutely necessary (ion engines on my OPM probes and SXT NRMs on my OPM crewed craft). At least I have reason to do this thanks to LS concerns-you would struggle to make more expensively over-engineered vessels than me as well. I can't wait for the automation, making repeated cargo runs gets very grindy after a while. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DStaal Posted May 4, 2017 Share Posted May 4, 2017 4 hours ago, Johould said: How is that different from the usual catch-up processing? Does the usual catch-up run with all the models and physics loaded? I just assumed it was sort of just checking converters. Remembering to visit bases in the right order sounds like a pain, I wouldn't want to waste a few years' production by loading a main base before touring the mining outposts. Do you know of any fixes that might be feasible? Catch-up runs the vessels in the current physics frame with all models and physics in a reduced mode, from what I understand. Background processing would run *every* vessel, all the time. If your game slows down when you enter the range of one of your bases, think about what it would do if you were in range of *all* of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoverDude Posted May 4, 2017 Author Share Posted May 4, 2017 Though in general, the current mechanic is pretty heavily optimized... but for an extensive save, you'd start taking a hit. This is why the mods that try to do otherwise take some shortcuts and drop functionality, because otherwise the cost would cause (more) noticeable lag. And traditionally, mods that have tried to do background processing eventually hit a performance wall. Pro tip: This is why we didn't do it in stock Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dangel74 Posted May 4, 2017 Share Posted May 4, 2017 Is there a reason for putting more than kerbal of each type on a base to boost production? On a different note I noticed that inflatable parts give their efficiency bonuses even than deflated if toggled on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvermistshadow Posted May 4, 2017 Share Posted May 4, 2017 (edited) 14 hours ago, RoverDude said: FYI you are referring to Flex-O-Tubes (which require KIS) - Expand-o-tubes have been deprecated for a while. Well, they certainly are flexible. But rigid enough that I'm going to build another rover and designate it as a module mover, because this strategy is going great. Just don't load the game again while doing it. Some things get stuck in an odd state where they don't know if they're deployed or not on load. Just about flipped the entire rover over to an unrecoverable state- after three attempts I managed to figure out that it wasn't an invisible rock, and so I was ready and had a way of getting back upright after countering the force. It was the legs on the module that did it. Base update: I've got all the duna lander modules deployed, but now I can't seem to find a way to get that and the rover base attached. I'll find a way to do it though. rover update: just about giving up on getting the akita out of the cargo bay. There isn't enough room for it to turn in there, and whenever I do get it out, it flips onto its side from the force necessary to get it out. Edited May 4, 2017 by silvermistshadow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grobluk Posted May 4, 2017 Share Posted May 4, 2017 Deleting the old Constellation files and reinstalling the pre-release reproduced a substantial drop in FPS. Link to the log here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/70iwtk3xagddevf/output_log.txt?dl=0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jd284 Posted May 4, 2017 Share Posted May 4, 2017 1 hour ago, Grobluk said: Deleting the old Constellation files and reinstalling the pre-release reproduced a substantial drop in FPS. Link to the log here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/70iwtk3xagddevf/output_log.txt?dl=0 What was your old version? If it's older than March 28, then this FPS drop may be temporary. If I remember right, the fix to bug #1233 requires that the first time after upgrading, catchup processing with efficiency parts has to run for quite a bit longer for each vessel. This can mean some noticeable FPS drop for a minute or two (of physics time, not game time so time warp won't help). After that it should stabilize however. So check if your FPS gets better after a while. If you save afterwards it should be normal from then on, and only lower during the actual catchup processing after coming back to a vessel that you hadn't focused for a while. But if it doesn't get better after 5 or 10 minutes, this is some different issue though that should be looked into after all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvermistshadow Posted May 4, 2017 Share Posted May 4, 2017 (edited) I'm just gonna put this here: never put the engineer you were using to attach stuff directly in the workshop. The workshop apparently eats inventory items. I've lost two good screwdrivers to this. Always board to a part that has a 'seat' inventory. Or shove the tools back where you got them. Edited May 4, 2017 by silvermistshadow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DStaal Posted May 4, 2017 Share Posted May 4, 2017 4 minutes ago, silvermistshadow said: I'm just gonna put this here: never put the engineer you were using to attach stuff directly in the workshop. The workshop apparently eats inventory items. I've lost two good screwdrivers to this. Always board to a part that has a 'seat' inventory. Or shove the tools back where you got them. Yep. Well-known issue: Inflatable parts and KIS inventory don't mix well. My latest base - made mostly of Ranger parts - has several KIS containers sitting on the ground outside just for this purpose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenpsp Posted May 5, 2017 Share Posted May 5, 2017 1 hour ago, DStaal said: Yep. Well-known issue: Inflatable parts and KIS inventory don't mix well. My latest base - made mostly of Ranger parts - has several KIS containers sitting on the ground outside just for this purpose. Yep, KIS "seat" inventory has always been a mess like this. At one point there was talk of KIS removing it altogether for this sort of reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johould Posted May 5, 2017 Share Posted May 5, 2017 6 hours ago, DStaal said: Catch-up runs the vessels in the current physics frame with all models and physics in a reduced mode, from what I understand. Background processing would run *every* vessel, all the time. If your game slows down when you enter the range of one of your bases, think about what it would do if you were in range of *all* of them. I was hoping maybe the reduced mode was light enough to allow running it for several vessels at once, but only whenever the game was already going to run it for one vessel. Ideally run everything around the new planet with the days interleaved so even mutual dependencies would work out (like if the mining base needs supplies from the manufacturing base it is supplying for the crew to keep working the whole time). If that's too much to hope for, maybe at least some way of configuring bases so that whenever the game would catch-up it, makes sure that some other vessels are up to date first. I'd rather have a long pause when returning to a base after a few years than finding no production and the crew all on strike. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N3N Posted May 5, 2017 Share Posted May 5, 2017 Hey, Is there a way to make a more efficient/bigger Karbonite Drill? Or even better, do let the (Automated) Industrial Strip Miner drill for Karbonite/Karborundum! Please! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voodoo8648 Posted May 5, 2017 Share Posted May 5, 2017 Hi @RoverDude, Is MKS compatible with the Kerbalism mod, and if not, could you make it compatible with it? I am looking to switch from TAC LS to Kerbalism in the near future after kerbalism becomes compatible with Kerbal Star System. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwarazi Posted May 5, 2017 Share Posted May 5, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Voodoo8648 said: Hi @RoverDude, Is MKS compatible with the Kerbalism mod, and if not, could you make it compatible with it? I am looking to switch from TAC LS to Kerbalism in the near future after kerbalism becomes compatible with Kerbal Star System. @Voodoo8648 As far as i am aware it is not compatible and I think most people here can ans for Roverdude and say No he won't as he doesn't use it himself, also Kerbalism has its own habitation and supplies and any integration would probably be complicated. The only way it would be made compatible would be if someone else decided to make some configs for it. Edited May 5, 2017 by Kwarazi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigcalm Posted May 5, 2017 Share Posted May 5, 2017 Here's my Laythe station built with MKS parts (it's an out of date version of MKS as some parts got deprecated and I could no longer upgrade MKS in my current game): Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N3N Posted May 5, 2017 Share Posted May 5, 2017 46 minutes ago, bigcalm said: Here's my Laythe station built with MKS parts (it's an out of date version of MKS as some parts got deprecated and I could no longer upgrade MKS in my current game): Hey bigcalm, Nice one, but what is with this pink (?) color? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tabris Posted May 5, 2017 Share Posted May 5, 2017 19 hours ago, RoverDude said: Just don't expect it to be free, or remotely as efficient as doing your own launches. So, it'll be as efficient as a "Roverdude Launch"tm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigcalm Posted May 5, 2017 Share Posted May 5, 2017 47 minutes ago, N3N said: Hey bigcalm, Nice one, but what is with this pink (?) color? It's just from the lights on the station. And it's supposed to be purple :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoverDude Posted May 5, 2017 Author Share Posted May 5, 2017 4 hours ago, Voodoo8648 said: Hi @RoverDude, Is MKS compatible with the Kerbalism mod, and if not, could you make it compatible with it? I am looking to switch from TAC LS to Kerbalism in the near future after kerbalism becomes compatible with Kerbal Star System. No, nor can it ever be. Kerbalism is an example of a mod that solves the background processing issue by completely overriding all stock converters, and cutting features of stock that MKS relies on. So the two mods are fundamentally incompatible. No patch is going to solve this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gilph Posted May 5, 2017 Share Posted May 5, 2017 2 hours ago, RoverDude said: No, nor can it ever be. Kerbalism is an example of a mod that solves the background processing issue by completely overriding all stock converters, and cutting features of stock that MKS relies on. So the two mods are fundamentally incompatible. No patch is going to solve this. Good candidate for adding to OP under FAQ, along with other mods that will always be incompatible. 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.