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

[Terwin]

39 minutes ago, DoktorKrogg said:

The way that W.O.L.F. works is easier to show than to try to explain but the basic flow is this:

• Scan a biome to see what resources are available and in what quantity.
• Setup a depot in the biome (you'll have the option to spawn a premade, single-part base in the biome if you want something pretty to look at)
• Bring in equipment to harvest and process the resources (land them with a rocket, truck them in with a rover, build them on site, whatever)
  • The equipment will be "absorbed" into the biome/depot (i.e. it will be despawned from the game)
• Setup transport routes to transfer resources between depots... even depots on other planets

There is no temporal component to the W.O.L.F. resource system, meaning we don't have to run any per-frame calculations to determine how much Ore a drill is bringing in or how much Ore a refinery is using and how much LiquidFuel it's producing. You'll do a resource survey, it will come back saying you have something like 200 Ore available in the biome, you land a drill in the biome that can extract 5 Ore and now you have 5 Ore available in your depot to do whatever with. Then you might bring in a refinery that needs 10 Ore and produces 5 LFO. The depot can only supply you with 5 Ore though currently, so you either need to bring in another drill or ship the other 5 Ore in from another depot. The important thing to understand that 1 W.O.L.F. unit is not the same as 1 stock unit. 

There is a part (we're calling it a "hopper") that will allow you pull resources out of W.O.L.F. into the stock resource system. That part will operate just like any other converter does currently (i.e. it will output some quantity per second). This is the only time we introduce any kind of temporal component to W.O.L.F. We still haven't ironed out the exact formula we'll use for that conversion but it will probably be something like 1 W.O.L.F. unit = 10 kg/day. That would put a hopper about on par with a single bay in the 20m dome.

There will not be a way to input resources from the stock system into W.O.L.F. though. The whole idea behind W.O.L.F. is permanence. Once you have a drill setup in a biome to bring in 5 Ore, that 5 Ore is guaranteed for the rest of the game. Once that 5 Ore has been allocated to consumers, it can't be reallocated. So we don't want to introduce dependencies on incoming resources from parts that may explode, get recycled on accident, moved to another biome, etc. The permanence of W.O.L.F. is what makes it so much simpler than the stock resource system and thus so much more scalable.

So... I deliver mining equipment to a W.O.L.F. depot for a permanent increase in available resources from that biome(up to the limit of what is present), which can then be shipped to whichever location has need of it...

No more redeploying and restarting drills because of an on-load bounce, no more 'Where can I stick this solar panel so it gets sun without getting in the way', no more 'does this mining platform have all of the container types I need', no more making a tour of mining platforms before visiting a colony to avoid running out a a crucial resource?  

Very cool.

I presume 'mining supplies' includes power, drills and radiators?

Will nuclear powered depots be possible and will they need refueling? (assuming MKS power plants)

Is the depot collection/conversion rate expected to be influenced by colonization bonuses?

Is there a plan to have W.O.L.F. converters to produce non-raw materials for transport across the W.O.L.F. network?

Any information available on how transport costs will be calculated/paid?

If a hopper is destroyed, are any resources allocated to it permanently lost?

[invultri]

1 hour ago, DoktorKrogg said:

....

• Scan a biome to see what resources are available and in what quantity.
• Setup a depot in the biome (you'll have the option to spawn a premade, single-part base in the biome if you want something pretty to look at)
• Bring in equipment to harvest and process the resources (land them with a rocket, truck them in with a rover, build them on site, whatever)
  • The equipment will be "absorbed" into the biome/depot (i.e. it will be despawned from the game)
• Setup transport routes to transfer resources between depots... even depots on other planets

.....

Sounds pretty awesome even though it is a trade-off between engineering and game performance. I will wait for this update to drop and start a new career on 1.7.

[sstabeler]

26 minutes ago, Terwin said:

So... I deliver mining equipment to a W.O.L.F. depot for a permanent increase in available resources from that biome(up to the limit of what is present), which can then be shipped to whichever location has need of it...

No more redeploying and restarting drills because of an on-load bounce, no more 'Where can I stick this solar panel so it gets sun without getting in the way', no more 'does this mining platform have all of the container types I need', no more making a tour of mining platforms before visiting a colony to avoid running out a a crucial resource?  

Very cool.

I presume 'mining supplies' includes power, drills and radiators?

Will nuclear powered depots be possible and will they need refueling? (assuming MKS power plants)

Is the depot collection/conversion rate expected to be influenced by colonization bonuses?

Is there a plan to have W.O.L.F. converters to produce non-raw materials for transport across the W.O.L.F. network?

Any information available on how transport costs will be calculated/paid?

If a hopper is destroyed, are any resources allocated to it permanently lost?

I think the idea is that it abstracts out most of the resource extraction process, distilling it down, more-or-less, to "A amount of B resources are produced and turned into C amount of D resources" which presumably are then gathered from the hopper (so to speak) 

 

As for W.O.L.F converters, there's no need. The refinery can be absorbed by the depot as well. 

as for hoppers being destroyed, I don't know, but i've a feeling it won't since I suspect that it's more a case that the idea is that consumers within W.O.L.F can't be destroyed so there's little oint accounting for it. However, the hopper can, so it's worth allowing for it happening.

[DoktorKrogg]

2 minutes ago, Terwin said:

I presume 'mining supplies' includes power, drills and radiators?

Will nuclear powered depots be possible and will they need refueling? (assuming MKS power plants)

There will be equivalents in WOLF for basically everything that MKS and USI-LS currently do. You'll still need Power but the idea is that you're delivering the equipment and then leaving it in the hands of your Kerbals to figure out how to keep it running. So there's no waste heat to manage, no reactor refueling, etc. No more "I have 3000 radiators on my mining rig...why are the drills still overheating?" issues or reactors blowing up during time warp. 

14 minutes ago, Terwin said:

Is the depot collection/conversion rate expected to be influenced by colonization bonuses?

No. We don't want to introduce any hard dependencies between MKS and WOLF. That said, we already have plans for WOLF v1.1 that will introduce new mechanics in the same spirit of MKS colonization bonuses. We still want there to be rewards for expanding a colony. We're just trying to get WOLF v1.0 out the door for now though. So more on this particular topic later.

29 minutes ago, Terwin said:

Is there a plan to have W.O.L.F. converters to produce non-raw materials for transport across the W.O.L.F. network?

Yep. Everything you can make with MKS, you'll be able to make with WOLF and you'll be able to transport most of them within the WOLF network as well. Kerbals are also treated as "resources" in WOLF. Once they join a colony, they are "absorbed" just like equipment is. You receive a number of CrewPoints for each star the Kerbal had when they joined the colony. They all consume the same amount of life support resources though, so there's incentive to get your Kerbals leveled up before they become colonists!

40 minutes ago, Terwin said:

Any information available on how transport costs will be calculated/paid?

I'm really excited about the transport mechanic personally. You won't get it for free like you do with planetary logistics in MKS. In WOLF, you have to make the journey between depots yourself first. The amount of mass lost between point A and point B determines the cost in TransportCredits and the final mass of the vessel determines the payload. You don't automatically get the return trip for free either. You have to refuel and make the journey back to point A yourself if you want two-way transfers. Once the route is established though, you can transport whatever you want over it. So say you end up with a payload of 10 WOLF units, you could send 5 Water, 1 Food, 1 Oxygen and 3 MatKits to the destination over that route. You can change what's being transported at any time too, provided the destination depot is able to "give back" what was originally being transported (i.e. it's not required by other consumers). So say you get Water production setup at the destination depot for a total of 10 Water (5 coming in via transport and 5 from the refinery) and you're using 8 Water. You could cancel 2 Water coming in via transport and start sending 2 units of something else instead (e.g. more MatKits, more Food, a new resource, whatever).

56 minutes ago, Terwin said:

If a hopper is destroyed, are any resources allocated to it permanently lost?

Nope, at least they shouldn't be. Detecting when parts go missing can be a bit tricky sometimes, so this is something we will probably need some help testing and troubleshooting once the beta goes out.

43 minutes ago, invultri said:

Sounds pretty awesome even though it is a trade-off between engineering and game performance. I will wait for this update to drop and start a new career on 1.7.

Oh there will still be plenty of engineering required, it just shifts from "how do I attach my base pieces together and keep it from exploding" to "how can I make the trip from Minmus to Ike with the biggest payload while using the least fuel" and "is it more efficient to deliver equipment to the Mun from Kerbin or build it in situ".

[Brigadier]

3 hours ago, DoktorKrogg said:

There will not be a way to input resources from the stock system into W.O.L.F. though. The whole idea behind W.O.L.F. is permanence. Once you have a drill setup in a biome to bring in 5 Ore, that 5 Ore is guaranteed for the rest of the game. Once that 5 Ore has been allocated to consumers, it can't be reallocated. So we don't want to introduce dependencies on incoming resources from parts that may explode, get recycled on accident, moved to another biome, etc. The permanence of W.O.L.F. is what makes it so much simpler than the stock resource system and thus so much more scalable. 

(emphasis mine)

I'm not sure I understand the implications of not being able to reallocate W.O.L.F. outputs.  What happens as the base expands or changes roles and the resource/production chain changes?

[alien_wind]

wait is the wolf an update into mks mod or a completely separate reboot on colonization and ls?

[goldenpsp]

1 hour ago, alien_wind said:

wait is the wolf an update into mks mod or a completely separate reboot on colonization and ls?

Um I'd recommend reading @RoverDude's post

The relevant bit...

W.O.L.F. is not an MKS replacement any more than MKS is a replacement for the stock resource system.  Rather, it's a system that layers on top and adds more goodness.

[DoktorKrogg]

49 minutes ago, Brigadier said:

I'm not sure I understand the implications of not being able to reallocate W.O.L.F. outputs.  What happens as the base expands or changes roles and the resource/production chain changes?

33 minutes ago, alien_wind said:

wait is the wolf an update into mks mod or a completely separate reboot on colonization and ls?

@goldenpsp beat me to it but yes, WOLF is a completely separate system from MKS and USI-LS. It brings with it a new approach to colonization but it is not intended to be a replacement for MKS or USI-LS. MKS is and will remain very good for building temporary and semi-permanent settlements. It offers a lot of flexibility in terms of being able to adapt to changes in your goals and strategies. It starts to break down though once you try to go big, both from a performance perspective and from a time management perspective. That's where WOLF comes in. If your goal is to have Kerbals permanently settled on every habitable body in the solar system, WOLF will let you do that. If you want to have cities with thousands of Kerbals living in them, WOLF will let you do that too. Good luck trying to do with that with MKS.  On the other hand, if the fun of colonization for you is in designing/launching/landing/assembling bases, handling resupply missions, handling crew rotations, figuring out what to do when you accidentally recycle your base's nuclear reactor and mounting rescue missions to retrieve a group of grumpy Kerbals that you left sitting in an orbital station that you forgot about, then WOLF probably doesn't have much to offer you.

In other words, if you like micromanagement, MKS + USI-LS is the way to go. If you want to colonize every planet in the Kerbol system, then WOLF is gonna be your jam.

[tsaven]

On 4/22/2019 at 12:55 PM, DoktorKrogg said:

Some more notes on the Atlas parts:

*heavy breathing*

[sstabeler]

4 hours ago, Brigadier said:

(emphasis mine)

I'm not sure I understand the implications of not being able to reallocate W.O.L.F. outputs.  What happens as the base expands or changes roles and the resource/production chain changes?

That's the tradeoff with W.O.L.F, unfortunately. If you want to change the role that much, you'll presumably need to destroy the depot and start from scratch.

 

Or, to put it another way, with W.O.L.F, you are more running an interplanetary freight line (well, unless you use a mod that allows you to go interstellar)- you are focusing more on figuring out the most efficient way to ship freight around to maximise (presumably) the throughput of freight than on optimising the bases themselves over time.

[Terwin]

17 hours ago, DoktorKrogg said:

There will be equivalents in WOLF for basically everything that MKS and USI-LS currently do. You'll still need Power but the idea is that you're delivering the equipment and then leaving it in the hands of your Kerbals to figure out how to keep it running. So there's no waste heat to manage, no reactor refueling, etc. No more "I have 3000 radiators on my mining rig...why are the drills still overheating?" issues or reactors blowing up during time warp. 

It is almost like you are trying to remove the bits where either bugs or the KSP engine cause the most problems...

17 hours ago, DoktorKrogg said:

Yep. Everything you can make with MKS, you'll be able to make with WOLF and you'll be able to transport most of them within the WOLF network as well. Kerbals are also treated as "resources" in WOLF. Once they join a colony, they are "absorbed" just like equipment is. You receive a number of CrewPoints for each star the Kerbal had when they joined the colony. They all consume the same amount of life support resources though, so there's incentive to get your Kerbals leveled up before they become colonists!

Hmm, so it sounds like we will still have a mechanic like the engineer/scientist bonuses.

If there is no interaction with colonization bonuses, will there be any reason to add Colonists to a base(as opposed to Engineers, Scientists, Pilots, or other specialists)?

Will W.O.L.F. allow real-time tracking of Life support/Habitation requirements without needing to visit each base?  (Will life support timers still be a thing in W.O.L.F., or will it just not be possible to add a kerbal to a base without enough available LS to keep them alive?)

17 hours ago, DoktorKrogg said:

I'm really excited about the transport mechanic personally. You won't get it for free like you do with planetary logistics in MKS. In WOLF, you have to make the journey between depots yourself first. The amount of mass lost between point A and point B determines the cost in TransportCredits and the final mass of the vessel determines the payload. You don't automatically get the return trip for free either. You have to refuel and make the journey back to point A yourself if you want two-way transfers. Once the route is established though, you can transport whatever you want over it. So say you end up with a payload of 10 WOLF units, you could send 5 Water, 1 Food, 1 Oxygen and 3 MatKits to the destination over that route. You can change what's being transported at any time too, provided the destination depot is able to "give back" what was originally being transported (i.e. it's not required by other consumers). So say you get Water production setup at the destination depot for a total of 10 Water (5 coming in via transport and 5 from the refinery) and you're using 8 Water. You could cancel 2 Water coming in via transport and start sending 2 units of something else instead (e.g. more MatKits, more Food, a new resource, whatever).

 

If we can transport Kerbals, does that mean crew rotations to reset kerbal home timers?

 How will Kerbal transport(presumably a 1 time thing) compare to resource transport(presumably a recurring/continuous thing)?

Are you expecting to use a variable 'dummy mass'/designated cargo components or just assume some fraction of the arrival mass is useful cargo space?

17 hours ago, DoktorKrogg said:

Oh there will still be plenty of engineering required, it just shifts from "how do I attach my base pieces together and keep it from exploding" to "how can I make the trip from Minmus to Ike with the biggest payload while using the least fuel" and "is it more efficient to deliver equipment to the Mun from Kerbin or build it in situ".

That makes it sound like you can you use W.O.L.F. to produce additional components for your base(s).

That makes me think of manufacturing bases on the Mun and Minmus pumping out drills and hab spaces that get shipped out to Ike, Duna, and beyond...

Could you produce an entire new depot in W.O.L.F. or will there be a 'seed' which always comes from Kerbin? 

Will there be an ability/need to pop the seed out in a hopper for transport to the new biome?

Will it be possible to deploy a vessel from a hopper(perhaps a rover or rocket with a new depot seed to deliver)? 

This gives me visions of 'depot clusters' where you plop your first depot near several biomes and just use solar powered rovers to deploy new depots and generate trade routes.

(Presumably solar powered rovers can make inter-base transport 'nearly free' on a given planetary body, at least if you drive carefully.)

 

Exciting stuff, looking forward to it!

[Kielm]

On 4/22/2019 at 8:55 PM, DoktorKrogg said:

• • Side note: This is the reason we had to change the way converters work. We wouldn't have been able to do this previously.

On this point:

I understand the reasoning behind this design decision, but, this method of wrapping modules inside of containers (bays) does break compatibility for some other mods. It would be enormously helpful to have a way to integrate a (for example) life support module directly into a part rather than into a 'bay', particularly when there is no desire or requirement for it to be swappable.

Pathfinder/WBI mods and USI mods are becoming more incompatible because they both use switchable containers. USI-LS is currently not working with Pathfinder because the USI swappable bay modules cannot be handled easily when attached to swappable units inside Pathfinder parts.

@RoverDude Would it be troublesome to provide a way to access these modules without using swappable bays? Is that something you'd be willing to consider?

[RoverDude]

6 minutes ago, Kielm said:

Would it be troublesome to provide a way to access these modules without using swappable bays? Is that something you'd be willing to consider?

Unfortunately, I don't think that's something that will make it on the to-do list any time soon.  There's a lot of work going on at the moment, and as noted, we had to crack a few eggs.  That being said, no reason why someone could not make a MM compatibility patch that used USI-style modules as needed for the life support bits.

[DoktorKrogg]

3 hours ago, Terwin said:

It is almost like you are trying to remove the bits where either bugs or the KSP engine cause the most problems...
Hmm, so it sounds like we will still have a mechanic like the engineer/scientist bonuses.
If there is no interaction with colonization bonuses, will there be any reason to add Colonists to a base(as opposed to Engineers, Scientists, Pilots, or other specialists)?
Will W.O.L.F. allow real-time tracking of Life support/Habitation requirements without needing to visit each base?  (Will life support timers still be a thing in W.O.L.F., or will it just not be possible to add a kerbal to a base without enough available LS to keep them alive?)
If we can transport Kerbals, does that mean crew rotations to reset kerbal home timers?
How will Kerbal transport(presumably a 1 time thing) compare to resource transport(presumably a recurring/continuous thing)?

WOLF has its own resource chain that's similar to MKS and USI-LS but has some important differences. Basically what we've done is "bake in" all the MKS and USI-LS mechanics into the recipes for WOLF parts. For example, Machinery requirements have been folded into a new resource called Maintenance. Maintenance is produced with a Maintenance Module that takes as inputs MaterialKits, Power, EngineerCrewPoints, MechanicCrewPoints and KolonistCrewPoints. Likewise, all of the USI-LS requirements have been folded into two new resources called Habitation and LifeSupport. Habitation is produced from Power and MatKits; LifeSupport from Food, Oxygen, Water, Power and MatKits. TransportCredits are made from Fuel, Maintenance, MatKits, QuartermasterCrewPoints and PilotCrewPoints. We've tried to give each experience trait (i.e. Scientist, Mechanic, Farmer, Kolonist, etc.) an important and meaningful job in WOLF.

Something I feel that I need to make clear is that when I say equipment and Kerbals are "absorbed" into WOLF, I mean that they no longer exist in the save. They just become numbers in a spreadsheet. We plan to have a way eventually to support colony growth and to essentially have a "Kerbal hopper" that allows you to spawn Kerbals back into the game from WOLF. For now though, if a Kerbal signs up to live in a WOLF colony, it's a one way trip. So if you have particular Kerbals that you're attached to, you probably shouldn't send them to live in a WOLF colony for now.  I think we're going to need to wait to get feedback from the beta before we decide how we want to further enhance the experience of adding Kerbals to WOLF and pulling them back out later.

It's been a while since I last looked at the code, so I can't remember off the top of my head if we allow CrewPoints to be transferred between depots or if they are one of the things we blacklisted. If they are allowed, then they will just work the same way as a regular resource transfer. When a Kerbal joins a WOLF colony, they can only do so if there's enough LifeSupport and Habitation to support them. We assume that Kerbals understand going in that joining a WOLF colony is a one-way trip and that WOLF colonies are fancy enough to keep their inhabitants happy and healthy. So hab and home timers are not a thing in WOLF. That means there is no need for crew rotations and thus transferring Kerbals between depots probably won't be something that you find yourself wanting to do on a regular basis. Again, we'll have to see what feedback comes back from the beta to get a better idea of what things players find themselves wanting to do but can't.

4 hours ago, Terwin said:

Are you expecting to use a variable 'dummy mass'/designated cargo components or just assume some fraction of the arrival mass is useful cargo space?

For now we're just taking the easy route and using the final vessel mass at the destination as the route payload. There's a lot of variability in ship design that can affect the ratio of useful cargo space, so I think it's going to be tough to come up with a one-size-fits-all algorithm for determining a more realistic payload number. If this turns out to be something that everyone feels is important to model though, then we might do something like create a WOLF "cargo crate" that has an adjustable mass that we'll then use at the destination to determine the final payload number.

4 hours ago, Terwin said:

That makes it sound like you can you use W.O.L.F. to produce additional components for your base(s).
That makes me think of manufacturing bases on the Mun and Minmus pumping out drills and hab spaces that get shipped out to Ike, Duna, and beyond...
Could you produce an entire new depot in W.O.L.F. or will there be a 'seed' which always comes from Kerbin? 
Will there be an ability/need to pop the seed out in a hopper for transport to the new biome?
Will it be possible to deploy a vessel from a hopper(perhaps a rover or rocket with a new depot seed to deliver)? 
This gives me visions of 'depot clusters' where you plop your first depot near several biomes and just use solar powered rovers to deploy new depots and generate trade routes.
(Presumably solar powered rovers can make inter-base transport 'nearly free' on a given planetary body, at least if you drive carefully.)

There is a part in WOLF called a Depot Module that can be created via any means you can currently create parts in the game (e.g. VAB, SPH, GC, EL, whatever). There is an option in the PAW to 'Establish Depot' that will cause the part to disappear and will add the depot to the list of "activated" biomes in the WOLF UI (it looks and works a lot like the MKS UI). There will be an option then to spawn a pre-made base in that biome if you want a physical representation/reminder that you have a colony in that biome. Once a biome has been colonized, there is no benefit to deploying additional depots and thus isn't allowed. Since most WOLF recipes require WOLF resources, you get a free starter depot at the KSC with the basic resources required to expand out from there. So you'll actually have to colonize Kerbin to some extent before you can start sending resources to orbital stations, the Mun, Minmus, etc.

And yep... you're already starting to see how strategy will play a big role in WOLF. Picking the first biome to colonize on a new planet will be important. Setting up your transport routes via rovers to adjacent biomes will essentially give you free transport. Setting up factories for new WOLF parts will be important. This is where I see MKS and something like GC still playing an important role in a WOLF save. An MKS + GC factory pulling it's resources out of WOLF via hoppers will be great. I think you'll want to use MKS for leveling up Kerbals too before sending them to live in your WOLF colonies. Filling your WOLF colonies with one-star and two-star Kerbals will be a baaaaaad idea.  I think it will still make sense to still use USI-LS too just for that extra bit of challenge while you're leveling Kerbals up and having them work at your WOLF parts factories. Again, you'll be able to pull Supplies, Water, ColonySupplies, Power, etc. out of WOLf via hoppers to meet all of your USI-LS needs. In fact, that introduces another strategy component where you have to decide if you can afford to pull those resources out of WOLF or if it makes more sense to get some small MKS mining/refining operations set up instead.

[Kielm]

8 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

Unfortunately, I don't think that's something that will make it on the to-do list any time soon.  There's a lot of work going on at the moment, and as noted, we had to crack a few eggs.  That being said, no reason why someone could not make a MM compatibility patch that used USI-style modules as needed for the life support bits.

Well, therein lies the problem, unfortunately. I've tried patching USI modules onto WBI parts to no avail. 

Placing the USI modules inside 'bays' means that the modules can no longer be used on the swappable units inside Pathfinder parts. For example:

A Pathfinder part "Casa IHM" can have a "Pigpen" as one of it's loadouts. The "Pigpen" can be used as a loadout on other parts, too. Attempting to patch a USI module onto the Pigpen does not work - any part that uses it has a broken module, because the USI module is then inside the WBI module that describes the Pigpen. Pathfinder provides methods to activate converters for it's modules (which is why other mods remain compatible), but cannot easily handle this method of activating USI modules. 

I appreciate that you've got a lot on at the moment (as usual!  ), but if you have any ideas of how to workaround the problem I'd be grateful for your input. 

 

P.S: Really looking forward to the new stuff too - sounds like it's going to be a game-changer!

[goldenpsp]

@Kielm  That is a tough situation in many ways.  You have 2 somewhat similar "colonization" mods from two different authors, neither of which really use the the others' mods.  So given they are both very busy with their own mods there is little incentive to put in extra work in order to make them cross compatible.

 

 

[oniontrain]

I'm getting a weird issue in 1.7 with the latest MKS. I've got a station with some extraneous parts like RCS thrusters and engines that I want to disassemble for materialkits. I have an empty container that holds 1900 units of materialkits as part of this station as well, but whenever I EVA and disassemble parts the materialkits are just lost and don't go into the storage. What should I be looking at to troubleshoot this issue? I haven't played since 1.4  so I don't know if something changed and I'm doing it wrong or if there's some kind of actual problem.

[Drtyhppy2]

2 hours ago, oniontrain said:

I'm getting a weird issue in 1.7 with the latest MKS. I've got a station with some extraneous parts like RCS thrusters and engines that I want to disassemble for materialkits. I have an empty container that holds 1900 units of materialkits as part of this station as well, but whenever I EVA and disassemble parts the materialkits are just lost and don't go into the storage. What should I be looking at to troubleshoot this issue? I haven't played since 1.4  so I don't know if something changed and I'm doing it wrong or if there's some kind of actual problem.

Usually this happens when you’re trying to recycle into containers from other mods that don’t have

“MODULE

{

name = USI_ModuleRecycleBin

}”

in their .cfg file.

If you’re using MKS Kontainers they should automatically have that module and you’re problem probably lies elsewhere.  Hopefully that’s a start. 

Edited May 1, 2019 by Drtyhppy2

[invultri]

15 hours ago, oniontrain said:

I'm getting a weird issue in 1.7 with the latest MKS. I've got a station with some extraneous parts like RCS thrusters and engines that I want to disassemble for materialkits. I have an empty container that holds 1900 units of materialkits as part of this station as well, but whenever I EVA and disassemble parts the materialkits are just lost and don't go into the storage. What should I be looking at to troubleshoot this issue? I haven't played since 1.4  so I don't know if something changed and I'm doing it wrong or if there's some kind of actual problem.

Euhm.. does this mean you use the 1.6 MKS with KSP1.7 or is there a secret release that I missed ?

[goldenpsp]

13 minutes ago, invultri said:

Euhm.. does this mean you use the 1.6 MKS with KSP1.7 or is there a secret release that I missed ?

 

[Esendis]

On 4/7/2019 at 5:15 AM, DoktorKrogg said:

@PotatoAndBeanHarvester and others interested in the "perform maintenance" bug. The part module involved in this feature is USI_ModuleFieldRepair, as you correctly discovered. This module is supposed to be added to parts via a ModuleManager patch though so that it does not need to be manually added to the part config for each part. So it's possible that changes in ModuleManager broke the patch. I am nearly useless when it comes to MM unfortunately (read: I'm too lazy to learn the syntax and keep up with its development). The related MM code is:

@PART[*]:HAS[!MODULE[USI_ModuleFieldRepair],RESOURCE[Machinery|EnrichedUranium|DepletedFuel|Recyclables]]:FOR[USITools]
{
    MODULE
    {
        name = USI_ModuleFieldRepair
    }
}

If some MM guru spots any issues with that and can provide me with a fix, I'll be happy to update the code and submit a PR.

Does anyone have a solution for this one? Based on my limited MM knowledge this should work, unless i missed some change in the syntax.

And another small thing: both Tundra & Duna PDUs don't have "FillAmount = 0.95" (USI_Converter) compared with the other MKS Reactors (ModuleResourceConverter). Is it handled internally with the USI_Converter or is it just forgotten?

[DoktorKrogg]

On 5/1/2019 at 12:32 AM, Drtyhppy2 said:

Usually this happens when you’re trying to recycle into containers from other mods that don’t have

“MODULE

{

name = USI_ModuleRecycleBin

}”

in their .cfg file.

On 5/1/2019 at 1:51 PM, Esendis said:

Does anyone have a solution for this one? Based on my limited MM knowledge this should work, unless i missed some change in the syntax.

 

I just submitted PR#136 to hopefully address both of these issues. I added a new MM patch that looks for any part that holds MatKits and then adds the USI_ModuleRecycleBin if it doesn't already have it. I also noticed that the patch for USI_ModuleFieldRepair didn't have an @ in front of the RESOURCE filter. So hopefully adding that will fix that patch as well. If any of you who have been experiencing either of these issues would like to try out these fixes before we merge them into the next release, that would be helpful. 

[Tabris]

Hey All,

is it by design that the tundra workshop (2.5m) only works for Ground Construction when landed?

[KerbalKore]

What will this "premade base" look like?

[captinjoehenry]

Is there a way to use this mod for the parts without the resource system?  Because I mostly just want all the cool parts for making a base but I don't want the life support features or the rest of them