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

[RoverDude]

4 hours ago, TomfooleryYT said:

So, I'm trying to follow the wolf tutorial and I'm at the part where I've built a depot on the KSC launchpad, and am about to make a extension to the depot to have it start making material kits. But, the part where you add the extension to the depot, my game keeps giving me the error that the depot doesn't have veins for the necessary resources. the tutorial doesn't address this. am I doing something wrong? are there supposed to be veins there on the launchpad? could this have anything to do with me having tundra's space center?

Make sure you do a WOLF survey with the stock resource scanner (The one in science that's a large boxy thing).  That scans and unlocks the resource veins.

 

[Heinoceros]

10 hours ago, RoverDude said:

I get what you are saying, but disagree (and that's ok!).  An established route is already a sunk cost.  There's no real benefit to being able to delete them - each expansion of a route comes in the cost of having to physically make the trip.   Sometimes you'll luck out with a really good one - sometimes it's going to be less expensive, but each time you make the run you're optimizing efficiency and layering it into an existing transportation network, not wholesale upgrading your entire fleet.  Engines aside, different payloads and strategies exist and will be experimented with to get optimum trips added to your network.    Having a new route be affected by the inefficiency/efficiency of prior routes just feels off.  You are paying for that route expansion in the hear and now, and as it stands, it remains a really predictable result.  Extremes could result in weird stuff like zero-TC expansions, etc. when in reality, any dramatic difference in route cost would either be so late in the game it did not matter, or so early that the issue would solve itself as the TC/Capacity ratio nears peak efficiency asymptotically.   And in short., I don't think that is something I'd want to mess with (at least regarding this specific aspect - there are other things on the drawing board regarding routes, but they touch on other areas).

thats perfectly fair. I really just wanted something to play with. My reading of the how the transport credits and trips work would also imply some really no-fun things, like once you already performed a route that used up 5 credits for 3 cargo space, you should be able to just double it, since you have established the ship that can make the trip already (maybe using up the cost of that ship). That would definitely take away from the play of the game.  Its difficult to balance the realism of modeling transport busses and the joy of the game.

 

[RoverDude]

Yep, making you manually build up routes is by design.  WOLF is some powerful stuff, and setting up infrastructure is hard.  MKS is already an end game activity, this just moves that capstone role up to WOLF.  Also the rub with things like ship cost, etc. is they have no bearing in sandbox mode - so we have to keep that into account.  Or folks gaming by having the tiniest ion probe possible make the trip.  Sure it's more efficient, but you would have to do a lot of them to balance it out.  

[Heinoceros]

5 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

Yep, making you manually build up routes is by design.  WOLF is some powerful stuff, and setting up infrastructure is hard.  MKS is already an end game activity, this just moves that capstone role up to WOLF.  Also the rub with things like ship cost, etc. is they have no bearing in sandbox mode - so we have to keep that into account.  Or folks gaming by having the tiniest ion probe possible make the trip.  Sure it's more efficient, but you would have to do a lot of them to balance it out.  

I am assuming this is all your baby? It was nice to see someone using c# interfaces correctly etc, i know that sounds like a low bar but i work in a field where i think probably at least half of the code is written by people who just have the most vague understanding of how to safely hook these things together. Need a reference to your entire context inside a trivial window dialog? no worries just send it! 

[RoverDude]

Just now, Heinoceros said:

I am assuming this is all your baby? It was nice to see someone using c# interfaces correctly etc, i know that sounds like a low bar but i work in a field where i think probably at least half of the code is written by people who just have the most vague understanding of how to safely hook these things together. Need a reference to your entire context inside a trivial window dialog? no worries just send it! 

Thanks - @DoktorKrogg did most of the heavy lifting on this one

[DoktorKrogg]

1 hour ago, Heinoceros said:

It was nice to see someone using c# interfaces correctly etc

 We wanted to be able to unit test the plumbing to prove that it was sound before dropping it into the game. It's a fairly common pattern with Unity to just dump all your code in a MonoBehaviour and call it a day but you can't instantiate MonoBehaviours outside of Unity. So we needed to decouple as much of the code as possible into POCOs and only use MonoBehaviours where we needed hooks into KSP. We're pretty happy with where WOLF ended up. It's given us a platform that will let us spring off in multiple directions with new, interesting gameplay options that we're already working on!

[MaxPeck]

On 12/25/2020 at 6:41 PM, RoverDude said:

So for those of you playing with the new systems... how do you like them so far?

 

 

I love this so much.  I like that it takes the resource grind out of the game so the focus can be more on missions and exploration with an eye to expansion, while letting Wolf be the book keeper. 
 

The only suggestion (request) I would have relates to the establishment of Wolf depots.   I don’t necessarily hate, but am a little uneasy about the fact that things just poof out of being with no corporeal component.   I get the idea about removing parts and Kerbals from play to reduce system resource use and it’s a great idea, but I also find myself wishing the Wolf had a physical presence, even just an optional placeholder part that figuratively says “your depot is here”.   Even if it was just a small dome or pod something, just a physical presence  so the Wolf feels less handwavy and more anchored in the actual universe.   I know I can accomplish the same thing by planting a dummy part and just saying “that’s my depot” but an organic part would be nice.  
 

That being said, the main thing keeping me from jumping into 1.11 fully was my reliance on OSE and the ability to use ISRU to actually do something useful, and it looks like you’ve killed it in that regard.   Great job as always, @RoverDude!

 

[RoverDude]

35 minutes ago, MaxPeck said:

I love this so much.  I like that it takes the resource grind out of the game so the focus can be more on missions and exploration with an eye to expansion, while letting Wolf be the book keeper. 
 

The only suggestion (request) I would have relates to the establishment of Wolf depots.   I don’t necessarily hate, but am a little uneasy about the fact that things just poof out of being with no corporeal component.   I get the idea about removing parts and Kerbals from play to reduce system resource use and it’s a great idea, but I also find myself wishing the Wolf had a physical presence, even just an optional placeholder part that figuratively says “your depot is here”.   Even if it was just a small dome or pod something, just a physical presence  so the Wolf feels less handwavy and more anchored in the actual universe.   I know I can accomplish the same thing by planting a dummy part and just saying “that’s my depot” but an organic part would be nice.  
 

That being said, the main thing keeping me from jumping into 1.11 fully was my reliance on OSE and the ability to use ISRU to actually do something useful, and it looks like you’ve killed it in that regard.   Great job as always, @RoverDude!

 

Yep, @DoktorKrogg and I have waxed philosophic about the lack of a physical WOLF manifestation.  The reason they are not vessels as you see now is because those tax a save pretty hard when you end up with too many of them - and MKS / WOLF by it's very nature encourages a LOT of infrastructure.  The current philosophy (and where we are at today) is that your physical manifestations are the 'faucets' on the plumbing that is WOLF.  That is, you may have a single orbital station for off-world ship construction, or a capstone manufacturing colony to make all of your MatKits, etc. - but the plumbing would be WOLFy, and hidden, with your only access via hoppers.  The other is that having something physical there but super cool looking would be great - IF it can be done in a way that does not tax resources.  This is something we'll be looking at as the rest of the pieces fall into place.   

And yeah, rebuilding an OSE analogue was definitely a 'my-personal-playthrough-driven-development' moment   There are some other things in that category that we're working on currently.

[mcortez]

Perhaps just a re-skinned Atlas dome, that gets ground tethered like a pylon, has no attachment nodes, and is flagged to not allow surface mount items?  If you wanted to get really fancy it could have a texture (or multiple textures) that change depending on WOLFy stats -- but that's not really needed.  One can assume all the actual logistics bits are subterranean or something.  Not sure what you'd use for an orbital one though...

I just unlocked enough tech in my career to start playing with WOLF later today or tomorrow, looking forward to it.

[RoverDude]

12 minutes ago, mcortez said:

Perhaps just a re-skinned Atlas dome, that gets ground tethered like a pylon, has no attachment nodes, and is flagged to not allow surface mount items?  If you wanted to get really fancy it could have a texture (or multiple textures) that change depending on WOLFy stats -- but that's not really needed.  One can assume all the actual logistics bits are subterranean or something.  Not sure what you'd use for an orbital one though...

I just unlocked enough tech in my career to start playing with WOLF later today or tomorrow, looking forward to it.

Sadly, that would have the same kind of vessel overhead (even as a single part) for the volume of wolfy-ness most saves will have.  We're exploring a few options

[mcortez]

Okay, so I'd unlocked some WOLF components last night, I'm trying to see what I can do with them today, and I think I've run into an issue with where parts are placed in the tech tree (using Kiwi CTT).  I've got about half the tech tree unlocked (up through the levels that cost 280 sci each, with a couple 560 sci level nodes unlocked as well.)

I've got the following WOLF parts available:

• Depot
• Modules
  • Bioreactor
  • Waste Recycler
• Hoppers for
  • Fuel 2.5m
  • Harvesting 2.5m & 3.75m
  • Life Support 2.5m
  • Manufacturing 2.5m
• Bulk Harvester MHU-100 & MHU 500
• Wolf Transport Computer

All the remaining modules and hoppers seem to be lumped together in a single node in the tech tree, in the final tier -- which will require more than 12,000 science to get to

Is it even possible for me to make use of the Bioreactor & Waste Recycler Modules or Wolf Transport Computer, without having the remaining modules available?

I think I can use a depot, along with the Bulk Harvesters and Hoppers to pull basic resources to feed into the original MKS food chain, but I don't seem to have any ability to utilize the Bioreactor & Waste Recycler or transport computer.  So should some of the other modules show up earlier, or should those 3 items be end-game and lumped in with the remaining modules?

I'm going to pull the Kiwi Tech tree out and see where things sit -- maybe it needs some module specific configuration for WOLF, if so, is there a recommended grouping of which modules should get unlocked together?

EDIT: Okay, pulled Kiwi and it's the same situation, I get the Wolf Transport Computer long before the Transport Module, so I think I can calculate a route but not use it?  I also get the Bioreactor & Waste Recycler, but not the modules needed to satisfy their dependencies.

So the items I've got are in the Yellow nodes, but their dependencies are in the red node -- unless I'm missing something, which is entirely possible  

Spoiler

2 hours ago, RoverDude said:

Sadly, that would have the same kind of vessel overhead (even as a single part) for the volume of wolfy-ness most saves will have.  We're exploring a few options

That's unfortunate.  I was thinking just a single such dome per biome wouldn't be too rough on things, but then again last time I played a year ago I had sprawling kraken bait MKS bases as the norm so I was used to the sprawl  

Edited January 1, 2021 by mcortez
Results after trying without Kiwi Tech Tree

[goldenpsp]

@RoverDude

The Konstruction is pretty cool.  Seems to work fine, although I wasn't seeing any feedback at so at first I think I built 10 of an item.  But I haven't encounted any errors yet.

Of course the next thing I wanted to try was to assemble the new packrat with stock assembly.  When attempting on the launch pad it says it exceeds the weight to be built.  I'm not sure if I'm missing something in order to address this.  I know with KIS I could bring out more kerbals, I brought 3 but still got that message.

 

[Heinoceros]

5 hours ago, mcortez said:

Perhaps just a re-skinned Atlas dome, that gets ground tethered like a pylon, has no attachment nodes, and is flagged to not allow surface mount items?  If you wanted to get really fancy it could have a texture (or multiple textures) that change depending on WOLFy stats -- but that's not really needed.  One can assume all the actual logistics bits are subterranean or something.  Not sure what you'd use for an orbital one though...

I just unlocked enough tech in my career to start playing with WOLF later today or tomorrow, looking forward to it.

would you really need an orbital one though? I mean i havent thought about it much, but i am currently using the orbital depot just as a resource passthrough. It allows you to essentially just break your routes into two sections.  If you for instance wanted to make use of resources in orbit like as a fuel depot you would need a hopper, and so there you have an anchor part.  i guess if you were doing conversions in orbit it might be nice, but would you actually do that in orbit instead of on the ground?  

[RoverDude]

9 minutes ago, goldenpsp said:

@RoverDude

The Konstruction is pretty cool.  Seems to work fine, although I wasn't seeing any feedback at so at first I think I built 10 of an item.  But I haven't encounted any errors yet.

Of course the next thing I wanted to try was to assemble the new packrat with stock assembly.  When attempting on the launch pad it says it exceeds the weight to be built.  I'm not sure if I'm missing something in order to address this.  I know with KIS I could bring out more kerbals, I brought 3 but still got that message.

 

In the constellation test, drop a Salamander pod.  Have four Kerbals around.  An Engineer in the Salamander.  Then right click on the Salamander and there should be an Enable Konstruction button.

[Kerbals_of_Steel]

37 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

In the constellation test, drop a Salamander pod.  Have four Kerbals around.  An Engineer in the Salamander.  Then right click on the Salamander and there should be an Enable Konstruction button.

Is there a plan to port over the KAS "Kerbal-assist" that the robotic Konstruction parts give? It's one of my most used hacks for EVA construction.

KoS

[RoverDude]

Just now, Kerbals_of_Steel said:

Is there a plan to port over the KAS "Kerbal-assist" that the robotic Konstruction parts give? It's one of my most used hacks for EVA construction.

KoS

Yep - to get the boost you need helpers and a foreman.  The Konstruction bits are slated to be assistant parts - but for the current test, the only helper is a Salamander pod.

 

[goldenpsp]

1 hour ago, RoverDude said:

In the constellation test, drop a Salamander pod.  Have four Kerbals around.  An Engineer in the Salamander.  Then right click on the Salamander and there should be an Enable Konstruction button.

It works!  Although I wish i recorded my first attempt.  Don't clip the wheels into the ground...

As @Kerbals_of_Steel mentioned, any thought of allowing for mechanical help?  I get that just one Kerbal may be OP, but given I can pull a small block V6 solo with a cherry picker assist, it would be nice to not need 4 kerbals.

And I see you kind of already answered it as I was typing.  Fair enough just for the initial testing.  works well.  Packrat 2.0 is much easier to assemble.

[Tabris]

Enjoying WOLF so far.

this is a bit of a mind dump of things i'm think about while playing. so i'll be editing and adding instead of cluttering up the thread.

1. Are the Orbit "biomes" (in space Low, In spcae High) counted as differnet biomes for WOLF or is it just "Orbit?

2. How hard is it to add outputs to the hoppers? (i.e H2 + Ox)

          2a. Multiple Bays to the hoppers?

3. Can crew be transfered using the Transport routes?

4. Can the crew assigned to WOLF be marked as Assigned instead of Lost/Deceased?

Edited January 2, 2021 by Tabris

[Heinoceros]

1 hour ago, Tabris said:

Enjoying WOLF so far.

this is a bit of a mind dump of things i'm think about while playing. so i'll be editing and adding instead of cluttering up the thread.

1. Are the Orbit "biomes" (in space Low, In spcae High) counted as differnet biomes for WOLF or is it just "Orbit?

2. How hard is it to add outputs to the hoppers? (i.e H2 + Ox)

          2a. Multiple Bays to the hoppers?

3. Can crew be transfered using the Transport routes?

4. Can the crew assigned to WOLF be marked as Assigned instead of Lost/Deceased?

In the code right now there is just one orbit biome per world, and you have to be in a low and un-eccentric orbit for it to be happy. 

the fuel hopper has different recipes, LH2,LH2+Ox,Mono from the same FUEL resource. Xenon gas from  the Xenon resource. It costs some SP and MK to switch after launch.

there is a 2 fuel cost hopper (2.5) and a 5 fuel cost  hopper (3.7). It looks like the 5 fuel cost hopper has a mistake in the liquid fuel recipe, it produces it at 400 instead of 1000. Other than that they are linear. 

the rest will have to be answered by someone who actually knows whats going on  

I agree with you that it seems like hoppers would benefit from some sort of combinability, since at the end of the day they really represent a transport hub, and its not like you would have so many visitors you couldnt double up your fuel deliveries in the same spot as your life support deliveries or whatever. The hoppers are where the WOLF abstraction comes back into the real world, and you could really get the part count and mass down with some combining.  But so far at least in my use of the system, i wouldnt say thats been a significant hardship. the extra tonnage of a few extra hoppers has not really caused any problems for me at least.

 

Edited January 2, 2021 by Heinoceros
clarity.

[Tabris]

6 minutes ago, Heinoceros said:

In the code right now there is just one orbit biome per world, and you have to be in a low and un-eccentric orbit for it to be happy. 

the fuel hopper has different recipes, LH2,LH2+Ox,Mono from the same FUEL resource. Xenon gas from  the Xenon resource. It costs some SP and MK to switch after launch.

there is a 2 fuel cost hopper (2.5) and a 5 fuel cost  hopper (3.7). It looks like the 5 fuel cost hopper has a mistake in the liquid fuel recipe, it produces it at 400 instead of 1000. Other than that they are linear. 

the rest will have to be answered by someone who actually knows whats going on  

I agree with you that it seems like hoppers would benefit from some sort of combinability, since at the end of the day they really represent a transport hub, and its not like you would have so many visitors you couldnt double up your fuel deliveries in the same spot as your life support deliveries or whatever. The hoppers are where the WOLF abstraction comes back into the real world, and you could really get the part count and mass down with some combining.  But so far at least in my use of the system, i wouldnt say thats been a significant hardship. the extra tonnage of a few extra hoppers has not really caused any problems for me at least.

 

The Hoppers only output LF+Ox, Monoprop & Xenon

for the multi-bays it wasn't about combining Life Support & Fuel into one but more like MaterialKits & Specialised Parts as one Hopper part instead of needing 2 hoppers

 

[RoverDude]

2 hours ago, Tabris said:

Enjoying WOLF so far.

this is a bit of a mind dump of things i'm think about while playing. so i'll be editing and adding instead of cluttering up the thread.

1. Are the Orbit "biomes" (in space Low, In spcae High) counted as differnet biomes for WOLF or is it just "Orbit?

2. How hard is it to add outputs to the hoppers? (i.e H2 + Ox)

          2a. Multiple Bays to the hoppers?

3. Can crew be transfered using the Transport routes?

4. Can the crew assigned to WOLF be marked as Assigned instead of Lost/Deceased?

1.  Just the one.  No real need for two, since the only real reason for an orbital biome is the endpoint for your planetary output - either as hoppers or as a leap to the next system.  And if there were two you would have the whole mess of being in the wrong one when you expanded infrastructure.

2. / 2a. - Not hard at all - pretty similar to other MKS bits.  Bear in mind the hoppers are probably some of the first getting a refresh since right now they are placeholders.

3.  Nope.  

4.  Is there a reason you'd prefer the different status?  Once in WOLF it is a one way trip.   Not sure if there are ramifications of a Kerbal being 'assigned' but lacking a vessel to be assigned to.

[Tabris]

1 hour ago, RoverDude said:

1.  Just the one.  No real need for two, since the only real reason for an orbital biome is the endpoint for your planetary output - either as hoppers or as a leap to the next system.  And if there were two you would have the whole mess of being in the wrong one when you expanded infrastructure.

2. / 2a. - Not hard at all - pretty similar to other MKS bits.  Bear in mind the hoppers are probably some of the first getting a refresh since right now they are placeholders.

3.  Nope.  

4.  Is there a reason you'd prefer the different status?  Once in WOLF it is a one way trip.   Not sure if there are ramifications of a Kerbal being 'assigned' but lacking a vessel to be assigned to.

1. Though was more along:
      Put Depot in LKO, and be able to access from Mun/Minmus at very little cost or
      Put Depot in Solar Orbit just outside of kerbin SOI and be able to access from Moho/Eeloo

2. Thought that might be the case. i might TRY to do a quick MM patch

4. i think in Career Mode there is a REP & Money hit, in sandbox i just don't like seeing my Kerbals Dead (without reason)

[RoverDude]

12 minutes ago, Tabris said:

1. Though was more along:
      Put Depot in LKO, and be able to access from Mun/Minmus at very little cost or
      Put Depot in Solar Orbit just outside of kerbin SOI and be able to access from Moho/Eeloo

2. Thought that might be the case. i might TRY to do a quick MM patch

4. i think in Career Mode there is a REP & Money hit, in sandbox i just don't like seeing my Kerbals Dead (without reason)

1.  Ahh.  yeah, tbh I think the close orbits make more sense lore wise.

2.  Good deal!

4.  Fair enough - log a github issue and that gets it on it's way to the list.

 

Also completely unrelated... USI-LS is getting a thing....

 

[mcortez]

10 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

Also completely unrelated... USI-LS is getting a thing....

Popsicles for the Kraken!!!  

Edited January 2, 2021 by mcortez

[Tabris]

Just now, mcortez said:

Popsicles for the Kraken!!!  

more like Ice Cubes for the Kraken's Hydrazine cocktails