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

[Plomie]

Hello roverdude i have another question is the orbital shipyard thats coming up something like the Konfabricator or is it a different system. If it is a different system i would be curious to see how it works. I ask this because im planning on building a mun base but it could have problems with big changes in the mod. I aks this so that i can modify my base so its change-proof.

And the model for the orbital shipyard looks good!

Edited January 26, 2021 by Plomie

[DoktorKrogg]

7 hours ago, Plomie said:

is the orbital shipyard thats coming up something like the Konfabricator or is it a different system

It's a different but related system. The orbital shipyard (and eventually a similar ground-based system) will allow you to select vessels you have created in the VAB/SPH and build them in-situ. So where Konfabricator is more like a 3D printer for individual parts, the new shipyards will build fully assembled vessels/bases/whatever. The way that KonFab and the shipyards are related is that they both will use some new resources that we're introducing (i.e. Alloys, Electronics, Prototypes, Robotics and Synthetics).

[Mossconfig]

Could you use tweakscale to reduce the logistics parts? Lots of them are simply scaled copies, maybe fold all of them under one part that can be scaled?

[goldenpsp]

1 hour ago, Mossconfig said:

Could you use tweakscale to reduce the logistics parts? Lots of them are simply scaled copies, maybe fold all of them under one part that can be scaled?

Given @RoverDude's feelings on tweakscale, I'd say don't count on it.

[RoverDude]

3 hours ago, Mossconfig said:

Could you use tweakscale to reduce the logistics parts? Lots of them are simply scaled copies, maybe fold all of them under one part that can be scaled?

Which logistics parts?  Everything either has an appropriately scaled Tundra module or would be getting it's own model anyway.  And yeah, no point in taking a Tweakscale dependency when I control the models and configs

 

On 1/18/2021 at 5:16 PM, Kielm said:

Yes, it was a test to build a small battery.

I don't know what the exact issue is, but the konfab seemed to have trouble finding an inventory to put the part in when there were a bunch of other craft in physics range, even when there was ample space on the same vessel.

It seems to work in most simple situations, but it didn't work when I needed it to (base construction)

FYI I am currently doing some rework here.  Short version:  Inventory in the KonFab part itself only.  Plus the option to recycle contents inside of the KonFab part, and changing up the menu to work via the PAW.  Lastly, I'll be deprecating the MKS Disassembly option in favor of just having folks recycle via KonFab.

[Xilis]

I'm stumped how do I remove the skirt from the atlas parts so they sit flat on the surface? I see a node inside but when it doesn't go away when i attach anything to it. am I missing something?

[RoverDude]

4 minutes ago, Xilis said:

I'm stumped how do I remove the skirt from the atlas parts so they sit flat on the surface? I see a node inside but when it doesn't go away when i attach anything to it. am I missing something?

That's something I need to poke at for the next release tbh

[Plomie]

16 hours ago, DoktorKrogg said:

It's a different but related system. The orbital shipyard (and eventually a similar ground-based system) will allow you to select vessels you have created in the VAB/SPH and build them in-situ. So where Konfabricator is more like a 3D printer for individual parts, the new shipyards will build fully assembled vessels/bases/whatever. The way that KonFab and the shipyards are related is that they both will use some new resources that we're introducing (i.e. Alloys, Electronics, Prototypes, Robotics and Synthetics).

Im building my base with GC. I will make my base so i can possibly switch to a new system without problems. Nice that there are new resources coming up. Do they replace the ones that are here now or are they just an adittion? And does it replace GC? O and i have a question if the new resources are processed from recources that are already here then can you give me the production chains so i can build the infrastructure on my base so i can have a smooth switch between GC and the new system?

 

Edited January 27, 2021 by Plomie
Forgot to type an important question.

[Tacombel]

13 hours ago, RoverDude said:

Lastly, I'll be deprecating the MKS Disassembly option in favor of just having folks recycle via KonFab.

How would this work? I frequently use this to clean up ships of redundant elements and would be nice to keep the function even if there is no recycling into material kits.

[modus]

1 hour ago, Tacombel said:

How would this work? I frequently use this to clean up ships of redundant elements and would be nice to keep the function even if there is no recycling into material kits.

Yup, me too.

[MaxPeck]

14 hours ago, Tacombel said:

How would this work? I frequently use this to clean up ships of redundant elements and would be nice to keep the function even if there is no recycling into material kits.

I do the same, I’ll also vote to please keep that feature intact. 

[TomfooleryYT]

@RoverDudeI am unable to use orbital logistics at all. I need this functionality to feed kerbals on some of my ships. is there any way to restore orbital logistics? 

EDIT: Nevermind, I found a fix

Edited January 28, 2021 by TomfooleryYT

[Tacombel]

Removed

Edited January 28, 2021 by Tacombel

[LatiMacciato]

On 1/24/2021 at 1:44 AM, Wookie699 said:

I tried a clean install, and loaded just this mod,  If it is ore / dirt works as intended but noticed exotic minerals gave me a + - on kontainers,   So thinking it is something to do with configurable containers, and it broke in last update 

I really would wish for an option to toggle or choose resources  that are allowed or forbidden to recover on homeworld so any player can choose a "cheaty way" or not for the career gameplay. Regardless of that I like big parts that combine steps without having too much parts after all. Ty for the new features!
That's just my 2 cents after considering to uninstall MKS but decided to keep it anyways.

[goldenpsp]

50 minutes ago, LatiMacciato said:

I really would wish for an option to toggle or choose resources  that are allowed or forbidden to recover on homeworld so any player can choose a "cheaty way" or not for the career gameplay. Regardless of that I like big parts that combine steps without having too much parts after all. Ty for the new features!
That's just my 2 cents after considering to uninstall MKS but decided to keep it anyways.

Given it's a single player game, you can just choose to be "cheaty" or not.

[LatiMacciato]

1 hour ago, goldenpsp said:

Given it's a single player game, you can just choose to be "cheaty" or not.

Well, it would be cool to have a toggle option for the BlacklistedHomeworldResources (found in the WOLF.cfg) or I have misunderstood the existing options.

EDIT: after digging deeper and catching up on stuff I've found USI_Core issue #118 maybe that is connected tho. I also noticed that all expensive resources with high "unitCost" values (RefinedExotics, ExoticMinerals, RareMetals, even ColonySupplies) are getting the "+-" values when recovered.

(I possibly should ask that in another spot) Is that intended to be a feature of USI or am I missing something?

Edited January 28, 2021 by LatiMacciato

[RoverDude]

1 hour ago, LatiMacciato said:

Well, it would be cool to have a toggle option for the BlacklistedHomeworldResources (found in the WOLF.cfg) or I have misunderstood the existing options.

EDIT: after digging deeper and catching up on stuff I've found USI_Core issue #118 maybe that is connected tho. I also noticed that all expensive resources with high "unitCost" values (RefinedExotics, ExoticMinerals, RareMetals, even ColonySupplies) are getting the "+-" values when recovered.

Is that intended to be a feature?

that's likely a bug.

[AtomicRocketBooster]

With all the new WOLF parts, is there any good reason to use all the older resource converters, drills, etc? I'm struggling to see a use case that isn't wholly replaced - just build your entire backend logistics via WOLF and use hoppers for life support, fuel, and building materials.

[Terwin]

2 minutes ago, AtomicRocketBooster said:

With all the new WOLF parts, is there any good reason to use all the older resource converters, drills, etc? I'm struggling to see a use case that isn't wholly replaced - just build your entire backend logistics via WOLF and use hoppers for life support, fuel, and building materials.

In addition to backwards compatibility, the in-simulation parts also allow making minor tweaks and adjustments(like switching from life support to colony supplies as your base grows).

Also, I am not sure if W.O.L.F. uses the colonization multipliers or not, so that may be an additional reason if those do not apply to W.O.L.F.

[Galthromir]

Are there any plans to add ATLAS adaptation modules to more seamlessly connect other MKS parts? I absolutely love the parts themselves, but making the connectors look good is proving troublesome, since the "cargo doors" have such a unique shape.

[RoverDude]

3 hours ago, Galthromir said:

Are there any plans to add ATLAS adaptation modules to more seamlessly connect other MKS parts? I absolutely love the parts themselves, but making the connectors look good is proving troublesome, since the "cargo doors" have such a unique shape.

Yep there are plans

[CateredCarrot]

5 hours ago, AtomicRocketBooster said:

With all the new WOLF parts, is there any good reason to use all the older resource converters, drills, etc? I'm struggling to see a use case that isn't wholly replaced - just build your entire backend logistics via WOLF and use hoppers for life support, fuel, and building materials.

I didn’t play that much but MKS looks like much cheaper than WOLF. Making the first life support in WOLF requires a lot and I had the impression that it only looks simpler because the planner is really great. 
Also, as @Terwin mentioned, there is ZERO flexibility in wolf. 
another point is, what would be the reason for building a base if you can’t see or play with it?

[RoverDude]

5 hours ago, AtomicRocketBooster said:

With all the new WOLF parts, is there any good reason to use all the older resource converters, drills, etc? I'm struggling to see a use case that isn't wholly replaced - just build your entire backend logistics via WOLF and use hoppers for life support, fuel, and building materials.

 

2 minutes ago, CateredCarrot said:

I didn’t play that much but MKS looks like much cheaper than WOLF. Making the first life support in WOLF requires a lot and I had the impression that it only looks simpler because the planner is really great. 
Also, as @Terwin mentioned, there is ZERO flexibility in wolf. 
another point is, what would be the reason for building a base if you can’t see or play with it?

WOLF and MKS are like peanut butter and jelly.   My personal model is to have one capstone base for the hoppers, then lots of WOLF stuff.  So you still need MKS bits.  Also I've considered adding a toggleable option that requires some level of konolization before WOLF unlocks, and the option to gobble up MKS bases into WOLF infrastructure.

[Spaceman.Spiff]

10 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

 

WOLF and MKS are like peanut butter and jelly.   My personal model is to have one capstone base for the hoppers, then lots of WOLF stuff.  So you still need MKS bits.  Also I've considered adding a toggleable option that requires some level of konolization before WOLF unlocks, and the option to gobble up MKS bases into WOLF infrastructure.

So if I’m understanding correctly, WOLF is pretty much for background infrastructure that supports the MKS base?

[RoverDude]

16 minutes ago, Spaceman.Spiff said:

So if I’m understanding correctly, WOLF is pretty much for background infrastructure that supports the MKS base?

Exactly.  The whole idea is to reduce vessel count and save load due to all of the stuff you need to feed an MKS base, or prevent feeling forced to do an 'all in one' kind of setup.