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

[voicey99]

2 minutes ago, jd284 said:

Also I think Kerbalism is not supported and breaks some MKS functionality. Never played with it so I can't say for sure.

Yep, Rover said earlier in the thread that by overriding some of the key parts of the stock game MKS relies on, it borks several major functionalities. If you want a base mod that works with Kerbalism, use PBS.

[Jebs_SY]

5 minutes ago, voicey99 said:

Yep, Rover said earlier in the thread that by overriding some of the key parts of the stock game MKS relies on, it borks several major functionalities. If you want a base mod that works with Kerbalism, use PBS.

Does anyone have some examples, which game functions that are? For getting more understanding of overall mod-incompatibilities I would love to know...  

[jd284]

I don't think he has ever stated in detail, but I suspect it's this part of Kerbalism:

  - resources: consumption and production in background

Probably breaks the USI converters and such in the background, since they're based on the stock mechanics. Also if it changes how EC works in the background many MKS things could break.

[WuphonsReach]

1 hour ago, jd284 said:

To be somewhat credible the leak rate would have to be different for each resource. Like for example, Organics would probably spoil much faster than Metals would disappear. Unless you have some rogue kerbals doing some copper scavenging on the side, where would it even go?

It would depend on the environment.  Dump a load of mulch on your driveway and you can probably get most of it into the flower bed (except for the dribs and drabs).  Leave that out there for a few weeks and some of it is going to blow / wash away.  Put that load of mulch on a rough surface like a lawn and you're going to have a harder time recovering the dregs that are mixed into the grass.

So if they're leaving this stuff in big piles on the surface, some of it is going to get mixed up with the substrate and get dirty / unrecoverable (as the kerbals shovel it or move it around).  If it's a planet with atmosphere, some of it is going to wash / blow away.  If it's an environment where the temperature rises above the solid phase of the material, some of it will evaporate.  The freeze/thaw cycle of sunlight on an airless world like Moho / Mun / Minmus could destroy some material over time.  

(I abuse the heck out of PL storage in my games.  Am thinking that maybe there should be some limit on total storage.  Whether that's a soft limit where exceeding it causes decay or what those limits are is a design question.)

[Gilph]

@sh1pman, @dboi88, Hi, I may have found an issue similar to #1110, regarding the hab multiplier, but it's with the 3.75 Kerbitat

Look at the hab numbers in the picture. I have three kerbals, one 3.75 Kerbitat as hab common and the other as hab quarters.  All kerbals have 11Y values:

I land it in my colony.  Right when I got into Physics range during the descent, it changed to the 335d number:

And, that number does not change whether I turn off hab common or not.  It will change if I turn off the hab quarter.

Sound like the same issue?

[billybob579]

As I understand it, the motivation behind having planetary logistics is to provide a simple means of shipping resources around the planet, not to provide an infinite storage. I've not actually reached the point where I'm capable of abusing it (as that would require a colony that's producing a surplus. I wish!), but I've had an idea for a possible solution to this infinite storage that at least conceptually seems simple enough. What I propose:

There is a limited amount of space in planetary logistics, unique to each resource and each planet. By default, this amount is zero. When you land a cargo container on the planet, you can use a "Convert to Planetary Storage" button on it's right-click menu, which reduces the item's storage capacity by 95% and adds that 95% to the planetary logistics capacity for the container's resource. Conceptually, this process is the kerbals building a storage crate or silo and then flagging it as something their shipping crews are allowed to tap into. The "95%" was arbitrarily decided, but the purpose of that is to ensure that the regular pushing/pulling of resources in a base is still able to use the container.

This would also be a fine excuse to build rows of giant 15-meter spherical storage silos (and to later blow them up, given Just Cause).

[zabieru]

Isn't there already a "leak" mechanic available? Not sure if it's presently enabled, but IIRC PL only receives 90% of the resources removed from the base, or did at one point...

[RoverDude]

Ok - new thread time it looks like (OP has been updated, I'll make a new Karbonite one next release).

Some quick answers to stuff:

@voicey99 - The plan would be to move all hiring to the AC, but allow specialty selection since I plan on borrowing some of @theReadPanda's AC code.

@Kaa253 / @Space Kadet  - unfortunately I can't dictate which professions are allowed in the AC.

@blakemw - Kolony rewards do not scale with difficulty, but you can change their multipliers via the settings file in the MKS folder.  The idea is that they are there to help you bootstrap and fund your colony.  These do get pretty expensive after a while.  I am happy with their balance so I don't see the defaults changing unless I find it annoying in my own playthroughs.

@Noel32 - for documentation, look at KSPedia as well as the Wiki.  Those are reasonably up to date (link in the OP) and if something is out of date let us know in the thread.

@jd284 - I'll see about rolling Tundra style ISMs in a future release.  Adding a github issue means I don't forget btw

@Gilph - the Ranger and Tundra stats should be exactly balanced RE Mass/Volume ratios and inflation costs...

@revolioclockbergjr - no idea why KIS would lose the lode given it is just another part.  That being said, I would reccomend using a grappler.

@Toonu - Radiation is on the roadmap for USI-LS, but a matter of when I get to it.

@Jumberlack - Log a github issue RE larger K+ drills

@Kertech - don't use Kerbalism (unless they finally stopped doing a wholesale override of stock modules).
 

 

[notthebobo]

Guess we're calling this thread home now.  Nice new OP.

@RoverDude, would you mind updating the link on the USI page? It still points to the old thread.

[RoverDude]

If I'm lucky  someone will gift me with a PR before I get to it on the list   Still working through all of the MKS updates and stuff for GC.

Good news is that I'd say we're hitting a relatively stable patch with MKS - I do not anticipate any major system changes going forward, only bug fixes and some small additions (not the wholesale reorgs we've had in the past).

 

[tsaven]

I seem to have fallen behind on a few things in this thread.  What is the currently state of the Ground Construction integration?  The new OP says that it's bundled, but you've said that you still have work to do for GC integration. is this going to cause problems if all my current stations and bases use EL?

[Merkov]

5 hours ago, RoverDude said:

If I'm lucky  someone will gift me with a PR before I get to it on the list   Still working through all of the MKS updates and stuff for GC.

Good news is that I'd say we're hitting a relatively stable patch with MKS - I do not anticipate any major system changes going forward, only bug fixes and some small additions (not the wholesale reorgs we've had in the past).

 

4 hours ago, RoverDude said:

The fifteen day grace period for supplies already represents them stretching things (burning oxygen candles, etc.).

Unrelated - working on the next release and this will include a few adjustments to hab caps that make Scouts/Pilots more balanced, and also makes long-distance voyages easier.

Quick question about USI-LS but only as it relates to MKS (right thread?): now that things are settling a bit, are you still planning on bringing back the wear mechanic to USI-LS parts when MKS is used? Also, is there a difference in spirit between wear and machinery? What I mean is, as far as I understand, both mechanics are meant to reflect parts wearing out and needing replacing over time, and they both reflect the fact that parts work less effectively as they wear out. The difference is that one requires machinery, the other requires material kits, and of course manufacturing the former is far more involved than the latter. Is the idea supposed to be that maintaining the basic Nom-O-Matics doesn't require the specialized parts that the more industrial Tundra modules need?

[tsaven]

1 hour ago, Merkov said:

 

Quick question about USI-LS but only as it relates to MKS (right thread?): now that things are settling a bit, are you still planning on bringing back the wear mechanic to USI-LS parts when MKS is used? Also, is there a difference in spirit between wear and machinery? What I mean is, as far as I understand, both mechanics are meant to reflect parts wearing out and needing replacing over time, and they both reflect the fact that parts work less effectively as they wear out. The difference is that one requires machinery, the other requires material kits, and of course manufacturing the former is far more involved than the latter. Is the idea supposed to be that maintaining the basic Nom-O-Matics doesn't require the specialized parts that the more industrial Tundra modules need?

I had inquired about this last month, and my understanding is that RD is still pretty unsure of it.  I think an argument can be made that both mechanics accomplish the same goal of needing to factor in some kind of consumables that equipment consumes as a course of general operation, and are kind of redundant from a gameplay perspective.

My major qualm with the Machinery mechanic is that it seems kind of inconsisent in terms of how it's applied through the USIverse.  In terms of which modules require it, and which don't.

[voicey99]

Wait, if all hiring is moving to the AC, does that mean having to pay huge AC prices for all kolonists?

[WuphonsReach]

24 minutes ago, voicey99 said:

Wait, if all hiring is moving to the AC, does that mean having to pay huge AC prices for all kolonists?

I'm 99% sure that RoverDude won't move hiring back to the AC unless he can also fix the costs to scale more reasonably.

[Merkov]

51 minutes ago, tsaven said:

I had inquired about this last month, and my understanding is that RD is still pretty unsure of it.  I think an argument can be made that both mechanics accomplish the same goal of needing to factor in some kind of consumables that equipment consumes as a course of general operation, and are kind of redundant from a gameplay perspective.

My major qualm with the Machinery mechanic is that it seems kind of inconsisent in terms of how it's applied through the USIverse.  In terms of which modules require it, and which don't.

Ah, I had missed your inquiry earlier. If RD isn't sure about it, then I'll leave it alone until he's made up his mind.

[RoverDude]

7 hours ago, tsaven said:

I seem to have fallen behind on a few things in this thread.  What is the currently state of the Ground Construction integration?  The new OP says that it's bundled, but you've said that you still have work to do for GC integration. is this going to cause problems if all my current stations and bases use EL?

Next patch it will be bundled.  EL won't be touched, but the parts will be marked legacy (And eventually deprecated) and the EL config 

3 hours ago, Merkov said:

 

Quick question about USI-LS but only as it relates to MKS (right thread?): now that things are settling a bit, are you still planning on bringing back the wear mechanic to USI-LS parts when MKS is used? Also, is there a difference in spirit between wear and machinery? What I mean is, as far as I understand, both mechanics are meant to reflect parts wearing out and needing replacing over time, and they both reflect the fact that parts work less effectively as they wear out. The difference is that one requires machinery, the other requires material kits, and of course manufacturing the former is far more involved than the latter. Is the idea supposed to be that maintaining the basic Nom-O-Matics doesn't require the specialized parts that the more industrial Tundra modules need?

To be honest, wear is likely not going to come back.

1 hour ago, tsaven said:

I had inquired about this last month, and my understanding is that RD is still pretty unsure of it.  I think an argument can be made that both mechanics accomplish the same goal of needing to factor in some kind of consumables that equipment consumes as a course of general operation, and are kind of redundant from a gameplay perspective.

My major qualm with the Machinery mechanic is that it seems kind of inconsisent in terms of how it's applied through the USIverse.  In terms of which modules require it, and which don't.

Correct

1 hour ago, voicey99 said:

Wait, if all hiring is moving to the AC, does that mean having to pay huge AC prices for all kolonists?

Nope.

[tsaven]

2 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

Next patch it will be bundled.  EL won't be touched, but the parts will be marked legacy (And eventually deprecated) and the EL config

That's a shame, they're excellent models and I've always felt that EL integrated so well with MKS and the goals of the mod.  I'm really sad to see support for it leave.

Does GC give an option for in-orbit construction or does it require all construction to take place on the ground (as the name implies)?

[RoverDude]

I am discussing how we can do in-orbit construction with @allista

The irony... I once offered to make new models for EL a while back and was politely turned down   The whole reason I am moving off of EL is simply because after years of asking, I've realized there is no desire on that end for real collaboration, and what @allista already built was about 95% of what I would have made myself anyway (i.e. I really prefer how the assembly process is decoupled).  

There are some ancient pics around somewhere of what I had in mind even   Here was my analogue to a DIY Kit from GC...

 

(To add)  There will remain nothing stopping you from using EL, you'll just be using EL parts.  I'm just kinda done with trying to reconcile a pretty large balance difference, and would rather focus on something that will work with a lot less friction.

 

[tsaven]

26 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

I am discussing how we can do in-orbit construction

 

 

As long as there's in-orbit construction and it fits in well with the rest of your industrial production process, I'm happy.   

At risk of asking too much before details are finalized, do you plan to be able to manufacture the DIY kits on site or will they always have to be shipped in from Kerbin?

[Kobymaru]

OK, so maybe someone can help me out planetary logistics/scavenging

I have:

• one vessel that produces supplies and fertilizer and consumes mulch. It has a supplies container with Warehousing enabled
• one vessel with a kerbal in it, and a supplies/mulch container with warehousing enabled

I want:

• To feed my Kerbals
• To have a net production of Fertilizer

Now if all Kerbals are in the first vessel and I fill up my Supplies and disable warehousing, I have a net production of Fertilizer.

If I put one kerbal in the second vessel, I have to enable warehousing - because the scavenging mechanic needs enabled warehousing if I got it right.'

However: if warehousing is enabled, the Supplies can't *ever* be full, because they get pushed out to the infinite planetary storage! But as long as Supply production is at full speed, all of my precious Fertilizer is munched up and I can't save it up. There is no way to "throttle" the speed of the agriculture/cultivation, is there?

tl; dr: Is it possible to turn off Planetary logistics but enable scavenging?

[RoverDude]

It's the latter bit (manufacturing DIY kits in-situ) that I want to work with @allista on.  Tho I need to do my part of the bargain and wrap up models

1 minute ago, Kobymaru said:

tl; dr: Is it possible to turn off Planetary logistics but enable scavenging?

Log a Github issue on this as this has been a somewhat common request, and I can roll something into the next patch

 

[Kobymaru]

2 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

Log a Github issue on this as this has been a somewhat common request, and I can roll something into the next patch

Done  

[TheRagingIrishman]

11 hours ago, notthebobo said:

Guess we're calling this thread home now.  Nice new OP.

@RoverDude, would you mind updating the link on the USI page? It still points to the old thread.

11 hours ago, RoverDude said:

If I'm lucky  someone will gift me with a PR before I get to it on the list   Still working through all of the MKS updates and stuff for GC.

Good news is that I'd say we're hitting a relatively stable patch with MKS - I do not anticipate any major system changes going forward, only bug fixes and some small additions (not the wholesale reorgs we've had in the past).

 

Working on it. Done. PR 90 is now open.

Edited February 4, 2017 by TheRagingIrishman
I did my work!

[Merkov]

1 hour ago, RoverDude said:

To be honest, wear is likely not going to come back.

Cool. Thanks for the quick answer!