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

[jd284]

@RoverDude, since you asked for bug reports... I found another issue with catch-up. It seems during catch-up, the efficiency parts are not taken into account.

I noticed this because my Organics depleted even though I have positive production, and since the last fix on logistics this isn't because I ran out of Substrate but another effect altogether.

Normally my Tundra Ag Module has an Agriculture(S) load of 377.8%. During catch-up, the load drops to 289.58% (and so now the Organics production is negative). This 289.58% is the exact load I get when turning off my Ranger Ag efficiency part.

So it seems the efficiency parts are not active during catch-up. Maybe the efficiency calculation also needs to run more often during catch-up.

(Can't easily supply a savegame since I play RSS...)

[RoverDude]

Just now, jd284 said:

@RoverDude, since you asked for bug reports... I found another issue with catch-up. It seems during catch-up, the efficiency parts are not taken into account.

I noticed this because my Organics depleted even though I have positive production, and since the last fix on logistics this isn't because I ran out of Substrate but another effect altogether.

Normally my Tundra Ag Module has an Agriculture(S) load of 377.8%. During catch-up, the load drops to 289.58% (and so now the Organics production is negative). This 289.58% is the exact load I get when turning off my Ranger Ag efficiency part.

So it seems the efficiency parts are not active during catch-up. Maybe the efficiency calculation also needs to run more often during catch-up.

(Can't easily supply a savegame since I play RSS...)

kk, note this in a GitHub issue, and if we're lucky I can grab a save from someone else, otherwise I can whip one up

[TDplay]

13 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

It's a subclass of an active radiator, with the only difference being that it can dump a lot of heat and has to be landed.  But beyond that, it still follows all of the rules of an active radiator.

Oh, I see! OP (i mean overpowered) radiator that is balanced by needing to be landed. Seems balanced. Nice job!

3 minutes ago, Domfluff said:

Concept art
[picture snipped out]

The module to the right is an inflatable temporary shelter, building the more permanent base to the left.

I'm not sure about this stylistically, mind you, but it absolutely fits the MKS progression.

Looks great!

Edited March 27, 2017 by TDplay
silly forum abbreviation thing thought I meant original post

[Domfluff]

In terms of "what first", I've been finding it useful to build pre-fabricated modules in the earlier stages - e.g., a habitat module, an engineering module and a science module, each consisting of various Ranger/Duna/Tundra parts.

These increase in number as the complexity grows, and resources are needed from further afield ("Logistics module" becomes important), so my idea of later game MKS parts are for a fairly small number of very integrated parts, that would probably be built in-situ. The first would be a habitat module for X Kerbals, and include habitation and greenhouse functions, which might need extension with earlier parts.

I do like the idea that later initial bases could be basic workshop chains, to build more advanced modules in-situ.

[voicey99]

7 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

So if you were to hypothetically get some larger, more permanent modules, what kind would you want to see first?  What kind would you like to see in general?  And if anyone has concept art ideas (movies, books, etc.), now would be a good time to show them off .

Larger than Tundra series? The Tundras are unwieldy enough to ship around, anything bigger (5m form factor?) would just be massive. Regardless, if larger modules were to come, would it be possible to make them multi-modular (as in multiple modules work together to perform one function). Different combos of modules would perform different single functions, similar to multiblocks in Minecraft, and more complex multimodules would be required for better efficiency, simplifying the resource chain spaghetti and producing more advanced end products.

[goldenpsp]

2 minutes ago, voicey99 said:

Larger than Tundra series? The Tundras are unwieldy enough to ship around, anything bigger (5m form factor?) would just be massive. Regardless, if larger modules were to come, would it be possible to make them multi-modular (as in multiple modules work together to perform one function). Different combos of modules would perform different single functions, similar to multiblocks in Minecraft, and more complex multimodules would be required for better efficiency, simplifying the resource chain spaghetti and producing more advanced end products.

Pack em in a DIY kit.

[Domfluff]

 

[RoverDude]

1 minute ago, goldenpsp said:

Pack em in a DIY kit.

We have a winner

Now you know why I have a hard dependency on Ground Construction given the options it unlocks.

[Domfluff]

#

Tried to find things that look like they mesh with MKS parts, like the Duna module above.

Then there's Moon, of course:

[voicey99]

5 minutes ago, Domfluff said:

<schnip>

Seeing some familiar parts in that. The airlock from SXT. The ring tanks from MKS. The solar panels from NFS. The trolley wheels from Konstruction. The Malemute cab (etc.). Guess we know where some of the authors got their inspiration from.

Edited March 27, 2017 by voicey99

[Domfluff]

Yup. Obviously they're all using the same source material, but I think it's useful to get an idea as to where they fit. 

Flat circles and domes seem to be the most common shapes, and obviously DIY kits (and filling out with Machinery) are the MKS vectors into that.

[RoverDude]

Also consider a DIY kit is simply a subset of the hard-to-manufacture bits.  There is nothing saying that the final structure could not be built using simple parts fabricated locally.

[Warezcrawler]

@RoverDude I was going through MKS and I notice that the LifeSupport setting are applied twice. I figure that it is not intended, and I think it stems from the "USI-LS.cfg" file in MKS.

It looks like this

Spoiler

LIFE_SUPPORT_SETTINGS
{
    SupplyTime = 324000                    //How many seconds before Kerbals are affected by no supplies
    ECTime = 324000                        //How many seconds before Kerbals are affected by no EC
    EVATime = 21600                        //How many seconds before ill effects on EVA
    ECAmount = 0.01                        //EC per Kerbal per second                        
    SupplyAmount = 0.0005                //Supplies consumed per Kerbal per second
    WasteAmount = 0.0005                //Mulch produced per Kerbal per second
    NoSupplyEffect = 1                    //Effect if a Kerbal has no supplies
    NoSupplyEffectVets = 1                //Effect if a Kerbal is a vet and has no supplies
    NoECEffect = 1                        //Effect if a Kerbal has no EC
    NoECEffectVets = 1                    //Effect if a Kerbal is a vet and has no EC
    EVAEffect = 1                        //Effect if a Kerbal exceeds EVA time        
    EVAEffectVets = 1                    //Effect if a Kerbal is a vet and exceeds EVA time
    NoHomeEffect = 1                    //Effect if a Kerbal becomes homesick
    NoHomeEffectVets = 1                //Effect if a Kerbal is a vet and becomes homesick
    HabMultiplier = 1                    //Bonus to hab values (1 = default = 100% of the part's rated value)
    HomeWorldAltitude = 25000            //Altitude on Kerbin that negative effects are removed
    BaseHabTime = 0.25            //How long can 1 crew capacity support 1 Kerbal, expressed in Kerbal Months
    ReplacementPartAmount = 0.000001    //How fast life support equipment and habs 'wears out'
    HabRange = 150                        //How close we need to be to use other vessel's habitation modules and recyclers.
    EnableRecyclers = true                //Use resource recyclers?  Not the same as resource converteres like greenhouses!
    VetNames = 
}

//  SIDE EFFECTS:
// 
//  0 = No Effect (The feature is effectively turned off
//  1 = Grouchy (they become a Tourist until rescued)
//  2 = Mutinous (A tourist, but destroys a part of a nearby vessel...)
//  3 = Instantly 'wander' back to the KSC - don't ask us how!
//  4 = M.I.A. (will eventually respawn)
//  5 = K.I.A. 

I think it probably should be a MM edit instead of a simple addition of "LIFE_SUPPORT_SETTINGS" node, right?

Something like

Spoiler

@LIFE_SUPPORT_SETTINGS
{
    %SupplyTime = 324000                    //How many seconds before Kerbals are affected by no supplies
    %ECTime = 324000                        //How many seconds before Kerbals are affected by no EC
    %EVATime = 21600                        //How many seconds before ill effects on EVA
    %ECAmount = 0.01                        //EC per Kerbal per second                        
    %SupplyAmount = 0.0005                //Supplies consumed per Kerbal per second
    %WasteAmount = 0.0005                //Mulch produced per Kerbal per second
    %NoSupplyEffect = 1                    //Effect if a Kerbal has no supplies
    %NoSupplyEffectVets = 1                //Effect if a Kerbal is a vet and has no supplies
    %NoECEffect = 1                        //Effect if a Kerbal has no EC
    %NoECEffectVets = 1                    //Effect if a Kerbal is a vet and has no EC
    %EVAEffect = 1                        //Effect if a Kerbal exceeds EVA time        
    %EVAEffectVets = 1                    //Effect if a Kerbal is a vet and exceeds EVA time
    %NoHomeEffect = 1                    //Effect if a Kerbal becomes homesick
    %NoHomeEffectVets = 1                //Effect if a Kerbal is a vet and becomes homesick
    %HabMultiplier = 1                    //Bonus to hab values (1 = default = 100% of the part's rated value)
    %HomeWorldAltitude = 25000            //Altitude on Kerbin that negative effects are removed
    %BaseHabTime = 0.25            //How long can 1 crew capacity support 1 Kerbal, expressed in Kerbal Months
    %ReplacementPartAmount = 0.000001    //How fast life support equipment and habs 'wears out'
    %HabRange = 150                        //How close we need to be to use other vessel's habitation modules and recyclers.
    %EnableRecyclers = true                //Use resource recyclers?  Not the same as resource converteres like greenhouses!
    %VetNames = 
}

//  SIDE EFFECTS:
// 
//  0 = No Effect (The feature is effectively turned off
//  1 = Grouchy (they become a Tourist until rescued)
//  2 = Mutinous (A tourist, but destroys a part of a nearby vessel...)
//  3 = Instantly 'wander' back to the KSC - don't ask us how!
//  4 = M.I.A. (will eventually respawn)
//  5 = K.I.A. 
 

Or am I missing some functionality you build where having this twice makes sense?

[RoverDude]

You're missing functionality - multiple configs are supported and merged.

[Domfluff]

Oh yes, and in terms of "first module" - it does make sense to me for this to primarily be a habitat (which can be built upon to extend it's capabilities), but it should definitely be a probe control point (one pilot?) - being able to control unmanned supply missions in their terminal phase on the far side of the Mun (or wherever) can be a pretty big deal.

[Warezcrawler]

1 hour ago, RoverDude said:

You're missing functionality - multiple configs are supported and merged.

ahh... ok... Can I ask - how does it know which one to use?

[goldenpsp]

Just now, Warezcrawler said:

ahh... ok... Can I ask - how does it know which one to use?

Unless things have changed it takes the most pessimistic setting when multiple configs are present.

[Warezcrawler]

1 hour ago, goldenpsp said:

Unless things have changed it takes the most pessimistic setting when multiple configs are present.

If you want it harder, you'll get it harder! So to speak.... 

[Tarheel1999]

10 minutes ago, Warezcrawler said:

If you want it harder, you'll get it harder! So to speak.... 

Also note, that the config is only referenced for new saves. Once the save is created, changing the config should not affect that save. You need to use the GUI in game or edit the save file. 

[RoverDude]

@goldenpsp and @Tarheel1999 are both correct.

[Warezcrawler]

1 hour ago, Tarheel1999 said:

Also note, that the config is only referenced for new saves. Once the save is created, changing the config should not affect that save. You need to use the GUI in game or edit the save file. 

Yes, I had noticed that. I just got confused by this since I was trying to configure USI-LS to specific settings that I like, so that I don't need to remember to update when creating new save - but it didn't take.....

Thanks, as long as it is intended everything is good... Have a nice day.

[DStaal]

53 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

(unrelated for the thread in general)

So if you were to hypothetically get some larger, more permanent modules, what kind would you want to see first?  What kind would you like to see in general?  And if anyone has concept art ideas (movies, books, etc.), now would be a good time to show them off

Also unrelated.

Chugging ahead with a very large code surprise to go along with big bases that will be the foundational bit for interplanetary resource sharing, as well as other goodies.

Honestly, the next step by most sets of plans would be underground.  Even Domfluff's image is from a base that's half-undergound.  (That's a full sphere, not a half-sphere.)

I have some ideas on sets of space-station parts, but I'd want to work on them myself.     (General plan is a large ring, based on a modular truss on the *outside*, which mounts standarized-sized units inside it.  Should be built cheap and heavy - from iron and steel instead of titanium and aluminum.)

[Domfluff]

Underground (or covered in regolith) certainly makes more sense, but I wonder if the issue with doing that in KSP (i.e., having parts which look half-buried) is mostly that they look weird when used for other purposes - which does hurt the whole lego-rocket aspect.

Carter Emmart was the artist that Zubrin references in The Case for Mars.



Full sequence:




To satisfy my "High Frontier" boardgame urges, having an Engineering module look and feel like an actual factory would be huge. I'm not sure which of the various processes (e.g. basalt spinners) would be good to ape though.

The third image above I think is the most suitable for MKS, since you can see how the smaller (Tundra) modules would interact.

Again, domes seem to be the common theme. Wide, flattened circles, domes and half-cylinders.

[DDay2021]

These appeal to me as you could feasibly drop the first image in as an initial landing vessel,  or rover even,  then 3d print (DIY kit) the rest into position such as the reactor? in the second.  You would still retain some modularity with the function of what is built in-situ.  I'm of the opinion that whatever is built in-situ has a time cost, as well as material.

 

[TDplay]

2 hours ago, voicey99 said:

Larger than Tundra series? The Tundras are unwieldy enough to ship around, anything bigger (5m form factor?) would just be massive. Regardless, if larger modules were to come, would it be possible to make them multi-modular (as in multiple modules work together to perform one function). Different combos of modules would perform different single functions, similar to multiblocks in Minecraft, and more complex multimodules would be required for better efficiency, simplifying the resource chain spaghetti and producing more advanced end products.

Ooh! Idea!

WARNING: MAY TURN INTO BRAIN DUMP FULL OF TECHNICAL JARGON

Spoiler

Why not make these permanent modules like inflatables with a twist:

Perhaps they come in a 2.5m or 3.75m initial package, perhaps 2.5m for 5m parts and 3.5m for 7.5m parts, and they're just all the stuff that can't be made In-Situ. Then you'd make all the needed stuff in-situ.

Oh, and, you may be thinking, TDplay, you picky madman, why all the different resources? Well, there could be an ISRU machine, possibly named '[name of resource] Factory' for each. That would encourage getting a sort of 'priority system' for what to send in these modules, who wants a spawling mess of Factories (you get chair factories and table factories and bed factories and computer factories and electrolyser factories and Hydroponic Bed factories and valve factories and pipe factories - you get what I mean...)

WHAT COULD NEED WHAT

Crew Modules - Chair, Table, Bed

Command pods - Chair, Table, Computer

Life Support machine - Computer, Electrolyser, Hydroponic Bed, Valve, Pipe

Medbay - Bed, Cabinet, Chair, Computer

Deep Mining Operation (basically an overpowered drill inside a huge casing that pulls up enormous hunks of dirt) - Mega-Bore Reinforced Drill, Motor, Deep Mining Reinforcement, Deep Mining Shaft

Geothermal Generator (endgame machine that uses Water to make Steam, assuming ground contact, perhaps with drill code) - Deep Mining Reinforcement, Pump, Pipe, Heat Plate

Universal Factory - Robot Arm, Conveyor, Computer

Mega Legs (after all, we need a way to have these not roll around and drag the base all over the planet) - Just use existing resources for this, it's not that significant

Nuclear Reactor (but this bigger one uses EnrichedUranium to turn Water into steam) - Reactor Core, Heat Plate, Pipe, Computer

Turbine (Endgame machine to make your valuable EC from Steam, rendering the geothermal generator and bigger nuclear reactor useful) - Turbine Blade, Alternator, Shaft

Regolith Sifter - Motor, Shaft, Crusher, Conveyor

Nuclear Fuel Centrifuge - Motor, Shaft, Centrifuge Parts

Nuclear Reprocessing Unit - Motor, Shaft, Reprocessing Chemical Tank

 

Of course, all these parts could be available in 5m, 7.5m and 10m sizes, with bigger parts needing more resources.

And there shouldn't be a 'do it all machine', that would be too overpowered.

Also, the way the mega legs could work, these modules could have nodes on all 6 of their sides, where you attatch other parts on orbital stations or Mega Legs on planets. Mega Legs should have 5 attatchment points, one on every cardinal direction but down.

EDIT: And perhaps they could need Construction Bots instead of Engineers to 'inflate'

Just an idea

Edited March 27, 2017 by TDplay