Nils277

[1.4.X—1.6.X] Kerbal Planetary Base Systems v1.6.8 [22. February 2019]

Recommended Posts

On 6/15/2016 at 11:30 AM, ibanix said:

Ok, so we'll keep it as water-powered recycler.

I've also realized that the only two drills in stock KPBS are water and ore. If we want to use any other resources (minerals, hydrates, gypsum), then we need to add a new drill. I had already made in-line versions of the -250, -500 and -750 for later UKS integration, but I'd prefer to keep those separate. 

Do we include a multi-purpose community resource pack part drill as part of USI-LS compatibility?

Not necessarily.  You could include a MM patch to add the custom resource mining to the stock drills.  KBPS *requires* MM, so there shouldn't normally be a case where that's an issue - unless the mod is installed without the required dependencies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, panarchist said:

Not necessarily.  You could include a MM patch to add the custom resource mining to the stock drills.  KBPS *requires* MM, so there shouldn't normally be a case where that's an issue - unless the mod is installed without the required dependencies.

That's an idea. I can't immediately think of a case where that would be an issue. It might be overpowered; there's a reason to have multiple drills to force users to have to plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, ibanix said:

That's an idea. I can't immediately think of a case where that would be an issue. It might be overpowered; there's a reason to have multiple drills to force users to have to plan.

It should only be an issue if the MM patch is installed but somehow the resource isn't defined in KSP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, panarchist said:

It should only be an issue if the MM patch is installed but somehow the resource isn't defined in KSP.

Make it depend on CRP, then it will only show up if the resource is installed.  (Of course, we're talking about this in the context of USI stuff - which also depends on CRP.)  The other issue I can think of is if we're adding it to the stock drill and another mod creates it's own drills for it - do we want to double it in that case?  UKS adds drills for all of them, so again if we're doing a compatibility patch you might not need to add drills in that case.  (Though USI-LS doesn't add drills for them - but it also doesn't have a way to produce fertilizer off-world, so do we want to add that capability for the USI-LS only patch?)

Of course, the UKS drills aren't in the Planetary Base form factor - if we're doing in that form factor then that's enough of a difference that duplication isn't as much of an issue for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rover pictured- Where is it? I really, realy would like to use it.

(If it is not in the parts pack, how can we get it? And its little wheels too?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mekan1k said:

The rover pictured- Where is it? I really, realy would like to use it.

(If it is not in the parts pack, how can we get it? And its little wheels too?)

The rover in the most recent image is the Malmute.  It's one of RoverDude's mods. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, DStaal said:

By mass, at the crew capacity of 3, the MK1 hab should be able to support a 60% recycler by RoverDude's guidelines.  My suggestion is to keep the numbers a bit lower, so we increase the crew it supports.  (Offsetting the mass in RoverDude's guidelines.)

That gives us:

  • MK1 habitat: 35-40% recycler at 5 crew capacity. (Exact guidelines would be 37%, but anywhere in that range would be 'close enough'.)
  • MK2 Habitat: 50% recycler at 5-6 crew.  (It's closer - I'd suggest 6 crew capacity, to be more inline with the idea of 'LS recycler for space+2' theme.)

I'm curious as to what your rational is for wanting to restrict the recycler percentage and increase the crew capacity. To me this doesn't make much sense, as it seems like each of the habs are built and designed explicitly to serve that number of Kerbals of their crew capacity.

Maybe I'm sounding like a broken record by now, but I'm solidly of the idea that the Mk1 should have 50% for 3, and the MK2 65% or 70% for 4.  This seems to make the most sense for balance, as well as what the part's intended functions seem to be.

*Edit* Nevermind, looks like I missed a post from ibanix about this.  I still have my own opinions on the balance of it, but it seems I'm in the minority here and lets be honest, probably the least technically invested.  I'll defer to Nils's best judgement, as it is his mod after all. 

I'd be curious to for RD to weigh, as he mentioned in the UKS thread that he's doing a major re-balance pass of many of his modules with regards to USI-LS.

Edited by tsaven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll answer your question, so you have my view as well.  :wink: 

There are several reasons, both in-game and out: Outside of the game, it makes sense from a balance perspective to not have the parts be high quality recyclers (and 70% is pretty high - 80% is max; anything beyond that is supposed to be a water purifier).  You want to have a reason to have a more dedicated recycling part as well.  In-game, the thought would be that the habitats have facilities for things like laundry and air purification that tie in and tuck mostly out of the way, and their 'designed' load is their normal crew capacity, but you build in a bit of headroom, so you can hot-bunk in an emergency or de-rate while you do maintenance.  (Why I was thinking of 'space+2' - the +2 is the designed safety margin.)  Basically, they aren't actually designed to run at 100% load, in my mind.  :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope this helps, here is a picture of a test base, followed by current home usi-ls calculations. Then I created a calculation of what I think home should be based on the table posted by ibanix. 

ABgbymH.jpg

W5s63XX.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Rafel. However, it's hard to know much about it from balance without knowing a little more about the base.

* What's the max Kerbal capacity? What's the hab time at max capacity?

* What's the max amount of supplies the base can hold? How long do supplies last at max capacity (including recyclers, etc.)?

Also, that looks like a pretty advanced base - it's got a LOT of modules...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, ibanix said:

Thanks Rafel. However, it's hard to know much about it from balance without knowing a little more about the base.

* What's the max Kerbal capacity? What's the hab time at max capacity?

* What's the max amount of supplies the base can hold? How long do supplies last at max capacity (including recyclers, etc.)?

Also, that looks like a pretty advanced base - it's got a LOT of modules...

    #    Table  kerbal months    Totals
Crew capacity    42            42
Habitat mk2    6        14    84
Control module0        2    0
Central hub    1        37.5    37.5
                    163.5
        Hab multiplier    Totals
Stock cupola    0    1.76    0
Science    3    1.25    3.75
Greenhouse    3    1.3    3.9
            7.65
            
        Total months    1250.775
        Total days    37523.25
        Total days 6 crew    6253.875
        Total years    17.13390411

 

The base is designed for a crew capacity of 42, however it has only 6 crew presently

 

 

Edited by Rafael acevedo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@DStaal, @tsaven: I'd like us to be able reach some sort of consensus on mechanics, which we give to @Nils277 as the recommendations for how to apply USI-LS (and later, MKS). 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ibanix said:

@Rafael acevedo: At 42 crew that's about 2 Kerbal-years of Hab. Seems reasonable for the size.

2.44 kerb years according to the spreadsheet I used

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, ibanix said:

@DStaal, @tsaven: I'd like us to be able reach some sort of consensus on mechanics, which we give to @Nils277 as the recommendations for how to apply USI-LS (and later, MKS). 

 

I think we're pretty good on the USI-LS stuff, actually - unless we want to figure in wear, but that's not enabled in a default USI-LS install.  (Even though it's a USI-LS mechanic.)  I'll admit I haven't run the numbers on the greenhouse converters - but they don't lose or gain Supply mass, so they can't be to far off.  :wink:  Base USI-LS doesn't even have a way to produce fertilizer, and we add one in - which I like; a base-building project should look to be more sustainable.

UKS would need to add wear, logistics, living/workspaces, and maybe some production parts to enable the supply chain for wear/EL/OSE.  My patches cover most of that, but might be tweakable for better support coverage and I need to figure out the living/workspaces stuff.  The production parts could either be included or in a separate mod - RoverDude's been known to tweak the supply chain on that a few times, so it's not exactly a fixed target.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DStaal said:

I think we're pretty good on the USI-LS stuff, actually - unless we want to figure in wear, but that's not enabled in a default USI-LS install.  (Even though it's a USI-LS mechanic.)  I'll admit I haven't run the numbers on the greenhouse converters - but they don't lose or gain Supply mass, so they can't be to far off.  :wink:  Base USI-LS doesn't even have a way to produce fertilizer, and we add one in - which I like; a base-building project should look to be more sustainable.

So you are happy with the current proposed numbers and so forth for USI-LS? https://github.com/ibanix/UKS-KPBS_Compatibility/wiki/USI-LS-Compatibility-(Proposed)

Quote

UKS would need to add wear, logistics, living/workspaces, and maybe some production parts to enable the supply chain for wear/EL/OSE.  My patches cover most of that, but might be tweakable for better support coverage and I need to figure out the living/workspaces stuff.  The production parts could either be included or in a separate mod - RoverDude's been known to tweak the supply chain on that a few times, so it's not exactly a fixed target.

Yeah, and will also need models/skins. @Nils277 has kindly offered to send me his model files and so forth. I'm not a modeler tho, so anyone with that skill would be super helpful here.

@RoverDude has his parts in three categores: Mk2. Mk3, and MkV. I would like to suggest that we not attempt to directly replicate these groups, or even all individual parts, because KBPS and UKS are different beasts - different sizes, masses, form-factors, and so on.

My preference would be to implement individual parts that fit into KBPS, and replicate the overall process and resource flow, like you can see in the graphic below. Is there any issue with this?

cylCAPM.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, DStaal said:

I'll answer your question, so you have my view as well.  :wink: 

There are several reasons, both in-game and out: Outside of the game, it makes sense from a balance perspective to not have the parts be high quality recyclers (and 70% is pretty high - 80% is max; anything beyond that is supposed to be a water purifier).  You want to have a reason to have a more dedicated recycling part as well.  In-game, the thought would be that the habitats have facilities for things like laundry and air purification that tie in and tuck mostly out of the way, and their 'designed' load is their normal crew capacity, but you build in a bit of headroom, so you can hot-bunk in an emergency or de-rate while you do maintenance.  (Why I was thinking of 'space+2' - the +2 is the designed safety margin.)  Basically, they aren't actually designed to run at 100% load, in my mind.  :wink:

You know, I think the biggest part of this theory of design that bothers me is the lack of a dedicated Recycler part.  If there was a dedicated 70-75% recycler part that didn't need water (But needed a lot of EC, or Machinery or something else to balance out it's capabilities), I'd agree with your thoughts on it the whole system.  (RD handled this in the default USI-LS by giving 70% Recycling capability to the MPL, which I still think is kind of weird and suspect is a stand-in for a more dedicated part that he intends to release later?).  And there are other parts in MKS which have similar capabilities, the Pioneer module for instance is a 75% recycler for 5 Kerbals and doesn't have many drawbacks. 

Don't get me wrong, if it's implemented as ibanix describes I'll still use both mods and keep playing them in my career.  It's just different than what makes sense in my head, given how I think about USI-LS and what I imagine the intent of KPBS design to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Mekan1k said:

The rover pictured- Where is it? I really, realy would like to use it.

(If it is not in the parts pack, how can we get it? And its little wheels too?)

As @DStaal said, its the Malemute Rover. And it is really nice indeed. You can find it here: Malemute.

10 hours ago, ibanix said:

So you are happy with the current proposed numbers and so forth for USI-LS? https://github.com/ibanix/UKS-KPBS_Compatibility/wiki/USI-LS-Compatibility-(Proposed)

Yeah, and will also need models/skins. @Nils277 has kindly offered to send me his model files and so forth. I'm not a modeler tho, so anyone with that skill would be super helpful here.

@RoverDude has his parts in three categores: Mk2. Mk3, and MkV. I would like to suggest that we not attempt to directly replicate these groups, or even all individual parts, because KBPS and UKS are different beasts - different sizes, masses, form-factors, and so on.

My preference would be to implement individual parts that fit into KBPS, and replicate the overall process and resource flow, like you can see in the graphic below. Is there any issue with this?

[IMAGE]

Regarding the overall suggested balance of the USI-LS support, i would agree, still have to run the numbers through my head though on the weekend. 
I guess there are some heavy changes coming in the future look here. Read something about ratiation too!

 

You are totally right, that it is indeed not really feasible to have a 1:1 copy of UKS. They are both just too different from a design point of view.
Therefore i like @DStaals suggestion to need two or more parts that allow a production for a specific resource, but allow different production chains when combined with other part combinations:

Quote

On the MK-3 modules: While building in the Garage form factor makes sense, I'd like to float an alternate idea (grab whatever parts you want, if any): Have two normal form-factor parts - a 'factory mechanicals' and a 'factory workshop'.  The mechanicals would be a heavy and hot part that uses a lot of EC (and technically has the converter) - but doesn't have any crew capacity to give production.  The factory workshop gives crew capacity and workspace, but doesn't produce anything on it's own - it needs the mechanicals to do conversions.  So you have to ship up both, for the combined mass.  (And large overall size.)  I think making the mechanicals hot could balance against reducing the overall mass somewhat as well.  (Heat always being awkward to deal with, vs. mass only being an issue during transport or construction.)

It would also be a somewhat modular design: You can have different mechanicals that produce different things, and add them individually to a base as needed, or just add production as your population grows.

We have to make sure though that a part/production chain for KPBS does not circumvent a more complex production chain from UKS. :wink:

A first suggestion might look like this:

MZ8Dpft.png

here's the link to the graph source (you can open it with YEd.

The thoughts on this:

The production of Chemicals, Polymers and Metals is split into three separate converters that need another part that controls the whole process. (the converters might be just recolored ISRUs)
The productionof material kits and Machinery is also split up to compensate the lower mass, they also need the factory mechanicals to work. Same applies for the Fabrication.

I haven't had any thought yet on the production rate, balancing etc. though yet. The problem i see here is, that all of this needs more than just one or two new parts.....
What are your thoughts?

The one thing i don't know yet it whether all production chains nessecarily need to have an equivalent in KPBS. e.g. the whole nuclear energy thing, the regolith shifter etc. Maybe some parts like machinery should stay UKS only, or what do you think?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, tsaven said:

You know, I think the biggest part of this theory of design that bothers me is the lack of a dedicated Recycler part.  If there was a dedicated 70-75% recycler part that didn't need water (But needed a lot of EC, or Machinery or something else to balance out it's capabilities), I'd agree with your thoughts on it the whole system.  (RD handled this in the default USI-LS by giving 70% Recycling capability to the MPL, which I still think is kind of weird and suspect is a stand-in for a more dedicated part that he intends to release later?).  And there are other parts in MKS which have similar capabilities, the Pioneer module for instance is a 75% recycler for 5 Kerbals and doesn't have many drawbacks. 

Don't get me wrong, if it's implemented as ibanix describes I'll still use both mods and keep playing them in my career.  It's just different than what makes sense in my head, given how I think about USI-LS and what I imagine the intent of KPBS design to be.

We do have a recycle part with 70% recycling without water - the Central Hub.  It can *also* do water purification, but it's got the normal recycler as well.  It's big, but it is the central hub of an advanced base.

1 hour ago, Nils277 said:

 

MZ8Dpft.png

here's the link to the graph source (you can open it with YEd.

The thoughts on this:

The production of Chemicals, Polymers and Metals is split into three separate converters that need another part that controls the whole process. (the converters might be just recolored ISRUs)
The productionof material kits and Machinery is also split up to compensate the lower mass, they also need the factory mechanicals to work. Same applies for the Fabrication.

I haven't had any thought yet on the production rate, balancing etc. though yet. The problem i see here is, that all of this needs more than just one or two new parts.....
What are your thoughts?

The one thing i don't know yet it whether all production chains nessecarily need to have an equivalent in KPBS. e.g. the whole nuclear energy thing, the regolith shifter etc. Maybe some parts like machinery should stay UKS only, or what do you think?

In general I like - I even really like the idea of splitting the Chemicals, Polymers and Metals converters - it makes conceptual 'mine and refine' bases an obvious choice, which I feel is a weak point in UKS.

The only real issues I have are with SpecializedParts - UKS has it as the 'hard to produce' resource you need as well as MaterialKits to build/service your ships.  You've got it with a simpler process, and being used to produce MaterialKits.  (Was that just an oversight/misunderstading?  UKS has them needed for Machinery, not MaterialKits.)  You've also dropped a resource from them - in UKS they require both ExoticMinerals and RareMetals.  Of course, most of the 'hard to produce' in UKS is that SpecializedParts require a MK-III piece, where MaterialKits can be done with a MK-V.  So that depends quite a bit on the design of the 'Fabrication' module - high heat/mass/EC/etc. to do production could make my concern moot.

The other thought is on Dirt - and I keep going back and forth on that.  I tend to think of Dirt as an early-stage colonization resource - you can send up a dirt drill, a couple of MK-V parts, and get MaterialKits production up and running to build the rest of your base.  I'm not sure if that's a niche we want to get into - though you could do it with basically container-sized low efficiency parts for the sifter and refiners.  (Basically make the containers the MK-V of this mod, so you have a sifter, chemical plant, polyermerizer and smelter in that form factor as well.  You could then upgrade your base by putting in the full form factor, taking advantage of your existing Process Coordination part.)  But then that's even more parts.  I haven't made much use of the MK-III sifter, so I'm not sure how useful that would be, or if we want one.  My current leaning (as of this minute...) is to say 'Let this be the more built up mod - forget Dirt, they can use MK-V parts if they want to.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, DStaal said:

We do have a recycle part with 70% recycling without water - the Central Hub.  It can *also* do water purification, but it's got the normal recycler as well.  It's big, but it is the central hub of an advanced base.

In general I like - I even really like the idea of splitting the Chemicals, Polymers and Metals converters - it makes conceptual 'mine and refine' bases an obvious choice, which I feel is a weak point in UKS.

The only real issues I have are with SpecializedParts - UKS has it as the 'hard to produce' resource you need as well as MaterialKits to build/service your ships.  You've got it with a simpler process, and being used to produce MaterialKits.  (Was that just an oversight/misunderstading?  UKS has them needed for Machinery, not MaterialKits.)  You've also dropped a resource from them - in UKS they require both ExoticMinerals and RareMetals.  Of course, most of the 'hard to produce' in UKS is that SpecializedParts require a MK-III piece, where MaterialKits can be done with a MK-V.  So that depends quite a bit on the design of the 'Fabrication' module - high heat/mass/EC/etc. to do production could make my concern moot.

The other thought is on Dirt - and I keep going back and forth on that.  I tend to think of Dirt as an early-stage colonization resource - you can send up a dirt drill, a couple of MK-V parts, and get MaterialKits production up and running to build the rest of your base.  I'm not sure if that's a niche we want to get into - though you could do it with basically container-sized low efficiency parts for the sifter and refiners.  (Basically make the containers the MK-V of this mod, so you have a sifter, chemical plant, polyermerizer and smelter in that form factor as well.  You could then upgrade your base by putting in the full form factor, taking advantage of your existing Process Coordination part.)  But then that's even more parts.  I haven't made much use of the MK-III sifter, so I'm not sure how useful that would be, or if we want one.  My current leaning (as of this minute...) is to say 'Let this be the more built up mod - forget Dirt, they can use MK-V parts if they want to.'

Yes, the part with the specialized parts (Produktion and needed resources) is probably an oversight. I used the Chart from @ibanix as reference and might have gotten something wrong. Of specialized parts should be very hard to produce, one can also use the bigger formfactor from the garages for it. No need to structly stay with only one size i'd say.

Imho the converters in the small container size seems a bit OP for me. Even if they have a low conversion rate and efficiency. But then i'm everything but an expert for UKS :wink:

Not sure about the Dirt too.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, from the chart as reference you only missed one long crossover line and got Machinery/MaterialKits flipped, so it was minor mistake from there.  I thought about suggesting the garage formfactor for specilized parts production - it'd work, but I didn't want to lock that thought process in.  If someone has another idea I'd be willing to hear it.  (Especially since we're basically mimicking the MK-III for the rest - the Mobile Refinery is a MK-III as well, but we're splitting it up.)  The 'Fabrication' module just needs to be more difficult to handle than the 'Factory Workshop' on your chart - so it depends a lot on what that part is like.  If it was half-length or so then having a full-length fabrication module means it's more difficult to work with.  Or whatever balance you want.  :wink:  (Heck, even having the Factory Workshop being a multi-use part of some sort with OSE and EL while the Fabrication module is dedicated might be enough to balance, if I'm throwing ideas...)

Converters in the (large) container size wouldn't be very OP vs. UKS; it's about the same size and mass as a MK-V Smelter (I've even stashed MK-V parts on a container rack...) - which also has the requirement that an Engineer must be someplace else on the ship to run it, so if you keep it paired with the requirement of the Process Coordination we aren't gaining undue advantage.  The question is whether we'd want to do that - it's a set of extra parts for not much extra benefit.  Personally, I find landing a UKS part a lot easier than landing a KPBS part - so I tend to land an initial colony ship from that set, and then build out a KPBS base using EL.  And again, it's that initial setup phase of the new colony that I find Dirt the most useful in, so I'm not sure about whether we'd need it here.  If you did want it, a single recolored ISRU to handle it (as basically a presorter for the chemical plant/polymerizer/smelter) would likely be the easiest way - especially if we're going for a mid-size (Probably roughly equivalent to the the new parts RoverDude's working on and showing off glimpses of at the moment), and not trying to duplicate the 'exploration' MK-V parts.  (Basically, I could see making a MK-V alike in the container system if you wanted - but I'm not convinced it's worth the work, or something you'd want to do, as they'll already have the MK-V parts.)

The one useful part for the container system would be a version of the Microwave Power Transceiver - a part that will allow the power logistics to work on the base, meaning you can have the base power nearby ships, or have a power station that powers several nearby bases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, DStaal said:

 

The one useful part for the container system would be a version of the Microwave Power Transceiver - a part that will allow the power logistics to work on the base, meaning you can have the base power nearby ships, or have a power station that powers several nearby bases.

That should be easy enough to do. I could do that in a MM patch quickly. We just need a model....

6 hours ago, DStaal said:

The other thought is on Dirt - and I keep going back and forth on that.  I tend to think of Dirt as an early-stage colonization resource - you can send up a dirt drill, a couple of MK-V parts, 

I could be wrong, but I thought @RoverDude had said Dirt was there to allow for lower-efficiency extraction of resources that you'd otherwise not be able to get; all the resources don't occur in the same place. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Nils277 said:

We have to make sure though that a part/production chain for KPBS does not circumvent a more complex production chain from UKS. :wink:

A first suggestion might look like this:

MZ8Dpft.png

I like all of this, except that I would suggest the Chemical Plant, Polymeizer and Smelter all be the same module, as in UKS (the Mk3 Fabrication Module). All three of the resources - Chemicals, Polymers and Metals - are required to produce Machinery and MaterialKits; having one or two of them is not useful, you need all three.

I don't advocate for changing the requirement to use all three; we'd really be off on our own designs and away from @RoverDude's process chart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, DStaal said:

In general I like - I even really like the idea of splitting the Chemicals, Polymers and Metals converters - it makes conceptual 'mine and refine' bases an obvious choice, which I feel is a weak point in UKS.

I just caught this comment. Mine/refine bases were not something I had thought of, and it's a good idea.

Can I suggest that we have two different options?

1) Individual material fabrication modules, one each for Chemical. Polymers, Metals. Low-mass, high-efficiency.

2) Single fabrication module that does all three of the resources. High-mass, low-efficiency.

This gives the option for refinery bases, but also for someone to run a single base without having to deal with installing three different fabrication modules.

Edited by ibanix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, ibanix said:

I just caught this comment. Mine/refine based were not something I had thought of, and it's a good idea.

Can I suggest that we have two different options?

1) Individual material fabrication modules, one each for Chemical. Polymers, Metals. Low-mass, high-efficiency.

2) Single fabrication module that does all three of the resources. High-mass, low-efficiency.

This gives the option for refinery bases, but also for someone to run a single base without having to deal with installing three different fabrication modules.

I really, REALLY like dStaal's concept of separate modules for each resource.  I think it's an good way to balance out the ease of making a base with smaller more modular parts, but mostly I think it's just more fun!  I feel that one of the big appeals for me of KPBS is that it gives more complexity and finesse over RD's default implementation, and requiring not only a Process Coordinator but then separate parts for each resource is awesome, makes a ton of sense and I'm really excited about it.  In my mind, each of these parts should be about the size and mass of the KPBS form factor ISRU (Maybe a little shorter).  I would LOVE it if each of them would have their own additional requirements, like that the Smelter would generate a lot of heat.

I think a single fabrication module that does all three would only make sense if it were in the Garage form factor.  Which I would support, but I'm WAY more enthusastic about requiring multiple ISRU-sized parts that have to work together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now