Jump to content

[1.12.X] Kerbal Planetary Base Systems v1.6.15 [28. April 2022]


Nils277

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, tsaven said:

Question.  If we're using your configs, do they automatically overwrite/take precedence over the defaults or do we need to edit/remove the configs that already come with KPBS?

They use Module Manager to add functionality to the KPBS parts. You will still need the KPBS configs.

At some point in the future KPBS may integrate it's own version of this functionality,  and I am not sure what would happen then - it depends on how things are done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/4/2016 at 1:08 PM, CobaltWolf said:

I believe I mentioned - the limitation of our current implementation using DMagicScienceAnimate means that the parts require, specifically, the SEP_CentralStation part connected to the vessel in order to work. I would like to be able to use either/or but I don't believe that functionality is available unless we were to create and add a dummy part module, since we can make requirements for either specific parts or specific modules. Would someone be able to make a plugin that adds a dummy module (something like ModuleSEPCentralStation) that can be used to select the parts? That way this would work better.

Hmm, would this be why I'm getting an error that they aren't connected to the central station when trying to use the wedge? Is there a workaround for now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10.6.2016 at 0:29 AM, Ironiceagle said:

Hi, i'm pretty new to this mod and i'm sure this has been asked plenty of times before. (if so a link to the solution will do)

Whenever i try to dock two simple modules while driving both parts will bounce all over the place as soon as they dock.

I will add a screenshot down here:

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=700680264

This problem seems to happen for some users. I think it is a combination of a slight jitter added from the docking ports and the suspension of the wheels. This also seems to happen for some stock parts. Wanted to make some tests with changed colliders of the docking ports to see if that fixes the problem, but hadn't time for it yet. :wink: Will try to make some changes for one of the next updates.

10 hours ago, oniontrain said:

Hmm, would this be why I'm getting an error that they aren't connected to the central station when trying to use the wedge? Is there a workaround for now?

Yes, that is the reason. SEP already has a modified version on Github here. To use it you'll need to add 

MODULE

{

name = ModuleSEPCentralStation 

}

to the config of the wedge. (PlanetaryBaseInc/ModSupport/Parts/SurfaceExperimentPackage/ContainerSEP.cfg)

I will add this with the next update

 

Edited by Nils277
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, possible bug/gameplay issue here.

I landed a module on Minmus, no issues. Went EVA to install the rover wheels via KIS, and it installed them with the wheel in the deployed state. :confused: Needless to say, my freshly landed module promptly took flying lessons.

Is there a way to have these install in the retracted state?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Raptor9 said:

Good lord, @Rafael acevedo, what's the Kerbal population of that base? All of them? :sticktongue:

As designed 48 kerbals, if I fill every available space over a hundred, however, since I use a life support mod its habitation rate is 97 kerbal years with almost 1.5 kerb years of supplies. ( although as long as the hydro phonics module work is pretty much sustainable indefinitely) but if the kraken strikes that is how long, I have to execute a rescue mission. but just wait, cause I am about to finish bldg a new base, with the same capacity, with over 300 years Hab rate and over two years of supplies, will post pics later. I think will like the fact that I broke away from the diagonal connecting tunnel that I have been using in all my bases.  Anyways glad you liked it:cool::cool::cool::cool:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I could timidly make a couple of tiny suggestions for USI-LS support balancing:

  • Remove the 75% Recycler from the large Greenhouse, or at least nerf it down to 25%.  As it stands, Combining a high-efficiency recycler and a high throughput Cultivator with a Hab Multiplier of 3 seems overpowered, even given how large and heavy it is compared to USI's offerings.  I think it makes more sense as just a Cultivator, and I totally agree with it having the Hab Multiplier.
  • Both the Mk1 and MK2 habitat's Recyclers are slightly weak when compared to the mod's recommendations (MK1 should be .62, MK2 should be .7 according to their mass and Kerbals supported)
Edited by tsaven
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, LordOfMinecraft99 said:

Does this mod have parts to support Extraplanetary Launchpads? Thanks!

Not yet, but i'm currently working on it.

12 hours ago, ibanix said:

So I have some updates to @PocketBrotector's UKS integration - bugfixes and adding in additional UKS modules. I've submitted a pull request and sent him a private message; if I don't hear back from him in a few days I'll release those changes myself.

Glad to hear, lets hope he answeres. But i'm afraid the configs have not been updated for some time now. I don't know if all of it is still compatible with the newest versions of UKS. You could also try to hook up with @DStaal. He's making new configs for the UKS support, and guessing from what i know about UKS (not much) also well balanced ones. I understand you are also making some new models for UKS integration. If you want, i could send you the source files for some models and textures for a quick start. E.g. for the garage formfactor for bigger production parts. Just let me know if you do :wink:

12 hours ago, MaverickSawyer said:

Okay, possible bug/gameplay issue here.

I landed a module on Minmus, no issues. Went EVA to install the rover wheels via KIS, and it installed them with the wheel in the deployed state. :confused: Needless to say, my freshly landed module promptly took flying lessons.

Is there a way to have these install in the retracted state?

As far as i know, all landing legs and wheels are now deployed by default since 1.1 (or 1.1.1?). Could you try the same thing out with the stock wheels?
I think to remember that this problem is known to the KIS devs and they are trying to find a fix for it. If anyone knows how/if it can be fixed from my side, please let me know.

10 hours ago, Rafael acevedo said:

As designed 48 kerbals, if I fill every available space over a hundred, however, since I use a life support mod its habitation rate is 97 kerbal years with almost 1.5 kerb years of supplies. ( although as long as the hydro phonics module work is pretty much sustainable indefinitely) but if the kraken strikes that is how long, I have to execute a rescue mission. but just wait, cause I am about to finish bldg a new base, with the same capacity, with over 300 years Hab rate and over two years of supplies, will post pics later. I think will like the fact that I broke away from the diagonal connecting tunnel that I have been using in all my bases.  Anyways glad you liked it:cool::cool::cool::cool:

Wow, that is a lot of kerbals, and definetely also a lot of parts. I'd guess i would get 0.1 to 0.2 FPS max for this. Looks really impressive by the way!

5 hours ago, tsaven said:

If I could timidly make a couple of tiny suggestions for USI-LS support balancing:

  • Remove the 75% Recycler from the large Greenhouse, or at least nerf it down to 25%.  As it stands, Combining a high-efficiency recycler and a high throughput Cultivator with a Hab Multiplier of 3 seems overpowered, even given how large and heavy it is compared to USI's offerings.  I think it makes more sense as just a Cultivator, and I totally agree with it having the Hab Multiplier.
  • Both the Mk1 and MK2 habitat's Recyclers are slightly weak when compared to the mod's recommendations (MK1 should be .62, MK2 should be .7 according to their mass and Kerbals supported)

I already know that the greenhouse is a bit overpowered. :wink: I will nerve it with the next update to be conform with the recommendations for USI-LS. Will also take a look at the Habitats and the central hub. Have something in the back of my mind that the Central Hub could als be a bit OP.

 

Edited by Nils277
punctuation errors...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Nils277 said:

 

Glad to hear, lets hope he answeres. But i'm afraid the configs have not been updated for some time now. I don't know if all of it is still compatible with the newest versions of UKS. You could also try to hook up with @DStaal. He's making new configs for the UKS support, and guessing from what i know about UKS (not much) also well balanced ones. I understand you are also making some new models for UKS integration. If you want, i could send you the source files for some models and textures for a quick start. E.g. for the garage formfactor for bigger production parts. Just let me know if you do :wink:

 

I already know that the greenhouse is a bit overpowered. :wink: I will nerve it with the next update to be conform with the recommendations for USI-LS. Will also take a look at the Habitats and the central hub. Have something in the back of my mind that the Central Hub could als be a bit OP.

 

From what I've seen, it is still compatible; most of the bugfixes were actually on the KBPS side. (Not bugs in KBPS, things that were KBPS-related and bugs in his patches.)

So, uh, you already have USI patches, I'm working on USI stuff... do you want me to submit my suggested changes as a pull request to KBPS? Otherwise it seems like we're both working on the same thing at the same time...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also cross-posted to the USI-LS page, posting again here.

 

Well, before getting to far into the Mk3 modules I wanted to take a look at the current state of just USI-LS integration with KBPS. 

Based on @PocketBrotector's previous work, and some of the on-going work by @Nils277, here's some charts of what's going on at the moment: https://github.com/ibanix/UKS-KPBS_Compatibility/wiki/Life-Support

Comments/suggestions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ibanix said:

Also cross-posted to the USI-LS page, posting again here.

 

Well, before getting to far into the Mk3 modules I wanted to take a look at the current state of just USI-LS integration with KBPS. 

Based on @PocketBrotector's previous work, and some of the on-going work by @Nils277, here's some charts of what's going on at the moment: https://github.com/ibanix/UKS-KPBS_Compatibility/wiki/Life-Support

Comments/suggestions?

  • I'm not sure having a Water Purifier LS Recycler for the MK2 Habitat makes sense, I feel like that should be a benefit to only the central Hub.
  • Doesn't the Command Module have a Crew Capacity of 2? 
  • I would be in favor of having the recyclers for both the MK1 and MK2 habitats be more powerful, at the expense of less crew capacity. 
    • For example: 50% for the MK1 but only affects 3 crew, and 70% for the MK2 but only affects 4 crew.  In my mind this makes sense given that their intention seems to be to provide the living space for that many crew.
  • Buff the MK2's Kerbal-Months slightly. 
    • This is going to sound silly, but I've lived in places with similar bunk arrangements to both the MK1 and MK2 (I work on scientific research ships and stations in Antarctica. Here's a video I shot, you can get an idea of the living quarters which are similar to the MK1 at the very beginning: https://youtu.be/_EfWSX6OpKE). And having your own dedicated room like on the MK2, even if it's tiny, really makes a WORLD of difference to your long-term sanity
  • Also on that note, I think the Large Greenhouse's Hab Multiplier could be higher, 3 would make sense to me. 

I think the Cultivator functions of both greenhouses are more powerful that I'd expect, but I also feel this way about the stock Nom-O-Matics so I don't think it makes sense to nerf the KPBS parts.  Keeping them in line with the N.O.M devices probably makes the most sense for balance with the rest of the mods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ibanix said:

So, uh, you already have USI patches, I'm working on USI stuff... do you want me to submit my suggested changes as a pull request to KBPS? Otherwise it seems like we're both working on the same thing at the same time...

I don't really have any UKS patches myself at this moment. I was still looking into how all the production chains worked and interconnect and how KPBS could be woven into this.
My only thoughts where, that the command part could have the same functionality as the Pioneer Module (also placing it in the same TechTree node) and the CentralHub to function like the Kerbitat. 

All patches from @DStaal are in their own GitHub Repo. You can find them here: 

Patches and additional configs

He also wrote a guide for other modders to support UKS:

The Manual for other modders


Regarding the Greenhouse, I see that you kept the same production speed for supplies and slightly lowered the Hab Multiplier while increasing the weight of the part a bit. This is the same approach i will go in the next update. But i would either reduce the HabMultiplier to 1.6 so the mass sums up to your mass of 3.6 (2 tons dedicated to the Resource converter (exactly like the Jumbogreenhouse) + 1.6 Tons for the HabMultiplier) or increase its mass to 4.0 to have the HabMultiplier of 2.0. (Or HabMultiplier of 1.8 to 3.8 Tons and so on). Would still have to look at the rest when i have time though. I think i will go with 3.8 Tons and a HabMultiplier of 1.8 for the next update. 
Regarding the other aspects towards USI-LS and UKS i think that RoverDude is much more qualified to evaluate their balance against the rest of UKS.

Edit: Although it mostly would still belong here.

Edited by Nils277
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, tsaven said:
  •  
  • Doesn't the Command Module have a Crew Capacity of 2? 
  •  

Fixed... (while I evaluate other stuff).

1 minute ago, Nils277 said:

I don't really have any UKS patches myself at this moment. 


Regarding the Greenhouse, I see that you kept the same production speed for supplies and slightly lowered the Hab Multiplier while increasing the weight of the part a bit. This is the same approach i will go in the next update. 
 

Regarding the other aspects towards USI-LS and UKS i think that RoverDude is much more qualified to evaluate their balance against the rest of UKS.

See, that's what I mean. There are already patches for USI-LS in ModSupport/Configs/LifeSupport. UKS and USI-LS aren't directly tied, but they can overlap.. @PocketBrotector's patches mainly affected the USI-LS parts.

So do you want the ones you're including under ModSupport to be the "official" ones for USI-LS? Right now we have those; the ones @PocketBrotector wrote (and linked in the first post for KBPS); @DStaal's stuff that I haven't even looked at; and my puttering around fixing some of the bugs I found. RoverDude asked for the conversation to go over here, so I'm taking that as his blessing for "go make it happen".

So my key question is: Who is going to be the owner of the official USI-LS+UKS+KBPS compatibility and balance patches? 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, now i inderstand what you mean. Sorry for the confusion.

I'd like to keep the 'official' support for the USI-LS mod support when UKS is not installed. The support for UKS in combination with USI-LS can be maintained by you, @DStaal and @PocketBrotector.
If it would make things easier, i can change some/all of the support configs for USI-LS to only be applied when UKS is not installed, so you have a free hand to apply any configurations you see fit best for the USI-LS+UKS combination. How does this sound?

The patches from DStaal do not make any changes to the USI-LS support, so it would be possible for you to merge the config packs. If all three of you agree. :wink:

Regarding who of you exactly will be officially maintaining the compatibility patches is up to you. I think all of you are more than qualified to do this. Although my preferrence choice would be some kind of coorporation...e.g. a common GitHub Repo. :wink: 

 

@tsaven The problem with the greenhouse would be, that is would be OP. It currently has a HabMultiplier of 3, which is too much to be in balance with the rest. 

Edited by Nils277
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Nils277 said:

The problem with the greenhouse would be, that is would be OP. It currently has a HabMultiplier of 3, which is too much to be in balance with the rest. 

Understood. I guess I was seeing it like the UKS Kerbitats, which are similar weight and crew capacity (3 tons, 2 crew) and have a Hab Multiplier of 3.

Maybe I'm getting ahead of the game, but what are thoughts on the Greenhouse having both a Converter (Mulch + Fertilizer = Supplies) as well as a Cultivator (Substrate + Water + Fertilizer = Supplies)?  To me, that seems quite OP.  I'm not sure how or if support for that belongs in this mod without some additional parts.  Looking at RD's parts, I don't see any that can do both (It's either one or the other)

Edited by tsaven
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, tsaven said:

Understood. I guess I was seeing it like the UKS Kerbitats, which are similar weight and crew capacity (3 tons, 2 crew) and have a Hab Multiplier of 3.

Maybe I'm getting ahead of the game, but what are thoughts on the Greenhouse having both a Converter (Mulch + Fertilizer = Supplies) as well as a Cultivator (Substrate + Water + Fertilizer = Supplies)?  To me, that seems quite OP.  I'm not sure how or if support for that belongs in this mod without some additional parts.  Looking at RD's parts, I don't see any that can do both (It's either one or the other)

Having both would indeed be OP. For stock USI-LS, it only has the Converter. The cultivator is added with PocketBrotectors patch. I would suggest to have two different versions of the greenhouse. (e.g. The Cultivator one with a different interior that is more watery and some colored lines/patches on the outside to distinguish them).

Edited by Nils277
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Nils277 said:

Having both would indeed be OP. For stock USI-LS, it only has the Converter. The cultivator is added with PocketBrotectors patch. I woulf suggest to have two different versions of the greenhouse. (e.g. The Cultivator with a different interior that is more watery and some colored lines/patches on the outside to distinguish them).

I agree, that sounds like a great idea for sometime in the far future.  (When no one has day jobs and can just play with Maya all day. :))

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My comments:

1) I'm ok with having USI-LS support in KBPS by default, and UKS as a separate add-on. 

2) I think the current USI-LS support needs tweaking, as we've been discussing.

3) Some of @PocketBrotector's patches affect USI-LS and some affect things that would be UKS, so we'll have to separate those out; I'll look into that.

 

Regarding overall balance: First, I feel that KBPS should use the USI-LS mechanics, but not try to replicate USI or UKS parts directly, because it's not a 1:1 mapping. We should make for reasonable balance of challenge to utility and allow for KBPS to evolve.

 

For individual parts, here's how I've been thinking about doing things:

* Mk1 Habitat: Entry level living space. Low-efficiency recycler. No Hab bonus.

* Mk2 Habitat: Advanced living space. Medium-efficiency recycler. No hab bonus.

* Greenhouse (Large): Supports other living spaces by growing food. High-volume mulch-and-fertilizer-to-supplies converter. Low-to-medium-efficiency recycler. Low-grade hab bonus (1.25 - 1.50).

* Greenhouse (Small): Entry level greenhouse. Low-volume mulch-and-fertilizer-to-supplies converter. No recycler, no hab bonus (too small). 

* Cupola: Crew psychology benefit. High-grade hab bonus (1.75 - 2.0).

* Science Lab: Provides science, but can use lab equipment for (expensive) recycling.  High-efficiency recycler (using high-volume of water); low hab bonus (1.25 max). 

* Central Hub: Capstone integrated module. Integrated science lab. High-efficiency recycler (using moderate-volume water). No hab bonus. 

* Algae Farm: No equivalent in USI-LS. Converts hydrates to water and gypsum to fertilizer to allow for closed-loop life support. UKS has parts for this, but just having a single part here would allow for closed-loop based on fertilizer or water without having to add all the other UKS parts and mechanics.

For just these parts, we should avoid other resources, so anything using Substrate, Ore, etc. for life support should drop off. That should be the domain of UKS-like parts. The above gives us a simple and complete life support loop based on only Fertilizer, Mulch, and Water; with the Algae Farm there just to allow resource extraction to close the loop. 

 

I feel like the above gives both entry and advanced level parts, as well as meaningful value to each. Having a Greenhouse with a high-efficiency recycler AND a high-volume converter would be overpowered; as would giving it a large hab bonus. We want cupolas to have some meaning, and the meaning is hab bonus. The science lab provides high-efficiency recycling, but you need lots of water; if you don't have water you can get by with the stock recyclers in the habitat modules. Finally, the large and heavy central hub has the most advanced recycler as benefits it being the most advanced module you can build with.

Thoughts?

 

 

Edited by ibanix
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot I should respond to, I'm going to start here:

1 hour ago, tsaven said:
  • I'm not sure having a Water Purifier LS Recycler for the MK2 Habitat makes sense, I feel like that should be a benefit to only the central Hub.
  • Doesn't the Command Module have a Crew Capacity of 2? 
  • I would be in favor of having the recyclers for both the MK1 and MK2 habitats be more powerful, at the expense of less crew capacity. 
    • For example: 50% for the MK1 but only affects 3 crew, and 70% for the MK2 but only affects 4 crew.  In my mind this makes sense given that their intention seems to be to provide the living space for that many crew.
  • Buff the MK2's Kerbal-Months slightly. 
    • This is going to sound silly, but I've lived in places with similar bunk arrangements to both the MK1 and MK2 (I work on scientific research ships and stations in Antarctica. Here's a video I shot, you can get an idea of the living quarters which are similar to the MK1 at the very beginning: https://youtu.be/_EfWSX6OpKE). And having your own dedicated room like on the MK2, even if it's tiny, really makes a WORLD of difference to your long-term sanity
  • Also on that note, I think the Large Greenhouse's Hab Multiplier could be higher, 3 would make sense to me. 

I think the Cultivator functions of both greenhouses are more powerful that I'd expect, but I also feel this way about the stock Nom-O-Matics so I don't think it makes sense to nerf the KPBS parts.  Keeping them in line with the N.O.M devices probably makes the most sense for balance with the rest of the mods.

  1. I'm not sure I agree - but then I don't think of the Water Purifier as a recycler anymore.  (Despite it being implemented as one.)  It's a converter - Water to Supplies.  What would be interesting there I think would be a lower-efficiency water->supplies converter.  (Basically lower the recycle percentage.)  But it's just a thought.
  2. (Handled above.)
  3. I'd support that.
  4. Fully agreed - even under RoverDude's balance suggestions it'd get 14 months out of it. And the MK-V Hab gets it's full hab bonus despite also being a low-quality recycler, so I don't think that's a balance problem either.
  5. Makes realistic sense, but unfortunately makes it unbalanced with regards to the UKS mods.  Perhaps a 'nature garden' version of one that doesn't supply food but has a hab multiplier + recycler would be an interesting part.  (There aren't a lot of parts with large hab multipliers, but a in pack focusing on long-term bases like this a pure recreation area part makes some sense.)

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.

I'm fully in favor of merging compatibility packs if someone wants to: I always viewed my patches as a temp-fix until something better was rolled into the mod, but if it's going to be an external support mod that works too.  :wink:  I did specifically look to put in support for USI mechanics that weren't covered by other patches, so mine should be clean to apply other places.

One thing that hasn't been talked about in all of this is the 'LivingSpaces/Workspaces' concept that USI has.  It's a hidden concept, and I'm not entirely sure how it works (I've got a 'FIXME' in the 'supporting UKS' wikipage for it), but it could be important to look at as well.

As another side note; I'm working on a patch for USI-Core that could make adding support for USI resources easy - my current version is here, and I think would cover the KPBS use cases.  I can explain more, if people want, on how to use it.  (You basically add a USI Container module of the correct type, and put in some base values - the config I've posted computes the rest and patches it in.)

And since @ibanix has posted while I'm writing this, I'll give my thoughts on that a moment:

For the MK1+2, I presume you mean they'll have extra Kerbal Months but no multipliers?  Agreed - that's ideal.

Mulch-> fertilizer isn't really a thing under USI: You need both mulch and fertilizer to make supplies.  I'd say the large greenhouse should have a medium efficiency recycler and do the normal greenhouse conversion.  Fertilizer production should be elsewhere - it's more of an industrial process.  And while greenhouses giving hab bonuses makes realistic sense, it makes them slightly unbalanced under USI.  Either we should follow USI on that, or talk RoverDude into bringing that in.  :wink:

I actually kinda like the ore->fertilizer mechanic on the algae farm.  I don't think it's unbalanced, and it's interesting to have alternate paths.  (And it makes some sense that algae make fertilizer in a different way than we do.)   We could still have something else to do the standard gypsum->fertilizer path.  (Or a MK-V Extractor can fit fairly well on top of a KPBS parts - I've done that with other MK-V parts in the past.)

Cupolas having hab bonus is right - the only stock part that gets one is the cupola after all.  Kerbals like windows.  :wink:

Also: Again, I find thinking of a Water Purifier as an advanced recycler leads to bad choices - A water purifier expands your resource intake, a recycler reduces it.  I'd actually argue for the Central Hub to have both a high-quality recycler (75-80%) and a water purifier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

For the MK1+2, I presume you mean they'll have extra Kerbal Months but no multipliers?  Agreed - that's ideal.

That's also how it current exists; no reason to change it.

Quote

Mulch-> fertilizer isn't really a thing under USI: You need both mulch and fertilizer to make supplies. 

Sorry, I meant mulch+fertilizer->supplies. I have updated my original post.

Quote

I actually kinda like the ore->fertilizer mechanic on the algae farm. 

I don't like this because it uses a resource that will not be balanced the same way by the community resource pack. Ore concentrations are going to be different (and in different locations) than Gypsum, for example.  They're both ROCK. Gypsum is like.... ore, but ore that can be turned into fertilizer. :lol:

 

20 minutes ago, DStaal said:

Also: Again, I find thinking of a Water Purifier as an advanced recycler leads to bad choices - A water purifier expands your resource intake, a recycler reduces it.  I'd actually argue for the Central Hub to have both a high-quality recycler (75-80%) and a water purifier.

You're correct in that it is all just a way of saying Water-> Supplies, being either by "recycler" or "converter". I prefer to have it as a recycler, because it seems simpler and less complicated to me. (I also noticed that the stock UKS Kerbitat does this as a water-powered recycler). I'm not clear about having both a recylcer and a purifier together - are you saying both a regular reduces-supplies recycler, and a water-to-supplies converter? I guess that makes sense for places without water access. Actually, after some thought, that may be a good way to go. 

Edited by ibanix
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ibanix said:

I don't like this because it uses a resource that will not be balanced the same way by the community resource pack. Ore concentrations are going to be different (and in different locations) than Gypsum, for example.  They're both ROCK. Gypsum is like.... ore, but ore that can be turned into fertilizer. :lol:

Which is exactly why I like it - Life support is so vital, that being unable to produce it can mean it's impossible to set up a colony at all.  With the algae farm using ore and the normal gypsum route then you have two choices for getting to fertilizer instead of one, so you can hunt for whichever one you can find.  (Although using something besides Ore, like minerals or something, might work as well.)  Base USI has two ways to get Water, but only the one path to fertilizer, this gives another choice to player.

5 minutes ago, ibanix said:

You're correct in that it is all just a way of saying Water-> Supplies, being either by "recycler" or "converter". I prefer to have it as a recycler, because it seems simpler and less complicated to me. I'm not clear about having both a recylcer and a purifier together - are you saying both a regular reduces-supplies recycler, and a water-to-supplies converter? I guess that makes sense for places without water access. Actually, after some thought, that may be a good way to go. 

I just find thinking of it as a recycler doesn't really convey what's going on very well - it sounds simple, but you've over-simplified, or simplified incorrectly.  Things don't behave the way you'll expect: You'll still go through resources at a high rate, it's just that the resource is now Water instead of Supplies.  (Despite them being implemented as a recycler.)

And yes, I meant having both a normal recycler and a water purifier, so you can choose which to run - the normal if you don't have water, and the purifier if you do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DStaal said:

Which is exactly why I like it - Life support is so vital, that being unable to produce it can mean it's impossible to set up a colony at all.  With the algae farm using ore and the normal gypsum route then you have two choices for getting to fertilizer instead of one, so you can hunt for whichever one you can find.  (Although using something besides Ore, like minerals or something, might work as well.)  Base USI has two ways to get Water, but only the one path to fertilizer, this gives another choice to player.

Those are reasonable answers. I'll agree with you, if we can use Minerals. Ore just seems... wrong to me somehow. :lol:

 

Quote

I just find thinking of it as a recycler doesn't really convey what's going on very well - it sounds simple, but you've over-simplified, or simplified incorrectly.  Things don't behave the way you'll expect: You'll still go through resources at a high rate, it's just that the resource is now Water instead of Supplies.  (Despite them being implemented as a recycler.)

So how would you want to implement the Water Purifier? UKS Kerbitat uses it directly as a recycler. If we don't use it as a recycler, it needs to be a converter, since Kerbals all consume Supplies. Which of these makes sense?

1) Water -> Supplies

2) Water + Supplies -> Supplies

3) Water + Mulch -> Supplies

4) Water + Fertilizer -> Supplies

5) Water + Mulch + Fertilizer -> Supplies

I don't want to add yet another resource (eg. Substrate), because I feel like for just USI-LS support, the player shouldn't have to worry about too many different planetary resources - that's when you move up to the full-blown UKS install. As for the options above, my preference is either #2 or #5. #5 just takes the existing greenhouse mechanic and extends it by adding water. #2 takes water and supplies and makes... more supplies. Which leads me back to: Why not just use a recycler?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...