Nertea

[1.3+] Stockalike Station Parts Expansion [retired]

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Nertea said:

It's Stockalike Station Parts EXpansion and Stockalike Station Parts EXpansion Redux. The names of the actual files are pretty clear on this.

Thank goodness for the definitive answer.  This was keeping me up at night :cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some reworks! Now they all match!

wdkCEQ7.png

V8WjIdQ.png

My god the stock MPL lab was modeled by monkeys. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

actually. @Nertea an untrained recruit and two monkeys could do better. the stock mpl was modelled by baboons.

 

old old star trek joke there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Nertea said:

My god the stock MPL lab was modeled by monkeys. 

*Insert quip about the Monkey SQUAD business name and logo here*

Edited by Poodmund

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, RaiderMan said:

actually. @Nertea an untrained recruit and two monkeys could do better. the stock mpl was modelled by baboons.

 

old old star trek joke there.

Lol yup I got it

1 minute ago, Poodmund said:

*Insert quip about the Monkey SQUAD business name and logo here*

FINALLY SOMEONE GOT IT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Nertea Great job! Now they look a lot better.

I have updated my USI LS patch as well. I'm still waiting for feedback.

Get it here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/0rdtnqcn2hlh2ok/SSPXR-USILS.cfg?dl=0

Changelog:
-Increase supplies production from greenhouse to make up for being heavier than USI inline greenhouse.

-The part name is updated.


Features:
All station cores have 25% recycling efficiency for all crew in a module.
The 3.75 m lab has 50% recycling efficiency for 6 crew.
The aquaculture module has 81% recycling efficiency for 4 crews, drain 35 EC/s. Those fishies and seaweeds can help with crew life support too. 
The 2.5 m greenhouse can support 3 crews on its own.
The 3.75 m greenhouse can support 4 crews on its own.
Rigid habitation module has the least EC consumption.
Inflatable habs consume more EC but provide about the same hab time for lesser mass.
Centrifuges consume the most EC but provide massive habitation time. The largest centrifuge provides up to about 450 months of extra time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Pulsar said:

@Nertea Great job! Now they look a lot better.

I have updated my USI LS patch as well. I'm still waiting for feedback.

Get it here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/0rdtnqcn2hlh2ok/SSPXR-USILS.cfg?dl=0

Changelog:
-Increase supplies production from greenhouse to make up for being heavier than USI inline greenhouse.

-The part name is updated.


Features:
All station cores have 25% recycling efficiency for all crew in a module.
The 3.75 m lab has 50% recycling efficiency for 6 crew.
The aquaculture module has 81% recycling efficiency for 4 crews, drain 35 EC/s. Those fishies and seaweeds can help with crew life support too. 
The 2.5 m greenhouse can support 3 crews on its own.
The 3.75 m greenhouse can support 4 crews on its own.
Rigid habitation module has the least EC consumption.
Inflatable habs consume more EC but provide about the same hab time for lesser mass.
Centrifuges consume the most EC but provide massive habitation time. The largest centrifuge provides up to about 450 months of extra time.

I will include this in the next commit for anyone who uses that to test. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm curious if there's any plans to use the new thingy Shadowmage came up with recently:

What brought this to mind where his photos of station parts getting planet glow coloring - but I could not tell if they were these parts or stock parts he modified himself

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Converting everything to proper PBR textures would be a huge, hideously complex project that if I did it for one mod, I'd have to do it for all my mods. That's like 300+ parts, and unless there's a large community move to matching that style. I will keep the current style targets that I have right now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Nertea said:

Some reworks! Now they all match!

wdkCEQ7.png

V8WjIdQ.png

My god the stock MPL lab was modeled by monkeys. 

You have no idea how soothing it is to my OCD just to have all the hatches the same. All the hatches. The same. Finally.

Any chance you could remodel the lander cans, maybe the Mk1-2 while you're at it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, TheSaint said:

You have no idea how soothing it is to my OCD just to have all the hatches the same. All the hatches. The same. Finally.

Any chance you could remodel the lander cans, maybe the Mk1-2 while you're at it?

Check out Hoojiwana's "Stock Replacement Assets". It's a great collection of replacement models for old parts, including the lander cans and the Mk1-2 pod. Even though the version is listed as 1.0.5, it still works fine in 1.3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, coyotesfrontier said:

Check out Hoojiwana's "Stock Replacement Assets". It's a great collection of replacement models for old parts, including the lander cans and the Mk1-2 pod. Even though the version is listed as 1.0.5, it still works fine in 1.3.

The hatches aren't the same.

Share this post


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

Converting everything to proper PBR textures would be a huge, hideously complex project that if I did it for one mod, I'd have to do it for all my mods. That's like 300+ parts, and unless there's a large community move to matching that style. I will keep the current style targets that I have right now. 

rats, was hoping just having the ability to match ambient lighting wouldn't involve a huge process. Oh well, at least Planetshine mod still seems to work from what I hear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 14/11/2017 at 7:27 PM, Nertea said:

I will include this in the next commit for anyone who uses that to test. 

Initially, this seems good, but I'll keep poking the actual figures.

At first glance, I'm very suspect of the small hab module:

Jf66Bof.jpg


Was looking at this with the intent of a Soyuz-style arrangement, hab, capsule and service module.

The way Roverdude has balanced USI-LS, the Mun is accessible without life support or hab space (since you can easily get there and back within the default 15 day grace period), but Minmus is outside that. I think I'd be happy if the above granted something like 30 days of hab time for two Kerbals, but this is almost a full year for a single Kerbal.

I'll poke the figures some more when I have some time. Hab parts are incredibly useful, and there really aren't enough of them, so these are much appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Domfluff said:

At first glance, I'm very suspect of the small hab module:

-snip-

Good point. It should be a lot shorter. It have extra month modifer longer than MOLE habitation module (that one only have 6 months) despite being less comfortable. 

I will fix it later. Please keep reporting concerning stats. I maintain those configs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just reading through the configs now - I suspect all of the basic "Rigid Hab" section could easily be 1/4 or even 1/5 of the total hab time.

The small inflatable habs certainly seem to have a good ratio over the rigid ones, but again the inflatable ones could be reduced significantly.

One thing that is worth bearing in mind is that the bonus hab time is then multiplied - so even the larger ones ("Hostel", etc.) will in practice have hab multipliers - that probably implies that the hab month bonus should be reduced across the board.

When I was working on a similar project, my core assumption was that hab month = "living space" and hab multipliers = "things that make living more comfortable". Outside the scope of most KSP mods, but a cabin would grant you bonus months, whereas a restaurant or pub would give you hab multiplication.

That means that in practice, hab multipliers are windows (Cupola, etc.), but they could also be considered for the centrifuges - I would suggest modelling the centrifuges primarily as large multipliers, and the rigid structures as bonus months. This means that there's mechanical incentive to mix the two on a large vehicle, rather than just whichever is lighter or looks cool.

The problem with that line is that this isn't what Roverdude does with *his* centrifuge, which is a reasonable critique.

The 2.5m inline Greenhouse (PPD-F412M) is the same footprint as Roverdude's Nom-o-matic 25000-I, and produces a little more for a little more power... it's also three times the mass, and I can't see that as being worth doing.

There's probably room for a similarly massive greenhouse, with intensive hydroponics, but you'd want more food output to match. I'm not read up on the difficulties of hydroponic vertical farming, so I don't know if a linear multiplication (i.e., 3x mass = 3x output) would be appropriate here, but it might be. Same problem obviously applies to the 3.75m greenhouse.


Will post some more if I notice or think of anything.


Not life support, but the logistics modules (e.g. PPD-CRG-1) seem to be carrying a lot less than the apparently smaller Kontainers. PPD-CRG-1 carries 2000 Ore, and the 2.5m Kontainer (approximately the same length, slightly less diameter, since it's not a cylinder) contains 3200 Ore, with the usual relationship with the other goods. I'd expect the PPD-CRG-1 to carry the same, or slightly more - especially since an empty PPD-CRG-1 is 2.5 tons, and an empty Kontainer (2.5m) is 2 tons.

Having said that, good work on the LS patch :)

You can balance and tweak endlessly, but getting the core of it up and running is huge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Domfluff said:

Not life support, but the logistics modules (e.g. PPD-CRG-1) seem to be carrying a lot less than the apparently smaller Kontainers. PPD-CRG-1 carries 2000 Ore, and the 2.5m Kontainer (approximately the same length, slightly less diameter, since it's not a cylinder) contains 3200 Ore, with the usual relationship with the other goods. I'd expect the PPD-CRG-1 to carry the same, or slightly more - especially since an empty PPD-CRG-1 is 2.5 tons, and an empty Kontainer (2.5m) is 2 tons.

Only part of this I can weight in on... I'm not sure what balance metric RD uses to set capacity, but I balance strictly against stock containers volumetrically. I realize the latest changes to this aren't up yet (I'll push them after this post), but I set capacity based on stock volumes. The PPD-CRG-2 is the same volume (approximately) as the 2.5m Ore tank... so it will store 1500 ore, vs the PPD-CRG-1's 3000. The dry masses will be scaled accordingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple more thoughts:

The original USI-LS docs had these as guidelines:

//Suggested settings are based on part mass for consistency.  
// 
//For dedicated hab parts (no other generators, etc.):
//  Kerbal Months should equal mass * 5
//    ReplacementParts = 100 * crew capacity + 100 * Kerbal Months. 
//
//For parts that act as hab multipliers (dedicated or bundled with other functions/converters),
//a multiplier equal to the tonnage works well.
//
//For recyclers, their percentage should be mass / crew capcity (i.e. the UKS Pioneer Module at 3.75t = 75%)
//at crew capacity 5.  Increasing crew cap should result in an increase in mass.
//i.e. a 12-crew recycler that weighs 7.5 tons should have a recycler percentage equal to 7.5 / 12 = 62.5%
//Recyclers require (per crew capacity) 0.2 EC and 0.000002 ReplacementParts with a cap of 75%.
//If water is used as an input (0.0002 per crew capacity) the cap can be extended to 90%

I think a lot of the formulae and balance fudging have changed since then.

I believe the default BaseHabTime is currently 0.25 kmonth per seat.

That means the above "Soyuz" arrangement would have 1 kmonth base hab time, so 2 Kerbals = 15 days.

If this had +1 additional kmonth bonus, that would mean a 30 day hab time for 2 Kerbals.

The above part mass is 1.25 tons (which seems okay to me). I could easily see this having a kmonths bonus equal to mass (+1.25 kmonths)


(Hitchhiker pod is 2.5 tons and provides 21 bonus kmonths. The issue here is that the mass of the Hitchhiker pod has always been a bit weird).


In general, I'm not terribly happy about the idea that kmonths scale with mass. Volume would seem an awful lot more sensible to me.

Edited by Domfluff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Domfluff I would prefer to balance them based on volume.

There is a problem with Shanty (2.5m large hab) vs Shelter (3.75m small hab) due to both having the same crew capacity but Shelter is lighter than Shanty despite having slightly more volume. It will have less hab time if I balance it based on mass.

Also, based on my rough volume estimation. The volumes of centrifuges are already large enough for a high extra time. Maybe with some multiplier will help.

Spreadsheet calculating extra time relative to the volume of the hitchhiker. (WIP)

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R5QlSMEGIPzXR7dZev0v7P0M07dBNe-AMspuUbLODNg/edit?usp=sharing

I already upgrade the greenhouses. 2.5m one can support 6 crews. 3.75m one can support 10 crews. These are balanced by mass.

Spoiler

FStrAeY.jpg

The 2.5m greenhouse planting spaces are quite big compared to USI greenhouse. I think it can produce 3 times more. Plus it uses superior Kale anyway. :sticktongue:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do like the volume-based assumptions in the spreadsheet. I was still a bit sceptical of the outcome - the Sunrise hab from the spreadsheet gives this 5 (bonus) + 1 (for the four seats) kmonths, or 90 days for two kerbals in a Soyuz-like arrangement. The longest duration spaceflight in a single craft (two men, Soyuz 9) is 18 days.

I suppose that works with scaling though - (Scaled-Kerbin time, 72 days (18 x 4) is close enough to 90 days to work). So... yeah, that'll do fine, I think :)

I assume the inflatable/expanded parts will use a similar Material Kits cost as Roverdude's inflatables. I wonder if this is necessary for the smallest of them? It's certainly a nice price to pay for their convenience and additional 

The Greenhouse figures I have weren't producing all that more than the USI one. I do think there's room for intensive, dense-farming methods (and indeed Kale :) ) which would give this a real place.



As before, I appreciate the work. Nertea's work is beautiful, so having it also be functional is really important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A thought - consider perhaps the internal space content of the parts as well? Some parts have more lavish interiors and more... stuff. I can provide a list of facilities in each (or just improve the part descriptions) if this is something you want to take into account.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Nertea said:

A thought - consider perhaps the internal space content of the parts as well? Some parts have more lavish interiors and more... stuff. I can provide a list of facilities in each (or just improve the part descriptions) if this is something you want to take into account.

Would be nice too! It will be helpful for hab multiplier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably not exhaustive, but off the top of my head:

  • PTD-8R 'Pier' Station Core:  0 beds
  • PTD-5 'Sunrise' Habitation Module: 2 beds
  • PTD-6 'Star' Utility Module: 0 beds
  • PTD-E-1 'Winston' Inflatable Habitation Module: 
  • PTD-E-2 'Eclair' Inflatable Habitation Module: 
  • CTD-10 Inflatable Centrifuge Module: 3 hammocks, 0.25g
  • CTD-5 Compact Inflatable Centrifuge Module: 4 isolated beds, wardroom, kitchen, 0.1g
  • PPD-8 'Wharf' Station Core: 0 beds
  • PPD-24 Observation Module: see things?
  • PPD-20 Shanty Habitation Module: 4 beds, common area/wardroom
  • PFD-A Inflatable Habitation Module: 9 beds, shower and washroom, hydroponics area, food prep area, common area, exercise equipment
  • PFD-B Inflatable Habitation Module:  6 beds, shower and washroom, food prep area exercise equipment
  • PFD-C Inflatable Centrifuge Module: 8 isolated beds, washroom, 0.5g, kitchen, wardroom, common area, isolated observation areas
  • PXL-1 'Hostel' Deep-Space Habitation Module: 12 individual crew cabins, wardroom, exercise equipment, shower and washroom, small common area
  • PXL-2 'Shelter' Deep-Space Habitation Module: 6 individual crew cabins
  • PXL-3 'Asylum' Storm Cellar Module: 3 hammocks, no space for fun
  • PXL-9 Extra-Planetary Octo-Aperture Module: isolated observation areas
  • PXL-10 'Harbour' Station Control Centre: observer's seat for supervising
  • PXL-E 'Mercury' Extensible Centrifuge: 10 individual cabins, shower, washroom, kitchen, medlab, observation areas, hydroponics area, exercise equipment, wardroom, common areas, up to 0.5g
  • PXL-C 'Pilgrim' Extensible Centrifuge: 3 dual-occupancy cabins, wardroom, kitchen, common area, hydroponics area, shower/washroom, 0.7g

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

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.