Nertea

[1.3.1] Stockalike Station Parts Expansion [retired]

Recommended Posts

Yup, (assuming bringing this into line with USI is the goal) mass should be reduced whilst deflated, with the interior mass (chairs, fittings, etc.) kept outside in the form of Materialkits.

In the USI parts, these resources are expended by the inflation process - so the a 1 ton deflated hab consumes 7 tons of Material kits, leaving an 8 ton inflated hab.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That should be trivial to set up given the systems I have then. Let me know if there are problems with the resource consumption, I have tested it a little but not much

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, this mod would replace everything I use, good work man, also, how's things with the kid?

Share this post


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

That should be trivial to set up given the systems I have then. Let me know if there are problems with the resource consumption, I have tested it a little but not much

I have set up resources requirement. It's working fine. Should be on GitHub now.

Spoiler

dK7fkit.jpg285B66e.jpg

 

I have a few suggestion though.

- Right now you can deploy the module without a crew. it should need a crew (preferably engineer) on the vessel to "carry" resources to deploy it.

- In VAB, it should tell the player which resources and how much of them needed to deploy the module.

- Should the deployable module unable to retract back later? If it can retract, it should spit out the resources back to the vessel.

Edited by Pulsar
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
- Crew requirements would be nice, I'm not sure how RD controls that with his method. In MKS, you don't need to be an Engineer, any crew will do.

- Adding DeployResource (etc.) *does* display the required amount of MK, on the right-click part info in the VAB, so that's already there. Agreed that this could be clearer though.

- USI hab parts do not reimburse you with the resources when you retract them. Presumably you chuck them out? (Similar to re-painting Kontainers).
 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Domfluff 

Yeah, any type of crew for deployment would be a lot more convenience. And I just saw that it display resources needed, whoops.

Reimbursed resources would be more complicated to code. Still weird to chuck your furniture out though, unless you don't have space to keep them.

...And just notice that Eclair inflatable hab (long, 1.25m) have only 3 sleeping bags. Welp. time to cut hab extra time in half for consistency.

I still don't know about furniture inside Winston inflatable hab (short, 1.25m) Probably no bed.

 

 

Edited by Pulsar
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I still don't know about furniture inside Winston inflatable hab (short, 1.25m) Probably no bed.

I mean, the ISS doesn't have "beds" either. Just velcro the kerbals to the wall in sleeping bags and call it a day.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I mean, the ISS doesn't have "beds" either. Just velcro the kerbals to the wall in sleeping bags and call it a day.

True. In this case, even hammocks or sleeping bags counts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One small bit of feedback: the ptd-c observation window is available for rescue contracts but doesnt have a hatch. Im not sure how the contracts select rescue capsules but it might be good to take it off the list or give it a hatch in the back. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

One small bit of feedback: the ptd-c observation window is available for rescue contracts but doesnt have a hatch. Im not sure how the contracts select rescue capsules but it might be good to take it off the list or give it a hatch in the back. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Few more updates for USI-LS patch.

- Star utility module is now a recycler, 50% efficiency for 2 crews, 0.5 EC/s.

- Cut down Eclair extra month to be consistency. It only has 3 beds for 6 crews.

- Adjust aquaculture module. It now has 81% efficiency for 6 crews. Uses 54.375 EC/s. Unlikely that you need it until you have more than 12 crews.

- Adjust EC usage for Recyclers.

- Increase Asylum Multiplier, It's now based on fully loaded mass with monopropellant for better balance. (10.5875 tons) It now has the multiplier value of 2.6.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Few more updates for USI-LS patch.

- Star utility module is now a recycler, 50% efficiency for 2 crews, 0.5 EC/s.

- Cut down Eclair extra month to be consistency. It only has 3 beds for 6 crews.

- Adjust aquaculture module. It now has 81% efficiency for 6 crews. Uses 54.375 EC/s. Unlikely that you need it until you have more than 12 crews.

- Adjust EC usage for Recyclers.

- Increase Asylum Multiplier, It's now based on fully loaded mass with monopropellant for better balance. (10.5875 tons) It now has the multiplier value of 2.6.

 

I added some abilities to DeployableHabitat and Centrifuge. Currently 'crew' = Engineers. Mass modifier is additive and in your case as mentioned could be set to the mass of MaterialKits. 

CrewToDeploy = 1
DeployedMassModifier = 6

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

I added some abilities to DeployableHabitat and Centrifuge. Currently 'crew' = Engineers. Mass modifier is additive and in your case as mentioned could be set to the mass of MaterialKits. 

2

I have adjusted deflated mass and material kit requirement. It will be 40% deflated mass, and 60% will be the mass of material kit.

Right now, the Engineer requirement will be 1. But as @Domfluff said for USI, all Kerbal class should be able to inflate the module for more flexibility. (One pilot only mission anyone?)

Edited by Pulsar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tomorrow, default behaviour will be to allow unskilled deploys. However, "stock" behaviour will require engineers. 

Edited by Nertea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This kind of decision is always an odd balancing act - perhaps it's best to have the default behaviour being whatever you think is best, but the "USI patch" brings this into line with Roverdude's mechanics?

Similar to the logic that Roverdude's reactors become the more complex Near Future reactors when both are installed - Nertea's reactors are more explicitly modelled, so there's a logic in making the simple reactors more complex, rather than gutting the complex ones, or having two vastly different reactors with essentially the same output, but different mechanics.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Domfluff said:

This kind of decision is always an odd balancing act - perhaps it's best to have the default behaviour being whatever you think is best, but the "USI patch" brings this into line with Roverdude's mechanics?

Similar to the logic that Roverdude's reactors become the more complex Near Future reactors when both are installed - Nertea's reactors are more explicitly modelled, so there's a logic in making the simple reactors more complex, rather than gutting the complex ones, or having two vastly different reactors with essentially the same output, but different mechanics.

1

@Domfluff It's probably more fit in MKS patch actually. Since all of the deployable modules come from MKS. USI life support itself doesn't have any. 

I should ask @JadeOfMaar  who currently maintain MKS patch first though.

Edited by Pulsar
clarify

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Instead of a part screenshot, this week there will be an ingame screenshot!

jaUCvKK.png

Ok, there will be a part screenshot of 2.5m orbital cargo bays too. 

ArFvzSn.png

 

  • Like 17

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Nertea, are those module legs of your design as well?  For placing modules on the surface?

They look like their "height" is tweakable or auto-leveling somehow.

Edited by Raptor9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Raptor9 said:

@Nertea, are those module legs of your design as well?  For placing modules on the surface?

They look like their "height" is tweakable or auto-leveling somehow.

Everything in that screenshot is from SSPXr :)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greetings all,

 

I've had a bit of a flick through, and am seeing all of the references for SSPX (and SSPXr). At the risk of sounding like a complete Muppet, can anyone please direct me to the link, as am looking to incorporate the inflatable parts into my main fueling station.

 

Cheers,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The new stuff is on Nertea's Github, but it's not released formally yet (or supported) and is liable to break or change with no notice.

I don't know if Nertea appreciates linking directly to it from here, but it's a quick Google away.

Share this post


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

The new stuff is on Nertea's Github, but it's not released formally yet (or supported) and is liable to break or change with no notice.

I don't know if Nertea appreciates linking directly to it from here, but it's a quick Google away.

No worries. I thought it might be pushing the boundaries of the forum rules asking where I could find it, hence the reference to my Muppetry (thinking I'm either Swedish Chef or Beaker). Many thanks, and will await formal release.

 

Cheers,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Messernacht said:

No worries. I thought it might be pushing the boundaries of the forum rules asking where I could find it, hence the reference to my Muppetry (thinking I'm either Swedish Chef or Beaker). Many thanks, and will await formal release.

 

Hoping to start real demo releases in the dev forum in a week or so. These will be considered "stable" I think. 

  • Like 5

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