DStaal

[1.2.2] [0.9.5] KPBS/MKS Integration Pack

Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, DStaal said:

Ok, question for thought/debate:

Should the K&K parts work as efficiency parts for the USI line of parts, or should they be separate?  The first has the advantages of interoperablity, while the second allows us more flexibility on design.  This can be by part to an extent: Any part can get efficiency boosts from one set of efficiency parts, and efficiency parts can switch between being efficiency modes.

One thing to note is that the idea of a two-part industrial setup (going back to the diagram I posted at the beginning of the thread) probably requires that we separate the efficiency lines, at least for that set of parts.  So one option would be to have separate lines for industry and interoperate with the USI efficiency line for LS.

I'm in the middle of a couple of weeks of basically not being able to get anything done ever, but I'm still watching the forum and GitHub.

I like the idea of K&K parts working as efficiency parts for USI parts, mostly because efficiency parts don't have to be on the same vessel to provide their bonuses. This means that I can start a small base with a K&K Greenhouse Container, then eventually land an MKS base with a USI Ranger Inflatable Ag module beside it and have that greenhouse container be an efficiency part for the new Ranger base.

Depending on how we set things up, we should (could? maybe?) be able to have parts that can have whatever converters we want, but be able to swap to being MKS-alike "generic" efficiency parts. Of course, this falls apart when we want a part to have multiple different/exclusive converters at once (like the greenhouse hab + supplies production thing we ran into).

If I understand correctly, we can define whatever efficiency tags we want, and then parts can be efficiency parts for any tag, ours or MKS's, that we choose, right? Maybe the right thing to do is try to lay out exactly what parts and processes we want, and then see what efficiency tags would fit where.

Another thing about efficiency parts is that in MKS, the biggest use for them is to make it so that older, more basic modules are not made obsolete by the addition of more powerful modules later. I don't think we're going to have as much of that on the KPBS side of things. We only really have the one form factor to work with, and I don't think our model really has as many "redundancies" (like Tundra parts that do what Ranger parts do) as MKS does.

Random thought: I kind of wish I had thought about efficiency parts when we were trying to find a way for the Central Hub to provide a big boost to an existing base without it being able to be a base all by itself.

Share this post


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

I'm in the middle of a couple of weeks of basically not being able to get anything done ever, but I'm still watching the forum and GitHub.

I like the idea of K&K parts working as efficiency parts for USI parts, mostly because efficiency parts don't have to be on the same vessel to provide their bonuses. This means that I can start a small base with a K&K Greenhouse Container, then eventually land an MKS base with a USI Ranger Inflatable Ag module beside it and have that greenhouse container be an efficiency part for the new Ranger base.

Which is an argument for that part - or for LS. :wink:

4 hours ago, Merkov said:

Depending on how we set things up, we should (could? maybe?) be able to have parts that can have whatever converters we want, but be able to swap to being MKS-alike "generic" efficiency parts. Of course, this falls apart when we want a part to have multiple different/exclusive converters at once (like the greenhouse hab + supplies production thing we ran into).

This is true, it's a possibility.

4 hours ago, Merkov said:

If I understand correctly, we can define whatever efficiency tags we want, and then parts can be efficiency parts for any tag, ours or MKS's, that we choose, right? Maybe the right thing to do is try to lay out exactly what parts and processes we want, and then see what efficiency tags would fit where.

Good point.  My basic thoughts are, that for industry we have four phases:

  • Drilling.  The current three K&K drills, with switchable drillheads.  (Probably distributed between the three of them, just because we do have the three models.)
  • Refining - use the current ore converter as model.  Mostly automated.
  • Beginning manufacturing - use a two-part system, using the current EL parts.  One part being extremely low efficiency, the other being a high efficiency booster to bring things to normal total efficiency.  This stage should be semi-automated, whether that means the Kerbaled part is the efficiency part or the other way around is an open question.
  • Late manufacturing - again, two-part system, current EL parts, this time the other way around.  :wink:  So it's mostly manual, with some automation.

This is a slightly different split than USI's breakdown, so which productions are in which of those phases isn't fully worked out.  The main concern on workability however is that spamming efficiency parts could raise production to huge levels - whether that's a problem in practice is an open question, as there are limiters.  (Heat, for one.)  Also, if for example MaterialKits are being produced in a workshop and boosted by a machine plant, spamming machine plants would make it feel fairly automated - they don't have Kerbals in them.  And it's not like they are small on mass.

4 hours ago, Merkov said:

Another thing about efficiency parts is that in MKS, the biggest use for them is to make it so that older, more basic modules are not made obsolete by the addition of more powerful modules later. I don't think we're going to have as much of that on the KPBS side of things. We only really have the one form factor to work with, and I don't think our model really has as many "redundancies" (like Tundra parts that do what Ranger parts do) as MKS does.

Good point.  And an argument for different tags.

4 hours ago, Merkov said:

Random thought: I kind of wish I had thought about efficiency parts when we were trying to find a way for the Central Hub to provide a big boost to an existing base without it being able to be a base all by itself.

I *did* think about it.  :wink:  My thought is to rebalance that part in this stage including some efficiency converters.  (Probably not the high boosts, but some additional pieces.)  How many bays and how boost per mode much is still an open question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On an unrelated note: It looks like the Kontainers in MKS are getting Rock as a choice as well.  On the config side I can add it in a few seconds, but we might want a new texture, @dboi88:wink: 

Share this post


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

On an unrelated note: It looks like the Kontainers in MKS are getting Rock as a choice as well.  On the config side I can add it in a few seconds, but we might want a new texture, @dboi88:wink: 

Ask and you shall receive https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_nRjcqonDoUUWkxd2VYcTV5REk/view?usp=sharing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@DStaal

Question: you mentioned 3 drills. Which One where the conterparts from USI? Manned or the Automatic ones?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Urses said:

@DStaal

Question: you mentioned 3 drills. Which One where the conterparts from USI? Manned or the Automatic ones?

At the moment, none.  And that's an interesting different breakdown - at the moment the three drills are Ore, Water, and MetalOre.  (Note that's not *MetallicOre*.)  I was thinking to have each be a normal drill for one-third of the USI resources, switchable.  An option would be to have one or more be closer to the recent automatic drills.  (Though I'm not sure that's something we need - if someone is sending an unmanned drilling platform, why send it in the KPBS profile?)

11 minutes ago, dboi88 said:

Thanks muchly.  :wink:

Share this post


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

Thanks muchly.  :wink:

I forgot to save the alpha channel, if you've already downloaded, download it again (same link)

Share this post


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

At the moment, none.  And that's an interesting different breakdown - at the moment the three drills are Ore, Water, and MetalOre.  (Note that's not *MetallicOre*.)  I was thinking to have each be a normal drill for one-third of the USI resources, switchable.  An option would be to have one or more be closer to the recent automatic drills.  (Though I'm not sure that's something we need - if someone is sending an unmanned drilling platform, why send it in the KPBS profile?)

Thanks muchly.  :wink:

It is more the Mechanik at USI.

Automated don't get the Bonus from Gelogy Manned do.

And if i May be honest i use KPBS Parts as Mobile Substitute of DUNA modules.

Like lode Harvesters. At the Moment they are more flexible to Move around. Duna are more stationary. Ans it is more estetick(?) Question to build a Karibou with KPBS Parts or slap 2 Dunas Inside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dboi88 said:

I forgot to save the alpha channel, if you've already downloaded, download it again (same link)

Thanks.  I'd already downloaded, although git seems to think I had the right file.

8 minutes ago, Urses said:

It is more the Mechanik at USI.

Automated don't get the Bonus from Gelogy Manned do.

And if i May be honest i use KPBS Parts as Mobile Substitute of DUNA modules.

Like lode Harvesters. At the Moment they are more flexible to Move around. Duna are more stationary. Ans it is more estetick(?) Question to build a Karibou with KPBS Parts or slap 2 Dunas Inside.

Honestly, I find Duna as the most mobile, as the Karibou is designed to carry them:

MobileBuilderBefore.png

KPBS does have wheels, but they aren't really very good for long-distance travel.  I treat them as 'finial positioning' wheels - allow you to arrange your base, or to dock parts together once landed.

Share this post


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

Thanks.  I'd already downloaded, although git seems to think I had the right file.

Honestly, I find Duna as the most mobile, as the Karibou is designed to carry them:

MobileBuilderBefore.png

KPBS does have wheels, but they aren't really very good for long-distance travel.  I treat them as 'finial positioning' wheels - allow you to arrange your base, or to dock parts together once landed.

Yes but i think more of the KPBS racks, and the modules are more streamlined^^ And to be true the Karibou wheels are my most used wheels. i Have some Airplanes with them as landing gears

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI... here's a pic of a Karibou using some of the parts designed for it (when used as a mobile base):

3T2ZUmp.png

Share this post


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

Yes but i think more of the KPBS racks, and the modules are more streamlined^^ And to be true the Karibou wheels are my most used wheels. i Have some Airplanes with them as landing gears

The racks, yes.  I use the circular racks with the Karibou all the time.

Share this post


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

FYI... here's a pic of a Karibou using some of the parts designed for it (when used as a mobile base):

3T2ZUmp.png

Isn't that Kerbal like really small? I'd never used those kontainers on those racks, they look so sleek like that!

Share this post


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

FYI... here's a pic of a Karibou using some of the parts designed for it (when used as a mobile base):

3T2ZUmp.png

Hmm if i see this build, have you sometimes problems to target the Ranger modules in the VAB if they snap on inner collider? Or is it only me?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are inner and outer nodes, if in doubt use a node helper if you have trouble picking the right one.  Both work, but the inner ones let you really shrink down the footprint of a Karibou.

Share this post


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

There are inner and outer nodes, if in doubt use a node helper if you have trouble picking the right one.  Both work, but the inner ones let you really shrink down the footprint of a Karibou.

Yes, what i mean is if the Module snaps on the inner most node i can not grab it again and have to go inside Duna-Module to be able to grab it. From outside the mouse targets only the Duna Parent not the Ranger child. And i have this behaivor only in Construktion (VAB/SPH)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

huh, should be able to grab it... let me know which modules via a github issue and I can look at it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Minor note in the integration of Rock into the KPBS Kontainers - it causes Module Manager to throw errors.  The problem isn't actually here - it's in the CRP, which doesn't have a unitCost for Rock.  :wink:  (There's a typo - I've already created a PR for a fix.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/30/2017 at 9:48 AM, DStaal said:

Good point.  My basic thoughts are, that for industry we have four phases:

  • Drilling.  The current three K&K drills, with switchable drillheads.  (Probably distributed between the three of them, just because we do have the three models.)
  • Refining - use the current ore converter as model.  Mostly automated.
  • Beginning manufacturing - use a two-part system, using the current EL parts.  One part being extremely low efficiency, the other being a high efficiency booster to bring things to normal total efficiency.  This stage should be semi-automated, whether that means the Kerbaled part is the efficiency part or the other way around is an open question.
  • Late manufacturing - again, two-part system, current EL parts, this time the other way around.  :wink:  So it's mostly manual, with some automation.

This is a slightly different split than USI's breakdown, so which productions are in which of those phases isn't fully worked out.  The main concern on workability however is that spamming efficiency parts could raise production to huge levels - whether that's a problem in practice is an open question, as there are limiters.  (Heat, for one.)  Also, if for example MaterialKits are being produced in a workshop and boosted by a machine plant, spamming machine plants would make it feel fairly automated - they don't have Kerbals in them.  And it's not like they are small on mass.

Yeah, if we can find a way to de-incentivize spamming of efficiency parts, that would be ideal. As I said, I like the idea of K&K parts being able to be efficiency parts for MKS parts. If we go with our own sets of eTags, I honestly wouldn't mind if we make them either specific enough that spamming to cover them all becomes onerous, or make it so that spamming the parts themselves is just impractical (for example, if the Central Hub had a bay or two with switchable efficiency modes. Does a player REALLY want to spam Central Hubs just to get high efficiency bonuses?) 

I really like the looks of your four points. Just to make sure I understand the thrust of your last two points, I'm reading that as machines with Kerbal supervision build MaterialKits, Kerbals with machine assistance build SpecializedParts. 

On 3/30/2017 at 9:48 AM, DStaal said:

Good point.  And an argument for different tags.

Not that we're short on ideas, but if we wanted to work with our own eTags, we could do something silly like make eTags based parts (similar to how MKS does it) or on products (so, if all of your parts that produce MaterialKits have an eTag called "MatKits" or something like that). Then, we could even have a part that has multiple efficiency modes that you can swap between. Not that you're short on ideas or anything... 

On 3/30/2017 at 9:48 AM, DStaal said:

I *did* think about it.  :wink:  My thought is to rebalance that part in this stage including some efficiency converters.  (Probably not the high boosts, but some additional pieces.)  How many bays and how boost per mode much is still an open question.

Yeah, I think it makes sense that the central hub get another balance pass. People who 'get' MKS will understand why it has to be different than what we've already come up with. 

On 3/30/2017 at 0:11 PM, dboi88 said:

Unless I'm reading the timestamps wrong, the "ask" and "receive" were separated by 13 minutes. What a legend. 

On 3/30/2017 at 0:23 PM, DStaal said:

At the moment, none.  And that's an interesting different breakdown - at the moment the three drills are Ore, Water, and MetalOre.  (Note that's not *MetallicOre*.)  I was thinking to have each be a normal drill for one-third of the USI resources, switchable.  An option would be to have one or more be closer to the recent automatic drills.  (Though I'm not sure that's something we need - if someone is sending an unmanned drilling platform, why send it in the KPBS profile?)

One possible reason for having an automatic drill is that it could be used on a small outpost that only occasionally hosts crew (refueling base or something of the sort) or it could allow a player to set up a small, starter-style base with limited crew (i.e., nobody with the skills to man the drill) and still be able to get gypsum out of the ground at a half-decent rate.

I'm partly thinking of RoverDude's recent comments about PL getting a change eventually so that Logistics modules become more like warehouses or garages. In that case, I could almost imagine a small base with a K&K garage, a MK1 hab, LF stuff, and a drill (either for gypsum/minerals for LS self-sufficiency, or maybe this is the only biome where you can find ExoticMinerals or something). That tiny base might only really need a Quartermaster to crew it if you have an automated drill, saving you an Engineer/Miner. Saving one crew member might not seem like a big deal, but maybe being able to reduce crew requirements by 50% (or not having to increase it by 100%, depending on how you look at it) would actually be useful in some circumstance.

This line of thought of mine isn't completely thought out. For example, I know that in MKS, the automated refineries already push to PL, meaning you can do all of what I mentioned in that one hypothetical base PLUS refine resources that they are pushing without any kerbals at all. On the other hand, the automatic refineries only handle basic conversions, so as far as I can tell, there's no automated way to push things like Organics or ExoticMinerals around in MKS. Maybe we could fill a weird niche-usage case. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Merkov said:

On the other hand, the automatic refineries only handle basic conversions, so as far as I can tell, there's no automated way to push things like Organics or ExoticMinerals around in MKS. Maybe we could fill a weird niche-usage case. 

Right now people just add any of the refineries to their base.  There will be an automated way to push-only everything fairly soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Merkov said:

Yeah, if we can find a way to de-incentivize spamming of efficiency parts, that would be ideal. As I said, I like the idea of K&K parts being able to be efficiency parts for MKS parts. If we go with our own sets of eTags, I honestly wouldn't mind if we make them either specific enough that spamming to cover them all becomes onerous, or make it so that spamming the parts themselves is just impractical (for example, if the Central Hub had a bay or two with switchable efficiency modes. Does a player REALLY want to spam Central Hubs just to get high efficiency bonuses?)

Admittedly, the parts that would be the high-efficiency parts would be the size of the Mk1 hab - not exactly the smallest part.  That may be enough of a limiter - but I think we'll need to do some play-testing a bit to fine-tune things.  I need to come up with an initial set of numbers to work from.

49 minutes ago, Merkov said:

I really like the looks of your four points. Just to make sure I understand the thrust of your last two points, I'm reading that as machines with Kerbal supervision build MaterialKits, Kerbals with machine assistance build SpecializedParts.

Yep, that's what I was thinking - though we may want to have them 'wrong-way-round' in the configs: If putting more efficiency parts is the obvious way to boost production, then having them be the 'producers' in that statement could make it feel more like they were doing the production.

And then there's the question of if we want to do these two levels as two parts or four - it's probably possible to have them switchable (especially as we really only have two models to use), but making the player work for it a bit and having the two production phases being done in separate parts might make for slightly more interesting gameplay.  (I say probably possible because there may be some odd interactions with the eTags.)

57 minutes ago, Merkov said:

Not that we're short on ideas, but if we wanted to work with our own eTags, we could do something silly like make eTags based parts (similar to how MKS does it) or on products (so, if all of your parts that produce MaterialKits have an eTag called "MatKits" or something like that). Then, we could even have a part that has multiple efficiency modes that you can swap between. Not that you're short on ideas or anything...

There are some limits - as far as I can tell, each part can only have one eTag for it's own production.  So going by products means you can't switch products in that part.  (On efficiency converters tags are by mode on the other hand, so you can have several of those on one part.)

I'm leaning towards having basically three sets of eTags at the moment: For LS, we use the normal eTags.  Our parts are efficiency parts to MKS, and vice-versa.  For the drilling/refinery stages, we use the standard MKS tags again - fairly basic.  For the late industrial toolchain we have our own eTags, allowing us to do the ultra-efficiency trickery, at least for the production steps.  (Which would totally unbalance things if we interoperated with MKS.)  The Central Hub has one or more bays, which are switchable between normal-efficiency boosts for our eTags and the MKS eTags.

So, basically for LS we're just an alternate set of parts.  For the industry, at the start we're pretty interchangeable, but later on we're our own thing.  The Central Hub is always a good idea.  :wink:

1 hour ago, Merkov said:

Yeah, I think it makes sense that the central hub get another balance pass. People who 'get' MKS will understand why it has to be different than what we've already come up with.

Exactly: We focused on what was needed at each stage, and we wanted a good stand-alone USI-LS balance to hand to Nils277.

1 hour ago, Merkov said:

Unless I'm reading the timestamps wrong, the "ask" and "receive" were separated by 13 minutes. What a legend.

Yep.  :) (Although it took him a bit more than that 13 minutes - there were some issues with the first one.)

1 hour ago, Merkov said:

One possible reason for having an automatic drill is that it could be used on a small outpost that only occasionally hosts crew (refueling base or something of the sort) or it could allow a player to set up a small, starter-style base with limited crew (i.e., nobody with the skills to man the drill) and still be able to get gypsum out of the ground at a half-decent rate.

I'm partly thinking of RoverDude's recent comments about PL getting a change eventually so that Logistics modules become more like warehouses or garages. In that case, I could almost imagine a small base with a K&K garage, a MK1 hab, LF stuff, and a drill (either for gypsum/minerals for LS self-sufficiency, or maybe this is the only biome where you can find ExoticMinerals or something). That tiny base might only really need a Quartermaster to crew it if you have an automated drill, saving you an Engineer/Miner. Saving one crew member might not seem like a big deal, but maybe being able to reduce crew requirements by 50% (or not having to increase it by 100%, depending on how you look at it) would actually be useful in some circumstance.

This line of thought of mine isn't completely thought out. For example, I know that in MKS, the automated refineries already push to PL, meaning you can do all of what I mentioned in that one hypothetical base PLUS refine resources that they are pushing without any kerbals at all. On the other hand, the automatic refineries only handle basic conversions, so as far as I can tell, there's no automated way to push things like Organics or ExoticMinerals around in MKS. Maybe we could fill a weird niche-usage case. 

It's an interesting thought.  The one thing to think about in conjunction with it - that should probably be considered - is that currently the only part we have with PL access at all is the Central Hub.  For your remote outpost, you probably need something that can both push and pull if it's going to be manned.  (Automated with occasional crew can deal with push-only, as the crew can bring their supplies with them.)  We put PL only on the Central Hub in an effort to be a bit differentiated - both from MKS, and to differentiate the Central Hub from the Command Module.  We could revisit that, if we wanted - and it's possible to put push-only on something as well.  (We could also put it on something odd like the Garage - which is a bit of an awkward part to drop in, as it's a different form-factor.  I actually like that a bit...  Though I think leaving it on the Central Hub as well makes sense to me - I like a powerful Central Hub, just not one that can be a base on it's own.)

Or, of course, we could wait a bit to see what RoverDude's cooking up.  :wink:   Our current stage-2 configs can't really be released until Nils277 updates, which will be with 1.3.  RoverDude's 'fairly soon' is likely to be 1.3 as well, so we could wait to make that decision then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On mobile so can't reply very prettily. 

I like the sound of everything mentioned above. With respect to the garage PL comments of mine, that idea came from a time I asked RoverDude exactly what a part with PL was supposed to represent. The way I read his answer was that eventually PL will get a bit of a facelift and the parts will be like a shipping/warehouse type thing. Very voluminous. That's when I got the idea for the garage. Not happening anytime soon, but maybe happening soon-ish.  

Since we're waiting on updates beyond our control anyway, I think we might as well start throwing out rough ideas of what parts we want doing which conversions. We can maybe use your chart on page 1 as a guide (though we also have to think about Organics and ColonySupplies). That should give us an idea of whether we like the number of parts involved, and the number of conversions per part.

Spoiler

Spoiler because I'm bad at forum on mobile.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, to start with: I'm calling Stage 2 done.  It's not getting a release yet because it depends on the changes we pushed upstream, but there's a 'release candidate' up now that should have everything.  (Note that I *know* it will throw errors unless you fix Rock's definition in CRP.  I'm not sure it won't throw more errors on things missing from KPBS.)  Note that it's on a special 'Release-Setup' branch - that's a branch for a RC.  If there's something *broken* in the RC fixes can go into that branch, but otherwise it should be left alone.

10 hours ago, Merkov said:

On mobile so can't reply very prettily. 

I like the sound of everything mentioned above. With respect to the garage PL comments of mine, that idea came from a time I asked RoverDude exactly what a part with PL was supposed to represent. The way I read his answer was that eventually PL will get a bit of a facelift and the parts will be like a shipping/warehouse type thing. Very voluminous. That's when I got the idea for the garage. Not happening anytime soon, but maybe happening soon-ish.  

Since we're waiting on updates beyond our control anyway, I think we might as well start throwing out rough ideas of what parts we want doing which conversions. We can maybe use your chart on page 1 as a guide (though we also have to think about Organics and ColonySupplies). That should give us an idea of whether we like the number of parts involved, and the number of conversions per part.

I remember that comment from RoverDude.  I'm not entirely sure I agree with the idea as the only way to do PL - even a relatively small office can have a decent mailroom - but I do get the point. :wink:   And putting it on the garage then makes sense.  (Though 'the garage' actually is built out of several pieces - and the only one with crew capacity is the Garage Adapter, which is probably the smallest.)

The chart on page 1 is a bit out of date, as it was created before the whole 1.2 redesign - though my current thoughts are based on the same thought process:

  • Drills
    • Same three drills from the chart.
    • Unmanned versions?
  • Ore Processor
    • Switchable
      • Metals, Fertilizer, Chemicals, Refined Exotics, Silicon.
    • Also Dirt input.
  • Phase 1 manufacturing
    • Two parts, balanced as if they are one, switchable
    • Outputs:
      • Polymers, MaterialKits, Organics?
    • Also handles Recyclables as input.
  • Phase 2 manufacturing
    • Two parts, balanced as if they are one, switchable
    • Outputs:
      • SpecializedParts, Machinery, ColonySupplies
  • Uranium Enrichment requires a specialized facility.

Refined Exotics could be pushed up to Phase 1 as well, depending on how we want to push things.  If we put Organics in Phase 1, then it's being produced via a different path than MKS's Organics - but that’s possible, and the term is loose enough to cover it.  :wink:  Organics has two paths, as does Fertilizer, so we should keep that in mind.

Number of bays and such is open, of course.  We could consolidate drills some if we wanted, but exactly how to split that is a question.  (My other thought on the split - if we wanted unmanned - would be to have two manned drills, based on the Ore and Water drills, and use the MetalOre drill as an unmanned drill - but I'd want to limit what it could mine then, somewhat.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because I thought of it, it amused me, and I want it documented for later:

Instead of 'bays' the Central Hub will have 'Offices' that you can switch.  If you want the habitation bonuses (since, if things are switchable that's switchable...) you'll need to convert one to a break room.  :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice! Now I wish we had a version that's just a recreational facility.

Share this post


Link to post
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.