[1.12.x] Tokamak Industries Refurbished Parts (Featuring Porkjet's hab pack) - Major Update

[Kerbal101]

@Kottabos New release! Also the KADEPT is less heat-protecting compared to normal heatshield, but has very high drag properties, allowing to stop in upper atmosphere - which is crucial for heavy vehicles.

[KSPrynk]

Thanks again for keeping these parts alive and providing more variety in craft design.  I caught what might be a hab time entry error on the small centrifuge, but didn't see a GitHub Issue section.  It has a whopping 288 Kerbal-months of extra hab time, which translates to 10 years for a full crew of two.  This is far greater than the larger crew capacity parts, and probably makes the larger, late game, USI hab ring redundant.

Dividing the 288 by 30 produces a more reasonable 9.6 K-months extra time, for a total of about 5 months for a full crew before adding other hab parts.

UPDATE: Dividing by 10 (assuming there was missed a decimal place) produces a much more reasonable total time of 1 yr 13 days for two crew.

BTW, I love the IVA; very 2001.  I was looking for a little red eye on the wall somewhere....

Edited July 22, 2017 by KSPrynk
thinking harder

[JadeOfMaar]

44 minutes ago, KSPrynk said:

Thanks again for keeping these parts alive and providing more variety in craft design.  I caught what might be a hab time entry error on the small centrifuge, but didn't see a GitHub Issue section.  It has a whopping 288 Kerbal-months of extra hab time, which translates to 10 years for a full crew of two.  This is far greater than the larger crew capacity parts, and probably makes the larger, late game, USI hab ring redundant.

Dividing the 288 by 30 produces a more reasonable 9.6 K-months extra time, for a total of about 5 months for a full crew before adding other hab parts.

Those of us writing the USI support so far aren't MKS gurus so oopsies like this with hab timers are bound to be made. The 288 was merely taken as half of the amount supplied by the MKS centrifuge, given their sizes. I will send Linux a PR with your suggestion.  

[KSPrynk]

Just now, JadeOfMaar said:

Those of us writing the USI support so far aren't MKS gurus so oopsies like this with hab timers are bound to be made. The 288 was merely taken as half of the amount supplied by the MKS centrifuge, given their sizes. I will send Linux a PR with your suggestion.  

Thanks.  I was editing my comment as you were viewing, tweaking cfg file stats and adding other hab parts.  Dividing the 288 by 10 for 28.8 extra hab-months actually makes even more sense when compared to the other inflatables and MKS parts.  Either way, a little re-balancing to keep the USI parts competitive would be welcome.

[ISE]

1 hour ago, KSPrynk said:

Thanks again for keeping these parts alive and providing more variety in craft design.  I caught what might be a hab time entry error on the small centrifuge, but didn't see a GitHub Issue section.  It has a whopping 288 Kerbal-months of extra hab time, which translates to 10 years for a full crew of two.  This is far greater than the larger crew capacity parts, and probably makes the larger, late game, USI hab ring redundant.

Dividing the 288 by 30 produces a more reasonable 9.6 K-months extra time, for a total of about 5 months for a full crew before adding other hab parts.

UPDATE: Dividing by 10 (assuming there was missed a decimal place) produces a much more reasonable total time of 1 yr 13 days for two crew.

BTW, I love the IVA; very 2001.  I was looking for a little red eye on the wall somewhere....

KALL-9000 great friend and crewman to have around, just don't order him to conceal information.... last time he was given that order, things went south.

[Mihara]

2 hours ago, KSPrynk said:

Thanks.  I was editing my comment as you were viewing, tweaking cfg file stats and adding other hab parts.  Dividing the 288 by 10 for 28.8 extra hab-months actually makes even more sense when compared to the other inflatables and MKS parts.  Either way, a little re-balancing to keep the USI parts competitive would be welcome.

MKS hab ring offers 497.5 extra hab-months for just 5.1888 tons dry mass, though. I understand the scale probably shouldn't be linear, but what should it be, and why?

[KSPrynk]

33 minutes ago, Mihara said:

MKS hab ring offers 497.5 extra hab-months for just 5.1888 tons dry mass, though. I understand the scale probably shouldn't be linear, but what should it be, and why?

Actually, the MKS hab ring is ~53 to 60 tons once inflated (it's the Material Kits you have to add to deploy it), depending on whether you keep the default load-out of Machinery or max it out to 2,500.  On the other hand, just two small centrifuges providing 288 hab-months each gets you ~16% more hab-months for only 6 tons - and no Machinery to be consumed.  And it's Level 6 tech vs Level 1011 in CTT for the MKS part.

If there's any scaling to be utilized, it should probably be by volume, not diameter.  The small centrifuge has a lot less than the MKS ring.  If we make a leap of faith that there's comparable living volume per Kerbal for each part, I'd say the max extra hab-time should be 1/5th the MKS part (~100 hab-months) as it has 1/5th the crew capacity.  I'd knock it down a little more, just for the tech level and mass differences.

For interesting reading on hab volume in space IRL, check out this paper:

http://www.csc.caltech.edu/references/RuckerThompson_DeepSpaceHab.pdf

Edited July 23, 2017 by KSPrynk
correction

[linuxgurugamer]

2 hours ago, ISE said:

KALL-9000 great friend and crewman to have around, just don't order him to conceal information.... last time he was given that order, things went south.

I'll  be reviving the KAL-9000 mod in a couple weeks.

3 hours ago, KSPrynk said:

Thanks again for keeping these parts alive and providing more variety in craft design.  I caught what might be a hab time entry error on the small centrifuge, but didn't see a GitHub Issue section.

I just enabled the Issue section on Github

[KSPrynk]

34 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

I just enabled the Issue section on Github

Issue added.  Thanks again for the huge amount of effort you put into KSP!

Edited July 23, 2017 by KSPrynk

[linuxgurugamer]

1 hour ago, KSPrynk said:

Issue added.  Thanks again for the huge amount of effort you put into KSP!

As soon as @JadeOfMaar makes the PR (and I'm awake), I'll merge and release it.

[linuxgurugamer]

New release, 0.1.9:

• Adjusted centrifuge hab time for MKS

[Tyko]

Hi! thanks for keeping this going (along with all the other work you're doing on mods  )

There's a conflict between USI-LS and Tokamak that's causing four parts to disappear from the game. When I just have Tokamak and dependencies installed I see the inflato1, inflato2, centrifugesmall and Munox all in the Utility tab. If I add USI-LS and it's dependencies those four parts are gone. 

The problem looks to be in the Tokamak_USI.cfg. Those four parts all have their categories set to "none" which disappears them from the VAB. commenting out that line in the four parts makes them all reappear.

@PART[centrifugeSmall]:NEEDS[USILifeSupport]
{
    %tags = cck-lifesupport USI MKS LifeSupport habitat inflat
    @category = none
    MODULE
    {
        name = ModuleLifeSupport
    }

Edited July 23, 2017 by Tyko

[Gordon Dry]

How to find out whick docking ports fit best to the Inflato F.L.A.T. when its docking ports got no nodes to attach in VAB ?

[Aelfhe1m]

40 minutes ago, Gordon Dry said:

How to find out whick docking ports fit best to the Inflato F.L.A.T. when its docking ports got no nodes to attach in VAB ?

In the config it says "nodeType = size1" which is the same as the medium size (1.25m) clamp-o-tron. With the number of docking ports from different mods I now have I wrote a patch to add the node type to the description text shown in the editor part list:

Spoiler

// Add port type to description
@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleDockingNode]:HAS[#nodeType[*]]]:FINAL
{
	dpinfo = #$/MODULE[ModuleDockingNode]/nodeType$
}

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleDockingNode]:HAS[#gendered[true],#genderFemale[true]]]:FINAL
{
	@dpinfo = #$dpinfo$ - gendered female
}

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleDockingNode]:HAS[#gendered[true],#genderFemale[false]]]:FINAL
{
	@dpinfo = #$dpinfo$ - gendered male
}



@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleDockingNode]:HAS[#nodeType[*]]]:FINAL
{
	
	@description = #$/description$ Compatible types: $dpinfo$
	!dpinfo = dummy
}

 

If you mean in terms of aesthetics then maybe pop one onto the launch pad with a KIS container full of alternatives for an EVA Kerbal to try attaching one-by-one?

1 hour ago, Tyko said:

Hi! thanks for keeping this going (along with all the other work you're doing on mods  )

There's a conflict between USI-LS and Tokamak that's causing four parts to disappear from the game. When I just have Tokamak and dependencies installed I see the inflato1, inflato2, centrifugesmall and Munox all in the Utility tab. If I add USI-LS and it's dependencies those four parts are gone. 

The problem looks to be in the Tokamak_USI.cfg. Those four parts all have their categories set to "none" which disappears them from the VAB. commenting out that line in the four parts makes them all reappear.

@PART[centrifugeSmall]:NEEDS[USILifeSupport]
{
    %tags = cck-lifesupport USI MKS LifeSupport habitat inflat
    @category = none
    MODULE
    {
        name = ModuleLifeSupport
    }

Make sure you've got the Community Category Kit correctly installed because with USI-LS they should appear in the custom life-support category that CCK adds.

[Tyko]

4 minutes ago, Aelfhe1m said:

Make sure you've got the Community Category Kit correctly installed because with USI-LS they should appear in the custom life-support category that CCK adds.

I have a completely fresh install of KSP with only Tokamak and USI-LS plus their dependencies installed. I'm pretty sure setting the category to "none" is the problem.

When you have only Tokomak and USI-LS installed are you seeing those parts?

[Aelfhe1m]

21 minutes ago, Tyko said:

I have a completely fresh install of KSP with only Tokamak and USI-LS plus their dependencies installed. I'm pretty sure setting the category to "none" is the problem.

When you have only Tokomak and USI-LS installed are you seeing those parts?

Just set up a clean test build to make sure but yes there are five Tokamak parts in the life support category in the VAB/SPH (bottom of the part menu).

With just USI-LS and Tokamak your GameData should look like this:

GameData
	-> 000_USITools
	-> CommunityCategoryKit
	-> CommunityResourcePack
	-> Squad
	-> TokamakIndustries
	-> UmbraSpaceIndustries
		-> FX
		-> LifeSupport
	-> ModuleManager.2.8.1.dll

If your folder matches (plus any extra mods you have) then I can't really suggest anything else unless you post a link to your log files.

Edit: PS the @category = none just stops them from showing up in the default categories as well as the life-support category.

Edited July 23, 2017 by Aelfhe1m

[Tyko]

53 minutes ago, Aelfhe1m said:

Edit: PS the @category = none just stops them from showing up in the default categories as well as the life-support category.

This  LOL....I wasn't looking in the right place and didn't expect them to be in the Life-Support category. Thanks for clearing this up. When I looked at the config I didn't see where it moved them to LS category...

 

[Aelfhe1m]

2 minutes ago, Tyko said:

This  LOL....I wasn't looking in the right place and didn't expect them to be in the Life-Support category. Thanks for clearing this up. When I looked at the config I didn't see where it moved them to LS category...

 

It's the tags = cck-lifesupport part of the config that specifies where they will appear when Community Category Kit is installed.

Edit: to clarify CCK looks inside the tags list for specially formatted tags that it recognises from its configs. The cck-lifesupport tag is one of these.

Edited July 23, 2017 by Aelfhe1m

[Gordon Dry]

2 hours ago, Aelfhe1m said:

I wrote a patch to add the node type to the description text shown in the editor part list

Thank you, one more for my "zFinal" folder ...

[JadeOfMaar]

22 hours ago, Mihara said:

MKS hab ring offers 497.5 extra hab-months for just 5.1888 tons dry mass, though. I understand the scale probably shouldn't be linear, but what should it be, and why?

The scales for habitation and other MKS capacities are far from linear. RoverDude has a Google Sheet and a YouTube video explaining a portion of the sheet. Search "mks balance" to get them. It's going to be a while before I can understand it myself and get really good at weighing these features for adding support to other mods.

@Gordon Dry @Aelfhe1m What kinds of mods do you guys have that makes it necessary to have a mod to tell you what size your docking port is? Moreover, to give all of your ports dichotomy?

[Aelfhe1m]

2 minutes ago, JadeOfMaar said:

What kinds of mods do you guys have that makes it necessary to have a mod to tell you what size your docking port is? Moreover, to give all of your ports dichotomy?

I tend to go a bit overboard on parts packs.  An example list I extracted for one of my KSP 1.2 games (GPP by the way) that I created before I started using the MM patch:

Spoiler

size0
dockingPort3
SSTU-LC2-POD
SSTU_LanderCore_LC3-POD
SSTU_LanderCore_LC5-POD
SSTU-SC-GEN-DP-0P
SSTU-SC-GEN-DP-1P
SSTU-SC-A-OM
SSTU-SC-A-SMX
SSTU-SC-B-CM
SSTU-SC-B-CMX
SSTU-SC-C-CM
SSTU-SC-C-CMX
SSTU-SC-E-DA
SSTU-SC-E-DAX
SSTU-ST-HUB-COS

ConSize0
ConstructionPort0

size1
dockingPort2
dockingPortLateral
dockingPort1
mk2DockingPort
B9_Utility_DockingPort_CDP
InfilPod
LLL2x1dockingPort
LLLCBM
LLLCBMAnim
LLLCBMThin
mk4nose-docking
mk4cockpit-2
M2X_AligningDockingPort (snaprot)
M2X_ShieldedDockingPort
truss-octo-docking-125
j_docking_port
b_docking_port
b_docking_port1
Mk2_ShieldedNosePort
SDHI_ParaDock_1_ClampOTron
SSTU-LC2-POD
SSTU_LanderCore_LC3-POD
SSTU_LanderCore_LC5-POD
SSTU-SC-GEN-DP-0P
SSTU-SC-GEN-DP-1P
SSTU-SC-A-OM
SSTU-SC-A-SMX
SSTU-SC-B-CM
SSTU-SC-B-CMX
SSTU-SC-C-CM
SSTU-SC-C-CMX
SSTU-SC-E-DA
SSTU-SC-E-DAX
SSTU-ST-HUB-COS
crewtube-docking-125
crewtube-airlock-25
Malemute_ExpandingDockingPort

ConSize1
ConstructionPort1

size2
dockingPortLarge
KW3mDockingRing
M3X_InlineDockingPort
M3X_StackDockingPort
docking-25
truss-octo-docking-25
j_large_docking_port
b_docking_port
crewtube-docking-25
OctoGirderStrutAndHub
CustomWeldedTrussArm
LH_IcarusDockingNode
WBI_HexPort

ConSize2
ConstructionPort2

size3
SYdocking3m
SXTdockingPortVeryLarge
WBI_LargeDockingRing

size4
truss-circular-docking-01
SYdocking5m

size5
SYdocking7m

octo
truss-octo-docking-octo

spinal
truss-spinal-docking-01

hx1
B9_Structure_HX1_A_375

hx2
B9_Structure_HX2_A_375

hx4
B9_Structure_HX4_A_375

gemini
bluedog_agenaPort (F)
bluedog_Gemini_Port_A (M)

geminiSM
bluedog_Gemini_Service_A (F)

APAS_CXG
bluedog_CXA_APAS_A_L04F
bluedog_CXA_APAS_P
CXA_APAS_A (M)
CXA_APAS_A_L04F (M)
CXA_APAS_P (F)
CXA_APAS_P_WB (F)

IACBM_125 (1.25m Common bearthing mechanism)
CXA_ACBM (M)
CXA_MCBM (M)
CXA_PCBM (F)

apollo
bluedog_Apollo_Block2_ActiveDockingMechanism (M)
bluedog_Apollo_Block2_PassiveDockingMechanism (F)

MOSport
bluedog_MOL_DockingPort

RTAS (Rectangular Truss Attachment System)
CXA_RTAS_A (M)
CXA_RTAS_P (F)

ITS2_CXG
CXA_Z1

FusTek_IACBM
FusTekIACBM
SDHI_ParaDock_2_IACBM

sizeH
KKAOSS_dock_gangway
KKAOSS_dock_habitat

sstu-wdp (SSTU welding port)
SSTU-ST-GEN-WDP

TCS2L (Talisar 3.75m hollow)
TAL.Large.Hollow.Docking

TSC2 (Talisar 2.5m hollow)
TAL.Medium.Hollow.Docking

BuffaloGroundStabilizer
WBI_BuffaloGroundStabilizer

mineshaft
WBI_Mineshaft

trailer
WBI_TrailerHitch2

BisonPort
WBI_BisonDockingPort
 

 

[JadeOfMaar]

@Aelfhe1m The length of this list disturbs me. But I'm quite amused at the "SXTdockingPortVeryLarge"

I understand now, thanks.  

[Aelfhe1m]

23 minutes ago, JadeOfMaar said:

But I'm quite amused at the "SXTdockingPortVeryLarge"

Makes you wonder what the SpaceY ports should really be called...

[Gordon Dry]

14 hours ago, JadeOfMaar said:

What kinds of mods do you guys have that makes it necessary to have a mod to tell you what size your docking port is?

When planning a station or just a docking mission I want to literally see the attached docking ports in VAB, how everything fits etc.

Usually I would build the complete station in VAB and save it, remove everything else than the actual segment to be lifted and save that as subbassembly and then proceed to the next segment etc.
So I have a nice archive of station segments that I know of they will fit to a complete station later.

When docking ports have no attachment nodes I feel annoyed because I have to blindly build and hope it works then.

Also I'm used to docking ports having attachment nodes from stock and other mods.

[Aelfhe1m]

10 minutes ago, Gordon Dry said:

When planning a station or just a docking mission I want to literally see the attached docking ports in VAB, how everything fits etc.

Usually I would build the complete station in VAB and save it, remove everything else than the actual segment to be lifted and save that as subbassembly and then proceed to the next segment etc.
So I have a nice archive of station segments that I know of they will fit to a complete station later.

When docking ports have no attachment nodes I feel annoyed because I have to blindly build and hope it works then.

Also I'm used to docking ports having attachment nodes from stock and other mods.

As I understand it, there's a limitation of the stock animation system that prevents nodes from being on the end of any animated part. You can see this with the stock shielded and Mk2 docking ports as well. They don't have nodes on the docking port side because of the animation either.

Edited July 24, 2017 by Aelfhe1m