Jump to content

[1.12] Stockalike Station Parts Redux (June 12, 2022)


Nertea
 Share

Recommended Posts

Here's the rest of yesterday's unfinished fixes in 2.0.2:

  • Fixed 1.875 attachement module seam
  • Fixed missing surface switch for 1.25m adapter
  • Fixed 2.5m cupola/science lab emissive texture
  • Fixed direction of all dome attach nodes
  • Fixed missing insulated variant for 1.25m hub
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi, the update seems to have introduced some bugs with USI-LS regarding habitation spacet6BUh7C.png
For example, the Cronus Centrifuge shown here provides 120 days of habitation time for a single KerbaljYQbmMc.png...while the roughly comparable Mercury Centrifuge prvovides over 100 years.
And this is just one example, similar things are true for the Atlas and Titan habitation modules

Edited by Geryz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys Nertea does this for fun and for our enjoyment  when reporting a bug please do it nicely and advise him that there maybe an issue   " Some parts, for example the Cronus Centrifuge, seem to be severely misconfigured in terms of habitation space" statements like this  wont inspire him to fix stuff 

Where as " Hi Nertea I have discovered an issue that you maybe not aware off "example" pic if you have it describe issue"  a little bit of respect and politeness will go a long way 

Sorry for the soapbox speech

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/19/2021 at 7:58 AM, Geryz said:

Hi, the update seems to have introduced some bugs with USI-LS regarding habitation space
For example, the Cronus Centrifuge shown here provides 120 days of habitation time for a single Kerbal...while the roughly comparable Mercury Centrifuge prvovides over 100 years.
And this is just one example, similar things are true for the Atlas and Titan habitation modules

So all the mod compat like this is community provided. I don't know enough about the balance of USI mods to be able to make accurate patches. I welcome submissions of updates. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've just started playing with this mod and noticed something with the USI Life Support on some of them, just wanted to check whether it was intentional or a bit of missed config. So nearly all the parts I've unlocked so far add to the "hab" stat except for the PMA-T1, PMA-T2 and PMA-T3. Their descriptions mention "It doesn't contain any fixtures though.", so they're literally just structure and don't provide any comfort for the Kerbal, hence no addition to hab?

Thanks!

PS. Verifying this led me to actually have a proper look at more of the parts, can finally make proper space stations!! Looks great!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Grokit said:

I've just started playing with this mod and noticed something with the USI Life Support on some of them, just wanted to check whether it was intentional or a bit of missed config. So nearly all the parts I've unlocked so far add to the "hab" stat except for the PMA-T1, PMA-T2 and PMA-T3. Their descriptions mention "It doesn't contain any fixtures though.", so they're literally just structure and don't provide any comfort for the Kerbal, hence no addition to hab?

Thanks!

PS. Verifying this led me to actually have a proper look at more of the parts, can finally make proper space stations!! Looks great!

You could read two messages above yours for an answer from Nertea himself

Edited by Tacombel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Tacombel said:

You could read two messages above yours for an answer from Nertea himself

Ah. Didn't connect the dots. Still assumed there was some decision making about this by Nertea. Don't really know much about mods other than using them so had a look through the patches, learned something new!

Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm working on USI-LS definitions for the new parts, but I wanted to get some opinions on balance. 

The existing patch is not well balanced compared to current MKS numbers.  For instance, the Hostel is about 60% the size and 80% the mass of the Tundra Kerbitat (3.75), but it holds 3 times as many kerbals.  You would think cramming more kerbals into less space would reduce the habitation bonuses, but where the Tundra Kerbitat has *either* 69 kerbal months *or* 5.42 multiplier for 6 kerbals,  the Hostel provides 107 kerbal months to 12 kerbals *AND* a 1.9 multiplier to boot.  Another way of looking at it is: it takes 3 kerbitats to suport 12 kerbals for 5 years (1 common and 2 quarters) for a total of about 28 tons.  2 Hostels can support 12 kerbals for 5.5 years for 15 tons.

Agriculture is underpowered - the PXL-R4NCH-3R processes  60% of the mulch into supplies that the Tundra Agriculture module does, and has 60% more mass despite its smaller size.

Recyclers are a mixed bag.  The PXL-F15H provides 5.5% less (a big deal at these efficiency rates, that's 40% more supplies consumption) than the 3.75m Kerbitat, and has 15% more mass.  It also doesn't have the Purifier option to use water to increase its recycling rate.  As a recycler, the PX-R4NCH-3R provides 9% less recycling than the RT-5000 but is nearly twice the mass.  At least their EC consumption is in line.

So, there's a few options here:

  1. I could keep the new parts in line with the existing SSPR parts, which would make habitation awesome (the habitation dome could support its 6 kerbals for 5 years all by itself, for instance), but the 5m recyclers and agricultural components wouldn't be any better than the Atlas Kerbitat (3.75m).
  2. I could rebalance all parts in line with current MKS parts.  This could break saves pretty bad, with all your kerbals suddenly turning into homesick tourists.
  3. I could rebalance existing SSPR agriculture and recyclers so they are a similar level of overpowered as habitation, then make all the new parts in line with these metrics.  SSPR basically becomes USI-LS-lite.
  4. I could do #3 just for new parts.

I'm leaning towards #3.  In particular I don't like the recycler mechanic that encourages you to have one big recycler and spam 1000 RT-500s.  I'll probably make the habitation dome and other parts that would take recyclers something like 90% for 25 kerbals, 93.5% with water, similar to the atlas domes, with the mass in line with a third of a 10m dome plus 25 RT-500s baked in.  I'll probably also put 2 bays in the 5m parts to make them more configurable.

Any other ideas?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had another thought along the complete rebalance lines - in order for SSPR to be relevant in the life support minigame it needs to have its own identity.

What if we used the multi-bay system like MKS Atlas domes to make SSPR focus on huge configurability?  In other words, I can come up with a standard set of bay options that all parts will share, balanced around the concept that 1 bay = 2 tons.  Then I'll give all the parts 1 to 10 bays depending on their size, and mod their mass (and price too) to match the number of bays (with extra cost/mass for things like the motor that spins up a centrifuge or a discount for inflatables).  Then every part capable of any type of life support could do any of it at your choice - want to devote a floor of the Hostel to agroponics, or put a sleeping bag in the closet of the aquaponics module?  Go for it.  Then you can go for whatever aesthetic design you like, and use the configurable bays to make sure it meets the mission goals as well.  I'll aim for keeping habitation in line with where it already is, but increasing the mass to bring it back in line with MKS balance.  This would make the Hostel a 14 ton part with 7 bays, for instance, and the Atlas and Demeter would be 10 bays for 20 tons...  I'll start with half of an MKS Atlas 10m dome bay as the target for each bay (since its bays are about 4 tons each).

I'd release it in 2 files - one for the new stuff and one to retrofit the old stuff, so you can choose whether to get it for everything or keep your existing ships like they are.

@Nertea did you have a specific balance target in mind for the mass and price of the parts?  And would you mind if these were modded in the presence of USI-LS?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That looks like a great idea because it would mean a true rebalance while not necessarily a potential savebreaker like option 2 (if I'm understanding all this correctly, haven't had much coffee today).

If it's too hard i'd go for option 3.

Edited by modus
added stuff
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, ProgorMatic said:

In particular I don't like the recycler mechanic that encourages you to have one big recycler and spam 1000 RT-500s.

Since the 2.0 release is recent, I think now would be an ok time to quickly break the lifesupport balance of existing saves in favor of rebalancing. However I fully support this idea of changing the recycler mechanic to something better than spamming RT-500s. There should be no downside to building lower part count ships.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, ProgorMatic said:

I had another thought along the complete rebalance lines - in order for SSPR to be relevant in the life support minigame it needs to have its own identity.

What if we used the multi-bay system like MKS Atlas domes to make SSPR focus on huge configurability?  In other words, I can come up with a standard set of bay options that all parts will share, balanced around the concept that 1 bay = 2 tons.  Then I'll give all the parts 1 to 10 bays depending on their size, and mod their mass (and price too) to match the number of bays (with extra cost/mass for things like the motor that spins up a centrifuge or a discount for inflatables).  Then every part capable of any type of life support could do any of it at your choice - want to devote a floor of the Hostel to agroponics, or put a sleeping bag in the closet of the aquaponics module?  Go for it.  Then you can go for whatever aesthetic design you like, and use the configurable bays to make sure it meets the mission goals as well.  I'll aim for keeping habitation in line with where it already is, but increasing the mass to bring it back in line with MKS balance.  This would make the Hostel a 14 ton part with 7 bays, for instance, and the Atlas and Demeter would be 10 bays for 20 tons...  I'll start with half of an MKS Atlas 10m dome bay as the target for each bay (since its bays are about 4 tons each).

I'd release it in 2 files - one for the new stuff and one to retrofit the old stuff, so you can choose whether to get it for everything or keep your existing ships like they are.

@Nertea did you have a specific balance target in mind for the mass and price of the parts?  And would you mind if these were modded in the presence of USI-LS?

 

I'd prefer not to mess with the mass and cost of parts. Stuff changing in the presence of MKS is one thing, as it is a massive change to how the game works, but USI-LS seems to be something you could drop into a save halfway through and messing with masses of stuff in flight is bad. 

I don't particularly have a stake in how MKS works, but in my opinion full switchability of functions isn't desirable because it removes all gameplay uniqueness from parts. I would suggest more limited switching based on roles, but above all else the patch should function in terms of how MKS works, if a user installs SSPX alongside MKS they shouldn't have to learn new mechanics and concepts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Holy bugfixes batman!

  • Added science defs for telescope experiment, previously they used the Visual Observation experiment (thanks @GregroxMun, an actual watcher of the skies who knows relevant things about telescopes)
  • Fixed tiny seam on 1.875m medium crew tube
  • Removed Restock light module on docking port replacement
  • Increased rotation rate of base leg feet
  • Corrected some base leg foot orientations
  • Adjusted contract generation: domes may now be requested for surface bases but typically not stations
  • Added new parts to KeepFit patch
  • Added new parts to Snacks! patch

I tuned up what patches I could understand but I have no idea what's going on the with TAC patch (most of it is commented out??) and the MKS stuff seems like it is being handled here. 

Edited by Nertea
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Nertea said:

USI-LS seems to be something you could drop into a save halfway through and messing with masses of stuff in flight is bad. 

That's a legitimate concern, but honestly, no one should be dropping any LS mod into a save halfway through. It almost always results in starving/suffocating/dehydrated kerbals in pre-existing saves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Nertea said:
  • Added science defs for telescope experiment, previously they used the Visual Observation experiment (thanks @GregroxMun, an actual watcher of the skies who knows relevant things about telescopes)

On a related note: I've noticed that I get contract offers asking to perform visual observation, and now telescope observation, on the ground in various biomes: for example, right now there's a contract to perform seismic scan, gravity scan, and telescope observation while landed in Kerbin's grasslands, and another to perform visual observations landed in various places on the Mun.  Those particular contracts are from a mod (Field Research contract pack), though I'm pretty sure they're based on the same config parameters that stock contracts use.  I don't remember whether I've seen stock contracts asking for those experiments.

So, I wanted to ask — is that intentional?  It's not infeasible to do, but putting a cupola or telescope on a lander is a different sort of thing than a small part like a seismometer.  It's not really a problem — I don't want to build landers like that, but I just don't take the contracts — but I wanted to bring it up in case it's a bug.

I think (though I haven't tested) it's because the situationMask for those experiments includes the 0x1 and 0x2 bits for the SrfLanded and SrfSplashed situations.  If it's not intended, please consider changing the situationMask from 51 to 48, so that the experiments will only generate contracts in space.

(And, if it's a bug, sorry for not bringing it up until just after a bugfix release!)

Edited by Wyzard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, panarchist said:

That's a legitimate concern, but honestly, no one should be dropping any LS mod into a save halfway through. It almost always results in starving/suffocating/dehydrated kerbals in pre-existing saves.

I agree.  If you are adding life support mid-game, you'd have to bring all your kerbals home and rebuild all your ships, bases, and stations to add Supplies tanks at least, and fertilizer, agroponics, and recyclers for longer term missions.  With that said...

9 hours ago, Nertea said:

I'd prefer not to mess with the mass and cost of parts. Stuff changing in the presence of MKS is one thing, as it is a massive change to how the game works, but USI-LS seems to be something you could drop into a save halfway through and messing with masses of stuff in flight is bad. 

I don't particularly have a stake in how MKS works, but in my opinion full switchability of functions isn't desirable because it removes all gameplay uniqueness from parts. I would suggest more limited switching based on roles, but above all else the patch should function in terms of how MKS works, if a user installs SSPX alongside MKS they shouldn't have to learn new mechanics and concepts. 

I've always played with MKS and USI-LS both, so was having trouble differentiating which came from which.  I agree with you.  Habitation comes from MKS, and Supplies consumption comes from USI-LS.  Habitation is where I was seeing the most discrepancy between part mass in USI vs SSPR.  Essentially, stock kerbal containers are all "passenger compartments" - seats and that's about it.  MKS doesn't assign any additional habitation to these items, so they get the default 1 kerbal month per seat, and stock balances these at about .5 tons per kerbal.  On the other hand, true habitation modules get additional habitation bonuses, but are balanced at 1-2 tons per kerbal depending on how big the bonuses are.  So I'll only mod the mass in the presence of MKS, to bring the parts roughly in line with the right mass for the amount of habitation they currently enjoy.  This will make SSPR the way to use heavy parts to reduce part count on MKS stations.

I also agree that providing some variance between the different parts makes sense.  So aquaculture/hydroponics/cultivation will get agroponics and recyclers, habitation modules will get habitation and recyclers, science labs will get recyclers, and the Panorama will only get hab-common (similar to how USI mods other cupola-like parts).

So the 2 ton bays will look like this:

Habitation (based on 1/2 of a Atlas Kerbitat 10m bay):
Hab-Common: 6 kerbal-months, 6 crew affected, 1.45 multiplier, 0.44 EC/sec
Hab-Quarters: 24 kerbal-months, 0.22 EC/sec
MedBay: 24 EC/sec, 24 ColonySupplies/day, rated for 4 kerbals, affects only tourists (including these so you can take care of your homesick kerbals in orbit, just send up colony supplies from surface, won't be available on early parts)
Living Module: 6 EC/sec, 6 ColonySupplies/day, rated for 2 kerbals

Recyclers (based on 1/4 of a Tundra Kerbitat 3.75 - will scale the percentages lower on smaller parts to keep them from giving you early access to end game recyclers in career):
High Efficiency Recycler: 35 EC/sec, 86.5%, affects 1 kerbal
Purifier: 138 EC/sec, 201.42 Water/day, 93.25%, affects 4 kerbal (kept at full value because you'll only ever have one of these anywhere)
High Volume Recycler: 10 EC/sec, 60%, affects 20 kerbal ( = 20 RT-500 crammed into a single bay)

Agroponics: 48 mulch/day, 4.8 fertilizer, 5 EC/sec -> 52.8 supplies (based on scaling Tundra agriculture module to 2 tons)

Let me know what you think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Wyzard said:

On a related note: I've noticed that I get contract offers asking to perform visual observation, and now telescope observation, on the ground in various biomes: for example, right now there's a contract to perform seismic scan, gravity scan, and telescope observation while landed in Kerbin's grasslands, and another to perform visual observations landed in various places on the Mun.  Those particular contracts are from a mod (Field Research contract pack), though I'm pretty sure they're based on the same config parameters that stock contracts use.  I don't remember whether I've seen stock contracts asking for those experiments.

So, I wanted to ask — is that intentional?  It's not infeasible to do, but putting a cupola or telescope on a lander is a different sort of thing than a small part like a seismometer.  It's not really a problem — I don't want to build landers like that, but I just don't take the contracts — but I wanted to bring it up in case it's a bug.

I think (though I haven't tested) it's because the situationMask for those experiments includes the 0x1 and 0x2 bits for the SrfLanded and SrfSplashed situations.  If it's not intended, please consider changing the situationMask from 51 to 48, so that the experiments will only generate contracts in space.

(And, if it's a bug, sorry for not bringing it up until just after a bugfix release!)

Yes it is intentional. There's no reason that a contract to put an observatory on, say, the poles of the Mun would be invalid :). 

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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...