Jump to content

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


Nertea
 Share

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, mxi_steel said:

hi! are there ivas with the sspxr expansion? if so how can i fix this issue? 

After the latest update they have been moved to the extras folder. 
 

Take the “StationPartsExpansionIVAs” folder and put it in your Gamedata

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, jdub3350 said:

Good morning! 

I've searched around and haven't been able to find anything on this...I see in the TAC-LS patches that it adds TACLS converters to alot of the hab/utility modules, but in game they don't show up.    I'm sure there's a conflict somewhere but have no idea where to start.  

Modulemanager.log https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KxbaH0PB1ooB6-igr7S-undHhjxLywHb/view?usp=sharing

KSP.log- https://drive.google.com/file/d/15bP5wRuxbd0q0MmfB0QB4kTX2DSe9U99/view?usp=sharing

Let me know if any other info is needed.  Thanks! 

I looked at the patch file and it's a mess (stuff commented out everywhere, etc). Not sure what to do to fix it.

11 hours ago, Virtualgenius said:

Hi guys I have a bit of question when you arm the extend a tube its supposed to grab the object it connects to  thus joining it to the parent object is that correct

@Nertea question for you I know you don't do requests  but is it  possible to make extender tubes with docking ports or is the graber effectively a docking port

They are docking things really. The make two ships count as docked.

5 hours ago, Zefnoly said:

Although I think I may have asked this earler. @Nerteais the mechanics from the new stock anchoring systems gonna be implemented into the landing struts/legs/supports for ground bases?

No, I'd be fundamentally worried about that plus the collider-ful moving legs would cause destruction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Nertea said:

I looked at the patch file and it's a mess (stuff commented out everywhere, etc). Not sure what to do to fix it.

 

I went into the SSPX TACLS config and removed the commenting and did copy/paste from other parts with working converters on those that didn't have it.  So now all hab, utility, and centrifuge parts have converters (didn't see station cores in the file) parts are showing converters in editor. 

My remaining question is that each size/type has it's own "conversion factor" from looking at it, this presumably scales with size and tech?  I don't know if you have a table of values or anything, but I'd be happy to plug them in and upload it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've updated (not posted, however) the TAC LS config as follows: (May include slight errors and needs feedback. Additions in green.)

  • 1.25m cupola greenhouse: supports 3 kerbals (4/6 kerbals if KPBS)
  • 2.5m greenhouse: 4 kerbals (8 if KPBS)
  • 3.75m greenhouse: 5 kerbals ( 12 if KPBS)
  • 5m dome greenhouse: 6 kerbals (18 if KPBS)
  • 5m inline greenhouse: 24 kerbals (72 if KPBS); it looks like it has 4x the farm area of the dome
  • They all hold the same amount of Minerals, Fertilizer and ElectricCharge.

I also took it upon myself to write a stock subcategories config. Subcategories:

  • Pods
  • Utility (includes crewed parts and the stairs)
  • Structural (includes adapters)
  • Ground (all your base are belong to us)
  • Payload (holds the tanks and storage trusses)
  • Life Support (only the greenhouses and the algae farm)
  • Science
  • 1.25m
  • 1.875m
  • 2.5m
  • 3.75m
  • 5m

unknown.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, jdub3350 said:

I went into the SSPX TACLS config and removed the commenting and did copy/paste from other parts with working converters on those that didn't have it.  So now all hab, utility, and centrifuge parts have converters (didn't see station cores in the file) parts are showing converters in editor. 

My remaining question is that each size/type has it's own "conversion factor" from looking at it, this presumably scales with size and tech?  I don't know if you have a table of values or anything, but I'd be happy to plug them in and upload it. 

Filling in all that stuff will make for a very hot mess of a config file with so much repeating content to look at in the end. It may be best I reformat the config so it's not so painful to add to and look at in the end. It would be much easier to use this table of values if it happens.

Which converters are supposed to be present in "every" crewed part?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, JadeOfMaar said:

I've updated (not posted, however) the TAC LS config as follows: (May include slight errors and needs feedback. Additions in green.)

  • 1.25m cupola greenhouse: supports 3 kerbals (4/6 kerbals if KPBS)
  • 2.5m greenhouse: 4 kerbals (8 if KPBS)
  • 3.75m greenhouse: 5 kerbals ( 12 if KPBS)
  • 5m dome greenhouse: 6 kerbals (18 if KPBS)
  • 5m inline greenhouse: 24 kerbals (72 if KPBS); it looks like it has 4x the farm area of the dome
  • They all hold the same amount of Minerals, Fertilizer and ElectricCharge.

I had a look at this too this evening, I went with slightly different # Kerbals supported.  It looks as though for the new ones you went by apparent farm area vs existing modules?  I went a different way and based it on an approximate mass/cost comparison vs existing modules.  I wasn't entirely happy with the result though I must say, I like your # Kerbals supported better but it throws up some odd comparisons (2.5m greenhouse is ~ half the cost/mass as the 5m inline, not sure we can justify it being 6 x more productive?  This might end up being more of an issue with the mass/cost needing changing?   Also not sure that I buy the 1.25m cupola being 3 Kerbals, I reckon its about a third of the farm area as the 2.5m greenhouse.

Re: the Minerals/Fertilizer/Electric Charge, can I ask if there was a reason to keep these static rather than scaling as the other resources do?  I can't speak for Fertilizer, as I don't use the Planetary Bases mod, but there doesn't seem to be any reason for the Minerals not to scale with greenhouse size, and no obvious reason why it would be difficult?  I went with 50 minerals, and then scaled by crew size as with the others.  And for electric charge, I went with 150 ec and scaled by size.  I think that needs to be addressed in at least the Cupola, otherwise with it storing 1000ec it probably becomes a more efficient battery than any other 1.25m part!! 

Lastly, I also tweaked the input resource ratio for Minerals in all of the greenhouses, in line with something that we discussed in this thread  in October 2020, where minerals per day was showing up as 0.00 - I have multiplied this by 1000, but could be convinced by any figure that actually causes minerals to be used up in any meaningful timescale! :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, JadeOfMaar said:

Which converters are supposed to be present in "every" crewed part?

I think that that depends on the size of the part.  In the 1.25m line there is a utility module that has the convertors, and the other crewed modules don't have any.  Looks like the 1.875m line there is a utility module present, so I had intended to do the same thing there.

From 2.5m up, it looks as though most of the hab/centrifuge/inflatables had the Carbon Sabatier, Carbon Extractor, Water Purifier & Water Splitter.  I must say, I would rather see these be more limited (perhaps Carbon Extractor & Water Purifier as standard, and the others featuring in one of the rigid hab modules in each size line?  That's admittedly mostly because I want the challenge of having to include them if I want them, rather than them coming as standard...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm. I'm not at all sure the issue I just noted is related to this mod, but thought I'd see if anyone has an insight. With EL now working on KSP 1.12.2, I started a new career using Progressive Kolonization System (which in turn uses stockalike station parts). As a way to partially finance my extravagances, I made some bling (specifically "shinies" from Progressive Kolonization) and shipped them back to sell on Kerbin. A PPD-CRG-3 Logistics module full of 3000 tier 2 shinies from Mun sells for around a million credits. Landed my haul on Kerbin and when I recovered the craft, sure enough it gave me about the expected million credits for the cargo. But then it gave me a negative million credit for the logistics module that carried the cargo. So my mission didn't even recover its own launch cost, much less make a profit. This scheme used to work last time I did a PKS career, which I guess was in KSP 1.11.1; heck, selling for a profit is the only thing the shinies are good for. Not sure whether this is a change in PKS, Stockalike Station parts, or something in the base KSP. I don't have a handy log file, though I have a save with a loaded cargo ship, so I could probably create a log file of recovering it if that was of any help. It isn't clear to me that a log file would show much relevant to this issue, but I could be wrong on that. And maybe I'll try asking over on the PKS thread if nobody here has any thoughts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@eatU4myT I will admit I'm currently lazy with the scaling due to how much has to be written just to equip a part to be feature-filled for TAC; I'm not too sharp about precise cost and mass scaling of parts. I leave that to the greater minds about it. I'll just lay down the fanciful, low-repetition config :sticktongue:

I've been pondering scaling the resource amounts as well, since obviously it's an isue if a 1.25m part and a 5m part hold the same amount of stuff. So I'm considering putting in the rewrite + reformat effort so it will be easier for folks like you who actually play the game to scale the converter throughputs.

15 minutes ago, eatU4myT said:

the Carbon Sabatier, Carbon Extractor, Water Purifier & Water Splitter.  I must say, I would rather see these be more limited (perhaps Carbon Extractor & Water Purifier as standard, and the others featuring in one of the rigid hab modules in each size line?  That's admittedly mostly because I want the challenge of having to include them if I want them, rather than them coming as standard...

I can set this up. But with things getting this granular, it's an increasingly good idea for me to keep the config on GitHub and let people collab on it. (I'll link it and ping you when it's ready.) Related: I picture having the 'Utility' parts (by name, not category, like the 1.25m 'Star') be a jack-of-all trades in this regard. Let it be a powerful all-purpose converter pack if you need it, but at the cost of inventory space and comfort for any crew in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, JadeOfMaar said:

Filling in all that stuff will make for a very hot mess of a config file with so much repeating content to look at in the end. It may be best I reformat the config so it's not so painful to add to and look at in the end. It would be much easier to use this table of values if it happens.

Which converters are supposed to be present in "every" crewed part?

And I'd only have made a hotter mess of it I'm sure haha.  I'm happy to leave this one to the pros.  Appreciate all the work you all do on these mods. 

 

2 hours ago, JadeOfMaar said:

I can set this up. But with things getting this granular, it's an increasingly good idea for me to keep the config on GitHub and let people collab on it. (I'll link it and ping you when it's ready.) Related: I picture having the 'Utility' parts (by name, not category, like the 1.25m 'Star') be a jack-of-all trades in this regard. Let it be a powerful all-purpose converter pack if you need it, but at the cost of inventory space and comfort for any crew in it.

I like this idea too.  I would think Air/Water filtration of some degree to be standard on any inhabited part, and the more complicated conversions like water splitting and sabatier for utility modules.  More advanced stuff like centrifuges could be jack-of-all-trades?   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@jdub3350  @eatU4myT I've revised the TAC LS patch. Download from here:

  • SSPXR-SubCats.cfg (this produces the stock subcategories)
  • SSPXR-TACLS-00.cfg (this produces root nodes whose pieces are easily selectively pasted into parts. Adjust ISRU ratios and default amounts here. Your changes are carried over into all parts.)
  • SSPXR-TACLS-01.cfg (the config that acts upon the parts. Do your per-part tuning here)
  • category-sspx.png (put this in the Patches folder along with these configs)
  • Delete the existing SSPXR-TACLS.cfg
16 minutes ago, jdub3350 said:

I like this idea too.  I would think Air/Water filtration of some degree to be standard on any inhabited part, and the more complicated conversions like water splitting and sabatier for utility modules.  More advanced stuff like centrifuges could be jack-of-all-trades?   

I happened to ignore the air filter converter actually, because of how rarely it occurs among TAC's own parts, but I did the jack-of-all-trades thing otherwise with the centrifuges.

Oh dear, that png is hard to read in-game lol.

Edited by JadeOfMaar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Zefnoly said:

Although I think I may have asked this earler. @Nerteais the mechanics from the new stock anchoring systems gonna be implemented into the landing struts/legs/supports for ground bases?

 

To answer your question, if it works like it did in 1.11x they behave just like normal stock grapling hook with the exception that they have an adjustable length. You need to "arm" them first. Then they will dock/connect like a normal grapling hook.

My recommendation is that you dock it to another identical expandotube. It makes it easier for some reason. But it also makes it look better if you align it well... Try to dock one expandotube into another. Only one needs to be armed.

 

See my picture here for reference:

?imw=5000&imh=5000&ima=fit&impolicy=Lett

Afterwards you can enable free rotation to allow your base to get stabilized afterwards adjusting each of the legs of the various modules. That is what I did. My only problem is that the legs drift, I hope the new anchoring system from the recent stock update may have been inbuilt to these legs if possible as a togglable option.

I'm hoping that in KSP2, ground structures will restrict the terrain generation that the structure is on to remain constant.  I gather that nearly all the problems with landed craft going crazy on scene load is mostly that the generation of the underlying triangles in the terrain is slightly different every time.  But what if the triangular grid underlying the touch points of a landed craft were saved in the save file and subsequent loads preserved those interfacing triangles.  I don't now, but there has to be a better way

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, JadeOfMaar said:

I've revised the TAC LS patch

Top work, thanks! That new format does make things easier to tweak.

Can't get in front of the game this morning, but did you get around the problem of scaling the resources in the Cupola greenhouse? I see you've set the greenhouse conversion rate manually, but at first glance it looked as though the stored resource amounts were still scaling by crew capacity (zero), which I think MM will throw an error over?

Edited by eatU4myT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, JadeOfMaar said:

@jdub3350  @eatU4myT I've revised the TAC LS patch. Download from here:

  • SSPXR-SubCats.cfg (this produces the stock subcategories)
  • SSPXR-TACLS-00.cfg (this produces root nodes whose pieces are easily selectively pasted into parts. Adjust ISRU ratios and default amounts here. Your changes are carried over into all parts.)
  • SSPXR-TACLS-01.cfg (the config that acts upon the parts. Do your per-part tuning here)
  • category-sspx.png (put this in the Patches folder along with these configs)
  • Delete the existing SSPXR-TACLS.cfg

I happened to ignore the air filter converter actually, because of how rarely it occurs among TAC's own parts, but I did the jack-of-all-trades thing otherwise with the centrifuges.

Oh dear, that png is hard to read in-game lol.

Downloaded and messed around in the VAB enough to see everything had converters, the new filter tab is really nice as well.  Thanks so much for this.   Haven't had a chance to play around with it in flight yet. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, eatU4myT said:

but did you get around the problem of scaling the resources in the Cupola greenhouse?

The scaling is unchanged for the greenhouses, but you can easily set your own value per greenhouse and not depend on crew capacity. If you have solid numbers to multiply them all by, let me know, and if to scale the held resources by these numbers too. (and numbers for the 1x 2.5m aquaculture part.) They also scale by crew capacity for now. (The current layout may still confuse you if you try for yourself)

Yes, I did (as of somewhere under an hour ago). But now I wait for solid numbers to give to the scales, or you can do this yourself. I cleared up the inputs so you can properly scale the rate and the resources for each greenhouse part. The aquaculture part also needs values given to it.

18 hours ago, eatU4myT said:

Re: the Minerals/Fertilizer/Electric Charge, can I ask if there was a reason to keep these static rather than scaling as the other resources do?  I can't speak for Fertilizer, as I don't use the Planetary Bases mod, but there doesn't seem to be any reason for the Minerals not to scale with greenhouse size, and no obvious reason why it would be difficult?  I went with 50 minerals, and then scaled by crew size as with the others.  And for electric charge, I went with 150 ec and scaled by size.  I think that needs to be addressed in at least the Cupola, otherwise with it storing 1000ec it probably becomes a more efficient battery than any other 1.25m part!! 

I've changed the held Minerals to 50, ElectricCharge to 150 as you said, and posted the updates to the GitHub link. Now that I own an ISRU calculator I really don't like the weight of the Minerals resource versus the other things in the TAC ISRU chains.

At this point, every part that has crew (except for command and the greenhouses), has these TAC converters in them now. Greenhouses/Aquaculture only have modules relevant to their jobs, not to keeping the crew in them alive.

Edited by JadeOfMaar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, rmaine said:

Hmm. I'm not at all sure the issue I just noted is related to this mod, but thought I'd see if anyone has an insight. With EL now working on KSP 1.12.2, I started a new career using Progressive Kolonization System (which in turn uses stockalike station parts). As a way to partially finance my extravagances, I made some bling (specifically "shinies" from Progressive Kolonization) and shipped them back to sell on Kerbin. A PPD-CRG-3 Logistics module full of 3000 tier 2 shinies from Mun sells for around a million credits. Landed my haul on Kerbin and when I recovered the craft, sure enough it gave me about the expected million credits for the cargo. But then it gave me a negative million credit for the logistics module that carried the cargo. So my mission didn't even recover its own launch cost, much less make a profit. This scheme used to work last time I did a PKS career, which I guess was in KSP 1.11.1; heck, selling for a profit is the only thing the shinies are good for. Not sure whether this is a change in PKS, Stockalike Station parts, or something in the base KSP. I don't have a handy log file, though I have a save with a loaded cargo ship, so I could probably create a log file of recovering it if that was of any help. It isn't clear to me that a log file would show much relevant to this issue, but I could be wrong on that. And maybe I'll try asking over on the PKS thread if nobody here has any thoughts.

This is probably the stock recovery cost bug. Recommended fix: 

17 hours ago, JadeOfMaar said:

I've updated (not posted, however) the TAC LS config as follows: (May include slight errors and needs feedback. Additions in green.)

  • 1.25m cupola greenhouse: supports 3 kerbals (4/6 kerbals if KPBS)
  • 2.5m greenhouse: 4 kerbals (8 if KPBS)
  • 3.75m greenhouse: 5 kerbals ( 12 if KPBS)
  • 5m dome greenhouse: 6 kerbals (18 if KPBS)
  • 5m inline greenhouse: 24 kerbals (72 if KPBS); it looks like it has 4x the farm area of the dome
  • They all hold the same amount of Minerals, Fertilizer and ElectricCharge.

I also took it upon myself to write a stock subcategories config. Subcategories:

  • Pods
  • Utility (includes crewed parts and the stairs)
  • Structural (includes adapters)
  • Ground (all your base are belong to us)
  • Payload (holds the tanks and storage trusses)
  • Life Support (only the greenhouses and the algae farm)
  • Science
  • 1.25m
  • 1.875m
  • 2.5m
  • 3.75m
  • 5m

unknown.png

So... is the intention for this to live somewhere? In this mod? In some mod of your own?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Nertea said:

So... is the intention for this to live somewhere? In this mod? In some mod of your own?

These are intended to live within SSPXr. A PR will eventually come your way. If things get bothersome, I can publish the TAC configs as its own modlet and lean on CKAN for making sure its presence when needed.

Edited by JadeOfMaar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, JadeOfMaar said:

These are intended to live within SSPXr. A PR will eventually come your way. If things get bothersome, I can publish the TAC configs as its own modlet and lean on CKAN for making sure its presence when needed.

Ok great. There are some fixes to be released, I will wait for the PR before releasing 2.0.4.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Nertea said:

This is probably the stock recovery cost bug. Recommended fix: 

Bingo. Thanks a lot for the pointer for something that wasn't even directly related to your mod. It showing up as a negative cost recovery on the logistics module is what made me think that it might possibly be in this mod. Evidently not, but asking the mod author seems to have helped anyway. :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't seen where somebody else has submitted an updated config for ULI LS, so here is mine. These numbers are roughly pulled out of my backside, approximately scaled to the increased mass and crew capacity of five meter parts, plus the 1.25m cupola greenhouse. If somebody else has already taken care of this, please disregard.

Google Drive Link to cfg

This is a separate file, and the individual parts would need to be copied and pasted into the right sections in SSPXR-USILS.cfg .

This does not include any changes to any other USI or MKS specific patches.

Edited by danfarnsy
clarity?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe a bit offtopic, and this is a big ask, but is there any chance you could standardize the lengths of the parts between all your mods and stock KSP? Many of them are often annoying to work with because they're just a tiny bit too short or too long so they don't line up properly. Some examples (using Editor Extensions to align the parts exactly):

Spoiler

PAS crew tubes surface attached and centered onto Mk1 liquid fuel tanks. The crew tubes are slightly longer.

PUjcsPI.png

Spoiler

PMA crew tubes surface attached and centered onto PAS crew tubes. The PMA tubes are quite a bit shorter.

cRjGBZ8.png

Spoiler

PPD crew tubes surface attached and centered onto PAS crew tubes. The PPD tubes are just a little bit shorter.

LFeXz2t.png

Many NearFuture parts also suffer from the same inconsistencies. Or is this intentional?

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...