Nertea

[1.7.x] Stockalike Station Parts Redux (May 21st)

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

No, they aren't. They're from Heat Control. It's been a standalone mod for a while now.

Edited by Dragon01

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, StarStreak2109 said:

I think you mean the radiators for the reactor... Those are from NFE.

Yeah, that makes sense.  And the large, empty, cylindrical lattice structure?  What that for?

Share this post


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

Yeah, that makes sense.  And the large, empty, cylindrical lattice structure?  What that for?

Thats from one of Angel125’s mods, I think that it is a shipyard (spawn point) for Extraplanetary Launchpads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this (mostly) question concerns Kerbalism, but it does involve SSPX parts.

The mod's inflatable habitats are pressurized by default on the editor, and since Kerbalism inflatable habitats are, also by default, set as "disabled", enabling a Kerbalism/SSPX habitat will cause it to deflate. This doesn't happen with Tokamak Industries - which I also use - whose habitat models are deflated by default.

Example:

Spoiler

38sZMIW.jpgQpHHfg2.jpg

I've been banging my head on Kerbalism's side trying to fix this, but to no avail. So I thought about doing the opposite and to try and fix things on SSPX's side.

TL;DR: is there a way to "invert" the default inflatable habitat states? Keep in mind I can't use the DeployableHabitat module, since it is deleted by Kerbalism*. Playing on 1.3.1, btw.

*although it could be kept if needed... also, I lost count of the number of times I wrote "default".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://imgur.com/a/IHlnPAM

-- A serious warning displays whenever I load my game. I noticed one of the centrifugal parts doesn't deflate properly. It has to do with this error, for sure. Maybe I adressed some sort of a bug by posting this. Not sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Fetch! said:

-- A serious warning displays whenever I load my game. I noticed one of the centrifugal parts doesn't deflate properly. It has to do with this error, for sure. Maybe I adressed some sort of a bug by posting this. Not sure.

Already noted and will be fixed in the next version: https://github.com/ChrisAdderley/StationPartsExpansionRedux/issues/191. I will need more information on which one doesn't deflate properly, because everything looks fine here. 

 

8 hours ago, Tonas1997 said:

I know this (mostly) question concerns Kerbalism, but it does involve SSPX parts.

The mod's inflatable habitats are pressurized by default on the editor, and since Kerbalism inflatable habitats are, also by default, set as "disabled", enabling a Kerbalism/SSPX habitat will cause it to deflate. This doesn't happen with Tokamak Industries - which I also use - whose habitat models are deflated by default.

Example:

  Reveal hidden contents

38sZMIW.jpgQpHHfg2.jpg

I've been banging my head on Kerbalism's side trying to fix this, but to no avail. So I thought about doing the opposite and to try and fix things on SSPX's side.

TL;DR: is there a way to "invert" the default inflatable habitat states? Keep in mind I can't use the DeployableHabitat module, since it is deleted by Kerbalism*. Playing on 1.3.1, btw.

*although it could be kept if needed... also, I lost count of the number of times I wrote "default".

Unfortunately this would be on Kerbalism's side to fix - as I understand it the their approach is to completely remove my module and use its own, so I'd instead say poke the dev to support a flag indicating the start state of a model is at the begging or the start of the animation. I usually don't provide support for Kerbalism for this reason - it hooks into almost everything and replaces it with its own, messes with the balance and who knows what else. A quick browse of the Habitat code for example reveals that it does not replicate some functionality delivered by my code, so the centrifuges won't have counter-rotating gravity rings, IVAs will be messed up and such. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, really idiotic question: what kind of storage container do I put into the cargo bays? The ones included are either designed to be included in place of the container, or leave enough space for a crowd of Kerbals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Balance suggestion - with TACLifeSupport, even the smallest cargo containers have enough life support to last a crew of like 6-8 kerbals for a whole year. When using the containers for this purpose, there is no reason to use any larger ones nor use any resource converters (I personally use Universal Storage II for balance). Maybe cutting capacity of Oxygen/Water/Food down to like 1/4 of current would encourage other design choices? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, OldMold said:

Balance suggestion - with TACLifeSupport, even the smallest cargo containers have enough life support to last a crew of like 6-8 kerbals for a whole year. When using the containers for this purpose, there is no reason to use any larger ones nor use any resource converters (I personally use Universal Storage II for balance). Maybe cutting capacity of Oxygen/Water/Food down to like 1/4 of current would encourage other design choices? 

I personally think that the resources on the parts are just fine. On the IRL ISS, they keep enough supplies on the station for well over a year in case resupply is delayed (which has happened, several times). While I would support a change that would make the smallest container have enough supplies for 6 months, going down to 3 months is a bit much, IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, aceman67 said:

I personally think that the resources on the parts are just fine. On the IRL ISS, they keep enough supplies on the station for well over a year in case resupply is delayed (which has happened, several times). While I would support a change that would make the smallest container have enough supplies for 6 months, going down to 3 months is a bit much, IMHO.

The stock TAC-LS containers hold a pretty enormous amount of resources, so I’m not sure this is that much of a problem. All something like this does is reduce the tedium associated with a space station. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, RocketSquid said:

The stock TAC-LS containers hold a pretty enormous amount of resources, so I’m not sure this is that much of a problem. All something like this does is reduce the tedium associated with a space station. 

Yep - personally I delete the TAC-LS parts because the balance feels off, I'd rather use greenhouses from this mod + universal storage 2 converters for long term supply/mass management. Was just thinking that I never have a need to look into larger cargo parts because the smallest parts have so much capacity. Simple enough to do my own MM patch; was just thinking outloud.

Share this post


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

Yep - personally I delete the TAC-LS parts because the balance feels off, I'd rather use greenhouses from this mod + universal storage 2 converters for long term supply/mass management. Was just thinking that I never have a need to look into larger cargo parts because the smallest parts have so much capacity. Simple enough to do my own MM patch; was just thinking outloud.

Volume-wise, the TAC containers work out correctly. A cylinder 1.25m in diameter, and 0.2m high would be adequate to hold 240 liters of water or food, and I think the smallest TAC container is a bit taller than 0.2m. The 2.5m containers work if they’re around half a meter tall. I’m not sure if the 3.75m is similar but I see no reason why it shouldn’t be. The universal storage containers have a similar efficiency, perhaps even a greater efficiency.

The other thing is that the greenhouse consumes so much fertilizer that unless fertilizer containers hold a lot more fertilizer than a similarly sized container holds food, it’s still more efficient to ship up food. Because it’s based on the KPBS ratios, which are intended for bases on other planets, not kerbin orbit, the greenhouse is better suited for use with ISRU than it is for recycling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, RocketSquid said:

The other thing is that the greenhouse consumes so much fertilizer that unless fertilizer containers hold a lot more fertilizer than a similarly sized container holds food, it’s still more efficient to ship up food. Because it’s based on the KPBS ratios, which are intended for bases on other planets, not kerbin orbit, the greenhouse is better suited for use with ISRU than it is for recycling.

Hmm, I dont use KPBS, but I was under the impression that Minerals + Greenhouse would output more food than if you just sent up equivalent weight in food? Maybe my math was wrong.  I guess this is only relevant if you're flying a crew to Eloo or setting up a long term planet base as you said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, OldMold said:

Hmm, I dont use KPBS, but I was under the impression that Minerals + Greenhouse would output more food than if you just sent up equivalent weight in food? Maybe my math was wrong.  I guess this is only relevant if you're flying a crew to Eloo or setting up a long term planet base as you said.

Wait, nevermind, I made a math error. One fertilizer will make a bit under ten food, but the greenhouse will consume water in the process. So you'd need to ship up water as well as fertilizer. The waste to food ratio might also be off to enough of an extent that you'll need to send up fresh food from time to time. I've been using the greenhouses from Pathfinder, in the inflatable module from DSEV, so I don't have much experience with the greenhouses from this mod.

Edited by RocketSquid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, RocketSquid said:

Wait, nevermind, I made a math error. One fertilizer will make a bit under ten food, but the greenhouse will consume water in the process. So you'd need to ship up water as well as fertilizer. The waste to food ratio might also be off to enough of an extent that you'll need to send up fresh food from time to time. I've been using the greenhouses from Pathfinder, in the inflatable module from DSEV, so I don't have much experience with the greenhouses from this mod.

With TAC-LS and without KPBS the greenhouse inputs are wastewater, waste, minerals, and EC. Outputs are water and food. The math seemed very attractive for long missions where efficient resupply is difficult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, OldMold said:

With TAC-LS and without KPBS the greenhouse inputs are wastewater, waste, minerals, and EC. Outputs are water and food. The math seemed very attractive for long missions where efficient resupply is difficult.

Yeah, with KPBS there's fertilizer instead of minerals, and no water output. That makes a rather significant difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been running SSPXr together with KPBS, US2 and TAC LS in my current career.  I'm not clear what else is effecting the resource inputs but the greenhouses use Water, Fert, CO2, EC and output Food and O2.  A US2 Sabatier can create sufficient water in theory, but the Kerbals don't create enough CO2 to supply both Greenhouse and Sabatier recycler.  This is also clearly different from other setups where greenhouses use Waste Water (and in some cases Waste).

Essentially, there are a variety of different approaches in use and I'm not sure how to determine which mod "wins" when using them all together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Friznit said:

I've been running SSPXr together with KPBS, US2 and TAC LS in my current career.

So have I, and I see the same behaviour. Closing the loop is not easy, and I kinda like it that way.
I have a little spreadsheet that may be useful for mission planning, though it still has many warts.

56 minutes ago, Friznit said:

I'm not clear what else is effecting the resource inputs but the greenhouses use Water, Fert, CO2, EC and output Food and O2. 

KPBS, US2 & SSPXR include patches for TACLS, then KPBS patches SSPXR greenhouses to match its own. GameData/PlanetaryBaseInc/ModSupport/Configs/SSPX/KPBS_MM_SSPX.cfg is what is changing those resource inputs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Friznit said:

I've been running SSPXr together with KPBS, US2 and TAC LS in my current career.  I'm not clear what else is effecting the resource inputs but the greenhouses use Water, Fert, CO2, EC and output Food and O2.  A US2 Sabatier can create sufficient water in theory, but the Kerbals don't create enough CO2 to supply both Greenhouse and Sabatier recycler.  This is also clearly different from other setups where greenhouses use Waste Water (and in some cases Waste).

Essentially, there are a variety of different approaches in use and I'm not sure how to determine which mod "wins" when using them all together.

This mod’s TAC-LS config checks if KPBS is present and adjusts the greenhouses to balance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, steve_v said:

KPBS, US2 & SSPXR include patches for TACLS, then KPBS patches SSPXR greenhouses to match its own. GameData/PlanetaryBaseInc/ModSupport/Configs/SSPX/KPBS_MM_SSPX.cfg is what is changing those resource inputs.

1 hour ago, RocketSquid said:

This mod’s TAC-LS config checks if KPBS is present and adjusts the greenhouses to balance

SSPXr adapts itself to KPBS' presence already (but only for TAC, not for USI or Snacks!). This behavior existed for a long time. If indeed KPBS brings its own config, then perhaps its dev should say something. Or can I assume that KPBS properly overrides SSPX's config so it's no big deal?

I just looked and the config file at that path only adds the SSPX greenhouse experiment to KPBS' own greenhouses.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, JadeOfMaar said:

I just looked and the config file at that path only adds the SSPX greenhouse experiment to KPBS' own greenhouses.

In that case it's probably safe to assume I mentioned the wrong file. :P
GameData/StationPartsExpansionRedux/Patches/SSPXR-TACLS.cfg was the other one I had open, so that's got to be it, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, steve_v said:

In that case it's probably safe to assume I mentioned the wrong file. :P
GameData/StationPartsExpansionRedux/Patches/SSPXR-TACLS.cfg was the other one I had open, so that's got to be it, right?

That is indeed it. If you wanted the standard behavior while you have KPBS installed you’d have to go into that and mess with it.

Share this post


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

I had to share these awesome screenshots from @Orbital_phoenix. They're just beautiful.

So cool.

How come my craft never, ever, in a million Kebin years, look this good. :P

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.