The art of modular base building

[madmat]

This is brilliant Temstar. I am "going to make a Munbase today". Or kill 20 Kerbals trying. Rep added for sharing this most excellent system with the community.

[John FX]

Have you considered putting four micro legs upside down on the crawler to stabilise the load? They could be set up with an action group and excluded from operating with `G`

gonna download your crawler now and give it a try. Been wanting to make some bases for a while now (and now I`m playing BTSM you sort of need to for the later game...)

[gc1ceo]

I'm having trouble coming up with a way to get a straight piece (similar to the one at the beginning of the topic) down to the Mun, any suggestions or better yet, craft files?

Note:

Nevermind, I found the craft files including tress carriers.

Edited June 23, 2014 by gc1ceo
Found them!

[kbatman]

I think Temstar may have just been added to my hero list!

[PixelClef]

I've read that orbital space stations can cause lag. Do surface bases suffer from the same problem?

[technicalfool]

I've read that orbital space stations can cause lag. Do surface bases suffer from the same problem?

Hi, welcome to the forums.

To answer your question, pretty much everything will cause frame rate loss depending on how many parts it has. The less parts you can engineer your station or base components to have, the smoother the simulation will run. Computers with fast CPUs can run KSP with far bigger constructions than computers with weak CPUs.

Try testing your designs out near the launch pad, it's a lot easier to get to and will give you an idea of how well your computer can cope.

Hope that helps.

[PixelClef]

Thanks for the welcome, and the quick reply!

Your response makes sense, especially in light of the limited question I posed. I would completely expect anything to have an effect on the performance of the simulation! I suppose a better question would have been to ask for a general comparison of the performance effects between the surface station described here and an orbital station.

I will certainly be testing with local KSC builds before committing to a launch. Since I'm new, I'm still exploring the game, having successfully flung several demo Kerbals into orbit already. I'm running KSP on a dual 2.6 GHz Xeon at work, and a 2.9 GHz i7 at home.

Edited June 27, 2014 by PixelClef

[Krustaceous Krouton]

Wow nice tutorial! I can finally start with my moon base, that actually serves the purpose of a base, and not a large lander . Anyways, how would I line up parts vertically? It seems like a very time-consuming process attempting to land/dock the next module on top of the previous module, or some sort of crane to connect the modules (No KAS, I use stock*). Any tips?

EDIT: I don't suppose that a base could be built with the ARM Claws? You know, with all the math behind behind constructing with docking ports, wouldn't it be fairly simple to do it with the claws instead?

Edited July 1, 2014 by Krustaceous Krouton

[PTNLemay]

Sorry if this is a noob question but I can't seem to figure this one out. How do you get the docking port to connect latterally to the cylindrical compartments? I can connect stuff to the ends just fine but if I try and connect to the middle it greys out.

http://i.imgur.com/Wbe8iM5.png

http://i.imgur.com/ni8tWuw.png

Edit:

I did figure out a kind of work around. I had to use editor extension's V-snap where the vertical cylinder in the middle connects to the 2 horizontal ones (to keep the height consistent), so it's not purely stock anymore. But that's a feature that really should be in the stock game anyway, so I don't feel cheaty for using it.

http://i.imgur.com/njMKEM7.png

I think it will end up being the same... I'll do more research later tonight. Thanks a lot for this guide by the way. I've been trying to start a mun base since... forever, and I've never been able to solve the problem of inconsistent docking port height to my satisfaction. This is as close to a success as I've ever gotten.

Edited July 5, 2014 by PTNLemay

[weeble]

Sorry if this is a noob question but I can't seem to figure this one out. How do you get the docking port to connect latterally to the cylindrical compartments? I can connect stuff to the ends just fine but if I try and connect to the middle it greys out.

http://i.imgur.com/Wbe8iM5.png

http://i.imgur.com/ni8tWuw.png

Edit:

I did figure out a kind of work around. I had to use editor extension's V-snap where the vertical cylinder in the middle connects to the 2 horizontal ones (to keep the height consistent), so it's not purely stock anymore. But that's a feature that really should be in the stock game anyway, so I don't feel cheaty for using it.

http://i.imgur.com/njMKEM7.png

I think it will end up being the same... I'll do more research later tonight. Thanks a lot for this guide by the way. I've been trying to start a mun base since... forever, and I've never been able to solve the problem of inconsistent docking port height to my satisfaction. This is as close to a success as I've ever gotten.

If I'm not mistaken, when you make a subassembly it will only attach to the node that your root part was attached to. Your pics are weird as it has 2 attachment nodes, for me it only has 1 attachable node. I fixed it by using the Select Root mod. Now I don't have to rebuild every subassembly part. Try it, you'll love it.

[DocMoriarty]

I never liked base modules on landing legs due to the unreliable height alignment in varying gravity environments. So i built a station on small gear bays in 0.23. Alignments on Kerbin and Mun were exactly the same.

Lifters were used to land the modules and due to the stable horizontal alignment a big rover could be used to push them into position.

Of course there was added fun to be had at KSC playing cho cho train with the modules and the module pusher in front:

Nowadays i would avoid both legs and gears for part count reasons if possible and use a crane rover with a claw to move station modules into position. Not there yet in my career mode game.

[Speeding Mullet]

This is one of the best methods available for building a base, and a great tutorial (rep plus) I leaned heavily on it for inspiration when I was designing the Duna Sunrise base, which is a build in progress. The main construction effort is detailed here. I thought it would be useful to reference it in this thread...

[juanml82]

Wow nice tutorial! I can finally start with my moon base, that actually serves the purpose of a base, and not a large lander . Anyways, how would I line up parts vertically? It seems like a very time-consuming process attempting to land/dock the next module on top of the previous module, or some sort of crane to connect the modules (No KAS, I use stock*). Any tips?

EDIT: I don't suppose that a base could be built with the ARM Claws? You know, with all the math behind behind constructing with docking ports, wouldn't it be fairly simple to do it with the claws instead?

You can use the Claw. Here's my reference design after I've removed some of the radial engines and landing legs using KAS

There aren't as polished nor the look like a base like the ones other people have posted. They also have an over-abundance of docking ports. IOW, while there is a lot of room for refinement for these, the general idea is to standarize the height of the docking port, which also allows me to dock, if I want, landers and rovers to them. Like this

Plus, they are mobile, so if you land the second module of your munar base more than 6 km away and you don't have enough fuel to fly towards the destination, you can travel on wheels across several craters with steep slopes which combined with the tall design makes you quicksave and reload a lot to make it to your destination while you keep destroying your docking ports.

And, as you see, the two with only lateral docking ports (instead of the one with a heavier "H" shaped design) can't use their back and front facing ports because the wheels will get in the way of most things coming to dock.

Edited August 23, 2014 by juanml82

[Googol]

I cannot tell which blew up more, my mind, or my next 100 missions to Mun.

[Faile]

Also, one very handy trick is to use the subassemblies feature, make one piece, then replicate it and use it as the base template for any modules you're building.

[bartekkru99]

Those bases look SOOOOO great...

[Chrysoprace]

Sorry for the necropost, but I have the same question as others here. Maybe I am missing something obvious. 

How do you get things to land horizontally and right side up on the mun? I have my own base built on the mun, just a research station at the moment, and I have been laboriously connecting things by hovering with the main Poodle and maneuvering with RCS. It is a massive pain, driving would be far preferrable. 

[Atario]

On 12/7/2016 at 1:12 AM, Chrysoprace said:

I have been laboriously connecting things by hovering with the main Poodle and maneuvering with RCS. It is a massive pain, driving would be far preferrable. 

I built a ferry to connect the same way the crawler does, but has rockets and RCS and stuff to land them, one by one (dock in orbit, land, undock, drive, refuel, launch, rendezvous with next module, repeat).  Then the crawler takes over to actually connect them (the ferry doesn't have the wheel count nor the better hauling/installing geometry my crawler does).

However.  After laboriously flying twenty of these modules, plus support vehicles, down to Minmus, I learned to my chagrin that bases of any significant size made this way will inevitably get Shaking Station Syndrome and explode. Mine only gets about half the modules connected before it magically shimmies itself into a flying fireball of doom.  Nothing I do prevents it.  Including design time, I estimate I've wasted at least eighty hours of work on this.

Bug-riddled games are awesome.  

Edited March 6, 2017 by Atario

[cdm86]

On 3/6/2017 at 4:11 AM, Atario said:

... inevitably get Shaking Station Syndrome and explode ...

If I may ask a question about that...

What is your part make up of your bases?

Specifically how many physics-less parts compared to how many 'non-physics-less' parts?

You may be able to 'fix' your base by adding parts actually (parts effected by physics). So long as your Computer can handle it I guess.

(note: actually don't do that, remove physics-less parts instead, I just wanted to intrigue the reader)

I'll make some pictures of some wheeled vehicles I was tinkering with to show what I mean.

I made these vehicles to be about the same size but with differing part counts. In design 1 I used small struts, in design 2 i used larger struts. Both designs are roughly the same size. The ore canister in the middle is full. The fuel tanks I latter added to stop shakiness are empty.

A shaky rover - prograde marker not in picture because it is flying around wildly - vehicle shakes until a wheel brakes

A slightly shaky rover - it settles after a few seconds after launch - pro-grade marker wiggles a little and slightly off center in image

Added empty fuel tanks to design 2 - no shakiness at launch - pro-grade marker still slightly off center but less so

Added alot of empty fuel tanks to design 1 - no shakiness at all - pro-grade marker dead center

The Take Away:

The kraken hates physics-less parts and tugs at them continuously.

By shifting the balance of physics-to-non-physics parts towards physics parts shaky kraken doom can be averted.

Edited March 8, 2017 by cdm86
Added design thoughts for pictures to post

[Atario]

@cdm86, that's an interesting finding. My design starts with a basic sawhorse-looking module, and all others are built on that. The plain sawhorse has:

Count	Name	Physicsless?
4	LT-2 Landing Strut
4	M-Beam 200 I-Beam
5	Structural Fuselage
4	SP-L 1x6 Photovoltaic Panels
5	Clamp-O-Tron Docking Port
1	Z-1k Rechargeable Battery Bank
1	RC-001S Remote Guidance Unit
2	Illuminator Mk2	Y
4	BZ-52 Radial Attachment Point	Y
10	EAS-4 Strut Connector	Y

So, 16 of my 40 parts are physicsless, 40%.  The variations on the empty sawhorse are things like a fuel tank module (add one big fuel tank plus another four struts), or a drilling module (add another fuselage, a couple of drills, a cooler, and a couple of fuel cell arrays, and swap the solar panels to gigantors), stuff like that.  There is one module that has a metric boatload of octagonal struts, and in retrospect that was not the best idea, both for part count and for physicsless (I was optimizing for weight), but I tried excluding that one and it still happens.  Also it's kind of curious that I can add some modules together and everything's fine, but then beyond a certain number (around 10-ish), it blows up.  The physicsless ratio should not significantly change in doing that.

(Side note:  do EAS-4 struts really exacerbate the problem the same as other physicsless parts?  That would run contrary to the doctrine of MOAR STRUTS…)

EDIT:  regarding your note about adding parts if my computer could handle it:  I have a pretty beefy machine, and currently the base-area physics bubble runs around 3-5 FPS.  That is not a typo, three to five frames per second.  Total part count of all vessels inside the bubble is 1452.

Edited March 9, 2017 by Atario

[cdm86]

I did some more testing.

It may not be part count after all. More like part count vs mass or something like that.

Observations:

1) Using a tank of fuel (or ore) to adjust the amount of mass of a craft can start and stop the shaking.

The shaky craft from my previous post stops shaking when all ore is removed from its tank.

It also stops shaking if another tank of fuel is added to it (a sufficiently large one).

2) Adjusting the fuel in the second tank to where the craft has just enough fuel to not shake and then burning of the fuel with an engine does NOT make the craft start shaking.

@Atario You said your bases exploded when you switched to them after having built them? It (or none of them) exploded while building them, only when reloading them after they were previously assembled?

[Atario]

@cdm86, they did explode while building and after switching to

[BaelRathLian]

What's with all the broken links?  EVERY ONE I clicked on gave an error of some type.

 

[Vanamonde]

15 hours ago, BaelRathLian said:

What's with all the broken links?  EVERY ONE I clicked on gave an error of some type.

 

Likely because most of the posts in this thread are several years old. 

[GrouchyDevotee]

Thank You!