tsaven

I'd agree with this. Having to manage multiple ISRU-sized components makes sense if the plan is to go with the Process Coordinator design.

The term "Scope Growth" comes to mind... That being said, I still am excited about the direction this is going. If we have to pick between the two options, I would say focus efforts on the individual parts if our goal is to augment UKS rather than do 1:1 replacement parts. If people do want a single big heavy module that can do everything, well they've already got that in UKS. I'm not sure having it in a different form factor matters too terribly much to players. On the subject of modeling. I've never done any kind of 3D graphics before but I am quite adept at AutoCAD and I'm reasonably handy with photoshop, it stands to reason there's enough tutorials floating around the internet that with enough time I could sort it out. I'd be interested in at least taking a crack at making models for these individual pieces, you're never too old to learn new things after all. What does Nils use for his model making, what format are his existing files in?

I really, REALLY like dStaal's concept of separate modules for each resource. I think it's an good way to balance out the ease of making a base with smaller more modular parts, but mostly I think it's just more fun! I feel that one of the big appeals for me of KPBS is that it gives more complexity and finesse over RD's default implementation, and requiring not only a Process Coordinator but then separate parts for each resource is awesome, makes a ton of sense and I'm really excited about it. In my mind, each of these parts should be about the size and mass of the KPBS form factor ISRU (Maybe a little shorter). I would LOVE it if each of them would have their own additional requirements, like that the Smelter would generate a lot of heat. I think a single fabrication module that does all three would only make sense if it were in the Garage form factor. Which I would support, but I'm WAY more enthusastic about requiring multiple ISRU-sized parts that have to work together.

You know, I think the biggest part of this theory of design that bothers me is the lack of a dedicated Recycler part. If there was a dedicated 70-75% recycler part that didn't need water (But needed a lot of EC, or Machinery or something else to balance out it's capabilities), I'd agree with your thoughts on it the whole system. (RD handled this in the default USI-LS by giving 70% Recycling capability to the MPL, which I still think is kind of weird and suspect is a stand-in for a more dedicated part that he intends to release later?). And there are other parts in MKS which have similar capabilities, the Pioneer module for instance is a 75% recycler for 5 Kerbals and doesn't have many drawbacks. Don't get me wrong, if it's implemented as ibanix describes I'll still use both mods and keep playing them in my career. It's just different than what makes sense in my head, given how I think about USI-LS and what I imagine the intent of KPBS design to be.

I'm curious as to what your rational is for wanting to restrict the recycler percentage and increase the crew capacity. To me this doesn't make much sense, as it seems like each of the habs are built and designed explicitly to serve that number of Kerbals of their crew capacity. Maybe I'm sounding like a broken record by now, but I'm solidly of the idea that the Mk1 should have 50% for 3, and the MK2 65% or 70% for 4. This seems to make the most sense for balance, as well as what the part's intended functions seem to be. *Edit* Nevermind, looks like I missed a post from ibanix about this. I still have my own opinions on the balance of it, but it seems I'm in the minority here and lets be honest, probably the least technically invested. I'll defer to Nils's best judgement, as it is his mod after all. I'd be curious to for RD to weigh, as he mentioned in the UKS thread that he's doing a major re-balance pass of many of his modules with regards to USI-LS.

I mentioned it before, but I agree that with all three functions the Greenhouse is over powered. I feel it would make the most sense to remove the Recycler completely, leaving just the Supply Converter and Hab Bonus. I don't think a Hab Multiplier makes sense for the Command Hub. If you check out the IVAs, there's a small lounge upstairs with a TV and some couches, but most of the area inside is taken up with bunks on the second floor and offices/science lab/command console on the first floor. I don't see any more recreational space in there than I do for the Mk1 & 2 habitats, sticking with RD's guidelines seems to make the most sense. Now I'll be the first to admit that I don't have as clear of an understanding of the nuts and bolts of this mod as you guys do, but I really think you're nerfing the Habitats unnecessarily. I saw that while the Recyclers for them are now limited to the number of crew they service (Which makes sense), the Recycler percentages are far below what RD's guidance would suggest and to be honest, below what I feel makes sense. Is there a reason for this? With regards to Wear and Tear, I think there's a difference between which parts consume MaterialKits and which consume Machinery. I think any of the Converter modules consume Machinery, while all Habitation modules consume MaterialKits.

An unmodded install does work, and I don't doubt that it could be a mod that's causing this. I'm hoping someone can help me pin down exactly which one; I've tried looking at the log files and it's all gibberish to me.

I'm running KSP_x64 It's Win7, 64-bit. i5-4590, 16gb RAM, 960 GTX.

I've got KSP 64-bit 1.1.2 on Win7 x64, and the following mod list: http://imgur.com/0y9x8xp When I try to run the game, the KSP window appears on the taskbar for a moment, but then disappears and nothing else happens. I don't even get the Squad loading screen. My log file is here, can anyone point me as to what's causing this? Log File:https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bx7P5dhGg6O4VXJhbnRjQm1SVGM/view?usp=sharing Output Log: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0Bx7P5dhGg6O4U1ZLUmhidjhGV3M

Sweet, looking at it now. Doesn't seem to be a way for me to comment on it without changing things, but most of my thoughts are in line with my giant wall-o-text post above.

I agree with most of this. What are your guesses on low/med/high efficiency recyclers? I would expect that Low would be 25-50%, Medium would be 60-70%, and High in the 90% range but requires Water. My thoughts: MK1 Habitat 9 Months hab time, no bonus 50% recycler for 3 Kerbals Going off RD's guidelines suggest 62%, I support nerfing it a bit for balance MK2 Habitat 18 Months Hab time, no bonus According to RD's guidelines, it would be 14 months. I feel an additional month per crew capacity is justified due to the reasons I've mentioned earlier, and I'd also support increasing the weight of the module a bit to justify this extra time and the recycler 70% Recycler for 4 Kerbals Greenhouse (Large) Mulch+Fertilizer = Supplies converter, speed and ratio to match the Nom-O-Matic 25000 (Or a bit slower, as I find the stock N.O.M.s pretty OP) 25% recycler for 5 crew If I were king of the world I'd remove this completely, as I think having all three of these features in one part is still OP and recycling is more of a job for the Habitats Hab Bonus of 1.5 Greenhouse (Small) Agree with you totally here. Make it match the N.O.M. 5000, or even a little slower/less efficient Science Lab I've never been a fan of using a science lab as a recycler from a gameplay standpoint, but I understand why RD implemented it to give a dedicated Recycler that didn't require additional parts. I think your idea of balancing it by requiring a LOT of water is a good move. Central Hub 37.5 Months Hab time, no bonus 90%+ Recycler requiring 18 water/hr Algae Farm Not sure this belongs in the mod for just USI-LS, due to reasons mentioned in my prior post. Being able to do a closed loop with such a small and light part strikes me as quite OP. Especially if it can do both Hydrates > Water and Gypsum > Fertilizer. I concede the point that giving the large Greenhouse that much of a Hab multiplier would be quite OP. And this is a really interesting idea as a way to handle Industrial production, as an idea I like it. But it sounds like it would require significant code changes, in addition to modeling. I'm not a developer but I can imagine getting a production system like that to integrate well with UKS would get messy very quickly.

Holy smokes there's a lot going on in this thread. My $0.02 on this issue is that Minerals wouldn't be a bad idea; it fits in with the real-world in that most fertilizers are primarily composed of either Nitrogen, Phosphorus or Potassium, and secondarily have Calcium, Magnesium or Sulpher. Of course, that's not speaking to the balance of the mod or resource distribution, but it's fun to think about I would support keeping the part and mechanics as simple or close to USI-LS as possible. And given that the mod doesn't by default include a way to make fertilizer, perhaps it's best to leave it out unless someone is also using UKS. My understanding of RD's intent and how the mod works is that while fully self-sufficient Kolonies are possible, they should be extremely difficult and expensive to set up and likely require multiple sites spread over a planet/moon in order to generate all the resources needed. Hence the Planetary Logistics, due to the rarity of finding Water, and Gypsum, and Ore and Minerals all at the same place. Another option: is it possible to have an OR command when configurations are loaded? For example, if only USI-LS is installed, then the Algae farm would use Ore, but if UKS + USI-LS is installed, it could require Gypsum (or Minerals, or something else, and maybe water as well).

I agree, that sounds like a great idea for sometime in the far future. (When no one has day jobs and can just play with Maya all day. )

Understood. I guess I was seeing it like the UKS Kerbitats, which are similar weight and crew capacity (3 tons, 2 crew) and have a Hab Multiplier of 3. Maybe I'm getting ahead of the game, but what are thoughts on the Greenhouse having both a Converter (Mulch + Fertilizer = Supplies) as well as a Cultivator (Substrate + Water + Fertilizer = Supplies)? To me, that seems quite OP. I'm not sure how or if support for that belongs in this mod without some additional parts. Looking at RD's parts, I don't see any that can do both (It's either one or the other)

I'm not sure having a Water Purifier LS Recycler for the MK2 Habitat makes sense, I feel like that should be a benefit to only the central Hub. Doesn't the Command Module have a Crew Capacity of 2? I would be in favor of having the recyclers for both the MK1 and MK2 habitats be more powerful, at the expense of less crew capacity. For example: 50% for the MK1 but only affects 3 crew, and 70% for the MK2 but only affects 4 crew. In my mind this makes sense given that their intention seems to be to provide the living space for that many crew. Buff the MK2's Kerbal-Months slightly. This is going to sound silly, but I've lived in places with similar bunk arrangements to both the MK1 and MK2 (I work on scientific research ships and stations in Antarctica. Here's a video I shot, you can get an idea of the living quarters which are similar to the MK1 at the very beginning: https://youtu.be/_EfWSX6OpKE). And having your own dedicated room like on the MK2, even if it's tiny, really makes a WORLD of difference to your long-term sanity Also on that note, I think the Large Greenhouse's Hab Multiplier could be higher, 3 would make sense to me. Again, having spent a lot of time in remote, desolate and barren environments, having a space that smells like life and green things is an amazing psychological benefit. So much so that we built a greenhouse into the new South Pole Station: http://antarcticsun.usap.gov/features/contenthandler.cfm?id=2375 I think the Cultivator functions of both greenhouses are more powerful that I'd expect, but I also feel this way about the stock Nom-O-Matics so I don't think it makes sense to nerf the KPBS parts. Keeping them in line with the N.O.M devices probably makes the most sense for balance with the rest of the mods.

Moved to KPBS thread

If I could timidly make a couple of tiny suggestions for USI-LS support balancing: Remove the 75% Recycler from the large Greenhouse, or at least nerf it down to 25%. As it stands, Combining a high-efficiency recycler and a high throughput Cultivator with a Hab Multiplier of 3 seems overpowered, even given how large and heavy it is compared to USI's offerings. I think it makes more sense as just a Cultivator, and I totally agree with it having the Hab Multiplier. Both the Mk1 and MK2 habitat's Recyclers are slightly weak when compared to the mod's recommendations (MK1 should be .62, MK2 should be .7 according to their mass and Kerbals supported)

Yeah that was my question, if conditional processors were possible. So that while a part could do multiple things, it could only do one of them at a time. Sounds like it's not easily a thing though. Thanks!

It's 4.3 tons I think, but I'm also using some additional configs for UKS/KPBS compatibility written up by @PocketBrotector. I'll have to look at them more in detail when I get home in a couple days and compare them to the stock KPBS configs. I know @Nils277 is working on an update for full UKS compatibility, maybe some balance changes should be made. I wonder if there's a way to have the Greenhouse (or any other part) function as a Recycler OR an Agroponics grower OR a Cultivator, but only one of those at a time.

It's taken USI-LS a bit to win me over, but I agree with @autumnalequinox and @cantab. I started using TAC-LS because I prefer the added complexity of having to manage multiple resources, but after a few long missions with it I agree that it's got a lot of problems. Aside from the parts being in dire need of a model update and spec balancing (WAY too heavy), the resource consumption rates were far too low for my tastes; I doubled them manually and that still didn't quite feel like enough. That also threw a lot of the converters and scrubbers out of wack, and with a chronic lack of documentation it was hard to accurately plan requirements for a mission. With USI-LS's additional mechanics to plan around, and now thanks to @sirreality we actually have good and clear documentation, USI-LS really does seem to be the best option. And due to @RoverDudes seemingly never-ending plans for expansions and enhancements, I have no worries that it'll be supported for the foreseeable future. I don't think USI-LS is perfect, and if I were king of the USI-niverse I would change a few structural things and do some re-balancing (Higher costs associated with planetary logistics, Akadamy should take 1 month per star increase rather than being an instant boost, nerf the Nom-O-Matics a bit because as it stands they're way over-powered, Urinite to EnrichedUranium should be closer to 1000:1 not 1:1). I would also really love more IVAs, because I'm kind of an RPGer and they're important to me. But it's always been clear that they're super low priority and unless I'm willing to learn 3D modeling and put in the time to make them and push them to Roverdude, I don't think I've got room to complain. And KPBS fills a lot of that desire of mine for pretty greenhouses and living areas.

I'd had EVE installed for a while just so I could get some basic clouds, but just used the stock configs and never did anything much with it. But last night I installed SVE + Scatterer for the first time and I literally said "Holy crap!" out loud when I loaded up KSC for the first time!!! It's BREATHTAKING, I can't believe the insane difference from stock! Thank you so much for all your hard work guys, it totally transforms the game!

Thanks for the info on vessel efficiency. Didn't really know what it applied to. The Greenhouse has a lot of other benefits besides the Agroponics. It's a 75% recycler, but also gives a 3.5 Hab bonus and gives extra 2 Workspaces. And let's not forget the most important part that they just look so cool! And have great IVAs, something which I know is ultra low priority for Roverdude but is pretty important to me.

Question. If we're using your configs, do they automatically overwrite/take precedence over the defaults or do we need to edit/remove the configs that already come with KPBS?

Oh, I see. You're right, there are two recycler options there. Although to be honest, now that I've realized I don't need that many greenhouses (And consequently the Kerbals to staff them) I think I can do this mission with just 8 crew. Eliminating an entire habitat is good, I just need to understand better if the modules need to be staffed with scientists or engineers for best efficiency.

Yeah, for interplanetary vessels it seems you're right. Using the water recyclers doesn't make sense. But now that I've remembered I have these KPBS/UKS compatibility patches installed it seems I was basing my calculations off the wrong files. So let me take another crack at this, and correct me if I'm wrong: 12 Kerbins * 16.2 Supplies per day per kerbal = 192.4 supplies consumed per day. Using the KPRB Greenhouse recycler at 75% reduces total vessel consumption to 48.1 Supplies per day. On the other hand, that converter only applies to 5 kerbals. The UKI Wiki says that " efficiency bonuses govern total throughput, but not conversion ratios." So with bonuses, I can increase the number of Kerbals that the recycler affects, correct? Let's hope so. 5 years * 426 days = 4260 days * 48.1 supplies per day = 204,906 supplies needed for a 10 year mission. For using a single KPBS Planetary Greenhouse, the updated .cfg files for KPBS greenhouses say they consume .0045 Mulch and .0006 Fertilizer, and produce .0051 Supplies. Or 97.2 Mulch, 12.96 Fertilizer, and produce 110.16 Supplies per day. So the greenhouse now seems slightly more efficient, using 7.5 Mulch + 1 Fertilizer = 8.5 Supplies. So for a 10 year mission I will need: A small baseline of Supplies, and 24,106 Fertilizer. How's that check out?