Jetsparrow

There is no reason why the space program shouldn't be insanely profitable. The profit isn't the problem, the way we gain it is. The same generic material, using the same cheap tools, is made into either a coffee mug or a precision scientific instrument. Of course it can be balanced out to make the graviolis take a lot to make.. from the same box of scraps. Or it can take a lot of scrap to make the graviolis... but then where did all that material go, and why is it no longer usable for anything? You can make recovered parts that were made in space bring no profit, but that makes even less sense. With a second resource (rareEarths ore -> metals -> electronics? ) the problem can be addressed. First of all, it feels natural for gravioli detectors and steel beams to be made from different stuff. While still a simplification, it is naturally obvious that the gravioli detector is a lot of expensive parts in a thin metal shell, and the beam is just plain old metal. Acknowledging at least this feels good. Second, the insane profits from harvesting the second resource can be put behind a difficulty barrier. - Put the largest deposits away from the Kerbin system, perhaps on Tylo or Eeloo. - Make E-class asteroids most likely to contain rarer metals. - The equipment to produce resource number two can be made a lot larger and heavier so you can't just launch a factory into space on a whim. More expensive and further down the tech tree too. - It can also draw a lot more power, to the point where using solar panels and batteries for continuous operation is impractical even within Duna's orbit.

New resource, same as the old resource? Limiting it at the drill is a bit strange. Since we have a new intermediate resource for making parts, it can require a different ore (iron ore vs rare-earths?), less abundant and not as widely or uniformly spread. What is more important, it can require another converter, something much more bulky, fragile, expensive and further down the tech tree. It can require more power - and perhaps experienced kerbals to produce. There is no reason why an end-game space program can't reap extreme profits from producing the more valuable resource. It just has to require a larger investment.

What is the problem with calculating the necessary resources outright? It's two equations with two variables. Did I miss something?

Thanks for the quick fix! Though now that I actually can afford to play with the workshops, I have only more issues... You are probably already aware of them, but I'll list them just in case. 1. It seems that the cost in the part.cfg is the cost including the max amount of resources. This means that your containers now cost exactly zero funds, as their listed cost is less than the cost of materials, so only the materialkits cost is used. 2. The 3D Printing Lab includes facilities for two kerbals (half of a hitchhiker's 2,000 funds), 1,000 materialkits (1,000 funds) and 2,000 electric charge (1,760 funds in batteries at the same science level) - at a cost of 4,000 funds, you get an extra 760 funds value for the parts alone, and a recycler/workbench combo added on for free. I understand that modules will probably not be removed to keep backwards compatibility, but it really seems that the battery and the materialkits container are out of place on the printing lab itself. 3. A second resource is sorely needed to balance costs. Obviously, with only one resource you will always be either creating money or mass out of thin air on some conversions, something that probably needs to be avoided. As of now, a craft standing on the launchpad and making gravioli detectors converts 7 funds of materialkits into 8,800 funds of gravioli detectors basically for free. As you cannot provide custom recipes for every mod in advance, there will always be an equivalently broken item somewhere. Using two resources, cheap/massive and expensive/massless will allow recipes balanced in mass and money for every part.

I've just installed the mod from CKAN and had a heart attack when I saw the price for MaterialKits containers. https://github.com/obivandamme/Workshop/blob/master/GameData/Workshop/Parts/OSE_Containers/ose3000.cfg https://github.com/obivandamme/Workshop/blob/master/GameData/Workshop/Parts/OSE_Containers/ose6000.cfg Is this intended? It's literally cheaper to store MaterialKits in science labs than in the biggest container. Did I install a wrong version?