ibanix

Oh yeah, if you have him set to go tourist, that's true.

You can also just send up another craft with extra space and have Jeb EVA over. You lose the first vehicle, but you save Jeb.

It appears that when upgrading/downgrading Free Ice Cream, it counts as "deactivated", which causes a loss of reputation.

Just to show that using a Mk1 Lander can is possible, if not a great idea, I recorded myself returning from the Mun in a Mk1 Lander Can. Entry speed is 3150 km/s with an apoasis of 34km. Vessel lost non-critical parts due to heating, but survived and landed safely. Atmospheric entry starts around 2:40.

So we'll consider this the working space for the UKS/KBPS integration? eg. Pull requests to go to this github, and "official" releases of UKS-KBPS compatibility to be these patches?

Then you are a) coming in at too steep an angle; b) coming in at too shallow an angle; c) coming in too fast; d) not using enough heatshield abalator. Players here do re-entry from Mun or Minmus on a daily basis with a Mk1 Capsule, without issues. (Edit: or, e) your install is f-ed up, delete the entire directory and re-install from scratch).

@Nils277: I have submitted a pull request for the Life Support changes we've discussed so far. Since they'll be separate from the UKS integration, you can merge them in directly. Can I also ask you to remove this line from the original post of this thread? His patches were USI-LS (not UKS stuff we're talking about) and therefore will be redundant after the changes are merged into the main KPBS release.

I agree here, using UKS's synergy code seems like the best option.

I believe models for KSP are usually made with Blender.

How is the Process Coordinator module expected to work?

I just caught this comment. Mine/refine bases were not something I had thought of, and it's a good idea. Can I suggest that we have two different options? 1) Individual material fabrication modules, one each for Chemical. Polymers, Metals. Low-mass, high-efficiency. 2) Single fabrication module that does all three of the resources. High-mass, low-efficiency. This gives the option for refinery bases, but also for someone to run a single base without having to deal with installing three different fabrication modules.

I like all of this, except that I would suggest the Chemical Plant, Polymeizer and Smelter all be the same module, as in UKS (the Mk3 Fabrication Module). All three of the resources - Chemicals, Polymers and Metals - are required to produce Machinery and MaterialKits; having one or two of them is not useful, you need all three. I don't advocate for changing the requirement to use all three; we'd really be off on our own designs and away from @RoverDude's process chart.

That should be easy enough to do. I could do that in a MM patch quickly. We just need a model.... I could be wrong, but I thought @RoverDude had said Dirt was there to allow for lower-efficiency extraction of resources that you'd otherwise not be able to get; all the resources don't occur in the same place.

So you are happy with the current proposed numbers and so forth for USI-LS? https://github.com/ibanix/UKS-KPBS_Compatibility/wiki/USI-LS-Compatibility-(Proposed) Yeah, and will also need models/skins. @Nils277 has kindly offered to send me his model files and so forth. I'm not a modeler tho, so anyone with that skill would be super helpful here. @RoverDude has his parts in three categores: Mk2. Mk3, and MkV. I would like to suggest that we not attempt to directly replicate these groups, or even all individual parts, because KBPS and UKS are different beasts - different sizes, masses, form-factors, and so on. My preference would be to implement individual parts that fit into KBPS, and replicate the overall process and resource flow, like you can see in the graphic below. Is there any issue with this?

@Rafael acevedo: At 42 crew that's about 2 Kerbal-years of Hab. Seems reasonable for the size.

@DStaal, @tsaven: I'd like us to be able reach some sort of consensus on mechanics, which we give to @Nils277 as the recommendations for how to apply USI-LS (and later, MKS).

Thanks Rafel. However, it's hard to know much about it from balance without knowing a little more about the base. * What's the max Kerbal capacity? What's the hab time at max capacity? * What's the max amount of supplies the base can hold? How long do supplies last at max capacity (including recyclers, etc.)? Also, that looks like a pretty advanced base - it's got a LOT of modules...

That's an idea. I can't immediately think of a case where that would be an issue. It might be overpowered; there's a reason to have multiple drills to force users to have to plan.

Ok then, Mk1: 35% at 5 crew Mk2: 50% at 6 crew Anyone against this? Also, based on the other numbers, the crew effected for the recycler on the Central Hub increases from 8 to 10. I'd also like to increase the Greenhouse recycler to 35% for 8 crew. That would be less efficient than the guidlines (which would be 47)%, but the Greenhouse also has the converter. Revised proposed #s are here: https://github.com/ibanix/UKS-KPBS_Compatibility/wiki/USI-LS-Compatibility-(Proposed)

Ok, if you both think the recyclers are underpowered, what are the suggested values? Note, these are the values for the UKS modules: Module Recycle % Crew # Water? Tech Needed Science Lab (stock) 70% 5 MK-V Scout Module 25% 2 Short Term Hab MK-V Ag Module 25% 2 Short Term Hab MK-V Hab Module 25% 2 Short Term Hab OKS Hab Ring 25% 5 Long Term Hab OKS Ag Module 25% 5 Long Term Hab MKS/OKS Aeroponics 50% 5 Long Term Hab MKS Pioneer Module 75% 5 Long Term Hab Kerbitat Module 90% 5 yes Long Term Hab KPBS Mk1 Hab (Proposed) 30% 3 Short Term Hab KPBS Mk2 Hab (Proposed) 50% 4 Long Term Hab On a strict numbers basis, the proposed Mk1 is slightly better than any of the MK-V modules, at the same tech level. The Mk2 is equal to the MKS/OKS Aeroponics module with support for one less Kerbal. It's better than the OKS Hab or the OKS Ag module. So I still don't understand the "under-powered" comments.

I see it as for balance reasons. Remember that KBPS parts are not UKS parts, and that there needs to be clear distinctions between the KBPS modules. The more advanced modules are heavier, take more science to unlock, and have larger bonuses. Moving the recycler bonuses up on the Habitats makes me go "why do I need these other parts?". A Mk1 or Mk2 Habitat by itself shouldn't get very good recycling - you're running a base without a greenhouse, without a science lab, and without a water purifier. The Mk1/Mk2 are mainly living spaces. In early bases, before the greenhouse is unlocked, you're going to have to ship in lots of Supplies to keep things going. I was pretty sure this was in-line with RoverDude's vision.

Greenhouse: I would prefer to drop the Hab bonus. The greenhouse is a life-supporting module, in my mind; the Hab bonus is redundant. I know other people think of it as a "ooh, green stuff = happy people". In defense of the Greenhouse, the proposed Recycler is low-grade (35%) and the Hab bonus is intermediate (1.5). The Greenhouse is meant to greatly extend how long you can keep a base going. If it gets nerfed, we can reduce the recycler bonus and the hab bonuses. Does a recycler bonus of 30% and a hab bonus of 1.3 seem more reasonable? I also don't think the Hab bonus makes any sense on the Command Hub: It already has the single largest amount of Kerbal-Months in parts. Hab bonuses are for modules that make life better for all the Kerbals on a base. Those would be the Cupola (shiny windows!), the Greenhouse (Kerbals love green things!), and the Science Lab (we can do science! and look at things through the telescope!).

To be honest, I'm clueless on wear, and will happily defer to you on that area. Part of the reason I'm not so worried about the Greenhouse is the recycler is fairly low grade (35% is my suggestion). Isn't workspace and livingspace mainly used by UKS? Can we ignore that for USI-LS only installs? (Or set sane and simple defaults). -

Yeah, I've had this problem as well. Slot Machine can turn existing contracts from useful to useless depending on how much the change actually turns out to be.

Where are you seeing that? Do you mean the Algae Farm? The idea there is to have a fertilizer-production mechanic based on ore+mulch. I believe this is currently included as default in the official KBPS release. The only way to run out of supplies accidentally here would be if you ran both the Algae Farm and another Converter, and your output of Mulch was not enough to feed both at once. On the other hand, you could just as easily "accidentally" run out of fertilizer and then later out of supplies. Both are cases of users not paying attention. The option should stay. In which way did you see the Greenhouse as overpowered?