Rafael acevedo

Concur, no successful landing since 1.3.1

I haven't tried it on MAC OS yet, need to do a 1.3.1 install there

i i have notr had any issues with it and i am running over 35 mods. can you please provide log, maybe i can help a little

I have run the last ver for 1.3 and it works well with 1.3.1 you will still get the message mod is incompatible with verson of ksp at the start of the game, but it works. It just needs to be recompiled and versioning number fixed

thx

No Problem Nils

Hi Proceeded to do a mod by mod install on ksp 1.3.1 game crashes upon installation of kerbnet modlet, i do have error and output log let me know if you need them

Nils Check the versioning number on FUR its not showing on CKAN, before I go and put a report on CKAN Forum rafael

Try kerbal planetary base system, here are some Picts of what I have done https://imgur.com/TaOtfdA or better yet look at the kpbs forum thread

It might be enough to get away from the exploding kraken

I just executed my first hoverfan orbital recovery. (used the kpbs base hub and 4 lift fans) Unfold at about 5000 agl and start decelerating, great for pinpoint landings on atmosphere worlds. As a side note the lift fans were not recognized by mechjeb as engines, so landing guidance does not work, it is totally manual landing.

Another piece that would work, if not proccedural is the kk inline conformal control module ( the skinny one that I sometimes confuse with the docking port ) if you take the SaS out and just make it a passable part.

I have been able to land this on the mun and minmus with meerkat engines, see additional fuel were the lights are. With parachutes I have landed this in duna

Thanks for update

And it is a gorgeous greenhouse isn't it , except I think if Jeb is to occupy it, noms production will go daown as he always forget to water the plants

Schrottbot and merkov. It was offered as a suggestion, just from my perspective. I do use recyclers as my base keeps growing to keep up with the Increasing size of the crew. and I do love the look oh kpbs, specially the Iva. You all make very good points. I also understand that it is not about making kpbs better than usi, that is not my intent. It was all from my perspective of a mission planner. The farther away your base is the more self sufficient your initial footprint must be. In resource constrained environment, the cost of incremental building might exceed the cost a 1 time shot with small rotation and ressuply missions. as I mentioned, I like Nils idea but if we do the math supporting 4 kerbals the module would need to produce 7.2 noms per hour (1.8*4) in reality if we are concern on volume- mass issue, we should have 0 production with 0 kerbals, 2.5 kerbal support with 1 kerbal and 5 with 2 kerbals, we can then justify the extra production by the removal of the equipment and conveyors and everything else required for automation, and using this space increase the growing area. ( i actually did some research on the differences between automated, non automated greenhouses). However, in the end, the issue is to eliminate the crew penalty and Nils option does just that. So as long as we do this, any solution is fine. OBtw thanks for looking at the issue and for caring enough to value my opinion.

Nils I agree with you in principle, the only issue I have is with the last point in reality it should be enough for 5 kerbals and it is from the mission planner standpoint. Lets say you are planning a mission where you need a pilot, two scientist for the lab. You ask yourself what is the better solution that matches your mission parameters and mass criteria Choice 1 nomomatic 25000I and one of the smaller nomomatics 5000 plus the lab, hab and command pod with a crew of 3 which does have a direct impact in consumables and hab requirements, and everything operating and 100% Choice 2 (using the 4 Kerbal) KPBS greenhouse, I need 1 greenhouse, 1 lab, hab and command pod with a crew of 3 operating at 50% efficiency or i can go with 4 kerbals and operate only the greenhouse at 100% but increased 1 crew with direct impact into hab requirements, however if i want to operate the lab at 100% I need to add two greenhouses and a crew of 4 which impacts throw weight, engine size etc. Choice 3 (using the 5 Kerbal) kbps greenhouse, I need 1 lab, 1 hab and command post with 5 kerbals) everything operates at 100% efficiency and it becomes more attractive than Choice 1 in reality you are already doing this since the greenhouse supports 2.5 kerbals when operating at 100% so does the nomomatic so using your example for simplicity 0 kerbals- operates at 33% it produces 3.135 Noms/hr enough for 1.74 Kerbals (mission planner and senior KSP engineer gene and wherner State 'if we add a recycling module, we can fly a scientist for the lab) 1 Kerbal- operates at 66% it produces 6.67 Noms/hr enough for 3.48 Kerbals (mission planner and senior KSP engineer gene and wherner salivate at the prospect of having a fully functioning lab however they say " we still need a place for the pilot and to do so we need a recycler but we are getting closer") 2 kerbals- operates at 100% efficiency, it produces 9.5noms and hour enough for 5.27 kerbals (mission planner and senior KSP engineer gene and wherner state "Eureka we achieved self sufficiency without needing a recycler this is the way to go" Jebediah heard the comment and stated yes but if you add the recycler then we can be a crew of 6 and i can tell bill to conduct science experiments from the rover at the face of Duna , while i try to figure out how to jump over it" )

Guys, I really tracked you guys when you were doing the rebalancing for KPBS on the forum (in part because, Iwanted to learn), I honestly tell you you guys did a fantastic job,(so Dstaal no reason to apologize), the solutions i offered were intended to maintain the balance you guys achieved regarding size while trying to keep the solution simple (what I though), however you guys are the masters and i am sure you will be able to find an elegant solution to this issue

Dstaal what I understand you are saying is, that if I have a KPBS greenhouse and I have no kerbals in it it should still produce 4.75 noms and hour, and wether I have 1 or 2 kerbals in the greenhouse it should still produce 4.75 noms per hour (if this is so then the 50 efficiency and the 100% efficiency listings on the KPBS greenhouse are superfluous and just cosmetic). however when I run it the KPBS greenhouse produces 0 noms with no kerbals, with 1 Kerbal it produces around 2.8 noms (my Kerbal consumed 1.8 in one hour and my base storage when up by 1 nom at the same time) this means that the greenhouse is only producing about half of the 4.75 noms it should produce in an hour or operating at 50% efficiency (exactly what the module description says). It for sure is not producing the 4.5 noms an hour with one Kerbal.

Dstaal I only have usi-ls and kpbs installed. I don't use MKS so as far as I know I don't have the kpbs to mks pack, unless it is installed by default by the aforementioned mods I have in use. I know that I have run the sim with the parameter indicated and in order to have a self sustaining base ie where your supplies are either increasing or replaced at the same rate of consumption you need to match the number of greenhouses or niomomatics indicated. I am not a coder so i don't know what the impact would be. What I wanted to do was to offer an elegant solution to what is really an unbalance in the greenhouse without really affecting what I thought was a magnificent effort by you guys. The only other way to minimize the penalty (without affecting the 50% production rate with one Kerbal and 100% with 2) and justify flying the extra crew would be to have the greenhouse yield increase two fold to 9.5 noms per hour (which them destroy the size /weight/ resource balance that you worked so hard to achieve) or have the greenhouse be fully automatic which will the take away from the beauty of kpbs. Thinking about it, it might possible to also have it act as a recycler with 57% efficiency affecting a crew of 6 this will allow the greenhouse to support to produce enough noms to support 6.13 kerbals ( i know it have effects on mulch produced, but it is cheaper to resupply noms that to send 5 kerbals and one two greenhouses every time I want to increase the crew by one) so with one kerbonaut then the greenhouse will produce enough noms to support 3.06 kerbals thus nullyfiying the penalty. So if we used the example i used previously to support a 2 man lab you will need 2 modules a nomomatic and a lab (crew of two) or a greenhouse operating at 50% and a lab (crew of 3) and the hab modifier already included in the greenhouse helps offset hab penalty for extra crew member. Your thoughts

Nils i remember when you, dstaal, and other forum members where trying to balance kpbs parts with usi- ls and in my humble opinion you guys did a great job. However, I think we missed the boat with the green house. the usi- ls nom-o-magit 25000-I and the Kpbs green house both produce 4.75 noms per hour, the issue is that the nom o magic requires no crew to do so and kpbs requires two crew members. Why is this important, let's say you want to set up a base on a planet with a lab to conduct science manned by to kerbals. Using usi-ls this requires two modules ( not counting storage and consumables) A nom o magic 25000-I and a lab module (and only a two kerbal crew) to accomplish the same task using kpbs modules it would require 4 greenhouses and the lab module ( and crew of 10 with corresponding impact to storage hab ,etc). Let's do the math 1 kerbal consumes 1.8 noms and hour The aforementioned green house produce 4.75 noms and hour or enough to feed slightly more than 2 and a half kerbal the nomomatic requires no crew so you need 1 nomomatic to support the two kerbal scientists. The kpbs green house requires a crew of two to feed 2.5 kerbals, so in order to have two scientist working, you need 4 greenhouses (2.5x 4=10) operating at 100% efficiency. That gives you 8 farming kerbals and two scientist I know part of the charm of your mod is to have the kerbals using the parts, so if you allow me to make a suggestion, that will restore the balance, we can do this: a deployed greenhouse can produce 4.75 noms an hour when empty, just like the nom o matic, but if occupied by 1 kerbal it produces 25% more noms and by 2 50% more. Or 5.875 noms and 7.125. Or you can do 12 and 25% or 10 and 20%. No need to modify anything else, and it can be explained by farmers ensuring enough light hit the plants using mirrors to reflect minimize showdow, etc all those things that a non ai computer would think to do. Your thoughts?

Here is my first take at it in Spanish, I would also let @fitiales take a look for those items that I have not translated //---Fission Reactor--- #LOC_KPBS.reactor.title = K&K Reactor Nuclear #LOC_KPBS.reactor.description = Un pequeño reactor de fision nuclear para tu base. Eficiente pero bien caro. Uno de los cientificos insiste que se escribe 'nucular', aun asi el reactor se considera muy seguro. #LOC_KPBS.reactor.tags = planetary base ec reactor nuclear nucular uran generate //TODO #LOC_KPBS.reactor.converter.name = Reactor Nuclear #LOC_KPBS.reactor.converter.start = Activar el reactor #LOC_KPBS.reactor.converter.stop = Apagar el reactor #LOC_KPBS.reactor.converter.toggle = Cambiar reactor //---Nuclear Fuel Storage--- #LOC_KPBS.nuclearfuel.title = K&K Tanque de Combustible Nuclear. #LOC_KPBS.nuclearfuel.description = Tanque para almacenar Combustible nuclear antes y luego de usarlo. Con niveles radioactivos seguros (cuando estos son medidos a 1km de distancia) #LOC_KPBS.nuclearfuel.tags = reactor nuclear fuel storage planetary base uran //TODO //---Centrifuge--- #LOC_KPBS.centrifuge.title = K&K Centrifuga #LOC_KPBS.centrifuge.description = La centrifuga puede reprocesar el uranio usado y enriquecerlo para volverse a usar, tambien puede extraerlo del mineral. Produce xenon como un resultado del proceso. Necesita mucha energia para funcionar. #LOC_KPBS.centrifuge.tags = conver isru mine )mining (ore process resource uranium refine reprocess nuclear nuke nearfuture planetary base //TODO #LOC_KPBS.centrifuge.reprocessor.name = Reenriquecidor de Uranio #LOC_KPBS.centrifuge.reprocessor.start = Comenzar a reenriquecer #LOC_KPBS.centrifuge.reprocessor.stop = Parar el reenriquecimiento #LOC_KPBS.centrifuge.reprocessor.toggle = Cambiar Reenriquecimiento #LOC_KPBS.centrifuge.xenonextractor.name = Extractor de Xenon #LOC_KPBS.centrifuge.xenonextractor.start = Activar el extractor de Xenon #LOC_KPBS.centrifuge.xenonextractor.stop = Apagar el extractor de Xenon #LOC_KPBS.centrifuge.xenonextractor.toggle = cambiar el extractor de Xenon #LOC_KPBS.centrifuge.uraniumextractor.name = Extractor de Uranio //TODO #LOC_KPBS.centrifuge.uraniumextractor.start = Activar el Extractor de Uranio #LOC_KPBS.centrifuge.uraniumextractor.stop = Apagar el Extractor de Uranium Extractor #LOC_KPBS.centrifuge.uraniumextractor.toggle = Cambiar el Extractor de Uranio //---Flatbed--- #LOC_KPBS.flatbed.title = K&K Flatbed //TODO #LOC_KPBS.flatbed.description = A flatbed to (poner muchas cosas utiles para usarse en la base) place multiple usable things on the bases //TODO #LOC_KPBS.flatbed.tags = planetary base store cargo flat //TODO

I,ll take a look at it today

Works perfectly for me.

For alien attackers you need, the UFO interceptor or better yet mike trims original UFO interceptor ( google it more realistic, i also made a nice lego version of it )