[1.0.5] Kerbal Planetary Base Systems v1.0.2 Released!

[sharpspoonful]

@Dakota2063, I'll second the KAS containers. Maybe something inline with the current ones.

With that being said, here's a test run of most of the current base modules on the Korea-looking island west of the launch pad. All the modules were flown over utilizing Nerta's newly released Mk. IV airplane parts. Other mods include Nerta's Stock-a-like Station parts, IR Robotic's Reworked, AIES, RemoteTech, KIS/KAS, MechJeb (That flight took 40 minutes in one direction. Yeah, Jeb used the Auto-pilot and took a nap), and Various USI parts. Sorry for the night shots in a few screens.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Edited July 27, 2015 by sharpspoonful

[tater]

I threw some wheels on them, making them rovers, moved them to a good spot near the landing site, docked them together, then with KIS/KAS Took the wheels off and stuffed them in a container (resulted in 4 fewer parts per structure, and they looked like bases instead of rovers).

An observation on the new version:

The landing gear parts don't want to easily snap to the nodes on the Meerkat or planetary adaptor. You have to rotate them, and I never manage to remember which way, so it's trial and error.

Edited July 27, 2015 by tater

[Starwaster]

The problem is that the game will happily create rescue missions using any pod with a crew capacity, apparently.

I solve the "roof" problem (not really much of a problem, where you enter seems arbitrary, and if you nitpick the roof, then what about an airlock where none is visible in the IVA?) by sticking a gangway airlock as an entrance for the base, then I transfer the guy where I need him. Any substantial base will have either a cupola, a planetary command module, or a dedicated airlock, anyway, I think.

It's not fair to accuse people of 'nitpicking' when they speak out on the roof hatch issue.

It's legitimate feedback. The current location of the hatch is unfavorable compared to its previous location and it's ok to say that.

[tater]

It's not fair to accuse people of 'nitpicking' when they speak out on the roof hatch issue.

It's legitimate feedback. The current location of the hatch is unfavorable compared to its previous location and it's ok to say that.

Fair enough, it's a small issue, though, IMO.

IMO, the unfavorable location is not really different than a hatch that is substantially too small for a kerbal to enter though.

Also, What about the rescue issue? Is there a way to force the game to not use a specific "capsule" for any rescue missions? Because it seems to borrow any that have crew. I was more concerned with a frustrating gameplay issue than aesthetics. Though the roof certainly is also an aesthetic problem, I agree.

Perhaps a redesigned hatch? A hatch could be added to the lateral part of the deployed hab/greenhouse/lab, but the IVA would likely have to reflect an airlock...

OK, here is the current situation on all the deployable units, the hatch before was a even smaller as it fit in the space the kerbal is facing, slightly above the side red band on the helmet I think, maybe halfway between that red, and the top stripe:

Here is the only alternative for a hatch that almost fits our kerbals:

You'd have a not terribly secure hatch (it has an angle, and is large), and even with the area inside the orange as the hatch, the kerbal would have to be assumed to duck as he enters, then sit, close the hatch, and remove the suit.

The hab could assume that one of the staterooms has a bunk bed to buy the space, else it's the public space. The greenhouse would need to lose one window, not a real problem, and the lab has plenty of room.

I've always been surprised that Squad did;t just make the kerbals ever so slightly smaller, this is an issue with most all the hatches.

Edited July 27, 2015 by tater

[Zypheril]

Looks promising!

Definitely trying it out.

[Nils277]

So, i had a long look at the KIS issue and think i have found a solution.

As said i set the default capacity for the deployable parts to the deployed capacity, which solved the KIS issue.

The last issues for the Parts without IVA will be solved once they are done

To address the fact, that Kerbals can be placed in the part in the VAB now is also solved. When started, the Module detects that and deploys (this also makes a nice firework if the part is in a Cargo-Bay ). This also solves the problem with rescue missions, because the part should be deployed when you reach it.

When (for whatever reason) there are more Kerbals inside of a part than could fit in deployed, they are kindly encouraged to go on eva.

Also this would allow the doors to be moved down again. Judging from the posts the current positions is also all but optimal.

You can try this out right now in this new update:

From KerbalStuff

From CurseForge

And to celebrate the solved issue, i also added a KIS-Container for the modular storage as well as two new IVA's and a smaller variant of the Storage-Module.

Changelog:

v0.1.5

New Parts:

• 
  [*=1]Added a smaller variant for the modular storage
  [*=1]Added a KIS Container for the storage.
  

New Interiors:

• 
  [*=1]Added interior for the Habitat MK1
  [*=1]Added interior for the Gangway-Airlock
  

Bug fixes:

• 
  [*=1]The deployable parts now also support storage of the KIS inventory
  [*=1]The Landing Control "MAL" Part is not attached upside down any more
  [*=1]The Cupola is now set as passable for CLS
  

To use the KIS Container, simply unpack the .zip in the "Gamedata/PlanetaryBaseInc/MOD_SUPPORT" into the .Gamedata/PlanetaryBaseInc/MOD_SUPPORT/KIS folder in your KSP installation.

...

1. About lighthouse... Maybe you could keep windows transparent but light up the interior instead? At least that how it happens IRL.

2. Would benefit greatly from RPM support. I guess all the props from cupola dashboard can be removed with RPM and replaced with one screen and a few indicators. Some props can also be added to each other IVA, just for informational purpose. Look at how it is done in NearFuture habitats.

...

RPM is definitely planned, the IVA for the upcoming Control-Center will benefit from it . I really have the fear that it might seem a little empty without RPM.

I'll consider the other suggestions later.

I threw some wheels on them, making them rovers, moved them to a good spot near the landing site, docked them together, then with KIS/KAS Took the wheels off and stuffed them in a container (resulted in 4 fewer parts per structure, and they looked like bases instead of rovers).

An observation on the new version:

The landing gear parts don't want to easily snap to the nodes on the Meerkat or planetary adaptor. You have to rotate them, and I never manage to remember which way, so it's trial and error.

Just press ALT when applying them. This disables the surface attach and makes it a lot easier . Still i also always have issues rotating the parts right (all the parts )

It's not fair to accuse people of 'nitpicking' when they speak out on the roof hatch issue.

It's legitimate feedback. The current location of the hatch is unfavorable compared to its previous location and it's ok to say that.

Judging from the last posts the current position of the Hatches is anything but optimal. I will reposition them.

Soooo the next release will finally take care of the Life-Support Mods. This may take a little longer, i am on a festival until Sunday and there are a lot of parts to create, especially for TAC...

I can provide configs for Ioncross

Thanks, i come back to it when i take care of Ioncross

Edited July 27, 2015 by Nils277

[Reiver]

Aw, you're moving the hatches? I was fond of their being on the roof - I figured that entrance and exit were what command cupolas and airlocks were for, right? The roof ones were emergency exits and roof access; not unreasonable on a mobile structure. It also made it easier to move dudes around inside the bases, because you didn't have to swing round to find the doors so often.

I guess this is mostly to note that all those not complaining were... probably not complaining.

A small aside: I love your new quarter-round cargo shape, but it'd be awesome if there were a few more adapters for it - perhaps another that's 2 modules wide, which sits perpendicular against the end of a base? I've been just connecting 2-wide ore or fuel containers onto the ends of my bases, and it works OK, but using the offset tool to center them means mirror symmetry works oddly Pretty sure it should be able to fit the landing pad connector plate thingies on the sides of it too...

Are we ever likely to see an X-shaped base part? That'd be fun for big sprawling buildings... assembly optional. Gangways are cool too, of course, but I find they imply different design 'feels'.

Other than that, loving this, dude! Oh, and that bicoupler is awesome. I'm going to be launching a Duna Stack very shortly with it

Edited July 27, 2015 by Reiver

[Nils277]

Aw, you're moving the hatches? I was fond of their being on the roof - I figured that entrance and exit were what command cupolas and airlocks were for, right? The roof ones were emergency exits and roof access; not unreasonable on a mobile structure. It also made it easier to move dudes around inside the bases, because you didn't have to swing round to find the doors so often.

I guess this is mostly to note that all those not complaining were... probably not complaining.

A small aside: I love your new quarter-round cargo shape, but it'd be awesome if there were a few more adapters for it - perhaps a part that's one module wide (for doing short bays in the middle of structures), and another that's 2 modules wide, which sits perpendicular against the end of a base? I've been just connecting 2-wide ore or fuel containers onto the ends of my bases, and it works OK, but using the offset tool to center them means mirror symmetry works oddly

Are we ever likely to see an X-shaped base connector? That'd be fun for big sprawling buildings... assembly optional. Gangways are cool too, of course, but I find they imply different designs.

Other than that, loving this, dude! Oh, and that bicoupler is awesome. I'm going to be launching a Duna Stack very shortly with it

About the smaller cargo module. I just added one which is one modules wide in the last update The x-Shape connector for the base profile was planned some while ago but i skipped it in favour of the gangways. But it is not impossible that i reconsider this sometime later.

Hmm...this calls for another poll to see what Airlock position is preferred.

Update

--------------

Added a poll for the hatch position. I also added a choice with two hatches...although i personally don't really like that option

Edited July 27, 2015 by Nils277

[includao]

Just press ALT when applying them. This disables the surface attach and makes it a lot easier . Still i also always have issues rotating the parts right (all the parts )

Wow, I didn't know about that. I guess you learn something every day when you play KSP.

[ModZero]

One part I'd like would be a relatively large cargo bay that opens in a way that leaves one side fully exposed, where I could store e.g. a folding IR arm with a drill on it.

[ev0]

I'm seeing some extra icons/categories from this mod on the part filter bar in the VAB. Is that hard-coded into the plugin for this mod? Could I request that it be removed? You could instead write a config file for Filter Extensions if you want people to have those filters:wink:

[tater]

I use the alt key, actually (option key on the mac).

Take a planetary adapter. If I hit "Opt" (alt) in the side farthest from the door, the gear part flips inside the adapter and is not visible. If I do the same on the side facing the VAB door it properly mounts to the node, but I have to hit the "s" key to get it pointed the right way (it defaults to "down" towards the ground, which definitely makes sense). With mirror symmetry, there ate 2 parts as expected, even rotated the right way... until you hit Opt, then the one way from the VAB for disappears, and when you actually get the selected part to click to the node, it drops to 1x symmetry.

Does the same in the SPH, only the side that disappears is the "close" side when you first enter, and it sticks on the side away from that. Mirror also doesn't work. I also tested with docking ports (stock) they snap as expected with opt/alt, but no mirror.

BTW, I rationalized the roof hatches the way Reiver did, I assumed they were emergency escape hatches. Note that certainly the greenhouse and hab require a full airlock, not just a hatch, because you cannot pump the greenhouse to a vacuum, leave, then refill it with air without killing the plants. The command modules are small enough I figured the kerbals used the whole part as an airlock, as they would in a capsule.

Edited July 27, 2015 by tater

[Sage Sagan]

The KIS "wedge" is not showing up in the VAB/SPH, where specifically does the zip need to be unpacked to?

[EdusacconBR]

thank you for the update

- - - Updated - - -

The KIS "wedge" is not showing up in the VAB/SPH, where specifically does the zip need to be unpacked to?

same here

[Nils277]

I use the alt key, actually (option key on the mac).

Take a planetary adapter. If I hit "Opt" (alt) in the side farthest from the door, the gear part flips inside the adapter and is not visible. If I do the same on the side facing the VAB door it properly mounts to the node, but I have to hit the "s" key to get it pointed the right way (it defaults to "down" towards the ground, which definitely makes sense). With mirror symmetry, there ate 2 parts as expected, even rotated the right way... until you hit Opt, then the one way from the VAB for disappears, and when you actually get the selected part to click to the node, it drops to 1x symmetry.

Does the same in the SPH, only the side that disappears is the "close" side when you first enter, and it sticks on the side away from that. Mirror also doesn't work. I also tested with docking ports (stock) they snap as expected with opt/alt, but no mirror.

BTW, I rationalized the roof hatches the way Reiver did, I assumed they were emergency escape hatches. Note that certainly the greenhouse and hab require a full airlock, not just a hatch, because you cannot pump the greenhouse to a vacuum, leave, then refill it with air without killing the plants. The command modules are small enough I figured the kerbals used the whole part as an airlock, as they would in a capsule.

I will see if i can make the legs behave better when i'm back on Sunday.

The KIS "wedge" is not showing up in the VAB/SPH, where specifically does the zip need to be unpacked to?

The files have to be extracted into the "PlanetaryBaseInc/MOD_SUPPORT/KIS" folder. Just like the zip. folder is now, just without the .zip.

Sorry had a wrong directory explained in the update-post. Corrected this one and also added a hint in the main post

I'm seeing some extra icons/categories from this mod on the part filter bar in the VAB. Is that hard-coded into the plugin for this mod? Could I request that it be removed? You could instead write a config file for Filter Extensions if you want people to have those filters:wink:

I'll add a config file to opt out of the hardcoded filters and add some configs for Filter Extension. I just want to make sure people can have some kind of extended filters for this mod without forcing them to use other mods.

Edited July 27, 2015 by Nils277

[ZentroCatson]

So, i had a long look at the KIS issue and think i have found a solution.

As said i set the default capacity for the deployable parts to the deployed capacity, which solved the KIS issue.

The last issues for the Parts without IVA will be solved once they are done

To address the fact, that Kerbals can be placed in the part in the VAB now is also solved. When started, the Module detects that and deploys (this also makes a nice firework if the part is in a Cargo-Bay ). This also solves the problem with rescue missions, because the part should be deployed when you reach it.

When (for whatever reason) there are more Kerbals inside of a part than could fit in deployed, they are kindly encouraged to go on eva.

Also this would allow the doors to be moved down again. Judging from the posts the current positions is also all but optimal.

You can try this out right now in this new update:

From KerbalStuff

From CurseForge

And to celebrate the solved issue, i also added a KIS-Container for the modular storage as well as two new IVA's and a smaller variant of the Storage-Module.

Changelog:

v0.1.5

New Parts:

• 
  [*=1]Added a smaller variant for the modular storage
  [*=1]Added a KIS Container for the storage.
  

New Interiors:

• 
  [*=1]Added interior for the Habitat MK1
  [*=1]Added interior for the Gangway-Airlock
  

Bug fixes:

• 
  [*=1]The deployable parts now also support storage of the KIS inventory
  [*=1]The Landing Control "MAL" Part is not attached upside down any more
  [*=1]The Cupola is now set as passable for CLS
  

To use the KIS Container, simply unpack the .zip in the "Gamedata/PlanetaryBaseInc/MOD_SUPPORT" into the .Gamedata/PlanetaryBaseInc/MOD_SUPPORT/KIS folder in your KSP installation.

RPM is definitely planned, the IVA for the upcoming Control-Center will benefit from it . I really have the fear that it might seem a little empty without RPM.

I'll consider the other suggestions later.

Just press ALT when applying them. This disables the surface attach and makes it a lot easier . Still i also always have issues rotating the parts right (all the parts )

Judging from the last posts the current position of the Hatches is anything but optimal. I will reposition them.

Soooo the next release will finally take care of the Life-Support Mods. This may take a little longer, i am on a festival until Sunday and there are a lot of parts to create, especially for TAC...

Thanks, i come back to it when i take care of Ioncross

Nice solution, thanks! Also, it seems that you messed up your quoting… Sadly I can't provide Ioncross configs !

[tater]

A few notes (latest version):

There is still an issue with regular transfers between parts. you tell the kerbal to transfer, and when you ouse over the new part, it turns blue, then you click. It stays blue, and you have to hit esc.

When you EVA, the game keeps focus on the part that he/she left most all of the time, instead of switching to the kerbal.

The new KIS container is great, but 2000 liters is pretty large. The SC-62 is slightly smaller, at 1000 l, and the ISC-6K is 6000 liters---and your container is smaller than a quarter segment of that. Given that the ISC-6K is pressurized, and accessible from inside a vessel, I think that 1500 l for your container would not be unreasonable, 2000 l is clearly too large I think, it doesn't look to be 2X the volume of the SC-62.

The Mk1 hab IVA... part of me really thinks that the hatches should actually be airlocks wherever possible. In that IVA, it would mean bring the door in, and making a little room there. The open hab minus an airlock would require that the whole space be depressurized.

In a perfect world, I think that every single KSP part in the game would be scaled up 50%, leaving the kerbals the same size. Right now every KSP vehicle feels like a TARDIS when you see the IVA

If the parts here were the large part size (3.75m), then the top of the base parts would be 1.875m instead of 1.25, the hatches on the side would all be fine, size wise, and there would be room for an airlock inside.

Edited July 27, 2015 by tater

[Nils277]

A few notes (latest version):

There is still an issue with regular transfers between parts. you tell the kerbal to transfer, and when you ouse over the new part, it turns blue, then you click. It stays blue, and you have to hit esc.

When you EVA, the game keeps focus on the part that he/she left most all of the time, instead of switching to the kerbal.

The new KIS container is great, but 2000 liters is pretty large. The SC-62 is slightly smaller, at 1000 l, and the ISC-6K is 6000 liters---and your container is smaller than a quarter segment of that. Given that the ISC-6K is pressurized, and accessible from inside a vessel, I think that 1500 l for your container would not be unreasonable, 2000 l is clearly too large I think, it doesn't look to be 2X the volume of the SC-62.

You are right, 2000 is a bit to much for that part.Will be fixed in the next update.

What you describe also happens to me when KIS is installed. But only for parts that still don't have an IVA. KIS causes an exception in this case. All works fine for parts that have an IVA. Or do you also have this with parts with IVA?

Nice solution, thanks! Also, it seems that you messed up your quoting… Sadly I can't provide Ioncross configs !

Uups...corrected that.

[tater]

BTW, I edited and ninjaed you, adding this, sorry:

The Mk1 hab IVA... part of me really thinks that the hatches should actually be airlocks wherever possible. In that IVA, it would mean bring the door in, and making a little room there. The open hab minus an airlock would require that the whole space be depressurized.

In a perfect world, I think that every single KSP part in the game would be scaled up 50%, leaving the kerbals the same size. Right now every KSP vehicle feels like a TARDIS when you see the IVA

If the parts here were the large part size (3.75m), then the top of the base parts would be 1.875m instead of 1.25, the hatches on the side would all be fine, size wise, and there would be room for an airlock inside.

Regarding the transfers and EVAs, good question, I did a quick test, and the crew auto-loaded into the command pod part (no IVA). I transferred them to the parts with IVAs I wanted to see (airlock and mk1 hab). In that case, I had to EVA a guy, then rebound to have the kerbals show up in their little window on the bottom right of the screen so I could select IVA.

[Nils277]

Regarding the IVA of the MK1: Your are right, i will add something that could be interpreted as a airlock. It won't be in the scale to be a realistically functional airlock, this would take too much space. But it could be interpreted as one .

[ModZero]

People keep talking about airlocks, but I can't see any bathrooms in the IVAs.

[tater]

People keep talking about airlocks, but I can't see any bathrooms in the IVAs.

LOL. True!

Nils, the mk1 Hab has 3 bunks, with storage above the single bunk. Again, totally throwing random ideas out there... I like a 3 crew version, it fills a void. The stock 2.5m part is the hitchhiker with 4, and your looks better That said, the volume used for that bunk could easily be an airlock, and airplane style bathroom (a door that says "potty," "head," or whatever). Others can chime in and say I'm nuts, and I won't argue

Looks like scaled to humans, it's ~60 m^2 for the mk2 (around 3m x 3.75m=11.25 m^2). It's certainly possible to get 4 tiny staterooms, and a tiny bath in there (1.5x1.5 in human scale is ~.64x.64 I think)---toilet and sink, and the whole area "wet space" with a showerhead on the wall.

At 0.75m tall, a "stateroom" need only be 1m x 1.25m, maybe (bed and desk/chair).

I have to say, I'm sort of surprised that the floor space in your parts is so decent at kerbal scale. I think the helmets throw everything off, you need enough storage space for 4 helmets as 2 bunks, lol. Maybe in the stateroom IVA his helmet can be hanging from the ceiling (in case anyone wonders where the helmets go )

[EdusacconBR]

why theres 4 chairs on the mk1 habitat if it fits only 3 kerbals?

[Frizzon]

why theres 4 chairs on the mk1 habitat if it fits only 3 kerbals?

Fat kerbals.

[EdusacconBR]

Fat kerbals.

LOL xD