[Min KSP: 1.12.2] Pathfinder - Space Camping & Geoscience

[Geschosskopf]

7 hours ago, Angel-125 said:

Really nice space plane parts! Reminds me a bit of Nertea's Thunderbird-ish plane.

Yeah, OPT is really nice.  I'm not a fan of the Mk3 fuselage for hauling rovers.  It's just too tall and narrow, so your rover is very skinny and there's all this wasted space above it.  I'd really like an adapter that rotated the Mk3 cargo bay 90^ and a ramp designed for that.  But OTOH, that's kinda what the OPT K-class is.

To avoid problems of the rovers clipping through the floor in the OPT cargo bay, I had the rovers all docked together slightly above the floor, and then connected to the walls with struts.  To get the rovers out, first undock and then remove the struts via KAS.  If you remove the struts first, the rovers will sag through the floor and then the Kraken will attack when you undock.

The downside of this, however, is that because the docking port that connects the rovers to the plane is a little above floor level, you can't dock the rovers back to the plane for a return trip.  But you can still strut them back into place.

7 hours ago, Angel-125 said:

The wheel issues will have to wait for 1.1 but glad you have a workaround.

I certainly wouldn't waste any time on it now, with a whole new wheel system looming on the horizon

 

[loch.ness]

I'm currently debating between using this or USI Kolonization Lite.  I recently started using planetary bases - which takes care of 2/3 of the reasons I had MKS lite installed in the first place.

1) significant expansion of life support limits with a planetary base

2) clearly visible greenhouse units for bases

3) Nice inflatable habs for early missions (while more permanent installations can come later).

 

Planetary bases handles 1 and 2 with the added benefit of also working for spaceships/stations.  There are nice IVA and external units too.

So I'm left with the inflatable base units for early missions for choosing between this and MKS Lite.

 

I tried to set up a base with MKS Lite a little bit ago - I had a number of problems - all of them my fault - though the MKS items didn't seem to want to "deploy" properly which was confusing.  - Its probably my mistake again, but I plan to test both (RAM allowing) and see which is more user friendly.

[Angelo Kerman]

On 2/13/2016 at 4:33 AM, loch.ness said:

I'm currently debating between using this or USI Kolonization Lite.  I recently started using planetary bases - which takes care of 2/3 of the reasons I had MKS lite installed in the first place.

1) significant expansion of life support limits with a planetary base

2) clearly visible greenhouse units for bases

3) Nice inflatable habs for early missions (while more permanent installations can come later).

 

Planetary bases handles 1 and 2 with the added benefit of also working for spaceships/stations.  There are nice IVA and external units too.

So I'm left with the inflatable base units for early missions for choosing between this and MKS Lite.

 

I tried to set up a base with MKS Lite a little bit ago - I had a number of problems - all of them my fault - though the MKS items didn't seem to want to "deploy" properly which was confusing.  - Its probably my mistake again, but I plan to test both (RAM allowing) and see which is more user friendly.

Cool, hope you enjoy checking things out. Pathfinder is a work in progress but it's getting there. Kerbal Planetary Base Systems is really nice! I love @Nils277's attention to detail. Speaking of KPBS, here's a preview of the next set of release notes:

Other
- Added support for Kerbal Planetary Base Systems. While not as efficient as Pathfinder's modules due to their size, they can still contribute to your Pathfinder base.
  * The K&K Planetary Habitat MK2 can be used as part of Pathfinder's habitat wing.
  * The K&K Planetary Laboratory can be used as part of Pathfinder's science wing.
  * The K&K Planetary Greenhouse uses Pathfinder's greenhouse module code.
  * The K&K Rocket Fuel tanks can hold a variety of different resources.

If I can create an industrial module in the same style as KPBS, then I'll include that as well, though my art skills aren't as good so you'll see differences. Totally beats creating quonset hut buildings for Pathfinder, KPBS works perfectly.

[loch.ness]

Switched out the installs and Pathfinder seems to have a lower memory footprint than MKS Lite so far - still need to assemble a bases worth of stuff onto a small rover and go test it.  Still need to trim my mods though as I've got a number of parts that I don't want coming from the packs that give me the parts I do want.

 

I'm hoping to set up a good sized base on one of the poles for a chapter coming soon and so far I've been stuck at the "build the plane" side of things.

 

Hope to test out base building on a rover today and let you know.

 

Did test out the base building - after a few false starts (everything exploding on contact with the ground) I got a hang of the idea - now to mentally plan out my polar outpost and figure out how to include enough life-support for the staff.

Edited February 16, 2016 by loch.ness

[Delta_8930]

I loaded a ponderosa inflatable module on the pad with four kerbals, but when I right click the module it doesn't give me the "inflate" option. I also tried this with one of the kerbals on EVA but I still couldn't inflate it.

Does anyone know what's going on here?

[Angelo Kerman]

I'd need logs and screenshots to see what's going on, can you post those?

[Geschosskopf]

On 2/13/2016 at 6:33 AM, loch.ness said:

I'm currently debating between using this or USI Kolonization Lite.  

I've used MKS and MKS-L for some time and have decided I prefer Pathfinder, for several reasons.

• This one may be obsolete with the recent changes to USI-LS; I don't know for sure.  But Pathfinder has a greenhouse that can increase the amount of supplies, which MKS-L does not (or didn't).  IOW, at least prior to recent USI-LS changes, while MKS-L could recycle the same amount of supplies indefinitely, you couldn't provision a ship built at the base without robbing from the base's own pantry.
• With MKS-L (and MKS-normal), you're pretty much stuck with building bases out of tall, tippy landers.  This is problematic on certain planets, especially those with significant atmospheres.  Then you have to finagle these bulky objects into the desired position (assuming they land close enough together).  OTOH, with Pathfinder, you can pack the base up in boxes and deliver it with any sort of vehicle and build and connect it quite easily in any desired configuration with EVA Kerbals.
• With MKS-L, you need another lander with drills and ISRU and all the parts that entails.  With Pathfinder, you can put this machinery in a box as with anything else, and at most only add 3 parts to your base (Claim Jumper, Brew Works, and Old Faithful).
• Because of all the above, Pathfinder bases have significantly lower part counts than MKS/MKS-L bases.
• Pathfinder bases can be made more Kraken-proof because they attach directly to the ground instead of sitting on it, and you can attach them to the ground with multiple Saddles, limiting the lengths of module chains at the mercy of phantom forces.

That said, there are a number of features of MKS and MKS-L that I'd like to see in Pathfinder:

• MKS-L has a portable generator that burns Ore and makes enough EC for basic domestic needs.  It would be nice if you could switch the small Buckboard into such a thing as well as a battery.
• MKS and MKS-L have "rover logistic", allowing resource transfer between unattached base units that are close enough.  It's my understanding that @Angel-125 plans to add something similar to Pathfinder.

[Geschosskopf]

21 hours ago, Delta_8930 said:

I loaded a ponderosa inflatable module on the pad with four kerbals, but when I right click the module it doesn't give me the "inflate" option. I also tried this with one of the kerbals on EVA but I still couldn't inflate it.

Does anyone know what's going on here?

There are several possible causes:

1. The Ponderosa doesn't inflate unless it's attached to something.  So the usual method is first to attach a Saddle to the ground, then attach the Ponderosa to the Saddle, then inflate it.  Both attachment operations require an engineer Kerbal equipped with a KAS wrench or screwdriver.
2. Inflating any module may require a supply of RocketParts.  Whether this is true or not depends on your Pathfinder settings, but I think this defaults to requiring RocketParts.  To make sure, hit Alt-P to bring up the Pathfinder configuration menu.  If the button by "configuring modules requires resources" (or words to that effect) is green, then you need RocketParts to inflate.  The usual way of doing this is to have a rover with a tank of RocketParts connected via KAS pipe to the Saddle (the Saddle has built-in pipe connections, and so does the Trailer Hitch rover part).  Or you can uncheck this button and no longer need RocketParts to inflate modules.
3. Inflating a module may require an engineer Kerbal, which I believe is the default.  Again, this can be altered in the Alt-P menu.
4. If you're doing this on the launch pad, that might be a problem as well.  Best option is to build a rover in the SPH with all the desired base parts (and RocketParts) in boxes aboard it, and the necessary KAS tools available, and an engineer aboard.  Then drive this off the north edge of the runway onto the normal ground.

[Angelo Kerman]

22 minutes ago, Geschosskopf said:

That said, there are a number of features of MKS and MKS-L that I'd like to see in Pathfinder:

• MKS-L has a portable generator that burns Ore and makes enough EC for basic domestic needs.  It would be nice if you could switch the small Buckboard into such a thing as well as a battery.
• MKS and MKS-L have "rover logistic", allowing resource transfer between unattached base units that are close enough.  It's my understanding that @Angel-125 plans to add something similar to Pathfinder.

Actually, you can convert the Buckboard 1000 into a battery. I also have a 1/2-sized chassis unit planned that will burn monopropellant to produce EC. And many planets have GeoEnergy; you can convert a Hacienda into a HotSprings to tap into that GeoEnergy and produce EC.

[RoverDude]

44 minutes ago, Geschosskopf said:

I've used MKS and MKS-L for some time and have decided I prefer Pathfinder, for several reasons.

• This one may be obsolete with the recent changes to USI-LS; I don't know for sure.  But Pathfinder has a greenhouse that can increase the amount of supplies, which MKS-L does not (or didn't).  IOW, at least prior to recent USI-LS changes, while MKS-L could recycle the same amount of supplies indefinitely, you couldn't provision a ship built at the base without robbing from the base's own pantry.
• With MKS-L (and MKS-normal), you're pretty much stuck with building bases out of tall, tippy landers.  This is problematic on certain planets, especially those with significant atmospheres.  Then you have to finagle these bulky objects into the desired position (assuming they land close enough together).  OTOH, with Pathfinder, you can pack the base up in boxes and deliver it with any sort of vehicle and build and connect it quite easily in any desired configuration with EVA Kerbals.
• With MKS-L, you need another lander with drills and ISRU and all the parts that entails.  With Pathfinder, you can put this machinery in a box as with anything else, and at most only add 3 parts to your base (Claim Jumper, Brew Works, and Old Faithful).
• Because of all the above, Pathfinder bases have significantly lower part counts than MKS/MKS-L bases.
• Pathfinder bases can be made more Kraken-proof because they attach directly to the ground instead of sitting on it, and you can attach them to the ground with multiple Saddles, limiting the lengths of module chains at the mercy of phantom forces.

That said, there are a number of features of MKS and MKS-L that I'd like to see in Pathfinder:

• MKS-L has a portable generator that burns Ore and makes enough EC for basic domestic needs.  It would be nice if you could switch the small Buckboard into such a thing as well as a battery.
• MKS and MKS-L have "rover logistic", allowing resource transfer between unattached base units that are close enough.  It's my understanding that @Angel-125 plans to add something similar to Pathfinder.

While this is not my mod thread, I did want to hop in just because there's a bit of misinformation

MKS-L and UKS both have mechanics for increasing supplies in-situ.

Tall tippy landers are not required.  MKS-L can build everything (including the drills) out of KIS boxes (and come in varying sizes).  For UKS, there are some lovely skycrane, stabilizer, and wheel parts (plus nifty inflatable side-mounted fuel tanks to keep the COG low).

I can't speak to part count, though MKS-L bases tend to be very light due to the limited number of parts available.

Surface attach is just as likely to be kraken'y as landing a base - really depends on luck and the terrain involved.  MKS-L supports both (surface attach as well as non-surface attached).  Plus, as noted, a lot of what saves MKS-L from the Kraken is the disconnected mechanics (which have been around in one form or another for about two years now).

Again, not tossing this out to change people's minds, etc. - just to clear up any misinformation

[Geschosskopf]

2 hours ago, Angel-125 said:

Actually, you can convert the Buckboard 1000 into a battery. I also have a 1/2-sized chassis unit planned that will burn monopropellant to produce EC. And many planets have GeoEnergy; you can convert a Hacienda into a HotSprings to tap into that GeoEnergy and produce EC.

Yeah, I mean in addition to using it as a battery, it would be nice to have a 2nd to make it an ore-burning generator.

See, I usually go places where solar power isn't an option.  Thus, there's a gap in Pathfinder's range of electrical generation parts.  There's nothing to handle just the domestic needs (lights, life support, etc.) of a small base in the absence of sunlight.  The Hot Springs is good if you have sufficient water, but that's not always an option, either, and a mono-burning generator would need refueling, which means you have neither a small base nor a need for just a little power .  

This is why I like the MKS-L ore-burning generator.  It makes enough juice to run a small base plus the little drill it uses to keep itself supplied with ore.  Turn it on and forget it.  In the absence of any MKS-L parts in my Pathfinder installation, I have instead been using the smallest fission reactors from USI-Core.  They do the job but weren't designed to be KAS'd around by Kerbals so sometimes explode, and they also do eventually run out of fuel.

1 hour ago, RoverDude said:

While this is not my mod thread, I did want to hop in just because there's a bit of misinformation

Well, sorry.  I wasn't trying to mislead anybody.  I was just saying what it seems to be to me from a fair amount of personal experience and the rather limited amount of documentation.  Also, it's hard to stay current when there's no MAVC to tell you there's an update.

In any case, I've got a lot of MKS-L stuff about to land on the various moons of Sarnus, using an (older version of) USI-LS and with Karibou and USI-Core in abundance.  So it's not like I hate your stuff or anything; I have been using it extensively and have invested a huge amount of time into making it a key component of this major expedition.  So thanks for the stuff

 

[RoverDude]

3 minutes ago, Geschosskopf said:

Well, sorry.  I wasn't trying to mislead anybody.  I was just saying what it seems to be to me from a fair amount of personal experience and the rather limited amount of documentation.  Also, it's hard to stay current when there's no MAVC to tell you there's an update.

In any case, I've got a lot of MKS-L stuff about to land on the various moons of Sarnus, using an (older version of) USI-LS and with Karibou and USI-Core in abundance.  So it's not like I hate your stuff or anything; I have been using it extensively and have invested a huge amount of time into making it a key component of this major expedition.  So thanks for the stuff

 

Oh no worries at all - that was not meant as a negative, just avoiding a forum equivalent of the telephone game

FYI - I've considered MAVC integration (I use the full KSP-AVC myself).

[Angelo Kerman]

@Geschosskopf: An ore-powered generator sounds like an interesting idea. Kind of makes sense since you extract LFO and monopropellant from it in the stock game. I don't think it would be very efficient since I see you just tossing raw ore into the burners, but if the consumption rate matches the drill's extraction rate, that would be ok. It would take RocketParts to convert a Buckboard 3000 into a generator, just like it takes parts to convert the 1000 into a battery.

Also makes me wonder if I should switch to Machinery (which wasn't available in the CRP when I originally created Pathfinder), but I want to keep the resources you use to a minimum. Only reason for me to consider it is that apparently RocketParts are 5-liters per unit, and I laid out Pathfinder's storage templates thinking it was a 1-liter resource. Oh well, maybe they're just packed more densely in my templates...

Anyway, I could see converting the Buckboard 3000 into a generator that makes use of the Gold Digger, which would also fit the mod's theme of cobbling what you need out of what you have. You'd need RocketParts to convert it. It would probably go in Advanced Electrics (Tier 6) along with the monopropellant generator. That way Pathfinder's power progression would be: Poncho (Electrics), generators & Sombrero (Advanced Electrics), Hot Springs (Large Electrics), and Solar Flare (Specialized Electrics). The goal has been for Pathfinder to provide a progression of power options throughout the tech tree, with the culmination being the experimental fusion plant. The next tier, Experimental Electrics, is where you get the WB-1 "Pinapple" fusion reactor from DSEV (renamed from the compact fusion reactor that fits into a hex truss).

[Geschosskopf]

1 hour ago, Angel-125 said:

@Geschosskopf: An ore-powered generator sounds like an interesting idea. Kind of makes sense since you extract LFO and monopropellant from it in the stock game. I don't think it would be very efficient since I see you just tossing raw ore into the burners, but if the consumption rate matches the drill's extraction rate, that would be ok. It would take RocketParts to convert a Buckboard 3000 into a generator, just like it takes parts to convert the 1000 into a battery.

I suppose efficiency depends on what you imagine Ore to be.  The word "ore" (not capitalized) conjures up visions of rocks where what you want is chemically a small fraction of the whole.  But when you look at the stock IRSU's stats, you see that 1kg of Ore turns into 1kg of rocket fuel with no industrial waste left over.  Thus, Ore (capitalized) should be a pretty good fuel in its own right, given that every molecule of it burns, but raw Ore just isn't as volatile as when it's refined into rocket fuel.  IOW, conceptually, Ore must be somewhat analogous to crude oil, even more so than to coal.  

Thus, should be able to get a fair amount of EC out of burning 1 unit of Ore, given the ratios in the stock ISRU.  And I wouldn't think it would have to be as big as a Buckboard 3000.  I have a 25kW back-up generator for my whole house that's only 62" x 34" x 29" (1.57m x 0.86m x 0.74m).  Nor does it have to be particularly high-tech.  Generators predate spaceflight by the better part of a century here on Earth---all that's changed since is coming up with different things to spin their shafts.  Surely the Kerbal Industrial Revolution was powered by steam plants burning Ore?

Quote

Pathfinder's power progression would be: Poncho (Electrics), generators & Sombrero (Advanced Electrics), Hot Springs (Large Electrics), and Solar Flare (Specialized Electrics). 

What is this Sombrero of which you speak?  I haven't noticed it in my (sandbox) game or the wiki.

Edited February 17, 2016 by Geschosskopf

[Nightside]

I don't think coal or crude oil is a good analogy for what Ore is. Those are both hydrocarbons and would only exist where there has been plant life (Kerbin and maybe Laythe). All the raw elements that typically go into rocket fuel, H, C, and O are available in the solar system, but usually not in such a convenient, high energy package.

3 minutes ago, Geschosskopf said:

... 1kg of Ore turns into 1kg of rocket fuel with no industrial waste left over.  Thus, Ore (capitalized) should be a pretty good fuel in its own right, given that every molecule of it burns...

With this ratio, Ore would most likely be water. Split H₂O into Hydrogen and Oxygen and you've got a great rocket fuel. But water on its own doesn't get you a lot of energy.  

Ore mining and refining is a massive simplification of all the different ways which fuels and propellants could be created in space. Also, KSP drills "presort" so the waste material never comes aboard.

 

[Angelo Kerman]

49 minutes ago, Geschosskopf said:

I suppose efficiency depends on what you imagine Ore to be.  The word "ore" (not capitalized) conjures up visions of rocks where what you want is chemically a small fraction of the whole.  But when you look at the stock IRSU's stats, you see that 1kg of Ore turns into 1kg of rocket fuel with no industrial waste left over.  Thus, Ore (capitalized) should be a pretty good fuel in its own right, given that every molecule of it burns, but raw Ore just isn't as volatile as when it's refined into rocket fuel.  IOW, conceptually, Ore must be somewhat analogous to crude oil, even more so than to coal.  

Thus, should be able to get a fair amount of EC out of burning 1 unit of Ore, given the ratios in the stock ISRU.  And I wouldn't think it would have to be as big as a Buckboard 3000.  I have a 25kW back-up generator for my whole house that's only 62" x 34" x 29" (1.57m x 0.86m x 0.74m).  Nor does it have to be particularly high-tech.  Generators predate spaceflight by the better part of a century here on Earth---all that's changed since is coming up with different things to spin their shafts.  Surely the Kerbal Industrial Revolution was powered by steam plants burning Ore?

What is this Sombrero of which you speak?  I haven't noticed it in my (sandbox) game or the wiki.

 

24 minutes ago, Nightside said:

I don't think coal or crude oil is a good analogy for what Ore is. Those are both hydrocarbons and would only exist where there has been plant life (Kerbin and maybe Laythe). All the raw elements that typically go into rocket fuel, H, C, and O are available in the solar system, but usually not in such a convenient, high energy package.

With this ratio, Ore would most likely be water. Split H₂O into Hydrogen and Oxygen and you've got a great rocket fuel. But water on its own doesn't get you a lot of energy.  

Ore mining and refining is a massive simplification of all the different ways which fuels and propellants could be created in space. Also, KSP drills "presort" so the waste material never comes aboard.

 

I'm thinking that the Buckboard 3000 is a generator contains batteries, a small Ore tank, and the machinery to process and burn the Ore itself in addition to generating ElectricalCharge. So it's a generator with a micro-isru, which fits into my plans of creating a micro-isru part that comes from the generator but is available separately. I'll play with some prototypes and see which Buckboard fits best, but I definitely don't see the 1000 being big enough.

The Sombrero is a deployable solar array that's in the works.

Edited February 17, 2016 by Angel-125

[Rho-Mu 34]

40 minutes ago, Angel-125 said:

I'm thinking that the Buckboard 3000 is a generator contains batteries, a small Ore tank, and the machinery to process and burn the Ore itself in addition to generating ElectricalCharge. So it's a generator with a micro-isru, which fits into my plans of creating a micro-isru part that comes from the generator but is available separately. I'll play with some prototypes and see which Buckboard fits best, but I definitely don't see the 1000 being big enough.

"Ore burner" seems like good idea, as long as consumption vs output is properly balanced, as not to outclass small reactors and solar arrays. Given complex machinery involved it totally should be packed in 3000.

+ Regarding monoprop generator, wouldn't it be better to exchange battery capacity for ability to use monoprop AND LFO? Might want to bump efficiency a notch, since buckboard is noticeably larger than standard fuel cell, potentially permitting for more advanced gear that doesn't sacrifice function for compact size.
 

[Angelo Kerman]

1 hour ago, Rho-Mu 34 said:

"Ore burner" seems like good idea, as long as consumption vs output is properly balanced, as not to outclass small reactors and solar arrays. Given complex machinery involved it totally should be packed in 3000.

+ Regarding monoprop generator, wouldn't it be better to exchange battery capacity for ability to use monoprop AND LFO? Might want to bump efficiency a notch, since buckboard is noticeably larger than standard fuel cell, potentially permitting for more advanced gear that doesn't sacrifice function for compact size.
 

Well, the monopropellant generator that I have in mind will fit into the space of a half-sized chassis unit for the Buffalo, not into a Buckboard. I'm using monopropellant instead of LFO because the stock game already has LFO fuel cells, and by the time you get them, you'll have better power options with Pathfinder. These generators are intended to be early-tech, so they'll be bulkier than you'd think, or not produce as much ElectricCharge for their size.

[loch.ness]

8 hours ago, Geschosskopf said:

I've used MKS and MKS-L for some time and have decided I prefer Pathfinder, for several reasons.

• This one may be obsolete with the recent changes to USI-LS; I don't know for sure.  But Pathfinder has a greenhouse that can increase the amount of supplies, which MKS-L does not (or didn't).  IOW, at least prior to recent USI-LS changes, while MKS-L could recycle the same amount of supplies indefinitely, you couldn't provision a ship built at the base without robbing from the base's own pantry.
• With MKS-L (and MKS-normal), you're pretty much stuck with building bases out of tall, tippy landers.  This is problematic on certain planets, especially those with significant atmospheres.  Then you have to finagle these bulky objects into the desired position (assuming they land close enough together).  OTOH, with Pathfinder, you can pack the base up in boxes and deliver it with any sort of vehicle and build and connect it quite easily in any desired configuration with EVA Kerbals.
• With MKS-L, you need another lander with drills and ISRU and all the parts that entails.  With Pathfinder, you can put this machinery in a box as with anything else, and at most only add 3 parts to your base (Claim Jumper, Brew Works, and Old Faithful).
• Because of all the above, Pathfinder bases have significantly lower part counts than MKS/MKS-L bases.
• Pathfinder bases can be made more Kraken-proof because they attach directly to the ground instead of sitting on it, and you can attach them to the ground with multiple Saddles, limiting the lengths of module chains at the mercy of phantom forces.

That said, there are a number of features of MKS and MKS-L that I'd like to see in Pathfinder:

• MKS-L has a portable generator that burns Ore and makes enough EC for basic domestic needs.  It would be nice if you could switch the small Buckboard into such a thing as well as a battery.
• MKS and MKS-L have "rover logistic", allowing resource transfer between unattached base units that are close enough.  It's my understanding that @Angel-125 plans to add something similar to Pathfinder.

 

7 hours ago, RoverDude said:

While this is not my mod thread, I did want to hop in just because there's a bit of misinformation

MKS-L and UKS both have mechanics for increasing supplies in-situ.

Tall tippy landers are not required.  MKS-L can build everything (including the drills) out of KIS boxes (and come in varying sizes).  For UKS, there are some lovely skycrane, stabilizer, and wheel parts (plus nifty inflatable side-mounted fuel tanks to keep the COG low).

I can't speak to part count, though MKS-L bases tend to be very light due to the limited number of parts available.

Surface attach is just as likely to be kraken'y as landing a base - really depends on luck and the terrain involved.  MKS-L supports both (surface attach as well as non-surface attached).  Plus, as noted, a lot of what saves MKS-L from the Kraken is the disconnected mechanics (which have been around in one form or another for about two years now).

Again, not tossing this out to change people's minds, etc. - just to clear up any misinformation

First off - turns out the majority of the memory issues I was having was from Kerbin Side which while nice in theory wasn't quite working for me in practice.

I'm still undecided on which base kit will become my go-to.

I want an inflatable style base that compliments the hard shell planetary base mod (inflatables for earlier exploration and colony building, the permanent structures for upgrading to a full fledged colony or off world base).  - Both MKS-L and Pathfinder do this.

A visually pleasing greenhouse for screen shots - Planetary Base and USI-LS provide non-inflatable ones.  MKS-L contains one for inflatables.

Relatively easy to use - so far neither really fits the bill (because I've not spent the time to figure them out properly).  MKS-L tended to go explode on me when I tried to KIS things more often than Pathfinder (but that's just random luck).

I both like and dislike how easy it is to pack a full base with Pathfinder - the visually stunning IVA's and the way things fit so nicely into KIS crates makes the idea of single ship missions to Duna sound very fun.  On the other hand, those same stunning IVAs suggest that things shouldn't deflate as much as they do.  On the other hand, landing multiple KIS crates worth of base building supplies in tight formation is something I don't always have the piloting chops to do.  (I know the answer is big constellation style drop packages - and I'm okay with that too).

 

both mods get really complicated pretty fast (and MKS is the light version still) with the extra resources/configurations in Pathfinder and the resource chains in MKS-L.  Pathfinder assembly feels easier so far but I think MKS-L might actually be a better fit for my needs/wants... I still need to do more testing.  I really like the geo-science angle on Pathfinder, but its not what I'm ultimately looking for this time.  I'm really just looking for a "space camp" which supports Habitation, stretched LS and possible resupply, maybe OSE integration (Still haven't actually tried that mod yet).  I'm not ready to go R-O on my saves but I'd like to plan my missions with a bit more of realism in mind for interplanetary voyages.

MKS and OKS are so far too complicated and part heavy for me right now and I'm not honestly sure which base system I really want - but I love both of your guys stuff @RoverDude and @Angel-125

 

[Angelo Kerman]

39 minutes ago, loch.ness said:

 

First off - turns out the majority of the memory issues I was having was from Kerbin Side which while nice in theory wasn't quite working for me in practice.

I'm still undecided on which base kit will become my go-to.

I want an inflatable style base that compliments the hard shell planetary base mod (inflatables for earlier exploration and colony building, the permanent structures for upgrading to a full fledged colony or off world base).  - Both MKS-L and Pathfinder do this.

A visually pleasing greenhouse for screen shots - Planetary Base and USI-LS provide non-inflatable ones.  MKS-L contains one for inflatables.

Relatively easy to use - so far neither really fits the bill (because I've not spent the time to figure them out properly).  MKS-L tended to go explode on me when I tried to KIS things more often than Pathfinder (but that's just random luck).

I both like and dislike how easy it is to pack a full base with Pathfinder - the visually stunning IVA's and the way things fit so nicely into KIS crates makes the idea of single ship missions to Duna sound very fun.  On the other hand, those same stunning IVAs suggest that things shouldn't deflate as much as they do.  On the other hand, landing multiple KIS crates worth of base building supplies in tight formation is something I don't always have the piloting chops to do.  (I know the answer is big constellation style drop packages - and I'm okay with that too).

 

both mods get really complicated pretty fast (and MKS is the light version still) with the extra resources/configurations in Pathfinder and the resource chains in MKS-L.  Pathfinder assembly feels easier so far but I think MKS-L might actually be a better fit for my needs/wants... I still need to do more testing.  I really like the geo-science angle on Pathfinder, but its not what I'm ultimately looking for this time.  I'm really just looking for a "space camp" which supports Habitation, stretched LS and possible resupply, maybe OSE integration (Still haven't actually tried that mod yet).  I'm not ready to go R-O on my saves but I'd like to plan my missions with a bit more of realism in mind for interplanetary voyages.

MKS and OKS are so far too complicated and part heavy for me right now and I'm not honestly sure which base system I really want - but I love both of your guys stuff @RoverDude and @Angel-125

 

Regarding the IVAs- The lore behind them is that when you inflate the modules, behind the scenes you're stuffing a bunch of components through a seam in the module, then sealing up the seam. I just don't animate that part. Also, if all you're looking for is habitation components, the Ponderosa and Casa will fit the bill along with a Chuckwagon converted to a greenhouse. You'll even find a configuration for OSE Workshop, called the Blacksmith. Here's the wiki page. Anyway, have fun!

 

[loch.ness]

Currently I've got Pathfinder set up and I think I'll be using it for the foreseeable future (though I'll still do more testing).

 

I really like the Buffalo parts so far too.

 

Thanks for the info.

Edited February 18, 2016 by loch.ness

[Rho-Mu 34]

54 minutes ago, Angel-125 said:

half-sized chassis unit for the Buffalo

You mean "ATV" ones?

 

 

38 minutes ago, loch.ness said:

I want an inflatable style base that compliments the hard shell planetary base mod (inflatables for earlier exploration and colony building, the permanent structures for upgrading to a full fledged colony or off world base).  - Both MKS-L and Pathfinder do this.

I'd say that Pathfinder strikes perfect balance between MKS and MKS Lite, though MKS Lite is still somewhat "lighter".

Sadly, permanent hard shell bases do not fit with the whole "space camping" spirit of the mod, otherwise it would be awesome thing to complement highly mobile inflatable modules. Let's hope that 1.1 would finally greenlight Konquest development.

 

 

[Angelo Kerman]

1 hour ago, Rho-Mu 34 said:

You mean "ATV" ones?

 

 

I'd say that Pathfinder strikes perfect balance between MKS and MKS Lite, though MKS Lite is still somewhat "lighter".

Sadly, permanent hard shell bases do not fit with the whole "space camping" spirit of the mod, otherwise it would be awesome thing to complement highly mobile inflatable modules. Let's hope that 1.1 would finally greenlight Konquest development.

 

 

Right, the "ATV" chassis units will gain a new addition in the form of a monopropellant generator. As for the hard shell parts, just wait...

[Angelo Kerman]

Quick test of one of the quality of life updates I'm working on for the next release:

[Geschosskopf]

23 hours ago, Nightside said:

I don't think coal or crude oil is a good analogy for what Ore is. Those are both hydrocarbons and would only exist where there has been plant life (Kerbin and maybe Laythe). All the raw elements that typically go into rocket fuel, H, C, and O are available in the solar system, but usually not in such a convenient, high energy package.

Well, you can't deny the fact that 100% of ore burns so the best Earthly analogy is still crude oil.

Also, remember that the KSP universe's laws of physics are so radically different from our own that the differences go all the way down to the fundamental nuclear forces.  This is the only way to explain the fact that the average density of the planet Kerbin is much greater than that of osmium, the densest Earthly element, which is quite rare here.  Thus, there are no elements in common on our periodic tables, which means our chemistry is totally different from Kerbal chemistry.  Which means that basing expectations for how things should work in KSP on Earthly chemistry is fundamentally flawed.

So, there is really nothing wrong with saying that KSP planets just happen to have a high-energy fuel source lying around without needing life to start with.  You can't use Earth's chemistry to disprove it

22 hours ago, Angel-125 said:

I'm thinking that the Buckboard 3000 is a generator contains batteries, a small Ore tank, and the machinery to process and burn the Ore itself in addition to generating ElectricalCharge. So it's a generator with a micro-isru, which fits into my plans of creating a micro-isru part that comes from the generator but is available separately. I'll play with some prototypes and see which Buckboard fits best, but I definitely don't see the 1000 being big enough.

The Sombrero is a deployable solar array that's in the works.

Well, OK, if you include the fuel tank.  The propane tank for my generator is about the same size, which would put the combined volume in the 3000 size.  But I think it would be more convenient to just have a tiny tank in the actual generator and use a separate part for the main tank, than it would be having to kerb-handle the long 3000-size box.

I mean, 25kW is a lot of juice, but the actual generator and its engine are only the size of a 1000, maybe a 2000.  And a fair amount of that volume is empty space because the width is determined by the radiator at one end, while the actual working parts are narrower.  What's the ratio of EC/sec to Watts?

3 hours ago, Angel-125 said:

Quick test of one of the quality of life updates I'm working on for the next release:

Brilliant!