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

[Angelo Kerman]

Also, some locations don't appreciate having the Saddle bolted to the ground and will cause explosions. Terrain + KIS can be tricky... I'm looking at alternative base building techniques, such as a core module that you land and build off of, and the ability to make small base clusters that share resources. Apparently it is a common problem to have exploding parts connected to the ground..

[eberkain]

52 minutes ago, Angel-125 said:

Also, some locations don't appreciate having the Saddle bolted to the ground and will cause explosions. Terrain + KIS can be tricky... I'm looking at alternative base building techniques, such as a core module that you land and build off of, and the ability to make small base clusters that share resources. Apparently it is a common problem to have exploding parts connected to the ground..

I have seen some weirdness with the parts from surface experiment pack when loading back into the area,  Physics going nuts, exploding parts, etc..   So, the mod Kerbal Joint Reinforcement kind of slowly increases the physics simulation when loading a vessel, to counteract that initial jolt that can break everything.   I wonder if you could do something similar with terrain attached parts and just have the base piece that actually attaches to the ground completely disable physics for the entire vessel, if the vessel is a base and its permanently affixed somewhere, what function is the physics processing really serving anymore?  

[Angelo Kerman]

That's a good point.  I'll have to give that a try. Question is, does physics affect base heating? Also, has anybody tried using KJR with Pathfinder?

[Rafael acevedo]

On March 16, 2016 at 2:07 PM, Angel-125 said:

That's a good point.  I'll have to give that a try. Question is, does physics affect base heating? Also, has anybody tried using KJR with Pathfinder?

kJR is one of my must have mods, have been using it with pathfinder and have never had an issue

[Luna Cat]

CKAN now says that Buffalo is a required mod for Pathfinder. That's a problem for me, because I'm on the ragged edge of available memory and being able to play the game. I've had to be very selective about what mods I consider essential for KSP. Buffalo looks like a nice mod, and I'll add it when 1.1 gets rid of the memory limitations, but for 1.05, adding it will break my game.

I realize I can let CKAN install Buffalo and then manually remove it, but does that then break Pathfinder? I could also experiment by saving a backup of my Game Data and testing, but the dependency might not be obvious.

Do I really have to have Buffalo if I update to the latest Pathfinder?

[Angelo Kerman]

1 hour ago, Luna Cat said:

CKAN now says that Buffalo is a required mod for Pathfinder. That's a problem for me, because I'm on the ragged edge of available memory and being able to play the game. I've had to be very selective about what mods I consider essential for KSP. Buffalo looks like a nice mod, and I'll add it when 1.1 gets rid of the memory limitations, but for 1.05, adding it will break my game.

I realize I can let CKAN install Buffalo and then manually remove it, but does that then break Pathfinder? I could also experiment by saving a backup of my Game Data and testing, but the dependency might not be obvious.

Do I really have to have Buffalo if I update to the latest Pathfinder?

Not required, no. You can safely delete the Buffalo folder.

[RiverRat2800]

Forgive me if I'm bringing up a topic that's has already been discussed, but the Ironworks recipes are seriously out of whack.  It seemed to me I was making huge amounts of material kits from very little metal ore by following the metal ore > metal > rocket parts.>.material kits chain.  I figured the numbers and masses and I think you may have a couple of numbers switched.  The recipe for smelt metal takes .05 units of metal ore and makes .7 units of metal.  If you figure the masses it is taking approximately 1.4 kg of metal ore and making 27.3 kg of metal.  So much for "matter can neither be created or destroyed"   Swapping the .05 and .7 around gives a more realistic ratio of 19.4 kg of metal ore yielding 1.95 kg of metal.

 

The rocket part recipe seems off as well, though not as bad.  It calls for .02 units of metal to make .7 units of rocket parts and .3 units of scrap metal.  I came up with a weight for scrap metal of 4 kg/unit by assuming the recycle scrap metal recipe was losing no mass.  So in this instance you have .78 kg of metal yielding 1.75 kg of rocket parts and 1.2 kg of scrap for a total of 2.95 kg.  Swapping the .02 and .7 results in 27.3 kg of metal yielding 1.25 kg of products.  Fairly inefficient, but at least it isn't violating the laws of physics.  Actually, looking at it again, if you made the .02 metal .2 you would have 7.8 kg yielding 2.95 kg.  That seems about right to me.

[Angelo Kerman]

14 hours ago, RiverRat2800 said:

Forgive me if I'm bringing up a topic that's has already been discussed, but the Ironworks recipes are seriously out of whack.  It seemed to me I was making huge amounts of material kits from very little metal ore by following the metal ore > metal > rocket parts.>.material kits chain.  I figured the numbers and masses and I think you may have a couple of numbers switched.  The recipe for smelt metal takes .05 units of metal ore and makes .7 units of metal.  If you figure the masses it is taking approximately 1.4 kg of metal ore and making 27.3 kg of metal.  So much for "matter can neither be created or destroyed"   Swapping the .05 and .7 around gives a more realistic ratio of 19.4 kg of metal ore yielding 1.95 kg of metal.

 

The rocket part recipe seems off as well, though not as bad.  It calls for .02 units of metal to make .7 units of rocket parts and .3 units of scrap metal.  I came up with a weight for scrap metal of 4 kg/unit by assuming the recycle scrap metal recipe was losing no mass.  So in this instance you have .78 kg of metal yielding 1.75 kg of rocket parts and 1.2 kg of scrap for a total of 2.95 kg.  Swapping the .02 and .7 results in 27.3 kg of metal yielding 1.25 kg of products.  Fairly inefficient, but at least it isn't violating the laws of physics.  Actually, looking at it again, if you made the .02 metal .2 you would have 7.8 kg yielding 2.95 kg.  That seems about right to me.

Yeah, the MetalOre->Metal conversion has been off for a bit, as has the recycling of ScrapMetal into Metal. I'll fix those for the next release, thanks.

[Angelo Kerman]

Ok here is what I get when I plug units and densities into a spreadsheet:

Metal->RocketParts, ScrapMetal
Resource	Density	Units	Mass	kg
Metal	0.039	0.2	0.0078	7.8
RocketParts	0.0025	1.5	0.00375	3.75	Leftover
ScrapMetal	0.004	1.0125	0.00405	4.05	0
ScrapMetal->Metal
Resource	Density	Units	Mass	kg
ScrapMetal	0.004	9.75	0.039	39	Leftover
Metal	0.039	1	0.039	39	0
MetalOre->Metal
MetalOre	0.0275	0.7	0.01925	19.25	Leftover
Metal	0.039	0.4935	0.019247	19.2465	0.0035
RocketParts->MaterialKits
RocketParts	0.0025	1	0.0025	2.5	Leftover
MaterialKits	0.001	2.5	0.0025	2.5	0
MaterialKits->RocketParts
MaterialKits	0.001	3	0.003	3	Leftover
RocketParts	0.0025	1.2	0.003	3	0

Edited March 20, 2016 by Angel-125

[RiverRat2800]

1 hour ago, Angel-125 said:

Ok here is what I get when I plug units and densities into a spreadsheet:

I'm assuming by those numbers you mean what it should be and not what it is now.  If so, it looks good to me, though I would be comfortable with a loss of mass on smelting metal ore.  You don't get 100% return in real life.  But it has felt kind of exploity the way it is now.  I set up my preliminary base and mined 800 units of metal ore and I have since built a huge sprawling base and 4-5 remote mining platforms and I've only had to mine more metal ore once.

 

[Angelo Kerman]

8 minutes ago, RiverRat2800 said:

I'm assuming by those numbers you mean what it should be and not what it is now.  If so, it looks good to me, though I would be comfortable with a loss of mass on smelting metal ore.  You don't get 100% return in real life.  But it has felt kind of exploity the way it is now.  I set up my preliminary base and mined 800 units of metal ore and I have since built a huge sprawling base and 4-5 remote mining platforms and I've only had to mine more metal ore once.

 

Yup, definitely what it will be, not what it is right now.

[Angelo Kerman]

Progress at last!

[Geschosskopf]

On 3/16/2016 at 1:07 PM, Angel-125 said:

That's a good point.  I'll have to give that a try. Question is, does physics affect base heating? Also, has anybody tried using KJR with Pathfinder?

Yes, I always have KJR installed so naturally all my Pathfinder bases have had it going for them.  And I've had some very interesting base explosions, but I think I've found the cause of them...

In general, you have 2 choices when building bases:   1 or multiple Saddles.  There is a limit to the number of inflatables you can string in series off a single Saddle before it starts dancing due to modules trying to conform to non-level ground over a wide area.  The inflatables are all connected at right angles but sag due to gravity if the ground isn't quite flat, which puts a strain on the structure.  The wider the structure, the more torsion gets into its joints in more directioons, until eventually the Saddle can't take it.  Or the inflatables slide and jump around like a bounce house.  Thus, it's better to make the base out of multiple modules, each on its own Saddle, and connect them together via KAS pipes.

However, there's a limit to that, too.  KAS pipes can transfer all the torsion of their inflatables, and are usually at slight angles to each other due to the uneven ground.  Thus, making lots of connections between modules brings together all the forces you were trying to keep apart.  The solution to this is to NOT go overboard on interconnecting modules.  As long as a module is connected to no more than 2 other modules, all seems well.  If you connect to 3 or 4 modules, eventually the Saddles under such highly networked modules will probably explode.  This usually only happens if you're at the base and warping it while watching it drill/refine stuff, though.  Otherwise, at least with KJR installed, it seems to hold up pretty well.

So what I usually do is make modules out of 4 inflatables all connected to a Switchback.  Each Switchback has a Gaslight on top rotated 45^ from the Switchback's faces.  Then I just hook these up so no module is connected to more than 2 other modules.  So I tend to make V-shaped bases, an initial core with 2 strings of other modules going off of it.

[Angelo Kerman]

The smaller base size is a good one and a good reason for me to create a disconnected logistics system, something RoverDude had to do for MKS back when KSP 1.0 was released. It's a good idea and one I'm finding that is increasingly needed for Pathfinder. It will likely be a simple distribution system that you opt into, nothing sophisticated but enough to get the job done. Just set it up and forget about it.

I'm also working on a part that you can land on the surface without needing to pull it from your KIS inventory, hopefully reducing explosions when you drop a part on the ground via KIS. A third option down the road is a configurable module for the Buffalo. And a fourth option will be a redesigned Switchback that you simply drop onto the ground without the need to attach it to the Saddle. So you'll have several avenues to establish your core base with.

[Geschosskopf]

49 minutes ago, Angel-125 said:

The smaller base size is a good one and a good reason for me to create a disconnected logistics system, something RoverDude had to do for MKS back when KSP 1.0 was released. It's a good idea and one I'm finding that is increasingly needed for Pathfinder. It will likely be a simple distribution system that you opt into, nothing sophisticated but enough to get the job done. Just set it up and forget about it.

This is something I eagerly anticipate.  I think it would be especially useful for exploiting multiple resources that occur in adjacent but separate spots.  Like a patch of good ore and no water adjacent to a patch of good water and no ore.  Put the power plant on the water and the manufacturing center on the ore, only a few hundred meters away, and everybody's happy

49 minutes ago, Angel-125 said:

I'm also working on a part that you can land on the surface without needing to pull it from your KIS inventory, hopefully reducing explosions when you drop a part on the ground via KIS. A third option down the road is a configurable module for the Buffalo. And a fourth option will be a redesigned Switchback that you simply drop onto the ground without the need to attach it to the Saddle. So you'll have several avenues to establish your core base with.

All sounds very good.  I look forward to seeing them.

New subject:

I had a wild idea the other day.....  PIPELINES:  Both the stock game and various mods somehow make resource consumption/production happen in the background happen even when you're not focused on the ship, it's outside physics range, and you're warping.  Drills dig, refineries process, life support supplies are consumed, etc.  So why can't you use that same mechanism to have Base A pump Resource B to Base C over any distance?  Base A gets a consumption rate on the resource, Base C gets a production rate for it, and away you go.

Then you need some way to justify having this happening.  Such as, each base needs a pumphouse module.  Then you have a big rover containing a "pipeline-making part"  that has to drive the whole distance first, perhaps consuming a resource like Metal along the way.  And maybe put a limit on distance so you might have to build intermediate pumping stations for really long pipelines.

 

 

[Angelo Kerman]

An intriguing idea, but one that would require a lot of work on my part. I think there is a background processing mod already that would do most of what you want. Pathfinder would then need a transport system of some sort that runs automatically. That would be more reasonable. Since it runs automatically, that background processes mod could set up system you're looking for.

[Geschosskopf]

26 minutes ago, Angel-125 said:

An intriguing idea, but one that would require a lot of work on my part. I think there is a background processing mod already that would do most of what you want. Pathfinder would then need a transport system of some sort that runs automatically. That would be more reasonable. Since it runs automatically, that background processes mod could set up system you're looking for.

From what I can tell, BackgroundProcessing hasn't been updated to 1.0.5 and only works for EC without me having to code up my own mod, which I lack the ability to do.  But it appears the stock game incorporates some type of background processing (like for the ISRU parts) so I was hoping there was a simple way to use that via ModuleManager or something.

[Angelo Kerman]

My understanding of stock resource converters is that they look at the last time they were used and then "catch up" when the vessel is loaded again. So if you had the vessel loaded a day ago in game time, then when you load the vessel you get a day's worth of resource conversions. That means you'd have to visit each craft to ensure deliveries and to run the processors.

[Geschosskopf]

3 hours ago, Angel-125 said:

My understanding of stock resource converters is that they look at the last time they were used and then "catch up" when the vessel is loaded again. So if you had the vessel loaded a day ago in game time, then when you load the vessel you get a day's worth of resource conversions. That means you'd have to visit each craft to ensure deliveries and to run the processors.

Hmmm.....  I think that would be OK.  It would just be 1 more resource to catch up on when you go back to that base.  You wouldn't have to go to the whole supply chain because resources would only be changed on the balance sheet while you were looking at it, not actually moved from base to base.  IOW, the receiving base would effectively be creating the pipeline resource out of thin air.  But it would all need some overarching system to create links between the bases, only in the presence of which would the receiving base get the resource when you went there.

[nobodyhasthis2]

Things to do whilst waiting for the 1.1 update.  Antonov An-225 + Buffalo + Pathfinder = Tomb Raider Tourism 

That narrow wheel base change helps with cargo transport. Also found out that the Buffalo wheel jack makes for a good remote tech dish mount. Was able to uplink the base to satellite network using this.

Two things I learned from the exercise. Take the right LS settings. I have TAC and packed for USI. Doh! Not a big mistake as the Buffalo had plenty to go around and could be piped into the base network. Still lesson learned to double check on Buckboard choices. When getting into a Ponderosa without life support. You lose everything in the suit and exit with nothing. So don't enter until the tents are linked up to LS.  

In all a good ground test of all the pathfinder equipment that will next be used on the Mun next.  

 

Edited March 23, 2016 by nobodyhasthis2

[Angelo Kerman]

Pretty neat!  Love the plane with its cargo door nose too.

[DMSP]

Hi! I just wanted to say here that I have finally re-downloaded Pathfinder.

I also wanted to post this, Playing with Pathfinder:

So basically, I'm testing a new massive Duna Colony ship. The landers you see here are part of the ship's "rings". It's basically like Ares from Red Mars.

I'm hoping that in 1.1 I can have the actually constructed Version flying to Duna.

 

[Angelo Kerman]

Wow, looks really cool! Thanks for sharing that, most of the time I just hear about how things don't work so it's nice to see when things do.

On my end, I've finished the static set design for the Hacienda IVA. Not much to show from the last picture, but now I start making the props, which I hope will go relatively quickly. IVAs are a lot of work and right now you don't get much of a return on your investment, but with 1.1's "ant farm" view (my term), I think you'll start seeing more mods with custom IVAs.

[TheDog]

Help, what am I missing?

->I have Bob and Bill camping on Minmus, and the base is great.

The only thing not working is the life support (USI-LS). From the modules (and looking at the pathfinder module manager patches) I have the impression that the Ponderosa Hab should act as a USI-LS Life Support recycler, that is I should be able to do "start life support", which drops my supplies consumption levels a bit.

But looking at this base, my Ponderosa Hab module says "life support inactive". 

No button to activate in the right-click menue. Also no button in the "manage operations" menue.

See base scresnshot here: http://imgur.com/NTeqD64

 

I am sure I am missing something, but what...?

[Angelo Kerman]

13 hours ago, TheDog said:

Help, what am I missing?

->I have Bob and Bill camping on Minmus, and the base is great.

The only thing not working is the life support (USI-LS). From the modules (and looking at the pathfinder module manager patches) I have the impression that the Ponderosa Hab should act as a USI-LS Life Support recycler, that is I should be able to do "start life support", which drops my supplies consumption levels a bit.

But looking at this base, my Ponderosa Hab module says "life support inactive". 

No button to activate in the right-click menue. Also no button in the "manage operations" menue.

See base scresnshot here: http://imgur.com/NTeqD64

 

I am sure I am missing something, but what...?

Honestly I don't use USI-LS so I don't know. Best to wait for the dust to settle with 1.1 before tackling this one.