[1.12.X] Kerbal Planetary Base Systems v1.6.15 [28. April 2022]

[Frag2000]

5 hours ago, Nils277 said:

@Scoclema you have to deliver them in pieces or ship the parts in a KIS storage and assembe them on site.

Teleportation would be cheating 

Hi Nils, is there a video around giving a small tutorial of this?

[Nils277]

@Frag2000 you could try these two:

 

  

They are both linked on the OP of this mod  

Edited January 24, 2017 by Nils277

[Frag2000]

On 1/24/2017 at 7:29 AM, Nils277 said:

@Frag2000 you could try these two:

 

  

They are both linked on the OP of this mod  

Hey Thanks Nils!

I thought for some reason that it was possible to create the module (like living quarter and Science lab) from the OSE (addons to KIS and KAS) by using parts. So you would not have to carry the modules over space. Sorry for the confusion!

I will give it a try, it looks fun

[Nils277]

@Frag2000 you can use OSE to produce the parts. You will need a really big KIS storage though that can hold the bigger parts.

There are currently no parts in this mod that provide the OSE mechanics but they are being worked on. 

Edited January 25, 2017 by Nils277
Rephrased statement

[LatiMacciato]

Just now, Nils277 said:

@Frag2000 you can use OSE to produce the parts. You will need a really big KIS storage though that can hold the bigger parts.

There are currently no parts to support or use the OSE mechanics but they are being worked on. 

did you include the MKS 5m KIS containers in your statement too?

[Nils277]

14 minutes ago, LatiMacciato said:

did you include the MKS 5m KIS containers in your statement too?

I meant parts providing the mechanics of OSE not KIS parts with big enough storage. Clarified the post. I'm sure there are KIS container out there that are able to hold very big parts

 

[LatiMacciato]

4 minutes ago, Nils277 said:

I meant parts providing the mechanics of OSE not KIS parts with big enough storage. Clarified the post. I'm sure there are KIS container out there that are able to hold very big parts

 

 

I alternatively use EL/MKS Launchpad's to create whole vessels, but enjoy adding this or that part through 3D printing.
i combined KBPS with MKS parts ..also its a mish-mash but it fits all in all and i can focus on gathering sci data again YAY! (sorry for OT)

Edited January 25, 2017 by LatiMacciato

[tsaven]

On 1/21/2017 at 2:31 PM, dlrk said:

Does KPBS integrate well, or at all with UKS/MKS?

It doesn't have much crossover with MKS, but they work fine alongside each other.

It does have support for USI-LS but the balance is completely out of wack with some parts being very over-powered, and some parts being under-powered.  As soon as RD releases compatibility guidelines I'll be seeing about writing some MM configs to bring them back in line, but we've been waiting on those for a few months now and I'm not sure when it'll happen (or if he'll ever be done adjusting the balances)

[Nils277]

13 hours ago, tsaven said:

It doesn't have much crossover with MKS, but they work fine alongside each other.

It does have support for USI-LS but the balance is completely out of wack with some parts being very over-powered, and some parts being under-powered.  As soon as RD releases compatibility guidelines I'll be seeing about writing some MM configs to bring them back in line, but we've been waiting on those for a few months now and I'm not sure when it'll happen (or if he'll ever be done adjusting the balances)

Which parts from KPBS for USI-LS are over/underpowered? I may at least adjust them until a proper documentation is made.

Edited January 26, 2017 by Nils277

[tsaven]

10 hours ago, Nils277 said:

Which parts from KPBS for USI-LS are over/underpowered? I may at least adjust them until a proper documentation is made.

The 6-Kerbal hub either needs to be nerfed in terms of capabilities, or made much heavier.

RD is still tying the performance to mass, and I think the closest equivalent he has for your hub is his Orca command pod, which similar to the hub is designed to do Habitation and Life support for 6 kerbals.  It weighs in at ~17t, where I think your hub is around 9t.

I'm at work and don't have numbers in front of me, but a quick way to bring it closer in line (without jacking the mass up) would be to remove either the Hab Multiplier, Hab Months, or Recycler/Purifier.  I can pick through his configs for stuff as a reference and get you a solid estimate later tomorrow (having a job again is dumb, leads to way less Kerbal time).

[tsaven]

On 1/27/2017 at 5:24 AM, Nils277 said:

Which parts from KPBS for USI-LS are over/underpowered? I may at least adjust them until a proper documentation is made.

Okay, having a chance to look at the existing configs which are:

KPBS Command Hub

• 7.5 Tons
• 6 Crew Capacity
• 54 Kerbal-Months Habitation, 5.25 elec/sec
• 0x Hab Multiplier (apparently my memory sucks, thought it had one)
• 70% Recycler for 8 Kerbals, 5 elec/sec
• 90% Purifier for 8 Kerbals, 15 elec/sec

USI FTT Ocra Command Pod

• 17.5 Tons
• 6 Crew Capacity
• 12 Kerbal-Months habitation, 0.525 elec/sec
• 2.5x Habitation Multiplier
• 80% Recycler for 6 kerbals, 40 elec/sec

Something to keep in mind is that the Orca is physically at least twice as large dimensional as the Command Hub, and I think the mass of your Command Hub makes sense.  Given that the Orca provides a total of 30 Months of hab time when you include the multiplier, that gives a hab/mass ratio of 1.7 months of hab time per ton.  That also figures in that the pod is multi-function, providing Hab and a Recycler.

Going off that estimate, and using the purifier numbers from the 2.5m Kerbitat, I'd recommend the following for the Command Hub in keeping with its function as the core of long-term settlements but respecting the rest of the USI balance:

• 7.5 Tons
• 6 crew capacity
• 13 Kerbal-Months habitation, .5 elec/sec
• 0x Hab Multiplier
• 90% Purifier for 8 kerbals, at 75 elec/sec, needing 65 water/hr  (I think at this mass, it should have one or the other for recycler vs purifier, but not both.  And given the large/permanent nature of this part, the purifier makes more sense)

The MK1 and MK2 should have their recyclers removed if you're going to keep the mass the same.  They should actually be heavily nerfed as well, and ideally the MM code from RD would be added in to be able to switch them from adding Habitation Time to adding Habituation Multiplier (RoverDude calls it Hab-Common vs Hab-Quarters).  It we only stick with Hab Time, and basing the estimates off the numbers from the 2.5m Kerbitat, (7.65 Tons for 20 months), that gives 2.61 Hab/ton.

So for the Planetary Habitats, the MK1 and MK2 should have 4.8 Kerbal-Months and 7.3 Kerbal-Months, respectively.  Maybe round up to 5 and 7.5.

Additionally, the K&K Planetary Recycler should be nerfed nearly in half to mirror the stats of the USI RT-5000 recycling module, make the K&K a tiny bit heavier to have them match:

• 3.75 Tons
• 79% Recycler, uses 18.75 elec/sec
• 3 Kerbals affected
• No crew capacity

If you want to call RD over to have him glance over this feel free. I always assume he's busy though and I'm hesitant to bring him in when he's publically said his mod balance guidelines aren't ready yet.

[Booots]

For some reason, the carbon extractor, water purifier, small greenhouse, and algae farm all seem to be limiting themselves to 65% regardless of where I have the slider. (I'm running TAC LS) I noticed someone had a similar problem a few pages back, but it's still persisting for me. I am running the latest version of both TAC and KPBS.

EDIT: A timely fix would be nice so my Kerbals en route to the Laythe colony don't die in flight.

EDIT2: Weird, when on an unmanned vessel with one of each, just to test, they only run at 5%...

EDIT3: I found the root cause:

UseSpecialistBonus = true
SpecialistEfficiencyFactor = 0.2
SpecialistBonusBase = 0.05
ExperienceEffect = ConverterSkill
EfficiencyBonus = 1

This somehow makes those converters sensitive to personnel. Is this intended behaviour?

Edited January 31, 2017 by Booots

[r3fe]

12 hours ago, Booots said:

For some reason, the carbon extractor, water purifier, small greenhouse, and algae farm all seem to be limiting themselves to 65% regardless of where I have the slider. (I'm running TAC LS) I noticed someone had a similar problem a few pages back, but it's still persisting for me. I am running the latest version of both TAC and KPBS.

EDIT: A timely fix would be nice so my Kerbals en route to the Laythe colony don't die in flight.

EDIT2: Weird, when on an unmanned vessel with one of each, just to test, they only run at 5%...

EDIT3: I found the root cause:

UseSpecialistBonus = true
SpecialistEfficiencyFactor = 0.2
SpecialistBonusBase = 0.05
ExperienceEffect = ConverterSkill
EfficiencyBonus = 1

This somehow makes those converters sensitive to personnel. Is this intended behaviour?

That's something that has been asked in the TACLS thread: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/146465-122-tac-life-support-v0128-release-5th-jan-2017/&page=13

If you need to fix it quickly, comment out these line or set UseSpecialistBonus to false.

[Nils277]

@Booots I will remove this from the converters for now in the next update. This seems to cause too much confusion. Update will be there in a few days (if nothing goes wrong). 

Edited January 31, 2017 by Nils277

[PolecatEZ]

 

More notes on making it MKS compatible...

These modules should be added to most of the main structures - this works beautifully and I've been testing this in my own game.  These modules allow them to get power from energy distributors and tether themselves to the ground without need for KIS pylons:

    MODULE
    {
    name = USI_InertialDampener
    }

MODULE
    {
    name = ModulePowerCoupler
    }

MODULE
    {
    name = MKSModule
    }

For command modules, these are helpful for constructing 100% K+K bases - you just really need one part with these per independent structure on the planet:

MODULE
    {
    name = ModuleResourceDistributor
    }    
    MODULE
    {
    name = ModulePlanetaryLogistics
    }

MODULE
    {
    name = ModuleColonyRewards
    }

 

These could probably be rolled up into a MM patch, but I just added these to the appropriate K+K parts directly and have been using it no problem.  I think with the balance tweaks @tsaven mentioned above, it should be enough to get basic bases up and running with just K+K parts.  If we could get an inline nuke plant or RTG (with some kind of radiators - water cooling maybe?) then we'd really be set.

 

 

 

[DStaal]

I think adding ModulePowerCoupler to everything is probably a bit overpowered.  It really should only be on a few parts that are designed to receive power.  I'd definitely have it on the central hub, but what else I'm not sure.  (The small fuel cell actually would be good, but there should probably be one standard-sized part with it as well.)

Note of course that having just one on your ship means the whole ship can get power.

[KerikBalm]

Hello Nils277.

I just tried your mod, and I was nearly ready to discard it because these parts just weren't working for what I wanted out of my surface bases, and then I found a single part that is just... amazing and exactly what I've wanted for a long time, so I thought I'd stop by here to say I very much like your mod, and in particular, you did a good job including one part in particular: those electric wheels that can be extended and retracted... oh my god have we needed retractable wheels with electric motors.

So, back to why I was about ready to uninstall your mod after installing with it and playing with it for a little while, and how this part saved the mod for me:

My most recent "kick" has been making surface stuff that is transportable by the mk3 cargobay. I also started making modular surface bases instead of delivering an entire surface base as a single unit.

As seen here:

Spoiler

I saw that your base parts could fit into a mk3 cargo bay - great, greenhouses, more comfortable living quarters than a hitchhiker can on its side or a mk2 crew cabin...expandable parts - it looked great.

But at first I found it to not be very rover friendly. The base modules were too wide to put stock gear on their sides It was very ungainly to try and put motorized wheels underneath them to allow the wide part of the module to be higher (as the floor narrows). The wheels you included were labelled as landing gear - they could only attach at nodes, which were located on the sides of the habs that were too wide for the floor of the mk3 bay. The only thing special mentioned about them in the part description was that they could decouple, which didn't interest me. It wasn't clear to me that they could be "rover" wheels, and the only rover wheels that extend and retract. - you can see in my stock designs I used an ungainly combination of retractable landing gear and fixed wheels to allow me to raise/lower a module, as well as move it along the surface.

Then I found the 1.25 meter part with those side hardpoints for adding wheels/landing struts/whatever, and a tiny bit of use of the offset tool allowed me to move these modules in and out of a mk3 cargobay+ramp.... So I started building by the runway. To keep part count down, I made a little rover that docks to the rear of a module, and allows it to move (I still had a pair of wheels on the front).

(forgive the use of a 2.5m probe core on that module on the right in the last picture, I couldn't find a part that enabled a multihop control point, but I found it after that screen shot)

I was then able to refine it to include a dockable pair of wheels for both sides, so I could drive the module almost all the way to the docking port - then detach the front wheels, bring them around to the back, and push the module at 1-2 m/s (with the front part resting on a pair of landing legs) until I got a docking connection.

You can see I'm using stock 1.25m docking connections- I didn't really see the point (looks?) of your custom docking ports - is there any reason you made them unable to connect with stock 1.25 ports? It would be nice if they were compatible (as my mk3 transports also dock other modules there for spaceflight, like a LF fueltank+LV-N engine cluster, for instance)

So now, I've got just a few suggestions, mainly for things to reduce part count of bases, which I worry about:

* A large, single piece ore container- like the single large LFO tanks, rather than that wedge piece that slots into a modular storage. TO get a decent amount of ore storage I need a 4x modular part + 2x ore wedges - 3 parts instead of just 1.

* Possibly make the "wedges" that fit into the modular storage containers have physics significance = 1 to help performance?

* have something like the modular storage parts without the split down the middle - a sort of flatbed part. Above you can see I made a flatbed with 2x adaptor pieces and 3x structural panels (5 parts) so that I could add 2x RA-100s (since I want the base to be a remote control point, limiting it to short range relay antenna is pretty lame for a distant self sufficient control point - although I suppose an HG-5 is adequate if I put a much larger relay in orbit) - I'm sure a flatbed piece like that could find other uses (or one can make do with a bit higher part count, using structural panels)

* possibly make the landing legs a little longer... those are some very low riding bases, no?

* Possibly, a bit narrower hub part: If I want a 4 way hub deployed out of a mk3 cargobay, only the 1.25m( "corridor") hubs will fit - but they seem fine if the side nodes are left unused (I am a fan of the changing part appearance though)

* The garage is too big for a mk3 bay, and the service bay is a bit too small and doest have a loading ramp - perhaps have a part 2-3x the length of the service bay, where the doors open to create a ramp - to serve as a mini garage for mini-rovers?

Anyway, whatever you decide to do, great mod. I'm quite pleased that you made most of these parts able to fit in a mk3 bay, and included wheels that make it practical to actually deploy these bases from mk3 cargoramps.

 

[PolecatEZ]

7 hours ago, DStaal said:

I think adding ModulePowerCoupler to everything is probably a bit overpowered.  It really should only be on a few parts that are designed to receive power.  I'd definitely have it on the central hub, but what else I'm not sure.  (The small fuel cell actually would be good, but there should probably be one standard-sized part with it as well.)

Note of course that having just one on your ship means the whole ship can get power.

By most "main parts" I meant basically the Hab modules, science module, greenhouse, and the cockpit control modules.  The idea in MKS with the power couplers were so you could (in theory) have several independently sitting base sections without the need to connect them up physically and everything will still work together.  

The module you may be thinking of is the "power distributor" module, which is either the 2000m microwave antenna or the 500m integral ones in the power modules.  This I don't know where you would logically put in the K+K parts except maybe the fuel cell doing double-duty as a distribution point as you said.  That base central command piece already has sooo much going on - its really OP - and if you did put the distributor there then your power structure would need to necessarily be your central structure.

[DStaal]

2 hours ago, PolecatEZ said:

By most "main parts" I meant basically the Hab modules, science module, greenhouse, and the cockpit control modules.  The idea in MKS with the power couplers were so you could (in theory) have several independently sitting base sections without the need to connect them up physically and everything will still work together.  

The module you may be thinking of is the "power distributor" module, which is either the 2000m microwave antenna or the 500m integral ones in the power modules.  This I don't know where you would logically put in the K+K parts except maybe the fuel cell doing double-duty as a distribution point as you said.  That base central command piece already has sooo much going on - its really OP - and if you did put the distributor there then your power structure would need to necessarily be your central structure.

No, I was keeping that distinction in mind.  Even power receivers are moderately sparse in MKS - though quite a bit more common than transmitters, not everything has them.  I was thinking of the central hub in this case as the use-equivalent of the Tundra Pioneer, so it should be able to receive power there as well.  And MKS adds the power receiver to the stock fuel cells, so that's an obvious place.  But I'm not sure what the equivalent of the Duna Pioneer would be in this view, which would be where the other power receiver.

That said, your list is probably decent.  It is more common - it's just not everywhere, like MKSModule and the InetertialDampener modules.

[tsaven]

I would be very much against adding Planetary Logistics from MKS into any of the KPBS parts, unless Nils comes up with a new part specifically for it.  It's only included in what, two parts in MKS itself? And that's more of a late-game function of MKS anyway,

I view KPBS as being more of an enhancement for MKS, not a replacement.  It's great for filling in gaps in style that MKS doesn't have and adding some interesting new physical mechanics and part options.  But I don't think we need to go replicating all MKS functions 1:1 in every KPBS parts.  Some basic support for USI-LS functions is good, and perhaps in the future KPBS-style containers for all the MKS resources would be neat.  But unless Nils finds infinite spare time to start making custom modules, I think the shotgun approach of adding more and more functions fo the existing KPBS parts doesn't make much sense.

[Merkov]

Honestly, if Nils were to start making custom parts, I would just as soon want it to be something that meshes nicely with the the MKS multihub. That way, you could hook whatever MKS part you wanted on to whatever KPBS setup you wanted. I mean, this is already possible with KAS ports (or their MKS & KPBS look-alikes) but the KPBS crowd tend to appreciate aesthetics .

Although, now that you mention future KPBS-style containers (or should I say kontainers) I could see that being interesting...

I do agree with the suggestion earlier that MKSModule is added to most if not all KPBS parts, since this would mean that kerbals inside vessels that contain only KPBS parts and no MKS parts would still count towards the kolonization bonuses provided by MKS.

[Nils277]

@KerikBalm Glad you liked the deployable wheel. When you look back in the thread there are multiple posts where the base parts are made into a rover. Maybe you'll find some more inspiration there  

Regarding the new parts: A flatbed kind of think might be a good idea, will consider adding it. Have to think about the other suggestions, but i don't think that i will make the legs longer 1. id have to make the wheel longer too, to allow both to work at the same time and 2. ideall a base should be on the ground, the legs are mainly there to keep the bases longer away from the Kraken

 

@tsaven I totally understand what you mean and your calculations are correct. Judging from the 'Orca', all the parts from KPBS should be nerved habitation wise. But i used the values for habitation that are used in MKS (because i still see it as referece for bases using USI-LS) and there we have:

MKS 'Ranger' Habitation Module:

• 1.9 Tons
• 4 Crew Capacity
• Habitation Module 1
  • 16.8 Kerbal-Months Habitation, 0.94 ec/sec
  • 5.2x Hab Multiplier
• Habitation Module 2
  • 83.6 Kerbal-Months Habitation, 2.09 ec/sec
• No recycler

MKS 'Tundra' Habitation Ring

• 5.1888 Tons
• 10 Crew Capacity
• 497.5 Kerbal-Months Habitation

I know this part is way bigger than the Central Hub, but also lighter. So using only the mass of a part for these values does not really fit. It is lighter and has around 9 times more habitation time.

MKS 'Tundra' Expandable Habitat (2.5m)

• 1.875 Tons
• 6 Crew Capacity
• 19.8 Kerbal-Months Habitation, 0.495 ec/sec
• 0x Hab Multiplier

 

MKS 'Tundra' Expandable Habitat (3.75m)

• 2.225 Tons
• 6 Crew Capacity
• 77 Kerbal-Months Habitation, 1.925 ec/sec
• 0x Hab Multiplier

So except for the third part, all parts from MKS are lighter but have (waaaay) more kerbal-months than the Central Hub and use less EC (relative to the amount of Kerbal Months). The "Ranger" adds with both modules active (16.8 + 83.6)*(1+5.2) = 622.48 Kerbal-Months while using only around 60% of the EC the Central Hub needs.

Regarding the Recylcler i want to wait if there are changes. Because when you compare the RT-500 with the RT-5000

RT-500

• 0.1 Tons
• 60% at 0.5RC/sec
• 1Kerbal affected

RT-5000

• 3.75 Tons
• 79% at 18.75 EC/sec
• 3 Kerbals affected

K&K Recycler

• 3.5 Tons
• 70% at 3 EC/sec
• 6 Kerbals affected

I personally don't see any real guidance for a balancing here, so i put the K&K Recycler somewhere between the RT-500 and the RT-5000. I'd say that the weight is not in any sensible relation the what the recycler can do, and i assume the EC usage to increase linearly with the number of affected kerbals and factor by which the recylcer prolongs the resources. So the calculation was as follows:

When calculating from the RT-500:

70% multiplies the time you can use a resource by the factor 3.33333
60% multiplies the time you can use a resource by the factor 2.5

which means that there is a time factor of 1.3333333:

Weight: 0.1T * 1.33333 * 6 Kerbals = 0.8T
EC: 0.5EC * 1.33333 * 6 Kerbals = 2.4EC

When calculating from the RT-500:

70% multiplies the time you can use a resource by the factor 3.33333
79% multiplies the time you can use a resource by the factor 4.7619

which means that there is a time factor of 0.699999:

Weight: 3.5T * 0.6999999 * 2(times more kerbals) = 4.9T
EC: 18.75EC * 0.6999999 * 2(times more kerbals) = 26.25EC

You see there is not really a correct way for the recycler. When calculating from the RT-500 the K&K one is slightly underpowered, when calculating from the RT-5000 then it is overpowered. I see that i should probably increase in the EC usage. But i keep the rest as it is until there is either a documentation for the balancing or balanced parts i can use as reference. I also think that the RT-5000 was forgotten when RD lowered the cost for Habitation and Recycler in an update some time ago. Its EC usage seems way too high compared with other recyclers.

 

@DStaal @Merkov @tsaven @PolecatEZ Regarding the support for MKS: I don't see myself adding new parts especially designed for MKS at the moment. It is really exhausting to add parts for mods i never used or liked (yes i don't really like MKS), especially when there are potentially dozens of parts that can/should be added and WILL be asked for many times if they were not added, also MKS is known to change a lot which would add a lot of maintenance time needed. This would not fit the definition of fun in any kind for me. I will maybe add some basic functionality with modules somewhen in the future but there really is no motivation to do it at the moment. Sorry.

 

Edited February 2, 2017 by Nils277

[Nils277]

On another note, update 1.4.0 is here! Notice the small version jump? It's because of this:

 

Quote

1.4.0

General:

• Removed the Specialist Bonus from TAC-LS converters (too much confusion)

Mod Support:

• Added Support for Extraplanetary Launchpads
• Tweaked default profile for Kerbalism (thanks to @Yaar Podshipnik)
• Asjusted EC usage of USI-LS Recycler

Bug Fixes:

• The docking ports dock to the clamp-o-tron (again)

 

 

Edited February 1, 2017 by Nils277

[spoonyboobah]

OMG!!!!!!! @Nils277 you are the man!!!! well here goes another 1000+ hours into KSP....thank you so much for your time and dedication, As a convert from MKS you have completely earned all our love for this mod. I cannot wait to establish a fully fledged colony on Laythe and Duna that can launch their own rockets.... 

Already installed and now loading KSP....

Many Thanks from a devoted fan of this mod

[Merkov]

3 hours ago, Nils277 said:

@DStaal @Merkov @tsaven @PolecatEZ Regarding the support for MKS: I don't see myself adding new parts especially designed for MKS at the moment. It is really exhausting to add parts for mods i never used or liked (yes i don't really like MKS), especially when there are potentially dozens of parts that can/should be added and WILL be asked for many times if they were not added, also MKS is known to change a lot which would add a lot of maintenance time needed. This would not fit the definition of fun in any kind for me. I will maybe add some basic functionality with modules somewhen in the future but there really is no motivation to do it at the moment. Sorry.

That all makes perfect sense, no need to apologise. Honestly, KPBS has enough parts that I think MM patches can make MKS/USI-LS play very nicely with existing KPBS parts, and where there are gaps, we CAN just use MKS parts. Also, I'm sure there are a few of us out here who can help with maintaining those MM patches as MKS evolves. If you don't particularly like MKS, but there are those of us out here who like both KPBS and MKS, then perhaps it makes the most sense for us users to debate which parts need which functions, submit them to you, and then you can use your time to work on the things that you do enjoy. Maybe it's not my place to say this, but I don't think anyone benefits when you're trying to work on things that you aren't enjoying.