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

[Sarxis]

If I wanted just the Docking Port fix for 1.4 what files do I need to update?  The reason I ask is because I've made some of my own updates and changes to the mod and I don't remember all the things I've changed (tech tree and minor stats to individual parts, what have you.) 

Thank you for any help

 

ps - I notice you removed kerbalmonths from the modulehabitation for USI-LS resource config file.  Is that ok?

Edited February 1, 2017 by Sarxis

[DStaal]

8 hours ago, Merkov said:

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.

I'm thinking I may need to revive my patch set: I had Kontainers in KPBS style, and was working on an adapter part - though honestly I think I may take a look at how the current walkways interact with the multihub.  Heights were *very* close before, and connecting a 'tube' walkway to a multihub would be a decent base connection in my mind.

[Merkov]

7 minutes ago, DStaal said:

I'm thinking I may need to revive my patch set: I had Kontainers in KPBS style, and was working on an adapter part - though honestly I think I may take a look at how the current walkways interact with the multihub.  Heights were *very* close before, and connecting a 'tube' walkway to a multihub would be a decent base connection in my mind.

I haven't played a lot with the KPBS tubes, but I seem to recall that they look very similar to the MKS ones. Unless sizes are grossly off, I would imagine something like that would look (and work) great.

Incidentally, the very first mod interoperability patch I ever downloaded was one of your UKS-KPBS patches.

[KerikBalm]

2 hours ago, Nils277 said:

@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

Well, making the bases into rovers wasn't a problem (also... 50+ pages). Making them into rovers with a wheel base narrow enough to fit in the mk3 bay, and able to connect with a node-connected (as opposed to surface attached) docking port was the issue. 

As for your comment about landing leg length - I'm confused, the landing legs are already significantly shorter than the wheels when they are both mounted on the side nodes/hardpoints.

Anyway, here is my new rover system for moving modules. I really love the extendable motorized wheels and their ability to lift a module after attaching to it.

Spoiler

Landed with rover in the bay

backing rover out:

core module placed:

connecting rover pieces

returning rover to cargoplane:

The cargoplane was unmanned with no pod, as soon as it was connected, I reconfigured the plane for easier loading/unloading- raise the rear gear, adjusted the ramp angle

Redeployed rover, went back and got the core module for loading:

As mentioned, for bigger modules, I would have to leave off the rear part. the rear part would have to attach before unloading, and would have to detach before closing the craft up (well, It couldstay attached and clip out the back  _

and away the module and front wheel pair goes, allowing movement of the base piece by piece.

 

 

My plan is to drop a base core with the rover system, leave the front wheel pair attached to the mk3 dropship, and load new modules in orbit to bring them down, and have the rear part of the rover system attach and extract them. I'll need 2 of the rear part of the rover for moving the base surface to surface if I use modules that are too big to have the front and rear part of the rover to fit in the bay at the same time (assuming I can't just fly around with the rear of the cargobay open/clipping

[Dr.Wolfram]

2 hours ago, Nils277 said:

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

Just when I thought your mod is awesome... Well, this update increased it's awesomeness level (insert random over 9000 joke)!! 

[Nils277]

@KerikBalm Yeah, 50+ pages is a bit much  

The wheels and legs are not supposed to be at the same level. The wheels are originally meant to be attached on the legs. (Picture is somewhere in the KSPedia of KPBS). They are higher to allow the rover/base to drive around even when the legs are deployed. 

[KerikBalm]

ok, but that still leaves some room to make the legs longer without getting rid of that feature.

Indeed, I still want the wheels to lift a module higher... playing with extending and retracting can raise and lower a docking connection to enable it to snap in place when it just doesn't quite want to.

Anyway, a flatbed piece would be nice... I suggest making it wide enough to accommodate 2x RA-100's

Any further thoughts on a mini hangar that can fit in a mk3 bay?

[Kerbital]

Thank you Nils277 for another update!

[tsaven]

11 hours ago, Nils277 said:

 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:

I know you don't use the mod, but this trips up a lot of new players to MKS:

The mass listed in the VAB is the un-expanded mass.  They get WAY heavier when expanded.  Try it out in the VAB and look at the resulting vessel mass, if you still have it installed.  When you expand them in flight they consume a huge quantity of the resource "MaterialKits" which are 1,000 per ton.  For example the Hab Ring consumes 46,000 MaterialKits to expand, and the Ranger Habs require 8,000.  Once they're expanded, their Mass/Hab ratios are in line with the Orca and all other parts of MKS.

I will go over the rest of your numbers in detail later today.

9 hours ago, Nils277 said:

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

THESE ARE AMAZING!

If I can give you MM configs, will you take a pull request to give them MKS functionality?  I know you don't use the mod, and I do not expect you to write them yourself, but if I can put in the balance work for it would you integrate them?

*edit* I see there is already discussion about this.

Edited February 1, 2017 by tsaven
darp

[bokrif]

Really great mod! I really appreciate your work.

I've read that KPBS is "lightly" compatible with MKS though I have a question to those who use it with MKS: how does KBPS EL functionality handle the MKS EL changes? For example does it still use RocketParts?

(Sorry I cannot launch the game to test for myself.)

[DStaal]

41 minutes ago, bokrif said:

Really great mod! I really appreciate your work.

I've read that KPBS is "lightly" compatible with MKS though I have a question to those who use it with MKS: how does KBPS EL functionality handle the MKS EL changes? For example does it still use RocketParts?

(Sorry I cannot launch the game to test for myself.)

That's all handled at the EL layer - EL has recipes, and if you change the recipe, everything that builds/recycles will change to match.  MKS ships configs to change the recipes, so the KPBS parts use them.  (As the part doesn't care - only EL does.)

[sarsengo]

Hey guys, the parts are not loading for me. am i doing something wrong?

[DStaal]

33 minutes ago, sarsengo said:

Hey guys, the parts are not loading for me. am i doing something wrong?

Probably.  Hard to tell from that, but usually that means you haven't installed them correctly.  Undo whatever you've done, re-download, and try again.

[sarsengo]

I tried reinstalling a couple of times. I even checked KSP for corrupt files on steam app. The game loads fine and a lot of the old parts for the mod are loading but the rocketpad, workshop, and any extraplanetary parts aren't there...

[LatiMacciato]

59 minutes ago, sarsengo said:

I tried reinstalling a couple of times. I even checked KSP for corrupt files on steam app. The game loads fine and a lot of the old parts for the mod are loading but the rocketpad, workshop, and any extraplanetary parts aren't there...

If you haven't installed EL (which is dependancy for functionality) they might stay hidden, otherwise they should pop up. I got the option enabled where all KnK stuff is in 1 category (forgive me when I forgot how that's called, can be found in options) which shows me all new EL parts.

BTW I totally enjoy the new recycler part, very very cool work. would be very cool, if it would be animated tho but it's cool anyways!!
hope that's something coming soon™

[Nils277]

19 hours ago, Sarxis said:

If I wanted just the Docking Port fix for 1.4 what files do I need to update?  The reason I ask is because I've made some of my own updates and changes to the mod and I don't remember all the things I've changed (tech tree and minor stats to individual parts, what have you.) 

Thank you for any help

 

ps - I notice you removed kerbalmonths from the modulehabitation for USI-LS resource config file.  Is that ok?

The 'kerbalmonths' were from an earlier version, it is now called 'BaseKerbalMonths'. The two docking parts are in PlanetaryBaseInc/BaseSystem\Parts/Structural/DockingPorts

just change nodetype in the ModuleDockingNode from sizeH to size1.

 

@tsaven You are right, i did not know about the fact that they gain weight when they expand. This puts this into a totally different light and unfortunately makes the parts essentially usesless. With a habitation value of 4.8 (plus 3 for the seats) i would need 5 Habitat MK1 to just keep one Kerbal happy on a round-trip to Duna. Just checked the parts when they are deployed and the mass of around 9-10 tons for the 'Ranger' habitation module does still not seems to be in any relation to the total kerbal months it can provide (which still is 622.48).

I think the best comparison is between MKS 'Tundra' Expandable Habitat (2.5m) and the Habitat MK when both are deployed. They have around the same mass (2.875 to 2.6) and have about the same size. The Tundra provides 19.8 Kerbal-Months at 0.495 EC, so the 7.3 Kerbal Months would make the Habitat MK2 way inferior. 

As a last note in my opinion any mod that wants to support USI-LS and is required to stay with the Mass to Habitation ration will always be way inferior to MKS habitation wise unless a huge amount of work is done. First any mod would also have to circumvent the mass to habitation limit by making all habitation parts expandable and gaining weight while doing so, meaning that any fixed part is doomed to be either too heavy to be reasonably lifted into orbit or has not enough habitation to even get one kerbal to duna and back. (This would again also need new special parts to have a resource for the expansion, ways to gather, store and process the resources etc. ergo a whole infrastructure just to be able to have reasonable amount of time for your kerbal). Additionally there would also have to be specialized Med-Bays like in MKS to prolong the stay. The 'ModuleLifeSupportExtender' is part of the code from USI-LS but the only mention i have ever seen of it was a bug report about an NRE. So this possiblility/requirement is not at all obvious to anyone not using MKS (me included, i just stumbled upon it yesterday by accident).

To be completely honest: I already considered more than once to drop the support for USI-LS because it is not possible with a reasonable amount of work to have useful values for habitation (as in be comparable to MKS) and still stay with the recomendations. Also USI-LS changed more than once in ways that made all previous configs essentially useless or unbalanced at best or added new features that require new parts to make it usable (specialized recycler, now the "Med-Bay" feature). This really gets annoying over time.

Edit: My suggestion would be to keep the values as they are now or nerve them slightliy to fit with the comparison to the Tundra 2.5m part when USI-LS only is used and have the lower values onyl when MKS is installed too. I can't imagine it would be fun for anyone to have to put dozens of redundant habitats to a ship just to keep one or two kerbals at most happy on trips that are further away than Minmus. 

 

@bokrif @DStaal I'm not quite sure about that. MKS changes the resources needed for EPL. I don't think that an MM patch can replace the converter in the parts to produce the right amount of the right resources. Meaning that when MKS changes EPL to not use Rocket Parts to build the rockets, then the Storage for Rocket Parts as well as the WorkShop are essentially useless. The same applies to the smelter or drill if other resourses are needed. This would also be something that a patch for MKS would have to handle. The pathfinder mod is in the same situation where most of the support for EL is rendered useless when MKS is installed. (At least this is what i saw a few months back, don't know if there is a patch included in pathfinder now).

 

@tsaven @DStaal @PolecatEZ @Merkov If you find configs you all agree i would be more than happy to include them into KPBS!

Edited February 2, 2017 by Nils277

[Merkov]

1 hour ago, Nils277 said:

@tsaven You are right, i did not know about the fact that they gain weight when they expand. This puts this into a totally different light and unfortunately makes the parts essentially usesless. With a habitation value of 4.8 (plus 3 for the seats) i would need 5 Habitat MK1 to just keep one Kerbal happy on a round-trip to Duna. Just checked the parts when they are deployed and the mass of around 9-10 tons for the 'Ranger' habitation module does still not seems to be in any relation to the total kerbal months it can provide (which still is 622.48).

I think the best comparison is between MKS 'Tundra' Expandable Habitat (2.5m) and the Habitat MK when both are deployed. They have around the same mass (2.875 to 2.6) and have about the same size. The Tundra provides 19.8 Kerbal-Months at 0.495 EC, so the 7.3 Kerbal Months would make the Habitat MK2 way inferior. 

As a last note in my opinion any mod that wants to support USI-LS and is required to stay with the Mass to Habitation ration will always be way inferior to MKS habitation wise unless a huge amount of work is done. First any mod would also have to circumvent the mass to habitation limit by making all habitation parts expandable and gaining weight while doing so, meaning that any fixed part is doomed to be either too heavy to be reasonably lifted into orbit or has not even enough habitation to even get one kerbal to duna and back. (This would again also need new special parts to have a resource for the expansion, ways to gather, store and process the resources etc. ergo a whole infrastructure just to be able to have reasonable amount of time for your kerbal). Additionally there would also have to be specialized Med-Bays like in MKS to prolong the stay. The 'ModuleLifeSupportExtender' is part of the code from USI-LS but the only mention i have ever seen of it was a bug report about an NRE. So this possiblility/requirement is not at all obvious to anyone not using MKS (me included, i just stumbled upon it yesterday by accident).

To be completely honest: I already considered more than once to drop the support for USI-LS because it is not possible with a reasonable amount of work to have useful values for habitation (as in be comparable to MKS) and still stay with the recomendations. Also USI-LS changed more than once in ways that made all previous configs essentially useless or unbalanced at best or added new features that require new parts to make it usable (specialized recycler, now the "Med-Bay" feature). This really gets annoying over time.

Edit: My suggestion would be to keep the values as they are now or nerve them slightliy to fit with the comparison to the Tundra 2.5m part when USI-LS only is used and have the lower values onyl when MKS is installed too. I can't imagine it would be fun for anyone to have to put dozens of redundant habitats to a ship just to keep one or two kerbals at most happy on trips that are further away than Minmus. 

 

@bokrif @DStaal I'm not quite sure about that. MKS changes the resources needed for EPL. I don't think that an MM patch can replace the converter in the parts to produce the right amount of the right resources. Meaning that when MKS changes EPL to not use Rocket Parts to build the rockets, then the Storage for Rocket Parts as well as the WorkShop are essentially useless. The same applies to the smelter or drill if other resourses are needed. This would also be something that a patch for MKS would have to handle. The pathfinder mod is in the same situation where most of the support for EL is rendered useless when MKS is installed. (At least this is what i saw a few months back, don't know if there is a patch included in pathfinder now).

 

@tsaven @DStaal @PolecatEZ @Merkov If you find configs you all agree i would be more than happy to include them into KPBS!

With regards to mass requirements, it is true that part mass isn't really "balanced" between all KPBS and MKS parts. Just talking without thinking here, but maybe that would mean that any configs we can come up with should also look at whether the mass of any parts ought to change. MKS users are pretty familiar with working with massive parts (either by using insane vessels to deliver them, or building them in-situ) so if KPBS parts became more massive for those users, that might not be a bad thing.

That opens up a whole new can of worms which brings me to my next thought: should we start a KPBS-MKS interop thread to keep this one cleaner while those of us who use both mods come up with what we would want any configs to look like? My thinking again is that having a separate thread in say Add-On Discussions or something would let Nils retake control of this thread (sorry...) and also keep the MKS discussions to those of us who use MKS. For that matter, if Nils is okay with it (and doesn't really care what his MKS configs look like) he doesn't even have to be that active in it.

Lastly, I would like to thank you Nils for offering to keep any configs we come up with in KPBS itself. I think that's a more user-friendly approach than offering the configs as a separate download.

[WuphonsReach]

The number of seats in the vessel also contribute to base hab-time in MKS (I think each seat adds 15 days of hab-time?).  Most of the MKS parts that provide hab-time can also be configured to provide a hab-multiplier (i.e. hab-common, values between 2-5x) for X number of kerbals (X is generally equal to the number of seats in the part).

[Nils277]

12 minutes ago, WuphonsReach said:

The number of seats in the vessel also contribute to base hab-time in MKS (I think each seat adds 15 days of hab-time?).  Most of the MKS parts that provide hab-time can also be configured to provide a hab-multiplier (i.e. hab-common, values between 2-5x) for X number of kerbals (X is generally equal to the number of seats in the part).

Jep, i know about the multiplier  It is also already added to the cupola (and currently also the central hub)

@Merkov making a separate threat for this sounds like a good idea. I'm also ok with an increased mass for the parts for MKS when those who play with MKS are used to high masses

[Merkov]

1 minute ago, Nils277 said:

@Merkov making a separate threat for this sounds like a good idea. I'm also ok with an increased mass for the parts for MKS when those who play with MKS are used to high masses

Cool. @DStaal @tsaven @PolecatEZ and anybody else who is interested: does anybody care who opens the thread? Also, I'm assuming Add-On Discussions is the right place for it...?

[DStaal]

I care, because I've already done it.    (I meant to mention it here last night, but I was already the last post and I didn't want it auto-merged in...)

This is more than just USI-LS, but it's probably the right spot for that discussion as well, and with a bit of care we can keep things separate in case Nils277 wants to grab parts of it.

[Gilph]

On ‎1‎/‎18‎/‎2017 at 7:09 AM, Nils277 said:

No worries. I think it has to do with the number of engineers on board.

A little help for the documentation would be really appreciated. Can everyone edit the wiki on github or do you need to unlock it somehow?

Hi, I don't think anyone answered you on this.  I believe anyone with a Github account can edit.  @dboi88 and others did some amazing work on the USI Wiki sites. If there needs to be some access set up, they would be familiar with it.  I would also offer help, but am really very visually challenged in trying to make things look nice.  If you need descriptions or walls of text, would be happy to help.

[dboi88]

@Nils277 The wiki has some settings on GitHub. You'll have no idea but I used your KSPedia entry as a benchmark for the entry i made for USI, so cheers for that lol

[Nils277]

@Gilph Thanks.   Already figured what to do and opened the wiki for everyone who has an account on github.

@dboi88 Heh...cool  Actually i never expected anyone to consult the wiki of KPBS at all. 

[mafs]

Congratulations to the latest update Nils, i can't rep you enough for your this mod!

i took it as opportunity to install extra planetary launchpads mod, and it seems i have a problem when trying to build ships not on the launchpad but using a survey stick on the ground - the stick does not appear in the menu of the launch pad, i can only select the pad itself.

this works like a dream and as intended, but i plan to use it for building small rovers in situ and of course building rovers on top of my base would not be the best idea.

my base consists of a smelter, recycler, workshop, launchpad, the necessary tanks for metal, scrap, rocket parts and energy production - am i missing something?

in some tutorials i read that a survey station is necessary in order to work with survey sticks, does not the workshop have this function?

any help/hint would be appreciated!