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

[Merkov]

Look at that; I run some errands, and everything's done by the time I get back.

[SchrottBot]

3 hours ago, Nils277 said:

@DStaal, @Merkov, @Rafael acevedo and @SchrottBot: You are right, the settings for the greenhouse for KPBS are far from optimal at the moment. And this is really due to its custom module. It is set to produce at 0% when no Kerbal is inside, 50% when one kerbal is inside and 100% when two kerbals are inside. My suggestion would to make it produce enough for four kerbals when it is full, runs at 66% when one kerbal is inside and at 33% when no kerbal is inside. This way it is not too OP to the NOM-o-Matic (because it produces less when no kerbal is inside) and still adds benefits for adding kerbals to it. So it produces enough for 1.3 kerbals when empty, enough for 2.6 kerbals when one kerbal is inside and enough for 4 Kerbals when full.

That numbers look really sensible to me. With the greenhouse fully kerbaled you'd need 1 supporting Kerbal per working one. Nice! It's a bit like the off-shift and going to work in the garden. =) Ah, those long, hard 3h working shifts on Kerbin... =)

[Rafael acevedo]

5 hours ago, Nils277 said:

I was not able to reproduce your problem. When setting the texture resolution to full resolution and restaring KSP i have the IVA textures at full resolution. If you have that setting set to full-res too, you may have a profile for KSP set in your graphics card that reduces the resolution.

 

@DStaal, @Merkov, @Rafael acevedo and @SchrottBot: You are right, the settings for the greenhouse for KPBS are far from optimal at the moment. And this is really due to its custom module. It is set to produce at 0% when no Kerbal is inside, 50% when one kerbal is inside and 100% when two kerbals are inside. My suggestion would to make it produce enough for four kerbals when it is full, runs at 66% when one kerbal is inside and at 33% when no kerbal is inside. This way it is not too OP to the NOM-o-Matic (because it produces less when no kerbal is inside) and still adds benefits for adding kerbals to it. So it produces enough for 1.3 kerbals when empty, enough for 2.6 kerbals when one kerbal is inside and enough for 4 Kerbals when full.

The config for the Greenhouse would look like this then:

    MODULE
	{
		name = PlanetaryGreenhouse
		ConverterName = #LOC_KPBS.greenhouseconverter.name
		StartActionName = #LOC_KPBS.greenhouseconverter.start
		StopActionName = #LOC_KPBS.greenhouseconverter.stop
		AutoShutdown = false
		GeneratesHeat = false
		minimalCrew = 0
		minimalRate = 0.33333333333

		INPUT_RESOURCE
		{
			ResourceName = Mulch
			Ratio =  0.0024
		}
		INPUT_RESOURCE
		{
			ResourceName = Fertilizer
			Ratio =  0.00024

		}
		OUTPUT_RESOURCE
		{
			ResourceName = Supplies
			Ratio = 0.00264
			DumpExcess = False
		}
		INPUT_RESOURCE
		{
			ResourceName = ElectricCharge
			Ratio = 5.28
		}
	}

I should have done that earlier but here are the additional fields for the greenhouse:

Of couse you can also suggest other configurations for the greenhouse if you thing they are more sensible  
One other possibility might be:
0 Kerbals inside = 50% (enough for 2 Kerbals) 
1 Kerbal inside = 75% (enough for 3 Kerbals)
2 Kerbal inside = 100% (enough for 4 Kerbals)

Edit: I'm sure there will have to be a separate configuration for the interaction with MKS though, because it adds benefits from the Kerbals as mentioned.

Nils

I agree with you in principle, the only issue I have is with the last point in reality it should be enough for 5 kerbals and it is from the mission planner standpoint. Lets say you are planning a mission where you need a pilot, two scientist for the lab. You ask yourself what is the better solution that matches your mission parameters and mass criteria

Choice 1 nomomatic 25000I and one of the smaller nomomatics 5000 plus the lab, hab and command pod with a crew of 3 which does have a direct impact in consumables and hab requirements, and everything operating and 100%

Choice 2 (using the 4 Kerbal) KPBS greenhouse, I need 1 greenhouse, 1 lab, hab and command pod with a crew of 3 operating at 50% efficiency or i can go with 4 kerbals and operate only the greenhouse at 100% but increased 1 crew with direct impact into hab requirements, however if i want to operate the lab at 100% I need to add two greenhouses and a crew of 4 which impacts throw weight, engine size etc. 

Choice 3 (using the 5 Kerbal) kbps greenhouse, I need 1 lab, 1 hab and command post with 5 kerbals) everything operates at 100% efficiency and it becomes more attractive than Choice 1

in reality you are already doing this since the greenhouse supports 2.5 kerbals when operating at 100% so does the nomomatic so using your example for simplicity

0 kerbals- operates at 33% it produces 3.135 Noms/hr enough for 1.74 Kerbals (mission planner and senior KSP engineer gene and wherner State 'if we add a recycling module, we can fly a scientist for the lab)

1 Kerbal- operates at 66% it produces 6.67 Noms/hr enough for 3.48 Kerbals (mission planner and senior KSP engineer gene and wherner salivate at the prospect of having a fully functioning lab however they say " we still need a place for the pilot and to do so we need a recycler but we are getting closer")

2 kerbals- operates at 100% efficiency, it produces 9.5noms and hour enough for 5.27 kerbals (mission planner and senior KSP engineer gene and wherner state "Eureka we achieved self sufficiency without needing a recycler this is the way to go"     Jebediah heard the comment and stated yes but if you add the recycler then we can be a crew of 6 and i can tell bill to conduct science experiments from the rover at the face of Duna , while i try to figure out how to jump over it" )

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 22, 2017 by Rafael acevedo

[SchrottBot]

@Rafael acevedo

I can follow your thoughts, although I'd like to point out a different perspective. I guess it's a question what one is going for. A quick, self sufficient outpost for some science? A long time colony, say on Eeloo? Or a mining outpost? For a permanent, extrakerbinal (?) outpost (with USI-LS), I'm going to face not only the issues of supplies, but soon my hab timer will run out anyway, and I'll have to change the crew or go for the full MKS resource flow anyway. I might techs to keep everything running, so more personal and production / assembly etc. So in this case mission planning ist more dynamically an building up a large colony in cycles. If I remember it  correctly, it was @RoverDude, who pointed out, that it was neither intended nor possible to set up a continiously self sufficient base in just one go. So, for me that's the challenge as mission planer to star small, add hardware, add personal again and agin until this get on on their own.

A mining station on the other hand can be fairly ease automated and it takes only a visit for maintenance. Okay, and maybe a Kerbal who likes to sleep weeks in a freezer ... =)   

When it comes to the science outpost, well, I'd plan the mission in phases an start an automated build up of the base, stocking supplies and let rovers collect the most part of the science beforehand. When everything is set, drop the crew an let them slowly drain supplies so they're blank the time their hab time runs out. You'll have to have them back home anyway. In the meantime, your greenhouses, gypsum drills etc. can catch up for the next team, unless you don't bring supllies with the next shuttle anyway.

Looking at launch cost (more payload = more load to pay for ...) I'd consider more parameters than just weight. The correct selection of boosters an upper stages, re-landing parts, orbital transfer with containers & tugs, fuel mining from caught asteroids or moons. For me, that makes up the fun on mission planing, not just doing basic math. Looking back at the original concepts of the Space Shuttle, as it was meant to be before Nixon cut funds or the cancelled Constellation Program or modern Visions like SpaceX ITS or Skylon can be very intriguing and give an impression how complex stuff might become when done.

Looking back to KSP, I really like that KPBS differs from MKS as it gives me more stuff to play with. Different numbers, mechanics and looks. Looks are extremely important for Kerbals, I guess :-) For me, making it work and efficient is in the art of mission planning. BUT that's only MY two cents on that. =) I can perfectly understand your idea, that supporting 5 instead of 4 Kerbals would much easier for mission planning. For the moment I'm not sure if the KPBS Planetary Lab replicates the MPL-LG-2 stock lab. USI-LS / MKS patches this one to act as a recycler if I'm not on the wrong track, operating at 70% affecting 5 Kerbals. That would pack quite some punch in your sole greenhouse. =) But I'm not sure it really does. Please cross check if in doubt. =)

 

Cheers

SchrottBot   

 

[Merkov]

2 hours ago, Rafael acevedo said:

Nils

I agree with you in principle, the only issue I have is with the last point in reality it should be enough for 5 kerbals and it is from the mission planner standpoint. Lets say you are planning a mission where you need a pilot, two scientist for the lab. You ask yourself what is the better solution that matches your mission parameters and mass criteria

Choice 1 nomomatic 25000I and one of the smaller nomomatics 5000 plus the lab, hab and command pod with a crew of 3 which does have a direct impact in consumables and hab requirements, and everything operating and 100%

Choice 2 (using the 4 Kerbal) KPBS greenhouse, I need 1 greenhouse, 1 lab, hab and command pod with a crew of 3 operating at 50% efficiency or i can go with 4 kerbals and operate only the greenhouse at 100% but increased 1 crew with direct impact into hab requirements, however if i want to operate the lab at 100% I need to add two greenhouses and a crew of 4 which impacts throw weight, engine size etc. 

Choice 3 (using the 5 Kerbal) kbps greenhouse, I need 1 lab, 1 hab and command post with 5 kerbals) everything operates at 100% efficiency and it becomes more attractive than Choice 1

in reality you are already doing this since the greenhouse supports 2.5 kerbals when operating at 100% so does the nomomatic so using your example for simplicity

0 kerbals- operates at 33% it produces 3.135 Noms/hr enough for 1.74 Kerbals (mission planner and senior KSP engineer gene and wherner State 'if we add a recycling module, we can fly a scientist for the lab)

1 Kerbal- operates at 66% it produces 6.67 Noms/hr enough for 3.48 Kerbals (mission planner and senior KSP engineer gene and wherner salivate at the prospect of having a fully functioning lab however they say " we still need a place for the pilot and to do so we need a recycler but we are getting closer")

2 kerbals- operates at 100% efficiency, it produces 9.5noms and hour enough for 5.27 kerbals (mission planner and senior KSP engineer gene and wherner state "Eureka we achieved self sufficiency without needing a recycler this is the way to go"     Jebediah heard the comment and stated yes but if you add the recycler then we can be a crew of 6 and i can tell bill to conduct science experiments from the rover at the face of Duna , while i try to figure out how to jump over it" )

I'm not a fan of this. Volume and mass-wise, the greenhouse should perform roughly as well as a 25000-I. There's no need for it to work 2.5 times better simply by adding two Kerbals. 

The point if USI-LS patches for KBPS isn't to make KPBS parts better than USI-LS ones; the goal for most of us working on the patch was to try to be similar but different. Nils' suggestion accomplishes that.

Also, you mentioned being able to support 5 Kerbals without a recycler. My question is... Why? Recyclers are pretty critical to USI-LS. We added a variety of different recyclers and purifiers to KPBS; use them. Even temporary bases ought to have some recycling.

[Rafael acevedo]

Schrottbot and merkov. It was offered as a suggestion, just from my perspective. I do use recyclers as my base keeps growing to keep up with the Increasing size of the crew.  and I do love the look oh kpbs, specially the Iva. You all make very good points. I also understand that it is not about making kpbs better than usi, that is not my intent. It was all from my perspective of a mission planner. The farther away your base is the more self sufficient your initial footprint must be. In resource constrained environment, the cost of incremental building might exceed the cost a 1 time shot with small rotation and ressuply missions. as I mentioned, I like Nils idea but if we do the math supporting 4 kerbals the module would need to produce 7.2 noms per hour (1.8*4) in reality if we are concern on volume- mass issue, we should have 0 production with 0 kerbals, 2.5 kerbal support  with 1 kerbal and 5 with 2 kerbals, we can then justify the extra production by the removal of  the equipment and conveyors  and everything else required for automation, and using this space increase the growing area. ( i actually did some research on the differences between automated, non automated greenhouses). However, in the end, the issue is to eliminate the crew penalty and Nils option does just that. So as long as we do this, any solution is fine.  OBtw thanks for looking at the issue and for caring enough to value my opinion.

[SchrottBot]

Just to avoid a misunderstanding, I didn't mean to criticise your point of of view in any way, Rafael. And I can see and appreciate what you said and seriously,Nils those thoughts should be taken into account. I just wanted to add another perspective, so Nils can ponder different views for his further development of KPBS. I guess that's basically what we both are focussed on, right? =) While we are at it: thanks a lot for bringing this topic up, dude. I'd otherwise simply opted out on that greenhouse ... =D

Cheers

SchrottBot   

[Rafael acevedo]

6 hours ago, SchrottBot said:

Just to avoid a misunderstanding, I didn't mean to criticise your point of of view in any way, Rafael. And I can see and appreciate what you said and seriously,Nils those thoughts should be taken into account. I just wanted to add another perspective, so Nils can ponder different views for his further development of KPBS. I guess that's basically what we both are focussed on, right? =) While we are at it: thanks a lot for bringing this topic up, dude. I'd otherwise simply opted out on that greenhouse ... =D

Cheers

SchrottBot   

And it is a gorgeous greenhouse isn't it , except I think if Jeb is to occupy it, noms production will go daown as he always forget to water the plants

[SchrottBot]

4 hours ago, Rafael acevedo said:

And it is a gorgeous greenhouse isn't it , except I think if Jeb is to occupy it, noms production will go daown as he always forget to water the plants

Sure! Those IVA views are hilarious! Would have been sad not to use it. =)

[Space Kadet]

 

 

Edited August 24, 2017 by Space Kadet

[pheenix99]

On 6/17/2016 at 9:43 AM, Nils277 said:

As @DStaal said, its the Malemute Rover. And it is really nice indeed. You can find it here: Malemute.

Regarding the overall suggested balance of the USI-LS support, i would agree, still have to run the numbers through my head though on the weekend. 
I guess there are some heavy changes coming in the future look here. Read something about ratiation too!

 

You are totally right, that it is indeed not really feasible to have a 1:1 copy of UKS. They are both just too different from a design point of view.
Therefore i like @DStaals suggestion to need two or more parts that allow a production for a specific resource, but allow different production chains when combined with other part combinations:

We have to make sure though that a part/production chain for KPBS does not circumvent a more complex production chain from UKS. 

A first suggestion might look like this:

here's the link to the graph source (you can open it with YEd.

The thoughts on this:

The production of Chemicals, Polymers and Metals is split into three separate converters that need another part that controls the whole process. (the converters might be just recolored ISRUs)
The productionof material kits and Machinery is also split up to compensate the lower mass, they also need the factory mechanicals to work. Same applies for the Fabrication.

I haven't had any thought yet on the production rate, balancing etc. though yet. The problem i see here is, that all of this needs more than just one or two new parts.....
What are your thoughts?

The one thing i don't know yet it whether all production chains nessecarily need to have an equivalent in KPBS. e.g. the whole nuclear energy thing, the regolith shifter etc. Maybe some parts like machinery should stay UKS only, or what do you think?

 

 

Doesn't USI use Material Kits and Specialized Parts? 

[Nils277]

@pheenix99 Well that post was made more than a year ago. USI has changed a lot since then.

Edited September 5, 2017 by Nils277

[DStaal]

In addition to that, the flowchart you posted *does* have both MaterialKits and SpecializedParts on it. 

[pheenix99]

57 minutes ago, Nils277 said:

@pheenix99 Well that post was made more than a year ago. USI has changed a lot since then.

This is true. Seems this mod is a smidge out of sync with the changes. It's been a long morning, didn't notice the age of what I was quoting.

 

[Nils277]

@pheenix99 You mean KPBS is out of sync with MKS?

KPBS does not have support for MKS integrated by default so it can't really be out of sync with the changes from it. In fact one of the reasons for this decision was that MKS changes so frequently that staying up to date with a mod i never actively use is way too much work.
But there is a support patch for MKS maintained by multiple users here:

If it is not up to date with the current state of MKS, you can post your findings there  

[pheenix99]

49 minutes ago, Nils277 said:

@pheenix99 You mean KPBS is out of sync with MKS?

KPBS does not have support for MKS integrated by default so it can't really be out of sync with the changes from it. In fact one of the reasons for this decision was that MKS changes so frequently that staying up to date with a mod i never actively use is way too much work.
But there is a support patch for MKS maintained by multiple users here:

If it is not up to date with the current state of MKS, you can post your findings there  

Fair enough.....Thank you.

[Nils277]

Update to 1.5.2

Changelog

Quote

 Localization:

• Updated spanish translation for new parts. Thanks to @fitiales and @Rafael acevedo
• Updated russion translation for new parts. Thanks to @Dr. Jet

Mod Support:

• Increased production of the Greenhouse for USI-LS to reasonable values

Download

Edited September 14, 2017 by Nils277

[Rafael acevedo]

Thanks for update

[Ivy]

A bit strange how the description for the nuclear reactor focuses on spelling, and yet "save" instead of "safe" is present there (as well as a lot of other places). Any plans to fix those or is that an inside joke at this point?

[Nils277]

3 hours ago, Ivy said:

A bit strange how the description for the nuclear reactor focuses on spelling, and yet "save" instead of "safe" is present there (as well as a lot of other places). Any plans to fix those or is that an inside joke at this point?

They are just typos, no inside joke   (english is not my native language). Will correct them for the next release

Edited September 8, 2017 by Nils277

[HaydenTheKing]

Hey all, I was going to update to 1.5.2, i looked i already have the community resource pack and the community category kit, do i need to replace those?

[DStaal]

34 minutes ago, HaydenTheKing said:

Hey all, I was going to update to 1.5.2, i looked i already have the community resource pack and the community category kit, do i need to replace those?

Just make sure you have the newest version of both.  Whether that's the version you have, or the version packed with this mod.

[vossiewulf]

I'm getting ready to make my first attempt at using this mod for a base, I've used Pathfinder previously as I'm new and that is ridiculously easy, at least transportation-wise; toss them all in a big container and you have only one thing to land.

But now I want to try this, and because I like challenges I'm trying to do a completely functional metal- and fuel-mining base with lab, workshop and EL pad in one trip. As such it ended up being about 70% PBS and 30% Pathfinder and Buffalo, the ore mining and fuel ISRU is going to be provided by a Buffalo that will be assembled onsite. Also explains why there are rover wheels attached on the outside of my lander.

Questions - when I add the HAL or an airlock, or anything really, we have CG problems and testing on the Kerbin pad ended up with me testing each unit separately and having to set the thrust limiter down on one side or the other to achieve a launch that didn't look like someone flipping pancakes. Maybe the reaction wheels have enough oomph to overcome that, but that  much torque can't make things easier so I took the time to balance them. Is this normal or am I doing too much or what? It seems a lengthy process.

Do dual Meerkats have enough Dv to slow a unit from Minmus low orbit and land safely? Or do I need extra fuel/engines to do that? I'm not sure how one does this, I could use an engine to slow down a 3-unit pack, but then I have three of them trying to land at the same time. My plan instead is to drop one unit on each orbit over the base location, but to do that the Meerkats have to handle de-orbit burn and landing.

Pics of the payload, lower section has its own 5m straight fairing.

  

[Rafael acevedo]

4 hours ago, vossiewulf said:

I'm getting ready to make my first attempt at using this mod for a base, I've used Pathfinder previously as I'm new and that is ridiculously easy, at least transportation-wise; toss them all in a big container and you have only one thing to land.

But now I want to try this, and because I like challenges I'm trying to do a completely functional metal- and fuel-mining base with lab, workshop and EL pad in one trip. As such it ended up being about 70% PBS and 30% Pathfinder and Buffalo, the ore mining and fuel ISRU is going to be provided by a Buffalo that will be assembled onsite. Also explains why there are rover wheels attached on the outside of my lander.

Questions - when I add the HAL or an airlock, or anything really, we have CG problems and testing on the Kerbin pad ended up with me testing each unit separately and having to set the thrust limiter down on one side or the other to achieve a launch that didn't look like someone flipping pancakes. Maybe the reaction wheels have enough oomph to overcome that, but that  much torque can't make things easier so I took the time to balance them. Is this normal or am I doing too much or what? It seems a lengthy process.

Do dual Meerkats have enough Dv to slow a unit from Minmus low orbit and land safely? Or do I need extra fuel/engines to do that? I'm not sure how one does this, I could use an engine to slow down a 3-unit pack, but then I have three of them trying to land at the same time. My plan instead is to drop one unit on each orbit over the base location, but to do that the Meerkats have to handle de-orbit burn and landing.

Pics of the payload, lower section has its own 5m straight fairing.

  

I have been able to land this on the mun and minmus with meerkat engines, see additional fuel were the lights are. With parachutes I have landed this in duna

[DStaal]

4 hours ago, vossiewulf said:

Questions - when I add the HAL or an airlock, or anything really, we have CG problems and testing on the Kerbin pad ended up with me testing each unit separately and having to set the thrust limiter down on one side or the other to achieve a launch that didn't look like someone flipping pancakes. Maybe the reaction wheels have enough oomph to overcome that, but that  much torque can't make things easier so I took the time to balance them. Is this normal or am I doing too much or what? It seems a lengthy process.

It's a bit lengthy.  Careful design can help, and Throttle Controlled Avionics can balance it mostly automatically.