Pathfinder vs UKS (also Kerbal Planetary Base Systems)

[Storywalker4]

So, I'm torn between Pathfinder and UKS. I'm unsure what one offers over the other, and how they're different. Could you enlighten me of that? Pros? Cons? What do you guys use and why? Also, is KPBS basically a simpler colonization system for a more limited number of planets?

Thanks for you feedback!

PS I am using TAC life support

[OrbitalBuzzsaw]

I'd say KPBS. UKS : REALLY hard. Pathfinder : DEFINITION OF LAG. KPBS : Fine

[RoverDude]

I may know something about this

UKS Is primarily a gameplay mod - i.e. you could delete all of the parts, replace them with white cylinders, and it would still stand on it's own.  And yes, it's hard if you want to get to 100% self sufficiency.  But then (IMO) , building colonies on other worlds is not something you should be able to do in a single launch or a single evening.  UKS is less about the base, and more about the infrastructure, logistics, and planning it takes to pull it all off - and usually with several bases before finishing off   It also encourages doing things in degrees... start with little single-launch short-term outposts, then expand and grow as you learn all of the bits and walk the tech tree.

It's also the oldest - I've been developing it and releasing versions for over two years (the next major update centers around a bunch of parts for base construction... EVA > IVA and all that jazz).

TAC-LS is supported, tho since TAC-LS lacks an analogue to habitation/homesickness that USI-LS has, some of the parts are less useful (tho IMO having to deal with early career crew rotations is an interesting consideration).  There's also MKS-Lite, which is the simpler version of UKS - less parts, fewer mechanics, and more of a stepping stone.

[ComatoseJedi]

While having a hand in playing with all of these mods, I'd have to say you choose the best one that fits how you would run your space program off of. I'd try all of them. See which one fits your bill and go with it. There is no "best" mod, because everyone has a different opinion on how things -should- be. I used these mods for one month per mod to see which one I would like to use during the 1.0 days. Now, I'm having to go back and re-define my space program once again with the release of 1.1. And I do mean every aspect of my space program. So, just play with all of them, see what you like and don't like. Choose and have fun. 

[Nightside]

All three of those mods are awesome. Base mods such as UKS and Pathfinder give you something to do after you've landed on a planet  and give you an incentive to actually bring kerbals along for the journey. Both of those add production and link into another interesting but fairly complicated mod: Extraplanetary Launchpads.

If you are more interested in have big, cool looking payloads to provide you with the challenge of building bigger launchers and creative landing contraptions, KPBS (or MKS lite) might be more interesting.

 

[Vrana]

There is no reason not use all three. I do. Pathfinder and KPBS even offer some USI-LS compatibility if you decide to throw that into the mix as well.

[cy-one]

There's also a much simpler "build ships somewhere else" mod than Extraplanetary Launchpads.

"SimpleConstruction", which uses EPL-code, but changes 4 already existing parts (ISRU for Ore->Metal, Ore container for Metal/RocketParts-Storage, ScienceLab for Metal->RocketParts and Jr Docking Port as "spawn") makes building stuff a bit easier.... and imho a lot less cluttered and ugly

[Storywalker4]

I guess what I don't understand is what Pathfinder offers. I'm familiar with the UKS system, it's been around the block. But I'm not familiar with Pathfinder in that sense. I mean I kinda get the production line for EPL in Pathfinder: Pathfinder drill, ore, metal, parts. I don't quite unstand how the other materials work, or how the life support functions. Or the progression of Pathfinder. As far as I've picked up, Pathfinder is more mobile, easier to set up temp bases, and more science-y.

Edited May 20, 2016 by Storywalker4

[CobaltWolf]

3 hours ago, Storywalker4 said:

I guess what I don't understand is what Pathfinder offers. I'm familiar with the UKS system, it's been around the block. But I'm not familiar with Pathfinder in that sense. I mean I kinda get the production line for EPL in Pathfinder: Pathfinder drill, ore, metal, parts. I don't quite unstand how the other materials work, or how the life support functions. Or the progression of Pathfinder. As far as I've picked up, Pathfinder is more mobile, easier to set up temp bases, and more science-y.

In my experience, @Angel-125's pathfinder is more of a mid-game thing while UKS is more for end game.

[Storywalker4]

12 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

In my experience, @Angel-125's pathfinder is more of a mid-game thing while UKS is more for end game.

Is there anything that UKS can do that Pathfinder can't or vice versa?

[RoverDude]

35 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

In my experience, @Angel-125's pathfinder is more of a mid-game thing while UKS is more for end game.

Actually, UKS has bits ranging from early game inflatables through end game manufacturing (the idea being to let folks get their feet wet with the small, easy stuff).  And the small bits end up being the efficiency extenders for the large bits, and are just as easy to go space camping with as the Pathfinder bits

This kinda leads into into @Storywalker4 's question RE differences.  UKS has a lot of progression built in, as well as oodles of reward mechanics - both in terms of funds/science/rep, but also in multiplers the longer you stay on a planet - i.e. your little Kerbals get better at mining, farming, and long term habitation (if you use USI-LS - TAC-LS does not have an analogue for habitation).

Also fun bits like shared planetary resources, different power/resource transmission mechanics (tho I believe Angel added something like UKS's resource sharing in a recent Pathfinder update), EVA activities like maintenance and refueling, etc.

I'm not aware of any core mechanic Pathfinder has that UKS lacks, tho I could be mistaken

(edit)  Oh!  And Pathfinder lets you change the module functions.  UKS does not (currently) do that, although that may change.

(edit)

I will say the major issue has been documentation, but @sirreality is leading a pretty massive update effort at the moment, and I expect most of it is caught up

Edited May 20, 2016 by RoverDude

[CobaltWolf]

@RoverDude ah see I haven't had a chance to play extensively with either, probably was a mistake to try and answer.

[RoverDude]

No worries, one of the reasons I hopped in the thread

The only bad thing about maintaining a mod for years that also evolves and expands at a pretty brisk pace is folks forget some of the bits I have included in it

[Angelo Kerman]

A mentor once told me that the only one true way that exists is the one that works for you and those you interact with. Mods like Pathfinder, UKS, KPBS, and others are no different. It comes down to what your interests are. Pathfinder is aimed at players like me who are semi-casual, who want base building aspects in the game, and who see them as a means to support their exploration efforts but also not get in the way. The mod is built around the premise of "we've just planted boot prints and flags, now what?" This is a question that all the base building mods try to answer, to be honest. For Pathfinder, the idea is that you set up temporary bases via EVA- which means KIS/KAS is a prerequisite- and then outfit the empty modules with equipment. It's also based around the bootstrap and jerry-rig nature of the old west; several parts can be converted after launch to serve different functions. Need a geology lab? As long as you have enough equipment, you can convert that unused habitat into one. Build a generator out of a storage box. Convert a Chuckwagon into a greenhouse.

I've built a lot of configurable options into the mod, because my play style might not match yours. For instance, you can opt out of the need to have enough equipment on hand to reconfigure a module, opt out of the need for an engineer, and (for those parts that break), the need for resources to repair the module, and you can even decide whether or not the parts can break. It also has three different play modes: Default, with all the bells and whistles, Simplified, with a simplified production chain for those who want just a bit of complexity and/or are just starting out, and Pristine, which does away with all the converters in favor just having nice looking parts. You can select your play mode at the space center; just decide which one you want to use, and restart the game. Your bases will adjust accordingly. The other options are configurable both at the space center and in flight.

You also have science options: core samples give you some science and a chance to improve- or worsen- resource extraction rates in the current biome. The geology lab can unlock the biome and generate science. It also lets you conduct studies that might improve your production rates- or worsen them- for the current biome, based upon gaining a better understanding of the composition of the local resources. And you have an orbiting satellite that gains science by continuously monitoring and cataloging the planet's resources. And once you're done improving drilling and production to your liking, you can continue to do geology studies and either publish your research for reputation, or sell the research for funds. Or you can ignore the geology studies altogether, and stick with the base level efficiencies, and not bother with publishing or selling your research. It's your game, your choice.

I can't really speak to the differences between mods, so instead I'll point you to the Pathfinder Wiki so you can see what the mod has and doesn't. The information there is pretty up to date, though it could use a bit of organization to help understand the resource production flow and base design.

Hope that helps and as always, have fun.

[Kerbal101]

Kerbal Planetary Base Systems is like a light version of UKS.

UKS includes stuff like workshops, drills, converters, mobile rocket launching facilities, logistic hub with that automatically move stuff around.

Although one can improve KPBS with Extraplanetary Launchpad mod, and KPBS integrates with TAC-LF or USI-LF lifesupport mods, UKS is more complex and has more interconnected parts. Plus unbeatable automatic logistics hub. So, my voice is with UKS, even if its simply requires easy understandable example-based manual...

[Rafael acevedo]

My own two cents worth. Especially since you are talking about two of my must have mods. It really depends of what you want to do and your computer capabilities. If you want to build a realistic base with a minimum of mods, it favors kpbs , you just need stock and this mod. However, for realism kpbs would probably be in phase two colonization, as inflatables would be used for mass and weight consideration. For realism sake and if you are bldg an initial asteroid base pathfinder is the way to go. However, once you add a life support mod, ( and you computer can handle it), here is when the integration the nils and angel had done to their mods, that makes them a sight to behold. The ability to reconfigure labs, drills, etc.mtjet pathfinder brings to Kbps really brings the ability to build realistic self sustaining bases, specially with the chem lab.  I have not tried mks as I just started experimenting with life support. But it you have the memory capacity, I'll recommend you use both Kbps and pathfinder together.