totm may 2024 [1.12.x] - Modular Kolonization System (MKS)

[Daveroski]

Just now, voicey99 said:

I believe it does both.

I tried that. I have changed the range from 3 to 4,5 and 6 and it hasn't affected the 'open inventory' distance in any way.

 

[Nergal8617]

2 minutes ago, voicey99 said:

It's this formula, which also acts as a multiplier for heat produced. The best thing to use for MKS stuff is the MKS-brand Thermal Cooling System, which has a huge par-part cooling capacity.

Thanks.  Yeah the MKS Thermal Cooling System is the best thing to use, my standard mining rig has a lot of them to cool the drills and reactor.

 

4 minutes ago, voicey99 said:

6 minutes ago, Daveroski said:

That setting is apparently for the 'grab' range not the open inventory range.

I believe it does both.

Not as far as I have noticed, I have my grab range boosted and I still have problems opening the bigger KIS Kontainers.

[voicey99]

27 minutes ago, Nergal8617 said:

Not as far as I have noticed, I have my grab range boosted and I still have problems opening the bigger KIS Kontainers.

Hm, on the KIS wiki it states maxDistance controls both item pickups and inventory access. This is corroborated by what I can tell from the DLL, which doesn't appear to have a baked maxDistance and seems to use the one in the cfg file.

[DStaal]

44 minutes ago, Daveroski said:

That setting is apparently for the 'grab' range not the open inventory range.

Well, if that's the case then you'll just need to work on how to get close.  I know it's from the center of the craft, and I was *fairly* sure that works for both - but if it's not, then it's a standard KSP 'interaction range' which there may not be a setting for.

------

On the whole failures/efficiency thing: I like the idea of some resource (replacement parts or machinery), with a buffer - above say 50%, you get full efficiency.  Below that it steadily decays towards full shutdown.  Throw up an alert when you hit the switch point - either on scene load or during normal flight.  The buffer could be various sizes for 'automated' vs. 'non-automated', if you want.  Either way, it gives a fairly simple experience I think: Deployed with full resources, it will work as intended for a while with no other interaction.  Past some point you need interaction to maintain operation - but there's no random guesswork of when, and you *can* leave it for a while without needing advanced math to compute the output.  You aren't punished unduly for forgetting about it, you can just repair back into working order, or even partial working order.  If people want failures, there's DangIt, Baris, etc.  This is more about normal wear&tear.

[Nergal8617]

2 minutes ago, voicey99 said:

Hm, on the KIS wiki it states maxDistance controls both item pickups and inventory access. This is corroborated by what I can tell from the DLL, which doesn't appear to have a baked maxDistance and seems to use the one in the cfg file.

Found this over on the KIS thread, apparently it is a limitation within KSP.

 

[voicey99]

2 minutes ago, Nergal8617 said:

Found this over on the KIS thread, apparently it is a limitation within KSP.

I also saw a screenshot of a faraway interaction button in the thread, maybe that was from a previous version of KSP. Anyway, maybe in light of this the 5m kontainer should be redesigned with an indent or tunnel in the centre where EVA kerbals can get close enough to open it, but couldn't you already open them given the truncated oblong design that lets you get closer than 2.5m from the CoM (with the right positioning)?

[Nergal8617]

1 minute ago, voicey99 said:

I also saw a screenshot of a faraway interaction button in the thread, maybe that was from a previous version of KSP. Anyway, maybe in light of this the 5m kontainer should be redesigned with an indent or tunnel in the centre where EVA kerbals can get close enough to open it, but couldn't you already open them given the truncated oblong design that lets you get closer than 2.5m from the CoM (with the right positioning)?

I don't use the 5m kontainers much so I don't run into this issue much but it can be troublesome.  I suppose the kontainer could be redesigned but wouldn't it be easier to make the part menu max distance match the grab distance set in the config?

[voicey99]

1 minute ago, Nergal8617 said:

I don't use the 5m kontainers much so I don't run into this issue much but it can be troublesome.  I suppose the kontainer could be redesigned but wouldn't it be easier to make the part menu max distance match the grab distance set in the config?

With the part redesign, I mean allow a kerbal to get closer to the CoM so you don't have to fumble around on the outside for the button. As for changing the distance, that's on KIS' end.

[BRAAAP_STUTUTU]

Hey guys, i was wondering if the scavening logistics "chains" (say you place the scavengingable modules in a line,would the resources in the first module be able to be drawn to the last module?)

[voicey99]

Just now, BRAAAP_STUTUTU said:

Hey guys, i was wondering if the scavening logistics "chains" (say you place the scavengingable modules in a line,would the resources in the first module be able to be drawn to the last module?)

I think it's only P2P, and setting up some kind of chain transfer would be more faff than it's worth if it's even possible. Just use Planetary Logistics, or install a Resource Distributor module (i.e. a Karibou or Malemute rover cab) to extend local logistics range (up to 2 km).

[Nergal8617]

4 minutes ago, voicey99 said:

With the part redesign, I mean allow a kerbal to get closer to the CoM so you don't have to fumble around on the outside for the button. As for changing the distance, that's on KIS' end.

An important note, if you open the inventory on the kontainer before you send a kerbal EVA you can still interact with the inventory up to the max grab distance set in the KIS config, so there is a potential workaround.  That being said, I'm not sure I'd go to the effort of redesigning the kontainer especially since it looks like the core issue is going to be addressed at some point on KIS' end.

[BRAAAP_STUTUTU]

9 minutes ago, voicey99 said:

I think it's only P2P, and setting up some kind of chain transfer would be more faff than it's worth if it's even possible. Just use Planetary Logistics, or install a Resource Distributor module (i.e. a Karibou or Malemute rover cab) to extend local logistics range (up to 2 km).

i do have planetary logistics enabled on all of the containers (the largest available size and one for each resource, might be abit overkill but hey,redundancy is a thing.

How does the planetary logistics system work though?

Edited December 5, 2017 by BRAAAP_STUTUTU

[DoktorKrogg]

Some follow-up thoughts on wear after sleeping on it and reading thru responses...

• Having a part fail because you neglected your base should hurt. Is having an unrecoverable failure in a core structural part of your base too severe? Some would say yes, others would say no. (I personally think a little chaos makes things more interesting, otherwise we're just playing Spreadsheets in Space.)
  • Easy solution: Make unrecoverable failures a setting folks can toggle on or off in their save. We already have configurable failure states for Kerbals who run out of of supplies or hab time. Wear could work the same way.
• I don't really like the idea of gradually diminishing efficiency as a failure state. That just puts us back to square one since that's how Machinery works already.
• I do like the idea of part overhauls. ReplacementParts could be consumed for maintenance, Machinery/MatKits could be consumed for overhauls, with overhauls being the way you "reset the health bar". I particularly like this idea as a way to allow for the concept of replaceable drill heads.

[voicey99]

28 minutes ago, BRAAAP_STUTUTU said:

i do have planetary logistics enabled on all of the containers (the largest available size and one for each resource, might be abit overkill but hey,redundancy is a thing.

How does the planetary logistics system work though?

If you have a PL-enabled kontainer and a PL-enabled module (MPUs can only push, logistics modules can only push when unmanned and can push and pull when manned by a pilot or quartermaster), when the resource amount on your ship fills up to above 75% of capacity, enough of it will be pushed into hammerspace (with a 5% tax) to empty the storage down to 50%, adding it to the giant planetwide stockpile. If it drops below 25%, enough will be pulled out of the stockpile to fill the kontainer to 50% capacity (no tax for pulling).

Large kontainers are not necessarily overkill, since PL can only update once per 6h catchup cycle (when you load a vessel, KSP gives you your backlogged production in 6h chunks). As each kontainer can only effectively utilise half its capacity for this, you need at least 12h worth of production or usage of a resource in order not to lose products to insufficient storage space (if there isn't room for each cycle's output to fit on the vessel, it will be discarded) or running out of input halfway through the cycle.

16 minutes ago, DoktorKrogg said:

Some follow-up thoughts on wear after sleeping on it and reading thru responses...

• Having a part fail because you neglected your base should hurt. Is having an unrecoverable failure in a core structural part of your base too severe? Some would say yes, others would say no. (I personally think a little chaos makes things more interesting, otherwise we're just playing Spreadsheets in Space.)
  • Easy solution: Make unrecoverable failures a setting folks can toggle on or off in their save. We already have configurable failure states for Kerbals who run out of of supplies or hab time. Wear could work the same way.
• I don't really like the idea of gradually diminishing efficiency as a failure state. That just puts us back to square one since that's how Machinery works already.
• I do like the idea of part overhauls. ReplacementParts could be consumed for maintenance, Machinery/MatKits could be consumed for overhauls, with overhauls being the way you "reset the health bar". I particularly like this idea as a way to allow for the concept of replaceable drill heads.

If a failure renders the part completely useless, then they should be rare. I don't see why you shouldn't be able to use the overhaul function to recover from these, since an overhaul is stripping everything out of the part until it's just a shell and replacing it, which would cost you a similar amount of resources to just making a new one. More harsh breakdowns might become more common as the part gets older as well.

I posited diminishing efficiency as something that would only kick in (i.e. activate, so it isn't applied at all before this) after many part half-lives once the part gets really old, well past the point where any self-respecting player would have replaced/renewed it long ago. By that point, the parts would be elderly enough that they would struggle to reliably function and you would be constantly running around dealing with breakdowns, so diminishing efficiency would come in at a point where the production uptime is being hammered by breakdowns already and simply sound the death knell for a part than is on its last legs and terminally worn out.

Yuup. I always thought drills were getting away with it, since they would be run harder than machinery.

Edited December 5, 2017 by voicey99

[Nergal8617]

14 minutes ago, DoktorKrogg said:

Having a part fail because you neglected your base should hurt. Is having an unrecoverable failure in a core structural part of your base too severe? Some would say yes, others would say no. (I personally think a little chaos makes things more interesting, otherwise we're just playing Spreadsheets in Space.)

• Easy solution: Make unrecoverable failures a setting folks can toggle on or off in their save. We already have configurable failure states for Kerbals who run out of of supplies or hab time. Wear could work the same way.

 

I agree, the option to turn it on or off is key.

17 minutes ago, DoktorKrogg said:

I don't really like the idea of gradually diminishing efficiency as a failure state. That just puts us back to square one since that's how Machinery works already.

Again, totally agree here.

17 minutes ago, DoktorKrogg said:

I do like the idea of part overhauls. ReplacementParts could be consumed for maintenance, Machinery/MatKits could be consumed for overhauls, with overhauls being the way you "reset the health bar". I particularly like this idea as a way to allow for the concept of replaceable drill heads.

This I especially like, I should be able to overhaul a part and it should cost me materials.

[DoktorKrogg]

10 minutes ago, voicey99 said:

If a failure renders the part completely useless, then they should be rare. I don't see why you shouldn't be able to use the overhaul function to recover from these, since an overhaul is stripping everything out of the part until it's just a shell and replacing it, which would cost you a similar amount of resources to just making a new one. More harsh breakdowns might become more common as the part gets older as well.

Ulterior motive... now that Ground Construction is a dependency, I like the idea of giving people a built-in reason to use it.  @Nergal8617 nailed it, making it optional is the key. (In case anyone missed it, in-situ deployment of DIY kits is coming.)

16 minutes ago, voicey99 said:

I posited diminishing efficiency as something that would only kick in (i.e. activate, so it isn't applied at all before this) after many part half-lives once the part gets really old

If it's a fixed hit to efficiency, that would probably be alright. Gradual degradation is the sticking point.

20 minutes ago, voicey99 said:

Yuup. I always thought drills were getting away with it, since they would be run harder than machinery.

Totes. Enjoy your free ride while you can, Drills. It may not last forever.

[mike5brown]

I have to ask as someone who is new to manufacturing is there any advantage to creating a new resource, Replacement Parts?  There are already a lot of other available, Material Kits, Machinery, and SP, and the descriptions behind each part should satisfy requirements for replacements.  Also if overhaul doesn’t return to “100% part health” it does a great job of showing jerry-rigging. That and I don’t want to have to have another component to manufacture. 

—-edit—

You mean soonish I will be able to create a DIY kit at a duna base and I won’t have to import them. That will make the trip to Duna easier, maybe.

Edited December 5, 2017 by mike5brown

[voicey99]

2 minutes ago, DoktorKrogg said:

Ulterior motive... now that Ground Construction is a dependency, I like the idea of giving people a built-in reason to use it.  @Nergal8617 nailed it, making it optional is the key. (In case anyone missed it, in-situ deployment of DIY kits is coming.)

So, if it's built in to the middle of your base you have to tear the entire thing apart just to get one part out? And place them with KIS? or deploy it as a whole new standalone base? Replacing a part would be a huge and tedious amount of effort, and I still fail to see why an overhaul would't fix it (is logic banned?). Having to make new parts and swap them out on your base just seems unnecessary when you can simply replace the internals.

4 minutes ago, DoktorKrogg said:

If it's a fixed hit to efficiency, that would probably be alright. Gradual degradation is the sticking point.

By a fixed hit, do you mean just apply a percentage and never change it? My point is that by the point where the performance hits appear, breakdowns make the production so unreliable and unpredictable it doesn't matter. If you're opposed to any kind of efficiency curve at all, Instead of a curve, after a certain point it would gradually decrease linearly with age (e.g. a few constant percent per half-life, so it would eventually seize up and stop completely after a set time - maybe maintenance could stave off decline?), and this decrease would be dependent on running time and not on production so there would be none of the exponential curves you get with machinery, and you could calculate the production easily given the linear nature of this decrease (i.e. multiplier is 100% * half-lives elapsed after production decrease starts * decrease per HL). By the time a part gets this old though, there is little point in trying to calculate production totals as they would ping around thanks to breakdowns anyway.

4 minutes ago, mike5brown said:

I have to ask as someone who is new to manufacturing is there any advantage to creating a new resource, Replacement Parts?  There are already a lot of other available, Material Kits, Machinery, and SP, and the descriptions behind each part should satisfy requirements for replacements.  Also if overhaul doesn’t return to “100% part health” it does a great job of showing jerry-rigging. That and I don’t want to have to have another component to manufacture. 

ReplacementParts used to be a thing, it was depreciated and it's now returning afresh. Machinery will be partially depreciated and relegated to just a mass offset rather than an active requirement (though you may still need it for other things) since it represents just the amount of the part that is filled with machinery, while RP is going to become the active maintenance resource. MaterialKits are a construction resource (you can't fix a machine with a brick), and SP is an intermediate resource (the MKT/SP requirement for switching bays should probably be replaced with RP as well).

[DoktorKrogg]

3 minutes ago, voicey99 said:

So, if it's built in to the middle of your base you have to tear the entire thing apart just to get one part out?

If you have permadeath enabled in your settings, yes. You would have to figure out a way to work around it (GC, construction ports, KAS, whatever). If you have permadeath disabled, parts can be overhauled an infinite number of times. If you're the type of person who likes their base to look a certain way, then yeah I can see how trying to tear a part out of the middle of it would be problematic. I was thinking more along the lines of leaving it and putting the new part on wherever you can find a spot for it.

14 minutes ago, voicey99 said:

My point is that by the point where the performance hits appear, breakdowns make the production so unreliable and unpredictable it doesn't matter.

I think maybe an easier way to simulate reliability issues is to increase the consumption rate of ReplacementParts. @RoverDude can explain better than I can but my understanding is that the primary goal is to decouple wear from efficiency completely. The reason being, that it makes the other complimentary mods (USI-LS specifically) easier to balance for both players who use them with MKS and players who use them standalone.

38 minutes ago, voicey99 said:

Machinery will be partially depreciated and relegated to just a mass offset rather than an active requirement (though you may still need it for other things)

I think the plan is for Machinery to still affect efficiency as well. It just won't be consumed anymore. (Which is why I like the idea of having it be consumed as part of an overhaul. MatKits too. Gives you a reason to keep making them.)

[voicey99]

54 minutes ago, DoktorKrogg said:

If you have permadeath enabled in your settings, yes. You would have to figure out a way to work around it (GC, construction ports, KAS, whatever). If you have permadeath disabled, parts can be overhauled an infinite number of times. If you're the type of person who likes their base to look a certain way, then yeah I can see how trying to tear a part out of the middle of it would be problematic. I was thinking more along the lines of leaving it and putting the new part on wherever you can find a spot for it.

Yeah, I'll be playing with that off. If you're going to introduce a mechanic, you might want to make it more challenging than simply annoying.

54 minutes ago, DoktorKrogg said:

I think maybe an easier way to simulate reliability issues is to increase the consumption rate of ReplacementParts. @RoverDude can explain better than I can but my understanding is that the primary goal is to decouple wear from efficiency completely. The reason being, that it makes the other complimentary mods (USI-LS specifically) easier to balance for both players who use them with MKS and players who use them standalone.

Perhaps the amount of RP consumed per maintenance round could be proportional to the difference in failure chance between the base rate and the current rate, so the higher the base rate (which would double every machinery half-life), the faster the actual rate increases (i.e. base rate multiplied by a function of time since last maintenance round) and so you need to spend more and more resources to keep the machine running as it gets older. This also has the added effect of making longer intervals between maintenance cycles more costly - whether this is good or not I don't know, though this could be justified as damaged parts in need or replacement damaging other parts the longer they are left in there. I made a crappy graph in Paint to illustrate what I mean by everything said so far (HL2 being at the same time as the maintenance is a coincidence).

54 minutes ago, DoktorKrogg said:

I think the plan is for Machinery to still affect efficiency as well. It just won't be consumed anymore. (Which is why I like the idea of having it be consumed as part of an overhaul. MatKits too. Gives you a reason to keep making them.)

That's what I meant by "not an active requirement", though using it in overhauls makes sense (will any other resources be needed?). I wish we could see this USI chat so we can actually see the discussion without you having to relay and paraphrase it.

Edited December 5, 2017 by voicey99

[QuakeIV]

8 hours ago, voicey99 said:

Hm. Try HyperEditing something with crew capacity over so it triggers him to come back (hab is shared within 150m), and when you edit it away again he should stay normal. If that doesn't work, give me the savefile or something.

Still a tourist, its edited to within 23m, and it even triggered a rendesvouz event.

 

 

[RoverDude]

1 minute ago, QuakeIV said:

Still a tourist, its edited to within 23m, and it even triggered a rendesvouz event.

Put the IsGrouchy flag back to true, try again

[QuakeIV]

That did the trick, thanks a bunch.

Edited December 6, 2017 by QuakeIV

[AccidentalDisassembly]

4 hours ago, DoktorKrogg said:

Some follow-up thoughts on wear after sleeping on it and reading thru responses...

• Having a part fail because you neglected your base should hurt. Is having an unrecoverable failure in a core structural part of your base too severe? Some would say yes, others would say no. (I personally think a little chaos makes things more interesting, otherwise we're just playing Spreadsheets in Space.)
  • Easy solution: Make unrecoverable failures a setting folks can toggle on or off in their save. We already have configurable failure states for Kerbals who run out of of supplies or hab time. Wear could work the same way.

Sure, completely agree, then everyone's happy. =)

Quote

I don't really like the idea of gradually diminishing efficiency as a failure state. That just puts us back to square one since that's how Machinery works already.

The difficulty settings probably fix that worry, unless I'm misunderstanding here. So you're saying there just needs to be added a setting that changes the existing mechanic to break parts rather than lower efficiency?

Quote

I do like the idea of part overhauls. ReplacementParts could be consumed for maintenance, Machinery/MatKits could be consumed for overhauls, with overhauls being the way you "reset the health bar". I particularly like this idea as a way to allow for the concept of replaceable drill heads.

But here: why? What is the diference between a "ReplacementPart" and a "Machinery" and a "MatKit"? They are all things you manufacture in order to put together other things. They are conceptually identical (so far). The only reasons to distinguish them is to (A) make players have to get different ore/dirt/whatever from the planet in order to manufacture them, which ideally means (B) there is some progression involved, e.g. at first you can only maintain your base; then, with the addition of another resource, you can build new parts... But concerning the idea of wear and tear, it's not logically coherent to have one mining pipeline for things that fix stuff and another one for things that make stuff. All that does is make an additional resource necessary (if there's any difference in how one or the other part is made) OR force the player into using multiple recipes to create products that should be interchangeable - I mean, if you can manufacture Machinery, and you can manufacture MaterialKits, why can't you turn your Machinery into Material Kits? And if there's one specialized resource required for expanding a hab, for instance (meaning: adding parts to the hab), and another specialized resource for keeping things running (Machinery?), and another specialized part for overhauling things (ReplacementParts?): why? Why is replacing something different than replacing its parts? Why is manufacturing parts that make something expand different than manufacturing parts for some other base element? They are conceptually the same thing (in terms of their place within the overall concept of the mod) with distinctions for their own sake.

Or, in short: Why not just have one resource for constructing and maintaining basic things? Perhaps the incentive not to run out of said resource could be (after a grace period) would be that, if it runs out and your stuff "breaks" or wears out, you dun screwed up and you have to use more of that resource than you normally would to get things back in order? That accomplishes (my interpretation of) what you want, I think.

 

The point I was trying to make earlier with this whole wear and tear mechanic is that it's meaningless in terms of gameplay unless it fits in to some kind of narrative/progression involving bases [edit: or space-based habitations, or the idea of colonizing, you get the point] - at a place in the hierarchy of "base stuff" that other things don't already occupy. Something like this (although I recognize there are probably holes in what I'm saying):

1. At the beginning, you send a small base and crew to a faraway planet. The first thing you have to do is prevent all the kerbals from suffocating and all the parts of the base from wearing out. At this stage, there are perhaps 2 or 3 or 4 (or however many you think is actually fun and challenging to go deal with at this point) different planetary resources in play: the stuff that makes life support stuff (if you have that turned on), and the stuff you have to combine to create Machinoreplacmenparteny for the base.

2. When you have a surplus of "stuff you've manufactured that goes into base bits," which is to say the exact same stuff you use to keep your existing base running, because they're still conceptually identical - if you can manufacture replacement parts for a drill, you can manufacture a drill -, you can build more parts for your base, perhaps ones that allow for more kerbals and more mining. Now, however, you start to need additional resources (in some vaguely coherent order of ascending complexity and difficulty) to make your base capable of doing increasingly interesting things. You start mining these new resources in addition to the ones that keep the base functioning. Now we're talking 5 or 7 resources or whatever.

3. Eventually, in order for your base to be "fully" functional, you add new parts and new capabilities, which lead you again to a higher tier of resources (or however you want to think about that). Now your base can do it all!

The meaning of the wear and tear mechanic in my example is that it is the first (and therefore more attainable) step in the overall progression of the base [or deep-space explorer ship or whatever]: the precursor to the wider processes for which it is a pared-down model.

If being able to address the wear mechanic is simultaneous with other processes used to make the base a base, then it's just an additional set of resource gathering needs, and an additional set of recipes, and so on, not meaningfully different from others. In which case, why not just cut through the clutter and make one recipe for "the things you need all at the same time to make your base not die" with many planetary resources included?

Edited December 6, 2017 by AccidentalDisassembly

[RoverDude]

2 hours ago, AccidentalDisassembly said:

But here: why? What is the diference between a "ReplacementPart" and a "Machinery" and a "MatKit"? They are all things you manufacture in order to put together other things. They are conceptually identical (so far). The only reasons to distinguish them is to (A) make players have to get different ore/dirt/whatever from the planet in order to manufacture them, which ideally means (B) there is some progression involved, e.g. at first you can only maintain your base; then, with the addition of another resource, you can build new parts... But concerning the idea of wear and tear, it's not logically coherent to have one mining pipeline for things that fix stuff and another one for things that make stuff.

Except that machinery and replacement parts use combinations of tier 2/3 stuff you already have.  It's not a mining concern (by the time you hit this, you're already mining everything).  But what it does do is prevent resource conflicts - which is a significant issue, and why all of the chains are designed to prevent unpredictable resource contention.