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

[techgamer16]

1 hour ago, BRAAAP_STUTUTU said:

"you can't single launch an mks colony" Yeah i'd beg to differ...

Whats the total Delta-V for that?

[AccidentalDisassembly]

18 hours ago, RoverDude said:

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.

Well, maybe I'm confused because I don't understand what you mean by "resource contention"  or "resource conflicts," then. What (potential) conflicts are you talking about...?

Maybe I'm reading the flowchart (http://i.imgur.com/YYDXetX.png) wrong, too, or not understanding how things work in current versions (this seems pretty likely to me, but what the heck, here goes anyway). Just in case I've understood the flow chart, though, here's what I get from it:

1. Substrate, MetallicOre, and Minerals are used for Polymers, Metals, and Chemicals. Those three things are used to create MaterialKits and nothing else (I'm ignoring life support in all of this).

2. Silicates and RareMetals or ExoticMinerals (why are there two here?) can be refined to Refined Exotics and Silicon, which combine to make Specialized Parts. 

3. MaterialKits AND SpecializedParts are required to build base components / crafts like rovers / whatever, aren't they? And, furthermore, Machinery is effectively in this same tier, because no additional input is required to fabricate it. Or am I going off the rails already? So what that means in practice is that you need all 5 of those resources simultaneously to actually do something, since nothing can be done with MaterialKits alone or SpecializedParts alone. You can do nothing without all 5, and you can do everything at once with those 5.

4. That means, effectively, that when it comes to things other than life support, there are no tiers. There is an immediate need for all of those resources at the same time and all of the converters that work with them.

5. I'm proposing that this doesn't make sense from a gameplay perspective IF (if!) you want the narrative to look like Send a small colony ship -> set up maintenance so you don't die -> now turn attention to expanding base --> base expands and can do more -> does more (complexity increases, # of resources increases) -> now can build its own interplanetary ships and stuff. If you're already mining everything, there is no progression on the planet. If there is no progression possible on the surface of the planet, there is no bootstrapping, there's only fully functional bases that can then build bigger fully functional bases. Depends on what you're going for; I had the impression that you were going for progression/bootstrapping.

7. Without a form of progression on the planet, the wear mechanic will only functionally amount to an additional refinery or a different button to press on an existing refinery in order to produce a different (maintenance) resource. It's just another thing you have to do all at the same time in order to make the base function; another number in the mix to balance against others.

To my mind - again, I'm guessing there's a lot about MKS in its current state I don't understand, so there's that - it makes more sense to limit the number of resources and place them in a progression. Doesn't prevent you from shipping in a complete base; does allow you not to. There are a million ways to do this, I'm sure, but maybe something like:

- MetallicOre and Minerals (what is the difference between a "Mineral" and "Substrate"? What is Substrate supposed to represent here? Is it just to increase the number of resources you need to mine to make MatKits...?) combine to create crappily-titled TierOneParts. TierOneParts are consumed to maintain the base, and they can build additional base structures if there is a surplus.

- OR, alternatively, TierOneParts are used to maintain things only.

- By adding an additional resource or two to the mix - Substrate or Silicates or whatever - now you can create TierTwoParts. If TierOneParts are only usable for maintenance, TierTwoParts can be used to construct things, but not all things. Things like drills and rovers so you can go find the next resource you need.

- Now that you have maintenance/ability to construct stuff, you go find and mine ExoticMinerals (what is the difference between an ExoticMineral and a RareMetal...? they both seem to refine to the same things...), you can build SpecializedParts. SpecializedParts in combination with TierOne/TwoParts are what you use to build fancy things (I don't know, science labs? rocket engines?).

None of that makes sense if you're thinking in terms of "realism," or what materials actually get used to build thing X in real life, but it makes sense if you want the player to be able to go land an outpost on a planet and have the outpost advance on its own (which is not precisely equivalent to getting bigger), in which case the wear mechanic can be part of that advancement and distinct from other Gather-Refine-Combine-Consume chains because of its temporal order and its place in the hierarchy of complexity.

Edited December 6, 2017 by AccidentalDisassembly

[LameLefty]

Gah, so much drag!

That looks the like #LOLSOKERBALHURRHURR absurdities people launched before we got more realistic atmosphere effects. Or something you'd have to turn off aerodynamic pressure damage in the settings to launch today.

[DStaal]

24 minutes ago, AccidentalDisassembly said:

4. That means, effectively, that when it comes to things other than life support, there are no tiers. There is an immediate need for all of those resources at the same time and all of the converters that work with them.

You've missed something: MaterialKits are used (alone) for expanding inflatable structures and (I believe) for building with Ground Construction.  So the progression is: Ship up your first parts of a base (either as one piece or as inflatables and MaterialKits - which can also be scavenged from excess parts), build with shipped & mined your next parts of the base (either as inflatables or via GC), and then build out from there with only local materials (not fully implemented yet - but can be done via EL).

[AccidentalDisassembly]

7 minutes ago, DStaal said:

You've missed something: MaterialKits are used (alone) for expanding inflatable structures and (I believe) for building with Ground Construction.  So the progression is: Ship up your first parts of a base (either as one piece or as inflatables and MaterialKits - which can also be scavenged from excess parts), build with shipped & mined your next parts of the base (either as inflatables or via GC), and then build out from there with only local materials (not fully implemented yet - but can be done via EL).

Still, though, since GC is involved, you don't progress on the planet, right? You ship in GC stuff from Kerbin (upcoming potential modifications to GC notwithstanding). Inflating existing modules, OK - in which case it could make sense (just as an example) to make MatKits the thing needed for maintenance. But there are still no tiers: you're still shipping in everything from the homeworld here; MatKits save mass, I guess, but they don't create anything alone. Still need all 5 resources simultaneously to create anything new (and "progress" in that sense, as opposed to unlocking existing things).

Edited December 6, 2017 by AccidentalDisassembly

[voicey99]

4 minutes ago, AccidentalDisassembly said:

Still, though, since GC is involved, you don't progress on the planet, right? You ship in GC stuff from Kerbin (upcoming potential modifications to GC notwithstanding). Inflating existing modules, OK - in which case it could make sense (just as an example) to make MatKits the thing needed for maintenance. But there are still no tiers: you're still shipping in everything from the homeworld here; MatKits save mass, I guess, but they don't build things alone (without a GC container from home)?

No, though they are consumed alongside SpecParts (maybe?) by the mod OSE Workshop to produce parts that you can attach via KIS. The bit about inflatable modules is that they do save mass, since you can ship the modules in uninflated and inflate them with materialkits after installation so you don't have to lug a large, heavy big top around on a rocket. I believe GC only requires MKTs, though I could be wrong, and the maintenance resource would be the resurrected ReplacementParts with the overhaul resource (if implemented) being Machinery.

I see your point about no progression, but this is little issue to most people (you're the first person to comment on it), but changing it would require redesigning the entire manufacturing system from scratch which would take a lot of work and leead to issues elsewhere, so the current system might just be a necessary evil.

[AccidentalDisassembly]

19 minutes ago, voicey99 said:

No, though they are consumed alongside SpecParts (maybe?) by the mod OSE Workshop to produce parts that you can attach via KIS. The bit about inflatable modules is that they do save mass, since you can ship the modules in uninflated and inflate them with materialkits after installation so you don't have to lug a large, heavy big top around on a rocket. I believe GC only requires MKTs, though I could be wrong, and the maintenance resource would be the resurrected ReplacementParts with the overhaul resource (if implemented) being Machinery.

I see your point about no progression, but this is little issue to most people (you're the first person to comment on it), but changing it would require redesigning the entire manufacturing system from scratch which would take a lot of work and leead to issues elsewhere, so the current system might just be a necessary evil.

Fair point; in any case, a lot of it is a matter of taste/designer's preference, there's not a "right" way.

Either way, though, I don't see the point of introducing another resource for maintenance unless some kind of progression is established that's different from what's already there. Otherwise it's just (yet another) thing to keep track of in order for the base to do what it's already doing at the same moment it becomes capable of doing so. Seems to me that MaterialKits (as they are now) would be the logical thing for a wear-mechanic resource; you can start there (3 resources) and then move up (5 resources) in order to build stuff, maybe.

[Loren Pechtel]

1 hour ago, techgamer16 said:

Whats the total Delta-V for that?

Why would it have any huge amount of delta-v?

[WuphonsReach]

On 12/1/2017 at 8:57 AM, RoverDude said:

I will very likely resurrect ReplacementParts, etc. that were used in the past with USI-LS for the repair and maintenance mechanic.  The question being what an appropriate default 'lifespan' of a base should be... i.e. how long before systems start failing.  The behavior being driven should be a motivation to have redundant systems, and to have crewed bases to keep things running.  

An example would be having a couple of life support modules running at 50% load (which in turn would double their workable lifespan) so that if one failed, you could always operate on backup till you could fix the primary.

Resource wise, ReplacementParts would be tier 4 (like Machinery), and require MatKits/SpecParts/Chemicals (with a higher ratio of SpecParts than Machinery).  And the workshop part module to support this will be moved into some very small core modules, like the pioneer modules and also a revised scout module for the Salamander that would also include a small GC workshop to better jumpstart things.

Since I prefer larger solar systems (e.g. OPM), my vote would be that the base only needs to be visited annually, possibly as long as 3 years.  Maybe that requires only running things at 33% load or less.  Maybe that requires 4-5 star kerbals with a low stupidity before I can send them on a 30-40 year mission.  Maybe there has to be a mechanic or three (based on local vessels dry mass?) around to keep things running in tip-top shape and extend the time between checks.

I played around with BARIS for a while, but couldn't get it balanced to the point where I felt comfortable with 20-30 year mission profiles.  Everything launched at the same time seemed to always fail at the same time instead of a more random distribution (+/- 25% life span).

[RoverDude]

2 hours ago, AccidentalDisassembly said:

Well, maybe I'm confused because I don't understand what you mean by "resource contention"  or "resource conflicts," then. What (potential) conflicts are you talking about...?

Yes, you are.  Since there are no more examples in MKS Land, we can take one from the early days.  Water.  People would get kerbals killed because water was both a life support resource, and also a resource used to grow food.   Mulch had a similar issue in USI-LS... it was being gobbled up by fertilizer converters and also gobbled up by greenhouses... so bad things happened.  Thus, there are no longer any potential conflicts (or at least not ones that can cause serious base issues).

2 hours ago, AccidentalDisassembly said:

4. That means, effectively, that when it comes to things other than life support, there are no tiers. There is an immediate need for all of those resources at the same time and all of the converters that work with them.

You've been answered on this already... but to be honest, your post became kinda a rant, so I tuned the rest of it out.

1 hour ago, voicey99 said:

so the current system might just be a necessary evil.

I would not use the term 'necessary evil'.  Take a step back, and consider the level of tech required to build the infrastructure required for a rocket launch on the moon, starting with only what you can fit in an Apollo capsule.  This is the space equivalent of that guy who spent six months and $15,000 making a chicken sandwich.  It is not even remotely realistic (same way that a 100% closed life support system is unrealistic).

Now, using local materials to build out a portion of said installation makes a lot of sense (and is pretty much how NASA, etc. plan on making all of this happen.

So to put a bow on it.  Send up the infrastructure to harvest resources for fuel and life support.  Send all of the equipment (at a 100% mass cost - so not cheap!) to build basic infrastructure.  Send the next wave of larger, more complex stuff at 30% or so of the mass, since you can build the basic bits now.  You now have everything you need to maintain the stuff you have in place, and only need shipments for stuff to the tune of maybe 5% of the mass.  

There has always been a very clear progression where you bootstrap the next phase.  Probably the only thing that will (eventually) change will be with the GC updates for on-site building, but that's still at the very tail end of the progression above.

 

[sh1pman]

3 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

but that's still at the very tail end of the progression above.

Probably nothing short of a 20m dome factory will suffice for in situ DIY Kit construction. Endgame stuff.

[RoverDude]

1 hour ago, WuphonsReach said:

Since I prefer larger solar systems (e.g. OPM), my vote would be that the base only needs to be visited annually, possibly as long as 3 years.  Maybe that requires only running things at 33% load or less.  Maybe that requires 4-5 star kerbals with a low stupidity before I can send them on a 30-40 year mission.  Maybe there has to be a mechanic or three (based on local vessels dry mass?) around to keep things running in tip-top shape and extend the time between checks.

I played around with BARIS for a while, but couldn't get it balanced to the point where I felt comfortable with 20-30 year mission profiles.  Everything launched at the same time seemed to always fail at the same time instead of a more random distribution (+/- 25% life span).

If you have a Kerbal on-site (with the right resources) then it is a non-issue (same way it is today).  They can perform maintenance as needed.  You may even decide, for some vessels and missions, that it makes more sense to stockpile replacement parts, since all of this will be both configurable and predictable.  If you choose not to maintain your stuff (examples would include temporary bases or unmanned mining stations), then there will be a reasonable and predictable operational lifespan, and also a warning when the breakdowns start to happen.  Based on your nearest Kerbals, you may even be able to fix stuff before it goes completely south, or choose to shut it down till you can get a repair crew out there (since the worse off it gets, the more expensive it will be to overhaul).  Or, you can just milk as much as you can from the base and abandon it when it breaks down.

1 minute ago, sh1pman said:

Probably nothing short of a 20m dome factory will suffice for in situ DIY Kit construction. Endgame stuff.

Also note that those pretty 20m domes come with some really nice advanced resource chains that simplify things.. but will also require certain kolonization levels to drop in place.

2 hours ago, LameLefty said:

Gah, so much drag!

That looks the like #LOLSOKERBALHURRHURR absurdities people launched before we got more realistic atmosphere effects. Or something you'd have to turn off aerodynamic pressure damage in the settings to launch today.

I have absolutely launched stuff like this before without having to change settings

Edited December 7, 2017 by RoverDude

[LameLefty]

10 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

I have absolutely launched stuff like this before without having to change settings

I guess too much of my real-life aerospace engineering education comes to light in my play style. I have forgotten that none of the stock difficulty options automatically enable part damage due to G or pressure effects. Enabling those are among the first things I do when I start a new save. So I look at that kind of contraption and (aside from the sheer cost in a Career game), I can't help but think of aerodynamic drag, parts overheating and blowing up or the whole thing tumbling out of control unless you launch with a very low t/w ratio on a very lofted trajectory to get above the atmosphere - and that wastes SO MUCH dV. Ugh. 

But I guess that's just me. Kerbal on, wayward sons! 

[AccidentalDisassembly]

1 hour ago, RoverDude said:

You've been answered on this already... but to be honest, your post became kinda a rant, so I tuned the rest of it out.

I'll remember not to make the mistake of trying to contribute in the future.

[RoverDude]

8 minutes ago, AccidentalDisassembly said:

I'll remember not to make the mistake of trying to contribute in the future.

Contributions are awesome.  Rants, not so much.  Rock on.

1 hour ago, LameLefty said:

I have forgotten that none of the stock difficulty options automatically enable part damage due to G or pressure effects.

Yep, enable this myself.  Even then, enough engines and enough fuel can overcome anything, given the smaller scale of the Kerbol system

[BRAAAP_STUTUTU]

9 hours ago, techgamer16 said:

Whats the total Delta-V for that?

Much more than i actually need to get it to Ceti or iota, the LF/OX boosters are actually still half-full by the time i'm out of the atmosphere but due to a mishap in the staging design it gets dumped at the same time as the SRB's....

[BRAAAP_STUTUTU]

IS there a way to reduce lag on surface bases? my framerate is very rough within physics range and even rougher the closer i get to the base.

[DStaal]

9 minutes ago, BRAAAP_STUTUTU said:

IS there a way to reduce lag on surface bases? my framerate is very rough within physics range and even rougher the closer i get to the base.

Less parts helps - but also if you're using Kopernicus apparently that kills framerates on more complex scenes for some reason.  Other than that, not much that I know of.

Making extensive use of Planetary logistics (and therefore separating all the sub-parts of a colonization project into lots of small bases) is a good way to shrink part count in any local area.  I've also once done similar with creative application of local logistics: I had a 'logistics hub' base with not much more than power and a logistics center, and then each sub-section of the base was ~2km away from that in some direction - so if I was just visiting for a short period I could visit one of the sub-sections and the only other part of the base within physics range was the logistics hub.  If I'd been away for longer, a quick visit to the central hub would allow all to balance out, and then I could visit individual parts.

[BRAAAP_STUTUTU]

Can i change what a part produces in-situ? i hadn't set up the whole thing yet and producing just one resouce isn't gonna cut it...

[Terwin]

11 minutes ago, BRAAAP_STUTUTU said:

Can i change what a part produces in-situ? i hadn't set up the whole thing yet and producing just one resouce isn't gonna cut it...

I believe that requires an engineer on EVA, and some specialized parts/material kits are consumed by the switch. 

[Nergal8617]

37 minutes ago, Terwin said:

50 minutes ago, BRAAAP_STUTUTU said:

Can i change what a part produces in-situ? i hadn't set up the whole thing yet and producing just one resouce isn't gonna cut it...

I believe that requires an engineer on EVA, and some specialized parts/material kits are consumed by the switch.

I think it's just Specialized Parts and Electric Charge with an Engineer on EVA.  I know it's detailed in the KSPedia entries in game.

EDIT: Just did a double check, it takes Specialized Parts, Material Kits, and Electric Charge with an Engineer on EVA.  You can find the cost of each conversion in the expanded part descriptions in the VAB.

Edited December 7, 2017 by Nergal8617

[voicey99]

Ok, I'm a bit late to the party on part breakdowns but I've just had another thought. With regards to permanent failures, perhaps they could only have a chance to occur (e.g. 50% at the next breakdown) occur if a part suffers partial failure and you choose to keep running the thing instead of shutting it down for a bit until the repairs guy can go and fix it. It would mean you can still run parts after they suffer a partial failure, but in doing so you would risk causing further, catastrophic damage to the part and justify including what would be a very frustrating scenario while not threatening players who like to stay on the safe side (unmanned bases would be particularly party to this, since they can't be automatically maintained).

Your thoughts on that, @DoktorKrogg?

[toric5]

On 11/30/2017 at 12:29 AM, RoverDude said:

Discussion time

So was talking to @DoktorKrogg in USI chat about the wear mechanic.

Currently, machinery has a direct impact on efficiency, but is also consumed.  It is then later replenished by maintenance.  The downside is that this gives converters a long tail of diminishing performance that makes making simple base conversion calculations challenging.

The idea we're noodling is to remove machinery consumption so that machinery becomes a mass-offset tool.  This makes making things like hab modules a lot easer to balance between USI-LS (which has no machinery concept) and MKS.

To simulate wear, we'd switch to a part-failure mechanic, where the longer a module is in use, the greater the chance of it outright failing.  This can be reset through regular maintenance (and would consume a resource), or could be done automatically with a manned workshop (we'd assume the engineers in question would be running about fixing things).  Or, could be turned off completely (similar to how wear can be turned off today).  Naturally, if you let things go so far bad that the module actually fails, the repair cost would be steeper (i.e. it would remove a bunch of your machinery).

Thoughts?

Would it be possible to further integrate this with things from USI-LS (life support recyclers, the really basic greenhouses) and stock modules (stock and third party drills and convers)? I really dotn like how the USI drills and converters need maintenance, but my ISRU magic rock distillery somehow can run forever.

[BRAAAP_STUTUTU]

Hmm,i can't seem to mine ore with my industrial drills "no ground contact" even though there is and i can mine other stuff just fine...

[voicey99]

4 minutes ago, BRAAAP_STUTUTU said:

Hmm,i can't seem to mine ore with my industrial drills "no ground contact" even though there is and i can mine other stuff just fine...

Screenshot of the situation?