[1.2.2] [0.9.5] KPBS/MKS Integration Pack

[Merkov]

12 hours ago, DStaal said:

The question then is really do we want to defer to Pathfinder when it's present - make our patches conditional on it - or do we want to try to override it's integration?  (There is a third option - which I consider the worst of both worlds - which is to dupe all the parts and provide an MKS-version alongside the Pathfinder version.)

I have no idea as to what the right answer is to that question. This is one of those times when I really wished MKS and Pathfinder played nicely together. Not that they conflict or anything, but if you use both, you are basically stuck using two base building systems, which is unfortunate since Pathfinder and MOLE always feel like nice earlier tech tree options as compared to MKS.

If the plan is to offer this pack as a separate download, I suppose we could do both options 1 and 2, if we were really motivated. We could maybe write our pack to support one option or the other, then have an "extras" folder with the download that contains an extra MM patch that handles the other use case? This would be more work, but otherwise we have to decide whether KPBS should primarily support MKS systems or WBI systems, and which should be the primary depends a lot on the individual player, I think.

I agree that the option of duping all the parts and having MKS and Pathfinder versions is not terribly appealing. On the plus side, it does mean more compatibility with both mods, but it also seems like it just adds more parts to build bases for two completely independent systems.

WARNING! MERKOV WROTE MOST OF WHAT FOLLOWS AT WORK WHILE TRYING TO MULTITASK AND IT MAY NOT BE VERY COHERENT.

Just thinking out loud here, but I wonder if maybe deferring to the WBI system when it is installed is the way to go, and we don't need to worry as much about additional MKS support within KPBS parts? Since we had already discussed adding our own tanks regardless of what WBI does, and since we were looking at adding some way of nicely connecting KPBS parts to MKS multi hubs, is it possible that leaving USI-LS support to the WBI patches, handling logistics through our Kontainers, and leaving most of the other MKS functions to actual MKS parts is the way to go? If we wanted, we could find the odd spot here or there where duping/converting isn't a bad idea: I'm thinking mainly of having a drill that uses MKS-style bits to drill for MKS style resources. We could create a new drill, or maybe just hijack the K&K water drill, since those using MKS don't really need a stand-alone water drill, and would be able to get water from an MKS-alike drill anyway. Other than the odd case like that, adding things like MKSModule to pretty much everything (to allow bases to be counted for Kolony rewards) or power coupler modules to a few parts shouldn't unbalance anything no matter what Pathfinder does.

I guess what I'm really wondering is: what MKS concepts do we want added directly to KPBS parts? Nils has already said (reasonably) that he doesn't want to build new parts just for MKS, so it's not like we'll have any med bays, colonization modules, or logistics modules in the KPBS style, and the same goes for the manufacturing stuff, I would assume. Those functions might have to be met by connecting MKS parts to bases. One big issue I see is possibly the fact that none of those parts require machinery, while the MKS ones would, so that would be a balance issue. I'm not sure how we would handle that...

As you said, if there are balance issues with USI-LS when Pathfinder is installed, we should bring those up with Angel 125. I wonder if his system would allow for changing the mass of parts? As was mentioned in the KPBS thread, there may be an issue with mass balance between MKS/USI-LS and KPBS. Alternatively, maybe we can make it so that if you have MKS installed, KPBS parts' masses are increased regardless of whether you have Pathfinder or not?

[DStaal]

I'm thinking of doing several stages: First stage is to get storage and the basic mechanics (logistics, tethering, Kolonization bonuses) in place.  Next stage is to do a good USI-LS balance pass, make sure everything's in good order.  After that start working on integrating the MKS production chains, etc, to try to make it so you can build a full colony with KBPS parts - with the intent being the part set would be equivalent but not identical; have it fall somewhere between Duna and Tundra (probably), and split things up differently.  The first stage will dupe a couple of parts to make things like Kontainers.  The second works entirely with the KPBS parts, while the third is probably all duped parts - though likely some things will be added/changed in the new EL parts that KPBS added.

Anyway: I got a chance to load in and do some experimenting.  Angel-125's patch...  Needs work.  I think he didn't realize that KPBS already had USI-LS patches, and his conflict or ignore them, meaning some things just plain don't work, and some things work altogether to well.  I'm definitely leaning towards having this patchset remove that integration entirely - though likely the best way to do that is in a single patch file, which the user could remove if they wanted.

Also: Exactly how picky are we with adaptors?  Here's the current joint between KBPS and a multi-hub (sorry for the lighting, this is my career save and I didn't want to wait until next morning):

That's with the KPBS legs extended, obviously.  There will be more difference if they are retracted.  For myself, I'd be tempted to just use either the MKS or the KPBS flexotubes and make the connection - it won't be off more than two vessels would normally be on uneven ground.  Otherwise, I think I still have the Garage Adapter I added a couple of nodes to around...

[Merkov]

15 minutes ago, DStaal said:

I'm thinking of doing several stages: First stage is to get storage and the basic mechanics (logistics, tethering, Kolonization bonuses) in place.  Next stage is to do a good USI-LS balance pass, make sure everything's in good order.  After that start working on integrating the MKS production chains, etc, to try to make it so you can build a full colony with KBPS parts - with the intent being the part set would be equivalent but not identical; have it fall somewhere between Duna and Tundra (probably), and split things up differently.  The first stage will dupe a couple of parts to make things like Kontainers.  The second works entirely with the KPBS parts, while the third is probably all duped parts - though likely some things will be added/changed in the new EL parts that KPBS added.

I like this roadmap.

15 minutes ago, DStaal said:

Anyway: I got a chance to load in and do some experimenting.  Angel-125's patch...  Needs work.  I think he didn't realize that KPBS already had USI-LS patches, and his conflict or ignore them, meaning some things just plain don't work, and some things work altogether to well.  I'm definitely leaning towards having this patchset remove that integration entirely - though likely the best way to do that is in a single patch file, which the user could remove if they wanted.

Would removing Angel-125's patch mean that KPBS parts would no longer have any integration with the Pathfinder system? I support making the removal of his patch handled by a single patch file that a user can remove.

15 minutes ago, DStaal said:

Also: Exactly how picky are we with adaptors?  Here's the current joint between KBPS and a multi-hub (sorry for the lighting, this is my career save and I didn't want to wait until next morning):

That's with the KPBS legs extended, obviously.  There will be more difference if they are retracted.  For myself, I'd be tempted to just use either the MKS or the KPBS flexotubes and make the connection - it won't be off more than two vessels would normally be on uneven ground.  Otherwise, I think I still have the Garage Adapter I added a couple of nodes to around...

I like flexotubes. My one concern is that I seem to recall IgorZ commenting recently that as KAS 1.0 is developed and eventually replaces old KAS, he plans to replace the KAS strut and pipe (the latter of which the flexotubes are based on) because he doesn't like that you get a rigid object that is exactly the length you need. He mentioned that he wants to replace the strut with cables for tension, so maybe he just wants non-rigid pipes instead of rigid ones (which wouldn't be such a bad thing) but it's something to keep an eye on on the horizon.

Still, that's probably a ways off, and for now the flexotubes work just fine.

Off topic, but I recently downloaded Unity and Blender, and have no idea as to what I am doing, but if I feel adventurous, I would love to try to make a short inline KPBS piece that has attachment nodes on either side that are the right height for MK-V parts to attach directly to the side of a base.

[Merkov]

Okay, I THINK I just made my first commit to Github. All I did was add ModuleColonyRewards to the Central Hub (I think). From what I can tell, you've taken care of tethering already, which just leaves logistics to address for your first part of your plan. I'll try to get GitLab set up when I am home, but it wanted an SHH key or something. I don't know what that is, and I have a feeling my work IT security guys would not appreciate me doing that with a work computer. (On that topic, do you have any preference as to which we post stuff to?)

Are there any other basic MKS mechanics left aside from the logistics? Things like field repair module depend on the machinery production chain, so maybe it shouldn't be added yet? On the other hand, if we get konainers and logistics online, we could give parts machinery storage and make the new KPBS-EL workshop a field repairer. A player would still have to use MKS parts to produce machinery (or ship it in) but then the base would operate just like an MKS one.

[dboi88]

I can make textures to use when duping MKS modules from current KPBS parts.

[tsaven]

Hey guys, are we talking about USI-LS balance in this thread as well, in terms of Habitation and recycler balance?  Or are we keeping those discussions in the USI-LS thread where RD is more likely to weigh in?

[tsaven]

8 hours ago, Merkov said:

I guess what I'm really wondering is: what MKS concepts do we want added directly to KPBS parts? Nils has already said (reasonably) that he doesn't want to build new parts just for MKS, so it's not like we'll have any med bays, colonization modules, or logistics modules in the KPBS style, and the same goes for the manufacturing stuff, I would assume. Those functions might have to be met by connecting MKS parts to bases. One big issue I see is possibly the fact that none of those parts require machinery, while the MKS ones would, so that would be a balance issue. I'm not sure how we would handle that...

Chiming in with my two cents, as someone who doesn't play with Pathfinder and is mostly concerned with MKS and USI-LS compatibility.

• Sensible USI-LS support.  I don't think we need to go with the full swappable functionality like the Kerbitats have, the configs could be kept simple as long as they fit in reasonably with the rest of the USI world.
• KPBS form factor Kontainer tanks for all MKS resources.  Up for debate is where and how to implement the local Warehousing functionality.
• MM patches to give MKS functions to the KPBS parts that make sense.

We don't have to go nuts with trying to replicate all functions of MKS 1:1, I fully expect that bases will be blends of both MKS and KPBS parts. I think it's pretty easy to agree that the K&K Smelter could get similar functionality to the Industrial Refinery, and the K&K Workshop could get a similar config to the Tundra inflatable workshop.  The part Recycler as well (not to be confused with the life support recycler), although probably nerfed some in terms of output due to it's small size (still has surprisingly high mass, though).  Obviously there'd be some fiddling in terms of output capability to make sure it stays balanced.

Are our goals to give Nils some configs that he will distribute with KBPS?  I think that would be ideal, rather than having people need to download add-in patches (I'm still using Dstaal's for the airlock-turned-workshop functionality.)

[TheRagingIrishman]

2 hours ago, tsaven said:

Are our goals to give Nils some configs that he will distribute with KBPS?  I think that would be ideal, rather than having people need to download add-in patches (I'm still using Dstaal's for the airlock-turned-workshop functionality.)

Ya Nils has said that he'd be happy to include these in KBPS once they're done/good enough.

[DStaal]

5 hours ago, Merkov said:

Okay, I THINK I just made my first commit to Github. All I did was add ModuleColonyRewards to the Central Hub (I think). From what I can tell, you've taken care of tethering already, which just leaves logistics to address for your first part of your plan. I'll try to get GitLab set up when I am home, but it wanted an SHH key or something. I don't know what that is, and I have a feeling my work IT security guys would not appreciate me doing that with a work computer. (On that topic, do you have any preference as to which we post stuff to?)

Are there any other basic MKS mechanics left aside from the logistics? Things like field repair module depend on the machinery production chain, so maybe it shouldn't be added yet? On the other hand, if we get konainers and logistics online, we could give parts machinery storage and make the new KPBS-EL workshop a field repairer. A player would still have to use MKS parts to produce machinery (or ship it in) but then the base would operate just like an MKS one.

You made a commit - but you didn't make a Pull Request.  That's where you submit it back to my repo. At the moment, you just have a fork.     (And you don't need to create branches for every change you make - I'm being a bit complicated in my setup, but the idea is that *groups of related changes* are on a single branch.  Basically - don't bother to create branches, I'll do that.)

And you don't have to put the PRs on both.  In fact, it's probably better you *don't*: Then I can just merge in on one, and I can push those changes around, instead of trying to make sure both merges are the same.  Pick whichever feels comfortable for you to work with - I have a slight preference for GitLab, but I suspect I'll probably end up dropping that for this as everyone just uses GitHub. 

3 hours ago, dboi88 said:

I can make textures to use when duping MKS modules from current KPBS parts.

Thanks.    At the moment, the only 'for sure we need' are the Kontainers - which you're already working on. 

2 hours ago, tsaven said:

Hey guys, are we talking about USI-LS balance in this thread as well, in terms of Habitation and recycler balance?  Or are we keeping those discussions in the USI-LS thread where RD is more likely to weigh in?

I would not mind having the discussion in this thread - especially as from my roadmap that's really the next stage, to put all those in.  I can see having RoverDude's advice would be nice, but he's busy already and it would keep the discussion separate from the problem/support discussions that normally happen in that thread.  (And it's always possible he could pop in here.)

9 hours ago, Merkov said:

I like this roadmap.

Would removing Angel-125's patch mean that KPBS parts would no longer have any integration with the Pathfinder system? I support making the removal of his patch handled by a single patch file that a user can remove.

That would mean that for users who have both this and Pathfinder, then yes the parts would no longer have any integration with the Pathfinder system.  Part of the idea there being that then you have a choice: If you play with Pathfinder and MKS without this patch, you get Pathfinder/KPBS integration.  If you play with Pathfinder, MKS, and this patch you get MKS integration.  As there's a lot of overlap, trying to have both at the same time will just make things wonky.  (And once Angel-125 refines his patch a bit, you can use the parts with USI-LS just fine either way.)

9 hours ago, Merkov said:

I like flexotubes. My one concern is that I seem to recall IgorZ commenting recently that as KAS 1.0 is developed and eventually replaces old KAS, he plans to replace the KAS strut and pipe (the latter of which the flexotubes are based on) because he doesn't like that you get a rigid object that is exactly the length you need. He mentioned that he wants to replace the strut with cables for tension, so maybe he just wants non-rigid pipes instead of rigid ones (which wouldn't be such a bad thing) but it's something to keep an eye on on the horizon.

Still, that's probably a ways off, and for now the flexotubes work just fine.

Off topic, but I recently downloaded Unity and Blender, and have no idea as to what I am doing, but if I feel adventurous, I would love to try to make a short inline KPBS piece that has attachment nodes on either side that are the right height for MK-V parts to attach directly to the side of a base.

I'm going by what's released at the moment, especially as it's not directly related to this patch set.    If you do want a starter Unity/Blender project, a height adapter would probably be a good choice: Even just an angled tube would work.

2 hours ago, tsaven said:

Chiming in with my two cents, as someone who doesn't play with Pathfinder and is mostly concerned with MKS and USI-LS compatibility.

• Sensible USI-LS support.  I don't think we need to go with the full swappable functionality like the Kerbitats have, the configs could be kept simple as long as they fit in reasonably with the rest of the USI world.
• KPBS form factor Kontainer tanks for all MKS resources.  Up for debate is where and how to implement the local Warehousing functionality.
• MM patches to give MKS functions to the KPBS parts that make sense.

We don't have to go nuts with trying to replicate all functions of MKS 1:1, I fully expect that bases will be blends of both MKS and KPBS parts. I think it's pretty easy to agree that the K&K Smelter could get similar functionality to the Industrial Refinery, and the K&K Workshop could get a similar config to the Tundra inflatable workshop.  The part Recycler as well (not to be confused with the life support recycler), although probably nerfed some in terms of output due to it's small size (still has surprisingly high mass, though).  Obviously there'd be some fiddling in terms of output capability to make sure it stays balanced.

Are our goals to give Nils some configs that he will distribute with KBPS?  I think that would be ideal, rather than having people need to download add-in patches (I'm still using Dstaal's for the airlock-turned-workshop functionality.)

My thought is actually to distribute this at the end as a separate support mod, though if Nils277 wants to I'd be willing to help put parts or the whole thing into KPBS.  (The life support rebalance especially - this is a good place to work on it, but it's probably best to merge those back into KPBS.)  I haven't looked over all the parts very closely at the moment, but I do want to avoid just duplicating the MKS modules in a different form factor.  On the other hand, my thoughts for the end goal is that you should be able to build a fully functional MKS base using just KPBS parts.  (Though there should be cases where a mix is definitely a better choice.)

As a quick question: I was planning on removing at least some of the functionality of the workbenches, and even thinking of retiring them, given that KPBS has real Workshops now.  So, what are your mostly using them for?  I want to make sure I don't break whatever it is that's keeping them useful. 

---

Hopefully I'll be able to start working on writing and testing some configs later today or tomorrow.  A couple of thoughts I'm having:

Splitting the drillable MKS resources up between the three drills currently in KPBS.  My thought is to make one drill 'various metals', one 'various solids/minerals', one 'various liquids'.  (I'll admit I haven't checked to make sure that this is possible using MKS's drillhead swap system.)

Nerfing the central hub; I get the feeling that in some ways it's a bit of a do-everything part at the moment.  I'd like to re-envision it as a command/control center, that doesn't do as much itself.  I'm thinking it's main effects should be: Access to PL (where it's the only KPBS part for that), EL/Ground Construction setup, and a habitation multiplier - it frees up using *other* parts so they can be habitation.  *Maybe* a small purifier, just to raise the top end of the recycling.   (The goal being that you should be perfectly fine building a base without it - but adding it is a major boost to any base you build, and it's not a base on it's own.  Last part you add, instead of the first.)

[Merkov]

9 minutes ago, DStaal said:

You made a commit - but you didn't make a Pull Request.  That's where you submit it back to my repo. At the moment, you just have a fork.     (And you don't need to create branches for every change you make - I'm being a bit complicated in my setup, but the idea is that *groups of related changes* are on a single branch.  Basically - don't bother to create branches, I'll do that.)

And you don't have to put the PRs on both.  In fact, it's probably better you *don't*: Then I can just merge in on one, and I can push those changes around, instead of trying to make sure both merges are the same.  Pick whichever feels comfortable for you to work with - I have a slight preference for GitLab, but I suspect I'll probably end up dropping that for this as everyone just uses GitHub. 

Okay, I didn't realize I had created branches. I also tried to make a pull request from one of those branches, and now both have disappeared. It looks like the pull request went through though? Is there a better way I should have done this? Did I break github? 

9 minutes ago, DStaal said:

I would not mind having the discussion in this thread - especially as from my roadmap that's really the next stage, to put all those in.  I can see having RoverDude's advice would be nice, but he's busy already and it would keep the discussion separate from the problem/support discussions that normally happen in that thread.  (And it's always possible he could pop in here.)

Also, RoverDude did mention today that he is almost done his balance spreadsheet (soon^tm of course) and he's also mentioned that things are stabilizing a bit, so hopefully that soon will be sooner than later. 

9 minutes ago, DStaal said:

That would mean that for users who have both this and Pathfinder, then yes the parts would no longer have any integration with the Pathfinder system.  Part of the idea there being that then you have a choice: If you play with Pathfinder and MKS without this patch, you get Pathfinder/KPBS integration.  If you play with Pathfinder, MKS, and this patch you get MKS integration.  As there's a lot of overlap, trying to have both at the same time will just make things wonky.  (And once Angel-125 refines his patch a bit, you can use the parts with USI-LS just fine either way.)

That's fair. As much as I hate the idea of removing compatibility (and love adding it), I really don't think there's a good way to make Pathfinder and MKS play together in the same parts. Your solution seems to offer the best options. 

9 minutes ago, DStaal said:

I'm going by what's released at the moment, especially as it's not directly related to this patch set.    If you do want a starter Unity/Blender project, a height adapter would probably be a good choice: Even just an angled tube would work.

I mean, everyone has to start somewhere. Just don't expect too much. See above where I failed to github properly

9 minutes ago, DStaal said:

Hopefully I'll be able to start working on writing and testing some configs later today or tomorrow.  A couple of thoughts I'm having:

Splitting the drillable MKS resources up between the three drills currently in KPBS.  My thought is to make one drill 'various metals', one 'various solids/minerals', one 'various liquids'.  (I'll admit I haven't checked to make sure that this is possible using MKS's drillhead swap system.)

I'm curious: what makes you want to split the drills up by resource instead of just being able to use one drill plus bits for any resource you want (MKS used to have different drills for different families of resources, but RoverDude replaced that with the current system)? 

9 minutes ago, DStaal said:

Nerfing the central hub; I get the feeling that in some ways it's a bit of a do-everything part at the moment.  I'd like to re-envision it as a command/control center, that doesn't do as much itself.  I'm thinking it's main effects should be: Access to PL (where it's the only KPBS part for that), EL/Ground Construction setup, and a habitation multiplier - it frees up using *other* parts so they can be habitation.  *Maybe* a small purifier, just to raise the top end of the recycling.   (The goal being that you should be perfectly fine building a base without it - but adding it is a major boost to any base you build, and it's not a base on it's own.  Last part you add, instead of the first.)

I definitely agree with this. The problem I always find is that it seems like you have some habitats, a greenhouse, a cupola, a workshop, and every other bit of functionality that MKS offers gets dumped into the central hub. This is exactly why I added the colony rewards collection to the central hub. I basically looked at all of the other parts, thought, "none of these seem to really fit what the pioneer module would be," then put it on the central hub because that's all that's left. I would actually like to see it somehow take advantage of the efficiency part tags someday if possible. Sort of like how the Tundra inflatable hab modules can't be greenhouses, but they can be efficiency parts for existing greenhouses. If the central hub could basically provide a boost to existing parts, that would ideal in my mind. That's also why I really like your idea of a small, but high efficiency purifier. A high-efficiency purifier that only supports one kerbal isn't much of a base on its own, but when you can now hit that high efficiency recycling rate with all of your other recyclers, that's a really big deal. 

[tsaven]

9 hours ago, DStaal said:

My thought is actually to distribute this at the end as a separate support mod, though if Nils277 wants to I'd be willing to help put parts or the whole thing into KPBS.  (The life support rebalance especially - this is a good place to work on it, but it's probably best to merge those back into KPBS.)

Nils has indicated that if we can provide him with configs he's okay with including it with KPBS, which I think is the best option.  Life support especially, that's my personal biggest interest in this project.

Quote

I haven't looked over all the parts very closely at the moment, but I do want to avoid just duplicating the MKS modules in a different form factor.

Actually, this was my exact goal. 

I mean, if we want to design some enhancements on top of MKS and KPBS that's awesome and can be like, Stage 4, but I don't think that should be the initial goal.  I feel like step one should be to just duplicate functionality between the parts, that if someone downloads KPBS and is already familiar with MKS, they see a Workshop and already understand exactly what a Workshop does.

The only thing I was using your old Airlock Workshops for was when MKS still had the wear mechanic, as I just needed a Workshop around to keep stuff repaired.  But now that's been depreciated and RD has indicated that it's probably not coming back, so the only reason I keep them is for my existing ships/bases until I can get a kerbal over there to demo the part off.  I think going forward, any Workshop functionalities of MKS should be rolled into the KBPS Workshop.

Quote

Splitting the drillable MKS resources up between the three drills currently in KPBS.  My thought is to make one drill 'various metals', one 'various solids/minerals', one 'various liquids'.  (I'll admit I haven't checked to make sure that this is possible using MKS's drillhead swap system.)

Again, I don't see the reason to split it up differently like this, I don't see anything wrong with just duplicating MKS functionality of swappable drill heads.  Especially if it's fast and easy, simply a matter of copying the existing config for the MKS drills into a MM patch.

Quote

Nerfing the central hub; I get the feeling that in some ways it's a bit of a do-everything part at the moment.  I'd like to re-envision it as a command/control center, that doesn't do as much itself.  I'm thinking it's main effects should be: Access to PL (where it's the only KPBS part for that), EL/Ground Construction setup, and a habitation multiplier - it frees up using *other* parts so they can be habitation.  *Maybe* a small purifier, just to raise the top end of the recycling.   (The goal being that you should be perfectly fine building a base without it - but adding it is a major boost to any base you build, and it's not a base on it's own.  Last part you add, instead of the first.)

I would agree with nerfing it, and that it should be the only KPBS part that has access to Planetary Logistics. However I don't think it should have access to Ground Construction setup; that should be reserved for the Workshop.

Until we get some balance guidelines from RD, I agree with a small multiplier (as it's already got six seats which will add to the total hab time).   As for Life Support, I would think it should be the only KBPS part that has a Purifier as opposed to just a Recycler.  Exactly what efficiency and how many kerbals it should effect is up for debate, but I wonder if it's possible to make it not have Supplies or Mulch storage in it?  You're right that it shouldn't be a base-in-a-box,you'll need other stuff around to support it, and if that means it needs to have the other life support parts bolted to the outside to make the purifier run I think that's a good idea.

It should still keep the Small Science lab capabilities, and it should be the only KBPS part that has "Experience Management" to level up kerbals without returning them to Kerbin.  I think it should also be a Resource Distributor, what do you think about being a Power Distributor as well?  I mean, if we're sticking with the theory that it's the nerve center for larger settlements, I think all that stuff makes sense.

[DStaal]

16 hours ago, tsaven said:

Nils has indicated that if we can provide him with configs he's okay with including it with KPBS, which I think is the best option.  Life support especially, that's my personal biggest interest in this project.

For the life support, I agree it's the best option.  I'm not so sure about it being the best option for the rest - see my discussion on options for KPBS+Pathfinder+MKS for one reason why.  Also, I'm pretty sure we're going to need more parts at some point, and if it's 'officially' part of KPBS, that means Nils277 has to create parts for it - whereas if it's a community parts pack, he doesn't have headache.  Or the headache for keeping it up to date in respect to MKS.

Basically, I see USI-LS as a sideline to what I want to do here - but it's an important sideline, and one that needed to be dealt with soon, and needs to be thought about as the rest of this is handled.  So, integrate the discussion (as it needed a place, and we needed to talk about many of the same things), but then spin that off as a patch to KPBS while the rest continues on.

16 hours ago, tsaven said:

Actually, this was my exact goal. 

I mean, if we want to design some enhancements on top of MKS and KPBS that's awesome and can be like, Stage 4, but I don't think that should be the initial goal.  I feel like step one should be to just duplicate functionality between the parts, that if someone downloads KPBS and is already familiar with MKS, they see a Workshop and already understand exactly what a Workshop does.

I definitely don't want to have a 'make everything a Duna/Tundra duplicate, and then change everything later' on the roadmap.  That's just confusing to users and potentially save-breaking.  That's why my first goal has been to get necessary functionality in place so that you can build a combined KPBS+MKS base without issues (including LS), and only once we've got that working to work on the more long-term goal of replicating the production chains.  That's the stage where I don't want to just duplicate MKS parts.

The reasoning is to give some interest: If all the parts are is the same thing in different form factors then the difference is purely aesthetic, and choices start to become either an art game (what's the prettiest base) or a numbers game (where can I abuse the balance).  I'd rather continue the thought process of MKS that colonization is a hard task, and that there are many ways to do things.  To that end, K&K Advanced Orbit and Surface Structures is a different company than Umbra Space Industries, and they've made different choices.  A quick example so far being the Central Hub: The obvious 1:1 equivalent in MKS is a Pioneer - designed to be the first part down, and needs very little to be a mini-base on it's own.  However, the Central Hub is larger form factor than the rest of the parts (unlike the Pioneer, which is the same size or *smaller*), and we're talking about it being more of the capstone of colony.  In fact, the Pioneer is a good Ground Construction Workshop - a feature you're arguing against for the Central Hub. 

This is not immediate, it's just me trying to put out what I'm thinking long-term, so that if people want to help we won't be going in different directions.  (And so that people can decide if they want to help, or if they want to try to talk me out of something.)

17 hours ago, tsaven said:

The only thing I was using your old Airlock Workshops for was when MKS still had the wear mechanic, as I just needed a Workshop around to keep stuff repaired.  But now that's been depreciated and RD has indicated that it's probably not coming back, so the only reason I keep them is for my existing ships/bases until I can get a kerbal over there to demo the part off.  I think going forward, any Workshop functionalities of MKS should be rolled into the KBPS Workshop.

That was actually my thought on those workshops.  Wear is no longer a thing, and we should be using the actual workshop part, not the airlock. 

17 hours ago, tsaven said:

Again, I don't see the reason to split it up differently like this, I don't see anything wrong with just duplicating MKS functionality of swappable drill heads.  Especially if it's fast and easy, simply a matter of copying the existing config for the MKS drills into a MM patch.

I actually don't either, really - but KPBS has three drills.  So, what do we do: Ignore two?  Make them all exactly the same, in that you can just switch them to be interchangeable?  Neither really sits well with me, so the idea of having each one dedicated to a different 'class' of resource was a way to use all of them without making them into color-swap clones of each other.  If you've got a better idea (or think you can argue for color-swap clones ) I'm open.  I think we can justify it, but at the moment it really feels like the 'best of the bad options'.

17 hours ago, tsaven said:

I would agree with nerfing it, and that it should be the only KPBS part that has access to Planetary Logistics. However I don't think it should have access to Ground Construction setup; that should be reserved for the Workshop.

Until we get some balance guidelines from RD, I agree with a small multiplier (as it's already got six seats which will add to the total hab time).   As for Life Support, I would think it should be the only KBPS part that has a Purifier as opposed to just a Recycler.  Exactly what efficiency and how many kerbals it should effect is up for debate, but I wonder if it's possible to make it not have Supplies or Mulch storage in it?  You're right that it shouldn't be a base-in-a-box,you'll need other stuff around to support it, and if that means it needs to have the other life support parts bolted to the outside to make the purifier run I think that's a good idea.

It should still keep the Small Science lab capabilities, and it should be the only KBPS part that has "Experience Management" to level up kerbals without returning them to Kerbin.  I think it should also be a Resource Distributor, what do you think about being a Power Distributor as well?  I mean, if we're sticking with the theory that it's the nerve center for larger settlements, I think all that stuff makes sense.

This mostly matches what I was thinking.  And yes, not having Supplies or Mulch should be possible, I think.  (Or at least, not having more than a few seconds worth.)

Definitely Resource Distributor - that goes along with access to PL.  I'm not entirely convinced it should be a Power Distributor - but then I think we should have a Power Distributor in the small container form factor (or two, like the two stand-alone parts for it in MKS), and the thought then is that by the time you get to putting in a Central Hub you probably already *have* a power network, so that putting on in the 'central office' is redundant.

[Merkov]

19 hours ago, tsaven said:

I mean, if we want to design some enhancements on top of MKS and KPBS that's awesome and can be like, Stage 4, but I don't think that should be the initial goal.  I feel like step one should be to just duplicate functionality between the parts, that if someone downloads KPBS and is already familiar with MKS, they see a Workshop and already understand exactly what a Workshop does.

I'm not a fan of this approach. If this mod patch just turns all of the KPBS parts into parts that exactly match MKS ones, then what's the point of having both mods? Since KPBS has slightly different parts with slightly different nuances to them, I think it makes sense that their combination of MKS modules might be different. 

19 hours ago, tsaven said:

I would agree with nerfing it, and that it should be the only KPBS part that has access to Planetary Logistics. However I don't think it should have access to Ground Construction setup; that should be reserved for the Workshop.

Until we get some balance guidelines from RD, I agree with a small multiplier (as it's already got six seats which will add to the total hab time).   As for Life Support, I would think it should be the only KBPS part that has a Purifier as opposed to just a Recycler.  Exactly what efficiency and how many kerbals it should effect is up for debate, but I wonder if it's possible to make it not have Supplies or Mulch storage in it?  You're right that it shouldn't be a base-in-a-box,you'll need other stuff around to support it, and if that means it needs to have the other life support parts bolted to the outside to make the purifier run I think that's a good idea.

I agree with this. There's no need for the hub to have any supplies or mulch; recyclers, even purifiers, don't need any life support resources to do what they do. Regular recyclers only need EC, purifiers need EC and Water. 

19 hours ago, tsaven said:

It should still keep the Small Science lab capabilities, and it should be the only KBPS part that has "Experience Management" to level up kerbals without returning them to Kerbin.  I think it should also be a Resource Distributor, what do you think about being a Power Distributor as well?  I mean, if we're sticking with the theory that it's the nerve center for larger settlements, I think all that stuff makes sense.

I'm not sure about this. KPBS has its own science lab part, so I don't think the central hub needs that. Power distribution is usually done by only a few very power-specific parts in MKS. While I think collecting Kolony rewards is an okay thing for the hub to handle (your base can start accumulating them long before you finally land the hub to collect them) I would prefer to see power management handled by a more specialized part. In my opinion, the fewer modules (as in config MODULEs) the hub gets, the better. 

If we're looking for power distributor options, I would suggest we maybe look at the KPBS SEP wedge. I know that it's meant for experiments, but it literally is just a bunch of plugs. 

Another thing: although wear is likely not coming back, I thought auto repairers handled the local distribution of machinery, don't they? We should use the new KPBS workshop part, but I thought auto repairers still had a use. 

[DStaal]

Ok, so a bit more on the short-term...  Here's a list of parts and specs that are interesting from a USI-LS perspective:

Part	PartName	Mass	Seats	Months	Multiplier	EC/s	Recycler %
Airfilter	KKAOSS_LS_container_airfilter	0.7	0	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
Algae Container	KKAOSS_LS_container_algae	0.5	0	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
Carbon Extractor	KKAOSS_LS_container_carbon_extractor	0.7	0	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
Elektron Container	KKAOSS_LS_container_elektron	0.7	0	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
Greenhouse Container	KKAOSS_LS_container_greenhouse	0.5	0	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
Sabatier Container	KKAOSS_LS_container_sabatier	0.7	0	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
Water Purifier Container	KKAOSS_LS_container_waterpurifier	0.7	0	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
Recycler Container	KKAOSS_USI_Recicler_g	3.5	0	n/a	n/a	6	70/6
Greenhouse	KKAOSS_Greenhouse_g	3.0	2	0	1.3/2	0.525:1	35/4
Central Hub	KKAOSS_Central_Hub	7.5	6	60/6	0	0.925:(5/15)	70/8(90/8)
MK2 Habitat	KKAOSS_Habitat_MK2_g	2.6	4	30/4	1/4	0.7	n/a
MK1 Habitat	KKAOSS_Habitat_MK1_g	1.7	3	20/3	0	0.45	n/a
Cupola	KKAOSS_Cupola_g	1.75	1	0	2/2	0.09	n/a
Science Lab	KKAOSS_Science_g	3.55	2	0	1.25	:1.2	50/5

Not all of these parts are currently in effect with USI-LS, but they exist and are used for other LS mods if so. In the Months, Multiplier, and Recycler coloumns the format is 'quantity/crew affected'.  EC/s is Habitiation on the left side, recycler on the right.  The Central Hub is 0.925 ec/s for the habitation, 5 ec/s for the recycler, and 15 ec/s for the purifier.

Not in this chart are other effects: The Algae Container converts Ore+Mulch into Fertilizer, and the Greenhouses obviously convert Mulch+Fertilizer into Supplies.

So: What needs to change?  What should the 'correct' values be?  Suggestions? 

My thought would be to actually give a decent multiplier for the Central Hub (you're taking all your paperwork and stuff out of your bunks and moving it to an actual office, which means a lot), remove the habitation months, drop the recycler entirely, and keep the purifier at 90 - but only for one Kerbal.  It then gets things like Planetary Logistics and efficiency bonuses for other parts to make up for it.

The rest I haven't thought about much.  Mostly, they should just be brought into line with the current MKS, in my opinion - whatever that means.  I do like the habitation multiplier on the large Greenhouse, at least in theory - I haven't looked at the numbers.

4 hours ago, Merkov said:

I'm not sure about this. KPBS has its own science lab part, so I don't think the central hub needs that. Power distribution is usually done by only a few very power-specific parts in MKS. While I think collecting Kolony rewards is an okay thing for the hub to handle (your base can start accumulating them long before you finally land the hub to collect them) I would prefer to see power management handled by a more specialized part. In my opinion, the fewer modules (as in config MODULEs) the hub gets, the better. 

If we're looking for power distributor options, I would suggest we maybe look at the KPBS SEP wedge. I know that it's meant for experiments, but it literally is just a bunch of plugs. 

Another thing: although wear is likely not coming back, I thought auto repairers handled the local distribution of machinery, don't they? We should use the new KPBS workshop part, but I thought auto repairers still had a use. 

As for the science lab on the Central Hub: We'd be removing that from base part - I'm not sure I want to do that.  That's one I'd want to discuss with Nils277 before doing.

Agreed on duping the KPBS SEP wedge for short-range power distributor.  We might want another for the long-range.

And on machinery: It's probable.  They might even handle Enriched Uranium transfers.  We need to take a look to be sure.

[Merkov]

9 hours ago, DStaal said:

Ok, so a bit more on the short-term...  Here's a list of parts and specs that are interesting from a USI-LS perspective:

-snip-

Not all of these parts are currently in effect with USI-LS, but they exist and are used for other LS mods if so. In the Months, Multiplier, and Recycler coloumns the format is 'quantity/crew affected'.  EC/s is Habitiation on the left side, recycler on the right.  The Central Hub is 0.925 ec/s for the habitation, 5 ec/s for the recycler, and 15 ec/s for the purifier.

Not in this chart are other effects: The Algae Container converts Ore+Mulch into Fertilizer, and the Greenhouses obviously convert Mulch+Fertilizer into Supplies.

So: What needs to change?  What should the 'correct' values be?  Suggestions? 

I'm not a fan of the Algae Container's current Ore+Mulch=Fertilizer system. That's a recipe for running out of mulch and not being able to produce supplies anymore. If we wanted to do something a little different, maybe we could just make it a straight Ore->Fertilizer converter? Base USI-LS has this option with the small ISRU, but nothing else in MKS does. Ore maybe we could look at combining Ore, Dirt, or Substrate with the more MKS-like Gypsum or Minerals to make Fertilizer at a higher rate than just by using those last two materials alone? The MKS purist in me wants to point out that the basic Agroponics done by MKS (and USI-LS) parts is basically just supposed to be algae farming, but we were talking about there being some differences. Having said that, it might not be awful to basically turn an Algae Farm into a KPBS wedge-shaped Nom-O-Matic. 

 

9 hours ago, DStaal said:

My thought would be to actually give a decent multiplier for the Central Hub (you're taking all your paperwork and stuff out of your bunks and moving it to an actual office, which means a lot), remove the habitation months, drop the recycler entirely, and keep the purifier at 90 - but only for one Kerbal.  It then gets things like Planetary Logistics and efficiency bonuses for other parts to make up for it.

The rest I haven't thought about much.  Mostly, they should just be brought into line with the current MKS, in my opinion - whatever that means.  I do like the habitation multiplier on the large Greenhouse, at least in theory - I haven't looked at the numbers.

I like this. 

RoverDude mentioned recently that hab time is supposed to take into account volume as well as mass and EC, which makes it a little harder to balance for. I know that one thing we were noticing on the KPBS thread was that the KPBS parts are quite light, which makes them pretty powerful right now. Nils said he was okay with us potentially increasing the mass of KPBS parts to help balance with MKS parts, but I was wondering if perhaps a way we can handle some of the mass difference might be by requiring Machinery for some parts to function (so they can be shipped in light, then filled up with machinery once in place) or by requiring MaterialKits for deployable parts to deploy, like the MKS inflatables do. 

9 hours ago, DStaal said:

As for the science lab on the Central Hub: We'd be removing that from base part - I'm not sure I want to do that.  That's one I'd want to discuss with Nils277 before doing.

 

Yeah, I get not wanting to remove functionality that Nils put into a part, I just REALLY hate how strong the hub feels. With CTT, the science lab and the hub are unlocked at the same tier (though not the same node) and though the lab has more data storage than the hub, including a science lab in the hub just feels like one more job that the hub can do all on its own. I'm okay with leaving it there, I just want to complain loudly about why I don't think it should be there .

9 hours ago, DStaal said:

Agreed on duping the KPBS SEP wedge for short-range power distributor.  We might want another for the long-range.

And on machinery: It's probable.  They might even handle Enriched Uranium transfers.  We need to take a look to be sure.

Yeah, a duped SEP wedge would be a short range distributor. Not sure what we should do for a long range one. Unless I'm mistaken, I think the only long range power distributor in MKS is the microwave power transmitter, right?

[dboi88]

@DStaal I'm not sure if it's been mentioned or picked up on (a bit behind on the threads after a weekend hidden away working on the freighter) that a main part of balancing the hab values is Volume just as much as Mass. This takes into account the number of seats/batteries/other part modules and resource storage leaving the remaining volume as the value to balance the hab values against.

Edited February 6, 2017 by dboi88

[DStaal]

2 hours ago, dboi88 said:

@DStaal I'm not sure if it's been mentioned or picked up on (a bit behind on the threads after a weekend hidden away working on the freighter) that a main part of balancing the hab values is Volume just as much as Mass. This takes into account the number of seats/batteries/other part modules and resource storage leaving the remaining volume as the value to balance the hab values against.

Been mentioned a bit - I'm not sure how to calculate it in though.

That said, there are basically three volumes to worry about with KPBS: 'standard', 'expanded', and 'Central Hub'.  Almost all of the crewable parts are one of the three.

2 hours ago, Merkov said:

I'm not a fan of the Algae Container's current Ore+Mulch=Fertilizer system. That's a recipe for running out of mulch and not being able to produce supplies anymore. If we wanted to do something a little different, maybe we could just make it a straight Ore->Fertilizer converter? Base USI-LS has this option with the small ISRU, but nothing else in MKS does. Ore maybe we could look at combining Ore, Dirt, or Substrate with the more MKS-like Gypsum or Minerals to make Fertilizer at a higher rate than just by using those last two materials alone? The MKS purist in me wants to point out that the basic Agroponics done by MKS (and USI-LS) parts is basically just supposed to be algae farming, but we were talking about there being some differences. Having said that, it might not be awful to basically turn an Algae Farm into a KPBS wedge-shaped Nom-O-Matic.

To be fair: it is just a trickle of Mulch, and I believe the system with a Greenhouse is still net positive for Supplies.  (You get more Fertilizer than you used Mulch.)  That said, I wouldn't mind going to Substrate or Minerals with Ore, and maybe a slow Ore-only mode.   (Though note that this could be a base-breaking change for people.  Fair warning and depreciation should be applied.)  My thought there would be to make it swappable between the different modes, and maybe mark the Ore+Mulch mode as depreciated.

There already is a wedge-shaped Nom-O-Matic: The small greenhouse.  At the moment it just does the standard Mulch+Fertilizer - If anyone can think of a way to make it possible but hard to switch between the various agriculture modes I would support that, but in general I think it doesn't look very field-configurable.  (Unlike the Nom-O-Matic, the only way to get at it is from EVA, so you can't pull the plants out or anything from the back, like you could in theory with a Nom-O-Matic.)

Another option would be to have the Algae become a straight Ore->Supplies generator (low mass efficiency, but Algae is the base of the food chain) and then have the small greenhouse do the more standard higher-yield conversions.  Again, this could be added into a swappable config on the Algae container.  (I don't worry about it's field-configuration as much: It puts everything in tubes, and Algae are easier to secure for vacuum than plants are.)

2 hours ago, Merkov said:

I like this. 

RoverDude mentioned recently that hab time is supposed to take into account volume as well as mass and EC, which makes it a little harder to balance for. I know that one thing we were noticing on the KPBS thread was that the KPBS parts are quite light, which makes them pretty powerful right now. Nils said he was okay with us potentially increasing the mass of KPBS parts to help balance with MKS parts, but I was wondering if perhaps a way we can handle some of the mass difference might be by requiring Machinery for some parts to function (so they can be shipped in light, then filled up with machinery once in place) or by requiring MaterialKits for deployable parts to deploy, like the MKS inflatables do.

I think a small amount of MaterialKits to deploy makes sense - but it shouldn't be anywhere near as much as MKS inflatables.  Basically, a few hundred MaterialKits could be logical as 'set up equipment', but KPBS's pop-out deployment I think should be much closer to 'ready to go' than MKS's 'inflate and equip'.

Machinery usage definitely makes sense.  As stuff is designed to stow and fold up out of the way, it's probably more fragile/finicky than MKS's parts, which tend to be either solid or 'ship in the stuff separate and inflate'.  So needing Machinery - and having a slightly larger consumption of Machinery than similar-use MKS parts - would be the trade off.  (Basically: MKS expandable parts take more to inflate, but inflate to a more rugged end result.  KPBS is easier to deploy, but needs more ongoing maintenance.)

3 hours ago, Merkov said:

Yeah, I get not wanting to remove functionality that Nils put into a part, I just REALLY hate how strong the hub feels. With CTT, the science lab and the hub are unlocked at the same tier (though not the same node) and though the lab has more data storage than the hub, including a science lab in the hub just feels like one more job that the hub can do all on its own. I'm okay with leaving it there, I just want to complain loudly about why I don't think it should be there .

Yeah, a duped SEP wedge would be a short range distributor. Not sure what we should do for a long range one. Unless I'm mistaken, I think the only long range power distributor in MKS is the microwave power transmitter, right?

I think that complaint should be in the main KPBS thread.     Can you split the lab and the experience-gain facilities?  I'd see the latter as being something the Central Hub should have.  (If there's a way to do efficiency on that, I'd even make it have a very good one.)

Both the PDU's are also long range transmitters.  Though they are also nuclear reactors, which is something KPBS doesn't have at all.  (Possibly something to think about for stage 3.)  Maybe dupe one of the other LS parts that USI-LS doesn't use for a long-range transmitter?  (I'll have to see what they look like.)

[Merkov]

Off topic, but I've been playing with blender some (sort of like the way my toddler plays with our old VCR: not well, but I'm having fun). Using taniwah's mu. file importer/exporter, I was able to open the mesh file of RoverDude's karibou MKS hub part, and I noticed that it is almost exactly the same length as the large PBS fuel tank (thanks to Nils for his blender files on the previous page). While my original plan was to try to modify one of the smaller segments to make a PBS-MKS adaptor, I'm wondering now if this might be a better place to start. Using the larger base also lets me try to smooth out the transition to the connection point in the middle, since the Duna/Karibou connection "height" is higher than the top of a regular PBS section. 

22 hours ago, DStaal said:

To be fair: it is just a trickle of Mulch, and I believe the system with a Greenhouse is still net positive for Supplies.  (You get more Fertilizer than you used Mulch.)  That said, I wouldn't mind going to Substrate or Minerals with Ore, and maybe a slow Ore-only mode.   (Though note that this could be a base-breaking change for people.  Fair warning and depreciation should be applied.)  My thought there would be to make it swappable between the different modes, and maybe mark the Ore+Mulch mode as depreciated. 

Ah. If you're still making more Fertilizer than you use Mulch, that should be enough to prevent running out of mulch. It still feels weird, though. I'd prefer the other options. Being swappable with deprecation sounds good to me, if it's possible. 

Quote

There already is a wedge-shaped Nom-O-Matic: The small greenhouse.  At the moment it just does the standard Mulch+Fertilizer - If anyone can think of a way to make it possible but hard to switch between the various agriculture modes I would support that, but in general I think it doesn't look very field-configurable.  (Unlike the Nom-O-Matic, the only way to get at it is from EVA, so you can't pull the plants out or anything from the back, like you could in theory with a Nom-O-Matic.)

Is it possible to make it swappable while on EVA? Make it cost material kits? I don't know if any of the existing tools support this. We can currently repaint containers on EVA, and we can inflate, repair, and dismantle on EVA. Do any existing tools let us simply swap converters on EVA? 

Quote

Another option would be to have the Algae become a straight Ore->Supplies generator (low mass efficiency, but Algae is the base of the food chain) and then have the small greenhouse do the more standard higher-yield conversions.  Again, this could be added into a swappable config on the Algae container.  (I don't worry about it's field-configuration as much: It puts everything in tubes, and Algae are easier to secure for vacuum than plants are.)

This is an intriguing idea. 

Quote

I think a small amount of MaterialKits to deploy makes sense - but it shouldn't be anywhere near as much as MKS inflatables.  Basically, a few hundred MaterialKits could be logical as 'set up equipment', but KPBS's pop-out deployment I think should be much closer to 'ready to go' than MKS's 'inflate and equip'.

Machinery usage definitely makes sense.  As stuff is designed to stow and fold up out of the way, it's probably more fragile/finicky than MKS's parts, which tend to be either solid or 'ship in the stuff separate and inflate'.  So needing Machinery - and having a slightly larger consumption of Machinery than similar-use MKS parts - would be the trade off.  (Basically: MKS expandable parts take more to inflate, but inflate to a more rugged end result.  KPBS is easier to deploy, but needs more ongoing maintenance.)

I like this balancing idea. I also think that the hub might benefit balance-wise from requiring a large amount of Machinery. I'm sure a building that size has a lot of equipment onboard, especially if it handles logistics. 

Quote

I think that complaint should be in the main KPBS thread.     Can you split the lab and the experience-gain facilities?  I'd see the latter as being something the Central Hub should have.  (If there's a way to do efficiency on that, I'd even make it have a very good one.)

Are you just referring to the ability to level up kerbals based on experience from their current flight (like the Stock MPL has)? If so, I think that's just handled by: 

    MODULE
	{
        	name = ModuleExperienceManagement
        	costPerKerbal = 0
	}

Or did you mean something else?

Quote

Both the PDU's are also long range transmitters.  Though they are also nuclear reactors, which is something KPBS doesn't have at all.  (Possibly something to think about for stage 3.)  Maybe dupe one of the other LS parts that USI-LS doesn't use for a long-range transmitter?  (I'll have to see what they look like.)

Yeah, I have no idea what the other LS parts look like. If any of them look like they might produce ColonySupplies, that would be handy, too . 

[DStaal]

46 minutes ago, Merkov said:

Off topic, but I've been playing with blender some (sort of like the way my toddler plays with our old VCR: not well, but I'm having fun). Using taniwah's mu. file importer/exporter, I was able to open the mesh file of RoverDude's karibou MKS hub part, and I noticed that it is almost exactly the same length as the large PBS fuel tank (thanks to Nils for his blender files on the previous page). While my original plan was to try to modify one of the smaller segments to make a PBS-MKS adaptor, I'm wondering now if this might be a better place to start. Using the larger base also lets me try to smooth out the transition to the connection point in the middle, since the Duna/Karibou connection "height" is higher than the top of a regular PBS section.

I look forward to seeing whatever you come up with. 

46 minutes ago, Merkov said:

Ah. If you're still making more Fertilizer than you use Mulch, that should be enough to prevent running out of mulch. It still feels weird, though. I'd prefer the other options. Being swappable with deprecation sounds good to me, if it's possible. 

Is it possible to make it swappable while on EVA? Make it cost material kits? I don't know if any of the existing tools support this. We can currently repaint containers on EVA, and we can inflate, repair, and dismantle on EVA. Do any existing tools let us simply swap converters on EVA? 

Yes: USITools, I believe.  Isn't that how you reconfigure modules at the moment?  (I'll admit I haven't tried...)  But my objection is on realism/immersion grounds, not technical: Opening up a greenhouse and exposing the plants to vacuum (or an unknown atmosphere) cannot be a good way to keep those plants healthy, and that's what it would take to reconfigure a device like that: Open it up, clean it out, redo some of the plumbing, and then put the plants back in.  The Algae containers are a bit easier, as the algae will need to be kept in sealed containers throughout anyway, but you explicitly need to clean the area where the plant's roots are, so doing this in vacuum for the greenhouse will be a problem.

On the other hand, this is a small greenhouse that you can stack-mount inside a 2.5m stack.  It's a very useful part.  Having the slight drawback of not being as configurable as the radial greenhouses (and the larger stack-mount greenhouses) feels ok to me.

56 minutes ago, Merkov said:

I like this balancing idea. I also think that the hub might benefit balance-wise from requiring a large amount of Machinery. I'm sure a building that size has a lot of equipment onboard, especially if it handles logistics.

 

 

I’m tending to think of the hub as an office building: by 'logistics' what it does is have central coordination for people to move stuff around and such.  So it probably doesn't need much equipment itself - though pencils and paper do add up.  And I can easily see it being a central storage for equipment/machinery for the *rest* of the base.  (And it probably has things like the IT support hub - which will have computer parts and spares and adaptors...)

1 hour ago, Merkov said:

Are you just referring to the ability to level up kerbals based on experience from their current flight (like the Stock MPL has)? If so, I think that's just handled by: 

    MODULE
	{
        	name = ModuleExperienceManagement
        	costPerKerbal = 0
	}

Or did you mean something else?

That's probably it.  I just hadn't tracked down that config module yet, and wasn't sure if it was separate from the 'science lab' config module. 

1 hour ago, Merkov said:

Yeah, I have no idea what the other LS parts look like. If any of them look like they might produce ColonySupplies, that would be handy, too . 

It might...  What is the general consensus on what ColonySupplies are, though?  Is that something than could be created in an automated facility, or should it need hands-on from a Kerbal?  (I'm guessing the latter - otherwise why would they be so hard to make off-world?)

[Merkov]

38 minutes ago, DStaal said:

Yes: USITools, I believe.  Isn't that how you reconfigure modules at the moment?  (I'll admit I haven't tried...)  But my objection is on realism/immersion grounds, not technical: Opening up a greenhouse and exposing the plants to vacuum (or an unknown atmosphere) cannot be a good way to keep those plants healthy, and that's what it would take to reconfigure a device like that: Open it up, clean it out, redo some of the plumbing, and then put the plants back in.  The Algae containers are a bit easier, as the algae will need to be kept in sealed containers throughout anyway, but you explicitly need to clean the area where the plant's roots are, so doing this in vacuum for the greenhouse will be a problem.

Oh! Gotcha. Plants don't like vacuums. I knew that. 

38 minutes ago, DStaal said:

On the other hand, this is a small greenhouse that you can stack-mount inside a 2.5m stack.  It's a very useful part.  Having the slight drawback of not being as configurable as the radial greenhouses (and the larger stack-mount greenhouses) feels ok to me. 

This seems good to me. 

38 minutes ago, DStaal said:

I’m tending to think of the hub as an office building: by 'logistics' what it does is have central coordination for people to move stuff around and such.  So it probably doesn't need much equipment itself - though pencils and paper do add up.  And I can easily see it being a central storage for equipment/machinery for the *rest* of the base.  (And it probably has things like the IT support hub - which will have computer parts and spares and adaptors...)

Yeah. I typically don't think of machinery as being exclusively mechanical parts for machines, but as all of the stuff that keeps whatever unit it is running. Machinery requires SpecializedParts to make, so at least some of it is high-tech. Then again, not all of it is high-tech. I mostly thought that the central hub would need lots of computers, fancy-looking TV monitors, wheely chairs for kerbals to spin around in, a mop and bucket, etc.. Basically, everything that isn't actually a part of the physical structure itself. 

38 minutes ago, DStaal said:

That's probably it.  I just hadn't tracked down that config module yet, and wasn't sure if it was separate from the 'science lab' config module. 

I'm pretty sure that's the one. I think the pioneer modules get it, for instance, and they don't have science labs. On the flip side, that funny Ranger Comm Lab thing has a science lab, but no experience management. One nice thing about that module is that its effect is vessel-wide, so it would be another example of a single part (the hub) providing a nice bonus to the whole base. 

38 minutes ago, DStaal said:

It might...  What is the general consensus on what ColonySupplies are, though?  Is that something than could be created in an automated facility, or should it need hands-on from a Kerbal?  (I'm guessing the latter - otherwise why would they be so hard to make off-world?)

Uh, I believe RoverDude called them tastier food, disco music, and something else... The wiki calls them medical supplies, recreational material and luxury goods. Maybe being made by kerbals is the way to go on this one. 

 

[cy-one]

I have a quick question, because I'm a bit confused.

 

Is this needed for me to start a game where I want to use KPBS and MKS? What does it actually do (besides the stuff I saw skimming over the thread... stuff to actually make the two mods work together without using KAS to connect them XD)?

When it comes to EL, KPBS and MKS, aren't they "balanced" towards each other already?

Been a while since I played, and I want to get back into it.

[DStaal]

47 minutes ago, cy-one said:

I have a quick question, because I'm a bit confused.

 

Is this needed for me to start a game where I want to use KPBS and MKS? What does it actually do (besides the stuff I saw skimming over the thread... stuff to actually make the two mods work together without using KAS to connect them XD)?

When it comes to EL, KPBS and MKS, aren't they "balanced" towards each other already?

Been a while since I played, and I want to get back into it.

It is not needed.  The goal is to make them work together better than they do - at the moment KPBS has some (outdated) USI-LS patches, but no other integration with MKS.  Which meas you can build bases just fine with KPBS, no problem - but if you want to do any of the MKS resource-chain stuff (or even just the logistics), you need to have MKS parts.  The goal with this is to change that - so you'll be able to make/use MaterialKits, ColonySupplies, etc, where applicable, using the KPBS-style parts, instead of having to hook up a Tundra or Duna part.

Note that it is in a very incomplete state at the moment.

When I did my original version of these patches KPBS didn't have any integration with EL either, so I threw that in.  That's no longer the case; the current version of KPBS has built-in support and parts for EL.

[cy-one]

Okay, that cleared it up a bit. Still got some questions, though:

If I play with KPBS and MKS, what "advantage" would I have if I install your integration pack? You mentioned BS having outdated USI-LS patches... Does your pack provide more updated ones at the moment?

While I do love the "plans" you have (better integration, resource-chain, etc) and really hope you continue this... What does one currently "get" here?

[DStaal]

Currently: Tanks for MaterialKits and SpecalizedParts, and a couple of 'workbenches' that operate as MKS workshops.  Also, logistics are put in on all the tanks and a couple of other parts - although it's balanced around the version of logistics in the last 'UKS' release of MKS, which operated slightly differently than current logistics.  Most of the added parts are planned to be removed/depreciated/scaled back for the next release.

I started this thread for planning and input; in general this pack is in development and not ready for users at this time - though it shouldn't break your game if you install it.  (I won't make more promises than that.)

[dboi88]

The MKS tank textures are done