[1.2.2] [0.9.5] KPBS/MKS Integration Pack

[Merkov]

21 hours ago, DStaal said:

When you get a chance, the one that needs to be looked at is the Algae container.  I just wrote up the start of a config for it:  I kept the current mode for the moment (we may want to drop to just Ore w/o Mulch as an input), and added in a 'Wet' mode at 0.05 Ore, 0.01 Water to 0.001 Fert and 0.0075 Mulch.  So it's a bit faster at generating fertilizer, at the cost of water and more ore.  Most of the water gets turned into mulch, but there are some losses.

(There's also a Soylent Green mode in there, but that's easy: He's got that written up with quick replacements, and the Algae container is about the same mass and volume as his 2.5m converter, so I just duped it.)

Okay, having a quick peek at the Algae Container: 

I'm guessing the ModuleSwappableConverter, or at least the resource cost, should only exist as part of stage 3, since a base USI-LS install won't have any way to make MaterialKits or SpecializedParts (the latter is the bigger issue, I think). 

According to the spreadsheet, the current throughput on the dry mode is overpowered, but the ratios are okay. I get almost exactly where we need to be mass and volume-wise if I drop the efficiency to 40%. (0.0003 Mulch, 0.0008 Ore gets you 0.00032 Fertilizer, suggested EC/s is 1.42.

So, here's a weird thing: the spreadsheet doesn't just look at resource output to decide how big a converter/refinery should be, it looks at input as well. What this means is that when you tell the spreadsheet that you want to use a bunch of Water and Ore (even though much of it is getting wasted) and get back a small amount of Fertilizer and Mulch (the latter of which is really a waste byproduct) the spreadsheet sees the input resource "rate" and decides that the part needs to be much bigger/more massive to deal with that, which seems... odd. I think we'll probably want to be a bit flexible with the wet process. Maybe make the fertilizer output a little less than double (0.0005) and re-balance using your original ratios against that? It seems like the wet mode should be faster, but less efficient. 

Edit: I have no idea what the Soylent stuff says but I'm going to assume it's fine. 

 

Edited March 9, 2017 by Merkov

[DStaal]

17 minutes ago, Merkov said:

Okay, having a quick peek at the Algae Container: 

I'm guessing the ModuleSwappableConverter, or at least the resource cost, should only exist as part of stage 3, since a base USI-LS install won't have any way to make MaterialKits or SpecializedParts (the latter is the bigger issue, I think).

Already working on tweaking that - I'm moving the resource cost into a separate patch that's only applied with MKS.  Initial version was just to make sure things worked.

18 minutes ago, Merkov said:

According to the spreadsheet, the current throughput on the dry mode is overpowered, but the ratios are okay. I get almost exactly where we need to be mass and volume-wise if I drop the efficiency to 40%. (0.0003 Mulch, 0.0008 Ore gets you 0.00032 Fertilizer, suggested EC/s is 1.42.

So, here's a weird thing: the spreadsheet doesn't just look at resource output to decide how big a converter/refinery should be, it looks at input as well. What this means is that when you tell the spreadsheet that you want to use a bunch of Water and Ore (even though much of it is getting wasted) and get back a small amount of Fertilizer and Mulch (the latter of which is really a waste byproduct) the spreadsheet sees the input resource "rate" and decides that the part needs to be much bigger/more massive to deal with that, which seems... odd. I think we'll probably want to be a bit flexible with the wet process. Maybe make the fertilizer output a little less than double (0.0005) and re-balance using your original ratios against that? It seems like the wet mode should be faster, but less efficient. 

Given that nothing else really has anything comparable, deviating from the balance guidelines shouldn't be too big of an issue here.  I can see RoverDude's point in that it should take a certain amount of machinery (not Machinery) to be able to handle larger volumes of materials, but in this case I think we can pretend it's mostly 'feed in the raw materials straight from the drills.'

Anyway, changes put in.

[Merkov]

It's also occurred to me that we may want to think a bit about tech tree placement of parts. Just looking at the recyclers for now (Carbon Extractor/Air Refresher, USI Recycler, and Water Purifier Containers) they should all be unlocked in that order in both tech trees I think. My get tells me that they should probably be available earlier in the stock tree than in the CTT, but I don't really have any reasons to back that up. 

For the CTT, I was thinking maybe Basic Science, Recycling, then Short Term Habitation? That's a bit of a jump at the end, but suddenly being able to get 82% recycling rates is kind of a big deal. 

For the Stock TT, I was thinking maybe Survivability, Basic Science, Advanced Electrics? I'm not as sure about that. 

Off topic, but I'm just noticing that there seems to be both a USI-LS recycling container as well as a USI-LS recycler. I have no idea as to how I missed that. 

Finally, the USI Recycling Container (and now the USI Recycler, I guess) are just called the K&K Recycling Container and K&K Recycler in game. Since we're adding the Air Refresher Container (name subject to change) and the Water Purifier Container, should we rename those parts to something less generic? I'm not completely sure we should, but I thought of it, so I thought I would bring it up. 

Edit: I suppose it's also worth considering where the large K&K Recycler should fit in the tech tree. Do we basically just consider it a bigger version of the Recycler Container and put it in the same places? 

Edited March 11, 2017 by Merkov

[DStaal]

Just wanted to let people know that Merkov and I (mostly Merkov...) have been doing a lot of discussion and work on this over on GitHub as well.  I'd count most of the parts as done for stage 2 - pending a bit of play-testing and poking around.  There are still three parts whose configs I think may need some tweaking: The Central Hub, the MK1 habitat, and the Greenhouse.  The latter needs the most work, as we're still discussing how we want to deal with it: I think we should have the full multi-mode greenhouse like MKS has, but which modes should be available with USI-LS is an open question.

[Merkov]

Just to add onto what @DStaal said: right now, converter parts are being setup in such a way that they do not make use of specialist skills at all, and there are no efficiency parts/bonuses, like USI-LS NOMs. Once we start into stage 3 and really integrating MKS, we will be re-doing USI-LS integration again, but focused on using all of the bells and whistles provided by MKS. The configs as they are now are meant for @Nils277 to be able to ship with KPBS so that anyone who runs USI-LS, with or without MKS, has a set of parts that is balanced. Once we finish stage 3 (which will happen after we START stage 3 ) then those with USI-LS will have balanced KPBS parts, and those with USI-LS AND MKS will have parts that are balanced, but have extra functionality/depth.

Also, thought for DStaal and Nils227: Once we finish that greenhouse config, do you guys thing it would be worth making a post in the KPBS thread letting anyone who uses it and USI-LS that we have configs and people can test them if they so desire? We don't even have to do a proper release, if we want to limit it to people who can pull the files from Github. I'll be honest, I'm just typing this idea as it's coming to me, but I thought I'd at least mention it.

[DStaal]

The configs at the moment aren't exactly easy to test: You need to remove, edit, and replace files from KPBS if you want things to be clean.

[Merkov]

That's true... I guess I've just gotten used to doing that as I go the last couple of weeks...

[DStaal]

I got PM'd a bug report saying that the rack-sized liquid containers weren't showing up for someone - anyone else seeing this?  They sent me a KSP.log, and it looks like MM hits the create rule, and then nothing.

[DStaal]

I'm still working on the issue for @birimbecas - as there's nothing in the KSP.log, I know there's a fuller log that's avalible.  (Instructions on how to get it are here.)  Anyone know how to read it?    I'll take a shot if birimbecas provides it - something's obviously going on, and I'd like to know what.

[birimbecas]

@DStaal Here you go https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BzXyPMhVY5JuTHQ4eVFLRzNQU0U

Hope it helps

[Merkov]

I haven't had a chance to fire up KSP in the past few days. If I do later this week, I'll see if I can replicate the issue.

As for reading logs, I'm afraid I'm of no help.

[DStaal]

I'll admit I'm mostly in 'fire up, look at parts in SPH, shut down' mode myself...

[Nils277]

On 13.3.2017 at 1:49 AM, Merkov said:

Just to add onto what @DStaal said: right now, converter parts are being setup in such a way that they do not make use of specialist skills at all, and there are no efficiency parts/bonuses, like USI-LS NOMs. Once we start into stage 3 and really integrating MKS, we will be re-doing USI-LS integration again, but focused on using all of the bells and whistles provided by MKS. The configs as they are now are meant for @Nils277 to be able to ship with KPBS so that anyone who runs USI-LS, with or without MKS, has a set of parts that is balanced. Once we finish stage 3 (which will happen after we START stage 3 ) then those with USI-LS will have balanced KPBS parts, and those with USI-LS AND MKS will have parts that are balanced, but have extra functionality/depth.

Also, thought for DStaal and Nils227: Once we finish that greenhouse config, do you guys thing it would be worth making a post in the KPBS thread letting anyone who uses it and USI-LS that we have configs and people can test them if they so desire? We don't even have to do a proper release, if we want to limit it to people who can pull the files from Github. I'll be honest, I'm just typing this idea as it's coming to me, but I thought I'd at least mention it.

Sorry for the late reply, already wanted to make a post. but have been too busy the last week. Would have added a section to the OP where ppl are linked to this thread so they can test this out. Should i do this? Will be probably at the end of the week.

[Merkov]

Just now, Nils277 said:

Sorry for the late reply, already wanted to make a post. but have been too busy the last week. Would have added a section to the OP where ppl are linked to this thread so they can test this out. Should i do this? Will be probably at the end of the week.

As per DStaal's post right after mine, what I forgot to take into account was that there isn't a really easy way to use what we're working with. Right now, I think the plan is to make sure we have the pure USI-LS balancing done, then submit all of those changes to you. The "problem" is that some of these changes are made against the USI_LS MM patch, and others are made in the config files for their respective LS parts. In one case, we're actually creating a brand new config, re-using the carbon extractor's model, but creating a new part with it for use with USI-LS.

I somehow managed to forget all of that when I suggested letting others test what we have here. I'm still not opposed to people trying out our configs, but they aren't in a user-friendly/accessible format right now. We'd probably see more requests for help 'installing' them (I hesitate to call anything that only involves configs 'installing', but I digress) than we would any feedback on balance.

[DStaal]

I'd say *most* of the changes: I've been trying to think in terms of a both a pure USI-LS patch - that's an adjustment to the current patches in KPBS - and a separate addon that covers some of the more MKS mechanics.

The issue is that the pure USI-LS part - which is the majority of it - is really a diff against the compatibility patches in KPBS - so to run them you need to remove the parts of the KPBS patches that they modify.

We're getting close to done with stage 2.  Most of the parts work, and are balanced.  There's just a we corner cases left, really.

[DStaal]

9 hours ago, birimbecas said:

@DStaal Here you go https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BzXyPMhVY5JuTHQ4eVFLRzNQU0U

Hope it helps

Just wanted to say thanks, and that it doesn't really shed any more light on what's going on, unfortunately.  I see it load the intial config where it should create the part, and then nothing else mentions it, and no errors were logged in loading it.  I'll keep digging, but I'm lost on what could be going on.

[DStaal]

Ok, as part of the 'one touch' philosophy I'm putting in costs to deploy the MK2 hab, the Greenhouse, and the Science Lab.  RoverDude usually uses high costs as a way to balance the mass of the inflatables - but these aren't inflatable, they're deployable, and they really don't need the mass to balance.  Anyone have suggestions on how much/many resources they should need to deploy?  I'm leaning towards mostly SpecializedParts and EC - the idea being it's brackets and such to hold things in place, so they would be specialized.    However, a good argument could be made that it's screws and bolts, which should be MaterialKits.  But amounts...  Obviously we don't want high amounts, but do we want something that just feels nominal?  Or should it be 'not quite nominal, but not much either'?

[DStaal]

And for the Greenhouse:

Our plan was to have a small habitation bonus, and have it swappable between the different MKS modes when MKS was installed.  This apparently isn't possible: If you make it swappable, then habitation becomes a mode, and can only be run independently from the rest.  Options:

1. Drop the habitation.  Simple and straightforward.
2. Drop the swapping.  Also simple - it just becomes a USI-LS style greenhouse only.  (Note this is currently the plan for what to push upstream to KPBS.)
3. Clone into different parts for MKS - a bit less flexible, but you'd be able to choose which type of greenhouse you want.
4. Upgrade the habitation bonus to a full habitation mode with MKS.  (That is: It becomes a habitation-only part in that mode.)
5. Something else?

Anyone have thoughts?  I'm leaning towards #3, but only slightly.  Its more work and could be confusing to the player, but preserves options and gives a different feel.

[Hofelinger]

Hi @DStaal, just found this mod after a few weeks of playing with MKS and KPBS. It's looking great and I'm excited to test it out. In your opinion, is this mod safe to use in my main save? Or should I wait until an official release in the "add-on release" forums?

Thanks for all your work on this.

[DStaal]

1 hour ago, Hofelinger said:

Hi @DStaal, just found this mod after a few weeks of playing with MKS and KPBS. It's looking great and I'm excited to test it out. In your opinion, is this mod safe to use in my main save? Or should I wait until an official release in the "add-on release" forums?

Thanks for all your work on this.

The release zip is safe to use in your main save.  The dev version - pulling directly from Github's tree - isn't really, and would be a pain to install if you didn't know what you are doing.

One of the reasons why the dev version isn't done is because I want each part to be only dealt with once, wherever possible.  That than means that things are safe to use, since they don't keep changing.    I expect the Central Hub will be touched in both this next release and the release after - but hopefully nothing that will compromise a save.

So if you grab the latest from here you should be fine: https://github.com/DanStaal/KPBStoMKS/releases

[FirroSeranel]

On 3/16/2017 at 9:26 AM, DStaal said:

And for the Greenhouse:

Our plan was to have a small habitation bonus, and have it swappable between the different MKS modes when MKS was installed.  This apparently isn't possible: If you make it swappable, then habitation becomes a mode, and can only be run independently from the rest.  Options:

1. Drop the habitation.  Simple and straightforward.
2. Drop the swapping.  Also simple - it just becomes a USI-LS style greenhouse only.  (Note this is currently the plan for what to push upstream to KPBS.)
3. Clone into different parts for MKS - a bit less flexible, but you'd be able to choose which type of greenhouse you want.
4. Upgrade the habitation bonus to a full habitation mode with MKS.  (That is: It becomes a habitation-only part in that mode.)
5. Something else?

Anyone have thoughts?  I'm leaning towards #3, but only slightly.  Its more work and could be confusing to the player, but preserves options and gives a different feel.

 

FWIW, I'd vote for Option 3 there. I design bases as a whole, in the SPH, then slice them up for launch and reassemble them in situ. That means I know what settings I want everything at, before I launch it, so using separate parts wouldn't really be an issue.

[DStaal]

10 hours ago, FirroSeranel said:

FWIW, I'd vote for Option 3 there. I design bases as a whole, in the SPH, then slice them up for launch and reassemble them in situ. That means I know what settings I want everything at, before I launch it, so using separate parts wouldn't really be an issue.

Well, that's 1.5 votes to zero for option three, so three it is. 

[FirroSeranel]

1 hour ago, DStaal said:

Well, that's 1.5 votes to zero for option three, so three it is. 

Plus if someone really wants switchable greenhouses, they're still free to use the Ranger greenhouse, which is a perfectly serviceable part, after all.

Will the greenhouse be able to produce Organics as well? I could see it not even doing Agroponics; that's what the algae farm segments are for.

[DStaal]

22 minutes ago, FirroSeranel said:

Plus if someone really wants switchable greenhouses, they're still free to use the Ranger greenhouse, which is a perfectly serviceable part, after all.

Will the greenhouse be able to produce Organics as well? I could see it not even doing Agroponics; that's what the algae farm segments are for.

Organics I'm leaving to stage 3 - part of the industrial addon.  Given that we've got multiple greenhouses already, I'll probably have another that does Organics.  The algae farm and the container greenhouse are being left as a more light-duty parts - they don't get production bonuses, etc.  Good for starting your base, but you probably want to move on to full-size parts later. 

[Merkov]

I'm a bit torn on this. If anything, my preference would be for a combination of 3 and 4, where we have 2 greenhouses. One is what we've got now, and one has swappable converters. I just think that we run the risk of having way too many greenhouse variants otherwise.