[1.2.2] [0.9.5] KPBS/MKS Integration Pack

[DStaal]

4 hours ago, Merkov said:

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. 

What would the other one look like?  With a straight #3, we'd probably end up with four greenhouses, including the Organics one.

[Merkov]

57 minutes ago, DStaal said:

What would the other one look like?  With a straight #3, we'd probably end up with four greenhouses, including the Organics one.

I imagine one would be our current agroponics + hab. The other would swap between agroponics, dirt farming, substrate farming, maybe pure hab, and being a greenhouse efficiency part. I think Organics ought to be its own, later tech tier part. 

[DStaal]

On 3/19/2017 at 8:19 PM, Merkov said:

I imagine one would be our current agroponics + hab. The other would swap between agroponics, dirt farming, substrate farming, maybe pure hab, and being a greenhouse efficiency part. I think Organics ought to be its own, later tech tier part. 

Sorry, meant to reply to this yesterday and got sidetracked...

That actually only reduces the part count by 1 - and I'm not sure that two greenhouses are less confusing than three.  (In fact, two may be *more* confusing - you can miss-spot and not realize you're seeing two, while three you tend to catch a bit better.)

It's an interesting idea, and I like at least parts of it, but I'm not sure it's advantage to user comprehension, and it would mean coming up with four more balanced configs - while the current uses the configs we already have.  So it's a *good* idea, I'm just not sold on it being a *better* idea, and it's more work. 

Assuming we stick with 'each mode is a separate part', the only thing I think that needs actual attention at the moment is resource cost for deploying modules.  My current setup is 25 MaterialKits and 400 EC - with the thought that most of it is moving things around, and then bolting stuff into place.  Playtesting made me realize that having two resources was annoying, and that the ability to collect MaterialKits from descent stages means they should be preferred.  (I even floated the idea of adding some minor storage of MaterialKits to the Merkat engines, so that you'd be able to deploy without using containers - lots of racks can be annoying with CLS.)

[Merkov]

1 hour ago, DStaal said:

Sorry, meant to reply to this yesterday and got sidetracked...

That actually only reduces the part count by 1 - and I'm not sure that two greenhouses are less confusing than three.  (In fact, two may be *more* confusing - you can miss-spot and not realize you're seeing two, while three you tend to catch a bit better.)

It's an interesting idea, and I like at least parts of it, but I'm not sure it's advantage to user comprehension, and it would mean coming up with four more balanced configs - while the current uses the configs we already have.  So it's a *good* idea, I'm just not sold on it being a *better* idea, and it's more work. 

I'm confused. I listed 4 swappable functions that the second greenhouse would have (Mulch + Fertilizer = Supplies; Dirt + Water + Fertilizer = Supplies; Substrate + Water + Fertilizer = Supplies; Pure hab bonus; and efficiency part). If they were not swappable, wouldn't that mean 4 more greenhouses for a total of 6?

1 hour ago, DStaal said:

Assuming we stick with 'each mode is a separate part', the only thing I think that needs actual attention at the moment is resource cost for deploying modules.  My current setup is 25 MaterialKits and 400 EC - with the thought that most of it is moving things around, and then bolting stuff into place.  Playtesting made me realize that having two resources was annoying, and that the ability to collect MaterialKits from descent stages means they should be preferred.  (I even floated the idea of adding some minor storage of MaterialKits to the Merkat engines, so that you'd be able to deploy without using containers - lots of racks can be annoying with CLS.)

Yeah, a small MaterialKits + EC cost seems like the right way to go.

[DStaal]

3 minutes ago, Merkov said:

I'm confused. I listed 4 swappable functions that the second greenhouse would have (Mulch + Fertilizer = Supplies; Dirt + Water + Fertilizer = Supplies; Substrate + Water + Fertilizer = Supplies; Pure hab bonus; and efficiency part). If they were not swappable, wouldn't that mean 4 more greenhouses for a total of 6?

The #3 suggestion was to split the currently suggested modes - Agriponics and the two Cultivators, all with hab - into three parts.  You're suggesting keeping the basic agriponics with hab, and creating four new configs in a new part.  I'm comparing the two ideas as a whole: Keeping the current configs, but just splitting them out, vs. coming up with new configs on a separate part.  New configs, split out, would be strictly worse than either idea. 

8 minutes ago, Merkov said:

Yeah, a small MaterialKits + EC cost seems like the right way to go.

But what amounts should they be?  RoverDude uses MaterialKits here to balance mass - but we're pretty balanced mass-wise already.  I can throw random numbers in that feel sorta-right, but I don't really have any reasoning behind them.

[FirroSeranel]

3 hours ago, DStaal said:

The #3 suggestion was to split the currently suggested modes - Agriponics and the two Cultivators, all with hab - into three parts.  You're suggesting keeping the basic agriponics with hab, and creating four new configs in a new part.  I'm comparing the two ideas as a whole: Keeping the current configs, but just splitting them out, vs. coming up with new configs on a separate part.  New configs, split out, would be strictly worse than either idea. 

But what amounts should they be?  RoverDude uses MaterialKits here to balance mass - but we're pretty balanced mass-wise already.  I can throw random numbers in that feel sorta-right, but I don't really have any reasoning behind them.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure you really need a deployment cost. Not all normal deployable MKS components have them. RD's logic seems to be pretty sound. If you're just storing a bunch of stuff in a big balloon, it's free to deploy and switch around. If it would involve swapping out intricate parts, like changing drill sifters, that has a small Specialized Parts cost. On the other hand, nobody is actually going to want to live in an empty bouncy castle... you have to inflate it and then fill it with -stuff-. Furniture, food prep, life support, etc. That's the Material Kits.

By comparison, the PBS greenhouse has room for everything that's inside of it in its (slightly) condensed state. It just expands outward to make an aisle in the center and give the plants a bit more breathing room. It's like a mobile home with expanding sides. You can't -use- it with the sides collapsed, not really; it's too cramped. But to expand it out, you just push a button; it doesn't take any parts or anything.

I think the balance should come in the form of construction cost and weight. An inflatable greenhouse in MKS is cheap and relatively light because it presumably contains just the algae, probably in dried form. Once you inflate it, you'd then have to install all the structure inside, the racks to grow and water it, the lighting to feed it, and the growth medium, so it costs a fair bit -- in terms of the parts you'd need to disassemble to get the Material Kits without having pre-existing manufacturing, about half again its cost, and four or five times its mass. Probably even more if you try to ship it up (once you account for the container and the extra engine mass and fuel mass you need to bring it with you).

So... I'd try to figure out the real cost of an equivalent amount of productivity in MKS parts, and base the cost and weight on that, rather than have a deploy cost, even a trivial one like 25 MK.

For example...

1 Ranger Agriculture Module (0.001006 output with Substrate) = 12,725 Roots + 1.251 Tons

+ 1000 MK (in 1.25m Kontainer = 2490 Roots + 1.125 Ton

= 15,215 Roots + 2.376 Tons

+ Sufficient Fuel and Engine to lift Material Kits and Kontainer (because you don't -have- to lift those--the advantage of the inflatable is less up front cost and lifted mass, in exchange for more work setting up in situ resource generation to actually inflate the thing, so to offset that advantage, we should include the cost of lifting the Material Kits in the cost of the free-inflation part)

= (quick and dirty estimate in VAB, basically a Skipper and a Jumbo) = 11,050 Roots

So total cost should be in the ballpark of 26,500 Roots, total mass around 2.376 tons, and maybe fudge it upward a bit to 30k as a "convenience charge" for the ease of deployment to the player, and 3 tons due to its rigid superstructur being heavier.

Perhaps not coincidentally, the PBS Greenhouse does weigh 2.3 tons. The cost, however, is way, way lower... but this version of it is adding a lot more functionality and colonization oomph, so a 5x cost increase doesn't seem outlandish. Compared to that, 25 MK and some EC to deploy is just an annoyance anyway. What is that, a single disassembled landing leg or stabilizer wing, and a 400 root battery? XD

Edit: if you want to keep a hoop for the player to jump through, maybe require EC to expand it, and a minimum quantity of Dirt, Substrate and/or Water, rather than Material Kits? As in, you bring potted seedlings, and need in-situ resources to flesh out the growth medium for the adult plants.

Edited March 21, 2017 by FirroSeranel

[DStaal]

2 hours ago, FirroSeranel said:

I'm not sure you really need a deployment cost. Not all normal deployable MKS components have them. RD's logic seems to be pretty sound. If you're just storing a bunch of stuff in a big balloon, it's free to deploy and switch around. If it would involve swapping out intricate parts, like changing drill sifters, that has a small Specialized Parts cost. On the other hand, nobody is actually going to want to live in an empty bouncy castle... you have to inflate it and then fill it with -stuff-. Furniture, food prep, life support, etc. That's the Material Kits.

<snip>

Edit: if you want to keep a hoop for the player to jump through, maybe require EC to expand it, and a minimum quantity of Dirt, Substrate and/or Water, rather than Material Kits? As in, you bring potted seedlings, and need in-situ resources to flesh out the growth medium for the adult plants.

Two quick notes to start: RoverDude created a great balance spreadsheet for production values/mass/volume/etc. - there's a link earlier in this thread.  We've been working off of it heavily.  Secondly, the deployment costs aren't just for the Greenhouse - the MK2 Hab and the Science Lab also deploy.  Unless there's a specific reason to have them different, I think all the modules should have the same cost.

I do get your point on not really needing them as well.  I've been back and forth on that; my thought is that there's a small amount of equipment to secure things in place - it's not really intended to be retracted and re-deployed, so you put in a few bolts and screws to hold things together and get a bit stronger structure.  You might also want to put in some furniture, but that's a more open question.  I'm figuring that EC will probably be the main cost - running your tools, powering whatever actually pushes the sides out, etc.  (Vs. inflatables which use air for most of that.)  Which still leaves me with a fairly random EC cost, even with nothing else.

My thought was to have just enough MaterialKits for the bolts and screws - but how much that is (and if that's zero) I still am all over the place on.  If it's more than one and less than about 200 you can do it with one container or Workbench.  (Less than 100 you can do two modules per container.)  I'd say that anything between 1 and 100 is really the same, gameplay-wise, as you won't ship in less than that.  (Though less than ~50 or so you can almost rely on not needing to ship any - as long as you have storage space for it.)  More than 100 and you need one container per deployable module - more than 200 and you start needing to actually think about amounts.  I don't think it should need more than 100.  I'm not sure it needs more than 50.  One or two just seems petty, though it makes sense to me.

[Merkov]

6 hours ago, DStaal said:

The #3 suggestion was to split the currently suggested modes - Agriponics and the two Cultivators, all with hab - into three parts.  You're suggesting keeping the basic agriponics with hab, and creating four new configs in a new part.  I'm comparing the two ideas as a whole: Keeping the current configs, but just splitting them out, vs. coming up with new configs on a separate part.  New configs, split out, would be strictly worse than either idea. 

I still don't... quite... understand, but I am going to defer to you on this. I think I'm learning, but I'm still at the 'any day my computer doesn't catch fire is a good day' level of modding.

6 hours ago, DStaal said:

But what amounts should they be?  RoverDude uses MaterialKits here to balance mass - but we're pretty balanced mass-wise already.  I can throw random numbers in that feel sorta-right, but I don't really have any reasoning behind them.

This also goes with your comment just above this. I think mainly I just like RDs deployment method because it costs resources, but also requires a kerbal on EVA. I like the gameplay element of needing something to do the deployment vs just landing a K&K Science Lab and it autonomously deploying.

Part of me wishes that it was a big number so that you actually have to have some prep work in place to deploy the parts. Then again, part of me thinks it should only be 5 because the modules are already mostly solid, so the parts are things like bolts and seals. Still another part of me thinks that most of your specialized equipment wouldn't be transported in the base parts itself, so the material cost should be higher... I'm all over the place.

I think EC cost should be high for the reasons you mentioned above. I still don't know what that will mean, but it may depend on what we decide on for the MaterialKit cost. If these things cost 1/5 as many MaterialKits to inflate as a Ranger Hab or Ag module, maybe it costs 5 times as much EC? I don't know.

The Hab and Greenhouse should probably have the same deployment cost, but I'm wondering if the Science Lab shouldn't cost SpecializedParts instead/as well. The idea being that your specialized scientific equipment isn't just crammed inside the module. (Then again, maybe KPBS is the kerbal version of Ikea and they're just really good at that.) I think a lab costing SpecializedParts to deploy instead of MaterialKits would also add a nice "stage 3 similar-but-different" to MKS feel, but that's just me.

If I had to throw out a random number for the MaterialKits, I'd say 100. I can't defend that number, but that's what I'd come up with.

[DStaal]

3 hours ago, Merkov said:

I still don't... quite... understand, but I am going to defer to you on this. I think I'm learning, but I'm still at the 'any day my computer doesn't catch fire is a good day' level of modding.

My option #3, split up the current configs into separate parts instead of trying to swap them:

• Agroponics + Hab
• Cultivator (Substrate) + Hab
• Cultivator (Dirt) + Hab
• Possible future Organics.

Your proposal:

• Agroponics + Hab
• Switchable Greenhouse
  • agroponics
  • dirt farming
  • substrate farming
  • pure hab
  • greenhouse efficiency part
• Possible Future Organics

So your proposal means one less part, and five new configs.  (Not counting the config for Organics, as that's future.)  I'm assuming here that the farming modules would need to be rebalanced by the lack of hab inclusion.  (Otherwise the switchable agroponics makes no sense as the dedicated agroponics+hab part will be better.)

3 hours ago, Merkov said:

This also goes with your comment just above this. I think mainly I just like RDs deployment method because it costs resources, but also requires a kerbal on EVA. I like the gameplay element of needing something to do the deployment vs just landing a K&K Science Lab and it autonomously deploying.

Part of me wishes that it was a big number so that you actually have to have some prep work in place to deploy the parts. Then again, part of me thinks it should only be 5 because the modules are already mostly solid, so the parts are things like bolts and seals. Still another part of me thinks that most of your specialized equipment wouldn't be transported in the base parts itself, so the material cost should be higher... I'm all over the place.

I think EC cost should be high for the reasons you mentioned above. I still don't know what that will mean, but it may depend on what we decide on for the MaterialKit cost. If these things cost 1/5 as many MaterialKits to inflate as a Ranger Hab or Ag module, maybe it costs 5 times as much EC? I don't know.

The Hab and Greenhouse should probably have the same deployment cost, but I'm wondering if the Science Lab shouldn't cost SpecializedParts instead/as well. The idea being that your specialized scientific equipment isn't just crammed inside the module. (Then again, maybe KPBS is the kerbal version of Ikea and they're just really good at that.) I think a lab costing SpecializedParts to deploy instead of MaterialKits would also add a nice "stage 3 similar-but-different" to MKS feel, but that's just me.

If I had to throw out a random number for the MaterialKits, I'd say 100. I can't defend that number, but that's what I'd come up with.

I don't think the Ranger inflatables should be considered as guidelines here - they specifically use the mass of the MaterialKits to balance the weight reduction of the inflatable.  So you send the same mass sending an inflatable as you would sending an equivalent Duna module, for instance.  The advantage is the size and that you can re-use some of your mass from things like decent stages to do it.  KPBS doesn't do that: It sends the full mass of the part up as one piece, and you deploy it.  So they aren't really comparable.

I'm against adding SpecializedParts to any of them - mostly because it's just annoying.  It's another container, and then it *has* to be in a container - you can't reclaim it from parts.  It would mean you can't use an end-rack for deployment resources, and need to basically fill an inline rack.  KPBS has to be really good at this: They fold up a *telescope* into it, after all. 

IKEA is actually a decent comparison: If this was an Ikea kit, I think the deployment resources would be the 'parts bag' - all the pegs, screws, etc that you need to assemble things.  How much do you think that would be?  Let's not think in MaterialKits units for a moment: How big a bag would it be?  One liter?  Ten?  Think in terms of Ziplock sandwich bags - they're about a liter each.

[Merkov]

8 minutes ago, DStaal said:

My option #3, split up the current configs into separate parts instead of trying to swap them:

• Agroponics + Hab
• Cultivator (Substrate) + Hab
• Cultivator (Dirt) + Hab
• Possible future Organics.

Your proposal:

• Agroponics + Hab
• Switchable Greenhouse
  • agroponics
  • dirt farming
  • substrate farming
  • pure hab
  • greenhouse efficiency part
• Possible Future Organics

So your proposal means one less part, and five new configs.  (Not counting the config for Organics, as that's future.)  I'm assuming here that the farming modules would need to be rebalanced by the lack of hab inclusion.  (Otherwise the switchable agroponics makes no sense as the dedicated agroponics+hab part will be better.)

Ah, I see. But it's just 5 extra moduley-bits in one config. I forgot to consider that my proposal makes agroponics the only version of supply generation that also includes hab, which is a bit weird. I didn't think adding 5 other modes would be a big deal, since it's just one config file and a bunch of spreadsheet work, but it looks a bit weird now that I look at it.

8 minutes ago, DStaal said:

I don't think the Ranger inflatables should be considered as guidelines here - they specifically use the mass of the MaterialKits to balance the weight reduction of the inflatable.  So you send the same mass sending an inflatable as you would sending an equivalent Duna module, for instance.  The advantage is the size and that you can re-use some of your mass from things like decent stages to do it.  KPBS doesn't do that: It sends the full mass of the part up as one piece, and you deploy it.  So they aren't really comparable.

I'm against adding SpecializedParts to any of them - mostly because it's just annoying.  It's another container, and then it *has* to be in a container - you can't reclaim it from parts.  It would mean you can't use an end-rack for deployment resources, and need to basically fill an inline rack.  KPBS has to be really good at this: They fold up a *telescope* into it, after all. 

IKEA is actually a decent comparison: If this was an Ikea kit, I think the deployment resources would be the 'parts bag' - all the pegs, screws, etc that you need to assemble things.  How much do you think that would be?  Let's not think in MaterialKits units for a moment: How big a bag would it be?  One liter?  Ten?  Think in terms of Ziplock sandwich bags - they're about a liter each.

As soon as I typed Ikea, it suddenly occurred to me that if important bits can fit in a Ground Construction DIY kit, they can fit into a base structure. The only thing I don't really know is how would one go about sealing this thing? Those joints have to be able to handle an atmosphere of pressure (from both the inside, on an atmosphereless world, and the outside, say on Eve) and not leak even if they are hit with debris and the like. Do the structures themselves have the sealing baked into the mating surfaces, and its just a matter of holding everything together with rivets? In that case, we're probably talking a lot of rivets, but JUST rivets. I'm thinking of airplane parts. Those things are COVERED in rivets.

[DStaal]

11 minutes ago, Merkov said:

As soon as I typed Ikea, it suddenly occurred to me that if important bits can fit in a Ground Construction DIY kit, they can fit into a base structure. The only thing I don't really know is how would one go about sealing this thing? Those joints have to be able to handle an atmosphere of pressure (from both the inside, on an atmosphereless world, and the outside, say on Eve) and not leak even if they are hit with debris and the like. Do the structures themselves have the sealing baked into the mating surfaces, and its just a matter of holding everything together with rivets? In that case, we're probably talking a lot of rivets, but JUST rivets. I'm thinking of airplane parts. Those things are COVERED in rivets.

My guess from the deployment animation is that it's gaskets, and they are primarily designed for pressure from the inside: They're thicker near the end of where they deploy, so the obvious is to wedge themselves in against something.  For high-pressure worlds, you would reinforce that junction with something mechanical, to hold positive pressure.  But that's just a guess.  (Probably you deploy to a gasket and then seal the joint with something stronger, actually.  Which gets us back to: How much stuff do they need to deploy it?)

[FirroSeranel]

8 hours ago, DStaal said:

...

My thought was to have just enough MaterialKits for the bolts and screws - but how much that is (and if that's zero) I still am all over the place on.  ...

 

Well, my thought is that there's actually plenty of open space in the modules for bolts and screws. Try installing JSI Transparent Pods, and have it active on an undeployed greenhouse, and you'll see what I mean. There's tons of "space" in there. The only reason it needs to be deployed is to let more light into the bigger windows, and to create an aisle for kerbals to move through. That's it. The idea that you can't put a ziplock bag of nuts and bolts somewhere in all that empty space, and need a separate container for it, just doesn't sit right with me. In the inflatables, there literally is nowhere to put it, since you're talking about the finished product being... I dunno, 500 times the size of the deflated launch module.

[FirroSeranel]

I do see the appeal in needing an engineer on EVA to deploy it... just to me, it doesn't make sense. Like Merkov said, if the Material Kits are like the installation pieces bag in an IKEA product, notice that that ships in the same box as the rest of the piece of furniture; they don't mail it to you separately, which is what, to me, Material Kits mean: that you have to ship up some of the parts separately.

Regarding EC cost... it'd need to be quite high to be non-trivial, and then I'm not sure it would make much sense. I mean, my Minmus base has something like 180,000 EC on board, and even my earliest Mun landers in a career mode have several thousand, for dark side transits. Even a science satellite generally needs at least 2k to be able to transmit larger experiment results reliably. Why would I even care about something requiring 400? And yet... why would deploying a couple of extendable walls require a hybrid car's worth of battery storage, which is what something like 20,000 would mean?

Ultimately I think the question is: what kind of user is going to use this mod? Obviously they want highly futuristic design... they value form over pure function... but they do want some complexity, not just a 10 part base you plop down and live in indefinitely with no effort. Is the EVA requirement the answer? I'm not sure... it totally makes sense for the inflatables. But if you think about it from a roleplaying perspective, if like DStaal said, it seals with gaskets that are already in place, wouldn't you be doing basically all of the installation from the inside anyway?

What if it went a different route entirely?

Is there a way to require not an Engineer... but a Biologist to be present? That would make more sense to me, because the challenge isn't building it, that's just pushing a button, and maybe screwing in a dozen or so bolts. The challenge is in setting up the hydroponics, and that's a biologist's job. Or maybe a Farmer, I suppose. Or just make it a Scientist, as they're the most generalized science specialists.

And maybe deploying it could cost something like Water instead? Its weight makes it worthwhile to acquire it in situ to save weight vs. shipping it up from the ground. And it's plausible, especially if they use a gel-based growth medium, for a hydroponics bay that size to need 500 kg of water or more, so it could be a significant amount as well.

Edited March 22, 2017 by FirroSeranel

[DStaal]

7 hours ago, FirroSeranel said:

Well, my thought is that there's actually plenty of open space in the modules for bolts and screws. Try installing JSI Transparent Pods, and have it active on an undeployed greenhouse, and you'll see what I mean. There's tons of "space" in there. The only reason it needs to be deployed is to let more light into the bigger windows, and to create an aisle for kerbals to move through. That's it. The idea that you can't put a ziplock bag of nuts and bolts somewhere in all that empty space, and need a separate container for it, just doesn't sit right with me. In the inflatables, there literally is nowhere to put it, since you're talking about the finished product being... I dunno, 500 times the size of the deflated launch module.

Which is part of why I'm all over the place on how much it needs to be: Is it stowed in the part itself?  Part of it?  Would it be secure?  Etc.  (I'm not sure I trust the IVA of the undeployed pod though.)  Even if it there's space, I'm not sure it's *appropriate* space - in that it may not be secure enough to handle the stresses of launch, etc.

7 hours ago, FirroSeranel said:

I do see the appeal in needing an engineer on EVA to deploy it... just to me, it doesn't make sense. Like Merkov said, if the Material Kits are like the installation pieces bag in an IKEA product, notice that that ships in the same box as the rest of the piece of furniture; they don't mail it to you separately, which is what, to me, Material Kits mean: that you have to ship up some of the parts separately.

You can actually go down to IKEA and buy all their installation/assembly parts separately.    I've even had some items from them where they're in a separate box.  But note that IKEA is obviously an over-simplification, and the question is how IKEA-like this actually is.  Also note that there are several parts in this pack that make shipping them easier: Both the Kontainers and the Workbench will hold MaterialKits, meaning an integrated packaging is quite possible - but I'm not sold on it being the *default.*

(Actually, my mental model has you needing to deploy these from Workbenches - which conveniently allow you to EVA and hold MaterialKits.)

7 hours ago, FirroSeranel said:

Regarding EC cost... it'd need to be quite high to be non-trivial, and then I'm not sure it would make much sense. I mean, my Minmus base has something like 180,000 EC on board, and even my earliest Mun landers in a career mode have several thousand, for dark side transits. Even a science satellite generally needs at least 2k to be able to transmit larger experiment results reliably. Why would I even care about something requiring 400? And yet... why would deploying a couple of extendable walls require a hybrid car's worth of battery storage, which is what something like 20,000 would mean?

Let's take your early Mun landers for an example: If they have several thousand for dark side transits, would 400-500 of it meant that you couldn't deploy until you were in the sun?  And would not being able to access the hab or greenhouse until sunrise have been an issue?  That's enough to have to think about, without over-doing it, I think.  Yes, if you have generation it's pretty trivial - but then it should be.  (And of course note that you can well have two/three of these in a base...)

7 hours ago, FirroSeranel said:

Ultimately I think the question is: what kind of user is going to use this mod? Obviously they want highly futuristic design... they value form over pure function... but they do want some complexity, not just a 10 part base you plop down and live in indefinitely with no effort. Is the EVA requirement the answer? I'm not sure... it totally makes sense for the inflatables. But if you think about it from a roleplaying perspective, if like DStaal said, it seals with gaskets that are already in place, wouldn't you be doing basically all of the installation from the inside anyway?

What if it went a different route entirely?

Is there a way to require not an Engineer... but a Biologist to be present? That would make more sense to me, because the challenge isn't building it, that's just pushing a button, and maybe screwing in a dozen or so bolts. The challenge is in setting up the hydroponics, and that's a biologist's job. Or maybe a Farmer, I suppose. Or just make it a Scientist, as they're the most generalized science specialists.

For a Biologist - not without writing our own plugin.  Basically, if an ability doesn't exist in Stock, KPBS, or USI, we don't have it.  Which is also partly on the EVA issue - We can make it deploy without cost and without EVA, but that also means it doesn't need a Kerbal.  I *do* think it should take a Kerbal to deploy.  So to require a Kerbal, that Kerbal needs to be EVA, because that's what the tools we have support.  (And really, even a Ranger inflatable should be deployed from the inside.  I mean the Biglow module on the ISS was inflated by astronauts checking connections and opening valves, and that's basically a first prototype.)

Oh: And on the 'form over function' comment: We've just spent quite a bit of effort to make sure these parts aren't form over function, and are in fact just as functional as USI parts. 

7 hours ago, FirroSeranel said:

And maybe deploying it could cost something like Water instead? Its weight makes it worthwhile to acquire it in situ to save weight vs. shipping it up from the ground. And it's plausible, especially if they use a gel-based growth medium, for a hydroponics bay that size to need 500 kg of water or more, so it could be a significant amount as well.

This is possible - but could well be annoying, and remember that there are *three different* parts we're talking about here, not just the greenhouse(s).  If the Greenhouses require Water, that should be in *addition* to whatever the 'standard' costs are to deploy a KPBS part - which is shared by the MK2 Hab and the Science Lab.  And note that that then means you need to have a container for that resource as well - which if you *only* need to deploy can be annoying.

[DStaal]

As a side-note: I've merged the 'life-support' feature branch back to dev - the remaining tweaks aren't life-support specific, and things are mostly looking good.  The to-do list before the next release:

• Settle the deployment costs.
• Merge the USI-LS specific tweaks back upstream to KPBS.
• Update the Readme and Changelog.

I think that's about it.  Of course double-checking everything is a good idea.

[Merkov]

Just now, DStaal said:

As a side-note: I've merged the 'life-support' feature branch back to dev - the remaining tweaks aren't life-support specific, and things are mostly looking good.  The to-do list before the next release:

• Settle the deployment costs.
• Merge the USI-LS specific tweaks back upstream to KPBS.
• Update the Readme and Changelog.

I think that's about it.  Of course double-checking everything is a good idea.

Sweet! I have been rather stuck away from my own computer lately, so I haven't really done anything useful for a while. How specific do we want the changelog to be? Also, since the USI-LS specific tweaks are going into KPBS proper, how do we (or perhaps, do we) document those on our side? On the one hand, it seems weird to have two "mods" both listing the exact same changes listed, when really only KPBS will have the changes. On the other hand, Nils will likely put a "updated USI-LS configs (thanks DStaal)" sort of a thing, so maybe having a specific listing of what we have done on this side, while making it clear that the changes were merged directly into KPBS is the right thing to do?

I like your idea of making the Workbench a handy way to deploy a part. The Workbenches each hold 200 MaterialKits. My thinking is: even if it shouldn't take a lot of "stuff" to deploy these parts, I'm not sure if I like the idea of being able to scrap a few solar panels off of a transit stage and suddenly having enough MaterialKits to deploy something. If I was to suggest a gameplay:realism balance suggestion, I'd probably go with 100 MaterialKits? You're still likely able to get everything you need by scrapping an entire transit stage, but it isn't completely trivial. I also don't think that 100 is overly onerous, either. Like you said earlier, gameplay-wise, there really isn't much difference between 1 and 100 MaterialKits.

[DStaal]

7 minutes ago, Merkov said:

Sweet! I have been rather stuck away from my own computer lately, so I haven't really done anything useful for a while. How specific do we want the changelog to be? Also, since the USI-LS specific tweaks are going into KPBS proper, how do we (or perhaps, do we) document those on our side? On the one hand, it seems weird to have two "mods" both listing the exact same changes listed, when really only KPBS will have the changes. On the other hand, Nils will likely put a "updated USI-LS configs (thanks DStaal)" sort of a thing, so maybe having a specific listing of what we have done on this side, while making it clear that the changes were merged directly into KPBS is the right thing to do?

Specific is nice.  I tend to be lazy.    But it should at least include every new part this pack is adding - and the greenhouses should be highlighted, as it's an oddity.  I don't think we should document the changes we push upstream - at least not it our changelog.  It's not a change in this pack.  (I suspect if someone were to write up a detailed list of changes to send to Nils he would be very appreciative - and that should go into the merge-commit anyway.)

12 minutes ago, Merkov said:

I like your idea of making the Workbench a handy way to deploy a part. The Workbenches each hold 200 MaterialKits. My thinking is: even if it shouldn't take a lot of "stuff" to deploy these parts, I'm not sure if I like the idea of being able to scrap a few solar panels off of a transit stage and suddenly having enough MaterialKits to deploy something. If I was to suggest a gameplay:realism balance suggestion, I'd probably go with 100 MaterialKits? You're still likely able to get everything you need by scrapping an entire transit stage, but it isn't completely trivial. I also don't think that 100 is overly onerous, either. Like you said earlier, gameplay-wise, there really isn't much difference between 1 and 100 MaterialKits.

I'm starting to like that.  Especially with the mental model of reinforcing gaskets - 100 liters of material could get used up pretty quickly if you need a one-inch-wide strip around the whole deployment area.

[Merkov]

47 minutes ago, DStaal said:

Specific is nice.  I tend to be lazy.    But it should at least include every new part this pack is adding - and the greenhouses should be highlighted, as it's an oddity.  I don't think we should document the changes we push upstream - at least not it our changelog.  It's not a change in this pack.  (I suspect if someone were to write up a detailed list of changes to send to Nils he would be very appreciative - and that should go into the merge-commit anyway.)

Okay, how would you like me to start? Should I make a new document in the USI_LS folder and just list changes?

Quote

I'm starting to like that.  Especially with the mental model of reinforcing gaskets - 100 liters of material could get used up pretty quickly if you need a one-inch-wide strip around the whole deployment area.

Okay. Still have no idea how much EC we should use. I suppose the big thing with EC is that whatever amount we decide on, you would need to have as much storage available, right? I don't think the DLL doesn't let you can't put 500 in now, and then recharge a bit and put in another 500 later. In that case, we have to decide how much EC storage we want to 'force' the player to have on the ground. Unless I'm blind, the only K&K battery is the 3K one? I'm almost thinking 1000 EC. That way, if you have a KPBS container rack with a 3K battery, the cost is trivial. If you're trying to do it with radial-attached z-100s, it isn't trivial. I think this rewards being somewhat prepared. You don't need any crazy resource chain, but you can't just use a pile of debris to set up your habitat and greenhouse.

As an aside, I always loved the huge batteries that NFE adds, but never liked the rest of NFE. I actually made a folder called NFEBatteries in my GameData folder and just put the batteries in there so I can add them to my stations. My habit of doing things like that makes me wish that there was a huge KPBS battery, but I also don't think there's actually any need for one, I just have a problem.

Edit: I just noticed that you renamed my silly refresher to scrubber. I'm going to be honest, in order to remind myself that this was supposed to be a low tech, low efficiency part, I was looking for the least scientific name possible for that thing. When I started playing with my own numbers, the spreadsheet I had saved was called "Febreze module". Scrubber sounds better

Edited March 22, 2017 by Merkov
See Edit

[DStaal]

40 minutes ago, Merkov said:

Okay, how would you like me to start? Should I make a new document in the USI_LS folder and just list changes?

Actually...  Take a look at this fork I just made: https://github.com/DanStaal/KerbalPlanetaryBaseSystems and check to see if there's anything wrong.  You can take a look through my commits and see my writeups, and if you have comments just post them here.  Then I can copy things over and do a PR.

43 minutes ago, Merkov said:

Okay. Still have no idea how much EC we should use. I suppose the big thing with EC is that whatever amount we decide on, you would need to have as much storage available, right? I don't think the DLL doesn't let you can't put 500 in now, and then recharge a bit and put in another 500 later. In that case, we have to decide how much EC storage we want to 'force' the player to have on the ground. Unless I'm blind, the only K&K battery is the 3K one? I'm almost thinking 1000 EC. That way, if you have a KPBS container rack with a 3K battery, the cost is trivial. If you're trying to do it with radial-attached z-100s, it isn't trivial. I think this rewards being somewhat prepared. You don't need any crazy resource chain, but you can't just use a pile of debris to set up your habitat and greenhouse.

As an aside, I always loved the huge batteries that NFE adds, but never liked the rest of NFE. I actually made a folder called NFEBatteries in my GameData folder and just put the batteries in there so I can add them to my stations. My habit of doing things like that makes me wish that there was a huge KPBS battery, but I also don't think there's actually any need for one, I just have a problem.

Well, several of the parts themselves have EC storage as well.  You can get a couple of hundred just by putting in a science lab and a couple of probe cores.  (And I'm not sure I want to *force* people to have a rack-mounted battery.  I like the idea of the racks, but I find them very limiting in terms of base design.)  But yeah, the only dedicated battery is the container rack one.

I'm for something reachable with normal storage and a few z-100s in general - but 1000 might be that.  How much EC is 1 EC anyway?  Is there any good baseline for realism here?  I mean, it probably shouldn't take more power than a couple of removable batteries for your drill, right?

56 minutes ago, Merkov said:

Edit: I just noticed that you renamed my silly refresher to scrubber. I'm going to be honest, in order to remind myself that this was supposed to be a low tech, low efficiency part, I was looking for the least scientific name possible for that thing. When I started playing with my own numbers, the spreadsheet I had saved was called "Febreze module". Scrubber sounds better

I figured a CO2 scubber was basically closest thing to it.    (And something they included even fairly early on, and are in use even outside spaceflight today.)

[Merkov]

8 minutes ago, DStaal said:

Actually...  Take a look at this fork I just made: https://github.com/DanStaal/KerbalPlanetaryBaseSystems and check to see if there's anything wrong.  You can take a look through my commits and see my writeups, and if you have comments just post them here.  Then I can copy things over and do a PR.

Sweet. Those commit comments you have look perfect. I don't think there's any point in getting any more detailed than that. If you want more info, look at the commit. Does that mean that everything we want to push to Nils is done...? 

Off topic: for the stage 3 release, how do you feel about the greenhouse container getting a swappable efficiency part setting? Or does that just run us into the same problem as with the greenhouse config issue? I think we discussed this already, but cultivation in the greenhouse container doesn't make much sense to me, nor does swapping to such modes, since you'd have to access it from the outside, through a vacuum. I don't know exactly how the "efficiency part" mechanic is supposed to mean to work, but I think it might make sense that it doesn't need to change substantially to go from being a converter to supporting another. Maybe.

8 minutes ago, DStaal said:

Well, several of the parts themselves have EC storage as well.  You can get a couple of hundred just by putting in a science lab and a couple of probe cores.  (And I'm not sure I want to *force* people to have a rack-mounted battery.  I like the idea of the racks, but I find them very limiting in terms of base design.)  But yeah, the only dedicated battery is the container rack one.

I'm for something reachable with normal storage and a few z-100s in general - but 1000 might be that.  How much EC is 1 EC anyway?  Is there any good baseline for realism here?  I mean, it probably shouldn't take more power than a couple of removable batteries for your drill, right?

I don't know how much EC 1 EC is, but I'm not sure if the EC required would just be a couple of drill batteries. Is there any power involved in the actual deployment of the base sides? They seem like they should be more massive than 1 kerbal can pull out on his or her own. Maybe I'm wrong.

 

[Hofelinger]

Been subscribed to this thread since Saturday. Continually impressed with the back and forth discussion between @Merkov and @DStaal, keep up the great work you guys.

[DStaal]

Thanks, @Hofelinger.  It's good to get some ideas bounced around.  If nothing else, it helps make sure you don't overlook something. 

1 hour ago, Merkov said:

Sweet. Those commit comments you have look perfect. I don't think there's any point in getting any more detailed than that. If you want more info, look at the commit. Does that mean that everything we want to push to Nils is done...?

I believe so.  I may do a test run a bit later this afternoon before pushing it, just to make sure I didn't mess anything up with merging.

1 hour ago, Merkov said:

Off topic: for the stage 3 release, how do you feel about the greenhouse container getting a swappable efficiency part setting? Or does that just run us into the same problem as with the greenhouse config issue? I think we discussed this already, but cultivation in the greenhouse container doesn't make much sense to me, nor does swapping to such modes, since you'd have to access it from the outside, through a vacuum. I don't know exactly how the "efficiency part" mechanic is supposed to mean to work, but I think it might make sense that it doesn't need to change substantially to go from being a converter to supporting another. Maybe.

Sounds decent to me.  It wouldn't get to the problem we have with the main greenhouse: That's because we wanted one USI module (the habitation) to stay constant while we switch the others.  USI's switchable converters apparently can't do that - they just allow you to switch between any USI modules present.

I haven't looked to closely at the efficiency part mechanic myself, but we should have one in that size at the very least.  Likely swapping that part is a good way to do it.

1 hour ago, Merkov said:

I don't know how much EC 1 EC is, but I'm not sure if the EC required would just be a couple of drill batteries. Is there any power involved in the actual deployment of the base sides? They seem like they should be more massive than 1 kerbal can pull out on his or her own. Maybe I'm wrong.

Point...  I'd forgotten about that.  I was thinking about them running around inside securing everything - which would be a drill or electric screwdriver - but the actual expansion is probably the biggest user of EC.  (You probably *could* make it possible to do by hand, with clever engineering and leverage, but putting it on a motor is likely easier.)

[Merkov]

@Hofelinger if there is one thing I'm good at, it's talking!  

7 minutes ago, DStaal said:

Sounds decent to me.  It wouldn't get to the problem we have with the main greenhouse: That's because we wanted one USI module (the habitation) to stay constant while we switch the others.  USI's switchable converters apparently can't do that - they just allow you to switch between any USI modules present.

I haven't looked to closely at the efficiency part mechanic myself, but we should have one in that size at the very least.  Likely swapping that part is a good way to do it.

Cool. I don't recall reading much about efficiency parts. I'll try to get some research done into them, see what I can come up with.

7 minutes ago, DStaal said:

Point...  I'd forgotten about that.  I was thinking about them running around inside securing everything - which would be a drill or electric screwdriver - but the actual expansion is probably the biggest user of EC.  (You probably *could* make it possible to do by hand, with clever engineering and leverage, but putting it on a motor is likely easier.)

If we could somehow make expansion require several kerbals, I'd be okay with that and a much lower EC cost. I don't think that's doable without writing our on DLL. I mean, it's possible to argue that the base parts are very smartly designed to use some crank system or something, I think it's reasonable to assume that there is a decent amount of motorized assistance.

[DStaal]

15 minutes ago, Merkov said:

Cool. I don't recall reading much about efficiency parts. I'll try to get some research done into them, see what I can come up with.

Sounds good.  I've started a feature branch for stage 3, if you want to start playing around.

16 minutes ago, Merkov said:

If we could somehow make expansion require several kerbals, I'd be okay with that and a much lower EC cost. I don't think that's doable without writing our on DLL. I mean, it's possible to argue that the base parts are very smartly designed to use some crank system or something, I think it's reasonable to assume that there is a decent amount of motorized assistance.

Yeah, I don't think several Kerbals is possible.    (I suspect requiring EVA is a bit of a hack in that making it 'EVA-only' means you can require there to be a Kerbal there to do EVA...)

Would still like to have some concept of what '1 EC' is though.

[Urses]

Hi Chummer's, @DStaal, @Merkov and @dboi88.

I Really appreciate your try to integrate the both bigguns at colonisatuon.

I See hove you are struggling with Integration of MaterialKits and i have a idea.

Nill's modules are mostly selfsustaining but they have a Common Ressource the EC. And MaterialKits world be only needed if MKS is present in all other Combinations you don't need them.

Would it not be easier to provide a small module like "Maintance Module", the smallest Container. That will be only activated füll if you have MKS there and that give the ability to deploy other modules. It hold all hydraliks and so on Inside and need a Engineer and EC to be used. And if no MKS is there you never Need this part and can prevent it from loading?

 

 

 

Edited March 22, 2017 by Urses