[1.2.2] [0.9.5] KPBS/MKS Integration Pack

[DStaal]

34 minutes ago, Merkov said:

Nice! Now I wish we had a version that's just a recreational facility.

That's possible.  We could dupe the part, strip out the other functions, and just give it a hab bonus.  If we wanted.

[Merkov]

1 hour ago, DStaal said:

That's possible.  We could dupe the part, strip out the other functions, and just give it a hab bonus.  If we wanted.

I don't think we really need it. We should have plenty of hab parts. I like the thought though. 

[RoverDude]

FYI - in the shorter term, the part for 'push only' will be relatively small.  I consider that a placeholder, because the logistics update is a pretty radical (game changing) set of changes.  They do not change the core of how MKS works, but they add a much more sophisticated layer on top.  

[DStaal]

8 hours ago, RoverDude said:

FYI - in the shorter term, the part for 'push only' will be relatively small.  I consider that a placeholder, because the logistics update is a pretty radical (game changing) set of changes.  They do not change the core of how MKS works, but they add a much more sophisticated layer on top.  

That's worth quite a bit, actually.  It means the Central Hub isn't going to need massive amounts of more space.

I'm liking the idea of adding PL to the Garage Adapter.  Probably both ways.  (Which IIRC means push-only if it's not crewed - good for that remote settlement idea.)  I wouldn't mind a dedicated push-only part in the container form-factor, but we need a model.  We've repurposed basically all of the unused life support ones, and even duped the SEP one, so we'd have to re-dupe one (possible) or come up with a stand-alone model ourselves...

[Rodger]

A small patch I made to add the KPBS plant growth experiment to the USI greenhouses, might be cool to add to this mod:

Spoiler

@PART[USILS_Greenhouse*]:FOR[PlanetaryBaseInc]:NEEDS[USILifeSupport]
{
    MODULE
    {
        name = ModuleScienceExperiment
        experimentID = KPBS_plantgrowthstudy
        experimentActionName = Make plant growth study
        resetActionName = Discard Plant Samples
        reviewActionName = Review Plant Samples
        useStaging = False
        useActionGroups = True
        hideUIwhenUnavailable = True
        xmitDataScalar = 0.4
        FxModules = 0
        dataIsCollectable = True
        collectActionName = Collect Plant Samples
        interactionRange = 1.2
        usageReqMaskInternal = 1
        usageReqMaskExternal = 8
    }
    
    MODULE
    {
        name = ModuleScienceContainer
        reviewActionName = Review Stored Data
        storeActionName = Store Experiments
        evaOnlyStorage = True
        storageRange = 2.0
    }
}

 

[Merkov]

2 hours ago, Rodger said:

A small patch I made to add the KPBS plant growth experiment to the USI greenhouses, might be cool to add to this mod:

  Reveal hidden contents

@PART[USILS_Greenhouse*]:FOR[PlanetaryBaseInc]:NEEDS[USILifeSupport]
{
    MODULE
    {
        name = ModuleScienceExperiment
        experimentID = KPBS_plantgrowthstudy
        experimentActionName = Make plant growth study
        resetActionName = Discard Plant Samples
        reviewActionName = Review Plant Samples
        useStaging = False
        useActionGroups = True
        hideUIwhenUnavailable = True
        xmitDataScalar = 0.4
        FxModules = 0
        dataIsCollectable = True
        collectActionName = Collect Plant Samples
        interactionRange = 1.2
        usageReqMaskInternal = 1
        usageReqMaskExternal = 8
    }
    
    MODULE
    {
        name = ModuleScienceContainer
        reviewActionName = Review Stored Data
        storeActionName = Store Experiments
        evaOnlyStorage = True
        storageRange = 2.0
    }
}

 

That's a really nifty idea! I think I would prefer to include it on the MKS greenhouses (like the Ranger Ag module) but not include it on the Cupola-style (un crewed) USI-LS greenhouses. I just think a greenhouse ought to be crewed if you're going to run experiments out of it. The USI-LS inline greenhouse would be perfect. 

Thoughts?

[Rodger]

Well both the big greenhouse and the small 2unit rack greenhouse in KPBS have the experiment, and I wanted it on the small cupola personally for a science rover. And the science defs for the experiment seem to be more about observing the plants than actually taking samples, I think it's fine for it to be on smaller parts.

[Merkov]

7 hours ago, Rodger said:

Well both the big greenhouse and the small 2unit rack greenhouse in KPBS have the experiment, and I wanted it on the small cupola personally for a science rover. And the science defs for the experiment seem to be more about observing the plants than actually taking samples, I think it's fine for it to be on smaller parts.

Ah, good point. 

[DStaal]

Heh.  I was starting a post on my opinion, but you two seem to have agreed.    My one caution would be about putting it on parts that are switchable - does it make sense to have it when the part can be switched to something besides a greenhouse?  (Admittedly, there's not many.)

Either way, it sounds good.  We just need a list of parts to apply it to, if it's more than just USI-LS.

[DStaal]

Ok, had a busy couple of weeks where I didn't get much KSP-related done, but I'm back to work now. 

Things so far are first pass - no balancing has been done, just trying to make sure concept works.  I've got the drills working, I think.  (Loading KSP for last test now.)  Currently they are as powerful per-bay as the smallest MKS drills - but have three bays instead of just one.  Which should be just slightly less powerful overall than the mid-sized MKS drill.  What's the thought on MetalOre?  It's basically an EL-only resource - we could remove it entirely if we wanted, but that makes the assumption that the MKS recipe file will stay in place.  Which it probably will...

And if we remove it here, should we be removing/replacing it in other places?

Also on the drills: I'm considering dropping needing SpecalizedParts to switch drill-heads.  You only need 1 at the moment, but the idea is that since these drills are more specialized than the USI drills they're easier to switch between modes - but only within the modes each drill is designed for.  (I also thought about reducing the cost in Specialized Parts or Material Kits - but both are nominal costs, and we had the discussion about 'if it costs less than a container's worth, it really doesn't feel different'.)

I also started in on the ISRU, and I'm thinking we may want to split that into two as well - while the list of MKS resources it should process is fairly short, that doesn't count the *fuel* resources it should handle - Which is a lot of processor modes.  (LF, Ox, MonoProp, LF+Ox, all the above for Karbonite, and possibly one or two others.)  So I'm thinking we may want a 'fuel refinery' and a 'resources refinery', just to keep the swap lists within reason.

 

And did we ever work up a list of parts that should have that science experiment?

[Rodger]

Well I think just the USI-LS Nom-o-matics is fine for the experiment, but I guess the ranger/duna/tundra agriculture modules could have it too for the MKS parts. I don't know how possible it'd be to add it to the inflatable habitat/greenhouse parts only if they're set to greenhouse mode, but maybe those parts could have it too? probably don't need so many copies of the same experiment at a base though.

Also the KPBS greenhouse doesn't have a greenhouse efficiency option by the looks of things.

[DStaal]

15 minutes ago, Rodger said:

Well I think just the USI-LS Nom-o-matics is fine for the experiment, but I guess the ranger/duna/tundra agriculture modules could have it too for the MKS parts. I don't know how possible it'd be to add it to the inflatable habitat/greenhouse parts only if they're set to greenhouse mode, but maybe those parts could have it too? probably don't need so many copies of the same experiment at a base though.

Yep, just spamming the experiment doesn't really help - you can only run it a couple of times per biome, after all.  Let's leave it off the combined inflatable parts, and I'll have to take a look at the Tundra parts.  (The Ranger part is single-use, so no issues.  Not sure about the Duna either.)

20 minutes ago, Rodger said:

Also the KPBS greenhouse doesn't have a greenhouse efficiency option by the looks of things.

Yep. Efficiency is this pass.  It's likely the greenhouses themselves won't get the option (switching modes is problematic on them, because of how they are set up) but the Algae and Greenhouse containers should probably have an efficiency mode.

[N3N]

Hey!

Very cool Idea! I like it very much!

Thank you for your great work!

 

Will it be available on CKAN in the near future?

[DStaal]

1 hour ago, N3N said:

Hey!

Very cool Idea! I like it very much!

Thank you for your great work!

 

Will it be available on CKAN in the near future?

Thanks.

As for CKAN - I don't use it, and I'm reluctant to support anything like that (especially when it's complicated by dependencies like this is) without being able to test it myself.  If someone wants to put it on CKAN that's fine with me, but that is not going to be an official release channel.

[N3N]

2 minutes ago, DStaal said:

Thanks.

As for CKAN - I don't use it, and I'm reluctant to support anything like that (especially when it's complicated by dependencies like this is) without being able to test it myself.  If someone wants to put it on CKAN that's fine with me, but that is not going to be an official release channel.

Hey DStaal,

 

It's OK.

I use CKAN to be sure to have all dependencies right and to be always on the newest stable release.

But I think it's OK, if you don't want the extra work.

 

Please keep the good work going and thank you for your hard work!

[DStaal]

Slow progression - largely bookkeeping setup so far: I've got a project set up on GitHub, issues created for all the parts, etc.  Started collecting info on what's needed for the efficiency - there's a new reference text file here that lists all the efficiency tags in USI and what they're for, so we don't have to search everywhere.  Also added the efficiency support for the greenhouses - including our three, and the greenhouse container.  (These could likely use a balance pass.)

On the subject of balance passes - does anyone know what 'eMultiplier' means, or how it should be used?  It's obviously an efficiency multiplier for that part, but what it should be related to is something I'm not sure of yet.  (I looked through the balance spreadsheet, but if it's there I need to go re-watch RoverDude's video to know where.)

[RoverDude]

Hey @DStaal

as noted, everything is balanced by the constraint of mass and volume.  Once you know the mass, we use this for e-multiplier.

 

So a refinery with a total mass (including any costs for expanding, as well as machinery) of 10 tons would have an eMultiplier of 10.  An efficiency part with a mass of 5 tons would have a multiplier of 5.  The resulting efficiency on the refinery would be 150% (100% plus 5/10)

 

[DStaal]

6 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

Hey @DStaal

as noted, everything is balanced by the constraint of mass and volume.  Once you know the mass, we use this for e-multiplier.

So a refinery with a total mass (including any costs for expanding, as well as machinery) of 10 tons would have an eMultiplier of 10.  An efficiency part with a mass of 5 tons would have a multiplier of 5.  The resulting efficiency on the refinery would be 150% (100% plus 5/10)

Thanks.  I'll admit at this point I haven't been doing much to even look at the balance - first trying to make sure I understand how it works, so I can then abuse it without breaking it for the industrial parts.   

So, from your statement there, if the refinery was 20 tons, the final efficiency would be 125%?  (As the mass/eMultiplier of the base part goes up, the effect of the efficiency part goes down.)  And if there were two efficiency parts, the total efficiency of the 10 ton version would be 200%, while it would be 150% on the 20 ton version?  (Add up the eMultiplier for the efficiency parts.)

Ok, that seems to make sense to me.    Now, how to abuse...  Hmm.  The 'Kerbal, with automated support' will probably work fairly well directly, as the 'automated' part can be very heavy, and the part which holds the Kerbals would be very light - and an efficiency part that's got more mass than the base part would result in a very high multiplier.  The 'automated, with Kerbal support' parts will be trickier - simplest would be to give them each other's eMultipliers, but not sure if that's a good idea long run.  (Of course, none of these will share eTags with MKS parts, so they won't interfere there.)

[RoverDude]

@DStaal - yep, since a 20 ton base part is twice as effective, the relative change should be smaller with a smaller efficiency part.  Mass is the main lever, volume is the limiter.

If you find a loophole, by all means let me know

 

In theory, 20 tons of refinery should be the same regardless of whether it is one part or ten.

 

[DoktorKrogg]

I like where you're going with this mod! It's one of those "Wouldn't it be great if USI and KBPS were more integrated?" kind of things that unfortunately just doesn't make much sense to be directly integrated into either mod.

If I were to get around to it one day, would you accept a PR for some MKS-to-KBPS adapters? I noticed there was some discussion of this early on in the thread but the general consensus seemed to be 'meh...use KAS'. I don't think that does justice to the amount of work that went into making the parts in the original mods look good or the attention to detail that seems to have already gone into making this mod look good as well! 

[DStaal]

32 minutes ago, DoktorKrogg said:

I like where you're going with this mod! It's one of those "Wouldn't it be great if USI and KBPS were more integrated?" kind of things that unfortunately just doesn't make much sense to be directly integrated into either mod.

If I were to get around to it one day, would you accept a PR for some MKS-to-KBPS adapters? I noticed there was some discussion of this early on in the thread but the general consensus seemed to be 'meh...use KAS'. I don't think that does justice to the amount of work that went into making the parts in the original mods look good or the attention to detail that seems to have already gone into making this mod look good as well! 

I would more than welcome such an addition.  My general take on the original consensus was 'KAS will do, and none of us have the skills/time'.   

 

In the meantime, I've been doing some puttering, as I haven't had huge amounts of time.  I'm about three parts away from being ready for balance passes.  I've decided to base numbers of bays on numbers of seats for the industrial parts and the Central Hub.  (With two seats reserved for management and logistics in the Central Hub.)

[DoktorKrogg]

24 minutes ago, DStaal said:

I would more than welcome such an addition.  My general take on the original consensus was 'KAS will do, and none of us have the skills/time'.   

Finding the time may be tricky for me as well but since this is something I've found myself wanting in my own saves quite frequently, there's a good chance this will get done (eventually). If someone else decides to jump on this in the meantime and beats me to the punch, go for it! Won't hear me complain! 

[DStaal]

9 hours ago, DoktorKrogg said:

Finding the time may be tricky for me as well but since this is something I've found myself wanting in my own saves quite frequently, there's a good chance this will get done (eventually). If someone else decides to jump on this in the meantime and beats me to the punch, go for it! Won't hear me complain! 

No problem. 

I do want to warn that it is a bit trickier than it sounds - KPBS has two effective heights (with legs and without) and MKS has...  Well, four in my experience: Ranger (Ranger hubs and Duna modules), Tundra 2.5, Tundra 3.5, and the Tundra/Ranger attachment height.  (Which is slightly off the heights for the Ranger Anchor Hubs.)   So an adapter part will need to handle at least a couple of those combinations.  (I wouldn't expect it to have all combos, but it should have at least both KPBS heights, likely to the Ranger or Tundra/Ranger height.)

[DoktorKrogg]

8 minutes ago, DStaal said:

I do want to warn that it is a bit trickier than it sounds - KPBS has two effective heights (with legs and without) and MKS has...  Well, four in my experience: Ranger (Ranger hubs and Duna modules), Tundra 2.5, Tundra 3.5, and the Tundra/Ranger attachment height.  (Which is slightly off the heights for the Ranger Anchor Hubs.)   So an adapter part will need to handle at least a couple of those combinations.  (I wouldn't expect it to have all combos, but it should have at least both KPBS heights, likely to the Ranger or Tundra/Ranger height.)

My goal would be to keep the number of adapters to a minimum and give them multiple attach nodes to accommodate the various combinations, similar to how the ends of the Tundra modules work already. I could see that being tricky if one was trying to attach an adapter via KIS though. It's something I would test for sure before getting too invested an a specific model design.

[DoktorKrogg]

An idea just came to mind... The standard KPBS 1.25m adapter mated to the bottom node on an MKS multi-hub, while not perfect, is close enough for bases that just sit directly on the ground. So what if, instead of adapters, I created longer KPBS-style legs to match the height of a Duna module when it's deployed and then maybe something akin to the Tundra cradle that snaps to the bottom of KPBS modules to hoist them up to Duna-height as well? I might still want to create an adapter or two (the KPBS garage comes to mind) but it seems like simply having longer legs would eliminate a lot of the need to have multiple adapter combos.