Jump to content

[1.12] Stockalike Station Parts Redux (August 14, 2024)

Nertea

By Nertea
in KSP1 Mod Releases

 Share

Recommended Posts

JadeOfMaar

JadeOfMaar

Posted
Posted

Ah, well in that case I may fully consider the 50% thing, however, I'd imagine that not all of the plants in the greenhouse are in the windows and visible to the outside. While the 3.75m is not as tall, it's still wide. My memory is fuzzy so I'd like a third voice to speak up concerning this balance... I have this obligation to adjust the configs for the other life support mods after this and that may not be much fun. :P 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LatiMacciato

LatiMacciato

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, JadeOfMaar said:

Ah, well in that case I may fully consider the 50% thing, however, I'd imagine that not all of the plants in the greenhouse are in the windows and visible to the outside. While the 3.75m is not as tall, it's still wide. My memory is fuzzy so I'd like a third voice to speak up concerning this balance... I have this obligation to adjust the configs for the other life support mods after this and that may not be much fun. :P 

awh, I'm sorry to hear. just FYI I'm fine with both ideas, either you make the bigger part more producing or vice versa. since the other ratios are the same it works out both ways.

Thank you for responding to my idea :)

EDIT: of course, having the production efficiency set at 10% in settings --> custom settings --> snacks is also a great help reducing the EC cost, unless you want the real challenge :D

Edited by LatiMacciato
Link to comment
Share on other sites
KSPanier

KSPanier

Posted
Posted (edited)

Does anyone know, how to reference the variable "DeployedCrewCapacity" from the inflatable habitats/centrifuges to use it for scaling with lifesupport?

My last try looked like that:

Spoiler 


@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleDeployableHabitat]]:NEEDS[TacLifeSupport]:AFTER[zzzzStationParts]
{
	CrewMulti = #$/MODULE[ModuleDeployableHabitat]/DeployedCrewCapacity$
	MODULE
	{
		name = LifeSupportModule
	}
	//!RESOURCE[Food] {}
    RESOURCE
    {
        name = Food
        amount = 1.097
        maxAmount = 1.097
        @amount *= #$/CrewMulti$
        @maxAmount *= #$/CrewMulti$
    }
	//!RESOURCE[Water] {}
    RESOURCE
    {
        name = Water
        amount = 0.725
        maxAmount = 0.725
        @amount *= #$/CrewMulti$
        @maxAmount *= #$/CrewMulti$
    }
	//!RESOURCE[Oxygen] {}
    RESOURCE
    {
        name = Oxygen
        amount = 111.038
        maxAmount = 111.038
        @amount *= #$/CrewMulti$
        @maxAmount *= #$/CrewMulti$
    }
	//!RESOURCE[CarbonDioxide] {}
    RESOURCE
    {
        name = CarbonDioxide
        amount = 0
        maxAmount = 95.913
        @maxAmount *= #$/CrewMulti$
    }
	//!RESOURCE[Waste] {}
    RESOURCE
    {
        name = Waste
        amount = 0
        maxAmount = 0.1
        @maxAmount *= #$/CrewMulti$
    }
	//!RESOURCE[WasteWater] {}
    RESOURCE
    {
        name = WasteWater
        amount = 0
        maxAmount = 0.924
        @maxAmount *= #$/CrewMulti$
    }
}
@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleDeployableHabitat]]:NEEDS[TacLifeSupport]:AFTER[zzzzStationParts]
{
	CrewMulti = #$/MODULE[ModuleDeployableHabitat]/DeployedCrewCapacity$
	@RESOURCE[ElectricCharge]
	{
		@amount = 100
		@amount *= #$/CrewMulti$
		@amount += 150
		@amount += #$maxAmount$
		@maxAmount = #$amount$
	}
}

 

Any ideas?

Edited by KSPanier
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nicias

Nicias

Posted
Posted
13 hours ago, theonegalen said:

Are you using only stock contracts, or are you also using Contract Configurator, Bases and Stations, etc? If the latter, I believe that you will need to contact @nightingale and whoever is maintaining Bases and Stations these days in order to make sure those contracts are compatible with the expandable modules.

I'm using stock contracts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
theonegalen

theonegalen

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Nicias said:

I'm using stock contracts.

Then I would submit a bug report to SQUAD along the lines that expandable modules don't work in "expand your station" contracts.

Also, I recommend CC and Bases and Stations - it's a great contract pack. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
theJesuit

theJesuit

Posted
Posted
16 hours ago, Nicias said:

I'm using stock contracts.

 

10 hours ago, theonegalen said:

Then I would submit a bug report to SQUAD along the lines that expandable modules don't work in "expand your station" contracts.

Also, I recommend CC and Bases and Stations - it's a great contract pack. :)

This was discussed recently in the Kerbalism discord.

The issue is that the Contracts game mechanic only looks at the initial possible crew availability of a habitable part, regardless of whether it is needing to be deployed or even crewed once at the base it is contracted for.  Inflatables have initial crew capacity of 0, as they can't contain crew until deployed.  There didn't seem to be a good solution to this issue - and so it is a stcik one, although you could rework using MM patches to say that the deploy able parts from SSPX always can have kerbals, regardless of the deployed status - but this is game breaking IMHO.

Peace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dafni

Dafni

Posted
Posted

I expressed my love for this mod here more than once, and I dont want to sound like a fanboy or anything, but I still discover new details all the time. Such a nice piece of work. I just find it super amazing that somebody as skilled as Nertea is willing to put all his time in a project like this. As the saying goes, if you are good at something, never do it for free. So I encourage everybody who enjoys a mod a lot to show some gratitude and at least throw your change into the donation cup of the modder. A small token of gratitude goes a long way in maintaining the motivation and all that.

On another note: how nice of a touch was the re-skinning of the few stock "station parts" to match the aesthetics of this mod?? Eh? Such a nice little extra.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Norcalplanner

Norcalplanner

Posted
Posted
On 10/28/2018 at 8:02 PM, JadeOfMaar said:

Ah, well in that case I may fully consider the 50% thing, however, I'd imagine that not all of the plants in the greenhouse are in the windows and visible to the outside. While the 3.75m is not as tall, it's still wide. My memory is fuzzy so I'd like a third voice to speak up concerning this balance... I have this obligation to adjust the configs for the other life support mods after this and that may not be much fun. :P 

Not in front of KSP atm, but it seems to me that greenhouse output would scale linearly with volume and/or mass, rather than some artistic arrangement of the plants in the windows. Possibly with greater efficiency for parts further down the tech tree.

Idea just now - upgrades to greenhouses in career mode. Probably not the easiest thing to code, but it seems logical that our industrious Kerbals would build better greenhouses over time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FluxOrbit

FluxOrbit

Posted
Posted

Hello! I've been using this mod in conjunction with SimpleConstruction/EPL recently, and I just noticed that neither the Vista nor the Porthole are counted as EL Survey Stations, which doesn't let them be used like the squad cupola. I am currently attempting to work on a noobie macgyver patch, if anyone is interested or is willing to help, cause I've never done this before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
StahnAileron

StahnAileron

Posted
Posted

@Nertea I checked-in with KSP with the whole 1.5.x update and all. SSPX was nice and I was looking forward to the new version. (I even attempted to update an SSPX station with Redux parts in 1.4.x... Gave up after a while as my mod collection at the time wasn't complete compared to prior KSP versions.)

I noticed the various dockings ports from SSPX aren't in SSPXr. Have they been completely deprecated or are they planned for a future update? As you have commented before, stock is kinda ugly, especially in light of quality mods like yours. There's also the fact the old SSPX docking port held a bit of MonoProp, so I didn't have to really do anything to supply the RCS I need to assemble a station.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NHunter

NHunter

Posted
Posted (edited)

@FluxOrbit, if you use pure EPL, this should work: 

@PART[sspx-cupola-375-1,sspx-cupola-125-1,cupola]:AFTER[Launchpad]:HAS[!MODULE[ELSurveyStation]]
{
	MODULE {
		name = ELSurveyStation
	}
}

For SimpleConstruction you'll probably need to replace "Launchpad" in the AFTER block with whatever internal name SimpleConstruction uses.

Edited by NHunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites
FluxOrbit

FluxOrbit

Posted
Posted

@NHunter, Wow thanks for the fast reply, man! Anyway, I'm brand new to this so I wasn't sure where to put your patch, and I couldn't find whatever name SC uses, so I was unable to get that to work. Somehow I was able to make my own fix. I added on SSPXR's cupolas to a patch I found in Not So Simple Construction, and that worked. Thank you for trying to help, I just really don't know what I'm doing!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nertea

Nertea

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
On 10/31/2018 at 4:21 PM, StahnAileron said:

I noticed the various dockings ports from SSPX aren't in SSPXr. Have they been completely deprecated or are they planned for a future update? As you have commented before, stock is kinda ugly, especially in light of quality mods like yours. There's also the fact the old SSPX docking port held a bit of MonoProp, so I didn't have to really do anything to supply the RCS I need to assemble a station.

Yeah there was little to no point to those parts anymore. They were back from 0.25 KSP or so, where joint strength was proportional to the mass of the parts. So those were theoretically high strength ports, which had mono inside them to kinda justify the mass increase. I didn't scope these for the revamp because they didn't feel very useful or much fun to make. Instead I concentrated on making this and this, which I hope will be released in a "new" project fairly soon and should resolve the "stock docking ports look nasty" problem.

 

Edited by Nertea
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MaverickSawyer

MaverickSawyer

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, Nertea said:

Yeah there was little to no point to those parts anymore. They were back from 0.25 KSP or so, where joint strength was proportional to the mass of the parts. So those were theoretically high strength ports, which had mono inside them to kinda justify the mass increase. I didn't scope these for the revamp because they didn't feel very useful or much fun to make. Instead I concentrated on making this and this, which I hope will be released in a "new" project fairly soon and should resolve the "stock docking ports look nasty" problem.

 

*Sees new port models*

 

*Drools*

Link to comment
Share on other sites
StahnAileron

StahnAileron

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Nertea said:

Yeah there was little to no point to those parts anymore. They were back from 0.25 KSP or so, where joint strength was proportional to the mass of the parts. So those were theoretically high strength ports, which had mono inside them to kinda justify the mass increase. I didn't scope these for the revamp because they didn't feel very useful or much fun to make. Instead I concentrated on making this and this, which I hope will be released in a "new" project fairly soon and should resolve the "stock docking ports look nasty" problem.

 

Ooh~! Nice! Will they have (optional?) textures that'll blend in with the SSPXr look? (Mainly that DP Sr size one in the second image.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nertea

Nertea

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
45 minutes ago, StahnAileron said:

Ooh~! Nice! Will they have (optional?) textures that'll blend in with the SSPXr look? (Mainly that DP Sr size one in the second image.)

They're currently just straight-up drop-in replacements and are designed to match well with SSPXr and the current quality targets for my stuff, but I will consider a white outer texture for the 2.5m one for sure (in fact, it's arguably more realistic considering the IDA that it's based on is covered in thermal blankets).

Edited by Nertea
Link to comment
Share on other sites
KerbalSofaProgram

KerbalSofaProgram

Posted
Posted

ok... you probably are my favorite mod author for ksp. so as my favorite child, you owe it to me to prioritize updating this mod above the rest. yes, you owe me that ;D . anyways as far as im concerned this mod is essential for tacs life support. no! essential for all kerbal kind. +10 points nertea. have i buttered you up enough yet? get to work, my favorite child.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Vanamonde

Vanamonde

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, KerbalSofaProgram said:

ok... you probably are my favorite mod author for ksp. so as my favorite child, you owe it to me to prioritize updating this mod above the rest. yes, you owe me that ;D . anyways as far as im concerned this mod is essential for tacs life support. no! essential for all kerbal kind. +10 points nertea. have i buttered you up enough yet? get to work, my favorite child.

Although you seem to intend this in a joking manner, please keep in mind that mod authors get bombarded with requests, demands, and threats to update their mods, and even nice ones can start to feel like harassment after a while. 

Welcome to our forum, though. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KerbalSofaProgram

KerbalSofaProgram

Posted
Posted (edited)
52 minutes ago, Vanamonde said:

Although you seem to intend this in a joking manner, please keep in mind that mod authors get bombarded with requests, demands, and threats to update their mods, and even nice ones can start to feel like harassment after a while. 

Welcome to our forum, though. :D

sorry then, good point. threats? wow... in all seriousness, this is a real suggestion. Whether its reasonable, feasable, or worth the authors time to consider, is beyond me. so sorry for my lack of perspective and context. i was hoping the 10 points might offset any, "make me the part i want" i may have put out there.

Edited by KerbalSofaProgram
i answered my own question
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JH4C

JH4C

Posted
Posted
12 hours ago, KerbalSofaProgram said:

snip

Have you tried it in 1.5.x? I've not experienced any problems, nor has anyone else reported anything; I'd say it's safe to assume it works just fine. Really, it's so much simpler to just try something out to see if it still works...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kauske

Kauske

Posted
Posted

It seems to work for me, just a tad of weirdness where I need to cycle through all the variants or the models overlap, but I have that with B9 as well, and that's supposed to be 1.5 compatible. *Shrugs*

 

But nothing game-breaking like kerbalfoundries tweakable landing gear bouncing around like crazy when deployed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nertea

Nertea

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I was hoping to get NF Spacecraft done at the same time, as there are some texture updates I want to propagate. That will have to wait for a new version though as it's taking a while

SSPXr 1.0.9

  •  KSP 1.5.x
  •  Updated NFProps to 0.3.5
  •  Updated MM to 3.1.0
  •  Updated B9PS to 2.4.5
  •  Removed MiniAVC distribution, version file remains
  •  Contract improvements:
    •  Observation modules, 1.25m/3.75m cupolas will now fulfill cupola contracts
    •  Large lab will now fulfill lab contracts
    •  Station/Base contracts that require a greenhouse will now generate
    •  Station/Base contracts that require an aquaponics module will now generate
    •  Station/Base contracts that require a hab module will now generate
    •  Station contracts that require a centrifuge will now generate
  •  Increased base science for visual observation experiment, all science should now be sent with one transmission
  •  Fixed compatibility of revised stock docking port with IndicatorLights
  •  Added missing vesselType to vessels that didn't have it
    •  Fixes experience gain
    •  Fixes issues where if there is no VesselType specifying crewed module on the vessel, science experiments will fail
  •  Fixed flag for lab replacement
  •  Changed rotation of replacement docking port and extensible docking port to be consistent with the original part
  •  Small fix to deployable module resource costs: will now round resources, so you are less likely to get issues where you have 1999.999993 resources when you think you have the 2000 needed to deploy
  •  Added optional SpinResource and SpinResourceRate to ModuleDeployableCentrifuge - allows specification of a resource and a rate needed to rotate the thing
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...