[WIP]"KONQUEST:Modular components for permanent bases" by ASET (14/05/2014)

[Neutrinovore]

In my personal opinion, this blows H.O.M.E. - ANY version of it - right out of the water! No offense to BobCat intended, of course.

[BudgetHedgehog]

So 2g death? NO.

Read this:

KONQUEST is very similar in internal structure to ISS modules, or maybe, even, to a submarine [...] I do not want to kill kerbals, of course. It’s just that in KSP kerbals can only be either completely healthy or dead. If there was a way to apply some kind of trauma to them with subsequent recovery, that would be better, but we get what we get.

Basically, it's not the 2Gs that kill them, it's the stuff inside that's too fragile to withstand 2Gs and whacks them on the head that kills them

[Starwaster]

Read this:

Basically, it's not the 2Gs that kill them, it's the stuff inside that's too fragile to withstand 2Gs and whacks them on the head that kills them

The stuff that was not securely strapped down?

That strains my credulity even more than the 2G issue did....

No. That stuff is strapped down, otherwise it is also destroyed on launch, necessitating resupply launch before we even get out of LKO?

Riiiiggggghhhhttt.

[BudgetHedgehog]

That strains my credulity even more than the 2G issue did....

Then ignore it. Either way, you're gonna be killing kerbals if you encounter over 2Gs while it's occupied. Not my decision, but that's the way alex wants it, so.... yeah.

[Starwaster]

Then ignore it. Either way, you're gonna be killing kerbals if you encounter over 2Gs while it's occupied. Not my decision, but that's the way alex wants it, so.... yeah.

No, you might be killing them, but not me because I wont use the plugin that kills them. It's just not realistic.

[Boomerang]

No, you might be killing them, but not me because I wont use the plugin that kills them. It's just not realistic.

I was under the impression that the 2G limit was because these pieces are meant solely for use as bases or perhaps stations. We didn't send people to LEO inside of ISS modules because they aren't designed for that. Similarly, you wouldn't land people inside of base modules like Alex is making because while they obviously have to survive landing, they aren't designed as man-rated landers. You can dislike it, but it's far more realistic, if you're building a base, to land the modules unmanned and land any personnel for them in a lander designed specifically for the task.

[Gryphorim]

http://i.imgur.com/y3TkDwy.png

Okay, so option 3 looks amazingly cool. Alternate Idea for the RCS and engines: Where you have the shroud for the engines swing out from upper edge, what about having the door swing in from bottom edge, just enough to expose engine nozzle. Similar idea for RCS, don't have the block extend, so much as the panels around the ports retract to expose the nozzles of the RCS block.

[Starwaster]

I was under the impression that the 2G limit was because these pieces are meant solely for use as bases or perhaps stations. We didn't send people to LEO inside of ISS modules because they aren't designed for that. Similarly, you wouldn't land people inside of base modules like Alex is making because while they obviously have to survive landing, they aren't designed as man-rated landers. You can dislike it, but it's far more realistic, if you're building a base, to land the modules unmanned and land any personnel for them in a lander designed specifically for the task.

Understood, but 'not designed to be landed with people in them' does not equal 'kill them at 2G'

But that's fine if he wants to design it that way. I'm just saying that I won't play it that way. That's my choice and other people are free to play how they choose.

[G'th]

Well the thing about the 2g thing is that killing Kerbals is the only real way to limit that. In reality, you just plain wouldn't be able to use these structures as seats for the kerbals at launch, simply because they really are not meant for that purpose. You're missing the properly secured and placed seats (You can't launch sitting sideways or whatever other way. The force of the rocket would rip you out of your seat, and even if you don't die, its just not safe period).

[RoverDude]

Why not adjust crew capacity when not on the ground?

FYI - what we do with Hollow Asteroids is that if you disconnect a crewed component (what would essentially result in Kerbals trapped in rock) we force-EVA and your ship starts pooping Kerbals out of the hatches. Which in itself is wildly entertaining to watch as they fly all over the place

[Dextre]

option 3 builtin descent engines are awesome

[Gaalidas]

...and your ship starts pooping Kerbals out of the hatches.

That almost made me spit my chai latte all over my laptop.

[Starwaster]

That almost made me spit my chai latte all over my laptop.

That habitat had a kerbal head peeking...

[RoverDude]

Glad I could provide some comic relief

[SmarterThanMe]

But remember that builtin systems will not be a catch-all solution to every landing, I'll see to that

Eventually the player will need to devise their own, more complex and effective landing systems.

http://i.imgur.com/y3TkDwy.png

Can I suggest a slightly different approach to the top parachute hatch?

There's going to be people using FAR, people using NEAR, Real Chutes, and so on and so forth. Perhaps the best way to account for all of these (and to simplify the work for you) is to just pop a 1.25m block with a stack node on the top, underneath an openable hatch, to which people can attach their own parachute.

This could also provide people with the opportunity to put on other things, like a large Remotetech dish or a docking port or BahamtoD's laser or whatever.

With that one suggestion made, I otherwise prefer Option 3.

[Gryphorim]

Can I suggest a slightly different approach to the top parachute hatch?

There's going to be people using FAR, people using NEAR, Real Chutes, and so on and so forth. Perhaps the best way to account for all of these (and to simplify the work for you) is to just pop a 1.25m block with a stack node on the top, underneath an openable hatch, to which people can attach their own parachute.

This could also provide people with the opportunity to put on other things, like a large Remotetech dish or a docking port or BahamtoD's laser or whatever.

With that one suggestion made, I otherwise prefer Option 3.

Other than the suggestions i posted before, I second this idea regarding parachutes.

[Mihara]

With that one suggestion made, I otherwise prefer Option 3.

Unless another update shows up to break things again, you'll have all three in one part, selectable.

Hopefully.

[Mihara]

Well the thing about the 2g thing is that killing Kerbals is the only real way to limit that. In reality' date=' you just plain wouldn't be able to use these structures as seats for the kerbals at launch, simply because they really are not meant for that purpose. You're missing the properly secured and placed seats (You can't launch sitting sideways or whatever other way. The force of the rocket would rip you out of your seat, and even if you don't die, its just not safe period).[/quote']

Funny you should mention that.

One of the things alexustas asked me to code was limiting whether a part is available for kerbal seating depending on certain conditions -- so when landed, you can put kerbals in, but when flying you can't, or other variations on that theme.

Turns out, in 0.24, the most obvious method to do that (dropping CrewCapacity of a part to zero) is actually broken -- CrewCapacity of a part is now a rudiment, and whether you can enter a part or not depends on whether the part prototype, the abstract-ideal-part-in-the-sky (that is not at all the same as the part you actually spawn) has those seats or not. Altering them there would alter them for all instances of the part at the same time. Porkjet previously used this for his inflatable habitats, well, it doesn't work anymore.

The only ways of getting that done anyway that I could think of are highly cumbersome and error prone.

[BudgetHedgehog]

Turns out, in 0.24, the most obvious method to do that (dropping CrewCapacity of a part to zero) is actually broken

Why you do dis Squad?

[sp1989]

It been a little while since there was an update. Any news?

[brandotherhymer]

I really hope I can use this someday soon. I look forward to using this.

[OldMold]

Yep - adding myself to the "Refresh this thread every day" list

[AseaHeru]

This isint ready for us yet? Awww...

[Bomoo]

Would it be possible to give the parts a more matte finish? They look super glossy in those screenshots.

[alexustas]

Now you can choose between two options: SMA w/Dockport or SMA w/Airlock