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

[sirkut]

These are amazing. Keep up the great work.

[Legendary Emu]

That level of detail on that science module and life module would make my computer explode unaided.

[R0cketC0der]

Ok, I've just ordered a new computer and I will start developing the plugin when I have set the new pc up. Probably at some point in the first half of the next week. Is there anything other than just kerbals dying at over 2g in your modules you want in the plugin?

[alexustas]

...Is there anything other than just kerbals dying at over 2g in your modules you want in the plugin?

Ohh! My wishlist is HUUUUGE

[alexustas]

Pure brilliance!

Are there any plans to build the rover that is shown as an outline?

Possibly, but not soon, sorry

[alexustas]

And...yes! Very first look in KSP

http://youtu.be/SMwfrTNEPJA.

[The Destroyer]

That... looks... amazing.

You sure have gotten better since I first saw ya at the first sunshine mod... wow.

[HeadHunter67]

I will be following this with great interest!

[Helix935]

to think that i was the first (well first to post) to see your deployable light globe and now see this wow...

where will the hatches be?

[CaptainKipard]

How will this look with active texture management?

[alexustas]

where will the hatches be?

the optional hatch (or airlock) can be added to SMA part

[alexustas]

How will this look with active texture management?

i have ATM in ksp, and recent video was recorded with ATM.

EDIT:

Here is 2K texture now, but downsized (to 1K) texture still looks quite good, and even 512x512 not so bad as i've expected

Edited May 15, 2014 by alexustas

[Robotengineer]

Are you going to finish all stages before a release? or one stage at a time?

[alexustas]

Are you going to finish all stages before a release? or one stage at a time?

after completion of the "Stage 1" I will publish the entire set for testing, then "Stage 2" and so on

[Vim Razz]

This looks awesome. It's is a really great time for base mods.

- These modules are not meant to take off and land crewed. All kerbals within should die when acceleration exceeds about ~2G. Any ideas how to pull that off?

Porkjet has a plugin that prevents Kerbals from entering until a module is 'activated' (in his case, the modules are inflated.) It would keep the pods from being crewed at least.

An activation toggle for access and use, perhaps checking for a landed ship state flag and tied to some sort of anchoring mechanism, strikes me as a better approach to this goal than the G-limit kill.

Some reasons/thoughts/whatever that come to mind:

-- The G-kill idea sounds kind of tacked on, rather than being an extension of mod's general concept (at least as I understand it so far), and may risk conflict/confusion with similar functions in other mods that these parts are presumably intended to work in concert with. (Keep Fit and DREC come to mind immediately.)

-- I'm not sure how to put it, but: without any context, the g-kill notion almost has a weird, petulant vibe to it. Like it's some kind of threat or something: "don't use my parts the way I don't want or omg! I'll kill your kerbals!"

-- 2g... isn't exactly much of a deterrent, really. Anybody with experience using low-TWR lifters and LV-N based landers should be able to stay under that if they have the patience or inclination to do it so. The bigger the payload mass you have, the easier it gets. It seems like a pointless hurdle rather than a positive mechanic unless it's somehow tied to other, more comprehensive, gameplay elements.

[falken]

Got my attention for sure! Been building a Munar base using Fustek style parts, and this will replace them I think.

[Kerbonautical]

Well I know which mod I plan to use for my bases when it's out then. Seriously these are some very impressive models. If we had some sort of enhanced IVA where we could move inside the ships too then that would be practically everything I want from colonization.

[Arrowstar]

These look great! The texture work is incredible. Keep it up!

[Deathsoul097]

Hmm. This is pretty nice. Hope this doesn't mean ALCOR has been abandoned though.

Just a quick question, do the service modules have built in engines for landing? Or nodes to place them? If not, that might be something to consider as part of the service module, or possibly a separate part, as I can only believe that landing these will be a huge pain in the *** without dedicated parts, or at least just really ugly and unrealistic.

What is "KONQUEST"?

It is a kit of parts (D=5m) for constructing complete bases on the surface of planets and other bodies with non-negligible gravity.

Umm, just saying, those look to be much closer to 3.75m, to me at least. Either that or you got some giant kerbals.

Edited May 16, 2014 by Deathsoul097

[alexustas]

Are there any provisions for compatibility with RoverDude's Modular Kolonization System mod? It takes advantage of TAC, Kethane, and EL, but has its own configs.

I love the look of both of these mods and I'd really like to have some variation in module types for bases. Either way, I could envision a separate save for each of these, but I would really like to use them at the same time.

I love the textures and module designs. Compatibilty to RoverDudes MKS MOD would be awesome.

I have only seen this mod recently and it seems very interesting, I plan to install it and study it more closely.

[alexustas]

Hmm. This is pretty nice. Hope this doesn't mean ALCOR has been abandoned though.

Just a quick question, do the service modules have built in engines for landing? Or nodes to place them? If not, that might be something to consider as part of the service module, or possibly a separate part, as I can only believe that landing these will be a huge pain in the *** without dedicated parts, or at least just really ugly and unrealistic.

I thought a lot about this when still working on ALCOR, and eventually came to the conclusion that there is no point making complete module delivery systems, because:

1. Landing them and assembling delivery systems is most of the fun.

2. It’s impossible to make a single system fit for all situations.

3. There are lots and lots of mods with engines and tanks of every conceivable shape, and they’re sufficient to make what you need in a specific sitiuation.

But I will obviously endeavour to make the process convenient, by adding extra attachment nodes, making sure colliders have suitable shapes and of course, adding special adapter parts. In any case, I plan to make the modules themselves first, and then we’ll discuss what else does the kit actually need.

Umm, just saying, those look to be much closer to 3.75m, to me at least. Either that or you got some giant kerbals.

I believe that for permanent and long term settlements, such a size is more reasonable, and from the point of view of optimal usage of internal space it’s more convenient than 3.75, especially if you consider that modules are meant to be used horizontally.

[alexustas]

This looks awesome. It's is a really great time for base mods.

An activation toggle for access and use, perhaps checking for a landed ship state flag and tied to some sort of anchoring mechanism, strikes me as a better approach to this goal than the G-limit kill.

Some reasons/thoughts/whatever that come to mind:

-- The G-kill idea sounds kind of tacked on, rather than being an extension of mod's general concept (at least as I understand it so far), and may risk conflict/confusion with similar functions in other mods that these parts are presumably intended to work in concert with. (Keep Fit and DREC come to mind immediately.)

-- I'm not sure how to put it, but: without any context, the g-kill notion almost has a weird, petulant vibe to it. Like it's some kind of threat or something: "don't use my parts the way I don't want or omg! I'll kill your kerbals!"

-- 2g... isn't exactly much of a deterrent, really. Anybody with experience using low-TWR lifters and LV-N based landers should be able to stay under that if they have the patience or inclination to do it so. The bigger the payload mass you have, the easier it gets. It seems like a pointless hurdle rather than a positive mechanic unless it's somehow tied to other, more comprehensive, gameplay elements.

Probably I didn’t formulate my idea clearly, but let me try again.

I do not want to forbid flying in it as such. I wish to prevent using KONQUEST as simply a very big general purpose pod.

Build bases or orbital stations, maneuver, make transfers, move modules across the surface, whatever, just do it very gently if you have kerbals inside, that’s what I want.

KONQUEST is very similar in internal structure to ISS modules, or maybe, even, to a submarine. What happens to the crew of a submarine if it, for whatever reason, acquires an acceleration of more than a few G?

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.

[Vim Razz]

I do not want to kill kerbals, of course.

I didn't presume so, and I fully support the notion of encouraging different kinds of components to be used differently, rather than everything just being the same general-purpose cans with different skins & meshes.

The G-kill idea just strikes me as a little... out of place, and I was having trouble trying to wrap some words around why I think so. Though I don't necessarily have any better ideas along those lines, or anything.

Anyway -- however things end up being implemented, I'm looking forward to seeing how it all turns out. All your projects have been great, and it seems that you're approaching this one with the same thoughtful development and attention to detail.

Edited May 17, 2014 by Vim Razz

[thutmose]

What happens to the crew of a submarine if it, for whatever reason, acquires an acceleration of more than a few G?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_San_Francisco_(SSN-711) would have experienced about an average of 3-5G, assuming that the front end collapsed inwards 5-3m, 1 fatality, many injuries.

Edit: most of those injuries would have occurred from the jerk, sustaining that number of Gs probably wouldn't significantly increase the number/severity of injuries, at least at the low end of that, sustained 4-6Gs might start to cause issues.

Maybe instead of outright killing them, how about having some chance of giving them injuries, which then have a chance of killing them, or if healthy or dead are the only options, have some random chance of outright killing kerbals, that would greatly discourage the use of this as a pod?

Edited May 17, 2014 by thutmose

[Captain Sierra]

Umm, just saying, those look to be much closer to 3.75m, to me at least. Either that or you got some giant kerbals.

I gotta agree. As a general rule of thumb, when designing my base modules (I start with a 2.5m core), they must be able to fit in a 2.5m expanded KW fairing. I think a similar design concept, just for 3.75m, may want to be considered here. Otherwise they become just too big to handle easily stock or near stock.