[WIP] - USI Life Support

[Admac]

That was covered in the OP, basically;

1 Supply + Hungry kerbal + Pioneer = 0.5 Mulch

1 Supply + Hungry kerbal + Kerbitat = 0.75 Mulch

1 Supply + Hungry kerbal + MkIV (In SPAAAACE) = 0.9 Mulch

1 Supply + Hungry kerbal + MkIV (landed) = 1 Mulch

With any mulch that there is no storage for being jettisoned.

So resupply missions will need to be sent to everything but mature surface bases.

It sounds like it'll be lighter to ship supplies, but also possible to restock with Substrate+Water in situ.

[moronwrocket]

Instead of calling them "on strike" how about calling the state Torpor? It's commonly used by animals to survive low food or cold states, which would apply in this case. With the twist that Kerbals in Torpor, while slow and generally non-reacting, have a super-Kerbal sense for any nearby food.

On the wakeup protocol, am I correct in that to wakeup a sleeping 3 Kerbal crew, you would have to send 4 containers? The first 3 get ripped into and ruined, and the fourth is used by them after they awaken?

How does that work with containers of various sizes?

Or do you mean that when they awaken they eat a whole unit's worth of NOMs immediately, vs gradually drawing down throughout a day? so a 3 kerbal pod with starving kerbals, you could send 1 container with 3 NOMs to reset their 15 day timer?

- - - Updated - - -

Looking carefully back at prior messages, it does look like you would have to send 4 containers. That makes it very dangerous to dock unhappy kerbals with a station, since they would destroy the supplies there.

And by "dumped" I assume you mean "not turned into mulch."

Means any command pod with unhappy kerbals should just be left near the station until a small tug can ferry over supplies one at a time.

[RobotsAndSpaceships]

Will TAC still be supported by MKS?

[rabidninjawombat]

Will TAC still be supported by MKS?

Yea, Rovers confirmed that it will be, USI Life support will be default, and TAC will be supported by an additional config if you want it.

[Serino]

That was covered in the OP, basically;

1 Supply + Hungry kerbal + Pioneer = 0.5 Mulch

1 Supply + Hungry kerbal + Kerbitat = 0.75 Mulch

1 Supply + Hungry kerbal + MkIV (In SPAAAACE) = 0.9 Mulch

1 Supply + Hungry kerbal + MkIV (landed) = 1 Mulch

With any mulch that there is no storage for being jettisoned.

So resupply missions will need to be sent to everything but mature surface bases.

It sounds like it'll be lighter to ship supplies, but also possible to restock with Substrate+Water in situ.

Are you sure cause the way it is worded is that the buildings will have a different mulch to organics ratio. It wouldn't make sense to have different supplies to mulch ratio per building nor does it make sense in the fact that you can stick extra supplies and mulch storage on something when only the few things mentioned would be able to create mulch.

[moronwrocket]

Q: Is it 15 Earth days, or 15 Kerbin days?

[RoverDude]

I have played with TAC-LS since it first came out and love the crap out of it. This is the first time another LS mod has actually got me interested, maybe cause I use so much USI stuff that having a mod for it is exciting. One thing that gets me is that you have made it so an orbital colony can never be 100% self sufficient. Personally I feel that very late in the tech tree, like an end node or something, Kerbals would have found a way to be 100% self-sufficient since we as humans already have an idea on it.

I do have a legitimate question though. Is the conversion of supplies to mulch going to be 1 to 1 or will it be less forcing us to still make supply runs, albeit super infrequently?

Conversion from Organics to Supplies is 1:1. Conversion from Mulch to Organics varies by module, and can only be 1:1 with a land-based Mk-IV (or just create organics with water/substrate). i.e. a Mk-II MKS base can still be 100% self sufficient... if you are on a source of water/substrate (which makes the base site selection mechanic more interesting).

Orbitals will not be 100% closed loop... tho I might consider an evolutionary step where the small supply runs from a MK-IV surface base could abstract some of this out.

Are you sure cause the way it is worded is that the buildings will have a different mulch to organics ratio. It wouldn't make sense to have different supplies to mulch ratio per building nor does it make sense in the fact that you can stick extra supplies and mulch storage on something when only the few things mentioned would be able to create mulch.

The buildings do have different conversion rates - i.e. how much mulch they can convert into useable organics (Organics:Supplies is always 1:1)

Q: Is it 15 Earth days, or 15 Kerbin days?

Kerbin six hour days.

[JumpsterG]

I just want to say that I'm thrilled with what sounds like a timewarp-friendly life support implementation. My ultimate problem with all the life support mods thus far is that I cannot safely timewarp through a mission I am focused on without needing to stop what I'm doing to make supply runs to existing stations (potentially MANY, MANY supply runs during a long mission to Eeloo).

The way this life-support system works, I am required to make sure my ACTIVE mission has the supplies it needs at all stages, with appropriate mission-fouling consequences for poor planning MEANWHILE other stations or ships I don't care about can wait to be resupplied for when I am interested in doing so. If at some point I want to play with a ship that's been docked at my neglected station, I will THEN be required to do a resupply mission, rather then every time the supply drops low.

Individual kerbals gorging themselves on new supplies (throwing away a bunch) may complicate this playstyle but I betcha there's a good workaround (Specialized resupply boat with a bunch of 1 supply radials, ) or a potential new feature to cover it...

Off the cuff: Instead of the "first starving kerbal eating everything in a container" mechanic, maybe just track each kerbal's supply deficit? In other words, track how much supplies each kerbal has missed out on consuming after running out of supplies. Then when a locked container is opened in desperation or a supply ship docks with starved kerbals present, the starved Kerbals will attempt one-by-one to consume enough supplies until they've brought their supply deficit back to positive. Seems like it would have the same effect, would allow resupplying starved kerbals in a logical manner (current system, 3 1-supply containers revives 3 starved kerbals while 1 100-supply container revives only 1 with no resources left behind), and doesn't let the player get away with depriving Kerbals for months without resupplying a corresponding amount of supplies.

[tater]

Yeah, I have to say I am still confused by the way supplies are consumed.

Say you have a craft in orbit. It has 3 crew. You have 3 inline LS supply parts. After 15 days, the first guy will use all the LS in the 1st inline part, throwing the rest away, then the 2d guy will use the 2d, throwing the excess away, then the 3d will use the 3d, throwing the rest away and you bought another 15 days?

Or do the 3 consume some of the supplies in the 1st one, then mulch the rest?

Do the command pods or stock tab modules have the ability at some efficiency to convert mulch (which is air/water/waste, right?) back to supplies?

A simpler answer might be how many inline parts (say 2.5m) would be required for 3 kerbals to last 1 year?

[RoverDude]

Yeah, I have to say I am still confused by the way supplies are consumed.

Say you have a craft in orbit. It has 3 crew. You have 3 inline LS supply parts. After 15 days, the first guy will use all the LS in the 1st inline part, throwing the rest away, then the 2d guy will use the 2d, throwing the excess away, then the 3d will use the 3d, throwing the rest away and you bought another 15 days?

Or do the 3 consume some of the supplies in the 1st one, then mulch the rest?

Do the command pods or stock tab modules have the ability at some efficiency to convert mulch (which is air/water/waste, right?) back to supplies?

A simpler answer might be how many inline parts (say 2.5m) would be required for 3 kerbals to last 1 year?

In your example, they will happily eat the supplies slowly until those three inline parts are gone. Unless you try to be sneaky and actually lock the resource. In that case, it's locked away and they will not consume it... but once starving they will hit a point where they just say 'screw it' and break it open anyway.

This is to prevent an exploit where you would send a huge mission of Kerbals out with a locked supply container, and unlock it at the destination.

There are no built in converters - these are already assumed to be worked into the base numbers.

[tater]

Ah, OK, I get it. So as they run out, it checks for supplies, if supplies, then they use them slowly, if no supplies, then the next unlocked/added container is toast. So if at the moment they ran out, they happened to just run out of power for a second (batteries drained, and the sun is 1 second from rising), then they would run out, and when the EC comes up, they would use up all the supplies as in your resupply example, right?

How many kerbal-days supplies for the various parts mentioned in the OP?

I'm really coming around to this, as it has an added benefit of making LS easy on new players (not an issue within the Kerbin SoI under normal mission conditions), and makes it a little harder for players venturing out from Kerbin.

[Jarin]

Ah, OK, I get it. So as they run out, it checks for supplies, if supplies, then they use them slowly, if no supplies, then the next unlocked/added container is toast. So if at the moment they ran out, they happened to just run out of power for a second (batteries drained, and the sun is 1 second from rising), then they would run out, and when the EC comes up, they would use up all the supplies as in your resupply example, right?.

As I understand it, you'd have to run out of power for a good long while. I'm not sure if RoverDude has finalized the time kerbals can survive without power (assuming it's not 15 days like supplies), but I suspect it'll be quite a bit more than you'd have to worry about with orbital shadow. You don't get into the "grumpy kerbals breaking stuff" stage until you've gone past the final deadlines (i.e. the point where kerbals would DIE if you're playing on 'hard mode'), not just running out.

[tater]

I'd only ever set them to die, or I'd not bother with it. Then at least there would be a non-zero chance of killing them.

[RoverDude]

Ah, OK, I get it. So as they run out, it checks for supplies, if supplies, then they use them slowly, if no supplies, then the next unlocked/added container is toast. So if at the moment they ran out, they happened to just run out of power for a second (batteries drained, and the sun is 1 second from rising), then they would run out, and when the EC comes up, they would use up all the supplies as in your resupply example, right?

How many kerbal-days supplies for the various parts mentioned in the OP?

I'm really coming around to this, as it has an added benefit of making LS easy on new players (not an issue within the Kerbin SoI under normal mission conditions), and makes it a little harder for players venturing out from Kerbin.

No, I don't think you are getting it yet... it seems everyone is taking an anti-exploit tactic and running through it.

The only way to make them use life support other than the usual slow drain that one would expect would be to explicitly try to block the resource flow (the same way we sometimes lock a battery for an emergency probe activiation). In which case, they will have none of it.

You would have to be without EC for fifteen days as well as out of life support before they get grumpy on you. Again, this too should not be surprising. If you've let them go fifteen days without supplies, you're kinda hosed regardless - a second either way is irrelevant. And the only way supplies get thrown in the trash is if you were trying to intentionally exploit the system and starve them, despite having stores on board.

Again, the only way this scenario would even occur is if you were aggressively trying to exploit the system and bank on your whole crew being sent to Jool against their will with no food, and the intent of unlocking a tin of supplies two years into the voyage to give them a pre-landing snack.

Also as noted - there are no supplies embedded in any pods, etc. A Kerbal can go fifteen days out of supply, period. So the only time you add a container of supplies is if you want to extend your voyage beyond that.

- - - Updated - - -

An addendum. IF you starve them and attach a rescue ship with unlocked supplies, they will not dump supplies (i.e. they would just take a normal ration) unless you intentionally had every supply in the attaching ship locked (which is a bad idea). The only use of locking all life support resources on a ship is to exploit the system, so it's punished rather aggressively

[Sigma88]

I don't know if you are open to suggestions, but I'm gonna give you one anyway

I think you made a great choice for the name of the "waste" resource (mulch) and I think you could improve the "food" one: "Supplies" sounds a bit generic, like it could include any kind of supplies, not just nutritional supplies. Would you consider chosing a different name? Like perhaps "Rations"?

Unless I got it wrong and the "Supplies" are not supposed to be only food.

Edited April 9, 2015 by Sigma88

[Sigma88]

That sounds like a really good idea. One think: personally, I've tried Interstellar Flight Inc and TAC-LS. TAC is very good cause more than supply tank, it offers a way to recycle the waste, so long interplanetary mission are more easily allowed. Without any way to recycle the waste "WHILE IN FLIGHT", organize a long journey will be difficult and a little less realistic.

So, ok with the MKS, but the question is: there will be a way to recycle the waste at 30/40% on a ship?

None built in. That's an area for mods

I always used MKS/OKS with TAC and I was going to make an expansion for mks/oks where new parts condensed the whole recycling thing in a couple of modules making it worth only for relatively short trips (eg: getting to duna or eve) with relatively low crew (2-3 kerbals)

The point was to not overlap with anything your mod can do, but cover some niche use.

Then real life happened

I still have the ideas and calculations for that, when you release this I may get back to that if your new patch still lets me do it without overlapping

[MatterBeam]

Is there a procedural container for the new lifesupport resources coming soon?

[JumpsterG]

An addendum. IF you starve them and attach a rescue ship with unlocked supplies, they will not dump supplies (i.e. they would just take a normal ration) unless you intentionally had every supply in the attaching ship locked (which is a bad idea). The only use of locking all life support resources on a ship is to exploit the system, so it's punished rather aggressively

Ah! Ignore my previous suggestion then. A single standard supply run will replenish a neglected station in this model, which is exactly what I want. I absolutely love the system you've got going on.

There's a remaining possible exploit of sending supplies in a separate vessel from your kerbal ship and docking the two together at destination; which I thought was covered by the starving kerbal mechanic (hence my suggestion). I don't think you need to worry very much about this or further exploits, though, since anyone actively trying to avoid the life support requirement should probably just uninstall the mod instead.

[RoverDude]

Is there a procedural container for the new lifesupport resources coming soon?

Nope, no real need in my opinion.

Ah! Ignore my previous suggestion then. A single standard supply run will replenish a neglected station in this model, which is exactly what I want. I absolutely love the system you've got going on.

There's a remaining possible exploit of sending supplies in a separate vessel from your kerbal ship and docking the two together at destination; which I thought was covered by the starving kerbal mechanic (hence my suggestion). I don't think you need to worry very much about this or further exploits, though, since anyone actively trying to avoid the life support requirement should probably just uninstall the mod instead.

But here is the rub. I am ok with rescue missions - works a treat, and works within the constraints. But that implies you could land in the first place. If you run out halfway to your destination you will still have a heck of a time getting on the ground in the first place, unless you also install an auxiliary probe core.

[MatterBeam]

Nope, no real need in my opinion.

I use an x6.4 RSS, so I have really wide rockets, and with FAR, it is better to place life support inline rather than radially. Could I at least get a config for procedural tanks?

[tater]

I'm in the same boat as krakenfour, I'm playing 64x.

I guess the exploit issue is not a problem for me as I'd have LS failure kill them.

Let me have another crack at this… so the supply canisters contain supplies in 15 day increments? Guys get low, and they reach T -0, then grab 15 more days (each). Then the timer resets? So if a container has 100 supplies, that's 100*15 kerbal-day supplies (so a crew of 4 would have 390 days duration (including the 15 days they get "free" at the start)?

New pods don't reset the timer, though, correct? For example if you rescued a kerbal with a mk1 pod, and the verbal was almost dead, would his timer reset? If so, would moving kerbals from a command pod to a HH give them 15 more days? What about EVA from one pod to another?

[Yemo]

Is there a procedural container for the new lifesupport resources coming soon?

If procedural parts itself does not support/add one (and they have not even added karbonite), the SETI-BalanceMod in my signature will surely do so.

[Sigma88]

If procedural parts itself does not support/add one (and they have not even added karbonite), the SETI-BalanceMod in my signature will surely do so.

Also, if I remember correctly, using tweakscale you can add a very simple cfg file to make any specific part scaleable and you don't have to bother that much, tweakscale will calculate all the capacity for you. I could be wrong tho.

[JumpsterG]

...

Let me have another crack at this… so the supply canisters contain supplies in 15 day increments? Guys get low, and they reach T -0, then grab 15 more days (each). Then the timer resets? So if a container has 100 supplies, that's 100*15 kerbal-day supplies (so a crew of 4 would have 390 days duration (including the 15 days they get "free" at the start)?

New pods don't reset the timer, though, correct? For example if you rescued a kerbal with a mk1 pod, and the verbal was almost dead, would his timer reset? If so, would moving kerbals from a command pod to a HH give them 15 more days? What about EVA from one pod to another?

Much simpler than that. Others (and of course RoverDude) have already tried to explain it but I'll take a shot at it, too:

Kerbals will constantly consume supplies the same way a probe core constantly consumes electriccharge. We don't know the rate of consumption for supplies yet (and it will be configurable so it can be different in your game) but once we do, it will be easy to calculate x supplies per kerbal per day.

If at any point the kerbal has access to 0 supply resource, his time-to-starve counter will start counting down from 15 days. During early career mode, no life support parts are necessary because 15 days is plenty of time to accomplish mun and minmus round-trips.

Once a kerbal's time-to-starve counter hits 0, they will break into any locked supply container, since kerbals will not tolerate starving when there are accessible supplies. A starved kerbal (the first to randomly reach it) will greedily consume all the resources in the container, so this is both humorous and penalizes the player for trying to game the system.

If a kerbal's time-to-starve counter hits 0 and there is no locked supply to break into, they go dormant (or die depending on your settings).

Dormant kerbals can be "awakened" by docking a new source of supplies, at which point they go back to normal and resume consuming supplies.

EVA is a special case, where each kerbal on EVA has a 3-day time-to-starve counter which begins upon exiting a vessel. If they're still on EVA when their time-to-starve counter runs out, they will go missing and eventually wind up back at the recruitment building (or die depending on your settings). Presumably, the kerbal will maintain that 3-days-to-starve countdown upon entering a new vessel with no access to supplies? Maybe go back to whatever their previous countdown value was, minus the time spent in EVA? (This may be something that has not yet been fleshed out by RoverDude)

---

RoverDude, it occurs to me that a player could still game the system a bit by locking a supply container, waiting 14 days (just before the starvation countdown finishes), unlocking it to let kerbals consume a little supply (resetting their starvation countdown), then locking the supply again. It's another exploit that anyone seriously playing with the mod wouldn't use, but I thought I'd mention it.

Edited April 10, 2015 by JumpsterG
What happens on return from EVA?

[tater]

I'm not one to exploit, in fact before I knew that I could alter the Snacks! cfg and kill them, if my kerbals ran out of snacks I went to the tracking station and terminated their mission. I'm an anti-exploiter, lol.

If what you say about docking is true, then couldn't a large ship have a section that is docked, as many of mine are when constructed in orbit, with clamp-o-tron-Srs? Put the LS supplies in section 2, with cross feed off, let them go dormant, then either turn on cross feed upon reaching the destination, or undock, then redock?