[1.12.x] USI Life Support

[Death Engineering]

@RoverDude I hate to be that broken-record guy.. is there or is there not a way for me to turn off the mechanic where I cannot manage my own resources (ie disable them at my choice)?  

Or, do you or someone else have a better way to manage resources for cases like preserving lander-supplies until the landing?  

It just seems like a pointless mechanic. Maybe if I understood the why, I'd be able to wrap my head around it.

 

[Kobymaru]

4 minutes ago, Death Engineering said:

Or, do you or someone else have a better way to manage resources for cases like preserving lander-supplies until the landing?  

Bring enough supplies (and recyclers) for the crew so there's still a sufficient amount left after landing.

 

4 minutes ago, Death Engineering said:

It just seems like a pointless mechanic. Maybe if I understood the why, I'd be able to wrap my head around it.

Assume you are in space. Assume you have snacks for 15 days, but you know that there's plenty more locked away in a locker. After 15 days, you have eaten all your snacks. You get hungry. You wait a bit. You get even hungrier. You really, really, really wanna eat something. What do you do?

[tater]

Do parts like the Hitchhiker include recyclers? Wouldn't that be the point of them?

[mitko]

The only stock part that includes recycler is the Mobile Lab

[Kobymaru]

1 minute ago, tater said:

Do parts like the Hitchhiker include recyclers?

At the moment, only several UKS parts and the Stock Science Lab provide recyclers. Dedicated and smaller parts should follow in future updates.

 

1 minute ago, tater said:

Wouldn't that be the point of them?

The point of them is the "habitation" value. There are 2 mechanisms in place now: Kerbals don't like to stay hungry, but they also don't like to be cramped up in a tiny tin can for months or years.

Recyclers reduce the consumption of Supplies, and the point of the Hitchhiker is that they have a place to "live", that prolongs the Hab time drastically.

[eberkain]

1 hour ago, mitko said:

That is because the habitation mechanic is switched off by default. You have to enable it in the Settings.cgf file. The relevant line is ReplacementPartAmount.

The latest update says habitation is switched on by default, and I did download from the github download link...  I will look for that when I get home. 

[tater]

Yes, but the HH is explicitly for habitation, whereas the science lab (MPL, whatever they call it) is a science part. It's somewhat counter intuitive, though clearly the lab has considerably more mass/volume per crew capacity, and makes sense for that reason.

I guess I'll need some part mods, unless I want to cover my craft with added parts. I'm fine with the additional concepts, I just want clean looking ships  . I'm trying to keep mod parts low until 1.1 when hopefully I can add more without memory issues.

[Death Engineering]

42 minutes ago, Kobymaru said:

Bring enough supplies (and recyclers) for the crew so there's still a sufficient amount left after landing.

 

Assume you are in space. Assume you have snacks for 15 days, but you know that there's plenty more locked away in a locker. After 15 days, you have eaten all your snacks. You get hungry. You wait a bit. You get even hungrier. You really, really, really wanna eat something. What do you do?

I see where you're thinking, but lets look forward until we can once again turn on/off resources: would it not make more sense to consume the supplies KSC told you to use *first* then crack open the backups if needed?  Did Apollo consume food from the LM? No.

[Kobymaru]

11 minutes ago, Death Engineering said:

I see where you're thinking, but lets look forward until we can once again turn on/off resources: would it not make more sense to consume the supplies KSC told you to use *first* then crack open the backups if needed?  Did Apollo consume food from the LM? No.

If I'm not mistaken, this is a more or less simplistic workaround for a previous bug. You *used* to be able to lock away supplies, but on high timewarp things got very messy and people lost a lot of supplies, so RoverDude decided to simply disregard the ressource lock.

He can give you more details probably.

 

On a more practical note: why would you need to lock supplies in the first place? You can just transfer them from one container to the other, just like any other ressource.

[mitko]

21 minutes ago, eberkain said:

The latest update says habitation is switched on by default, and I did download from the github download link...  I will look for that when I get home. 

My mistake, the ReplacementPartAmount is for the wearing out of the hab parts.

[RoverDude]

2 hours ago, ModZero said:

I'd expect that. Kerbals, being fairly small, obviously have shorter digestive tracts than humans. That means that, like Earth cats, they have more stringent requirements on what they can and cannot eat – particularly I'd expect less tolerance of non-digestible stuffing (because they can't process it away). Things really depend on details (rats are pretty good at being highly adaptable omnivores, but they're also very small), but I wouldn't be surprised at all if they were obligate carnivores. This here vegan is not amused :-(

edit: this is also a case for increasing the living space needs. Possibly to one Kerbal per vessel, no sharp objects. 

Enough with the whole vegan thing.  This is two threads now that have had this brought up.  It is not adding any value to the conversation.

2 hours ago, eberkain said:

I don't understand the habitation mechanic, in the VAB it says 30 days, put the craft into orbit, and it says 30 days no matter how long they stay in orbit...

Hab value for the ship represents how long a Kerbal is willing to stay on it, as opposed to a kerbal's individual hab timer.

You would be willing to live in a small box for a day or two... but that small box could be used for months by lots of people, each of which would pay it a visit for a day or two.. and eventually, the box will wear out.

1 hour ago, Death Engineering said:

@RoverDude I hate to be that broken-record guy.. is there or is there not a way for me to turn off the mechanic where I cannot manage my own resources (ie disable them at my choice)?  

Or, do you or someone else have a better way to manage resources for cases like preserving lander-supplies until the landing?  

It just seems like a pointless mechanic. Maybe if I understood the why, I'd be able to wrap my head around it.

 

It is not pointless, and as noted below, it's an anti-exploit bit.  For your situation, I launch with the lander empty and work off of the main supply tank, then just transfer in before I land.

1 hour ago, tater said:

Do parts like the Hitchhiker include recyclers? Wouldn't that be the point of them?

No, the hitchhiker has lots of comfy space.  There are three main levers - habitation time, habitation multipliers, and recyclers.  There are three stock parts, one for each of these.  The hitchhiker is just a big can with lots of space.  The cupola is pretty and works as a multiplier.  The lab (which has zero use in sandbox) now has a use - it's a very nice recycler given it's weight.

1 hour ago, mitko said:

The only stock part that includes recycler is the Mobile Lab

Yup.

51 minutes ago, tater said:

Yes, but the HH is explicitly for habitation, whereas the science lab (MPL, whatever they call it) is a science part. It's somewhat counter intuitive, though clearly the lab has considerably more mass/volume per crew capacity, and makes sense for that reason.

I guess I'll need some part mods, unless I want to cover my craft with added parts. I'm fine with the additional concepts, I just want clean looking ships  . I'm trying to keep mod parts low until 1.1 when hopefully I can add more without memory issues.

Your apartment is also made for habitation.  It does not mean you have a composter and water purifier in your living room.

43 minutes ago, Death Engineering said:

I see where you're thinking, but lets look forward until we can once again turn on/off resources: would it not make more sense to consume the supplies KSC told you to use *first* then crack open the backups if needed?  Did Apollo consume food from the LM? No.

And we can easily transfer in supplies once you are where you need to go.  It was put in as an exploitation prevention measure.

Edited January 28, 2016 by RoverDude

[eberkain]

@RoverDude

Let me just say that you are awesome for answering everyone's questions!  

[Death Engineering]

57 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

It is not pointless, and as noted below, it's an anti-exploit bit.  For your situation, I launch with the lander empty and work off of the main supply tank, then just transfer in before I land.

And we can easily transfer in supplies once you are where you need to go.  It was put in as an exploitation prevention measure.

Good enough for me. Thanks for the explanation. 

[tater]

1 hour ago, RoverDude said:

Your apartment is also made for habitation.  It does not mean you have a composter and water purifier in your living room.

Yeah, but I can just buy a purifier and composter for my house. Since there are no recycler parts, I have to have an apartment, and buy another apartment next door that has those 2 things included and knock a hole in the wall  .

Still, in terms of KSP _parts_ why would the one crewed part with a recycler be in the science parts? 

I'm playing a 6.4x distances mod, so I need a few years of supplies/habitation for Duna to be safe. I was watching the USILS window in the VAB, and with a crew of 3, I have a mk1-2 pod, 3 Hitchhikers, and a Science Lab, plus 4x2.5m NOMs. Habitation is 1 year, 105d. Supplies for  2y, 384 days---not enough, I need 90 days for a Minmus return---but I can add more. If I add a cupola, my habitation rating jumps to 3y, 215 days!

You have this remarked in the LSModule.cfg:

//For parts that act as hab multipliers (dedicated or bundled with other functions/converters),
//a multiplier equal to the tonnage works well.

And the cupola is set this way. Should the HH have a hab multiplier?

Regarding recyclers, perhaps the supply tanks could lose a % of their supplies in return for some recycler capacity. Maybe just the 2 large ones?

Edited January 28, 2016 by tater

[RoverDude]

53 minutes ago, tater said:

Yeah, but I can just buy a purifier and composter for my house. Since there are no recycler parts, I have to have an apartment, and buy another apartment next door that has those 2 things included and knock a hole in the wall  .

Still, in terms of KSP _parts_ why would the one crewed part with a recycler be in the science parts? 

I'm playing a 6.4x distances mod, so I need a few years of supplies/habitation for Duna to be safe. I was watching the USILS window in the VAB, and with a crew of 3, I have a mk1-2 pod, 3 Hitchhikers, and a Science Lab, plus 4x2.5m NOMs. Habitation is 1 year, 105d. Supplies for  2y, 384 days---not enough, I need 90 days for a Minmus return---but I can add more. If I add a cupola, my habitation rating jumps to 3y, 215 days!

You have this remarked in the LSModule.cfg:

//For parts that act as hab multipliers (dedicated or bundled with other functions/converters),
//a multiplier equal to the tonnage works well.

And the cupola is set this way. Should the HH have a hab multiplier?

Regarding recyclers, perhaps the supply tanks could lose a % of their supplies in return for some recycler capacity. Maybe just the 2 large ones?

Why would it NOT be in the science parts?  again - it's a nice heavy part that has absolutely no use in sandbox, and in career is a common part to include in bases.  It was a good fit.  This was an intentional design decision, and is not changing.  Now - you're free to do whatever you wish in your own game.  

[tater]

43 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

Why would it NOT be in the science parts?

Because LS is not for doing science ? Up a few posts I wrote that as a large part with only 2 crew, I understood your decision to use it (it has extra room/mass, clearly, so it makes sense). Still, the few other non-control crewed parts, as well as all the other USILS parts are all in the Utility category, not science---which was my real point, that's it's not where one would expect it based on the name of the part, and the fact that all your other USILS parts are in Utility.

It wasn't an attack or anything, just my observation. USILS is great, and I like the direction it's going in, complex feel/gameplay without micromanaging too much.

 

43 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

Again - it's a nice heavy part that has absolutely no use in sandbox, and in career is a common part to include in bases.  It was a good fit.  This was an intentional design decision, and is not changing.  Now - you're free to do whatever you wish in your own game.  

As I said a few posts up:

Quote

...clearly the lab has considerably more mass/volume per crew capacity, and makes sense for that reason.

I understand why you chose that particular stock part, my point is that one would expect the part that is explicitly for habitation to perhaps include relevant habitation stuff. I can see the point in having the Hitchhiker NOT having the recycler, though... partially it's the fact that there are only the 2 deep space parts (non-aircraft) that have seats at all, so you have basically no choices to work with (the mass of the recycler equipment is totally more plausible within the huge science lab, I "get" that). It would make more sense (to me) if there was the ability (later in the tech tree than the HH) to add that capability, perhaps at a lower efficiency. 

Regarding the other stuff I asked about:

1. Will there be stand-alone recyclers?

2. Is the cupola supposed to be the only part with a hab multiplier? If so, what's the design rationale so that it can be added consistently for mod parts? Ie: If a mod adds a greenhouse that looks nice and roomy, would you suggest using the part mass (as in your code remarks) as the multiplier? Would you reserve the multiplier for "non-hab" facilities that effectively have no purpose except maybe recreation (there is a station parts mod with a gym, for example)? I'm just looking for what the benchmark is, as you'd think the volume of extra HH-sized parts would trump the n^th cupola added.

Edited January 28, 2016 by tater

[mcortez]

14 minutes ago, tater said:

2. Is the cupola supposed to be the only part with a hab multiplier? If so, what's the design rationale so that it can be added consistently for mod parts? Ie: If a mod adds a greenhouse that looks nice and roomy, would you suggest using the part mass (as in your code remarks) as the multiplier? Would you reserve the multiplier for "non-hab" facilities that effectively have no purpose except maybe recreation (there is a station parts mod with a gym, for example)? I'm just looking for what the benchmark is, as you'd think the volume of extra HH-sized parts would trump the n^th cupola added.

The cupola is not the only part currently with a hab multiplier, there are at least a few others -- Aeroponics (x1.25) and Kerbitat Habitation (x3).  

It's been lost to the flood of comments on the thread, but roverdude did post a recommended benchmark for Multipler and KerbleMonth modifiers back on page 53: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/105202-105-usi-life-support-020-20151229/&do=findComment&comment=2373073

 

Quote

The general rule of thumb is that something is either a multiuplier, or adds KerbalMonths.

If it adds more space (KerbalMonths) add months equal to mass * 5

If it is a multiplier, set multiplier equal to the mass.

In either case, make sure you add ReplacementParts equal to: crew capacity + Kerbal Months. * 100

 

Edited January 28, 2016 by mcortez

[tater]

Getting a feel for how to design with the new habitation values:

A HH manned with 2 crew and one small LS tank has a habitation of 240 days (30 kerbal-days per seat), and supplies for a little over 15 days.

A MPL with the same 2 crew and same supplies has a habitation of 30 days, but supplies for 51 days (understandable, I've slept in a lab before with effectively endless candy-machine food, and my bedroom was better  ).

Two Mk1 pods with the same 1.25m supply tank is 30d habitation, 15d supplies.

Makes sense except the 2 tiny pods equalling the habitability of a lab that is vastly larger.

Add a cupola to each, and they are:

HH: 704d hab, 15d supplies.

MPL: 124d hab, 51d supplies.

2*Mk1: 124d hab, 15d supplies.

OK, so I "get" that the hab is their personal space, beds, etc., so the 240 days vs crashing 30 days in a lab makes sense. I can even get that the "rec" area of a "cupola" might increase wellbeing, but the lab as a "crash pad" is vastly superior to 2 crew sleeping/eating/making mulch in their Mk1 pods, yet they have identical habitation values when both have the cupola. Note that the MPL and supplies MINUS the cupola is rated as 4 times LESS habitable than 2 mk1 pods with the little cupola. This makes no sense to me.

While the mass is about 4X larger, the volume (I made a stacked blob of mk1 pods), the volume of the MPL is on the order of 15X that of the Mk1. Somewhat counterintuitive.

So your baseline assumption in the early versions was that the pods, etc are good for 15 days, then extra supplies needed past that. The hab value and recyclers extend this idea, which is great. 

Your code remarks say:

Quote

//For dedicated hab parts (no other generators, etc.):
//  Kerbal Months should equal mass * 5
//    ReplacementParts = 100 * crew capacity + 100 * Kerbal Months. 
//
//For parts that act as hab multipliers (dedicated or bundled with other functions/converters),
//a multiplier equal to the tonnage works well.

Seems like the hab multipliers should be less based upon part weight, and rather more just what you (or related, compatible mod authors) think seems right based upon frankly subjective factors to get the right balance. What would happen if a part got a fractional hab multiplier? Perhaps areas that are just "cockpits" get a 0.75? 

The MPL is about 18m³, and the HH is about 12m³. The cupola is about 5m³.  Perhaps a benchmark suggestion might be volume, instead of mass?

Edited January 29, 2016 by tater
clarity

[RoverDude]

And that science lab is assumed to be filled with science equipment and recycling gear.  I'm sorry, but at this point this is just not up for negotiation.

[tater]

38 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

And that science lab is assumed to be filled with science equipment and recycling gear.  I'm sorry, but at this point this is just not up for negotiation.

I'm not really negotiating anything, just making an observation.   I hope I'm not coming off the wrong way, I really like USILS, and I'm trying to be constructive, not to badger you.

As I've said (since the first post where I mentioned it) I understand the rationale due to the size/mass of the part (you're adding capability without being able to add to the stock part, so use the biggest/heaviest of the only 2 you have to chose from---as I said before, I get it). The IVA doesn't show it as filled, however, it's 3 floors of fairly open volume (certainly compared to a mk1 pod). I'll just assume the panels directly above and below the IVA floor (on the same side as the kerbals) are filled with LS stuff everyplace except the windows. Still, vastly larger than 2 mk1 pods that are equally habitable.

 

1 hour ago, mcortez said:

The cupola is not the only part currently with a hab multiplier, there are at least a few others -- Aeroponics (x1.25) and Kerbitat Habitation (x3).  

It's been lost to the flood of comments on the thread, but roverdude did post a recommended benchmark for Multipler and KerbleMonth modifiers back on page 53: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/105202-105-usi-life-support-020-20151229/&do=findComment&comment=2373073

Yeah, I saw that. My point was that I think that the multiplier in particular is oddly determined. My post right after yours shows the real issue. 2mk1 pods are exactly as habitable as the MPL. The usable volume of the mk1 pod is basically the blue seat you see kerbals on in the MPL IVA, and the MPL's volume is vastly larger. 

Wonder if it could get a hab multiplier?

I just added a MM patch making a hab multiplier equal to the cupola for the MPL. With 2 crew the hab value goes from 30 days to 82, which is still less than 2 mk1 pods attached to a cupola. Using the whole mass would be too much I think (assuming that a chunk of the upper and lower decks have the recycler stuff taking a lot of the room). Call the recycler nearly half of each of the 2 (unseen) other decks, then maybe use a hab multiplier of 2.5 (out of the mass of 3.5).

Edited January 28, 2016 by tater

[Fraz86]

@RoverDude I'm concerned regarding the current balance between parts that add a HabMultiplier (e.g., the cupola) vs those that add KerbalMonths (e.g., the Hitchhiker). Due to the nature of multiplication vs addition, there will always be a vessel hab rating threshold, above which the addition of a HabMultiplier part yields a greater increase in Habitation time for a given number of Kerbals, and below which, parts that add KerbalMonths are superior. That's fair enough.

The problem is that this threshold is currently very low. If a vessel has at least 5 capacity (a total hab rating of 150d for a single Kerbal), the addition of a cupola will yield a greater increase in hab time per unit mass (((5 original capacity + 1 seat added by cupola) * (1 default multiplier + 1.76 HabMultiplier) - 5 original capacity) / 1.76 cupola mass = 6.5682 KM added per ton) than a Hitchhiker (((5 original capacity + 4 seats added by Hitchhiker + 12 KM added by Hitchhiker) * (1 default multiplier) - 5 original capacity) / 2.5 Hitchhiker mass = 6.4 KM added per ton).

Basically, adding a cupola turns out to be the best choice for increasing hab rating, so long as you're starting with at least 5 crew capacity (e.g., a Mk1-2 pod and a lab). It seems to me that this threshold should be significantly higher.

Edited January 28, 2016 by Fraz86

[RoverDude]

I'm fine with the threshold as-is, especially given the MKS changes and it's expected effect on base size.  As always, we'll see how I feel about it after a few playthroughs.

[Fraz86]

46 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

I'm fine with the threshold as-is, especially given the MKS changes and it's expected effect on base size.  As always, we'll see how I feel about it after a few playthroughs.

Alright, fair enough. Any chance I could persuade you that the copula's other features (i.e., built-in battery, MP tank, reaction wheel, and command capabilities) collectively account for 0.26t of its mass, and therefore justify a decrease of HabMultiplier to 1.5?

[Kowgan]

18 hours ago, eberkain said:

I don't understand the habitation mechanic, in the VAB it says 30 days, put the craft into orbit, and it says 30 days no matter how long they stay in orbit...

 

18 hours ago, mitko said:

That is because the habitation mechanic is switched off by default. You have to enable it in the Settings.cgf file. The relevant line is ReplacementPartAmount.

@RoverDude So, could you hide the vessel habitation value when it's turned off, and show the homesick value instead? Beucase the way it is right now, we won't know the current homesick value until it's under 30 days, in this example.

Also, any luck on this?

[Badsector]

Little suggestion for LSModule.cfg

@PART[*]:HAS[!MODULE[ModuleLifeSupport],@MODULE[ModuleScienceLab]]:FOR[USILifeSupport]:Final
{
	MODULE
	{
		name = ModuleLifeSupport
	}
	
    RESOURCE
    {
        name = ReplacementParts
        amount = 100
        maxAmount = 100
        @amount *= #$/CrewCapacity$
        @maxAmount *= #$/CrewCapacity$
    }
	
	MODULE
	{
		name = ModuleLifeSupportRecycler
		CrewCapacity = 5
		RecyclePercent = .7
		ConverterName = Life Support
		tag = Life Support
		StartActionName = Start Life Support
		StopActionName = Stop Life Support

		INPUT_RESOURCE
		{
			ResourceName = ElectricCharge
			Ratio = 1
		}
		INPUT_RESOURCE
		{
			ResourceName = ReplacementParts
			Ratio = 0.00001
		}	
	}
}

@PART[*]:HAS[!MODULE[ModuleLifeSupport],!MODULE[ModuleScienceLab],#CrewCapacity[*],~CrewCapacity[0]]:FOR[USILifeSupport]
{
	MODULE
	{
		name = ModuleLifeSupport
	}
	
    RESOURCE
    {
        name = ReplacementParts
        amount = 100
        maxAmount = 100
        @amount *= #$/CrewCapacity$
        @maxAmount *= #$/CrewCapacity$
    }	
}

On this way you add replacement parts recycler to every science lab