[1.12.x] USI Life Support

[CaribouGone]

Hey!

i think i may have figured out a way to track supplies on EVA, like TAC does. EVAManager by toadicus can assign modules and resources to EVA'd kerbals. But, i'm trying to understand the syntax of both these mods.

so, ModuleLifeSupport is what actually keeps track of stuff, right?

and, in the settings cfg, SupplyTime is both the amount of yellow warning time and red "negative" time until the crew dies/strikes?

ECAmount is electricity per second, i assume?

Thanks!

EDIT: answered my questions. all are yes.

and it almost worked. supplies showed up on the resource panel and were consumed. but my kerbal had 2 entries on the LS tracker: one (EVA) and one (1 crew). at -15 days, a message popped up saying my kerbal starved to death, but she was still responsive. i assume she would have died upon entering a pod. EC stopped being consumed, but that may have been because of timewarp. (although, this was after the timer was "in the red", so it may be that having no Supplies to consume means nothing is consumed. idk.) and the ship that she came from continued to loose supplies (at least in the LS menu; i didn't check the craft), not sure what thats about. i will continue testing new ways to kill my poor kerbonauts...

EDIT2: derp, just noticed this was updated a week ago with eva-killing abilities. are there consequences for being a tourist on eva? are certain actions disallowed (uks-maintenance, gathering science)?

Edited January 8, 2016 by CaribouGone

[CorBlimey]

On 07/01/2016 at 2:27 PM, goldenpsp said:

My only concern is having mechanics that require me to manually move kerbals around within a craft (or base etc).  If you start having missions all over the place, the act of having to manually move kerbals around gets tedious.  I think it would be fair to say if you have a craft that has sufficient living quarters, your kerbals are able to move around "automatically" to keep their homesickness down.

aye, I am all for things that add interesting mechanics (without being a grind). But any life support mod that requires periodic focussing on the craft is a no-no. Life support should add 1) craft design challenges (mass, electric charge, volume etc), 2) launching and other dV challenges, 3) periodic supply and/or in-situ replensihment/recyling. Having to jump between a Kerbin system base, a Duna system base, a Jool system base and perhaps one or two orbital stations would be seriously tedious.

Edited January 8, 2016 by CorBlimey

[mcortez]

16 minutes ago, CorBlimey said:

3) periodic supply and/or in-situ replensihment/recyling. Having to jump between a Kerbin system base, a Duna system base, a Jool system base and perhaps one or two orbital stations would be seriously tedious.

Depending on how things are done, I wouldn't really see it any different then periodic resupply.  So if you build a base big enough, with recreational facilities and what'not -- I don't see any reason why that couldn't become their new "home" -- in which case they don't get homesick.  But if you don't go the extra mile to give them a place to watch movies and play ping-pong or mini-golf, then you'll need to deal with crew rotations just like you'd need to deal with resupply missions for a base that was not self-sufficient.

Now if there was no way to build a base big enough, with enough amenities to overcome homesickness or at least make it trivial (crew rotations every 3 or 4 years) -- then I'd definitely be looking for a way to turn off or adjust it.  

 

 

[goldenpsp]

29 minutes ago, mcortez said:

Depending on how things are done, I wouldn't really see it any different then periodic resupply.  So if you build a base big enough, with recreational facilities and what'not -- I don't see any reason why that couldn't become their new "home" -- in which case they don't get homesick.  But if you don't go the extra mile to give them a place to watch movies and play ping-pong or mini-golf, then you'll need to deal with crew rotations just like you'd need to deal with resupply missions for a base that was not self-sufficient.

Now if there was no way to build a base big enough, with enough amenities to overcome homesickness or at least make it trivial (crew rotations every 3 or 4 years) -- then I'd definitely be looking for a way to turn off or adjust it.  

 

 

That's not what we were talking about however.  I'm all for having to design a long term "base" with amenities to keep the kerbals happy.  The potential issue (from the post with the ideas) is that I don't want to have to manually move kerbals to these facililites.  It would be good enough IMO if the kerbals moving around to "watch a movie" was automatic.

[mcortez]

18 minutes ago, goldenpsp said:

That's not what we were talking about however.  I'm all for having to design a long term "base" with amenities to keep the kerbals happy.  The potential issue (from the post with the ideas) is that I don't want to have to manually move kerbals to these facililites.  It would be good enough IMO if the kerbals moving around to "watch a movie" was automatic.

Welp, that's what I get for responding on my phone without reading up the thread. 

You're quite right, I wouldn't want to have to manually move them around modules in a base on any kind of regular basis -- now if I had to assign them to a new duty station or to give them some R&R, once a year -- I don't think I'd mind too much.  But any more would get annoying really fast-- and if I didn't move them, I would expect the worst thing that would happen would be for them to become a tourist and move themselves to the nearest non-work location (be it a habitat or rec room) - and if no rec room was available, perhaps an acceptable outcome would be to become a tourist and double their supply rations as comfort food for a while, even better if they automatically went back to their duty station after their R&R after a while (a casino module on a beach might restore them to full duty roster after a week, but someone squatting in am air lock module stuffing their faces with extra supplies might take a month to go back.)

But then again, from my PoV I never really thought of them as being stuck in a single spot all the time anyway -- they're just assigned there while "working."  Otherwise efficiency modules and having extra living space that they're not assigned to wouldn't help -- they've got to be wandering around between modules when we're not looking

I wonder how hard it would be to make a module that actually had the kerbals wander around on their own every now and then, maybe even go EVA and take a walk around...

 

 

 

[CaribouGone]

@Kowgan there's definitely something going on with EVAEffects. i just tried 5 (k.i.a.) and rather than poofing upon death, my kerbal stopped being effected by gravity! she took two steps and started floating away!

[blu3wolf]

Its been done. I forget the name of the mod, and its almost certainly not 1.0.5 compatible, but it made the crew randomly move around which seat and pod they were in on large vessels. No automatic EVAs though.

[Kowgan]

@CaribouGone Now that's odd. I made my tests while in orbit, so I wouldn't know.

@blu3wolf Yeah, I remember this!

Now, a casino module? That's brilliant; I can already see the Poker minigames while IVA.
But yeah, I'm also all for periodic ressuply missions and all that. And focusing on the various bases/stations - as long as not too frequent - shouldn't bother me either.

Edited January 9, 2016 by Kowgan

[RoverDude]

hopping in despite still being under the weather.

Rest assured, the homesick mechanics are already laid out, and will not require moving folks around, etc. - I don't think that's an overly fun mechanic personally.

[Snarfster]

Get well bud.

When you're better, the last version of LS didn't solve my list issues  Once I have a vessel with a crew seat loaded once, it never leaves.

[blu3wolf]

Same here - no rush though. Not exactly a game breaking bug; I trust you will not find it presumptuous to say your health is obviously a higher priority than a minor bugfix.

[tater]

A question regarding inventory items (KIS/KAS). What happens when a LS container is held as inventory, vs being part of the craft?

[goldenpsp]

51 minutes ago, tater said:

A question regarding inventory items (KIS/KAS). What happens when a LS container is held as inventory, vs being part of the craft?

Same as anything else stored as KIS inventory.  IE a science experiment can't be used as it isn't part of the craft.  LS container is a container of food that can't be eaten.

[tater]

Gotcha. That's what I was thinking. I wanted to stick LS supplies on a lander in orbit, but honestly it's easier to do on the ground, so I figured I'd put in in inventory, then attach it once landed.

Edited January 13, 2016 by tater

[RoverDude]

So let's talk about the hab changes since they are coming in pretty soon (to varying definitions of soon - I have to get all of my other mods in sync first).

To start, the out of the box settings are not going to have the hab-effects enabled, though using MKS-Lite or UKS will turn these on, since this is one of those features that's really meant to add to the immersion for those mods (but at the same time, I recognize that many folks use USI-LS without MKS an don't want to kill their Kerbals off).

The configs will be sorted in such a way that they pick the most pessimistic values (that way I can have a gentle default USI-LS config, but crank things up with MKS-Lite and UKS without depending on the player to change settings one way or the other).

There are a few new concepts to work through, so I figured I'd cover those now then we can go from there.

The first is the idea of a hab module's usable time - this just represents how long a Kerbal will tolerate being cooped up in it.  A Mark 1 pod is only good for 20 Kerbal days (as a point of reference, Gemini 7 was in orbit for nearly 14 days and was some seriously cramped quarters).  So having more space - either in the form of less crew than crew capacity, or in purpose-built hab modules - can extend this.  Furthermore, some modules serve as 'extenders', making other hab modules more effective (the MKS Kerbitat is an example of this).

We also track a few things - how long you've been in your current vessel, when you were last on Kerbin, and the most comfortable hab you've been in.  We then compare two things - have you been in your current vessel for too long (i.e. have exceeded it's hab value compared to your time in vessel), and have you been away from Kerbin too long (by looking at your Kerbin time and your best historic hab time).  This lets us do scenarios like having crew in a nice multi-year base still have issues if they go gallivanting off in a rover for too long (and justifies the Karibou's emergency shelters).  It also lets you set up nice R&R stations that you can rotate larger crews through to bump up the time before they get homesick.  At the same time, it prevents players from 'resetting the clock' by just hopping in and out of a base.

Lastly, and more critically, is the idea that all of this stuff wears out.  A rigid shell will last longer than a flimsy temporary structure.  Rips and tears happen, and equipment wears out.  So over time, even though a base might be rated for several years, if you keep pushing new crew into it over decades, it's effectiveness is going to degrade over time.  Fortunately, there will be mechanics for using MaterialKits to 'patch up' your old bases and extend their life.  From a gameplay standpoint, this lets the player get away with lighter inflatables for temporary bases, while having the option of investing in heavier components and infrastructure for more permanent installations (which goes hand in hand with how MKS has always worked).

As always, feel free to post questions

P.S. - Not sure if the big recycler changes will make it in since those require more parts to be built and modeled - we'll see

 

[goldenpsp]

It all sounds interesting.  My concern/question would be USI-LS in conjunction with MKS and interplanetary transfer.  IMO it can be enough of a challenge to fly out to some of the far reaching planets, while keeping your rocket manageable.  This I guess would also factor in for anyone using USI-LS without MKS.  I would not want to have to add tons of parts to the rocket just to deal with happiness issues.

For example I wouldn't necessarily want to have to build an entire interplanetary OKS station just to keep the kerbals happy enough to make it to eeloo.  Or without MKS have to add a bunch of hitchhiker cans or something to give them space to be happy.

That being said, given your track record I am not concerned that you have some good ideas to balance this mechanic without becoming overly tedious.

[RoverDude]

I do.  But in the same breath, doesn't keeping three Kerbals stuffed in a Mk1-2 command pod for five years seem a bit off?

An interplanetary ship should look very different than a ship just meant to go to the mun and back.  

[goldenpsp]

7 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

I do.  But in the same breath, doesn't keeping three Kerbals stuffed in a Mk1-2 command pod for five years seem a bit off?

An interplanetary ship should look very different than a ship just meant to go to the mun and back.  

I don't disagree.  It is just a matter of balance.  Which I am confident you have a good handle on.  I would think that USI-LS + MKS would have a similar balance for happiness as it already has for converter efficiency (in terms of not overcrowding).

Edited January 14, 2016 by goldenpsp

[almagnus1]

Any thoughts into adding in an exercise mechanic?

If so, will you do it with giant hamster wheels for exercise equipment?

It would be most hilarious to see random kerbals using the wheel =D

[RoverDude]

On the longer term list, but one bit at a time.

Side note - screenie of the new UI

[almagnus1]

Touching on the hab stuff, I should (in theory) be able to keep a station in KEO up indefinitely with the appropriate supply runs, as having to rebuild a station/replace hab modules is not fun gameplay because it introduces tedium that should largely be solved by supply shipments.

Within the scope of stock + USI LS, that's going to make maintaining bases all the harder, as there needs to be a simplistic way to go from ore => hab stuff.  Granted the conversion rate should be abysmal compared to what UKS/MKS Lite can do, but it's a necessary concession so that stock + USI LS can function without needing another mod beyond what's necessary for USI-LS's dependencies.

[RoverDude]

8 minutes ago, almagnus1 said:

Touching on the hab stuff, I should (in theory) be able to keep a station in KEO up indefinitely with the appropriate supply runs, as having to rebuild a station/replace hab modules is not fun gameplay because it introduces tedium that should largely be solved by supply shipments.

Within the scope of stock + USI LS, that's going to make maintaining bases all the harder, as there needs to be a simplistic way to go from ore => hab stuff.  Granted the conversion rate should be abysmal compared to what UKS/MKS Lite can do, but it's a necessary concession so that stock + USI LS can function without needing another mod beyond what's necessary for USI-LS's dependencies.

You will absolutely be able to keep your base in LKO indefinitely... if you send up supplies, periodically update/repair your station, and properly rotate your crews.  Hence the mechanics to patch things up and keep the old bases running, and the crew's hab timer being tied to their last time on Kerbin.  But a neglected station will eventually be such a nasty death trap that your Kerbals will not be interested in spending time in it

There will be no Ore-Hab Stuff as that just makes no sense.  Though this is a moot point with stock only as the hab features are off by default and only kick in once you add in a mod that flips the switch (or if you change it yourself - in which case it's just a matter of sending out material kits and patching up the old bases).

(unrelated, but just noting out of interest - the current defaults will have your Kerbals getting tired of their digs before they wear out - but repairing habs will become necessary if you implement crew rotations).

 

 

Edited January 14, 2016 by RoverDude

[Fraz86]

4 hours ago, RoverDude said:

We also track a few things - how long you've been in your current vessel, when you were last on Kerbin, and the most comfortable hab you've been in.  We then compare two things - have you been in your current vessel for too long (i.e. have exceeded it's hab value compared to your time in vessel), and have you been away from Kerbin too long (by looking at your Kerbin time and your best historic hab time).  This lets us do scenarios like having crew in a nice multi-year base still have issues if they go gallivanting off in a rover for too long (and justifies the Karibou's emergency shelters).  It also lets you set up nice R&R stations that you can rotate larger crews through to bump up the time before they get homesick.  At the same time, it prevents players from 'resetting the clock' by just hopping in and out of a base.

1. Does going EVA reset the current-vessel time? For example, is it possible to set out from a multi-year base in a rover, but rather than bringing emergency shelters, just go EVA each time the current-vessel time approaches the rover's hab value?
2. Regarding the historic-most-comfortable-hab rating, could the player build a super-comfortable hab structure adjacent to the launch pad, and simply transfer their Kerbals to the structure for a few seconds before embarking on missions? What are the implications of this rating?

[mcortez]

If there are sufficient supplies (Material Kits and what'not on hand) will the Kerbals automatically do hab maintenance/repair or will we need to switch to the bases and manually perform maintenance?

Any ideas just how long one could extend a Kerbals off-world stay before they will demand to return to Kerbin regardless of the size of the base?  Or would it in theory be possible to construct a base, or generation ship that would keep a Kerbal happy indefinitely?  Just trying to get a rough idea of target size to max length of stay -- for example if one had one each of all the OKS modules, with sufficient Supplies and Material Kits -- would a team of 5 kerbals be happy for 4 years, 1 year, or ??

[almagnus1]

So, hypothetically speaking, what if you throw full USI catalog and the EPLP binaries into the equation, and I've built a fully sustained base on Lathe, crewed with Kerbals complete with with the minimum needed to generate the manufacture the rest of the base in-situ, so the base is completely self sustaining.

Would it really make sense to force the players to return those kerbals back to Kerbin at some point in the future?

Wouldn't it make more sense to have something deep in the tech tree that allows the kerbals to stay afield indefinitely?

If I have a goal of completely colonizing the entire Kerbol station (as long as THAT would take), the habitation mechanic seems like something that's going to force a ton of necessary crew rotations in that scenario, as I would expect some way to reverse the ill effects of being afield once I'm far enough down the tech tree.