[1.12.x] USI Life Support

[RoverDude]

1 hour ago, Arigitine said:

I ran in to mod conflict between

Pathfinder

USI Life support

Surface Experiment Pack

If run the 3 mod it causes the pathfinder stop working cant inflate buildings i figure i just let you know 

Probably better for the Pathfinder thread if your issue is with buildings inflating.

[Thygrrr]

Am I doing something wrong...? My badass/orange Kerbals aren't immune to the tourist downgrade effect and will go on strike.

I had this issue since KSP 1.1, so I wondered whether it was another mod causing it.

Edited November 4, 2017 by Thygrrr

[Aelfhe1m]

1 hour ago, Thygrrr said:

Am I doing something wrong...? My badass/orange Kerbals aren't immune to the tourist downgrade effect and will go on strike.

I had this issue since KSP 1.1, so I wondered whether it was another mod causing it.

It's been quite a few versions since the vets were immune by default. If you want that behaviour it is a configuration option that's available by clicking the USI-LS green cube icon on the main space centre scene to open the Life Support Setup dialog.

[Thygrrr]

I feel dumb now. Thanks!

I actually like it this way.

[notthebobo]

I'm updating the Wiki Example page and am having trouble with the Habitation section.

The Hitchhiker Storage Container affects the Habitation by "25 kerbal months", which is really 21 plus the four coming from the four seats.

The KSP Wiki shows a month is 38.6 hours long, or 6.433 days.  If so, then the example would show that the trip is

1,150 days * 3 Kerbals = 3,450 kerbal days

which in kerbal months is

3,450 days / 6.433 days per month = 536.27 kerbal months

Since each Hitchhiker adds 25 kerbal months, before getting into multipliers, you'd need almost 22 Hitchhikers.

536.27 kerbal months / 25 kerbal months per hitchhiker = 21.45 Hitchhikers

Is that correct?  The kerbal months converted to hours don't seem right.

[danfarnsy]

57 minutes ago, notthebobo said:

The KSP Wiki shows a month is 38.6 hours long, or 6.433 days. 

 

 

I'm confident that's not the same definition of a Kerbal month used here. If a standard month is 30 days, 30 kerbal days are a kerbal month, or 7.5 earth days, or 180 hours. It's not tied to the orbital period of the Mun.

[Brigadier]

KSP 1.3.1, USI LS 0.7.0.0

FYI, I'm getting the following error in my log file, line 21684.

Quote

Texture load error in 'D:\Programs\Games\Steam\steamapps\common\KSP v1.3.1\GameData\UmbraSpaceIndustries\LifeSupport\Supplies.dds'

I have no idea if it's significant.  I was parsing the log for another reason and noticed it.

[notthebobo]

I updated the example on the Wiki if someone would like to check the math, especially in the Habitation section.

[MagicCuboid]

I love USI-LS, but I'm having a bit of trouble with my Minmus lander and I'm not sure if it's due to mod conflict or because I'm running 1.3.1.

So, I have a ship that gives about 132 days Hab/Home time for a crew of two  who are both level 1 (it has an Itinerant Storage Container from NearFuture and the Mk2 Lander Can). I get into Minmus' orbit just fine, though for some reason my scientist has 10 days less of Hab time left than my Engineer does.

When I undock the Mk2 my Scientist's Hab time plummets to red/failure as soon as the pod gets out of logistics, while the Engineer (properly) drops to 7. It says my Scientist is homesick and refuses to work, but his Home level is still buffed from the Itinerant Storage Container. Am I missing something?

EDIT I found a workaround: I placed the scientist in the Itinerant Storage Container before undocking the Mk2 lander, then EVA'd him back into the lander, moved out of range, and he is now happy as a clam.

Edited November 11, 2017 by MagicCuboid

[flart]

@RoverDude  Malemute_RoverCrewCab and Malemute_RoverCab don't have ModuleHabitation, but same passenger cabin and truck cabin at FelineUtilityRover has it. If it's about "love staring out the window", then Malemute more habitated then Feline.

Found this patch in FelineUtilityRover, changed for Malemute, but what is ModuleLifeSupport, ReplacementParts, and USI_ModuleFieldRepair, do I need them?

Spoiler

@PART[Malemute_RoverCrewCab]:NEEDS[USILifeSupport]
{
	MODULE
	{
		name = ModuleLifeSupport
	}
	
	RESOURCE
	{
		name = ReplacementParts
		amount = 2500
		maxAmount = 2500
	}

	MODULE 
	{
		name = ModuleHabitation
		BaseKerbalMonths = 20
		CrewCapacity = 4
		BaseHabMultiplier = 0
		ConverterName = #LOC_FUR.USILS.habitat
		StartActionName = #LOC_FUR.USILS.habitat.start
		StopActionName = #LOC_FUR.USILS.habitat.stop		
		INPUT_RESOURCE
		{
			ResourceName = ElectricCharge
			Ratio = 0.45
		}
	}	
	
	MODULE
	{
		name = USI_ModuleFieldRepair
	}
}

@PART[Malemute_RoverCab]:NEEDS[USILifeSupport]
{

	MODULE
	{
		name = ModuleLifeSupport
	}
	
	RESOURCE
	{
		name = ReplacementParts
		amount = 100
		maxAmount = 100
	}

	
	MODULE 
	{
		name = ModuleHabitation
		BaseKerbalMonths = 0
		CrewCapacity = 2
		BaseHabMultiplier = 1.0
		ConverterName = #LOC_FUR.USILS.habitat
		StartActionName = #LOC_FUR.USILS.habitat.start
		StopActionName = #LOC_FUR.USILS.habitat.stop	
		INPUT_RESOURCE
		{
			ResourceName = ElectricCharge
			Ratio = 0.075
		}
	}
	

	MODULE
	{
		name = USI_ModuleFieldRepair
	}

}

 

=======

bug report:

Look at the second habitation details string (max crue calculation). The multiplier, and therefore result max crue habitation depend from how many kerbal  putted in the rover (crue column).  Also, I miss a enabled/disabled habitation function at the life support status window at VAB.
screenshots:  https://www.dropbox.com/sh/cozgjyg9l6jltp9/AACQq1HvI8jBi0ZTnIwa_oVza?dl=0

=======

Spoiler

@notthebobo    wiki:

Quote

A kerbal can sit in her crash couch for 30 days before getting grumpy.

Formula for the enabled habitation is (basetime * max_crew + extratime) * multiplier / crew * month

base_time is equal 0.25 (screenshots above), so 1 month * basetime = 30*0.25 = 7,5 days

========

What is the idea behind extratime vs multiplier?
When you create a new part how you choose? It's both just increase a habitation time at a comfortable window-ish module.
I don't understand that, so my proposal is below.

Spoiler

• 3rd habitation mode:

1. off                           — no consume                      — formula:   basetime *  max_crew  / crew * 1 month
2. "window staring"   — EC  consume                      — formula:   (basetime * max_crew)/ crew * multiplier * 1 month
   pretty modules where large pretty windows, so every kerbal can increase their wellbeing (#2) or without EC they cannot do that (#1). Multiplier don't have "crew affected", it's affect all kerbals.
3. "canteen-ish"         — EC and food consume    — formula:   (basetime * max_crew  + extratime)/ crew * 1 month
   dormitory-like modules. Kerbals (limited count) can just sleep (#1) or eat, sleep, and have fun (#3), that  increase their wellbeing there. ExtraTime still has "crew affected".

• Habitation mode switcher at the life support status window at VAB.

UPD. And... in #3 it still possible change extratime to multiplier, so I don't understand why it's need to be there.

I don't sure what "month" need to be separate column, it makes things more complicated. Rename basetime → basemonths and extratime → extramonths, or multiply basetime and extratime by 30 to get basedays and extradays, month is debatable time period.

Edited November 15, 2017 by flart

[BRAAAP_STUTUTU]

On 11/4/2017 at 2:53 AM, Aelfhe1m said:

It's been quite a few versions since the vets were immune by default. If you want that behaviour it is a configuration option that's available by clicking the USI-LS green cube icon on the main space centre scene to open the Life Support Setup dialog.

I'm not the guy you originally replied to but chaning it to none doesn't seem to affect anything, they still become tourists (yes i have their names in the list) do i need to run KSP in admin mode maybe?

[tsaven]

8 minutes ago, RobinVerhulstZ said:

I'm not the guy you originally replied to but chaning it to none doesn't seem to affect anything, they still become tourists (yes i have their names in the list) do i need to run KSP in admin mode maybe?

"Admin mode"?

Post a screenshot of your USI-LS config window if you won't mind.

[BRAAAP_STUTUTU]

Just now, tsaven said:

"Admin mode"?

Post a screenshot of your USI-LS config window if you won't mind.

Hmm, after looking up the issues list on github, it seems USI-LS doesn't like how Galileo's Planet Pack changes the Kerbal last name (Kerman) to Gaelan... is there a way to fix this?

[tsaven]

8 minutes ago, RobinVerhulstZ said:

Hmm, after looking up the issues list on github, it seems USI-LS doesn't like how Galileo's Planet Pack changes the Kerbal last name (Kerman) to Gaelan... is there a way to fix this?

Probably best to dig through GPP's configs and remove the part that changes the name.

[JadeOfMaar]

22 hours ago, RobinVerhulstZ said:

Hmm, after looking up the issues list on github, it seems USI-LS doesn't like how Galileo's Planet Pack changes the Kerbal last name (Kerman) to Gaelan... is there a way to fix this?

That feature is currently unstable but should be stable in the next GPP update. For the time being, just delete GPP\GPP_Renamer\ to restore "Kerman" and cure its problem(s).

[tsaven]

Wanted some extra sets of eyes on a config for another mod, if anyone else who's very familiar wants to chime in.

I'm doing a brief balance pass on KPBS parts using RoverDude's spreadsheet.  I've taken some notes here with planned changes, does anyone have any input before I submit a PR to the KPBS developer?

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vQYEpfq3YMRCbIYQUJdH_hyT2GsjzMR_nPrIBD7Seb0/edit?usp=sharing

[Tyko]

Is it possible to give a crewed part a negative habitability modifier - essentially make it cramped?

the use case is Soyuz capsules. The descent module can hold 3 crew, but it’s a lot more cramped than a Mk1-2 capsule. Adding the round crew compartment to the Soyuz capsule gives the crew more elbow room.

[LameLefty]

I've been slowly working my way through this (loooooooong!) thread with an eye towards adding a life support and/or colonization aspect to my game. Along these lines I've started a sandbox save and have been launching various configurations to try to figure out how everything all works. And yes, I've read through the Wiki on GitHub.

Now, first questions: #1) can someone explain to me why the Habitation values vary so much between the VAB and on-orbit? And #2) Can anyone explain why I cannot deploy the habitat ring once in space? I can do it in the VAB, but once in orbit the option disappears from the context menu.

I've read and/or skimmed up through about page 175 of this thread but it's a lot to try to take in, especially as both LSI and MKS/OKS have evolved over time. 

Edited November 22, 2017 by LameLefty
Fixed typos

[goldenpsp]

4 minutes ago, LameLefty said:

I've been slowly working my way through this (loooooooong!) thread with an eye towards adding a life support and/or colonization aspect to my game. Along these lines I've started a sandbox save and have been launching various configurations to try to figure out how everything all works. And yes, I've read through the Wiki on GitHub.

Now, first questions: #1) can someone explain to me why the Habitation values vary so much between the VAB and on-orbit? And #2) Can anyone explain why I cannot deploy the habitat ring once in space? I can do it in the VAB, but once in orbit the option disappears from the context menu.

 

 

I've read and/or skimmed up through about page 175 of this thread but it's a lot to try to take in, especially as both LSI and MKS/OKS have evolved over time. 

Not sure the details of #1 but some parts require that you turn habitation on in order for it to work properly.  This could account for the discrepancy.

2. The habitat ring needs to be deployed via a kerbal on EVA (engineer?) and will require materialkits as well.

 

By the way the wiki is very helpful.  For example here is the entry for the habitation ring.

https://github.com/UmbraSpaceIndustries/MKS/wiki/Parts-(Tundra-Series)#mks-tundra-habitation-ring

 

Edited November 22, 2017 by goldenpsp

[LameLefty]

1 minute ago, goldenpsp said:

Not sure the details of #1 but some parts require that you turn habitation on in order for it to work properly.  This could account for the discrepancy.

2. The habitat ring needs to be deployed via a kerbal on EVA (engineer?) and will require materialkits as well.

Ah, thank you for #2! As for #1, I tried to show in the screenshot that all the parts that CAN have activated habitation have been activated (basically, the two observation cupolas plus the habitation ring). 

[goldenpsp]

3 minutes ago, LameLefty said:

Ah, thank you for #2! As for #1, I tried to show in the screenshot that all the parts that CAN have activated habitation have been activated (basically, the two observation cupolas plus the habitation ring). 

yea sorry my old eyes couldn't read the screenshots very well and even when I clicked on them photobucket just spammed ads on top so I gave up. That being said it could simply be because you won't get the habitation until the ring is expanded.

Edited November 22, 2017 by goldenpsp

[LameLefty]

5 minutes ago, goldenpsp said:

yea sorry my old eyes couldn't read the screenshots very well and even when I clicked on them photobucket just spammed ads on top so I gave up. That being said it could simply be because you won't get the habitation until the ring is expanded.

Sorry 'bout that. Photobucket has really gone down hill lately. I need to move over to Imgur or something but the KSP Forums are the only forums I frequent that don't allow direct image uploads. Oh well. Anyway, thanks for the help. Lemme see about expanding the habitat ring and see how it goes. 

[goldenpsp]

1 minute ago, LameLefty said:

Sorry 'bout that. Photobucket has really gone down hill lately. I need to move over to Imgur or something but the KSP Forums are the only forums I frequent that don't allow direct image uploads. Oh well. Anyway, thanks for the help. Lemme see about expanding the habitat ring and see how it goes. 

Yea I've used Imgur for years for forum pics, works better (at least until they try to monetize like photobucket).

[RoverDude]

9 hours ago, Tyko said:

Is it possible to give a crewed part a negative habitability modifier - essentially make it cramped?

the use case is Soyuz capsules. The descent module can hold 3 crew, but it’s a lot more cramped than a Mk1-2 capsule. Adding the round crew compartment to the Soyuz capsule gives the crew more elbow room.

Technically it should work with a negative value, but I have never tried.

[DStaal]

7 hours ago, RoverDude said:

Technically it should work with a negative value, but I have never tried.

I actually did test this once upon a time - it appeared to work, though I didn't do too much testing.