[1.0.5] TAC Life Support v0.11.2.1 [12Dec]

[Tuck Davis]

The "hacked" TAC version seems to function pretty well for me, resources are used so far, the only issue I got is about the Life Support Ship Overview, it counts down the ressources correctly, but it does not account for energy produced - ending up telling me massive amounts of negative energy values as soon as the battery level is depleted. By switching to the vessels the amount of energy is getting updated again counting into the negative.

 

On 28.4.2016 at 7:10 PM, Calvin_Maclure said:

I'll have to try to try it myself. Ive installed it as per the instructions, but I havent tried it yet, cause I have another issue. I cant launch any ships, for some reason. I get this weird bug once I load a ship onto the launch pad:

http://imgur.com/Z0usdh2
http://imgur.com/vW7ygH1

I have seriously no idea what is causing it. I can go to the tracking station and play with anything that's already in flight, but I cant launch anything. The really weird thing that I did notice when trying to debunk this is that the ship seems to get instawarped into a solar orbit into deep space or something weird like that. I was able to (somehow) recover one ship and I got science for having retrieved a ship from solar orbit, or something like that... 

Calvin did you use TAC  in a otherwise vanilla installment?

I had the exact same issue with my medicore modded 1.1 version and found out the issue was caused by either KIS or KAS. Could not track it down to one of them. but as I uninstalled both mods the crashes were gone.

Could be an incompatibility issue between the mods too.

-Tuck

Edited May 3, 2016 by Tuck Davis

[SpaceEnthusiast]

So I have this mod installed on 1.1 with the crack and it works flawlessly. I'm just wondering how to get food from vessel A to vessel B when both vessels are landed on Mars. Which mod would you recommend?

[Gordon Dry]

The hacked version works so far, but I got lags every few seconds and the log is spammed with
 

Spoiler

-INFO- Tac.TacGenericConverter[FFCDC372][6168.72]: OnSave: MODULE
{
 name = TacGenericConverter
 isEnabled = True
 converterEnabled = True
 stagingEnabled = True
 lastUpdateTime = 0
 EVENTS
 {
  ActivateConverter
  {
   active = False
   guiActive = True
   guiActiveEditor = True
   guiActiveUncommand = False
   guiIcon = Activate Converter
   guiName = Activate Water Purifier
   category = Activate Converter
   guiActiveUnfocused = False
   unfocusedRange = 2
   externalToEVAOnly = True
  }
  DeactivateConverter
  {
   active = True
   guiActive = True
   guiActiveEditor = True
   guiActiveUncommand = False
   guiIcon = Deactivate Converter
   guiName = Deactivate Water Purifier
   category = Deactivate Converter
   guiActiveUnfocused = False
   unfocusedRange = 2
   externalToEVAOnly = True
  }
  ToggleStaging
  {
   active = True
   guiActive = False
   guiActiveUncommand = False
   guiIcon = Disable Staging
   guiName = Disable Staging
   category = Disable Staging
   guiActiveUnfocused = False
   unfocusedRange = 2
   externalToEVAOnly = True
  }
 }
 ACTIONS
 {
  ToggleConverter
  {
   actionGroup = None
  }
 }
}

 
(Filename: C:/buildslave/unity/build/artifacts/generated/common/runtime/UnityEngineDebugBindings.gen.cpp Line: 64)

Modlist and log:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/umwi92pq2i21ppm/2016-05-04-1%20TAC%20issue.7z?dl=0

[OzfurAtlas]

could we please have this on spacedock. It's basically a new kerbal stuff

[Kadrush]

14 hours ago, SpaceEnthusiast said:

So I have this mod installed on 1.1 with the crack and it works flawlessly. I'm just wondering how to get food from vessel A to vessel B when both vessels are landed on Mars. Which mod would you recommend?

Kas and Kis

[SpaceEnthusiast]

47 minutes ago, Kadrush said:

Kas and Kis

Thanks for answering. Checking them out now.

[storm_soldier2377]

I've got some issues with the hacked version. There are no supplies in the command pods and it doesn't seem to work with KPBS.

[danfarnsy]

Okay, it's time for this mod to pick up a caretaker.

I volunteer as tribute. I'm going to have a steep learning curve, so it's not going to be updated quickly, but I hate to see this great mod die this slow death. There are even some good ways to improve it, starting by borrowing some background processing features from @ShotgunNinja's Kerbalism. Balance of resources, integrating other mods' ISRU channels, integrating well into Realism Overhaul, and maintaining a strict life support design focus are the biggest priorities. That isn't a criticism of any other life support mods, but simply a recognition of the intent and purpose of TAC-LS. Of course, making everything work is going to come first.

I have programming experience in C/C++, but not with C#. As a disabled veteran with limited work, I also have some time on my hands. If anybody feels they are better situated and wants to take this on, please post and let me know. Otherwise, I'm pressing forward.

[Amusei]

@danfarnsy The creator said he's giving away control of the mod 9 days ago. Send him a PM first.

 

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/profile/57742-taraniselsu/&status=2022&type=status

[danfarnsy]

49 minutes ago, Amusei said:

@danfarnsy The creator said he's giving away control of the mod 9 days ago. Send him a PM first.

 

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/profile/57742-taraniselsu/&status=2022&type=status

Yes, I know he said that. Welcome to the forums!

[TheSaint]

3 hours ago, danfarnsy said:

Okay, it's time for this mod to pick up a caretaker.

I volunteer as tribute. I'm going to have a steep learning curve, so it's not going to be updated quickly, but I hate to see this great mod die this slow death. There are even some good ways to improve it, starting by borrowing some background processing features from @ShotgunNinja's Kerbalism. Balance of resources, integrating other mods' ISRU channels, integrating well into Realism Overhaul, and maintaining a strict life support design focus are the biggest priorities. That isn't a criticism of any other life support mods, but simply a recognition of the intent and purpose of TAC-LS. Of course, making everything work is going to come first.

I have programming experience in C/C++, but not with C#. As a disabled veteran with limited work, I also have some time on my hands. If anybody feels they are better situated and wants to take this on, please post and let me know. Otherwise, I'm pressing forward.

I would be thrilled if someone took over this mod, and it sounds like you're a great fit. And thank you for your service! 

[Matt77]

4 hours ago, danfarnsy said:

Okay, it's time for this mod to pick up a caretaker.

I volunteer as tribute. I'm going to have a steep learning curve, so it's not going to be updated quickly, but I hate to see this great mod die this slow death. There are even some good ways to improve it, starting by borrowing some background processing features from @ShotgunNinja's Kerbalism. Balance of resources, integrating other mods' ISRU channels, integrating well into Realism Overhaul, and maintaining a strict life support design focus are the biggest priorities. That isn't a criticism of any other life support mods, but simply a recognition of the intent and purpose of TAC-LS. Of course, making everything work is going to come first.

I have programming experience in C/C++, but not with C#. As a disabled veteran with limited work, I also have some time on my hands. If anybody feels they are better situated and wants to take this on, please post and let me know. Otherwise, I'm pressing forward.

Sounds like a good plan, this is a mod I'd rather not play without but if an update takes a while it's not a huge issue.

Could I table a motion to remove the Hex cans from this mod?  I always forget to delete that folder after installing TACLS.  Maybe add them to the Hexcans mod instead (radical, I know!!)

[TheCaconym]

8 minutes ago, Matt77 said:

Sounds like a good plan, this is a mod I'd rather not play without but if an update takes a while it's not a huge issue.

Same here - tried USI LS and it's just not the same, even if you enable kerbals death. I *like* having separate oxygen, food, etc. canisters, and stuff like a sabatier reactor, etc. and I was kind of despairing having to play without TAC.

Note, however, that using the hacked version described above in this topic works pretty much perfectly in 1.1.2; I suspect the people having issues with it did not install it correctly. You have to install the latest, pre-1.1 version of TAC LS, and then overwrite the DLLs with the ones provided in the "hacked" (recompiled) version. Actually only overwrite one DLL, and add another one (both are in the 'hacked' zip). All the TAC LS parts are there, and life support works as it should (up to and including killing kerbals after the configured grace period). I've been playing for 20+ hours with it.

Also, personally I'd prefer for the hex canisters to stay in the mod; they make great parts for very small landers (and removing them would break backward compatibility when updating the mod I guess).

[TheSaint]

11 minutes ago, Matt77 said:

Sounds like a good plan, this is a mod I'd rather not play without but if an update takes a while it's not a huge issue.

Could I table a motion to remove the Hex cans from this mod?  I always forget to delete that folder after installing TACLS.  Maybe add them to the Hexcans mod instead (radical, I know!!)

I don't think that's a bad Idea, I think the Hexcans are kind of a weird form factor. But if they do get removed they need to get replaced with some other form of radially-attached life support containers. 

[Zyx Abacab]

55 minutes ago, TheCaconym said:

Also, personally I'd prefer for the hex canisters to stay in the mod; they make great parts for very small landers (and removing them would break backward compatibility when updating the mod I guess).

Yes, yes!  A thousand times, yes!  TAC absolutely needs a radially-attached container in addition to the stackable containers.  Like TheSaint pointed out, radially-attached containers could take on another form—perhaps more closely resembling the monoprop cylinders?—but I fail to see what benefit such a change would bring.

What would be really nice is if all the TAC parts could be placed into a "Life Support" category, a-la Kerbal Planetary Base Systems, so that all the thousand little variations of parts don't clutter up the "Utility" category.

2 hours ago, Amusei said:

@danfarnsy The creator said he's giving away control of the mod 9 days ago. Send him a PM first.

I messaged the creator about this on April 22^nd—almost two weeks ago—and he still hasn't read the message.  His last recorded login was on the 25^th.

He did say he would be busy, though, for two weeks starting on the 20^th.  Hopefully, we all will hear from him in a few days.

5 hours ago, danfarnsy said:

Okay, it's time for this mod to pick up a caretaker.

...

I have programming experience in C/C++, but not with C#. As a disabled veteran with limited work, I also have some time on my hands. If anybody feels they are better situated and wants to take this on, please post and let me know. Otherwise, I'm pressing forward.

I'm a programmer with a fair bit of C# experience, but none with Unity or KSP in particular.  I'd be happy to work together with you to get this mod working in 1.1—and to bring some of the older elements, like the GUI, up-to-date.  However, I'm not in a stable enough environment to maintain something like this in the long term.

The source code for TAC seems pretty straightforward, but it has basically no documentation—and maybe a dozen or so meaningful source comments in the whole project.  It's also hard to find information about plugin development in recent versions of KSP, beyond very basic guides for outdated versions of IDEs.  With that in mind, I think the biggest hurdle to get over is finding detailed information.

Thank you for stepping up and offering to maintain this mod, by the way.

Edited May 4, 2016 by Zyx Abacab
Clarified point about documentation.

[WeirdCulture]

I tried the hacked one and it seems to work very well

 

[cyberpunkdreams]

Just now, WeirdCulture said:

I tried the hacked one and it seems to work very well

 

Likewise, working perfectly for me.

[danfarnsy]

Yeah. The current patch provided by @WaylandSmith is great. I'm trying to look at the future of the mod, because a lot of external support is likely to disappear if other mod makers see there's nobody at the helm. It's already happening. I'd like to reverse that trend. As important as it is to know a mod works now, it's just as important to anticipate that the mod will continue to work later.

Here's my design intent: 1st priority is the stuff underneath the hood which has made TAC-LS awesome and which can stand a few updates for background processing. I'd like to do that as seamlessly as possible so it doesn't disrupt anybody's games. I start new career saves all the time, and having mods break them so I have to start over doesn't bother me much, but I know it's a big deal for a lot of players. 2nd priority is maintaining effective distribution and support, including CKAN. Unless Realism Overhaul has kicked TAC-LS to the curb, CKAN will be essential for the future of this mod. 3rd priority is streamlining parts and reducing clutter. This is already done in part with Modular Fuel Tanks, a few TAC-LS specific patches/mods, Tweakscale, Procedural Parts, etc. I want to keep support for these other mods up to date. I also would like to add a dependency in terms of a switching mod (B9 partswitch, Interstellar Fuel Switch, or Firespitter), so the organic part count for TAC-LS can be reduced. I do not intend to get rid of the Hexcans. I do intend to make it as easy as possible to get rid of them and as harmless as possible for your part count if you keep them.

Licensing will remain the same. Once I get something up and running, I will create a new release thread with hosting on Spacedock and Github. I'm still on the fence whether to update the name ("TAC-LS continued, expanded, community edition, reborn, etc."), but I'm leaning toward "no."

@Zyx Abacab, thank you for offering to help. I'll likely take you up on that, as well as hit up a few other mod authors for tips.

Edited May 4, 2016 by danfarnsy

[space jake]

@danfarnsy, thank you for your willingness to take up the torch.  I'll (patiently) look forward to your updates.

If I may make one low-priority request: it would be great to have this mod integrated with the stock toolbar.

[danfarnsy]

29 minutes ago, space jake said:

@danfarnsy, thank you for your willingness to take up the torch.  I'll (patiently) look forward to your updates.

If I may make one low-priority request: it would be great to have this mod integrated with the stock toolbar.

I like this suggestion.

[NathanKell]

@TaranisElsu had asked us to wait some before a formal handover, but he did reach out to us in the RO community about continuing TACLS (because we rely so heavily upon it). And we said sure! We'd be happy to, although sad to see him go. But I'm super happy to see people enthused about continuing this, and would love to talk with you all about it.

This is, of course, not to say anything about preventing people who want to fork from forking. Open licenses are things. But if we're all interesting in working on this together (as I hope we are) I think some planning is in order.

[danfarnsy]

7 minutes ago, NathanKell said:

@TaranisElsu had asked us to wait some before a formal handover, but he did reach out to us in the RO community about continuing TACLS (because we rely so heavily upon it). And we said sure! We'd be happy to, although sad to see him go. But I'm super happy to see people enthused about continuing this, and would love to talk with you all about it.

This is, of course, not to say anything about preventing people who want to fork from forking. Open licenses are things. But if we're all interesting in working on this together (as I hope we are) I think some planning is in order.

I am glad to see Taranis had some continuity in place and that your experienced team is willing to take this on. I also understand your interest and reliance on TAC-LS. Interoperability with RO, as I said above, is a key part of this mod. So, out of respect for @TaranisElsu's intent as well as respect for the great work you do, if you have somebody else from your team who you think will be a better point man, I'll step aside. I know you're not telling me to step aside, and the license is permissive, but this is pure respect and deference on my part. I would also love to take on this project and work/plan with you so TAC-LS continues to be a great mod meeting the needs of RO while being able to stand independently as a solid life support mod for the wider community.

[Zyx Abacab]

25 minutes ago, NathanKell said:

This is, of course, not to say anything about preventing people who want to fork from forking. Open licenses are things. But if we're all interesting in working on this together (as I hope we are) I think some planning is in order.

I agree.  Forks of TAC-LS appearing now would not be a good thing—if those forks appeared only because the original developer stepped down.

As long as the license remains open, and pull requests are honoured, we can keep this going!

[NathanKell]

@danfarnsy Sorry! Not what I meant at all! I mean let's work together on this.

How about this: it goes on the KSP-RO group repo, and people (including those in this thread, to be clear!) interested on working on it (and who have the time) can do so. I was planning to get a few issues sorted, and I do have some long term ideas about background processing (I very nearly added some hooks in 1.1 but didn't have time ), but indeed I am, err, quite busy myself. I know @Thomas P. had expressed some interested as well on working on things, but he's quite busy too with Kopernicus and Spacedock. If you'd like to take point on this that would be awesome!

[danfarnsy]

Just now, NathanKell said:

@danfarnsy Sorry! Not what I meant at all! I mean let's work together on this.

How about this: it goes on the KSP-RO group repo, and people (including those in this thread, to be clear!) interested on working on it (and who have the time) can do so.

Sounds great! It will make the learning curve easier to have you guys to ask questions, and it will spread the load around so no individual has to get bogged down (or be a single point of failure that sinks the mod). I like it.