Starwaster

[1.2.2] Ioncross Crew Support v1.26.0 (Starwaster's branch) - Jul 7, 2016

Recommended Posts

It's probably just grabbing the CO2 being generated by the Kerbals before the scrubber gets it. They're both generators basically. One only consumes CO2 (anti generator) and the other exchanges it for O2.

Even if you never see the CO2, it exists long enough for a generator to grab it.

Ok. Yeah. It's not that O2 is created without CO2. But I'm getting full O2 production with minimal CO2. My single kerbal is producing CO2 at 0.00486/sec (17.5/hour, just like it should with all scrubbers turned off) but this small recycler is producing O2 at 1.2/sec even if there is only 0.01 CO2 available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok. Yeah. It's not that O2 is created without CO2. But I'm getting full O2 production with minimal CO2. My single kerbal is producing CO2 at 0.00486/sec (17.5/hour, just like it should with all scrubbers turned off) but this small recycler is producing O2 at 1.2/sec even if there is only 0.01 CO2 available.

Ok, I get it. I've been playing with that part for a few hours now and it's producing O2 even with all Kerbals evacuated from the ship. Can't see what's changed in the generator class that would account for it and I don't think I changed the config either....

Edit: I basically have a docking port attached to that part so I can dock and undock from it. I hacked the save file to remove ALL O2 from the pod and from the recycler and I undocked. And it's producing O2 with no CO2 and no electricity either. Wow. :(

(I can attest to the fact that it has no CO2 because the recyclers are going to lose their CO2 storage capacity in the next update. They'll be like their O2 storage counterparts but with less O2. Basically the total storage they had before is all O2 now)

Edited by Starwaster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, I get it. I've been playing with that part for a few hours now and it's producing O2 even with all Kerbals evacuated from the ship. Can't see what's changed in the generator class that would account for it and I don't think I changed the config either....

I'm just using stock 1.18.0 with no changes to configs. Wanted to use all the new stuff before I started messing with anything (though I'm really happy with the reset changes... recylcer bug excepted). :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few general observations.

Description for the LS-19A & LS-32C both say, "Your average Kerbal consumes 1.0 Oxygen per hour" when they really consume 17.5/hour.

Description for the LS-O2C says it has enough air for about 600 days when it has more then 700 days worth (716.19 earth days).

Description for the LS-O2AA says it has enough air for about 25 days when its closer to 114. Also, the tank seems a bit light. It's got about 50% more O2 then the LS-O2B but weighs 14% less.

Description for the LS-O2A says it has enough air for about 6.25 days when it's closer to 30.5 days. Also, this tank seems a bit light.

Assuming my math is right, the LS-19A appears to be able to support something like 245+ kerbals. If I read this right it takes up to 2.4 CO2/sec and converts it into 1.2 O2/sec. 2.4/sec = 8640 CO2/hour divided by 17.5 means it can take the CO2 generated by 493.71 Kerbals/hour and converts that into enough O2 for 246.86 Kerbals/hour. That seems excessive. I like the 50% conversion rate for this small recycler, but I think it should support far fewer kerbals.

Same issue with the LS-32C. It appears that it can take the CO2 generated by 1440 Kerbals /hour (7/sec * 60 * 60 / 17.5) and creates enough O2 for 864 Kerbals /hour (4.2/sec * 60 * 60 / 17.5). Seems a bit high. Also, this larger recycler only has a 60% effeciency which doesn't seem like much of a bonus for it's large size. Although maybe being able to support nearly 3.5 times as many Kerbals is supposed to be it's advantage. Of course, I can't image the lag I'd generate building a ship/station that could support 246 kerbals, let alone 864. :) I'd like to suggest adjusting the values so the LS-19A used up to 1.75 CO2/min and created up to 0.875 O2/min. That would support up to 6 Kerbals worth of CO2 at 50% effeciency. And set the LS-32C at 3.5 CO2/min and 2.625 O2/min. That would let it support up to 12 Kerbals worth of CO2 at 75% effeciency. In both cases, I'd leave the EC/s value as is (or even increase it, but definitely don't lower it). The only issue I see is if you try to have more kerbals then the module can support, you'll have to be careful which CO2 scrubbers you turn off. I don't suppose you can have the recycler convert up to it's rating per hour and then scrub the rest? For instance, if you had 7 Kerbals (that's 122.5 CO2/hour) on a ship fitted with an LS-19A, it would convert 105 CO2/hour into 52.5 O2/hour and scrub out the remaining 17.5 CO2/hour that the kerbals are generating.

I don't suppose there is a way to give a warning when CO2 levels get high? I lost a crew because the scrubber on my command module was accidentally turned off during a trip to Mun. If not, no worries. I'll just have to be more careful with my scrubbers. :)

That's what I've noticed so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I think I figured out what happened to the recycler. It's linked to a fix for another generator bug I fixed. So undoing the fix.... have to see how bad the damage is.

Yeah, I know that some descriptions need updating.

Also, please note that in the case of stack mounted tanks versus radially mounted tanks that the stack mounted tanks are going to have more mass. They are load bearing structures. The radially mounted tanks don't bear load.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New dll, drop-in replacement. Should fix the recycler issue and other potential consumption issues. If anyone wants to try it early before I push an official update, here it is.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/yjpwgznkh4al5f6/IoncrossCrewSupport.zip?dl=1

Also you should grab this file here. It goes in IoncrossCrewSupport/Config/

(fixes atmovent issue. I mispelled something)

https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Starwaster/Ioncross-Crew-Support/Dev/KerbalInstallFolder/GameData/IoncrossCrewSupport/Config/IoncrossBase.cfg

Edited by Starwaster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
New dll, drop-in replacement. Should fix the recycler issue and other potential consumption issues. If anyone wants to try it early before I push an official update, here it is.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/yjpwgznkh4al5f6/IoncrossCrewSupport.zip?dl=1

Also you should grab this file here. It goes in IoncrossCrewSupport/Config/

(fixes atmovent issue. I mispelled something)

https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Starwaster/Ioncross-Crew-Support/Dev/KerbalInstallFolder/GameData/IoncrossCrewSupport/Config/IoncrossBase.cfg

I've added the config and DLL to my .90 game. I'll start testing it out and let you know what I see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So far the dev dll and cfg seem to be working well.

How long should the O2 a Kerbal gets for EVA last? I don't normally go on long EVAs but I had to jet pack to a couple sites on Minmus this morning to complete a contract. Must have been going for 30-45 minutes and just before I reboarded the ship I noticed that Bill was down to under 30% O2 remaining.

Is Ioncross compatible with Universal Storage? I know the O2 and CO2 wedges that come with Universal Storage work, but I'm not sure whether the capacity of each has ever been reworked. I assume not since I don't see a cfg specifically for US but I wanted to double check before I started messing with the current capacities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't remember exactly what I set EVA O2 to. Pretty sure I set it to something more reflective of a KSP EVA instead of real world values which can easily be 8 hours long. (Hope they changed their Depends!)

Universal Storage was updated to support IonCross wasn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok on the EVA. 1 hour isn't horrible. Just have to keep it in mind. :)

As for US, like I said, it works. But I'm not sure about the resource capacity. The Oxygen wedge holds 21672 units of O2. I can fit 4 on a 1.25m core for a total of 86688 units. Compared to the equally sized LS-O2B which holds 32000 units. The LS-O2C is a bit more in line with it's 300800 units. But 2 full Octocore modules with 16 O2 wedges is 346752 units of O2, and the LS-O2C is actually a bit larger then two Octocore stacked together. It just seems like the US O2 Wedges hold a bit more O2 than they should with the current Ioncross parts.

- - - Updated - - -

Just came across an issue though it's not a problem with iconCross. It's just an issue with how another mod is interacting with ioncross and I'm hoping you might have a suggestion. Back in my 0.25 game, I ended up using "UbioWeldingLtd" mod to "weld" a large chunk of my InterPlanetary Vehicle into a single part. Mostly this included fuel tanks and RCS thrusters, but I also included the Large Recycler. I had thought everything was working fine, though since the ship is on a voyage from Moho to Eve, I'd not really been paying much attention to it. Now I've upgraded to 0.90 but I wanted to keep my old .25 game going so I could use it as a test platform. Again, everything seems to be working except I've basically caught up on all my flights and I have 4 days until my IPV reaches it's next burn. I figured I'd just load up the ship and advance time by four days but I started to watch my Kerbals all disappear. So after reloading, I paid more attention and while my "welded" part says it's got the recycler and it appears to be working, when I advance time you can tell that it really isn't. O2 gets quickly used up and CO2 level increase to toxic levels so that by the end of the day, all 10 of my kerbals are dead. Anyway, I'm wondering if you might have any idea why the recycler might not be working and how I might go about fixing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I just noticed two issues with EVA O2. First, if you use an external command chair, you're using EVA O2 even if the rover that command chair is attached to has O2 tanks. Second, if you run out of EVA O2, nothing seems to happen. Maybe the second issue is intentional otherwise those kerbal rescue missions wouldn't be doable but if not, just wanted to make sure you were aware.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So I just noticed two issues with EVA O2. First, if you use an external command chair, you're using EVA O2 even if the rover that command chair is attached to has O2 tanks.

Unfortunately unavoidable with the current system. EVA Kerbals don't actually use resources. That's why you'll notice that if you click on them there is no O2 resource. They use a different system that exists outside the KSP resource system. When an EVA Kerbal is created, his parent vehicle has a calculated amount of O2 deleted from it. The EVA Kerbal then has its own 'proprietary' system initialized with a 'fake' resource set to 100% (or less if the vehicle did not have enough EVA resource)

To fix the command chair issue means re-implementing the EVA system, or maybe I could hack it to look for regular resources. It's on my to-do list....

Second, if you run out of EVA O2, nothing seems to happen. Maybe the second issue is intentional otherwise those kerbal rescue missions wouldn't be doable but if not, just wanted to make sure you were aware.

Have you tried time-warping them? They should be popping. They were the last time I tested it. (inadvertantly; I forgot Ioncross was there and then I looked for my EVA Kerbal and couldn't find him...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have you tried time-warping them? They should be popping. They were the last time I tested it. (inadvertantly; I forgot Ioncross was there and then I looked for my EVA Kerbal and couldn't find him...)

Yeah, that was how I noticed. I was testing the command chair and warped until my kerbal had 0% oxygen. Though I suppose I might not have waiting long enough. Next time I have to do anything at my mun base, I'll do another test.

On a side note, the new version of Universal Storage adjusts the O2 wedge to have 96 days (kerbal?) of O2 based on the TACLS mod but it still gives about 206.5 kerbal days worth of O2 for Ioncross. I think you should include a MM config to adjust that wedge so it's only got 96 kerbal days (or less) of O2 for Ioncross.

EDIT: One more question. I'm setting up a MM file of my own and I wanted to use the ":NEEDS[]" flag. I had thought that the module name was the dll but when I tried ":NEEDS[ioncrossCrewSupport]", that didn't work. What's the correct module name that would go into that flag?

Edited by chrisl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, that was how I noticed. I was testing the command chair and warped until my kerbal had 0% oxygen. Though I suppose I might not have waiting long enough. Next time I have to do anything at my mun base, I'll do another test.

On a side note, the new version of Universal Storage adjusts the O2 wedge to have 96 days (kerbal?) of O2 based on the TACLS mod but it still gives about 206.5 kerbal days worth of O2 for Ioncross. I think you should include a MM config to adjust that wedge so it's only got 96 kerbal days (or less) of O2 for Ioncross.

EDIT: One more question. I'm setting up a MM file of my own and I wanted to use the ":NEEDS[]" flag. I had thought that the module name was the dll but when I tried ":NEEDS[ioncrossCrewSupport]", that didn't work. What's the correct module name that would go into that flag?

Kerbals are popping for me. Put one on EVA and fast forwarded. He died.

I'm not sure which part you're referring to. I've got US installed but haven't really looked at it in detail. I've been working on some other things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kerbals are popping for me. Put one on EVA and fast forwarded. He died.

I'm not sure which part you're referring to. I've got US installed but haven't really looked at it in detail. I've been working on some other things.

It's the Oxygen wedge: US_m_Wedge_Oxygen. Defaults to having 21672 units of O2 which means 4 wedges have about 270% more O2 then the LS-O2B, which is basially the same size. And 16 wedges have about 15% more O2 then the LS-O2C, which is actually slightly larger then the double stack Octocore. Basically, the Oxygen wedge in Universal Storage makes both of the inline Oxygen tanks from ioncross kind of a waste of space. Honestly I think the current capacity of the LS-O2B and LS-O2C modules needs to be checked but last time I suggested that you pointed out that inline modules give up some of their space for structure. Which is fine but when you throw in something like universal storage, which has structure factored in, it really highlights that either the LS-O2B is too large, or the LS-O2C is too small (capacity wise).

On a side note, I figued out the issue with the module name. My MM config was missing a bracket. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's the Oxygen wedge: US_m_Wedge_Oxygen. Defaults to having 21672 units of O2 which means 4 wedges have about 270% more O2 then the LS-O2B, which is basially the same size. And 16 wedges have about 15% more O2 then the LS-O2C, which is actually slightly larger then the double stack Octocore. Basically, the Oxygen wedge in Universal Storage makes both of the inline Oxygen tanks from ioncross kind of a waste of space. Honestly I think the current capacity of the LS-O2B and LS-O2C modules needs to be checked but last time I suggested that you pointed out that inline modules give up some of their space for structure. Which is fine but when you throw in something like universal storage, which has structure factored in, it really highlights that either the LS-O2B is too large, or the LS-O2C is too small (capacity wise).

On a side note, I figued out the issue with the module name. My MM config was missing a bracket. :)

First: Apologies for missing one of your questions; I didn't even see the thing about the MM config. I guess because I'd had that page sitting up for awhile or something.

Now, I have a little trouble seeing the LS-O2C as hurting for capacity given that it can survive a trip to Duna and back for 4 Kerbals. (though you might need a recycler to squeeze that out. Actually I made the Duna trip with the LS-32C which is basically the same thing but with less O2 storage and a recycler)

Duna was a bit of a metric for storage but the core volume is based on what Real Fuels assigns the original stock parts that the Ioncross storage tanks were based off taking into account compression. I could have increased the compression ratio but I didn't want to unbalance things to the point that logistics planning wasn't actually necessary.

Regarding the LS-O2B versus the LS-O2C, that's a separate issue from Universal Storage which is someone else's mod. I think it's fine if they see fit to support Ioncross but it shouldn't influence my decisions for Ioncross's native storage.

US Parts definitely should not be in the equation when comparing the LS-O2B / LS-O2C. The latter has 50% more storage even though volume wise they are very close to each other.

LS-O2B = 800 liters (500 of which are devoted to O2 storage. The rest is structural)

LS-O2C = ~750+ liters (let's just say it's 750. 100% devoted to O2 storage)

Compression ratio is 64-1

Should I pressurize them even more? How much is too much? How much before it gets to the point that the mod renders itself irrelevant? See, I don't care what US does, it's just not my business if another mod has more O2. Just so long as Ioncross doesn't unbalance itself.

Edit: Sigh, I'm confusing one Ioncross part for another. Issue is the same, I'm confident in the volume of the parts and compression ratio is 64-1. The volume of the radial parts doesn't bother me. If I increase them then it will be a consistent across the board increase of all parts. They have the correct volume vis-a-vis each other.

Edited by Starwaster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, do the pods have built in oxygen? Because I put my kerbal in space with two of the 6.25 day oxygen and they never begun to deplete, despite me being in space for over 12 days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi, do the pods have built in oxygen? Because I put my kerbal in space with two of the 6.25 day oxygen and they never begun to deplete, despite me being in space for over 12 days.

Yes, right click the pod and you will see how much O2 it has. Command pods have enough for a few days and other parts (station parts) have longer term O2 supplies. Oxygen shows up in the resource button on the toolbar so you can see how much total O2 for the entire vehicle has been lost.

The numbers in the descriptions are out of date and need to be updated so beware of that.... next update I should have descriptions up to date.

In stock Kerbin, a command pod has enough for a trip to the Mun and back again with some O2 in reserve. Travelling there, sending Kerbals down for Science! shouldn't be a problem. For Minmus, take one of the smaller radial tanks, or two....

Edited by Starwaster
Forgot to italicize Science! Hey stop laughing! This is important... why are you even reading this???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First: Apologies for missing one of your questions; I didn't even see the thing about the MM config. I guess because I'd had that page sitting up for awhile or something.

Now, I have a little trouble seeing the LS-O2C as hurting for capacity given that it can survive a trip to Duna and back for 4 Kerbals. (though you might need a recycler to squeeze that out. Actually I made the Duna trip with the LS-32C which is basically the same thing but with less O2 storage and a recycler)

Duna was a bit of a metric for storage but the core volume is based on what Real Fuels assigns the original stock parts that the Ioncross storage tanks were based off taking into account compression. I could have increased the compression ratio but I didn't want to unbalance things to the point that logistics planning wasn't actually necessary.

Regarding the LS-O2B versus the LS-O2C, that's a separate issue from Universal Storage which is someone else's mod. I think it's fine if they see fit to support Ioncross but it shouldn't influence my decisions for Ioncross's native storage.

US Parts definitely should not be in the equation when comparing the LS-O2B / LS-O2C. The latter has 50% more storage even though volume wise they are very close to each other.

LS-O2B = 800 liters (500 of which are devoted to O2 storage. The rest is structural)

LS-O2C = ~750+ liters (let's just say it's 750. 100% devoted to O2 storage)

Compression ratio is 64-1

Should I pressurize them even more? How much is too much? How much before it gets to the point that the mod renders itself irrelevant? See, I don't care what US does, it's just not my business if another mod has more O2. Just so long as Ioncross doesn't unbalance itself.

Edit: Sigh, I'm confusing one Ioncross part for another. Issue is the same, I'm confident in the volume of the parts and compression ratio is 64-1. The volume of the radial parts doesn't bother me. If I increase them then it will be a consistent across the board increase of all parts. They have the correct volume vis-a-vis each other.

Oh, you misunderstand. I wasn't suggesting that you should change the LS-O2B or LS-O2C because of Universal Storage. I just think you should include a MM config with ioncross that reduces the O2 capacity of the US Oxygen wedge. It's what I ended up doing on my setup so the O2 wedge wasn't as over powered as it is by default.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just noticed a bug. it seems that when you look at the Mk1-2 Command Pod it lists CarbonDioxide Rate, then it lists ElectricCharge Rate twice. It doesn't, however, list Oxygen Rate. I haven't had a chance to look at any other command pods yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just noticed a bug. it seems that when you look at the Mk1-2 Command Pod it lists CarbonDioxide Rate, then it lists ElectricCharge Rate twice. It doesn't, however, list Oxygen Rate. I haven't had a chance to look at any other command pods yet.

Unable to duplicate. ElectricCharge Rate is only listed once for me.

Where are you seeing that? In flight or in the VAB when looking at its stats? Screenshot please so I have a better idea of what's happening?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so I have seen the ElectricCharge bug happen myself but it's not consistent and it seems like it happens when reloading a ship more than once. And it seems to be a charge rate of 0. Hopefully it's just a nuisance issue unless anyone has seen a non-zero rate associated with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Has anyone tried it for KSP 1.0?

Even I haven't had a chance to check it out; I'm still working my way through the mods that I administer.

I have however tried compiling the source and got some errors when linking to the new KSP 1.0 binaries. The nature of which lead me to believe that it will throw exceptions. The specific errors dealt only with a contract module that wasn't completed and is currently disabled. The exceptions generated in-game would be upon accepting a contract, and since the contract is disabled, it should be ok. No other compile time errors occurred in any life support functions.

So it will probably run in KSP 1.0

HOWEVER.

No guarantees on that. If you want to try it anyway please do so on a save game specifically created for testing Ioncross. Or backup any saves you care about if you want to try.

If you do decide to try it, please inform me about any errors you get :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, if anyone wants to give Ioncross a try in 1.0, install the mod as usual but replace IoncrossCrewSupport.dll with this file

https://www.dropbox.com/s/hrecj1t6lkzb5gj/IoncrossCrewSupport.dll?dl=1

It's compiled against the KSP 1.0 binaries so there shouldnt be any errors...

I'll get to a proper release after I've gone over the parts files and made sure that any necessary 1.0 specific fields are added and tested it all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.