Hevak

Probably for a station of 4 kerbals, not just those in the module. I think most modules hold only 2 kerbals. Maybe the MK III hold more? Haven't paid much attention. But mks parts are intended for base building and usually made to account for a certain # in the whole base not just the module itself. Idk how to put this but they aren't really intended to be used with this mod unless you're building bases somewhere. (They are but not alone or for ships) I suppose you could slap a pioneer on a craft as a part. But that isn't really the intent so that is the reason for 4 kerbals. A small surface or orbital station. I think it was intended to be 50% because that is still quite lossy as he says. Lol. I think the aeroponics was meant to be 75% or maybe it's going to be changed to 75% once MK IV modules come out as the MKS mod hasn't gotten them yet.

Lol yeah efficiency is getting a bit overused isn't it? Hard to know what efficiency Is being discussed sometimes.. Im im just interested in knowing what the returns are for the different recycling options so I have the right info to give out. So if some one looks at my flow chart for mks they are getting the right info. And maybe this would be better put into the mks thread since these are really mks parts? Think I'll put a quick one in there too, just to make sure on all this for the documentation I made.

Well I going with 50% and typo in part description. Because the OP by Roverdude on page 1 says it runs at 50% lol. But then it says the kerbitat is 75%. I'm not sure if that's a typo, because the aeroponics does recycling. But I'm showing that as 90% from the cfg. .00005 mulch in > .000045 organics out. And then kerbitat does organics to supplies at 1:1 It also says the MK IV's that are coming will be the 90% recycling off world, and 100% on planet. Maybe this is going to change efficiency of the aeroponics at least when they are released? Or maybe Roverdude changed his mind while making the parts but didn't change the part description on the pioneer module.? so for now I'm going with pioneer at 50% and aeroponics at 90%. @roverdude, any chance at some clarification or inputs on this? I'd hate to be telling everyone the wrong thing with my chart or when I offer help on here. Lol. Also is the consumption to waste a 1:1 of supplies >mulch? Or is there some loss during consumption?

Ok I recently installed a couple mods and stuff unrelated to scan sat. And I was looking through the alt-F2. Debug window on load up just to see if anything was going wrong with the new mods. (Not sure if they were good to go for 1.02) the he final three entries in the debug window are a white log message, not a red error message. All 3 of the messages say this [log]:[scansat] scansat resource [karborundum] cannot be found in master resource storage list. (There are 3 instances of this message) is this an issue or bug of some kind? I haven't done scans yet or anything so idk if anything is wrong really. Just wondering if there are any thoughts on this. Should I be concerned or not? Im on scansat v12. And karbonite 6.2 Karbonite plus 4.1. (Both karbonite mods updated 5 days ago) so everything should be good for 1.02 KSP. going to post on the karbonite thread too, not sure if there is a problem, or where the problem would be if there is one.

Well when I redid the flow charts for life support I was going through part configs. And for USI resources, it shows .0002 mulch going in, and .0001 supplies coming out for the pioneer config. So isn't that a 50% return and loss? i just want to be sure which way it is. Because I currently have the finished flow chart stating a 50% return on that loop and I want my chart to be correct and not confuse people lol i show the aeroponics at 90% return because it's .00005 mulch in, and .000045 organics out. The organics to supplies is a 1:1 in/out in the kerbitat. I'll freely admit maths is not a strong suit of mine lol.. So am I looking at this wrong? Or missing something? I just don't want my chart to have incorrect info.

Thanks that what I did just backed up the whole game folder. and I took the plunge and installed and started a new game to check this out. And I was initially concerned that since I don't use a lot of mods that I would have a lot of empty nodes I'd have to research along the line.I'm not sure if I just got lucky, or if it was good planning, I'm going with great planning on designing this. because even with a low mod count I do have quite a lot of empty nodes, but they are all in chains that are completely empty so it's actually no issue. its really nice to see good community based projects such as this, and seeing collaboration amongst different modders that produce great things like this. Many thanks and kudos to all who helped with this, and all who support this tree with their mods.

No worries

ok I gotcha now, thank you for clarifying that for me, I appreciate it. I'll just make some backups then and see how this works

Ok the per-mod part kind of confuses me lol. Sorry. I don't intend to change anything based on certain mods. Just can I have one saved game running all my mods but with CTT, and then another saved game separate with same mods using the stock tree? Or is it like most other mods where once I install CTT all saved games whether new or existing will be forced into using CTT? i saw mention of selecting which tech tree to use when starting a game in some posts which why I ask.

Just a couple quick questions. I read through the thread and didn't see this answered specifically,(I could of missed it if it was), but I think from what I did see through the thread that my answers are a yes to my questions. just wondering if I install this mod, is it useable on a per save basis? If I install it while in the middle of a career will my current game be fine? so basically I can just install this mod and start a new career and use this tech tree to see what it's like? And then continue my other career with just the stock tree if I wanted to right? im just not a real heavy mod user so I'm not sure if this is something that fits well for my game is all. It's a great mod for sure, and nice to see a bunch of modders come together to work on improving things together. Nice job to all involved.

That was my other thought. I'd really only see it as more being able to just fly a ship on strike to another SOI and linking up negating the need for supplies at all at times. Or for just doing a round trip and starving them the way back or something. But it was just a thought, and yeah it is more work to dock or send other ships. Just wanted to throw it out there well as seen above Roverdude nixed it anyways, but I think you mistook my post, I may not have explained it well. Because it didn't remove any side effects in any way. What I meant was starved kerbals wouldn't instantly go back to work after being starved for awhile. They would take some more time to go back to work once fed or in the kerbin safe zone. So it actually added a bit more to the side effects not removed them. It would make one more likely to not starve them for long periods if they needed more time even after being fed to work again. For instance right now on any mission that takes less than 15 days to get to destination and do whats needed why send supplies? If youre good enough and can go there and set up a decent reentry ( depends on reentry difficulty of course.) in one go you can fly ther and back with no supplies and get instant control back once in the kerbin safe zone. In my idea you wouldn't because they would need a period of time to regain consciousness or be well enough to function again, or however one wants to rationalize the time it takes for kerbals to function again after being fed. So even if you reach the kerbin safe zone after starving them you wouldn't gain control back in time to control anything on the ship. That's what i was going for. But it's all good just was throwing some thoughts and ideas out there on some possible tweaks..

Have you any thoughts on some sort of minor recuperation period for starved kerbals that starve for a specific period of time? Maybe either a flat one of say an hour or two of game time, or maybe a day? Or possibly something that grows in accordance with the length of time a kerbal is starved maybe? Just a few ideas. i think this may be a good possibility to prevent what might be considered an exploitation of the mechanics. I don't see it as one neccesarily, but I mean it is possible to say starve kerbals on a long mission to another planet, and send an unmanned supply ship along with it or later on possibly, or have food already there if a base is set up. I don't see this as a big issue or anything, but it could add a bit of flavor to avoiding prolonged starvation. It could also be a sort of extrapolated "hibernation" type mechanic. Meaning prolonged starvation sort of turns into a pseudo hibernation, and a longer starving period requires a short period to recuperate to simulate say a thawing or re animation period? It doesn't really change the side effects and still keeps it pretty simple. The only issue I could see with it is a way of communicating the resupply waiting period issue in game. It Could end up slightly less simple for unexperienced players as well.

A constructive discussion is all I was doing and all I did. I made it a point to state it was nothing personal. And also said you have some interesting and good ideas. I simply stated my idea as to why I felt it doesn't fit as a part of this mod. I also stated that it would be a good mod implemented on it's own that could integrate with any life support mod out there as well. I absolutely love Roverdude's work. And like you I like mods to fit my gameplay as best as possible. If he implements this or some form of it great. I'm all for him doing what he feels like. And I'm all for people getting the type of mods and gameplay they desire. Might it affect my decision to use the mod? sure. Just the same as this mod affected my decision to move from TAC to USI life support. It doesn't mean anything is bad as I said. It just doesn't fit what I want to do. this would be great as side mod to implement with integration for any life support as I've seen a few people bring up stress mechanics before. I think someone either did or tried to do this with another mod in one way or another as well. And as a separate mod it would also allow more people to use it also, since each life support has a niche of users it seems. I also think it would allow for better implementation and development if it wasn't tied to a specific Lifesupport mod. i also said if it was implemented here that I would like it to be completely optional. As then people can choose to use it or not. Which is another reason I feel it's best served as a separate mod.

i took nothing as an insult, maybe you took my disagreement with your ideas as not part of what seems to be the purpose of this life supports intent as an insult. And copied directly from your write up.. Hardcore mode is meant to be used by players who want both simplicity and uncluttering of simplified life support and more challenging gameplay at the same time. i just personally as I said don't see it adding much to the gameplay of using this mod. Maybe you and others would love to have this and see it adding to gameplay. And like I said I could see this as a great stand alone mod that could easily integrate with any other life support mod, or even run on it's own. but please forgive me for disagreeing with your ideas, and having my own as you do, and feeling I'm insulted in anyway. also by the way, this is not the first time this idea has been brought up in life support discussions. Even within TAC. And I believe there is a life support or other mod that does deal with stress or stress like variables as well, or else there was at one time. It just feels better suited to it's own mod that can integrate with them. Edited: also if nothing really changes as you state above then why add stress at all? It's just clutter then is it not? And again you mention prolonged starvation. Easily solved by a recuperation period, and not adding a stress mechanic which in the game sense becomes a resource. As it build and dissipates over time due to whatever constraints. Just like a resource. And most likely would be coded similar to a resource. And really the only thing that could be taken as an insult is you saying I'm insulted and basically alluding to the fact that you can post your ideas for this mod, and someone can't post a disagreement to them, otherwise they are just insulted. this is is a forum and a game that has 1,000s upon 1,000s of mods probably. So yeah I'm not insulted by your ideas. I just don't agree with them fitting in this mod or my gameplay as well. And as I've done many times I would decide on what mods I use based on that. Not because the modder or their ides or work Insults me lol. Just because I want different things in my gameplay as do you. when Roverdude first brought up the idea and concept of his Life support I disagreed with him too. We had a few posts back and forth, he explained and listened to mine and others ideas, I liked what he said and thought. He didn't feel I was insulted in any way lol. Why should you? Still wasn't sure I'd like this mod until I tried it. I was completely civil and just posted my ideas contrary to yours. That's how things happen. We disagree that's life.

Sorry this is a long post. But you had quite a long and interesting list of things suggested. And the below is nothing negative or personal just my thoughts While you certainly have some great and interesting ideas there, and of course everything up to Roverdude as far as what is implemented, I'm going to have to vote against the stress implementation you brought up. Nothing against you or the concept, I just don't agree with it or think it really fits with this mods intended concept. From what I understand about ROverdudes explanation and implementation, In reality this life support is sort of intended to be a bit of a life support light. Not as limited as snacks is, but not as involved as TAC. To me these ideas kind of start to make it more involved than TAC somewhat and kind of moves away from the whole "light" life support it seemed to be. I also think the amount of work is too much, and taking too much time away from what seems to be the intended concept of this mod being created. You mentioned "simplicity" then "uncluttering simplified life support" not sure what you mean but this mod is simplified, that was the whole intent of this mod I thought. And simplicity itself tends to be uncluttered. I believe your stress aspect just starts to add clutter and less simplicity back into this mod. As I understand it a big reasons why you brought up the stress was to prevent "gaming the system" and starving kerbals. So I could see a function to maybe make kerbals require a bit of a recuperation period after starvation would be a much better and more acceptable way to fix the exploration opportunities that are there. But the reason I don't like the whole stress idea is that I really don't see it adding much more than headaches and such to the whole life support process, since it now seems you have a whole other resource that's not even tracked in a sense. And it also seems to overlap many functions of USI LS already in place. EC is already accounted for and causes supplies lost, if you want you can blame that on stress already and kerbals doing rash things resulting in the loss of supplies. Orange suits not striking doesnt need a "sane explanation" neither does the kerbin safe zone. This is a game first and foremost. And a realistic simulation only in passing really. Orange suits are special, rationalize it however you want, but the non striking was a pretty conscious design decision and I don't see the need for any kind of explanation beyond what was given. The safe zone arises probably more due to the fact we only deal with "supplies" and not 3 resources. Because on kerbin in the safe zone there is plenty of opportunities for breathable air. Also there are only 4? Orange suits. So they are limited and it also offers a bit of a helpful way for newer people to learn the ropes, as well as a couple kerbals to hold in reserve for rescue ops. Making hungry and starving kerbals build up stress faster, then striking sooner because of it basically negates the whole starving mechanic, or is the whole starving mechanic really your whole stress idea being implemented in an easier more trackable function that can be controlled and dealt with better? Seems like it to me. There are already severe consequences available as well, death is an option, as well as nothing really more severe than having a ghost ship of kerbals just floating around or away somewhere because they are all on strike or even worse dead. I don't see the need or any kind of realism being added by having them randomly activate or deactivate anything on a ship or bases. I don't see what this "adds" to the whole concept of this mod. I know kerbals are all somewhat stupid if you will, and rush to space in junk and love explosions, but I really don't see how not eating adds stress, but my spaceship and sole protection falling apart around me is great and fun. I understand kerbals like explosions and all that, but why add stress and then not have them stressed out by their craft falling to pieces around them on reentry and such? Seems you wanted sane reasons for things and more realism in a way, but this seems counter to that. Also you really didn't add anything to help alleviate stress. I mean shouldn't there be a way to alleviate it other than supplies? There is already a use and penalty to supplies. dont take this as anything personal. You have some great ideas as I said. These are Just my feelings on the ideas brought up. But I do think that if people like this concept and want a hardcore mode and these things to deal with, that It eould make a great standalone mod that could integrate with any life support mod available. I think it would be much better as a separate mod though. And in reality if it's a hardcore mode, it really does become a separate mod in a sense anyways. I feel it's best served on it's own and allow the two mods to be tweaked and managed independently. If Roverdude does feel like adding such things to this mod then I would absolutely ask that the whole stress part be completely optional as I do not want this at all. There is already enough micromanaging going on as far as multiple crafts, maneuver points and rendezvous windows, as well as mks bases if people use it like me. I don't really see any fun or addition to gameplay personally by now having to constantly check on my crews. I do think there should be some sort of recuperation period as far as starved kerbals though. Maybe a day or something to let them eat and get some strength back, that certainly solves a few of the issues as to why you seemed to want the stress thing and I think it's good to have a bit of a way to prevent kerbal torture and "gaming the system" as I said earlier. Again just my thoughts. If this stress idea was implemented as mandatory it would certainly make me revalute my use of this mod. Which I really like in it's current form. It could use some tweakings for sure. And I don't mean that to stop anything from being implemented, it just means I'd have to find another mod or forget life support . But I kind of like this mods in it's sort of serious yet light hearted take on the whole life support gameplay. And I'd hate to see this feature take away time from this an his other mods. As I don't see it adding much, and not sure many that use this particular life support would want it either. As it's meant to be a less involved life support mod. But Maybe many do want this, idk. And again sorry for the long post to any who try to read it all lol.

In order for us all to move on and to get this thread back on topic and end the arguments about emotions and what not let's recap. please expand upon exactly what issues you are having and log a github issue so Roverdude can try to address your problems he may have been notified on your issue but I see 4 issues listed on github and not about this. so for Roverdude to give proper attention to these issues please log a github issue for him. It is where he checks on things and tracks them when he updates mods. And if possible please explain what makes it more fun when bdanimations is also installed. Also he usually uses ksp avc checker for all his mods. Maybe this LS mod hasn't been set up for it yet. But that avc mod is highly recommended for all USI mods as it will notify you in most cases there is a new version up. It's how I keep all my USI and many other mods up to date. But yes a title update would be nice and help a lot. This kind of more detailed descriptions are much more helpful in trying to solve the conflicts between Taurus Hcv and USI LS. Again please log a detailed github issue so that these issues can be more easily and properly addressed by Roverdude. This is his preferred way of tracking and addressing issues, as he has somewhere near 15 mod threads to watch. Anything we can do to help him has always been appreciated by him. And he always asks that github issues be posted for any problems with his mods. There are exactly 4 issues logged on github and none are related to Taurus Hcv as far as I can tell. So this issue could get lost in the shuffle.. Hopefully he can solve your issues. Good luck with all your ksp endeavors

@SYmbolicfrank.. if you are a developer then you should know more than anyone your initial post in no way helped anything. All you said was there is a problem.. and no one is getting emotional except maybe you. Not sure why you are feeling punished. But you're actually the one that needs to think about things for a little while. Maybe think about how you would respond when someone contacts you about your software and says. Hey your product is junk. It's always broken and missing things and I always install the latest version only to uninstall it because it just breaks things. It has a problem with product X. You're the one there is no point responding to. So have a good day. Good luck. edit: and just looked at the general USI thread you last posted in. And the moderator said nothing about not posting to the other person before you, and I see no response to your error Post. In fact the moderator told someone "this is the second thread you posted in a snippet of a log."can you elaborate on the issue you're having in each of them please." so yeah the moderators issue was this. what exactly is your problem. We need more Info to help you, Other than just saying I have a problem, it doesn't work. Or just posting about 1/1000th of a log file. In fact the moderator didn't complain about anything. They said more Info is need to help.

Idk why a moderator would say you can't post error messages, maybe they simply meant that it's better served to post in a thread specific to the mod causing issues instead of a general thread? Idk. But Roverdude is more than happy to look into and help with any issues. This is what people are probably taking issue with. For a couple reasons. First it adds nothing to the purpose of getting help. Secondly it sounds, well rather negative. I've used USI mods for almost as long as I've played ksp. And there are rarely ever missing components, in the sense that something just wasn't put in by some oversight or some sort of bad work. Which is what this sounds like. I have no conflicts with any mods I run so far with this or any other USI mod. So they do not conflict a lot. USI life support does not always seem to break something, because it has broken nothing for me. In fact he goes to great lengths to make sure his mods do not conflict with other mods as much as possible. these statements look nothing more than a knock on someone's hard work, and a put down towards there work and competency. It may not have been meant that way, but it's how it comes across. and then all you said is it conflicts with the Taurus mod. But offered nothing to explain what the conflict is or anything helpful to what is causing you issues in your first post. if you simply stated something along the lines of hey I'm having an issue with this mod and such and such mod. This happens when I have this mod and some other mod installed. When I remove this mod the problem goes away. Then maybe add is the known? Does anyone know of a fix or workaround for this? Maybe even ask if the mods will be made compatible. And add any relevant information to help with your issue. It would probably have come across much better. The above quoted part is really Not needed and doesn't nothing to help with the problem, and more than often tends to seem inflammatory to many. - - - Updated - - - Sorry for for two posts in a row but seriously. Nice attitude, so now it's passive aggressive threats? This makes your orginal post seem worse. This tends to be a rather helpful community and well I see Goldenpsp help a lot of people. As do many others. Threats to be glad you haven't done something are just really bad form. how the above is read by me and many others I'm sure. "Hey Roverdude I love your mods but they are crap. They conflict with a lot of stuff and are always broken and missing things. "especially USI life support. It's always breaking something and I always install it and remove it afterwards because it's junk and break things." i hope you get your issue fixed or find some better mods out there that aren't such junk and always broken and missing stuff. Good luck being received well in the future with the attitude you have.

I can't speak to why it isn't bundled ok, but I think a simple message on the first post is best. I'd be more likely to agree that it should be bundled with the mod if this was Roverdudes only mod, but He has and maintains something like 15 mods. And I'm pretty sure he removed mm from every bundle. it saves him time most likely. Because if he does bundle, then need to constantly follow the MM people and see every time they update it, then update all of his mod packages and re upload them all to github and anywhere else he hosts his mods for something that is really a small change. It's much easier for him if he puts a dependency notice on the post somewhere an has the player download and worry about MM themselves. In my opinion. Edit: and I missed a post by Roverdude on the the previous page, where he said MM will be bundled again in a future release. It wasn't bundled before because it hadn't been updated.

Its one less thing he has to update whenever a new MM comes out that's why I believe. Also it's fairly common for people to have multiple version of MM in their gamedata since so many mods use it and don't update it when MM does. I've seen people with close to 10 mm versions in one folder lol. It can cause problems too. If people are only using USI mods then yes it can cause an issue. But chances are most people will end up with MM anyways once most mods are updated for 1.0. A notice somewhere would be great, but anything that saves Roverdude from doing things other than updating his own work ends up better in the long run since he can focus on his own mods. i didn't notice at first either, until I watched loading screen on startup and didn't see the message. It was noted in the first release of 1.0. Though I don't think it's seen on the newer ones. (Well nvm that. It was noted in mks release. Not this LS one, forgot I was in this thread lol.)

Kerbals can Eva forever while starved I believe. They won't suffer any effects until they enter a ship at which point they will either eat, or go on strike if no supplies. That's the way I understand how it works. They don't take any supplies with them. Of course if you have death on they may die while out there I'm not sure. But I'm pretty sure there are no supplies used on Eva, because they don't take any with them like how TAC LS does. As far as the kerbal flying off into some location I'm not sure that is a life support issue, I suppose it could be caused by it but I've seen weird things like that happen before. so is the issue that they don't go on strike while on Eva? Or is there another issue you are having? You talked about Eva then about controlling ships so I'm not sure. re: the video posted above, did Roverdude implement LS similar to TAC? Because TAC LS would not start on launchpads. Only once the craft was launched did the LS function start. Not sure if that's how USI LS is too.

do you have module manager mod installed as well? This is the first thing I would check on. another poster (maybe in other thread) said ckan has mks on it. But ckan stuff is handled by ckan people. Roverdude adds version info to his mods so avc works. But ckan listing and implementation is handled by them.

I had some things come up. But so far I tested installing a few of the mods you had. My my original install had only mks (the kolonization one). Crp, Firespitter, usi tools, and USI life support. So only USI mods plus module manager. I did all my tests in sandbox to have access to full facilities and all the stock craft files. I don't think sandbox vs career should make a difference. I did a handful of launches and reverts like idk 5 or so each time. Flew for a bit, got to space and just reverted without landing. I was not able to get through all of the mods listed yet. But tried to start with some listed in both the first two posts on this thread. i saw no issues with the above mods I have installed nor when I added the following mods. Editor extensions, tweakable everything, quick scroll, stock bug fix module, or Kerbal joint reinforcement. so far no instance of this bug yet. When I get a chance I'll keep trying with other mods to see if I can get it. One note is I just used stock KSP craft files on my test so I didn't use any added parts or anything. Like I did use quick scroll functions. But didn't do anything with say editor extensions or tweakable everything. Just launched and reverted with stock crafts.

Ok. Hmm do you happen to have module manager installed? I only ask because he removed it from the download packages of a bunch of his mods, and it's been throwing other people off. Module manager handles a lot of part functions, idk if it does anything with inflatables. But only other thing I can think of right now.

So a couple quick questions. Is that your complete list of mods you were using at the time in the pic on the op you made when you first got the bug? what are your repro steps? I mean is it pretty much happening on any launch? Like the first one all the time or sometimes after a couple? And are you doing anything special in the launch? Reverting from a certain spot when it happens? What kind of parts on the craft? i did quite a few with just USI LS and mks kolonization. And didn't have issues using a couple different stock craft and one satellite I made. I reverted from all over too. Launchpad without launching and in flight, suborbital, orbital, reentry. Are you using any mod that interacts with the parts list? Like a sorter or something that can hide certain parts if wanted? I noticed tweakable everything and something on the parts list that you drag custom parts too. Is that from something else or tweakable everything? ill try and see if I can get the problem when I add Some of your mods listed in op in a few mins.