Terwin

I find that this page has most of what I need: https://github.com/BobPalmer/USI-LS/wiki/Mission-Planner-Example:-Supplies And this one is useful if I am using something other than Nom-o-Matics: https://github.com/BobPalmer/USI-LS/wiki/Parts:-Converters edit: quoted wrong post, it was supposed to be the one above yours... the (+15d) in the LS window is how long you have between running out of something(EC/Supplies) and when 'bad-stuff' happens

USI-LS timers do not account for *any* production. Supplies, electricity, etc. But negative effects are only applied during/after catch-up so you do not actually lose anything when the timers runs out if you have production running on the base.

I only tested it a couple of times, so it is entirely possible that my empty cost was 1/2 of my full cost... does not make a lot of sense to pull out those resources then I guess...

Are you sure about that? I have found that my kits cost almost exactly 200% of the 'empty' price of the vessel being built.(I manually empty all containers except EC) I'll need to check that out tonight...

USI-LS Issue #224 logged

I ran into something unexpected when I loaded up the Kolonists into my way-station base: the hab-time was well below the hab-time listed in the VAB for maximum occupancy. So after ensuring all of my Habitation modules were active, I loaded the ship up in the VAB to double-check and make sure I did not forget something. Nope, Hab-time with 34 Kerbals should be several years, and I only had 23 with a hab-time of 320 days. So I tried adding all 18 of my kerbals currently in the Astronaut complex to the ship, and the max hab time kept going down. 'Must be a conflict' I thought, so I opened up my USI-testing save, removed the old mods and added everything the ship might need(Tools: 8.15, Core 3.8, MKS 50.16, LS 5.22) Lo and behold, it happens in my USI-only install as well: Way-station with 2 of 34 kerbals in VAB: (Hab-time for 34 kerbals listed as 4y:91d) http://imgur.com/bnlCqU2 Way-station with 22 of 34 kerbals in VAB: (Hab-time for 34 kerbals listed as 416d) http://imgur.com/V6KbqGP (The album has similar images from my current game, including one on the Mun with LS and all hab parts open to show they are active. Forums do not want to in-line the images for some reason) Is this a known problem, or should I create a USI-LS issue? Parts: Pioneer/Logistic module, 2x2.5m hab modules, 2x Ranger Hab Modules, 2x Ranger ag modules, 4x hitchhiker containers, and non-hab parts(reyclers, wheels, cradles, antennas, reactor, batteries, solar panels, storage)

I have no idea if it is modeled at all, but generally speaking cooling something off is much easier in an atmosphere where you get conduction and convection as opposed to in space where you only have radiation(the weakest of the 3). Sort of like comparing how long it takes a turkey to thaw when it is sitting in a sink full of water as opposed to sitting in a sealed ice-chest. I would not be surprised if the numbers were for cooling in a vacuum. (I have only ever used the stock radiators so I have no specific information to give)

@Gilph If your container starts full/empty then you may not see the behavior you were describing in just one day. Remember that PL will only take the container to half full, so if you are making 75% of your container's capacity per day, then if it starts empty, it may be 2 days before anything is lost during catch-up.

Update: When deployed the way-station had the correct orientation, it was just the expanded box that was oriented wrong, and that just means you should have extra space around your box when you deploy it. It looks like each Workshop works on one piece at a time, so a vessel made mostly out of welded pieces may get minimal benefits from multiple workshops. The time remaining seems to be an estimate based on how long it would take to build all the pieces that have not yet been built by other workshops plus time remaining on the current piece. On the whole it seems to work pretty well, just a few bits that could use some refinement.

I was trying to build a way-station on the Mun(my bases are too far from the equator to be convenient, so it is a large habitation base with logistics and a few inflatable storage modules to make it quick and easy to refuel/refill ships, also plenty of habitation and LS, with a plan to ship up 1-2 dozen Kolonists when it is done). My assembly vehicle has 4 50% 1 engineer modules and a ~45% 2 engineer module(along with storage to pull supplies and material kits from PL; One 4 star engineer in a 50% module, the rest have 3 stars, total should be ~9 skill hours). * Is there a reason I need to associate and start each potential Workshop module independently, even when on the same vessel? * Is there a way for the 'time remaining' to reflect the total number of kerbals currently working on the project instead of only reflecting the ones in the selected workshop module? At first I thought that each time I activated a module, it was deactivating the others, but I remembered something about multiple workshops working together from reading this thread, so I watched the 'time remaining' closely and saw that it was going down much faster than the game clock(with the workshop windows open from several workshops at the same time on the active vessel; if just looking at the dash-board from KSC, they are all going down at the same speed as the game clock) The completion estimates for that project range from >90 days to <50 days depending on which module you look at, and my math suggests that ~15 days is closer to correct(which is good, as I only have ~30 days of habitation on the assembly ship) Admittedly, this is my first assembly effort which is not taking place on the runway, so I may have missed a few steps. I am also wondering why the expanded Way-Station box looks like the Way-Station will be standing on-end instead of resting on it's wheels, which is the orientation I saved it in in the VAB. (Could be related to loading the ship into the box while the box was on it's side in the VAB, then setting it down upright on the mun) On the plus-side my split-ship design worked quite well if you account for an over-abundance of attitude control(top part with sky-hook engines and a small fuel tank, bottom part with main engines and fuel tank, both attached to the DIY kit with a large docking port. After landing, disconnect the top, fly top to the side, extend landing legs on the DIY kit, tilt bottom to the side to get DIY kit on it's feet then detach and right bottom part, then try to land the top part on the bottom part, refuel as needed and send home)

That depends primarily on Management and how they handle it. If Management includes a reasonable amount of development time and buffer to the schedule, and is understanding of reasonable delays, then missing a release date would be uncommon but something that is expected on occasion.(which could be met with either a delayed release or a reduction in planed features) If Management likes to treat developers as an expendable resource with inadequate time to complete assigned tasks and harsh punishment for missing deadlines, you will have a much more anxious environment with high rates of burn-out and code defects. It can be hard to get good estimates on how long a piece of code will take, as any time you have made that piece of code in the past, you do not need to re-make it, you just copy the old code, so all code that needs to be written is either new, or new-to-me type of work to a lesser or greater extent. I have no doubt that the high level of uncertainty causes management types no end of headaches.

I thought the Academy was the only part where you could give Kerbals XP for places they have not yet been(with a suitable teacher) and all the other parts just let you recognize XP for places they *have* been(assuming you do not have instant leveling turned on)

Hmm, Guess Bill Won't be pulling the ISRU and drills off of a fuel drone to make that mobile workshop generate it's own MK after all... (and if the MKS inflatable workshop provides a decent skill percentage, the DIY workshop craft currently en-route to Duna may be raided for it's MK, and only get assembled if I want a rover for harvesting Resource Nodules once everything else is built/expanded). You two certainly know how to build anticipation for your next release...

Good to know, looks like a good way to kick-start a base. (I had planned to take 40K material kits from Kerbin to Duna, but smelting ore would be much more convenient)

Could be as much as 2x as I think my ~7-800K Duna base design had a > 1M DIY kit. But as my current funds are in excess of 100M, it did not bother me at all.(a few large crates of commodities(Exotic Minerals and Rare metals) brought back from the Mun and Minmus, then recovered at 100% can do interesting things to your bank balance) Question: is the Ore Smelter setting on the large ISRU from GC? (it produces Material kits from ore, at a rate of ~30-40/hour?)

I have seen the 'disabling flow does not push to planetary storage' on occasion as well, but it is generally something that I do not currently have in PS, so my suspicion is that the 'disable flow push' only works if the resource is already present in planetary storage. (and from reading this thread, Machinery may not work at all, currently.)

I was not thrilled with the ISRU change in USI-MKS, but fortunately it was only there for 1-2 revisions before it was removed. note: it could be changed, but only by a Kerbal(Engineer?) on EVA, so it played merry havoc with my automated fuel drones. One of my current mods(possibly MKS again) tried to gimp ISRU so that they need engineers to work at full efficiency(like drills), so I went in and removed that from the script for much the same reason. Generally speaking I am a fan of RoverDude's mods, particularly USI-LS(Life Support) and USI-MKS(Colonies), and other mods that give me tools to do interesting things. From time to time I will have a game with unbalanced mods(Atomic Age and R&D currently, will probably drop them for the next game if I manage to plant a flag on Eve and get home though), but the only thing I have considered and rejected are: Autopilot: I play to fly rockets Extra planets: Not until I plant a flag on and return from Tylo, Lathe, and Eve

You can always connect a long series of Tundra modules together end-to-end with cradles and tundra modules hanging off the cradles. No need for flex-tubes and everything is connected. Ground Construction can also make it much easier to put a sprawling(but fully connected) base together on-site without needing any flexible connections.

My game stages are: * Just starting out: Everything before ISRU Lots of contract driven flights and occasional Mun visits Generally uses Tourist and Rescue contracts for fund-raising * Early Game: Kerbin SOI Once I have ISRU, I start building my standard design rockets with Mk3 cargo bays holding ISRU and usually a Lab. Mun and Minmus are farmed for 99%+ of available science as part of 1-3 training missions Rescue contracts still used for fund-raising, with tourists usually tagging along on training missions(Mun flag+refuel, Minmus flag+refuel, Kerbol SOI, return) * Mid Game: Local Colonization and inner planets Generally by this point all populated nodes in the community tech tree are researched or do not contain any desired parts. Interplanetary voyages to Moho/Gilly/Duna and Kerbin SOI colonization missions (generally using USI-MKS by RoverDude) Interplanetary missions generally have the same form-factor as the training vessels but more fuel and ore storage. Funding is rarely an issue at this point. Will generally collect on multiple contracts per trip. * Late Game: Interplanetary colonization, Voyages to the outer planets Funds are largely irrelevant and science is just a number(exception: current game has KR&D, so more science means more parts at <50% mass and > 100% performance)

That is an entirely realistic and reasonable answer and must be rejected as such. Consider: KSC is at least the 3rd launch facility with still standing structures.(KSC2 and the island runway being the others) Presumably there were more, but there is nothing left of them(looking at you Badlands!). With that many Kerbal rockets being flung around, I expect that the residents gave up on re-building and all now live in underground bunkers. This is why they are content to sit in a Mk1 cockpit for years and similar hardships: fewer worries about rocket shrapnel raining down on them.

From what I recall, Flex-o-tubes are not recommended for long term use because they tend to summon the kraken during scene changes and game loading. I do not know if it is still an issue with ground Tethers, but it would not surprise me. I think it is an issue with the game wanting an entire vessel to be on a single plane when loading a scene, so bumpy terrain and flexible joints tend to cause issues, the more bumpy/flexible the worse the issues.

That is without using any recyclers or agroponics pieces, if you use a RT-500, it reduces consumption to 40%, then if you add a nom-o-matic 500, you can have just a few units of supplies and then 1/11th of what would normally be needed for supplies as fertilizer. I am pretty sure that over 1 year that the nom-o-matic would save you even more than the recycler, even if the life support window does not currently account for agroponics. RT-500 savings: 2760 fewer supplies for a cost of 0.1t Using your 4600 supplies number for 1 year, that should only require 168 units of fertilizer and perhaps 10 supplies to get the process started.

I generally put the Duna modules on top of the Tundra modules. Seems to work pretty well:

USI-LS has settings to allow death, desertion(going back to the Astronaut complex), grumpiness(becoming a tourist, the default), and nothing. All available on a per-save basis and editable from inside the game. From what I understand, the weight and volume of life support resources required for both is roughly the same, but USI-LS combines them into a single 'supplies' resource because they will always be consumed at the same rate and there is no point in separating them.

I believe there is a config file for TAC(or at least in progress), but the USI-LS mod is more tightly integrated and more challenging(it includes things going stir-crazy from being cooped up in a too-small pod for too long and home-sickness when you have not-so-great accommodations for example) MKS makes use of many of the community resources, including ways to mine, refine and manufacture using locally sourced materials. MKS and USI-LS both have farms of various sorts without additional mods. The USI-LS parts cover both closed cycle recycling(reducing the rate of resource consumption) and open cycle recycling(needing a resource to let you turn waste back into supplies)