TurielD
-
Posts
66 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by TurielD
-
-
You will then have to restart KSP before that change takes effect ;
-
I've made an adapted version of your RealTACLS, which is basically... UnRealTACLS.
Rather than convert the entire TACLS resource system to the new liters / day system I've gone in the other direction and adapted the US modules that use Water, Oxygen and/or CarbonDioxide to use fractions of the 1 Unit/Kerbal/Day units.
Downsides:
- not future-proof, TaranisElsu is heading towards the Real quantities system and TAC will probably convert eventually.
- not a full conversion. The FuelCell for instance is now using hydrogen at a rate of ~0.03 liters per second, and Oxygen at a rate of 0.00055522 day-units/second. This could be confusing, though the conversion rate is relatively simple and applied to very few parts.
Upside:
- can be applied to an existing save that is using TACLS while leaving all your current craft unaltered, whereas the the RealTACLS system leaves Kerbals using 600 units of Oxygen per day on craft you built expecting 600 units to be 2 years' supply.
- easily compatible with other TACLS-dependent mods (e.g. Modular Kolonisation System)
- light on code (I'm not a good enough modder to make much more!)
- not future-proof, TaranisElsu is heading towards the Real quantities system and TAC will probably convert eventually.
-
First off, if we're correcting Kerbal waste to equal 51.07% of human waste, then the actual human waste value is ~1.29kg/CM-d. Also, the waste density value I used is not the 0.1kg/liter that Taranis is using, but rather a value of 1gr/cm³ (1kg/liter), which is the best density information I've been able to find to date. I should also point out that we were assuming that the ECLSS was indeed extracting moisture from the atmosphere in the spacecraft which would include evaporated sweat.
Even perfecter! that's the missing 0.19 kg, equal mass in to out. It was kinda bugging me but I was honestly too tired to even realize that, been up all night
1kg/liter is just right for waste, just bear in mind that you *have* used the 0.25kg/liter density for food, leading to some serious compression issues going on in Kerbals eating the equivalent of 3 Kerbal heads worth of food per day and pooping out... well, a lot less. I think food density should be 1kg/liter too; I've been searching for food densities but all I can get google to return in caloric density so I can't be sure
I think you're probably right about the daily water intake being quite a bit lower than what should be the case, but I don't think that he accidentally used gallons instead of liters. If you look at the wikipedia source page he's using for many of these values, it indicates that the daily human metabolic need for water is 3.52kg @ 1kg/L. That being said, this number doesn't take into account the daily use needs beyond what a crew member needs to consume to survive whereas the NASA number includes things like bathing or hand washing.
Makes sense.
As to why I'm using human values rather than kerbal, this is because I feel the extra step of converting to smaller units actually unbalances the game if using realistic quantities and densities. For example, a single Universal Storage Oxygen Block, for which the volume and carrying capacity has been carefully worked out by Paul and Daishi, contains enough oxygen to support a three kerbal crew for 25.75 days. Converting that number to kerbal values expands the life of those tanks out to 50.65 days, meaning that a single block is enough to support that pod all the way to Eve with some to spare and without needing to recycle any. Also, despite all of the discussion on the subject, we have no real idea just how much of each resource a kerbal really would need to consume per day, so my thinking is that human values provide the most accurate assumption of what needs to be carried along for the ride. That being said, I'm not opposed to using kerbal values if we can bring them into a better balance.I understand, and actually agree on reflection. Kerbals are hyperactive little bouncy dudes anyway, they're bound to use up more energy!
Just bear in mind with your calculations that Oxygen is by far the easiest of the life support requirements to carry (and recover, and produce from other sources, actually: the Splitter turns 1 Liter of water in to 600 liters of O2). If it's being carried as lOx it's more dense than water, and you only need 1/4 as much of it per day. In fact if you do switch to something like 11l/d requirement, it's going to be a pretty extreme difference - water will easily be 80%+ of the life support supplies by weight and volume.
This release isn't just about integrating TACLS and US anymore, though US features prominently in the files, but rather about updating TACLS to use real world units and consumption rates (another argument for using human values), which is something that Taranis is in the process of doing himself. I've simply jumped in ahead of him to release what I consider to be a temporary patch until he finishes the proper update. I have tried to make allowances for other mods in the config, but sooner or later all of those other mods will be forced to move to the new system anyway.
It's good work, and I appreciate it - sorry if I've come across as slagging you off, I can see from the files how much work you've put in to this!
Final point, while the crew of the ISS might dislike drinking recycled waste water (I would like to see your source on this, BTW), the provision to use it for just that is built into the system. The wikipedia page describing the ISS ECLSS has a nice resource map showing what goes where and what it's used for which includes urine recovery passed through waste water processing and on to crew systems. This is something that simply must take place aboard any long duration mission as you simply can't just truck along all of your water fresh so you don't have to reuse it. Some form of recycling for water, oxygen, and probably also food is going to be a requirement (hence the need for a well balanced greenhouse) for any mission which travel far enough from Earth to preclude regular supply runs.
Turns out my source was older, the ISS has had their new Water Recovery System installed since 2010 and since then they've maintained 93% water recovery. It was the old (Russian?) systems that made ISS-nauts unhappy. Incidentally, when Elektron did run it dumped the H2 out of the station - and malfunctions frequently.
Anyway, I agree, this should simulate superior reprocessing technology. Kerbals do far more advanced and ambitious rocketry than their real-world counterparts, it stands to reason KSP would have put more research in to better long-term space habitation.... it actually engages in it.
I should also point out that some of these values may be items which should be omitted from TACLS to prevent headaches. For example, since there is only one waste resource, the system is lumping the waste from packaging in with solid waste generated as feces. If we are going to include a greenhouse which recycles waste into food without making a distinction between organic waste and non-organic waste, then at some point those plants would be eating highly nutritious plastic rather than what they should be eating. In addition to that, there has to be some accounting for water weight of food in the water intake of a crew member because if you're feeding them food which has a high water content and then also giving them a large amount of water, you're wasting system mass on the double accounting of water from those two sources. Basically, there is still some tweaking to perform, but the general conversion to real world units is still coming, whether you use my interim release, or wait for TACLS proper to be updated to the new system...Absolutely, like the TAC splitter counts Hydrogen from its Water -> Oxygen process as Waste. Which I guess mirrors current reality, but still, Hydrogen can be useful!
My headaches atm involve my recently completed MKS munbase which is now (after some save editing) just about ready to support its initial crew, but I'm not certain if its modules that create Compost, wastewater and CO2 from Substrate & Water in a good ratio, and then the one that turns compost, substrate and water to make enriched soil... and who knows what the greenhouse will do?
-
This is amazing. I love it already and I haven't even downloaded it yet! Thanks RoverDude!
As for it being 'cheaty' I envision this (with is great Life Support supply) to be a little ship that can take kerbals away from a doomed space station, or from a ship that dont'have the dV to reach home... but not capable of surviving re-entry on Kerbin. Even if it is technically capable of it I think it's a perfectly useful module without using it for that!
-
TurialD, Mass IS lost in an exothermic chemical reaction. It's just a tiny portion of said mass. But it is lost as heat energy as per the first law of thermodynamics and the mass-energy conversion formula.
Yeeeeeees that's true. When you burn one KG of pure sugar you get ~17.000.000 joules energy out of it. Fill in to our trusty old E=mc^2, solving for m and we get m = 17.000.000 / c / c = 17.000.000 / 90.000.000.000.000.000 = 1,888...e^-10 kg - that is less than two ten-millionths of a gram of mass lost to heat conversion. Can we all agree that this is a negligible quantity?
Seriously, in a closed system (like a spaceship) mass in = mass out. Now that doesn't have to matter a huge amount to the mod as we're working in liters, which is a question of volume. It's entirely possible that 7 liters of food get worked down to 0.38 liters of waste; perhaps the food was popcorn. It just seems a tad unlikely - Earth space agencies specifically deliver de-hydrated (freeze-dried) food to the ISS both for long-life and to keep the volume down (water is also far easier to recycle in space than food, obviously, though the ISS ships it in). If you want to make this an actual 'real' version of TACLS then run with that - have Kerbals produce a bunch more CO2 and H2O than they comsume, due to food conversion to account for the low solid waste (space food should be highly energy-dense).
Here is the spreadsheet that TaranisElsu is building the new numbers for TACLS off of: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...=sharing#gid=0As I said before, I'm using human values for my numbers, though Kerbal values should scale proportionately.
Aaaaah... well there's the mistake. Look closely at the table under consumption:
Water - 3.52 - 1.798
WasteWater - 3.87 - 1.977
Oxygen - 0.84 - 0.429
CarbonDioxide - 1.00 - 0.511
Food - 1.80 - 0.919
Waste - 0.11 - 0.659
Every human number is roughly halved for a kerbal and Waste quantity for humans is clearly a mistake. TaranisElsu is using Kerbal values after all, he just included human values for completion. it should be 1.1, not 0.11. Then everything fits perfectly.
Now as I've explained wastewater and CO2 should be (and are) higher than water and O2 mass in accordance with carbohydrates (and fats) being consumed for energy.
Logically, waste should be less than food by the same amount, so let's look at the total numbers in 3,52+0,84+1,8 = 6,16. And then the total number out 3,87 + 1 + 1,1 (not 0,11) = 5,97. They are within 3% of eachother. That's about right to account for sweat not being recycled, food packaging ending up as non-recyclable, etc.
BTW, when you upped the waste weight from 0.11 to 0.38 you forgot to apply the density. According to TE's numbers, it should be 0.1kg/l, roughly 1/2,5 that of food, resulting in 3,8 liters of waste/kerbal/day. This seems very off to me but it actually made your Waste calculation come out far more realistically than food
Now, a few other correcting numbers: NASA says ISS-nauts use about 11,3liters of water/day as opposed to TE's 3,5 I'm pretty sure he filled in gallons there by accident; and 1,83kg of food is right, though NASA has no density given, alas, but I think we can assume near-water levels for most foods rather than the 0.25 value TaranisElsu has. In the same vein, waste should be way more dense. Right now, at 100kg/m3 it is about 1.5x the density of EVE's atmosphere... I think it should probably be a *little* more densely packed than that, what with our space-age trash compactors.
Now though, for the big question: why are you actually using human numbers at all? These... are Kerbals. Why not just use the kerbal numbers? TE's calculations are just fine (barring the occasional odd number here and there). They're 40% of our mass, with a slightly higher metabolic rate... they should consume about half our resource requirements.
Honestly I'm having doubts that it's worth all this to integrate TACLS and US. Why would the LqWater -> O2 + H2 for use in the generator even use the same storage tanks as the crew's life support consumables? Hell, the real world Elektron uses almost exclusively filtered waste-water (astronauts dislike reprocessed urine, can't imagine why), with fresh water being flown in. Its kinda nice that resources can serve both purposes this way, to be sure, but it's giving some headaches... There are other mods and converters that use TAC's units. I dunno how they're going to react to these quantities yet, but I'm guessing its not going to be a huge success without tracking down each individual converter
-
Not true at all... You're forgetting that the whole reason we eat in the first place is to provide an energy source for the human machine. Most of what composes human feces is dead cells and non-digestible material like cellulose from plants. Pretty much everything else is either converted to raw materials for maintaining the body or energy for running it. So you have to account for a large portion of the food intake being converted to heat energy before you can say that there is not enough coming out based on whats going in.
That's not how biology works
Living beings do indeed use energy from food of course, but that's just chemical energy; in its simplest form, sugar (C6H12O6) is 'burned' by adding oxygen (6 O2's per sugar molecule) which results in a release of stored energy by converting the sugar + oxygen in to carbondioxide (6*CO2) and water (6*H2O). While we do indeed end up with less solid waste than the mass of solids that we take in, the total mass is not reduced (start: 6 Cs, 12 H's, 18 O's. end: 6Cs, 12 H's, 18 O's) - merely its configuration. To change the mass we end up with our little friends would have to be running on some kind of internal nuclear power...
But then, Kerbals are green. Who knows?
Hrm, i must have misunderstood what Ferram told me about cargo bays - Nothke's tubes aren't capped with colliders which i presumed was a hard requirement for FAR. When I get my PC back I'll add colliders to the doors, install FAR and do some testing. Always presumed a nosecone would provide enough aerodynamic protection for our parts... how much drag do they produce at the moment?B9's cargo bays are also stackable, might be worth having a look at how those work
-
No horizontal speed (or less than 2m/s), easily enough dV (up to 500), and the modules generally weigh less than 2 tons as I was moving them un-loaded.
I will upload a save (unless the problem spontaneously fixes itself), thanks!
One thing though: my current mod count is 68, which is bound to cause some issues...
Ok, here are a pair of saves. Th first one has mixed landertron types and almost always crashes hard. The second one is actually two modules that can be separated (though I foolishly didn't send enough kerbals to control it for the test), and this actually seems to be working today, even though it burst apart repeatedly yesterday.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/9fghdp507vbs7kq/MKS%20landing%201.sfs
https://www.dropbox.com/s/4xwp16x7ciu79y3/MKS%20landing%202.sfs
-
Guto8797 was reporting the same bug a few pages back. If you can get me a log I can see if anything is being reported there that might explain the problem. Hopefully that bug actually has an error associated with it in the log...
Unfortunately nubby question: How do I save a log of game events?
-
Thanks r4m0n, it's still working great
-
Hmm I see. My main problem with it right now is with reprocessing materials (like with a greenhouse) currently the absolute quantity of resources is reducing considerably.
There must surely be nearly as much Waste and WasteWater produced as there is Food and Water consumed, no matter the exact ratio of solids to liquids.
-
Ok, so here is the mod I've come to call RealTACLS:
This will convert the entire TACLS resource system to the new liters / CM-d (crew member day) as proposed by TaranisElsu. All life support resource densities have been reworked to match and all standard resource amounts have been corrected. This means that your pods will still have 1 day of resources for the max crew and also that all of the stock TACLS parts will still remain useful, including the resource recyclers so this *hopefully* should not break any games by suddenly depriving the crew of your long duration missions of their precious life support.
Anyway, please let me know if you find any bugs so I can start to iron them out.
EDIT: Also, I should mention that for full Universal Storage functionality for this mod, you will need all three US packs as certain parts from each pack are being reused as stand ins for TACLS parts until Daishi and Paul finish and release their proper TACLS pack.
Hmm... 7.2 liters of food per day? that's a hungry kerbal... Especially as he only produces .38 units of waste. That stuff has to be pure sugar... even then he should be producing a whole bunch more water
Also, all my Kerbals in my MKS Munbase just died instantly of oxygen deprivation. Though, of course, that's just cause the .cfg didnt do anything with saves. New-made modules seem to be in a good state
-
I'm having an issue that parts seem to be extremely fragile during simulation - even Jeb touching part of the rocket from EVA makes it violently explode...
-
Just about every time I try to use these for a Mun landing (usually going at around 100m/s, but between 50 and 200) they activate too late and the craft slams in to the ground
Note: this when trying to put down MKS modules, which can have quite varying weight and density depending on loadout - that may or may not have something to do with it.
-
Minor thing:
All the parts have the same name as their file (i.e. MKS_Kerbitat.cfg contains part name = MKS_Kerbitat) except for MKS_LogHub.cfg, which contains name = MKS_LogisticsHub. Just something I noticed when playing around with tech tree placement, an odd little outlier.
-
Huh, turns out the atmosphere actually does look kinda like that...
-
Hey Xander, with the latest release you accidentally named the folder in the .ZIP XandetTek. That may lead to people having double installs when they update versions and so to having two landertron.dll
-
@TurielD: How can you tell that the old and new resources are conflicting? Also, I'm not RoverDude
I dunno how I got you guys mixed up, sorry about that
By conflicting I mean like when the EVA-X carries 250 oxygen, TACLS thinks that means its carrying 250 days worth of oxygen. Both resources are using the same name, while the file supposedly renames duplicate resources.
-
I just noticed that the US_Core.cfg that defines the resources includes a few lines about renaming overlapping Oxygen, Hydrogen and Water resources from other mods. However, they still seem to overlap with TACLS's water and oxygen at present - is there anything to be done about that before the compatibility mod is ready? I'd like to try out the generator, but don't wanna use up my crew's survival supplies doing it
EDIT: Timing! Nice going RoverDude - did you manage to get that conversion setup so that it works wiht TACLS integrated mods (like your own MKS) too?
-
Can you guys confirm that the options window (right-click toolbar button) behaves very strangely as well?
Indeed. I've taken to right-clicking a bunch of times and eventually it will appear - once it has the normal sci menu will also appear though, albeit in that overlap position as shown in the picture above.
From Blizzy's notes:
- Folders and "drawables" (which are provided by third-party plugins) are nowprevented from blocking the nav ball and altimeter.
- Folders and "drawables" will now open in the same spot as they opened the
last time (as long as they fit on screen.) This should be helpful for third-
party plugin developers that provide "drawables" that may change their size
while being displayed.
It's probably an issue with how the position of the 'drawable' menu is defined.
-
Hey there, I had wanted to give Modular Kolonisation System a try, but the components all appear at once - in a spot too early on the tree - by default.
I have re-organised as follows, in what seems to be a fairly simple and logical set:
Under node4_spaceExploration
name = MKS.ScanOMatic
Under newnode_surfaceHabitation
name = MKS.Kerbitat
name = MKS.ColonyHub
name = MKS.HubAntenna
name = MKS.ConstructionHub
name = MKS.PDU
name = MKS.ExpandoTube
name = MKS.DockingTube
name = MKS.StorageHut.01
name = MKS.StorageHut.02
name = MKS.StorageHut.03
name = MKS.DockingHub
name = MKS.DockingPort
name = MKS.DockingTube
name = MKS.Greenhouse
name = MKS.Workspace
name = MKS.WaterPlant
name = MKS.TubeHub
name = MKS.BioLab
name = MKS.Terraformer
name = MKS.RadialPort
Under newnode_spaceHabitation (this is not quite ideal flavour-wise, as it's actually advanced surface habitation, but why bother with a different node?)
name = MKS.AssemblyPlant
name = MKS.ChemicalRefinery
name = MKS.ComputerFactory
name = MKS.ElectronicsFab
name = MKS.ExpandoTube2
name = MKS.ExpandoTube8
name = MKS.FlexoTube
name = MKS.MachineShop
name = MKS.MetalRefinery
name = MKS.PlasticsFab
name = MKS.PolymerRefinery
name = MKS.Recycler
name = MKS.RobotFactory
name = MKS.RoverHut.01
name = MKS.RoverHut.02
name = MKS.StorageHut.04
name = MKS.StorageHut.05
name = MKS.StorageHut.06
name = MKS.StorageHut.07
name = MKS.StorageHut.08
name = MKS.StorageHut.09
Under newnode_largeRobotics
name = MKS.LogisticsHub
Component interdependence makes further splitting impractical. RoverDude is working on a tech progression in the stock tree for his next update though, and that should make integrating it in to this one a bit more interesting too
Further, I came across a few parts that seem to appear either a little too early or not from the right connection. They're just some points I noticed in the early game. When you really have to watch your tech points those kind of items in the 'wrong' places make the comparison of available techs a little lop-sided, and I felt pushed in a certain direction because of them.
Interstellar's gas spectrometer is at newnode_atmosphericScienceTechnology, should be node7_advScienceTech (incidentally, that should probably be titled Advanced Atmosphere Investigations)
name = FNGCMS
B9's advanced science combination parts appear together with the Material Study at newnode_materialsInvestigations instead of with the Gravimeter where it should be, at newnode_planetaryScienceTechnology.
name = B9.Cockpit.MK2.Nosecone.ASAS &
name = B9.Control.ACU
KW's Vesta engine is rather on the OP side to begin with (both very high TWR and extreme isp), making it available at node2_generalRocketry is just too early, entirely negating the LV-909. It should be at node3_advRocketry at least, but because of how good it is I'd actually place it at newnode_advancedAvantGarde
name = KW1mengineVestaVR1
I don't think Miniaturization should be a prereq for Electronics. A: how does making small hull adapters contribute to designing Stayputnik when it's actually the largest of the early probes, and B: What's the point of tiny rocket parts before you can get a probe core? Miniaturization also includes things like the miniature stack decoupler, even though the actual stack decoupler only becomes available at Compound Rocketry. That should probably wait till Miniature Avant-Garde Rocketry.
Landing seems a tad expensive (especially as you kinda need it if you're going the aviation route, and its the opposite side of the tree), and the Electrics link seems a bit off too. I can see why, but I'd think it might flow better from Miniaturization: wheels have to be strong but made small and fit in little compartments. Landing struts have to fold up small on the side of rockets, etc. Perhaps it should require both, but be 10 sci cheaper.
Procedural Fairing bases appear a fair bit before the actual fairings which are at Composite Materials, while KW's fairings start appearing allongside their bases at Aerospaceframes. There's something to be said for both configurations (separate tech for each part, after all) but having them work differently is a little odd.
Anyways, great tech tree, I appreciate all the work you've put in to it and I'm enjoying it a ton! I think I'll see about working the [url=]http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/60750-WIP-Cacteye-Telescope-v0-1-%282-1-14%29-Modular-EVA-serviceable-orbital-telescope?highlight=cacteyeCacteye Telescope in to the tree tomorrow
-
I only know of British folk saying things in terms of "thousands of thousands" instead of "a million". Once you hit the thousands mark it's time to use the next set. 10^3, 10^6, 10^9 50 thousand thousand meters is awkward.
Not so very long ago the UK had an odd way of dealing with numbers
US million 1.000.000
GB million 1.000.000
US billion 1.000.000.000
GB billion 1.000.000.000.000
To a British person 1.000.000.000 was a thousand million - million, billion etc went 10^6, 10^12, 10^18. Nowadays (since 1975) it's adapted to the international conventions and 1.000.000.000 is just a billion like to all other people.
Actually I still occasionaly come across Russians who refer to 1.000.000 as 1KK, essentially one-thousand-thousand
-
The new Toolbar update (1.7.2) has broken this for me. clicking on the vial no longer gives the list of available science buttons in the right place - very occasional it will appear, but covering the toolbar:
(pay no attention to the glitchy mun 'atmosphere', that was another mod version issue)
-
I had the same issue when using EVE 7.1. When i installed EVE 7.3 the issue was resolved.
Hope it helps
It has!
I found that setting the fadedist to 120 was just enough to fix it... well, to make that layer of atmosphere disappear from near-ground view.7.3 seems to set the fadedist at 200 by default (and the scaled fadedist at 1000).
Thanks for the tips
-
I'm also getting this effect:
Changing fade distance and rim distance change the height at which it occurs, but it seems no matter what the values on the 45km atmo layer (layer 5) are there's a jarring atmo transition
DarkMultiPlayer 0.3.8.0 [KSP 1.12.0]
in KSP1 Mod Releases
Posted · Edited by TurielD
Installed this together with a friend this weekend, and it just works shockingly well. I am amazed how easy it's been to get a co-operative space program working (at least in sandbox), after being kinda intimidated by the possible complexity of getting a multiplayer mode for a purely single-player game - awesome work and thanks!
One complaint: the OP of this thread describes how to generate a DMPModControl.txt file, but its steps don't match the current version of DMP. The options screen doesn't have a "Generate DMPModControl.txt" button (anymore) and it was a tiny bit confusing to work out that the Whitelist option was the same thing.