Elan

I already reported it on github, but it would be TAC's decision, because that's the main mod that's using the value. Anyway, I changed my mind about that - I don't think updating the value is worth the effort. The difference between 1.41 and 1.43 is not big enough to affect realism and there will be imprecision either way, because all densities have only 3 significant digits. So in order to fix that, all values in the Community Resource Pack would have to be updated to have more digits, and that's just not worth it. A better way is to just adapt your calculations to match TAC's, as I wrote in the previous post. So you will have to recalculate all values used by the (4?) resource convertors in your mod, in order to be consistent with TAC and to have your convertors conserve mass. You actually only need to take the values from that spreadsheet I posted about earlier and scale the values accordingly. You are right, I think your value is better in terms of both gameplay and realism. We should try persuading TAC to change his value.

I've been doing some number checking on TAC life support mod and while the information is still fresh in my mind, I decided to check this mod's compatibility with TAC. I found a few minor problems with the resource convertors. The Elektron water electrolyser produces hydrogen and oxygen in slightly (a little over 1%) disproportional amounts compared to TAC. It also violates conservation of mass. I tracked down the problem to oxygen density. TAC, US and Community Resource Pack all use oxygen density 1.41 g/L, while the actual value is 1.43 g/L. You also use different ways to calculate the result, which normally wouldn't matter, but now the imprecision makes a difference. Your two ways : US - two gasses under same conditions (pressure, temperature) have the same volume / mole, so electrolysis of water produces exactly twice as much volume of hydrogen as oxygen. Due to imprecise oxygen density this doesn't conserve mass. TAC - convert moles into mass, then mass into volume using density. Mass is conserved, but hydrogen volume wouldn't be exactly twice the oxygen volume. Because TAC doesn't have hydrogen and instead uses solid waste, there is no visible discrepancy. I recommend switching to the TAC way. Here is his spreadsheet. The electrolysis is at row 319. TAC also uses different amounts of charge (EC) for electrolysis. If 1 EC = 1 kJ then his value is more realistic, since the real Elektron uses about 1 kW (or so the Internet claims). And one last detail - water in the US resource definitions has unitCost=0.0001, while TAC (and CRP) has unitCost=0.0008.

Oh, apparently someone already noticed this a month ago: https://github.com/taraniselsu/TacLifeSupport/issues/42. I hadn't thought about checking the github issues. Yes, I figured that out eventually, but my point is that it is not immediately apparent from the description, and new players might be confused like me. Maybe I could add some information on recyclers to the wiki ?

Hello, I've recently started using this mod and came across a few issues. First, in the description of parts that recycle resources, it says something like "efficiency multiplier 5". I only found out what it means after some searching. Could you change the description into something more understandable ? For example, "80% efficiency" or "recycles <input> into 80% <output> and 20% waste". Since you can calculate one from the other, it makes sense to list the more comprehensible number, which is efficiency I think. Also, when I was looking up the meaning of that efficiency multiplier, I found your spreadsheet. It is very well researched, but I found some inconsistencies with the recyclers (starting at row 312 in the spreadsheet). I'll go through them in order : Water splitter - is fine. Carbon extractor (CO2->O2) - this took me a while. I didn't know where its efficiency came from. It is 100% efficient in the sense that it converts 1 mole of CO2 into 1 mole of O2. Its inefficiency comes from Kerbals, whose breathing converts 1 mole of O2 into 0.869 moles of CO2, thus making the overall oxygen cycle 86.9% efficient. Could you maybe add this to the wiki ? Sabatier recycler - it doesn't make sense to speak of its efficiency, because it's not a closed cycle like the previous one. This one uses water in each cycle, so it's like the combination of water splitter and carbon extractor. Water purifier - I think there is a miscalculation in the spreadsheet, which comes from cell C362. It says : C362=C360*(D210/D213)*J360, but I think it should be C362=C360*(C210/C213)*J360. Currently, there is actually more water produced than spent. (it's something like 100 water >>>Kerbals>>> 120 waste water >>>recycling>>> 110 water)