billkerbinsky Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 ... just wandering back to the KSC.So how does that work from Eeloo? (brings to mind the somewhat mystical Silfen pathways in Peter Hamilton's Commonwealth universe). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoverDude Posted August 31, 2015 Author Share Posted August 31, 2015 Most definitely not an extra resource Will be done via math Oh... and here's a little part I just made for the Karibou Rover that I needed these code changes in place to make happen: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admac Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 I like the idea of Habitation penalties, but I am curious on the specifics of the math, Does that mean a large science ship with a hab ring and some other command pods (Call it 14 living spaces in total) with 2 crew would go bananas after 7 months? That seems like frustratingly unstable kerbals.... and absent a way to reset it, would that mean orbital stations would be Flying Palaces of Instant and Eternal Madness after a few months/years?I am positive I am misunderstanding your 1 space= 1 month of kerbal living rule, since that seems to rule out permanent colonies or stations, which seems like that would undermine a colony mod I hear you might be involved in... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rabidninjawombat Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 Nice incoming changes! Just a few questions: As Admac mentioned above, im curious for a more detailed explanation on the habitation times. And how much space would be needed for longer period expeditions? (im thinking of the poor kerbals i sent to Plock (add-on planet) that has a 25 year transfer time . Also will the habitation penalties be toggleable if we want them to be? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoverDude Posted August 31, 2015 Author Share Posted August 31, 2015 They are toggleable, and there will be appropriate balance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scorch93 Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 Uhm hi,I'm planning to make real NUMS packs because my imagination isn't enough and I thought it would be a funny idear. I don't know if the inventor would support this because it could destroy the individual thought what NUMS are, but it's only a fun project and I have to straddle the time till I get the game. After I get it, I think the only sun that I will see is the in the game. So my basic planing is over now. My idea was to have a smal white box with the NUMS Logo on it and on the site a QR-Code to the USILS forum site, with some other informations, like the ones on the tanks. In the box will be two 200ml (7oz) bags. Like the bags you maybe know from kids food which you can squeez, only a little bit bigger. One will be with water and the other with a kind of liquid food. Like a soup. I thought it should be a green soup because of Kerbal reasons. The bags will be both transparent plastic or for the water transparent plastic and for the soup aluminum foil. I'm not sure about that now. Maybe I could put some cookies in it too in welded vacuum bags. First I only want to take cookies in it but I think it would be cooler and more spacey if you have all in sucking bags, even if I know that real astronauts haven't everythink in sucking bags. I'd like to hear your thoughts and a ideas for the soup and/or in general. I keep you up to date. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grumman Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 Grumpy = tourist. Mutiny = tourist plus a case of random part decoupling. Hilarity may ensue.RE the hab function, It's less a case of 'stuff' and more a case of how said stuff is configured.- - - Updated - - -No habitation restoration at this time.I do not think you are going about this the right way. You are trying to apply a consumable-based simulation to a system which has nothing to do with consumables, and it just does not work. If a Kerbal needs to get off the Kerbinational Space Station, it is not because the station's living space has been all used up, it's because the Kerbal's mental or physical health is running thin. Sending up a replacement crew does not also require sending up a new living module to replace the one you used up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ModZero Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 If a Kerbal needs to get off the Kerbinational Space Station, it is not because the station's living space has been all used up, it's because the Kerbal's mental or physical health is running thin. Sending up a replacement crew does not also require sending up a new living module to replace the one you used up.That's not entirely true. Space stations (like sea vessels, actually) have a limited lifetime, due to various unpleasant stresses happening to large structures in such environments, and general wear & tear. They're definitely not as sustainable as your brick & mortar house (OTOH, I might have an optimistic idea of land structures). Looks for example here: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=15795.0. ISS was designed initially for 30 years, later that was relaxed to 15, though it seems to be doing relatively fine for now (though apparently nobody loves the Zvezda module). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoverDude Posted September 1, 2015 Author Share Posted September 1, 2015 So how does that work from Eeloo? (brings to mind the somewhat mystical Silfen pathways in Peter Hamilton's Commonwealth universe).Life finds a way...I do not think you are going about this the right way. You are trying to apply a consumable-based simulation to a system which has nothing to do with consumables, and it just does not work. If a Kerbal needs to get off the Kerbinational Space Station, it is not because the station's living space has been all used up, it's because the Kerbal's mental or physical health is running thin. Sending up a replacement crew does not also require sending up a new living module to replace the one you used up.I think you completely misunderstand how it works... there's no resource, nothing consumed. I look at various counters and evaluate it against how long a given amount of space can support a given amount of Kerbals before they go nuts.That's not entirely true. Space stations (like sea vessels, actually) have a limited lifetime, due to various unpleasant stresses happening to large structures in such environments, and general wear & tear. They're definitely not as sustainable as your brick & mortar house (OTOH, I might have an optimistic idea of land structures). Looks for example here: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=15795.0. ISS was designed initially for 30 years, later that was relaxed to 15, though it seems to be doing relatively fine for now (though apparently nobody loves the Zvezda module).Bingo. At the upper end, the lifespan would (effectively) be infinite (or at least last as long as a KSP save goes before going wonky), but stuff with that kind of durability would be reserved for mods to implement - a hitchhiker is just not built to last hundreds of years when stuffed to the gills. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ModZero Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 I blame science-fiction always focusing on the flashy tech. All those generation ships, without consideration of what would happen to an irradiated 2km long steel beam constantly compressed for 100 years during the first minor course correction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admac Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 Yeah I think a full sized semi permanent structure should be habitable for at least 15-30 years, like the ISS. I suppose with a multipart surface base you could just scrap and rebuild the hap modules, and it would be an incentive to make autonomous bases for core functions like mining/refining. Edge case;If I have all my Kerbals in a manned base, 100 M away from an unmanned mining base with living spaces, they will get proxy use of those living spaces in that base. Will it count the usage of that living space against the unmanned base as far as using up it's habitability?Also It seems like this would impact an unmanned base even more, since a large point of crew is to do countless minor fixes everyday. It stands to reason that a fully autonomous base would wear out before a similar manned base, all things being equal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vorg Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 The problem with putting life spans on parts or anything really in this game is that decades can go by in minutes, while time warping to a launch window. And with it taking game years to get to some places, you easily end up not being able to get needed resupplies in time. And trying to do so puts a lot of craft flying around that can then miss windows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Superfluous J Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 While I respect these decisions and hope the best for the mod, anything that puts a timer on a part or module so that it becomes less useful over time turns me off immediately and I won't play with it installed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenpsp Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 While I respect these decisions and hope the best for the mod, anything that puts a timer on a part or module so that it becomes less useful over time turns me off immediately and I won't play with it installed.Well luckily he said they would all be togglable options. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Superfluous J Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 Well luckily he said they would all be togglable options.I actually missed that part. Thank you I should have expected it from the awesomeness that is RoverDude. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoverDude Posted September 1, 2015 Author Share Posted September 1, 2015 Yeah I think a full sized semi permanent structure should be habitable for at least 15-30 years, like the ISS. I suppose with a multipart surface base you could just scrap and rebuild the hap modules, and it would be an incentive to make autonomous bases for core functions like mining/refining. Edge case;If I have all my Kerbals in a manned base, 100 M away from an unmanned mining base with living spaces, they will get proxy use of those living spaces in that base. Will it count the usage of that living space against the unmanned base as far as using up it's habitability?Also It seems like this would impact an unmanned base even more, since a large point of crew is to do countless minor fixes everyday. It stands to reason that a fully autonomous base would wear out before a similar manned base, all things being equal.The problem with putting life spans on parts or anything really in this game is that decades can go by in minutes, while time warping to a launch window. And with it taking game years to get to some places, you easily end up not being able to get needed resupplies in time. And trying to do so puts a lot of craft flying around that can then miss windows.While I respect these decisions and hope the best for the mod, anything that puts a timer on a part or module so that it becomes less useful over time turns me off immediately and I won't play with it installed.Sheesh. You guys are really getting confused because of other posters jumping to conclusions.Nothing is being used up. There is no resource. It's as simple as saying 'A Kerbal can't spend a year in a tin can, nor can they spend 100 years in a tiny inflatable bubble'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Superfluous J Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 Nothing is being used up. There is no resource. It's as simple as saying 'A Kerbal can't spend a year in a tin can, nor can they spend 100 years in a tiny inflatable bubble'.Will there be a (reasonable) size can or bubble that a Kerbal can spend an indefinite amount of time in? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarheel1999 Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 Will there be a (reasonable) size can or bubble that a Kerbal can spend an indefinite amount of time in?I think he's already answered that below in post # 784. Yes but it won't be a lander can or a hitchhiker. Now I would imagine that a lander can and a hitchhiker for a single kerbal will last awhile but not indefinitely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Superfluous J Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 I think he's already answered that below in post # 784.I should have actually reread it to be sure instead of firing off a post. Though now that I reread it I'm confused.a hitchhiker is just not built to last hundreds of years when stuffed to the gills.So the Hitchhiker itself will eventually become unusable? Not the Kerbals within? And by this I mean if you have a 100-year-old hitchhiker and put a fresh recruit Kebal in it, there will be some detriment?Whether or not something is "used up" or there is a resource is immaterial to me. My concern is - will parts themselves be less useful over time, or is this all dependent on how long the Kerbal is in there?Again I stress I'm not complaining or mad or trying to convince someone of anything. I'm just trying to reconcile two conflicting messages so I can make a decision if the future of this mod is something I do or do not want to install, which could also affect if the current mod goes into my next career game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J3ansley Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 (edited) I could be reading this wrong but it sounds like this affects individual kerbal a and not really the part. For instance. You have a kerbal in a lander can and leave him somewhere. In X amount of time, if you've toggled, he will commit suicide, quit obeying you, become grumpy, or get pissed and invent teleportation and end up back in KSP. If you send another kerbal to replace him in that same part then she will last X amount of time before she does whatever you toggled. If that lander can has a habitation ring (or any other part with space) attached to it then it will be X+Y time before they get pissed. Edited September 2, 2015 by J3ansley More clarity Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloody_looser Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 RoverDude, stock Engineer's Report thingie gives a message about unused Supplies resource. Not that it is a critical issue, but still... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Businfu Posted September 4, 2015 Share Posted September 4, 2015 I am wildly stoked on the whole habitation thing, however it works!! I just recently learned about the DeepFreeze Continued mod, and i'm hoping the two will play together. Think about the scene in Event Horizon when the crew wakes up from cryo and Dr. Weir is already starting to feel the pull of Chaos and insanity..... there are some things a mortal mind just cannot fully cope with...I just started a new game and got to the stage where I'm building my first LKO station. Now I'm thinking I should hold off until this is released? any idea for ETA? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoverDude Posted September 4, 2015 Author Share Posted September 4, 2015 soon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vhaegrant Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 Looking forward to the implementation of crew space as a factor to the morale of Kerbals.Will you plan to add modules that represent 'entertainment' facilities to increase the time before a Kerbal starts looking for things to dismantle? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoverDude Posted September 5, 2015 Author Share Posted September 5, 2015 I will be adding almost no parts - I view that part as a framework for mods to extend (hence why it is toggleabgle). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.