[1.12.x] USI Life Support

[RoverDude]

...The volume of 1L of noms is.... 1L.

The volume of 1L of mulch is also... (wait for it)  1L.

If you are referring to the density, then that is 1kg/L

(And for clarity, all CRP resources are 1L units.. vs. the 5L of most stock bits).

Edited July 11, 2016 by RoverDude

[Rafael acevedo]

40 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

...The volume of 1L of noms is.... 1L.

The volume of 1L of mulch is also... (wait for it)  1L.

If you are referring to the density, then that is 1kg/L

(And for clarity, all CRP resources are 1L units.. vs. the 5L of most stock bits).

So  the unit of measure is1 liter throught

[Rafael acevedo]

1 hour ago, Blasty McBlastblast said:

@Rafael acevedo When you think about it only the mass of the supplies is relevant for rocket calculations. The volume of NOMS will depend on the types of snacks provided (think chocolate bar vs packet of crisps), and as for mulch... google says "1.0 g/cm3 is accepted as the average density of human feces. Therefore, 27 L of feces weighs around 27 Kg. If you're dealing with sinkers or floaters, it'll change."

edit: after some additional searching (pretty sure the government is watching me now!) I found this document which contains actual numbers for real life space mulch! hehe my favourite line is "The bag was kneaded to rupture the inner pouch and mix the germicide with the wastes"t (so the next time Jebediah complains about tedious data collection, remind him how lucky he is!!  )

Actually what I am trying to do is write a script to modify the life support tank supporting tac-Ls in procedural parts to support usi-Ls. If you look at the proccedural parts script it uses units per kilo liter to determine the capacity of the tank. Now based on rover dudes answer ( 1 unit  of NOMS equals 1 liter) so a kerbal consumes 16.2 liters of noms. Again I just want to be faithful to rover dudes mod. This also means that a procedural tank carryingg supplies will have a slightly less volume than the corresponding tank in usi- ls. For example the equivalent tank in proccedural parts to the 15000l tank in usi ls is slightly over 13500 liters which is ok and can be attributed to different methods and materials in construction.

[chukovskiy]

May I ask if Habitation mechanic can be disabled? Not to say I don't like it, but still.

Tried to set following parameters as described in USI-LS wiki

Quote

    NoHomeEffect = 0            //Effect if a Kerbal becomes homesick
    NoHomeEffectVets = 0        //Effect if a Kerbal is a vet and becomes homesick

in both /LifeSupport/Settings.cfg (there were zeroes by default) and /UKS/USI-LS.cfg but got no effect.

On existing vessel that had 40 days of "hab" left both of my kerbals refused to operate when it expired. Same story happened on a new vessel I launched after changes.

Removing Settings.cfg and USI-LS.cfg did not change anything aswell. Might it be that the mod don't use them at all?

[eberkain]

14 minutes ago, chukovskiy said:

May I ask if Habitation mechanic can be disabled? Not to say I don't like it, but still.

Tried to set following parameters as described in USI-LS wiki

in both /LifeSupport/Settings.cfg (there were zeroes by default) and /UKS/USI-LS.cfg but got no effect.

On existing vessel that had 40 days of "hab" left both of my kerbals refused to operate when it expired. Same story happened on a new vessel I launched after changes.

Removing Settings.cfg and USI-LS.cfg did not change anything aswell. Might it be that the mod don't use them at all?

In-game at the space center view check the options window and see what it is set to. 

[Kobymaru]

I have a concern with the no-locking mechanic of supplies, and how "starvation" is handled.

I totally understand the idea of forbidding players to just periodically unlock the supplies. There is a problem with this however:

Imagine an orbital station with all kinds of recyclers. The station should be resupplied with supplies, and a new crew should be rotated in place. It would make sense to bring both crew and supplies on the same vessel. However, while the launch and all kinds of rendez-vous and phasing happens, the kerbs in the vessel without recyclers munch up all the supplies before arriving! And there is no chance for locking. This is gets worse when going to the mun or to minmus.

I suggest two things:

1. Allow locking of supplies
2. Introduce a "starvation" counter. Instead of just allowing Kerbals to go without supplies for 15 days, actually just RECORD the time that they go without supplies (max is still 15 days). The second they have access to supplies again, the Kerbals munch up this many days worth of supplies.
3. The counter is only wound back by so much time that the kerbals could consume. So if you have only 5 days worth of supplies after being starved for 8 days, they end up with starvation counter of 3 days.

Example: Kerbals are launched to Minmus in a vessel without supplies. The time they were hungry is recorded. When they arrive at a Minmus station with recyclers, they start nomming away at 15 days worth of supplies out of the stations storage, but with the recycling factor considered.

 

I think this approach is less restrictive and more logical, but still prevents cheating: It doesn't matter if you lock your supplies for a certain period of time, because when you unlock the supplies, the kerbals eat just as much as they would have without locking.

Does that sound like a good idea?

 

 

[chukovskiy]

1 hour ago, eberkain said:

In-game at the space center view check the options window and see what it is set to. 

Oh, thanks a lot. Didn't notice that ingame option.

Edited July 11, 2016 by chukovskiy

[blu3wolf]

54 minutes ago, Kobymaru said:

Imagine an orbital station with all kinds of recyclers. The station should be resupplied with supplies, and a new crew should be rotated in place. It would make sense to bring both crew and supplies on the same vessel. However, while the launch and all kinds of rendez-vous and phasing happens, the kerbs in the vessel without recyclers munch up all the supplies before arriving! And there is no chance for locking. This is gets worse when going to the mun or to minmus.

Thats not a problem, its a feature.

[goldenpsp]

1 hour ago, Kobymaru said:

Imagine an orbital station with all kinds of recyclers. The station should be resupplied with supplies, and a new crew should be rotated in place. It would make sense to bring both crew and supplies on the same vessel. However, while the launch and all kinds of rendez-vous and phasing happens, the kerbs in the vessel without recyclers munch up all the supplies before arriving! And there is no chance for locking. This is gets worse when going to the mun or to minmus.

 

It seems to me that the issue with this scenario is not the ability to lock supplies, but instead the failure to bring enough supplies to feed the crew for the trip AND have enough to transfer to the station.  I certainly don't see it as an example that we need supply locking.

[Kobymaru]

17 minutes ago, blu3wolf said:

Thats not a problem, its a feature.

 

I get 15 days worth of supplies for free if I don't bring supplies at all, but if I care enough to feed my Kerbals, I have to pay extra? Not sure if that's a good feature. It's "inconsistent" at the very least.

 

Just now, goldenpsp said:

It seems to me that the issue with this scenario is not the ability to lock supplies, but instead the failure to bring enough supplies to feed the crew for the trip AND have enough to transfer to the station.  I certainly don't see it as an example that we need supply locking.

The way I see it, the lock circumvention is a workaround for players who try to cheat the system. With my suggestion of tracking the starvation time and catch-up consumption, this workaround is no longer necessary. I see only improvements in clarity and consistency, but no downsides.

[blu3wolf]

You get no supplies for free, but your kerbals can survive, sans supplies, for 15 days. An important distinction.

Its not inconsistent. Its very consistent. Your kerbals are not going to deliberately starve themselves when shipping supplies up!

Besides, if you are shipping up to a station in LKO, its not like there is any resource consumption to speak of, anyway. Its like a 10 minute trip!

[goldenpsp]

6 minutes ago, Kobymaru said:

 

I get 15 days worth of supplies for free if I don't bring supplies at all, but if I care enough to feed my Kerbals, I have to pay extra? Not sure if that's a good feature. It's "inconsistent" at the very least.

 

I don't see that as inconsistent at all.  The way I have always considered this is that this is the "buffer"

To put that into real world perspective, we humans, if you use the rule of 3's can go 3 days without water, and 3 weeks without food.  To Kerbalize this, let's say for argument we can go 3 weeks without "supplies".  While it is true you may not die in those weeks, you aren't a happy camper.  So say that was akin to NASA sending a craft to say, the moon to re-crew and re-staff the station there, but they said you can't eat for the 2 weeks of transit and rendevouz it would take, how well would that mission go?

Edited July 11, 2016 by goldenpsp

[Kobymaru]

tl; dr:

Still allow a 15-day grace period, but as a punishment consume resources after starvation.

 

24 minutes ago, blu3wolf said:

You get no supplies for free, but your kerbals can survive, sans supplies, for 15 days. An important distinction.

If I care, I have to ship 10*16.2 = 162 units of Supplies per Kerbal for the trip to Minmus. If I don't care, I don't have to ship any supplies, and suffer no consequences. I call this "free".

Why not just make them consume the missing supplies when they have access to them? 

Assume I have 1000 supplies on my Minmus station.

• With the current system: Launch 3 Kerbals, don't pack supplies, arrive at Minmus Station, have 1000 supplies left.
• With the proposed system: Launch 3 Kerbals, don't pack supplies, arrive at Minmus Station, have 514 supplies left.

Is this not a difference of 486 supplies? Does the latter not make more sense to you?
You get 15*16.2=243 per Kerbal of Supplies for free in the current scenario, 243 Supplies that you can use to extend your mission duration without having to pay for it.

 

If you need something for the Lore: when the Kerbals are starved for days and days and days, they lose body mass in the process, and they will be very, very hungry. They need to be fed back up until they are healthy again, and they will probably stuff all the noms they can find into themselves.

That's not a perfect simulation, but better than just happily going to work and eating the same amount as if they weren't starved for 14 days.

 

Quote

Its not inconsistent. Its very consistent. Your kerbals are not going to deliberately starve themselves when shipping supplies up!

But if I myself starve them, they don't complain at all?

 

Quote

Besides, if you are shipping up to a station in LKO, its not like there is any resource consumption to speak of, anyway. Its like a 10 minute trip!

Minmus is something like 10 days.

Edited July 11, 2016 by Kobymaru

[blu3wolf]

1 minute ago, Kobymaru said:

If I care, I have to ship 10*16.2 = 162 units of Supplies per Kerbal for the trip to Minmus. If I don't care, I don't have to ship any supplies, and suffer no consequences. I call this "free".

You get no Supplies. Shipping zero supplies is, and has always, been 'free'. Shipping supplies, does have a cost. Im not disputing this.

1 minute ago, Kobymaru said:

Why not just make them consume the missing supplies when they have access to them? 

I was under the distinct impression that this was already the case, and that as soon as starved Kerbals got access to supplies again, they scoffed the lot. Its been a while since Ive had kerbals sans supplies. Has this changed?

1 minute ago, Kobymaru said:

Assume I have 1000 supplies on my Minmus station.

• With the current system: Launch 3 Kerbals, don't pack supplies, arrive at Minmus Station, have 1000 supplies left.
• With the proposed system: Launch 3 Kerbals, don't pack supplies, arrive at Minmus Station, have 514 supplies left.

Is this not a difference of 486 supplies? Does the latter not make more sense to you?
You get 15*16.2=243 per Kerbal of Supplies for free in the current scenario, 243 Supplies that you can use to extend your mission duration without having to pay for it.

As above, I was under the impression this is not a difference of 486 supplies, but a difference of 514 supplies. As further above, you get zero supplies per kerbal, free.

1 minute ago, Kobymaru said:

But if I myself starve them, they don't complain at all?

Minmus is something like 10 days.

Well, the duration of a trip to Minmus is obviously not fixed. Using Principia, and trying to save on delta V, it can be more like 100 days. Trying to perform a time limited rescue mission, it can be more like a day, or less. Just depends how high a mass ratio you can get for your high delta V rapid reaction force. Lets say, for the sake of argument, and out of the goodness of my heart, that we can agree that an average (mean) duration of a trip to Minmus is 10 days.

So what? Your proposal is to send Kerbals on that trip, carrying food, to starve themselves? And you think your crew have a high enough stupidity stat to not be able to think for themselves, and consume the supplies they are carrying? If its that fixed a requirement, that your ship not consume supplies, send it out on remote control. Or uninstall life support. Or put a recycler on the resupply ship. Its not like you are being coerced into having supplies on your stations, after all.

[Kobymaru]

1 minute ago, blu3wolf said:

I was under the distinct impression that this was already the case, and that as soon as starved Kerbals got access to supplies again, they scoffed the lot. Its been a while since Ive had kerbals sans supplies. Has this changed?

I'm not sure myself, but if this actually is the case, then why have supply locking in the first place? If this is what happens, cheating isn't possible anyway!

1 minute ago, blu3wolf said:

Well, the duration of a trip to Minmus is obviously not fixed. 

This is where you crossed the line to nitpicking. I mentioned an approximate duration from my memory for a Hohmann Transfer with minimum dV. How is a discussion about travel time to Minmus with Principia gonna advance a discussion about supplies? Pick your battles, please.

 

1 minute ago, blu3wolf said:

So what? Your proposal is to send Kerbals on that trip, carrying food, to starve themselves?

My proposal is that after starvation, Kerbals should eat a lot more to compensate for the starvation period. That's all.
Maybe you haven't seen my edit yet, so I'll reiterate: 

If you need something for the Lore: when the Kerbals are starved for days and days and days, they lose body mass in the process, and they will be very, very hungry. They need to be fed back up until they are healthy again, and they will probably stuff all the noms they can find into themselves.

That's not a perfect simulation, but better than just happily going to work and eating the same amount as if they weren't starved for 14 days.

 

1 minute ago, blu3wolf said:

If its that fixed a requirement, that your ship not consume supplies

My requirement is conservation of mass, conservation of energy, an increase in entropy, and no free stuff for Kerbals. 

[RoverDude]

A kerbal that has been out of supplies does not grab any extras once they are available.

Any vessel past the Mun has to account for supplies and/or recyclers as it is.  the buffer is just that... a buffer to allow for initial missions and a bit of 'oops!' leeway.  You should not be taking it for granted in your general life support calculations (i.e. it is not included in the VAB previews either).

So based on that, I don't see a need to encourage the use of this buffer as part of mission planning.  If stuff is there, Kerbals are going to use it.  Asking then not to is like sending your five year old with an open bag of marshmallows to school and telling them not to eat any of them, and to just hand the bag over to their kindergarten class.  

[Kobymaru]

3 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

So based on that, I don't see a need to encourage the use of this buffer as part of mission planning.

Wouldn't it be even *less* encouragement if the supplies were deducted afterwards?

 

[goldenpsp]

8 minutes ago, Kobymaru said:

Wouldn't it be even *less* encouragement if the supplies were deducted afterwards?

 

You just can't let go can you?  We used to have a mechanic where if you locked the supplies the kerbals would raid completely.  Now they just unlock them.  This fixes the issue without having to jump through code hoops to calculate how much to deduct etc.  

I see no issue with a life support mod allowing Kerbals to eat if supplies are available.

[RoverDude]

19 minutes ago, Kobymaru said:

Wouldn't it be even *less* encouragement if the supplies were deducted afterwards?

 

I'm pretty happy with the mechanic as is, and really see no reason to change it at this time (other than dealing with a better way of 'curing' homesickness, but that change is already being written).

[chukovskiy]

About habitation mechanics again. Maybe it's known issue, tho.

It is said that habitation timer is reset when a kerbal enters a new vesel, according to that vessel's configuration. However if I separate a vessel via docking ports and then immediately connect them back, it counts as "wow, new vessel(s) appeared, reset the hab timer!". Is it intended? Cuz it is kinda weird, but does not interfere with mentioned rules.

[RoverDude]

It's an edge case I am ok with, as nobody can escape the global timer   

Side note...  I have been up to my eyeballs in the new balance guidelines (which cover MKS, USI-LS, as well as retrofit stock) and it has been.... entertaining.

Part of this is I need to rebalance everything so that as you swap between recyclers, hab multipliers, and converters, the mass/etc. all remain pretty balanced.  So yeah... good times

[Malich]

That's the kind of background stuff i thrive on in games! Can't wait to see the results.

[WuphonsReach]

Two minor suggestions for things with USI-LS that I've found after coming back for 1.1.3.

The "noms" button (green cube) only appears on the main (stock) toolbar, it doesn't have support for the Blizzy toolbar.

There's probably enough settings on the settings page that presets would be useful (easy/normal/hardcore).

[AndrewHere]

Can someone tell me what is "EC" i cant find that anywhere and that;s what limits my flights a lot.

Why is EC always so low? Like i have 60 days of supplies, 50 days of habitation and only 20 days of EC :/

[Kobymaru]

3 minutes ago, AndrewHere said:

Can someone tell me what is "EC" i cant find that anywhere and that;s what limits my flights a lot.

Electric Charge. Produced by Solar Panels, Fuel cells and Nuclear Reactors. Stored in Batteries. Consumed by... pretty much everything.