[1.12.x] USI Life Support

[jackalope50]

I installed 0.5.9 and experienced this: With four "TT18-A Launch Stability Enhancers" (launch clamps) I must endure FOUR "clunks" (consecutively) on launch; not just the usually obnoxious ONE clunk, but FOUR! With six clamps, six clunks?!

It took awhile to narrow it down to USI-LS because I thought it to be the least probable of all my installed mods to cause such a situation!! Anyway, this occurs with either a CKAN install or a .zip download from Github(?).

 

 

[NeuroticGamer]

38 minutes ago, jackalope50 said:

I installed 0.5.9 and experienced this: With four "TT18-A Launch Stability Enhancers" (launch clamps) I must endure FOUR "clunks" (consecutively) on launch; not just the usually obnoxious ONE clunk, but FOUR! With six clamps, six clunks?!

It took awhile to narrow it down to USI-LS because I thought it to be the least probable of all my installed mods to cause such a situation!! Anyway, this occurs with either a CKAN install or a .zip download from Github(?).

 

 

I was wondering why that started last night. And, yes, the only mod updated was USI-LS.

[Kermanzooming]

Wondering about electric charge costs for habitation; right now (0.5.9) turning on habitation on a Hitchiker module costs 5 EC/s... which is a lot! That means that surviving on the shadow of a planet 1 hour takes 18.000 EC!

Is that intended? Is there any way of reconfiguring that cost?

[tsaven]

1 hour ago, jackalope50 said:

I installed 0.5.9 and experienced this: With four "TT18-A Launch Stability Enhancers" (launch clamps) I must endure FOUR "clunks" (consecutively) on launch; not just the usually obnoxious ONE clunk, but FOUR! With six clamps, six clunks?!

It took awhile to narrow it down to USI-LS because I thought it to be the least probable of all my installed mods to cause such a situation!! Anyway, this occurs with either a CKAN install or a .zip download from Github(?).

 

 

Maybe it's related, but I get a MASSIVE performance hit whenever I stage now.  As in, I actually thought the game had crashed because it fully paused for 8-10 seconds before continuing.  The number of parts staged seems to matter as well, and when I check the log it's full of USI-LS related errors.  I'll be putting together a save and logs for RD later today.

[tsaven]

23 minutes ago, Kermanzooming said:

Wondering about electric charge costs for habitation; right now (0.5.9) turning on habitation on a Hitchiker module costs 5 EC/s... which is a lot! That means that surviving on the shadow of a planet 1 hour takes 18.000 EC!

Is that intended? Is there any way of reconfiguring that cost?

While RD is continually making balance tweaks and I can't speak to the exact number, this behavior is intentional.  I'd suggest looking at UKS for some small nuclear reactors that are useful for these situations.

[Kermanzooming]

8 minutes ago, tsaven said:

While RD is continually making balance tweaks and I can't speak to the exact number, this behavior is intentional.  I'd suggest looking at UKS for some small nuclear reactors that are useful for these situations.

Of course EC consumption for habitatibility extension makes perfect sense, is the balance I think is off; carrying a nuclear reactor just to be able to circle Minmus seems a little bit excessive.

[nebuchadnezzar]

@RoverDude I'm using the most recent version of USI LS, 0.5.9.0, and when I stage a decoupler I get an exception along with several errors. 

Spoiler

Exception handling event onVesselPartCountChanged in class ModuleLifeSupportSystem:System.InvalidOperationException: Operation is not valid due to the current state of the object
  at System.Linq.Enumerable.First[Part] (IEnumerable`1 source, System.Func`2 predicate, Fallback fallback) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
  at System.Linq.Enumerable.First[Part] (IEnumerable`1 source, System.Func`2 predicate) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
  at LifeSupport.ModuleLifeSupportSystem.UpdateVesselInfo () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
  at LifeSupport.ModuleLifeSupportSystem.UpdateVessel (.Vessel thisVessel) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
  at EventData`1[Vessel].Fire (.Vessel data) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 

I've tested this on a stock 1.2.1 install with only USI LS 0.5.9.0 package installed. Here are my logs.

[RoverDude]

Working on this now, guys.  Expect a patch tonight.

[RoverDude]

Ok.  Version 0.5.10 is going up now, sorts the decouple spam.

[Nori]

@RoverDude you da best!

[tsaven]

Man, RD's got better support than most companies!

[RoverDude]

heh, thanks   Now please let me know if there are any issues

[Bluebottle]

@RoverDude just want to give you a heads-up, if indeed this is the cause of my new problem. MM has just updated to 2.7.5 (experience system/traits change due to EL builds being unable to function) and now I'm seeing a 5-kerbal craft consuming supplies at the rate of 3.14 per second, with a recycler. Wear is increasing at 1% every 5 seconds or so. I'm guessing something in the MM change might have thrown off some of your checks.

This behavior goes back to normal if I revert MM to 2.7.4. So, peeps here might want to be very, very careful when upgrading MM to 2.7.5.

A caveat: I am running USI-LS 0.5.4 (waiting for all this recent dust to settle) and USI-Tools 0.8.6, on KSP v1.2.1.

 

Edited November 30, 2016 by Bluebottle

[steve_v]

5 hours ago, RoverDude said:

Now please let me know if there are any issues

Just updated 0.5.6 -> 0.5.10... and got a "refuses to work / returned to work" again on coming into range of my Mun station loading, multiple stations .
No errors logged, but back to the old pre patch-storm behaviour, at least on my career save.
Back to 0.5.6 again I guess. Seems it's the last version that a) works and b) doesn't stop research labs.

Ed. Also, 0.5.10 comes with comunitycategorykit 0.1.2?

Edited November 30, 2016 by steve_v

[RoverDude]

@steve_v then we are back to needing a save, because this one is being an absolute bear to repro.  @Bluebottle - MM would not affect this, and I really can't provide guidance on older versions.  

Edited November 30, 2016 by RoverDude

[steve_v]

22 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

Then we are back to needing a save, because this one is being an absolute bear to repro.

Yeah, I know. In the process of retrieving all my crews, will see what happens with fresh victims tomorrow. Making a stock save will have to be a weekend thing.

[v1per]

3 hours ago, steve_v said:

Yeah, I know. In the process of retrieving all my crews, will see what happens with fresh victims tomorrow. Making a stock save will have to be a weekend thing.

From what I tested, that should make everything work, as long as they don't go strike ever. I ran for about 1 Kerbin month without issues after rotating my scientists, so they were fresh and no habitation issues. But then my supplies ran out and they went into strike. After sending more supplies over, they got back to work, but then the issue started happening again.

[tater]

I finally updated USILS, and noticed the observation and viewing cupolas and tested them in a contract, and they don't fulfill the cupola requirement on contracts. Is there a way (MM patch?) to make contracts take a range of parts as acceptable, and not the one, specific part stock assumes? 

[RoverDude]

FYI did some poking around this morning, and have some updates to what I believe is causing the occasional 'refuse to work' issue, just need to clean some UI issues as well.

[Bartholomew]

Hello everyone.

First of all I'd like to thank OP for all his mods.. I'm having so much fun with them! Life support just added another dimension to the game which was very needed, IMHO.

I'm sorry if the question I'm going to ask is answered elsewhere, but I swear I've googled a lot, read the wiki and everything, but I still can't get the correct answer.

I'm designing a new base to put in orbit, and I'm a bit curious about how Recycling works. On the wiki it says that 

Quote

After the crew capacity is exceeded, the efficiency is reduced by the amount you are over capacity. For example, the MPL Science Lab's efficiency divided by 2 if ten kerbals are present on the ship (double the Recycler's crew capacity).

and it also says

Quote

If you have multiple Recyclers running, their effects are cumulative. The vessel-wide consumption reduction is capped by the most efficient recycler - so if your most efficient Recycler is a Science Lab, you can't reduce your Supplies consumption by more than 70%, no matter how many Recyclers are running.

I know that the values have changed a bit, MPL can save up to 50% of the supplies and the crew it affects is 4 people, while the RT-5000 can save up to 79% of the supplies and the crew it affects is 3 people.

So. I've done some experimenting in the VAB. If I were to bring 8 people in a station with only the MPL, which saves up to 50% of supplies for 4 people, it would save 25% of supplies for 8 people. So if I bring a single can of 4500 supplies, 4500/(8*10.8*0.75) that's more or less 69 days, which is the exact same amount the Life Support Status gives me in this situation. Fantastic.

Now I want a station with both the MPL and the RT-5000, 7 people on board, 4500kg of supplies. It has enough stuff for more or less 158 days, according to the Life Support Status.

It seems that the formula is 4500/(3*10.8*0.21+4*10.8*0.5). That is, 3 people are affected by the RT-5000 and consume only 21% of the normal amount and 4 people are affected by the MPL and consume 50%.

If I were to bring 8 people, the formula would be the exact same, that is 4500/(3*10.8*0.21+4*10.8*0.5+1*10.8*1). So the other guy wouldn't be affected at all by the two recyclers and would consume the regular amount of supplies. In total, they would last for 114 days (confirmed by the Life Support Status, again).

I tried many configurations, more recyclers, more people, more supplies, this formula seems to work if the crew of the stations is >= of the sum of the affected crew of the different recycling components.

I don't exactly understand how that follows the "efficiency is reduced by the amount you are over capacity": does it only apply if I have one recycler? If not, can you please explain this to me?

And another question.

Same station as before, both MPL and RT-5000, 6 people on board, 4500 kg of supplies. Life Support Status tells me that they have enough for 255 days. So I assume that the first 3 kerbals are going to use the recycling functions of the more powerful RT-5000 and the remaining will use the MPL. Nope. 4500/(3*10.8*0.21+3*10.8*0.5) is more or less 195.

So I try this:

4500/(3*10.8*0.21+3*10.8*X)=255 and X is 0.33466. This equation assumes that the 3 people are split evenly and the RT-5000 is filled first being the more powerful and then the efficiency of the MPL is somehow improved. But, well, that isn't the case according to the description of the MPL.

So I instead try:

4500/(6*10.8*X)=255 and X is 0.27233. So, using the RT-5000 makes you use only 21% of what you'd use normally, while using this "combined efficiency" factor makes you use 27% of normal. How is this 73% saved calculated?

I mean, what's the actual rule?

 

I'm sorry for the long post, I'm just a curious guy xD

Edited November 30, 2016 by Bartholomew

[Kuldaralagh]

quick question. did a flyby mission to Minmus. Valentina decided to Strike.

I reverted back, added more supplies. she still striked, but much later.

still there were plenty of supplies left on both times she striked. also loads of EC.  

 

I did warp, is there a relation to warping ?

[Terwin]

44 minutes ago, Bartholomew said:

I mean, what's the actual rule?

 

RT-5000 provides 237 units of resource reduction(79%*3) and raises the cap to 79% per kerbal

MPL provides 250 units of resource reduction(50%*5) and will raise the cap to 50% per kerbal

This means that if you have one of each(487 total units, cap of 79%), and 6 kerbals, you will get 79% on each with 13 unused units(79*6=474 units used)

or with 7 kerbals, you will get 6 at 79% and 1 at 13%, with nothing left over for any additional kerbals.(saving you the full 487% of usage that your recyclers can handle)

All kerbals will be covered at the best possible rate if you have enough recycling capacity on board, even if your best recyclers cannot handle all of the kerbals you have.(think of the other processors as pre-processing for the high-efficiency recycler so that it can handle more kerbals if you like) 

Clear as mud?

 

[ExplorerKlatt]

Here is a post from Roverdude on how recycling works. 

@Bartholomew

So for your example it would be 

(79% * 3/7) + (50% * 4/7) = (237/7) + (200/7) = (33.9) + (28.6) = 62.5% 

So that is 62.5% per kerbal. 

Edited November 30, 2016 by ExplorerKlatt

[TheRagingIrishman]

9 hours ago, Kuldaralagh said:

quick question. did a flyby mission to Minmus. Valentina decided to Strike.

I reverted back, added more supplies. she still striked, but much later.

still there were plenty of supplies left on both times she striked. also loads of EC.  

 

I did warp, is there a relation to warping ?

 

Your problem is a lack of hab time. In USI-LS you get a week before kerbals get mad. To fix this you need to add some more space on the ship for Val.

[RoverDude]

Ok 0.5.11 is up.  Things are settled down, this just fixes a small display bug that I noticed while doing some updates in an attempt to surface the heisenbugs some of you are experiencing.  Give it a go, please post results.