[1.12.x] USI Life Support

[nebuchadnezzar]

1 hour ago, RoverDude said:

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.

Does this fix the status screen in the tracking station not showing up?

[steve_v]

19 hours ago, v1per said:

From what I tested, that should make everything work, as long as they don't go strike ever.

Nope, USILS 0.5.10, fresh vessel, fresh crew, started doing the same thing at ~120 days in. Only thing worth noting is that EC went into "expired"  in the tracker while unloaded (USI reactor on board, plenty of EC). This is getting pretty annoying.
Trying out 0.5.11 now, but it looks suspiciously like I'll be spending all weekend testing this rather than playing...

Ed.

Updated to 0.5.11, my kerbals are still taking micro-holidays.
At this point, I'm just going to go play something else. Might get back to this bug over the weekend.

Ed.
I also note that excessive supplies have been consumed over the ~120 day period... much like the recycler was not counted (due to no EC?) This thing is powered by 2 USI reactors, with NFE. It has plenty of generation, but little EC storage. If the bogus lack of EC also stopped the habs, that would have caused the first episode of spontanius tourism, but it still doesn't explain why after it has occured once, it occurs on every vessel load.

Edited December 1, 2016 by steve_v

[Wyzard]

Hab time calculation still seems to be broken in 0.5.11: in the VAB it says the hab time for a Hitchhiker with 4 kerbals is 165 days, but on the launchpad it shows 7.5 days.  With just 1 kerbal, the VAB shows 235 days but on the launchpad it's 30.  Looks like it has just one kerbal-month of hab time, despite saying 25 in the part's tooltip in the VAB.

Steps to reproduce:

• Start new sandbox game with no mods except a fresh install of USI-LS 0.5.11 (and its bundled dependencies)
• Open USI-LS settings window on the KSC screen and change hab effects from "none" to "grouchy".
• Open VAB, place a single Hitchhiker as the only part, add some kerbals to it, and click the green cube button to check the status.
• Click the launch button and check status again on the launchpad.

The breakdown of the 165 days shown in the VAB is: BaseTime 0.25, MaxCrew 4, ExtraTime 21, Multiplier 1, Crew 4, Months 1.  (It's not clear how that works out to 165 days — I get 22 divided by 4, which is 5.5)

Edited December 1, 2016 by Wyzard

[RoverDude]

Ok if anyone can find a save that repro's the 'micro holiday' issue (again, with stock and USI parts) please attach it to a github issue with repro steps as I cannot repro it here.

 

@Wyzard - did you turn the hitchiker's hab function on once on the launch pad? 

 

Edited December 1, 2016 by RoverDude

[Merkov]

1 hour ago, steve_v said:

...It has plenty of generation, but little EC storage...

Just how little EC storage do you have? It may be that you are running into a restriction in the game's catch-up mechanic. It calculates what resources should have been generated, converted, and used retroactively, then applies those calculations in "chunks". If you hit a storage bottleneck in any resource, it can screw up the rest of the catch up calculations. If I recall correctly, you need about 6 hours of storage for each resource. So, if your vessel needs, say, 60 000 EC to last 6 hours, you have a reactor that generates more than that (say 100 000 every 6 hours) but you only have 5000 EC storage, the catch-up mechanic will try to put 100 000 EC into your batteries, fill them to their maximum 5000 EC, then your vessel will try to pull 60 000 EC from your batteries, and not have enough available. This isn't to say you haven't also stumbled on a bug, but it might be worth isolating this.

TL;DR: try putting enough EC storage on your vessel so that it could last for more than 6 hours on just battery power, and see if that makes a difference or not.

[tsaven]

2 hours ago, Wyzard said:

Hab time calculation still seems to be broken in 0.5.11: in the VAB it says the hab time for a Hitchhiker with 4 kerbals is 165 days, but on the launchpad it shows 7.5 days.  With just 1 kerbal, the VAB shows 235 days but on the launchpad it's 30.  Looks like it has just one kerbal-month of hab time, despite saying 25 in the part's tooltip in the VAB.

I don't mean to be condescending, but you know that you need to individually activate Habitation on each part, right?  When it's on the launchpad, right-click on part > start habitation (it takes continual EC).

[steve_v]

1 hour ago, Merkov said:

Just how little EC storage do you have?

20 days, according to the LS status window. Should be heaps, but the status window obviously isn't taking generation into account, as it will happily hit zero if I warp for >20 days while the craft is unfocused. That's bit is just a minor annoyance, but if it's also causing my other issues...

Wait, no, the LS window is lying to me... it doesn't appear to be accounting for a bunch of load (or much of anything really). Killing the reactors gives me a whopping 121 seconds on batteries.

1 hour ago, Merkov said:

It may be that you are running into a restriction in the game's catch-up mechanic.

Who came up with that idiotic idea then? So my duna mission can't make do with 2 nuclear reactors, for my 32 EC/sec demand I need >690 thousand EC storage? Donkey balls.

Edited December 1, 2016 by steve_v

[Merkov]

4 minutes ago, steve_v said:

20 days, according to the LS status window. Should be heaps, but the status window obviously isn't taking generation into account, as it will happily hit zero if I warp for >20 days while the craft is unfocused. That's bit is just a minor annoyance, but if it's also causing my other issues...

I think the LS window basically just looks at how much EC storage you have, and compares that to the amount that kerbals consume (which is a feature of USI-LS). I don't think it takes generation OR any other EC usage into consideration. For instance, any recyclers, hab parts, science labs, etc. which consume EC. As an experiment, start with your vessel with 100% EC, then turn on any parts that you usually have consuming power (such as those listed above) and turn OFF any power generators you have (such as reactors). See if your vessel can last ~ 6 hours like this. If you run out of EC in far less than 6 hours, try adding a bunch more EC storage, and see if you are still running into the same LS problems you have been having.

[steve_v]

12 minutes ago, Merkov said:

As an experiment, start with your vessel with 100% EC, then turn on any parts that you usually have consuming power (such as those listed above) and turn OFF any power generators you have (such as reactors).

Consumers off, producers off: 0.14 EC/sec, 3870 storage, =~7.7 hours.

Edited December 1, 2016 by steve_v
Reading of numbers fail.

[Merkov]

3 minutes ago, steve_v said:

Consumers off, producers off: 0.14 EC/sec, 3870 storage, =~7.7 hours.

Sorry, try with consumers ON. Whatever consumers you would normally have on while timewarping. That way, you can see how much EC the catch-up mechanic will be trying to draw.

[steve_v]

Just now, Merkov said:

Whatever consumers you would normally have on while timewarping.

Primary consumers are lab, recycler & habs. ~=32EC/sec. See post above for my reaction to needing ~700000 EC storage for 6 hours of this.
This cannot be the case, if it is it makes the whole "LS requires EC" thing ridiculous.

[Merkov]

1 minute ago, steve_v said:

Primary consumers are lab, recycler & habs. ~=32EC/sec. See post above for my reaction to needing ~700000 EC storage for 6 hours of this.
This cannot be the case, if it is it makes the whole "LS requires EC" thing ridiculous.

Oops, I missed your edit to your earlier post. Yeah, I can't speak for how USI-LS handles it, but the stock catch-up mechanic might be part of what's giving you grief. As an easy (-ish) way to test this, try writing a MM patch to give your batteries enough EC storage to total ~700 000 for your whole vessel and try seeing if you still get kerbals running out of LS. If they survive, (and if you're willing to make a throwaway save) try then timewarping significantly longer than the ~120 days you mentioned earlier (just to rule out the huge amount of EC storage causing the problem to take longer to show up vs actually fixing it).

[Ryusho]

....Well My kerbal with 500 supplies on board decided to go off work at day 15, ..even though there are plenty o f supplies...in an MK1 pod...>.< *Sigh*

[steve_v]

2 minutes ago, Ryusho said:

in an MK1 pod

Would you like to spend 2 weeks cooped up in a Mk.1 pod? Check the habitation time on that crew quarters. (or turn it off if you don't like it).

[Ryusho]

4 minutes ago, steve_v said:

Would you like to spend 2 weeks cooped up in a Mk.1 pod? Check the habitation time on that crew quarters. (or turn it off if you don't like it).

Well I would be alright if I had access to -more pod space- ...but let me check habitation time >.< and see if I can figure something out @_@ this mission was normally made for mun quick trips not the mission that has to rendevous with a satalite in a -very high- orbit/go to minmus mission

 

also just found one of my issues...For some reason -vets- are set to be grouchy/go on vacation, when they used to not be effected. *fixes that*

Edited December 1, 2016 by Ryusho

[maja]

24 minutes ago, Ryusho said:

also just found one of my issues...For some reason -vets- are set to be grouchy/go on vacation, when they used to not be effected. *fixes that*

This default setting was changed some time ago.

[Gilph]

0.5.11 pretty good so far after about 3 hours. No vacations, no Kerbals dying when a Rockomax decoupler fires. Only thing new is:

[ERR 07:36:32.205] [DestructibleBuilding]: ID for this building is not defined correctly. Cannot unregister.

[ERR 07:36:32.206] [DestructibleBuilding]: ID for this building is not defined correctly. Cannot unregister.

[ERR 07:36:32.206] [DestructibleBuilding]: ID for this building is not defined correctly. Cannot unregister.
 

on some scene changes.  It happened on a satellite and a vessel, neither are buildings. Not sure if that's something as part of the fixes, because it's not in my old logs and LS was the only change i made.

Thanks

[RoverDude]

2 hours ago, steve_v said:

20 days, according to the LS status window. Should be heaps, but the status window obviously isn't taking generation into account, as it will happily hit zero if I warp for >20 days while the craft is unfocused. That's bit is just a minor annoyance, but if it's also causing my other issues...

Wait, no, the LS window is lying to me... it doesn't appear to be accounting for a bunch of load (or much of anything really). Killing the reactors gives me a whopping 121 seconds on batteries.

Who came up with that idiotic idea then? So my duna mission can't make do with 2 nuclear reactors, for my 32 EC/sec demand I need >690 thousand EC storage? Donkey balls.

You need to cool off.  Seriously.

2 hours ago, Merkov said:

Oops, I missed your edit to your earlier post. Yeah, I can't speak for how USI-LS handles it, but the stock catch-up mechanic might be part of what's giving you grief. As an easy (-ish) way to test this, try writing a MM patch to give your batteries enough EC storage to total ~700 000 for your whole vessel and try seeing if you still get kerbals running out of LS. If they survive, (and if you're willing to make a throwaway save) try then timewarping significantly longer than the ~120 days you mentioned earlier (just to rule out the huge amount of EC storage causing the problem to take longer to show up vs actually fixing it).

FYI the stock catch-up mechanics specifically scale EC.  Granted, you still need some storage, but generally not six hours worth.  And yes the LS window just reflects battery storage, it does not reflect any other stuff you have going that either adds to or reduces your EC draw.  In the interest of better troubleshooting, will be adding in a note as to *why* bad things happened to the Kerbals so we can sort if people are having EC, supply, or Hab issues.

 

44 minutes ago, Gilph said:

0.5.11 pretty good so far after about 3 hours. No vacations, no Kerbals dying when a Rockomax decoupler fires. Only thing new is:

[ERR 07:36:32.205] [DestructibleBuilding]: ID for this building is not defined correctly. Cannot unregister.

[ERR 07:36:32.206] [DestructibleBuilding]: ID for this building is not defined correctly. Cannot unregister.

[ERR 07:36:32.206] [DestructibleBuilding]: ID for this building is not defined correctly. Cannot unregister.
 

on some scene changes.  It happened on a satellite and a vessel, neither are buildings. Not sure if that's something as part of the fixes, because it's not in my old logs and LS was the only change i made.

Thanks

Not related.

[Wyzard]

3 hours ago, tsaven said:

I don't mean to be condescending, but you know that you need to individually activate Habitation on each part, right?  When it's on the launchpad, right-click on part > start habitation (it takes continual EC).

Ahh, no, I didn't realize that, thanks.  (That's not mentioned here or here, but I found this post and saw that v0.5.11.0 had "fixed a habitation calculation bug", so I thought I had encountered the bug.)

[Merkov]

22 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

FYI the stock catch-up mechanics specifically scale EC.  Granted, you still need some storage, but generally not six hours worth.  And yes the LS window just reflects battery storage, it does not reflect any other stuff you have going that either adds to or reduces your EC draw.  In the interest of better troubleshooting, will be adding in a note as to *why* bad things happened to the Kerbals so we can sort if people are having EC, supply, or Hab issues.

I had no idea that the catch-up mechanics scale EC. Thanks for the correction! How does it work, roughly? Does it just look at the production-to-output ratio and break it into chunks from there?

Also, any thoughts on this post of mine from a couple of days ago?

On ‎2016‎-‎11‎-‎28 at 6:13 AM, Merkov said:

I'm seeing an odd little bug that I didn't see posted already. If I missed it, please disregard this:

I noticed when using CTT in my career playthrough that the Nom O Matic 5000, 25000, and 25000-I all seem to be visible in the default tech tree node (survivability) AND their CTT node, hydroponics. These seem to be the only three parts that are affected this way. I tried starting with a fresh install of USI-LS and its bundled dependencies and CTT. I started a new career and went straight to the R&D facility, and the tech tree still showed the Nom O Matics in both tech tree nodes. Has anyone else seen this? 

Here is the output log from that "playthrough", as well as a save if needed. Only USI-LS and CTT are needed. 

Slightly off-topic, but while I was looking into this (my version of looking into most programming-related things is PRETTY basic) I noticed that the new, larger recycler, the RT-5000, doesn't have a CTT config entry, so it just shows up in survivability, far sooner than the littler RT-500, which shows up in recycling. Is this its intended placement, or simply an oversight? Would you like a pull request (I can try to figure those things out!) with an updated CTT.cfg? If so, would you like it in the recycling node, or somewhere else? 

Thanks for everything!

Edit: I just re-posted this in the CTT thread, since in hindsight it might be more of an issue on that mod's end.

 

[dboi88]

1 hour ago, Wyzard said:

Ahh, no, I didn't realize that, thanks.  (That's not mentioned here or here, but I found this post and saw that v0.5.11.0 had "fixed a habitation calculation bug", so I thought I had encountered the bug.)

I've updated the wiki to make that clear.

Cheers 

[bounty123]

With 0.5.11.0 I can't see wear ratings as I do with for example 0.5.6, same settings. Was this an intended change?

[RoverDude]

Yes, wear has been deprecated for the time being.

[Gilph]

Have been seeing this in the recent releases.  Some vessels out of physics range return NaN on the status screens. See the two blue entries towards the bottom.

Thanks

Edited December 1, 2016 by Gilph

[RoverDude]

Will take a peek.  Also, there's a 0.5.12 up.  The main thing this patch does is note how your Kerbals are getting killed off or turning into tourists.  For those with heisenbugs, please let me know what the new status message is.