[1.12.x] USI Life Support

[nascarlaser1]

I use USI LS for ksp 1.2 or 1.2.1  (can't remember which and I do not have my ksp pc online right now srry) and I was wondering if the mod comes with any greenhouses for growing food? I am currently using the PBS greenhouse, but it very annoying to strap onto a space station. Is there a round one meant for any shuttles in this mod or another one I can use, without changing the LS mechanics?

[Terwin]

There are 3 mulch recyclers in base USI-LS:

Nom-o-Matic 5000 (small surface-mount Greenhouse)

Nom-o-Matic 2500 (Large surface-mount Greenhouse processes 5x the 5000)

Nom-o-Matic 2500-I (2.5M in-line greenhouse processes 2x the 25000)

https://github.com/BobPalmer/USI-LS/wiki/Parts:-Converters#agroponics

I believe the others are in USI-MKS.

 

[nascarlaser1]

12 minutes ago, Terwin said:

There are 3 mulch recyclers in base USI-LS:

Nom-o-Matic 5000 (small surface-mount Greenhouse)

Nom-o-Matic 2500 (Large surface-mount Greenhouse processes 5x the 5000)

Nom-o-Matic 2500-I (2.5M in-line greenhouse processes 2x the 25000)

https://github.com/BobPalmer/USI-LS/wiki/Parts:-Converters#agroponics

I believe the others are in USI-MKS.

 

oh wait.. recycler is the same as a greenhouse? ohhh....

[Jivaii]

That's a misunderstanding. The recycler reduces how much supplies a kerbal would need, while agroponics takes fertilizer and mulch, to turn into supplies. The agroponics items would be ones listed. Recyclers are the RT-500 recycling module (reduces need for a single kerbal) and the RT-5000 recycling module (reduces need for up to three kerbals).

 

Here's some good reading for knowledge

Edited January 3, 2017 by Jivaii

[RoverDude]

If we have any guinea pigs willing to try out a new DLL... get it here:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/wbckfbwj3mz820d/USILifeSupport.dll?dl=0

Assuming this works well (and fixes a lot of the lingering issues!) I will do an official release tomorrow.

[archnem]

1 hour ago, RoverDude said:

If we have any guinea pigs willing to try out a new DLL... get it here:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/wbckfbwj3mz820d/USILifeSupport.dll?dl=0

Assuming this works well (and fixes a lot of the lingering issues!) I will do an official release tomorrow.

Unfortunately, I seem to be having the exact same issues with this .DLL.  I do like the slight re-format on the life support monitor screen for the hab multiplier however.

I just replaced the .dll in \GameData\UmbraSpaceIndustries\LifeSupport with the new one on a fresh install with nothing but MKS+USILS installed.  Is there anything else I should be doing?

[MalevolentNinja]

Hey RD, hello again

I'm back with a new 1.2.2 career. I didn't notice the hab bonus changes right away, until I started planning my first Minmus mission.

On 10/11/2016 at 4:57 PM, RoverDude said:

0.5.0 - (KSP 1.2)

------------------
Crew capacity only results in a 7.5 day hab bonus as opposed to 30 days.  This is being done to keep things balanced with dedicated habitation parts, which will have more space but less mass.
 

 

On 10/13/2016 at 7:52 PM, RoverDude said:

The idea is that to get past the mun you at least need a little bit more space.  Tho I could be talked into tweaking that a bit.

 

I skimmed through all the discussions about this and FWIW, my feedback is this is too restrictive on gameplay for early career. It's not even enough to have 2 seats per Kerbal in a Minmus lander design; if you are planning an efficient rendezvous and return (16 days) you need 3 seats per Kerbal.

Just thought I'd throw out my 2 cents. In my game I've changed the hab bonus setting to .5 which allows for stuffing a Kerbal in a single Mk1 Command Pod if I am willing to be aggressive, or adding an additional crew spot and having plenty of safety margin. Maybe I'll have to adjust again in the later game, but for now this feels more balanced.

Edited January 4, 2017 by MalevolentNinja

[RoverDude]

3 hours ago, archnem said:

Unfortunately, I seem to be having the exact same issues with this .DLL.  I do like the slight re-format on the life support monitor screen for the hab multiplier however.

I just replaced the .dll in \GameData\UmbraSpaceIndustries\LifeSupport with the new one on a fresh install with nothing but MKS+USILS installed.  Is there anything else I should be doing?

Remind me exactly what issue you were having and (ideally) provide a save with only USI/stock parts.

[RoverDude]

tbh, I've been doing my own career run and have not felt this was restrictive.  But then I think there should be a bit of progression before a manned mission to Minmus (and it's incredibly easy to get the necessary crew space).

Also - new DLL for guinea pigs:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/1t0q2o40999n615/USILifeSupport.dll?dl=0

[WuphonsReach]

1 hour ago, MalevolentNinja said:

I skimmed through all the discussions about this and FWIW, my feedback is this is too restrictive on gameplay for early career. It's not even enough to have 2 seats per Kerbal in a Minmus lander design; if you are planning an efficient rendezvous and return (16 days) you need 3 seats per Kerbal.

There's a few easy solutions - one is to use a Hitchhiker module and turn on the habitat function.  It's even a little over-powered.  I use the Hitchhiker modules in my design that I use for shipping Kerbals around Kerbin's SoI (carries 11 at a time).

Tested:

(3) seats in a command pod + 1 empty Hitchhiker = 222d hab time

(3) seats in a command pod + 1 full Hitchhiker = 97d for 7 kerbals

Edited January 4, 2017 by WuphonsReach

[archnem]

29 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

Remind me exactly what issue you were having and (ideally) provide a save with only USI/stock parts.

Setup window and VAB window don't appear until I've done weird things like launch, revert, and remove/add parts in VAB.  Habitation multiplier being calculated incorrectly and showing some really weird values.  There are some screenshots on the previous page in this thread, I'll log a github issue with a save and log.

[MalevolentNinja]

10 hours ago, RoverDude said:

tbh, I've been doing my own career run and have not felt this was restrictive.  But then I think there should be a bit of progression before a manned mission to Minmus (and it's incredibly easy to get the necessary crew space).

It's probably differences in play style / game setup (I have ETT and low science return settings). I thought the old USI-LS progression made a lot of sense:

• Mun - don't need to worry about it
• Minmus - need to add supplies but not hab
• Interplanetary - need to design for both

Anyways it's just some feedback, take it as you will. I've always appreciated your vision for USI and willingness to stick to that vision. There are other mods I feel have suffered by trying to appease everyone. And I've fixed it for my game already since you give us a nice GUI to adjust all the settings.

 

10 hours ago, WuphonsReach said:

There's a few easy solutions - one is to use a Hitchhiker module and turn on the habitat function.  It's even a little over-powered.  I use the Hitchhiker modules in my design that I use for shipping Kerbals around Kerbin's SoI (carries 11 at a time).

Tested:

(3) seats in a command pod + 1 empty Hitchhiker = 222d hab time

(3) seats in a command pod + 1 full Hitchhiker = 97d for 7 kerbals

Thanks for the idea but it won't work for early career. I don't have access to 2.5m parts and even if I did I wouldn't have access to higher level batteries and solar panels needed to support turning on hab mode. I'm familiar with USI, I have large, self-reliant bases on multiple planets in previous versions of KSP

 

Edited January 4, 2017 by MalevolentNinja

[Matrix Aran]

I'd also say that having to have a hitchhiker module for a trip out to Minmus is a bit overkill. Considering that a 16 day round trip is about the same amount of time the longer moon missions were supposed to go on for (the longest actual mission was about 12 days), I'd agree that three kerbals could tough it out just a little while longer out in a CSM. Also to note, in my last career mission, the game tried to have me go to Minmus with the unskipable exploration contracts before going to the Mun, so I can see the case where a player would end up pushed to going to minmus before they had the ability to have Hitchhikers. My solution was to just let the three go tourist until they made it back to atmo, and design the capsule to re-enter without any intervention. 

As a middleground, perhaps there could be some sort of inline tank that one could add as a service module that would provide a small, non stacking, hab multiplier that would allow Minmus missions in small capsules, but without the huge volume of a hitchhiker?

[MalevolentNinja]

11 minutes ago, Matrix Aran said:

My solution was to just let the three go tourist until they made it back to atmo, and design the capsule to re-enter without any intervention. 

As a middleground, perhaps there could be some sort of inline tank that one could add as a service module that would provide a small, non stacking, hab multiplier that would allow Minmus missions in small capsules, but without the huge volume of a hitchhiker?

I guess my play style is kind of strict, this isn't an option for me I do like your idea of a new SM part - I feel there's limited options for 1.25m designs and with the new hab bonus default values, you're almost forced into 2.5m.

Edited January 4, 2017 by MalevolentNinja

[Terwin]

Mk1 crew cabin is in a 45 science node and will let you extend habitation by 2 kerbal-weeks per ton.

If your science returns are so low that after farming Kerbin and LKO you cannot afford a 45 science node, then you can always stack Mk1 pods to get more living space for .8t/kerbal-week

[MalevolentNinja]

16 minutes ago, Terwin said:

Mk1 crew cabin is in a 45 science node and will let you extend habitation by 2 kerbal-weeks per ton.

If your science returns are so low that after farming Kerbin and LKO you cannot afford a 45 science node, then you can always stack Mk1 pods to get more living space for .8t/kerbal-week

Yes, but again to my original point - designing 3 crew space for 1 Kerbal to go to Minmus seems silly to me.

p.s. I'm using ETT

 

Edited January 4, 2017 by MalevolentNinja

[Terwin]

33 minutes ago, MalevolentNinja said:

Yes, but again to my original point - designing 3 crew space for 1 Kerbal to go to Minmus seems silly to me.

p.s. I'm using ETT

 

Considering that a Mk1 cockpit is based of the Mercury/Gemini mission cockpits and those are described as 'worn not flown' by the astronauts that flew them, multiplying the crew space by 3 probably only gives enough space to have both a bed-roll and a toilet if you use the toilet for a pillow.

After all, in a Mk1 cockpit, you neither have room for a second diaper, nor enough mobility to take off the one you put on before launch.

I don't know about you, but the Mk1 Cabin looks like barely enough space for one Kerbal to stretch and exercise for a 3 week mission(when not strapped in to the cockpit at least) 

Edited January 4, 2017 by Terwin

[NeuroticGamer]

35 minutes ago, MalevolentNinja said:

Yes, but again to my original point - designing 3 crew space for 1 Kerbal to go to Minmus seems silly to me.

p.s. I'm using ETT

 

A one person capsule is EXTREMELY cramped; I've seen plenty at space museums.  Imagine sitting in a modern airline "cattle car" seat for 15 days and, no, you can't get up to go to the bathroom.  IIRC, you get about 7-ish days of hab time/seat if you use the first capsules; If anything, @RoverDude is giving more hab time in those base parts than is realistic or historical.  The simple solution is to fly faster.  Burn a bit more fuel and get to Minmus in 2 or 3 days instead of 5 or 6 days; That doesn't require any new tech nodes.

The Apollo missions had quite a bit more room to move around compared to the early manned missions.  And they didn't spend more than 2 weeks in them.

Edited January 4, 2017 by NeuroticGamer
adding Apollo comparison

[Errol]

2 minutes ago, Terwin said:

Considering that a Mk1 cockpit is based of the Apollo mission cockpits and those are described as 'worn not flown' by the astronauts that flew them, multiplying the crew space by 3 probably only gives enough space to have both a bed-roll and a toilet if you use the toilet for a pillow.

After all, in a Mk1 cockpit, you neither have room for a second diaper, nor enough mobility to take off the one you put on before launch.

I don't know about you, but the Mk1 Cabin looks like barely enough space for one Kerbal to stretch and exercise for a 3 week mission(when not strapped in to the cockpit at least) 

The Mk1 cockpit is closer to Mercury or Gemini, not Apollo.

[goldenpsp]

@Terwin @MalevolentNinja

Regardless of the details, the beauty is @RoverDude put in all kinds of configuration options so you can tweak it to your liking.  So maybe just agree to disagree?

[MalevolentNinja]

8 minutes ago, goldenpsp said:

@Terwin @MalevolentNinja

Regardless of the details, the beauty is @RoverDude put in all kinds of configuration options so you can tweak it to your liking.  So maybe just agree to disagree?

I already wrote a couple times that I fixed this in my game by changing the setting and that this is just some feedback. Should we not even discuss it?

 

@Errol, @NeuroticGamer, @Terwin

If we were to discuss realism, I could point out that Vostok 5 was scheduled to be an eight day mission, but was actually 5 days. Pretty cramped capsule there...  But I think that misses the point. You have to balance game play with realism, and for game play purposes I think Minmus in a Mk1 Pod is doable.

Edited January 4, 2017 by MalevolentNinja

[Errol]

2 minutes ago, MalevolentNinja said:

I already wrote a couple times that I fixed this in my game by changing the setting and that this is just some feedback. Should we not even discuss it?

 

@Errol, @NeuroticGamer, @Terwin

If we were to discuss realism, I could point out that Vostok 5 was scheduled to be an eight day mission, but was actually 5 days. Pretty cramped capsule there...  But I think that misses the point. You have to balance game play with realism, and for game play purposes I think Minmus in a Mk1 Pod is doable.

So you think that it would make for good game play progression (not talking about realism) to not have any pods too small or cramped to visit other bodies with? Personally I like the idea that I need to design with better parts to go farther. 

[MalevolentNinja]

Just now, Errol said:

So you think that it would make for good game play progression (not talking about realism) to not have any pods too small or cramped to visit other bodies with? Personally I like the idea that I need to design with better parts to go farther. 

That's not what I said...

1 hour ago, MalevolentNinja said:

I thought the old USI-LS progression made a lot of sense:

• Mun - don't need to worry about it
• Minmus - need to add supplies but not hab
• Interplanetary - need to design for both

 

[Errol]

5 minutes ago, MalevolentNinja said:

You have to balance game play with realism, and for game play purposes I think Minmus in a Mk1 Pod is doable.

 

[MalevolentNinja]

Sorry, I'm not seeing where the confusion is.

I think you need to design better than a Mk1 Pod if you're going interplanetary, but it's ok for Minmus.

Edited January 4, 2017 by MalevolentNinja