[1.12.x] USI Life Support

[danielboro]

20 minutes ago, voicey99 said:

What do you mean by 'cal'? Nothing's wrong, but it's probably designed so you can't do what you're trying to do i.e. spam cheap, low-capacity modules. As your crew complement increases, you have to use bigger and higher-capacity ones.

im not clear

the main problem is in the VAB

max(num) changes wen ever the current(num) chinges <- very bad

the ship on the pics is just a test ship to see
but still that mean that the window is near usless (for a ship whit a crew of 10 it will only add 0.02 multi)

 

cal was supuse to be calculate

 

p.s.

i tested using ranger: cap of 4
max is still changing wen current grows bigger then 4

Edited June 19, 2017 by danielboro

[voicey99]

Just now, danielboro said:

im not clear

the main problem is in the VAB

max(num) changes wen ever the current(num) chinges <- very bad

the ship on the pics is just a test ship to see
but still that mean that the window is near usless (for a ship whit a crew of 10 it will only add 0.02 multi)

 

cal was supuse to be calculate

This is gibberish. I can't tell what you are trying to say.

[danielboro]

ill try agen tommoro

[Terwin]

1 hour ago, voicey99 said:

This is gibberish. I can't tell what you are trying to say.

I believe he is pointing out that any time you change the number of crew members actually on the ship while in the VAB, the results of the 'hab time at max crew' changes.

You would expect the 'hab time with current crew' to change, but not the 'hab time with max crew' when you change the number of crew actually in the ship.

As the only way to get an accurate measure of the hab time with the max crew involved actually adding that many kerbals to the vessel, having the 'max crew' line does not provide any useful information.

I reported this previously as issue #224, and it was supposed to be fixed, so I'll go check real quick...

Looks like it was fixed for supplies but not hab-time.

Edited June 19, 2017 by Terwin

[voicey99]

1 minute ago, Terwin said:

I believe he is pointing out that any time you change the number of crew members actually on the ship while in the VAB, the results of the 'hab time at max crew' changes.

You would expect the 'hab time with current crew' to change, but not the 'hab time with max crew' when you change the number of crew actually in the ship.

As the only way to get an accurate measure of the hab time with the max crew involved actually adding that many kerbals to the vessel, having the 'max crew' line does not provide any useful information.

This is something I have noticed myself in previous versions, and I do not remember if it was ever supposed to have been fixed.

I reported this previously as issue #224, and it was supposed to be fixed, so I'll go check real quick...

If that's the case, I'm inclined to agree with him in that calculating the multiplier on a per part basis penalises you too much for having large numbers of crew. Ideally, I would have kerbals be assigned to the best hab facility and when that's full be assigned to the next best facility and when all facilities are full then the penalties would start to kick in so each kerbal would have their own time calculated individually in a more sophisticated way as opposed to unfairly applying the same penalties to the entire crew. This would be more coding work though, and would probably result in noobs who can't be arsed to check the wiki turning up and asking why their kerbals have different habtimes.

[danielboro]

my opinion is that ship hub rating (hub space*(1+hub multi)) suld be independent of crew size

if you keep the cap on multi, i think that doing sum(all multi part) and then compering crew size to sum() is better then doing it per part

8 hours ago, voicey99 said:

each kerbal would have their own time calculated individually

i dont think this is a good thing.

this will make some places better then ader in the ship
a moving kerbal (hot seat mod or manual) can move from a good seat to a bad seat and turn tourist (or die if so set)

a sugestion
add in the LS status window(in flight scean ) the max number of kerbals that get benefit from recyclers and the % you get.
and if you use SUM(cap for multi) add the max number of kerbal`s you can add to the ship bifor the penalty starts

Edited June 20, 2017 by danielboro

[Bit Fiddler]

Question about the Nom-o-Matics.  if all of my supply containers are full does the Nom-o-Matic continue to operate?  as in will it continue to use up the fertilizer supply and then just dump the supplies overboard?

 

Asking because i really do not want to have to micro manage all the parts in a long term / permanent base on the Mun or in orbit somewhere.  if I have to constantly go back to each part in a base every few hours to be sure that it is not wasting a resource that just makes it tedious and removes all the fun.

 

so I guess this goes for any "converter" in the USI family.  do any of them require micro management or are they all smart parts and will shut them selves down if not needed?

[KerbMav]

@Bit Fiddler No. This stops production - and therefore should also stop usage of input resources.

OUTPUT_RESOURCE
        {
            ResourceName = Supplies
            Ratio = 0.00066000
            DumpExcess = False
        }

Spoiler

MODULE
    {
        name = ModuleResourceConverter_USI
        ConverterName = Agroponics
        tag = Agroponics
        StartActionName = Start Agroponics
        StopActionName = Stop Agroponics
        INPUT_RESOURCE
        {
            ResourceName = Mulch
            Ratio =  0.00060000
        }
        INPUT_RESOURCE
        {
            ResourceName = Fertilizer
            Ratio =  0.00006000
        }
        OUTPUT_RESOURCE
        {
            ResourceName = Supplies
            Ratio = 0.00066000
            DumpExcess = False
        }
        INPUT_RESOURCE
        {
            ResourceName = ElectricCharge
            Ratio = 1.32
        }
    }   

 

[Bit Fiddler]

ah ok, so I can just look for the DumpExcess in all the converters .cfg files to see if any of them will waste a resource.

 

thanks

 

[DStaal]

What @KerbMav said.  You'd have to check each converter for the rest, but in general if there's no more place to put the 'main' output then the converter will shut down.

[kolinkerman]

I've been using USI LS for a while and I love it, but I'm running into an issue with habitation and I'm not sure if it's due to me just not understanding it.

I have a craft with 3 crew, composed of a lander with a Mk1-2 Command Pod connected to a PPD-10 Hitchhiker module via a docking port. The mission profile is the lander + hab module arrive at Minmus, the crew transfers to the lander, they undock, and the lander lands on the surface.

Prior to undocking, the habitation values for all 3 crew read 219 days. After undocking, they drop to about 9 days, which is what I expected. But after lander moves 150m or more away from the habitation module, the habitation values drop to "expired" and the crew stop working.

I'm not sure what's going on and I was hoping someone could fill me in.

[voicey99]

I'm looking to write a USI-LS patch for VSR, which involves inflatable hab modules. How would I write a patch so that the hab functionality can only be activated when the part is inflated?

[Loren Pechtel]

I just had an outcome that feels wrong--this is not a bug.

I had some of the orange Kerbals "stranded" (they are in their ascent rocket, it was never meant to get home) in Minmus orbit.  I got the timing a bit wrong and they were homesick.

Their ride home shows up--and as it is making it's approach they go back on duty.  The sight of a passing rocket is enough to end homesickness?!?!?!

(From a technical standpoint I know what happened--it got into the 150m sharing range and it's got much nicer quarters--currently completely empty--than the bird they lifted off Minmus in.)

I'm not sure why the sharing range exists in the first place but in this case at least an easy fix would be the sharing applies only to rockets that are closely matched in velocity.

[KerbMav]

37 minutes ago, Loren Pechtel said:

I'm noure why the sharing range exists in the first place but in this case at least an easy fix would be the sharing applies only to rockets that are closely matched in velocity.

Or landed even?

[JadeOfMaar]

Once any two ships are within 150m, local logistics kick in and they can share resources. Evidently this seems to apply to habitation too. Take a shot and experiment with this, and share your findings here, of course. I'm also interested in a definite answer.

[goldenpsp]

5 hours ago, Loren Pechtel said:

Their ride home shows up--and as it is making it's approach they go back on duty.  The sight of a passing rocket is enough to end homesickness?!?!?!

If I was homesick and saw my rescue ship pull up in the window I'd get pretty motivated!!! 

[RoverDude]

2 hours ago, goldenpsp said:

If I was homesick and saw my rescue ship pull up in the window I'd get pretty motivated!!! 

Yeah, I am kinda ok with this

[Loren Pechtel]

14 hours ago, goldenpsp said:

If I was homesick and saw my rescue ship pull up in the window I'd get pretty motivated!!! 

But how do they know?  Besides, it was going at a decent clip (for Minmus orbit) at the time in question.

It would feel ok if they reacted like that when the ship pulled up and stopped, but they got happy before the rendezvous burn.

[goldenpsp]

Just now, Loren Pechtel said:

But how do they know?  Besides, it was going at a decent clip (for Minmus orbit) at the time in question.

It would feel ok if they reacted like that when the ship pulled up and stopped, but they got happy before the rendezvous burn.

What does it matter?  It is distance based, so if you are flying by they aren't going to get the hab bonus for very long.  YAY here they come.... wait what?

Bottom line is it gets "good enough" since it isn't that easy to keep 2 ships within 150m of each other in space anyhow.  It certainly isn't worth the extra effort required to program it in greater detail.

[Blackline]

Is this a new / known Bug? (mos recent USI mod versions). I know it was a bug a few versions ago.

EDIT: edited persistence.sfs, because nothing else helped.

Edited July 2, 2017 by Blackline

[TheRagingIrishman]

@Blackline I'm not seeing any bug. What is it that you think is wrong? 

[Alshain]

Can someone please explain why 230 = 20?  I'm not understanding this mod at all, I thought I understood it but then this.

[goldenpsp]

@Alshain Did you turn the habs on the parts that have habitation?

[Alshain]

9 minutes ago, goldenpsp said:

@Alshain Did you turn the habs on the parts that have habitation?

No, I didn't know it needed to be.  What is the purpose of that?  Why would you ever want it off?

[DStaal]

6 minutes ago, Alshain said:

No, I didn't know it needed to be.  What is the purpose of that?  Why would you ever want it off?

They use EC, so you may want to conserve power for parts of your mission - especially if you don't always fully crew something.