[1.12.x] USI Life Support

[mcortez]

1 hour ago, mitko said:

On the question of balance between USI-LS and UKS, I think that the huge difference in basic rate of consumption of supplies between the two mods renders the Nom-O-Matics useless if both UKS and USI-LS are installed. Since UKS seems well balanced, a way to mitigate that irrelevance could be to increase the rate of supply consumption in USI-LS to one third or a half of the basic rate in UKS and adjust the Nom-O-Matics accordingly. That way these two parts will still be useful with UKS installed without really competing with UKS' native parts. That could also be good for those players who use CTT since the agro modules show up quite late in that tech tree.

Maybe a Module Manager config could be used to adjust the Nom-O-Matics when both modules are installed?

[sh1pman]

16 hours ago, mitko said:

On the question of balance between USI-LS and UKS, I think that the huge difference in basic rate of consumption of supplies between the two mods renders the Nom-O-Matics useless if both UKS and USI-LS are installed. Since UKS seems well balanced, a way to mitigate that irrelevance could be to increase the rate of supply consumption in USI-LS to one third or a half of the basic rate in UKS and adjust the Nom-O-Matics accordingly. That way these two parts will still be useful with UKS installed without really competing with UKS' native parts. That could also be good for those players who use CTT since the agro modules show up quite late in that tech tree.

This is really annoying, beacuse you basically can't construct crewed orbital stations until you unlock a 1000 science node. 

[lodestar]

I'm getting some random crashes when switching from a manned ship to the Space Center since the last update, 0.3.2. Anyone else with the same problem?

[RoverDude]

On 1/21/2016 at 4:55 PM, Fraz86 said:

Hmm, I apologize, but I'm still a bit confused. I'm specifically trying to understand exactly what this does:

MODULE

{

name = ModuleHabitation

KerbalMonths = 12

} 

My in-game testing indicates that it doesn't quite act through straitforward addition or multiplication of the habitation value. It looks like every seat on a vessel contributes a default of 1 KM to the habitation value. If a ModuleHabitation is present, then it looks like the aforementioned habitation value is multiplied by (1 + sum of KerbalMonths values defined in all ModuleHabitations). Is that right?

This, it turns out, is a bug - sorting it.

On 1/22/2016 at 8:57 AM, goldenpsp said:

Rover,

I apologize but I think you misunderstood.  I was only recommending a "fix" to I am a spaceman due to his specific circumstance.  according to his post he launched a mission under the old version and as a result that mission has insufficient supplies.  If he wanted to save his "save" one option would be to temporarily change the consumption down to the old levels, at least until he completes that mission or sends out more supplies.  I was not clear but it was not my intent that it would be a permanent change.

No worries at all   

22 hours ago, apocriva said:

Maybe I'm understanding the hab modifiers incorrectly, but wouldn't going from 160 to 164 crew spots filled with 160 crew change the hab time from 30 days to 30.75 days? (164 / 160 * 30)

It should- but buggy

21 hours ago, mcortez said:

I think the problem Fraz86 is pointing out, is that with that one part (and it might be one of only 3 or 4 parts configured like it) provides not only crew slots that work as you describe, but also provides a HabitationModule addition of 12 kerbal months which gets multiplies by the crew ratio.

With the way its currently setup it multiplies (crew ratio) * (KerbalMonths in part configurations + 1)

So a Mk1-2 with 3 crew gets a total of (1) * (1 kerbal months) for a total of 30 days.

Add one hitchhiker and it goes to (2.33) * (1 + 12 kerbal months) for a total of 909 days.  So its a huge step up for an increase of very little weight.

My suggestion would be to either remove the kerbalmonth modifer and only use the multiplier config option (and tune the hitchhiker to down to something like 1.5) or reserve HabitatModule multipliers to only components that do not themselves add crew slots  or do it like this:

Have two ratios, one of crew to total seats of vessel (TtlCrwRatio) and a ratio of crew to seats in modules with KerbalMonth modifiers (KMCrewRatio).  Then modify the calculation to:

(TtlCrwRatio * HabitationModule.Multiplier) + (KMCrewRatio * HabitationModule.KerbalMonths)

With this change mk1-2 + hitchhiker and a total of 3 crew wouldbe:

 (((7/3) * 1) + ((4/3) * 12)) =~550  days versus 909 with current config.

Same configuration with a full crew would be:

(((7/7) * 1) + ((4/7) * 12)) =~ 210

Versus 361 with current.  So a good boost, still bigger than it probably should, but not huge.

Personally I don't have a problem with multiple kinds of habitation multipliers, its just with this specific low weight 4 seat part with a very larger multiplier seems a bit broken when it gets incorporated into big designs.  Using it to make a 1 or 2 man crew in a capsule be able to get to the edge of the system is one thing, being able to take a huge 60 crew ship add one hitchhiker container and have it marginally decrease their crew ratio but then multiply their range by 13 (versus 1) seems a touch over powered   especially one the hab parts specifically designed as colony parts increase the multiplier by less than 5.

Forgot to address this example, it would be:

(164 / 160) * (1 + 12) * 30

(Crew Ratio) * (Minimum Months From Config + KerbalMonths modifier from that specific part) * (30 days per month)

Yup - bug, sorting this now.

20 hours ago, CovertJaguar said:

Would it be possible to add a zero value consumer to pods to make the game think something is using them? I think I've seen other mods do that (AmpYear?).

Sure, log a github issue

18 hours ago, mitko said:

On the question of balance between USI-LS and UKS, I think that the huge difference in basic rate of consumption of supplies between the two mods renders the Nom-O-Matics useless if both UKS and USI-LS are installed. Since UKS seems well balanced, a way to mitigate that irrelevance could be to increase the rate of supply consumption in USI-LS to one third or a half of the basic rate in UKS and adjust the Nom-O-Matics accordingly. That way these two parts will still be useful with UKS installed without really competing with UKS' native parts. That could also be good for those players who use CTT since the agro modules show up quite late in that tech tree.

The nom o matics need to be retooled, on the short list for the next patch.

16 hours ago, mcortez said:

Maybe a Module Manager config could be used to adjust the Nom-O-Matics when both modules are installed?

Or just wait for the next release

2 hours ago, sh1pman said:

This is really annoying, beacuse you basically can't construct crewed orbital stations until you unlock a 1000 science node. 

Sure you can, you just have to have a fairly large area for supplied and run missions comparable to what we have for the ISS.

1 hour ago, lodestar said:

I'm getting some random crashes when switching from a manned ship to the Space Center since the last update, 0.3.2. Anyone else with the same problem?

Would need significantly more info than this, this is the first I have heard about crashing tho.

[lodestar]

21 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

Would need significantly more info than this, this is the first I have heard about crashing tho.

Sure, but I'm not reporting a bug right now :). I'm just asking if someone else experienced the same thing. It happened twice right after updating USI-LS from 0.3.1 to 0.3.2.

I couldn't find anything unusual in the log file. The game simply crashed like it was killed by the OS. I'm running it from a terminal now in the hope of getting some info.

[Kowgan]

Any luck on the save file I sent?

[CovertJaguar]

3 hours ago, RoverDude said:

Sure you can, you just have to have a fairly large area for supplied and run missions comparable to what we have for the ISS.

I can certainly understand some of NASA's budget constraints better now. Supply runs are expensive.

[eberkain]

I must be missing something, I've had a kerbal in space for 5 days or so, just a small mk1 pod with a small life support attached, has yet to consume supplies or create mulch.  The life support window is blank, nothing there.  Is there a special step or something I didn't do when designing the ship?

 

 

my installed mods.  

http://i.imgur.com/Q6jkeEO.png

Edited January 24, 2016 by eberkain

[Kowgan]

@eberkain Welcome to the forums! Try these steps (removal of the scenario section). Remember to backup your save first.

Edited January 24, 2016 by Kowgan

[eberkain]

Thanks for the welcome and the reply. I did as that said and saw no difference in-game.  When I open the life support window in the VAB I see stuff, it shows power and supplies times, how long it will last, and says indefinite at the end?    When in control of any ship the life support window is blank, regardless of crew or putting life support parts on the ship.   I'm still going with it being some kind of conflict with another mod I have installed.  I really do love the looks of this mod though.

There was really nothing to delete.   This is a new save game I've been playing for a few hours, have not altered mods since starting it. 

[RoverDude]

On 1/23/2016 at 4:13 PM, Kowgan said:

Any luck on the save file I sent?

Not yet.

9 hours ago, eberkain said:

I must be missing something, I've had a kerbal in space for 5 days or so, just a small mk1 pod with a small life support attached, has yet to consume supplies or create mulch.  The life support window is blank, nothing there.  Is there a special step or something I didn't do when designing the ship?

 

 

my installed mods.  

http://i.imgur.com/Q6jkeEO.png

Install this without using CKAN, because it's very flaky and just spawns more support issues.

Unrelated:  0.3.3 is up (bug fixes, balance stuff)

[Parkaboy]

Hi there!

I just installed USI Life Support and I'm testing the mod to find out what I need in order to make a base that's self-sufficient. I calculated from the values shown in the part descriptions that a big greenhouse can support 4 kerbals in aeroponics mode, with supply surplus. However, when I launch a vessel with 4 kerbals and a big greenhouse, it's as if the greenhouse doesn't work, and supplies are consumed fast. I made sure I had enough power, I started the aeroponics, I have it full of fertilizer, but it doesn't seem to be producing anything. What am I doing wrong? If I launch the same vessel empty, the greenhouse produces supplies...

Edited January 24, 2016 by Parkaboy

[Kershu5]

Okay I'm a bit puzzled by this, 'Dude- I see that the Hitchhiker module adds a LOT of habitation time, whereas similar modules from other game mods..  Don't.  Is there a list of which hab modules specifically add the most time to habitation?  Similarly, is there a way for us to "reset" habitation time- like if I've only got 10 days left before the kerbals are fed up with this ship, can I have them do something to reset that timer?  Short of using workshop stuff from other mods to build more things to tack onto the ship.  So far it seems like, right now, to send any sizable crew anywhere, they'd need a dozen hitchhiker habs..

[RoverDude]

Start by using the latest release (that's important).  And by latest I mean 0.3.3

And I do not dictate what other mods do with their parts - I do provide suggested values tho (this was noted a bit earlier in the thread).

The only things that have USI-LS stuff are my mods, and the hitchhiker for stock.  And no, there's no way to reset the timer.  Again, show a pic of the ship in question.  The first one you showed was incredibly low on hab space.

Addendum.

Having a lot of people live a really long time in space is an incredibly big deal.  It's not a case of 'slap on a 1-ton part and it magically fixes itself'.  The hab mechanic (and again - this only lights up if you use one of my kolonization mods right now) is absolutely designed to be a game constraint, and require some choices and some engineering compromises.

[Kershu5]

I've just been tooling around in the VAB so far, RoverDude, haven't actually designed any ships yet.  I have MKS-Lite installed, I don't know how much that affects things.

 

I've noticed that a single Hitchhiker will support 1 Kerbal for about 1 year 55 days, or 4 kerbals for 120 days.  I know, having lots of people living in space, huge deal, I'm okay with that!  Challenge is great and all.  But I'm trying to understand how to make it work, how to make long-lasting bases.

 

As it stands, without using tremendous part counts (subsequently requiring tremendous rockets to transport them, which kills my framerate because for some reason my PC doesn't like ships with more than 70 parts), I can't see a way to send a crew of more than 2 or 3 to any location outside of Kerbin, short of mailing an entire (significantly large) station across the void.  Would I have to go back to standard MKS to get longer lasting bases and ships?

[eberkain]

1 hour ago, RoverDude said:

Not yet.

Install this without using CKAN, because it's very flaky and just spawns more support issues.

Unrelated:  0.3.3 is up (bug fixes, balance stuff)

Totally fixed the problem.  Thank you so much!  Do you know of any other mods that have issues with CKAN?  I am missing the stock fairings from my game, which is why I installed the procedural fairings mod, I kind of like it better, but its also concerning that the stock parts have vanished. 

[PocketBrotector]

I dug into the new habitation logic and this is how I think it should be working:

Hab Total = (Crew Capacity + Additional Kerbal-Months) / Current Crew * (Total Hab Multiplier + 1)

Total Hab Multiplier = sum of each (Part's Hab Multiplier * Part's Crew Capacity / Total Crew Capacity)

Unfortunately this doesn't actually match the readouts that I'm getting in the VAB supply window, so hopefully someone can correct what I've gotten wrong. 

I also logged a Github issue because my habitation time for a given crew size was declining as I added crew capacity. I think that's because it's actually "diluting" the effectiveness of the Kerbitat's hab multiplier, though more testing may be needed.

[Kowgan]

Alright, looks like I've found the cause of my one-craft-only issue. If I launch a vessel from the VAB without ever opening the VAB USI-LS window, everything works fine:
http://puu.sh/mIKq7/f1ecef2288.jpg

But once I open the USI window while at the VAB , the bug happens.
http://puu.sh/mIKXO/89054dcb14.jpg
http://puu.sh/mIKN1/b1d00d7e88.jpg

Edited January 25, 2016 by Kowgan

[RoverDude]

5 hours ago, PocketBrotector said:

I dug into the new habitation logic and this is how I think it should be working:

Hab Total = (Crew Capacity + Additional Kerbal-Months) / Current Crew * (Total Hab Multiplier + 1)

Total Hab Multiplier = sum of each (Part's Hab Multiplier * Part's Crew Capacity / Total Crew Capacity)

Unfortunately this doesn't actually match the readouts that I'm getting in the VAB supply window, so hopefully someone can correct what I've gotten wrong. 

I also logged a Github issue because my habitation time for a given crew size was declining as I added crew capacity. I think that's because it's actually "diluting" the effectiveness of the Kerbitat's hab multiplier, though more testing may be needed.

Just fixed that in the next patch (up now)

0.3.4

Fixed a typo in the hab multiplier forumla that used crew capacity not current crew
The cupola now acts as a hab multiplier

[Kobymaru]

Question: how fast are the vessels supposed to get "worn out"? Since the update, I timewarped at most 150 days, and the wear on my base parts is already between 15% and 40%. Is it supposed to be that high?

Currently, the hidden ReplacementParts ressource goes down 2.3 units/day, from a total of 1488. That makes for an awfully short lifespan of about 600 days. Is that by design, is there something funky going on?

[RoverDude]

31 minutes ago, Kobymaru said:

Question: how fast are the vessels supposed to get "worn out"? Since the update, I timewarped at most 150 days, and the wear on my base parts is already between 15% and 40%. Is it supposed to be that high?

Currently, the hidden ReplacementParts ressource goes down 2.3 units/day, from a total of 1488. That makes for an awfully short lifespan of about 600 days. Is that by design, is there something funky going on?

Depends on the base (show a pic), including the life support window.

[Kobymaru]

33 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

Depends on the base (show a pic), including the life support window.

Spoiler

Here's an image of the base. 5 Kerbals in total (4 in this vessel, 1 in a nearby logistics rover), and there should be space for about 10-12 if I'm not mistaken.

Also, the hab time is going down about 3 seconds per second.

What I also find strange is that the mulch is going up although I have like 5 "Life Support" recyclers, and the agroponics running. No idea if that's by design, but before the update I was definitely consuming mulch instead of producing it.

Edited January 25, 2016 by Kobymaru

[RoverDude]

Overstuffed.  An inflatable hab is good for two Kerbals - you're essentially 'hot-bunking' your base.  The Kerbals will not be happy, and your stuff is going to get worn out fast.  It's like seven folks trying to share two sleeping bags.  Technically doable, but it's no good for the Kerbals or the sleeping bags.

 

[Kershu5]

Hrm.  I'll ask a different question- how does one turn the habitation limits stuff off?

 

e: never mind, found it in the Kolonization stuff.  Much as I love all your work RoverDude, the habitation limit thing is just painful for me to juggle.

Edited January 25, 2016 by Kershu5

[mcortez]

23 minutes ago, Kershu5 said:

Hrm.  I'll ask a different question- how does one turn the habitation limits stuff off?

I don't know about off, but you could adjust the base HabMultiplier and BaseHabTime values in the Settings.cfg file -- change them from 1 to something bigger (10 or 100) and you shouldn't have to worry about it for long time (possibly longer than you'll give your save around.)

I'm not sure if the NoHomeEffect values change Hab behavior or not, it's possible they might.  You are of course at that point gutting 1/3rd of the new mechanics from the mod though.