Life Support - TAC or USI?

[RizzoTheRat]

I fancy having a dabble with life support in the new career game I just started.  Hunting around the forums I think I prefer the added complexity of TAC over USI, but I really like the idea of the USI Kolonisation mod, the download page for which suggests it supports TAC, but a few other forum posts (mainly on Steam) are suggesting it doesn't any more.

Anyone using TAC-LS and Kolonisation? As far as I can tell the resources are different so how do they work together?

Am I better off using TAC-LS and one of the greenhouse mods rather than Kolonisation?

Is it worth using the simpler USI-LS in order to gain the nice complexity of Kolonisation without any issues?

[RoverDude]

A few things have changed with the latest release (i.e. this week).

TAC-LS has more resources, but less scope (it just does 'stuff that goes in and out of your Kerbal' and some converters.

USI-LS has less resources, but more scope (Effects of habitation, converters, and colony-wide recyclers that reduce inputs vs. just convert outputs).  Plus a much wider range of penalty options.

Because of the scope change, if you use UKS and TAC-LS, while it's supported (there are converters and such), several of the modules (like habs) are pretty much cosmetic as TAC-LS lacks this concept.  Also, upcoming things to USI-LS like health, space madness, etc. would not have TAC-LS analogues.

So if you are looking for depth/scope, USI-LS and UKS are your best bet in my (obviously biased) opinion.

Both are supported in UKS, but since 

[RizzoTheRat]

Yikes, it's Mr USI himself.  

So by the sound of that (and your GitHub documentation) USI-LS is focussed on the long game and with Kolonisation is the better choice for someone who want's to build a space empire, while TAC-LS is more focussed on the complexity of a keeping ships supplied?

For a new career game I'm wondering if TAC-LS might prove more rewarding in the short term (more to think about in early mun/minimus/station missions let alone interplanetary), while UKS provides much better scope to build permanent off world resupply bases that would start to become more interesting later in the game.  Tough decision, I'd love to have a proper refuelling/supply depots spread around the solar system, but on a new game it'll take a long time to get to that point.

Love the idea of health and space madness, how far off are they?  Keep up the good work.

 

Edited January 20, 2016 by RizzoTheRat

[RoverDude]

Not quite.  Both are focused on keeping a ship supplies.  Though USI-LS is a lot more forgiving, and you don't have to worry about resupply until you're ready to go past the mun (tho you can have a very sad day if you miscalculate your 15-day (configurable) grace period).

[Mecripp]

USI-LS is a kid's LS just like  Snack   IMO  TAC LS is far better if you want more real

[RoverDude]

12 minutes ago, MeCripp said:

USI-LS is a kid's LS just like  Snack   IMO  TAC LS is far better if you want more real

Not really.  USI-LS just has a lot more options other than 'dead... dead.. or dead'   

Philosophically, I'd rather have a rescue mission opportunity vs. my Kerbals dead in the corner covered in ants... but again, it's why it has a ton of options and dials you can tweak (and the kolonization defaults are different than the out of the box defaults).

It has about as much in common with snacks as ham does with hamsters

Plus since the OP was interested in the colonization mods, it's the one that will dovetail best because of some of the bits USI-LS has that TAC-LS does not.

[Kerbart]

15 minutes ago, MeCripp said:

USI-LS is a kid's LS just like  Snack   IMO  TAC LS is far better if you want more real

I'm sure many of us love to see you elaborate on that. What makes TAC LS “more real?”

[Mecripp]

Just how long can you go with out eating or drinking ? O but what some mods just want your kerbals to get moody or not do anything to rescue kerbals get there.

 

EDIT- Thats what, I mean by Kids LS

EDIT- And this ( Because of the scope change, if you use UKS and TAC-LS, while it's supported (there are converters and such), several of the modules (like habs) are pretty much cosmetic as TAC-LS lacks this concept.

Really RoverDude this can all be done with a little edit of a cfg it's all just playing around with the numbers even with USI-LS 

Edited January 21, 2016 by Mecripp2

[RoverDude]

3 minutes ago, MeCripp said:

Just how long can you go with out eating or drinking ? O but what some mods just want your kerbals to get moody or not do anything to rescue kerbals get there.

 

EDIT- Thats what, I mean by Kids LS

Fully configurable.  As are the penalties.  You may want to check your facts first before commenting on a mod.

(Config settings for the curious - defaults are shown - automatically consolidates configs and takes the most pessimistic view, so that mods can alter the behavior if they so desire).

Spoiler

LIFE_SUPPORT_SETTINGS
{
    SupplyTime = 324000            //How many seconds before Kerbals are affected by no supplies
    EVATime = 21600                //How many seconds before ill effects on EVA
    ECAmount = 0.01                //EC per Kerbal per second                        
    SupplyAmount = 0.00005        //Supplies consumed per Kerbal per second
    WasteAmount = 0.00005        //Mulch produced per Kerbal per second
    NoSupplyEffect = 1            //Effect if a Kerbal has no supplies or EC
    NoSupplyEffectVets = 1        //Effect if a Kerbal is a vet and has no supplies or EC
    EVAEffect = 3                //Effect if a Kerbal exceeds EVA time        
    EVAEffectVets = 3            //Effect if a Kerbal is a vet and exceeds EVA time
    NoHomeEffect = 0            //Effect if a Kerbal becomes homesick
    NoHomeEffectVets = 0        //Effect if a Kerbal is a vet and becomes homesick
    HabMultiplier = 1            //Bonus to hab values (1 = default = 100% of the part's rated value)
    HomeWorldAltitude = 25000    //Altitude on Kerbin that negative effects are removed
    BaseHabTime = 1                //How long can 1 crew capacity support 1 Kerbal, expressed in Kerbal Months
    ReplacementPartAmount = 0    //How fast life support equipment and habs 'wears out'
    HabRange = 150                //How close we need to be to use other vessel's habitation modules and recyclers.
    EnableRecyclers = false        //Use resource recyclers?  Not the same as resource converteres like greenhouses!
    VetNames = Jebediah,Valentina,Bill,Bob    
}

//  SIDE EFFECTS:
// 
//  0 = No Effect (The feature is effectively turned off
//  1 = Grouchy (they become a Tourist until rescued)
//  2 = Mutinous (A tourist, but destroys a part of a nearby vessel...)
//  3 = Instantly 'wander' back to the KSC - don't ask us how!
//  4 = M.I.A. (will eventually respawn)
//  5 = K.I.A. 

 

 

Edited January 21, 2016 by RoverDude

[Mecripp]

22 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

Fully configurable.  As are the penalties.  You may want to check your facts first before commenting on a mod.

(Config settings for the curious - defaults are shown - automatically consolidates configs and takes the most pessimistic view, so that mods can alter the behavior if they so desire).

  Reveal hidden contents

 

LIFE_SUPPORT_SETTINGS
{
    SupplyTime = 324000            //How many seconds before Kerbals are affected by no supplies
    EVATime = 21600                //How many seconds before ill effects on EVA
    ECAmount = 0.01                //EC per Kerbal per second                        
    SupplyAmount = 0.00005        //Supplies consumed per Kerbal per second
    WasteAmount = 0.00005        //Mulch produced per Kerbal per second
    NoSupplyEffect = 1            //Effect if a Kerbal has no supplies or EC
    NoSupplyEffectVets = 1        //Effect if a Kerbal is a vet and has no supplies or EC
    EVAEffect = 3                //Effect if a Kerbal exceeds EVA time        
    EVAEffectVets = 3            //Effect if a Kerbal is a vet and exceeds EVA time
    NoHomeEffect = 0            //Effect if a Kerbal becomes homesick
    NoHomeEffectVets = 0        //Effect if a Kerbal is a vet and becomes homesick
    HabMultiplier = 1            //Bonus to hab values (1 = default = 100% of the part's rated value)
    HomeWorldAltitude = 25000    //Altitude on Kerbin that negative effects are removed
    BaseHabTime = 1                //How long can 1 crew capacity support 1 Kerbal, expressed in Kerbal Months
    ReplacementPartAmount = 0    //How fast life support equipment and habs 'wears out'
    HabRange = 150                //How close we need to be to use other vessel's habitation modules and recyclers.
    EnableRecyclers = false        //Use resource recyclers?  Not the same as resource converteres like greenhouses!
    VetNames = Jebediah,Valentina,Bill,Bob    
}

//  SIDE EFFECTS:
// 
//  0 = No Effect (The feature is effectively turned off
//  1 = Grouchy (they become a Tourist until rescued)
//  2 = Mutinous (A tourist, but destroys a part of a nearby vessel...)
//  3 = Instantly 'wander' back to the KSC - don't ask us how!
//  4 = M.I.A. (will eventually respawn)
//  5 = K.I.A. 

 

 

Never said you couldn't change the setting for the penalties but where in real life would a person change his/her penalties they are what the are

EDIT- Even the mod Soylent LS has more bases of been a better LS  http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/112127-105-soylent-closing-the-life-support-cycle-with-algae-v02-20151231/

 

Edited January 21, 2016 by Mecripp2

[RoverDude]

17 hours ago, RizzoTheRat said:

Love the idea of health and space madness, how far off are they?  Keep up the good work.

 

Forgot to answer this bit.

Probably after the dust settles with the current colonization patches, don't want to add too many new bits in at once. But there are already parts in the works (centrifuges, medical facilities, etc.) in to cover the health bit, and the foundations are in for the sanity/space madness bits.  

[Glaran K'erman]

Despite the bias, he's right . USI-LS and UKS work great together, and don't be daunted by the 'scope' thing. Early game you'll do just fine, the real boost in planning comes in after leaving Kerbin's SOI. The scope widens really by you're choosing, you could keep just sending straightforward resupply missions, (very) tightly pack all the supplies you'll need, or develop a self-sufficient system and they'll all get you to wherever in the Kerbol system you'd like.

[RizzoTheRat]

Well I did a mun flyby with USI-LS, and then a couple of rescue contracts and a mun landing with TAC-LS, and it seems that I'm too early in the game to see any difference.  Both missions took a small container of supplies but didn't really need them as in TAC-LS the capsule has 3 days of supply as standard, while in USI-LS the mission was within the supply time.

I quite like that TAC uses different resources at different rates, but I'm not really sure if that adds much to the game as you just stock accordingly.  I guess I won't really start to see much difference until I build a station with recycling equipment. 

Also had a read of the Kolonisation tutorial on the Mk V parts starter Kolony, which looks like fun.

Thanks for the config file info, easy to tweak to match game play style, I like the idea that they can trash the station  I assume by Vets you mean orange suiters?

 

[RoverDude]

Yep - or pretty much anyone you add to that file (for those that use custom Kerbals).  An entertaining side effect of the UKS default settings is that if you lock a Kerbal out on EVA and they die, they disappear in a ninja smoke bomb glitter cloud  with a 'boom' (before despawning or - if you are a vet - just saying 'screw it - I'm going home').

And yep, a large factor of why I made USI-LS was due to the resource quantity - with MKS the context menus and resource lists were long enough as they were, and they got a culling as well.  Plus built in recyclers (no need for extra part counts).  The other factor that I finally took care of with this version is the resource mass - it just seemed to be too little 'stuff', so USI-LS ends up (without recyclers) to be about 16kg of stuff per day.  This can be reduced by recycling equipment or (coming soon) using locally found water to dramatically reduce the cost (to the tune of about 95%), which should help make for more realistic colony site planning.

[Tantalus]

As soneone who used TAC-LS for a ong time (and love it btw), how good is USI-LS integrated in other mods, planetary base systems for example? AFAIK most part mods provide supply containers etc for TAC-LS. Is there a way to integrate USI-LS on the same level?

Regards

Tantalus

Edited January 21, 2016 by Tantalus
Typo

[RoverDude]

From what I have seen, folks are requesting (and getting) USI-LS integration - including PBS last I checked.  It's one of the reasons some of the newer bits are turned off by default, because I did not want to mess with other integrations (but provide some guidelines for modders that want to take advantage of new mechanics as they light up).

[Tantalus]

3 hours ago, RoverDude said:

From what I have seen, folks are requesting (and getting) USI-LS integration - including PBS last I checked.  It's one of the reasons some of the newer bits are turned off by default, because I did not want to mess with other integrations (but provide some guidelines for modders that want to take advantage of new mechanics as they light up).

Sounds good, i think i'l try it in my next career game (too far in progres to switch in my current). I love TAC-LS but it starts to feel to have too little depth. Just add a medium or large container to every ship and you dont have to care any more in most missions. Thats why most of my bases have at least some sort of greenhouse, even if it is not really necessary.

 

Regards

Tantalus

[Guest]

17 hours ago, RoverDude said:

Fully configurable.  As are the penalties.

That's good.  I was afraid if they had you do any potential future life support system for stock we'd end up with unresponsive Kerbals or some other such fluffy nonsense.  Poor planning in spaceflight has real consequences and the game should reflect that, or be easily configured to do so.

But you did real good with the ISRU system so I hope any potential future life support system you may end up doing for the stock game is as configurable.

[RoverDude]

Pretty much everything I do for stock comes with a bucket of dials, knobs, levers, and overrides

[RizzoTheRat]

15 hours ago, RoverDude said:

 a bucket of dials, knobs, levers, and overrides

That describes most of my space programme

[Cdr_Zeta]

Greetings,

I will chime in here as this is my 'BIG' thing: Life Support and Space Survival.

I say 'Space Survival' ! Why !? Well I havnt inspected Rover's LS system, which is also a game-play system of kolonization; yet. I did inspect the earlier versions as I was looking at ways to 'process' resources.

I also used the 'Kethane' and BIOMASS mods. After inspecting the BIOMASS mod, it seemed to have more difficulty but with resource processing that seemed, and still seems, 'unrealistic'; but game-playable KSP-Style.

KSP-Style...converting ORE to Fuel for space ships; getting BIOMASS from waste products and converting it to FOOD; making it longer to process as a means of difficulty (I believe, maybe along with some other resource bits; I dont know I never bothered to inspect the difficulty ratings in the 'CFG's' as they were too hard to read for one (just because I dont use Notepad++) and too much CFG spam as I call it.

So I tried to reconfigure BIOMASS on my own, at first with some difficulty (pun!); then I completely removed the difficulty settings and DLL; thank you (!); this method still works. The reason for doing this was that CFG's being altered caused a BIOMASS mod issue otherwise; without the difficulty settings, one can freely modify any of the BIOMASS CFG's to their own liking.

Now, instead of BIOMASS to Food, I have about 10 different resources to make food. Also BIOMASS useages of microflora and nutrients are different than mine; I have my own terminology for BIOMASS, microflora, etc; nutrients go to make fertilizer which is part of the 10 nutrients that all go together in the hydroponics Greenhouse.

With a brief look at MKS or UKS or USI whatever its called...I saw 'DIRT' added to the Community Resource Project resources (also a USI product); well in my honest opinion, 'DIRT', which is an organic material, cant be readily found in space, and hydropnics without dirt is more efficient, and but more nutrient heavy (and water heavy !); also 'DIRT' is essentially fertilizer (not per se); they also use 'MULCH'; I have not looked at the processes but I do know how to plant potatoes.

I found a stickied post on remixing MODS quite by accident; I hope to add my MOD somehow, but in order to do it I would have to use someone else's 'NON-Process' part models to house the resource processes in.

I see other people making part models for other modders' resources (and processes) so I know it can be done I just havnt had the time to look at this venture, and next week I plan on trying to make my own kolony buildings to house my resource processing.

My resource processing is straight-forward and could use the STOCK resource converter; altho the best way to do this, the STOCK resource converter is very archaic to use; but it 'CAN' be done.

As Rover said, Tac-Life is more concerned with limited survival supplies; Kerbals must plan their space stay based on Tac-Life survival rates; which are also unrealistic as far as storage of the resources. I saw the large container hold almost 2 years of water (?); I dont think so; but as far as KSP-Style play it will fly the spaceship.

I am retesting the TacLife MOD and had a weird problem with it so I have to go thru some multiple tests with it (I do most of my MOD testing live on Twitch.

My KSP website will have better resource FLOW DIAGRAMS at some point, and would be included in any resource MOD I may make out of it.

BIOMASS has the greenhouse system and goes a little further for Kerbalnauts to make food in space.

All the MODDERS are to be commended in providing a basis for players to expand on the KSP Resource Game.

I also started with Kethane; the MOD that started it all in my opinion; the MOD that worked (at the time). Now unfortunately I cant use any of it's converters, or BIOMASS old converters for that matter; this may have to do with Unity update; their really needs to be mass resource conversion; now it seems to be gone.

Enter Me ! So there is the RSS or Real Solar System, which I hope to get into at some point, and now the Galactic Naberhood (sp!); so I figured why not realistic resources ! Elements, chemicals, substrate, minerals, stuff that was the start of the resource game, and that I kept and have now re-added all of them back into the CRP (Community Resource Project) resource configs ! And not just those, but many others; raw drillable and scannable resources readily available on planets and moons; everything out there needed to make fertilizer for hydroponics, water for drinking, and oxygen for breathing.

Tac Life was, and still is, the best place to start a resource game; I just went further with it having to figure out my own resource processes, and I do it with only 'CFG' files; no C+ Programming !! It is easy but time consuming.

It takes a month or more to setup a KSP Resource Game.

Good luck figuring it all out; it is part of KSP !

Commander Zeta

PS: Wow what a rant ! If I could only make a point in one word: KSP

Edited January 25, 2016 by Cdr_Zeta
addendum

[Cornholio]

If you are like me, you may consider basing your decision on your opinion on the ideas behind ISRU and other resource gathering mods.  My opinion on that is that I find ISRU and resource gathering to be extremely hypothetical and very unrealistic as currently, NO space agency in the world would plan a surface mission with success and survival based on their ability to find and refine a finite amount of resources from a foreign terrain.  Even with the underlying notion for those of us that have ScanSat installed to find resources, the basic assumption of gathering enough resources to survive is to ridiculous for my taste.  This opinion has applied to my use (or lack-thereof) of other mods such as Kethane and Karbonyte or even stock ISRU to where I never use any of them. 

I have used TACLS for a long while now and love the simplicity along with the realism (volume and weight aside) and recycling.  Most mods that have a LS aspect are compatible with TACLS, too.

I totally respect RoverDude and what he does and love checking out every mod he's made, but for no malicious reason, I prefer not to use USI or MKS because of the above reason. 

[RoverDude]

No offense taken... but you do realize that ISRU is a real thing, and totally legit near future tech (with some very interesting POC's by NASA already out there).   

in other words - the concept of having mission success tied to our ability to harvest and utilize in-situ resources, whether it's methane, hydrogen, etc. is not in any way hypothetical or unrealistic.  it's part of the planning going into long term missions.

Edited January 29, 2016 by RoverDude

[goldenpsp]

2 hours ago, Cornholio said:

If you are like me, you may consider basing your decision on your opinion on the ideas behind ISRU and other resource gathering mods.  My opinion on that is that I find ISRU and resource gathering to be extremely hypothetical and very unrealistic as currently, NO space agency in the world would plan a surface mission with success and survival based on their ability to find and refine a finite amount of resources from a foreign terrain.  Even with the underlying notion for those of us that have ScanSat installed to find resources, the basic assumption of gathering enough resources to survive is to ridiculous for my taste.  This opinion has applied to my use (or lack-thereof) of other mods such as Kethane and Karbonyte or even stock ISRU to where I never use any of them. 

I have used TACLS for a long while now and love the simplicity along with the realism (volume and weight aside) and recycling.  Most mods that have a LS aspect are compatible with TACLS, too.

I totally respect RoverDude and what he does and love checking out every mod he's made, but for no malicious reason, I prefer not to use USI or MKS because of the above reason. 

i'm trying to figure out the relevance of your argument.  MKS is not a life support mod.  And just like TAC-LS, USI-LS does not have any built in IRSU resource gathering capability to create food.  So the fact that MKS has resource gathering (that works with both life support mods) is really no reason to argue for or against either life support mod.

With the recent additions to habitation and kerbal happiness (not wanting to be cramped inside a capsule for years) I would personally give USI-LS the edge in terms of a more realistic feeling gameplay.

[Cornholio]

I know that they're not packaged in that way, but I view USI and MKS as modules to the same suite.

On 1/29/2016 at 0:32 PM, RoverDude said:

No offense taken... but you do realize that ISRU is a real thing, and totally legit near future tech (with some very interesting POC's by NASA already out there).   

in other words - the concept of having mission success tied to our ability to harvest and utilize in-situ resources, whether it's methane, hydrogen, etc. is not in any way hypothetical or unrealistic.  it's part of the planning going into long term missions.

I am definitely taking this off topic, but do you think that NASA would plan an interplanetary mission where the crew would only survive and return if they were able to locate a finite amount of specific resources and refine them for use?  You definitely already make a strong argument with POC technology used here on Earth, but when it's a matter of transfer windows and an unexplored foreign body, I would guess that they would plan a bit more conservatively.