Do you think Life Support should be Vanilla?

[tater]

LS would be particularly important for warships... letting all the air out is generally unhealthy. Minus LS, they might as well be drones.

[swjr-swis]

2 hours ago, tater said:

Minus LS, they might as well be drones.

  "The line must be drawn he-arr! This far, no further!"

[SpaceplaneAddict]

I'm good without life support, but if it makes some happy, a difficulty setting for it to be toggled is beast. Hard 'nuff for me to go interplanetary, i don't need additional cargo to lug around everywhere...

[mattinoz]

I'll always be in favor of life support in stock it's just something you expect you'd need to deal with in a space travel game and I'm happy to suspend that expectation on the grounds capsule designers are required to have x days of support built in to the capsule.  So really agree with others that USI life support seems like the good model of how it works. No reason to make more complicated than that for stock.

However stock life support should have API hooks to allow it to be extended by mods and  make it more complicated. I don't just mean mods for recycling and resupply. Mods should be able to change if a kerbal is eating so they can account for illness or maybe they are over eating. They could just be grumpy and have a lower strike value.  A suspended animation system in a future tech mod set could tweak the values to reduce resource consumption without grumpiness.

Having a simple common core will make it easier to mix and match simpler mods to make really complex challengers.

 

Edited August 28, 2016 by mattinoz

[brusura]

Of course yes, something like kerbalism and toggleable like it is going to be the antenna network in 1.2

Way to go squad

Edited August 28, 2016 by brusura

[Boris-Barboris]

I think we could finally have an utilization for those endless "Rescue X Kerman from orbit of Y" - let cucumbers eat each other in long flights.

[swjr-swis]

3 hours ago, Boris-Barboris said:

I think we could finally have an utilization for those endless "Rescue X Kerman from orbit of Y" - let cucumbers eat each other in long flights.

<biting tongue>

[Van Disaster]

16 hours ago, tater said:

I'd not go so far as the bolded bit. What it adds is a time limit given the amount of mass you have added.

( was a reply to me considering TAC-like LS just being make-work once you've got used to it ).

I've hardly ever had a time-limit matter, though - once I killed an entire station crew 5 mins before I got the resupply docked, but they'd only run short of LS because I'd screwed up & managed to transfer almost the entire station supply to a ship, and it was out of system before I realised. Other than that, I generally just stuffed enough LS on board to cope with contingencies up to crashing the vessel & losing half the LS supply & having to wait for a lifeboat, and never lost a crew due to out of o2/food. Running out of electricity in timewarp was the only way, and that frankly sucks as a game mechanic.

I haven't tried USI-LS because in early versions it wasn't appealing, but my next game build is going to include it.

[Pthigrivi]

Yeah earlier someone mentioned a prerequisite need for really super clear mission planning tools before LS gets implemented and I totally agree with that. Getting all those UI tools ready is hugely important. Like in the situation with your station there should have been a flashing red indicator that your little guys didn't have enough. There really also should be a mission planner either at mission control or the tracking station that will tell you what the dV and transfer durations will be without exiting to a browser. All of that will take some time and thought to get right, but fortunately they'd be really valuable tools whether people are enabling LS or not.

Edited August 28, 2016 by Pthigrivi

[pandaman]

12 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

* snip *

this ^^ (see above post.) ...

I was just about to post something nearly identical myself. .

But I won't bother now .... you got it covered. 

[tater]

USILS shows how long you can support the current crew embarked in the VAB, as well as the max crew for that vessel. The trouble of course is knowing how long a given mission needs to last for people who haven't flown a given mission profile before.

[Pthigrivi]

I know there's a big update coming up for that but am I right that the countdowns still don't reflect how long they'll last with greenhouses activated? Its tough, I remember originally thinking LS should really just be shown as a unit that equalled 1 kerbal-day but this actually gets weird when you start including recyclers and regenerators.

Edited August 28, 2016 by Pthigrivi

[Kurld]

Only if it's optional.

It's something absolutely intrinsic to space travel/exploration. It's also a layer of complexity some folks might not want to get into.

[tater]

I'm noit a fan of the greenhouse parts... entirely from an aesthetic POV. Such parts would have no windows, and would use redirected solar (a heliostat), or just lights.

[Pthigrivi]

Doesn't really address the realism issue but I do like the looks of the upcoming art pass.
 

 

[tater]

Better looking, certainly.

[Stratoroc]

No. Stock KSP needs to be accessible for its level of complexity. Stock life support means both that players suddenly need to worry about yet another thing that doesn't add to gameplay and the seat strapped to a booster long range missions are no longer viable.

Anyone with enough brain capacity to juggle LS in addition to putting heavy things in orbit can figure out how to install mods. Its the same deal with aerodynamics, for a short while KSP had a more accurate atmosphere and flight and then the soup came right back. Not everyone enjoys playing a game where planes can't take off at 40m/s and the damn antenna always falls off.

Finally, a side effect of LS is routine resupply missions for things like stations and bases. Once, they are exciting. Twice, a waste of time. Trice, I already have a job and I don't need another one while I'm playing a game.

[Andem]

3 minutes ago, Stratoroc said:

No. Stock KSP needs to be accessible for its level of complexity. Stock life support means both that players suddenly need to worry about yet another thing that doesn't add to gameplay and the seat strapped to a booster long range missions are no longer viable.

Anyone with enough brain capacity to juggle LS in addition to putting heavy things in orbit can figure out how to install mods. Its the same deal with aerodynamics, for a short while KSP had a more accurate atmosphere and flight and then the soup came right back. Not everyone enjoys playing a game where planes can't take off at 40m/s and the damn antenna always falls off.

Finally, a side effect of LS is routine resupply missions for things like stations and bases. Once, they are exciting. Twice, a waste of time. Trice, I already have a job and I don't need another one while I'm playing a game.

Mate, have you even read the thread? Even a cursory glance? Have you ever even played the game?

[Wjolcz]

17 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

I know there's a big update coming up for that but am I right that the countdowns still don't reflect how long they'll last with greenhouses activated? Its tough, I remember originally thinking LS should really just be shown as a unit that equalled 1 kerbal-day but this actually gets weird when you start including recyclers and regenerators.

That's why the only thing that provides "Supplies" should be the greenhouse. Kerbals would also need EC to keep their imaginary heat, water and air "cycle of perfection" closed. The simpler, the better.

Think about it: A Karbal eats 1 unit of "Supplies" a day. The greenhouse provides 3 units of "Supplies" a day (as long as it has enough power to generate the resource). What that means is you can hold 3 kerbals non-stop in your ship and they will never die/become a tourist/whatever. Bring in one more, and 1 greenhouse won't be enough to feed them.

17 hours ago, tater said:

I'm noit a fan of the greenhouse parts... entirely from an aesthetic POV. Such parts would have no windows, and would use redirected solar (a heliostat), or just lights.

I personally feel the same about most of the greenhouse parts provided by mods. What I would like to see is either a lab-sized greenhouse with windows (I know it wouldn't make sense, but that could look really nice), or a design similar to the one you can see here, with two outside rings spinning in opposite directions.

Edited August 29, 2016 by Veeltch

[Alshain]

On 8/28/2016 at 4:01 PM, Andem said:

Mate, have you even read the thread? Even a cursory glance? Have you ever even played the game?

His concerns are valid.  Tossing insult at him doesn't help your position.

[Andem]

9 minutes ago, Alshain said:

His concerns are valid.  Tossing insult at him doesn't help your position.

Tell me, where specifically did I insult him? I would honestly like to know.

[Alshain]

Just now, Andem said:

Tell me, where specifically did I insult him? I would honestly like to know.

" Have you ever even played the game? " <- A feigned question intended to insult the recipient or imply ignorance.  Not even a very good one since all his concerns are a perfectly valid point of view.

[Andem]

2 minutes ago, Alshain said:

" Have you ever even played the game? " <- A feigned question intended to insult the recipient or imply ignorance.  Not even a very good one since all his concerns are a perfectly valid point of view.

It seemed a valid question to someone saying "for a short while KSP had a more accurate atmosphere and flight and then the soup came right back." I think it's a fair question to ask.

[Alshain]

58 minutes ago, Andem said:

It seemed a valid question to someone saying "for a short while KSP had a more accurate atmosphere and flight and then the soup came right back." I think it's a fair question to ask.

He is correct.  When 1.0 came out the atmosphere was much more accurate than what we have now.  They made it less realistic again in the next couple of patches (1.0.1 to 1.0.4), though not as bad as pre-1.0.  If anyone is unaware of the history of this game, it would appear to be you.

Edited August 30, 2016 by Alshain

[Andem]

2 minutes ago, Alshain said:

He is correct.  When 1.0 came out the atmosphere was much more accurate than what we have now.  They made it less realistic again in the next couple of patches (1.0.1 to 1.0.4), though not as bad as pre-1.0.  If anyone is unaware of the history of this game, it would appear to be you.

Wait seriously? That's seriously disappointing... crap. Uh, sorry then. But my point about actually reading the thread is still valid and still stands.