[0.23]asmi's ECLSS Mod (current version - 1.0.15) - Life Support Mod

[dnulho]

<moved to new thread>

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/58408-Multi-Level-Life-Support-Drawing-board

Edited November 16, 2013 by dnulho

[Camacha]

Probably a pretty stupid question, but could you method of globally working with resources somehow be adapted to get kOS to run on out-of-range ships?

[sidfu]

imo without food/water/ some form of waste thats the only reason i dont use this.

personaly i would love to have a hard mode one.

this guys containers are public domain so u could use them also. i use them on my tac support. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/43840-Hab-Hub-%28and-other-strange-things%29

[asmi]

Probably a pretty stupid question, but could you method of globally working with resources somehow be adapted to get kOS to run on out-of-range ships?

Everything is possible

[asmi]

I've uploaded version 1.0.5, which should solve a problem with incompatibility with RemoteTech. Download here: https://bitbucket.org/asmi/ksp/downloads/LifeSupportMod.1.0.5.zip

[DoubleOSeven1]

Any compat fix for B-9/ALCOR cockpits yet?

[asmi]

Any compat fix for B-9/ALCOR cockpits yet?

This is (supposedly) fixed since 1.0.3. So you're free to try out latest build and let me know how it went.

Edited November 16, 2013 by asmi

[Lalwcat]

Using 1.0.5, I'm still getting large FPS issues. The longer the game runs, the worse the FPS gets.

This vessel: http://i.imgur.com/EUH3hFm.jpg

When I first load KSP and immediately jump to this ship sits on the launchpad at 40-49fps. After launch and obtaining orbit, FPS is down to around 10-15, having slowly lost it during launch. (15km altitude, 1:40 into the flight and first stage jettisoned down to 32 fps. 2 minutes into the flight at around 28km altitude and fps dropped to 18 (appears to be right about when atmospheric oxygen was lost). Orbital insertion finished at 05:45 at 12-16fps (raising/falling drastically).

This is the output_log.txt for that game start, launch and flight to orbit.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/90875823/output_log.txt (Exited game with alt+F4, possible cause of the nullexception at the end)

Now I have removed ECLSS "LifeSupport" folder from GameData and performing launch again:

60 fps sitting on launchpad: http://i.imgur.com/D9KtxOU.jpg.

@15km altitude currently 60fps.

@35km 60fps.

Orbital insertion finished, 60fps.

This is the output_log.txt for the next launch without ECLSS

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/90875823/output_log2.txt

Current Mods:

FerramAerospaceResearch

KerbalJointReinforcement

KWRocketry

RealChute

Engineer

RemoteTech2

Kethane

DeadlyReentry

Treeloader

KSP Interstellar

MechJeb2

NearFuturePropulsion

B9Aerospace

KAS

ModsByTAL(fuel tanks)

[SFJackBauer]

Unfortunately same here.

Without ECLSS:

Clean save, put a rocket in launchpad. 18 FPS, but its fluid. No stuttering.

Switch to main save, which have 5 satellites in orbit. Put the same rocket in launchpad. 18 FPS, fluid, same as above.

With ECLSS 1.0.5:

Clean save, put a rocket in launchpad. 18 FPS, but stutters a bit. Could live with.

Switch to main save, which have 5 satellites in orbit. Put the same rocket in launchpad. 9 FPS, and almost unplayable.

[Donziboy2]

Unfortunately same here.

Without ECLSS:

Clean save, put a rocket in launchpad. 18 FPS, but its fluid. No stuttering.

Switch to main save, which have 5 satellites in orbit. Put the same rocket in launchpad. 18 FPS, fluid, same as above.

With ECLSS 1.0.5:

Clean save, put a rocket in launchpad. 18 FPS, but stutters a bit. Could live with.

Switch to main save, which have 5 satellites in orbit. Put the same rocket in launchpad. 9 FPS, and almost unplayable.

Are you also using RemoteTech 2?

I was having a similar problem with remotetech 2, launched first relay no problem, but as soon as I loaded a second rocket to launch my game started running at 6-10 FPS....

My solution was to just dump RemoteTech 2, I have enough mods installed to make the game hard enough without having to babysit dozens of Relays.

[SFJackBauer]

Are you also using RemoteTech 2?

I was having a similar problem with remotetech 2, launched first relay no problem, but as soon as I loaded a second rocket to launch my game started running at 6-10 FPS....

My solution was to just dump RemoteTech 2, I have enough mods installed to make the game hard enough without having to babysit dozens of Relays.

Yes, 4 sats up so far, but there is no difference in performance here between a clean new save and the sats one.

[Guest]

Did you try removing RT plugin? I suppose you could leave the antennae for compatibility, but remove the plugin and MM configs.

[Donziboy2]

Yes, 4 sats up so far, but there is no difference in performance here between a clean new save and the sats one.

It actually took me 2 sats get have problems, a single sat was fine, but when I want to launch another it all went to hell.

[vardicd]

yeah, I get real bad frame rate drops with this, because I use remote tech, which sucks because I love this mod, but I can't live without my remote tech

[MedievalNerd]

It actually took me 2 sats get have problems, a single sat was fine, but when I want to launch another it all went to hell.

What's the issue exactly? Using ECLSS & RT2 causes framerate drops? I just want to be sure I get this right.

Thanks,

[AlbertoKermov]

asmi, I think latest update fixed the fps drop on my end.

[vardicd]

What's the issue exactly? Using ECLSS & RT2 causes framerate drops? I just want to be sure I get this right.

Thanks,

That seems to be the case, although I am also seeing some funky interactions between RT2 and Mechjeb- which causes some control and throttle stutter.

[sirklick]

Removing the KOS extension dll from RT2 should help. Cipher has admitted that it is causing a lot of conflicts. RT2 is undergoing a lot of change atm and as exciting as it is to have people working on it again, I am avoiding it in main save use until its development has matured a bit more. Conflicts can be so hard to troubleshoot between multiple moving targets.

All that being said. asmi: Having any luck with code profiling?

[asmi]

All that being said. asmi: Having any luck with code profiling?

I've done a little bit of optimizations, and going to make another release soon. That said, I can't tell for sure if it's gonna help or not since I don't experience slowdowns in the first place...

[Beatmaster Hank]

I don't know if you already have this planned or not, but if you could make 1m in-line O2 container, that would be really nice. I just switched over from Ioncross because the author had been taking a long time to update without releasing a lot of information and I saw this one had nice textures and told you how long the kerbals had to survive. I would like to stay with this mod because it works very well, but having smaller containers would help out a lot.

[Donziboy2]

Ok, so am I missing something here. To keep one Kerbal alive for a year requires something like 69k O2 and that's with a regenerator... Now that would be a crap ton of tanks....

For those that need a visual aid here is 72k O2.... 18x10 small tanks (36.1t just for the O2 tanks+ O2)...

Is this how it should be? Is the bigger tank supposed to be 13k not 1300?

Edited November 17, 2013 by Donziboy2

[czokletmuss]

I guess so. What we need is bigger tank for O2 and CO2, or to be more precise, bigger tanks, the biggest being the size of the vanilla orange fuel tank.

Without such parts I can't imagine any mission to, say, Jool. The number of ECLSS parts alone will lag the crap out of everyone's PC.

[KerbMav]

Are the need and weight of resources scaled down by ten?

[SFJackBauer]

Did you try removing RT plugin? I suppose you could leave the antennae for compatibility, but remove the plugin and MM configs.

Hadn't thought of it, good idea.

Unfortunately the fps drop is still there. Its crazy because, none of my active vessels have even crew, they are all probes. So I rule out RemoteTech being the culprit on my system.

[sirklick]

The tanks that BobCat has made are a great and though some more variety (1.25 stack for example) later on might be nice, I am not sure bigger is really necessary. That being said number of tanks required for prolonged periods in space is quite extreme. It seems like the default volumes and unit masses are the primary culprit.

Comparing the volume units of the Small O2 tank to the stock small monoprop, I estimate that the volume of the tank should be closer to 80 (units/kerbits/whatever). O2 could be kept as either a cryogenic liquid (problematic for long term storage but dense) in O2 candle form (solid, long lasting but not as dense), or under pressure (the higher the pressure the better). The Quest Airlock on the ISS stored it at 900 psi but later Apollo suits had small tanks at > 1600 psi.

If we assume that high pressure tanks is the way to go and use Quest Airlock type tanks then O2 per kerbit should be 0.0004371. The current default of 0.00000143 giving us a 305x increase (but divided by 5 since 80 is 1/5th of the default 400). A small 900 psi tank of 80 kerbits volume would then hold ~35kg (0.035) of O2. Space station humans go through about 1kg of O2 per day for about 35 days of O2 for a human. Kerbal O2 utilization is up in the air.

Thus, the problem as I see it is not really with tank size but one of units currently used.