Universal Storage 1.4.0.0 (For KSP 1.4.x) 13th March 2018

[SpacedInvader]

Hmm I see. My main problem with it right now is with reprocessing materials (like with a greenhouse) currently the absolute quantity of resources is reducing considerably.

There must surely be nearly as much Waste and WasteWater produced as there is Food and Water consumed, no matter the exact ratio of solids to liquids.

Not true at all... You're forgetting that the whole reason we eat in the first place is to provide an energy source for the human machine. Most of what composes human feces is dead cells and non-digestible material like cellulose from plants. Pretty much everything else is either converted to raw materials for maintaining the body or energy for running it. So you have to account for a large portion of the food intake being converted to heat energy before you can say that there is not enough coming out based on whats going in.

That being said, I understand that a sudden increase in food requirements could be problematic, but then again, this is a normal part of maintaining a crew in space. And also why I landed on the need for a new greenhouse at this time...

[Daishi]

6S shields things, yet is stackable and usable for large payloads, is there something about the science bay that prevents this?

Hrm, i must have misunderstood what Ferram told me about cargo bays - Nothke's tubes aren't capped with colliders which i presumed was a hard requirement for FAR. When I get my PC back I'll add colliders to the doors, install FAR and do some testing. Always presumed a nosecone would provide enough aerodynamic protection for our parts... how much drag do they produce at the moment?

[TurielD]

Not true at all... You're forgetting that the whole reason we eat in the first place is to provide an energy source for the human machine. Most of what composes human feces is dead cells and non-digestible material like cellulose from plants. Pretty much everything else is either converted to raw materials for maintaining the body or energy for running it. So you have to account for a large portion of the food intake being converted to heat energy before you can say that there is not enough coming out based on whats going in.

That's not how biology works

Living beings do indeed use energy from food of course, but that's just chemical energy; in its simplest form, sugar (C6H12O6) is 'burned' by adding oxygen (6 O2's per sugar molecule) which results in a release of stored energy by converting the sugar + oxygen in to carbondioxide (6*CO2) and water (6*H2O). While we do indeed end up with less solid waste than the mass of solids that we take in, the total mass is not reduced (start: 6 Cs, 12 H's, 18 O's. end: 6Cs, 12 H's, 18 O's) - merely its configuration. To change the mass we end up with our little friends would have to be running on some kind of internal nuclear power...

But then, Kerbals are green. Who knows?

Hrm, i must have misunderstood what Ferram told me about cargo bays - Nothke's tubes aren't capped with colliders which i presumed was a hard requirement for FAR. When I get my PC back I'll add colliders to the doors, install FAR and do some testing. Always presumed a nosecone would provide enough aerodynamic protection for our parts... how much drag do they produce at the moment?

B9's cargo bays are also stackable, might be worth having a look at how those work

[SpacedInvader]

That's not how biology works

Living beings do indeed use energy from food of course, but that's just chemical energy; in its simplest form, sugar (C6H12O6) is 'burned' by adding oxygen (6 O2's per sugar molecule) which results in a release of stored energy by converting the sugar + oxygen in to carbondioxide (6*CO2) and water (6*H2O). While we do indeed end up with less solid waste than the mass of solids that we take in, the total mass is not reduced (start: 6 Cs, 12 H's, 18 O's. end: 6Cs, 12 H's, 18 O's) - merely its configuration. To change the mass we end up with our little friends would have to be running on some kind of internal nuclear power...

But then, Kerbals are green. Who knows?

Been a long time since highschool biology, but I guess I'll take you're word for it. That being said, the mass distribution is based off of either NASA numbers (3 meals or one day of food on the ISS is 1.8kg), or average human values (1oz of feces per 12lbs of body weight with an average human being 160lbs), so they are at least somewhat accurate. I did postulate the idea on the TACLS thread that the 1.8kg included water weight of beverages and non-dehydrated foods, but I'm not sure how much that will affect the final numbers. I'm left with the distinct impression that not everyone participating in that discussion has the desire for things to be realistic.

EDIT: I should mention that TaranisElsu actually had the daily waste value set at 0.11kg, but I thought that was ridiculously low, so I set mine at 0.38kg based on the average detailed above.

[AdmiralTigerclaw]

TurialD, Mass IS lost in an exothermic chemical reaction. It's just a tiny portion of said mass. But it is lost as heat energy as per the first law of thermodynamics and the mass-energy conversion formula.

Anywho, one thing I think should be thought about with kerbals... They're smaller than humans. How much does Jeb weigh when you account for snack time?

[Agathorn]

Anywho, one thing I think should be thought about with kerbals... They're smaller than humans. How much does Jeb weigh when you account for snack time?

IIRC I saw in another thread that the Mass of a Kerbal works out to roughly 155lbs when you work back from in game weight, minus a kerbal sized spacesuit (derived from the values of real space suits kerbal sized).

[SpacedInvader]

IIRC I saw in another thread that the Mass of a Kerbal works out to roughly 155lbs when you work back from in game weight, minus a kerbal sized spacesuit (derived from the values of real space suits kerbal sized).

Here is the spreadsheet that TaranisElsu is building the new numbers for TACLS off of: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aioc9ek3XAvwdGNsRlh3OVhlbTFBR3M4RW0zLUNTRFE&usp=sharing#gid=0

As I said before, I'm using human values for my numbers, though Kerbal values should scale proportionately. That being said, there are some discrepancies, most notably with waste. The spreadsheet indicates 0.11kg of waste per day from a human, but 0.659kg/day for a kerbal. I've got no idea where either of these numbers come from as the human value doesn't seem to be based on anything and the kerbal value is supposed to be 51.07% of the human value.

[TurielD]

TurialD, Mass IS lost in an exothermic chemical reaction. It's just a tiny portion of said mass. But it is lost as heat energy as per the first law of thermodynamics and the mass-energy conversion formula.

Yeeeeeees that's true. When you burn one KG of pure sugar you get ~17.000.000 joules energy out of it. Fill in to our trusty old E=mc^2, solving for m and we get m = 17.000.000 / c / c = 17.000.000 / 90.000.000.000.000.000 = 1,888...e^-10 kg - that is less than two ten-millionths of a gram of mass lost to heat conversion. Can we all agree that this is a negligible quantity?

Seriously, in a closed system (like a spaceship) mass in = mass out. Now that doesn't have to matter a huge amount to the mod as we're working in liters, which is a question of volume. It's entirely possible that 7 liters of food get worked down to 0.38 liters of waste; perhaps the food was popcorn. It just seems a tad unlikely - Earth space agencies specifically deliver de-hydrated (freeze-dried) food to the ISS both for long-life and to keep the volume down (water is also far easier to recycle in space than food, obviously, though the ISS ships it in). If you want to make this an actual 'real' version of TACLS then run with that - have Kerbals produce a bunch more CO2 and H2O than they comsume, due to food conversion to account for the low solid waste (space food should be highly energy-dense).

Here is the spreadsheet that TaranisElsu is building the new numbers for TACLS off of: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...=sharing#gid=0

As I said before, I'm using human values for my numbers, though Kerbal values should scale proportionately.

Aaaaah... well there's the mistake. Look closely at the table under consumption:

Water - 3.52 - 1.798

WasteWater - 3.87 - 1.977

Oxygen - 0.84 - 0.429

CarbonDioxide - 1.00 - 0.511

Food - 1.80 - 0.919

Waste - 0.11 - 0.659

Every human number is roughly halved for a kerbal and Waste quantity for humans is clearly a mistake. TaranisElsu is using Kerbal values after all, he just included human values for completion. it should be 1.1, not 0.11. Then everything fits perfectly.

Now as I've explained wastewater and CO2 should be (and are) higher than water and O2 mass in accordance with carbohydrates (and fats) being consumed for energy.

Logically, waste should be less than food by the same amount, so let's look at the total numbers in 3,52+0,84+1,8 = 6,16. And then the total number out 3,87 + 1 + 1,1 (not 0,11) = 5,97. They are within 3% of eachother. That's about right to account for sweat not being recycled, food packaging ending up as non-recyclable, etc.

BTW, when you upped the waste weight from 0.11 to 0.38 you forgot to apply the density. According to TE's numbers, it should be 0.1kg/l, roughly 1/2,5 that of food, resulting in 3,8 liters of waste/kerbal/day. This seems very off to me but it actually made your Waste calculation come out far more realistically than food

Now, a few other correcting numbers: NASA says ISS-nauts use about 11,3liters of water/day as opposed to TE's 3,5 I'm pretty sure he filled in gallons there by accident; and 1,83kg of food is right, though NASA has no density given, alas, but I think we can assume near-water levels for most foods rather than the 0.25 value TaranisElsu has. In the same vein, waste should be way more dense. Right now, at 100kg/m3 it is about 1.5x the density of EVE's atmosphere... I think it should probably be a *little* more densely packed than that, what with our space-age trash compactors.

Now though, for the big question: why are you actually using human numbers at all? These... are Kerbals. Why not just use the kerbal numbers? TE's calculations are just fine (barring the occasional odd number here and there). They're 40% of our mass, with a slightly higher metabolic rate... they should consume about half our resource requirements.

Honestly I'm having doubts that it's worth all this to integrate TACLS and US. Why would the LqWater -> O2 + H2 for use in the generator even use the same storage tanks as the crew's life support consumables? Hell, the real world Elektron uses almost exclusively filtered waste-water (astronauts dislike reprocessed urine, can't imagine why), with fresh water being flown in. Its kinda nice that resources can serve both purposes this way, to be sure, but it's giving some headaches... There are other mods and converters that use TAC's units. I dunno how they're going to react to these quantities yet, but I'm guessing its not going to be a huge success without tracking down each individual converter

Edited June 29, 2014 by TurielD

[SpacedInvader]

Yeeeeeees that's true. When you burn one KG of pure sugar you get ~17.000.000 joules energy out of it. Fill in to our trusty old E=mc^2, solving for m and we get m = 17.000.000 / c / c = 17.000.000 / 90.000.000.000.000.000 = 1,888...e^-10 kg - that is less than two ten-millionths of a gram of mass lost to heat conversion. Can we all agree that this is a negligible quantity?

Seriously, in a closed system (like a spaceship) mass in = mass out. Now that doesn't have to matter a huge amount to the mod as we're working in liters, which is a question of volume. It's entirely possible that 7 liters of food get worked down to 0.38 liters of waste; perhaps the food was popcorn. It just seems a tad unlikely - Earth space agencies specifically deliver de-hydrated (freeze-dried) food to the ISS both for long-life and to keep the volume down (water is also far easier to recycle in space than food, obviously, though the ISS ships it in). If you want to make this an actual 'real' version of TACLS then run with that - have Kerbals produce a bunch more CO2 and H2O than they comsume, due to food conversion to account for the low solid waste (space food should be highly energy-dense).

Aaaaah... well there's the mistake. Look closely at the table under consumption:

Water - 3.52 - 1.798

WasteWater - 3.87 - 1.977

Oxygen - 0.84 - 0.429

CarbonDioxide - 1.00 - 0.511

Food - 1.80 - 0.919

Waste - 0.11 - 0.659

Every human number is roughly halved for a kerbal and Waste quantity for humans is clearly a mistake. TaranisElsu is using Kerbal values after all, he just included human values for completion. it should be 1.1, not 0.11. Then everything fits perfectly.

Now as I've explained wastewater and CO2 should be (and are) higher than water and O2 mass in accordance with carbohydrates (and fats) being consumed for energy.

Logically, waste should be less than food by the same amount, so let's look at the total numbers in 3,52+0,84+1,8 = 6,16. And then the total number out 3,87 + 1 + 1,1 (not 0,11) = 5,97. They are within 3% of eachother. That's about right to account for sweat not being recycled, food packaging ending up as non-recyclable, etc.

BTW, when you upped the waste weight from 0.11 to 0.38 you forgot to apply the density. According to TE's numbers, it should be 0.1kg/l, roughly 1/2,5 that of food, resulting in 3,8 liters of waste/kerbal/day. This seems very off to me but it actually made your Waste calculation come out far more realistically than food

Now, a few other correcting numbers: NASA says ISS-nauts use about 11,3liters of water/day as opposed to TE's 3,5 I'm pretty sure he filled in gallons there by accident; and 1,83kg of food is right, though NASA has no density given, alas, but I think we can assume near-water levels for most foods rather than the 0.25 value TaranisElsu has. In the same vein, waste should be way more dense. Right now, at 100kg/m3 it is about 1.5x the density of EVE's atmosphere... I think it should probably be a *little* more densely packed than that, what with our space-age trash compactors.

Now though, for the big question: why are you actually using human numbers at all? These... are Kerbals. Why not just use the kerbal numbers? TE's calculations are just fine (barring the occasional odd number here and there). They're 40% of our mass, with a slightly higher metabolic rate... they should consume about half our resource requirements.

Honestly I'm having doubts that it's worth all this to integrate TACLS and US. Why would the LqWater -> O2 + H2 for use in the generator even use the same storage tanks as the crew's life support consumables? Hell, the real world Elektron uses almost exclusively filtered waste-water (astronauts dislike reprocessed urine, can't imagine why), with fresh water being flown in. Its kinda nice that resources can serve both purposes this way, to be sure, but it's giving some headaches... There are other mods and converters that use TAC's units. I dunno how they're going to react to these quantities yet, but I'm guessing its not going to be a huge success without tracking down each individual converter

First off, if we're correcting Kerbal waste to equal 51.07% of human waste, then the actual human waste value is ~1.29kg/CM-d. Also, the waste density value I used is not the 0.1kg/liter that Taranis is using, but rather a value of 1gr/cm³ (1kg/liter), which is the best density information I've been able to find to date. I should also point out that we were assuming that the ECLSS was indeed extracting moisture from the atmosphere in the spacecraft which would include evaporated sweat.

I think you're probably right about the daily water intake being quite a bit lower than what should be the case, but I don't think that he accidentally used gallons instead of liters. If you look at the wikipedia source page he's using for many of these values, it indicates that the daily human metabolic need for water is 3.52kg @ 1kg/L. That being said, this number doesn't take into account the daily use needs beyond what a crew member needs to consume to survive whereas the NASA number includes things like bathing or hand washing.

As to why I'm using human values rather than kerbal, this is because I feel the extra step of converting to smaller units actually unbalances the game if using realistic quantities and densities. For example, a single Universal Storage Oxygen Block, for which the volume and carrying capacity has been carefully worked out by Paul and Daishi, contains enough oxygen to support a three kerbal crew for 25.75 days. Converting that number to kerbal values expands the life of those tanks out to 50.65 days, meaning that a single block is enough to support that pod all the way to Eve with some to spare and without needing to recycle any. Also, despite all of the discussion on the subject, we have no real idea just how much of each resource a kerbal really would need to consume per day, so my thinking is that human values provide the most accurate assumption of what needs to be carried along for the ride. That being said, I'm not opposed to using kerbal values if we can bring them into a better balance.

This release isn't just about integrating TACLS and US anymore, though US features prominently in the files, but rather about updating TACLS to use real world units and consumption rates (another argument for using human values), which is something that Taranis is in the process of doing himself. I've simply jumped in ahead of him to release what I consider to be a temporary patch until he finishes the proper update. I have tried to make allowances for other mods in the config, but sooner or later all of those other mods will be forced to move to the new system anyway.

Final point, while the crew of the ISS might dislike drinking recycled waste water (I would like to see your source on this, BTW), the provision to use it for just that is built into the system. The wikipedia page describing the ISS ECLSS has a nice resource map showing what goes where and what it's used for which includes urine recovery passed through waste water processing and on to crew systems. This is something that simply must take place aboard any long duration mission as you simply can't just truck along all of your water fresh so you don't have to reuse it. Some form of recycling for water, oxygen, and probably also food is going to be a requirement (hence the need for a well balanced greenhouse) for any mission which travel far enough from Earth to preclude regular supply runs.

I should also point out that some of these values may be items which should be omitted from TACLS to prevent headaches. For example, since there is only one waste resource, the system is lumping the waste from packaging in with solid waste generated as feces. If we are going to include a greenhouse which recycles waste into food without making a distinction between organic waste and non-organic waste, then at some point those plants would be eating highly nutritious plastic rather than what they should be eating. In addition to that, there has to be some accounting for water weight of food in the water intake of a crew member because if you're feeding them food which has a high water content and then also giving them a large amount of water, you're wasting system mass on the double accounting of water from those two sources. Basically, there is still some tweaking to perform, but the general conversion to real world units is still coming, whether you use my interim release, or wait for TACLS proper to be updated to the new system...

[TurielD]

First off, if we're correcting Kerbal waste to equal 51.07% of human waste, then the actual human waste value is ~1.29kg/CM-d. Also, the waste density value I used is not the 0.1kg/liter that Taranis is using, but rather a value of 1gr/cm³ (1kg/liter), which is the best density information I've been able to find to date. I should also point out that we were assuming that the ECLSS was indeed extracting moisture from the atmosphere in the spacecraft which would include evaporated sweat.

Even perfecter! that's the missing 0.19 kg, equal mass in to out. It was kinda bugging me but I was honestly too tired to even realize that, been up all night

1kg/liter is just right for waste, just bear in mind that you *have* used the 0.25kg/liter density for food, leading to some serious compression issues going on in Kerbals eating the equivalent of 3 Kerbal heads worth of food per day and pooping out... well, a lot less. I think food density should be 1kg/liter too; I've been searching for food densities but all I can get google to return in caloric density so I can't be sure

I think you're probably right about the daily water intake being quite a bit lower than what should be the case, but I don't think that he accidentally used gallons instead of liters. If you look at the wikipedia source page he's using for many of these values, it indicates that the daily human metabolic need for water is 3.52kg @ 1kg/L. That being said, this number doesn't take into account the daily use needs beyond what a crew member needs to consume to survive whereas the NASA number includes things like bathing or hand washing.

Makes sense.

As to why I'm using human values rather than kerbal, this is because I feel the extra step of converting to smaller units actually unbalances the game if using realistic quantities and densities. For example, a single Universal Storage Oxygen Block, for which the volume and carrying capacity has been carefully worked out by Paul and Daishi, contains enough oxygen to support a three kerbal crew for 25.75 days. Converting that number to kerbal values expands the life of those tanks out to 50.65 days, meaning that a single block is enough to support that pod all the way to Eve with some to spare and without needing to recycle any. Also, despite all of the discussion on the subject, we have no real idea just how much of each resource a kerbal really would need to consume per day, so my thinking is that human values provide the most accurate assumption of what needs to be carried along for the ride. That being said, I'm not opposed to using kerbal values if we can bring them into a better balance.

I understand, and actually agree on reflection. Kerbals are hyperactive little bouncy dudes anyway, they're bound to use up more energy!

Just bear in mind with your calculations that Oxygen is by far the easiest of the life support requirements to carry (and recover, and produce from other sources, actually: the Splitter turns 1 Liter of water in to 600 liters of O2). If it's being carried as lOx it's more dense than water, and you only need 1/4 as much of it per day. In fact if you do switch to something like 11l/d requirement, it's going to be a pretty extreme difference - water will easily be 80%+ of the life support supplies by weight and volume.

This release isn't just about integrating TACLS and US anymore, though US features prominently in the files, but rather about updating TACLS to use real world units and consumption rates (another argument for using human values), which is something that Taranis is in the process of doing himself. I've simply jumped in ahead of him to release what I consider to be a temporary patch until he finishes the proper update. I have tried to make allowances for other mods in the config, but sooner or later all of those other mods will be forced to move to the new system anyway.

It's good work, and I appreciate it - sorry if I've come across as slagging you off, I can see from the files how much work you've put in to this!

Final point, while the crew of the ISS might dislike drinking recycled waste water (I would like to see your source on this, BTW), the provision to use it for just that is built into the system. The wikipedia page describing the ISS ECLSS has a nice resource map showing what goes where and what it's used for which includes urine recovery passed through waste water processing and on to crew systems. This is something that simply must take place aboard any long duration mission as you simply can't just truck along all of your water fresh so you don't have to reuse it. Some form of recycling for water, oxygen, and probably also food is going to be a requirement (hence the need for a well balanced greenhouse) for any mission which travel far enough from Earth to preclude regular supply runs.

Turns out my source was older, the ISS has had their new Water Recovery System installed since 2010 and since then they've maintained 93% water recovery. It was the old (Russian?) systems that made ISS-nauts unhappy. Incidentally, when Elektron did run it dumped the H2 out of the station - and malfunctions frequently.

Anyway, I agree, this should simulate superior reprocessing technology. Kerbals do far more advanced and ambitious rocketry than their real-world counterparts, it stands to reason KSP would have put more research in to better long-term space habitation.... it actually engages in it.

I should also point out that some of these values may be items which should be omitted from TACLS to prevent headaches. For example, since there is only one waste resource, the system is lumping the waste from packaging in with solid waste generated as feces. If we are going to include a greenhouse which recycles waste into food without making a distinction between organic waste and non-organic waste, then at some point those plants would be eating highly nutritious plastic rather than what they should be eating. In addition to that, there has to be some accounting for water weight of food in the water intake of a crew member because if you're feeding them food which has a high water content and then also giving them a large amount of water, you're wasting system mass on the double accounting of water from those two sources. Basically, there is still some tweaking to perform, but the general conversion to real world units is still coming, whether you use my interim release, or wait for TACLS proper to be updated to the new system...

Absolutely, like the TAC splitter counts Hydrogen from its Water -> Oxygen process as Waste. Which I guess mirrors current reality, but still, Hydrogen can be useful!

My headaches atm involve my recently completed MKS munbase which is now (after some save editing) just about ready to support its initial crew, but I'm not certain if its modules that create Compost, wastewater and CO2 from Substrate & Water in a good ratio, and then the one that turns compost, substrate and water to make enriched soil... and who knows what the greenhouse will do?

[TurielD]

I've made an adapted version of your RealTACLS, which is basically... UnRealTACLS.

Dropbox Link

Rather than convert the entire TACLS resource system to the new liters / day system I've gone in the other direction and adapted the US modules that use Water, Oxygen and/or CarbonDioxide to use fractions of the 1 Unit/Kerbal/Day units.

Downsides:

• not future-proof, TaranisElsu is heading towards the Real quantities system and TAC will probably convert eventually.
  
• not a full conversion. The FuelCell for instance is now using hydrogen at a rate of ~0.03 liters per second, and Oxygen at a rate of 0.00055522 day-units/second. This could be confusing, though the conversion rate is relatively simple and applied to very few parts.
  

Upside:

• can be applied to an existing save that is using TACLS while leaving all your current craft unaltered, whereas the the RealTACLS system leaves Kerbals using 600 units of Oxygen per day on craft you built expecting 600 units to be 2 years' supply.
  
• easily compatible with other TACLS-dependent mods (e.g. Modular Kolonisation System)
  
• light on code (I'm not a good enough modder to make much more!)
  

[tmikesecrist3]

ok one thing I am unclear on two things really, is have we got it to play nice with tac? and does any one use this with RSS?

Edited June 29, 2014 by tmikesecrist3

[SpacedInvader]

ok one thing I am unclear on two things really, is have we got it to play nice with tac? and does any one use this with RSS?

Mine for sure plays well with TAC, and if TurielD took the same approach as me, I've got no reason to think that will work any differently. I also play this with RSS, though there is nothing there that should conflict at all. The thing to remember, however, is that the update doesn't affect saved, already flying ships, so you may have to edit those save files with the correct amounts if you go my way.

Edited June 30, 2014 by SpacedInvader

[tmikesecrist3]

could I have links please?

[SpacedInvader]

could I have links please?

They are in the last 2-3 pages.

[Daishi]

Hi guys, just a heads up I get my computer back next week! Back to work soon

[SpacedInvader]

An update for anyone using my config. I'm currently working on integrating all of the other parts with TAC generic converters so their input / output rates match with the new system. Should be done in a couple of days.

- - - Updated - - -

Hi guys, just a heads up I get my computer back next week! Back to work soon

Nice! Looking forward to your new work

[diomedea]

Hi guys, just a heads up I get my computer back next week! Back to work soon

Excellent news, Daishi. And now no more blue screens or other hassles. Tell your PC to behave, we can't wait much longer .

[Daishi]

Funny thing is, there was technically nothing wrong with it. They suspected it was a surge, dirty mains power or flea power causing issues with the boot sector or something. On the upside, I got two weeks of solid testing on every component, for a very good price that was half the cost I was prepared to spring on a replacement low end GPU. Nothings busted, and if I cant boot it again, I just need to keep it unplugged for three or so days without the CMOS battery to reset things

I've decided to buy a decent 3TB hard drive though, just so I can sort out my backups a bit better - so I shouldn't be caught off guard again.

[jrandom]

An update for anyone using my config. I'm currently working on integrating all of the other parts with TAC generic converters so their input / output rates match with the new system. Should be done in a couple of days.

As a TAC user, I'm looking forward to that.

[SpacedInvader]

As a TAC user, I'm looking forward to that.

I should point out that the mod I've already released already converts all of the standard TAC parts to the new system. I'm currently working towards an efficient way to get all those other parts that have the converters inserted into them, like FusTek station parts or BrassMustache filters, to work with the system. Unfortunately, it seems that everyone who wrote a mod which uses these converters seems to have chosen their own conversion rate and some have included more than one in their parts which throws Module manage for a loop. Add to this the fact that the way the TacGenericConverter module is written, you can't access the nodes for MM filtering, and it's getting to be a headache...

[jrandom]

I've been using the replacement LifeSupport.cfg that comes with Realism Overhaul that sets realistic rates (since it can't be done via ModuleManager). Still getting used to actual units instead of "1.0 = 1 day of resource".

[SyberSmoke]

I have been looking at your mod and I was wondering, would there be any plans to add wedges for Mono Prop. or Fuel? I know we have a number of tanks in the base game, but for certain applications I have has to use the micro tanks when a tank system like this would be perfect. Like for a SSTO where I need a small amount of Fuel but then a normal amount of Fuel & Oxidizer. Or for a probe where a small amount of fuel is needed, and a normal tank is overkill.

[SpacedInvader]

I've been using the replacement LifeSupport.cfg that comes with Realism Overhaul that sets realistic rates (since it can't be done via ModuleManager). Still getting used to actual units instead of "1.0 = 1 day of resource".

Hmmm, that must have been added since I stopped using RO a couple of weeks ago. I'll have to have a look at that to see what they've done.

EDIT: So they've changed up the resource consumption rates, but not altered the resource storage amounts, nor the converter rates. I would recommend using my mod instead, as it sets similar realistic rates, but also attempts to make the components of the system reflect realistic amounts.

Edited July 5, 2014 by SpacedInvader

[jrandom]

Hmmm, that must have been added since I stopped using RO a couple of weeks ago. I'll have to have a look at that to see what they've done.

EDIT: So they've changed up the resource consumption rates, but not altered the resource storage amounts, nor the converter rates. I would recommend using my mod instead, as it sets similar realistic rates, but also attempts to make the components of the system reflect realistic amounts.

I think that was just an oversight, as the command pods have correct amounts of life support resources. They're looking into it.