Is Squad ever going to add stock life support?

[Red Iron Crown]

That's a command chair. True, it's not counted as a command module at the moment, but that's already a mistake that needs to be fixed anyway (not being able to populate them prior to launch is such a pain).

Click a bit further through that gallery, he does the multi-year return from Eeloo in EVA.

[The Jedi Master]

NO. NO. NO.

I do NOT want life support! It is the thing I most dread on the planned features list! It does not seem fun to me to plan a misssion to Eeloo for hours only to have your crew die of dehydration halfway there. Fun over realism, people!

[Red Iron Crown]

NO. NO. NO.

I do NOT want life support! It is the thing I most dread on the planned features list! It does not seem fun to me to plan a misssion to Eeloo for hours only to have your crew die of dehydration halfway there. Fun over realism, people!

Alt-F12 -> Infinite Life Support, maybe?

I think lack of life support is one of the biggest unrealistic elements in KSP, worse than the lack of reentry effects or poor aerodynamics. How to keep astronauts properly supplied is one of the big challenges in interplanetary spaceflight, I think it should be represented in the game.

[Guest]

It does not seem fun to me to plan a misssion to Eeloo for hours only to have your crew die of dehydration halfway there.

If you planned a mission to Eeloo for hours why didn't you take into account how much life support you'd need? Only takes me a few minutes to plan a mission and that includes figuring out the return burn and the length of my stay. I do this even without life support. At the end of the day it's just one more thing on the checklist.

[meve12]

Snip.

I would think that even a bio-dome would lose resources over time(leaks and all.)

I suggest that if we go with just oxygen/carbon diooxide:

*Non-regenerative Life support and EVA life support would be automatic and noty dependent on electricity.

*Biodomes would recycle CO2, but also at a slight loss, as well as being heavy and power hungry.

*Mechanical life support(Sabetier reactors) would be much lighter and power efficient, but at higher loss rates.(I'm aware this consumes hydrogen rather than oxygen, but it could be abstracted for the sake of gameplay.)

*Water/ice can be found (by samples, and later by scansats) and mined on most of the planets/moons, albeit with heavy and power hungry machinery. They would be infinite supplied, but limited to a few randomly chosen, fixed, and widespread positions to encourage permanent, widespread bases.

*Water/Ice can be converted to oxygen and liquid fuel, and oxygen can be converted into oxidizer. This would, again, be power intensive, although not necessarily with heavy machinery.

*This should be balanced to favor, for bases, mining and converting water to support a biodome rather than mechanical life-support.

*Mechanical life-support should be balanced towards use on ships and other mobile, long endurance craft(Large rovers and long range aircraft/landers and such, rather than small gocarts and gliders) Possible for use on space stations as well, although I'd think a biodome would be better.

*Non-regenerative life support is available from the get-go, mechanical would be available around tech 5 (Space Exploration?), Biodomes and Ice mining would be tech 7-8 (Advanced Science Tech and Large Electrics, respectively?)

Edit:Last bullet-point is only a rough idea of which techs go where, may need some refinement.

Also, oxygen/CO2 could be measured in kerbal-days(enough for one kerbal for one (Kerbin) day.) I suggest that Capsules/Crewed parts and EVA suits would have enough for an hour at max crew capacity(around 1/7th of a kerbal day for the Mk.1 Command Pod, or 3/7ths for the Mk.1-2) and that dedicated storage be made available around tech 3 (Survivability?)

Edited May 17, 2014 by meve12

[Endersmens]

First off, lots mods don't break every update, because the stock code that the mods' code interact with doesn't change. But, let's assume that statement is even remotely true...

The point of adding these mods into stock is that these modules of code would be maintained with the stock. These mods break every update because the mod authors can't update the mods before the update is released. How could they? AFAIK, The modders get the new code at the same time as the other players (modder's involved in the experimental releases would be an exception to this). They can't fix their mods until they know how they'll break.

If SQUAD incorporates the code of those mods into the stock, then SQUAD will be maintaining the code, and they won't be breaking game. Besides, since SQUAD is more familiar with the code than any mod author could be, integrating the mods into the code would make the functionality originally introduced by the mods break less on updates.

First off, SQUAD is familiar with their own code, not the codes of mods. Second off, since i've read multiple threads where you have been in a disagreement with someone, and i know you'll pick apart everything i say and find any loophole possible, I'll just let HarvesteR explain why. He posted this on the week before lasts devnote Tuesday.

This question has popped up in varying degrees of aggressiveness quite a few times... Thanks for asking it straight and simple.

'Merging' mods is one of those things that one the surface would appear simple, but it's actually quite a lot more complicated than it would seem.

Consider that even commercial assets from Unity's asset store, which are packages made specifically to be dropped in and used in existing projects, will, for the most part, require some drastic reworking to fit them into KSP. Granted, the mods are done already over our existing codebase, and that does make the initial integration easier, but there's more to it than that.

If we had a complete game, and someone came up with an awesome new mod that everybody wanted, and we had permission to fold it into the game (another issue in itself), that would probably be the end of the story... Assuming also that we wouldn't have to make any changes to the mod itself (another tall order, since mods are exactly meant to modify the game experience, by definition).

That's obviously not the case here. The game is still growing, and as it grows, it's very common for us to come across bits of old code that now need to be refactored to make it work again. And that's with our own code. Now, consider how frequently mods become incompatible when we release a new update. We are blessed with a modding community here that is so solid, you're likely going to see your broken mods fixed in a short amount of time. That's done by the mod authors themselves, because they care about their projects and they put in a lot of effort to keep it nicely maintained.

Now suppose we were to fold a mod into the game... That author support would now become our own burden, and given that we have our own systems to maintain as we develop already, imagine what it would be like if we started to suddenly plop down chunks containing thousands, or tens of thousands of new, unknown to us, lines of code. We'd end up with an unmaintainable mess of code.

In the end, we're happiest as we are right now. The gist of the problem is that neither the game nor the mods are carven-in-stone, unchanging pieces of code. Both are living, evolving projects, which evolve alongside each other, and it takes the combined efforts of everyone to keep this organism alive.

You can put it like this:

A bird needs a tree to nest in and survive... But try gluing the bird to the tree to see what happens. (actually, don't try that).

Cheers

[NERVAfan]

I'd prefer life support to be just a single resource, an abstraction that makes it more manageable. More complex mechanisms than that should be left to mods, IMO.

Ideally, pods would have some minimal amount of life support built in, enough for a return trip to one of Kerbin's moons at most. Life support "pantry" parts for longer missions, and a very massive, large, and energy-intensive "recycler" part that creates the life-support resource from electricity. The units of the resource should be kerbal-hours or kerbal-days.

I agree with this entirely.

EDIT: Also, using a generic "life support" resource avoids the whole issue of whether Kerbals would have the exact same life-support needs as humans...

Edited May 18, 2014 by NERVAfan

[r4pt0r]

I agree with this entirely.

EDIT: Also, using a generic "life support" resource avoids the whole issue of whether Kerbals would have the exact same life-support needs as humans...

i would be ok calling the resource snacks. half of every bag of chips is air anyway

[hawk_za]

i would love to have this:D but it is a tough one to implement if we think about it make it to complicated a system and the long process of planning a rocket will now take even longer and make it to simple and its makes it pointless just adds more weight

......hmmmmm ....

........weight ...

:cool:by adding more weight to your rocket you ramp up the difficulty as it takes more thrust to get you into space so maybe a system were the life support parts weight changes based on the amount of supply's in it, and that's based on how long your mission will be ...what do you guys think so the longer the mission the more difficult it becomes.

Edited May 18, 2014 by hawk_za

[peadar1987]

I think keep it simple, have a resource called "lifesupport", have the units as "kerbal days", and have light, cheap parts containing a fixed amount, and heavy, expensive ones that produce the resource at a fixed rate (think batteries vs. RTGs).

Have all pods contain several weeks worth of lifesupport, so you only have to start worrying once you start building bases, or leave Kerbin's SOI.

Anyone who complains that it's "not fun" to run out of life support, should have the exact same complaint if they run out of fuel or electric charge.

For another layer of complexity, if it is needed, the operation of the life support creating resources could depend on the biome, so they would be far more efficient on Laythe than on Dres, and work better at the icy poles of Duna than the drier biomes at the equator, to simulate the different challenges needed.

[Valley]

Replace food with coffee.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/43625-Request-Coffee-Mod-%28semi-serious%29

[LethalDose]

Counterpoint - this would (1) make SQUAD, not the various modders, responsible for checking and updating all of that additional code for every single update (e.g. your job is to watch twenty gauges, and now five more have just been added - have fun!); and (2) unless they recoded it all themselves, taking nothing from the existing mods but example and inspiration, they would know that code far less well than the current authors/maintainers.

On point 1, yes, SQUAD would be maintaining the code, and yes, they would have more code to review for each release. This is software development, and is already happening in KSP. Everytime they add a new feature, they have to watch more "gauges". By extension, this argument would be true for any new feature, and I don't think anyone here would agree that SQUAD should stop developing KSP because further development leads to more complex code for SQUAD to maintain.

On point 2, again this is software development and has to be done with any new feature added, included those originally taken from third party sources. Yes, there would be recoding to integrate the existing code, but you're also not starting from scratch. In the case of mods, the developers can contact the mod authors, see how they worked around problems. Basically, you don't have to reinvent the wheel.

And I understand that Harvester has addressed this before, and I don't disagree with his points, regardless of how rudely they may have been prefaced. What I has suggesting in my original response is integrating what has been done by mods into the core game. I was in no way suggesting just ramming the raw mod code into and calling it a day. That would be idiotic. My only point was that if the mods were integrated into the game, they wouldn't be breaking every release.

I don't think it's easy, and I certainly never said that. However, I think using what has already been done by third party modders, either as a roadmap or a starting point, would be extremely worthwhile and improve gameplay.

[Endersmens]

And I understand that Harvester has addressed this before, and I don't disagree with his points, regardless of how rudely they may have been prefaced. What I has suggesting in my original response is integrating what has been done by mods into the core game. I was in no way suggesting just ramming the raw mod code into and calling it a day. That would be idiotic. My only point was that if the mods were integrated into the game, they wouldn't be breaking every release.

I don't think it's easy, and I certainly never said that. However, I think using what has already been done by third party modders, either as a roadmap or a starting point, would be extremely worthwhile and improve gameplay.

Oh. I am sorry, I assumed too much. I was talking about people who thought just adding the mods the game would be all fine and dandy, and i assumed you were responding as one of them. Yes, if SQUAD wrote their own code for features that are currently in mods, and maybe based some code off of the mods code, then yes they wouldn't break every update. Sorry for my misunderstanding.

[LethalDose]

I think keep it simple, have a resource called "lifesupport", have the units as "kerbal days", and have light, cheap parts containing a fixed amount, and heavy, expensive ones that produce the resource at a fixed rate (think batteries vs. RTGs).

I think this would be the minimum complexity of life support that would be included in the game. If this were implemented in stock, I would be fine relying on mods for more the more complex life support systems I prefer (like TAC-LS, which I love). The reason I like TAC-LS is that it's three resources (food, water, oxygen) present different challenges:

• Water is heavy
  
• Oxygen is immediately important (death within minutes/hours if runs out)
  
• Food can't be recycled
  

If those resources weren't different, then, yeah one "life support" resource would be all that was needed.

[xcorps]

If you planned a mission to Eeloo for hours why didn't you take into account how much life support you'd need? Only takes me a few minutes to plan a mission and that includes figuring out the return burn and the length of my stay. I do this even without life support. At the end of the day it's just one more thing on the checklist.

Because in vanilla KSP you can't PLAN for anything. You can't plan fuel budgets, you can't plan for electricity costs, you can't plan lift, you can't plan anything. Because there aren't any VANILLA tools to do so. All you can do is slap together parts until it flies.

I wouldn't have a problem with a Life Support system, as long as there is some kind of feedback IN GAME that tells you how much capacity you have BEFORE it runs out.

[Nobody]

Because in vanilla KSP you can't PLAN for anything. You can't plan fuel budgets, you can't plan for electricity costs, you can't plan lift, you can't plan anything. Because there aren't any VANILLA tools to do so. All you can do is slap together parts until it flies.

I wouldn't have a problem with a Life Support system, as long as there is some kind of feedback IN GAME that tells you how much capacity you have BEFORE it runs out.

You are both right and wrong on this. You can plan all this with the stock game. There just are not any tools to make it easy and many players(myself included) are not interested in working out all the math involved themselves. The mod tools for doing things like that do all the math for us to make planning much faster and easier.

[shizophrenic]

I agree with this entirely.

EDIT: Also, using a generic "life support" resource avoids the whole issue of whether Kerbals would have the exact same life-support needs as humans...

i agree with you and red iron crown. if it Comes i dont wan't it to be complicated. a single sourse System is more than sufficent.

and since kerbals are Aliens, there is no Need to assume their biology works like ours. until a life Support will be implemented i belive that kerbals can eat anything. so they live of fuel and can breath oxidizer. (actally they fly their craft no so bad as we see, the missing fuel was just ... a midnight Snack)

[meve12]

I hate to toot my own horn, but everyone seems to have missed my suggestion here:

http://http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/80130-Is-Squad-ever-going-to-add-stock-life-support/page6

Does anyone know how to mark a particular post?

[allmhuran]

Click a bit further through that gallery, he does the multi-year return from Eeloo in EVA.

Sure, but again, not really worried. You can't do anything without a ship (science, landings, etc).

Thinking about it more though, it might be a problem for static things like bases... leave your Kerbal outside the base and you wouldn't need to resupply it.

[Red Iron Crown]

I hate to toot my own horn, but everyone seems to have missed my suggestion here:

http://http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/80130-Is-Squad-ever-going-to-add-stock-life-support/page6

Does anyone know how to mark a particular post?

Copy the link in the number on the colored bar of the post, your post is here.

As for your suggestion, I find it more complex than I would prefer. I'd rather not get into tracking waste products, and a bunch of different regenerative parts with varying degrees of lossiness seems like a lot of bookkeeping to me. Not to mention having to track down and harvest resources on a planet, which is just tedium to me. IMO, a simpler system with just a single resource that is consumed, with a single life support "generator" part, seems a lot simpler while supporting a lot of different playstyles. The generator part should be heavy, expensive, and energy intensive, otherwise life support considerations become "Did I remember to add a generator?".

[Red Iron Crown]

Sure, but again, not really worried. You can't do anything without a ship (science, landings, etc).

Thinking about it more though, it might be a problem for static things like bases... leave your Kerbal outside the base and you wouldn't need to resupply it.

I think it's important that EVA kerbals have finite life support. Make the amount high enough for any reasonable EVA mission, maybe a day or two. I think we should avoid the situation of "I'm out of life support? I'll just go EVA and wait for a rescue to get here," that makes life support considerations almost trivial.

[allmhuran]

However it's implemented it's going to be important that either the snack consumption rate is low, or snacks can (with advanced tech) be found/created on other planets and moons. Otherwise you can imagine what would happen once you had half a dozen manned missions active.... every time you wanted to time warp at 100,000x for an intercept you'd either have to break out every minute to land some resupply ship, or your kerbals would all die from snack withdrawal. Getting that balance right will be the hard part.

[Skyrunner27]

I'm against having things like this as an option. We all learned how to deal with electricity and we can learn how to deal with life support. Same thing for Rentry heat. Sorry but these are real considerations just like fuel. I would understand a debug option but thats it. There is no reason a new player can't figure out life support. As a new player it wasn't too hard for me to figure out electricity. Sure there were failures but I learned how to adapt. KSP is a game about engineering within the limits and flying mission successfully. If we want to put more attention to the payload KSP needs more restraints when designing your vehicle.

[LethalDose]

I hate to toot my own horn, but everyone seems to have missed my suggestion here:

http://http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/80130-Is-Squad-ever-going-to-add-stock-life-support/page6

Does anyone know how to mark a particular post?

Fair enough.

I did a quick google search for 'KSP harvester "life support" ' And I found a dev chat with HarvesteR from March 2012 that mentioned life support (specifically, they didn't know if or how they wanted to implement it).

Nothing official more recently.

So, no, it appears there is no update about life support in stock KSP, other than it's on the WNTS list.

[meve12]

Copy the link in the number on the colored bar of the post, your post is here.

As for your suggestion, I find it more complex than I would prefer. I'd rather not get into tracking waste products, and a bunch of different regenerative parts with varying degrees of lossiness seems like a lot of bookkeeping to me. Not to mention having to track down and harvest resources on a planet, which is just tedium to me. IMO, a simpler system with just a single resource that is consumed, with a single life support "generator" part, seems a lot simpler while supporting a lot of different playstyles. The generator part should be heavy, expensive, and energy intensive, otherwise life support considerations become "Did I remember to add a generator?".

I figured a single, lossless, generator would play like that anyway above a particular level; it'd be cheaper for larger ships to have a generator than to carry non-regenerative life-support.

Biodomes and ice machines, on the other hand, are encouraged to stay put, thus encouraging surface bases instead of orbiting fuel depots for landers. Furthermore, said bases can act as local gas stations so that your Joolian missions, for example, can explore the system without reliance on resupply from Kerbin.