Can we talk about Life Support?

[TMS]

I think what he means is if the scrubbers continuously preserve 50% of what's left you end up in that log curve. My rule on them was was simplified to say that Kerbals themselves use life support at half the rate with it attached and running. It may not be realistic but I think it should be simple and predictable enough that players could see in the VAB what the trade-offs were.

I generally agree with this. Mission planning should be done in 'blocks' and easily-understood units.

[Capt Snuggler]

so like this?:

1 unit of LS = 1 day per Kerbal.

Mk1-2 pod carries 21 units of Life support.

Mk1-2 pod with

3 Kerbals

on board = 7 days LS. 21 units ÷ 3 kerbals.

so a typical Apollo style mun return mission can be achieved with a MK1-2 pod.

1 scrubber multiplies the base units by 1.5 = 31.5 days ÷ 3 kerbals = 10.5 days

2 scrubbers 1.75 = 36.75 days ÷ 3 kerbals = 12.25 days

3 scrubbers 1.87 = 39.37 days ÷ 3 kerbals = 13.12 days

etc

I was also thinking the kerbals shouldn't just die instantly when when the LS runs out.

they should pass out giving you the opportunity to save them. at least for a few hours. (descend in to o2 rich atmosphere or drive the kerbal back to base in a robotic rover.) there is O2 in the Suit after all...

Edited February 12, 2015 by Capt Snuggler

[Renegrade]

One little thing about this 1 LS/day concept is that a 1-crew ship will be using .0000115740... LS/sec, which the stock indicators will show as "0.00".... :/

The Alternate Resource Panel handles that a lot more gracefully, as you can click it over to 'time left' mode... but for now, the stock one is terrible for that sort of resource use. Ideally the numbers would be inflated in some way that they'd be measurable in stock, or the stock resource panel needs some bigtime overhauls (it kinds needs those anyways, of course..)

[Sirrobert]

I think what he means is if the scrubbers continuously preserve 50% of what's left you end up in that log curve. My rule on them was was simplified to say that Kerbals themselves use life support at half the rate with it attached and running. It may not be realistic but I think it should be simple and predictable enough that players could see in the VAB what the trade-offs were.

Aaa a log. That makes sense, thanks

One little thing about this 1 LS/day concept is that a 1-crew ship will be using .0000115740... LS/sec, which the stock indicators will show as "0.00".... :/

The Alternate Resource Panel handles that a lot more gracefully, as you can click it over to 'time left' mode... but for now, the stock one is terrible for that sort of resource use. Ideally the numbers would be inflated in some way that they'd be measurable in stock, or the stock resource panel needs some bigtime overhauls (it kinds needs those anyways, of course..)

That's fine if you detail in the part discriptions that it consumes 1 per kerbal per day

[Wjolcz]

Oooooh boy. Having this many parts just to have life support is such a bad idea I'm actually kind of upset right now.

All that would be needed to have life support is:

-All the parts that can hold crew would be either filled with food or crew. Or both.

-All the heat, air/water purification would come from the parts that can hold crew. To keep the crew alive they need EC, of course

-Green house: works as a food source and can reuse the waste

We need only ONE new part and ONE new resource (or two, if you really think waste is needed) if we want to close the loop.

Edited October 3, 2015 by Veeltch

[Pthigrivi]

You'll notice that I did include LS in each crew cabin, and most of the other parts are only needed for long interplanetary missions. I think making things easy for new players is really important. I also think its important to think of life support not as just another thing to worry about, but as an opportunity for new and compelling gameplay. For a game to be fun one needs to be provided with options and tradeoffs, so that they can reason through the cost-benefit of different strategies and not just plug in a one-fits-all solution.

[Wjolcz]

You'll notice that I did include LS in each crew cabin, and most of the other parts are only needed for long interplanetary missions. I think making things easy for new players is really important. I also think its important to think of life support not as just another thing to worry about, but as an opportunity for new and compelling gameplay. For a game to be fun one needs to be provided with options and tradeoffs, so that they can reason through the cost-benefit of different strategies and not just plug in a one-fits-all solution.

I totally agree that it should be fun and all, but I also think it should be as simple as possible. It needs to be more like "add more hitchhikers filled with food if you don't have enough" instead of having twelve more RAM-noming parts that most of them are just scaled-up versions of the small ones.

Edited October 4, 2015 by Veeltch

[klgraham1013]

I totally agree that it should be fun and all, but I also think it should be as simple as possible. It needs to be more like "add more hitchhikers filled with food if you don't have enough" instead of having twelve more RAM-noming parts that most of them are just scaled-up versions of the small ones.

Life support containers for each size which share one texture wouldn't be that ram consuming.

[Wjolcz]

Life support containers for each size which share one texture wouldn't be that ram consuming.

Hmm. Guess that's true, but I still would like to have the option to store food in pods and hitchhikers.

[DancZer]

I agree that the game need some kind of life support, but i think adding more stackable or radial parts isn't the best way to do that.

It would be better if we could use it as the Universal storage mod. The stock parts are really limited in this way and we can't make compact small modules like the Soyuz module.

[klgraham1013]

Hmm. Guess that's true, but I still would like to have the option to store food in pods and hitchhikers.

I should say, I also think it should be provided in pods, but also have stand-alone containers.

[Pthigrivi]

So just to clarify, the way this scheme is conceived each crew cabin has enough LS for each occupant for 3 days; enough for most Mun missions and plenty not to frustrate new players. For a Minmus mission you'd only need a small LS container, not much more to consider. You really only have to start thinking carefully about it as you start building space stations and interplanetary missions. The general idea is that the scrubbers and greenhouses greatly reduce the amount of raw storage you need, without eliminating the necessity to pre-plan. You could for instance mount a 6 kerbal Duna mission either with 2 medium LS tanks, a Waste-o-matic Sr. and an ISRU setup to regenerate LS and fuel, or just a hydroponics bay and a Waste-o-matic Jr. to fully recycle life support. That's just a couple of extra parts per mission, but at least you'd have to carefully consider the options and integrate it into your larger mission strategy. Maybe one option is best for the payload and crew count you're shooting for, or perhaps you plan to leave some equipment on the surface as the start of a new colony, or maybe you need to extend things because you're visiting multiple worlds in the same mission; with just a few different options the process of optimizing and discerning becomes an integral part of the process of mission planning.

[MKI]

I love the idea of life support.

It buffs probes, creates the importance of supply runs, opens doors for late game add-ons such as habitats, to grow food and thus keep a sustainable space base.

But before late game can come, we need to figure out how to manage life support.

Since life support is spent over time, it needs to be handled by keep track of time. The game doesn't really support the handling of time very well. Theres no stock Kerbal Alarm Clock to alert you of dwindling food supplies. There is also the consideration that when your away its spending resources. Its tough enough making sure you have enough fuel to get where you need to go. Throw in more or less a resource that disappears whither your there looking at the craft or not makes multiple manned missions a big logistical nightmare. Especially if you need to do supply runs.

I personally hope they put it into the game. But there needs to be a Stock Kerbal Alarm clock, and better tools to handle Life support systems, to keep a player informed of their flights at all time so they can play the game with the knowledge they wont go back to jeb and find him starved to death.

[Boiler1]

Life support opens up a lot of questions. Do you implement it like TAC-LS and separate water, air, food? Do you implement it like USI-LS and only have one resource, supplies? Also, I think it is important to be able to turn it off for new players. I personally like that it is handled currently by mods. This way I get to choose how I want it handled in my game. The downside is if the developer gets tired of supporting their mod.

[anxcon]

the only good way to do life support is follow the structure of what other mods are already doing, which is to make things highly configurable without locking hardcodes into the game

take regolith (which is now stock resource system)

you can choose where, how abundant resources are, what parts drill, etc

take the current engine system, you list what resources it uses and how much

RESOURCE - LF

RESOURCE - O

RESOURCE - etc

the reason people whine over features is because the feature doesn't work how they like it

some people want no life support, some want stupid simple like USI LS, others complex like TAC LS

the thing no life support system did yet is follow the design style of other mods, allowing custom depth

LIFESUPPORT

{

RESOURCE

{

name = Food

consumptionrate = 1.0

}

RESOURCE

{

name = Water

consumptionRate = 1.0

}

EFFECT

{

resourceName = Food

resultUnsupplied = TurnToTourist

}

EFFECT

{

resourceName = Water

resultUnsupplied = Die

timeUnsupplied = 600 //seconds before effect applied, this is 10 minutes

}

}

this allows anyone to add as much or as little life support as they want just by adding new config nodes

other mods would be able to add more effects easily to do anything

and that config layout even lends itself to mods making tanks to auto fit whatever resources exist dynamically by MM cfg

Edited October 12, 2015 by anxcon

[vger]

I don't mind complex functionality, but if life support wasn't all about "snacks," it just wouldn't feel Kerbally.

[Rath]

For happiness, I'm thinking that depletion would be based upon the Kerbal:Seat ratio and number of kerbals.

[klgraham1013]

the only good way to do life support is follow the structure of what other mods are already doing, which is to make things highly configurable without locking hardcodes into the game

take regolith (which is now stock resource system)

you can choose where, how abundant resources are, what parts drill, etc

take the current engine system, you list what resources it uses and how much

RESOURCE - LF

RESOURCE - O

RESOURCE - etc

the reason people whine over features is because the feature doesn't work how they like it

some people want no life support, some want stupid simple like USI LS, others complex like TAC LS

the thing no life support system did yet is follow the design style of other mods, allowing custom depth

LIFESUPPORT

{

RESOURCE

{

name = Food

consumptionrate = 1.0

}

RESOURCE

{

name = Water

consumptionRate = 1.0

}

EFFECT

{

resourceName = Food

resultUnsupplied = TurnToTourist

}

EFFECT

{

resourceName = Water

resultUnsupplied = Die

timeUnsupplied = 600 //seconds before effect applied, this is 10 minutes

}

}

this allows anyone to add as much or as little life support as they want just by adding new config nodes

other mods would be able to add more effects easily to do anything

and that config layout even lends itself to mods making tanks to auto fit whatever resources exist dynamically by MM cfg

We can argue about complexity and choice, but, at the end of the day, a game should have a consistent design philosophy. KSP has already forgone complex fuels, so having complex LS would just seem out of place. I'd suggest leaving the complexity to mods like Real Fuels and TAC-LS.

Edited October 12, 2015 by klgraham1013
Clarity

[anxcon]

We can argue about complexity and choice, but, at the end of the day, a game should have a consistent design philosophy. KSP has already forgone complex fuels, so having complex LS would just seem out of place. I'd suggest leaving the complexity to mods like Real Fuels and TAC-LS.

and that consistent design philosophy would be following what i posted. you speak of it being complex, but it is no different than engines and the resource system. the "simple" nature of fuels that stock has, vs the "complexity" that real fuels has, is entirely configs changing what fuel resources an engine will use. what RF does plugin-wise is provide ability to switch tank contents.

the way i described a LS system is providing framework, just as engines and resources already are. default config for the framework could be as simple as 1 resource, and kerbals without it lose experience, cant eva, any basic effect, but that is up to configs.

though if you want to view other areas of stock design philosophy, many things are hardcoded structure and not extendable, such as the science system - due to this, every mod that provides science follows the same system, merely providing configs to a new experiment, but not changing how science and experiments accually work

[joe_da_cro]

personally the way that USI LS plays out seems like the best case for a stock implementation of LS (if it a forced option)

although if it is optional i would like to see a system ranging from USI to TAC LS meaning as you implement more difficulty more resources come into play. also kerbals dying from lack of resources etc.

so to scale it i would say USI is a good fit for normal, and moderate to hard would be TAC. Easy would be no LS

[Pthigrivi]

Another thought on this: there's been a lot of discussion about how time doesn't seem to be a real factor in the game at the moment, that time-warping through inefficient mining operations and longitudinal experiments has no cost. Life support seems a really obvious mechanism to fix that, and thereby make a large number of time-based mechanics viable and meaningful. For instance if the new IRSU converter is less efficient and cant produce LS, then you would have to make sure your kerbals weren't going to run out of air waiting for it to process.

Edited October 17, 2015 by Pthigrivi

[Superfluous J]

Another thought on this: there's been a lot of discussion about how time doesn't seem to be a real factor in the game at the moment, that time-warping through inefficient mining operations and longitudinal experiments has no cost. Life support seems a really obvious mechanism to fix that, and thereby make a large number of time-based mechanics viable and meaningful. For instance if the new IRSU converter is less efficient and cant produce LS, then you would have to make sure your kerbals weren't going to run out of air waiting for it to process.

Time isn't an important factor in the game not because of lack of things that hurt you over time, but because the devs do not want to implement time-based mechanics. I personally am torn. I used to think it was a bad decision. I then thought it was a good decision. Now I'm kinda fencesitting.

[klgraham1013]

Squad's insistence on not using time-based mechanics is just baffling to me. To many games have used them to great effect.

Secondly, life support is one of the great challenges of space exploration. That, alone, should have guaranteed it's place in KSP.

[Pthigrivi]

Don't get me wrong its a hard thing to balance, especially when dealing with multiple flights and long periods of time in transit. I'd say the time might be here though, especially with Roverdude's new resources paradigm I feel like he's fighting to make the efficiency of drills matter without the balancing cost just becoming extra hassle.

[Alshain]

Squad's insistence on not using time-based mechanics is just baffling to me. To many games have used them to great effect.

There are no other games like KSP that use time based mechanics. For that matter, there are no other games like KSP. It's just apples and oranges.

Secondly, life support is one of the great challenges of space exploration. That, alone, should have guaranteed it's place in KSP.

You know what is also a great challenge of space exploration? Leaving Earth. I guess we shouldn't be able to send Kerbals past the Mun in KSP either, huh? Oh wait, I almost forgot, it's a game. I'm sorry but trying to draw parallels like that is a fallacy. There is a balancing point between simulator and game, Squad has made that balancing point clear. They have said again and again they do not want to add life support.

Edited October 17, 2015 by Alshain