Thanks for reporting this. There was a problem with the water inventory generation going negative due to a bug with the new water freezing mechanic. It will be fixed with the next update and your current save file should be playable again.

I was able to track down this issue and it will be fixed in the next update. Thanks.

I'm open to changing the required power amounts down the road, but for right now I'll see how it feels just to change the displayed requirements to kWh. The current total power draw required in terms of kWh would be 35, so if I eventually changed to varying power requirements per module I would still want them to add up to 35 to keep the game balance of the charge rate to drain rate ratio.

It's been quite a while since I tried to calculate the actual energy costs that might be required, but those values seem much closer to each other for each exterior module than I recall. I believe in-game I have them at 50pu, 50pu, 50pu, and 25pu which has been purely driven by mechanical game balance. For simplicity sake I think I would want to keep those same ratios of power consumption, but how would you feel about 10kWh, 10kWh, 10kWh, and 5 kWh as the displayed requirements instead of power units? I will admit that you are starting to convince me, but I'm still hesitant to change the actual power requirements. Since the values you cite are relatively close to each other though I think we could get away with displaying them as uniform kWh requirements per exterior module.

I'll just run you through my general thought process on this. The main reason for "power units" is so that it's not a directly convertible metric for comparing the real world power costs of the equipment used in the game. The annoyance you feel at using the term "power units" would get multiplied 10x by all the people saying "hey, why does the water reclaimer use such and such kW/h? That's completely unrealistic." There just has to be a certain level of abstraction somewhere to balance for fun and interesting gameplay and I'd opted to put the abstraction right at the power storage itself rather than the power costs and charging rates. So short answer... it's easier this way. But that doesn't mean it's better. I'm open to hearing your additional thoughts. I understand the comparison to the other stats in the game like liters of water and oxygen, so maybe you are on to something, but it would take quite a bit of work to make it feel sensible with the electricity I think.

I believe that this change was made quite a while back. Previously the in-game time required to enter or exit an airlock was relative to how fast your computer was able to load the new area. Obviously this was not a good thing for those that had slower load times. I could add a set amount of time required to enter or exit, but it didn't really feel necessary. I feel like it would be especially annoying to get back to the habitat just as you are dying from lack of oxygen only to die during the loading screen because the airlock requires actual time to transition.

I think I'm only a minor patch or two behind in updating Unity, but I will definitely keep my eye out for a solution. Thanks again.

After reviewing this I agree that it's not a detail that needs to be accurate, it just needs to prevent the exploit. So for the next update I've changed the charge rate to be much greater, but it still will never be power-positive. It will cover ~75% of the standard battery decay (meaning you can go on an EVA that is roughly 4x longer than without the panel equipped), but using your scanner or headlamps will still be a significant drain on your battery.

That is unfortunate. You are the first to report this kind of issue. Most have actually said that the game performs relatively well on their hardware. One of the downsides of being a solo developer is that I don't have many resources to dedicate to improving performance. There may be some very specific issue with your hardware configuration that would be very difficult for me to pinpoint. Sorry you are having this issue, but at this time I'm not sure what more I can do besides making regular optimization improvements over time. Thank you for reporting.

Almost all of these changes have been implemented in a fashion close to your suggestions except for the sound suggestions which I may still get to in the future. Thanks for the feedback.