[Most 1.12.x] Near Future Technologies (August 26)

[Swotoro]

On 7/29/2017 at 10:30 AM, Phelan said:

I have a bit of a problem with reactors whose vessels haven't been loaded for a long time, the moment I switch to those vessels, the cores instantly overheat and shut down, taking some damage. Yes, they've got enough radiators to runn at full capacity, they're running at 1-10% (depending on the vessel), and some of them were out near Jool (so no issues with heating from Kerbol).

It really only seems to happen to vessels that haven't been loaded for a long time (like a year or so or longer), and it's pretty consistent. Anyone got an idea?

I'm seeing this still. Installed an MX-0 onto a base module for the Mun. Enroute in space, all worked well. As soon as I landed the module and connected to the base, instant overheating. The cooling panels are on and extended -- more than enough for the heat. I can't even run at 1% power without the heat building up and quickly.

[Nertea]

2 hours ago, Swotoro said:

I'm seeing this still. Installed an MX-0 onto a base module for the Mun. Enroute in space, all worked well. As soon as I landed the module and connected to the base, instant overheating. The cooling panels are on and extended -- more than enough for the heat. I can't even run at 1% power without the heat building up and quickly.

Read back to my last post. I'm looking into it, there's a really nasty stock bug with heat allocation in 1.3.1 and it is extremely nontrivial to work around. 

@Jimbodiah Nobody's that annoyed, we're just mentioning that just because you made that tweak, one should not expect me to actually do it. 

Edited December 20, 2017 by Nertea

[Jimbodiah]

I was just proud and wanted to show off the parts

[Swotoro]

2 hours ago, Nertea said:

Read back to my last post. I'm looking into it, there's a really nasty stock bug with heat allocation in 1.3.1 and it is extremely nontrivial to work around. 

@Jimbodiah Nobody's that annoyed, we're just mentioning that just because you made that tweak, one should not expect me to actually do it. 

Thanks, Nertea! Really like your work, just wanted to mention.

[Kvaksa]

I found the problem. I'm testing in the vanilla non-eng localized game v. 1.3.1, only MM, NFE, CRP, DBS.

In the sandbox, clean game, on launchpad. Fuel and waste is not moved, require of the engineer. The engineer is present, 1-5 class.. In addition, in EVA, the use of "repair reactor" complains completely destroyed the reactor.

P.S. I don't know how to check game with a different localization, sorry.

in any case, thanks for your work.

Edited January 7, 2018 by Kvaksa

[Kvaksa]

P.P.S.

I was able to change the game language to English. Result: the mod works completely correctly in English localization.

[Streetwind]

13 hours ago, Kvaksa said:

I was able to change the game language to English. Result: the mod works completely correctly in English localization.

Yes, this is a known issue. Not sure we know how to fix it though...  

 

(Also, welcome to the forums!)

Edited January 8, 2018 by Streetwind

[Glorious Dear Leader]

Just to follow up on the OKEB 75 solar array high drag bug with FAR. The recompiling hasn't corrected the issue.

[Nertea]

On 1/7/2018 at 3:19 AM, Kvaksa said:

I found the problem. I'm testing in the vanilla non-eng localized game v. 1.3.1, only MM, NFE, CRP, DBS.

In the sandbox, clean game, on launchpad. Fuel and waste is not moved, require of the engineer. The engineer is present, 1-5 class.. In addition, in EVA, the use of "repair reactor" complains completely destroyed the reactor.

P.S. I don't know how to check game with a different localization, sorry.

in any case, thanks for your work.

This was fixed and I got confirmation that it was fixed in October. So... weird. What version are you using and where did you get it from?

18 hours ago, Glorious Dear Leader said:

Just to follow up on the OKEB 75 solar array high drag bug with FAR. The recompiling hasn't corrected the issue.

Eh, I think that's FAR's problem then.

 

[Kvaksa]

11 hours ago, Nertea said:

This was fixed and I got confirmation that it was fixed in October. So... weird. What version are you using and where did you get it from?

1.3.1.1891 July, like. Steam, only in manual mode. I don't often update...  Didn't know the update came out, somehow I missed it. I'll force the game to be updated, and revert language from eng. Sorry.

Edited January 10, 2018 by Kvaksa

[Streetwind]

6 hours ago, Kvaksa said:

1.3.1.1891 July, like. Steam, only in manual mode. I don't often update...  Didn't know the update came out, somehow I missed it. I'll force the game to be updated, and revert language from eng. Sorry.

You don't need to update the game. Just the mod.

[Nertea]

10 hours ago, Kvaksa said:

1.3.1.1891 July, like. Steam, only in manual mode. I don't often update...  Didn't know the update came out, somehow I missed it. I'll force the game to be updated, and revert language from eng. Sorry.

Yeah I just want to ensure you're running the latest build. 

[Tossy64]

I'm building a multistage planetary lander/return craft that uses monoprop engines and tanks from this mod, but I found that my delta-V readouts from other mods are showing all the delta-V as being in the first stage. After researching I found that KSP has decided that monoprop should freely move around the vessel despite decouplers without crossfeed enabled, with no provisions of turning this "feature" off. However, it is noteworthy that several monoprop engines from RLA Recontinued mod specifically state in the part description that it "drains evenly per priority, respecting crossfeed" and yes, it works. This is how the game should be played!

Anyone know if the Near Future Spacecraft engines can behave like the RLA ones? Or, anyone have advice on how I should proceed in the meantime? I decided on monoprop for roleplaying/realism reasons, btw.

 

[Jimbodiah]

You can change that behavior in the resource definition for mp. No_flow, all_ship etc

[Streetwind]

@Jimbodiah - that's not what he's asking though. He's asking why it works for RLA engines even without making that change (which would also negatively affect the way RCS functions).

@Tossy64 - Jimbodiah is still partially right, though. It's all about changing the flow mode. What RLA is doing is actually modifying the flow mode within each engine's PROPELLANT node itself:

MODULE
{
	name = ModuleEnginesFX
	
	*snip*
    
	PROPELLANT
	{
		name = MonoPropellant
		ratio = 0.9 // 1.0
		DrawGauge = True
		resourceFlowMode = STACK_PRIORITY_SEARCH      <<--- this here thingamabob!
	}
	
	*snip*
}

This makes the engine act as if the monoprop resource had a different flow mode than what it normally comes with, but only the engine. All other monoprop systems, like RCS, still see the flow mode as what Squad has defined for it.

Nertea's monoprop engines do not have this resourceFlowMode setting. But you can add it to the part config files yourself. In the meantime, I'll see about making a pull request to add this to NF Spacecraft... but it depends on whether Nertea actually wants the engines behaving this way in his mod.

[SmarterThanMe]

Has anyone got a patch to give NF command pods some TAC Life Support?

[Streetwind]

49 minutes ago, SmarterThanMe said:

Has anyone got a patch to give NF command pods some TAC Life Support?

I was under the impression that TAC-LS has a universal patch that grabs all command pods and fits them with appropriate resources? Is that not working for you?

...Aha, I figured it out. It's because NF pods are state-of-the-art pieces of technology that come with integrated probe cores, and can fly without crew present. However, TAC-LS filters for "minimumCrew > 0" in its universal patch.

What you need to do is make a copy of the universal patch, remove the entire :HAS[...] statement, and replace the wildcard asterisk in the PART[...] statement with a comma-separated list of the internal part identifiers of all the pods that are missing resources. That should have you covered.

Maybe I'll go and add it for the next version, since I'm already planning on making pull requests to NF Spacecraft anyway...

Edited January 23, 2018 by Streetwind

[SmarterThanMe]

Ah yeah I can see that now. I've made that change. Thanks mate!

[Nertea]

8 hours ago, Streetwind said:

@Jimbodiah - that's not what he's asking though. He's asking why it works for RLA engines even without making that change (which would also negatively affect the way RCS functions).

@Tossy64 - Jimbodiah is still partially right, though. It's all about changing the flow mode. What RLA is doing is actually modifying the flow mode within each engine's PROPELLANT node itself:

MODULE
{
	name = ModuleEnginesFX
	
	*snip*
    
	PROPELLANT
	{
		name = MonoPropellant
		ratio = 0.9 // 1.0
		DrawGauge = True
		resourceFlowMode = STACK_PRIORITY_SEARCH      <<--- this here thingamabob!
	}
	
	*snip*
}

This makes the engine act as if the monoprop resource had a different flow mode than what it normally comes with, but only the engine. All other monoprop systems, like RCS, still see the flow mode as what Squad has defined for it.

Nertea's monoprop engines do not have this resourceFlowMode setting. But you can add it to the part config files yourself. In the meantime, I'll see about making a pull request to add this to NF Spacecraft... but it depends on whether Nertea actually wants the engines behaving this way in his mod.

There appears to have been a regression sometime last year that broke this. They should have a specified flow mode but it was reverted in a commit in March.

[Streetwind]

Huh. Curious.

Still want me to make a pull request, or do you sort of have it already?

[Tossy64]

@Streetwind and @Nertea , thank you very much for looking into this matter and offering to work on it.

@Jimbodiah thanks for that info. I will consider changing the monopropellant definition. It shouldn't change too much, as I would be designing craft with the assumption it flows like LFO anyway

[Shamus6200]

Nothing to add, but thank you for the excellent work!

[LEGIONBOSS]

Hello!

This is going to sound weird but bear with me: Your .mu files in NearFutureSpacecraft\Spaces are lagging the hell out of the Tracking Station. I've tested it, it only drops FPS when these files are present, and goes back to regular when removed.

Any idea? Mandatory log file is here.

Thank you!

[Streetwind]

@LEGIONBOSS - ist that with or without spacecraft in flight?

Can you give us detailed reproduction steps that reliably lead to you experiencing said issue in a clean 1.3.1 install with only NF Spacecraft and its dependencies present? (Please include even the really obvious steps.)

[Frag2000]

Hi Nertea,

Big fan of your work here. The NearFuture serie just completely changed my KSP experience. Well done and well balanced. I have a recommendation for NearFuture Electrical that I am pretty sure a LOT of people would like.

As you know, most of the power consumption issues happens at night when the sun cannot shine on solar panels. This is primarily the reason why I use the Nuclear Reactors to generate power. However, in many cases, we could automatically shut down the reactor during the day, while the sun is shining.

Recommendation

It would be nice if we could auto-toggle the nuclear reactor based on those parameters:

-          In the nuclear properties window, we could set an auto-start/auto-stop percentage value based on the percentage of the battery level of the ship/construction the reactor is attached to. Example, you could set the reactor to start automatically when the batteries level are under 50% of their full capacity, and set the reactor to stop automatically when the battery are 95% full.

By doing this, when the sun stop shinning on the solar panels, the reactor would start automatically at night when the battery get drained too much. This would save a lot of Uranium since the reactor would not work 24/7. What is nice with this is that it would also auto start based on the power consumption of the ship when we are using components that drain the batteries.

A good example of this usage: I have a mother ship that has tons of Hydrogen to keep refrigerated. When the sun shine, the solar panels are enough to keep the power on, but at night the cooling eats a LOT of power and drain my batteries rather quickly. Because of this, I actually use a reactor to provide the necessary power, but you will agree with me that it could shut down during the day, dramatically extending its life.

If you do this, I will ship you a beer!

Edited January 26, 2018 by Frag2000