Jump to content

[1.11.x] Near Future Technologies (All1.11.x)


Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Krzeszny said:

This is what I've referred to in my previous post. How is it OP at all?

LF is much, much denser than Hydrolox, and heavier. So without the balancing of additional volume, the Hydrolox engines just become strictly better than stock engines by far even with the hit to their ISP and the additional mass since you can use far less tankage for the same DV. They also function much more effectively as first stage engines, where the Hydrolox engines often have nearly half the thrust at sea level. Oh and they still get way better thrust and ISP as you go up.....

So yeah i could see why he said the LF patch was OP.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

LF is much, much denser than Hydrolox, and heavier. So without the balancing of additional volume, the Hydrolox engines just become strictly better than stock engines by far even with the hit to their ISP and the additional mass since you can use far less tankage for the same DV. They also function much more effectively as first stage engines, where the Hydrolox engines often have nearly half the thrust at sea level. Oh and they still get way better thrust and ISP as you go up.....

So yeah i could see why he said the LF patch was OP.

 

Dude! The patch converts monopropellant engines from NF Spacecraft to LFO.

I guess it's my fault I didn't explain this time what patch I was talking about.

Edited by Krzeszny
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/24/2017 at 3:23 AM, Nertea said:

Talk to CKAN folks, CKAN is not supported. This is because KerbalActuators, a dependency of this mod, is specifically NOT listed on CKAN

 

Kerbal Actuators is on CKAN, so you should probably update the homepage.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/8/2020 at 3:44 PM, Krzeszny said:

I still don't see the equivalence... nor the TWR (again, more on that below). Ocelot costs as much as 6 Skippers, having over twice the thrust and and almost twice the mass. At best, ignoring the costs, Ocelot is like 2 Skippers (with better Isp). Not ignoring the costs, Skipper is a budget option while Ocelot is very much the opposite. They're different engines for different-mass rockets (650 kN vs 1400 kN) and I don't see them as equivalents.

At the same time, Walrus has about Skipper's thrust, better TWR and is even smaller - all the advantages at once (it only costs twice as much, not 6 times). 1 Walrus can replace 1 Skipper. Seems like the equivalent.

2 Walruses can easily replace 1 Ocelot, having a better TWR (not worse as it usually is when clustering) and at a lesser cost, just worse Isp.

TWR is much different for me:

Walrus has 750 kN of thrust and weighs 2.4 t. The TWR seems to be 312.5 = the ratio of 750 thrust to 2.5 weight, no? Skipper would have 217 TWR and Ocelot would have 262 TWR. Hence, Ocelot would have the best TWR.

TWR for each stage is vital, but I choose the engines depending on their thrust and ISP (and sometimes cost), while the TWR is a minor consideration. There must be a reason neither stock KSP nor mods display it in the engine stats. It's important for DeltaV, but not as much as the Isp. Is TWR so important as to balance the engines around TWR and size instead of thrust, Isp and size? I'm just curious, as I'm not very experienced.

You are free to use the engines however you want. I don't tell you how to use them - you can use one to replace the other, I don't prescribe, merely explaining the logic I used. It looks like in your calculation, you are using vacuum TWR, whereas I'm looking at atmospheric TWR

Using stock KSP's information display as a measure of what to show and what not to show is a fool's errand. I prefer to balance around TWR because it provides an integrated model of clustering engines, no matter how many you have, you have the same TWR for the engine. 

On 10/8/2020 at 3:44 PM, Krzeszny said:

"Monopropellant is storable bipropellant" ???:confused:???

In my mind, LFO -> non-storable Kerolox, Monopropellant -> an abstraction of all storable bi and monopropellants. You can decide what you want, you're not changing my mental model. 

Those engines run on monopropellant. That's what the difference is. If you want something different, go ahead. 

 

I don't think we're going to come to any agreement here but I will close with two statements

  1. Modular content, delete as you want.
  2. Module Manager. 
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/15/2020 at 10:28 PM, Nertea said:

In my mind, LFO -> non-storable Kerolox, Monopropellant -> an abstraction of all storable bi and monopropellants.

Now I get it. For those who don't know yet, storable propellants are a category that excludes chemicals which  require cooling or heating. It  contains no  cryogenic chemicals no  liquid oxygen. A storable propellant may be a mono/bi/tripropellant or even a solid propellant.

LFO     doesn't require cooling in KSP even though it's semi-cryogenic IRL, so I can't call  it non-storable as opposed to storable monopropellant, as neither LFO nor monopropellant evaporate in KSP. We can have our own opinions, not a problem. However, it gives me an idea for a realistic Cryogenic Engines addon patch  - making the stock LFO propellant  require cooling, although much less than LH2/Ox. What do you think?

I'd like to end these arguments as well, but you skipped  my question about why you consider the LFO patch for the orbital engines to be completely OP. I'm just curious, that's all.

 

Edit: By the way, I noticed that the S4 and S5 fuel tanks from NFLV aren't stock-balanced, as they hold  22.(2)% more fuel than they should, with the stock mass and cost (they should at least weigh more.) Is it intentional?

The S4 to Rockomax ratio should be 4 (2 times the radius = 4 times the volume) but in NFLV it's 4.88888 and so on – almost 5 times the volume.

The S5 to S3 ratio should also be 4 but it's also 4.(8)

Edited by Krzeszny
Fuel tank volumes, formatting errors
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm getting a crash on trying to load the VAB. I can't be certain it's NearFutureLaunchVehicles causing it, but the last two entries in my player.log file before the crash are:
 

(Filename: C:\buildslave\unity\build\Runtime/Export/Debug/Debug.bindings.h Line: 35)

Couldn't find loaded texture at path: NearFutureLaunchVehicles/Patches/CBP/icons/5mSelected
 
(Filename: C:\buildslave\unity\build\Runtime/Export/Debug/Debug.bindings.h Line: 35)

Couldn't find loaded texture at path: NearFutureLaunchVehicles/Patches/CBP/icons/7_5mSelected

In trying to navigate to that folder, I found that there is no "CBP" folder.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jfjohnny5 said:

I'm getting a crash on trying to load the VAB. I can't be certain it's NearFutureLaunchVehicles causing it, but the last two entries in my player.log file before the crash are:
 

(Filename: C:\buildslave\unity\build\Runtime/Export/Debug/Debug.bindings.h Line: 35)

Couldn't find loaded texture at path: NearFutureLaunchVehicles/Patches/CBP/icons/5mSelected
 
(Filename: C:\buildslave\unity\build\Runtime/Export/Debug/Debug.bindings.h Line: 35)

Couldn't find loaded texture at path: NearFutureLaunchVehicles/Patches/CBP/icons/7_5mSelected

In trying to navigate to that folder, I found that there is no "CBP" folder.

That error is present in my logs as well, and I haven't experienced any crashing issues, I believe it's harmless. Your crash is probably coming from somewhere else.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Impending depreciation warning!

1. In the next update, the NFLV legacy parts will be hard removed. Because I have no direct engine replacement currently, the engines will stay around until I have replacements. This will save several 100 mbs of space. If you need them, they will always be available in old versions of the mod.

2. In the next update, the atmospheric processing equipment (M-2 Cryogenic Gas Separator, AIReS Atmospheric Sounder) will be removed from NFP. This will initially be a soft-deprecation. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey nert, the loading bar keeps getting stuck on the 0625 reactor, i can give a log when someone responds. As far as i know i don't have any conflicting mods

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Souptime said:

Hey nert, the loading bar keeps getting stuck on the 0625 reactor, i can give a log when someone responds. As far as i know i don't have any conflicting mods

How can I help without a log?

95% of the time this error comes up though is because someone forgot CRP.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait whats CRP? oh and aslo i got kerbal atomics so now it got stuck with that, heres the log: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1w-TEolW8BI0yYXvZ_RE0F5ANyis9paTB/view?usp=sharing

Also the reason i didn't respond was because me and my brother were at a trunk or treat

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/20/2020 at 12:48 PM, Nertea said:

Impending depreciation warning!

2. In the next update, the atmospheric processing equipment (M-2 Cryogenic Gas Separator, AIReS Atmospheric Sounder) will be removed from NFP. This will initially be a soft-deprecation. 

 

 

Hi Nertea, I'm a longtime player with the NF mods and am curious as to the reason behind dropping the atmo ISRU gear? It seemed like they purposefully balanced the sheer power of Argon/Xenon thrusters by making those fuels difficult to get on planets without atmospheres. Plus, there's some real-life near-future plans of things like argon and methane production from the Martian atmosphere: http://phobosorbust.blogspot.com/2016/02/interorbital-exchange-part-2-mars-cargo.html?m=1

 

I understand that the 3.75m converter your mods add can also produce some Xenon/Argon just from ore and circumvent this, but it's a hilariously inefficient transformation (no doubt involving alchemy and perhaps a pentagram or two) which basically demands a level 5 engineer and a fixed surface outpost to make viable, as even my Pol miner with a payload of 160 tons of ore can't carry enough to the orbital refinery to produce a reasonable amount of xenon per trip.

 

I can understand deprecating these from the standpoint of "well, most players just accept the inefficiency of the 3.75m converter and use time warp" but have always enjoyed the emergent mechanic of Duna being the only realistic place to make a xenon/argon production plant where it still has an atmosphere to mine but the dV to orbit is low enough that tankers aren't too hard.

 

Anyways. Just my 2 credits! I'm not a mod developer and have no idea of the work involved to support parts from version to version, and am sure there's a good reason for deprecating these. I appreciate the work you do and am so happy I've been able to play with your mods for so many years! Thanks Nertea :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Wait- Was That Important? said:

Hi Nertea, I'm a longtime player with the NF mods and am curious as to the reason behind dropping the atmo ISRU gear? It seemed like they purposefully balanced the sheer power of Argon/Xenon thrusters by making those fuels difficult to get on planets without atmospheres. Plus, there's some real-life near-future plans of things like argon and methane production from the Martian atmosphere: http://phobosorbust.blogspot.com/2016/02/interorbital-exchange-part-2-mars-cargo.html?m=1

 

I understand that the 3.75m converter your mods add can also produce some Xenon/Argon just from ore and circumvent this, but it's a hilariously inefficient transformation (no doubt involving alchemy and perhaps a pentagram or two) which basically demands a level 5 engineer and a fixed surface outpost to make viable, as even my Pol miner with a payload of 160 tons of ore can't carry enough to the orbital refinery to produce a reasonable amount of xenon per trip.

 

I can understand deprecating these from the standpoint of "well, most players just accept the inefficiency of the 3.75m converter and use time warp" but have always enjoyed the emergent mechanic of Duna being the only realistic place to make a xenon/argon production plant where it still has an atmosphere to mine but the dV to orbit is low enough that tankers aren't too hard.

 

Anyways. Just my 2 credits! I'm not a mod developer and have no idea of the work involved to support parts from version to version, and am sure there's a good reason for deprecating these. I appreciate the work you do and am so happy I've been able to play with your mods for so many years! Thanks Nertea :)

Atmospheric ISRU isn't being removed from Nertea's mod lineup, it's getting a major overhaul and being spun out of NFP into its own mod, "Space Dust".  There's a whole new set of parts and mechanics Nertea has been working on to allow for the extraction of Xenon and Argon, among other resources, from the atmosphere and exosphere of celestial bodies.

 

Edited by TBenz
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, TBenz said:

Atmospheric ISRU isn't being removed from Nertea's mod lineup, it's getting a major overhaul and being spun out of NFP into its own mod, "Space Dust"...

Oh awesome! I haven't been on the forums in ages and hadn't seen this thread. Sorry for the confusion and I can't wait to see what becomes of Space Dust! Thanks for linking that thread for me :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, squeaker0704 said:

what dose core life mean for the reactors

Reactors have a couple of new stats (WRT stock converters), "core health" is exactly what it sounds like - i.e. how screwed up the reactor core is after those times you accidentally (or not) overheated it, and life (or something like that, I forget the exact wording), which is how long you can expect it to run at the current power setting before you have to take it offline for refueling.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/25/2020 at 9:49 AM, Wait- Was That Important? said:

Hi Nertea, I'm a longtime player with the NF mods and am curious as to the reason behind dropping the atmo ISRU gear? It seemed like they purposefully balanced the sheer power of Argon/Xenon thrusters by making those fuels difficult to get on planets without atmospheres. Plus, there's some real-life near-future plans of things like argon and methane production from the Martian atmosphere: http://phobosorbust.blogspot.com/2016/02/interorbital-exchange-part-2-mars-cargo.html?m=1

 

I understand that the 3.75m converter your mods add can also produce some Xenon/Argon just from ore and circumvent this, but it's a hilariously inefficient transformation (no doubt involving alchemy and perhaps a pentagram or two) which basically demands a level 5 engineer and a fixed surface outpost to make viable, as even my Pol miner with a payload of 160 tons of ore can't carry enough to the orbital refinery to produce a reasonable amount of xenon per trip.

 

I can understand deprecating these from the standpoint of "well, most players just accept the inefficiency of the 3.75m converter and use time warp" but have always enjoyed the emergent mechanic of Duna being the only realistic place to make a xenon/argon production plant where it still has an atmosphere to mine but the dV to orbit is low enough that tankers aren't too hard.

 

Anyways. Just my 2 credits! I'm not a mod developer and have no idea of the work involved to support parts from version to version, and am sure there's a good reason for deprecating these. I appreciate the work you do and am so happy I've been able to play with your mods for so many years! Thanks Nertea :)

Yeah that's been answered I guess but yes - new mod, better models, better gameplay, etc. If you are interested in testing the replacement, I just released the alpha over here: 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/20/2020 at 6:48 PM, Nertea said:

 In the next update, the NFLV

Uhm... Speaking of NFLV, in my last post I mentioned that S4 and S5 fuel tanks from NFLV have wrong volumes not compensated by the mass   (22.(2)% too much volume.)    Can you comment on that?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...