Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, intelliCom said:

At the very least, there's no reason why people shouldn't have the option to go all the way up for every tank, even if they find that it's got an unusable TWR. I can understand the lack of requirement in making xenon engines at 2.5m sizes, because you have engine clustering for that. The same can't be said for fuel tanks, in a way that effectively uses up the space. You end up with cylinders attached around larger cylinders, which don't even end up fitting within a perfect 3.75m or 5m form factor. 

Sure, more parts are always welcome. However, there is a real, key reason that you should never overlook when evaluating the content of a volunteer project. There is only one person behind the entire NF mod suite. One unpaid developer with a fairly involved life outside of KSP who already spends more time than he should on this. You are describing hundreds of hours of work. I don't want to sound like I'm snapping at you, but there are a lot better things to spend my time on compared to making a couple dozen more fuel tank models. 

I also still contend that the number of people I see making NEP megaships that need dozens of 2.5m fuel tanks is pretty low. Practically zero, in fact, people who make the big ships tend to go towards KA or FFT. 

20 minutes ago, intelliCom said:

That's weird, because it's kind of the opposite case for me. I would have used Hydrogen tanks that size for heavy payload launching purposes, if conventional LFO tanks couldn't be fuel-switched into LH2 tanks. They just end up making the existing gold-foil tanks redundant, and the largest "round-ball" tank just doesn't seem practical for heavy lifting.

Just to note, the gold foil tanks are not for lifting, they're for orbit, and have about 1/3 the cooling cost of non-insulated tanks. Fairly important for deep space missions. Not useful for atmosphere things.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Nertea said:

Sure, more parts are always welcome. However, there is a real, key reason that you should never overlook when evaluating the content of a volunteer project. There is only one person behind the entire NF mod suite. One unpaid developer with a fairly involved life outside of KSP who already spends more time than he should on this. You are describing hundreds of hours of work. I don't want to sound like I'm snapping at you, but there are a lot better things to spend my time on compared to making a couple dozen more fuel tank models. 

I also still contend that the number of people I see making NEP megaships that need dozens of 2.5m fuel tanks is pretty low. Practically zero, in fact, people who make the big ships tend to go towards KA or FFT. 

Must've overlooked them when I was going through CKAN, as I only searched "Near Future" for the mods. My apologies. I will admit, I'm the sort to be kind of persistent over trivial stuff like this, but then again, you do have docking ports going up to 7.5m, yet not EP fuel tanks. Looking at Kerbal Atomics, I realize what those massive LH2 tanks were for now. Again, I'm sorry about the confusion.

CKAN is also wondering if I should install some System Heat configurations for FFT.  Should I? If I should, could I have a basic rundown on how it works?

Ok, so I installed it... I have no idea how to cool the new nuclear engines, and the near future systems manager is completely broken when it comes to this now. Not to mention, the system heat manager remains the same size despite the fact that I've shrunken my UI. As a result, half of it is offscreen.

Also, this ship is beautiful. Do you remember the Delta V on it?
https://imgur.com/PeNwbqU

Edited by intelliCom
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, intelliCom said:

Ok, so I installed it... I have no idea how to cool the new nuclear engines, and the near future systems manager is completely broken when it comes to this now. Not to mention, the system heat manager remains the same size despite the fact that I've shrunken my UI. As a result, half of it is offscreen.

Do you have Nertea’s Heat Control mod? The larger radiators in that pack are an absolute must for using Kerbal Atomics/FFT engines. To cool the engines you have to have the engine and the radiators on the same system heat loop. Then you just keep adding radiators until the system heat manager says that the final temperature is the same as the ideal temperature for the engine.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, CDSlice said:

Do you have Nertea’s Heat Control mod? The larger radiators in that pack are an absolute must for using Kerbal Atomics/FFT engines. To cool the engines you have to have the engine and the radiators on the same system heat loop. Then you just keep adding radiators until the system heat manager says that the final temperature is the same as the ideal temperature for the engine.

Heat Control is installed, but there's no heat loop selection for the nuclear engines. There is for the FFT engines, as well as Near Future Electrics' nuclear reactors, but not Kerbal Atomics engines. Nothing shows up. If it works for you, I'd like to see a screenshot of what it looks like.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, intelliCom said:

Heat Control is installed, but there's no heat loop selection for the nuclear engines. There is for the FFT engines, as well as Near Future Electrics' nuclear reactors, but not Kerbal Atomics engines. Nothing shows up. If it works for you, I'd like to see a screenshot of what it looks like.

The Kerbal Atomics engines by default don't integrate with system heat but there is a patch to make them do so in the system heat download (if you installed it from CKAN you probably have to manually download the system heat release to get the patch.) To be honest I don't really remember how radiators work with non-system heat enabled parts when system heat is installed since I used the optional patches to make everything in NFT/KA/stock use system heat since I find it far superior to the stock heating system.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, CDSlice said:

The Kerbal Atomics engines by default don't integrate with system heat but there is a patch to make them do so in the system heat download (if you installed it from CKAN you probably have to manually download the system heat release to get the patch.) To be honest I don't really remember how radiators work with non-system heat enabled parts when system heat is installed since I used the optional patches to make everything in NFT/KA/stock use system heat since I find it far superior to the stock heating system.

The Nuclear Reactor Integration was interfering with it, and stopped me from installing it. It works now.

Edited by intelliCom
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just watched a preview of Near Future eXploration parts from Kottabosgames - looks amazing! Haven't played KSP in a very long time, though when I finally have the time (soon*), it'll definitely be up there in the priority Mods.

Couple of questions about it though:

1. Is the transmissions off the reflector directionally-restricted (i.e. must be pointed at Kerbin to transmit/receive data)?

2. Can the transmission range be boosted further by using multiple reflectors aligned properly?

3.  Can the transmission of a spacecraft be boosted by utilizing the reflector of a separate spacecraft, like in a Relay system?

 

Many thanks, and as previously mentioned, looks fantastic!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, wulf899 said:

Is the transmissions off the reflector directionally-restricted (i.e. must be pointed at Kerbin to transmit/receive data)?

No. Unless you have another mod that affects that, the only thing you need properly aligned is your feed antenna.

10 minutes ago, wulf899 said:

Can the transmission range be boosted further by using multiple reflectors aligned properly?

Also no. I'm not sure if you can bounce multiple antennas off of one reflector, but I know for a fact you can't use one feed antenna on multiple reflectors.

12 minutes ago, wulf899 said:

Can the transmission of a spacecraft be boosted by utilizing the reflector of a separate spacecraft, like in a Relay system?

I think so. You just have to use the relay feed antenna.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/18/2021 at 6:00 AM, mxi_steel said:

which capsules in near future spacecraft have rpm assets? 

The Mk4-1 large capsule, Mk3-9 2-kerb 2.5m capsule, and PPD-1 station command module.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i would be

15 hours ago, OrdinaryKerman said:

The Mk4-1 large capsule, Mk3-9 2-kerb 2.5m capsule, and PPD-1 station command module.

i would be specfic about the mk4-1 because its the mk4-1 A  amlthea 

Edited by mxi_steel
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Crimor said:

Dumb question, but capacitors aren't used when the craft isn't loaded right?(For example a solar panel satellite obscured by a planet)

That is correct!

Capacitors are more like SRBs than they are like batteries - they only “fire” their electric charge when you manually tell them to.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, lemon cup said:

 

Capacitors are more like SRBs than they are like batteries - they only “fire” their electric charge when you manually tell them to.

which makes them good for reserve batteries and short ion engine firings amongst other things

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/18/2021 at 11:21 PM, OrdinaryKerman said:

The Mk4-1 large capsule, Mk3-9 2-kerb 2.5m capsule, and PPD-1 station command module.


Do you know why these parts are the only ones with RPM assets? Is it more of a development time question or simply a design choice? It certainly would be cool to have all the NFS capsules rpm'd up

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I noticed what might be a bit of a balance issue a while back, when doing some math and thought I might brought it up here. It concerns the MPDTs, particularly the Colossus - it is extremely powerful, even in comparison to engines specifically designed to be incredibly powerful and in need of an external balancing factor.

It has a higher Isp and higher TWR than even the Emancipator, which means even if you consider the required mass in nuclear reactors and the heavier tanks, it still is capable of providing more dV at any given TWR than the Emancipator, and can provide a higher total TWR than the Emancipator (acounting for the radiators too also don't seem to change this much). The engine is also more compact, with the reactor being able to be placed more flexibly about the ship, making it more easily used as a lander engine.

The Emancipator has limited burntime due to the core spewing (also maybe some ethical issues about where you use it), while the Colossus has no such issue.

So, my question is - is there some analagous mechanic to balance the MPDTs I'm not seeing, or is it really just the most powerful high-TWR engine of yours outside of FFT?

Edited by WarriorSabe
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, WarriorSabe said:

I noticed what might be a bit of a balance issue a while back, when doing some math and thought I might brought it up here. It concerns the MPDTs, particularly the Colossus - it is extremely powerful, even in comparison to engines specifically designed to be incredibly powerful and in need of an external balancing factor.

It has a higher Isp and higher TWR than even the Emancipator, which means even if you consider the required mass in nuclear reactors and the heavier tanks, it still is capable of providing more dV at any given TWR than the Emancipator, and can provide a higher total TWR than the Emancipator (acounting for the radiators too also don't seem to change this much). The engine is also more compact, with the reactor being able to be placed more flexibly about the ship, making it more easily used as a lander engine.

The Emancipator has limited burntime due to the core spewing (also maybe some ethical issues about where you use it), while the Colossus has no such issue.

So, my question is - is there some analagous mechanic to balance the MPDTs I'm not seeing, or is it really just the most powerful high-TWR engine of yours outside of FFT?

Seems right, if you use

  • The highest TWR engine
  • The best (highest alpha) fission reactors
  • The best (lowest mass/kW) radiators

... you should get the best results. Naturally this means you need to max out the fission power, heat rejection and electric propulsion branches of the tech tree, and probably take on the highest costs. By contrast to use basic nuclear rockets effectively you only need to max out the nuclear propulsion branch (and maybe halfway up the heat rejection branch). 

8 hours ago, computercat04 said:

I have a question: Can a reactor's core life keep dropping even if the craft is unloaded (background)?

Yes, there is a simplistic catchup mechanics applied on load. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Nertea said:

Seems right, if you use

  • The highest TWR engine
  • The best (highest alpha) fission reactors
  • The best (lowest mass/kW) radiators

... you should get the best results. Naturally this means you need to max out the fission power, heat rejection and electric propulsion branches of the tech tree, and probably take on the highest costs. By contrast to use basic nuclear rockets effectively you only need to max out the nuclear propulsion branch (and maybe halfway up the heat rejection branch). 

Yes, there is a simplistic catchup mechanics applied on load. 

Never ceases to amaze me how well thought out, comprehensive and coherent your mods are, @Nertea. At this point it feels like I am playing Nerteas Space Program.

Many many thanks once more to all involved. Appreciate the attention to detail and also the transparency on the forums here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/23/2021 at 1:58 PM, manosteele117 said:

Do you know why these parts are the only ones with RPM assets? Is it more of a development time question or simply a design choice? It certainly would be cool to have all the NFS capsules rpm'd up

Nertea's answer:

On 2/11/2020 at 4:21 AM, Nertea said:

I break out in a cold sweat when I think of an IVA. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Nertea said:

Naturally this means you need to max out the fission power, heat rejection and electric propulsion branches of the tech tree, and probably take on the highest costs. By contrast to use basic nuclear rockets effectively you only need to max out the nuclear propulsion branch (and maybe halfway up the heat rejection branch). 

Alright, so basically the balancing factor on the MPDTs is a heavy technology tax?

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...