Nertea

[1.3.1] Near Future Technologies (bugfix updates Nov 28)

Recommended Posts

Just now, SpaceMouse said:

@Nertea, this is probably a dumb question but, is there some trick I'm not aware of to get RCS modules to use different thrustTransforms based on the intended direction of travel? I tried doing one a while ago but i could never get the part to use anymore than the first one. I tried mimicing the stock layout but couldnt get it to work. Thanks. 

Just point them in the right direction... there was a stock bug a while ago that made biprop RCS only ever used the first transform. It's fixed now. 

Share this post


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

Just point them in the right direction... there was a stock bug a while ago that made biprop RCS only ever used the first transform. It's fixed now. 

Hmmm. That would likely explain it, as it did use two. I'll have to try again. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hotfixed NFC to 0.7.5. I typoed a collider name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi @Nertea

Firstly, wanted to say a massive thank you for all the work you do on these mods. I use them extensively and they're just amazing!

I wanted to report an issue I'm having with Near Future Spacecraft. Specifically, this is an issue with the IVA of the Mk3-9 pod.

These screenshots show what's going on:

poJj8pV.png

CIumw6H.png

LgnXRtb.png

As you can see, there's some issue with the 'upright' between the two windows. They look somewhat mangled and have transparency in places that don't look right.

I'm on KSP 1.2.2, Mac OSX 10.9 'Mavericks', and I'm using the latest version of Near Future Spacecraft. The only mods I have installed are Near Future Spacecraft, B9 Part Switch (as it comes bundled with NFSpacecraft), and ModuleManager 2.7.5.

Here's the log file, in case it's of use:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/2wq2zkihfsjszxq/KSP_3.log?dl=0

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, xv323 said:

Hi @Nertea

Firstly, wanted to say a massive thank you for all the work you do on these mods. I use them extensively and they're just amazing!

I wanted to report an issue I'm having with Near Future Spacecraft. Specifically, this is an issue with the IVA of the Mk3-9 pod.

These screenshots show what's going on:

As you can see, there's some issue with the 'upright' between the two windows. They look somewhat mangled and have transparency in places that don't look right.

I'm on KSP 1.2.2, Mac OSX 10.9 'Mavericks', and I'm using the latest version of Near Future Spacecraft. The only mods I have installed are Near Future Spacecraft, B9 Part Switch (as it comes bundled with NFSpacecraft), and ModuleManager 2.7.5.

Here's the log file, in case it's of use:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/2wq2zkihfsjszxq/KSP_3.log?dl=0

 

I can confirm its happening on windows too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Confirmed under Linux too.

Nertia supplied us with dropped capsule! It is cracked! How can you do this to us?! It was supposed to be wrapped in foam, with "Fragile" labels and all that stuff!

@Nertea

Also, in a new capsule, all click-on-window views except two main pilots windows are upside-down.

Edited by WildLynx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Log git issues and I'll triage them, but as usual, IVA problems are at the bottom of my list. 

Share this post


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

Log git issues and I'll triage them, but as usual, IVA problems are at the bottom of my list. 

Totally understand - and again, thanks for all the work you do to put these mods together. I'm sure I can live with this issue without too much of a struggle!

I see @WildLynx has made a Git issue already, so I won't duplicate it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am really enjoying the new monopropellant OMS engines. I haven't found many uses for them yet, but the shrouded 1.25m one is perfect for space shuttles.

3esBByD.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I built a "Space: 1999" like craft (with two cargo bays, each containing a rover) using only mono-propellant. It has engines in the rear for orbital insertion, then engines on the landing pods for landing. (I had an earlier version that used Magnetoplasmadynamic Engines but it didn't do well landing on airless bodies larger than the Mun.)

Edited by JonathanPerregaux

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am just wondering if any one has had any issues with the landing legs. If i remember correctly in flight when deployed the animation extends them too far that there is a space between the main structure and the leg. The main issue however is that when landed the springs or dampers are not strong enough that if the craft is on a slight incline or lands off center slightly they allow the craft to fall over. 

 

Perhaps i am missing something in my design or because i am on Duna and the reduced gravity is having an effect on them. Any suggestions would be great.

Edited by theUkie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also see the landing legs extending too far, as though the legs are floating somewhere past the housing. I ignored it because I also had used TweakScale on them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Nertea, love the updates.  I wanted to clarify a few things I couldn't find written down anywhere. 

I noticed that some of the old NFT Spacecraft engines are gone and you said in a earlier post that they were to good with all situations.  I see that the older engines remain in the parts folder.  So in my current game, if you still have those older engines equipped on current spacecraft they work fine, your just not allowed access to equip them to new designs, correct?

I take it this is working as planned?  You made the older parts 'hidden' to prevent saved games from breaking, and this is how your phasing out those engines?  Do you have future plans to eliminate those older engines from the game files?  If so, cool no problem but if you don't, is there a way around the 'patch' to bring them back into the parts menu?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/8/2017 at 5:12 PM, Psycho_zs said:

I wonder if monoprop engines can have Isp on par with kerolox engines.

Monoprops are supposed to have ISP of about 190s.

New MP engines have ISP in about 335s-345s range. Is it supposed to be like that? They run on unicorn tears?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello!  First time modded here, and i need some help! I have downloaded all NF packs, but I am not sure how to put them into the GameData forlder. 

All of the packs have similar folders that, when i try to copy them in, asks me if I want to replace them. How should I go about this?

Share this post


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

I noticed that some of the old NFT Spacecraft engines are gone and you said in a earlier post that they were to good with all situations.  I see that the older engines remain in the parts folder.  So in my current game, if you still have those older engines equipped on current spacecraft they work fine, your just not allowed access to equip them to new designs, correct?

I take it this is working as planned?  You made the older parts 'hidden' to prevent saved games from breaking, and this is how your phasing out those engines?  Do you have future plans to eliminate those older engines from the game files?  If so, cool no problem but if you don't, is there a way around the 'patch' to bring them back into the parts menu?

Yes, the intended case is that you don't lose existing ships, because the parts are still in the mod. You just cannot research them, and they will not show up in the editor anymore even if previously researched.

If you want to reactivate them, you need to open their part configs and fill out the 'TechRequired = ' and 'category = ' fields.

 

1 hour ago, WildLynx said:

Monoprops are supposed to have ISP of about 190s.

Where did you get that idea? Stock RCS jets have 240s, the stock Puff engine has 250s.

I mean sure, we can always have debates over whether specific values are good or not. But 190s for monoprop? o_O I've never seen that anywhere. Even IRL, classic hydrazine thrusters get 220-230s, and newfangled hydroxylammonium nitrate based monopropellants can approach 260s.

 

25 minutes ago, Benjamin Kerman said:

Hello!  First time modded here, and i need some help! I have downloaded all NF packs, but I am not sure how to put them into the GameData forlder. 

All of the packs have similar folders that, when i try to copy them in, asks me if I want to replace them. How should I go about this?

Welcome! :)

Every mod author may have a slightly different way to package their mods. But once you understand how the file structure should be after unpacking, you can easily find your way through. In pretty much every case, an installed mod needs to be in this specific place:

<KSP Root Directory>
--- GameData
------ <ModName>

Because of this, mod authors tend to package their mods in one of three ways. When you open the downloaded zip file, you will see either/or:

Variant 1: Just a <ModName> folder that you are supposed to put into GameData.
Variant 2: A GameData folder containing a <ModName> folder. You can merge that GameData folder with yours, or just drag the ModName folder out of it.
Variant 3: Some other folder that contains a GameData folder, which in turn contains a <ModName> folder.

As you can see, when you really get down to it, you can treat all downloads as if they were essentially variant 1, if you just click your way through the file tree downwards. If you start seeing folders called "Parts", or you see .cfg and .DLL files, you've gone too far down the file tree. The only exception is modulemanager.dll, which is always a loose file and goes directly into GameData, as if it was a folder.

In the case of Nertea, he uses Variant 2. So if you download a mod he made, you will see (probably among other things) a GameData folder in the top level of the zip file. You can merge that with your GameData folder, or click through it and find the <ModName> folder to drag and drop instead. I generally recommend that click-through approach - for all mods, not just for Nertea's. Ideally you always want to find the exact <ModName> folder and move it manually. This has a good reason:

Dependencies.

You will see a lot of this with Near Future packs. They ship not one <ModName> folder, but multiple ones, and the loose Module Manager DLL to boot. These other things included in the zip file are dependencies, which means they must be installed as well, or the mod will not function. However, many packs ship similar dependencies. For example, almost every mod you can find will ship Module Manager, because it is that darn crucial to everything. But you only need a dependency once.

If you now go and just blindly merge a downloaded GameData folder with yours, you'll get "files already exist, overwrite?" prompts for all those dependencies you already have. This can get confusing, and if you just say yes all the time, you can accidentally overwrite a new version of a dependency with an older one, and cause a mod that needs the newer one to break. So if I were you, I would always click through to the <ModName> folder level, and take a good look at what's there. Do you have some of that already? If you do, is this version newer or older or the same? Then you can make educated decisions about what you install.

Oh, and anything in Nertea's downloads labeled "Extras" is completely optional. Leaving it out won't break anything. If you want what's in there, put the Extras folder into GameData as if it was a mod. You can merge multiple Extras folders, there will never be anything to overwrite.

Edited by Streetwind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Streetwind thank you! Just one or two more questions, if you dont mind. 

1) Inside several of the packs there is a folder called B9PartSwitch. Do I only need one of these, or is it even useful without BDArmory (Judging by the name?). 

2) so you are also saying that the Folder inside the Mod's GameData folder is the only one to import. Should I also import the most recent version of ModuleManager?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Benjamin Kerman said:

1) Inside several of the packs there is a folder called B9PartSwitch. Do I only need one of these, or is it even useful without BDArmory (Judging by the name?). 

2) so you are also saying that the Folder inside the Mod's GameData folder is the only one to import. Should I also import the most recent version of ModuleManager?

Yes, that is what I meant with "dependencies". They are required (once). A complete and successful NF Propulsion install looks like this.

B9PartSwitch is a mod that lets you toggle through multiple subvariants on the same part in the VAB. Near Future parts make extensive use of this, and will not work if you do not install B9PartSwitch. Community Resource Pack adds the new propellants that Near Future engines use, and if it's missing, your game will crash on startup.

Module Manager is the ambrosia of the gods that makes mortal modding work. You absolutely, without fail, always** need it if you make a modded install. Only once, but always once.

 

(** Okay, slight overexaggeration, but I genuinely haven't seen a modded install without MM since 2013. :P)

Edited by Streetwind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I was trying to launch the game without the B9 folder and the community resources folder. I now assume that I was doing it wrong :blush::wink:. It wasn't loading past the .625 reactor, but just tried it again and it went the full way. Thank you!

Edited by Benjamin Kerman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi are the low profile engines of the previous future spacecraft gone as I cant see any resemblance to the old engines at all mostly looking for the 4 engine cluster with the gold fuel tanks and do any of the girder sections contain fuel tanks.

Edited by Virtualgenius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some answers in reverse order:

Girders and fuel tanks:     Some of the Octo-(can't remember the rest of the name) girders have various fuel tanks and other goodies within them

"Gold, older low profile engines":  I only found them under the Near Future Spacecraft tab when you have the extended menu tabs selected (those 3 arrows in the top left above the other tabs - near the searchbar I believe).  I have yet to see them in the regular engines tab.  

Share this post


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

Hi are the low profile engines of the previous future spacecraft gone as I cant see any resemblance to the old engines at all mostly looking for the 4 engine cluster with the gold fuel tanks and do any of the girder sections contain fuel tanks.

They were deprecated last week, as the changelogs and multiple recent posts say.

Reading the last 1-2 pages of the thread will reveal how to manually reactivate them. :wink:  Like, I just answered that question again 12 hours ago...

Edited by Streetwind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

unsure if this one should already been fixed but once I focus a vessel with radioactive containers on it (MKS little radial ones) log gives me this errors and spams:

[EXC 09:59:55.162] NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object
	NearFutureElectrical.RadioactiveStorageContainer.GetResourceAmount (System.String nm)
	NearFutureElectrical.RadioactiveStorageContainer.FixedUpdate ()

This might just be harmless put-through/status message. Thank you for your work on NF!

Edited by LatiMacciato

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/12/2017 at 7:33 PM, Streetwind said:

They were deprecated last week, as the changelogs and multiple recent posts say.

Reading the last 1-2 pages of the thread will reveal how to manually reactivate them. :wink:  Like, I just answered that question again 12 hours ago...

@Streetwind So sorry I didnt see the post but in my defence its a little hard to read on a mobile at work at times, I find the new engines the nozzle is too long to use as a lander engine which is what I used the older style for, would you consider a smaller nozzled engine or lower profile to be potentially used as lander engines I really like this pack its one of my favorites. Thankyou for taking the time to reply to my oversight

Share this post


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

This might just be harmless put-through/status message.

Nullrefs are never just harmless status messages :P

Can you reproduce this in a fresh install with only NF Electrical (+dependencies) present? Or does MKS need to be added? And if it happens with one container, does it happen with all of them, or just specific ones?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now