Nertea

[1.7.x] Near Future Technologies (NFC update Oct 4th)

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, Nertea said:

All the parts have been scaled more or less accurately to each other. The absolute number may not be accurate, at some time there will be a Great Rebalance of NFC/NFSpacecraft

It's a bit hard to tell due to lack of comparable parts, but I believe your NFC is better balanced to Stock than FTT is. So I am going with your Mod for now :) (Ok, also because it looks amazing!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Kobymaru said:

It's a bit hard to tell due to lack of comparable parts, but I believe your NFC is better balanced to Stock than FTT is. So I am going with your Mod for now :) (Ok, also because it looks amazing!)

Oh I think it's not too far off. I mean, divide the mass of the big tank by 5 and you get my numbers, that doesn't seem to bed for removing the actual tank and the outer sheeting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Completed NF Spacecraft 0.6.0

  • Marked for KSP 1.2.2
  • Fixed missing NearFutureProps distribution
  • Added Mk4-1 Command Pod, 7-kerbal large command pod
  • Added LV-85 Orbital Maneuvering Engine: 0.625m monopropellant engine that replaces LV-T95 engine
  • Added LV-601 Orbital Maneuvering Engine: 1.25m monopropellant engine
  • Added LV-85-6 Orbital Maneuvering Engine Cluster: 2.5m monopropellant engine that replaces LV-T95x8 engine
  • Added LV-601-4 Orbital Maneuvering Engine Cluster: 3.75m monopropellant engine that replaces LV-T18 engine
  • Added FL-R-A750, FL-R-A375, FL-R-A185 1.25m Monopropellant tanks
  • Added FL-R-B750, FL-R-B1500, FL-R-B3000 2.5m Monopropellant tanks
  • Added FL-R-C1500, FL-R-C3000, FL-R-C6000 3.75m Monopropellant tanks
  • Added SD-01 and SD-02 radial engine pods
  • Improved cargo bay shielding boxes for 3.75m service tank
  • Soft-deprecated LV-T95, LV-T95x8, LVT18 engines (will not break ships, no longer visible in VAB/SPH)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

btw nertea can u update your spacedock link it points to old missing thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but the LVT18 did not soft deprecated here, it broke my vessels :(

Edit: Try to look at orbitalEngine-375.cfg file, and not found any problem. Also try to delete partsdatabase.cfg file, not help. I "fixed" it by bringing back Near Future Spacecraft  0.5.6 orbitalEngine-375.cfg file. That fixed the problem

Edited by FellipeC
Things that dont work

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Orbital engines are veeeeerrrry thirsty.  Goes through a medium tank in 30 seconds.  Not very useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Minor issue with the MK4-1:

screenshot_2017-02-03--23-00-13.png

We didn't know NFT had perfected invisible aluminum.  :wink: 

(Note there is also a node at the correct location - this feels like a missing fairing of some sort.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, FellipeC said:

Sorry but the LVT18 did not soft deprecated here, it broke my vessels :(

Worked ok for me.

For anyone that is trying to 'undeprecate' the LFO engines, you need to reassign TechRequired and category = Engine in their respective .cfg files.

@Nertea Looking at the new MP engines, the LV-601 and LV-95 config PART names do not follow your naming convention to differentiate them from your deprecated engines. Specifically, they are lacking the '-' between orbital and engine in the part name. Should be (per your naming convention): name = orbital-engine-0625 etc. This is of little consequence for the LV-601, but the part name for the LV-95 is identical to the old LV-T95 LFO engine. Not sure if this is intended, but it is causing a conflict trying to undeprecate the old engines using MM.

Cheers,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So happy to see these updates. Is Heat Control coming next?

 

"...justify this time sink to my wife, which results directly in more models."

You wife must be very open-minded. Do you get super-models or just regular models?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Soft deprecation NFS is likewise failing for me. Imagine my horror loading up the first time and seeing my entire fleet on the unloaded list when I hadn't removed anything.

My question is: Why on (or off) earth do this at all? I don't understand in the slightest why you would take away LFO engines and replace them with what are basically giant RCS thrusters. This makes no sense to me and I design spacecraft for a living. IMHO, you should put out a patch bringing back the LFO engines and let players make their engineering/gameplay decisions accordingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

3 hours ago, Fr8monkey said:

Orbital engines are veeeeerrrry thirsty.  Goes through a medium tank in 30 seconds.  Not very useful.

Never mind... didn't realize they are monoprop engines... :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Omnipius said:

Soft deprecation NFS is likewise failing for me. Imagine my horror loading up the first time and seeing my entire fleet on the unloaded list when I hadn't removed anything.

My question is: Why on (or off) earth do this at all? I don't understand in the slightest why you would take away LFO engines and replace them with what are basically giant RCS thrusters. This makes no sense to me and I design spacecraft for a living. IMHO, you should put out a patch bringing back the LFO engines and let players make their engineering/gameplay decisions accordingly.

I have to agree with that, or maybe make LFO vs. Mono a tweakable in the VAB?  Also, the bigger engines have a 3400K max temp...  typo for 2400K?  

Otherwise the new engines are pretty cool, looking forward to trying them out once the depreciating bug is fixed so it doesn't eat my own fleet again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I unfortunately don't have an old save to update, so I can't really participate much in tracking this down. However, it is really odd. There is nothing about the old engines that changed, other than setting them TechRequired = Unresearchable and category = None. Nothing else changed.

Just to check, I would like people to clarify:

When you say that you have issues with the soft-deprecating, what exactly do you mean? Do you have vessels in flight that get deleted on loading your save, because they are missing parts? Or do you mean that you have ship designs saved in the editor that use these parts, which are now flagged as "parts missing"? Those are two entirely different cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About the soft deprecation issue. I compared both new and old files. Got this:

Comparando os arquivos orbitalEngine-0625.cfg e ORBITALENGINE-0625-NEW.CFG
***** orbitalEngine-0625.cfg
   92:          // --- editor parameters ---
   93:          TechRequired = precisionPropulsion
   94:          entryCost = 990
***** ORBITALENGINE-0625-NEW.CFG
   92:          // --- editor parameters ---
   93:          TechRequired = Unresearchable
   94:          entryCost = 990
*****

***** orbitalEngine-0625.cfg
   96:          cost = 450
   97:          category = Engine
   98:          subcategory = 0
***** ORBITALENGINE-0625-NEW.CFG
   96:          cost = 450
   97:          category = None
   98:          subcategory = 0
*****

In KSP.LOG I found those errors

[LOG 22:48:16.103] PartLoader: Compiling Part 'NearFutureSpacecraft/Parts/Engine/orbitalEngine/orbitalEngine-0625/orbitalEngine-0625'
[ERR 22:48:16.109] PartLoader: Encountered exception during compilation. System.ArgumentException: The requested value 'None' was not found.
  at System.Enum.Parse (System.Type enumType, System.String value, Boolean ignoreCase) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
  at System.Enum.Parse (System.Type enumType, System.String value) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
  at ConfigNode.ParseEnum (System.Type enumType, System.String vectorString) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
  at ConfigNode.ReadValue (System.Type fieldType, System.String value) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
  at ConfigNode.ReadObject (System.Object obj, .ConfigNode node) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
  at ConfigNode.LoadObjectFromConfig (System.Object obj, .ConfigNode node, Int32 pass, Boolean removeAfterUse) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
  at PartLoader.ParsePart (.UrlConfig urlConfig, .ConfigNode node) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
  at PartLoader+<CompileParts>c__Iterator62.MoveNext () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 

[ERR 22:48:16.115] PartCompiler: Cannot compile part

[LOG 22:48:16.115] PartLoader: Compiling Part 'NearFutureSpacecraft/Parts/Engine/orbitalEngine/orbitalEngine-25/orbitalEngine-25'
[ERR 22:48:16.120] PartLoader: Encountered exception during compilation. System.ArgumentException: The requested value 'None' was not found.
  at System.Enum.Parse (System.Type enumType, System.String value, Boolean ignoreCase) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
  at System.Enum.Parse (System.Type enumType, System.String value) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
  at ConfigNode.ParseEnum (System.Type enumType, System.String vectorString) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
  at ConfigNode.ReadValue (System.Type fieldType, System.String value) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
  at ConfigNode.ReadObject (System.Object obj, .ConfigNode node) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
  at ConfigNode.LoadObjectFromConfig (System.Object obj, .ConfigNode node, Int32 pass, Boolean removeAfterUse) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
  at PartLoader.ParsePart (.UrlConfig urlConfig, .ConfigNode node) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
  at PartLoader+<CompileParts>c__Iterator62.MoveNext () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 

[ERR 22:48:16.125] PartCompiler: Cannot compile part

[LOG 22:48:16.126] PartLoader: Compiling Part 'NearFutureSpacecraft/Parts/Engine/orbitalEngine/orbitalEngine-375/orbitalEngine-375'
[LOG 22:48:16.155] PartLoader: Part 'NearFutureSpacecraft/Parts/Engine/orbitalEngine/orbitalEngine-375/orbitalEngine-375' has no database record. Creating.
[LOG 22:48:16.165] DragCubeSystem: Part 'orbitalEngine-375' has defined a procedural drag cube setup
[EXC 22:48:16.179] NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object
	PartLoader.GetDatabaseConfig (.Part p)
	PartLoader.GetDatabaseConfig (.Part p, System.String nodeName)
	DragCubeSystem.LoadDragCubes (.Part p)
	Part+<Start>c__Iterator38.MoveNext ()
	UnityEngine.SetupCoroutine.InvokeMoveNext (IEnumerator enumerator, IntPtr returnValueAddress)
[EXC 22:48:16.183] NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object
	PartLoader.GetDatabaseConfig (.Part p)
	PartLoader.GetDatabaseConfig (.Part p, System.String nodeName)
	DragCubeSystem.LoadDragCubes (.Part p)
	Part+<Start>c__Iterator38.MoveNext ()
	UnityEngine.SetupCoroutine.InvokeMoveNext (IEnumerator enumerator, IntPtr returnValueAddress)
[LOG 22:48:16.190] PartLoader: Compiling Part 'NearFutureSpacecraft/Parts/FuelTank/monoprop-tank/monoprop-tank-125-1/monoprop-tank-125-1'
[LOG 22:48:16.197] PartLoader: Part 'NearFutureSpacecraft/Parts/FuelTank/monoprop-tank/monoprop-tank-125-1/monoprop-tank-125-1' has no database record. Creating.
[LOG 22:48:16.200] DragCubeSystem: Creating drag cubes for part 'monoprop-tank-125-1'

Hope that helps!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Streetwind said:

I unfortunately don't have an old save to update, so I can't really participate much in tracking this down. However, it is really odd. There is nothing about the old engines that changed, other than setting them TechRequired = Unresearchable and category = None. Nothing else changed.

Just to check, I would like people to clarify:

When you say that you have issues with the soft-deprecating, what exactly do you mean? Do you have vessels in flight that get deleted on loading your save, because they are missing parts? Or do you mean that you have ship designs saved in the editor that use these parts, which are now flagged as "parts missing"? Those are two entirely different cases.

Definitely the former. You load the game, your active vessels get deleted.

The latter would be expected given the release notes. I copied over the orbitalEngine folder with that of NFS 0.5.4 and now have LFO and MonoProp engines in blissful harmony. Not sure if I'll ever actually use the monoprop versions though. They're just silly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Streetwind said:

I unfortunately don't have an old save to update, so I can't really participate much in tracking this down. However, it is really odd. There is nothing about the old engines that changed, other than setting them TechRequired = Unresearchable and category = None. Nothing else changed.

Just to check, I would like people to clarify:

When you say that you have issues with the soft-deprecating, what exactly do you mean? Do you have vessels in flight that get deleted on loading your save, because they are missing parts? Or do you mean that you have ship designs saved in the editor that use these parts, which are now flagged as "parts missing"? Those are two entirely different cases.

On loading a save I got the message saying vessel X couldn't be loaded because Y part is missing. I haven't try to access the vessel thought, just hit alt-F4 asap before persistent.sfs got updated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@FellipeC That actually does help. Maybe "None" is an invalid string in that field.

Everyone with issues: Can you try switching it back to "category = Engine" to see if that changes anything?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Streetwind said:

@FellipeC That actually does help. Maybe "None" is an invalid string in that field.

Everyone with issues: Can you try switching it back to "category = Engine" to see if that changes anything?

No more message saying the ship can't be loaded with "category = Engine" and the engine don't show in the part list anymore. Everything good.

As said before I will miss the LFO engines but the new one look very good :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, WildLynx said:

May be deprecation can be optional - via MM patch?

I mentioned this a couple of posts up, but I guess people keep missing it

Spoiler

@PART[orbitalEngine-375]:FOR[NearFutureSpacecraft]
{
    @TechRequired = veryHeavyRocketry    // Soft deprecated in NF SC v0.6.0 
    @category = Engine
}

This works for all 'old' engines except the LV-T95. The LV-T95 has the same part name as the new LV-95 and MM does not differentiate between the two. You'll need to edit the actual config files or one of the two engines will need to be renamed for MM to be able to tell the difference.

 

EDIT: Nertea has since updated/changed the PART name for the LV-95. The above should now work for all engines.

Edited by Stratickus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love the new monoprop engines, but please keep the old LFO engines too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To everyone complaining:

I floated the idea to convert the engines ages ago (October 2016). I asked for opinions. I got positive opinions. I posted WIP images with clear statements that they were monopropellent engines that would replace the other ones. If, at that point ( a 2 month period, before the old thread disappeared), you didn't want this to occur, you were welcome to voice your opinion. Now that this time has passed, if you don't like it, there are other mods out there in the world with other engines. Don't come here to picket a particular design decision. 

Deprecation mistake:

I apologize. I foresaw a time of no modding coming up and I decided that people would like to play with the pack, and there's obviously a problem I didn't notice. I am a human and I make mistakes. Please deal with this in your own way (screaming, patiently waiting, fixing yourself, etc). I will try to get a fix out in a little while. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly I quite like the idea of the new monopropellant engines. They should lead to far more varied service modules.

Share this post


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.