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

[Davi SDF]

51 minutes ago, VASMIR said:

Any tips on re-entering with the Near Future Launch Vehicle parts?  I built a Starship clone in 2.5X scale and it works, but disintegrates in the atmosphere at 3.4 km/s.  

Maybe choose a shallower path through the atmosphere, or use modified Flags as Heat Shields! 

[Fireheart318]

4 hours ago, JadeOfMaar said:

What does one put in a Mk0 cargo bay?

Antennae, landing legs, a single girder, some lights, a piston, some sepratrons, that one square probe core, scientific equipment, some batteries... really anything you want to shield from the airstream

Edited October 2, 2021 by Fireheart318

[biohazard15]

8 hours ago, Nertea said:

It's a bug, don't overanalyze it.

Ohhkay, so... any ETA for a fix?

[Nertea]

17 hours ago, biohazard15 said:

Ohhkay, so... any ETA for a fix?

Well that's somewhat embarrassing, it was supposed to go in the SSPX thread. 

Your question is more subtle but if I had to guess that module does not support B9 switching. Such switching usually needs to be considered in the module's code.

[Nertea]

On 9/29/2021 at 11:01 AM, SciMan said:

OK so I went back and looked at the mining vessel I had made, and it turns out I hadn't put in the 7.5m stack-in-line battery like I thought I had. Once i added that part, the problem with the mining vessel not being able to keep running in high time warp seems to have subsided. The question I had remains however, I thought DynamicBatteryStorage was meant to address that kind of issue? It seems it doesn't completely do so. I imagine the only way to fully address it would be to dynamically increase the battery's capacity depending on the time warp level, but that's probably a can of worms you don't want to open so I understand if things remain the way they are.

 

That is literally what DBS does, if there is some type of consumer or producer that is not correctly accounted for, there may be an edge case to handle. Please ensure you provide me with the following: KSP version,  modlist, vessel description, logs, reproducible test case. 

On 9/19/2021 at 1:36 PM, SciMan said:

On a related note, it would be much appreciated if it was possible to put the converters and reactors on separate radiator loops like you can do with the FFT engines. I don't mean using the heat pump part to connect loops either, I mean being able to right click on a converter and select which SystemHeat loop it dumps its heat into. This would allow me to further sub-divide the cooling systems of my vessels as even further insurance against the stock radiator heat bug (that bug is also why I refuse to use non-SystemHeat radiators on my craft, which has been enough to avoid the heat bug so far, but I want more insurance because of how annoying it is to have to reset everything after that bug has happened to a craft without just reloading to a point before that bug happened to the craft).

Install the System Heat optional patches for converters and radiators, it does that.

 

[Mr.dobsonian]

Has anyone else gotten an issue involving near future exploration where probes, probe buses and multi purpose fuel tank's textures aren't loading properly? I also do not have the ability to select a different foil variant.

[KeaKaka]

3 hours ago, Mr.dobsonian said:

Has anyone else gotten an issue involving near future exploration where probes, probe buses and multi purpose fuel tank's textures aren't loading properly? I also do not have the ability to select a different foil variant.

Sounds like a botched install to me, try reinstalling and see if that helps.

[Mr.dobsonian]

5 hours ago, KeaKaka said:

Sounds like a botched install to me, try reinstalling and see if that helps.

I have already tried this and unfortunately it did not work.

[BOBBER]

On 10/1/2021 at 2:41 PM, BOBBER said:

Hello everyone, since dowloading the new version for ksp 1.12 everything has been working fine except the engine-lfo-advanced-125-1 is missing. Does anyone know what could have caused this problem? I used this part in a very important craft, quite hard to recreate, so i hope someone can help me.

 

Am I the only one experiencing this problem? I have many other mods, one of which is TweakScale, could it be the one conflicting?

[Nertea]

1 hour ago, BOBBER said:

Am I the only one experiencing this problem? I have many other mods, one of which is TweakScale, could it be the one conflicting?

That model was removed from the mod some time ago (and has been under a removal warning for some time). Install an older version of the mod and remove the part. 

14 hours ago, Mr.dobsonian said:

Has anyone else gotten an issue involving near future exploration where probes, probe buses and multi purpose fuel tank's textures aren't loading properly? I also do not have the ability to select a different foil variant.

Sounds like B9PS is missing. Check your install for ALL dependencies. 

[Mr.dobsonian]

4 hours ago, Nertea said:

Sounds like B9PS is missing. Check your install for ALL dependencies. 

Oh thank you! It seems I have accidentally got rid of B9PS whilst deleting some other mods.

[SciMan]

@Nertea

Looking back on it some more, it appears I didn't do my math entirely correctly.

I had 8 Whirligig nuclear processing converters to make enriched uranium from ore, one Vulcan nuclear forge to make Nuclear Salt Water from enriched uranium (and ore), and 4 stock 2.5m ore converters, all powered from ONE single MX-3S F.L.A.T. reactor.

I might have just had too many converter options turned on all at the same time, and only noticed the issue when going to warp because that would naturally exacerbate any power production shortfall.

Not only did I add a very large battery to the mining vessel, I have since adjusted how I run the converters, since it has become obvious to me that there's no way I'm going to be able to keep all those converters fed with ore even with 40 large drills on the richest ore deposits. This thing ain't small, that much is for certain. Fully loaded, even with 4 of the 2.5m NSWR engines from Far Future Technologies, it still doesn't have a Kerbin TWR above 1.0 (and that's not even taking into account the thrust reduction from running those engines in atmosphere).
That's fine since I never intended it to be mining on such high gravity planets in the first place (that's my 2nd rule of how to do ISRU when you want the fuel in orbit, "pick a planet or moon with a small gravity well". The first rule is "Process the ore on the ground, unless you need specifically Ore as part of the propellants of a rocket engine").

But put another way, I think the issue was operator error, I don't think there was anything actually wrong with your code for DBS.

I did post about a localization issue in the NFEX antenna reflectors, did you see that? (previous post of mine in this thread)

[Daniel Prates]

Hey there @Nertea! is the new antenna system that comes with NF exploration (you know, reflector dishes etc) it's own independent thing, or it overrides the stock system? I am asking because my stock antennas stoped relaying as usual, and I want to know if this is intended behavior or not. Uninstalling NFE brought thuungs back to normal.

[wasmic]

I'm curious as to why Near Future Construction is the only holdout that's not compatible with 1.12 yet. I'd expect it to be the simplest one in the whole suite - but then again, weird interactions can happen.

[jefferyharrell]

55 minutes ago, wasmic said:

I'm curious as to why Near Future Construction is the only holdout that's not compatible with 1.12 yet. I'd expect it to be the simplest one in the whole suite - but then again, weird interactions can happen.

Near Future Construction is just parts. (And Module Manager patches.) It works fine in 1.12.2.

[wasmic]

Ah, alright - so it's just a matter of the version numbering not having been changed yet. That does make more sense.

[Nertea]

On 10/4/2021 at 3:50 PM, SciMan said:

I did post about a localization issue in the NFEX antenna reflectors, did you see that? (previous post of mine in this thread)

Yes but it's very low priority.

On 10/5/2021 at 5:34 PM, Daniel Prates said:

Hey there @Nertea! is the new antenna system that comes with NF exploration (you know, reflector dishes etc) it's own independent thing, or it overrides the stock system? I am asking because my stock antennas stoped relaying as usual, and I want to know if this is intended behavior or not. Uninstalling NFE brought thuungs back to normal.

I'm not tracking any issues related to this. Can you provide more information and a reproducible test case?

13 hours ago, wasmic said:

I'm curious as to why Near Future Construction is the only holdout that's not compatible with 1.12 yet. I'd expect it to be the simplest one in the whole suite - but then again, weird interactions can happen.

Have to fix docking ports. Haven't fixed docking ports.

[wasmic]

5 hours ago, Nertea said:

Have to fix docking ports. Haven't fixed docking ports.

Ah, thank you - I'll hold off on using those for now, then.

[Tangle]

On 10/7/2021 at 6:31 AM, wasmic said:

Ah, thank you - I'll hold off on using those for now, then.

In my experience, the ports work just fine- just use DockRotate for rotation rather than the buggy stock method.

[jimmymcgoochie]

Has anyone made a patch that adds LqdMethane options to NFX fuel tanks when CryoTanks/CryoEngines is installed?

[SciMan]

I don't think so, or at least I haven't seen it. Shouldn't be that hard to cook up tho if you know your way around a B9PartSwitch part module (I don't, or else I'd help, and my MM patch syntax is also rusty because I took a long break from this game and have recently come back to it in order to get in practice for KSP 2).

EDIT:
Then again, the thought comes to my mind of "why do you need such a vanishingly small amount of cryogenic propellants anyways, they're always somewhat more bulky than just LFO for the same mass.",
What I mean is that Yes, the NFX propellant tanks do look nice, but the severe downside is that their capacity is minuscule unless you're using them for monopropellant or LFO, in which case they're just right for a small probe.

Small probes really don't benefit that much from small quantities of LH2 or LH2 and Oxidizer anyways, there's simply not enough volume in a small probe to store a useful amount of cryogenic propellants.

To be honest I was somewhat confused by the existence of those options, specifically because they seem too small to be useful with even the smallest CryoEngines methalox or hydrolox engines, because they would eat the cryogenic contents of the largest NFX tanks in far less than 10 seconds, which doesn't seem like a good recipe to get to the usual higher delta-V that you're looking for when building a rocket that uses cryogenic propellants.
Using too many little parts when you could use just a handful of larger parts is how you get a rocket that makes your game run at 15 FPS, so I always use the larger dedicated CryoTanks parts even if they do end up holding a little bit too much propellants for what I need (Having extra Delta-V in your rocket is never a bad thing until it can't get off the ground, or until it costs too much to launch).

Edited October 16, 2021 by SciMan

[jefferyharrell]

32 minutes ago, SciMan said:

What I mean is that Yes, the NFX propellant tanks do look nice, but the severe downside is that their capacity is minuscule unless you're using them for monopropellant or LFO, in which case they're just right for a small probe.

Or a Minmus surface base.

I can see the use case for having liquid methane be an option for these tanks. They're great for situations where you don't need a ton of delta vee and, you know, you want stuff to look cool.

[SciMan]

I agree, having an option for liquid methane (and possibly oxidizer) makes more sense than hydrogen, specifically because hydrogen takes up so much dang space inside a fuel tank for the actual mass of hydrogen you get to store in the tank.

Would also be nice if the game would consider any tank that has a foil insulation texture on it to be an "insulated cryogenic tank" just like the dedicated CryoTanks, but I'm not sure if that's doable or not. Would certainly help with power budgets, because sometimes i want to be able to use the stock Baguette tanks on a methalox or hydrolox powered vessel since they make it easy to make something that looks like the moon lander that was originally specified in the original Constellation program ideas, which I think was supposed to be methalox.

[Nertea]

On 10/21/2021 at 12:03 PM, SciMan said:

Would also be nice if the game would consider any tank that has a foil insulation texture on it to be an "insulated cryogenic tank" just like the dedicated CryoTanks, but I'm not sure if that's doable or not. Would certainly help with power budgets, because sometimes i want to be able to use the stock Baguette tanks on a methalox or hydrolox powered vessel since they make it easy to make something that looks like the moon lander that was originally specified in the original Constellation program ideas, which I think was supposed to be methalox.

You can do this with a MM patch pretty easily, but can't really do this automatically, you would need to know the part names.

Realism-wise, it might not be accurate, certainly MLI is used to cover tanks that are not ZBO frequently!

[fittedorphan68]

@Nertea or anyone who can  help. I was playing around with the mk4-1 ship trying to get it to fit into RSS as best I can.  I noticed while  using the  RasterProp  IVA that (maybe?) the textures look like they're misaligned. In short, some of the displays are clipped behind the walls.  I know without the scaling implemented it works fine. But any tips on troubleshooting would be amazing as this is definitely one of the best RPM IVAs I've seen.. Obviously not a critical issue, but any help from anyone is appreciated. I've played with plenty of props in IVA but never testures/models.

Spoiler

It looks like if they all just shift up (Z+) a smudge we'd be back in business