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

[Nertea]

42 minutes ago, Krzeszny said:

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?

Can you be more specific? 

Looking at the Kerbodyne S4-256 Fuel Tank (mid-size 5m tank from MH), it has a capacity of 25 600 units (in the standard LF/O ratio) at a dry mass of 16t (144t wet). This is comparable to the NR 25600 (mid-size 5m tank from NFLV), which has the same capacity (25600) and the same masses (16/144). I'm literally looking at it ingame now.

 

 

[Souptime]

Are the raptor, raptor vac, rs 18 and BE4 still availible in the latest update? they look really nice and i'd like to use them

[Souptime]

also this might sound stupid but will I be able to use two versions of NFL V so I can have the both both Legacy parts and new parts? i like the way the old parts look like but i'm also excited for new content

[hemeac]

@Souptime, they are soft-deprecated and can be found in the legacy folder of the latest version.  I think it would be better to create a personal mod folder and place the assets and config files there rather than installing two versions of the same mod.  You would need to modify the paths to the assets in the config files to get the parts to work.  That will let you keep the engines when Nertea decides he will hard deprecate them and remove them from the installation.

[Krzeszny]

2 hours ago, Nertea said:

Can you be more specific? 

Looking at the Kerbodyne S4-256 Fuel Tank (mid-size 5m tank from MH), it has a capacity of 25 600 units (in the standard LF/O ratio) at a dry mass of 16t (144t wet). This is comparable to the NR 25600 (mid-size 5m tank from NFLV), which has the same capacity (25600) and the same masses (16/144). I'm literally looking at it ingame now.

I solved the puzzle. My bad, I was just reading the wrong values because your fuel tanks have the Oxidiser above the Liquid Fuel when you right-click a tank. All stock tanks have LF above and Ox below (the green bars.)

[Souptime]

1 hour ago, hemeac said:

@Souptime, they are soft-deprecated and can be found in the legacy folder of the latest version.  I think it would be better to create a personal mod folder and place the assets and config files there rather than installing two versions of the same mod.  You would need to modify the paths to the assets in the config files to get the parts to work.  That will let you keep the engines when Nertea decides he will hard deprecate them and remove them from the installation.

Whats the difference between soft and hard deprecations?

[DeltaDizzy]

17 minutes ago, Souptime said:

Whats the difference between soft and hard deprecations?

A soft deprecation is just making the parts inaccessible from in-game (like removing them from the tech tree and the editor part lists). The parts are still loaded, so existing crafts still work fine. Hard-deprecation is when the files themselves are deleted from the mod distribution, breaking any crafts that use those parts. Generally soft-deprecation happens first to give players a chance to retire anything using those parts before they are hard-deprecated.

[Souptime]

2 minutes ago, DeltaDizzy said:

A soft deprecation is just making the parts inaccessible from in-game (like removing them from the tech tree and the editor part lists). The parts are still loaded, so existing crafts still work fine. Hard-deprecation is when the files themselves are deleted from the mod distribution, breaking any crafts that use those parts. Generally soft-deprecation happens first to give players a chance to retire anything using those parts before they are hard-deprecated.

Oh ok thanks! I hope nert makes a list of old parts that will be hard deprecated so i can or someone else can re add them, as im not good with part adding and stuff

[Souptime]

33 minutes ago, DeltaDizzy said:

A soft deprecation is just making the parts inaccessible from in-game (like removing them from the tech tree and the editor part lists). The parts are still loaded, so existing crafts still work fine. Hard-deprecation is when the files themselves are deleted from the mod distribution, breaking any crafts that use those parts. Generally soft-deprecation happens first to give players a chance to retire anything using those parts before they are hard-deprecated.

Oh you can get them in game, using the advanced parts search. GOt one named the "Kite" which iirc is the raptor

The kite, buzzard, osprey and for some reason 2 eaglets can be found using it! and all the old tanks

The kite seems to be rap vac

[Souptime]

O H THELEGACY NOT CURRENT PARTS OH FRIK

[Souptime]

hey @NerteaIs it okay to make some patches for the legacy parts to re enable them and post to spacedock?

[DeltaDizzy]

12 minutes ago, Souptime said:

hey @NerteaIs it okay to make some patches for the legacy parts to re enable them and post to spacedock?

Just a heads up, it's better to edit new comments into previous posts than to make a bunch of posts at close to the same time.

[sturmhauke]

1 hour ago, DeltaDizzy said:

A soft deprecation is just making the parts inaccessible from in-game (like removing them from the tech tree and the editor part lists). The parts are still loaded, so existing crafts still work fine. Hard-deprecation is when the files themselves are deleted from the mod distribution, breaking any crafts that use those parts. Generally soft-deprecation happens first to give players a chance to retire anything using those parts before they are hard-deprecated.

Usually that's just called "deprecated" and "removed", respectively.

[DeltaDizzy]

9 minutes ago, sturmhauke said:

Usually that's just called "deprecated" and "removed", respectively.

I've heard both, but it really depends on who is doing it.

[Souptime]

On 10/28/2020 at 8:37 PM, Souptime said:

hey @NerteaIs it okay to make some patches for the legacy parts to re enable them and post to spacedock?

Just wondering

[Nertea]

If you want to upload a patch that changes the state from disabled to available, sure I can't stop you. I can caution against it though, it will only cause both you and me trouble in the long run.

If you want to take the models and upload them, that's a hard no, it is against the license. 

[Souptime]

What about when they get hard removed?

[coyotesfrontier]

3 hours ago, Souptime said:

What about when they get hard removed?

You can always copy the hard removed parts from the old versions to the new ones, you just aren't allowed to share it with other people.

[Souptime]

Oh yeah i found a way to enable them, you go into legacy and delete the part disabler config, and when they get hard removed download an old version and copy the legacy folder into the NFLV folder

[Grimmas]

I have a few issues/thoughts about these mods (great mods btw, I routinely use nearly all NFT mods in my career games now, thanks for making them!)

Using latest version of KSP 1.10.1.2939 and latest version of all mods.

1) There is a compatibility problem with the MKS patch in Near Future Electrical. It drastically increases the cooling requirements for MKS reactors. For instance, the 625 reactor usually needs 200kw of cooling but when patched by NFE it needs 2000kw of cooling. I don't think this stealth nerf is intended behavior? NFE reactors with similar EC output still only require around 1/10th of that cooling. I looked at the MKS patch config in NFE but nothing really stood out, but then I'm not very familiar with the cooling model in KSP. If anyone knows a fix I would appreciate the info. For now I just disabled the patch itself. I could upload a log if needed.

2) Dynamic Battery Storage has poor compatibility with USI. For instance, it does not account for EC consumption of kerbals (USI-LS) or of habitats, recyclers, and converters like agroponics etc (MKS/USI-LS). This isn't really an "issue" per se but it unfortunately drastically reduces the utility of DBS in USI-modded playthroughs. 

There was another problem with DBS reporting zero output for solar panels when used together with Kopernicus/OPM, but that has recently been patched on the Kopernicus side so I'm happy to report that it looks like that part works again. For anyone seeing this issue, I recommend trying to update to the latest Kopernicus bleeding edge version.

[Wyzard]

I'm a little puzzled by the positioning of two of the NFE reactors in the (community) tech tree: the 2.5m MX-2S "Prometheus" reactor is in "Improved Nuclear Power", and the 1.25m MX-1 "Garnet" reactor is one step above it in "High-Energy Nuclear Power", alongside the 2.5m MX-2L "Excalibur".  It seems weird that the MX-2S is between the MX-0 and MX-1 in the tech progression, and also a little weird that the MX-2S is at a tech level below the MX-2L, when the 3.75m MX-3S and MX-3L are together in the same tech node.  But on the other hand, the MX-3S reactor's description mentions refurbishing "old MX-2S cores", which would seem weird if the MX-2S wasn't a tech level below it.

So, I can't tell whether there's a bug here, or if it's by design: maybe the idea is that a mediocre 2.5m reactor is the easiest thing to design first, and better tech allows for both smaller reactors (the MX-1) and more-efficient big reactors (the MX-2L)?

(Edit with a followup observation: the MX-1's thermal efficiency (ratio of power output to required cooling) is between that of the MX-0 and MX-2S.  Also, it's in the tech node called "High-Energy Nuclear Power", but its output is 20% of its tech predecessor the MX-2S.)

Edited November 1, 2020 by Wyzard

[darthgently]

Are there any plans in NFT to implement orbital mirrors to power PVs on the dark side all night long?  Just curious

[Nertea]

On 11/1/2020 at 10:17 AM, Grimmas said:

I have a few issues/thoughts about these mods (great mods btw, I routinely use nearly all NFT mods in my career games now, thanks for making them!)

Using latest version of KSP 1.10.1.2939 and latest version of all mods.

1) There is a compatibility problem with the MKS patch in Near Future Electrical. It drastically increases the cooling requirements for MKS reactors. For instance, the 625 reactor usually needs 200kw of cooling but when patched by NFE it needs 2000kw of cooling. I don't think this stealth nerf is intended behavior? NFE reactors with similar EC output still only require around 1/10th of that cooling. I looked at the MKS patch config in NFE but nothing really stood out, but then I'm not very familiar with the cooling model in KSP. If anyone knows a fix I would appreciate the info. For now I just disabled the patch itself. I could upload a log if needed.

2) Dynamic Battery Storage has poor compatibility with USI. For instance, it does not account for EC consumption of kerbals (USI-LS) or of habitats, recyclers, and converters like agroponics etc (MKS/USI-LS). This isn't really an "issue" per se but it unfortunately drastically reduces the utility of DBS in USI-modded playthroughs. 

There was another problem with DBS reporting zero output for solar panels when used together with Kopernicus/OPM, but that has recently been patched on the Kopernicus side so I'm happy to report that it looks like that part works again. For anyone seeing this issue, I recommend trying to update to the latest Kopernicus bleeding edge version.

1) I don't know a lot about MKS's parts, but looking at this patch I see a need for 100 kW of cooling, not 2000 kW. You might consider uploading the ModuleManager cache file to look at. 

2) DBS support depends on a collaboration of mod authors (unless it's really easy and I can hack it myself). If you want to see it, ask the developer to talk to me and we can work out the best way of adding support for things. 

On 11/1/2020 at 12:15 PM, Wyzard said:

I'm a little puzzled by the positioning of two of the NFE reactors in the (community) tech tree: the 2.5m MX-2S "Prometheus" reactor is in "Improved Nuclear Power", and the 1.25m MX-1 "Garnet" reactor is one step above it in "High-Energy Nuclear Power", alongside the 2.5m MX-2L "Excalibur".  It seems weird that the MX-2S is between the MX-0 and MX-1 in the tech progression, and also a little weird that the MX-2S is at a tech level below the MX-2L, when the 3.75m MX-3S and MX-3L are together in the same tech node.  But on the other hand, the MX-3S reactor's description mentions refurbishing "old MX-2S cores", which would seem weird if the MX-2S wasn't a tech level below it.

So, I can't tell whether there's a bug here, or if it's by design: maybe the idea is that a mediocre 2.5m reactor is the easiest thing to design first, and better tech allows for both smaller reactors (the MX-1) and more-efficient big reactors (the MX-2L)?

(Edit with a followup observation: the MX-1's thermal efficiency (ratio of power output to required cooling) is between that of the MX-0 and MX-2S.  Also, it's in the tech node called "High-Energy Nuclear Power", but its output is 20% of its tech predecessor the MX-2S.)

The MX-1 might be in the wrong place, but the 2S/2L separation is intentional due to the efficiency gains from the 2S to 2L.

 

On 11/1/2020 at 3:02 PM, darthgently said:

Are there any plans in NFT to implement orbital mirrors to power PVs on the dark side all night long?  Just curious

That's pretty specific and a bit out of scope. 

[darthgently]

2 hours ago, Nertea said:

That's pretty specific and a bit out of scope. 

Ok, so it must be Not Quite Near Future, but a little bit Further in the Future.  ha ha.  Orbital mirrors are also proposed for farms and such in pressurized greenhouses out where the sun is dimmer, and getting sunshine where it normally doesn't go or getting it more focused to do heavier work

[hemeac]

1 hour ago, darthgently said:

Ok, so it must be Not Quite Near Future, but a little bit Further in the Future.  ha ha.  Orbital mirrors are also proposed for farms and such in pressurized greenhouses out where the sun is dimmer, and getting sunshine where it normally doesn't go or getting it more focused to do heavier work

There is some work on a standalone beamed power plugin, that may fall closer to scope there?

https://spacedock.info/mod/2492/Beamed Power Plugin