Jump to content

[1.12.1] JNSQ [0.10.0] [23 Sept 2021]


Galileo
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 12/1/2021 at 2:30 AM, RocketRyleigh said:

So I'd definitely still like to know about how to set up RemoteTech with JNSQ to give the intended balance, but it's not compatible with Kerbalism for now.

What is not compatible with Kerbalism - RemoteTech or JNSQ?  If you are referring to JNSQ, that's not true.  JNSQ is compatible with Kerbalism.  You may well be right about RemoteTech's compatibility, however.  I wouldn't know about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/4/2021 at 9:20 PM, Coldrifting said:

If anyone is interested, I've created some custom configs for JNSQ that work with the latest version of scatterer.  I've tried to keep things similar to the default, but some things might be a little different. I've noticed that the main difference is that you no longer scale atmospheres by the experimental atmosphere scale, instead, atmosphere color and thickness is controlled by the betaR values, instead of pre-generated half files.

Here's the download link for anyone interested.

I've tried this on my main JNSQ install and while some of the atmospheres seem to work better, I still see the black Jool and Lindor, as well as an apparently unlit Eve and Huygen (not sure if the clouds are there? I suspect not.) This is with KSP 1.12.2, the latest JNSQ, Scatterer, and EVE-redux.

Here are some images: https://imgur.com/a/NnhCKDQ

Here's my log, in case it helps. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WnF-CAn6O7uHMOjmduTmchHCCE-zXvbA/view?usp=sharing

Edited by RyanRising
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Same result for me with Scatterer/JNSQ/provided configs. Eve doesn't look completely black now, but like it's barely lit and the colour isn't really apparent. Would I maybe be better off dropping Scatterer until I guess JNSQ updates that on it's end?

12 hours ago, OhioBob said:

What is not compatible with Kerbalism - RemoteTech or JNSQ?

https://github.com/Kerbalism/Kerbalism/wiki/Home-~-Mod-Support

RemoteTech 1.9.5 Supported Note : not yet, support will be back in 4.0 Code integration with the science data system, reliability configs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, RocketRyleigh said:

Same result for me with Scatterer/JNSQ/provided configs. Eve doesn't look completely black now, but like it's barely lit and the colour isn't really apparent. Would I maybe be better off dropping Scatterer until I guess JNSQ updates that on it's end?

https://github.com/Kerbalism/Kerbalism/wiki/Home-~-Mod-Support

RemoteTech 1.9.5 Supported Note : not yet, support will be back in 4.0 Code integration with the science data system, reliability configs.

You could always just use an older version of scatterer, that works alright for the time being.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, RyanRising said:

You could always just use an older version of scatterer, that works alright for the time being.

Dunno why I didn't think of that lol, thank you! I'll just try the last release.

Edit: Bingo, thanks! I'll keep my eyes open for both JNSQ and Scatterer's next updates, but Scatterer 0.0772 works fine.

12 hours ago, Spaceman.Spiff said:

If you want more realistic antennas that work with Kerbalism, RealAntennas is the mod for you. 

Thank you as well btw, I'll check that out!
Edit: I am noticing it's not listed on Kerbalism's mod compatibility page, RealAntennas that is. As is I can probably get by - JX2 (which is recommended by JNSQ) is listed as supported by Kerblism.

Edited by RocketRyleigh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just started with JSNQ and I'm absolutely loving it so far. I actually need those big engines, tanks and multistage rockets now.

One Problem I have however is with some of the command Pods from Near Future. Specifically the ones with landing engines and/or RCS skirts (Mk 1 Nereid, Mk 3 Thetys and Mk3B Pandora). Parts of the pods are broader than the heat shield and I have been unable to perform a safe reentry with any of them even from LKO (much less from the Mun or Minmus). For now I'm sticking to pods that fit entirely behind their heat shield.

I would be grateful for tips on how to make them work. I usually aim for a reentry Pe of around 35-40 km to prevent my Crew from blacking out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Coldrifting said:

Sorry about the black cloud issue, I forgot to include a file with my configs. I've updated the zip file, so the configs should work now, with the same link as before.

Thanks a bunch! It works now - some planets are still a little weird, but it's by no means unplayable now.

Spoiler

Example: Lindor - works now, but the terminator has this weird linear blue feature. Not the eclipse shadow, that's working perfectly and is beautiful.

zNv9am1.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/9/2021 at 12:12 PM, flart said:

At some point, I made scaled versions of the inflatable heat shield for every size :)

That's actually a great idea. I have not used the inflatable heat shield so far and totally forgotten about it... I even have tweakscale so resizing it for the capsule I use is just a few mouse clicks in the VAB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have some weird things with shadows since KSP 1.12.x and don`t know if it is JNSQ or Kopernicus or Scatterer or....
But here are some pics from Mun:

oX8DWJ1.png

t1J9pD2.png

n2aQgZQ.png

And here from parts:

oQ73nQb.png

The shadows disappear if I zoom out. Does someone else have this?

KSP: 1.12.2
JNSQ: 0.10.0
Kopernicus: 1.12.1.59 (RTB Stable Branch)
Scatterer: 0.0722

Edited by Cheesecake
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Cheesecake said:

I have some weird things with shadows since KSP 1.12.x and don`t know if it is JNSQ or Kopernicus or Scatterer or....
But here are some pics from Mun:

oX8DWJ1.png

t1J9pD2.png

n2aQgZQ.png

And here from parts:

oQ73nQb.png

The shadows disappear if I zoom out. Does someone else have this?

KSP: 1.12.2
JNSQ: 0.10.0
Kopernicus: 1.12.1.59 (RTB Stable Branch)
Scatterer: 0.0722

Do you have TUFX or KS3P installed? If so, try disabling Ambient Occlusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hello. Sorry to bother you guys, I just have a quick question about JNSQ's licensing, and how it would affect a project I'm currently considering working on. Long story short, I'm looking into trying to create a set of configs for my personal use which would reassemble the stock planets, alongside those from JNSQ, OPM, MPE and maybe GPP, into a semi-copy of the irl solar system, with various planets from each mod being used as drop-ins (ex. Kerbin acts as Earth, Neidon acts as Neptune, Huygen acts as Titan, Hephaestus acts as Miranda, etc). I just wanted to check and see if this is something that would violate the licenses of JNSQ, and by extension GPP as well (I believe they are the same), in the case that I wanted to eventually release the configs as well. From what I could understand, one isn't allowed to make any derivatives of those mods, but I am not sure if what I am proposing would count as one, as I'm not actively modifying the mod's code or files, but rather, using my own separate set of configs to modify stuff after the fact, not unlike how some planet packs have support patches which modify other planets to keep them compatible. Would one of the developers be able to clarify whether this would be legal or not? 

Edited by CessnaSkyhawk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 12/25/2021 at 12:14 PM, CessnaSkyhawk said:

Hello. Sorry to bother you guys, I just have a quick question about JNSQ's licensing, and how it would affect a project I'm currently considering working on. Long story short, I'm looking into trying to create a set of configs for my personal use which would reassemble the stock planets, alongside those from JNSQ, OPM, MPE and maybe GPP, into a semi-copy of the irl solar system, with various planets from each mod being used as drop-ins (ex. Kerbin acts as Earth, Neidon acts as Neptune, Huygen acts as Titan, Hephaestus acts as Miranda, etc). I just wanted to check and see if this is something that would violate the licenses of JNSQ, and by extension GPP as well (I believe they are the same), in the case that I wanted to eventually release the configs as well. From what I could understand, one isn't allowed to make any derivatives of those mods, but I am not sure if what I am proposing would count as one, as I'm not actively modifying the mod's code or files, but rather, using my own separate set of configs to modify stuff after the fact, not unlike how some planet packs have support patches which modify other planets to keep them compatible. Would one of the developers be able to clarify whether this would be legal or not? 

 

On 12/25/2021 at 5:02 PM, Cheesecake said:

@CessnaSkyhawkIf you only use it for personal use you can do this without any permission. You only not allowed to upload it for other people without the permission of the modder.

I’m just following up on this as the answer Cheesecake gave didn’t answer my question - is anything that affects the planet pack, such as the patch I explained above, against the license, or is it just actively using or modifying the code and distributing it? At least how I understand it, if the former is true, then technically wouldn’t things such as using kopernicus patches to modify the science values in JNSQ to fit the balance for the Skyhawk Science System also violate the license as they r changing things about the end result?

Edited by CessnaSkyhawk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, CessnaSkyhawk said:

 

I’m just following up on this as the answer Cheesecake gave didn’t answer my question - is anything that affects the planet pack, such as the patch I explained above, against the license, or is it just actively using or modifying the code and distributing it? At least how I understand it, if the former is true, then technically wouldn’t things such as using kopernicus patches to modify the science values in JNSQ to fit the balance for the Skyhawk Science System also violate the license as they r changing things about the end result?

What you're talking about sounds an awful lot like compatibility patches. Your question is probably better served by an IP lawyer (which I am not), but compatibility patches are made all the time without drawing the ire of most of the mod makers. The JNSQ team would be the final arbiter of what is and isn't appropriate for the license as they see it, but generally, where the line would be is - are you writing a MM patch which is modifying values set in JNSQ files? You're probably (almost certainly) ok. Are you instead copying an entire config file and changing the values therein, and then publishing that with instructions to the user on how to copy and overwrite the file in JNSQ? That would be a violation of the derivative works clause, because you took a file, copied it wholesale, and then distributed it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, panarchist said:

What you're talking about sounds an awful lot like compatibility patches. Your question is probably better served by an IP lawyer (which I am not), but compatibility patches are made all the time without drawing the ire of most of the mod makers. The JNSQ team would be the final arbiter of what is and isn't appropriate for the license as they see it, but generally, where the line would be is - are you writing a MM patch which is modifying values set in JNSQ files? You're probably (almost certainly) ok. Are you instead copying an entire config file and changing the values therein, and then publishing that with instructions to the user on how to copy and overwrite the file in JNSQ? That would be a violation of the derivative works clause, because you took a file, copied it wholesale, and then distributed it.

Alright. In that case I think I’m probably fine. Thanks for the clarification. I still plan on checking with the devs when I’m finished if I do want to consider sharing it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@CessnaSkyhawk, as I understand it, you're proposing distributing configs that alters JNSQ after the fact without actually changing JNSQ directly and redistributing it.  In other words, players would download and install JNSQ intact as it currently exists from the Team Galileo JNSQ GitHub.  They would then download and install your configs, which would make changes to JNSQ but without redistributing any of JNSQ's original components.  If that is correct, then I see no problem with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Altering variables' values can not be an issue regarding licensing. ~[snip]~
If anybody ever would disallow other people using patches on top of their configs this would just be *bruh* and *facepalm* and nothing else.
Then the whole purpose of ModuleManager and the modding API would be in question.

Edited by Starhawk
Redacted by moderator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, OhioBob said:

@CessnaSkyhawk, as I understand it, you're proposing distributing configs that alters JNSQ after the fact without actually changing JNSQ directly and redistributing it.  In other words, players would download and install JNSQ intact as it currently exists from the Team Galileo JNSQ GitHub.  They would then download and install your configs, which would make changes to JNSQ but without redistributing any of JNSQ's original components.  If that is correct, then I see no problem with that.

Yes that’s exactly how I’m planning it would work. Thanks for the clarification. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was wondering if anybody is working on configs for the newest version of scatterer. Right now the Jool and Lindor are pitch black and you an try different versions of scatterer which fix it but then other planets don't look as good as with other combinations of the mods.  I apologize, I wish i had the technical know how to work on it myself. Thank you all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Big Katz said:

Was wondering if anybody is working on configs for the newest version of scatterer.

Nothing official at the moment, though @Coldrifting has release his version of updated JNSQ scatterer configs, which you might try.  I haven't used them, however, so I can't vouch for them.

 

Quote

Right now the Jool and Lindor are pitch black and you an try different versions of scatterer which fix it but then other planets don't look as good as with other combinations of the mods. 

JNSQ is designed to work with scatterer v0.0772.  I don't recommend any other version.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I use JNSQ, JNSQ 10x, GPP, GPP 10x and GPP secondary with scatterer 0.0828 without issues - at least when tabbing through all celestial bodies in the Tracking Station I don't see anything weird.

Is it different when "really" being in orbit of those affected celestial bodies?

Edited by Gordon Dry
Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...