Jump to content

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


Galileo
 Share

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, JebIsDeadBaby said:

Also I use 0.0834 version of Scatterer and just checked that Jool is green in my game (well, it's actually Uranus blue with visible atmospheric bands). So I'd say there is something more going on in your set-up. 

You are not using EVE Redux, are you? I just checked, deleting EVE and using the latest scatterer with JNSQ made Jool, well, it ain't blue or green exactly, but also not turquoise. Let's just say it made it colorful again. :D So I guess if you want to use eve, use scatterer 0.0772. And if you don't use Eve, use the latest scatterer? I dunno. It might just be a question of tweaking the settings properly. I just did a quick check with the "out of the box settings". I have it working in my regular game. This was just a quick test environment.

As for the other part: I just overlooked your edit. I've edited my previous post to reflect your edit. :confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, caipi said:

So I guess if you want to use eve, use scatterer 0.0772. And if you don't use Eve, use the latest scatterer? I dunno.

JNSQ is not updated for any scatterer versions 0.08+.  You should use scatterer 0.0772.*

* Unless the most recent version(s) of scatterer has been updated to be backwards compatible with older configs, but the last time I checked this wasn't the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/7/2022 at 1:00 PM, DeadJohn said:

Do you have a mass estimate for each class of JNSQ asteroid ? I tried it myself but I might be misunderstanding a cfg file or making dumb math errors.

I'm asking because I wanted to redirect an asteroid into Kerbin orbit. I found a class A asteroid in the tracking station. Class A is 9.5 tons maximum in stock, and I know that JNSQ asteroids are bigger, so I built a fairly large asteroid tug. When I actually reached the "small" asteroid, though, I was surprised to see it was 250 tons (that's class D in stock), too heavy to move without a much, much, much larger tug. I don't have ISRU unlocked yet.

Here's my attempt to estimate JNSQ asteroid mass. JNSQ's asteroids.cfg contains:

@density *= 3.3456 // Stock asteroids will have density of 1.0; Number taken from RSS

%maxRadiusMultiplier = 10.0 //Default is 1.25 so up to 4x larger than default

%minRadiusMultiplier = 2 //Default is 0.75 so this much --not as small--

Maximum radius increases from 1.25 to 10.0 which is 8x larger (I assume the "4x" comment in the code is old). Taking a worst case, if a JNSQ asteroid can have a radius 8x larger than stock, then the volume of the JNSQ version can be 8^3 = 512x larger than stock.

512 volume * 3.3456 density * 9.5 tons stock class A = up to 16,273 tons for JNSQ class A. Is that correct? If yes, yikes!!!!

@JadeOfMaar It's been suggested that you're the best person to comment on this. Are JNSQ asteroids supposed to be so massive?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@OhioBob @DeadJohn Actually yes, they're supposed to be so much bigger and heavier. The idea at the time was at least that a single asteroid should be much more attractive to build into and keep around for a long haul, and can only be movable if you havesufficiently better engines than stock. This is so that when you do capture one, it lasts much longer. Maybe making them as massive as in RSS wasn't the brightest idea, but you could say that not only does JNSQ actively try to defeat stock SSTO spaceplanes, it also actively tries to defeat stock potato farming and hopes for players to build fusion driven traveling asteroid stations.

As for having mass estimates: No. I don't, and I'm not inclined to put in the effort to manually extract it from playtesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@OhioBob@JadeOfMaar Here's a chart of JNSQ asteroid mass. It's calculated and not a statistical analysis of actual observed asteroids in JNSQ.

Class

Stock Min Mass

Stock Max Mass

JNSQ Min Mass

JNSQ Max Mass

A

 2.1

 9.5

 133.2

 16,273.0

B

 9.5

 42.5

 602.7

 72,800.3

C

 42.5

 190.6

 2,696.3

 326,487.7

D

 190.6

 854.0

 12,092.1

 1,462,856.9

E

 854.0

 3,828.0

 54,179.9

 6,557,161.9

(all masses are in tons)

Main Lesson Learned: JNSQ asteroid masses are less predictable than stock. Each stock class starts where the prior class ends. JNSQ has overlaps between classes because the maximum radius is scaled more than the minimum radius; a large class A is bigger than a small class D.

References:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, DeadJohn said:

Here's a chart of JNSQ asteroid mass. It's calculated and not a statistical analysis of actual observed asteroids in JNSQ.

Do you happen to know what the range of radii are?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, DeadJohn said:

No, but I'll research it and update the chart for stock and JNSQ radius.

The reason I'm asking is because I'd like asteroids in JNSQ to fall within a realistic range of densities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, DeadJohn said:

Here's a chart of JNSQ asteroid mass

that explain why I have D lighter than C. These are masses of asteroid I have captured 

A    Tiny              5,153t
B    Small            21,685t
C    Medium     251,060t
D    Large           179,966t
E    Huge             3,517,898t

 

 

1 hour ago, squeaker0704 said:

im tracking 130+ asteroids but no comets

Comets don't supported by Kopernicus 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, DeadJohn said:

Based on your estimated JNSQ masses and radii, the densities are really low -- about 200 kg/m3 or less.  For the masses given, the radii should probably be about 40% of the shown values for the densities to be realistic.

Given how much uncertainty there is in these numbers, it might not be worth changing anything.  After all, even if we did decrease radius to increase density (while leave mass unchanged), the asteroids wouldn't be any easier to move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, OhioBob said:

Based on your estimated JNSQ masses and radii, the densities are really low -- about 200 kg/m3 or less.  For the masses given, the radii should probably be about 40% of the shown values for the densities to be realistic.

Given how much uncertainty there is in these numbers, it might not be worth changing anything.  After all, even if we did decrease radius to increase density (while leave mass unchanged), the asteroids wouldn't be any easier to move.

(If the JNSQ team can't or doesn't want to make changes, or if I'm just being ignorant about how asteroids operate, let me know and I'll drop it.)

Maybe decrease JNSQ's maximum radius multiplier and increase the density multiplier? That might provide the more realistic densities you want while also improving playability. IMO playability factors include:

  • KSP starts to have glitches as asteroids grow in size. The mesh collider surface sinks below the visual surface. With large asteroids the klaw, drills, and more can be hidden far below the visual surface.
  • JNSQ increases asteroid sizes by a lot %maxRadiusMultiplier=10 and I think this increases the visual bugs.
  • That max multiplier isn't proportional to the %minRadiusMultiplier=2 setting, which introduces overlaps between classes. A big class A ends up more massive than a small class D. It feels too random.
  • There's currently a 120x mass difference from smallest to largest within every class. This makes mission planning too unpredictable: we can't guess how many engines will be needed to tow a given asteroid class.

I created a 2nd tab ("JNSQ test") of my spreadsheet as a sandbox for asteroid.cfg

  • @density = 33.00 //greatly increased from the current 3.3456 setting gives a density ~1200 kg/m^3.
  • %minRadiusMultiplier = 1.00 //smaller than what JNSQ currently uses (but bigger than stock) to offset the density increase; it keeps the smallest asteroid of each JNSQ class near its current mass.
  • %maxRadiusMultiplier = 1.67  //proportional to the min radius multiplier in order to prevent overlap between classes; class A will never be heavier than class B.
  • Mass for a given class becomes 78x stock. That's challenging but not excessive like the current 1712x stock at the upper end of every class.
  • Smallest to largest asteroid in a class gets a 4.5x mass range, similar to stock, not 120x.
  • Visually, asteroids will still be larger than stock, but smaller than what JNSQ currently uses for the largest asteroids. This will hopefully create fewer collider glitches.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DeadJohn said:

I created a 2nd tab ("JNSQ test") of my spreadsheet as a sandbox for asteroid.cfg

  • @density = 33.00 //greatly increased from the current 3.3456 setting gives a density ~1200 kg/m^3.
  • %minRadiusMultiplier = 1.00 //smaller than what JNSQ currently uses (but bigger than stock) to offset the density increase; it keeps the smallest asteroid of each JNSQ class near its current mass.
  • %maxRadiusMultiplier = 1.67  //proportional to the min radius multiplier in order to prevent overlap between classes; class A will never be heavier than class B.
  • Mass for a given class becomes 78x stock. That's challenging but not excessive like the current 1712x stock at the upper end of every class.
  • Smallest to largest asteroid in a class gets a 4.5x mass range, similar to stock, not 120x.
  • Visually, asteroids will still be larger than stock, but smaller than what JNSQ currently uses for the largest asteroids. This will hopefully create fewer collider glitches.

 

Hey @DeadJohn,

Thank you for this great idea, I will test it in my next JNSQ game. :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/30/2019 at 7:58 PM, Galileo said:
  • JNSQ provides at least 14 facilities powered by Kerbal Konstructs and requires Omega's Stockalike Stuctures. Most of these facilities have gameplay features within them for making use of spare kerbals, launching and refueling ships, farming funds or science, expanding DSN coverage, recovering for funds in career. Most of these facilities are hidden by default and must be found.
    • 9 of these are airports.
    • 2 of these directly replace the MH launch sites (Woomera2 for Woomerang, and Darude for Dessert).
    • 2 of these are mountain-top observatories with science farming and full DSN capabilities.

Hello,

Sorry for the maybe stupid question, but I'm new to "Kerbal Konstructs", but how exactly do I "unhidden" this new facilities?

And for testing purposes, is there a way to make them "unhidden" from the beginning?

 

_________

EDIT: Ups, sorry for the double post.

Edited by N3N
EDIT: Ups, sorry for the double post.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, N3N said:

Sorry for the maybe stupid question, but I'm new to "Kerbal Konstructs", but how exactly do I "unhidden" this new facilities?

And for testing purposes, is there a way to make them "unhidden" from the beginning?

Testing: While in a save hit <Esc>, Settings, Difficulty Options, Kerbal Konstructs. Turn on "Open Everything" under cheats on the right side.

To unlock the facilities normally you need to fly near them, land, click the KK button, and open the base. If you play career mode, I think the mod contract pack "GAP for JNSQ" has contracts that guide you through the process.

I'm rushed for time and hopefully someone else will give a better explanation or link to a video.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, DeadJohn said:

Testing: While in a save hit <Esc>, Settings, Difficulty Options, Kerbal Konstructs. Turn on "Open Everything" under cheats on the right side.

To unlock the facilities normally you need to fly near them, land, click the KK button, and open the base. If you play career mode, I think the mod contract pack "GAP for JNSQ" has contracts that guide you through the process.

I'm rushed for time and hopefully someone else will give a better explanation or link to a video.

Hey @DeadJohn

Thank you very much!!

 

Does the "open base" work in a science-only game, too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, N3N said:

Sorry for the maybe stupid question, but I'm new to "Kerbal Konstructs", but how exactly do I "unhidden" this new facilities?

With ScanSat, I scanned Kerbin for Anomalies and visited each Anomaly/Question Mark on the map. I believe this is the non-cheaty way to find the stations. I have only tried that in career, but I don't see why it shouldn't work in Science only either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, caipi said:

With ScanSat, I scanned Kerbin for Anomalies and visited each Anomaly/Question Mark on the map. I believe this is the non-cheaty way to find the stations. I have only tried that in career, but I don't see why it shouldn't work in Science only either.

Hey @caipi,

Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, DeadJohn said:

(If the JNSQ team can't or doesn't want to make changes, or if I'm just being ignorant about how asteroids operate, let me know and I'll drop it.)

<snip>

I was not aware of all the problems you outline, so thank you for explaining so clearly.  The changes you suggest look good to me.  I will likely implement them, though I don't know when an update will be released.  In the meantime, the following patch should work.
 

@PART:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleAsteroid]]:AFTER[JNSQ]
{
	@MODULE[ModuleAsteroid]
	{
		@density *= 9.8637	//JNSQ already multiplies by 3.3456, so together we have 3.3456 * 9.8637 = 33
		@maxRadiusMultiplier = 1.67
		@minRadiusMultiplier = 1
	}
}

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just noticed that the night sky while on the ground is pitch black when using scatterer and JSNQ. Is this intentional? I'm using Scatterer 0.0772.

I hadn't noticed it before, because I typically never launch anything at night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Kwebib said:

I just noticed that the night sky while on the ground is pitch black when using scatterer and JSNQ. Is this intentional? I'm using Scatterer 0.0772.

I hadn't noticed it before, because I typically never launch anything at night.

No, it is not intentional, nor is it normal.  Do you perhaps have Distant Object Enhancement installed?  It can pretty much blot out the stars depending on your settings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, OhioBob said:
@PART:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleAsteroid]]:AFTER[JNSQ]
{
	@MODULE[ModuleAsteroid]
	{
		@density *= 9.8637	//JNSQ already multiplies by 3.3456, so together we have 3.3456 * 9.8637 = 33
		@maxRadiusMultiplier = 1.67
		@minRadiusMultiplier = 1
	}
}

 

Hey @OhioBob,

Is it the same, if I just edit the "Asteroids.cfg"-file to have this in it: (at least until the next update)

@PART:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleAsteroid]]:FOR[JNSQ]
{
	@MODULE[ModuleAsteroid]
	{
		@density *= 33.00  // Stock asteroids will have density of 1.0;
		%maxRadiusMultiplier = 1.67  //Default is 1.25
		%minRadiusMultiplier = 1.00  //Default is 0.75 so this much --not as small--
	}
}

Or is it generally better to just use the MM-Patch you wrote, but to don't forget to delete it on the next update?

Edited by N3N
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...