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

[OhioBob]

@Nori, as TranceaddicT pointed out, there is definitely a discrepancy between what KER is telling you and what KSP is telling you, 5717 m/s vs. 4464 m/s.  Perhaps KER is reporting bad data, which could explain why you're finding it so difficult to attain orbit.  If you really have 5717 m/s you should make orbit easily.  The 4900 m/s in the delta-v map is definitely achievable.

18 minutes ago, TranceaddicT said:

I think Saturn was closer to 2.

The real life Saturn V had a very low launch TWR, <1.2.

[TranceaddicT]

Just now, OhioBob said:

@Nori, as TranceaddicT pointed out, there is definitely a discrepancy between what KER is telling you and what KSP is telling you, 5717 m/s vs. 4464 m/s.  Perhaps KER is reporting bad data, which could explain why you're finding it so difficult to attain orbit.  If you really have 5717 m/s you should make orbit easily.  The 4900 m/s in the delta-v map is definitely achievable.

The real life Saturn V had a very low launch TWR, <1.2.

Oh, okay,  my bad.  Just pulling numbers from wiki and headmath on that one

[Nori]

Huh, now that you point that out. Even in vacuum KSP is showing 5k dv whereas KER is showing 6.5k. That's a pretty huge difference. I wonder why it's so off. Though, in a weird way it makes me feel better. I'm not going crazy... 

Now that I think about it, I've been running into this this whole save. Trying to do escape trajectory contracts and I need 1500 more dv than I thought I'd need.

Thanks for the responses and the help! I'm guessing the in flight HUD dv for KER is wrong too which explains some oddities.

Edited August 31, 2020 by Nori

[TranceaddicT]

13 hours ago, Nori said:

Huh, now that you point that out. Even in vacuum KSP is showing 5k dv whereas KER is showing 6.5k. That's a pretty huge difference. I wonder why it's so off. 

Suggestion: take the time to remove KER completely. If you use CKAN, uninstall it there AND manually check your install for strays - searchibg for KER specific files.

Then, start a new game (new name) in sandbox. (I keep one of these for the "what am I doing wrong cases.)  Make a VERY simple purpose-built craft - achieve orbit - and validate the numbers.  A modified Acapella could be a good test subject.

Then, install KER again. Rinse and repeat. Change nothing. See what KER reports number-wise.

[Morphisor]

14 hours ago, Nori said:

Huh, now that you point that out. Even in vacuum KSP is showing 5k dv whereas KER is showing 6.5k. That's a pretty huge difference. I wonder why it's so off. Though, in a weird way it makes me feel better. I'm not going crazy... 

Now that I think about it, I've been running into this this whole save. Trying to do escape trajectory contracts and I need 1500 more dv than I thought I'd need.

Thanks for the responses and the help! I'm guessing the in flight HUD dv for KER is wrong too which explains some oddities.

A very common reason for faulty KER dV readouts is having the root part be somewhere else than the final stage. This throws it off, invariably resulting in KER reporting higher dV than you actually have. I should know, I still make this mistake sometimes.

[Nori]

On 8/31/2020 at 1:44 PM, Morphisor said:

A very common reason for faulty KER dV readouts is having the root part be somewhere else than the final stage. This throws it off, invariably resulting in KER reporting higher dV than you actually have. I should know, I still make this mistake sometimes.

I was hoping this was the issue, but I checked two rockets and made sure the root was very near the top and they both show very off numbers. It seems to have something to do with the SRBs, it oddly gives them a extra 1k dv in the case of two rockets. Oh well, at least I know now.

[R-T-B]

On 8/28/2020 at 5:18 AM, alberro+ said:

I believe this happens when you leave Kerbin's sphere of influence. Some other planet packs also have this issue.

FWIW I think the latest bleeding edge finally fixed this bug, needs testing though.  It's the first real time I've been able to play longterm without it at any rate.

@OrbitalManeuvers

Edited September 3, 2020 by R-T-B

[OrbitalManeuvers]

7 hours ago, R-T-B said:

FWIW I think the latest bleeding edge finally fixed this bug, needs testing though.  It's the first real time I've been able to play longterm without it at any rate.

@OrbitalManeuvers

Hey! Good to see you up and running again. I've just worked out a pretty solid 1.10.1 install, so I'm at a good place to drop in a planet pack and check out your build, so I'll do that tonight. Thanks!

[R-T-B]

5 hours ago, OrbitalManeuvers said:

Hey! Good to see you up and running again. I've just worked out a pretty solid 1.10.1 install, so I'm at a good place to drop in a planet pack and check out your build, so I'll do that tonight. Thanks!

Believe me, I'm glad to be back too.

[infinite_monkey]

Why does Mun look so small from Kerbin? I know that it's too big/close in stock KSP, but shouldn't it be comparable to our real Moon?

[OhioBob]

47 minutes ago, infinite_monkey said:

Why does Mun look so small from Kerbin? I know that it's too big/close in stock KSP, but shouldn't it be comparable to our real Moon?

The angular size of Mun in JNSQ as seen from Kerbin is just about the same angular size as our real life moon as seen from Earth.  I think you'd be surprised how small our real moon really is.  From arm's length, the apparent size of the moon is only about half the width of the tip of your little finger.

 

[davidy12]

Does this even roughly work in 1.10.X yet?

[TranceaddicT]

2 hours ago, OhioBob said:

From arm's length, the apparent size of the moon is only about half the width of the tip of your little finger.

This.

Our moon differs by 14% from apogee to perigee.

[JadeOfMaar]

48 minutes ago, davidy12 said:

Does this even roughly work in 1.10.X yet?

That's for you to find out. Kopernicus is not officially released for 1.10 so anyone playing on it should be doing so primarily for finding bugs or confirming fixes. The most obvious thing holding things back is the new gas planet shader. Until that's dealt with, all gas planets turn into Jool.

[Ravlain]

I love this pack, but I find the Strategia Private Industry strategy is definitely overpowered, especially with the number of DMagic multi-part contracts.

Is there any way I could patch the contract setup to do one of these?

1) Pay out science only on contract completion, not for every stage.

or

2) Reduce the science rewards to a lower value (around 25% of the current payout)

Thanks

[R-T-B]

8 hours ago, JadeOfMaar said:

Until that's dealt with, all gas planets turn into Jool.

This is not the case anymore with my bleeding edge builds and hasn't been for some time, just FYI.

I'm playing JNSQ on bleeding edge personally now.  It's been mostly bug free, but no promises.  I at least manage.  I think I fixed the "farm patch" bug too.

Bleeding edge is NOT release grade but it seems good enough right now for JNSQ.

Edited September 6, 2020 by R-T-B

[theJesuit]

21 minutes ago, R-T-B said:

This is not the case anymore with my bleeding edge builds and hasn't been for some time, just FYI.

I'm playing JNSQ on bleeding edge personally now.  It's been mostly bug free, but no promises.  I at least manage.  I think I fixed the "farm patch" bug too.

Bleeding edge is NOT release grade but it seems good enough right now for JNSQ.

Sounds like i might give it a go myself tomorrow.

Peace.

[TranceaddicT]

5 hours ago, theJesuit said:

Sounds like i might give it a go myself tomorrow.

Peace.

Do so.  Even if just to take a look at everything. When I first got this (back on RC13(?)) the first thing I did was start a sandbox game and took a tour of the system.  It is a spectacular mod. 

14 hours ago, JadeOfMaar said:

he most obvious thing holding things back is the new gas planet shader. Until that's dealt with, all gas planets turn into Jool.

The gas giants were definitely NOT Jool-ish in any way.

[infinite_monkey]

On 7/31/2020 at 2:18 AM, Brigadier said:

KSP 1.8.1, JNSQ 0.90, GEP 1.2.1

I'm having some problems with CKAN constantly reporting that the JNSQ metadata has changed and seeking to update it.  I do so but the advisories persist.  I was advised by @HebaruSanto consider reinstalling JNSQ in an existing save.

I'm having the same problem on 1.9.1. Have you found a solution?

[Brigadier]

57 minutes ago, infinite_monkey said:

I'm having the same problem on 1.9.1. Have you found a solution?

No.  No answer was forthcoming here as to whether removing and reinstalling would/could/might break the save some way, so I haven't been brave enough to try on my main install.  Doing it on a new install misses the point.  I've just lived with it until I go to 1.10.1.

I haven't tried copying the JNSQ install, opening CKAN on it to see if the problem is replicated and then attempting a JNSQ remove/reinstall.  Might give it go shortly.

Edited September 6, 2020 by Brigadier
More info

[JadeOfMaar]

5 hours ago, Brigadier said:

No.  No answer was forthcoming here as to whether removing and reinstalling would/could/might break the save some way, so I haven't been brave enough to try on my main install.  Doing it on a new install misses the point.  I've just lived with it until I go to 1.10.1.

It's safe to uninstall and reinstall in your main game. As long as, in the end, all of JNSQ's planets and moons are still there, you have no problems. There is only a threat if you add or subtract planets mid-game. Contract progression breaks then. And if you have ships landed on, or otherwise in the SOI of planets that no longer exist, well... bye bye to them, I'm sure.

Edited September 7, 2020 by JadeOfMaar

[Brigadier]

19 hours ago, JadeOfMaar said:

It's safe to uninstall and reinstall in your main game. As long as, in the end, all of JNSQ's planets and moons are still there, you have no problems. There is only a threat if you add or subtract planets mid-game. Contract progression breaks then. And if you have ships landed on, or otherwise in the SOI of planets that no longer exist, well... bye bye to them, I'm sure.

Wonderful, thanks @JadeOfMaar,  I feel much better about attempting this process now (I know, I know - back up the game before trying this at home ).

Edit 1:  I can confirm that removing and reinstalling JNSQ mid-game didn't break my install (YMMV - remember to backup before trying this at home).  I won't know until the next CKAN cycle if the weird CKAN metadata warning problem is resolved.

Edit 2:  Apparently, no, it did not fix the problem but I now I get a "Error in auto-update.  The remote server returned an error: (403 Forbidden)" error although I suspect this is probably a problem with one of the download sites, not my install.

Edited September 7, 2020 by Brigadier
New info

[TranceaddicT]

@theJesuit @Galileo 

On 8/24/2020 at 12:41 AM, theJesuit said:

Where did you find that?

I did some digging about this QuickHullConvexHullLib thingy and it seems to be related to MeshCollider.convex == true .  When NVidia draws the mesh vertices it is complaining because the planar deviation it wants is less than the detectable tolerance; hence "appears."

[Pioneer_Steve]

Did a Lovely Jool mission with a Shuttle + Centaur G Combo. Jool + Laythe are gorgeous.

[CDSlice]

@Pioneer_Steve those screenshots are gorgeous! What visual mods are you running?