Galileo

[1.7.x] JNSQ [0.7] [17 June 2019]

Recommended Posts

I just got this loaded and have two questions.

1. Does EVE work in JNSQ, and if so, what version and actions need to be taken?

2. Regarding Nara: the info page in the tracking station says it has an atmosphere of 45 Atm. Is it really that thick, or am I seeing something wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
42 minutes ago, PhoenixRise86 said:

I just got this loaded and have two questions.

1. Does EVE work in JNSQ, and if so, what version and actions need to be taken?

2. Regarding Nara: the info page in the tracking station says it has an atmosphere of 45 Atm. Is it really that thick, or am I seeing something wrong?

In the OP there is a section regarding “provided compatibility”. Anything on that list JNSQ has built in compatibility and just needs you to install that mod to activate it. 

And yes, Nara has an atmo of 45 atm :) 

Edited by Galileo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just realized that in spite of playing this since it was officially released and really loving it, I've not yet posted here. I don't think I'm actually in your exact target range here:

On 5/30/2019 at 1:58 PM, Galileo said:

The target audience for JNSQ is the same as, if not narrower, than that of GPP. This mod is made not for the player-base at large, but for seasoned players: who greatly respect rocketry, realism and physics; who do not hold much regard for maintaining "stockalike" and "stock scale;" who are willing and able to mod their way to a great or greater game and who are able to troubleshoot a damaged install for themselves and help us to help them.

Sure I'm seasoned. Heck by now I'm marinated :) I however do like stockalike and tend to avoid anything that changes the core gameplay of launch rocket, crash rocket, repeat until you don't crash rocket, without having to worry about pesky little things like life support, ullage, boil off, or any of those other things that realism purists say are required to fully enjoy the game.

I've just landed on Mun. I've not yet gotten to Minmus. I'm having a great time and am looking forward to the rest. Just like I did in GPP. :)

Anyway, thank you for the pack. it's just what this old dog needed to try a few new tricks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Potential issue with ResearchBodies - I'm still on .5, but it looks like ResearchBodies contracts won't appear due to the criteria for bodies in range of the telescope being unmet. I'm trying to increase the scope's range with MM but it's not taking for some reason, so I haven't confirmed that fixes it. I'll try editing it directly.

Edited by curiousepic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, 5thHorseman said:

I just realized that in spite of playing this since it was officially released and really loving it, I've not yet posted here. I don't think I'm actually in your exact target range here:

Sure I'm seasoned. Heck by now I'm marinated :) I however do like stockalike and tend to avoid anything that changes the core gameplay of launch rocket, crash rocket, repeat until you don't crash rocket, without having to worry about pesky little things like life support, ullage, boil off, or any of those other things that realism purists say are required to fully enjoy the game.

I've just landed on Mun. I've not yet gotten to Minmus. I'm having a great time and am looking forward to the rest. Just like I did in GPP. :)

Anyway, thank you for the pack. it's just what this old dog needed to try a few new tricks. 

Same. I'm enjoying JNSQ and while I am well on my way to being a marinated player that is fascinated by rocketry and physics, I am also a User Experience designer that knows that pure realism != a good experience (try removing time warp). I don't get a boner from properly named fuels, I get a boner from a nice challenge, a nice view, or just funny little things like kerbals repeatedly planting their face into the ground. That bit you quoted from the OP comes across as elitist but that's probably just the designer's trying to say "look, this ain't easy mode". Considering Minmus's current orbit it's clear to me that artistic freedom and gameplay is still very much alive and important to these guys besides literal 'realism' :).

Note: Nobody ever uses the word "realism" to mean actual "realism". What they mean is "believable". A round planet would have been is unrealistic(=unbelievable) to some people, and a very realistic sunflare would seem unrealistic(=unbelievable) to others. Nothing is based on objective reality, it's all based on subjective reality: That which fits current beliefs. Just my 2 cents from what I've learned over time with regards to people wanting something to be 'realistic'.

Edited by Jognt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Jognt said:

That bit you quoted from the OP comes across as elitist but that's probably just the designer's trying to say "look, this ain't easy mode".

I think there's always been a thread of elitism among the KSP player base. And that's not really a bad thing. Sure, if you're snotty about it you're just being unpleasant, but I think the mentality that "kid, stock KSP is just a toy, try launching a real rocket sometime" is kind of a good thing for the game and the players.

Some of the very early decisions made about the game, like the scale of the planets, I think were made with good intentions but created unforeseen consequences. Like for instance, making Kerbin so small made liftoff "easier" (in the sense that it requires a smaller rocket) but it ended up making rendezvous and docking much harder because at orbital altitudes tidal forces around Kerbin are amazing. It's extremely difficult to maneuver two spacecraft near each other because the steep gravitational gradient is always pulling them apart or pushing them together. Bigger planets make getting to orbit "harder" (in the sense that you generally can't just burn like a crazy person and get to orbit three minutes later) but once you're there, everything else actually gets easier.

I think it's that stripe of elitism among KSP players that pushes the envelope and makes people go "Hang on a minute, that's actually a really good point. Why should the game be like such-and-so when that's so different from real life?"

5 minutes ago, Jognt said:

Note: Nobody ever uses the word "realism" to mean actual "realism". What they mean is "believable".

Ah, one of my favorite words: "verisimilitude."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Iso-Polaris said:

Do you have an issue when you use dx11, the re-entry flare disappear at a certain distance?

How do you resolve it?

I spend much more time in Notepad++ and on these forums than I do actually playing KSP so honestly I can't tell you. :D

I remember reading about this also happening in vanilla Dx9 though so you could always check that.
Until then I'd say "Don't zoom out beyond that certain distance?" &)

16 minutes ago, jefferyharrell said:

Ah, one of my favorite words: "verisimilitude."

I am so remembering that one for scrabble..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jognt said:

Nobody ever uses the word "realism" to mean actual "realism". What they mean is "believable".

Oh the contrary, I have come across some players who take "realism" far too literally.  I've gotten to the point were I almost avoid using the word, or at least qualify it, so I don't have to defend myself against those who would pick every little detail apart looking for something to criticize.  I always try to walk a path between the extremes of ultra realism and pure fantasy.  For JNSQ we went a bit more toward realism, but at the same time we tried not to lose sight of the fact that KSP is just a game.  (It's hard to take realism too seriously when you're playing a game in which the main characters are these dopey little green guys.)  We ran most of our decisions through a realism filter to see what would pass and what wouldn't.  We rejected things that were clearly unrealistic, but often "sorta realistic" was good enough.  Almost all of the changes you see between stock KSP and JNSQ are things we needed to fix to pass the realism test.  But not everything was changed; some borderline things were retained if they were a defining characteristic of a particular celestial body.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I promised I'd report back. This morning I installed the Github master branch on 1.7.1 with both expansions. With all the visual mods, all graphics settings set to their maximums, terrain scatters on, density at the default setting, I'm now seeing on the order of 40+ frames per second sitting on the launchpad, where with JNSQ 0.65 I was seeing FPS in the teens. So good job on the changes.

Edited by jefferyharrell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, i have a MILE of mods installed so, this is less a bug report than a "can anyone confirm"

 

Duna - SEVERE fps drop when inside its atmosphere, from about 15k altitude and down?

Eve - weird center of gravity, ships stop responding to orienting with rcs etc, when nearing the surface, less than 10k alt? This one makes more sense given the planet's nature

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jognt said:

Don't zoom out beyond that certain distance

That "certain distance" in dx11 is much mulch much much closer, compare to that in dx9.

I almost have to zoom the ship to my face to make the flare shows up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, Lucius said:

Duna - SEVERE fps drop when inside its atmosphere, from about 15k altitude and down?

Do you have terrain scatters on? We've been informed that there's a known performance issue at low altitudes with terrain scatters on, and it's being worked on. If you want to test it out, you can do what I did and go to Github, download the master branch ZIP file and move the contents of the enclosed GameData folder into your GameData folder, obviously having backed up everything first. Doing this roughly doubled my FPS at low altitude, but only on Kerbin, as I haven't gone interplanetary in JNSQ yet.

Incidentally, have you guys seen the sunset right after you start a new game?

8pvHiId.png

Edited by jefferyharrell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, jefferyharrell said:

That being said, I've been using D3D11 exclusively for some time now and haven't encountered any problems that I think aren't also present when you use D3D9.

I can confirm that the re-entry flare disappearing issue is exclusive on dx11 ,even with clean stock install. This issue does not present on dx9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, OhioBob said:

Oh the contrary, I have come across some players who take "realism" far too literally. 

Part of my point was that even those guys mean 'believable' as anything that they do not think is possible is still rejected even though it can be 100% based in solid science. If they're then explained why it is realistic they will probably adjust their beliefs and embrace it, but still their opinion is based upon what they believe at the moment itself is realistic.

Though I admit that this goes into "what is a word?" territory where an autistic literal definition of a word like "realistic" may be confused with the use of the word in common speech. :D

Example: When I first saw RealPlume's vacuum plumes my first thought was "Huh? That's not very realistic.." - Until I saw actual (SpaceX) footage and realized "Huh.. well this is real so it must be realistic.." at which point those plumes were suddenly awesome to me.
It's true for anyone and everyone, that's the beauty of it. :)

59 minutes ago, OhioBob said:

(It's hard to take realism too seriously when you're playing a game in which the main characters are these dopey little green guys.) 

:D very true :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Iso-Polaris said:

I can confirm that the re-entry flare disappearing issue is exclusive on dx11 ,even with clean stock install. This issue does not present on dx9

 ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ it’s one of those little things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just installed this! First time I have seen it!! Had my first failure to reach orbit!! AWESOME!!

Game on :)

Well first failure to reach orbit with this mod... I have failed before lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
58 minutes ago, Lucius said:

Eve - weird center of gravity, ships stop responding to orienting with rcs etc, when nearing the surface, less than 10k alt? This one makes more sense given the planet's nature

I'm not sure I fully understand the problem, but there's nothing about Eve that should cause it to be any different than any other planet.  Are you sure the problem wasn't caused by something else, like NavBall mode changing or loss of signal?

 

Edited by OhioBob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, OhioBob said:

I'm not sure I fully understand the problem, but there's nothing about Eve that should cause it to be any different than any other planet.  Are you sure the problem wasn't caused by something else, like NavBall mode changing or loss of signal?

 

It definitely could have been a great many things - i had g forces cause some kerbals to go unconcious and then come back while landing. 

The problem itself was - i told a level 2 pilot to point retrograde, had an RCS full of propellant and a gimballing engine going as well, and they would lock 5 to 10 degrees AWAY from retrograde. If i cheat-warped them back into orbit, they obeyed all my commands perfectly, but then sure as sugar, when they were under a certain altitude they would get all wonky again. As i said before tho, there are quite a few mods going here so, its more than likely a mod conflict rather than anything on your end, just wanted to see if anyone else had experienced it!

55 minutes ago, jefferyharrell said:

Do you have terrain scatters on? We've been informed that there's a known performance issue at low altitudes with terrain scatters on, and it's being worked on. If you want to test it out, you can do what I did and go to Github, download the master branch ZIP file and move the contents of the enclosed GameData folder into your GameData folder, obviously having backed up everything first. Doing this roughly doubled my FPS at low altitude, but only on Kerbin, as I haven't gone interplanetary in JNSQ yet.

 

Interesting, going to try that.

I WILL say, i have no problem with terrain scatters on any other surface so far, just Duna. Which, btw, has a WONDERFUL ground texture as you get close, looks just absolutely amazing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Lucius said:

The problem itself was - i told a level 2 pilot to point retrograde, had an RCS full of propellant and a gimballing engine going as well, and they would lock 5 to 10 degrees AWAY from retrograde. If i cheat-warped them back into orbit, they obeyed all my commands perfectly, but then sure as sugar, when they were under a certain altitude they would get all wonky again.

By "cheat-warped", do you mean HyperEdit?  If so, what you're describing is behavior I've seen from using HyperEdit's orbit editor to jump to a different celestial body for many, many years.  Use a sandbox and actually fly the ship to Eve and see if the problem still exists.  Even if you're using something other than HyperEdit, I'd still suspect that this might be the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, AG5BPilot said:

By "cheat-warped", do you mean HyperEdit?  If so, what you're describing is behavior I've seen from using HyperEdit's orbit editor to jump to a different celestial body for many, many years.  Use a sandbox and actually fly the ship to Eve and see if the problem still exists.  Even if you're using something other than HyperEdit, I'd still suspect that this might be the problem.

using the alt-f12 orbit setting option

 

Also gotcha, i will give that a shot too, thanks for the idea!

Edited by Lucius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Galileo Okay, I know I said I find the terrain jaggies charming, and that's true, and I know you said non-jaggy textures would obliterate RAM, but...

2P8JiwU.jpg

Just how much obliteration are we talking about? My KSP already takes up about 18 GB. Is there any virtue to considering a less-compressed option for people with 32 GB PCs? Just asking the question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
49 minutes ago, jefferyharrell said:

@Galileo Okay, I know I said I find the terrain jaggies charming, and that's true, and I know you said non-jaggy textures would obliterate RAM, but...

2P8JiwU.jpg

Just how much obliteration are we talking about? My KSP already takes up about 18 GB. Is there any virtue to considering a less-compressed option for people with 32 GB PCs? Just asking the question.

Even if I gave you PNG textures, KSP converts them to dds upon the start of the game. That’s what makes the loading screen take so long and why it’s important to package them as DDS from the get go, to speed up the initial load of the game.

there is no avoiding the jaggies. They are just more pronounced thanks to the high resolution 8k textures. 

 

Here are some one images from stock to see the comparison.

https://imgur.com/a/Ra8wB9x

Edited by Galileo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, jefferyharrell said:

@Galileo Okay, I know I said I find the terrain jaggies charming, and that's true, and I know you said non-jaggy textures would obliterate RAM, but...

2P8JiwU.jpg

Just how much obliteration are we talking about? My KSP already takes up about 18 GB. Is there any virtue to considering a less-compressed option for people with 32 GB PCs? Just asking the question.

Cover them up with clouds?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lucius said:

It definitely could have been a great many things - i had g forces cause some kerbals to go unconcious and then come back while landing. 

The problem itself was - i told a level 2 pilot to point retrograde, had an RCS full of propellant and a gimballing engine going as well, and they would lock 5 to 10 degrees AWAY from retrograde. If i cheat-warped them back into orbit, they obeyed all my commands perfectly, but then sure as sugar, when they were under a certain altitude they would get all wonky again. As i said before tho, there are quite a few mods going here so, its more than likely a mod conflict rather than anything on your end, just wanted to see if anyone else had experienced it!

Without seeing more info, my guess is aero forces are trying to flip the craft, and the pilot is doing their best to hold retrograde. Eve has 10x Kerbin's atmosphere at surface, RCS will do nearly nothing and any lift or drag will be quite strong. If you turn off SAS/RCS, it'll probably tumble.

Share this post


Link to post
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.