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

[Galileo]

59 minutes ago, III-METHOD-III said:

Hi guys

A quick question I hope.  Im running a 1.11.2 game with JNSQ, Kopernicus (stable), EVE Redux and Scatterer. 

Im noticing that I only have a single layer of clouds in the game. They seem to be around 8000m and they are volumentric. 

1) Is this normal for JNSQ?

2) Can I get more than 1 layer? (I have friends claiming to have 3 or 4 layers using the same mods and game version as me)

I took the liberty of checking the Clouds.cfg which sits in JNSQ/Configs/EVE and sure enough, I can only find reference to an 8000m layer for Kerbin in the .cfg

Many many thanks for any responses!

Matt

Your friends are not using the provided clouds in JNSQ if they have more than one layer of volumetric clouds. I did this for performance reasons, but I am aware there have been developments with EVE redux that increases performance, so maybe one day I will revisit it.

[Cheesecake]

I have some weird shadow-issues in JNSQ:

Does anybody know what this causes?
I use JNSQ at KSP 1.11.2 (but had this issue earlier in other ksp-versions). Kopernicus, EVE and other mods are up to date.

Log:
https://www.file-upload.net/download-14548667/Player.log.html

 

Edited April 11, 2021 by Cheesecake

[III-METHOD-III]

4 hours ago, Galileo said:

Your friends are not using the provided clouds in JNSQ if they have more than one layer of volumetric clouds. I did this for performance reasons, but I am aware there have been developments with EVE redux that increases performance, so maybe one day I will revisit it.

Well, I wasnt expecting a response from you Galileo lol.  Thank you though.

Hope you are well. Havent seen you around much recently, are you back? (ish?)

[alberro+]

2 minutes ago, III-METHOD-III said:

Well, I wasnt expecting a response from you Galileo lol.  Thank you though.

Hope you are well. Havent seen you around much recently, are you back? (ish?)

Related to your question, I think your friend might've edited his clouds. I've never seen JNSQ with more than one cloud layer, ever.

 

galileo being back would be a miracle

[RyanRising]

On 4/11/2021 at 9:45 AM, Cheesecake said:

I have some weird shadow-issues in JNSQ:

Does anybody know what this causes?
I use JNSQ at KSP 1.11.2 (but had this issue earlier in other ksp-versions). Kopernicus, EVE and other mods are up to date.

Log:
https://www.file-upload.net/download-14548667/Player.log.html

 

What you're pointing out is the shadow cascades, those hard transitions between hi-res and low-res shadows are normal from what I can tell. I do agree that something seems off with how they behave at larger distances, but I have no clue where it might be originating from.

[Cheesecake]

1 hour ago, RyanRising said:

What you're pointing out is the shadow cascades, those hard transitions between hi-res and low-res shadows are normal from what I can tell. I do agree that something seems off with how they behave at larger distances, but I have no clue where it might be originating from.

It looks lika I am in a bubble with <20 meters diameter. When I swing the camera it`s causing this round artifacts like Screenshots 1. If I zoom out the other artifacts happens. It`s weird and I had it in 1.8 and 1.9. too but never before.

[Anubis-X]

Holy Crap  this looks Good! Great job!

[Starslinger999]

Does this mod work with parallax? 

[OhioBob]

57 minutes ago, Starslinger999 said:

Does this mod work with parallax? 

No.

[TruthfulGnome]

1 hour ago, Starslinger999 said:

Does this mod work with parallax? 

there is Parallax configs for JNSQ JNSQ Parallax settings - Bumpy roads up ahead [Version 1.0 ] - Add-on Development - Kerbal Space Program Forums

Edited April 25, 2021 by TruthfulGnome

[Starslinger999]

29 minutes ago, TruthfulGnome said:

there is Parallax configs for JNSQ JNSQ Parallax settings - Bumpy roads up ahead [Version 1.0 ] - Add-on Development - Kerbal Space Program Forums

Ah cool!

[alberro+]

On 4/24/2021 at 10:23 PM, TruthfulGnome said:

there is Parallax configs for JNSQ JNSQ Parallax settings - Bumpy roads up ahead [Version 1.0 ] - Add-on Development - Kerbal Space Program Forums

About these, if one was to install them on a save you've already played on extensively, would it break anything? Sorry if it's a dumb question, I just haven't been able to use parallax before.

[somnambulist]

8 hours ago, alberro+ said:

About these, if one was to install them on a save you've already played on extensively, would it break anything? Sorry if it's a dumb question, I just haven't been able to use parallax before.

I dropped it into an ongoing JNSQ game. I've only tested it on the Mun and Minmus but the worst that happened was a bit of bouncing on a landed MKS base and rover. My understanding is that the underlying terrain collider is still present and Parallax adds another collider layer that only interacts with certain part types (i.e., landing gear and Kerbals). Anything else will ignore Parallax's colliders and instead use the underlying surface collider. 

[TruthfulGnome]

10 hours ago, alberro+ said:

About these, if one was to install them on a save you've already played on extensively, would it break anything? Sorry if it's a dumb question, I just haven't been able to use parallax before.

it would only mess up rovers/landers on the surface, anything in orbit will be completely fine

[Starslinger999]

So wait is this mod working in 1.11?

[Cheesecake]

5 hours ago, Starslinger999 said:

So wait is this mod working in 1.11?

Yes, you only need the newest kopernicus from here:

https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/195699-181-111r-t-bs-kopernicus-unified-bleeding-edge-branch/

Edit: It looks like Kopernicus don`t work with KSP 1.11.2, which is new since 5  hours. In KSP 1.11.1 it will work.

 

Edited April 27, 2021 by Cheesecake

[modus]

Kopernicus works fine with 1.11.2.

I'd suggest using the stable branch

 

[alberro+]

15 hours ago, somnambulist said:

I dropped it into an ongoing JNSQ game. I've only tested it on the Mun and Minmus but the worst that happened was a bit of bouncing on a landed MKS base and rover. My understanding is that the underlying terrain collider is still present and Parallax adds another collider layer that only interacts with certain part types (i.e., landing gear and Kerbals). Anything else will ignore Parallax's colliders and instead use the underlying surface collider. 

Looked into this a bit more, you're right. Thanks!

[snkiz]

Ya know it's a game about space frogs, it doesn't have to be 100% real.  Today I deorbited a second stage, It blew up at 54 km. Maybe it would have lasted longer if I had pointed the bell into wind? Oh well.  Thank you @Galileo

 

Posted from a Fresh 1.11.2 JNSQ install with all the goodies, and paralax (expect kerbalism.. screw that noise.) So far so good.

[snkiz]

Speaking of my distaste for the grind that kerbalism is, I was poking around at Snacks! weighing my options. I read that it has support for a simple air resource now, and a way to add other 'simple' resources. May I suggest you have a look Galileo? see if it's worth supporting it with a custom config for posers like me? I'm trying to write a waterfall config rn. if I figure that out, I might play around with that idea myself.

[Beetlecat]

1 hour ago, snkiz said:

Speaking of my distaste for the grind that kerbalism is, I was poking around at Snacks! weighing my options. I read that it has support for a simple air resource now, and a way to add other 'simple' resources. May I suggest you have a look Galileo? see if it's worth supporting it with a custom config for posers like me? I'm trying to write a waterfall config rn. if I figure that out, I might play around with that idea myself.

What would you need in a custom JNSQ config? The primary difference from stock is just longer distances / bigger worlds.

[snkiz]

2 minutes ago, Beetlecat said:

What would you need in a custom JNSQ config? The primary difference from stock is just longer distances / bigger worlds.

To make use of JNSQ's resource system in a way that's in line with the goal of snacks. Life support simplified. I haven't looked at the details, it was just a thought I had.

[Caerfinon]

I installed JNSQ from CKAN on a KSP 1.8.1 instance and everything is working very well.

I noticed however on GitHub there is a file JNSQ_KK_Fixes.zip as part of the 0.9.0 release that does not appear to have been installed by CKAN. Is this a required file and does it significantly alter the configuration of the bases from the JNSQ.0.9.0.zip contents?

I'm writing some base to base flight contracts and need to make sure the runway data is precise for the navigation tools.

[Beetlecat]

Oh, wow. The 'fixes' file has a bunch of additional bases, and probably adjustments to the existing ones.

 

[JadeOfMaar]

51 minutes ago, snkiz said:

To make use of JNSQ's resource system in a way that's in line with the goal of snacks. Life support simplified. I haven't looked at the details, it was just a thought I had.

I fail to see the weight of this issue. Snacks only uses a select few resources:

• Ore for the Snack Grinder.
• Alternate and parallel option for Rock or Hydrates if you're using Rational Resources.
• Soil via the Soil Recyclers.
• Water and (Compost or Fertilizer) for the greenhouse if you have part mods that have greenhouses and Snacks integration.

2 hours ago, snkiz said:

I read that it has support for a simple air resource now, and a way to add other 'simple' resources. May I suggest you have a look Galileo? see if it's worth supporting it with a custom config for posers like me? I'm trying to write a waterfall config rn. if I figure that out, I might play around with that idea myself.

Supporting a life support mod directly isn't something to be expected from planet mods. Simply try to ignore the extra resources or (very difficult) don't install mods that rely on the CRP and the many resources it provides.

1 hour ago, Caerfinon said:

JNSQ_KK_Fixes.zip -snip- Is this a required file and does it significantly alter the configuration of the bases from the JNSQ.0.9.0.zip contents?

3 minutes ago, Beetlecat said:

Oh, wow. The 'fixes' file has a bunch of additional bases, and probably adjustments to the existing ones.

Required, yes. It fixes the problem of duplicate launch site names which causes them to close after being bought/opened (especially in career mode) and it indeed adds a few more bases, primarily known to folks in Discord servers with me.

Further adjustments will eventually come, including renaming the airbases to not have codenames anymore, and replacing the runway spawn points with discrete spawn points so the runway colors cease to be broken.