Jump to content

[1.8.1] JNSQ [0.9.0] [03 Feb 2020]


Recommended Posts

I enjoy JNSQ very much. I also enjoyed GPP a great deal, but found it not quite as challenging as I would have liked, so I nearly always played it at 3x or 3.2x scale. However, there were problems with using Sigma Dimensions and GPP as it relates to terrain height, atmosphere depth, and the location of anomalies. JNSQ at native 2.7x solves these issues and allows fine tuning of terrain slopes, atmosphere height, and anomalies for a better integrated gameplay experience. 

GPP and JNSQ are both designed for advanced players who want a greater challenge. If the challenge is too much for a player, that player should simply go back to the stock system rather than complain that the challenge should be made less challenging. One of the great thing about KSP is its modability, so each player can find a balance that is enjoyable.

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

Can you share a real life example where 3 rockets  engines (with separate tanks) has been used?

Scott Manley just did a video on OTRAG the other day, which was an system where they strapped together a bunch of identical rockets to make a bigger rocket.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, he's kind of right that the 1.25 parts are a bit underpowered, but honestly that only matters for the first flight. A 5m Saturn V can be designed very realistically for moon missions. This mod has been the single thing drawing me back to KSP after all these years. The challenge, along with Kerbalism, is exactly what I've been looking for in KSP. Anyone saying it's too hard ought to look elsewhere. You're probably not the target audience.

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

there were problems with using Sigma Dimensions

None were ever reported to me, otherwise I would have looked into it.

If you have any examples I would apreciate some feedback on what the issues are so that I can fix them

Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of difficulty, does anyone use UnKerballed Start with JNSQ? UKS pushes engines back 1-2 tiers, making it more challenging to get where you want to go. I'm wondering how that plays out once you want to go interplanetary since I haven't got there, yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Kwebib said:

Speaking of difficulty, does anyone use UnKerballed Start with JNSQ? UKS pushes engines back 1-2 tiers, making it more challenging to get where you want to go. I'm wondering how that plays out once you want to go interplanetary since I haven't got there, yet.

I did try it but I found PBC (Probes before crew) a much better experience along JNSQ than UKS (in 1.7.3). UKS with its engines restrictions makes things really difficult in 2.7x IMO.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Something that I think may be getting lost here, that I feel I can chime in on given I'm one of the part mod authors that have long stated the stock part balance is more appropriate for 2.5x systems.

In @fragtzack's example, with 1.25m parts - that translates to a 2m diameter rocket IRL. That is very much at the small end of the scale in terms of size. Pretty much any rocket with substantial performance is going to be the equivalent of 1.875m, 2.5m and up (in KSP diameter terms). 1.25m parts are more comparable to something like RocketLab's Electron - suitable only for small, LEO-ish satellites.

Re "where the 2.5x/2.7x number came from" - it has long been accepted that KSP parts are 62.5/64% of the IRL size for their equivalents. I personally do not know where that number came from - it was already an assumption when I started modding. I believe it's based on the relative size of the Mk1 pod to the Mercury among other things. Given that, and assuming that you're balancing in line with stock parts - a tank of given volume has the same ratio of fuel, dry mass,etc compared to stock tanks, for example - then to make rockets perform "realistically" the sweet spot was found to be ~2.5x/2.7x. IE if you build a rocket with a realistically proportioned payload it will more or less do what it does IRL. Think, building out a Saturn V and having it actually *just* accomplish a moon mission rather than being able to go out to Jool on like, the second stage. :) Personally I don't know where the specific comment on engines came from - proportionally, KSP engines are more or less realistically balanced other then their dry mass. My understanding was that it comes from the sum total of the way the KSP parts are balanced, particularly in that they have much higher dry masses overall than in real life. The point is the net effect of the scaling, balance ratios, etc results in ~2.7x being the point where kerbal scale rockets behave realistically.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sigma88 said:

None were ever reported to me, otherwise I would have looked into it.

If you have any examples I would apreciate some feedback on what the issues are so that I can fix them

Problems is probably the wrong word. Achieving an aesthetically pleasing vista without having to worry about smacking into a mountain during reentry is probably a more apt description. The mod itself works great, no complaint intended - just an inherent issue with an upscaled planet. Edit: This was a more significant issue in 6.4x and 10.625x, where the choice was either a planet of rolling hills, or a planet where many mountain tops stick up through the clouds.

Edited by Norcalplanner
Added a bit
Link to post
Share on other sites

The other thing to remember when it comes to the 1.25m parts and designing the rocket is that your gravity turn/flight path have a lot to do with your dV requirements.  I like the mod GravityTurn Continued for use in JNSQ.  It has a feature that can "learn" from past attempts and recommend a better launch parameter.  On a earlier play through I worked out standardized launchers with set payload capabilities.  It took a bit of time, and a lot of iteration but once you have a set design you just save the launcher as a sub assembly and pull it out every time you have an appropriate payload. 

If you don't like the "stock" engines, I would recommend getting some other mods with engines.  If you like something that is stockish.. I would recommend KW Rocketry as it has engines that are similar to the stock engines with stats that are just different enough to have their own niches.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem, I think, is that stock tech tree and stock career are crud. 1.25m rockets should be fine for unmanned exploration and simple science - except that doesn't come until several nodes into the tech tree. Contracts are just random, in a bad way, and lack anything interesting to do until you get to orbit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, fragtzack said:

I am positive you and some of these other [snip] are using MechJeb auto mode all the time or some other tool like KoS that removes any variances allowing for only the bare minimum dV design.

I don't know how to use MechJeb, I've never tried it.  I don't know what KoS is, never heard of it.

15 hours ago, fragtzack said:

So where did that 2.5x balance number come from? Exactly what behavior makes engines more balanced  in JNSQ.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I interrupt the "JNSQ is junk" talk to comment on how much I'm enjoying it?

  • Most improved body: Eeloo. The new atmosphere and 2 new moons create a lot more to do. The atmo haze and terrain create a picturesque horizon when deorbiting for a landing.
  • Minmus is a runner-up for most improved body because it no longer has a frictionless surface that lets kerbals slide for 10 minutes.
  • Favorite new body: Huygen. It has a unique look, and an atmosphere worthy of extended exploration.
  • Biggest surprise: Duna. My first probe lithobraked because I used chutes like in stock, while your atmo needs drogues. It's shown on the DV chart so no secret but I learned the hard way. (I blame engineer Bill Kerman for using inconsistent measurements https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/missions/mars-climate-orbiter/in-depth/)
  • I'm using the Community Tech Tree and getting a round-trip crewed mission to Mun was a fun challenge in 2.7x scale. I did it by using Bluedog Design Bureau (its one-Kerbal lander and capsule were prettier and lighter than stock) to go to Minmus first to collect more science to unlock more efficient engines.
  • Building an SSTO is much more difficult than in stock. I eventually did it via science fiction: OPT J-size fuselage, OPT warpjets for atmosphere (38km and 3000m/s at Kerbin using only electricity), and Near Future lithium for vacuum. 12000 DV left after reaching LKO and on-board ISRU for refueling. It works well on bodies like Tylo and Laythe that have enough atmosphere for the warpjets and wings, or low enough gravity for a tail landing using only lithium.
  • (I haven't made it to Nara yet, only 20 more years until the first probe arrives)

@Galileo and team, some suggestions below. Feel free to ignore this, your plan so far has work well without me ;)

  • Hamek is my least favorite new planet. It's like a 2nd Dres, with little to do after getting there. I may have missed something but the only notable thing seemed to be its relatively fast axial rotation and resulting brief day/night cycle. Maybe turn it into a binary pair, or add a polar inclined moon or captured asteroid if plausible, or something else not seen at other planets.
  • You're still on version 0.9. JNSQ is worthy at at least 1.0.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, fragtzack said:

I have stated mostly what my vision for balanced is, where the frick is your vision?

My vision is to have rockets that lean more closely toward real life designs than what is typically required in stock KSP.  JNSQ achieves that.  A typical real life two-stage rocket burns through about 80% of its total fuel load in the first stage.  That's just the way it is, first stages are really big in real life.  So having a large first stage in JNSQ is realistic, not unbalanced.

(edit)

FYI, at stock scale I generally design my rockets with about 67% of the fuel in the first stage and 33% in the second.  In JNSQ it's typically closer to 75/25%.  The rocket I built and showed earlier was 76/24%.  In real life it's usually more like 80/20%.  So JNSQ falls between stock and real life, as one would expect based on the scale.
 

Edited by OhioBob
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, fragtzack said:

That is an exact copy of the claimed "logic" of JNSQ. The logic there behind the size changes was CLEARLY stated to be about engines, but when someone has went to great lengths to show the unbalanced engines in JNSQ you state that JNSQ doesn't balance parts. huh? That is not logical to state JNSQ is not about balancing the engines.

JNSQ is NOT about balancing engines.  JNSQ (i.e. the scale of JNSQ) is about increasing delta-v requirements.  The goal is to force players to produce designs that generate greater delta-v with lower payload fraction.  That's all.  The rest is up to the player.

10 hours ago, fragtzack said:

My recommendations to folks wonder if they  should try JNSQ: Try JNSQ if you don't care about "engine balance in a realistic manner" and you don't care about career mode. This recommendation comes after putting about 25 hours into this latest JNSQ release on career mode hard difficulty with no other game play modifications except as recommended by JNSQ. The lack of  career mode testing in JNSQ is quite glaring.

25 hours, ah, so you're quite the noob at this.  Many people have been playing JNSQ for over 8 months now, and many more have been playing 2.5x and 3.2x scale systems for years.  And most of those have done so quite successfully and without complaint.  I'm sorry that you can't seem to hack it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Currently taking a break from RP-1, not just because I’ve gotten all the way to an Apollo 11 style mission and realized how hard it actually is, but also waiting for 1.8 in RP-1.  In comparison JNSQ is a beautiful, relaxing, and much easier alternative!

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Norcalplanner said:

Problems is probably the wrong word. Achieving an aesthetically pleasing vista without having to worry about smacking into a mountain during reentry is probably a more apt description. The mod itself works great, no complaint intended - just an inherent issue with an upscaled planet. Edit: This was a more significant issue in 6.4x and 10.625x, where the choice was either a planet of rolling hills, or a planet where many mountain tops stick up through the clouds.

SD has the option of rescaling geographical features separately from the radius. I believe Rescale! (cfg pack by @Galileo for SD) has already some pre-selected multipliers. Rescale! should also have some GPP specific cfgs iirc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, fragtzack said:

Would not have posted any of this except I consider JNSQ to be telling a non-truth when JNSQ talks about being career mode friendly AND JNSQ talks about addressing "engine balance" as the stated intentions of JNSQ.

My recommendations to folks wonder if they  should try JNSQ: Try JNSQ if you don't care about "engine balance in a realistic manner" and you don't care about career mode. This recommendation comes after putting about 25 hours into this latest JNSQ release on career mode hard difficulty with no other game play modifications except as recommended by JNSQ. The lack of  career mode testing in JNSQ is quite glaring.

I've been keeping watch and I must say I'm surprised, and yet, not, at what's going on here. It is unfortunate that you dare to use the word "realistic" in defense of the balance of stock parts for stock scale. It is disappointing and insulting that, in like manner, someone would call BS on JNSQ because it breaks their ability to make the usual single-stage-to-anywhere spaceplanes that can make 70% of their ascent on air-breathing alone whereas in the real world we would need something huge like a Skylon with at least a 5m wide body just to make low orbit.

The ability of a properly sized Saturn V in KSP, to reach Jool by itself in stock scale is no lie, and no joke. You even got the maker of a mod for this, @CobaltWolf to take his time and give a statement.

Where JNSQ says it is career friendly actually means it provides a decent amount of support in itself for career progression mods, and several such mods quickly made themselves compatible with JNSQ, or players quickly developed wisdom and advice to share and to help each other make career mode viable at scales other than stock. Most Kerbin-replacing planet packs cannot call themselves carer friendly.

 

11 hours ago, fragtzack said:

Logic

Many KSP modders have considered that while the stock parts (namely, engines) are overpowered for stock scale, they are tuned just right for 2.5x scale. With this in mind, JNSQ is built in natively "1/4 real-life scale" (about 2.7x stock scale) which is modestly larger than 2.5x. Because of this change in scale, the length of the Kerbin day is now 12 hours.

That is an exact copy of the claimed "logic" of JNSQ. The logic there behind the size changes was CLEARLY stated to be about engines, but when someone has went to great lengths to show the unbalanced engines in JNSQ you state that JNSQ doesn't balance parts. huh? That is not logical to state JNSQ is not about balancing the engines.

umm yea, JNSQ is clearly about balance.. balance of the engines.

So where did that 2.5x balance number come from? Exactly what behavior makes engines more balanced  in JNSQ.

I have stated mostly what my vision for balanced is, where the frick is your vision?

2.5x stock is not a fricking vision.

Anyone who knows what "realistic" actually looks like in KSP, and is at least aware of the kinds of lengths a rocket needs to go to or be built for IRL would argue in favor of this logic and would openly agree that their favorite analogue rocket would be OP for stock scale. Everyone who plays in 2.5x or above would agree that when they build their rockets for 2.5x and up, their proportions and their payload fractions would feel more appropriate. And so, they quite accept JNSQ's standards and eventually, our options to make the planets even bigger because when you play the higher scales, the lower scales feel like a cheat.

Realism is HARD. Stock scale is EASY. And it is so easy so that any newbie to KSP can make it to orbit with a small rocket, feel accomplished, and be motivated to keep playing and learning. Remember that and be careful the next time you say "realistic" or "realism" in the defense of stock scale and the completely unwarranted bashing of a hugely popular mod that calls itself realistic.

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

Disclaimer / Barrier to Entry

⚠️ 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.

The reason that this section exists in the thread OP and the README is so that players who aren't ready for hard mode will at least get the hint that this mod itself is hard mode, and see that it is not for them. JNSQ is not supposed to be easy. It is not supposed to be everyone's cup of tea. And it is not supposed to be stock scale.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Sigma88 said:

SD has the option of rescaling geographical features separately from the radius. I believe Rescale! (cfg pack by @Galileo for SD) has already some pre-selected multipliers. Rescale! should also have some GPP specific cfgs iirc.

Yep, and the configs worked pretty darn well.  It's just a geometry issue where comparatively flatter terrain on a larger planet alters the relationships between geographic features. Or to put it another way, more of the universe in an upscaled system can be easily accessed via rover because the slopes aren't quite as steep.  :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

All I can say is some people just like to complain. I, personally love JNSQ. My KSP experience just didn't feel right with 1.8 until I saw Kopernicus and JNSQ post their updates. All I'm waiting for now is KSC Extended to update, and I'll be a very happy camper.

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, JadeOfMaar said:

The reason that this section exists in the thread OP and the README is so that players who aren't ready for hard mode will at least get the hint that this mod itself is hard mode, and see that it is not for them. JNSQ is not supposed to be easy. It is not supposed to be everyone's cup of tea. And it is not supposed to be stock scale.

In the words of Jimmy Dugan... "It's supposed to be hard. If it wasn't hard, everyone would do it. The hard... is what makes it great." 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Being new to JNSQ, I'm curious if it is even possible to get a Mk 1 pod to orbit with the 18 ton limit of the starting launch pad with stock parts or if it will require a pad upgrade before you can make orbit?  I did manage a <18t orbital rocket, but it used Nertea's Cryogenic Engines.  Using stock parts, the lowest mass I've been able to get a Mk 1 pod to orbit was around 22 or 23 tons IIRC. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Cavscout74 said:

Being new to JNSQ, I'm curious if it is even possible to get a Mk 1 pod to orbit with the 18 ton limit of the starting launch pad with stock parts or if it will require a pad upgrade before you can make orbit?  I did manage a <18t orbital rocket, but it used Nertea's Cryogenic Engines.  Using stock parts, the lowest mass I've been able to get a Mk 1 pod to orbit was around 22 or 23 tons IIRC. 

You should be able to make orbit, but bumping up against the 18-ton limit is an issue at this scale.  From my experience, the mass limit of the launch pad becomes a problem far sooner than the part limit of the VAB.

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.

×
×
  • Create New...