Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

@Cavscout74, I just got a Mk 1 pod to orbit with a total launch mass of 13.85 t.  It was close, though.  I just barely got the periapsis above the atmosphere (85 x 95 km) and had only 8 m/s left for deorbit.  That was enough to lower the periapsis to 72 km and make it down in a single pass.  So despite the close call, it was a mission success.

Here's a tip to save mass...  Using normal heat difficulty settings, it's typically not necessary to include ablator for low orbit flights in JNSQ.  You'll have to include a heat shield to get the 3300 K temperature resistance, but you can use the slider to take the ablator all the way down to zero.  This likely isn't true, however, if you're using harder than normal heat settings.  It's also not true for Mun return missions.
 

Edited by OhioBob
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, OhioBob said:

@Cavscout74, I just got a Mk 1 pod to orbit with a total launch mass of 13.85 t.  It was close, though.  I just barely got the periapsis above the atmosphere (85 x 95 km) and had only 8 m/s left for deorbit.  That was enough to lower the periapsis to 72 km and make it down in a single pass.  So despite the close call, it was a mission success.
 

That sounds remarkably close to the hydrolox rocket I built - down to only having a few m/s remaining to get a Pe back in the atmosphere.  I got like a 88x85 km orbit on just about same mass, and could only get Pe down to around 65 km with the fuel remaining.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some content has been removed, due to violations of various forum rules: specifically, insults and personal remarks (rule 2.2.d) and masked profanity (rule 2.2.g).  In addition, some "backseat moderating" has been removed-- folks, please don't tell others what to do or not to do; it's not your place.  If you see someone behaving in a fashion that you believe is so egregious that it actually breaks forum rules, then by all means report it and the moderators will have a look.  It's what we're for.  Short of that, though, it's not your call, so kindly don't try to issue orders.

In addition, we'd ask that folks take the tempers down a notch.  There's no call to get angry, here.  There are a few things that I'd assume are self-evidently obvious, but it appears that a refresher may be in order, so perhaps they're worth mentioning:

  • Modders put in tons of hard work, for free, to give folks shiny toys to play with, for free, asking nothing in return.  Therefore, they don't owe anybody anything.  You're not entitled to anything.  Period, full stop.
  • This means if you love a mod, great.  If you have suggestions for improvements, great.  If you just don't like it, then don't use it, nobody's forcing you to.  However, there's never a call to be insulting about any mod, ever.  It's merely someone offering up free toys; if you don't like 'em, don't use 'em.
  • The correct design for a mod is, of course, the modder's personal wishes, by definition.  It's their thing.
  • Reasonable people can differ.  Saying a thing is or isn't "balanced" is a simply a difference of opinion, nothing more.  People have differing expectations and desires.  That's why we have mods in the first place:  so that different people can have the game experience that they want.  If a particular mod doesn't give you the experience that you want, it doesn't mean the mod's wrong.  It also doesn't mean that you're wrong, either.  It just means that you and the mod author just happen to want different things.
  • Arguing that other people are "wrong" just because not everyone wants the same thing that you do is silly and beside the point.  You can say "I happen to like X instead", but that's about all anyone is in a position to assert.  Trying to argue "right" or "wrong" in a case like that is as silly as arguing over which ice cream flavor is better, vanilla or chocolate.  (Chocolate.)
  • Be civil.  There's never any call for insults.  All you accomplish by insulting people is demonstrating that you aren't equal to supporting your end of the conversation.  Resorting to name-calling and finger-pointing doesn't help you make your case.

We trust that folks can comport themselves like mature adults, henceforth.  Please play nice, okay?

Thank you for your understanding. 

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

 As pointed out my previous post, this is from a career mode and the only realistic mission that doesn't lose money with the tech available. I kept mentioning  1.5m rocket, you are correct 1.25 rockets is what I meant.

Pretty obvious you and Ohiobob are not playing and maybe never played JNSQ in career mode. Starting to think the main folks that created JNSQ never really played career mode nor cared about balancing 1.25 rockets at all.

I can all but guarantee you that the people who have contributed to JSNQ have played KSP just about every way a person can.  So much so that they extracted all the value they could find out of the stock planet system and started making their own.

 

Quote

While I have achieved a lot of things in JNSQ such as going to mun and this mission with limited tech/career moe, the number of engines being required is highly unrealistic along with the ground speeds required upon coming into the vacuum of space.

You're flying green frog people to space with your keyboard.

Realism is a silly thing to talk about in that context.

At any rate, Tweakscale exists.  Module Manager exists.  Nothing is stopping you from applying a patch to remove/relax career limitations and just Tweakscaling the parts to meet your own, personal, arbitrary measure of realism

 

Quote

The raising of these balance concerns was not about "I can't complete the mission", rather I cannot complete the mission with a semi-reasonable rocket design. When you have to glue(no decoupler) multiple engines together to acheive higher TWR when the payload is so small, this is very strong evidence that the engines are under powered.

It's also evidence that you are trying to accomplish a mission with parts that are no longer well suited for the task.  Or trying to play a planet pack that is not well suited for your personal difficulty preferences.

In the difficulty settings, you can make experiments return more science if progression through the tech tree is too limiting for you.  You can also make the missions return more rewards so you can unlock VAB / Pad upgrades.  Or you could install some contract packs that will give you kerbalbucks and a reason to go do science experiments on Kerbin to get better parts.  Or you could install mods that give you more options for parts.  Or you could use Tweakscale and some module manager patches to adjust the career limitations to something more suitable for JNSQ's scale and your own personal preferences. 

Quote

Sorry, but saying cannot complete the given mission with only 1.25 parts is not reasonable and  means JNSQ is far from being balanced.

JNSQ does not claim to offer balanced career mode play..  It claims to be more challenging.  JNSQ changes planets.  Not parts (well, it changes like.. two parts?).  Not careers.  Not rewards.

What people find balanced is subjective.  There are plenty of people who disagree with you about this.

Quote

I have already achieved success with the given satellite mission using only 1.25 parts, albeit with the very cheesy method of using three 1.25 engines glued together for the first stage. I also had another design for the mission that worked without the cheesy first stage, but only by making the final staging to be multi-part because of a lower(and more realistic) ground speed before final stage burn starts.

 JNSQ took the slightly overpowered rockets of stock(definitely not x2.5 overpowered) and made the rockets underpowered in relation to simple/easy  "homeworld" missions.

The stock scale is not "slightly overpowered". Have you ever tried doing a playthrough where you try to recover everything?  I have, and I found that I had to design my first stages very carefully to not launch everything above it directly to orbit in one stage in the earlier parts of the game.  It's stupidly easy to make a rocket with 4k dV in the first stage for most 'homeworld' missions after only a few tech tree unlocks.

Quote

Every time  you have to create so many stages and/or tie engines to together in a single stage for simple/short missions is proof that JNSQ did not balance engines for the better.

So Bob and eberkain and I assume the main JNSQ team does not think 1.25 parts alone are enough for reasonable small payload missions within Kerbin orbits. gotcha!!

I don't want to make assumptions about you, but I really do think this is a matter of skill or perhaps just being set in your ways.  Not trying to gatekeep here, but I managed to do most of my early game 'homeworld' missions using nothing but 1.25m parts.  In fact a large bit of them were done using BDB 0.9whatever meter parts. 

When in doubt, try making your payload smaller and reducing the scope of what you're trying to do.  You don't have to return every payload to Kerbin.  You can transmit science instead of returning it.  You can do quite a bit of the early career missions using a stayputnik+a gimballing engine.  It's annoying and a little more difficult, but it can be done.  And you can return those parts + science if you put them inside of a 1.25 service bay with the realchute covering the half of the Stayputnik that sticks out.  of the top.    Open the service bay doors and you have fins that will help reorient you for reentry.

The challenges that JNSQ sets up are the reason that entire last paragraph exists.  Because I never would have bothered to figure out how to accomplish more with less if I wasn't forced to by the increased scale making it more difficult than going to the Mun on my 3rd or 4th launch.

 

Quote

So basically, folks playing career mode are extremely limited in the missions because of limited tech OR they need to tie engines together(not separated stages) to accommodate the underpowered engines in JNSQ.

Neither oBob or your are very convincing in these balance statements.  I do greatly appreciate your efforts of making a build and sharing and proving balance, but sadly the conclusions bob and you share just re-enforces re-inforces my points about balance even more.

Sorry but that hasn't been my experience with career mode in JNSQ at all.  Sure, it's more difficult, but that's kind of the whole point, innit?

Quote

Where I disagree with JNSQ, bob and you:

--1.25 only rocket missions are worthy and have a place.

They are worthy, and do have a place.  At the VERY BEGINNING of the game.  In 2.5x+ scale, 1.25 rocket parts are not really suitable to do much beyond launch very basic payloads to LKO.   If you're creative you can use them to do a flyby of the mun.  If you're creative and persistent you might be able to pull off a Mun/Minmus orbit and return.  But that's about as far as you're going to get with them without bumping up against mass/part limits in career mode.

Quote

-- Incredibly high ground speed (more than  50% of the orbital velocity required)  in relation to orbital velocity should not be a requirement for every mission to keep the final stage reasonable.

Says you.  Also, I'd be interested in seeing a video example of how you do a gravity turn.  Because I bet it's pretty inefficient.

Quote

--Lastly and MOST important, career mode is a worthy way to play.

I suspect the vast majority of players that are using JNSQ are not only playing with Career Mode, but also with mods that make it harder.  I personally play with Unkerballed Start to force me to use probes instead of crew.  And with reduced DSN power (relative to JNSQ scale) and greater occlusion.  I also play with part unlocks that cost money, with no crew respawn, and with 80% science rewards because of the added experiments that mods add.

Again, the entire point of JNSQ once you get beyond the breathtaking improvements to planets is to make the game more difficult.

Quote

This last  point seems lost maybe on this whole JNSQ project.

And the last point I just made seems lost on you.

 

Edited by DeliriumTrigger
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the inspiration, @OhioBob , I built a 14.15t rocket using stock & Restock+ parts (all LFO, all low tech), that is coming SOOOOOO close to orbit.  My best attempt ran 12 m/s short.  I'm pretty sure I just need a slightly better flight path - its showing almost 4600 m/s available total.   I knew the launch mass limit was going to be the big limiting factor, I just wasn't sure how limiting - but I can see now that making orbit is possible.

Edit - After some small changes - including one more very small fuel tank - Val became the first kerbal in my JNSQ science save to reach orbit.  Jeb is pretty ticked off over that whole 12 m/s short of making orbit thing.  :P

Edited by Cavscout74
Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies, folks, I see that I probably should have been more explicit in my earlier comments.  Please drop the argument about whether JNSQ is "right" (about its balance choices or anything else), because such argument is, 1. entirely pointless, and 2. now beaten to death so much that it has seriously derailed the thread.

To be clear:

  • Concerning the author's choices:  These are, of course, correct by definition, since it's the author's stuff and naturally he's designed it the way he likes.  His opinion is the only one that matters, in exactly the same sense that how you choose to arrange the furniture in your home is nobody's business but yours.  If you happen to be a welcoming person who invites guests to visit your home, it's not their place to criticize your interior decorating choices.
  • If you have a suggestion for improvement:  Great!  Modders often welcome feedback and suggestions.  Naturally, you'll make any suggestions in a friendly and polite way, without criticizing or demanding, right?  (Since you're merely sharing "here's something I'd like" with someone who's giving you a free gift, and you aren't actually entitled to anything at all.)
  • If you like the way the mod does things:  Great!  Then you are, of course, absolutely correct, because that's your personal opinion, about which you are the sole authority.  Sounds like this is a good mod for you!
  • If you don't like the way the mod does things:  Great!  Then you are, of course, absolutely correct, because that's your personal opinion, about which you are the sole authority.  Sounds like this mod's probably not what you're after.

That's really about all that can be said on the matter, and further discussion in that vein is taking things off topic.  So, thank you to everyone for your input, that discussion is done now, let's please move on to other discussion about this mod.

Thank you for your understanding.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that I'm managed to get kerbals into orbit with early career craft, I'm back with another question - I'm assuming either I missed something or I just need to adjust some settings somewhere in SVE or Scatterer, but the problem is specific to my JNSQ install so I'm asking here first.  There are two main problems, actually -

1)  The sun is tiny as seen from Kerbin:

Spoiler

The large dot near the lower left is the sun

Bg0mcer.png?1

2)  clouds (and sometimes ground textures) turn weird depending on which direction the camera faces:

Spoiler

Splashed down between DSC & KSC:

BZusBgn.png?1

Same craft, with camera facing roughly the opposite direction:

5oinvqQ.png?1

Any help is greatly appreciated

 

Edited by Cavscout74
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Cavscout74 said:

Now that I'm managed to get kerbals into orbit with early career craft, I'm back with another question - I'm assuming either I missed something or I just need to adjust some settings somewhere in SVT or Scatterer, but the problem is specific to my JNSQ install so I'm asking here first.  There are two main problems, actually -

1)  The sun is tiny as seen from Kerbin:

  Hide contents

The large dot near the lower left is the sun

Bg0mcer.png?1

2)  clouds (and sometimes ground textures) turn weird depending on which direction the camera faces:

  Hide contents

Splashed down between DSC & KSC:

BZusBgn.png?1

Same craft, with camera facing roughly the opposite direction:

5oinvqQ.png?1

Any help is greatly appreciated

 

Post an image of your gamedata folder. I think you have mods that are not supposed to be installed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Galileo said:

Post an image of your gamedata folder. I think you have mods that are not supposed to be installed.

I will get it up tomorrow - I'm not on my game laptop & won't have a chance to get on till tomorrow evening

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Cavscout74 @Galileo

FYI, I had a similar tiny-sun issue using JNSQ under KSP 1.7.3. I had to edit one of the JNSQ config files to switch sunflare from default "Scatterer" mode to "Unity" for the sun to look good. I never figured out why that was happening, and on KSP 1.8.1 the default JNSQ settings are working well.

Scatterer would also sometimes go completely nuts during water scenes. The water would start looking like static, and the effect would slowly spread until everything was a flickering mess. If I took a screenshot it sort of looked like your cloud problem, but the game was rapidly flickering and unplayable. Restarting would fix the problem. Again, that happened in 1.7.3 and never in 1.8.1, but I'm also spending much less time landing on Kerbin's oceans in 1.8.1.

Look for my posts and replies from the JNSQ team December 10 and 11. Here's a link to one of the posts:

 

 

Edited by DeadJohn
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/8/2020 at 8:33 PM, Brigadier said:
FF: cannot find image file 'F:/Steam/KSP 1.8.1 JNSQ/KSP_x64_Data/..\GameData\Nereid/FinalFrontier/Ribbons/Dak/FirstPlantFlag.png'

A JNSQ-RibbonPack module has been added to CKAN to install these, depending on FinalFrontier, which JNSQ now suggests instead of FinalFrontier. That should fix the problem.

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

JNSQ provides its own visuals, to include terrain textures. SVT is dead, and SVE is for stock. Neither mod will work correctly with JNSQ. 

Kerbalism has a function where it gives a warning when loading a save with incompatible mods. I have no idea if that would be easy to add to jnsq or if it's really needed (depending on how many mods are actually incompatible). 

I think SirMortimer wrote that in kerbalism

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Therese said:

Kerbalism has a function where it gives a warning when loading a save with incompatible mods. I have no idea if that would be easy to add to jnsq or if it's really needed (depending on how many mods are actually incompatible). 

I think SirMortimer wrote that in kerbalism

It would be pretty easy. I may have to do that and we should be more clear in the readme and OP too, I suppose.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Quoniam Kerman said:

@Cavscout74 You seem to be using SVE. It is not needed with JNSQ, it is for stock planets. You sunflare should be back to what it is supposed to if you take it off as well as the clouds.

 

17 hours ago, Galileo said:

JNSQ provides its own visuals, to include terrain textures. SVT is dead, and SVE is for stock. Neither mod will work correctly with JNSQ. 

I can't believe I missed that when I was installing JNSQ.  I'll see what its doing tonight with SVE removed.   Thanks!

 

Update - Finally had a chance to get on KSP after deleting SVE and a) Sun is the correct size & so far no weird cloud textures and b) After launching a test rocket, the sunset as I was coming down via parachute was the most beautiful sunset I have seen in KSP so far!!!!  Truly beautiful work you all!!

Edited by Cavscout74
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bigyihsuan said:

Is there a KSPedia version of the included delta-V map floating around? It's surprisingly taxing on my machine to alt-tab out of KSP to look at the delta-V map.

You may want to try one or both of

  1. Run ksp in a window. Turn off "fullscreen" in settings, set the resolution to your monitor resolution, and then run it with the -popupwindow parameter. I've been doing this for years because it records better this way and one of the benefits is that doing other things at the same time is less jarring if not less taxing on the computer.
  2. Save the dV map locally and open it with an image viewer instead of your browser. Browsers are crazy resource hogs.

That said, an in-game dV map would be pretty cool, though I recall looking at custom KSPedia pages when it first came out, and after about 5 minutes just accepting that I'll never put the time and effort into it.

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

You may want to try one or both of

  1. Run ksp in a window. Turn off "fullscreen" in settings, set the resolution to your monitor resolution, and then run it with the -popupwindow parameter. I've been doing this for years because it records better this way and one of the benefits is that doing other things at the same time is less jarring if not less taxing on the computer.
  2. Save the dV map locally and open it with an image viewer instead of your browser. Browsers are crazy resource hogs.

That said, an in-game dV map would be pretty cool, though I recall looking at custom KSPedia pages when it first came out, and after about 5 minutes just accepting that I'll never put the time and effort into it.

I'll try the borderless fullscreen thing next time I play, though I was using the PNG provided with the mod

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, bigyihsuan said:

Is there a KSPedia version of the included delta-V map floating around? It's surprisingly taxing on my machine to alt-tab out of KSP to look at the delta-V map.

I think there *is* a mod that adds it into a KSPedia entry... I'll see if I can remember which one 

NVM, totally missed the fact that this was the JNSQ topic. :D

Edited by Beetlecat
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:

Save the dV map locally and open it with an image viewer instead of your browser. Browsers are crazy resource hogs.

You don't actually need to do that, it's already included in JNSQ download.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/10/2020 at 10:36 PM, Galileo said:

JNSQ provides its own visuals, to include terrain textures. SVT is dead, and SVE is for stock. Neither mod will work correctly with JNSQ. 

Thanks for that - I was aware of the SVE incompatibility, but I don't recall SVT being specifically called out before - probably I just missed it.

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...