Akira_R

yup

Sorry mate, I'm just a crochety old hat whose been around here long enough to have their patience sublimated away by years of "It's not my fault I didn't READ any of the documentation, it's your fault for not making your mods behave how I thought they should!" I tend to get a bit testy and probably a little too defensive of our mod creators, so many highly skilled creators have left because they got burned out by the community support aspect of modding. I still find it a little shocking that Nertea is not only still highly active with all of their mods after all this time but also still engages with the community at a fairly frequent and high level. Any ways I could have worded my comment a bit better (a bit less aggressive), it's intention was to be a wrap on the knuckles and a reminder to look through all of the documentation before coming to the forum.

I mean that is entirely on you, as a mod user it is YOUR responsibility to know what you are installing and how extra interaction patches change things, you can look in those module manager patches and see exactly what they do, you can read the forum threads to understand what does what. It's your own fault if you are just going and installing all the things with out checking out what they do and what is going on. There is a reason the extra patches are separate and have to be installed independently, they are for "advanced" users and if you use them it is expected that you know what they are doing and what consequences they have.

I know Nertea made some of the resources not transferable or not transferable unless there is an engineer present etc. Although usually Nertea is pretty good about mentioning such things in part descriptions however in this case there doesn't seam to be much information available, at least not that I have been able to find...

You put the mod and all of it's dependencies in the GameData folder... Not trying to be snarky here but you didn't give us much to go on lol. Exactly how does it not work? Is your game crashing? Are parts not showing up? Are features not working?

Just as an FYI that legacy version is literally nothing like the current version, Nertea scrapped everything and started from scratch so just be aware of that. Additionally it had this anti-matter generation system that if I remember correctly was kinda bugged out. Additionally it tried to utilize the stock heating system which was massively problematic, the huge heat out put of many of the engines was just way to much for the stock system to figure out especially in regards to various catch-up situations when coming out of an on-rails situation and explosions due to this were a very frequent concern. So if you are intending to use it on an older ksp version because you have a save game you don't want to abandon I would strongly caution against it because that old version was not very save friendly as frequent vessel loss was a thing.

hmmm mkay well that's not that bad, that can be easily cheated around so long as I keep my self honest and make sure I am meeting the requirements just for RP's sake. I might give it a shot then.

Absolutely bloody brilliant!! Great story telling and amazing screenshot sniping skills!! Just one question @lemon cup, are you using the base TUFX config or do you have a custom one? Any chance you can share it? Those screenshots from your intro are truly beautiful and despite having nearly identical visual mods I still can't quite get that look

So Nertea mentioned that the new version of System heat may not work in older KSP versions because he is using some new API calls, are you on an older version of System Heat or will the newer one still work? I was thinking about building a new 1.11 install but would prefer to continue in my 1.9.1 install as one of the primary mods I have been using in that save has not been updated for 1.10+ and is looking like it won't be any time soon.

So has any one made patches for any contract packs like Anomolay Surveyor or GAP? Technically the contracts all mostly work, but because a number of them reference specific coordinates on stock Kerbin there isn't really anything at a lot of the coordinates they give. A quick search didn't turn up anything, so I was kind of hoping someone had already done the leg work here lol. Does JNSQ even have anomalies around?

If you change the mount type for the LR81 you will have access to smaller diameters, it defaults to that 3:1 or whatever mount option.

Congrats! That's exciting!

So I'm having an issue with performance around added launch sites that seems to be related to terrain scatters. I am running a pretty heavily modded install. When I launch a plane from any of the airports around kerbin that JNSQ adds my frame rate tanks to 5fps. I am launching via the KCT menu but I don't think that should have much impact on this. If I fly far enough away (roughly 40km or so) from the launch site the frame rate comes up to 10-11. If I then quit and reload I'm up in the 20s but it will rapidly drop to 10-15, not ideal but doable. Flying back causes the frame rate to drop back to single digits, interestingly if I fly low and approach the center of the airport area frame rate comes up to like 10-15 in a very small area around the center and then craters again once I leave. There is no NRE or other exception spam. My system is a OCed i7 8700k, 32GB RAM and a gtx1080, the GPU is idling, CPU is around 20% utilization and none of the individual threads show utilization above that. I tried turning terrain scatter off (it was set to around 45%) and saw a massive increase in frame rate, 40fps while flying around and around a 36fps average when returning to the airport. Searching around I am seeing that some performance hit is expected with scatters on especially with kopernicus giving them collision. But this impact seems excessive? Especially since I'm on a pretty beefy system and in terms of resource utilization it is hardly even being taxed. Any one have any idea what is going on here? log if it'll help: https://gist.github.com/AkiraR/dbf2cee8b8e4ab47a7394544903f4f2d

So I'm having an issue with performance around added launch sites. I am running a pretty heavily modded install, of note are JNSQ and KCT. When I launch a plane from any of the airports around kerbin that JNSQ adds my frame rate tanks to 5fps. I am launching via the KCT menu but I don't think that should have much impact on this. If I fly far enough away (roughly 40km or so) from the launch site the frame rate comes up to 10-11. If I then quit and reload I'm up in the 20s, not ideal but doable. Flying back causes the frame rate to drop back to single digits, interestingly if I fly low and approach the center of the airport area frame rate comes up to like 10-15 in a very small area around the center and then craters again once I leave. There is no NRE or other exception spam. My system is a OCed i7 8700k and gtx1080, GPU is idleing, CPU is around 20% utilization. log if it'll help: https://gist.github.com/AkiraR/dbf2cee8b8e4ab47a7394544903f4f2d Appears to be related to ground scatter and kopernicus, not a KK issue.

Wow. This looks super awesome, unfortunate that the tessellation extent will need to be limited to prevent too much clipping as you can make really awesome looking terrain features with tesselation. In the last 4-5 years there have been some solutions that allow for performance friendly calculation of collisions with tesselated meshes but the ones I'm aware of were built in CryEngine and rely on RK and offloading the RK collision handling to the GPU. Stuff the would likely be completely impossible to implement in KSP by a modder lol. Wish you luck and really hope Galileo will consider incorporating this into JNSQ once it's ready.

I kind of figured as much, but using MM to clone and patch template files is actually exactly what I wanted. I hadn't thought about it mostly because the "templates" that we get with RealPlume are actually just big MM patch files themselves, and as far as I'm aware you can't patch a patch file lol. I feel a little bit dumb now for not catching that lol

So after looking through the documentation on GitHub it looks like this is going to be way easier to work with than the current standard of patching with SmokeScreen and RealPlume. I do have a question/feature suggestion @Nertea would it be possible when using templates to allow us to override or add specific parameters? An example to maybe help explain: so some one comes up with a template that we want to use with an engine, we use the position and scale parameters to get the effect lining up and looking good but what would make it look GREAT is if we could additionally just scale and reposition a specific bone just a bit but leave everything else as they are. What I would envision the Template section inside the moduleWatefrallFX module could look like: TEMPLATE { templateName = waterfall-hydrolox-upper1 overrideParentTransform = thrustTransform scale = 0.8,0.8,0.8 rotation = 0,0,0 position = 0,0,-0.4 OVERRIDE //we now want to change specific parts of the template being used { EFFECT[outerGlow] //specify which EFFECT in the template { SCALEMODIFIER[tExitScale]//we specifically want to change the tExitScale SCALEMODIFIER { xCurve //we just want to tweak the x and z curves a bit { key = 0 1.5 0 0 } zCurve { key = 0 1.5 0 0 } } NEW[POSITIONMODIFIER] //We want to create a new modifier of the type POSITIONMODIFIER { name = throatReposition controllerName = custom transformName = B_Throat combinationType = Replace useRandomness = False randomnessController = random randomnessScale = 1 xCurve { } yCurve { } zCurve { key = 0 -0.2 0 0 } } } } } This way we can have a bit more control over tweaking parts of a template with out having to create a whole new effect that only has a few changes from the previous one. This always was a problem I had with some of the RealPlume configs, where just changing the scale and position of the entire effect couldn't get me exactly where I wanted so I would have to just make a copy of the original effect and make a couple tweaks to the flare or the plume and then save that, it also made redistributing the patch more complicated as not only would one have to share the MM patch adding the effect but also the full template config that someone else wrote that only had one or two values tweaked. I anticipate that making this type of change probably isn't a simple task but I think it would be a really useful feature to have for those hoping to make a large number of compatibility patches for various different part packs and could help speed up adoption.

Damn it Nertea, I finally get fluent and confident with customizing SmokeScreen configs so I can make all my engines have pretty plumes and you just have to come along with THIS and make all of that work mute. I swear you and ShadowMage just can't be content with the good-enough status quo can you guys, you just gotta come along with this "I can make a better system" big coder energy and give us fancy new stuff that blows the old way of doing things out of the water. Now I have to spend a bunch of my free time learning this new system and coming up with patches for all the various engines I use, thanks for monopolizing what little time I have between writing aerodynamics lab reports and random signals analysis homework, guess I won't actually be playing any KSP this semester

Textures Unlimited comes in the SSTU download, if you don't put it in your game data folder then the SSTU parts wont have textures, also make sure you have CommunityResourcePack installed. Basically if it came in the downloaded zip put it in your game data folder or stuff wont work. Also SSTU only has like 5 tank parts, but they are highly modular with tons of different options.

Which parts aren't showing up? Sounds like you either didnt install the bundled Textures Unlimited.

Unlikely, when it happened it was during the launch of a satellite that I was putting up to meet a sat contract. I think I may have done one revert to launch which is why i tried that, but there had been no switching between any vessels. It was at the end of a close to 2 hour play session and multiple other vessels had been flown, but all had been recovered back to the space center, and all had been planes, this had been the first rocket launch during the session.

So I just did some quick testing in my install and now I'm getting no NREs, I tried a couple of different test cases (revert to launch, jump to a ship in orbit in the save it happened in) and I'm not getting anything. I'll do some more testing later today to see if I can get it to happen again, since I enabled it last night it now defaults to on in all of my saves, I haven't had a chance yet to turn it off and restart the game, got class. But hopefully I can narrow it down a bit later today.

Intuitive maneuvers option fixes the maneuver node gizmo relative to your current orbits orientation and makes it so that pulling on the normal or anti-normal gizmos will "only" change your orbits inclination, I say "only" because it isn't perfect. That way you aren't doing the dance of alternating between the normal and prograde gizmos. It appears to be working in my 1.9.1 install but turning it on did cause NRE spam which is why I had come here. I posted an issue on github if anyone else is experiencing this: https://github.com/linuxgurugamer/ksp-precisenode/issues/14

Any tips for getting this to play nicely with a 3.2x rescale? SigmaDimensions is supposed to have a system that will keep individual KK groups from getting all spread out but I think you have to manually set up the SD groups via configs, there is an OLD mod that Sigma wrote called KKtoSD that is supposed to automatically make SD groups from the KK groups but it doesn't seem to be working in my install.

Any one know if KKtoSD is working still?? Would like to get Kerbin Side Remastered working on a 3.2x rescale and despite stuff being grouped together they still end up getting spread out Hoping I can get things working so I just have to move each group around instead of having to reposition each individual asset.