GJdude

It does indeed, strange for these particular ones to be included on the cargo parts but they're there. They are the three resources that hydrogen/oxygen fuel cells use - fuel cells which are present in BDB. I tried to have a go at adding some resources to them but couldn't wrap my head around it at all, unfortunately.

Found a fun oopsie for the USI Life Support compatibility configs, notably there's two of them, one called "Supply" and one called "USI-LS". Both seem identical though one is slightly larger and various things are being applied twice, like flavour text and hab modules and the likes. Simply deleting one of them is the fix for that, tried it myself. There was also this happening: But I'm getting the idea that these resources aren't coming from TAC and are supposed to be on the cargo parts since they can be used with certain kinds of fuel cells, including the ones I'm getting from having Universal Storage II installed. In which case, I still feel like there should be more USI resource options for these cargo parts since that's the main thing you'd be bringing up to a manned space station - Supplies or Fertilizer and the like. Some of the old versions of these parts had it so if it's planned to be added in a coming patch then that's fine.

Poor TAA really can't catch a break, can it? It's a shame MSAA had to be so disagreeable with the new rendering methods. For now the only fix appears to be others modifying waterfall configs to distance the meshes from the engine bells a little more, but that could be a quality compromise for anyone not running scatterer and isn't entirely confirmed to work yet. If anyone finds out the cause of this interaction, they'll need a medal. For now I'll just stick with SMAA before my stubbornness to try and solve this drives me insane, since it's really the only incompatibility problem left after previous updates. What a perplexing issue!

I can confirm that the z-fighting flickering interaction with waterfall plumes and any form of TAA is still present, but falling back onto SMAA really does sting since the newer TAA looks very nice. What levels is SMAA working at currently at the different quality levels? Even at 2 it doesn't feel like enough for 1080p. Is this 2x? 4x? Does SMAA even work like that? My rig can certainly handle turning it up to 8x or however high it goes. Could those of us still wrestling with this interaction get the option to turn SMAA up higher, if possible?

I've rolled some things back to a version where I can disable the depth buffer-based rendering entirely now, but if I get back to a newer version in future and this occurs again, I'll definitely look further into it.

That seems to have done the trick, yes! Edit: Or not. At first things were fine but now it's back again.

Despite disabling it in exchange for SMAA in the settings, TAA is turning itself on in flight whenever I open the map view, and only a scene change (like opening the tracking station or KSC) seems to turn it off again. I had a feeling it might be reverting itself to the High quality setting, which I was running before the custom changes, but when I went into all the presets in the default config itself and swapped the AA in the higher ones, it still persisted. I know TUFX has an issue with turning it off when the map view is opened, but I'm not using TUFX. Is anyone else seeing this? Could it be something in AVP doing it?

I admit I was a bit disgruntled writing the original post, in hindsight I could have boiled it down to less. As for the shadows, that's exactly why I wanted your word on that. I was wrong, which is why I wouldn't trust myself an inch to be writing any documentation.

I get where you're coming from, people do tend to search up their problems, but I think a forum search is still a slower process than it being front-and-center to read as a small disclaimer for as long as it continues to be a thing, for those who install mods manually. If the way a mod works induces some side-effects by default, users have a right to be informed of that somewhere clear - could save them a lot of time slowly disabling mods to filter down where the problem's coming from if they decide to check the front pages of their visual mods to see if any of them mention it first. Not everyone will do that of course, but it'll help a few, and for those who search about the issue, it's already been covered in previous posts here. I have had an idea for blackrack's consideration, though. Would it be technically possible to implement higher 4x or 8x levels of SMAA in the future? I'd imagine that may well entirely resolve the issues with disabling stock AA, since it'd be replaced with more lightweight and somewhat equally capable options with the same quality levels offered.

All I'm really proposing is a couple simple notes on the main page saying the mod disables default AA and starts on a lower quality setting, there's no need for third-party documentation to be written up on that which would need maintaining by me through any future updates that change the matter, I could easily get something wrong. I didn't make scatterer, and I'm not a modder. I had to google around the place for an hour just to find out what was happening to my game. Best for it to come from blackrack, who actually knows how the mod works. It's all just a suggestion, really. I'm not sitting here with a big pitchfork demanding any of this happen, just in case I was giving off that vibe.

I've come to harbour a few grievances about how some of scatterer's features and settings are currently being handled, so I'll just lay it out here. For the average end user installing the mod in its current state - perhaps as part of a visual pack without even knowing what they've signed up for - they're immediately going to be asking two questions. "Why does my antialiasing look bad sometimes" and "Why do the vessel shadows look bad sometimes" They're going to start scouring the universe looking for solutions to what is assumed to be some sort of a stock rendering bug and potentially doing their game even more harm. It isn't clearly communicated almost anywhere outside of old release notes and forum posts that the new depth buffer mode disables default MSAA in certain scenes due to incompatibility and replaces it with SMAA (and I don't know if it's just a me thing or a 1080p issue, but it's looking pretty awful on my end even at higher quality levels), or that the mod defaults to a low quality setting - increasing which improves the shadows. I understand both these changes were made for performance and compatibility's sake, but they also cause their fair share of problems for the unaware user - especially if the new depth buffer mode can't even be turned off now. Even a single in-game settings change (which people do far more often than you'd think) will be enough to re-enable the stock AA, which causes some visual bugs. Again, few people would have any idea of this being a thing until it happens, potentially by accident, leading to more unnecessary bug reports and the like. There should be more information on the main post explaining this, and if possible the ability to disable the mode should be kept for those who prefer visuals over performance like myself. I have a good GPU, I like my MSAA and I'd prefer to be able to keep it on without having to rollback my Scatterer, EVE, and AVP versions.

Forcing glcore saves a stunning amount of ram use, even if it costs a little fps. My install goes down from hogging about 14+ gigs of ram down to about 8 or 9. I have 16 gigs of ram, which should be enough for JNSQ, and I've tried cutting down my modlist several times, and yet KSP still demands on throwing itself right to the limit and forcing all manner of occasional page file slowdown unless I use glcore. I've always wondered, what does glcore do to save ram that DX11 can't do?

Ah. I heard way back when that it was better for performance, noticed it dropped the ram use by one gig and never went back. Turns out the bug isn't visible when running the default DX11. I guess we just found a new OpenGL bug.

I value my RAM and FPS, and OpenGL gives immense gains to both. I tried switching up the values as suggested in Kerbin's ocean.cfg (I believe that's the right file) and alas, it's still there.

After some more experimentation I narrowed the atmosphere issues down to Scatterer, so don't worry about that one. As for lindor, the rings are still pink. Here's my log. Edit: Turns out this occurs when forcing OpenGL. Still don't know what else is behind it, though.

The latest Scatterer update is causing some strange visual bugs on kerbin's water in 1.9.1, mainly the horizon. I rolled back to 0.0610 and the bug was gone. Seen here in JNSQ, but on the stock system side of things it's visible in AVP and Spectra too. Also worth noting I'm forcing OpenGL. Here's the log.

I'm unsure if this is a Kopernicus issue or not since I've tried the recent update and it didn't appear to fix anything (as this bug has been present for a few versions now), but lindor has some... Awfully pink rings going on. I'm aware an issue like this can happen on mac versions of the game, but I'm on windows. Installed via CKAN on 1.9.1, but I've taken a look around the files and they all seem to be in the right place. Any idea what might be causing this? I'd post my log, but I want to try messing with a few things to pin down some of these issues first. Edit: turns out I'm getting more visual jank than just this. Kerbin's cloud shadows seem stronger than normal and the horizon and colour looks very off. The horizon bug is present in other visual packs too, so it might not be a JNSQ thing, but it does clearly affect JNSQ. Perhaps Scatterer or Kopernicus are to blame for this particular one? I might bring it up over on that side of things if I determine it to be from a recent update.

Cool, can't wait to- Hang on, did you just say Saturn development? You know our bodies aren't ready for this yet! It's too powerful!

The craft files provided in the release aren't read as compatible by 1.8.1 when loaded in the VAB since they're marked with higher version numbers. The quick fix is going in and editing the number myself, but the list is pretty huge and I'd rather not have to do that with every release if it can be helped. Could we get an alternate version of the craft files with 1.8.1 compatibility, or are there more things going on under the hood preventing that?

I remember having a similar problem, make sure you have the latest versions of B9PartSwitch and ModuleManager installed. Even though they might not be listed as compatible with 1.8.1, they absolutely are.

I've run into that parachute bug as well - but looking into the files I couldn't really spot anything that would change the parachute's ability to function. It's an odd one indeed. Edit: Looking at the chute ingame, both of the effective diameters read out as 0. Something's definitely borked, but the BDB config for it looks fine, so it must be BDB in colours messing with it in some unfathomable manner.

Everything's up to date, and even after clearing ConfigCache and ConfigSHA the issue still persists. I'm starting to think it might be something 1.8.1 related? Edit: CKAN was lying to me about the version of B9PS I was using, and switching to the latest seems to have fixed it, but I'm still getting that strange low-poly red cone as the flight scene loads in. I'm getting this on 1.8.1 too, and I don't even have Making History, so it definitely affects the ReStock+ plates - at least that's what Janitor's Closet says they're from on my end.

Running NFLV and a sizeable number of other mods (notably JNSQ, if that effects anything) on 1.8.1 and I'm getting a bug with the upper stage engine mounts. They look absolutely fine in the editor and seem to function as intended, but upon loading into the flight scene I get this weird red cone-shaped thing appearing at the tail end of the loading screen that I can't seem to capture with a screenshot, followed by the interstages completely vanishing from existence. I used to have a problem with the whole rocket being suspended from the engine mount, but that wasn't present this time round on a test save. The thing still took off and flew about as well as something of this shape could be expected to under the power of both stages, so it seems to be a mainly visual issue. Images: I've reinstalled the mod and a few others and checked all dependencies are up to date, nothing seems to have fixed it. Here's the log: https://mega.nz/file/wdMW0A4A#_MGfcd9jeM0O6sFDFr2jp-1uegeyJj5vOOc5sIMicRc Edit: I should mention I installed via CKAN as with all my mods, but a manual install didn't fix anything, so I'm going to try a minimal install at some point today to see if it's conflict-related. Edit 2: Minimal install (just the mod and dependencies) still didn't fix the issue.

Just to be certain, is this latest version only for the bdb dev build, given it applies to the new agena?

Ah, the majestic- ...Oh. That's not a Saturn V. Behold, the Herakles V, an unholy abomination! Primed and ready for a Mun mission in JNSQ. Mission album here: https://imgur.com/a/Td9hLvs Album embeds in spoiler: