jefferyharrell

I've deliberately taken a very gradual approach to exploring this mod, so I can draw out the fun of discovery as long as possible. Here's my first glimpse of the Mun as my mapping orbiter comes around the light side, seven minutes from periapse.

That's with clouds. I'm running EVE.

@Galileo Okay, I know I said I find the terrain jaggies charming, and that's true, and I know you said non-jaggy textures would obliterate RAM, but... Just how much obliteration are we talking about? My KSP already takes up about 18 GB. Is there any virtue to considering a less-compressed option for people with 32 GB PCs? Just asking the question.

Do you have terrain scatters on? We've been informed that there's a known performance issue at low altitudes with terrain scatters on, and it's being worked on. If you want to test it out, you can do what I did and go to Github, download the master branch ZIP file and move the contents of the enclosed GameData folder into your GameData folder, obviously having backed up everything first. Doing this roughly doubled my FPS at low altitude, but only on Kerbin, as I haven't gone interplanetary in JNSQ yet. Incidentally, have you guys seen the sunset right after you start a new game?

I promised I'd report back. This morning I installed the Github master branch on 1.7.1 with both expansions. With all the visual mods, all graphics settings set to their maximums, terrain scatters on, density at the default setting, I'm now seeing on the order of 40+ frames per second sitting on the launchpad, where with JNSQ 0.65 I was seeing FPS in the teens. So good job on the changes.

I think there's always been a thread of elitism among the KSP player base. And that's not really a bad thing. Sure, if you're snotty about it you're just being unpleasant, but I think the mentality that "kid, stock KSP is just a toy, try launching a real rocket sometime" is kind of a good thing for the game and the players. Some of the very early decisions made about the game, like the scale of the planets, I think were made with good intentions but created unforeseen consequences. Like for instance, making Kerbin so small made liftoff "easier" (in the sense that it requires a smaller rocket) but it ended up making rendezvous and docking much harder because at orbital altitudes tidal forces around Kerbin are amazing. It's extremely difficult to maneuver two spacecraft near each other because the steep gravitational gradient is always pulling them apart or pushing them together. Bigger planets make getting to orbit "harder" (in the sense that you generally can't just burn like a crazy person and get to orbit three minutes later) but once you're there, everything else actually gets easier. I think it's that stripe of elitism among KSP players that pushes the envelope and makes people go "Hang on a minute, that's actually a really good point. Why should the game be like such-and-so when that's so different from real life?" Ah, one of my favorite words: "verisimilitude."

Thanks for the quick reply. I'll let you know if anything unusually weird happens.

Pardon me for asking what may be a dumb question, but should DiRT 1.7.2.0 be used with KSP 1.7.1? Kopernicus and JNSQ aren't on 1.7.2 yet, is the only reason I ask.

PERFECT. Thanks very much.

Okie dokie, I'll try turning them off during my play time tomorrow and report back. I certainly don't find the game unplayable. I'm lucky enough to be on a beefy computer with a G-Sync monitor, so I hardly notice the hit unless I'm specifically looking for it, or else looking at the color of the MET clock. On the subject of scatters, does JNSQ have colliders on the terrain scatter? I think I'd enjoy the challenge of navigating around moon boulders while landing. (I haven't been far past LKO in JNSQ yet.)

Good to have some empirical evidence to back up my gut. While we're on the subject, though, something odd about my game is that I always seem to have a low frame rate and the yellow MET clock sitting on the launchpad and also below like 30,000 meters or so. Doesn't matter what kind of vehicle I'm launching, and it always clears up at altitude. Any guess what might be causing that? I should note that I'm running EVE and Scatterer and tons of other mods as well, so I'm not really serious about my question. Just wondering if you've seen that too. I have to confess that one of the things I've always hated about KSP is how single-stage-to-orbit is not only possible, if you're not careful it can be unavoidable. You have to go way out of your way to avoid building a launch vehicle that throws itself into a highly elliptical orbit. From the playing I've done so far, JNSQ seems to be very nicely tuned to make two-stage-to-orbit the best way to build a vehicle.

Here's the thing about D3D11: You have to have the Textures Unlimited mod installed, otherwise the VAB part icons won't have any textures. You don't actually have to use Textures Unlimited (though some mods have support for its special features), but it's got to be there to fix the part icon problem. That being said, I've been using D3D11 exclusively for some time now and haven't encountered any problems that I think aren't also present when you use D3D9. In fact, it's entirely subjective but it feels like my game performs better with D3D11.

Please don't interpret what I said as some kind of back-handed, passive-aggressive way of complaining about the texture resolution. I meant what I said: I kind of like the look. Of course you could use higher-res or less-compressed textures, but it's about what's good for the game as a whole. I support that 100%.

Oh, I like this mod. I do, I do. I suppose the Kerbin textures could be a bit higher resolution, but I kind of like the jaggies. They've got a retro feel to them. Incidentally, this is the 500-ton monstrosity that put most of that into orbit. I'm thinking of tweaking my ascent guidance program to hold on to the payload fairings a bit longer. They're not needed at that altitude, but it just feels wrong to ditch them before first-stage burnout.

That's cool, maybe the Procedural Parts-related bug will get fixed. I've got plenty to explore in the meantime.

I have a feature request. Say you've got a rocket with a first stage, a second stage and some kind of payload, like a satellite. The payload has a control part on it, obviously, which can be named "[Blah Blah] Satellite" or whatever, and this mod will rename the vehicle to "Blah Blah 1" when you roll out to the launch pad. But say your upper stage also has a probe core on it so you can de-orbit it or whatever. I'd like to be able to use the "Configure Vessel Naming" feature to set that part's name to "[Blah Blah] Upper Stage," and then the mod changes it to "Blah Blah 1 Upper Stage" on rollout. As it is right now, if I try to use the "Configure Vessel Naming" feature that way, my upper stage ends up named "[Blah Blah] Upper Stage" or whatever I typed, and this mod doesn't touch it. Think that'd be possible? I've gotten so spoiled by this mod that manually renaming detached stages makes me feel like a peasant.

Screenshot time! I'm telling you, man, that new sunflare is just great. Okay, just one more: On the way to map the Mun. Spent upper stage in the background, New Kerbin below. I love this mod.

I have a deeply selfish request. After updating to 1.7.1 and the new JNSQ I discovered that there's a fresh bug in the game that's messing with Procedural Parts somehow, as discussed starting here: https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/169250-131-14-15-16-17-procedural-parts-tidal-stream-branch/page/5/&tab=comments#comment-3614884 Because of this bug I'm going to revert back to 1.7.0, and since Procedural Parts is so old I'm not optimistic that the bug will be worked around real soon. Would it be easy for you to back-port your 0.6 changes to a version that works with 1.7.0's Kopernicus? Or I guess I could just wait and see what 1.7.2 brings. But I thought I'd ask just to ask.

Are you guys aware of the "terrain detail" thing? If I start a brand new game with no settings.cfg file present, when I go into graphics settings I see this: This is 100% as expect. I move the slider all the way to the right and see this: Also totally nominal. I apply the settings, quit the game, then restart it. When I go back into settings I see this: This is on KSP 1.7.1 (definitely not 1.7.2), using JNSQ 0.5, with this minimal GameData folder: The same thing was happening with JNSQ 0.4 on 1.7.0, but at the time I had dozens of other mods installed so I didn't want to report what could've been a problem on my end. EDIT: I should also add that I have Making History installed but not Breaking Ground.

Oh outstanding. If I can be forgiven for asking a silly question, what's the practical difference then? Assuming I run Scatterer (which I do) and my CPU and GPU are let's say better than average (which they are), would you recommend I change that config setting or leave it at the default?

So just to be clear, if this setting is left at the default ("False") then we get the, let's say, not as cool sunflare, and to get the cool new one we need to change this from "False" to "True?" Just clarifying is all. (There's a joke in there somewhere about clarifying the sun but I can't seem to land it.)

Okay, very good. Installing EVE from Github is a piece of cake. Thanks for the quick response.

Awesome! Now I have a reason to create a 1.7.1 folder. Question, though, to which you may have no answer: Do you have a opinion on whether Scatterer, EVE and Distant Object should be installed via CKAN? I've noticed when you install them that way certain config bundles come along for the ride. Is it okay that those configs are in the GameData folder? Or should those mods be installed "bare" from Github?

I think there is, actually. I haven't crunched the numbers obviously, but my intuition tells me that if Minmus started in a significantly inclined orbit, the Mun would drag it toward the ecliptic over time. (Like geologic time, I mean.) It'd be interesting to see some numerical simulations that prove or disprove that, but that's my guess.

I'm not impressed by SSTU, personally. I recognize and admire the amount of work that's gone into it, but the aesthetics just don't fit into the game as I like to play it. The models are excellent but excessively detailed, and all that detail just turns into high-frequency noise on my screen (which KSP, bless it, is incapable of antialiasing). I also find the over-use of metallic shaders to be cloying. KSP wants a very careful balance between realistic and cartoonish. Too much in either direction and it all falls apart. All that being said, I'm sure it's a fine mod. It's just not my cup of tea. I'm very sorry that this has gone so wildly off-topic.