[1.12.x] Near Future Technologies (September 6)

[smotheredrun]

6 minutes ago, Nertea said:

Sooo... starting to draft up the next set of replacement engine models. First, this is new 2.5m VASIMR. I went with a triple nozzle design and made it much longer. It's now something like halfway between the current squat cluster and the older, longer model. 

 

Here we have the revised 2.5m PIT, which will keep the bits I like (nozzle area) and add more structural components and power conversion equipment.

 

In addition, I had a solid start at the newest 3.75m reactor, which is the last planned new part for NFE. 

 

 

Oooooooooo!!!!!!!  Pretty!  Looks like I'll have some competing contractors for my next batch of deep space/interplanetary missions! 

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Nertea said:

Sooo... starting to draft up the next set of replacement engine models. First, this is new 2.5m VASIMR. I went with a triple nozzle design and made it much longer. It's now something like halfway between the current squat cluster and the older, longer model. 

 

......

 

 

You might want VASIMR to be quad-nozzle, because you can build it with anti-symmetric, and it will make their magnetic fields outside the engine core to neutralize each other instead of negatively affecting the plasma exhaust.

[Nertea]

14 hours ago, WildLynx said:

You might want VASIMR to be quad-nozzle, because you can build it with anti-symmetric, and it will make their magnetic fields outside the engine core to neutralize each other instead of negatively affecting the plasma exhaust.

It just creates torque against magnetosphere. Orienting the cyclotron magnets to neutralize each other allows scaling up to any number of engines such that their net torque (find the paper somewhere) is cancelled out. This just enforces a minimum number of flight units. 

[Nertea]

Draft model for the revised 2.5m MPDT. 

 

I think these will need some iteration, but I'm fairly happy with them so far... gotta work out some more structural bit. I thought I'd make them more like the demo/flight models. 

 

 

[ExavierMacbeth]

@Nertea I know this might count as a feature request but there is one thing I would like to see. It mostly affects the NFE/Atomics patches but since it would be a change to the NFE reactor control panel I will post it here.

Would it be possible to get an option we can set on a reactor to automatically change its power level (or enable/disable it completely) when time warp is engaged? I've lost count of how many times I have burned out the fuel in the Kerbal Atomics Engines (As well as the smaller EXP reactor & the USI patched reactors in bases) where I have accidentally left the things at full power while time warping between maneuver nodes or arbitrary time points (for bases).

I realize such a function might not work well with the non-active catch-up functions the game uses if you time warp while focused on another craft. But just having it for when your trying to actively time-warp with the vessel would be extremely useful.

 

Other than that I love your mods and consider them required for any game of KSP I play

[MysterySloth]

Does Near Future Spacecraft work with Raster Prop Monitor?

[HoveringKiller]

4 minutes ago, MysterySloth said:

Does Near Future Spacecraft work with Raster Prop Monitor?

It used to, but I believe IVA modeling issues caused Nertea to discontinue RPM support. But I'm not entirely sure.

[Nertea]

5 hours ago, MysterySloth said:

Does Near Future Spacecraft work with Raster Prop Monitor?

There is an update not too far in the future that will restore this functionality but take a hard dependency on the ASET props pack as well. 

9 hours ago, ExavierMacbeth said:

I know this might count as a feature request but there is one thing I would like to see. It mostly affects the NFE/Atomics patches but since it would be a change to the NFE reactor control panel I will post it here.

Would it be possible to get an option we can set on a reactor to automatically change its power level (or enable/disable it completely) when time warp is engaged? I've lost count of how many times I have burned out the fuel in the Kerbal Atomics Engines (As well as the smaller EXP reactor & the USI patched reactors in bases) where I have accidentally left the things at full power while time warping between maneuver nodes or arbitrary time points (for bases).

I realize such a function might not work well with the non-active catch-up functions the game uses if you time warp while focused on another craft. But just having it for when your trying to actively time-warp with the vessel would be extremely useful

Maybe log a Git issue as a suggestion and I'll see what I can do, I suppose it's a somewhat niche feature but code-wise it's pretty trivial to implement. The planned pre-1.0 restructure of the UIs was intended to fold many of the current options in an "Advanced" rollout, which is a nice place for that kind of thing.

[ExavierMacbeth]

2 hours ago, Nertea said:

Maybe log a Git issue as a suggestion and I'll see what I can do, I suppose it's a somewhat niche feature but code-wise it's pretty trivial to implement. The planned pre-1.0 restructure of the UIs was intended to fold many of the current options in an "Advanced" rollout, which is a nice place for that kind of thing.

Done

[MysterySloth]

3 hours ago, Nertea said:

There is an update not too far in the future that will restore this functionality but take a hard dependency on the ASET props pack as well. 

Oh... I see... No offense but ASET would break Buffalo's IVAs. I guess i could delete the Buffalo ASET Ivas, but i don't know how that would work.

[Nertea]

28 minutes ago, MysterySloth said:

Oh... I see... No offense but ASET would break Buffalo's IVAs. I guess i could delete the Buffalo ASET Ivas, but i don't know how that would work.

Why would the existence of a props pack break other IVAs?

[Streetwind]

Perhaps the ASET pack provides a replacement IVA for certain parts, but @MysterySloth prefers the original?

The replacement is probably handled by a MM config, so removing that config should fix the issue without a need to get into nitty-gritty details about it.

[MysterySloth]

13 hours ago, Nertea said:

Why would the existence of a props pack break other IVAs?

Well you see. Buffalo's ASET IVAs have LOTS of props. I mean A LOT. And guess what that does? Kills my pc.

[Akira_R]

4 hours ago, MysterySloth said:

Well you see. Buffalo's ASET IVAs have LOTS of props. I mean A LOT. And guess what that does? Kills my pc.

Sooo delete the patch .cfgs for the Buffalo ASET IVAs?

[Skalgrin]

I noticed this being discussed here, red through and hopefuly understood. But I would rather clarify I got it right. The good'n'old LV-95-8 is now officialy gone(?) (kinda replaced with LV-95-6) and the "old" engine in the techtree is just a placeholder for not deleting craft upon load, which used old engine... Or? 

(I do not complain, fresh start of new career...)

[Nertea]

1 hour ago, Skalgrin said:

I noticed this being discussed here, red through and hopefuly understood. But I would rather clarify I got it right. The good'n'old LV-95-8 is now officialy gone(?) (kinda replaced with LV-95-6) and the "old" engine in the techtree is just a placeholder for not deleting craft upon load, which used old engine... Or? 

(I do not complain, fresh start of new career...)

Yes. The deprecated parts will stay around until 1.0 but they will eventually be removed from the pack.

[SpaceMouse]

On 3/3/2017 at 5:20 PM, Nertea said:

Sooo... starting to draft up the next set of replacement engine models. First, this is new 2.5m VASIMR. I went with a triple nozzle design and made it much longer. It's now something like halfway between the current squat cluster and the older, longer model. 

 

 

Hmmm. Not be be negative here but, VASIMR thrusters individually have a torque effect so they should TECHNICALLY be in multiples of two to counter the torque.

[Nertea]

On 3/6/2017 at 2:07 PM, SpaceMouse said:

Hmmm. Not be be negative here but, VASIMR thrusters individually have a torque effect so they should TECHNICALLY be in multiples of two to counter the torque.

Read my post a few posts down. 

[Saybur Stuff]

For the IVA on the I'm getting this graphical bug (The tearing between the window panes)

It happens on the other side of the cock pit too.. any idea of the issue or a fix for it? 

Thanks!

 

[Streetwind]

3 hours ago, Saybur Stuff said:

For the IVA on the I'm getting this graphical bug (The tearing between the window panes)

Known issue. IVA work is low priority though.

[Nertea]

12 hours ago, Saybur Stuff said:

For the IVA on the I'm getting this graphical bug (The tearing between the window panes)

It happens on the other side of the cock pit too.. any idea of the issue or a fix for it? 

Thanks!

 

It's actually a recorded issue, even. https://github.com/ChrisAdderley/NearFutureSpacecraft/issues/41

 

I unwrapped and colorized the new engine revisions. This is going to be a whole bundle of fun to texture, but they look fairly good so far. Usually if it looks good with colorization it will probably look good when done. Did I mention I'll be overhauling the effects for these engines too, particularly the VASIMRs?

Oh yeah and because coding time is orthogonal to modeling time, I started reworking the NF Electrical reactor UI for prettiness. I can't show it off yet, but so far it's looking sleek and far more functional than it used to be. 

 

[Wyzard]

Out of curiosity, are there real-world (or plausible near-future real-world) monopropellant engines with I_sp as high as the ones recently added to Near Future Spacecraft?  I like their design and I like having monopropellant as an option for main engines, but I kinda wonder if I'm cheating when I use them. 

[Nertea]

They should be more considered engines using advanced storable propellants. Though to answer your exact question, not really, but some of those new "green" propellants can hit ~285s in proven models, and there are some futuristic fuel concepts that can hit as high as 345s.

[smotheredrun]

53 minutes ago, Nertea said:

It's actually a recorded issue, even. https://github.com/ChrisAdderley/NearFutureSpacecraft/issues/41

 

I unwrapped and colorized the new engine revisions. This is going to be a whole bundle of fun to texture, but they look fairly good so far. Usually if it looks good with colorization it will probably look good when done. Did I mention I'll be overhauling the effects for these engines too, particularly the VASIMRs?

Oh yeah and because coding time is orthogonal to modeling time, I started reworking the NF Electrical reactor UI for prettiness. I can't show it off yet, but so far it's looking sleek and far more functional than it used to be. 

 

Looking good!  The only thing that my imagination can see coming out of those engines that could possibly be cooler than what is already there would be rainbows and unicorns!  Whatever you have planned must be pretty cool.

Keep it up!

[Streetwind]

1 hour ago, Nertea said:

I unwrapped and colorized the new engine revisions. This is going to be a whole bundle of fun to texture, but they look fairly good so far.

Not to discredit the involved artists, but these untextured thingamabobs look better than some of the textured thingamabobs in stock KSP...

 

37 minutes ago, Wyzard said:

Out of curiosity, are there real-world (or plausible near-future real-world) monopropellant engines with I_sp as high as the ones recently added to Near Future Spacecraft?  I like their design and I like having monopropellant as an option for main engines, but I kinda wonder if I'm cheating when I use them. 

AJ10-137 Apollo Service Module engine: used Aerozine-50 and nitrogen tetroxide fifty years ago to get 319s.

Aestus-II: currently under development, uses MMH and nitrogen tetroxide for up to 340s.

And as Nertea mentioned, there are some newfangled storable propellants currently under development that beat the classic hydrazine mixes these two used.

As for pure monoprop? No, I don't believe there are any that get that high. I mean, we do know of monopropellants that can deliver this performance, but nobody is crazy enough to actually use them.

 

Edited March 8, 2017 by Streetwind