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

[Spaceception]

15 minutes ago, Streetwind said:

@Spaceception You're definitely missing the NFE reactor panel on the right. That means the plugin didn't load.

1.) Make sure that ...\GameData\NearFutureElectrical\Plugins\NearFutureElectrical.dll exists in your install.
2.a.) If it is missing, reinstall the mod.
2.b.) If it is present, check your logs for any errors.
3.a.) If you can see one, upload the log for us.
3.b.) If you can't see one, the plugin is not present in your modlist and you failed step 1.

 

Yeeeeeeah, Near Future electrical wasn't even in the folder for some reason, reinstalling it now, or at least when the WiFi decides to work. 

[Spaceception]

Reinstalled it, but I have to test later, I'm busy right now, fingers crossed

[Spaceception]

3 hours ago, Streetwind said:

 

Snippy

IT WORKS!!! Thanks

Edited May 12, 2017 by Spaceception

[Bit Fiddler]

where can I find a "users manual" for near future electrical's reactor control panel.  there are a few bits on it that do not make sense to me.

[PocketBrotector]

5 hours ago, Bit Fiddler said:

where can I find a "users manual" for near future electrical's reactor control panel.  there are a few bits on it that do not make sense to me.

Not yet created, though there are intentions to create pages for KSPedia and/or an online wiki (with no specific announced timeframe). 

The reactor control panel unfortunately uses some semi-cryptic icons instead of text labels (there was an adage in the early days of GUI design that "a word is worth a thousand pictures"). The bits you're referring to are probably auto-shutdown options triggered by specific reactor core temps or time warp levels. 

@Nertea / @Streetwind - is there any interest in community-generated documentation for Near Future, etc.? I know that there were successful volunteers doing such work for MKS, and Nert's mods are similar in that they introduce gameplay mechanics that extend/supplement stock (though thankfully with less complexity than some of the MKS stuff). I can't say that I've generated content in the KSPedia format before, but I'd be interested in tackling it as long as I'd be producing something that would be useful/desired.

[Bit Fiddler]

ah yes the time warp bit is indeed the slider I was questioning. 

 

the other problem is the small indicator lines on the temp bar do not seem to move even if I change my shutdown temp. the line stays at 1300 or what ever the default was.  is this intentional? are these lines not indicating a shutdown temp and a normal temp state?

 

[PocketBrotector]

5 minutes ago, Bit Fiddler said:

the other problem is the small indicator lines on the temp bar do not seem to move even if I change my shutdown temp. the line stays at 1300 or what ever the default was.  is this intentional? are these lines not indicating a shutdown temp and a normal temp state?

I believe it indicates the max safe core temp, beyond which a reactor will gradually accumulate damage - if I recall correctly, damaged reactors have permanently impaired capabilities. So while you are allowed to tweak reactor temperature settings, under normal operating conditions doing so has significant more downside than upside.

There might be a mechanism by which highly skilled engineers can partly repair a damaged reactor - I think there was something like that in previous versions, but I don't know if it's still around.

[Bit Fiddler]

ah yes this makes sense...  the lines are the normal temp and the max safe temp...  which as "luck" would have it coincides with the default shutdown temp...

[maculator]

What is the ".DS_Store" file in near future construction for?

 

[JadeOfMaar]

57 minutes ago, maculator said:

What is the ".DS_Store" file in near future construction for?

That file stores information about its containing folder on an Apple file system. It means the package was created on a Mac. (It's completely safe to delete)

[New Horizons]

In Near_Future_Spacecraft-0.6.3.zip there exist these two folders "orbitalEngine" and "orbital-engine" within "Parts/Engine". Is the one, which contains files marked with version 0.6.1, the correct one? 

Those two folders lead to non-placed engines in the VAB part categories and tech tree. And additionally the new engine names break with RealFuels Stockalike - already mentioned it over there.

The category of the engines should be "category = Propulsion" as it is for the ion and mpdt engines.

[Nertea]

I'm on vacation guys, thanks for holding down the fort until I get back.

36 minutes ago, New Horizons said:

In Near_Future_Spacecraft-0.6.3.zip there exist these two folders "orbitalEngine" and "orbital-engine" within "Parts/Engine". Is the one, which contains files marked with version 0.6.1, the correct one? 

Those two folders lead to non-placed engines in the VAB part categories and tech tree. And additionally the new engine names break with RealFuels Stockalike - already mentioned it over there.

The category of the engines should be "category = Propulsion" as it is for the ion and mpdt engines.

Deprecated engines do not have categories or anything. If you use them you will be in trouble next update, when legacy components will be removed.

[GeorgeD]

I've installed all of the above mods, and I've had a load of fun with them. Thanks for your hard work!

Edited May 15, 2017 by GeorgeD

[ruiluth]

I'd like to chime in about the balance of the MPDT. I really love them, both the concept of a high-thrust electric engine and the beautiful engine FX, but I just can't bring myself to use them. I built two test ships with something like a 17t payload to test them:

• My MPDT-powered ship, which used two of the largest MPD...Es and 3 FLAT reactors, had 10.7 km/s of dV, a TWR from 0.53-0.71, and costed 1.7M funds.
• My Kerbal Atomics ship, which used a Liberator and one of the 0.625m Stirling reactors to cool the LH2, had 10.5 km/s of dV, a TWR from 0.89-1.71, and costed 130K funds.

I realize that an CCGC NTR is a lot more futuristic than a big MPDT, but the difference here is extreme, especially considering that they occupy similar levels in the Community Tech Tree. I'm not sure what to suggest, but something seems wrong here so I thought I'd at least throw it out for consideration.

BTW, thanks so much @Nertea for making these mods, especially Station Parts Expansion. They're high on my list of mods I can't play without

[Streetwind]

@ruiluth The huge cost is likely created almost entirely by the reactors. Which, in turn, have to be this expensive in order to be sensible when compared to stock power generation options (and people still call them too cheap sometimes).

Since the NTR vessel does not have several large reactors, it doesn't have that cost factor. However, perhaps the cost of cryogenic tanks and the NTRs themselves needs to be looked at? I've not personally been involved with Kerbal Atomics, so I can't comment on that.

Edited May 18, 2017 by Streetwind

[captinjoehenry]

One thing that would be nice would be an option to remove the scaffolding around the Hermes reactor.  I only ask as the reactor itself appears to be 2.5 meter diameter with just the scaffolding around it pushing its width to 3.75 meters.  It would make sense to be to have a compact version of that reactor without a top node option but only 2.5 meter diameter.

Edited May 18, 2017 by captinjoehenry

[HereComesTheBoom]

@Nertea I've noticed that the LV-T95-8's file isn't included in this version. I use that engine religiously on my Munar and Minmus landers. Although, it is listed and unlocked in my tech tree, it does not show up anywhere in the VAB. Does this mean that it will be removed for good? And if so, do you plan to add another low-profile engine that runs on liquid fuel? The LV-95-6 may be around the same size, but I'm not too keen on using a 6 engine assembly over an 8, and running monopropellant over liquid fuel for a 2.5 meter lander on top of that.

[ruiluth]

16 hours ago, Streetwind said:

@ruiluth The huge cost is likely created almost entirely by the reactors. Which, in turn, have to be this expensive in order to be sensible when compared to stock power generation options (and people still call them too cheap sometimes).

Since the NTR vessel does not have several large reactors, it doesn't have that cost factor. However, perhaps the cost of cryogenic tanks and the NTRs themselves needs to be looked at? I've not personally been involved with Kerbal Atomics, so I can't comment on that.

That's a great point. I could probably reduce the number of reactors significantly by using more batteries and/or capacitors. Solar panels aren't an option for anywhere beyond Duna, and since Jool is my primary destination for these ships, some kind of reactor is going to have to suffice. Obviously, a uranium mine somewhere in the Kerbin system would probably lower costs immensely...

Oh, I know what it is. I'm not using the patch that makes the NTRs have reactor cores themselves. If they required uranium too then they'd be a lot more expensive. That's probably a large part of it. I'll try it with that enabled and report back.

EDIT: It seems that that patch makes the engines themselves cost 0, so the only cost you're paying is for the EnrichedUranium. That's probably an oversight... but it does seem like the NTRs are the ones that should be tweaked for balance.

Edited May 18, 2017 by ruiluth

[Streetwind]

13 hours ago, HereComesTheBoom said:

@Nertea I've noticed that the LV-T95-8's file isn't included in this version. I use that engine religiously on my Munar and Minmus landers. Although, it is listed and unlocked in my tech tree, it does not show up anywhere in the VAB. Does this mean that it will be removed for good? And if so, do you plan to add another low-profile engine that runs on liquid fuel? The LV-95-6 may be around the same size, but I'm not too keen on using a 6 engine assembly over an 8, and running monopropellant over liquid fuel for a 2.5 meter lander on top of that.

The liquid fuel orbital engines have been deprecated since early February. Their config files are still included for now (.../GameData/NearFutureSpacecraft/Parts/Engine/orbitalEngine/), to avoid breaking in-flight ships in existing saves for people who do not read changelogs before updating; however, they are set unresearchable and hidden in the editor. The only reason you still see them in the tech tree is because you updated from an older version in which you researched them, and KSP writes completed research into the persistence file, so it loads the shadow of a deactivated part into the tech node it used to be in. If you were to start a new save, you would no longer find it anywhere.

The monoprop engines are the intended permanent replacement. In a future update, the deprecated LFO engines will be removed entirely and will not come back.

You now have the following options:
- Go with the new engines as they are shipped, and use monopropellant
- Go with the new engines, and install the LFO conversion patch from the Extras folder so you don't have to use monopropellant
- Manually reactivate and carry along the deprecated engines yourself for as long as your current save is running

 

8 hours ago, ruiluth said:

EDIT: It seems that that patch makes the engines themselves cost 0, so the only cost you're paying is for the EnrichedUranium. That's probably an oversight... but it does seem like the NTRs are the ones that should be tweaked for balance.

That patch is heavily Work In Progress and does not feature final numbers, last I checked. I encourage you to add your thoughts in the Kerbal Atomics thread

Edited May 19, 2017 by Streetwind

[HereComesTheBoom]

11 hours ago, Streetwind said:

The liquid fuel orbital engines have been deprecated since early February. Their config files are still included for now (.../GameData/NearFutureSpacecraft/Parts/Engine/orbitalEngine/), to avoid breaking in-flight ships in existing saves for people who do not read changelogs before updating; however, they are set unresearchable and hidden in the editor. The only reason you still see them in the tech tree is because you updated from an older version in which you researched them, and KSP writes completed research into the persistence file, so it loads the shadow of a deactivated part into the tech node it used to be in. If you were to start a new save, you would no longer find it anywhere.

The monoprop engines are the intended permanent replacement. In a future update, the deprecated LFO engines will be removed entirely and will not come back.

You now have the following options:
- Go with the new engines as they are shipped, and use monopropellant
- Go with the new engines, and install the LFO conversion patch from the Extras folder so you don't have to use monopropellant
- Manually reactivate and carry along the deprecated engines yourself for as long as your current save is running

 

That patch is heavily Work In Progress and does not feature final numbers, last I checked. I encourage you to add your thoughts in the Kerbal Atomics thread

Thanks for the explanation Street. I think I'll be considering option 2. Although, I do not see an extras folder anywhere in the Near Future Space Craft zip file.

Edited May 19, 2017 by HereComesTheBoom

[Streetwind]

1 hour ago, HereComesTheBoom said:

Thanks for the explanation Street. I think I'll be considering option 2. Although, I do not see an extras folder anywhere in the Near Future Space Craft zip file.

Huh, you are correct. It is missing from the latest bundle.

As a workaround, you can grab it straight from the repository: https://github.com/ChrisAdderley/NearFutureSpacecraft/tree/dev/Extras/OrbitalLFOEngines

[HereComesTheBoom]

2 hours ago, Streetwind said:

Huh, you are correct. It is missing from the latest bundle.

As a workaround, you can grab it straight from the repository: https://github.com/ChrisAdderley/NearFutureSpacecraft/tree/dev/Extras/OrbitalLFOEngines

Awesome! Thanks for the help!

Edited May 19, 2017 by HereComesTheBoom

[HereComesTheBoom]

@Streetwind One more question, where does the .cfg file for the LFO conversion go? in the GameData Folder, Near Future SpaceCraft folder, The Parts Folder?

Update: I went in and changed the deprecated engines' .cfg files to be usable again. They show up in the VAB and in the R&D Center again. 

Edited May 19, 2017 by HereComesTheBoom

[Streetwind]

Module Manager patches can go anywhere in GameData, really. But it usually makes sense to sort them somewhere in an orderly manner, just so you can keep track.

[DStaal]

A quick check to see if anyone else is seeing this behavior - it's quite possible it's some mod interaction:

When I launch a ship with octo-girders in 'mission support' mode, the batteries start uncharged.  This normally isn't to noticeable to me - the launch clamps will charge your ship, as will the alternator on most engines, so they'll be moderately charged by the time you reach orbit (not to mention if you have solar panels or some other generation in place you'll be charging them that way) - but I recently l was building an extension on an LKO space station, and shipped up a *big* truss without much in the way of power generation (figuring the battery - intended to help the station last through the dark cycle -  would last the time needed to get to it without a recharge), and had to abandon it when my orbital manuvers took longer than anticipated.

(Related: The octo-core can't go into hibernation mode like most probe cores.  That could be a deliberate choice, or just not updating them for the latest mechanics.)