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

[aluc24]

@Nertea, I'd like to report a bug: the LV-T95-8 Liquid Fuel Engine Assembly doesn't show up at the Engines tab in the VAB/SPH, nor at any other tab. It is still possible to find and use through search function.

P.S. Another question, where can I download Near Future Launch Vehicles for KSP 1.2.2? Or will the 1.3 version work too?

Edited July 24, 2017 by aluc24

[anbztht]

can i use this in 1.2.2?

---

nvm time to update ksp.

Edited July 24, 2017 by anbztht

[Nertea]

26 minutes ago, aluc24 said:

@Nertea, I'd like to report a bug: the LV-T95-8 Liquid Fuel Engine Assembly doesn't show up at the Engines tab in the VAB/SPH, nor at any other tab. It is still possible to find and use through search function.

P.S. Another question, where can I download Near Future Launch Vehicles for KSP 1.2.2? Or will the 1.3 version work too?

Not a bug, sounds like you're out of the loop. That engine was removed from the mod almost 8 months ago. I assume you're using some old version where the configs were kept in to preserve ships. Don't use it. 

And no support for KSP versions older than latest, sorry. 

[aluc24]

Just now, Nertea said:

Not a bug, sounds like you're out of the loop. That engine was removed from the mod almost 8 months ago. I assume you're using some old version where the configs were kept in to preserve ships. Don't use it. 

And no support for KSP versions older than latest, sorry. 

I don't know, I downloaded Near Future packs through CKAN a week ago. I'm not sure which pack is this engine from, but I got it when I downloaded through CKAN. I won't use it then.

[Nertea]

1 hour ago, aluc24 said:

I don't know, I downloaded Near Future packs through CKAN a week ago. I'm not sure which pack is this engine from, but I got it when I downloaded through CKAN. I won't use it then.

It does sound like you're running 1.2.2 though... So if you downloaded it via ckan it would have pulled the latest 1.2.2 version, which did include the files for that part in a semi disabled state.

[notJebKerman]

I finally solved the disappearing parts problem and switched to 1.3. However, nuclear reactors are now open, even tough they were switched to inline at launch in v1.2.2. Is it possible to fix this through save file editing?

Spoiler

 

[Aelfhe1m]

55 minutes ago, notJebKerman said:

Is it possible to fix this through save file editing?

Should be easy enough. Open the save in a text editor and find the vessel. Then find the reactor part. Then ModuleB9PartSwitch. It should look something like (example is prometheus reactor with lots of lines omitted to focus on essentials):

	FLIGHTSTATE
	{
		...
		
		VESSEL
		{
			pid = e4eed219472b40548053f25d7299d3ae
			name = Reactor Test
			...
		
			PART
			{
				name = reactor-25
				...
				MODULE
				{
					name = ModuleB9PartSwitch
					isEnabled = True
					currentSubtypeIndex = 0
					stagingEnabled = True
					currentSubtypeName = Inline
					moduleID = meshSwitch
					...
				}
				...
			}
			...
		}
		
		...

The important bit is currentSubtypeIndex = 0 - changing the value will switch to different model variants. You can also change currentSubtypeName if you want as well.

Edit: And of course remember to backup your save first!

Edited July 25, 2017 by Aelfhe1m

[notJebKerman]

47 minutes ago, Aelfhe1m said:

Should be easy enough. Open the save in a text editor and find the vessel. Then find the reactor part. Then ModuleB9PartSwitch. It should look something like (example is prometheus reactor with lots of lines omitted to focus on essentials):

	FLIGHTSTATE
	{
		...
		
		VESSEL
		{
			pid = e4eed219472b40548053f25d7299d3ae
			name = Reactor Test
			...
		
			PART
			{
				name = reactor-25
				...
				MODULE
				{
					name = ModuleB9PartSwitch
					isEnabled = True
					currentSubtypeIndex = 0
					stagingEnabled = True
					currentSubtypeName = Inline
					moduleID = meshSwitch
					...
				}
				...
			}
			...
		}
		
		...

The important bit is currentSubtypeIndex = 0 - changing the value will switch to different model variants. You can also change currentSubtypeName if you want as well.

Edit: And of course remember to backup your save first!

Thank you!

[pp3d]

I don't suppose you could backport the NF Launch vehicles mod to 1.2.2?

[Blackline]

Hi @Nertea, i am a fan of automatism. I think I proposed that a year ago in the old thread, but since that's lost:

Do you plan to implement an automated power regulation for your reactors? I think that would be state of the art, because needing the players input to alter the power lever every here and then seems a bit unnecessary. Is this something you want this way? Would you take PR's? 

Edited July 26, 2017 by Blackline

[canisin]

39 minutes ago, Blackline said:

Hi @Nertea, i am a fan of automatism. I think I proposed that a year ago in the old thread, but since that's lost:

Do you plan to implement an automated power regulation for your reactors? I think that would be state of the art, because needing the players input to alter the power lever every here and then seems a bit unnecessary. Is this something you want this way? Would you take PR's? 

I think there was an answer to that question buried somewhere in this thread, lemme go and search....

Yep, here it is (towards the end of the following post):

 

Edited July 26, 2017 by canisin

[Blackline]

11 minutes ago, canisin said:

I think there was an answer to that question buried somewhere in this thread, lemme go and search....

Yep, here it is (towards the end of the following post):

 

Oh darn it, i get nerteas reason (it would be too simple) but frankly, easy is imho what it's supposed to be. There are already so many things to do manually, I really don't want to micromanage that as well.

I can always fork it off and do my own stuff, but I'd rather go for a solution for everyone. Maybe to enable a "simple mode" for NFE reactors via cfg file?

[DY_ZBX]

Dear author:

I have finished the translation of NF Solar. It has been uploaded to GitHub. Please check it. Thank you!

[Nertea]

8 hours ago, Blackline said:

Do you plan to implement an automated power regulation for your reactors? I think that would be state of the art, because needing the players input to alter the power lever every here and then seems a bit unnecessary. Is this something you want this way? Would you take PR's? 

@canisin's linked post tells you why. What is your use case for full automation? The busy-work of precise optimization is intentional in order to discourage it. The fact is that full automation makes large reactor lifetime effectively infinite. There's practically no reason to run a large reactor at high power outside of an electric engine burn... which are measured in the up-to-1 hour range in KSP, really. So the current system is more or less designed so that there are two use cases for your reactor, running at full power or running at low power. It doesn't seem arduous to me, and it doesn't seem like there's a huge amount of reason to even adjust power constantly. 

Plus, there is already a mod that provides automated reactors - USI Core. 

In other news I have been slowly fixing all the normal maps in the mods. This is really slow going as some files are really old and need to be fixed in unity, which inevitably creates animation corruption issues, headaches and pain. The fixes for NFE and NFC are taking a particularly long time. So here are two to start.

NF Propulsion 0.9.3

• Fixed normals on all parts
• Russian translation courtesy of Dr. Jet

NF Solar 0.8.5

• Fixed normals on the one part that uses them
• Moved collider hierarchy for OKEB-75 Solar array (fixes collider not detaching)
• Chinese translation courtesy of forum user DY_ZBX

[DStaal]

I've got some PatchManager integration I want to throw in on NFE, which branch do you prefer PR's against?

[Nertea]

11 minutes ago, DStaal said:

I've got some PatchManager integration I want to throw in on NFE, which branch do you prefer PR's against?

Always dev!

[DStaal]

55 minutes ago, Nertea said:

Always dev!

Ok, PR up.

Note that this gets rid of the 'Extras' folder - using PatchManager to do the same thing using an in-game UI instead.  The decaying RTGs patch is still there, it's just been moved into different location.

[Blackline]

2 hours ago, Nertea said:

@canisin's linked post tells you why. What is your use case for full automation? The busy-work of precise optimization is intentional in order to discourage it. The fact is that full automation makes large reactor lifetime effectively infinite. There's practically no reason to run a large reactor at high power outside of an electric engine burn... which are measured in the up-to-1 hour range in KSP, really. So the current system is more or less designed so that there are two use cases for your reactor, running at full power or running at low power. It doesn't seem arduous to me, and it doesn't seem like there's a huge amount of reason to even adjust power constantly. 

Plus, there is already a mod that provides automated reactors - USI Core. 

In other news I have been slowly fixing all the normal maps in the mods. This is really slow going as some files are really old and need to be fixed in unity, which inevitably creates animation corruption issues, headaches and pain. The fixes for NFE and NFC are taking a particularly long time. So here are two to start.

NF Propulsion 0.9.3

• Fixed normals on all parts
• Russian translation courtesy of Dr. Jet

NF Solar 0.8.5

• Fixed normals on the one part that uses them
• Moved collider hierarchy for OKEB-75 Solar array (fixes collider not detaching)
• Chinese translation courtesy of forum user DY_ZBX

I can't follow your argument about infinite lifetime reactors. If I'd adjust them manually, I'll get infinite lifetime as well. So why should that be an argument against automation? 

And if infinite lifetime is your real concern, why not balance it? Just give people enough uranium for a few (hundred)thousand EC.

Would you like the idea of an easyMode Field (as you use it with your RTG's) which could be enabled via a MM patch similar to the RTG decay patch, which would enable automatic power controls? Im talking about PR here, with no influence to the default behavior at all.

[Nertea]

14 minutes ago, Blackline said:

I can't follow your argument about infinite lifetime reactors. If I'd adjust them manually, I'll get infinite lifetime as well. So why should that be an argument against automation? 

And if infinite lifetime is your real concern, why not balance it? Just give people enough uranium for a few (hundred)thousand EC.

Would you like the idea of an easyMode Field (as you use it with your RTG's) which could be enabled via a MM patch similar to the RTG decay patch, which would enable automatic power controls? Im talking about PR here, with no influence to the default behavior at all.

You want infinite lifetime, you deal with the need to manually tweak the power bar. Or write a kOS script. You can't just say "just give people enough uranium for a few (hundred)thousand EC". The balance is more complex than that, as you should know from your own project, because a reactor is basically a battery with a maximum flow rate and a maximum total power delivery amount. Both are important factors and this mod's integration with other mods depends on multiple factors. You weren't around for the automated capacitor fiasco, which is what happened when it became too simple to manage a powerful electrical storage part. I think it's fairly obvious that I don't want this. 

You are welcome to make a PR. Depending on how much work it will be to maintain it, how well it functions, and your dedication to handling the associated support requests, I may or may not accept it.

[Blackline]

5 minutes ago, Nertea said:

You want infinite lifetime, you deal with the need to manually tweak the power bar. Or write a kOS script. You can't just say "just give people enough uranium for a few (hundred)thousand EC". The balance is more complex than that, as you should know from your own project, because a reactor is basically a battery with a maximum flow rate and a maximum total power delivery amount. Both are important factors and this mod's integration with other mods depends on multiple factors. You weren't around for the automated capacitor fiasco, which is what happened when it became too simple to manage a powerful electrical storage part. I think it's fairly obvious that I don't want this. 

You are welcome to make a PR. Depending on how much work it will be to maintain it, how well it functions, and your dedication to handling the associated support requests, I may or may not accept it.

Maybe I didn't make myself clear on that (sry, non native speaker) but I definitely do NOT want infinite lifetime! I'm interested in exactly the opposite. I merely tried to tell you that your argument "The fact is that full automation makes large reactor lifetime effectively infinite. " doesn't hold, because the lifetime is defined (roughly) by energy/power. Regardless who changes the power lever (me or Mr. Robolever). So if lifetime is a problem, lower EC/kg for the uranium.

[Nertea]

Just now, Blackline said:

Maybe I didn't make myself clear on that (sry, non native speaker) but I definitely do NOT want infinite lifetime! I'm interested in exactly the opposite. I merely tried to tell you that your argument "The fact is that full automation makes large reactor lifetime effectively infinite. " doesn't hold, because the lifetime is defined (roughly) by energy/power. Regardless who changes the power lever (me or Mr. Robolever). So if lifetime is a problem, lower EC/kg for the uranium.

You're clear, don't worry. What you seek is not infinite lifetime, but significantly improved lifetime. I'm saying that if you want significantly improved lifetime, the option exists, but requires a tradeoff of your personal attention to your ship. That's a balance lever I have. 

[Blackline]

18 minutes ago, Nertea said:

You're clear, don't worry. What you seek is not infinite lifetime, but significantly improved lifetime. I'm saying that if you want significantly improved lifetime, the option exists, but requires a tradeoff of your personal attention to your ship. That's a balance lever I have. 

How about a level x engineer being capable of pushing the lever for me? I looove automated systems... :-)

Just for PR brainstorming!

Edited July 26, 2017 by Blackline

[KerbMav]

@Blackline If you insist on the USI functionality, but want the NFT models, why do you not change the configs for the parts?
As far as I can tell, USI uses no extra code, so should be rather easy.

Edited July 26, 2017 by KerbMav

[Blackline]

11 minutes ago, KerbMav said:

@Blackline If you insist on the USI functionality, but want the NFT models, why do you not change the configs for the parts?
As far as I can tell, USI uses no extra code, so should be rather easy.

Are you saying the only difference between USI and NFE reactors is the model? Serious question.

[KerbMav]

1 minute ago, Blackline said:

Are you saying the only difference between USI and NFE reactors is the model? Serious question.

No, I am saying that maybe USI's work more the way you would like them to?