JadeOfMaar Posted July 26, 2017 Share Posted July 26, 2017 @Blackline USI reactors use ModuleResourceConverter for their function. These are wide open for you to reprogram them as you please. However, when NFE is installed with them they behave like NFE. You're free to reprogram either as you desire. No one is stopping you from reprogramming the NFE reactors to work as you like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DStaal Posted July 26, 2017 Share Posted July 26, 2017 I tend to think of NFE reactors and USI reactors as being designed for different use-cases. NFE reactors are designed with NF parts in mind - deep space probes, long-duration exploration ships, and space stations. Power use is fairly static in those, with occasional bursts. A probe that puts it's reactor in 'standby' just ticking over for the trip, and then ramps it up for the insertion burn before going back to standby or to a slightly higher 'active' state to power instruments is expected - and is only changing the output rate a half dozen or so times per flight. On the other hand, flights are typically of defined and definite length, so it's fairly easy to plan what you need. USI reactors are designed with MKS parts in mind - mining stations, sprawling surface bases, maybe a few colony ships. Power use will depend on resource levels, machinery levels, numbers of Kerbals, professions of Kerbals, levels of Kerbals, the time of day, the number and type of ships nearby, etc. Literally every time you look at them they'll need a different output rate - and they'll need to basically be running forever as part of the colony power system. It's a very different use-case. (Now, I haven't checked how they're balanced against each other - I'd have USI reactors heavier and more expensive for the same output if I were balancing, personally. I tend to act like they are.) Of course I routinely remove the NFE patch that makes USI reactors work like NFE reactors, so I have both. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JadeOfMaar Posted July 26, 2017 Share Posted July 26, 2017 @DStaal That's a very interesting way to look at things. I like it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wyzard Posted July 27, 2017 Share Posted July 27, 2017 (edited) Personally, I prefer all the reactors to behave consistently, so I'm glad that NFE patches the USI ones. However, this discussion brings an idea to mind: 7 hours ago, DStaal said: I've got some PatchManager integration I want to throw in on NFE PatchManager is a thing now, so it's easier for mods to provide alternative configurations to suit different gameplay preferences — such as how the nuclear reactors should behave. I believe there's already a third-party patch floating around somewhere that reverses the effects of NFElectricalUSIReactors.cfg, and instead changes the NFE reactors to just use ModuleResourceConverter like the USI ones. This option could potentially be provided by NFE itself, as a PatchManager patch that users can activate if they want to. The existing patch is a little awkward, btw: as I understand it, it waits for NFE to patch the USI reactors, and then patches them again to change them back to how they originally were. Integrating this option into NFE would allow it to be done more efficiently: The optional PatchManager patch — let's call it NFElectricalVanillaReactors.cfg — just patches the NFE reactors to use ModuleResourceConverter, but it also specifies :FOR[NFElectricalVanillaReactors] at the top of the file. In the existing NFElectricalUSIReactors.cfg, the changes to the reactor modules are prefixed with :NEEDS[!NFElectricalVanillaReactors] — note the '!'. When the "vanilla" patch is active, that condition is unmet so the USI reactors's resource converters are simply left untouched. (Other changes, like balancing mass and power output to fit with the NFE parts, can still be applied.) I wouldn't mind taking a shot at this and submitting a PR for it, btw. But I'll wait for feedback from others, and to see how Nertea feels about the PatchManager integration that DStaal has already done. Edited July 27, 2017 by Wyzard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DStaal Posted July 27, 2017 Share Posted July 27, 2017 PatchManager allows you to specify that patches are mutually exclusive. No need for complicated work-arounds if you're going that route. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wyzard Posted July 27, 2017 Share Posted July 27, 2017 Even better, since that'd allow for the third option of disabling both patches (which it sounds like you prefer). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackline Posted July 27, 2017 Share Posted July 27, 2017 I like that, one big nap and the Internet does it's thing :-) And I really like the words you found to describe the different use cases @DStaal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DY_ZBX Posted July 27, 2017 Share Posted July 27, 2017 @Nertea Hi！ I ignored two paragraphs of the following figure in translation！ Now that I have revised it, I have changed the red box below! Now I have uploaded the modified code to your GitHub, please check! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThreePounds Posted July 27, 2017 Share Posted July 27, 2017 Nertea, you bundled an outdated version of Module Manager in your latest NFS & NFP releases. The current version is 2.8.1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamBelanger Posted July 27, 2017 Share Posted July 27, 2017 @Nertea Very good mod! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nertea Posted July 27, 2017 Author Share Posted July 27, 2017 (edited) 10 hours ago, Three_Pounds said: Nertea, you bundled an outdated version of Module Manager in your latest NFS & NFP releases. The current version is 2.8.1. Oh woe is me. @Wyzard, @DStaal, we're going to defer this discussion on patches to the next update cycle, as the scope of the next set of updates keeps increasing, which is delaying things a lot. Edited July 27, 2017 by Nertea Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DStaal Posted July 27, 2017 Share Posted July 27, 2017 Just now, Nertea said: Oh woe is me. @Wyzard, @DStaal, we're going to defer this discussion on patches to the next update cycle, as the scope of the next set of updates keeps increasing, which is delaying things a lot. Not a problem. I've been following on GitHub as well. Let me know what you decide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KerbMav Posted July 27, 2017 Share Posted July 27, 2017 @Nertea@DStaal It is so weird how much your conversation fits the style of Cpt. Holt from Brooklyn 99 ... but may that is all just in my head ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DStaal Posted July 27, 2017 Share Posted July 27, 2017 Well, I've never seen that show so I'll assume that's a compliment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DY_ZBX Posted July 28, 2017 Share Posted July 28, 2017 (edited) 20 hours ago, DY_ZBX said: @Nertea Hi！ I ignored two paragraphs of the following figure in translation！ Our production team prepares to translate the NF series all mod, which is updated with the part of Solar modification! Edited July 28, 2017 by DY_ZBX Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voodoo8648 Posted July 28, 2017 Share Posted July 28, 2017 (edited) Just throwing this out there, but I'm running 1.2.2 and I installed most of the Near Future Tech mods and my game crashes everytime I try to load. I removed all Near Future Tech mods, and the game loads fines. I am running 32gb RAM Output: https://1drv.ms/t/s!AvUWxjgM4SuQhc5xdR3DYGahlxF00A Edited July 28, 2017 by Voodoo8648 Added Output.log Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Kadet Posted July 28, 2017 Share Posted July 28, 2017 @Nertea i have no bugs or issues, your mods are just awsome! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nergal8617 Posted July 28, 2017 Share Posted July 28, 2017 1 hour ago, Voodoo8648 said: Just throwing this out there, but I'm running 1.2.2 and I installed most of the Near Future Tech mods and my game crashes everytime I try to load. I removed all Near Future Tech mods, and the game loads fines. I am running 32gb RAM What are the version numbers of the Near Future mods you are trying to use? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aluc24 Posted July 28, 2017 Share Posted July 28, 2017 Hey, @Nertea , I am using TAC along with Near Future Technologies (full pack), and I noticed that the 2 kerbal command module (I don't remember it's title) doesn't have any TAC resources (air, food, water) integrated into it, unlike all other command modules added by NFT. Unless it's intentional, could you please fix it in the next patch? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Streetwind Posted July 28, 2017 Share Posted July 28, 2017 1 hour ago, Voodoo8648 said: Just throwing this out there, but I'm running 1.2.2 and I installed most of the Near Future Tech mods and my game crashes everytime I try to load. I removed all Near Future Tech mods, and the game loads fines. I am running 32gb RAM Output: https://1drv.ms/t/s!AvUWxjgM4SuQhc5xdR3DYGahlxF00A The log won't show me what versions of NFT you have installed, but it does show me that you have multiple versions of Module Manager in your Gamedata directory - some of which are 1.3.x only. Therefore I am going to assume that you have installed 1.3.x mods on 1.2.2, and find myself forced to tell you: yes, of course it crashes. It's fundamentally incompatible. Please make sure that you select the correct version to download and install - for all your mods. I've seen serveral others besides Near Future throw heavy exceptions in that log. Also, install only one instance of Module Manager - ideally the latest version that's compatible with your chosen version. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FirroSeranel Posted July 28, 2017 Share Posted July 28, 2017 Hi hi, @Nertea I'm having a small issue with the LT-POD landing legs from NF Spacecraft and Tweakscale. These are resized to 110% so they go down the extra bit under that cargo bay (from Lithobrake, not that it's relevant). I've tried tracking it down myself, and it seems like maybe an adjustment in landingleg-pod.cfg would be needed, but I'm not 100% sure. Let me know if it's more of a TweakScale problem, and I'll post it there instead, but I couldn't find anything in TS that is any different, as it doesn't mention either these legs or the Squad legs in particular. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voodoo8648 Posted July 28, 2017 Share Posted July 28, 2017 @Streetwind, @Nergal8617, I installed (most) of my mods including NFT using CKAN. CKAN may have installed a 1.3 version and I will check later when I get in front of my computer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRagingIrishman Posted July 28, 2017 Share Posted July 28, 2017 9 minutes ago, Voodoo8648 said: @Streetwind, @Nergal8617, I installed (most) of my mods including NFT using CKAN. CKAN may have installed a 1.3 version and I will check later when I get in front of my computer. Just a heads up that any issues that are ckans fault need to be reported to the ckan thread as they're the ones who maintain the netkans for all of nerteas mods. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nergal8617 Posted July 28, 2017 Share Posted July 28, 2017 5 hours ago, FirroSeranel said: These are resized to 110% so they go down the extra bit under that cargo bay (from Lithobrake, not that it's relevant). I've tried tracking it down myself, and it seems like maybe an adjustment in landingleg-pod.cfg would be needed, but I'm not 100% sure. Known issue, it happens with ones that are not resized as well so it isn't a TweakScale problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FirroSeranel Posted July 28, 2017 Share Posted July 28, 2017 Ah, didn't realize that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.