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

[MaverickSawyer]

Well, finally got around to testing the biconic capsule... A proper lifting reentry tends to push the internal temperatures awfully close to the limits. But, it's astonishingly manueverable, so I think I may have found my new Crew Transfer Vehicle capsule... I've gotten tired of horribly inaccurate landings with capsules, and this is capable of some mighty accurate descents.

 

EDIT: Further experiments have revealed a bug: If you radially attach a pair of fins to the outer surface of the pod, in the aft "skirt" zone, using g mirror symmetry, then launch, the fins will shift around on the ship to a different location. The shift stays after reverting to the VAB. Currently getting some screenshots for evidence.

Scratch that, mod conflict. Will bring up with the appropriate party.

Edited November 16, 2018 by MaverickSawyer

[Nertea]

So I want to make some changes to the reactor integration with engineers in a version or two. I'd kinda like to make them work a bit more like pilots affect control things. Appreciate any inputs

1. Reactors can only be turned on/off without engineer on board 
2. Probes need commnet control connection for reactor on/off. Strong connection for full control. 

 

1 hour ago, MaverickSawyer said:

EDIT: Further experiments have revealed a bug: If you radially attach a pair of fins to the outer surface of the pod, in the aft "skirt" zone, using g mirror symmetry, then launch, the fins will shift around on the ship to a different location. The shift stays after reverting to the VAB. Currently getting some screenshots for evidence.

I've been informed that this is a stock KSP bug and I can't do anything about it :(. Something about mirror symmetry and parts with moving components....

1 hour ago, MaverickSawyer said:

Well, finally got around to testing the biconic capsule... A proper lifting reentry tends to push the internal temperatures awfully close to the limits. But, it's astonishingly manueverable, so I think I may have found my new Crew Transfer Vehicle capsule... I've gotten tired of horribly inaccurate landings with capsules, and this is capable of some mighty accurate descents.

 

It may need some adjustments to how the ablator works - however you should be able to fly a shuttle-like reentry with no problems.

 

 

 

[MaverickSawyer]

4 minutes ago, Nertea said:

I've been informed that this is a stock KSP bug and I can't do anything about it :(. Something about mirror symmetry and parts with moving components....

No, I have AnimatedAttachment installed. Upon disabling the function of that mod on the pod, the issue promptly vanished. I'm taking it up with the dev of the mod in question.

Quote

It may need some adjustments to how the ablator works - however you should be able to fly a shuttle-like reentry with no problems.

It does work... but it's awfully close to not. Perhaps it's just the entry approach I took. I'm running a second attempt now to see if it performs better.

Edited November 16, 2018 by MaverickSawyer

[Daniel Prates]

18 minutes ago, Nertea said:

Reactors can only be turned on/off without engineer on board

A very good idea.

[Lostinspace100]

I'm finding when I use mechjeb and attempt to dock using the shielded clamp-o-tron jr I'm unable to use the docking mode on mechjeb, not sure if anyone else is experiencing this? I tried the stock clamp-o-tron jr and was able to dock using mechjeb. But even without functionality of the covered docking port Nertea has made some amazing spacecraft that make the stock game look very plain.  

Edited November 17, 2018 by Lostinspace100

[Dedalous]

I'm curious if the radial docking ports, the "Grip-O-Tron Linear Docking Connectors", are intended to be unusable in career.  I only recently finished researching the full tech tree, and I can't seem to find them anywhere.  When I dug into the configs to determine why, I found they had tech needed listed as Unresearchable and no patches for CTT regarding them.  Is this intended behavior or an oversight/bug?

[Brigadier]

4 hours ago, Nertea said:

So I want to make some changes to the reactor integration with engineers in a version or two. I'd kinda like to make them work a bit more like pilots affect control things. Appreciate any inputs

1. Reactors can only be turned on/off without engineer on board 
2. Probes need commnet control connection for reactor on/off. Strong connection for full control. 

Regardless of what you eventually decide, I suggest making these potential restrictions player options that can be set per game.

You might consider scaling the engineer restrictions with tech level increases, reflecting improved automation, safety and autonomous operation (so that even a Pilot could read the SOPs)...perhaps until/when a new reactor type is introduced, although that might be too detailed and impractical to code.

For probes, I like it but I would have thought that a reactor would be engineered to fail safe automatically, regardless of comms connectivity, so there's some implied intelligence in the software running the probes power generation systems.  Again, this might scale with tech level, making more advanced reactors more autonomous.

[Wiowt]

@Nertea

You have a patch what makes engines from kerbal atomics use uran. Can you make the same  patch for nuclear engines from near future aeronautics?

Edited November 18, 2018 by Wiowt

[Critter79606]

@Nertea

I'm getting the following error from Near Future Launch Vehicles

[LOG 08:28:21.799] PartLoader: Compiling Part 'NearFutureLaunchVehicles/Parts/FuelTank/fueltank-5/fueltank-nosecone-5-1/fueltank-nosecone-5-1'
[WRN 08:28:21.827] DontDestroyOnLoad only work for root GameObjects or components on root GameObjects.
[ERR 08:28:21.828] [ERROR] [Part fueltank-nosecone-5-1] [ModuleB9PartSwitch 'fuelSwitch'] Duplicate subtype names detected: System.String[]

It's not stopping anything from loading, but I wanted to let you know.

Full log is here https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1oAeIcUu141QfjFMZU7xBDsJjStpbXLFp

 

[Raptor9]

On 11/17/2018 at 6:46 AM, Nertea said:

• Fixed an exploit where you could button mash the discharge capacitor button constantly for a net gain of EC

I smile trying to imagine how someone discovered that. 

[azander]

On 11/17/2018 at 9:52 AM, Critter79606 said:

@Nertea

I'm getting the following error from Near Future Launch Vehicles

[LOG 08:28:21.799] PartLoader: Compiling Part 'NearFutureLaunchVehicles/Parts/FuelTank/fueltank-5/fueltank-nosecone-5-1/fueltank-nosecone-5-1'
[WRN 08:28:21.827] DontDestroyOnLoad only work for root GameObjects or components on root GameObjects.
[ERR 08:28:21.828] [ERROR] [Part fueltank-nosecone-5-1] [ModuleB9PartSwitch 'fuelSwitch'] Duplicate subtype names detected: System.String[]

It's not stopping anything from loading, but I wanted to let you know.

Full log is here https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1oAeIcUu141QfjFMZU7xBDsJjStpbXLFp

 

I get this too, but after testing it seems more related to Cryogenic Engines (Specifically Cryogenic Fuel Tanks plugin).  If I remove the Cryogenic Fuel Tanks DLL everything works as expected.  It also has to do with Intersteller Fuel Switch.  You need B9, IFS, and Cryo Engines for this to trigger, based on my tests.  Still trying to narrow it down further. 

For now main game, I have removed Cryogenic Engines and all works well.  I miss the engines and tanks though.  They work really well normally.

 

Az

[Ruziel]

The patch in NearFutureLaunchVehicles\Patches\NFLaunchVehiclesCryoTanks.cfg is trying to add a SUBTYPE that already exists in the base part config.  Just remove that patch file and the warning goes away.

[Nertea]

13 minutes ago, Ruziel said:

The patch in NearFutureLaunchVehicles\Patches\NFLaunchVehiclesCryoTanks.cfg is trying to add a SUBTYPE that already exists in the base part config.  Just remove that patch file and the warning goes away.

Not quite. The IFS presence was why I couldn't reproduce this. The CryoTanks patchers disable themselves in the presence of IFS because IFS does things.

That patch is intended to work when CryoTanks is installed and re-add the subtype that is removed. However IFS exists, disabling the new switcher, and that patch thinks the switcher is still around. I will add a consideration to watch for IFS there when I can.

In the meantime you could remove IFS.

On 11/17/2018 at 4:46 AM, Wiowt said:

@Nertea

You have a patch what makes engines from kerbal atomics use uran. Can you make the same  patch for nuclear engines from near future aeronautics?

Not at the moment, but it's on my to-do list.

On 11/16/2018 at 6:30 PM, Dedalous said:

I'm curious if the radial docking ports, the "Grip-O-Tron Linear Docking Connectors", are intended to be unusable in career.  I only recently finished researching the full tech tree, and I can't seem to find them anywhere.  When I dug into the configs to determine why, I found they had tech needed listed as Unresearchable and no patches for CTT regarding them.  Is this intended behavior or an oversight/bug?

It was fixed in the last update.

[tsaven]

On 11/6/2018 at 12:41 PM, Nertea said:

Oh, I mean your reactor power-per-kg can improve with the newer balance numbers that you're migrating to - no need to go all the way to 1.5.

Did the reactors get lighter, or did the power output increase with the switch to .9?  I'm currently on 0.9.8.

[tsaven]

On 11/16/2018 at 3:52 PM, Nertea said:

So I want to make some changes to the reactor integration with engineers in a version or two. I'd kinda like to make them work a bit more like pilots affect control things. Appreciate any inputs

1. Reactors can only be turned on/off without engineer on board 

This is going to make a very common situation for me much harder

I use your reactors with RoverDude's MKS for refining/manufacturing, for unmanned drilling and refining outposts.  It's very difficult to predict exactly how much power the unmanned outposts will take (as it depends on a lot of ever-changing factors), so I'll over-spec the reactors and then once the outpost is landed and drilling/refining, I'll use the output slider for the reactor to turn the power output down so that it just barely matches power consumption and I can squeeze the longest life possible out of the EnU.

To make things more complicated, having an engineer on board the vessel gives the MKS drills large boosts in output (with the matching increase in power consumption).  So even if I did temporarily put an engineer on board to allow me to adjust the output of the reactors to match the power draw requirements of the drills, simply the act of having the engineer on board makes the drill draw a lot more power.  So any adjustments I made to the reactor output while the engineer is on board would be completely thrown off the moment she left the vessel, because the power consumption of the drills would drop.

I understand the need for more balance and to nerf control of the reactors in some way, but for me personally this would be a frustrating change.

[Ruziel]

1 hour ago, Nertea said:

Not quite. The IFS presence was why I couldn't reproduce this. The CryoTanks patchers disable themselves in the presence of IFS because IFS does things.

That patch is intended to work when CryoTanks is installed and re-add the subtype that is removed. However IFS exists, disabling the new switcher, and that patch thinks the switcher is still around. I will add a consideration to watch for IFS there when I can.

In the meantime you could remove IFS.

Not at the moment, but it's on my to-do list.

It was fixed in the last update.

IFS?  If that's Interstellar Fuel Switch, I don't have it installed and I was still getting the error dialog referenced above.

Edited November 18, 2018 by Ruziel

[Nertea]

1 hour ago, tsaven said:

Did the reactors get lighter, or did the power output increase with the switch to .9?  I'm currently on 0.9.8.

The switch occurred between 0.8.7 and 0.9.0. You should have it already

30 minutes ago, Ruziel said:

IFS?  If that's Interstellar Fuel Switch, I don't have it installed and I was still getting the error dialog referenced above.

Well, can't reproduce the issue without at least some other mod then.

[Ruziel]

3 hours ago, Nertea said:

The switch occurred between 0.8.7 and 0.9.0. You should have it already

Well, can't reproduce the issue without at least some other mod then.

I got it to trigger with just the following mods:

• KSP + Making History
• Near Future Launch Vehicles v1.1.7
• Cryogenic Engines v0.6.3
• Modular Fuel Tanks v5.11.1

My log file

[Nertea]

1 hour ago, Ruziel said:

• Modular Fuel Tanks v5.11.1

 

There you go.

[Dedalous]

8 hours ago, Nertea said:

It was fixed in the last update.

D'oh!  Teach me to assume I have the latest version.  Thank you!

[AmpCat]

@NerteaI'm playing around building new ships, and one thing I noticed is that your fancy PPD truss storage modules of the 2.5m varieties seem awful heavy compared to other, similar cargo bays of that size. For example, the shorter one is not quite twice the size of the stock service bay, yet weighs 5 times more. The 1.25 PTD one is more on line with stock offerings.

Edited November 19, 2018 by AmpCat

[Vados462]

On 11/12/2018 at 9:18 PM, Streetwind said:

The latest versions are compiled for 1.5.x and ship dependencies compiled for 1.5.x.

However, you can still download the previous 1.4.x versions on SpaceDock and Curse just fine.

Thank's, your mods is my favorit!

[Streetwind]

17 hours ago, Vados462 said:

Thank's, your mods is my favorit!

Thank you for the sentiment, but it's not my mod. Nertea made it! I just answer questions in the thread.  

[Nertea]

8 hours ago, Streetwind said:

Thank you for the sentiment, but it's not my mod. Nertea made it! I just answer questions in the thread.  

Don't be modest, I doubt the mod would be as successful without your work balancing!

On 11/18/2018 at 10:36 PM, AmpCat said:

@NerteaI'm playing around building new ships, and one thing I noticed is that your fancy PPD truss storage modules of the 2.5m varieties seem awful heavy compared to other, similar cargo bays of that size. For example, the shorter one is not quite twice the size of the stock service bay, yet weighs 5 times more. The 1.25 PTD one is more on line with stock offerings.

Different thread, but I'll look into it.

[AmpCat]

3 hours ago, Nertea said:

Different thread, but I'll look into it.

Oops. Thought this was for all the NF mods. Sorry about that.