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

[Jognt]

3 hours ago, ChrisF0001 said:

And, suddenly I understand why a bunch of parts were apparently hidden in the VAB... I guess I should have been paying more attention.  Was this deprecation for balance reasons?...

Optimization I believe. The panels now have variants for several options instead of separate parts. 

[ChrisF0001]

1 hour ago, Jognt said:

Optimization I believe. The panels now have variants for several options instead of separate parts. 

Thanks, hopefully that means there are indeed drop-in replacements!

[Nertea]

11 hours ago, ChrisF0001 said:

And, suddenly I understand why a bunch of parts were apparently hidden in the VAB... I guess I should have been paying more attention.  Was this deprecation for balance reasons?...

The mod was completely redone. Many footprints were changed, power levels, masses and costs were tweaked, some panels deleted and new ones added.

Instead of breaking your craft by changing the dimensions of an existing panel, all panels were duplicated and then modified.

[ssd21345]

does near future aero work  on 1.7/1.8 even it's not updated yet?

Edited November 18, 2019 by ssd21345

[Gleb]

Hello! I have a problem that my KSP stops loading at NearFuturePropulsion/Parts/Engines/vasimr (any size) no matter what I did (install everything seperatly, etc). I installed the latest version of this mod that says 1.8.x version of KSP and I'm currently at version 1.8.1. Is there any way to fix that? Also, earlier the NearFuture mods would load fine but the Breaking Ground DLC stops loading at Checking DLC BreakingGround SquadExpansion/Serenity.

[Streetwind]

4 hours ago, ssd21345 said:

does near future aero work  on 1.7/1.8 even it's not updated yet?

Not a supported configuration. You can try, but it might not go as you hope.

 

31 minutes ago, Gleb said:

Hello! I have a problem that my KSP stops loading at NearFuturePropulsion/Parts/Engines/vasimr (any size) no matter what I did (install everything seperatly, etc). I installed the latest version of this mod that says 1.8.x version of KSP and I'm currently at version 1.8.1. Is there any way to fix that? Also, earlier the NearFuture mods would load fine but the Breaking Ground DLC stops loading at Checking DLC BreakingGround SquadExpansion/Serenity.

From experience, 99% of all "fails to load at startup" errors are installation errors - typically either from putting things in the wrong place, or from not installing the required dependencies.

1. Back up your savegames
2. Kill your install directory, and reinstall from scratch, with all DLC.
3. Start it and confirm it works.
4. Download Near Future Propulsion from SpaceDock, and install everything in the zip file that's not marked "Extra".
5. Start it and confirm it works.

If it fails at step 3, congratulations, you have won a free trip to Technical Support!

If it fails at step 5, please provide a screenshot of your \GameData directory, and your Player.log from %USERNAME%\AppData\LocalLow\Squad\Kerbal Space Program.

[ChrisF0001]

On 11/17/2019 at 3:27 AM, Nertea said:

The mod was completely redone. Many footprints were changed, power levels, masses and costs were tweaked, some panels deleted and new ones added.

Instead of breaking your craft by changing the dimensions of an existing panel, all panels were duplicated and then modified.

Well... With a part name change some things have broken anyway.    Some panels have moved, some have rotated, a couple are much bigger, and I see a bunch of manual-hyperediting in my future. Hopefully easier than the thing with KIS was though!

[Gleb]

StreetWind I think I've found what causes 1.8.1 to not start up:

https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198302784012/screenshots/?appid=220200

But I don't know what causes this. Does anybody know? The good news is that without mods and DLCs game starts fine!

[linuxgurugamer]

31 minutes ago, Gleb said:

StreetWind I think I've found what causes 1.8.1 to not start up:

https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198302784012/screenshots/?appid=220200

But I don't know what causes this. Does anybody know? The good news is that without mods and DLCs game starts fine!

Need to see the log files

[Nertea]

On 11/23/2019 at 7:52 AM, ChrisF0001 said:

Well... With a part name change some things have broken anyway.    Some panels have moved, some have rotated, a couple are much bigger, and I see a bunch of manual-hyperediting in my future. Hopefully easier than the thing with KIS was though!

Well....that's the thing. Changing the part names prevents automatic replacement - if you go and edit the persistence file to change the names to the new ones it kinda defeats the purpose of things. The idea would be to take the 6 month grace period and retire or replace ships as possible during the soft period.

[HansAcker]

13 hours ago, Gleb said:

But I don't know what causes this. Does anybody know?

Update MechJeb to 2.9.1 and it should tell you which DLL causes the problem.

 

[asgaardson]

I can't seem to be able find EX-M25 and related configurable mounts from Near Future Launch, are they hidden somewhere?

[asgaardson]

32 minutes ago, asgaardson said:

I can't seem to be able find EX-M25 and related configurable mounts from Near Future Launch, are they hidden somewhere?

Pardon me, it's me being inattentive. I'm playing in career mode, and I had many parts locked behind the Nano-Lathing tech

[Gleb]

On 11/24/2019 at 7:53 PM, linuxgurugamer said:

Need to see the log files

I think I've found the log file, I could be wrong

https://drive.google.com/open?id=14HVcQT9uu7OFiDdnqZHWRmFBvjQSTwQ1

This is from my last "gaming session"

[Nertea]

53 minutes ago, Gleb said:

I think I've found the log file, I could be wrong

https://drive.google.com/open?id=14HVcQT9uu7OFiDdnqZHWRmFBvjQSTwQ1

This is from my last "gaming session"

 

There's about a hundred thousand error messages in that log related to a dozen different mods. Lots of things marked for 1.7.x compatability and you're running 1.8.1. about 15 copies of ModuleManager, most not for KSP 1.8. 

I'd clean out your install and start by only adding mods that work in 1.8

[Streetwind]

59 minutes ago, Gleb said:

I think I've found the log file, I could be wrong

https://drive.google.com/open?id=14HVcQT9uu7OFiDdnqZHWRmFBvjQSTwQ1

This is from my last "gaming session"

 

...oh.

......OH.

I am... honestly impressed that the game actually manages to go all the way until the "Expansion Loading Complete" stage. It should be committing honorable sepukku to end its suffering well before that.

This logfile contains 110,000 lines - just from a failed startup process. No gameplay at all.

And in the mere first 200 of those lines, we see this:

Spoiler

[LOG 22:11:13.053] Load(Assembly): /ModuleManager.2.6.24
[LOG 22:11:13.053] AssemblyLoader: Loading assembly at C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\Kerbal Space Program\GameData\ModuleManager.2.6.24.dll
[LOG 22:11:13.061] AssemblyLoader: KSPAssembly 'ModuleManager' V2.5.0
[LOG 22:11:13.061] Load(Assembly): /ModuleManager.2.6.25
[LOG 22:11:13.061] AssemblyLoader: Loading assembly at C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\Kerbal Space Program\GameData\ModuleManager.2.6.25.dll
[LOG 22:11:13.066] AssemblyLoader: KSPAssembly 'ModuleManager' V2.5.0
[LOG 22:11:13.066] Load(Assembly): /ModuleManager.2.6.6
[LOG 22:11:13.066] AssemblyLoader: Loading assembly at C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\Kerbal Space Program\GameData\ModuleManager.2.6.6.dll
[LOG 22:11:13.069] AssemblyLoader: KSPAssembly 'ModuleManager' V2.5.0
[LOG 22:11:13.069] Load(Assembly): /ModuleManager.2.8.1
[LOG 22:11:13.070] AssemblyLoader: Loading assembly at C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\Kerbal Space Program\GameData\ModuleManager.2.8.1.dll
[LOG 22:11:13.072] AssemblyLoader: KSPAssembly 'ModuleManager' V2.5.0
[LOG 22:11:13.072] Load(Assembly): /ModuleManager.3.0.1
[LOG 22:11:13.072] AssemblyLoader: Loading assembly at C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\Kerbal Space Program\GameData\ModuleManager.3.0.1.dll
[LOG 22:11:13.074] AssemblyLoader: KSPAssembly 'ModuleManager' V2.5.0
[LOG 22:11:13.074] Load(Assembly): /ModuleManager.3.0.4
[LOG 22:11:13.074] AssemblyLoader: Loading assembly at C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\Kerbal Space Program\GameData\ModuleManager.3.0.4.dll
[LOG 22:11:13.077] AssemblyLoader: KSPAssembly 'ModuleManager' V2.5.0
[LOG 22:11:13.077] Load(Assembly): /ModuleManager.3.0.6
[LOG 22:11:13.077] AssemblyLoader: Loading assembly at C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\Kerbal Space Program\GameData\ModuleManager.3.0.6.dll
[LOG 22:11:13.080] AssemblyLoader: KSPAssembly 'ModuleManager' V2.5.0
[LOG 22:11:13.080] Load(Assembly): /ModuleManager.3.0.7
[LOG 22:11:13.080] AssemblyLoader: Loading assembly at C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\Kerbal Space Program\GameData\ModuleManager.3.0.7.dll
[LOG 22:11:13.082] AssemblyLoader: KSPAssembly 'ModuleManager' V2.5.0
[LOG 22:11:13.082] Load(Assembly): /ModuleManager.3.1.0
[LOG 22:11:13.082] AssemblyLoader: Loading assembly at C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\Kerbal Space Program\GameData\ModuleManager.3.1.0.dll
[LOG 22:11:13.086] AssemblyLoader: KSPAssembly 'ModuleManager' V2.5.0
[LOG 22:11:13.086] Load(Assembly): /ModuleManager.3.1.1
[LOG 22:11:13.086] AssemblyLoader: Loading assembly at C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\Kerbal Space Program\GameData\ModuleManager.3.1.1.dll
[LOG 22:11:13.089] AssemblyLoader: KSPAssembly 'ModuleManager' V2.5.0
[LOG 22:11:13.089] Load(Assembly): /ModuleManager.3.1.2
[LOG 22:11:13.089] AssemblyLoader: Loading assembly at C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\Kerbal Space Program\GameData\ModuleManager.3.1.2.dll
[LOG 22:11:13.092] AssemblyLoader: KSPAssembly 'ModuleManager' V2.5.0
[LOG 22:11:13.092] Load(Assembly): /ModuleManager.3.1.3
[LOG 22:11:13.092] AssemblyLoader: Loading assembly at C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\Kerbal Space Program\GameData\ModuleManager.3.1.3.dll
[LOG 22:11:13.094] AssemblyLoader: KSPAssembly 'ModuleManager' V2.5.0
[LOG 22:11:13.094] Load(Assembly): /ModuleManager.4.0.2
[LOG 22:11:13.095] AssemblyLoader: Loading assembly at C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\Kerbal Space Program\GameData\ModuleManager.4.0.2.dll
[LOG 22:11:13.097] AssemblyLoader: KSPAssembly 'ModuleManager' V2.5.0
[LOG 22:11:13.097] Load(Assembly): /ModuleManager.4.0.3
[LOG 22:11:13.097] AssemblyLoader: Loading assembly at C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\Kerbal Space Program\GameData\ModuleManager.4.0.3.dll
[LOG 22:11:13.099] AssemblyLoader: KSPAssembly 'ModuleManager' V2.5.0
[LOG 22:11:13.100] Load(Assembly): /ModuleManager.4.1.0
[LOG 22:11:13.100] AssemblyLoader: Loading assembly at C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\Kerbal Space Program\GameData\ModuleManager.4.1.0.dll
[LOG 22:11:13.103] AssemblyLoader: KSPAssembly 'ModuleManager' V2.5.0
[LOG 22:11:13.103] Load(Assembly): /ModuleManager.4.1.1
[LOG 22:11:13.103] AssemblyLoader: Loading assembly at C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\Kerbal Space Program\GameData\ModuleManager.4.1.1.dll
[LOG 22:11:13.108] AssemblyLoader: KSPAssembly 'ModuleManager' V2.5.0
[LOG 22:11:13.108] Load(Assembly): /ModuleManager.4.1.2
[LOG 22:11:13.109] AssemblyLoader: Loading assembly at C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\Kerbal Space Program\GameData\ModuleManager.4.1.2.dll
[LOG 22:11:13.112] AssemblyLoader: KSPAssembly 'ModuleManager' V2.5.0

That is, count 'em, seventeen different Module Manager versions. Some of which are dated early 2016. For, what was it at the time... KSP version 1.1.x?

Now, since KSP does not spontaneously and violently self-destruct the moment you click the start button, that tells me that Module Manager is actually pretty good about having outdated versions of itself lying around. Far better than I thought it would be, mad props to sarbian (as usual).

But, if this is indicative of the state of your GameData folder in general? How long have you been carrying woefully outdated mods and configurations forward, and mixing multiple versions of identical mods in the same install? I'm afraid to tell you, and I can't put this into any nicer words: there's no point to even read this log. Your installation is beyond saving. Back up your savegame, nuke your entire KSP directory from orbit, and start fresh. With only mods that are meant for 1.8.1, please. Fresh downloads. No carrying over stuff.

Pay particular attenton to AT_Utils and WildBlueIndustries. I skimmed only maybe 10% of the log, but there were already several hundred critical exceptions from those two alone. From Near Future mods, I saw none.

 

EDIT: Hah, sniped by Nertea a second before I pressed submit. Glad we agree on that, in any case

 

Edited November 25, 2019 by Streetwind

[Jimbodiah]

Dang, only 15 copies?

[ChrisF0001]

On 11/24/2019 at 7:42 PM, Nertea said:

Well....that's the thing. Changing the part names prevents automatic replacement - if you go and edit the persistence file to change the names to the new ones it kinda defeats the purpose of things. The idea would be to take the 6 month grace period and retire or replace ships as possible during the soft period.

Indeed, and had I noticed in time I might have been able to account for it.  I guess I was living under a rock or something.  These things happen... ^_^;

[Chakkoty]

@Nertea I love all your mods, especially NF Propulsion and SSPX redux. The VASIMR-25 and MPDT25 thrusters are meant for large vessels as I understand it. I've been trying to build a 2.5m radial size Interplanetary Science Vessel (Lovingly nicknamed ISV-2) with the Excaalibur Fission reactor and the MPDT-25, as well as the Coriolis and whatnot else. I try to stick to necessary parts only, but the TWR is just not there.

To run a single MPDT-25 (better ISP at similar thrust than VASIMR-25), I need a whole Excalibur just for that. That of course increases the vessel's mass considerably and lowers the TWR.

I know these were intended for long burns, but a ~0.6-ish TWR in space (according to Kerbal Engineer) just doesn't seem right. The whole vessels mass is just about 90-ish tonnes.

Any thoughts on this?

Edited December 13, 2019 by Chakkoty

[Nertea]

4 hours ago, Chakkoty said:

@Nertea I love all your mods, especially NF Propulsion and SSPX redux. The VASIMR-25 and MPDT25 thrusters are meant for large vessels as I understand it. I've been trying to build a 2.5m radial size Interplanetary Science Vessel (Lovingly nicknamed ISV-2) with the Excaalibur Fission reactor and the MPDT-25, as well as the Coriolis and whatnot else. I try to stick to necessary parts only, but the TWR is just not there.

To run a single MPDT-25 (better ISP at similar thrust than VASIMR-25), I need a whole Excalibur just for that. That of course increases the vessel's mass considerably and lowers the TWR.

I know these were intended for long burns, but a ~0.6-ish TWR in space (according to Kerbal Engineer) just doesn't seem right. The whole vessels mass is just about 90-ish tonnes.

Any thoughts on this?

Considering the usual TWR of SEP/NEP ships you're achieving quite a good TWR. 'High thrust' in the EP world means TWR sitting near or above 0.1. If you want a high TWR ship, you will need to use chemical or nuclear engines and pay the Isp price. Without crazy stuff like Orion, fusion or antimatter drives, that's just the way of the game.

Side note, to get a realistic TWR for NFP engines, divide by 1000! They're very, very good compared to their IRL counterparts.

[Chakkoty]

11 minutes ago, Nertea said:

Side note, to get a realistic TWR for NFP engines, divide by 1000! They're very, very good compared to their IRL counterparts.

I know, I got very excited after learning about VASIMR. I'm still grumpy they don't work like they're supposed to yet (no high thrust mode yet). Then again, there's potential for RTG-like energy cells with a compound material that turns radiation into electricity that's currently being researched. Not thermo-electrical, but direct conversion. Here's a link to the article from a while ago.

 

11 minutes ago, Nertea said:

Considering the usual TWR of SEP/NEP ships you're achieving quite a good TWR. 'High thrust' in the EP world means TWR sitting near or above 0.1. If you want a high TWR ship, you will need to use chemical or nuclear engines and pay the Isp price. Without crazy stuff like Orion, fusion or antimatter drives, that's just the way of the game.

I figured. Went through TWR discussions in this post and realized I could just add capacitors instead of an Excalibur for every MPDT-25. My goal is to be able to run two MPDT-25s at half power indefinitely and at full power for however much my capacitors have to give. I only built my ISV-2 Protodobotype with constant thrust in mind, so several , shorter burns weren't even considered. I stand now corrected and shall optimize till I can't optimize no more.

Edited December 13, 2019 by Chakkoty
Typos because my keyboard is a sneaky motherloveer doubling my keys.

[Streetwind]

5 hours ago, Chakkoty said:

I know these were intended for long burns, but a ~0.6-ish TWR in space (according to Kerbal Engineer) just doesn't seem right.

0.6 is huge for electric propulsion. You can land on Moho with that! Some of my chemical engine spacecraft have less. All of my LV-N spacecraft have less.

...Do we need to nerf the Colossus?

[Aelfhe1m]

5 hours ago, Chakkoty said:

I know these were intended for long burns, but a ~0.6-ish TWR in space (according to Kerbal Engineer) just doesn't seem right. The whole vessels mass is just about 90-ish tonnes.

Personally, I'm delighted if one of my large deep space vessels has a TWR over 0.2 when leaving Kerbin orbit - most of them are much lower.

[Chakkoty]

43 minutes ago, Streetwind said:

0.6 is huge for electric propulsion. You can land on Moho with that! Some of my chemical engine spacecraft have less. All of my LV-N spacecraft have less.

...Do we need to nerf the Colossus?

Don't you dare! 

To be accurate, though, that was for my Proto-Protodobotype probe (which, by the way, fiercely crashed and pompously burned into mun). My ISV-2 Protodobotype with 2.5 m parts is closer to 0.4 to 0.5, before the fockton of optimization I'll put it through once I'm home. 

@Aelfhe1m Well, I guess it heavily depends on what you optimized for (assuming you use electric Propulsion) - few, long, full-throttle burns? Needs heavy reactors. Several short, full-throttle burns? Capacitors galore. This approach severely improves TWR, but makes the vessel less flexible. When you mess up in between capacitor-fueled burns, you're pretty much screwed.

 

Edited December 13, 2019 by Chakkoty

[NHunter]

6 hours ago, Chakkoty said:

I know these were intended for long burns, but a ~0.6-ish TWR in space (according to Kerbal Engineer) just doesn't seem right. The whole vessels mass is just about 90-ish tonnes.

Seconded... Thirded... Whatever.

 

0.6 is indeed huge for electric engines. I think, the highest I personally managed to achieve with such engines is ~0.5 for 1.25m VASIMR engine in max-thrust mode on a mapping satellite meant for outer gas giants' moons (OPM/GPP) (and the damn thing required an Mk2 nuclear reactor to operate). And even then I never actually used it in such setup since dV was way more important.

 

speaking of which... VASIMRs seem to have some (at least in whatever version of them I had in my 1.6 GPP install) some weird interaction with TweakScale: their size changed but neither thrust nor EC nor argon/xenon consumption seemed to be affected.