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

[aeroeng14]

Anyone else having issues with the HVR-TWO heavy lift fan from NFA? When I place it in the editor window (VAB or SPH) on a single existing part, like a fuel tank, I cannot reselect it again. Clean KSP 1.9.1 install. KSP Log File. All other NFA parts work fine. I'd submit a pull request but don't know how to exactly do that.

[coyotesfrontier]

3 hours ago, aeroeng14 said:

Anyone else having issues with the HVR-TWO heavy lift fan from NFA? When I place it in the editor window (VAB or SPH) on a single existing part, like a fuel tank, I cannot reselect it again. Clean KSP 1.9.1 install. KSP Log File. All other NFA parts work fine. I'd submit a pull request but don't know how to exactly do that.

Same issue with me. Also, there's a transparent region on both nuclear engines that shouldn't be there, I'll post pics in a min.

[coyotesfrontier]

Sorry for the delay, here's what I'm taking about. There are transparent areas on most of the 2.5m NFA engines (the Broadsword has a slight mismatch, and the Cutlass is normal).

Edited September 8, 2020 by coyotesfrontier

[hemeac]

6 hours ago, aeroeng14 said:

Anyone else having issues with the HVR-TWO heavy lift fan from NFA? When I place it in the editor window (VAB or SPH) on a single existing part, like a fuel tank, I cannot reselect it again. Clean KSP 1.9.1 install. KSP Log File. All other NFA parts work fine. I'd submit a pull request but don't know how to exactly do that.

@aeroeng14, Think Nertea reads through the forums closely, but just in case you want to raise an "issue" on Github: https://github.com/ChrisAdderley/NearFutureAeronautics/issues by clicking on the "New Issue" button.  Caveat is you will need to register on Github.  A pull request is different, that is where you've noticed an error in the code, you've corrected it yourself, and you are offering it to Nertea to "pull" it into his codebase without having to edit it himself.

 

[adriangm44]

On 9/5/2020 at 10:51 PM, Streetwind said:

Gigameters. As in, a billion meters.

1m = 1 meter
1,000m = 1 kilometer
1,000,000m = 1,000 kilometers = 1 megameter
1,000,000,000m = 1,000,000 kilometers = 1 gigameter

The stock KSP altitude meter at the top of your screen (when in flight) uses these same units, by the way. They are standard SI units.

I'm not fluent in that language and haven't personally used the planner before, but I'm guessing that slider is for mean distance from the sun.

But what are those units for?

I dont't know how to use the tab cause I don't understand the inputs, do you??

[NiL]

17 hours ago, aeroeng14 said:

Anyone else having issues with the HVR-TWO heavy lift fan from NFA?

I do have it.

Also (unrelated, but why clutter the thread) NF power manager doesn't work - solar panel output is always shown as 0, exept for the lowest altitude setting, where it is like 2k or som which is too low. 

[darthgently]

1 hour ago, NiL said:

I do have it.

Also (unrelated, but why clutter the thread) NF power manager doesn't work - solar panel output is always shown as 0, exept for the lowest altitude setting, where it is like 2k or som which is too low. 

I've found a lot of power sources and sinks aren't recognized by NF power manager.  It would also be great if the NF power manager would let you know how long dark will be if on the surface as well as when in orbit around a body

[NiL]

18 hours ago, darthgently said:

I've found a lot of power sources and sinks aren't recognized by NF power manager

Are stock panels and NFS panels among them?

[darthgently]

4 hours ago, NiL said:

Are stock panels and NFS panels among them?

I will pay more attention next time I'm in that situation.  I also seem to recall that tweakscale rescaling some things didn't affect their EC+/-.   I hesitate to mention these things because my install is so unstable that until I figure out what the root causes are (bad memory chips?, idk) that I don't want to send a mod dev down a garden path because the mod couldn't handle an underlying issue, if that makes sense. 

[Manny.38]

Would it be possible to get a methane patch for the stbe in nflv as that was an idea that NASA looked at?

[TBenz]

1 hour ago, darthgently said:

I will pay more attention next time I'm in that situation.  I also seem to recall that tweakscale rescaling some things didn't affect their EC+/-.   I hesitate to mention these things because my install is so unstable that until I figure out what the root causes are (bad memory chips?, idk) that I don't want to send a mod dev down a garden path because the mod couldn't handle an underlying issue, if that makes sense. 

@NiL

I haven't seen any output for stock solar panels in my current save either. However, I've got a pretty messy install myself, old mods and questionable self made MM patches. I should be able to provide a log later today if Nertea is brave enough to dive into it, but I won't have time to test on a clean install anytime soon.

[Guest]

The best 8 mods to have! Highly detailed and useful parts!

[Nertea]

 

 

On 9/7/2020 at 7:43 PM, coyotesfrontier said:

Sorry for the delay, here's what I'm taking about. There are transparent areas on most of the 2.5m NFA engines (the Broadsword has a slight mismatch, and the Cutlass is normal).

Meh, log an issue... I just dislike looking at those old models so much.

On 9/7/2020 at 4:14 PM, aeroeng14 said:

Anyone else having issues with the HVR-TWO heavy lift fan from NFA? When I place it in the editor window (VAB or SPH) on a single existing part, like a fuel tank, I cannot reselect it again. Clean KSP 1.9.1 install. KSP Log File. All other NFA parts work fine. I'd submit a pull request but don't know how to exactly do that.

I'll check it out.

3 hours ago, darthgently said:

I will pay more attention next time I'm in that situation.  I also seem to recall that tweakscale rescaling some things didn't affect their EC+/-.   I hesitate to mention these things because my install is so unstable that until I figure out what the root causes are (bad memory chips?, idk) that I don't want to send a mod dev down a garden path because the mod couldn't handle an underlying issue, if that makes sense. 

Tweakscale isn't supported.

On 9/8/2020 at 11:05 AM, darthgently said:

I've found a lot of power sources and sinks aren't recognized by NF power manager.  It would also be great if the NF power manager would let you know how long dark will be if on the surface as well as when in orbit around a body

Most if not all stock sources/sinks are supported. All sources and sinks in my mods are supported. If you want something supported from another mod, go to that mod author and ask them to talk to me about it. There are two ways to do it, one is a lot of work on my part, the other is quite easy with a little collaboration. 

[Lathari]

On 9/9/2020 at 8:39 PM, TBenz said:

@NiL

I haven't seen any output for stock solar panels in my current save either. However, I've got a pretty messy install myself, old mods and questionable self made MM patches. I should be able to provide a log later today if Nertea is brave enough to dive into it, but I won't have time to test on a clean install anytime soon.

Similar situation here (with mods and patches). I posted on the dynamic battery thread about this:

 

 

[darthgently]

Is it NF mods that create the "cannot find simulation resource" messages in the logs?  Because I've been getting tons of this correlated with massive lag.  I thought it was a procedural parts thing because it is usually a procedural part to which the message is associated but now I'm thinking that maybe procedural parts might not be supporting your mod correctly or vice versa.

Without know for sure I don't want to dump it here, but in case it rings a bell, here is a sample of the logs.  Each line takes a second or 2 to dump to the screen and there are thousands of repetitive lines like this.  Usually on loading ship in VAB, or doing a ctrl-z/undo in the VAB, or changing scenes.  But truthfully, the problem seemed to go away on its own for the most part a few days ago.  Anyway, there are the log entries and at this point I'm just curious if an NF mod generates them for future reference

[LOG 12:23:18.447] [PartSet]: Failed to add Resource -1154601244 to Simulation PartSet:1030003 as corresponding Part Procedural Liquid Tank-3065372864 SimulationResource was not found.
[LOG 12:23:18.487] [PartSet]: Failed to add Resource -1154601244 to Simulation PartSet:918144 as corresponding Part Procedural Liquid Tank-3065372864 SimulationResource was not found.
[LOG 12:23:18.489] [PartSet]: Failed to add Resource -1154601244 to Simulation PartSet:918144 as corresponding Part Procedural Liquid Tank-3065372864 SimulationResource was not found.
[LOG 12:23:18.538] [PartSet]: Failed to add Resource -1154601244 to Simulation PartSet:532504 as corresponding Part Procedural Liquid Tank-3065372864 SimulationResource was not found.
[LOG 12:23:18.540] [PartSet]: Failed to add Resource -1154601244 to Simulation PartSet:532504 as corresponding Part Procedural Liquid Tank-3065372864 SimulationResource was not found.
[LOG 12:23:18.548] [PartSet]: Failed to add Resource -1154601244 to Simulation PartSet:128072 as corresponding Part Procedural Liquid Tank-3065372864 SimulationResource was not found.
 

[TranceaddicT]

2 hours ago, darthgently said:

Is it NF mods that create the "cannot find simulation resource" messages in the logs?  Because I've been getting tons of this correlated with massive lag.  I thought it was a procedural parts thing because it is usually a procedural part to which the message is associated but now I'm thinking that maybe procedural parts might not be supporting your mod correctly or vice versa.

Without know for sure I don't want to dump it here, but in case it rings a bell, here is a sample of the logs.  Each line takes a second or 2 to dump to the screen and there are thousands of repetitive lines like this.  Usually on loading ship in VAB, or doing a ctrl-z/undo in the VAB, or changing scenes.  But truthfully, the problem seemed to go away on its own for the most part a few days ago.  Anyway, there are the log entries and at this point I'm just curious if an NF mod generates them for future reference

[LOG 12:23:18.447] [PartSet]: Failed to add Resource -1154601244 to Simulation PartSet:1030003 as corresponding Part Procedural Liquid Tank-3065372864 SimulationResource was not found.
[LOG 12:23:18.487] [PartSet]: Failed to add Resource -1154601244 to Simulation PartSet:918144 as corresponding Part Procedural Liquid Tank-3065372864 SimulationResource was not found.
[LOG 12:23:18.489] [PartSet]: Failed to add Resource -1154601244 to Simulation PartSet:918144 as corresponding Part Procedural Liquid Tank-3065372864 SimulationResource was not found.
[LOG 12:23:18.538] [PartSet]: Failed to add Resource -1154601244 to Simulation PartSet:532504 as corresponding Part Procedural Liquid Tank-3065372864 SimulationResource was not found.
[LOG 12:23:18.540] [PartSet]: Failed to add Resource -1154601244 to Simulation PartSet:532504 as corresponding Part Procedural Liquid Tank-3065372864 SimulationResource was not found.
[LOG 12:23:18.548] [PartSet]: Failed to add Resource -1154601244 to Simulation PartSet:128072 as corresponding Part Procedural Liquid Tank-3065372864 SimulationResource was not found.
 

I don't think NF does simulations.

What simulation mods do you have?

Also, there's an open issue for PParts - https://github.com/KSP-RO/ProceduralParts/issues/273

[darthgently]

2 minutes ago, TranceaddicT said:

I don't think NF does simulations.

What simulation mods do you have?

Also, there's an open issue for PParts - https://github.com/KSP-RO/ProceduralParts/issues/273

I'm "ackshully" aware of that open issue as I'm the one who opened it back when I figured it *might* be a PParts issue.  One has to be careful assigning causation based upon an issue being open.  I state in that issue that I'm not sure at all that it is a PParts issue.  Which is the same language I used here.   

NF does do electrical and thermal simulations at the very least; in fact it was wording in a post from, iirc, Nertea related to simulations that made me think maybe an NF module was trying to run on a PPart and having a hard time.  What would fix this kind of confusion is a *hard* requirement  that all mods put a recognizable form of the mod name in any log message so anyone looking at the log and loaded mods will be fairly certain which mod produced the message.  I'm baffled why no such requirement exists.  It would really clear a lot of fog away during debugging.  It seems people find comfort in obfuscated environments.  Apparently

[TranceaddicT]

5 minutes ago, darthgently said:

What would fix this kind of confusion is a *hard* requirement  that all mods put a recognizable form of the mod name in any log message so anyone looking at the log and loaded mods will be fairly certain which mod produced the message.

LoL, I gots you.

https://github.com/sarbian/ModuleManager/issues/162

6 minutes ago, darthgently said:

I'm "ackshully" aware of that open issue as I'm the one who opened it back when I figured it *might* be a PParts issue. 

I wondered, but different handles, so...

[Nertea]

25 minutes ago, darthgently said:

I'm "ackshully" aware of that open issue as I'm the one who opened it back when I figured it *might* be a PParts issue.  One has to be careful assigning causation based upon an issue being open.  I state in that issue that I'm not sure at all that it is a PParts issue.  Which is the same language I used here.   

NF does do electrical and thermal simulations at the very least; in fact it was wording in a post from, iirc, Nertea related to simulations that made me think maybe an NF module was trying to run on a PPart and having a hard time.  What would fix this kind of confusion is a *hard* requirement  that all mods put a recognizable form of the mod name in any log message so anyone looking at the log and loaded mods will be fairly certain which mod produced the message.  I'm baffled why no such requirement exists.  It would really clear a lot of fog away during debugging.  It seems people find comfort in obfuscated environments.  Apparently

Don't be so quick to assume it is mods doing this - PartSet is a stock class. Typically everything I develop that makes log entries does include a prefix. If you want to complain about confusing nonsensical log message the KSP General forum is around somewhere.

In this case it is probably PP doing things, PartSet and SimResource errors are related to the stock DV calculator as I recall.

 

[darthgently]

22 minutes ago, TranceaddicT said:

LoL, I gots you.

https://github.com/sarbian/ModuleManager/issues/162

I wondered, but different handles, so...

Yeah, my gamername ends up in forums like this, elsewhere it is non-gamer

1 minute ago, Nertea said:

Don't be so quick to assume it is mods doing this - PartSet is a stock class. Typically everything I develop that makes log entries does include a prefix. If you want to complain about confusing nonsensical log message the KSP General forum is around somewhere.

In this case it is probably PP doing things, PartSet and SimResource errors are related to the stock DV calculator as I recall.

 

I'm trying really hard so specifically write that I'm not assuming anything.  All I got is correlation at this point and that is all I've stated.  I certainly meant no offense.  It isn't clear to most people what PartSet is; now I know that at least and I thank you for that.  Thanks especially for the clarifying information as to PartSet and SimResource in particular.  And thank you for all you do!

[amarius1]

forgot how to delete comments

 

Edited September 16, 2020 by amarius1

[Terrestris]

Just want to share one of my favorite screenshot.

[Guest]

Nice. What starfield and planet/visual pack? 

[Terrestris]

22 hours ago, Dragon01 said:

Nice. What starfield and planet/visual pack? 

 

I'm play RSS and  here are visual mods I installed:

• Community Terrain Texture Pack
• Environmental Visual Enhancements
• Planet Shine
• RSSVE
• scatterer
• Texture Replacer
• Texture Unlimited FX

 

Ps. Not sure about which sky box, I downloaded a pack from here:

 

Edited September 19, 2020 by Dr.Lxweei

[Krzeszny]

There are some balance problems with Near Future Launch Vehicles rocket engines, so I'll discuss them, starting with the meta:

• Even the RD-180 equivalent, the Cougar, doesn't have sea-level ISP above 300 (it has only 295). Near future engines should be able to get above 300 s ASL, especiall the RD-based ones, up to 314 s ASL. The highest stock ISP ASL is 295 s just because there are no closed-cycle engines in (Re)stock KSP.
• All the engines except for the Porpoise, Otter (both too cheap) and Sphinx (it's ok) seem overpriced to a smaller or bigger extent. Look at the ReStock+ 'Corgi' (a bigger Poodle) - 355 vacuum ISP,  huge 750 kN of thrust and costs only 4250 credits.
• Biggest balance problems in bold.

1. 'Angora' - nerfed 'Spark'. It looks better but is underpowered. It has less vacuum ISP than the Spark despite having a much larger nozzle and hence expansion ratio. And it's twice as expensive as the 'Spark' despite being worse.
2. 'Sphinx' has a unique sustainer role with its 260/330 ISP. With RS+ it's a needed high-tech 'Valiant' and without RS+ it's even more useful. Seems like its sea-level ISP is too low, though.
3. 'Cougar' (double-chamber) has a role because of its high ISP but slightly defies the real RD-xxx function. The Cougar is clearly more of a vacuum engine with its 295/345 ISP while the RD-170/180/190 are lifters (hence their ISP ASL is above 310 s). If the Cougar has 345 vacuum ISP, why does it have only 295 ASL ISP? For balance purposes? It's a near future engine, so it could have a higher ISP ASL with a staged combustion cycle, like the RD-181 with 312-339 ISP.  Overpriced.
4. 'Lynx' (single-chamber 'Cougar') - same function dilemma as above, has a role because of its ISP.
5. 'Ocelot' is an overpowered version of 'Mainsail' or 'Galleon' from RS+, looks like it has way too high ISP in vacuum, as the expansion ratio seems very low (too big nozzle, too small chamber for the ISP.) I see no role for it if it gets nerfed in vacuum, but it should be nerfed & made less expensive. It could also be completely rebalanced.
6. 'Porpoise is a 'Mainsail' with more thrust and ISP for less credits, or with RS+ a 'Galleon' copy with overpowered ISP (just like the 'Ocelot'), for the same price as a 'Galleon'. I don't see a role for it  without a complete rebalance.
7. 'Walrus' is an overpriced 'Skipper'. Differs by 5 s ISP, 100 kN more thrust (and is twice as expensive), so it has no unique role. It has no shroud.
8. 'Orca' is a slightly better 'Mainsail' - 200 more thrust, 5 to 8 more ISP. Probably doesn't fit a unique role - 200 more kN and that's it?
9. 'Goldfish' is a 'Spark' copy. 33% more gimballing, 5 more ISP ASL, 40 less ISP in vacuum, same thrust. No unique role. It should have way more thrust! Look how big the chamber is - it's clearly a sea level-only high-thrust engine. Then it would fit a booster role without the risk of becoming a RS+ 'Torch' because it's way lighter.
10. 'Otter' - WAY too cheap RS+ 'Valiant' equivalent or 'Thud' from stock. I get it, the SpaceX Merlin is cheap (and 9 times more powerful than 'Otter') but 'Otter' isn't stock-a-like for that price. Also, it doesn't fit the Precision Propulsion category. 100 kN isn't very precise and it would need 900 kN of thrust if it were a Merlin replica. Definitely not precision propulsion.
11. 'Osprey' - deprecated, I know, but it looks extremely cool and has a role the way it is. It should cost below 10k and by being 33% more powerful than RS+ 'Corgi' and 300% more powerful than 'Poodle', it definitely has a role. I don't understand why it's deprecated.
12. 'Buzzard' - deprecated also, but it had a role and was balanced (despite being overpriced.) Huge size and thrust, high sea-level ISP. There was nothing wrong with its stats. It's a Raptor equivalent, isn't it?
13. 'Manatee' - it's literally a mutated/randomized 'Mammoth' . It's 12% more powerful and has worse sea-level ISP (by 10) but everything is the same, plus, we have engine plates. What's its purpose, if any?

Note - I only compared 'Cougar' and 'Otter' to their real-life equivalents because I'm not an expert.

Note - some of the engines cost way too few credits to unlock. The 'Lynx' costs 4 times less to unlock it from the tech tree than the 'Vector' but it's significantly more efficient than 'Vector'.

I got interested in the Launch Vehicles NF module for the 5 meter and 7.5 meter parts. The engines have very nice models, especially the 'Cougar'.