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

[Nertea]

On 9/18/2019 at 7:37 PM, theesigil said:

they were at 0% for sure. In about a dozen attempts, I got them to dock one time. And that one I just let them sit there and wobble together for a while and they just connected no dice any other time, same orientation/build. It is perplexing because it is a really awesome part and I really would like to use it

A fix was made to this in the last NFC release, but perhaps it needs more attention

On 9/16/2019 at 6:39 PM, KSPrynk said:

@Nertea, I love the new plumes on all the engines, but the NFP Electric Engines seem to have issues with inconsistency of EngineLight effects.  The stock Dawn Xenon engine produces a blue illumination glow, which appears to be in the engine-configs.cfg folder of EngineLightRelit (v1.6.1.1).

The KA NTRs have a reddish glow when using LH2, as expected to match up with their red plumes.  The KerbalAtomicsEngineLightRelit.cfg patch appears to follow the same definitions as the Dawn glow that comes with EngineLightRelit.

Pretty much all the NFP electric engines produce a bright yellow-tinged glow, regardless of the propellant's plume color.  It looks like the NFP patch for NFPropulsionEngineLight.cfg all point to the same !MODULE[tjs_EngineLight].  Is this module supposed to be figuring out the appropriate EngineLight color, based on plume (propellant) color, or is the yellow glow by design for all of them?  Or is this NFP EngineLight code obsolete, and in need of a refresh for EngineLightRelit?

I'm not sure what you mean, I haven't changed the plumes in a long time....?

[Nukesnipe]

Do the nuclear reactors have bigger collision meshes than their models?  I'm trying to dock a module with a reactor onto my colony ship, but it keeps bumping up against what looks like an invisible wall.

EDIT:  I figured out the issue.  The octo-truss elbow joints maintain the large collision mesh of the 90 degree version, even if you change it to the 45 or 30 degree.

Edited September 26, 2019 by Nukesnipe

[KSPrynk]

On 9/25/2019 at 7:39 PM, Nertea said:

I'm not sure what you mean, I haven't changed the plumes in a long time....?

I thought they got new plumes in Zorg's RealPlumeStock, as of v1.5.  Wasn't sure if that was his own implementation or in collaboration to update to new FX format.  In any case, EngineLightRelit seems to have gone to a more elaborate parameter format, which I think I first noted in KA, when the LH2NTR issue resurfaced.  Without going back and trying to put together older versions of NFE and EngineLight, I was wondering if the EngineLight glow effects were supposed to match the plumes, and whether !MODULE[tjs_EngineLight] was supposed to set the color.  My suspicion was that this reference to the module was now pointing to a dead end when using EngineLightRelit.

[Zorg]

7 hours ago, KSPrynk said:

I thought they got new plumes in Zorg's RealPlumeStock, as of v1.5.  Wasn't sure if that was his own implementation or in collaboration to update to new FX format.  In any case, EngineLightRelit seems to have gone to a more elaborate parameter format, which I think I first noted in KA, when the LH2NTR issue resurfaced.  Without going back and trying to put together older versions of NFE and EngineLight, I was wondering if the EngineLight glow effects were supposed to match the plumes, and whether !MODULE[tjs_EngineLight] was supposed to set the color.  My suspicion was that this reference to the module was now pointing to a dead end when using EngineLightRelit.

The new realplumes for NFP are more or less exact recreations of the "stock" plumes used by NFP as they are built from the same effects provided kindly by Nertea. 

Custom engine lighting configs would have to be provided by the community, someone did a pull request for a set of configs fairly recently for Kerbal atomics for instance to match the colours of the plumes.

The current compatibility patch in fact looks like its designed to remove engine lighting patches after its run? !MODULE[tjs_EngineLight] is in fact deleting the module.

https://github.com/ChrisAdderley/NearFuturePropulsion/blob/dev/GameData/NearFuturePropulsion/Patches/NFPropulsionEngineLight.cfg

If you would like custom engine lights then thats an opportunity for you or someone else to do a pull request to add custom colours . I suspect the reason the current patch deletes them is that without a custom config, the default engine light catch all for all engines would be overpowering for these electric engines. If NFP is to have custom configs someone will have to take the time to match the colours and tune the intensity to appropriate level.

Edit: The reason you're getting a bright glow is that the module name has changed as you said. Its now called MODULE[EngineLightEffect] so NFP isnt removing it correctly.

 

Edited September 27, 2019 by Zorg

[Jognt]

On 9/26/2019 at 8:00 AM, Nukesnipe said:

Do the nuclear reactors have bigger collision meshes than their models?  I'm trying to dock a module with a reactor onto my colony ship, but it keeps bumping up against what looks like an invisible wall.

EDIT:  I figured out the issue.  The octo-truss elbow joints maintain the large collision mesh of the 90 degree version, even if you change it to the 45 or 30 degree.

Can confirm. Tried to dock with an octo-docking port on the 90° at 35° but was stopped by the 90° collider. 

[Nukesnipe]

8 hours ago, Jognt said:

Can confirm. Tried to dock with an octo-docking port on the 90° at 35° but was stopped by the 90° collider. 

I got around it by putting the mini girder on the elbow joint.  Not the really tiny one, but one size up.  That seems to clear the elbow's collision mesh.

[Nertea]

On 9/26/2019 at 5:54 PM, KSPrynk said:

I thought they got new plumes in Zorg's RealPlumeStock, as of v1.5.  Wasn't sure if that was his own implementation or in collaboration to update to new FX format.  In any case, EngineLightRelit seems to have gone to a more elaborate parameter format, which I think I first noted in KA, when the LH2NTR issue resurfaced.  Without going back and trying to put together older versions of NFE and EngineLight, I was wondering if the EngineLight glow effects were supposed to match the plumes, and whether !MODULE[tjs_EngineLight] was supposed to set the color.  My suspicion was that this reference to the module was now pointing to a dead end when using EngineLightRelit.

Yes, all patches for external mods are community contributed - I can only guarantee that the ones that support my other mods are supported continuously. If the config format changed then someone will need to go through and adapt it to the new format. 

On 9/25/2019 at 11:00 PM, Nukesnipe said:

Do the nuclear reactors have bigger collision meshes than their models?  I'm trying to dock a module with a reactor onto my colony ship, but it keeps bumping up against what looks like an invisible wall.

EDIT:  I figured out the issue.  The octo-truss elbow joints maintain the large collision mesh of the 90 degree version, even if you change it to the 45 or 30 degree.

Thanks for letting me know, I will add it to the fix list. 

[jimmymcgoochie]

I've been having issues with the nuclear reactors in NF electrical- on several occasions I've left a reactor running at minimal power (0-2%) on a ship, gone off to do something else (often involving a long stint at maximum time warp) then come back to discover that the reactor has gone off the scale- core temperature of 12 to 15 THOUSAND kelvin, when the safety cut-out temperature was 1300K, and in some cases the entire (fairly large) spaceship the reactor was a part of was thoroughly cooked; only the fact that I'd left the 'ignore max temperatures' option switched on stopped the entire thing exploding, but every single part was at its maximum temperature before eventually it cooled down again.

In one case I switched the reactor on for the very first time, left it at 0% power so it hadn't even warmed up and came back to find it totally melted down and a core temperature more than double the surface of the sun. The only way to make absolutely sure this doesn't happen is to switch the reactor completely off, but for some uses e.g. powering a space station or long term operations, that isn't viable.

Has anyone else seen this? The reactors had stock cooling systems attached (radiators and TCS) which were more than enough to cool it at full power, yet somehow couldn't do it at minimal or even zero power.

[Nertea]

29 minutes ago, jimmymcgoochie said:

I've been having issues with the nuclear reactors in NF electrical- on several occasions I've left a reactor running at minimal power (0-2%) on a ship, gone off to do something else (often involving a long stint at maximum time warp) then come back to discover that the reactor has gone off the scale- core temperature of 12 to 15 THOUSAND kelvin, when the safety cut-out temperature was 1300K, and in some cases the entire (fairly large) spaceship the reactor was a part of was thoroughly cooked; only the fact that I'd left the 'ignore max temperatures' option switched on stopped the entire thing exploding, but every single part was at its maximum temperature before eventually it cooled down again.

In one case I switched the reactor on for the very first time, left it at 0% power so it hadn't even warmed up and came back to find it totally melted down and a core temperature more than double the surface of the sun. The only way to make absolutely sure this doesn't happen is to switch the reactor completely off, but for some uses e.g. powering a space station or long term operations, that isn't viable.

Has anyone else seen this? The reactors had stock cooling systems attached (radiators and TCS) which were more than enough to cool it at full power, yet somehow couldn't do it at minimal or even zero power.

There have been some issues with this in the past (the stock thermal system does this sometimes), some mitigations were implemented as a result and it hasn't been seen since. In order to effectively debug this I need a solid reproduction case and steps, because in my current setup can't reproduce it. As a start, you should provide me with:

• A logfile covering the period of the event occurring
• A mod list
• A set of screenshots of the vessel in question, specifically highlighting the installed thermal system contributors (all reactors, radiators of all types, drills, converters, etc)

Even better would be:

• A craft file of the ship with non-NFT mods stripped (honestly any of my mods are ok but ideally this is stock+NFE)
• A save with the event occurring with this ship

[jimmymcgoochie]

23 hours ago, Nertea said:

There have been some issues with this in the past (the stock thermal system does this sometimes), some mitigations were implemented as a result and it hasn't been seen since. In order to effectively debug this I need a solid reproduction case and steps, because in my current setup can't reproduce it. As a start, you should provide me with:

• A logfile covering the period of the event occurring
• A mod list
• A set of screenshots of the vessel in question, specifically highlighting the installed thermal system contributors (all reactors, radiators of all types, drills, converters, etc)

Even better would be:

• A craft file of the ship with non-NFT mods stripped (honestly any of my mods are ok but ideally this is stock+NFE)
• A save with the event occurring with this ship

I cleared every mod apart from NF electrical and did some tests:

4 identical craft (in this case rovers, RoveMate core and some wheels) with an MX-3S FLAT reactor and a single small radiator to cool them. Not nearly enough to cool them at full power, but I didn't go anywhere near full power!

Rover 1- start the reactor, get it up to temperature then set power to 1%. It sits quite happily at 900K with that one little radiator.

Rover 2- as above but set the reactor to 0% when it's warmed up.

Rover 3- start the reactor and set it to 1% immediately, without letting it warm up.

Rover 4- start the reactor and set it to 0% power immediately, still cold.

Time warp for a while- initially I tried 30 days at full speed, but it turns out just warping to the next morning is enough.

When I came back, rovers 1 and 2 were absolutely fine, the reactors were still at 900K and fully functional. Rover 4 was also fine, the reactor was at ambient temperature (290K or so).

Rover 3, on the other hand, was at 11,000K and core health dropped from 100% to 0% in less than a second after selecting it. Shortly afterwards the reactor exploded from overheating...

After removing what was left of Rover 3, I turned the power on 1 and 4 up to 5%, which is too much for the single small radiator to cope with, then fast forwarded for a while again. When I came back to them, they were both sitting at about 1300K, which triggered the emergency cut-out (I set it down to 1300K instead of the default 1350 which will cause reactor damage) and turned them off with no damage done. No meltdowns.

I tried various combinations of reactors and radiators and found a pretty similar picture- a cold reactor at low power settings will spontaneously melt down if you time warp for a sustained period, if it doesn't have enough active cooling to keep it cool at maximum power. An MX-3S melted down at 1% power even with twelve large radiators stuck on it (the only other part on that vessel was a probe core) and sticking one of each reactor to a 6-way station hub with around 20 large TCUs attached to them and leaving them cold at 1% caused many meltdowns.

I tried a test with two MX-3Ls stuck together, each with one large radiator attached and a probe core to control it, no other parts. One was started and warmed up and the other was started but kept cold. (By this point I finally remembered how to do screenshots in forum posts so there are some screenshots below, hope they help!)

At 3% power (which it can run at quite happily, the radiator is just enough to keep it cool) when I warped to the next morning the hot reactor was absolutely fine but the cold reactor had melted down and was at 12,000K.
At 4% power, which is slightly too hot for one radiator to manage on its own, it was a similar story: hot reactor OK, cold reactor catastrophically overheated.
At 50% power, things are a little bit different- the hot reactor hit 1600K despite the cut-out temperature being 1000, but the cold reactor still hit 10,000K and melted down.

At 100% the hot reactor only hit 1200K and the cold reactor was a mere 7600K...

I also tried turning the reactor to full power with no radiators at all and setting the cut-out temperature to 2000K then fast forwarding while still controlling the vessel, but the reactor melted down at about 1900K and didn't come remotely close to 12,000!

To conclude: starting a reactor at any power level above 0% but leaving the vessel and time warping before the reactor has warmed up will almost certainly cause it to catastrophically overheat and melt down when you come back to that vessel, unless there are enough radiators on that vessel to dissipate the heat produced by the reactor at 100%. A hot reactor doesn't do this regardless of radiators or power setting.

During these tests I noticed that melted down reactors can be switched on again, and they will continue to use uranium and produce depleted fuel despite making zero power. Is this supposed to happen?

[Nertea]

44 minutes ago, jimmymcgoochie said:

I cleared every mod apart from NF electrical and did some tests:

4 identical craft (in this case rovers, RoveMate core and some wheels) with an MX-3S FLAT reactor and a single small radiator to cool them. Not nearly enough to cool them at full power, but I didn't go anywhere near full power!

Rover 1- start the reactor, get it up to temperature then set power to 1%. It sits quite happily at 900K with that one little radiator.

Rover 2- as above but set the reactor to 0% when it's warmed up.

Rover 3- start the reactor and set it to 1% immediately, without letting it warm up.

Rover 4- start the reactor and set it to 0% power immediately, still cold.

Time warp for a while- initially I tried 30 days at full speed, but it turns out just warping to the next morning is enough.

When I came back, rovers 1 and 2 were absolutely fine, the reactors were still at 900K and fully functional. Rover 4 was also fine, the reactor was at ambient temperature (290K or so).

Rover 3, on the other hand, was at 11,000K and core health dropped from 100% to 0% in less than a second after selecting it. Shortly afterwards the reactor exploded from overheating...

After removing what was left of Rover 3, I turned the power on 1 and 4 up to 5%, which is too much for the single small radiator to cope with, then fast forwarded for a while again. When I came back to them, they were both sitting at about 1300K, which triggered the emergency cut-out (I set it down to 1300K instead of the default 1350 which will cause reactor damage) and turned them off with no damage done. No meltdowns.

I tried various combinations of reactors and radiators and found a pretty similar picture- a cold reactor at low power settings will spontaneously melt down if you time warp for a sustained period, if it doesn't have enough active cooling to keep it cool at maximum power. An MX-3S melted down at 1% power even with twelve large radiators stuck on it (the only other part on that vessel was a probe core) and sticking one of each reactor to a 6-way station hub with around 20 large TCUs attached to them and leaving them cold at 1% caused many meltdowns.

I tried a test with two MX-3Ls stuck together, each with one large radiator attached and a probe core to control it, no other parts. One was started and warmed up and the other was started but kept cold. (By this point I finally remembered how to do screenshots in forum posts so there are some screenshots below, hope they help!)

At 3% power (which it can run at quite happily, the radiator is just enough to keep it cool) when I warped to the next morning the hot reactor was absolutely fine but the cold reactor had melted down and was at 12,000K.
At 4% power, which is slightly too hot for one radiator to manage on its own, it was a similar story: hot reactor OK, cold reactor catastrophically overheated.
At 50% power, things are a little bit different- the hot reactor hit 1600K despite the cut-out temperature being 1000, but the cold reactor still hit 10,000K and melted down.

At 100% the hot reactor only hit 1200K and the cold reactor was a mere 7600K...

I also tried turning the reactor to full power with no radiators at all and setting the cut-out temperature to 2000K then fast forwarding while still controlling the vessel, but the reactor melted down at about 1900K and didn't come remotely close to 12,000!

To conclude: starting a reactor at any power level above 0% but leaving the vessel and time warping before the reactor has warmed up will almost certainly cause it to catastrophically overheat and melt down when you come back to that vessel, unless there are enough radiators on that vessel to dissipate the heat produced by the reactor at 100%. A hot reactor doesn't do this regardless of radiators or power setting.

During these tests I noticed that melted down reactors can be switched on again, and they will continue to use uranium and produce depleted fuel despite making zero power. Is this supposed to happen?

That's some really good detective work. It seems like in one case the stock 'heat catchup' 'system is not being removed properly and it tries to do something stupid. I guess it's some kind of thing where you have a not-heated system and you want to act like it has heated up in the background.

The problem is, I have no idea how to resolve this one. I don't think I'm going to even try at this point, all I can say is 'don't do that'. I will keep moving forwards with my plans to roll a more stable heat system and try to bring that online sooner. 

[jimmymcgoochie]

@Nertea Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. I'll make sure to keep all reactors either switched off or warm them up first before leaving it!

[eightiesboi]

Hey @Nertea,

First, your mods are awesome, and thank you!

Second, I am getting some NREs relating to capacitors. I don't know if NFE is the culprit, but it is referenced in the NRE text.

[ERR 14:36:33.172] Module DischargeCapacitor threw during OnFixedUpdate: System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object
  at NearFutureElectrical.DischargeCapacitor.get_CurrentCharge () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
  at NearFutureElectrical.DischargeCapacitor.OnFixedUpdate () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
  at Part.ModulesOnFixedUpdate () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 

Logs are here: https://1drv.ms/u/s!AoyHZiRU1jT-zbw8AvmdK1OJfZgakA?e=X3RArI

Any thoughts?

Thank you!

[zer0Kerbal]

26 minutes ago, eightiesboi said:

Hey @Nertea,

First, your mods are awesome, and thank you!

Second, I am getting some NREs relating to capacitors. I don't know if NFE is the culprit, but it is referenced in the NRE text.

[ERR 14:36:33.172] Module DischargeCapacitor threw during OnFixedUpdate: System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object
  at NearFutureElectrical.DischargeCapacitor.get_CurrentCharge () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
  at NearFutureElectrical.DischargeCapacitor.OnFixedUpdate () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
  at Part.ModulesOnFixedUpdate () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 

Logs are here: https://1drv.ms/u/s!AoyHZiRU1jT-zbw8AvmdK1OJfZgakA?e=X3RArI

Any thoughts?

Thank you!

might be a patch from ODFC. next patch version will be out this weekend if all goes well. (ODFC was adding storedcharge in a patch - old personal patch - internally fixed).

[eightiesboi]

15 minutes ago, zer0Kerbal said:

might be a patch from ODFC. next patch version will be out this weekend if all goes well. (ODFC was adding storedcharge in a patch - old personal patch - internally fixed).

You were next on my list of people to hit up for help.

[Nertea]

On 10/2/2019 at 4:01 PM, eightiesboi said:

Hey @Nertea,

First, your mods are awesome, and thank you!

Second, I am getting some NREs relating to capacitors. I don't know if NFE is the culprit, but it is referenced in the NRE text.

[ERR 14:36:33.172] Module DischargeCapacitor threw during OnFixedUpdate: System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object
  at NearFutureElectrical.DischargeCapacitor.get_CurrentCharge () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
  at NearFutureElectrical.DischargeCapacitor.OnFixedUpdate () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
  at Part.ModulesOnFixedUpdate () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 

Logs are here: https://1drv.ms/u/s!AoyHZiRU1jT-zbw8AvmdK1OJfZgakA?e=X3RArI

Any thoughts?

Thank you!

Definitely doesn't happen in a basic install. Kinda looks like something is removing all the resources from the capacitors.

 

NF Construction 1.1.4

• Fixed colliders on angled octo-truss 30 and 45 degree variants
• Fixed screwed up texture on angled crewed octo-truss
• Fixed surface attach node on both angles octo-trusses
• Fixed surface attach node on octo-truss drone core
• Tuned docking parameters for linear docking ports

[Nicky21]

On 9/30/2019 at 8:39 PM, jimmymcgoochie said:

I've been having issues with the nuclear reactors in NF electrical- on several occasions I've left a reactor running at minimal power (0-2%) on a ship, gone off to do something else (often involving a long stint at maximum time warp) then come back to discover that the reactor has gone off the scale- core temperature of 12 to 15 THOUSAND kelvin, when the safety cut-out temperature was 1300K, and in some cases the entire (fairly large) spaceship the reactor was a part of was thoroughly cooked; only the fact that I'd left the 'ignore max temperatures' option switched on stopped the entire thing exploding, but every single part was at its maximum temperature before eventually it cooled down again.

In one case I switched the reactor on for the very first time, left it at 0% power so it hadn't even warmed up and came back to find it totally melted down and a core temperature more than double the surface of the sun. The only way to make absolutely sure this doesn't happen is to switch the reactor completely off, but for some uses e.g. powering a space station or long term operations, that isn't viable.

Has anyone else seen this? The reactors had stock cooling systems attached (radiators and TCS) which were more than enough to cool it at full power, yet somehow couldn't do it at minimal or even zero power.

This has happened to me as well. Nuclear reactors are very very bug prone. I triple check everythign in my ships that have them.

[mikegarrison]

The heat system is buggy AF when it interacts with time warp (and has always been so). I do not think the problem is the reactors. I think the problem is with the underlying KSP code for heat and time warp. The reactors are just very sensitive to this because they produce heat.

If you run an ISRU under time warp you see the same sort of "instant heat" when you you come out of time warp.

I've never had anything blow up from this while I'm using Nertea's Heat Control mod, but the radiators get super hot when coming out of time warp. I don't even try using the stock radiators for anything.

[zakkpaz]

On 8/9/2019 at 3:43 PM, Dragon01 said:

Progress on IVA overhauls:

If you liked the RPM versions of NFS pods, you will like this even better.

does anyone know where I can get more details on this, I can't find anything else about it, is it a separate mod, is there a WIP version I can use

Edited October 12, 2019 by zakkpaz

[Guest]

On 10/12/2019 at 8:26 PM, zakkpaz said:

does anyone know where I can get more details on this, I can't find anything else about it, is it a separate mod, is there a WIP version I can use

That mod is in limbo until @Nertea decides to start talking to me again. So bother him. I need some minor modifications to the MFD texture, which only he can make because of his license of choice is ARR (for the assets, at least). I'm not releasing until that gets done.

If enough people are interested, I might look into continuing this. It's close to what I wanted for first release (there are a few more IVAs left to do).

Edited October 13, 2019 by Guest

[zakkpaz]

1 hour ago, Dragon01 said:

That mod is in limbo until @Nertea decides to start talking to me again. So bother him. I need some minor modifications to the MFD texture, which only he can make because of his license of choice is ARR (for the assets, at least). I'm not releasing until that gets done.

If enough people are interested, I might look into continuing this. It's close to what I wanted for first release (there are a few more IVAs left to do).

I'm sorry here that hopefully you two will be able to get together soon

either way this is one of the nicest IVA's i've seen and would love to be able to use it.

[Nertea]

So, 1.8 requires at the bare minimum a recompile of all of my projects to update the .NET version and the dll structure. One or two are probably fine, but even so they have dependencies that need to be updated. Don't expect things to work, and really don't even try them IMO. Don't expect updates before 1.8.1 either, realistically. I'm busy.  

The need to push major version updates (1.8.x updates will NOT be compatible with previous KSP versions due to the .NET version upgrade) also means that I WILL BE REMOVING THE HIDDEN DEPRECATED PARTS IN THIS UPDATE.

• NF Electrical: 3.75m battery
• NF Solar: all the old solar panels

More perhaps, but primarily those.

I will also be using the need to spend time on this to do some renos on various things, so some packs may take longer to update than others.

@jimmymcgoochieYou may be pleased to know that (I think) I have resolved the issue while working through the update for NFE. At least, using your reproduction steps I can't get it to happen anymore.

[Semaj97]

22 hours ago, Nertea said:

So, 1.8 requires at the bare minimum a recompile of all of my projects to update the .NET version and the dll structure. One or two are probably fine, but even so they have dependencies that need to be updated. Don't expect things to work, and really don't even try them IMO. Don't expect updates before 1.8.1 either, realistically. I'm busy.  

The need to push major version updates (1.8.x updates will NOT be compatible with previous KSP versions due to the .NET version upgrade) also means that I WILL BE REMOVING THE HIDDEN DEPRECATED PARTS IN THIS UPDATE.

• NF Electrical: 3.75m battery
• NF Solar: all the old solar panels

More perhaps, but primarily those.

I will also be using the need to spend time on this to do some renos on various things, so some packs may take longer to update than others.

@jimmymcgoochieYou may be pleased to know that (I think) I have resolved the issue while working through the update for NFE. At least, using your reproduction steps I can't get it to happen anymore.

Hey Nertea, 

Thanks for keeping us in the loop with the 1.8 stuff, anyways I'm curious about the status of Near Future Aeronautics and if that will be updated to 1.8.X in the same time frame as everything else? I can remember there being a bit of a setback due to the source files issue, and I don't remember reading anything recent about that particular project, so I'd love to hear where you are on that. 

[Nertea]

5 hours ago, Semaj97 said:

Hey Nertea, 

Thanks for keeping us in the loop with the 1.8 stuff, anyways I'm curious about the status of Near Future Aeronautics and if that will be updated to 1.8.X in the same time frame as everything else? I can remember there being a bit of a setback due to the source files issue, and I don't remember reading anything recent about that particular project, so I'd love to hear where you are on that. 

It is still in the depressing backlog (I have a fun backlog and a depressing backlog). The parts and such will continue to work in 1.8 if the dependencies (DeployableEngine, KerbalActuators, B9PS and MM) are updated, so I don't see any need to absolutely kill my motivation and productivity by working on that. 

Edited October 19, 2019 by Nertea

[Problemless Mods Wanter]

Hello,

I was wondering if you were aware that some of the capacitors in Near Future Electrical lost their textures and appear red.

Also, I see you updated "Near Future Props" about an hour or so ago, how long do you think it would take CKAN to detect the new version?