[1.12.1] JNSQ [0.10.0] [23 Sept 2021]

[Norcalplanner]

40 minutes ago, JadeOfMaar said:

Final Frontier ribbons? Hmm...

 Yes, please! 

[OhioBob]

1 hour ago, Quoniam Kerman said:

Also, why adding an atmosphere on Tylo? Because it would become too hard to land on with 2.7x scale?

I gave Tylo an atmosphere simply because I think a body as large as Tylo would have one.  I had a hard time rationalizing why to wouldn't have an atmosphere.

Undoubtedly the reason Tylo was not given an atmosphere in stock was to provide the challenge of landing on a large airless body, where all the breaking has to be done via propulsion.  That's great, but once you've completely the challenge in stock, there's really no need to do it again in JNSQ.  So I saw no need to retain Tylo as an airless body.

I also greatly reduced Tylo's size, as well and Laythe and Vall.  These moons just seemed unrealistically large to me, particularly having two bodies (Tylo and Laythe) that were almost Kerbin size.  Reducing their size was also done to, I hope, help stabilize the orbits of the Joolean moons for Principia users.  So although Tylo is still big, it's not nearly as large as it is in stock (comparatively speaking).  Its surface gravity is only about 1/2 the stock value, so even if I did make Tylo airless, it's not going to provide the same challenge that you get in stock.

So rather than repeating something that you've likely already done in your stock game, we've given you 14 new bodies to go explore.

[Quoniam Kerman]

Ok, thanks.

[Jognt]

9 hours ago, JadeOfMaar said:

Such an abstract resource shouldn't be (afaik) as prominent in a realistic space as stock makes it out to be. But it is so abundant as part of what makes KSP easy and playable when you're new to KSP or a basic player (no offense intended).

You can simply remove Realistic Resources if you want Ore everywhere and can't stand the surface scanner and atmo variometer being loaded with resource readings. For more information: [link]

 

Thanks, but that was not the question, nor the intent. Though I admit my question was poorly formulated.

I don't mind a challenge (the abundance of ore in stock bugged me in the past), and it sounds like RR does quite a bit more than just add a few resources.
Let's say I removed 80% of the added resources, what does RR still offer? Meaning, what am I missing out on if I were to remove RR vs removing specific resources?

For clarification: I do not mind the added resources. I do mind the immense bloat due to the integration with the stock scanners throwing so much information at the player.
I'm not new to KSP and I'm not a basic player. I simply have a 'special' brain that would like to be able to handle 1 (one) new thing at a time. But it looks like I can 'remove RR' so I guess I'll think about that.

Tip: If possible, hide the PAW percentages/names for items with a value of 0.00%/unknown.
Ps. "If people have to say 'no offense intended', people usually mean 'don't get mad at this offensive thing I said'"

Edited June 5, 2019 by Jognt
Tidied it up so I don't have to say "no offense" myself.

[cantab]

9 hours ago, OhioBob said:

I also greatly reduced Tylo's size, as well and Laythe and Vall.  These moons just seemed unrealistically large to me, particularly having two bodies (Tylo and Laythe) that were almost Kerbin size.  Reducing their size was also done to, I hope, help stabilize the orbits of the Joolean moons for Principia users.

I've not had the chance to get hands-on with JNSQ yet, so does anyone else know how the smaller Joolian moons affect gravity assists in the system? In stock Laythe and Tylo are well known for their powerful gravity assists, and setting them up correctly is a gameplay challenge and one that could bring big rewards (in delta-V savings). Losing that from JNSQ would be a big minus in my view.

[Gaultesian]

Your mod is great.  I actually went back to 1.70 so I could enjoy this gem of a planet mod.

I have been testing it out, and I noticed that using autopilot (landing), the autopilot does not seem to find the KSC runway.  It seems to think the KSC runway is over 450KM away from the actual KSC runway.  I know it may be a mechjeb error, but I was wondering if this could be easily rectified in the JNSQ config file (i guess it may be the JNSQ mechjeb config, and the lat-tong of the KSC runways being off a bit).

Cheers,

Gaultesian

Edited June 5, 2019 by Gaultesian
More information about the config files.

[4x4cheesecake]

1 hour ago, cantab said:

I've not had the chance to get hands-on with JNSQ yet, so does anyone else know how the smaller Joolian moons affect gravity assists in the system? In stock Laythe and Tylo are well known for their powerful gravity assists, and setting them up correctly is a gameplay challenge and one that could bring big rewards (in delta-V savings). Losing that from JNSQ would be a big minus in my view.

I've tried a Kerbin -> Jool transfer already and I wasn't able to get captured in a Jool orbit by a single gravity assist around Tylo but it required just an additional 280m/s burn. If you can manage to get an assist by Laythe and Tylo, you're probably still fine. I guess, it's also possible to use the new atmosphere of Tylo to slow down even a bit more but the atmosphere seem to be pretty thick so things heat up fairly quick^^

[OhioBob]

2 hours ago, cantab said:

I've not had the chance to get hands-on with JNSQ yet, so does anyone else know how the smaller Joolian moons affect gravity assists in the system? In stock Laythe and Tylo are well known for their powerful gravity assists, and setting them up correctly is a gameplay challenge and one that could bring big rewards (in delta-V savings). Losing that from JNSQ would be a big minus in my view.

Consider figuring out what you can and cannot do in JNSQ part of the adventure.  We didn't want JNSQ to simply be an exact scaled up version of stock  It borrows much from stock, but it is reimagined in many ways.  You'll have to relearn what you think you know from stock.  That's by design.  We don't what everything to work just as it did in stock.  You may have to find new solutions to old problems.
 

Edited June 5, 2019 by OhioBob

[JadeOfMaar]

3 hours ago, Jognt said:

Thanks, but that was not the question, nor the intent. Though I admit my question was poorly formulated.

I don't mind a challenge (the abundance of ore in stock bugged me in the past), and it sounds like RR does quite a bit more than just add a few resources.
Let's say I removed 80% of the added resources, what does RR still offer? Meaning, what am I missing out on if I were to remove RR vs removing specific resources?

For clarification: I do not mind the added resources. I do mind the immense bloat due to the integration with the stock scanners throwing so much information at the player.
I'm not new to KSP and I'm not a basic player. I simply have a 'special' brain that would like to be able to handle 1 (one) new thing at a time. But it looks like I can 'remove RR' so I guess I'll think about that.

Tip: If possible, hide the PAW percentages/names for items with a value of 0.00%/unknown.
Ps. "If people have to say 'no offense intended', people usually mean 'don't get mad at this offensive thing I said'"

Yeah the question was lacking a bit in crispness.

At the moment RR doesn't offer anything else if you removed that 80%. Eventually that will change, when I release the alternate options for the stock drill-o-matics and convert-o-trons, and make the mini ones a little more playable (25% the performance of the large converter, a slightly more generous lower abundance limit on the drill, and getting rid of the thermal and efficiency problems that stock intentionally puts on you). But the presence of some of these resources are immediately a big hit with life support mods.

I intend to give a harvester function for each of the cryo converter input resources to just one stock intake. Once RR becomes established, not-stock-fuel rocketry mods and life support mods should become more appealing, and industrial construction mods may become more challenging and rewarding.

I have the ISRU chains all set up in my test game but I need custom parts for them and I personally would also like custom parts for the extra resource presence readouts, for that reason (It can be quite a clutter in the stock science parts. Even I don't like it).

I can't do anything about hiding resources if their readout is 0%. And I know the deal with saying "no offense intended." Well, I hope my answer is sufficient.

[jefferyharrell]

I have two questions.

First, I happened to look at my game log file and saw a great many errors that look like this:

[LOG 09:58:20.881] [OD] ERROR: getting pixelFloatD with unloaded map Moho_heightmap (G) for Moho of path JNSQ/JNSQ_Textures/PluginData/Moho_heightmap.dds, autoload = True
[LOG 09:58:21.034] [OD] ---> Map Moho_heightmap (G) for Moho enabling self. Path = JNSQ/JNSQ_Textures/PluginData/Moho_heightmap.dds
[LOG 09:58:21.035] [OD] ERROR: getting pixelFloatD with unloaded map Moho_heightmap (G) for Moho of path JNSQ/JNSQ_Textures/PluginData/Moho_heightmap.dds, autoload = True
[LOG 09:58:21.190] [OD] ---> Map Moho_heightmap (G) for Moho enabling self. Path = JNSQ/JNSQ_Textures/PluginData/Moho_heightmap.dds
[LOG 09:58:21.201] [OD] ERROR: getting pixelFloatD with unloaded map Eve_heightmap (G) for Eve of path JNSQ/JNSQ_Textures/PluginData/Eve_heightmap.dds, autoload = True
[LOG 09:58:21.361] [OD] ---> Map Eve_heightmap (G) for Eve enabling self. Path = JNSQ/JNSQ_Textures/PluginData/Eve_heightmap.dds
[LOG 09:58:21.361] [OD] ERROR: getting pixelFloatD with unloaded map Eve_heightmap (G) for Eve of path JNSQ/JNSQ_Textures/PluginData/Eve_heightmap.dds, autoload = True
[LOG 09:58:21.521] [OD] ---> Map Eve_heightmap (G) for Eve enabling self. Path = JNSQ/JNSQ_Textures/PluginData/Eve_heightmap.dds

Are these nominal?

My second question has to do with EVE. Unless the clouds are extremely subtle (which they might be, I have old eyes) they don't show up at the game's main menu. They work fine in play. I'm only asking about this because I want to make sure it's not a sign that my game isn't working correctly.

Here's a link to my complete log file, if you want it.

https://filebin.ca/4jZlSdPCPEEX/KSP.log

[OhioBob]

27 minutes ago, jefferyharrell said:

My second question has to do with EVE. Unless the clouds are extremely subtle (which they might be, I have old eyes) they don't show up at the game's main menu. They work fine in play. I'm only asking about this because I want to make sure it's not a sign that my game isn't working correctly.

I have the same issue.  I think it might be because Kerbin is natively a different size than stock Kerbin.  EVE doesn't seem to handle that well.  I've seen issues with the main menu view in other planet packs that use a non-standard home world size.
 

[Cheesecake]

 

1 hour ago, jefferyharrell said:

My second question has to do with EVE. Unless the clouds are extremely subtle (which they might be, I have old eyes) they don't show up at the game's main menu. They work fine in play. I'm only asking about this because I want to make sure it's not a sign that my game isn't working correctly.

It`s a known issue that clouds are not shown in the main-menue. But you can ignore this. So long it works ingame everything is OK.

Edited June 5, 2019 by Cheesecake

[New Horizons]

21 hours ago, JadeOfMaar said:

What's the purpose of RF Stockalike? I know the name but that's it. Anything that's supposed to make RSS playable is not needed in scales lower than 3.2x. If you like RSS, then you'll feel at home with stock engines, largely un-tuned, on 2.5x or 2.7x.

It's been said, that this Stockalike config for Real Fuels matches best to a 6.4 scaled system. In my experience you can reach a 5 - 10 % payload fraction this way - making it slightly better than IRL.

Which payload fraction to LKO do you experience in this mod with stock engines (no insance asperagus)?

[OhioBob]

8 minutes ago, New Horizons said:

Which payload fraction to LKO do you experience in this mod with stock engines (no insance asperagus)?

I don't have a real good handle on that yet, but my guess is around 0.1

 

[JadeOfMaar]

26 minutes ago, New Horizons said:

It's been said, that this Stockalike config for Real Fuels matches best to a 6.4 scaled system. In my experience you can reach a 5 - 10 % payload fraction this way - making it slightly better than IRL.

Which payload fraction to LKO do you experience in this mod with stock engines (no insance asperagus)?

Lol how did you quote me and post the exact same answer 30 minutes apart? Forum glitch?

I tend to only play sandbox; not use the stock engines; nearly always build OPT spaceplanes able to hold 15~45 tons of Ore. I get satisfactory performance out of the spaceplanes and enough challenge trying to: maximize use of scramjet engines; endure reentry heat.

Edited June 5, 2019 by JadeOfMaar

[kerbalmckerbalface]

First of all thank you for the awesome mod!

Finally looking to get back into the heavy modded ksp.

I have two questions about two things if you dont mind me asking.

1. I seem to experience some kind of ghost eva parachute. Is this a known issue for this mod or any other mod that you know of? With a similar set of mods(excluding JNSQ) I seem to have no issues.
2. Is it correct that there is no EVa/surface sample science? I read through the thread and could not find any mention of this being intentional.

Eva ghost parachute picture

 

 

[New Horizons]

5 minutes ago, JadeOfMaar said:

Lol how did you quote me and post the exact same answer 30 minutes apart? Forum glitch?

I tend to only play sandbox; not use the stock engines; nearly always build OPT spaceplanes able to hold 15~45 tons of Ore. I get satisfactory performance out of the spaceplanes and enough challenge trying to: maximize use of scramjet engines; endure reentry heat.

Exactly, this textbox did not vanish, so I clicked the Submit Reply button again.

[OhioBob]

3 minutes ago, kerbalmckerbalface said:

1. I seem to experience some kind of ghost eva parachute. Is this a known issue for this mod or any other mod that you know of? With a similar set of mods(excluding JNSQ) I seem to have no issues.

This has been reported elsewhere.  Not quite sure what the issue is, might be a stock bug.

Quote

2. Is it correct that there is no EVa/surface sample science? I read through the thread and could not find any mention of this being intentional.

There is nothing in JNSQ that we know of that should affect surface samples.  If you're playing career, have you upgraded your R&D facility to Tier 2?  Tier 2 R&D is needed to collect surface samples.

[kerbalmckerbalface]

1 minute ago, OhioBob said:

This has been reported elsewhere.  Not quite sure what the issue is, might be a stock bug.

There is nothing in JNSQ that we know of that should affect surface samples.  If you're playing career, have you upgraded your R&D facility to Tier 2?  Tier 2 R&D is needed to collect surface samples.

Thanks for the fast reply. I did some tests in Science mode to avoid any issues with potential facility bugs and the likes. The weird thing is that [x] science shows no science entry but there is one in science realerted. I'll dig further and do the good old drop half your mods trick ^^. Knowing it is not intentional really helps!

 

[OhioBob]

17 minutes ago, kerbalmckerbalface said:

Thanks for the fast reply. I did some tests in Science mode to avoid any issues with potential facility bugs and the likes. The weird thing is that [x] science shows no science entry but there is one in science realerted. I'll dig further and do the good old drop half your mods trick ^^. Knowing it is not intentional really helps!

I just tested it in my career game and I can take surface samples with no problem.  I'm not using any mods that would normally be expected to interfere with something like that.

[kerbalmckerbalface]

18 minutes ago, OhioBob said:

I just tested it in my career game and I can take surface samples with no problem.  I'm not using any mods that would normally be expected to interfere with something like that.

Thanks for the help, apparently enabling breaking ground with 1.7.0 results in some weird behaviour that results in a half working science experience.

[panarchist]

4 hours ago, JadeOfMaar said:

Does this mean there will be engine configs for fuels other than LqdFuel? Or how does that fit in? I feel like I missed something, but I didn't see any dependencies or support on RealFuels or any other alternative fuel mod.

Been playing around with JNSQ since yesterday afternoon, and I'm a big fan of GPP. This is outstanding - you guys did some phenomenal work on this, I love it!

[Jognt]

6 hours ago, JadeOfMaar said:

Yeah the question was lacking a bit in crispness.

At the moment RR doesn't offer anything else if you removed that 80%. Eventually that will change, when I release the alternate options for the stock drill-o-matics and convert-o-trons, and make the mini ones a little more playable (25% the performance of the large converter, a slightly more generous lower abundance limit on the drill, and getting rid of the thermal and efficiency problems that stock intentionally puts on you). But the presence of some of these resources are immediately a big hit with life support mods.

I intend to give a harvester function for each of the cryo converter input resources to just one stock intake. Once RR becomes established, not-stock-fuel rocketry mods and life support mods should become more appealing, and industrial construction mods may become more challenging and rewarding.

I have the ISRU chains all set up in my test game but I need custom parts for them and I personally would also like custom parts for the extra resource presence readouts, for that reason (It can be quite a clutter in the stock science parts. Even I don't like it).

[snip]

I can't do anything about hiding resources if their readout is 0%. And I know the deal with saying "no offense intended." Well, I hope my answer is sufficient.

 

Thank you for the polite reply, I know I can be.. difficult.. at times. 

I like the concept of RR and I’ll probably see if I can hide some/most of the resources while I’m getting acquainted with it so I can take it one step at a time. 

I also realize that it would’ve been a better question to ask in the RR thread, so my apology for the off-topic comments. 

[jefferyharrell]

Yesterday I asked about making a Module Manager patch that would increase the brightness of the sunlight. I was successful. Here are a couple of screenshots. Reasonable people can disagree about whether they like the "hotter" look, but I do. Thanks a million for helping me achieve it.

EDIT: Just one more quick picture, this time of the launch of a vehicle that'll take a SCANsat satellite up into a polar orbit. I really like the lighting in this one. It's a bit later in the day.

Edited June 6, 2019 by jefferyharrell

[OhioBob]

@New Horizons, I just launched a big 375-tonne Mun rocket.  Its to low Kerbin orbit payload fraction was 0.11, but that was leaving a little bit of unused fuel in the tanks.  I estimate that if squeezed every last ounce of potential out of it, I might have been able to get the payload fraction up to around 0.12.