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

[jefferyharrell]

19 hours ago, Norcalplanner said:

I thought it would be fun, but it just turned out to be annoying for me.  I don't think I'll use Research Bodies again.

I agree. What I wanted out of the mod was to "blur out" the other bodies in the solar system until I photographed them, sent orbiters to them and so on. You know, so you can't zoom into them in the tracking station and see every last pixel. Unfortunately the mod does a bunch of other stuff that isn't really compatible with how I like to play the game.

I would say that I think there's a market for the kind of mod I want, but honestly after that first game where you learn what the planets look like, it'd be kind of pointless.

[Galileo]

1 hour ago, jefferyharrell said:

I agree. What I wanted out of the mod was to "blur out" the other bodies in the solar system until I photographed them, sent orbiters to them and so on. You know, so you can't zoom into them in the tracking station and see every last pixel. Unfortunately the mod does a bunch of other stuff that isn't really compatible with how I like to play the game.

I would say that I think there's a market for the kind of mod I want, but honestly after that first game where you learn what the planets look like, it'd be kind of pointless.

Doubly so for me lol I made the planets soooooo, hiding them from myself is impossible. I ruin the game for myself by modding

[Jognt]

1 hour ago, Galileo said:

Doubly so for me lol I made the planets soooooo, hiding them from myself is impossible. I ruin the game for myself by modding

If (%user% == Galileo) { randomizeOrbits(); }

Edit: You could call it "The Quantumverse"

Edited July 8, 2019 by Jognt

[jefferyharrell]

@Jognt You laugh, but I think one of the best improvements to KSP would be procedurally generated solar systems. Years ago the developers said they didn't want to try this because they wanted players to be able to have the same game experiences, but that's trivially achieved by having a seed number that players can share to generate the same solar systems.

I imagine that procedurally generating gravitationally stable solar systems might be a challenge (I haven't done the math), but with everything on rails the boundary conditions aren't that constraining.

In my dream KSP, every time you start a new game you get a new solar system (only the sun, the "earth" analogue and the "moon" analogue are constant), and all the planets look like this until you send fly-by probes or orbiters to them. Get a particularly good solar system from the procedural generator? Just share the seed with your friends. Then there's like a 900-page forum thread of awesome seeds people have found.

[Jognt]

19 minutes ago, jefferyharrell said:

@Jognt You laugh, but I think one of the best improvements to KSP would be procedurally generated solar systems. Years ago the developers said they didn't want to try this because they wanted players to be able to have the same game experiences, but that's trivially achieved by having a seed number that players can share to generate the same solar systems.

I imagine that procedurally generating gravitationally stable solar systems might be a challenge (I haven't done the math), but with everything on rails the boundary conditions aren't that constraining.

In my dream KSP, every time you start a new game you get a new solar system (only the sun, the "earth" analogue and the "moon" analogue are constant), and all the planets look like this until you send fly-by probes or orbiters to them. Get a particularly good solar system from the procedural generator? Just share the seed with your friends. Then there's like a 900-page forum thread of awesome seeds people have found.

Procedural generation is overrated. Here's the User Experience train of thought:
"Wait a second?! Why does the user feel like he needs to start a new game? What's wrong with the old one?!"
[Lots of actual scientific testing]
[No time for that so I'll skip to my personal most likely conclusion]
"The gameplay is insufficient to the point where starting a new game is commonplace instead of rare!"
"How can we improve the gameplay...?"
[lots of actual testing]

Personal 'rule': If you've reached the point where starting a new game is so commonplace that procedural generation would pay off, you should probably be looking to improve the gameplay instead.

The Quantumverse I mentioned however would be the same playthrough where every time you load the game, the planets would be assigned a random existing orbit, so you'd never know where kerbin would be. At moho? As a Joolian moon? Who knows!.
Nothing would ever be the same, in the same save. But progress would be remembered.

Now if we apply my personal rule to that, we'd probably again arrive at the same conclusion. Gameplay is so lacking that the planet layout itself becomes the game xD. So it's not a very good idea after all IMO darnit!

[/Rant]

setTopic(JNSQ);

Edited July 8, 2019 by Jognt
Sorry for derail

[sturmhauke]

Procedurally generated maps are fine for some games, but I'm not sure they're a good fit for KSP. You'd have to have some constraints in place to make an interesting and relatively balanced solar system, or at least limit the totally crazy possibilities to an opt-in mode. Like, imagine if Kerbin was in Moho's orbit and you had 6 gas giants out past Eeloo's orbit, with nothing significant in between. Most people would just be frustrated by that and reroll.

[jefferyharrell]

@Jognt All very good points. I just think it's a shame that unless you're very self-disciplined, the thrill of discovery is not part of playing KSP at all. Which is why I like JNSQ so much — more than any other single fact about it, it's new. It's different. I have no idea even yet what any of the planets look like because my game has been entirely in cislunar space so far. Part of that is because I haven't had as much time to play lately, but also I'm deliberately drawing it out so I don't see everything new all at once.

[Lomik]

При попытке перевода возникла проблема, названия и описания некоторых планет не могли быть переведены, как я могу исправить эту проблему?

[Added translation]
There was a problem while trying to translate, the names and descriptions of some planets could not be translated, how can I fix this problem?

Spoiler

 

Edited July 9, 2019 by James Kerman
Added translation

[DJ Reonic]

I haven't been to Duna yet in JNSQ. Are there dust storms? I know one of the visual packs I used for stock had them. If not, are there plans for dust storms on Duna?

[Ratwerke_Actual]

I am having a problem with the KSC runway and buildings suddenly floating above the surrounding terrain.

Additionally, Kerbin, when viewed from low orbit, has large square tiled appearance on nearest terrain/clouds.

I'm still playing a career in 1.7.0 so I wonder if this is a known issue with some mod that can be fixed with minimal save breakage.

Any advice greatly appreciated in advance.

[OncaLupe]

27 minutes ago, Ratwerke_Actual said:

I am having a problem with the KSC runway and buildings suddenly floating above the surrounding terrain.

I had the same issue, it was due to the terrain settings. I forget now exactly what setting I used, but I had to change it one step.

[Ratwerke_Actual]

26 minutes ago, OncaLupe said:

I had the same issue, it was due to the terrain settings. I forget now exactly what setting I used, but I had to change it one step.

Will try... thanx.

[vossiewulf]

Not sure if this is a JNSQ or general game question, but hopefully someone knows the answer. I have these contracts to bring back stones from the Mun/Minmus, how do I detect them from the normal scatter? They're new to me.

[Superfluous J]

40 minutes ago, vossiewulf said:

Not sure if this is a JNSQ or general game question, but hopefully someone knows the answer. I have these contracts to bring back stones from the Mun/Minmus, how do I detect them from the normal scatter? They're new to me.

They are excruciatingly rare and tiny ground scatter introduced in Breaking Ground. in 1.7.1 they are all but impossible to find. In 1.7.2 Squad made them a bit more common.

I have not yet found one without cheating. If you hit alt-f12 you can turn on ROC Finder. It puts a little red arrow on the screen in flight and map mode pointing at the new anomalies/scatter rocks.

Don't expect to actually SEE the darn things until you're almost standing on top of them, though. For the vast bulk of your approach it will look as if the arrow is pointing at nothing. That is, if you can find an arrow at all even zoomed out rotating around your ship slowly enough to spot one.

Yes. They're that rare.

[vossiewulf]

1 minute ago, 5thHorseman said:

They are excruciatingly rare and tiny ground scatter introduced in Breaking Ground. in 1.7.1 they are all but impossible to find. In 1.7.2 Squad made them a bit more common.

I have not yet found one without cheating. If you hit alt-f12 you can turn on ROC Finder. It puts a little red arrow on the screen in flight and map mode pointing at the new anomalies/scatter rocks.

Don't expect to actually SEE the darn things until you're almost standing on top of them, though. For the vast bulk of your approach it will look as if the arrow is pointing at nothing. That is, if you can find an arrow at all even zoomed out rotating around your ship slowly enough to spot one.

Yes. They're that rare.

Thanks for the quick and thorough answer  Particularly the rock finder, I hate contracts that get stuck and have to be failed.

I'm pretty sure both are one-star contracts too, I wish someone could make a contract system that really works and generates interesting missions. I have contract configurator of course, but the rewards and stars often make no sense, the contract requirements are impossible or nearly so. I have the science contract pack and it keeps making contracts where one of the requirements is "empty slot - insert experiment here" because there is no logic, it just pulls science objects you own and says do that, even though there are a fair number of parts that cause it to break.

[vossiewulf]

I just went to the Pyramids anomaly with the contract, and was unable to get an update there either, no matter where I ran around or climbed. Are we sure there isn't an issue with anomalies?

[OhioBob]

I didn't know there were any anomaly associated contracts.  I've never seen one of those.  Is that stock?

 

[Hannil]

Is this mod compatible with many particularities from the DLC underground please ?

 

Anyway, It seems a really good job !

And I can see on the dV Map, that some planet/moon have atmospher now, like Tylo or Dress that will be easier to land !

[KerbalKore]

@OhioBob to my knowledge, anomaly contracts are only in anomaly surveyor contract pack, though it would be cool if they were stock.

[Pleb]

1 hour ago, Hannil said:

Is this mod compatible with many particularities from the DLC underground please ?

As far as I know, the dlc surface features haven't been implemented into JNSQ yet 

[4x4cheesecake]

1 hour ago, Hannil said:

Is this mod compatible with many particularities from the DLC underground please ?

 

5 minutes ago, Pleb said:

As far as I know, the dlc surface features haven't been implemented into JNSQ yet  

They were added in version 0.5 of JNSQ

[Pleb]

Haha well what do I know? 

[Hannil]

55 minutes ago, 4x4cheesecake said:

They were added in version 0.5 of JNSQ

Thank you ^-^ It's a wondeful news !

[Galileo]

6 hours ago, vossiewulf said:

I just went to the Pyramids anomaly with the contract, and was unable to get an update there either, no matter where I ran around or climbed. Are we sure there isn't an issue with anomalies?

I would bring it up with the mod author of the contract pack or with the contract configurator dev. Most devs forget to check compatibility with Kopernicus. 

The issue is probably due to the fact that we delete Kerbin and rebuild it and contract configurator doesn’t know what to do. 

@OhioBob we could go back to our original plan of just editing the original bodies instead of deleting them.

[vossiewulf]

5 hours ago, Galileo said:

I would bring it up with the mod author of the contract pack or with the contract configurator dev. Most devs forget to check compatibility with Kopernicus. 

The issue is probably due to the fact that we delete Kerbin and rebuild it and contract configurator doesn’t know what to do. 

@OhioBob we could go back to our original plan of just editing the original bodies instead of deleting them.

Ok, will give that a try, thanks.

Um, well wait, if the problem is you're doing something contract configurator doesn't know how to handle, then is the correct fix on your end or theirs? It sounds like you're asking them to support a new case.

 

Edited July 11, 2019 by vossiewulf