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

[CoriW]

6 hours ago, Galileo said:

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

Just out of curiosity, would the end result be the same regardless of which of the two methods you use? (delete and replace vs modify existing)

I mean they may have some differences on the dev side but would the end user experience be pretty much identical? (excluding mod compatibility such as the issue mentioned above, I'm speaking from a strictly gameplay experience point of view.)

[Norcalplanner]

The Anomaly Surveyor Contract Pack was never updated for any version of KSP past 1.4.x. It hasn't been updated for 15 months, and I've never gotten it to work correctly on anything other than a stock scale Kerbin. Part of the confusion may be that the last mod version was 1.7.1, back from a time when many mod versioning schemes had no correlation to a version of KSP.

Might be best to simply mark Anomaly Surveyor as incompatible with JNSQ for now.

 

@5thHorseman @vossiewulf

It's difficult, but not impossible, to find the smaller ROC items by eye, especially if you have lights on your rover. That said, the newest version of SCANSat now has the BTDT surface scanner detect these new objects, so there's a way to find them more easily in the game. It's also a late tech tree part, so there's still some challenge.

[vossiewulf]

2 hours ago, Norcalplanner said:

The Anomaly Surveyor Contract Pack was never updated for any version of KSP past 1.4.x. It hasn't been updated for 15 months, and I've never gotten it to work correctly on anything other than a stock scale Kerbin. Part of the confusion may be that the last mod version was 1.7.1, back from a time when many mod versioning schemes had no correlation to a version of KSP.

Might be best to simply mark Anomaly Surveyor as incompatible with JNSQ for now.

That's too bad, it's a good contract pack that makes you design a fair number of vehicle types, and as KSP scenery goes, the anomalies are generally interesting.

I was semi-ranting in another thread that we really need a better contract system, contract configurator is what everyone uses but even the contract packs that are updated have constant issues where there's no validation logic or awareness of what is difficult or not, and therefore even contracts that can be completed often have nonsensical rewards. And that's particularly annoying as there is so much potential here for interesting and challenging mission progressions.

If anyone out there knows how to work with contract configurator, I'd be happy to contribute by designing mission progressions, but resulting contract packs would have mod dependencies. Having them work by randomly pulling parts from what is installed is always going to result in poor and broken contracts.

[4x4cheesecake]

The contract actually worked fine for me  

Spoiler

@vossiewulf are you sure you actually went to the position of the waypoint? I got the contract update ~3m away from it, pretty much the position shown in the screenshot.

[vossiewulf]

4 minutes ago, 4x4cheesecake said:

The contract actually worked fine for me  

  Hide contents

 

@vossiewulf are you sure you actually went to the position of the waypoint? I got the contract update ~3m away from it, pretty much the position shown in the screenshot.

Ok, no, I don't think I went there as that's not where I remember it being, I remembered getting the update very near the weird statue. Has it changed or am I not remembering correctly? I can't remember having any issues in the past with these contracts. I will go give it a try again.

That said, @Galileo, if you can simply modify the existing objects that sounds like a better practice in general than destroying and recreating the objects, even if you don't have a problem now.

[4x4cheesecake]

3 minutes ago, vossiewulf said:

Ok, no, I don't think I went there as that's not where I remember it being, I remembered getting the update very near the weird statue. Has it changed or am I not remembering correctly?

The contract uses a waypoint which is defined in the config:
https://github.com/jrossignol/ContractPack-AnomalySurveyor/blob/master/GameData/ContractPacks/AnomalySurveyor/Kerbin_Pyramids.cfg#L62

As far as I can tell, JNSQ doesn't move the pyramids but the bigger scale of the planet may cause an offset of the position, so the waypoint you have to reach is no longer in front of the statue.
Waypoint Manager is a big help in this case since it displays waypoints even in the flight scene, not just in map view

 

[vossiewulf]

3 minutes ago, 4x4cheesecake said:

The contract uses a waypoint which is defined in the config:
https://github.com/jrossignol/ContractPack-AnomalySurveyor/blob/master/GameData/ContractPacks/AnomalySurveyor/Kerbin_Pyramids.cfg#L62

As far as I can tell, JNSQ doesn't move the pyramids but the bigger scale of the planet may cause an offset of the position, so the waypoint you have to reach is no longer in front of the statue.
Waypoint Manager is a big help in this case since it displays waypoints even in the flight scene, not just in map view

 

Well huh. I always assumed the two locations were not exactly the same, because if they were that would be kinda too easy. I never considered going to the exact waypoint location. Silly me.

[jefferyharrell]

Looks like a 1.7.3-compatible version of Kopernicus dropped this morning. The changelog is very minimal. Any reason to doubt that JNSQ will work against the new Kopernicus without modification?

(I obviously don't expect anybody to answer right away. Just thought I'd get the question out there so when you guys have a chance to look at it, it'll have been asked.)

Thanks!

[JadeOfMaar]

2 minutes ago, jefferyharrell said:

Any reason to doubt that JNSQ will work against the new Kopernicus without modification?

There is no reason to doubt. Try it and see. Most Kopernicus releases are, after all, just checks to ensure that it works well. Feature additions are another story.

[Norcalplanner]

On 7/11/2019 at 2:03 AM, 4x4cheesecake said:

The contract uses a waypoint which is defined in the config:
https://github.com/jrossignol/ContractPack-AnomalySurveyor/blob/master/GameData/ContractPacks/AnomalySurveyor/Kerbin_Pyramids.cfg#L62

As far as I can tell, JNSQ doesn't move the pyramids but the bigger scale of the planet may cause an offset of the position, so the waypoint you have to reach is no longer in front of the statue.
Waypoint Manager is a big help in this case since it displays waypoints even in the flight scene, not just in map view

 

If Anomaly Surveyor is working, then I need to add it to my install. I've spent much more time exploring the Mun and Minmus than Kerbin, and haven't built a single plane yet. :-)

[Jim123]

Well kopircus updatated and im going to play some JNSQ now ive been waiting for it to updata for a while. The galileo team does a great job at making planet packs i played Galileo's planet pack back in 2017 for like half of the year or so and had so much fun. I made it to Griatian and its moon and back maned. Im looking forward to another great planet pack to play.

[infinite_monkey]

On 5/31/2019 at 3:56 PM, Barzon Kerman said:

So, uh, do I install the JNSQ .zip and the JNSQ.exe? or just the zip file?

EDIT:
nvm, its fine. someone helped me.

So did you need the .exe? I'm on Linux, exe doesn't work for me... Are there instructions for installing it without the exe?

[Jim123]

I saw the compatible part but i just want to confirm SVE doesn't work for this. I ask because i tried and got no clouds.

Wait NVM i got it working sorry.

[OncaLupe]

7 minutes ago, infinite_monkey said:

So did you need the .exe? I'm on Linux, exe doesn't work for me... Are there instructions for installing it without the exe?

The Zip and Exe are the same, just the Exe has an installer. The Zip version is installed like any other mod.

[infinite_monkey]

Hmm, tried it, did nothing. There was mentioned something about deleting existing planets?

[Jognt]

11 minutes ago, Jim123 said:

I saw the compatible part but i just want to confirm SVE doesn't work for this. I ask because i tried and got no clouds.

Wait NVM i got it working sorry.

You don’t need SVE for clouds. I even think it’d cause problems. 

JNSQ has built in support for stuff like EVE so I’d advise against installing another EVE config. 

Just now, infinite_monkey said:

Hmm, tried it, did nothing. There was mentioned something about deleting existing planets?

If you’ve installed Kopernicus, modulemanager, and JNSQ and you don’t see changes then it’s most likely an incorrect install. 

[infinite_monkey]

55 minutes ago, Jognt said:

If you’ve installed Kopernicus, modulemanager, and JNSQ and you don’t see changes then it’s most likely an incorrect install. 

Hm. Cleaned up my GameData, installed my essential mods, Kopernicus, MM4.0.2 and JNSQ from the zip (btw, why is the zip 400 MB larger than the exe? And why bother writing an installer if installation is like any other mod?).

Kerbin still looks pretty stock and has a radius of 600 km... I'm on KSP 1.7.3, if that matters.

[Galileo]

15 minutes ago, infinite_monkey said:

Hm. Cleaned up my GameData, installed my essential mods, Kopernicus, MM4.0.2 and JNSQ from the zip (btw, why is the zip 400 MB larger than the exe? And why bother writing an installer if installation is like any other mod?).

Kerbin still looks pretty stock and has a radius of 600 km... I'm on KSP 1.7.3, if that matters.

The exe gets compressed more, that’s why it’s smaller.

as for why make an installer, why not? Don’t care for it, don’t use it.

 

if you still have stock, you have done something wrong.

Edited July 12, 2019 by Galileo

[jefferyharrell]

24 minutes ago, infinite_monkey said:

Hm. Cleaned up my GameData, installed my essential mods, Kopernicus, MM4.0.2 and JNSQ from the zip

Just in case, did you for sure install the version of Kopernicus for 1.7.3? It just came out a little while ago, I believe. If you installed an older version it simply won't load at game startup. (It also blasts the screen with error messages, so you surely can't have missed this one, but I just thought I'd ask in case it helps you out.)

The other thing is that I believe Kopernicus has a dependency in Modular Flight Integrator. I didn't see you mention it, so again, just thought I'd ask. I may also be wrong about the dependency. I'm just stabbing in the dark here.

Edited July 12, 2019 by jefferyharrell
I kan spel.

[Superfluous J]

3 hours ago, infinite_monkey said:

Hmm, tried it, did nothing. There was mentioned something about deleting existing planets?

A log file would probably help anybody help you.

[JadeOfMaar]

2 hours ago, jefferyharrell said:

The other thing is that I believe Kopernicus has a dependency in Modular Flight Integrator. I didn't see you mention it, so again, just thought I'd ask. I may also be wrong about the dependency. I'm just stabbing in the dark here.

4 hours ago, infinite_monkey said:

Hmm, tried it, did nothing. There was mentioned something about deleting existing planets?

ModularFlightIntegrator, in the Kopernicus download, is absolutely necessary. Never skip it.

[Jesse-Lacey]

Everything seems to be working well on 1.7.3, I did a fresh install of JNSQ and redid my settings and nothing looks out of ordinary so far.

Is there a way to make city lights work with JNSQ? I noticed KSC from orbit and thought it looked very lonely.

Edited July 13, 2019 by Jesse-Lacey

[CoriW]

21 minutes ago, Jesse-Lacey said:

Everything seems to be working well on 1.7.3, I did a fresh install of JNSQ and redid my settings and nothing looks out of ordinary so far.

Is there a way to make city lights work with JNSQ? I noticed KSP from orbit and thought it looked very lonely.

As far as I'm aware the next version of JNSQ will have city lights included. I recall reading someone thanking the Devs about it a few pages back.

[jefferyharrell]

23 minutes ago, CoriW said:

As far as I'm aware the next version of JNSQ will have city lights included. I recall reading someone thanking the Devs about it a few pages back.

It's y'all's mod and you guys should do whatever you want. That being said, I would personally vote no for city lights, or at least hope for an easy way to disable them. It's just weird to me that Kerbin, a planet with no surface structures but the launch sites, should have lights visible from space. Maybe I've just been playing the game too long, since back before there were other planets, but I'm quite fond of the idea that all of Kerbin is untouched wilderness except for these half-dozen buildings or whatever.

[Gordon Fecyk]

Treating JNSQ like reality, I constructed the Lindor V:

Seeing the scale of the Making History MEM was off, I decided to use the Mk2 pod. This fits neatly into a 2.5 m fairing. This is actually the third iteration, working more like the Kerbal X.

Treat the Lindor V like the real-life Saturn V, and you can get to the Mun with Tier 5 and some Tier 6 parts. Beware that the margins to get to orbit are tight; you need all 1545 m/s to get to the Mun on that transfer stage. I wonder how far it could get in the stock system.

Edited July 13, 2019 by Gordon Fecyk