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

[mariagorl]

12 hours ago, snkiz said:

Can you post  a screenshot of your game data folder? the file paths look strange.

I'm not an expert but I think scatter is failing because there are eve configs but you don't have eve. I just upgraded my scatter and it works fine.

 

Oh, I did actually install EVE during my final attempt at troubleshooting, but launching the game again after that still leads to a crash during the final stretch. I'll still upload screenshots though, and logs.

Log: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tbwu7zml7-nVBiysE1LCmN53-5NLfd_y/view?usp=sharing

Screenshot through drive since imgur links don't seem to work: https://drive.google.com/file/d/17xlGRQAiGcN_7-9ztovUEHboirX9wEm5/view?usp=sharing

I think I might just be having RAM issues now, because KSP seems to constantly increase the amount of memory it uses while loading, going from 2GB to 5 out of my only 8GB of memory, 5GB of which is all that's free because of background processes, causing a Virtual Alloc crash every time. Might try installing MEMGraph and see if that helps at all.

Edit: Memgraph did actually prevent Vritual Alloc crashes, but now it crashes the same way as before, reaching the final stretch and then crashing with no explanation. I'll post an updated log here.

New log: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tbwu7zml7-nVBiysE1LCmN53-5NLfd_y/view?usp=sharing

Updated GameData, only changes being MemGraph and it's dependencies: https://drive.google.com/file/d/19MAS3g3LzJr3uYz1m8FUFYlsxii1VS8v/view?usp=sharing

Edited May 22, 2021 by mariagorl
Update to situation.

[OhioBob]

9 hours ago, mariagorl said:

... out of my only 8GB of memory

Per the JNSQ ReadMe:

Quote

* Minimum Hardware: 3 GHz quad-core CPU, 16GB of system RAM and 2GB of video memory

With the same mods installed that you are using, my KSP is using 7GB at rest.

[snkiz]

5 minutes ago, OhioBob said:

With the same mods installed that you are using, my KSP is using 7GB at rest.

Mine peaks at 12 while loading, 10 at rest. 

 

9 hours ago, mariagorl said:

only 8GB of memory,

@OhioBob Is right there's your problem. You 'may' get it load by making sure your page file is big enough. Rule of thumb is twice what your ram is, but in your case, you'd need to make up for the 8gb your short and then double that number. So a page file at least 32gb large. It's not going to be a pleasant experience,  especially if you pagefile lives on a spinning drive. Any other mods you add will degrade things further.

[Rocket88]

Is there a recommended Exploration contract pack for JNSQ or should you use just stock? 

I was planning on using GAP for JNSQ  and leave the rest stock.

[alberro+]

Just wanted to say thank you to everyone who's worked on this mod. Thanks to you guys, KSP really is what it is for me. 

[SirBlob]

On 5/25/2021 at 8:39 AM, alberro+ said:

Just wanted to say thank you to everyone who's worked on this mod. Thanks to you guys, KSP really is what it is for me. 

I think the same way as you do, this planet pack completely changed the way I play KSP, from just strapping on more boosters to designing working rockets. To even designing reusable rockets. (Took a few attempts)

 

 

My latest Mun mission in JNSQ

[alberro+]

Moho Landing

[Jenna U]

In my opinion some of the greymoons could have at least one interesting feature differentiating them 

can you quickly tell which planet these are, or even if they are the same one? compare that to the moons of Saturn,  while even though they are similar, you can still tell between them if you look for a bit.Tethys has a big crater, and Rhea has faint rings, Dione has cracks. What can you say about these bland planets?  Even on the Mun it's a little difficult to see the MariaContrast that with our moon, with a night and day difference[snip]

Edited June 2, 2021 by Snark
Redacted by moderator

[Jenna U]

Are these two angles of the same planet?Tylo and Riga are nearly indistinguishable. Go ahead, tell me which is which.

[snip]

Edited June 2, 2021 by Snark
Redacted by moderator

[Jenna U]

There are planets that are great! that is true. Kerbin is amazing, and Jool itself looks pristine, but I dont find much motivation to go to Gray Orb #53.
Remember Dres? The entire reason people dont go there is cause its a useless gray rock. 

[theJesuit]

6 hours ago, Jenna U said:

Remember Dres? The entire reason people dont go there is cause its a useless gray rock. 

And yet some people do...

Flags and footprints my friend,  flags and footprints.

Peace.

[Clamp-o-Tron]

3 hours ago, theJesuit said:

And yet some people do...

Flags and footprints my friend,  flags and footprints.

Peace.

Yeah, I'm a huge fan of Edna, Dres, and the rest of the other barely-in-hydrostatic-equilibrium dark grey rocks. JNSQ Mun looks AMAZING imho.

Edna and Dres are a huge challenge to send crew to (with Kerbalism), which I love, and are difficult (and scientifically rewarding!) enough to justify large Saturn V-scale boosters launching uncrewed orbiter and lander combinations. The Joolian and Lindorian rocky moons are also enticing for orbiters, but this may be because I like to play Pokemon with my probes.

On that topic, I've got a mission in very early stages of development to gather truckloads of science from the mysterious world of Nara. With enough Near Future Propulsion (and maybe Far Future!), I think I can send several tons of payload into Nara orbit in just about 10 years- better than the 30-odd you'd have on a direct Hohmann transfer.

Screenshots will come if I ever do that, I wouldn't be surprised if many people here haven't ever seen Nara or Hamek up close.

[Snark]

Some content has been redacted and/or removed, due to:

• personal remarks
• excessive rudeness
• backseat moderating (i.e. telling someone what to do or not to do)

Folks, let's please remember that modders put in a lot of hard work to give us shiny toys for free.  They don't owe us anything, and complaining about what they produce is a pretty poor way to show appreciation for their generosity.

Of course not every mod is to everyone's taste, but nobody is forced to use a mod.  So if you really don't like a mod, then simply don't use it.  Or if you have ideas for how it could be better, and want to offer constructive feedback, then by all means do so.

Personal criticism and derogatory remarks, however, are uncalled for, so please don't do that.

Also, please remember that it's not anyone's place to tell anyone else what to do or not to do... so please don't do that, either.  If you think that someone's behavior is straying outside the forum rules, then please report the post and the moderators will have a look at it-- but beyond that, please don't try to engage with behavior that you think is violating forum norms.

Thank you for your understanding.

[Gordon Fecyk]

@Jenna U Having been to these places, let's see if I can tell them apart, and then I'll check the Imgur link where you identify each one:

	I suspected this was Edna, which is somewhat darker than Dres. Edna's surface is one of the roughest in the system, and its high spin makes landing tall craft quite difficult.
	Talos has large flat areas and is somewhat darker then the Mun, while having similar gravity and similar delta-v requirements. These large flat areas are a giveaway.
	The Mun is as challenging to land on as stock Tylo for the unprepared. Only Moho so far has proven more challenging as airless worlds go.  Large rough areas give it away.
	This Tylo is much easier than stock Tylo due to a lower gravity and denser atmosphere than Duna. Regular parachutes work here. Larger craters were the identifier.
	Which, by elimination, leaves Riga, also easy to land on with stock parachutes.

 

 

Edited June 3, 2021 by Gordon Fecyk
What gave them away?

[alberro+]

2 hours ago, Gordon Fecyk said:

Having been to these places, let's see if I can tell them apart, and then I'll check the Imgur link where you identify each one:

	I suspected this was Edna, which is somewhat darker than Dres. Edna's surface is one of the roughest in the system, and its high spin makes landing tall craft quite difficult.
	Talos has large flat areas and is somewhat darker then the Mun, while having similar gravity and similar delta-v requirements. These large flat areas are a giveaway.
	The Mun is as challenging to land on as stock Tylo for the unprepared. Only Moho so far has proven more challenging as airless worlds go.  Large rough areas give it away.
	This Tylo is much easier than stock Tylo due to a lower gravity and denser atmosphere than Duna. Regular parachutes work here. Larger craters were the identifier.
	Which, by elimination, leaves Riga, also easy to land on with stock parachutes.

 

 

Been on Riga, Tylo, Mun and Edna. Can confirm that all of these are wildly different bodies with individual characteristics. Tylo's a really comfy place to be on actually.

 

On an unrelated note, here's a Minmus mission.

[Pepethecat]

On 6/2/2021 at 11:15 PM, alberro+ said:

Been on Riga, Tylo, Mun and Edna. Can confirm that all of these are wildly different bodies with individual characteristics. Tylo's a really comfy place to be on actually.

 

On an unrelated note, here's a Minmus mission.

What mod are those lander legs from?

Also I dunno if I just didn't notice this before but a weird crater texture with a weird town in the middle appeared near KSC... Dunno if this is normal...? 

[RyanRising]

That airfield has been a feature for a while, but I think the squareness and how abrupt the transition between that area and the surroundings are is relatively new and I believe caused by some Kopernicus update?

[TaintedLion]

Don't know if Kronometer is bugged, the day time on 1.12 seems to be 24 hours instead of 12.

LOG

https://www.dropbox.com/s/fth0309q3b94itr/KSP.log?dl=0

 

 

Edited June 25, 2021 by TaintedLion

[garwel]

4 hours ago, TaintedLion said:

Don't know if Kronometer is bugged, the day time on 1.12 seems to be 24 hours instead of 12.

LOG

https://www.dropbox.com/s/fth0309q3b94itr/KSP.log?dl=0

Surprised you even managed to run KSP 1.12 with Kronometer in the first place. The original mod doesn't work right now (KSP changed date/time formatting API).

[TaintedLion]

14 minutes ago, garwel said:

Surprised you even managed to run KSP 1.12 with Kronometer in the first place. The original mod doesn't work right now (KSP changed date/time formatting API).

Yeah I looked on the Kronometer thread, RTP has a patch that he's implementing into Kopernicus soon.

[panarchist]

2 hours ago, TaintedLion said:

Yeah I looked on the Kronometer thread, RTP has a patch that he's implementing into Kopernicus soon.

R-T-B posted that version in issue I raised on this: https://github.com/Kopernicus/Kronometer/issues/17 (note: consider this a beta and be forewarned to do all the normal: back up, save often, etc)

It won't work for JNSQ 12 hour days without this: https://spacedock.info/mod/2755/JNSQ Real Date

[RyanRising]

The commonly accepted figure for stock Eve ascent is ~8000 m/s, right? Course that’ll vary wildly depending on drag, but that’s the figure I’ve seen on Δv maps, and it’s worked alright for me. 
However, since I started playing JNSQ, I’ve had a look at that Δv map quite a few times, and its figure for Eve ascent is 6700 m/s. It does only have 1.4 g of surface gravity instead of 1.7 g, but is also 2050km in radius instead of 700 km and has 10 atm of pressure instead of stock Eve’s 5. 
With all that in mind, I certainly wasn’t expecting JNSQ’s Eve to require less of a rocket. Does that discrepancy come from different assumptions about vehicle aerodynamics, does that extra 0.3 g pack much more of a whallop than I think it does, or is there something else I’m not considering here? 

Edited June 28, 2021 by RyanRising

[alberro+]

13 hours ago, RyanRising said:

The commonly accepted figure for stock Eve ascent is ~8000 m/s, right? Course that’ll vary wildly depending on drag, but that’s the figure I’ve seen on Δv maps, and it’s worked alright for me. 
However, since I started playing JNSQ, I’ve had a look at that Δv map quite a few times, and its figure for Eve ascent is 6700 m/s. It does only have 1.4 g of surface gravity instead of 1.7 g, but is also 2050km in radius instead of 700 km and has 10 atm of pressure instead of stock Eve’s 5. 
With all that in mind, I certainly wasn’t expecting JNSQ’s Eve to require less of a rocket. Does that discrepancy come from different assumptions about vehicle aerodynamics, does that extra 0.3 g pack much more of a whallop than I think it does, or is there something else I’m not considering here? 

he thinks you can get off eve in JNSQ

 

Edited June 28, 2021 by alberro+

[Gordon Fecyk]

Rumors of my cancellation have been exaggerated. 

Spoiler

 

Though it did take me, like, twelve weeks. And this isn't even a proper episode.

[Space Nerd]

3 hours ago, RyanRising said:

The commonly accepted figure for stock Eve ascent is ~8000 m/s, right? Course that’ll vary wildly depending on drag, but that’s the figure I’ve seen on Δv maps, and it’s worked alright for me. 
However, since I started playing JNSQ, I’ve had a look at that Δv map quite a few times, and its figure for Eve ascent is 6700 m/s. It does only have 1.4 g of surface gravity instead of 1.7 g, but is also 2050km in radius instead of 700 km and has 10 atm of pressure instead of stock Eve’s 5. 
With all that in mind, I certainly wasn’t expecting JNSQ’s Eve to require less of a rocket. Does that discrepancy come from different assumptions about vehicle aerodynamics, does that extra 0.3 g pack much more of a whallop than I think it does, or is there something else I’m not considering here? 

I asked the same question before, and the answer is because of the lower gravity and shorter atmosphere.

You can get off Eve in JNSQ with explodium breathing engines or Eve optimized engines (10 atm config) or you can just launch from a plateau.