[1.1.2+] Kerbal NRAP - MOVED

[Gfurst]

I was about to ask for this, but just looked over cKAN and found it. Good job

[Alshain]

Any chance of getting an inter-stage test weight? Basically a cylinder with nodes on top and bottom (like a fuel tank, but adjustable).

[Guest]

A fully-adjustable boilerplate capsule? BRILLIANT!

[MisterFister]

Changelog:

April 29th 2015
v1.5.0.3
-Recompiled for 1.0

Hey there. Went to KerbalStuff for this, and the little notification bar warns me that this mod isn't known to function with "latest version" of KSP, which as of yesterday was 1.0.2. This changelog I excerpted above from April 29 / 30 specifies 1.0. I'm not even sure I understand what 1.0.2 was supposed to address, but from other forum conversations, apparently it changed a lot, especially in terms of spaceplane design(?) which is my primary use for the NRAP.

Any advice?

Otherwise, getting back in the saddle with 1.0 HYPE and I always loved this mod!

[biohazard15]

Hey there. Went to KerbalStuff for this, and the little notification bar warns me that this mod isn't known to function with "latest version" of KSP, which as of yesterday was 1.0.2. This changelog I excerpted above from April 29 / 30 specifies 1.0. I'm not even sure I understand what 1.0.2 was supposed to address, but from other forum conversations, apparently it changed a lot, especially in terms of spaceplane design(?) which is my primary use for the NRAP.

Any advice?

Otherwise, getting back in the saddle with 1.0 HYPE and I always loved this mod!

Works fine for me.

[MisterFister]

Works fine for me.

Respectfully to both you and the mod author, I'm asking if this mod is known to be compatible. An incompatible mod can throw hundreds of thousands of silent error flags behind the scenes without the average user knowing about it, and the error-log-spam file does have an upper size limit. When that log hits the maximum size, the game crashes.

I'm not being snarky, I'm replying in the spirit of information -- "works fine for me" does not address my question. Thanks, though.

[stupid_chris]

Respectfully to both you and the mod author, I'm asking if this mod is known to be compatible. An incompatible mod can throw hundreds of thousands of silent error flags behind the scenes without the average user knowing about it, and the error-log-spam file does have an upper size limit. When that log hits the maximum size, the game crashes.

I'm not being snarky, I'm replying in the spirit of information -- "works fine for me" does not address my question. Thanks, though.

There should be no issue. The reason it says 1.0 is because the "auto update to 1.0.2" function is broken right now on KerbalStuff.

And trust me if a mod throws thousands of errors silently, it's not going to be working correctly.

[biohazard15]

Respectfully to both you and the mod author, I'm asking if this mod is known to be compatible. An incompatible mod can throw hundreds of thousands of silent error flags behind the scenes without the average user knowing about it, and the error-log-spam file does have an upper size limit. When that log hits the maximum size, the game crashes.

I'm not being snarky, I'm replying in the spirit of information -- "works fine for me" does not address my question. Thanks, though.

Basically, what Chris said.

It works fine, without any error flags. Trust me, this is one of my two principal tools when it comes to testing part mods (the other being MechJeb) - so I would ensure the compatibility before using it.

Edited May 5, 2015 by biohazard15

[Ascension Islander]

Bug report:

NRAP part costs almost zero funds with full monopropellant. Emptying the monopropellant from the part makes it cost negative funds. The bug is independent of mass and size.

-Version 1.5.0.4

-Downloaded from CKAN

[SAI Peregrinus]

Bug report:

NRAP part costs almost zero funds with full monopropellant. Emptying the monopropellant from the part makes it cost negative funds. The bug is independent of mass and size.

-Version 1.5.0.4

-Downloaded from CKAN

Well, now we know where those Alcubierre drives are getting their negative mass...

[stupid_chris]

That's a stock bug, resources should NOT be removing cost this way.

[autumnalequinox]

chris, I love you for this mod. Let me say it again: LOVE LOVE LOVE.

I can FINALLY design rockets in a neat, clean way. Everything makes sense now, you have saved me crazy time . I even invented a nomenclature like: Osiris IIIsbA 15 tons LKO, Transfer 0.5 (osiris 3 stage, solid boosted, A series, 15 tons to 90 km, 500 delta/v transfer). I have never been able to do this before. My sub-assembly section is filled with tested rockets with predictable capabilities. I can now design payloads with a weight ceiling and I know exactly what they can DO! No more revert---revert---revert---now I gotta go to work, oh look I'm late cause I just wanted to get this damn thing to the Mun without doing math problems.

<3 forever this is brilliant gods I wish I found it earlier

- - - Updated - - -

(oh and the cost bug is some weird stock thing, I know roverdude had it with USI modules last update and I think he corrected it)

[undercoveryankee]

(oh and the cost bug is some weird stock thing, I know roverdude had it with USI modules last update and I think he corrected it)

Here's the full explanation for anyone who's curious: The "cost" that a part reports to the game is defined to be the cost with all resources full. If any space is empty, the value of the resource that could go in the space is subtracted from your nominal cost. If the part's nominal cost is less than the value of a full load of resources, then its dry cost becomes negative.

It was the quickest and most basic approach to resource costs that worked for normally-full-but-tweakable stock fuel tanks, and it's bitten everyone who's ever shipped a default-empty part at least once. It also makes it impossible to control the cost of a part if you don't control the resource definition - witness the gymnastics I had to do in my KSPI patches when KSPI and CRP disagreed on the cost of antimatter.

If we change the cost in the part .cfg file from 250 to "250 + the cost of 1000 monoprop", that will work around the counterintuitive stock behavior. Watch for a pull request in a few hours.

Update: pull request is up. https://github.com/StupidChris/NRAP/pull/2

Edited June 10, 2015 by undercoveryankee

[WalterB]

There is a small bug when you try to put parts on the side of the test weights. Upon loading of craft, sometimes it will recognize the NRAP with a smaller DIA than it is currenty set and the part would 'sink' inside it. or sometimes it would recognize it as bigger than it appears, so the part would 'float' beside it. Happens with antennas, batteries, mechjeb, etc..

Hi stupid_chris!

I've just found this mod and I love it for career mode! It's already saved Jeb's life many times, and for that I cannot thank you enough for keeping this mod going.

However, I think I may have found an issue. At present, I am using the entry VAB. Although the mass adjustment is recognised bythe dV stat, the KSP's own 'Ship Info' displays the mass of the NRAP cone at 10t (the default mass), no matter what adjustment is made. I can see in the part config that the mass it is listed a '10', and this seems to be the only value that KSP is interested in. When I change this value to, say 0.5, I can then launch the vehicle (I was restricted by the 18t limit and could not launch).

A small issue, but one that may be worthy of your attention.

I'm using 1.5.0.4 with KSP 1.0.2 and I'm experiencing both of these bugs. Are these also stock related like the cost issue?

Overall, it's a great plugin and I like testing boosters with NRAP to confirm their flight performance but I have noticed they seem to be indestructible at the low mass values I'm currently working with (less than 30t). Are crashTolerance, breakingForce, etc. set very high so that NRAP will work properly with very high mass settings? If so, would it be possible to make these dynamic so they scale with changes in mass?

[Tabris]

i'm getting a weird problem when using the weights.

in the VAB it reports the mass correctly but on going to the launch pad the NRAP weight resets to 10t.

Logs & Screenshots

[wasml]

A request for your consideration - Extend the minimum mass below 1 ton. I saw where MeCripp added this to an inline model and I thought that was a great idea. Then I realized we were missing one piece - a surface mounted adjustable weight (was thinking in the 0.001 to 0.1 ton range). I know the documentation says minMass must be greater than zero but I found it doesn't seem to accept anything 1.0 or below. Regardless, thanks for maintaining this mod.

[Alshain]

Chirs,

I love the mod but I think the drag cubes are still not quite right. To prove this I went back to the first orbital craft you would typically design in career (not that I need NRAP for this craft, but it's a test). As far as specs, they are the same craft, except the NRAP has more torque. I double checked and my DLL has a Product Version 1.0.4.

This one gets to orbit just fine:

Craft File (Stock)

This one can't even go straight up to suborbital without flipping out:

Craft File (Stock + NRAP)

[Swervz]

This is so useful thankyou. Please do you think you could make an inline version, it would really help.

[Mecripp]

This is so useful thankyou. Please do you think you could make an inline version, it would really help.

I did some rough ones here http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/131275-Lifter-Test-Weights?p=2149180#post2149180 here is one

[Swervz]

I did some rough ones here http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/131275-Lifter-Test-Weights?p=2149180#post2149180 here is one https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/72893034/Test%20Parts/NewTexture.png

Thankyou, this is just what I wanted!

[Speedster159]

Could we get this updated on CKAN to 1.0.5?

Edited February 5, 2016 by Speedster159

[stupid_chris]

I didn't make the CKAN listing, so ask the CKAN guys.

[Speedster159]

14 hours ago, stupid_chris said:

I didn't make the CKAN listing, so ask the CKAN guys.

WILCO

EDIT: Might I suggest a move to the Pods or Science category?

Edited February 6, 2016 by Speedster159

[politas]

19 hours ago, stupid_chris said:

I didn't make the CKAN listing, so ask the CKAN guys.

If the KSP version number is changed on KerbalStuff, CKAN will automatically reflect that (and the warning KerbalStuff shows about being an outdated mod will go away, as a bonus). Pushing a new version "for 1.0.5", even if it's the exact same files in the zip, would do that.

That said, I've submitted a change, so CKAN should be treating the current release as 1.0.5 compatible soon.

[smjjames]

Is there a fix for the funky nodes which got inverted?