FreeThinker

[1.2.2] KSP Interstellar Extended 1.12.12 (12-3-2017) Development

8366 posts in this topic

Northstar1989, FreeThinker,

while I greatly appreciate the work you are doing on KSPI, please reconsider the direction you are taking this mod.

With Fractal_UK and Boris-Barboris both not actively working on KSPI you are essentially the only game in town for this mod.

The changes you are implementing base all values off of real-world mechanics without considering the gameplay at all.

From my perspective it almost looks like you are holding KSPI hostage to force people into RSS/RO.

While RSS/RO might be very interesting for realism oriented players, it is still a fringe community inside KSP and the target audience for KSPI is quite a bit larger than that. Especially considering that RSS/RO has the potential to break a lot of other mods or require extensive work to ensure compatibility.

In my opinion an extensive mod like KSPI should work from the assumption that it's the only active mod (including necessary dependencies ofc) in an otherwise stock KSP install. Balance the mod against stock KSP and deal with rebalancing mods vie MM-patches, configs, etc.

Please don't take this mod away from the greater KSP community.

There is no change (that I know of) they have made that cannot be either ignored (i.e. it does not make a 'stock' install unplayable or more complex) or changed as desired via a relatively simple MM patch.

Edited by sal_vager

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct, using only MM you should be able to get get 99.9% KSPI Classic functionality, at least if that's what you want and know exacly what variables to tweak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Correct, using only MM you should be able to get get 99.9% KSPI Classic functionality, at least if that's what you want and know exacly what variables to tweak.

I would recommend to the interested parties might want to make a Classic KSPI MM patch, and perhaps it could then be placed as an optional download from the top post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would recommend to the interested parties might want to make a Classic KSPI MM patch, and perhaps it could then be placed as an optional download from the top post.

For my 8.0 I had already planned such an optional download file

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For my 8.0 I had already planned such an optional download file

excellent forethought! 20 points to ravenclaw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, that's never been a strain of logic I understood very well. How could *improving* the performance of parts to match real-world specifications hold people hostage to RSS/RO-like gameplay.

As far as I can tell, the only way to hold people hostage to RSS/RO-like gameplay is to actually force them to install RSS or RO (which I would never do). Having better part performance makes the game easier, and actually makes the game *less* restrictive in terms of what you can build and what you can do- which is the opposite of what RSS/RO tends to do to players (where the high Delta-V requirements force more optimal/ well-engineered spacecraft designs...) Having better part performance actually moves things *away* from restricted gameplay- and moderates the difficulty even if you have RSS/RO installed...

It looked to me like the values you are going to implement would make gameplay without upscaled Kerbin so easy/boring that it wouldn't be worth the bother anymore. I can live with a higly powerful system that comes somewhat late in the tech tree, I can't live with something that turns the late game essentially into hyperedit with infinite fuel attached. As long as can't slap 10 parts in the VAB together and have a ship that can do 10 grand tours without thinking about it I'm fine. :)

Nothing about this work on furthering KSP-Interstellar forces or even suggests to players that they use Real Solar System or Realism Overhaul. I especially wish you'd stop saying it encourages Realism Overhaul- because personally even I don't play with that mod and wouldn't touch it with a 20-yard stick... (because I have no desire to play a 100% scale solar system in a game engine with as many inherent limitations as KSP...)

You said multiple times that you prefer to play with 6.4x scale Kerbin (which is one possible configuration of RSS) and with Real Fuels (which one of the few required mods for RO), I shorthanded that to "RSS/RO". While your own config may be more elaborate and fine-tuned than the "off-the-shelf" configs you're using the same building blocks.

KSP-Interstellar was *always* balanced against real life, to a certain degree. The mod has long had a reputation for being "overpowered", even compared to real life- simply because players did not understand that real rockets simply perform a lot better than what they're used to in KSP, and Interstellar has always leaned in the "realism" rather than the "gamey" direction. That being said, you'll find that most of the re-balances improve the fun of gameplay. Where else can find a nuclear thermal rocket you can use as a LAUNCH ENGINE? (like the real world Timberwind design we balanced the Particle Bed Reactors against was meant to do)

KSP-Interstellar fundamentally exists to allow players to do thing MUCH more powerful than they could do in the stock game, but that are or might someday be possible in real life. Warp-drives, for instance: which were the only feature the mod was originally released with back in the day...

As long as it doesn't feel "cheaty" I'm quite fine with that. (And yes, I'm quite aware that where to draw the line to "cheaty" is a matter of taste.)

You're free to play with parts as futuristic or near-term as you like. Personally, I never play with anything much beyond first-generation fission reactors and Microwave Thermal Power- and a 1st generation fusion reactor here and there if I'm feeling REALLY adventurous... Nothing about KSP-Interstellar forces you to play with any mods that add extra difficulty (like Real Solar System or RealFuels- although I strongly recommend the latter with the new aerodynamics system that will be coming out anyways, as it allows you to build MUCH more stable rockets by playing with the fuel-density and mass-distribution of different stages...) but you can always impose your own limitations if you wish.

I'm already playing with FAR, mostly because I wanted to stop myself from just sticking ridiculous contraptions on top of a few orange tanks and launch them into space. :D (As a side note, I'm not that happy about 1.0 stock fairings being procedural, I always liked the limitations of KW fairings.)

RSS, even the 6.4x scale is just not my cup of tea. First it messes with terrain in a way that irks me aesthetically, second, in my mind it forces a huge increase in part count for no apparent "gain" and my PC is already taxed enough with my builds as it is.

RF sounds actually quite interesting, but I'm a bit wary of the added complexity. Being able to play with fuel densitities and having to take fuel densities into account are 2 entirely different beasts.

How are we taking anything away by *adding to* the mod? All the original parts with the balance you know and love are still there with the "Mk1" or "experimental" versions of each reactor (maybe FreeThinker was onto something by leaving them in there- I wanted to remove them entirely). We're just adding essentially a new upgrade-level with more realistic performance. Changes like raising the Thrust/MW of the Thermal Rocket Nozzles do improve the performance of the "experimental" parts, but only a little.

You're right, I mostly stick to the low-tech KSPI parts anyway because they are powerful enough for 80% of use-cases.

KSPI has had quite a rocky history so far. When Fractal went away for the first time Wave took up the mantle wit KSPI-Lite which started out really well and with some nice improvements but then he threw out the baby with the bathwater by axing over half of the mod entirely. When I saw your efforts on KSPI-E I feared that you would go to the other extreme and "replace the bathwater with rocket fuel" in an effort to keep the baby warm so to speak.

It would seem I panicked a bit and overreacted, sorry for that. :blush:

Aside:

The Regolith issue. A few pages back you said that Regolith can't entirely replace ORS/ORSX because it's missing some essential features. Have you actually talked with RoverDude about this? It seems to me that he intends Regolith to be a successor to and superset of ORSX. If you need dynamic readjustment of parameters which ORSX has and Regolith doesn't it might be possible that he's willing to implement those features.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note that we plan to balance KSPI Extended, by natrual means as much as possible. One major change will be to replace the current LiquidFuel and Oxidiser by their real counterparts Liquid Hydrogen and Liquid Oxygen. These require much larger tanks, and active cooling. So although your rocket engines are more powerfull, your also require much larger (and heavier tanks) and active cooling to prevent them from boiling off. Alsno note now that reactors generate more thermal power, cooling will become a bigger problem, meaning you have to install significantly more heavy hardware to prevent it from overheating. As you know, nothing is for free. For every boon, there is a bane.

Edited by FreeThinker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It looked to me like the values you are going to implement would make gameplay without upscaled Kerbin so easy/boring that it wouldn't be worth the bother anymore. I can live with a higly powerful system that comes somewhat late in the tech tree, I can't live with something that turns the late game essentially into hyperedit with infinite fuel attached. As long as can't slap 10 parts in the VAB together and have a ship that can do 10 grand tours without thinking about it I'm fine. :)

Realistic performance isn't nearly THAT overpowered.

For instance, even modeling a Particle Bed Reactor's performance after Project Timberwind (which is what the reactors are clearly based off of), it would only have a Vacuum TWR of 30 with 100% realistic implementation (and FreeThinker seems to want to leave the mass a bit higher). Most of the stock chemical engines that are good for launch stages have a TWR of 20-30, and a much higher TOTAL Thrust, so it's actually still an inferior option for a launch engine in most cases, despite the higher ISP (just as the Timberwind was inferior to most chemical engines). Can you get something to orbit with it? Yeah. Can you do a stock SSTO with it? Yeah (though it would never work in Real Solar System). Can you do both more efficiently+cheaply with a chemical rocket engine- absolutely.

The point of implementing a close to realistic balance for it was so that players would have the OPTION of using an NTR for a launch engine- not so that it would actually be a better choice than chemical launch engines (which are still superior to nuclear thermal). Where the new "Mk2" particle bed reactor REALLY shines is an extra-atmospheric upper stage engine (much like a better and more modern version of the stock NERVA)- doubling the ISP really helps more in upper stages, as it means the launch stage doesn't have to lift as much mass above the atmosphere...

You said multiple times that you prefer to play with 6.4x scale Kerbin (which is one possible configuration of RSS) and with Real Fuels (which one of the few required mods for RO), I shorthanded that to "RSS/RO". While your own config may be more elaborate and fine-tuned than the "off-the-shelf" configs you're using the same building blocks.

I do prefer to play with RSS 6.4x, and RealFuels, but those two mods =/= Realism Overhaul. RO has a *HUGE* list of required mods, including ones I have no personal taste for, like Advanced Jet Engines (mainly because AJE's author has a *very* nerfed idea of realism, and insists on balancing all jet engines to mid-1960's standards, ignoring the fact that 1960 was only 15 years into the development of jet engines, and there have been more than 50 years of design and materials improvements since...)

As long as it doesn't feel "cheaty" I'm quite fine with that. (And yes, I'm quite aware that where to draw the line to "cheaty" is a matter of taste.)

So a warp drive or an antimatter reactor isn't cheaty, but a fission nuclear thermal rocket with a reactor+nozzle TWR of 30 is? :sticktongue:

I'm already playing with FAR, mostly because I wanted to stop myself from just sticking ridiculous contraptions on top of a few orange tanks and launch them into space. :D (As a side note, I'm not that happy about 1.0 stock fairings being procedural, I always liked the limitations of KW fairings.)

RSS, even the 6.4x scale is just not my cup of tea. First it messes with terrain in a way that irks me aesthetically, second, in my mind it forces a huge increase in part count for no apparent "gain" and my PC is already taxed enough with my builds as it is.

RF sounds actually quite interesting, but I'm a bit wary of the added complexity. Being able to play with fuel densitities and having to take fuel densities into account are 2 entirely different beasts.

If you're already playing with FAR, you should TOTALLY install RealFuels. The Kerosene/LOX fuel mode acts much like stock LFO (except that the LOX will slowly boil off if not insulated- though not nearly as fast as Hydrogen or Methane), whereas Hydro/LOX provides a higher-ISP but less dense alternative, and hypergolics a denser but lower-ISP alternative. 90% of the time you'll just end up going for Kero/LOX most of the way up, and hypergolics on landers (much like in real life), so it doesn't really change your gameplay experience THAT much... :)

As for your worries about part-count with Real Solar System, I have three suggestions for you...

One, get the mod Active Texture Management if you haven't already, because it will reduce your lag just generally-speaking.

Two, install Procedural Parts and maybe TweakScale. The ability to build a rocket fuel tank as large as you need it (in Career Mode, only once you unlock Metamaterials for unlimited size) instead of having to stack 5 tanks on top of each other will help your part-count IMMENSELY. Instead of building rockets with tons of radial boosters, get in the habit of building a single monolothic stack, like in real life (FAR will also *LOVE* your for it- you suffer drag not just due to cross-sectional area but also due to total surface-area, and larger tanks have proportionally less surface area due to the Square-Cube Law...) Procedural Parts will also allow you to delete most fuel tanks from stock and mods from your GameData folder, as you can re-create the same shape+capacity (or any other one you like) at-will...

Three, get Procedural Fairings. I know you may like having 20 different fairing options and *only* those options with KW Rocketry, but the reduction in the number of parts your game has to load (in the catalog and memory, even if not currently in-use) and in the part-count on your craft will help IMMENSELY. This is why I would have been VERY angry if Squad hadn't gone procedural with the fairings- fairings are especially CPU-intensive (the calculations for aerodynamic shielding aren't free), and the performance of KSP is already bad enough as-is...

You're right, I mostly stick to the low-tech KSPI parts anyway because they are powerful enough for 80% of use-cases.

KSPI has had quite a rocky history so far. When Fractal went away for the first time Wave took up the mantle wit KSPI-Lite which started out really well and with some nice improvements but then he threw out the baby with the bathwater by axing over half of the mod entirely. When I saw your efforts on KSPI-E I feared that you would go to the other extreme and "replace the bathwater with rocket fuel" in an effort to keep the baby warm so to speak.

It would seem I panicked a bit and overreacted, sorry for that. :blush:

I wasn't too fond of where WaveFunction eventually went with KSP-I Lite either (nerfing the performance of many parts/systems beyond belief, when they were laready much worse than in real life). Don't worry, I have no intention to go in that direction- or to cook the baby in rocket fuel. :D

Aside:

The Regolith issue. A few pages back you said that Regolith can't entirely replace ORS/ORSX because it's missing some essential features. Have you actually talked with RoverDude about this? It seems to me that he intends Regolith to be a successor to and superset of ORSX. If you need dynamic readjustment of parameters which ORSX has and Regolith doesn't it might be possible that he's willing to implement those features.

I've thought about asking RoverDude to do that, but I really have quite a lot of other things I'd like to see implemented either here in the Extension Config (for instance, fixes to the Monoprop production reaction so it produces Hydrazine in RealFuels, and to the Hydrogen Peroxide production reaction so it runs off Hydrogen and Oxygen rather than Oxygen and Water...), or in other mods (for instance, I really need to go and nag to try and get the Procedural Parts tech-limits on size relaxed a bit: they currently limit you to 3-meter diameters and short heights at tech-levels where you would normally have 3.75 meter parts available... It's not until Meta Materials that those insane limits are actually removed...)

Regards,

Northstar

- - - Updated - - -

Note that we plan to balance KSPI Extended, by natrual means as much as possible. One major change will be to replace the current LiquidFuel and Oxidiser by their real counterparts Liquid Hydrogen and Liquid Oxygen. These require much larger tanks, and active cooling. So although your rocket engines are more powerfull, your also require much larger (and heavier tanks) and active cooling to prevent them from boiling off. Alsno note now that reactors generate more thermal power, cooling will become a bigger problem, meaning you have to install significantly more heavy hardware to prevent it from overheating. As you know, nothing is for free. For every boon, there is a bane.

I personally play with RealFuels, but this is one of the changes I'm not so sure about for the Extension Config- as I don't think many players will take kindly to it, and will over-react without realizing they can still use LF/O for their chemical rockets as always.. (as long as you make sure to use a stripped-down version of the RealFuels mod that *only* includes the tank-types and resources you need, and none of the ModuleManager code to replace LF/O with RealFuels equivalents, for instance...)

Still, if you're going to do it, make it CRYSTAL CLEAR to players that this will *only* affect the fuels they can put into their plasma thrusters and KSP-I thermal rockets, not their normal stock or mod LF/O engines... I'm not a fan of LF/O myself, and think it was silly of Squad to ever implement these resources with arbitrary ISP and density in the first place, but since most players seem attached to them, you will need to make sure players understand they will still be able to use them as-always in their other parts...

Regards,

Northstar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I personally play with RealFuels, but this is one of the changes I'm not so sure about for the Extension Config- as I don't think many players will take kindly to it, and will over-react without realizing they can still use LF/O for their chemical rockets as always.. (as long as you make sure to use a stripped-down version of the RealFuels mod that *only* includes the tank-types and resources you need, and none of the ModuleManager code to replace LF/O with RealFuels equivalents, for instance...)

Note KSPI Extended will not be the only one using the new resources, LqdHydrogen and LqdOxygen are going to be part of CRP. RoverDude and Nertea plan to integrate the resources into their Mods for KSP 1.0. This will make it a used standard not only for KSPI and RealFuels , but by all major Mods.

Edited by FreeThinker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agreed with Jinks.

I followed all your discussion about reactors, thermal Rockets and more. I appreciate very much your job to fix the issues of KSPI.

Interstellar is my only "must have mod". I play just in career mode and sometimes in sandbox for testing different ships, and I need to know that in end game, I can build my SSTO similar to the Scott Manley's Draco, or send a probe with a Plasma Thruster everywhere in the universe if I give it enough MW.

I was worried, like Jinks, that all those changes will cut Interstellar out of the mood it was intended, and I'm very happy to see that I was wrong.

Again, thank you very much FreeThinker and Northstar...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello FreeThinker, NorthStar1989.

I'm a little confused about the Magnetic Nozzle parts. The description says that they are only powered by "charged particles". Is this an actual resource? Because the tooltip shows it as using LiquidHydrogen. Is this as intended?

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello FreeThinker, NorthStar1989.

I'm a little confused about the Magnetic Nozzle parts. The description says that they are only powered by "charged particles". Is this an actual resource? Because the tooltip shows it as using LiquidHydrogen. Is this as intended?

Thanks.

Never used them personally. It was one of the last things Fractal_UK implemented before he went away, and I'm not quite sure exactly how he made them to work.

A *REALISTIC* implementation would basically use ChargedParticles as the only propellant. That is, it would (SLOWLY) convert Uranium into propulsion, at an ISP of over 50,000 seconds! However, the Thrust for this would be DEATHLY low- as in, on the order of magnitude of Solar Sails. So, I'm not quite sure how Fractal_UK *ACTUALLY* made these to work...

Regards,

Northstar

- - - Updated - - -

Also, FreeThinker, I was thinking about if we couldn't include a config to allow greater integration with TAC Life Support. This was something Dreadicon began work on before, but never really finished...

Here's one reaction that I think would be *particularly* useful to include in KSP-Interstellar Extension Config for use with TAC Life Support, re-posted from the explanation I made over on that thread below:

I was wondering what ever happened to implementing WasteWater-electrolysis in TAC Life Support, as I described HERE.

Basically, the idea would be to filter out and electrolyze the Urea (CH4N2O) the main non-water component of WasteWater as described in THIS link:

CH4N2O + H2O --> N2 + 3 H2 + CO2

All it requires is a low-voltage power source (only approximately a third the voltage is required as for electrolyzing water) and a cheap nickel catalyst...

The products (N2, H2, and CO2) are *all* currently useful propellants in the KSP-Interstellar Extension Config I have been working on with FreeThinker...

Additionally, if you couple this reaction with a Sabatier Reaction (CO2 + 4 H2 --> CH4 + 2 H2O) and Water Electrolysis (2 H2O --> 2 H2 + O2) you get the *NET* reaction:

CH4N2O + H2O --> CH4 + N2 + H2 +O2

Once again, the products are *all* usable propellants in KSP-Interstellar Extension Config.

I would VERY MUCH like to see this reaction implemented in TAC Life Support. The Hydrogen produced could be coupled with the Sabatier Reaction (which as it is currently implemented in TAC Life Support consumes water instead of Hydrogen- but it should be possible to use this reaction math to create an integrated recycler that recycles CO2 and Wastewater with a single part...)

As you can see, this reaction would also be *HIGHLY* useful in KSP-Interstellar, as ALL the products (Nitrogen, Hydrogen, Methane, and Oxygen) are usable propellants in KSP-Interstellar. Basically, your Kerbals would turn a portion of the mass of the Food they eat in TAC Life Support into propulsion for your rocket!

Regards,

Northstar

EDIT: Went back and fixed the molecules of Hydrogen required for a balanced equation using the Sabatier Reaction. Thanks Yemo for catching that!

Edited by sal_vager

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the explanation.

The reason I asked is because I THINK I figured out a way around the Real Fuels catch-all overwrite issue. After doing some testing, the it no longer applies Kerosene to the Magnetic Nozzle and instead shows the required resource as "LiquidHydrogen."

I just wanted to confirm that this is indeed how it "should" be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FreeThinker,

You should also see the following code that Dreadicon originally wrote up to improve the compatibility between TAC Life Support and KSP-Interstellar. We should *EASILY* be able to add these as another compatibility-config file in KSP-Interetellar Extension Config (much like the "RealFuelsFix" file) if we want:


//Configs for TAC Life Support & KSPI
@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[FNModuleResourceExtraction]]:NEEDS[WarpPlugin&TacLifeSupport]
{
@MODULE[FNModuleResourceExtraction]:HAS[#resourceName[LqdWater]]
{
@resourceName = Water
}
}

@WARP_PLUGIN_SETTINGS[WarpPluginSettings]:NEEDS[WarpPlugin&TacLifeSupport]
{
@WaterResourceName = Water
}

@TANK_DEFINITION[*]:HAS[@TANK[Kerosene]&!TANK[Water]]:NEEDS[RealFuels&WarpPlugin&TacLifeSupport]:AFTER[TacLifeSupport]
{
!TANK[LqdWater] {} //just in case
+TANK[Kerosene]
{
@name = Water
}
}

@PART[*]:HAS[@RESOURCE[LqdWater]]:NEEDS[WarpPlugin&TacLifeSupport]
{
@RESOURCE[LqdWater]
{
@name = Water
}
}

@BASIC_NTR_PROPELLANT[Water]:NEEDS[WarpPlugin&TacLifeSupport]
{
@PROPELLANT[LqdWater]
{
@name = Water
}
}

@PLANETARY_RESOURCE_DEFINITION[Water]:NEEDS[WarpPlugin&TacLifeSupport]:FINAL
{
@resourceName = Water
}

@OCEANIC_RESOURCE_DEFINITION[*]:HAS[#resourceName[LqdWater]]:NEEDS[WarpPlugin&TacLifeSupport]
{
@resourceName = Water //LqdWater
}
@WARP_PLUGIN_SETTINGS[*]:NEEDS[WarpPlugin&TacLifeSupport]
{
@WaterResourceName = Water //LqdWater
}

The changes are all geared at making sure TACLS "LqdWater" and KSP-I "Water" are recognized and used as the same thing as you can see, so there is still a lot of room for improvement to add additional forms of compatibility- such as being able to electrolyze WasteWater into Nitrogen, Hydrogen, and Carbon Dioxide like I mentioned before...

Regards,

Northstar

- - - Updated - - -

Thanks for the explanation.

The reason I asked is because I THINK I figured out a way around the Real Fuels catch-all overwrite issue. After doing some testing, the it no longer applies Kerosene to the Magnetic Nozzle and instead shows the required resource as "LiquidHydrogen."

I just wanted to confirm that this is indeed how it "should" be.

As Fractal_UK implemented it, and it works in KSP-Interstellar, that is indeed how it "should" be. As it works in real life, there's nothing accurate about it at all. :)

Regards,

Northstar

- - - Updated - - -

@FreeThinker

Further, but not least, it would still be nice to see replacement of the Monopropellant produced by the Monopropellant-production reaction in KSP-Interstellar with Hydrazine (the resource Fractal_UK assumed Monopropellant to be, and based all the chemistry off of- so all that is now needed is a name-change) when Module RCSFX (the RealFuels module to replace Monopropellant with Hydrazine and other realistic RCS fuels) is installed...

Note that it's possible (and often done) to install RealFuels without the Module RCSFX folder as well, so this fix needs to only activate as a ModuleManager patch when it detects the Module RCSFX folder installed in GameData... (this kind of mod-recognition is *routine* stuff for ModuleManager, and in fact is already used in a lot of our existing RealFuels-compatibility code...)

Also, since Monoprop is currently produced by mixing Ammonia and Hydrogen Peroxide (also how it is done in real life) it would be nice to see a balanced equation (currently the ENTIRE mass of both reactants is converted into Monopropellant, instead of some by-products also being formed...)

Hydrazine (N2H4) can be produced as follows in real life:

2 H2O2 + 2 NH3 --> 2 N2H4 + H2 + 2 O2

Currently, in KSP-Interstellar, 100% of the mass is converted into Monopropellant/Hydrazine (N2H4) and no Hydrogen or Oxygen are produced as by-products... (which, see below, could then be cycled to make more Hydrogen Peroxide- but with a net surplus of Oxygen left over, as Hydrogen contains no Oxygen atoms!)

Finally, the ability to produce the Hydrogen Peroxide from Hydrogen and Oxygen instead of Oxygen and Water would be GREAT! That's how it's actually done in real life (>90% of all Hydrogen Peroxide is produced via the Anthraquinone Process from H2 and O2 gas, according to Wikipedia... Note that the name "Anthraquinone" refers to a co-catalyst that is *NOT* consumed by the reaction...)

This would allow us do things such as launch Hydrogen to Kerbin orbit and then combine it with Oxygen from a Propulsive Fluid Accumulator, to produce Hydrogen Peroxide for RCS (Hydrogen Peroxide is a usable but low-ISP RCS fuel on its own, even without being processed into Hydrazine, in RealFuels with Module RCSFX... ) Or make Hydrogen Peroxide from Hydrogen and Oxygen scooped from Laythe and Jool orbits, without ever having to descend to the surface of Laythe to get actual Water...

Regards,

Northstar

Edited by Northstar1989

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello FreeThinker, NorthStar1989.

I'm a little confused about the Magnetic Nozzle parts. The description says that they are only powered by "charged particles". Is this an actual resource? Because the tooltip shows it as using LiquidHydrogen. Is this as intended?

Thanks.

Well the currently implementation, charged particles are used to speed up hydrogen atoms in a strong magnetic field requiring MW power. I'm not sure how realsitic this is but in game terms, magnetic trusters offer an ISP/thrust that is between thermal noozles and plasma thrusters.

To generate charged particles, you can either use a Dusty Plasma reactor or a Fusion Reactor. Note that the fusion reactors also require a lot of MW power to get them started. This often means you also need a nuclear reactor + power generator to make it function. Dusty plasma reactors are much simpler in that they don't need large amount of power to start

Edited by FreeThinker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, FreeThinker, I was thinking about if we couldn't include a config to allow greater integration with TAC Life Support. This was something Dreadicon began work on before, but never really finished...

Sounds fine with me, just provide the MM config script and I will add them to KSPI Extended

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sounds fine with me, just provide the MM config script and I will add them to KSPI Extended

I already provided some MM config script for that in the "code" section of this post, which contains code myself and Dreadicon worked together to create (much like you and me now) several months ago...

Some of the other types of integration I could use your insight/opinion and expertise on...

For instance, I'd like to include code to replace TAC Life Support CO2 with KSP-I LiquidCO2 or CRP CO2 (both of which have more realistic densities than TACLS' arbitrary density for CO2...) However, in TAC Life Support, Kerbals produce CO2 at a constant rate/day, and I would need to replace this rate with a rate adjusted for the new density of the resource they would be producing via MM patch...

Similarly, to implement urea electrolysis would require an ISRU reaction, similar to the Haber Process you already implemented. Since ISRU reactions are coded in the DLL rather than ModuleManager, I have no idea how to go about actually coding this. I could give you the volume and mass-ratios of the products and reactants, but I would be worthless in trying to actually implement the new reaction...

Finally, last but not least, there needs to be some kind of code to integrate TACLS "Oxygen" and RealFuels "Lqd Oxygen" as they are fundamentally the same resource... (this would relate to KSP-I because we are able to do things such as scoop LOX with Propulsive Fluid Accumulators...) One way to do this would be to simply overwrite the TACLS definition of Oxygen, but then you potentially get into issues with burning all your breathing-Oxygen in your engines when you have an excess of Liquid Hydrogen or Methane, or having to shut down your breathing-air during (potentially long) burns in order to prevent this... A better alternative would be to give certain parts (such as the TACLS Air Scrubber) the ability to inter-convert the two at-will via ModuleManager, but once again I have no idea how to implement this...

Regards,

Northstar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Het I found an intresting article decribing a molten salt reactor. Take special note of table 1 where a 2250 MW reactor is decribed.

of special intrest are Average power density 22.2 kW/L and Core height 3.96 m

Edited by FreeThinker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a different note:

Freethinker, you mentioned earlier wanting the mass-fractions for the Haber Process and the Sabatier Reaction to allow both to be performed outside of atmospheres with the stored resources (particularly useful/important if you are collecting the resources with Propulsive Fluid Accumulators and shipping them to a centralized refinery...)

I saw in the Changelog that you implemented the Haber Process this way, but I never saw/heard anything about the Sabatier Reaction...

How are we doing for that one? Do you think you'll be able to get it out soon (perhaps in the 8.0 release) if you haven't implemented it already?

Regards,

Northstar

- - - Updated - - -

Het I found an intresting article decribing a molten salt reactor. Take special note of table 1 where a 2250 MW reactor is decribed.

of special intrest are Average power density 22.2 kW/L and Core height 3.96 m

304 metric tons of graphite moderators alone?

Hardly sounds like a space-grade design to me. Most likely it's designed for long-term usage on the ground for cities and such...

Also, I would have you note that Thorium is quite clearly listed as a possible fuel for the reactor. I don't know why you removed Thorium as a possible reactor fuel in the latest releases, but this change really should be reversed.

Thorium is a resource that is available in different locations and densities in the solar system than Uranium (and would actually be significantly easier to extract in real life, as it is not located as the deposits tend to be more shallow than for Uranium...) and was/is realistic in how Fractal_UK implemented it in that it produces more ThermalPower/cubic-meter of reactor, but requires significantly more maintenance to operate correctly... (making it inappropriate for unmanned probes, for instance)

Thorium Reactors already exist in real life- the problem is that Molten Salt Reactor technology, as a whole, is not mature enough that you regularly see them for anything beyond experimental usage. However the technology in KSP-Interstellar extends into the future, so it's perfectly realistic to think that if we could develop Antimatter Reactors and Alcubierre Drives that we could develop a working Thorium Reactor! :)

Regards,

Northstar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello again.

Got another question for you.

Is the Real Fuels fix included with your version intended to replace the ModularFuelTanks/RealFuels configs? I ask because they appear to target the same parts but yours seem better updated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On a different note:

Freethinker, you mentioned earlier wanting the mass-fractions for the Haber Process and the Sabatier Reaction to allow both to be performed outside of atmospheres with the stored resources (particularly useful/important if you are collecting the resources with Propulsive Fluid Accumulators and shipping them to a centralized refinery...)

I saw in the Changelog that you implemented the Haber Process this way, but I never saw/heard anything about the Sabatier Reaction...

How are we doing for that one? Do you think you'll be able to get it out soon (perhaps in the 8.0 release) if you haven't implemented it already?

Everything in good order, first I want my universal crystatic liquid storage finished before I want to dable with resource conversions.

- - - Updated - - -

Hello again.

Got another question for you.

Is the Real Fuels fix included with your version intended to replace the ModularFuelTanks/RealFuels configs? I ask because they appear to target the same parts but yours seem better updated.

Correct, it overrides the RealFuels fixes for KSPI. I put a mod on RealFuels mod which atteps to mod KSPI which is a mod of KSP.

k4WapRi.jpg

You get it?

- - - Updated - - -

Also, I would have you note that Thorium is quite clearly listed as a possible fuel for the reactor. I don't know why you removed Thorium as a possible reactor fuel in the latest releases, but this change really should be reversed.

Don't worry, they get their ability to switch back again (I only removed the resource store). I initialy did it for balance reasons, to make the Particle Bed and Dusty Plasma reactors more intresting, but it appears it is the other way around as it appears they produce much more thermal power than we inititialy though they would.

I intended to incease thermal Power ParticleBed and DustyPlasma by factor of 5. THis is good new for people that want to use magnetic noozles (x5 power) but bad news for Molten Salt Reactors which thermal noozle powerTrustMultiplier is reduced to 6.36 / 5 = 1.27. At least now they will be able to increase power by 1.37 using thorium which makes their effective maximum trustmultiplier 1.74. It effectively means a 1.25m Salt Core reactor will only be able to produce 30kN at 1187 Isp, or 90kN at 90kN @ 660s using LFO.

It means Molten Salt Core / Gas Core Reactor Reactors are best for long term power generation and Higher thermal ISP while Particle Reactor / Dusty Plasma are best for high amounts of thermal trust or and charged particles.

One issue remains is how to balance Power generation for Particle Reactor and Dusty Plasma. The question is, how effective should they be for generating Electric power? All example I have yet seen used Particle Reactor only for Thermal Nozzles, never for power generation. In KSPI, they produced significantly less power due to the effect of overheating and lower core temperature. I think we need to do some tests

Edited by FreeThinker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks!

I was just discussing this with Raptor831 and we're tossing around the idea of removing our KSPI configs and let it be handled on your end. You seem to be in a better position to ensure compatibility and keep them updated. Especially considering the rapid-fire changes you've made the past few weeks.

Also, you and Northstar1989 seem to know Interstellar's systems better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello again.

Got another question for you.

Is the Real Fuels fix included with your version intended to replace the ModularFuelTanks/RealFuels configs? I ask because they appear to target the same parts but yours seem better updated.

If you mean the integration-config found in the current rendition of RealFuels, then yes, hopefully only temporarily.

Because the development-cycle of RealFuels is *much* slower than of KSP-Interstellar Extension Config (and perhaps because of a personal grudge against me) NathanKell has went and removed the RealFuels/KSP-Interstellar integration-config from the latest dev version of RealFuels, supposedly to be replaced when we've got a final version ready of it over here (we'll see if NathanKell actually follows through on this- he seems to have an issue with me, so he might refuse to do this when the time comes, especially if it's me making the pull request...)

Regards,

Northstar

- - - Updated - - -

Also, FreeThinker, just wanted to be *sure* you saw this. Here is the code again that Dreadicon wrote up for better TAC Life Support and KSP-Interstellar integration (basically it fixes the name-differences between the Water resources, and just needs a config file of its own in the KSP-Interstellar Extension Config folder to call home... :) )


//Configs for TAC Life Support & KSPI
@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[FNModuleResourceExtraction]]:NEEDS[WarpPlugin&TacLifeSupport]
{
@MODULE[FNModuleResourceExtraction]:HAS[#resourceName[LqdWater]]
{
@resourceName = Water
}
}

@WARP_PLUGIN_SETTINGS[WarpPluginSettings]:NEEDS[WarpPlugin&TacLifeSupport]
{
@WaterResourceName = Water
}

@TANK_DEFINITION[*]:HAS[@TANK[Kerosene]&!TANK[Water]]:NEEDS[RealFuels&WarpPlugin&TacLifeSupport]:AFTER[TacLifeSupport]
{
!TANK[LqdWater] {} //just in case
+TANK[Kerosene]
{
@name = Water
}
}

@PART[*]:HAS[@RESOURCE[LqdWater]]:NEEDS[WarpPlugin&TacLifeSupport]
{
@RESOURCE[LqdWater]
{
@name = Water
}
}

@BASIC_NTR_PROPELLANT[Water]:NEEDS[WarpPlugin&TacLifeSupport]
{
@PROPELLANT[LqdWater]
{
@name = Water
}
}

@PLANETARY_RESOURCE_DEFINITION[Water]:NEEDS[WarpPlugin&TacLifeSupport]:FINAL
{
@resourceName = Water
}

@OCEANIC_RESOURCE_DEFINITION[*]:HAS[#resourceName[LqdWater]]:NEEDS[WarpPlugin&TacLifeSupport]
{
@resourceName = Water //LqdWater
}
@WARP_PLUGIN_SETTINGS[*]:NEEDS[WarpPlugin&TacLifeSupport]
{
@WaterResourceName = Water //LqdWater
}

Regards,

Northstar

- - - Updated - - -

Thanks!

I was just discussing this with Raptor831 and we're tossing around the idea of removing our KSPI configs and let it be handled on your end. You seem to be in a better position to ensure compatibility and keep them updated. Especially considering the rapid-fire changes you've made the past few weeks.

Also, you and Northstar1989 seem to know Interstellar's systems better.

Removing the integration-configs from *which* mod, specifically?

IF you're talking the engine configs for RealFuels+Stockalike, I *highly* recommend leaving them in place, since *each* of the three engine-configs for RealFuels should ultimately have its own take on the performance of the "conventional" KSP-Interstellar Meth/LOX and Aluminum-Hybrid Rockets (the only ones affected by RealFuels+Stockalike if I recall correctly). For instance, the RealEngines config would want to use the ACTUAL Thrust of the real-life Raptor engine- which is *MUCH* higher than the Stockalike version, where I was only able to convince Raptor831 to improve the TWR for the most part, and the Thrust remains more or less the same...

Having multiple different integration-configs for the different engine-configs of RealFuels would *NOT* work out well on our end, especially as it would require multiple parallel integration-configs that each separately look for the presence of a different engine-config (and the engine-configs don't have their own folder, but are instead part of the main RealFuels folder, so it would be *VERY* hard to identify their presence).

Bottom Line: Please *don't* remove the integration-configs from RealFuels+Stockalike. The integration-config for the *MAIN* RealFuels mod, which only affects tank types and fuel-names, could equally well be located here or in RealFuels and work just as well (although I recommended to NathanKell keeping the KSPI/RF integration-config in the meantime because NOT all players use the KSP-I Extension Config, and the base KSP-I port doesn't have an integration-config... Par for the course, he didn't listen to me...) but the integration-configs that modify the Thrust/ISP/TWR of the conventional (Meth/LOX chemical and Aluminum-Hybrid) engines in KSP-Interstellar do NOT belong in KSP-Interstellar itself, due to the different take each of the three RealFuels engine configs has on engine-performance...

Regards,

Northstar

P.S. For the record, the performance of the KSP-Interstellar Meth/LOX chemical engine is *NOT* based on reality. Rather, it is balanced against all the other stock engines, and has much lower Thrust, Thrust-Weight Ratio, and ISP than the real-life Raptor engine design off which it is based as a result. I *prefer* to play with more realistic performance for all my chemical engines, which is why I use RealFuels+Stockalike (in fact, I have it installed *right now* in my GameData directory, and use it for all my saves), but many players prefer the stock balance!

Making the default balance realistic would NOT work well, as it would bring it drastically out-of-balance with the stock engines, which was not the intention for that part. Additionally, fully-realistic balance is even better than in RealFuels+Stockalike, as the real engine has a Thrust rating *nearly an order of magnitude* greater than the version used in RealFuels+Stockalike (which is itself up-rated vs. the original in KSP-I to more or less match real-world TWR and ISP) although with the same TWR (in short, the engine is much more powerful but heavier than in RealFuels+Stockalike...)

P.P.S. Note that there are now *TWO* different versions of the Raptor engine under development in real life. One, which is optimized for vacuum-performance (mainly, it has a much larger nozzle ExitArea for higher Vacuum ISP) and would have a Vacuum ISP of 380 seconds, and another which is optimized for use as a launch-stage (meaning it is optimized for performance about 10-12 km off the ground) and has a sea-level ISP of 321 seconds, and a Vacuum ISP of 363 seconds. The RealFuels+Stockalike version was balanced against the Vacuum Version, as the data for this one was more widely-available at the time of the creation of the KSP-I engine config for RealFuels+Stockalike...

The data on Wikipedia is a little messed-up as it lists the Thrust data for the vacuum-optimized version, but the ISP data for the sea-level version. You can confirm this if you divide Vacuum Thrust/ Sea-Level Thrust, which yields a value of 0.8415, and an expected sea-level ISP of only 305 seconds instead of the 321 seconds listed... (either the listed Vacuum Thrust is too high, or the Sea-Level Thrust too low, for the Vacuum Version. Likely a combination of both, as having a smaller nozzle reduces your Vacuum Thrust but raises you Sea-Level Thrust...)

Edited by sal_vager

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see. I was under the (wrong) impression that KSPI was in a better position to handle those configs than RFStockalike.

So as I understand it, you're saying that KSPI as it stands is balanced towards stock parts and the RFStockalike configs are required to give them "realistic" performance.

And you're also saying that RFStockalike is in a better position to handle Interstellar's engine configs. What does that imply for the integration-configs handling resources and tanks? It seems like something that should be relegated to you guys because KSPI uses an entirely different set of resources. Much like how the Karbonite-Real Fuels integration configs aren't included with the main repository and instead have their own folder.

Also, have you considered making proper configs for KSPI's chemical engines using Raptor831's web-app? You seem to have a lot of knowledge about the topic and it's very easy to set up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nuclear reactor are now updated according the following table (which can also be found on the OP)

[TABLE=class: grid, width: 1200]

[TR]

[TD]Reactor Family

[/TD]

[TD]Power required[/TD]

[TD]Core Temperature

[/TD]

[TD]max ISP thermal [/TD]

[TD]Max Thermal Power (2.5m)[/TD]

[TD]thrust thermal (2.5m)[/TD]

[TD]Empty Mass (2.5m)[/TD]

[TD]Max Fuel mass (2.5m)[/TD]

[TD]Fuel Efficiency[/TD]

[TD]Minimum Utilization[/TD]

[TD]LifeTime[/TD]

[TD]Charged particles[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Molten Salt

[/TD]

[TD]0[/TD]

[TD]1978 / 3200[/TD]

[TD]934s / 1187s[/TD]

[TD]742 MW / 1200 MW[/TD]

[TD]242kN / 309kN[/TD]

[TD]12 t[/TD]

[TD]6 t[/TD]

[TD]13.76%[/TD]

[TD]10%[/TD]

[TD]++[/TD]

[TD]no[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Particle Bed [/TD]

[TD]0[/TD]

[TD]1700 / 2750[/TD]

[TD]865s / 1100s[/TD]

[TD]4500 MW / 7200 MW[/TD]

[TD]1555 kN / 2001 kN[/TD]

[TD]7 t[/TD]

[TD]0,065 t[/TD]

[TD]31%[/TD]

[TD]5%[/TD]

[TD]--[/TD]

[TD]no[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Dusty Plasma [/TD]

[TD]0[/TD]

[TD]3300 / 5400[/TD]

[TD]1206s / 1543s[/TD]

[TD]6242 MW/ 10100 MW[/TD]

[TD]1555 kN / 2001 kN[/TD]

[TD]8 t[/TD]

[TD]0,065 t[/TD]

[TD]97%[/TD]

[TD]40%[/TD]

[TD]-[/TD]

[TD]yes[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Gas Core [/TD]

[TD]0[/TD]

[TD]9635 / 15590[/TD]

[TD]1620s / 2633s[/TD]

[TD]1500 MW / 2500 MW[/TD]

[TD]283kN / 290kN[/TD]

[TD]8 t[/TD]

[TD]5 t[/TD]

[TD]15.84%[/TD]

[TD]25%[/TD]

[TD]+[/TD]

[TD]no[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Fusion

[/TD]

[TD]500 MW[/TD]

[TD]15531 / 23078[/TD]

[TD] 2617s / 3190s[/TD]

[TD]5000 MW / 15000 MW[/TD]

[TD]583.5 kN / 1437 KN[/TD]

[TD]9 t[/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[TD]99%[/TD]

[TD]10%[/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[TD]yes[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

Edited by FreeThinker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now