singlet

Members
  • Content Count

    38
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

15 Good

About singlet

  • Rank
    Bottle Rocketeer

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Usually in real time. I think I used 'Physics acceleration' a couple of times, but had not observed any noticeable difference. I tried 'Time acceleration' once or twice but couldn't really use it, because the engine did not support warp thrust. I think it was the nuclear ramjet engine.
  2. ModuleEnginesFX is OK. It also gives ~100% of the expected ∆V.
  3. I tried changing ModuleEnginesWarp into ModuleEngines as you suggested before editing (I assume you mean the Krusader engine configuration, right?). And it seems that your guess is spot on: the Krusader engine now gives ~100% of the expected ∆V.
  4. Yes, that was the first thing I noticed when I began investigating this phenomenon. I thought this was weird, and wanted to know if this could be reproduced on other systems. Anyway, I tried VISTA and Daedalus engines in a sandbox game. This is the first time I have ever tried using them, so there might be something wrong in the configuration. The two test crafts are exactly the same except for the engine. The result was that VISTA gave me only ~50% expected ∆V, and Daedalus ~100%.
  5. Vessel mass is given in the screenshot, reported by MechJeb. The number was also the same as reported by VAB editor. In case of the ramjet nozzle, the expected ∆V and the actual ∆V differed only by ~5%, in contrast to the Krusader's ~50%.
  6. I have not yet unlocked all the necessary technologies in my game, so I don't know. I will try in a sandbox game later if you need it.
  7. Both MechJeb and KerbalEngineer Redux give the same ∆V. Also, 590.6s * 9.81m/s2 * ln(23.495t/22.641t) ≅ 215m/s.
  8. @FreeThinker I already did that, and the result is the same (half the expected ∆V) for both hydrolox and hydrogen propellant.
  9. @FreeThinker, it seems that something is wrong with the "Krusader" engine; ∆V from the engine is only half of what it should be. Could you please check? To show you what happens, I made a minimal test vehicle. All the 8 parts are from stock, KSPI-E or IFS. The vehicle is expected to have the ∆V of 215m/s. I set up a maneuver node so that the maneuver should be more or less complete when the propellent is exhausted. The test result is shown below. The maneuver is only half complete. Thermal ramjet nozzle is OK.
  10. @Gildarrious, I'm afraid you are using the wrong engine. That engine in the second screenshot is something from another mod, possibly NearFuturePropulsion. You need the "Plasma Nozzle" from KSPIE. The combination of plasma nozzle + OCGC reactor + thermal generator works fairly well with 100% power in my game. By the way, @FreeThinker, the "Max Calculated Thrust" value for the above combination shows 350kN thrust when inactive, but can actually provide only about 150kN when 100% powered. This behaviour causes some trouble in determining the time for engine firing. Would it be possible to change the calculation so that the field will show the actual max thrust (150kN in this case)?
  11. @whitespacekilla, Thank you for your suggestion. I tried installing it, and it works. Unfortunately the mod seems to be somewhat unfinished (blank icons, hard to resize, etc.), and it feels a bit needlessly complicated to use it to see just one context menu for me. Maybe later? @FreeThinker, I agree that the jittering is a stock issue, and it would be best if they fix the problem in the stock KSP side. But it is still true that many of the displayed fields are not needed during normal flight, and the information clutters the menu window. In my opinion it would be better to be able to hide / show those fields, just like the stock RCS controls do. RCS thrusters can be set to augment the main thruster, but the control field is usually hidden in the context menu because that is not something usually needed in-flight. In the rare case you need additional thrust from RCS thrusters, you can still expand the RCS control and set them as you want. I think this is the cleanest approach, maybe even the easiest one. Reducing the number of control buttons removes just a couple of lines from the menu, so I don't think that would make a lot of difference for my problem of oversized windows. But I still think it is a good thing to simplify GUI elements if you can retain the same functionality and not increase the complexity of normal operations. As for me, I almost never use the previous propellant button, and a single propellant switch button will suffice. Maybe something similar to the slide control used in InterstellarFuelSwitch? That will combine the functionality of next / previous propellant buttons and current propellant info field into one control, and make normal operations easier than before. Giving a generator its own info menu may be a good idea in my opinion. Dedicated information can be shown in the separate window, and frequently needed information like current power may be shown both in the window and in the context menu I guess.
  12. @FreeThinker Thank you for your prompt reaction, but unfortunately that change does not fully resolve my problem of too much info on a smaller screen. The screen recording below shows what happens in case of the Timberwind Engine. 1) The window is still too long for my screen, so I still need to drag the window up or down whenever I want to use the fields not displayed in the screen. 2) The window does not react very well to my dragging it; it jitters up and down instead. I need to be extra careful in dragging it, or drag it multiple times until I can see the field I want. I think that reducing the amount of information displayed is not a good solution for this problem. The "Warp Thrust" field, for example, seems to have been removed in this version, but I definitely want to see the field when I actually run the engine during time warp. EDIT: Imgur album link does not seem to work well; please click the link if the image is not shown.
  13. @FreeThinker Do you mean a complete list of such parts, or a partial one would suffice? It will take some time to make a complete list because, as you know, there are a lot of parts in KSPIE. But I can give you a partial list. CANDLE LANTR Timberwind Nuclear Particle Bed Engine Open Cycle Gas Core Rocket Closed Cycle Gas Core Engine TORY Nuclear Ramjet Engine Direct Cycle Nuclear Turbojet Bussard Fusion Engine Daedalus Airospike Z-Pinch Fusion Engine (in VAB) Magneto Inertial Fusion Engine As you see, they are mostly engines with included reactors and/or generators. They present radiator / reactor / generator / nozzle information all in a single window, and usually the combined amount of information is too much for my screen.
  14. @FreeThinker, it seems that VAB part descriptions for the thermal ramjet nozzle and the thermal rocket nozzle (Krusader) are incorrect. They say that the parts must be attached directly to a reactor in order to achieve any thrust, but the nozzles actually give (reduced) thrust even when they are not directly connected to a reactor. Also, a QoL suggestion: currently KSPIE parts tend to present a lot of information in the GUI window, sometimes so much that the window does not fit within my little screen (1280x800). And it becomes hard to interact with those oversized windows. Could you please add a toggle button like "KSPIE part info" which would show/hide the KSPIE-related information?
  15. That link should not be on the first page because that wiki is actually the outdated one for a different mod. It is the old wiki for FractalUK's original KSPI, not the wiki for FreeThinker's KSPI-E.