Txzeenath

IMO, the part that makes it kinda confusing/misleading, is that it displays the "_totalEff" variable, which is the efficiency of both the thermal source as well as the generator. It seems to make perfect sense in the code just by the variable names and such, but ingame it's not really clear what you're looking at. If both parts show an efficiency, I'd expect each to reflect the efficiency of that singular part. Which I think is what caused @Liquid5n0w confusion.

Ahh, yeah, I didn't see the extra info boxes off to the sides or the additional image. I see now :-p I agree, regardless of your configuration, you should see an efficiency change from 0-100% simply due to how the generators work. edit- From the code, it looks like it might be using the efficiency of the source as well as the generator which might be causing some confusion in the display. The gas core has only about 50% efficiency. I could be wrong, I haven't looked at the code for this mod much so it's still kinda a maze to me.

From that image, your waste heat is really high. You likely need more/better radiators to cool the generator. A heat based generator works essentially the same as a water turbine. If the water can't flow, you get no power, regardless of how much water you have available.

I don't really consider most of the other systems as comparable to this or KSPI-E, since they seem to fall closer to enhanced/improved stock, versus "kerbals on steroids". But being essentially a minimalist KSPI-E, I could see a niche for that. My usual worry on any game when I start seeing mods that have a lot of overlap, is that it essentially causes a divide and "dilutes" the options to players. But having a lightweight KSPI could be beneficial as I've seen a fair number of people turn away or be discouraged by interstellar due to the complexity. I'm curious how compatibility will be in the future, say, if I wanted to create a MM patch to make the parts use interstellar's units for mixing/matching (pfft. who needs balance :-p).

I assume as long as your mesh is "clean" it should work automatically since FAR generates a voxel cloud for the vessel. Perhaps it would have mattered in older versions but now it's essentially self-configuring.

Not to be offensive in any way, just thinking out loud really. But why do we need two nuclear/future tech engine mods? I would think the development time would be better spent on a common plugin using github pull requests.

I'm assuming the people "freaking out" have never worked in any sort of development. Whether it's software, manufacturing, processing, whatever. There is always turnover, whether it's at the top or the bottom. It happens anywhere, but it tends to be higher in the "skilled trades" since in a way it's a form of art, and people are always looking to do more or get burned out with tedium.

Part of that you can see by looking at the info tab on the part. If it requires MW/MJ, you need generators. If it requires heat, you need to attach it to a high temperature reactor, or a microwave thermal receiver (I believe charged particles can also be converted to heat, but I can't recall). ATILLA is an electric engine, so your best combo IMO would be a reactor with high charged particle output, a charged particle electric generator, some radiators, and your engine.

Most of the engines can use atmosphere as a propellant, but you need air intakes. I'm guessing you don't have air intakes so it won't show as a valid source. Plasma is good for this, since it can use atmosphere and then switch to vacuum mode. No fuel needed. You just need a lot of power.

My current mothership I'm working on is about 34k tons fully loaded (think star wars drone carrier ship). This is relevant to my interests :-p.

Primarily the engines I would like to see scalable. A couple QSR/AM reactors isn't too bad, but having 24 or so plasma engines + thrust plates is a bit irritating. While scaling the engines to 10m+ might be slightly imbalanced, it is counteracted a bit by the power requirements, and the mass of most of these engines are already negligible for TWR they're capable of. Currently i'm using a couple of the HX HPD engines supplied power from KSPI-E reactors, simply because I can't scale up the engines enough. An idea for flexibility I also had was maybe a "Negative Mass Generator", depending how hard it is to scale the mass of parts on the fly. Only problem is finding a plausible theory on how it works. Thinking of mass as "curving" space, negative mass would curve it the opposing direction. But seeing as it breaks almost everything in physics mathematically, it wouldn't really work (besides maybe theoretical negative matter).

I would like to see all of the parts scalable up to 10m. Making a large 10m or 20m 6,000T+ mothership requires quite a few copies of various parts which makes the build a bit of a chore. Especially when some don't even scale to 5m. I know it's not a difficult change, but i hate doing my own edits since I like to keep my mods updated lol.

The data should be recoverable if you really want it. If it was a standard HDD, water alone won't destroy it, even if the motor and board inside are dead, you can send it out to have the data from the plates pulled off.

Getting the same error now myself. Ever find the cause?

Could you possibly resize puff.dds and puff.tga to 256x256? The odd sizing of it crashes on Linux. Easy to fix when doing an update but a bit of an annoyance.

doublepost

Personally, i'll never use this site. The overall layout is unpleasant as everything is oversized with ridiculous CSS effects. There is no proper navigation and page space is wasted. You should have very minimal vertical scrolling to display content that people want, which means maximizing space across the horizontal plane. Text should be large enough to read easily, but small enough to were you can read multiple sections at once. Which promotes skim-reading and improves usability. CSS effects should be minimal and non-intrusive. The sliding bars are extremely distracting and add nothing, since the buttons are already massive.