• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

143 Excellent

About SciMan

  • Rank
    Config tinkerer

Contact Methods

  • Twitter Array

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. KSP already uses DirectX 9 by default, and you can force it to operate in DirectX 11 to get some performance benefits (but you need patches to fix some texture glitches that causes, some parts VAB icons get a strong blue tint to them without those patches). To me, ray tracing isn't magic. The improvement that it gives is IMO only really noticeable in mostly still scenes with specific lighting situations. The current tech works well enough for "suspension of disbelief" purposes. I plan on getting an RTX 2070 within the next few months, so I'll have a card that supports it, however if KSP 2 has ray tracing but turning it on kills the frame rate even on a card that supports it, I'll turn it off. On the other hand, there are many other performance benefits to be had that don't even need a switch to DX12. Two that come to mind are "don't hold the graphics textures in system RAM after you sent them to the graphics card", and "Only send textures to the graphics card when they are needed". Both of those are pretty much standard practice in video game design, and for good reason. The first one is just an oversight in the coding of the original KSP, and fixing it will massively reduce RAM usage. The second one is called "load on demand" and it can introduce some small amount of stutter, but I doubt it would be much more than we currently get when a craft loads in to physics range (unless the craft has modded parts that use giant textures for some reason. That would cause significant stutter, but that's a problem with the parts, not the game).
  2. If you read the books of The Expanse, you'll see that they make mention of pellets of deuterium-tritium ice. So that points to the Epstien drive being an ICF drive with power for the drive coming from an ICF reactor instead of being harvested from the drive pulses. (please do read the books, they're great reading and all available on Amazon Kindle as well as hard-copy). Like others mentioned, the ISP and thrust are cranked up quite a ways because it's fiction, and the heat magically disappears, but such a drive is not beyond the laws of physics. As a matter of fact, Project Dadelus is a study that proposed using a two-stage ICF fusion torch to get a probe out to a stable orbit of Alpha Centauri within 100 years of launch, and that's no mean feat considering that fusion drives are basically the minimum viable drive for interstellar travel within the local stars within the span of a human life. Anything less than a fusion drive of some sort will mean you go so slow you're going to have to build a generation ship or get cryo-stasis working due to the long travel times. Personally, I trust cryo-stasis more than I trust a generation ship because with a crew and passengers in cryo-stasis you don't have to worry about the civilization on board deciding they don't want to build a colony at the other end of the journey, or just going insane and forming a suicide cult. Among many other reasons, those two are why I don't think generation ships will work.
  3. Once I unlocked the Dadelus engine, I made large craft to transport things around the solar system without having to wait for a transfer window. The craft functions very well, but the engine effects don't seem right for an engine of that size. Only a rather small blue flame, which I recognized as an old stock particle effect. Since the Dadelus engine was so good, I unlocked the Kerbstein fusion engine expecting even better things. As far as performance goes, I couldn't be happier. However, once again I saw the same old stock particle effect being used. In neither case does that small blue stock particle effect match what I expect to see when I use such a large fusion engine. Here's what I expected to see for the Kerbstein engine (around 4:08 in the video): I looked into the issue to see what is going on, and I found that both engines are still using the old ModuleEngines, and I'm almost certain that it doesn't let you use custom particle effects. Inside the Kerbstein drive I also found a hint that changing over to ModuleEnginesFX is on the to-do list, as well as an effects node that would likely work if the engine module was changed. Since I had downloaded a copy of the master branch while testing the new RCS thruster effects, I have a copy of the source code that is only slightly out of date. I've read the patch notes of the newer versions, and I'm not aware of any changes to the Kerbstein or Dadelus engines in any newer versions of KSPI so what I'm looking at in the source code should be current. Looking thru the source code of the Dadelus and Kerbstein engine controller part module, I only see ModuleEngines come up twice in the entire DeadalusEngineController.cs file. To me it looks like simply changing those to ModuleEnginesFX would do what is needed, but that also seems too easy to be the only thing that needs to be done. The majority of the other engines and nozzles in KSPI have already been updated to use the new effects system, however I don't see any of them using an actual stock engine module. I know that programming can cause things that look easy to be next to impossible, but I'm hoping that that is not the case here.
  4. @Brimarx post reminded me of a question I have regarding reactor balance of a different reactor. The Fission Fragment Reactor doesn't seem to be good at anything you can use it for. Sure, you can connect every single type of nozzle and/or generator to it, but none of them can make the reactor run at more than 50% utilization. Maybe I'm missing something, but it doesn't seem like you would want to choose that reactor when you have so many other choices available, especially the Tokamak and Stellarator fusion reactors which you can unlock at roughly the same science cost. Is the intent perhaps that the other 50% of the reactor's power should be added to the waste heat load? That's not what happens as it is. Is it supposed to be a dead-end technology? I thought there were none of those in KSPI. Everything in KSPI seems to have a niche, even if it is quite a narrow niche. Except the Fission Fragment Reactor. If it's meant to be an entry-level reactor to some more advanced version of the concept like a fission fragment sail, I would understand, but no such thing currently exists in KSPI, which makes the final node related to Fission power reactors rather unappealing to research other than as a means to upgrade the performance and power output of the Closed Cycle Gas Core nuclear engine, and improve the power output of the standalone Gas Core Reactor. In other words, it doesn't make sense to unlock that tech node because you need the fission fragment reactor, because the fission fragment reactor has no optimal use case, and does not lead to any fission power or propulsion part that has an optimal use case.
  5. On KSP 1.5.1 still, but I might have found another bug. I'm using a craft that uses a Beam Core Antimatter reactor connected to a Charged Particle Direct Power Converter to provide Megajoule power to an Alcubierre Drive (Heavy). However, the issue does not occur when the Alcubierre drive is operating, as I never use that in time warp (goes plenty fast without time warp). Under high time warp (100,000x), I'm seeing a message pop up in the upper middle of my screen saying "ran out of fuel for Antimatter", and the console is spammed with a "power production too low, clearing buffer" message. When not in time warp everything behaves normally, and when transitioning from high time warp to normal speed the symptoms disappear. Despite the warning, the issue does not cause a reactor shutdown, does not kick the Charged Particle Direct Power Converter offline, and does not leave the craft completely drained of Megajoule power once returning to normal speed. Additionally, the Antimatter trap is never empty. I'm well aware that I am not going to get full power out of the reactor unless I use a Magnetic Nozzle, but being able to harvest reactor fuel in space outweighs that downside, and the greater efficiency of the Charged Particle generator compared to the MHD electric generator used with a Positron Antimatter Reactor considerably reduces required radiator area. On a different note, is there any progress regarding the issue of the Universal Drill IntakeLqd pump not working? Using the newest build of KSPI compiled for KSP 1.5.1 did not fix the problem in my "testing" install of KSP (copy of the Steam directory, only Squad, Making History, and "mod under test" installed). I have also returned to my lander in a methane lake of Tarsiss on my GPP/OPM/KSPI etc. (heavily modded) install, and it's not working there either (as I expected, if it doesn't work in the testing install it won't work anywhere).
  6. OK, got back from Christmas dinner, made a vanilla install from my Steam install (which I keep vanilla because I don't want Steam updates breaking an on-going game, I'm entirely capable of doing that myself TYVM) New install is on my SSD, only Stock + KSPI dependencies. Started a new science save file, used cheats to unlock everything (because "testing purposes only" and I'm running science mode in my main save / main install). Made a test craft, kept it as simple as possible. IntakeLqd pump still doesn't work for me, when splashed down in Kerbin's Oceans (right off of the end of the runway, and out a bit so I'm not able to touch the ground with the drills). Here's a picture with relevant part action windows and resource display enabled: EDIT: Almost forgot, this is on KSP 1.5.1, no idea if the bug exists on 1.6.0 as Kopernicus isn't updated for that yet, and I won't even think of updating my main save to 1.6 until I know the critical mods are updated. I could probably make a clean copy of 1.5.1 and then let Steam update KSP to 1.6, then check that too, if you need me to, but otherwise I don't think it's worth it as not much really changed between 1.5.1 and 1.6.0 as far as plugins go.
  7. I'd have to do that on a vanilla install, but I can do that when I get home from Christmas dinner. If it doesn't work on Kerbin's oceans, there's really something wrong with it, if it does work, there's a problem with it being used on different planet packs. Either way, there's something not working right here
  8. Found another bug, this time it's with the ISRU drills. I don't think they're working correctly for non-stock planet packs. The atmosphere extractors work fine, but I know for sure the Universal Drill does not work correctly. The planet pack I'm using is GPP, and I'm not having any problems with it despite not being updated for 1.5.1 because I'm using the 1.5.1 version of Kopernicus. Still running KSP 1.5.1 because most mods aren't updated for 1.6 yet. I have a ship that has plenty of power, is splashed down in one of the Methane Lakes of Tarsiss, I have plenty of free space to store lqdMethane, according to the GPP files that biome's resources are set to have 100% lqdMethane 100% of the time, yet the Universal Drills I have attached to my ship won't take in any IntakeLqd and give me lqdMethane. When I try to activate the drills intakeLqd pump via the part action window, I get the message "Vessel is not splashed down", which is obviously nonsense. KER reports the situation correctly as "body: Tarsiss, Biome: Methane Lakes, Situation: Splashed". My guess is that it has something to do with not reading the biome and/or situation masks correctly, or something wrong with detecting ground/water contact in the drill itself. Then again, I'm just speculating, you probably have a better idea of what's going wrong than I do. The stock drills work just fine on GPP planets and moons that have stock Ore. I tried the Universal Drill on Gael (starting planet in GPP) as well, didn't seem to work in the ocean despite being splashed down. GPP has CRP resource definitions set for every planet and moon, so I'm not sure what's going on here. Here's a screenshot of what I'm talking about, with all the irrelevant details like my Mechjeb windows removed.
  9. Well I found a bug, but at least it's a minor one, I think? The RCS works as intended except for the sounds. Effects, and thrust production are fine. Display of RCS ISP works in flight and in the VAB. Display of maximum RCS Thrust does not seem be included anymore (was a useful tool to figure out what scale the RCS thrusters should be). I tested every Arcjet and Resistojet RCS part, and I got confusing results. Each part has only one axis on which the sound works, every other axis is silent, but the axis that produces sound is different for every part. I mounted the RCS parts all on the same side of my test craft, but for each one I had to press a different key to get it to make sound. I made sure I only enabled one RCS part at a time. All RCS parts were set to use Hydrazine, and power was supplied by a 1.25m Positron Antimatter reactor connected to a MHD generator, with 10.13 GW max heat produced and 14.06 GW worth of radiators. The MHD generator reports a max theoretical power output of 7.6GW in the VAB, so I know I have enough power. I can't think of what could be wrong, maybe some sort of different handling for each axis of the RCS part, and sound only works on the "first" one? That's all I have, and it's just speculation. If the max RCS thrust was removed due to re-writing the RCS code (it looks like it was re-written), it would be nice to have it back, and it would be nice if it gave the max thrust output for the selected propellant instead of just the max base thrust output.
  10. All I see is a bunch of source code, and adding /releases to the end of the link doesn't bring up anything. Not well versed in how to use Github, the most I know is how to submit an issue, and how to navigate to the releases, that's all I've needed to know so far. I'll try to figure it out on my own, back when I played Gmod I figured out how to use SVN without any help, so I'm probably more rusty than anything. Some googling on my part should put me on the right path. EDIT: Yep, figured it out on my own. Thanks for fixing the issues with the RCS thruster info, sound, and effects! I'm going to launch a test craft right after I finish this post to see if everything's as it should be, but past experience tells me that your code should be good. I'm the person who came up with the concept for the QSR way back when, you were a good coder back then and I bet experience has only made you better at it.
  11. While we're on the topic of visual effects that don't look right, there is absolutely no sound or particle effects coming from the powered RCS thrusters, but as I figured out a post or two ago they function fine otherwise. Thinking about the Kerbstien drive some more, the config looks like it was saved part-way thru switching it over to use ModuleEnginesFX instead of ModuleEngines, because the engine module is ModuleEngines but it has an effects section that likely only works with ModuleEnginesFX. I don't remember if there was ever a time where that kind of effects section would have worked with ModuleEngines but support for that was likely dropped before the Kerbstien engine was added (before I returned to playing KSP, I had been playing on KSP 1.2.0, and the version of KSPI I was using then did not have the Kerbstien engine yet).
  12. This time I think I have an actual bug, not just a "how I thought it works isn't how it actually works" situation. I think I found a visual bug in the exhaust effects of the Kerbstien Fusion engine, and investigating the config files for it revealed things which may or may not work, depending on how the engine model is set up. When running, the only exhaust effect I can see is a rather small stock engine exhaust. I thought the visuals didn't look right because everything else in KSPI seems to have a custom exhaust effect. Maybe that's because I'm running RealPlume-Stock, it seems to work fine but I don't remember if it's updated for 1.5.x or not (wouldn't be the first time I've run into something that looks like it's working fine but is actually throwing some errors). Either way, I looked at the config for the Kerbstien engine and found evidence that the effects I'm supposed to be seeing don't match what I am seeing (actually 2 configs that are identical except for file name and part name, not sure why that is). EFFECTS { multi_plume { AUDIO { channel = Ship clip = sound_rocket_hard volume = 0.0 0.0 volume = 3.0 3.0 pitch = 0.0 0.2 pitch = 1.0 0.8 loop = true } MODEL_MULTI_PARTICLE { modelName = Squad/FX/IonPlume transformName = T-T emission = 0.0 0.0 emission = 0.25 0.5 emission = 1.0 2.0 //speed = 0.0 0.0 //speed = 1.0 1.0 } MODEL_MULTI_PARTICLE { modelName = Squad/FX/fx_exhaustFlame_blue transformName = Smoke emission = 0.0 0.0 emission = 0.25 0.5 emission = 1.0 2.0 //speed = 0.0 0.0 //speed = 1.0 1.0 } } } The engine's effects config does reference the stock IonPlume effect, but it sets it to a different transform than the thrust transform, and IDK if that transform exists in the model or not. If the model does have that transform, then the bug is probably that RealPlume-Stock is overriding the effects, and I'm not sure how to fix that. If the model does not have that transform, then changing it to the same transform that the other effect (and the rest of the config file) refers to should fix it. I made a MM patch that sets the IonPlume to use the Smoke transform like the rest of the config does, and I'll report back if it works or not. EDIT (right after posting): The MM patch I made just removes the entire EFFECTS section, and replaces it with one that's identical except for the one change I made to it, it doesn't try to modify the EFFECTS block with any kind of fancy MM syntax. I'm pretty sure that should work, it's the simplest way I could think of to get MM to do what I want it to do. I also had another thought, it could be possible that this is happening because the config is not using ModuleEnginesFX like every stock engine that I can think of uses (and every engine that gets modified by RealPlume-Stock as well). Either way, I'll report back with my findings. EDIT 2 (after testing): It doesn't seem like anything changed, maybe I can get an image of what it's supposed to look like for comparison? I'll re-name my MM patch so it doesn't get used when I start the game up again.
  13. I can confirm that most of this addon is working in 1.5.1, the exception is the radial tanks. Whenever I click on one of those in the VAB/SPH my game CTD even before I let up on the mouse button. Probably something to do with the texture switching if I had to guess, and I'd be willing to bet that fixing it will only take some tweaking of the config files to point to the right textures or something like that. Texture switching isn't something I've tried messing with in configs yet, I'd have to study how it works for a while before trying to fix these parts. If nobody else does, I'll probably come up with a MM patch to fix it or something, and once I get that working I'll post it in this thread or the thread of whoever takes over maintaining this mod untill Necrobones gets back.
  14. @JAFO I already have KSP on a Samsung 840 PRO 128GB SSD, loading times are still in the 5 minute range. There are a 4 MM patch warnings that come up every time I start up KSP, so it has to throw out the MM cache every time it loads, but that's not the part that takes the longest (even tho it's 15367 patches applied).
  15. I see the Mach effect drive, unfortunately it produces too little thrust for me to be able to use it for docking a ship that weighs several thousand tons without consuming much power and not taking forever to dock. Mach effect drives are probably best suited to attitude control on ships using beamed power due to the low thrust-to-mass ratio and high power input requirements IMO. I do like that you only need 2 Mach effect drives to provide full translation control for a spacecraft, but the thrust is just too low and the power requirements are just too high to make it practical, and I'm already carrying propellant for other reasons (usually hydrazine because of it's density, acceptable ISP, and 2nd to best thrust (Liquid Methane is better, but is less dense). That's why I want the Arcjet RCS to work right, you can scale it to fit your needs with as few thrusters as possible. That Omni RCS part would actually be ideal for what I have in mind. I still have the bug with always getting the unpowered ISP of the RCS thrusters and them not ever drawing any power, any news on that? EDIT: Actually I have news on the RCS problem I was having. Apparently the proper RCS ISP only shows up when you're actually applying thrust with the RCS, for some reason. Displayed ISP seems to match actual performance too. However the ISP display behaviour is quite odd, perhaps there's a way to fix that?