Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by okder

  1. well most bugs i did find is fixed now, still for now i will not update version from main link, only updated dev one, and it do write too detail debug logs. p.s. managed to execute 1 hour(actually 4 hour if include warped ion burning far from periapsis) prograde ejection burn with 140 km kerbin periapsis with help of new version, but for such long burn need a lot of practice even with additional functionality (near periapsis high thrust engines used for 20% of burn deltav).
  2. a lot of new features introduced in version with link from previous post... waiting for bugs...
  3. laythe -> vall fixes and refactor begin https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WzovyRVp_aYhe9p_UOdWcoMtDL_h2RH2/view?usp=sharing many changes soon, sources would go in initial link, but dll s in separate link for now.
  4. updated for, tested with ksp 1.8.1, probably could work with 1.9, but untested. there were too many changes in mechjeb, some code from old mechjeb included for compatibility.
  5. nope it needs to be early as it only practical long term reactor which do use antimatter (actually it is possible that first spaceship reactors would be that type) so it needs to be early but upgrade tech make it more powerfull. and i think it's better to add new pebble bed tech in the end nodes which do upgrade its from 3.5 to 4.5 gw, other tech do upgrades only to 3.5 gw. and another bug found - pebble bed while shutdowing(5% remaining) does full thrust on engines (should have very limited thrust and poor isp). p.s. for main bug with scaling solution is not sc
  6. additional to balance candle traveling wave reactor engine should probably be later in tech tree, i do use it too often for probes instead of other small (non nuclear) engines, and Bill Gates still had not build ground many tonnage version.
  7. that's only means that fuel efficiency and isp(core temperature) would be compromised in favor of power in case of reactor used for planes/ssto in real world, other (fusion) reactors still would have good core temperature and fuel efficiency, but specific one needed for (!heat! propulsion) power would be still better than any fission reactor in the end.
  8. while you have TWR >0.1 you can use obereth effect and for local vessel (which is not meant to travel far) TWR important, if you have TWR > 0.2 it will help to get to orbit (last 20%-30% orbital speed), for long interplanetary/interstellar flight - yes ISP is very important, just different usages. problem that no one in real universe would use big antimatter tanks inside atmosphere near surface or outposts/cities - only far in space, so practically antimatter would not be used for ssto, unless someone could guarantee that it will safely dissipate on crash - fusion here is best.
  9. probably core temperature should stays the same, only power increase is suffice. description still says about "ideal for ssto".
  10. it probably can be balanced with more energy required to sustain reaction (for Magnetized Target Fusion Reactor) to get more power output, i.e. it would be much less power efficient, and even may be less isp efficient in that mode but get more power output. (i.e. thermometric generator used other way around - as heat pump - to cool overheated overdrived core)? but it probably would need generator/radiator/cooler which uses waste heat for heating engine propellant, otherwise such reaction is unsustainable.
  11. i thought that with better tech minimum power waste heat should be better too, that's why last one is 2% not 3%, but max power should be lower, or all fusion reactors should be better, now only antimatter reactors gives significantly more power per raw mass, fusions requires a lot of upgrades only to get equal(slightly better because of mass but there other problems too) to pebble bed. point here that at middle of game you getting best reactor for ssto, and it actually could be build with modern realworld tech, and it also suitable for many other application (though at s
  12. i should point out that cap limit of magnetized target fusion reactor is 4.1 gw (40 000+ science req), i.e. unless using antimatter pebble bed still would be best reactor for ssto.
  13. if mass can't be changed then temperature AND lower power boost from tech-upgrades i.e. limit it to 3 GW with all upgrades not 4.5 GW. but with same change also lower idle power level i.e. to 7% for first upgrade 4% for second upgrade, and 2% for last upgrade, then it will lower mass required for radiators, and if possible make it less sensible for overhead with all upgrades (this is important for ssto).
  14. slightly more mass, slightly later one of upgrade or less power boost. take into account that direct replacement is Magnetized Target Fusion Reactor which is 2250 and first upgrade at 2250 too, and still after that it will be less efficient especially if take into account that lightweight Thermal Effect Generator for secondary usages on small spacecraft is not available for that Fusion reactor, and do available for pebble bed. probably could also make early and slightly better Magnetized Target Fusion Reactor (at least enable it for Thermal Effect Generator at some percentage) m
  15. bug: electric power/charge/wasteheat time warp scaling is incorrect: it is possible to generate more positive effect (electric charge at day for example) using low warp (or no time warp), and waste negative effect less (electric charge during night) using high warp. without knowledge about it leads to random energy disappearance (when negative effect leads to shutdown). it's major bug now which do influence every part of mod, not only electric charge at day/night, but also reactor overheating problem (reactor still hot after long timewarp when it was shutdown). balance
  16. need KSP.log all errors and messages around errors probably you have too new mechjeb... yea mecheb 2.7 changed some things, partially it's my fault (i did used some fields, which was internal just for optimization sake, now they protected, so it crashes on access). updated and minimally tested for mechjeb 2.7.0 and ksp 1.3.1
  17. @murradus did you tried current version? please provide error log (only exceptions/errors needed)
  18. air compressor currently breaks all known conservation laws: 1. it does not produce heat or require energy, but do compress air, and compressed air has lesser entropy, than uncompressed one, air temperature (?magically?) stays the same, which process does it use? (second law of thermodynamics is broken, if compressor would require energy then it should produce same heat) 2. several of them do produce more compressed air than got in air intake (without intake air used for jet engines), production is going on inside cargo bay. P.S. please fix thermal ramjet it currently alm
  19. new version released (links are the same). (~10 bugs fixed from intermediate version, and new feature (see prev. post(s)) )
  20. @PLAD small problem here is that i did fix more than six bugs which was not reported here, still testing. (will have new feature - select orbit inclination parameters by mouse clicking on some src planet position)
  21. https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0rgcOJPK_8XSnZSM2h0Vzc4d0U preview version, still need much testing and may be fixing.
  22. ok i will try to implement drawing of DA and periapsis circle (depends on it's chosen altitude), and independent of soi and target src/dst selecting (actually Switch by name) i should point out, that in case of atmosphere presence transfer stage could stay on elliptic trajectory, and descend stage could have heatshield for slowing, if we use any transfer of energy or (and) impulse from transfer stage(vehicle) to ascend stage(vehicle), then accelerating ascend stage from circular orbit to elliptic orbit of transfer stage(vehicle) would be much cheaper than changing transfer stage(vehi
  23. @PLAD in simple words you need two features 1. ability to select departure planet (independent of current vessel SOI) or choose it by name? 2. draw ejection trajectory instead of preboosted orbit (actually preboosted orbit with pre-boost = full boost is ejection trajectory, but mechjeb render (which is currently used) draws it very badly). if i miss something important, please point it out. p.s. you still need to tune orb.par. of inclination, because it's not that simply, actually if you going to enter orbit you need that apoapsis of your elliptic orbit (with lowest capture
  • Create New...