okder

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).

a lot of new features introduced in version with link from previous post... waiting for bugs...

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.

CreateCorrectionNode partially fixed with workaround (buggy mechjeb code)

another update for proper direction selection (it was buggy for several versions).

updated for 2.9.2.0, 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.

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 scale primary atributes (power, charge, wasteheat), and scale only two additional for each type, i.e. take into account two last calculation steps, and if timedelta (/timewarp delta/offscreen time delta) is in this step greater than in previous step, then negative effects is not applied, if in this step delta is less or same as in previous step, then full balance calculated and primary attributes is updated (based on two temporary one and primary), for consumption/production requirements used all values (both temporaries and primary).

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.

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.

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.

probably core temperature should stays the same, only power increase is suffice. description still says about "ideal for ssto".

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.

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 some point later you would get replacement reactor for other application), but unless you want to fly supersonic near ground with antimatter on board - you would not get any better, and that's not very good for the game and future optimism.

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.

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).

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) may be upgrades for pebble bed should add slightly less power and make stanby mode better (less minimal power percentage) DustyPlasma can give energy to two sources i.e. to two different generators and so works to 100% efficiency, or it's efficiency always 50%?

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 issue: pebble bed reactor is still best reactor in game, too much overpowered at very low tech tree level, and at middle of game electric conversion/transmit tech is too low to be useful (even when TriAlpha available, and TriAlpha cost very much), so pebble bed is only viable universal(i.e. without build-in engine/generator) reactor. only in very late game fusion/antimatter is useful. i think Antimatter initiated reactor should be 1 level tech early available. pelicat thermal turbojet without slow manual turn (to get horizontal speed with vertical support) not worth the mass, and even with vertical support mass probably should be slightly lower. please remove overheat modding for non kspie (atmosphere)jet engines, it does not fit current state of kspie mod. p.s. still mod is great, thanks for keep going.

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

@murradus did you tried current version? please provide error log (only exceptions/errors needed)

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 almost produce no thrust on mars, compared with engines which works on compressed air. it seems correct way of doing it: (a) convert all kinetic energy which comes with air in intakes (stopping air to mach 1) to heat, and (b) use reactor heat to accelerate same air to speed, which depends on reactor temperature, some heat from (a) can also be used in (b), if thruster is done correctly. in case of scramjet - it will waste even less energy as it does not stop air to mach one, only to speed which corresponds necessary compression. all heat produced in both cases(compressor and ramjet/scramjet) could have two energy sources: speed of aircraft(i.e. drag on intakes), and reactor power(i.e. electric power) p.s.2 all lqd fuel fuselages in kspie have too low temperature for use in spaceplanes, need some types which do have better external thermal protection.

new version released (links are the same). (~10 bugs fixed from intermediate version, and new feature (see prev. post(s)) )

@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)

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0rgcOJPK_8XSnZSM2h0Vzc4d0U preview version, still need much testing and may be fixing.

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(vehicle) orbit. (impulse could be transferred by laser pressure for example, each time when stages is nearby, thus lowering orbit of transfer stage(vehicle), and rising of ascend stage(vehicle), assuming that transfer stage(vehicle) have much higher mass than ascend stage(vehicle))

@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 delta-v) to be close to apoapsis of preboosted (pre) transfer orbit, as inclination could be changed very cheaply at apoapsis, but if you don't entering orbit, in that case you need full match of ejection trajectory(" departure asymptote line ") to your actual inbound trajectory (i.e. you need to tune both inbound trajectory AND orb.par. of inclination, (in case if arrival/departure dates fixed)).