okder

i am only one who thinks that previous two posts only exist because of misunderstanding of one typo here "Not anymore, it not makes use of stock toolbar, which gives less problems " which after fixing looks like: i.e. if i understand correctly @shynung prefers stock toolbar? P.S. "now" means releases for 1.2 (pre) ksp i think...

please make it clear when foreground thread calculation of future trajectory is enabled, I was very surprised to find that such calculation proceed even if gravity-turn windows was never opened in the flight. reason: there may be bugs or something may trigger them so they would spam error messages to log, and lower performance, i.e. it should be disable able, if not needed.

why D-T i meant D+He3, but it looks like there is side effect D+D which produces neutrons may be 2GW i.e. it could get some of boost with new tech (or omega/ MCF ) become better than it in the end. mostly it suffers from poor direct conversion generator which is good upgrade only with antimatter collector.

sorry bad example, in this case launch stab. ench. provide electric charge, but if you use just core + direct nuclear turbojet you would see that bug. may be LqdDeteurium + LqdHe3 and start raw 1.8GW (finish still 3GW) would be enough, but additional or better build in generator (65% efficiency from start), or allow to connect thermal generator also may be build in generators always has boost like 0.2*(1-cur_gen_standalone_efficiency), that would be 10% boost from start, and only 3% boost in the end. take into account that direct conversion generator is in other branch (HighTechElectricalSystems, 1500 science) i have researched it but it seems that reactor does not require it for function, may be lower direct conversion generator to Experimental Electrics, and in HighTechElectricalSystems provide boost to 65% ? point is HighTechScience is almost antimatter stuff (collector is there), and gives a lot of buff at once (50->86? if i correctly reading that), may be do it more gradually?

however may be include there thermal generator too, or just hint for player to add thermal generator, still because of large fusion maintance compared to omega, omega would wins, so some tuning still needed - probably better efficiency for build in direct conversion generator (my initial proposition was tri-alpha build in generator start with 70% efficiency, and 200 mw raw power, end level is the same as now, but with thermal generator it may become too good)

again all works well on full thrust with 1 reactor (and generator for it), if you add to my test case tri-alpha rector (just add) and put vessel with 3 reactors on full thrust all of 3 reactors will shutdowns eventually (2 mins of realtime), (i mean low tech tri-alpha), that's clearly reserve bug. actually if i could force use small reactor for megajoules only and large one for thrusters only in vessel with 2 reactors, i would get much better thrust (raw kn in average) than in vessel with 3 reactors i.e. current power distribution completely wrong for such configurations, because it forces large reactor usage same as throttle, but engines takes power from both reactors, so that's limiting that throttle to 82% stable operation, which in turn limits usage of large reactor to 82.

initially it do produce 12mw (smallest version, if you exclude itself fusion maintenance support), at full tech tree 247 mw same reactor more than 20 times output difference i think partially situation can be saved if build in generator of tri-alpha start with 70% efficiency and slightly more raw power (200 mw) final raw power should be probably same (375MW)

@FreeThinker,to remove misunderstanding about power priorities: the img happens after (activating engine, and waiting some time) using more than 82% throttle (main reactor usage shows same number) for craft https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0rgcOJPK_8XZVZtTmpxZzhFcWs there is no way how to reserve small reactor ONLY for thermal generator, because it's needed to support fusion maintenance for both reactors. other images/craft files for other bugs. so while that ("noreserve") bug active it's better to use only one reactor (large) - it's giving more thrust. again full list of reported bugs: 1. no powerfail for ksp old power (Electric Charge) when all reactors go offline (ever, the img) 2. no (thermal) power reserve for megajoules generation (for fusion maintenance support, no custom reserve, no auto reserve, or auto reserve is buggy (auto reserve works well for 1 reactor though), the img) 3. no dynamic radius modifier for small turbojet engines (static working incorrectly in some situation, that was you quoted in your previous post) 4. not correct small turbojet overheat behavior (whatever you choose to be correct one, currently inconsistent you quoted both images in your prev. post) 5. no small fusion reactor displayed on Megajoules power manager display. ( the img) balance problems 1. ramjet/scramjet (i.e. no scramjet actually, better make them combined, so already proposed changes ok, and simple) 2. tri-alpha reactor gives too low output on start when only it researched, and too large output (20 times more in real megajoules output) when all research treee done.

take no offense but your suggestion was covered yesterday, and results was reported. actually there is probably no check for matching size of thermoelectric generator (as it's mass does not depends on it's size, and max power output), anyway it did start perfectly in config on the picture, but working stable only up to 82% throttle. P.S. it take less time to compile test craft from picture consisting only with 8 parts (2 of them in radial symmetric config, but that probably not needed) than writing even short answers to my post, actually even i did not needed that test craft, as my plane basically have same components, so it was compiled specifically for you to emphasize the bugs. just to save your time - craft file : https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0rgcOJPK_8XZVZtTmpxZzhFcWs more clarification : tech nodes with 4000 and more science value had not researched, experimental nuclear propulsion (empty one) too. about another previously reported bugs: also it's simple change to demonstrate small nozzle (0.375) overpowered and not overheat (bugs ,depends what you consider correct behaviour) craft file: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0rgcOJPK_8XMWEwV2lZaEF2SEU image : https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0rgcOJPK_8XSGMzXy1rZXB0VTg compare it with previous one https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0rgcOJPK_8XbXB0QUt0MDFhcjA reactors is THE same on both vessels. this bug appears because radius influence is static and calculated for all engines (?same type?) in editor, while actual power distribution calculates in flight only for active engines, i.e. radius modifier almost 1 because of offline big (side) nozzles(currentScale = 1.57500005), and so small nozzle(currentScale = 0.375) takes all power of 2.5 reactor P.S.2. please boost ramjet to have it's max power on 1800m/s (ksp with only kspie, all aerospace tech researched), and 3000 m/s with rss/RO, because now it's having it max power on 750m/s and it is very bad compared to other engines, even to rapier, so now it is cheaper just to use turbojet instead(just to save mass/money, science for high aerospace techs)

are there any fixes of those 3 bugs or ramjet inefficiency (beyond 800m/s) ? looks like Improved stability power generating of all Inertial Fusion Reactors that become even worse (now ALL (both) reactors shutdowns completely because of thermal engines) short and simple test shows now THREE NEW (actually only two is new, one was reported by me ~week ago) PROBLEMS ! https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0rgcOJPK_8XOHZHazE1OG5vXzQ 1. KSPI power still drained to zero by thermal engine (or it can't be throttled even to 90%) 2. after it gone small (power production) reactor did not shows in KSPIe energy screen 3. no energy production, but still enough energy for active radiator, and computer core (no drain at all!)

real containment failure of large reactor, after small time reactor restart itself, and and after small time again stops, average thrust around 60%, compared to 80% that could be maintained without containment failures. p.S. small nozzle overheats only in 2 reactors configuration and that's independent of throttling, in case of one large reactor small nozzle gives 85% thrust of large one (one nozzle active at time,full throttle) without overheating (first bug mentioned, i did expected around 5% thrust of large one).

i mean remaining percentage of main reactor can't be used (thrust can't be set to 100%) because in this case will containment failure (i did test it).

first bug (first screenshot https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0rgcOJPK_8XNXFnZ3liM3ZqRjA ) is about too overpowered very small nozzle only one nozzle active and gives only 15% less thrust than big nozzle near reactor (reactor 2.5m) second bug ( https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0rgcOJPK_8XSmQwYkZNdkFSUU0 ) - incorrect thermal power distribution (when 2 reactors, small one for providing sustain fields energy for itself and larger one, latter supposed to be used ONLY for thrusters, but thrusters uses both, and so main reactor can't be used up to 100% (18% energy is lost) (or it's sustains field will disappear) third bug if i enable that small engine with configuration when 2 reactors available, then it connects to support reactor, loses most power (that's ok) and OVERHEATS! https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0rgcOJPK_8XbXB0QUt0MDFhcjA (overheat part blownup currently disabled for testing purposes) p.s. another balance problem initial 1.25 tri-alpha gives only 20mj energy (states like 166 raw), which is much lesser than you can get from 1.25 omega with thermal converter, i think new tech boost should be much lower (now 5 times for tri-alpha, i.e. initial RAW is 5 times less than with complete tech tree, it probably like 20 times difference in clean electrical output ), and initial power output large more about second bug (power distribution problems): i.e. 18% of big reactor output lost in configuration 2.5 + 1.25 omega, 100% lost in config 2.5 omega + 1.25 tri-alpha (just not enough electrical output) 30% lost in config 2.5 omega + 1.25 pebble bed (depends on radiators though) and only 4.7% lost (on power sustenance, 100% thrust is working i.e. no bug in this case) for only one 2.5 omega reactor, well we have unexpected winner, 1 reactor is better than 2 :).

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0rgcOJPK_8XNXFnZ3liM3ZqRjA also if multiple reactors available and multiple thermal engines used then fusion sustain energy not always guaranteed (thermal engines use that energy) because of such bug i can't use support reactor, as engines on 100% steals it's thermal power, and then stand still position (equal power generated and spend) main reactor only on 80% usage : https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0rgcOJPK_8XSmQwYkZNdkFSUU0

0.375m VERY indirectly connected thermal turbojet alone having same (max) thrust as 2.5m directly connected thermal ramjet (powered by same reactor at their optimal speed, 350 m/s for turbojet, 750 m/s for ramjet) 600 kN

another bug in log messages [ERR 22:44:50.680] Module FNResourceScanner threw during OnUpdate: System.MissingMethodException: Method not found: 'MapView.get_MapIsEnabled'. at OpenResourceSystem.ORSResourceScanner.OnUpdate () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at Part.ModulesOnUpdate () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0

thermal turbojet in upper atmosphere having same bug as (fixed) ATTILA (when propellant switching) and forming null thrust, actually that bug mostly fatally influence only on renderer, physics continue pretty well.

each of very indirectly attached TWO very small thermal turbojets gives 400 kn (sea level) thrust on 330 m/s, 1 ramjet directly attached (same radius as reactor) gives 430 kn of thrust at 1150 m/s 18 km height (kerbin), and much lesser with greater speed/height => ramjet (with tech 2 omega rector, normally sized (2,5m)) currently is worse than rapier. if it would give 430 kn thrust up to 3000 m/s (with greater height obviously) on RSS it would be almost ok, but on 1150 m/s, it just too low speed for using with fusion reactor.

then may it would be better to lower tech requirements for Antimatter Initiated Microfusion (i mean low weight modification for just raw power and scramjet drive, not for very high isp) and make it's initial TWR 30% better than pebble bed, i.e. antimatter would cost a lot of course ( https://www.quora.com/How-much-would-it-cost-to-produce-14-grams-of-antimatter-artificially-How-long ), but TWR sometime needed more (when reaching orbital speed), because now it's paradox - use mid 1960x (prototype) reactor for mid 21 century spaceplanes (i.e. almost antimatter by time/tech). and of course scramjet should be available on RSS (i.e. at least up to 3000 m/s good thrust)

hoped that omega still has better raw TWR than fission, but now that's changed (unless you have all techtree, then again omega would be better), so you think that http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/compact-fusion.html probably impossible for near feature (at least before antimatter initiated fusion) (as lockheedmartin targets it for planes usage first), but in kspie looks like pebble bed is only not very high tech reactor for planes.

interstellar liquid fuel tank when set in symmetry mode (mirror) is bugy (second one has more fuel (i.e. something adds another resource line)

OMEGA can not be searched by it's name(though showed by word magnetized), and appears only in normal electrical tab (not in kspie reactors tab). balance problems: and looks like now it's useless unless you have almost complete techtree, (i.e. high twr fission reactors better than omega for twr) as previously someone pointed out thermal ramjet nozzle is useless too (for my craft 2 small very indirectly connected turbojets allows speed 500 m/s, ramjet can't accelerate from that speed, but after accelerating to 650 it could keep 750 m/s, i think if i place only one turbojet it will work better than ramjet in such conditions (750m/s), tested turbojets gives 700m/s ) initial tri-alpha 1.825 gives 600 mj, pebble bed 1593mj (with same tech level), again it (tri-alpha) useless for raw propulsion

well i am talking about crash, not about weird numbers, i just saying that in time when propellant switching engine is offline using throttling, may be it's important for you to reproduce bug, so i mentioned it, it's not a question. another bug: pebble bed reactor can't be resarched (purchased as entry in tech tree), as soon as you go in VAB it's undo, (but money is wasted), so there is no way how to use that reactor, because old version can't be placed.

having black screen(actually gui is visible, but craft and planets - not) crash with Attila engines (symmetric pair for plane "wings") in latest version actually several seconds after activation those engines or immediately after fuel type switches to mono-propellant (with nans in stat) bug still in 1.10.4, just change propellant type (to mono-propellant from liquid fuel in my case in upper atmosphere of kerbin for Attila and your craft and planet will vanish, till crash 2 min later, again ATTILA mirror - symetrical normally(not radially) mounted, no throttle (0,"x") while changing, change is manually on one of two engines , if that's important ) P.S. should Direct nuclear turbojet (engine and reactor) provide power without generator?

another small update - toggle Tune2 near Dst.Inb.Spd: allows tuning not only for minimum boost speed (transfer dv), but also for minimum entering orbit burn (stopping) at destination. value speed itself is magnitude of out of soi speed when entering soi of destination (or just relative speed for object without soi (asteroid, or vessel)). i.e. Tune2 is inverse of " No insertion burn (e.g. aerocapture or fly-by) " option in alexmoon's launch window planner (download links updated)