Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by danfarnsy

  1. This cleared up a lot. Thank you. I'm looking forward to testing when it's available. I'm thinking of a few use cases I expect to backfire. Here's one: ISRU on Loop A operates at 450 K. Reactor and radiators are stable on Loop B at 800 K, and have an extra 200 kW radiative capacity. I add the exchanger between A and B, sending 200 kW of heat to B. The exchanger has an outlet temperature of 450 K on Loop B, so now loop B has a nominal loop temperature of 625 K (average between reactor and exchanger), making the radiators on B less efficient and failing to actually reject the extra heat. The reactor then overheats and shuts down. This sounds like fun.
  2. I like the idea. A few things I'm thinking about: Currently, the nominal temperature of a loop is determined by heat source parts, like drills, ISRUs, reactors. Radiators just try to get rid of heat in excess, e.g. you can't use radiators to make an 800 K reactor 650 K (though you could use the current compressor part for that). Since radiators don't determine the preferred nominal temperature of a loop, what happens with a loop that only has radiators on it, with an exchanger pumping to it? Does the exchanger count as a source on Loop B with its own preferred nominal temp? Does the exchanger draw more electrical power to pump as Loop B gets that much hotter than Loop A? And if so, does that cause a reactor on Loop A to increase throttle, providing more heat that needs to be rejected, creating feedback in Loop B?
  3. Looking again, they do indeed bump loop ID for all parts in the loop. I may have reported this wrong before, as it is working correctly. Loop IDs bumped enough times get to Loop ID **Not Found**, after which it won't increment to 0 again. Other bugs with loading, etc. seem fixed. Nice. I don't intend to be argumentative about the sources and radiators balance, since you explained your concern about simulation, but I just wanted to still give the feedback that it feels weird to have a system that is perfectly balanced at 805 K, deactivate a radiator for a moment while the system climbs to 1005 K, then turn that radiator back on, and have the system be in perfect equilibrium at 1005 K as well, even though the radiators are hotter. Should radiators balanced with sources ought to be able to bring temperature back to equilibrium at Loop nominal temp? I won't beat that horse any more. Just wanted my feedback to be clearly explained.
  4. Porcine aviator dudes are the best! Man, there's so many good people who've had such a good influence on this game.
  5. Turning on individual loops, or lighting up individual parts with a highlight? Visualizing the idea that they're call connected in a loop is cool, but the lines with their right angles take up a lot of real estate. So, what if a compressor is a way for two loops to send heat to each other? Use cases there are great. You'd have to figure out whether the compressor's own temperature and heat output belong to the sending or receiving loop, and probably have its efficiency and effectiveness decrease if it gets too hot. That makes sense. In my test, I had Loop 0 and Loop 1. During flight, I changed one part in Loop 0 to Loop 1, and then all System Heat parts on the ship displayed Loop 2. If I tried to change a Loop ID on a part again, it incremented all of them to 3, 4, etc. It was definitely buggy. Maybe it should go the other way around. Right now, your radiators have linear response to nominal loop temperature. E.g. the GR-150 on a nominal loop at 1000 K radiates 100 kW, and 80 kW for an 800 K loop. As long as your heat sources have predictable maximums, and the actual temp of the loop is below the radiator max, then it should be easy to know at what temperature radiator output matches heat sources. E.g. Eight GR-150s on an 800 kW reactor will only radiate 640 kW at 800 K, so the temperature will continue to rise until the radiator max temp of 1000 K, at which point radiation = sources. Seven radiators will peak at 700 kW, which isn't enough, so the temperature will continue rising until core failure. Nine of those radiators will peak at 888 K and then hold steady, etc. And... I just saw your update! I will try it later today.
  6. I've been doing some testing. Here are some things I've noticed. Craft with fission reactor load on the pad with varying degrees of core health. E.g. I have a mining/refining platform test on the runway, with a Garnet reactor, which loads with varying amounts of core health each time I revert to hangar and then launch again. The amount on load is anywhere between 100% health and core destroyed. The UI overlay gets really cluttered, such that it quickly goes from being informative to being overwhelming and unhelpful, depending on how you're clustering radiators, compressors, etc. I don't exactly know what the compressors, coolants, and heat sinks do. I know what those things do in real life, just not how you're implementing them here. If a compressor is set to heat the temperature of a loop, everything in the loop heats up together, so I can't make my radiators more effective by pumping them up to a higher temperature than my core. If a core is at 800 K, then I need more/bigger radiators because they can only reject so much at a lower temp. If I don't have enough radiators for the max heat output of a reactor, but my system isn't drawing much, the temperature remains fine. I can adjust it downward or upward with a compressor. But if I try to adjust the temperature too far downward, the compressor draws more power and the loop overheats. This is awesome. I don't know how much of the heat of the system is changing because the reactor is generating more heat to supply the additional power, or how much is because the compressor part is adding its own heat to the loop. Is loop volume just the total thermal mass of the loop, i.e. everything has a same specific heat capacity and you're just changing how fast or slow it changes? What's the difference between a heat sink and a radiator? Sink seems almost limitless. Heat sink storage temperature rate of change doesn't change with time warp. Heat sink storage temperature doesn't appear to have anything to do with loop temperature, just rate of heat input from generators? Heat sink percentage stored seems to plateau around 85-86%, even though its temperature keeps climbing. With two heat sinks, only one is filling and the other remains empty. Does it fill one first and then the other, and I just haven't reached max capacity on the first? Now one is at 87% filled, 3800 K, while second heat sink is empty. In flight, if I change the Loop ID of any particular part, all of the parts change what Loop ID they display, and none of them seem to match reality anymore. Are those supposed to be fixed in the VAB and no longer changeable in flight? Edit to add: Radiator efficiency changes with temperature in the simulator in VAB, does not seem to change with loop temperature in flight scene. Loop with Garnet powering a Charon MHD and eight GR-150 radiators will overheat well past 1000 K, even though GR-150 says it radiates 100 kW at 1000 K. Exactly 10 GR-150s will keep up with 800 kW heat output, regardless of loop temperature between 800 K to 1050 K. Radiator efficiency is listed as "-80%" on part info panel at all temperatures. Notes: System Heat Development version as of 12 Aug, NFE 1.1.2, KSP 1.9.1.
  7. Nertea's mods make my KSP world go round. These are in an ongoing game in 1.7.3 I started last year. Fuel anchorage at 2,000 km orbit, with docked fuel tanker, Kerbin-system personnel transport, and MHD test ship: Gas-core nuclear explorer waiting at Duna for return window: Thanks for everything!
  8. Will the auto-adjust look at other power sources like solar, and then adjust to make up the difference? If you have multiple reactors on a ship, can you prioritize using one before the others are throttled up? I'd like to set priority if one is more efficient or if they're using different fuels like fusion or fission.
  9. Looks good. I'd still like the slider to control reactor throttle in the panel. I know it's controllable from right clicking, but sometimes it's hard to get to because it's surrounded by other parts (cargo or structural), so I use the NFE control panel a lot. Edit: Never mind. I see you're changing stuff up with System Heat, so I probably won't need to do so much micromanaging.
  10. This looks excellent. I'm looking forward to being able to sing off key and let your mod correct it to the right pitch.
  11. Welcome to the forums! Material kits are a resource you can ship in cargo containers (which also come with this mod). They're needed to fill out the interior of collapsed inflatables. They also need the mod Community Resource Pack.
  12. That's from Stockalike Station Parts Expansion Redux, not stock (try saying that ten times fast). The patch to make those parts work with USI LS is included in the station parts mod, but it doesn't patch any parts that have no crew capacity. I could see an argument for why crew tubes should add a small amount of hab multiplier, but I'm not aware of any parts that increase hab time without having crew capacity. Also, if nobody's welcomed you to the forums yet, welcome to the forums!
  13. Restart later. Go explore Duna and the rest! The update will be there when you're ready.
  14. Nice! Update is downloaded, so now I just get to keep playing 1.7.3 until my mods catch up in the next few months or so!
  15. V in VAB is Vehicle Assembly Buidling. It did mean "vertical" at some point, but there are certainly vehicles in space. So Space VAB I also had a joke where we could adapt it to SVBIED, but that got way too dark way too fast.
  16. Genuinely, seriously, I haven't gotten so giddy over a game announcement since I was 12. In the 1990s. HYPE!
  17. Yes, but sarbian is appropriately incorporating Murphy's Law into his estimate. Aside from the $60 price point, I wouldn't mind a spring release with features poorly fleshed out. Even AAA studios get designs dramatically wrong. Best way to correct the problems is to get people playing (and complaining, but, you know, feedback)!
  18. By "weird," you mean really really fun. KSP has missed out by not being able to do Lagrange points, halo orbits, etc. I've got my fingers crossed that Rask and Rusk mean this cow's getting some real udders.
  19. Good to put "solved" in quotes, as there's not enough information right now to suggest that they've solved it, past tense. I'm curious too! Working together to build stuff sounds exciting. Flying separate ships, aligning for docking, delivering supplies and new station modules, returning crew to fulfill contracts, races... it could be really fun. Also, leaving aside the griefers, accidental mayhem would be awesome as long as you're playing with good people (there are lots of good people).
  20. @Daishi really loving these parts. There's definitely a 60's retro feel that's captured by them. Add some rust, and they'd fit right in with Fallout!
  21. I was crossing my fingers I could make this work in KSP 1.6.1. So far, mixed success: there's a conflict between SVT ( and Sigma Dimensions (0.10.1) that turns the terrain black/unrendered--except for the launch complex, very close terrain (say 50 m around an EVA kerbal, the ground will render), and very distant terrain. Both Sigma Dimensions and SVT seem to work okay separately. The issue first occurred in a messy mod install but went away when I removed SVT. Then I removed everything but SVT and its prerequisites (Kopernicus, MFI, MM) and SVT worked fine. It was only re-adding Sigma Dimensions to this bare-bones install that reproduced the issue. Since neither of these claim to support 1.6.1, I'm not requesting support, just sharing information.
  • Create New...