Captain Sierra

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Captain Sierra

  1. @MrFancyPL I think that was the plan he had, but assuming @Nertea does not have some personal vendetta against the parts themselves (barring the plasma core's half-baked texture, the models don't need to be touched) then I do believe they could remain with most of their functionality intact by using the CryoTanks plugin as-is. That way the antimatter code logic can still get nuked from orbit for scope-reduction, and the parts remain in the mod. All their other code features (variable length, chargeable engine) are covered by other engines not being removed anyway so I would suggest doing it like this: Nuke antimatter factory and pad-loading mechanics (never liked them anyway) Set antimatter cost-per-unit to half a million funds or something similarly ridiculous (encourages ISRU, discourages bulk purchase) Set antimatter to have a very high boiloff rate and a significant EC cost to prevent it (optional) allow boiloff events to generate heat (replicating old explosive behavior) ... profit! @ssd21345 You are using a fusion torch. The amount of heat being generated is insane. You need a lot of radiator area for that engine, and I mean a LOT. I would suggest using 3-4 of the largest graphene deployable radiator panels. @Nertea I know the z-pinch drives are getting temporarily deprecated pending conceptual rework of inertial confinement, but I would definitely say you should not permanently remove them from scope. They are very awesome and they work perfectly fine as-is if you felt like leaving them in until their rework time comes.
  2. Wait, what the .... Nertea is working on FFT stuff again?! I thought you had pretty much consigned that mod to the graveyard with the KSP2 trailers to severely demotivating you regarding it's stuff. I had started looking into recompiling it myself. (I haven't actually tested it on 1.9 yet but it needing a recompile seemed an extremely likely prospect given it was last updated for 1.5.) I'm kinda shocked that might be coming back, very happy, but still kinda shocked.
  3. So I've completed all of my test crafts and tweaking everything for the latest version. That turned into tedium towards the end.... Now I can push all the data into a spreadsheet and properly analyze it. I intend to drop the sheet here along probably with a bundle of my test crafts (I'll list the necessary mods) so that others can analyze the same data. I also need to finish the control crafts which use NF propulsion and Kerbal Atomics engines to offer existing comparisons. @Nertea So far a lot of the balance changes you made are generally for the better. Antimatter consumption on a lot of the engines I regard as "antimatter-efficient" did go up considerably so they're slightly less AM-efficient now, but 50u of antimatter still only takes 33 days to generate at max level factory so my complaints in that regard are rather heavily undermined.
  4. As for those you haven't looked at ... The Dirac seems fine in high density mode. When you swap it to medium density though, it consumes so much antimatter that it seems basically worthless. At that point in time the Cochrane becomes a much better option. If you ignore the med density mode entirely it seems like a fine engine. Speaking of the Cochrane, it's actually pretty weak I've found in its 5 and 10 meter configuration. Often other engines will do the job better. However once it gets to 15 meter and larger it begins to come into its own and really become the inferno-spewing torch drive it's meant to be. As a disclaimer, my tests have been specifically building for 20,000 dV with 23.25 tons of payload mass. The small variants may not be suited to this specific task well. Heinlein definitely needs nerfing into the ground. Realism aside, the thing offers so much power for so little effort that - although other engines can technically offer more power - it's easily the best choice for almost every reasonable use case. Moving over to the engines you have addressed: The Microstar did not seem like it needed that efficiency buff. The thrust increase is definitely welcome but its efficiency felt fine. When you say full 3.75m tank do you mean the flat-pack or the spherical? I've automatically assumed all of these engines should be using an auxiliary reactor, even the Z-pinches. They also run a bit warm for having a lack of physical combustion chamber but I guess mini nuclear fireballs do that. Part of the Polaris' difficulty is how many pellet canisters you need. It may be worth an Isp buff too but worth further analysis with the updated build. Magnetic ICF still has crap TWR ... like really crap. Given the size of the engine and the mass of the ships that will usually be using it ... a thrust buff here may be worth it since its thrust is just so pitiful compared to ablative. That's actually a huge nerf to the Casaba antimatter consumption. Part of what made that engine attractive was how little antimatter it needed making it a really good entry level. Sure it means you're dragging a quarter-full tank around, but it was really nice. I'd consider adjusting that in the future, perhaps to 10u AM per large tank (which means one storage ring easily gets you 2 full usages of the engine) As for holding off on a comprehensive assessment ... I'll definitely do a rework pass on all my test crafts before I compile a spreadsheet & offer a statistical breakdown. Are you going to continue tweaking before you ship or do you intend to ship those balance tweaks soon?
  5. So to respond to @RedParadize about antimatter tanks ... I think we're okay because of the dual nature of antimatter consuming engines. They either eat tiny amounts of it needing no more than a couple of torus rings ... or they consume unfathomable quantities of the stuff needing bigger thanks than we already have (100k AM storage tank? Big, spherical? One more piece to the ISV Venture Star replicas? Plz?) Now to @Nertea about the ablative engines. I've been working on some VAB numbers testing for balance. Note that none of this is flight testing so I may be over or undershooting on the thermal control needs. However KER does provide some excellent info. I'll compile everything into a spreadsheet once I'm done with it (the multi-length engines I'm not even sure how I'll handle). Back on what I wanted to mention you for, the pellet counts for the ablative engines: The AMCF is actually pretty close and consumes about 3800 pellets or a bit more than one large tank. It also consumes only 6 or 7 units of antimatter. At those points the ablator is gone. The ablative ICF engine is a whole different beast. It actually consumes somewhere between 750 to 800 pellets, less than half of a small tank. That doesn't seem like much but for a ~23 ton mission payload its still getting 33 thousand delta V. Its thrust is also absolutely ridiculous in comparison to the nonablative ICF engine. It also needs less radiator mass and less energy charge and has the dV for most missions. The nonablative ICF engine struggles to compete against that for anything but the highest dV missions (my general balance assessment is that it's too weak compared it its direct competition).
  6. So unfortunately bad news. The far future plugin appears to crash on load in 1.3 (shoulda seen that coming really). I am refraining from shoving logs at you for now because it possibly just needs a recompile (if that doesn't fix it, let me know to shove logs at you). I figure this is a minor thing on the list for whenever the next dev release comes ... which I presume is relative to whenever the magnetoinertial fusion rockets are done.
  7. Bit of a double post but that'll have to be fine. I noticed a small bug yesterday when building. The H250-16 hydrogen tank (hydrogen-25-3.cfg) displays the exact same model as the H250-64 (hydrogen-25-1.cfg) tank, despite only having a quarter the capacity. I suspect a slight exporting error. No biggie, since I rarely have need for a hydro tank that small. Can anyone else confirm, just as verification it isn't me?
  8. So I'm not quite sure what Nert was going for balance-wise with the aerospikes ... but absolutely ridiculously awesome seems to be the order of the day. About 40% payload fraction is pretty insane. Insanely cool. Really only about 37-38% payload fraction though if you take advantage of the core stage RTLS (50% total launch cost recovery by saving the engine).
  9. I'm dealing with a wierd issue. Telescope is not detecting any bodies even when everything is set up correctly. Checking logs, I get a spam of this when I enter the tracking station to go to my telescope. [LOG 12:56:12.580] 11/25/2016 12:56:12 PM,ResearchBodies-PCBMWrapper,Arrggg: Exception has been thrown by the target of an invocation. Full log here. First 80% of the log is just loading in. Possible conflicting mods would be OPM/Kopernicus mainly. Further testing on my end pending to rule mod interaction out. Running version 1.2.1 but that hotfix I wouldnt expect to fully break the mod (possible though).
  10. TweakableEverything adds these sliders already. Having used that in the past, I will attest there is a time and place for stronger magnetic force. However for general applications, at least for the smaller ports, its definitely undesirable for intermediate players.
  11. Please put this glorious thing on KerbalX @LeuZ. Very very sleek & I want.
  12. Changing the subject, I found this gem. That is JCSAT-14 as time-lapsed from the shore of South Carolina. Large streak is the upper stage burning for orbit, and the red scratch between the tree limbs is the first stage going in for barge landing. Photo shot, edited, and assembled by Zach Grether (not me), all rights reserved.
  13. Confirm your modulemanager is up to date? Thats what will control those patches.
  14. Post your output_log.txt. Its found under KSP_x64_Data. I suspect you're a victim of the random crashes that are currently plaguing the game and are receiving criminally little attention. (an unpredictable CTD should be at the top priority of everyone at SQUAD, and here)
  15. SQUAD plz. Y u not do this already?
  16. This lifter was posted on reddit by /u/MarcusIuniusBrutus. Its only shortcoming, he notes, is that is light on parachutes, only able to safely land at terrain <1000m ASL altitude. He also notes that it packs just shy of 7900 dV after ladders, science, and legs have been jettisoned. It reached orbit from 500m altitude with 300-500m/s of dV margin. Also, here is his full album.
  17. Okay so I might have something. This is actually done in 1.1.0 and not 1.1.2 so further testing is required to be sure this is actually a valid issue (I run ksp store install so that's not exactly a quick and easily automated process). Allegedly the crashes though persist through the hotfixes. Kopernicus might actually improve the reliability of the crashing. This is the last bit of the output log from a crash that happened when I hit "return to space center" from an active vessel after less than an hour of gameplay. I'm running OPM and I noticed some kopernicus debug lines in there with the stack trace. Not sure if thats related or if the log write order just got a bit messed up at the end there or not. Either way, I'm passing this off to someone a bit more versed in this debugging than I. If the kopernicus plugin is in fact increasing the frequency of these crashes, then we might be able to improve the odds of getting this properly diagnosed. The "return to space center" crash has definitely happened for me more than once but correlation does not always equal causation. Its still a random crash, not doing it every time, but a shred of predictability can shed a lot of light on this.
  18. Ranger 2: a capable crew transport shuttle Single RAPIER for this much mass means a slow but efficient climb to orbit. Two turbos provide most of the speed, while the RAPIER is there for a final bit of umph at the end of the zoom climb. She's very much a slow'n'steady bird rather than a high-TWR brute-force-to-orbit.
  19. As a kickoff to 1.1 being the first KSP version since 0.25 thats had playable framerates for me I did this: There's a big ship in orbit that's gonna return to later. For now I'll let them do Science!TM Up until this version of KSP it ran at ~20fps in flight regardless of craft. To someone who has a ~$1200 custom built rig, that's a pretty powerful morale crusher. As of 1.1, all kerbals suffering from low morale will be thrown out the airlock during high energy aerobraking: Quick little fun mission to get back into the swing of things. Also let me test the heat shield and a new, very crazy mission flight profile.
  20. I think I'm reading too much into this, but would SB work just fine if one manually removes the provided template.cfg? Or would it just fail to do anything .... Also a question for @CaptRobau OPM can be installed perfectly fine onto a savegame with time already elapsed. In doing so, are the planet positions altered by said time elapsed? e.g. will the day 89 transfer window to Sarnus still occur on day 89 even if I've time warped the save to day 50? EDIT: Doing some work recreating a new config for the plock-karen binary I answered my own question. Also cheers for making the plugin do all the calculations in 1.4.9+.
  21. The ribbons get saved as an image and uploaded somewhere on the internet where you can access them. Then you embed that into your sig the same way you embed an image into a post (there is a dropdown menu in the lower right called "Insert other media" and an option in it that says "Insert image from URL". Paste in your image link, note that it must end in .jpg, .png, or some other file extension, and bingo). If you need to generate yourself a set of ribbons, you can do that at
  22. So release draws near then ... If the KSP store doesn't crash on release day I might just be willing to forgive betraying the faith and confidence of 50% of your players.