Jump to content

Captain Sierra

Members
  • Posts

    4,177
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Captain Sierra

  1. Can confirm turkey and chicken don't mix well.
  2. There is a mod called CrossFeedEnabler. While part of NFT, LH2 tanks included this feature by default. Currently, I suspect the feature is still there, but will need to be enabled (@Nertea correct me if I'm wrong here). This can be done by installing the CrossFeedEnabler plugin .... and thats it. Because it often proves too difficult the other way, the stock nerv has been rebalanced against it. The LV-N has been rebalanced as an entry-level NTR (and uses LH2) so the Liberator will be vastly superior. The Liberator is good for very large ships with lots of fuel and high dV requirements.
  3. Hahaha very true ... hot radioactive bathwater doesnt sound like it makes for good PR for the KSC.
  4. MM patch for this should already be included. Balance, however, may not be great. We didn't ever test those engines when we were dev testing the mod. As I play with both, I'll look into it. @Nertea Re NSWR: I'd argue out of scope of this mod, but as no serious nuclear rocket mod adds an open-cycle engine, I guess it can be made in scope if you really want. Ultimately I'd recommend that it be a toggleable option, as some will want it, some wont. @Temstar made a fascinating post about the LV-N, radiation, and shielding with respect to the vanilla game. His concepts were based on the assumption that the LV-N (and thus by extension other NTRs) did not have built in radiation shielding (which does not appear to be the intent here) but some of it is still good takeaway for handling NSWR. The following data points are taken from his concept: Kerbals, being able to endure long term space habitation with no ill effects, are inherently more resistant to radiation than humans (as is their equipment) Kerbals (and more sensitive equipment like probe cores) are still subject to temporary adverse effects when exposed to high quantities of radiation When exposed, they contract radiation sickness. They act like tourists effectively, unable to perform any duties, and glow As soon as no longer exposed, they immediately return to normal EDIT: Sierra decided to interpret NSWR incorrectly as Not Safe When Running when it should have been Nuclear Salt Water Rocket.
  5. The orbital tanks and boiloff plugin are in a second directory. Installing both mods will result in one overwriting the other (though its the exact same files) so no duplicates. And yes you're correct. Any third party tank is assumed a lifting tank. Its a pretty simple addition to the boiloff partmodule to enable refrigeration (documentation not handy, sorry) so a quick MM patch can do it for tanks you may want as orbital for whatever reason.
  6. Its -force-d3d11 and it does get the game to offload some of the textures to VRAM (things related to planets and PQS can't be because of how the game is coded but part textures can be). Because its fickle about what offloads and what doesnt, your milage may vary, but I've personally observed RAM savings as high as 40% and in 1.0.5, there are virtually no graphical artifacts. There are some framerate issues relating to certain shaders, but its a small price to pay for taking yourself out of the danger zone for memory leak crashes.
  7. I dont think this is a weakness of the reactors as much as its a weakness of the stock analytic mode you enter at 1000x time warp and above. NF reactors have always had issues like this but since they were meant to power engines, its never been a problem until you introduce a sizeable power draw that sustains over warp such as boiloff refrigeration for substantially large craft.
  8. Temperature does not play a role. Its something we may get Nert to consider in the future, but right now he's sufficiently done with the stock heat system right now after the NF Electrical rework.
  9. My followed thread list is getting a bit longer with these things .... Also @Nertea is there plans to bring back the LH2 conversion for other NTR mods such as Atomic Age, now balanced against this mod instead of being part of NFT?
  10. The other side of the coin is that this then makes delivering 2.5m diameter circular payloads impossible within the same bay. Its a classic case of you cant have your cake and eat it too. While not the answer you're looking for, I can suggest creating a raised floor with structural plates. Alternatively, for both flatter and larger, you can turn to MkIV System for larger bays that hold payloads more comfortably and have fuel capacity. I dont particularly care to give a "there's a mod for that" answer, but they make good stopgaps for the interim before Squad adds something, or as a replacement if Squad doesn't. EDIT: a third solution for you is some clever engineering. I've seen many players use structural fuselage to create bulges where they mount landing gear, similar to how a C5 looks. Since your rear gear should be right behind the CoM, doing this with jet fuel tanks instead of structural fuselage can solve your problem.
  11. Nice! dV on it looks solid, what's the TWR? Will be adding the angle snapping to my game soon enough. RealPlume also messes with engine sounds. Due to what it did to several engines in the game, that kinda killed it for me. As always, your milage may vary. I think we all know why this happens. @Nertea just because you took two or three days away doesnt mean you need to cram for us. You've been gone for longer and most of us didn't freak out*. Get yourself some much needed sleep (and coffee). *Okay, some of us freaked out mildly, but you don't seem like the type to just walk off the face of the Earth never to return. EDIT: Took a closer look at those pics. Love what you did with the docking segment there @Psycho_zs
  12. Can confirm DX11 does not induce this issue, at least on my rig.
  13. Ignoring the critics, I love it. Finally some good sharp contrast in the rocket parts to match the slick black trim of Mk2. Please continue.
  14. Still got a bit of work left, but she's almost release worthy.
  15. Presumably accounting for the mass of the foldable systems, which by itself does not contribute to the heat rejection.
  16. I was doing some reading on Atomic Rockets (because someone linked it while I was at work on a really slow day and i had nothing better to do) and read somewhere that a traditional solid core NTR would begin to have its operation affected by fuel depletion after as little as 12 hours burn time. That doesnt sound like much but when you take into account that even the longest of burns in KSP are seldom more than 10 minutes or so, that is a pretty good operational lifespan. Once you factor in the higher temp idle state of the reactor on a trimodal, that can cut into it a bit. (If we are going down that road, I'd ask for generator throttleability like with NFE reactors) I also read some semi-conflicting numbers that reprocessing the nuclear fuel would yield between 55% and 95% mass recovery (the mass lost being actually depleted fuel). Particularly at the higher end of that scale, it means that NTR tugs running to Jool and back would need to stop by a reprocessing station (or have a reprocessing module sent up to them temporarily) about what, every 20 returns to Kerbin? And even then its good for another 19 runs to Jool and back after that. So yes Jimbodiah, it really wouldn't matter if we use relatively realistic numbers, even if we need it to run the engine. I know very few players who ever use NTR tugs for that many runs. If you're shipping that much stuff, you generally have multiple and getting 20 runs to Jool and back on each one means your project must be freaking insane. Hence my advice to @Nertea stands as uranium usage is unnecessary. Its not a significant enough problem even IRL to warrant modelling it as a gameplay mechanic.
  17. I feel like this would be confusing to have some NTRs consume uranium and others not. I assume the gameplay goal is to make the engines not behave like glorified RTGs when not in use. To me it seems like modelling uranium decay from the generator without modeling uranium decay for normal engine operation is like having a cherry pie with half of it missing the cherries. That said, I definitely think modeling uranium decay for NTRs in general is a bit too realism heavy. Sure it adds a maintenance cost to frequently-reused vehicles, making them slightly less preferable to NFP stuffs in the reusability department, but I think in the end its unnecessary. I think its another plugin component that you'd have to maintain, more things for the time warp analytic mode transtion (the ever-popular 100x time warp drop problems) to screw up, all for something that doesnt add that much to the gameplay.
  18. Re: more realistic boiloff (impossible zero condition) I dont see a necessary point. Aside from realism for realsims sake, what does it add from a gameplay perspective? I dont see the point of introducing what is effectively another problem to the player. I'm open to being persuaded though.
  19. I had a theory about what may be going on and decided to test it. Using two tanks, one LH2 one LH2/OX, and the neptune engine, I tracked the fuel draw of LH2 across both modes. In LH2 mode, the Neptune draws approx. 95 units of LH2 per second according to the resource panel. In LOX augment mode, it draws roughly 72 units per second by the same measurement. LH2 usage goes down when injecting LOX, despite this not being the realistic case. Exactly what this means and the effects it has are not entirely clear. While certainly not the only contributing factor to better dV in LOX augment mode, it certainly warrants further experimentation. This is an artifact of how the stock game works. I believe it can be fixed by nerfing Isp. Alternatively the effects may be so minimal that it can be safely ignored. As previously stated, further testing is required. Yes I'm suuuure.
  20. I was using a mock-up interplanetary vessel which uses ZBO tanks and the Posdeidon NTR (also tested at one point with 3 neptunes). I was swapping between LH2/Ox and pure LH2 in the fuel switch options. The only thing I was changing was what was in the tanks. All other things held constant.
  21. Initial reports: Liberator deploy animation works correctly in VAB but does not trigger when in flight. Mechanically everything else appears to be working correctly (mostly VAB and pad testing as of current) As per usual, the LOX augment mode is outputting more dV (disclaimer: I have not yet tried vessels on the magnitude of ridiculous yet) by a considerable margin. the Isp differential is not as potent as the mass differential even with the altered fuel ratio.
  22. The real shuttle also has vastly different proportions that would require us to have 5m tanks for the external and 2.5m SRBs at least 40% taller than the kickbacks. Having done a more correctly proportioned shuttle with SpaceY, the Vectors arent so bad .... but the dV that vehicle packed was ridiculous when compared to the mission requirement. It could do a low-munar payload delivery and back with fuel to spare.
×
×
  • Create New...