Captain Sierra

Built this:

I believe that has to do with how the modulemanager patch which applies the fuelswitch properties to the tanks is interacting with Vens. Now, I know this mod works seamlessly with Fuel Tanks Plus, which also performs a model replacement of the stock tanks. If you can isolate what FTP does differently from Vens, then you have identified the cause of this issue (I dont have Vens so I'm not in a position to test this myself) and I can stretch my modulemanager knowledge to find a workaround. It may be as simple as getting MM to load this patch after Vens (which I know can be done but dont remember the syntax right now).

No good spherical tanks to use right now. Nert's awesome foil tanks are in limbo. 13k dV before landers/shuttles. Auxilliary fuel modules always an option.

I second the interim release. i can do without the IVA just to get the sleek part. In regards to thrust reversing, I believe the stock code simply applies a negative thrust from the same thrust transform and the effect is instant. While this is far from realistic for how Nert's engine is animated, its not worth trying to replicate true-to-life function when the stock approximation is 'good enough'.

I already proposed this in a suggested implementation which I've quoted below for your reading pleasure. To which was replied the following: Anything involving thermal system, while arguably a positive gameplay change, has been ruled out due to Nertea being sufficiently annoyed with it post-NFE overhaul (no. 3). I'm gonna respect his judgement on that.

I like this assessment. It ties back into the tangibles vs intangibles concept in a different angle.

One possible solution to this to equalize this may be to actually switch cryo engines to using actual LOX instead of stock oxidizer and adding the associated boiloff to that component too. Now ... this begins to stray away from stock in the interest of CryoEngines -AOYUNEM compatibility, so thats something Nert should weigh in on. @Fraz86 That table you put together is fantastic. Great info there so take some rep for that. Given the data displayed, I think the value we should go with should be between 0.06-0.07%. Perhaps 0.065%. All three of those values look promising and are still slow enough that cryogenic stages are still fully viable for intra-kerbin operations (which I think should be a reasonable expectation).

IIRC Nert already saw it. Honestly, like most projects like it, people generally find it not worth it because project managing and concept/idea generation are things that have value in the corporate world, but those sentiments are not echoed in modding communities where the 3D artists, coders, and other modders are producing their content free of charge. The reasoning for this based on my observations is that those contributions are intangibles, whereas code, 3D assets, even config tweaks, are tangible. There is a measurable contribution and when nobody is getting paid for these projects, it seems those who produce tangible contributions do not see value in those contributing intangibles (from a perspective of project contributors ... community feedback and tester circles are different cases). Just my insight into things I've seen happen before.

@Fraz86 I think I would prefer something in the middle. I think it should be possible to execute a Duna mission on lifter tanks alone (assuming insulated orbital tanks are higher up the tech tree). Boiloff should become a serious concern that has to be designed around, but not be prohibitive. 0.015% loss per hour results in a 27% loss to Duna. Another thing that came to mind is will oxidizer boil off too? Its a stock resource so depending on how the module is configured, it may not have the effect. In that case, you also have to consider the oxidizer which is now dead mass. You're still lugging it even if you cant burn it. This means less boiloff rate can still inflict the same punishment to your mission margins.

Video embed button. I currently can find no good way to embed something from, say, youtube. Embed resize options should also be available in the popup window that will no doubt include. (I'd suggest a WYSIWYG/BBcode toggle button but that horse is already being beaten to death so Kaspy has definitely heard that one) Suggestion 2: I've discovered the Reports Post popup has full WSG editor. WHY? I can see no legitimate purpose there while it is ripe for trolling as well as screen clutter. I'd also like to make a minor bug report that the "hold ctrl and right click for more options" mouse popup will not move or go away until the cursor is removed from the editor text area. This can be a moderate inconvenience at times. EDIT: Wait what? This was two posts that just auto-merged. Evidently Kaspy is listening.

This is why I suggested giving all tanks a flat rate, thus making larger tanks have less boiloff. It roughly simulates the effect of this without the complex math behind it (which is ultimately how most things in KSP are designed: simulate the effects to illustrate the real-world problem, while still grossly simplifying it for gameplay-sake).

The two new engines look like they'll take advantage of the new engine nozzle animation capabilities nicely. and OOOOOOHHH THAT COCKPIT!!!!!!! I think my pants require changing now .... EDIT: two notes. This was, IIRC, an issue with the cargo tail occluding wings mounted on it that shouldn't be occluded. This particular part is not getting its occlusion radius increased correct? Remember when the nacelle intakes got occluded by intakes on the front and I reported that as a bug because stock didnt emulate that behavior? Yeah that was an error as in 1.0.5, stock addressed this behavior so evidently it was a stock bug that I unknowingly treated as intended behavior. TL;DR you were right the first time to have that occlusion checking on the intake module and should put it back.

Fully support hating of the stock heat system. So just to recap the pros and cons of the orbital tanks as it stands right now ... Cons: Lower mass ratio Higher drag Lower impact tolerance Lower heat tolerance Pros: No boiloff Eye candy I personally think that's a lot of tradeoff for avoiding boiloff (though I understand the intended goal of it all).

I'd still love to see the return of a part-local version, but simply having your radiators makes dealing with the stock heat system bearable again. Thank you and merry Christmas @Nertea.

Well since thats on the table .... here's my $0.02 on the subject: Possible implementation A (simple version): Boiloff is per-tank, encouraging fewer larger tanks over many small. Boiloff is a tank-configurable static rate, unaffected by temperature, radiators, or anything. Lifter (stock) tanks have boiloff, orbital (NFP) tanks do not. Lifter tanks have poorer mass ratio (heavier metal for rocket integrity), while orbital tanks have better mass ratio but worse volume ratio (space for insulation, lighter materials; also helps validate the massiveness of some of the LH2 tanks) Possible implementation B (complex/thermal version): Boiloff is per-tank, as above. Boiloff is a dynamic rate as a function of tank interior temperature (lifter tanks have poor (high) skin-int conduction multipliers, while orbital tanks have lower mults). Lifter tanks lack any form of refrigeration, boiloff is unpreventable. Orbital tanks require minimal Ec to refrigerate themselves, reducing interior temperature but increasing core temperature (radiators can pull the core heat away). As above, lifter tanks have worse mass ratio but better volume ratio (heavier structure but no space lost to insulation/refrigeration equipment), and orbital tanks have better mass ratio but worse volume (space lost to insulation & refrigeration systems, but lighter materials not intended to support 120 ton rockets). I'd like to see how your vision of it relates to these two concepts. Is it somewhere in the middle or did I totally miss the mark?

I echo this sentiment. The size of the rockets and the payloads they can orbit feels right. I definitely support this. I'd opt for higher drag, lower dry mass (I'm going to argue for a better mass ratio on "orbital" LH2 tanks, with the concession of them not getting fuel switching), so that they're easier to put in space when inside a fairing. I'd very much like to look into boiloff options myself, but this would likely require further plugin coding that, depending on implementation, is highly intertwined with the ever-changing stock heat system. Nertea probably doesnt want to have to do through the NFE hassle twice every update. While a fun thought experiment, its probably best to keep it that way no matter how cool it may be.

There are no words .... when can we have it? But seriously, take the holiday, enjoy it, and come back afterwards. Critiquing the engine, I almost doesnt look like it belongs in a game as semi-silly as KSP, as its a different kind of strange .... That said the model is fricking gorgeous as always and continues to outdo the stock assets.

I cant say I can report the issue on my end. Are you sure you're version is 100% up to date?

Seems good enough from a quick shakedown, now go enjoy the holiday and get back to us in 2016. We'll wait.

I remember a good while ago you had some fantastic paper sketches of bigass rocket engines, some NTR-esque, others not. I may dig through the dev thread for them. At the time you were sufficiently frustrated with NFE problems (the neverending story 'round here ...) and wanted to model something out as unrelated to electrical crap as you could get. Stand by, will report back after some extensive digging.

"No kerbals were harmed in the making of this video." +1 to them, love that little touch.

I feel like the rate at which xenon fueled ships would burn through the stuff makes it basically a drop in the bucket. By the point at which you're using reactors to power them, you have so many engines running that I dont think it would make much of a dent, especially since many of us shut down reactors when not in use to save core life. Maybe with a DS4G powered rig it could be genuinely helpful given the insane Isp there, but I think at the end of the day it wouldnt prove very practical. For engines as efficient as xenon thrusters, why would you even need ISRU refuelling options? Yeah its expensive but if you can afford the engines, reactor(s) and the first fill-up of the ship, you're likely rolling in so much dough it doesnt even matter anymore. Unlike NTRs its not worth it to carry the ISRU rigging out somewhere so you only need the one-way dV, so the necessity for xenon ISRU is sorely lacking. That said, I certainly think its cool conceptually and would love to see it tested out.

I take that "maybe later" to mean that the part-local heat management system is something that you're certainly willing to bring back, but still on the fence about. If I may add my $0.02, those of us who enjoyed that pack in its previous form can make due (some of us more willingly than others) with just the pretty radiators for now. I'd suggest holding off on bringing that back until the great 1.1 upheaval. No point fixing it now only to be broken again so soon.

Care to share aforementioned parameters? Would enjoy browsing through the restats to get an idea of how it will balance out. (forgive me if its already on the repo, Sierra does not know how to Github well)

@aluc24 there's actually a mod originally geared for CTT that does this and it appears to work fine with this as well. Link unfortunately not handy.