[1.12.x] USI Core (Reactors and Kontainers)

[voicey99]

Would it be possible to remove the small protrudences on the sides of 3.75m kontainers? As it is, they just poke out the corners of FTT cargo bays (which are supposed to act as kontainer shells) by a couple of cm, rendering them useless since the game counts them exposed and as a consequence the bay doesn't protect them on atmo entry at all (so they always explode).

[nascarlaser1]

On an interplanetary mothership, which would be better, a nuclear reactor, or stock solar panels and RTGs? The ship is 60% modded, so a little more mod parts wont hurt  (I'm already using the containers).

Edited January 15, 2017 by nascarlaser1

[dboi88]

32 minutes ago, nascarlaser1 said:

On an interplanetary mothership, which would be better, a nuclear reactor, or stock solar panels and RTGs? The ship is 60% modded, so a little more mod parts wont hurt  (I'm already using the containers).

Personal preference but i prefer to be able to pick one reactor that will cover all my needs than have lots of variables with solar panels.

[nascarlaser1]

Just now, dboi88 said:

Personal preference but i prefer to be able to pick one reactor that will cover all my needs than have lots of variables with solar panels.

ok thxs!

[voicey99]

39 minutes ago, nascarlaser1 said:

On an interplanetary mothership, which would be better, a nuclear reactor, or stock solar panels and RTGs? The ship is 60% modded, so a little more mod parts wont hurt  (I'm already using the containers).

To me, it depends how much power you need and where you are going. If you're using power-hungry parts like MKS hab modules then I find that solars should last you about up until Duna, Dres at a stretch or if you use the huge arrays from Near Future Solar-anything further and nukes are the way forward (bear in mind they can be pretty weighty, expensive and will need to be refuelled on EVA about every 3 years when run at full output). If you don't have any major power users on your ship then you should be fine with solars pretty much anywhere. As for RTGs, reactors trump them every time unless you have an extremely lightweight probe going to places where the sunlight is too weak even to power a probe core on hibernate and a reactor would be too heavy or require manual refuelling.

It all comes down to your personal preference, though.

Edited January 15, 2017 by voicey99

[nascarlaser1]

3 minutes ago, voicey99 said:

To me, it depends how much power you need and where you are going. If you're using power-hungry parts like MKS hab modules then I find that solars should last you about up until Duna, Dres at a stretch or if you use the huge arrays from Near Future Solar-anything further and nukes are the way forward (bear in mind they can be pretty weighty, expensive and will need to be refuelled on EVA about every 3 years when run at full output). If you don't have any major power users on your ship then you should be fine with solars pretty much anywhere. As for RTGs, reactors trump them every time unless you have an extremely lightweight probe going to places where the sunlight is too weak even to power a probe core on hibernate and a reactor would be too heavy or require manual refuelling.

Thanks!

My mothership is going to start in Kerbin orbit, then go every where without ever landing (EPL and separate landers will be used for that), and if it does return to Kerbin orbit it wont be for long.

[WuphonsReach]

45 minutes ago, nascarlaser1 said:

On an interplanetary mothership, which would be better, a nuclear reactor, or stock solar panels and RTGs? The ship is 60% modded, so a little more mod parts wont hurt  (I'm already using the containers).

You can use both.  The USI reactors will turn off if you have filled at least 95% of your maximum EC capacity on the ship.  If you're below that, the reactors will run until you're filled up. So the reactors fill in for when the solar panels are in a dark period. 

If it's a steady-state drain, the USI reactors will only run at a rate needed to maintain (which stretches the fuel supply).  So as you get further out from Kerbol and the solar flux is no longer there to maintain using the solar panels, the USI reactors kick in and provide more of the power supply.

A USI reactor running at 5-10% of load lasts a very long time (years, possibly decades?).

The little 0.625m reactor is good for Ion-engine probes (it can drive up to 3 engines).

[nascarlaser1]

6 minutes ago, WuphonsReach said:

You can use both.  The USI reactors will turn off if you have filled at least 95% of your maximum EC capacity on the ship.  If you're below that, the reactors will run until you're filled up. So the reactors fill in for when the solar panels are in a dark period. 

If it's a steady-state drain, the USI reactors will only run at a rate needed to maintain (which stretches the fuel supply).  So as you get further out from Kerbol and the solar flux is no longer there to maintain using the solar panels, the USI reactors kick in and provide more of the power supply.

A USI reactor running at 5-10% of load lasts a very long time (years, possibly decades?).

The little 0.625m reactor is good for Ion-engine probes (it can drive up to 3 engines).

Thanks!

[Saberdo]

hi people. im new to this forum so please, im sry if i post this wrong. i have the problem that i cant switch textures and cargos from the containers. 

[voicey99]

4 hours ago, Saberdo said:

hi people. im new to this forum so please, im sry if i post this wrong. i have the problem that i cant switch textures and cargos from the containers. 

This function is added by the mod Firespitter, check you have FS installed and up to date.

[Saberdo]

i have. its up to date. 

[DrunkenKerbalnaut]

8 minutes ago, Saberdo said:

i have. its up to date. 

Which ver. of Module Manager do you have?

[voicey99]

3 hours ago, Saberdo said:

i have. its up to date. 

USI-Core comes bundled with all the mods needed to run it-try uninstalling those mods and replacing them with the versions included in the latest Core release (but not Module Manager, download and use this version).

[Omnipius]

There seems to be an issue with the USI reactors following the recent update to NFE. Now, the reactors show two instances of "Fission Reactor" converters, each with it's own Start/Deactivate and Reactor Control Panel buttons. One of these seems to activate the NFE core life tracking and the other activates electric generation. The real issue is that the two different converter instances show wildly different stats that appear to be impacting part performance.

For example:

The USI 1.25m Reactor now shows 3 separate stat blocks of:

Fission Generator - 200 EC/s

Fission Reactor - Required Cooling: 9kW, Inputs: EnrichedUranium 0.01/day, Outputs: DepletedFuel 0.01/day, EC 115/s, XenonGas 0.00/day

Fission Reactor - Required Cooling: 150kw, Inputs: EnrichedUranium 0.01/day, Outputs: DepletedFuel 0.01/day

When you operate this same reactor, the reactor control panel says it's max output is 12.3 EC/s! What is this? A reactor for ants?

 

So, something is broken, though I'm not sure if its on the USI or NFE side. I'll try reverting to an earlier version of NFE for now to see if that sorts out the issue.

[dboi88]

2 hours ago, Omnipius said:

There seems to be an issue with the USI reactors following the recent update to NFE. Now, the reactors show two instances of "Fission Reactor" converters, each with it's own Start/Deactivate and Reactor Control Panel buttons. One of these seems to activate the NFE core life tracking and the other activates electric generation. The real issue is that the two different converter instances show wildly different stats that appear to be impacting part performance.

For example:

The USI 1.25m Reactor now shows 3 separate stat blocks of:

Fission Generator - 200 EC/s

Fission Reactor - Required Cooling: 9kW, Inputs: EnrichedUranium 0.01/day, Outputs: DepletedFuel 0.01/day, EC 115/s, XenonGas 0.00/day

Fission Reactor - Required Cooling: 150kw, Inputs: EnrichedUranium 0.01/day, Outputs: DepletedFuel 0.01/day

When you operate this same reactor, the reactor control panel says it's max output is 12.3 EC/s! What is this? A reactor for ants?

 

So, something is broken, though I'm not sure if its on the USI or NFE side. I'll try reverting to an earlier version of NFE for now to see if that sorts out the issue.

The configs to make USI reactors compatible with NFE all come from NFE so it'll be there that the issue needs sorting. Nothings changed with the USI reactors as far as i'm aware.

NFE configs were removed in November

https://github.com/BobPalmer/USI_Core/releases/tag/0.3.4.0

[Omnipius]

7 hours ago, dboi88 said:

The configs to make USI reactors compatible with NFE all come from NFE so it'll be there that the issue needs sorting. Nothings changed with the USI reactors as far as i'm aware.

NFE configs were removed in November

https://github.com/BobPalmer/USI_Core/releases/tag/0.3.4.0

Yup. That was exactly the problem. Old USI to NFE config hanging around. Thanks!

[Kaa253]

I am observing strange behaviour from the 0.625 reactor. I have 2 bases (Mun & Minmus) powered by one of them each and they have both been running at 100% load for 1y 43d. They both report 2.00 (full) Enriched Uranium and 0.00 (empty) Depleted Fuel. 100.0% Thermal efficiency and Core Temp. 1000.00K so thermal controls seem to be completely effective. There are some little solar panels present on the bases, too small for the power demands and useless at night but I guess the new 95% cap effect may be active. All other USI converters (same as stock I think) seem to be behaving normally. I do not have NFE. I have not unlocked the science for any of the larger reactors yet.

Has anyone else seen this? Could you check? Maybe no one has yet noticed their infinite lifetime reactors? Does anyone see the Enriched Uranium going down on these? Maybe it's just me? 

[Kaa253]

I have today done some more testing of the 0.625 reactor using a Stock plus USI only install of KSP. I see the same slow rate of Enriched Uranium usage as reported here a while back ;

About 0.01 units per 400 days. I suspect this may fall in the category of a stock game limitation in the post time warp resources catch-up calculation. If on the other hand it is a USI "bug" then I could do an issue on Github with a game save file.

 

Edited February 1, 2017 by Kaa253

[cyberKerb]

I tired to retest and found that the reactor numbers seem to work for when the reactor load is at 100% continuously. Easiest way to do this was to stack a ridiculous amount of Z-4K batteries, and use hyperedit to empty pretty much all the charge, so the reactor is recharging a million plus battery.

While at 100% load, even at high/highest warp, it takes 3 and most of the 4th days for 0.01 units of EnrichedUranium used. This is also correct when warping in the tracking center and the vessel is unloaded. After I returned to the ship from the tracking center after <4 days of warping and it loaded in the flight scene, it had used 0.01 EnrichedUranium to recharge most of the massive battery I had on the test ship.

 

When I originally tested, I had drills AND batteries as the dummy load and found that something screwy happens from the 6th warp speed. Specifically, for the load I was using the Reactor load dropped massively after 6th warp from 61.37% down to 0.39% and got as low as 0.33% for my test rig at the highest warp. I figured this was why it took 400+ days for the first 0.01 unit of fuel to get used.

I just put it down to something screwy with the stock game order to calculate the multiplications of charge+discharge rates and the order those things happen all within a highwarp timeframe. That and the fact that Drills are the worst dummy load to test with seeing as they have their own load % and that makes it harder to work out the calculations.

 

Best test rig I used that allowed high warp (can't use engines obviously)
   0.625 Reactor [+30EC/s] bare in mind slight delay for reactor to get to 1000 operating temp
   OKTO Probe core set to hibernate on warp [0.0002EC/s or 2EC/2nd highest warp] (highest warp give weird results)
   12 x MKS Range TCS Heatpumps [Total of -30EC/s]
   12x Z-8K batteries to cover the EC loss due to the probe core in hibernation.

 

I've since learned to live with it figuring that the it's roughly right except I can't get the math right when warping at the highest 3 speeds for drills (ie 1000x 10,000x & 100,000x)

Having said all that, I'd be happy to be wrong if someone finds something specific that can be corrected for those high warp issues.

Edited February 1, 2017 by wile1411

[Starfire70]

The description for the Whirlijig converter (waste to enriched uranium) says that it can also convert ore to enriched uranium in the description, however there is no such option in it's right-click menu. Am I missing something?

 

[RoverDude]

Yes... you're in the wrong mod thread   You probably want to post this in the Near Future thread

[voicey99]

I also observed some odd behaviour from the 1.25m reactor recently. It seems that when it hit the fillcap, as well as teasing back output, it also seemed to disable or otherwise seriously screw with cooling. Whatever it is, the result of this is that the reactor core temperature (and thus thermal efficiency) rapidly oscillated between 1KK and ~1.2KK many times a second, but overall balancing power output to maintain ~95% fill. However, after a few minutes of looking at the thing and 300d of continuous operation (it is the only power source on the base), the oscillation spontaneously settled down at a stable 1035.7K. where it remains-including in saves made before it stabilised.

(for the record, the base in question is exclusively USI/stock)

[Wyzard]

18 hours ago, Starfire70 said:

The description for the Whirlijig converter (waste to enriched uranium) says that it can also convert ore to enriched uranium in the description, however there is no such option in it's right-click menu. Am I missing something?

That converter is disabled if you have MKS installed, because MKS has a different way of producing enriched uranium.  (You mine uraninite instead of ore, and put it in a Tundra nuclear fuel processor.)

The MM patch that does this is part of Near Future Electrical (the same mod that provides the Whirlijig itself).  In earlier releases of NFE, the Whirlijig's ore->uranium converter was disabled if any USI mods were installed, but in the latest release it's been fixed to check for MKS specifically.

[WuphonsReach]

On 1/15/2017 at 10:08 AM, dboi88 said:

Personal preference but i prefer to be able to pick one reactor that will cover all my needs than have lots of variables with solar panels.

On my probes going to the outer solar system, I'll often put solar panels on the transfer stage that will get disposed of once I arrive at the destination.  That way I don't use the USI reactor until I need to (or I only use it for power needs in excess of the solar panels).

...

On a related note, I'm wonder if there could be a tweakable control on the USI reactors to control fill percentage (it's hard-coded at 95% right now?).

 

[TheRagingIrishman]

33 minutes ago, WuphonsReach said:

On a related note, I'm wonder if there could be a tweakable control on the USI reactors to control fill percentage (it's hard-coded at 95% right now?).

 

If you modify the fuel cell tweaks.cfg file in this mod to say @PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleResourceConverter]:HAS[#ConverterName[Reactor]]]:FINAL instead of @PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleResourceConverter]:HAS[#ConverterName[Fuel?Cell]]]:FINAL it will give you a slider to set the % anywhere from 0-100

Edited February 5, 2017 by TheRagingIrishman
ps sorry for oddly formatted text. Mobile stinks.