KSP Interstellar Extended Continued Development Thread

[raxo2222]

There is wrong text in cyclotron  - antiproton producer.

It says it produces positron, while it creates antiprotons.

By the way antimatter production doesn't speed up with time warp.

Also 3.75m positron producer needs to be at 1% to produce enough positrons to keep up with 3.75m cyclotron.

So bring big cyclotron or small positron producer

Protons are 1836 times heavier than electrons so for each gram of antiprotons I need ~0.5mg of positrons to make antimatter.

Also I like this CNO cycle reactor

Basically my ship is solar wind to antimatter converter.

 

Muon Catalyzed CNO

Needs radiators but effectively free fuel.

Tri-Alpha Spin-polarized D-He3:

Much less waste heat but requires much closer solar orbit to feed itself with magnetic scoop.

Both of them have fairly comparable energy production - 5m CNO makes 15.65 GW, when 5m spin D-He3 makes 16.85 GW.

Edited April 6, 2018 by raxo2222

[Arivald Ha'gel]

1 hour ago, Blackline said:

You are welcome. I had that problem as well with my mod, and I am using @Nertea's dynamic battery storage mod. It's somehow close to what KSPI-E is doing I think.

What's your plan for such a resource broker? No one did such a thing yet. Would you overwrite the stock requestResource method and catch all requests? Is that possible? Will you change effect all resources?

Actually there's someone who DID that thing already A year ago or so (check Kerbalism) I'll do it in a similar manner, but I'll build upon existing resource manager in KSPI-E.

Edited April 6, 2018 by Arivald Ha'gel

[COL.R.Neville]

19 hours ago, ArmchairPhysicist said:

Any idea what the ec to mj math is? It wouldn’t be that hard to simply change the NF engines to accept mjs if it’s a simply as changing config files, assuming I know the ratio of ec to mj.

yeah im pretty sure its 1k ec to 1 mj. one of these other guys can set me straight if thats not it.  

hah i didnt see free had already answered.

 

dont get rid of the buffers thats a pretty good idea and solution. just need to tell ksp thats its not out of EC when 1k per mj of power is present. just dont change the max amount on craft or parts that dont have a warp plugin part attached. you are headed in the right direction to solve a problem that has been around for along time. 

Edited April 6, 2018 by COL.R.Neville

[FreeThinker]

53 minutes ago, raxo2222 said:

There is wrong text in cyclotron  - antiproton producer.

It says it produces positron, while it creates antiprotons.

 

Ah yes, the partmodule was originally made for the production of positrons, and later got adapted for antiproton (antimatte)r, but I seem to have forgotten the Button

53 minutes ago, raxo2222 said:

Muon Catalyzed CNO

Needs radiators but effectively free fuel.

Tri-Alpha Spin-polarized D-He3:

Much less waste heat but requires much closer solar orbit to feed itself with magnetic scoop.

Both of them have fairly comparable energy production - 5m CNO makes 15.65 GW, when 5m spin D-He3 makes 16.85 GW.

2

Have you also tried the Muon Triple Proton (p+p+p=> He3) combined with Tri Alpha He3 combo? The Net result is the same as Muon Cat CNO Fusion Mode but at higher overall efficiency thanks to Tri Alpha He3 fusion mode ability to run at 95% efficiency. The Disadvantage, of course, is that you need 2 reactors which you have to fine tune.

By the way, have you also played around with the Cyclotron Particle Accelerator Yet? it is able to Fuse Helium3 and more. It allows you to create more useful resources like Deuterium and Helium3  from mundane lighter resources.

Edited April 6, 2018 by FreeThinker

[FreeThinker]

51 minutes ago, raxo2222 said:

So bring big cyclotron or small positron producer

Protons are 1836 times heavier than electrons so for each gram of antiprotons I need ~0.5mg of positrons to make antimatter.

 

Positrons are significantly easier to produce than antiprotons, so you're going to need a lot of Antimatter Cyclotrons. Instead, it will be more profitable to collect the antiprotons with Antimatter collector. Then combine them with the positron to create you Anti Hydrogen, which has much higher storage density than positron or antiproton (antimatter) storage.

Edited April 6, 2018 by FreeThinker

[raxo2222]

34 minutes ago, FreeThinker said:

Positrons are significantly easier to produce than antiprotons, so you're going to need a lot of Antimatter Cyclotrons. Instead, it will be more profitable to collect the antiprotons with Antimatter collector. Then combine them with the positron to create you Anti Hydrogen, which has much higher storage density than positron or antiproton (antimatter) storage.

Antimatter scoop needs to be close to Earth or Jupiter to collect significant amount of antimatter though.

And I have part that combines positrons with antiprotons.

[FreeThinker]

1 hour ago, raxo2222 said:

And I have part that combines positrons with antiprotons.

The AntiHydrogen Trap part has a built in converters from antiproton + positron => antihydrogen and reverse

[raxo2222]

2 minutes ago, FreeThinker said:

The AntiHydrogen Trap part has a built in converters from antiproton + positron => antihydrogen and reverse

I know.

Also it is very useful way to store positrons for positron reactor

Edited April 6, 2018 by raxo2222

[Blackline]

@FreeThinker may i ping you for that post of mine: 

i already have an idea: use tweakscale absolute instead of relative, here.

[FreeThinker]

Next release it will be possible to configure the Power generator

By default the generator is configured for maximum capacity, but this can be very heavy

By scaling down power capacity, you save mass, but it does not scale completely linear

The minimum setting is at 0.5% at which point mass is reduced by 97.5%

This should be low enough that addition auxiliary power sources like RTGs and solar cells are no longer required

 

Edited April 7, 2018 by FreeThinker

[FrancoisH]

Hi, just wanted to say I found an updated version of KJR here : https://github.com/meirumeiru/Kerbal-Joint-Reinforcement/releases

This avoid the message from KSP-AVC and KSP saying it's not up to date.

[FreeThinker]

Adding improved support for KER / MechJeb

[Next_Star_Industries]

Just wanted to says thanks for this mod it is by far my fav. Great work!

[SpacePilotMax]

Maybe I missed something, but what is the license for the models, specifically the warp drive models? (I am wanting to try making an ultralight version with just the warp drive stuff and am wondering whether I can use the existing models, adhering to the original license of course.) Thanks!

[aaronsta1]

how do i make the thermal turbojet not slow down at 1000m/s?

i edited the file and i set usevelocitycurve to false and i commented out that section, but it didnt work.

 

 

[raxo2222]

54 minutes ago, aaronsta1 said:

how do i make the thermal turbojet not slow down at 1000m/s?

i edited the file and i set usevelocitycurve to false and i commented out that section, but it didnt work.

 

 

Use thermal ramjets.

[raxo2222]

What is difference between plutonium and uranium fuel modes for solid fuel reactor?

[aaronsta1]

29 minutes ago, raxo2222 said:

Use thermal ramjets.

I guess i can go into more detail about what im trying to do.. 

i adapted the thermal receiver to the opt space plane bi coupler engine mount.. 

this engine mount uses 2 3.75 radius engines. 

 

if i tweakscale up the 2.5 turbo ramjet, or the turbojet to 3.75 it actually produces LESS thrust then if you leave it at 2.5, because tweakscale jacks up the radius so your bonus is like 10%. tweakscale also jacks up the weight and the heatfactor so the engine blows up in a few seconds..  i need these to produce about twice the thrust..

i copied the cfg, and made new part with rescalefactor 3 and it works.. i now have a 3.75 part.. but.. it only does the 2.5 thrust.. 

i went in and doubled the max thrust setting.. which usually works.. but its not working.. im guessing because of the thermal part there is some internal modifier.. i dont know what to change to make these produce more power.

i like the thermal turbojet because it has an atmosphere fuel option.. but the jet part loses too much power when you get to about 800m/s.

 

 

[raxo2222]

13 minutes ago, aaronsta1 said:

I guess i can go into more detail about what im trying to do.. 

i adapted the thermal receiver to the opt space plane bi coupler engine mount.. 

this engine mount uses 2 3.75 radius engines. 

 

if i tweakscale up the 2.5 turbo ramjet, or the turbojet to 3.75 it actually produces LESS thrust then if you leave it at 2.5, because tweakscale jacks up the radius so your bonus is like 10%. tweakscale also jacks up the weight and the heatfactor so the engine blows up in a few seconds..  i need these to produce about twice the thrust..

i copied the cfg, and made new part with rescalefactor 3 and it works.. i now have a 3.75 part.. but.. it only does the 2.5 thrust.. 

i went in and doubled the max thrust setting.. which usually works.. but its not working.. im guessing because of the thermal part there is some internal modifier.. i dont know what to change to make these produce more power.

i like the thermal turbojet because it has an atmosphere fuel option.. but the jet part loses too much power when you get to about 800m/s.

 

 

You need to scale reactor accordingly too.

[aaronsta1]

Just now, raxo2222 said:

You need to scale reactor accordingly too.

the reactor is the thermal engine mount.. i copied the Inline Thermal Receiver MTER.cfg and added the engine mount model and all its info.. i also set the radius to 3.75 and the diameter to 5. thermal power is 15000 and its set to receive all types with no direction bonus i put the facing threshold to 0.

 

 

[FreeThinker]

3 hours ago, raxo2222 said:

What is difference between plutonium and uranium fuel modes for solid fuel reactor?

It is not supposed to be able to switch between more than one fuel. It's a bug which I have to fix

5 hours ago, aaronsta1 said:

how do i make the thermal turbojet not slow down at 1000m/s?

i edited the file and i set usevelocitycurve to false and i commented out that section, but it didnt work.

 

 

Turbojet have the advantage they are able to accelerate fast but lose performance at high speed, ramjet is slow to accelerate and only gain optimal performance after 1000 m/s. Notice it is possible to use both at the same time by connecting them both to the same reactor and then switch between them by disabling the nozzle you do not use and enable the engine you do use..

[mr. engino]

For some reason the game refuses to load properly, it keeps getting stuck during the loading sequence. Specifically, it gets stuck at "loading PartRecipe for KSPIE-VASIMR2". Any help appreciated.

[FreeThinker]

 

23 minutes ago, mr. engino said:

For some reason the game refuses to load properly, it keeps getting stuck during the loading sequence. Specifically, it gets stuck at "loading PartRecipe for KSPIE-VASIMR2". Any help appreciated.

On 31-3-2018 at 8:37 PM, Leandro Basi said:

I think i have found what happens.

[LOG 14:55:40.353] [OSE] - Loading PartRecipe for KSPIE-VASIMR2
[EXC 14:55:40.595] NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object
 Workshop.Recipes.WorkshopRecipeLoader+<LoadPartRecipes>d__4.MoveNext ()
 UnityEngine.SetupCoroutine.InvokeMoveNext (IEnumerator enumerator, IntPtr returnValueAddress)
 Is related to another mod ose-workshop.

 

Excuse!

 

 

 

 

I heard OSE workshop is not KSP 1,4.x compatible

Edited April 9, 2018 by FreeThinker

[aaronsta1]

12 hours ago, FreeThinker said:

Turbojet have the advantage they are able to accelerate fast but lose performance at high speed, ramjet is slow to accelerate and only gain optimal performance after 1000 m/s. Notice it is possible to use both at the same time by connecting them both to the same reactor and then switch between them by disabling the nozzle you do not use and enable the engine you do use..

i know this.. what im asking is there a way to change the turbojet to 1 have more power and 2 not slow down at 1000m/s

i know i can do it with more engines.. but i really just want 2 engines on this plane.. 

 

one other question about adding more than one thermal engine on a receiver.. do i add up the radius or keep it the same for each engine? if i put radius 3.75 in the receiver and use 2 3.75 engines does that cut the power? should i put the radius to 7 in the receiver?

 

Edited April 9, 2018 by aaronsta1

[mr. engino]

3 hours ago, FreeThinker said:

 

 

I heard OSE workshop is not KSP 1,4.x compatible

Hrm, and yet I downloaded the continued version of ose workshop...