KSP Interstellar Extended Continued Development Thread

[FreeThinker]

20 minutes ago, okder said:

sorry bad example, in this case launch stab. ench. provide electric charge,

but if you use just core + direct nuclear turbojet you would see that bug.

 

may be LqdDeteurium + LqdHe3  and start raw 1.8 (finish still 3) would be enough, but additional or better build in generator (65% efficiency from start), or allow to connect thermal generator also

no D-He3 is not a aneutronic mode, D-He3 requires a neutron absorbant (otherwise it will self destruct), which this reactor simply does not have, but the He3-He3 mode certainly looks pomissing, it would be expensive to the more econimic p-B mode, but this allows for more intresting choices.  Also why 1.8G?

22 minutes ago, okder said:

 but additional or better build in generator (65% efficiency from start)

Well this actualy make more sense, combined with small increase in power (1.5GW, 2.1213 GW, 3 GW)

Edited October 11, 2016 by FreeThinker

[okder]

Just now, FreeThinker said:

no D-T is a aneutronic mode, it requires a neutron absorbant, which this reactor simply does not have, but the He3-He3 mode certainly looks pomissing, it would be expensive to the more econimic p-B mode, but this allow for more intresting choices.  LAlso Why 1.8G?

why D-T i meant D+He3, but it looks like there is side effect D+D which produces neutrons

may be 2GW i.e. it could get some of boost with new tech (or omega/ MCF ) become better than it in the end.

mostly it suffers from poor direct conversion generator which is good upgrade only with antimatter collector.

[shynung]

Is it possible to run this mod without using Blizzy's toolbar?

[FreeThinker]

29 minutes ago, okder said:

why D-T i meant D+He3, but it looks like there is side effect D+D which produces neutrons

Yes, I'm aware. D-He3 is ideal as a MCF Tokamak performance mode, Tokamak also has acces to several modes which will allow you to breed Helium3, low, like low temperature D-D fusion, which create Helium3 as a waste product. The disadvantage of this modes is that it  creates a lot of neutrons. To overcome this problem I also want to introduce a p-D mode, which allows you to breed Helium3 without Neutrons

55 minutes ago, okder said:

point is HighTechScience is almost antimatter stuff (collector is there), and gives a lot of buff at once (50->86? if i correctly reading that), may be do it more gradually?

Yes, I'm awaire of the problem, the solution is already in the pipe line, I have ordered several advanced technodes for the CTT which allow me to distribute all upgrade more evenly. It will be released at soon as CTT for KSP 1.2 is released, which is very soon

23 minutes ago, shynung said:

Is it possible to run this mod without using Blizzy's toolbar?

Not anymore, it now makes use of stock toolbar, which gives less problems.

Edited October 11, 2016 by FreeThinker

[shynung]

21 minutes ago, FreeThinker said:

Not anymore, it not makes use of stock toolbar, which gives less problems

Aw, shucks.

Well, thanks for telling.

[FreeThinker]

Just now, shynung said:

Aw, shucks.

Why does it suck?

[shynung]

1 minute ago, FreeThinker said:

Why does it suck?

It doesn't, at least not in the functional sense. Blizzy's Toolbar just stood out among KSP's stock UI system, and I prefer to not have that.

Plenty other mods integrate themselves using the stock toolbar just fine, Nertea's collection in particular.

What makes the stock toolbar more problematic than Blizzy's, if I may ask?

[FreeThinker]

20 minutes ago, shynung said:

What makes the stock toolbar more problematic than Blizzy's, if I may ask?

Well for one thing it is a hard dependancy that is not well maintained, which gives me several problems (like CKAN not able to update), It kind of became obsolete after Stock introduces toolbuttons, perhaps we should allow it to die.

Secondly, many people do not seem to understand it, It is often an anoyance to people (including myself). A single button that is easy to find (it uses the same logo in all screen with the name KSPI) is much easier to comprehend for players.

Perhaps if Bizzy dicides to update and maintain his toolbar mod properly  and more people want it , I will add it again, the code is still there ...

 

Edited October 11, 2016 by FreeThinker

[okder]

i am only one who thinks that previous two posts only exist because of misunderstanding of one typo here

"Not anymore, it not makes use of stock toolbar, which gives less problems "

which after fixing looks like:

45 minutes ago, FreeThinker said:

Not anymore, it now makes use of stock toolbar, which gives less problems.

 

i.e. if i understand correctly @shynung prefers stock toolbar?

P.S. "now" means releases for 1.2 (pre) ksp i think...

Edited October 11, 2016 by okder

[okder]

Quote

The main pathway of the D-He3 reaction does not produce neutrons, but side reactions will do, such as the D-D reaction and (less probable) the D-T reaction as the second stage reaction from the D-D reaction. The reduced amount of neutrons from the D-He3 reaction and its side reactions will reduce the costs of shielding the reactor.

may be add option for tri-alpha for additional shielding (make 1.25 time more weight but allows D-He3 fusion)?

and of course this fuel also do a lot of reactor Embrittlement for tri-alpha.

Edited October 11, 2016 by okder

[FreeThinker]

3 hours ago, okder said:

may be add option for tri-alpha for additional shielding (make 1.25 time more weight but allows D-He3 fusion)?

and of course this fuel also do a lot of reactor Embrittlement for tri-alpha.

That would add a lot of mass, the conceptual idea behind the Tri Alpha is to have a light weight efficient reactor, the trade off is lower flexibility. If your looking for flexibility in fuels use the MCF, but this reactor is , expansive, big, heavy and difficult to operate. Note however that the MVC is able to scale to lower size at high tech levels.

From a designer point of view I try to blance multiple reactors, giving them all an edge they can compete on, creating intresting choices

 

Reactor Fuel Modes

Fuel Mode	Type	Reactors	Tech Requirement	Core Temp Modifier	Reactor Power	Reaction Energy	Reaction Rate	Fuel Efficiency	Power Requirement Multiplier Neutral Plasma / Non Neutral	Fuel	Products	Charged Particles	Brems-strahlung	Neutron Energy Ratio
Uranium Oxide	Fission	NERVA / JUMBO	Nuclear Propulsion	100%		1		85%	n.a.	EnrichedUranium	DepletedUranium **	0	n.a	2%
Uranium Hexafloride	Fission	Molten Salt / Gas Core	Nuclear Power	100%		1		15%	n.a.	UF6	94% DepletedFuel + 6% Xenon	0	n.a	2%
Uranium Fuel Cycle **	Fission	Molten Salt	Nuclear Fuel Systems	80%		0.8		80%	n.a.	UF6	80%DepletedFuel + 10%Plutonium 10%DepletedUranium	0	n.a	2%
MOX Plutonium Burnup **	Fission	Molten Salt	Nuclear Fuel Systems	115%		0.9%		30%	n.a.	7%Plutonium+ 93%Anticides	DepletedFuel	0	n.a	1%
Thorium	Fission	Molten Salt	Nuclear Power	138%		1.38		15%	n.a.	ThoriumTetraflouride	Anticides	0	n.a	2%
Thorium Fuel Cycle **	Fission	Molten Salt	Nuclear Fuel Systems	69%		0.69		99%	n.a.	ThoriumTetraflouride + Anticides	96%DepletedFuel + 2%Anticides + 2%Plutonium	0	n.a	2%
Uranium Nitride Pellet	Fission	Pebble Bed	Nuclear Fuel Systems	100%		n.a.		5%	n.a.	UraniumNitride	DepletedFuel	0	n.a	2%
Uranium Nitride Nanoparticle	Fission	Dusty Plasma	High Energy Nuclear Power	100%		n.a.		97%	n.a.	UraniumNitride	DepletedFuel	83.5% * 0.46	n.a	2%
D-T Fusion	Fusion	MCF / MIF	Fusion	100%	1	1	1	100%	1x	LqdDeteurium + LqdTritium	Helium4	19.3%	0.7%	80%
T Cat D-D Fusion	Fusion	MCF	Advanced Fusion	100%	0.364	0.91	0.4	100%	0.9x	LqdDeteurium	Helium4 + Helium3
D-He3 Fusion	Fusion	MCF	Advanced Fusion	100%	0,884	1.04	0.85	100%	2x / 4x	LqdDeteurium + LqdHe3	Helium4 + LqdHydrogen	79.13%	15.87%	5%
T-T Fusion	Fusion	MCF / MIF	Advanced Fusion	100%	0.5457	0.642	0.85	100%	2x / 4x	LqdTritium	Helium4	17%	3%	80%
D-D Fusion	Fusion	MCF / MIF	Advanced Fusion	100%	0.7175	1.435	0.5	100%	2x / 4x	LqdDeteurium	Helium4	31.1%	10.7%	58.2%
D-Li6 Fusion	Fusion	MCF / MIF	Exotic Fusion	100%	0.889	1.27	0.7	100%	6x / 9x	LqdDeteurium + Lithium6	Helium4	18.2%	81.8%	2.5%
He3-Li6 Fusion	Fusion	MCF / CBF	Exotic Fusion	100%	0.672	0.96	0.7	100%	6x / 9x	LqdHe3 + Lithium6	Helium4 + LqdHydrogen			0.1%
He3-He3 Fusion	Fusion	MCF / CBF	Exotic Fusion	100%	0.551	0.73	0.7	100%	6x / 9x	LqdHe3	Helium4 + LqdHydrogen	41.9%	58.1%	0%
p-B11 Fusion	Fusion	MCF / CBF	Exotic Fusion	100%	0.3458	0.494	0.7	100%	6x / 9x	Hexaborane	Helium4 + LqdHydrogen	36,3%	63.6%	0.01%
p-Li6 Fusion	Fusion	CBF	Unified Field Theory	100%	0.154	0.22	0.7	100%	6x / 9x	LqdHydrogen +  Lithium6	Helium4 + Helium3	41.9%	58.1%	0.1%
p-Li7 Fusion	Fusion	MCF / CBF	Unified Field Theory	100%	0.6839	0.977	0.7	100%	8x / 12x	LqdHydrogen + Lithium	Helium4	75%	24.9%	0.1%
p-2Li6Fusion	Fusion	MCF	Unified Field Theory	100%	0.475	1.1875	0.4	100%	8x  / 12x	LqdHydrogen +  Lithium6	Helium4	75%	24.9%	0.1%
p-N15 Fusion	Fusion **	CBF	Ultra High Energy Physics	100%	0.1704	0.284	0.6	100%	10x / 15x	LqdHydrogen + Nitrogen15	Helium4  + Carbon	60%	40%	0.1%
p-O18 fusion	Fusion **	CBF	Ultra High Energy Physics	100%	0.1363	0.227	0.6	100%	10x / 15x	LqdHydrogen + Oxygen18	Nitrogen15 + Helium4
p-D Fusion	Fusion **	MCF	Ultra High Energy Physics	100%	0.187	0.3119	0.6	100%	10x / 15x	LqdHydrogen + LqdDeteurium	Helium3	0%		0.1%
CNO Fusion Cycle	Fusion **	MCF	Ultra High Energy Physics	100%	0.28	1.4	0.2	100%	10x / 15x	LqdHydrogen	Helium4	50%	50%	0%
Microfusion	Fussion-Fision Hybid	AIM	Exotic Fusion Reactions	100%		1		94%	n.a.	LqdDeteurium & LqdHe3 & UraniumNitride & AntiMatter	Helium4 + Hydrogen + DepletedFuel	95%	n.a.	5%
AntiMatter	AntiMatter	Antimatter	Antimatter Power	100%		1		22%	n.a.	AntiMatter	none	80%	20%	n.a

* MCF = magnetic confinement Fusion, MIF = Magnetic Inertial Fusion  CBF  = Coliding beam Fusion reactor   

** = not implemented yet.

 

 

Edited October 11, 2016 by FreeThinker

[shynung]

1 hour ago, okder said:

i am only one who thinks that previous two posts only exist because of misunderstanding of one typo here

"Not anymore, it not makes use of stock toolbar, which gives less problems "

which after fixing looks like:

"Not anymore, it now makes use of stock toolbar, which gives less problems. "

i.e. if i understand correctly @shynung prefers stock toolbar?

P.S. "now" means releases for 1.2 (pre) ksp i think...

Yeah, that. I misunderstood the original response as 'doesn't make use of the stock toolbar'. I stuck with 1.1.3 for now, since my connection is a bit spotty due to weather (can't update quickly enough).

Glad to see this sorted out. And yes, I do prefer the stock toolbar, not Blizzy's.

[Nansuchao]

I hear a lot of people complaining about the Blizzy's Toolbar and I can't understand the reasons. It's really useful, easy to use and you can put it everywhere on the screen. What will happen at the stock toolbar once you have more button than your screen can display?

[FreeThinker]

1 hour ago, Nansuchao said:

I hear a lot of people complaining about the Blizzy's Toolbar and I can't understand the reasons. It's really useful, easy to use and you can put it everywhere on the screen. What will happen at the stock toolbar once you have more button than your screen can display?

Well you do have to do several things before you can properly use it, which might be too much for people. I have seen many instances where people just leave bizzy toolbar unused sitting in the middle of the screen.

Regarding the space problem, I guess that a problem KSP has to solve one day.

Edited October 11, 2016 by FreeThinker

[FreeThinker]

3 hours ago, okder said:

may be add option for tri-alpha for additional shielding (make 1.25 time more weight but allows D-He3 fusion)?

I think I found a better solution, I will add He³-Li⁶ Fusion as an exotic fusion mode which is will be available from the start the Tri Alpha fusion reactor is unlocked.  He³-Li⁶ fusion mode will be comparable with p-Li7, but much more expansive as it requires Helium3. p-B will still be accesable but as a economy mode, for those on a budget. After unified field theory is unlocked, p-Li⁶ Fusion mode will be unlocked that will enable Helium3 breeding.

Edited October 11, 2016 by FreeThinker

[BBM]

I am having trouble with the Attila thruster.  I am only getting 1719 ISP instead of the 2854 listed in the VAB.  I have tried several different configurations.  Any tips?  I am running KSP 1.1.3.   Thanks.

Edited October 11, 2016 by BBM

[FreeThinker]

2 hours ago, BBM said:

I am having trouble with the Attila thruster.  I am only getting 1719 ISP instead of the 2854 listed in the VAB.  I have tried several different configurations.  Any tips?  I am running KSP 1.1.3.   Thanks.

ATTILLA stand for Asjustable Throtle Inductively After Buning Arcjet, which mean that depending on the throttle setting, it will apply more or less Arcjet after-burning (Kind of like the Vasimr, but confined), lowering the Isp but increasing the thrust. If you want to maximize Isp, lower by 50% and you will see you get maximum Isp.

Edited October 11, 2016 by FreeThinker

[NeverEnoughFuel!!]

Just a few things... when I throttle down warp drive, power demand goes up, (anything other then "default/recommended" speed)? Why spherical microwave receivers keep shutting down during time warp? They are not overheating, yes there is some waste heat but I have enough radiators so it never reaches limit for shutdown... 1.1.3 version... 

[FreeThinker]

58 minutes ago, NeverEnoughFuel!! said:

Just a few things... when I throttle down warp drive, power demand goes up, (anything other then "default/recommended" speed)? Why spherical microwave receivers keep shutting down during time warp? They are not overheating, yes there is some waste heat but I have enough radiators so it never reaches limit for shutdown... 1.1.3 version... 

Yes going slower than light cost power, and depending on curvature of space, speed is limited more. This means that near strong gravity well, you need more power to contract and expand to achieve warp.

The receiver problem might be cause by buffer underrun, this happens when power requested during time warp exceeds the the power buffer. You might solve the problem by adding more super capacitors.

Edited October 11, 2016 by FreeThinker

[Midnightm3nace]

This mod is cool as excrements, but...

Can anybody make a damn instruction manual? 

I really want to try out some of these engines, particularly antimatter, but for some reason they never work. 

If someone could make like a tutorial video to make each engine type, that would be great. It is impossible to figure out by flipping off as usual in ksp.

[NeverEnoughFuel!!]

1 hour ago, FreeThinker said:

The receiver problem might be cause by buffer underrun, this happens when power requested during time warp exceeds the the power buffer. You might solve the problem by adding more super capacitors.

I think you misunderstood me, spherical receivers shut down while waiting to pass Ap of the sun (to change direction vector) so I warped the time in game, not during warp flight... I don't think its overheating because of proximity of the sun because Ap I'm talking about was pretty far out... almost close to Duna.. I jumped out of warp a bit too early so it took about 30 days to pass Ap... or you did understood me... now when i'm reading this again... are you saying receivers are getting too much power?

Edited October 12, 2016 by NeverEnoughFuel!!

[FreeThinker]

8 hours ago, NeverEnoughFuel!! said:

I think you misunderstood me, spherical receivers shut down while waiting to pass Ap of the sun (to change direction vector) so I warped the time in game, not during warp flight... I don't think its overheating because of proximity of the sun because Ap I'm talking about was pretty far out... almost close to Duna.. I jumped out of warp a bit too early so it took about 30 days to pass Ap... or you did understood me... now when i'm reading this again... are you saying receivers are getting too much power?

receive is often not constant due to numerous variables. What might happen is that a heat spike during time warp triggers a shutdown. Another explanation might be that the receive signal get blocked or is received from its blind spot, directly from the back. Or it is a bug, I would need to look it in more depth

8 hours ago, Midnightm3nace said:

This mod is cool as excrements, but...

Can anybody make a damn instruction manual? 

I really want to try out some of these engines, particularly antimatter, but for some reason they never work. 

If someone could make like a tutorial video to make each engine type, that would be great. It is impossible to figure out by flipping off as usual in ksp.

there are several instruction manuals, which you could have found on the first page.

Quote

KSPI is one of the most sophisticated mods for KSP. To help you get started, you can make use of the following resources:

KSPI-E for Dummies

KSPI-E Guide by Nansuchao

KSPI-E  Technical Guide

KSPI-E Wiki

The first page contains a lot of technical details about engines  and reactor and how to power them, comparing them with each other

Edited October 12, 2016 by FreeThinker

[FreeThinker]

8 hours ago, Midnightm3nace said:

If someone could make like a tutorial video to make each engine type, that would be great. It is impossible to figure out by flipping off as usual in ksp.

Well I have been asking for this for over a year now, but no one has answered the call yet. If no one does, I will have to do them myself. I'm already looking into if I can create some simple tutials myself, but it will cost me time, which I rather spend on improving KSPI.

If anyone does want to create some tutorial video's, please consult me about it contents, there is already a lot of miscommunication in exisitng videos

Edited October 12, 2016 by FreeThinker

[Amnesy]

3 hours ago, FreeThinker said:

Well I have been asking for this for over a year now, but no one has answered the call yet. If no one does, I will have to do them myself. I'm already looking into if I can create some simple tutials myself, but it will cost me time, which I rather spend on improving KSPI.

If anyone does want to create some tutorial video's, please consult me about it contents, there is already a lot of miscommunication in exisitng videos

I'd volunteer... In terms of engines I think I have a decent grasp of how to use them and what they are supposed to do. I think the best way would be a video in the style of the dummie guide showing off the engines one by one progressing from the nerva analogues to the more complicated fusion engines.

[NeverEnoughFuel!!]

18 hours ago, FreeThinker said:

ATTILLA stand for Asjustable Throtle Inductively After Buning Arcjet, which mean that depending on the throttle setting, it will apply more or less Arcjet after-burning (Kind of like the Vasimr, but confined), lowering the Isp but increasing the thrust. If you want to maximize Isp, lower by 50% and you will see you get maximum Isp.

Regarding the ATTILA, I have a craft with input of about 5,5 GW from beamed power, and have tried almost all fuels who work with ATTILA (1,25m)... something is odd, at least to me... with hydrogen (68% efficiency) I get biggest (full) ISP but TWR is ridiculously small, and fuel economy is terrible, on the other side of specter is xenon (almost same efficiency, at least on paper) TWR is about 1500 kn but the ISP is ridiculous about 300, and fuel economy is even worse than hydrogen ... so I guess the question is how is efficiency calculated? Does ATTILA need to have maximum input power (in this case of 1,25m 10 GW)?

Edited October 12, 2016 by NeverEnoughFuel!!