KSP Interstellar Extended Continued Development Thread

[FreeThinker]

I Updated KSPI-E for  1.2 Pre Alpha which can be downloaded from here.

KSPI-E 1.10.6

* Fixed crash Thermal Jet Engine when switching to propellant in vacuum
* Fixed Drag cube spamming for Quantum Singularity Reactor in log when in flight mode
* Improved texture Quantum Singularity Reactor by Raknark
* Included Drag Cube of most KSPI parts
* Increased default thermal transportation efficiency from 80% to 85%

 

Edited October 10, 2016 by FreeThinker

[FreeThinker]

2 hours ago, okder said:

second bug ( https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0rgcOJPK_8XSmQwYkZNdkFSUU0 ) - incorrect thermal power distribution (when 2 reactors, small one for providing sustain fields energy for itself and larger one, latter supposed to be used ONLY for thrusters, but thrusters uses both, and so main reactor can't be used up to 100% (18% energy is lost) (or it's sustains field will disappear)

I don't think it is actually lost. What happens is the engine retrieves thermal  energy equal to the connected main reactor (the large one) from the pool of thermal produces. Both  reactors actually generate the thermal power and the reserve thermal capacity simply moves to the large reactor. What happens is that it simply priorities the reactor nearest to the root node, which in this case is the small one.

Edited October 9, 2016 by FreeThinker

[okder]

1 minute ago, FreeThinker said:

I don't think it is actually lost.

i mean remaining percentage of main reactor can't be used (thrust can't be set to 100%) because in this case will containment failure (i did test it).

[FreeThinker]

3 minutes ago, okder said:

i mean remaining percentage of main reactor can't be used (thrust can't be set to 100%) because in this case will containment failure (i did test it).

real containment failure or only a warning?

2 hours ago, okder said:

first bug (first screenshot https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0rgcOJPK_8XNXFnZ3liM3ZqRjA ) is about too overpowered very small nozzle only one nozzle active and gives only 15% less thrust than big nozzle near reactor (reactor 2.5m)

and OVERHEATS!

 

They are actually  related. The limited reduction is actually intended, as it would give players more flexibility, but a side effect that a nozzle has much higher fuel flow than it can handle, causing it to overheat.

[okder]

12 minutes ago, FreeThinker said:

real containment failure or only a warning?

real containment failure of large reactor, after small time reactor restart itself, and and after small time again stops, average thrust around 60%, compared to 80% that could be maintained without containment failures.

p.S. small nozzle overheats only in 2 reactors configuration and that's independent of throttling,

in case of one large reactor small nozzle gives 85% thrust of large one (one nozzle active at time,full throttle) without overheating (first bug mentioned, i did expected around 5% thrust of large one).

 

 

Edited October 9, 2016 by okder

[ss8913]

On 10/3/2016 at 10:46 PM, FreeThinker said:

Sounds like a flow rule issue, have you made sure to connect it with fuel pipes?

Reactor is inside a cargo bay.  Between the cargo bay and the engine is a Mk3-3.75m adapter and a 2m Mk3 fuselage tank.  So.. no fuel pipes but fuel is directly available adjacent to the engine.

[NeverEnoughFuel!!]

Is collecting amount of antimatter collectors changed from 24 hours to six hours time?

Btw, seems that alpha fusion reactor doesn't scale properly, how is 1,25 m version heavier than 2,5 m by 300ish kg? 1.1.3 version of game...

Edited October 10, 2016 by NeverEnoughFuel!!

[FreeThinker]

The Beam core is a lot more effective in generating power than the OMEGA reactor. let me demonstrate by putting a powersat in orbit:

Reactor on standby, notice it only requires 0.4 KW (this is a new feature which will save fuel)

Reactor shortly after Laser beam is activated, notice at best it can only generate about 1 GW, but not for long...

After the radiators stabilize, only half a gigawatt of transmission power is left

Total mass of this power sat: 23.2t

Now the powersat with a Colliding Beam Reactor

The Beam core almost four times as powerful, and notice is not affected by waste-heat accumulation

Total mass is 15.8 ton, which is 7.2 ton less than the OMEGA

still think the Beam core is useless?

 

 

Edited October 10, 2016 by FreeThinker

[FreeThinker]

The latest version of KSPI for KSP 1.2 Pre Alpha can be downloaded from curse.

KSPI-E 1.10.7

* Fixed Colliding Beam Fusion Reactor mass scaling
* Improved stability power generating of all Inertial Fusion Reactors
* Inertial Fusion Reactors can reduce power to  1/100000 power requirement when no power is needed, saving fuel

 

[NeoAcario]

So I've taken a long break from KSP... KSPI used to be a big part of my love for this game. A huge thanks to FreeThinker for keeping this mod alive.  Really looking forward to 1.2 official release tomorrow.

~Steve

 

EDIT:  Quick random question: Do the KSPI:E radiators do double duty for the vanilla heat dissipation also for drills and ISRU?

Edited October 10, 2016 by NeoAcario

[NeverEnoughFuel!!]

4 hours ago, FreeThinker said:

* Fixed Colliding Beam Fusion Reactor mass scaling

Same thing happens with molten salt reactor, you can resize it to 0,625 but its weight doesn't change... same 1.1.3

[Sresk]

Hey I haven't played with the the new update yet as I'm wanting to wait a bit for more mods to get 1.2 but... on the most recent update for 1.1.3 if you have one vessel with a microwave receiver, a thermal receiver, a transmitter and a relay and you activate all of them at the same time it spike the memory useage to all 16g that I have and drops the frame rate to about .1. 

[okder]

8 hours ago, FreeThinker said:

The latest version of KSPI for KSP 1.2 Pre Alpha can be downloaded from curse.

 

are there any fixes of those 3 bugs or ramjet inefficiency (beyond 800m/s) ?

looks like

Improved stability power generating of all Inertial Fusion Reactors

that become even worse (now ALL (both) reactors  shutdowns completely because of thermal engines)

short and simple test shows now THREE NEW (actually only two is new, one was reported by me ~week ago) PROBLEMS !

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0rgcOJPK_8XOHZHazE1OG5vXzQ

1. KSPI power still drained to zero by thermal engine (or it can't be throttled even to 90%)

2. after it gone small (power production) reactor did not shows in KSPIe energy screen

3. no energy production, but still enough energy for active radiator, and computer core (no drain at all!)

Edited October 11, 2016 by okder

[FreeThinker]

6 hours ago, NeoAcario said:

So I've taken a long break from KSP... KSPI used to be a big part of my love for this game. A huge thanks to FreeThinker for keeping this mod alive.  Really looking forward to 1.2 official release tomorrow.

~Steve

 

EDIT:  Quick random question: Do the KSPI:E radiators do double duty for the vanilla heat dissipation also for drills and ISRU?

For drills and radiators yes. but KSPI uses it's own part for ISRU refinery, it cannot function in the stock part that applies wizardry, converting the magical substance Ore into magical fuels

Edited October 11, 2016 by FreeThinker

[FreeThinker]

29 minutes ago, okder said:

short and simple test shows now THREE NEW (actually only two is new, one was reported by me ~week ago) PROBLEMS !

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0rgcOJPK_8XOHZHazE1OG5vXzQ

1. KSPI power still drained to zero by thermal engine (or it can't be throttled even to 90%)

2. after it gone small (power production) reactor did not shows in KSPIe energy screen

3. no energy production, but still enough energy for active radiator, and computer core (no drain at all!)

Well this is not going to work well as the thermal electric generator is not properly matched with the connected 1.25 OMEGA fusion  reactor.  I would advice to use the Tri Alpha Fusion Reactor for generating electric power, which is lighter, more efficient and much more reliable.

 

Edited October 11, 2016 by FreeThinker

[okder]

2 hours ago, FreeThinker said:

Well this is not going to work well as the thermal electric generator is not properly matched with the connected 1.25 OMEGA fusion  reactor.  I would advice to use the Tri Alpha Fusion Reactor for generating electric power, which is lighter, more efficient and much more reliable.

 

On 10/10/2016 at 1:40 AM, okder said:

more about second bug (power distribution problems):

i.e. 18% of big reactor output lost in configuration 2.5 + 1.25 omega, 100% lost in config 2.5 omega + 1.25 tri-alpha (just not enough electrical output)

30% lost in config 2.5 omega  + 1.25 pebble bed (depends on radiators though)

and only 4.7% lost (on power sustenance, 100% thrust is working i.e. no bug in this case) for only one 2.5  omega reactor, well we have unexpected winner, 1 reactor is better than 2 :).

 

take no offense but your suggestion was covered yesterday, and results was reported.

actually there is probably no check for matching size of thermoelectric generator (as it's mass does not depends on it's size, and max power output),

anyway it did start perfectly in config on the picture, but working stable only up to 82% throttle.

P.S. it take less time to compile test craft from picture consisting only with 8 parts (2 of them in radial symmetric config, but that probably not needed)

than writing even short answers to my post, actually even i did not needed that test craft, as my plane basically have same components, so it was compiled specifically for you to emphasize the bugs.

just to save your time - craft file : https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0rgcOJPK_8XZVZtTmpxZzhFcWs

more clarification : tech nodes with 4000 and more science value had not researched, experimental nuclear propulsion (empty one) too.

about another previously reported bugs:

also it's simple change to demonstrate small nozzle (0.375) overpowered and not overheat (bugs ,depends what you consider correct behaviour)

craft file:  https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0rgcOJPK_8XMWEwV2lZaEF2SEU

image : https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0rgcOJPK_8XSGMzXy1rZXB0VTg

compare it with previous one https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0rgcOJPK_8XbXB0QUt0MDFhcjA

reactors is THE same on both vessels.

this bug appears because radius influence is static and calculated for all engines (?same type?) in editor, while actual power distribution calculates in flight only for active engines, i.e. radius modifier almost 1 because of offline big (side) nozzles(currentScale = 1.57500005), and so small nozzle(currentScale = 0.375) takes all power of 2.5 reactor 

P.S.2. please boost ramjet to have it's max power on 1800m/s (ksp with only kspie, all aerospace tech researched), and 3000 m/s with rss/RO,

because now it's having it max power on 750m/s and it is very bad compared to other engines, even to rapier, so now it is cheaper just to use turbojet instead(just to save mass/money, science for high aerospace techs)

 

Edited October 11, 2016 by okder

[FreeThinker]

 

1 hour ago, okder said:

P.S.2. please boost ramjet to have it's max power on 1800m/s (ksp with only kspie, all aerospace tech researched), and 3000 m/s with rss/RO,

because now it's having it max power on 750m/s and it is very bad compared to other engines, even to rapier, so now it is cheaper just to use turbojet instead(just to save mass/money, science for high aerospace techs)

 

Very well I will extend the speed curve allowing it to continue to perform well at higher speeds

1 hour ago, okder said:

craft file:  https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0rgcOJPK_8XMWEwV2lZaEF2SEU

image : https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0rgcOJPK_8XSGMzXy1rZXB0VTg

compare it with previous one https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0rgcOJPK_8XbXB0QUt0MDFhcj

 

Well if your goal was to cripple/ stress test it, you certainly succeeded . I admit not have not properly to take into account less favorable situations. I want to implement partial failure instead of catastrophic failure where it produce not power all , that way you don't have to continuously adjust power to prevent total failure. For inertial fusion reactors, that are pulsed, this also makes sense realistically, it simple pulses at a lower rate when it receives less power than at peek capacity.

 

 

Edited October 11, 2016 by FreeThinker

[okder]

@FreeThinker,to remove misunderstanding about power priorities:

the img   happens after (activating engine, and waiting some time) using more than 82% throttle (main reactor usage shows same number) for craft

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0rgcOJPK_8XZVZtTmpxZzhFcWs

there is no way how to reserve small reactor ONLY for thermal generator, because it's needed to support fusion maintenance for both reactors.

other images/craft files for other bugs.

so while that ("noreserve") bug active it's better to use only one reactor (large) - it's giving more thrust.

again full list of reported bugs:

1. no powerfail for ksp old power (Electric Charge) when all reactors go offline (ever, the img)

2. no (thermal) power reserve for megajoules generation (for fusion maintenance support, no custom reserve, no auto reserve, or auto reserve is buggy (auto reserve works well for 1 reactor though),  the img)

3. no dynamic radius modifier for small turbojet engines (static working incorrectly in some situation, that was you quoted in your previous post)

4. not correct small turbojet overheat behavior (whatever you choose to be correct one, currently inconsistent you quoted both images in your prev. post)

5. no small fusion reactor displayed on Megajoules power manager display. ( the img)

balance problems

1. ramjet/scramjet (i.e. no scramjet actually, better make them combined, so already proposed changes ok, and simple)

2. tri-alpha reactor gives too low output on start when only it researched, and too large output (20 times more in real megajoules output) when all research treee done.

Edited October 11, 2016 by okder

[FreeThinker]

44 minutes ago, okder said:

@FreeThinker

2. tri-alpha reactor gives too low output on start when only it researched, and too large output (20 times more in real megajoules output) when all research treee done.

Wait, you say it produces both too little (at minimum research level) and too much when fully researched? please explain

44 minutes ago, okder said:

@FreeThinker

5. no small fusion reactor displayed on Megajoules power manager display. ( https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0rgcOJPK_8XOHZHazE1OG5vXzQ)

Oh, this is an intresting one, it is almost as if they are identified with the same id, this might be a coincidense, but unlikely

Edited October 11, 2016 by FreeThinker

[okder]

15 minutes ago, FreeThinker said:

Wait, you say it produces both too little (at minum research level) and too much when fully researched?, please explain

initially it do produce 12mw (smallest version, if you exclude itself fusion maintenance support), at full tech tree 247 mw

same reactor more than 20 times output difference

i think partially situation can be saved if build in generator of tri-alpha start with 70% efficiency and slightly more raw power (200 mw) final raw power should be probably same (375MW)

Edited October 11, 2016 by okder

[FreeThinker]

45 minutes ago, okder said:

@FreeThinker,

2. no (thermal) power reserve for megajoules generation (for fusion maintenance support, no custom reserve, no auto reserve, or auto reserve is buggy (auto reserve works well for 1 reactor though),  https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0rgcOJPK_8XOHZHazE1OG5vXzQ )

Well on a low level power is reserved but there is a delay, to overcome it, I allowed the reactor to directly acces to power reserves, but this could result in the starvation of other reactors, which was made worse if the powergrap was insufficient to maintain the reactor. I will therefore only allow a reactor to use the reserves if there is sufficient power.

[okder]

7 minutes ago, FreeThinker said:

Well on a low level power is reserved but there is a delay, to overcome it, I allowed the reactor to directly acces to power reserves, but this could result in the starvation of other reactors, which was made worse if the powergrap was insufficient to maintain the reactor. I will therefore only allow a reactor to use the reserves if there is sufficient power.

again all works well on full thrust with 1 reactor (and generator for it),

if you add to my test case tri-alpha rector (just add) and put vessel with 3 reactors on full thrust all of 3 reactors will shutdowns eventually (2 mins of realtime), (i mean low tech tri-alpha), that's clearly reserve bug.

actually if i could force use small reactor for megajoules only and large one for thrusters only in vessel with 2 reactors, i would get much better thrust (raw kn in average) than in vessel with 3 reactors

i.e. current power distribution completely wrong for such configurations, because it forces large reactor usage same as throttle, but engines takes power from both reactors, so that's limiting that throttle to 82% stable operation, which in turn limits usage of large reactor to 82.

Edited October 11, 2016 by okder

[FreeThinker]

31 minutes ago, okder said:

initially it do produce 12mw (smallest version, if you exclude itself fusion maintenance support), at full tech tree 247 mw

same reactor more than 20 times output difference

mm yes, there are several factors that dramaticly improve it potency, but this is intended. I intiltialy want the player to experience the problems associated with this type of power, which is that generating a net energy gain from fusion energy is hard. But perhaps the difference is too extreme ..

Edit: What about the following sollution, give it a fixed raw power of 3 GW (instead of 1.33, 2, 3), this should make it initialy 27 MW instead of 12 MW

Edit2: I will also give it acces to the pure Helium3 burning mode, which effectivly should give double the power, please see Fusion reaction table

Edited October 11, 2016 by FreeThinker

[okder]

8 minutes ago, FreeThinker said:

mm yes, there are several factors that dramaticly improve it potency, but this is intended. I intiltialy want the player to experience the problems associated with this type of power, which is that generating a net energy gain from fusion energy is hard. But perhaps the difference is too extreme ..

however may be include there thermal generator too, or just hint for player to add thermal generator,

still because of large fusion maintance compared to omega, omega would wins, so some tuning still needed - probably better efficiency for build in direct conversion generator (my initial proposition was tri-alpha build in generator start with 70% efficiency, and 200 mw raw power, end level is the same as now, but with thermal generator it may become too good)

Edited October 11, 2016 by okder

[okder]

1 hour ago, okder said:

1. no powerfail for ksp old power (Electric Charge) when all reactors go offline (ever, the img)

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.

 

53 minutes ago, FreeThinker said:

mm yes, there are several factors that dramaticly improve it potency, but this is intended. I intiltialy want the player to experience the problems associated with this type of power, which is that generating a net energy gain from fusion energy is hard. But perhaps the difference is too extreme ..

Edit: What about the following sollution, give it a fixed raw power of 3 GW (instead of 1.33, 2, 3), this should make it initialy 27 MW instead of 12 MW

Edit2: I will also give it acces to the pure Helium3 burning mode, which effectivly should give double the power, please see Fusion reaction table

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

may be build in generators always has boost like 0.2*(1-cur_gen_standalone_efficiency), that would be 10% boost from start, and only 3% boost in the end.

take into account that direct conversion generator is in other branch (HighTechElectricalSystems, 1500 science) i have researched it but it seems that reactor does not require it for function, may be lower direct conversion generator to Experimental Electrics, and in HighTechElectricalSystems provide boost to 65% ?

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?

Edited October 11, 2016 by okder