FreeThinker

[1.7.3/1.6.1/1.5.1/1.4.5/1.3.1] KSP Interstellar Extended 1.23.8 Continued Development Thread

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, FreeThinker said:

Unfortunaly this source doesn't mention its key code, it only list all possible keys/buttons, which are a lot

Ah, there are mods using the textual version and doing an enum conversion in .NET that gets the numeric code within the mod.

For example, https://github.com/Gerry1135/PartAngleDisplay/blob/master/PartAngleDisplay/EditorWindow.cs

Spoiler

        void ReadKeyCode(String str, ref KeyCode variable, KeyCode defValue)
        {
            try
            {
                variable = (KeyCode)Enum.Parse(typeof(KeyCode), str, false);
                Log.buf.Append("Read value of:");
                Log.buf.AppendLine("" + variable);
            }
            catch (Exception exp)
            {
                Log.buf.Append("Unrecognised KeyCode: ");
                Log.buf.AppendLine(str);
                Log.buf.AppendLine(exp.ToString());
                variable = defValue;
            }
        }

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NeuroticGamer said:

Ah, there are mods using the textual version and doing an enum conversion in .NET that gets the numeric code within the mod.

For example, https://github.com/Gerry1135/PartAngleDisplay/blob/master/PartAngleDisplay/EditorWindow.cs

  Reveal hidden contents


        void ReadKeyCode(String str, ref KeyCode variable, KeyCode defValue)
        {
            try
            {
                variable = (KeyCode)Enum.Parse(typeof(KeyCode), str, false);
                Log.buf.Append("Read value of:");
                Log.buf.AppendLine("" + variable);
            }
            catch (Exception exp)
            {
                Log.buf.Append("Unrecognised KeyCode: ");
                Log.buf.AppendLine(str);
                Log.buf.AppendLine(exp.ToString());
                variable = defValue;
            }
        }

 

Good suggestion, I made it work now with either numericalCode or Unity Key description

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ISRU Hydrazine vs Monopropellant.

Hello, I mainly use hydrazine with  closed cycle gas core engine (lighbulb) since it offers the best ISP/Thrust, I believe, before antimatter can be utilized (still to be opened). I wonder if there is a way to convert monopropellant to hydrazine and back, since they're the same thing. If not, what would I need onboard a rover to produce hydrazine on Eve? Basically, I all I need is Nitrogen and Hydrogen, but what are the details for the step-by-step production?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pic of the day:

zem47ig.png

Microwave transmission receival by oversized thermal receiver dish.

Edited by FreeThinker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question to the Magneto Inertial Fusion Engine.

Well i got the issue that this fine engine won´t really "work". It seems like it works, from the reactor window, the power tap, all ís green. It even uses Lithium like it should be, yet it only creates little "pulses" that got may. 0.1 kn thrust for under a second every 4-5 seconds. But all statistics read like the engine would run on full power with max. thrust.

I did some diggin and found some comments about near future electric could be causing it. Anything known about that issue so far? The last post talking about was in end of July.

 

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cicatrix said:

ISRU Hydrazine vs Monopropellant.

Hello, I mainly use hydrazine with  closed cycle gas core engine (lighbulb) since it offers the best ISP/Thrust, I believe, before antimatter can be utilized (still to be opened). I wonder if there is a way to convert monopropellant to hydrazine and back, since they're the same thing. If not, what would I need onboard a rover to produce hydrazine on Eve? Basically, I all I need is Nitrogen and Hydrogen, but what are the details for the step-by-step production?

Although monopropellant is very much like Hydrazine, there are still some major problems with conversion. One of the biggest are the economics, 51Liter of Hydrazine cost 2.008 while 1 L of Monopropellant only cost inly 0.24, almost 10 times less!!!, meaning if you would allow a conversion between Monopropellant to Hydrazine , it value would increase tenfold!

 

Edited by FreeThinker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm using No Empty Tech Tree Nodes and I think I'm missing some parts and upgrades (in particular, I don't have any access to lithium fuel). You suggest/recommend it on CKAN, so I figure there would be full compatibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, PlayMp1 said:

I'm using No Empty Tech Tree Nodes and I think I'm missing some parts and upgrades (in particular, I don't have any access to lithium fuel). You suggest/recommend it on CKAN, so I figure there would be full compatibility.

If you are playing career, you must first unlock the techs that gives access to them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, FreeThinker said:

If you are playing career, you must first unlock the techs that gives access to them

Yeah, I just realized I was a moron. Disregard me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/30/2016 at 4:24 PM, FreeThinker said:

Although monopropellant is very much like Hydrazine, there are still some major problems with conversion. One of the biggest are the economics, 51Liter of Hydrazine cost 2.008 while 1 L of Monopropellant only cost inly 0.24, almost 10 times less!!!, meaning if you would allow a conversion between Monopropellant to Hydrazine , it value would increase tenfold!

 

Actually I suspect that monoprop is precisely hydrazine. Granted the term is general, but it's much less likely that it's hydrogen peroxide given the isp we get from it in stock motors. Out of curiosity have you not assumed the molecular weight of hydrazine when burning monoprop in one of your engines? Or have you actually used something different? If you have assumed different chemistry could you please say what you did assume and why?

it would appear that the conversion problem can be eliminated entirely by simply reducing the cost of hydrazine to equal that of monoprop. And better yet eliminate the hydrazine since we've already got a perfectly good stock fuel. Why would this not be the simplest and best solution?

thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, schlosrat said:

Actually I suspect that monoprop is precisely hydrazine. Granted the term is general, but it's much less likely that it's hydrogen peroxide given the isp we get from it in stock motors. Out of curiosity have you not assumed the molecular weight of hydrazine when burning monoprop in one of your engines? Or have you actually used something different? If you have assumed different chemistry could you please say what you did assume and why?

it would appear that the conversion problem can be eliminated entirely by simply reducing the cost of hydrazine to equal that of monoprop. And better yet eliminate the hydrazine since we've already got a perfectly good stock fuel. Why would this not be the simplest and best solution?

thanks

Hydrazine is one of the real monoprop, but not the only one. In reality most of the orbiters, manned or not use hypergolic propellants, not just for attitude control but for propulsion, so a better solution would be to completely remove monopropellant in KSP if you have KSPI-E installed, like it happens with Real Fuels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1-11-2016 at 4:37 AM, schlosrat said:

it would appear that the conversion problem can be eliminated entirely by simply reducing the cost of hydrazine to equal that of monoprop. And better yet eliminate the hydrazine since we've already got a perfectly good stock fuel. Why would this not be the simplest and best solution?

thanks

Even if you did that, there remains the problem of ISRU. Stock allow the fabrication of monopropellant out of Ore, which can be found everywhere. This is is scientific violation, because one of the key components of Hydrazine is Nitrogen, which cannot be found everywhere like Ore is. So unless KSP monoprepellant does not contain nitrogen, it is basically magic. At best Ore is some kind of Hydrate, which means it contains hydrogen molecules and Oxygen, which can be converted into Hydrogen Peroxide. the great thing about Hydrogen Peroxide  is that it's not poisones and simple to create. It has a higher density than water (and therefore ksp monopropellant) but in contrast to hydrazine, it is a oxidizer.

Edited by FreeThinker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Nansuchao said:

Hydrazine is one of the real monoprop, but not the only one. In reality most of the orbiters, manned or not use hypergolic propellants, not just for attitude control but for propulsion, so a better solution would be to completely remove monopropellant in KSP if you have KSPI-E installed, like it happens with Real Fuels.

Good point. Real space craft do use hypergolics, although those are not monopropelants like we have in KSP. But isnt it true that the most common of those also include hydrazine? The Great Oracle (aka Wikipedia) says "In contemporary usage, the terms "hypergol" or "hypergolic propellant" usually mean the most common such propellant combination, dinitrogen tetroxide plus hydrazine and/or its relatives monomethylhydrazine and unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine."

All that aside my question was really why do we need both hydrazine and monopropelant in the game since its most likely that stock KSP has assumed (reasonably) monoprop is hydrazine? This mod adds many types of fuel which are different and interesting, but I don't see why we need both this and the stock alternative. It seems to just add confusion with little value other than a limitation for where and how you can produce it

21 hours ago, FreeThinker said:

Even if you did that, there remains the problem of ISRU. Stock allow the fabrication of monopropellant out of Ore, which can be found everywhere. This is is scientific violation, because one of the key components of Hydrazine is Nitrogen, which cannot be found everywhere like Ore is. So unless KSP monoprepellant does not contain nitrogen, it is basically magic. At best Ore is some kind of Hydrate, which means it contains hydrogen molecules and Oxygen, which can be converted into Hydrogen Peroxide. the great thing about Hydrogen Peroxide  is that it's not poisones and simple to create. It has a higher density than water (and therefore ksp monopropellant) but in contrast to hydrazine, it is a oxidizer.

I agree the production of hydrazine from ore would be impossible give most definitions for ore, including something that can produce "liquid fuel" and "oxidizer". All of this seems to tie back to the basic issue that the game has simplified real life. So your ok with Magic entering the system (I.e. A single magical ISRU plant that can convert all sorts of things vs highly specialized equipment that was designed to convert only one thing), you're just not ok with the magic being so silly that it coverts ore to hydrazine?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, schlosrat said:

Good point. Real space craft do use hypergolics, although those are not monopropelants like we have in KSP. But isnt it true that the most common of those also include hydrazine? The Great Oracle (aka Wikipedia) says "In contemporary usage, the terms "hypergol" or "hypergolic propellant" usually mean the most common such propellant combination, dinitrogen tetroxide plus hydrazine and/or its relatives monomethylhydrazine and unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine."

The most commons, not the only one. Thinking that the monopropellent can substitute all the hypergolic propellants it's a little too much. 

Just take a look at Real Fuels to have an idea of how many of them are currently used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salutations. I apologise if this was discussed recently but my searching abilities are rather low.

The issue is, several of Microwave Transceivers don't have "Activate transmitter" button in right-click menu. It can however be activated by adding it to an action group in the assembly. Any ideas on why this may happen?

nLAcm8l.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, AtilaElari said:

Salutations. I apologise if this was discussed recently but my searching abilities are rather low.

The issue is, several of Microwave Transceivers don't have "Activate transmitter" button in right-click menu. It can however be activated by adding it to an action group in the assembly. Any ideas on why this may happen?

It is an exploit. Good find! +1

Edited by FreeThinker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, FreeThinker said:

It is an exploit. Good find! +1

Wait, you mean to say that those parts are not supposed to be able to transmit?
Why are they called TRANScievers then? And the description also implies that they can be used to transmit power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, AtilaElari said:

Wait, you mean to say that those parts are not supposed to be able to transmit?
Why are they called TRANScievers then? And the description also implies that they can be used to transmit power.

Yes, they are able to transmit, but only when connected to a Beam Generator that produces Microwave Beams. Without it, you are supposed to only be able to relay

Edited by FreeThinker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FreeThinker said:

Yes, they are able to transmit, but only when conneted to a Beam Generator that produces Microwave Beams. Without it, you are supposed to only be able to relay

I don't think that was mentioned in the mod Wiki. Ah well, yay for me finding an exploit!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't seem to figure out what part to attach to make an optical transmitter. The big pivoted light mirror only appears to be for relaying, and the FELA is far, far too large to put into orbit reasonably. I know you have to have a free electron laser beam generator onboard. I can't seem to find the medium parabolic optical transceiver either.

Edited by PlayMp1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While we are on the topic, the only part description that states the need for a generator to transmit power is for Microwave Transducer DT-MW-TD-32x. And descriptions for generators are empty. This was rather confusing. Maybe you should write something more specific in the next update:)

Also, do Sphere Phased Arrays have microwave generators inside? They don't seem to need it. Can they be used to power other trancsievers?

Edited by AtilaElari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, PlayMp1 said:

I can't seem to figure out what part to attach to make an optical transmitter. The big pivoted light mirror only appears to be for relaying, and the FELA is far, far too large to put into orbit reasonably. I know you have to have a free electron laser beam generator onboard. I can't seem to find the medium parabolic optical transceiver either.

It's in development, along with specific wavelength transmiision, danamic receiver brandwith efficiency and climate/weather absortion variation

2 hours ago, AtilaElari said:

Also, do Sphere Phased Arrays have microwave generators inside? They don't seem to need it. Can they be used to power other trancsievers?

Phased array only need generators when used as transmitter, they relay without.  You can technically already chain link them, you set a receiver to link and a transmitter to relay  ...

Edited by FreeThinker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phased array only need generators when used as transmitter, they relay without.  You can technically already chain link them, you set a receiver to link and a transmitter to relay  ...

No, I noticed that Spherical Phased Array and Inline Phased Array can transmit without the generator. They seem to have enough internal space to house a generator though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shouldn't radiators "leak" wasteheat to surrounding parts for example at 0.1% - 1% of total removed wasteheat?

For example if my ship produces one GW of wasteheat, then 1 - 10 MW of it should be transferred to parts being in patch between radiators and wasteheat gerating parts due to inefficiencies of coolant transportation.

Also what if I land huge starship in water/ Titan lakes, that produces for example 100 GW of wasteheat?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Danfarnsy on page 169 mentioned a way to get rid of waste heat in favour of the stock heat system. did this venture go well? I am asking, because maybe we (other mod developers) could learn a lot from that.

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.