FreeThinker

[1.8.1, 1.7.3/1.6.1/1.5.1/1.4.5] KSP Interstellar Extended 1.25 Continued Development Thread

Recommended Posts

Freethinker, your inbox is full. I didn't plan on announcing this yet, as it is unfinished....but it can't hurt.

Made this for the hell of it..

I noticed a couple small things, like a backwards normal and I forgot the base hinges which I am adding now, but this is it essentially. If you see anything that could be improved, let me know and I'll see if I can do something about it tomorrow. All that is left is to find someone who would be willing to make textures for it.

https://youtu.be/4QpMVufaAVU

Actually....anyone willing to texture this thing?

Edited by somewhatcasual

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

KSPI Extended Version 0.8.2 for Kerbal Space Program 0.90 can now be downloaded at KerbalStuff

Released on 2015-03-28

  • Electric Generator can now connect through a Non-androgynous docking port
  • Added additional Non-androgynous sizes (1.875m, 2.5m, 3.75m)

bTl8REN.jpg

- - - Updated - - -

Freethinker, your inbox is full. I didn't plan on announcing this yet, as it is unfinished....but it can't hurt.

Made this for the hell of it..

I noticed a couple small things, like a backwards normal and I forgot the base hinges which I am adding now, but this is it essentially. If you see anything that could be improved, let me know and I'll see if I can do something about it tomorrow. All that is left is to find someone who would be willing to make textures for it.

https://youtu.be/4QpMVufaAVU

Actually....anyone willing to texture this thing?

Very nice graphics! NoW we need to finish it. Why don't you try to texture it yourself?

Edited by FreeThinker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FreeThinker,

I've got a beautiful new spaceplane sitting in the Spaceplane Hanger, ready to launch and use Hydrazine to boost itself to orbit! (the trace amounts of Hydrazine not broken down by the heat of the nuclear reactor would have a short half-life in the upper atmosphere thanks to the high ultraviolet radiation above the ozone layer- as UV is *highly* effective at breaking down Hydrazine, so much so that high-powered UV lights are being looked at for use to explosively photolyze Hydrazine... Point being, no Kerbals would be directly harmed by its use in the upper atmosphere...)

The only problem is, I can't use Hydrazine as a thermal rocket propellant yet!

Could you so kindly push out an update to allow use of Hydrazine in thermal rockets using the numbers I provided earlier?

- The base ISP multiplier for Hydrazine in a Thermal Rocket should be 0.412

- The Thrust multiplier for Hydrazine in a Thermal Rocket should be 1.806

- The effective ISP of a Hydrazine Thermal Rocket is 74.4% (0.412 * 1.806 = 0.744) that of Hydrogen alone

You'll note that I cut out the part about "at a significantly higher Thrust/MW" from the quote. That's because ALL thermal rockets propellants that produce exhaust gasses with a higher molecular mass than Hydrogen will produce significantly higher Thrust/MW- and I thought that might be confusing you into thinking Hydrazine is more powerful than it really is..

Except for its density, Hydrazine is really not much better than Ammonia- and it's much more difficult to produce through In Situ Resource Utilization... You actually need to first produce Ammonia and Hydrogen Peroxide and then react the two in order to produce Hydrazine- which currently requires access to both Water and Oxygen as Hydrogen Peroxide can currently only be produced from Water and Oxygen in KSP-I... (Which reminds me- we still really need to fix that- Hydrogen and Oxygen are the normal feedstocks for producing Hydrogen Peroxide in real life, via the Anthraquinone Process- Water is not required...)

The drawback is lower ISP, of course- even 74% ISP leads to GREATLY increased mass-requirements for large Delta-V gaps (say the 7-8 km/s it takes to orbit Kerbin in Real Solar System 64K, or 10 km/s for Earth/Kerbin in full-scale RSS...) thanks to the beauty that is the Rocket Equation...

Hydrazine is great for upper stages (chemical rockets still have Hydrazine Nuclear Thermal Rockets beat for TWR, and thus are still preferable in launch-stages, at least if you're using RealFuels...) and landers thanks to its density, but for orbital stages you still really want to go with Hydrogen- because once you're in orbit ISP becomes the only thing that really matters...

Regards,

Northstar

P.S. Note that just because you *can* build a Nuclear Thermal Rocket launch-stage doesn't mean you *should* build a Nuclear Thermal Rocket launch stage... The Thrust of a NTR is still drastically inferior to a realistic chemical rocket (like you get with RealFuels installed), and for Thrust Weight Ratio they lose out even worse (30 for the best Hydrogen Nuclear Thermal Rocket designs to have been proposed to date- in Project Timberwind- vs. anywhere from 60 to 120 for a chemical rocket...) thanks to the high weight of the reactor. Plus, nuclear reactors are EXPENSIVE! This is just one reason why Nuclear Thermal launch-stages, as embodied by designs like Project Timberwind, are a terrible idea and ultimately failed to ever be realized.

High TWR nuclear thermal rockets (like the ones designed for Project Timberwind) *do* make for great launch-stages and possibly extra-atmospheric landers, however... Spaceplanes in particular could really benefit from them- because you don't have to lift the mass of the reactor with Thrust, but use Lift to keep it up instead (making lower TWR methods of propulsion more viable, and favoring ISP over TWR...)

Edited by Northstar1989

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KSPI Extended Version 0.8.2 for Kerbal Space Program 0.90 can now be downloaded at KerbalStuff

Released on 2015-03-28

  • Electric Generator can now connect through a Non-androgynous docking port
  • Added additional Non-androgynous sizes (1.875m, 2.5m, 3.75m)

http://i.imgur.com/bTl8REN.jpg

- - - Updated - - -

Very nice graphics! NoW we need to finish it. Why don't you try to texture it yourself?

Thanks

A couple reasons I don't want to do it myself. Free time and desire. I have a computer at work that I can use in my down time as long as everything is portable and fits on my thumb drive. I'm not installing anything on it. Blender works great as as it's super portable in that regard. I find 3d modeling easy and quick enough, and it satisfies some of my creative drive.

Texturing, I must admit I'm more then a bit rusty. I learned photoshop a while back, and it's not as quick for me to relearn it. My work computer is linux based vs windows at home and Photoshop is not super portable with all the license stuff. I don't really want any outgoing connections either from my work network other than webpages, due to the sensitive nature of what we do at work. I can get away with a flash drive that I've vetted as only used on 2-3 secure computers.

I know gimp is portable and free but it's a bit different and I really don't have a desire to learn from scratch with it for one project and to produce work that isn't up to par.

I don't find hard surface texturing as fun either..

If I can't find anyone to help me, I'll see what I can do in my free time at home.

I could certainly uv map it if necessary as I do get down time at work.

I'll start a thread in the model/texture subforum today after work or tomorrow.

Like I said before, that tank could be pulled off the model and used on its own if you needed/wanted more models that are unique. Can't say if it's design makes sense in space though vs it's terrestrial design, but the game isn't that realistic is it?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A version with and without tank would be usefull. I think it will make a very good first generation foldable radiator

Edited by FreeThinker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A version and with and without tank would be usfull. I think it will make a very good first generation foldable radiator

Ok easy enough. Two clicks after it's been textured and it can be deleted and saved as radiator sans coolant reservoir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi FreeThinker,

Still no word on the Hydrazine fuel-mode for Thermal Rockets, are you working on that? I already provided the numbers for ISP multiplier and Thrust multiplier- which is all that should be needed to add it... I'll even write up the code for the fuel mode and post it here so all you have to do is copy+paste into the appropriate file...

Also, just a little perspective as your faithful co-developer of this mod- this is a mod that started out with a Warp Drive- which by any account was OP'd compared to stock- and only later added things like reactors, antimatter, and an energy-intensive process to create ExoticMatter... Thus, by all means, I don't think we should by shying away from any technology- especially when it exists in real life. Hydrazine is already a commonly-used rocket propellant for resistojets and RCS- which are basically just simple thermal rockets that rely on the increase in gas volume created by Hydrazine decomposition and either heat from that reaction or additional added heat with resistojets, to generate thrust... The only difference with putting it through a Nuclear Thermal Rocket is that the temperatures it is exposed to are much higher- which creates more complete decomposition and improved the Gibbs Free Energy of the reaction and energy released by an increase in the volume of gas...

I don't think you should try penalizing or punishing players for using it somehow either. Players could already use nuclear rockets (either KSP-I or stock) right off the launchpad anyways. While Hydrazine is much more toxic short-term, radiation is still much more dangerous in the long run... (whereas Hydrazine rapidly decays in the environment into harmless gasses) It's not up to us to make decisions for our players or our Kerbals about what sacrifices are or are not acceptable in the name of space exploration...

Finally, I particularly strongly advise against any mechanic that steals away player's hard-earned Science. Not only is it much less realistic than losing Reputation (realistically, a Hydrazine rocket probably isn't going to kill anyone- it's just going to lead to the creation of a restricted-access zone around the launchpad to prevent exposure to residual Hydrazine shortly after launches... Also, even if a scientist or engineer DID die, science has never been set back too far by the loss of one individual. Their data and records remain intact, and it wouldn't be too long before somebody else picked them up and continued their work...) It's also a bad idea from a gameplay perspective...

KSP is supposed to be !FUN!, and that necessarily means making some sacrifices of detail in realism to gameplay. While players might disagree about where the optimal balance between !FUN! and realism lies (for instance, I like using realistic fuel-densities and ISP values, and a larger solar system, other players might not like that...) I think everybody can agree that losing Science for making use of a certain type of fuel is NOT fun- and thus isn't something we should seriously consider adding to our mod (which has never before ventured to penalize players in Reputation of Science for any of their actions...)

One more thing: you drastically underestimate the utility of Reputation as a resource, and have probably either been playing Science mode (which is supposed to be simpler/easier than Career Mode anyways) or not using enough strategies... Reputation not only affects the contracts you are awarded, it can always be traded off to increase your Science and Funds yields from missions, or DIRECTLY "burned" to get tech nodes cheaper through the "Aggressive Negotiations" strategy (which not only saves you Funds on rocket launches- it also saves Science on tech node purchases and Funds on entry-purchases...) Not that I think Reputation *should* take a hit for using Hydrazine rockets- but if it did it would ultimately still be quite damaging to players, and a lot more realistic than losing accumulated Science points...

Regards,

Northstar

Edited by Northstar1989

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, here's the code:


BASIC_NTR_PROPELLANT
{
name = Hydrazine
guiName = Hydrazine
ispMultiplier = 0.412
thrustMultiplier = 1.806
isLFO = false
PROPELLANT
{
name = Hydrazine
ratio = 1
DrawGauge = True
}
}

Note that after ordering the propellants by ISP (after taking the Thrust multipliers into account- as they improve ISP as well as Thrust/MW, as they should realsitically do and was intended...) it comes out intermediate between Water and Ammonia. Here is the fuel-modes I use (so no stock LiquidFuel, LFO, NFT "LiquidHydrogen", or Kethane), ordered from lowest to highest ISP:

1. LiquidCO2cleaning

2. LiquidNitrogen

3. LiquidCO2

4. Water

5. Hydrazine

6. Ammonia

7. Methalox

8. Hydrolox

9. Methane

10. LqdHydrogen

Note that the Thrust/MW generally decreases as you down this list- with three exceptions: LiquidCO2 has a higher Thrust/MW *and* ISP (and fuel-density for that matter) than LiquidNitrogen or the the LiquidCO2 "cleaning" mode thanks to its Thrust multiplier... Hydrazine has a higher Thrust/MW than Water and LiquidCO2 (also due to its higher Thrust multiplier). Meth/LOX has higher Thrust/MW than Ammonia.

All of these exceptions are realistic, and follow real-world chemistry, so I'm not really too concerned about them... (although Atomic Rockets confirms the Thrust/ISP for Carbon Dioxide, it undergoes no reaction- so this is the only one that is a mystery to me... It's probably due to its heat capacity being more optimal for thermal rocketry or something...) They also all make sense for balance reasons- the fuels that fall out-of-order in the ISP vs. Thrust/MW lists (Meth/LOX, CO2, and Hydrazine) all require substantially greater effort to produce via ISRU (Hydraazine especially- which requires 3-4 separate reactions to produce, and 2-3 different raw resources) or have limited availability- Carbon Dioxide (and Methane, by extension- through the Sabatier Reaction) is only really abundant on Duna after all- you can't get it easily in the Kerbin or Jool systems in any significant quantity as it is a very minor atmospheric component...

EDIT: I listed the propellants as they SHOULD be based on their base ISP, and additional Thrust obtained from the Thrust multiplier. It appears the thrust multiplier is currently not being applied correctly in-game: for instance in the SPH, Ammonia is listed as having a higher ISP than Meth/LOX (should not be the case- due to how much more energetic Methane combustion is than Ammonia-decomposition, and the much higher Thrust multiplier that results...) and Hydrazine has a lower ISP than Water (should be the other way around...

If applied correctly, a fuel with a base ISP of 500 seconds and a Thrust multiplier of 2 should have a higher effective ISP (1000 seconds) than a fuel with a base ISP of 800 seconds and no Thrust multiplier... This is not currently the case- so I'd go back and check the code for the Thrust multiplier and try and figure out what is going wrong... Basically, a Thrust multiplier of 2 indicates a doubling of the exhaust velocity vs. what you would expect from the molecular mass alone- without a decrease in mass flow rate, i.e. a 4x increase in the energy of exhaust gasses... (E = 1/2 m v2)

Regards,

Northstar

Edited by Northstar1989

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want to explain the bit about Thrust multiplier a little more clearly:

It is imperative that Thrust multiplier increase both the Thrust and the ISP by the same factor, as what it represents is an increase in Thrust for the same fuel-flow and MW of reactor power. Otherwise what you have is just the turbopump magically pumping more propellant through the rocket. If you double Thrust without doubling ISP, then your rocket will simply pass twice as much fuel through the nozzle per minute at exactly the same energy-level, which is not what Thrust multiplier is meant to represent.

Simply assuming that the Exhaust Velocity remained fixed and the extra energy from a reaction was used to accelerate more mass (resulting in more Thrust) would, in theory, require us to square all our current Thrust multiplier values. So a fuel-mode with a Thrust multiplier of 2 must now have a Thrust multiplier of 4, a fuel-mode with a Thrust multiplier of 3 must now have a Thrust multiplier of 9, etc. However this does not actually work in practice- because many of these reactions actually add energy to the exhaust-stream not by increasing the exhaust temperature, but mainly by increasing the exhaust pressure (by increasing the number of moles of gas- for instance Ammonia breakdown doubles the moles of gas, and Hydrazine breakdown triples the number of moles of gas and thus the exhaust pressure before nozzle-expansion...) One of these reactions, Ammonia-breakdown, actually *decreases* the temperature of the exhaust stream, and adds energy to the exhaust for the same mass-flow rate solely by increasing the exhaust pressure (which is later converted into Exhaust Velocity in the rocket nozzle). These reactions add less energy to the exhaust stream the lower the exhaust temperature (as exhaust energy is proportional to temperature * pressure), so increasing the mass flow rate instead of keeping it fixed would lead to a decrease in the exhaust temperature and thus a decrease in the total exhaust energy...

Regards,

Northstar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone explain to me what FreeThinker did with my parts and why?

Also regarding this bit of code you posted:


+PART[kipactiveport]:FOR[WarpPlugin]
{
@name = kipactiveport250
@scale = 2
@rescaleFactor = 2
@title = Non-androgynous docking port 2.5m - Active
@mass = 0.46

@MODULE[ModuleDockingNode]
{
@nodeType = nasize250
}

@MODULE[ModuleAdaptiveDockingNode]
{
@ValidSizes = nasize1, nasize250
}
}

+PART[kippassiveport]:FOR[WarpPlugin]
{
@name = kippassiveport250
@scale = 2
@rescaleFactor = 2
@title = Non-androgynous docking port 2.5m - Passive
@mass = 0.6

@MODULE[ModuleDockingNode]
{
@nodeType = nasize250
}

@MODULE[ModuleAdaptiveDockingNode]
{
@ValidSizes = nasize1,nasize250
}
}

I would recommend you remove "nasize1" from all of these. These are not visually designed to connect to multiple sizes. Only one size.

Also for the sake of consistency use "nasize2" for 2.5m parts and "nasize3" for 3.75m parts.

Also I'm not sure how "+PART" works but you've not defined the gender here. Have you tested these?

Edited by Cpt. Kipard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would recommend you remove "nasize1" from all of these. These are not visually designed to connect to multiple sizes. Only one size.

I already did in the realeased version

- - - Updated - - -

Also for the sake of consistency use "nasize2" for 2.5m parts and "nasize3" for 3.75m parts.

I used nasize2 for 1.875m, nasize3 for 2.5m, nasize4 for 3.75m part

- - - Updated - - -

Also I'm not sure how "+PART" works but you've not defined the gender here. Have you tested these?

"+PART" creates a clone based one an existing part, this means things like gender are copied. "+PART" actually a very convenient way when you to make multiple instances of a part which only differ in some details.

- - - Updated - - -

Hi FreeThinker,

Still no word on the Hydrazine fuel-mode for Thermal Rockets, are you working on that? I already provided the numbers for ISP multiplier and Thrust multiplier- which is all that should be needed to add it... I'll even write up the code for the fuel mode and post it here so all you have to do is copy+paste into the appropriate file...

Also, just a little perspective as your faithful co-developer of this mod- this is a mod that started out with a Warp Drive- which by any account was OP'd compared to stock- and only later added things like reactors, antimatter, and an energy-intensive process to create ExoticMatter... Thus, by all means, I don't think we should by shying away from any technology- especially when it exists in real life. Hydrazine is already a commonly-used rocket propellant for resistojets and RCS- which are basically just simple thermal rockets that rely on the increase in gas volume created by Hydrazine decomposition and either heat from that reaction or additional added heat with resistojets, to generate thrust... The only difference with putting it through a Nuclear Thermal Rocket is that the temperatures it is exposed to are much higher- which creates more complete decomposition and improved the Gibbs Free Energy of the reaction and energy released by an increase in the volume of gas...

I don't think you should try penalizing or punishing players for using it somehow either. Players could already use nuclear rockets (either KSP-I or stock) right off the launchpad anyways. While Hydrazine is much more toxic short-term, radiation is still much more dangerous in the long run... (whereas Hydrazine rapidly decays in the environment into harmless gasses) It's not up to us to make decisions for our players or our Kerbals about what sacrifices are or are not acceptable in the name of space exploration...

Finally, I particularly strongly advise against any mechanic that steals away player's hard-earned Science. Not only is it much less realistic than losing Reputation (realistically, a Hydrazine rocket probably isn't going to kill anyone- it's just going to lead to the creation of a restricted-access zone around the launchpad to prevent exposure to residual Hydrazine shortly after launches... Also, even if a scientist or engineer DID die, science has never been set back too far by the loss of one individual. Their data and records remain intact, and it wouldn't be too long before somebody else picked them up and continued their work...) It's also a bad idea from a gameplay perspective...

KSP is supposed to be !FUN!, and that necessarily means making some sacrifices of detail in realism to gameplay. While players might disagree about where the optimal balance between !FUN! and realism lies (for instance, I like using realistic fuel-densities and ISP values, and a larger solar system, other players might not like that...) I think everybody can agree that losing Science for making use of a certain type of fuel is NOT fun- and thus isn't something we should seriously consider adding to our mod (which has never before ventured to penalize players in Reputation of Science for any of their actions...)

One more thing: you drastically underestimate the utility of Reputation as a resource, and have probably either been playing Science mode (which is supposed to be simpler/easier than Career Mode anyways) or not using enough strategies... Reputation not only affects the contracts you are awarded, it can always be traded off to increase your Science and Funds yields from missions, or DIRECTLY "burned" to get tech nodes cheaper through the "Aggressive Negotiations" strategy (which not only saves you Funds on rocket launches- it also saves Science on tech node purchases and Funds on entry-purchases...) Not that I think Reputation *should* take a hit for using Hydrazine rockets- but if it did it would ultimately still be quite damaging to players, and a lot more realistic than losing accumulated Science points...

Regards,

Northstar

Well before I want to include Hydrazine, I want the correct Base ISP of methane and Ammonia and need a better estimation of Methalox Isp and Thrust Multiplier.

Regarding science damage, that was indeed a bad idea, but note that upgrading/retofit currenly cost science which some people might not realise.

Edited by FreeThinker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I used nasize2 for 1.875m, nasize3 for 2.5m, nasize4 for 3.75m part

OK well, if I ever make other gendered parts I'll be following standard names to keep it consistent in my head, and your definitions wont make sense any more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is imperative that Thrust multiplier increase both the Thrust and the ISP by the same factor, as what it represents is an increase in Thrust for the same fuel-flow and MW of reactor power. Otherwise what you have is just the turbopump magically pumping more propellant through the rocket. If you double Thrust without doubling ISP, then your rocket will simply pass twice as much fuel through the nozzle per minute at exactly the same energy-level, which is not what Thrust multiplier is meant to represent.

It actualy already does this but not in you way you think it works. Engines effectively only have KSP 2 parameters, ISP and Max Thrust. What I do is that I aplly effective Isp Multiplier (using listed Atomic Isp Multipliers) and increase the Engine Max thrust by the difference between Base Isp and effective Isp. That way the real Fuel Flow remains the same but with increased thrust output.

Edited by FreeThinker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi! i'm having issues with the Thermal Turbojet (as seen in the img). Tried with a clean instalation and same thing happens. I'm using version 0.8.2, and the same ocurrs with the 0.8.1. Any ideas?

Thanks!

6VU3gSA.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've found a bug with the methane engine as of v0.8.0. Due to a conflict with some other mod I have (I think TweakScale), the part gets messed up after right clicking on it. As soon as the menu is opened, its cost, mass, thrust, and electric charge become NaN.

This is because the ElectricCharge resource in the engine's config is missing the following two lines:

isTweakable = false
hideFlow = true

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi! i'm having issues with the Thermal Turbojet (as seen in the img). Tried with a clean instalation and same thing happens. I'm using version 0.8.2, and the same ocurrs with the 0.8.1. Any ideas?

Thanks!

http://i.imgur.com/6VU3gSA.jpg

It's indeed a overlook, but it is harmless and should correct itself as soon as you connect it to a reactor and launch it. I will fix it in the next update

Edited by FreeThinker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi! i'm having issues with the Thermal Turbojet (as seen in the img). Tried with a clean instalation and same thing happens. I'm using version 0.8.2, and the same ocurrs with the 0.8.1. Any ideas?

Thanks!

It's indeed a overlook, but it should correct itself as soon as you connect it to a reactor and launch it

I have been having the same issue and it has not really corrected itself. Additionally, I have been having the same issue as someone earlier in this thread (when I did a search), my plasma thrusters etc. say "fuel deprived" everytime I try to launch them, despite having plenty fuel available. I am not using RealFuels (as it was suggested earlier), ModularTanks etc... Any idea what it could be and how to fix it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have been having the same issue and it has not really corrected itself. Additionally, I have been having the same issue as someone earlier in this thread (when I did a search), my plasma thrusters etc. say "fuel deprived" everytime I try to launch them, despite having plenty fuel available. I am not using RealFuels (as it was suggested earlier), ModularTanks etc... Any idea what it could be and how to fix it?

Well it correct itself as soon as you lauch to in flight mod, or save it and reload it.

Regarding the "fuel deprived" issue, Note the first (prefered) fuel mode is selected even if you don't have any fuel for it. It's an existing issue which I intend to correct. For now just switch to another fuel mode

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have been having the same issue and it has not really corrected itself. Additionally, I have been having the same issue as someone earlier in this thread (when I did a search), my plasma thrusters etc. say "fuel deprived" everytime I try to launch them, despite having plenty fuel available. I am not using RealFuels (as it was suggested earlier), ModularTanks etc... Any idea what it could be and how to fix it?
Well it correct itself as soon as you lauch to in flight mod, or save it and reload it.

Regarding the "fuel deprived" issue, Note the first (prefered) fuel mode is selected even if you don't have any fuel for it. It's an existing issue which I intend to correct. For now just switch to another fuel mode

Hi!

I have the same issue. I made a fresh install with only KSPI-E in it. Plasma/Atilla thrusters are always fuel deprived with fuel flow "NaNU", and thermal (hybrid) turbojets only use intake air/atmosphere instead of this plus LFO,... KSPI alone works fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi!

I have the same issue. I made a fresh install with only KSPI-E in it. Plasma/Atilla thrusters are always fuel deprived with fuel flow "NaNU", and thermal (hybrid) turbojets only use intake air/atmosphere instead of this plus LFO,... KSPI alone works fine.

I second this. It's the same situation here. The deprived issue persists regardles of fuel type I use. No matter which I switch to, still the same. Vanilla KSPI works as intended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My thermal turbojets suddenly developed the always-firing-in-VAB thing

On another note, for those using RealFuels with KSPI, you might have noticed that there are radiator parts for use with cryogenic fuels (to keep them cold and avoid boiloff (they are very unrealistic)). To avoid part bloat, I made a MM patch that adds that module to the KPSI radiators. I assume that the heat flow rate of the part that comes with RF is that of the smallest folding radiator (based on size of part in VAB). The rate for all other radiators is scaled by:

[convective_bonus(Radiator X [if any]) * area(Radiator X)]/area(Small Folding Radiator)

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[FNRadiator],!MODULE[ModuleHeatPump]]:FINAL
{
MODULE
{
name = ModuleHeatPump
heatTransfer = 50
heatDissipation = 1.0 // High rate of dissipation
heatGain = 1.0 // To handle the heat this part will be gaining
heatConductivity = 0.0 // And it won't try to spread the heat around to adjacent parts anymore.
RESOURCE
{
name = ElectricCharge
rate = 0.01666667
}
@heatTransfer *= .01
@heatTransfer *= #$../MODULE[FNRadiator]/radiatorArea
}
}

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[FNRadiator]:HAS[#convectiveBonus[]],@MODULE[ModuleHeatPump]]:FINAL
{
@MODULE[ModuleHeatPump]
{
@heatTransfer *= #$../MODULE[FNRadiator]/convectiveBonus
}
}

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[h=2]Version 0.8.3 for Kerbal Space Program 0.90[/h] Released on 2015-03-30

  • Fixed Thermal Nozzle/TurboJet exceptions in VAB
  • Added Hydrazine as an NTR propellant

- - - Updated - - -

My thermal turbojets suddenly developed the always-firing-in-VAB thing

On another note, for those using RealFuels with KSPI, you might have noticed that there are radiator parts for use with cryogenic fuels (to keep them cold and avoid boiloff (they are very unrealistic)). To avoid part bloat, I made a MM patch that adds that module to the KPSI radiators. I assume that the heat flow rate of the part that comes with RF is that of the smallest folding radiator (based on size of part in VAB). The rate for all other radiators is scaled by:

[convective_bonus(Radiator X [if any]) * area(Radiator X)]/area(Small Folding Radiator)

@PART
[*]:HAS[@MODULE[FNRadiator],!MODULE[ModuleHeatPump]]:FINAL
{
MODULE
{
name = ModuleHeatPump
heatTransfer = 50
heatDissipation = 1.0 // High rate of dissipation
heatGain = 1.0 // To handle the heat this part will be gaining
heatConductivity = 0.0 // And it won't try to spread the heat around to adjacent parts anymore.
RESOURCE
{
name = ElectricCharge
rate = 0.01666667
}
@heatTransfer *= .01
@heatTransfer *= #$../MODULE[FNRadiator]/radiatorArea
}
}

@PART
[*]:HAS[@MODULE[FNRadiator]:HAS[#convectiveBonus[]],@MODULE[ModuleHeatPump]]:FINAL
{
@MODULE[ModuleHeatPump]
{
@heatTransfer *= #$../MODULE[FNRadiator]/convectiveBonus
}
}

Even though this might actually work in game, I'm not sure if you can mix GigaWatt WasteHeat radiators with kilowatt cryogenic system heat radiators

Look at a real NASA example:

Nautilus-X_Extended_duration_explorer.png

Notice the smaller radiators at the Sides, they are seperate from the radiators of the Nuclear Reactor in the back. The efficency of the radiators of the Cryogenic tanks require the radiators to be as cold as possible. You want them to connect to Reactor radiators which can heat up to 3600K which will meld the tanks. Me thinks that's Not a good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Version 0.8.3 for Kerbal Space Program 0.90

Released on 2015-03-30

  • Fixed Thermal Nozzle/TurboJet exceptions in VAB
  • Added Hydrazine as an NTR propellant

Thanks! I'll let you know how it works for me :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is anyone else seeing the large fusion reactors not adjusting their upgraded power for scale?

UIQ04fN.png

ImIijZ9.png

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.