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

Hi FreeThinker,

OK, so the changes to the Thermal Rocket fuels...

Can we get a reversal of the ordering of the ISP at least? It took me about 5 seconds of cutting and pasting in my own config file to do this, and I imagine it should be extremely easy to order fuels from lowest to highest ISP in the official config file as well... (which would make it MUCH easier to switch to the propellant with the next-highest ISP during a rocket ascent)

In addition to that, could we get a removal of the "is LFO" line from the Hydro/LOX config like I mentioned before?

The temperatures that Water and CO2 start decomposing at are currently excessively low for propellants rapidly passing through a heat exchanger. On the other hand, Hydrazine and Ammonia really need much lower decomposition temperatures, or preferably to have this code removed for them entirely. And CO2 should not be depositing soot at the temperatures of a fission reactor- it should be removing it, regardless of whether the rocket is in "CO2 Cleaning" mode or not...

Finally, the decomposition-curve for Methane needs to be fixed as well.

See my post here again for more details:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/111159-WIP-0-90-KSP-Interstellar-Extended-0-8-9?p=1824821&viewfull=1#post1824821

Regards,

Northstar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It should be at least 4MW, somehow the reduction is applied multiple times. weird

Which specific file determined this reduction? How do I revert to GW values?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Which specific file determined this reduction? How do I revert to GW values?

I think you have multiple copies installed, that would explain why you get this weird effect

- - - Updated - - -

Can we get a reversal of the ordering of the ISP at least?

I will give you smething better, a previous button. That way, you can switch through from low to Isp propellants.

- - - Updated - - -

In addition to that, could we get a removal of the "is LFO" line from the Hydro/LOX config like I mentioned before?

the isLFO absolutely has no effect on the current ThermalNozzleModule. is kept for Classic KSPIgames, that use older NozzleModule. But it might be that no one is using it. I don't know

Edited by FreeThinker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems there may be some balancing issues with heat production or cooling with the NFT-E config. I uninstalled it today and now a craft that used to be fine overheats incredibly fast.

It has a gas core reactor and uses nitrogen radiators. With NFT it could go 10 minutes on a small cryosat of nitrogen, but now it runs out of nitrogen very quickly and the active cooling can't even keep the temperature down while it's running.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The temperatures that Water and CO2 start decomposing at are currently excessively low for propellants rapidly passing through a heat exchanger. On the other hand, Hydrazine and Ammonia really need much lower decomposition temperatures, or preferably to have this code removed for them entirely. And CO2 should not be depositing soot at the temperatures of a fission reactor- it should be removing it, regardless of whether the rocket is in "CO2 Cleaning" mode or not...

I have updated, the Propelants table. I have taken over most of your recommendation. At a few points I lowered to temerature to the lower temerature decomposition is known to occur. That's because I'm planning to use a Gaussian function to calculate the decomposition fraction, which means decomposition start very slow and speeds up to about 3/4 when is starts to level.

Notice there are a few question marks I need an answer of. I'm hopping you can give me an answer to these questions

Edited by FreeThinker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was wondering how/where the Rad Hardness gets applied to the command parts.

Since SETI shifts around some probe cores, I would need to be able to control those values on the SETI side.

For that, I would need to know which config files apply those values at the moment and then ammend them to not function by adding a :NEEDS[!SETI] to them.

edit: Also, did you see my post from yesterday or so?

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/111159?p=1823757&viewfull=1#post1823757

Basically I m interested in further developing the fuel switch mechanic, but could not find the source code in the download.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It should be at least 4MW, somehow the reduction is applied multiple times. weird

Which file specifically configures the power levels?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically I m interested in further developing the fuel switch mechanic, but could not find the source code in the download.

I'm not sure what you mean by source code. People seem to think part files and MM code is source code, but is realy isn't

KSPI-E real source code is reference on the Kebalstuff page, where it references to the sourcecode on GitHub. If you truly want to delvelop it further, be my guess. But do you have the C# programming skills?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not sure what you mean by source code. People seem to think part files and MM code is source code, but is realy isn't

KSPI-E real source code is reference on the Kebalstuff page, where it references to the sourcecode on GitHub. If you truly want to delvelop it further, be my guess. But do you have the C# programming skills?

Hm,

I see, Rad Hardness is not applied by adding modules via MM. It is applied by the dll itself, just based on mass and crew. Without any MM way of rebalancing it.

I m not too familiar with the radiation mechanic, but that would mean, that lightweight probes/command pods (regardless of what modules are included in this mass calculation) are at a severe disadvantage without the ability to change that via MM?

This is a huge problem, since SETI changes the masses of probe cores and command pods and thus as a balancing mod, SETI would need control/influencing options over that Rad Hardness stat via modules/MM.

Edited by Yemo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I will give you smething better, a previous button. That way, you can switch through from low to Isp propellants.

That would work too. :D

the isLFO absolutely has no effect on the current ThermalNozzleModule. is kept for Classic KSPIgames, that use older NozzleModule. But it might be that no one is using it. I don't know

I already play-tested and confirmed that the "is LFO" code is *indeed* active. I don't know why, but it leads to fuels overwriting each other if only some fuel-modes have it. As such, can we just go and get rid of it from the Hydro/LOX fuel-mode? All the other fuel-modes have it removed... :(

Regards,

Northstar

- - - Updated - - -

I have updated, the Propelants table. I have taken over most of your recommendation. At a few points I lowered to temerature to the lower temerature decomposition is known to occur. That's because I'm planning to use a Gaussian function to calculate the decomposition fraction, which means decomposition start very slow and speeds up to about 3/4 when is starts to level.

Notice there are a few question marks I need an answer of. I'm hopping you can give me an answer to these questions

Ahhh, a Gaussian Function. I thought you were just going linear, which is why I suggested the higher start temps for the curves...

What questions do you still want answers to? I don't see any new questions... :(

Regards,

Northstar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hm, I see, Rad Hardness is not applied by adding modules via MM. It is applied by the dll itself, just based on mass and crew. Without any MM way of rebalancing it.

mass? what mass, I could find any place where mass is used in the calculation. only incremantal radiation buildup based on he the location of the vessel/kerbal relative to the sun/planet/mun

You want to balance with SETI, exactly what did you have in mind to balance it?

- - - Updated - - -

What questions do you still want answers to? I don't see any new questions... :(

Look for the questionmarks "?" in the table. the can be found near the Methalox ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mass? what mass, I could find any place where mass is used in the calculation. only incremantal radiation buildup based on he the location of the vessel/kerbal relative to the sun/planet/mun

You want to balance with SETI, exactly what did you have in mind to balance it?

I noticed that command parts have a stat called "Rad Hardness", I assumed it to be a MODULE added by MM, but could not find any mentioning of it in the config files.

It turns out, that this module is actually added by the dll itself.

The "PluginHelper.cs" contains code which adds this stat/module, lines 764 to 779:


if (prefab_available_part.CrewCapacity > 0 || prefab_available_part.FindModulesImplementing<ModuleCommand>().Count > 0)
{
Type type = AssemblyLoader.GetClassByName(typeof(PartModule), "FNModuleRadiation");
if (type != null)
{
FNModuleRadiation pm = prefab_available_part.gameObject.AddComponent(type) as FNModuleRadiation;
prefab_available_part.Modules.Add(pm);
double rad_hardness = prefab_available_part.mass / (Math.Max(prefab_available_part.CrewCapacity, 0.1)) * 7.5;
pm.rad_hardness = rad_hardness;
AvailablePart.ModuleInfo minfo = new AvailablePart.ModuleInfo();
minfo.moduleName = "Radiation Status";
minfo.info = pm.GetInfo();
available_part.moduleInfos.Add(minfo);
}
print("Adding ModuleRadiation to " + prefab_available_part.name);
}

The value is thus part mass/crew capacity or 0.1 if it is a probe, times 7.5. Since SETI changes the masses of parts and probe cores and even adds a procedural probe core (which does not have a fixed mass), I would need to be able to control this stat via MM. For example the Command Pod for 3 Kerbals is much lighter in SETI, thus it is given a much lower Rad Hardness by this code.

Basically instead of adding the stat via dll, it could be added by automatic MM statements, doing the same calculations by default, like those MM statements which add TAC life support.

No values would change for KSPI extended by default, but I could counterbalance those mass changes for SETI, changing the module with MM statements using :AFTER[WarpPlugin].

So I do not want to rebalance the mechanic, that is part of KSPIextended and well beyond my scope, I would just need a way to rebalance the specific part values via MM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if I simply made this rad_hardness an public float property of FNModuleRadiation, then you should be able to override it using a simple MM script. Would that be enough?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What if I simply made this rad_hardness an public float property of FNModuleRadiation, then you should be able to override it using a simple MM script. Would that be enough?

Any way that I can modify that Rad Hardness stat using MM would be great!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[h=2]Version 0.8.12 for Kerbal Space Program 0.90[/h] Released on 2015-04-08

  • Lowered or removed most propellant decomposition temperatures
  • Improved propellant decomposition scaling with temperature
  • Added Hydrazine to switchable fuel tanks
  • Made Hydrazine a Highly toxic propellant which will poison the environment which will damage your reputation
  • Made Ammonia lightly toxic, which will damage your reputation but not much.
  • Exposed rad_hardness in FNModuleRadiation for overriding radiation resistance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[h=2]Version 0.8.12 for Kerbal Space Program 0.90[/h] Released on 2015-04-08

  • Lowered or removed most propellant decomposition temperatures
  • Improved propellant decomposition scaling with temperature
  • Added Hydrazine to switchable fuel tanks
  • Made Hydrazine a Highly toxic propellant which will poison the environment which will damage your reputation
  • Made Ammonia lightly toxic, which will damage your reputation but not much.
  • Exposed rad_hardness in FNModuleRadiation for overriding radiation resistance

Awesome!

Ammonia isn't really all that toxic, though except in very high concentrations. Unlike with Hydrazine, the *small* amounts that will leak into the environment from a Thermal Rocket aren't going to do any noticeable damage. The Carbon Monoxide from a conventional Kerosene/LOX rocket (not all of the Kerosene gets fully-oxidized, hence the smoke-trail behind a Kero/LOX rocket...) is actually much more damaging to the environment, and we don't (and shouldn't) give Reputation penalties for stock rockets... So I would *STRONGLY* suggest removing the penalty on Ammonia altogether.

As for Hydrazine, it's definitely realistic- but it could easily be (and probably currently is based on the description, although I haven't had the chance to play-test it yet) over-done. I would suggest giving it the Reputation penalty Ammonia currently has (Ammonia shouldn't have ANY reputation penalty, its toxicity is so light compared to other fuels like hypergolics and Kero/LOX, it is actually a comparatively *clean* fuel) such as to not be overly-harsh on players. After all, this is a game (and Reputation is much more valuable than you think, as it can be burned for large quantities of Funds or Science...)

Further, how do you actually scale the Reputation-penalty? Is it on a per-launch basis (which would unduly penalize very small rockets) or based on the mass/volume of Hydrazine used below a certain altitude on Kerbin? (other planets don't matter) If the former, I would suggest switching it to the latter...

Last, but not least, how do you inform players that they've actually been subjected to a Reputation penalty for using Hydrazine/Ammonia in-atmosphere? (although I *strongly* recommend removing the penalty for Ammonia entirely) Do you just subtract the Reputation points without telling them (probably a bad idea), or do you give them some sort of pop-up or message that tells them exactly how much of a penalty they suffered and that it was for using Hydrazine below a certain altitude...

I would advise providing players with a pop-up message. And keeping the penalty very small- not more than 5-10 Reputation points (which, with the appropriate strategy, can actually convert to quite a few Science points on a mission- or quite a large discount on a new tech-node at R&D...) for most larger/heavier launches (and less for smaller ones). This is because, after all, Kerbal is a game- and Kerbals are little green men who likely place much less value on their lives and the environment based on all the existing lore (through stock part descriptions and such) and options the game gives you. I would strongly advise keeping the penalty very small to maintain the !FUN! value of KSP...

Regards,

Northstar

Edited by Northstar1989

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Real Life, the Space Shuttle used Hydrazine to control the attitude in high and mid atmosphere, during reentry.

Btw, I have an issue with the ISRU Refinery. The Electrolysis according to the wiki, shall produce Liquid Fuel and Oxidizer. It now produce instead Liquid Hydrogen and Oxidizer, also if I've not Real Fuels installed. In fact, the GUI says that I have insufficent storage for Liquid Hydrogen, but I want my old rusty sweet Liquid Fuel, that I can store tonnes...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In Real Life, the Space Shuttle used Hydrazine to control the attitude in high and mid atmosphere, during reentry.

Btw, I have an issue with the ISRU Refinery. The Electrolysis according to the wiki, shall produce Liquid Fuel and Oxidizer. It now produce instead Liquid Hydrogen and Oxidizer, also if I've not Real Fuels installed. In fact, the GUI says that I have insufficent storage for Liquid Hydrogen, but I want my old rusty sweet Liquid Fuel, that I can store tonnes...

Uhhh, LiquidFuel and Oxidizer should still be valid fuels produced from Water electrolysis when you don't have RealFuels installed... The way we made it to produce LqdHydrogen with RealFuels should have only triggered when a RealFuels installation was detected...

If I'm not mistaken, NearFuture Technologies also triggers a MM patch that leads to the production of "Liquid Hydrogen" (the RealFuels version is "LqdHydrogen", only NearFuture Technologies uses "Liquid Hydrogen") instead of LiquidFuel. Are you sure you don't have NFT installed?

Regards,

Northstar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Completely sure. I don't use any of Near Future. And The same issue is present with the Atmosferic Scoop.

Edited by Nansuchao

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There seems to be a bug with the Large Electric Generator: it's max power seems to be inversely proportional to its size. I was fooling around with a 5m fusion reactor and 5m generators. They could only handle about 18GW of power. At 3.75m it went up to 31GW and at 2.5m 75GW.

The small generator works fine.

Edited by MrNukealizer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Further, how do you actually scale the Reputation-penalty? Is it on a per-launch basis (which would unduly penalize very small rockets) or based on the mass/volume of Hydrazine used below a certain altitude on Kerbin? (other planets don't matter) If the former, I would suggest switching it to the latter...

fuelflowReputationCost = fuel_flow_rate * _fuelToxicity * Math.Pow(vesselStaticPresure, 3);

vesselStaticPresure ranges from 0 to 1. This means most reputation damage will be done in the lower atmosphere and below 0.1 fractional atmospheric pressure it is ignored

- - - Updated - - -

Last, but not least, how do you inform players that they've actually been subjected to a Reputation penalty for using Hydrazine/Ammonia in-atmosphere? (although I *strongly* recommend removing the penalty for Ammonia entirely) Do you just subtract the Reputation points without telling them (probably a bad idea), or do you give them some sort of pop-up or message that tells them exactly how much of a penalty they suffered and that it was for using Hydrazine below a certain altitude...

I simply tell them they are poisoning the environment with their exhaust with an message

- - - Updated - - -

Btw, I have an issue with the ISRU Refinery. The Electrolysis according to the wiki, shall produce Liquid Fuel and Oxidizer. It now produce instead Liquid Hydrogen and Oxidizer, also if I've not Real Fuels installed. In fact, the GUI says that I have insufficent storage for Liquid Hydrogen, but I want my old rusty sweet Liquid Fuel, that I can store tonnes...

Seems I made made a mistake of including this too early, but Liquid Fuel and Oxidiser are going to be replaced with LqdHydrogen & LqdOxygen. You can change it yourself in the WarpPluginSettings.cfg

- - - Updated - - -

Awesome!

Ammonia isn't really all that toxic, though except in very high concentrations.

Well, we using pure ammonia and it is mostly damaging to water life. But I think you right that it might to harch considering all other poison effects. Still I think we might use this in some sort of "Save The Environment Strategy" " which gives you bonuses when use clean technologies and punish you when you damage the environment. Another option would be some anti nuclear statagy. It would be great for any player which does not want to send Nuclear reactors into space. It might fir instance make conventinal rocket building cheaper...

Edited by FreeThinker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There seems to be a bug with the Large Electric Generator: it's max power seems to be inversely proportional to its size. I was fooling around with a 5m fusion reactor and 5m generators. They could only handle about 18GW of power. At 3.75m it went up to 31GW and at 2.5m 75GW.

The small generator works fine.

That's realy weird. exacly where did you see these numbers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's realy weird. exacly where did you see these numbers?

Sitting on the runway, testing my new power station. It started as a 5m Large Fusion Reactor with 5m Large Electric Generators on both ends, one for thermal and one for charged particles. I noticed that it wasn't producing nearly as much power as I expected, so I right clicked on the generators and they said their max power was very low. I remembered the 3.75m version making more power, so I made the generators smaller but forgot to change the reactor's size. The power output increased so I tried 2.5m generators and they made even more power. Then I tried 1.875m and 1.25m small generators, and as expected the max power decreased with size.

I think it may have something to do with the fact that the default size for the large generator is the smallest it can go, while the default size for the small generator is the largest it can go.

Edit: I can't be sure, but it may have something to do with TweakScale not properly changing the radius property of the reactor, causing the system to think it's always 2.5m.

Edited by MrNukealizer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it may have something to do with the fact that the default size for the large generator is the smallest it can go, while the default size for the small generator is the largest it can go.

Edit: I can't be sure, but it may have something to do with TweakScale not properly changing the radius property of the reactor, causing the system to think it's always 2.5m.

Indeed. TweakScale should rescale the radius, if it doesn't, this is exactly the kind of bug you would expect. But small reactors and large reactor are technically the same. I'm missing something here. Exactly what reactor did you test? What large reactor and what small reactors...

one problem with tweakscale is that it is defined as part of tweakscale ScaleExponents


TWEAKSCALEEXPONENTS
{
name = InterstellarTokamakFusionReator
radius = 1;
PowerOutput = 5.13;
resourceRate = 5.13;
upgradedThermalPower = 3;
upgradedResourceRate = 3;
powerRequirements = 3;
}

Notice something weird, it mentions upgradedResourceRate and upgradedThermalPower, but these do not exist. I assumed this was not harmful, but I'm now starting to doubt. In the past I had problems with InterstellarTokamakFusionReator, as well, related with upgraded power in the VAB, I though I had solved it, at least in the VAB. Perhaps I was wrong.

Edited by FreeThinker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FreeThinker, please.

I have reinstalled your mod three times and the reactors are still stuck at kW power levels. I am absolutely certain that there are no 'Near Future' mod folders in my GameData. I even deleted the near future integration file you had in the WarpPlugin folder.

What do I do?!

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.