FreeThinker

[1.8.1, 1.7.3/1.6.1/1.5.1/1.4.5] KSP Interstellar Extended 1.25.6 Continued Development Thread

Recommended Posts

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.

This is how it should be done- but the code is not working at intended. Otherwise HydroLOX (base ISP 0.6289, Thrust/ISP multiplier 1.977) would have a higher ISP than Ammonia (base ISP 0.6303, Thrust/ISP multiplier 1.832) as currently coded. This is not currently the case- Ammonia has a MUCH higher ISP than HydroLOX in the Thermal Rocket Nozzle parts right now... (around 600 seconds for Ammonia vs. around 400 seconds for HydroLOX- specifics depending on whether you use a Particle Bed or Molten Salt Reactor...)

Also, like I already discussed HERE the current base ISP values yield the correct ISP values if the thrust multiplier doesn't affect the ISP- as is currently the case is KSP-I Extended (otherwise, as I pointed out, HydroLOX would have a higher ISP in-game than Ammonia, which is *NOT* currently the case...)

*IF* you could fix the thrust multiplier code so that it increases both ISP and Thrust/MW as intended, then the new ISP values would simply be calculated by dividing the current ISP multiplier by the Thrust multiplier... So a propellant with base ISP of 600 seconds but thrust multiplier of 2 would have a base ISP of 300 seconds- for 600 seconds ISP in-game...

You know what, maybe it's simpler just to keep the system as-is. And I have a theory about why HydroLOX currently has an ISP so much lower than Ammonia when the actual, realistic ISP values should be EXTREMELY close (63.03% of Hydrogen for Ammonia, 62.89% of Hydrogen for HydroLOX).

The code says:


isLFO = true

Didn't Fractal_UK already include code that automatically reduced the ISP but increased the Thrust/MW of any propellant with this line of code?

If so, we need to remove the LFO code altogether- as the new Thrustmultipliers currently accurately reflect what the ISP and Thrust/MW should be for each propellant (and apply to more than just LANTR fuels- Ammonia benefits from one due to its breakdown into Hydrogen and Nitrogen gasses, for instance...) It is currently leading to an ISP value that is too low for Hydro/LOX and Meth/LOX, and a Thrust/MW value that is much too high for these fuels... (as the "LFO = true" code is stacking on top of the current thrust multipliers- which are more predictable and easier to understand...)

- - - Updated - - -

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

I'm having the same issue with the Thermal Turbojets- so confirm this as a known bug FreeThinker...

EDIT: Looks like you already fixed this in the next update! :)

- - - Updated - - -

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.

I can also confirm this bug- plasma thrusters don't currently work on the launchpad *at all*, no matter what fuel-mode you swap to.

- - - 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
}
}

This is AWESOME! I was actually talking about doing this before! We'll have to get this included in the next release of KSP-Interstellar Extended somehow! (FreeThinker, the question is, does this code need to only activate when RealFuels is installed- or will it be harmless if it activates without?)

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Oh. Forgot about that...

Never mind that bit about the radiator-code ABZB... :(

Regards,

Northstar

Edited by Northstar1989

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I verified myself by I get for the 3.75m Fusion reactor the readings Power Output 8334 MW and upgraded 25002 MW

Not sure what is effecting your unupgraded power levels...

- - - Updated - - -

Didn't Fractal_UK already include code that automatically reduced the ISP but increased the Thrust/MW of any propellant with this line of code?

No, the only thing it does is that it applied a fixed 2.22222 trust multiplier. Only thing I did is made the Isp configurable for every propelant, The isLFO property is no longer in use, I only kept for comment, but I think I should remove it altogether to prevent confusion.

If you think the Isp and trust multiplier are wrong, please give me the correct one.

Regarding, Methane, I think the trust multiplier is wrong. I already told you I used the wrong number for the Base Isp, to calculate the Trust multiplier (I used Atomic Mass Methane Methane to calcualte base Isp). Please give me the correct Base Isp of Methane.

Edited by FreeThinker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

The base ISP values of Ammonia, Methane, and Water already give accurate ISP compared to real-world projected values within 5% deviation. If the thrust multiplier code were fixed to actually affect ISP, you would have to divide the base ISP by the Thrust multiplier values- so maybe it's actually easier to leave the thrust multiplier in its current state.

If we leave Thrust multiplier alone, no changes whatsoever need to be made to Ammonia, Water, or Methane (except possible tweaks to the SootFactor rate of accumulation for Methane). I still need to take a look at Meth/LOX, and I can confirm that the ISP of HydroLOX is too low and the Thrust/MW is currently too high- apparently due to the "LFO = true" code, which I would recommend deleting entirely...

Given the way the Thrust multiplier is actually currently working in-game (it increases Thrust, but leaves ISP unaffected, regardless of how it was intended to work- and this may actually be easier to create configs around... My guess is the system automatically reduces the ISP when you increase the Thrust/MW, so the increase to Thrust/MW only balances that auto-reduction and leads to no net change in ISP...) I will need to come up with new configs for Hydrazine with a higher base ISP. Will post those shortly...

Regards,

Northstar

- - - Updated - - -

No, the only thing it does is that it applied a fixed 2.22222 trust multiplier. Only thing I did is made the Isp configurable for every propelant, The isLFO property is no longer in use, I only kept for comment, but I think I should remove it altogether to prevent confusion

Well then I've no idea why LFO currently gives so much of a lower ISP than Ammonia. The ISP values should currently be nearly-identical (62.89% vs. 63.03% of Hydrogen), with the major difference being that Hydro/LOX gives slightly better Thrust/MW but lower ISP and is harder to store due to fuel boil-off... Making it a superior fuel for launch-stages (using Microwave Thermal Rockets- you would be silly to use a NTR for a launch-stage if playing with RealFuels...) and upper-stages that don't need a lot of insulation or to be stored for long periods of time, but inferior for orbital stages where the Hydrogen has a lot more time to boil-off...

- - - Updated - - -

OK, here are the new config values for Hydrazine, adjusted to the way that the Thrustmultiplier is currently working (in practice, it is increasing Thrust, but leaving ISP unaffected) as it's easier to code around the oddly-working Thrust multiplier system than to fix it and have to go back and fix all the ISP multiplier values at this point...


BASIC_NTR_PROPELLANT
{
name = Hydrazine
guiName = Hydrazine
ispMultiplier = 0.744
thrustMultiplier = 1.806
isLFO = false
PROPELLANT
{
name = Hydrazine
ratio = 1
DrawGauge = True
}
}

You'll notice that basically I just multiplied the old ISP multiplier (0.412) by the Thrust multiplier (1.806). The previous config was giving an ISP that was too low, but a Thrust/MW that was much too high. Increasing the ISP multiplier as above should fix both of these issues...

Hydraazine should now appropriately give an ISP that is higher than Hydro/LOX (but lower than Methane), but a Thrust/MW that is lower.

Note that the higher ISP is not due to the molecular mass of the exhaust-gasses (which, at 2 parts Hydrogen and 1 part Nitrogen by volume, average a higher molecular weight than those of Hydro/LOX: which are 2 parts Hydrogen and 1 part Water by volume) but likely to the fact that the Hydrazine-decomposition reaction occurs inside the heat exchanger rather than inside the rocket-nozzle, and thus is more effectively converted to Thrust (and by increasing Thrust for the same fuel-flow, increasing ISP) than the energy released by the actually technically more-energetic (by mass of propellant- not by volume) Hydro/LOX combustion reaction (the values for Hydrazine are based off known reaction energies and 75% thermal efficiency- the values for Hydro/LOX are based off actual measured values: thus the Hydro/LOX must have a thermal efficiency of 40-50% or less due to where the LOX-augmentation takes place in the nozzle rather than before the exhaust aperture... Note that this is only an *estimate* of the Hydro/LOX thermal efficiency- I haven't actually bothered to do out the numbers to see why the Thrust-augmentation is so weak or how low the thermal efficiency actually is when adding LOX in the exhaust nozzle...)

Regards,

Northstar

Edited by Northstar1989

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One last thing- did you look at what I talked about before, regarding giving Water some ability to clean soot out of the reactors as well?

Pressurized steam is quite effective at cleaning Carbon-deposits from the interior of furnaces and boilers in real life: there's no reason to think it wouldn't be able to do so in a Thermal Rocket as well...

I know part of the cleaning is mechanical- but there may also be a chemical reaction that occurs and helps the process as well...

EDIT: It appears, according to numerous different sources, the following reaction occurs:

H2O(g) + C(s) --> CO(g) + H2 (g)

This is actually a closely-related reaction to the Reverse Water Gas-Shift Reaction:

H2(g) + CO2 (g) --> CO(g) + H2O(g)

Which can be used on Duna/Mars to obtain Oxygen directly from atmospheric CO2, by condensation and eletrolysis of the water vapor (the reaction is carried out in a closed reaction-chamber to avoid loss of the valuable Hydrogen in the form of steam...) and which is STILL an ISRU reaction we need to add to KSP-Interstellar Extended...

Both reactions are Endothermic, and only spontaneous under high-temperature conditions, meaning they both require external energy to drive them to occur... This means that using Water to clean soot deposits should reduce the Thrust and ISP just like using Carbon Dioxide to clean soot deposits does...

Regards,

Northstar

Edited by Northstar1989

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I verified myself by I get for the 3.75m Fusion reactor the readings Power Output 8334 MW and upgraded 25002 MW

Did you check after launching it? Mine said that too until I got it on the pad, then I only got 6.5 GW of power. After reverting to VAB I saw that. Also happens after reloading the craft in the VAB.

Also, is it possible to extract lithium from the surface of planets?

Edited by Thorbane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One last thing- did you look at what I talked about before, regarding giving Water some ability to clean soot out of the reactors as well?

Pressurized steam is quite effective at cleaning Carbon-deposits from the interior of furnaces and boilers in real life: there's no reason to think it wouldn't be able to do so in a Thermal Rocket as well...

I know part of the cleaning is mechanical- but there may also be a chemical reaction that occurs and helps the process as well...

EDIT: It appears, according to numerous different sources, the following reaction occurs:

H2O(g) + C(s) --> CO(g) + H2 (g)

This is actually a closely-related reaction to the Reverse Water Gas-Shift Reaction:

H2(g) + CO2 (g) --> CO(g) + H2O(g)

Which can be used on Duna/Mars to obtain Oxygen directly from atmospheric CO2, by condensation and eletrolysis of the water vapor (the reaction is carried out in a closed reaction-chamber to avoid loss of the valuable Hydrogen in the form of steam...) and which is STILL an ISRU reaction we need to add to KSP-Interstellar Extended...

Both reactions are Endothermic, and only spontaneous under high-temperature conditions, meaning they both require external energy to drive them to occur... This means that using Water to clean soot deposits should reduce the Thrust and ISP just like using Carbon Dioxide to clean soot deposits does...

Regards,

Northstar

Sounds great, I will add it as the water cleaning Mode, this should make cleaning the engines a little easier, as water is resource that is often available on a spaceship with crew.

- - - Updated - - -

Well then I've no idea why LFO currently gives so much of a lower ISP than Ammonia. The ISP values should currently be nearly-identical (62.89% vs. 63.03% of Hydrogen), with the major difference being that Hydro/LOX gives slightly better Thrust/MW but lower ISP and is harder to store due to fuel boil-off... Making it a superior fuel for launch-stages (using Microwave Thermal Rockets- you would be silly to use a NTR for a launch-stage if playing with RealFuels...) and upper-stages that don't need a lot of insulation or to be stored for long periods of time, but inferior for orbital stages where the Hydrogen has a lot more time to boil-off...

I think will give Hydrolox is original 2.2222 trust multiplier back which Fractal originaly implemented. It should give Hydrolox a significant edge in generating trust compaired to Ammonia. Also note That I want to interper Liquid Fuel as Kerosine. But since I have no idea what the exact Isp and Trust multiplier is of Keosine in a NTR, I will use Methane characteristic (which is kind similar), untill you come up with some better estimations. ;)

For propelant performance/characterisitcs, please look at the Propelant table on the OP

Edited by FreeThinker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I tested the newest tweakscale on all the reactors in a fresh KSP install with only KSPI Ext. and dependencies installed. The Large Fusion Reactor and the Antimatter Initiated Reactor are bugged. The upgradedPower values revert to default after launching or save/reloading the craft file, and the thermal nozzle's radius modifier behaves as if the radius doesn't change at all when adjusting scale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK, I tested the newest tweakscale on all the reactors in a fresh KSP install with only KSPI Ext. and dependencies installed. The Large Fusion Reactor and the Antimatter Initiated Reactor are bugged. The upgradedPower values revert to default after launching or save/reloading the craft file, and the thermal nozzle's radius modifier behaves as if the radius doesn't change at all when adjusting scale.

Seems this is a tweakscale issue. If that is the case, the same problem should arrise with other parts as well. Note the 2 values are nothing but the raw property values made vissible for debugging purposes.

Edited by FreeThinker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seems this is a tweakscale issie. If that is the case, the same problem should arrise with other parts as well. Note the 2 varuel is nothing but the raw property values made visible for debugging purposes.

All the other reactors work fine. I can put the correct sized thermal nozzle on and they produce thrust

The large fusion reactor doesn't, I scale it and it's nozzle up to 3.75 meters and I get 0 thrust and 0 Isp on the launchpad, as if I've put the wrong size of nozzle on there. I put a 2.5 meter nozzle on there and I actually get thrust.

Seems Lithium is fairly common in earth crust. It's one of the few elements created durring the big bang, and should therefore practicly be found on any rocky planet/moon in small quantities

20 - 70 ppm says wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium#Terrestrial

Edited by Thorbane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All the other reactors work fine. I can put the correct sized thermal nozzle on and they produce thrust

The large fusion reactor doesn't, I scale it and it's nozzle up to 3.75 meters and I get 0 thrust and 0 Isp on the launchpad, as if I've put the wrong size of nozzle on there. I put a 2.5 meter nozzle on there and I actually get thrust.

Intresting, it seems almost as if power is lost durring transportation (it loses 30% every extra part distance). The truster might be connected to the wrong reactor ...

- - - Updated - - -

Did you check after launching it? Mine said that too until I got it on the pad, then I only got 6.5 GW of power. After reverting to VAB I saw that. Also happens after reloading the craft in the VAB.

Also, is it possible to extract lithium from the surface of planets?

Seems Lithium is fairly common in earth crust. It's one of the few elements created durring the big bang, and should therefore practicly be found on any rocky planet/moon in small quantities

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Intresting, it seems almost as if power is lost durring transportation (it loses 30% every extra part distance). The truster might be connected to the wrong reactor ...

There is no other reactor for the Thruster to be attached to, and it only occurs when I'm seeing the reactor's upgraded power output reverting to that of it's default scale, and the thruster behaves normally (albeit with the same power as if I had attached it to a default sized reactor) if I set it's scale to that of the reactor's default.

There must be something in the AMI and Tokamak reactor code interfering with tweakscale's function. I'm poking around in it to try and find what it is, but you probably know the code better than me.

Edit: Or there is a borked config that I haven't found.

Edit2: Where is the config responsible for giving the AMI Reactor scaleability. I can't find it.

Edit3: I'm an idiot, it was a config error. I don't know what it was, but I deleted the entries for AM catalyzed and Tokamak reactors in TweakScale's scale_exponent config and rewrote their entries in the Interstellat_Tweakscale.cfg and IT WORKS!!

Mostly. The Tokamak has no LqdHelium storage and LqdHelium apparently behaves like liquid fuel, so without fuel lines the He3 fuel modes don't work. Easy fix though.

Also may want to tell pellinor to remove the Interstellar configs from the tweakscale folder so as to stop strange things like this from happening.

Edited by Thorbane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit2: Where is the config responsible for giving the AMI Reactor scaleability. I can't find it.

You can probably find it in the Tweakscale Folder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey,

I m now working on KSPI extended - SETI-BalanceMod integration.

One of the first things that comes to mind is a naming scheme for the KSPI extended parts.

1. Reactors would be named eg

Reactor: Gas Core

Reactor: Dusty Plasma

2. Radiators like this

Radiator: Array, large

Radiator: Inline 2.5m

Radiator: Nitrogen Tank 2.5m (which seems to be in the wrong category at the moment?)

Radiator: Radial, small

3. Electris stuff (I m using : after Electrics for all the stuff in SETI)

Electrics: Generator, small

4. Microwave stuff has "Microwave" in front

5. Tanks, not sure about those, maybe just

Tank: Cryostat Helium

Tank: Cryostat 2.5m

Tank: Uranium Nitride

but I m not sure about that, open to suggestions

6. "Engines", also not sure, there are currently those categories/prefixes in SETI (no : or - between the prefix and the engine name in SETI):

ION - Ion engines

KA - Karbonite

LFI - liquid fuel intake air

LFO - liquid fuel oxidizer

Mono - Monoprop engines

and maybe someting else I do not recall at the moment.

SRBs and procedural parts in general have a simple 0 in front of them, so that they are on the top of the list

Maybe HEAT as a prefix or Thermal, or just KSPI, or a simple 1 to keep them all together?

While I could do that renaming with MM statements, I could also rename the parts directly within KSPI extended. Thus they could be use without SETI, if that is in your interest.

To do so, I would need the latest development version of KSPI for one or two days. Then I do the renaming and send it back to you and you could continue working on it without having to merge anything.

Also, except for the Electrics: prefix, none of the other categories exist in SETI at the moment, so it would be your choice if you prefer : or - or nothing between the prefix and the actual part title.

Best regards,

Yemo

PS @Freethinker: You really need to clear your inbox, I can not send PMs to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit3: I'm an idiot, it was a config error. I don't know what it was, but I deleted the entries for AM catalyzed and Tokamak reactors in TweakScale's scale_exponent config and rewrote their entries in the Interstellat_Tweakscale.cfg and IT WORKS!!

Yes, I came to the same conclusion, the TWEAKSCALEEXPONENTS for InterstellarTokamakFusionReator defined in ScaleComponents.cfg is wrong!! It assumes the existence of upgradedThermalPower, WHICH DOES NOT EXIST! KSPI only knows upgradedPowerOutput.

Edited by FreeThinker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[h=2]Version 0.8.4 for Kerbal Space Program 0.90[/h] Released on 2015-03-31

  • Increased powerlevel and power requirements Tokamak Fusion Reactor
  • Fixed Tweakscale scaling problems with Tokamak Fusion Reactor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think will give Hydrolox is original 2.2222 trust multiplier back which Fractal originaly implemented. It should give Hydrolox a significant edge in generating trust compaired to Ammonia. Also note That I want to interper Liquid Fuel as Kerosine. But since I have no idea what the exact Isp and Trust multiplier is of Keosine in a NTR, I will use Methane characteristic (which is kind similar), untill you come up with some better estimations. ;)

For propelant performance/characterisitcs, please look at the Propelant table on the OP

Ack, Hydro/LOX (the RealFuels fuel-mode) not LFO. I don't use the stock fuel modes for anything anymore!

Like I said, its ISP should be higher. One of the primary advantages of Hydro/LOX is its widespread ISRU availability. Whereas Ammonia can only be manufactured where a source of Nitrogen is available, and Methane with a ready source of CO2, Hydro/LOX can be obtained wherever there's Hydrogen+Oxygen (in gaseous form) *OR* water/ice. The other high-ISP fuels are much harder to obtain (excepting of course, pure Hydrogen- which has very low density and thrust, and is only a fraction of the mass-makeup of water/ice...)

The thrust multiplier is currently correct (0.6289), but for some reason the ISP ends up much lower in-game than Ammonia, which has a HIGHLY similar ISP multiplier (0.6303).

We already have good real-world date for the Thrust, ISP, and fuel-mixture of Hydro/LOX LANTR, and use it for the config. You just need to figure out why ISP is only about 2/3rd what would be expected for the ISP multiplier (around 400 instead of 600 seconds) and Thrust/Mw is so much higher. My suspicion is that, despite your attempting to deactivate it, the "is LFO" code is still being applied... Should be simple enough to test- I'll delete that line from the config tonight, and see if it changes the ISP in the Spaceplane Hanger...

Regards,

Northstar

- - - Updated - - -

FreeThinker,

I can officially confirm that the "is LFO" code is *NOT* disabled.

I went and deleted the code from the entry for Hyro/LOX, and only the entry from Hydro/LOX, without changing anything else, and it set the Thrust and ISP of Hydro/LOX equal to the values for Water! It also showed a new, incorrect ISP multiplier in the context menu for Water in the Spaceplane Hanger- those associated with Hydro/LOX! (so, in summary, Hydro/LOX got Water's Thrust and ISP but kept its displayed ISP multiplier, whereas Water got Hydro/LOX's displayed Thrust and ISP multiplier values, but kept its original Thrust and ISP...)

So, it's almost certain that this code is what is, somehow, messing up the Thrust/MW and ISP of Hydro/LOX. I'll have to see if changing "is LFO" to "false" instead of deleting it entirely fixes the issue instead of making the problem worse by messing up other fuels...

It's worth noting that I rearranged my EnginePropellants file to list the fuel-modes in order of ISP multipliers, and deleted the entries for LiquidFuel, Kethane, LFO, and "LiquidHydrogen" (the NearFuture version of LqdHydrogen" from my config. Water was the entry directly above Hydro/LOX in my config. So, if you delete the "is LFO" line from YOUR Hydro/LOX entry it would likely mess up a different fuel-mode than Water...

Regards,

Northstar

- - - Updated - - -

OK, so changing "is LFO" from "true" to "false" DID fix the ISP and Thrust/MW for Hydro/LOX to the proper/realistic values:

3PX44rG.jpg

Now we just need to make this fix part of the next update, and do the same for Meth/LOX (which also has a much lower ISP and much higher Thrust/MW than it ought to based on its ISP multiplier and Thrust multiplier...) until we can figure out why the "is LFO" code was not deactivating properly...

Regards,

Northstar

Edited by Northstar1989

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can officially confirm that the "is LFO" code is *NOT* disabled.

That very strange, especaly if you look at the code in which the isLFO variable is not used at all! Just search on isLFO in the ThermalNozzleController.cs and you only find 2 entries, one for the definition and second for reading the propellant definition file. After that is is no longer used!

Edited by FreeThinker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That very strange, especaly if you look at the code in which the isLFO variable is not used at all! Just search on isLFO in the ThermalNozzleController.cs and you only find 2 entries, one for the definition and second for reading the propellant definition file. After that is is no longer used!

I'm only reporting what I observed. The coding reasons for it are beyond me (since I don't have any software that can open .cs files...)

Regards,

Northstar

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?
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.

FreeThinker, is there any way to have this fixed? Can I somehow assist in resolving this? (providing logs or something) I really like your extension on KSPI, but this is quite a dealbreaker. :(

EDIT:

It turns out, with KSPI extended I cannot open the Megajoule Power Manager at launch pad at all, and the Debug Window gives me this when trying to fire the engine:

ksp [Log]: Isp at 0.982652235655325 is zero. Flow rate will be NaN

The setup is: 1.25m Sethlan's particle bed, 1.25m Plasma Thruster, 2 small radiators, 1x 1.25m LFO tank.

Edited by acino

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A little request. Is it possible to have a Alumina Tank, or add Alumina to some tanks? It's a good resource, very poorly implemented. Just one engine that is tank too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A little request. Is it possible to have a Alumina Tank, or add Alumina to some tanks? It's a good resource, very poorly implemented. Just one engine that is tank too.

Don't you mean Aluminium?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm only reporting what I observed. The coding reasons for it are beyond me (since I don't have any software that can open .cs files...)

Regards,

Northstar

Well you can open .cs files with any text editor. Anyway I complete removed any mention of isLFO:

Version 0.8.5 for Kerbal Space Program 0.90

Released on 2015-04-01

  • Thermal Nozzle/Turbojet will always switch to the propellant with Highest ISP when non existing propellant is selected in VAB
  • LiquidFuel now performs similar as Methane in Thermal Nozzle/Turbojet
  • LFO performs similar to Methalox (Methane + Oxidizer) in Thermal Nozzle/Turbojet
  • Restored Thrust Multiplier Hydrolox to 2.222
  • Removed all references to isLFO in NTR definition file

Edited by FreeThinker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello FreeThinker,

There's a small typo in the RealFuelsFix.cfg file. And the Magnetic Nozzle needed a Real Fuels resource. See my pull request on Github for more details.

Nothing major, just a heads up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In addition to the impossible-to-tweakscale-anything-even-after-reinstalling-KSPI-and-Tweakscale issue, I just noticed that the nuclear thermal nozzle and thermal turbojets both display the 'firing' animation inside the VAB.

Could they be related?

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.