KSP Interstellar Extended Continued Development Thread

[FreeThinker]

3 hours ago, Sresk said:

well a factor of 1/20 sounds about right but honestly it may be closer to 1/100 from what I was experiancing! And the difference of the Mega watts of power vs Mega joules of power that was so confusing also makes sense! Its why I felt that solar power was stronger by an order of magnitude than generator power. It's because generator power was being nerfed by an order of magnitude 

Sorry I was confused and you are right,  I checked again and power is divided by 500. The difference is realy that big. At that range, reactor indeed start to become a less valuable in comparison to solar power, and therefore it value becomes inbalanced. Perhaps it's an idea not only to scale stats but also cost when in Near Future Mode, because you simply receive less bang for buk.

Edited September 26, 2016 by FreeThinker

[Amnesy]

17 hours ago, FreeThinker said:

Sorry I was confused and you are right,  I checked again and power is divided by 500. The difference is realy that big. At that range, reactor indeed start to become a less valuable in comparison to solar power, and therefore it value becomes inbalanced. Perhaps it's an idea not only to scale stats but also cost when in Near Future Mode, because you simply receive less bang for buk.

Wow that a lot! I've never actually used solar power to support my microwave networks but if it's really that powerful in NF mode then there is a more fundamental problem.

In my opinion reactors should be vastly more powerful than solar panels (maybe not as much as in Interstellar mode)  but not as weak as in NFE.

A possible solution could be to go the opposite way and not decreasing the power of Interstellar reactors and engines when using NF but increasing the power of those reactors and requirements for those engines...I'm not sure if I'm overlooking something but from a pure power/technology standpoint I think this would feel more accurate. 

[SkippydaHippie]

I'm having a weird problem with this mod and I can't seem to figure out how to solve it.. Maybe I'm just missing something about how these engines work. I'm in V1.1.3 on a science only save file, and I have just unlocked the solid core engine. I have the candle as well and both have this problem. After reading some posts where people explain how these engines work, it seems clear that

A. I should be able to use one of these interstellar fuel tanks which you can switch out all the different propellants on, and attach it to the engine, and switch the engine mode to the different propellants for a different isp and twr. Instead I can choose between only hydrogen and liquidfuel. Am I wrong about this? Are hydrogen and liquidfuel really my only options with these engines?

B. I should be able to hit "Swap Fuel" on the items popup in the VAB and I think that makes the reactor run on a different fuel type? All it does for me is empty it out, it won't switch fuel.

C. The third thing in this pop up is the "Switch Mode" button, which will change Uranium Oxide to Plutonium TWR as the reactors fuel, however this only works once, it will not change anymore and if I launch the rocket it will be back in Uranium Oxide mode and will not switch. And again, I can't put plutonium in the thing to begin with. Unless there's some step I'm missing?

I've also seen people mention that these engines aren't as good until you've unlocked another node or two forward in the tech tree. I figured it might be referring to efficiency and energy output and whatnot but are these upgrades what actually allow these engines to use different fuel and propellants? More often than not these problems just end up being a lack of understanding on my part.. So I figured I'd ask real quick to see if I'm simply not grasping the basics.

[Sresk]

I'm fairly sure from my experience so for and as I dig through the cfg files that more types of fuels become available as you unlock the tech tree. I know for a fact that's how the fuel tanks work and I think the same applies to the engines.

What doesn't appear to be working though is the upgrades for those parts. The power out pit goes up to mk2 and mrk3 but that doesn't seem to have any effects on the thrust or ISP for those and or the lightbulb.

Edited September 28, 2016 by Sresk

[FreeThinker]

Indeed, you start with traditional nuclear propellants and the more advanced exotic propellant are gradualy unlocked with more advanced nuclear propulsion techs.

The projection of the Power output for specific tech levles in the VAB might not always apply (because there are no upgrade techs) and therefore can be confusing (I intend to fix this)  For detailed information, look at the reactor table in the first post.

Edited September 28, 2016 by FreeThinker

[SkippydaHippie]

Okay, I think I get it. This mod is nuts! And awesome! Thanks for the info, I'll keep teching up and see if it starts to make more sense to me.

[Sresk]

8 hours ago, FreeThinker said:

Indeed, you start with traditional nuclear propellants and the more advanced exotic propellant are gradualy unlocked with more advanced nuclear propulsion techs.

The projection of the Power output for specific tech levles in the VAB might not always apply (because there are no upgrade techs) and therefore can be confusing (I intend to fix this)  For detailed information, look at the reactor table in the first post.

I'm starting to compile a list of bugs (or just things that are misleading).

One of the things that's on the list is that parts show upgrades for mk1-mk5 but most parts only have up to mk3 or 4. So it's either a bug that there is no way yo enable mk5 or a bug that mk5 displays when it shouldn't not sure which .

So I'm playing my way through again now that things aren't buggy. It really seamed that it was just NF Electrical causing all of the problems. I'll have some more feedback for you on costs this weekend. But it's way mroe enjoyable now

[ss8913]

7 hours ago, SkippydaHippie said:

Okay, I think I get it. This mod is nuts! And awesome! Thanks for the info, I'll keep teching up and see if it starts to make more sense to me.

yeah if you've mastered base KSP and want the advanced version... you want at minimum FAR, DRE, KSPIE, RT, SCANSat, and Principia.  Those transform the game from a game into a fairly good aerospace simulator, spanning 1950s earth tech to 2030-2040 projected earth tech (maybe that's a little ambitious but it's theoretically possible).

[SkippydaHippie]

3 hours ago, ss8913 said:

yeah if you've mastered base KSP and want the advanced version... you want at minimum FAR, DRE, KSPIE, RT, SCANSat, and Principia.  Those transform the game from a game into a fairly good aerospace simulator, spanning 1950s earth tech to 2030-2040 projected earth tech (maybe that's a little ambitious but it's theoretically possible).

I hadn't heard of Principia before and wow!! Really? That's so cool! I don't think I can say I've mastered stock ksp but I'm definitely going to have to check that out.

[Fairin]

we all agreed on our server to turn off FAR cause.. maybe we suck at building things that break apart soon after launch, or maybe it just felt like we were launching off duna instead of kerbin, or maybe we liked the thick ass soup of atmo under 10k =). i must have tried for days to make a FAR enabled space plane that did not break apart </3

 

we are now curious to what is DRE RT and Principia....

 

deadly re entry, remote tech? just guessing. yeah server majority voted those off the island, looks like we're getting forced remote tech in the next patch too, bugger.

Edited September 29, 2016 by Fairin
i am tired. and i know how to internet.

[Sresk]

38 minutes ago, Fairin said:

we all agreed on our server to turn off FAR cause.. maybe we suck at building things that break apart soon after launch, or maybe it just felt like we were launching off duna instead of kerbin, or maybe we liked the thick ass soup of atmo under 10k =). i must have tried for days to make a FAR enabled space plane that did not break apart </3

 

we are now curious to what is DRE RT and Principia....

 

deadly re entry, remote tech? just guessing. yeah server majority voted those off the island, looks like we're getting forced remote tech in the next patch too, bugger.

I actually found it was easier to build planes in FAR as long as I had joint reinforcement installed too... but it kept turning all of my cargo bays into kraken drives I wish I could play with it but I've had to hack too many saves to make me want to go back to it.

[Imca]

With 1.2 does the AGI core need telemetry to pilot the craft? And if so is there a way to make it ingnore it? I really doesn't make sense that an artificial genral intelegence would need to wait for every one else to make decisions.

 

Edit: I seem to be getting an anchient issue where no mater what I do, my jet says it is intake atmos deprived.

Edited October 1, 2016 by Imca

[Goat Master]

I have a semi-large problem: When I try to charge the large alcubierre rings (for the ixs enterprise) a pop-up comes up saying , "Not enough mw power to initiate stable warp field." and I do not know what this means, so could someone please help me with this.

-Thanks

[Nansuchao]

1 hour ago, Goat Master said:

I have a semi-large problem: When I try to charge the large alcubierre rings (for the ixs enterprise) a pop-up comes up saying , "Not enough mw power to initiate stable warp field." and I do not know what this means, so could someone please help me with this.

-Thanks

Can you please post a screen of your ship?

[FreeThinker]

4 hours ago, Goat Master said:

I have a semi-large problem: When I try to charge the large alcubierre rings (for the ixs enterprise) a pop-up comes up saying , "Not enough mw power to initiate stable warp field." and I do not know what this means, so could someone please help me with this.

-Thanks

The amount of power required to initiate warp depends on available warp drive coil power (to mass ratio) and the amount of curved space caused by gravity wells (like Kerbin)

To solve the problem, either generate more power, use stronger or more warp coils or get into a higher orbit.

[Eleusis La Arwall]

Here are some pictures of the new models for the Pebble Bed Reactor and the Dusty Plasma Reactor:

Feedback and suggestions are always welcome

[Imca]

Still having issues about nothing I am doing fixing my vessals sayin they are deprived of intake atmosphere.

 

I like the modles though.

[Sresk]

Back with some more feedback:

The near future propulsion patch changes ion drives to need x 2 megajoules of power – this increased the power demand by 2000 (x1000 for the megajoule and then anouther x2) – if the intent is to only double the amount of power required then it either needs to be x 0.002 megajoules or the mega joules component needs to be removed. as it stands there's no way to power this with solar panels and the weight of reactors makes the weak thust of ion drives virtually unusable.

Not sure whats causing it but if you have a receiver and a transmitter on the same craft and you put one in LKO and one in low solar orbit and you turn on both the receiver and the transmitter then the amount of available power you get far exceeds what your producing – its like they are bouncing power back and forth and you’re getting a feedback loop.

I’ve tested this is several orbits and it doesn’t seem to matter where the ships are. Put a receiver a transmitter and a relay all on the same ship with some ability to generate power and then put all of them in an orbit where they can see each other, each of them feeds into the others and you get more power out of the system than your putting in.

Now that I’m not playing with the weirdness from NFElectrical Power generation from solar panels is WAY toned down to the point that solar generation in LKO is worthless for thermal engines is that working as designed? When I was playing with the weird interaction from NFelectrical I was able to put solar sats inside the orbit of moho and get enough power generation to make thermal nozzels a great option, the DeltaV for that was reasonable. Now you need to place them touching the sun which is close to 20k deltaV and so close in that I'm honestly not sure that the heat could be managed without cheats. Just wondering if this is the balance your looking for?

Edited October 2, 2016 by Sresk

[Sresk]

12 hours ago, Eleusis La Arwall said:

Here are some pictures of the new models for the Pebble Bed Reactor and the Dusty Plasma Reactor:

Feedback and suggestions are always welcome

Those are sexy! I love the detail on the models... just out of curiosity because this is kerbal is there a way to get some cool scifi glow out of them? I'm imagining some cool Cherenkov radiation coming out of the vents in the same way that radiators glow red when hot. If not I can throw lights on my ships just fine myself

[FreeThinker]

Cherenkov radiation is a feature of water cooled reactor design, this primitive reactor design would be unsuitable for space, as the amount of water needed would increase overall reactor mass way to high and core heat would be very low, which would result in very low efficiency. If you see the same effect in the air, run! because that means the exposed radiation is insane

[FreeThinker]

More improved Reactor graphics pics:

Fully animated Quantum Singularity Reactor by Raknark

Notice the cool black hole and particles even horizon

Edited October 2, 2016 by FreeThinker

[FreeThinker]

Uploaded a new version of KSPI-E for Pre ALpha, which can be downloaded from HERE

KSPI-E 1.10.2:

* Fixed radiators ability to work when pivot disabled
* Replaced  Quantum Singularity reactor by fully animated version by Raknark
* Included pre alpha recompiled Module Manager
* Included pre alpha Persistent Rotation

 

Edited October 2, 2016 by FreeThinker

[raxo2222]

1 hour ago, FreeThinker said:

More improved Reactor graphics pics:

Fully animated Quantum Singularity Reactor by Raknark

Notice the cool black hole and particles even horizon

Wouldn't be black hole this big have mass of Earth or even higher?

 

Edited October 2, 2016 by raxo2222

[Nansuchao]

1 hour ago, raxo2222 said:

Wouldn't be black hole this big have mass of Earth or even higher?

 

Not necessarily. A black hole is dense, but not so much and every black hole has a different density. An artificial one probably would be less dense than a natural one.

[FreeThinker]

Indeed, theoretically a black hole can be as small as 22 micro-grams. It just needs to be as dense as a black hole. To create one, you need to focus a very large amount of power to a tiny region of space and force it to convert energy into matter. It helps to be near a mother gravity well while in a zero G environment.

Edited October 2, 2016 by FreeThinker