KSP Interstellar Extended Continued Development Thread

[ArmchairPhysicist]

Strange bug, request assistance.

 

On my current starship I’m building in orbit I’ve hit a wall. Any time I attach my reactor module, no matter how stable it ran on it’s own, it runs out of power and the fusion reactor dies. There’s nothing except life support and a few small cryo tanks using electricity, and nothing using mega joules. But the moment I dock the reactor to my ship I get spammed with the “Not enough power for stable reaction” warning and my plasma ratio drops like a rock. Any ideas on this? Is this a known bug?

 

Ok I’m back with a possible reason but no solution. Even though I have enough radiators for a sun dive mission, if I end up in the shadow of a planet, my reactor dies. If I get into sunlight it starts up and glows merrily. My setup is an IXS MCFR with a pebble bed reactor as the spark plug. I’m paranoid about power outage so I pack extra. Not sure why the reactor goes down when in the shade, I would think it would work better in the shade. Either way I’m reporting it here.

Edited April 2, 2018 by ArmchairPhysicist

[raxo2222]

4 hours ago, FreeThinker said:

Next release will introduce a significant improvement in the Part Module information of reactors which was not very informative or confusing

He is a small selection

 

The general idea is that new Reactor module info contains all the important information is shown and and any information that is irrelevant is left out

This should make it easier for player to make a conscious choice what reactor to choose and what to expect.

Will generators list efficiencies depending on unlocked tech node?

Engines could list what propellants they can use and their efficiencies.

[FreeThinker]

1 hour ago, raxo2222 said:

Will generators list efficiencies depending on unlocked tech node?

Power Generators will also get their info improved and highlighting the current unlocked technologies and current power or efficiency would be a great improvement at well.

Edit: unfortunately I have to take that back, its impossible to get state of the current campaign during initialization because it is before the campaign is loaded and therefore before it is even known what techs are unlocked

1 hour ago, raxo2222 said:

Engines could list what propellants they can use and their efficiencies.

Great idea, that is defiantly information that would be important

4 hours ago, ArmchairPhysicist said:

Strange bug, request assistance.

 

On my current starship I’m building in orbit I’ve hit a wall. Any time I attach my reactor module, no matter how stable it ran on it’s own, it runs out of power and the fusion reactor dies. There’s nothing except life support and a few small cryo tanks using electricity, and nothing using mega joules. But the moment I dock the reactor to my ship I get spammed with the “Not enough power for stable reaction” warning and my plasma ratio drops like a rock. Any ideas on this? Is this a known bug?

 

Ok I’m back with a possible reason but no solution. Even though I have enough radiators for a sun dive mission, if I end up in the shadow of a planet, my reactor dies. If I get into sunlight it starts up and glows merrily. My setup is an IXS MCFR with a pebble bed reactor as the spark plug. I’m paranoid about power outage so I pack extra. Not sure why the reactor goes down when in the shade, I would think it would work better in the shade. Either way I’m reporting it here.

Ok, the problems associated after docking is a known problem and the work around it pretty simple.  After any docking, immediately quick safe and quick reload.

Edited April 2, 2018 by FreeThinker

[ArmchairPhysicist]

9 minutes ago, FreeThinker said:

 

Ok, the problems associated after docking is a known problem and the work around it pretty simple.  After any docking, immediately quick safe and quick reload.

It’s so simple it’s diabolical.

Thanks.

[Heyo!!]

13 hours ago, FreeThinker said:

Next release will introduce a significant improvement in the Part Module information of reactors which was not very informative or confusing

Here is a small selection

 

The general idea is that Reactor module info shows all the important information and any information that is irrelevant is left out

This should make it easier for player to make a conscious choice what reactor to choose and what to expect.

Thumbs up to this and then some! I know you have a lot on your plate and not enough help - might chip in myself at some point for some maintenance if that's helpful - but one of the struggles I think many players have with KSPIE is that a lot of the detail and minutiae starts to wash over you as options expand. 

I consider myself a novice when it comes to my skill with building using KSPIE and in understanding its intricacies, so little stuff like this really help flatten out the learning curve and make this more Kerb-alike. Quick information dumps that highlight relevant and important stats/aspects of parts and systems...I think this inclusion will bring a little more comfort to us casual users!  The overload of percentages and ratios really detract from the mod IMO. I appreciate complexity but the complexity of slightly relevant details in volume start to overwhelm at times!

Whatever the reaction to my comments, your doing an amazing job and I look forward to every update. Thank all involved with KSPIE development for the work you do it is TOTALLY appreciated!!!

Edited April 3, 2018 by Heyo!!
Clarification

[enewmen]

Quote

Future

Note that do not consider myself the person that have to determine the future of KSPI, it's just that nobody else seems to want to do it. I would be more than happy to share that responsibility. Anyone that actively want to develop KSPI is free to do it. It would appreciate it as it would allow me to focus more on advanced features I have ideas about. The simply truth is, KSPI is too big for a single developer. I don't have the time nor the skills to implement everything that it deserves. I'm especially frustrated about the lack of artist support. Many of KSPI models and effects look dated and ugly compared to more resent mods. There have been some artist and programmers offering their help but they often go AWOL after a short time. I'm not sure If I can keep it up myself indefinably. I would prefer to create a team of developers that works on KSPI together. I guess that's the only way to ensure Interstellars Future

I am a professional programmer with a strong background in C# (mostly in a finance and banking environment)  and some free time.  My limitation is I'll need some help in physics and I'm new to making mods (that means I'll need to read a lot about mods and start on very simple projects first before I can get fancy).   I can also do 3D (Blender and OLD 3D Studio) , but I'm not an artist.  I think this is something worth doing and I hope KSPI continues.   If interested, please send a PM.  thanks!  

Edited April 3, 2018 by enewmen

[Blackline]

@FreeThinker downscaled thermal engines work fine now, but default 2.5m ramjet explode on a pebble bed reactor.

[FreeThinker]

9 minutes ago, Blackline said:

@FreeThinker downscaled thermal engines work fine now, but default 2.5m ramjet explode on a pebble bed reactor.

How fast, what size and what is the displayed "Heat Production" on the engine?

Edited April 3, 2018 by FreeThinker

[FreeThinker]

6 hours ago, Heyo!! said:

I think this inclusion will bring a little more comfort to us casual users!  The overload of percentages and ratios really detract from the mod IMO. I appreciate complexity but the complexity of slightly relevant details in volume start to overwhelm at times!

 

I will try to avoid percentages when possible and instead use values and concept the average KSP player is more familiar with like effective thrust and isp.

With KSPIE I try to achieve a fine balance between Hard Core Realism overhaul and Casual Stock Ksp realism and use realism as a tool to achieve balanced and interesting gameplay.

Edited April 3, 2018 by FreeThinker

[Blackline]

16 minutes ago, FreeThinker said:

How fast, what size and what is the displayed "Heat Production" on the engine?

360m/s - 2.5m reactor and engine - 8097. The Screenshot was taken 1s before explosion of the rocket.

[FreeThinker]

3 minutes ago, Blackline said:

360m/s - 2.5m reactor and engine - 8097. The Screenshot was taken 1s before explosion of the rocket.

Perhaps I'm mistaken but where are your precoolers? Without Precoolers KSPIE turbojet/ramjet nozzle is designed to have overheat issues at high atmospherics speeds.

Edited April 3, 2018 by FreeThinker

[Blackline]

17 minutes ago, FreeThinker said:

Perhaps I'm mistaken but where are your precoolers? Without Precoolers KSPIE turbojet/ramjet nozzle is designed to have overheat issues at high atmospherics speeds.

I did not have a precooler, but even with one, its not working: (its precooler -> thermoelectric generator -> reactor -> engine)

btw, do generators have to stick on a reactor?

[FreeThinker]

5 minutes ago, Blackline said:

btw, do generators have to stick on a reactor?

1

Yes

[Blackline]

13 minutes ago, FreeThinker said:

Yes

Then it would be good, if:

1) reactors could be surface attachable

Or

2) parts like thrust plates could be ignored by that rule, so we can attach a small generator and multiple small engines, as an example

And 

3) downsized generators should also decrease their mass, somehow the generator stays at 3t, regardless of size ( only smaller sizes tested ) reason for downsized generators: I only need it as aux power supply, about 20 EC/s is fine, only needed for the radiators. I actually don't know if smaller generators provide less electric power or not...

Edited April 3, 2018 by Blackline

[FreeThinker]

20 minutes ago, Blackline said:

I did not have a precooler, but even with one, its not working: (its precooler -> thermoelectric generator -> reactor -> engine)

1

According to the part info there is a problem at the precooler because the precoolers cannot connect to the air intakes, causing it not to function, causing the heat production on the engine to double, causing your engines to blow up at high speed

Edited April 3, 2018 by FreeThinker

[Blackline]

The precooler usually has his own intake, but on this aircraft I have 2 separate, surface attached intakes.

1 minute ago, FreeThinker said:

According to the part info there is a problem because the precoolers cannot connect to the air intakes, causing it not to function, causing the heat production on the engine to double, causing your engines to blow up at high speed

 

[FreeThinker]

Notice that nozzles in contrast to generators, do not to be connected directly to the reactor. This allows you to put something in between te nozzle and the reactor. It will cause you to lose some capacity.

7 minutes ago, Blackline said:

The precooler usually has his own intake, but on this aircraft I have 2 separate, surface attached intakes.

 

2

Put your air intakes on the precooler and see if it works. The number to look at is "Air Flow Heat Modifier" which will become higher if you travel without precoolers

10 minutes ago, Blackline said:

3) downsized generators should also decrease their mass, somehow the generator stays at 3t, regardless of size ( only smaller sizes tested ) reason for downsized generators: I only need it as aux power supply, about 20 EC/s is fine, only needed for the radiators. I actually don't know if smaller generators provide less electric power or not...

 

Currently, the mass of a generator depends on the connected reactor. In the near future, I plan to make this configurable in the VAB allowing you to extract only a fraction of the total power, reducing it mass.

Edited April 3, 2018 by FreeThinker

[Blackline]

Thanks, I'll try it out asap. What's funny, the addition of the precooler actually increased that modifier...

Edit: found it: https://github.com/sswelm/KSP-Interstellar-Extended/blob/31ff53261efaf9b768679bd8bd009583ef6172c1/FNPlugin/Wasteheat/FNModulePreecooler.cs

This algorithm searches for some special places around the precooler for an intake. Either directly attached, then radial attached, then node attached, and last attached at it's 1 part distance neighbor parts. If one is found, the rest is not checked. So my intakes were to far away.

Did you make it this way with any reason behind it? Because I think it should not matter too much, where the intakes are placed, but that's your decision.

Edited April 3, 2018 by Blackline

[Blackline]

Although the Air Flow Heat Modifier was 0, it exploded :-(

[FreeThinker]

6 hours ago, Blackline said:

Thanks, I'll try it out asap. What's funny, the addition of the precooler actually increased that modifier...

Edit: found it: https://github.com/sswelm/KSP-Interstellar-Extended/blob/31ff53261efaf9b768679bd8bd009583ef6172c1/FNPlugin/Wasteheat/FNModulePreecooler.cs

This algorithm searches for some special places around the precooler for an intake. Either directly attached, then radial attached, then node attached, and last attached at it's 1 part distance neighbor parts. If one is found, the rest is not checked. So my intakes were to far away.

Did you make it this way with any reason behind it? Because I think it should not matter too much, where the intakes are placed, but that's your decision.

Good suggestion. I'm considering  replacing it by simply

extra_air_heating_muliplier = all_airintake_surface_area / all_pre_cooling_surface_area

That way, it will also matter how big you intake is. This way you could choose to op to have many small air intakes, instead forcing you to match them.

6 hours ago, Blackline said:

Although the Air Flow Heat Modifier was 0, it exploded :-(

Well it seems you were going very fast. Consider adding some additional radiators. I would advice using the skin surface radiators. They were mend to be put on top of the wings

Edited April 3, 2018 by FreeThinker

[Blackline]

Very nice, this way you enable multiple gameplay styles, without unnecessary limits.

EDIT: maybe this one is better, if a "usage of intakes" is a thing in KSPI-E

extra_air_heating_muliplier = MIN(required_airintake_surface_area, all_airintake_surface_area) / all_pre_cooling_surface_area

And even more important: with this solution you can spam intakes without risking an exploding engine!

Edited April 4, 2018 by Blackline

[Blackline]

14 hours ago, FreeThinker said:

Well it seems you were going very fast. Consider adding some additional radiators. I would advice using the skin surface radiators. They were mend to be put on top of the wings

I just tried it with 18 Radiators, it still exploded. Might there still be a bug? It is an upscaled pebble bed and ramjet engine (3.75m!) if that is important.

Edited April 4, 2018 by Blackline

[Blackline]

Spoiler

Low Throttle - Standstill Runway

Full Throttle - Accelerating low speed

Full Throttle - Takeoff

Heating up in Air

A second before explosion

 

I'll try to figure out, if there are some numbers wrong... So, there seems to be a difference between the thermal power consumption and the wasteheat consumption at the thermal ramjet nozzle. Why are there ~60MW less wasteheat consumed than thermal power? I don't know much about the internal logic, but should this be some sort of "loss" due to <1 efficiency?

How does that wasteheat mechanism work? Is it thermal energy, that is "stored" in a part and "consumed" by radiators? What effect does wasteheat have on coreTemps?

On a sidenote, if i just change the nozzle down to 2.5m radius, and keep the same 3.75 reactor, all seems fine. Mostly same thrust etc...

Edited April 4, 2018 by Blackline

[Acvila]

2 hours ago, Blackline said:

  Reveal hidden contents

Low Throttle - Standstill Runway

Full Throttle - Accelerating low speed

Full Throttle - Takeoff

Heating up in Air

A second before explosion

 

I'll try to figure out, if there are some numbers wrong... So, there seems to be a difference between the thermal power consumption and the wasteheat consumption at the thermal ramjet nozzle. Why are there ~60MW less wasteheat consumed than thermal power? I don't know much about the internal logic, but should this be some sort of "loss" due to <1 efficiency?

How does that wasteheat mechanism work? Is it thermal energy, that is "stored" in a part and "consumed" by radiators? What effect does wasteheat have on coreTemps?

On a sidenote, if i just change the nozzle down to 2.5m radius, and keep the same 3.75 reactor, all seems fine. Mostly same thrust etc...

why to you put engines matching the reactor size? you should match rector power anything bigger it's just ballast. i think that pebble it's fine with 1.25m nozzle. aesthetics?

Edited April 4, 2018 by Acvila

[Blackline]

1 hour ago, Acvila said:

why to you put engines matching the reactor size? you should match rector power anything bigger it's just ballast. i think that pebble it's fine with 1.25m nozzle. aesthetics?

I just assumed, 1.25m reactor comes with 1.25m nozzle. More power (i.e. a 2.5m reactor) needs also a bigger nozzle. How do you know you are doing the right thing? Are there any hints ingame or a wiki or elsewhere on what nozzle to use? Do nozzles have a "rated power" ?