KSP Interstellar Extended Support Thread

[FreeThinker]

11 minutes ago, enewmen said:

I noticed on the Circular Solar Photovoltaic Cells there is no option for beam power in the VAB and in space.

 

Ok, I see the problem is that it is missing a PhotovoltaicPowerReceiverPanel, it must have lost it somewhere. It needs to be readded

	MODULE
	{
		name = PhotovoltaicPowerReceiverPanel

		canSwitchBandwidthInEditor = false
		canSwitchBandwidthInFlight = false

		isEnergyReceiver = true
		isThermalReceiver = false

		canLinkup = false
		//animName = deploy
		diameter = 5
		receiverType = 4
		maximumElectricPower = 400	// 2000 * Mass
		facingThreshold = 0.1

		solarPowerMode = false
	}

 

Edited August 27, 2019 by FreeThinker

[whitespacekilla]

19 hours ago, FreeThinker said:

@whitespacekilla

You could try ad see if the latest beta solves you heating issue:

KSPIE 1.22.10 BETAfor KSP 1.7.3 can be downloaded from here

 

Changelog:

* Added Icons for Photovoltaics and Extreme Nuclear Propulsion (by Tonas1997)

* Added HALBERT Chemical Engine with more than 10 air and LFO modes

* Added Tweakscale to Cylotron

* Balanced ISWR lowered isp and increate unlocking requirements in Tech tree

* Fixed Wasteheat problem when going to the thermosphere

* Fixed some localization issues

I'll try it out. Looking at the change, it appears you are now capping density at 1 for that temperature calculation. I don't necessarily see this solving my issue since I was seeing 60% overheating/wasteheat buildup while orbiting (and with the nozzle at rest) despite adding twice as much heat dissipation as the thermal helper indicated I needed. I switched my design to a timberwind, which, as you know, is basically an all in one pebble bed, thermal nozzle, and thermal electric generator (though a little less powerful at thrust and electric generation for the simplicity). I didn't experience the same issue here, and the biggest difference I can see is that the pebble bed had a very large wasteheat capacity (about 4x a comparable timberwind). When I looked at the KSPI reactor control / information panels, my huge array of radiators was not dissipating much until very high levels of overheating (~60%).

[madindehead]

I have made a copy of my current install and I'm trying to add KSPIE to it - however every time I launch KSP, I get a fatal B9PartSwitch error and it needs to close the game. 

My current mod list runs perfectly: https://pastebin.com/gnEZu3tr but adding the KSPIE mods causes the B9 Part Switch error. I have some log files which I will post soon (I need to dig them out from Google Drive). This is one of the error that pops up: 

In the KSPIE install I am using the latest TweakScale and Lisia's MM fork. Nothing else has changed. Using the latest KSPIE. Maybe there's some unholy interaction between my other mods? 

[OOM]

Why is the new liquid metal reactor located in some strange place called Utility, and not directly in Electronics?

[ssd21345]

how do near future electrical reactors work with interstellar MJ system? i.e how to convert NFE reactor's EC to MJ?

Edited September 1, 2019 by ssd21345

[FreeThinker]

3 hours ago, ssd21345 said:

how do near future electrical reactors work with interstellar MJ system? i.e how to convert NFE reactor's EC to MJ?

It is done automaticly

[okder]

bug:

electric power/charge/wasteheat time warp scaling is incorrect:

it is possible to generate more positive effect (electric charge at day for example) using low warp (or no time warp), and waste negative effect less (electric charge during night) using high warp.

without knowledge about it leads to random energy disappearance (when negative effect leads to shutdown).

it's major bug now which do influence every part of mod, not only electric charge at day/night, but also reactor overheating problem (reactor still hot after long timewarp when it was shutdown).

balance issue:

pebble bed reactor is still best reactor in game, too much overpowered at very low tech tree level, and at middle of game electric conversion/transmit tech is too low to be useful (even when TriAlpha available, and TriAlpha cost very much), so pebble bed is only viable universal(i.e. without build-in engine/generator) reactor.

only in very late game fusion/antimatter is useful.

i think Antimatter initiated reactor should be 1 level tech early available.

 

pelicat thermal turbojet without slow manual turn (to get horizontal speed with vertical support) not worth the mass,

and even with vertical support mass probably should be slightly lower.

 

please remove overheat modding for non kspie (atmosphere)jet engines, it does not fit current state of kspie mod.

 

p.s. still mod is great, thanks for keep going.

 

Edited September 1, 2019 by okder

[FreeThinker]

3 hours ago, okder said:

pebble bed reactor is still best reactor in game, too much overpowered at very low tech tree level, and at middle of game electric conversion/transmit tech is too low to be useful (even when TriAlpha available, and TriAlpha cost very much), so pebble bed is only viable universal(i.e. without build-in engine/generator) reactor.

Too overpowered early in the tech three? The PebbleBed is the 3th generation reactor available with High Energy Nuclear Power (1000 sci) and starts at 1.333 GW, from which only about 1 GW can be used for Power Electric Power Production when connected with Thermal Power Generator. Its maximum power gets upgraded with HighEfficienct Nuclear Power (1000 sci) to 2GW,  Experimental Nuclear Power (1500sci) to 3GW and Exotic Nuclear Power(2250 sci) to 4.5GW

How do you suggest we make it less overpower early in the tech three?

Edit: I guess  think a lower initial core temperature would help, starting with 2000 K instead of 2250 K, this would maiintain is propusion ability more or less the same but would signifintly low its thermal power efficiency.  Another logical change would we to lower it fuel efficiency from 20% to 5%, as that the percentage that is usualy used before discarted

 

 

Edited September 1, 2019 by FreeThinker

[okder]

5 minutes ago, FreeThinker said:

How do you suggest we make it less overpower early in the tech three?

slightly more mass, slightly later one of upgrade or less power boost.

take into account that direct replacement is Magnetized Target Fusion Reactor which is 2250 and first upgrade at 2250 too, and still after that it will be less efficient especially if take into account that lightweight Thermal Effect Generator for secondary usages on small spacecraft is not available for that Fusion reactor, and do available for pebble bed.

probably could also make early and slightly better Magnetized Target Fusion Reactor (at least enable it for Thermal Effect Generator at some percentage)

may be upgrades for pebble bed should add slightly less power and make stanby mode better (less minimal power percentage)

 

DustyPlasma can give energy to two sources i.e. to two different generators and so works to 100% efficiency, or it's efficiency always 50%?

[FreeThinker]

31 minutes ago, okder said:

slightly more mass, slightly later one of upgrade or less power boost.

I prefer not to change mass directly, as it can seriously mess up people SSTO. What I can do it significantly lower its fuel efficiency (20% to 4%) and increase fuel capacity (250 to 500), which effectively increases its mass for new vessels.  Also lowering it initial core temperature, making it less effective as a electric power reactor early on. A small increase in cost also sounds fair I think.

Notice, The Pebblebed was always mend as a reactor which primary task was propulsion and power production secondary.

Edited September 1, 2019 by FreeThinker

[okder]

if mass can't be changed then temperature AND lower power boost from tech-upgrades i.e. limit it to 3 GW with all upgrades not 4.5 GW.

but with same change also lower idle power level i.e. to 7% for first upgrade 4% for second upgrade, and 2% for last upgrade, then it will lower mass required for radiators, and if possible make it less sensible for overhead with all upgrades (this is important for ssto).

Edited September 1, 2019 by okder

[FreeThinker]

14 minutes ago, okder said:

if mass can't be changed then temperature AND lower power boost from tech-upgrades i.e. limit it to 3 GW with all upgrades not 4.5 GW.

Well what I could do is increase the  upgrade tech requirement by one tech level, meaning Upgrade Mk2 requires Experimental Propulsion (1500 sci) instead of High Efficient Nuclear propusion (1000 sci). Mk3 requires Exotic Nuclear Propulsion (2250 sci) and Mk4 requires Extreme Nuclear Propulsion (4000 sci) to unlock the full 4.5 GW potential. That will also means that Sandbox players will be unaffected by the nerf.

Edited September 1, 2019 by FreeThinker

[okder]

i should point out that cap limit of magnetized target fusion reactor is 4.1 gw (40 000+ science req), i.e. unless using antimatter pebble bed still would be best reactor for ssto.

 

Edited September 1, 2019 by okder

[FreeThinker]

23 minutes ago, okder said:

but with same change also lower idle power level i.e. to 7% for first upgrade 4% for second upgrade, and 2% for last upgrade, then it will lower mass required for radiators, and if possible make it less sensible for overhead with all upgrades (this is important for ssto).

Yes, I agree, I guess the mimumum throtl of 6.75%, 4.5%, 3%, 2% would be suitable. This will maintain the same amount of wasteheat production, no matter the reactor maximum power

8 minutes ago, okder said:

i should point out that cap limit of magnetized target fusion reactor is 4.1 gw (40 000+ science req), i.e. unless using antimatter pebble bed still would be best reactor for ssto.

I agree there should be an edge when fully upgraded

Edited September 1, 2019 by FreeThinker

[okder]

i thought that with better tech minimum power waste heat should be better too, that's why last one is 2% not 3%, but max power should be lower, or all fusion reactors should be better,

now only antimatter reactors gives significantly more power per raw mass, fusions requires a lot of upgrades only to get equal(slightly better because of mass but there other problems too) to pebble bed.

 

10 minutes ago, FreeThinker said:

I agree there should be an edge when fully upgraded

point here that at middle of game you getting best reactor for ssto, and it actually could be build with modern realworld tech,

and it also suitable for many other application (though at some point later you would get replacement reactor for other application),

but unless you want to fly supersonic near ground with antimatter on board - you would not get any better, and that's not very good for the game and future optimism.

 

[FreeThinker]

12 minutes ago, okder said:

i thought that with better tech minimum power waste heat should be better too, that's why last one is 2% not 3%, but max power should be lower, or all fusion reactors should be better,

Well Fusion Reactor have inherently lower power density than nuclear reactor due to the higher involved core temperatures. The main edge of Fusion should be higher isp and power conversion efficiencies, not power density which are a nuclear power edge.

Edited September 1, 2019 by FreeThinker

[okder]

it probably can be balanced with more energy required to sustain reaction (for Magnetized Target Fusion Reactor) to get more power output, i.e. it would be much less power efficient, and even may be less isp efficient in that mode but get more power output. (i.e. thermometric generator used other way around - as heat pump - to cool overheated overdrived core)?

 

but it probably would need generator/radiator/cooler which uses waste heat for heating engine propellant, otherwise such reaction is unsustainable.

 

Edited September 1, 2019 by okder

[FreeThinker]

15 minutes ago, okder said:

it probably can be balanced with more energy required to sustain reaction (for Magnetized Target Fusion Reactor) to get more power output, i.e. it would be much less power efficient, and even may be less isp efficient in that mode but get more power output. (i.e. thermometric generator used other way around - as heat pump - to cool overheated overdrived core)?

Magnetized Target Fusion Reactor  is a reactor mend primiraly for compact electric power production and secondary as for propulsion. What I could do is significantly increase it initial core temperature from 2000 K to 2500 K  which is increased by 500 K after every upgrade up to 4500 K (the theoretical maximum temperature solids can sustain). This should significanly improve its  ability to operate as a thermal power efficiency. I will also increase it initial power output to 0.985 GW and 5 GW when fully upgraded.

Edited September 1, 2019 by FreeThinker

[okder]

10 minutes ago, FreeThinker said:

 What I could do is significantly increase it initial core temperature from 2000 K to 2500 K  which is increased by 500 K after every upgrade up to 4500 K (the theoretical maximum temperature solids can sustain).

probably core temperature should stays the same, only power increase is suffice.

 

11 minutes ago, FreeThinker said:

Magnetized Target Fusion Reactor  is a reactor mend primiraly for compact electric power production and secondary as for propulsion.

description still says about "ideal for ssto".

 

[FreeThinker]

27 minutes ago, okder said:

description still says about "ideal for ssto".

Idealy you use electric propulsion once you are in orbit, this is where you want higher core temperatures. When compaiting the Pebbled versus  the  MTF, the Pebbled  is like the mussle racer while the MFT is the long distance  cruiser.

Edited September 1, 2019 by FreeThinker

[okder]

2 minutes ago, FreeThinker said:

Idealy you use electric propulsion once you are in orbit, this is where you want higher core efficiencies. When compaiting the Pebbled versus  the  MTF, the Pebbled  is like the mussle racer while the MFT is the long distance  cruiser.

while you have TWR >0.1 you can use obereth effect and for local vessel (which is not meant to travel far) TWR important, if you have TWR > 0.2 it will help to get to orbit (last 20%-30% orbital speed), for long interplanetary/interstellar flight - yes ISP is very important, just different usages. problem that no one in real universe would use big antimatter tanks inside atmosphere near surface or outposts/cities - only far in space, so practically antimatter would not be used for ssto, unless someone could guarantee that it will safely dissipate on crash - fusion here is best.

[FreeThinker]

14 minutes ago, okder said:

while you have TWR >0.1 you can use obereth effect and for local vessel (which is not meant to travel far) TWR important, if you have TWR > 0.2 it will help to get to orbit (last 20%-30% orbital speed), for long interplanetary/interstellar flight - yes ISP is very important, just different usages. problem that no one in real universe would use big antimatter tanks inside atmosphere near surface or outposts/cities - only far in space, so practically antimatter would not be used for ssto, unless someone could guarantee that it will safely dissipate on crash - fusion here is best.

Don't forget Fussion reactor have a 100% fuel efficiency and produce more power for every gram of fuel, meaning you can use fusion reactor a lot longer than nuclear reactors, which is especialy important with electric engine with low thrust.

Edited September 1, 2019 by FreeThinker

[okder]

that's only means that fuel efficiency and isp(core temperature) would be compromised in favor of power in case of reactor used for planes/ssto in real world, other (fusion) reactors still would have good core temperature and fuel efficiency, but specific one needed for (!heat! propulsion) power would be still better than any fission reactor in the end.

 

 

Edited September 1, 2019 by okder

[okder]

additional to balance candle traveling wave reactor engine should probably be later in tech tree, i do use it too often for probes instead of other small (non nuclear) engines, and Bill Gates still had not build ground many tonnage version.

 

[FreeThinker]

1 hour ago, okder said:

that's only means that fuel efficiency and isp(core temperature) would be compromised in favor of power in case of reactor used for planes/ssto in real world, other (fusion) reactors still would have good core temperature and fuel efficiency, but specific one needed for (!heat! propulsion) power would be still better than any fission reactor in the end.

True, but there is only so much that a 2th gen fusion engine design can be upgraded. For next release it max power will be 5 GW when  fully upgraded. Notice if you want something better you should use more advanced engines like the Airopsike Z-Pinch fusion engine, this 4th generation fusion engine can use both Atmospheric propulsion, Themal propulsion and plasma propulsion.

Edited September 1, 2019 by FreeThinker