Jump to content

KSP Interstellar Extended Support Thread


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, pp3d said:

What's the story with. the kerbstein engines? How long will the older versions (using UDD) will be supported (so games don't crash). I see Kerbstein and Kerbstein1 in the folder but only one (the newest one) shows up in the VAB.  If I want the older style to show up in the VAB what do I do? (remove kerbstein1 folder?). Anyway to have both variants show up? (sorry too many questions)

to make the old Kerbstein appear do the following:

open Kerbstein2.cfg in WarpPlugin\Parts\Engines\KerbsteinDrive

remove "TechHidden = True"

replace "TechRequired = hidden" by "TechRequired = extremeFusionRockets"

save and load ksp

Edited by FreeThinker
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, FreeThinker said:

to make the old Kerbstein appear do the following:

open Kerbstein2.cfg in WarpPlugin\Parts\Engines\KerbsteinDrive

remove "TechHidden = True"

replace "TechRequired = hidden" by "TechRequired = extremeFusionRockets"

save and load ksp

with  those changes, both will show up  (under the same name) or only the older one?

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, having trouble with electric engines. 

I have a power station in Kerbin orbit and a long infrared relay system. The orbital station generates 10GW, looks like it relays about 150 MW to kerbin orbit. Not entirely clear how to get more power from my relays. I'm using long infrared transmission. 

Can't get eelctical engines to work at all, generally.

ELF with LH suggests 0.74 TWR in VAB, in space, 0.0, and 4614years worth of fuel. It's totaly non operational. My relay says I'm getting 150MW of power, I think, plus I have megajuels stored in a capacitor. Same with Attila, and Ion.

I tried putting the ELF and atilla on a generator, open cycle gas with MHD, generating 1.2GW of power. Attila manages 0.25 TWR, simialr to VAB estimate, ELF still down at 0.03 (VAB estimate was like 0.5). So it seems they need an absurd amount of power, ideally by direct generators, which are prohibitively heavy? I tried doubling reactors to 2.5GW, still 0.02 TWR

So electrical is total a no go as far as I can see. Help and advice appreciated : )

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, FreeThinker said:

Nothing, either your power is too low or your mass it too high for the amount of warp drive power in your vessel.

Then something changed in the Thermal power generator mechanics. I had a ship that worked well with KSPIE+1.26.18+for+KSP+1.8.1.

Then after updating to KSPIE+1.27.3+for+KSP+1.8.1 it didn't work anymore. Same ship, I didn't change anything

Power for warp drive is generated from a Beam core antimatter reactor+ Thermal power generator

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, DiegoKeys said:

Then something changed in the Thermal power generator mechanics. I had a ship that worked well with KSPIE+1.26.18+for+KSP+1.8.1.

Then after updating to KSPIE+1.27.3+for+KSP+1.8.1 it didn't work anymore. Same ship, I didn't change anything

Power for warp drive is generated from a Beam core antimatter reactor+ Thermal power generator

that's why.  I asked a similar question a few days ago... beam core antimatter reactors don't really power any generators anymore.  Surprised you were using thermal, CP used to be the way to go; now that reactor won't effectively power *any* generator, so... you don't have power for your warp drive anymore :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

I figured out what was going on with my earlier question (on page 200) regarding the mysteriously high power drain from Lithium batteries and Megajoule capacitors. It is caused by using the "Heavy 5-Way RCS Block" RCS blocks. The stock RCS thrusters do not have this effect, but any amount (or at least 2) of heavy 5-way blocks always seems to draw exactly 5.00 MW (equiv. 1.4 kWh/s) of electric power while thrusting - even though they seem like they should be fuelled only by chemical fuel given the propellants and description. Is this intended or is this a bug? Moreover, I do not believe they stop working when no electric power is available. They just seem to drain it at that high rate as a side effect. (At least, that is, when you're using monopropellant as the propellant - I wonder if this has something to do with that they can consume other propellants - if intended, then the need for electric power should be indicated along with the amounts, and finally, the thruster should stop working when it receives no more electric power.)

Edited by shimmy00
Link to post
Share on other sites

@FreeThinker sorry I'm.. complaining about stuff lately, but I found some issues, some may be old/not this mod's issue/I'm not sure but it's in the logs, and there's a couple things that are definitely "off", one of which seems to be new in the last version or two...  Just updated to 1.27.4 today.

Issue #1 - in SPH/VAB, using IXS parts, I get part bounds errors/voxelization errors - this is coming from FAR, but it indicates the part mesh may be off if the FAR voxelizer can't find it.

Issue #2 - Communotron 99-99 is visual only and does nothing (minor issue; it looks cool, but just has no functionality I guess?)

Issue #3 - IXS Sensor Array says a lab/computer core is required; I have both, however, on this craft.

Issue #4 - This IXS-based ship, if I try to add crew to it, the list of available crew goes immediately blank, and nobody gets on board (never seen this before in KSP period)

Issue #5 - Charging/using the FTL drives (this is the new issue), cuts my FPS from 120+ to about *2*... seriously.  While it's doing this (and it doesn't ALWAYS do it), it spams the logs with packing/unpacking messages (see below).  This seems to be limited to the one ship that contains the IXS parts, mostly, but I have seen less severe and less common occurrences on other ships, albeit not always.

 

... maybe it's just the IXS parts in general, seems a common thread?

 

-------------LOGS----------------

ISSUE #1:


[LOG 20:22:05.462] [FAR v0.16.0.1]: Voxelization Time (ms): 128
[LOG 20:22:06.968] [FAR v0.16.0.1]: Updating CA-100-X
[LOG 20:22:06.977] [FAR v0.16.0.1]: Overall bounds error in IXS Mobile Science Laboratory 0 meshes
[LOG 20:22:06.977] [FAR v0.16.0.1]: Overall bounds error in IXS Sensor Array 0 meshes
[LOG 20:22:06.977] [FAR v0.16.0.1]: Overall bounds error in IXS Mobile Science Laboratory 0 meshes
[LOG 20:22:06.977] [FAR v0.16.0.1]: Overall bounds error in IXS Crew Habitat 0 meshes
[LOG 20:22:06.977] [FAR v0.16.0.1]: Overall bounds error in IXS Sensor Array 0 meshes
[LOG 20:22:06.977] [FAR v0.16.0.1]: Overall bounds error in IFS Cryogenic Dual Tank (CDT2504) 0 meshes
[LOG 20:22:06.977] [FAR v0.16.0.1]: Overall bounds error in IXS Atmospheric Scoop 0 meshes
[LOG 20:22:06.977] [FAR v0.16.0.1]: Overall bounds error in Aerodynamic Nose Cone 0 meshes
[LOG 20:22:06.977] [FAR v0.16.0.1]: Overall bounds error in Aerodynamic Nose Cone 0 meshes
[LOG 20:22:06.977] [FAR v0.16.0.1]: Overall bounds error in Clamp-O-Tron Docking Port Sr. 0 meshes
[LOG 20:22:06.977] [FAR v0.16.0.1]: Overall bounds error in Illuminator Mk2 0 meshes
[LOG 20:22:06.977] [FAR v0.16.0.1]: Overall bounds error in Cyclotron Positron Factory 0 meshes
[LOG 20:22:06.977] [FAR v0.16.0.1]: Overall bounds error in IXS Laser 0 meshes
[LOG 20:22:06.977] [FAR v0.16.0.1]: Overall bounds error in Positron Antimatter Reactor 0 meshes
[LOG 20:22:06.977] [FAR v0.16.0.1]: Overall bounds error in Thermal Turbojet Short 0 meshes
[LOG 20:22:06.977] [FAR v0.16.0.1]: Overall bounds error in Thermal Turbojet Short 0 meshes
[LOG 20:22:06.977] [FAR v0.16.0.1]: Overall bounds error in Positron Antimatter Reactor 0 meshes
[LOG 20:22:06.977] [FAR v0.16.0.1]: Overall bounds error in Thermal Turbojet Short 0 meshes
[LOG 20:22:06.978] [FAR v0.16.0.1]: Overall bounds error in Thermal Turbojet Short 0 meshes
[LOG 20:22:06.978] [FAR v0.16.0.1]: Overall bounds error in A1S Enclosed Spot Light 0 meshes
[LOG 20:22:06.978] [FAR v0.16.0.1]: Overall bounds error in A1S Enclosed Spot Light 0 meshes
[LOG 20:22:06.978] [FAR v0.16.0.1]: Overall bounds error in Adjustable Landing Gear (Large) 0 meshes
[LOG 20:22:06.978] [FAR v0.16.0.1]: Overall bounds error in Adjustable Landing Gear (Large) 0 meshes
[LOG 20:22:06.978] [FAR v0.16.0.1]: Overall bounds error in Positron Antimatter Reactor 0 meshes
[LOG 20:22:06.978] [FAR v0.16.0.1]: Overall bounds error in Thermal Turbojet Short 0 meshes
[LOG 20:22:06.978] [FAR v0.16.0.1]: Overall bounds error in Titanium Convector Radiator Inline 0 meshes
[LOG 20:22:06.978] [FAR v0.16.0.1]: Overall bounds error in IFS Cryogenic Dual Tank (CDT2001) 0 meshes
[LOG 20:22:06.978] [FAR v0.16.0.1]: Overall bounds error in OPT Ultra High Frequency Blade Antenna 0 meshes
[LOG 20:22:06.978] [FAR v0.16.0.1]: Overall bounds error in OPT Ultra High Frequency Blade Antenna 0 meshes
[LOG 20:22:06.978] [FAR v0.16.0.1]: Overall bounds error in Structural Fuselage 0 meshes
[LOG 20:22:06.978] [FAR v0.16.0.1]: Overall bounds error in Reflectron GX-128 0 meshes
[LOG 20:22:06.978] [FAR v0.16.0.1]: Overall bounds error in Aerodynamic Nose Cone 0 meshes
[LOG 20:22:06.978] [FAR v0.16.0.1]: Overall bounds error in Surface Mounted Air Brake (Large) 0 meshes
[LOG 20:22:07.080] [FAR v0.16.0.1]: Voxel Element CrossSection Area: NaN
FAR VOXEL ERROR: Voxel CrossSection Area is NaN at section 0
FAR VOXEL ERROR: Voxel CrossSection Area is NaN at section 1
FAR VOXEL ERROR: Voxel CrossSection Area is NaN at section 2
FAR VOXEL ERROR: Voxel CrossSection Area is NaN at section 3
FAR VOXEL ERROR: Voxel CrossSection Area is NaN at section 4
FAR VOXEL ERROR: Voxel CrossSection Area is NaN at section 5
FAR VOXEL ERROR: Voxel CrossSection Area is NaN at section 6
FAR VOXEL ERROR: Voxel CrossSection Area is NaN at section 7
FAR VOXEL ERROR: Voxel CrossSection Area is NaN at section 8

 

ISSUE #5:

[LOG 21:00:34.564] Unpacking CA-100-Y
[LOG 21:00:34.620] Packing CA-100-Y for orbit
[LOG 21:00:34.622] Unpacking CA-100-Y
[LOG 21:00:34.789] Packing CA-100-Y for orbit
[LOG 21:00:34.791] Unpacking CA-100-Y
[LOG 21:00:34.846] Packing CA-100-Y for orbit
[LOG 21:00:34.848] Unpacking CA-100-Y
[LOG 21:00:34.978] Packing CA-100-Y for orbit
[LOG 21:00:34.980] Unpacking CA-100-Y
[LOG 21:00:35.035] Packing CA-100-Y for orbit
[LOG 21:00:35.037] Unpacking CA-100-Y
[LOG 21:00:35.204] Packing CA-100-Y for orbit
[LOG 21:00:35.207] Unpacking CA-100-Y
[LOG 21:00:35.289] Packing CA-100-Y for orbit
[LOG 21:00:35.291] Unpacking CA-100-Y
[LOG 21:00:35.475] Packing CA-100-Y for orbit
[LOG 21:00:35.477] Unpacking CA-100-Y
[LOG 21:00:35.700] Packing CA-100-Y for orbit
[LOG 21:00:35.702] Unpacking CA-100-Y
[LOG 21:00:35.834] Packing CA-100-Y for orbit

[ repeats thousands of times, if not more]

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, ss8913 said:

Issue #3 - IXS Sensor Array says a lab/computer core is required; I have both, however, on this craft.

Weird is should function as a relay dish about 10 times the power of a Communotron 88-88

Edited by FreeThinker
Link to post
Share on other sites

My Alcubierre Drive is fully charged "Status: Ready" but then I try and activate warp, I get the following message: "Warp Drive is not yet fully charged". What gives?

I have plenty of GW being produced and I'm plenty far from a body so that gravity won't effect my warp so much. I tried restarting the game and made sure I'm using the latest version of KSPIE.

unknown.png?width=828&height=675

unknown.png (828×675) (discordapp.net)

Edited by shacknu
Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I've been delving into the nuclear reactors, and have found a number of issues.  

With the liquid metal cooled reactor, in the VAB I have 3 fuel options: Uranium 238 TWR(default),  Uranium Oxide, and Plutonium TWR.  When first placed, it comes with 50 units of EnrU.  When you launch, the reactor will automatically switch to Uranium Oxide mode.   This works. 

But if you switch the fuel modes, the fuel disappears, and you can cycle completely through without getting it back.

Spoiler

Molten-Salt-Initial.jpgMolten-Salt-Bug.jpg

The other issue I've had is with testing refueling using a kerbal to refuel:

Starting with a unstarted molten salt reactor(in thorium breeding mode), when I refuel I get negative resource amounts, and it doesn't even fill my thorium up completely:

Spoiler

MSRInitial.jpgMSRBug.jpg

EDIT:  I just figured out what's happening.  Okay, so I was attempting to simulate an "almost out of fuel" reactor with actinide buildup.  It subtracts the Actinides from the amount it fuels up - So Beryllium, with a max of 32.42, has 50 actinides subtracted from it, leaving -17.58, U-233(I had a container full of it on the testbed), 34.46 out of 84.46, etc...

I can deal with that - just have to remove the actinides first.

Also, I can attempt to move Thorium into an MSR, but while the amount in the container goes down, the amount in the reactor doesn't go up, unless I let the reprocessor do it very slowly.  Good enough, I guess?

Update:  Am I doing something wrong?  I'm not seeing any Actinides going down, I'm not getting any reprocessing, "reprocessing" appears to only be pulling actinides out of the reactor slowly.

Edited by firethorn6
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have tried loading this mod on KSP 1.8.1.2694 and the loading screen will get stuck on "WarpPlugin/Parts/Radiators/ActiveCoolingSystem/ActiveCoolingSystem/activeCoolingSystemv3." The game isn't frozen either, it still cycles through the splash text and pictures.

(Edit): Most parts crash the game.

Edited by Thatsstoguy
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/3/2021 at 1:08 PM, shacknu said:

My Alcubierre Drive is fully charged "Status: Ready" but then I try and activate warp, I get the following message: "Warp Drive is not yet fully charged". What gives?

I have plenty of GW being produced and I'm plenty far from a body so that gravity won't effect my warp so much. I tried restarting the game and made sure I'm using the latest version of KSPIE.

unknown.png?width=828&height=675

unknown.png (828×675) (discordapp.net)

1. selected speed is higher than max allowed throttle

2. current power for warp may be too low to maintain a steady warp field

3. beam core antimatter reactors [no longer] power a charged particle reactor, not sure why the CPEMD is showing that high of a theoretical supply there

4. how do you open that 'chargedparticles management display' window?  I've not seen that before...? :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, test update on the liquid metal reactor(Hey, it's good for a basic mining base):  I went ahead, looked up the Uranium 238 TWR mode, then created a patch to give it the correct storage - adding Depleted Uranium, apparently.  With that, the cycles in the VAB work correctly.  Though the fuel amounts go odd and aren't stable.

Is there a way to swap the default power mode?  Have it start on Uranium Oxide?

Link to post
Share on other sites

hello, I am new to this forum.

I have a bug with the plasma and attila thrusters, when I change the propolent it puts the saw in space, I can look but I can't find ...

bug in my stream :

 

Edited by Flingueuse
Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, trying to better understand various aspecxts of the mod. Currently on Power and making any sort of use of electric engines. Want to carry a reactor. Want to know how to maximize my power potential. 

 

Trying for example a dusty plasma reactor with MGH and particle generators attached. KPSI helped thingy indicated 3GW potential power, getting 1.9. I can't seem to change these numbers by, for example, using larger generators. Is this jsut an effecieny max issue? What does the 'potential' power mean, is it the power if both generators were 100% efficient? 

 

Is there a way to icnrease power, such as making the generators or reactor bigger, because tweakscaling them doesn't seem to be having much effect? 

 

 

Edited by colin_in_space
Link to post
Share on other sites

@colin 3 GW is the full potential power,  but only a fraction can be converted to electrical power (still its much better than other reactor types). First of make sure the diameter of the power generator matches the reactor diameter, when its too small, a portion of the potential eneegy will be lost. Other losses will the in the power conversion, this depends on your tech level and amount of available radiators.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/31/2021 at 12:45 AM, pp3d said:

What's the story with. the kerbstein engines? How long will the older versions (using UDD) will be supported (so games don't crash). I see Kerbstein and Kerbstein1 in the folder but only one (the newest one) shows up in the VAB.  If I want the older style to show up in the VAB what do I do? (remove kerbstein1 folder?). Anyway to have both variants show up? (sorry too many questions)

edit: feedback it was appealing having a single resource on the ship from where one can manufacture UDD (LqD). Now for fusion pellets you got to manufacture them elsewhere - with the need for an added supply of He3 - and refuel separately.  

Search kerbstein in the search bar, you'll get both kinds afaik.

About UDD, if you used it at some point, it sucked, it just made burn times slowerand ships more complicated. And in any career you want FP manufacturing anyway...

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/13/2021 at 2:02 AM, FreeThinker said:

@colin 3 GW is the full potential power,  but only a fraction can be converted to electrical power (still its much better than other reactor types). First of make sure the diameter of the power generator matches the reactor diameter, when its too small, a portion of the potential eneegy will be lost. Other losses will the in the power conversion, this depends on your tech level and amount of available radiators.

Oh thanks, I wasn't matching diameters! 

 

And thanks so much for keeping this alive and keeping the support forum going! Have one of those fancy European latte style coffee or whatnot. : )

Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all one of the best mods ever. Thank you @FreeThinker.

I am experiencing interesting issues with Computer Core. If I use Computer Core on a ship then following happens:

1. Something is starting to eat up processing power of the threads on which the game resides, and the game turns into a slide show, but when I do NOT use the computer core everything behaves normal. IHAL does not have this issue

2. When "Auto Stabilizing" is set to "Enabled on either Computer Core or IHAL translation using with RCS is not possible unless the ship is ordered to rotate first, that does something that allows for translation using RCS to work for a short time, about 5 - 10 seconds (this time is dependent on how ship responds to rotational input. If ship has to takes longer to counter rotate or stabilize after initial input to rotate, then there will be longer time of functioning translation.) Disabling "Auto Stabilizing" allows for normal translation using RCS.

 

Now more detail on the issue with performance.

 There are two ships: a station (162 parts) and a tug(50 parts) and here things that I did in the last test:

1. Deployed Tug on surface of the Earth. Performance is fine at this point.

2. Used cheat menu to rendezvous with station 250 meters away. Performance still fine.

3. Did not touch anything and let the two ships sit at least 250 (they slowly drifted apart) for about half an hour. No noticeable performance change. Wanted to rule out that this is time related, which looks like it is not.

4. Rotated and translated for a while (about 5-10 minutes) without closing the gap between the ship (at this point ships where about 360 m apart.) No noticeable  performance change. Wanted to rule out that this has nothing to do with translation or rotation of the tug, due to the "Auto Stabilizing" issue described above.

5. Started to close the gap at about 2 m/s.

a. At about 200 m performance is significantly worse, and the closer ships get together the worse it gets.

b. Somewhere between 200 and 100 m RCS translation stops working, and to get it back I either have to send rotation command first or set "Auto Stabilizing" to "Disabled".

6. Docked the tug to Station. Performance stays bad.

7. Undocked and tried to move away from station in order to test if increasing the separation returns the performance back to normal, but unfortunately station exploded due to gravity forces (I think it has to do with Auto Stabilization.)

8. Repeated steps 1,2 and 5 with same results.

9. At 50 m started to use RCS to reverse the ship movement to test if increasing the ship separation returns the performance

10. Got as close as 42 m at which point the ships did not get any closer.

11. Increased separation velocity to 1.8 m/s.

12. Separation is at 120 m the performance is not returning and it is less than 1/10 of real time. (in 6 seconds ships only moved 1 m apart when they should have moved about 10.8 m. Original performance probably was not real time either but it was pretty close to 1 to 1.)

13. At separation of 200 m performance is still bad at about 1/10 of real time as in step 12.

14. At 300 m Performance still bad. Tried to activate engine via staging but it did not activate had to manually trigger via part menu.

15. At 320 m used engines to accelerate to 42.2 m/s

16. 1000 m no change in performance. Still bad.

17. Even after the Station has unloaded at 2.5 km performance has not returned to normal. I did not expect this.

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.

×
×
  • Create New...