Jump to content

KSP Interstellar Extended Support Thread


FreeThinker
 Share

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, The-Doctor said:

I want all 3, what's the minimum parts I need and what plugins do I need?

only Tweakscale, CRP, CTT are absolutely required.

If I really had to make a choice, The absolute best beamed power parts

for short range, (microwave to infrared)

  • Deployable Phased Array
  • Blanket Rectenna Receiver (also good for medium range)

for medium range (visible to ultraviolet)

  • Free Electron Laser Beam Generator (multi wavelength)
  • Diode Laser Generator (single wavelength)
  • Multi Wavelength Tranciever Dish (also for super long range data transmission)
  • Blanket Solar Photovoltaic Receiver (also good for solar power)

and for long range (extreme ultra violet to hard x-rays

  • X-ray Free Electron Laser
  • Pivoting X-Ray Photovoltaic Receiver (also good for Ultraviolet)
Edited by FreeThinker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, FreeThinker said:

only Tweakscale, CRP, CTT are absolutely required.

If I really had to make a choice, The absolute minimum

for short range, beamed power would be

  • Deployable Phased Array
  • Blanket Rectenna Receiver

for medium range

  • Free Electron Laser Beam Generator,
  • Multi Wavelength Tranciever Dish
  • Blanket Solar Photovoltaic Receiver

and for long range

  • X-ray Free Electron Laser
  • Pivoting X-Ray Photovoltaic Receiver

is tweakscale a must for this I've got CRP already, but tryna avoid playing with tweakscale for once. What folders in the warp plugin should I delete or should I only delete the part folders? I've already deleted all part folders except microwave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The-Doctor said:

is tweakscale a must for this I've got CRP already, but tryna avoid playing with tweakscale for once. What folders in the warp plugin should I delete or should I only delete the part folders? I've already deleted all part folders except microwave

Tweakscale is required and you also going to need some radiators to keep receivers cool. Still the problem you need to solve is what you going to use as a power source because photovoltalic cells in most instances is not going to generate much more than a few Megajoules. In order to transmit more power you either need some extreme thermal  solar power receiver technology or you need some powerful or efficient reactors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, FreeThinker said:

Tweakscale is required and you also going to need some radiators to keep receivers cool. Still the problem you need to solve is what you going to use as a power source because photovoltalic cells in most instances is not going to generate much more than a few Megajoules. In order to transmit more power you either need some extreme thermal  solar power receiver technology or you need some powerful or efficient reactors.

are near future reactors good? Also, why is tweakscale needed? I only have the microwave parts 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The-Doctor said:

are near future reactors good? Also, why is tweakscale needed? I only have the microwave parts 

Sorry not at the moment, but I have plans to make them compatible with any stock generator that produces power (which includes NF).

For now, I recommend you use the Tri Alpha, which is easy to use and  should fulfil most of your electric power needs.

Edited by FreeThinker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Almost all of my RV tanks (those radial nuclear fuel tanks) are missing from the game, except for the antimatter one.

I can't find them even in sandbox mode.

I didn't delete any files.

I didn't plant any mods that delete KSPI-E files.

Why is this happening;.;

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Iso-Polaris said:

Almost all of my RV tanks (those radial nuclear fuel tanks) are missing from the game, except for the antimatter one.

I can't find them even in sandbox mode.

I didn't delete any files.

I didn't plant any mods that delete KSPI-E files.

Why is this happening;.;

they are replaced by better looking containers, they were cluttering up the part menu. The new container by @Eleusis La Arwall are more versitile and better looking than the former part

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why these cryogenic tanks dual tanks can hold only fuel+oxidizier mix?

This defeats their porpuse of bring them in many different versions. That is only these have adapter and nose cone versions.

Edited by raxo2222
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, raxo2222 said:

Why these cryogenic tanks dual tanks can hold only fuel+oxidizier mix?

This defeats their porpuse of bring them in many different versions. That is only these have adapter and nose cone versions.

At the beginning they should just hold 2 liquids (a fuel and an oxidizer), hence the name Cryogenic DUAL Tank. All other tanks are simply not designed to hold 2 liquids at the same time. Later on I realized that 2 liquids are mostly used by launcher-stages and the tanks would have to look kinda aerodynamic, what lead to the current design.

After a bit of playing around, I have to admit that it bothers me not to have the option to switch the CDT to Methane only (I mostly fly with MethaLOx launcher and Methane upper stage(s)). Problem is if we now put a setup for each liquid on the CDT, the CT has no real purpose anymore. Also I don't wanna have 30 setups on these tanks to browse through every time.

I suggest we add the common fuels as setup to the CDT.

  • LFO
  • MethaLOx
  • HydroLOx
  • HydroOxi
  • LiquidFuel
  • Methane
  • Hydrogen

If requested we could also add

  • Kerosene
  • Ammonia
  • Hydrazine
  • "Exotic" fuels (CO, B2H6,...)

The oxidizers, noble gases and fusion-fuel shall remain exclusive to the CT.

Discussion/feedback/suggestions are welcome!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Eleusis La Arwall said:

At the beginning they should just hold 2 liquids (a fuel and an oxidizer), hence the name Cryogenic DUAL Tank. All other tanks are simply not designed to hold 2 liquids at the same time. Later on I realized that 2 liquids are mostly used by launcher-stages and the tanks would have to look kinda aerodynamic, what lead to the current design.

After a bit of playing around, I have to admit that it bothers me not to have the option to switch the CDT to Methane only (I mostly fly with MethaLOx launcher and Methane upper stage(s)). Problem is if we now put a setup for each liquid on the CDT, the CT has no real purpose anymore. Also I don't wanna have 30 setups on these tanks to browse through every time.

I suggest we add the common fuels as setup to the CDT.

  • LFO
  • MethaLOx
  • HydroLOx
  • HydroOxi
  • LiquidFuel
  • Methane
  • Hydrogen

If requested we could also add

  • Kerosene
  • Ammonia
  • Hydrazine
  • "Exotic" fuels (CO, B2H6,...)

The oxidizers, noble gases and fusion-fuel shall remain exclusive to the CT.

Discussion/feedback/suggestions are welcome!

 

oh how's Keridian dynamics going so far?

@FreeThinker what's the range of the deployable photovaltic x ray reciever, phased array transceiver and deployable phased array transceiver? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@FreeThinker I have the deployable photovaltic x ray receiver, diode laser array beam producer, double pivoted x ray receiver, free electron laser, Gyrotron, Multi bandwidth dish transceiver large and medium, phased array transceiver top and deployable and lastly the x ray free electron laser. Is that the bare minimum or should I add in something else? Does this include short, medium and long ranger and which parts in those I gave are short, medium and long range? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Eleusis La Arwall said:

At the beginning they should just hold 2 liquids (a fuel and an oxidizer), hence the name Cryogenic DUAL Tank. All other tanks are simply not designed to hold 2 liquids at the same time. Later on I realized that 2 liquids are mostly used by launcher-stages and the tanks would have to look kinda aerodynamic, what lead to the current design.

After a bit of playing around, I have to admit that it bothers me not to have the option to switch the CDT to Methane only (I mostly fly with MethaLOx launcher and Methane upper stage(s)). Problem is if we now put a setup for each liquid on the CDT, the CT has no real purpose anymore. Also I don't wanna have 30 setups on these tanks to browse through every time.

I suggest we add the common fuels as setup to the CDT.

  • LFO
  • MethaLOx
  • HydroLOx
  • HydroOxi
  • LiquidFuel
  • Methane
  • Hydrogen

If requested we could also add

  • Kerosene
  • Ammonia
  • Hydrazine
  • "Exotic" fuels (CO, B2H6,...)

The oxidizers, noble gases and fusion-fuel shall remain exclusive to the CT.

Discussion/feedback/suggestions are welcome!

 

I think it's a good idea, but I have no idea of which engine can use Kerosene in KSPI-E. A patch for MFT would also be welcomed, just in case...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, The-Doctor said:

oh how's Keridian dynamics going so far?

@FreeThinker what's the range of the deployable photovaltic x ray reciever, phased array transceiver and deployable phased array transceiver? 

Currently not paying much attention to KD, but the time will come :wink:

The range depends on the beam and the dish-diameter. This is just one of the many reason why tweakscale is very usefull.

15 hours ago, Nansuchao said:

I think it's a good idea, but I have no idea of which engine can use Kerosene in KSPI-E. A patch for MFT would also be welcomed, just in case...

Great! Also I've discovered this neat addon yesterday:

With that we can make almost everyone happy I think.

  • Config with the current 4 setups.
  • Config with the current 4 and additional 3 fuel only setups.
  • Config with the 7 fuel setups above and the noble gases.
  • ...
3 hours ago, Hacki said:

Whats up with those numbers? 

The fuel "units" in KSP are volumetric, so it should be the same for all resources on the same part? 

Yes, it is true for liquid resources that have a constant density. It is a bit harder for pressurized gases because the density increases a lot. Also it needs to be balanced with the other tanks and this is where the odd numbers come from. We assume each resource is stored at 75% density of the liquid counter-part. Why 75% ? Well it's a start and may change in the future. Suggestions are welcome!

Some other things we've tried:

 

Spoiler
  • Obtain density values for each resource at these high pressure but could not find reliable sources for all.
  • Calculation of the density with ideal gas-law is not suitable at such high pressures.
  • Ideal gas law would be possible with the compressibility factor X, but that again depends on temperature and pressure. Couldn't find values for all at the same temperatur/pressures.
  • The Van-Der-Waals equation even depends on two factors.

After all this 75% sounded MUCH easier to accomplish :wink:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Hacki said:

Whats up with those numbers? 

 

kLBTlXX.png

 

The fuel "units" in KSP are volumetric, so it should be the same for all resources on the same part? 

Not sure but apparently some gasses compress better than others, but you have to ask  @Eleusis La Arwall for more details

Edited by FreeThinker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Eleusis La Arwall said:

Yes, it is true for liquid resources that have a constant density. It is a bit harder for pressurized gases because the density increases a lot. Also it needs to be balanced with the other tanks and this is where the odd numbers come from. We assume each resource is stored at 75% density of the liquid counter-part. Why 75% ? Well it's a start and may change in the future. Suggestions are welcome!

 

 

That doesnt make an awful lot of sense to me. A liter is a liter, regardless of what resource. If you fill a 100 liter baloon with xenon gas its gonna be heavier than 100 liters of hydrogen, thats true, but the volume is going to be the same.  Density is determined in the resources config file. So what gives? 

Dont get me wrong, i like interstellar, i appreciate all your work - but if you ask me, you are unnecessarily overcomplicating things here. 
I regularly scratch my head at interstellar and ask myself whether something is a bug or a feature... 

Edited by Hacki
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hacki said:

If you fill a 100 liter baloon with xenon gas its gonna be heavier than 100 liters of hydrogen, thats true, but the volume is going to be the same.  Density is determined in the resources config file. So what gives?

True, but 100 liter baloon filled with xenon gas at very low pressure might weigh less than a 100 liter baloon filled with hydrogen at very high pressure. The volume itself does not say much when dealing with gases. The density is most important but the game handles densities as constant which is almost true for most liquids and solids but not gases. Technically we would have to define new pressurized resources.

Maybe I expressed my thoughts behind this a bit irritating. I'll try again with Ammonia as example:

If 4793271 units of gaseous Ammonia at std. conditions would be compressed to 75% of the density of liquid Ammonia it would match the tank volume. This way we don't need to define new resources to have a different density.

CRP defines Ammonia with the Density = 0.000000769 and LqdAmmonia with the Density = 0.0007021. Without pressurization the CT tank could hold ruffly 1000 times more Ammonia than the PGT.

2 hours ago, Hacki said:

Dont get me wrong, i like interstellar, i appreciate all your work - but if you ask me, you are unnecessarily overcomplicating things here. 

I regularly scratch my head at interstellar and ask myself whether something is a bug or a feature... 

^^ Yeah I can understand that. As you can see in the spoiler of my last post we tried to do it even more complicated at first.

The background on this is balancing. CT, CDT and PGT hold the same resources and so they need to be consistent. The PGT should not store more resource per volume than the CT/CDT. With the same amount of ingame units on the PGT, some resources would be more efficiently stored than others (compared to CT). This is getting way too complicated.

Maybe this is a better explanation: Currently the tanks are balanced against resources in the liquid state. All resources stored in the PGT will result in 5250 L (+/-1) of the liquid counterpart when converted.

 

Edited by Eleusis La Arwall
spelling/grammar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

True, but 100 liter baloon filled with xenon gas at very low pressure might weigh less than a 100 liter baloon filled with hydrogen at very high pressure.

Right - wouldnt the maximum pressure possible be limited by the vessel holding the resource, and therefore make the whole distinction between different resources moot? If you can store your gas at 100 bar, you'll store it at 100 bar, no matter the gas. I know that technically when using up a gaseous resource the volume should stay the same but the pressure should drop, but you cant really represent that in KSP either. 


Thinking about it, i wonder if it is even necessary to have the distinction between liquid and gaseous resources. Just call it "hydrogen" or "ammonia" and be done with it.
That'd make everyones lives a lot easier i think. The users AND yours. 
 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hacki said:

Right - wouldnt the maximum pressure possible be limited by the vessel holding the resource, and therefore make the whole distinction between different resources moot? If you can store your gas at 100 bar, you'll store it at 100 bar, no matter the gas. I know that technically when using up a gaseous resource the volume should stay the same but the pressure should drop, but you cant really represent that in KSP either.

Yes, the correct way would be to say "the tank X can store up to 100 bar pressure". Then we'd need to find the density for each resource at 100 bar and use it to get the actual capacity.

Instead we say each gas can be compressed to a maximum of 75% of the liquid state. The problem is that some gases are better compressable than others and the maximum density is individual for each gas. An accurate solution would take a lot of time and I rather use my time for other stuff because it is very boring :wink:

2 hours ago, Hacki said:

Thinking about it, i wonder if it is even necessary to have the distinction between liquid and gaseous resources. Just call it "hydrogen" or "ammonia" and be done with it.
That'd make everyones lives a lot easier i think. The users AND yours.

That would result in more odd numbers. In some way it would make sense to define liquid, gaseous and pressurized resources; The PGT would store the same amount of each resource.

For me the odd numbers on the PGT are a smaller evil than new resource definitions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

For me the odd numbers on the PGT are a smaller evil than new resource definitions.


Oh sure, its not really an issue. You just look at it and instinctively go "what.. ?" :D

Perhaps a few words on it in the part description... Not the first time kerbal engineers have invented physics-bending hardware. :)

Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...