Jump to content

[WIP] Nert's Dev Thread - Current: such nuke, wow


Nertea
 Share

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Nertea said:

Look in the SystemHeat distribution for the extras files.

I only loaded SystemHeat as it was a packaged dependency for FFT, so I'll probably unpack that. I haven't loaded any of these new plugins with their standalone components yet (Waterfall's Restock/+ configs are also on the // TODO list).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Captain Sierra said:

I can safely say that your craft design is severely underutilizing that engine then. My above testing vehicle is getting 1700 km/s dV with about 1.8 Gs TWR. Your dV numbers sound about right for not having a lot of fuel but I'm legitimately confused how you managed to drag the TWR so low with how hilariously strong this drive is.

Just how much AM/LH2 does your ship carry?

As for TWR - that's actually pretty easy: the damn thing is really really really heavy. I think the engine and radiators I need to run it - and there are 40 (!!!) of those, my X-7 craft has less parts in total - alone account for like 200+ tons. It also has a huge battery so  that I can actually get fusion reactor to charge up and start before I run out of power on tanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Dr.Lxweei said:

Please forgive my limited knowledge.

Apart from fusion and fission, the only thruster I know for efficient atmospheric travel is an electric pulse jet engine, just like the WARP(?) engine provided in OPT.

If my memory is correct, also a HydroLox engine boost by electricity in Interstellar (J-81 in OPT). (I don't know how that work)

However, I think that future launch vehicles should all be in the form of aerospace SSTO aircraft like Valkyrie in Avatar (fussion powered). You can find those parts in OPT.

(I may assume OPT is the "FFLV" if those electro jet/engine consume 3x more EC, unfortunatly I messed up when I try to reconfig it.)

You're trying to name the "WarpJet" engines. They use a magnetic rail system (resembling a Star Trek warp nacelle) to compress air and manipulate plasma streams, making a way to escape the need to combust oxygen to be useful. It's definitely a far future breed of air-breathing engine and is partly based in real concept propulsion tech.

OPT's J-81 has an undefined and unreasonable combustion scheme but is finally going to be changed to resemble, in performance, something reasonable: a KSPI fusion aided ramjet. Its air-breathing mode will only require IntakeAtm and will require EC, and its rocket mode will only require EC and LiquidFuel (cease to require Oxidizer), and EC demand in both modes will be higher.

Anyone who is willing and able is invited to create a config to give these engines more "realistic" behavior. I can do my part, where needed, by making the web of OPT Reconfig's engine patches not fire under a certain condition, and so won't complicate things for such patches.  Show me your WarpJet config and I'll help you out.

7 hours ago, Dr.Lxweei said:

From the balance of FN and FF, I feel that everything in OPT is too over power, except for the fuselages  capacity.

I'd like to say that there's a certain depth to my reasoning behind making the engines very OP. Part of which is in trying to make the engines attractive to players of up-scaled or highly expansive planetary systems, and I've seen many players who do well not to be bothered to spam engines as usual, to make a spaceplane fit for their purposes.

I'm pretty interested in what it would look like-- a config that balances OPT's engines as if Nertea made them.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Dr.Lxweei said:

5m and 7.5m parts in NFLV is far more than enough in stock game, and I can't really think about how FFE will look like. ;)

1. There doesn't need to larger parts. There could be Aerospikes and other types of engines and a modernized Sea Dragon and a Boeing LMLV would be cool. And I'm still waiting for 6.25m parts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a lot of mods that fill this niche. There are a few new aerospikes in Kerbal Atomics and Near Future Aeronautics. Near Future Launch Vehicles also have some engines that both futuristic and realistic.

6.25m is not very popular size. What the point of making a mod with size that is being used by only a few people? If you REALLY want such unpopular sizes then you should install TweakScale. SeaDragon and Boeing LMLV are near future parts, not Far Future. If you want those specific rockets, then install mods that add those specific rockets.

Far Future stuff is Antimatter engines, fusion engines, or some crazy efficent FFREs, not Sea Dragon.  There is launch vehicle engine in FFT that is Toroidal Tokomak Aerospike, but this is the best you could hope for. All FFT engines are too highly energetic to be used as stage 1 engine. 

And please, next time do not use such sentances as "I want". People here make mods as their hobbies.  They don't earn money from theese. Making mods is hard and people spend their time on this. You can ask politely if there a possibility of making such a mod.

Sorry but this really irritates me 'cause i know how hard it is to do stuff for free and then people think that this is okey to not even give a credit.

Edited by ra4nd0m
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, NHunter said:

Just how much AM/LH2 does your ship carry?

As for TWR - that's actually pretty easy: the damn thing is really really really heavy. I think the engine and radiators I need to run it - and there are 40 (!!!) of those, my X-7 craft has less parts in total - alone account for like 200+ tons. It also has a huge battery so  that I can actually get fusion reactor to charge up and start before I run out of power on tanks.

Two and a half of the largest cryotanks available worth of hydrogen, and an equal amount of antimatter. The engine-radiator assembly weighs in at 170 tons (the engine at full length is 84 of that). The antimatter tankage is only about 15 tons because antimatter is currently massless (of no consequence at small scale but hilariously broken here as it annihilates with over 76 tons of hydrogen). There's 31 tons of nuclear reactor powerplant, and 92 tons of hydrogen fuel & tankage. These are all approximations but total vessel mass is 370.4 tons. Starting TWR is 1.65 with 1714k dV.

 

14 hours ago, JadeOfMaar said:

I'd like to say that there's a certain depth to my reasoning behind making the engines very OP. Part of which is in trying to make the engines attractive to players of up-scaled or highly expansive planetary systems, and I've seen many players who do well not to be bothered to spam engines as usual, to make a spaceplane fit for their purposes.

I'm pretty interested in what it would look like-- a config that balances OPT's engines as if Nertea made them.

Given the target audience here probably overlaps with the same people who are using fusion drives ... ;) 

I may load it up again on my install and give some thoughts on balancing against the NFT/FFT collection. My install is 2.5x rescaled with OPM on top, no SMURFF which I think ticks both of the boxes for large systems. It certainly makes surface to orbit about twice as hard.

 

27 minutes ago, ra4nd0m said:

There is launch vehicle engine in FFT that is Toroidal Tokomak Aerospike, but this is the best you could hope for

Mmmm, NSWR should actually be a significant improvement over the aerospike because of fuel density & engine mass, so its also a very effective first stage engine. You just have to be okay with your launch/landing site being showered with radioactive fallout. :P 

 

4 hours ago, Fusion confusion said:

There could be Aerospikes and other types of engines

Kerbal Atomics already has some launch-optimized nuclear engines that are pretty glorious. I actually find them easier to use in a harder rescale because their performance envelope is that good.

 

@Nertea I've noticed that the inertial confinement fusion engines opt for liquid droplet fusion charges rather than pellet charges this time to prevent the reinstatement of fusion pellets as a resource. Interesting choice. Its a little bit "muh realism!" but it definitely makes sense from a game design perspective. Fusion engines always use the same fuel. Trying to give those engines a whack today to see how they're performing. I harp on the torch drive too much so other things need love.

Edited by Captain Sierra
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay so I've been screwing around in the VAB today because I needed a break studying from finals. Here's some fun bits I've discovered.

  • JP-10 Impulse seems mundane on first glance but is secretly really good. Swapping an MPD engine out for it was actually pretty easy so its a nice tech progression. Both power and heat are actually easier to deal with than a VASIMR, and the delta-V is moderately better. Really good entry-level into fusion engines. I'm definitely going to get use out of this in progression saves.
  • I completely understand & agree with the people who said the JP-15 Discovery's high thrust mode needs a buff. These are the stats between the two using a minimalist propulsion bus (e.g. no electrical components at all, no payload, just fuel & heat rejection). I used a single ST-4L3 tank for both of these and adjusted the amount of LH2 and radiator power available to bring fuel to ratio (with a little bit of fusion excess for power generation).
    CFHvwhV.png
     
  • K-80 Hammertong ICF thruster is either god-tier or trash-tier entirely depending on your tolerance for extremely long burns/presence of Persistent Thrust or similar. Getting genuinely absurd dV numbers is absolutely trivial, but you'll never have more than ~1m/s/s acceleration. All that said, isn't that exactly how this drive is supposed to be? It seems to be working exactly as intended.
  • JR-20A Ouroboros is absolutely hilarious. If launching single stage to orbit on a pile of fissioning uranium hexaflouride plasma wasn't glorious enough, now we can launch to orbit riding atop a doughnut of pure stellar awesomeness. Whatever god protects the kerbals, may they have mercy upon my ground crews.
  • A-134NG Casaba is as enjoyable as it always has been. There's nothing really to write home about with it but I've always had a soft spot for it. It feels pretty good in its current form and the engine FX are on point. Only remotely notable thing is that it currently uses a default engine sound that does not sync with the thrust pulse, but I assume this is known and sounds aren't priority or are unfinished.
  • X-20 Verne feels  a bit low thrust compared to its previous incarnation, but I haven't really played with it too much so it could grow on me. If fusion z-pinch ends up not coming back, its probably fine in its current form since it feels like a bit of a mix of the old z-pinch models. Its certainly very pretty now (not that it wasn't pretty before)
  • And its pretty well known by everyone already the savage enjoyment I have with the A=834M Frisbee Blowtorch.

There's engines here I haven't mentioned because I haven't messed with them enough. These are just preliminary thoughts and not really a detailed balance commentary.

 

And since I've dumped a bunch of boring text on people, let me also share some delightful pictures.  I thought some nostalgia back to the original would be nice to see how far we've all come in our craft design, and how far Nertea's art has come (and don't you dare say your old stuff looks horrible :D).

0BWzWKx.png uo0vTiD.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, ra4nd0m said:

There are a lot of mods that fill this niche. There are a few new aerospikes in Kerbal Atomics and Near Future Aeronautics. Near Future Launch Vehicles also have some engines that both futuristic and realistic.

6.25m is not very popular size. What the point of making a mod with size that is being used by only a few people? If you REALLY want such unpopular sizes then you should install TweakScale. SeaDragon and Boeing LMLV are near future parts, not Far Future. If you want those specific rockets, then install mods that add those specific rockets.

Far Future stuff is Antimatter engines, fusion engines, or some crazy efficent FFREs, not Sea Dragon.  There is launch vehicle engine in FFT that is Toroidal Tokomak Aerospike, but this is the best you could hope for. All FFT engines are too highly energetic to be used as stage 1 engine. 

And please, next time do not use such sentances as "I want". People here make mods as their hobbies.  They don't earn money from theese. Making mods is hard and people spend their time on this. You can ask politely if there a possibility of making such a mod.

Sorry but this really irritates me 'cause i know how hard it is to do stuff for free and then people think that this is okey to not even give a credit.

Sorry

I didn't mean to sound rude

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/25/2020 at 9:02 AM, Fusion confusion said:

1. There doesn't need to larger parts. There could be Aerospikes and other types of engines and a modernized Sea Dragon and a Boeing LMLV would be cool. And I'm still waiting for 6.25m parts.

I think BDB will probably provide some of these for 6.25m. I don't have much interest doing an in-between for sizes 5 and 7.5 - we already go from 3.75 to 5m without and in-between size. I typically don't provide for specific ships, but more general parts, so you won't see Sea Dragons, etc from me. Those, as far as I'm concerned, are just big tanks plus unpleasantly large engines. 

19 hours ago, Captain Sierra said:

Two and a half of the largest cryotanks available worth of hydrogen, and an equal amount of antimatter. The engine-radiator assembly weighs in at 170 tons (the engine at full length is 84 of that). The antimatter tankage is only about 15 tons because antimatter is currently massless (of no consequence at small scale but hilariously broken here as it annihilates with over 76 tons of hydrogen)

Hmm, it's not massless, but it does have 'less' mass per unit. One unit of antimatter is, I believe, 1 microgram (this is how it is defined in CRP).  So, while the ratio is 1:1 for the engine, it's actually mass-wise quite in favour of hydrogen. This is something I might tune as well to increase the amount of AM needed for the engine. This is why the engine is coincidentally more thrust-optimized, I've configured it at a tiny 1% of maximum theoretical specific impulse for the large boost in thrust.

19 hours ago, Captain Sierra said:

@Nertea I've noticed that the inertial confinement fusion engines opt for liquid droplet fusion charges rather than pellet charges this time to prevent the reinstatement of fusion pellets as a resource. Interesting choice. Its a little bit "muh realism!" but it definitely makes sense from a game design perspective. Fusion engines always use the same fuel. Trying to give those engines a whack today to see how they're performing. I harp on the torch drive too much so other things need love.

The engine the model is based on is actually designed to manufacture the pellets in a just-in-time method, reasoning that storing cryogenic fuels is easier than storing precisely machined balls of deuterium ice for years. The bulky thing at the top with the 'pellet' design language is the pellet factory.

16 hours ago, Captain Sierra said:

I completely understand & agree with the people who said the JP-15 Discovery's high thrust mode needs a buff. These are the stats between the two using a minimalist propulsion bus (e.g. no electrical components at all, no payload, just fuel & heat rejection). I used a single ST-4L3 tank for both of these and adjusted the amount of LH2 and radiator power available to bring fuel to ratio (with a little bit of fusion excess for power generation).

The numbers you are showing look pretty fine to me. You traded 1/3 the DV for almost double the thrust. 

16 hours ago, Captain Sierra said:
  • A-134NG Casaba is as enjoyable as it always has been. There's nothing really to write home about with it but I've always had a soft spot for it. It feels pretty good in its current form and the engine FX are on point. Only remotely notable thing is that it currently uses a default engine sound that does not sync with the thrust pulse, but I assume this is known and sounds aren't priority or are unfinished.

I'll look at the sound issue, I usually test with sound off so don't really see those things.

16 hours ago, Captain Sierra said:

And since I've dumped a bunch of boring text on people, let me also share some delightful pictures.  I thought some nostalgia back to the original would be nice to see how far we've all come in our craft design, and how far Nertea's art has come (and don't you dare say your old stuff looks horrible :D).

God that looks horrific. 

 

One thing I'm seeing in the ships people post is really... not enough radiators. I'm going to have to look at this, because it seems like with the exception of a couple of the most powerful things there are not a lot of radiators required. Appreciate thoughts here. 

 

Edited by Nertea
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Nertea said:

Hmm, it's not massless, but it does have 'less' mass per unit. One unit of antimatter is, I believe, 1 microgram (this is how it is defined in CRP).  So, while the ratio is 1:1 for the engine, it's actually mass-wise quite in favour of hydrogen. This is something I might tune as well to increase the amount of AM needed for the engine. This is why the engine is coincidentally more thrust-optimized, I've configured it at a tiny 1% of maximum theoretical specific impulse for the large boost in thrust.

It was showing up as 1kg in KER if I remember correctly so that's why I assumed massless, or at least effectively massless. Upping this to be 1:1 with the hydrogen its annihilating with would probably cut the TWR on that torchship down to under 1.5 starting and shave off about 200k dV (out of a current 1.7 million). It would be a nerf, but far from a huge one, and the Casaba needs so little antimatter it would see barely any losses from this. Even afterward, you could slash the thrust of that engine in half and it would still be absurd, which after all is kind of the point. It could probably do with some tuning back but I don't actually think its far away from a good spot right now.

3 hours ago, Nertea said:

The engine the model is based on is actually designed to manufacture the pellets in a just-in-time method, reasoning that storing cryogenic fuels is easier than storing precisely machined balls of deuterium ice for years. The bulky thing at the top with the 'pellet' design language is the pellet factory.

That is actually very cool. If the fusion z-pinch ever makes a return in the revamp will it employ a similar idea or no?

3 hours ago, Nertea said:

The numbers you are showing look pretty fine to me. You traded 1/3 the DV for almost double the thrust. 

Sure they look fine from a percentage standpoint, but remember that this is the bare minimum propulsion segment with no electrical support, no structural frills, and no payload mass, and configuration optimized for each mode rather than swapping on-the-fly on a real vessel. The differences here are going to be the largest you'll ever get because it's a beyond-best-case scenario. The best you can do is trade ~25% of your dV for ~45% thrust. 45% sounds like a lot but it actually only translates to  an extra 1.6 m/s^2 acceleration, and that's going to go down pretty fast as you add payload mass.

3 hours ago, Nertea said:

God that looks horrific. 

Sigh ...

3 hours ago, Nertea said:

One thing I'm seeing in the ships people post is really... not enough radiators. I'm going to have to look at this, because it seems like with the exception of a couple of the most powerful things there are not a lot of radiators required. Appreciate thoughts here. 

Antimatter torch at anything short of max length radiator truss (give or take 1-2 segments tops) requires a truly absurd amount of heat rejection. Assuming Fresnel is still what it was in old FFT (haven't tried it in new FFT yet) it will also be a very toasty boy. Most everything else really isn't that extreme in heat. Now we are using the graphene microchannel radiator panels here which are leagues better than anything else available. I can pretty confidently say that the JP-15 is running colder than I would expect. The JP-20A is a bit annoying in how much it needs in part because of aerodynamic considerations where anything deployable is a no-go. Casaba seems to be no worse in heat gen than it was in the old version of FFT, which may or may not be an issue considering it did get bigger and therefore get some power output improvements. Hammertong ICF is running WAY colder than I would expect. Coming from old FFT I was expecting that engine to need 4-5x the radiator power it currently does.

 

EDIT: Sierra is now very confused because the NSWR seems to be not drawing enough electricity? It has plenty of charge in battery and the solar panels will kick in once I pitch over, but I'm getting "propellant requirement met:" dropping rapidly after take-off. Its bottoming out at around 65% before my vehicle stalls out and I have to revert or trigger abort. Doing some digging trying to diagnose but I might be stumped on this one.

EDIT 2: Okay this issue appears to apply to any engine which consumes electric charge as a fuel, and it has something to do with persistent thrust. Gonna go pester the PT bug reports about that then I think.

Edited by Captain Sierra
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Nertea said:

One thing I'm seeing in the ships people post is really... not enough radiators. I'm going to have to look at this, because it seems like with the exception of a couple of the most powerful things there are not a lot of radiators required. Appreciate thoughts here.

On my side I did not reduce heat generation, I chose the less heat intense ones or run the others at partial trottle, but I suspect some people did.  Problem is... radiator are really heavy, to the point where it kill the potential of the higher isp engines. @NHunter @TBenz images and comments is pretty demonstrative about this. At some point it's just isn't worth it, specially if it isn't hyperedited to orbit.

I think there is two ways to address this problem. Reduce heat on high end engines or reduce the weight of radiator. If you opt for mass reduction I would suggest to also add much larger radiators. say up to 20-50 times the size/capacity of the ones we have. Having almost a hundred parts just for the interplanetary propulsion system isn't good.

X-6 Clarke remain the best interplanetary engine, regardless of the trust reduction. Running several of them at the same time outperform the most advanced engine in both trust and deltaV, and its also more cost effective. Its mainly due to difference in heat generation I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, RedParadize said:

I think there is two ways to address this problem. Reduce heat on high end engines or reduce the weight of radiator. If you opt for mass reduction I would suggest to also add much larger radiators. say up to 20-50 times the size/capacity of the ones we have. Having almost a hundred parts just for the interplanetary propulsion system isn't good.

I have a stopgap solution for you: just MM yourself scaled up radiators if they aren't TweakScale-able already. Something like this:

Spoiler

+PART[radiator-microchannel-1]:NEEDS[HeatControl]:BEFORE[SystemHeat]
{
	%name = radiator-microchannel-3
	%title = DF-16K Microchannel Graphene Heat Radiator
	%description = A supersized version of DF-4K intended for use with stuff that requires great amounts of heat rejection

	@MODEL
	{
		%scale = 2, 2, 2
	}
	// --- node definitions ---
	// definition format is Position X, Position Y, Position Z, Up X, Up Y, Up Z
	%node_attach = -0.375, -0.00, 0.00, -1.0, 0.0, 0.0

	%entryCost = 600000
	%cost = 100000
	%mass = 4

	@MODULE[ModuleActiveRadiator]
	{
		%maxEnergyTransfer = 800000
		@RESOURCE[ElectricCharge]
		{
			%rate = 3.2
		}
	}	
}

// and if we have SystemHeat installed
@PART[radiator-microchannel-3]:FOR[SystemHeat]
{
	%mass = 8
	%cost = 395000

	MODULE
	{
		name = ModuleSystemHeat
		volume = 1.2
		moduleID = default
		iconName = Icon_Radiator
	}

	@MODULE[ModuleActiveRadiator]
	{
		%name = ModuleSystemHeatRadiator
		moduleID = radiator
		// ModuleSystemHeat instance to link to
		systemHeatModuleID = default

		// option: use deterministic temperatures
		// Power radiated per temperature
		temperatureCurve
		{
			key = 0 0
			key = 1300 26000
		}
	}
}

This radiator will have exactly 4x heat rejection of the 4K Microchannel deployable radiator. It might be a bit cheaper and lighter than 4 of those, but not by much. Mostly for saving on part count.

 

Edited by NHunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It really doesn't kill performance. Check out how these line up:

xWvfjkF.png

In the current model, which I think is too forgiving (particularly since these engines are waaayay too thrust-ful compared to their counterparts), I am using approximately a scaling of 0.001x compared to the required 'reality' cooling of the engine. For those interested, the highlighted column is where that gets you for the engines, see how they never get above 0.14%! In most cases these engines are requiring you to use less than 10 tons of radiator (heck, most are 5!), considerably less scaled than reality. Usually you don't get your radiators below 30% of your propulsion system mass. That's generous. Maybe too generous.

Just for reference, the large square microchannel radiator rejects ~4 MW of heat. The large deployable one does 8 MW. 

Edited by Nertea
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Nertea radiator mass(t) is divided by trust or something? If I recall correctly outside the JP-10 all the other require at least 10t of radiator, most of them much more than that.  

This is interesting for sure, I however was more talking about comparison between engines and not to real world. Who knows, maybe if these engine would be built the simpler fission fragment would end up be the winner in reality as well.

@NHunter Thanks! I think I will give it a try.

Edited by RedParadize
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, RedParadize said:

@Nertea radiator mass(t) is divided by trust or something? If I recall correctly outside the JP-10 all the other require at least 10t of radiator, most of them much more than that.  

I can check out my numbers in the sheets, see if something is not consistent. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found a small bug in my spreadsheet, but this only affects the numbers by +13%.

The radiator configs are in SystemHeat/Patches/HeatControl/.  The square radiator should weigh 2.6t according to that config, which might be somewhat wrong. It should be lighter per KW than the deployable one, not heavier.... hmm

Edited by Nertea
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a bug where connecting/disconnecting dual mode engines result in them having both of them on, for that reason I fell under the impression that heat generation was much higher that what it is.

If I may suggest, JR45 modes should be renamed to D/He3 and D/He3/H or something similar. "Low trust" have higher trust than "high trust".


And lol:

rAjZfB1.jpg

Thats 26%!!!!!

Edited by RedParadize
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/26/2020 at 9:21 AM, Nertea said:

Hmm, it's not massless, but it does have 'less' mass per unit. One unit of antimatter is, I believe, 1 microgram (this is how it is defined in CRP).  So, while the ratio is 1:1 for the engine, it's actually mass-wise quite in favour of hydrogen. This is something I might tune as well to increase the amount of AM needed for the engine. This is why the engine is coincidentally more thrust-optimized, I've configured it at a tiny 1% of maximum theoretical specific impulse for the large boost in thrust.

So it's effectively an antimatter thermal rocket?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/25/2020 at 5:11 PM, JadeOfMaar said:

You're trying to name the "WarpJet" engines. They use a magnetic rail system (resembling a Star Trek warp nacelle) to compress air and manipulate plasma streams, making a way to escape the need to combust oxygen to be useful. It's definitely a far future breed of air-breathing engine and is partly based in real concept propulsion tech.

Thanks for the explanation! I'm not even sure about the term "electric pulse jet engine". I have only read relevant information in my language, and it may be the same thing.

On 11/25/2020 at 5:11 PM, JadeOfMaar said:

Anyone who is willing and able is invited to create a config to give these engines more "realistic" behavior. I can do my part, where needed, by making the web of OPT Reconfig's engine patches not fire under a certain condition, and so won't complicate things for such patches.  Show me your WarpJet config and I'll help you out.

I think I have lost the previous cfg file (I have given up doing this for a long time). In fact, I "feel" these engines are OP, but have no idea how to balance them. :blush:

I actually don't have the idea of making them more realistic, 

 

@Nertea I am trying to pull localization of SystemHeat and FFT on Github, but both got building error. Not sure which part I done wrong. :confused: (First time to use github)

 

Edited by Dr.Lxweei
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Dr.Lxweei said:

Thanks for the explanation! I'm not even sure about the term "electric pulse jet engine". I have only read relevant information in my language, and it may be the same thing.

You're welcome. But I don't think there is any actual concept for an electric pulse jet. I highly doubt it would be possible or worthwhile to attempt this. The electric jet engine concepts that I've seen and I can remember easily are a form of super powered Hall Effect ion thruster, and the microwave air plasma thruster which is effectively an air-breathing rocket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Captain Sierra I had a bad opinion of the JP10 initially, but after few test I realized that it has the lowest operating cost for mun/minimus transfer and operation. That is if you ship your fuel from surface, (at 6.4x it cost me 80k to ship 20t to orbit).

Lithium isn't currently be refined ISTU, at least with the part and mods I currently have, so its career ends more or less around Kerbin orbit.  Question is if its more cost effective to invest a bit more initially and go for another, more effective engine, that will remain potent useful on the long run. I really need to install community tech tree, that would change the balance quite allot.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/27/2020 at 3:49 PM, RedParadize said:

If I may suggest, JR45 modes should be renamed to D/He3 and D/He3/H or something similar. "Low trust" have higher trust than "high trust".

Sorry? I don't quite understand, the reaction products mode definitely has lower thrust. 

 

On 11/27/2020 at 3:49 PM, RedParadize said:

There is a bug where connecting/disconnecting dual mode engines result in them having both of them on, for that reason I fell under the impression that heat generation was much higher that what it is.

You're saying that when you add a dual mode engine in the VAB it shows heat from both modes in the SystemHeat information?

15 hours ago, RedParadize said:

Lithium isn't currently be refined ISTU, at least with the part and mods I currently have, so its career ends more or less around Kerbin orbit.  Question is if its more cost effective to invest a bit more initially and go for another, more effective engine, that will remain potent useful on the long run. I really need to install community tech tree, that would change the balance quite allot.

Added in NFP, I think. 

On 11/27/2020 at 5:54 PM, Dr.Lxweei said:

@Nertea I am trying to pull localization of SystemHeat and FFT on Github, but both got building error. Not sure which part I done wrong. :confused: (First time to use github)

 

You did fine, they just need to be targeted to the dev branch.

 

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...