RoverDude

[1.5.x] Community Resource Pack

Recommended Posts

I'll state for the third and last time, because this is just silly.

The prevailing convention is to express EC as 1EC/Sec = 1KW.

(Edit)

The reason is because EC is used for TWO things in KSP... consumption, and storage (which in itself is weird without knowing voltage, etc.) hence the importance that the specific yardstick we're laying down is on the consumption side, not the storage side (which is it's own rats nest). Consumption is expressed with a time component.

(Edit 2)

So given this is not a thread about EC, and given nobody here is debating that 1EC/Sec = 1KW (and feel free to extrapolate from there) let us please get this back to the topics at hand.

All due respect Rover dude, but if 1EC/sec = 1KW, then since 1KW=1KJ/sec by definition, 1EC/sec = 1KJ/sec or 1EC = 1KJ.

So not sure what you claim is wrong, with that particular statement.

EC is not used for consumption EC/s is. This is like saying meter is not length unit, because m/s is used to measure velocity.

Now while this is probably not the place for this, most people do not in fact respect the 1EC/sec = 1KW. RT antennas using 1EC/sec or 1KW. Sounds problematic doesn't it.

The stock parts are really out of whack too. For example the lamp would use 20W (sounds fine), but the basic solar panel would be 750W(which is around 10 times what you'd expect). On the other hand batteries hold ridiculously small amount of energy. An AA battery is around 5kJ, a cheap car battery around 1800kJ, apollo batteries 30MJ each.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...And this is why EC is the Viet Nam of KSP. And we're already past this part of the discussion anyway, and this is not even the right thread for it ;)

But I will bite.

The reason why I am on a stickler on specifying the time is that if you look at stock config files, a time value is not specified - just a number. i.e. your RTG shows a consumption of 0.75. If that is 0.75 joules, that has zero meaning because nowhere in the config does it explain the time portion of the equation - is it per tick? i.e 0.75 Joules per tic would actually be 37.5KW.

Luckilly most of us know by now that in the config files, they are doing their measurements per sec. (without looking at the right hand menus). And let's not even get started on how a mod might customize the RMB menu ;)

So yes. We are all in violent agreement. 1 EC/SEC = 1KW = 1KJ/S. And in that context, 1EC = 1KJ. But since we're talking about consumption, it's good to know that in a stock config file, that little number you see by a solar panel or RTG is KW not KJ. And batteries are a whole different hot mess because they are acting like capacitors :P

Edited by RoverDude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So yes. We are all in violent agreement. 1 EC/SEC = 1KW = 1KJ/S. And in that context, 1EC = 1KJ. But since we're talking about consumption, it's good to know that in a stock config file, that little number you see by a solar panel or RTG is KW not KJ. And batteries are a whole different hot mess because they are acting like capacitors :P

For KSPI this becomes even more rediculous, its ORM MegaJoule buffer is acting as a super powerfull MegaJoule capacitator allowing delivering more than 1000 GJoule in 1/20 sec :cool:

Edited by FreeThinker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd just like to point out that the ridiculous thing about the stock solar panels is their size; the charge rate : mass ratio is actually not unreasonable. They should be about 5-10x their size for the given mass and charge rate, IIRC. (They also have a funky curve and other issues, but if you look only at mass, charge/sec isn't unreasonable).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree :)

Also - I'm going to be wrapping up the CRP configs shortly so folks can start updating mods. I'll drop the working version over on the USI dropbox once done and announce it here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, realizing that an EC standardization for the whole community is not within reach/possible at the moment, I decided to do that within the "controlled environment" of the SETI-BalanceMod.

Something like a controlled field experiment, providing info on how it could work out (or not).

Since RoverDude pointed out that EC is out of scope for this thread and the SETI-BalanceMod will experiment with the standardization,

I m looking forward to any feedback/further discussion about EC in the SETI-BalanceMod thread.

Edited by Yemo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Philosophically, it makes more sense IMO to balance against stock. It's the one yardstick we have. i.e. if we accept that Kerbals for gameplay reasons have 10x RTGs and solar panels, and if everyone just follows that, it causes the least grief. Otherwise you're stuck 'balancing' every mod under the sun ;)

So within stock... things are consistent. Solar panels are overpowered for their area (not their mass as NK noted), and batteries are heavy for their power capacity and act more as buffers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick update.

In light of the resource 'Ore' becoming stock, this will be pulled from CRP.

Not sure on Taniwha's plans yet, but given I'd prefer not to conflict with a stock resource, I'll be renaming the CRP 'Ore' to 'MetallicOre', and maintain it's current density, cost, etc. as a 1L resource.

- - - Updated - - -

You can pick up the 1.0 Resource Config file here:

https://github.com/BobPalmer/CommunityResourcePack/blob/DEVELOP/GameData/CommunityResourcePack/CommonResources.cfg

Happy testing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shouldn't LqdHydrogen have a density of 0.00007085? It's 0.004 on your link.

heh, yep - thanks for the catch :) It's why I pre-release these things

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also - had to fix a couple of nasty typos on the KSPI side (invalid fuel flow type), should already be pushed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll duplicate my play install and run this through the grinder to see what breaks tonight. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First adjustment:

Need to move IntakeAtm back to it's original (KSPI vs KSPI-E) config:

RESOURCE_DEFINITION

{

name = IntakeAtm // Like intake air, but doesn't require oxygen to be present.

density = 0.005

flowMode = ALL_VESSEL

transfer = PUMP

}

The current (KSPI-E) one is massless and non-transferrable. The former is more of an issue than the latter, as it pretty much kills electric props (mass is required for propellants).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NFT costs/densities seems to not match the spreadsheet, I made a pull request (my first one ever!).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's see if you did it in the right branch :D

All of this stuff is in the Develop one

- - - Updated - - -

Yep! Was the right one! Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yay!

First impressions on the costs based on initial testing:

  • ArgonGas cost needs some tweaking I think, but I have to do some more engine tests with it first. it may be OK.
  • LqdHydrogen looks good in terms of cost.
  • LqdDeuterium cost seems a bit low, particularly considering the low quantities it is used in (10 funds for 400L atm). Would suggest x10 or even x100 the cost (ratio cost from the ITER site says should be around 44 funds/u).
  • LqdTritium cost is, well, high. I know this is 'realistic', but it makes it unreasonably expensive for my uses (1.5 mil funds for 400L). Could we consider cutting it by an order of magnitude?
  • Lithium cost is way too low. I have a tank that contains 21 m3 of lithium (21K units) and the fuel cost is a grand total of... 9 funds (fuel in an orange tank costs ~3000 funds). Considering that the price of lithium is about $5000 USD/ton now, it should go up significantly. I propose as earlier by ratio, 0.255 funds/u. That puts 21m3 of Li at close to 5500 funds, which is a lot more reasonable.

-edit: I mean, FreeThinker, if you're dead set on those D and T costs, alright, I'll try to find some way to work with it. However, I can't deal with the Lithium :P.

Edited by Nertea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
-edit: I mean, FreeThinker, if you're dead set on those D and T costs, alright, I'll try to find some way to work with it. However, I can't deal with the Lithium k_tongue.gif.

I agree the cost might better be lowered for balance some resources. The cost of LqdTritium got inflated because the world got all fearfull of nuclear energy and closed many nuclear power plants. As a consequence, much less LqdTritium is produced while demand increased.

Let's assume Kerbals aren't that stupid and instead replacing their oil economy by a hydrogen economy (and accidentally prevented global warming), which is most economically created using high temperature nuclear reactors. It would make many resources, most notable LqdHydrogen, LqdDeuterium and LqdTritium, much cheaper!

No seriously, why is LqdHydrogen 200 times more as expansive as it used to be? If LqdTritium should be made cheaper, LqdHydrogen should be made cheaper as well, as this is realistically the only way to achieve it.

I propose the restore our sanity and reduce the cost of LqdHydrogen, LqdDeuterium and LqdTritium by a factor of 200!

- - - Updated - - -

First adjustment:

Need to move IntakeAtm back to it's original (KSPI vs KSPI-E) config:

RESOURCE_DEFINITION

{

name = IntakeAtm // Like intake air, but doesn't require oxygen to be present.

density = 0.005

flowMode = ALL_VESSEL

transfer = PUMP

}

The current (KSPI-E) one is massless and non-transferrable. The former is more of an issue than the latter, as it pretty much kills electric props (mass is required for propellants).

Sounds fine to me.

Edited by FreeThinker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you actually tried playing with a LH2 value of 200 times smaller? I'll give you some numbers for the fuel costs:

  • A Jumbo-64 tank of LF/O -> 3000 funds
  • A Jumbo-64 tank of LH2 (current CRP price) -> 780 funds
  • A Jumbo-64 tank of D2 (current CRP price) -> 252 funds

If you reduce the cost of these two resources by a factor of 200...

  • A Jumbo-64 tank of LH2 -> 3.6 funds
  • A Jumbo-64 tank of D2 -> 1.25 funds

Please explain to me how this is at all balanced with stock fuel prices. D2 needs to be more expensive, and LH2 is pretty much perfect as it is.

It really looks to me like you want CRP to be RealFuels type prices. I have to ask - why? RealFuels already has RealFuels prices. Make KSPI-E dependent on RF (which modifies CRP prices) or something.

----

On a side note, I want to change the Argon gas price to 0.0105 per unit - way too low before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have you actually tried playing with a LH2 value of 200 times smaller? I'll give you some numbers for the fuel costs:

  • A Jumbo-64 tank of LF/O -> 3000 funds
  • A Jumbo-64 tank of LH2 (current CRP price) -> 780 funds
  • A Jumbo-64 tank of D2 (current CRP price) -> 252 funds

If you reduce the cost of these two resources by a factor of 200...

  • A Jumbo-64 tank of LH2 -> 3.6 funds
  • A Jumbo-64 tank of D2 -> 1.25 funds

Please explain to me how this is at all balanced with stock fuel prices. D2 needs to be more expensive, and LH2 is pretty much perfect as it is.

Alright, It looked at some real price comparisons between LiquidHydrogen and Deuterium, and it appears Deuterium should be at least 5.75 times as expansive

Current definition Hydrogen


RESOURCE_DEFINITION
{
name = LqdHydrogen // General propellant, used for high thrust electric engines
density = 0.00007085000
unitCost = 0.0367500
flowMode = STACK_PRIORITY_SEARCH
transfer = PUMP
isTweakable = true
}

old definition


RESOURCE_DEFINITION
{
name = LqdDeuterium
density = 0.000086
flowMode = STAGE_PRIORITY_FLOW
transfer = PUMP
isTweakable = true
unitCost = 0.025
}

New definition with cost based on LqdHyrogen times market price difference


RESOURCE_DEFINITION
{
name = LqdDeuterium
density = 0.000086
flowMode = STAGE_PRIORITY_FLOW
transfer = PUMP
isTweakable = true
unitCost = 0.256
}

It appears I was off by a factor of 10.

- - - Updated - - -

Considering KSPI Original Cost for tritium (cost 2304.0 with density 0.0002436), I think we can at least lower the cost of Tritium by a factor of about 3.1

to be exact


RESOURCE_DEFINITION
{
name = LqdTritium
density = 0.000133
flowMode = STAGE_PRIORITY_FLOW
transfer = PUMP
isTweakable = true
unitCost = 1258
}

- - - Updated - - -

Alright, according to this source, Tritium could be created for much cheaper

This study presents a method to estimate the cost of tritium production in a fusion power reactor, when the Li-bearingbreeder is removed from the blanket and replaced with RAFsteel. The cost of tritium breeding is in the range of $260±40/g of tritium for a simple Li breeder but up to $1420/g of tritium in a high temperature blanket. This cost is much less than the cost of tritium produced in a dedicated tritium production reactor and shows the economic justification for including tritiumbreeding in the fusion reactor design

If we assume Kerbals managed to have a working Fusion reactor, they could produce tritium for 1420/g

then the new definition for tritium would become


RESOURCE_DEFINITION
{
name = LqdTritium
density = 0.000133
flowMode = STAGE_PRIORITY_FLOW
transfer = PUMP
isTweakable = true
unitCost = 188
}

Is this cheap enough for you?

Edited by FreeThinker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once you two sort it out, someone please toss a pull request ;)

Given we're already in experimentals I'd say time is limited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the cost of lithium

According to this source it cost, $270 per kg

Edit: then the new definition for Lithium should become


RESOURCE_DEFINITION
{
name = Lithium
density = 0.00053400000
flowMode = STAGE_PRIORITY_FLOW
transfer = PUMP
isTweakable = true
unitCost = 0.27
}

Will this be expansive enough for you?

Edited by FreeThinker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds good, I'll check with my engines and submit a PR when I get home.

Tested, works great. Tritium tank is pricy but not unreasonable. PR submitted!

Edited by Nertea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now