Threadsinger

Hello, I've recently gotten back into KSP after a long hiatus, and have been incredibly pleased to see Nertea's mods still kicking (and updated to boot!) I've installed KA along with a few other of Nertea's mods and I'm having a spot of trouble figuring out how to use those advanced SSTO-facilitating nuclear engines - they overheat and explode within a minute of ignition. I don't think that's part of the design intent, and I've been trying to figure out what I'm doing wrong. I am sure it's a simple thing but I am not going to space today and I am not happy. I am steadily combing through this forum trying to figure out if I need a ton of radiators (although from what I've read, the exhaust should be enough to cool it?) and I've deleted each mod and reinstalled a fresh download to ensure there's no orphaned, deprecated files lying around (I hope). I have installed the NTRusesLF patch for simplicity. I only use MechJeb, StageRecovery, and Hyperedit beyond the NearFutureEverything mods so I don't think that's a problem. Could a friendly soul clarify how they work and offer a quick suggestion as to what I might be doing wrong? https://imgur.com/a/BKSOhnH Edit: also trying to figure out how to add an image...

I use MechJeb, and don't enjoy KSP without it. I've played long enough, and piloted enough launches, that I prefer to design the rocket, tweak the variables, and let the system fly the simple stuff like ascent, maneuver nodes, and the final docking alignment stages while I do other things on my monitors. Makes me feel like a Captain, not a helmsman. Also, I find tweaking maneuver nodes for certain intercepts to be awkward as hell with the current GUI, so I prefer MJ on that point too. For the stuff MJ doesn't quite do well, I can easily take over. I still get a laugh when an experimental rocket design, combined with improper ascent variables, makes for hilarious attempts by MJ's logic to control an uncontrollable craft. Part of the fun there is also figuring out what variables make for an ascent launch that automatically drops the appropriate stage at just the right altitude to deorbit safely for recovery (I believe in a non-deciduous space program). I do wish the descent logic worked a bit better, but that''s a wish born of convenience, not of criticism - I am infinitely grateful to the people who created and maintain the mod, using their own time and effort, for no reward, so that I may enjoy its use. If I could program anything more complex than a microwave, I'd gladly contribute. But that would likely cause any computer running KSP to undergo an unexpected surplus fission event, which I'm told is bad for hard disks as well as anyone within a 15 kilometre radius of ground zero.

If you get it done, you get it done. If you decide not to, no worries. 'Tis volunteered time, not a political posting. You could also start a kickstarter for a padded helmet.

Ah, so you too play MechWarrior Online, eh? Talk about a toxic community. "Fix old, not new, but don't forget to add new and get rid of old". The only thing I want from Squad, now that the game has been released as 1.0 and ostensibly "feature-complete", is that they do not add or subtract anything substantial (game mechanic-wise) from the product I paid for at launch. I appreciate post-launch performance improvements, or the creation and release of DLC to expand the gameplay experience, but I am very weary of ongoing development in games where core game mechanics could change after the finished product has been released. Or where new 'features' are introduced that play havoc with some software-hardware interfaces that worked just fine before. (Looking at you, MWO...) Because that's not what I paid for, I don't get that feeling with KSP, but since the topic is the feedback of the game owners are current and future developments, I thought I'd toss in my toonie. Keep up the good work! /... I'd be ok with adding a delta-v calculator in game...

Glad to see the autosave update. I usually manually save religiously after every mission, but sometimes I forget, I play a bit, something crashes (or entire starships go missing) and I have to start over at an earlier save. I personally don't care about IVA or IVA-related features as I never use them, but it's a neat idea and I hope it succeeds. I just hope it doesn't cost a lot of performance.

I'm not at home, but I will check when I do get home because I was wondering the same thing... Could it be a 0.625 to 1.25 m fuel tank adaptor? /Also looking forward to a 1.1 version of this mod, if ever Porkjet decides to abandon the toil of SQUAD and rejoin the toil of modding-for-free

This is probably the most informative thing I have ever read on KSP. A+++ presentation, would read again.

Those SSTO's look fantastic!! /what did I do in KSP today: dispatched spies to steal KerrMu's spaceplane designs /what will I do tomorrow in KSP: strap some antimatter-catalyzed engines on those babies for heavy-haul capability goodness /what I will do the day after tomorrow in KSP: attend remebrance ceremonies for the loss of the KSC after a catastrophic antimatter containment failure

I agree. My favorite feature of KSP is that it feels like a space-LEGO game, where there are just enough rules to make it feel like an abstract (or conceptual) space simulator, but not one that is bogged down in too many details in an attempt to make it too realistic like a true simulator (or CAD program...) I like that I can build rockets that would never really get off the ground IRL, or spaceplanes, or starbases, or land craft which have some questionable design choices, but that still...do... because they're "close enough". To me, that freedom added to my enjoyment of discovering the basic principles of space flight (wow! orbits! that's how they work?!), without feeling pegged by real engineering and science limitations. As long as KSP continues to be designed in this regard (leaving hyper-realism to the modders and players that want it), KSP will continue to be my favorite PC game. (That's not to say that games and simulators cannot invoke true realism, or that those who enjoy them are in some way negatively represented - rather, I just personally prefer the SimCity-esque abstraction of building ships, as opposed to having to focus on making sure every detail is perfect in every technical and physical respect or the spacecraft won't work...)

For a start, any larger versions of parts I see players needing to spam (assuming Tweakscale isn't used) such as the aerospike engine, ion engine, NERVA, air intakes, RTG's, etc. Just to keep part numbers down. I personally would like a part like a hinge or collar that lets me rotate a part 90 degrees (or more), so I can turn aft-facing engines into VTOL engines and back again as I land gravity-designed craft on certain bodies. I'd like the inclusion of a fission reactor, of whatever size, for deep-space/planetary base operations. As long as the mechanics are simple; i.e. using the sample heat dissipation requirements as the NERVA (no complicated heat management system), no uranium to mine or reprocess (depletion would be ok), basically, an expensive, heavy RTG that puts out power. I'd also like a stock part or two that acts as a hose and port, so fuel and other resources can be easily transferred to other space craft (or ground-based stuff) by EVA. Again, keep the mechanics simple. Some 5m parts, especially a cargo bay so that landers built with the big ISRU (for example) can be bigger without seeing some clipping by wheels, etc. (In this instance, I'm sure this is up to each player's ability and preferences about building craft to fit in other craft, I just find that a lot of my mining landers use big wheels that don't quite fit right in the airframe cargo holds...) A larger sepatron, and if possible, one that is stackable (like the stack separators), but fires either perpendicular to the stack direction, or angled away. Or a hydraulic detachment manifold that really pushes something away. A few new capsules or cockpits would be nice. Nertea's mods come to mind... A torodial ring part for a spacestation, a generic inflatable hab structure, larger beams, those aren't necessary but would be great for a little customization and roleplay. And, for myself, one thing I wish KSP had (as a possible DLC or expansion later?) would be a few end-end game parts, something to enjoy playing with after the tech tree has long been completed and you've lifted off from Eve a dozen times using nothing but a Terrier, a command chair, and some real good whiskey for fuel. I'm thinking along the lines of those capstone skills in RPG's that are very powerful, (even too powerful for regular gameplay) but are provided to make you feel like a god after you've demonstrated you've mastered the game's mechanics, something to let you play freely. My suggestions here would be a more advanced electric engine (VASMIR?), a rotating hab part (for artificial gravity), and a fusion reactor and fusion engine. In the latter case, the fusion reactor is largely thematic, but would provide for some ridiculous experimentation with power consumption parts like ion engines; and a high ISP, high thrust engine would let you experiment with easier SSTO's and month-long trips to Duna... something we're going to need to figure out as a species anyway IRL if we're ever to leave this rock and go somewhere in a reasonable amount of time.) Really though, as long as new parts don't limit the space-LEGO gameplay mechanics currently in play (by forcing stricter, more "realistic" designs), anything is appreciated!

Apologies, I forgot to mention, thanks for the video!

Hi Profit! Thanks for the reply and for your helpful diagrams. Not that I want to monopolize the thread here, I just to make sure I'm being clear about my issue, it's not restarting the reactor, because I can use a couple of XL panels and a supercapacitor (or just use HyperEdit and force a Megajoule recharge.). This makes sense if I shut it off to save fuel or if it glitches on timewarp. My confusion stems around how the reactor starts up fine on load at the runway, runs at full output in airbreathing mode (then internal fuel), then with plenty of waste heat capacity left over, deployed OR undeployed radiators, and thrust OR no thrust (i.e. coasting to apoapsis burn point), the reactor just dies. It ran fine during ascent, then stops without a critical resource limit being hit. Using HYPEREDIT to recharge various resources does nothing. It doesn't make sense that the reactor runs just fine on the ground, in the air, and in space, with capacity to spare, in a variety of flight modes, then shuts down due to a power failiure. Beyond a fault in how the part handles all the resources, I don't understand how that works, or why I'd even use a part with those properties. It feels like there's either a phantom demand on it somewhere, or a math error (note the resource bar shows FULL green, with 0.0, instead of, say a grey bar with 0/100000000 thermal power.) Those kitbash craft I put together was my attempt to figure out where the power limitations are coming from, since the base model reactor seems to sustain itself just fine (until it doesn't), so I tossed those in for extra electrical power (and to experiment with part positioning and where power fails). According to the Thermal Helper, I had plenty of spare thermal capacity, but tonight i'm going to build a craft with ludicrous cooling abilities and see what happens. tl;dr The problem isn't jumpstarting the dead battery, the problem is the battery dies after running just fine for minutes with no warning lights. I'm at work and can't try a fix until tonight. I'll try what you say, because I like this mod, but I'm still confused as to why this is a thing (and/or why a reactor can't sustain... itself.. in continuous mode.)

Edited: Darn, starve out still happens, but for no (obvious) reason. One question: is it by design that the fusion reactor needs 1.5 GW of power (at 3.5 m), but the generator only produces 1.46 GW? Too annoyed to continue tonight, but thanks for the help, all.

Alrighty, Jeb and the guys got together and slapped some additional glowing bits on the test plane, to no avail: In each case, the craft didn't even get to ignite the engines before getting that warning/everything not working. I've also determined that it happened in the previous post when I cut throttle and tried to restart. I'm going to copy over KSP into a second folder, blow away all the other mods but keeping the same save, and see what happens...

Ha, no I'm not using FAR. I'm sure it's a nightmarish design in some eyes, however I the CoL is just slightly aft of the CoM and actually lifts/lands quite well... Yaw authority needs work, I stopped refining it when the reactor starting bugging out. I think the radiators are stock, difficulty is I just started playing KSP since the most recent stock updates, so they are new parts to me... I just find it odd that the fusion reactor works great until orbit, then the actual *numbers* bar for Thermal Power and Charged Particles reads full AND zero... AFAIK, at that point in flight I still have plenty of wasteheat capacity, power output etc. In fact, this happens as I'm coasting to apoapsis (i.e. not under thrust and consuming energy). Alright, I'll try and install a capacitor (or find a mod with one). I don't think I'm using too much ThermalPower as this happens under coast, but I'll keep a close eye on it. Same with WasteHeat. As for time compression glitches, welp, can't fix that.... I'll give it a shot and update later with what I find...

Hi guys, I've recently started a new career game (with a clean KSP install) using KSPI, and it's been awhile. I've encountered a strange phenomenon, and while I've browsed/searched this thread, I can't seem to resolve it as nothing is jumping out in the debug log: At some point in the flight, ThermalPower and ChargedParticles fall to zero... Has anyone encountered this before? I have the KSP.log file, but it's rather lengthy and I'd hate to post a wall of text... I'll keep debugging to see what causes it, or if there is a mod or two that is conflicting, but if anyone has encountered this before, I'd appreciate your thoughts... Thanks!!

I tend to play a very environmentally conscious game. Probably because I work as an environmental scientist IRL, heh. I generally play with the following house-rules, but I don't stress if I make exceptions, it's for fun after all (and I usually just hand-wave a reason why its ok, as long as the effort was made): 1. Every stage must return to Kerbin in a recoverable manner or be decommissioned into a designated disposal crater (ideally for later smelting and re-use). All my stages are designed with parachutes, and as technology permits, a probe core, power, and a fuel reserve for a powered/power-assist landing. All my landers return in one piece (no drop parts) or are launched and the deorbited in munar orbit into the aforementioned scrapyard. If I have to run a boot-strappy mission with low-tech (to gain science to do it better next time), I will adjust my trajectory accordingly to dump the transit stage/fairing/whathaveyou into the target planet or moon, then course correct back to a proper orbit. 2. No open-cycle nuclear engines in atmosphere, although I do make an exception for fusion drives and beyond. You will never see a fission Orion drive in my game. No sir. (Regarding their disposal, I recover all my stages or dump them in specific spots. I sometimes hand-wave by docking the vessel for a bit and presuming the fissionable/fusion/antiproton-contaminated materials are removed prior to disposal via some yet-undiscovered waste management magic). 3. Fairings, I let burn up, but must be ejected before orbital velocity is reached. Again, if I miss a few, I just delete them on the premise of "close-enough". 4. I don't play with life support mods very often, but I do try to design spacecraft large enough to give the crew a reasonable amount of living space/storage supply space. I guess my gameplay represents my real life thoughts on space exploration, but I don't adhere to it religiously nor expect anyone else to. It's still fun to occasionally design big spaceships with massive, ejectable asparagus tanks which detach as the ship burns through fuel - love that ka-chunk sound.

[quote name='5thHorseman']Put your probe core or command pod as close to the engine as possible, so the rocket knows the direction it's GOING, instead of the direction the probe core is FACING. Also, struts. The problem isn't (totally) the wobbliness of the rocket. It's that the game thinks you're heading in the direction the probe core is facing.[/QUOTE] Wow, I never considered that myself. Thanks for the imparted wisdom - so many launch troubles now make way more sense.

I've already received my money's worth for KSP several times over - take your time, enjoy the holiday season. Heck, so-called AAA games like Fallout 4 could have taken a page from your playbook here (stupid interface)... As for "Bob (Roverdude) implemented new mechanics that will encourage developing robust relay networks with buffs, [I][B]instead of nerfing the current mechanics[/B][/I].", I thank you for this progressive approach to new gameplay elements. Keep it simple for those who want it (as it was), reward those who want an expanded scope or greater gameplay challenge. Looking forward to the new forums, assuming the transfer works well. Just try not to cross the streams or lose antimatter containment or whatever. I live on this continent you know.

[quote name='linuxgurugamer']He has Aerospike engines for the ascent, which need the air intakes[/QUOTE] Err, is it not to reduce air resistance and drag from the uncapped tanks? Or am I missing some hitherto-unknown mechanic for aerospikes?

[quote name='Frozen_Heart']Still not sure how all you people are making pure rocket SSTOs. Even without payload mine can only just limp into orbit. Launching with a TWR of 1.1 and almost all of it is fuel.[/QUOTE] Mine also only "limps" to orbit, (you know, if it actually makes it... still working on the MJ parameters) just enough to technically make it stable (>70K), but not really enough to dock at anything other than a 73K fuel depot. And if the timing is off, that's a lot of orbits to wait for an intercept. The margins are razor thin. It's fun to design and test though, and see if you can succeed. IANARS, so for most of my routine use of Rune's platform, I toss on a 'chuted drop tank or booster for convenience. I'm also testing a non-parachute/no fin variant which lands under power to save weight and improve appearance - if only there was a right angle vernor RCS... [COLOR="silver"][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE][/COLOR] [quote name='Majorjim']You didn't cheat fuel into fuel! :D[/QUOTE] Hah, probably true. I am trying to build one without the clipped tanks to see if it can be done though... darn things looks too tall, aesthetically. [COLOR="silver"][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE][/COLOR] Yes, I was testing using those elongated adaptor tanks instead of the shorter ones in your craft file. Just for fun. The fuel routing I noticed on liftoff, I was about to revert to the VAB when I saw the imminent collision and decided to see what happens. For science. (A supersized aerospike would be neat too...)

[quote name='How2FoldSoup']Hey Rune, I worked on it a bit last night and was just using MJ to fine tune the ascent to see what she was capable with a better pilot than me. This was the best ascent I was able to make. She's also a full 30t lighter than my previous attempt so I'll call that a huge improvement. [url]http://imgur.com/a/tDCuC[/url][/QUOTE] That thing looks awesome. Love the lines. [COLOR="silver"][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE][/COLOR] Alright, I was tweaking my version inspired by the Lackluster, and, well, this happened: [img]http://i.imgur.com/1Vggk95.jpg[/img] New design. Feeling lazy - using MechJeb. Some command part wierdness. Fuel routing is wrong, I know, I know. Turned toward the VAB - and went [I]through[/I] the building. Mostly intact. Stared for a minute or two as the remaining engine kept spinning it around through the flaming wreckage of the former VAB. Then I decided Jeb was not going to go to space today and hit ALT-F4. (Still working on that fusion SSTO variant, currently doing a new save and need to finish the "modern" day tech tree before I start unlocking anything powered by He3+... Clearly more R&D on the chemical stuff is advisable first..)

Amazing work. I wonder if I can strap some KSPI/Karbonite engines to it to decouple the fuel constraints (like the show) and give it some SSTO performance... Hrm... (Also, thanks, I need to rewatch this again... in my mind, Cowboy Bebop is [I]the [/I]original Firefly...)

How did you land/setup your structures and link them? I don't see engines (they might have been dropshipped?) Just curious, makes a nice aesthetic!

I was actually looking to understand the *basics* of modding too, from scratch. Thanks for pointing out these resources, it's appreciated!