Threadsinger

Wait, what? I thought that was one of the advantages of a fusion reactor. Line it with Li-6 or Li-7, away you go.

Balancing your RCS helps though and goes a long way, and yeah the docking AP doesn't always quite work, have to fiddle around with the options.

I actually lost a lander this way, lol. I just assumed they behaved like monoorbs (for whatever reason) and didn't link lines to them. Also, I recently installed a clean version of KSP to play around in (without mods), and I honestly thought I installed it wrong because I couldn't find the MRS parts (in stock). Still a great mod, I hope TPTB pick this up someday and incorporate it, in part or in whole, into the main game.

I was looking to build a Starfury design in KSPI, and I'm glad I found this one! Totally going to borrow the original design, but I'm going to try and replace the engine pods with the fusion engine parts from KSPI (powered by a reactor in the middle.) Great models!

Very cool design!

Always good to see more "near-future" tech, like fusion engines and reactors and the like. Keep up the good work!

Hey barwick, I just threw up a quick setup, and got it to manufacture AP: Is that what yours looks like? This is a completely fresh install, btw, with Fractal's original overlaid by Boris' 0.90, overlaid again by FreeThinker's stuff.

Very cool design! I also like the little lander guys in your signature. Got some great ideas for some (fusion-powered) landers! Thanks!

Hi FreeThinker, Just a comment from a long-time KSPI player. I get that this is mod is now the product of your efforts and you are free to design it to your will, but I'm not personally on board with being "punished" by anyone for gameplay choices beyond the existing need to balance cost, design, and delta-v. That's a strong word to use on people who might just want to enjoy your efforts and try out cool concepts. Those are useful parameters for creating a challenge without going overboard - failed designs either explode, crash, run out of fuel, or are needlessly inefficient. The penalty for using the VISTA drive was an interesting outlier concept, but if more gameplay elements are going to start costing players anything more than funds, ISP, or delta-v, it is my opinion you'll alienate more potential players than gain. They will simply not use the gameplay element and go for the next best part. The same goes for adding too many secondary game mechanics ("soot"). And every element of rocket industry has inevitable accidents: will liquid fueling cost Kerbals? Deployment, or loss, of fission reactors? Will KSC be vaporized in an antimatter containment failure? I'm might not be someone "in the know", but working in environmental engineering, I can tell you that if you want realism and number of recorded fatalities, rocket fuel and radiation top hydrazine by a tragically massive number, and I'd prefer not to have to deal with that kind of mathematics every time I want to build, balance, and play around with fusion-powered space ships. Keeping them powered, fueled, and generally free from melting down is fun enough. As always, your idea, your effort, your mod. I just don't want to see it killed by overcomplexity. Just a thought from a member of the so-called "ignorant masses".

Very, very awesome. I'd love to see your take on a theoretical, "unproven" design like a fusion engine, or a wierder ion engine. But excellent gameplay balance (and a really cool model!), I shall add it alongside the NFT, KSPI, and USI drives that I use with equal pride.

Without being at a computer to try out fixes, I will ask the obvious questions: are you using a clean install of the current versions of the required mods? You need quite a few patches to bring fractals original mod into function with recent tweaks. If you have any legacy files from older installs, they may cause havoc. Regarding the thermal helper, is there a little custom box or button on the screen?

How... how does the K+ get back to orbit, exactly?

Hrm, I wasn't aware I was actually missing reactors, but now I'm not so sure. I do know I seem to have reactor-type-per-size gaps, but I thought that was intentional. I'll have to double check. Also, is anyone having problems with the thermal rocket nozzle not working? My setup is generally the following: Fuel/Battery (or alternate reactor for power)/intakes/generator/reactor/nozzle, and some radiators. The setup works great with a nuclear turbojet (weeeee fusion SSTO), but not the nozzle, with the exact same setup. I'm a little confused. (Also, while the turbojet is nice, I think the nozzle is more efficient for pure space endeavors so I'm hoping to fix this.) That said, caveat emptor when it comes to mods...

I'll be honest, after a recent patch and moderate fiddling with mod configs, etc. I had to reinstall everything from boris' version, to KSPI extended, to CTT to get everything to work right. I'm using CTT and Techmanager, and the reactors show up under Nuclear Power (above Nuclear Propulsion). If you have other configs, I'm unsure what to do. - - - Updated - - - Also, I've just recently returned to the tech level which uses reactors and generators and rocket nozzles... the heat output is insane compared to previous versions. I used to be able to get away with two normal sized radiator fold-out panels, but now I need a ton more of them to make propulsion work. I deleted all previous versions of KSPI and reinstalled. Is this a recent design change or probably a glitch in my install? Seems excessive amount of heat management requirements.

What you do in your own time is your business, mister... /he may be somewhat legendary //or mythical? has anyone actually MET him?

Excellent post, and all true. Heat panels are just for bigger energy uses, such as XL solar panels for ion engines, or any of the reactor setups. Even if you craft doesn't seem to discharge any heat without them (or obviously large parts), I encourage players to double check. I've had a few probes that did appear to warrant heat management shut down after time acceleration for a long journey inward (to Eve or Moho, for example). Even small numbers add up over time.

Excellent add-on! I like using RemoteTech for the added challenge and game experience, but I too find it a little more unforgiving that I want in a computer game. This balances it perfectly!!

Fair enough. I just peeked at SpaceY, very similar. I was thinking along the lines of a stackable sepatron (I'll get the name right, eventually) which would serve a similar purpose to putting two of the radial ones, spaced equally (for thrust balance), pointing "up". My "niche" was all those times I decoupled big boosters (radially), but they needed a big enough push to clear the immediate area or they would strike something. I'd use the little radial sepatrons, but I'd need two (or more) in a balanced placement, and the amount needed for larger boosters or stages was a little much (or just unseemly using Tweakscale). I had a similar model in mind to the stackable parachutes from RealChutes (which themselves were very handy for some uses...) in that they aren't attached to the "side" of something to work, they are integrated into the stack. Just a suggestion now. It's a game (and your hobby in your free time), it's just something I've often found I've wanted. I might go take a look at SpaceY, which looks awesome, but I'm running low on RAM. Stupid 32-bit. If ever KSP-Interstellar flames out mod-wise, I would nominate you to take over. Your stock-a-like style fits well with the existing KSP stuff.

Great parts, and great art-style! If there was ever a niche I'd be looking to fill as a humble player, it would be some radial high-ISP engines, and a stackable SRB seperatron to uncouple BIG boosters/stuff. I can use tweakscale to make the existing radial sepetratrons bigger, but I always thought a large, pancake-like seperatron (which exhausts at a 10-deg angle, say) would look nicer for larger needs without needing big part counts. (I get the idea of KSP isn't to have a one-part-for-each-scenario, but I think there's a need for those parts... make 'em heavy or expensive for balance, if need be.) Either way, great work all around!

Ha, that wasn't directed toward you (as a criticism). I've been using KSPI since I first got KSP back in 0.21 or something, full aware that trying to get a mod to work on a game in alpha is purely a buyer-beware matter. But through the various versions, mod releases, and changes to how tech trees are implemented, I've had to restarted my save game about four times due to irreconciable problems between the tech tree, mods, parts, etc. CTT was the best option, but until recently, it still did wonky things like make fusion reactors, etc. available way too early. Without CTT, other mods like Karbonite were avaiable at the equivalent of the Gemini program, which was too early for my tastes. Balance, today, seems perfect with my unique mod environment, and I'm looking forward to getting back into it after a long hiatus. Although, with all this practice, my missions are getting way more cost-efficient. I can pretty much get to the KSP end-game in a few hours gameplay. I've maintained a STEAM screenshot folder showcasing the progression of my saves from the first pod to "today". (Hilariously, I keep having to restart shortly after I unlock Tier 1 Fission and get my arse to Duna. After that, some update inevitably breaks my save, and I have to start over. I've heard of fusion engines, and I talk about them - I have yet to use them. ). I'm just glad people are still tweaking and coding - frankly, the guys at Squad are going to be hard pressed to outperform the community modders at this point.

Just wanted to say a quick thank you to those who rigged up the CTT to make it work between KSPI and various other mods (such as MRS) - I've had to restart for the 4th time, but the game runs very smoothly now, with good balance between effort, time, and parts unlocked. /to paraphrase the Architect - This will be the fourth time we've destroyed Zio- err... rebuilt Kerbal Space Center and we have become increasingly efficient at it...

Ahhhh, I need to keep both installed... I see now...

Silly question, but where does one put this? In the CTT folder, or KSPI?

Great stuff! Thank you! I just moved into some new digs, so the gaming PC is still boxed up - will give this a shot once I unpack it.

This is something I would prefer be removed from a future version, if Fractal would be willing. Line of sight is fine, but having to ensure it's actually pointed at the target is too much micromanagement for my tastes. (Perhaps someone could implement a similar system to RemoteTech, where you need to manually ''lock'' the transmitter to a receiver, and physical orientation doesn't matter?)