helaeon

The real problem is the wing's thermal tolerance is too high... 2000K radiators are a carbon metamaterial magic (that is possible and does exist) and would be used on a reactor like the SAFE400. You'd heat those radiators up so far that they'd emit IR energy like crazy and be very efficient even at a small size. And yes, you'd use heat pipes to get to them, then the coolant would go back into the radiator to heat up the coolant again, and repeat. This is how electricity is generated, it's an ideal engine cycle (Brayton Turbine in the case of the SAFE400). Interesting thing is when you heat a radiator up that far they don't need to be that big either, the hotter the radiator's temperature, the more kWt it loses to space. (the increase is to the 4th power) The reason the ISS needs such big radiators is they aren't very hot. In this case, even on the ground, most of your heat loss is through radiation not convection or conduction. Actually being on the ground means that you're radiating at a grey body, so it's not as efficient. In this case facing out into black space, yep... this is working as it should from what I can tell. Those two radiators facing the sun shouldn't be radiating as much, but those two perpendicular to it would be very effective. On the radiators for the NTRs: I haven't been watching this thread super close, but the NTRs should be losing all of their bulidup heat through the propellant while running. It's when they're not running that something must be done to cool the reactor (which could be done by turning down the fission reaction, which means you would have to spin it up again before you could use the engine again). Probably using it as a generator to turn those watts of thermal energy to electrical energy, then you'd radiate your heat energy off into space. Basically using it like a giant RTG, large radiators should not be needed. I've yet to fiddle with the stock NTR... but from prior use and other engines it sounds like it's backwards. It generates a lot of heat while running and is cool when it's idle. The heat is what makes it work and have its high ISP!

I'm having a no-staging on flight bug. I do have proper staging in the VAB. If I EVA a kerbal and then try to re-board them, it freezes. If I EVA the kerbal, switch to the craft, then back to the kerbal, and board then I get my staging back. Until I leave that ship and and need to reload it. I get my staging back if I delete TweakableEverything. I tried deleting the DLLs & associated cfgs one by one. It appears the issue is in TweakableStaging.dll. If that one is missing alone all is well.

Are you outside of 1 planetary radius when you try and turn the warp drive on? So for Kerbin you are at 600km altitude or greater? Likely in your right click menu it says "failsafe 600km"

When I was fiddling with the cfgs for different burn ratios for these engines I discovered that LF and OX are both 5kg/unit ETA: You may want to look at the Volcano too while you're going over balance. It's pretty powerful. I've been using it in place of the poodle quite a bit. Which is pretty excellent, but making the lander engines play nice... It's better to use a volcano unless I give the lander engines big numbers - thrust in particular - compared to their LF/OX counterparts.

Volcano actually works pretty nice with a lander that ends up being about 28T. Command pod on that guy is a PPD-1 from NearFuture Spacecraft. But... I'm also a offset-part clipping addict soooooooo. I too though would like an engine array that runs on hydrolox. Which gives me an idea: How about some part .cfgs that re-use Nertea's NF Spacecraft lander engine models? (You'd need to have that pack as well as this one installed for it to work) I might fiddle with that a bit over the next few days. If I come up with something good I'll share. Now keep in mind the only lander humanity as actually ever used didn't use a hydrolox engine as compactness and reliability was more important than efficiency. Real LM used Aerozine 50 & nitrogen tetroxide. We may use hydrolox in the future because making H2 and O2 out of water ISRU isn't horribly complicated.

if you want to try out igor's patch, grab the whole thing and open your CryoEnginesFuelTanks.cfg and paste Igor's inside it and save. Probably should make a back-up of the original in case you want to go back. I removed the section for monoprop at the end, as it seemed to under-calculate the amount of fuel that should be present. @Eleven - in KSP LF and OX are both the same mass/unit. And I think we're assuming that for the two of them the "unit" of volume is the same. For LH2 and LF it is not, LF's volume unit is 5.5x as large as LH2's.

How you release it is up to you. In the past I've used a dropbox link, but that's for things that will be outdated in the future or added to another mod... so that's not a great option as it won't be there for later. I think Kerbal Stuff might be a good option. You're going to want something somewhat permanent, that you can edit, that you don't have to host the yourself.

Quick suggestion : Upon entering a command/utility pod, could can there be a button to re-charge the science pack? Much like how the EVA propellant part can be recharged upon entering a pod.

igor_perusco's tank patch is way better than mine! Using that one myself now.

I'm surprised it didn't break the game. Your entire krakensbane frame is being moved based on the part. So with two I'm surprised it didn't get mad about the offset. Yeah use only one. It doesn't work like a normal KSP engine with forces and thrust, it picks up space and moves you quite literally. I think it talks about use only one earlier in the thread... should probably say so in the description or the original post. Other thing is if you think you can extend your bubble by having 2 overlapping bubbles... nope. I think only the intersecting part of the bubble will survive. So again, use only one Alcubierre Drive part at a time per ship. Thanks futrtrubl for getting here before me

You still need a lot more tank. On my test ship using the Ct10, I have 1337 m/s DV VAC (not on purpose) - ship weighs 9.9T. Volcano, 11T, 1072 m/s DV VAC, excellent TWR. If I switch it over to use the poodle and LF I get a 15.3T ship has 2083 m/s DV VAC and superior TWR. If I use the T45, 15.1T, 1948 m/s DV VAC and better TWR Terrier LV909, 14.1T, 2310 m/s DV VAC, and lesser TWR All I did for that was swap the one engine at the bottom and the fuel being used. Same tanks, same fuel flow, reading out of KER in the VAB.

1kg LH2 to about 6kg OX seems to work pretty nice. In between the 1:4 that was suggested and 1:8 that would be stoichiometric. Also calculating tanks differently so no free space! Here's what to do if you want to try it in CryoEnginesFuelTanks.cfg splice this in (first and last lines are the same as the one in the .cfg) @totalCap += #$RESOURCE[Oxidizer]/maxAmount$ %onlyLH2 = #$totalCap$ @onlyLH2 *= 5.5 %mixLH2 = #$onlyLH2$ @mixLH2 *= 0.6875 %mixOX = #$totalCap$ @mixOX *= 0.3125 %tempVar = 0 Then make yourself a MM patch with the following @PART[cryoengine*] { @MODULE[ModuleEnginesFX]{ @PROPELLANT[LqdHydrogen]{ @ratio = 12.1 } @PROPELLANT[Oxidizer]{ @ratio = 1 } } } Nertea, I don't want to step on your toes. It's your mod and I love it. So if you want to keep doing something else you go ahead, thought I'd do some leg-work for another take if you were interested

Right, will try that too. Also working on patch changes for tank so can share. Should probably be calculated differently in the fuel switch patch as one does get free space in the mix version. EDIT to answer joeystar : Per unit mass you do far better, but per volume you do not. But, really what we care about is mass as that is what is fed into the rocket equation. So if you use the same mass of fuel with these you will get superior delta-v.

I think burn ratio of LH2 to Ox (assuming Ox is LOX) should be 1:8 (2 kg of H2 for every 16kg of O2 to make 18kg of H2O). Trying to figure out patches to see how that affects things. Will report back.

Maybe I missed when I tried... it was late... I was sleepy.

No need to apologize Excellent stuff here! Couple of suggestions: - Might be nice to be able to reposition the gauge, esp based on resolution. I'm at 1920x1080 and it's offset to the left of center for me. Also, you're pretty close to where Waypoint Manager puts its HUD. Probably not a big deal, but something that might come up. Nightingale of Waypoint Manager had this problem early on as well, but got it solved, so the solution probably exists there. The Kerbal Engineer folks also have a good repositioning system for HUD elements. - It would be cool to have an idea of which part is over-heating, either by highlighting on the ship or even a read-out underneath the gauge of what's overheating. - Harder still might be nice to have the gauge be able to watch certain parts (like wings, landing gear, command pod, etc) and ignore the rest.

I was going to jump in and suggest the same. I'd set the zip up to be something like "/GameData/ThermoGauge/" then your plug-in and texture folders.

ModuleResourceConverter is the descendant of the old REGO_ResourceConverter from RoverDude. You may want to look at the USI mods, MKS/OKS (Kolonization) in particular for ideas on how it can be used. You can probably ask RoverDude directly about it as well.

Rock on. I was thinking something like this would be great the other day!

Alright everyone, because I said I would get them to you this weekend here are the ZZZ models packaged and configured for our USI Alcubierre Drive. There are some differences but I didn't go as extreme as I was planning - mostly because the new reactors from Near Future Electrical aren't in place yet and I figured that stand alone with stock was more important at this point. There WILL be changes in the future, so, keep that in mind. Once things settle a bit I'll see about pushing these along to the official pack. For this ZIP to work you need to have the current USI Alcubierre Drive installed! DOWNLOAD LINK RIGHT HERE! And for those that don't remember what these look like

It looks to me like it's not respecting "PhysicsSignificance = 1" (I'm seeing this as well and this is my hypothesis)

Well seems we have folks using things in a mutually exclusive way. - For myself I want the ZZZ drives to be suitable for SSTOs, so that will happen. Especially the 1.25m and 2.5m versions, I think I'll figure the 3.75m to fill the same role. So they'll all have the same balance philosophy vs the USI drives with that in mind. - I want to see what RoverDude does with the USI ones, so I'm going to balance the ZZZ versions against those for the in-system warp drives. So, for default it'll be for stock system. - For interstellar travel or different scaled solar systems MM patches will be needed. - I don't think there is a good way through configs to have a warp drive use non-trivial amounts of fuel in system if it's capable of interstellar travel as well. And each interstellar mod is implemented different so I can't even write a somewhat universal MM patch for that case (and I don't use them personally). One idea would be the more gravitation you feel total, the more fuel you need - so warping at 300km orbit of Eve would require more fuel than warping at 300km orbit of Duna, both due to the gravitational differences of the planets and proximity to the star. Could also have it that the ISP stays the same but the top warp speed scales with that total felt gravitation. I can think of at least one physics reason it may be so such a thing might happen, and either would work well for gameplay I think. Those would be the best ways I could think of to do a one size fits all warp-drive, such a change would be well after adding in these new models next weekend and only if RoverDude is on board as that would need to be a global change and one I'm not entirely sure how to implement off the top of my head.

WPENG730 do you have Regolith installed too and the current version? Check RoverDude's signature. Make sure you have the newest WarpDrive and install that first, then install the newest Regolith. It's very important that all the folders are in the right place too don't make them different than what RoverDude has in his zip. The cfgs explicitly give paths to certain assets (because we have to). Mekan1k - It's on it's way. It's working perfect in-game, but you have to replace the drive part each time you update certain parts of the CFG - the fuel tank mostly, so I want to make sure it's in a good place before sharing to reduce issues with ships and saves. I think I'm going to wait until I'm back from vacation and can set it up from 1.0 because I want to make sure it's balanced nicely with RoverDude's 1.0 stuff. So, next weekend! Something else to think about and I'd like opinions on : One of the coolest things about this warp-drive is that it works nice on an space plane, do you want me to make it so you need to be careful about the heating on it? Or should it be mostly in line with the rest of the space plane parts?

Much lighter (weighs about 1/3rd so you get far better delta-V on your non-warp engines), same cost, way more connection points (you seem to be able to radially attach to it though it's not necessarily 100% safe to do so), drive itself is smaller, it also uses about 30% less xenon per run time so you can service it less if you tack on more xenon tanks so you are carrying the same amount as the USI drive. The weight idea came from wanting to make the USI drive seem more robust and reliable for larger and heavier ships, but the ZZZ drive more efficient and lighter for a more compact ship or warp SSTOs being that they fold up - that's the other thing it does, making space planes with the ZZZ drive is easy and awesome. You're right though I do need to re-visit those numbers... but I'm also expecting the USI drive to get nerfed quite a bit too and I was making these under that expectation. I think in the case of a interstellar drive for people running those kinds of mods a MM patch is necessary, same for 3.2x, 6.4x, 10x systems. I think the thing to do there would be to increase the ISP by the factor of the scale of the system, same with the electricity use (because it's used as a fuel). The fuel values on the USI drive are still based on 1.6c being the top speed, where I'm basing this on 15c being top speed (it's like massively increasing TWR). @RoverDude want me to go over the USI drives too and balance them all together (or if you've already done it, share values so I can make these have different trade-offs)? Make the ZZZ drives part of the official pack or have it be a different folder/separate pack that references USI for assets where needed?

DDS textures will be officially supported, so basically like using DDS loader now. I hear directx11 is working much, much better as well. Yes, re-balance to parts and that heat tolerance number becomes very important. There may be other changes and values that were nothing that take on importance now (kind of like cost didn't matter until funds happened). Pretty sure that will all be handled by config. It seems from the preview videos that a lot of the heat effects are being handled by shaders (look at the post from the squad cast this week showing off the new heat shields and using a shader to darken them as they lose ablation material).