singlet

It looks a bit confusing. Do you mean that the "thermal" nozzles & generators use the "charged" power, while the "charged" counterparts cannot use the "charged" power?

It seems that the "Timberwind" engine (and also the pebble bed reactor) now gives 5/6 of its total power as charged power. Is this the way it is supposed to be?

I apologize for the duplicate question, but I think this is important for roleplaying purposes at the very least, so I would really appreciate a response. The DT magnetometer and the GC/LC MS seem to have been removed. Are they obsolete now? (Note: I am using DMagic Orbital Science mod.) If so, how can I find out the antimatter density and the atmospheric / oceanic composition of each planet?

Could that be related to the 'max physics delta-time per frame' value in the KSP settings? In my KSP settings it is 0.10s, 2.5 times the default value. EDIT) No, test shows that changing the value does not affect the situation.

Both. I did tests with several different configurations: some with the Mach Effect Drive, some with the EM drive, some with both. The test craft configuration mentioned above was the simplest one.

It seems that the DT magnetometer and the gas / liquid chromatography mass spectrometers have been removed. Are they now obsolete? (Note: I am using DMagic Orbital Science mod.) If so, how can I find out the antimatter density and the atmospheric / oceanic composition of each planet? Also, it seems that the reactionless drives sometimes fail to utilize the quantum vacuum plasma. Specifically, when the main throttle goes directly from 0% to 100% (by pressing the Z key), the engines display "Flame-Out!" / "VacuumPlasma deprived" and stop working in some cases. This does not happen if the initial throttle was not 0%, or if the thrust limiter value was set to be less than 2% (for Mach Effect Drive) / 5% (for EM Drive). Could you please check if this is a bug? My installation of KSPI-E is currently up to date (CKAN version 1.22.9.4), and my test craft configuration is RC-L01 large probe - Muon Catalyzed Reactor - Mach Effect Drive (or EM Dirve) vertically stacked together, plus two 1.5x sized large folding graphene radiators.

I just noticed that the credit to the original KSPI is given to a (presumably) wrong person. See the 4th post in this thread. The original author of KSPI is Fractal_UK , not just Fractal.

https://we.tl/t-Fds86luf4T It is a very simple test vessel consisting of a probe core, a fuel tank (LH2), a thermal generator, a reactor (pebble bed) and two radiators. PhotonSailor was not installed. My list of installed mods is shown below.

Yes, I know that. What I meant is the situation is the same, i.e. the reactor power is 0%. I did not disabled it in the VAB (I triple checked it), and surely I activated the engine via staging (also triple checked it).

The reactor status starts with 0% when the flight scene is loaded. The electric engines do not work even on the launchpad.

The reactor was not disabled, as is indicated by the "shutdown" button in the screenshot. KSPIE version is 1.22.2.4. Except for those 'normal' (i.e. Steamworks / MiniAVC related) exceptions, there is only one exception (shown below) in the log file. Module ModuleEnginesWarp threw during OnLoad: System.ArgumentException: The requested value 'Nozzle' was not found. at System.Enum.Parse (System.Type enumType, System.String value, Boolean ignoreCase) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at System.Enum.Parse (System.Type enumType, System.String value) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at ModuleEngines.OnLoad (.ConfigNode node) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at PartModule.Load (.ConfigNode node) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0

The electric engines (e.g. Dawn, ELF, ATTILA) are not working in my game. Has anyone experienced a similar problem? When an electric engine is used in a vessel, the reactor does not produce power despite being marked as "Active." Note that thermal engines don't have this issue.

Support for the new US2 parts seems to be missing in the DMagicCommunityTechTree.cfg file. Could you please add CTT support for them?

Usually in real time. I think I used 'Physics acceleration' a couple of times, but had not observed any noticeable difference. I tried 'Time acceleration' once or twice but couldn't really use it, because the engine did not support warp thrust. I think it was the nuclear ramjet engine.

ModuleEnginesFX is OK. It also gives ~100% of the expected ∆V.

I tried changing ModuleEnginesWarp into ModuleEngines as you suggested before editing (I assume you mean the Krusader engine configuration, right?). And it seems that your guess is spot on: the Krusader engine now gives ~100% of the expected ∆V.

Yes, that was the first thing I noticed when I began investigating this phenomenon. I thought this was weird, and wanted to know if this could be reproduced on other systems. Anyway, I tried VISTA and Daedalus engines in a sandbox game. This is the first time I have ever tried using them, so there might be something wrong in the configuration. The two test crafts are exactly the same except for the engine. The result was that VISTA gave me only ~50% expected ∆V, and Daedalus ~100%.

Vessel mass is given in the screenshot, reported by MechJeb. The number was also the same as reported by VAB editor. In case of the ramjet nozzle, the expected ∆V and the actual ∆V differed only by ~5%, in contrast to the Krusader's ~50%.

I have not yet unlocked all the necessary technologies in my game, so I don't know. I will try in a sandbox game later if you need it.

Both MechJeb and KerbalEngineer Redux give the same ∆V. Also, 590.6s * 9.81m/s2 * ln(23.495t/22.641t) ≅ 215m/s.

@FreeThinker I already did that, and the result is the same (half the expected ∆V) for both hydrolox and hydrogen propellant.

@FreeThinker, it seems that something is wrong with the "Krusader" engine; ∆V from the engine is only half of what it should be. Could you please check? To show you what happens, I made a minimal test vehicle. All the 8 parts are from stock, KSPI-E or IFS. The vehicle is expected to have the ∆V of 215m/s. I set up a maneuver node so that the maneuver should be more or less complete when the propellent is exhausted. The test result is shown below. The maneuver is only half complete. Thermal ramjet nozzle is OK.

@Gildarrious, I'm afraid you are using the wrong engine. That engine in the second screenshot is something from another mod, possibly NearFuturePropulsion. You need the "Plasma Nozzle" from KSPIE. The combination of plasma nozzle + OCGC reactor + thermal generator works fairly well with 100% power in my game. By the way, @FreeThinker, the "Max Calculated Thrust" value for the above combination shows 350kN thrust when inactive, but can actually provide only about 150kN when 100% powered. This behaviour causes some trouble in determining the time for engine firing. Would it be possible to change the calculation so that the field will show the actual max thrust (150kN in this case)?

@whitespacekilla, Thank you for your suggestion. I tried installing it, and it works. Unfortunately the mod seems to be somewhat unfinished (blank icons, hard to resize, etc.), and it feels a bit needlessly complicated to use it to see just one context menu for me. Maybe later? @FreeThinker, I agree that the jittering is a stock issue, and it would be best if they fix the problem in the stock KSP side. But it is still true that many of the displayed fields are not needed during normal flight, and the information clutters the menu window. In my opinion it would be better to be able to hide / show those fields, just like the stock RCS controls do. RCS thrusters can be set to augment the main thruster, but the control field is usually hidden in the context menu because that is not something usually needed in-flight. In the rare case you need additional thrust from RCS thrusters, you can still expand the RCS control and set them as you want. I think this is the cleanest approach, maybe even the easiest one. Reducing the number of control buttons removes just a couple of lines from the menu, so I don't think that would make a lot of difference for my problem of oversized windows. But I still think it is a good thing to simplify GUI elements if you can retain the same functionality and not increase the complexity of normal operations. As for me, I almost never use the previous propellant button, and a single propellant switch button will suffice. Maybe something similar to the slide control used in InterstellarFuelSwitch? That will combine the functionality of next / previous propellant buttons and current propellant info field into one control, and make normal operations easier than before. Giving a generator its own info menu may be a good idea in my opinion. Dedicated information can be shown in the separate window, and frequently needed information like current power may be shown both in the window and in the context menu I guess.

@FreeThinker Thank you for your prompt reaction, but unfortunately that change does not fully resolve my problem of too much info on a smaller screen. The screen recording below shows what happens in case of the Timberwind Engine. 1) The window is still too long for my screen, so I still need to drag the window up or down whenever I want to use the fields not displayed in the screen. 2) The window does not react very well to my dragging it; it jitters up and down instead. I need to be extra careful in dragging it, or drag it multiple times until I can see the field I want. I think that reducing the amount of information displayed is not a good solution for this problem. The "Warp Thrust" field, for example, seems to have been removed in this version, but I definitely want to see the field when I actually run the engine during time warp. EDIT: Imgur album link does not seem to work well; please click the link if the image is not shown.