tom8914

MY original question: Does an active microwave receiver reduce the effectiveness of heat radiators? I ask because whenever I turn a microwave power receiver on the radiators instantly drop temperature, and when I turn the receiver off the temperature instantly goes back up. (I am working with upgraded radiators) I KNOW I am turning them on as RECEIVERS because I am using them to power ENGINES.... Microwave RECEIVERS/TRANSMITTERS should generate heat as a byproduct of operation (kinda analogous to solar panel waste heat but different, probably) I would want my radiators to be cold for something like a GENERATOR that increases efficiency with a larger temp gradient.... Interstellar does not make your radiators cold, you have to put enough of them on that they stabilize at a low temp (heat in = heat out) My complaint is that if I have 4 upgraded radiators I can radiate enough heat while the RECEIVER is off, but when the receiver(I before E except after C!!!!!) is ON the radiator temp is halved and heat radiated is ~quartered I wanted to know if the radiators are SUPPOSED to do this (for a reason I do not know) or if it is an unintended bug (for no reason) that needs fixing Also, the reception slider does not seem to have an effect on receiver heat generation (I will double check this complaint later today) Also folding heat radiators seem to cause a LOT of lag in the VAB (symmetry something with folded radiators and let the drag and wait process begin!!!! VIVA Editor Extensions)

Does an active microwave receiver reduce the effectiveness of heat radiators? I ask because whenever I turn a microwave power receiver on the radiators instantly drop temperature, and when I turn the receiver off the temperature instantly goes back up. (I am working with upgraded radiators)

Finally traced problem, I think. If a .cfg attempts to add a resource tank node that is already in a tank definition, then the tank definition is removed/lost/gone example in first config file (or TANK[Minerals] already exists in original tank definition) @TANK_DEFINITION[balloon]{ TANK { name = Minerals amount = 0.0 maxAmount = 0.0 fillable = true } } If a second config file tries to add a second node for resource Minerals, then the Balloon tank definition is lost/voided

I think there may be a problem with the creation of new tank definitions, This is effecting B9, TAC life support, and Modular Kolonization System. here is one example from the log file [LOG 12:06:22.430] PartLoader: Compiling Part 'B9_Aerospace/Parts/Cockpit_S2/part/B9_Cockpit_S2' [LOG 12:06:22.451] Tac.LifeSupportModule[FFFE8F12][85.32]: OnAwake [ERR 12:06:22.499] Unable to find tank definition for type "LifeSupportAll" reverting. [ERR 12:06:22.500] Unable to find tank definition for type "ServiceModule" reverting. Rewriting the B9 pack tank types to use existing tank definition worked for everything except those using ServiceModule type Adding the new tankDefinitions directly to tanktypes.cfg in modularfueltanks did not fix the issue. Thanks

I am using 32bit ksp with quite a few mods (enough to require using texture reduction in order to get ksp 32bit to load) and I had lots of trouble with crashing during scene changes, often accompanied by a log dump showing "Write to location 00800000 caused an access violation" I would usually crash every third or fourth scene change.... (to vessel, to vab, to lauchpad, to space center.......) I launch KSP using a desktop shortcut to a .bat file which then launches ksp.exe with a high process priority (not 100% sure if this gives physics calculations a boost or not) start "Kerbal Space Program" /high "I:\Kerbal Space Program\KSP.exe" I added "-force-opengl" to my target line in the shortcut and so far, I have not had a scene change crash for more than 8 scene changes my memory usage for KSP and forcing open GL is currently 3.4GB according to the Resource Monitor, you can find this handy tool on Win 7 Pro x64 by ctrl+alt+del, selecting the task manager, clicking the "Performance" tab, and clicking the button near the bottom "Resource Monitor" The memory tab shows the working set in use by each process. Vessel switching seems to be much faster and i managed about 10 vessel switches before a bug forced me to restart ksp (bug locked me to my current vessel, i could to go to space center, switch vessels, or quickload. But I was able to quicksave....) BUUUUTTTT 10 vessel switches is 2-3 times more than usual before a scene change crash, and I have seen the vessel locking bug before... maybe that one is due to one of the mods......

regarding my earlier electric engine power distribution post I was going through ElectricEngineControllerFX, and I found this: List<ElectricEngineControllerFX> electric_engine_list = vessel.FindPartModulesImplementing<ElectricEngineControllerFX>(); int engine_count = electric_engine_list.Count; this does not seem to exclude inactive engines and thus the following lines which balance thrust output use all active and inactive engines(with the inactive engines producing nothing and consuming nothing) Maybe this will help, I don't know enough about ksp and unity to help write the fix and have gotten tired of looking for information on "vessel.FindPartModulesImplementing<>()" which I assume is detailed somewhere by someone online. maybe there is a switch that makes "vessel.FindPartModulesImplementing<>()" only include active engines with the implemented module....

I have run into a small issue with distribution of power to electric engines... ksp 24.2 interstellar .12 I have a craft with three plasma engines (two are on probes that will separate later and are not avail. for use) When only one of these engines is activated, it can only use 1/3 of avail. power and the remaining 2/3 is reserved for the other two engines(right click activation of other two engines allows me to use 100% of avail. power but this seems to be a problem that nonactive engines have power reserved for them.... even if they are later in the staging and have never been active.

I started using the universal storage parts recently and saw the fuel cell and electron parts.... (COOL now I can have a large amount of electrical storage, with efficiency and speed limitations, but still much better than a huge number of batteries) ..... but when I started testing my new comm satellites (for use with remotetech2 eclipses are annoying) I had one huge problem....... I could not activate both the fuel cell and electron at the same time because they do not care about the level of electric charge...... they just drain energy from the system (since the electron takes more energy to split water than the fuel cell gets back....) So I took a look at the source code and decided to break out my programming hat (haven't done much work in C, mostly I have dabbled in a basic language and some assembly for PIC micros) I added two new options (in the same style as your "can overflow") that allowed the fuel cell and the electron to work in tandem. Pause if vessel is near full Pause if vessel is not near full The first one compares the first listed output resource and skips a conversion cycle if this resource is more than 89% of vessel capacity The second one compares the first listed input resource and skips a conversion cycle if this resource is less than 91% of vessel capacity I also added two new display options to indicate this paused state in the part's right click gui If you want me to post my additions I will happily do so, although at least one part of my addition; the compare of the first listed resource, is very clumsy in that is uses your "foreach" loop and forcibly exits at the end of the first iteration every time instead of a more simple call of the single item, this is mostly due to my inexperience with C but also due to my own lazyness ;}