Jump to content

okder

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    196

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by okder

  1. okder
    when i did test ATTILA i got real 1770KN thrust on speed 2100 m/s i.e. it was enough intake atmosphere for it, so was for turbojet on same plane (i already did post screenshot, again turbojet got only ~200KN on same plane on 2100 m/s, using all reactor power), best of all is plasma thruster, which is using much less atmosphere (as propellant) and gives 611KN on any speed (which in turn allows to get 3300m/s surface speed). i.e. you could ignore turbojet air branch and go for plasma thruster instead, and you still would having better ground->orbit atmospheric propellant flying ability with it. i.e. balance problem turbojet still useless (because plasma brunch is better).
  2. okder
    ATTILA still better at takeoff, and on high speed (that was expected corresponding changes) but worse in range ~ 150-900m/s. funny that PLASMA on 9.4MW (which is very high tec of course but still) has [TABLE=width: 500] [TR] [TD]Hydrogen[/TD] [TD]68KN[/TD] [TD]11200s[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]liquidFuel[/TD] [TD]254KN[/TD] [TD]2054s[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]atmosphere[/TD] [TD]161KN[/TD] [TD]~3000s[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] for comparison turbojet on 35.8 MW (sorry different energy source, magnetic fusion here) [TABLE=width: 500] [TR] [TD]liquidFuel[/TD] [TD]980K (257KN)[/TD] [TD]3458s[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]atmosphere[/TD] [TD]800->2700->100K[/TD] [TD]1236s[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] ((257KN) would be on 9.4MW) i.e. turbojet BETTER THAN PLASMA on liquidFuel in space, but much worse than PLASMA in upper atmosphere on high speed. (>10 times on speed >2150m/s) (and as i pointed before worse than ATTILA ~2.5 times on speed >1500m/s) 3300 m/s (surface speed in atmosphere, using atmosphere as propellant) is reachable with combination ATTILA + plasma on plane which turbojet can't even takeoff from ground.
  3. okder
    have same problem too, i have to add that manual refuel (EVA kerbal) with Gas core reactor also don't work (at least in case if you have less fuel than for full reactor), however scientific lab (with 2 staff members) do reprocess even with online reactor (remove actinides and add fuel back, which looks like hack).
  4. okder
    just normal magnetic containment reactor plane: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0rgcOJPK_8XcEg4Zy1FdnlIVEk/view?usp=sharing (2 fly with ATTILA, 1 with turbojet) , may be problem is NFT presence, how much static (0m/s) thrust gives your ATTILA(i mean with your environment/mods) with magnetic containment reactor + direct conversion generator, and the same with turbojet?
  5. okder
    ATTILA don't requires lot of research compared to full air jet branch, and generator still there because you need support fusion containment, i.e. difference only radiators, but atmospheric radiators is cheap(especially may be bug in NFT mode, but still wings could be used as radiators), and ATTILA is universal engine, so it should require some compressor/precooler (you can't just put airstream inside it, because its input primary for liquid fuel (in liquid state i mean) ) please read other answers ( http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/111159-BETA-1-0-4-KSP-Interstellar-Extended-1-5-10-%28last-updated-07-10-2015%29-Improved-Turbojet-Power?p=2236432&viewfull=1#post2236432 ) , they suggest remove ATTILA atmospheric mode at all, i suggest boost thermojet performance to ATTILA level (at ranges where it better, 0-300m/s, 800-2000m/s) (pure same energy, i.e. real ATTILA would be worse because of conversion) and lower ISP when full thrust used (i.e. make it variable impulse (it already variate) ). (of course if proper technology researched ). i.e. it's not right that specialized atmospheric engine which is builtin into reactor works worse than universal electric engine after several energy conversations.
  6. okder
    [TABLE=width: 800] [TR] [TD]engine/speed[/TD] [TD]0 m/s[/TD] [TD]300[/TD] [TD]525[/TD] [TD]800[/TD] [TD]1000[/TD] [TD]1200 [/TD] [TD]1600[/TD] [TD]1800[/TD] [TD]2000 [/TD] [TD]2100 [/TD] [TD]2150 [/TD] [TD]2175m/s [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]ATTILA[/TD] [TD]1750[/TD] [TD]1760[/TD] [TD]1770[/TD] [TD]1770[/TD] [TD]1770[/TD] [TD]1770 [/TD] [TD]1770*[/TD] [TD]1770*[/TD] [TD]1770* [/TD] [TD]1400* [/TD] [TD]1000* [/TD] [TD]950*KN [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]turbojet[/TD] [TD]700 KN[/TD] [TD]1400[/TD] [TD]2440[/TD] [TD]1600[/TD] [TD]1030[/TD] [TD]770 [/TD] [TD]400KN[/TD] [TD]200/300*[/TD] [TD]188 [/TD] [TD]100* [/TD] [TD]55* [/TD] [TD]30*KN [/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] * depends on other factors than surface speed (both times not air limited, e.g. altitude) (sandbox, magnetic containment fusion) conclusion: Turbojet at least 2.5 times worse than ATTILA in 1.5.11 P.S. there was bug starting turbojet while reactor set in editor with Deuterium-Lithium mode (turbojet started only after switching mode to thermal power generation, and continue to work after switch back) and i am not sure but ISP for turbojet (on high speed) looks lower than i tested days before.
  7. okder
    it described here (or even early) http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/111159-BETA-1-0-4-KSP-Interstellar-Extended-1-5-10-%28last-updated-07-10-2015%29-Improved-Turbojet-Power?p=2022117&viewfull=1#post2022117 looks like need something like @PART [*]:HAS[@MODULE[InterstellarFissionMSRGC]]:NEEDS[NearFutureElectrical|SETI]:FOR[WarpPlugin] { @MODULE[InterstellarFissionMSRGC] { @PowerOutput *= 0.002 @upgradedPowerOutput *= 0.002 @neutronEmbrittlementDivider *= 0.002 %fuelUsePerMJMult = 500 %wasteHeatMultiplier = 0.002 } } in USI_NF_Mode.cfg for DUMBO and take into account it's price (65k) compared to LargeSaltReactor.cfg (1281k) i.e. for me it's 4000 times more powerfull, and 20 times cheaper. other way you could delete USI_NF_Mode.cfg (i.e. compatibility with NFT power ratings), but prices still needs to be fixed. when decision about atmospheric balance (ATTILA/turbojet) with high temperature reactors will be available?
  8. okder
    i have incorrectly thrust (with magnetic nozzle 1.25 size) setting (it gives even with 0.1% thrust 30k and same up to 100%) with inertial containment fusion 1.25 size (3.6 mw), bug is introduced in 1.5.? DUMBO reactor is out of balance as it gives 1000 times more power than other reactors (even better than huge antimatter reactor). probably MJ/GJ setting applied incorrectly.
  9. okder
    i hope only decrease atmospheric propellant thrust by 40%, and require precooler/compressor (there is no way how to support so much propellant without compressing/cooling it first to such engine). but turbojet should be boosted to be better on all speed <2000m/s (and with research <1000 science better on any speed <1000m/s) with same power input. P.S. small electric flyers with remote energy source could be useful, but they should not be too much better normal self sufficient planes.
  10. okder
    there are two bottlenecks: 1. at 0m/s, and you can solve it with compressor build into precooler, and lowering isp (i.e. pushing more air into turbojet, it will be heated to lower temperature, but still gives more thrust at 0m/s) 2. >1200m/s some thrust can be achieved same way as previously described, and i don't understand why 77000K reactor core gives such low thrust at 2000m/s speed) i.e. i think that on high temperature core reactors (fusion, gas, antimatter) turbojet should outperforms ATTILA on same energy input on all speed range less 2000m/s, provided you have powered precooler/compressor and turbojet could lower it's ISP to get more thrust (ATTILA has lower ISP than turbojet on high temperature core reactors, but this only rises question how ATTILA could performs so well on high speeds). P.S.2 you could limit thermal turbojet/thermal nozzle/magnetic nozzle ability to be attached to any part except reactor himself, just add radial attachment capability, for ability to put 2 symmetric those engines, with some other (VISTA) in the middle. P.S.3 and remember that ATTILA besides smaller size and mass (for using same power as turbojet) and ability to attached everywhere has ALSO much faster reaction to thrust change, that allows it to be used for attitude control (with ThrottleControlledAvionics mod), i.e. it's too good engine already to be also best atmospheric engine, so its atmospheric thrust by my opinion should be nerfed by 35-40% and turbojet lowest thrust below 2000m/s should be same as ATTILA(i.e. improved) with same input power on high temperature reactor (i think before 1000 science research it should be same on speed below 1000m/s, highest trust/highest ISP should be better (they already are if include ATTILA nerf) ), i think compressor(precooler) should be required by ATTILA too, because i don't understand how other way to get air from intakes to ATTILA engines (otherwise sectional area of air pipe should be same order of magnitude as intakes themselves)
  11. okder
    then remove it please (just to be clear, i mean remove unused curve from files, not ATTILA, or ATTILA mode) but take into account that on 1200m/s (in sandbox mode) turbojet now gives ~30% of maximum thrust ( on Kerbin, ~30000m, i can remeasure again to be certain), while ATTILA gives 100% thrust, which with magnetic fusion is the same as maximum turbojet, turbojet takeoff thrust is also 30-40% (while ATTILA 100%), on 2000m/s turbojet gives <5% thrust, (but it's not enough atmosphere to provide 100% for ATTILA anyway) i think that with high temperature core reactors turbojet should have better performance on high speed, and with precooler/compressor better performance at takeoff/dense atmosphere in exchange for loss most ISP (again high temperature core reactors allows that exchange). i.e. if you not going improve turbojet performance you need to lower ATTILA performance by 3 times, or it still be better with magnetic fusion. (better means lower delta-V for going in lowest stable orbit on Kerbin/Eve from point where atmospheric engine becomes useless (no more speed/altitude gain from it)) as i pointed now thermal turbojet limited at takeoff point and at high speed thrust compared to ATTILA, and at such point ATTILA approximately 3 times better. i did get to orbit using ATTILA purely on atmospheric and inertial fusion, but with current turbojet i still needed 100m/s more to add with other propellant, and charged particle generator efficiency 34.60%.
  12. okder
    probably because of law of conservation of energy? i.e. in essence we use reactor energy to increase velocity of craft relative to atmosphere, we have external limitation of drag and amount of atmosphere captured as propellant of course. i understand that compressor(precooler) is probably need for thermal turbojet, and may be not needed for ATTILA. but with such addition effectiveness should be in favor of turbojet due to it specific. part of problem is that very same engine gives more thrust when any other propellant is used (high speed/high altitude). again correct solution is turn thermal turbojet into variable isp mode: less than 50% thrust it works as currently (only with change that 50% thrust it gives 100% current thrust) with more than 50% thrust if precooler/compressor available it lowers isp in favor of thrust (while enough of propellant income is available). P.S. with magnetic fusion (Deuterium-lithium6) ATTILA significantly better than thermal turbojet (isp is lower, but you can easy compensate with additional intakes)
  13. okder
    well Turbojet still worse than attila (if attila did not changed, in sandbox mode) on speed <300m/s and >1000m/s, or on any speed if just ignore thermal->electrical loss (inertial containment reactor 1.25). what needs to be fixed ISP->thrust balance (you don't need much isp on take off, but you need much thrust, may be use GIMBAL control to control thrust/isp balance instead of GIMBAL?, just experimental) velocityCurve { key = 0 1 0 0 key = 400 0.8 0 0 key = 800 0.9 0 0 key = 1700 0 0 0 //!!!! this needs fixing, it's wrong } curve should depends on reactor core temperature, i.e. higher temperature , then higher speed where thrust is good, lowest thrust (both takeoff and high speed) should be the same as ATTILA without thermal->electrical loss (with same ISP set, if not enough intake atmosphere, ISP should go higher (until reactor limit), thrust lower), to fix compressing issues, compressor module could be added to precooler(s) ,and precooler/compressors should require power, and they probably should influence on ATTILA too (i.e. ATTILA with atmosphere should perform worse than it is now) .
  14. okder
    More about turbojet balance: Direct Cycle Nuclear Turbojet,default sized (1.4MW, 6T), gives same OR MORE thrust than ThermalTurbojet+inertial Confined fusion(+ChargetParticleGen for stable sustaining reaction) all 1.25 sized (!8! MW, ~2.5T), i understand that ISP and mass ratio is better but why 6 mw (70%) power just thrown away and not influenced on thrust? (actually core temperature used incorrectly for speed curve and so for atmospheric purposes ISP is useless with current speed curve (again it's the same for both cases, which is wrong, as molecules expelled at high temperature should give more thrust at high aircraft speed, than 1600K molecules (at same high (1200 m/s) speed)), so ISP difference is lost too, because too little thrust at high speed, which is required to fly at high altitudes (or wings just not work). with small antimatter reactor this problem became even worse because of antimatter usage. i.e. thrust rises much slowly than reactor power usage, probably turbojet should be variable ISP/thrust because no point to give small thrust without usage abundant atmosphere at start stage. P.S. introduced bug (in 1.5.?) after FlameOut(out of atmosphere) engine can't be restarted (at least in space in other fuel mode).
  15. okder
    yes i understand that ATTILA with atmosphere overpowered(with atmospheric intake !not scoops!), so it could be fixed also. but it's better also to evaluate stock and mk2 expansion top highspeed air engines. (i think it easy to approximate how much energy is producing while fuel is burning, that energy is replaced as electrical/thermal reactor input, propellant is too easy approximated), i think they more powerful (but that does not mean they are realistic). there is a problem that currently in KSPIe are low tier (early accessible in career) (atomic fission) atmospheric jets, but no (since 1.5.) high tier (which should be in end of career) atmospheric jet (if you exclude ATTILA). i mean that for balance purposes you should compare top turbo/ram jet with ATTILA, when using magnetic containment fusion (in best energy mode) or antimatter reactor. part of problem also that at the end of career warp drive (for star travel, powered with !antimatter!) is available and no jet engine to get off from atmosphere on EVE. (i.e. for interstellar travel is used antimatter but for atmosphere acceleration is better to use liquid fuel burnup power(with oxidizer from atmosphere), because no engine to link with antimatter reactor with good performance)
  16. okder
    none detected - thrust still very low at 900m/s, so it's not possible to get any near orbital speeds on kerbol/Eve, but is easy possible with ATTILA (Even with same inertial containment fusion reactor), and ATTILA do use more atmospheric input for it (worse ISP) yea on 300 m/s ATTILA performance is worse now, but it does not matter, as >800m/s required for high atmosphere, and 0m/s on takeoff (in both cases ATTILA much outperform turbojet).
  17. okder
    no significant change detected for thermal turbojet, still much worse than ATTILA (take into account research for 1500 science (aircraft branch), which is only for turbojet)
  18. okder
    turbojet could have upgrade tech which allow it utilize same or slightly better performance than attila (because of no intermediate energy conversion needed) i repeat again that currently attila is better even working with inertial containment fusion, (i.e. even with pure loss of 70% energy), direct connection requirement to reactor would be logical drawback, but radial attachment should be allowed (to get several symmetrical turbojets)
  19. okder
    well now thermal turbojet is fully useless (even with inertial containment fusion - ATTILA is better, even electric turbine is better than thermal turbojet) with 1.25 antimatter reactor turbojet is pathetic compared to ATTILA same size. why its (tubojets) performance is worse with atmosphere(not intake limited) than with hydrogen propellant on same speed? P.S. there was a bug (1 month ago) with timewarp physics with asteroid, probably linked with kerbal core engine it was reported/fixed?
  20. okder
    usage of KAS fuel line (between two ships) gives same bug as docking.
  21. okder
    again information states that only neutron breeding tritium production exist(when all engines turned off) (less than 0.1% of reactor input), no tritium as product of reaction(which i think would be several % of input mass).
  22. okder
    this part i understand and breeding speed is too low for practical usage this part is not working or reactor and tritium storage should be specially connected to make it work properly?
  23. okder
    i again repeat that practically it's not working. i.e. tritium production is lower than many others reactions, but according to first page it should be larger. something tells me that is bug.
  24. okder
    well it means that stock resource concentration viewer shows data incompatible with KSPI? stock viewer(same as shows ore, but of course with water selection as resource) shows maximum water concentration there. i only mean that first page states that Helium3 Catalyzed D-D Fusion specifically should produce tritium (not only neutrons for additional surplus), but actually tritium production is (much) lower than some other reactions.
  25. okder
    I did plane to reach mun using only kerbal atmosphere, but still fact that ATTILA has same or superior properties(thrust/isp when speed is 0) with some of reactors looks unbalanced. and there is no ability to link several (two more precise) turbojets to one reactor without loosing ability to generate power or turbojets properties (thrust/isp) P.S. yea turbojet atmosphere performance depends on speed and with 1km/s it's much better than Attila if directly attached. still can't mine water on mun (East Farside Crater). can't produce uranium nitride and tritium is not produced by fusion reaction (Helium3 Catalyzed D-D Fusion)
×
×
  • Create New...