Jumberlack

Hi, is there a config setting that could prevent the diamagnetic antimatter container from exploding? If not, would you be willing and able to add such a setting? Any craft I have carrying any antihydrogen in a diamagnetic antimatter container that does anything more than sit on the launchpad/runway(ie, flying around, docking, etc) eventually gets blipped, leaving me with only a fading green message that the antimatter container ran out of power. I know I've got *plenty* of power, both stored and being generated, and the temps/g's are far lower than their max settable values. I'm thinking it might be caused by lag, but I have no evidence to support that hunch.

Is there any way to fix the jittery camera while eva walking around on Tarsiss? Every step my Kerbal takes is super clunky for me

Dude. Awesome. You rock for taking up the reins here. that being said, the toolbar button isn't showing up., same deal as kerbnub Any chance you know of a mod that adds, for lack of a better term, a fuel spigot near the runway? I'm imagining some sort of docking port that would allow you to refuel planes(from an inexhaustible fuel supply) and would cost funds to pull from in a career save. I guess my idea would be that you could land your spaceplane, refuel, recrew(with this mod) and take off again all without recovering or launching anything new.

found a minor issue while exploring Nero's moons: agrippa's config has a typo naming the localization definition for its subpolarregion biome. as it stands, it is missing a # on line 60 GameData/GPP/GPP_Planets/Agrippina.cfg

is there any way to park a barge in the oceans of kerbin with a drill or something and pump up large amounts of water?

@Astraph using tweakscale in kspie is not just not cheating, it's completely intended and almost required in some cases. btw the molten salt reactor is bae.

@Astraph yes USI reactors are their own thing. And also, working with low tier tech is against you in every way. You don't have any good reactors, the reactors you do have don't make much power, the radiators suck, and (most significantly) your thermal electric generator is crazy inefficient and makes oodles of waste heat. I'm sorry to say it but if you're looking for big power with your tech levels, the only good solution is to add more radiators and reactors. Eventually you'll get to the technological level such that you don't need a Christmas tree of radiators, but you aren't there yet. Also, I'm pretty sure the 1.25m fission reactor has a built-in TEG. Takeaway: you have a lot of multiplicative inefficiencies, you're probably going to need something like 10x the thermal power as electricity you need to make, accompanied by enough radiators to keep the cold bath cool enough to maintain that 10% efficiency. Have you scooped up all of the science Ceti and Iota have to offer first? Might be a good idea before heading off to other planets.

You may have some tech nodes which need to be unlocked, have you tried it in sandbox mode? Alternatively I think your propellant options may be limited by the reactor type upon which the thermal turbojet is attached, but I'm not 100% sure. If you allowed it, I would volunteer to spend some time bringing the wiki up to date. I'm kindof swamped in coursework right at the moment, but once this week is over and especially once the semester is over I'll have more time for writing/testing/browsing through the code and forum.

well assuming your craft isn't changing mass, either by staging, fuel consumption, or docking, or changing warp power by adding warp rings, the power required to warp has to do with the warp throttle. The closer you are to a gravity well, the lower your max warp speed will be. At warp speed c=1, it requires the least amount of energy per time, so any speed above or below that requires more and more energy the slower less than 1c or faster higher than 1c. So if you're trying to activate warp right next to Jool, it will take a lot more than if you were in the middle of nowhere because your max warp throttle will be limited to significantly less than 1c. as you get further away from planets, your max throttle will increase.

Would you be down for adding mercury/moho-like planetary resource configs for regolith on Icarus and Taranis, the first planets in Galileo's Planet Pack and the Grannus Expansion Packs respectively?

Hi, I'm trying to understand how this mod works, what is the reason behind the limited number of different resource channels and why must they be input in the cfg accompanied by a power of 2 up to 32?

If using wordpad, make a .txt file and paste that comment's hidden contents into it. Save the file as drillfix.txt somewhere within your game data folder. Rename file to be .cfg instead of .txt. Resume playing ksp

Hi, I'm playing on the most recent release for 1.4.5 and kerbnet seems to be misbehaving and I think KSPIE may be responsible, is anyone else having weird behavior with the narrow band scanner and its resource kerbnet access? Edit: I'm dumb

I have a few questions, and would be appreciative of any help. For the record I'm playing 0.55.0 for ksp 1.4.5, but idk if that really matters. 1. How do bays decide which specialist they get? For example if you have an industrial refinery and 3 engineers of different ranks onboard(elsewhere in the base), which one will buff which process? 2. Is the part efficiency reciever bonus on a per-part or per-bay basis? For example, if I have 1 MPU(3.75m) with all three bays set to smelter, and 1 Tundra industrial refinery with 3 bays active, is the bonus for all TIR bays (1+(3*3.767/4.48)) or is it instead (1+(3.767*3/(3*4.48)))? 3. Why does the last bay on the Tundra Industrial Refinery say "B3 Active Separator" despite the first two saying active bay? 4. I think this is just a bug but all the drills in the VAB info panel just list multiple resource harvesters for dirt. You can still toggle the separators when the drill is placed in a craft. 5. What are the maximum kolony statistics percentages? Will max productive rate increase indefinitely? Does the rate of increase slow down over time? I couldn't find much info about this on the wiki. 6. If I have an effectively infinite supply of ColonySupplies and enough Tundra Colonization modules to support the base population, is there any benefit at all of having habitation modules? Thanks for the mod, this is one of the best. EDIT: as an add on to the last question, when the kolonisation module 3.75m wiki page says it is rated for 12 kerbals in its life support extender module, what does that mean exactly?

After the semester ends and I have some time to play around with my desktop (which can run my modded KSP instance), I'll think about the performance specifics of using Karborundum in KSPIE. I will indeed look at the performance of torch drives and do the math on how much more energy it provides to the propellant (I think It's water?) given the input EC. It might also be a good idea to get a nod from @RoverDude, but I'm not an expert in the niceties and politics of modding cross compatibility. However, the main thing I wanted to hit on was that while it is an expensive resource, Karborundum itself is not prohibitively expensive for mid-game career players, nor is it (in my rough mental estimation) power dense enough to provide the fantastic levels of performance I was envisioning when I wrote my earlier post. That could be addressed by either changing up its ifs cargo tank density and reactor utilization rates, but that would just land us with very heavy Karborundum tanks. What about some sort of concentrated or distilled version of the resource that isn't super bulky but its potency and cost are increased drastically? On an entirely separate note, do you know if anyone has made or even started some sort of KSPIE simulation spreadsheet? I'm just hoping for a place to start at, but if need be, I'll make one from scratch. A lot of the info on the front page of the support thread is outdated or incomplete and I want to be able to run the numbers on theoretical propulsion schemes without having to load up ksp and actually make the ships.

I've got a suggestion idk if it's been asked before but how would you feel about this: some sort of unobtanium fuel that can only be used in sandbox and have it check all the right boxes: crazy high ISP, low mass, High thrust, de-sooting, removes wasteheat, usable in fusion reactor for stupid amounts of energy with barely any wasteheat etc etc. all the good things. I'm thinking about how in Karbonite, the Karborundum fuel is supposed to be prohibitively expensive and also crazy powerful. this would be taking that concept to a whole different level. as it stands, KSPIE is IMO the best way to do scifi in ksp but I feel as though with this one simple change it could allow for a more fantasy, space opera-like experience should the player decide to go that route. implementation-wise, it could be accessible as a contents upgrade for the cryo-tank which is barred behind an infeasibly huge amount of science in the tech tree (maybe say, a million science points). it could also be funny and have the tank change textures to one that has "I'm a cheater" written on the side instead of its contents' chemical name.

What is the tech node to upgrade positron tank capacity? I'm using the big one and despite the description saying it should hold 3072 max it only holds 96 in my career mode. In sandbox it has full 3072 capacity like it should. Edit: I did some experimenting and there are five tech nodes to do this, each one doubles the positron tank capacity: 1. High tech electrical systems 2. High power electrical systems 3. Experimental electrical systems 4. Exotic electrical systems 5. Extreme electrical systems These tech nodes don't say that they affect anything to do with the positron tank, at least for me.

I'm experiencing a bug involving the IFS cryogenic tanks when placed in symmetry. to reproduce, launch a craft with a probe core and two IFS Cryogenic Tank (CT2504) in symmetry around the core. without having changed the content settings, the tank(s) that I don't physically place become filled with fusion pellets when the craft actually loads onto the pad. the one tank that I did place is still filled with LH2. upon reverting to VAB, it provides a bit more insight into what's happening. .. when selecting through different contents settings on the one tank I placed, starting with liquid ammonia on the far left, and I click the next button, the selector bar moves over and says it should be Argon, but the actual contents still says liquid ammonia. then, after one more click over to CO, the tank switches to Argon. The pattern continues in such a way that I need to click the next button twice to get the tank to actually switch. What is interesting is that when scrolling through the content settings on one of the tanks which was placed by the symmetry, you still have to click the next button twice to get the tank to actually change contents, but the contents setting bar itself has two entries for every chemical. so, starting on the far left at liquid ammonia, clicking the next button, the tank stays on ammonia, and the selector bar moves over just a little bit to another NH3 entry. then, clicking next brings you to argon, same thing, two entries in the selector bar. On these secondary tanks(that were placed by symmetry) the tank contents always corresponds to what the selector bar says, unlike the one tank I place. in both cases, you have to click next twice to get to the next chemical actually in the tank. I hope this description is enough to point you in the right direction and get this fixed.

*disclaimer, the imgur link you quoted is broke, I edited it to work in my post. also it's weird because I made especially sure to make the selection, then the fullness, then tweakscale, then symmetry.

ok this might be a fuel switch bug but my cryo tanks are spontaneously switching tank selection and fullness. between the time I push launch and the time the craft loads in. then after reverting flight back to VAB, the new tank selections remain. spoiler for readers who like grinding for kerbucks the long, tedious way. those are instructions should you wanna try to reproduce it. I'm running IFS 3.6.3 and KSPIE 1.19.4 I took pre launch and post revert screenshots, take note of the resource readout on the bottom and the launch price. Even though the first one says launch cost is just under 25 mil, the actual price of putting it out on the launchpad is the post revert price. As an example, some of my empty HTP tanks become full of liquid fluorine, and full water tanks become full of HTP. somewhere a tank switches to fusion pellets, idk it's weird.

So after all that time I spent designing, testing, and sending most of the way to Tellumo, a spaceplane specifically for landing on Lili before deorbiting into the atmosphere from hell, I could have skipped the vertical grounding thrusters? Oh well, I think I can eva to disassemble the nervs... Real talk though, I've been having so much fun with this planet pack; there always seems to be so many places to go and things to do. I'm playing with USI MKS and LS installed, so ships that are destined to Gauss and beyond get big quickly in order to support even a few kerbals for those kind of transfer times. The challenge is real and I love it. But on the other end of the spectrum, with the plethora of celestial bodies, many with oxygen-less atmospheres, along with the vast distances in this mod, it really pairs nicely with KSPIE for the nuclear atmospheric engines, as well as the end game high-speed drive systems for expedient travels to the outer planets and Grannus. tl;dr Love the mod!

@mbaryu one of the free electron lasers does this. Also the QSR produces antimatter and positrons as byproducts of power production

that seems to be at least part of the case, however for an 8GW inline thermal reciever, the additional mass(that is, mass which is added only when the TEG and heat source are touching) is like 10 tons. but when i used a target fusion reactor scaled to provide approximately 8GW thermal, the additional mass is significantly more. I just wish the mass addition was documented better if it is a feature because I really don't understand it. on a completely unrelated note, @FreeThinker : I hate to bug you about this particular issue again because I feel like I'm nagging the slow way and there is a much more effective github-y way of requesting small code fixes but I am still not entirely positive I know how to do such a process and my coding skills are pretty elementary. That being said... I'm 86% sure line 55 of "KSP-Interstellar-Extended/FNPlugin/Resources/MagneticFieldDefinitionsHandler.cs" should read: .Select(m => new MagneticFieldDefinition(m.GetValue("celestialBodyName"), double.Parse(m.GetValue("strengthMult")))).ToList(); instead of how it currently reads: .Select(m => new MagneticFieldDefinition(m.GetValue("celestialBodyName"), double.Parse(m.GetValue("celestialBodyName")))).ToList(); I'm not completely sure that would work, all I know is that the magnetic field config you added a while back for gauss didn't change antimatter collection capabilities there, and this change seems like it makes sense to be the culprit. if that's not it, I'll try to keep learning more about c# and ksp api until I can figure it out, until then, happy hunting and thanks for being awesome!

ok this is probably tweakscale's fault and it might apply to more things but I'm having some weird mass readouts when tweaking the size of the inline thermal receiver. to reproduce, in VAB place mk2 probe core, then thermoelectric generator, inline thermal receiver 2x (the long one) then tweak the size of the receiver up and down.the vessel readout in the bottom left and the engineer's report in the bottom right both say different things and it all seems really wonky and wrong

If you just want powerful engines, you would be better off using the karborundum torch drives from the Karbonite mod