trias702

I'm also very keen to know how OPM is working in 1.3, using the latest 1.3 Kopernicus. Have you encountered any more oddities in your testing? Am very keen to make the jump to 1.3, and this is the only mod still holding me back.

Thank you so, so much for doing this, all of us 1.22 users greatly appreciate it! Thank you very much! I will test it out shortly. Just a quick question, does this version fix the bug where having a reactor which creates charged particles connected to any kind of generator would show incorrect Theoretical Supply values in the Megajoules Management Window (all of my screenshots above show wrong Theoretical Supply when there are charged particles present, but I was using KSPI 1.13 for 1.22 the whole time)?

The only reason I can offer is that a lot of the 'core' mods have yet to be (officially) updated for 1.3, so a very large number of users are still forced to stay with 1.2.2, even against our will. (believe me, I would love to update to 1.3 if I could, but a few critical mods are still 1.22 only, like FAR, OPM, Scatter/SVT, Trajectories, etc)

Amazing work, thank you! Any chance at all that this will be backported for KSP 1.22?

I used to have the same setup :), 3x 1280x1024, and it was amazing for X-Plane and Euro Truck simulator, but a pain for everything else, so I switched to 2560x1080. The downside is, I can no longer enjoy X-Plane or ETS because my brain misses having the peripheral view of the 3x screens. But KSP is quite awesome in 21:9

Not that I can think of. I do play at a resolution of 2560 x 1080 (21:9) so maybe the game engine automatically stretches things wider for ultra widescreen?

So just to make sure I understand: if you have a reactor which outputs charged particles, a thermal electric generator will also use those charged particles, but at a lower efficiency (whatever the efficiency of that generator is, 62.84% in my example). If you also attach a charged particle generator to the same reactor, then the charged particles (which in my original example was 90% of 18 MW, so 16.2 MW) will be used for electricity but at a higher efficiency (up to 90%??) while the remaining thermal energy will continue to be used at 62.84%? So, in my original example, charged particle theoretical max is: 18 MW * 90% * 62.84% = 10.18 MW, but with a charged particle generator it becomes: 18 MW * 90% * 90% = 14.58 MW of usable electricity. Am I correct in my understanding of things? What about if you have two reactors (say two pebble bed reactors), and only one thermal electric generator, will that generator convert 65% of each reactor's thermal output into electricity?

Apologies for asking more questions, but I'm having some difficulty understanding how the more advanced reactors work when it comes to electricity generation from thermal vs. charged particles. I set up a simple vessel which has 1 antimatter initiated fusion reactor, connected to 1 regular thermal electric generator. According to the part description, the thermal electric generator does not use charged particles to generate Megajoules, so it should not use the charged particles in any way. However, it appears that it does in fact use them to generate electricity which doesn't seem to make sense. Screenshot attached: I'm pretty sure I understand what is going on here. Overall reactor power is 18 MW, and the generator efficiency is 62.84%, so 18 * 62.84% = 11.311 MW is the maximum electricity obtainable. Currently, this reactor has a weighting of 10% thermal, 90% charged particle, and there is a current demand for 4.07 MW of power. So, the charged particle contribution is: (4.07 * 90%) / 62.84 % = 5.83 MW, and the thermal is: (4.07 * 10%) / 62.84% = 0.648 MW, this gives us an overall reactor utilisation of: (5.83 + 0.648) / 18 ~ 36%. Am I correct in my understanding of this? Assuming I'm correct, my main question is: why are charged particles being utilised at all for electricity given this vessel has no charged particle generator onboard?

I would really love a feature like this! Please let me know if I can help test in any way.

I have a quick question about how KSPI-E and Near Future Electrical mix and match Megajoules vs EC/sec. Can you power KSPI-E engines which require MW to run, using Near Future reactors? In my current game, I have a vessel which has the DT Vista engine, which requires 4 MW to run, and I am currently generating 6000 EC/sec with Near Future reactors on the same ship (which should translate to 6 MW), however the Vista doesn't work because it claims there is no electricity on the ship. Am I only able to power the Vista using a KSPI-E reactor+generator?

That makes sense, thank you, but what is the current KSPI effect to electric engine thrust/ISP when when it cannot draw up to it's max MW input (ignoring cooling for the moment)? So if I have a 2.5 engine which wants 32 MW, but I've only got a reactor capable of 8, does it scale down thrust, ISP, or both?

I'm not sure I understand by what you mean with "small power request do it partial or not at all", could I please trouble you to provide an example of how that works? I think I have question which deals with this: I note that the KSPI-E VASIMR, when scaled up to 2.5m size, draws 32 MW of power. However, if I connect it to a ship with a reactor of only 8 MW, I note that the VASIMR will still work, I can bring it up to full throttle and see in its details that it's asking for only 8 MW, which is the reactor max, even though it would draw 32 MW if I had 32 MW available. But the fact that it still fires with only 8 MW, does this mean that it's running at less thrust/ISP? (in this case, 75% less thrust, since (1 - 8/32) = 75%)?

Thank you for explaining that. My only remaining question about this is that 4.23% usage which I see under reactor status. Am I correct in understanding that the 4.23% cannot rise above 5% based on what you said earlier? One other unrelated question: I note that you have said that KSPI-E reduces reactor output by a factor of 500 when Near Future is installed. But does it also reduce the power draw of KSPI-E electric engines as well? I note that with Near Future installed, the KSPI-E VX-500 VASIMR engine, when scaled up to 2.5m, draws 32 MW as maximum draw. However, aside from the antimatter reactors, all of the stock KSPI-E reactors only generate a max of ~8 MW (with NF installed), so you can only run the the KSPI-E 2.5m VASIMR with an antimatter or higher reactor. Is this by design? I also note that the Near Future 2.5m VASIMR runs on only 2 MW, which seems to make it a lot more economical/better than the KSPI-E 2.5m VASIMR. Not sure if this a bug maybe, and the KSPI-E ion engines have not been scaled down for MW usage the same way KSPI-E reactors have been scaled down?

@FreeThinker Thank you kindly for taking the time to explain things to me, I really appreciate it. I have a few more questions though based on your explanations: Is that 5% of the total reactor wattage, or just the Thermal Power (so not including Charged Power)? In this case, the reactor total power is 1440 MW, so the total amount which can go to electricity production is 1440 * 5% = 72 MW, or 218.9 * 5% = 10.95 MW? Looking at the reactor control window, I do now understand that the 9.255 Thermal is from the overall reactor status percentage (4.23%) of the total Thermal (218.9 MW). What determines the split between the Thermal/Charged? Is that hardcoded into the parts file? Regardless, I see that the reactor overall status is 4.23%, so 218.9MW * 4.23% = 9.25 and 1.221GW * 4.23% = 51.6 MW, so that part makes sense. How is this 4.23% calculated and what influences it? I'm assuming that this is the 5% ceiling which you mentioned earlier for antimatter which is not connected to direct charged particle propulsion? So, because the Megajoules system knows it needs 35MW to satisfy all current consumers, and it knows current efficiency is 57.52%, it solves an equation to determine that it needs 9.25 from Thermal and 51.6 from Charged to satisfy all demand? And (9.25 + 51.6) / 1440 ~ 4.23%, so I'm guessing that's the status value from above? If so, then this makes a lot more sense now Can you please explain how you're calculating the 46.7 MW? And this means that 46.7 MW/sec is the absolute maximum electricity which can be consumed on this vessel without depleting MJ/EC reserves?

Hello, I'm quite new to KSPI-E, and have been playing around with certain parts to get a better understanding of how the numbers are calculated in the various Management Displays such that I understand how everything is being generated. I thought that I had a good understanding of the basics, such as attaching a basic Thermal Electric Generator to a molten salt reactor, and then using both of those to power a basic Near Future Propulsion VASIMR thruster, which eats 2 MW/sec (2000 EC/s). In this setup, everything made sense. I then tried using the KSPI-E VASIMR engine and the numbers still seemed sane. However, when trying to use an antimatter reactor with the basic Thermal Electric Generator, none of the numbers make any sense. I've attached a screen shot of my rocket in orbital flight, showing my VX-500 VASIMR requesting 34.857 MW of electricity. This consumption is correctly reflected in the Megajoules Management Display. However, nothing else in the displays seems to make sense. For example, the reactor's maximum Thermal Power is shown to be 218.9 MW, yet the Thermal Electric generator shows Max Power=41.4 MW, which doesn't seem correct. Isn't Max Power supposed to be 218.9 * Efficiency(57.52%) = 125.91? And why is the power demand in the ThermalPower Management only 9.25 MW? Why is Theoretical Supply in Megajoules Management at 76.5? Does this have something to do with the 51.6 MW of ChargedParticles current supply? I'm using KSP 1.22 with KSPI-E 1.13.10, and Near Future Propulsion/Electricity (which I know reduces KSPI-E power draws by a factor of 500, although I don't think that's the issue here). If anyone can please help me understand these numbers, I would greatly appreciate it. Screenshot below: