etmoonshade

This is a little gem of a mod pack - needs more attention. The simple things are the best, and I look forward to trying QuickContracts - I was just wondering why this functionality wasn't in stock.

Excellent - thank you. The steps I took sorted that problem, but it's good to know I can get rid of it entirely. As a more general question, has anyone stumbled across a problem where your reactors continually run at 100% power when hooked to a generator? I finally hit the tech level where I get the graphene radiators so it isn't too horrible, but it'd be nice to conserve the fuel.

Question for FreeThinker: What's the purpose of the RealFuels folder in your extended configuration mod? Because it's absolutely wreaking havoc with pretty much everything I have - first, Procedural Parts deletes everything but the "RealFuels" tank (which causes anything previously using those tanks to go poof.) Removing all the RF configs from the Procedural Parts folder fixed that, but then I go to land something only to find that monopropellant's density has changed. I've deleted all the RF-specific bits out of the RF resourcesfuel.cfg, but based on what I'm seeing in there, I question the need to have it at all.

*excited noises* I offer encouragement. I'd offer cookies as well, but you're a bit far away for them to survive the trip.

I said this on IRC, but I'll toss it here for posterity: "It's worth a shot. The only thing you have to lose is the time it'll take for you to reload the entire cache."

Yeah, there's got to be something done about that - that's just wonky, counterintuitive, and makes it so there's no real advantage to using antimatter. That also explains other little wierdnesses I've noticed and chalked up to me "doing something wrong" somewhere. Do we know if there's a particular reason he capped thermal rockets at 3ks Isp? If it's just a game balance issue, maybe apply some sort of scaling factor after 3ks to give it a curve. Also, did the equations used change? Because I can't make any sense out of the numbers I'm getting in testing. For a NTR with a 1.25m Fission reactor, I'm getting a vacuum Isp of ~2700s... calculation based on the tooltips is giving me 2100s though. And obviously the cap is making the numbers for antimatter thermal rockets really weird. </early morning ramble>

Unfortunately, this mod used to be able to take screenshots from the perspective of the attached camera with no additional mods - it's actually one of the biggest things I loved about L-Tech.

So, a (possible) bug report, and I'd love independent confirmation.GreeningGalaxy from the IRC reproduced this on her install (which is quite a bit different from mine.) My setup is as follows: 1.25m Generator 1.25m Fission Reactor 2.5m Capsule * 2.5m Antimatter LFO Tank 4x Huge Radiator 3.75m Generator * 3.75m Antimatter Reactor 3.75m Thermal Rocket In the place of the *ed items, I have also placed a Deuterium/Tritium Cryostat and a 3.75m Fusion Reactor, respectively. With the antimatter reactor, at a core temperature of 646146K, I get ~4.7MN thrust ASL, and it doesn't change throughout the flight. With the fusion reactor, at a core temperature of 23078K, I get ~4.6MN thrust on launch, rising to 11.5MN once in space. With a 3.75m fission reactor, at a core temperature of 15590K, I get 973kN thrust ASL. It won't take off in this configuration. So yeah, I should be getting WAY more thrust out of the antimatter reactor (and honestly probably LESS thrust out of the fusion reactor) unless there's something at play that would legitimately cause the issue. An interesting note: I'm not sure how relevant the equation is, but 135GW is exactly the power output of an unupgraded antimatter reactor... but she was running a fully upgraded one. Take from that what you will.

Extremely impressive, and I wish I'd known about this earlier. Specs: Intel i7-4770K @ 4.0GHz 16GB DDR3-2133 GEForce GTX 660Ti Windows 7 Professional (x64) KSP loading off an SSD 1.65GB GameData folder With ATM: Before -force-opengl: ~3GB RAM on load, crashes every couple of hours on scene changes. After -force-opengl: ~1.6GB RAM on load, no crashes (though I didn't leave ATM in for long.) Without ATM, with -force-opengl: ~2GB RAM on load, no crashes so far. If it weren't for the fact that apparently there's a performance hit, I'd say this setting should be standard. This did more for me than ATM ever did.

ferram4: Not sure what else it fixed, but the new dev build certainly fixed the issues I had with Procedural Parts (tanks, specifically) separating from the decouplers. I'll take it - thanks.

Edit: So I started fiddling around with the settings, and a couple of things happened. First, somehow, my numbers worked out multiple times so that wet mass = 2 * dry mass. I didn't sit down and do the math to figure out why this was, but once I stopped mathing and started just punching numbers in, things started making sense. Second, after some twiddling I realized... unitsPerT doesn't refer to the units per t of fuel... it refers to units contained per t of dry mass. I'm not sure why this wasn't obvious, but it made calculations work a whole lot better. So I retract my question, but I've left it below. ;p

Yeah, KSP-I does a thing where parts (reactors and radiators come immediately to mind) get an upgrade once you hit certain points in the tech tree, and you can upgrade old parts using science. The problem is that it's static and (as far as I can tell) requires the different upgrades to be defined in the files. What I was thinking was something a lot more freeform - instead of having an across-the-board upgrade, it'll let you tweak and enhance some of your favorite parts instead (I know I'd totally put some work into the PB-ION, for example.) What I'm -not- sure of (based on looking at the API) is whether you can modify parts on the fly like that, or if every "upgrade" would require you to reload the parts - hence why I consider this a mod request.

As long as contracts are always doable, science is always gainable - just do the outsourced R&D strategy. That's part of how I've ended up with so much science, in fact. And I definitely don't suggest that this end up in the stock game for exactly the reason you suggest - but I suspect that it'll appeal heavily to people who don't share ships.

Another excellent idea. My general problem is that science feels too hard to start, and is WAY too easy to gain in the late game. I don't mind the latter so much as the former, because I like getting to the really fun parts as soon as possible. But once I have the tech tree filled, out, there's just... no reason to gain more science. The conversion from science to funds is too tiny (and is arguably WAY too generous in the other direction,) conversion to reputation feels useless, and leaving it as is just gains you more of a useless resource.

So we were talking on IRC, and I was complaining about how I've got 18k science and nothing to use it for. We came up with two ideas (and I'm not going to blame anyone else for these.) Idea 1: !!SCIENCE!! Rockets Simple concept - make an engine that uses the universal pool of science as a reaction mass. I'll point out that I have absolutely no clue how (or if) this would work code-wise - it fits in with the general silliness of KSP though, and gives a really good reason to keep collecting science. Depending on the ISP and thrust of the !!SCIENCE!! Rocket, you might even be able to use science to get science. Idea 2: Upgradeable Parts This is another concept I'm not sure is even possible: Basically, use <x> science to give a flat 1.05 or 0.95 multiplier to a particular "stat" on a part: Mass, ISP, Thrust, EC/s, etc. The advantage to being able to modify any of the properties by a set amount should make a mod for this universal. Examples of how it would work: The LV-N Atomic Rocket Motor makes for a wonderful orbital maneuvering engine. Great ISP, decent thrust... but it's a bit heavy. Using this mod, you could spend 10000 science to drop the mass from 2.25 to 2.1375. Not a huge difference, but enough to squeeze a bit of Delta-V out of it. Alternately, you could spend 10000 science to raise the thrust from 60kN to 63kN. Again, not HUGE, but it's a way to spend that extra science AND a reason to keep gathering science. Another thing you could tweak is the cost - 10k science to drop the cost of it from 8700 to 8265. Not worth the science in this case, but if you end up with some of the pricier KSP-I parts, it might be (the Alcubierre drives are in the millions, for example.) For balance, you could either make it so each successive upgrade (either per-part or globally) costs more science, or you could tweak the formula from a simple multiplier to something that places a limit on how much you can tweak a part. Thoughts?

Love the quote - this made me giggle harder than it should have. That said, the giant robotspaceship thing works better with Bill or Bob: "Get in the spaceship, Bill. Bill, shut up and get in the ****ing spaceship!"

Three things. First: Awesome mod. It's quickly becoming one of my must-haves since I grabbed it back in 0.25. Second: Is it possible to disable the achievements function? It doesn't necessarily bother me to have the button, so if I could have a thing in the options to disable any notifications that'd be neat - I use Blizzy's (well, formerly his) Achievements mod instead. Third: Do multiple yellow Lazors increase the resource transfer speed? If not, can that be a thing? Oh man, they do. Sweet. Okay, so I'll change this to a question that came up from my array of 200 Lazors I had to use to transfer stuff at any decent rate: can I make a feature request for a stronger Lazor of some sort, especially for resource transfer? Something heavy, but something that transfers resources at a higher rate than the small ones? Anything that decreases part count is desirable, of course.

No, because the DT-Vista is way too expensive. Actually though, that seems almost correct. The concept seems the same - use a reaction just outside the engine to create thrust. I imagine you'd have a pure liquid fuel tank plus whatever antimatter you have onboard (possibly some internal storage, depending on how much antimatter the reaction uses?) My thought was that it'd be decent thrust (certainly enough to use for a SSTO,) but probably fairly poor Isp compared to some of the engines that use either the core heat or energy from A/M - maybe 800s to match a NERVA, with a ratio that gives you decent mileage out of 1g of antimatter.

This is half feature request, half suggestion: Create an engine that utilizes antimatter directly, without the "middleman" of having an A/M reactor. I've got tanks stuffed quite full of antimatter, but I don't want to put a multi-thousand credit A/M reactor on my SSTO probe launcher that isn't recoverable. I guess the concept would be a direct annihilation reaction - x units of antimatter + x units of liquid fuel = y units of thrust. I'm not going to be picky - just a suggestion to give a reason to farm the antimatter for more than just sustainable trips.

I end up skipping versions. All the mods I have are from 0.23. Kinda fell out of it/life happened/etc, then I came back and picked it up again. I've got 6 mods unaccounted for on my list, with another 4 that "work" but aren't actually updated. ... I have too many mods.

I looked up this issue, and found the following: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/91051 This would be great information... except I don't have a mouse with a scroll wheel, and getting one is not an option. Is there a way to scroll the part information without a scroll wheel? Clicking on the scroll bar closes the pinned info window, and I haven't found any keys that work.

So it does, but I'm still hoping for an update of some sort just in case.

Excellent. I'm getting back into KSP, and of course the day I do so, it updates so all my favorite mods are suddenly broken.

Are there plans for updating this mod for 0.25 as well? I'm hoping so.

I'm with the other people hoping for an update. I'm just getting back into KSP, and L-Tech was one of my must-have mods.