newvegasmatt

It is not tied to SRBs, I had the same issue without SRBs. But it was made worse with them. As I said, a log file would not help in this situation. I personally checked the logs of multiple crashes, and they did not mention All Yall past the loading of the mod. However it was 100% this mod that was causing the issues. The crashes were caused by memory leaks leading to an access violation and Unity crash.

@triple cheeseburger I just came across this mod, and I have to say that I absolutely LOVE it! From a gap filling stance, it is almost perfect, more on that in a second. I noticed in previous posts that you asked for feedback. I do have some, and pretty much all of it is very easy to fix. My biggest suggestions are balance, use case, and compatibility. (In addition to finishing the Arcjets!!! Those sound awesome!) I apologize in advance for how long and wordy this will be, I will admit I had a little fun with this. Note, that all of the numbers I have listed as suggested changes, I have been using in my own game (with the exception of the Caesium) and love the position of the engines with these new numbers. EDIT: I changed a few numbers after further testing. I will make what was editted. Balance: This is the biggest issue, but is also the easiest to fix luckily. This all revolves around cost. In a nutshell, most of these engines are WAY too cheap. Like an order of magnitude too cheap. (though the FEEP is pretty good) I'm going to go deep into the weeds and analysis the cost of each engine, its propellant, and similar engines in stock, RLA, and NFP. I'll use the config names for the engines for ease of locating the files and numbers. (sorry not sorry for the below info dump) Note: I will use the chart below to reference the use case section as well as the cost balance section: PPT_22: 50 funds, 0.04 mass, 0.48 thrust, 1370 isp, 341.765 EC, solid fuel PPT_33: 112.5 funds, 0.09 mass, 1.08 thrust, 1370 isp, 341.765 EC, solid fuel rj_engine_big: 90 funds, 0.07 mass, 1.5 thrust, 415 isp, 1 EC, monoprop (2.8 EC/s) rj_engine_small: 15 funds, 0.015 mass, 0.3 thrust, 395 isp, 1 EC, monoprop (0.8 EC/s) SEE_FEEP_engine: 5500 funds, 0.15 mass, 0.8 thrust, 10200 isp, 1 EC, liquidindium (see last section) (40 EC/s) SEE_rj_rcs: 18 funds, 0.013 mass, 0.1 thrust, 365 isp, 1 EC, monoprop (0.4 EC/s) Now for comparable engines: STOCK- ionengine: 8000 funds, 0.25 mass, 2 thrust, 4200 isp, 18 EC, Xenon (8.74 EC/s) NFP- ionXenon: 3910 funds, 0.2 mass, 2.1 thrust, 6380 isp, 178.758 EC, Xenon NFP- ionArgon: 1950 funds, 0.1 mass, 1.5 thrust, 2200 thrust, 0.257 EC, Argon NFP- mpdt_0625: 9230 funds, 0.33 mass, 47.3 thrust, 2600 isp, 115.139 EC, Lithium NFP- vasmir_0625: 8190 funds, 0.35 mass, 3.67 thrust, 6000 isp, 2.86 EC, Argon NFP- pit_0625: 7002 funds, 0.25 mass, 14.8 thrust, 3500 isp, 0.827 EC, Argon NFP- rcsblock_pulsedplasma_01: 10 funds, 0.01 mass, 0.12 thrust, 1370 isp, 341.765 EC, Solid Fuel NFP- rcsblock_mpdt_single_01: 100 funds, 0.01 mass, 0.25 thrust, 2000 isp, 60.954 EC, Lithium NFP- rcsblock_hall_01: 150 funds, 0.008 mass, 0.15 thrust, 1680 isp, 0.133 EC, Argon RLA- small_resistojet: 3250 funds, 0.15 mass, 6.6 thrust, 575 isp, 1.525 EC, monoprop Given all of the above, there are several things we can see as far as cost goes. First off, the FEEP engine looks pretty good. It has a high ISP, but very low thrust, and the cost looks mostly fine, 5500 could remain. Though I might increase it a little to say 7500, to be closer to the ion engine, but not needed. Regarding the rj engines, they are far too cheap. 15 funds for the small and 90 for the big are hilarious. Thats less than an rcs block for a relatively advanced, highly efficient, electric engine with a built in monoprop feed system. Bare minimum it needs to be as expensive as a monoprop engine + a little extra. RLA has a couple small monoprop engines that are 150 and 900 funds, which is a good starting point. BUT, RLA also has a resistojet thruster, and it is 36 times more expensive. I suggest changing the price for these engines to 2250 for the large, and 775 for the small. That represents a much more sensible cost for these relatively advanced engines. Moving on to the PPT engines, oh are they cool. But my GOD are they a bargain. 50 and 112.5 funds are very low. I understand they are "cheap" and "disposable," but that should play into their performance and limitation of fuel. When it comes down to it, they are still advanced technology that requires precise timing, electrical work, machining, and software. They might be cheap in the world of electric propulsion, but they are NOT sepratron cheap. I would simply multiply the current costs by 10, to give 500 funds for the 22, and 1250 funds for the 33. Lastly the rj rcs, its not too bad. It falls a little under the NFP rcs blocks in performance, but also doesn't need fancy fuels. I would increase it to 50 funds. Increasing the cost will still allow these engines to be relatively cheap options when compared to the NFP engines, especially when you factor in the cheap and simple fuels they use (FEEP excluded). Use Case: I believe this has been mentioned previously by others, but some of these engines have limited use cases beyond just wanting to use a cool looking engine. The main reasons why being thrust, ISP, and EC usage. (This is also assuming cost is adjusted as discussed above, as that is honestly the most important issue) I will again go through the engines one by one, making suggestions as I go, along with reasoning for the suggestions. FEEP This one is quick, because again it seems fairly balanced with a good use case. It has less thrust than a DAWN, but higher ISP. Cool. But, its mass is a bit low, and the thrust is very small. The mass is half that of the NFP engines. I would increase the mass, and give the engine a little extra thrust to match. I suggest increasing the mass to 0.2, and the thrust to 1.1. This should increase overall EC/s to 55 exactly. (Edited) Resistojets These need love. Look at what you give up/gain versus the other options. Compared to the DAWN, it really is in a rough spot. You get less thrust, less isp and a worse fuel type. All you gain is less mass, and lower cost. Lets change some stuff. Again, I refer to the RLA resistojet. Admittedly, its OP compared to real life, but its much better in terms of balance; it has a defined use case. A resistojets use case is very simple; cheap, more powerful than an ion drive, higher TWR than the ion , same fuel as rcs, lower power usage, and more efficient than chemical engines. The RLA resistojet succeeds in all 6 areas. Yours fails in two of them, thrust and isp. Lets fix that. The DAWN has a thrust of 2, RLA rj has 6.6. How about 4.5 thrust for the big SEE rj, this is three times the current amount. We should increase the mass to 0.14 to keep the mass a little lighter than the RLA, but heavier than the puff engine in stock ksp. For the small SEE rj, lets increase the thrust to 0.9 and again double the mass, so 0.03. BUT, lets give a little incentive to use the small rj, since they are the same "size" (size0, 0.625m). Lets give the small SEE rj a slightly higher TWR over the big one, which can be seen in the lower efficiency too. Lets give the small one a little extra thrust, and give it 1.2 thrust, leading to a 40 TWR compared to the big rj 32.1 TWR (RLA has TWR of 44). Lastly, the isp needs to increase a little bit. Again, we want our use case to allow a higher isp than chemical alternatives. RLA uses 575, which does seem a bit high. Lets use 470 for the small SEE rj, which places it just beyond most chemical engines, and right at the theoretical limit for LH2/O engines. Then lets use 515 isp for the big one, to incentivize its use. The added isp will also offset the increased thrust, and therefor not change EC too much. (edited) To conclude this section, the changes are: rj_engine_small: Thrust to 1.2, mass to 0.03, isp to 470 rj_engine_big: Thrust to 4.5, mass to 0.14, isp to 515 These changes will give these engines a fantastic set of use cases PPT The pulsed plasma engines are really neat, they just need a few tweaks to give them more incentive to be used. Their distinct use case is: very cheap, very light, relatively high isp, highish TWR, no added fuel needs, accessible EC needs, with the downside of limited solid fuel. Essentially, they are place-and-play-petit-probe-propulsion. From this perspective, they also take inspiration from the NFP PPT thrusters, but a little too much inspiration. I understand they are thematically 4 NFP PPT thrusters bolted together, but I think we should differentiate a little. The SEE PPT engines are, well, engines, not small thrusters. We can make them feel like engines with some tweaks. Plus, in real life making an engine bigger usually involves more wires, computers, software, and structural support than just strapping them together. So it makes a lot of sense that 4 or 9 single thrusters strapped together would weight more than 4 or 9 thrusters. You have to wire them together, make the wire frame, coat it all in shielding, and so on. Lets fix that. The isp and EC needs are perfect. Although the fuel amounts on board could use a little extra oomph. If the thrusters get 1 solid fuel per unit, why not up that to 1.5 per unit. This gives them a little more burn time, while still having an overall limit to burn time compared to things like the ion, resistos, and other NFP engines. Mass and thrust also need a little tweaking. First, mass needs to go up. Again, these are advanced engines that use a lot of wire, magnets, and metal. I like that each part uses the mass divided by 4 and 9, representing the number of thrusters. Essentially each thruster with the base SEE numbers weighs 0.01, nice, I like even numbers. Lets increase the mass to 0.015 each, so the 22 is 0.06 mass and the 33 is 0.135 mass. This keeps them much lighter than the DAWN and NFP alternative, while still making a little more sense. Next, thrust. We double the mass, lets double the thrust right? Well not so fast. DAWN has a TWR of 8, the original SEE PPT have 12. Matching 12 would place it at 0.96 and 2.16 thrust for the 22 and 33. Lets make each "PPT engine unit" have a mass of 0.015, and a thrust of 0.3, and 1.5 fuel. This would give a TWR of 20 instead of 12. This would further differentiate these engines from both the DAWN and a cluster of the NFP PPT rcs blocks. Using this formula, the 22 has a new thrust of 1.2, and the 33 has a new thrust of 2.7. (edited) To conclude this section, the changes are: PPT_22: Thrust to 1.2, mass to 0.06, fuel to 6 PPT_33: Thrust to 2.7, mass to 0.135, fuel to 13.5 Each "PPT engine unit": Mass of 0.015, thrust of 0.3, fuel of 1.5 These changes further differentiate these engines from the DAWN and NFP PPT, and make them feel like designated propulsion systems. And of course, they will feel like proper place-and-play-petite-probe-propulsion systems. Compatibility: My only suggestion here is regarding the choice of resource/fuel for the new FEEP engines. I see that you have been back and forth on this topic since their inception. You initially had Caesium as the resource (with a neat green flame), then changed it to liquid Indium (and changed to a bluish flame). At this point in KSPs development, the modding scene is established and logical. Mods that utilize existing modding framework tend to do better and are more compatible, which ultimately most players just care about compatibility. The community resource pack (CRP) is an excellent example. It is universally loved, and used. Given that this mod will be downloaded 95% of the time by people that also use the NFP modpack, I see no really valid reason why this mod should differentiate itself by using a native resource. Swapping to liquidIndium, I think at least, should be reversed. First of all, there is the issue of keeping Indium in a molten state, which would require a lot of EC and weight of heating elements. But even disregarding that, its not in the CRP. Caesium is in the CRP. (see below) (Also its melting point is much lower, so that would make more sense too) RESOURCE_DEFINITION { name = Caesium abbreviation = #LOC_CRP_Caesium_Abbreviation displayName = #LOC_CRP_Caesium_DisplayName density = 0.00193 flowMode = ALL_VESSEL transfer = PUMP isTweakable = true isVisible = true unitCost = 77 volume = 1 } My suggestion here would be to revert to the use of Caesium as the resource for this engine set, and adjust the tanks/mod to use the CRP values (density, cost, etc..) This will ensure compatibility when large modpacks are installed, and will allow your mod to have enhanced features like refueling or extra resource tanks without putting any extra effort in on your end. Its a win-win. Bonus, Caesium burns a very similar color to the current waterfall effects, so you wouldn't even need to change that Sorry for the long post. I really like this mod and want to see it thrive and gain traction. You have done a wonderful job! I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.

Can both of you elaborate on this regarding the memory issues. I am just curious about this issue.

This is my first ever post, and I did it because I used to love this mod. I can confirm the previous post is accurate, and I did extensive testing to verify that this mod is creating a game breaking stutter/memory leak that leads to crashes and overall unplayability. I looked through the logs and crash files, this mod was not mentioned at all in them, but removing this mod fixed the issue. Basically, the mod causes shuddering based on part count. But the part count did not need to be high. I have a large number of mods including kerbalism ,so I know it is another mod interacting with this one, but only after removing this one did the problems end. It may be related to the recent RCS changes, as crafts that did not have any rcs seemed to be unaffected.