Hremsfeld

Notably, this does NOT work with things Module Manager managed the modules of.

Does the Altitude setting actually do anything? More often than not, it seems that raising everything up five meters or so would make a good location perfect, but it doesn't seem to work.

I found a bug with the antimatter tanks: It's possible to get them to store small amounts of antimatter for free. To reproduce: Lob up two 3.5m antimatter tanks connected in sequence to a collector (I haven't tried smaller sizes) and supply enough current to satisfy their maximum charging demands. Tell the tank farther back to stop charging, and then disable flow into the first tank. The second tank will hold up to 2.50 milligrams of antimatter without its power draw being reflected in the power manager. Above 2.60mg, however, it draws its full 400.00KW. On this note, an empty 3.5m antimatter tank will demand 200.00KW, even with 1000.00/1000.00 charge, unless you select "Stop Charging." Easy enough fix on the user's part, but still noteworthy.

Copy the following line: TechRequired = experimentalRocketry into each part's part.cfg file, under its category = Propulsion line. I honestly don't remember if that's a stock node or if it was added by Interstellar, so if that doesn't work, try TechRequired = nuclearPropulsion Edit: Nyrath, do you have any plans to make the number of bombs in a magazine tweakable in the VAB, or deactivated by default?

That might explain the thermal nozzles - if the ship was thermally stable while idling, the excess heat from running the reactors full-tilt could be simply launched out the back, as a sort of hacky open-cycle cooling that's only used when needed.

I don't know about the GRS, so I pruned that out of the quote. The thermal turbojet, when upgraded, is identical to an equal-sized thermal nozzle but with the added ability to use the atmosphere (provided you have scoops). I think the different sizes of thermal nozzles all perform identically, except they have different attachment node sizes, which impacts ship stability. The Plasma engines all perform equally up until a set amount of power is given to them; a single large plasma thruster has 133% the thrust of an equivalent mass of the next smaller thrusters when all involved are fully powered. The Attila thrusters have the wrong tooltip text, this is a known error. Having not used them, I can't say how good they are or aren't or what the difference between the sizes is, but I presume it's similar to the regular plasma engines.

The amount of power it takes varies, as you've seen. As undercoveryankee pointed out, Given that each impact experiment can yield very large amounts of science, it also means it has a very large transmission size. This isn't particularly realistic, especially as it means the next impact under otherwise identical circumstances will only provide half the data, but it's how things are now. However, there is a bug in how transmissions work, where timewarping does not speed them up - it does, however, speed up how quickly you recover electric charge. My Eve seismic probes had a single RTG for power generation, and no batteries to speak of, but at either 100 or 50x time warp, I was making more ec than I was using. Yes, it's not ideal to rely on a bug, but even the smallest fission reactor on an unupgraded reactor provides far more than enough electricity to transmit the entire thing. I can understand not wanting to slap a reactor on a probe for the purpose of transmitting a few reports, but the reason no one can give you a definite answer for how much power a given impact result will take to transmit is because no one can predict offhand how much data a given impact will generate. Each planet has a different pool, and both the number and the placement of your recorders will determine together how scientifically useful the impacts are. Fractal: Are there plans to set the seismic transmissions to a set size? It does seem rather odd that one experiment would contain half the data of an identical experiment simply because the one came before the other. Once you've swapped fuels, you still need to restart the reactor. Quicksave, EVA another kerbal over to the reactor, and then hit restart. If you've tried hitting Swap Fuels a few times, it's possible you filled it back up with Uranium - If this is the case, quickload, swap fuels one more time, and then restart your reactor. Due to limitations in the version of Unity that KSP is built on, you can only use approximately 3.7 Gb of RAM with KSP. A single bit more and the game crashes hard with an access violation error, and both Planet Factory and KSPI are big mods. Some mods come with optional texture reduction packs, and sometimes third parties release reduced texture packs for popular mods. Find and use those. If you already are, check out the Active Memory Reduction mod. I don't use it personally, but I've heard good things about it. It'll take a long time to load up the first time, but it'll cut your memory footprint down dramatically. Edited for typos and clarity.

The plasma engines use power, yes, but they don't have a lower limit like the Vista does. If you supply them with 1MW, you'll get a pittiance of thrust, but just the same you'll get thrust. Critically, that thrust is the same for all sizes of plasma engine. However, they do have an upper limit for power. The larger the engine, the more power it can use, and thus the more thrust it outputs. If you have multiple engines, it splits that power between them - four 1.25m engines can use a combined total of 100,000MW before reaching max output, but a single 2.5m engine can use 200,000MW. By way of comparison, a single ton of 0.625m thrusters will, at most, output 0.75 times the thrust of an equivalent mass of 1.25m engines (i.e. a single engine). This ratio holds true for six 1.25m engines compared to a single 2.5m engine. So, there's a point where it's slightly more efficient to have multiple smaller thrusters compared to a single larger thruster, but it depends on how much power you can actually supply. With regards to the 1.25m and 2.5m engines, you should stick with the 1.25m engines and add a new one for every 25GW of power you have available, until you get above 150GW. However, if you're not beaming that power in, the extra mass will have a fairly-negligible effect on your total dV when compared to the mass of the rest of your ship and the adapters to mount the extra engines, so you might as well go with a 2.5m engine if it fits your ship's aesthetics.

Do you mean you can't get out of warp? If so, by any chance, are you using Kerbal Joint Reinforcement? Part of the way it works interferes with context menus on parts; right-click on the drive again, or hit the slow-timewarp button a few more times - when at 1x speed, this often brings back context menu items. If you're not using KJR, try right-clicking on empty space or cycling to and from the map, and then right-clicking on the warp drive again.

Okay. I thought I'd see Fractal mention it at least, like with waste heat being introduced as a non-consequential thing one version before it became important. It'd be nice to be able to start planning my ships around how likely the kerbals inside are to glow in the dark. Interestingly, the exposure seems to be on a per-mission basis. Battrey there was freshly back from a solo High Solar Orbit goo/materials/crew/EVA report mission, where he got a few microSieverts, but his cumulative exposure was about the same as his other two shipmates here.

So, now that cumulative radiation exposure has been added on what appears to be a per-mission basis: Is there anything that we as players can do to limit exposure? The cupola and Station Science's science lab seem to be far and away the best choice, as both have a rad hardness of 33.75, compared to, say, the Interstellar Science Laboratory with a Rad Hardness of 9.38 Could we perhaps use asteroids as rad-shelters? They're certainly not lacking for mass...

I can confirm. I added techRequired = nuclearPropulsion to all the parts in the .cfg files for the Project Orion mod, and then remembered treeloader was a thing. I made a new node dependent on nuclear propulsion, and made an extra entry in my tree.cfg file for it. Every Orion part was added to it, but only the parts without underscores in their names actually went into the new node; those with underscores stayed in nuclear propulsion. I didn't think to check the debug window, but by simply changing out the underscores to a p fixed the problem.

I don't know how many people here are using custom tech tree files, or for that matter even know about treeloader. For those that do, I went ahead and made a new node for Orion, requiring nuclear propulsion as its only pre-req. If you've got a tree.cfg file, put these lines in there: NODE { name = node7_ProjectOrion techID = projectOrion pos = -635,1325,-1 icon = NUCLEARPROPULSION cost = 300 title = ProjectOrion description = A propulsion system based on the old "firecracker under a tin can" principle. Except the tin can is a spacecraft and the firecracker is a nuclear bomb. anyParent = False hideIfEmpty = False parents = node6_nuclearPropulsion PARTS { name = USAFOrion3Engine name = USAFOrionEngine name = USAFOrionTank name = USAFOrionMag08kt088mn [s]name = USAFOrionMag1_9kt20mn[/s] [s]name = USAFOrionMag1_35kt10mn[/s] [s]name = USAFOrionMag1kt3_5mn[/s] name = USAFOrionMag1p9kt20mn name = USAFOrionMag1p35kt10mn name = USAFOrionMag1kt3p5mn name = USAFOrionMag5kt80mn name = USAFOrionMag15kt400mn } } As-is, it should put Orion about an icon's width above the Very Heavy Rocketry icon - if it overlaps with anything on a different tree (I'm using Interstellar's), change the pos = line. -635 is its x, 1325 is its y. Edit: Huh, it didn't move the 3.5, 10, or 20MN mags for some reason. Gonna see if I can figure out why... Second edit: Strange. It looks like treeloader doesn't like it when parts have underscores in their names. Changing them to a p and adjusting the tree.cfg file accordingly seemed to work.

Make sure you have the correct tree.cfg file in the same folder as your persistence/quicksave files. Edit: If yours went missing, I uploaded a copy to Pastebin here.

This might've gotten lost, the thread moves fast:

In the stock tree: The nuclear reactors and thermal rockets are in Nuclear Propulsion. There's an intanke precooler in the Supersonic Flight node. The thermal turbojets and atmospheric intakes are in High Altitude Flight. The atmospheric scoops are in Hypersonic Flight. The Phased Array Microwave Transceiver is in Specialized Electrics; this is not the foldout one. The fixed radiators are in Advanced Electrics. The generators and foldout radiators are in Large Electrics. The accelerometer remains in Electronics, where it is joined by the Gamma ray Spectrometer, the Magnetometer, the IR telescope, and the cryostat modules The atmospheric/oceanic spectrometers, refineries, and science lab are in Advanced Science Tech Beyond that, Fractal added several nodes, hence the tree.cfg file. These nodes contain the following items: Additionally, two Methane tanks and an engine are in Experimental Rocketry, which is revealed after unlocking Very Heavy Rocketry. If I missed anything, lemme know.

Out of curiosity, why did you go this direction? I haven't messed with plasma engines too much, but I'd also presumed that the power cap was pre-efficiency loss. I'm assuming it's related to how the Vista can change its specific impulse by proportionally changing its thrust, though the 2.5GW input remains constant.

You might want to look into the Open Resource System for that. It lets you define the location of deposits, and the rate at which you can gather resources out of them. In the case of water, it has a component for planetary oceans. Kethane's built around approximating oil deposits IN SPACE (a few areas of extremely high quantities), where ORS is built around approximating normal mineral scattering (soil/water naturally containing however many parts per million of gold, uranium, etc with some areas richer than others). Edit: It also wouldn't require drilling into the sea floor to harvest water.

I know he's been around on the forums, policing developer's licenses and what not. He hasn't been here in almost a month, though, which is what I was referring to. Do you by chance remember what those bits of code he was working on were? I don't remember seeing him say anything about future plans for quite some time now, and would like to see what he has in mind. Edit: VVVVV Nice! Sounds pretty cool.

Having read the past few pages, I have a question: Are there any plans for 0.8.5? Perhaps for 0.9? Scansat proved that it's possible to have non-focused ships scan; that capability alone would be worthy of a major release, but Majiir seems conspicuous by his absence.

Hmm. That's still odd that it suddenly goes from 0gs atmospheric deceleration to over 2gs...I don't suppose there's anything I can do from my end other than be very conservative with aerobraking below 200km? I've used it on Kerbin, the Mun, and Minmus successfully so far. You'll want to bring a LOT of batteries for Joolian eclipses, though, or at least you will if you also have Kethane scanners going. I had a big enough field of view at around 40km with the early-career low-res scanners that losing power didn't actually interfere with my map making.

I seem to be running into a rather odd glitch with Jool; the atmosphere is "starting" around 280 kilometers up, but it doesn't actually start to slow my craft down until exactly 200km. I don't mean that I'm just slowing down very slowly; I was going nearly twice terminal velocity at 201km, and my apoapsis was unchanged. Once I crossed that magic threshold though, my speed dropped like a rock. The rest of the craft followed shortly thereafter, but that's besides the point.

When you're trying to get e-6 level precision, you're really better off just opening your persistence.sfs, setting the constellation's eccentricities to 0, and not controlling them again.

It should be pumpable, like LFO is. That gives me an idea, though: Coolant dumps. Have a part consume LF-or-something to produce a very negative amount of Waste Heat. I'm without my ksp computer for the time being, but I'll see about making a part like that when I get it back. Edit: Actually, using water makes the most sense, not LF.

If I recall correctly, Fractal wanted a better texture/model for them, but plans to have the larger sizes eventually. On this note, what would the stats for the larger reactors be? I think the texture/model looks fine scaled up, but I'm not good enough at nuclear physics to determine what sane stats would look like.