NeoAcario

That's why I'm debating designing it bigger. With the awesome sphere tanks from Talisar it stores 384,000 Kethane with only 5 tanks. Also 3 Toroidal tanks. One 84,200 Xenon, one 2240 Monoprop, and one with 1350 Liquid + 1650 Oxy. Due to these I'm only at 95 parts. I have all the basics covered. Wouldn't take many more to increase the cap. With the 3 2.5m converters I only really need to store Kethane at 96,000 per sphere tank. I just have a hard time justifying so much fuel in one spot. Sure, I can make a miner that can haul 1 sphere at a time from minmus or something.... but the MOST I'd ever have on a ship is one sphere. So... why make it bigger? ~Steve EDIT: In case you're wondering... I have the variety of Toroidal tanks so that I can convert Kethane into anything without worry. Sometimes the Kethane code is a bit buggy when trying to convert into a tank that is not directly connected with the converter.

Awesome idea! I don't think there is currently a bonus, however. By the way... anyone think 1,000 tons is too large for an orbital refueling station / AM harvester orbiting at 900km over Kerbin? Thankfully you launch Kethane tanks empty. Certainly made it easy! Gonna take about 635 days to fill that 80,000AM tank with only 30 collectors though... ~Steve

Solid math and reasoning. I'm sure Fractal_UK will definitely consider it. If not you can always edit the .cfg files and just swap the two around on your on game. Might want to do it for the time being anyways. ~Steve

zzz - just want to say again how amazing the art is on a number of these parts. Please don't keep us waiting too long for more of this great stuff. ~Steve

Fractal_UK Confirmed. After reprocess I'm at 1.20 UF6 and 0.03 DUF6. Am I mistaking what I read about the reprocess in the wiki? I thought there was supposed to be net loss, not net gain. Day 164 in my text craft. ~Steve

/signed on both I just use a 2.5m CPU core since that's what the model originally was anyways, but I could definitely use/enjoy a double thickness 2.5m core to represent the same volume as the 3.75m version. This would require a new skin, however. *ahem* Zzz And yeah, I was wondering why the AM tanks looked so low-rent when all of the AM reactors and a few other parts look so amazing. ~Steve

Fractal_UK I'm noticing an issue with the Nuke reactors. I'm creating excess depleted uranium hexa-fluoride. I'm getting something like 110% efficiency somewhere between creating extra waste and reprocess. I haven't nailed down where. I bring this up because according to the Wiki it should be less than 100% between DUF6 generation and reprocess. ~Steve

Wait.. are all of those 12.0 per day from landed cpu cores.. or just Moho and Eeloo? ~Steve PS. Fractal_UK - Have you considered allowing the UF6 and DUF6 to be transferred? Kinda sucks to have to dock for long periods of time to a science bay when I want to enrich my reactors on a smaller vehicle. Or do you think this is a key feature? I guess 10yrs (3.3 upgraded) for a ship can be long enough... hell, almost 33.3yrs if you're only running at the bare minimum 30% capacity.

Fractal_UK Idea here... to go along with Danziboy2's issue. A toggle on the nuke reactors to inject lead rods? Kill the heat/power output but keep the consumption going. No? Just something that popped into mind. Click transmit on one ship that has science (100 per click). Switch to another ship capable of receiving (CPU core / science lab) science Click on receive science (100 per click). You only have 30 minutes (in game) until the science vanishes. So don't time warp. ~Steve

Cheater.... Let's see if I can find you a couple more bugs today... what was that, 3 yesterday? Unfortunately though I'm running out of configurations to test. I think... ~Steve

SeventhArchitect - It is possible to break joints by thrusting INTO them. Happens all the time. Toss a couple struts on the offending part and it should vanish. Also.. accelerate slowly. Often times I run into this problem with sudden Gs from excessive acceleration. ~Steve PS Fractal_UK: 1.25m AM reactor still works best with the thermal nozzle and methane in all regards except in atmo. Sorry, but I think I'll just start tossing the plasma thruster on ships when I have plenty of excess science and want a pure energy rocket for deep space maneuvering. EDIT: OH! And Eeloo has the same science rate as Moho! I prefer Eeloo over Moho any day for a location for setting up a base. Building a super computer base / hub as we speak.

So what's next in the works, Talisar? Any plans for more toroidal tanks? Really interesting concept. I was actually hoping to keep the 7.5m diameter and give it a 1m mount, but that would involve more editing than a simple scale change. Keep up the good work. ~Steve

Holy F... just... I don't even... wow. Well, Fractal, I really owe you an apology. Plasma Thrusters really are awesome. After exhaustive testing I can say that this is a no brainer choice for all of my future Kethane miners (when I have abundant Xenon). Combine this with the sphere tank mod and capacity is no longer an issue. I make this choice mainly due to its efficiency with regards to AM. Only 0.4155 AM per second for 937.1kN of thrust with 1384 ISP with the Xenon fuel? YES PLEASE! ~Steve EDIT: Yeah, just did the math... that's 14,594,478.5 dV (only the drive section) on a single small tank of 10,000 AM... with 197 refills of the Toroidal Xenon tank. Crazy AM efficiency.

Once resources are drained it says the second Gen is producing 0... but the thrust is still increased by 38.65% I've tested it with all sized reactors + gens now. Bug confirmed. Some kind of % efficiency or some such I imagine? Or just a hard cap on how much power you can put into a 1.25m plasma thruster when you have 4 of the 3.75m reactors and gens? Also.. current thrust for the quantum vacuum fuel is the same as Liquid fuel. Is this where it plans to stay or do you plan to lower the thrust even more? ~Steve

Fractal_UK Bug or Feature? In testing the plasma thruster I discovered that I can use a second generator on the same reactor. Doing this adds and increase of 38.65% over a single generator. Is this intended? I can't believe I never tried two gens on the same reactor before... time for more testing of other ideas. When the hell am I going to build a ship that I can't keep making better? ~Steve EDIT: That 38.65% is after all MJ resources are drained... up until resources are drained it is double. EDIT2: Also.. do you have any future plans to limit the maximum thrust for a single plasma thruster?

Apparently I just haven't properly tested it... I'm doing that now. I sit corrected.. my apologies. Seems like it doesn't matter how many plasma thrusters you have, it all draws from the same ship-wide power supply. So it only divides up the max thrust between them. Very interesting concept: ISP static to fuel and thrust that scales with available ship-wide power. Also, same ISP in atmo or space.. AWESOME! Care to explain the upgraded plasma thruster and it's Quantum Vacuum fuel? Don't see anything about it in the wiki... although I recall you making a comment about it pages ago which I had no clue about. ~Steve Ugh... looks like this is going to be another mandatory 6t I'm going to have to center stack on all of my ships from now on.

I'll say... I'm going on 48 hours playing with the thing... and I still can't decide on final versions of any ships. Too many good options. Well, besides plasma... seems pointless to me in all situations. Someone list me a good reason or two to use plasma? I got nothing. ~Steve

Fractal_UK Quick bug for you to fix: When I try to radially mount the 1.25m AM Reactor it tries to stick itself INSIDE the target parent. I have to rotate it on the vertical axis 180 to stick it to the outside. Just some minor thing to fix in the config, I'm sure. ~Steve EDIT: Another thing bothering me... why don't AM Collectors use power?

Shouldn't nozzles attached to a larger reactor not be penalized? It's still getting the heat it needs and more. Also.. why the hell are the AM collectors so damn heavy? ^^ Any chance for smaller ones? ~Steve

Build a big base of 1x 3.75m reactor and gen... stick about 100 labs on it.. cover it in launch clamps... fill it with Kermins.. stick it on the launchpad, start them all doing science... go afk for a couple years. Upload it all.. revert to vab. You now have science forever... FROM THE FUTURE! ~Steve

Same issue I'm having.. well, probably the same root. I'm able to retrieve science from the future. I was experimenting with a massive science base. Before I terminated (reverted back 2 years to VAB), I uploaded around 10k of science. I haven't had to do any research since. ~Steve

Very true! I was just being snarky for snark sake. Pay me no mind. ~Steve

Same 24 AM collectors would get you 2643.84 per day orbiting Kerbol at 392.5Mm. Whenever you make small fixes like this... do you re-upload the Mod file? I would love to help you test to see if things are working. Well, especially when it's something bothering me. ~Steve

Don't Warp above 1,000... I can handle that. It doesn't say anything on the Wiki.. but what about the AM collectors? Do they work in the backround also? Made a smaller version (same weight) and plan to just stick a massive collector into Kerbol Orbit in the legit save and skip the AM forge entirely. ~Steve

Define "high" warp. 1,000 or higher? 10,000? And no thanks on hyper edit. I save .crafts to toss into the VAB of fresh saves. This is as much design as it is a testing save. ~Steve