Fractal_UK

I think you're asking this question of the wrong person, none of the science experiments in the stock game tell you anything about the energy requirements of transmission so I don't really understand why you seem so dissatisfied that Interstellar doesn't either, it's not like I'm giving you less information. You only have the information on the stock experiments because other people have discovered that information and recorded it somewhere, e.g. on a wiki. If you want that information to be available, you're welcome to discover it and publish it on the wiki but changing all science experiments to add information about energy requirements isn't really a priority for me.

The new electric engine re-work is coming along nicely, I can now create different particle effects for each propellant type. I'm not sure why I'm demonstrating this with an aircraft, but it does the job! Hydrogen Xenon Lithium

Do you have a KSP.log file you could share?

There are three factors that make up the existing dose: 1) A solar radiation term, which includes the particles produced by the sun and external cosmic rays, etc. This term is attenuated away by being inside a magnetic field and beneath an atmosphere. 2) Van Allen belt term, captured belts of protons and electrons that surround the planets with strong magnetic fields. This is based purely on your position over each planet and that planet's magnetic field at that point. 3) Ground-based radiation term that is determined based on the concentration of thorium in the area.

No, Thermal Power and Charged Particles are converted directly into Megajoules, then the Megajoule Resource Manager decides how many megajoules need converting into Electric Charge to keep the bar full. The key difference is that managed resources are an Interstellar thing so there is much more information available about power supply and demand compared to the stock resource system, which just naively adds and subtracts. Since it's easy to go from more information to less, it's trivial to convert MJ into EC but very difficult to do so in the other direction. The best solution is to supplement or replace modules to make them produce MJ instead.

No and it's not a general change, there is no realistic way to convert EC into MJ in any catch-all sense. The only thing I can do is alter certain modules, like the solar panels, to produce MJ under particular conditions - namely when the EC bar is full.

They appear alongside the nuclear reactors and generators at that kind of tech level. It's the logical place for them to be, even if they aren't always the most viable engines with that technology. The stock ion engines are a total anomaly, the recent changes that increased their thrust and reduced their power requirements just made them even more silly. Since I've been doing a total code redesign on the electric engines and have added the capability of using solar power to power engines directly, I'm inclined to bring the ions into line with this new system. That would see a continuum of electric engines from the high thrust/low ISP arcjet to the low thrust/high ISP ion engine (probably loosely based on the DS4G being developed by ESA) with the MPD sitting in the middle. Such changes are entirely theoretical at this stage, I haven't done any testing on the viability of them but it appeals to my desire for greater verisimilitude.

Never heard of that one before so it must take an unusual set of circumstances to produce, can you provide any more info on how that occurred? It isn't a cause, rather a result. I suspect the game can't calculate the vessel mass while there is an NaN resource. I'd recommend editing your safe file to set the resource amount to 0 instead. That should restore everything to its normal expected behaviour.

It's in Advanced Fusion Power (the second fusion power tech node) now. This is because it represents a significant improvement over the basic fusion engines in terms of capabilities and so needed to be pushed slightly later in the tree.

You can only do it by editing your resource cfg file to make all the resources tweakable, they aren't by default.

The electrothermal propellants can be used by the arcjet or the plasma thruster, the non-electrothermal propellants can only be used by the plasma thruster.

Yes, it might cause errors. Some parts refer to models by reference to the location, meaning that if you move them, the models they refer to might no longer be found. Likewise you don't know what's going on inside any plugin code that might be related to those parts. Deleting parts you don't want is much safer.

I've been doing some work on the ElectricEngines, for a start, the code is insufficiently pretty (by which I mean, it's horrible), so I've rewritten that from scratch to make it more sensible. Since I was doing that, I decided to convert the Electric Engines to use ModuleEnginesFX (which the rapier engine uses) instead of ModuleEngines (which just about everything else uses). ModuleEngineFX is newer and I suspect that all the engines in KSP will be moved on to that system in the future. The other advantage of this is that people can mod up their plasma engines with HotRockets or equivalent. In any case, without any additional modding on behalf of the user, it gives me a lot more control over the engines and their particle effects. This is just a demo but you can see that by changing the fuel type, I can actually change the particle colours. This extra control also means an end to the days where a ship using beamed power to produce something like 1KW in their engines gets the same particle effects as a ship using a huge fusion reactor.

You have over 8GW of power and are using LiquidFuel, thermal receiver produces poor ISP, which with lots of power means a lot of thrust. If you want to preserve your fuel for longer, you need to turn down your reception power.

Your waste heat bar is almost empty, you're worrying over nothing. Once it fills more, the rate of dissipation will increase.

The problem with changing focus on the telescopes was fixed in 0.11.

Then just fly closer to the sun

Mr Manley asked me to "fix" this issue. I'm kind of limited by the stock resource system when dealing with ElectricCharge but I've managed to come up with a fairly successful fudge - it means that when the ElectricCharge bar is full, all the excess power is converted into Megajoules. The result is that you can now use solar panels to power engines and stuff directly, albeit, of course, with poxy levels of power.

Nope, I'll update the ModuleManager version in the next release of Interstellar but it doesn't matter. You should just use the latest version.

That does sound pretty weird, can you just try deleting all the Interstellar folders, then redownload reinstall a fresh copy from the first page. It's always possible that your version has become corrupted somehow, it wouldn't be the first time such a thing has happened.

Just to be clear, you have actually EVA'd to restart it? You can't just click to reactivate from inside the craft.

They're not incompatible at all, there is no reason that Interstellar and Real Fuels should be mutually exclusive in any way. In fact it is one of the main mods I've strived to maintain the ability to be compatible with. Indeed, it's quite possible to limit yourself to the early interstellar techs for e.g. NTRs, ISRU etc, then with the combination of heat mechanics and precoolers have solely a realism extension if that's what appeals to you. I'm not sure why the DT Vista doesn't working with LH2 though, I will try to investigate.

Just like the science lab, it will add retroactive science when you go back to it.

I disagree. In general, sending a seismometer alone to an arbitrary celestial body is useless - most places you could visit would not be geologically active so sending a seismometer alone is completely pointless - it will provide you with no useful data whatsoever. There may be a few places that both options should be useable side by side but they are the exception rather than the rule. I think it is therefore better to first cover the more general case, exceptions can be dealt with later. It is, afterall, an extremely easy change to make for anyone who wants both options.

Distance is going to be a negligible problem from a 100km orbit, such satellites move across the sky quickly however so orientation of the receiver is more of a problem. Geostationary satellites are nice because you can just point the receiver straight up to get excellent reception.