Nertea

Always dev!

Alright, I'll look into both of these tomorrow... The first one I think I know what's causing it, stock's idiotic heat catchup mechanics at fault again, the second I'll have to look into. That's the idea, but it's very strange that this occurs. The fact that you are getting "half" of the effects is weird to me, and they're just MM patches.

@canisin's linked post tells you why. What is your use case for full automation? The busy-work of precise optimization is intentional in order to discourage it. The fact is that full automation makes large reactor lifetime effectively infinite. There's practically no reason to run a large reactor at high power outside of an electric engine burn... which are measured in the up-to-1 hour range in KSP, really. So the current system is more or less designed so that there are two use cases for your reactor, running at full power or running at low power. It doesn't seem arduous to me, and it doesn't seem like there's a huge amount of reason to even adjust power constantly. Plus, there is already a mod that provides automated reactors - USI Core. In other news I have been slowly fixing all the normal maps in the mods. This is really slow going as some files are really old and need to be fixed in unity, which inevitably creates animation corruption issues, headaches and pain. The fixes for NFE and NFC are taking a particularly long time. So here are two to start. NF Propulsion 0.9.3 Fixed normals on all parts Russian translation courtesy of Dr. Jet NF Solar 0.8.5 Fixed normals on the one part that uses them Moved collider hierarchy for OKEB-75 Solar array (fixes collider not detaching) Chinese translation courtesy of forum user DY_ZBX

CTT 3.2.0 Added Heavy Landers [Cost 1500, Command Modules branch] Added Heavy Command Centers [Cost 1500, Command Modules branch] Added Specialized Command Centers [Cost 1000, Command Modules branch] Added Specialized Landers [Cost 1000, Command Modules branch]

Oh wow, another hideous stock heat mechanic to remove! Can you provide me with some kind of reproduction steps, because that's not a clear enough report to help me.

Of course. When there is a release I will post it here. I forgot i didn't have an active dev branch and pushed the AVC file, excrements happens.

It shouldn't matter where that patch goes but canonically it should look like GameData/NearFutureElectricalNTRs/. To generate power, the reactor should be on, at some power level equal to or greater than 1%, and the core must be hot. Importantly it must be a reactor that has power generation capabilities. Yes, there's no real reason you can't run propellant (in this case, not fuel) through a reactor that's cold.

All engines that have generators already produce constant power (Scylla, Poseidon, Eel). As mentioned if you want this to be more complicated you can add the Extras patch. Decrease LH2 use = increase engine Isp. There's only one engine that canonically uses EnrichedUranium as a fuel and it's that way as a balance mechanism... again, decrease fuel use by increasing Isp.

It's important to realize that the true performance of a fuel in KSP is related only to a few key parameters: The mass ratio of the tanks that contain it (amount of fuel you get for an amount of dry mass) The mass of the engines that use it (heavier engines mean you may lose advantages) The specific impulse of the engines that use it Other, optional parameters of the fuel itself, like whether it boils off, its cost, its ISRU abilities, etc, are less important to the DV-TWR tradeoff If these parameters are not balanced well by the mod that is working with the fuels, you may not see any benefits from different fuels. I go to great pains to try to do this with my mods, which isn't easy.

Is that the VSR Nerv? If so, that's probably why.

It does sound like you're running 1.2.2 though... So if you downloaded it via ckan it would have pulled the latest 1.2.2 version, which did include the files for that part in a semi disabled state.

Not a bug, sounds like you're out of the loop. That engine was removed from the mod almost 8 months ago. I assume you're using some old version where the configs were kept in to preserve ships. Don't use it. And no support for KSP versions older than latest, sorry.

So there must have been some kind of order of magnitude change, or a change in the base value of this, because cranking that value to 50,000 does produce a change. Can you provide information on what this field actually means then? It used to be pretty clearly harvest = rate * (airspeed + airspeedstatic), but now the value airSpeedStatic must be huge compared to what it used to be...

The issue isnt that they don't work, it's that they don't obey the airSpeedStatic config variable. See my post just above for screencaps with the value set to 50.0 and 500.0.

Not at all, AM is free in this mod. The difficulty in acquiring it is not cost - based

Worked a bit on the metallic hydrogen engine... And with tank, which I've rescoped to one tank in 2.5, 3.75, 5m sizes. Match with other LH2 tanks to use it. And lastly I did a lot of work on the animations and FX for the ICF engines...

Yes, I'm kinda hoping to have another by early next week though.

Two more completed engines, whoop dee doo! FX need some tuning though.

No, because that only deals with propellant ratios. Since there's only one propellant, both lines you've written mean the same thing. Performance will change because of other reasons though - LH2 density needs larger tank volume, and specific impulse and TWR are both improved by ~10%.

I kinda went the opposite way with the first one, because He3 is hideously expensive. However, I'm reluctant to create large processing chains because the KSP resource system ain't great. I like having the option, but building too much gameplay around it creates a lot of repetition. The rest, yeah, pretty much what I'm thinking. Reactor needs a startup charge to enable (something close to equal to its generation for in 10 seconds) Shutting down the reactor requires another charge to get going. Reactor constantly consumes fuel when on at a low level (~10% of top-end consumption) Reactor automatically spools up and down to deliver required power Reactor stocks only a small amount of fuel (which is light), enough for less than half a Kerbin year at full power Easily add more fuel tanks for more lifetime Available in 2.5 and 3.75m footprints. Max power levels 2-5x similar to largest NFT reactors Comparable efficiency and mass to largest NFT reactors when they are fuelled Significantly more expensive than NFT reactors

Did you get a chance to detail this? I'm planning on a new DBS release within the week and I do want to make sure this isn't an issue.

No idea, this is before I started ensuring that people who provided patches were noted in the file.

No. Neither of those plugins are supposed to be used anymore.

Hate working on my other mods these days. Lots of demanding requests! Trying to work out a balance for this mod. Not that these can be considered balanced against anything else, but within the mod everything should have a niche. NSWR Z-Pinch Thermal Fusion IC Fusion Cat Fission Cat Fusion Thermal AM Pure AM TWR 2.5 0.5-1.5 1-4 0.5-2.5 2.5 0.5 0.5-3.5 3-15 Isp 5,000 10,000-20,000 20,000 - 125,000 25,000 - 200,000 15,000 60,000 5,000 - 50,0000 150,000 - 5,000,000 Response Speed Instant Medium Medium Slow Fast Fast Instant Instant Power Needed Low Medium Medium High Low Medium Medium Medium Radiators Needed Medium Low Medium-High Medium - High Low Low Medium Extreme Size 2.5m 3.75m 2.5m 3.75m 3.75m 3.75m 3.75m 3.75m Antimatter Use N/A N/A N/A N/A Low Low Medium HIgh Fuel Costs Medium Low-High High High Medium High Low Low Fuel Notes Cryogenic None/Ablative Ablative/AM Cryogenic/AM Cryogenic/AM Cryogenic/AM Fuel ISRU Smelter Smelter Scoop/ISRU Scoop/ISRU Scoop/Smelter Scoop/ISRU Scoop/ISRU Scoop/ISRU Notes Two models Two models, one variable length Two models, one ablative Ablative Dual Mode Variable length Summary Best high thrust engine, small footprint Medium-level low complexity fusion engines, simple to use, one high thrust/low impulse, the other opposite Higher complexity, high performance fusion engines, cryo fuels need support equipment, He3 is expensive. Best versions need tons of radiators High performance fusion engines, simple to use, replace Z-pinch functionally Entry-level AM engine, simple concept, ablative nozzle adds challenge More power per unit of expensive fusion fuels than other early fusion First instant-response high performance engine, dual-mode (low TWR and high TWR) Challenging engine due to large size, heat production, need for AM I think this creates good niches. The only large overlap is the Z-Pinch and Inertial engines, which isn't bad. Interested in thoughts and inputs. I am going to add "refurbish ablator" to the nuclear smelter in the future. Could become a new part eventually, but for now it'll just be very, very inefficient in turning Ore into Ablator. Also, I finally thought of a decent set of mechanics for fusion reactors, so that might happen. Tradeoff vs fission needs to be good but not too good. Using D/He3 fusion means they would be very expensive to run. As an advantage there should be dynamic power generation scaling and instant rampup.

Yes.