Nertea

It'd probably be a good idea to add some info about this to the tooltip I suppose. I thought I had but eh...

Back from vacation! Yeah, those cost numbers aren't very good. I'll make sure to look at them more correctly next version Nah, doesn't make sense. It's a 3.75m part for a reason. Be warned that the next version will not ship the files for these engines. If you un-deprecate them, you risk losing ships upon upgrading. I do not recall seeing anything like this, seems weird because they are very standard subtypes. If they don't work I don't see how lfo/lh2o or any other dual 'fuel' things work It's been discussed before and really, if you fully automate the reactors, they become fairly boring. It's then just a large RTG that eventually runs out of fuel and happens to need some radiators. Adding a little bit of manual fiddling required if you want to perfectly optimize their power cycles helps with that. This is especially important considering that electric engine burns in KSP are compressed to minutes from months and therefore running the reactor is technically barely required for any time. Perfect automation would make it too easy to get 00-year life out of an 8 year core.

Yes, using the released version is best. Not really. There is a narrow band at an altitude that is randomized based on save seed. I'm not really enjoying the way the stock scanner presents the exoatmospheric resources though, so I will probably find a better way to detect them. But what is the point, exactly? There isn't anything outside of KSPI-E that actually needs more power than NFE reactors can provide.

I'm on vacation guys, thanks for holding down the fort until I get back. Deprecated engines do not have categories or anything. If you use them you will be in trouble next update, when legacy components will be removed.

Alright to most of those... they'll be in the first version for KSP 1.3. Don't know when icons would happen, though. A comment: This is intended to be Unified Field theory, is that not enough? What tech level would these be?

RO question: RO thread!

I think that besides the above answers, the real key thing is that the roadmap shows no new parts remaining for NFE.

Yeah it's pretty frustrating... If i could have many systems per FX layer I could made some beautiful effects. If you make some RealPlume/SmokeScreen configs I'd be happy to include them.

I wanted to write a post with a lot of swears for emphasis about the prettiness of these textures, but they probably would have been filtered out. This is what you get when you have senior art people working on KSP mods guys. You get good stuff. Clean, good stuff - just textures, a model, regular KSP shaders... nothing fancy, no elite expensive tools.

You should try doing this. Unless something has changed recently, it's not possible to enable multiple particle effects in a single FX group. That's why it is the way it is.

Check the FAQ on the first page.

If it's a part that has some kind of dynamic capacity or special adjustment, it might make sense for it to be excluded from the patch altogether.

More detail needed, most people don't have this problem. The boiloff rate is 0.05% of tank capacity in 1 game hour. What part? It would be nice to know this. However I can tell you that a part with 700 units of fuel needs to weigh 0.4375t in order to properly balanced! So in all likelihood that part is too light, so the patched mass will be negative... in order to fix, make the part obey squaddish balance conventions.

The short version is that Squad gave us a magic NTR that can operate on aerozine (that thing should be putting out < 450s) with the performance characteristics of LH2. In order to provide progression that's not ridiculous, as mentioned, things need to be pulled more in line with pseudo-reality... ie. things need to have some disadvantages. I can't make a gas-core engine with 1600s of performance and a TWR > 1 with LF, it's just.... well, it obsoletes everything instantly. The thing is that it's really hard to store LH2. It's not a good fuel for a lot of applications despite all the NERVA-loving that goes on. The NASA Mars DRM5 with NTR option for example gives mass ratios of around 3.7 for cryogenic tanks (lifting tanks like the SLS main tank might get away with 8ish). By contrast kerolox tanks are like 15-20 mass ratio, almost double the KSP versions. If I use that same scaling (halving the RL value), I get even crappier mass ratios. Upcoming plans will move the mass ratio closer to 5 than 3, but it is never going to match plain ol' LF tanks, because that'd really go away from representing the fuel's challenges, which is the design goal with both cryoengines and KA.

That's just about the visibility. If a consuming part drains the entire power store and thinks it's out of power, it'll likely still do the effects of a no-power situation at that point before the power is refilled. This is a more interesting solution. It isn't hard to scrape all the ship modules to work out what the consumption/production information is like - I've done it in CryoTanks already. I'm wondering about edge cases always though... Are you volunteering to test an implementation of this?

It should be available on Kerbin 100% according to CRP, but it looks like it's using ranges that aren't very good. They might not work. Looks like a 50% chance (save-wise) to encounter it anywhere on other planets with atmosphere. We'll be changing this in the first post-1.3 version of CRP, but getting changes to CRP distributions is always a slow process.

Ok, seriously? This kind of crap ruins my morning. I am going to save this page as a glorious example of the failure of our education systems to produce people with basic thinking and reading comprehension skills. There are three instances of this question on the same page. This isn't that hard. Scroll up. Look around. Read a page back even. I don't understand how it's more difficult to do a wee bit of research rather than bothering me and waiting for an answer THAT I JUST POSTED.

450kg with appropriate radiation capacity. Cost could go up, but it is ~1.25x the cost per kW than an advanced-tier solar panel, has limited lifetime and requires a lot of science points. It can't really go up in tiers that much, as it's in Experimental Electrics (post-rtg) and already costs considerably more science in general than the 1.25m reactor as a result. rebalance branch numbers have a consistent progression of power generation per unit fuel, from about 250 kJ/ microunit to 350 kJ/microunit. The exception is the 375-1 model which is intended (read description text) as an outlier in the efficiency distribution I don't know whether you're talking IRL or ingame... if you're talking IRL, that's certainly untrue (I know for a practical fact that the amount of energy effectively liberated from a fission reaction is wholly dependant on reactor geometry and engineering, it's in no way constant). If you're talking ingame, I'd ask why? There's far more important numbers to work on in terms of gameplay - functionally it matters little that the heat production does not scale directly to fuel use, but it does matter than the heat production scale to some effective multiple of available radiator parts, for example. One of my actions for the next update is to clean up the config files and remove old, unused fields, like that one. The heat interaction between the host FissionReactor and the FissionConsumer elements (FissionGenerator, FissionEngine) is completely abstract and doesn't affect the KSP heat system at all for maximum stability. Essentially, the FissionReactor component supplies a certain amount of thermal energy which is allocated between the Consumers. The FissionReactor only adds the waste heat to the KSP system. So yes, the FissionGenerator does take away virtual heat from the system. I'm fully aware that this isn't correct, but I really have to work within the confines of KSP's heat coding. I would like nothing more than to have a perfect "generate X, consume Y, remainder Z" system, but that is unstable as hell when timewarp happens. Eh, you'll have to deal with it, don't know how it would screw with the ship though. I only just got it even working as a shock absorbing leg, there's bound to be some issues.

Like... literally two posts above yours.

I'm having a ton of fun with this nuclear aerospike. Finished the unwrap and put a test model ingame today. With a relatively simple launch vehicle and a single engine, I can boost ~70t to orbit, turn around, re-enter and land. Well, almost land. The point is that velocity was zero at some point very close to the ground - the falling over and exploding wasn't important. I'm a terrible pilot. It really begs 5m/7.5m LH2 lifter-style tanks though! Getting a ~5m diameter lifter stage was a terrible kludge.

I would wait for 1.3 at this point. I rewrote another good piece of the plugin recently and that won't see the light of day until then as it's being developed on the 1.2.9 branch.

I finished the models! Well, draft versions: First, the mini-NTR. Tentative thrust of 15 kN, Isp 900s, mass ~0.3 t. Here it is compared to the 1.25m trimodal engine. Decided to make it cogeneration-capable (~1-2 Ec/s), so the area under the integral radiator contains a little Stirling generator. It also folds up into quite a tiny footprint. I went considerably more exotic with the GCNTR. Imagine what might happen if you stuck eight nuclear lightbulb cores around the perimeter of a plug-nozzle aerospike. So, it's a nuclear aerospike. The idea of this design is that if you pump more fuel through the core while still hitting the 5000-6000K chamber temperatures of a GCNTR, you can achieve much higher flow rates and thrusts. However the higher flow rate results in less energy transfer to the fuel and thus a lower Isp. This engine is targeted at ~15t, 1800 kN and 1100-150s It will have a toggleable boattail so that you can effectively use it as a lower stage engine with nice colour matching. And I modeled the aerospike internals with the nescessary cooling channels to cool the outside of the rim plus the 'spike itself. @Tau137: Thanks for taking some time out of your schedule to make some notes. I can try some things with this, but it's a key scaling issue. Everything has to be flattened at the high end to prevent high thermal fluxes from destroying the world, which means things need to be lowered at the low end to provide any meaningful progression of thermal values. Core heat shares its thermal mass scaling with part heat so making the core heat up faster has to be a matter of increasing the flux. This hasn't been a consistent issue for a pretty long time. If you come back, I could use some help tracking it down. I mean, the bit where we discovered that radiators wouldn't cool KA engines is probably helpful. I have a rule, which is that aero parts go in the MkIV pack, so I can keep all the headaches in the same place ;). You should see the outcry I get when I remove a single part :S You should like what we have done with the upcoming rebalance then, waste heat numbers went up across the board and are much more consistent in terms of energy production per unit fuel.

The most recent versions of NF Spacecraft still has those engines in although they won't appear in the VAB. What version did you install? 0.6.0 was when the old engines were deprecated. Auto-shutdown at some timewarp level. Because having models that look like butts hanging around isn't something that I enjoy... They're only still in to give people time to change over.

It was deprecated but will come back eventually.

The DC-X engine is essentially a cluster of 6 solid-core LOX-augmented NTRs arranged in an aerospike configuration. Inject LOX to boost to altitude, switch to pure LH2 when it doesn't matter anymore, deliver 100t of cargo and return. Poll results clearly favour the aerospike CC GCNTR and the small mini-nuclear rocket though!