Nertea

Glad you enjoy! I don't have plans to do those things unfortunately, beyond a very simple "slice" piece for partitioning cargo bays. Something went wrong with the archive I just uploaded. Please don't download it.

Curseforge randomly enforcing OSX hidden file exclusions :|

It's still related to initialization: you will need it. This is really a module manager question, not to do with me - both modules appear to be working correctly. However I might suggest just editing the cryo module instead of deleting it? @MODULE[ModuleCryoTank] { %CoolingCost = 0.08 }

I just don't have enough time to maintain them at the moment. Is it just a range issue or can you not get it at all?

You might be seeing an error in initialization if you're using a fuel switcher there. You are missing this line in the module which is used to initialize things if the amount of hydrogen cannot be found. FuelTotal = 1500 Where the number is the number of units of fuel present.

It's a bunch of code fixes, I can replicate it just fine.

This is a purely version-bump update. Download it to stop MiniAVC complaining, but there's nothing else to change except the newest MM. Heat Control 0.3.4 Marked for KSP 1.2.1 Updated bundled MM to 2.7.3

Community Tech Tree 3.0.2 Marked for KSP 1.2.1 Fixed some incorrect tech node costs: Colonization: 1000 to 2250 Advanced Colonization: 2250 to 4000 Orbital Assembly: 1500 to 1000 Orbital Megastructures: 2250 to 1500 Advanced Aerospace Engineering: 2250 to 1500

I think I figured this out today. Expect a test fix in the next version.

Yargle. Well, I should be able to reproduce this I guess, though I can't really understand the why. I mean, if the fission engine is creating 1 kW/unit throttle and cooling at 1kW/unit throttle (which is the intended behaviour), running the engine at say, 75% should produce 75kW and cool 75kW. There should be no reason to cannibalize the power reactor's radiators. Best explanation would be the exhaust producing a non-linear cooling response. Which could be happening I suppose... wouldn't be the first time KSP variable aren't quite what they sound like.

I didn't quite catch the "had a second reactor on board" bit :S . So which reactor overheated? The engine reactor?

Sorry for not replying earlier, I've been busy. 1. Yes my fault, I think this can be fixed though. 2. Resolved in upcoming version for sure. 3. No longer planning on implementing this. There are valid scenarios (trimodal engines) where the reactor can be at greater than 0% power when the engine is off or out of fuel. 4. I can't reproduce this - I was easily able to have high or low thottles with no heating problems during testing. I do not know how to reproduce this. My strategy was to put an engine on a ship, start the reactor, turn the reactor throttle to 0%, and control the engine with the throttle. No heating problems. Very pretty ship!

The stock heat system is perfectly adequate for small thermal fluxes (few hundred kW) at any timewarp, and for very large fluxes at high timewarp when working inside the core heat system. It really depends on what you want to do. You should first determine is what kind of fluxes you will generate, and when you will be generating them. This will inform your choice of how to work with them and whether to work inside core or internal heat systems. Chances are you want to work within internal, which is, like @Crzyrndm said, accessed with part.AddThermalFlux(kW). It's simple enough.

Stock KSP does not solve this issue :P.

This might be silly, but what about making the Sun your ship's target and using orient to target as a SAS mode?

I can't tell fully what is going on, but my suspicion is as follows: Engine reactor generates 13%, 2000kW of heat Mini reactor generates 50 kW of heat Running engine in atmosphere doesn't produce enough fuel flow to cool the reactor exactly Radiators + fuel flow can't handle 2050 kW of heat Some stuff shuts down It doesn't seem like a bug is occurring in this case, but it is not very clear what is going on. Some actions from this: Create menu item on a nuclear engine that shows cooling provided by the exhaust Do some tests of my own to confirm this It scales with priority with the throttle, the power slider still applies. There are situations where you want to run it at less power (with one of the trimodal engines for example). Not surprised - ZBO tanks have very low thermal masses and heat tolerances, the engine has really large ones :). I'll consider this.

I think you need to provide me with some screenshots of your setups. For many of your points, it's hard to say whether it's an edge case, a quirk of stock thermal mechanics or actually a bug in my stuff. It won't affect temperature but it will affect heat and power produced. A reactor running at 50% power will take more time to hit "optimal" temperature. When it gets there it will only produce 50% of power/thrust but will only need 50% of radiator/engine capacity. What defines "just works" for you though? How much interaction is possible? What interesting things do you do with the system, and how do you interact with it? If you want it to just generate thrust at high efficiency when you run it, there's no point to having the engine simulation, and you should probably just not install the integration patch. If you want something in-between, we've got to think hard about that works. Changing the engine safety won't change the goal temperature, it'll change the turn-off temperature. It'll still try its best to stay at the nominal temperature. This kind of situations would really need screenshots for a good analysis of what's going on. It *sounds* like there was not enough heat consumption from the thrust to cool both the engine reactor and the power reactor, and therefore the other reactor's cooling was being cannibalized by the engine. Reactors can't really heat each other up, they can only consume radiator capacity. It's hard to tell though without screenshots. It's probably a good idea to have an auto-shutdown if the engine runs out of fuel. I can implement that. As mentioned, that's the emergency shutdown. There's no effective way to set the "target" temperature and keep the system stable in the stock thermal paradigm.

There's a few things you can do to make it easier. Using the ship throttle overrides the reactor throttle. So you can set the reactor's throttle to 5% or something, then ramp up the ship throttle to 100% - that'll automatically set the reactor throttle to 100%. When you're done, you can kill throttle and the reactor throttle will automatically scale back to 5%. You can also increase the emergency shutdown temperature to give you more buffer. A reactor will only start taking damage once it's above the Critical Temperature, which is usually 5-15% higher than the nominal temperature (shown in VAB, for the emancipator it's 2000 K higher). You can safely increase the cutoff until that to give more flexibility (this will also net you a higher Isp) Additionally, you're choosing probably the hardest reactor to work with :P. It has a heat generation of 1.12 GW! That means it heats up very fast (will probably address that in the next update, it should have more thermal inertia) and can't really be passively cooled by radiators. Even at 1% throttle you'd need 3-4 of the largest HC radiators. The other engines are far more forgiving in their heating rate and capacity to be cooled by a radiator part. If you're using reactors for power, there is a specific power setting that gets you max power with the engine. For the Nepture (1.25m) it's... 65 kW. So set the reactor throttle to something that gives you around 65 kW of heat (1-2% normally). That amount of heat is auto-handled by the built-in radiator. For the Poseidon (2.5m) it's 800 kW, also handled by the radiator. It's good to have feedback though, this patch has always been pretty experimental.

There are no RPM configurations anymore for this. They needed a lot of maintenance and I'm strapped for time.

Do you have ModuleManager? A logfile would help. Looks like the tree is still working, so it's all good!

Haha, if you clone and build the dev branch it *might* work, it's pretty poorly tested though.

I'm not interested in making KSPI-E though. I'm glad you've implemented this in this way for your projects :). Forum imgur problem... I replaced it with a generic link

That needs some head-scratching work in NFElectrical. You reported that issue about an hour after I deployed the latest version of that mod unfortunately so it didn't make it in - if it had been a bit earlier I would have held off. Now it's a full release to fix a small edge case which is a bit vexing. Maybe early next week.

Reasonably significant bugfix update, 0.4.2. Updated CRP to 6.0.1 Fixed exceptions in VAB when using a ZBO tank for holding only non-cryo fuels Fixed incorrect dry masses for ZBO tanks Decreased cost and research cost of all engines to be more like 1.15-1.25x their LFO equivalents

Update 0.3.2 with many fixes Updated CRP to 6.0.1 Fixed exceptions in VAB when using a ZBO tank for holding only non-cryo fuels Fixed incorrect dry masses for ZBO tanks Improved NFE compatibility for Emancipator engine Fixed plume offset for 1.25m engines