Nertea

That's be nice, but a bunch of modeling work to make something high quality. It's in the basement of the R&D building :P. If that building blows up, your factory stops working and you lose all your AM :). Well, that one was actually for the space particle scoop. FreeThinker's stuff is still irrelevant to this discussion though, as I'm not making a ramjet... just a scoop.

CKAN installs aren't supported as per the FAQ in the OP. I can assure you that if you download any of the official packages, it'll be there.

The keys in TemperatureModifer are temperatures while the values are heat fluxes. So you can create the following key = 0 50000 key = 100 100000 key = 500 150000 That will cause the part to produce 1000kW at 0K, 2000 kW at 100K and 3000kW at 500K. The values in TemperatureModifier are in kW*50, so if you want to produce say 10 kW, you write 500.

Already solved that one - both KA and CE patch the stock ISRU to produce LH2 from Ore :). Check it in the VAB - I just had a look and it seems fine. You can also get EnrichedUranium fuelling capabilities from the nuclear reprocessor in NF Electrical. Extras folder of each download. Should be pretty obvious what does what, I think it's "NTRsUseLF" and "CryoEnginesLFO" or similar. Drop into GameData to use. This has been logged on github and will be fixed in tomorrow's build.

Weird, I'll ensure that's fixed in tomorrow's update.

Made some progress on the AM stuff for 1.2. Now you load on the pad (or anywhere at the KSC). The interface now allows you to unload if you're at the KSC too, so you can recover your antimatter. The mini AM panel is new too, lets you see the status of the factory anytime. Contextually pops up a load AM button or a Go to Factory button if the conditions are right.

If your total second stage/spaceship/whatever mass is lower, you pay less to put it in orbit, as you have a smaller launcher. If you make the same mass of second stage/spaceship, then you will get more performance out of it. It's just a matter of optimizing for whatever variable you're trying to maximize. I can promise to look at the cost of the engines in the next update though. At least one of them is, from a glance, far too pricy. *shrugs* I don't patch stock things lightly. In all my numerous mods, I've only ever changed two stock parts, the ion engine and the LV-N. The ion engine was patched to create a niche for the entirety of NFP's earlier ion propulsion engines - it changes nothing else. Similarly the LV-N is patched to provide a niche for all of KA's content. Such changes have very little to do with realism (when I patch the LV-N, I reduce its mass by 25% and increase its Isp by over 10% to compensate, and all liquid hydrogen tanks have way more fuel in them than they really should), but more with making small adjustments to allow a niche of gameplay to exist. I like making mods that introduce one challenge (new fuel type and its peculiarities) for every problem they solve (great fuel efficiency) to make it more interesting than "replace all your LV-Ns with this engine when you get to X in the tech tree". I understand if people don't like it, and that's why I provide the LFO patch for CryoEngines and the LF patch for KerbalAtomics. I'll always listen to critiques and am not opposed to making changes, but it sounds like my paradigms might not be quite what you are looking for.

This might be an edge case that needs to be addressed. It looks like reactor power setting can be overridden in engine reactors by the vessel global throttle, so if you are running the vessel throttle at 100% but manually setting power to 50%, it'll still run the reactor at 100%. It doesn't take engine thrust limiting into account, which it should - running the vessel throttle at 100% with a thrust limiter of 70% going on should automatically give you a reactor power of 70%.

Those are some beauteous inflatables sir! Yup, they are animations. Honestly you could probably write some code to construct the animations at loadtime (or even when the part is switched) for those parts - it might be a good compromise. You would get the animation method without having the tedium of creating and exporting animations. I did runtime animation creation for a project of mine in Unity some time ago, so it's certainly possible.

Your comparisons are kinda weird. You're comparing apples to oranges in a lot of cases there. Cryo Engines For a target DV and a constant payload, a cryogenic vehicle should be lighter than a LFO vehicle. It should be somewhat larger and slightly more expensive as a result. This has knock-on effects in that if your vehicle is an upper stage, it should be lighter to lift into orbit, and thus reduce the required LV size. This is quite easy to show - use an example payload of decent size (sat 20t) and compare a Terrier and a Chelyabinsk. Optimize for the same DV (say 2500 m/s), the mass should drop with the cryo type configuration. This won't work with very small payloads but with a larger one it'll become evident. Optimize for larger DVs and the benefit grows. Kerbal Atomics This is more complicated. KSP set a terrible precedent in basically giving the LV-N all the advantages of a cryogenic fuel (great delta-v) with none of the disadvantages (volume, mass ratio). There were 3 options then when developing KA: Stick with the crazy balance (all KA engines become completely superior to everything) Stick with the crazy balance and artificially degrade KA engines in some way to make them internally balanced Repair the crazy balance at the cost of needing to patch 1 stock engine. Patch LV-N Isp to reasonable for a denser fuel (500-600s) Patch LV-N fuel to LH2 Evidently I chose #3.1. The LF NTRs patch implements 3.2. So if you compare a KA engine to an unmodified LV-N, you're comparing two balance systems that are not compatible. You either have to use all of 3.1 or all of 3.2 You can find a lot more discussion as you page through this thread and KA.

Ah I had forgotten that we tuned it way down. Waaaay down. I had a quick test with just the reactor and the radiator and it worked fine (that cooling % number is useless, you can ignore it). I can't tell offhand what's wrong, but you might want to check your total radiator capacity vs your total core heat needs. I see at least 4 drills on your craft which create some amount of heat, and i guess you might have some ISRUs running. It's possible that they are being cooled by the reactor radiators.

That's not nearly enough cooling. The MX-EXP needs 200 kW of heat rejection (check the VAB module info), you're providing a total of 50 kW per reactor, plus whatever other cooling you're getting from the big radiators. With 3 reactors you will need 600 kW of cooling power

No idea what's going on there. There was an unpublished old version of CryoEngines on spacedock which I deleted, this seems to have had some bad effects. I'll look into it. In the meantime, Curse and Dropbox links should still be working.

No worries, boiloff is a tricky beast with many edge cases because of KSP's resources system, and we're far into difficult territory. Good information is the only way I can deal with fixing the problems. For manufacturers' tabs to appears, they must actually be defined as an AGENCY, last time I checked. There are no agencies defined for any of my things at the moment, and I'm not really interested in doing that work without making new logos, and I would rather spend that time elsewhere at the moment.

This 1.2 update is getting a bit frustrating. I can't seem to override the Launch button anymore, so that's a real downer. I might have to change things to an "on the pad" filling method. Pretty basic, but I might start off on that direction. A long part with a flattened 2.5m profile that is streamlined at the front and greebled at the back. I quite like this thing (everything forward of "C") as the particle scoop, but with a smaller "solid" cone that is more like the bits in "G"

CryoEngines GitHub repository (source) CryoTanks GitHub repository (source) It would be preferable to report that bug in CryoTanks. edit - https://github.com/ChrisAdderley/CryoTanks/issues/15 Created it for you, also fixed it, will be in next version.

No worries - this whole fiasco was my fault! Important notice about any boiloff issues you might see Please accompany any bug reports related to boiloff with the following: A copy of output_log.txt from the KSP_Data or KSP_x64_Data folder (depending on whether you're using 32 or 64 bit) A screenshot of the Cryo Debug window (Press CTRL+SHIFT+P) while the issue is occurring An indication of what timewarp level causes the bug KSP version and mod version. A clear screenshot of the craft so I can see what parts are being involved The .craft file if you're not using too many mods (strip what you can, it'll help) This info has been added to the OP.

Please accompany any bug reports related to boiloff with the following: A copy of output_log.txt from the KSP_Data or KSP_x64_Data folder (depending on whether you're using 32 or 64 bit) A screenshot of the Cryo Debug window (Press CTRL+SHIFT+P) while the issue is occurring An indication of what timewarp level causes the bug KSP version and mod version. A clear screenshot of the craft so I can see what parts are being involved The .craft file if you're not using too many mods (strip what you can, it'll help) This info has been added to the OP.

@AmpCat, @Mikki, are you using the NFE integration patch from NFE Extras? It looks like it should work...

I should have mentioned this in the changelog. I did not make NFE integration for this engine, as I need to do some things in order to make it work "properly", namely I need to extend support in NFE to engines with core temperatures of >6000K (the Emancipator should have 20,000K or something). All the mods were already staged for deployment so I only killed the patch. If you want to refuel it, you can patch ModuleRadioactiveStorageContainer into it. Also, If you are experiencing problems with contracts: The problem is with additional files in CryoEngines and/or KerbalAtomics. Download the absolute latest versions (0.4.1 and 0.3.1 respectively) and make sure to delete the old version of the mod! If you do not want to update or something you can go into GameData/CryoTanks/Plugins and delete everything except SimpleBoiloff.dll

If you are experiencing problems with contracts: The problem is with additional files in CryoEngines and/or KerbalAtomics. Download the absolute latest versions (0.4.1 and 0.3.1 respectively) and make sure to delete the old version of the mod! If you do not want to update or something you can go into GameData/CryoTanks/Plugins and delete everything except SimpleBoiloff.dll @ev0 - your bug comes from this too, I checked your log and you have these files too. It's intended that the patch doesn't touch multi-fuel tanks like that, so your first interpretation of the problem is correct.

If you are experiencing problems with contracts: The problem is with additional files in CryoEngines and/or KerbalAtomics. Download the absolute latest versions (0.4.1 and 0.3.1 respectively) and make sure to delete the old version of the mod! If you do not want to update or something you can go into GameData/CryoTanks/Plugins and delete everything except SimpleBoiloff.dll

Download CryoEngines 0.4.1 and KA 0.3.1 and install them. Delete the old ones first!

Mod list and log files will be helpful in fixing this problem.

The reasoning was transparency. Initially everything was hidden and mods were instructed to unhide their chains. It ended up being easier on modders to unhide everything by default than do that. I prefer not bundling ev0's plugin and instead advertising it in the OP, as that allows the largest amount of flexibility.