Nertea

This probably needs some tuning, but I am not really intending compatibility with a 6.4x rescale. The goal would be to get it playable at stock scales and then move on. Can you explain what is not logical right now? The reaction products mode is 60-200ks, and the other is 12-40ks. Make sure you have the latest release, it is disabled by default. Yes it is getting a nerf bat in next release in terms of thrust. Yes I am working on this (see the SystemHeat thread). Don't have a solution I like yet.

It breaks the texel density.

No, no, I don't ever do that.

If it's not on GitHub we don't know about it, if you could make a report there that would be great. The swively behaviour is kinda meh, courtesy of how stock handles it. You can disable it by deleting the patch which is part of RS+.

Yeah... I can't see how this mod would cause that behaviour. Your theory sounds correct.

The main reason these conceptual engines are big is because when you have a high power flux in a small space, it is very difficult to keep it from melting. You have two options - add more propellant to carry the heat away, which reduces performance, or make the engine reaction chamber / nozzle bigger so there is a lower power density. With nuclear engines, this gets worse, because the radiation flux is intercepted by the engine components, heating them up. This is also one of the reasons the engines are very skeletal, this ensures lower radiation interception. So if you want to scale down an engine, you have a very large engineering challenge, which you will solve usually by increasing propellant vs fuel flow (lowering ISP), lowering overall jet power (lowering total performance), or massively increasing heating demands. The J20A is an engine where I did that - take the Discovery engine, scale the reactor down while maintaining the power, increase the propellant flow a lot. This gets you smaller without tons of heating, but you see the performance doesn't work quite as nicely at that scale. It's not a ton better than chemical engines. Small essay, but I hope you get my reasoning here. I don't claim realism in my mods, but one of the major engineering challenges of far future engines is scale and I want to represent that. That's usually the architecture I have in mind. Sure but do you really want my limited time used on that? To some extent that is why those models have all the compact variants.

This is what I mean by duplication issue, the thing you specifically mentioned.

Not really, I personally like the idea that the most futuristic engines are, due to radiation/size concerns, impractical to use for launch. It encourages something more complex than a one-size-fits all vehicle, so you have an architecture to deliver things to orbit, an architecture for transit A, transit B, etc..

Thanks, I found the issue. With the other problem mods uninstalled, did you still have this duplication problem?

Hey so I've stepped back from staring at balance to work on some new stuff. I've overall thought that the best way to 'handle' the NSWR is, well, to provide more torch drives so it doesn't sit off by itself. For now, I'm scoping two - the ones that won the poll from before. The first one is the beamed-core antimatter drive, which I previewed last week. This engine will roughly allow you to get FFRE-level specific impulse with a fair bit more thrust. This is quite a large engine. It has an extensible truss which has radiators - you can extend the engine to reduce the number of radiators you need to attach separately. It should be noted that the original Frisbee design had about 500 km of these radiators (yes, kilometres). Because it uses a lot of antimatter, you will need something better than the antimatter ring, so here are some more antimatter tanks that get a little more scifi. They have blinking lights. Evidently, generating this much antimatter with Science is probably not realistic. You will need to harvest it with the exo-scoop or generate it using your own factories. More on that next update...

I see some very strange errors in there, not really related to Waterfall. There is one error though - can you post your MM cache?

Some of the words there sound like KSPI-E, might want to ask there. I don't support tweakscale in any way shape or form.

There's a line in the FAQ (first post) and it is noted as an optional dependency in the readme.

Probably not. I guess one use case is using the exchanger to increase the loop temp to use better radiators with lower-temp engines. In that case you would need to move a lot of heat between the engine loop and the higher temp radiator loop

Most of these engines kill anyone anywhere nearby that aren't behind the shadow shield. Reasonably, there is probably a situation where the presence of PersistentThrust introduces 'appropriate' thrust scaling, something closer to reality. No, no container. Direct refurbish only - consider it an engine that works best between 'stops' in a civilized system. Range anxiety. NFP engines haven't gotten their SystemHeat patches yet There is a fundamental trade though that is interesting - you put more fuel into the engine, you get less heat needs (more is taken away). I need to digest this paragraph more, but I am spending some time updating my balance simulators to handle SH. Good idea.

Can you explain your use case a little more? I'm having trouble understanding why you would have engines in a separate loop and want to move all that heat somewhere else (end of the workday, sorry).

Addendum: I'm not surprised at all - I wrote a completely custom animation handler for them.

Yes, sorry, I am very busy now and miss things.

Ahh ok yeah. That could be tuned, but I do want a cap per part.

Thanks @RedParadize, I will add some answers below with my thoughts: You are supposed to be able to refurbish the ablator with the nuclear smelter, I think that got lost in the transition from the old version. The concept is that it is very much like the Verne, but lighter and simpler (plus some thrust, Isp) as a result of using antimatter to ignite the blast. Probably needs some work. It is entry level so this is intended. If I did the math right it should have somewhat better full-system efficiencies than the NFP engines. I can take a second look though. I intended this to be a good all-around engine - it does stand out in one way, it has the single highest engine power generation, so you can use it to make a ship effectively alone - no need for a separate power source to cool tanks, run radiators. It's a generalist, not a specialist. Looks like I have to take a look at this one. It should definitely be beating the JR15 when it is stretched at the very least. Some bounds The Reaction Products mode should probably be beating the K80's low thrust mode in terms of thrust but not Isp. The Afterburner mode should definitely be beating the K80 in terms of thrust all the time. It just burns more deuterium with the He3. I'll take a look at the exact numbers though. That sounds about right, it should be powerful but big and awkward to use. I think these need to go down in thrust a bit. Shouldn't be that good. Sounds like I might need to play with the numbers on the afterburner mode.

What do you mean? I don't really have a concept of max heat transfer.

It will eventually be updated to the release thread, so yes it will continue to be wrong. Ouroboros: You could be right, but it does have some advantages, including: Easier to refuel (and maybe cheaper) Some power generation Supposed to be a sustainer vs booster type thing too. Fresnel vs Hammertong: That seems more or less as intended, tech might be wrong. You should be able to get better thrust with the Fresnel but Hammertong will win the Isp game. Fresnel also has power generation built in too. Verne: Can bump the tech, FFREs: Isp is lower than it should be, thrust might need to go further down. Scaling is the way it is because I took the time to approximately measure the stock radiators and compute their output realistically. It's not just a number I chose versus stock. Honestly I'm unlikely to make a LS mod because I don't enjoy LS. Persistent thrust, last I checked the actual Persistent Thrust mod was pretty good though, and duplicating that wouldn't be fun. The heat management thing you mention is already part of SystemHeat :). Mixing loops with different optimal temperature parts will give poor results.

Hmm going to have to find a solution to that, I hadn't thought of it. Embarrassing.

I think there's actually a "write me" section in that readme for the curved ones... Configuring radiators is not too hard. You need to figure out surface area and temperature. You should pick surface area by looking at your radiator and seeing how large it is (compare it one of the SH ones, and scale from there). Then you pick maximum temperature, which is determined by the type of radiator you are using. 350K: basic ammonia loop (life support) radiators like on the ISS 1000K: The 'high temperature' radiators in Heat Control, which are based more or less on high temp radiators we could feasibly build today. 1300K: The 'microchannel' higher tech carbon filament tube radiators that can handle more heat You can pick whatever you want, of course, but those are the categories I've been running with. Fancier radiators might be higher. Then you use the stefann-boltzmann law to get the approximate ideal radiation power. That's F = A*sigma* T^4, where sigma is the setefann-boltzmann constant, 5.67*10^-8 T is the temperature you chose, in K A is the area you calculated, in square metres You then round the answer to a nicer number, and plug the temperature and the flux into the TemperatureCurve: @MODULE[ModuleActiveRadiator] { @name = ModuleSystemHeatRadiator moduleID = radiator // ModuleSystemHeat instance to link to systemHeatModuleID = default // option: use deterministic temperatures // Power radiated per temperature temperatureCurve { key = 0 0 key = 1000 50 } } } An alternate, possibly lower effort, way to do it is to look at a radiator I configured with the same temperature properties and figure out how much bigger or smaller yours is, and copy/scale the values appropriately. So I know yall are sad that KSP2 is delayed so let me provide a small present. A new challenger for the crown of 'biggest, baddest engine'

Yes that is correct. I've also expressed doubts before that this is going to look great without the better engine emissive styles that the mod community uses.