Phoenix1583

Liquid salt reactors have their place. It's not really snake oil, it's just not quite as amazing as they're making it out to be. The thorium is really just a fertile material that's converted into Uranium (233 actually, an odd isotope) which is then used. Outside of that common misconception, liquid salt reactors are not very well suited to be scaled or modular. They would, essentially, be a small units which are self contained and have everything from the energy generation equipment to the recycling equipment all built into a single unit. As such, you would actually need arrays of these systems to offset the power output of something like a PWR or LWR. They're absolutely on track with saying that Thorium is a useful material that we're ignoring though. I couldn't agree more. However, we should also be looking at things like fast breeders and pebble-bed reactors in general. Also, for the record, it's not snake oil because we've actually made experimental systems. The main reason we didn't go further with it was because the powers that be at the time found that other designs were more useful for producing weapons grade fissile materials. https://www.ornl.gov/news/msres-50th

@NathanKell This install was direct from the link provided here on a clean KSP install.

I've tried loading the game a few times now, always getting stuck here: The game hasn't frozen given that the little text stuff keeps switching but it won't load past this point.

I've had it since I think like early 2013. Got it on Steam I think. Was a while ago. heh

I don't know when I signed up for the forum but I've had KSP since mid-2011. I'm not bothering with the game until 1.1 comes out though. The memory limit destroys my enjoyment.

Absolutely fantastic mod! It's a ball in KSP!

Cycler orbits would be fine so long as you brought fuel along with your pickup missions. As it comes around, load it up with a little excess fuel for periodic correction burns. Also, yes, I've actually set up this kind of orbit that would have somewhat close passes of both the Mun and Kerbin, it does work rather easily given that physics aren't really calculated unless you're at the ship (or station, whatever you want to call it.)

I actually rarely play anymore. I usually jump on when bored and/or feel like building something for sh**s and giggles. When 64bit comes around though... oohhhh boy, I'm going to customize the heck out of the game and have a blast!

Alright, so to sum up what's been said thus far: A: Poly counts ingame are limited to increase performance on lower end machines. B: Poly counts are not a major factor in performance on higher end machines but textures are. C: Avoid multiple meshes where able if not needed. Combine into same group object. D: Stay under 10k tris per object to ensure that complex rocket designs are not bogging down the engine. E: Wait until 64bit becomes available.

Hey folks. Just curious about what level of detail should I be using when working on engines, fuel tanks, and other objects? Given that we do not yet have a functional (Windows) x64 client, I have a feeling that poly counts are rather limited. Is 3-5k polys too much for say... an engine? Example seen below (poly/tri count at top left)

What would you folks recommend be the maximum polycount for these objects: Engine Fuel Tank Coupler Misc. (hab modules, station parts, etc)? So far, I've been able to produce decent quality engine models which don't look too segmented but I'm hitting around 4-6k tris on them and I still want more detail.

I somewhat doubt you're being honest. The newest versions are far more efficient with memory than 0.22.

I love the old Interstellar mod but I always found it to be a little too scifi in certain areas. I'll try to keep to a little more realism but that doesn't mean that IE is in any way bad, just a different flavor of the same thing I have intended. I wish that mod and its creators the best of luck - ultimately, Interstellar was the mod that made me want to do this!

Ahh, I see. FTmN did have some excellent ideas. I'll consider doing something like that with my addon - though it won't be immediately available. You might want to take FTmN and see if you can update it for yourself to the current version of Kerbal.

I'm going to be starting tonight (after work) on a mod built around the idea of implementing realistic propulsion methods into KSP and potentially adding most realistic planetary bodies as a secondary addon at a later date. My goals are to pick out ideas proposed by propulsion experts around the world which are either a: unique, b: doable with modern (or near future) technology, and/or c: that utilize innovative fuel sources. Some of those ideas include designs such as internal confinement plasma rockets, solid and gas core fission rockets, fission rockets which utilize water-ice as fuel, solar thermal rockets and various electric propulsion (Though this will take a back seat due to the Near Future Propulsion addon already available). I'd also like to have you guys suggest things that are unique or innovative. With that out of the way, I'd like to go ahead and say one more thing: I am not going to be doing stockalike parts or cartoonish systems. I've got an OCD complex which forces me to always model things that look realistic and have rational engineering ideas (iow, I avoid pipes and other details that don't look as if they'd serve any real purpose). This means that my poly counts and maps will likely be somewhat larger than what you may be used to and as such, the pack will likely be released in segments as so that the end-user can pick and choose which systems he/she would like to utilize. I'm open to discussion on that idea however. This thread is simply for the discussion of ideas and a new thread will be created once we move past the discussion phase and into the construction stage. [edit]: I'd also like to add some rocket body and fuel tanks to allow for some more realistic craft as well. This will likely be done first.