Fraz86
-
Posts
462 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Fraz86
-
-
New test release
Removes conformal radiators, tweaks reactor temperatures and masses a bit. Also stops reactor heat production at > 100X time warp. See if that helps (I have a worry here).
Looks good! Here are my initial observations:
- The >100X time warp temperature jump no longer occurs in my tests. Now the temperature drops dramatically at >100X time warp. This is technically exploitable - you could build a ship with no radiators and lots of batteries, start the reactor at 0% output, go to 1000X time warp, adjust output to 100%, fill batteries, decrease output back to 0%, turn off time warp, then use the stored electricity to power engines or whatever. Thankfully, it's a bit difficult to imagine when this would really be useful, considering that - if you're going to 1000X time warp to fill batteries, you might as well just use solar panels or RTGs.
- It looks like my wishlist of proposed changes was almost entirely implemented, so I don't have much else to add. The only exceptions are MX-4 mass (which remains at 1.22 instead of 1.2) and reactor costs. I agree with Steetwind's assertion that, given the expensiveness of reactors, it seems reasonable to leave them alone. The only additional suggestion I can think of is, I suppose it wouldn't hurt to increase radiatorMax of reactors to 0.35 like LV-Ns (though, as I said before, this will only matter in very specific circumstances).
Is there some effective way to quantify radiation capacity of stock radiators at optimal temperatures? It would be good to place a descriptive field on them (for HC) for better intercomparison between parts. I can add a part description field easily enough.Given that heat radiation varies significantly depending on the target temperature (e.g., ~775 for M-EXP, MX-4, & MX-1, ~800 for MX-2, ~ 825 for MX-L, and potentially much higher for nuclear, ion, and plasma engines), I worry that including specific heat radiation capacity information will end up being more confusing than helpful to the average player. Perhaps we could simply describe radiation capacity in terms of an arbitrary unit where 1.0 is defined as the capacity of the Thermal Control System (small). Thus, the TCS (med) is 5, TCS (large) is 20, GR-EXP is 0.5, GR-4 is 1 2/3, and GR-1 is 10. Multiply everything by 6 if you want only whole numbers.
- The >100X time warp temperature jump no longer occurs in my tests. Now the temperature drops dramatically at >100X time warp. This is technically exploitable - you could build a ship with no radiators and lots of batteries, start the reactor at 0% output, go to 1000X time warp, adjust output to 100%, fill batteries, decrease output back to 0%, turn off time warp, then use the stored electricity to power engines or whatever. Thankfully, it's a bit difficult to imagine when this would really be useful, considering that - if you're going to 1000X time warp to fill batteries, you might as well just use solar panels or RTGs.
-
Porkjet, how do your radiators operate? On stock module, or custom / with heat pump / something else?
They use the stock radiator module, like the stock folding radiators. This is different from the stock static radiator panels, which are passive. Porkjet also set various heat parameters (e.g., heatConductivity, emissiveConstant, maxEnergyTransfer, thermalMassModifier, maxTemp) different from the stock radiators, so expect them to behave a bit differently.
-
This would allow tweaking radiator performance by varying maximum temp difference it's pump can achieve. So the area of radiator would not be the only vital characteristic.
My patch's tweaking of radiator emissivity is basically intended to simulate this mechanic, in an abstracted manner. That's how it's possible to balance conformal radiators with stock, despite their very different surface areas.
Nertea, for the record, even with good balance, I still recommend moving conformal radiators to a separate parts pack, so that players can choose not to complicate their radiator options if they prefer to stick with stock.
-
Have you tried playing with radiatorMax at all?
If my understanding of radiatorMax is correct, I think the default value (0.25) should be fine. No real advantage to "activating" radiators at a lower temperature. I suppose we could use a slightly higher value (e.g., 0.35 like LV-Ns) so reactors don't needlessly activate radiators while operating at low outputs, but this would only matter in very specific situations.
-
Are the radiators competitive/useful to have in scenarios other than conformal sets?
Yes, if you need smaller radiators. Performance per unit mass is almost exactly the same for conformal vs stock radiators, with just a tiny advantage to stock that won't usually matter in-game. Conformal radiators are twice as expensive as stock per unit mass (though actually a bit less expensive than pre-1.03), in exchange for much smaller surface area & volume.
(Also, argh! Must look away... from inconsistent... numbers...
)Indeed. However, I believe this is the lesser evil of the available options. And really, I'm mostly just compensating for the inconsistency introduced by KSP's inaccurate surface area calculations. This should actually result in better consistency from a gameplay perspective.
-
I have a new & improved version of my NFE patch. This version brings back conformal radiators, tweaking their emissivities such that a "matching set" will achieve thermal equilibrium just below the reactor's nominal temp. Relative to a stock radiators of equivalent mass, conformal radiators are now twice as expensive and 5-10K warmer at steady state, in order to balance their much lower surface area. Conformal radiators' maxEnergyTransfer was adjusted to match stock (per unit mass). This update also adjusts reactor costs to offset the decreased cost of radiators.
Basically, I believe this patch addresses the issues with the current NFE test release, aside from the time warp problem.
@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[FissionReactor]]:Final
{
%heatConductivity = 0.00001
%skinInternalConductionMult = 0.00001
}
@PART[reactor-0625]:Final
{
@description ^= :$: The manufacturer recommends 2x Thermal Control System (small) for heat dissipation.:
@mass -= 0.02 //offsets +0.02 change in recommended radiator mass (4x 0.02 vs 2x 0.05)
@cost += 970 //offsets -970 change in recommended radiator cost (4x 467.5 vs 2x 450)
@MODULE[FissionReactor]
{
@NominalTemperature = 800 //steady state ~780K with recommended radiators
}
}
@PART[reactor-125]:Final
{
@description ^= :$: The manufacturer recommends 2x Thermal Control System (medium) for heat dissipation.:
@mass -= 0.02 //offsets +0.02 change in recommended radiator mass (6x 0.08 vs 2x 0.25)
@cost += 6975 //offsets -6975 change in recommended radiator cost (6x 1912.5 vs 2x 2250)
//steady state ~770K with recommended radiators; no need to modify nominal temp of 800K
}
@PART[reactor-25]:Final
{
@description ^= :$: The manufacturer recommends 2x Thermal Control System (large) or 8x Thermal Control System (medium) for heat dissipation.:
//no change in recommended radiator mass (4x 0.5 vs 2x 1.0 vs 8x 0.25)
@cost += 27900 //offsets -27900 change in recommended radiator cost (4x 11475 vs 2x 9000 vs 8x 2250)
@MODULE[FissionReactor]
{
@NominalTemperature = 800 //steady state ~770-780K with recommended radiators
}
}
@PART[reactor-25-2]:Final
{
@description ^= :$: The manufacturer recommends 2x Thermal Control System (large) or 8x Thermal Control System (medium) for heat dissipation.:
@cost += 27900 //offsets decrease in radiator costs
@MODULE[FissionReactor]
{
@NominalTemperature = 850 //steady state ~825K with recommended radiators
}
}
@PART[reactor-375]:Final
{
@description ^= :$: The manufacturer recommends 6x Thermal Control System (medium) for heat dissipation.:
@cost += 20925 //offsets decrease in radiator costs
@MODULE[FissionReactor]
{
@NominalTemperature = 825 //steady state ~800K with recommended radiators
}
}
@PART[radiator-conformal-1]:Final
{
@mass = 0.025
@cost = 450 //twice as costly as stock radiators for given performance, in exchange for higher performance for given surface area
@emissiveConstant = 2.4 //steady state ~785K with M-EXP
@MODULE[ModuleActiveRadiator]
{
@maxEnergyTransfer = 1250 //follows the "mass x 50000" algorithm of stock radiators
}
}
@PART[radiator-conformal-2]:Final
{
@mass = 0.085
@cost = 1530 //twice as costly as stock radiators for given performance, in exchange for higher performance for given surface area
@emissiveConstant = 5.2 //steady state ~785K with MX-4
@MODULE[ModuleActiveRadiator]
{
@maxEnergyTransfer = 4250 //follows the "mass x 50000" algorithm of stock radiators
}
}
@PART[radiator-conformal-3]:Final
{
@cost = 9000 //twice as costly as stock radiators for given performance, in exchange for higher performance for given surface area
@emissiveConstant = 2.25 //steady state ~785K with MX-1
@MODULE[ModuleActiveRadiator]
{
@maxEnergyTransfer = 25000 //follows the "mass x 50000" algorithm of stock radiators
}
} -
That way you guarantee that the conformal set can cool the reactor in all cases... that do no involve going closer to the sun, because that's going to break the balance.
Have you actually tested this issue? I had the same concern, but when testing this patch, I HyperEdited my spacecraft into orbit of Moho, and the reactor steady state temperature only increased 2-3K.
You could also make reactors be fully isolated at all times. Make them just not participate in exchanging heat with the vessel. That way it's easier to balance for the conformal set, because it always guarantees conformal conditions.I really think this is the way to go (well, not necessarily fully isolated, but very low heatConductivity). It's the only way, within this system, to achieve robust reactor/radiator relationships. I would argue that it doesn't entirely defeat the purpose of the heat simulation, as players will still need to consider issues of radiator saturation if they have any other heat-producing parts on the spacecraft.
Fraz made some comments before about ignoring sunk costs, but I think he's not really doing that himself. There are a lot of things we don't model, like ionizing radiation, nuclear waste dumps, Kerbal "no-nukes" protestors trying to block the launches, etc. Why are we trying to model reactor heating the way we are doing?What sunk costs am I holding on to? Reactor heat itself? As my recent patch demonstrates, it's actually really easy to balance reactor heat if we take Nertea's radiators out of the picture.
Nertea,
For you consideration, I have outlined one potential approach to working through the reactor heat/radiator issues:
Step 1 - Update NFE for 1.04, without conformal radiators. This involves (i) tuning reactor properties to be well-matched with stock radiators (as I did in my example patch), and (ii) solving the ≥1000x time warp exploding ship issue (e.g., by disallowing ≥1000x time warp with active reactor, or turning off reactor heat production at ≥1000x time warp).
Step 2 - Update HeatControl for 1.04, as a parts-only pack (which would now include conformal radiators, and should probably exclude heat pipes and exchangers). This would involve tuning the conformal radiators to work as matching sets with their corresponding reactors, which I still believe is possible, though it will be messy. Doing so will probably require tuning the emissivity values of each radiator individually to achieve the desired performance.
Step 3 - If/when motivated to do so, develop an optional "HeatControl+" add-on that basically restores your pre-1.03 radiator behavior and localized heat management, including heat pipes and exchangers.
-
For testing purposes (with the NFE 1.04 test release), I wrote a ModuleManager patch that removes conformal radiators and makes a few small tweaks to reactors so that they're well-matched with stock radiators. It also addends the reactors' descriptions, indicating the recommended radiators. Lastly, I dropped reactor conductivity to 0.00001, definitively resolving the "entire ship turns into a furnace" issue. Super low conductivity also has the benefit of making reactor/radiator relationships easy to tune, with highly consistent steady state temperatures across ship designs (for , because virtually no reactor heat is dispelled through any route other than radiators.
I acknowledge that retiring Nertea's radiators is a big sacrifice. On the other hand, this patch makes NFE feel much cleaner, and extricates us from the current problems with radiator balance.
-PART[radiator-conformal-1] {}
-PART[radiator-conformal-2] {}
-PART[radiator-conformal-3] {}
@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[FissionReactor]]:Final
{
%heatConductivity = 0.00001
%skinInternalConductionMult = 0.00001
}
@PART[reactor-0625]:Final
{
@description ^= :$: The manufacturer recommends 2x Thermal Control System (small) for heat dissipation.:
@mass -= 0.02 //offsets +0.02 change in recommended radiator mass (4x 0.02 vs 2x 0.05)
@MODULE[FissionReactor]
{
@NominalTemperature = 800 //steady state ~780K with recommended radiators
}
}
@PART[reactor-125]:Final
{
@description ^= :$: The manufacturer recommends 2x Thermal Control System (medium) for heat dissipation.:
@mass -= 0.02 //offsets +0.02 change in recommended radiator mass (6x 0.08 vs 2x 0.25)
//steady state ~770K with recommended radiators; no need to modify nominal temp of 800K
}
@PART[reactor-25]:Final
{
@description ^= :$: The manufacturer recommends 2x Thermal Control System (large) or 8x Thermal Control System (medium) for heat dissipation.:
//no change in recommended radiator mass (4x 0.5 vs 2x 1.0 vs 8x 0.25)
@MODULE[FissionReactor]
{
@NominalTemperature = 800 //steady state ~770-780K with recommended radiators
}
}
@PART[reactor-25-2]:Final
{
@description ^= :$: The manufacturer recommends 2x Thermal Control System (large) or 8x Thermal Control System (medium) for heat dissipation.:
@MODULE[FissionReactor]
{
@NominalTemperature = 850 //steady state ~825K with recommended radiators
}
}
@PART[reactor-375]:Final
{
@description ^= :$: The manufacturer recommends 6x Thermal Control System (medium) for heat dissipation.:
@MODULE[FissionReactor]
{
@NominalTemperature = 825 //steady state ~800K with recommended radiators
}
} -
Nertea's radiators appear to outperform stock radiators pound for pound.
I think it's fair to say Nertea's radiators are currently overpowered. The slightly higher cost does not sufficiently offset their higher performance for a given mass, volume, and surface area. Perhaps emissivity should come down a bit?
radiator model surface =/= drag cube.Yeah, that's a significant problem now. I suppose the emissivity of each of Nertea's radiators could be separately tuned to account for its surface area overestimation (e.g., the GR-EXP should have the lowest emissivity of Nertea's radiators).
We're now back to cooking Kerbals alive in their pods at half a thousand degrees Celsius, sustained indefinitely. Yaaay.
I proposed a dramatic decrease in reactor conductivity (I would suggest ≤0.0001), which could help to address this issue.
The concept of "conformal radiators" meanwhile is now mostly superfluous other than for flavor reasons...It pains me to suggest this, but...
Maybe it would be for the best if Nertea just removed conformal radiators from NFE altogether, and balanced reactor heat parameters solely with stock radiators in mind. He could make the conformal radiators available as a separate download for those who want them for aesthetic reasons, but make no guarantees or recommendations regarding their use as "matching sets" with NFE reactors. I know it sounds drastic, but the longer I look at options for preserving the role of NFE radiators, the more inelegant those options appear.
-
This would go back to why Nertea is going to need to sort out 1.0.4 compatibility which is completely orthagonal to radiators.
I'm curious what you mean? Doesn't my experiment demonstrate that the problem is rooted in the stock heat simulation? If Squad ever wants to reintroduce heating to any modules that function under time warp (e.g., ISRU, drills, etc.), it looks like they will encounter the exact same problem. Not to mention any mods that want to add heat-producing parts. It appears that this problem is not at all specific to NFE.
I suppose it's true that "Nertea is going to need to sort out 1.0.4 compatibility" to the extent that he must adapt to a bugged stock simulation, but that's hardly what I would call a matter of compatibility.
-
RoverDude & Nertea,
The jump in temperature at ≥1000x time warp appears to be stock behavior. I hypothesized that simulation of heat production at time warps ≥1000x might be the problem, therefore rendering LV-Ns an unsuitable comparison (LV-Ns must be turned off to engage time warp). I couldn't think of any continuously heat-producing stock parts, so I used a ModuleManager patch to add a heat-producing ModuleResourceConverter (using only stock variables; not dependent on any plugin code) to the ISRU Converter:
@PART[ISRU]:Final
{
MODULE
{
name = ModuleResourceConverter
ConverterName = Heater
StartActionName = Start Heater
StopActionName = Stop Heater
AutoShutdown = false
GeneratesHeat = true
TemperatureModifier = 100
UseSpecialistBonus = false
}
}Using a test craft with an ISRU converter (with aforementioned "heater" activated) and stock radiators, at time warps <1000x, the resulting thermal equilibrium is seen here:
ISRU - 819K
LH2 tank - 809K
At time warps ≥1000x, the entire craft jumped to (and remained stable at) 1097K:
Additional notes:
- I have confirmed that this phenomenon can result in thermally stable spacecraft exploding immediately upon engaging ≥1000x time warp
- This phenomenon is new in 1.03/1.04; I recall from NFE testing in 1.02 that ≥1000x time warp resulted in a sudden decrease in temperature
- I have confirmed that this phenomenon can result in thermally stable spacecraft exploding immediately upon engaging ≥1000x time warp
-
How hot were the radiators? In 1.02, I believe the heat that got smeared all over my ships at high warp came from the radiators. Remember, they drop in temperature to equal the average temp, and if they have a high thermal mass that means a lot of heat gets redistributed.
Radiator temperature was 660-670K (just slightly below reactor temp) at time warps <1000x. At time warps ≥1000x, radiator temperature jumped to 865K (as did the rest of the spacecraft).
-
I conducted a series of experiments with a simple spacecraft (equipped with an MX-1 and four GR-1s) to demonstrate the impact of reactor insulation.
Using the current test version of NFE, in which reactors have a heatConductivity of 0.005, my spacecraft eventually reached the following steady state:
Excluding the reactor and radiators, the LH2 tank was the hottest part of the craft. The docking port at the front was the coldest. The temperatures were as follows:
Reactor - 662K
LH2 tank - 595K
Docking port - 557K
Setting reactor heatConductivity & skinInternalConductionMult at 0.001 produced this result:
Reactor - 671K
LH2 tank - 488K
Docking port - 400K
Finally, a further decrease of heatConductivity & skinInternalConductionMult to 0.0001 resulted in the following equilibrium:
Reactor - 673K
LH2 tank - 315K
Docking port - 293K
Commentary:
I was surprised to see how little the increased insulation changes the equilibrium temperature of the reactor itself. Also surprised by just how low reactor heatConductivity needs to be in order to meaningfully protect the rest of the spacecraft. I definitely think that reactor heatConductivity should be significantly decreased. I had previously suggested 0.001, but now I'm thinking 0.0001 would be better.
As a separate issue, I still don't understand the ≥1000x time warp heat logic. In the above experiments, at 1000x time warp, the temperature of the spacecraft would jump to around 865K, which was substantially hotter than any part of the spacecraft at time warps <1000x.
-
(Unofficial) request for feedback regarding the balance of fuel tank configurations
I wrote the new components of the fuel-switching patch. It is designed to mathematically derive fuel tank properties from a set of basic constants, facilitating consistency and balance. However, some of the constants that I selected are largely educated guesses regarding what will produce good in-game balance. If there is a consensus that something needs adjustment, I can make recommendations to Nertea regarding tweaking the constants. In particular, I'm interested in the dry mass of LH2-containing parts, which has decreased significantly from prior versions.
-
Sorry, but no. Time is not a factor when the solution reaches a steady state equilibrium. That's what steady state means.
You just described it correctly -- when the rate of heat being generated is exactly balanced by the rate of heat being lost, then everything is in steady state. Temperatures stop changing. And in that situation, time doesn't matter.
Rate involves time. Heat production/movement/dissipation are measured in watts, which are joules per second. Seconds are a unit of time. The rates of heat production/movement/dissipation will ultimately determine the ship's steady state.
I think you misunderstood my use of the phrase "providing more time for these parts to dissipate the heat", as if I was referring to some discrete interval of extra time. Instead, I'm referring to rates. The intended meaning was basically "slowing down the rate of heat influx, thus allowing heat outflux via radiation to better keep pace with influx, ultimately resulting in a lower steady state temperature for the part."
-
Time only matters for a transitory source. In the long run, the system will reach a steady state where the total heat being entered into the ship equals the total heat coming out of it. when that happens, time no longer is a factor. But insulation will still have some effect, because most heat transfer processes depend on temperature. The hot side will stay a little hotter, which will mean it will radiate (or convect) a little bit more heat than it would have otherwise. So the steady-state will keep a little more of the heat on the hot side of the insulator.
(Then when you warp faster than 100 your ship will all equalize in temperature, thus disrupting your steady-state balance.)
Time is always a factor, in terms of the rate of heat movement between parts. Slow movement of heat from the reactor to other parts provides greater opportunity for those parts to radiate away the reactor's heat as they receive it, reaching a lower equilibrium. The temperature of a part will continue to increase until the total rate of heat moving out of the part = the total rate of heat moving into the part. Greater insulation will decrease the rate of heat moving into the part. The other side of this coin, as you note, is that the reactor will retain more of its own heat, and therefore radiate more.
-
Insulators are just postponing the inevitable.
That isn't quite accurate. Insulation decreases the rate of heat flux into parts adjacent to the reactor. If those parts had no means by which to dissipate the heat they are receiving, then you would be correct, and eventually the whole spacecraft would reach the same temperature regardless of insulation. Fortunately, however, all parts have emissivity and are therefore able to dissipate some of the heat they receive from the reactor, thus resulting in a lower temperature than the reactor itself. Insulation enhances this ability, essentially by providing more time for these parts to dissipate the heat they are receiving from the reactor.
What you have observed is that - in most cases - the rate of heat conduction into parts attached to a reactor greatly exceeds the rate at which those parts are capable of dissipating heat, and therefore the whole ship ends up at almost the same temperature. Conductivity needs to be set really really low in order to prevent this from happening.
-
Working reactor is the hottest part of the ship, it equalizes with radiators at it's nominal temperature.
Radiator behavior is not related to reactor nominal temperature. Radiators begin removing heat when a part's temperature exceeds [radiatorMax * maxTemp]. Default radiatorMax is 0.25, so for NFE reactors, radiators should "activate" at 400K.
Radiators then can only 'shave off' anything that grows hotter (nothing). Other parts just building up heat until the whole ship is a furnace.The whole ship becoming a furnace is largely unrelated to the new radiator behavior, and could easily happen with Nertea's old 1.02 radiators. Regardless of how radiators function, if the reactor reaches an equilibrium of 600K (or whatever) and it isn't highly insulated, it will eventually heat up the whole spacecraft. Most stock parts are quite conductive, so heat tends to spread readily. The easiest way to prevent this would be to further decrease reactor conductivity.
-
Psycho,
Could you elaborate on what you mean by the "shaving temperature off concept" and why it looks ugly?
-
Nertea,
Your proposed changes (halving reactor heat output and increasing radiator emissivity) sound perfectly reasonable. However, as I alluded to in one of my prior posts, one problem that existed back when reactors had lower heat output, was that attaching a bunch of structural parts (e.g., small wings) was a bit too effective at managing reactor heat. One possible solution is to decrease reactor heatConductivity to a very low value, maybe even 0.001 like radiators. This change is easily justified, as real-world reactors are certainly well insulated, and it would effectively force players to use radiators to manage reactor heat.
-
Honestly? I'm not a fan of "fudging physics", as it were, even if it works ingame. That's not to say I will argue against it if it turns out to be useful, but you won't see me calling for it, sorry It just feels counterintuitive to me to take this incredibly complex thermodynamics simulation that we have and then go and make it behave in an unrealistic fashion. Yes, I know the stock game does it all over the place, but that doesn't make it better.
I'd prefer to think of it as an "abstraction" of plausible behind-the-scenes physics rather than "fudging". That is, in my mind, setting emissivity >1 isn't meant to imply that the radiator violates the laws of physics, but instead that it has some sophisticated engineering (e.g., a refrigeration circuit that pumps heat to specific heat dissipation elements of the radiator, which become much hotter than the panel as a whole) that allows it to operate in a manner slightly more complicated than the physics that KSP chooses to simulate, therefore requiring abstraction.
The thing to keep in mind here is that doing this wouldn't have to be done to make the Near Future radiators work with the stock modules. They would work perfectly fine with no changes other than perhaps price and mass, and they'd in fact be minimally better per area offered because they already have the highest possible (realistic) emissiveConstant, higher than what the stock radiators offer. But they would not truly offer anything new besides fancy emissives. (Which are, admittedly, one of my favorite things.)The problem is, I'm confident that the intended "matching sets" of conformal radiators (e.g., four GR-1s for an MX-1 reactor) will no longer be sufficient to cool their corresponding reactors, unless we drastically change the reactor heat properties (by giving them super high nominal & critical temps and/or much lower heat output). If Nertea chooses to retire the assumption that a reactor's matching conformal radiators should provide sufficient cooling, so be it. But, personally, I'd like to see this reactor/radiator relationship protected, even if it requires some slightly silly config values.
It's precisely that which irks me. Build a part that does something novel and useful, and it requires fudging physics? Okay, may be acceptable. I eventually went with advocating fudging the physics on the DS01 Charon MPDT because it turned out that the size-0-to-size-0 bulkhead connection arbitrarily limits thermal conductivity to a huge degree. But build a part that is redundant, then fudge physics in order to justify its existence? That just feels contrived... Now of course, Nertea's parts came first and the new stock radiators merely sniped their reason to exist, so nobody can blame anyone for seeking new and novel ways to keep them relevant. I just think that fudging physics should be a last resort, not a weapon of choice.As described above, I am not proposing this "fudge" simply to justify the radiators' existence. It's intended to preserve the reactor/radiator relationship.
Perhaps we might even get away without fudging physics. I have some vague ideas, but they're all pointless to discuss as long as I don't properly understand how NF reactors will run with stock radiators and proper skin stats. Once there is a test build available, this will certainly be the focus of my testing activities.Fair enough. I understand that this discussion is largely speculative until we have a test build. That said, I think the question of whether or not it is justified to fudge (or, as I'd like to think of it, "abstract") the physics of Nertea's radiators is likely to be of key importance. As always, I appreciate your insights!
EDIT:
The logic behind increasing reactor heat production was in an attempt to actually get it to stabilize better. Way I see it there's two main options: nerf the hell out of reactor heating until stock radiators can keep up, or raise reactor operating temperature so high the stock radiators are able to hit thermal equilibrium (which is gonna be really difficult without refrigeration). Had some other things I wanted to toss out but I just drove 3 and a half hours almost nonstop and have to make the drive again tomorrow, so I'm a bit burnt out.If you thought that increasing reactor heat output was going to help the spacecraft achieve a stable thermal equilibrium, well, you may have some fundamental misunderstandings of the physics involved. It's true that radiators will dissipate more heat at higher temperatures, but the increase in heat dissipation will never exceed the increase in heat production, so it will always be a net detriment for the craft.
-
Streetwind,
I don't necessarily disagree with you. I share your opinion that reactor heat output is currently in a good place. If we can balance everything without decreasing reactor heat output, I will be happy. I'm only saying that I'm not confident we can take it off the table.
Anyway, I would love to hear if you have any thoughts regarding my proposal to give Nertea's radiators high emissivity (probably >4) as a means of allowing them to retain their ability to provide sufficient cooling for their corresponding reactors, as well as justifying their high mass and cost (relative to stock radiators).
-
you increased the reactor's heat output by 60%. Why? There's no reason to expect this value to change in any way for this update
I wouldn't rule out a change in reactor heat output, though obviously the direction of change would be a decrease rather than increase. Compensating for the lack of refrigeration behavior may prove challenging if we don't decrease reactor heat output. Yes, nominal & critical temps can be increased as you suggested, but it may not be enough.
Keep in mind, we actually doubled reactor heat production late during testing for the recent NFE release. I had advocated for that increase, primarily due to concerns regarding structural parts being overly capable of dissipating reactor heat. I think it would be reasonable to revert to the prior heat output if needed, and the issue of excessive structural heat dissipation could be addressed by other means (e.g., by giving reactors very low conductivity).
-
Fraz, I will do some testing tomorrow evening when time permits to show what it will take. If it takes what I think it will, it will shock you.
I don't think that will be necessary. I wrote the following ModuleManager config as a proof of concept:
@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[FissionReactor]]:Final
{
@MODULE[FissionReactor]
{
HeatGeneration /= 2
}
}
@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleGenericRadiator]]:Final
{
%crashTolerance = 12
%maxTemp = 2500
%bulkheadProfiles = srf
%emissiveConstant = 10
%heatConductivity = 0.001 //They have built in insulators
%skinInternalConductionMult = 2000
%radiatorHeadroom = 0.75
%thermalMassModifier = 2.5
MODULE
{
name = ModuleDeployableRadiator
animationName = Radiator_Extend
retractable = true
pivotName = Rotator
raycastTransformName = Rotator
windResistance = 5
trackingSpeed = 0.1
}
MODULE
{
name = ModuleActiveRadiator
maxEnergyTransfer = #$../mass$
@maxEnergyTransfer *= 50000
}
!MODULE[ModuleGenericRadiator] {}
}
@PART[radiator-conformal-2]:Final
{
@MODULE[ModuleDeployableRadiator]
{
@pivotName = Midlink
@raycastTransformName = Midlink
}
}
@PART[radiator-conformal-3]:Final
{
@MODULE[ModuleDeployableRadiator]
{
@animationName = RadiatorExtend
@pivotName = LinkNub
@raycastTransformName = LinkNub
}
}I wouldn't consider it "polished" by any means (I slapped it together in <15 minutes), but it successfully converts conformal radiators to the stock module, and adjusts reactor properties such that everything works together roughly as intended (reactors, stock radiators, and Nertea's radiators using the stock behavior). I used the "advanced radiators" concept that I mentioned in previous posts for conformal radiators, giving them increased emissivity at the expense of retaining their higher mass and cost relative to the stock radiators. The result is seen here:
Basically, an MX-1 operating at 100% with four GR-1's stabilized at 612K. That's pretty good!
Here's what it looks like with an equivalent mass of stock radiators:
As you can see, the MX-1 with two Large Thermal Control Systems stabilized at 844K. That's a bit hotter than what I'd like it to be, but still under nominal temp, and with a little more tweaking I could get it right where I want it.
)
[1.12.x] Heat Control - More radiators! (August 22, 2021)
in KSP1 Mod Releases
Posted
No, there is no 1.04 release for Heat Control. You should be using stock radiators in the manner stated by the reactor part descriptions. If you have encountered situations where the recommended radiators aren't working, please provide more detailed information (screenshots might be helpful too).