ss8913

I suppose if he's playing with implied EPA/OSHA standards (or equivalent bodies in his country of origin, those are the US ones), then that could be a thing, ... you definitely need nuclear launches to get that kind of power

you said that as a result of beamed power.. I should have been more clear, why *were* you using asparagus before beamed power, when the onboard-powered engines in KSPIE are more than up to the task of launching without asparagus... something like that

why are you using asparagus staging when you have KSPIE's engines available...?

you are the wind beneath my wings... wait, no, that's ferram4.. you're the... thrust behind my kerbals. quite literally. Thanks so much for this update!!

important note here: 1. If you have 'persistent rotation' installed (and this comes with KSPIE unless you install via CKAN), this won't work, since with this installed, speeds above 1x *do not* kill all possible rotation 2. Do not. DO NOT.. *under any circumstances* go more than 100x timewarp at > 10c. This will cause strange things to happen when you drop out of warp. Either your entire ship having badly misaligned parts (this looks SUPER bizarre), or it might just simply lose parts to an unexplained location, or the ship might just outright explode instantly. 3. Do not... DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES AND I REALLY MEAN IT THIS TIME, ever push F5 while the alcubierre drive is activated. Doing so will cause fatal issues with the physics engine leading to some really really twilight-zone-bizarre stuff happening if you ever revert to that save. I've unfortunately learned all of these things through significant trial and catastrophic error.

So.. I don't want the issue with the multiple antimatter generators' heat production to die here... @Mine_Turtle I looked through the part configs, I don't see anything in there that governs the heat production of the reactor.. is this something I'd need to grab the source and do a recompile for? I'm thinking that the simplest short-term solution, given that I don't fully understand why having > 1 of these things is causing such a huge issue, is to just reduce the antimatter reactors' heat generation overall.. kind of a cheat, I know, but I'm super stuck until this bug is fixed

AT_Utils is a separate mod. You need to install that. The error message you're getting indicates that it is not. If you install TCA through CKAN, it'll pull this in for you, btw.

Looks like you didn't install at_utils, which is required. Do that.

@Mine_Turtle and @FreeThinker - further update on the overheat thing; If there are two reactors on board and only one of them is driving an engine, the overheat still happens. If I disable the second reactor (ie, it's on a different stage/etc), then heat is normal, but if both are on, even if there's only one engine connected to one reactor, the wasteheat goes through the roof... I've also noticed that my frame rates are inversely proportional to the actual number of engines. If I add some ATTILA vtol thrusters to a craft which otherwise gets good frame rates, the frames tank even when I'm not using these engines (and I only added 4 parts to the craft to do this). Not sure if the issues are related or not (probably not), but thought I'd bring it up.

Yes! Yes, it did, excellent.

sorry; I'm seeing the problem actually with *every* engine in KSPIE, but the ones I'm using regularly and am currently hitting it with are the thermal turbojet, thermal ramjet nozzle, ATTILA thruster, the closed-cycle gas core engine, and the TORY nuclear ramjet.

OK, @Mine_Turtle, @FreeThinker , I did an overheat test on the closed cycle engines (the gas core ones with the integrated reactor/generator).. they do not seem to have the problem that I've been having with the thermal engines connected to the antimatter reactors. Test procedure: 1. Create rocket, 3.75m, with a single engine, 4 0.625m scaled medium winged edge radiators, and four launch clamps to hold it in place 2. Fire engines at full throttle, watch wasteheat - spikes at first then cools, holds steady at a value of 141 3. Modify rocket to have 4 such engines, same exact cooling setup. 4. Fire engines at full throttle, watch wasteheat - same behavior, settles at a slightly higher value, about 1200-1500, but stays stable and does not overheat.

@sarbian I'm still getting the same log message on the dev build - 2.6.1.0-761 ... and on this particular iteration, it actually hard crashed KSP... log message: [LOG 18:39:32.920] [MechJeb2] Exception in MechJebModuleStageStats.RunSimulation(): System.Exception: FuelFlowSimulation.SimulateStage reached max step count of 100 at MuMech.FuelFlowSimulation.SimulateStage (Single throttle, Double staticPressure, Double atmDensity, Double machNumber) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at MuMech.FuelFlowSimulation.SimulateAllStages (Single throttle, Double staticPressureKpa, Double atmDensity, Double machNumber) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at MuMech.MechJebModuleStageStats.RunSimulation (System.Object o) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 The crash may have been a fluke, going to try it again. Happened right after I engaged the engines on the craft, which is when the log messages started pouring in as well. update: crash didn't happen a second time... throughout the flight the problem seems to get worse. It may be due to the fact that this is a VTOL spaceplane with engines pointing both aft and down, although they're not often used at the same time.. this, it seems, may be confusing mechjeb's dV/thrust calculations for the vessel as it's a single 'stage' with multiple engines facing different directions in the same stage(?) .. not sure.

be careful with the physics range extender. I uninstalled it after it caused a lot of spontaneous unwarranted explosions of craft. It's probably an edge case incompatibility with some mod or another, but if you run a lot of mods, it may bite you in a big way. Or maybe it's fixed now?

sorry, this is the official release.

Yeah, I can do that. I did some more testing just now and found that the problem is with the number of *active reactors* ... ie if I have 2 reactors and any number of engines of any kind, it overheats... one reactor powering multiple engines doesn't have the problem. But, from what you posted, @Mine_Turtle , I think you've already deduced that. I'll try it with the closed cycle, although I believe I had a craft last week with multiple counts of those, and I recall it completing its mission, so I don't think those are affected; but I will test again to verify.

UPDATE: Electric engines such as the ATILLA do *not* exhibit this overheat behavior... so I suppose that is my workaround for now. Hopefully this info will help isolate the problem better?

So.. for a long time I've wondered why KSPIE drags my framerate down, and why it gets worse as I add more engines... I think I've traced it to a compatibility issue with MJ2... when I'm flying such craft, my log is full of literally millions of iterations of this: [LOG 17:02:50.329] [MechJeb2] Exception in MechJebModuleStageStats.RunSimulation(): System.Exception: FuelFlowSimulation.SimulateStage reached max step count of 100 at MuMech.FuelFlowSimulation.SimulateStage (Single throttle, Double staticPressure, Double atmDensity, Double machNumber) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at MuMech.FuelFlowSimulation.SimulateAllStages (Single throttle, Double staticPressureKpa, Double atmDensity, Double machNumber) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at MuMech.MechJebModuleStageStats.RunSimulation (System.Object o) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 Now, MJ2 seems to actually be doing its job correctly with the KSPIE engines in what I assume is calculations of thrust and dV... at least *mostly* correct... I have a feeling that the act of logging this so frequently may be at least partially to blame for the framerate decrease.. is there a way to decrease MJ2's log verbosity? Or to maybe fix the compatibility issue? Let me know if further info/testing is needed to help with this, I'm happy to participate.

I'm still having issues with the landing sequence on graduated-response engines such as any of the nuclear engines in KSPIE.. and with the RCS contained within that same mod. during the landing sequence especially, the TCA autopilot does not seem to apply enough control authority to execute the maneuvers fast enough, gets behind the curve, and crashes. I can see that the problem is that it is actually not applying enough control input, based on the control position indicators. This can be remediated by disabling RCS and using reaction wheels alone, *IF* the craft has enough RCS authority to get the job done... not sure why the KSPIE RCS causes this behavior, though.. maybe it's calculating the max power of the RCS thrusters and not the currently configured power levels, and is applying control authority proportionate to the max available? that might be it..? Further info - the KSPIE ATILLA engine, which can be used either as main thrust or maneuvering... does weird things with TCA. ie, I can achieve a stable hover with them, but if I tell TCA to cruise at bearing X at speed Y... it doesn't ever input any pitch command to make that happen. It does when using thermal engines or stock engines or ... other engines.. but it has some specific beef with anything marked as an attitude control module which comes from KSPIE.. both the normal RCS that it ships with plus these ATILLA thrusters.. no idea why it specifically has a problem with these specific engines, but.. if there's any tests you'd like me to run to narrow it down, I'm happy to. Also, it's not like it *can't* achieve the desired pitch; if I tell TCA to "hold" and pitch manually, that works great. Just the 'cruise' module doesn't seem to ever be applying the control input necessary.

that seems reasonable. In previous versions of this mod, the bug didn't exist, so.. need to find out what changed. I haven't looked at the code myself yet but I will.. not sure I can add much since I don't know the full story of why certain pieces are going to be the way they are, etc.. I'm sure there's reasons behind the change(s) that were made, so the trick is not to break anything in the process...

there's issues opened already... @Mine_Turtle has looked into it a bit and says the fix isn't easy... hoping there's something I can do to help.

@Mine_Turtle, @FreeThinker .. regarding the multiple antimatter/thermal engine issue that I reported... is there anything I can do to help? I'm a programmer, but not in C# really, and I'm unfamiliar with the codebase to the point where I'm not sure what "broke" - ie, this used to work fine in the last 1.3.0-compatible release.. I'm also going to test later and see if this problem affects electric engines (ie ATILLA) in the same way that it does the thermal engines. Unfortunately my space program kinda depends extremely heavily on the ability to use multiple engines at once, so.. I need to do what I can to get this fixed; please let me know what I can do to help, if anything, I don't want to just complain and expect other people to handle it

That's not the right window... qsr is started via the right click menu, not the reactor control window. That wasn't always the case, but it seems to be now.

watched the clip.. not once did you right click the reactor, only the generators, so I can't see what's going on

The QSR has a built-in electric generator, you don't need an external one... at least not last I checked. You did fill up the hydrogen fuel on the QSR, right? and you right click the QSR and push the startup button at the top of the context menu? If the button isn't there it'll tell you your current acceleration/etc, and so stop moving.. button appears, you push it, it has to form an initial charge to get going (your antimatter/external CP electric gen hooked up to the antimatter reactor provide this power), and then it starts running... and getting very very hot unless you have some extremely large umbrella radiators deployed and ready to handle the output.