ss8913

I'm also unable to locate it.. the github page still has 7.5.1 .. CKAN is actually complaining that several modules (USI modules) want firespitter 7.6.0, and CKAN doesn't know how to get it.. from what I can tell, 7.6.0 doesn't exist anywhere, and I'm confused as to what's going on here, since CKAN has been complaining about that for a couple of days now.

I want to try the new drive.. sadly I updated to 1.3.0 and.. KSP won't even start. Soon, though!

FAR allows you to fix the clipping/cargo bay drag problem. In fact, I think FAR fixes that *inherently* based on how it works, without you having to change anything in this mod at all.

check for my last post on the subject, it's still relevant to the current version of the mod.

it's been a long-standing issue that OPT wings produce no lift with FAR. Has this been addressed in OPT already? I remember K.Yeon saying he would address it when FAR went official.. I didn't actually test it though, in light of that previous conversation that I had with him on the topic.

I've posted quite a few tutorials myself as well; search this topic or the other KSPIE topic for my name (ss8913) and you may find what you need. the response is only an issue in open cycle mode btw - it's fine if I switch them to hydrazine, but obviously we want a way to do this without expending precious fuel when in the atmosphere...

Interesting - but why does it matter so much what kind of *engine* I use? ATILLA is near impossible.. antimatter + ATILLA = almost instant overheat. Plasma is almost workable, but has limitations... thermal ramjet/thermal turbojet doesn't really have much of a problem at all. Still, I'm now faced with the VTOL problem; ATILLA is great due to its quick throttle response, but you can't put enough radiators on a spaceplane to make it practical. Thermal turbojets have too-slow throttles for any of the altitude hold systems to be able to understand how to operate them, at least in open-cycle mode... so at present it's almost like the compressedAir resource is only usable for RCS?

@FreeThinker - just updated to .9 - still noticing a few things: 1. Antimatter + plasma nozzles == still generate a ton of waste heat, nigh impossible to cool the system 2. Antimatter + ATILLA (I usually use these w/ compressedAir for VTOL) - same problem as #1. get only a few seconds of usable power now since the radiators can't keep up with the heat demand. As in, it's impossible to fit enough cooling on the craft. 3. Antimatter storage - antimatter tanks now hold a ton more antimatter than they used to. antimatter reactors won't run out of power on long interstellar journeys, I recall you once said that they weren't supposed to be used for long term power generation? 4. FTL + timewarp is still causing explosions and failure when going back to normal timewarp. sometimes just some parts will randomly fall off, sometimes the whole thing will explode in a fireball. I'm not using persistent rotation ( I have the mod completely uninstalled ). This only happens at high timewarp values; 100 or less is usually not enough to cause it, but higher values are. 5. The numbers in the FTL window kind of don't make sense. I can't figure out how to determine the maximum speed of the craft (either limited by warp/mass or by available power) from these numbers - trial and error are the only ways to determine max/min speed of the craft.

@K.Yeon now that FAR is officially released, will there be an updated MM patch to address the OPT-FAR aero compatibility issues (especially the wings) ?

seems like we need more drag, with FAR enabled anyway... hitting the ground or water at 32 knots IAS is a little too much - usually the kerbal that's currently the active focus will survive, but none of the others that are unfocused will. they end up in the KIA category.

@FreeThinker I have to take back what I said about all antimatter problems fixed... I have a lot of ships that are powered by 4-5 3.75m antimatter reactors, usually only one of which is connected to a generator... using the plasma thermal nozzles. This used to not be a problem. However, now, in the VAB/SPH it shows that I need to cool almost 13,000 gigawatts of power - which is way up from before. There is... well, I don't want to say *no way*, but I'd like to see an example of how it could be done... to cool this setup. It just can't be done. The umbrella radiator scaled to 10m has the highest thermal dissipation of any radiator, but you'd need like 40 of them and there's no way to put 40 of those things on a craft. Also, launching one with insufficient (obviously) cooling, has one of three effects, and reverting to launch/vab will "roll the dice" on which one I get, it seems: 1. Wasteheat ramps up to 99.9% of max and stays there and nothing bad happens (which is probably a bug) 2. Wasteheat ramps up to 99.9% and the reactors shut down (which is what I'd expect) 3. Wasteheat ramps up to 99.9% and the reactors don't shut down but simply produce less power and, as a result, less thrust (this also seems like a bug, since the reactors don't shut off as in case #2). This has the same net effect as #2 but requires the reactors to be manually shut down, cooled, and restarted. a 10m GSR does not contribute nearly as much to heat as 5x 3.75m antimatter reactors now. However, a ship big enough to carry a 7.5 or 10m alcubierre drive needs this level of power in order to burn off the dV deficit at the destination, so "use less reactors" isn't so much of an option, since you have to burn off 5000-20000 m/s of dV after dropping out of warp, usually, and you have to do it rather quickly.. anything significantly below 15 m/s max acceleration doesn't really cut it

static radiators are better even than the folding umbrellas? OK, I can work with that limitation. Yeah, I'm using hydrogen to fuel them. I notice that they don't want to start, however, unless I cycle through all the fusion modes (it defaults to hydrogen, have to click the 'switch mode' 3 times to cycle back to hydrogen before it will start in the reactor window) ... that's not really a huge deal, easy workaround, but figured you should know.

@FreeThinker the .8 update has solved all of the flight, heat, etc problems I was having with the antimatter reactors. Now on to the QSR - it seems like these either are generating more heat, or the graphene radiators are less effective... It's.. very difficult to cool one of these. Even with 7.5m or 10m tweakscaled umbrella radiators. Intentional or is something out of balance? By the time I have a craft big enough to cool ONE of these QSRs, if I want to go at a reasonable interstellar speed (at least 100.0c), I need two 5.0m or larger "large" alcubierre drives. Which one QSR [no longer?] has enough power to drive at that speed, even with a warp-to-mass ratio over 3.0. So I have to add more QSRs. Then they overheat. And even I'm into HX size 4 parts to be able to mount enough cooling. Which makes my vessel seriously large and heavy and unmaneuverable. Oh, and then I need more alcubierre drives. Which I no longer can power even with 3 QSRs. It's.. a problem

@FreeThinker - the 1.13.8 download from CKAN identifies as 1.13.8 (just confirmed, this is also an issue in the directc download from your link above) but the .version file in Plugins/ says: { "NAME":"KSP Interstellar Extended", "URL":"http://ksp-avc.cybutek.net/version.php?id=152", "DOWNLOAD":"http://www.curse.com/ksp-mods/kerbal/236825-ksp-interstellar-extended", "VERSION": { "MAJOR":1, "MINOR":13, "PATCH":7, "BUILD":0 }, "KSP_VERSION": { "MAJOR":1, "MINOR":2, "PATCH":2 } } KSP-AVC therefore thinks it's out of date. Probably not a big issue, unless this is actually 1.13.7 and the metadata is wrong...

yeah an extra 180 tons would certainly explain both the landing gear collapse and the flight profile thanks!

no, the balance is fine.. just the stall speed is 150kts higher than it was before. I can see the CoM/CoL visually while flying, that isn't the issue.. it's a too much weight or not enough lift problem, and .. I can't explain why.. it's only the KSPIE-powered planes that are having the problem, which is even more weird. My airliner using stock/stock-ish parts still flies the way it always did, and the spaceplane that no longer flies is using the stock Big-S wings.. only thing I can possibly think of is the graphene winged edge radiators used to produce significant lift and now no longer do.. but I don't recall the aero visualizer showing any significant lift from them before... Also of note is the fact that my landing gear were collapsing just sitting there pre-takeoff after this update, which led me to believe that something has significantly increased in mass.

It... "does" ... and I say it that way because the behavior is really weird... wasteheat dissipates under throttle, builds up slightly at idle, and goes kind of nuts when something like MJ2 cycles the throttle really fast. Also, did you do anything with reactor mass (antimatter) or any aerodynamic changes (winged edge radiators) in this patch? I had an antimatter powered spaceplane that few beautifully and would glide to a smooth landing at < 300kts (around 140 m/s at sea level) before .6/.7 .. now it falls out of the sky like a brick (there's sometimes a bug where FAR doesn't work at all; that's not what's happening here, did a lot of tests... ), and I haven't updated FAR or anything else that would be "obvious" here. Also the MJ2/KER calculations for both dV and thrust in the VAB/SPH are way way off (see my screenshots from before).. this update has done some bizarre things, that's for sure. Not sure which are intentional and which are not. Also seems like ISP on antimatter+thermal ramjet has changed significantly (gotten lower), and the plasma nozzles (again with antimatter reactors) have had their thrust reduced noticably as well.

OK, @FreeThinker - here is a craft file using only stock + KSPIE parts which illustrates the problem: https://www.dropbox.com/s/uuyohyb7oy0p1t3/TEST-wasteheat.craft?dl=0 Fairly spectacularly. gives less than 2 seconds of thrust before it overheats and fails, and this/similar craft worked fine in the last version. Also, the MJ max thrust calculations are... a bit off. this is a fairly high thrust design, but I don't think it's capable of 50+G of acceleration(?) as the screenshot shows. I'm linking 2 screenshots, one in the VAB showing the dV calc, and the other showing overheat on the launchpad before I even had time to release the docking clamps: https://www.dropbox.com/s/u8tm5a7abk4oi67/thermal-launch-failure.jpg?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/b5n43tumo22hb43/thermal-launch-vab.jpg?dl=0

.6 was official until last night... some heat issues were discovered, FreeThinker has demoted .6 to a beta pending investigation.

If you want something quicker than I can provide, capsule -> 3.75m antimatter tank (tweakscaled large) -> 3.75m hydrazine tank -> 3.75m charged particle generator -> 3.75m antimatter reactor -> 3.75m thermal launch nozzle or thermal ramjet in closed-cycle mode. Put 4-8 "winged edge radiator - med" radially attached to the tank. RCS optional. Launch it and watch the wasteheat.

I'll get some examples... I think I can make a simple craft to illustrate the problem using only stock + KSPIE parts, which is likely what you'd need since most of my craft use parts from several sources.

haven't, but I may... still, I went from a perfectly good set of usable, flyable craft (SSTO mostly), to 100% useless from last patch to this one. Can't even get halfway to takeoff speed before everything overheats and shuts down. Was a serious drastic change to cooling behavior on graphene radiators in atmosphere; if you could take a look and make sure it's working as intended, I'd appreciate it, since I'm not sure this is the effect that you were going for

@FreeThinker - latest update has broken cooling almost 100%. I can't get more than a couple of seconds of thrust out of *anything* in atmosphere without an overheat. I know you said you were going to reduce atmospheric effectiveness of graphene radiators, but: 1. I thought you did this 2 updates ago and it wasn't going to get more nerfed(?) 2. There is no titanium radiator comparable to any of the graphene radiators 3. There's no amount of radiators that can physically fit on any of my craft that will even come close to cooling the system enough to even get 5000 meters up in the air... Help? Am I doing something wrong or is something badly broken?

Seems like there may be a mass/size scaling problem with the antimatter reactors and (at least) the plasma nozzles. To illustrate: Create a simple craft with a 3.75m antimatter reactor and a 3.75m plasma nozzle. Note the observed max acceleration using MJ/KER. Now scale these up to 5m using the same propellant; the acceleration goes DOWN, since the scale of the 3.75m antimatter reactor to the 5.0m adds so much weight that it cannot compensate for the additional thrust. @FreeThinker is th is intentional?

IF you are having the problem with generators producing no power, for me, an F5/F9 save/reload fixes it. I notice this happens any time I dock or undock a craft using KSPIE reactors/generators, and only since the last update. I can reproduce this reliably.