Shad0wCatcher

ski- Intended. LH2 is not particularly dense, so you need more to provide the same amount of dV as say kerosene. The upside is that it masses very low; so you just need large, light tanks of LH2 to power nukes (or just use Ammonia, water [if using KSPI, since it's rather economical both thrust and dV-wise], or Methane).

@rosenkranz No, the inline refinery is just that, a refinery. The larger one is also a mining apparatus.

No real way to map water on extra-Kerbin bodies. Basically trial and error (or config diving if you're into that sort of thing). But yes, poles are (typically) a fairly good assumption.

Works by default with plain old liquid fuel / oxidizer. It only includes a config to allow for the usage of real fuels if real fuels is installed.

@Fractal Oh for sure; at 2+KM/s the intake air is rather ridiculously hot; the "problem" (more a PEBKAC - Problem Exists Between Keyboard And Chair) lies in the atmospheric intake that isn't turned off when the intakes are closed; and when/if I fat-finger my keyboard / or prepare the engine for atmospheric flight at 12-15 KM; the engine ends up throttling up and exploding instantaneously at 22kM up; makes for some awesome re-entry fireworks though! Welcome Home! *EXPLODE*. Not a biggie though; just something I'll have to keep an eye on.

@mdapol No joy on adding the precooler module to radial intakes. It works, the precooler module is successfully added; however, it is always offline. I'm personally not sure how to continue at this point. On one hand I absolutely love the idea of needing precoolers to keep temperatures down. On the other is absolutely plays hell with any SSTOs I try to make currently using DRE, FAR, and this. Getting into orbit is bad enough; but upon deorbiting having the engine instantaneously explode when providing any throttle whatsoever makes life rather difficult.

@Fractal - The biggest reason I can see for precooling the B9 radials is the double-hit to heat production you get when using deadly re-entry and the heating module from this. (Obviously a user-end problem at this point due to the two mods conflicting in this regard) It becomes entirely too much heat production at sub-orbital velocities causing massive unplanned disassembly. I do empathize your position entirely however in the stock game in that SSTOs are ludicrously easy to build (even prior to the RAPIER).

Going to try adding the precooler module to those intakes really quickly mdapol. I'll get back with you to see if it causes a ton of weirdness. I know your pain implicitly. I ended up commenting out the heating component of the SABREs in 0.9.2 due to it. The very large rectangular intakes aren't awful since you can slap precoolers onto the rear attach node; but not so much anything else.

Check page 611 Fractal. Second post down. His first report. Can't blame ya, this thread has gone plaid it seems with the release

Thanks for the release Rat. Looking forward to trying it out.

Kickass on the release Fractal. Thanks a ton for all the effort man, I know how much work it is getting something like this out. Didn't see either of these reported yet; however. The new gamma ray spec model has no attachment nodes and is defaulting to center of model for attachments. Ammonia is still Ammonia versus LqdAmmonia (not necessarily a bug per se, but consistency).

Using KSPI Shogun? If so ccomment out the sabre heating module on the sabres in the b9aero.cfg in KSPI's folder

@Donziboy: If you could do me a quick favor. Check that same design (or a smaller one) with two of the engines without precoolers and report back what you find. I would highly recommend having the engines set up to hotkeys on toggle so you don't immediately blow them up. That's where I believe the bug lies. The ghost heat from the engines without precoolers is spilling over to the engines with them; even after closing intakes and shutting the engines completely off. The engines with precoolers still heat to explosion temperatures. @Fractal Looks fairly solid. I sense another career restart in my future with all these new toys >.>

7zip opens rar files without incident. Along with most every other compression algorithm. It's also free.

Hope you made a backup of the Squad folder. Otherwise find a way to re-download the game as the reduction packs *replace* textures with lower resolution ones.

It helps also Taki to have relay stations in multiple planetary orbits. In order to make full use of the Thermal Transceivers you absolutely need a solid infrastructure of them in place before using them to power anything.

You are doing absolutely nothing incorrectly. Compare Plasma thrusters to stock ion engines. Don't compare them to thermal nozzles or turbojets. The only way to get solid amounts of thrust out of them is by using antimatter reactors or many thermal receivers on the craft with multiple transmitters in low Kerbol orbit (the sun, not the home planet). Otherwise consider them oversized ion engines. EDIT: Off topic; that's exactly what I mean Northstar. I know cryogenically Argon is rather dense. Which is what I don't get. The tankage mass is massive in comparison to the actual storage capacity of the container here (looks like a rescaled xenon container). Looking at the mass per unit volume (unless the actual argon container inside the toroidal tank is a dang welding canister) it makes no sense. Makes me wonder what the storage unit for it is; as it sure as hell isn't any standard I can think of, not with its mass density being 0.005 compared to 0.0001 (stock game) for Xenon; a much heavier element. It just confuses me to no end.

@Northstar using Real Fuels you can already have Ammonia (water would need to be added, though using toroidal / spherical tanks by Tal you could have it already; or if you use TAC Life support you could already have it); water and Ammonia can be added to Modular Fuel Tanks with a simple config edit (then you wouldn't need to worry about weird storage dimensions with the trapezoidal storage tank included here). What I find odd, however, is the density and mass per unit volume of Argon here though. Not sure where the calculation is coming from or how it's being stored to mass so much compared to RF's implementation.

@Boa turn MUCH earlier. If you look at actual shuttle launches the roll program is very early in the gravity turn; just about as soon as the shuttle itself lifts off the pad it begins to roll to have its back facing eastward. Same thing here (especially true if using FAR). You want the lift of the wings to pull the craft down into (and use them to assist with) the gravity turn. If you aren't using FAR again you want more drag on the eastward facing portion of the lifter vehicle so roll early.

Another feature request: Celestial bodies. Would make life much easier when you know the launch window and transfer angle and just want to burn manually or are running MJ and want to quickly set up a burn without having to switch to map; wait for render; select target; swap back to flight; wait for render; wait for physics load; select correct MJ setting; hope you aren't clicking too fast that it unfocuses the planet or moon you're attempting to transfer to and have to re-do the whole thing.

Yea I saw that at work today seanth. Snagged the updated code on my laptop and am now pulling down the updated zip on my desktop.

@Fractal: Just finished testing some stuff with NathanKell. Having some serious issues with the precoolers, SABREs, and DRE. Specifically running a set of non-precooled engines and a set of precooled engines causes massive overheating on all the engines with the precooler code. Whether shutdown or not the engines will handily explode spectacularly when in the upper atmosphere. To quote myself from the DRE thread. "What I meant by heat dissipation is that the engines never cooled down internally(?) I guess is the appropriate word. They would show nominal temps after cutting throttle (cooling down like engines should in the right-click display) but as soon as throttle was applied again they immediately went back to the temperature they were prior to throttle being reduced. In my case that was kersplosion temperatures." I believe the issue is twofold 1) The maxtemps are being set too high (original values) and DRE is dropping them down to 1500 from the original 3600 and 2) The heat production values are being overwritten from the DRE values to the original values (again much too high to function with DRE's increased heating scale). I'm not sure how difficult it'd be to expose those settings to be tweaked, but I believe it'd go a long way toward making this play nicely in the realm of SSTOs. In the interim I've disabled the sabre heating module in the b9_aero.cfg in the hopes that it fixes the overheating issues I've been running into while using this with DRE. I'll report back once I've done some testing to ensure that it solves the issue I've been running into while running both mods.

That'd do it and would explain the erratic behavior quite handily depending on which config was loaded last. I presume Unity uses LIFO with regards to configuration files (last one out wins).

Well I feel like a horse's ass now. Sincerest apologies Nathan. My issue has to stem from a weird interaction between 0.42 / 0.43 of DRE and KSPI's intercooler code. Just finished a test and everything works flawlessly; well apart from that damnably low density LH2 and LOX that SABREs use with RF lol. The engines heated appreciably like they should (with the intercoolers acting appropriately to cool the set that had them while the other set heated twice as fast. I wonder then what changed between versions to cause such wackiness. I'll go bark up Fractal's tree; and again apologies for wasting your time. That's my issue solved anyway; now I wonder what the hell is going on with kalizec then since he/she doesn't use KSPI and is running into the same issues. What I meant by heat dissipation is that the engines never cooled down internally(?) I guess is the appropriate word. They would show nominal temps after cutting throttle (cooling down like engines should in the right-click display) but as soon as throttle was applied again they immediately went back to the temperature they were prior to throttle being reduced. In my case that was kersplosion temperatures.

Will do. Just deleted the folder and will be loading up KSP now. Like I said; my issue at least I found was that heat dissipation wasn't acting correctly with mixed engines (that is: a set using intercoolers versus a set not using them; when I precooled every engine I had no overheating issues whatsoever).