Jump to content

[1.12.x] Mk2 Expansion v1.9.1 [update 10/5/21]


Recommended Posts

This is an essential mod for me. I don't use it thaaat often, but when I need it, it's a life saver. For example, submarines: They're horribly inefficient and slow and get messed up when fuel drains. Rockets are even worse. The nuclear jet has allowed me to cruise below the waves for hours on end and kept me aloft on Eve! Those were just the first two examples I could think of. One thing, though, the SCRAMjet is VERY hard to use. Can I have a tutorial? I've only gotten it to speed up once or twice and the first time it worked, it got me halfway to Eve without using rockets! Well, I used rockets to go to space to speed up enough on reentry to get the engine to work but you know what I mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 10/18/2016 at 8:30 PM, Fireheart318 said:

This is an essential mod for me. I don't use it thaaat often, but when I need it, it's a life saver. For example, submarines: They're horribly inefficient and slow and get messed up when fuel drains. Rockets are even worse. The nuclear jet has allowed me to cruise below the waves for hours on end and kept me aloft on Eve! Those were just the first two examples I could think of. One thing, though, the SCRAMjet is VERY hard to use. Can I have a tutorial? I've only gotten it to speed up once or twice and the first time it worked, it got me halfway to Eve without using rockets! Well, I used rockets to go to space to speed up enough on reentry to get the engine to work but you know what I mean.

Expand  
 
 

I've been experimenting with it as well, and I think it's just... not that useful. Don't get me wrong, it's amazingly cool and an awesome model! It's just... kind of filling a niche that exists on Earth, but not so much on Kerbin.

Minimum engagement speed of Mach 4 is a whole Mach number higher than the max efficiency point of the best Ramjet engines available.

Nominal peak efficiency at Mach 15 is absurd. Mach 15 is well beyond escape velocity! Actually I think it's close to enough to coast all the way to Jool! If you could even keep it in atmosphere long enough to gain that much velocity, which I doubt you could.

LKO velocity is somewhere closer to Mach 6 - 7, when this thing is still just edging past half-power. The only use I could see for it having a nominal ideal speed of Mach 15, would be to do a hyperbolic gravity assist with jet-powered Oberth effect around Kerbin or Laythe, but... yeah. That's not gonna be very common, if it's not just so fast that the game splats you as soon as you touch atmosphere from extreme overheat.

In many test runs, I couldn't even get up to a speed when the SCRamjet had enough power to take over, using six RAMJets and two Nukes. The RAMJets could get me up to about Mach 4.2, and then were just not powerful enough, which was just barely enough to get the SCRam to turn on, but not enough to give it any appreciable power at all, and the two Nukes weren't enough to get me there either.

To be intuitively useful, to my mind (and these are the kinds of designs real SCRamjets are being developed for), you need to be able to do a smooth hand-off from Ramjets or Turbojets to the SCRamjet, without needing a rocket in between. That means having a significant overlap of useful velocities, during which the two power curves effectively "cross-fade" to maintain a reasonably flat net power curve. If I -do- need a rocket to bridge the gap, then that means four types of engines (or at least three, if you're just using it for LKO stuff and satellite delivery).

If I'm gonna have to have three types of engines already (RAMJets to get me up to ~12-15km and Mach 4, upper-stage sustainer rockets to get me up out of the atmosphere, then high-efficiency vacuum engines to do anything useful in space)... I just don't see the very narrow speed and altitude range at which the SCRamjet is actually helpful being worth its weight and drag.

Because of the smaller scale of Kerbin's atmosphere, even though it's not technically "realistic" to do so, I'd tone it down to turn on at Mach 2.5, hit at least 50% power by Mach 3.5, and peak around Mach 6 with a dropoff back down to 50% or so by Mach 8. I could see it being a useful (but still not life-changing) engine with those stats, but as it is, it's just not worth its weight in fuel from what I can see. Unless I'm missing something and its weight in rocket fuel + a couple of aerospikes -doesn't- add more dV than hauling the beautiful-but-niched-out-of-usefulness Hyperblast up into the upper atmosphere?

 

Edited by FirroSeranel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

is it just me or are some parts not providing "body lift" like the rest of them?  Specifically I have seen "HS-x" cockpit and the "service bay" do not provide any body lift like the other parts do.  is this intentional?  or just an error?

 

And on this topic does the service bay have a ton of drag to it, even when it is inline with the rest of the body?  it seems to have a huge drag coefficient.

 

all of this data is coming from the in-game overlay to show lift and drag, so I may just be misreading it or do not understand the overlay.

 

Edited by Bit Fiddler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was playing around last night with Throttle Controlled Avionics (TCA) and a bunch of parts from your pack and noticed something I thought a bit odd.

Most of your jet engines have no gimbal action. For some of them this isn't a issue, but for anything that is intended for use as a VTOL or high altitude use, it is almost essential to have gimballing.

Is there some specific reason for this exclusion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two little things that bug me (other than the SCRAMjet):

1: For whatever reason, the nukejet doesn't work if I have KSP Interstellar installed. While I only use it for beamed power (which doesn't work for me for whatever reason), it gets annoying fast as soon as I want to go to Eve or build a submarine. Or build a submarine on Eve!. I know why it does that (the engine is programmed that way) but I don't know the reasoning. Please explain.

2: You can't double click on the glass in IVA to zoom in. While it may not seem like a big problem, just try using Raster Prop Monitor with it and use the side monitors and then try to look ahead. How long until OCD kicks in? It wouldn't be annoying for me if I didn't focus mostly on planes and rovers; things that you have to know EXACTLY where you're going or you're gonna crash. I don't care about the zooming in part, I just want to auto-center my view.

Edited by Fireheart318
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@SuicidalInsanity

Hi sir, considering that your mod has few cockpits, could you please add a patch for texture replacer to use this mod ?

as you may find in the mod's config, it is really easy to add support for it but at the same time, it needs the part names (not the one in the config but the one in the modeling software) too.

thanks sir

Edited by Jiraiyah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Fireheart318: Given the number of people who have had issues with the scramjet, a tutorial is reasonable; I should be able to have one together in a few days

@FirroSeranel: Max efficiency is closer to mach 10, and hypercrusie on Kerbin is feasible; most of what you mention will be covered in the tutorial. Also, nice plane; it's always fun to see what people come up with using these parts.

@Bit FIddler: Both the HS-X cockpit and the service bay both have ModuleLiftingSurface, so they should be providing a small amount each; service bay drag I'll look into, it's probably related to the part's DragCube.

@Nori; For high speed engines the only ones I can think of lacking gimbal are the scramjet and ramjet; ramjet has a variable geometry nozzle so a gimbal is reasonable to add. For the VTOL engines, most of the gimbal stuff is still there, just not actualized in the .cfgs. If I remember correctly  I removed the gimbals because they were attempting to gimbal as if the engines were oriented for horizontal flight regardless of actual engine orientation, which led to engine gimballing fighting with control surfaces when in VTOL mode.

@Fireheart318: I'm going to need an output_log for the nukejet issue; chances are its a KSPI-E thing since that's whats handling the M2X-KSPI compatibility patches. IVA zooms can be added

@Jiraiyah: I'll have to take a look at Windowshine, but it shouldn't be too difficult to make a patch for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 10/21/2016 at 3:14 AM, SuicidalInsanity said:

@FirroSeranel: Max efficiency is closer to mach 10, and hypercrusie on Kerbin is feasible; most of what you mention will be covered in the tutorial. Also, nice plane; it's always fun to see what people come up with using these parts.

Expand  
2

I still think the minimum speed should be lowered a bit. I do -not- want to have to use rockets to transition from one jet engine to the next, nor do I want to have to dive 10 km to build up enough speed. From a meta perspective, if NASA were designing this, and they had a several-Mach gap between their launch engine and the SCRamjet, during which the ship has 10% of the thrust it has in the full power curves of each type of engine... they'd call it not-viable and keep designing one or the other, or both.

Alternatively, you could make one of the other Mk2 form factor engines much more powerful at higher speeds. Actually they seem pretty underpowered in general, IMO, compared to the stock engines, unless I'm missing something?

For example, for Max Thrust...

1x Afterburn = 190

1x Whiplash = 130  Seems okay except that I can easily get 2x Whiplashes in the same space as the 1x Afterburn. With a little planning, and your wonderful, wonderful 3-way splitter, I can even get 3 on basically the same fuselage setup.

2x Whiplash = 260

3x Whiplash = 390

So... why should I ever use the Afterburn? I do notice it drops off slightly less quickly at high speed... but sacrificing a third to half of the power available to -get- to the point where the shape of the power curve starts to matter makes the Afterburn a tough sell. Since I'm basically building at least a triple fuselage to get both types of engines on the ship in a symmetrical fashion, it's going to be a pretty heavy ship. My designs so far come in at about 60-70 tons, not including payload capacity, which I'd like to see at least 5 tons of on a Mk II, whether for science gear, or satellite delivery.

The problem with a more patient climb is that these engines are still pretty fuel-hungry. Not as much as rockets, but they still guzzle it down, so the longer I take climbing up toward thin atmosphere, the more fuel I burn, the more fuel I have to bring with me, and the heavier the ship gets, which means more engines, which starts the cycle over again.

Ultimately the limiting case is the runway. I need enough power to get the ship up to anywhere from 90 to 120 m/s before I run out of runway, depending on how much wing I use (keeping in mind that more wing for lower liftoff speed means more drag later on). I can do that easily with multiple Whiplashes carrying along a Hyperblast's dead weight. It's... pretty dicey with the Afterburn.

But... like I said, maybe I'm missing something. Hopefully the tutorial will explain it.

I do have the feeling that when FAR updates for 1.2, these engines will suddenly come into their own, as FAR's drag model is much more accurate, and winds up being significantly lower at all altitudes than Stock, though I acknowledge that Stock is much much better than it used to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been waiting for that Front-Opening cargo bay for the longest time; you have no idea. this makes using the MK2 hulls as an aeroshell/fairing perfect!

More so on the side of an aeroshell, it makes for a deploy-able housing for retrojets!
(or weaponry if you're a BDA user)
 

RaS6ksxm.pnga6mW8hum.png5NqgovVm.png

also, @FirroSeranel is right about the mach15 speeds, that is in fact far faster than any shuttle has entered the atmosphere; reason being that nothing can stand that much heat going either way.

also, it'd be nice of the Banshee engine could be electric, or mode toggeling. it would also be realistic; (sort of)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok this is maybe a question for KSP in general but what are all the numbers on the reactor telling me?

 

 

I assume the "thermal efficiency: 81.4%" is telling me I am a bit hot so the reactor is not as efficient, and thus ": 81.38% load" will be pegged at this value and never give us full power?

but then there is another number,  "Cooling: 99.67%"...  (well it is changing but ya)...  what is this telling me?

 

Screenshot%202016-10-21%2022.15.03.png

 

And lastly could we get a 1/2 and a 1/4 size reactor?  sometimes this one is just overkill on the EC output and the weight is just wasted at that point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this stuff OP? I mean it is cool, but I am just thinking it looks a little OP when looking at the numbers. Am I missing something? Also, this stuff should be integrated into the CTT a little better. 

Not trying to be mean or anything like that. I think I am missing something or I might move these to the back of the CTT myself it needed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 10/21/2016 at 1:18 PM, Bit Fiddler said:

ok this is maybe a question for KSP in general but what are all the numbers on the reactor telling me?

 

 

I assume the "thermal efficiency: 81.4%" is telling me I am a bit hot so the reactor is not as efficient, and thus ": 81.38% load" will be pegged at this value and never give us full power?

but then there is another number,  "Cooling: 99.67%"...  (well it is changing but ya)...  what is this telling me?

 

Screenshot%202016-10-21%2022.15.03.png

 

And lastly could we get a 1/2 and a 1/4 size reactor?  sometimes this one is just overkill on the EC output and the weight is just wasted at that point.

Expand  
 

Basically, your available cooling system is working at 99.85% capacity, so it's basically tapped out.

The reactor is running too hot, so it's producing less power.

The moral of the story: you need to add more cooling. Probably just a couple of small radiator panels would be enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@FirroSeranel: You really shouldn't need rockets to transition to scramjet mode, and diving 10km is the last thing you want to do. Regarding Mk2 engines, they are actually pretty much in line with or slightly better stock engines (except for the MATTOCK, which is the " much more powerful at higher speeds" Mk2 engine). The M2X engines in general produce ~150% thrust for 140-150% mass compared to their stock counterparts; Choosing engines for a craft is always a sliding scale of "How much thrust do I need?" and "How much mass budget can I spend on engines?", and the M2X engines were intended to be a mid-range option. Per your example, 2 Whiplashes produce 260 static thrust vs an Afterburn's 190, but you pay for that extra ~50% thrust with ~55% increase in mass cost (3.6 tons for 2X Whiplash vs 2.6 tons for the Afterburn), plus the added mass cost of the bicoupler. If a craft doesn't need that much power for that much mass, then mk2's or if a small craft single size 1s can provide what is needed, and if that much power is needed, then it is still available as an option. Also of note is Mk2 engines have slightly different optimum flight profiles than stock engines

@Rushligh: mach 15 was mentioned since its more the theoretical top end of performance, but yes, you have point there.
For the Banshee I can look into an electric mode, but I'm not sure about mode toggling; I recall reading somewhere KSP doesn't like tri-modal engines,I'll have to do some experimentation

@Bit Fiddler: The numbers except for cooling on the reactor popup are from ModuleResoruceConverter and its associated ModuleCoreHEat
Thermal Efficiency is how efficient converter - in this case the reactor - is operating; 81.4% means the reactor is currently producing 81.4% of its rated output.
Reactor load is what percent of maximum output the reactor is outputting - this is mainly for things like Fuelcells, where they are configured to fill batteries to 95%, but not top them off allowing for a trickle charge effect to prevent unnecessary LF/O usage. In this case, the reactor is generating the maximum it currently can - 81.4%. Reactor load and thermal efficiency are linked

Core Temp is how hot the reactor core is - 1421.9 is the current temperature, and 1250 is the optimum temp. all ModuleResourceCoverters that have heat generation have a thermal curve determining how much heat the core produces, and a thermal efficiency curve that determines how efficient the device runs when below, at, or above optimum temperature. Core temp determines Thermal Efficiency.
Cooling is how effective the integrated radiators on the Reactor are performing, what percent of their rated cooling ability is currently being used
I can see making a 1/2 sized reactor, not sure about the 1/4, that seems too small for a reactor - maybe a mk2 RTG slice, maybe

@Jbrown247: yes and no. Things like the end game stuff - nuclear jet, scramjet, etc. could be considered OP, most of the rest of the stuff should more or less be inline with stock. Is there anything in particular you have questions about?
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 10/21/2016 at 10:20 PM, SuicidalInsanity said:

 

@Jbrown247: yes and no. Things like the end game stuff - nuclear jet, scramjet, etc. could be considered OP, most of the rest of the stuff should more or less be inline with stock. Is there anything in particular you have questions about?
 

 

Expand  

I am probably just misunderstanding some numbers. Without having KSP open, I was looking at the thrust on the jets compared to stock. The rapier stock is around 400, while some of your engines were around 2,000 and unlocked earlier. I think I am missing something. I am an English professor, not a scientist lol. I think I need to play around with them more to understand what is going on. 

 

Also, if the "OP" stuff is unlocked late in the tect tree, especially late in the CTT, I have no problems with it being "OP," because that is what the higher techs are supposed to be. 

Great mod though. I have this and the MK3 installed. This is going to be a fun playthrough 

Edited by JBrown247
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As requested, here's a quick tutorial on the Scramjet:

  Reveal hidden contents

It should cover at least the basics; I don't really have much experience writing tutorials, so if there are any glaring deficiencies, let me know and I'll set about correcting them.

@JBrown247: I can take a look at the CTT patch - if 1.2 changed things in the tech tree I should do that anyway, but the only engine I can think of offhand that would produce that much thrust is the Mk3 TurboRamjet from Mk3 Expansion, though considering the less finished nature of M3X it's possible that it isn't where it's supposed to be.

Edited by SuicidalInsanity
fixing typos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SuicidalInsanity , I am wondering.

The 5way mk2 rcs block.

could you add the option to switch the colour to stockalike white as well as the default black?

Mainly because when I learn your rcs thrusters I never use any others and I love using them on my rockets.

would be cool if you added it to a to do list - not asking for right away as its just cosmetic. but if it can be done would be great for the look of my craft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember using the Hyperblast a couple times in 1.0.5 just to see. I used it in conjunction with OPT's Turbo-Ramjet. I used it extensively, so I knew how it handled. (It topped off at around ~2200m/s @ ~35km alt. It chokes above its upper speed limit.) Getting to Scramjet speed wasn't going to be a problem. (OPT's engine ramps up horribly fast once you hit Mach 1.5 or so...)

Holy crap was I going fast: I broke 3000m/s. I had to keep pretty aggressive down pitch to not fly off the planet. (I think one run I did with 2 Hypers had me at SOI escape velocity... Or pretty damn close to it.) I was laughing in amazement during those runs. Trying not to burn up was the hardest part. (I did have RealHeat installed though.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are the operation parameters of the Scramjet? I'm currently playing around with it, but it's kinda.... every time different at which speed/height it can activate.

Fun thing though. Blew up my cockpit due to overheating at 34km@2.7km/s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 10/26/2016 at 12:25 AM, cy-one said:

What are the operation parameters of the Scramjet? I'm currently playing around with it, but it's kinda.... every time different at which speed/height it can activate.

Fun thing though. Blew up my cockpit due to overheating at 34km@2.7km/s

Expand  

There's a detailed tutorial 4 posts above yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there any particular reason why the parts hold so little Xenon when in that mode? I know they aren't xenon tanks but still, seems a bit nerfed...

J78g5Qr.png

Edit: WAIT STOP HOLD UP. What the kraken has imgur done to my screenshot? oh well, it was supposed to show the mk2 tricoupler holding 200 xenon and the small xenon tank holding 700 xenon.

Edit again: Wait, hang on. I have Interstellar Fuel Switch installed. Do these parts even hold xenon or is it IFS adding the (pitiful) xenon amount? If so, does anyone know how to change it?

 

Edited by Benji13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...