[1.12.x] Kerbal Atomics: fancy nuclear engines! (August 18, 2024)

[Arthas_ImmortalDK]

*Squad* nuclearEngine Nerv (Patches(nuclearEngine.cfg)) dont work,  Gives thrust when the reactor is off. Kerbal Atomic Engine work with mod NFE(Patch).

[trias702]

@Nertea I noticed a strange effect today in CryoTanks when playing around between version 0.2.0 -> 0.4.0 of Cryotanks. When upgrading between the two versions in my game, I noticed that in the VAB, all of the CryoTanks tanks have only 50% of the LH2 fuel capacity which they have in their parts .cfg files. For example, hydrogen-25-1.cfg has:

RESOURCE
    {
        name = LqdHydrogen
        amount = 64000
        maxAmount = 64000
    }

And this is consistent between 0.2.0 and 0.4.0. However, under 0.4.0, even though maxAmount = 64000, the VAB displays it as 32000. I noticed that capacities for all tanks in CryoTanks is now half what it used to be. Tracking down what causes this, it appears to be the patch file: CryoTanksFuelTankTypes.cfg

If I diff this file between the versions, I see that UnitsPerVolume is now half what it used to be for all LH2 entries. If I revert to the old values, the problem goes away.

Was this an intentional change between KA for KSP 1.2.2 vs 1.3? Or is this a bug of some sort?

[cdpch2057]

If I want to use cryogenic tanks with liquid fuel...
What can I do?

[Nertea]

1 hour ago, trias702 said:

Was this an intentional change between KA for KSP 1.2.2 vs 1.3? Or is this a bug of some sort?

That was a bug in the older versions. The volume of one unit of LF is typically considered to be 5L, so the real volume of that size of tank is 32000L (CRP resources are defined as 1L/unit). There was about 2x as much fuel in those tanks as there used to be. In contrast though, the mass ratio of those tanks was improved by about 2x.

Between KSP 1.2.2 and 1.3 there were a huge number of changes, rebalances and revisions to all of my mods. This was one of them. 

10 hours ago, Arthas_ImmortalDK said:

*Squad* nuclearEngine Nerv (Patches(nuclearEngine.cfg)) dont work,  Gives thrust when the reactor is off. Kerbal Atomic Engine work with mod NFE(Patch).

I tested this just now and was unable to reproduce. Please provide a detailed bug report following usual conventions.

[AmpCat]

@Nertea, slightly off topic, but in the thread of tank capacities, I noticed the USI mods, specifically logistics and containers, seem to have a MUCH different capacity when it comes to LH2 for a similar sized tank. Usually it seems parts from your mods and USI are fairly comparable when it comes to performance. Is this just a case of differing ideas of balance, or is there a more purposeful reason behind the differences? Compressed LH2? Metallic hydrogen storage tech? Magic?

[Nertea]

Just now, AmpCat said:

@Nertea, slightly off topic, but in the thread of tank capacities, I noticed the USI mods, specifically logistics and containers, seem to have a MUCH different capacity when it comes to LH2 for a similar sized tank. Usually it seems parts from your mods and USI are fairly comparable when it comes to performance. Is this just a case of differing ideas of balance, or is there a more purposeful reason behind the differences? Compressed LH2? Metallic hydrogen storage tech? Magic?

Probably differing ideas of balance. I obviously like mine better, but there's always a space for people who want to have a lack of balance. 

The mass ratios are probably different too. 

[trias702]

2 hours ago, Nertea said:

That was a bug in the older versions. The volume of one unit of LF is typically considered to be 5L, so the real volume of that size of tank is 32000L (CRP resources are defined as 1L/unit). There was about 2x as much fuel in those tanks as there used to be. In contrast though, the mass ratio of those tanks was improved by about 2x.

You refer to one unit of LF, but just wanted to double check that this reduced capacity of 64k -> 32k is correct for pure LH2 tanks as well?

[Nertea]

...yes. I'm not at my KSP computer but things should be calibrated so that any tank of Jumbo-64 size should contain 32000 units of LH2, or 6400 units of LF, Ox or LFOx, or the proper LH2/LOx amount, whatever that is.

[AmpCat]

10 hours ago, Nertea said:

Probably differing ideas of balance. I obviously like mine better, but there's always a space for people who want to have a lack of balance. 

The mass ratios are probably different too. 

Just some quick looking at the two parts. Seems the fuel weight per unit is the same. IE, 3,000 units in a USI tank is the same mass as 3,000 units in NFT tanks. Only difference is for a given diameter and length, USI tanks carry about 3.75 times more hydrogen for the same volume. USI and Cryo tanks both have 3.75m spherical tanks, so I used those for reference.

However, USI tanks dry weight, seem about twice as heavy per unit of LH2. For the 3.75m tanks, USI would be 2 tons heavier for the equivalent NFT cryo tanks. Or, another way of saying it.. with NFT Cryo tanks, you can get 144,000 units of LH2 for the same mass as 120,000 units of LH2 in a USI tank. The advantage is the USI tank is physically smaller.

So, different method of balance, I suppose. Just an interesting side note.

Edit: LF/OX unit per volume seems the same. Only LH2 is different.

Edited July 15, 2017 by AmpCat

[Nertea]

16 hours ago, AmpCat said:

Just some quick looking at the two parts. Seems the fuel weight per unit is the same. IE, 3,000 units in a USI tank is the same mass as 3,000 units in NFT tanks. Only difference is for a given diameter and length, USI tanks carry about 3.75 times more hydrogen for the same volume. USI and Cryo tanks both have 3.75m spherical tanks, so I used those for reference.

However, USI tanks dry weight, seem about twice as heavy per unit of LH2. For the 3.75m tanks, USI would be 2 tons heavier for the equivalent NFT cryo tanks. Or, another way of saying it.. with NFT Cryo tanks, you can get 144,000 units of LH2 for the same mass as 120,000 units of LH2 in a USI tank. The advantage is the USI tank is physically smaller.

So, different method of balance, I suppose. Just an interesting side note.

Edit: LF/OX unit per volume seems the same. Only LH2 is different.

That's not awful I suppose. More compression for more mass. 

On 7/14/2017 at 11:31 AM, cdpch2057 said:

If I want to use cryogenic tanks with liquid fuel...
What can I do?

Learn how to write configs?

On 7/13/2017 at 10:29 PM, Rodger said:

Looks like some of the cryo ZBO tanks are still very expensive for part unlock, 125,000 funds each for the 1.25/2.5/3.75m in-line tanks, more than the radials or the 5m parts.

And just had a crazy idea. What about a 'part upgrade' you buy before researching the tanks which is quite expensive, which reduces the unlock cost of the tanks? To simulate researching the general technology required for ZBO tanks, then just different sizes of the tanks not costing as much to make? Not as useful for playing without part-unlock costs though, unless it makes the part-use cost cheaper too, or somehow detect that difficulty setting.

Oh yeah, that's pretty easy to miss (just like i missed your post :P), but also pretty easy to fix. 

That latter idea is indeed an interesting idea. I don't know much about the upgrade system so I'm not sure if it's possible. 

Edited July 15, 2017 by Nertea

[AmpCat]

6 hours ago, Nertea said:

That's not awful I suppose. More compression for more mass. 

Learn how to write configs?

Oh yeah, that's pretty easy to miss (just like i missed your post :P), but also pretty easy to fix. 

That latter idea is indeed an interesting idea. I don't know much about the upgrade system so I'm not sure if it's possible. 

I love the upgrade system. Would be cool if you added that to your tanks and engines at some point in the future. Maybe give them better capacity for the same volume for tanks, better efficiencies/lower mass for engines?

Ideally, make some of the models available earlier in the tech trees but with fairly heft inefficiencies, then get to their current state/tech tree through research, then improved a bit further down. I like making series of crafts, and it would be kinda nice to start with a new engine I know will improve as I progress.

Gives more reason to keep researching.

Edited July 16, 2017 by AmpCat

[AmpCat]

@Nertea, don't want to be a bother about something purely cosmetic.. buuuuut...

On your Octo-Girder the LH2 tanks have a nice gold color. However, on your Cryo tanks, the color for the gold foil is a much duller yellow. The texture also seems lower resolution or maybe just scaled larger. The Octo-Girder ones looks real nice when you put them side by side. Don't suppose the Cryo tanks could be made to be textured and colored similar to the Octo-Girder?

You can say no. I like the white models a lot.

Edited July 18, 2017 by AmpCat

[fenderzilla]

I might be totally wrong here, but because the Cryo Tanks hold so much more hydrogen than their liquid fuel counterparts (13.33x more roughly), aren't you making the Nervas 13 times worse by adding this,

 

@PROPELLANT[LiquidFuel]
        {
            @name = LqdHydrogen
            @ratio = 1.0
        }

 

Instead of this?

@PROPELLANT[LiquidFuel]
        {
            @name = LqdHydrogen
            @ratio = 13.333
        }

Edited July 19, 2017 by fenderzilla

[Nertea]

10 minutes ago, fenderzilla said:

I might be totally wrong here, but because the Cryo Tanks hold so much more hydrogen than their liquid fuel counterparts (13.33x more roughly), aren't you making the Nervas 13 times worse by adding this,

  Hide contents

@PROPELLANT[LiquidFuel]
        {
            @name = LqdHydrogen
            @ratio = 1.0
        }

  Hide contents

Instead of this?

@PROPELLANT[LiquidFuel]
        {
            @name = LqdHydrogen
            @ratio = 13.333
        }

No, because that only deals with propellant ratios. Since there's only one propellant, both lines you've written mean the same thing. Performance will change because of other reasons though - LH2 density needs larger tank volume, and specific impulse and TWR are both improved by ~10%.

 

[AmpCat]

Quick question on refueling nuclear reactors.. is there a way to make a drone core 'smart' enough to refuel a reactor? Would be nice for those real long range, highly sophisticated probes!

[Blackline]

Did anyone fix this? (nerf is showing plume while still being shut off)

[Nertea]

9 hours ago, Blackline said:

Did anyone fix this? (nerf is showing plume while still being shut off)

Is that the VSR Nerv? If so, that's probably why.

[Blackline]

13 hours ago, Nertea said:

Is that the VSR Nerv? If so, that's probably why.

I not at the PC right now, I think it was the stock one (mass was 1.7t or so). Or do you mean this is a FEATURE?

Last thing I did yesterday before switching off the PC was uninstalling realplume and smokescreen, hoping that fixes it.

EDIT: Uninstalling SmokeScreen and / or realplume did it

Edited July 25, 2017 by Blackline

[Blazing Sun]

How difficult would it be for one to go into the code, and add a module that would allow the fission reactor portion of the engines to provide power as a normal reactor would? Also perhaps tweak the usages of the LH2 and Uranium, as both of those seem a little high, in my opinion.

[Nergal8617]

1 hour ago, Blazing Sun said:

How difficult would it be for one to go into the code, and add a module that would allow the fission reactor portion of the engines to provide power as a normal reactor would?

Look in the extras folder that comes with Kerbal Atomics, there is a NFE integration patch that adds reactor modules to the engines.

Edited July 25, 2017 by Nergal8617

[Nertea]

2 hours ago, Blazing Sun said:

How difficult would it be for one to go into the code, and add a module that would allow the fission reactor portion of the engines to provide power as a normal reactor would? Also perhaps tweak the usages of the LH2 and Uranium, as both of those seem a little high, in my opinion.

All engines that have generators already produce constant power (Scylla, Poseidon, Eel). As mentioned if you want this to be more complicated you can add the Extras patch.

Decrease LH2 use = increase engine Isp. There's only one engine that canonically uses EnrichedUranium as a fuel and it's that way as a balance mechanism... again, decrease fuel use by increasing Isp. 

Edited July 25, 2017 by Nertea

[Blazing Sun]

4 hours ago, Nergal8617 said:

Look in the extras folder that comes with Kerbal Atomics, there is a NFE integration patch that adds reactor modules to the engines.

I actually installed that patch when I installed Kerbal Atomics, yet I still get no power whether the reactor is active or inactive. Perhaps I have it in the wrong spot? It's located in 'Kerbal Space Program > GameData > Extras'. Does it go elsewhere? Also, the engine produces no thrust unless the reactor is active, despite still using fuel, though I imagine that's intentional.

[Nertea]

1 hour ago, Blazing Sun said:

I actually installed that patch when I installed Kerbal Atomics, yet I still get no power whether the reactor is active or inactive.

It shouldn't matter where that patch goes but canonically it should look like GameData/NearFutureElectricalNTRs/.

To generate power, the reactor should be on, at some power level equal to or greater than 1%, and the core must be hot. Importantly it must be a reactor that has power generation capabilities. 

1 hour ago, Blazing Sun said:

Also, the engine produces no thrust unless the reactor is active, despite still using fuel, though I imagine that's intentional.

Yes, there's no real reason you can't run propellant (in this case, not fuel) through a reactor that's cold. 

Edited July 26, 2017 by Nertea

[Rodger]

Probably unintended, but man this is cool:

Yep, that's an inflatable heatshield attached to the spike of the Scylla, tucked away perfectly before needed for re-entry lol.

[Horcrux]

I have a recurring bug where if I reactivate an engine's reactor the temperature will spike up to many times the level where it causes damage, causing the reactor to instantly be destroyed. Fiddling with the savegame it seems if I change the lastUpdateTime field in ModuleCoreHeat for the engine to be closer to the present the problem is fixed until the next firing.

Any ideas what could be causing this? Also, would there be any way to completely remove the meltdown mechanic with a patch (as IMO it doesn't make much sense for gameplay if all engines have 100% built-in heat rejection capacity anyway)?

Edited July 26, 2017 by Horcrux