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

[Nertea]

Oh god, SEVERE? We're doomed. 

2 hours ago, Tau137 said:

1. Would you consider implementing automatic reactor throttling (throttle-up is already there, but what about throttle-down?) to keep it at optimal temperature while avoiding (if possible) overheats?  This will make life easier for players, eliminating an unnecessary "busy work" of balancing reactor.

There's no efficient analytical way to do this. There are too many edge cases when you start to factor in multiple reactors, you end up needing to create a vessel-wide prioritization and distribution logic (aka, KSPI, and the associated problems). If you do it non-analytically, you run into a considerable number of issues with timewarp.

2 hours ago, Tau137 said:

4. [May be unrelated to Near-Future SEVERE]  Loosing right-click info and functionality after non-physics timewarp (somewhat random, but quick to replicate; may or may not be related to trying to start the reactor while engine is still in shutdown state); reactor still works and control panel (if opened prior) still works.

Log of the event is required for any meaningful debug. I've never, ever seen this!

I'll look into the other things you mention. 

Edited November 22, 2016 by Nertea

[Tau137]

1 hour ago, Nertea said:

Oh god, SEVERE? We're doomed. 

There's no efficient analytical way to do this. There are too many edge cases when you start to factor in multiple reactors, you end up needing to create a vessel-wide prioritization and distribution logic (aka, KSPI, and the associated problems). If you do it non-analytically, you run into a considerable number of issues with timewarp.

Log of the event is required for any meaningful debug. I've never, ever seen this!

I'll look into the other things you mention. 

 

My day job is, in part, IT infrastructure support, thus the classification;  essentially, "severe" (priority) translates to "game-breaking".

I understand your comments regarding auto-throttling, although I disagree about complexity of the problem (it is not complex at all when only a single reactor/engine is concerned; it only gets uncertain when/if you consider multi-reactor and multi-engine NFE+P setup, but I was referring to KA engines only (independent entities, except perhaps for potentially shared radiators))... yet, since I am not going to "go and code my own mod" (thank you for doing that for all of us, btw), I will refrain from further comments on the subject.

Yes, I will try to reproduce the GUI right-click issue and supply logs when I have time.

[Nertea]

27 minutes ago, Tau137 said:

My day job is, in part, IT infrastructure support, thus the classification;  essentially, "severe" (priority) translates to "game-breaking".

I understand your comments regarding auto-throttling, although I disagree about complexity of the problem (it is not complex at all when only a single reactor/engine is concerned; it only gets uncertain when/if you consider multi-reactor and multi-engine NFE+P setup, but I was referring to KA engines only (independent entities, except perhaps for potentially shared radiators))... yet, since I am not going to "go and code my own mod" (thank you for doing that for all of us, btw), I will refrain from further comments on the subject.

Yes, I will try to reproduce the GUI right-click issue and supply logs when I have time.

*shrugs* I've been puttering along, slowly improving this patch for months (it's a highly optional, highly WIP product - note that it isn't mentioned in the OP, has a big EXPERIMENTAL flag in the readme). I'm just a little miffed that the first I learn about... let's call it "strong user dissatisfaction" is from poking about in someone else's thread and seeing misinformation about my mod being "fundamentally broken". Disheartening, for sure. 

And yes, it gets highly complex quickly. What I have learned while writing these mods is that people will always create an approximation of the most complex situation, very quickly. Even a very simple system with two reactors on a ship results in problems (look a page or two ago to see the unexpected interactions in the highly limited auto-throttling that is currently implemented).

Also... auto throttling is a weird kettle of fish. What do you auto-throttle? If you link reactor throttle to effective cooling, you create situations where the engine is operating at low performance while the reactor warms up, which creates a direct waste of propellant (low performance = low Isp). If you make the opposite binding, then you get another strange situation where the user has low control over the engine itself (propellant flow is then controlled by heat, which has inertia and nonlinear increases). Essentially there are two throttles to manage, a performance throttle and a propellant flow throttle, and without creating great complexity or creating strong performance penalties for automation, the human mind seems far better suited to optimizing this. 

If you can think of a nice algorithm that hits 95% of the edge cases, I'm all for it.

 

 

[danfarnsy]

55 minutes ago, Tau137 said:

I understand your comments regarding auto-throttling, although I disagree about complexity of the problem (it is not complex at all when only a single reactor/engine is concerned...

Any spacecraft with multiple parts with heat capacities and emissive radiation (scales as 4th power of temperature, so it's a nonlinear differential equation, which very few even have analytical solutions), some types of radiators which lose effectiveness with distance from source, conduction to adjacent parts, heat input from the sun, potential convection issues in atmosphere, the cutoff temperatures at which radiators throttle (therefore pulling less heat per second from cores)... yeah, that's messy. It's much easier to do numerically, but as Nertea said, that has issues with time warp (the larger your step size between calculations, the more unstable numerical approximation becomes).

[danfarnsy]

9 minutes ago, Nertea said:

the human mind seems far better suited to optimizing this. 

@Nertea You're doing great, man. Manually throttling reactors is more than fine, as tuning PID controllers for even simple systems often breaks as soon as external assumptions change. As a physicist who understands how fast a "simple" problem can become very difficult, you've got my vote of confidence.

Sorry there are so many armchair critics. It's understandably frustrating. I've been around long enough to get a sense for whose comments and insights are valuable, and I haven't seen anybody with a solid track record who also had bad things to say about your work. Hah, maybe that's circular: whether forummers approve of your work has become my litmus test for whether they have sound judgment!  

[ThreePounds]

7 hours ago, danfarnsy said:

@Nertea You're doing great, man. 

I have to wholeheartedly agree on this one. Your mods, Nertea, are the only part mod I will ever allow in my stock themed installs because they offer complexity and meaningful progression beyond the base game while staying true to the, admittedly few, principles the latter has set. From balancing to textures and models, your mods offer a consistency in high quality and design that so many other mods sorely lack. I've followed your mods evolve even in times I haven't actually played the game just because it's such a joy to see them grow and advance. I want to thank you for the great service you've done this community with your work.

Edited November 23, 2016 by Three_Pounds

[Tau137]

16 hours ago, Nertea said:

*shrugs* I've been puttering along, slowly improving this patch for months (it's a highly optional, highly WIP product - note that it isn't mentioned in the OP, has a big EXPERIMENTAL flag in the readme). I'm just a little miffed that the first I learn about... let's call it "strong user dissatisfaction" is from poking about in someone else's thread and seeing misinformation about my mod being "fundamentally broken". Disheartening, for sure. 

....

If you can think of a nice algorithm that hits 95% of the edge cases, I'm all for it.

Nertea, thank you for (1) still working on your mod  (to the benefit of many, myself included), despite all lackluster/negative/indifferent comments, and (2) responding quickly and in a reasonable manner.  As I said earlier, I meant no offense, it was MY frustration (an therefore my personal problem) that lead to that emotional spill in AE thread (which was mostly because, as was already outlined before, Nertea's mods are most reasonably balanced near&far-future propulsion and energy generation option there is so far), and my apologies where included in the earlier posts.

BTW, if anyone desires to bash me personally for being negative, disrespectful, inadequate etc. - please do, but, if you would, please keep it in PM to avoid contaminating the thread.  Meanwhile I will continue to submit bug reports and I the accompanying information Nertea requires, whenever possible (unless Nertea himself tells to to bug off forever).  Jeez, everyone is suddenly soooo emotionally fragile, like, *literally* needing a safe (save?) space.... Anyway, back to the topic.

Nertea, I removed all mods except NF* and those that come packaged along with them... and so far was not able to replicate the behavior of "loosing NFE reactor control on right-click" issue mentioned earlier, so perhaps it is a mod interference and not NF* problem after all.  I will test further and report (with data) when I can.

[Nertea]

On 11/22/2016 at 10:25 AM, Tau137 said:

1. [SEVERE]  Reactor fuel consumption is constant, no matter the reactor power setting (except if reactor is OFF); 

I can't reproduce this. I placed a NTR on the pad, turned on the reactor and engine, then played with various throttle items. Power setting adjusted core lifetime when the throttle was zeroed as expected, and when the throttle was taking over the throttle adjusted core lifetime. Some examples:

• Throttle 0, Power 50: Lifetime 200% of normal
• Throttle 100, Power 50: Lifetime 100% of normal
• Throttle 25, Power 50: Lifetime 200% of normal
• Throttle 75, Power 25: Lifetime 150% of normal

On 11/22/2016 at 10:25 AM, Tau137 said:

2. [SEVERE]  If reactor is out of fuel, it is still listed as active, and, more importantly, will start producing power again if throttle is applied

I did manage to reproduce this, I'll be looking into it. 

[rebel-1]

This mod is veri good. But... I compare variants vessel with this mod and stock nuclear engine... For example, create station with cupola module, research module, container for 4 kerbals, batteries, solar panels and docks. Add fuel tank for lander. And now... If add MK3 liquid fuel tank and 4 LV-N engines, we have 85 tonn mass and 5800 delta-v. With this mod, add 4(four) MK3 tanks at LH variants, to mass 80 tonn, and add engines from this mod(or stock engines on LH). We have less 5k DV(if not use hi-tech engines from mod). What use common sense this mod? Characteristics is worse, than stock. Need very more tanks. Maybe, it is realistic. But not playable. 

 

[linuxgurugamer]

9 minutes ago, rebel-1 said:

This mod is veri good. But... I compare variants vessel with this mod and stock nuclear engine... For example, create station with cupola module, research module, container for 4 kerbals, batteries, solar panels and docks. Add fuel tank for lander. And now... If add MK3 liquid fuel tank and 4 LV-N engines, we have 85 tonn mass and 5800 delta-v. With this mod, add 4(four) MK3 tanks at LH variants, to mass 80 tonn, and add engines from this mod(or stock engines on LH). We have less 5k DV(if not use hi-tech engines from mod). What use common sense this mod? Characteristics is worse, than stock. Need very more tanks. Maybe, it is realistic. But not playable. 

It very specifically says that Liquid Hydrogen is less dense than liquid fuel, so you will need more tanks.  You are comparing apple to oranges.

Don't complain about a documented feature of the mod.  The mod is doing what it is designed to do.  

[rebel-1]

1 minute ago, linuxgurugamer said:

It very specifically says that Liquid Hydrogen is less dense than liquid fuel, so you will need more tanks.  You are comparing apple to oranges.

Don't complain about a documented feature of the mod.  The mod is doing what it is designed to do.  

OK, good. Then question. How to make capacity LH tanks for example to 2x in cfg files?

[linuxgurugamer]

Just now, rebel-1 said:

OK, good. Then question. How to make capacity LH tanks for example to 2x in cfg files?

I'm not sure, since I don't play with this, but I'm sure there are others who can help

[rebel-1]

9 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

I'm not sure, since I don't play with this, but I'm sure there are others who can help

Maybe it is unreal, but for playable capacity LH tanks need up to 1.5-2x. And my interestigly how it made.

Edited November 26, 2016 by rebel-1

[Tau137]

20 hours ago, Nertea said:

I can't reproduce this. I placed a NTR on the pad, turned on the reactor and engine, then played with various throttle items. Power setting adjusted core lifetime when the throttle was zeroed as expected, and when the throttle was taking over the throttle adjusted core lifetime. Some examples:

• Throttle 0, Power 50: Lifetime 200% of normal
• Throttle 100, Power 50: Lifetime 100% of normal
• Throttle 25, Power 50: Lifetime 200% of normal
• Throttle 75, Power 25: Lifetime 150% of normal

Nertea, CoreLifetime readout does indeed reflect lifetime as it should be, the problem is that actual lifetime (as measured via clock using moderate non-physics timewarp, or by observing resource consumption rates) remains the same no matter power level or throttle (e.g., just over 5hr for Squad LVN, even if reactor is set to 0%, and 0% throttle).

 

[Space Kadet]

could you tell me how to stop this converting the stock nerv to LqdH , as i have alot of stock designs that it messes with?

[Mikki]

1 hour ago, Space Kadet said:

could you tell me how to stop this converting the stock nerv to LqdH , as i have alot of stock designs that it messes with?

Terve...
In KAtomics file is a extras folder containing a LF patch... erase all content except the Squad section, should turn the LV-n back to use LF as stock.
Paste the patch to your KAtomics patches folder.

Edited December 2, 2016 by Mikki
typo:D, again

[Esquire42]

On 11/22/2016 at 0:35 PM, Nertea said:

Log of the event is required for any meaningful debug. I've never, ever seen this!

I'll look into the other things you mention. 

This same thing happened to me. Sometime this weekend I'll whip together a NFE and stock save and get a log for you @Nertea

[Synthesis]

Sorry to be a bother, but can anyone confirm if this is working okay with 1.2.2?

[Rayder]

On 12/26/2016 at 8:42 AM, Synthesis said:

Sorry to be a bother, but can anyone confirm if this is working okay with 1.2.2?

I've not noticed anything particular during my 1.2.2 gameplay. You should be safe.

[Donziboy2]

Having some issues with the Emancipator.  I can transfer fuel to and from containters to both MKS Reactors and NFE Reactors but I do not get options on the Emancipator and if I try to transfer fuel to the Emancipator from a container I get the " Selected part can't handle radioactive storage, exiting transfer mode... " Message.

 

From what I can tell from the Emancipator part file it is missing the " RadioactiveStorageContainer" Module.

[steve_v]

So, I was trying to figure out why the NTR from M2X overheated with NFE installed (M2X includes NFE reactor patches), looking to KerbalAtomicsNFE.cfg for inspiration. I appear to have failed miserably.
Not only did I not get the M2X engines working properly, but the stock NTR behaves exactly the same way if I install KerbalAtomicsNFE.cfg: There appears to be no (or very little) exhaust cooling. The numbers look ok in the VAB, and I can see a cooling % in the engines context menu, which rises slowly as I throttle up... but far too slowly to prevent the engine overheating in ~20 seconds.

Start reactor, set power to 0, throttle up: Available power, core temp & cooling % increase, "Heat rejected" stays at 0KW, reactor rapidly overheats. Do I need a bunch of additional radiators for this? If so, what's the "Exhaust cooling" number in the part description mean? It matches the cooling required figure, so I assume that's all that's needed, right?

I realise that KerbalAtomicsNFE.cfg is supplied as an "Extra", my question is: Does it actually work? Am I running the thing wrong or what?

Edited December 28, 2016 by steve_v

[Rayder]

@steve_v could you by chance take a screenshot of what you are describing?

The engines are designed to disspiate excess heat; that is, when the reactor reaches operating temperature, it stops increasing. If you start the reactor with zero exhaust, it will overheat. The exhaust behaves as a "pseudo-radiator".

Example: The Liberator NTR has a nominal temp of 6000, critical temp of 7000, and maximum of 8000. Similar to a normal NFE reactor, when you activate it, the core heats up until it reaches nominal temperature. From here, if there is adequate cooling, the reactor will stay at 6000. If not, it will climb and overheat. As for the Liberator, the exhaust acts as a radiator and dissipates the excess heat above 6000.

As for your issue, I'm unsure why the reactor would overheat if you are using it in the manner you describe. Have you attempted this with just the stock game, with NFE and Atomics?

[steve_v]

6 hours ago, Rayder said:

Have you attempted this with just the stock game, with NFE and Atomics?

Works fine.

I should clarify what it is I'm trying to do: Use NFE reactors with a non-KA engine, using just the  patch from KerbalAtomicsNFE.cfg. This works fine if I have KA installed, but does not if I do not.

There is no plugin in KA, so I should need only NFE to make this work, right? Clearly I am missing something.
The only other patches that come with KA, and are applied to the stock NTR, are hydrogenNTRsSQUAD.cfg and (optional) KerbalAtomicsLF.cfg. The latter is irrelevant in this cse as it only touches fuel type and atmospherecurve.
hydrogenNTRsSQUAD.cfg however, changes FX and thrust transforms to use those from KA... If this is the missing piece (and it appears so) why? What do I need to make a stock (or other mod) NTR use NFE, without installing KA?

Ed.
------

So ModuleEngines != ModuleEnginesFX. Duh. Stock NTR works now.

But I still can't get the M2X engines to stop overheating. Even copying all the NFE related config from the stock NTR.
Screw it, I've had enough of fighting with this thing. Where's the documentation on how to set up an engine properly?

Edited December 29, 2016 by steve_v

[Rayder]

18 hours ago, steve_v said:

...Even copying all the NFE related config from the stock NTR.

No problem. I only asked so that I can try and help you and I understand where the problem is. But strangely, if you copy over the settings exactly from the stock NTR it should work...

18 hours ago, steve_v said:

There is no plugin in KA, so I should need only NFE to make this work, right? Clearly I am missing something.

Indeed. In it's original configuration, Kerbal Atomics are just extra NTRs which behave in a similar way to the Nerv. The config makes the KA engines "fancy" if NF Electrical is also installed.

If you are indeed copying the .cfg exactly from KerbalAtomicsNFE.cfg, make sure you remove :AFTER[KerbalAtomics] from the module. That section could potentially make Kerbal Atomics a requirement, for the config to actually do anything. This might explain why your patch doesn't work without KA.

Edited December 30, 2016 by Rayder

[Nertea]

On 12/29/2016 at 3:05 AM, steve_v said:

Works fine.

I should clarify what it is I'm trying to do: Use NFE reactors with a non-KA engine, using just the  patch from KerbalAtomicsNFE.cfg. This works fine if I have KA installed, but does not if I do not.

There is no plugin in KA, so I should need only NFE to make this work, right? Clearly I am missing something.
The only other patches that come with KA, and are applied to the stock NTR, are hydrogenNTRsSQUAD.cfg and (optional) KerbalAtomicsLF.cfg. The latter is irrelevant in this cse as it only touches fuel type and atmospherecurve.
hydrogenNTRsSQUAD.cfg however, changes FX and thrust transforms to use those from KA... If this is the missing piece (and it appears so) why? What do I need to make a stock (or other mod) NTR use NFE, without installing KA?

Ed.
------

So ModuleEngines != ModuleEnginesFX. Duh. Stock NTR works now.

But I still can't get the M2X engines to stop overheating. Even copying all the NFE related config from the stock NTR.
Screw it, I've had enough of fighting with this thing. Where's the documentation on how to set up an engine properly?

Considering how in flux this patch is, there is no documentation to use (I would rather people not base stuff off it too much because it'll break). However, I'll try to help. What overheats - the core or the engine?