[1.12.x] Near Future Technologies (September 6)

[podbaydoor]

I play with my own set of self-imposed realism constraints, so I'm curious what the new super high-efficiency monoprop orbital engines are supposed to be modeled after. Is there a new type of vacuum rocket engine being developed in the... near future?

 

[Streetwind]

...Well, sort-of? Strictly speaking it's a new fuel but they also have to make new engines due to the way it differs from the hydrazine it is supposed to replace.

But honestly I think Nertea just wanted to make some monoprop engines.

 

Edited April 19, 2017 by Streetwind

[Vickytor]

First of all, thanks for this awesome mod!

On the balance side of things, I don't think it is really bad at the moment.

 

Here is how I look at it:

Resources: Argon should be darn cheap and Xenon expensive (as it is in the real world). Lithium somewhere in between.

Xenon is quite rare and costs as much as $800/kg in the real world

Lithium ~$20/kg (battery grade $20,000/ton)

Argon probably <$1/kg (the air is almost 1% Argon!).

Basically:

Lithium (low ISP) - if thrust is more important than ISP

Argon (medium ISP) - solid middle choice, cheap, reasonable thrust and power, get more expensive if you want higher ISP (with higher power and/or lower thrust)

Xenon (high ISP) - if you need very high ISP, but you get lower thrust and need more power (and are also more expensive)

Legend for the tables below

Choice/dilemma of electric satellite engines

Argon (Hall): small, cheap electric engine for satellites but with low ISP (for electric) and reasonable thrust and reasonable power usage.  This is how it is now:

Xenon (ion): small, more expensive with high ISP but low thrust and higher power usage. 

Seems pretty ok to me as it is . Gyro-1 maybe should get a little ISP boost so it closer to Dawn/Gyro-2. The Xenon engines cost about as much as their Argon counterparts, but the Xenon fuel is of course more expensive. And if you want higher ISP, you need more power, so you need more solar panels/batteries/nuclear power, which adds mass to the vehicle.

 

Medium-Large sized craft engines:

MPDT(Lithium): moderately expensive, low ISP, high thrust, high power usage engines

-If the lithium fuel was made a little bit more expensive these engines could get a price reduction.

 

PIT(Argon): moderately expensive, higher ISP than MPDT and Ar(Hall), reasonable thrust and reasonable-to-high power usage (I like the power/ISP slider)

-These should probably be priced a bit higher for their ability to get better thrust and ISP than the Ar(Hall thrusters).

KP-01 has more (19.5kN, ISP 6000, power/ISP slider) for 7002 than the GW3 'Triplet' (with static 4200 ISP) has for 8120.

The KP-XL and KX-XK have (too) high ISP in high power mode, I think they should be lowered to 7500-8500 so they don't get into the Xenon efficiency territory.

 

Now the in my eyes most advanced, most expensive, electric engines known to kerbalkind:

VASIMR (Argon mode): should be very expensive engines, in Argon mode low-thrust mode they should be able to provide better ISP than PITs at lower thrust with the (customizable thrust/ISP slider) and they should be able to provide almost as much thrust as MPDT in high-thrust mode (but with worse ISP than MPDTs).

VASIMR (Xenon mode): Very expensive engines, in Xenon mode very high ISP should be possible but with very low thrust (customizable thrust/ISP slider) 

- This seems all wrong yo me. Xenon mode should have higher ISP/lower thrust than Argon. They also need to be more expensive as they are the 'most complex' engines.

VW-200 compared to VX-100 to is 4-5x thrust for only 2x the price. Same goes for VW-200 to VW-10K. I'm not saying it should be completely linear as you also need to pay for the energy infrastructure needed (batteries, capacitors, nuclear power plants etc).

 VX-100 on argon on a craft (8190, 0.4t ,6.2kN,) vs. a KP-01 PIT ( 7002, 0.25t , 19.5kN). The KP-01 is cheaper, has a lower mas, 3x higher max thrust. Yes, it uses 2-4x the power, but you can run it with 25-50% thrust limiter and still get a better deal.

 

 

Anyway, thanks again for developing these mods!

 

 

Edited April 19, 2017 by Vickytor
noticed the tables weren't working, so I uploaded them as images

[Streetwind]

1 hour ago, Vickytor said:

This seems all wrong yo me. Xenon mode should have higher ISP/lower thrust than Argon.

I too was once surprised to find out that this is in fact not at all wrong. Xenon is not good for specific impulse IRL. Not good at all.

The reason everyone uses xenon is because it is so easy to ionize. You only need to invest a small amount of energy to strip an electron and create a charged particle. However, xenon is a very large and heavy element, and it takes a lot of energy to accelerate it to decent speeds. So what happens in the engine is that many xenon atoms get ionized at once because it's so easily accomplished, and then all those heavy particles need to share the energy available for acceleration. In the end, you move a lot of mass (giving you thrust), but you can't move it very fast (which leaves the Isp low). Even throttling the fuel input doesn't help, because xenon would also need a longer distance to pick up speed, and magnetic fields can only reach so far.

Meanwhile, with argon, you pay a big energy premium just to create the ion. Argon really doesn't want to get charged. So only a small number of ions can be created at the same time. But those ions are very light, and can easily be accelerated over short distances. You end up moving only a little mass (which is bad for thrust), but that little mass is going to be moving very fast (resulting in a high specific impulse).

So xenon is actually the highest thrust, lowest Isp fuel among the bunch shipped by Near Future. Which is another reason we use a lot of it IRL. We're never limited by Isp on electric engines in real missions; the dV requirements of 99% of desired missions today can easily be met with 2000s. But if you can get more thrust out of that ion drive, then (for example) your all-electric commsat might circularize in geostationary orbit one month sooner, which might generate you a million dollars in extra revenue. That easily covers the price premium of xenon over argon, too.

Why are gridded ion thrusters running xenon sporting such high Isp numbers then? Because fuel isn't the only thing determining performance. Engine technology is too. Gridded thrusters are very, very good at extracting Isp from xenon - especially the dual-staged Jewel-4, which is (in laymans terms) what you get when you funnel the exhaust of an ion engine into another ion engine. All of the gridded thrusters shipped by Near Future have direct RL inspirations with more or less similar specific impulses (with some fudging to account for the abysmal mass fractions of stock tanks), which does inform the design to some extent.

 

Still, thanks for your feedback. You put a lot of thought into it.

 

Edited April 19, 2017 by Streetwind

[VaPaL]

@Vickytor There's this video that sums up what @Streetwind just said. But with a longer explanation, some ilustrations and numbers.

 

[Tau137]

Original DELETED as outdated, checking not-yet-relased "re-balance" version(s).  Will add comments here as they come.

1. NFE reactor 0.625 - heat and consumption is just right, but the reactor power is OVERKILL.  This must be either trimmed down in half along with heat, or moved to the save tech tier as 2.5-2 or even 3.75-2 reactor (advanced tech, miniaturization etc.) with higher cost .  Btw, it still costs only 1/4 of advanced RTG; I know RTG price comes from stock RTG scaling and reactors have a different category and scale, but still - this little reactor is just way too damn good.

2. 2.5-2 and especially 3.75-2 reactors fall out of line - they are running too cool (based on EC production efficiency per unit fuel).  The should produce 245K and 465K, respectively.  250 and 450 would be close enough, if you like round numbers.

3. FissionGenerator numbers are not right.  Looks like you are always taking 20% of total reactor heat and then convert to EC with 50-100% efficiency... does not make sense.  I'd instead take the heat in direct proportion to efficiency, and then convert 1:1 to EC (as is 3.75-2 reactor) - this would be more "realistic" in terms of energy conservation, and then you can just calculate total heat production based only on consumption (or vice versa), no extra coefficients.  Simple. Everything can be automatically calculated, no need for tweaking (expect perhaps to match radiators) once you know the desired EC output and efficiency.

3a.  IMHO, efficiency of top-tier reactor(s) should go up to 30%, not 20% (10% for low-tech, as it is now, is just fine).  Also, see (1) above - miniature nuclear reactors should always be less efficient, but they should be high-tech still.

 

More to come later...

 

 

 

 

Edited April 21, 2017 by Tau137

[justspace103]

@Nertea hi Nertea I've been having a problem with the Aerodyamic Landing legs in the Spacecraft pack. after i deploy the legs the shock absorbers pop out of the socket leaving a gap and also screwing with my ships

 

Ksp Log Link: https://www.dropbox.com/s/2vs5g7la5oy9qou/KSP copy.log?dl=0

[Streetwind]

14 hours ago, Tau137 said:

1. NFE reactor 0.625 - heat and consumption is just right, but the reactor power is OVERKILL.  This must be either trimmed down in half along with heat, or moved to the save tech tier as 2.5-2 or even 3.75-2 reactor (advanced tech, miniaturization etc.) with higher cost .  Btw, it still costs only 1/4 of advanced RTG; I know RTG price comes from stock RTG scaling and reactors have a different category and scale, but still - this little reactor is just way too damn good.

2. 2.5-2 and especially 3.75-2 reactors fall out of line - they are running too cool (based on EC production efficiency per unit fuel).  The should produce 245K and 465K, respectively.  250 and 450 would be close enough, if you like round numbers.

3. FissionGenerator numbers are not right.  Looks like you are always taking 20% of total reactor heat and then convert to EC with 50-100% efficiency... does not make sense.  I'd instead take the heat in direct proportion to efficiency, and then convert 1:1 to EC (as is 3.75-2 reactor) - this would be more "realistic" in terms of energy conservation, and then you can just calculate total heat production based only on consumption (or vice versa), no extra coefficients.  Simple. Everything can be automatically calculated, no need for tweaking (expect perhaps to match radiators) once you know the desired EC output and efficiency.

3a.  IMHO, efficiency of top-tier reactor(s) should go up to 30%, not 20% (10% for low-tech, as it is now, is just fine).  Also, see (1) above - miniature nuclear reactors should always be less efficient, but they should be high-tech still.

I'm not sure I follow you here, unfortunately...

1.) The KerboPower reactor has the worst specific power rating, the lowest efficiency, costs the most funds per Ec produced, and pulls the least EC out of a unit of EnrichedUranium. The only time you would use it is if no other reactor can do the job, because all other reactors are better in all game-relevant performance metrics. The comparison with the RTGs isn't really as straightforward either, because RTGs don't run out of fuel (unless you mod them to do so). Their high price reflects the fact that they are an infinite energy source. NFE's optional decaying RTGs patch will actually slash the price down a fair amount in coming versions.

2.) I don't know what numbers you're referring to here. Can you explain in more detail? As ar as Ec output per unit of fuel goes, our spreadsheet puts the Excalibur at 345 million and the Hermes at 358 million. This is suitably in line with the progression of the other models.

3.) Some numbers in the config file don't work as you think they do. Don't judge reactors by their config file numbers. Judge them by their ingame performance.

3a.) Efficiency for reactors goes from 28.57% (KerboPower) to 48% (Hermes). I don't know where you got 10% or 20% from. You must be using "efficiency" in a different context than us, so please explain what you mean. We define efficiency as the percentage of total reactor power that is Ec output (with the remainder being waste heat). For the Hermes, 6,000 Ec/s (AKA 6,000 kW electricity) is 48% of the total reactor power, so that total reactor power is 12,500 kW and waste heat comes out to 6,500 kW. But you will never find the number 12,500 anywhere in the config files, because as mentioned, config file numbers are not always that straightforward.

[Tau137]

6 hours ago, Streetwind said:

I'm not sure I follow you here, unfortunately...

1.) The KerboPower reactor has the worst specific power rating, the lowest efficiency, costs the most funds per Ec produced, and pulls the least EC out of a unit of EnrichedUranium. The only time you would use it is if no other reactor can do the job, because all other reactors are better in all game-relevant performance metrics. The comparison with the RTGs isn't really as straightforward either, because RTGs don't run out of fuel (unless you mod them to do so). Their high price reflects the fact that they are an infinite energy source. NFE's optional decaying RTGs patch will actually slash the price down a fair amount in coming versions.

2.) I don't know what numbers you're referring to here. Can you explain in more detail? As ar as Ec output per unit of fuel goes, our spreadsheet puts the Excalibur at 345 million and the Hermes at 358 million. This is suitably in line with the progression of the other models.

3.) Some numbers in the config file don't work as you think they do. Don't judge reactors by their config file numbers. Judge them by their ingame performance.

3a.) Efficiency for reactors goes from 28.57% (KerboPower) to 48% (Hermes). I don't know where you got 10% or 20% from. You must be using "efficiency" in a different context than us, so please explain what you mean. We define efficiency as the percentage of total reactor power that is Ec output (with the remainder being waste heat). For the Hermes, 6,000 Ec/s (AKA 6,000 kW electricity) is 48% of the total reactor power, so that total reactor power is 12,500 kW and waste heat comes out to 6,500 kW. But you will never find the number 12,500 anywhere in the config files, because as mentioned, config file numbers are not always that straightforward.

1).  I think that a fission reactor that weighs 300kg is a bit of a stretch at "the first step" in nuclear power tree.  Yes, it has by far the worst efficiency, but its small size and decent power makes it just too good for exploration and comm probes, as well as general vessel support (greenhouse, comms, drilling etc.)  Hence my suggestion to move it up the tree by a couple of nodes (assuming CTT).  And raise the cost a lot, but that is a whole different topic.

2. I am talking about heat production per unit fuel.  While for 0.625 it is about 31G, then goes down to 27G for 375-1 (which is fine, reactors are getting more efficient).  Suddenly 25-2 goes down even further to 23G, and the new 375-2 reactor - to 18G.  This should mean that they are more efficient, but they are not, because the EC production per unit fuel is actually lower (albeit slightly) than that of 375-1.  So that means that a lot of heat energy just disappears.

3. After a second look... Yeah, I mistakenly read it as x5 instead of x50 (which I assume is general conversion between heat units and KW).   But beyond that everything seems pretty-straight forwards, yet I am obviously missing something "behind the scenes"

3a. I'd define efficiency as it as fraction of total heat produced that was converted to electric energy.  If reactor produces 300K heat (presumably 6MW), and all of that heat gets taken away from the reactor to produce EC - then it would be 100% efficient.  With that definition, KerboPower would be 40% efficient.  And total heat produced should always be in direct and constant proportion to fuel consumption, no matter the reactor (which currently it is not).

Ok, you say that config files are not straightforwards (they should be, imho, but it is not my decision, obviously), but I cannot figure out where does the 12500 power figure for Hermes comes from - would you explain, please?

Also, what does PowerCurve do?  It is only present in 3 top tier reactors, and is the same for FLAT and Hermes, yet different for Excalibur.  I know it is temperature-related, but what is the parameter being regulated?  Why is it exactly 4000 (or 6000 for Excalibur) at nominal temperature?

Finally, does the FissionGenerator actually takes heat away from the reactor/core to produce EC (and the core heats up less as a result)?  That is kind of important...

 

 

[Nertea]

32 minutes ago, Tau137 said:

1).  I think that a fission reactor that weighs 300kg is a bit of a stretch at "the first step" in nuclear power tree.  Yes, it has by far the worst efficiency, but its small size and decent power makes it just too good for exploration and comm probes, as well as general vessel support (greenhouse, comms, drilling etc.)  Hence my suggestion to move it up the tree by a couple of nodes (assuming CTT).  And raise the cost a lot, but that is a whole different topic.

450kg with appropriate radiation capacity. Cost could go up, but it is ~1.25x the cost per kW than an advanced-tier solar panel, has limited lifetime and requires a lot of science points. It can't really go up in tiers that much, as it's in Experimental Electrics (post-rtg) and already costs considerably more science in general than the 1.25m reactor as a result.

32 minutes ago, Tau137 said:

2. I am talking about heat production per unit fuel.  While for 0.625 it is about 31G, then goes down to 27G for 375-1 (which is fine, reactors are getting more efficient).  Suddenly 25-2 goes down even further to 23G, and the new 375-2 reactor - to 18G.  This should mean that they are more efficient, but they are not, because the EC production per unit fuel is actually lower (albeit slightly) than that of 375-1.  So that means that a lot of heat energy just disappears.

rebalance branch numbers have a consistent progression of power generation per unit fuel, from about 250 kJ/ microunit to 350 kJ/microunit. The exception is the 375-1 model which is intended (read description text) as an outlier in the efficiency distribution

32 minutes ago, Tau137 said:

3a. I'd define efficiency as it as fraction of total heat produced that was converted to electric energy.  If reactor produces 300K heat (presumably 6MW), and all of that heat gets taken away from the reactor to produce EC - then it would be 100% efficient.  With that definition, KerboPower would be 40% efficient.  And total heat produced should always be in direct and constant proportion to fuel consumption, no matter the reactor (which currently it is not).

I don't know whether you're talking IRL or ingame... if you're talking IRL, that's certainly untrue (I know for a practical fact that the amount of energy effectively liberated from a fission reaction is wholly dependant on reactor geometry and engineering, it's in no way constant). If you're talking ingame, I'd ask why? There's far more important numbers to work on in terms of gameplay - functionally it matters little that the heat production does not scale directly to fuel use, but it does matter than the heat production scale to some effective multiple of available radiator parts, for example.

32 minutes ago, Tau137 said:

Also, what does PowerCurve do?  It is only present in 3 top tier reactors, and is the same for FLAT and Hermes, yet different for Excalibur.  I know it is temperature-related, but what is the parameter being regulated?  Why is it exactly 4000 (or 6000 for Excalibur) at nominal temperature?

One of my actions for the next update is to clean up the config files and remove old, unused fields, like that one.

39 minutes ago, Tau137 said:

Finally, does the FissionGenerator actually takes heat away from the reactor/core to produce EC (and the core heats up less as a result)?  That is kind of important...

The heat interaction between the host FissionReactor and the FissionConsumer elements (FissionGenerator, FissionEngine) is completely abstract and doesn't affect the KSP heat system at all for maximum stability. Essentially, the FissionReactor component supplies a certain amount of thermal energy which is allocated between the Consumers. The FissionReactor only adds the waste heat to the KSP system. 

So yes, the FissionGenerator does take away virtual heat from the system.

I'm fully aware that this isn't correct, but I really have to work within the confines of KSP's heat coding. I would like nothing more than to have a perfect "generate X, consume Y, remainder Z" system, but that is unstable as hell when timewarp happens.

9 hours ago, justspace103 said:

@Nertea hi Nertea I've been having a problem with the Aerodyamic Landing legs in the Spacecraft pack. after i deploy the legs the shock absorbers pop out of the socket leaving a gap and also screwing with my ships

 

Eh, you'll have to deal with it, don't know how it would screw with the ship though. I only just got it even working as a shock absorbing leg, there's bound to be some issues.

[Streetwind]

1 hour ago, Nertea said:

450kg with appropriate radiation capacity. Cost could go up, but it is ~1.25x the cost per kW than an advanced-tier solar panel, has limited lifetime and requires a lot of science points. It can't really go up in tiers that much, as it's in Experimental Electrics (post-rtg) and already costs considerably more science in general than the 1.25m reactor as a result.

It's in Nuclear Power, actually. We moved it there a few versions ago because people kept missing it in the other node and kept petitioning for a smaller-than-400 Ec/s reactor, remember?

I think there's room for cost to go up, perhaps to something like x1.5 the cost of the best solars. I definitely would want people to at least go "hmmm, that's expensive" when choosing to go for a reactor over solar. They are strictly better for all but two planets, so they should come with a noticable hit to the wallet.

 

2 hours ago, Tau137 said:

Yes, it has by far the worst efficiency, but its small size and decent power makes it just too good for exploration and comm probes, as well as general vessel support (greenhouse, comms, drilling etc.) 

I'd argue that for a probe, it's grossly overpowered. A RTG, or some 50 kg of solar, would be a much better choice if you have a passive consumption of under 0.1 Ec/s and only an ultra-rare instance of active Ec consumption through science transmission.

Also, keep in mind: the chief energy consumer that these reactors are encountering ingame are Near Future's own electric engines. 90% of all reactors used by players, at minimum, will be going towards powering those. And early electric engines take small amounts of power, increasing as you unlock higher tech levels. Your suggestion of moving the KerboPower up in the tech tree would result in a situation where people unlock electric engines requiring 15-30 Ec/s, with the first reactor offering 400 Ec/s. And then later, they unlock engines requiring 200 to 400 Ec/s, and their next reactor unlock gives them 60 Ec/s. That's just completely backwards.

Plus, it's neither a mistake nor a problem that there exist situations in which a part is the optimal part for the job. For example, when you need one Kerbal on a spacecraft, the Mk1 Command Pod is often the best choice. The Mk1 Lander Can unlocks later in the tech tree and is lighter, making it ideal for certain situations; the External Command Seat is even lighter again by a large margin. But the basic pod is still more practical in nearly every case when there's an atmosphere and/or a need for reaction wheels involved. That is despite the pod being literally given to you for free in the starter tech node. So yes: there definitely is a certain size of spacecraft with a certain amount of power consumption for which the KerboPower absolutely is the best possible choice you can make. But just because such a configuration exists doesn't mean it cannot be the first reactor to be unlocked. One reactor must be the first, and all the others have their own optimal niches too.

 

Edited April 22, 2017 by Streetwind

[Tau137]

26 minutes ago, Nertea said:

1. 450kg with appropriate radiation capacity. Cost could go up, but it is ~1.25x the cost per kW than an advanced-tier solar panel, has limited lifetime and requires a lot of science points. It can't really go up in tiers that much, as it's in Experimental Electrics (post-rtg) and already costs considerably more science in general than the 1.25m reactor as a result.

2. I don't know whether you're talking IRL or ingame... if you're talking IRL, that's certainly untrue (I know for a practical fact that the amount of energy effectively liberated from a fission reaction is wholly dependant on reactor geometry and engineering, it's in no way constant). If you're talking ingame, I'd ask why? There's far more important numbers to work on in terms of gameplay - functionally it matters little that the heat production does not scale directly to fuel use, but it does matter than the heat production scale to some effective multiple of available radiator parts, for example.

3. The heat interaction between the host FissionReactor and the FissionConsumer elements (FissionGenerator, FissionEngine) is completely abstract and doesn't affect the KSP heat system at all for maximum stability. Essentially, the FissionReactor component supplies a certain amount of thermal energy which is allocated between the Consumers. The FissionReactor only adds the waste heat to the KSP system. 

So yes, the FissionGenerator does take away virtual heat from the system.

I'm fully aware that this isn't correct, but I really have to work within the confines of KSP's heat coding. I would like nothing more than to have a perfect "generate X, consume Y, remainder Z" system, but that is unstable as hell when timewarp happens.

1. Still x20 output and only x3 the mass of A-RTG, at the same price and at very low tech level...  Mind you, I will use it extensively, but it is just so easy to send ion probes and fly propeller planes on Eve with just this reactor...

Talking about Decaying RTGs.  Half-life is an order of magnitude too short.  I understand the reasoning (Kerbal scale is 1/10), but transfer times to not scale linearly.  It is ok for stock but not enough for OPM.  Perhaps another patch in Extras to set it to proper 88 years?

2. In-game.  And to answer "why" - for the sake of consistency and simplicity.  And for my own understanding.  Your point is correct (about efficiency of heat production per unit fuel), but the generator output should probably only be dependent on total heat (and operating temperature, and generator efficiency) as the only type of energy that can be converted, at least for near-future.

From gameplay perspective... you are right, there are more important things.  Looking at the whole picture, it does not look bad - decent progression, very good efficiency benefits at top tiers.  Except KerbPower.

3.  Abstractions aside, it is just perfect that only waste heat gets dumped to the part core; but then I just do not understand how Hermes manages to heat up at all. 

[Phelan]

I didn't search the entire thread, but since even a few google searches didn't even come close to being any help - where can I actually collect Xenon? Kerbin doesn't have any in its atmosphere it seems (only Argon), which leaves Eve, Duna, Jool and Laythe... I cheated a probe with the Sounder into an orbit of each of them, and always got 0.0% Xenon. Location/biome doesn't seem to matter either, so right now, it looks like I can't collect Xenon anywhere on the stock planets..?

[DStaal]

3 minutes ago, Phelan said:

I didn't search the entire thread, but since even a few google searches didn't even come close to being any help - where can I actually collect Xenon? Kerbin doesn't have any in its atmosphere it seems (only Argon), which leaves Eve, Duna, Jool and Laythe... I cheated a probe with the Sounder into an orbit of each of them, and always got 0.0% Xenon. Location/biome doesn't seem to matter either, so right now, it looks like I can't collect Xenon anywhere on the stock planets..?

There aren't any, actually...  You can get some as a byproduct of nuclear reactors from USI I know, and there might be some other mods that add it in, but by default in CRP I don't think it exists in the wild.

[HoveringKiller]

 

3 minutes ago, DStaal said:

There aren't any, actually...  You can get some as a byproduct of nuclear reactors from USI I know, and there might be some other mods that add it in, but by default in CRP I don't think it exists in the wild.

You can also obtain it from depleted fuel form the Near Future Electrical reactors and the nuclear processor. 

[Phelan]

1 minute ago, DStaal said:

There aren't any, actually...  You can get some as a byproduct of nuclear reactors from USI I know, and there might be some other mods that add it in, but by default in CRP I don't think it exists in the wild.

Dammit getting enough Xenon from depleted fuel for anything but a tiny probe would take ridiculously long.. Ah well, thanks for the quick answer anyways, I guess I'll have to make an exception to my "collect all fuels as soon as you can, don't buy any" rule in this playthrough

[Streetwind]

@Phelan @DStaal NF Propulsion has a cryogenic gas separator that produces both xenon and argon. Also an atmospheric spectrometer to detect these resources.

I can't advise how to use it, I have not gotten around to it myself yet...

[Nertea]

It should be available on Kerbin 100% according to CRP, but it looks like it's using ranges that aren't very good. They might not work. Looks like a 50% chance (save-wise) to encounter it anywhere on other planets with atmosphere. 

We'll be changing this in the first post-1.3 version of CRP, but getting changes to CRP distributions is always a slow process.

Edited April 24, 2017 by Nertea

[Crimeo]

On 4/15/2017 at 5:09 PM, Nertea said:

[snipped lots of quote about additive/subtractive resource modeling in KSP]

...There's very little I can do to solve this other than rewrite every stock Ec draining module to be managed by a vessel-wide power controller... which has its own problems plus is a very lot of work.

The only thing that universally solves this is that you must ensure that you have enough battery capacity to take 100% of your drains at max timewarp. So typically draw*0.04*100000. That's why reactors have such a large battery storage in them in the first place. It might not be a bad idea though to baseline that buffer storage to be sufficient to manage the drain for enough radiators to fully cool the reactor. It used to be, but some things changed since then. 

Have been thinking about this, two possible ideas of fixes not involving patching any individual parts by the hundreds:

1) You said that there should be no visible drain if the reactor is added AFTER the draining parts (and I confirmed this too works for me). What about a mod feature that automatically crawls and re-organizes the internal structure of a ship just before launch (and just after any docking events, etc.) to put all resource converters in order AS IF they were added last in the VAB, to exploit this?

2) What about adding a part or module or whatever makes sense that normally does nothing, but when a vessel is unloaded or begins to warp above some high amount, the part applies logic to check whether the "true" drain of the system is positive or negative/zero for each given resource. If drain is negative/zero (i.e. the resource would not drain in reality), then the tiny part temporarily generates some vast quantity of filled storage for each such resource, to serve as the always-big-enough buffer needed. Then when reloading the vessel or warping back down to low warp speeds again, the vast temporary resource quantities disappear again. If the "true" drain is positive, then it does not take effect, so that if your ships would fairly have run out realistically, they still will.

Edited April 26, 2017 by Crimeo

[Nertea]

13 hours ago, Crimeo said:

1) You said that there should be no visible drain if the reactor is added AFTER the draining parts (and I confirmed this too works for me). What about a mod feature that automatically crawls and re-organizes the internal structure of a ship just before launch (and just after any docking events, etc.) to put all resource converters in order AS IF they were added last in the VAB, to exploit this?

That's just about the visibility. If a consuming part drains the entire power store and thinks it's out of power, it'll likely still do the effects of a no-power situation at that point before the power is refilled. 

13 hours ago, Crimeo said:

2) What about adding a part or module or whatever makes sense that normally does nothing, but when a vessel is unloaded or begins to warp above some high amount, the part applies logic to check whether the "true" drain of the system is positive or negative/zero for each given resource. If drain is negative/zero (i.e. the resource would not drain in reality), then the tiny part temporarily generates some vast quantity of filled storage for each such resource, to serve as the always-big-enough buffer needed. Then when reloading the vessel or warping back down to low warp speeds again, the vast temporary resource quantities disappear again. If the "true" drain is positive, then it does not take effect, so that if your ships would fairly have run out realistically, they still will.

This is a more interesting solution. It isn't hard to scrape all the ship modules to work out what the consumption/production information is like - I've done it in CryoTanks already.  I'm wondering about edge cases always though...

Are you volunteering to test an implementation of this?

 

[Crimeo]

I mean I don't really know anything about the underlying KSP code flow, so not sure I'd be great at seeking out edge cases, but sure, happy to test stuff.

[Hoddd9000]

Is the lack of RPM monitors PPD-1 intentional (i.e. not implemented yet) or a bug?

[Nertea]

11 minutes ago, Hoddd9000 said:

Is the lack of RPM monitors PPD-1 intentional (i.e. not implemented yet) or a bug?

Check the FAQ on the first page.

[toric5]

On 4/26/2017 at 1:14 PM, Nertea said:

This is a more interesting solution. It isn't hard to scrape all the ship modules to work out what the consumption/production information is like - I've done it in CryoTanks already.  I'm wondering about edge cases always though...

Are you volunteering to test an implementation of this?

 

i would be happy to!

[MaxL_1023]

Would it be possible to add in some late-tree small-ish (0.625m or 1.25m) reactors which have better performance than the initial unlocks? It seems like moving up the tree gets you to larger reactors, which can be way bigger than you want. RTGs can't produce enough power and the large reactors are too heavy and often overkill.