KSP Interstellar Extended Continued Development Thread

[ToastyOats]

So I've been trying to install KSPI alongside other mods but it's been years since I played. And I'm having a beast of a time.

Some of my mods use older versions of module manager, I'm unsure if I should just copy over the dll despite it being "newer"

So in short, Is there some sort of unnofficial list of parts mods, and things like Kerbal Kolonization, that are known to work or not work with KSPI-E?

Edited May 12, 2015 by ToastyOats

[FreeThinker]

Just a bit of feedback:

-just wondering if we can select kW/MW/GW power scales for the reactors ourselves instead of adjusting automatically for other mods (such as NF-E), or if we had some sort of config file where we could put in our own power scale/multipliers.

Well, creating empty folders with the same name would probably have the same effect

- - - Updated - - -

Module manager 2.6.3 installed. I even went back and downloaded a new KSP 1.0.2, installed KSPI extended and made sure module manager was installed. Nothing. Any other ideas? to be clear, the parts appear in the career tech tree, but I only get interstellar fuel tanks in the sandbox mode.

seems the files are not writen, are you sure you overrrite all files? seems as if they are not

- - - Updated - - -

I agree to add new tech nodes but isn't the science needed a bit too steep? I know it's a end game content but by the time I acquire all the KSPI tech I'll have nothing to do with it. It would be nice if you put the needed science for this new tech down a tier.

The problem, is a lack of science projects to help yo acquire the technodes. I don't think people have to travel to Jool muns to get the science to build antimatter rectors. Instead, I intend to add some Real Science projects that require you to extensively conduct test with KSPI parts which will generate significant science over time allowing you to acquire enough science unlock the higher tech nodes.

Edited May 12, 2015 by FreeThinker

[Nubage]

seems the files are not writen, are you sure you overrrite all files? seems as if they are not

it does seem that way. I'm using Mac OSX, I'm simply dragging the KSPI extended files into my gamedata folders and allowing them to overwrite the Boris 0.90 files. Been playing KSP a while and never had an issue with anything like this before. Thank you for responding so quickly btw.

[yafeshan]

Well considering the cost of antimatter reactors fusion reactors etc excluding the Omega fusion reactor and Gas Core Reactor and Antimatter Imitated Reactor 2 million is way more than any other part.

Tbh I'm not so much worried about the price of stuff except maybe the Omega Fusion reactor being 500k - 1.55M its just when everything else is SOOOOO cheap in comparison it makes absoultely no sense for the warp drive to be SOOOO expensive, when your talking about the thing that powers it the antimatter reactor being 50k and the warp drive its self being 14 million that's just plain stupid.

If the antimatter reactor were even 500k to 1 million it would make some sense but it being out by a factor of 280 times 50k vs 14 million its just ridiculous.

Prices are high for a reason. At the end of ksp-i career game you can build ships that can go anywhere in solar system that can do multiple high paying contracts quite easily. One ship have potential to get millions of funds. In this case those equipments (reactor, engines, warp) should be expensive since they allow such trips. It is absurd if you can make a cheap ssto that can go to eve, duna, laythe and come back safely without refueling. Such long voyages should cost you a lot, and they are.

If you want there are tips to make money fast.

[stringfields]

The problem, is a lack of science projects to help yo acquire the technodes. I don't think people have to travel to Jool muns to get the science to build antimatter rectors. Instead, I intend to add some Real Science projects that require you to extensively conduct test with KSPI parts which will generate significant science over time allowing you to acquire enough science unlock the higher tech nodes.

I think that idea is just great. That way I can enjoy KSPI more deeply than repeating stock science tests. I just can't wait to see it introduced to KSPI-E! Please keep up the fabulous work:wink:

[FreeThinker]

I think that idea is just great. That way I can enjoy KSPI more deeply than repeating stock science tests. I just can't wait to see it introduced to KSPI-E! Please keep up the fabulous work:wink:

In the mean time, I would advice everyone to download several of the excelent science mods available, which allow you to accumulate a lot more science. I especialy like station science, I think it's one of the most realsitic implementation of conducting science and gives you a good reason to build a space station. Notice there is an existing Science gathering part in KSPI, called the Science Labaratorium. I basicly allows the generation of science depending on the exoticness of the location. However it is limitless and could therefore be exploited. I need some good methods to limit it use. I was hoping I could the limmitlesss research by real science test which allows you to conduct long, but limited science study project that generate large amount of science.

- - - Updated - - -

Prices are high for a reason. At the end of ksp-i career game you can build ships that can go anywhere in solar system that can do multiple high paying contracts quite easily. One ship have potential to get millions of funds. In this case those equipments (reactor, engines, warp) should be expensive since they allow such trips. It is absurd if you can make a cheap ssto that can go to eve, duna, laythe and come back safely without refueling. Such long voyages should cost you a lot, and they are.

If you want there are tips to make money fast.

Indeed, these are end tech parts which supposed to play a pivotal role for the last mission you play. They are not something you put on every vessel you launch. They are very capable of making grand tours though the solar systems, hack they could even be used to travel to neighboring solar systems if the planets pack allows it.

- - - Updated - - -

Although the Tweekscales and KSPI numbers now match up but when I say its actually 1.875m I mean the model that shows up in the editor and in-flight is 1.875m

Seems I forgot to lower the scaling. Good catch

Edited May 12, 2015 by FreeThinker

[Dr. Jet]

Moved here to not clutter RealFuels thread.

Notice for KSPI, I just added CO2 Electrolysis, Water Gas Shift and Reverse Gas Water Shift. I intend to add more usefull ISRU processes and make it more generic and general use

CO2 electrolysis... Abusing Li2CO3 to separate CO2 into CO and O2, suitable for fuel cells and proposed rocket engines. Interesting thing... though you will need actual engines and fuel cells to make use of it.

[FreeThinker]

-loving the extra tabs in the parts menu.

Yes, they are a great time saver. Initialy most parts were put in the utilities Tab, which didn't make sence as Reactors are not realy a utility, they more an part of the propulsion system but they are not engines either. The radiators are more like a specialised support part for the reactor. On their own they are useless. Warp engines were put in either engines, utilities or tanks. They are non of that as they work by translation (not propulsion), they store exotic matter but only for themselves and they are too specialised to be called a utility, therefore I put them in the last tab as it is realy an end game part. That left us with he ISRU parts, which are the only real utily parts but as they all serve a common purpose, which is to collect resources in the wild, I put them into ISRU tab

- - - Updated - - -

Moved here to not clutter RealFuels thread.

CO2 electrolysis... Abusing Li2CO3 to separate CO2 into CO and O2, suitable for fuel cells and proposed rocket engines. Interesting thing... though you will need actual engines and fuel cells to make use of it.

Well I was not after Fuel Cells, other people could create such a thing. I mainly saw CO as a usefull propellant (stable molelcule) for NTR and for Gas Water Shift reactions to create Hydrogen from mined Water on Duna/Mars.

Edited May 12, 2015 by FreeThinker

[etheoma]

Prices are high for a reason. At the end of ksp-i career game you can build ships that can go anywhere in solar system that can do multiple high paying contracts quite easily. One ship have potential to get millions of funds. In this case those equipments (reactor, engines, warp) should be expensive since they allow such trips. It is absurd if you can make a cheap ssto that can go to eve, duna, laythe and come back safely without refueling. Such long voyages should cost you a lot, and they are.

If you want there are tips to make money fast.

As I said I have NO PROBLEM With the antimatter reactor and the Warpdrive being up in the 10's of millions mark, but I have a problem when there is a complete mismatch in pricing, as I said the antimatter ractor is 50k the warp drive is 14 million that is 280x out.

[FreeThinker]

As I said I have NO PROBLEM With the antimatter reactor and the Warpdrive being up in the 10's of millions mark, but I have a problem when there is a complete mismatch in pricing, as I said the antimatter ractor is 50k the warp drive is 14 million that is 280x out.

The majority of the antimatter reactor cost is not the cost of the reactor itself, it's the antimatter fuel or aquiring it.

Edited May 12, 2015 by FreeThinker

[krotana]

Version 1.0.13 for Kerbal Space Program 1.0.2

Released on 2015-05-11

• Updated CRP to 0.4.1
  
• Added Warp Icon for KSPI Filter Extensions
  
• Fixed some Model scaling
  
• Fixed some minor Tweak Scale Issues
  
• Cleaned some files
  

Is this the stand-alone version?

The game won't load if I use the install steps suggested in the very first post.

[etheoma]

The majority of the antimatter reactor cost is not cost of the reactor itself, it's the antimatter fuel.

And the Gas Core reactor's, also the Omega Fusion reactor like do as you like but it basically makes the Omega Fusion reactor useless as I would proffer just to build a larger ship at the point of where I am spending 10x the price on the smaller less fuel efficient, lower power generating reactor, with admittedly higher TWR but that is somewhat countered by the fact that you would keep the rest of the ship to mostly the same mass.

And for the Gas Core, Fusion straight up is better all over and cheaper. Which reality wise makes no sense as a even a Gas core reactor would be less complicated than a fusion reactor, and it doesn't really make sense from a game balancing prospective either so I don't get the reasoning.

Edited May 12, 2015 by etheoma

[RoverDude]

Hopping in re science... also remember that in 1.0.x, the stock science lab takes data and generates science over time (with various factors affecting data quality and rate). So it's a nice way to gather the extra science you need for long tech trees.

[FreeThinker]

And the Gas Core reactor's, also the Omega Fusion reactor like do as you like but it basically makes the Omega Fusion reactor useless as I would proffer just to build a larger ship at the point of where I am spending 10x the price on the smaller less fuel efficient, lower power generating reactor, with admittedly higher TWR but that is somewhat countered by the fact that you would the rest of the ship to mostly the same mass.

And for the Gas Core, Fusion straight up is better all over and cheaper. Which reality wise makes no sense as a even a Gas core reactor would be less complicated than a fusion reactor, and it doesn't really make sense from a game balancing prospective either so I don't get the reasoning.

The Omega fusion reactor is indeed too expansive, I think I will give the 1.25m the same cost as the 2.5m, which is a bargan considering the fact of it's advanced minaturisation. I updated the The Reactor table on the OP with the new cost

- - - Updated - - -

Hopping in re science... also remember that in 1.0.x, the stock science lab takes data and generates science over time (with various factors affecting data quality and rate). So it's a nice way to gather the extra science you need for long tech trees.

Indeed, I haven't investigated this subject yet, how does the new KSP stock science over time work exacly? It's wasn't covered in detail very much

Edited May 12, 2015 by FreeThinker

[etheoma]

The Omega fusion reactor is indeed too expansive, I think I will give the 1.25m the same cost as the 2.5m, which is a bargan considering the fact advanced minaturisation. I updated the The Reactor table on the OP with the new cost

- - - Updated - - -

Indeed, I haven't investigated this subject yet, how does the new KSP stock science over time work exacly? It's wasn't covered in detail very much

To make sure I wasn't making a mistake with the Gas Core reactor I checked by placing the part and removing the fuel to make sure it wasn't fuel cost which sorry my bad again it is but...

Nice way to hack some money into your game, but otherwise a little broken.

Edited May 12, 2015 by etheoma

[FreeThinker]

To make sure I wasn't making a mistake with the Gas Core reactor I checked by placing the part and removing the fuel to make sure it wasn't fuel cost which sorry my bad again it is but...

http://i.imgur.com/miMfqj8.jpg

Nice way to hack some money into your game, but otherwise a little broken.

Yes, I know the cost it, broken, the stupid thing is you have to compensate for the cost of the resource. For Interstellar Fuel Switch I fixed this by automaticly calculaling the additional cost. Perhaps I can do something similar for the reactors, this should solve the problem permanently.

[etheoma]

Yes, I know the cost it, broken, the stupid thing is you have to compensate for the cost of the resource. For Interstellar Fuel Switch I fixed this by automaticly calculaling the additional cost. Perhaps I can do something similar for the reactors, this should solve the problem permanently.

Also to the Omega Fusion Reactor I don't think it being more expensive than the normal one is bad because of its higher TWR and smaller form but 10x would be to much for me to stomach unless there was an application I couldn't do without it.

1.5x or 2x would be fine as it is un-lockable latter in the game where you are likely to have enough money to be able to pay for that easily, and it is handy being able to have that much energy density in a small place.

Tbh if you just increased the price of the large fusion reactor I would have no complains as what makes fusion so expensive is the reactor not the fuel, although Thorium is a little expensive in game as its one of the most common elements on earth.

I don't have any argument against Enriched uranium or Uranium-235 being as expensive as it is because its as rear as platinum but if you decreased the price of Thorium it would kind of break the game as it is now.

Do you have any plans for a more realist fuel cycle, like using Thorium to increase the efficiency of the reaction etc by using up nuclear waste etc.

Edit: I just copied and pasted the stuff I edited my last post into this one so I know that the fuel prices are not your decision. And just to exploit the bug to its fullest I wanted to see if increasing the size would increase the negative but it doesn't

Edited May 12, 2015 by etheoma

[Neouni]

Hopping in re science... also remember that in 1.0.x, the stock science lab takes data and generates science over time (with various factors affecting data quality and rate). So it's a nice way to gather the extra science you need for long tech trees.

Indeed, I haven't investigated this subject yet, how does the new KSP stock science over time work exacly? It's wasn't covered in detail very much

Think it was something like 1 data = 1 full science cycle

So if it says 2.2 science a day, on 500 data that would be 1100 science it can gather.

Just wish data was a resource you could move around but that would cause all kinds of unforseen issues like duplication I guess.

[FreeThinker]

Do you have any plans for a more realist fuel cycle, like using Thorium to increase the efficiency of the reaction etc by using up nuclear waste etc.

Edit: I just copied and pasted the stuff I edited my last post into this one so I know that the fuel prices are not your decision. And just to exploit the bug to its fullest I wanted to see if increasing the size would increase the negative but it doesn't

Actualy, I Did some work for it but got boged down in the details. What I want to do is to add a fuel mode which allows you to use a mixture of Uranium/Thorium with Anticides which would produce less energy, but allow you to last much longer with the same amount of nuclear fuel. I need some good numbers on exact mixture and expected reduction in power. Does anyone have some ideas how such a mixture would look like?

Currently the Salt Core reactor only convert Uranium/Thorium into Actinides . I think what is missing is that is should also creates a small amount of Depleted Fuel. The new Burnup Fuel Mode would allow to use a mixture of Uranium/Throrium and Actinides and convert into a reduced amount of energy and more Actinides + Depleted Fuel;

What I about I added a uranium burnup mode which requires a mixture of 20% Uranium + 80% Actinides and 50% reduced power output. This mode would produce 5% Deplete Fuel which can no longer be used. This mode would be idea for long standby power requirement

REACTOR_FUEL_MODE
{
    name = FissionUraniumBurnup
    ReactorType = 1
    GUIName = Uranium Burnup
    ChargedParticleRatio = 0.0
    DepletedFuelRatio = 0.05
    Aneutronic = False
    NormalisedReactionRate = 0.5
    NormalisedPowerConsumption = 1.0
    FUEL
    {
        name = EnrichedUranium
        FuelName = EnrichedUranium
        UsagePerMW = 1.530542611476e-11
        Unit = l
    }
    FUEL
    {
        name = Actinides
        FuelName = Actinides
        UsagePerMW = 6.12217044588e-11
        Unit = l
    }

Edited May 12, 2015 by FreeThinker

[PlayMp1]

Think it was something like 1 data = 1 full science cycle

So if it says 2.2 science a day, on 500 data that would be 1100 science it can gather.

Just wish data was a resource you could move around but that would cause all kinds of unforseen issues like duplication I guess.

Nope. It's 5x. 500 data gives you 2500 science. Very powerful, but they're difficult to move around.

[MatterBeam]

Well, creating empty folders with the same name would probably have the same effect.

Okay. I'll hack something up in the NF-E compatibility file.

I was thinking more of a menu, much like FAR and DRE, which you can change the settings in the game.

[RoverDude]

@FreeThinker - there are a few posts over on the general discussion forum that cover it in pretty good detail (with varying opinions on how folks feel about a mechanic that allows unlimited science).

[FreeThinker]

@FreeThinker - there are a few posts over on the general discussion forum that cover it in pretty good detail (with varying opinions on how folks feel about a mechanic that allows unlimited science).

I read the explanation about How to be a Science Farmer and it seems the ability to process the data on multiple station seems like an exploit which could create infinate amount of sciene. I could simply land a stack of Processing Labs on minimus, split them up and then bring all my gathered science to minimus to be processed by all processing labs for lot's of science.

On the other hand, it a complicated method of doing the same as KSPI existing research labs.

The problem is that it's too easy to keep your scientist alive. In reality you have 2 big problems, life support ,(which includes food, oxygen, sleep and entertainment) and radiation. Especialy radiation should put some limitation on the time your scientist can spent in orbit or on an alien moon.

Edited May 12, 2015 by FreeThinker

[etheoma]

Actualy, I Did some work for it but got boged down in the details. What I want to do is to add a fuel mode which allows you to use a mixture of Uranium/Thorium with Anticides which would produce less energy, but allow you to last much longer with the same amount of nuclear fuel. I need some good numbers on exact mixture and expected reduction in power. Does anyone have some ideas how such a mixture would look like?

Currently the Salt Core reactor only convert Uranium/Thorium into Actinides . I think what is missing is that is should also creates a small amount of Depleted Fuel. The new Burnup Fuel Mode would allow to use a mixture of Uranium/Throrium and Actinides and convert into a reduced amount of energy and more Actinides + Depleted Fuel;

What I about I added a uranium burnup mode which requires a mixture of 20% Uranium + 80% Actinides and 50% reduced power output. This mode would produce 5% Deplete Fuel which can no longer be used. This mode would be idea for long standby power requirement

REACTOR_FUEL_MODE
{
    name = FissionUraniumBurnup
    ReactorType = 1
    GUIName = Uranium Burnup
    ChargedParticleRatio = 0.0
    DepletedFuelRatio = 0.05
    Aneutronic = False
    NormalisedReactionRate = 0.5
    NormalisedPowerConsumption = 1.0
    FUEL
    {
        name = EnrichedUranium
        FuelName = EnrichedUranium
        UsagePerMW = 1.530542611476e-11
        Unit = l
    }
    FUEL
    {
        name = Actinides
        FuelName = Actinides
        UsagePerMW = 6.12217044588e-11
        Unit = l
    }

I know it decreases the usefulness but the by-products from U233/Thorium fissioning are actually U235 and later down the chain you actually generate Protonium and some useful stuff so a reduction in power is actually kinda unrealistic all it does is increase efficiency of fuel.

I haven't been sleeping so much so forgive me because it just occurred to me now for example in Molten Salt cores us thing thorim its just fissioned in the process and all fissionable material is used up unlike in current fission which doesn't start as high up the chain so it's far less efficient, so in actuality all you have to do is represent that in that in efficiency my bad and the waste will still be as high it will just be of a different kind with a very longer half life and there for is less dangerous.

Everything is fine the way it is... except thorium should produce less actinide produced and be more fuel efficient, not really all that important in game at least.

Edited May 12, 2015 by etheoma

[FreeThinker]

I know it decreases the usefulness but the by-products from U238/Thorium fissioning are actually U235 and later down the chain you actually generate Protonium and some useful stuff so a reduction in power is actually kinda unrealistic all it does is increase efficiency of fuel.

I haven't been sleeping so much so forgive me because it just occurred to me now for example in Molten Salt cores its just fissioned in the process and all fissionable material is used up unlike in current fission which doesn't start as high up the chain so it's far less efficient, so in actuality all you have to do is represent that in that in efficiency my bad and the waste will still be as high it will just be of a different kind with a very longer half life and there for is less dangerous.

Everything is fine the way it is...

Sorry, could you please translate your idea into a Reactor Fuel Mode definition I can use?