KSP Interstellar Extended Continued Development Thread

[FreeThinker]

Meanwhile, this could be the new Deynonychus

http://i.imgur.com/B0FXFyG.png

Is this the magnetic nozzle? It should be very long

- - - Updated - - -

Just wondering if something changed here. - -

Nope, it has always been this way

[Nansuchao]

No, I showed the Magnetic Nozzle in the last page, this is the Methanox engine, the Deynonychus. The only Interstellar engine that works like a stock one.

[FreeThinker]

[h=2]Version 1.4.8 for Kerbal Space Program 1.0.4[/h] Released on 2015-08-31

• Integrated Alternate Foldable Warpdrive which can be resized with tweakscale
  
• Downgraded ElectricEngines to Regular ModuleEngine graphics to allow integration with RealPlume
  
• Prevent Magnetic nozzle from warped vessel acceleration during suborbital flight
  
• Fixed Balance Particle Accelerator experiment
  

[SciMan]

Speaking of the Deinonychus, the "Methalox" fuel tank mode available on the longer cylindrical fuel tanks doesn't have the right fuel ratio for use with it.

I'm not sure if the fuel ratio is off on the tanks or the engine, and I'm also not sure if the thermal nozzle or hybrid thermal turbojet have the same problem.

All I know is that I have connected one fuel tank set for "Methalox" to one Deinonychus engine, and when it burns out there's still something left in the tanks.

I also included a very small fission reactor, thermal generator, and radiators to take care of any power required to prevent boil-off, just to make sure. Still got the same result.

Further research (digging thru configs) indicates that the fuel/ox ratio on the tanks is off.

All following math will be done in Unit ratios, as that's what the config files show, and we're not changing fuel modes.

The Deinonychus engine burns propellants at a rate of 0.77727 LqdMethane / 1 LqdOxygen.

The thermal nozzle and turbojet in MethaLox mode burn propellants at a rate of 1.257336 LqdMethane / 1 LqdOxygen (Normalized from 0.557M/0.443Ox).

The X-48 cylinder tank has a tankage ratio of 1.257299 LqdMethane / 1 LqdOxygen.

The X-24 cylinder tank has a tankage ratio of 1.408201 LqdMethane / 1 LqdOxygen.

The only close match here is the X-48 tank with the thermal nozzles. Everything else results in excess LqdMethane. The Deinonychus is merely the worst offender.

Can we stick with ONE ratio per fuel type, across all engines?

Of course, hydrolox engines run hydrogen rich for better specific impulse, kerolox engines ideally run oxygen-rich to prevent coking, there's probably one ideal ratio for hypergolic fuels, but the optimal ratio for each propellant combination is fixed at a certain place by the laws of physics.

It's actually MORE realistic than the current situation, as engines using a specific fuel and oxidizer combination tend to be tightly clustered near that optimal point*. All engines are subject to the same laws of physics, so just because they have a reactor pre-heating the propellants before they react doesn't mean they should have a different fuel ratio.

* Yes, I know older American kerolox engines ran fuel-rich which is sub-optimal. America couldn't make alloys that would stand up to an oxygen-rich cycle at the time, so we were stuck with using what we had.

EDIT:

@FreeThinker:

Regarding the Particle Accelerator, have you considered figuring out a way to make that thing generate antimatter? It seems like a much more suitable model for such an action than the a Lab Module. Also it makes more sense to have it unmanned, even (especially?) considering Kerbal's penchant for inviting disaster.

And if there's enough antimatter in one place, disaster is the best word I know of to describe the consequences of a containment failure!

(Dis-aster = Bad Star)

EDIT 2:

@FreeThinker:

Probably a good idea to update the list of compatible mods in the OP to include a link to RealPlume, seeing as everyone looks to be putting so much effort into it.

I'm glad to see the old plasma engine effects go, they caused noticable (but otherwise minor) lag on my system when active (running DX11, 4GB system ram, Core i7-920{old but gold}, and a GTX 460, no overclock).

Edited August 31, 2015 by SciMan
additional idea

[Alewx]

[h=2]Version 1.4.8 for Kerbal Space Program 1.0.4[/h] Released on 2015-08-31

• Integrated Alternate Foldable Warpdrive which can be resized with tweakscale
  
• Downgraded ElectricEngines to Regular ModuleEngine graphics to allow integration with RealPlume
  
• Prevent Magnetic nozzle from warped vessel acceleration during suborbital flight
  
• Fixed Balance Particle Accelerator experiment
  

You produce These updates fast than I can download them

[Trolllception]

I get this in my debug menu when using the thermal nozzle.

[Error]: FloatCurve: Invalid line. Requires two values, 'time' and 'value'

Edited September 1, 2015 by Trolllception

[ss8913]

I have 2 new issues with the latest update:

1. warpdrives - only the new one shows up in the part menu, but I can load ships with the old ones just fine... shouldn't they both be available in the part menu? (playing sandbox)

2. thermal nozzles - anything smaller than 3.5m is, again, completely useless on closed-cycle (non-Atmospheric) propellants. Overheats so fast that I can't get any thrust out of them. WasteHeat sitting at 0. Even a 143t craft with 2 2.5m thermal nozzles can only produce about 2m/s^2 acceleration on liquid H2, or about 3.9m/s^2 on hydrazine. Not particularly useful I think they're producing too much heat again.

[Bishop149]

I've also noticed my thermal nozzles over heating rather rapidly but was only tested one ship so was hesitant to post, but this does seem like a recurring issue.

Edit: I'm still on 1.4.7

Edited September 1, 2015 by Bishop149

[FreeThinker]

1. warpdrives - only the new one shows up in the part menu, but I can load ships with the old ones just fine... shouldn't they both be available in the part menu? (playing sandbox)

This is exactly as intended, exisiting vessel should still work with the old Model, but the old warp engine should no longer be able to use this part in the VAB. The old model is eventualy going to be phased out.

- - - Updated - - -

2. thermal nozzles - anything smaller than 3.5m is, again, completely useless on closed-cycle (non-Atmospheric) propellants. Overheats so fast that I can't get any thrust out of them. WasteHeat sitting at 0. Even a 143t craft with 2 2.5m thermal nozzles can only produce about 2m/s^2 acceleration on liquid H2, or about 3.9m/s^2 on hydrazine. Not particularly useful I think they're producing too much heat again.

I will investigate I can balance heat better. What reactor where you using?

- - - Updated - - -

Speaking of the Deinonychus, the "Methalox" fuel tank mode available on the longer cylindrical fuel tanks doesn't have the right fuel ratio for use with it.

I'm not sure if the fuel ratio is off on the tanks or the engine, and I'm also not sure if the thermal nozzle or hybrid thermal turbojet have the same problem.

All I know is that I have connected one fuel tank set for "Methalox" to one Deinonychus engine, and when it burns out there's still something left in the tanks.

I also included a very small fission reactor, thermal generator, and radiators to take care of any power required to prevent boil-off, just to make sure. Still got the same result.

Further research (digging thru configs) indicates that the fuel/ox ratio on the tanks is off.

All following math will be done in Unit ratios, as that's what the config files show, and we're not changing fuel modes.

The Deinonychus engine burns propellants at a rate of 0.77727 LqdMethane / 1 LqdOxygen.

The thermal nozzle and turbojet in MethaLox mode burn propellants at a rate of 1.257336 LqdMethane / 1 LqdOxygen (Normalized from 0.557M/0.443Ox).

The X-48 cylinder tank has a tankage ratio of 1.257299 LqdMethane / 1 LqdOxygen.

The X-24 cylinder tank has a tankage ratio of 1.408201 LqdMethane / 1 LqdOxygen.

The only close match here is the X-48 tank with the thermal nozzles. Everything else results in excess LqdMethane. The Deinonychus is merely the worst offender.

I'm not sure what to do about the Deinonychus. My feeling is that is does not belong to KSPI because it a highly specialised engine, only usefull for very specific missions. The Deinonychus seems more appropriate to a mod like real fuels than KSPI-E which is about high tech engines and Deinonychus isn't particualr high tech. This would also solve the issie with fuel tanks not beeing consistent. Thermal nozzle require a fuel rich mixture because only the Fuel is heated in the NTR, the Oxygen is added as an afterburner and connot be mixed like in a regular engine. Note that the ratio is currenly fixed but technically, we could make it variable. This would mean we could make the Lox modes have variable Isp/Thrust similar to how the Vasimr operates. THis would for example allow you to lauch in full Lox mode and slowly decrease the amount of Oxygenun untill you run on pure hydrogen.

- - - Updated - - -

@FreeThinker:

Regarding the Particle Accelerator, have you considered figuring out a way to make that thing generate antimatter? It seems like a much more suitable model for such an action than the a Lab Module. Also it makes more sense to have it unmanned, even (especially?) considering Kerbal's penchant for inviting disaster.

Yes, this is one of the main reasons why I added this model, to make Antimatter and perhaps Exotic matter production more realsitic. It's ability to function as an experiment, if a nice bonus

- - - Updated - - -

Probably a good idea to update the list of compatible mods in the OP to include a link to RealPlume, seeing as everyone looks to be putting so much effort into it.

I'm glad to see the old plasma engine effects go, they caused noticable (but otherwise minor) lag on my system when active (running DX11, 4GB system ram, Core i7-920{old but gold}, and a GTX 460, no overclock).

As soon as we can include a RealPlume patch in our release, I will add it to our list. That list is getting quite long by the way

Edited September 1, 2015 by FreeThinker

[Bishop149]

I will investigate I can balance heat better. What reactor where you using?

Well, in my case I'm using a 1.25m Gas Core (a joy for small ships, I only just unlocked them!) with same size thermal nozzle running on Hydrazine.

I can run the engine at about ~70% throttle (giving about 25-30kN of thrust) with it teetering on the edge of explosion temperature (2700K) . . . any higher and Boom.

[Nansuchao]

Rethinking the Magnetic Nozzle, what do you think of something like this?

[FreeThinker]

Something went wrong?

Edit: oh wait, it's a zoom out LOL

the magnetic noozle is creating a nebula?

THis effect seems more appropriate for the Warp Drive it re-appered in normal space

Edited September 1, 2015 by FreeThinker

[Nansuchao]

In vacuum the plume grow this way for every engine, like real life. Giving it such a great speed, I obtained this very long plume, it seems appropriate. For the Warp Drive, I' don't know if RealPlume has something of useful... Maybe I must learn how to create a new plume, but I don't think it will be so easy for me...

Note that the situation for the Plasma Thruster is the same at the moment. It load the stock effect, no care what I do.

Edited September 1, 2015 by Nansuchao

[Trolllception]

The plume would spread like that but it would falloff and become unnoticeable very quickly in a vacuum wouldn't it? That type of emission might occur but it shouldn't be visible like that. Maybe a slight widening as it leaves the nozzle and a longer trail to simulate the speed of the exhaust?

The big issue with having a large long exhaust plume though is that it looks rediculous when using gimbals. Watching a 500 m long exhaust plume twitch back and forth rapidly as the asas controls the gimbals is a bit distracting and takes away from the experience imo. Not sure how that can be addressed other than using shorter plumes.

Edited September 1, 2015 by Trolllception

[Nansuchao]

The plumes wouldn't twitch back and forth, the flares will, but here we have a very little flare with a really energetic and fast plume

[FreeThinker]

The plume would spread like that but it would falloff and become unnoticeable very quickly in a vacuum wouldn't it? That type of emission might occur but it shouldn't be visible like that. Maybe a slight widening as it leaves the nozzle and a longer trail to simulate the speed of the exhaust?

The big issue with having a large long exhaust plume though is that it looks rediculous when using gimbals. Watching a 500 m long exhaust plume twitch back and forth rapidly as the asas controls the gimbals is a bit distracting and takes away from the experience imo. Not sure how that can be addressed other than using shorter plumes.

Fortunate, the magnetic noozle does not have an gimbal, so this should not be an issue

[Nansuchao]

Yes, the same as Vista, the other engine with a huge flare.

[FreeThinker]

The plumes wouldn't twitch back and forth, the flares will, but here we have a very little flare with a really energetic and fast plume

The particles will fly at 1% of light speed. It imagin would look like a spider creating a thin thread

[Nansuchao]

There is a limit on speed. I'm trying to find someone that explain how t create new plume. In case, we'll be able to obtain perfect plume for those engines.

EDIT: it seems the Particle Accelerator Experiment doesn't work on Kerbin. Did something changed? When the bar is full and I try to collect the data, I have a report of "can't be done". I tried on the LaunchPad and out of the KSC.

Edited September 1, 2015 by Nansuchao

[X40c]

Is it me or do thermal engines now overheat and explode really fast now since the last update?

[Trolllception]

Is it me or do thermal engines now overheat and explode really fast now since the last update?

I noticed this as well. I was testing some realplume stuff yesterday and the thermal turbojet was overheating within seconds. I thought it might be due to using an antimatter reactor which I have never used other than testing.

[ss8913]

Well, in my case I'm using a 1.25m Gas Core (a joy for small ships, I only just unlocked them!) with same size thermal nozzle running on Hydrazine.

I can run the engine at about ~70% throttle (giving about 25-30kN of thrust) with it teetering on the edge of explosion temperature (2700K) . . . any higher and Boom.

I was using a fully upgraded antimatter reactor. It should be noted that in all previous cases where I have complained about explodey thermal engines, I have *always* been using an antimatter reactor, so.. it WAS working, at least better than currently. I've switched to VASIMR engines for now but they make the craft look a bit.. awkward.. due to their length.

[Nansuchao]

It seems that the thermal engine suffer from overheating issues again. I did the test with AM reactor few days ago with no issue after a long burn.

[Sahadara]

Something that I think would be really great for this mod is resource integration with USI mods as an optional patch. More an more mods nowadays are using resources that are fully compatible with that system and I think KSPI would be a great addition. I know the resource system and ISRU for this mod is more realistic, but I wouldn't mind having less realism if I could produce all the fuels for engines from this mod using USI's parts. I was going to do it myself for my own save, but I am in no way an expert in modifying config files and I think a lot of people would appreciate a well made integration patch file.

[Nansuchao]

Actually KSPI is completely compatible with the Community Resource Pack, the same that USI uses, so I think you can make them work together with not so much issues.