KSP Interstellar Extended Continued Development Thread

[ss8913]

I'm still having difficulty with the light warp drives. Even in a 10-11t ship, a single 1.25m isn't enough to get into warp. If I stack more of them, it adds enough weight that I can't get ahead of the curve. Trying to use 1.875m I keep running into charging problems where similarly size Charged particle gens + antimatter reactors aren't putting out enough power to charge them - what's worse is that it claims my antimatter tanks are unpowered, despite having a higher priority than the warp drives... even if I shut off all warp drive charging at this point, it still counts down to 0 saying the tanks are unpowered, and then BOOM the ship explodes. At the small size warp drives it seems like you need bigger radius reactors/gens than the warp drives themselves, which makes for interesting design issues. And this is with fully upgraded antimatter power in sandbox.

Of course I may be doing it wrong or explaining it wrong.. let me know what you'd like to see, if anything here, that might clarify the problem.

[FreeThinker]

Would it help if the warp engine would display both its maximum Vessel mass and current vessel mass? that way you don't have to attempt to charge up when it is clear you cannot possibly jump. The Light Warp Drives are ment for the lightest vessels, which only consist of a reactor, a few nozzles and single big tank and crew cabin, anything bigger and you need to stack warp drives or use the medium sized warp engine.

THe problem your describe with antimatter are concerning me, could you post some picture of the vessels that gave you trouble, that way I can get a better idea what might be going wrong.

Edited September 7, 2015 by FreeThinker

[ss8913]

I'll dig up some pics... it's like that magnetic bug I posted yesterday though, you can only reproduce the issue on an improperly designed craft

Your idea about displaying weight limits is amazingly good. Please do that

[SpaceX]

First off, I want to say THANK YOU for continuing to update this mod. Seeing the vast amount of changes that take place, and improvements that get added, is amazing! So thank you!

With that said, I would like to suggest that we perhaps move to a "weekly update", or similar. As a streamer, I always like to ensure I'm using the most up-to-date mod packs for the Interstellar series I'm doing, and having to update multiple times a week (in some cases), makes it challenging.

Again, thank you for continuing to update this mod. I know that there are truly many of us that are beyond thankful! - This is just a suggestion is all. Definitely not the end of the world by any means.

Thanks again!

- Ozzy

[Bishop149]

With that said, I would like to suggest that we perhaps move to a "weekly update", or similar. As a streamer, I always like to ensure I'm using the most up-to-date mod packs for the Interstellar series I'm doing, and having to update multiple times a week (in some cases), makes it challenging.

You know much as I HATE to discourage a modder who does a sterling job and clearly want to develop and update ASAP this isn't such a bad idea.

Multiple updates a week can take quite a lot of staying on top off, a weekly update schedule is a pretty good idea.

The absolute worst for this is Contract Configurator. . . that bloody thing can have updates every day. As a result I got a little blasé about them and tended to just update when I felt like it without reading the changelogs. As I result I installed one the other day that completely wiped my contract list and reset all the contract packs I had to their default state, perhaps if I hadn't become so jaded by the constant updates I would have read the notes and it wouldn't have happened.

[FreeThinker]

Well, one of the reasons I do frequent updates is that it allow for more rapid development. The fact is that KSPI-E is huge and many parts of the code I'm too afraid to change because it might break something I'm not aware of. With big release I tend to forget parts that I changed or fixed. Also if something goes wrong, I can often quickly fix is as I can easily trace any problems or revert back without much loss. I do apply something of a tick tock stratagy, where I only force players to update after I fixed some bugs.

Edited September 7, 2015 by FreeThinker

[Coga19000]

Might I inform you of a bug I found ; I made a ship with the ICF Reactor, and if the reactor is turned on, both the quantities and maximum capacities of ThermalPower and Megajoules go to 0. This is irreversible for the rest of the flight.

[FreeThinker]

Might I inform you of a bug I found ; I made a ship with the ICF Reactor, and if the reactor is turned on, both the quantities and maximum capacities of ThermalPower and Megajoules go to 0. This is irreversible for the rest of the flight.

Most likely explanation is that you ran out of fusion fuel. If the reactor dies due to lack of fuel, all Thermal power dies as well. Could you tell me how to reproduce the bug/state?

Edited September 7, 2015 by FreeThinker

[okder]

it was surprise for me that Attila is better(both by ISP and by thrust for any propellant including atmosphere) than Thermal Turbojet with Magnetic Confinement Fusion Reactor (it's producing 40MW in Deuterium+Lithium but only as charged particles, turbojet seems can't use them), as i said early(2 weeks ago) ISP is low for that reactor and turbojet.

it is supposed to be so (2 transformation works better than none) ?

P.S.

and Attila with atmosphere seems use other method for pulling propellant from system than turbojet, which allows more easy to low trust when atmosphere is low.

P.S.2

initialization pause quite awful (2-3 min for editor loads, and same for vessel in flight, even for pretty simple vessels), i hope it would be fixed some day.

[FreeThinker]

Charged particles are universal, they can be converted to heat if there is a surplus of it. Thermal Turbojet might be capped at higher power levels where it cannot get enough air to create thrust. Attila's are only limited by maximum amount of power (for a radius) and produce Wasteheat. Thermal Turbojet are mainly usefull ealy carreer. Latter on you better of using Attila's or Vasimr

Edited September 7, 2015 by FreeThinker

[okder]

yea sorry first test was with 2 inderect thermal turbojets, directly connected thermal turbojet gives better isp, BUT STILL LOWER THURST.

i.e. ATTILA gives more thurst and can be placed anywhere, thermojet gives better ISP, when attached directly but slightly lower thurst(1.5 times on hydrozine and same inverse for isp, almost same thrust with atmosphere),

ATTILA gives same thrust on atmosphere as directly attached thermojet,

problem here that ATTILA power goes through 2 conversion (to electricity and to thermal again), thermojet is specific for atmosphere and use power without conversion,

why same thrust?

P.S. first page states that charged particles could reach any part of ship, but direct conversion generator don't work even if just it radially attached to reactor.

i would prefer 2 thermojets with their good ISP but with slightly better thrust in atmosphere (and if possible with propellant), as center place reserved for VISTA.

if this not possible probably it should be documented as know issue or just reason why it's impossible

(connect directly 2 thermojets and generator to 1 reactor, without losing isp/thurst compared to 1 thermojet/ATTILA in atmosphere)

P.S.2. still there is no way to produce tritium for VISTA (only one fusion reaction which as documented should produce it, actually does not produce it).

P.S.3. with inertial containment fusion thermojet/magnetic nozzle is much preferable than Attila or Vasimr, on middle stage of career (before antimatter).

Edited September 7, 2015 by okder

[Nansuchao]

I think that the Atmosphere Curve for TTJ needs some tweaking. It loose easily thrust high in the flight, and the major speed doesn't help like the other "stock" air/engines.

[FreeThinker]

I think that the Atmosphere Curve for TTJ needs some tweaking. It loose easily thrust high in the flight, and the major speed doesn't help like the other "stock" air/engines.

Notice, I have actualy already significant improved the Thermal Turbojet at high altutude. From my understander thermal turbojet don't perform that well at very high altitude. There is simply too little substance to propel. Notice that the hotter the Core temperature, technically, the higher the Isp can be. Therefore the higher the core temperature, the higher should should be able to fly on a turbojet.

- - - Updated - - -

yea sorry first test was with 2 inderect thermal turbojets, directly connected thermal turbojet gives better isp, BUT STILL LOWER THURST.

i.e. ATTILA gives more thurst and can be placed anywhere, thermojet gives better ISP, when attached directly but slightly lower thurst(1.5 times on hydrozine and same inverse for isp, almost same thrust with atmosphere),

ATTILA gives same thrust on atmosphere as directly attached thermojet,

problem here that ATTILA power goes through 2 conversion (to electricity and to thermal again), thermojet is specific for atmosphere and use power without conversion,

why same thrust?

P.S. first page states that charged particles could reach any part of ship, but direct conversion generator don't work even if just it radially attached to reactor.

i would prefer 2 thermojets with their good ISP but with slightly better thrust in atmosphere (and if possible with propellant), as center place reserved for VISTA.

if this not possible probably it should be documented as know issue or just reason why it's impossible

(connect directly 2 thermojets and generator to 1 reactor, without losing isp/thurst compared to 1 thermojet/ATTILA in atmosphere)

P.S.2. still there is no way to produce tritium for VISTA (only one fusion reaction which as documented should produce it, actually does not produce it).

P.S.3. with inertial containment fusion thermojet/magnetic nozzle is much preferable than Attila or Vasimr, on middle stage of career (before antimatter).

Yes but there are some issues with routing the reactor with a direct energy generator. Right now, a generator can only connect with one reactor. If I would allow charged particles to feed generator over longer distance than one, it suddenly has to problem of finding the correct generator.

Edited September 7, 2015 by FreeThinker

[Nansuchao]

I still have to try the new versions of TTJ. In my past test with spaceplanes (that I love), in FAR after 13 km of altitude I've to switch from Air to Hydrazine otherwise I'll lose altitude, in every flight plan I'm able to try.

I'll check the changes ASAP.

[okder]

Yes but there are some issues with routing the reactor with a direct energy generator. Right now, a generator can only connect with one reactor. If I would allow charged particles to feed generator over longer distance than one, it suddenly has to problem of finding the correct generator.

there are two solutions:

1. make direct conversion generator simple stock kerbal converter (converts charged particles into GJ, well if you scale storage of them - there may be a problem, generator conversion thoughput should be limited by it's size)

2. hack: check for radial attachment, and allow thermal tubojet radial attached too.

Edited September 7, 2015 by okder

[ABZB]

there are two solutions:

1. make direct conversion generator simple stock kerbal converter (converts charged particles into GJ, well if you scale storage of them - there may be a problem, generator conversion thoughput should be limited by it's size)

2. hack: check for radial attachment, and allow thermal tubojet radial attached too.

Doesn't thermal power decrease per node it has to cross? You could adapt the same code to rank CP-accepting parts by #-of-nodes-distance, I think

[Sahadara]

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.

This is true, the only reason I don't go right ahead and write my own compatibility patch is that I'm not very good at making MM patches effectively, and that I wouldn't know what numbers to use for conversion rates and tank amounts and such. I'll probably end up trying to stumble my way through creating a patch for myself, but I think a lot of people would appreciate a well made one that could be used by everyone who wanted that integration.

[tmbomber]

Good to hear thy finally work. Magnetic Nozzle are indeed not very convenient when it comes to planetary departure or capture. Magnetic Nozzles shine when traveling between planets and stars where they can fully apply their thrust. At the highest Isp, they don't require any propellant, instead using the products of the nuclear fission/fusion. Propellant no longer is the limiting factor, is become nuclear fuel.

(tried posting this earlier, but I think I exited the page before hitting post)

I just tried putting up a propellant-less Magnetic Nozzle vessel. It had a MN, dusty plasma reactor, thermal generator (ty for fixing the attachment point size on those ) and radiators, no LH2 tank. When I staged to activate the MN I got zero thrust at any throttle setting. (even at 1%) Right clicking on the MN gave me the popup which indicated there was no LH2.

Is propellant-less operation something that kicks in after an upgrade? Will it work with a dusty plasma reactor?

[SciMan]

P.S.2

initialization pause quite awful (2-3 min for editor loads, and same for vessel in flight, even for pretty simple vessels), i hope it would be fixed some day.

I've found that the same thing happens for me, seems to be linked to the inline atmospheric scoops (not the radial ones). Happens whenever a vessel with those parts is loaded by any method, VAB/SPH, launching from launchpad/runway, or just getting within 2,250m of another vessel with those parts on it.

Not sure what the deal is, but it also makes attaching those parts in symmetry a pain because of long wait times while the game struggles to load the symmetry-parts (the ones the mouse isn't manipulating). Worse at higher symmetries, so it might be something with the model/textures (I know that it's an old Squad model, so perhaps it's just not optimized for how KSP handles models/textures now).

Whatever it is, I'm sure it's able to be duplicated. I've got a desktop with a core i7-920, GTX 480, and 4GB of ram, so it's not like I'm trying to run this on a calculator (could use more ram, but that's why I'm building a whole new system with 16GB and room to add more). Even I get a good solid 30-45 second long HANG before the program acts like it should. Really disconcerting, and always makes me think "Did this thing crash, or what?". Not to mention that it makes building stuff in the VAB rather difficult.

(tried posting this earlier, but I think I exited the page before hitting post)

I just tried putting up a propellant-less Magnetic Nozzle vessel. It had a MN, dusty plasma reactor, thermal generator (ty for fixing the attachment point size on those ) and radiators, no LH2 tank. When I staged to activate the MN I got zero thrust at any throttle setting. (even at 1%) Right clicking on the MN gave me the popup which indicated there was no LH2.

Is propellant-less operation something that kicks in after an upgrade? Will it work with a dusty plasma reactor?

I'm another person confused by the magnetic nozzle propellant-less mode.

Surely an antimatter reactor (80%CP 20%TH) should be a great candidate for powering one of these in propellantless mode, right?

Instead, I get no thrust out of it unless I supply the nozzle with LqdHydrogen. I do get a lot of thrust, but what I don't get is thrust without using propellant. Unless, of course, this only works in time warp.

Perhaps you could look into getting the same kind of thrust-while-time-warp thing for the stock Ion engine?

Would be a great time saver early in the end-game tech tree, and for small probes that don't merit a full-size reactor system.

Edited September 7, 2015 by SciMan

[gugailha]

Hi, I installed KSPI, but when I start a new carrer the game don't ask me about what TechTree I want to use, and this make the game keep with the stock tree.

Sorry for my poor english.

I'm using this mods:

B9 Aerospace

Ferram Aerospace Research (FAR):

Flight Engineer

Infernal Robotics

KAS -- Kerbal Attachment System

Kerbal Alarm Clock

Kethane

KSP Interstellar

KW Rocketry

RemoteTech 2

TAC Fuel Balancer

TAC Life Support

[FreeThinker]

I've found that the same thing happens for me, seems to be linked to the inline atmospheric scoops (not the radial ones). Happens whenever a vessel with those parts is loaded by any method, VAB/SPH, launching from launchpad/runway, or just getting within 2,250m of another vessel with those parts on it.

Not sure what the deal is, but it also makes attaching those parts in symmetry a pain because of long wait times while the game struggles to load the symmetry-parts (the ones the mouse isn't manipulating). Worse at higher symmetries, so it might be something with the model/textures (I know that it's an old Squad model, so perhaps it's just not optimized for how KSP handles models/textures now).

Technically speaking, there is no propellant-less mode. What happens is that the fission/fusion products are converted into protons (= LqdHyrogen). The protons (=LqdHydrogen) can then be used by the magnetic nozzle for propulsion. Now when the amount of protons produced is equal to the amount of protons used for proplsion, we effectivly do no require any additional LqdHydrogen and there appear to be propellant-less.

In order for this to function, you need at least a small reservoir of LqdHydrogen, and a charged particle reactor and some megaJoules to power the magnetic nozzles, otherwise, it's not going to work.

Edited September 7, 2015 by FreeThinker

[FreeThinker]

Perhaps you could look into getting the same kind of thrust-while-time-warp thing for the stock Ion engine?

Would be a great time saver early in the end-game tech tree, and for small probes that don't merit a full-size reactor system.

If I do that, I would first have to reduce the Ion Engine by a factor of 2000. Because it's thrust ok 2kN on kW power makes no sense at all.

[SciMan]

Magnetic Nozzles:

I see. So, does that work with anything that produces charged particles, or are there only certain reactor types that produce LqdHydrogen?

Loading of certain parts causing hangs:

Still in the dark about what's causing that, but it's worth looking into it.

I bet it's related to the thing that used to cause hangs when the radiators were loading, which I'm almost certain was due to using a certain texture format or something like that.

Ion engines during warp:

Why not just increase the power requirements? If it was made to run off of a few megawatts of power, then the thrust would be OK, and it would work fine with the molten salt and gas-core fission reactors. They're also the two reactors that can be scaled down to 0.625m, which works out as well. There aren't many things for a 0.625m reactor to power, and the upgraded molten salt reactor will only put out ~14MWth, 7MWe with upgraded generator. The gas-core reactor puts out slightly more than that, but it has its own problems. There aren't any electrical propulsion options for things with that tiny amount of power at that size. The ATTILA thruster requires maximum ~130MWe when at 0.625m.

Edited September 7, 2015 by SciMan

[ss8913]

Been trying to build a refinery... I've got antimatter power set up with an AGI core (unmanned refinery). To test, I put some lqdAmmonia tanks, followed by hydrogen peroxide tanks, followed by a 2.5m refinery, and a big empty hydrazine tank. I turn on the refinery to 'peroxide process'. Quantities say ammonia and HTP are available, but Status says "Liquid Ammonia and Hydrogen Peroxide Deprived" and it does nothing. Here's a screenshot to illustrate... guess I'll have to make a dropbox link, can't see how to upload an image directly to the forums(?)

https://www.dropbox.com/s/s5fdy30kvupk83r/peroxide-process.jpg?dl=0

[ABZB]

Technically speaking, there is no propellant-less mode. What happens is that the fission/fusion products are converted into protons (= LqdHyrogen). The protons (=LqdHydrogen) can then be used by the magnetic nozzle for propulsion. Now when the amount of protons produced is equal to the amount of protons used for proplsion, we effectivly do no require any additional LqdHydrogen and there appear to be propellant-less.

In order for this to function, you need at least a small reservoir of LqdHydrogen, and a charged particle reactor and some megaJoules to power the magnetic nozzles, otherwise, it's not going to work.

ahhhhhhh - so I need to have at least an infinitesimal volume so that KSPI can 'store' the hydrogen for it to be able to process it as propellant? that would explain a lot.

SciMan - try adding a tiny LqdHydrogen resource container to the vessel (or just add a tiny LQdhydrogen resource node into some random part in the vessel if already launched) and see if that fixes it.