KSP Interstellar Extended Continued Development Thread

[FreeThinker]

Don't be alarmed. This is actually a feature, not a bug. KSPI will switch to NF-E / SETI mode when either mod is installed. This effectively lowers power output by a factor of 500 but also lower power cost of all engines by 500. This allows you to mix the engine with NF=E engines which have about the same nerfed power output.

Edited October 20, 2015 by FreeThinker

[secondcircle]

In Carreer mode, with only Nuclear Propulsion technology unlocked, you are supposed able to use only LqdHydrogen or LiquidFuel, but it appears LiquidFuel still has the improved propuslion tech requirement. My bad

Is there a way to fix it for now? I'm really bad at using the hydrogen tanks, I have to make absurdly large and long rockets to get the same deltav as liquid fuel.

[astroknot]

I have this exact same bug on occasion. It is almost always after a revert or save-reload.

In my case, it is every time I play. I've tried sandbox and a new install with KSPI being the only mod, and it still happens. Weird.

[FreeThinker]

Yes, it's simple, open EnginePropellants.cfg in the WarpPlugin\Resources folder and remove the TechRequirement at the LiquidFuel entry.

In the next patch, I will do the same.

Edited October 21, 2015 by FreeThinker

[SciMan]

I think I found a bug in generator efficiency calculation for Charged Particle generators.

Whatever the efficiency that the thermal helper (or part description text) says my Charged Particle generators should have doesn't seem to matter.

Even with a fully upgraded tech tree and a ship I just built in the VAB, right clicking on the Charged Particle generator when in flight will show an efficiency of ~30-60%, which lines up with the power shown by the MegaJoule Power Manager in flight.

Looking at the configs, the maximum efficiency of a Direct Conversion generator is supposed to be 86.5%.

I can usually get the thermal helper to tell me that I'm supposed to have ~75-80% efficiency with just a charged particle generator, but I can't ever seem to get even close to that in flight, even with an Antimatter reactor.

Something's not working right in those calculations.

Specifically, a 1.25m ICF reactor running the 1.2Gw P-11B fusion reaction will only be able to put out something like 400-500Mw after conversion.

That's not the only example that does this, however. I'm relatively certain that anything that can use a charged particle generator will have this issue.

Even the antimatter reactors only show something like 59% efficiency when using charged particle and thermal generators on the same reactor.

If I had to take a guess at the cause for this inefficiency, it seems like the efficiency of charged particle generators varies with the core temperature of the reactor it's attached to.

Since the charged particle generator isn't using thermal gradients for power, shouldn't its efficiency be fixed to a certain percentage no matter what the core temperature of the reactor is?

In other words, the charged particle generator should have the same efficiency on a Dusty Plasma Mk1 reactor as it does on an Plasma-Core Antimatter reactor. And that efficiency should ONLY depend on tech nodes, not on the core temperature of the reactor or how much excess radiator capacity is on the ship (so long as you have exactly as much heat dissipation as you have power generation, you should be good).

On a positive note, I'm LOVING that you added powerful reaction wheels to the inline radiator. It finally gives space-based craft a good reason to use that part. I also like that it's able to work well with other radiators that have higher maximum temperatures without actually limiting those radiators to its own max temperature.

[FreeThinker]

There appears to be some confusion regarding the nature of charged particle in KSPI so let me clarify:

1: Charged particle generator (direct conversion generator) is supposed to be independant of the reactor core temperature and radiators temperature or size.

2: Thermal generator and thermal nozzle/turbojet can make use of Chaged Particles as long as the are not used by Charged particle generator or Changed particle magnetic nozzle

3: The effiency should be either 50% or 86.5% depending on its upgrade level. The upgrade should become avialable with "High Tech Electrical Systems".

4: Charge particle power does not not lose charged power over distance, but it does require 5% of it's charged power in electric power to transpor it.

Edited October 21, 2015 by FreeThinker

[FreeThinker]

Specifically, a 1.25m ICF reactor running the 1.2Gw P-11B fusion reaction will only be able to put out something like 400-500Mw after conversion.

That's not the only example that does this, however. I'm relatively certain that anything that can use a charged particle generator will have this issue.

Even the antimatter reactors only show something like 59% efficiency when using charged particle and thermal generators on the same reactor.

If I had to take a guess at the cause for this inefficiency, it seems like the efficiency of charged particle generators varies with the core temperature of the reactor it's attached to.

Since the charged particle generator isn't using thermal gradients for power, shouldn't its efficiency be fixed to a certain percentage no matter what the core temperature of the reactor is?

In other words, the charged particle generator should have the same efficiency on a Dusty Plasma Mk1 reactor as it does on an Plasma-Core Antimatter reactor. And that efficiency should ONLY depend on tech nodes, not on the core temperature of the reactor or how much excess radiator capacity is on the ship (so long as you have exactly as much heat dissipation as you have power generation, you should be good).

There are several reasons for the ICF reactor to produce less energy than expected power output. Although ICF can reach higher energy densities than magnetic confinement, it is not ideal for power generation. All designs I have seen only focused on generating thermal energy. It might also be able to redirect a part of the charged particles to a direct conversion using a magnetic mirror, but not as efficient as the magnetic confinement which has very strong magnetic fields to begin with. That's why KSPI-E, I have rated power generation to be 40% of normal electric power production. Another factor that influence power output is fusion power output. Although p-B11 fusion is cheap and easy to store, the amount of power produced from a reaction is only 50% of D-T fusion. Now, combine all factor and you will end up with a maximum overall fusion power to electric efficiency of only 83.5% * 40% * 50% = 16.7%

Edited October 21, 2015 by FreeThinker

[FreeThinker]

Version 1.5.14 for Kerbal Space Program 1.0.4

Released on 2015-10-21

• Reduced loading time outside VAB
  
• Added Real Plume Configs (by Nansuchao )
  
• Thermal Nozzle can now use Liquid Fuel with nuclear propulsion
  
• Inertial Confinement Fusion reactor no longer suffers from thermal power efficiency but reduced overall power output
  
• Reduced core temperature of Inertial Confinement Fusion reactor, thereby improving thrust but lower maximum Isp
  
• Magnetic confinement Fusion no longer suffers from thermal propulsion inefficiency
  
• Normalized core temperature of Magnetic confinement Fusion reactor
  

Edited October 21, 2015 by FreeThinker

[Profit-]

Version 1.5.14 for Kerbal Space Program 1.0.4

Released on 2015-10-21

• Reduced loading time outside VAB
  
• Added Real Plume Configs (by Nansuchao )
  
• Thermal Nozzle can now use Liquid Fuel with nuclear propulsion
  
• Inertial Confinement Fusion reactor no longer suffers from thermal power efficiency but reduced overall power output
  
• Reduced core temperature of Inertial Confinement Fusion reactor, thereby improving thrust but lower maximum Isp
  
• Magnetic confinement Fusion no longer suffers from thermal propulsion inefficiency
  
• Normalized core temperature of Magnetic confinement Fusion reactor
  

This pleases me greatly and I will be checking it out tonight =)

[FreeThinker]

This pleases me greatly and I will be checking it out tonight =)

Which part?

[SciMan]

I think there's been a slight miscommunication here:

I have every single node in the CTT tech tree unlocked.

For all examples, assume that I have connected enough radiators to the setup to dissipate more than the maximum power that could possibly be generated by the reactors while using the highest power fuel mode (eg. ThF4 for Molten Salt, D-Li6 for fusion reactors). Additionally assume that I have attached a large supply of the reactor's appropriate fuel.

I'm running KSPI-E version 1.5.13.

My setup is a 1.25m ICF reactor running Hexaborane, DIRECTLY connected to a Charged Particle generator (no parts between generator and reactor). I have RTGs for back-up power and/or jump-starting.

I am ONLY using the reactor for electrical power (powering a plasma thruster).

On D-T fusion, the fusion reactor would put out about 4.8 GW total power. On hexaborane, it should put out around 2.37GW. These are both BEFORE factoring in any inefficiencies.

In the VAB, the reactor thermal helper reports the correct value for power output for each fusion fuel mode, changing when the fuel mode is changed.

However, when in the Hexaborane fuel mode, it reports that the generator efficiency of the charged particle generator is only slightly higher than 50% even with a fully unlocked tech tree (as stated above).

In flight, the directly connected charged particle generator reports an efficiency value that is NOT ~50% or 86.5%.

Instead it is reporting 30%. THIS is the bug.

There should be no inefficiencies from distance-related power loss because the charged particle generator is directly connected to the reactor, and the reactor de-rating due to using Hexaborane has already been factored in to the power displayed by the VAB thermal helper.

The reported (and effective) efficiency SHOULD be 86.5, which would result in 2.05 GWe available (2.37GWreactor * 86.5%GenEff = 2.05GWe), using 130MWe of that to keep the fusion reactor running.

This is NOT the case. And it's not a display bug, either.

Instead, when I open the MegaJoule power manager, it reports a maximum power output of 711.36MWe (2.37GWreactor * 30%GenEff = 711.36GWe), of which ~130MWe is taken just to keep the fusion reactor operating.

This leaves ~500MWe for everything else, which sucks. More importantly, it's WRONG.

Confirming that the generator's efficiency is being calculated incorrectly is the fact that a 1.25m Antimatter reactor, with only a charged particle generator DIRECTLY attached, powering a plasma thruster, will report efficiencies of about 70%.

This confirms the math error because the only difference that could possibly cause the change in efficiency is that the antimatter reactors have a universally higher core temperature than ANY other reactor.

Therefore, "something" in the code of the Charged Particle generators must be causing them to be dependent on the core temperature of the reactor they are connected to, when they should NOT be.

That's the bug. Charged particle generators ARE provably dependent on reactor core temperature when they shouldn't be.

On a positive note, I appreciate the (successful) effort to reduce lag in the VAB, and hearing that you're fixing the long loading times is more great news.

That alone is worth the upgrade.

Edited October 21, 2015 by SciMan

[Cairan]

After upgrading, the SuperCapacitor is no longer researched... When I research it again, it charges me for the research fee, but it is not available in the parts menus... I go back, clicking again on it charges me the research fee again even if it is marked as "owned" ... Strange :/

After some tests, the culprit is the Mk2 KSPI integration ... There's a Mk2 capacitor declaration that doubles the KSPI "stock" supercapacitor...

Beware of this bug in Mk2 KSPI.

Edited October 22, 2015 by Cairan

[Profit-]

Which part?

ALL The parts.. Well ok a few of the parts.. And sadly first bug...

I cannot seem to activate microwave receivers any longer in any fashion. This is all I when I right click them (no I am not at warp, yes the vessel has command and I can steer it and the like)

I am going to try wiping the directory and make sure it is not an old file causing issues since I see some were deleted in the git.

[Not a bug]That was it, you have to DELETE your warpplugin folder and then install the new version or you will have isues.

[Not a bug]If you have fusion reactors that were rescaled before the update, you have to retrofit them in order to use them correctly.

After a reload, Radiators are no longer correctly dissipating heat. Their temp never increases no matter how much waste heat you have. ( they will work again if you disable microwave receivers.)

Edited October 22, 2015 by Profit-

[FreeThinker]

The problem was caused because WarpPlugin.dll was accidently put into the root folder, so version 13 was indeed an unlucky one (if you did not remove the old warpplugin)

Edited October 22, 2015 by FreeThinker

[FreeThinker]

On a positive note, I appreciate the (successful) effort to reduce lag in the VAB, and hearing that you're fixing the long loading times is more great news.

That alone is worth the upgrade.

Yes, I discovered that at startup it would load the save file for every posible upgrade for all loaded parts. Combine this with the fact save files can reach resious sizes on hard disk, it could result to long loading times. I have now solved the problem by caching the reseach technologies in the save file. So instead repeatedly of loading an entire save file from hard disk, it only check if it already exists in a hash file. The trick was to invalidate the cache after saving.

There is a famous saying in computer science which sais that there are only 2 things hard, which is naming things and invalidating cache ...

Edited October 22, 2015 by FreeThinker

[Climentina]

wrong spelling of "Hydrogen" in Propellant Fuel Modes table

[FreeThinker]

wrong spelling of "Hydrogen" in Propellant Fuel Modes table

Sorry, I can't find what is wrong. You have to be more specific

[astroknot]

After a reload, Radiators are no longer correctly dissipating heat. Their temp never increases no matter how much waste heat you have. ( they will work again if you disable microwave receivers.)

Were you able to find a solution? This is the issue I continue to have. Is there a way to disable waste heat completely?

[Nansuchao]

Beautiful, with the last two update I have nuch much less lag on my heavy modded install, and I can swear that KSP is much stable too...

[LucidPixels]

The last two updates have done wonders for performance. Excellent work.

[Profit-]

The last two updates have done wonders for performance. Excellent work.

Yes, there are STUNNING performance gains. HUGE improvements in load times 90+% reduction in some cases.

[FreeThinker]

Well that is not surprizing if you realise it now only loads the main save once instead of multiple times for every upgradable KSPI part. This should save both time and memory and therefore improve stability...

Edited October 23, 2015 by FreeThinker

[d1str4ct3d]

So I'm having a problem with the last two updates (1.5.13 & 1.5.14) which was making me stick with using 1.5.12. I appear to have lost the resource "intake atmosphere", none of the intakes have this resource any more, including the radial intake that comes with the pack.

I've been through the file directory for the different updates but I can't work out what's going on as I'm unable to spot any differences.

As a last attempt I've installed 1.5.14 and then copied over 1.5.12 (but only allowed it to copy files that were not already there, there was apparently nearly 100 files). This seems to have resolved the issue. Has something changed in the last 2 updates that would have caused the loss of "intake atmosphere" ??

[FreeThinker]

Well this is something new. Anyone else suffer from this "intake atmosphere" problem?

Edited October 23, 2015 by FreeThinker

[Profit-]

Well this is something new. Anyone else suffer from this "intake atmosphere" problem?

Not here. They are working fantastic.