KSP Interstellar Extended Continued Development Thread

[FreeThinker]

29 minutes ago, Profit- said:

@FreeThinker Most modern reactors use a neutron reflector or absorber coating to prevent enbrittlement. Many of the commercial reactors have been operating at full power 99%+ of the time from the 60's and are not significantly embrittled and run under 2,250 PSI.  While I understand it from a gameplay standpoint, the conversation earlier in the thread reminded me, about it. 

Profit Good point, I will reduce Embitterment for Molten Salt reactors

Edited February 16, 2016 by FreeThinker

[wolv787]

Neutron reflectors are also a major part of reactor efficiency  and safety for fission reactors.

Edited February 16, 2016 by wolv787
more specific comment

[bertibott]

hi,

how do i calculate the lifespan of a reactor? How much fuel will be used during a specific time. I have a vessel with a Closed Cycle Gas Core Engine for an interplanetary mission. How long will the fuel last?

In this example I expect a total travel time of 600 days and would like to know if i have to pack additional Uranium.

[Amnesy]

hey, quick question...
Is it indended that the combination of a simple power network (3.75 molten salt + generator in Orbit and 3 relays in ~700km) and the attila thruster generates insane levels of thrust?
The network produces around 23MW of Power and combined with a small hydrazine tank on my crafts I get around 2000s isp and over 1500kN of thrust in the Kerbal System o.O

I like it  but it seems a little too powerful since the whole network costed like 500.000 funds max.

Otherwhise - great mod!

[Dante Montana]

Hello,

first of all, thanks for sharing this mod and all your work. After playing a couple of versions I never used the 3.75 Pure Liquid Fuel Tank. Now I found out that you can´t use the bottom attach node because of some faults in node def. Changing the 375PureLiquidTank.cfg made it work/attach correct again. These are the lines I changed

from

node_stack_top = 0.0, 74.5, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 2
node_stack_bottom = 0.0, -75.5, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 2

to

node_stack_top = 0.0, 74.5, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 3
node_stack_bottom = 0.0, -75.5, 0.0, 0.0, -1.0, 0.0, 3

and

defaultScale = 1.25

to

defaultScale = 3.75

 

Dante

[FreeThinker]

thanks

[edrobotguy]

On 2/15/2016 at 7:02 AM, FreeThinker said:

Not nessisary. KSP 1.0.5 nuked any models with more than 255 polygons. I disabled the part in the VAB, but people might still use it in the vessels. Perhaps I vould solve the problem If I could somehow replace it with another model.

Perhaps you could replace it with several different parts that can be assembled into a supercollider.  Perhaps three parts: the hub, the spokes, and the arcs, each with their own special type of docking port that connects only to the other supercollider parts.  That way, the kerbals would really have to assemble it in space, and the polygon count of each part could exceed 200 polygons without choking the game.  

Edited February 16, 2016 by edrobotguy

[FreeThinker]

1 minute ago, edrobotguy said:

Perhaps you could replace it with several different parts that can be assembled into a supercollider.  Perhaps three parts: the hub, the spokes, and the arcs, each with their own special type of docking port that connects only to the other supercollider parts.  That way, the kerbals would really have to assemble it in space, and the polygon count of each part could exceed 200 polygons without choking.

Great idea, but who can and is willing to do this?

[FreeThinker]

9 hours ago, Amnesy said:

hey, quick question...
Is it indended that the combination of a simple power network (3.75 molten salt + generator in Orbit and 3 relays in ~700km) and the attila thruster generates insane levels of thrust?
The network produces around 23MW of Power and combined with a small hydrazine tank on my crafts I get around 2000s isp and over 1500kN of thrust in the Kerbal System o.O

I like it  but it seems a little too powerful since the whole network costed like 500.000 funds max.

Otherwhise - great mod!

That indeed sound suspiciously like a bug. Thanks I will look into it.

[ss8913]

18 hours ago, FreeThinker said:

lol, seems that the warp emergency stop feature isn't working properly. You are supposed to drop out of warp. Still it is better than being able to fly though a planet

I'd prefer flying through it than exploding into it, which is the current behavior.  I've never actually been able to fly completely *through* one with the old mechanics, either...

7 hours ago, FreeThinker said:

Great idea, but who can and is willing to do this?

If you can find a modeler (I'm not one), Mk2 and Mk3 form-factor folding warp drives would also be great...

[Atheu]

I have been pulling my hair out for the past hour trying to figure out how to get the max MJ out of the charged particle generators, they say they can hold up to 40 GJ but they are only holding a max of 14 MJ in the storage. and this is with an antimatter reactor attached to them, I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong, also, The max power output for the 2.5m reactor has only been about 240 MW (for two generators attached) Is there something wrong with this or no?

[EnigmaG]

If you don´t have Near Future you should have 15-85GW depending on update. 240MW sounds like Near Future numbers.

[Atheu]

1 minute ago, EnigmaG said:

If you don´t have Near Future you should have 15-85GW depending on update. 240MW sounds like Near Future numbers.

I do have NF installed, also i have noticed it has pretty effectively caused the Alcubierre Drive to become a giant paperweight, it can't even charge with two antimatter reactors pasted to it. It's Currently requiring 2318MW to warp, and won't even collect ExoticMatter, Will there be an adjustment to this?

[FreeThinker]

42 minutes ago, Atheu said:

I have been pulling my hair out for the past hour trying to figure out how to get the max MJ out of the charged particle generators, they say they can hold up to 40 GJ but they are only holding a max of 14 MJ in the storage. and this is with an antimatter reactor attached to them, I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong, also, The max power output for the 2.5m reactor has only been about 240 MW (for two generators attached) Is there something wrong with this or no?

There is indeed a bug which prevent Charged particle generator from achieving their maximum potential, this will be fixed next version. But the number you are refer to are the result of having SETI or NFE having installed

[Amnesy]

50 minutes ago, FreeThinker said:

There is indeed a bug which prevent Charged particle generator from achieving their maximum potential, this will be fixed next version. But the number you are refer to are the result of having SETI or NFE having installed

Having NFE installed changes the Interstellar numbers? I never noticed that!
In that case I should probably add to my previous question about the power network that I'm also having NFE installed.

[FreeThinker]

11 hours ago, Amnesy said:

Having NFE installed changes the Interstellar numbers? I never noticed that!
In that case I should probably add to my previous question about the power network that I'm also having NFE installed.

The reasonling of this that it allows you to play with them in a blanaced way, because the engines of Near Future Technologies (and Stock) electric engines require a lot less power than they would be in reality and USI/NFE enines produce less . THis was original the purpose of KSPI-E, it was a fix to make them play nicely together, later after it became clear Fractal, the original designer of KSPI would not return, KSPI-E became an independant mod in it own right

Edited February 18, 2016 by FreeThinker

[FreeThinker]

Released 1.6.8

• Doubled maximum effect Gravity Wells for Warp travel and it effect will extend longer in space

• Fixed a minor bug with Charged Particle Electric Generator no working at peak power

• Split Thermal Nozzle into Thermal Launch Nozzle (which is heavier,has better atmospheric performance and maneuverability and LFO mode) and Thermal Ramjet Nozzle (Which is lighter, can function as ramjet but has low maneuverability and inefficient in atmosphere)

• Replaced Molten Salt Rector by a new reactor which has integrated Thermal Generator

• Added resizable 2.5m to 3.75m Interstellar Fuel Tank

• Decreased Size Pebble Bed Reactor and limited to single upgrade

• Increased mass JUMBO reactor

[ABZB]

2 hours ago, FreeThinker said:

 

• Replaced Molten Salt Rector by a new reactor which has integrated Thermal Generator

Is there any penalty if I connect that to a fusion reactor, with regard to the fusion generator's thermal output and that integrated generator?

[LithiumGrease]

Hello,  can anyone help me understand how to get the Uranium Tetraflouride Ammonolysis process to work with the ISRU unit, I have provided plenty of power, Ammonia and UF4 yet it never lets me run the process int he Refinery Interface.  Any ideas?  

[Atheu]

With NFE I have noticed something with the antimatter containers, I'm not sure if this bug remains with non NFE version.

Bug: When antimatter is present in the containers, running out of power does not initiate discharge sequence, meaning the containers will NOT explode.

Affected Parts:
Large Antimatter Canister, Small Antimatter Canister, Small Antimatter Bottle 

Edited February 19, 2016 by Atheu

[FreeThinker]

6 hours ago, ABZB said:

Is there any penalty if I connect that to a fusion reactor, with regard to the fusion generator's thermal output and that integrated generator?

The integrate generator in the Molten Salt reactor can only work for the Molten salt reactor, not to any other connect reactor (technically the generator searches for the cosest reactor and when they are boh inside the same part, it does not have to look far). But if you mean if you want replicate the effect for a fussion reactor , then sure, it should work as well. However do notice I have some plans regarding fusion reactors. I plan to lower their energy density, as this is one of the disadvantages of fusion reactor. The minimum size for a magnetic confinement fusion reactor will be 3.75m also I plan do make the mass of the electric generator depend on the mass of the connected reactor, which will be important for Magnetic fusion reactor. As a rule of tumb I'm thinking about 1 ton/GW(thermal)

48 minutes ago, Atheu said:

With NFE I have noticed something with the antimatter containers, I'm not sure if this bug remains with non NFE version.

Bug: When antimatter is present in the containers, running out of power does not initiate discharge sequence, meaning the containers will NOT explode.

Affected Parts:
Large Antimatter Canister, Small Antimatter Canister, Small Antimatter Bottle 

They will not be destroyed immediately. They have an internal safety battery feature which can power them for a time. When at battery power, It will also generate warning message and prevent you from time warping.

Edited February 19, 2016 by FreeThinker

[Atheu]

 

1 hour ago, FreeThinker said:

 

They will not be destroyed immediately. They have an internal safety battery feature which can power them for a time. When at battery power, It will also generate warning message and prevent you from time warping.

Spoiler

As you can see the lab is functioning as normal but the containers are not.

Edited February 19, 2016 by Atheu

[FreeThinker]

Weird I do not see any power source, they should all be discharging

[FreeThinker]

 

By the why, what do you guys think about the new Molten Salt Reactor? Let me tell you the reasons that motivated me to make the change:

A: Simplicity, first time user only need to unlock Nuclear Power and any radiator to generate power, before it required both nuclear power and electric technology to unlock electric generator to be able to generate electric power

B: Game balance. The Thermal Electric Generator mass is fixed while the power of the reactors it is connected to is not. This effectively means the more powerful the reactor it is attached to, the more mass effective the generator would be. This was especially in the disadvantage of the Molten Salt Reactor which only produce 1.5 GW of thermal power. Now that the Mass is integrated, the Salt Core Reactor become significantly more effective for power generation, which is it's main intended purpose.

C: Tech Balance and Causality. Now that the Molten Salt Reactor is able to power itself, the Thermal Electric Generator and Charged Particle Generator can be moved to the Nuclear Power Tech Branch. This makes the Nuclear Power tech balance  more intuitive as the Generator are now clearly linked with Power production, before they were unlocked in the Electric Technology branch which is already overcrowded  by stock parts.

D: Graphics. Granted the Molten Salt Reactor did not look very good, it was originally a small version of the nuclear reactor and resembled more like a vat of uranium then a nuclear reactor. The new model (which was taken from USI Core) looks a lot more like a real nuclear reactor and it’s style is compatible with existing KSPI reactor parts. Perhaps it needs another paintjob to make it look more distinct from the USI Core part.

 

Edited February 19, 2016 by FreeThinker

[MaxRebo]

1 hour ago, FreeThinker said:

By the why, what do you guys think about the new Molten Salt Reactor?

I'm not super thrilled, but your reasons are sound. I just want to be re-assured a little that this isn't going to turn into a slippery slope of dumbing everything down. As you can see, I'm not someone who considers "simplicity" a good thing in game design.

 

Quote

C: Tech Balance and Causality

This is where I strongly disagree. Leaving aside that rationally, there is absolutely nothing wrong with reactors being a nuclear technology and generators an electric one (in fact, it feels more real), being used to how things were until now, this almost feels like cheating. I want to work hard for my hi-tech parts. And part cluttering is such an inherent fact of playing modded KSP that this reason is not convincing at all. I would be most pleased if you could be persuaded not to move the generators from the electrics tech tree.

Either way I'm not updating for now, simply because the changes are kind of craft-breaking-ish.

Edited February 19, 2016 by MaxRebo
formatting...