KSP Interstellar Extended Continued Development Thread

[FreeThinker]

37 minutes ago, raxo2222 said:

@FreeThinker why core temperature is unrealistically low (like below 300 kelvins), when reactor has very high damage from neutrons (like 50% and higher)?

Minimum core temperature should be tied to radiator temperature.

Even if reactor is new, but has low core temperature (below 3700 kelvins - max radiator temperature, that is possible for them), like certain fission/fusion reactors, it should heat up slowly, when radiator temperature have higher temperature than core temperature - heat would flow backward in generator.

So normally heat flow (->) is:

Reactor (core temp) 2500 k -> thermal generator -> radiator (for example 1000 k)

But if radiator temperature is too high (for example radiator area is tiny, because we care about charged particles only), then it would be:

Reactor (core temp) 2500 k <- thermal generator <- radiator (for example 3600 k)

And it would cause reactor core temp to slowly rise, which would be good for thermal engines, but it would cause certain reactors to shut down.

 

Even-though the core temperature in a Fusion reactor is many times hotter than the sun, it's operational temperature for power production is limited by the melting temperature of the walls of the reactor  and it's integrated lithium blankets. 

Creating Net effect fusion energy  and converting it into effective power are both hard problems

Edited June 30, 2016 by FreeThinker

[raxo2222]

19 minutes ago, FreeThinker said:

Even-though the core temperature in a Fusion reactor is many times hotter than the sun, it's operational temperature for power production is limited by the melting temperature of the walls of the reactor  and it's integrated lithium blankets. 

Creating Net effect fusion energy  and converting it into effective power are both hard problems

That explains fusion reactors indifference for hot radiators. Do generators just shut down to prevent backward flow of heat?

It leaves nuclear reactors: Molten Salt (2000 kelvins), and Particle Bed (2800 kelvins - but it has heat throttle)

I play on sandbox, so all parts have maximum upgrade levels.

[FreeThinker]

13 minutes ago, raxo2222 said:

That explains fusion reactors indifference for hot radiators. Do generators just shut down to prevent backward flow of heat?

No, the main reason Fusion reactors are potentially indifferent from heat (at least the Magneticly Confined Fusion reactor is ) is that they can make use of Direct Energy Converter, which is indifferent to radiator temperate (just make sure they don't blow up). Not only are the heat indifferent, but are also much more efficient (up to 86%). That's why the D-He3 fusion mode, which produces less raw fusion power and cost more power to maintain that D-T fusion can still double or tripple the power output of a fusion reactor in D-T fusion mode..

Edited June 30, 2016 by FreeThinker

[raxo2222]

3 minutes ago, FreeThinker said:

No, the main reason Fusion reactor are potentially indifferent from heat (at least the Magneticly Confined Fusion reactor) is that they can make use of Direct Energy Converter, which is indifferent to radiator temperate (just make sure they don't blow up). Not only are the indifferent, but are also much more efficient. That's why the D-He3 fusion mode, which produces less raw fusion power and cost more power to maintain can still double or tripple the power output of a fusion reactor in D-T fusion mode..

I meant, that even if fusion reactors core is for example 3500 kelvins, they can work fine, when radiators temperature is higher than fusion core temperature - only thermal generator doesn't produce electricity.

And how does molten salt tolerate radiators hotter than themselves except not producing energy?

Where this energy goes?

[flibustier]

Hi,

I try to install Kerbal Intestelar v1.9.2 for Ksp 1.1.3 but i got two problem:

-First It say that toolbar is for Kerbal v.1.1.2

- I get stuck on the load the usi nuke 125 , i wait more than an hour for loading this part .does Ksp interstellar and U.S.I could mess up together?

Does anyone have clue to this ?

Edited July 1, 2016 by flibustier

[ctbram]

Why is KSPI-E 1.1.3 showing up in CKAN for my 1.1.2 KSP installation but does not show up at all for my 1.1.3 KSP  install?

 

I mean NOT AT aLL as in it does not even show up with the ALL filter or COMPATIBLE or any other filter enabled.  There is no KSPI-E available at all???

 

But if I go back to my 1.1.2 KSP install and pop open CKAN there is a KSPI-E and it also says it is for version 1.1.3 of KSP???  So I do not understand why CKAN is not seeing it for my 1.1.3 KSP install??  Can someone explain what is going on because I do not want to have to go back to manually maintaining this mod.

Edited July 1, 2016 by ctbram

[FreeThinker]

56 minutes ago, ctbram said:

Why is KSPI-E 1.1.3 showing up in CKAN for my 1.1.2 KSP installation but does not show up at all for my 1.1.3 KSP  install?

from my understanding, it has something  to do with Bizzies toolbar mod, which KSPI depends on. I tying to fix it.

Edited July 1, 2016 by FreeThinker

[Revenant503]

Toolbar is currently at 1.1.2 but it works fine for 1.1.3 according to the toolbar forum. I noticed that when I change the version file in toolbar so max version is 1.1.3 and do a refresh KSPI appears (yay). Its probably because toolbar is a dependancy in the metadata .

[Axeon]

Hey guys! I've encountered something really bizarre. I've been trying to launch the Particle Accelerator into orbit for a station, but as soon as I get into space - TimeWarp completely freaks out. When I try to TimeWarp, my FPS drops to about 1-2, and the entire game slows down so much, to a point when the TimeWarp is actually flowing slower than real time. I don't have the most powerful PC, but if it was hardware-related, that should have been the other way around at least. PhysicsWarp is fine by the way, as well as TimeWarp on the launchpad. That glitch begins as soon as I get into space. I've troubleshooted pretty much every single component of my spacecraft, and this glitch occurs only with the Particle Accelerator. Any ideas what might be causing this? Because I'm completely out of ideas, even tried lowering the graphics all the way down.

Edit:

I do have a bunch of other mods, but I tried troubleshooting with just KSPI - same issue. Then I thought that it might be because I'm on a Mac - booted to Windows, tried the same thing, lag is still there. So yeah, I am still quite confused and in need of assistance.

Edited July 1, 2016 by Axeon

[Nansuchao]

2 hours ago, Axeon said:

Hey guys! I've encountered something really bizarre. I've been trying to launch the Particle Accelerator into orbit for a station, but as soon as I get into space - TimeWarp completely freaks out. When I try to TimeWarp, my FPS drops to about 1-2, and the entire game slows down so much, to a point when the TimeWarp is actually flowing slower than real time. I don't have the most powerful PC, but if it was hardware-related, that should have been the other way around at least. PhysicsWarp is fine by the way, as well as TimeWarp on the launchpad. That glitch begins as soon as I get into space. I've troubleshooted pretty much every single component of my spacecraft, and this glitch occurs only with the Particle Accelerator. Any ideas what might be causing this? Because I'm completely out of ideas, even tried lowering the graphics all the way down.

Edit:

I do have a bunch of other mods, but I tried troubleshooting with just KSPI - same issue. Then I thought that it might be because I'm on a Mac - booted to Windows, tried the same thing, lag is still there. So yeah, I am still quite confused and in need of assistance.

I just tested this and you're right, the Particle Accelerator is still broken.

Once you start TimeWarp, the log is cluttered by the error "the model exceed the 255 polygons". 

[Axeon]

1 hour ago, Nansuchao said:

I just tested this and you're right, the Particle Accelerator is still broken.

Once you start TimeWarp, the log is cluttered by the error "the model exceed the 255 polygons". 

Okay then, at least I know that the glitch is not on my end. Thanks for the info, guess I'll just have to wait until they fix it

[raxo2222]

It would be nice to have atmospheric engine, that has ISP over 1000 while on atmospheric mode, that doesn't use antimatter.

Open gas core is unstable under acceleration, and fusion reactors have core temp below 3500 degrees.

 

There is really no engine (that doesn't use antimatter), that can work for long time at 25 - 70 kilometers.

Edited July 1, 2016 by raxo2222

[Undecided]

Rather odd bug I encountered. I used Tweak-scale to scale up both a Solid Core Nuclear Engine and Direct Cycle Nuclear Turbojet. However, the nuclear rocket engines seem to disable the nuclear turbojet: the turbojet overheats in seconds, and there is negligible forward thrust, which I suspect means the nuclear rockets are blocking the turbojet.

As you can see, the turbojet is clearly not obstructed. I've tried a dozen different configurations, including placing a massive gap between the turbojet and rockets (5+ meters), attaching the rockets to wing nodes instead of the sides of the turbojet, moving the rockets far ahead of the turbojet, moving the rockets far behind the turbojet, and removing the wings. None of these methods fix the turbojet. However, combining this turbojet with other rocket engines in this configuration does not cause any issue. It's only the Solid Core Nuclear Rockets that cause this.

 

Note that once I activate the rocket engines, the turbojet becomes functional once again. It's almost as if there's some giant, invisible fairing the rockets have which gets jettisoned and unblocks the turbojet once I activate the rockets.

[FreeThinker]

3 hours ago, Undecided said:

Rather odd bug I encountered. I used Tweak-scale to scale up both a Solid Core Nuclear Engine and Direct Cycle Nuclear Turbojet. However, the nuclear rocket engines seem to disable the nuclear turbojet: the turbojet overheats in seconds, and there is negligible forward thrust, which I suspect means the nuclear rockets are blocking the turbojet.

As you can see, the turbojet is clearly not obstructed. I've tried a dozen different configurations, including placing a massive gap between the turbojet and rockets (5+ meters), attaching the rockets to wing nodes instead of the sides of the turbojet, moving the rockets far ahead of the turbojet, moving the rockets far behind the turbojet, and removing the wings. None of these methods fix the turbojet. However, combining this turbojet with other rocket engines in this configuration does not cause any issue. It's only the Solid Core Nuclear Rockets that cause this.

 

Note that once I activate the rocket engines, the turbojet becomes functional once again. It's almost as if there's some giant, invisible fairing the rockets have which gets jettisoned and unblocks the turbojet once I activate the rockets.

The Air-intake needs to b connected directly to the Nuclear Turbojet, otherwise the Precooler can't find it, resulting in the engine overheating when flying at high speed

Edited July 3, 2016 by FreeThinker

[Undecided]

5 hours ago, FreeThinker said:

The Air-intake needs to b connected directly to the Nuclear Turbojet, otherwise the Precooler can't find it, resulting in the engine overheating when flying at high speed

The turbojet operates perfectly fine aside from the Solid Core Nuclear Engines breaking it. I've used this exact configuration to reach orbit multiple times (just with other space-stage engines instead of Solid Core Nuclear Engines), with no overheating issues. Maybe the radiators compensate for the lack of precooler, or something.

 

Also, another unrelated issue on this ship: I've set the Solid Core Nuclear Engines to use hydrolox propellant, and attached them directly to a hydrolox tank (LqdHydrogen + LqdOxygen). But the engines seem to get no thrust when I activate them at around ~25000m. Does Hydrolox have some sort of minimum altitude or maximum atmospheric pressure requirement to function?

[FreeThinker]

2 minutes ago, Undecided said:

Also, another unrelated issue on this ship: I've set the Solid Core Nuclear Engines to use hydrolox propellant, and attached them directly to a hydrolox tank (LqdHydrogen + LqdOxygen). But the engines seem to get no thrust when I activate them at around ~25000m. Does Hydrolox have some sort of minimum altitude or maximum atmospheric pressure requirement to function?

THe nuclear engine are effeted by presure, but it should become lower th less preure there is. At 25000 m, it should no longer be an issue. Most like the problem is a fuel patching issue

[Undecided]

9 minutes ago, FreeThinker said:

THe nuclear engine are effeted by presure, but it should become lower th less preure there is. At 25000 m, it should no longer be an issue. Most like the problem is a fuel patching issue

It seems so. Just did a test to confirm:

Engines were not draining hydrolox fuel from the tanks.

So did some tests to try and fix the issue. Liquid fuel and liquid hydrogen configurations worked just fine. However, then I tried to operate hydrolox in pure vacuum (100000m above kerbin) and finally got a very tiny amount of thrust:

 

This is after burning the engine for about 30 seconds non-stop. Fuel flow rate is increasing about 0.001 units per second... meaning the engine is powering up very, very, very slowly.

Liquid fuel and liquid hydrogen tests both produced a far more reasonable power-up cycle (fuel flow rate increased at least 1 unit per second) at this altitude. And since there is indeed fuel flowing to the engines in the hydrolox configuration, I suspect it may not be a fuel switcher issue, unless the fuel switcher has the ability to "bottleneck" and reduce fuel flow speed. 

Does hydrolox have a far higher burning point than my other two test fuels, or something? This is my first time working with KSPI-E's alternative fuels, so I'm not exactly sure what's a bug, and what's working as intended.

[FreeThinker]

mmm this behavior is clearly not intended. I suggested you experiment first with the solid nuclear engine in standalone mode. You will notice it has quite some power to light it own weight in Hydrolox mode. In all my test  I did the exacte opposite and use the Turbojet radially and a single solar core reactor in the middle. Please verify it that works for you

[Undecided]

4 hours ago, FreeThinker said:

mmm this behavior is clearly not intended. I suggested you experiment first with the solid nuclear engine in standalone mode. You will notice it has quite some power to light it own weight in Hydrolox mode. In all my test  I did the exacte opposite and use the Turbojet radially and a single solar core reactor in the middle. Please verify it that works for you

I just slapped together a basic rocket (Mk1 cockpit, stock fuel tank, and solid core nuclear engine), an had the same extremely under-performing problem with hydrolox fuel. I also tried out more alternative fuels, like water, and again they worked fine -- it's only hydrolox that's failing to perform for me. I also wanted to try out other hydrolox engines to help verify if the problem lay in the fuel itself, or only that specific engine, but AFAIK there aren't any others that can use hydrolox (unless I missed them?)

Edited July 3, 2016 by Undecided

[FreeThinker]

9 minutes ago, Undecided said:

Hmm, yeah, it seems to be an issue for the engine in my game. I just slapped together a basic rocket (Mk1 cockpit, stock fuel tank, and solid core nuclear engine), an had the same extremely underperforming problem with hydrolox fuel. I also tried out more alternative fuels, like water, and again they worked fine -- it's only hydrolox that's failing to perform for me. I also wanted to try out other hydrolox engines to help verify if the problem lay in the fuel itself, or oinly that specific engine, but AFAIK there aren't any others that can use hydrolox (unless I missed them?)

Besides the Solid Core Nuclear Engine, the Thermal Ramjet can also operate Hydrolox or LFO mode. you say they the engine did not perform even with a basic Mk1 cockpit, stock fuel tank, and solid core nuclear engine . In what mod  are you playing and if career of science, what nuclear techs have you unlocked?

Also next time you post something, please make sure you include a screenshot of the reactor screen

5 hours ago, Undecided said:

There is something weird here, notice 2 things: Engine Max Thrust ,which is only 0.294 and Max Calculated thrust which is 2.61. That only happens when the is something significantly going wrong in the reactor.

Edited July 3, 2016 by FreeThinker

[angelflower]

Hi, I just wanted to add that when I try and install this mod, it hangs on ReactorPack of USI if you remove it , it works fine but I remembered it used to work just fine..

[Rushligh]

Hey so, i still have a problem with the OMEGA reactors. i typically have them connected to the inline RadRctnwheen then the thermal turbojet, but my jet won't get any thrust. i removed the inline RadRctnwheel and i still have the same problem. my omega reactor seems to be running at 0%. the window says it's functioning but it won't produce any thermal power. as i've said earlier; i have no problems with the antimater reactor as a thermal supply, just the OMEGA (which i use in literally everything).
my engines produce a maximum thrust of 4 on the runway... which doesn't do much when you're trying to life a 200 tonne airship.

[Drelam]

Just one Question:
Would you consider making the Warp Drive system a standalone download?

I know there's the alcubierre Warp drive mod out there, but to be honest i find KSPI-E Warp Drive system much better working.

And would you mind if it is used in other mods too?

(Don't get me wrong, i'm not a competent modder by any means. I'm just tinkering around with some ideas for my own private mod needs  )

[FreeThinker]

7 hours ago, Rushligh said:

Hey so, i still have a problem with the OMEGA reactors. i typically have them connected to the inline RadRctnwheen then the thermal turbojet, but my jet won't get any thrust. i removed the inline RadRctnwheel and i still have the same problem. my omega reactor seems to be running at 0%. the window says it's functioning but it won't produce any thermal power. as i've said earlier; i have no problems with the antimater reactor as a thermal supply, just the OMEGA (which i use in literally everything).
my engines produce a maximum thrust of 4 on the runway... which doesn't do much when you're trying to life a 200 tonne airship.

Could you make a minimum part setup that shows what is wrong (allowing me to reproduce)?

6 hours ago, Drelam said:

Just one Question:
Would you consider making the Warp Drive system a standalone download?

I know there's the alcubierre Warp drive mod out there, but to be honest i find KSPI-E Warp Drive system much better working.

And would you mind if it is used in other mods too?

(Don't get me wrong, i'm not a competent modder by any means. I'm just tinkering around with some ideas for my own private mod needs  )

A standalone download would be difficult as the Whole design of KSPI is you need a combination op part to achieve anything. In order to run the Warp Engine, you at least going to need a powerful reactor, which also means you need reactor fuel, electric generator to turn the raw power into electric power  and radiators to get any wasteheat .

Edited July 4, 2016 by FreeThinker

[Drelam]

7 minutes ago, FreeThinker said:

A standalone download would be difficult as the Whole design of KSPI is  need a combination op part to achieve anything. In order to run the Warp Engine, you at least going to need a powerful reactor, which also means you need fusion fuel and radiators.

I see.

Nevertheless, thanks for the answer.