Jump to content

KSP Interstellar Extended Continued Development Thread

FreeThinker

By FreeThinker
in KSP1 Mod Development

 Share

Recommended Posts

FreeThinker

FreeThinker

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

 

  On 10/12/2016 at 3:39 PM, NeverEnoughFuel!! said:

Regarding the ATTILA, I have a craft with input of about 5,5 GW from beamed power, and have tried almost all fuels who work with ATTILA (1,25m)... something is odd, at least to me... with hydrogen (68% efficiency) I get biggest (full) ISP but TWR is ridiculously small, and fuel economy is terrible, on the other side of specter is xenon (almost same efficiency, at least on paper) TWR is about 1500 kn but the ISP is ridiculous about 300, and fuel economy is even worse than hydrogen ... so I guess the question is how is efficiency calculated? Does ATTILA need to have maximum input power (in this case of 1,25m 10 GW)?

Expand  

The Isp and thrust are calulated based on the Atmic mass and Ionisation efficiency

This might not be obvious but the main strength of the ATTILA  is that it's a variable Isp electric thermal engine, which means it can benefit from molecular decomposition when used with a prepellant that decomposes like Ammonia with at a relative High Isp (compaired to Solid Core Reactor Engines), the disadvantage is thrust performance with non composing propelant like Hydrogen of Xenon, is relatively bad.

 

Edited by FreeThinker
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BBM

BBM

Posted
Posted

I neglected to mention that I was running Hydrazine as the fuel b/c it looked like a nice dense relatively high performance (high thrust) with the ATTILA.  I did try attaching it right to the reactor (Pebble Bed) to see if that would help things.  Is 1719 the ISP associated with Hydrazine or is there a way to improve that ISP?

BTW, can you set up a donation Paypal page in English... my German is pretty worthless.  Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FreeThinker

FreeThinker

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
  On 10/12/2016 at 4:38 PM, BBM said:

I neglected to mention that I was running Hydrazine as the fuel b/c it looked like a nice dense relatively high performance (high thrust) with the ATTILA.  I did try attaching it right to the reactor (Pebble Bed) to see if that would help things.  Is 1719 the ISP associated with Hydrazine or is there a way to improve that ISP?

BTW, can you set up a donation Paypal page in English... my German is pretty worthless.  Thanks.

Expand  

The Isp can be improve be lowing your throtle to 50% and use LqdHydrogen instead of Hydrazine

Regarding donation in english, would this work?

https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=ZKZRRQ2QNKN4Y

 

 

 

Edited by FreeThinker
Link to comment
Share on other sites
NeverEnoughFuel!!

NeverEnoughFuel!!

Posted
Posted
  On 10/12/2016 at 4:38 PM, BBM said:

I neglected to mention that I was running Hydrazine as the fuel b/c it looked like a nice dense relatively high performance (high thrust) with the ATTILA.  I did try attaching it right to the reactor (Pebble Bed) to see if that would help things.  Is 1719 the ISP associated with Hydrazine or is there a way to improve that ISP?

Expand  

Yes, it's about Hydrazine... (my previous post, have the same ISP with it, when testing fuels), reactor has no influence on performance of ATTILA, except its weight, so if you had a (non existing) reactor who weights 100 kg but gives 10 GW in pure electricity that would be perfect...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pheenix99

pheenix99

Posted
Posted
  On 10/12/2016 at 11:20 PM, FreeThinker said:

Most likely you clicked on the wrong download button. By default it will download the 1.1.3 version

Expand  

I thought that at first, but I downloaded it from curse a second time (https://kerbal.curseforge.com/projects/ksp-interstellar-extended/files/2335725) where it stated it was 1.2 pre-release.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Weston164

Weston164

Posted
Posted

Whenever I use the solar wind process with the ISRU module, it does not transfer the liquid hydrogen produced into the liquid hydrogen tanks, therefore limiting the amount of liquid hydrogen collected to only 10 units until manually transfered. Is this by design? Is there a way to automatically transfer the resource so I can continuously fill up the liquid H tanks?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Patupi

Patupi

Posted
Posted (edited)

I too am getting an error, this on module manager during load up, saying there is an issue with KSPI_CTT.cfg It still seems I can run the game, and it occurs even after I re-install the mod (as I have other mods too and I worried that something else had over-written something from KSPI) so I'm not certain what the issue is. I'm using Blizzy's toolbar, the CTT (obviously), editor extensions, Field traning facility, IFS, Mechjeb, Tweakscale, USI LS & MKS.

 

Here is the KSP log file (And quite a long one too!)

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Edited by Patupi
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Amnesy

Amnesy

Posted
Posted

I think I found a small bug with the warp drive - When part g-force limits are enabled in the difficulty options, the ship will explode as soon as warp drive is engaged. This is due to the game thinking the ship is instantly accelerated to x% of c which causes the g-meter to spike. When disabling the limits warping works perfectly fine except for kerbals randomly passing out during the trip - this could be kept as a feature for kerbals with low courage traits :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FreeThinker

FreeThinker

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

Version 1.10.8 for Kerbal Space Program 1.2

Released on 2016-10-14

  • Compiled against KSP 1.2 (release)
  • Doubles high speed efficiency Thermal Ramjet but limited Isp to 3000s like all thermal engines
  • converted Trolllception Magnetic Nozzle into Plasma Nozzle, enabling higher Isp (>3000s) thermal thrust propulsion
  • replaced upgrade dummy part by Stock Upgrade entries
  • prevent reactors from using megajoule buffer when low
  • integrated new CTT 3.0 technodes
  • updated CRP to 0.6
  • Fixed Colliding Beam Fusion Reactor mass scaling
  • Improved stability power generating of all Inertial Fusion Reactors
  • Inertial Fusion Reactors can reduce power to 1/100000 power requirement when no power is needed, saving fuel
  • Replaced Quantum Singularity reactor by fully animated version by Raknark
  • Included Drag Cube of most KSPI parts
  • Increased default thermal transportation from 80% to 85%
  • Removed Buttons and Dependency on Blizzy Toolbar
  • Added context sensitive Stock Toolbar button for KSPI-E
  • Made better usage of stock part categories
  • Fixed radiators ability to work when pivot disabled
  • Overhauled Beamed Power Network
  • Added several new beamed power transmitter and receivers
  • Gigantor XL Solar Array can receive beamed power
  • Replaced Gas Core with Integrated Model
  • Restored Molten Salt Reactor model and functionality

 

 

Edited by FreeThinker
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jhook777

jhook777

Posted
Posted

Wow this mod changes quickly. I can't keep up. So I've a tiny issue and a quick question. KSP auto-updated to 1..2 (yay!) and AVC told me to download updated mods. So I did (this one included).

Well, I made that noob error of firing up my save game thinking everything would be fine and realized just as the messages started popping up on my screen how big of an error I had made....

Every crewed station and base in my save file had a molten salt reactor with the integrated EG (~20 Kerbals MIA). I thought I read somewhere that while the part was being reverted back to it's original design, the integrated model 

would be left in to avoid breaking saves... Anywho, I have a backup save that is only a couple of hours older than my most recent persistent file, so all is not lost. Question is, what would be the best method of

rolling back, loading the save, jettisoning all of the offending reactors, and then re-updating?  Should I roll my KSP version back and then install the previous version of KSPI-E? OR will the previous version of KSPI-E work on the current 1.2 version of KSP so I can just install the older version of the mod, make the changes, then install the newer version and keep going (with many reactor replacement flights to plan...)???

 

B8C5ECF2BAA4F79033CEB8B8FB791EBF467DD6CA

Took r.l. months to construct. Finished it less than a week ago. One offending part: molten salt reactor (seen on top of the big ore container on the right) = poof.

-but- the reactor is attached via a docking port, so, all I need to do is recover my previous game state somehow, remove the part, re-update.

Big question is, what is the best way to do this without causing further damage to my save file?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Patupi

Patupi

Posted
Posted (edited)

OK, I made the mistake of adding in this and stage recovery at the same time and now am not certain which is doing this. I have an issue that decouplers are not showing up on any of the categories except the 'advanced mode structural part' tab. The standard tabs have been re-organized with some new symbols (quite nice ones actually) and that might be the cause. Hmm, just a thought, could Blizzy's toolbar still being in there affect it? I didn't take it out for this update despite nothing now using it (I think). I'm going to go check on stage recovery thread as well to see if anything has cropped up there.

 

EDIT: Actually some other modded parts are not showing up as well, some in any tab. I don't have time now to get info or pics (just heading to work) I'll try to get something detailed later. One I noticed was supplies storage from MKS which showed up fine before, but now has vanished after updating this and adding in stage recovery.

Edited by Patupi
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nansuchao

Nansuchao

Posted
Posted
  On 10/14/2016 at 7:57 AM, jhook777 said:

Wow this mod changes quickly. I can't keep up. So I've a tiny issue and a quick question. KSP auto-updated to 1..2 (yay!) and AVC told me to download updated mods. So I did (this one included).

Well, I made that noob error of firing up my save game thinking everything would be fine and realized just as the messages started popping up on my screen how big of an error I had made....

Every crewed station and base in my save file had a molten salt reactor with the integrated EG (~20 Kerbals MIA). I thought I read somewhere that while the part was being reverted back to it's original design, the integrated model 

would be left in to avoid breaking saves... Anywho, I have a backup save that is only a couple of hours older than my most recent persistent file, so all is not lost. Question is, what would be the best method of

rolling back, loading the save, jettisoning all of the offending reactors, and then re-updating?  Should I roll my KSP version back and then install the previous version of KSPI-E? OR will the previous version of KSPI-E work on the current 1.2 version of KSP so I can just install the older version of the mod, make the changes, then install the newer version and keep going (with many reactor replacement flights to plan...)???

 

B8C5ECF2BAA4F79033CEB8B8FB791EBF467DD6CA

Took r.l. months to construct. Finished it less than a week ago. One offending part: molten salt reactor (seen on top of the big ore container on the right) = poof.

-but- the reactor is attached via a docking port, so, all I need to do is recover my previous game state somehow, remove the part, re-update.

Big question is, what is the best way to do this without causing further damage to my save file?

Expand  

The most safe way is for you to revert back to 1.1.3, remove and change the reactor and then update to 1.2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FreeThinker

FreeThinker

Posted
  • Author
Posted
  On 10/14/2016 at 7:57 AM, jhook777 said:

rolling back, loading the save, jettisoning all of the offending reactors, and then re-updating?  Should I roll my KSP version back and then install the previous version of KSPI-E? OR will the previous version of KSPI-E work on the current 1.2 version of KSP so I can just install the older version of the mod, make the changes, then install the newer version and keep going (with many reactor replacement flights to plan...)???

Expand  

well yes and no. No you cannot play KSPI 1.1.3 in KSP 1.2 but a if any parts are missing, they can simply be copied from the old version. I hope that help you

  On 10/14/2016 at 8:46 AM, Patupi said:

OK, I made the mistake of adding in this and stage recovery at the same time and now am not certain which is doing this. I have an issue that decouplers are not showing up on any of the categories except the 'advanced mode structural part' tab. The standard tabs have been re-organized with some new symbols (quite nice ones actually) and that might be the cause. Hmm, just a thought, could Blizzy's toolbar still being in there affect it? I didn't take it out for this update despite nothing now using it (I think). I'm going to go check on stage recovery thread as well to see if anything has cropped up there.

 

EDIT: Actually some other modded parts are not showing up as well, some in any tab. I don't have time now to get info or pics (just heading to work) I'll try to get something detailed later. One I noticed was supplies storage from MKS which showed up fine before, but now has vanished after updating this and adding in stage recovery.

Expand  

Any problems with the part menu should be asked here

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
okder

okder

Posted
Posted (edited)

retested all of that in 1.10.8 still there:

 

  On 10/11/2016 at 9:24 AM, okder said:

@FreeThinker

again full list of reported bugs:

1. no powerfail for ksp old power (Electric Charge) when all reactors go offline (ever, the img)

2. no (thermal) power reserve for megajoules generation (for fusion maintenance support, no custom reserve, no auto reserve, or auto reserve is buggy (auto reserve works well for 1 reactor though),  the img)

3. no dynamic radius modifier for small turbojet engines (static working incorrectly in some situation, that was you quoted in your previous post)

4. not correct small turbojet overheat behavior (whatever you choose to be correct one, currently inconsistent you quoted both images in your prev. post)

5. no small fusion reactor displayed on Megajoules power manager display. ( the img)

balance problems

1. ramjet/scramjet (i.e. no scramjet actually, better make them combined, so already proposed changes ok, and simple)

2. tri-alpha reactor gives too low output on start when only it researched, and too large output (20 times more in real megajoules output) when all research treee done.

Expand  

i did not only retest N 4, only could say that there is no overheating for small nozzle(when it's connects to big reactor), that's ok for me :)

ramjet feels better, but still has max performance only on 1000 m/s and becomes useless on 1200 m/s, so rapiers and even J-X4 still better (if there is oxygen in the air)

as i said in RSS/RO it would feels obsolete compared to good scramjet, and also in EVE ksp without RO (compared to that thing https://youtu.be/IXZNxzSTivk?t=885 , or probably  to thermal launch nozzle (+turbojets for lower speed))

tri-alpha did not changed (at least no new fuel modes, same % for build in generator, etc, may be i miss something?)

problem N1 could be reproduced as Direct Nuclear turbojet + any computer core, core would work while reactor works even without radiators and engine enabled :)

problem N2 becomes very rare and much more nasty because now reactors shutdowns randomly without any warning, it never happens on physic warp 2 though,

but flying large craft in atmosphere only in physics warp very dangerous.

 

Edited by okder
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pezzhippo

Pezzhippo

Posted
Posted

I also ran across issues with the current incarnation of Filter Extensions, but A) I concur with FreeThinker, that's something for the FEx folks and B) It would appear simply deleting Filter Extensions outright doesn't seem to have done any harm thus far in my campaign (and restores all the old categories), and KSPI still has its own tab if you really need it :>

My question probably ought to be, for clarification as to whether I dun goofed with my aforementioned actions, is Filter Extensions vital, or rather, will my not having it do anything untoward? o:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FreeThinker

FreeThinker

Posted
  • Author
Posted
  On 10/14/2016 at 6:23 PM, Pezzhippo said:

I also ran across issues with the current incarnation of Filter Extensions, but A) I concur with FreeThinker, that's something for the FEx folks and B) It would appear simply deleting Filter Extensions outright doesn't seem to have done any harm thus far in my campaign (and restores all the old categories), and KSPI still has its own tab if you really need it :>

My question probably ought to be, for clarification as to whether I dun goofed with my aforementioned actions, is Filter Extensions vital, or rather, will my not having it do anything untoward? o:

Expand  

Indeed, there are actually now 4 methods of finding KSPI parts:

  1. KSP Stock menu,
  2. KSPI Stock filter,
  3. Filter Extension KSPI Tab
  4. Filter Extension Factory Tab
Link to comment
Share on other sites
NeverEnoughFuel!!

NeverEnoughFuel!!

Posted
Posted (edited)

What fuel gives best performance regarding ISP/TWR with Quantum Plasma engine with 5GW beamed input... please have mercy and spare me 20+ test launches... 1.1.3... staying away from 1.2 until Kerbal Engineer Redux is ready... can you maybe get in touch with guys who are developers of Kerbal Engineer... to import in it these dynamic ISP/TWR calculations... so these kind of questions become obsolete... I know it's BIG job... but you both spoiled us...:wink: :)... also regarding the gameplay is it possible to move beamed power parts little earlier in the tech tree... maybe within the science/timeline of appearance of first multi GW capable reactors... or I'm asking too much...

Btw I'm getting only 1 kn of thrust with quantum plasma engine, set to vacuum propelent, 5GW in 1 kn out?

Edited by NeverEnoughFuel!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nansuchao

Nansuchao

Posted
Posted
  On 10/14/2016 at 11:16 PM, NeverEnoughFuel!! said:

What fuel gives best performance regarding ISP/TWR with Quantum Plasma engine with 5GW beamed input... please have mercy and spare me 20+ test launches... 1.1.3... staying away from 1.2 until Kerbal Engineer Redux is ready... can you maybe get in touch with guys who are developers of Kerbal Engineer... to import in it these dynamic ISP/TWR calculations... so these kind of questions become obsolete... I know it's BIG job... but you both spoiled us...:wink: :)... also regarding the gameplay is it possible to move beamed power parts little earlier in the tech tree... maybe within the science/timeline of appearance of first multi GW capable reactors... or I'm asking too much...

Expand  

There is actually a dev version of KER for 1.2 that works well enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...