KSP Interstellar Extended Continued Development Thread

[FreeThinker]

On 12/5/2017 at 6:51 PM, Chase842 said:

    1.) First issue is with the Plasma Beam Core Antimatter Generator producing so much wasteheat when a thermal turbojet is attached to it that it would require way way more radiators than in previous versions to even put a dent into the wasteheat.

Alright, I'm starting to investigate. It appears the problem only happens with multiple reactors present, with only one reactor it doesn't appear to be any problem.

Notice wasteheat of Reactor 1 is twise of what it should be

This how is should be:

Edited December 10, 2017 by FreeThinker

[FreeThinker]

A new release of KSPI 1.16.3 is available from here

Changelog

* Added Bussard Magnetic Scoop which can collect from either atmospheres, interstellar medium or solar wind

* Added Bussard Fusion Engine

* Added Alcubiere Drive simultaneous ring deployment

* Added Chinese localization

* Added Muon Catalyzed Fusion reactor which which is specialized integrated gamma energy direct converter

* Added proton-proton and proton-Deuterium Fusion modes to Muon Catalyzed Fusion reactor

* Rebalanced Alcubiere mass scaling, making larger vessel easier

* Rebalanced Heavy XI Alcubierre Drive, reduce mass by 33% while maintaining same warp power

* Rebalanced reduced electric power cost Alcubiere Warp drive by 50%

* Fixed extreme drag cause by FAR in combination with magnetic scoop

* Fixed Magnetic Scoop interstellar resource collection to be affected by vessel speed

* Fixed Wasteheat overheating issue with multiple reactors

* Fixed Megajoule leaching issue causing stored power to evaporate

* Fixed error message with Module Manager 3.0.x

* Fixed mass consumption and production in Reaction Info Window

* Fixed Power Management issues

* Fixed Functioning Super capacitor functionality of  Computer cores

[Maelstrom Vortex]

15 hours ago, Maelstrom Vortex said:

We have a new problem. You can have way more power than you need for warp 1, but going to warp still fails because of something happening with the warp calculator resetting to .100c. Given I know of no other mods that interact with the warp calculations being installed, confidence this is core to something in KSPIE's code is high, but I can't figure out what it would be. 

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/208324847

To clarify, KSPIE is the only mod I have that has anything at all to do with FTL and FTL calculations to my knowledge. 22 minutes of testing for you there, different situations and with an F5/F9 reload to try to help parse what's causing it. Total power output at warp attempts is around 5.4 GW with the tri-alphas at 2 and the generator producing around 1.4 unstable, but the FTL engines say they only need 2.6 GW for warp 1. 

Running on most recent test release .2.2.

The power calculation issues for the warp core have not been resolved as of the 1.16.3 release, just tested, same results. Going to try a fresh wipe of the warp plugin folder, re-extract and update to make sure this is not some form of corruption of the warp-plugin folder. It's acting like it is having trouble storing/keeping track of the warp speed setting. It now appears to default to .100c. I move it up to 1.0 c before warp and charging, charge it, and then activate.. and after the error is displayed, the warp speed management gui appears to auto reset the light speed to .100 c automatically. I would think it has something to do with possible write permissions, but I run Kerbals in administrator mode so that shouldn't be an issue. Whatever the cause it, it appears to be failing to save the user chosen warp speed when activated. THe procedures for my reinstall were as follows:

1. Wiped the warp plugin folder, deleting it completely.
2. Reinstall fresh from 1.16.3 zip.
3. Remove USI_NF patch and make sure directories are properly set under gamedata, they are.
4. Reload the test campaign and test vehicle in orbit.
5. Verify craft is responsive, has coms and power, it does. 5.4 GW relatively constant, well more than the 2.6 GW the drive says it needs for warp 1.
6. Open Warp Control gui, set warp speed to 1, start charging.
7. Status says ready. Verify still on 1.000c warp setting.
8. Activate warp.
9.Get message Critical power supply at 37%, disengaging warp. 
10. Observe Gui has set itself back to .100c light speed setting on its own with much higher power requirement without me doing anything. It appears to go to warp for a split second before disengaging as apoapsis and periapsis have increased very slightly before failure.

Edited December 11, 2017 by Maelstrom Vortex

[SpaceMouse]

@FreeThinker Still hammering the dents out of a few new parts? 

[FreeThinker]

1 hour ago, SpaceMouse said:

@FreeThinker Still hammering the dents out of a few new parts? 

Well yes, development tends to go slower than anticipated, I often need to combine it with bug fixes which often progressively get harder to solve

Edited December 11, 2017 by FreeThinker

[raxo2222]

Lets see if any of bugs below in spoiler were fixed...

All static bugs are still here (first 5), lag spikes with magnetis scoop happens only if I rightclick or move it.

Bug 6 on list was fixed.

Edit: It wasn't fixed for EM drive, Magneto Plasma Dynamic Thruster,  Atilla, and electric RCS.

Using no max temperature and free electricity cheats

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

Bug 7. still is present, and now magnetic scoop is overheating when active.....

There is nice test craft, eitther use KRASH for simulation, or hyperedit it when pauzed to orbit.

Upscale magnetic scoop and blanker receivers to trigger FAR bug.

What is with locsometging buggy name of one part and litervolume resource that is present on some tanks?

https://imgur.com/a/QqVjS

There is bug in IFS/patchmanager by the way. Error location is in screenshot in this spoiler.

Spoiler

There is bug with titanum radiators: their max temperature is limited by atmosphere...

 

There are still multiple bugs (using latest beta version):
1. Blanket receivers cause extreme lag with FAR present when upscaled and deployed to largest sizes - I had to restart computer as FAR ate all my RAM and gave hard time to my poor old hard drive.
2. There are lag spikes caused by FAR when magnetic scoop is present in VAB/SPH even without scaling - it has to do with voxelization.
3. There is scale description mismatch for TORY Ramjet - its size says is 5m part, while it fits nicely with 2.5m part.
When downscaled to 1.25m part it fits 0.625m part.

Spoiler

 
4. There is bug with Interstellar Thermal Mechanic Helper and Magnetized Target Fusion Reactor and Plasma Jet Internal Magnetic Fusion Reactor: Thermal Helper shows 1000x less power(Total Heat Production)  than actual power rating of reactor.

Spoiler

 
5. Infinite Propellant cheat doesn't work for ISRU (would be useful for testing)

Spoiler

 
6. Power requested depends on propellant efficiency for electrical engines (using infinite electricity, no max temp and infinite propellant to remove these factors)

Spoiler

 
7. Solar/Interstellar material gathering rate doesn't change if I turn ionization in magnetic scoop on/off.
 

Spoiler

Edited December 11, 2017 by raxo2222

[Aghanim]

On 12/11/2017 at 10:11 AM, FreeThinker said:

A new release of KSPI 1.16.3 is available from here

Changelog

* Added Bussard Magnetic Scoop which can collect from either atmospheres, interstellar medium or solar wind

Does Bussard magnetic scoop provide drag in space? If yes then it can be used as  STL ship interstellar brake which is probably useful for your KSP STL interstellar ship challenge

[DiscoveryPlanet]

Still got this massage after upgrade my KSPIE, what is wrong?

[raxo2222]

Lets see who can get more power on pure Hydrogen.....

Muon Catalyzed Fusion Reactor or QSR reactor.

QSR is so energetic, that only Wrapped Microwave Thermal Receiver is big enough to be comfortably used as radiator.

Lets normalize Hydrogen usage to 1g/hour:

Muon Catalyzer reactor: 60  MW

QSR: 25960 MW

QSR can get 433x more power from same amount of Hydrogen.

This means if pure p-p muon catalyzed fusion powered by solar wind can function at 1 AU, then QSR would be fine at 21 AU!

That is Uranus orbit distance!

I guess aliens don't need Dyson spheres, as they can fuel their QSRs with solar wind.

 

Lets see how antimatter reactors fare in mass -> energy conversion.

Positron Antimatter Reactor consumes electron and all it produces is high energy photons.

500 GW produced, if consumption was 1g of positron per hour.

Antiproton Antimatter Reactor - this one produces whole mess of particles.

16.3 GW produced for 0.5g of protons + 0.5g of antiprotons per hour consumed.

QSR produces 26 GW if consumption was 1g/hour.

 

 

 

Edited December 12, 2017 by raxo2222

[FreeThinker]

1 hour ago, DiscoveryPlanet said:

Still got this massage after upgrade my KSPIE, what is wrong?

2

I wasn't aware of any MM errors with Mk2Expansion. I will look into in with high priority

2 hours ago, Aghanim said:

Does Bussard magnetic scoop provide drag in space? If yes then it can be used as  STL ship interstellar brake which is probably useful for your KSP STL interstellar ship challenge

Yes it does and it is applied sperate for solar wind and orbital drag and works both during real time and time warp.

Note that drag is currently still too low as it does not take into account the leaky nature of the magnetosphere which increases drag. I will add it in a future update

Edited December 12, 2017 by FreeThinker

[FreeThinker]

1 hour ago, raxo2222 said:

Lets see who can get more power on pure Hydrogen.....

Muon Catalyzed Fusion Reactor or QSR reactor.

QSR is so energetic, that only Wrapped Microwave Thermal Receiver is big enough to be comfortably used as radiator.

Lets normalize Hydrogen usage to 1g/hour:

Muon Catalyzer reactor: 60  MW

QSR: 25960 MW

QSR can get 433x more power from same amount of Hydrogen.

This means if pure p-p muon catalyzed fusion powered by solar wind can function at 1 AU, then QSR would be fine at 21 AU!

That is Uranus orbit distance!

I guess aliens don't need Dyson spheres, as they can fuel their QSRs with solar wind.

5

Yes and the reason the SQR can generate much more power is that the SQR is essentially a matter to energy converter where E= MC²

From a game balance perspective, the SQR is the ultimate power reactor while the Muon Catalysed reactor is between antimatter reactor and QSR

From a realism perspective, the SQR is hard to balance right because any future real counterpart would be much bigger in dimension and heavier, but would it kind of unworkable for KSP where players start to complaining anything bigger than 3.75 diameter.

Edited December 12, 2017 by FreeThinker

[raxo2222]

58 minutes ago, FreeThinker said:

Yes and the reason the SQR can generate much more power is that the SQR is essentially a matter to energy converter where E= MC²

From a game perspective, the SQR is the ultimate power reactor while the Muon Catalysed reactor is between antimatter reactor and QSR

Positron antimatter reactor has suspiciously high mass energy conversion - 500 GW of energy from consumption of 1g positrons per hour.

You can get 9*10⁴ GJ from 1 g of matter at 100% efficient conversion.

That is 1 g/s of 100% matter energy conversion would yield 90 000 GW of power. 1 g/hour yields maximum of 25 GW.

Is QSR getting extra GW of power from gravitational field of black hole? It produces ~26 GW of power at 1g/hour consumption.

As for positron antimatter reactor it produces 20x too much energy per 1g/hour consumption.

Suggestion would be: increase positron consumption slightly over 20 times to match 100% mass energy conversion efficiency.

I set QSR and Positron reactors, so their respective consumption is on almost same level.

Edited December 12, 2017 by raxo2222

[FreeThinker]

7 hours ago, raxo2222 said:

Positron antimatter reactor has suspiciously high mass energy conversion - 500 GW of energy from consumption of 1g positrons per hour.

You can get 9*10⁴ GJ from 1 g of matter at 100% efficient conversion.

That is 1 g/s of 100% matter energy conversion would yield 90 000 GW of power. 1 g/hour yields maximum of 25 GW.

Is QSR getting extra GW of power from gravitational field of black hole? It produces ~26 GW of power at 1g/hour consumption.

As for positron antimatter reactor it produces 20x too much energy per 1g/hour consumption.

I don't think so, they produce about the same amount of power per gram, the difference is that positrons fuel source is kind of hard to store (adding positronium will make it easier) while hydrogen in comparison is a lot more dense

Edited December 12, 2017 by FreeThinker

[raxo2222]

18 hours ago, FreeThinker said:

I don't think so, they produce about the same amount of power per gram, the difference is that positrons fuel source is kind of hard to store (adding positronium will make it easier) while hydrogen in comparison is a lot more dense

No, positrons produce 20x more energy, than their rest mass-energy, see my previous post.

Spoiler

Lets see how antimatter reactors fare in mass -> energy conversion.

Positron Antimatter Reactor consumes electron and all it produces is high energy photons.

500 GW produced, if consumption was 1g of positron per hour.

Antiproton Antimatter Reactor - this one produces whole mess of particles.

16.3 GW produced for 0.5g of protons + 0.5g of antiprotons per hour consumed.

QSR produces 26 GW if consumption was 1g/hour.

 

[FreeThinker]

3 hours ago, raxo2222 said:

No, positrons produce 20x more energy, than their rest mass-energy, see my previous post.

  Hide contents

Lets see how antimatter reactors fare in mass -> energy conversion.

Positron Antimatter Reactor consumes electron and all it produces is high energy photons.

500 GW produced, if consumption was 1g of positron per hour.

Antiproton Antimatter Reactor - this one produces whole mess of particles.

16.3 GW produced for 0.5g of protons + 0.5g of antiprotons per hour consumed.

QSR produces 26 GW if consumption was 1g/hour.

 

Alright, I see the problem and you are partly right that Positron produce too much power per gram, but not 20 times  but 10 times

let me explain

as you know when positron and electron annihilate, all there mass is converted into energy equal to E= MC^2

Now lets asume we have 1 Ton of positron and let it reactor 1 Ton of electrons, it would produce 2 * 1000 * 300000000 = 180000000000000000000 J =  180000000000000 MJ 

rewritten as MJ per Ton it would be 1 / 180000000000000 = 5,55555556e-15 which 10 times as low as 5,55555556e-16 in ReactorFuels.cfg (I will make the correction for next release)

Now to explain the differences with Antimatter Reactor, you need to take into account that 90% of all hard gamma rays escape and with the QSR it is even higher

The reason is that the Gammas from positron electron annihilation produce only about 0.501 MeV of gamma rays while Antiproton-proton anihilation are about  200 MeV and  therefore pass through matter much easier

Edited December 13, 2017 by FreeThinker

[raxo2222]

40 minutes ago, FreeThinker said:

Alright, I see the problem and you are partly right that Positron produce too much power per gram, but not 20 times  but 10 times

let me explain

as you know when positron and electron annihilate, all there mass is converted into energy equal to E= MC^2

Now lets asume we have 1 Ton of positron and let it reactor 1 Ton of electrons, it would produce 2 * 1000 * 300000000 = 180000000000000000000 J =  180000000000000 MJ 

rewritten as MJ per Ton it would be 1 / 180000000000000 = 5,55555556e-15 which 10 times as low as 5,55555556e-16 in ReactorFuels.cfg (I will make the correction for next release)

Now to explain the differences with Antimatter Reactor, you need to take into account that 90% of all hard gamma rays escape and with the QSR it is even higher

The reason is that the Gammas from positron electron annihilation produce only about 0.501 MeV of gamma rays while Antiproton-proton anihilation are about  200 MeV and  therefore pass through matter much easier

hmmm QSR seems like it has 100% matter energy conversion as if gamma rays didn't escape at all - in fact it is around 104% efficient as I calculated.

How energetic are photons are in muon catalyzer reactor and shortest wavelength photons, that are used for beam energy transfer for comparison?

What about charge buildup in spaceship when running particularly big positron reactor?

Edited December 13, 2017 by raxo2222

[Greatness101]

Are there any plans to make a reactor based on the newly discovered "quark fusion" mechanism?

https://futurism.com/quark-fusion-produces-eight-times-energy-nuclear-fusion/

This reactor would use "bottom quarks" (possibly made from charged particles or a particle accelerator part?) as the fuel source and produce a couple times more energy than hydrogen fusion. It would also serve as a good intermediate step between nuclear fusion and antimatter based reactors.

Edited December 16, 2017 by Greatness101

[FreeThinker]

A new Beta 1.16.3.1 can be downloaded from here

Changelog

* Balance: Increased Maximum light speed limitation at higher altitdes above a gravity well

* Balance: Increased overall Drag Bussard Ramjet Magnetic scoop

* Fixed Module Manager 1.3.1 Error messages in combination with Bug Mk2 Expansion

* Fixed Resource consumption Thermal Anti Matter Reactor

[FreeThinker]

13 hours ago, Greatness101 said:

Are there any plans to make a reactor based on the newly discovered "quark fusion" mechanism?

https://futurism.com/quark-fusion-produces-eight-times-energy-nuclear-fusion/

This reactor would use "bottom quarks" (possibly made from charged particles or a particle accelerator part?) as the fuel source and produce a couple times more energy than hydrogen fusion. It would also serve as a good intermediate step between nuclear fusion and antimatter based reactors.

Interesting concept, we could use the charged particle power output of another fusion reactor and convert to 8 times neutron neutron energy in a quark fusion reactor

Edited December 17, 2017 by FreeThinker

[etmoonshade]

Is it possible and/or practical to add a tweak to the configuration file to cause the various engines and reactors to have an "instant" response to throttle?

The realism is great and all, but it makes it a real pain to use KSPI-E engines for landings sometimes.

[FreeThinker]

17 minutes ago, etmoonshade said:

Is it possible and/or practical to add a tweak to the configuration file to cause the various engines and reactors to have an "instant" response to throttle?

The realism is great and all, but it makes it a real pain to use KSPI-E engines for landings sometimes.

There are several parameters that control response speed, engineAccelerationBaseSpeed and engineDecelerationBaseSpeed in ThermalNozzleController, (higher is faster) and reactorSpeedMult in Reactors Part modules

Together they control engine acceleration speed

                myAttachedEngine.engineAccelerationSpeed = engineAccelerationBaseSpeed * (float)AttachedReactor.ReactorSpeedMult;
                myAttachedEngine.engineDecelerationSpeed = engineDecelerationBaseSpeed * (float)AttachedReactor.ReactorSpeedMult;

A simple Module script that would significantly increase these values would effectively make  the engine react near instantly

Edited December 17, 2017 by FreeThinker

[etmoonshade]

5 minutes ago, FreeThinker said:

There are several parameter that control response speed, engineAccelerationBaseSpeed and engineDecelerationBaseSpeed in ThermalNozzleController, (higher is faster) and reactorSpeedMult in Reactors PArt module

Together they control engine acceleration speed

                myAttachedEngine.engineAccelerationSpeed = engineAccelerationBaseSpeed * (float)AttachedReactor.ReactorSpeedMult;
                myAttachedEngine.engineDecelerationSpeed = engineDecelerationBaseSpeed * (float)AttachedReactor.ReactorSpeedMult;

A simple Module script that would significantly increase these values would effectively make  the engine react near instantly

Hm. I see reactorSpeedMult under FNAntimatterReactor. Seems like that one's easy enough to hack together a MM patch for.

I see a delayedThrottleFactor under ThermalNozzleController, and a responseSpeed under FXModuleAnimateThrottle. Do I only need to tweak the delay, or also the speed there? And am I missing anything?

[FreeThinker]

delayedThrottleFactor  is obsolete and no longer used

[etmoonshade]

Hm. I'm only finding the engine[Acceleration|Deceleration]BaseSpeed on the NERVA and the nuclear jet engines. From what you're showing me there though, a super fast response on just the reactors (500? 1000? 32768?) should be enough to speed things up significantly?

[FreeThinker]

9 minutes ago, etmoonshade said:

Hm. I'm only finding the engine[Acceleration|Deceleration]BaseSpeed on the NERVA and the nuclear jet engines. From what you're showing me there though, a super fast response on just the reactors (500? 1000? 32768?) should be enough to speed things up significantly?

just try