KSP Interstellar Extended Continued Development Thread

[SciMan]

I'd have to do that on a vanilla install, but I can do that when I get home from Christmas dinner.

If it doesn't work on Kerbin's oceans, there's really something wrong with it, if it does work, there's a problem with it being used on different planet packs.

Either way, there's something not working right here

[SciMan]

OK, got back from Christmas dinner, made a vanilla install from my Steam install (which I keep vanilla because I don't want Steam updates breaking an on-going game, I'm entirely capable of doing that myself TYVM)

New install is on my SSD, only Stock + KSPI dependencies.
Started a new science save file, used cheats to unlock everything (because "testing purposes only" and I'm running science mode in my main save / main install).
Made a test craft, kept it as simple as possible.
IntakeLqd pump still doesn't work for me, when splashed down in Kerbin's Oceans (right off of the end of the runway, and out a bit so I'm not able to touch the ground with the drills).

Here's a picture with relevant part action windows and resource display enabled:

Spoiler

EDIT: Almost forgot, this is on KSP 1.5.1, no idea if the bug exists on 1.6.0 as Kopernicus isn't updated for that yet, and I won't even think of updating my main save to 1.6 until I know the critical mods are updated. I could probably make a clean copy of 1.5.1 and then let Steam update KSP to 1.6, then check that too, if you need me to, but otherwise I don't think it's worth it as not much really changed between 1.5.1 and 1.6.0 as far as plugins go.

Edited December 26, 2018 by SciMan

[Zardoz_speaks]

I'm having issues with the nuclear engines. They seem to have throttle lag when throttling down, it takes around 1 minute plus to go from full throttle to no thrust.

Is there a way to disable the throttle lag?

[FreeThinker]

22 hours ago, Zardoz_speaks said:

I'm having issues with the nuclear engines. They seem to have throttle lag when throttling down, it takes around 1 minute plus to go from full throttle to no thrust.

Is there a way to disable the throttle lag?

Not in game but you could change the config. Assuming you mean to change the stock NERV, open a file named NERVA.cfg at WarpPlugin\Parts\Engines\NERVA, find InterstellarFissionNTR and change reactorSpeedMult = 0.25  into reactorSpeedMult = 0 

[Brimarx]

I'm kind of surprised how the Magnetized Target Fusion Reactor compares to the Peeble Ped for SSTOs, it's main use if I can trust the description   

Mk4 Peeble Bed with a thermal nozzle: 11.5t, 797kN @ 1150s. => 69.3kN/t

Mk5 MTFR with a thermal nozzle: 8.5t, 655kN @ 1240 => 77kN/t

Per unit of mass the MTFR delivers 11% more thrust. This and the slight ISP gain are rather marginal improvements for a reactor with higher tech, worse form-factor and the need for an external energy source to keep the fusion running (further reducing the thrust per unit or mass advantage). Sure the MTFR is slightly cheaper but as SSTOs are usually supposed to be reusable that's really not a factor.

Am I missing something? IIRC, pre-1.20.14 the MTFR had about 900kN of thrust making it a better value proposal.

Happy holidays and thanks for this amazing mod 

 

Edited December 30, 2018 by Brimarx

[SciMan]

On KSP 1.5.1 still, but I might have found another bug.

I'm using a craft that uses a Beam Core Antimatter reactor connected to a Charged Particle Direct Power Converter to provide Megajoule power to an Alcubierre Drive (Heavy). However, the issue does not occur when the Alcubierre drive is operating, as I never use that in time warp (goes plenty fast without time warp).

Under high time warp (100,000x), I'm seeing a message pop up in the upper middle of my screen saying "ran out of fuel for Antimatter", and the console is spammed with a "power production too low, clearing buffer" message.

When not in time warp everything behaves normally, and when transitioning from high time warp to normal speed the symptoms disappear. Despite the warning, the issue does not cause a reactor shutdown, does not kick the Charged Particle Direct Power Converter offline, and does not leave the craft completely drained of Megajoule power once returning to normal speed. Additionally, the Antimatter trap is never empty.

I'm well aware that I am not going to get full power out of the reactor unless I use a Magnetic Nozzle, but being able to harvest reactor fuel in space outweighs that downside, and the greater efficiency of the Charged Particle generator compared to the MHD electric generator used with a Positron Antimatter Reactor considerably reduces required radiator area.

 

On a different note, is there any progress regarding the issue of the Universal Drill IntakeLqd pump not working? Using the newest build of KSPI compiled for KSP 1.5.1 did not fix the problem in my "testing" install of KSP (copy of the Steam directory, only Squad, Making History, and "mod under test" installed). I have also returned to my lander in a methane lake of Tarsiss on my GPP/OPM/KSPI etc. (heavily modded) install, and it's not working there either (as I expected, if it doesn't work in the testing install it won't work anywhere).

Edited January 1, 2019 by SciMan

[SciMan]

@Brimarx post reminded me of a question I have regarding reactor balance of a different reactor.

The Fission Fragment Reactor doesn't seem to be good at anything you can use it for. Sure, you can connect every single type of nozzle and/or generator to it, but none of them can make the reactor run at more than 50% utilization. Maybe I'm missing something, but it doesn't seem like you would want to choose that reactor when you have so many other choices available, especially the Tokamak and Stellarator fusion reactors which you can unlock at roughly the same science cost.

Is the intent perhaps that the other 50% of the reactor's power should be added to the waste heat load? That's not what happens as it is.

Is it supposed to be a dead-end technology? I thought there were none of those in KSPI.

Everything in KSPI seems to have a niche, even if it is quite a narrow niche. Except the Fission Fragment Reactor.

If it's meant to be an entry-level reactor to some more advanced version of the concept like a fission fragment sail, I would understand, but no such thing currently exists in KSPI, which makes the final node related to Fission power reactors rather unappealing to research other than as a means to upgrade the performance and power output of the Closed Cycle Gas Core nuclear engine, and improve the power output of the standalone Gas Core Reactor.
In other words, it doesn't make sense to unlock that tech node because you need the fission fragment reactor, because the fission fragment reactor has no optimal use case, and does not lead to any fission power or propulsion part that has an optimal use case.

Edited January 2, 2019 by SciMan

[FreeThinker]

12 hours ago, SciMan said:

The Fission Fragment Reactor doesn't seem to be good at anything you can use it for. Sure, you can connect every single type of nozzle and/or generator to it, but none of them can make the reactor run at more than 50% utilization. Maybe I'm missing something, but it doesn't seem like you would want to choose that reactor when you have so many other choices available, especially the Tokamak and Stellarator fusion reactors which you can unlock at roughly the same science cost.

Is the intent perhaps that the other 50% of the reactor's power should be added to the waste heat load? That's not what happens as it is.

 

Yes it's intentional. One of the main limitations of the Dusty Plasma reactor is, its magnetic fields are only able to redirect about 50% of it charged particles in one direction. Fortunately, the remaining 50% can be utilized for other purposes, so what you could do is use 50% for plasma/charged particle nozzle propulsion while the other 50% can power charge particle power generator or MHD generator to power electric engines. Alternatively, connect it both to a thermal power generator and direct power generator to utilize all power

Edited January 3, 2019 by FreeThinker

[FreeThinker]

On 12/30/2018 at 5:50 PM, Brimarx said:

I'm kind of surprised how the Magnetized Target Fusion Reactor compares to the Peeble Ped for SSTOs, it's main use if I can trust the description   

Mk4 Peeble Bed with a thermal nozzle: 11.5t, 797kN @ 1150s. => 69.3kN/t

Mk5 MTFR with a thermal nozzle: 8.5t, 655kN @ 1240 => 77kN/t

Per unit of mass the MTFR delivers 11% more thrust. This and the slight ISP gain are rather marginal improvements for a reactor with higher tech, worse form-factor and the need for an external energy source to keep the fusion running (further reducing the thrust per unit or mass advantage). Sure the MTFR is slightly cheaper but as SSTOs are usually supposed to be reusable that's really not a factor.

Am I missing something? IIRC, pre-1.20.14 the MTFR had about 900kN of thrust making it a better value proposal

2

3

The Magnetized Target Fusion Reactor is kind of the jack of all trades, master of none kind of reactor, it can do a little bit of everything, but nothing spectacular. This second generation fusion reactor is the first fusion reactor that can be scaled down to 1.25m and is the cheapest fusion reactor available. Its main advantage compared to the pebble-bed reactor is endurance and fuel cost, as it uses very little fuel at 100% fuel efficiency and can run on cheap fuel like deuterium. All of this might not be obvious so I will add it to the description.

 

Edited January 3, 2019 by FreeThinker

[FreeThinker]

13 hours ago, SciMan said:

Is it supposed to be a dead-end technology? I thought there were none of those in KSPI.

Everything in KSPI seems to have a niche, even if it is quite a narrow niche. Except the Fission Fragment Reactor.

If it's meant to be an entry-level reactor to some more advanced version of the concept like a fission fragment sail, I would understand, but no such thing currently exists in KSPI, which makes the final node related to Fission power reactors rather unappealing to research other than as a means to upgrade the performance and power output of the Closed Cycle Gas Core nuclear engine, and improve the power output of the standalone Gas Core Reactor.
In other words, it doesn't make sense to unlock that tech node because you need the fission fragment reactor, because the fission fragment reactor has no optimal use case, and does not lead to any fission power or propulsion part that has an optimal use case.

1

Well the Fission Fragment reactor fulfills indeed a niche in the sense it is the first Fission Reactor capable of producing high energy charged particles which can be utilised for either plasma or direct magnetic nozzle propulsion, producing the highest isp of any fission reactor or for direct power generation, allowing the highest possible electric efficiencies possible with fission technology. Of course, fusion technologies is potentially better in both roles. So the fission fragment reactor is kind of intermediate technology that gets surpassed by fusion and therefore eventually becomes a dead end technology. Good Scenarios when to use a fission fragment reactor is when you need higher isp then Open cycle gas core reactor can provide (7000s) or when you want to minimize waste heat for electric power production and made no or minimal advancement in fusion reactor technology.  Power is nice but isn't everything. I would say that its propulsion and electric efficiencies make this reactor pretty useful, don't you agree?

Edited January 3, 2019 by FreeThinker

[SpaceMouse]

On 1/3/2019 at 4:15 AM, FreeThinker said:

Yes it's intentional. One of the main limitations of the Dusty Plasma reactor is, its magnetic fields are only able to redirect about 50% of it charged particles in one direction. Fortunately, the remaining 50% can be utilized for other purposes, so what you could do is use 50% for plasma/charged particle nozzle propulsion while the other 50% can power charge particle power generator or MHD generator to power electric engines. Alternatively, connect it both to a thermal power generator and direct power generator to utilize all power

I actually tried this before. Sticking VASIMR's next to it even at highest ISP kinda negates the ultra high ISP of the FFR. XD

[Brimarx]

On 1/3/2019 at 1:35 AM, FreeThinker said:

The Magnetized Target Fusion Reactor is kind of the jack of all trades, master of none kind of reactor, it can do a little bit of everything, but nothing spectacular. This second generation fusion reactor is the first fusion reactor that can be scaled down to 1.25m and is the cheapest fusion reactor available. Its main advantage compared to the pebble-bed reactor is endurance and fuel cost, as it uses very little fuel at 100% fuel efficiency and can run on cheap fuel like deuterium. All of this might not be obvious so I will add it to the description.

 

Thanks for the clarification. That was not obvious reading the description, indeed

And btw, is there a fusion reactor supposed to be the master of thermal generation? Reading the reactors specs and descriptions, the MTFR seems to be the best fit for that use case.

Edited January 7, 2019 by Brimarx

[FreeThinker]

4 hours ago, Brimarx said:

Thanks for the clarification. That was not obvious reading the description, indeed

And btw, is there a fusion reactor supposed to be the master of thermal generation? Reading the reactors specs and descriptions, the MTFR seems to be the best fit for that use case.

Thermal power generation realy is fusions weak point, they are better at fuel economy and high isp. For the best thermal power generators you either use nuclear, antimatter fusion, positron antimatter or of course nuclear salt water!

Edited January 7, 2019 by FreeThinker

[SciMan]

Once I unlocked the Dadelus engine, I made large craft to transport things around the solar system without having to wait for a transfer window. The craft functions very well, but the engine effects don't seem right for an engine of that size. Only a rather small blue flame, which I recognized as an old stock particle effect.

Since the Dadelus engine was so good, I unlocked the Kerbstein fusion engine expecting even better things. As far as performance goes, I couldn't be happier. However, once again I saw the same old stock particle effect being used.

In neither case does that small blue stock particle effect match what I expect to see when I use such a large fusion engine.

Here's what I expected to see for the Kerbstein engine (around 4:08 in the video):

https://youtu.be/eVDUd-mPkSg

I looked into the issue to see what is going on, and I found that both engines are still using the old ModuleEngines, and I'm almost certain that it doesn't let you use custom particle effects.

Inside the Kerbstein drive I also found a hint that changing over to ModuleEnginesFX is on the to-do list, as well as an effects node that would likely work if the engine module was changed.  

Since I had downloaded a copy of the master branch while testing the new RCS thruster effects, I have a copy of the source code that is only slightly out of date. I've read the patch notes of the newer versions, and I'm not aware of any changes to the Kerbstein or Dadelus engines in any newer versions of KSPI so what I'm looking at in the source code should be current.

Looking thru the source code of the Dadelus and Kerbstein engine controller part module, I only see ModuleEngines come up twice in the entire DeadalusEngineController.cs file. To me it looks like simply changing those to ModuleEnginesFX would do what is needed, but that also seems too easy to be the only thing that needs to be done.

The majority of the other engines and nozzles in KSPI have already been updated to use the new effects system, however I don't see any of them using an actual stock engine module. 

I know that programming can cause things that look easy to be next to impossible, but I'm hoping that that is not the case here.

 

[FreeThinker]

13 hours ago, SciMan said:

Looking thru the source code of the Dadelus and Kerbstein engine controller part module, I only see ModuleEngines come up twice in the entire DeadalusEngineController.cs file. To me it looks like simply changing those to ModuleEnginesFX would do what is needed, but that also seems too easy to be the only thing that needs to be done.

The majority of the other engines and nozzles in KSPI have already been updated to use the new effects system, however I don't see any of them using an actual stock engine module. 

I know that programming can cause things that look easy to be next to impossible, but I'm hoping that that is not the case here.

4

4

Programming is indeed not nessisarry, you can simply replace the ModuleEngines by an ModuleEnginesFX configuration. it's just a matter of finding an exhaust effect and configuring and it should work. The trick is finding the exhaust effect.

Edited January 8, 2019 by FreeThinker

[Brimarx]

On 1/6/2019 at 10:50 PM, FreeThinker said:

Thermal power generation realy is fusions weak point, they are better at fuel economy and high isp. For the best thermal power generators you either use nuclear, antimatter fusion, positron antimatter or of course nuclear salt water!

Clear. I've just upgraded my pebble-bed powered SSTO spaceplane with an Mk5 MTFR. And that's actually pretty decent. In-atmosphere thermal flight is inferior but still solid and VTOL is still possible. Vaccum flight is (surprisingly) significantly better with my ATTILA engines stabilizing at about +50% thrust. I'm guessing that's because heat management is easier than with a pebble-bed.

Thanks again for the amazing support!!! That mod is amazing

[Brimarx]

On 1/6/2019 at 10:50 PM, FreeThinker said:

[...] or of course nuclear salt water!

I would think that even Kerbals are not crazy enough for using NSWR on their planet

[FreeThinker]

4 hours ago, Brimarx said:

I would think that even Kerbals are not crazy enough for using NSWR on their planet

Yes and that why there are several safeguard from prevention you from doing it in or directed at their home planet

[ThePixeledFox]

ok this is driving me nuts all i am using is a LANTR and as we know it produces waste heat , on kerbin when i disengage the engine the waste heat drains out of the folding raidiators as it should ......... untill i cheat the craft into orbit for testing . Now the LANTR continues to start producing waste heat from nowhere even disengaging the engine , tried all radiators same thing , how is the engine magicaly producing waste heat for no reason the second i load it into orbit ? im going to try with hyper edit today and see if i get the same strange result , again thanks for this mod and i appreciate all the hard work .

edit ok after a few tests , seems no matter what reactor / engine / raidiators i try i start magically producing waste heat the second i go over 70k (vaccum)

tested this in stock orbit cheat and hyper edit and doing a traditional normal lifter launch to get it in orbit and test that way , same result , even tried using heat control to see if their raidiators made a difference , same result. however all tests done on kerbin surface show the waste heat and radiators working perfectly i dont see any errors in the console window,  seems no matter what i try or use i start magicaly producing waste heat the second i go over 70k is there somthing i can edit in a config to fix this perhaps ?

Edited January 12, 2019 by ThePixeledFox
testing

[Rover 6428]

I love this mod. Please could you only do 2 things to improve quality of life:

1) create a .txt file that thoroughly explains the mechanics of the mod (how to set up the Alcubierre Drive, how to make certain engines work etc.) that comes with the mod

2) Work on the textures (I am not sure this point is relevant since the mod updated since the last time I played)

Edited January 14, 2019 by Rover 6428

[SpaceMouse]

On 1/14/2019 at 3:20 PM, Rover 6428 said:

I love this mod. Please could you only do 2 things to improve quality of life:

1) create a .txt file that thoroughly explains the mechanics of the mod (how to set up the Alcubierre Drive, how to make certain engines work etc.) that comes with the mod

2) Work on the textures (I am not sure this point is relevant since the mod updated since the last time I played)

There are a bunch of tutorials on Youtube.
 

KSPi is a mishmash of many different authors work. Many of the older meshes are eventually getting replaced and/or updated but that's a long term process.

[Sweetie bot]

I Remember it have  Isp throttle For MIF engine ,  For now It been remove ?  again ?

[FreeThinker]

On 1/16/2019 at 7:57 AM, Sweetie bot said:

I Remember it have  Isp throttle For MIF engine ,  For now It been remove ?  again ?

The MIF is the first available fusion engine which is limited both propellant and isp range and requires an external power source to operate. On the plus site is cheap, light, available early and reasonable compact size (for a fusion engine).

Edited January 20, 2019 by FreeThinker

[Taki117]

Out of curiosity, how does this mod modify the stock tech tree? I've been playing with the Simplex Tech Tree (that uses stock nodes) and the KSPIE part of the Tech Tree doesn't seem to integrate at all. I see there are MM configs for Engineering Tech Tree and the Community Tech Tree and I was curious if I could take those, modify them a bit, and make them work with Simplex Tech Tree
 

 

[skygunner58203]

Just to ask.  Is this working still in 1.6.1?  I can downgrade if I need to, just wanted to check first.