KSP Interstellar Extended Continued Development Thread

[armegeddon]

9 hours ago, FreeThinker said:

I can see there is to be a problem with procedural parts in your install. At least that the first exception I can see in the log.

 

That NRE from procedural parts doesn't actually appear to affect anything. It is mentioned in the mod thread and noone has noticed a problem from it.

Anyways, I went through and tested from a clean install, installing a few mods at a time trying to see what was causing the problem. (With over a 120 mods that takes a while)

Eventually I had everything put back in and still didn't get the error using a simple ship and a pair of the nuclear turbojets.  Loaded up the ship that was causing the problem before (now that I had all the parts installed) and launched it with no problem.  Thinking over if anything was different from this time to when I did it before, I realized there were two things that I didn't do during launch this time; activate Pilot Assist to keep me straight on the runway (it's a heavy ship and tends to drift a little), and activate PWB Fuel Balancer to keep my CoM close to where I am able to fly.  Decided to activate PWB on the next launch and game crashed 30 seconds into launch.  Tried it again, but this time I did not activate fuel balancing until in the air and it worked fine until the craft became too unstable at low altitude and too high speed and fell apart.  For some reason when the Nuclear Turbojet is on a ship that PWB is balancing it causes something to go haywire while on the ground.

Also noticed during my troubleshooting that, from a clean KSP install, putting only Exception Detector and KSPI-E with its dependencies from CKAN results in continuous exceptions when using the Nuclear Turbojet in the SPH. The error is:

NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object
  at FXModuleAnimateThrottle.FixedUpdate () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 

These continue to pile up the entire time the engine is in the editor, even when not placed on a ship. Just selecting it causes them.  They do not occur when the craft is on the runway though.  Did not check if it also occured from other KSPI-E engines since I was just focused on the turbojet.

 

Another thing I noticed. My big spaceplane has an Omega reactor (I'm using the SETI mods, so the names are different from the base) in 3.75m scale powering a 3.75m large electric generator and a 2.5m Vasmir engine. I decided to try adding thermal turbojets to it, so mirrored a pair of 1.25m Omega reactors and placed the thermal turbojets on them. Each engine ended up with different thrust, over 1kN difference between them. Tried placing them on the small reactors without mirroring and still had different thrusts.  How are the thrusts being figured for the engines.  If I removed the small reactors and stuck the jets on the large reactor they had identical, if huge, thrust (over 10kN each at 1.875m scale)

Also, rescaling with large reactor causes the indicated thrust to go way out of wack. Reloading the craft, or just exiting to space center and returning puts them back to where they should be, but they change again if rescaled any more.  If this a problem from tweakscale, or just stock not handling resizing very well?

 

[etheoma]

Having a problem with the charged particle electric generator, it will expand back to 2.5m when I quick load or revert flight which the revert flight isn't that bad because I can always revert to SPH or VAB. But the Quick Load is a problem.



Edit; looks like it only occurs when the part is the Root part, probably a bug in Tweekscales. 

Edited February 6, 2016 by etheoma
problem found

[EnigmaG]

Yes is a known  TS bug, best use an unscaled part as root.

@armegeddon: If the thrust is different you presumably have to little intake air.

Left picture 8 intakes, right 3intakes

 

PS: I have found a way to apply Interstellar Fuel Switch to the stock ore tanks (Eni) to solve the lack of aluminastore.  Would like to use the stock drills to mining it, but i only was able to use it for water on kerbin.

 

Edited February 6, 2016 by EnigmaG

[SympathiqueX]

Is there anyway i can activate the DT Vista engine in the atmosphere? I assume i could modify the cfg files but i can't seem to figure out which line/file. 

 

[EnigmaG]

13 hours ago, SympathiqueX said:

Is there anyway i can activate the DT Vista engine in the atmosphere? I assume i could modify the cfg files but i can't seem to figure out which line/file. 

 

\Kerbal Space Program\GameData\WarpPlugin\Parts\Engines\vista\part.cfg

maxAtmosphereDensity = 1000.000

 

[ABZB]

I have both a small fission & a Fusion reactor on my vessel. When I use the thermal turbojet, the fusion reactor 'spools up' to provide power. However, when I switch to the plasma thruster, the fusion reactor goes completely inactive (it's power requirement is fulfilled by the fission reactor), and the only power for the plasma thruster comes from what's left over...

 

Any ideas on why this is happening to me/how I can fix it?

[FreeThinker]

Version 1.6.3 for Kerbal Space Program 1.0.5

Released on 2016-02-07

• Overhauled Alcubierre Warp Drive Mechanics. There are now fixed speed gears ranging for 0.01 to 100 times the Speed of light. Weather you can achieve these speed depends on available Warp drive power and Available electric power. Also note you need a minimum Warp Power to Mass ratio of 1 to Jump to Warp light speed.
• Increased Mass of all Alcubierre Drives
• Updated CRP to 0.4.9

Edited February 7, 2016 by FreeThinker

[FreeThinker]

13 minutes ago, ABZB said:

I have both a small fission & a Fusion reactor on my vessel. When I use the thermal turbojet, the fusion reactor 'spools up' to provide power. However, when I switch to the plasma thruster, the fusion reactor goes completely inactive (it's power requirement is fulfilled by the fission reactor), and the only power for the plasma thruster comes from what's left over...

 

Any ideas on why this is happening to me/how I can fix it?

Well basically the reason this happens is that the fussion reaction is nearer to the root element in the ship. Technically If switch the heat part to your tail, or switch the order of reactor, I would expect KSPI to first use  the fission reactor instead of of the fusion.

[EnigmaG]

3 hours ago, FreeThinker said:

Version 1.6.3 for Kerbal Space Program 1.0.5

Two problems:

1. No data in VAB/SPH

2. After start charging once, the next time start charging always results in "Not enough MW...." till i go to space center and back.

 

 

 

[FreeThinker]

Good find, I will fix it ASAP

Edited February 7, 2016 by FreeThinker

[EnigmaG]

Thank you. No hurry, point 2 i don´t get when i build a simple arrangement. No idea what causes it.

Edited February 7, 2016 by EnigmaG

[FreeThinker]

Most likely it is caused by a slightly larger buffer. But how does it perform?

[EnigmaG]

So far fine.

[ss8913]

Thanks for the alcubierre update!  When you say "increased mass".. how much?  I have a lot of spaceplanes that use the folding drives, this could wreak havoc with their balance.  Unless it's not that much of an increase.

OK, I'm super confused how this works... I upgrade the alcubierre drive, so I have a power-to-mass of just over 1.5 on my ship.  I have a 3.75m antimatter reactor and a 3.75m charged particle generator, with a 3.75m folding alcubierre drive on this thing.  I charge it up, it charges up, and then right before I can hit activate, it says "not enough MW power to maintain a stable warp field" and I have to try again, and it does the same thing again.  the Megajoule power manager says that my reactor has a max output of 280.3 GW, it's "currently" producing like 263 GW, but the drive is drawing 280.3 GW.. that's during charging.  then 3 seconds after it charges it goes poof.

Also, clicking "reduce warp power" seems to have no effect except to.. raise my warp throttle.  if I put my warp throttle back down to where it was, the required power goes *back up* - however it's unclear as to what the 'required power' and 'current power' are used for, or what units they're in.

So, I was able to do some jumps... then I had to launch a new craft to scan Laythe;  I warped to Jool's SOI at 2.5c - managed to get it charged, got there, stopped.  pointed at Laythe, set warp throttle to 0.04c and hit 'start charging' - "not enough MW power for a stable warp field" - plenty of power, antimatter reactor/generator rated at 280.3GW just like when I charged it for a 2.5c jump - not out of antimatter either... what's going on here?  How do I know what the MW requirements are?  right-clicking the warp drive shows me numbers that are all far far lower than my reactor's power output, so, am I missing something?

Edited February 8, 2016 by ss8913
updated with power issue

[etheoma]

Ok I'm just going to put this out there the weight of Fusion reactors is a little excessive, the power that they produce is also a little excessive so from a game balance point of view you could look at it as balance but its not really, but that's not really my area of expertise.

Now why do I say the fusion reactors are excessively heavy; well see fusion needs space to happen, less space the less reaction will happen exponentially so miniaturization must be in the machinery not the space in which the reaction will happen, which space is rather light.

So I get the magnetic confinement reactor being heaver for the same size than the inertial confinement reactor, but the fission reactors should be significantly heavier than the fusion reactors, as fission while it does have a decrease energy output for the area it is not as large as fusion would be or, is as you don't need to push as hard to get fissionable materials to go critical as you do for fusion; where you have to overcome the EM force keeping atoms apart and you have to rely on quantum tunnelling to get that done for the most part. that's how strong the electromagnetic force is down on the atomic level.

With Fission all you need to do is hit the atom with a neutron which is neither positively or negatively charged so it is not effected by the magnetic field of the atom which is to be fissioned, so you don't need as much area for the reaction to happen and the relation to area almost liner compared to fusion, it's not but in comparison it is.

I think FreeThinkers motive behind his alterations were to make it more realistic if its for game play then I think its a little counter productive and decreasing thrust would be a better option but in that area FreeThinker is allowed more artistic freedom as if it's just a game play mechanic then he can make up what ever he likes but if he is trying to move it to be more realistic then he is moving in the wrong direction.

Edited February 8, 2016 by etheoma

[FreeThinker]

Being able to produce the power is not the same as delivering enough electric power. There might be other systems competing for the electric MW power, causing your remaining power to be reduced. Also note that if you use thermal power generators,  excessive wasteheat, can oversaturate they radiators  therefore reduce power generators efficiency.

Edited February 8, 2016 by FreeThinker

[ss8913]

3 minutes ago, FreeThinker said:

Being able to produce the power is not the same as delivering enough electric power. There might be other systems competing for the electric MW power, causing your remaining power to be reduced. Also note that if you use thermal power generators, to to excessive wasteheat, they radiators can oversaturate and reduce power generators efficiency.

how am I supposed to know, though?  the warp drive itself is giving me numbers but not any units of measure; not sure which is important, and either way none of the numbers are anywhere near the reactor's output.  It seems like it's drawing the exact maximum output of the reactor, which due to loss reasons, you can't deliver all of... but it's asking for the exact maximum of the reactor output no matter which reactor is in there.  Please help me understand what I need to do differently here; these are all designs that worked 100% with the old system.

If I use the megajoule power helper thing, it shows the warp drive and the DC electrical system as the only draws.

Edited February 8, 2016 by ss8913

[FreeThinker]

7 hours ago, ss8913 said:

Thanks for the alcubierre update!  When you say "increased mass".. how much?  I have a lot of spaceplanes that use the folding drives, this could wreak havoc with their balance.  Unless it's not that much of an increase.

OK, I'm super confused how this works... I upgrade the alcubierre drive, so I have a power-to-mass of just over 1.5 on my ship.  I have a 3.75m antimatter reactor and a 3.75m charged particle generator, with a 3.75m folding alcubierre drive on this thing.  I charge it up, it charges up, and then right before I can hit activate, it says "not enough MW power to maintain a stable warp field" and I have to try again, and it does the same thing again.  the Megajoule power manager says that my reactor has a max output of 280.3 GW, it's "currently" producing like 263 GW, but the drive is drawing 280.3 GW.. that's during charging.  then 3 seconds after it charges it goes poof.

Also, clicking "reduce warp power" seems to have no effect except to.. raise my warp throttle.  if I put my warp throttle back down to where it was, the required power goes *back up* - however it's unclear as to what the 'required power' and 'current power' are used for, or what units they're in.

So, I was able to do some jumps... then I had to launch a new craft to scan Laythe;  I warped to Jool's SOI at 2.5c - managed to get it charged, got there, stopped.  pointed at Laythe, set warp throttle to 0.04c and hit 'start charging' - "not enough MW power for a stable warp field" - plenty of power, antimatter reactor/generator rated at 280.3GW just like when I charged it for a 2.5c jump - not out of antimatter either... what's going on here?  How do I know what the MW requirements are?  right-clicking the warp drive shows me numbers that are all far far lower than my reactor's power output, so, am I missing something?

Being able to produce the power is not the same as delivering enough electric power. There might be other systems competing for the electric MW power, causing your remaining power to be reduced. Also note that if you use thermal power generators,  excessive wasteheat, can oversaturate the radiators  therefore reduce power generators efficiency.

4 hours ago, etheoma said:

Ok I'm just going to put this out there the weight of Fusion reactors is a little excessive, the power that they produce is also a little excessive so from a game balance point of view you could look at it as balance but its not really, but that's not really my area of expertise.

Now why do I say the fusion reactors are excessively heavy; well see fusion needs space to happen, less space the less reaction will happen exponentially so miniaturization must be in the machinery not the space in which the reaction will happen, which space is rather light.

So I get the magnetic confinement reactor being heaver for the same size than the inertial confinement reactor, but the fission reactors should be significantly heavier than the fusion reactors, as fission while it does have a decrease energy output for the area it is not as large as fusion would be or, is as you don't need to push as hard to get fissionable materials to go critical as you do for fusion; where you have to overcome the EM force keeping atoms apart and you have to rely on quantum tunnelling to get that done for the most part. that's how strong the electromagnetic force is down on the atomic level.

With Fission all you need to do is hit the atom with a neutron which is neither positively or negatively charged so it is not effected by the magnetic field of the atom which is to be fissioned, so you don't need as much area for the reaction to happen and the relation to area almost liner compared to fusion, it's not but in comparison it is.

I think FreeThinkers motive behind his alterations were to make it more realistic if its for game play then I think its a little counter productive and decreasing thrust would be a better option but in that area FreeThinker is allowed more artistic freedom as if it's just a game play mechanic then he can make up what ever he likes but if he is trying to move it to be more realistic then he is moving in the wrong direction.

The main reason was gameplay, but that that was before I learned myself the intricacies of fusion.

Edited February 8, 2016 by FreeThinker

[ss8913]

I think the biggest problem I'm having is that I can do exactly one jump with the alcubierre drive, and then it refuses to charge again with any settings after that.  Why is that?  That doesn't seem right?  I'm .. stranded at Duna with no way to warp home.  The power output of the reactor hasn't changed since I charged it to get here...?  Just says can't create a stable warp field due to MW power as soon as I click 'start charging.'  Update: have tried this with several craft now; my original issue can be solved by simply adding more reactors - the "one jump and you're done" problem, however, cannot.  Doesn't matter how many reactors I have.. can do one jump fine, then it will no longer charge, with no changes to anything - even if I try a lower power jump at a lower speed to go home, I get the same 'cannot create a stable warp field due to MW power' error.

Edited February 8, 2016 by ss8913

[FreeThinker]

16 minutes ago, ss8913 said:

I think the biggest problem I'm having is that I can do exactly one jump with the alcubierre drive, and then it refuses to charge again with any settings after that.  Why is that?  That doesn't seem right?  I'm .. stranded at Duna with no way to warp home.  The power output of the reactor hasn't changed since I charged it to get here...?  Just says can't create a stable warp field due to MW power as soon as I click 'start charging.'

Even after reloading/ switching to space center and back?

[ss8913]

1 hour ago, FreeThinker said:

Even after reloading/ switching to space center and back?

er... slightly embarrassed here; didn't try that.  Will let you know.

[FreeThinker]

15 minutes ago, ss8913 said:

er... slightly embarrassed here; didn't try that.  Will let you know.

I already know why this is a problem. It's one of the timeout variables which isn't preperly reset after starting charging.  Next version should fix that

[EnigmaG]

9 minutes ago, ss8913 said:

er... slightly embarrassed here; didn't try that.  Will let you know.

1. All ignore me

2. Warp is now stable at 1c, more or less you need more power, not for charging there you need min the power for 1c and use what you get. Also you don´t heave to stop for changing speed

[FreeThinker]

7 hours ago, etheoma said:

Ok I'm just going to put this out there the weight of Fusion reactors is a little excessive, the power that they produce is also a little excessive so from a game balance point of view you could look at it as balance but its not really, but that's not really my area of expertise.

Now why do I say the fusion reactors are excessively heavy; well see fusion needs space to happen, less space the less reaction will happen exponentially so miniaturization must be in the machinery not the space in which the reaction will happen, which space is rather light.

So I get the magnetic confinement reactor being heaver for the same size than the inertial confinement reactor, but the fission reactors should be significantly heavier than the fusion reactors, as fission while it does have a decrease energy output for the area it is not as large as fusion would be or, is as you don't need to push as hard to get fissionable materials to go critical as you do for fusion; where you have to overcome the EM force keeping atoms apart and you have to rely on quantum tunnelling to get that done for the most part. that's how strong the electromagnetic force is down on the atomic level.

With Fission all you need to do is hit the atom with a neutron which is neither positively or negatively charged so it is not effected by the magnetic field of the atom which is to be fissioned, so you don't need as much area for the reaction to happen and the relation to area almost liner compared to fusion, it's not but in comparison it is.

I think FreeThinkers motive behind his alterations were to make it more realistic if its for game play then I think its a little counter productive and decreasing thrust would be a better option but in that area FreeThinker is allowed more artistic freedom as if it's just a game play mechanic then he can make up what ever he likes but if he is trying to move it to be more realistic then he is moving in the wrong direction.

I'm grad you brought up this issue. I agree with your analisis in general. Fusion reactors indeed are too Power dence for the space they occupy. Originaly, KSPI Fusion was positioned as a superior engine above, fission reactors, but in reality this is not the case. The big advantage of Fusion Power is their ability to efficiently generate charged particle with relatively little to no radiactive waste with low resource cost. When it comes to raw power, fission power is potentialy much stronger due to the higher power densities. Fortunatly change is in the air, CTT now allows more technodes for Nuclear technology. This is great as it allows me the differntiate fission and fusion technology better. As one of the first steps, I intend to decreate the mass and power of the magnetic confiement fusion reactor, thereby reduce their power density.

Edited February 8, 2016 by FreeThinker

[ss8913]

1 hour ago, FreeThinker said:

I already know why this is a problem. It's one of the timeout variables which isn't preperly reset after starting charging.  Next version should fix that

That is good; going to the space center and back does fix it.  I was wrong however earlier; if I don't activate the thing right after it's done charging, within a few seconds it'll say "not enough MW power for stable warp field,"  dump all the charge, and I have to re-charge it again which requires a flip back to the space center.
It also seems that the warp drives require a lot more power/have more limitations than they used to; was that the intent?  I have a couple of craft that still work, but I need to re-design about 75% of my ships now to work with the new system; not necessarily a bad thing, if that is what was intended