KSP Interstellar Extended Continued Development Thread

[ss8913]

OK so guys I need your input on something. I created a "mod" (just alternate part configs) that add interstellar fuel switch capability (as separate parts with new names, but reusing existing textures/models to save memory) for the Mk2, Mk3, and OPT fuel tanks. This allows spaceplanes with much lower part counts and better framerates. And cleaner designs, IMO. I've tweaked the capacities and other variables to what I believe is a reasonable approximation (by comparing sizes of the parts), but input is appreciated on capacities, tech tree locations, part costs, etc as I've been testing pretty much exclusively in sandbox mode.

Freethinker - if you like this in whole or in part, I think it'd make a good addition to KSPIE, although it may introduce a dependency on OPT if you include the OPT configs - obviously those can be taken out if you wish. Here's a dropbox link - just put the IFSTanks/ folder into GameData and fire away. The new parts will have obvious names and be in the same category as their original counterparts, and use the same models and textures. https://www.dropbox.com/s/bfpdgvp8k1hi7nh/IFSTanks.zip?dl=0

[ABZB]

ss8913 said:

OK so guys I need your input on something. I created a "mod" (just alternate part configs) that add interstellar fuel switch capability (as separate parts with new names, but reusing existing textures/models to save memory) for the Mk2, Mk3, and OPT fuel tanks. This allows spaceplanes with much lower part counts and better framerates. And cleaner designs, IMO. I've tweaked the capacities and other variables to what I believe is a reasonable approximation (by comparing sizes of the parts), but input is appreciated on capacities, tech tree locations, part costs, etc as I've been testing pretty much exclusively in sandbox mode.

Freethinker - if you like this in whole or in part, I think it'd make a good addition to KSPIE, although it may introduce a dependency on OPT if you include the OPT configs - obviously those can be taken out if you wish. Here's a dropbox link - just put the IFSTanks/ folder into GameData and fire away. The new parts will have obvious names and be in the same category as their original counterparts, and use the same models and textures. https://www.dropbox.com/s/bfpdgvp8k1hi7nh/IFSTanks.zip?dl=0

errm... I have a patch that does that already MK2 KSPI Integration

Edited May 9, 2021 by Snark
Link to defunct website removed by moderator

[ss8913]

ABZB does yours do Mk3, OPT, and the couplers as well? Perhaps we should merge them - I think I'm handling more parts, but you may have more of the details correct?

Yeah, looking at your mod here.. looks like you and I have done some different yet complementary things here. We should merge them

Edited September 25, 2015 by ss8913

[ABZB]

ABZB does yours do Mk3, OPT, and the couplers as well? Perhaps we should merge them - I think I'm handling more parts, but you may have more of the details correct?

As of now, if MFT or RF is installed, it adds IFS with a laundry list of KSPI fuels to all parts with LiquidFuel. Otherwise, it adds it to every tank. It retains the LFO/LF/Monoprop options in that case. OPT is manipulated beforehand to fit with whatever is appropriate. I'll talk more Sunday, sundown is nearing.

[Nansuchao]

I tried the Dumbo reactor, and I have some weird behavior. First, when I launch a simple test ship with a probe, particle generator, Dumbo Reactor and TTJ, my frame rate drop by half, from 30 FPS at 15. I have a thrust of 430 more or less, but I thought that with 10.000 of Thermal Power it will be more powerful. I tried to change the generator, I had no Megajoules available, and the frame rate drop to 0 FPS.

With any other reactor, same configuration, I have no issues...

[Psitticine]

Yeah, I had a chance to go back to it and the slowdown I was having is definitely from adding a Thermal Electric Generator to the DUMBO.

[Shawarmakriger]

Might just be me, but I'm experiencing heavy lag when using the Closed Cycle Gas Core Engine along with the Thermal Electric Generator. Maybe they aren't supposed to work in tandem for electric power, but the game is pretty much unplayable for me using those two.

[FreeThinker]

I tried the Dumbo reactor, and I have some weird behavior. First, when I launch a simple test ship with a probe, particle generator, Dumbo Reactor and TTJ, my frame rate drop by half, from 30 FPS at 15. I have a thrust of 430 more or less, but I thought that with 10.000 of Thermal Power it will be more powerful. I tried to change the generator, I had no Megajoules available, and the frame rate drop to 0 FPS.

With any other reactor, same configuration, I have no issues...

mm, there must be something causing this. I'm testing with a fairly clean installation, in which this problem does not arise. What mods are you running? Also does he problem also occur with any other reactor? The DUMBO is similar to the NERVA and LightBump except from some Core tempt and power output settings. Also how exactly you measure the frame rate?

[Nansuchao]

With the KerboKatz utilities, FPS viewer. Just with the Dumbo, no issues with any other reactor. Now I'll try with the new engines.

EDIT: Well, that's weird. This time, no frame rate drop, but the same, no Megajoules available and Electric Charge slowly recharching. The same setup with a Dusty Plasma works fine, and also with AM reactor.

Also, in the VAB it says that DUMBO has 10.000 Thermal Power, but it's clearly 4.024. This test was made in sandobox.

Edited September 25, 2015 by Nansuchao

[FreeThinker]

The DUMBO cannot work with Charged Particles Electric Generator, it only produces very large quantities of thermal heat. The Dusy Plasma reactor on the other hand produces Charged Particles and can therefore work in this setup

Edited September 26, 2015 by FreeThinker

[Nansuchao]

Good to know. Thanks for the info.

[Ciliate]

I am running into an odd problem with the gas core reactor on my spaceplane using a thermal turbojet. I noticed I was getting very little thrust and was running out of thermal power very quickly, I found what could be the cause, the reactor was only operating at 10%.

So I’ve ran a few more tests (see picture), using most of the reactor types at 2.5m. I found that only the dumbo and normal molten salt reactors would operate at 100%, the rest never reached that level. Even stranger, the gas core and molten salt rector varied in power output, oscillated from 10-12%. I’ve used kspi for over a year but can’t figure out what could cause a reactor to stay at 10%. Also, the normal salt reactor produced more thermal power at 2.5m than the large salt reactor. Possible glitch?

Another point, I noticed different isp results from different thermal turbojets depending on the reactor, all using air as propellant. How might this effect a spaceplane or other craft?

On a final note, this is my first forum post, so I just like to say thank you Freethinker for maintaining this amazing mod, I’ve used it for a very long time and find it adds so much to the KSP experience. People like you add so much to video games.

Edited September 26, 2015 by Ciliate

[TomatoSoup]

I'm not able to change the propellant on my thermal rocket nozzle. Is there a higher tech required or a menu that I'm missing?

EDIT:

I dug into the cfg files and found that the other propellants require improved nuclear propulsion and advanced nuclear propulsion. That's what I get for not reading those first.

Edited September 26, 2015 by TomatoSoup

[SciMan]

@Ciliate:

Welcome to the forums!

Regarding the reactors, I only see fission reactors there. While fusion and antimatter are superior, if fission is all you have so far, here's what I've found usually works best.

The best fission reactor for electrical power production is the Dusty Plasma reactor (84% of its power is charged particles, and charged particle generator is more efficient than thermal generator).

This is also the ONLY fission reactor that can be used with the magnetic nozzle.

The best fission reactor for thermal power production (for thermal nozzles, etc) is the Pebble Bed reactor. High power/mass ratio makes this reactor ideal for early spaceplanes if you don't want to use the direct-cycle nuclear ramjet and/or NERVA/LANTR/DUMBO/Lightbulb engines.

The differing specific impulse is because different reactors have different core temperatures.

Generally speaking, the hotter the propellant gets, the faster it goes out the nozzle, which means higher specific impulse, and higher core temperatures allow the propellant to be heated to higher temperatures.

@FreeThinker, noticed in the Mk2 Expansion KSPI Integration patch thread that you were considering getting rid of LqdHelium storage in non-specific fuel tanks.

I'm okay with that. As you said, keeping He4 at a low enough temperature to prevent boil-off is a pain, even more so when the tank doesn't have insulation.

By comparison, LH2 is quite easy to store. And with even the smallest reactors having megawatts of power, keeping LH2 chilled is a piece of cake.

I still think LHe4 should be kept around as a propellant, but perhaps electric-only.

MPDTs can get really really good specific impulse using helium. (Atomic Rockets webstite)

Theoretical max ISP of 32,008 seconds according to the engine list at Atomic Rockets.

Edited September 26, 2015 by SciMan

[FreeThinker]

I am running into an odd problem with the gas core reactor on my spaceplane using a thermal turbojet. I noticed I was getting very little thrust and was running out of thermal power very quickly, I found what could be the cause, the reactor was only operating at 10%.

So I’ve ran a few more tests (see picture), using most of the reactor types at 2.5m. I found that only the dumbo and normal molten salt reactors would operate at 100%, the rest never reached that level. Even stranger, the gas core and molten salt rector varied in power output, oscillated from 10-12%. I’ve used kspi for over a year but can’t figure out what could cause a reactor to stay at 10%. Also, the normal salt reactor produced more thermal power at 2.5m than the large salt reactor. Possible glitch?

Another point, I noticed different isp results from different thermal turbojets depending on the reactor, all using air as propellant. How might this effect a spaceplane or other craft?

On a final note, this is my first forum post, so I just like to say thank you Freethinker for maintaining this amazing mod, I’ve used it for a very long time and find it adds so much to the KSP experience. People like you add so much to video games.

http://i.imgur.com/ENwYdiy.jpg

+1 for attempting to test the engines/reactors, however, your test setup/conditions are influencing your test results/conclusion. For one, you should have tested every engine separately, as the can officiate each-other or flood with so much thermal power, other engine might start take a nap.

The reason he Gascore reactor doesn't perform well is because it's internal vortex collapses due to Kerbin gravity. It can only operate well under low acceleration/gravity conditions.

Also the Ramjet doesn't start to show it's full power when traveling a high atmospheric speed. If it doesn't, it will only a fraction of it's full power

Edited September 26, 2015 by FreeThinker

[Psitticine]

A bit of additional info on the DUMBO/Thermal Generator issue I've been seeing: I started a fresh sandbox game with the same KSP installation and am seeing no problems. It is apparently something to do with my game-in-progress (a career game, if it matters) that is causing the issue. I also tried a fresh install, copied over my mod list via CKAN to keep things otherwise equal and got the same results: no problem with a new game but copying over my save folder and launching the old career manifests the game-killing slowdown and CPU spike. I even trying starting a new career game, editing the science and funds in the new save so I could get back to the same place in the science tree, and tried it again, still with no slowdown.

So, seems like anybody starting a fresh game won't see it but I think I'm out of luck for further DUMBO testing unless I can find some other element that's causing the issue.

[Ciliate]

"The reason he Gascore reactor doesn't perform well is because it's internal vortex collapses due to Kerbin gravity. It can only operate well under low acceleration/gravity conditions."

I never knew that! Glad to see I am still learning new quirks in this mod. Thanks FT and SciMan.

[FreeThinker]

A bit of additional info on the DUMBO/Thermal Generator issue I've been seeing: I started a fresh sandbox game with the same KSP installation and am seeing no problems. It is apparently something to do with my game-in-progress (a career game, if it matters) that is causing the issue. I also tried a fresh install, copied over my mod list via CKAN to keep things otherwise equal and got the same results: no problem with a new game but copying over my save folder and launching the old career manifests the game-killing slowdown and CPU spike. I even trying starting a new career game, editing the science and funds in the new save so I could get back to the same place in the science tree, and tried it again, still with no slowdown.

So, seems like anybody starting a fresh game won't see it but I think I'm out of luck for further DUMBO testing unless I can find some other element that's causing the issue.

Well the low performance, could be partially be explained by the heavy debugging code this version contained, but it should not slow down your system to a crawl. In my experience, most slow down occur due to exceptions in mods. Usually these exception are visible in the log, but the exceptions might also have swallowed by the mod resulting in no log messages but performance will still slow to a crawl.

[Psitticine]

I was rather expecting it to be a mod conflict of some sort as well. What surprised me was being able to start a new game with all the same mods and not having any performance hit. Very odd, but hopefully something that will not reappear in any future games.

[FreeThinker]

Question, how many vessels were loaded? If you have several vessels parked nearby Kerbal Space Center, they will affect the performance any vessel that is being launched. Also any vessel and debris will effect overal performance. I can imagine, If you don't clean up your waste, it can accumulate to the point it start to degrade overall performance.

Edited September 26, 2015 by FreeThinker

[Psitticine]

There isn't anything on the ground or within 80 km, which is the lowest I have anything orbiting Kerbin at the moment. There are 22 active flights in total, including 2 space stations, a few probes on their way to various destinations, a returned Duna mission hanging in orbit while its data decays into science, and a bunch of comm sats here and there. No debris at the moment. I tend to clean it up ASAP. In terms of actually being loaded in, I think the slow-down vehicle would have been the only one. Things also run fine with any other combo I've tried so far, or if I forget the radiators and the generator shuts off. It seems to be something in that connection.

Another question while I'm at it - what kind of thrust should I expect from a magnetic nozzle attached to a dusty plasma reactor? I'm getting about 10kN in vacuum, which might be accurate considering the really high ISP it is producing, but I'm also getting a wildly higher reported thrust from KER while in the VAB, more in line with what I would expect from a thermal nozzle but with better ISP. I suspect that's just KER's issue but I thought I would check. I should mention my generator on that vessel is a charged particle generator, but it appears from the nozzle's right-click stats that it is getting all the particles it can consume.

[ss8913]

I think Ciliate is onto something with the thermal turbojets. As you know, I pretty much use those things (with antimatter reactors) on almost every craft I build - something has definitely changed in their behavior since the last patch. It seems to only affect things when running in Atmospheric mode - if I kick it over to hydrazine everything is fine. However in atmospheric mode:

1. They seem to have their overall thrust cut by 50% or more.

2. They seem to have a lot more throttle lag than they used to.

3. The same thrust that will produce a stable hover at 2000m altitude will not hold altitude at all within a couple hundred meters of the ground (this puzzles me. Was coming in for a vertical landing in a VTOL spaceplane that worked great before this patch - had to add 2 more VTOL engines to even get it off the ground now, and when I'm near the ground the thrust from each engine fluctuates fairly noticably for no apparent reason - yes I had TCA turned OFF at the time, although the behavior happens regardless of TCA's state). Anyway, 2/3 throttle seemed to be holding fairly steady in atmosphere for level flight.. got over the island runway, reduced throttle for about a -5 m/s descent.. descent rate started increasing as I got closer to the ground.. increased throttle all the way to 100% but the descent rate kept increasing until I hit the ground at 30 m/s - I really really am puzzled by what might even possibly be going on here.

4. Diazo's vertical velocity control mod (which has not updated in a while, and which worked fine for controlling vertical speed before the latest KSPIE patch) can now only do so in closed cycle mode. On atmospheric it seems to think it needs about 1/3 the thrust that it actually does - making me think the TTJ is incorrectly reporting some value upstream into the API.

Again this was a design that was tested extensively prior to the latest update. This plane would go from the Administration helipad to Duna and back, landing vertically in all phases.

Also ABZB - I like your fuel mod. I see what you were doing with it - you might want to rename it though as it leads one to believe it only works with mk2 stuff when in fact it's fairly universal. I withdraw my previous mod and will use yours instead. Thanks for doing that

[The Pav]

I've encountered an odd behaviour which may be a bug using the open cycle gas core reactor with a thermal nozzle. I designed a vessel using this in sandbox before I had the requisite technology in my career game. In sandbox I had the maximum upgraded version of course. In my career game I have finally unlocked all required technologies including experimental rocketry and fusion rocketry for the reactor upgrades but in career, the same craft still has significantly less DV. It never improved with upgraded tech. It's not an existing craft. These are values in the VAB, verified by launching. It's the same craft file with the same amount and type of all resources. I've even removed the reactor in the vab and replaced with a new one in case it was an update problem with an existing part but that wasn't the case. I'm just not getting upgraded reactor values in career.

Here is the vessel in Sandbox mode with maximum upgrade.

Here is the same craft file pasted into the career game followed by a screenshot of the techtree for that career. It should be fully upgraded according to the information here.

[ABZB]

Also ABZB - I like your fuel mod. I see what you were doing with it - you might want to rename it though as it leads one to believe it only works with mk2 stuff when in fact it's fairly universal. I withdraw my previous mod and will use yours instead. Thanks for doing that

Thanks! That's a good point. When I release my next update, I am going to deprecate the current KerbalStuff page, and start a new name

Edited September 27, 2015 by ABZB

[ABZB]

I have found and noted discrepancies between some CRP resource densities and the RW resource densities. see here https://www.dropbox.com/s/daluvv84ig1z0u7/resource%20density%20discrepancies.xls?dl=0

any ideas on why those densities that are wildly off are set like that? If they are correct within CRP, then the volumes of the relevant IFS tanks should be adjusted accordingly to compensate...

some are obvious - like He-3 density is about 1/3 that of he-4, but CRP just has the He4 density for both.