KSP Interstellar Extended Continued Development Thread

[FreeThinker]

Exactly how did you test and measure? Did you also tried previous versions? Does it occur in sandbox?

- - - Updated - - -

MAJOR BUG REPORT: Fuel flow of thermal turbojet is capped at 1.0U. That means atmospheric thrust of 2m pebble bed reactor mk2 is the same as 5m version. This is also problematic for different reactors but for pebble, its game-breaking.

http://i.imgur.com/VgYsgb7.jpg

Yes, I need to remove that limitation

Edited September 30, 2015 by FreeThinker

[davidy12]

Can you make a config without realfuels?

[Nansuchao]

Can you make a config without realfuels?

Interstellar Extended doesn't use the mod RealFuels.

Btw, if you intend the various propellant, just remember that almost every engine works also with LiquidFuel/Oxidizer. In other cases, like the Vista engines, you just need to change the .cfg

[Aghanim]

I have go several months without playing KSP with KSPI, and it seems that now thermal turbojets are replaced by several other nuclear jets. So, is it still possible in the latest version of KSPI to build a fusion-powered jet SSTO?

[Profit-]

And now to more happy things... My Career mode after mod cleaning and sprucing up, and I launched one of my corner stone pieces: My Anti-Matter Station to refuel small probes at (it will hold about 1.3Kg of AM). Oh, thank you freethinker for unlocking the radiator scaling a bit more. =)

[Profit-]

I have go several months without playing KSP with KSPI, and it seems that now thermal turbojets are replaced by several other nuclear jets. So, is it still possible in the latest version of KSPI to build a fusion-powered jet SSTO?

Yes. Easily. You can even go SSTO from the VAB. ATILLA (Underused IMHO for heavy lifts) or if you are fully upgraded the MHD (With MHD you should probably be using a Microwave receiver as a booster) . Either of those with a airscoop gathering nitrogen will get you to space with nearly full tanks and depending on your setup, up to 30,000 M/s Delta V

You can also do it with thermal turbojets still as well....

Here is an atilla with 1 level of upgrade on the fusion (so you can use P-Boron fusion) I start the nitrogen tank empty and it is actually gaining fuel at this moment (I turned off the scoops to make this launch faster with less weight so the tank is not full)

Edited September 30, 2015 by Profit-

[davidy12]

Where do I get rid of waste Heat? It just that it hinders my surface bases and I don't want a radiator on the surface.

[SciMan]

Why does the plasma thruster max out at ~4700s ISP for Hydrazine while thermal thrusters get ~9700?

If I'm using Hydrogen, the Thermal thruster is limited to 10,000s ISP, but the electric thruster gets ~11,000s ISP.

In both cases, I'm using an antimatter reactor to power the thruster.

Shouldn't the thermal thruster always be at a disadvantage regarding ISP?

Another issue I have with plasma thrusters (possibly all electric engines) is that they're not good at sharing power if there's not enough power to feed all the thrusters.

Example:

Say your ship's reactors can produce a maximum of 75GW.

Your ship has 4 plasma thrusters that can each consume up to 25GW each (total 100GW).

This means that your ships reactors can only supply 75% of the power that all the thrusters need.

The expected behavior at full throttle is each plasma thruster will operate at 75% of full thrust, consuming 18.75GW each (total 75GW).

The observed behavior at full throttle is 3 plasma thrusters will operate at 100% of full thrust, and the 4th one will not produce ANY thrust (total 75GW).

Up to 75% throttle, there is no problem. However, above 75% 3 of the thrusters will start hogging all the power away from the 4th one.

This results in a very imbalanced thrust, usually enough to cause the ship to spin out of control.

As far as I know this is an old bug.

If I had to guess at the reason it does this, it would seem that it's using a "First come, first served" approach when it should be using a "equal distribution" approach

In other words, the way that would work right would be something like:

thruster power consumption = throttle position * (Ship total power generation capacity/ number of engines).

Of course this only works right if there's only one type of engine on the ship.

If there's multiple types of engines, you'd have to figure out how much power the whole ship will consume, as well as how much power all of each type of engine can consume, then distribute power proportionately to each type of engine (along with the above calculation).

It does start to get rather involved, but at least it's still all basic math and not calculus or anything like that.

Where do I get rid of waste Heat? It just that it hinders my surface bases and I don't want a radiator on the surface.

Radiators are the only way to get rid of waste heat. If you have a relatively small amount of waste heat accumulating, you can use a very small radiator or even one of the stock radiators, but you're going to need SOME kind of radiator.

Edited September 30, 2015 by SciMan

[ss8913]

Freethinker - now that ABZB has updated the Mk2 integration and I can start KSP again, I can tell you that the TTJ issues are "mostly fixed". What remains?

1. Plane that used to get off the ground easily (VTOL, in vertical takeoff mode) with 1 1.25m TTJ in atmospheric mode at less than 50% throttle now requires three at full throttle (each with its own antimatter reactor). Weight increase doing this was ~20t but it just BARELY gets off the ground after ~20 seconds at 100% throttle.

2. Diazo's vertical velocity control mod is not able to handle these engines in atmospheric mode *at all*. It seems to think that +5.00m/s vertical velocity can be achieved at about 45% throttle - eerily similar to how much throttle was required with the previous version of KSPIE - but it doesn't get off the ground. It works fine in closed cycle (hydrazine) mode, just not in atmospheric. I think the thrust values from the TTJ are being incorrectly reported(?) or something. This mod has not been updated in months, and it worked really really well with your engines before the last update to the TTJ itself.

[Thorbane]

Is anyone else getting large amounts of lag in the VAB when attaching things like radiators, arcjet-RCS, reactors and engines? The game also lags when switching fuel mode on engines, which is a pain when there's so many propellants to switch through.

[SciMan]

Why is it that the TTJ nozzle has to have its behavior change so radically in the first place?

Sure it acts like a turbojet AND a ramjet, but that just means that it acts like a turbojet, until it's going so fast that it acts like a ramjet.

It doesn't mean that it has next to no static thrust for a HUGE power input (like an antimatter reactor).

The TTJ's used to be essentially a thermally-powered J-58 (SR-71 engine, turbo-ramjet) that could be upgraded to act as a rocket engine as well.

And it didn't have any really bad habits unless you just didn't have enough power for it.

I noticed that all this trouble started when the self-contained nuclear thermal turbo-ramjet engine was introduced.

Attempts to balance its performance appear to be impacting the balance of the TTJ nozzle as well.

The self-contained nuclear thermal turbo-ramjet engine and the TTJ nozzle "engine" should NOT have their performance numbers linked.

To be clear, the performance of the TTJ nozzle sucks because it is limited to similar performance as the self-contained nuclear thermal turbo-ramjet engine.

I would think that the best way to solve this is to make the two engines use different atmosphere curves and speed curves.

If that's done, the TTJ nozzle should be returned to it's old performance.

It wasn't overpowered then, and it's severely underpowered now.

If it is considered overpowered, an antimatter thermal turbojet is only overpowered because it's using a tank cannon (antimatter reactor) to swat a fly (atmospheric propulsion). Not overpowered period, just overpowered for that specific application.

EDIT to avoid double posting:

Is anyone else getting large amounts of lag in the VAB when attaching things like radiators, arcjet-RCS, reactors and engines? The game also lags when switching fuel mode on engines, which is a pain when there's so many propellants to switch through.

Yeah, getting that here as well. Been getting it with the Plasma Thruster for several updates now. Not sure what's causing it, to be honest.

KSPI-E is pretty heavy on the code side of things, perhaps it's just because it's got so many things to initialize?

If it's not that, there's a lot of CPU-heavy code being used, and it might have to call a bunch of "slow" instructions all at once.

To be honest, I'd say that there's a lot of things that "might" be able to be optimized in the code for this mod, but I'd have to be a better coder than FreeThinker to know for sure. Because I'm not, this isn't much more than logic-backed baseless speculation. There's still more than a thousand ways I could be wrong about this stuff.

Edited October 1, 2015 by SciMan

[Profit-]

Is anyone else getting large amounts of lag in the VAB when attaching things like radiators, arcjet-RCS, reactors and engines? The game also lags when switching fuel mode on engines, which is a pain when there's so many propellants to switch through.

I have always had lag in the VAB with radiators and certain engines.

[FreeThinker]

I'm pretty sure the lag isn't caused by KSPI but by other mods that do extensive calculations and vessel, analysis like FAR, Mechjeb, or other tools. What I have these tools installed, I often notice slow down as well.But without them installed, no sow down at all. Also note the actually amount of code execute in the VAB is very little (less than 1%), especially for radiators. But radiators due to their dimensions and shape could have a big impact in airflow ....

Edited October 1, 2015 by FreeThinker

[Cosmonauth]

@Freethinker

I don't want to be annoying, but it still no response for career mode problem:

Any radiator with Thermal Generator + Reactor combo - causes a huge FPS drop during flight. I've upgraded generator to Solid state one, radiators upgraded too but nothing changed. FPS drops to 1 per 5 sec.

So for me, KSPIE is unplayable in career mode at all. In sandbox mode all running smooth and fine. This issue was present in 1.5.7 version, and is present in 1.5.8 as well. If you need more information to reproduce this issue, please let me know. I'm checking this thread few times per day, since I can't play KSP no more

[Profit-]

@Freethinker

I don't want to be annoying, but it still no response for career mode problem:

Any radiator with Thermal Generator + Reactor combo - causes a huge FPS drop during flight. I've upgraded generator to Solid state one, radiators upgraded too but nothing changed. FPS drops to 1 per 5 sec.

So for me, KSPIE is unplayable in career mode at all. In sandbox mode all running smooth and fine. This issue was present in 1.5.7 version, and is present in 1.5.8 as well. If you need more information to reproduce this issue, please let me know. I'm checking this thread few times per day, since I can't play KSP no more

I dont have that (as far as I know) so...

Lets start by comparing mods.

I have :

Tweakscale

KAS

KIS

MechJeb

KSPI-E (obviously)

Kerbal Alarm Clock

What are your mods?

(I also cleaned up my module manager files, I only kept 1.6.8)

can you also post a copy of your save file (persistant.sfs) so we can peek in it?

@freethinker:

Can we have a minor tweak, allow the science labs to hold 5000 data so we can process the results from the supercolliders?

On a side note, My Anti-Matter expedition was successful and I have a over a Kilogram of the stuff for any nefarious purposes. (although this ship has a lot of issues I have found out)

Edited October 1, 2015 by Profit-

[wolfman29]

I'm also getting tons of lag in science mode. Using HyperEdit to move a TRN + reactor/generator/radiator combo to Kerbin orbit to do some tests, and I'm getting about one frame every few seconds. My mod list isn't too extensive, either. The game only seems to lag when I use several KSPI-E parts. This common to other people's games?

So in further testing, if I don't include the radiator/generator, I get (close to) no lag. In a final test, I tried it with the generator but without the radiators, and again, close to no lag. It has to be the radiators, which makes me wonder - why is it so hard to do that calculation? It's a single line of code that it has to execute to calculate the amount of energy to radiate. What makes it lag so hard?

EDIT: I can also confirm that, in sandbox (instead of in science) mode, it is lag-free.

Edited October 1, 2015 by wolfman29

[Cosmonauth]

Well, I have alot of mods, but all those mods were installed before, and there were no such problem. My GameData folder has almost 80 entries, so it would be a big list

As it said before, huge FPS drop appears with Reactor+Thermal Generator+Radiator setup. Part count doesn't matter, even 4-5 parts craft causes game to lag

When no radiators present, Generator wont start, and FPS is fine, so it hard to assume who's guilty: radiators or generator.

And once again: Game runs fine with same mods, same craft in Sandbox, so this is only Career Mode issue.

UPDATE: I did some tests in my career, to reproduce FPS drop

I made test-rig with probe core and some radiators. When attaching any of available reactors to rig - no lag occurs.

But, when attaching Thermal Generator - FPS drops, but only with: DUMBO and Gas Core Reactors, CC Gas Core Engine, Nerva and Candle Engines

Large Molten Salt, Pebble Bed and Dusty Plasma doesn't cause FPS drop. Fussion and AM reactors not yet available for me.

Actually I was wrong, saying that FPS drops with any reactor, and I hope this information might be useful.

I've upgraded Thermal Generator and Radiators, but it didn't help

Edited October 1, 2015 by Cosmonauth
update

[FreeThinker]

Well I have found some suspicious code which could result in lag, but not the initial cause. I need to reproduce your problem. In order to do that I need to know all your mods, a discription of a vessel (minimum set of parts) and the condition (like durring lauch at 10.000m, or orbit at 80.000m ) when the lag occurs.

Edited October 1, 2015 by FreeThinker

[Profit-]

Well, I have alot of mods, but all those mods were installed before, and there were no such problem. My GameData folder has almost 80 entries, so it would be a big list

As it said before, huge FPS drop appears with any available Reactor+Thermal Generator+Radiator setup. Part count doesn't matter, even 4-5 parts craft causes game to lag

When no radiators present, Generator wont start, and FPS is fine, so it hard to assume who's guilty: radiators or generator.

And once again: Game runs fine with same mods, same craft in Sandbox, so this is only Career Mode issue.

All of that is well and good, however since others (well me personally at least) do not experience lag to such a degree without the mods, there is something probably happening in the interaction between everyone.

KSP supports running outside of steam, so perhaps you can make a copy of your game folder, delete all mods except tweakscale, warp plugin, squad, and interstellar fuels and see if it is still lagging as severely. If it is, we will have to look at your machine in greater depth, if it is not lagging anymore, put half the mods back and try again until you can narrow down the interaction with the mod that is causing it.

If we know it is interacting with a mod, then freethinker has a place to start looking for the trouble making code.

Edited October 1, 2015 by Profit-

[FreeThinker]

But, when attaching Thermal Generator - FPS drops, but only with: DUMBO and Gas Core Reactors

Alright, so only DUMBO or Gas Core Reactor combined with Generator and Radiators cause the Lag? Weird. These reactors are kind of the opposite of each other.

Do you see any exceptions in the log?

Also, could you make a list/screendump of all your folders in GameData?

Edited October 1, 2015 by FreeThinker

[okder]

well now thermal turbojet is fully useless (even with inertial containment fusion - ATTILA is better, even electric turbine is better than thermal turbojet)

with 1.25 antimatter reactor turbojet is pathetic compared to ATTILA same size.

why its (tubojets) performance is worse with atmosphere(not intake limited) than with hydrogen propellant on same speed?

P.S. there was a bug (1 month ago) with timewarp physics with asteroid, probably linked with kerbal core engine it was reported/fixed?

[FreeThinker]

well now thermal turbojet is fully useless (even with inertial containment fusion - ATTILA is better, even electric turbine is better than thermal turbojet)

with 1.25 antimatter reactor turbojet is pathetic compared to ATTILA same size.

why its (tubojets) performance is worse with atmosphere(not intake limited) than with hydrogen propellant on same speed?

P.S. there was a bug (1 month ago) with timewarp physics with asteroid, probably linked with kerbal core engine it was reported/fixed?

Are you taking into account the mass of the generator (5 ton thermal, 3 Ton charged). Also ATTILA has much higher tech requirements. Note that it's ok that turbojet it get's surpased by other technologies. This is true to KSPI mission station which allows players a gradualy road to the start. The Turbojet, is just one step.

Edited October 1, 2015 by FreeThinker

[Cosmonauth]

Alright, so only DUMBO or Gas Core Reactor combined with Generator and Radiators cause the Lag? Weird. These reactors are kind of the opposite of each other.

Do you see any exceptions in the log?

Also, could you make a list/screendump of all your folders in GameData?

DUMBO, Gas Core Rector, and all new engines that includes reactor part

Unfortunately, there are no exeptions in log, all clear

All tests were performed on a Launch Pad, in some cases I've used Hyper Edit to achieve 100km orbit around Kerbin, but that makes no difference

Here is my GameData listing, with some explanations:

[x] Science!\

000_Toolbar\

ActiveTextureManagement\

AdjustableLandingGear\

AsteroidDay\

B9_Aerospace\ Procedural Wings

BahaSP\ AdjustableLandingGear Library

Chatterer\

CoherentContracts\

CommunityResourcePack\

ContractConfigurator\

ContractPacks\

ContractsWindow\

CrossFeedEnabler\

CrowdSourcedScience\

Diazo\ Active Groups Editor

DistantObject\

DMagicOrbitalScience\

Firespitter\

FreedomTex\ Texture Pack for Procedural Parts

HaystackContinued\

HeatManagement\

InterstellarFuelSwitch\

JSI\

KAS\

KerbalFlightIndicators\

KerbalJointReinforcement\

Kerbaltek\ Hyper Edit

KIS\

Klockheed_Martian_Gimbal\

KSP-AVC\

MechJeb2\

Mk2Expansion\

ModRocketSysLite\ Parts pack

ModularFuelTanks\

ModuleRCSFX\

NearFutureProps\

NearFutureSpacecraft\

Nereid\ Save plugin for backups

NMSG\ is No More Science Grinding mod

PartCommander\

Pilot Assistant\

PlaneMode\

ProceduralParts\

QuickScroll\

RadialEngineMountsPPI\

RcsSounds\

SCANsat\

ScienceAlert\

Squad\

StarLionIndustries\ KSPIE integration, which is now deleted due errors

StockBugFixModules\

StockClamshellFairings\

StretchySNTextures\ another texture pack for Procedural Parts

StripSymmetry\

TacFuelBalancer\

TextureReplacer\

ThrottleControlledAvionics\

TriggerTech\ Alarm clock and Alternative Resource Panel

TweakScale\

UmbraSpaceIndustries\ Life Support

UniversalStorage\

WarpPlugin\

WaypointManager\

Edited October 1, 2015 by Cosmonauth

[okder]

Are you taking into account the mass of the generator (5 ton thermal, 3 Ton charged). Also ATTILE has much higher tech requirements. Note that it's ok that turbojet it get's surpased by other technologies. This is true to KSPI mission station which allows players a gradualy road to the start. The Turbojet, is just one step.

turbojet could have upgrade tech which allow it utilize same or slightly better performance than attila (because of no intermediate energy conversion needed)

i repeat again that currently attila is better even working with inertial containment fusion, (i.e. even with pure loss of 70% energy),

direct connection requirement to reactor would be logical drawback, but radial attachment should be allowed (to get several symmetrical turbojets)

Edited October 1, 2015 by okder

[FreeThinker]

turbojet could have upgrade tech which allow it utilize same or slightly better performance than attila (because of no intermediate energy conversion needed)

mmm, I think could do something with that Idea. WHat about making turbojet/ramjet gradualy more efficinet with jet engine technology. THe higher your reseached jet technology, the more effient the Turbojet and Ramjet become. This will give you a good reasons to invest in jet technology as otherwise the thermal turbojet would making these technologies useless. This makes sence from both a game balance and realsim point of view as advances in this technology will translate into higher performing thermal turbojets. Also instead of allowing Turbojet to switch to propellant after research the last Jet engine tech, I make it avialble with Efficient Nuclear Propulsion. I'm also thinking about giving the Thermal Engine to run in Ram Mode after aquiring Efficient Nuclear Propulsion. THis will allow you to choose between either a Ramjet nozzle or Turbojet noozle, each with the advantages and disadvantages

Edited October 1, 2015 by FreeThinker