Jump to content

KSP Interstellar Extended Continued Development Thread

FreeThinker

By FreeThinker
in KSP1 Mod Development

 Share

Recommended Posts

raxo2222

raxo2222

Posted
Posted (edited)
  On 5/24/2016 at 9:19 AM, FreeThinker said:

Exactly what edits did you make?

Expand  

I replaced all produceGlobal = False with produceGlobal = True for all QSR reactions (not just antimatter) in reactor fuels cfg.

Now my spaceship can produce antimatter, deuter and he3 for AIM reactors for eternity.

I set 2 Quasar reactors to pure hydrogen fusion and 2 other quasars to p+D fusion.

 

Edited by raxo2222
Link to comment
Share on other sites
FreeThinker

FreeThinker

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
  On 5/24/2016 at 9:25 AM, raxo2222 said:

I replaced all produceGlobal = False with produceGlobal = True for all QSR reactions (not just antimatter) in reactor fuels cfg.

Expand  

mmm, good to hear this works, but does it also perform correctly under high time acceleration? notice there is also a hidden property ConsumeGlobal which does the same for fuel consumption.

It might be an issue for other reactors as well which essentialy use the same fuctionality, but due to their low amount never borthered anyone

Edited by FreeThinker
Link to comment
Share on other sites
FreeThinker

FreeThinker

Posted
  • Author
Posted
  On 5/24/2016 at 8:58 AM, raxo2222 said:

in second screenshot album in my post >.>

Also atmo composition is wrong:

for Venus it should be:

and in game it is around 67% of CO2 and 33% of nitrogen.

 

Expand  

I just noticed the KSPI atmospherre definition is the same as Eve. somehow I never got around to giving them the proper values.

Could you do me a favor and fixed the atmosphericsourcedefintions.cfg file and give all Real planets their real composition

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rayredd

rayredd

Posted
Posted

First of all, loving this mod. Really enjoying the gameplay it adds to the game!

I'm new to the forum so please tell me if I should report this elsewhere but I noticed a strange bug yesterday. The problem I encountered was that, when creating a rocket that has both a Thermal Electric Generator and a Closed-Cycle Gas Core engine, my ISP dropped from 10k+ to < 1000 m/s. After clicking around I noticed that the mass of the Thermal Electric Generator shoots up as soon as I connect the Lightbulb to it. I've made some screenshots and created an Imgur album. As you can see from screenshot 2 to 3 the mass shoots up from 46,120 kg to 2,627.62 tons. 

http://imgur.com/a/j1W8x

I'm also curious if the thrust is correct on the first screenshot. If I launch this (with some radiators of course). It basically goes from 0 to 2000 m/s before my finger leaves the space bar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
raxo2222

raxo2222

Posted
Posted (edited)
  On 5/24/2016 at 9:31 AM, FreeThinker said:

mmm, good to hear this works, but does it also perform correctly under high time acceleration? notice there is also a hidden property ConsumeGlobal which does the same for fuel consumption.

It might be an issue for other reactors as well which essentialy use the same fuctionality, but due to their low amount never borthered anyone

Expand  

well while Deuter/He3 tank was filling nicely I wasn't testing it with AIM, just with antimatter reactor. 1.25m antimatter reactor couldn't consume all this antimatter - qsr was produching so much of it. (I use microwave transmitter to keep reactors busy) :P

Edited by raxo2222
Link to comment
Share on other sites
raxo2222

raxo2222

Posted
Posted (edited)
  On 5/24/2016 at 9:56 AM, FreeThinker said:

I just noticed the KSPI atmospherre definition is the same as Eve. somehow I never got around to giving them the proper values.

Could you do me a favor and fixed the atmosphericsourcedefintions.cfg file and give all Real planets their real composition

Expand  

Fine :)

I went trough planets and moons in RSS/Kopernicus planet configs, I found following objects have atmosphere:

Pressure on ground level (lowest point)/altitude of edge of atmosphere/gravity strength.

Venus: 109.05 atm / 150 km / 8.87 m/s2

Earth - 101.325 kpa / 140 km / 9.807 m/s2

Mars - 1.15 kpa / 125 km / 3.711 m/s2

Jupiter - 1000 atm / 1400 km / 24.79 m/s2

Saturn - 1000 atm / 2000 km / 10.44 m/s2

Titan - 159 kpa / 650 km / 1.352 m/s2

Uranus - 1000 atm / 1800 km / 8.69 m/s2

Neptune - 1000 atm / 1400 km / 11.15 m/s2

Triton - 16.5 pa / 120 km / 0.779 m/s2

Pluto - 1 pa / 130 km / 0.62 m/s2

Looks like Triton and Pluto are viable for atmospheric isru too :)

Is abudunance setting an atmospheric resources confing going by mass, or by volume?

Edited by raxo2222
Link to comment
Share on other sites
FreeThinker

FreeThinker

Posted
  • Author
Posted
  On 5/24/2016 at 12:41 PM, raxo2222 said:

Fine :)

I went trough planets and moons in RSS/Kopernicus planet configs, I found following objects have atmosphere:

Pressure on ground level (lowest point)/altitude of edge of atmosphere:

Venus: 109.05 atm / 150 km

Earth - 101.325 kpa / 140 km

Mars - 1.15 kpa / 125 km

Jupiter - 1000 atm / 1400 km

Saturn - 1000 atm / 2000 km

Titan - 159 kpa / 650 km

Uranus - 1000 atm / 1800 km

Neptune - 1000 atm / 1400 km

Triton - 16.5 pa / 120 km

Pluto - 1 pa / 130 km

Looks like Triton and Pluto are viable for atmospheric isru too :)

Is abudunance setting an atmospheric resources confing going by mass, or by volume?

Expand  

By volume.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
raxo2222

raxo2222

Posted
Posted (edited)

Aaaand there are definitions for Venus (i will post them for rest of objects):

Take note, that compound volumes may not add to 100% due to rounding and uncertainness or variability.

So actual abundance in game may deviate by few percent from what was written in config.

For example in game it may show, that atmosphere of Venus have 96.49% of CO2 or Earth atmosphere may have 0.00000401% of Ammonia in volume

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Earth

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Mars

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Jupiter Got isotopes from here.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Saturn Couldn't find isotope ratios, picked same as Jupiter ones.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Titan I guessed trace element compositions.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Uranus He He He..... funny name... Helium 3 confirmed. Since D/H ratio is over twice as high than in Jupiter, I doubled He3/He4 ratio of that in jupiter.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Neptune Couldn't find isotope ratios, so I picked same as for Uranus.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Triton I guessed composition.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Pluto Guessed as well.

  Reveal hidden contents

Edited by raxo2222
Link to comment
Share on other sites
FreeThinker

FreeThinker

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

@raxo2222 According to my soures, all gas planet, inclusing uranus should have trace amounts of Helium3

It should be a good reason to start a mining colony at uranus which has a significantly lower gravity well than jupiter

It would be most efficient if you could create a floating factory in uranus atmoshpere, Collect the Helium3, and launch a return rocket back into orbit using Nuclear Engine which runs on scooped Hydrogen

Edited by FreeThinker
Link to comment
Share on other sites
raxo2222

raxo2222

Posted
Posted (edited)
  On 5/24/2016 at 3:35 PM, FreeThinker said:

@raxo2222 According to my soures, all gas planet, inclusing uranus should have trace amounts of Helium3

It should be a good reason to start a mining colony at uranus which has a significantly lower gravity well than jupiter

Expand  

I know, I didn't finished it yet - I didn't calculated isotope proportions yet - wolphram doesn't show He3 or Deuter.

Edited by raxo2222
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SciMan

SciMan

Posted
Posted
  On 5/24/2016 at 1:22 PM, raxo2222 said:

Uranus He He He..... funny name...

Expand  

@raxo2222

And that's why I always pronounce it "you-ran-us".

@FreeThinker

That's a great modification to my idea, it's basically exactly what I wanted but I was holding myself back a little because I thought it might be difficult or impossible to code it (I don't know the Unity/KSP limitations for plugin coding very well, apparently).

This is fantastically good news. Guess I'm going to have to find or edit in a few badS engineers. Maybe one called "Scotty Kerman", and another called "Geordi Kerman".

One question, would I be able to keep adding a certain type of crew to a ship to keep improving it?

If not, would it cap out at a certain sum of crew experience for that type of crew (ex. maximum 15 "stars" for engineers, 15 for scientists, 15 for pilots), a certain sum of crew experience total (ex. 45 stars max benefit no matter the crew composition), or would it cap out at a certain number of crew of any experience level (ex. top 9 most experienced crew on the vessel)?

Also, would adding additional AI cores add more performance, or would it be a "one per vessel" type thing with additional AI cores not having an effect?
I was thinking that the computer AI would not only assist the crew, but it would be fully capable of replacing crew on a 1-for-1 basis.
One AI core = one crew, each AI core can be set to substitute for a pilot, scientist, or engineer (can be re-set in flight if the vessel has an antenna because it's basically a software update), and upgrading an AI core by one level would provide the same benefits to ship performance that a crewmember of one level higher would perform.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
iliketrains0pwned

iliketrains0pwned

Posted
Posted

Do you have plans on adding in a direct antimatter engine? It could run off of a mixture of matter (LFO, deuterium, argon, etc.) and antimatter to produce very high efficiency or very high impulse thrust. But there is a catch. While the engine is on, it produces a TON of waste heat. The only way you're gonna make it in one piece is if you really love radiators.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
spirokai

spirokai

Posted
Posted (edited)

The mass of Molten Salt Reactor is acting very strangely when scaling it up and down and negative part mass is starting to show up (up to -17 ton). What is also very strange, at 1.25 m radius, the empty mass is 8 ton, which is 8 times higher than pebble bed reactor of that size (empty mass 1 ton). Is that intended?

Edited by spirokai
Link to comment
Share on other sites
FreeThinker

FreeThinker

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
  On 5/24/2016 at 5:41 PM, spirokai said:

The mass of Molten Salt Reactor is acting very strangely when scaling it up and down and negative part mass is starting to show up (up to -17 ton). What is also very strange, at 1.25 m radius, the empty mass is 8 ton, which is 8 times higher than pebble bed reactor of that size (empty mass 1 ton). Is that intended?

Expand  

What versions of Tweakscale, KSPI-E and IFS are you using ?

Edited by FreeThinker
Link to comment
Share on other sites
subitan

subitan

Posted
Posted

my weights are going all weird too - the thermo-electric generator has a constant weight of 6t in the parts list in VAB, but 1333t when attached, adn which doesn't scale at all with the part scaling.

I'm using:

  • Tweakscale v2.2.12
  • KSPI-E 1.8.20

The generator also lists a "mass modiefier" in the info box, of 1, FWIW. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
spirokai

spirokai

Posted
Posted (edited)
  On 5/24/2016 at 5:46 PM, FreeThinker said:

What versions of Tweakscale, KSPI-E and IFS are you using ?

Expand  

Everything is up to date.

The values are:

1.25 m - 9.2 t producing 160 kW of energy

2.5 m - 12.5 t producing 2 MW of energy.


The dry mass of 1.25 is actually higher than that for 2.5 (8.6 vs 8, respectively).

EDIT: OK this is veeeeeery strange. If I scale it up to 1.875 and then scale down back to 1.25m, the mass is correct (~ 2.2 t). The same behavior is observed for 1.875 m. In the other words,the first scaling to the particular size gives wrong values, any subsequent scaling to that particular size provides the correct values.Is this a bug of tweakscale?

Edited by spirokai
Link to comment
Share on other sites
FreeThinker

FreeThinker

Posted
  • Author
Posted
  On 5/24/2016 at 4:43 PM, SciMan said:

This is fantastically good news. Guess I'm going to have to find or edit in a few badS engineers. Maybe one called "Scotty Kerman", and another called "Geordi Kerman".

One question, would I be able to keep adding a certain type of crew to a ship to keep improving it?

If not, would it cap out at a certain sum of crew experience for that type of crew (ex. maximum 15 "stars" for engineers, 15 for scientists, 15 for pilots), a certain sum of crew experience total (ex. 45 stars max benefit no matter the crew composition), or would it cap out at a certain number of crew of any experience level (ex. top 9 most experienced crew on the vessel)?

Expand  

It depend, on the quality of the crew. The general idea is that there is no substitute for experience, but you can compensate with less trained crew if you don't have a all stars team.

This is subject to change but my initial idea on how to calculate crew quality in a specific discipline:

Expertise Quality Factor = (sum of expertise best 3 Kerbals / 18) /  sqrt(number of Kerbals to reach 18 expertise / 3 ) 

Kerbal expertise value = level + 1

missing Kerbal count for 0.5

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SciMan

SciMan

Posted
Posted
  On 5/24/2016 at 6:04 PM, FreeThinker said:

It depend, on the quality of the crew. The general idea is that there is no substitute for experience, but you can compensate with less trained crew if you don't have a all stars team.

This is subject to change but my initial idea on how to calculate crew quality in a specific discipline:

Expertise Quality Factor = (sum of expertise best 3 Kerbals / 18) /  sqrt(number of Kerbals to reach 18 expertise / 3 ) 

Kerbal expertise value = level + 1

missing Kerbal count for 0.5

Expand  

What about more than one AI core on a ship?

Would you need an AI core for each reactor you wanted to upgrade, or would you only need one for the entire ship?

Would having more AI cores than reactors mean the additional AI cores could substitute for crewmembers?

If not, would they add their own bonuses separate from crew bonuses, or would the additional AI cores just be so much dead weight (with the possible exception of science research)?.

 

Speaking of AI science research, computer cores that are doing science research shouldn't have a limit to the amount of science they can generate in any one location (if that's possible). Not sure if thats how it already works. AI that are doing scientific research should have a fixed rate of science data generation, multiplied by where the AI core is in the solar system (same as stock experiments) and the skill level of any scientists on-board (also same as stock experiments).

This would allow a player to "raise" an AI core from it's most basic to it's most advanced upgrade level by sending it out somewhere to learn (generate science points to upgrade itself), or spend science points they already accumulated to get it upgraded immediately.

The easiest way I can think of to implement this (minimal coding required) would be to make it act basically the same as the KSPI science lab, but remove the crew requirement at the cost of greater power consumption. It would have the same science experiment module that accumulates science data over time (different experiment ID so you can have both on the same vessel and not get duplicate experiments), and a science lab module that doesn't require any crew (with 10k data storage and science storage caps).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FreeThinker

FreeThinker

Posted
  • Author
Posted
  On 5/24/2016 at 5:53 PM, subitan said:

my weights are going all weird too - the thermo-electric generator has a constant weight of 6t in the parts list in VAB, but 1333t when attached, adn which doesn't scale at all with the part scaling.

I'm using:

  • Tweakscale v2.2.12
  • KSPI-E 1.8.20

The generator also lists a "mass modiefier" in the info box, of 1, FWIW. 

Expand  

This is intended, the generator mass depends on the amount of power output and  type of reactor with more advanced reactor requiring less generator mass

Link to comment
Share on other sites
spirokai

spirokai

Posted
Posted
  On 5/24/2016 at 6:38 PM, FreeThinker said:

This is intended, the generator mass depends on the amount of power output and  type of reactor with more advanced reactor requiring less generator mass

Expand  

FreeThinker, is there a way to estimate lifetime of a reactor at particular (or even 100%) power output? I am planning a mission to Plock (~55 yrs flight time) and I have no idea how much UF4 to take. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites
subitan

subitan

Posted
Posted
  On 5/24/2016 at 5:53 PM, subitan said:

my weights are going all weird too - the thermo-electric generator has a constant weight of 6t in the parts list in VAB, but 1333t when attached, adn which doesn't scale at all with the part scaling.

I'm using:

  • Tweakscale v2.2.12
  • KSPI-E 1.8.20

The generator also lists a "mass modiefier" in the info box, of 1, FWIW. 

Expand  

Ok - that was weird.  Totally abandoned that craft, created a new one, and it was fine.  There was some strange part interaction going on that I can't (now) reproduce. /shrug. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nansuchao

Nansuchao

Posted
Posted
  On 5/24/2016 at 6:45 PM, spirokai said:

FreeThinker, is there a way to estimate lifetime of a reactor at particular (or even 100%) power output? I am planning a mission to Plock (~55 yrs flight time) and I have no idea how much UF4 to take. :D

Expand  

Just avoid to set that ship as the active vessel until it reach his destination. KSPI doesn't calculate in background the consumption. 

But shhh, don't say that to FreeThinker:P

Link to comment
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...