KSP Interstellar Extended Support Thread

[Ciro1983811]

 

2 hours ago, trias702 said:

Apologies for asking more questions, but I'm having some difficulty understanding how the more advanced reactors work when it comes to electricity generation from thermal vs. charged particles. I set up a simple vessel which has 1 antimatter initiated fusion reactor, connected to 1 regular thermal electric generator. According to the part description, the thermal electric generator does not use charged particles to generate Megajoules, so it should not use the charged particles in any way. However, it appears that it does in fact use them to generate electricity which doesn't seem to make sense. Screenshot attached:

 

I'm pretty sure I understand what is going on here. Overall reactor power is 18 MW, and the generator efficiency is 62.84%, so 18 * 62.84% = 11.311 MW is the maximum electricity obtainable. Currently, this reactor has a weighting of 10% thermal, 90% charged particle, and there is a current demand for 4.07 MW of power. So, the charged particle contribution is: (4.07 * 90%) / 62.84 % = 5.83 MW, and the thermal is: (4.07 * 10%) / 62.84% = 0.648 MW, this gives us an overall reactor utilisation of: (5.83 + 0.648) / 18 ~ 36%. Am I correct in my understanding of this?

Assuming I'm correct, my main question is: why are charged particles being utilised at all for electricity given this vessel has no charged particle generator onboard?

That's because many part descriptions are obsolete and wrong because the mechanics behind their behaviour has changed.

@FreeThinker I think that we all will benefit from a complete in-game part description review and update to the current behaviour.

 

In that case, I think that as now, thermal generator make power from both cp and thermal power , because it convert heat, and also cp contribute to heat. The balance vs cp generator is given from the lowest max efficiency, while cp generator convert only cp at 90% efficiency.

Edited July 4, 2017 by Ciro1983811

[FreeThinker]

20 minutes ago, Ciro1983811 said:

In that case, I think that as now, thermal generator make power from both cp and thermal power , because it convert heat, and also cp contribute to heat. The balance vs cp generator is given from the lowest max efficiency, while cp generator convert only cp at 90% efficiency.

Correct and the reason why it does this it to minimize power production because if you didn't it would be a huge waste of energy potential (fuel) and would create huge amount of wasteheat which we try to minimize at all times.

Once you connect the reactor to both a thermal generator and charged particle direct converter, the charged particles (which antimatter cost consist of 95% of as we assume 90% of the gamma energy is lost to space) depending on the unlocked technology up to 90% of that energy can be converted into electric energy, which is a whole lot better than thermal generator which are limited to theoretical 65% efficiency but realistically its only half of that

If the reactor has only access to a charged prticle direct converter  it can only use the charged particle energy, all thermal energy becomes wasteheat. No you may wonder why you would do that but if you want to run with a minimum amount of mass and don't care about maximize power, running with only direct converter becomes a viable option

Edited July 4, 2017 by FreeThinker

[Ciro1983811]

1 hour ago, FreeThinker said:

Correct and the reason why it does this it to minimize power production because if you didn't it would be a huge waste of energy potential (fuel) and would create huge amount of wasteheat which we try to minimize at all times.

Once you connect the reactor to both a thermal generator and charged particle direct converter, the charged particles (which antimatter cost consist of 95% of as we assume 90% of the gamma energy is lost to space) depending on the unlocked technology up to 90% of that energy can be converted into electric energy, which is a whole lot better than thermal generator which are limited to theoretical 65% efficiency but realistically its only half of that

If the reactor has only access to a charged prticle direct converter  it can only use the charged particle energy, all thermal energy becomes wasteheat. No you may wonder why you would do that but if you want to run with a minimum amount of mass and don't care about maximize power, running with only direct converter becomes a viable option

Is it possibile to use two thermal generators on one reactor? Is it a way to minimize wasteheat and maximise energy production?

[FreeThinker]

22 minutes ago, Ciro1983811 said:

Is it possibile to use two thermal generators on one reactor? Is it a way to minimize wasteheat and maximise energy production?

Currently a single generator achieve maximum efficiency. In the future I want to split it up where the maximum efficiency can only be achieved achieved by a advanced thermal engine, or the maximum amount  or on a combination of generators, I'm not sure yet.. A possible combo would be a MHD + Solid State Generator

The fact is that high power production in real life cost a huge amount of space and mass. This is not properly represented in game currently. I made thermal engines twice as heavy as direct energy converters to represent this. Also the mass of the generator depends on the amount of power generated and tech level  of the connected  reactor

Edited July 4, 2017 by FreeThinker

[FreeThinker]

4 hours ago, trias702 said:

Intresting, Did you do anything special to get the windows of Megajoule management  Display wider?

[trias702]

1 hour ago, FreeThinker said:

Correct and the reason why it does this it to minimize power production because if you didn't it would be a huge waste of energy potential (fuel) and would create huge amount of wasteheat which we try to minimize at all times.

Once you connect the reactor to both a thermal generator and charged particle direct converter, the charged particles (which antimatter cost consist of 95% of as we assume 90% of the gamma energy is lost to space) depending on the unlocked technology up to 90% of that energy can be converted into electric energy, which is a whole lot better than thermal generator which are limited to theoretical 65% efficiency but realistically its only half of that

If the reactor has only access to a charged prticle direct converter  it can only use the charged particle energy, all thermal energy becomes wasteheat. No you may wonder why you would do that but if you want to run with a minimum amount of mass and don't care about maximize power, running with only direct converter becomes a viable option

So just to make sure I understand: if you have a reactor which outputs charged particles, a thermal electric generator will also use those charged particles, but at a lower efficiency (whatever the efficiency of that generator is, 62.84% in my example). If you also attach a charged particle generator to the same reactor, then the charged particles (which in my original example was 90% of 18 MW, so 16.2 MW) will be used for electricity but at a higher efficiency (up to 90%??) while the remaining thermal energy will continue to be used at 62.84%? So, in my original example, charged particle theoretical max is: 18 MW * 90% * 62.84% = 10.18 MW, but with a charged particle generator it becomes: 18 MW * 90% * 90% = 14.58 MW of usable electricity. Am I correct in my understanding of things?

40 minutes ago, FreeThinker said:

Currently a single generator achieve maximum efficiency. In the future I want to split it up where the maximum efficiency can only be achieved achieved by a advanced thermal engine, or the maximum amount  or on a combination of generators, I'm not sure yet.. A possible combo would be a MHD + Solid State Generator

The fact is that high power production in real life cost a huge amount of space and mass. This is not properly represented in game currently. I made thermal engines twice as heavy as direct energy converters to represent this. Also the mass of the generator depends on the amount of power generated and tech level  of the connected  reactor

What about if you have two reactors (say two pebble bed reactors), and only one thermal electric generator, will that generator convert 65% of each reactor's thermal output into electricity?

[FreeThinker]

2 minutes ago, trias702 said:

So just to make sure I understand: if you have a reactor which outputs charged particles, a thermal electric generator will also use those charged particles, but at a lower efficiency (whatever the efficiency of that generator is, 62.84% in my example). If you also attach a charged particle generator to the same reactor, then the charged particles (which in my original example was 90% of 18 MW, so 16.2 MW) will be used for electricity but at a higher efficiency (up to 90%??) while the remaining thermal energy will continue to be used at 62.84%? So, in my original example, charged particle theoretical max is: 18 MW * 90% * 62.84% = 10.18 MW, but with a charged particle generator it becomes: 18 MW * 90% * 90% = 14.58 MW of usable electricity. Am I correct in my understanding of things?

Yes you are correct

[trias702]

21 minutes ago, FreeThinker said:

Intresting, Did you do anything special to get the windows of Megajoule management  Display wider?

Not that I can think of. I do play at a resolution of 2560 x 1080 (21:9) so maybe the game engine automatically stretches things wider for ultra widescreen?

[Loren Pechtel]

5 minutes ago, trias702 said:

Not that I can think of. I do play at a resolution of 2560 x 1080 (21:9) so maybe the game engine automatically stretches things wider for ultra widescreen?

<Drool!>

For most purposes I prefer my 3x 1280x1024 setup but for games I would love one bigger screen.

[raxo2222]

@FreeThinker

What do you think about realism of Children of Dead Earth?

It focuses on fairly low tech stuff comparing to KSPI - early nuclear propulsion, early radiators and other stuff.

KSPI doesn't have to deal with material resistance to pressure, temperature and its changes.

Only limit is maximum temperature of radiators.

Edited July 4, 2017 by raxo2222

[trias702]

37 minutes ago, Loren Pechtel said:

<Drool!>

For most purposes I prefer my 3x 1280x1024 setup but for games I would love one bigger screen.

I used to have the same setup :), 3x 1280x1024, and it was amazing for X-Plane and Euro Truck simulator, but a pain for everything else, so I switched to 2560x1080. The downside is, I can no longer enjoy X-Plane or ETS because my brain misses having the peripheral view of the 3x screens. But KSP is quite awesome in 21:9

[Loren Pechtel]

1 minute ago, trias702 said:

I used to have the same setup :), 3x 1280x1024, and it was amazing for X-Plane and Euro Truck simulator, but a pain for everything else, so I switched to 2560x1080. The downside is, I can no longer enjoy X-Plane or ETS because my brain misses having the peripheral view of the 3x screens. But KSP is quite awesome in 21:9

I'm a programmer by trade, I really like the three screens for coding.

[FreeThinker]

Uploaed Version 1.14.14 for Kerbal Space Program 1.3.0 which can be downloaded from here

Released on 2017-07-04

• Added new dialog: Warp Control Interface which can be used in map view
• Added ability of Fusion reactor to use Solid Hydrogen as an alternative to Hydrogen gas
• Balance higher maximum speed in travel between celestial bodies
• Balance doubled number of warp speed steps
• Balance: Increased gravity breaking area of effect for of high gravity planets
• Balance RCS propellant are now limited to mono-propellants and pressurized gasses
• Fixed Alcubiere drive ability to correctly start, stop and change speed during time acceleration
• Fixed display Surface gravity unit of measure

[trias702]

12 minutes ago, FreeThinker said:

Uploaed Version 1.14.14 for Kerbal Space Program 1.3.0 which can be downloaded from here

Released on 2017-07-04

• Added new dialog: Warp Control Interface which can be used in map view
• Added ability of Fusion reactor to use Solid Hydrogen as an alternative to Hydrogen gas
• Balance higher maximum speed in travel between celestial bodies
• Balance doubled number of warp speed steps
• Balance: Increased gravity breaking area of effect for of high gravity planets
• Balance RCS propellant are now limited to mono-propellants and pressurized gasses
• Fixed Alcubiere drive ability to correctly start, stop and change speed during time acceleration
• Fixed display Surface gravity unit of measure

Amazing work, thank you! Any chance at all that this will be backported for KSP 1.22?

[FreeThinker]

4 minutes ago, trias702 said:

Amazing work, thank you! Any chance at all that this will be backported for KSP 1.22?

Unless there is a realy good reason,I don't do back ports

[trias702]

1 hour ago, FreeThinker said:

Unless there is a realy good reason,I don't do back ports

The only reason I can offer is that a lot of the 'core' mods have yet to be (officially) updated for 1.3, so a very large number of users are still forced to stay with 1.2.2, even against our will. (believe me, I would love to update to 1.3 if I could, but a few critical mods are still 1.22 only, like FAR, OPM, Scatter/SVT, Trajectories, etc)

[Loren Pechtel]

35 minutes ago, trias702 said:

The only reason I can offer is that a lot of the 'core' mods have yet to be (officially) updated for 1.3, so a very large number of users are still forced to stay with 1.2.2, even against our will. (believe me, I would love to update to 1.3 if I could, but a few critical mods are still 1.22 only, like FAR, OPM, Scatter/SVT, Trajectories, etc)

Exactly.  I'm still on 1.2.2 because of a bunch of mods that CKAN still shows as not updated.

[FreeThinker]

Alright here you go

backported 1.14.14 to KSP 1.2.2 which can be downloaded from here

Changelog since 1.13.10:

Added new dialog: Warp Control Interface which can be used in map view
Added ability of Fusion reactor to use Solid Hydrogen as an alternative to Hydrogen gas
Added Gravity Breaking to Alcubiere warpdrive which allow momentum reduction when dropping out of warp near celestial body
Added improved maneuverability for Alcubiere warpdrive during warp
Added display Expected Exit speed during warp travel
Added improved collision prevention
Added dynamic Reaction wheel strength during warp travel based on mass to warp ratio
Added Replaced Proprietary Acceleration mechanic by stock mechanic, making more compatible with other KSP control tools
Added Increased Thermal/Nuclear Turbo engine acceleration depending on connected reactor and unlocked jet engine technology
Added x2 and 3x extended Graphene Wrapper for reduced part count
Added automated functionality which limitst reactor power output by power request by connected engines and generators
Added deployable and fixed microchannel graphene radiator
Added support for MKS Nuke Reactor 1,25 "Short"
Added new resource SolidHydrogen to Cryogenic Tank
Added Replaced Antimatter in Diamagnetic Antimatter Containment Device by AntiHydrogen, with same density as SolidHydrogen
Added Spin-polarized Helium3-Deuterium Fusion Mode which allows using D-He3 fuel with reduced neutron production
Added HeavyWater to some KSPI containers
Added missing crustal resource definition by EvilGeorge
Added Universal Drill by @EvilGeorge which allow collecting all available surface resource on a location
Added ability to VISTA to function as beamed power transmitter
Added Improved GUI Kerbstein drive to show required power in VAB and in flght

Balanced: Reduced minimum warp speed Alcubiere warpdrive to 1/1000 of speed of light
Balanced: higher maximum speed in travel between celestial bodies
Balanced: doubled number of warp speed steps
Balanced: Increased gravity breaking area of effect for of high gravity planets
Balanced: RCS propellant are now limited to mono-propellants and pressurized gasses
Balanced: Reduced Wasteheat Kerbstein
Balanced: Reduced Mass + Surface Area Graphene Umbrella radiator to single side radiator
Balanced: increased percentage gamma ray getting lost to space in Beam Core Antimatter Reactor, increasing charged particle ratio
Balanced: charged particle direct power converter can now convert up to 90% when Exotic Electrical Systems is researched
Balanced: turned Flat Antimatter tank into Electrostatic Antimatter Contaner which has the same amount of antimatter and behaviour as originaly
Balanced: integration with Community Tech Tree 3.1.0
Balanced: doubled size of VISTA and increase mass by 50%
Balanced: Reduced Wasteheat Alcubiere drive by 50-75%
Balanced: improved mass scaling Kerbstein (to expoment 2.5)
Balanced: Replace KerpSteinDrive fuel LithiumDeuteride by LithiumHydride
Balanced: Beam Core Antimatter reactor requires both antimatter and hydrogen (liquid or gas) to function

Fixed Alcubiere drive ability to correctly start, stop and change speed during time acceleration
Fixed display Surface gravity unit of measure
Fixed extreme slowdown when warp-drive is forced to slow down while insufficient power
Fixed unexpected dropping out of Alcubiere warp when increasing speed higher than available power
Fixed Power buffer drain during Alcubiere warp charging
Fixed Power unbalance on vessels with multiple active antimatter reactors
Fixed thermal engine power starvation problem
Fixed Negative cost with empty Diamagnetic antimatter tank
Fixed surface area winged graphene radiator
Fixed display antimatter container
Fixed most severe wasteheat spikes
Fixed missing tweakscale config to structural parts and radiators
Fixed Tritium breeding, which is now positively affected by amount of available Lithium-6 in the breeding blanket
Fixed instanddetachment Antmter Bottle
Fixed Tweakscaling KerbsteinEngine
Fixed auto deployment for pivoting radiators
Fixed premature exploding antimatter tank due to initial geeforce spike at launch

Edited July 5, 2017 by FreeThinker

[Weywot8]

52 minutes ago, FreeThinker said:

backported 1.14.14 to KSP 1.2.2 which can be downloaded from here

Urm, the link above goes to an Interstellar Fuel Switch "Not Found" page. But the link in the first page works just fine . Thanks for the backport! Still waiting for for mods and planet packs to update to 1.3 before committing to the switch. 

[FreeThinker]

1 hour ago, Weywot8 said:

Urm, the link above goes to an Interstellar Fuel Switch "Not Found" page. But the link in the first page works just fine . Thanks for the backport! Still waiting for for mods and planet packs to update to 1.3 before committing to the switch. 

Yes, I had accidentally uploaded it to the wrong location, I quickly fixed it but for a short time it pointed to the wrong location. It should be correct now.

Please let me know if it actually works, any feedback is welcome as long as it is constructive

[trias702]

11 minutes ago, FreeThinker said:

Yes, I had accidentally uploaded it to the wrong location, I quickly fixed it but for a short time it pointed to the wrong location. It should be correct now.

Please let me know if it actually works, any feedback is welcome as long as it is constructive

Thank you so, so much for doing this, all of us 1.22 users greatly appreciate it! Thank you very much! 

I will test it out shortly. Just a quick question, does this version fix the bug where having a reactor which creates charged particles connected to any kind of generator would show incorrect Theoretical Supply values in the Megajoules Management Window (all of my screenshots above show wrong Theoretical Supply when there are charged particles present, but I was using KSPI 1.13 for 1.22 the whole time)?

[FreeThinker]

10 minutes ago, trias702 said:

Just a quick question, does this version fix the bug where having a reactor which creates charged particles connected to any kind of generator would show incorrect Theoretical Supply values in the Megajoules Management Window (all of my screenshots above show wrong Theoretical Supply when there are charged particles present, but I was using KSPI 1.13 for 1.22 the whole time)?

not sure but I recently fixed several issues with the power management. I would guess it is fixed

[trias702]

1 hour ago, FreeThinker said:

not sure but I recently fixed several issues with the power management. I would guess it is fixed

Cool, thanks, will double check this in my testing.

Going back quickly to our conversation regarding generators and reactors, someone earlier asked about placing two thermal generators on one reactor and you mentioned maximum efficiency is for one generator on one reactor. What about the case of having two reactors connected to a single generator, does this allow the generator to process heat from both reactors at once?

[FreeThinker]

4 minutes ago, trias702 said:

 What about the case of having two reactors connected to a single generator, does this allow the generator to process heat from both reactors at once?

No, it will connect with the first reactor it encounters, preferring the one nearest to the root element.

[trias702]

11 minutes ago, FreeThinker said:

No, it will connect with the first reactor it encounters, preferring the one nearest to the root element.

Understood, thank you.

I only really have one final big question about how KSPI-E works, and that has to do with the Thermal Mechanics Planner and heat generation from reactors/engines. I've read the tutorial link on the OP, but it only covers solar panels, not reactors/engines. I have created a very simple example in the VAB, with just a pod, a fuel tank, a closed cycle gas core engine, and a single large radiator. Screenshot below:

Could I please trouble you to explain how the radiator panel stats in the parts viewer affect the Radiator Maximum Dissipation in the Thermal Helper? I note that I have Near Future installed, and the closed cycle gas core engine generates 6 MW of power at 20000K temp, which is correctly stated at the top of the Thermal Helper. However, I am not understanding at all how it calculates Radiator Maximum Dissipation or any of the other radiator values (resting temp and generator efficiency) from the stats of that radiator in the part viewer. If you could please help me understand how this is all calculated, I would greatly appreciate it.