KSP Interstellar Extended Support Thread

[wkwied]

What is the purpose for the Toroidal Hub part? The description reads that it is for the torodial positron antimatter tank, but I do not see this part listed anywhere.

[Synoxys]

16 hours ago, FreeThinker said:

I would advice to get in the green numbers with the VAB thermal helper.

The numbers were green when I launched it, which is why it struck me as odd that the problem existed in the first place. There are two percentages at the bottom of the thermal helper, but it seems like even if I use tweakscaled radiators to put hundreds of gigawatts worth of radiators for a demand of about 20 GW of actual heat produced the numbers never would rise far above 25-30% for 100% utilization, which is what happens when running a power transmitter. Is this just the way it has to be or is there something I can unlock in the future that lets electric generators achieve closer to their maximum efficiency at full power?

[Turbo Ben]

@FreeThinker

OK, I've made a little progress, but only a little. Been messing about in sandbox mode, so science or crew level shouldn't be a factor.

I can refuel my pebblebed reactor simply by transferring some new Uranium Nitride in. Can Uranium Nitride be mined/processed? I can't see any option to change the fuel type of the reactor.

I still can't get the science lab to process nuclear fuels. When I click on process nuclear fuels, the context menu changes for a millisecond. I managed to pause the game just as it did, so I could see what it said. At first, I could see I was low on electric charge, so I added a reactor and thermal generator. However, even after this, there is no response from the science lab. The context menu (when paused) showed 5MW of power, and said "reprocessing...", but the time remaining was 0.0 hours. I have an empty UF4 tank, an enriched uranium tank, a uranite tank, and both liquid flourine and flourine tanks.

Edited June 15, 2019 by Turbo Ben

[FreeThinker]

On 6/15/2019 at 12:03 PM, Turbo Ben said:

@FreeThinker

OK, I've made a little progress, but only a little. Been messing about in sandbox mode, so science or crew level shouldn't be a factor.

I can refuel my pebblebed reactor simply by transferring some new Uranium Nitride in. Can Uranium Nitride be mined/processed? I can't see any option to change the fuel type of the reactor.

I still can't get the science lab to process nuclear fuels. When I click on process nuclear fuels, the context menu changes for a millisecond. I managed to pause the game just as it did, so I could see what it said. At first, I could see I was low on electric charge, so I added a reactor and thermal generator. However, even after this, there is no response from the science lab. The context menu (when paused) showed 5MW of power, and said "reprocessing...", but the time remaining was 0.0 hours. I have an empty UF4 tank, an enriched uranium tank, a uranite tank, and both liquid flourine and flourine tanks.

After the next release I have time to look what might be going wrong, and possibly make it more intuitive or easier as it clearly not functioning as intended

[FreeThinker]

On 6/15/2019 at 2:32 AM, Synoxys said:

The numbers were green when I launched it, which is why it struck me as odd that the problem existed in the first place. There are two percentages at the bottom of the thermal helper, but it seems like even if I use tweakscaled radiators to put hundreds of gigawatts worth of radiators for a demand of about 20 GW of actual heat produced the numbers never would rise far above 25-30% for 100% utilization, which is what happens when running a power transmitter. Is this just the way it has to be or is there something I can unlock in the future that lets electric generators achieve closer to their maximum efficiency at full power?

Well as I said before, depending on the used power generator, tech will unlock higher maximum efficiency. For thermal power generator, this eventual is 99% but  this is multiplied by the carnot cycle efficiency, which depend on the temperature difference beteen your radiators (amount of radiator surface area)) and the effective core temperature (which depends on unlocked reactor technology)

Edited June 17, 2019 by FreeThinker

[Friznit]

@FreeThinker I'm a simple soul and I can't do maths, nor do I have your encyclopaedic knowledge, so I have taken the liberty of collating various sources into a single reference spreadsheet to help me figure all this stuff out.  It's basically a copy of the tables from your thread and a collection of your hints and tips over the years, acting as a bit of a guide to the uninitiated to put together boiler plate KSPIE builds until you understand enough to get more sophisticated.  It also means you can filter/sort/colour code things to figure out what combination of parts and fuels is best for your mission.

It's currently locked for editing but I'd be happy to share or open to everyone to contribute.

[FreeThinker]

1 hour ago, Friznit said:

@FreeThinker I'm a simple soul and I can't do maths, nor do I have your encyclopaedic knowledge, so I have taken the liberty of collating various sources into a single reference spreadsheet to help me figure all this stuff out.  It's basically a copy of the tables from your thread and a collection of your hints and tips over the years, acting as a bit of a guide to the uninitiated to put together boiler plate KSPIE builds until you understand enough to get more sophisticated.  It also means you can filter/sort/colour code things to figure out what combination of parts and fuels is best for your mission.

It's currently locked for editing but I'd be happy to share or open to everyone to contribute.

Excelent work, I added it to the guides section of first KSPIE Support Page

Edited June 17, 2019 by FreeThinker

[FreeThinker]

@Friznit I notice you added the note of the Fission Fragment reactor as beeing "Not very efficient"

I wonder where you get that idea from as the FF is is both capable of ultra high isp propulsion, which it can keep up without any external fuel

And With additional hydrogen

And High Efficient Power Production

It only real disadvantages is the limited thrust, the lower energy density and that for  only 50% can be used per part. When using Propulsion and Power production at the same time you can use 100%

 

Edited June 18, 2019 by FreeThinker

[Friznit]

Most likely in relation to that last bit in that it can only use 50% Charge Particles.  The hint is out of context so I've update to something more descriptive (i.e. what you just said above!)

[wkwied]

A suggestion. Since auto-circularize was added to warp drives, and because it has a toggle in the warp drive alt click menu, perhaps it might be a thought to make having either a connection to the space center (direct or relays) or one of the AI cores onboard the ship? Reason being it requires a lot of computational power to circularize or something.

 

But on that note, which is the superior AI core? The computer core, or the HAL core? I realize that both can have AI upgrades, but it is very unclear which one is superior to the other (or rather, what their major differences are). As far as I can see, the Hal can preform an experiment, but that is it?

[FreeThinker]

11 minutes ago, Friznit said:

Most likely in relation to that last bit in that it can only use 50% Charge Particles.  The hint is out of context so I've update to something more descriptive (i.e. what you just said above!)

You can only use 50% of the Charge PArticle for propulsion, yes, but the remaining 50% can be used for power production ,so effectivly you can use all charged particles, just not only for propulsion or only for power production.

THis is technically the result in the fact that the charge paericles in the dusty plasma fly either forward or backward. In more advanced reactors, all charged particles can be reversed into a single direction. Despete these disadbantages, ts still the most effieicnt nuclear fission reactor.

9 minutes ago, wkwied said:

But on that note, which is the superior AI core? The computer core, or the HAL core? I realize that both can have AI upgrades, but it is very unclear which one is superior to the other (or rather, what their major differences are). As far as I can see, the Hal can preform an experiment, but that is it?

The are mainly of the same, just another form factor. The Computer Core is more suitable for larger vessel while the iKAL for smaller vessels

Edited June 17, 2019 by FreeThinker

[FreeThinker]

8 hours ago, wkwied said:

A suggestion. Since auto-circularize was added to warp drives, and because it has a toggle in the warp drive alt click menu, perhaps it might be a thought to make having either a connection to the space center (direct or relays) or one of the AI cores onboard the ship? Reason being it requires a lot of computational power to circularize or something.

Well that isn't a real constraint, as it is probably added anyway. Besides , why wouldn't the complex calculation be part of the warp engines itself.

The Auto Circularisation does make it rather easy. It possibly allows you to circulairze low orbit every moon and planet in the solar in less than 10 minutes. Choosing the smartest path would be the trickest part. It would be fun if someone could make a video of it and do a grand tour in least amount of minutes. Perhpas we can turn it into a kind of chalange. Who ever visits all planets and moon in the least amount of time wins!

Edited June 18, 2019 by FreeThinker

[kokospl]

Guys, which part packs do you use for spaceplanes with those big, heavy reactors? Stock means way to many parts, which causes garbage collector stutters, FPS drops and other issues. 

[kerbnub]

On 6/19/2019 at 9:17 AM, kokospl said:

Guys, which part packs do you use for spaceplanes with those big, heavy reactors? Stock means way to many parts, which causes garbage collector stutters, FPS drops and other issues. 

I like procedural parts and wings; you can make parts much bigger than most stock parts and shape wings as you like. Great for FAR too if you're using that.

[FreeThinker]

16 minutes ago, kerbnub said:

I like procedural parts and wings; you can make parts much bigger than most stock parts and shape wings as you like. Great for FAR too if you're using that.

In the past there was a issue when combining tweakscale and procedural parts. Is this no longer an issue?

Edited June 20, 2019 by FreeThinker

[kerbnub]

16 minutes ago, FreeThinker said:

In the past there was a issue when combining tweakscale and procedural parts. Is this no longer an issue?

I don't think I've seen any tweakscale issues with the KSP 1.6.1 versions. I have had some weird stuff with attach nodes on procedural parts sometimes getting screwed up on reloaded crafts, but not sure what's causing that yet.

Know what was wrong in the past?

[Synoxys]

Hello again, I seem to have encountered another issue after revisiting the Stellarator reactor and beamed power. So, essentially, I found a video the shows a simple setup with 2 Stellarator reactors (using the Deuterium-Lithium6 fusion mode) and 2 MHD generators in orbit with a free electron laser attached, which works well in his game. They were supposedly producing over 16 GW each. I'll link the timestamped video here. https://youtu.be/JpYrkQ_-P2k?t=1058 

So I tried creating a similar setup in sandbox mode to test it out. I put a single 5m Stellarator reactor, set to Deuterium-Lithium6, and a single 5m MHD generator on a probe core with a radiator that claimed it would provide ~30% efficiency at full power, according to the thermal helper in the VAB. After that, I attached a free electron laser and a transceiver. I then hyperedited the thing into a 500km circular orbit. Upon testing the system, I discovered that the MHD generator was producing approximately 240 MW. A 5m Stellarator reactor and a 5m MHD generator were producing only 240 MW.

Now, I understand that there may have been some changes to the system since that video was made, but this doesn't seem right. I also tried it with both a Thermal and a Charged Particle generator, to see if that was the issue, and I got similar results. Surprisingly, the thermal generator produced more power than the MHD had (about 60 MW more - still ridiculously low compared to what I should be getting), despite the description of the Stellarator clearly stating that an MHD was preferable. The Charged Particle generator refused to even activate, as it said that there was no power source attached. Apparently the Stellarator does not output charged particles, which lines up with the in-game description, but leaves me wondering where all of the power is going, especially since the "Current/Max Charged Power" field of the reactor control window showed a considerable amount of energy.

So, after some tinkering, I discovered that it was because of the fusion mode I was using. If I reverted to Deuterium-Tritium fusion, the power production jumped considerably, and I was making a decent amount of energy. However, the radiator that had claimed to be adequate in the VAB, was absolutely not. After returning to the VAB to re-examine the thermal helper, I found that whether or not the transceiver is placed on the vessel somehow greatly affects all of the thermal properties, including the effectiveness of radiators (?!), and it was not limited to just the part I was using, but rather every part that could conceivably output microwaves. However, this didn't seem to affect the reactor's crappy performance when using Deuterium-Lithium6 fusion.

So, in short, I would like to know if Deuterium-Lithium6 fusion (or any of the other fusion modes, since I tested all of them and they all seem to perform terribly compared to Deuterium-Tritium) is supposed to produce any meaningful power or not. I would also like to know why the thermal "helper" is so incredibly unhelpful. Why are the numbers it provides so far off? Why do the numbers change so drastically when a beamed power transceiver is added, but not when a Diode Laser is added? Is there something that I am missing here or is this actually not working correctly?

Any help would be appreciated, thanks in advance.

I've attached links to screenshots so that you can see some information about what was going on. 

• Deuterium-Lithium6 and MHD Generator. The transmitter is active, which means the reactor should be running at full power, but it is not. https://i.imgur.com/v836MmF.jpg
• Deuterium-Lithium6 and Thermal and Charged Particle Generators. The transmitter is active again, but similar results are achieved. https://i.imgur.com/b3znww1.jpg
• Deuterium-Tritium and Thermal and Charged Particle Generators. The transmitter is active and much more power is being produced, but the radiator, that was supposedly more than enough, is saturated and the efficiency is horrible at 7%. According to the thermal helper it should have been approximately 30%, at least that is before I added the transceiver. After that it was significantly lower, but not that low. https://i.imgur.com/KYaIsxq.jpg

 

[FreeThinker]

@Synoxys I can confirm the problem. Looking for a fix

 

This is how it is supposed to look like

As you can see, Charged Particle Mode influences Power Generator efficiency and therefore overal efficiency

Edited June 21, 2019 by FreeThinker

[FreeThinker]

Besides Power production,  ste Stellerator is also verry suitable for plasma propulsion

Notice that the thrust and isp depend on used Fusion mode:

[FreeThinker]

@Synoxys Just in case you or anyone else are wondering what the differences  are between the MFC Stellerator and MFC Tokamak  which besides the obvious visual differences,  the the most intresting difference is the interaction of the plasma with the charged particles. In the  Tokamak, the charged partices more or less initialy get in orbit without interacting much with the plasma, which allow use to magneticly divert the charged particles  to a magnetic nozzle or charged particle power generator. In a Stellerator on the other hand the magnetic field lines cross with the plasma, which causes the charged particles collide with the plasma. As a result the temperature of the plasma is heated up to higher core temperature and it takes less efford (read power) to magneticly contain the plasma (maintain fusion). The obvious disadvantage is that the Stellerator does not allow charged particle propulsion or charged particle power generation but this is compendated by the higher core temperure which will improve MHD power generation efficiency and translates into higher plasma nozzle isp. So its not just eye candy but offers the player more choice.

Edited June 21, 2019 by FreeThinker

[Synoxys]

Thanks for taking a look at this, looking forward to a fix! As far as beamed power is concerned, do you have any tips on how best to set up a network that can reach other celestial bodies as far as Jool and further? Does relaying the signal using the double-pivoted mirror for a UV network for example affect the strength, and if so, by how much?

[FreeThinker]

On 6/21/2019 at 5:09 PM, Synoxys said:

Thanks for taking a look at this, looking forward to a fix! As far as beamed power is concerned, do you have any tips on how best to set up a network that can reach other celestial bodies as far as Jool and further? Does relaying the signal using the double-pivoted mirror for a UV network for example affect the strength, and if so, by how much?

Relaying is currently broken but you can retransmit beamed power while having line of sight.

Edit: relaying will be fixed next release

Edited June 24, 2019 by FreeThinker

[wkwied]

On 6/17/2019 at 10:10 AM, Friznit said:

@FreeThinker I'm a simple soul and I can't do maths, nor do I have your encyclopaedic knowledge, so I have taken the liberty of collating various sources into a single reference spreadsheet to help me figure all this stuff out.  It's basically a copy of the tables from your thread and a collection of your hints and tips over the years, acting as a bit of a guide to the uninitiated to put together boiler plate KSPIE builds until you understand enough to get more sophisticated.  It also means you can filter/sort/colour code things to figure out what combination of parts and fuels is best for your mission.

It's currently locked for editing but I'd be happy to share or open to everyone to contribute.

I'm fairly sure the quantum reactor can be stopped safely without exploding. The exploding comes from if you have antimatter or positrons stored in their own dedicated containers (reactor creates them), they will explode if they are unpowered.

[FreeThinker]

15 hours ago, wkwied said:

I'm fairly sure the quantum reactor can be stopped safely without exploding.

 

[Strait_Raider]

Has anyone been able to get KSPI-E to work with 1.7.2? I got a few errors when I tried to start it up, I was able to update The Extended Filters mod, but I'm still getting errors for Photon Sailor Not Supported, please use 1.7 (Probably safe to ignore?), and KSPI-E is missing (...) Gamedata/WarpPlugin

None of the KSPI-E content comes up as a result. I can't find anywhere to install solely the WarpPlugin, and reinstalling KSPI-E does not fix it.

I'm doing this from a fresh install of KSP and can't figure out what I might be doing wrong. Has anyone seen or overcome this issue?