KSP Interstellar Extended Support Thread

[Chase842]

I'm having an issue where most(probably all) of the KSP-I engine are producing no thrust whatsoever, despite the correct numbers for thrust/ISP being displayed when the part is clicked on in the Space Plane Hangar.

 

Is anyone else having this issue, or know how to resolve it?

[ss8913]

33 minutes ago, FreeThinker said:

When exploding, you should try to figure out what is actually exploding , perhaps there is still a Gforce jump, or it is something with the physics of the game.

I'm pretty sure I have part G force failures turned off but maybe not... let me verify that.

[Chase842]

An update,

It appears that the thermal turbojet, and thermal ramjet nozzle are the engines that are giving me the issues, and they are not receiving fuel flow. They are directly connected to a reactor, that is on, and has fuel. An interesting side note, they produce thrust for a fraction of a second when the engine is activated, but then it will go back to producing no thrust, and consuming no fuel.

Also, I was having issues with the Dusty reactor, it just doesn't produce anything, and a couple other reactors have empty reactor control windows.

Is anyone else having similar issues?

 

EDIT 06/16/2017 3:10pm CST

I reverted to 1.14.2 and manually replaced files that were updated in 1.14.3(except for the tritium fix since I can't seem to find the change) and it works just fine. So that should confirm that the bugs should be caused by the new version of KSP-I and not other mods.

I am not using any near future mods, and I have kept my mod list very small to narrow down the cause of the issue.

 

My mod list includes:

- KSP-I and all the tird party mods it comes with

- RCS Build

- OPT

- mk2 expansion

- Flightplan

- Routine Mission Manager

- Kerbal Engineer

- Mechjeb

NOTE: All mods are their most recent versions and made for KSP 1.3

Edited June 16, 2017 by Chase842
update

[raxo2222]

QSR + EM drive = can accelerate at 1 m/s² for hundreds of years.

 

BTW docking port, hex core tube and radiator heat shield still aren't resizable (structural parts) and wrapped graphene radiator

Edited June 16, 2017 by raxo2222

[Temeriki]

2 hours ago, Chase842 said:

An update,

It appears that the thermal turbojet, and thermal ramjet nozzle are the engines that are giving me the issues, and they are not receiving fuel flow. They are directly connected to a reactor, that is on, and has fuel. An interesting side note, they produce thrust for a fraction of a second when the engine is activated, but then it will go back to producing no thrust, and consuming no fuel.

Also, I was having issues with the Dusty reactor, it just doesn't produce anything, and a couple other reactors have empty reactor control windows.

Is anyone else having similar issues?

Do you happen to have any near future mods installed?

Nvm just saw your edit.  No ideas

Edited June 16, 2017 by Temeriki

[Drew Kerman]

18 hours ago, FreeThinker said:

When exploding, you should try to figure out what is actually exploding , perhaps there is still a Gforce jump, or it is something with the physics of the game.

On 6/9/2017 at 3:06 AM, ss8913 said:

ok,  I'll look for that.  as for the tweakscaling, yeah, I'm getting 3700 kN of thrust no matter how i tweakscale that engine.. is that intentional?

If something is exploding use the F3 key to open the log and it will tell you what part(s) exploded and usually why

[ss8913]

10 hours ago, Chase842 said:

An update,

It appears that the thermal turbojet, and thermal ramjet nozzle are the engines that are giving me the issues, and they are not receiving fuel flow. They are directly connected to a reactor, that is on, and has fuel. An interesting side note, they produce thrust for a fraction of a second when the engine is activated, but then it will go back to producing no thrust, and consuming no fuel.

Also, I was having issues with the Dusty reactor, it just doesn't produce anything, and a couple other reactors have empty reactor control windows.

Is anyone else having similar issues?

 

EDIT 06/16/2017 3:10pm CST

I reverted to 1.14.2 and manually replaced files that were updated in 1.14.3(except for the tritium fix since I can't seem to find the change) and it works just fine. So that should confirm that the bugs should be caused by the new version of KSP-I and not other mods.

I am not using any near future mods, and I have kept my mod list very small to narrow down the cause of the issue.

 

My mod list includes:

- KSP-I and all the tird party mods it comes with

- RCS Build

- OPT

- mk2 expansion

- Flightplan

- Routine Mission Manager

- Kerbal Engineer

- Mechjeb

NOTE: All mods are their most recent versions and made for KSP 1.3

This is because in the last update, the mod was updated so that antimatter reactors need LH2 as well as antimatter.  If you're not using antimatter reactors, do you have any ejection mass?  like hydrazine?  you need reactor fuel *and* ejection mass.

3 hours ago, Drew Kerman said:

If something is exploding use the F3 key to open the log and it will tell you what part(s) exploded and usually why

you'd think, right?

@FreeThinker - update:

1. I have part G force limits OFF
2. F3 shows *nothing*.  just a big explosion with  nothing logged
3.  F3 does show "maximum g force tolerated: 0.1g"
4.  it seems somewhat dependent on the ship - some ships can go at much higher time warps than others.  not sure what the deal is. any time I have 2 ships docked together, though, the problem is far worse than if it went up as a single launch
5.  I do have KJR installed, otherwise the docking thing doesn't work at all, it just flops around and that's obviously bad.
6.  That pic that I posted - that's not midway-through-exploding, the parts shear apart like that and it *stays like that*, in the edge case.  Usually that doesn't happen.  Usually it just explodes in a huge fireball.

[ss8913]

Further update - something about this craft... a long string of saves/reloads, even persisting across invocations of KSP in general.. I don't know.  something was weird.  every time I hit the time warp even a little, the part joints "skew" a little bit and go back to normal at 1x, but...  anyway, so I turn the thing around and limp home at 1x timewarp.. disconnect the spaceplane, land it, but notice there's a ton of ground textures missing on the way in... something got hugely corrupted here and I don't know exactly what.

I'm wondering though if KJR might be having some kind of a problem with KSPIE in some way?  I'm not seeing anything in the logs, but.. i don't know.  i don't see anything that KSPIE is doing that would really affect anything KJR is doing..?

[FreeThinker]

1 hour ago, ss8913 said:

Further update - something about this craft... a long string of saves/reloads, even persisting across invocations of KSP in general.. I don't know.  something was weird.  every time I hit the time warp even a little, the part joints "skew" a little bit and go back to normal at 1x, but...  anyway, so I turn the thing around and limp home at 1x timewarp.. disconnect the spaceplane, land it, but notice there's a ton of ground textures missing on the way in... something got hugely corrupted here and I don't know exactly what.

I'm wondering though if KJR might be having some kind of a problem with KSPIE in some way?  I'm not seeing anything in the logs, but.. i don't know.  i don't see anything that KSPIE is doing that would really affect anything KJR is doing..?

I'm not an expert but KJR is known to over-stress vessel joints and rip them apart. KJR has a xml config file that lets you configure it behavior . Perhaps you can toy around with it  and figure out a good config.

11 hours ago, raxo2222 said:

QSR + EM drive = can accelerate at 1 m/s² for hundreds of years.

Yes, the SQR is a mass to power converter and EM is a power to momentum converter. Still I need to add some relativity compensation to prevent it from going faster than light

Edited June 17, 2017 by FreeThinker

[ss8913]

13 minutes ago, FreeThinker said:

I'm not an expert but KJR is known to over-stress vessel joints and rip them apart. KJR has a xml config file that lets you configure it behavior . Perhaps you can toy around with it  and figure out a good config.

Yes, the SQR is a mass to power converter and EM is a power to momentum converter. Still I need to add some relativity compensation to prevent it from going faster than light

IRONICALLY, that's exactly what KJR is supposed to prevent.. let me see if i can get quantum struts recompiled for 1.3.0, and use that instead of KJR..... and re-test this.

[raxo2222]

24 minutes ago, FreeThinker said:

I'm not an expert but KJR is known to over-stress vessel joints and rip them apart. KJR has a xml config file that lets you configure it behavior . Perhaps you can toy around with it  and figure out a good config.

Yes, the SQR is a mass to power converter and EM is a power to momentum converter. Still I need to add some relativity compensation to prevent it from going faster than light

And what about nonresizeable parts, that I listed in same post?

Edited June 17, 2017 by raxo2222

[FreeThinker]

2 minutes ago, raxo2222 said:

And what about nonresizeable parts, that I listed in same post?

I will add a tweakscale config for them

Edited June 17, 2017 by FreeThinker

[Albman]

Hello everybody.

Assuming different budget constraints, what parts are best suited for brachistochrone trajectories?

Also

Thanks for your TiMe!

[raxo2222]

57 minutes ago, Albman said:

Hello everybody.

Assuming different budget constraints, what parts are best suited for brachistochrone trajectories?

Also

Thanks for your TiMe!

You need parts, that give you highest ISP, that is fuel efficiency.

I bet anything above 1000 and especially 10 000 ISP would mean less total fuel is used, meaning you don't have to carry insane amount of fuel.

Edit: I read somewhere  you run into diminishing returns, when your DV is 10 - 20 times higher than your ISP.

So this means with 1000 ISP you would be pushing really hard to have lets say 50 000 DV,

Edit: Its DV = ISP*g*ln(wet/dry mass).

If weight of fuel (wet mass - dry mass) as weight of spaceship without fuel, then you get around 6.8*ISP m/s DV

y =  ISP*9.81* ln(x + 1), where x represents fuel mass relative to dry mass, If x = 1, then it means fuel mass equal to dry mass.

Such equation says how much DV you can get from given fuel fraction.

Fun fact: If fuel is 10% of dry mass, then you get DV almost equal ISP numerically.

 

 

Edited June 17, 2017 by raxo2222

[FreeThinker]

Version 1.14.4 for Kerbal Space Program 1.3.0 can be downloaded from here

Released on 2017-06-18

• 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
• 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
• Fixed most severe wasteheat spikes
• Fixed missing tweakscale config to structural parts and radiators

[ss8913]

So I tried that Thallo mission again.. it was OK this time.  I think the one thing I did differently was not try to quicksave while traveling faster than light.  That seems to matter, somehow.

[FreeThinker]

7 hours ago, ss8913 said:

So I tried that Thallo mission again.. it was OK this time.  I think the one thing I did differently was not try to quicksave while traveling faster than light.  That seems to matter, somehow.

mm, interesting, but it would kind of make sence. What about normal saving. Perhaps its an idea to disable quick saving while traveling faster than light

[ss8913]

1 hour ago, FreeThinker said:

mm, interesting, but it would kind of make sence. What about normal saving. Perhaps its an idea to disable quick saving while traveling faster than light

i'm not sure about normal saving.. i'm not sure if it even does that (autosave) or if it thinks there's .. things going on and it can't.

anyway... In orbit over Thallo:

 

and landed on Thallo:

 

... and we made it all the way back to the runway at KSC... 74Tm round trip.  Didn't need to refuel either the stardrive module or the spaceplane, either.  One go for both.  there's still well over 100km/s dV in the stardrive module thanks to the 4 Kerbsteins

[raxo2222]

I think there is still few quirks to fix.

Antimatter containers doesn't show units properly and antimatter initiated reactor still go to 100% load needlessly when using thermal turbojets with fusion reactors.

[FreeThinker]

Notice you can actually create a very efficient SSTW (Single stage to warp) with using Kerbstein, Antimatter Reactor and Turbojet

First we assent to 30 km using only atmosphere

At 30 kilometer we switch to hydrazine

At 40 kilometer we disable the engine running on hydrazine and activate  only the Kerbein

Fight gravity and slowly get into orbit

 

Once in orbit, charge the Warpdrive and fly away

This vessel can reach 60c, still 90% fueled

Edited June 19, 2017 by FreeThinker

[raxo2222]

This bug also makes main reactors useless for electricity production for fusion maintenance.

When I changed my space plane to contain antimatter reactor instead 2 antimatter initiated reactor I suddenly got much larger waste heat production when using fusion reactor powered thermal engines - both of these reactors [AIM/Antimatter] went to 100% load, when much less power was needed to maintain fusion reactors.

Wasteheat production fell when I switched to electrical engines. I guess I need thermal generators for fusion engines and turn on AIM/Antimatter reactors only when switching to electric engine.

 

Edited June 18, 2017 by raxo2222

[FreeThinker]

16 minutes ago, raxo2222 said:

This bug also makes main reactors useless for electricity production for fusion maintenance.

When I changed my space plane to contain antimatter reactor instead 2 antimatter initiated reactor I suddenly got much larger waste heat production when using fusion reactor powered thermal engines - both of these reactors [AIM/Antimatter] went to 100% load, when much less power was needed to maintain fusion reactors.

Wasteheat production fell when I switched to electrical engines. I guess I need thermal generators for fusion engines and turn on AIM/Antimatter reactors only when switching to electric engine.

Could you send me the vessel?

[raxo2222]

1 hour ago, FreeThinker said:

Could you send me the vessel?

I'll send you both antimatter and AIM ones.

http://www48.zippyshare.com/v/qpRcfjri/file.html - 2 Antimatter Initiated Fusion main reactors, can produce electricity (charged particle generators) and 2 Fusion reactors (thermal energy only one), that doesn't have generators connected, only thermal engine.
http://www48.zippyshare.com/v/u2lNb1JT/file.html - Single antimatter reactor with charged particle generator and same 2 fusion reactors + engines

There is a lot of parts both inline and radially between reactors with generators and engines with connected reactor without generator between them.

Thermal/charged energy from reactors shouldn't be transferred to thermal/magnetic engines, if engine isn't directly connected to reactor.

Or just block thermal energy transfer, if there is more than one part in between engine and reactor.

Edited June 18, 2017 by raxo2222

[FreeThinker]

3 hours ago, raxo2222 said:

This bug also makes main reactors useless for electricity production for fusion maintenance.

When I changed my space plane to contain antimatter reactor instead 2 antimatter initiated reactor I suddenly got much larger waste heat production when using fusion reactor powered thermal engines - both of these reactors [AIM/Antimatter] went to 100% load, when much less power was needed to maintain fusion reactors.

Wasteheat production fell when I switched to electrical engines. I guess I need thermal generators for fusion engines and turn on AIM/Antimatter reactors only when switching to electric engine.

 

I guess it should more look something like this:

[raxo2222]

31 minutes ago, FreeThinker said:

I guess it should more look something like this:

Yep, enough electricity for fusion maintenance (thermal turbojets) and ARCJETS (rcs) and some other stuff.

No need to waste expensive resources and produce excess waste heat.

 

SUGGESTION: Can antimatter initiated reactor have Charged Particle only mode (or at least with incrased ratio)?

For example Deuter-Lithium6 fusion.

 

 

 

Edited June 18, 2017 by raxo2222