KSP Interstellar Extended Support Thread

[FreeThinker]

Version 1.14.11 for Kerbal Space Program 1.3.0 can be downloaded from here

Released on 2017-06-30

• 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
• Balance : Reduced minimum warp speed Alcubiere warpdrive to 1/1000 of speed of light
• 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

Edited June 29, 2017 by FreeThinker

[Babalas]

Any idea why my reactors no longer generate ElectricCharge?

 

 

[FreeThinker]

11 minutes ago, Babalas said:

Any idea why my reactors no longer generate ElectricCharge?

 

 

YOu are producing power just not all of them. I recently added Energy Generator prioritisation (called electric priority in the info screen), which means it will first ask high priority reactor to generate power before low priority generators are requested for power. This is why you Tri alphawith build in generator is producing Electric Charge while other generators are not because  the Tri Alpha by default has a high priority, because that what this reactor is specialised in, producing cheap power at maximum efficiency at minimum mass.

Edited June 30, 2017 by FreeThinker

[Babalas]

32 minutes ago, FreeThinker said:

I recently added Energy Generator prioritisation, which means it will first ask high priority reactor to generate power before low priority generators are requested for power. This is why you Tri alphawith build in generator is producing Electric Charge while other generators are not because  the Tri Alpha by default has a high priority, because that what this reactor is specialised in, producing cheap power at maximum efficiency at minimum mass

Yeah that part I've noticed. Very cool as now my thermal rockets don't melt their motherships. But notice the electric charge is going down in the top right corner. That was a new launch but prior to that I was trying with pb11 fuel and time warped just to be certain the electric charge wasn't replenishing. I had thought there was something heavily draining the EC but you can see the reactor is barely running at all.

 

**EDIT** Removing the thermal electric generator fixes things. Trying to reproduce the setup on a simpler ship.

Edited June 30, 2017 by Babalas

[FreeThinker]

31 minutes ago, Babalas said:

Yeah that part I've noticed. Very cool as now my thermal rockets don't melt their motherships. But notice the electric charge is going down in the top right corner. That was a new launch but prior to that I was trying with pb11 fuel and time warped just to be certain the electric charge wasn't replenishing. I had thought there was something heavily draining the EC but you can see the reactor is barely running at all.

Please show me the power management screen. All I can see is the electric charge ratio beeing full and are 2 reactors which are both inertial fusion reactor which will not produce any power if it isn't requested. This is a big advantage as it allows they reactor to stay standby virtually forever  as long as power request is minimal

Edited June 30, 2017 by FreeThinker

[Babalas]

3 minutes ago, FreeThinker said:

Please show me the power management screen. All I can see is the electric charge ratio beeing full and are 2 reactors which are both inertial fusion reactor which will not produce any power if it isn't request. This is a big advantage as it allows they reactor to stay standby virtually forever  as long as power request is minimal

Added two images. Second one I removed the cargo hold ship. Starting to suspect it doesn't like being in the cargohold.

[FreeThinker]

@Babalas Something appears to be going wrong with your wasteheat management, as you are producing wasteheat and now radiator are active.

Please show me the log output

Edited June 30, 2017 by FreeThinker

[FreeThinker]

On 27-6-2017 at 6:13 PM, raxo2222 said:

Okay, also this g statistic is 10 times too high in warp drive menu.

I guess it should look more like this:

[raxo2222]

I think I created spaceship, that can land in any planet in Milky Way

 

[trias702]

Hello, I'm quite new to KSPI-E, and have been playing around with certain parts to get a better understanding of how the numbers are calculated in the various Management Displays such that I understand how everything is being generated. I thought that I had a good understanding of the basics, such as attaching a basic Thermal Electric Generator to a molten salt reactor, and then using both of those to power a basic Near Future Propulsion VASIMR thruster, which eats 2 MW/sec (2000 EC/s). In this setup, everything made sense. I then tried using the KSPI-E VASIMR engine and the numbers still seemed sane.

However, when trying to use an antimatter reactor with the basic Thermal Electric Generator, none of the numbers make any sense. I've attached a screen shot of my rocket in orbital flight, showing my VX-500 VASIMR requesting 34.857 MW of electricity. This consumption is correctly reflected in the Megajoules Management Display. However, nothing else in the displays seems to make sense. For example, the reactor's maximum Thermal Power is shown to be 218.9 MW, yet the Thermal Electric generator shows Max Power=41.4 MW, which doesn't seem correct. Isn't Max Power supposed to be 218.9 * Efficiency(57.52%) = 125.91? And why is the power demand in the ThermalPower Management only 9.25 MW? Why is Theoretical Supply in Megajoules Management at 76.5? Does this have something to do with the 51.6 MW of ChargedParticles current supply?

I'm using KSP 1.22 with KSPI-E 1.13.10, and Near Future Propulsion/Electricity (which I know reduces KSPI-E power draws by a factor of 500, although I don't think that's the issue here). If anyone can please help me understand these numbers, I would greatly appreciate it. Screenshot below:

 

[FreeThinker]

@trias702  First you need to understand that if a reactor producing both charged particles and thermal heat, a thermal generator will use the power of both types in the correct fraction

Another thing you need to understand that for electric power production an antimatter reactor is limited to 5% power production, only direct charged particle propulsion with a magnetic nozzle can unleash the full power potential

Now to understand power output, you need to understand it tries to match with requested power, which is 34.9 MW for  the Vasimr + 160 KW for Antimatter storage

THe final power output is calculated by simply add up both energy outputs and multiply by efficiency (9.25 MW + 51.6 MW ) * 57.52 = +/-35 MW

 But  the 76.5 Mw number appears to be wrong, the correct number would be 46.7 MW (at maximum efficiency of 65% )

 

Edited July 1, 2017 by FreeThinker

[trias702]

@FreeThinker  Thank you kindly for taking the time to explain things to me, I really appreciate it. I have a few more questions though based on your explanations:

1 hour ago, FreeThinker said:

Another thing you need to understand that for electric power production an antimatter reactor is limited to 5% power production, only direct charged particle propulsion with a magnetic nozzle can unleash the full power potential

Is that 5% of the total reactor wattage, or just the Thermal Power (so not including Charged Power)? In this case, the reactor total power is 1440 MW, so the total amount which can go to electricity production is 1440 * 5% = 72 MW, or 218.9 * 5% = 10.95 MW?

 

Looking at the reactor control window, I do now understand that the 9.255 Thermal is from the overall reactor status percentage (4.23%) of the total Thermal (218.9 MW). What determines the split between the Thermal/Charged? Is that hardcoded into the parts file? Regardless, I see that the reactor overall status is 4.23%, so 218.9MW * 4.23% = 9.25 and 1.221GW * 4.23% = 51.6 MW, so that part makes sense. How is this 4.23% calculated and what influences it? I'm assuming that this is the 5% ceiling which you mentioned earlier for antimatter which is not connected to direct charged particle propulsion?

 

1 hour ago, FreeThinker said:

THe final power output is calculated by simply add up both energy outputs and multiply by efficiency (9.25 MW + 51.6 MW ) * 57.52 = +/-35 MW

So, because the Megajoules system knows it needs 35MW to satisfy all current consumers, and it knows current efficiency is 57.52%, it solves an equation to determine that it needs 9.25 from Thermal and 51.6 from Charged to satisfy all demand? And (9.25 + 51.6) / 1440 ~ 4.23%, so I'm guessing that's the status value from above? If so, then this makes a lot more sense now

1 hour ago, FreeThinker said:

But  the 76.5 Mw number appears to be wrong, the correct number would be 46.7 MW (at maximum efficiency of 65% )

Can you please explain how you're calculating the 46.7 MW? And this means that 46.7 MW/sec is the absolute maximum electricity which can be consumed on this vessel without depleting MJ/EC reserves?

[FreeThinker]

8 hours ago, trias702 said:

Can you please explain how you're calculating the 46.7 MW? And this means that 46.7 MW/sec is the absolute maximum electricity which can be consumed on this vessel without depleting MJ/EC reserves?

1.22 GW * 0.05 + 218.9 MW * 0.05  = 1.44 GW * 0.05 = 72 MW total power times 65% = 46.8 MW

Edited July 2, 2017 by FreeThinker

[trias702]

1 hour ago, FreeThinker said:

1.22 GW * 0.05 + 218.9 MW * 0.05  = 1.44 GW * 0.05 = 72 MW total power times 65% = 46.8 MW

Thank you for explaining that. My only remaining question about this is that 4.23% usage which I see under reactor status. Am I correct in understanding that the 4.23% cannot rise above 5% based on what you said earlier?

 

One other unrelated question: I note that you have said that KSPI-E reduces reactor output by a factor of 500 when Near Future is installed. But does it also reduce the power draw of KSPI-E electric engines as well? I note that with Near Future installed, the KSPI-E VX-500 VASIMR engine, when scaled up to 2.5m, draws 32 MW as maximum draw. However, aside from the antimatter reactors, all of the stock KSPI-E reactors only generate a max of ~8 MW (with NF installed), so you can only run the the KSPI-E 2.5m VASIMR with an antimatter or higher reactor. Is this by design? I also note that the Near Future 2.5m VASIMR runs on only 2 MW, which seems to make it a lot more economical/better than the KSPI-E 2.5m VASIMR. Not sure if this a bug maybe, and the KSPI-E ion engines have not been scaled down for MW usage the same way KSPI-E reactors have been scaled down?

[FreeThinker]

8 hours ago, trias702 said:

Thank you for explaining that. My only remaining question about this is that 4.23% usage which I see under reactor status. Am I correct in understanding that the 4.23% cannot rise above 5% based on what you said earlier

Correct, 5% should be the max

8 hours ago, trias702 said:

One other unrelated question: I note that you have said that KSPI-E reduces reactor output by a factor of 500 when Near Future is installed. But does it also reduce the power draw of KSPI-E electric engines as well?

Yes, also the main power consumers like electric engines, small power request do it partial or not at all like the antimatter mainternance

Edited July 2, 2017 by FreeThinker

[trias702]

1 hour ago, FreeThinker said:

Yes, also the main power consumers like electric engines, small power request do it partial or not at all like the antimatter mainternance

I'm not sure I understand by what you mean with "small power request do it partial or not at all", could I please trouble you to provide an example of how that works? I think I have question which deals with this: I note that the KSPI-E VASIMR, when scaled up to 2.5m size, draws 32 MW of power. However, if I connect it to a ship with a reactor of only 8 MW, I note that the VASIMR will still work, I can bring it up to full throttle and see in its details that it's asking for only 8 MW, which is the reactor max, even though it would draw 32 MW if I had 32 MW available. But the fact that it still fires with only 8 MW, does this mean that it's running at less thrust/ISP? (in this case, 75% less thrust, since (1 - 8/32) = 75%)?

[FreeThinker]

13 hours ago, trias702 said:

I'm not sure I understand by what you mean with "small power request do it partial or not at all", could I please trouble you to provide an example of how that works?

2

Small power users are parts like Cryogenic storage or antimatter storage which most of the time is less than 1Megawatt. By KSPI standard, that low power. ISRU usage fall in the range of 1 to 40 MW and is classified as average power usage, and therefore only reduced partially to allow USI/ NF reactor to be able to power them.

13 hours ago, trias702 said:

I think I have question which deals with this: I note that the KSPI-E VASIMR, when scaled up to 2.5m size, draws 32 MW of power. However, if I connect it to a ship with a reactor of only 8 MW, I note that the VASIMR will still work, I can bring it up to full throttle and see in its details that it's asking for only 8 MW, which is the reactor max, even though it would draw 32 MW if I had 32 MW available. But the fact that it still fires with only 8 MW, does this mean that it's running at less thrust/ISP? (in this case, 75% less thrust, since (1 - 8/32) = 75%)?

1

Yes, this is one of the great thing of KSPI, it scales with capability. The more power available, the better performing it can be, but there are limits which are mainly governed by the available cooling capacity. The better you are able to keep your electric engines cool, the more power you can get out from it. In this regard it's like overclocking your processor, to achieve maximum performance you need exteme cooling butter weather is worth it is a catch 21

Edited July 3, 2017 by FreeThinker

[trias702]

38 minutes ago, FreeThinker said:

Yes, this is one of the great thing of KSPI, it scales with capability. The more power available, the better performing it can be, but there are limits which are mainly governed by the available cooling capacity. The better you are able to keep your electric engines cool, the more power you can get out from it. In this regard it's like overclocking your processor, to achieve maximum performance you need exteme cooling butter weather is worth it is a catch 21

That makes sense, thank you, but what is the current KSPI effect to electric engine thrust/ISP when when it cannot draw up to it's max MW input (ignoring cooling for the moment)? So if I have a 2.5 engine which wants 32 MW, but I've only got a reactor capable of 8, does it scale down thrust, ISP, or both?

[FreeThinker]

1 hour ago, trias702 said:

That makes sense, thank you, but what is the current KSPI effect to electric engine thrust/ISP when when it cannot draw up to it's max MW input (ignoring cooling for the moment)? So if I have a 2.5 engine which wants 32 MW, but I've only got a reactor capable of 8, does it scale down thrust, ISP, or both?

It will only scale down maximum thrust, which means it will take your longer to achieve it, fortunatly there is such a thing as warped acceleration, allowing you to accelerate for months in the blink of an eye. This allows you to propel your vessel even with primitive solar cells. This can be extended with beamed power technology which act like artificial suns

Edited July 3, 2017 by FreeThinker

[FreeThinker]

I'm looking for some beta testers that can verify correct behavior of a new feature Warp Control Interface

Charge up

Activate warp

Speed up to maximum warp in the orbital view, maneuver arround sun and reduce speed when approaching our destination

Drop out of warp at the right moment end end up in in orbit around our destination.

The latest experimental build can be downloaded from here

 

[trias702]

I have a quick question about how KSPI-E and Near Future Electrical mix and match Megajoules vs EC/sec. Can you power KSPI-E engines which require MW to run, using Near Future reactors? In my current game, I have a vessel which has the DT Vista engine, which requires 4 MW to run, and I am currently generating 6000 EC/sec with Near Future reactors on the same ship (which should translate to 6 MW), however the Vista doesn't work because it claims there is no electricity on the ship. Am I only able to power the Vista using a KSPI-E reactor+generator?

[FreeThinker]

1 hour ago, trias702 said:

I have a quick question about how KSPI-E and Near Future Electrical mix and match Megajoules vs EC/sec. Can you power KSPI-E engines which require MW to run, using Near Future reactors?

 

In the current release no, but in the near future it will with near future reactor, especially if I know people actually want this feature

[trias702]

27 minutes ago, FreeThinker said:

In the current release no, but in the near future it will with near future reactor, especially if I know people actually want this feature

I would really love a feature like this! Please let me know if I can help test in any way.

[Gordon Dry]

I found two exceptions:

PartLoader: Compiling Part 'WarpPlugin/Parts/FuelTank/AntimatterTanks1/125/AntimatterTank125'
 
(Filename: C:/buildslave/unity/build/artifacts/generated/common/runtime/UnityEngineDebugBindings.gen.cpp Line: 42)

PartLoader: Encountered exception during compilation. System.OverflowException: Value is too large
  at System.Int32.Parse (System.String s) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
  at PartLoader.ParsePart (.UrlConfig urlConfig, .ConfigNode node) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
  at PartLoader+<CompileParts>c__Iterator66.MoveNext () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
 
(Filename: C:/buildslave/unity/build/artifacts/generated/common/runtime/UnityEngineDebugBindings.gen.cpp Line: 42)

PartCompiler: Cannot compile part
 
(Filename: C:/buildslave/unity/build/artifacts/generated/common/runtime/UnityEngineDebugBindings.gen.cpp Line: 42)

and

DragCubeSystem: Creating drag cubes for part 'kspieAirbag'
 
(Filename: C:/buildslave/unity/build/artifacts/generated/common/runtime/UnityEngineDebugBindings.gen.cpp Line: 42)

NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object
  at PartLoader.GetDatabaseConfig (.Part p) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
  at PartLoader.GetDatabaseConfig (.Part p, System.String nodeName) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
  at DragCubeSystem.LoadDragCubes (.Part p) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
  at Part+<Start>c__Iterator3A.MoveNext () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
  at UnityEngine.SetupCoroutine.InvokeMoveNext (IEnumerator enumerator, IntPtr returnValueAddress) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
 
(Filename:  Line: -1)

Log:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/tz11brgezp2zz3f/2017-07-04-1 KSP.log.zip?dl=1

[trias702]

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?