KARE 2.1 [Sep 22, 2024]

[JadeOfMaar]

"Kerbal Aircraft Reactor Experiment"

Spoiler

Original image

The KARE package is here, meeting the people's need for a suite of high performance atomic jet engines.

License: CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0

DOWNLOAD :: SPACEDOCK :: GITHUB

Edited September 11 by JadeOfMaar
Updated cover image for v 2.0 release

[kspnerd122]

First

[An Amongus Sussy Player]

Second

[alberro+]

Third

 

Nice stuff dude, can't wait to try it out!

[Davi SDF]

Fourth and HOLY SATURN V, those look awesome!

[Terminator Shock]

5th, hell yeah, more nuclear jet engines to polute the air with

[LTQ90]

Don't know it i need it, but i give a try. They are beautiful.

Tx JadeOfMaar.

[Stone Blue]

I dont suppose these will work with OPT, will they?

As always, GREAT JOB!!

[AtomicTech]

I was going to write a thermonuclear adaptor for the stock engines but as soon as I saw this get uploaded, I knew that it would've been rather useless with this new neat mod!

[obnox twin]

Time to install it and put it on some fighter jets and have one of them blow up scientific planes

Edited December 1, 2021 by obnox twin

[JadeOfMaar]

4 hours ago, Stone Blue said:

I dont suppose these will work with OPT, will they?

As always, GREAT JOB!!

A little repaint and reconfig can make all things possible.

lol thanks

[Chase842]

Is it just me, or do the Mk2 engines cause weird problems with CoL when using FAR?

[JadeOfMaar]

5 hours ago, Chase842 said:

Is it just me, or do the Mk2 engines cause weird problems with CoL when using FAR?

It's not standard practice for me to make FAR configs. From a quick glance at FAR's GitHub, I must assume that my Mk2 parts still have their stock lift surface module, and this is the source of your problems. If that is the case, save this config and let me know if it makes a difference:

@PART[kare_eng_ntj_mk2|kare_int_ram_mk2|kare_int_shock_mk2]:NEEDS[FerramAerospaceResearch]
{
	@minimum_drag = 0
	@maximum_drag = 0
	@angularDrag = 0
	!MODULE[ModuleLiftingSurface] {}
}

 

[Chase842]

On 12/21/2021 at 11:18 AM, JadeOfMaar said:

It's not standard practice for me to make FAR configs. From a quick glance at FAR's GitHub, I must assume that my Mk2 parts still have their stock lift surface module, and this is the source of your problems. If that is the case, save this config and let me know if it makes a difference:

@PART[kare_eng_ntj_mk2|kare_int_ram_mk2|kare_int_shock_mk2]:NEEDS[FerramAerospaceResearch]
{
	@minimum_drag = 0
	@maximum_drag = 0
	@angularDrag = 0
	!MODULE[ModuleLiftingSurface] {}
}

 

Yep, that did the trick!

Thanks Jade! I'll take note of this, if I have any issues with FAR in the future, I'll try and create a config like this and see if I can solve my own problems.

[Manul]

These engines shine. Literally.

I don't know what makes me more happy: a shiny radioactive exhaust or the nice red hot glowing of the engine itself.

[Manul]

Engines and intakes look even more awesome with B9 Animation Modules and DepthMask installed (had to write a patch to make depth mask work with a ModuleDepthMask not only with RestockDepthMask)

[JadeOfMaar]

Release 1.1

• Added FAR config. Fixes CoL problems when involving these Mk2 parts.
• Added missing IntakeAtm patch for intakes.
• Added Waterfall configs.
• Fixed engineID values (changed from Dry & Wet to AirBreathing & ClosedCycle). Some mods, namely BDArmory, do trip over this.
• Reduced engine heat production values.

Hey @HebaruSan I'd like to get a recommends: StockWaterfallEffects (made by @Knight of St John)

[Rakete]

11 hours ago, JadeOfMaar said:

Some mods, namely BDArmory, do trip over this.

Meaning incompatible to BDA? I have this mod and would like to know, i I could use your KARE-Mod or if it will be incompatible? What kind of problems will it cause?

Edited December 23, 2022 by Rakete

[Manul]

21 minutes ago, Rakete said:

Meaning incompatible to BDA?

The BDArmory AI counts Wet mode as afterburner I guess   Engaging a low thrust atmosphere-inefficient mode on a carrier takeoff might be confusing.

I wouldn't call it "incompatible" but some ai controlled vessels might meet a horrible fate. But there is no dedicated aerospace fighter AI anyways so we can assume that BDArmory is incompatible with SSTOs in general (or SSTOs are incompatible with active combat at the edge of space because air to air  combat at mach 6+ is physically impossible)

Edited December 23, 2022 by Manul

[Rakete]

21 minutes ago, Manul said:

The BDArmory AI counts Wet mode as afterburner I guess   Engaging a low thrust atmosphere-inefficient mode on a carrier takeoff might be confusing.

Ah, so no hard incompatibility - just a confusion for AI-piloting, as I understand, right? So not much of a deal, I guess,.. right? 

yeah i don't use that much except for my smaller target vessels. I guess, they will have to take off manually, if fitted with KARE-engines. Or don't get those engines... we'll see

 

 

No dependencies except Module Manager?

Edited December 23, 2022 by Rakete

[Manul]

4 minutes ago, Rakete said:

Ah, so no incompatibility - just a confusion for IR-Targetting, as I understand, right?

Not for targeting because it depends on actual heat generation of the engine. But pilot AI can count Wet mode as afterburner and try to use it in the atmosphere loosing thrust on takeoff and crashing.

[Rakete]

3 minutes ago, Manul said:

Not for targeting because it depends on actual heat generation of the engine. But pilot AI can count Wet mode as afterburner and try to use it in the atmosphere loosing thrust on takeoff and crashing.

Okay... so no engines for AI-pilots... I guess I may live with that. I guess the AI-pilots should stay away from modded engines. 

[Manul]

25 minutes ago, Rakete said:

Okay... so no engines for AI-pilots...

But it was fixed so AI pilots can fly SSTOs now (at least in lower atmosphere).  I wonder what would happen if I put a wingman into the spaceplane and order him to follow me on the ascent into space.

[Rakete]

@JadeOfMaar Little Bugreport: If you have an older version (in my case 0.5.2) of stock waterfall effects installed (because I like those plumes more, than the actual ones) the two multimodal engines generate Nulrefspam when in closed cycle mode and show no plume. So maybe you want to announce a minimum SWE-Version or change something in the config. For me, I will stick to 0.5.2 of the SWE configs, because i like them best - and will deactivate the KARE-waterfall-config as a compromise.

And the non-waterfall-plumes are mostly alright too... But they look strange at higher speeds, because the particles leaving the engine are as slow as when the plane has lower speed.

Optimum would be: Check for matching waterfall template for the open-cycle mode: If there, use it, else use old particle system... and check for template for closed cycle mode - if there use it, or switch to particle plume. So I could have a waterfall plume for open cycle (which i have a template for) and the particle plume for closed cycle mode (which I seemingly have no template for (Nullref-Spam) with my SWE 0.5.2 )

 

Edited December 23, 2022 by Rakete

[Rakete]

Under certain points of view the textures flicker and show stange beige color:

See here: Inner area of the intake:

KSP 1.12.3