[0.25]KSP Interstellar (Magnetic Nozzles, ISRU Revamp) Version 0.13

[Patupi]

Cool. I did use Tree Edit for my AAR mod, (based on KSPI first, with others added in) and found out the hard way it's awkward to leave that in and run the game. The window won't go away Plus when I switched back to using Treeloader to play, deleting Tree Edit, reloading Treeloader, though I didn't think to backup the tree.cfg in the save game... well, somehow I ended up with an empty tree.cfg. Since I only added in two mods to what you already had in there (thanks for adding in KAS and firespitter by the way ) it wasn't hard to redo what I'd added to get back to where I was.

[Skoot]

So this is the list of mods I'm considering applying to stock KSP along with KSPI...

Procedural Fairings (Highly optional, second to go if too many mods)

Procedural Wings (Highly optional, first to go if too many mods)

FAR (Seems to be a bit of a no-brainer to keep)

KW Rocketry (Also highly useful and I keep hearing it's a bit better than NP)

B9 Aerospace (Seems to be just about as useful and important as FAR)

KAS (Also almost indispensably useful in KSPI specifically)

Kerbal Joint Reinforcement (Seems like a no-brainer to keep part counts down, but third to go if too much)

UbioZur Welding (Also seems really too useful not to have for keeping part counts down)

Kethane (Seems to be fairly common and useful, but not at all necessary)

Extra-planetary Launchpads (Would seem to be a no-brainer for KSPI, and Kethane, considering their need for off-planet outposts)

Would it be worthwhile to use only part of B9, if I choose to go with the Procedural mods? Essentially just take out all the wings and such? Or perhaps are the procedural wings simply pointless with the variety B9 offers?

Would it be worthwhile in the same case to take the fairings and such out of KWR for the same reason? Should I skip KWR entirely since FAR seems to make the stock rockets significantly more effective?

I haven't even downloaded any of these yet, because I wanted input first. So, suggestions?

I'm not into spaceplanes at all so I don't know about B9. But since I've installed procedural fairings myself I have removed the fairings from KWR.

I highly recommend adding modular fuel tanks (basic version) to that list, it will let you build ships that need liquid fuel only with any tank size/shape you have at your disposal.

Kethane tends to make the game a lot easier (if you can mine Kethane once you've arrived at your destination you don't have to worry about the return trip fuel anymore), especially with KSPI since it gives you infinite electrical power once you can put a tiny rnuclear eactor/generator on your ships.

[forsaken1111]

The nukes are not 'infinite' but they are very long duration. I agree that the other fairings aren't really necessary. I was planning to test out the stretchy tanks mods and if it works well I could remove most normal fuel tanks as well to cut down to part counts.

[Patupi]

I'd forgotten about the fueling on reactors. I was just comparing to stock RTGs. Changing solar panels should take into account other systems people can use from stock to replace the panels if their nerfed too much. (for varying degrees of, or opinions on 'too much' )

[Donziboy2]

Fractal_Uk, I have been sitting around thinking about a way to refuel the reactors. Yes, I know I have way to much free time:P

1. A fuel containment part that has a good amount of weight(representing the radiation containment material). Base the number of fuel rods on the size of the container and the reactor. 62.5cm has 1 rod maybe, 1.25m has 4 to 8 and so on.

2. Requires a science lab with at least one Kerbal. Smarter the better, since we all know broken rods are bad....

3. Takes several hours to complete. So you cant get thermal power from the reactor while its being worked on.

4. The fuel in the containment vessel will slowly degrade, it wont sit their forever and be usable(1% per year). Enough to outlast a running reactor but not so much that someone will just throw a few on and never have to worry about running out.

5. When changing fuel rods you loose all remaining fuel, no leftovers, it gets reset and the fuel received is based on #4 and the number of rods, so if you try to put 5 rods in a reactor that needs 6 your SOL, and somebody will have to walk to the nearest rod replacement facility:wink: Or maybe it will run with reduced output?

This would be a good compromise from sending an entire reactor to replace a depleted one. Or allow you to have one ship that will basically go around changing rods when needed. Instead of dropping empty reactors into the sun every few years:)

Edited November 1, 2013 by Donziboy2

[Patupi]

Can't you do this already right now? I admit I haven't tried it, but won't two ships both with reactors, after they're docked together, be able to transfer reactor fuel and expended fuel? Thus one ship with a reprocessing plant (IE science lab) can go around docking with ships to refuel their reactors.

Edited November 1, 2013 by Patupi
re-wordageification

[Donziboy2]

Can't you do this already right now? I admit I haven't tried it, but won't two ships both with reactors, after they're docked together, be able to transfer reactor fuel and expended fuel, so one ship with a reprocessing plant (IE science lab) go around shifting fuel back and forth as it reprocesses it?

No, you currently cant transfer the fuel to or from the reactors. Not even with TAC Fuel Balancer.

You can reprocess the fuel but eventually you will run out.

I think you can still reprocess the fuel in the reactor while the reactor is running, which I think should be changed...

Edited November 1, 2013 by Donziboy2

[sidfu]

does this add nodes to the research tree or use existing ones thats at end of tree? cause im using the vettech tree and alll id does is rearange som eof the techs it doesnt change the existing tree realy

[Patupi]

It does both. The main advanced items (antimatter reactors, warp drive etc) have their own, expensive, tech nodes. The other lesser items, like the heat sinks etc are added into other existing tech nodes.

[Taris]

Hi, I've mocked up a space plane with antimatter reactors. It looks like this.

However, when I try to throttle up to take off, one of thermal turbojet engine doesn't power up and spins the aircraft. If the design has only one engine and one antimatter reactor, it works like a sci-fi starfighter. But this twin engine setup seems bugged a bit.

Also, this plane was completely flyable when the reactors were nuclear ones. Thus, I definitely think that whether I'm not using the antimatter reactor correct way or it's bugged. Would you kindly look at this problem?

Thanks!

Edited November 2, 2013 by Taris

[BananaDealer]

Hi, I've mocked up a space plane with antimatter reactors. It looks like this.

However, when I try to throttle up to take off, one of thermal turbojet engine doesn't power up and spins the aircraft. If the design has only one engine and one antimatter reactor, it works like a sci-fi starfighter. But this twin engine setup seems bugged a bit.

Also, this plane was completely flyable when the reactors were nuclear ones. Thus, I definitely think that whether I'm not using the antimatter reactor wrong way or it's bugged. Would you kindly look at this problem?

Thanks!

Are both engines active and using the same fuel?

[forsaken1111]

That is a sexy star fighter.

[Taris]

Of course, they are both active and I didn't change fuel settings at all. So, they are using intake atmosphere.

Also, when I tried push the limit, one of solid state generator(attached in front of the antimatter reactors)s shuts off due to lack of reactor heat. Maybe antimatter reactors are supposed to be operated with actual antimatter(which needs to be harvested)? Thus, requiring antimatter containers and collectors. I'm not sure.

Edited November 2, 2013 by Taris

[Taris]

lol you can do better with B9 mod.

[forsaken1111]

lol you can do better with B9 mod.

That was kind of rude...

[Tharios]

Of course, they are both active and I didn't change fuel settings at all. So, they are using intake atmosphere.

Also, when I tried push the limit, one of solid state generator(attached in front of the antimatter reactors)s shuts off due to lack of reactor heat. Maybe antimatter reactors are supposed to be operated with actual antimatter(which needs to be harvested)? Thus, requiring antimatter containers and collectors. I'm not sure.

Yeah, you still have to have AM to fuel the reactors in the first place.

Edit: The AM storage tanks in the sandbox version are NOT filled from the start. You still have to go get AM (unless you want to cheat it in somehow). So simply adding them to your craft will not be sufficient, either.

lol you can do better with B9 mod.

Who are you talking to?

Edited November 2, 2013 by Tharios

[BananaDealer]

Of course, they are both active and I didn't change fuel settings at all. So, they are using intake atmosphere.

Also, when I tried push the limit, one of solid state generator(attached in front of the antimatter reactors)s shuts off due to lack of reactor heat. Maybe antimatter reactors are supposed to be operated with actual antimatter(which needs to be harvested)? Thus, requiring antimatter containers and collectors. I'm not sure.

Yeah antimatter reactors require antimatter... Does the engine that isn't working flame out or just doesn't activate?

[Taris]

Yeah antimatter reactors require antimatter... Does the engine that isn't working flame out or just doesn't activate?

It doesn't flameout at all. The engine turns on. Also engine noise intensifies and the nozzle expands when I throttle up. Looks like the engine is working in perfect manner. However, when I hover mouse on it, its thrust shows 0.

Then the single reactor-engine pairing was bugged, I guess. The reactor shows "Antimatter deprived" but the engine still fires up and provides massive TWR. Of course, when i reach the end of atmosphere, it loses power.

[Taris]

That was kind of rude...

Well, I just said you can actually design better craft with B9 mod.

[Tharios]

It doesn't flameout at all. The engine turns on. Also engine noise intensifies and the nozzle expands when I throttle up. Looks like the engine is working in perfect manner. However, when I hover mouse on it, its thrust shows 0.

Then the single reactor-engine pairing was bugged, I guess. The reactor shows "Antimatter deprived" but the engine still fires up and provides massive TWR. Of course, when i reach the end of atmosphere, it loses power.

Not a bug. Your thermal turbojet is set to "prevent flameout" thrust limiter mode. Meaning it'll power up as far as you set the throttle, but won't produce any thrust if there's no power. Which there isn't, because your reactors aren't running at all.

Hence, 0 thrust.

[Taris]

Not a bug. Your thermal turbojet is set to "prevent flameout" thrust limiter mode. Meaning it'll power up as far as you set the throttle, but won't produce any thrust if there's no power. Which there isn't, because your reactors aren't running at all.

Hence, 0 thrust.

No, I meant a single engine craft. The craft I linked has two engines. But I also have a single engine-single antimatter reactor craft and it works like cheat.

http://ge.tt/4VFTRxw/v/0?c

Requires MechJeb2, This mod, and B9.

This craft should flame out on the ground if antimatter reactor requires antimatter...

by the way, I'm running these crafts in career mode.

[Tharios]

No, I meant a single engine craft. The craft I linked has two engines. But I also have a single engine-single antimatter reactor craft and it works like cheat.

http://ge.tt/4VFTRxw/v/0?c

Requires MechJeb2, This mod, and B9.

This craft should flame out on the ground if antimatter reactor requires antimatter...

by the way, I'm running these crafts in career mode.

Misread what you originally said. Sorry.

Yeah, single-engine version is bugged.

[forsaken1111]

So I have 4 separate 62.5cm reactor/generator parts on this ship. They are intended to power my science lab. Am I misunderstanding how this works, or am I seeing a bug? I thought a 6.25cm reactor + generator was supposed to produce 1.5MW?

My reactors are running at 100% but the generators only show 19.1% efficiency and I am not producing what I expected.

[boomerdog2000]

So I have 4 separate 62.5cm reactor/generator parts on this ship. They are intended to power my science lab. Am I misunderstanding how this works, or am I seeing a bug? I thought a 6.25cm reactor + generator was supposed to produce 1.5MW?

My reactors are running at 100% but the generators only show 19.1% efficiency and I am not producing what I expected.

I believe until you research the correct tech your generators are only about 20% efficient. Since no generator will be ever be perfect. Once you have that tech unlocked however your generators are 60% efficient. I don't know about the actual MW numbers however.

[Kenken244]

I've been thinking, Instead of try to create a way to convert Megajoules to electric charge, why not convert everything that produces electric charge to producing megajoules, since they would produce electric charge first anyways?