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

[Fractal_UK]

I'm not talking about the storage part, just the irritating micromanagement. Human reactors don't run at full power constantly, they have management systems which match the power output to the demand (generator and/or thruster in this case). And flipping the things on and off manually is precisely what you wrote - instantly throttleable massive power generators - they go from 100 to 0 to 100 to 0 as I sit there flipping on/off so I don't waste anti-matter. Case in point, I took my 4 lab, 175t anti-matter ship from Kerbin to Jool (9000km orbit where the best particle density is) and it took less than 2,000AM but it was irritating to nurse it along. That's what computers are for .

I see your point. I hadn't really considered that someone would want to consider the antimatter reactors on and off continuously, I assumed they would tend to be off for long periods and on for only short periods. In light of this, I've been experimenting with some more passive resource management and I've got pretty far.

Here are some screenshots, in this one I'm running my antimatter thermal rocket at partial throttle and am consuming 0.40 antimatter/sec

When I throttle up to 100%, antimatter useage goes back up to the current standard for the 2.5m reactor (1.11 antimatter/sec)

On the pad, with my warp drive fully charged, my antimatter useage is zero despite my reactor being turned on:

It's not just the engines that control this behaviour though, it's anything that draws power. If you're doing research, your antimatter reactor will use precisely enough power to run the research lab and no more, etc.

For nuclear reactors, which don't have an option to power off, I'm going to add a minimum resource draw so that that the nuclear thermal reactor will never throttle down below say 30%. That way, you can extend their lifespans by not drawing all their power but can't make them last (almost) forever.

Edited September 5, 2013 by Fractal_UK

[Dysoch]

now its working thx to your cfg file, but found another bug:

when you redezvous and dock with your ship holding a science module, the module will not get megajoules from the reactor and therefor cant research or do anything(except turning on lights). a quick trip to the space center and then back to the craft fixed this.

[Fractal_UK]

now its working thx to your cfg file, but found another bug:

I'm glad to hear that has worked for you, at least that means I'm fixing the right bug.

when you redezvous and dock with your ship holding a science module, the module will not get megajoules from the reactor and therefor cant research or do anything(except turning on lights). a quick trip to the space center and then back to the craft fixed this.

Do you have any other problems just after the docking? Do you have any other parts that require megajoules on the ship? Do they still function properly?

Does the science lab still display its usual text and options properly and the options just don't activate or do extra things appear that weren't there before (like in the old bug)?

[Ratzap]

It's not just the engines that control this behaviour though, it's anything that draws power. If you're doing research, your antimatter reactor will use precisely enough power to run the research lab and no more, etc.

Most excellent news, sounds great. Did you see the spreadsheet of stats btw? I can knock it off if you don't want to go there or continue to look at balance playtesting.

[Astronut25]

I seem to be having some problems with the Thermal Rocket and the Beamed Power stuff. The rocket keeps locking the throttle at 0% when attached to an Antimatter Reactor. And no matter how much excess MJ I have, nothing gets transmitted through the Beamed Power system.

Edited September 5, 2013 by Astronut25

[Fractal_UK]

I seem to be having some problems with the Thermal Rocket and the Beamed Power stuff. The rocket keeps locking the throttle at 0% when attached to an Antimatter Reactor.

Have you definitely got some antimatter? All of the antimatter tanks start empty, you need to collect some using the antimatter collector before you can use any of the antimatter stuff. If you right click on the reactor, does it say "Antimatter Deprived" ?

And no matter how much excess MJ I have, nothing gets transmitted through the Beamed Power system.

At the moment, beamed power is only working with solar panels, it bases the power output on the output of any solar panels attached to the ship, so if you don't have any solar panels it won't transmit any power. I need to improve some bits before I can get it working with other power sources.

Hope that helps you.

Most excellent news, sounds great. Did you see the spreadsheet of stats btw? I can knock it off if you don't want to go there or continue to look at balance playtesting.

Yes I did, the remaining information that you are missing is actually in the first post, I think. I made this as reference material:

I see you made a start on the plasma engine data though, that's one thing I don't have right now and really need to collate at some point soon.

I think the resource useage when using xenon is so high because the stock xenon resource has some really tiny density.

[Astronut25]

Have you definitely got some antimatter? All of the antimatter tanks start empty, you need to collect some using the antimatter collector before you can use any of the antimatter stuff. If you right click on the reactor, does it say "Antimatter Deprived" ?...

I've got full tanks of everything that the rocket needs (Liquid Fuel, Oxidizer, Antimatter, even Exotic Matter), and It's connected directly to the reactor. Nothing is deprived.

...At the moment, beamed power is only working with solar panels, it bases the power output on the output of any solar panels attached to the ship, so if you don't have any solar panels it won't transmit any power. I need to improve some bits before I can get it working with other power sources.

Hope that helps you.

That was the problem then, thanks. I had it hooked up to a tower of Nuclear Reactors.

[Kerbinator24]

Hi

I only downloaded this mod today and put the folder inside the game data folder in the rar into my game data folder in my KSP folder.

The mod seems to have installed properly but the Beamed Power Transmitter and Receiver Don't give me any options to toggle them open or closed nor transmit or stop.

Any idea whats wrong?

Also does anyone have any kind of manual on what you need or how to do some of the things included in the mod? I know what each thing does but I can't figure out how to make them all work together.

Thanks.

[Rampart]

You can build a ~1MW at Kerbin orbit solar power sat pretty easy with the stock biggest solar panels and the 8x8 open frames from the B9 Aerospace pack, works like a charm. I'm looking forward to how much they'll pump out in close solar orbit, I may not need reactors for my science labs soon. Also, be aware that the transmit/receive scientific data appears to only be a function of the labs. I'm building a new line of labs that are like 10 computer cores and 1 poor kerbin in a science lab with transmitter duty. I figure he's the failsafe if the AI cores go rogue.

[Ratzap]

Yes I did, the remaining information that you are missing is actually in the first post, I think. I made this as reference material:

I see you made a start on the plasma engine data though, that's one thing I don't have right now and really need to collate at some point soon.

I think the resource useage when using xenon is so high because the stock xenon resource has some really tiny density.

Heh, I saw that and wondered why the feel of using it differed so much, that's why I made a standardized test build to stick each one on. The ISP of the 0.625m parts is irrelevant really since you'll never build anything with a 6 ton nozzle and under 2t of payload to go somewhere with a TWR of 0 when you actually stick parts together and try to make it move. I think the difference between nuclear and AM is too high - eg at 1.25m 0.05 TWR vs 10, it's not even close. The smaller parts should also cost less than the larger ones to upgrade - that would encourage usage especially in clustered situations. The nuclear options are particularly poor when you consider folk will need to limp around with them for long enough to get some anti-matter.

The plasma on an upgraded AM reactor is insane. It emptied the largest xenon tank available from any mod in 2.5s. Short term, if I had me druthers I'd bump the nuclear up a bit, tone down the AM, make upgrades scale with size and make the upgrades less hefty and make a low weight 1.25/0.625m nozzle.

[Rampart]

Heh, I saw that and wondered why the feel of using it differed so much, that's why I made a standardized test build to stick each one on. The ISP of the 0.625m parts is irrelevant really since you'll never build anything with a 6 ton nozzle and under 2t of payload to go somewhere with a TWR of 0 when you actually stick parts together and try to make it move. I think the difference between nuclear and AM is too high - eg at 1.25m 0.05 TWR vs 10, it's not even close. The smaller parts should also cost less than the larger ones to upgrade - that would encourage usage especially in clustered situations. The nuclear options are particularly poor when you consider folk will need to limp around with them for long enough to get some anti-matter.

The plasma on an upgraded AM reactor is insane. It emptied the largest xenon tank available from any mod in 2.5s. Short term, if I had me druthers I'd bump the nuclear up a bit, tone down the AM, make upgrades scale with size and make the upgrades less hefty and make a low weight 1.25/0.625m nozzle.

Haven't tried the plasma on the upgraded AM yet, but I think the upgraded AM is more for the upgraded plasma than anything else. I had pointed out the large mass of the small nozzles to Fractal before, and his reply was basically for now they're not very useful cause they take on the attributes of the reactor like the large nozzle, so if they were 1/3 of the mass you could put on 3 and get 3 times the performance over the standard nozzle. I think he's working on making them procedural so we'll see how that goes, I'd love some small reactor powered probes.

Biggest problem I have with the largest AM reactor was docking the blasted thing onto my warp ship in orbit cause lifting it from the ground in once piece was too much of a pain. The problem now is that I can use the engine at maybe 1/4 throttle before it crumples the ship around it I need to download the docking struts mod, maybe that would help. Having the reactors react a bit (ha!) to the demands placed on them would be fantastic, otherwise I'm toggling the AM reactor on and off a half dozen times during a relatively small burn.

[Ratzap]

Docking struts won't help I'm afraid. I build using nitropunches extra extra heavy struts and while they stay in one piece, the reactor simply implodes. Ditto on the probes, I love half meter parts but weight is utterly crucial to smaller rockets.

I hefted my big ship in one piece, then chucked another one up after it. One round Jool, one round Kerbin. With this mod http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/48541-Welded-Thrust-plates-T8-Mega-Lift-Systems it's pretty simple to make huge lifters. If you want I can post you a craft that put's 375.5 tonnes of fuel and RCS into LKO with enough fuel left to take it to the Mun.

[Fractal_UK]

I've got full tanks of everything that the rocket needs (Liquid Fuel, Oxidizer, Antimatter, even Exotic Matter), and It's connected directly to the reactor. Nothing is deprived.

Hmm, what about the fuel mode that the engines are set to? Are they definitely not causing a flameout?

If not, could I ask that you upload your game persistence file and give me the name of the rocket that is causing your problems. I can't reproduce this bug at all at the moment.

Docking struts won't help I'm afraid. I build using nitropunches extra extra heavy struts and while they stay in one piece, the reactor simply implodes. Ditto on the probes, I love half meter parts but weight is utterly crucial to smaller rockets.

I'm a little confused as well by the reports of the larger antimatter reactors imploding, they don't seem to be doing this for me, even at full thrust. Have you tried using vertical struts to reinforce the rocket? I usually do this for large rockets, so that could be having some effect.

The smaller parts should also cost less than the larger ones to upgrade - that would encourage usage especially in clustered situations. The nuclear options are particularly poor when you consider folk will need to limp around with them for long enough to get some anti-matter..

Many of the smaller parts do indeed cost less than the larger parts to upgrade, though I've also tried to make it so that there is an incentive to use the very large (and difficult to lift) parts rather than lots of small parts. There is a huge gap between nuclear and antimatter but that gap is down to energy density, which is around 100-150x higher in antimatter, which more or less means 100-150x better performance. I know the nuclear parts don't exactly shine compared to the antimatter parts but it is my aim to make things relatively true to life. I also don't want antimatter parts being too close to nuclear (fission) parts because at some stage, I need room to add fusion parts in between, parts that will be intermediate in both difficultly to use and power output.

[Fractal_UK]

Hi

I only downloaded this mod today and put the folder inside the game data folder in the rar into my game data folder in my KSP folder.

The mod seems to have installed properly but the Beamed Power Transmitter and Receiver Don't give me any options to toggle them open or closed nor transmit or stop.

Any idea whats wrong?

Also does anyone have any kind of manual on what you need or how to do some of the things included in the mod? I know what each thing does but I can't figure out how to make them all work together.

Thanks.

Sorry Kerbinator, I missed your post, it's sometimes hard to spot the posts of new users due to the active moderation.

If your ship has a Microwave Beamed Power Transmitter, you should be able to right-click on that part and click "Activate Transmitter", does that option appear for you? There are no special conditions toward that option appearing, so if you don't see it, there must be something very unusual going on.

At present, the Microwave Beamed Power Receivers don't have on/off switches, they simply deploy when available satellites are overhead - that is satellites with line of sight to both the receiver and the sun and then retract when there are no longer available satellites.

If that doesn't help you, could you by any chance post up some screenshots of the transmitters and receivers so I can have a look at what is going on?

[Ratzap]

I'm a little confused as well by the reports of the larger antimatter reactors imploding, they don't seem to be doing this for me, even at full thrust. Have you tried using vertical struts to reinforce the rocket? I usually do this for large rockets, so that could be having some effect.

It happens with a very light testbed setup (well, light is relative, not much payload). Make yourself the stack I had for the AM tests in my spreadsheet, throttle to full and watch it explode. Repeatable so you can do it till you feel you know what's going on. But my money would be on

crashTolerance = 6

breakingForce = 400

breakingTorque = 400

in the config. Relatively low values and if the G force from the nozzle exceeds it, the reactor will vanish.

Many of the smaller parts do indeed cost less than the larger parts to upgrade, though I've also tried to make it so that there is an incentive to use the very large (and difficult to lift) parts rather than lots of small parts. There is a huge gap between nuclear and antimatter but that gap is down to energy density, which is around 100-150x higher in antimatter, which more or less means 100-150x better performance. I know the nuclear parts don't exactly shine compared to the antimatter parts but it is my aim to make things relatively true to life. I also don't want antimatter parts being too close to nuclear (fission) parts because at some stage, I need room to add fusion parts in between, parts that will be intermediate in both difficultly to use and power output.

Ok, that makes a little more sense. I understand getting folk to opt for the big one but the smallest 2 sizes of nuclear are just impractical as they stand. It's swung the opposite way, people will always take the bigger one as they are useful. BTW, I don't think lift weight is going to factor in much to be honest. People who use mods are going to know how to build rockets and get other mods. I have lifters saved for everything from smallest up to 400 tonnes to 120km in one go. I design whatever I feel like and launch it, the lift mass only factors into which build to stick it on.

[Astronut25]

Hmm, what about the fuel mode that the engines are set to? Are they definitely not causing a flameout?

If not, could I ask that you upload your game persistence file and give me the name of the rocket that is causing your problems. I can't reproduce this bug at all at the moment.

...

Further research has revealed that HyperEditing locks the throttle at 0% when using this mod. I suspect that HyperEditing is treated like warping, since in both situations the throttle is locked.

[Kerbinator24]

Hi Fractal,

Totally alright

Something unusual is going on then as I have no option to "Activate Transmitter" on either parts. Also I noticed when I managed to make a warp able craft, go to warp, the graphics generated by the drive was just a long tube of white instead of what it should be. Apart from these 2 things everything else is working fine.

As for screenshots if you Can't figure anything out from my info here I shall do some later as I don't have access to that computer until this evening.

Thanks!

[Fractal_UK]

Something unusual is going on then as I have no option to "Activate Transmitter" on either parts. Also I noticed when I managed to make a warp able craft, go to warp, the graphics generated by the drive was just a long tube of white instead of what it should be. Apart from these 2 things everything else is working fine.

I'm guessing this could be an issue with your installation then, you mentioned in the previous something about how you installed it. So, just to check, it should be like this [KSPDirectory]\GameData\WarpPlugin which should have inside it "Parts" "Plugins" and "Sounds."

It can't be a coincidence that the parts that rely on directory structure are the ones that aren't working.

It happens with a very light testbed setup (well, light is relative, not much payload). Make yourself the stack I had for the AM tests in my spreadsheet, throttle to full and watch it explode. Repeatable so you can do it till you feel you know what's going on. But my money would be on

crashTolerance = 6

breakingForce = 400

breakingTorque = 400

in the config. Relatively low values and if the G force from the nozzle exceeds it, the reactor will vanish.

I think I've managed to improve the performance of the 3.75m parts now. I managed to fly some moderately sized stacks without struts, which is a promising sign.

Ok, that makes a little more sense. I understand getting folk to opt for the big one but the smallest 2 sizes of nuclear are just impractical as they stand. It's swung the opposite way, people will always take the bigger one as they are useful. BTW, I don't think lift weight is going to factor in much to be honest. People who use mods are going to know how to build rockets and get other mods. I have lifters saved for everything from smallest up to 400 tonnes to 120km in one go. I design whatever I feel like and launch it, the lift mass only factors into which build to stick it on.

I had the idea of the smaller parts more being for little probes, there are fewer things that you can do with megajoules using the very tiny parts at the moment but the 1000 stock ElectricCharge production should be useful.

Further research has revealed that HyperEditing locks the throttle at 0% when using this mod. I suspect that HyperEditing is treated like warping, since in both situations the throttle is locked.

I should've thought of something like that, I've heard previously that MechJeb can do this when (I think) the avoid flameout option is checked. I'm not entirely sure why this occurs at present.

[Rampart]

I'm wondering with the inclusion of fusion reactors if you want to reexamine how the different reactors produce thrust. For example, the nuke reactors plus thrust nozzles produce thrust by super heating a medium with the reactor and ejecting it out the back, but would doing so with a fusion or AM reactor be as efficient as ejecting the reaction plasma itself or a few micrograms of AM in a reaction chamber open on one end? Or is this what the thrust nozzles already emulate for the AM reactors and thermal power is just a nice way of keeping the reactants straight

You'd almost want to add in a small need for liquid fuel for AM reactors, to represent the need for a reactant for the AM, adds complexity but realism.

I'm curious as to how you're going to implement fusion reactors/engines, I can see them being really useful if the reactor only needs liquid fuel (assuming LF is hydrogen), would simply the supply chain quite a bit. Calculating how much dV a craft would have could get tricky.

[Kerbinator24]

Hi again Fractal,

So I've gone through and made some screenshots:

http://i.imgur.com/r0T5l4I.png

In the right folder,

http://i.imgur.com/00tlfAN.png

Inside Warp Plugin Folder,

http://i.imgur.com/Vv8B2hu.jpg

In Game.

I don't have any other mods installed and I even installed fresh on a new computer just to make sure.

Thanks!

[Fractal_UK]

I'm wondering with the inclusion of fusion reactors if you want to reexamine how the different reactors produce thrust. For example, the nuke reactors plus thrust nozzles produce thrust by super heating a medium with the reactor and ejecting it out the back, but would doing so with a fusion or AM reactor be as efficient as ejecting the reaction plasma itself or a few micrograms of AM in a reaction chamber open on one end? Or is this what the thrust nozzles already emulate for the AM reactors and thermal power is just a nice way of keeping the reactants straight

Yes, there are different approaches to deriving thrust from fission, fusion and antimatter reactors. There are approaches whereby the fuel is also the propellant, for fission we have the fission fragment rocket, for fusion we have a magnetic bottle/nozzle, for antimatter we have an antimatter beamed core engine.

Some of these engines are seriously effecient when measured in terms of specific impulse but KSP has that old problem of being fairly unsuitable for low-thrust high Isp rockets.

If something in the game changes that permits more effective physical timewarp, I'll definitely come back to some of these but for now I'm trying to focus on engines that can, at least with optimal conditions, produce some sensible amounts of thrust.

I'm curious as to how you're going to implement fusion reactors/engines, I can see them being really useful if the reactor only needs liquid fuel (assuming LF is hydrogen), would simply the supply chain quite a bit. Calculating how much dV a craft would have could get tricky.

It wouldn't be quite so simple, the plan would be to add a Deuterium resource, this would extractable from Jool's atmosphere using the scoop in small quantities. I'd also add a centrifuge option to the science lab so that when splashed down, you could extract deuterium from the heavy water.

The part I may do, I haven't quite figured this out yet, is add something like a Lithium resource. Science lab option to electrolyse to produce this. This would be needed in very small quantities and would supply the Tritium (which I wouldn't add as a distinct resource) needed for the reaction.

The other option would be I could add Helium-3 fusion, then you'd need only resource but that resource would be hard to obtain (mined from lunar polar regions, etc.). I like this option less because a) using Helium-3 to fuel a fusion reactor when you could use Deuterium+Tritium is like use the contents of the Louvre to fuel a coal power plant - it probably works but why would you do it? You get less power out and you're consuming a near priceless resource. And the huge advantage of a helium-3 reactor over a D+T one is that all your reactor products are charged particles, that's great for direct conversion to electricity and great for a magnetic nozzle but if you just want to heat up some propellant, neutrons are fine.

Perhaps eventually though, there will be options for both.

[Ratzap]

I had the idea of the smaller parts more being for little probes, there are fewer things that you can do with megajoules using the very tiny parts at the moment but the 1000 stock ElectricCharge production should be useful.

Correct, that was my thought too but there are 2 things against it as it stands just now.

1) Beam receivers weigh 0.025t and will supply enough to drive an Ion ship halfway across the system a small probe (anything 0.1 to 0.9t payload IMO) will stick one of those on and it's good. Hell, there's even 100 charge storage on there gratis too

2) RTGs. There are plenty of mods with a plethora of these about, the current champion for weight/charge ratio is AIES - 0.04t gets you 40 charge/min.

Now with a reactor plus generator weighing 0.46t, you'd need a serious charge requirement to take a reactor and even then the beam receiver stomps it. Now if we could think of an item or job that needed gobs of charge out past Duna, you'd have a niche for these. Maybe make a magnetosphere scanner that finds the best AM flux spots for you? Send small probes out to the target system first to map the magnetosphere then send in the ships. Even then though unless it really really gobbles charge down, the receiver will beat reactor/generator. Better yet to make the smallest nuclear produce like 1MJ basic and scanner or whater requires 1MJ + charge.

Of course this wouldn't do much at the moment since the AM flux places are static but maybe later. Or think of other things that fit the small probe requirements.

Edit: thinking about it, the problem is really the beam system. It's far too good and has no 'cost'. Free charge, free charge storage and no mass. Maybe break the receivers into power sizes? Small, med, large and balance against that?

Edited September 6, 2013 by Ratzap

[hellion13]

hmm, been playing around with this one for a while now, and ive gotten everything to work finally, so i created another KSP game and edited the .cfgs so i had everything right off the bat, to test out what all this was capable of.

seems to me the thermal engines have better lifting capabilities before they are retrofitted, but immensely better isp after the retro fit, but therein lies my issue its all fine and dandy to get a whole warp capable ship into orbit and beyond with teh stock engines, but once i upgrade i fail to even reach orbit with an engine that used to be SSTO easily, my way around that was to retro fit IN FLIGHT around 60k altitude turning the engine in to a viable orbital engine with out burning all my fuel up, going from an isp in the 1000s to an engine with an isp in the 10s of thousands, then my second issue hits once im in orbit, actually getting anywhere, i follow the instructions and wait untill where im going is at its closest point, and activate now this is the second issue, DEACTIVATING the damned thing fast enough to park my ship with in a viable orbit, i warp in at .1 C and by the time i can get the menu up again im a half a billion miles away already,( my UI disappears when i warp and i have to re click the drive to get it back) even setting it up as a action group does little to help, unless i skip across the system in short jumps but then im wasting time and i have to time accelerate to wait for the drive to charge and then im wasting RCS to get my target back in my reticule.

i think what this needs most is a targeting computer, something that can deactivate the drive once you hit a predesignated altitude above the target planet so all the pilot has to do is flip the ship and decelerate or accelerate in to orbit, and to fit in with the scope of the mod make it upgradeable for accuracy.....

Edited September 6, 2013 by hellion13

[Ratzap]

I was thinking about the beaming stuff while I out just now. How about this to bring it into line:

Transmitter - up the mass to 0.5, make it require 100 charge as surge buffer or some such BS. The transmitter isn't too much the problem and power sats are reasonably heavy as it is but 0.025 is kinda low.

Receiver - break into sizes. Tiny, small, medium, large. Mass 0.1, 0.25, 1, 3. Each size category has a limit on how much power total it can convert and differing sizes of charge/MJ storage. Tiny 20KW, no MJ. Small 150KW, no MJ. Med 500KW, no MJ. Large 1MW, 1MJ - this is scaled pretty low but then a 4kN Ion engine only needs to receive 40KW to run full power. Making 1000KW = 1MJ hurts you here badly as 1KW = 1 charge too. Change the charge to KW ratio would let you make the received amounts better. ie 50KW = 1 charge, 1MW = 1 MJ - tiny 500, 0. small 1500, 1. med 3000, 3. large 5000, 5. If you stipulated mounting on a generator to be able to get any MJ that might help too. Even with this though, 0.1 mass for 10 charge per second anywhere in the system (assuming enough power sats) is pretty awesome. But it'd make small reactors useful in that 0.36t extra for masses more power (provided we find something that needs such power) would be worthwhile.

The power network would send whatever it takes to hit that limit at the receiver, so a tiny very far away would use a large portion of the network capacity but hey, you're getting your power. This would need the ability to set priority or disable receivers.

[DaveStrider]

Can you think of a practical use for the He-4 produced by the fusion? it seems a waste just to throw it away.

As far as i know this mod doesn't have a way to create RCS fuel, perhaps you could collect the helium and store it for later? it would certainly distinguish fusion from the other two reactor types (although having to resort to nuclear fusion just to refuel seems a little extreme)