[0.24.2] Interstellar Lite - Tweakscale Integration [v0.12.3][Sept 7]

[WaveFunctionP]

would it be at all possible for you to release a version like this for the other people who would want to continue their .23 saves?

I don't really want to maintain two different versions. You might be able to use the updated .dlls from the .11 experimental version in the .11 interstellar version, but it is completely untested. And if you use other addons with ORS it will probably give you nothing but trouble. But it might let you finish your save with a newer ksp version. The best option is to not upgrade if you have a lot of addons.

[ABZB]

Does the FNrefinery code still have aluminium-from-alumina? if it does, one could just add the resource extractor module for alumina from v .11 via modulemanager, and stick in an aluminium/oxygen engine. (I was already doing that with appropriately altered versions of those low-profile awesome-art engines that nohark pick-n-pull guy made (use them as aluox, i mean)).

if not, one could add the maps for alumina from .11 to the appropriate file, edit them to produce straight aluminium, then use the same FNresourceextractor module, with the energy scaled up to account for the skipped step. Alternatively, one could use the kethane or USI converter module to turn alumina + Megajoules into aluminium + oxidizer (I already have such a thing set up - I made a pathway using USI from Al and H2O to that ALICE fuel [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALICE_(propellant)]. (not really real, but this is my in-game thing of it:) It draws small power to stay at the right slushy consistency, but balances that need (not an issue with KSPI) with reasonable energy density (and that I REALLY like single-propellant engines for some reason. They feel... neater).

[Atrius129]

Does anybody have a better method of making money than spamming science missions around each of the bodies? KSPIe Parts are expensive; I wish there was some scaling of income beyond what stock offers. I am up to 21 Mil now, but that still isn't enough to even build a decent AM farm, let alone a reactor.

[ABZB]

There is a simple addon to asteroids to make them have cost (so landing and recovering them gives funds):

@PART[PotatoRoid]
{
     cost = [whatever seems reasonable to you]
}

unfortunately, this doesn't scale with asteroid type.

alternatively, http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/90443-0-24-2-MoonMining-Precious-Metals-v1-1. Basically, you use the USI drills to mine very heavy valuables from other bodies (or asteroids with another addon [whose name escapes me]) and land and recover for cash.

Edited August 27, 2014 by ABZB

[legopatch]

You could also mine uranium and land and recover that I think, though I don't know how profitable it would be.

[undercoveryankee]

Does the FNrefinery code still have aluminium-from-alumina? if it does, one could just add the resource extractor module for alumina from v .11 via modulemanager, and stick in an aluminium/oxygen engine. (I was already doing that with appropriately altered versions of those low-profile awesome-art engines that nohark pick-n-pull guy made (use them as aluox, i mean)).

if not, one could add the maps for alumina from .11 to the appropriate file, edit them to produce straight aluminium, then use the same FNresourceextractor module, with the energy scaled up to account for the skipped step. Alternatively, one could use the kethane or USI converter module to turn alumina + Megajoules into aluminium + oxidizer (I already have such a thing set up - I made a pathway using USI from Al and H2O to that ALICE fuel [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALICE_(propellant)]. (not really real, but this is my in-game thing of it:) It draws small power to stay at the right slushy consistency, but balances that need (not an issue with KSPI) with reasonable energy density (and that I REALLY like single-propellant engines for some reason. They feel... neater).

Looking at the code on Github, Alumina-to-Aluminium is still active, and Alumina maps are in the Community Resource Pack. You can reapply the old extractor config or use the on-rails extraction module from Karbonite.

[Haifi]

You can define a reasonable cost for UF4 if you like to mine it. In order to make money with it and you dont want to warp too much i guesstimate a cost of 5000 credits per unit. I tried that with v.11 exprimental and it was an ok price, not too much of a fun killer nor making it too easy.

[ptr421]

Please use the instllation guide that is linked in the OP, and if you still have an issue, use the directions provided to post the information I requested.

Log: https://www.dropbox.com/s/6cv7xvj3r2nuhk7/output_log.txt?dl=0

It's on a clean 32bit install with only Interstellar stuff. Basically I slap a few radial D/T tanks on any reactor and some time after liftoff the craft flies off the screen. Could've sworn I also did it with other confugurations, but this one is reliable.

Edited August 27, 2014 by ptr421

[Atrius129]

There is a simple addon to asteroids to make them have cost (so landing and recovering them gives funds):

@PART[PotatoRoid]
{
     cost = [whatever seems reasonable to you]
}

unfortunately, this doesn't scale with asteroid type.

alternatively, http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/90443-0-24-2-MoonMining-Precious-Metals-v1-1. Basically, you use the USI drills to mine very heavy valuables from other bodies (or asteroids with another addon [whose name escapes me]) and land and recover for cash.

You could also mine uranium and land and recover that I think, though I don't know how profitable it would be.

Thank you. These are good ideas and would make for some fun and interesting missions. Did anybody ever get Antimatter recovery working without messing up the tank cost?

Wave, I just noticed that AM tanks start off full. Was this something you wanted?

[Ixonal]

I'll preface this by saying I haven't played the new version (I have loaded it up and taken a peek at the parts and what not), and am basing these opinions on the patch notes, conversation to this point, and what little I have actually seen. Also note that I am not trying to attack Wave here, but offer my perspective on the changes.

That being said, I'm a little on the fence here. I do appreciate bug fixes and more intuitive interfaces, but I have some pretty major misgivings with some of these changes. I really enjoy when things are complex, and there are a lot of decisions to make (should I use thorium or uranium for this reactor? what fuel would be most effective for this probe?). It seems that much of this has been refactored away, which I find displeasing. I think the upgrade system was a good idea, but the implementation needed to be slightly altered (force people to send up missions to do it manually like Scott Manley did), rather than just removing it. I also don't like the move to tweakscale for two reasons. One, nearly every time I use it (and this has been in multiple saves with multiple versions), something breaks (I've had issues with parts being the wrong size (like between 1.25 and 2.5m somehow) or parts that I've scaled just ending up missing on game loads), so I'm a little leery of it from the get-go. Two, you're getting rid of some .... models. Aesthetics are important, man! I suppose the biggest detractor, for me, is that the design decisions look to have been made from the point of view of making it more difficult in sandbox mode (a notion that's reinforced by the mod being broken in career mode), when that's supposed to be the easy mode. In designing in such a way, the mod has been made undesirable for career mode games. The investment would seem to be far too high for the rewards (well, unless the stock tree is put back, but I kinda liked how much effort it took to get through the interstellar tree, and even then, it may not balance out). People like a bit of cheese if they've put in the time to get it.

I seem to have started ranting a little bit, sorry bout that. Hope you find this useful, though.

[Uzcil999]

Hello,

I just wanted to say that I love this mod and I can't thank you enough for keeping it going. I love being able to use tweakscale. Wave, thank you for taking the time and making the effort to produce this. I love ksp and the fact that so many people who have the talent and energy to produce mods like this show how much fun this game can be. I have a few questions, some observations, and a few ideas.

I installed the mod on a fresh 32 bit install and the only issue I observed was parts flying off the screen in the VAB. Installing module fixer is a solution. If you need it you can find a download link buried on the module fixer thread. It maybe because I used module fixer, but I can't see the stats for the parts in the VAB. Is it possible to put up a guide or wiki with the stats for the parts? Is there a better fix for the part issue?

I was wondering what your thoughts would be on a second generation fusion reactor based on helium 3 that could be mined only off of Kerbin. Could be.a fun addition and you could return the helium 3 to Kerbin for profit! Just an idea. Are there any plans to add a microwave quantum vacuum thruster?

Just some ideas. Thanks wave.

[Akira_R]

*snip*

the design decisions look to have been made from the point of view of making it more difficult in sandbox mode (a notion that's reinforced by the mod being broken in career mode), when that's supposed to be the easy mode. In designing in such a way, the mod has been made undesirable for career mode games. The investment would seem to be far too high for the rewards (well, unless the stock tree is put back, but I kinda liked how much effort it took to get through the interstellar tree, and even then, it may not balance out). People like a bit of cheese if they've put in the time to get it.

I seem to have started ranting a little bit, sorry bout that. Hope you find this useful, though.

Just FYI it's not broken at all in career mode, works just fine, the only reference made to career mode in the OP is to the fact that the tech tree is broken in the Science Sandbox mode (and this is the case with any mod that uses TreeLoader at the moment) and the suggestion is if you really want to play Science Sandbox mode with the tech tree to simply start your game as a career mode and then edit your save file to give yourself a ridiculous amount of money.

[WaveFunctionP]

Does the FNrefinery code still have aluminium-from-alumina? if it does, one could just add the resource extractor module for alumina from v .11 via modulemanager, and stick in an aluminium/oxygen engine. (I was already doing that with appropriately altered versions of those low-profile awesome-art engines that nohark pick-n-pull guy made (use them as aluox, i mean)).

if not, one could add the maps for alumina from .11 to the appropriate file, edit them to produce straight aluminium, then use the same FNresourceextractor module, with the energy scaled up to account for the skipped step. Alternatively, one could use the kethane or USI converter module to turn alumina + Megajoules into aluminium + oxidizer (I already have such a thing set up - I made a pathway using USI from Al and H2O to that ALICE fuel [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALICE_(propellant)]. (not really real, but this is my in-game thing of it:) It draws small power to stay at the right slushy consistency, but balances that need (not an issue with KSPI) with reasonable energy density (and that I REALLY like single-propellant engines for some reason. They feel... neater).

I haven't removed the capability from the code for aluminum or alumina. Like I said, the resources were undeveloped and the art was weak, it CAN be interesting with a bit more support but a good design can be as much about what you remove as much as what you can add.

[WaveFunctionP]

Log: https://www.dropbox.com/s/6cv7xvj3r2nuhk7/output_log.txt?dl=0

It's on a clean 32bit install with only Interstellar stuff. Basically I slap a few radial D/T tanks on any reactor and some time after liftoff the craft flies off the screen. Could've sworn I also did it with other confugurations, but this one is reliable.

I believe this may be error from the attempted he-3 decay fix. Thank you for posting your information, I'll look into the problem.

[WaveFunctionP]

Thank you. These are good ideas and would make for some fun and interesting missions. Did anybody ever get Antimatter recovery working without messing up the tank cost?

Wave, I just noticed that AM tanks start off full. Was this something you wanted?

Yes, the stock behavior for parts is that they start full. I didn't want to deviate from the expectation that stock behavior set. It a polish thing.

Resource costs are preliminary, they will be further developed with the next update which will focus on resource, compatibility and code work.

[WaveFunctionP]

I'll preface this by saying I haven't played the new version (I have loaded it up and taken a peek at the parts and what not), and am basing these opinions on the patch notes, conversation to this point, and what little I have actually seen. Also note that I am not trying to attack Wave here, but offer my perspective on the changes.

That being said, I'm a little on the fence here. I do appreciate bug fixes and more intuitive interfaces, but I have some pretty major misgivings with some of these changes. I really enjoy when things are complex, and there are a lot of decisions to make (should I use thorium or uranium for this reactor? what fuel would be most effective for this probe?). It seems that much of this has been refactored away, which I find displeasing. I think the upgrade system was a good idea, but the implementation needed to be slightly altered (force people to send up missions to do it manually like Scott Manley did), rather than just removing it. I also don't like the move to tweakscale for two reasons. One, nearly every time I use it (and this has been in multiple saves with multiple versions), something breaks (I've had issues with parts being the wrong size (like between 1.25 and 2.5m somehow) or parts that I've scaled just ending up missing on game loads), so I'm a little leery of it from the get-go. Two, you're getting rid of some .... models. Aesthetics are important, man! I suppose the biggest detractor, for me, is that the design decisions look to have been made from the point of view of making it more difficult in sandbox mode (a notion that's reinforced by the mod being broken in career mode), when that's supposed to be the easy mode. In designing in such a way, the mod has been made undesirable for career mode games. The investment would seem to be far too high for the rewards (well, unless the stock tree is put back, but I kinda liked how much effort it took to get through the interstellar tree, and even then, it may not balance out). People like a bit of cheese if they've put in the time to get it.

I seem to have started ranting a little bit, sorry bout that. Hope you find this useful, though.

I hear your feedback. I will say that a lot of what I did actually makes the introductory experience to kspi more digestible. There is still a lot of complexity to the mod, but maybe older kspi players may taking for granted just how confusing the mod can be.

I play career exclusively. I always have. Early tech is more capable now. The number flatly agree with me there, so I am not entirely sure why are would be concerned there, and the later tech is indeed OP. Even the lowly fission reactor powered thermal nozzle has "skipper" scale thrust with 3 times the isp. And it only gets better from there. The AM reactor has twice the thrust and isp of fission, and a 3 times the twr. Some of that capability is engineered into cost and logistics, but it is still flatly overpowered. Just not ridiculously so.

This isn't to say that things are all hunky-dory. I am concerned that electric engines may be a little weak. I'll have a better idea once I get deeper into my playthrough. I think it may be alright since it incentivizes power networks, but we will see.

[Dwight_js]

Having problems with the mod. Neither 0.11 or 0.12 works for me - game crashes on load. I've got a pretty heavily modded game, but when I remove the Interstellar folder from Game Data, the game launches properly.

Not sure how to insert error log file, but I've got some if they would be helpful.

Cheers,

D.

[Ixonal]

Yes, the stock behavior for parts is that they start full. I didn't want to deviate from the expectation that stock behavior set. It a polish thing.

Resource costs are preliminary, they will be further developed with the next update which will focus on resource, compatibility and code work.

With something like antimatter, I could see the tank starting full, but having the fuel be prohibitively expensive in order to push the player towards setting up a farm... but then, farming and selling it may end up being a rather OP way to make money.

I hear your feedback. I will say that a lot of what I did actually makes the introductory experience to kspi more digestible. There is still a lot of complexity to the mod, but maybe older kspi players may taking for granted just how confusing the mod can be.

I play career exclusively. I always have. Early tech is more capable now. The number flatly agree with me there, so I am not entirely sure why are would be concerned there, and the later tech is indeed OP. Even the lowly fission reactor powered thermal nozzle has "skipper" scale thrust with 3 times the isp. And it only gets better from there. The AM reactor has twice the thrust and isp of fission, and a 3 times the twr. Some of that capability is engineered into cost and logistics, but it is still flatly overpowered. Just not ridiculously so.

This isn't to say that things are all hunky-dory. I am concerned that electric engines may be a little weak. I'll have a better idea once I get deeper into my playthrough. I think it may be alright since it incentivizes power networks, but we will see.

I guess a difficulty setting that'd add/remove additional resources for a save is too complex to write in, eh? (Edit: In reading this, it came off a little sarcastic/snippy. Didn't mean it that way!)

I didn't realize the output from the reactors still scaled that well, it was my impression that the power increase between the different types of reactors was really low. In that case, i don't have so much a problem there.

I'm all for building a power network. That's one of the things that keeps me using interstellar (and remotetech, for that matter). It's not the destination, it's the drive.

[BFGfreak]

Well if you want my 2 cents, what about having the fusion reactors be superior in both thrust and ISP compared to fission but lacking in electrical since they require power to maintain fusion so while it is generating more power than fission, a high percentage is going back into the fusion reactors thus allowing fission to remain competitive both in initial and fueling cost, power generation, and potentially weight. That way when you go with electrical engines or cheap economy rockets you'll prefer fission over fusion, while grand tour craft with loads of liquid fuel will lean towards fusion; warp capable ships will use antimatter since using it for anything else is overkill both in power usage and how friggin expensive it would be to maintain an antimatter fleet compared to a fleet of fission vessels.

[Dangerous_Beans]

I installed the mod on a fresh 32 bit install and the only issue I observed was parts flying off the screen in the VAB. Installing module fixer is a solution. If you need it you can find a download link buried on the module fixer thread. It maybe because I used module fixer, but I can't see the stats for the parts in the VAB. Is it possible to put up a guide or wiki with the stats for the parts? Is there a better fix for the part issue?

i have been having the same problem (though on 64). i haven't tried the module fixer, though the thread suggests the issue is with the part description.

[Shad0wCatcher]

@Ixonal The power increase between the different reactor types is really low (compared to the original). This is exacerbated by tweakscale's configurations. Take Fusion for example: (@ 40-50% carnot vs 85% w/ direct conversion of the original; one of its main draws) 0.625 m = 63 MW vs 66 MW minus the efficiency losses; which I won't add to reduce the clutter this post already will contain. 1.25 meter = 250 MW vs 625 MW. 2.5 meter = 2 GW vs 6.8 GW. 3.75 meter = 13.5 GW vs 54 GW (rounding). That's within the same family of reactors. Scaling shouldn't be linear. These new numbers feel arbitrary. (I really don't mean for this to sound as harsh as it sounds Wave; as seriously I appreciate this mod and the work you put into it to get it working well <3). I won't get into fission reactors as the smaller form-factor reactors have stepped firmly outside the bounds of plausibility with their power/weight ratios. This helps out newer players wondering why they got less than 0.5 TWR and worse efficiency than the stock LV-N with the same form-factor. I also won't get into the particle-bed fission reactors (very happy with the change overall here; even though its identity is gone and it's now just a stepping-stone). Their whole niche was based on high-efficiency of power-output. In practice it was about worthless as they were heavier than the base fission reactors and never put out meaningful amounts of electricity. Fusion and Antimatter reactors now are just....*shrug* not even sure where to begin.

[sarbian]

WaveFunctionP you should rename the project.

This is not Interstellar but a mod parented to it that change a lot of the mechanics and part of the original mod. It's good for players who like where you are going but it's still a quite different mod and if Fractal_UK comes back it will conflict with his updates.

[RoverDude]

I dunno, I don't see a reason to change, it's clearly a derivative work (no different from when people have derived my stuff with changed mechanics but kept a variation of the name), and at this point a lot of folks are used to referring to this as KSPI-Experimental. Also probably a moot point as we have no Fractal_UK back right now, it's the only iteration that actually works - and if that keeps up, would not be surprised to see this become the de facto branch.

[sarbian]

It moves quite far from the original work. A bunch of part are gone, some mechanics changed a lot and balance is totally different. Peoples are even asking for a version with the original balance. To me this look like a different mod (even more so since the only mechanics and part I used are gone, but that's not my point).

Changing the name would make it clearer (and "Experimental" just make it sound like a dev version).

[RoverDude]

It moves quite far from the original work. A bunch of part are gone, some mechanics changed a lot and balance is totally different. Peoples are even asking for a version with the original balance. To me this look like a different mod (even more so since the only mechanics and part I used are gone, but that's not my point).

Changing the name would make it clearer (and "Experimental" just make it sound like a dev version).

Yet despite people asking for a version with the original balance... nobody is stepping up to maintain that fork? I'm just interested to see where this all shakes out, especially with 0.25 coming out and another round of breakages. It may very well end up with this being the only Interstellar we have. This, as it's own mod, has also been around for a while.. it's only come to the forefront because with 0.24.2 and no Fractal, it was the only working version. There was not a call to change a name then? Either way, really up to Wave as it's his derived work.