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

[WaveFunctionP]

FractalUK's idea in making the smaller fusion reactors look different seemed to be that the big ones are tokamaks, which work better at huge sizes, and the small ones are laser/inertial reactor designs which are theoretically much easier to scale down. I get that extra models cause memory issues, but having a different type of reactor for small sizes does add an extra touch of the future-realism KSPI is known for.

Yes, I get that, but I'm not going to add a part simply for smaller reactors sizes when they are functionally the same. Even before, the only mechanical difference between the two was confinement power and whether they could breed tritium or not.

Which is not exactly what I would call an interesting differences.

[WaveFunctionP]

No, it's happening to me in Career mode. I feel stupid, I'm sure I'm just missing something. This IS my first attempt at using interstellar.

You did click the choose tree button and clicked kspi on the drop down?

Basicly, click choose tree, click interstellar, click load. Click the update window in the top left, reload the save.

Yes, I know, it's a terrible implementation. I want it gone more than anyone else.

Edited September 3, 2014 by WaveFunctionP

[Billman]

You did click the choose tree button and clicked kspi on the drop down?

Basicly, click choose tree, click interstellar, click load. Click the update window in the top left, reload the save.

Yes, I know, it's a terrible implementation. I want it gone more than anyone else.

On the --select tree-- bar, I click it, nothing happens. No drop down menu appears. To the right, though, use stock seems to work just fine. I don't know how using the stock tree affects gameplay, though. I'm using the Mac version of 0.24.2 though, if that helps. I've tried it on a fresh install, and my main game with tons of mods. Same thing happens.

[passinglurker]

You did click the choose tree button and clicked kspi on the drop down?

Basicly, click choose tree, click interstellar, click load. Click the update window in the top left, reload the save.

Yes, I know, it's a terrible implementation. I want it gone more than anyone else.

What moving some parts off the tech tree entirely and leveraging the more moddable the contract system to grant the parts instead?

[WaveFunctionP]

On the --select tree-- bar, I click it, nothing happens. No drop down menu appears. To the right, though, use stock seems to work just fine. I don't know how using the stock tree affects gameplay, though. I'm using the Mac version of 0.24.2 though, if that helps. I've tried it on a fresh install, and my main game with tons of mods. Same thing happens.

You have something going on with treeloader then. Delete and reinstall the mod. If that doesn't work, you may need to reinstall ksp. It can bug out sometimes. I have to reinstall ksp a lot while testing to get rid of weird behaviors.

[WaveFunctionP]

What moving some parts off the tech tree entirely and leveraging the more moddable the contract system to grant the parts instead?

No, implementing a working custom tree that doesn't rely on hard coded trees and strictly licensed software.

[Ballistic Idiot]

It pleases me that the 'full of bees' meme is catching on.

It comes from a comic called Oglaf, it's a terribly dirty comic by a very deranged author.

At least that's where I got it from, I can't post the source comic on the KSP forums though.

[Billman]

You have something going on with treeloader then. Delete and reinstall the mod. If that doesn't work, you may need to reinstall ksp. It can bug out sometimes. I have to reinstall ksp a lot while testing to get rid of weird behaviors.

I've tried everything I can think of. I made a fresh install of KSP, and then just installed only the interstellar mod. All the parts seem to be there, but nothing happens after I hit install update. The trees just don't show up when I click on select tree. Nothing happens. So I just have two questions. Can I play this mod on the stock tree (which will load) or is there a way to manually update the tree outside of the game?

[GreeningGalaxy]

Not trying to criticize anyone present this time, but I've been wondering about the warp drive ever since FractalUK's first versions:

It preserves your entire momentum, always, regardless of whether your warp jump took you up or down a gravity well. This is a huge violation of the conventional picture of the law of conservation of momentum (and the law of conservation of energy, for that matter, but this could easily be remedied by a tweak to the drive's power usage based on gravity well climb/descent), which can be illustrated easily by imagining what would happen if you used the drive to take off from the surface of a body- You'd go from a standstill on the surface to a high-altitude escape trajectory in the blink of an eye, with zero engine burns and using nothing more than a few gigajoules worth of exotic matter. Sure, the energy consumed could be proportional to the difference in potential energy of your starting and ending altitude (it's not, but it seems like it easily could), preventing one from making an infinite-portal-fall type perpetual motion machine out of it, but this doesn't address the fact that you're effectively getting a whole bunch of momentum from nowhere during your jump, which can be exploited by doing a climb-fall-climb-fall maneuver cycle to build up speed in any direction you want from a planet's (or star's) gravity well.

Is this really how an Alcubierre drive would work in real life? If so, what branch of physics am I ignoring in this reasoning?

If I'm not wrong about this, one could potentially make the warp drive system more realistic by making it remove momentum from your ship as it climbs gravity wells and add it back on as you descend them- If you warp from low orbit to a higher altitude, instead of finding yourself on an escape trajectory, you'll find yourself falling towards the planet. Your total orbital energy would remain the same, but more of it would suddenly be converted from kinetic energy to potential energy, resulting in a much higher altitude but much slower speed.

I'm still a little fuzzy with how the exact math would work here, but I think it might result in long-distance warp transfers between planets leaving you with much less of a difference in velocity upon arrival, and far less delta-V would be required for the capture burn. This would, of course, make using the warp drive properly much easier, but would remove the possibility for unorthodox maneuvers generating massive velocities from nowhere.

I'm curious for someone better educated in the relevant physics to weigh in on this.

[Torminator]

Warp drives don't lend themselves well to conventional physical analysis. You can't travel faster than light, either, but an alcubierre device (theoretically) can because it isn't actually travelling. It's the equivalent of saying you weren't speeding because you were holding the speed limit sign out the window and therefore not even moving.

Also keep in mind that such a device would, under existing designs, require all of Jupiter's mass converted into pure energy just to make it to the nearest star.

My first impression is to say that no, your momentum would not be affected, but I've only had up to Quantum Mechanics in college, so I'm still far from the level of actually understanding warp drive physics.

[Billman]

Also keep in mind that such a device would, under existing designs, require all of Jupiter's mass converted into pure energy just to make it to the nearest star.

Doc, all we need is some dilithium.

"HA! I'm sure in 2385, Dilithium is available in every corner drugstore.."

At least we're down from "needing all the mass of the universe just to operate it for a nano second" to "jupiter's mass to make it to the nearest star." Sounds like we're getting there!

[Torminator]

Doc, all we need is some dilithium.

"HA! I'm sure in 2385, Dilithium is available in every corner drugstore.."

At least we're down from "needing all the mass of the universe just to operate it for a nano second" to "jupiter's mass to make it to the nearest star." Sounds like we're getting there!

Last I heard someone had a model that drastically reduced the power requirements. Granted, it was still absurd, and would instantly kill anyone trying to ride along due to the radiation, but hey, baby steps.

[sober667]

Not trying to criticize anyone present this time, but I've been wondering about the warp drive ever since FractalUK's first versions:

It preserves your entire momentum, always, regardless of whether your warp jump took you up or down a gravity well. This is a huge violation of the conventional picture of the law of conservation of momentum (and the law of conservation of energy, for that matter, but this could easily be remedied by a tweak to the drive's power usage based on gravity well climb/descent), which can be illustrated easily by imagining what would happen if you used the drive to take off from the surface of a body- You'd go from a standstill on the surface to a high-altitude escape trajectory in the blink of an eye, with zero engine burns and using nothing more than a few gigajoules worth of exotic matter. Sure, the energy consumed could be proportional to the difference in potential energy of your starting and ending altitude (it's not, but it seems like it easily could), preventing one from making an infinite-portal-fall type perpetual motion machine out of it, but this doesn't address the fact that you're effectively getting a whole bunch of momentum from nowhere during your jump, which can be exploited by doing a climb-fall-climb-fall maneuver cycle to build up speed in any direction you want from a planet's (or star's) gravity well.

Is this really how an Alcubierre drive would work in real life? If so, what branch of physics am I ignoring in this reasoning?

If I'm not wrong about this, one could potentially make the warp drive system more realistic by making it remove momentum from your ship as it climbs gravity wells and add it back on as you descend them- If you warp from low orbit to a higher altitude, instead of finding yourself on an escape trajectory, you'll find yourself falling towards the planet. Your total orbital energy would remain the same, but more of it would suddenly be converted from kinetic energy to potential energy, resulting in a much higher altitude but much slower speed.

I'm still a little fuzzy with how the exact math would work here, but I think it might result in long-distance warp transfers between planets leaving you with much less of a difference in velocity upon arrival, and far less delta-V would be required for the capture burn. This would, of course, make using the warp drive properly much easier, but would remove the possibility for unorthodox maneuvers generating massive velocities from nowhere.

I'm curious for someone better educated in the relevant physics to weigh in on this.

yes it was the best what we can get to be close to warp drive as it would be.it dont chenge momentum becouse its not speeeding up the ship but mowing space around ship with him. only should matters size of ship to it (hoow many "space" u need to move)

sientist last time in laboratory have maked small scale "warp bubble" wih is firs step to make it buts its a long way to make it THAT scale and yes its POSSIBLE

[WaveFunctionP]

Not trying to criticize anyone present this time, but I've been wondering about the warp drive ever since FractalUK's first versions:

It preserves your entire momentum, always, regardless of whether your warp jump took you up or down a gravity well. This is a huge violation of the conventional picture of the law of conservation of momentum (and the law of conservation of energy, for that matter, but this could easily be remedied by a tweak to the drive's power usage based on gravity well climb/descent), which can be illustrated easily by imagining what would happen if you used the drive to take off from the surface of a body- You'd go from a standstill on the surface to a high-altitude escape trajectory in the blink of an eye, with zero engine burns and using nothing more than a few gigajoules worth of exotic matter. Sure, the energy consumed could be proportional to the difference in potential energy of your starting and ending altitude (it's not, but it seems like it easily could), preventing one from making an infinite-portal-fall type perpetual motion machine out of it, but this doesn't address the fact that you're effectively getting a whole bunch of momentum from nowhere during your jump, which can be exploited by doing a climb-fall-climb-fall maneuver cycle to build up speed in any direction you want from a planet's (or star's) gravity well.

Is this really how an Alcubierre drive would work in real life? If so, what branch of physics am I ignoring in this reasoning?

If I'm not wrong about this, one could potentially make the warp drive system more realistic by making it remove momentum from your ship as it climbs gravity wells and add it back on as you descend them- If you warp from low orbit to a higher altitude, instead of finding yourself on an escape trajectory, you'll find yourself falling towards the planet. Your total orbital energy would remain the same, but more of it would suddenly be converted from kinetic energy to potential energy, resulting in a much higher altitude but much slower speed.

I'm still a little fuzzy with how the exact math would work here, but I think it might result in long-distance warp transfers between planets leaving you with much less of a difference in velocity upon arrival, and far less delta-V would be required for the capture burn. This would, of course, make using the warp drive properly much easier, but would remove the possibility for unorthodox maneuvers generating massive velocities from nowhere.

I'm curious for someone better educated in the relevant physics to weigh in on this.

There is a lecture on the nasa website about it.

As far as how accurate it is in-game. I don't really care. It's a fun and interesting mechanic that self balances itself to a fair extent, and so I'm happy to keep it as is.

[sarsengo]

Hey guys is there a way to join 2 mods without it crashing? I want to use KSP INTERSTELLAR and B9 aerospace together...if there is some coding i need to learn, please let me know what you know! I appreciate any answers, btw NICE MOD!

[Bishop149]

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.

Having a look through this thread to try and get an idea of what has changed, it might help if someone could compile the changes into an easy to read factual FAQ rather than trawling through 40+ pages of mostly conflicting opinions! Prehaps I'll do it once I get well into the new version.

Will try it out and see what I think, only comments pre-testing from what I've read here are:

I can't help but feel that it seems beamed power networks have not been adequately considered when the changes were made.

Most of the changes make a lot of sense in the context of on-board power, however the time and effort it requires to establish a good beamed power network is probably no longer worth it if the high end reactor outputs have been nerfed quite so comprehensively. I dunno I'll see how it pans out.

My strongest feeling is that Antimatter tanks should not start full! The collection of antimatter before you could reap its benefits was an excellent gameplay mechanic / limitation. If WavefunctionP disagrees with me then how simple an effort would it be to mod them back to starting empty for my game at least?

I look forward to trying the new version

[Darkblade48]

Hey guys is there a way to join 2 mods without it crashing? I want to use KSP INTERSTELLAR and B9 aerospace together...if there is some coding i need to learn, please let me know what you know! I appreciate any answers, btw NICE MOD!

I use both of these together without anything special in particular.

Perhaps you are running out of memory and require Active Texture Management?

[Ballistic Idiot]

Hey guys is there a way to join 2 mods without it crashing? I want to use KSP INTERSTELLAR and B9 aerospace together...if there is some coding i need to learn, please let me know what you know! I appreciate any answers, btw NICE MOD!

The odds a pretty decent that you're having a memory problem, B9 is GIGANTIC.

How much RAM do you have and are you running 32 or 64 bit?

64 bit KSP has a habit of just kind of crashing for giggles, while 32 bit is pretty memory limited. There is a set of texture reduction for B9 to hammer it into less memory, jeck out the OP in the B9 thread for the link.

[Taverius]

@WaveFunctionP, could you comment here? Thanks

[ABZB]

My parts aren't upgrading - radiators didn't upgrade with experimental electrics?

[fried_rice]

My strongest feeling is that Antimatter tanks should not start full! The collection of antimatter before you could reap its benefits was an excellent gameplay mechanic / limitation. If WavefunctionP disagrees with me then how simple an effort would it be to mod them back to starting empty for my game at least?

If there's one thing that's worth keeping, bar radiator and reactor performance, it's the antimatter tanks being set at zero.

[WaveFunctionP]

Having a look through this thread to try and get an idea of what has changed, it might help if someone could compile the changes into an easy to read factual FAQ rather than trawling through 40+ pages of mostly conflicting opinions! Prehaps I'll do it once I get well into the new version.

Will try it out and see what I think, only comments pre-testing from what I've read here are:

I can't help but feel that it seems beamed power networks have not been adequately considered when the changes were made.

Most of the changes make a lot of sense in the context of on-board power, however the time and effort it requires to establish a good beamed power network is probably no longer worth it if the high end reactor outputs have been nerfed quite so comprehensively. I dunno I'll see how it pans out.

My strongest feeling is that Antimatter tanks should not start full! The collection of antimatter before you could reap its benefits was an excellent gameplay mechanic / limitation. If WavefunctionP disagrees with me then how simple an effort would it be to mod them back to starting empty for my game at least?

I look forward to trying the new version

I'm almost done with a playthrough. I suspect that plasma engines may need a buff. Which should resolve the power network issue. To be clear, it is not intended for you to be able to beam power across the solar system without very substantial investment. Vanilla kspi made this trivial because of reactor scaling.

AM costs have not been balanced, they are basicly placeholder values. I'd like to have a resource recovery mechanics, but for now proxying it through cost is good enough for now if tuned properly. It should have a better balance in the next major version.

A MM config can change both the resource cost definition or the reactor starting amount. or, you know, you could just not fill up your reactor/tanks with AM in the VAB. It is tweakable afterall.

Edited September 4, 2014 by WaveFunctionP

[WaveFunctionP]

@WaveFunctionP, could you comment here? Thanks

Done.

My parts aren't upgrading - radiators didn't upgrade with experimental electrics?

Reactors, generators, and radiators do not upgrade. It is mentioned in the OP.

[Jetski]

Am I doing something wrong, or is it still impossible to do EVA maintenance on a fission reactor? I can't restart, refuel, or reprocess fuel with a scilab either. I used to do this regularly in KSPI, so I think I have the mechanics right, just that nothing happens when I click the button while EVA, or in the scilab.

[WaveFunctionP]

Am I doing something wrong, or is it still impossible to do EVA maintenance on a fission reactor? I can't restart, refuel, or reprocess fuel with a scilab either. I used to do this regularly in KSPI, so I think I have the mechanics right, just that nothing happens when I click the button while EVA, or in the scilab.

It's an issue with your install most likely. Follow the instructions in the OP, and watch the video if you still have problems.