[0.90] KSP Interstellar port maintance thread

[Kielm]

Most players don't even seem to notice or care but yes, this is one of those things on my toDo list. I can do a quick a dirty method like done Science Lab , but if possible it should be implemented with the Backgroup processing, that way, if you ran out of nuclear fuel, you genererator stop producing power and your kerbals should properly freeze (due to lifesoupport heating fallout out). Yes, space is deadly

I can get on board with this

I've looked through the source code and it looks like the same consumption method is being called when focused and when being "reactivated" - I'm curious as to why it's not working for the latter?

[Dante Montana]

Hello

Some poeple wrote that they have problems with mutiple techtrees. In my installation I use one tree (CTT) as the main tree and added the KSPI notes (in an exiting save without problems) by a modmanager file from Serino which I found on the CTT threat.

[Northstar1989]

long bit about the Community Tech Tree

FreeThinker, with all due respect, not all players USE the Community Tech Tree. I don't, for one. I'm perfectly comfortable using TechManager to use the old KSP-I tech tree- why would I switch over to a new one I'm less familiar with? What would be the benefit?

You really can't go around balancing what is hoped will eventually become a main part of a mod (when Fractal_UK gets back) against an alternative tech tree most people won't want to use. I say this out of concern for seeing your great work make it into the final mod- PLEASE, stick with balancing vs. the original KSP-Interstellar tech tree.

I've poured some effort into this Extension Config as well (and will be trying to write up some more code for it soon). I don't want to see this work fall by the wayside when Fractal_UK gets back just because we started balancing against an alternative tech tree not designed by Fractal_UK.

Regards,

Northstar

[JeffreyCor]

I would reecho Northstar1989's sentiment of CTT not being the defacto tech tree for every user. I also do not use CTT, though I do use a different tech tree than the old KSPI or even unofficial KSPI.

[Ryusho]

Excuse me, but How do you fix the "Infinite zooming in" bug with this? >.< I forgot how, Isn't it because of the Tweak Scale issue? Or was it something else. >.< I was wondering because it's driving me a bit batty because I want to use this mod, but this bug is happening, ironically on only -some- of the parts, not all of them.

[Olympic1]

FreeThinker, with all due respect, not all players USE the Community Tech Tree. I don't, for one. I'm perfectly comfortable using TechManager to use the old KSP-I tech tree- why would I switch over to a new one I'm less familiar with? What would be the benefit?

You really can't go around balancing what is hoped will eventually become a main part of a mod (when Fractal_UK gets back) against an alternative tech tree most people won't want to use. I say this out of concern for seeing your great work make it into the final mod- PLEASE, stick with balancing vs. the original KSP-Interstellar tech tree.

I've poured some effort into this Extension Config as well (and will be trying to write up some more code for it soon). I don't want to see this work fall by the wayside when Fractal_UK gets back just because we started balancing against an alternative tech tree not designed by Fractal_UK.

Regards,

Northstar

I made the CTT config for the people who play with the CTT tree, it was available as a separate download. When FreeThinker send me a PM asking if he may include it, I said yes.

If you don't want the config in the download, he can exclude it and refer to the download link in the mod description.

[Yemo]

I asked anonish (The creator of Tech Manager) to explain how Tech Manager would behave with multiple (conflicting) technodes, he refused to answer my question and told me (and everybody else) to find out themself. Perhaps this is his black humor, but the result is people getting into a technode mess (surprize, surprize) using several techtrees at the same time. I added some technode support to KSPI Extended, to make it less painfull, but it cannot fix everything, there needs to be some changes in the techmanager to fix this!

I never understood why the techmanager allowed the activation of multiple trees in the same save...

I could understand if that was an advanced option, which you have to activate somehow for debugging or whatever. But for I guess 95% it is just an invitation to chaos...

It's activating additional techtrees in techmanger that cause problems, not installing them. Techmanager should have included some warning not to combine Techtrees mid game or risk serious problems. Now I fear we get more of these problems, people will start experimenting with multiple techtrees (like I did too). They will all eventualy hit a wall and some will come complaining to me.

It is something like a maze. Many ways to get lost and only one exit...

Selecting more than one tree -> Disaster

Installing some trees but not using them (like CTT) -> Disaster

The only right exit is:

Choose a tree,

install ONLY what is necessary for that tree (you will still have multiple choices in the tech manager in game, even if you install only the CTT)

AND then ONLY select the tree you wanted (and installed) in the first place.

I learned that the hard way...

FreeThinker, with all due respect, not all players USE the Community Tech Tree. I don't, for one. I'm perfectly comfortable using TechManager to use the old KSP-I tech tree- why would I switch over to a new one I'm less familiar with? What would be the benefit?

Compatibility with many other mods, rather than the "proprietory/exclusive" KSPI tree.

You really can't go around balancing what is hoped will eventually become a main part of a mod (when Fractal_UK gets back) against an alternative tech tree most people won't want to use. I say this out of concern for seeing your great work make it into the final mod- PLEASE, stick with balancing vs. the original KSP-Interstellar tech tree.

Sure he can. It is a choice between compatibility (with other mods) / effort (of balancing more than one tree) / and personal preferences.

Balancing is not restricted to part balancing. It can also be the balance between compatibility and "tradition".

The problem with KSPI is, that it is a part mod and a tech tree mod.

I understand the reason behind this, there simply was no feasible tech tree, so one had to be created.

But that is no longer the case.

I've poured some effort into this Extension Config as well (and will be trying to write up some more code for it soon). I don't want to see this work fall by the wayside when Fractal_UK gets back just because we started balancing against an alternative tech tree not designed by Fractal_UK.

Regards,

Northstar

I would reecho Northstar1989's sentiment of CTT not being the defacto tech tree for every user. I also do not use CTT, though I do use a different tech tree than the old KSPI or even unofficial KSPI.

Sometimes it is time to move on. If KSP itself would not have broken with "traditional" settings/savegames at some point, we would still be sandbox only and we would certainly not get aerodynamics and resources in 1.0.

The good thing about moving on in this case is, I m certain someone will continue the KSPI tree config. So the negative effect on die hard KSPI tree users is quasi non existent.

But it would free up dev resources from compatibility issues with other mods, because that would be handled by the CTT, thus leaving more time for part modding.

By the way, that is not theoretical. It is exactly what I do with the SETI-BalanceMod (link in signature). I have much more time for part balancing, since I delegate nearly all the tech compatibility to the CTT...

Edited February 13, 2015 by Yemo

[Northstar1989]

Yemo,

You still haven't explained what the BENEFIT is of CTT. I never had any trouble using multiple mods like B9 Aerospace and NearFuture Technologies with KSP-Interstellar before. They simply got kicked to the "Experimental" nodes (the ones that cost 1000 Science and come after the stock tree). KSP-Interstellar is my primary mod that changes the tech tree- why would I *NEED* a more complex tech tree just to accommodate the tastes of other mod authors who think their mod is sufficiently advanced to warrant extra tech nodes? (a qualification that only really applies to KSP-Interstellar in my opinion: I don't want to be unlocking Antimatter Reactors or Alcubierre Drives at Experimental Electrics, but see no reason why a NearFuture Solar Blanket would need its own tech node when it's based on experimental technology almost ready today...)

Anyways, regardless of whether myself or other players eventually switch over to Community Tech Tree (a project I am skeptical will last in the long run- every attempt to create a communal tech tree or resource base in KSP inevitably falls on differing philosophies and people breaking off to do their own thing), I feel FreeThinker has just gotten carried away with breaking up the reactors into too many new "families" of reactor...

Fractal_UK created a relatively small number of reactor types for a reason- any more wouldn't really be a sufficient distinction to be worth the extra memory and part catalog clutter it would create. I *HIGHLY* doubt Fractal will be accepting of creating that many different varieties of just fission reactors alone, and honestly I'm not really either- I don't feel the costs (memory usage, etc.) are worth the (very marginal) benefits...

Already I'm worried Fractal_UK will be difficult to convince to integrate the Propulsive Fluid Accumulators and new fuel types, even though he talked about adding some of these before himself- simply because he didn't create them, and is worried about scope over-reach in his mod. I don't want to do ANYTHING more to jeopardize the existing work finding its rightful place in the final mod...

Regards,

Northstar

Edited February 13, 2015 by Northstar1989

[FreeThinker]

I *HIGHLY* doubt Fractal will be accepting of creating that many different varieties of just fission reactors alone, and honestly I'm not really either- I don't feel the costs (memory usage, etc.) are worth the (very marginal) benefits...

I'm not creating new reactors concepts, I maturing existing reactor concepts. This allows me to specialise reactors for certain task. For example, it allows me to increase the TWR of the Particle Bed Reactor (as a Timberland reactor) without also increasing TWR of the Dusty Plasma Reactor. Isn't this what you wanted?

Also the Part Catalog of KSPI is currently a mess, too many parts which only differ in size and contents. It's made worse by a incomplete implementation of Tweakscale (you should either do it well or not at all). This not only cluters up the part catalog for players, it's also makes mod development and testing a nightmare!

I intend to solve this mess, by a combination of correct implementation of Tweakscale and extended part configuration. This way, I think I can get rid of 90% of all parts without lossing the rishness of KSPI (like in KSPI Lite) and extend it further. At the same time I will try to remain Save game backward compatible with previous KSPI campaign as long as possible. This means I will not remove parts physicly or change global constants.

I think we should take a fresh look at KSPI, free your mind of old patterns and think in new solutions, not problems. At first I objected to CTT too (mainly due to the shortcomings of Techmanager) but slowly I realised this is the way forward. Staying in the past too long will only slow us down.

Edited February 13, 2015 by FreeThinker

[etmoonshade]

After my update to 0.6.0 (and 0.6.1 as well,) I'm finding my reactors are running at 100% again.

If this is to be intended behavior in the future, could it at least be something that can be switched off in the config file?

[FreeThinker]

After my update to 0.6.0 (and 0.6.1 as well,) I'm finding my reactors are running at 100% again.

If this is to be intended behavior in the future, could it at least be something that can be switched off in the config file?

Weird, I can't reproduce this problem. Is anyone else experiencing this problem?

[etmoonshade]

Weird, I can't reproduce this problem. Is anyone else experiencing this problem?

If you're not able to reproduce the issue (with a generator attached, I should have mentioned,) give me a few hours to get home from work and I'll do a clean reinstall of everything and see if it's still happening. I'm reasonably certain I did that, but there's always the chance there was something stuck somewhere.

I'll also see if I can't get you a cleaner and more detailed report. Either way, I'll get back to you (unless someone else is seeing the same issue.)

[chuckstabler]

Hey all, I found a fairly serious bug with the antimatter reactor in sandbox mode (therefore the upgraded reactor). When attached to the thermal turbojets and thermal rocket nozzles, it produces 357 KN of thrust using liquid fuel, at an ISP of 2999. So I figured the ISP should be higher, so I switched to LFO mix as a fuel. This produced 2203 KN of thrust at the same ISP as liquid fuel. I figured it may be a glitch with the display of ISP, but I timed both fuels in 100 km kerban orbit. I worked the math out, and the only difference between the two is that the LFO produces 5.91 times the thrust at the same overall fuel efficiency. This has got to be a glitch right?

[Northstar1989]

Hey all, I found a fairly serious bug with the antimatter reactor in sandbox mode (therefore the upgraded reactor). When attached to the thermal turbojets and thermal rocket nozzles, it produces 357 KN of thrust using liquid fuel, at an ISP of 2999. So I figured the ISP should be higher, so I switched to LFO mix as a fuel. This produced 2203 KN of thrust at the same ISP as liquid fuel. I figured it may be a glitch with the display of ISP, but I timed both fuels in 100 km kerban orbit. I worked the math out, and the only difference between the two is that the LFO produces 5.91 times the thrust at the same overall fuel efficiency. This has got to be a glitch right?

That's not a glitch chuckstabler. What you're describing is the way the ISP-cap is currently implemented: all fuels cap out at an ISP of 3000, due to the limitations of how high a temperature a Thermal Rocket could safely be built to without magnetic confinement...

I was talking to Fractal_UK before he left, and he agree that the ISP cap should not be the same for all fuels- Hydrogen at a given temperature should/would give a higher ISP than Methane at the same temperature, for instance- but he didn't get around to implementing it. It's one of those fixes that I was hoping to eventually get around to in the Extension Config (FreeThinker, are you cool with us eventually working with me on fixing that?)

Keep in mind that heavier (by Molecular Mass) fuel mixes such as Hydrolox (LFO) vs pure Hydrogen (LiquidFuel) *SHOULD* and *DO* give more Thrust for the same reactor. The trade-off for this supposed to be that they have lower ISP...

Regards,

Northstar

Edited February 14, 2015 by Northstar1989

[etmoonshade]

If you're not able to reproduce the issue (with a generator attached, I should have mentioned,) give me a few hours to get home from work and I'll do a clean reinstall of everything and see if it's still happening. I'm reasonably certain I did that, but there's always the chance there was something stuck somewhere.

I'll also see if I can't get you a cleaner and more detailed report. Either way, I'll get back to you (unless someone else is seeing the same issue.)

Okay, so I did a clean reinstall from scratch and I couldn't reproduce either. That means we're probably looking at some sort of strange mod interaction that wasn't happening before. Over the course of the weekend, I'll be installing my various addons piece by piece, and seeing if I can hit upon what caused the problem. If I figure it out, I'll let you know. If I get everything installed and it doesn't happen, that'll give you something to put in your posts - not cleaning out the config can cause screwy behavior.

My current install is Boris' fix for KSP-I, the KSP-I Extended Config, and CTT.

With all that said, there's still something weird in the install: The deployable heat radiators don't appear to be on the tech tree at all anymore. The deployable heat radiators got moved WAY up in the tech tree. That'd be fine, except that with the tweaks you made to the power on the reactors, the lower-end radiators don't cut it - you basically can't use the reactors you get at 300 tech until you hit 1000 tech unless you want to cover your craft in radiators. I'll admit, this is more of a gameplay/balance complaint than a bug report. YMMV, etc. Just wanted to point it out as something that caught me by surprise.

Edited February 14, 2015 by etmoonshade
Tweaked wording for clarity. Note to self: Don't drink and forum.

[skygunner58203]

So, I'm wanting to install this in my Linux install. However, it looks like Master Tao has removed the link for the tweakscale fix pending source. Does anyone have a link to it?

[FreeThinker]

I was talking to Fractal_UK before he left, and he agree that the ISP cap should not be the same for all fuels- Hydrogen at a given temperature should/would give a higher ISP than Methane at the same temperature, for instance- but he didn't get around to implementing it. It's one of those fixes that I was hoping to eventually get around to in the Extension Config (FreeThinker, are you cool with us eventually working with me on fixing that?)

Sounds like a good solution, I will implement it

- - - Updated - - -

With all that said, there's still something weird in the install: The deployable heat radiators don't appear to be on the tech tree at all anymore. The deployable heat radiators got moved WAY up in the tech tree. That'd be fine, except that with the tweaks you made to the power on the reactors, the lower-end ones don't cut it - you basically can't use the higher-end reactors (gotten at 300 tech) until you hit 1000 tech unless you want to cover your craft in radiators. I'll admit, this is more of a gameplay/balance complaint than a bug report. YMMV, etc. Just wanted to point it out as something that caught me by surprise.

Thank you for you your feedback, I will look into if it can be eased somewhat

[Druitz]

Can someone please post a screenshot of how to power Magnetic Nozzles? I can't get them to work for nothing and there's almost 0 correct information linking how to make them run. I've got them attached to charged particles ect ect, I've tried every reactor combo and nothing. I get a big whopping 0.

[FreeThinker]

Now, onwards to the Thrust: Atmospheric ISP relationship. We already have (thanks to Fractal_UK) a formula where Thrust, rather than Fuel Flow, varies with Specific Impulse- but we DON'T have a formula where Atmospheric Specific Impulse is calculated correctly in the first place based on changes in Vacuum Thrust (i.e. Throttle, total MW of Thermal Power available, and fuel Molecular Mass...)

Could we remove the silly "ispratio" term from the current thrust calculation, and subtract (Exit Area * Background Pressure) instead.

It should look something like this:

Thrust = Math.Max (equation) - (Exit Area) * (Background Pressure)

Notice that (Exit Area * Background Pressure) is located OUTSIDE of the rest of the equation? That's an important point about the format you need to keep aware of... You are basically adding a parallel term to the (Math.Max) function that only kicks in when inside an atmosphere (where Background Pressure =/= 0)

The key thing that creates the proper relationship with Mass Flow Rate, etc. is that (Exit Area * Background Pressure) is a CONSTANT term for a given engine at a given altitude, whereas Vacuum Thrust (the rest of the equation) will vary based on available ThermalPower (particularly variable with a Microwave Thermal Rocket), Vacuum ISP (varies by core temperature, which can vary with a Pebble Bed Reactor like the Sethlans), vessel throttle-setting (throttling down should *REDUCE* Atmospheric ISP as well as Fuel Flow), etc.

I have replaced ispratio by adjustment of thrust/ISP based on atmospheric static pressure

Because in order for a thermal noozle to be effective, it needs to have a smaller exit area. I modified the HeatExchangerThrustDivisor calculation for nozzle with a smaller diameter than the reactor from (nozzle radius * noozle radius / reactor radius * reactor radius ) to (nozzle radius / reactor radius).

This allows a 1.875 Upgraded Particle Reactor (=mature Timberwind) with 1.25 Noozle to get good atmospheric results.

HeatExchangerThrustDivisor = 1.25 / 1.875 = 0.66666

exitArea 1.25m Thermal noozle = 0.7657 m2

exitArea 1.875m = 0.7657 * (1.875/1.25 ^ 2) = 1.7228 m2

powerTrustMultiplier = 6.359

expected Thermal Power = 187.5 * ((1.875 / 1.25)^ 3.2 = 686.267 MW

As you can see fuel flow remains the same while trust and ISP gradually increase as you gain height

Here some pics from the same vessel in space:

Edited February 14, 2015 by FreeThinker

[Druitz]

I have implemented the thrust/ISP based on atmospheric static pressure

Because in order for a thermal noozle to be effective, it needs to have a smaller exit area. I modified the HeatExchangerThrustDivisor calcualtion for nozzle with a smaller diameter than the reactor from (nozzle radius * noozle radius / reactor radius * reactor radius ) to (nozzle radius / reactor radius)

This allows a 1.875 Upgraded Particle Reactor with 1.25 Noozle to get good atmospheric results.

HeatExchangerThrustDivisor = 1.25 / 1.875 = 0.66666

exitArea 1.25m Thermal noozle = 0.7657

powerTrustMultiplier = 6.359

http://i.imgur.com/re2PWWM.jpghttp://i.imgur.com/0m0sEjQ.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/7jvY4hQ.jpghttp://i.imgur.com/1enqkLW.jpg

As you can see fuel flow remains the same while trust and isp gradually increase as you gain height

My Magnetic Nozzle doesn't have the options to toggle propellant ect. I'm guessing there's a problem with the file? I downloaded the most recent version of this file about three days ago.

[FreeThinker]

My Magnetic Nozzle doesn't have the options to toggle propellant ect. I'm guessing there's a problem with the file? I downloaded the most recent version of this file about three days ago.

No, Magnetic nozzle never had the option to switch propellant. I have no idea if it would be possible, but I guess it would with some particles

There are 2 things further thing you have to understand when using magnetic noozles: 1,you need megawatt power to use a magnetic nozzle, 2 the dusty plasma does not have a charged particle buffer therefore it will not work. ( I will have fixed point 2 in my next patch)

Edited February 14, 2015 by FreeThinker

[Dynorawr]

So, I'm wanting to install this in my Linux install. However, it looks like Master Tao has removed the link for the tweakscale fix pending source. Does anyone have a link to it?

I found the dropbox link from 26th Dec, but that 404s now. For all intents and purposes it's been scrubbed from the web; or it just expired - who knows. We'll just have to wait for news for the time being.

[Yemo]

I was going through the techs (CTT) and I was wondering about the radiator tech node placements.

Since solar panels produce heat, it would be great if at least the small radial radiator was available since "electrics" and the normal one some time after that in the electrics/solar branch.

I m not sure which other parts produce heat, so maybe a minor revisit of the radiator techs?

[EvilGeorge]

I think that Boris balanced solar panels so that they don't produce heat until they are quite close to the Sun. But I found that my solar powered stuff doesn't really need radiators. It might be a different thing if you're going for solar power satellites early on though.

Edited February 14, 2015 by EvilGeorge
Stupidity, FT's request

[FreeThinker]

EvilGeorge said:

I think that FreeThinker balanced solar panels so that they don't produce heat until they are quite close to the Sun. Or maybe it was Boris..? But I found that my solar powered stuff doesn't really need radiators. It might be a different thing if you're going for solar power satellites early on though.

You mean Boris, he change it.

Edited December 10, 2016 by FreeThinker