[0.90] KSP Interstellar port maintance thread

[FreeThinker]

@Northstart1989

Yeah, I'm not rushing you guys. Just something to take note of.

Btw, I think it's time for KSPI Extended to have it's own thread. I kinda feel that you guys are not getting enough attention from users because it's inside here.

You are right, I created a fresh new thread for KSP Interstellar Extended

Edited February 20, 2015 by FreeThinker

[JeffreyCor]

@JeffreyCor

Dependency to TweakScale started at 0.6.3, I believe.

No it wasn't. There was support but removing the configs that were included was all that was needed. Removing it from Infernal Robotics is already a major undertaking but is the only show in town for moving parts. KSPI though... looks like will be moving on unless and until Fractal updates the original.

[Northstar1989]

Northstar: Did you calculate ISP/Thrust figures for Water in a thermal nozzle? I'm curious.

Water (H₂O) has 9 times the Molecular Weight of Hydrogen: so it's ISP should be approximately 1/3rd that of Liquid Hydrogen- corresponding to an ISP multiplier of 0.33 based purely on Molecular Weight. HOWEVER, water also engages in Hydrogen Bonding- which reduces its ISP relative to Molecular Weight even further (because a given amount of heat-injection won't raise its temperature as high, leading to lower Exhaust Velocity), so a more accurate value would be around 0.25-0.28

However, it is CURRENTLY set at 0.4714 instead. I'm not sure why this is- most of Fractal_UK's other ISP multiplier selections are accurate to the molecular weight and physical/chemical properties...

The same effect is observed for Ammonia, which also engages in Hydrogen Bonding, and has an ISP multiplier of 0.6503 instead of the expected value of 0.342 based on molecular weight, or 0.30-0.32 after accounting for Hydrogen Bonding.

My guess is Fractal_UK used a higher ISP multiplier to account for the reduced thrust observed with Water and Ammonia relative to the expected Thrust/MW based on their molecular weight (in fact, he gives this explanation on the KSP-I wiki). HOWEVER, what Fractal_UK did NOT seem to grasp is that the lost Thrust *DOES NOT* show up as a higher ISP/Exhaust Velocity. Water and Ammonia are just poor NTR fuels to use, period.

The only advantages of Water/Ammonia is that, due to their Hydrogen Bonding, they are HIGHLY storable. As in, at the ambient temperatures of space both will *FREEZE* into a SOLID rather than attempt to boil-off into a vapor like LH₂ or LOX... However, boil-off is not currently modeled in KSP-Interstellar (it *IS* in RealFuels, however, and indeed neither fuel experiences boil-off with that mod installed, unlike Hydro/LOX...)

Thanks for catching that EMPeror? I assume that's why you asked me to calculate the proper ISP for Water...

@FreeThinker

The ISP multipliers of Water and Ammonia need to be reduced to the following values:

Water: 0.33

Ammonia: 0.342

Also, there needs to be a *NEGATIVE* (less than 1) Thrust-modifier on both Water and Ammonia that *REDUCES* their EFFECTIVE ISP to 0.28 and 0.30, respectively.

Here are the appropriate Thrust modifiers to attain that:

Water: 0.900

Ammonia: 0.875

So, Water should produce only 90% of the expected Thrust for its Molecular Weight and ISP, and Ammonia only 87.5%.

Regards,

Northstar

[Northstar1989]

Also, Freethinker, you asked about LF/O mix before.

I want to make sure you correctly understand, the Thrust-increase of 200% is *RELATIVE TO HYDROGEN ALONE*.

Here are appropriate Thrust/ISP values for a LANTR fuel-mode, drawn DIRECTLY from the table on page 7 of the report you linked to:

LH₂/LOX ISP multiplier: 0.6289 (so, an ISP 62.89% of Hydrogen with a given reactor temperature and nozzle-size)

LH₂/LOX Thrust Multiplier: 3.1444 (314.44% Thrust relative to Hydrogen)

# EDIT: Initial calculations for the ISP multiplier were too low, because I divided 566/1000 instead of 566/900 to determine the relative-ISP of LANTR fuel-mode. *PLEASE* use the new value of 0.6289 above.

So, if a NTR in LH₂-mode produces a Vacuum Thrust of 1.15 kN/MW at a Vauum ISP of 1150 seconds... (this is *approximately* the correct value at a reactor temperature of 3000 K, with a Vacuum-nozzle attached, and what we have been balancing the Sethlans family of reactors to with equal-diameter Thermal Rocket Nozzles)

Then it should produce 3.62 kN/MW of Vacuum Thrust at a Vacuum ISP of 732.22 seconds when using LH₂/LOX.

Another issues to be aware of- LANTR DOES *NOT* OPERATE AT STOICHIOMETRIC RATIOS FOR LH₂/LOX COMBUSTION!

According to the first report on LANTR you linked, the fuel mass-ratio at the *HIGHEST* LOX-injection ratio (where you get a full 314.4% increase in Thrust relative to LH₂ alone) is only 1:4, *not* the 1:8 stoichiometric ratio, or the 1:6 fuel-ratio you would see with a typical Hydrolox chemical rocket engine.

Seeing this, the fuel-ratio RealFuels/KSP-I needs to be changed *SIGNIFICANTLY*. The fuel/ox ratio is stock KSP-I is currently 10:11, clearly to match the existing rocket-fuel mix, and I wouldn't recommend changing this as it will make things too difficult on new players. HOWEVER, RealFuels seeks to match real-world fuel mixtures and performance whenever possible (this is basically the entire purpose of that mod), so the current RealFuels Hydro/LOX fuel-mode ModuleManager patch needs to be changed as follows...

Here is the current code, found in the "RealFuelsFix" config now included with KSP-Interstellar Extension Config:

@BASIC_NTR_PROPELLANT[Hydrolox]:FINAL:NEEDS[RealFuels]:FOR[WarpPlugin]
{
    @guiName = Hydrolox
    @PROPELLANT[LiquidFuel]
    {
        @name = LqdHydrogen
        @ratio = 0.73
    }
    @PROPELLANT[Oxidizer]
    {
        @name = LqdOxygen
        @ratio = 0.27
        @DrawGauge = False
    }
}

Now *HERE* is what the code NEEDS to be changed to:

@BASIC_NTR_PROPELLANT[Hydrolox]:FINAL:NEEDS[RealFuels]:FOR[WarpPlugin]
{
    @guiName = Hydrolox
    @PROPELLANT[LiquidFuel]
    {
        @name = LqdHydrogen
        @ratio = 0.80
    }
    @PROPELLANT[Oxidizer]
    {
        @name = LqdOxygen
        @ratio = 0.20
        @DrawGauge = False
    }
}

You'll notice that the LANTR fuel-mode causes thermal rockets to now burn significantly more Hydrogen-rich. Which is GREAT for Propulsive Fluid Accumulators around Jool, but bad for the size of your spacecraft in RealFuels... (due to Hydrogen's *VERY* low fuel-density)

I'll also try and re-post this on the new thread for the KSP-Interstellar Extension Config, as we start to migrate more discussion to over there...

Regards,

Northstar

Edited February 21, 2015 by Northstar1989

[Drakoflame]

Could I try and get some help from someone and edit the way that the solar panels make heat so that they make it a bit quicker? I'm happy that I can get it to generate outside of the atmosphere, but I would like it to be a bit quicker so that my probe overheats before it goes behind Kerbin and cools off. If someone could help me with that so I can bump up how fast it makes heat, I'd appreciate it

[Northstar1989]

Could I try and get some help from someone and edit the way that the solar panels make heat so that they make it a bit quicker? I'm happy that I can get it to generate outside of the atmosphere, but I would like it to be a bit quicker so that my probe overheats before it goes behind Kerbin and cools off. If someone could help me with that so I can bump up how fast it makes heat, I'd appreciate it

Drakoflame,

I think the problem you're struggling with is that Boris changed the solar panel code back on Christmas of last year to be *more realistic* in that solar panels now generate heat more slowly (because their backsides also act as large heat-radiators). While his implementation wasn't *perfect* (the WasteHeat production picks up sharply about the point where you get to Eve), the change was a *marked improvement* over the pre-existing situation...

Solar panels *do* still generate WasteHeat even around Kerbin- I think what you're missing is that the body of your spacecraft also acts a large (and inefficient) heat-radiator.

Currently, any spacecraft it KSP-Interstellar will radiate WasteHeat back into space at a rate directly-proportional to its total mass. This was a clumsy attempt to model a spacecraft's surface-area, much like the stock drag-model originally (currently) modeled/models drag as increasing proportional to spacecraft mass (fortunately, this is finally being replaced with a more realistic/intuitive drag-model in KSP version 1.0)

The fact is, heat doesn't just radiate out of heat radiators- it also radiates off the entire skin of a spacecraft (although the sun-facing side of the spacecraft also absorbs some sunlight, the net balance of absorption vs. radiation favors a relatively cool resting-temperature for most spacecraft- around -40 Celsius for a passive body in Low Earth Orbit, where it's being bombarded with Infrared radiating off the Earth...) So, if you have only a couple small solar panels on a relatively large spacecraft, you wouldn't EXPECT it to overheat quickly. Even on a relatively small satellite in Low Earth Orbit, with comparatively large deployable solar panels, the solar panels themselves act as heat radiators (out their backside), so you usually don't have a *drastic* problem with heat management (a *very* small active radiator will do) unless the solar panels become VERY large relative to the spacecraft...

Look at it this way- most spacecraft are designed to maximize passive heat-radiation, and absorb as little sunlight as possible. That's why the surfaces of many spacecraft are painted white, and have intentionally high albedos... Most solar panels absorb only a few Watts of sunlight per square-meter. How hot do you *think* the spacecraft would have to get before the rate of heat-radiation out the backside equaled a few Watts from a small set of solar panels?

Now if you attach something the size of a Gigantor to a tiny probe, you'll still get overheating, even near Kerbin. THAT is realistic...

Are you *SURE* you still want to change the system back to how it was before, even if it's unrealistically-harsh?

Regards,

Northstar

- - - Updated - - -

Could I try and get some help from someone and edit the way that the solar panels make heat so that they make it a bit quicker? I'm happy that I can get it to generate outside of the atmosphere, but I would like it to be a bit quicker so that my probe overheats before it goes behind Kerbin and cools off. If someone could help me with that so I can bump up how fast it makes heat, I'd appreciate it

Drakoflame,

I think the problem you're struggling with is that Boris changed the solar panel code back on Christmas of last year to be *more realistic* in that solar panels now generate heat more slowly (because their backsides also act as large heat-radiators). While his implementation wasn't *perfect* (the WasteHeat production picks up sharply about the point where you get to Eve), the change was a *marked improvement* over the pre-existing situation...

Solar panels *do* still generate WasteHeat even around Kerbin- I think what you're missing is that the body of your spacecraft also acts a large (and inefficient) heat-radiator.

Currently, any spacecraft it KSP-Interstellar will radiate WasteHeat back into space at a rate directly-proportional to its total mass. This was a clumsy attempt to model a spacecraft's surface-area, much like the stock drag-model originally (currently) modeled/models drag as increasing proportional to spacecraft mass (fortunately, this is finally being replaced with a more realistic/intuitive drag-model in KSP version 1.0)

The fact is, heat doesn't just radiate out of heat radiators- it also radiates off the entire skin of a spacecraft (although the sun-facing side of the spacecraft also absorbs some sunlight, the net balance of absorption vs. radiation favors a relatively cool resting-temperature for most spacecraft- around -40 Celsius for a passive body in Low Earth Orbit, where it's being bombarded with Infrared radiating off the Earth...) So, if you have only a couple small solar panels on a relatively large spacecraft, you wouldn't EXPECT it to overheat quickly. Even on a relatively small satellite in Low Earth Orbit, with comparatively large deployable solar panels, the solar panels themselves act as heat radiators (out their backside), so you usually don't have a drastic problem with heat management unless the solar panels become VERY large relative to the spacecraft...

Look at it this way- most spacecraft are designed to maximize passive heat-radiation, and absorb as little sunlight as possible. That's why the surfaces of many spacecraft are painted white, and have intentionally high albedos... Most solar panels absorb only a few Watts of sunlight per square-meter. How hot do you *think* the spacecraft would have to get before the rate of heat-radiation out the backside equaled a few Watts from a small set of solar panels?

Now if you attach something the size of a Gigantor to a tiny probe, you'll still get overheating, even near Kerbin. THAT is realistic...

Are you *SURE* you still want to change the system back to how it was before, even if it's unrealistically-harsh?

Regards,

Northstar

[Drakoflame]

Drakoflame,

I think the problem you're struggling with is that Boris changed the solar panel code back on Christmas of last year to be *more realistic* in that solar panels now generate heat more slowly (because their backsides also act as large heat-radiators). While his implementation wasn't *perfect* (the WasteHeat production picks up sharply about the point where you get to Eve), the change was a *marked improvement* over the pre-existing situation...

Solar panels *do* still generate WasteHeat even around Kerbin- I think what you're missing is that the body of your spacecraft also acts a large (and inefficient) heat-radiator.

Currently, any spacecraft it KSP-Interstellar will radiate WasteHeat back into space at a rate directly-proportional to its total mass. This was a clumsy attempt to model a spacecraft's surface-area, much like the stock drag-model originally (currently) modeled/models drag as increasing proportional to spacecraft mass (fortunately, this is finally being replaced with a more realistic/intuitive drag-model in KSP version 1.0)

The fact is, heat doesn't just radiate out of heat radiators- it also radiates off the entire skin of a spacecraft (although the sun-facing side of the spacecraft also absorbs some sunlight, the net balance of absorption vs. radiation favors a relatively cool resting-temperature for most spacecraft- around -40 Celsius for a passive body in Low Earth Orbit, where it's being bombarded with Infrared radiating off the Earth...) So, if you have only a couple small solar panels on a relatively large spacecraft, you wouldn't EXPECT it to overheat quickly. Even on a relatively small satellite in Low Earth Orbit, with comparatively large deployable solar panels, the solar panels themselves act as heat radiators (out their backside), so you usually don't have a *drastic* problem with heat management (a *very* small active radiator will do) unless the solar panels become VERY large relative to the spacecraft...

Look at it this way- most spacecraft are designed to maximize passive heat-radiation, and absorb as little sunlight as possible. That's why the surfaces of many spacecraft are painted white, and have intentionally high albedos... Most solar panels absorb only a few Watts of sunlight per square-meter. How hot do you *think* the spacecraft would have to get before the rate of heat-radiation out the backside equaled a few Watts from a small set of solar panels?

Now if you attach something the size of a Gigantor to a tiny probe, you'll still get overheating, even near Kerbin. THAT is realistic...

Are you *SURE* you still want to change the system back to how it was before, even if it's unrealistically-harsh?

Regards,

Northstar

TBH, No, I don't want my early probes to overheat due to them having four of the photovalic plates...

BUT, I would like to increase the amount that it generates slightly, to the point that a small probe made out of: Stayputnic, the small fuel tank, can't rember the name, four photovalic plates, commutron-16, and a few other parts from a mod, the total part count of the early game probe (unlocked basic electronics and space exploration tiers at most, with advanced rocketry).

I want to adjust the levels so that that little probe will eventually die due to inefficient heat radiation. That is the most that I'd want to increase the heat production levels to.

[EMPeror]

Water (H₂O) has 9 times the Molecular Weight of Hydrogen: so it's ISP should be approximately 1/3rd that of Liquid Hydrogen- corresponding to an ISP multiplier of 0.33 based purely on Molecular Weight. HOWEVER, water also engages in Hydrogen Bonding- which reduces its ISP relative to Molecular Weight even further (because a given amount of heat-injection won't raise its temperature as high, leading to lower Exhaust Velocity), so a more accurate value would be around 0.25-0.28

However, it is CURRENTLY set at 0.4714 instead. I'm not sure why this is- most of Fractal_UK's other ISP multiplier selections are accurate to the molecular weight and physical/chemical properties...

The same effect is observed for Ammonia, which also engages in Hydrogen Bonding, and has an ISP multiplier of 0.6503 instead of the expected value of 0.342 based on molecular weight, or 0.30-0.32 after accounting for Hydrogen Bonding.

So, Water should produce only 90% of the expected Thrust for its Molecular Weight and ISP, and Ammonia only 87.5%.

<snip>

Regards,

Northstar

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_splitting

At 3000C, 50% of the water will be disassociated. Does this come into play?

[Northstar1989]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_splitting

At 3000C, 50% of the water will be disassociated. Does this come into play?

Actually, yes. Considering our Molten Salt Reactors operate at about that temperature (and Particle Bed Reactors when at sub-optimal temperature), and a 50% dissociation rate would improve Thrust by approximately 25% due to the dissociation of each water molecule into 1.5 Hydrogen/Oxygen molecules (2 H₂O --> 2 H₂ + O₂)...

I would say, it's worth implementing for the Molten Salt Reactors (which operate at this temperature) but not the Particle Bed Reactors- the MSR's could already use a bit of a buff compared to the PBR's anyways!

Regards,

Northstar

[jhook777]

Greetings all. This would be my first post. Usually I just read through the threads until I find the solution I'm looking for. This time, though, I haven't had any luck. My issue is with the Alcubierre drive. I just (finally) unlocked the tech and built a sweet ship to test out the drive and discovered that the thing doesn't warp me in the direction I'm pointing!!! I aim at the moon, warp at .10c, and end up somewhere millions of meters -below- the moon in a random orbit. After extensive testing and quickloading I found that the drive will warp me in a random direction but not in the direction I am facing (usually at an angle of 45 - 90 degrees off). This is maddening and renders the drive (and ship) unusable. Could this be a mod conflict? Is it because I'm using the 64 bit version (works like a dream with this one exception)? I'm lost. What info would one need to troubleshoot this issue? Has anyone else encountered this (or a similar) problem? Oh, and to be sure it wasn't something with the craft itself, I built a test rocket with just a probe core, nuclear reactor/generator, alcubierre drive, a fuel tank and a thermal rocket nozzle (reaches orbit with inf. fuel turned on). once in orbit, same issue. The thing would warp in every direction BUT the direction I pointed the craft. Please help! Thanks in advance.

[ABZB]

Greetings all. This would be my first post. Usually I just read through the threads until I find the solution I'm looking for. This time, though, I haven't had any luck. My issue is with the Alcubierre drive. I just (finally) unlocked the tech and built a sweet ship to test out the drive and discovered that the thing doesn't warp me in the direction I'm pointing!!! I aim at the moon, warp at .10c, and end up somewhere millions of meters -below- the moon in a random orbit. After extensive testing and quickloading I found that the drive will warp me in a random direction but not in the direction I am facing (usually at an angle of 45 - 90 degrees off). This is maddening and renders the drive (and ship) unusable. Could this be a mod conflict? Is it because I'm using the 64 bit version (works like a dream with this one exception)? I'm lost. What info would one need to troubleshoot this issue? Has anyone else encountered this (or a similar) problem? Oh, and to be sure it wasn't something with the craft itself, I built a test rocket with just a probe core, nuclear reactor/generator, alcubierre drive, a fuel tank and a thermal rocket nozzle (reaches orbit with inf. fuel turned on). once in orbit, same issue. The thing would warp in every direction BUT the direction I pointed the craft. Please help! Thanks in advance.

the cause was identified several pages ago... could you confirm you are using the latest version? If you are, then maybe the fix was forgotten or missed or something.

[captainradish]

Is there any kind of walkthrough or whatnot (other than the wiki)? I ask because I am experimenting with the plasma engines in sandbox and I cannot make a vacuum plasma engine work worth a damn. I have been able to generate a max of about 0.04 thrust. Am I missing something somewhere? I cannot come up with any way of generating 25gw that the 1.25 meter engine maxes out at.

[FreeThinker]

the cause was identified several pages ago... could you confirm you are using the latest version? If you are, then maybe the fix was forgotten or missed or something.

The fix was indeed already implemented

[jhook777]

the cause was identified several pages ago... could you confirm you are using the latest version? If you are, then maybe the fix was forgotten or missed or something.

I'm truly a forum noob. I slogged through pages for hours until I saw the little 'Search Thread' do-dad... Anywho, I thought I do not have the latest version of FreeThinker's patch, I'll plug that in as soon as I post this and test it out. Great work on keeping this mod alive. It is the very reason I play KSP!! Thanks so much!

[Boris-Barboris]

Ok, gentlemen, tweakscale fix is back there in starting post.

Can anyone summarize the problems you've encountered since the middle of january?

Simple links to important posts would be just fine.

[Olympic1]

Ok, gentlemen, tweakscale fix is back there in starting post.

Can anyone summarize the problems you've encountered since the middle of january?

Simple links to important posts would be just fine.

wb

FreeThinker did a good job on fixing bugs since your absence, you should contact him.

[Boris-Barboris]

good to hear

[Drakoflame]

Boris, Since you seem to be back, can you help me with my not-so-problematic problem? Now that I think about it... instead of fixing a problem, its more like creating a problem... Yea, I want to create a problem for myself and I need help doing it because I don't know how to myself

Edited February 23, 2015 by Drakoflame

[jhook777]

the cause was identified several pages ago... could you confirm you are using the latest version? If you are, then maybe the fix was forgotten or missed or something.

So I downloaded and installed kspi .90 and the extended config patch. I can confirm that this solved the issue with the Alcubierre drive. Thanks for that!

A new issue has arisen, however, now none of my reactors produce power. I am going to look through the posts again as well as double check my install to make sure I didn't muck something up (would have done it last night but I was too tired....) but yeah, seems like I spend more time troubleshooting KSP than playing it

On a different note, I love that this mod is still being maintained and has such a community following with so many diverse ideas. That being said, I'm not really sure how I feel about the changes to the fission reactors. Namely, I miss the lil' .65m Sethlans reactor. That thing was perfect for long-duration probes that fit into a nice little form factor with plenty of surface attachment... Now I have to design new probes and a new launch vehicle to carry said probes But yeah, this is a small thing, and I understand the desire to reduce part counts and all that. I just miss the unique 'identities' of the individual reactors and think of the generic labels "gas core" & "molten salt" to be.... well... like placeholders. Even the lowliest of parts has a name/designation (lv-xxx, pbk, rockomax, probodyne, etc...).

Now, don't take this as bellyaching. I'd like to reiterate my appreciation for all the work done to maintain this glorious mod. I'm just old and cranky and resistant to change.

Keep up the good work. I'll get back with a report on those reactors not producing charge.

[FreeThinker]

On a different note, I love that this mod is still being maintained and has such a community following with so many diverse ideas. That being said, I'm not really sure how I feel about the changes to the fission reactors. Namely, I miss the lil' .65m Sethlans reactor. That thing was perfect for long-duration probes that fit into a nice little form factor with plenty of surface attachment... .

You to realize that the Small Particle Reactor a.k.a. "Sethan" can be shrinked using theakscale, right? Not only 0.625m but also 0.875m and 1.25m. Conveniently it will now show it's empty mass and expected power output.

Edited February 23, 2015 by FreeThinker

[jhook777]

You to realize that the Small Particle Reactor a.k.a. "Sethan" can be shrinked using theakscale, right? Not only 0.625m but also 0.875m and 1.25m. Conveniently it will now show it's empty mass and expected power output.

My humble apologies for my chronic foot-in-mouth disease. It's why I usually don't post on forums. Yes, after firing it up again and poking around, I found that the tweakable versions fit my needs just fine . Thank you, kind sir.

Well, except for the part about not producing electricity. It takes a while for my pc to load KSP and it runs out of memory (ctd) if I alt tab and open a browser. I'm trying to figure out what I did wrong when I updated but also noticed another update so I'll just take the opportunity to do a 'clean' install of kspi + extended + dependencies and start a new game.

[jhook777]

Ok. Removed all things associated with KSPI. Downloaded all things associated with KSPI and extracted to a temp folder. Merged all the things. Merged all those things with Game Data. Clean install (ish). Most of my reactors and generators work now. Thank you for not totally breaking my save file by leaving in the old parts for craft already launched. The AIM reactor (the anti-matter initiated microfusion thingy) is the reactor the warp capable ship uses. It worked fine yesterday. Spent three days refining and tuning the craft to sustain the reaction and get itself into space (in one piece). Let me tell you what a chore it is to repeatedly revert flights, refuel the thing with antimatter over and over. I finally get it into space, point at the moon (which I could have just transferred to about a dozen times considering the DV of the craft) and boom, no warpy. I update, fix the warp but the reactor is now bugged. The antimatter reactor on one flight works fine. As does the fusion reactor I have going. I've a few fission reactors as well, those are all working fine. I had to reupgrade a generator for some reason... but it seems to work, even with the (now legacy?) old reactor. Beaming MW power works just dandy (which is good, or the warp ship would be doomed as it's carrying quite a bit of antimatter and has the AIM reactor and MW transceivers). The only one that doesn't work now is the AIM reactor on the warp ship. On the vessel that started me on this path in the first place....

Reactor shows active 0.00%

genny shows active 165.6KW current power, 0.0 max power (crystats and am storage are drawing power from stored electrical charge/MJ left over from yesterday when the thing worked). Thermal rocket produces 0.00 thrust at full throttle. Vista engines pull their power from stored Mega joules till the joules run out. Beamed power still works though so I can pull it into a lower orbit and rescue the stranded kerbals...

In short, I really don't want to sound ungrateful for the work done here but.... I feel like my game got broken overnight. I've spent almost 1500 hours on ksp since I bought it (that steam has logged anyway). 99% of that time was spent with KSP interstellar installed. 1500 hours of learning that system, designing craft, et cetera and poof, in one update (yes my fault for missing 3 weeks of updates) I feel like the system has been changed. I press load ship and just see a long, long list of craft that contain invalid parts. Sure, I could go in and swap out the old gennys and reactors for the new ones... but that also requires rebalancing, fine tuning, testing.... on over 100 craft :/

And that still doesn't help the fact that I've about 15 craft in space with parts that are no longer 'valid' and one ship in particular, my pride and joy, dead in the water.

Anyway, that's my report. New craft with the new reactors produce megajoules. Old craft with old reactors produce MJ except (so far that I've tested) the AIM reactor that I have in flight. It doesn't do anything, no thermal power, no MJ, no charged particles, nothin.

[Northstar1989]

Ok, gentlemen, tweakscale fix is back there in starting post.

Can anyone summarize the problems you've encountered since the middle of january?

Simple links to important posts would be just fine.

Lots of cool development over on the KSP-Interstellar Extension Config by FreeThinker and myself while you've been gone... (which now has its own thread)

We've actually expanded the mod in a few ways, but also implemented a number of bug-fixes. We're eager to merge it into the main 0.90 port once it's ready...

Regards,

Northstar

[Shtirliz72]

In short, I really don't want to sound ungrateful for the work done here but.... I feel like my game got broken overnight. I've spent almost 1500 hours on ksp since I bought it (that steam has logged anyway). 99% of that time was spent with KSP interstellar installed. 1500 hours of learning that system, designing craft, et cetera and poof, in one update (yes my fault for missing 3 weeks of updates) I feel like the system has been changed. I press load ship and just see a long, long list of craft that contain invalid parts. Sure, I could go in and swap out the old gennys and reactors for the new ones... but that also requires rebalancing, fine tuning, testing.... on over 100 craft :/

And that still doesn't help the fact that I've about 15 craft in space with parts that are no longer 'valid' and one ship in particular, my pride and joy, dead in the water.

KSP is _beta_. You know what _beta_ is, right?

KSP Interstellar by Boris-Barboris is _developed_. It's not even released.

Why the hell you install _developing_ mod in _beta_ game and cry that your saves now became broked?

If you don't want this mod, then just install original mod by FractalUK.

[FreeThinker]

Ok. Removed all things associated with KSPI. Downloaded all things associated with KSPI and extracted to a temp folder. Merged all the things. Merged all those things with Game Data. Clean install (ish). Most of my reactors and generators work now. Thank you for not totally breaking my save file by leaving in the old parts for craft already launched. The AIM reactor (the anti-matter initiated microfusion thingy) is the reactor the warp capable ship uses. It worked fine yesterday. Spent three days refining and tuning the craft to sustain the reaction and get itself into space (in one piece). Let me tell you what a chore it is to repeatedly revert flights, refuel the thing with antimatter over and over. I finally get it into space, point at the moon (which I could have just transferred to about a dozen times considering the DV of the craft) and boom, no warpy. I update, fix the warp but the reactor is now bugged. The antimatter reactor on one flight works fine. As does the fusion reactor I have going. I've a few fission reactors as well, those are all working fine. I had to reupgrade a generator for some reason... but it seems to work, even with the (now legacy?) old reactor. Beaming MW power works just dandy (which is good, or the warp ship would be doomed as it's carrying quite a bit of antimatter and has the AIM reactor and MW transceivers). The only one that doesn't work now is the AIM reactor on the warp ship. On the vessel that started me on this path in the first place....

Reactor shows active 0.00%

genny shows active 165.6KW current power, 0.0 max power (crystats and am storage are drawing power from stored electrical charge/MJ left over from yesterday when the thing worked). Thermal rocket produces 0.00 thrust at full throttle. Vista engines pull their power from stored Mega joules till the joules run out. Beamed power still works though so I can pull it into a lower orbit and rescue the stranded kerbals...

In short, I really don't want to sound ungrateful for the work done here but.... I feel like my game got broken overnight. I've spent almost 1500 hours on ksp since I bought it (that steam has logged anyway). 99% of that time was spent with KSP interstellar installed. 1500 hours of learning that system, designing craft, et cetera and poof, in one update (yes my fault for missing 3 weeks of updates) I feel like the system has been changed. I press load ship and just see a long, long list of craft that contain invalid parts. Sure, I could go in and swap out the old gennys and reactors for the new ones... but that also requires rebalancing, fine tuning, testing.... on over 100 craft :/

And that still doesn't help the fact that I've about 15 craft in space with parts that are no longer 'valid' and one ship in particular, my pride and joy, dead in the water.

Anyway, that's my report. New craft with the new reactors produce megajoules. Old craft with old reactors produce MJ except (so far that I've tested) the AIM reactor that I have in flight. It doesn't do anything, no thermal power, no MJ, no charged particles, nothin.

When you recieve error message of missing parts, it's usualy an indication you didn't install something correctly. Regarding the AIM reactor, I haven't touched it. Exactly what version did you use, and did you also try older versions? Also, in the error log do you notice any exceptions?

Edited February 24, 2015 by FreeThinker