HX Evolution...?#81
Conversation
* Rebalanced HPD engine * Instanced engine for other propellant needs * WBI Play Mode support * Moved patch files regading WBI support * New plumes for engines * Rebalanced URC reactor (nerfed RTG, made NF Electical compatible) * Raised heat tolerances to 2700K
types for: karborundum and water; lqdhydrogen
* adjust tech nodes * clone LFO version
* adjust tech nodes on all parts * update OmniStorage and subtype deletion * retune some engines' EC consumption
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| B9_TANK_TYPE |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should have :NEEDS for when the resources don't exist
| secondaryEngineID = SupraNuclear | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
fancy new engine mode names to distinguish them and their characteristics from the typical ClosedCycle and Nuclear.
- SupraLox: Beyond LFO convention
- SupraNuclear: Beyond NTR convention
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I was talking about the tab added to an empty line
| useEngineResponseTime = True | ||
| engineAccelerationSpeed = 1.60 | ||
| engineDecelerationSpeed = 2 | ||
| exhaustDamageMultiplier = 2400 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There seem to be some inconsistency between tabs and spaces here...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I wasn't aware of the indentations being loads of spaces. I'll fix all that as well.
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
SupraNuclear is an NTR/plasma/hybrid engine mode. afaik it tends to easily flameout in high atmosphere pressure. I didn't think to buff it with respect to this engine's size. Also, I wasn't aware the indentation here is a load of spaces.
| @heatProduction = 500 | ||
| @maxThrust = 24000 | ||
| !PROPELLANT,* {} | ||
| PROPELLANT:NEEDS[CommunityResourcePack] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Won't this end up with no propellants in CRP is not installed?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've had many issues where KSP hangs because an engine failed to compile because resource definitions for its propellants are missing. Here, KSP will not hang but the engine will be harmless to the startup process (although, by consequence, also useless, to reduce the incoming hard dependence on CRP. Perhaps I should make it hide from part selection in this case?)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think that would be a better option. Could even be a :NEEDS
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Having the engine's even loading in depend on NEEDS, I decided against that as it could break ships in-flight if for whatever reason someone uninstalls CRP. The likelihood of this is actually quite low I think but it seemed a very odd choice.
| speed = 1.0 1.0 | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| // running_torch |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Any reason this is all commented out?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's a nice config, for one of the sets of plumes that I decided afterward that I wouldn't use. In case I have to add another propellant combo and another engine clone I can de-comment and move this.
| @heatProduction = 200 | ||
| @maxThrust = 4000 | ||
| !PROPELLANT,* {} | ||
| PROPELLANT:NEEDS[CommunityResourcePack] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Same as above, won't this end up with no propellants?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
To reduce the incoming hard dependency on CRP I've opted to make the engine useless if CRP is not installed. This is opposed to possibly seeing KSP hang when propellant resource definitions are missing.
| @@ -0,0 +1,153 @@ | |||
| @PART[B9_Structure_HX1_G]:NEEDS[!DSEV] | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this needs some more needs
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nah. It doesn't need more needs. When the WBI play mode is switched to Classic Stock and this becomes an active .cfg, this will be the default behavior of the reactor. Near Future Electrical, if present, should not interfere with it, and I can't see KSPI interfering with it (yet).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ah, that weird stuff with WBI renaming files?
| @@ -0,0 +1,499 @@ | |||
| # Installation | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The readme and changelog are copied as part of the build so no need to add them here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ok? ...These files simply appeared as part of the fork and I simply edited the changelog. Should I PM you the changelog contents then?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I was maintaining a single changelog for the time being. It might eventually be better to split them out, but I don't think just copying the files is sufficient
Changelog: