1093 isotopes to post-process the stellar evolution and 5234 isotopes to post-process the explosion calculations. The difference in nuclear networks used leads to different abundance distributions in the progenitor stars, as well as differences in the explosive yields. However, we do not compare specific differences in isotopic explosive yields here, as the previous [@Fryer_2018] paper did not focus on this set of radioisotopes. We reserve such a yield comparison for future work.

Figure \[fig:yieldcomp\] compares the yields from Model M15aE2.47, a typical 15 M$_{\odot}$ explosion scenario [see Table 1 in @Fryer_2018], between the [@Fryer_2018] Torch network results and these NuGrid network results. The abundance distribution of our models already begins to deviate in the progenitor, as can be seen in the C/O layers of the star. With different initial abundances, the explosive yields can also differ. In this figure, we also compare iron peak elements. Although these are fairly similar, the exact composition in the iron peak of these two calculations also differs because such abundances are extremely sensitive to the details of the initial conditions (e.g. slight differences in the electron fraction). Because of this, the focus of this paper will be on understanding the basic trends in the 