Jump to content

Raptor831

Members
  • Posts

    1,083
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Raptor831

  1. @snakeru Not really sure thanks are in order, considering how "hands off" I've been on this for so long, but you're welcome!

    And thanks to @Iso-Polaris for doing the configs.

    I've actually made a release for all the updates I have so far. If you see all the other new releases on GitHub, plz ignore, I was testing automatic builds for this. In the future it might help with new releases and PRs. OP will be updated shortly, and CKAN is on the way (eventually). If anyone tried to grab this today on CKAN I apologize, it was broken for a bit.

  2. 3 minutes ago, blowfish said:

    What's broken?  I used this to test RF v12.7.1 - I only tested a few engines but they seemed to work fine.  There was a bug in RF v12.7.0 that broke nearly everything but that's fixed.

    I judged from the chatter here and on the RF thread. Apparently I should just test this stuff myself before assuming anything. :facepalm: :D

  3. So apparently this broke in the latest version... If anyone could, please post up logs and ModuleManager.ConfigCache files for me. And also what parts are borked specifically (i.e. which mods, types of engines, etc). Honestly, it doesn't seem RF would have broken my configs, especially en masse like that, so I got nothin'. I'll try and test on a minimal install to see what's up.

  4. @Battou The problem is volume. You need lots more volume to get the same amount of mass for LH2. Which is why the Space Shuttle External Tank is so darn huge. If you pull the file @Starwaster mentioned before from GitHub now, you'll see I've commented out the mass line and it should give you a bit more dV than previously, since the mass was a bit too high. NTRs are basically a floating nuclear reactor, so they're gonna be a bit heavy compared to traditional chemical engines. But if you're only going for straight LH2 and not using the LOX afterburner, don't use the trimodal at all. Use the LV-N (i.e. NERVA in the real world).

    You really need to check out Procedural Parts or some other large tank mod (i.e. Cryogenic Tanks, SpaceY, etc) to get enough tankage to make LH2 worth the volume. 2.5 meter rockets are not enough to make it worth it. I'd argue you need minimum 3.75-5m diameter before you feel a difference. For example, check out this Wikipedia link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_thermal_rocket#/media/File:Orion_docked_to_Mars_Transfer_Vehicle.jpg

    That's the Orion on the front of the craft. Generally in KSP stock-size, Orion is rendered as 3.75m diameter. Those tanks (and the inflatable hab) have to be at least double that, so we're talking 6.25m at the least in KSP-size. I think that's around 10m in real life, if my estimations are correct. And this craft is using 3 NTRs.

    Basically, don't use NTRs unless you have something big and can afford the mass penalty.

  5. @Starwaster Ah, thanks. I'll double-check what the mass is supposed to be there.

    @Battou I'm also a little confused as to what you mean. If I make 2 stages with 5000 dV each, one using the NERVA and one using the Poodle, the NERVA one should end up being less mass overall since the fuel is so light. I haven't tested that in-game yet specifically, but if you have screenshots with a MechJeb or Engineer window up to show mass and dV that would be helpful. At least then I can look at something concrete.

  6. On 3/10/2018 at 6:52 PM, Battou said:

    Is it just me, or there is a problem with Nuclear engines?? With this mod they are ABSOLUTELY inefficient. Yes, there is ISP over 900, but they give as much deltaV as Poodle for the same mass of fuel, and much less for the same volume of fuel. For example poodle vave 220 thrust vac and eat 60 liters of fuel per second, LV-N trimodal eats 173 liters of Hydrogen per sec and only outputs 111 thrust. LV-N Nerv eats 101 liter and outputs only 60 trust. Can someone give me RIGHT ammount of fuel consumption for nuclear engines so I could use them again? Thank you!

    Nuclear engines tend to use hydrogen, which will make your rockets stupidly huge when you're used to KSP-style rockets. I think you're confusing liters (volume) to kg (mass). 100 liters of LH is going to mass *way* less than 100 liters of RP-1 or methane. Isp calculations use mass, so when you're using light fuels it's gonna make your Isp go way up but also your volume.

    Try switching to methane for your NTRs, as that gives you a much better energy density. Otherwise, just build a bigger tank. Tanks are cheap and light, relatively speaking, so you can get away with it generally.

  7. 4 hours ago, DJ Reonic said:

    I got the STME (SSME) and STBE (STS Block 2 LRB engine), as well as all the smaller engines working, but I need to get the External Tank and the lifting body fuselage segments working. I wrote an RF config before for BDB tanks, but I can't remember the multiplication factor you used for the Stock Fuel to RF conversion.

    The factor is 5. Stock fuel "units" are around 5 liters in reality. If you get technical, I think it's like just over 5 if you measure tank sizes and do the volume calcs yourself. Also, I'm pretty sure there's a catch-all in RFStockalike that'll do the tanks for you. But if you need specific configs you can do that, the catch-all doesn't run on ones that already have MFT modules.

    As for the lifting features, I have no stinkin' idea how to make that work. :P

  8. 9 hours ago, DJ Reonic said:

    Any plans to update the configs for Cormorant Aeronology? I've started working on it, but I need to figure out how to do the tanks properly. If I can make that functional, I'll work on Tundra Exploration and Tantares.

    No specific plans, but I didn't realize they were out of date. If you can update them, submit a PR and I can merge them in to the main thing. Also, you can use http://bit.ly/rfstockalike to help generate all the configs (if you hadn't seen that before).

  9. On 2/12/2018 at 10:56 AM, JadeOfMaar said:

    Why do you want this? :/ 

    Well, in my case, I already had Ven's Revamp installed. Didn't really want to lose that style, so I made a cfg to keep them both. Could be used for keeping the stock ones too, if you wanted, though I have to admit Nertea's is way better.

    For anyone who wants it, drop this in a .cfg file somewhere in your /GameData, requires ModuleManager to work:

    +PART[crewCabin]:BEFORE[zzzzStationParts] {
      @name = oldCrewCabin
    }
    +PART[cupola]:BEFORE[zzzzStationParts] {
      @name = oldCupola
    }
    +PART[Large_Crewed_Lab]:BEFORE[zzzzStationParts] {
      @name = oldLarge_Crewed_Lab
    }

     

  10. 16 hours ago, TachyonGMZ said:

    Do you have a config for tundra exploration?

    I felt like I did, but check the repo to be sure. Or, you could just install and see what gets used. :wink:

    14 hours ago, notJebKerman said:

    Does this mod significantly affect the ∆v? I'm just asking this because most mods are made for the 2.5x system with fairly low fuel margins. 

    This mod is a config set for Real Fuels, and that mod does indeed affect the dV of pretty much everything. It's built around a 6.4x scale with realistic-ish margins. Or, to get to the Mun on 6.4x you have to build a rocket similar to the Saturn V in scale. You can use them in a RSS scale as well, but you'll be clustering a lot.

  11. @New Horizons I mean, you can tell which engines are vacuum by their stats. It says in the description what type they are. I don't really fancy going through all of the engines and altering names just for tagging purposes. Does one of the filtering plugins let you sort by that kind of stuff?

    @Trainguy No reason, they've either added those since the config was written or I just plain missed something. I'll try and check it out this weekend, when I'm hopefully going to package up the release I was promising with Canis' updates included.

     

  12. @Thomot512 The RO config will probably work fine. What I do when I make configs is to keep the thrust locked (i.e. it'll have the same power as the original stock/mod engine so you use it in the same places), and adjust the mass to fall in line with a realistic TWR for its type/thrust. The only "problem" with using RO configs with RFStockalike is going to be the size. If you use a real-sized F1 on your Apollo clone, it'll take up a lot more space than you really want. Which is why I say RFStockalike is best suited to 6.4x scale. You could technically use RFStockalike configs on a real-scale install and they'd play nice with anything from RO, you'll just need 12 engines on your moon rocket.

    If you want to play around with the configs, you can "roll your own" here: http://bit.ly/rfstockalike  There's a config generator that has all (or at least all but a handful) of engines currently in RFStockalike. You can adjust settings and see what's up. Copy the result into your own config files in your GameData folder to test. If you find nice setups for the Real Engines mod, send them in via a PR on the repo.

  13. New updated pushed to GitHub. Should be propagating to CKAN as soon as it checks.

    @Gordon Dry That fuel conversions file was changed in the last commit, so check to see if this update helped.

    @Iso-Polaris I only mess with fuel tanks in that fuel conversions file, so if there's an actual fuel tank defined somewhere then it's not RFStockalike configs. Does Real Fuels have an "official" tank for that part?

  14. @Rocket-man Not as of yet. Though you probably could do some CFG splicing and get them from the RO files, since they're already sized up.

    Also, I can't add support for all of these part packs on my own. Just not possible given the time I have in RL, much as I'd love to. If you have pull requests, send them in. I'm generally slow, but I'll get them merged. So any packs I have missed or fallen behind on, feel free to correct me. https://github.com/Raptor831/RFStockalike

  15. @Aelfhe1m Thanks! I do actually have the NFT engines and also Kerbal Atomics now, since CKAN says Atomic Age isn't compatible with 1.2.2. :rolleyes:

    Was also looking for anything that is historical but never flew. Similar to Big Gemini or Nova parts, since both of them are in various other packs (FASA, BDB, etc). I kind of like that alt-history feel those kinds of parts give you.

  16. 16 minutes ago, HiThere!2 said:

    If I’m thinking you have the same problem I did, you need to install that OpenGL patch.

    I did actually try that (since Macs, OpenGL...), but didn't work. Though trying again probably won't hurt... What I can tell, the OpenGL patch fixes the solid sphere issue, but not this. My understanding of this problem is that Scatterer has a "window" in which it works, and because the scale of RSS is so much larger your view effectively backs outside the window. :/ 

  17. So, I've finally gotten to install RO/RP-0 and wanted to get all of the visual goodies running too. Seems I hit a snag though. After spending far too long digging through Scatterer's thread and this one, it appears to be this issue:

    http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/103963-wip122-scatterer-atmospheric-scattering-v00300-22012017-new-preview-version-inside/&do=findComment&comment=2982844

    http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/103963-wip122-scatterer-atmospheric-scattering-v00300-22012017-new-preview-version-inside/&do=findComment&comment=3010105

    http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/103963-wip122-scatterer-atmospheric-scattering-v00300-22012017-new-preview-version-inside/&do=findComment&comment=3010112

    Was wondering if anyone here had a workaround for this? Or maybe some numbers I could adjust to make it less prevalent?

    Running KSP 1.2.2, macOS Sierra, required mods are up-to-date for my install. I can post logs and such, but given it's an already known issue I didn't think that'd be useful just yet.

×
×
  • Create New...