Raptor831

Mostly, the different tank types have different mass ratios and can hold different resources. Default holds your basic fuels and oxidizers. Cryo tanks have less boiloff for cryogenic fuels (LH2, LOX, etc) but are heavier due to insulation. ServiceModule can hold pretty much any resource and have them pressurized (important if you use an ignition/ullage mod). Balloon tanks are a bit lighter than regular tanks. Fuselage is like an airplane tank, so it's similar to Default but with planes in mind. No, certain tanks to no have to be used with certain engines. As I mentioned, if you use an ignition/ullage mod (like EngineIgnitor, but I don't think that's ready for 0.90) then your tank selection can change how you can use the engine, but they all still work. Mostly, unless you're replicating real-world rockets, you'll end up using mostly Default, Cryo, and ServiceModule (And possibly Fuselage if you work with spaceplanes). Any time you have large amounts of cryogenic fuels you need to store for longer than a launch, use Cryo tanks. If you need to store RCS fuels or life support resources or electric charge, use a ServiceModule. Otherwise, Default will do you just fine.

I'm not so lucky to be able to use 7.3GB of RAM to start with (I should install Linux!) but yes, switching launch sites tends to make the game more unstable for me (which generally is due to RAM limits).

The mod is a branching of KAS's inventory/storage system and the EVA grabbing modules. KAS was/is about ways to attach parts together (winches, pipes, the settable struts, etc). The inventory storage and EVA grabbing was added later to KAS, since they go well together. This mod overhauls that part of KAS to something better. Once KAS is updated, it will most likely remove the grabbing/inventory parts in favor of this mod. In reality, it'll probably be easier to manage and debug if they are separate, since each mod can be more specialized. (note: I'm not a dev or anything on this mod, I'm just inferring from what I've seen in this thread and watching KAS get upgraded/expanded)

+1 for CKAN. However, most mods don't really need a "modpack" per se. You'll generally need the Firespitter DLL, ModuleManager, and maybe a few other DLLs, and 95% of the mods you download will work. Most mods will include the required DLLs for you, since most of the major dependancies are allowed to be bundled.

Hey, looks good! I'd definitely use this. Perfect for your base rovers or something. And yeah, KIS containers on that baby would be amazing!

Thanks, exactly what I was looking for. What exactly is the slotSize for? Judging by it's position in the config, I'm assuming something to do with the slot display? EDIT: Ninja'd... What seems to break with the config? The MM config won't work on any launched ships, but it'll work on new builds for any part with the old container module. Though, I think the sound replacement part will break if there are no current sounds. Possibly. I'll have to check.

First off, this is a great improvement on the inventory system. Nice job! Second, how could I "upgrade" existing KAS containers to the new standard? The reason I ask is because I have a bunch of parts (UKS, SXT, UniversalStorage, and some others) that have KAS containers built-in. I'd like to use them with the new KIS, if I could. Looking through the config files I didn't notice any obvious parallels that I could write a quick MM patch to convert the old modules.

@karamazovnew I kind of feel using multiple tanks per stage it a bit of an exploit. Or at least under my house rules! I guess if you're willing to deal with the complexity and/or costs involved, that's all part of the game. I'm on the fence again about balloon tanks not having surface attach. I mean, not being able to mount RCS, solar parts, etc just seems excessively restrictive. Maybe bump the cost a bit and remove that restriction. Your call though. @NathanKell I never really liked the "One Tank To Rule Them All" idea of Proc Parts. I kind of like the "organization" of having a few different parts, each for their own purpose. But, I'm probably not the average KSP player.

To add to Starwaster's comment, there are two parts included in RF which cool down tanks: a cooling fin (white, simple fin) and a radiator (which looks like KSPIs because zzz made both parts). If you add a few of those, you should notice an improvement.

For costs, I'd make a tank of kerolox cost the same as a tank LF/O. Scale everything else to that. That's essentially what I did when doing the engine costs for the Stockalike engine configs.

The cooling fin and radiator are exactly for this purpose. Try adding some to the tanks you want to keep from boiling off. They'll need electricity as well.

As I understand it, CRP will be a requirement of Real Fuels, so whatever resources are available in CRP can be used in Real Fuels. That was part of the idea (I assume) of doing a community pool of resources; any mod could pull from well-defined and agreed upon resources. So yeah, engine configs will work with LqdCO2 once it's config-ed.

As far as I know, KOSMOS still works in 0.90, they're just parts. Unless they require a plugin that hasn't been updated that I don't recall. Either way, there's probably something about it in their thread. I just saw CBBP post some new parts they've been working on, so it's still active.

I'd propose at least making the KSP "unit" be some kind of volume, and not mass, to keep it somewhat inline with the rest. So, 1 Unit = 1 mL instead. Personally, I'd rather just stick with L if we can since it'd be nice to have the "unit" be the same dang thing for every resource. But, if the normal amounts we're talking about are too small to be accurately represented within KSP, I think at least making it a volume would be acceptable. NathanKell also mentioned a hard limit on non-STACK flow modes a few pages back (anything below 0.0005 units gets returned as empty). If 0.0004 units of antimatter is an appreciable amount and we're not using STACK_PRIORITY_SEARCH then we'd have to make some kind of accommodation for it. Which, if my math is right, at 70g per liter (current working density on the sheet), 1mg of antimatter is around .000014 L. If we use 1mL = 1 Unit, 1mg of antimatter becomes .014 Units, which is a lot more stable. As for uranium resources, I vote we just go with EnrichedUranium and SpentUranium. Simple enough, and technically more accurate.

I'm actually not using KOSMOS at the moment either! But, I looked at the file and I can see a couple of things. You have the :AFTER[RealFuels_StockEngines]:Final for the config. I don't think that'll break, but you should only be using one "pass" on your configs. You should either use :NEEDS[RealFuels_StockEngines]:Final or just :AFTER[RealFuels_StockEngines]. Second, the ModuleEngineConfigs node will break the way you have it written. You've changed the actual MODULE type and not the default configuration. Change the @name to @configuration and you should be fine, like this: @MODULE[ModuleEngineConfigs] { @configuration=Kerosene+LqdOxygen !CONFIG[Syntin*] {} } I'll have to check out the rest once I get to playing!

Congratulations! Glad to see you've got a release for this. One thing though: you should include a specific license with the mod. Even if it's "Public Domain", just so everything is a-ok with the forum and add-on rules.

I was only using the cryo tanks as an example. But yeah, tried to read up on balloon tanks, and I can safely say I have no idea. Other than the need to keep them pressurized, I don't know how that happens. But, to require some kind of electricity or something, you'd probably have to write a plugin. Surface attachment is much easier. You are correct (mostly), you just need to switch the flag in the attach line of the config. Here's the line in the config: // attachment rules: stack, srfAttach, allowStack, allowSrfAttach, allowCollision attachRules = 1,1,1,1,0 Change the 4th "1" to a "0" and you'll disallow surface attachment on the part. If you split the tanks into separate parts, this becomes pretty easy to do within MM, just ... @attachRules = 1,1,1,0,0 ... This with cost differences and lower crash tolerance make the ballon tank something to make an actual decision about, which I believe is the point of this RF/Stockalike style of play. "I'm not a rocket scientist, but I did make the same engineering decisions they do playing KSP last evening." But yes, if you make a new thread please link it here so we can all follow it!

@karamazovnew: No, not worried about thread hijacking. But, your ideas are getting big enough that you probably could use your own thread, just to keep it organized. I'd be interested to see your working documents/configs. Pressurization is achieved (I believe) when a resource is stored, and it stays pressurized until it is released. Think O2 canisters. They don't need electricity to stay pressurized. Same for insulated tanks. Insulation is a passive means to slow heat transfer (like a drink cooler); as such it doesn't need electricity. Now, RF has those cooling fins, so that keeps the tank at a specific temperature (think refrigerator). That needs electricity, which is already modeled in RF. If you needed to re-pressurize a tank, then you'd need electric charge. Someone said that balloon tanks were supposed to not have any surface attachment available (lighter weight but no expansion options). If you remove that option for your Balloon part, it'd differentiate that tank more and actually have a "cost" to using it above the physical cost. If you can't add boosters or RCS ports or anything, then that will be a tough call.

We can just use a standardized "uranium fuel" resource and its "used" counterpart, no need to make it more complicated than it has to. Don't care much what you call it, but EnrichedUranium and SpentUranium might be better, if "spent" is more correct than "depleted".

Would there be a reason against using both? I mean, in Real Fuels there are a ton of fuel types already, so adding one more isn't going to be a big deal.

Stockalike NTRs use the U235Rods for the reactor. Can't say for sure about RO, but I assume it's used there as well. EDIT: Forgot - current density on the sheet for both is 10970 kg/m^3

The Utilization of a part is the idea that there's a pill-shaped tank within a cylinder-shaped container. So, the big orange tank has a pill within it that is the actual vessel that holds fuel. The percentage of the volume that the pill takes up within the cylinder works out to around 87%. That's where that number comes into play. Not sure using that to differentiate tanks is the best idea, though. Cost is still probably a better way. One thing you could do is make the cost of putting cryogenic fuels in a non-cryo tank. There is a number that dictates this, so that you could nudge that penalization up a bit, making cryo tanks more useful for cryogenic resources. Also of note, is that NathanKell pulled the costs of all the fuels to match 1965 prices in 1000's of US dollars (1 KSP Money = $1000 USD). So, the costs are grounded in some kind of reality. The benefit of LH2 is that it has high Isp. It's a pain to keep cold enough to be useful, even if hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, so the high price doesn't surprise me. Ethanol is cheaper (I assume) than RP-1, but we use RP-1 in rockets because it's better. The cost/benefit spectrum isn't fully useful in KSP, because things like toxicity or manufacturing/storage issues aren't addressed. Scaling the fuels to stock is a good start, though, and I'd basically make kerolox match the cost of LF/O for any given tank, then scale the others accordingly. It keeps the balance of RF while being in-line with stock KSP. You also might want to look at the Community Resource Project thread, as they are talking about this kind of stuff as well.

If we're going to consolidate U235/Uranium, remember to mark the EnrichedUranium/DepletedUranium as a RF resource as well. Currently they're marked only as NFT.

Noticed that. Yeah, not sure exactly what kind of fuel rods or whatever NathanKell was intending the U235Rods to be, but I would imagine whatever was used in NERVA.

Don't want to speak for NathanKell and RF, but as far as Stockalike goes I'd be cool with just EnrichedUranium and DepletedUranium for the nuclear resources. Or, split the difference and go EnrichedU235 and DepletedU235 in case there's some reason to specify isotopes in the resource name.