Raptor831
-
Posts
1,083 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Raptor831
-
-
Might be better to use a MM config to adjust the Sigma Dimensions settings instead. That way you won't have to reapply or readjust whenever Sigma/Kopernicus/64K updates. So say something like this:
@EVE_CLOUDS:AFTER[SigDim2] { @OBJECT,* { @altitude *= 0.15625 // returns to original cloud height } }Or maybe this if you want to keep with the 33% increase in atmosphere height for all planets:
@EVE_CLOUDS:AFTER[SigDim2] { @OBJECT,* { @altitude *= 0.2078125 // original cloud height * 1.33 to match 64K atmo height } }Drop in a .cfg file in /GameData/ and you should be good. Also will work with any EVE-derived settings, such as SVE.
Disclaimer: I haven't tested these yet personally, but I'll report back once I do.Seems to work nicely for me. Used the second one and I'm happy with it.
-
On 5/18/2016 at 6:48 PM, Bezzier said:
Hey, I'm in the middle of revamping a tank pack from a while ago, and have a question regarding an RF config. Specifically, I'm trying to get new configs up for a set of spherical tanks. They ought to have different usable volumes depending on what's being stored in them. If there is a fuel mix, they must be (probably concentric) double spheres, and the inner wall volume must eat into the storage volume, leaving only approximately (according to my calcs) 87-88% available. If, on the other hand, they have a single fuel in them, they don't need the extra pressure barrier, and their storage volume should rise to approximately 94-95% of total volume (spheres are efficient that way). Incidentally, there is also a small difference between a cryogenic double sphere and an ambient or low temp double sphere, and the fuel mix ratio plays a part as well. There is a difference yet again if the sphere is highly pressurized or left with only a small pressure.
Is there a mechanism to simulate this at least crudely, by changing the volume available with the tank type or contents?
Utilization parameters are probably best for this, as @xx_mortekai_xx mentioned. Also, different tank types can be applied to simulate cryo or balloon types. You can either do this per part, or set up a part to possibly use differing tank types (like Procedural Parts does). Not sure if it affects utilization directly, but you'll pay a mass penalty for cryo but save mass for balloon. See here: https://github.com/Swamp-Ig/ProceduralParts/blob/master/Parts/ZOtherMods/RFTank.cfg#L173
19 hours ago, xx_mortekai_xx said:...snip...
I am trying to write a somewhat general catch-all patch for my engines, allowing them to use different fuel configurations.
However, I have noticed that all of the configurations have the same plume.
Is there a way to configure what plume will be used with the different fuel configurations?
You can set up a plume per CONFIG node in a ModuleEngineConfigs set. See here: https://github.com/Raptor831/RFStockalike/blob/master/GameData/RealPlume/RealPlume-RFStockalike/VenSR.cfg#L53
-
21 minutes ago, nosirrbro said:
Hmm, having difficulties getting the mod to work...
Any common problems/mistakes I should know about?
Make sure you have Sigma Dimensions installed. It's a dependency, but it's easy to forget.
Also Kopernicus is a dependency, but I believe that's bundled.
-
@Canis Dirus Leidy Thank you for the report, it was very helpful. Those items should be fixed now.
EDIT: Do note that browser caching is pretty insane for the new generator. You may need to clear your cache or use an incognito window to see the latest changes.
-
4 hours ago, nosirrbro said:
Two questions:
1. Does this work with scatterer
2. Does this make SSTOs essentially impossible
To #1, yes, it does. Works with Stock Visual Enhancements too.
And for #2, I've yet to build a reliable SSTO in 6.4 scales. Apparently I just am either a really bad pilot or a really bad engineer (or worse, both!).
-
2 hours ago, MelancholyFlapper said:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/mvi1k06jc1yzgwn/CARFPatchStockalike.cfg?dl=0
Here's that config. It mayyyyyyy be totally wrong.
Ok, the structure looks fine, which (should) be handled in the generator. So good there. Few things though:
1) On the nosecone, is there a specific reason to use a thrust curve? Seems a rather odd addition for RCS systems, which should be pretty on/off instead of variable thrust.
2) ModuleRCSFX is depreciated, since all (or at least most) of that functionality is in stock. So you can remove that. Might be part of the issue.
3) You're probably undershooting the available volume (at least against stock) of the bottom/fueltank piece. 4000L is about in-line with the stock parts. Dunno if that's needed with RF's mass adjustments though.
4) You may want to basemass = -1 for the bottom piece, too, since it's not just a fuel tank.That would be it from my initial guess. I don't play with this mod, so I can't speak to the balance. You might be in a better position for that.
If you'd like more feedback, let me know what isn't working for you and what you updated.
-
Ok, after much work, I've upgraded the generator at http://bit.ly/rfstockalike Should be much faster now, and it any new configs should be using the proper ullage/ignitions syntax. Let me know if you find errors.
-
10 hours ago, Jso said:
I don't think it's your configs. Without your stuff and just RF/SolverEngines/CRP with this one config I get the same behavior from KER.
Well, I'm glad we can at least narrow it down. Thanks for the report.
-
1 hour ago, vandenberg said:
Never mind. Didn't read the install section very well. All is working great now. Great mod.
Glad it's working.
Also, there's a few things coming in future updates:
1) Finally adding ullage/ignitions to all engines and tagging engines as pressure fed or not.
2) Bringing the ullage/ignitions/pressure fed syntax in line with current RF
3) Fixing engine bugs or re-adding engines that have changed out from under the configs
4) Adding new engines from new modsThese aren't in any particular order, but I do need some feedback on #1 and #3. So, if anyone has engines that aren't working that should (i.e. there's 2 in KW that mysteriously don't work now), please post them here or open an issue on the repo. Also, please discuss what engines I should be setting as pressure fed. Number of ignitions for engines are up for debate as well. Just be aware that hypergolic <> infinite ignitions.
-
6 hours ago, vandenberg said:
I can't get ksp to load past the afterburning jet. It just stops loading, even if i leave it load for half an hour. Tnx for your help.
As blowfish said, we'd need logs. I can say that on my install with 50+ mods, it doesn't break there. Most likely it's a mod conflict or something similar.
4 hours ago, lakilakigant said:Just added the FASA Apollo engines to the config, and a NovaPunch engine I missed. As always, let me know if I missed anything else.
Not sure what this is. Sounds like you intended to quote me on something, but something got lost.
-
So, I ran some more tests on MechJeb and KER with RF/Stockalike. Results were... interesting.
It seems MechJeb is perfectly fine with Stockalike as it is right now. Didn't notice any issues in delta-V calculations. Ran it side-by-side with KER, and all the calcs in the VAB lined up, even as I built the crafts. Atmo numbers and vac numbers. In flight, MechJeb didn't miss a beat.
KER, on the other hand, doesn't seem to like Stockalike. But only under certain conditions. For example, if you have your engines staged before your launch clamps, it reads the dV just fine. Even on MERF engines. That is until you release the clamps and "launch". Then everything zeros out. There's nothing in the logs to suggest an error at all, so I'm not even sure where to give a "bug" report.
If I had to guess (again), it's something to do with SolverEngine and KER. It seems to read MERF engines just fine, even alongside MEFX engines. But as soon as the vessel state becomes "launched", it breaks down. I checked the logs side-by-side with Canis' and we have the same versions of the relevant mods (RF, SolverEngines, KER, Stockalike).
But I don't know what else I can tweak in my configs to help.
-
1 hour ago, NathanKell said:
I find that hard to believe because I've seen people using KER quite recently with RO, and we certainly do use ModuleEnginesRF.
Unless KER just broke its engine handling recently?
No idea. I've always used MechJeb. Guess I'll test KER. Then there's the possibility my configs are just wrong.
@Canis Dirus Leidy Are there any engines that do work in Stockalike?
UPDATE: Did some testing with KER within my main install. Any engine that was properly configured with Stockalike didn't work. Engines that were not configured worked. I'm working through logs right now, but we'll see if it's my configs or not.
-
@Canis Dirus Leidy Thank you for the notice, and the logs! Looks like it's an incompatibility with KER and RF. See here:
What I'm betting is that KER has an issue with ModuleEnginesRF and SolverEngines being used instead of ModuleEnginesFX or ModuleEngines. Which, bottom line, is something KER has to "fix". Unfortunately, these configs are simply building on others' mods so if they don't play nice together we're a bit stuck.
So as to not be completely unhelpful, I'm fairly certain MechJeb plays nice with RF, and can give you similar data to KER. I know switching isn't the best option (especially between those two), but it's at least something. Or you could chime in at the KER thread. Or lend a hand coding, if that's something you do.
-
1 hour ago, MelancholyFlapper said:
Thank you very much, I appreciate it.
If I posted the patch I made, would you be able to tell me what I did wrong? I calculated the correct (I think) numbers for the size of the tanks working backwards from the real shuttle and scaling down the volumes appropriately, and altered the RCS/OMS bits to use RF in the correct ratios, but it didn't work right - partly because dedicated tanks are unavailable, I think?
Post away. Dropbox link or other fileshare service would be best.
For tanks: usually you can just multiply the current amount of LF/O/Monoprop by 5 to get the volume. Then just picking the right tank type. Ideally, you'd measure the actual volume of the parts, but if the parts are done well originally and scale with stock, x5 is close enough.
Engines are a bit trickier, since there's more going on. The generator is meant to be used within some guidelines, which aren't always obvious. I need to write better instructions on the page itself, but I never seem to get around to it. So:
Start with the thrust. Keep that the same. Pick the right engine type, so for the OMS you'd choose Orbital. Pick the tech level next, which for shuttle-era is the 6th level (Start = 0). (Descriptions of types and TLs are on the Real Fuels thread) Then scale the mass so the TWR is in the green. If the part is also a tank, put the volume from above in the right place. Then decide the fuel/propellant. For a shuttle, probably MMH/N2O4. Then edit that first config node to use that mixture. Then set the ratio. It's the mass ratio, so like hydrolox gets around 5-6, kerolox gets like 2ish, and hydrazine (and derivatives) plus N2O4 get like 1.6ish. Once that's set up, alter any of the other options to your liking. Adjust the Isp if you want to make it more efficient or less, and scale the mass to match, or leave the mass and the cost will adjust. Then you can copy the config out and try it. Tweak the settings as needed.
The TWR is kind of a sanity check on the generator. If you're way in the red, your engine is way off the curve of real engines and probably will be overpowered or underpowered. Some engines are a little above or below, so don't be afraid to experiment, but I generally tweak them until they're close. Also, I generally assign a mod a "personality", so that engines of a single mod use similar fuels at similar ratios. Which means if you try and swap out a KW engine with a NovaPunch one, you need to double check your tanks to make sure you've got the right fuel/propellant and/or the right ratios. It's a bit arbitrary, true, but it allows for some variety.
Also, the XLS in the download has a page that describes most of the options in the generator. The generator was based on that XLS, so it's mostly still accurate. Some of the numbers are hidden behind labels now, though. The XLS is a bit dated now, so I would only use it as a reference.
Anyway, sorry for the wall o' text, but that should help anyone writing their own stuff.
-
@MelancholyFlapper Added to my list.
-
5 hours ago, Phineas Freak said:
Exactly! That is why ROMini was created, to give the players a way to play with RSS (or similarly scaled systems) but without the requirement(s) of RO.
Well, learn something new every day.
-
1 hour ago, Dermeister said:
Thank you ill check it but if it's not been updated I don't know if it can break my game :(. Dosen't any 1 play RSS no RO with real engines? or am I one of those rare people who want to do that?
I've been toying with that idea, honestly. I like the Lego blocks mentality of KSP and I'd love to have those on a real-scale system. I mean, I'd be lying if I didn't want to try a Nova direct-ascent launch to the moon with all the right parts, but I still like slapping an idea together to see if it flies.
The issue is that configs take a long time to get tuned. Having to take each engine and say "You'll be a 10m cluster", "You look like a probe .5m engine", "You're a 3m single", etc can be daunting. (Which is why RO is a community effort.) And if you want those new engines to be in an RP-0-type of career tech tree, that's another whole layer of tuning. But that would be really cool!
-
RftS (Reach for the Stars) is an alt-history story by NathanKell. That link you posted is a kind of prequel of that thread where he goes through the history of his WWII via various warbirds.
He made the configs he used for RftS available for others to use. Currently, the configs are here:
But, it's not been updated per that post since 1/24/14, so YMMV.
-
29 minutes ago, Dermeister said:
So I'm Using RSS with RF but I don't want to install Realism Overhaul. What do I do to get the Real engines? I'm currently using the stock alike Config for Real fuels but I feel asthough my rockets have to be Super huge to get 0 payload into LEO. The Stock alike engines with Realfuels are more suited for 64k correct? Did I miss something about how to install real engins with real engine mass and performance to a none RO install that uses RSS? I've been searching the forums but I cant find anything that dosent lead me to RO or stock alike config.
The RFStockalike set is intended to be used on 6.4x scale with full RF, or stock scale with the masses reverted to stock levels. They'll work in a RSS setup, but you'll end up clustering engines like a madman because your rocket sizes/masses are going to be much larger.
Is the RftS set still a thing? Because if it is, it'll give you realistic engines for RSS/RO that aren't based solely on real engines.
-
On 5/3/2016 at 10:56 AM, Crashonaut said:
would anyone know how to adapt this for the new updates?
That depends on how much Karbonite/Regolith/stock changed between now and then. Regolith got rolled into stock (or at least a version of it) so you'd be basically transcribing one module to the other. But the maths are still there if you can read it, so the "hard" work is done.
Unfortunately, I won't be able to do much with this now. Just don't have the time or motivation to move on this anymore, at least not currently. The license is pretty permissive, though, so anyone can make a fork if they feel so inclined.
-
@RickKermen It is on my list of ones to add. Unfortunately, I haven't had a good block of time to get the newer mods into the system. There is a link to a config generator in the OP, which you can try and make some configs yourself. It takes care of the writing for you and you can just play with the stats. To make them work well with the other RF, you'll need to set the thrust as it is in the original part and adjust the other stats around it.
-
@NathanKell Stockalike never got switched to the new syntax for ignitions. It is something I'm aware of though, just haven't taken the journey to upgrade everything.
@SpacedInvader Patching both methods is the better way, for sure. For example: when I do get around to updating the configs, yours will still work.
-
13 hours ago, rbray89 said:
Still working on it. I have to move to an entirely different mechanism, which makes things difficult.
I wish you luck! Also want to say thanks for your effort on this and ATM, especially since that was the only way for my install to run as of 1.0.5!
-
2 hours ago, JtHermit said:
@Raptor831 Could you please change two lines in Stockalike_Tantares.cfg?
There are wrong types of internal tanks for Tantares_Engine_A and Tantares_Engine_B: "Service" instead of "ServiceModule".
Thank you for your configs.
@JtHermit Yes, I can swap those. And it also looks like the Tantares configs that used to be in their download are gone. Welp. Looks like I need to add those in ASAP.
EDIT: Updated the repo with this fix. Download from there if you need this.
SM Chute NOW OBSOLETE USE THE NEW VNG
in KSP1 Mod Development
Posted
Hey, @SpannerMonkey(smce) I saw your question in the FAR thread about the configs. Wanted to answer here as opposed to clutter up the FAR thread.
You should try to change the "inner" MODULE nodes to the name of whatever your current chute MODULE is. So, if RealChute is installed:
MODULE { name = ModuleKrEjectPilot MODULE { name = RealChuteFAR ...snip... } }In my Real Fuels engine configs, there's a similar MODULE, and it needed to match the engine module I was using. Don't have any idea about VNG or the chute modules myself, but that's worth a shot.