Jump to content

Raptor831

Members
  • Posts

    1,083
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Raptor831

  1. Ullage will be affected however RF pressure-fed engines are supposed to be affected. ;-) Meaning, it'll probably still need to have the fuel settled. So I've heard, the Apollo SPS needed that even though it was pressure-fed and used hypergolic fuels. So it's not totally unrealistic. I forget how I traced that particular error down. The fuel_conversion.cfg changes all the pod monoprop/electricity stores to ServiceModule tanks, but chokes on that particular pod since SDHI/TACLS change the defaults (it gets rid of the resources, which is what that error is saying it can't find). I'll have to go looking for that one again... :-/ The :FINAL problems come in when mod authors use them to nuke some part of a config or make last second changes to it, and then another person needs to do something only after that has run. It's not really possible to do without some more MM shenanigans, which ends up being this untraceable mess. It's safer for mods to use :FOR[ModName], :BEFORE, or :AFTER since other mods/users can make use of the built-in ordering MM provides. If you're just doing some homebrew MM configs to adjust things (i.e., I put MechJeb into all command pods via MM), then :FINAL isn't as bad. In my example, it'd probably be better to run that right after the MechJeb pass. But no one's adding MJ modules in my mod stack, it doesn't conflict with anything.
  2. First up, there are no pressure fed engines at the current moment. When RF added ullage and ignitions, that never got added to these configs. It's something I've been aware of, but I haven't figured out a good place to start with. It is built into RF, so I just need to add that into the configs. At this point, I'm probably going to just make all orbital engines pressure fed to start with. We can add/remove from there. I've seen those errors before. Which part are they in reference to? Usually that's the Mk1-2 Capsule and it's caused when you have TACLS, SDHI service module, RF/Stockalike installed. It's a weird order issue (in that case) that I can't ever seem to nail down. (Please never use :FINAL unless you have to...) If it's another part, then I'll need the part at least, but the full log would be useful.
  3. [quote name='NathanKell']See [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_CL-400_Suntan]Lockheed's SUNTAN project[/url] and also [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Isinglass]ISINGLASS[/url].[/QUOTE] As I have grown to expect, you've shown me something I did not know before. :) I should have figured that the US military tried out all of this stuff in the 50s and 60s. <sarcasm>So, when's the last aerospace breakthrough we've had?</sarcasm> [quote name='blowfish']Re: RAPIER - I think that any turbine engine designed to even approach Mach 5 would need to be precooled, and thus would need cryogenic fuel. LH2 is ideal, but liquid methane provides an interesting intermediate when hydrogen-fueled engines are also available. Not sure if methane gives you the efficiency you need to reach orbit in 64k/RSS though - particularly since most of your delta-v is in rocket mode. Re conventional jets and cryogenics: you're correct that it doesn't really make sense to use cryogenics for lower speeds. The main issue is the volume penalty - methane is about half as dense as kerosene and hydrogen is much less dense, but you also have to contend with pressurized tanks, which means that you can't store fuel in the wings anymore and space efficiency in the fuselage also goes down. I've toyed with models of some precooled methane jets which either allow higher top speed or higher efficiency (by increasing the compression ratio), but that's way outside the scope of RF stockalike and probably even outside the scope of AJE.[/QUOTE] As far as hybrids, I doubt they could do anything without using cryogenics. It's probably a benefit to use fuel/propellant that cold considering the temps that it'd have to deal with. I seem to remember, though, that Nathan and camlost had a chat about methane being just efficient enough to get small spaceplanes into orbit. Which is why the RAPIER was methalox and the SABRE was hydrolox. I dunno if exotic jets are outside the scope of AJE. Seems like the place they'd end up to me. Unless they need to go into something like a KSPI or NearFuture. Stockalike needs to be adjusting jet fuels now in addition to rocket fuels thanks to AJE separating that concern out, so it's already something I'm thinking about. But swapping fuels is pretty easy for me once the engine models are done. :wink: Would AJE be able to handle a methane-burning turbojet? [quote name='Lucius']I know you list support for "vanguard", but would that also include Custom Clusters? [URL="http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/130662"]http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/130662[/URL] If not, any plans to incorporate them?[/QUOTE] The "Vanguard" is for the original Vanguard Astrodynamics VX series. ([URL="http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/127803"]thread here[/URL]) I won't say that I've never heard of the other one because it looks familiar, but I really don't remember that one. As for integration, yes, I can add it to the list. :) [B]EDITS BELOW[/B] - Ninja'd... [quote name='legoclone09']Just want to say many parts in Tantares do not have configs, because they are new! But the Soyuz engines work![/QUOTE] Tantares is a bit of an oddball. They have their own stockalike RF configs bundled, so traditionally mine are only there if for whatever reason you didn't like theirs. And to be honest, they're conflicting at this point, so it'd be safer to delete one or the other for the time being. I'm debating on filling out my end, just to cover all the bases.
  4. [quote name='lextacy']questions ! :D 1. How much units of [U][B]solid fuel[/B][/U] do I need to put in this line ? Do I put what the stock value was? Or do I need to use a converter? [SIZE=1][I] MODULE { name = ModuleFuelTanks volume = x <-------------- type = PSPC }[/I][/SIZE] 2. Ive been experiemneting with mixture ratios. Here is an example....... LqdHydrogen 68.00 % LqdOxygen 32.00% Is this going to burn evenly? Will I get fuel left over when the engine flamesout due to a bad mixture? What I mean is will both bi-propellants empty in the tank at same time?[/QUOTE] 1) As a rough estimate, stock resources have 5 times the volume of RF (well, really CRP) resources. So you can go quick and dirty and multiply the stock capacity of a tank by 5. This only works for Mono/LF/O. Xenon and ElectricCharge don't work that way. The [B]real[/B] way is to calculate dimensions of the stock part and calculate the volume of a pill tank (two half-spheres on either ends of a cylinder) that fits inside. Add or subtract as needed for the particular part. Go math. :) Also, you don't define resources as your tank type. A tank type defines what resources can fill it. So, Default tanks basically take any rocket fuel/propellant. ServiceModule is pressurized and can take pretty much anything. Cryogenic tanks can take the same as default (I believe) but reduce the boiloff penalties for cryogenic fuels at the cost of extra weight. And so on. Check out the links on the first page for more info. 2) Your engines define your fuel/propellant mixtures, as in real life. Your tanks can be filled to match the engine ratios in the VAB/SPH. So, as long as you pay attention in the VAB, you'll always burn evenly. Also remember that in KSP the ratios are [B]volumes[/B]. Most resources online that talk about ratios are [B]mass[/B] ratios. More maths to get from one to the other. If you're going for realistic parts/engines (which is the assumption given it's [B]Real[/B]Fuels :wink: ) that will help out.
  5. The RAPIER should use kerosene in jet mode and kerolox in rocket mode by default. With AJE it was set to use methane, as well. Methane tends to give you around the same delta-V, I believe, to a hydrolox setup, simply because hauling around enough LH2 requires a ridiculous amount of tankage. Can't say much about if a tank would work or not. Though, insulation would become most of your thickness as you got thinner and thinner. Also, I doubt the regular jets could run off of methane or hydrogen as they are built. It's probably technically possible, but I just don't see the practicality of it. Kerosene seems like a much better idea within an atmosphere, given it's density at air temperatures and the logistics of trying to use cryogenics in a platform that small. Skylon is one thing, since that bird will end up being pretty big, but anything that uses a normal turbojet just wouldn't be big enough to make the additional overhead of cryogenics worth it, IMO. Then again, I'm certainly not the guy to discuss jet mechanics or even rocket engine mechanics. If I'm way off base, someone please do correct me.
  6. The ignitions are tied to the mixtures. You generally need to use hypergolics to get more than one ignition. Stuff like J-2 or Merlin 1D clones get exemptions because in RL they're actually designed to relight with non-hypergolic fuels. But those tend to be the exception. They are also tied to the individual mixture configs, which means that on the parts screen you only see the default mixtures ignitions. If they've been set as such, an engine could have 12 ignitions when you use UDMH/NTO but it defaults to kerolox which only has 1, and therefore you can only see the default ignitions. And there are always murky decisions made here. Or ones I made for reasons I can't remember. Most engines don't say "This is for upper stages" in the description, and even then that description could mean L+, U, U+, or O. So sometimes I flip a coin, or just set the engine to how I like to use it. But yeah, I agree the Maverick probably should be a launch engine, since it's pretty high thrust for that size compared to stock. :huh: Not sure how that's been missed for this long, but hey. That's why I ask for feedback; I can't keep track of all 340+ engines in the configs all by myself. :wink: [B]Edit:[/B] Went ahead and made the Maverick a launch engine in the repo. You can DL now from there if you like.
  7. I'd just stick with 1.0.4 for now. The stockalike configs will work with 1.0.4 until everything else gets updated to work with 1.0.5.
  8. [B]@fallout2077[/B] Yeah, sounds like AIES is tripping you up. I'd check around for a ModuleAnimateEmissive MM patch to update it, and try that. Also, you could just remove the references from each config individually, but that might not be the best long-term solution. Also, try removing the AIES folder and seeing if you can load the game. If it loads without AIES, then you can at least narrow it down to simply that folder.
  9. [B]@fallout2077[/B] Best to check your logfile. What part did it hang on and why (at least what the log said)? Also, I did check on the Tantares issue. Basically, there's a config in both Stockalike and the Tantares mod itself to add configs. At one point there was a flag set in the Tantares config file to prevent either of us from overwriting the other, but it's not there anymore. I haven't decided if I should just pull my config completely or figure out a way to play nice. In the meantime, you can safely remove the Stockalike_Tantares.cfg file and the issue should be resolved.
  10. Ok, big release day. :wink: Updated the configs "officially" today. New release is up on the OP. Download from GitHub from the latest releases page. [SIZE=4][COLOR="#FF0000"]WARNING[/COLOR][/SIZE] CKAN users might want to wait to download, or install manually until the NetKAN updates. I've released a PR to the main CKAN registry, but I don't know when it will drop. Should be within a day, but you have been warned! As always, let me know what crops up. I'm sure we'll find stuff.
  11. If you got 'em, post 'em. If it's a legitimate bug, I'll try and fix it before release. My "freeze" is more on new mod/part support and other new "features" I was planning.
  12. Stockalike sets everything to ModuleRCSFX, but that can easily be swapped to ModuleRCS. I was more worried about the syntax being different for something, in which case I'd need to do a proper rewrite instead of a find/replace.
  13. For those with ModuleRCSFX configs already set up, what would need to be changed to make them work as ModuleRCS?
  14. Ok, I will be releasing an update to RFStockalike soon. I'm going to just freeze what I have in the repo and go from there. Also, as it seems ModuleRCSFX is no longer needed (it's essentially replaced by new stock functionality), that will be dropped as a dependancy. But it also means I'll need to double-check on how that needs to be accounted for in the configs. In addition, Svm240's RealPlume configs will be included, and they should activate if Real Plume is installed. There is no dependency on Real Plume, but since RF made the move to use a new module your effects still might be lacking on any non-MEFX-derived engines. The biggest change will be the install location. I've moved the stockalike configs to their own folder in /GameData/ per NathanKell's suggestion. It'll make it easier to install/uninstall and much easier to troubleshoot. CKAN will get updated once the release is made. If you're using the dev version from the repo right now, then you're already set. Also, this isn't technically v1.0.5 ready yet, since this is just a config set for RealFuels. If RF works in v1.0.5 though, I don't see a reason these configs won't work. But until RF gets an "official" v1.0.5 release, RFStockalike isn't ready. Ok, PSA over.
  15. I need to change the file structure in the next RFStockalike release. Is there a way to "sync" both a release on my end and an update of the CKAN registry?
  16. You know, that's exactly how I ended up maintaining this mod. Wanted RF to work with stock-type stuff, did it for myself, then all of a sudden I'm working on this thing.
  17. I've found that you can use mods that make use of IFS only if you remove IFS functionality. As Starwaster implied, IFS tends to stomp all over RF/MFT settings and the two don't get along. If you want to spend some time making MM patches to get them to play nice, it should work, but YMMV. It'll also probably take a lot of time. In practice, though, they're effectively mutually exclusive. Parts packs tend to be mod agnostic (at least the good ones), in that they'll use whichever you have installed.
  18. Well, thank blowfish first. Also, I don't remember IFS playing nice with RF... No, not intentional. I'll look at it but Tantares also has its own RF config bundled. So could be either.
  19. Yeah, I'll try and get some updated configs out this weekend maybe. I know I've been rather incognito lately, so I apologize for the severe lack of updates/changes. Unfortunately, RL doesn't seem to allow much extra time these days. I'm also doing some updating to the generator, which is work that takes a bunch of time but doesn't get much visibly done. Thanks again, everyone, for the help and support! Glad people enjoy it.
  20. There a couple snags with me doing that. I can't keep up with the number of engines in the system as it is (it's around 300 at the moment), so most of them are running through the generator. But, I don't have any templates to run the electric engines through. So, any of the arcjets, resistojets, ion engines, etc, have to be done somewhat by hand. Added to that, I just have no clue what the specs should look like for electric engines. And even further, electric engines generally like to have really long burn times (i.e. days), which KSP doesn't handle well (if at all). After saying all that, I'm gonna try and figure this one out, because it's a bit of a hole in the system. I mean, it won't be hard to write up a config for the RLA resistojet; it'll be a bit harder to get, say, a working model on the level of the chemical engines that we have in the spreadsheets/generator for electric type engines.
  21. Glad it helped. I really should put the generator on GitHub. The whole thing uses WordPress with a dash of Angular thrown in for the real-time updates to the config.
  22. You are not kidding about those formulas... I rewrote them in Javascript for the generator, so if you're comfortable with that, the link for the file is here: click me! There are some tweaks to the formulas (like the full-flow staged combustion modifiers), but most come directly from the original spreadsheet. They also aren't that much easier to read, but it is a bit better than the Excel formulas. If there's one specific formula or set, I can probably get them into a written formula so they're a bit easier to read. Also, I didn't come up with these originally. They were just in the original sheet from NathanKell that Chestburster used to make the stockalike version. I can't say for sure who came up with those, but I know it was essentially taking a bunch of real engines and fitting them to a curve using all of the base data (thrust, mass, Isp, fuel/propellant mix, etc). Then the tech levels adjust the curve as needed.
  23. Yes, the mass can be edited within the configs or with additional configs. As for the loading times, I would still be using ATM if I had the choice. Converting everything to .dds textures is still worth it. And frankly, I don't play KSP for all the pretty visuals, even though the game produces some stunning scenes! So, reducing texture quality is a necessary evil to make the game more stable.
  24. Knew I missed something. The RCS portion isn't really finalized yet. In this instance, I rounded the thrust to the nearest kN, so in the case of RCS you either get 1 or 0 if you choose thrustPower = 1. I need to turn that off for RCS types in the generator.
  25. Honestly, I don't recall. Are there any candidate models that you've found? Wouldn't mind adding a methalox mode to a nice lander engine. Also, there are a ton of mods that Stockalike supports (or tries to), so they could just be in a mod you don't have. (boy, I can't wait until 64-bit arrives for everyone)
×
×
  • Create New...