[1.2] Engine Ignitor continued. (23 oct 2016)

[Errol]

The additional hypergolic tanks seem to work, but I would honestly rather have that whole part of this mod truncated out. Adding an additional resource only slows down those of us on older machines. From both gameplay, and realism points of view, both the ignitions and the hypergolic fuel seem to be used to track the same thing, which is how many times you can re-ignite your engine. Similar to the logic used by roverdude when designing his LS mod and comparing it to TAC-LS I remember him saying that he didn't see a point to tracking a bunch of things when at the end of the day the user is just going to bring another tank or whatever. Except in this case both things are tracking the same thing; how much reactive fuel you have left....

[linuxgurugamer]

33 minutes ago, Errol said:

The additional hypergolic tanks seem to work, but I would honestly rather have that whole part of this mod truncated out. Adding an additional resource only slows down those of us on older machines. From both gameplay, and realism points of view, both the ignitions and the hypergolic fuel seem to be used to track the same thing, which is how many times you can re-ignite your engine. Similar to the logic used by roverdude when designing his LS mod and comparing it to TAC-LS I remember him saying that he didn't see a point to tracking a bunch of things when at the end of the day the user is just going to bring another tank or whatever. Except in this case both things are tracking the same thing; how much reactive fuel you have left....

I hear you, and agree, mostly.  I'll take a look at what needs to be done to remove it.

other than that, did my updates fix the other problems?

[Errol]

I hear you, and agree, mostly.  I'll take a look at what needs to be done to remove it.

other than that, did my updates fix the other problems?

So I've been testing. The simulations appear to be working from what I can tell, but there is a bug with the PAW display for the simulations. It basically will only display "stable" or "unstable (chance: 80%)" even if you are in orbit and the actual chance of ignition is zero (again, the mod does this correctly, I got no ignitions in space, just failed ignition sparks). It also incorrectly displays the 80% chance thing when failing straight down with the craft pointed upwards, even though ignition won't happen. 

Also I noticed some nullref spam in the console while I was cheating myself into orbit that looks like this:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/l9czmtwaucu8hqf/Screenshot 2017-09-28 23.35.02.png?dl=0

EDIT: The spam was there before cheating into orbit, I just didn't bother capping it until after I was already there, and figured it would be useful to show that PAW in orbit anyway.

Edited September 29, 2017 by Errol

[linuxgurugamer]

7 hours ago, Errol said:

So I've been testing. The simulations appear to be working from what I can tell, but there is a bug with the PAW display for the simulations. It basically will only display "stable" or "unstable (chance: 80%)" even if you are in orbit and the actual chance of ignition is zero (again, the mod does this correctly, I got no ignitions in space, just failed ignition sparks). It also incorrectly displays the 80% chance thing when failing straight down with the craft pointed upwards, even though ignition won't happen. 

This is working correctly.  I was able to get ignitions in space, although I did have to do a lot of them.  80% chance of failure is pretty bad.  

I think we interpreted the numbers backwards, I set it to be the chance of failure, I'l change that to be chance of success.

 

[linuxgurugamer]

9 hours ago, Errol said:

The simulations appear to be working from what I can tell, but there is a bug with the PAW display for the simulations. It basically will only display "stable" or "unstable (chance: 80%)" even if you are in orbit and the actual chance of ignition is zero (again, the mod does this correctly, I got no ignitions in space, just failed ignition sparks). It also incorrectly displays the 80% chance thing when failing straight down with the craft pointed upwards, even though ignition won't happen. 

What makes you think that the chance of ignition is zero when in orbit?  The mod gives a base chance of 20% of ignition when the G-Force is <0.01

What makes you think that when a craft is falling straight down with it pointing upwards, that ignition won't happen?  Again, it's based on the G force.  I did a test, dropping a simple ship (MK1pod, T-400, lv909) from an altitude of 10,000, and very quickly the G force climbed above 0.01.

The mod currently does NOT take the orientation of the craft into account when calculating the chance of ignition.

I've also tested it during a reentry, and when the G-force finally got above 0.01 (somewhere around 40km in height) the fuel flow went stable.

 

I'll see if I can do something with the ship orientation, but then, what if someone wants to mount an engine upside down, say, as a reverse thruster?  What should happen then?

Maybe I'll base it on the orientation of the engine, I'll see.

Meanwhile, you can try this version:

https://github.com/linuxgurugamer/EngineIgnitor/releases/tag/1.3.0.3

[Errol]

3 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:

...

 

I thought that no ignition in space was the expected behaviour (I'm not a rocket scientist, just learning about this stuff myself). I also thought orientation was accounted for in the old mod, my mistake. I did try firing an LV-T 45 sixteen times in orbit, and got no ignitions. I will say I definitely read it as 80% chance of success. 

 

Also, I did notice that electrical consumption for ignition is working. Test craft require more battery than is available in a command pod. 

 

Just a thought, you could look at the orientation of the engine relative to the prograde vector.

Edited September 29, 2017 by Errol

[linuxgurugamer]

51 minutes ago, Errol said:

I thought that no ignition in space was the expected behaviour (I'm not a rocket scientist, just learning about this stuff myself). I also thought orientation was accounted for in the old mod, my mistake. I did try firing an LV-T 45 sixteen times in orbit, and got no ignitions. I will say I definitely read it as 80% chance of success. 

 

Also, I did notice that electrical consumption for ignition is working. Test craft require more battery than is available in a command pod. 

 

Just a thought, you could look at the orientation of the engine relative to the prograde vector.

Well, this IS a game, not RL, so I can understand why it would only be a 20% chance of success in weightlessness.  I may make that a configurable setting.

And I already have code for the engine orientation, I just don't have time to do it right now.

 

[Errol]

35 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

Well, this IS a game, not RL, so I can understand why it would only be a 20% chance of success in weightlessness.  I may make that a configurable setting.

And I already have code for the engine orientation, I just don't have time to do it right now.

 

...

4 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:

Meanwhile, you can try this version:

https://github.com/linuxgurugamer/EngineIgnitor/releases/tag/1.3.0.3

 

Yeah, I like 20%....every once in a while a little fuel happens to be touching the pump intake or something.....

Did a little testing with 1.3.0.3, seems to work as expected (hypergolic tank is still in the mod though). Can't wait to try the orientation code.

Out of curiosity, I noticed that the mod shuts down an engine when ignition fails. You can also ignite the engine by simply throttling up, if it is already activated. This can lead to a little bit of confusion sometimes. Could you either make it so that the only way to ignite the engine is to activate it again or stage/activate it for the first time (not by simply moving the throttle up from zero)? Then we just have to remember to bind the engine to an action group, so that we can use that key to retry.

That, or make it so that the engine doesn't get "shutdown" when ignition fails, so that you can just hit "z" over and over to retry. I realize that this is probably a silly seeming idea as that is likely how the mod works. But what about setting the throttle to zero instead of shutting down the engine. The reason is if I cut engines with "x" and want to try to fire them up again, I would want to just be able to keep hitting "z" or at least some other single action group key to do so. 

Edited September 29, 2017 by Errol

[linuxgurugamer]

Well, lookie, lookie here.

1.3.0.4:

•     Added check for angle of engine related to accel to determine whether stable or not
•     Added Settings to configure the chance for ignition while weightless

https://github.com/linuxgurugamer/EngineIgnitor/releases/tag/1.3.0.4

You MUST edit the save file and remove ALL REFERENCES to Hypergolic, otherwise you will get Exceptions

Or, just start a new save

2 hours ago, Errol said:

...

 

Yeah, I like 20%....every once in a while a little fuel happens to be touching the pump intake or something.....

Did a little testing with 1.3.0.3, seems to work as expected (hypergolic tank is still in the mod though). Can't wait to try the orientation code.

Out of curiosity, I noticed that the mod shuts down an engine when ignition fails. You can also ignite the engine by simply throttling up, if it is already activated. This can lead to a little bit of confusion sometimes. Could you either make it so that the only way to ignite the engine is to activate it again or stage/activate it for the first time (not by simply moving the throttle up from zero)? Then we just have to remember to bind the engine to an action group, so that we can use that key to retry.

That, or make it so that the engine doesn't get "shutdown" when ignition fails, so that you can just hit "z" over and over to retry. I realize that this is probably a silly seeming idea as that is likely how the mod works. But what about setting the throttle to zero instead of shutting down the engine. The reason is if I cut engines with "x" and want to try to fire them up again, I would want to just be able to keep hitting "z" or at least some other single action group key to do so. 

Actually, I kind of like it this way. See, if it fails, you really should do something before just trying to restart it.  If it's a simple as reactivating the engine, ok, but still, you had a failure and you need to react to it.

Ignore the tank, I just haven't removed it yet.

I will be offline until tomorrow evening, will check back then to see any issues.

 

[linuxgurugamer]

On 4/17/2017 at 9:45 AM, dobrasao said:

hello everyone im new here, i wrote configs for some of the mod i have installed and id like to share it(hopefully balanced, not really tested) . 

configs are written for the old version of the dll(so the first letter is lowercase).Some engine has no configs(sorry about that) and all engines doesnt use electric charge to ignite(sorry about that, again), also the configs does not use ":NEED[modName]".

engines that use hypergolic fuels doesnt include configs and the ullage function for most of the engines are based on personal preference and tech level(same for the chance of ignition).

cryoengines:

I'll be adding all of these configs to the mod, not sure yet if they will be in a PatchManager config or not.

And I will fix the case issues (caps vs lowercase) before releasing them

[notJebKerman]

@linuxgurugamer Is there a 1.3 compatible version of this? Or should I look at some other mod?

Edited October 25, 2017 by notJebKerman

[linuxgurugamer]

12 hours ago, notJebKerman said:

@linuxgurugamer Is there a 1.3 compatible version of this? Or should I look at some other mod?

I'm working on this, may be a week or so

[notJebKerman]

@linuxgurugamer I'm planning on making a few patches for mods like Bluedog DB, ProbesPlus... Is it possible to set maximum number of ignitions above 32? None of the engines in the stock patch have more than that... However, some deep space probes have hundreds of engine burns (291 in Cassini's case).

[linuxgurugamer]

28 minutes ago, notJebKerman said:

@linuxgurugamer I'm planning on making a few patches for mods like Bluedog DB, ProbesPlus... Is it possible to set maximum number of ignitions above 32? None of the engines in the stock patch have more than that... However, some deep space probes have hundreds of engine burns (291 in Cassini's case).

Yes, there is no limit in the code

This mod is waiting for @Errol to get some time and review some configs.  I may just release it with what I have, and worry about updating it later

[notJebKerman]

@linuxgurugamer Another question: is ullage simulation, by default, enabled? A lot of engines in the stock config don't include the UseUllageSimulation line, even though. 

Configs for Cormorant Aeronology and Probes Plus are done, BDB, Tantares and Tundra Exploration configs are on the way.

[linuxgurugamer]

1 hour ago, notJebKerman said:

@linuxgurugamer Another question: is ullage simulation, by default, enabled? A lot of engines in the stock config don't include the UseUllageSimulation line, even though. 

Configs for Cormorant Aeronology and Probes Plus are done, BDB, Tantares and Tundra Exploration configs are on the way.

Probably not.  What fuel do the Ullage motors use?

Since these are intended for maneuvering ships, I'm not sure it makes sense to limit them.

[linuxgurugamer]

On 11/11/2017 at 4:42 AM, notJebKerman said:

@linuxgurugamer Another question: is ullage simulation, by default, enabled? A lot of engines in the stock config don't include the UseUllageSimulation line, even though. 

Configs for Cormorant Aeronology and Probes Plus are done, BDB, Tantares and Tundra Exploration configs are on the way.

I've started a new thread for this here, and will have a beta available soon