Jump to content

(KSP 1.10 + 1.12 ) Mission Controller 3.2.0 (Final Version) (Updated 6/25/2021)


malkuth

Recommended Posts

We can salvage drop tanks ? If yes; how ? If not; this feature was planned ?

I need to salvage my firsts stages to save money, how i can get these money back ?

It can be done.. yes.. You would have to switch to the drop tank so it has to have a Probebody.. Or any remote operated command part (you have to control it) land it.. Hit recycle... Of course the problem comes when you say let it go at 10,000 meters... It makes it difficult to switch to the dropped part because of the way KSP works.. But if you can manage it.. And launch release.. Somehow save it from the KSP Fate of the 2.5 Meter distance (everything goes into simulation) then yes you can save it.

If you do it like say Space X plans to do there return stages.. Then yes you can do it easy. Or if like scott Manely does it in his reusable space program.. Then yes again. You will get the recycle option on anything that you control and lands.. Missions or not.

Of course if you use a mod like deadly re-entry.. Then all bets are off. ;)

Oh PS You get more money back when you land on land... Then if you land on water.

Edited by malkuth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I take it LiquidOxygen and LiquidH20 replace Oxidizer? So maybe base it around that? Not sure.

LiquidFuel

LiquidOxygen

LiquidH2O

LiquidOxygen is oxidizer, LiquidH2 is fuel (hydrogen). BTW - do you calculate fuel price based on it's mass, or the volume? Hydrogen is VERY light, but extremely efficient - so it should be considered high-end fuel. LiquidFuel (which I assume is kerosene) - LiquidOxygen is middle-tier fuel, best for first stages and boosters as it provides maximum thrust at expence of Isp. But both LiquidH2 and LiquidOxygen are not useable in propulsion for the probes and vessels since they boil-off over time, while LiquidFuel/Oxidizer don't. Real-life analogue for that is Nitrogen Dioxide, very efficient oxidizer (better than oxygen) that is liquid under normal conditions and therefore non-cryogenic, but extremely poisonous.

To sum it up:

LiquidH2 (hydrogen) - extremely light, yet very expensive, cryogenic, quite high boil-off rate

LiquidOxygen - a bit more expensive than regular Oxidizer, but much chealer than hydrogen, moderate boil-off rate

LiquidOxygen - more expensive than "regular" oxidizer

I'd advise you to implement some sort of config system that would allow users to set up new fuels and their prices, as many Modular Fuel mod's users have added more fuels themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

etc...

I've just been looking at the modular fuels mod and Im quite excited by it, I literally just posted on there asking about missioncontroller, Im so glad you are working on it, let me see if I can give you a primer:

--------------

This is what I have managed to glean about it so far:

It leaves Liquidfuel and oxidiser intact.

It adds LO2 as a "premium" oxidiser and LH2 as a "premium" fuel.

Engines have different fuel options added to them:

All conventional rockets can still use standard Liquidfuel/oxidiser - but in a slightly different ratio (0.4:0.6 or 1:1.5)

Option to use Liquidfuel with "premium" LO2 - gives enhanced thrust AND Isp at the cost of slightly (1%) reduced fuel capacity and a slow boil-off of cryogenic fluids (v. slow, 1% per week)

Option to use "both "premium" fuels, LH2 and LO2 - this gives slightly lower thrust but greatly enhanced Isp.

Nuclear engines have been given in-built "nuclear fuel" (which is consumed but basically lasts forever) and LH2 as reaction mass - no oxidiser required.

----------------------

Engines can use different fuel combinations for different effects, selectable in VAB I think.

ALL fuel tanks can be modified to carry any proportion of any of the above fuels, also monopropellant and Xenon gas as well. They can also be partially filled or left empty (I think). There is also an option to auto-fill with whatever the attached engine needs.

A big addition is the way LH2 works, it is NOT that efficient volume-wise (quite high consumption), but VERY efficient weight-wise.

- you must take this into account when building rockets as you will much more in the way of tankage when using LH2 but, counter-intuitively, the weight penalty will be lower.

This matches real life as LH2 is technically a great fuel but you run into problems with the size of useful fuel tanks.

This gives the realistic effect in-game of using "LiquidFuel" for most conventional purposes, but LH2 comes into its own for long cruise phases where the volume penalty isn't so bad and the weight advantage is very useful. Hydrocarbon (kerosene) based "LiquidFuel" would also have a greater thrust (especially in-atmosphere) due to the higher mass-flow.

--------------------

When adding to missioncontroller I think you might want to consider the following:

Liquidfuel and oxidiser can be kept stock, so that is nice.

When pricing LH2 take into account:

It is very light.

It is generally consumed quite fast.

Gives a high Isp.

So folks are going to need to take a large volume of LH2 but probably not as much mass of it (as compared to LiquidFuel).

LO2 is straight-up a better oxidiser than "oxidiser" so should be priced accordingly

- you can build a high-thrust, low consumption rocket using LiquidFuel and LO2.

- or you can build a very efficient LO2/LH2 rocket

(that will need a lot of LH2 but not much in the way of LO2)

I think LO2 is going to be the "golden fuel" here so should be quite expensive - "How much LO2 can I afford for this mission" should be what Im made to think about.

Nuclear engines come bundled with "nuclearfuel" so their price can probably stay as-is.

---------------------------

TL:DR

It adds 3 new fuels: LO2, LH2 and "nuclearfuel"

"nuclearfuel" can probably be largely ignored.

LH2 - bulky but light. Highly efficient (weight-for-weight). Not the most powerful. Cheap for volume, more expensive than "oxidiser" for weight.

LO2 - heavy-ish but a powerful fuel, you don't need a great amount of this. Expensive.

Fuel tanks can be configured to hold any amount of any fuel substances in any ratio (including xenon and mono).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It matters.. Most of the Fuels like Liquid and solid are by volume. The oxygen I added to support Iron Cross is also by Volume.

Other fuels like xenon are by volume and mass.. + tank cost. or in other words tank cost + mass

For instance this is how Mono is done.

res.monoFuel += p.Resources["MonoPropellant"].amount;
res.tankCost += p.Resources["MonoPropellant"].amount / p.mass / 666 * p.Resources["MonoPropellant"].amount * 0.1; // normalized for R25

I could add .cfg file for extra fuels you could add.. But they would have to be generic names I think... I would have to take a better look at that in future (to change names by config.. It can be done but Im pretty new to coding so I don't know everything yet).. Right now I just need to get the standard fuels from the mods listed done..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It can be done.. yes.. You would have to switch to the drop tank so it has to have a Probebody.. Or any remote operated command part (you have to control it) land it.. Hit recycle... Of course the problem comes when you say let it go at 10,000 meters... It makes it difficult to switch to the dropped part because of the way KSP works.. But if you can manage it.. And launch release.. Somehow save it from the KSP Fate of the 2.5 Meter distance (everything goes into simulation) then yes you can save it.

If you do it like say Space X plans to do there return stages.. Then yes you can do it easy. Or if like scott Manely does it in his reusable space program.. Then yes again. You will get the recycle option on anything that you control and lands.. Missions or not.

Of course if you use a mod like deadly re-entry.. Then all bets are off. ;)

Oh PS You get more money back when you land on land... Then if you land on water.

I was playing around with the spacex concept of the first stage dropping off with enough dV to reverse course and return to the pad but that only works as a proof of concept. By the time you land it the rest of the rocket would be deleted after it left the 2.5km range (or crashed if you use romfarer's mod to extend the render distance)

Does the stage have to touch down at KSC or just on Kerbin?

With romfarer you can set the render distance to up to 99.5km. So the first stage could drop at 30km and touch down in booster bay on parachutes and thus be recovered but will the mod recognize a recovered vessel as recycled? Maybe with a penalty for distance from KSC?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was playing around with the spacex concept of the first stage dropping off with enough dV to reverse course and return to the pad but that only works as a proof of concept. By the time you land it the rest of the rocket would be deleted after it left the 2.5km range (or crashed if you use romfarer's mod to extend the render distance)

Does the stage have to touch down at KSC or just on Kerbin?

With romfarer you can set the render distance to up to 99.5km. So the first stage could drop at 30km and touch down in booster bay on parachutes and thus be recovered but will the mod recognize a recovered vessel as recycled? Maybe with a penalty for distance from KSC?

just has to set down anywhere on kerbin. the only factors that effect this is if its landed on land.. Or water.. If you land on land you get more money back for recycle then you would get if in water.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, thanks ,malkuth, for continuing this mod i was burn-out for the KSP but now i actually have 'stuff' to do in KSP once again :) aaaaand i forgot what i wanted to post.. oh uh! I remember it now my MC icon is on center of thrust button, is there any hope that we could change the x position of the button in config? ^^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NEW VERSION RELEASE .12

.12 Changes

1. Added support for Ion Cross Mod Oxygen Cost

2. Added support for Modular fuel Tanks cost.. IE LiquidO2 and LiquidH2

3. Some More UI changes.. Now resources will not show up until they have a value more the 0 in the Cost List. Some things were left in to fill the area though. :) Like cost and construction and insurance always show.

Test it out tell me what you think guys this is how things are listed.. I can change it pretty easy now since I gave Modular Fuel Tanks its own sub categories to edit them easier in case they need to be changed easy.

By the way I tested the changes with Modular Fuel tanks in Realistic mode.. Should make no difference for the regular mode.

Cost From Lowest To highest In fuels

LiquidFuel

LiquidH2

Cost From Lowest To Highest In Oxidizer (types)

Oxidizer

LiquidOxygen

All Together they go like this. Cheapest To Most Expensive

LiquidFuel

LiquidH2

Oxidizer

LiquidOxegen

Feel Free to express your opinion about the cost.. Its an easy fix in any case.

For you Iron Cross players Oxygen is about the same cost as LiquidFuel.

Thanks everyone..

Edited by malkuth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, thanks ,malkuth, for continuing this mod i was burn-out for the KSP but now i actually have 'stuff' to do in KSP once again :) aaaaand i forgot what i wanted to post.. oh uh! I remember it now my MC icon is on center of thrust button, is there any hope that we could change the x position of the button in config? ^^

Ill work on it for the next version. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think hydrogen has to be the most expensive since it's also used as fuel in NERVA. This is actually in line with reality - liquid hydrogen is more expensive than liquid oxygen.

Edited by asmi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Be careful about adding/requesting features from this mod. I think Nobody44 moved too fast in responding to feature requests. This only encouraged new ones and put off mission authors/planners who couldn't keep pace.

I would also hesitate on any feature involving the recycling of material and/or craft. Very very little of anything returning from space ever goes back. Shuttle and ..... well ... just Shuttle. It's far cheaper to build a new craft than design/fly/clean a reusable vehicle. Fuel is certainly never reused. In fact returning from orbit with fuel is so dangerous that, if anything, a penalty should attach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would also hesitate on any feature involving the recycling of material and/or craft. Very very little of anything returning from space ever goes back. Shuttle and ..... well ... just Shuttle. It's far cheaper to build a new craft than design/fly/clean a reusable vehicle. Fuel is certainly never reused. In fact returning from orbit with fuel is so dangerous that, if anything, a penalty should attach.

Prior to SpaceX, I would have agreed with you but they are working hard to make truly reusable craft a reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll see what I can do about overwriting stock costs with MC costs. Sandworm, I tend to agree with you about reentry/recovery, and am pondering how to deal with that. We don't really have any way of doing design costs yet, though, and that's where most of the money is, right? (Also even DRE doesn't make reentry that deadly, simply because Kerbin is so tiny. I never have trouble deorbiting my stages, for example, the only issue is getting low-drag chutes so the g-force doesn't break it up when I deploy at <1 mach.

HELP REQUEST: Does anyone know the cost ratios of various fuels? Further, does anyone know how much rocket engines really cost, compared to (1) payload and (2) fuel?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For pre-chute deployment, B9 has an excellent air brake (which may or may not be OP but whatever) that will do wonders. I play with FAR and DRE and getting something back down from orbit is a right pain in the engine bell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HELP REQUEST: Does anyone know the cost ratios of various fuels? Further, does anyone know how much rocket engines really cost, compared to (1) payload and (2) fuel?

Liquid Rocket Engines are the most expensive part of any rocket (not counting payloads of course). Fuel price is generally very small part of overall launch vehicle price (5-15% depending on fuel types). Commercial payloads (comsats) generally costs about 20-30% of the LV price, but some payloads (typically secret governmental sky sats) are MUCH more expensive than LV itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those secret government payloads are far and away the most costly part of the launch. The biggest NRO launches, the "battleship" approach to recon sats, are worth upwards of 1,000,000,000$ and can weigh over 100,000kg. Basically, they are just big antennas attached to orbital datacenters for processing intercepted communications, as opposed to the "bent-pipe" sats used by telcoms.

One thing that KSP is missing, and this mod desperately needs, are inert payloads for delivery to specific orbits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I might add an exception for it.. Because now I think its to cheap. And price it around 100,000 K is that to mean? I don't use mechjeb so it would never effect me.. Just would like everyone's opinion.. There are already some exceptions for remote Tech stuff.

And about the prices its a planned feature to expand on the financing... To list the parts separately in another finance window might be possible.

I just found this thread so please excuse me if you have already made up your mind on this.

I love KSP. Been having a blast with it. But if I had to fly missions manually without Mechjeb then I would probably delete the game. Why, you ask? Because I've been trying since version 0.16 to fly manually, and now know for a fact that I. Cannot. Fly. Spaceships. Much to my chagrin. I absolutely love designing the craft, orbital stations, ground stations, and all that, but can't fly them without Mechjeb. So putting a high price like that would make it impossible for me to use your mod as there would be no way that I could collect the 100k to purchase the thing. And yeah, I saw the comment about the Apollo computers being expensive. That's true. I cannot recall a manned NASA mission, though, that *didn't* include some sort of automatic control. So if we want to go with realism here, then every craft should be charged the Mechjeb cost, even if they don't want to use it.

So in my opinion price it realistically. 10k to 25k thereabouts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EDIT, nevermind :)

many thanks for taking up the charge of this mod, it had become a significant part of my KSP gameplay.

Having previously been playing on hard, until I got pissed off and bored with grinding little sattelite missions to have enough funds to launch.. anything and barely break even, I have mixed feelings about the single system in this latest version. I`ll have to play with it a bit more, but as long as there doesn`t exist an extensive grinding of some little mission in order to barely break even on the significant ones then I won`t have an issue.

Edited by soranno
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With my testing so far there are a few pricing things I think need adjusting. The current Liquid Rocket engines are too cheap and it makes solid fuel rockets pointless again. In a previous version there was a much larger gap between solid fuel rockets and liquid fuel rockets and it made sense to me. Also I have noticed the Launch stability Enhancers are more expensive in this version and on my current small rocket account for 25% of its cost where as before it was minimal. According to the price list they cost more than my science parts and engine combined. That doesnt make sense to me. :)

On the mechjeb pricing I think a 25k-50k price would be fine. I dont use the autopilot because it has messed up from time to time but I love the customizable readouts, smart A.S.S, and the maneuver planner. I can easliy just do those things manually on cheaper simpler missions, but the more complex ones I like the have those as the in game maneuver node system in a pain. I dont mind paying for that on the more complex missions.

Also can the windows save their position between game loads. It is a slight annoyance to have to move them every time I play.

Edited by Artophwar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

EDIT, nevermind :)

many thanks for taking up the charge of this mod, it had become a significant part of my KSP gameplay.

Having previously been playing on hard, until I got pissed off and bored with grinding little sattelite missions to have enough funds to launch.. anything and barely break even, I have mixed feelings about the single system in this latest version. I`ll have to play with it a bit more, but as long as there doesn`t exist an extensive grinding of some little mission in order to barely break even on the significant ones then I won`t have an issue.

It should not be a problem now.. The game is essentially in Medium mode.. with a lot of adjustments to the way parts cost. Its a pretty good balance.. In fact I might actually have to adjust my mission payouts to be less now in my mission packs.. But waiting for feedback if its too much or not.

I remember that I use to have to do a few sat missions too, but once you open up some of the bigger paying missions its not too much of a problem. I know for sure that with the mods I have that flying a mission to Duna cost about 1 million... Thats because I need 2 vessels to actually do the mission.. (oxygen and stuff and habitats for over a year). Traveling far distances with the IonCross mod is very difficult. ;) and not cheap.

I just found this thread so please excuse me if you have already made up your mind on this.

I love KSP. Been having a blast with it. But if I had to fly missions manually without Mechjeb then I would probably delete the game. Why, you ask? Because I've been trying since version 0.16 to fly manually, and now know for a fact that I. Cannot. Fly. Spaceships. Much to my chagrin. I absolutely love designing the craft, orbital stations, ground stations, and all that, but can't fly them without Mechjeb. So putting a high price like that would make it impossible for me to use your mod as there would be no way that I could collect the 100k to purchase the thing. And yeah, I saw the comment about the Apollo computers being expensive. That's true. I cannot recall a manned NASA mission, though, that *didn't* include some sort of automatic control. So if we want to go with realism here, then every craft should be charged the Mechjeb cost, even if they don't want to use it.

So in my opinion price it realistically. 10k to 25k thereabouts.

at this point its only 3K.. But I might jump it up to maybe 25K or so. Not sure.. I do think of people that do have the issues that you do.. and don't want to make the Mission Controller to hard for you.. Even at 25K thats pretty steep.. Considering that you only start with 50K. And your first vessel can easy cost you 10-15K by itself without mechJeb.

If I put hardmode back in... I might consider raising the cost that way... Its stuff I have to consider and will wait for community feed back on these things before I do anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...