[WIP] Nert's Dev Thread - Current: such nuke, wow

[Starbuckminsterfullerton]

Tested X3 out, Neptune pipes did disappear again but only once; once they came back I could not reproduce it again, so I'd call it fixed. 

[Fraz86]

1 hour ago, Jimbodiah said:

Even with cooling, you would expect some kind of loss. A lossless system IRL would be larger than the tanks themselves. Liquid N also just evaporates, even with 20cm of insulation and storage in a freezer.

1. Realism for realism's sake has never been a high priority in Nertea's mods. There needs to be a compelling gameplay reason to introduce additional complexity/challenges.

2. ZBOs already have several unique challenges, including continuous EC requirement, the worst dry mass ratio in the game, and by far greater volume requirements than any other fuel type.

[Jimbodiah]

Well, boil-off without boil-off is kind of a head scratcher, wouldn't you agree?

1.) Lifters don't need a ZBO tank as it will all be over in 3-5 minutes anyway.

2.) For orbital use boil-off would start to play a role, but as the requirements for cooling are almost zero, the whole issue of boil-off will likely never occur as you would have a solar panel and some batteries on board. 

The current boil-off is active at the part where it is not relevant, and not an issue where it should be (long hauls in space).

I like the KSPI version where you have a very slow boiloff even with cooling, and a faster one with it turned off (or not present). That way you will lose a decent amount of LH on very long trips. Some extra heat/Ec would be welcome even, so you need to take minor precautions with solar panels and radiators, but most likely they will be on board anyway.

I get that it is difficult to find a middle ground between "OP fuel mod" and "too complicated realism". I'm not trying to break down Nertea's work, just point out what my findings are. Knowing Nert, he will do as he wants anyway (as he should), but he will hear two sides of the story   Just positive criticism, not dissing the mod. The new LH nukes are going on all my new space-faring vessels.

Edited January 15, 2016 by Jimbodiah

[Captain Sierra]

Re: more realistic boiloff (impossible zero condition)

I dont see a necessary point. Aside from realism for realsims sake, what does it add from a gameplay perspective? I dont see the point of introducing what is effectively another problem to the player. I'm open to being persuaded though.

[Jimbodiah]

It is just an extra factor, like playing with life support or remote tech. LH is just much more efficient with no penalties, boiloff would be a balance, else thete will no longer be a reason to use LF engines.

It comes down to wanting to apply this an force it onto people.

You could make the standard mod run without boil-off, and chose to install a plugin that will enable boiloff. Essentially making it a seperate mod. Would be sort of like I mentioned earlier to standardize it under CR so other mods can run it as well.

Edited January 15, 2016 by Jimbodiah

[Nertea]

8 hours ago, Captain Sierra said:

I had a theory about what may be going on and decided to test it. Using two tanks, one LH2 one LH2/OX, and the neptune engine, I tracked the fuel draw of LH2 across both modes.

In LH2 mode, the Neptune draws approx. 95 units of LH2 per second according to the resource panel.
In LOX augment mode, it draws roughly 72 units per second by the same measurement.

LH2 usage goes down when injecting LOX, despite this not being the realistic case. Exactly what this means and the effects it has are not entirely clear. While certainly not the only contributing factor to better dV in LOX augment mode, it certainly warrants further experimentation.

This is an artifact of how the stock game works. I believe it can be fixed by nerfing Isp. Alternatively the effects may be so minimal that it can be safely ignored. As previously stated, further testing is required.

Yes I'm suuuure.

Looks like I did not ship the correct version of the plugin. It will be fixed in tomorrow morning's release.

6 hours ago, Jimbodiah said:

Even with cooling, you would expect some kind of loss. A lossless system IRL would be larger than the tanks themselves. Liquid N also just evaporates, even with 20cm of insulation and storage in a freezer.

As I understand it, you can make it so slow that it's effectively lossless, it's just pretty heavy. Check out the DRA5.0 architecture. 

4 hours ago, Starbuckminsterfullerton said:

Tested X3 out, Neptune pipes did disappear again but only once; once they came back I could not reproduce it again, so I'd call it fixed. 

Good, I suppose. This doesn't happen with any other engines though?

2 hours ago, Jimbodiah said:

Well, boil-off without boil-off is kind of a head scratcher, wouldn't you agree?

1.) Lifters don't need a ZBO tank as it will all be over in 3-5 minutes anyway.

2.) For orbital use boil-off would start to play a role, but as the requirements for cooling are almost zero, the whole issue of boil-off will likely never occur as you would have a solar panel and some batteries on board. 

The current boil-off is active at the part where it is not relevant, and not an issue where it should be (long hauls in space).

I like the KSPI version where you have a very slow boiloff even with cooling, and a faster one with it turned off (or not present). That way you will lose a decent amount of LH on very long trips. Some extra heat/Ec would be welcome even, so you need to take minor precautions with solar panels and radiators, but most likely they will be on board anyway.

I get that it is difficult to find a middle ground between "OP fuel mod" and "too complicated realism". I'm not trying to break down Nertea's work, just point out what my findings are. Knowing Nert, he will do as he wants anyway (as he should), but he will hear two sides of the story   Just positive criticism, not dissing the mod. The new LH nukes are going on all my new space-faring vessels.

Yes, lifters don't need a ZBO tank, that's kinda the point... For orbital use, you pay a mass penalty, the default one in the tanks plus the weight of the generation equipment (10 Ec/s for a large 3.75m tank is a bit of an ouch, given that most stock panels generate 2 Ec/s). I can't make the mass penalty too bad because the scales in the stock system are not large enough to make the nukes sensical, and stock KSP's stupid nuke Isp to fuel density ratio has spoiled 90% of players to expect magic NTR performance. I'm not sure you fully comprehend just how different conceptually the idea of losing your hard earned DV works from stock, too. It's a large departure, and someone picking up CryoEngines for the first time will likely initially be quite confused when their fuel evaporates! Their first question will be how to stop it, and if they can't, some people will just give up on the mod. I don't want that.

My goal in all my mods is,as stated a few times in my thread, to bring in relatively simple challenges that are eminently solveable given the systems I give people, and hopefully solveable in a way that mirrors the solutions that space entities would need to take in real life. You want the best chemical fuel? You have to pay a mass and power generation penalty. Sure, it isn't realistic completely. Neither are 1000x thrust multiplied ion engines :P. But if you play my mod, and enjoy it, maybe you'll be interested enough to dive into those concepts further, and head to @NathanKell's projects :P. Think of NFT as a gateway drug to realism concepts :P.

[Captain Sierra]

17 minutes ago, Nertea said:

Think of NFT as a gateway drug to realism concepts :P.

This needs to be on a T-shirt, in a sig, everywhere.

[Fraz86]

12 hours ago, Nertea said:

• Newest balance fixes to CryoTanks fuel switch patches

What changes are these? I'm not seeing any differences from the prior version.

31 minutes ago, Nertea said:

10 Ec/s for a large 3.75m tank is a bit of an ouch, given that most stock panels generate 2 Ec/s

Also, solar panels are much less useful further out (e.g., 4% EC at Jool). While solar power might be a relatively easy solution at Kerbin's orbit, the EC requirment will be a much more significant obstacle for some destinations.

[Nertea]

@Fraz86I think I forgot a few things. Hazard of putting a build together right before work, some things didn't propagate right...

[Fraz86]

54 minutes ago, Nertea said:

@Fraz86I think I forgot a few things. Hazard of putting a build together right before work, some things didn't propagate right...

It also looks like the LH2 capacities of ZBO tanks are set based on the old LH2ConversionFactor of 8.25, so they'll need to be updated to hold 10x the total-stock-units instead.

If it's helpful, here is my most recent recommendation for the fuel-switch config (one change not mentioned elsewhere; I now believe a BoiloffRate of 0.05 is plenty, given factors such as the 15:1 LH2O ratio, high LH2 dry mass, and narrowing the gap between ZBOs and lifting tanks):

// Lifting tanks
@PART[*]:HAS[@RESOURCE[LiquidFuel],@RESOURCE[Oxidizer],!MODULE[InterstellarFuelSwitch],!MODULE[ModuleEnginesFX],!MODULE[ModuleEngines],!MODULE[FSfuelSwitch]]:NEEDS[!modularFuelTanks&!RealFuels]
{
	%LH2ConversionFactor = 10 // <- EDIT HERE (units of LH2 that occupy a volume equivalent to one unit of LF or OX)
	%LH2OUnitRatio = 15 // <- EDIT HERE (LH2:OX unit ratio for LH2O configuration; should correspond to burn ratio of cryogenic engines)
	%mixOXProportion = 0.4 // <- EDIT HERE (proportion of tank volume containing OX; should approximately = 1 / [1 + [LH2OUnitRatio / LH2ConversionFactor]])
	%dryMassPerUnitLH2 = 0.000025 // <- EDIT HERE (dry mass per unit LH2 capacity)
	
	%LF = #$RESOURCE[LiquidFuel]/maxAmount$
	%OX = #$RESOURCE[Oxidizer]/maxAmount$

	%totalCap = #$RESOURCE[LiquidFuel]/maxAmount$
	@totalCap += #$RESOURCE[Oxidizer]/maxAmount$

	%onlyLH2 = #$totalCap$
	@onlyLH2 *= #$LH2ConversionFactor$

	%mixOX = #$totalCap$
	@mixOX *= #$mixOXProportion$
	%mixLH2 = #$mixOX$
	@mixLH2 *= #$LH2OUnitRatio$

	// masses
	%massOffset = #$mass$
	%tempVar = #$totalCap$
	@tempVar *= 0.000625 // standard dry mass per units of LF/OX
	@massOffset -= #$tempVar$ // accounts for non-standard tank mass, which should remain constant across fuel configurations, e.g., extra mass for spaceplane tanks
	
	%onlyLH2mass = #$onlyLH2$
	@onlyLH2mass *= #$dryMassPerUnitLH2$
	@onlyLH2mass += #$massOffset$
	
	%mixLH2mass = #$mixOX$
	@mixLH2mass *= 0.000625
	@tempVar = #$mixLH2$
	@tempVar *= #$dryMassPerUnitLH2$
	@mixLH2mass += #$tempVar$
	@mixLH2mass += #$massOffset$
	
	!RESOURCE[LiquidFuel] {}
	!RESOURCE[Oxidizer] {}
	
	MODULE
	{
		name = InterstellarFuelSwitch

		volumeMultiplier = 1
		massMultiplier = 1

		resourceGui = LF/OX;LH2/OX;LF;OX;LH2
		resourceNames = LiquidFuel,Oxidizer;LqdHydrogen,Oxidizer;LiquidFuel;Oxidizer;LqdHydrogen

		resourceAmounts = #$../LF$,$../OX$;$../mixLH2$,$../mixOX$;$../totalCap$;$../totalCap$;$../onlyLH2$

		displayCurrentTankCost = true

		hasGUI = true
		showInfo = true

		availableInFlight = false
		availableInEditor = true

		basePartMass = 0
		tankMass = #$../mass$;$../mixLH2mass$;$../mass$;$../mass$;$../onlyLH2mass$
	}
	MODULE
	{
		name =  ModuleCryoTank
		FuelName = LqdHydrogen
		// in % per hr
		BoiloffRate = 0.05
	}
}

// ZBO tanks
@PART[*]:HAS[@RESOURCE[LqdHydrogen],!MODULE[InterstellarFuelSwitch],!MODULE[ModuleEnginesFX],!MODULE[ModuleEngines],!MODULE[FSfuelSwitch]]:NEEDS[!modularFuelTanks&!RealFuels]
{
	%LH2ConversionFactor = 10 // <- EDIT HERE (LH2 vs LF/OX capacity conversion; should be identical to LH2ConversionFactor for lifting tanks above)
	%LH2OUnitRatio = 15 // <- EDIT HERE (LH2:OX unit ratio; should be identical to LH2OUnitRatio for lifting tanks above)
	%mixOXProportion = 0.4 // <- EDIT HERE (proportion of tank volume containing OX; should be identical to mixOXProportion for lifting tanks above)
	%dryMassPerUnitLH2 = 0.00003125 // <- EDIT HERE (dry mass per unit LH2 capacity)
	
	%LH2 = #$RESOURCE[LqdHydrogen]/maxAmount$
	
	%OX = #$LH2$
	@OX /= #$LH2ConversionFactor$

	%mixOX = #$OX$
	@mixOX *= #$mixOXProportion$
	%mixLH2 = #$mixOX$
	@mixLH2 *= #$LH2OUnitRatio$

	// masses
	%onlyLH2mass = #$LH2$
	@onlyLH2mass *= #$dryMassPerUnitLH2$
	
	%onlyOXmass = #$OX$
	@onlyOXmass *= 0.000625

	%mixLH2mass = #$mixOX$
	@mixLH2mass *= 0.000625
	%tempVar = #$mixLH2$
	@tempVar *= #$dryMassPerUnitLH2$
	@mixLH2mass += #$tempVar$
	
	!RESOURCE[LqdHydrogen] {}
	
	MODULE
	{
		name = InterstellarFuelSwitch

		volumeMultiplier = 1
		massMultiplier = 1

		resourceGui = LH2;LH2/OX;OX
		resourceNames = LqdHydrogen;LqdHydrogen,Oxidizer;Oxidizer

		resourceAmounts = #$../LH2$;$../mixLH2$,$../mixOX$;$../OX$

		displayCurrentTankCost = true

		hasGUI = true
		showInfo = true

		availableInFlight = false
		availableInEditor = true

		basePartMass = 0
		tankMass = #$../onlyLH2mass$;$../mixLH2mass$;$../onlyOXmass$
	}
	MODULE
	{
		name =  ModuleCryoTank
		FuelName = LqdHydrogen
		// in % per hour
		BoiloffRate = 0.05
		// in Ec per 1000 units per second
		CoolingCost = 0.10
	}
}

And here are the recommended LH2 capacities for ZBO tanks:

• hydrogen-10-1: 1152000
• hydrogen-25-1: 64000
• hydrogen-25-2: 32000
• hydrogen-25-3: 16000
• hydrogen-125-1: 8000
• hydrogen-125-2: 4000
• hydrogen-375-1: 144000
• hydrogen-375-2: 72000
• hydrogen-375-3: 36000
• hydrogen-radial-25-1: 17600
• hydrogen-radial-125-1: 1600
• hydrogen-radial-375-1: 64000

Edited January 15, 2016 by Fraz86

[Nertea]

Version X4

• Increased LH2 tank base capacities in accordance with above
• New version of fuel switch patch in accordance with above
• Finalized art for Stubber (specular, normals, emissives, ddses)
• More art for Neptune (not done yet though :()
• Matched 1.25m engine LH2 FX colours to 2.5m FX
• Reduced all LH2/OX NTR Isps to 500-530s range from 600-650s
• Ported Chelyabinsk to DeployableEngines (now no longer ship BDAnimationModules with this)
• Fixed missing sounds on everything (man i need to get some new sounds...)
• Fixed incorrect DeployableEngines dll

Todo:

• Trimodal reactor generators use up uranium? Open to discussion
• Shrouds for all!
• Finish Neptune art
• ??? (what have I missed to release these versions of mods)

[Captain Sierra]

36 minutes ago, Nertea said:

Trimodal reactor generators use up uranium? Open to discussion

I feel like this would be confusing to have some NTRs consume uranium and others not. I assume the gameplay goal is to make the engines not behave like glorified RTGs when not in use. To me it seems like modelling uranium decay from the generator without modeling uranium decay for normal engine operation is like having a cherry pie with half of it missing the cherries. That said, I definitely think modeling uranium decay for NTRs in general is a bit too realism heavy. Sure it adds a maintenance cost to frequently-reused vehicles, making them slightly less preferable to NFP stuffs in the reusability department, but I think in the end its unnecessary. I think its another plugin component that you'd have to maintain, more things for the time warp analytic mode transtion (the ever-popular 100x time warp drop problems) to screw up, all for something that doesnt add that much to the gameplay.

[Jimbodiah]

I've seen some other mods that have their nukes eat uranium, but the rate is so low and the bundled resources so high that it doesn't really matter (KSPI Lightbulb). Would you need the uranium to run the engine, or just the generator?

Edited January 15, 2016 by Jimbodiah

[blowfish]

1 hour ago, Captain Sierra said:

Sure it adds a maintenance cost to frequently-reused vehicles, making them slightly less preferable to NFP stuffs in the reusability department

Actually, since NFE reactors (which are often required to power the engines) do consume uranium, adding uranium consumption to NTRs might actually fit well.

[Captain Sierra]

18 minutes ago, Jimbodiah said:

I've seen some other mods that have their nukes eat uranium, but the rate is so low and the bundled resources so high that it doesn't really matter (KSPI Lightbulb). Would you need the uranium to run the engine, or just the generator?

I was doing some reading on Atomic Rockets (because someone linked it while I was at work on a really slow day and i had nothing better to do) and read somewhere that a traditional solid core NTR would begin to have its operation affected by fuel depletion after as little as 12 hours burn time. That doesnt sound like much but when you take into account that even the longest of burns in KSP are seldom more than 10 minutes or so, that is a pretty good operational lifespan. Once you factor in the higher temp idle state of the reactor on a trimodal, that can cut into it a bit. (If we are going down that road, I'd ask for generator throttleability like with NFE reactors)

I also read some semi-conflicting numbers that reprocessing the nuclear fuel would yield between 55% and 95% mass recovery (the mass lost being actually depleted fuel).  Particularly at the higher end of that scale, it means that NTR tugs running to Jool and back would need to stop by a reprocessing station (or have a reprocessing module sent up to them temporarily) about what, every 20 returns to Kerbin? And even then its good for another 19 runs to Jool and back after that.

So yes Jimbodiah, it really wouldn't matter if we use relatively realistic numbers, even if we need it to run the engine. I know very few players who ever use NTR tugs for that many runs. If you're shipping that much stuff, you generally have multiple and getting 20 runs to Jool and back on each one means your project must be freaking insane. Hence my advice to @Nertea stands as uranium usage is unnecessary. Its not a significant enough problem even IRL to warrant modelling it as a gameplay mechanic.

[Jimbodiah]

Max setup I ever had was sending 7-8 tugs simultaneously with everything needed to set up infrastructure at the planet/moons in question for mining/shuttles/landers/stations and then returning just the tugs (quite expensive setups, around 700k per tug, else I would just dump them in the atmosphere of their destination, NTVs aren't that expensive in career mode. But I never played long enough to have them do more than 3 runs each. Then I usually start another game with different parts etc.

[Fraz86]

4 hours ago, Nertea said:

Trimodal reactor generators use up uranium? Open to discussion

Why not give them the same mechanics as NFE reactors? I like consistency.

Quote

??? (what have I missed to release these versions of mods)

There are a couple things to wrap up for LH2 tanks. We need to set tank costs. Do you have an idea of how much ZBOs should cost relative to lifting tanks? It may also be a good idea to change the mass in ZBOs' part configs to agree with the dry mass set by the fuel switch config. Lastly, I suggest eliminating the OX-only option for ZBO tanks, given that OX doesn't have any boiloff to prevent, and a ZBO OX-only tank will be strictly inferior to its lifting tank equivalent.

[Starbuckminsterfullerton]

4 hours ago, Nertea said:

Version X4

• Increased LH2 tank base capacities in accordance with above
• New version of fuel switch patch in accordance with above
• Finalized art for Stubber (specular, normals, emissives, ddses)
• More art for Neptune (not done yet though :()
• Matched 1.25m engine LH2 FX colours to 2.5m FX
• Reduced all LH2/OX NTR Isps to 500-530s range from 600-650s
• Ported Chelyabinsk to DeployableEngines (now no longer ship BDAnimationModules with this)
• Fixed missing sounds on everything (man i need to get some new sounds...)
• Fixed incorrect DeployableEngines dll

Todo:

• Trimodal reactor generators use up uranium? Open to discussion
• Shrouds for all!
• Finish Neptune art
• ??? (what have I missed to release these versions of mods)

Neptune was only one that ever had disappearing pipes, yes.

Have you thought about releasing DeployableEngines on it's own? The community could probably do a lot with it given some documentation, and BDAnimation is overkill for many things.

Uranium consumption is a tough question because on one hand you have NFE reactors that use it and on the other you have the LV-N which doesn't. I would say for this mod (or will it be two?) leave it out and avoid adding another resource, but add uranium consumption for propulsion and power to the optional RTG decay patch in NFE. That way any uranium use is from the same mod.

[Psycho_zs]

Is everything right with LH2/OX volume ratios?

I've found the separate configuration that very closely matches the current LH2/OX ratio and by volume it looks awkward.

Upper tank is LH2, Lower tank (75% of Jumbo) filled with OX. If simplified as cylinders, their volume ratio is somewhere around 1.5.

[Jimbodiah]

How come your LH tank is gold and mine is deep orange?

[Captain Sierra]

1 hour ago, Jimbodiah said:

How come your LH tank is gold and mine is deep orange?

Thats a good question cuz mine are the nice gold too.

[Fraz86]

1 hour ago, Psycho_zs said:

Is everything right with LH2/OX volume ratios?

I've found the separate configuration that very closely matches the current LH2/OX ratio and by volume it looks awkward.

Upper tank is LH2, Lower tank (75% of Jumbo) filled with OX. If simplified as cylinders, their volume ratio is somewhere around 1.5.

The volume ratio should be exactly 1.5L LH2 per 1L OX.

[Jimbodiah]

Mine litteraly look like they have oranges in them

[Fraz86]

This chart contains suggested mass and cost values for the ZBO part configs. Setting the correct mass in the part config will avoid the need for redundant calculation in the fuel-switch config. The suggested costs are 2x lifting tank costs, which corresponds to ~3x the "dry" cost for the tank itself (because ~1/2 of lifting tank cost is fuel).

	Mass	Cost
hydrogen-10-1	36	200000
hydrogen-25-1	2	11500
hydrogen-25-2	1	6000
hydrogen-25-3	0.5	3100
hydrogen-125-1	0.25	1600
hydrogen-125-2	0.125	1000
hydrogen-375-1	4.5	26000
hydrogen-375-2	2.25	13000
hydrogen-375-3	1.125	6500
hydrogen-radial-25-1	0.55	3400
hydrogen-radial-125-1	0.05	450
hydrogen-radial-375-1	2	11500

Once the above masses are implemented, the newest fuel-switch config is below. This update removes now-unnecessary mass calculations, adds a costOffset adjustment (to correct for IFS's faulty cost calculation), and removes OX-only ZBO tanks (no boiloff to prevent, and strictly inferior to OX-only lifting tanks).

// Lifting tanks
@PART[*]:HAS[@RESOURCE[LiquidFuel],@RESOURCE[Oxidizer],!MODULE[InterstellarFuelSwitch],!MODULE[ModuleEnginesFX],!MODULE[ModuleEngines],!MODULE[FSfuelSwitch]]:NEEDS[!modularFuelTanks&!RealFuels]
{
	%LH2ConversionFactor = 10 // <- EDIT HERE (units of LH2 that occupy a volume equivalent to one unit of LF or OX)
	%LH2OUnitRatio = 15 // <- EDIT HERE (LH2:OX unit ratio for LH2O configuration; should correspond to burn ratio of cryogenic engines)
	%mixOXProportion = 0.4 // <- EDIT HERE (proportion of tank volume containing OX; should approximately = 1 / [1 + [LH2OUnitRatio / LH2ConversionFactor]])
	%dryMassPerUnitLH2 = 0.000025 // <- EDIT HERE (dry mass per unit LH2 capacity)
	
	%LF = #$RESOURCE[LiquidFuel]/maxAmount$
	%OX = #$RESOURCE[Oxidizer]/maxAmount$

	%totalCap = #$RESOURCE[LiquidFuel]/maxAmount$
	@totalCap += #$RESOURCE[Oxidizer]/maxAmount$

	%onlyLH2 = #$totalCap$
	@onlyLH2 *= #$LH2ConversionFactor$

	%mixOX = #$totalCap$
	@mixOX *= #$mixOXProportion$
	%mixLH2 = #$mixOX$
	@mixLH2 *= #$LH2OUnitRatio$

	// masses
	%massOffset = #$mass$
	%tempVar = #$totalCap$
	@tempVar *= 0.000625 // standard dry mass per units of LF/OX
	@massOffset -= #$tempVar$ // accounts for non-standard tank mass, which should remain constant across fuel configurations, e.g., extra mass for spaceplane tanks
	
	%onlyLH2mass = #$onlyLH2$
	@onlyLH2mass *= #$dryMassPerUnitLH2$
	@onlyLH2mass += #$massOffset$
	
	%mixLH2mass = #$mixOX$
	@mixLH2mass *= 0.000625
	@tempVar = #$mixLH2$
	@tempVar *= #$dryMassPerUnitLH2$
	@mixLH2mass += #$tempVar$
	@mixLH2mass += #$massOffset$
	
	// cost offset - IFS adds fuel costs (contrary to stock)
	%costOffset = #$LF$
	@costOffset *= 0.8
	@tempVar = #$OX$
	@tempVar *= 0.18
	@costOffset += #$tempVar$
	@cost -= #$costOffset$
	
	!RESOURCE[LiquidFuel] {}
	!RESOURCE[Oxidizer] {}
	
	MODULE
	{
		name = InterstellarFuelSwitch

		volumeMultiplier = 1
		massMultiplier = 1

		resourceGui = LF/OX;LH2/OX;LF;OX;LH2
		resourceNames = LiquidFuel,Oxidizer;LqdHydrogen,Oxidizer;LiquidFuel;Oxidizer;LqdHydrogen

		resourceAmounts = #$../LF$,$../OX$;$../mixLH2$,$../mixOX$;$../totalCap$;$../totalCap$;$../onlyLH2$

		displayCurrentTankCost = true

		hasGUI = true
		showInfo = true

		availableInFlight = false
		availableInEditor = true

		basePartMass = 0
		tankMass = #$../mass$;$../mixLH2mass$;$../mass$;$../mass$;$../onlyLH2mass$
	}
	MODULE
	{
		name =  ModuleCryoTank
		FuelName = LqdHydrogen
		// in % per hr
		BoiloffRate = 0.05
	}
}

// ZBO tanks
@PART[*]:HAS[@RESOURCE[LqdHydrogen],!MODULE[InterstellarFuelSwitch],!MODULE[ModuleEnginesFX],!MODULE[ModuleEngines],!MODULE[FSfuelSwitch]]:NEEDS[!modularFuelTanks&!RealFuels]
{
	%LH2ConversionFactor = 10 // <- EDIT HERE (LH2 vs LF/OX capacity conversion; should be identical to LH2ConversionFactor for lifting tanks above)
	%LH2OUnitRatio = 15 // <- EDIT HERE (LH2:OX unit ratio; should be identical to LH2OUnitRatio for lifting tanks above)
	%mixOXProportion = 0.4 // <- EDIT HERE (proportion of tank volume containing OX; should be identical to mixOXProportion for lifting tanks above)
	%dryMassPerUnitLH2 = 0.00003125 // <- EDIT HERE (dry mass per unit LH2 capacity)
	
	%LH2 = #$RESOURCE[LqdHydrogen]/maxAmount$
	
	%mixOX = #$LH2$
	@mixOX /= #$LH2ConversionFactor$
	@mixOX *= #$mixOXProportion$
	%mixLH2 = #$mixOX$
	@mixLH2 *= #$LH2OUnitRatio$

	// masses
	%mixLH2mass = #$mixOX$
	@mixLH2mass *= 0.000625
	%tempVar = #$mixLH2$
	@tempVar *= #$dryMassPerUnitLH2$
	@mixLH2mass += #$tempVar$
	
	// cost offset - IFS adds fuel costs (contrary to stock)
	%costOffset = #$LH2$
	@costOffset *= 0.03675
	@cost -= #$costOffset$
	
	!RESOURCE[LqdHydrogen] {}
	
	MODULE
	{
		name = InterstellarFuelSwitch

		volumeMultiplier = 1
		massMultiplier = 1

		resourceGui = LH2;LH2/OX
		resourceNames = LqdHydrogen;LqdHydrogen,Oxidizer

		resourceAmounts = #$../LH2$;$../mixLH2$,$../mixOX$

		displayCurrentTankCost = true

		hasGUI = true
		showInfo = true

		availableInFlight = false
		availableInEditor = true

		basePartMass = 0
		tankMass = #$../mass$;$../mixLH2mass$
	}
	MODULE
	{
		name =  ModuleCryoTank
		FuelName = LqdHydrogen
		// in % per hour
		BoiloffRate = 0.05
		// in Ec per 1000 units per second
		CoolingCost = 0.10
	}
}

 

Edited January 16, 2016 by Fraz86

[Psycho_zs]

@Jimbodiah, check your monitor's color settings, your screenshot looks OK.