NathanKell

[1.5] Real Fuels v12.7.3

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

I'm updating KCT with the ability to refill fuel tanks when a vessel is in storage.  I went through the config files and I think I found all the fuel types, but I would appreciate someone vetting this list of fuels:

KCT_FUEL_RESOURCES:NEEDS[RealFuels]
{
	fuelResource = LiquidFuel
	fuelResource = Oxidizer
	fuelResource = MonoPropellant
	fuelResource = XenonGas
	//fuelResource = IntakeAir
	fuelResource = SolidFuel
}

IntakeAir is listed for completeness, but  since it isn't stored, I commented it out for now

Thanks in advance

Edited by linuxgurugamer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A full list with the available RF propellants would look like this:

Spoiler

@KCT_FUEL_RESOURCES:NEEDS[RealFuels]
{
    fuelResource = AK20
    fuelResource = AK27
    fuelResource = Aerozine50
    fuelResource = Aniline
    fuelResource = AvGas
    fuelResource = ClF3
    fuelResource = ClF5
    fuelResource = Diborane
    fuelResource = Ethane
    fuelResource = Ethanol
    fuelResource = Ethanol75
    fuelResource = Ethanol90
    fuelResource = Ethylene
    fuelResource = Furfuryl
    fuelResource = HTP
    fuelResource = Hydyne
    fuelResource = IRFNA-III
    fuelResource = IRFNA-IV
    fuelResource = IWFNA
    fuelResource = Kerosene
    fuelResource = LqdAmmonia
    fuelResource = LqdFluorine
    fuelResource = LqdHydrogen
    fuelResource = LqdMethane
    fuelResource = LqdOxygen
    fuelResource = MMH
    fuelResource = MON10
    fuelResource = MON3
    fuelResource = Methanol
    fuelResource = N2F4
    fuelResource = NTO
    fuelResource = NitrousOxide
    fuelResource = OF2
    fuelResource = Pentaborane
    fuelResource = Syntin
    fuelResource = Tonka250
    fuelResource = Tonka500
    fuelResource = UDMH
    fuelResource = UH25
}

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Phineas Freak said:

A full list with the available RF propellants would look like this:

  Reveal hidden contents


@KCT_FUEL_RESOURCES:NEEDS[RealFuels]
{
    fuelResource = AK20
    fuelResource = AK27
    fuelResource = Aerozine50
    fuelResource = Aniline
    fuelResource = AvGas
    fuelResource = ClF3
    fuelResource = ClF5
    fuelResource = Diborane
    fuelResource = Ethane
    fuelResource = Ethanol
    fuelResource = Ethanol75
    fuelResource = Ethanol90
    fuelResource = Ethylene
    fuelResource = Furfuryl
    fuelResource = HTP
    fuelResource = Hydyne
    fuelResource = IRFNA-III
    fuelResource = IRFNA-IV
    fuelResource = IWFNA
    fuelResource = Kerosene
    fuelResource = LqdAmmonia
    fuelResource = LqdFluorine
    fuelResource = LqdHydrogen
    fuelResource = LqdMethane
    fuelResource = LqdOxygen
    fuelResource = MMH
    fuelResource = MON10
    fuelResource = MON3
    fuelResource = Methanol
    fuelResource = N2F4
    fuelResource = NTO
    fuelResource = NitrousOxide
    fuelResource = OF2
    fuelResource = Pentaborane
    fuelResource = Syntin
    fuelResource = Tonka250
    fuelResource = Tonka500
    fuelResource = UDMH
    fuelResource = UH25
}

 

 

Thank you.  Just an FYI, the node doesn't need an @ sign if it's being added, which it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a rule of thumb calculation for converting the volume of liquid fuel / oxidizer tanks into real fuels modular tanks? I've got some tanks built into the probes plus mod parts that need to be converted, but I'm having a lot of trouble figuring out just how much volume I should attribute to their tanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RF volume units are in liters. 1 cubic meter is 1000 liters. Stock volume is generally 5 liters per unit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Starwaster said:

RF volume units are in liters. 1 cubic meter is 1000 liters. Stock volume is generally 5 liters per unit

Wonderful, thank you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Starwaster

I wonder if I could get your input on something. A couple of years ago I tried messing around with an MM patch to automatically scale all my engine ISP values by 1/3 to get more realistic looking rockets in a Kerbin scale system. The problem is that it caused my Vac stages to grow way out of proportion. I even did a comparison and found that it caused my Mun lander to need around twice the fuel mass to accomplish an Apollo style mission as the real Apollo style missions needed. Here's the original post:

Anyway, fast forward to now, and I'm not loving the fact that my Mun lander probe rocket looks like this:

iCtLmWp.jpg

I mean, the payload is nearly a third of the vehicle's length and that's including an upper stage that's intended to stay in orbit of the Mun for communications relay purposes. I should probably also point out that this is with the setting useRealisticMass = false. The reason I'm bringing this all back up again is that I noticed that I never got any sort of definitive resolution for the question back then and I'm wanting to get back at it now to see if I can't find some happy medium where I get realistically large launch vehicles without running into unrealistically large landers. So, there are two questions I'm hoping to try to get answered. First, if I go the MM patch route, should the 1/3 ISP multiplier be applied to both keys or just the atmospheric key, and second, since I don't think I've ever seen an answer to this, would that 1/3 ISP multiplier result in Kerbin-scale realistically sized rockets or Earth-scale realistically sized rockets? Not sure if that last question makes sense, but I've been wondering for a while if stock rockets aren't already properly scaled for Kerbin's size and whether or not trying to artificially increase their size through reducing engine ISP even makes sense...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, SpacedInvader said:

@Starwaster

I wonder if I could get your input on something. A couple of years ago I tried messing around with an MM patch to automatically scale all my engine ISP values by 1/3 to get more realistic looking rockets in a Kerbin scale system. The problem is that it caused my Vac stages to grow way out of proportion. I even did a comparison and found that it caused my Mun lander to need around twice the fuel mass to accomplish an Apollo style mission as the real Apollo style missions needed. Here's the original post:

Anyway, fast forward to now, and I'm not loving the fact that my Mun lander probe rocket looks like this:

iCtLmWp.jpg

I mean, the payload is nearly a third of the vehicle's length and that's including an upper stage that's intended to stay in orbit of the Mun for communications relay purposes. I should probably also point out that this is with the setting useRealisticMass = false. The reason I'm bringing this all back up again is that I noticed that I never got any sort of definitive resolution for the question back then and I'm wanting to get back at it now to see if I can't find some happy medium where I get realistically large launch vehicles without running into unrealistically large landers. So, there are two questions I'm hoping to try to get answered. First, if I go the MM patch route, should the 1/3 ISP multiplier be applied to both keys or just the atmospheric key, and second, since I don't think I've ever seen an answer to this, would that 1/3 ISP multiplier result in Kerbin-scale realistically sized rockets or Earth-scale realistically sized rockets? Not sure if that last question makes sense, but I've been wondering for a while if stock rockets aren't already properly scaled for Kerbin's size and whether or not trying to artificially increase their size through reducing engine ISP even makes sense...

Yeah, limiting your isp nerfing to the atmospheric portion should probably would work.... should have the effect of forcing a larger rocket size lift stages while keeping vacuum-only payloads at their expected size... (your lift stage would increase but not as much as before seeing as how your payload would be less massive)

But landers for planets with atmospheres would put you right back where you don't want to be and there's no way around that.

Honestly, my opinion? Bite the bullet and go to a scaled up star system. If not Real Solar System, then Kerbol x10. Either of which has the added bonus of not having to worry about overheating during launch. (IMO anyway)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Starwaster said:

Yeah, limiting your isp nerfing to the atmospheric portion should probably would work.... should have the effect of forcing a larger rocket size lift stages while keeping vacuum-only payloads at their expected size... (your lift stage would increase but not as much as before seeing as how your payload would be less massive)

But landers for planets with atmospheres would put you right back where you don't want to be and there's no way around that.

Honestly, my opinion? Bite the bullet and go to a scaled up star system. If not Real Solar System, then Kerbol x10. Either of which has the added bonus of not having to worry about overheating during launch. (IMO anyway)

Hmm, so it really sounds like "useRealisticMass = false" is the least problematic, if less realistic, solution to this...

As for going up to RSS, I've spent a lot of time there already (Not sure if they still use them, but I created the heightmaps for the Moon, Mars, Venus, and Mercury from real elevation data years ago... Some of the screenshots on the release page even show the test lander I used to sharing pictures of the terrain), and while I'm not opposed to playing on that scale again, going to all the stock system planets is actually something I never got around to doing and so that's where I'm going to stay for the time being. I've even gone so far as to add OPM and Other Worlds, so I've got like 20+ bodies to visit across two star systems in my current career.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@Starwaster

I think I may know where part of my problem has been coming from in trying to do anything with the ISP values. Years ago, NathanKell instructed me to change the key values in the RealSettings.cfg file in this manner:

But when I tried to go back and make the changes a couple of years ago and then again now, the patch I tried to use went after the "IspSL" values in the engine configs instead of the key values from RealSettings. For some reason, this wasn't just reducing the sea level Isp of the engine, but also its sea level thrust. For example, using a multiplier of .35 caused the Mainsail to have a seal level thrust around 450KN which isn't even enough to launch a small 4K dV rocket because its too heavy.

Here's the code I used:

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleEngineConfigs]]:FINAL
{
 @MODULE[ModuleEngineConfigs]
 {
  @CONFIG,*
  {
   @IspSL *= 0.35
  }
 }
}

And the result:

6wHJV2X.jpg

So now I've got several more questions. First, is this the proper behavior that I should be seeing when modifying the "IspSL" value in this way, or should that, as I was guessing when I wrote the patch, only adjust the actual Isp value and not the thrust? Second, I'm guessing the answer here is no, but is this even an appropriate way to approach this issue? The reason I went after this value is that it seems like it should be the most logical way to do this, but now that I'm looking back all those years to see the original way that NathanKell suggested, it also seems to be a much easier way to do it since you can access these values with an MM patch and I don't think you can do the same with the RealSettings.cfg keys. That said, is there a way to do just that? The patch being what it is, it would be much easier and more beneficial to be able to change one value and have it affect all of the relevant target values than to have to go through and manually recalculate each value.

Edited by SpacedInvader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

How do I make a config patch for a engine part that needs to use Hydrazine instead of the stock monoprop?

Edited by Pointblank66

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey all, have a mod support request (or a request for support on doing it myself, whichever is preferred):

I'm a big fan of Universal Storage, but Universal Storage II doesn't have RealFuels configs (while UvS1 did). I asked about it on their post, but was informed by @Paul Kingtiger that it was out-of-scope for UvSII (which is understandable). So, I was wondering if support could be added to their parts that use LFO/Monopropellant (which I think is the cores plus one tank type for each). I'm happy to write the configs myself, but I'm not quite sure what to base them on, nor exactly how I should write them for UvSII specifically since they bake several size variants into one part (something I wish Stock would do...).

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I seem to have found a problem with Real Fuels and Probes Plus.
About half of the engine parts are showing their plume effects when it shouldn't be active at all.

Down below is a screenshot of the problem and the mods installed. And also a link with the KSP Log in it

https://imgur.com/a/VHG3tnR

https://imgur.com/a/Sp2hDqm

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1e8BEMENKAaeDLO0ZQC-tONLHiDFNsV6q

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/20/2019 at 3:24 PM, Pointblank66 said:

I seem to have found a problem with Real Fuels and Probes Plus.
About half of the engine parts are showing their plume effects when it shouldn't be active at all.

Down below is a screenshot of the problem and the mods installed. And also a link with the KSP Log in it

https://imgur.com/a/VHG3tnR

https://imgur.com/a/Sp2hDqm

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1e8BEMENKAaeDLO0ZQC-tONLHiDFNsV6q

 

 

Sounds like a problem with your engine pack, not Real Fuels. RF does not contain engine configs any more and that's where the problem will be: the engine part config.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/11/2019 at 6:58 PM, SpacedInvader said:

So now I've got several more questions. First, is this the proper behavior that I should be seeing when modifying the "IspSL" value in this way, or should that, as I was guessing when I wrote the patch, only adjust the actual Isp value and not the thrust? Second, I'm guessing the answer here is no, but is this even an appropriate way to approach this issue? The reason I went after this value is that it seems like it should be the most logical way to do this, but now that I'm looking back all those years to see the original way that NathanKell suggested, it also seems to be a much easier way to do it since you can access these values with an MM patch and I don't think you can do the same with the RealSettings.cfg keys. That said, is there a way to do just that? The patch being what it is, it would be much easier and more beneficial to be able to change one value and have it affect all of the relevant target values than to have to go through and manually recalculate each value.

I think this is because of how RF calculates thrust values.

The config files have vac thrust and the Isp curve. To get SL thrust you calculate the mass flow rate from the vac thrust and vac Isp then by the effective exhaust velocity (which is derived from the SL Isp). This means if you reduce the SL Isp it reduces the SL thrust as the mass flow rate is considered fixed.

A rocket with SL Isp so much lower than vac but with thrust much closer together would require variable fuel flow which rockets don't tend to have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/24/2019 at 11:13 AM, Flibble said:

I think this is because of how RF calculates thrust values.

The config files have vac thrust and the Isp curve. To get SL thrust you calculate the mass flow rate from the vac thrust and vac Isp then by the effective exhaust velocity (which is derived from the SL Isp). This means if you reduce the SL Isp it reduces the SL thrust as the mass flow rate is considered fixed.

A rocket with SL Isp so much lower than vac but with thrust much closer together would require variable fuel flow which rockets don't tend to have.

Correct, except that the actual calculation happens in the stock engine module (RF's ModuleEnginesRF merely extends stock ModuleEnginesFX which itself extends ModuleEngines which is where the engine's thrust is modified depending on the data in atmosphereCurve)

@SpacedInvader what he said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Hi i get a couple of warnings in log regarding Real Fuels & Real Plume and wonder if there's something to be done?

Im on version v12.7.4 of Real Fuels on KSP v1.6.1

Warning.PNG?raw=1

Fresh install so haven't run in to it's possible effects yet.

Log

Edited by Cratzz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/4/2019 at 10:09 AM, Cratzz said:

Hi i get a couple of warnings in log regarding Real Fuels & Real Plume and wonder if there's something to be done?

Im on version v12.7.4 of Real Fuels on KSP v1.6.1

Warning.PNG?raw=1

Fresh install so haven't run in to it's possible effects yet.

Log

The ModuleManager warnings are coming from RF Stockalike, not RF itself

Nonetheless I have stubmitted a PR to fix them: https://github.com/Raptor831/RFStockalike/pull/100

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On my previous 1.3.1 modpack, every engine lacking a proper RF config and using LiquidFuel and Oxidizer resources was patched by RealFuels so as to use Kerosene and LqdOxygen as propellants (by default).

This no longer seems to be the case for RealFuels version 12.7.2. For instance, the engine from B9 HX still uses LiquidFuel and Oxidizer. Am I missing something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Tonas1997 said:

On my previous 1.3.1 modpack, every engine lacking a proper RF config and using LiquidFuel and Oxidizer resources was patched by RealFuels so as to use Kerosene and LqdOxygen as propellants (by default).

This no longer seems to be the case for RealFuels version 12.7.2. For instance, the engine from B9 HX still uses LiquidFuel and Oxidizer. Am I missing something?

That patch would have been part of RF Stockalike, not RealFuels itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, blowfish said:

That patch would have been part of RF Stockalike, not RealFuels itself.

Thanks for the reply! I've been looking for the specific config but can't seem to find it.

I asked because 1.4.5 RO seems to have a problem configuring engine propellants. Engines like SSTU's J-2 do have Hydrolox configs, but the default one - the one that appears on the part tooltip - still uses LqdHydrogen (I reckon from CRP) and Oxidizer. As a comparison, here are the final configs from different MM caches:

1.3.1

...
MODULE
		{
			name = ModuleEnginesRF
			engineID = J-2
			runningEffectName = running_closed
			thrustVectorTransformName = J-2-ThrustTransform
			exhaustDamage = True
			ignitionThreshold = 0.1
			minThrust = 0
			maxThrust = 423
			heatProduction = 250
			powerEffectName = Hydrolox-Upper
			shieldedCanActivate = True
			exhaustDamageMultiplier = 20
			exhaustDamageFalloffPower = 1
			exhaustDamageMaxMutliplier = 1.0
			exhaustDamageSplashbackMult = 0.1
			exhaustDamageSplashbackMaxMutliplier = 0.1
			PROPELLANT
			{
				name = LqdHydrogen
				ratio = 15
				DrawGauge = True
			}
			PROPELLANT
			{
				name = LqdOxygen
				ratio = 1
				resourceFlowMode = STACK_PRIORITY_SEARCH
			}
...

MODULE
		{
			name = ModuleEngineConfigs
			configuration = J-2
			origMass = -1
			modded = false
			type = ModuleEnginesRF
			CONFIG
			{
				name = J-2-200klbf
				minThrust = 676.66
				maxThrust = 889.325
				heatProduction = 100
				massMult = 1.02
				ullage = True
				pressureFed = False
				ignitions = 3
				PROPELLANT
				{
					name = LqdHydrogen
					ratio = 0.7454
					DrawGauge = True
				}
				PROPELLANT
				{
					name = LqdOxygen
					ratio = 0.2546
				}

...

1.4.5

...
MODULE
		{
			name = ModuleEnginesRF
			engineID = J-2
			runningEffectName = running_closed
			thrustVectorTransformName = J-2-ThrustTransform
			exhaustDamage = True
			ignitionThreshold = 0.1
			minThrust = 0
			maxThrust = 423
			heatProduction = 250
			powerEffectName = Hydrolox-Upper
			shieldedCanActivate = True
			exhaustDamageMultiplier = 20
			exhaustDamageFalloffPower = 1
			exhaustDamageMaxMutliplier = 1.0
			exhaustDamageSplashbackMult = 0.1
			exhaustDamageSplashbackMaxMutliplier = 0.1
			PROPELLANT
			{
				name = LqdHydrogen
				ratio = 15
				DrawGauge = True
			}
			PROPELLANT
			{
				name = Oxidizer
				ratio = 1
			}
			atmosphereCurve
			{
				key = 0 421
				key = 1 200
			}
		}
...

MODULE
		{
			name = ModuleEngineConfigs
			configuration = J-2
			origMass = -1
			modded = false
			type = ModuleEnginesRF
			CONFIG
			{
				name = J-2-200klbf
				minThrust = 676.66
				maxThrust = 889.325
				heatProduction = 100
				massMult = 1.02
				ullage = True
				pressureFed = False
				ignitions = 3
				PROPELLANT
				{
					name = LqdHydrogen
					ratio = 0.7454
					DrawGauge = True
				}
				PROPELLANT
				{
					name = LqdOxygen
					ratio = 0.2546
				}
...

As shown, the engine is left with a ModuleEnginesRF and a ModuleEngineConfigs. However, the parameters for the RF engine module are different from the first - and, in most cases, only - available config. The extraordinary part is that the RO patches from both 1.3.1 and 1.4.5 are exactly the same!

Edited by Tonas1997

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
53 minutes ago, Tonas1997 said:

Thanks for the reply! I've been looking for the specific config but can't seem to find it.

I asked because 1.4.5 RO seems to have a problem configuring engine propellants. Engines like SSTU's J-2 do have Hydrolox configs, but the default one - the one that appears on the part tooltip - still uses LqdHydrogen (I reckon from CRP) and Oxidizer. As a comparison, here are the final configs from different MM caches:

As shown, the engine is left with a ModuleEnginesRF and a ModuleEngineConfigs. However, the parameters for the RF engine module are different from the first - and, in most cases, only - available config. The extraordinary part is that the RO patches from both 1.3.1 and 1.4.5 are exactly the same!

Oh, well RO is a completely different can of worms (and all the patches for RO are in RO).  This is an RO configuration question, nothing to do with RF.

My recollection is that the RO SSTU patches might be out of date post-1.3.1, but I don't remember for sure.

Edited by blowfish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Tonas1997 What Blowfish said but it really bears repeating that Real Fuels does not do patching of the actual engine module anymore. There was a time long ago, when dinosaurs still roamed the Earth when it did in fact patch the engines (and occasionally add ModuleEngineConfigs for engines that needed multiple configurations)

But those times are long past. That is why on the very first post it tells you that engine configs are mandatory and that RF doesn't come with them anymore.

And you should be careful about using multiple RF engine configs. Don't use RF Stockalike with Realism Overhaul and be careful about using any RF engine packs with other packs unless you know that one isn't going to overwrite another. (unless it was deliberately intended to do so)

In any event we can't provide support for those engine packs here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is propellant stability degrading to 25% after staging a normal occurence or did my install go wrong somewhere?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Angstinator said:

Is propellant stability degrading to 25% after staging a normal occurence or did my install go wrong somewhere?

Is your rocket accelerating? If not then yes it's normal - you need to accelerate to settle the fuel in the bottom of the tank.

Edited by Flibble

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.