Stockalike RF Engine Configs v3.2.6 [01/20/19][RF v12]

[Raptor831]

Cheat menu is F12, and there's a tab for the Database. Lots of information is in there, but there is a list of parts, which should have the finalized config. If you can export it, you can do a search for "FNMethaneEngine".

But, if your RealFuels engine menus don't work, that's more of a RealFuels proper issue. The configs are working because the engine is using the default fuels. Do your tanks still work? (Might just want to reinstall RF just to check).

RE: Hydrolox - Let's just assume that using hydrolox is a pain. No matter how you slice it, it's more difficult to store/use hydrogen. It's worth it for the much higher Isp, but only if you can deal with the pain. Launch stages are easier if you use more dense fuels, because the friggin' size of the tanks start to become a problem (engineering-wise, aerodynamically). KSP doesn't model (unfortunately) the side-effects of fuels. Toxic hydrazine (and derivatives), engineering difficulties (cryogenics anyone?), and all of that stuff kind of gets ignored.

[Northstar1989]

Re-installed RealFuels (the latest dev build), Stockalike (2.06), and KSP-Interstellar (0.13) AGAIN, as well as updating ModuleManager to 2.5.3 and Tech Manager (mod used for custom tech trees such as the one for KSP-Interstellar) to 1.5, and it's still bugged:

Javascript is disabled. View full album

The fuel tanks are broken- they only hold LF/O. The engines won't tweak off their default fuel mode, and have no tech levels. And the worst part is, I have absolutely NO IDEA what's causing this...

Clearly, it's an issue with the base RealFuels mod, at least in part, though- as the fuel tanks are also broken.

I found the debug menu, but how do I export it?

Regards,

Northstar

[Raptor831]

Phooey, posted another reply on the RF thread and meant it for here. :sigh: This bug is apparently growing...

[Northstar1989]

I'm sure you saw my post on the RealFuels thread, but I just wanted to make sure you knew- I solved my bugs.

It turned out the issue was that I didn't have the RealFuels .DLL installed.

Not sure why that affected some fuel tanks, but not others, though. The ones that were worst bugged seemed to be the ones that were updated most recently- so maybe it was a difference in the way they were coded that made them more dependent on the DLL to hold the correct fuels...

Now I'm just trying to get the Thermal Strake part Rabada sent me working properly (I re-balanced it myself and fixed a few odds-and-ends wrong with it, but couldn't get it to work as a heat pump...) And ZZZ should also be sending me a Thermal Fin part soon enough (this one with BLACK color and a triangular shape- so basically better than the one Rabada sent that re-uses a white-colored, long rectangular Novapunch Strake part...) that I will need to get working as well/instead... Oh well, idle hands do the Kraken's work.

Regards,

Northstar

Edited December 12, 2014 by Northstar1989

[Raptor831]

I'm sure you saw my post on the RealFuels thread, but I just wanted to make sure you knew- I solved my bugs.

It turned out the issue was that I didn't have the RealFuels .DLL installed.

I did see, but thanks for posting here too. At least we figured it out. I didn't even think to look if the RealFuels .dll was loading myself. It's always the simplest things that slip past.

[Northstar1989]

Hi Raptor,

Fixed that bug, only to update to the 8.2 release and get this one:

Notice the ISP on the Meth/LOX engine? (293 sl - 357 vac) It's not what it was re-balanced to. In fact, it's lower than in unaltered KSP-Interstellar...

Regards,

Northstar

[Raptor831]

Hi Raptor,

Fixed that bug, only to update to the 8.2 release and get this one:

http://i.imgur.com/2LEWKul.jpg

Notice the ISP on the Meth/LOX engine? (293 sl - 357 vac) It's not what it was re-balanced to. In fact, it's lower than in unaltered KSP-Interstellar...

Regards,

Northstar

Unfortunately, known bug at the moment. Something I screwed up on my FSCC engines. The initial Isp is correct, but any of the configs are not buffed properly. I've been working on a major revision to how these configs get generated, so I was waiting to update until then.

If you can't wait, adjust the Isp of the ModuleEngineConfigs CONFIG{} nodes to match the ModuleEngine node's. It's simply a multiplier that I forgot.

[Raptor831]

Also as an FYI, since Real Fuels v 8.2 doesn't work in KSP 0.90, Stockalike will not work either. Once Real Fuels is updated for 0.90, then I'll make sure this is working.

[jstnj]

Also as an FYI, since Real Fuels v 8.2 doesn't work in KSP 0.90, Stockalike will not work either. Once Real Fuels is updated for 0.90, then I'll make sure this is working.

Thanks Raptor. Have you had any contact with the RO/RF guys to see what their status is with a .90 fix?

[Raptor831]

Thanks Raptor. Have you had any contact with the RO/RF guys to see what their status is with a .90 fix?

Not directly. Last I heard, which was less than a week ago, NathanKell was working on making some significant code updates to MFT/RF with taniwha. Then 0.90 dropped. No commits at the RF repository for the last week, so honestly I don't know. I use so many mods that I'm waiting for most of them to be updated before I start into 0.90 anyway.

I assume they're working on it and it will be done as soon as they get the time to test and make sure everything is working. RF might need to wait on TweakScale and/or the API Extension plugin (whatever it's called...), since that was the major hurdle last time IIRC.

EDIT: From the Real Fuels thread:

[RealFuels] requires updating before that will happen. It is being worked on.

Edited December 17, 2014 by Raptor831

[Raptor831]

Looks like RF is updated to 0.90. If anyone has tried it with Stockalike, let me know. It doesn't look like any changes were made, just recompile and make sure nothing broke. So, with that said, these configs should still work fine. If I can test them out, I'll report back.

Also, I'm attempting to redo how these configs are generated. I'm hoping to switch to a web-app-based approach. What this hopefully means is that it will be easier to make changes to the config, and that anyone can make some tweaks and test it out. Will post more about it when it's closer to being finished.

[NathanKell]

Yep, configs should be fine.

[klgraham1013]

Mk3 need updated, otherwise, seems good.

[parasoja]

Tried it out. It has engines and they go whoosh, which is what matters, though of course they're using the old mass numbers. That might actually be a good thing, since the stock engines are so weirdly heavy now, but maybe you don't want to be going around making up your own masses for everything.

[Raptor831]

Mk3 need updated, otherwise, seems good.

Did I miss any new engines? Only thing I noticed were new fuel tanks (which Stockalike doesn't cover). Setting up the fuel tanks are pretty easy though. There was a conversation about setting them up some pages back in this thread, and there's a bit about them on the Real Fuels thread as well in the OP.

In any case, thanks for the report "from the ground", so to speak. Good to know it is indeed working.

[lurkoholic]

Tried it out. It has engines and they go whoosh, which is what matters, though of course they're using the old mass numbers. That might actually be a good thing, since the stock engines are so weirdly heavy now, but maybe you don't want to be going around making up your own masses for everything.

If you change the RealSettings.cfg so that "%useRealisticMass = false", the engines and tanks should be close to their stock masses.

[klgraham1013]

Did I miss any new engines? Only thing I noticed were new fuel tanks (which Stockalike doesn't cover). Setting up the fuel tanks are pretty easy though. There was a conversation about setting them up some pages back in this thread, and there's a bit about them on the Real Fuels thread as well in the OP.

In any case, thanks for the report "from the ground", so to speak. Good to know it is indeed working.

Haha. Sorry, wrong Real Fuels related thread. My bad.

[Raptor831]

Tried it out. It has engines and they go whoosh, which is what matters, though of course they're using the old mass numbers. That might actually be a good thing, since the stock engines are so weirdly heavy now, but maybe you don't want to be going around making up your own masses for everything.

The engine masses should be considerably lighter than stock. I usually keep the thrust the same and scale the mass as needed.

As lurkaholic said though, if you have the %useRealisticMass = false, then the mass will be a lot closer to the stock values. One exception are the NTR engines, which all are *really* underweight in stock, so those will be noticeably more massive.

Haha. Sorry, wrong Real Fuels related thread. My bad.

Ha! No problem at all. I'd rather at least check myself to make sure something didn't get lost in the mix.

[parasoja]

The engine masses should be considerably lighter than stock. I usually keep the thrust the same and scale the mass as needed.

Huh. I thought I remembered stock 909 being 0.2, but maybe I've been using stockalike longer than I thought. Either way, awesome.

Also, thanks for doing this mod. My hacky semi-RO setup depends on it.

[Shad0wCatcher]

Raptor; weird question; I was trying to add SpaceX's NTR to the config but (using openoffice 4.0's spreadsheet editor) the calculations weren't being transferred over to the engine output page. Are you using M$'s excel or some other spreadsheet editor to make changes to the xls? Question really goes out to anyone who edits the xls document. Just downloaded LibreOffice

[Raptor831]

Also, thanks for doing this mod. My hacky semi-RO setup depends on it.

You're welcome.

Raptor; weird question; I was trying to add SpaceX's NTR to the config but (using openoffice 4.0's spreadsheet editor) the calculations weren't being transferred over to the engine output page. Are you using M$'s excel or some other spreadsheet editor to make changes to the xls? Question really goes out to anyone who edits the xls document. Just downloaded LibreOffice

Yes, unfortunately, I'm using Excel at the moment. OpenOffice does not let me add newline characters within a cell, which is rather important to managing this particular file. And, there may have been a glitch introduced when I switched the resources to RF v8. Which is why I'm rewriting the XLS as a webapp. Easier for me to manage (since I'm a web developer by day), and much easier for folks to view configs and/or roll their own configs. Hopefully this will be done by the new year, but I'm not making promises. It's already turned into a larger project than I anticipated.

That being said, OpenOffice (or LibreOffice, whichever it's called for you) should be able to handle any additions to the spreadsheet. You shouldn't need to hit the EngineOut tab at all, the finished configs should be referenced on the Engines tab. Is that where you're getting the configs?

[NathanKell]

char(9) and char(10) are your friend

[Shad0wCatcher]

I was using OpenOffice 4.0 but I know development on it slowed a couple months ago. I just downloaded another suite called LibreOffice and am going to try that after I get off work tonight. Transferring to a web-app should make things interesting. I was just going off the main page on the xls far as what it was stating to do to get the finished modulemanager config for the engine. Everything calculates properly on the engines page. Where on that page is the config referenced? I pored over it the other day when I was trying to add some new engines that hadn't been added yet but had no luck finding anything.

EDIT: Per the instructions section AG on the engines tab is Ignition count for EngineIgnitor. Just loaded up the document in LibreOffice and still no dice. EngineOut tab is all #VALUE! and #N/A for all the data cells.

Edited December 22, 2014 by Shad0wCatcher

[Raptor831]

char(9) and char(10) are your friend

Well, uh, yeah, should have thought of that. :facepalm:

I was using OpenOffice 4.0 but I know development on it slowed a couple months ago. I just downloaded another suite called LibreOffice and am going to try that after I get off work tonight. Transferring to a web-app should make things interesting. I was just going off the main page on the xls far as what it was stating to do to get the finished modulemanager config for the engine. Everything calculates properly on the engines page. Where on that page is the config referenced? I pored over it the other day when I was trying to add some new engines that hadn't been added yet but had no luck finding anything.

EDIT: Per the instructions section AG on the engines tab is Ignition count for EngineIgnitor. Just loaded up the document in LibreOffice and still no dice. EngineOut tab is all #VALUE! and #N/A for all the data cells.

Ugh. I have no idea. The XLS works ok for me on my machine, but that glitch I think has something to do with linking between files. If you can't wait, download NathanKell's RftS XLS (it's the same base) and make your edits in there. If you can wait, I'm going to try and have the webapp at least usable by the new year. Since I have some vacation over the holidays, I should get some time to work on it.

[Shad0wCatcher]

No biggie man. Personally just got tired of seeing the awful fuel mixes for a couple new NTRs (mmm, thermodynamics); but usability takes precedence over shininess. That and RAM limits *shakes fist at unstable 64-bit windows*. Enjoy the holidays and don't burn yourself out! I'll see what I can do on my end with this awful internet connection (9 friggin' months of this so far; even my patience is getting tested [911 dispatcher; must..have..patience]).