Jump to content

[1.1] RLA Stockalike 13.4 [25 Apr]


hoojiwana

Recommended Posts

For my current (.25) career save, i tried my hand at tweaking the RLA electric engines to be in line with Near Future Propulsion. Thought I'd just post the MM config here, maybe someone will find it useful. The config should only trigger if both RLA and Near Future Propulsion are installed. Probably. Theoretically. I'm not fully sure how the dependency checking syntax works, would appreciate if someone could give the configs a look-over and slap me for any obvious errors :P But at the very least, they do load for me in my save that has both mods present.

That is really neat! Is it folded in with the NF MM config or just something you've been tinkering with?

While half asleep last night it occurred to me that I might as well give the ION Type 2 one of Near Future's fancy engine trails. Will add this later today. Probably. As time allows.

I decided against doing one myself since I could never get the look of the exhaust right, it always either looked too solid or too big or too much like normal engine trails for my liking, so I went without. Maybe the NF ones might suit better than my attempts though!

I love the SRB upper stages! They are great with shuttle-launched satellites!

http://i.imgur.com/PrZQbFt.png

That's fantastic! I've added that to the OP album.

Still waiting for someone to do an STS-5 style mission now that Mk3 has been redone, if you're up to trying that out as well.

Well, here's what I love about RLA: the 0.625m parts.

It's a complete unmanned exploration and infrastructure fleet all in one vessel... and it comfortably fits into a single extended 2.5m fairing. Only 46 tons, 152 parts, 202k funds - including the launch stage. Without RLA's tiny parts, this would not have been even remotely possible.

Good lord you've managed to fit an entire space program onto one rocket.

Does anyone else think the large and efficient monoprop engines are bit flight-of-fancy? I tried hard to find any real-world examples that were over a few kN and 250isp, if someone know's better than me and can point me in the right direction that would be great.

This isn't a dig at this excellent mod, I just want to know if I'm being a bit overzealous by modding the cfgs on my install. :D

If I remember correctly realism was thrown out the window because the real perk of monoprop engines (multiple restarts and simple reliability) was not something that could be portrayed in kerbal without an extensive realism overhaul. So instead they were given better stats in order to give them a niche
Hah, I thought it might have something to do with that. I'll just tweak mine so that they are far cheaper than bipropellant engines.

Yep, the monopropellant engines are a bit out there in stats to provide a viable alternative to using LFO engines since the usual reason for trying them isn't possible in (stock) KSP. That said the big CTCE engines are actually based on a real concept using a real (though not flown) monopropellant.

I'm having an issue where the textures for the RLA 0.65m fuel tanks aren't displaying properly. The parts are solid black when placed, and have large black areas in the VAB part catalog. Any idea what might be causing this?

First things first, make sure you've installed correctly. Once you've verified you have, post a screenshot of the VAB showing the problem if it persists after a reinstall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Out of curiosity how do you decide what stats to give what monprop engines? I'd like to make an MM for some mods that add various monoprop engines such as Tantares so that they fit in with the RLA ones.

I've got a crazy, overly large spreadsheet with all sorts of useful and useless statistics for every stock and some mod engines, tanks and other applicable parts. First I figure something rough out in there then apply those ingame. Then for the monoprop and SRBs I compare dV of similar mass craft (using LFO) and fine tune things to get the dV to roughly the same place (give or take for weaknesses of each engine). For instance, the MP engines are generally only very slightly ahead of LFO in dV for comparable mass since they have less TWR. The PAMs are both very capable little boosters since you've gotta deal with them once they're lit.

For the MP engines specifically, the different sizes are a bit whacky since the stock MP tanks have no consistency in their volumes or dry masses. If you're going to make up an MM config for Tantares, look into the tank masses and volumes as well. Shoot Beale a PM about it or post in the Tantares thread if you get something nice together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Small issue with the MPR-5 Monoprop engine (haven't tested the others)

In the engine module config there is the following:

resourceFlowMode = STACK_PRIORITY_SEARCH

Which is the default flowmode for LFO, not Monoprop. Normal Monoprop Flowmode is STAGE_PRIORITY_FLOW

So right now i have my Gilly lander that i had to land with infinite fuel because it was using radial mono tanks...

Then looking around, it seems all the monoprop engines are changed that way... So is it normal behavior?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't see anything mentioned about this after reading halfway back through the thread (back to before the .25 release), but I did see that you just mentioned

...the stock MP tanks have no consistency in their volumes or dry masses.

I have been rather confused about the volume and mass of the FL-R50 monoprop tank compared to the stock FL-R25. The stock tank has a 1.15 mass, and 250 monoprop. Your tank has a 1.0 mass, and 200 monoprop, while being double the physical size of the stock tank.

Is this because you were attempting to retain some sort of consistency with tank size:volume that stock doesn't abide to? Or is this just an oversight? (I believe the monoprop value changed from 100 to 250 in the stock tank with the move to .90). Regardless, I absolutely love these parts. This is one of my few go-to part packs with every install, no matter what style of game I want with that install. Hopefully I can better understand your reasoning behind the volume:mass:size differences with stock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is really neat! Is it folded in with the NF MM config or just something you've been tinkering with?

*snip*

I decided against doing one myself since I could never get the look of the exhaust right, it always either looked too solid or too big or too much like normal engine trails for my liking, so I went without. Maybe the NF ones might suit better than my attempts though!

It's just something for my own save. Near Future does not ship MM configs that change other mods, with the exception of the (completely optional) hydrogen NTR ones. However, you could ship them with RLA if you like.

They kind of miss NFP's ElectricEngineThrustLimiter still, though, meaning they'll work inside the atmosphere at full Isp and thrust. This is something NFP disables for all of its engines as well as the stock PB-ION through that particular module. I tried to add it, but it turns out that it cannot handle multi-mode engines. Yet. Maybe Nertea can fix it for the next update, if he has the time.

As for the engine trail, that turned out way more complicated that just copypasta'ing an effect node from another engine, so I haven't made any progress on it. Been either immured in family activities or working every day since the start of the holiday season and just didn't have the time for KSP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Small issue with the MPR-5 Monoprop engine (haven't tested the others)

In the engine module config there is the following:

Which is the default flowmode for LFO, not Monoprop. Normal Monoprop Flowmode is STAGE_PRIORITY_FLOW

So right now i have my Gilly lander that i had to land with infinite fuel because it was using radial mono tanks...

Then looking around, it seems all the monoprop engines are changed that way... So is it normal behavior?

Known behaviour, see the OP for more information on it.

I have been rather confused about the volume and mass of the FL-R50 monoprop tank compared to the stock FL-R25. The stock tank has a 1.15 mass, and 250 monoprop. Your tank has a 1.0 mass, and 200 monoprop, while being double the physical size of the stock tank.

Is this because you were attempting to retain some sort of consistency with tank size:volume that stock doesn't abide to? Or is this just an oversight? (I believe the monoprop value changed from 100 to 250 in the stock tank with the move to .90). Regardless, I absolutely love these parts. This is one of my few go-to part packs with every install, no matter what style of game I want with that install. Hopefully I can better understand your reasoning behind the volume:mass:size differences with stock.

Interesting! I hadn't noticed that. Seems the R-10 (0.625m tank) got an increase to 80 MP as well. These changes actually do put the inline tanks around roughly the same dry mass ratio (~11-13%), so the RLA tanks and engines will need to be tweaked to fit. Thanks for pointing it out!

The changes won't be made until the parts I'm currently working on are done, and you'll all get more news about that very soon.

It's just something for my own save. Near Future does not ship MM configs that change other mods, with the exception of the (completely optional) hydrogen NTR ones. However, you could ship them with RLA if you like.

They kind of miss NFP's ElectricEngineThrustLimiter still, though, meaning they'll work inside the atmosphere at full Isp and thrust. This is something NFP disables for all of its engines as well as the stock PB-ION through that particular module. I tried to add it, but it turns out that it cannot handle multi-mode engines. Yet. Maybe Nertea can fix it for the next update, if he has the time.

As for the engine trail, that turned out way more complicated that just copypasta'ing an effect node from another engine, so I haven't made any progress on it. Been either immured in family activities or working every day since the start of the holiday season and just didn't have the time for KSP.

Good to know. At the same time I update the MP parts I'll update the OP to include your config for those that want it. I should look into CTT as well to see if I can place the RLA parts a little better and make up a MM if applicable for that too!

Engine FX can be a little fiddly with Unity transforms and stuff, the Ion only has one called thrustTransform that's placed right on the grill, if that's any help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sq5FxLt.jpg

Probably the least exciting part out of the selection that I'm working on, a 3.75m nosecone. Palette possibly not final since I've not actually compared it to the NASA parts to see if it fits.

Anyone figured out what I'm up to yet? :P

on the subject of flow mode issues why not just make the monoprop engines bimode engines that alternate between the two flow modes?

Flow modes aren't displayed in the editor or flight (I think) so when switching it wouldn't be apparent what was happening. And it wouldn't work with the Resistojet and Arcjet that are already both bi-modal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

are you up to... 3.75 bi, tri, and quad couplers?

Nope, maybe this will give you a clue:

obi5oxO.jpg

(WIP)

what if the flow mode was the name of the engine mode?

Possibly, having "Radial" and "Inline" might work. Still not enough information there to notify the player that "Radial" mode can drain through decouplers and such though, and still wouldn't work with the Bi-Modal engines. Given that 0.91 supposedly will have some balance fixes I could ask Ted about a few solutions. Either making the radial tanks have surface attachment, or changing Monopropellant flow mode to STACK_PRIORITY_SEARCH and having RCS blocks override that with STAGE_PRIORITY_FLOW. The latter solution is better but not super friendly to part mods that would have to update their RCS blocks. But given the possibility for balance changes anyway that might not be too bad of a thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

here more problem with the parts:

all stock monopropellant tanks have a crash tolerance of 12 m/s all your tanks have 6 m/s. the FL R15 and FL R50 have way to little fuel for there size.

the rackmax spinnaker has the same trust as the rockmax 48-7s (weight 0.1) but has a weight of (0.125) is about 5 times as big and has a ISP of 285-335. this part has a very powerful alternator the alternator is more powerful than the alternator from the stock s3 ks-25x4 (the biggest stock engine).

small things:

the LV T5 bigger than the rockmax 48-7s but has only 5 trust compared to the 30 trust and has a weight of 0.5 feels a little bit odd. the TtH feels odd to for the same reason.

the RV-50 is just a cheaper replacement for the stock one they have the same stats.

the stock alike look of the parts is lovely!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AH-HA!

It is the Energia!

:P Go check out the Tantares thread!

EDIT: There's a new development thread over here regarding the Energia parts since discussion of it doesn't really fit this or the Tantares thread.

here more problem with the parts:

all stock monopropellant tanks have a crash tolerance of 12 m/s all your tanks have 6 m/s. the FL R15 and FL R50 have way to little fuel for there size.

the rackmax spinnaker has the same trust as the rockmax 48-7s (weight 0.1) but has a weight of (0.125) is about 5 times as big and has a ISP of 285-335. this part has a very powerful alternator the alternator is more powerful than the alternator from the stock s3 ks-25x4 (the biggest stock engine).

small things:

the LV T5 bigger than the rockmax 48-7s but has only 5 trust compared to the 30 trust and has a weight of 0.5 feels a little bit odd. the TtH feels odd to for the same reason.

the RV-50 is just a cheaper replacement for the stock one they have the same stats.

the stock alike look of the parts is lovely!

Yes the monopropellant tanks need a little work, the crash tolerance is just an oversight while the capacity is a change I need to make since the stock ones were increased in 0.90.

The 48-7S was deliberately ignored when I balanced the 0.625m engines, since it's far too good of an engine to compare against. The idea was to make a set of balanced engines someone could use rather than using the 48-7S for everything since it's too good not to.

The RV-50 was originally a quarter of the mass of the stock one (still is actually) but since it was originally released Squad made all the RCS blocks massless. I left the part in since why not? The texture space was still there on the shared RCS texture.

And thankyou for the praise about the look! I work hard to try to get things to fit and it always tickles me when I see people wondering a mystery part got added to stock and it turns out it was one of mine and they didn't realise. :P

Edited by hoojiwana
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes the monopropellant tanks need a little work, the crash tolerance is just an oversight while the capacity is a change I need to make since the stock ones were increased in 0.90.

The 48-7S was deliberately ignored when I balanced the 0.625m engines, since it's far too good of an engine to compare against. The idea was to make a set of balanced engines someone could use rather than using the 48-7S for everything since it's too good not to.

The RV-50 was originally a quarter of the mass of the stock one (still is actually) but since it was originally released Squad made all the RCS blocks massless. I left the part in since why not? The texture space was still there on the shared RCS texture.

And thankyou for the praise about the look! I work hard to try to get things to fit and it always tickles me when I see people wondering a mystery part got added to stock and it turns out it was one of mine and they didn't realise. :P

the 48-7S is not really overpowered.

it is on place 3 in term of TWR 30.6 : http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Parts#Liquid_Fuel_Engines

the ISP of 300-350 is making them more balance.

but your engines have bad ISP and bad TWR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm making progress on improving the electric engine patch... with Near Future Propulsion updating to 0.90 I now have the ability to implement individual atmospheric thrust limiters for multi-mode engines - even to the point where I can have the monoprop mode work well in-atmosphere and the xenon mode poorly. I've also made some headway into figuring out effects, but I'm stuck on a permanently-on engine effect (even when the engine is shut down). No idea what's up with that. ?__?

P.S.: The 48-7S is way too good for its price, size, weight and availability.

Edited by Streetwind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the 48-7S is not really overpowered.

it is on place 3 in term of TWR 30.6 : http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Parts#Liquid_Fuel_Engines

the ISP of 300-350 is making them more balance.

but your engines have bad ISP and bad TWR.

The two engines that have higher TWR than the 48-7S are the two NASA engines, which are even more overpowered. The reason the 48-7S is so good is its high thrust for its very low mass, with good ISP. It doesn't need super great ISP to be overpowered since the mass savings from using a 48-7S typically are enough for more dV over comparable engines. When the best engine for every single lander, small launcher, SSTO or orbital vehicle is the same thing I feel the game can be boring. Choice between parts is a good thing (it's why the monopropellant engines are balanced the way they are) since it gets the player to make actual decisions, and creates variety based on those decisions.

I'm making progress on improving the electric engine patch... with Near Future Propulsion updating to 0.90 I now have the ability to implement individual atmospheric thrust limiters for multi-mode engines - even to the point where I can have the monoprop mode work well in-atmosphere and the xenon mode poorly. I've also made some headway into figuring out effects, but I'm stuck on a permanently-on engine effect (even when the engine is shut down). No idea what's up with that. ?__?
From previous experience, that could be due to targeting ModuleEnginesFX instead of ModuleEngines or vice versa. Could be wrong, but that seems to what breaks HotRockets occasionally.

It's likely what ObsessedWithKSP said. It might be a mismatch between engine IDs though, I can't remember from my experiments with the Cutter FX.

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...