Raptor831

@Northstar1989: I responded to your stuff in the RealFuels thread, but the short answer is this: I have no friggin' idea. Only thing left I got is to grab the finalized config from the game database in the "cheat" menu, and see what we can see.

I think he meant getting more tank configs into the main RF release. I've looked over your log and I can't find a blasted thing that would be causing it. There's no other MM config that I can tell that's affecting the engine, and the KSPI errors don't seem to be something bothering the engine. Still could be obviously, but who knows. If you can figure out what the end config for that engine is by going into the game database (cheat menu) and finding that part, then that's the last thing I know to check. Errors like this bug the crap out of me. Couldn't just be something easy that goes "Hey, fix me!"

Maybe try scaling Bop, Gilly, and Minmus to their 3.2x size (i.e. Jumbo 32 scale). Might be a nice balance. Though for Bop and Gilly, you might still want stock size since they are supposed to be captured bodies.

What NathanKell said is correct. The Isp of hydrolox is really good compared to kerolox. The tradeoff is the volume of the fuel. Hydrogen is just not dense at all! Which is why, in real life, kerolox is still a preferred mix for launch stages. You should check your delta-V for similarly sized stages for hydrolox and kerolox. You still get more delta-V out of kerolox because of the density, even though hydrolox is the much more efficient fuel.

Glad you got it working. I admit, the install is a bit of a pain. Hope you enjoy!

Well done! I'm kinda glad it was just your machine also. Didn't really fancy tracking down a bug within PQS or RSS. I can wrangle configs all day, but C# isn't my cup of tea. I'm more of a PHP/CSS/Javascript guy! My guess is that it was a funny z-fighting kind of thing. RSS really stretches the planets, so things are bound to get odd. Sorry I couldn't have been more of a help.

@Northstar1989 Not sure what's up then, but again I'd wager there's another config floating somewhere that's messing with the Stockalike config. I'll check to see what it looks like on my end. The tanks aren't part of this mod, but any engine/tank combo I mess with does contain a proper RF tank. The Odin heat shield is not something I messed with, since I didn't assume it had any propulsion. I can adjust if needed. As to your second bug, that particular engine does not allow hydrolox until you've unlocked Advanced Rocketry. But if it's happening on other engines, I have no idea. I really want to say something about your setup is borking something in RF, but I can't say without a log. The logfiles are located in different places depending on your OS. On a Mac, it's at ~/Library/Logs/Unity/player.log, but on Windows I'm not sure. If you search for those locations on the forum, there's a few threads about it. @BeafSalad Starman is on the money here. I've essentially made a realistic config for "Kerbin-scale" planets. The configs work best, I think, with the 6.4x scale RSS, but you can use them on stock Kerbin. They'll be ridiculously overpowered without either KIDS or setting useRealisticMass = false in the RF settings config. Possibly both. They could be used in RSS full-scale as well, but you'll end up needing a lot of engines to do so. Kind of a detriment to part count in that regard. @uncle natzer Can't say for sure from the information you gave. Does RF work at all? Are all the resources showing up? Can you bring up the fuel tank menus? Do you have Module Manager installed? EDIT: @Northstar1989 I checked both your errors on my system and couldn't get them to happen. Methane engine only has two resources used, and all engines seemed to have the correct options for fuel/oxidizer configs. It's most likely some mod conflict somewhere. If you can replicate it with only RF, Stockalike, and KSPI installed, then we have a bigger problem.

Reason I asked for fresh installs is because if you merged the files, the old KSPI_MFS.cfg is probably still there. Just trying to rule that possible issue out. I'll try to check on my setup this weekend to see if it happens to me (don't have KSPI on my main install). Also, if you could, pop up a log so I can see what files are applying to your engine.

@Felbourn: Thanks for the curves! Appreciate it. @NathanKell: Yeah, between the curves from above and RO's curves I should be ok for now. Don't feel like doing calculus for this just yet.

Sounds like there's a KSPI config in there that isn't supposed to be. The current RF v8.1 does not have any KSPI configs. If you have the 8.2 pre release then there's the new one you and dreadicon have been working on (but that doesn't have any reference to the engine). Previous versions have a config with the methane engine edited, which could cause what you're seeing. Can you replicate this with just fresh copies of RF, Stockalike, and KSPI? With Stockalike, you have to be careful with different engines using the same mixtures. Every mod has its own ratio, so whenever you change engines, reset the tanks. Been there, done that. Other than that, once the tanks are filled it shouldn't matter what's in them, the engine should burn the correct fuel ratio. Set up a test with just a pod, one tank, one engine, and autofill the tanks. If it still burns out oddly, then check your logs. If you can't see anything in them, post the player.log (or player_log.txt) somewhere and give a link.

Thanks for the offer. The 6 curves on that GIF in the video thread would be wonderful. Link: http://www.braeunig.us/space/pics/fig1-14.gif I'm kind of hoping to either have a set of them to choose from, or maybe generate them somehow myself within Excel or maybe PHP. Working on a secret project of sorts for the Stockalike configs and this would be a nice addition. Well, not really secret. I'm trying to rebuild the massive XLS in WordPress and PHP, so 1) it can be on the web somewhere and easily adjusted, and 2) so other people can use the generator to make/test RF engine configs without the "scary" spreadsheet. We shall see.

Not that I claim to know much (configs looks ok to me), but if it were me I'd dump TweakScale and see what happens. Betting you've tried that, though. @NathanKell: Just saw on your comment on Felbourn's latest Alexandria vid (awesome vid, BTW!) that RF had solid rocket motor thrust curves. How'd I miss that?!? Checked out RO for some examples, but is there any nice (read: easy) way of creating those key => value pairs?

Ha! Whoops. At the moment, no, there isn't KSO support. You could download the XLS in the repo and add the engines to the custom area and see where you get. If you do get it working, send me the XLS or at least the data you used. I haven't touched KSO in a while, so I don't even know how many engines they have anymore. Also, you'd need tank support too, which would be separate from this config. But the tanks are easy to configure, but they'll mess with the mass, which might alter the balance they have going for the whole pack.

Not too much blood yet, thankfully!

I have a suggestion for the triangles: why not make them a high-contrast color or something? Maybe a brighter red? Some medium gray, maybe? Dunno, just seems simpler to me than changing the rotation on a few other parts. In any case, I really like the pack, NecroBones. Looks good!

Honestly, I have no idea. I'm on a Mac, so I'm 32-bit all the way, whether I like it or not. Theoretically, they should work as long as Real Fuels is working, since they are just configs that use Real-Fuels-created modules. But I make no guarantees. And in reality, I can't troubleshoot any 64-bit issues, so I'd be unable to give support if/when there is an issue.

And the new SpaceY engines are up. OP is updated, new release is on GitHub. Also updated the ModuleRCSFX module in the download to v3.3. If you already have 3.3, you don't need to overwrite anything.

@Northstar1989 I didn't get any information about it being FFSC, I just declared it so in my configs. Isp is flexible to me, since in KSP stock it's only a reflection of the engine's intended use. (High Isp = orbital/vacuum engine, low Isp = launch engine). Plus, the R1 was stated to be lower mass and higher thrust than the Mainsail, both of which would apply to FFSC engine. Plus, all of the SpaceX-inspired stuff goes into a certain category (fuel types, tech levels, etc) within the configs. And mostly because I wanted it to be that way. Also kind of fits SpaceY parts into it's own niche (advanced tech, excellent stats, but high entry cost), giving them a certain personality within RFStockalike.

The wiki articles on the SpaceX Rocket engine families says 360 IspV. :shrug: TWR numbers make sense to. Which also means I'm in the right ballpark (if not a bit high) for the Deinonychus. Thrust plates aren't usually included in stated TWR values for engines, but the plates are included in KSP. So, my TWR of just over 100 is just about right. Again, the only reason I'm staying with the 1425kN value for the thrust is because that's what it came with. I've done all the engines that way and I don't want to adjust thrust AND mass (and all they affect) for every engine. That being said, I do see your point about the 2.5m core engine size needing something in the 1600-2000kN range. Something I'm keeping my eye on is the SpaceY thread, and this 2.5m engine. He's got it at 2000kN currently, and it looks to me like a lifter engine. The SpaceY stuff is already FFSC, so this would be in line to be just perfect for filling that empty role. Alternatively, I may add some duplicated engines in various sizes to fill other roles with differing propellants. I'm no part maker, but I can certainly scale stuff and adjust stats.

Another great tool, thanks. Turns out rocket science is actually hard, despite what von Kerman likes to say.

Submit the pull request without the XLS. PM me a link to the XLS and I'll add it in somewhere, just to have it in the repo. Thanks a ton!!!

I've made some more adjustments to the FFSC option and committed those to the repo. In short: I've hardcoded a bump in Isp for FFSC (higher chamber pressures) and brought the mass goal down for any given thrust (lower mass from fewer parts). This should more closely mimic the FFSC improvements that the Raptor engine is trying to achieve. You could technically drop the Isp requirements and decrease the mass for a really hefty TWR. But, really, when using the XLS for this, you're going to need to play fair, because you can get some insane costs/TWR if you wanted to at respectable Isp, or get some insane Isp for respectable TWR/mass. In specifics, the Deinonychus is down to a mass of 1.3, with a thrust of 1425 (which is the "stock" value I messed up before). Cost is 4059 (Mainsail is still 5650), and Isp is 314/382 (SL/V). This is a TWR of over 100, which is somewhere in the neighborhood of 50% better than the Mainsail, so your delta-V should be much better with the Deinonychus. This is a really good engine by the numbers at this point. True, hydrolox gives better Isp, but who wants to haul (and cool) LH2 around everywhere. Or make it in situ, for which the Deinonychus is designed. All in all, I think the Deinonychus should have a fighting chance against a Mainsail. Also, the SpaceY engines have been adjusted this way, and one of the KSLO engines has been upgraded to a FFCS engine. There's a big hole for a 3.75m engine at around 3000 kN, though, and I'm not sure where that could come from. I might consider, as I suggested before, making some copies of current engines (namely KW, NP2, or AIES) that could be downloaded alongside RFStockalike to use for these purposes. Maybe the 3.75m Griffon and a 3.75m NP2 engine for 2500kN and 4000 kN? I don't know, but that's for another day. Also, Northstar, where are you getting mass values for the Raptor? All I can find is conflicting numbers on the IspV (360-380), and thrust values. The Wikipedia articles aren't all that fleshed out, considering the Raptor isn't finished yet.

Fix worked for me. Thanks pjf!

Really, that config needs to be included with NFP. It makes changes to the cost of Xenon, adds some procedural tanks, adjusts the current tanks to use RF resources, in addition to adjusting the engines. It's a bit outside the scope of the Stockalike config. aristurtle did a good job with it though. You can ask Nertea if he wanted to include that config, since the license of the NFP config lets you. Since I'm at a loss when it comes to electrics, it might be useful. Also, Starman4308 was working on some electric propulsion balancing, so once that's all fleshed out we might be able to apply those things to NFP.

@Robotengineer Yes, they are in the next release. Just hadn't gotten to them yet (since they slipped out of my install!). @Northstar1989 First, I want to say thanks for the feedback. Always helps to make a better end product. I did update the config, but I didn't quite use your version of it. As an explaination: All of this config is produced by the XLS. I don't code these by hand at all! If I did, I'd never play KSP ever due to my hands cramping from typing. As such, if I can't get the XLS to work with me, it doesn't happen. So, to make a fundamental change (like adding a new combustion cycle) I kind of have to invent a different wheel. So, for this one I've created a FFSC flag that will give a Raptor-like "filter" to any engine. In detail, the entry cost of the engine is doubled (research costs), the "goal TWR" target is doubled (to adjust for the lower mass of these engines), and the part cost formula has an additional factor added to halve the cost. What this means is that if you increase the ISP of the engine to match a Raptor-like engine, you'll get something close to what you described in the posts above. For example, the new KSPI methane engine has an IspSL of 311 and a IspV of 379. The mass sits at 1.9, and the cost rounds out to about 4200. Thrust is still 1450. Entry cost doubles what is in the KSPI config. All of the other details follow the XLS computations (like heat production, max temp), which I'm inclined to let be. I did realize I goofed up the mass ratio of methalox by a good bit, so I adjusted that to 3.5 from 4.5. Found some data on other methalox engines which finally had this number (the old one was a guess based on this Wikipedia page with a fudge). All methalox engines have been adjusted as a result. Cost is something I just started adjusting with these configs, so that is still in flux. As of right now they are scaled to thrust/efficiency/mass. So, more thrust = more cost, higher efficiency = more cost, lower mass = more cost. I haven't had time to dig into the formula that was set up to calculate this, I'm just using it as a base. But as I mentioned somewhere on the thread, the cost is scaled so that the Mainsail cost in stock = Mainsail cost in RFStockalike. Everything else has probably changed some. This also comes with the reduced fuel costs of RF (which I have not touched). So, it's not really a question of how the costs change from stock, but how they are balanced to each other now. The way I set up the FFSC cycle it should be comparable to another engine of similar thrust/size at a given tech level. So, more efficient for same cost. Also, I really don't intend on making any real-life analogs in this config. None of the numbers in mod configs are really close to true engine stats, so I'd have to do essentially what the Realism Overhaul folks have already done, but with the added annoyance of scaling these engines to the stock size steps. I'm really making a RftS config for stock/6.4x sizes. In any case, the repo is updated, and I'll be pushing a "release" soon. You can download from the repo at any time, so if you're itching to get the latest, feel free!