Starwaster

If you're modding shield parts? As long as it has density and hsp you can use anything you want

It's probably rghost.net itself that it's refusing to deal with. (tht's where the file actually comes from)

This is the final Real Fuels release specifically for KSP 1.0.4 to address a bug that could lock up KSP when starting the game. Also includes insulation/conductivity fixes. All development after this will be for KSP 1.0.5 (which is mostly already done but needs some further testing/development to ensure proper thermal analytic operation) A 1.0.5 update won't be too far behind but I wanted to get this out of the way for anyone who wanted to stick with 1.0.4 for whatever reason. (waiting for mods to update, etc etc) https://github.com/NathanKell/ModularFuelSystem/releases/tag/rf-v10.7.2 Change log Increased boiloff rate can be switched off by adding ferociousBoilOff = False to MFSSETTINGS (best use MM patch for that) PhysicsGlobal.conductionFactor can be compensated for by adding globalConductionCompensation = true to MFSSETTINGS (use at own risk) cryogenic outerInsulation improved to 0.0005 (previous value 0.01) All LOX tanks now assume stainless steel tanks, except the ServiceModule. Note the first item there. Those who feel that boiloff is too intense can reduce that by editing the RealSettings.cfg file and adding %ferociousBoilOff = False to MFSSETTINGS Or instead of directly editing that file, create a Module Manager config like so @MFSSETTINGS[MFSSettings]:FINAL { %ferociousBoilOff = False }

How do you mean, the actual atmospheric mesh?

Press F12 -> Physics -> Thermal -> Check the first option there

All I'm looking at is the temperature difference between the part and the resource and the conductivity of the material as configured. The conductivity of the resource is not taken into consideration. (literature that I consulted indicated that it wasn't significant enough to factor in)

No, that's not true. Cargo bays protect things that are surface mounted as well. All it cares about is whether the item is enclosed in the cargo bay's invisible bounding box. It is possible of course for a surface mounted item to be seen as outside the box if it's right on the edge and the item's positioning puts its center on the outside.

It's not just the sun, you're also getting radiation from whatever planet you're in orbit around. Regarding tank thickness, no, conductivity is finite and very relevant. There's a pretty cool thermal conductivity calculator here: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/heatcond.html Let's take a 1cm thick tank. Assuming a temperature differential of 1 degree K/C and conductivity factor 205 (Aluminum) You get 205000 watts per square meter of tank Same tank setup but stainless steel, conductivity 16 16000 watts per square meter. The equation is different for multiple layers of different conductivity q = (T1 - Tn) / ((s1 / k1 A) + (s2 / k2 A) + ... + (sn / kn A)) (2) q = heating rate T = temperature delta s = thickness k = conductivity A = area

The rate is entirely dependent on the configuration of tank (and insulation if any) and the temperature of the part itself. I'm sure writing up some code to predict it would be trivial; it's just math. But I couldn't guarantee that the prediction would match what you encounter after launch, or in orbit. As to the rate itself being correct and the tank having/not having insulation, No actual insulation has been mentioned in NASA's documents that I can find, and there's quite a lot out there. (my browser has entirely too many tabs open from researching boiloff in general). Lack of proof that it had any isn't necessarily the same as proof that it didn't, but I'm pretty sure that there was no insulation. On the other hand... (pregnant pause) default tank conductivity assumes aluminum, which is highly conductive, thermally speaking. I think the code actually defaults to 205. (or might be 250 which is also in range for aluminum) But the LOX tanks were stainless steel, not aluminum. Conductivity ranges 14-16* So there's a huge difference in conductivity there. Maybe that's why there's so much boiloff on the LOX. If you don't mind testing something, please download this: https://www.dropbox.com/s/4jmeygbbzxe5g31/RealTankTypes.cfg?dl=1 And copy that over RealFuels/Resources/RealTankTypes.cfg (I can't test it myself right now because I deliberately broke my RF trying to troubleshoot CatastrophicFailure's loading problem) That should put a noticeable dent in LOX boiloff on the Default tank. (no other LOX tanks in the other tank defs were touched, I just threw that in there quickly for testing, so there might be other tanks that need fixing) * That's real world conductivity and not KSP. Conductivity is in watts per degree Kelvin per square meter assuming one meter thickness. Half the thickness means double the heating rate. Tank walls are a few centimeters thick.

To confirm: The issue is one of not having insulation on the Default tank type. The uneven boiloff is most likely due to uneven heating during ascent but I don't think there's anything I can do about that really. (this explanation is mostly for everyone else's benefit, having spoken to regex in IRC already) Historically speaking, boiloff has always been an issue in any space program using cryogenic fuels and sometimes the solution has been to just accept that there will be loss and factor it into the planning stage. The Default tank has no insulation because it's patterned off of the Saturn rockets which also had un-insulated LOX tanks. Given that they did insulate the LH2 tanks they clearly could have done the same for the LOX tanks so I have to assume that they didn't either because they were trying to save money or because the mass of the insulation would have exceeded the mass of the boiled off propellant. Having said all that, clearly it's possible that the boiloff could impact gameplay to a greater degree than anticipated and there's a couple of areas where that could be addressed. I'll discuss those in a separate post because I'm running out of time with which to construct this post and my explanation is probably going to be lengthier than I'd have liked.

Plugins/RealFuels.dll RealFuels/Resources/RealTankTypes.cfg The first is the actual plugin; the second contains the configurations of all the tank definitions and internal tank configs that they contain. (changes were made to insulation values for insulated tanks)

Ok, fixed the insulation issues in the latest release and tweaked insulation values plus tweaked the flux calculation in the boil off functions. Baseline for Default tank type is as always the Saturn/Apollo missions, specifically based on the third stage boil off of 1,000 kg over three hours, and it should be at least in the right ball park though it could be more or less depending. Service module tank performance should be noticeably improved. Maybe too much. Or maybe it's right on the money, if NASA's press releases on the subject are to be believed. https://github.com/NathanKell/ModularFuelSystem/releases/latest Fixed bug where individual tank insulation/tank values weren't loading in. Increased heat leak flux based on part thermal mass (total) / part thermal mass - resource mass. Tweaked ServiceModule and Default tank insulation values. (service module insulation calculated assuming Inconel/Titanium + vacuum/vapor shielded tanks.)

Quick, no. They need to have ModuleHeatShield either updated to be compatible with the new version of DRE or ModuleHeatShield should be removed entirely and the part configured (at the PART level) to be able to withstand reentry heating. stock spaceplane parts do that with very high emissiveConstant and sometimes increased thermalMassModifier. Deadly Reentry modifies spaceplane parts a bit differently. (patterned after the space shuttle with very low thermal mass skins, low conductivity in skins, such that they withstand high altitude high drag shallow reentries but not steep ones) Maybe when I get some time I can do a DRE patch for those parts....

You can mount the intake / engine on the stock Mk2 spaceplane fuselage parts.

Nobody expects 100% acceptance and you know it. Or did you expect them to dwell on one minor aspect of the update when there's more important things that require their attention than the new jet model? And toxicity isn't constructive at all.

Okay... it actually did crash, or at least it was trying to. When it froze, it was probably in the process of unloading the program. There's no mention as to cause. I do also see a lot of errors from FAR and MechJeb, but I'm having a hard time believing that either of them is responsible for this. (check for dev versions though; I know MJ has had several updates recently) Like I said though, I don't think those are the culprits. I'd guess memory issues even though the log doesn't say so. Try downloading http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/59005-1-0-Release-5-0-April-28-2015-Active-Texture-Management-Save-RAM! and installing that. Also, if you're using one of the high resolution packs for RSS then try downgrading to a lower res pack

Ok, looks like there's a bug where the insulation values for individual tanks doesn't get read in. Namely, since those fields weren't marked as persistent, there needs to be code to read them from the config. Like, eight lines of code which I'd swear I'd written (took one minute to write) but are gone. Could be Starwaster-error but I'm choosing to blame Github, which can't defend itself. (and to be fair, Github routinely screws me over, especially when switching branches in Github for Windows...) So, definite update soon

I think heat shields are more of an issue to you than the PhysicsGlobals. One other user a few pages back reported dysfunctional shields. The Real Solar System config that I use in DRE would probably work for 64k but apparently are not being applied and I haven't had time to look into it nor to verify that those configs are indeed appropriate. (most likely it's got a different folder name or plugin name that needs a separate config to apply the necessary heat shield changes) Thank you very much. I'm not really sure how old she was as I got her when she was an adult. She was probably 3-4 years old and had trust issues. Her previous humans were moving by car (cross country, coast to coast) and I think it was problematic for them to transport her. (when I moved it just about took an act of god to get her in a carrier). It took me another two years to gain her trust and she was the most lovingest cat I've ever had.

About making the resource list more accurate: not that I know of, not for the stock list. (when testing this, if I need more accuracy then I put in custom debug messages into the part action menu. Speaking of which, did you see the private message I sent you?) I don't think we need another tank type, just improve the insulation on the ServiceModule type. (hmmm just thought of something. Has it been POSITIVELY verified that the tank you were using before is actually using ServiceModule instead of Default? Need to look at the part config and double check that....)

Need to see your log file. Either output_log.txt or KSP.log (the latter if mac or Linux) (yes, I understand it didn't crash. Those files do exist and will help troubleshoot)

Besides refrigeration (of the tank itself) you can also cool down any external insulation, so you're basically intercepting the heat before it can get inside the tank. - - - Updated - - - Did you leave out a zero? Should be 0.0001 (which is probably still too high. I'm working on a new set of values)

I'll look into it. I'm assuming that the fuel tank type is ServiceModule, right? (it better be!) Assuming that it was a ServiceModule (which I bumped up the insulation on) then there's one of two possibilities that I can see: I didn't give the H2 tank enough insulation and it needs to be increased. There's a bug that is apparently triggered by the stock radiators that can cause all of the coldest propellant in a given tank to immediately be deleted. I just had this one reported to me today. I think I know what the cause is as I had to address something like this before release but apparently it can still happen. So I'll push another update for 1.0.4 soon.

The launchpad is drenched with the blood of the fallen.

In addition to the space, there is a mismatching number of brackets. For every [ there must be a matching ] The syntax there also looks a bit screwy; not sure it's legal to separate HAS[] with commas... I'm still trying to wade through that line Edit: Maybe if you describe what the desired and expected result is?

The code that would have used legacy is deprecated; it made less sense now that Real Fuels's boil-off is KSP 1.0 compatible Removing the EC rate was done accidentally while trying to calibrate it with the new system. (merged the wrong set of changes locally) It'll be put back.