lordkrike

WaveFunctionP - When you do get around to integrating RealFuels with everything, take a look at the RealFuels/Karbonite integration configs Raptor831 and I have been working on. I feel like they may be useful to you when you want to integrate RealFuels with those other mods. It's fairly straightforward, but rather tedious. Also, in that, I wrote up atmospheres for the planets that included Kethane. They differ slightly from yours in the Interstellar and Karbonite atmospheric resource definitions. If possible, I'd like to get on the same page regarding that.

I fixed it up and submitted a pull request. The only thing that I think needs reviewing/discussion is the distiller. Do we want it to produce byproducts at all? I added in simple gaseous byproducts (H2, O2, N2) where appropriate. I think we should remove them and leave byproducts as a thing for the refinery.

I increased the precision of the molecular masses, and replaced the hand-jammed ones with calculated ones for slightly better precision. We have the same densities. I'm checking your chemical formulae at the moment - looks like a few fat finger mistakes. That said, I want to make a change and won't do it without your input first. I think that hydrazine should be the preferred monopropellant byproduct where possible. There's no reason for liquid hydrogen and gaseous nitrogen to be a byproduct of kerosene synthesis. Instead, that hydrogen should be combined with the nitrogen to produce hydrazine (N2H4), which is much more powerful than nitrogen and a rather "standard" monopropellant -- in fact, it comes stock in realfuels on all command capsules. ... Nevermind. I see that you already have that as an additional option.

... Your spreadsheet-fu is greater than mine. I am humbled, oh master. I'll look it over tomorrow for any mistakes. That is why open-source is a thing!

I was unclear. That is also what I am saying. The config has: @PART[KA_Converter_250_01]:AFTER[Karbonite]:NEEDS[RealFuels] { MODULE { name = USI_Converter converterName = Karbonite to Methane, LOX, LH2 conversionRate = 1 inputResources = ElectricCharge, 1.5, Karbonite, 1 outputResources = LqdMethane, 1.37629910872491, False, LiquidOxygen, 1.01694086625459, True, LiquidH2, 0.515885517744275, True } } So it needs to be fixed. It's not the only one like that. I can do it for you once you put up your spreadsheet if you like -- I know you have the stockalike realfuels to work on.

Can you post your conversion ratio spreadsheet? I want to get on the same page regarding that. I think you're using slightly different densities (I'm using the ones from RealFuels). You have some strangeness in your leftover conversions. For example, with methane: CH4NO2 = CH4 + O2 + N2, not CH4 + O2 + H2. If you post your conversion spreadsheet I'll fix it for you. Your numbers are slightly different from mine, so I don't want to fix it until our numbers agree. I also submitted some small changes. Some thoughts: it may be overcomplicating things, but I think that the air scoop should pull oxygen and hydrogen, and not liquidoxygen and liquidhydrogen, from the air. It really doesn't make sense to pull atmospheric oxygen and then convert it into a cryogenic liquid. This also goes for the converters -- should there be a separate process to liquify the (likely hot) gas you're creating?

RoverDude - Raptor 831 and I are working on creating an integration config for RealFuels and Karbonite. One issue I've noticed that we have is with the way that atmospheric resources are defined. All atmospheric resources in your config take the form of: ATMOSPHERIC_RESOURCE_DEFINITION { name = AtmosphericKarbonite guiName = Karbonite resourceName = Karbonite celestialBodyName = Planet abundance = 0.XXXX } All of them have the same name field which, afaik, makes it impossible to adjust the relative abundance on a specific planet using module manager. Is there a chance that the definitions could be renamed so that the planet's name is included in the resource definition's name? Edit: also, is that abundance a ratio, or a percent? i.e. does Jool's abndance of .7217 mean it is is 72.17% Karbonite, or .7217% Karbonite?

Another benefit of this that I kind of just thought of is that when you combine it with TAC, you could do something like extract CO2 from the atmosphere and use a carbon extractor to produce pure, breatheable O2 from Duna's atmosphere. Of course, that would be down the road after it's working for Karbonite. I do really like the idea of capturing resources from the air.

I woke up at 6 AM and couldn't sleep. For the default configs: right. I forgot the syntax to overwrite those, but it was intentional. Those are unrealistically high amounts of Karbonite in the atmosphere. Jool's atmosphere would be less of an atmosphere and more of an ocean, and you could definitely fly indefinitely on Jool and Eve, possibly Laythe. The only other note I can think of is that I included the CarbonDioxide, Neon, and Argon resources in there, which are not stock for RealFuels, I think. They can be safely commented out until they are needed.

I submitted a pull request. Due to the high ratios of organic compounds in Jupiter's and Venus' atmospheres, it may be possible to sustain indefinite flight using Karbonite-fueled engines on Eve and Jool...

So I was thinking about it, and was vaguely concerned that this config removes all ways to make helium and xenon (and potentially other noble gas fuels). I thought of two solutions to get them in RealFuels: IRL, helium is usually fractionally distilled from natural gas. Since karbonite is our analogue to any and all hydrocarbon fuels in the real world, it would make sense for helium to be captured while mining karbonite. I'm not sure if the ORSModuleRailsExtraction would support this, but it would be neat. The other option is to fractionally distill it from the atmospheres (IRL, xenon is captured this way). This would require setting up atmospheric resource definitions and configuring a part to actually capture it from IntakeAir at the correct ratios for each planet's atmosphere. However, Karbonite doesn't seem to support atmospheric resource gathering at the moment, and so in the meantime if we were to create a fractional distiller part to make xenon and helium from IntakeAir, it would be at fixed ratios in all atmospheres (unless you can think of a clever way to make it happen). I'm going to write up some configs for atmospheric resource definitions to add to the pack. They can't hurt, and they'll probably be useful in the future. I'll submit a pull request when I'm done finding realistic values for the different atmospheres.

If you're going to incorporate configs for KSP Interstellar and TAC (which I am personally in favor of because I use both), you should still make them optional files for those that don't use them. I also vote for fuel mixing being a separate part if it becomes necessary. It complicates things logistically due to requiring multiple input tanks. As it stands, MON should probably be made straight from Karbonite (because making 1 part of NO2 to 99 parts N2O4 will basically be impossible with any accuracy). That basically leaves Aerozine-50 and Hydyne, and we don't currently have a use for DETA other than for use in Hydyne. Funny story, the lady who invented hydyne wanted to call it Bagel. So we could have Bagel and Lox. If you want any help with any of this stuff, let me know. My time is available. And free. Hooray unemployment!

Adding it to github is nice because if you were to disappear it's not all lost. By the way, you can remove the liquidfuel and oxidizer modules by adding !MODULE,1 {} !MODULE,0 {} to the refinery and distilleries. Should free up some space in the right-click menu. May I also suggest removing the "Karbonite to" from each module? I feel like it makes extra clutter. Your call. Carbon-based fuels have no issues with having leftovers for oxidizer. It's the nitrogen-based fuels that are an issue, since they use up all their nitrogens for the fuel and the oxidizer is usually N2O4. You're stuck lugging around the distiller, too, if you want to use aerozine, MMH, or UDMH. I actually rather like that, since you actually have to think for a second before you just slam on a refinery and call it a day. Finally, for your stockalike realfuels mod, you should totally have a version with the fuels you don't use in any of your engines commented out. Though, personally, I'd like to see more alcohol/O2 and HTP engines. :-)

Had 30 more minutes to think about it and wanted to rephrase a little. When making bipropellant fuels, you should definitely get the oxidier if possible. If you can make a monopropellant out of anything left over, even better (i.e. methane + O2 + N2 and kerosene + O2 + hydrazine). If making straight oxidizer, you run into the issue of "which fuel do I get, and is it useful for my engine?". So for making oxidizers and monopropellants, make extra things if they're useful and make sense, but I wouldn't worry about making fuel byproducts. Rocket fuel molecules are relatively more complicated than oxidizers anyway -- they're not really going to be byproducts. This also is a convenient way to split the distillery/refinery production lines: bipropellant fuels could be made in the refinery, everything else in the distillery.

90% efficiency is good to go, in my opinion. As far as using the information there, of course! It's dangerous to go alone. Take it. For producing multiple fuel types... I have a couple thoughts. I think the most complicating factor is, for each fuel, what are you going to make with the leftovers? For the hydrocarbons, it's pretty obvious you want O2, and you may as well make H2 with any leftover hydrogen and N2 with any leftover nitrogen. But for Aerozine? You're going to make something like HTP or O2, both of which are pretty useless to you in 99.99% of cases. On the other hand, there's no downside if you do set up the configs to produce something out of the leftovers -- they'll just bleed off and the player will never see them if he doesn't have a tank to store them (and if he doesn't have a tank to store them he likely doesn't care). Ultimately, we're limited by the UI. There is only so much space for buttons to turn the refinery/distiller on and off, so we can only have so many choices available. Extra thoughts: the reactions that produce H2, N2, and O2 should definitely all be the same reaction. You're just splitting the entire molecule apart and recombining everything diatomically. i.e make N2, get H2 and O2, make O2, get H2 and N2, etc. I say, save the making methane for the methane reaction, and let the methane reaction give you extra O2. Also, splitting Karbonite into methane, oxygen, and nitrogen as a one-stop shop for fuel, oxidizer, and monoprop is pretty damn cool. tl;dr for bipropellants, yes when possible, otherwise, maybe where it makes sense.

Sorry, I said conversion rate, but meant conversion ratio. How did you derive the conversion ratio for kerosene? 1L of CH4NO2 at the density given (2500g/L) should produce a lot more kerosene. What the exact ratio is depends on what you call kerosene, but I went with pure dodecane for higher conversion efficiency, while separating it from syntin (which is decane). Even if you went with pure hexadecane, it would still be a lot higher than .11 liters of kerosene per liter of kethane. The rest of the conversion ratios only differed by a few to tenish percent. Check my spreadsheet to see how we differ. I tried to be as precise as possible with the chemistry... of course, assuming we have a SpaceChem reactor than can move atoms and bonds around all willy-nilly.

Edit: resource configs are working just fine, you saw nothing here. I reconfigured some stuff for my own use. I hope you use it. I went through and, using the densities from RealFuels, adjusted the production rates. Assuming the converters contain SpaceChem-level technology, the production rate for Kerosene was far too low. I also decided that the distillery should be used for anything that involves a carbon atom -- this way we actually can distill alcohol from it, and it makes a certain kind of sense to me to group all the hydrocarbon-type fuels in one machine. The refinery is used for everything else. I also included every fuel in RealFuels except for amines, TEA-TEB, and helium. The first, because it's pretty ill defined, the second because it's not really a rocket fuel (it's for ignition systems), and the third because helium isn't in the nitromethane-like molecule. You can see my working spreadsheet here and you can get the config file here. You should consider setting up a GitHub repository for this. Easier to manage IMO.

There's also something wrong with the tank configs. The volume adjustment is missing an "@" symbol just before RESOURCE, and for some reason the density adjustment isn't taking either (unless 4000L of Karbonite is supposed to weigh 50 metric tons ), but I'm not sure why. I can't say for sure whether or not the intake air adjustment is taking. I'm not sure how to test it. Edit: You should also adjust the unit cost of Karbonite while you're at it.

I feel like I'm messing something up. I have RealFuels (with stockalike engine configs), ModuleManager2.2.2, and Karbonite installed, and your config files appear to be doing nothing. Engines and fuel tanks work just fine, I have all the Karbonite parts and they work just like stock, and the config files are located in /[KSP]/Gamedata/FalconTech/Karbonite. Any ideas on why ModuleManager is not overwriting the information for the Karbonite parts? Edit: by inserting another change into your config file, I've confirmed that MM is loading the .cfg, but for some reason your changes aren't taking. Perhaps the changes to the latest version of Karbonite borked it?

I am reconfiguring the fuel cell and electrolysis parts to work with TAC life support for myself and in the process I found that the fuel cell is lossy. I'm not sure if it's intentional, but the fuel cell is only producing 99.36% of the water it should be according to the chemistry. It should be producing 0.0000524178 L/s and it's only producing 0.0000520833 L/s.

No need for that, you're a volunteer! But that'll teach you to push out an update and then go to sleep.

Interestingly, even with only Procedural Parts 1.7, you get the same error. It's not just KSPAPIE.

Even at 10km, a moderately overengined craft pitching over to 45 degrees (the "typical kerbal ascent") can get pretty far beyond terminal velocity and lose you plenty of delta-v. The "limit to terminal velocity" button should do exactly what it says, or it really messes with shallow ascents.

I discovered a bug with the "limit to terminal velocity" setting. It's a little surprising that it hasn't been noticed before. Limiting to terminal velocity only limits your vertical, and not your surface velocity. I submitted a bug report to github.

By the way, I didn't see this anywhere else in here, so here's a .cfg file for converting the monoprop and LFO wedge slices for use with RealFuels: https://www.dropbox.com/s/f587nnpcbn2h1hs/us_core_realfuels.cfg I estimated their volumes by making procedural stretchy tanks as close as I could. I fudged the numbers up ever so slightly because you're paying a hefty mass penalty for mounting very small tanks that way. RealFuels adjusts the tanks' masses, so there's no need to mess with it (they scale like everything else does).