[1.7-1.9] SMURFF: Simple Module adjUstments for Real-ish Fuel-mass Fractions 1.9.1 (02019 Nov 12)

[Damon]

On 9/2/2018 at 6:35 PM, Kerbas_ad_astra said:

The direct issue is that Tundra Exploration's B9 tank switching patch is not using the 'addedMass' variable, but line 1020 should be checking that the addedMass variable is used, so the patch shouldn't be acting on that part.  I'll have to test if that check is actually working as intended.

Been some time, but I heard some had this problem. Did you get a fix for that already or is it something I have to look into?

[Kerbas_ad_astra]

On 10/16/2018 at 7:51 AM, damonvv said:

Been some time, but I heard some had this problem. Did you get a fix for that already or is it something I have to look into?

I should make that check more robust, but there's also a straightforward fix on your end:

On 9/16/2018 at 5:01 PM, Kerbas_ad_astra said:

I've figured it out!

The issue is that the TE_F9_S1_Tank part has a patch (Extra_B9Tanks.cfg) which adds a B9 fuel-switching module, but then CryoTanks adds another fuel-switching module because the TE_F9_S1_Tank has standalone LiquidFuel and Oxidizer resources (lines 39-50).  The fuel-switching module from CryoTanks has an addedMass variable defined, so the check in SMURFF.cfg line 1020 passes, but when SMURFF tries to grab that variable in line 1022, it looks in Tundra's fuel-switching patch (since it was added first), which does not have addedMass defined, and so the error occurs.

Since none of the other TE fuel tanks have RESOURCE blocks like TE_F9_S1_Tank does, I think that's an error on the part of tygoo7 and/or damonvv.  If they remove those RESOURCE blocks, the issue is resolved.

[Xd the great]

For some reason, my fuel fails to increase on the t800 tank.

[Kerbas_ad_astra]

5 hours ago, Xd the great said:

For some reason, my fuel fails to increase on the t800 tank.

SMURFF doesn't increase the amount of fuel in any part (everything stays the same size and volume); what it does is it reduces the tank's dry mass.  This improves delta-V capability, but you will still have to make rockets somewhat larger than they typically are in stock (just not as big as they would have to be without SMURFF).

[Xd the great]

3 hours ago, Kerbas_ad_astra said:

SMURFF doesn't increase the amount of fuel in any part (everything stays the same size and volume); what it does is it reduces the tank's dry mass.  This improves delta-V capability, but you will still have to make rockets somewhat larger than they typically are in stock (just not as big as they would have to be without SMURFF).

Ah thanks.

[Marandil]

I need some help with debugging why the SMURFF patches don't apply to Tundra Exploration tanks and how to fix it (on either side).

A simple comparison (I made a minimal install with CryoTanks, FuelTanksPlus, ModularRocketSystems, Tundra and SMURFF+RSS just to get the numbers):

Size 2 Tanks:

Ghidorah K2-81 Tank   LFO 2160/2640      Dry/Wet 4.143 / 28.143
MRS 3/4 Jumbo         LFO 2160/2640      Dry/Wet 0.714 / 24.714
Stock X200-32+16      LFO 2160/2640      Dry/Wet 0.714 / 24.714
W/out Cryo Tanks installed:
FTP X200-48           LFO 2160/2640      Dry/Wet 0.600 / 24.600
W/ Cryo Tanks installed:
FTP X200-48           LFO 2160/2640      Dry/Wet 0.714 / 24.714

Size 1 Tanks:

Mothra B1-21          LFO 720/880        Dry/Wet 1.048 / 9.048
Mothra B2-S2          LFO 360/440        Dry/Wet 0.274 / 4.274
FTP FL-T1200          LFO 540/660        Dry/Wet 0.179 / 6.179
Stock FL-T800         LFO 360/440        Dry/Wet 0.119 / 4.119

I think the problem is with Tundra using patches for everything, including "no fuel switch" case and/or using B9PartSwitch in my setup.

I've uploaded my KSP.log and ModuleManager.ConfigCache to gist (https://gist.github.com/Marandil/844aa7d5961c52d6d4fda7c5ce4c9e9c, either download them or click on "Raw"/"View raw" as they are quite huge and gist truncates them in webview).

I think it may also have something to do with the previous issue that was causing SMURFF errors with TE (the one with addedMass), but I'm not sure yet.

Any help would be appreciated .

[Kerbas_ad_astra]

On 11/5/2018 at 11:03 AM, Marandil said:

I think the problem is with Tundra using patches for everything, including "no fuel switch" case and/or using B9PartSwitch in my setup.

Yeah, because of the way Tundra tanks start 'empty' and then fill themselves if B9 is installed means that they fall through all of my patches, which are oriented around 'stock-like' parts.  The easy fix is to add a patch like this:

@PART[TE_BFR_Tank|TE_BFS_Fueltank|TE_F1_S1_Tank|TE_F1_S2_Tank|TE_F9_S1_Tank|TE_F9_S2_Tank]:BEFORE[zzz_SMURFF]:NEEDS[B9PartSwitch,!Pathfinder]
{
	@mass /= #$@SMURFFCONFIG/lfofactor$
	
	@MODULE[ModuleB9PartSwitch]:HAS[#moduleID[TE_Fuel]]
	{
		@SUBTYPE[LH2/O]:NEEDS[CryoTanks]
		{
			%addedMass = #$../../mass$
			@addedMass *= -1
		}
		@SUBTYPE[LH2]:NEEDS[CryoTanks]
		{
			%addedMass = #$../../mass$
			@addedMass *= -1
		}
		@SUBTYPE[Oxidizer]:NEEDS[CryoTanks]
		{
			%addedMass = #$../../mass$
			@addedMass *= -1
		}
	}
	SMURFFExclude = true
}

I can't promise that it will be perfectly balanced, but it should be better.

 

[komodo]

On 11/9/2018 at 6:40 PM, Kerbas_ad_astra said:

Yeah, because of the way Tundra tanks start 'empty' and then fill themselves if B9 is installed means that they fall through all of my patches, which are oriented around 'stock-like' parts.  The easy fix is to add a patch like this:

@PART[TE_BFR_Tank|TE_BFS_Fueltank|TE_F1_S1_Tank|TE_F1_S2_Tank|TE_F9_S1_Tank|TE_F9_S2_Tank]:BEFORE[zzz_SMURFF]:NEEDS[B9PartSwitch,!Pathfinder]
{
	@mass /= #$@SMURFFCONFIG/lfofactor$
	
	@MODULE[ModuleB9PartSwitch]:HAS[#moduleID[TE_Fuel]]
	{
		@SUBTYPE[LH2/O]:NEEDS[CryoTanks]
		{
			%addedMass = #$../../mass$
			@addedMass *= -1
		}
		@SUBTYPE[LH2]:NEEDS[CryoTanks]
		{
			%addedMass = #$../../mass$
			@addedMass *= -1
		}
		@SUBTYPE[Oxidizer]:NEEDS[CryoTanks]
		{
			%addedMass = #$../../mass$
			@addedMass *= -1
		}
	}
	SMURFFExclude = true
}

I can't promise that it will be perfectly balanced, but it should be better.

 

I had a different question, but the answer may be similar. I am trying to figure out a sane way to apply a different scalar to a particular mod's parts that is separate from the general lever(s). This is down to different methods of balancing parts among authors. (No harm, just tricky to make things play nicely together.)

I am thinking of two plans at the moment: One would be similar to the quote, grab the parts in question and apply a separate patch to those, excluding them from the main pass. I would probably adjust the scaling factor here. The other is to ... pre-modify the masses by running ahead of SMURFF, but this seems like a race condition waiting to happen. Any ideas?

[Kerbas_ad_astra]

1 hour ago, komodo said:

I had a different question, but the answer may be similar. I am trying to figure out a sane way to apply a different scalar to a particular mod's parts that is separate from the general lever(s). This is down to different methods of balancing parts among authors. (No harm, just tricky to make things play nicely together.)

I am thinking of two plans at the moment: One would be similar to the quote, grab the parts in question and apply a separate patch to those, excluding them from the main pass. I would probably adjust the scaling factor here. The other is to ... pre-modify the masses by running ahead of SMURFF, but this seems like a race condition waiting to happen. Any ideas?

I'm more inclined to modify 'distinct' parts on their own, because it is more robust that way, and sometimes I want them to stay separate from the 'stock' performance point (such as the ultra-light CryoX and Soft fuel tanks from Ven's Stock Revamp).

[TheBok]

Heya and huge thanks for your work on this.

 

I've just made a new 1.6.1 install w/ RSS+SMURFF and about 70 mods total, and have just found that the MRS tanks seem to all be unaffected and remain at vanilla dry mass fraction. Also the SpaceY fuelled nose cones are exhibiting the same problem. No other tanks, including all other SpaceY tanks, have this issue and seem to have been successfully SMURFF'd.

Should I provide a mod list or log? Apologies I am noob.

[Marandil]

1 hour ago, TheBok said:

MRS tanks seem to all be unaffected and remain at vanilla dry mass fraction. Also the SpaceY fuelled nose cones are exhibiting the same problem. No other tanks, including all other SpaceY tanks, have this issue and seem to have been successfully SMURFF'd.

Have you checked the actual mass, or just the numbers in the parts menu? I had a problem where several tanks reported their original mass in the parts menu, but SMURFF'd one in "part info" (I think it is a KER extension, but dunno). 

Long story short, just verify this first

[TheBok]

19 minutes ago, Marandil said:

Have you checked the actual mass, or just the numbers in the parts menu? I had a problem where several tanks reported their original mass in the parts menu, but SMURFF'd one in "part info" (I think it is a KER extension, but dunno). 

Long story short, just verify this first

I am checking these by placing one down in the VAB and then middle clicking to bring up the KER tooltip thingy, and looking at dry/wet mass. Is that the right way of going about it?

Edited January 23, 2019 by TheBok

[Byte_Bot]

Awesome mod love it but please add support for the standard interstellar fuel switch LFO tanks

[Kerbas_ad_astra]

On 1/23/2019 at 2:18 AM, TheBok said:

I am checking these by placing one down in the VAB and then middle clicking to bring up the KER tooltip thingy, and looking at dry/wet mass. Is that the right way of going about it?

That, or using the information box that pops up when you mouse over the part in the editor.  I don't have that problem when I just install SMURFF and SpaceY on my test install, so I need more information about what mods you have.

On 1/23/2019 at 4:21 PM, Byte_Bot said:

Awesome mod love it but please add support for the standard interstellar fuel switch LFO tanks

There is already a patch for Interstellar Fuel Switch, although it doesn't run if you also have RSS installed, as IFS comes with its own patch.  (At least, it did, as of ~two years ago, when I last updated that part of SMURFF.  None of the addons I use depend on it anymore, so I haven't used IFS in a long time.)

Edited January 26, 2019 by Kerbas_ad_astra

[Byte_Bot]

7 hours ago, Kerbas_ad_astra said:

That, or using the information box that pops up when you mouse over the part in the editor.  I don't have that problem when I just install SMURFF and SpaceY on my test install, so I need more information about what mods you have.

There is already a patch for Interstellar Fuel Switch, although it doesn't run if you also have RSS installed, as IFS comes with its own patch.  (At least, it did, as of ~two years ago, when I last updated that part of SMURFF.  None of the addons I use depend on it anymore, so I haven't used IFS in a long time.)

Sorry to say it partially doesn't work any more, I have interstellar fuel switch installed and although the normal tanks work fine the new tanks that interstellar fuel switch adds retain their original mass values 

[Byte_Bot]

I seem to have a very low boil off rate and a very high power consumption for cryogenic tanks (0.05% per hour and 1.25ec/s per 1000 respectively) is this intended and if so what was the intended balance for this as it doesn't seem realistic, I would expect higher boil off rates and lower power consumption

[TheBok]

On 1/27/2019 at 1:30 AM, Kerbas_ad_astra said:

That, or using the information box that pops up when you mouse over the part in the editor.  I don't have that problem when I just install SMURFF and SpaceY on my test install, so I need more information about what mods you have.

Sure, is this sufficient?

https://imgur.com/a/5ON4BjS

[TheBok]

On 1/27/2019 at 1:30 AM, Kerbas_ad_astra said:

That, or using the information box that pops up when you mouse over the part in the editor.  I don't have that problem when I just install SMURFF and SpaceY on my test install, so I need more information about what mods you have.

Also I have just noticed that some SpaceY nose cones are fine, some aren't. The BFT 07C 7.5m and F05C 5m nose cones are still showing vanilla mass fractions for me in the VAB, tho the others seem fine.

All of my MRS LF/O tanks remain on vanilla mass fractions also.

Edited January 28, 2019 by TheBok

[Kerbas_ad_astra]

5 hours ago, Byte_Bot said:

I seem to have a very low boil off rate and a very high power consumption for cryogenic tanks (0.05% per hour and 1.25ec/s per 1000 respectively) is this intended and if so what was the intended balance for this as it doesn't seem realistic, I would expect higher boil off rates and lower power consumption

Those numbers are as intended.  The boil-off is a little optimistic, but not unphysically so.  Here's a paper from Lawrence Livermore suggesting that losses of 2%/day (= 0.08%/hr) are expected for LH2 fuel depots processing 1800 kg of LH2 per day, and here's a blog entry about a spaceflight concept that expected boiloff losses (doing the math) between 0.02% and 0.2% per hour.  From a game perspective, 0.05% loss per hour is a half-life of 58 Earth days, so it's not going to be a concern for missions to the Moon or with cryogenic Earth escape stages.

To get true zero-boil-off storage, for long-duration missions or depots, yeah, you're going to have to invest in infrastructure.  I'll refrain from doing math in public, but you end up needing something like 600 W per 1000 L of LH2 to re-liquefy the boiloff as a very optimistic estimate, and if you figure (as Near Future Electrical does) that 1 ec/s = 1000 W, that's within a factor of two of 1.2 ec/s/1000L.

1 hour ago, TheBok said:

Sure, is this sufficient?

https://imgur.com/a/5ON4BjS

Procedural Parts and Interstellar Fuel Switch jump out at me as possible culprits (SMURFF has patches that interact with those mods, but it's been years since I used Procedural Parts and months since I've used IFS).  I'll do some tests this weekend, but you're welcome to do your own testing if you want results sooner.

[TheBok]

1 minute ago, Kerbas_ad_astra said:

Procedural Parts and Interstellar Fuel Switch jump out at me as possible culprits (SMURFF has patches that interact with those mods, but it's been years since I used Procedural Parts and months since I've used IFS).  I'll do some tests this weekend, but you're welcome to do your own testing if you want results sooner.

Thanks for reply man, I'll try removing them one at a time and see if that changes anything, anything else useful I can provide?

[Byte_Bot]

17 hours ago, Kerbas_ad_astra said:

Those numbers are as intended.  The boil-off is a little optimistic, but not unphysically so.  Here's a paper from Lawrence Livermore suggesting that losses of 2%/day (= 0.08%/hr) are expected for LH2 fuel depots processing 1800 kg of LH2 per day, and here's a blog entry about a spaceflight concept that expected boiloff losses (doing the math) between 0.02% and 0.2% per hour.  From a game perspective, 0.05% loss per hour is a half-life of 58 Earth days, so it's not going to be a concern for missions to the Moon or with cryogenic Earth escape stages.

To get true zero-boil-off storage, for long-duration missions or depots, yeah, you're going to have to invest in infrastructure.  I'll refrain from doing math in public, but you end up needing something like 600 W per 1000 L of LH2 to re-liquefy the boiloff as a very optimistic estimate, and if you figure (as Near Future Electrical does) that 1 ec/s = 1000 W, that's within a factor of two of 1.2 ec/s/1000L.

Procedural Parts and Interstellar Fuel Switch jump out at me as possible culprits (SMURFF has patches that interact with those mods, but it's been years since I used Procedural Parts and months since I've used IFS).  I'll do some tests this weekend, but you're welcome to do your own testing if you want results sooner.

Thanks for letting me know I hadn't realised that the power consumption was quite so high I guess while only being able to loose or gain energy by radiation would help a ton in terms of the boil off it makes it much harder to loose it. 

By the way absolutely loving the mod it is superb

[TheBok]

22 hours ago, Kerbas_ad_astra said:

Procedural Parts and Interstellar Fuel Switch jump out at me as possible culprits (SMURFF has patches that interact with those mods, but it's been years since I used Procedural Parts and months since I've used IFS).  I'll do some tests this weekend, but you're welcome to do your own testing if you want results sooner.

I removed IFS and the MRS tanks are now fine, all of them it seems, tho the two SpaceY fuelled nose cones remain vanilla.

[ioresult]

Hey I started to see KSP-AVC notifications that 1.9 is ready, but it's not. Can you fix that please?

.version file at following URL says 1.9:

https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Kerbas-ad-astra/SMURFF/master/GameData/SMURFF/SMURFF.version

Thanks

 

[Mightylink]

Thank you so much for this mod, I really wanted to be able to use my stock designs in RSS, I like to keep my saved ships compatible and I didn't want to use all the new parts in RO.

[CanOmer]

Does it work with KSP 1.4.5?