Starlion Industries - KSPI & IFS Compatibility Patches for Fueltanks, Spaceplanes, & more [CKAN]

[SciMan]

when using this with the mk2 expansion pack parts, does it override the parts, or add in parts that look the same and use the same models and textures?

[ABZB]

Hello all, thankfully the nor'easter did not do much to LI, and the hurricane missed me entirely. Heart goes out to the Bahamas & SC.

@RenewableRocket: I am implementing your changes (LFO/LF/O first when RF not installed before alphabetical order of the remaining resources).

@Freethinker: The original thrust of the this patch was to enable building spaceplanes without having to use many different parts (cargo bays) while also not introducing duplicate parts. As such, I want to make all resources available to the generic mk2 fuel tank. As of a couple of versions ago, my IFS patch assumes that all (real) fuels are being stored cryogenically, and are not pressurized. All resources whose KSP properties assume a gaseous state (such as Xenon) have the respective fuel-amounts scaled to assume their liquid densities, and have a cryo-module added to keep them at that temperature.

The main alternative is to make a +PART set of parts for the pressurized stuff, with different properties... although that does not hurt the memory footprint, it makes for a tedious parts menu (especially if you have a relatively small screen, like me!).

If anyone has an alternative suggestion, please post & discuss!

@Sciman:

WRT double-IFS: MRS has fixed on their end.

WRT NFE engines: Added !MODULE[ModuleEngines*]. If this breaks someone else's engines, let me know & I will make a less generic fix.

- - - Updated - - -

8.3.6: Perfectly Ultimate Great Dwarf Panthera leo

• avoid adding IFS to engine parts (NFE issue)
  
• LFO/LF/Oxidizer now first three options in non-RF mode
  

[SciMan]

That thing with the NFE engines was also a problem with an engine from the SpaceY heavy lifters pack (R7 Super-Ratite engine cluster). Same setup, LFO engine with integrated LFO tanks.

So not only does it not break someone else's engines, it fixes them.

[ABZB]

That thing with the NFE engines was also a problem with an engine from the SpaceY heavy lifters pack (R7 Super-Ratite engine cluster). Same setup, LFO engine with integrated LFO tanks.

So not only does it not break someone else's engines, it fixes them.

that's good. Mainly, concerned that there might exist engine(s) that would prefer to have IFS, in which case I would write one or the other as specific exceptions.

[FreeThinker]

@RenewableRocket: I am implementing your changes (LFO/LF/O first when RF not installed before alphabetical order of the remaining resources).

Notice, IFS uses the tank name as an index. As long as you use the same name, you can change their order without any issues. if you would try the same thing with Firespitter fuel switch, the tanks would get messed up.

[ABZB]

Notice, IFS uses the tank name as an index. As long as you use the same name, you can change their order without any issues. if you would try the same thing with Firespitter fuel switch, the tanks would get messed up.

You mean with regard to existing saves, I guess? That is very good - I did not consider that possibility.

[SciMan]

I can confirm that the update to the order of the tank switches didn't break any existing craft I had, and it kept the settings correct too.

I have both FS and IFS installed, and I'm glad that these patches default to using IFS if it's available.

To be honest, I think installing the Firespitter plugin for ONLY the fuel switching stuff is a bit silly. IFS does the same thing with a bunch less overhead.

[nordicpc]

So now that the TTJ has been nerfed, what are people actually building with these parts? This was one of my favorite designs:

https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=CD76E5B606E9BFBE!500858&authkey=!AMS0RF0hXb_fGfM&v=3&ithint=photo%2cpng

But now that's hopeless. I understand being realistic and all, but I tried to build a new plane with a magnetic nozzle, just 'cause. Got to here:

https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=CD76E5B606E9BFBE!500885&authkey=!APhZBnvke5YQwpc&v=3&ithint=photo%2cpng

before I posted this post. That's right, two huge SRBs to try and get up to speed for those engines to burn, and it still won't make orbit. That particular image was with the wrap around radiators, which did horribly on atmosphere exit, lol, but the fold-ables were too heavy.

So what are you building with the new patches in place?

[nordicpc]

Okay, couple of new developments:

Here's my old space plane with the new stuff installed. I let the VTOL engine run just to see what a .6 TTJ did versus a 1.9 TTJ. And I apologize for the Alt-Rock:

https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=CD76E5B606E9BFBE!500886&authkey=!AKA5ZcCTHcQR5Os&ithint=video%2cmp4

Here's a later shot of how this flies:

https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=CD76E5B606E9BFBE!500887&authkey=!AFhIeNp7_xKT3NU&ithint=video%2cmp4

So I'm thinking that the Mk2 expansion parts are taking the new "don't make thrust until you get to speed" rules to an extreme. I can keep going with the standard .6 TTJ keeping me aloft while I wait for the 1.9 to build up thrust, but maybe there's a fix for this?

Thanks all, and I can't thank the devs for their work enough. I love this product, and I'm in debt for your hard work.

[Cairan]

Is it normal that with the r4-D "Sievert" in atmospheric mode, my reactor is at a core temperature of 6782K, 1.7 GW of thermal power, and it produces a laughable 4.8 kN of static thrust at full ground stop?

[FreeThinker]

Okay, couple of new developments:

Here's my old space plane with the new stuff installed. I let the VTOL engine run just to see what a .6 TTJ did versus a 1.9 TTJ. And I apologize for the Alt-Rock:

https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=CD76E5B606E9BFBE!500886&authkey=!AKA5ZcCTHcQR5Os&ithint=video%2cmp4

Here's a later shot of how this flies:

https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=CD76E5B606E9BFBE!500887&authkey=!AFhIeNp7_xKT3NU&ithint=video%2cmp4

So I'm thinking that the Mk2 expansion parts are taking the new "don't make thrust until you get to speed" rules to an extreme. I can keep going with the standard .6 TTJ keeping me aloft while I wait for the 1.9 to build up thrust, but maybe there's a fix for this?

Thanks all, and I can't thank the devs for their work enough. I love this product, and I'm in debt for your hard work.

Notice that if the Thermal Turbojet internal diameter does not match the diameter of the reactor, a significant part of the energy is lost durring transfer. Also every part between the reactor and the thermal nozzle currently incurs a 80% efficency loss (except molten salt). I realsie for adapter this isn't very fair so I will do something about it in the next patch

[ABZB]

8.3.8: Perfectly Ultimate Great Main Sequence Lynx

• buffed thermal engines
  
• updated Paticle Bed/Dusty Plasma Reactor (buffed slightly)
  
• Added missing FX to Magnetic Nozzle
  
• Added IFS compatibility for Near Future Propulsion (in absence of any other compatible mod) (from 8.3.7)
  

[Nansuchao]

A little question. If i remove Firespitter from the B9 maintenace port, will this mod substitute Firespitter?

[ABZB]

A little question. If i remove Firespitter from the B9 maintenace port, will this mod substitute Firespitter?

- For any B9 part that has LiquidFuel, and only LiquidFuel, yes.

- If you have neither MFT nor RF installed, then also any other fueltank (if you either one installed, my mod leaves the LFO, monoprop, and Xenon tanks alone, so those get MFT modules, leaving the LF-only tanks for IFS).

Keep in mind that there might be parts that use the Firespitter animation module - IFS does not supply that function.

[Nansuchao]

So, for B9, where the fuel tanks are structural parts and not just tanks, if I remove Firespitter I'll broke them. Is there a way I can leave just the FS animation and remove the fuel switcher?

[ABZB]

So, for B9, where the fuel tanks are structural parts and not just tanks, if I remove Firespitter I'll broke them. Is there a way I can leave just the FS animation and remove the fuel switcher?

The below should replace the FS animation module in any part with the generic [squad] module, and adds [i hope] the cargo-bay module to the B9 cargo bay parts. You will lose the mesh-switch thing though (will not cause gameplay problems).

Stick the following code into a .cfg file:

@PART[*Cargo*]:HAS[@MODULE[FSanimateGeneric]]:FIRST
{
	MODULE
	{
		name = ModuleAnimateGeneric
		animationName = #$/../MODULE[FSanimateGeneric]/animationName$
		startEventGUIName = #$/../MODULE[FSanimateGeneric]/startEventGUIName$
		endEventGUIName = #$/../MODULE[FSanimateGeneric]/endEventGUIName$
		actionGUIName = #$/../MODULE[FSanimateGeneric]/toggleActionName$
	}
	MODULE
	{
		name = ModuleCargoBay
		DeployModuleIndex = 0
		closedPosition = 1
		lookupRadius = 1
	}
	!MODULE[FSanimateGeneric]{}
	!MODULE[FSmeshSwitch]{}
}

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[FSanimateGeneric]]:FIRST
{
	MODULE
	{
		name = ModuleAnimateGeneric
		animationName = #$/../MODULE[FSanimateGeneric]/animationName$
		startEventGUIName = #$/../MODULE[FSanimateGeneric]/startEventGUIName$
		endEventGUIName = #$/../MODULE[FSanimateGeneric]/endEventGUIName$
		actionGUIName = #$/../MODULE[FSanimateGeneric]/toggleActionName$
	}
	!MODULE[FSanimateGeneric]{}
	!MODULE[FSmeshSwitch]{}
}

[Nansuchao]

Great! Thank you!!!

It actually didn't change textures (except for the obsolete landing gears), just from structural to fuel tanks.

EDIT: sadly, it doesn't works... It seems that having Firespitter in the mod will overwrite IFS. That's sad cause with B9 it's possible to create some of the best spaceplanes ever made.

EDIT EDIT: I asked to Blowfish, that is his good answer: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/92630-0-90-B9-Aerospace-Release-5-2-8-%28updated-30-12-14%29?p=2237170&viewfull=1#post2237170

Edited October 9, 2015 by Nansuchao

[nordicpc]

Notice that if the Thermal Turbojet internal diameter does not match the diameter of the reactor, a significant part of the energy is lost durring transfer. Also every part between the reactor and the thermal nozzle currently incurs a 80% efficency loss (except molten salt). I realsie for adapter this isn't very fair so I will do something about it in the next patch

I did not realize there were penalties for being away from the reactor. That's actually really helpful in future designs, but this TTJ is right next to the reactor.

I just took off with the new patch installed, and whoa. That's a lot of thrust! I don't usually complain about being overpowered, but maybe it is just a bit. I got up to 1,500kN and around 350 M/s before I left the runway. I liked the idea of it being limited by the velocity, but before it was too limited. I think now it may not be enough.

Thanks again for everything.

[nordicpc]

I seem to have developed a strange overheating issue with the TTJ on Atmo:

https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=CD76E5B606E9BFBE!500888&authkey=!AOgqvSBU_swPOoQ&ithint=video%2cmp4

Sorry for the full launch video, but thought it might help. It's not my standard lift off, I tried to shorten the process a bit. Anyways, at the end you can see that I switch to Liq Ammonia and it cools down quite quickly.

I hate to keep piling on the issues, but I've always been good at finding the worst in software. I worked for a little while on Myst 3D back in the 90's as a beta tester, finding glitches in the system and reporting them to the devs. Maybe it's been ingrained now in my brain.

Thanks again, I know you guys are all doing this for the fun of the game, and I totally appreciate it.

[ABZB]

I seem to have developed a strange overheating issue with the TTJ on Atmo:

https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=CD76E5B606E9BFBE!500888&authkey=!AOgqvSBU_swPOoQ&ithint=video%2cmp4

Sorry for the full launch video, but thought it might help. It's not my standard lift off, I tried to shorten the process a bit. Anyways, at the end you can see that I switch to Liq Ammonia and it cools down quite quickly.

I hate to keep piling on the issues, but I've always been good at finding the worst in software. I worked for a little while on Myst 3D back in the 90's as a beta tester, finding glitches in the system and reporting them to the devs. Maybe it's been ingrained now in my brain.

Thanks again, I know you guys are all doing this for the fun of the game, and I totally appreciate it.

The KSP 1.0.5 press release (not out yet) says that "Heating from engine exhaust improved and rebalanced." I think that might fix our issues. I hope.

[FreeThinker]

Notice I added a new partmodule called ThermalPowerTransport which allows you to modify the cost of transfering ThermalPower from reactors to thermal nozzle/turbojet. For now I only applied it to some stock part. But the list is not complete. Someone needs to expand the list ...

Edited October 15, 2015 by FreeThinker

[FreeThinker]

I seem to have developed a strange overheating issue with the TTJ on Atmo:

https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=CD76E5B606E9BFBE!500888&authkey=!AOgqvSBU_swPOoQ&ithint=video%2cmp4

Sorry for the full launch video, but thought it might help. It's not my standard lift off, I tried to shorten the process a bit. Anyways, at the end you can see that I switch to Liq Ammonia and it cools down quite quickly.

I hate to keep piling on the issues, but I've always been good at finding the worst in software. I worked for a little while on Myst 3D back in the 90's as a beta tester, finding glitches in the system and reporting them to the devs. Maybe it's been ingrained now in my brain.

Thanks again, I know you guys are all doing this for the fun of the game, and I totally appreciate it.

Are you using any pre coolers?

[ABZB]

Notice I added a new partmodule called ThermalPowerTransport which allows you to modify the cost of transfering ThermalPower from reactors to thermal nozzle/turbojet. For now I only applied it to some stock part. But the list is not complete. Someone needs to expand the list ...

I'll get on that for my stuff (like the thermal generator) - I'll figure out a scheme/criteria for the mk2 stuff.

What value does KSPI assume when it is not specified?

[FreeThinker]

I'll get on that for my stuff (like the thermal generator) - I'll figure out a scheme/criteria for the mk2 stuff.

What value does KSPI assume when it is not specified?

When ThermalPowerTransport is present in a part, it uses 1.

When ThermalPowerTransport is present but without any thermalCost, it uses 0.5 (default)

I added the following script to add ThermalPowerTransport to stock parts:

@PART[stackPoint1]:FOR[WarpPlugin]
{
    MODULE
    {
        name = ThermalPowerTransport
        thermalCost = 0.1
    }
}

@PART[stackBiCoupler]:FOR[WarpPlugin]
{
    MODULE
    {
        name = ThermalPowerTransport
        thermalCost = 0.25
    }
}

@PART[stackTriCoupler]:FOR[WarpPlugin]
{
    MODULE
    {
        name = ThermalPowerTransport
        thermalCost = 0.25
    }
}

@PART[stackQuadCoupler]:FOR[WarpPlugin]
{
    MODULE
    {
        name = ThermalPowerTransport
        thermalCost = 0.25
    }
}

@PART[stationHub]:FOR[WarpPlugin]
{
    MODULE
    {
        name = ThermalPowerTransport
        thermalCost = 0.5
    }
}

Edited October 15, 2015 by FreeThinker

[ABZB]

When ThermalPowerTransport is present in a part, it uses 1.

When ThermalPowerTransport is present but without any thermalCost, it uses 0.5 (default)

I added the following script to add ThermalPowerTransport to stock parts:

@PART[stackPoint1]:FOR[WarpPlugin]
{
    MODULE
    {
        name = ThermalPowerTransport
        thermalCost = 0.1
    }
}

@PART[stackBiCoupler]:FOR[WarpPlugin]
{
    MODULE
    {
        name = ThermalPowerTransport
        thermalCost = 0.25
    }
}

@PART[stackTriCoupler]:FOR[WarpPlugin]
{
    MODULE
    {
        name = ThermalPowerTransport
        thermalCost = 0.25
    }
}

@PART[stackQuadCoupler]:FOR[WarpPlugin]
{
    MODULE
    {
        name = ThermalPowerTransport
        thermalCost = 0.25
    }
}

@PART[stationHub]:FOR[WarpPlugin]
{
    MODULE
    {
        name = ThermalPowerTransport
        thermalCost = 0.5
    }
}

Got it. One more question - to clarify - each subsequent part multiples again by its thermalcost value? so if I have two parts interceding, each with .5, I have a .25 multiplier?