[1.9.x] QuizTech Aero Pack Continued

[linuxgurugamer]

Suggestions for EC usage?

[eberkain]

I did a pull request with tweakscale updates.

[StahnAileron]

On ‎3‎/‎13‎/‎2017 at 8:33 AM, linuxgurugamer said:

Suggestions for EC usage?

Not really sure. I think I'd take a look at USI's Electric Props and scale its EC usage for RCS to the thrust level of the part in this pack.

Otherwise... Maybe base it off the alternator numbers from the engines in this pack so that one or two engines can support three or four RCS ports. If I'm making a VTOL jet, that's usually at least two engines. (Easier to set-up proper CoL and CoT alignment than with one engine.) RCS for stability control would be around four ports minimum. (Two each for pitch and roll.) Anymore and you'll need batteries as a buffer. If we're going off the engine alternators, might need to scale the thrust levels of the ports as well.

@Daniel Prates Any thoughts/input on numbers for EC usage and balance?

[Daniel Prates]

16 hours ago, StahnAileron said:

Not really sure. I think I'd take a look at USI's Electric Props and scale its EC usage for RCS to the thrust level of the part in this 

@Daniel Prates Any thoughts/input on numbers for EC usage and balance?

I think it would have to be A LOT. The part generates a lot of thrust - half a dozen of them can easily take a several tons craft off the ground. So it is implied that if the part is juiced on electricity, the usage would have to be very high to match such a powerful engine. Say, at least two ec/sec or so. Your standard wheseley engine alternator produces 4 ec/s, so to have several thrusters working at once would only be viable in more powerful craft.

[StahnAileron]

3 hours ago, Daniel Prates said:

I think it would have to be A LOT. The part generates a lot of thrust - half a dozen of them can easily take a several tons craft off the ground. So it is implied that if the part is juiced on electricity, the usage would have to be very high to match such a powerful engine. Say, at least two ec/sec or so. Your standard wheseley engine alternator produces 4 ec/s, so to have several thrusters working at once would only be viable in more powerful craft.

Oh crap, you're right: 10kn. For reference, the USI Ducted Fans generate 10kn (stationary) to 17kn (Mach 1.7) of thrust. Max EC usage is about 20EC/sec. (The RCS stats for them are lower: 0.1kn @ ~0.1EC/sec.)

Since they're meant for in-atmosphere RCS control/balancing, maybe back them down to 5kn and about 2EC? They seem sized for use with MK2 design, so 5kn should be enough. (10kn seems more like MK3, Mk4, or OPT size- and mass-oriented.) As RCS, you shouldn't be running them all the time, so a decent battery as a buffer should suffice. (And you should only rarely, if ever, have all of the thrusters on a craft running at once.) Or some form of extra EC generation. (A reason for fuel cells and oxidizer on a plain jet?)

Edited March 29, 2017 by StahnAileron
Minor grammar corrections

[linuxgurugamer]

On 3/27/2017 at 7:26 PM, eberkain said:

I did a pull request with tweakscale updates.

I see it, but I'm waiting to see what comes out of this EC usage discussion

[Daniel Prates]

33 minutes ago, StahnAileron said:

Oh crap, you're right: 10kn. For reference, the USI Ducted Fans generate 10kn (stationary) to 17kn (Mach 1.7) of thrust. Max EC usage is about 20EC/sec. (The RCS stats for them are lower: 0.1kn @ ~0.1EC/sec.)

Since they're meant for in-atmosphere RCS control/balancing, maybe back them down to 5kn and about 2EC? They seem sized for use with MK2 design, so 5kn should be enough. (10kn seems more like MK3, Mk4, or OPT size- and mass-oriented.) As RCS, you shouldn't be running them all the time, so a decent battery as a buffer should suffice. (And you should only rarely, if ever, have all of the thrusters on a craft running at once.) Or some form of extra EC generation. (A reason for fuel cells and oxidizer on a plain jet?)

Since most engines have alternators, it is actyally a good mix and a challenge to make it depend on the main engine. Of course, engines running on 'idle' or underpowered would make use of the thrusters a dangerous thing, as it would drain all batteries very quickly. 

I actually like them that way (high EC consumption), it generates a challenge to develop craft that are overpowered not just to reach better performances, but to sustain secondary RCS systems. That is just what I imagine a wingless craft to be: moved and stabilized by very powerfull engines and thrusters, but unneficient as it gobbles fuel to power all those fans and engines and stabilizers...

Edited March 29, 2017 by Daniel Prates

[StahnAileron]

@linuxgurugamer@Daniel Prates So... 2EC/sec seems to be the number based on general engine alternator outputs. (The stock jets at 1.25m size output 3-5EC/sec. Going off the size of the port model, I'm guessing 1.25m and MK2 size engines and plane designs are what they were intended to be used with. Especially considering the other content within this pack.) Should we keep the thrust the same at 10kn or reduce it a bit? And if we reduce it, what about IntakeAir usage per sec?

Actually, which stat will be using since it incorrectly has the double RCS modules? The lower or higher ISP rating? And should we switch it over to IntakeAtm or leave it as IntakeAir? Several other mods include a general IntakeAtm MM.cfg for all intakes to support their parts. QuizTech didn't, which is probably why it just uses IntakeAir: ease of compatibility with stock.

[Daniel Prates]

42 minutes ago, StahnAileron said:

@linuxgurugamer@Daniel Prates So... 2EC/sec seems to be the number based on general engine alternator outputs. (The stock jets at 1.25m size output 3-5EC/sec. Going off the size of the port model, I'm guessing 1.25m and MK2 size engines and plane designs are what they were intended to be used with. Especially considering the other content within this pack.) Should we keep the thrust the same at 10kn or reduce it a bit? And if we reduce it, what about IntakeAir usage per sec?

Actually, which stat will be using since it incorrectly has the double RCS modules? The lower or higher ISP rating? And should we switch it over to IntakeAtm or leave it as IntakeAir? Several other mods include a general IntakeAtm MM.cfg for all intakes to support their parts. QuizTech didn't, which is probably why it just uses IntakeAir: ease of compatibility with stock.

Yeah I have a mod, dont quite remember which one now bur will post later.... which has an atomic engine that runs on atmosphere intake only. Though personally I dont aprove the concept as I think it is probably impossible, it does work only above a given speed. If thar coukd be done here, the intake-only option would be more realistic!

[StahnAileron]

2 minutes ago, Daniel Prates said:

Yeah I have a mod, dont quite remember which one now bur will post later.... which has an atomic engine that runs on atmosphere intake only. Though personally I dont aprove the concept as I think it is probably impossible, it does work only above a given speed. If thar coukd be done here, the intake-only option would be more realistic!

I don't know if the RCS module in stock KSP takes into account dynamic pressure. I doubt it since it seems tuned for closed-cycle operation, but I could be wrong.

In any case, I think linuxgurugamer would like some numbers to use at some point. I'm trying to get a consensus with you on them since you're the only other person asking for the EC change other than myself. We seem to agree on 2EC/sec usage, but what about thrust levels? Leave as-is at 10kn or change it to something else?

[linuxgurugamer]

19 minutes ago, StahnAileron said:

In any case, I think linuxgurugamer would like some numbers to use at some point. I'm trying to get a consensus with you on them since you're the only other person asking for the EC change other than myself. We seem to agree on 2EC/sec usage, but what about thrust levels? Leave as-is at 10kn or change it to something else?

Yes, i would.  I spend more time coding than playing, am relying on you guys for a consensus

 

[Daniel Prates]

36 minutes ago, StahnAileron said:

I don't know if the RCS module in stock KSP takes into account dynamic pressure. I doubt it since it seems tuned for closed-cycle operation, but I could be wrong.

In any case, I think linuxgurugamer would like some numbers to use at some point. I'm trying to get a consensus with you on them since you're the only other person asking for the EC change other than myself. We seem to agree on 2EC/sec usage, but what about thrust levels? Leave as-is at 10kn or change it to something else?

Yeah 10kn is too much....

[StahnAileron]

19 minutes ago, Daniel Prates said:

Yeah 10kn is too much....

Thoughts on numbers or is 5kn (halving) good enough? Keep in mind it seems the preferred method for atmospheric flight in KSP seems to be with Precision/Fine Control ON. (Easier with something like AutoActions to default it ON from the SPH.) As such, the output from the ports can take time to ramp up to full power. This is kinda why I think 5kn is enough rather than like say 1kn (which I would've advocated just to make it inline with typical RCS systems.)

If you have any numbers in mind, let's hear them.

IntakeAir vs IntakeAtm we can defer since IntakeAir makes using this pack in a mostly stock install simpler (no need for CRP) and Kerbin is a good enough/prime (and the default) location to use these parts. (MK2 Expansion can take care of Exo-Kerbin locations.)

35 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

Yes, i would.  I spend more time coding than playing, am relying on you guys for a consensus

I figured as much when I look at your Google Docs list. Thank you for your time, energy, and patience. It's greatly appreciated.

[Daniel Prates]

Between 1 and 5, me thinks, if the idea for the part to be a merelly stabilizing element. More and if becomes a proper lifting motor!

[linuxgurugamer]

So, could you try adding the following to the ModuleRCS in the rcsJet and see how it works:

PROPELLANT
{
	name = ElectricCharge
	ratio = 2.5
}

// Please try without the following, and then with the following, not sure if it's needed
PROPELLANT
{
	name = IntakeAir
	ratio = 1
}

 

Edited March 30, 2017 by linuxgurugamer

[StahnAileron]

12 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:

So, could you try adding the following to the ModuleRCS in the rcsJet and see how it works:

PROPELLANT
{
	name = ElectricCharge
	ratio = 2.5
}

// Please try without the following, and then with the following, not sure if it's needed
PROPELLANT
{
	name = IntakeAir
	ratio = 1
}

 

Into which one? The High ISP (19,200) or low ISP (2,000)? The version I have still has two ModuleRCS entries. I'm guessing the lesser one for balance?

Also, unrelated to the RCS talk: The Afterburning Twin Turbo-Jet's right thrust transform is misaligned. I was building a VTOL and RCSBA was telling me I had a slight yaw with just that engine running. If the visual model is anything to go by, the right (starboard) thrust transform is offset by like a centimeter or two outboard, causing a yaw tendency to the left/port. Dunno if you can even do anything about it as it probably requires a change in the model itself. (I don't see anything in configs that will let you override a thrust transform and manually offset it after the fact.) Just letting you and others know if anyone cares.

[linuxgurugamer]

Actually, could you comment out the first one, and only put it in the 2nd one?

Regarding the AB twin turbo, please check the alignment of the standard twin turbo.  You should see the same misalignment issue.

And yes, it does require a change in the model

[juanml82]

Hi, I'm using editors extensions and only a few of the parts show up in the VAB. Is this a common issue or a bug/conflict unique to my setup?

[StahnAileron]

17 hours ago, juanml82 said:

Hi, I'm using editors extensions and only a few of the parts show up in the VAB. Is this a common issue or a bug/conflict unique to my setup?

I have no issues and I'm using quite a number of plug-in based mods, EEX(R) being one of them. Granted, I haven't touched the VAB much as of late (I spend far more time in the SPH). Keep in mind the parts are scattered about in different categories (Mainly Engines and Command. Cargo/Payload should have the Service Bay.

If anything, make sure your folder structure is correct. Often times, it seems problems like this wind up being folders somehow getting messed up in along the way.

@linuxgurugamer My apologies for the lack of feedback so far. I somehow got the idea and motivation to actually build a real space station (for once). I'm usually get screwing round in KSP trying out stuff, so this was my first build-focus goal in like... ever. (Beyond making RemoteTech constellations in the Kerbin system...) Funny enough, KSP has crashed twice on me while designing this station. Both time was out-of-memory crashes (16GB RAM system with 2GB for swap file).

Anyway, I'll try to get my ass in gear and get those numbers checked, tested, and weighed for you.

[linuxgurugamer]

9 minutes ago, StahnAileron said:

@linuxgurugamer My apologies for the lack of feedback so far. I somehow got the idea and motivation to actually build a real space station (for once). I'm usually get screwing round in KSP trying out stuff, so this was my first build-focus goal in like... ever. (Beyond making RemoteTech constellations in the Kerbin system...) Funny enough, KSP has crashed twice on me while designing this station. Both time was out-of-memory crashes (16GB RAM system with 2GB for swap file).

Anyway, I'll try to get my ass in gear and get those numbers checked, tested, and weighed for you.

Thanks.

I'm busy debugging another mod, so am relying on you guys for this

[StahnAileron]

@linuxgurugamer I took a jaunt out in a 13 ton MK2 plane with apparently good balance across CoM, DCoM, and CoL.

1. The ports with 2000 ISP and the numbers you have me sip power at about 0.5EC/sec going full blast. A Mk2-style will have about two engines typically (at least), so that's 4-8EC from the alternator(s). Didn't even dent my EC storage, which was just the 150EC from the standard MK2 cockpit. I guess the ISP has to go down (affecting both EC and IntakeAir usage), the ratios need to increase, or both.
   • If ISP is linear, that means dragging down to about 500 or so, I guess? You'd have to change the EC/Intake ratio to about 8 or 10 to 1 to not have them suck up all the air from intakes at that ISP.
2. 10kn thrust is definitely way too much. I had just four of them and they could provide reasonable control on my craft. Granted, this one was oddly well tuned, balancing-wise. Still, I had all reaction wheels and flight control surfaces off and I still had reasonable, if sluggish control and authority in pitch and roll. The ports were placed on the underside of the MK2 body by the edges, two each fore and aft. (Yaw control I wasn't sure since I forgot to direct test it. My placement technically should have enabled that.)
   • Also, since all of them were on the belly, I could get some decent lift if I used the translation controls at the same time, despite the angle thrust vectors.
   • I simulated lower thrust by using the thrust limiters. 5kn felt about right for the design I had. Some attitude control, but not enough to be able to actually fly as-is on four ports with no control surfaces. I'm a controllable lawn dart rather than actual plane.

So, we need to figure out how to get 2EC/sec and 0.25IntakeAir (current numbers you gave me state about 0.5EC and 0.2Air) while spitting out 5kn thrust. Since thrust and ISP are what are directly defined, and assuming ISP is linear, I'm guessing number of:

• 5kn power
• 250 ISP
• 8:1 ratio of EC to Air

Also, we need to change the maxTemp on that sucker.  (3600K? )

ADDENDUM:

Ahaha! I'm an idiot. 250 ISP my ass. I reversed an operation because I wasn't thinking right.

Anyway, some live testing gave me the following numbers:

• 5kn Thrust/Power
• 1000 ASL ISP (250 Vacuum) - I had 900 ISP for 0.3 atmosphere, though really the ports should be useless by around 25000-28000 meters, tops, IMHO. (Around 0.6 if I'm interpreting the atmo curves number right?)
• 8:1 ratio EC-to-Air

Using the settings above, the resource numbers I get are:

• ~3.2EC/Sec
• ~0.4IntakeAir/Sec

So if I had to wager at this point, maybe 1200 - 1500 ISP ASL is what we want. I'd test it now, but I don't feel like restarting KSP again. (I have about 80 mods in my current installation, so it takes a while to start up. I can't rely on the MM cache since I'm actively editing a file...) It did sorta feel right with those number, though I swapped to just 2 ports so I would get always get full thrust/resource consumption. (One in front and one at the back center-lined for basic full pitch control.)

@Daniel Prates Could you evaluate these numbers as a second opinion? You just need to edit the cfg file and try it out. If you're uncomfortable editing the file for some reason, let me know and I can dump a copy of the file somewhere for you to download and test.

[Daniel Prates]

2 hours ago, StahnAileron said:

Could you evaluate these numbers as a second opinion? You just need to edit the cfg file and try it out. If you're uncomfortable editing the file for some reason, let me know and I can dump a copy of the file somewhere for you to download and test.

Oh no way, you nailed it already! Changes seconded! Kudos!

[linuxgurugamer]

If you could post the cfg, I'll get it merged tomorrow.

[juanml82]

5 hours ago, StahnAileron said:

I have no issues and I'm using quite a number of plug-in based mods, EEX(R) being one of them. Granted, I haven't touched the VAB much as of late (I spend far more time in the SPH). Keep in mind the parts are scattered about in different categories (Mainly Engines and Command. Cargo/Payload should have the Service Bay.

@linuxgurugamerIf anything, make sure your folder structure is correct. Often times, it seems problems like this wind up being folders somehow getting messed up in along the way.

 

The folder structure is correct, and I don't see all the parts even if I sort by "manufacturer" which sorts by folder/mod with EEX. I will probably have to try in a fully stock KSP installation and go from there

[StahnAileron]

15 hours ago, juanml82 said:

The folder structure is correct, and I don't see all the parts even if I sort by "manufacturer" which sorts by folder/mod with EEX. I will probably have to try in a fully stock KSP installation and go from there

Oh, you mean Filter Extensions! Two different things. I have that too. I have no problems using the latest versions of Quiztech and FilterExtensions (FEX?).

Oh, do you have all the dependencies installed? I know a couple of parts use either InterstellarFuelSwitch (IFS) or FireSpitter (FS). Don't recall with plugin it specifically uses. For sure the service bay uses one of them to swap styles. (Though that shouldn't prevent many of the other parts from showing. Those are pretty stock-ish in term of configs.)

Have you tried it without FilterExtensions? Or even just via the stock search function (search for quiztech)? Also, are you in Sandbox or Career? (These parts are spread out in the tech tree...)

@linuxgurugamer Just made a pull request on Github with the changes. (First time I've done this, so hopefully I did it right...) You're a busy man, so I thought I should make it a little easier with a pull request rather than slapping it here in the forums.