[1.12.x] Engine Ignitor Re-ignited Release - NEW DEPENDENCY ADDED

[theonegalen]

On 10/24/2018 at 6:15 AM, SnailnamedSnail said:

I have my own config to DLC, when I get home I'll be able send.

 

On 10/24/2018 at 6:11 AM, xD-FireStriker said:

Are there any configs available for people who dont know how to make the config and too lazy to do it?

 

On 10/24/2018 at 5:23 AM, SnailnamedSnail said:

No, it doesn't. You need to write configs yourself.

 

On 10/24/2018 at 5:05 AM, xD-FireStriker said:

Does this work with Making History?

I have also made configs for Making History and Engine Ignitor, as well as a couple of others.

@linuxgurugamer, would you like those?

Edited October 31, 2018 by theonegalen

[linuxgurugamer]

2 hours ago, theonegalen said:

 

 

 

I have also made configs for Making History and Engine Ignitor, as well as a couple of others.

@linuxgurugamer, would you like those?

Sure 

[linuxgurugamer]

New release, 1.3.3.3

• Added MM configs for the missing kerbalEVA parts (female and vintage)

[Battou]

Im seem to be unable to stabilize fuel in tanks by spining vessel. Is it unsupported? I cant finish first orbit and return mission because I dont yet have small busters or rcs, and cant reignite engine for return.

[linuxgurugamer]

I don't believe that spinning is supported

[Battou]

17 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:

I don't believe that spinning is supported

Sad to hear that. Then there is no way to use this mod in early stages of the game I believe? (

[woeller]

17 hours ago, Battou said:

Sad to hear that. Then there is no way to use this mod in early stages of the game I believe? (

You still can hotstage your Rocketmotors and then seperate the stage.

[Battou]

8 hours ago, woeller said:

You still can hotstage your Rocketmotors and then seperate the stage.

What do you mean? Lats say I need to be in orbit for 8 hours. How I can enable engine for return from orbit? Only making extra stage with solid booster fo reentry with no control of thrust? This is not a propper way of doing space missions.  Is it hard to add momentum check for fuel stability check?

[Battou]

Reliant cant ignite without clamps?? Really?? You are aware that you get reliant BEFORE clamps?

Edited November 16, 2018 by Battou

[woeller]

7 minutes ago, Battou said:

What do you mean? Lats say I need to be in orbit for 8 hours. How I can enable engine for return from orbit? Only making extra stage with solid booster fo reentry with no control of thrust? This is not a propper way of doing space missions.  Is it hard to add momentum check for fuel stability check?

Even with solid rocket motors you have control of thrust. You can a) set the amount of fuel and b) limit the thrust in the VAB. With some tweaking you will be able to deorbit safely. Maybe you could use seperation motors.

What do you think about how the early space missions were planned? Engineers had to create unprecedented new ideas to complete missions. Be creative

[theonegalen]

On 11/16/2018 at 11:03 AM, Battou said:

Reliant cant ignite without clamps?? Really?? You are aware that you get reliant BEFORE clamps?

Depends on what tech tree you use. Remember, this mod was designed to be used in concert with the Realism Overhaul suite. It also works well with Unmanned Before Manned.

Also, there are several config files in the Community Database of Module Manager Configs that I never fly without. One of them adds a bunch of various-sized launch clamps throughout the tech tree, another adds delayed-action Sepratrons.

[Kroslev Kerman]

i don't get it so its like RO and IRL rockets you need ullage stuff and can you ignite Zero G engines with only RCS like in RO?

[xD-FireStriker]

Has the configs for the DLC been added yet?

 

[theonegalen]

3 hours ago, xD-FireStriker said:

Has the configs for the DLC been added yet?

 

Sorry, I've been out if town. I can do this tomorrow.

[theonegalen]

Configs for Making History, Missing History, and SXT Continued:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/r8u07pv8r1f9cfj/EngineIgnitor-MakingHistory.cfg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/pymq82bpw5j97tk/EngineIgnitor-MakingHistory-TechUpgrades.cfg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/xb47wxmnvvf09gp/EngineIgnitor-MissingHistory.cfg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ie18lc9zjob2ree/EngineIgnitor-SXT.cfg?dl=0

Sorry it took so long!

Edited January 10, 2019 by theonegalen

[Stone Blue]

Thanx for this

Edited January 10, 2019 by Stone Blue

[linuxgurugamer]

New release, 1.3.4

• Added missing bulkheadProfiles

[Nittany Tiger]

On 11/20/2018 at 9:01 PM, Kroslev Kerman said:

i don't get it so its like RO and IRL rockets you need ullage stuff and can you ignite Zero G engines with only RCS like in RO?

Any engine that says "ullage required" does.  Not all of the engines do with Engine Ignitor.  You can also turn the ullage requirement completely off in the difficulty options.

[Battou]

Hi. Why does half of the stock engines do not have Engine Ignitor module applyed? Terrier, Spark and Mastodon for example.

[linuxgurugamer]

On 1/30/2019 at 8:24 AM, Battou said:

Hi. Why does half of the stock engines do not have Engine Ignitor module applyed? Terrier, Spark and Mastodon for example.

Because those are single-ignition engines, ignited on the launchpad only

[dlrk]

@linuxgurugamer

I think you may have misunderstood @Battou's question. While I don't know about the Mastodon, both the Spark and the Terrier, as well as the Poodle are vacuum engines that in previous KSP versions were supported by Engine Ignitor, but in the current version are not, and therefore have unlimited ignition and no ullage effects.  Looking at the CFG, this seems to be because the new engine model has a different part name the previous (previousname_v2). So, this is easily fixed by appending these three entries to MM_Stock.cfg:

 

// Rockomax 48-7S - New Version
@PART[liquidEngineMini_v2]:FINAL
{
    MODULE
    {
        name = ModuleEngineIgnitor
        IgnitionsAvailable = 20
        AutoIgnitionTemperature = 800
        IgnitorType = Internal
		UseUllageSimulation = true
		ChanceWhenUnstable = 0.4  //0-1
        ECforIgnition = 10
    }
}

// LV-909 Engine - New Version
@PART[liquidEngine3_v2]:NEEDS[!PartOverhauls]:FINAL
{
    MODULE
    {
        name = ModuleEngineIgnitor
        IgnitionsAvailable = 8
        AutoIgnitionTemperature = 800
        IgnitorType = Internal
		UseUllageSimulation = true
		ChanceWhenUnstable = 0.2  //0-1
        ECforIgnition = 10
    }
}

// Rockomax "Poodle" Engine
@PART[liquidEngine2-2_v2]:FINAL
{
    MODULE
    {
        name = ModuleEngineIgnitor
        IgnitionsAvailable = 24
        AutoIgnitionTemperature = 800
        IgnitorType = Internal
		UseUllageSimulation = true
		ChanceWhenUnstable = 0.2  //0-1
        ECforIgnition = 20
    }
}

 

[linuxgurugamer]

4 hours ago, dlrk said:

@linuxgurugamer

I think you may have misunderstood @Battou's question. While I don't know about the Mastodon, both the Spark and the Terrier, as well as the Poodle are vacuum engines that in previous KSP versions were supported by Engine Ignitor, but in the current version are not, and therefore have unlimited ignition and no ullage effects.  Looking at the CFG, this seems to be because the new engine model has a different part name the previous (previousname_v2). So, this is easily fixed by appending these three entries to MM_Stock.cfg:

Thank you, I'll get these added

New release, 1.3.4.1

• Added missing configs for new parts, thanks @dlrk

[Errol]

Pinging @linuxgurugamer

I've been away from KSP for a little while, but am just now starting to build myself out an install in 1.6.1 to start playing again. I find myself again hung up the ullage simulation. I read somewhere further up in the thread that it just takes lots of burning in the desired direction to get a "stable" reading, and this did seem to be the case, until I tried my first retrograde burn and found that I never got "stable" at all. So here is my proposal: completely re-write the ullage simulation part of the mod.

Hear me out, I think I have come up with a fairly simple to implement, and much likely much better performing ullage sim. This is how it would work.

-In editor the mod analyzes the vessel when an engine requiring ullage is attached, and using the vessel mass and fuel in the stage with the engine needing ullage, assigns a ullageValue to that engine. This variable doesn't necessarily need to be visible to user, at least not in the units that it would exist in. Anyway, next:

-There will be designated ullage engines, such as the vernier engine, sepratrons and the monoprop engine. Would be nice to be able to include RCS, but not sure how complicated it would be to make the mod ignore RCS thrusters that aren't pointing the way that would be expected. Might be as simple as making a blacklist of thruster inputs to not count for ullage, or a white list of allowed thruster uses...either way; when these engines are attached to the vessel it is analyzed, calculating the thrust of all the ullage motors (in symmetry) with the mass of the vessel is and assigning it as a ullageThrust variable. If RCS is being factored in, really there need to be two maybe even three separate ullageThrust variables, one with RCS, and one without and one with only RCS, so that the mod can switch between them depending on if RCS is being fired.

-Finally in flight there is a simple calculation used. It would be sort of like a manoeuvre node, but with no direction, just a dV, or burn time requirement determined by ullageValue, and only the ullageThrust of the ullage motors will count towards the required time until you get "stable." The thought also occurs to me that a "landed" vessel should also have "stable" fuel (fairly certain we can just ignore orientation for this too, as you likely have bigger problems if your rocket isn't even upright...).

Ok, seems a bit more complicated, now that I have written it out, hope I didn't over complicate it. Basically, right now the ullage sim is trying to do all sorts of stuff with orientation, acceleration, momentum, etc.....since nobody is likely to use an end over end tumble as a practical means of ullage, and at a high level of abstraction, for game play purposes ullage is just a small time requirement. What I am trying to come up with is a simple way to define (some abstract amount, which will need to be balanced) how long you need to do a ullage burn for, and then make the game enforce that in flight. At first my idea was simply to suggest making the whole ullage sim be just a generic 3 second burn from a vernier engine being the only way to get "stable" fuel, but as I started writing the post, the idea evolved somewhat. Anyway, I would really like to have some sort of functional feature for this, as right now, the ullage sim is unusable IMHO. I think what I came up with would cover most cases, and if the ullage sim toggle gets left in, then the user can simply turn it off if you they into some edge case.

Of course, I will offer my time to edit .cfgs for the new ullage syntax in the stock and making history engines.

EDIT: Just thought of a way to simplify this even further. Instead of analyzing the craft in editor, each engine requiring ullage could just be assigned a ullageValue in the MM .cfgs, based on the idea that a certain size of craft is assumed to be attached to that engine. They should still be cumulative though, so engine plates with multiple engines need more ullage than single engines. The ullage motors would also still have to be added together in editor, but you wouldn't factor mass into either of them. This would make it possible to make the in flight ullage simulation be just a simple a timer. If you put moar ullage motors, you'll get "stable" fuel sooner.

Edited February 20, 2019 by Errol

[linuxgurugamer]

If only I had some time right now :-)

I'm busy with three other big mods (two adoptions, one brand new), and don't have time to do this right now.  It's a nice idea, but the ulage value should be applied to the tanks and not the engine, or possibly both.  IMHO, It's more related to the tank size, and how full they are, than the engine size.  So, that way, have the "tankulage" value be the largest value for an almost-empty tank, and then multiply it by 1-%full.  Add them all together for all tanks in the current stage, and would need that amount of ulage burn to be done before the tanks would be usable.

This would mean that nothing would need to be done to the files, the number could be derived from the tank volume itself

Edited February 20, 2019 by linuxgurugamer

[Errol]

Right, yeah, sorry, it's really late, and I just did a bunch of mod installing/testing, so I'm not really thinking straight anymore.

Tying the ullage to the tanks makes way more sense.

I don't mind waiting, you seem to have your own workflow down pat with this many mods to maintain. Just thought i'd put this back on your radar, cause it would be awesome. The thing about ullage is that it plays such a small role in flight, but is a lot of fun for us detail oriented builders who spend 90% of their time in game in the VAB, that it really doesn't need to have a complicated simulation associated with it. Keep it simple, right?