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

[subyng]

On 10/16/2019 at 3:09 AM, Zorg said:

Hi @linuxgurugamer, while testing out the patches I've been writing, I've discovered a bug. It looks like its possible for ignitions to randomly fail even when fuel is stable. The error message seems to be not enough EC even when there is a considerable excess of EC. This has been reproduced with multiple engines. The failures appear to be random.

I've posted an issue with a screenshot, some more details and output log here. For the moment I am running a patch to remove EC requirements for myself but thats probably not the solution you want.

https://github.com/linuxgurugamer/EngineIgnitor/issues/12

Anyways hope you can take a look when you have time.

I'm seeing this issue as well. @Zorg could you share that patch?

Edited November 26, 2019 by subyng

[Zorg]

2 hours ago, subyng said:

I'm seeing this issue as well. @Zorg could you share that patch?

I actually included it in the last PR, just rename the extension for "RemoveEC_EngineIgnitor.cfg.disabled" in EngineIgnitor/MM_Configs

[Atlessa]

Found a typo:

 

 

At least I assume that file -> fire

[linuxgurugamer]

On 2/4/2020 at 4:05 PM, Atlessa said:

Found a typo:

 

 

At least I assume that file -> fire

Thanks.

I fixed it in the code, but it's too minor to release a new version at this point.  I did credit you with it, though

[Atlessa]

22 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:

Thanks.

I fixed it in the code, but it's too minor to release a new version at this point.  I did credit you with it, though

Senpai noticed me  (*-*)

[Godit]

Anyone able to confirm if this is working for KSP 1.9?

[svcino]

41 minutes ago, Godit said:

Anyone able to confirm if this is working for KSP 1.9?

we need test in 1.9

[I likeOxidizerrfuel]

Question: How do we refill ignitors?

[dave1904]

Parts with unlimited Igniters only have 1. Do not know if this is intentional but it is confusing to have the game tell you you have unlimited ignitions and find out you only have one. 

Near Future Launch Vehicles seems to have this issue as most of the parts are like this. 

@PART[EXAMPLE]:NEEDS[ALIFE]
{
    MODULE
    {
        name = ModuleEngineIgnitor
        AutoIgnitionTemperature = 800
        UseUllageSimulation = true
        ChanceWhenUnstable = 0.2
    ECforIgnition = 35
        IgnitorType = Internal
    }
}

Edited March 24, 2020 by dave1904

[Zorg]

1 hour ago, dave1904 said:

Parts with unlimited Igniters only have 1. Do not know if this is intentional but it is confusing to have the game tell you you have unlimited ignitions and find out you only have one. 

Near Future Launch Vehicles seems to have this issue as most of the parts are like this. 

@PART[EXAMPLE]:NEEDS[ALIFE]
{
    MODULE
    {
        name = ModuleEngineIgnitor
        AutoIgnitionTemperature = 800
        UseUllageSimulation = true
        ChanceWhenUnstable = 0.2
    ECforIgnition = 35
        IgnitorType = Internal
    }
}

This appears to be a bug actually. I updated the configs for NFLV a little while earlier in a pull request but it seems that sometimes unlimited ignitions dont work properly. In the meantime might do a new PR when I have time to set them to 1000 ignitions like we've done for similar engines in BDB. 

[dave1904]

55 minutes ago, Zorg said:

This appears to be a bug actually. I updated the configs for NFLV a little while earlier in a pull request but it seems that sometimes unlimited ignitions dont work properly. In the meantime might do a new PR when I have time to set them to 1000 ignitions like we've done for similar engines in BDB. 

Since you guys are experts can I ask you something? Do Engines like the AJ10 with hypergolic fuels have limited "ignitions"? I was actually looking into the BDB configs and only saw you had 25 on aj10 and you guys tend to have a reason for that. Also was the AJ10 on the shuttle any different? I want the AJ10 from redirect handle as real as possible and wasn't sure about ullage and ignitions. 

Its hard to find info on the AJ10. 

Edited March 24, 2020 by dave1904

[Zorg]

Just now, dave1904 said:

Since you guys are experts can I ask you something? Do Engines like the AJ10 with hypergolic fuels have limited "ignitions"? I was actually looking into the BDB configs and only saw you had 25 on aj10 and you guys tend to have a reason for that. Also was the AJ10 on the shuttle any different? I want the AJ10 from redirect handle as real as possible and wasn't sure about ullage and ignitions. 

Its hard to find info on the AJ10. 

Not too sure about the shuttle one, I havent looked it up personally. The very first AJ10s like those used on the Able upper stage had a single ignition. It evolved over time getting more and more. iirc the AJ10 version used on the Ablestar was the first AJ10 to get restart capability. There are a few AJ10s in BDB (and even more now in the dev branch and they have different limits depending on what we found out during research).

One of the first places I look for ignition data is in the RO engine configs. Usually the configs have comments pointing to original references that you can follow up on.

https://github.com/KSP-RO/RealismOverhaul/tree/master/GameData/RealismOverhaul/Engine_Configs

 

[dave1904]

3 minutes ago, Zorg said:

Not too sure about the shuttle one, I havent looked it up personally. The very first AJ10s like those used on the Able upper stage had a single ignition. It evolved over time getting more and more. iirc the AJ10 version used on the Ablestar was the first AJ10 to get restart capability. There are a few AJ10s in BDB (and even more now in the dev branch and they have different limits depending on what we found out during research).

One of the first places I look for ignition data is in the RO engine configs. Usually the configs have comments pointing to original references that you can follow up on.

https://github.com/KSP-RO/RealismOverhaul/tree/master/GameData/RealismOverhaul/Engine_Configs

 

Thanks alot. Its the AJ10-190 and in the configs its:, Basically unlimited. I had the feeling because it was part of the RCS system. 

@MODULE[ModuleEngines*]
	{
	@minThrust = 26.7
	@maxThrust = 26.7
	%heatProduction = 28
	%EngineType = LiquidFuel
	@useThrustCurve = False
	@useEngineResponseTime = False
	@engineAccelerationSpeed = 0
	@engineDecelerationSpeed = 0
	%ullage = False
	%pressureFed = True
	%ignitions = 500

[Zorg]

I've opened a PR that adds configs for Commonwealth Rockets and also sets NFLV engines with spark ignitors to 1000 ignitions instead of undefined. So they are practically unlimited albeit still with a ullage requirement.

https://github.com/linuxgurugamer/EngineIgnitor/pull/14

 

[Errol]

I'm finally coming back to the game after a couple years. Managed to save up for the new computer I've been dreaming of, and now instead of playing at 10 fps I can play at about 130 fps! Anyway, I started testing out this mod, and I can't seem to get the external ignitors to work. It isn't the range issue, I've tried setting the launch clamp range to 5 and to 100, with no effect. I've tried adding "(Launch Clamps)" to the "IgnitorType = External" line on the engines, as well as adding an ullage simulation line. One thing I did notice is that if I click activate engine in the PAW the engine starts firing, and furthermore I can cycle it on and off as many times as I like. Some how it seems the patch isn't applying to engines that are set for external ignitors. Mod seems to work as intended otherwise. KSP 1.9.1

[Zorg]

2 hours ago, Errol said:

I'm finally coming back to the game after a couple years. Managed to save up for the new computer I've been dreaming of, and now instead of playing at 10 fps I can play at about 130 fps! Anyway, I started testing out this mod, and I can't seem to get the external ignitors to work. It isn't the range issue, I've tried setting the launch clamp range to 5 and to 100, with no effect. I've tried adding "(Launch Clamps)" to the "IgnitorType = External" line on the engines, as well as adding an ullage simulation line. One thing I did notice is that if I click activate engine in the PAW the engine starts firing, and furthermore I can cycle it on and off as many times as I like. Some how it seems the patch isn't applying to engines that are set for external ignitors. Mod seems to work as intended otherwise. KSP 1.9.1

Seems to work fine for me? Are you staging the engines and launch clamps at the same time? Because that doesnt work, you need to stage the engines to ignite them and then stage the launch clamps. FYI the IgnitorType line doesnt actually do anything, its just a descriptor for information in the VAB, you could write anything there. 

----

As an aside I will be submitting a PR shortly for the new NFLV engines (and the new 1.9 mainsail and skipper).

[Errol]

7 hours ago, Zorg said:

Seems to work fine for me? Are you staging the engines and launch clamps at the same time? Because that doesnt work, you need to stage the engines to ignite them and then stage the launch clamps. FYI the IgnitorType line doesnt actually do anything, its just a descriptor for information in the VAB, you could write anything there. 

----

As an aside I will be submitting a PR shortly for the new NFLV engines (and the new 1.9 mainsail and skipper).

Blarg! I knew about the staging them separately thing too! It's just been literally a few years since I've been able to really play the game at all. Will test again right away. By the way, do you know if the ullage simulation was changed? I seem to remember someone noticing that something was in radians but should have been in degrees or vice versa or something. Seems to work using rcs, but not from spinning your rocket end over end. Not a big problem, just curious if it was changed to not even try to simulate that anymore.

[Zorg]

Just now, Errol said:

Blarg! I knew about the staging them separately thing too! It's just been literally a few years since I've been able to really play the game at all. Will test again right away. By the way, do you know if the ullage simulation was changed? I seem to remember someone noticing that something was in radians but should have been in degrees or vice versa or something. Seems to work using rcs, but not from spinning your rocket end over end. Not a big problem, just curious if it was changed to not even try to simulate that anymore.

I dont know the details of the code changes to be honest. But that PR to plugin seems to have fixed the rcs ullage problem. Im not sure about the implications for spinning, I've not tried.

Just FYI I have noticed seemingly random failures when EC is a requirement, when I did the last config PR I included an optional patch which you can find in the files to blanket remove EC requirement from all engines (Our own BDB configs as such only use the ignitor resource and no EC by default). If I had any coding skill at all I would look at that and try to help but MM is as far as my skills extend

 

[Errol]

9 minutes ago, Zorg said:

I dont know the details of the code changes to be honest. But that PR to plugin seems to have fixed the rcs ullage problem. Im not sure about the implications for spinning, I've not tried.

Just FYI I have noticed seemingly random failures when EC is a requirement, when I did the last config PR I included an optional patch which you can find in the files to blanket remove EC requirement from all engines (Our own BDB configs as such only use the ignitor resource and no EC by default). If I had any coding skill at all I would look at that and try to help but MM is as far as my skills extend

 

Honestly, removing EC as a requirement is something I have long considered doing. When I first discovered this mod and did a bunch of MM-fu on the patches I removed this extraneous, consumable resource called hyperbolic fluid. My thoughts at the time were similar to what roverDude has said about USI-LS vs TAC-LS...at the end of the day the user is either going to grab a larger container, or a smaller container of resources to attach to their rocket according to their needs. Does it really matter if it's one highly abstracted consumable resource inside, or a bunch of separate, more specific resources, when at the end of the day all these resources and mechanics are just affecting one thing; how long your kerbonauts will survive. Same thing here really, why track number of ignitions you can do with ignitors, fluid AND ec? At the end of the day, the only thing that matters is how many times that engine can fire. I wonder if there could be some sort of simpler implementation of EC requirements, like just a boolean yes or no does the craft have EC at all? Maybe something that disables all engines when there is no EC? (The problem being that if you run out of EC, you can "cheat" by magically firing up an engine to run it's alternator.)

Edited May 19, 2020 by Errol

[panarchist]

1 hour ago, Errol said:

Honestly, removing EC as a requirement is something I have long considered doing. When I first discovered this mod and did a bunch of MM-fu on the patches I removed this extraneous, consumable resource called hyperbolic fluid. My thoughts at the time were similar to what roverDude has said about USI-LS vs TAC-LS...at the end of the day the user is either going to grab a larger container, or a smaller container of resources to attach to their rocket according to their needs. Does it really matter if it's one highly abstracted consumable resource inside, or a bunch of separate, more specific resources, when at the end of the day all these resources and mechanics are just affecting one thing; how long your kerbonauts will survive. Same thing here really, why track number of ignitions you can do with ignitors, fluid AND ec? 

Hypergolic, not hyperbolic. Hypergolic fuels are those which ignite spontaneously without the use of an igniter. They're typically used in engines intended only for use in space, and they're not that common other than for RCS since they are typically highly reactive and extremely toxic. They do have specialized applications, (RCS being the most notable) and the Apollo LM used them in both the descent and ascent engines. I agree that it doesn't really make a difference whether the ignition method is an actual igniter or a small reservoir of hypergolic fluid, as functionally they're nearly identical.

Edit: The OMS pods on STS also used hypergolic propellants. They have a lower Isp typically than non-hypergolic fuels, but the main advantage to using them is you don't need an igniter, and they pretty much always work - necessary in purely-space engines which might cold soak for days before being fired again.

Edited May 19, 2020 by panarchist

[Errol]

4 minutes ago, panarchist said:

Hypergolic, not hyperbolic. Hypergolic fuels are those which ignite spontaneously without the use of an igniter. They're typically used in engines intended only for use in space, and they're not that common other than for RCS since they are typically highly reactive and extremely toxic. They do have specialized applications, (RCS being the most notable) and the Apollo LM used them in both the descent and ascent engines. I agree that it doesn't really make a difference whether the ignition method is an actual igniter or a small reservoir of hypergolic fluid, as functionally they're nearly identical.

I know what hypergolics are, it was an honest typo. Far as I know, it isn't just a small tank of extra fluid in real rcs systems, rather it is two large tanks of fluids that react when mixed, so it's the entire fuel tank that contains "hypergolic fluid." Anyway, I'm just as happy to not have ksp simulating extraneous stuff, I just want something that forces me to be a little bit more mindful of my design choices as I build in the VAB.

[Zorg]

1 hour ago, Errol said:

Honestly, removing EC as a requirement is something I have long considered doing. When I first discovered this mod and did a bunch of MM-fu on the patches I removed this extraneous, consumable resource called hyperbolic fluid. My thoughts at the time were similar to what roverDude has said about USI-LS vs TAC-LS...at the end of the day the user is either going to grab a larger container, or a smaller container of resources to attach to their rocket according to their needs. Does it really matter if it's one highly abstracted consumable resource inside, or a bunch of separate, more specific resources, when at the end of the day all these resources and mechanics are just affecting one thing; how long your kerbonauts will survive. Same thing here really, why track number of ignitions you can do with ignitors, fluid AND ec? At the end of the day, the only thing that matters is how many times that engine can fire. I wonder if there could be some sort of simpler implementation of EC requirements, like just a boolean yes or no does the craft have EC at all? Maybe something that disables all engines when there is no EC? (The problem being that if you run out of EC, you can "cheat" by magically firing up an engine to run it's alternator.)

Well given that its bugged and that in general it doest add a great deal of gameplay value I might just remove EC by default from all configs in my next PR if @linuxgurugamer is ok with it? So going forward the only factor will be the abstracted ignitions resource. 

[LawnDartLeo]

Greetings,

I have all the necessary dependencies installed (001_ToolbarControl is in game data) yet I do not see any way to control the mod from within the simulation view.  It is selected to be in both tool bars within the tool bar config). What did I do wrong?

[dylsh]

Is there a way to add mod support for the engines provided by Kiwi Tech Tree Overhaul and Nertea’s Cryogenic Engines?

[Faster]

Great mod! I really enjoy the choices I have to make based on igniters and missions to resupply igniters. After years of playing with it, I'm finding the ullage simulation doesn't really change anything for me, that is, I don't make any choices or face any challenges based on it--other than whether I remembered to quickly wiggle a vehicle's rear end before igniting in micro g and having to over-complicate stages for vehicles automated with things like Smart Parts. I see some older comments about disabling the ullage simulation by doing a global replace in /GameData of UseUllageSimulation=true to false (since the settings UI isn't wired up as of 1.3.6.2). Is that currently the best way to disable ullage or is there a better way now?

Edited December 9, 2020 by Faster