[1.8.x-1.10.x] RealFuels-Stock v5.1.0. - Stockalike RealFuels Configs [18th August 2020]

[ValiZockt]

@zeant93, you seam to have installed a old version of RealFuels-Stock (pre-v4.0). This is not how the current folder structure looks like.

RealFuels
RealFuels-Stockalike
RealPlume
RealPlume-RFStockalike
RealPlume-Stock

Also please read following note from the OP: 

Quote

1. (Optional) RealPlume (Forum Thread, GitHub) NOTE: Do not install RealPlume-Stock, all configs are already included into RealFuels-Stock

 

[zeant93]

13 hours ago, ValiZockt said:

@zeant93, you seam to have installed a old version of RealFuels-Stock (pre-v4.0). This is not how the current folder structure looks like.

RealFuels
RealFuels-Stockalike
RealPlume
RealPlume-RFStockalike
RealPlume-Stock

Also please read following note from the OP: 

 

And how the current folder looks like, because I thought I had the 5.1.0 version of Real Fuels Stock

[zeant93]

On 11/22/2020 at 9:38 AM, ValiZockt said:

Hi @zeant93 would you be so kind and post your KSP.log? (located in the KSP main directory)

 

16 hours ago, zeant93 said:

Here is the Log file link

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_hk1S2mavfhTiF-oSfNpHataXmg1n6wO/view?usp=sharing

This is the actual KSP log file that I want to show you

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2wma7kzb7yaWGQ2S1VwWEJkZm8/view?usp=sharing

[Pointblank66]

I seem to have a problem getting Real Fuels to work properly and I'm not sure if it is RF Stock or just RF. 
When I activate a stage with only the engine in it the engine does not start bc of a "vapor in fuelline warning". But when the engine is started at the same time it is being decoupled or being started together with SRB the problem doesn't happen.
In the Google drive link(see below), Annotation 1 show a stage where both the engine and SRB is started at the same time, so no problem there.  HOWEVER, in annotation 2, 3 and 4, where the engine is started after the SRBs are burned out, the problem does happen instantly. The engine icon goes red as soon the SRBs burn out. You can also see the staging order in those annotations.
I also added a KSP.log file if need.
Annotation 5 shows the mods I have installed so far. The only thing that is not listed is RSSVE bc that is installed manually.

Note that I have also tried a clean installment of KSP 1.8.1 multiple times but the problem still persists.
I'm also gonna post this on the RF forum to see if it is an issue on their side

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1fV4RE3nr3W6Rp6h2eJU8tEVOUDWCwcpq?usp=sharing

Edited November 30, 2020 by Pointblank66

[Mossconfig]

Hi! I really like your configs, because I want to play a stock ish game with the kspie isru chain in a real solar system and this mod really does that well.  Thing is, you warn that this mod is only good for 3.2 scale systems. Why is that? Am I missing something, and if so is there a mod that can do what this does for rss?

[ValiZockt]

@Mossconfig, Yes this is mainly balanced for 1.0x up to 2.7x (JNSQ). Everything above (6.4x or 10x) will be really hard and maybe even impossible. If you are using Real Solar System, there’s only Realism Overhaul. RO does a bit more (ie part scaling) but in its core it holds all the RealFuels configs. 

[Mossconfig]

9 hours ago, ValiZockt said:

will be really hard and maybe even impossible

Le Sigh. KSRSS here I come. On the bright side, now I've got Parallax.

[KIMCHI]

Can someone help me learn how to build or reconfig engines to put them in RF? I've done B9 configs in the past and am working on converting a lot of non RP1 parts to RP1. I'd like to be able to do RF configs as well so  I can make some as many parts available for RO/RP-1. Any help would be great!

[SpacedInvader]

@ValiZockt Have you thought about adding the optional Methalox configurations for the Near Future Launch Vehicles engines? I'm thinking about trying to adapt them myself, but I've never rolled a single engine config in all the years I've been using RF so I'm unsure of the results...

https://github.com/post-kerbin-mining-corporation/NearFutureLaunchVehicles/blob/master/Extras/NearFutureMethalox/NFLVMethaloxEngines.cfg

[Likasombodee]

Can we use this in 1.11 if we install manually or spoof  CKAN?

[Pehvbot]

On 1/11/2021 at 12:23 AM, Mossconfig said:

Hi! I really like your configs, because I want to play a stock ish game with the kspie isru chain in a real solar system and this mod really does that well.  Thing is, you warn that this mod is only good for 3.2 scale systems. Why is that? Am I missing something, and if so is there a mod that can do what this does for rss?

FYI, my Less Real Than Real(ism) mod does rescale both stock parts sizes and the RealFuels-Stock config to something like real world values.  The down side is it's a sort of all-in-one mod with the RP-1 tech tree and contract system built in.   You can also look at SMURFF which is designed to increase performance while keeping parts Kerbal sized.  I can't confirm it's compatible with RealFuels, but it's worth looking at.

Edited January 30, 2021 by Pehvbot

[SpacedInvader]

I"m running into a fairly serious issue with the Bluedog-DB configs. They do function properly in selecting engine configs through the RF dialog and also in using the fuel types, but I can't throttle many of them and the throttle limiter doesn't work at all for any affected. It appears to be any engine that had multiple configs applied through the B9 part switch by the BDB authors that's affected. I've been trying to tweak the RFS configs to get them to work, but so far they refuse to work correctly and I'm starting to run out of ideas. I'm curious if anyone here has managed to get them to work correctly?

[SpacedInvader]

So I've actually figured out what's going on with these engines and need to confirm that its an error and not something done on purpose. From what I've found, many of the engines in the Bluedog-DB patches have had their minimum and maximum thrust values set to the same number through these lines:

minThrust = #$/MODULE[ModuleEnginesRF]/maxThrust$
maxThrust = #$/MODULE[ModuleEnginesRF]/maxThrust$

Which completely disables any form of throttling, including reducing the thrust limiter. To me this seemed like a copy/paste oversight rather than being intentional, but Zorg over at BDB mentioned that it could have been intentional due to the fact that many of the engines represented by their work were in fact not throttleable. The thing is that I wasn't able to find any discussion about this one way or the other, so I went ahead and made myself a set of configs with the correct placement of min vs max, but I'm curious still if this was actually intentional or accidental. Anyway, sorry for the ping here, but @Bellabong, since these are your patches, could you comment?

Thanks

EDIT: Just for the record, one of the reasons I believed this to be in error is because these are the only engines I've found in all my years of using RF that didn't at least allow for the use of the throttle limiter function.

Edited February 7, 2021 by SpacedInvader

[Likasombodee]

I've got Real Fuels and Tundra to work on KSP 1.11. My BFR rocket cluster appears to have thrust and ignites and consumes LOX and Methane but for some reason doesn't actually provide thrust.  Has anyone tried this mod and does it work with Tundra well?

[Bellabong]

On 2/7/2021 at 3:15 PM, SpacedInvader said:

So I've actually figured out what's going on with these engines and need to confirm that its an error and not something done on purpose. From what I've found, many of the engines in the Bluedog-DB patches have had their minimum and maximum thrust values set to the same number through these lines:

minThrust = #$/MODULE[ModuleEnginesRF]/maxThrust$
maxThrust = #$/MODULE[ModuleEnginesRF]/maxThrust$

Which completely disables any form of throttling, including reducing the thrust limiter. To me this seemed like a copy/paste oversight rather than being intentional, but Zorg over at BDB mentioned that it could have been intentional due to the fact that many of the engines represented by their work were in fact not throttleable. The thing is that I wasn't able to find any discussion about this one way or the other, so I went ahead and made myself a set of configs with the correct placement of min vs max, but I'm curious still if this was actually intentional or accidental. Anyway, sorry for the ping here, but @Bellabong, since these are your patches, could you comment?

Thanks

EDIT: Just for the record, one of the reasons I believed this to be in error is because these are the only engines I've found in all my years of using RF that didn't at least allow for the use of the throttle limiter function.

@SpacedInvaderSorry for the late reply but yes, the engines which were completely unthrottable in real life should also not be throttable in the RF BDB configs, there's a lot of those since these are engines from early rocketry. But you did give me an idea to include an optional patch which removes the throttle limits (the launch engines that are allowed to throttle usually only throttle down to around 70%).

Edited March 18, 2021 by Bellabong

[gilflo]

Hello

thank you for this mod. it looks like stock engines are not working when set on a procedural decoupler even if you enable crossed.

[Spelunker113]

Hey can I get a cfg for REDIRECT and SOCK because the LH2 tanks are bugged

[Jcking]

Great mod, I've been really enjoying it. As I have been using this in conjunction with other mods (namely BDB), I've noticed some issues with some of the parts so I'm going to give them and my work arounds for those that could be done. Some of which I have been able to get working, while others I'm still working on. Firstly, there's something wrong with the config for the Prometheus I engine which results in an unusable engine. Copying the kero variant from the Prometheus II and replacing the thrust and ISP modifiers with the Prometheus I values fixed that (I have no idea what is wrong with that, seems typographical, but I don't see any difference). Next the Bossart booster and sustainer engines don't have emmissives, but removing the RP configs fixed that. In addition, the WF effects for the alternative fuel variants for Etoh and Prometheus engines didn't show correctly, but removing the B9 engine switch remover line, and manually switching to that fuel type in the editor fixed that (there are probably more elegant ways of doing that, but I didn't bother trying). After that, (possibly related as I deleted the RP configs for all engines) the Prometheus III engine lost it's running sound, but deleting the power effect line fixed that with the exception of the alternative fuel types variants (for etoh, Prometheus, and possibly Inon and Belle though I haven't tested those), for which I still haven't found a solution.

Edited May 18, 2021 by Jcking

[Cratzz]

I see that Advanced Jet Engine isn't supported, and im missing plume on some but i remember having some configs for it.

[mekaerwin]

I was wondering if the SRB's are working right for me. A Mark I with a Thumper underneath is giving me 3,447 dV in vac and 3,171 in atmosphere. Trying to get that much dV from liquid fuel sources creates a rocket much, much heavier. It seems like liquid fuel boosters would never be used if this was the case. I have useRealisticMass set to false and when true the SRB's still seem to have enormous dV. Thanks for the mod, it is really fun.

[Bellabong]

For those wanting to get ahead of the curve,  here's the most up to date configs for RF BDB. Now with yellow plumes for fluorine based engines and B9partswitch integration.

https://github.com/Bellabong/RealFuels-Stock/releases/tag/1.2

changelog: 
1.2
    - Updated to BDB's waterfall compatibility. Fixed some engine noises that werent playing. In addition the flourine based engines will have different plumes based on yellow.
    - Integrated new RealFuels and B9Partswitch integration, you only need to set the engine configuration in the RealFuels engine menu and the according visuals will be selected (engine nozzle, waterfall plume)
    - Added missing engines from the final release of BDB 1.8
    - Added support for the X-20 Moroz (Stockalike Dynasoar made for the BDB Titan) https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/184435-1120-ж-20-moroz-spaceplane/
    - Removed deprecated folder
    - fixed GE405 engine weight. 
    - Engine response times added

[Apricot]

// set drymass of all RealFuels configured tanks dependent on max volume
@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleFuelTanks]:HAS[#type[Default]]]:AFTER[RealFuels]
{
  @MODULE[ModuleFuelTanks]
  {
    %basemass = volume * 0.00015 
  }
}

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleFuelTanks]:HAS[#type[Cryogenic]]]:AFTER[RealFuels]
{
  @MODULE[ModuleFuelTanks]
  {
    %basemass = volume * 0.00015 
  }
}

This 0.00015 multiplier makes low-density propellant such as liquid hydrogen (LH2) completely useless, as the dry mass takes up more than half the wet mass. Any thought on this?

[Apricot]

2 hours ago, Apricot said:

// set drymass of all RealFuels configured tanks dependent on max volume
@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleFuelTanks]:HAS[#type[Default]]]:AFTER[RealFuels]
{
  @MODULE[ModuleFuelTanks]
  {
    %basemass = volume * 0.00015 
  }
}

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleFuelTanks]:HAS[#type[Cryogenic]]]:AFTER[RealFuels]
{
  @MODULE[ModuleFuelTanks]
  {
    %basemass = volume * 0.00015 
  }
}

This 0.00015 multiplier makes low-density propellant such as liquid hydrogen (LH2) completely useless, as the dry mass takes up more than half the wet mass. Any thought on this?

I removed those two blocks, falling back to 0.000016 RealFuels default. In JNSQ world, this enables 2STO for LKO crew cabs (5000m/s), 3STO huge rockets for crewed Mun mission or deep space probe/landers, and makes LH2/LO2 upper stage a feasible option. Now Isp matters more than propellant density.

I suggest JNSQ players removing these two blocks for better realism/experience.

[ValiZockt]

@Apricot I'm not sure when or why this was added, but looking back this is probably right. If you want to (and if you’d be able to) can you create a PR for that on git?

[Apricot]

5 hours ago, ValiZockt said:

@Apricot I'm not sure when or why this was added, but looking back this is probably right. If you want to (and if you’d be able to) can you create a PR for that on git?

I'm afraid changing the value would affect all users. Vessel mass will decrease and delta-v increase on existing vessels.

From my limited experiments in Kerbal-Mun-Minus system, I would say that

1. JNSQ + current version of RealFuel is the hardest. Mass proportion of tanks (Dry mass : Wet mass ratio, not accounting engine) takes up over the stock 1:9 for most types of propellant. Low-density high-Isp propellants (especially LH2+LO2) are counter-productive.
   • The current config (0.00015) needs 150kg tank per 1m^3 propellant, LH2 is less than 100kg/m^3 dense.
   • Single stage delta-v is limited
     • With a staging ratio (m_upperstage / m_everything) of 1:6, Isp = 300s, propellant density = 1t/m^3, we can achieve only 4km/s for an infinite heavy stage. In fact, 3km/s is already too heavy. (RIP Falcon 9)
     • This is on par with real-life difficulty early days (3.5 stage Vostok), not a great experience for gaming, huh?
2. JNSQ + stock (including Restock+, or other stockalike) engines/fuels is modest difficulty. JNSQ is designed for that.
3. JNSQ + 0.000016 RealFuel, easier than JNSQ + stock parts. With 1.25m parts, I achieved 2.5 stages for minimal crewed launch(1.5t), 3 stages (3rd stage is RCS) for a minimal Mun lander probe (300kg).
4. Stock world + stock engine is OP, everyone agrees.
5. Stock world + current version of RealFuel, not tried this yet, but it should be the same that LH2+LO2 is no-go.
6. Stock world + 0.000016 probably too easy, 6km/s dv can do a lot of fancy things.

Besides JNSQ, I also have Principia, FAR, RealHeat, and Kerbalism, TETRIX tech tree (for uncrewed probe early-game) installed, which might affect rocket design and tech planning.

Conclusion: current difficulty is acceptable, though not very entertaining for JNSQ. The fact that LH2+LO2 is the worst propellant really annoys.

Edited July 6, 2021 by Apricot