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

[mateusviccari]

Can anyone help me understand why some engines don't have available upgraded tech levels? Comparing two engines (The stromboli from CryoEngines and the stock Swivel) both start in tech level 2, are the same engine type (L+) but only the swivel has tech upgrades (TL2-7) while the stromboli gets clamped at TL2. Their config files are identical, apart from the fuel configs.

[SpacedInvader]

So I know its been a couple of years since any of the mod creators for this have replied, so I'm not too hopeful for an answer, but I am curious if we're supposed to be using "useRealisticMass=false" or not for this? I've tried multiple combinations and it feels like leaving the settings on "true" leads to fairly small rockets, while setting either of the options to false leads to comically oversized rockets (i.e. just to put a single Kerbal in orbit takes an absurdly large rocket and is nearly impossible with early tech). In searching through the thread I noticed at one point there was some talk about an update to rebalance things and remove the reliance on the setting, but looking at the patch notes there was only one update after that before it development stopped and its unclear if that rebalance happened in that update. So basically, I'm left with the following question: Have the configs been reworked such that we're just supposed to use the default RF settings, or are the current configs not rebalanced and we're supposed to set realistic mass to false and really work hard to engineer workable rockets?

Thanks

[Starwaster]

On 6/16/2023 at 10:40 PM, SpacedInvader said:

So I know its been a couple of years since any of the mod creators for this have replied, so I'm not too hopeful for an answer, but I am curious if we're supposed to be using "useRealisticMass=false" or not for this? I've tried multiple combinations and it feels like leaving the settings on "true" leads to fairly small rockets, while setting either of the options to false leads to comically oversized rockets (i.e. just to put a single Kerbal in orbit takes an absurdly large rocket and is nearly impossible with early tech). In searching through the thread I noticed at one point there was some talk about an update to rebalance things and remove the reliance on the setting, but looking at the patch notes there was only one update after that before it development stopped and its unclear if that rebalance happened in that update. So basically, I'm left with the following question: Have the configs been reworked such that we're just supposed to use the default RF settings, or are the current configs not rebalanced and we're supposed to set realistic mass to false and really work hard to engineer workable rockets?

Thanks

When useRealisticMass is set to false, engines are scaled 4x and tanks are scaled 4.8x. If set to true then the part's configured mass is used as is. 

There is an implicit assumption there that engines are scaled realistically already and if useRealisticMass = true then don't touch engine/tank masses. It also assumes that they are set to 1/4th of what they would be in stock, so the simple answer to your question would be that if you're using a stock Kerbol star system then the setting should be set to false. A realistically scaled star system (Real Solar System, Kerbin 10x, JNSQ) should have the setting at true.

BUT. (caveat time) This mod, while having scaled down engine masses, does not necessarily have engine masses at 1/4th of their stock sizes. For instance, MassiveBooster (I think that's the shuttle SRB styled one...) has a stock mass of 4. But this mod sets it to to 2.4. If you set useRealisticMass = false then you're going to end up with a booster that is 9.6 tons. YOU DO NOT WANT THAT. That's more than double the stock mass for that part. I'm not sure of the relevant config file's history, maybe the ratio between mod and stock used to be different.  But I would set useReaiisticMass = true to avoid unnecessary headaches. 

 

[SpacedInvader]

5 hours ago, Starwaster said:

When useRealisticMass is set to false, engines are scaled 4x and tanks are scaled 4.8x. If set to true then the part's configured mass is used as is. 

There is an implicit assumption there that engines are scaled realistically already and if useRealisticMass = true then don't touch engine/tank masses. It also assumes that they are set to 1/4th of what they would be in stock, so the simple answer to your question would be that if you're using a stock Kerbol star system then the setting should be set to false. A realistically scaled star system (Real Solar System, Kerbin 10x, JNSQ) should have the setting at true.

BUT. (caveat time) This mod, while having scaled down engine masses, does not necessarily have engine masses at 1/4th of their stock sizes. For instance, MassiveBooster (I think that's the shuttle SRB styled one...) has a stock mass of 4. But this mod sets it to to 2.4. If you set useRealisticMass = false then you're going to end up with a booster that is 9.6 tons. YOU DO NOT WANT THAT. That's more than double the stock mass for that part. I'm not sure of the relevant config file's history, maybe the ratio between mod and stock used to be different.  But I would set useReaiisticMass = true to avoid unnecessary headaches. 

 

What I ended up doing was setting it to false for the engines (RFSettings) and true for the the tanks (MFSSettings) as the latter led to some truly ridiculous values (~30 tons dry for a 20mx1.25m procedural tank). That said, I'm starting to have some second thoughts about even setting the engines to false as I've noticed some of what you've mentioned already as I've progressed through the tech tree in my career save with various engines being poor performing outliers because of their mass. Knowing that there are more issues to be had further down the line makes me think it might be better to start over and just deal with the fact that my rockets aren't going to be very big. I guess the worst case scenario is that I could add some structural segments to make things look better...

[bright Universe]

Does this mod support waterfall?

[Starwaster]

2 hours ago, bright Universe said:

Does this mod support waterfall?

Not really a valid question. Waterfall  just adds plumes (and effects?) to engines.  It doesn't require anything from Real Fuels to function.

[DA299]

Hello guys, I've started playing KSP after a while now, and I was just wondering whether this mod still has support for BDB or not?

 

[Starwaster]

On 4/19/2024 at 1:56 PM, DA299 said:

Hello guys, I've started playing KSP after a while now, and I was just wondering whether this mod still has support for BDB or not?

 

Tanks should be converted but engines need third party support.

If you don't have a scaled up starsystem then this should do it:

https://github.com/ValentinBischof/RealFuels-Stock

I've recently discovered though that BDB had a lot of changes to part names, which breaks things like saves, craft files, and mod patches. RealFuels-Stock seems like it was updated to account for that but I'm not sure everything was fixed.

RO support for BDB seems broken because of the changes. Some things work, others don't.