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

[Starwaster]

@ValiZockt 

Why did you change the mod's folder name? That breaks any Module Manager configs that depend on it. (specifically it breaks NEEDS and it breaks any BEFORE, FOR and AFTER passes)

[JebIsDeadBaby]

Huh, I started to wonder where the original value of basemass = volume * 0.000016 actually comes from. I guess the original creators did their research but I thought I'll check the numbers. It's surprisingly hard however to find fuel tank volumes for common boosters. Finally I've found this paper titled Analysis of Propellant Tank Masses, which is exactly what I was looking for. It deals with LOX/LH tanks. Long history short, it shows that tank mass to propellant mass ratio is usually about 1/10, with 1/20 being the best one could aim for in their design. Now, LH tanks tend to be huge and thus, I assume, their tank to propellant mass ratio is a bit worse, so let's stick to 1/20 ratio for a bit. From www.braeunig.us we find that  common LOX based propellants density comes in range of about 0,8-1,5 kg/l. Let's assume for the sake of simplicity that the average density of our mixture is 1,2. This gives propellant mass in a 500 l tank of 600 kg. Applying our ratio to it we get 30 kg of 500 l tank dry mass. 

500 l default tank filled with A50/NTO in RF has dry mass of 17,3 kg and wet mass of 604,3 kg, which gives even better ratio of 1/33. And only when looking into RF tank configs I realized how elegantly it is made. If I get it right basemass constitutes for only about 50% of the dry mass - it's like a mass of a bare frame, without any actual tanks inside. Only after you choose fuel type, a weighted average (I guess) of mass parameters defined for every fuel tank type is added to the basemass, which finally gives the final dry mass of the whole assembly. Beautiful.

Anyway, from the original thread I gather that they based their values on Titian tanks. I dunno, maybe they indeed were that lightweight. It seems however that you could double tank dry masses and still call it realistic. You would have to double not only basemass parameters but also mass parameters for every tank defined within TANK_DEFINITION node. 

Edited August 24, 2020 by JebIsDeadBaby

[TranceaddicT]

3 hours ago, Starwaster said:

@ValiZockt 

Why did you change the mod's folder name? That breaks any Module Manager configs that depend on it. (specifically it breaks NEEDS and it breaks any BEFORE, FOR and AFTER passes)

I'm looking at the hierarchy now.  With the exception of additions, nothing has changed since at least v4.0.

[ValiZockt]

3 hours ago, Starwaster said:

@ValiZockt 

Why did you change the mod's folder name? That breaks any Module Manager configs that depend on it. (specifically it breaks NEEDS and it breaks any BEFORE, FOR and AFTER passes)

While i changed the folder names, i haven't touched the MM passes. All patches i have seen are targeting RealFuels_StockEngines (which the pass where mostly everything runs, i only added some additional ones to move patches to later passes). I haven't seen any patch targeting the old folder name (RFStockalike). Correct me if Im wrong on this.

6 minutes ago, TranceaddicT said:

I'm looking at the hierarchy now.  With the exception of additions, nothing has changed since at least v4.0.

Yes, i took over with 4.0 (Raptor831 latest was v3.2.6.6). Instead of having all engine configs in a single file which was thrown in a single folder, I gave every mod a own folder and every engine own file.

Edited August 24, 2020 by ValiZockt

[Starwaster]

2 hours ago, ValiZockt said:

While i changed the folder names, i haven't touched the MM passes.

It's not passes in this mod that I'm concerned about...

Quote

All patches i have seen are targeting RealFuels_StockEngines (which the pass where mostly everything runs, i only added some additional ones to move patches to later passes). I haven't seen any patch targeting the old folder name (RFStockalike). Correct me if Im wrong on this.

There's a lot of mods patching things out there. Just because you haven't found any doesn't mean that none of them were  depending on patch order or dependency on Raptor's original mod. It's generally a bad idea all around to make needless changes that can affect Module Manager patches.

And that's not even talking about individual players who might switch over to this and then have no idea why things suddenly broke on their end and then they'll be unsure as to what broke or why or who to go to for support.

I personally  have patches like that and I'm knowledgeable enough to deal with it since I do a lot of modding myself but a lot of players are not. like that. (in point of fact, this was not a chance find on my part; I knew to go looking for just this situation when evaluating if I should switch over to your branch)

[TranceaddicT]

5 hours ago, Starwaster said:

There's a lot of mods patching things out there.

Yes, there are.  They are also NOT his (or your) responsibility.

 

5 hours ago, Starwaster said:

It's generally a bad idea all around to make needless changes that can affect Module Manager patches.

If anyone who made patches for the OLD version of the mod don't like the heirarchy of the NEW mod ... they can stick with the old one.

 

5 hours ago, Starwaster said:

no idea why things suddenly broke on their end and then they'll be unsure as to what broke or why or who to go to for support.

Oh, I'm sure most will figure out what broke and who to go. 

 

Moreover, when they find out why (whatever the reason) they will likely be more gracious about it.

[Starwaster]

7 hours ago, TranceaddicT said:

Yes, there are.  They are also NOT his (or your) responsibility.

No, you're right. It's not MY responsibility.

It's EVERYONE'S responsibility. 

It's a shared sandbox where developers inevitably are going to step on each other's toes and the right thing to do is bring attention to these matters when it pops up.

[Bellabong]

I'm struggling to think of the need to make a needs realfuels stockengines instead of a needs realfuels in the first place plus FOR AFTER etc. shouldn't be affected unless you have something patching after the catch-alls.

On the earlier discussion - should one really have the ability to put a 1.7 ton capsule into a full orbit at T0 with a T1 launchpad? The BDB Mercury for example comes to around 1.2 and needs a T1 Atlas for orbit at stockalike scale and that is nowhere near the T1 launchpad limit. 

Edited August 26, 2020 by Bellabong

[JebIsDeadBaby]

14 hours ago, Bellabong said:

should one really have the ability to put a 1.7 ton capsule into a full orbit at T0 with a T1 launchpad? The BDB Mercury for example comes to around 1.2 and needs a T1 Atlas for orbit at stockalike scale and that is nowhere near the T1 launchpad limit. 

I'm not sure what case you're arguing here. IMO it should be possible within 18t limit with Tier II (General Rocketry) parts tops. I must admit I haven't played stock in ages and I'm out of touch with stock difficulty level but IIRC it was possible in stock (Mk1 to orbit is rather basic achievement after all). Regardless of how modded is your game, you'll be stuck with T1 VAB and T1 launchpad for a while and your ability to milk science and funds with basic parts may be limited.   

Edited August 27, 2020 by JebIsDeadBaby

[Bellabong]

9 hours ago, JebIsDeadBaby said:

I'm not sure what case you're arguing here. IMO it should be possible within 18t limit with Tier II (General Rocketry) parts tops. I must admit I haven't played stock in ages and I'm out of touch with stock difficulty level but IIRC it was possible in stock (Mk1 to orbit is rather basic achievement after all). Regardless of how modded is your game, you'll be stuck with T1 VAB and T1 launchpad for a while and your ability to milk science and funds with basic parts may be limited.   

It was possible to orbit because it only takes around 3000dV at stock scale kerbin to orbit. At 3.2x scale for example you're looking at around 6000dV for LKO and 8000 for Geosync/LMO. BDB has many small probes that can be launched by the smaller rockets on the T1 pad into orbits from T1 and as shown above both stock and RF would struggle to put the Mk1 into orbit at the scale RF is designed for with an 18T limit. 

So yes while at stock scale putting a Mk1 into orbit at T0 is a basic achievement putting almost 2tons into orbit at proper scale requires quite a hefty rocket. Like I mentioned, the real-life analogues that could carry that much into orbit are considerably heavier than the T1 launchpad limit.

Edited August 27, 2020 by Bellabong

[Neil Kermstrong]

i love you no homo

[JebIsDeadBaby]

One more thing I've just found out - if you change EC utilization, you need to change EC unit mass in all tank definitions that can hold it. Otherwise EC starts adding TONS to the total weight of a tank. If you want to stay in line with battery power/weight ratio of 100EC/5kg, unit mass of EC should be utilization/20/1000, so in case of utilization of 7 it should be 0.00035.

@TANK[ElectricCharge]
{
	@utilization = 7
	@mass = 0.00035
}

 

[Noctis_cs]

Hi everyone.

During the test on the Starship from the mod Tundra Exploration, I found the SuperHeavy booster not enough powerful to lift the complete vehicle.
I dig in the files to found where was the issue.
In the file:  RealFuels-Stock\TundraExploration\TE2_19_SH_Engine.cfg

Quote

 CONFIG
    {
      name = LqdMethane+LqdOxygen
      maxThrust = 3840
      heatProduction = 87
      PROPELLANT

however, upper in the code we can found this:

Quote

@MODULE[ModuleEngine*]:HAS[#engineID[AllEngines]]
  {
    @name = ModuleEnginesRF
    @maxThrust = 17280
    @heatProduction = 864
    @atmosphereCurve

After tweaking the value for the maxThrust, the Starship lift off from the pad. (finally >_<")
Sorry for my English, I'm French. (^_^)"

Fly Safe o7

[DA299]

Hi Everyone,

                    I have a question; does anyone know how to (globally) edit the engine dry mass in this mod?

I'm playing with RF-stock in RSS, and I really need to have low engine masses, this mod doesn't touch the engines' masses-because they remain their stock values.

So, I downloaded SMURFF to solve this problem, but apparently it doesn't work alongside RealFuels-Stock.

How do I edit the engines masses so to make them to closer to reality? I don't want to play with RO (it's great but too hard for me), but to really enjoy a RSS playthrough, I need low part masses.Any help would be appreciated.

BTW, I really love the mod, it's the perfect blend of realism and playability.(IMO)

[ValiZockt]

@DA299, there are two ways to lower engine mass with RF, choose one:

1. RF has already an option to apply a multiplier to engines. Navigate to RealFuels/RealSettings.cfg and set under RFSETTINGS useRealisticMass to false. Then you can choose your engineMassMultiplier. (Default is 4.0, this will make your engines 4 times as heavy,  so lower it down to 0.5 to decrease engine mass by half).

2. You can also do the same by a simple MM patch:

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleEngines*]]:FINAL
{
 @mass *= 0.5 // adjust your multiplier value here.
}

This will decrease all engines mass by half. 

[DA299]

35 minutes ago, ValiZockt said:

@DA299, there are two ways to lower engine mass with RF, choose one:

1. RF has already an option to apply a multiplier to engines. Navigate to RealFuels/RealSettings.cfg and set under RFSETTINGS useRealisticMass to false. Then you can choose your engineMassMultiplier. (Default is 4.0, this will make your engines 4 times as heavy,  so lower it down to 0.5 to decrease engine mass by half).

2. You can also do the same by a simple MM patch:

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleEngines*]]:FINAL
{
 @mass *= 0.5 // adjust your multiplier value here.
}

This will decrease all engines mass by half. 

Thanks a lot, I really appreciate the quick reply.

[DA299]

@ValiZockt  I have one more question; why do some engines have different fuel ratios? For example; the vector-which is made cryogenic by this mod- uses 23% Lqd. Oxygen and 77% Lqd. Hydrogen; while all the engines from BDB and cryogenic engines (the mods) use a ratio of 93% Lqd. Hydrogen and only 7% Lqd. Oxygen.

I did some research and it seems like the optimal ratio for hydrolox engines is 5-6 parts hydrogen to 1 part oxygen; which equates to 83-86% Hydrogen and the rest Oxygen- so why these numbers are not used?

RF-stock's hydrolox fuel ratios makes rockets which use vector( based on the SSME, which is basically a jack-of-all-trades cryo-engine) engines have better mass-fractions are more deltaV than the rockets(or stages) which use the Vacuum optimized engines from Cryo-engines and BDB; I think this should be the other way around.

@ValiZockt could you tell me the reasoning behind these two differing mass ratios?

[boribori]

@ValiZockt The SXT LV-405 Vanguard still has Liquid Fuel and Oxidizer for its additional RCS engine. I wanted to look into how to write a config myself, but I have no clue yet and that would take a long time. I believe the RO engine config just removes the RCS, that would probably be the easiest solution, if desirable.

[ValiZockt]

31 minutes ago, boribori said:

@ValiZockt The SXT LV-405 Vanguard still has Liquid Fuel and Oxidizer for its additional RCS engine. I wanted to look into how to write a config myself, but I have no clue yet and that would take a long time. I believe the RO engine config just removes the RCS, that would probably be the easiest solution, if desirable.

I see, appreciate the hint. SXT configs were last touched 4 years ago, so there may be even more. Nevertheless this should be a very easy fix tho. Thank you. 

[boribori]

@ValiZockt There was no config for Airplanes Plus helicopter rotors (AirplanePlus/Parts/Engine/Rotorwing/), this seems to work (I copied and adapted RealFuels-Stock/000_DEPRECATED/FS_Helicopter_Parts):

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[FSengineBladed]]
{
	@MODULE[FSengineBladed]
	{
	@resources ^= :LiquidFuel:Kerosene:
	}
}

I'll most likely find (a lot?) more over the next few weeks/months, and I will try to write the patches myself. Do you want me to post them here or on github as I find them? (If on github I need to figure out how to do that, but it's about time that I do.)

[RP1IsSuperior]

Can you turn off Ullage and limited ignitions? Also, do the engines perform similarly to the way they do in the stock game? I simply want to have to manage different fuel types, liquidfuel and oxidizer seems a little bit bland to me.

[boribori]

7 hours ago, RP1IsSuperior said:

Can you turn off Ullage and limited ignitions? Also, do the engines perform similarly to the way they do in the stock game? I simply want to have to manage different fuel types, liquidfuel and oxidizer seems a little bit bland to me.

You can turn it off by editing the last section of GameData/RealFuels/RealSettings.cfg, change true to false:

	Ullage
	{
		simulateUllage = true
		limitedIgnitions = true

I don't know for sure if they perform the same, but I assume they do.

[zeant93]

Hi guys, anyone knows what are causing these issues in some engines and tanks of the BDB configs for Real Fuels - Stock, I'm using the 1.7.1 release of BDB. I'm using this mod with Galileo Planet Pack and Grannus Expansion Pack in the 1.8.1 KSP version. So I want to know how to fix these issues I found in the loading screen.

[ValiZockt]

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

[zeant93]

8 hours ago, ValiZockt said:

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

Here is the Log file link

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