Jump to content

[0.20] Modular Fuel System 1.3/realistic fuels, reconfigurable fuel tanks and engines

ialdabaoth

By ialdabaoth
in KSP1 Mod Releases

 Share

Recommended Posts

Starwaster

Starwaster

Posted
Posted
ok, my dropbox link for MFS is updated.

Changes to MFS source:

1. Fixed bug with amount/maxAmount. amount now acts as ratio of maxAmount, with full = 1.0. Clamp to 0 if tank is not fillable.

2. Added support for ElectricCharge where 1 unit volume = 100 units charge.

3. Added support for parts that have both modular fuel tanks AND modular engine configs. Note that it's still at most ONE of each.

4. Allow basemass to be set in part module definitions, not just in tank definition. (For instance, Oscar-B's can be less efficient)

5. Allow part mass changes to be disabled by setting basemass = -1 (used for parts that combine tank and engine like Bobcat's stages, where you don't want the mass to be changed by fuel tank changes).

6. Add support for fuel-specific TANK overrides in part module definitions. In a ModularFuelTank module, you can add the same TANK{} blocks you would in a TANK_DEFINITION{} and they will override what's pulled from the appropriate TANK_DEFINITION. You can add as many or as few keys to the TANK{} as you want; unspecified keys will be pulled from the default.

In configs, I added a new TANK_DEFINITION, ServiceModule. It contains LF/Ox (or NTO/MMH in RealFuels mode), some monopropellant, and a bit of ElectricCharge.

Fascinating! What sort of mass are you assigning a unit volume worth of batteries? (ElectricCharge)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NathanKell

NathanKell

Posted
Posted

Fixed.

I should point out the main reason I did the amount fix, at least, and added the SM tank, was so that life support resources (and life support _waste_ resources) could be handled by MFS. I have a MFS-based TAC config if anyone wants that too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Starwaster

Starwaster

Posted
Posted
Fixed.

I should point out the main reason I did the amount fix, at least, and added the SM tank, was so that life support resources (and life support _waste_ resources) could be handled by MFS. I have a MFS-based TAC config if anyone wants that too.

I'm interested, if it lets me try TAC without those cannisters...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Starwaster

Starwaster

Posted
Posted
Wondering if it's possible to add other resources if they aren't already defined.

Well if they aren't defined then you define them. 


RESOURCE_DEFINITION
{
	name = VespeneGas
	density = 0.00007
	flowMode = ALL_VESSEL
	transfer = PUMP
}

Then, to add the new resource as a possible tank configuration in the Default tank category:


	TANK
	{
	   name = VespeneGas
	   utilization = 0.995
	   mass = 0.0
	   temperature = -253
	   amount = 0.0
	   maxAmount = 0.0
	   note =  We require more of it!
	}

ta-da!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jivaii

Jivaii

Posted
Posted
Well if they aren't defined then you define them. 


RESOURCE_DEFINITION
{
	name = VespeneGas
	density = 0.00007
	flowMode = ALL_VESSEL
	transfer = PUMP
}

Then, to add the new resource as a possible tank configuration in the Default tank category:


	TANK
	{
	   name = VespeneGas
	   utilization = 0.995
	   mass = 0.0
	   temperature = -253
	   amount = 0.0
	   maxAmount = 0.0
	   note =  We require more of it!
	}

ta-da!

That's what I was looking for =)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NathanKell

NathanKell

Posted
Posted

LOL @ note.

Re: TACLS, https://www.dropbox.com/s/dy69i4x93c2bm0z/TAC_LS.cfg

NOTE: I am using TACLS with renamed resources (the _TAC stripped from the end). If you want to use this for stock TACLS, put the _TACs back on all the resources.

Has support for, oh, tons of mods.

Change quantities to taste. NOTE: This adds an MFT to each part in it, so...if it already has an MFT, you're in trouble. Has Values I Like , tweak to taste.

I defined three custom MFT tanks: LifeSupport (has only food/water/O2), LifeSupportWaste (has only wastes), and LifeSupportCC (has all six, but comes full of only food/water/O2, and the other three tanks are amount=0). CC = closed cycle.

I also added support for the six resources to tanktype Default (at amount/maxAmount = 0), and ServiceModule(amount = 10%, so it will take up the same ratio of the SM tank as monopropellant, roughly).

Tank masses and utilizations are guesses: I figure sealing a tank costs a bit of mass (for water and wastewater) and pressurizing a tank does too and has lower utilization (O2/CO2). That's why the volumes are multiples of 1.01 rather than 1, a tank of 3.03 volume has exactly 1 unit each of food/water/O2.

Mass equates to the standard LifeSupport tank in TAC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chestburster

Chestburster

Posted
Posted

Nathan, may i suggest opening a new thread for the "forked" version? May be easier for new people to find the newest version with configs.

Second: Since i'm in the process of updating my configs i had the idea about changing the current RF mixtures. LF+OX would be replaced by MMH/N2O4 with an ISP reduction of ~20%; LF+LOX will get replaced by RP-1/LOX with +10% thrust and -10% ISP; LH2/LOX would stay at 100% thrust and +5-10% ISP (values are capped at real worlds max ISP. I made a quick and dirty excel-sheet for the calcs)

After the change, hypergolics will be for light and cheap rockets, long-lasting probes and interplanetary ships. RP-1/LOX for your workhorse first stage launcher and LH2/LOX for the lighter upper stages and SSMEs.

Third: ialdabaoth planned to integrate the ISP fixer within the MFS codework. Would it be possible for you to do the same, Nathan?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NathanKell

NathanKell

Posted
Posted

ChestBurster, check inside my archive for my excel file. ;)

I did exactly that, basically, but also rebalanced all engines to tech levels. It autogenerates cfg files for all values you input. Should be very helpful for what you want. (Check the Isps sheet--it's almost identical to yours. ^_^)

Just reset all data to stock (including the names), and set the multipliers as you want under KL/HL/HG (it controls sea-level Isp multiplier for that mode, so hydrolox can have proportionally lower IspSL). There are multipliers on the right for thrust under different regimes, although I should add more for the most flexibility. I'll do that for you if you want.

Anyway, no more manual editing of cfgs: I make excel do it for us, hurrah.

Yeah, I should create a new thread. And interesting you should mention thrust correction: I was just looking at doing that (Starwaster mentioned it), and forgot that ialdabaoth was going to add that. Sure, I can do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chestburster

Chestburster

Posted
Posted (edited)

Going to take a look at your sheet and see what i can do with it. Looks interesting so far.

I like the tech level idea, will make it easier to implement the engines when .22 arrives.

PS: now i realy wish i had a second monitor.. xD

Edit: Finished the fuel tank files to support the latest mod updates and added KOSMOS support. Engines and RealFuels will have to wait a bit longer since im playing around with the excel sheet.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/uzwjptwcd09nhke/MFS%20Configs%20V1.6%20WIP.zip

Edited by Chestburster
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Starwaster

Starwaster

Posted
Posted
Going to take a look at your sheet and see what i can do with it. Looks interesting so far.

I like the tech level idea, will make it easier to implement the engines when .22 arrives.

PS: now i realy wish i had a second monitor.. xD

Edit: Finished the fuel tank files to support the latest mod updates and added KOSMOS support. Engines and RealFuels will have to wait a bit longer since im playing around with the excel sheet.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/uzwjptwcd09nhke/MFS%20Configs%20V1.6%20WIP.zip

don't forget please to include the mass fixes for LF/OX tanks in default and cryotanks :) also add some mass to fuselage tanks as strange things happen if parts have zero mass (see my sig for fixes)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhoark

rhoark

Posted
Posted

Something has been bothering me for awhile and might be taken into account if a comprehensive balance pass is underway:

Low thrust engines are typically intended for use in a vacuum, but ideal vacuum Isp requires a large bell nozzle. The KW Service Propulsion engine is representative of what a vacuum engine should look like. All the moderate-thrust stock engines have small nozzles. I think the 909 and Poodle should get improved atmospheric Isp at the expense of vacuum Isp (and still have the advantage of low profile). KW or others can provide the large vacuum nozzles, or else new parts could be provided with stock 909/Poodle stats but T30/Atlas models.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NathanKell

NathanKell

Posted
Posted

When you consider that it's not just shape but area ratio, the options get even worse, because while the the T30 might have a longer more bell-like nozzle, it's clearly got a sea-level-optimized area ratio. On the other hand, the 909 and Poodle do at least appear to have the correct area ratio (if you trace the nozzle upwards and assume the throat is a reasonable distance from where the nozzle emerges).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
p1t1o

p1t1o

Posted
Posted

I've been making my own config files for various mods since I got modular fuels quite a while ago, will I be able to keep these or will have to modify them to work with whatever new build will be released?

I freaking love this mod, makes nuclear engines so much more interesting - I've re-balanced my nuclear engines to use nuclear fuel a lot faster though and have added a fuel re-processing capability to my RTGs and added a tank that can contain nuclear fuel/waste.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NathanKell

NathanKell

Posted
Posted

Well, hybrid engines configs work differently now. But everything else should be forwards-compatible. Only difference is the densities of various things have changed rather slightly, and I created an excel spreadsheet to autogenerate engine configs. So even if you did need to update, it wouldn't take long.

Oh, and there's now correct thrust scaling (by Isp) so your TWR at sea level will suffer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...