[0.25] Engine Ignitor (Workaround for some bugs V3.4.1: Aug.31)

[woahprettyricky]

Looking at the configs, there are infact Engine Ignitor parts for each solid in the cfg file.

[mecki]

Do Procedural Parts Balloon tanks increase the stability of the fuels in them?

Because I have a tank using them and it seems like it hardly ever becomes unstable…

[NathanKell]

Nope, no tank increases stability.

[Cephy]

Hello!!! I want to ask around if anyone else is having my problem with the Toolbox. When I leave the atmosphere, if I try and grab the toolbox while in EVA, immediately after it puts it on the Kerbalnaut's back the spaceship either dissappears or seems to violently disassemble into pieces and also kills any other crew member (by excessive G-forces). It's as if some kind of massive acceleration is put on the craft.

Any idea how can I fix this? Thanks you!!!

[Kethevin]

Does anyone have a video of this mod in action? I found a few references to it, but it's just lumped in with a bunch of other mods and it isn't shown.

[Kethevin]

Hello!!! I want to ask around if anyone else is having my problem with the Toolbox. When I leave the atmosphere, if I try and grab the toolbox while in EVA, immediately after it puts it on the Kerbalnaut's back the spaceship either dissappears or seems to violently disassemble into pieces and also kills any other crew member (by excessive G-forces). It's as if some kind of massive acceleration is put on the craft.

Any idea how can I fix this? Thanks you!!!

I could be completely off on this so take it for what it's worth. It sounds like you are experiencing the exact problems the mod KAS had before the fix was made. Have you tried installing the fix for KAS?

[Kethevin]

Does this require Real Fuels or can it work with the stock liquidfuel/oxidizer?

The xenon for ion engines is gas and not affected by this, is that correct?

[Hattivat]

I think 99% of the people using this mod also use Real Fuels, but the OP doesn't list it as required, so I imagine it does work without it.

Correct, xenon is not affected. Or at least the stock xenon engines aren't (haven't tried using futuristic propulsion mods with this yet).

[HoneyFox]

Does this require Real Fuels or can it work with the stock liquidfuel/oxidizer?

The xenon for ion engines is gas and not affected by this, is that correct?

RF is recommended but not required, so it works with stock LF/OXD.

For the xenonGas, yes by default it's not affected by EI. But you can always add limitation for ion engines if you have some good reason (or even if you don't have any reason ) .

[ERPP8]

I'm having an issue where engines won't ignite even though they have steady fuel flow and ignitors. They don't ignite unless autoignite is greater than the denominator. Is that supposed to be a mechanic? If so, how should I ignite engines when they get too cold?

[HoneyFox]

I'm having an issue where engines won't ignite even though they have steady fuel flow and ignitors. They don't ignite unless autoignite is greater than the denominator. Is that supposed to be a mechanic? If so, how should I ignite engines when they get too cold?

To have a successful ignition, generally there're three conditions to meet: 1) ignitor count > 0 2) sufficient ignitor resources 3) fuel stability

When the temperature is higher than the autoignite temperature, condition 1 & 2 are ignored.

From what you stated, you probably have insufficient ignitor resources for that engine. You can check the resource requirement in VAB/SPH by hovering your mouse over the engine and read the text.

[Morlock]

I'm having an issue where engines won't ignite even though they have steady fuel flow and ignitors. They don't ignite unless autoignite is greater than the denominator. Is that supposed to be a mechanic? If so, how should I ignite engines when they get too cold?

I have just solved a similar problem. In my case the engine status of " Fuel oil Flow " was changing from "Very Stable" to "Risky" or "Very Risky", it seems that this occurs in weightlessness conditions.

I activated the "RCS" and I pulsate "H" before the ignition. This solved the problem.

Also you can turn on separation motors before ignition.

[ERPP8]

I think I might have just been dumb and not noticed that the fuel flow was unstable. I had mounted the engines on small pressurized tanks with a much larger unpressurized tank. Because of some reason, the pressurized tanks were empty, so I just had to put a little fuel in them manually.

[HoneyFox]

Bump for the new 3.4 version, had some bug fix (mainly for that wasting ignition after time-warp one).

[Bothersome]

Thanks HoneyFox, I'm gonna grab that one right now!

[Ippo]

Hi HoneyFox, you know what would be super-cool? KSP-AVC support

Pleeeease?

[HoneyFox]

Hi HoneyFox, you know what would be super-cool? KSP-AVC support

Pleeeease?

Download 3.4.1 for KSP AVC support.

[Ippo]

Download 3.4.1 for KSP AVC support.

Thanks! You are awesome

[KerTrotsky]

Looks good. I'm building a modded KSP install aiming for 'realism' within the standard Kerbol system. Thought this would be a good addition.

Are there any plans to create .cfg files for the engines in ModularRocketSystems, which were just released and look pretty good and have been added to my install base?

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/93067-0-24-2-WIP-Modular-Rocket-Systems-v0-5-%282014-09-19%29-Stock-alike-Parts-Pack

[Riverey]

Small cfg for FTMN nuclear engines=) Nothing special, ammount of ignitions simply decreases from largest engine to the smallest one.

// FTmN 40 Nuclear Rocket
@PART[ftmn40]
{
    MODULE
    {
        name = ModuleEngineIgnitor
        ignitionsAvailable = 40
        autoIgnitionTemperature = 500
        ignitorType = Nuclear
	useUllageSimulation = false
	// 40 Ignitions due to depreciation
    }
}

// LtBY 18K
@PART[ltby5000]
{
    MODULE
    {
        name = ModuleEngineIgnitor
        ignitionsAvailable = 30
        autoIgnitionTemperature = 500
        ignitorType = Nuclear
	useUllageSimulation = false
	// 30 Ignitions due to depreciation
    }
}

// FTmN 160 Nuclear Rocket
@PART[ftmn160]
{
    MODULE
    {
        name = ModuleEngineIgnitor
        ignitionsAvailable = 50
        autoIgnitionTemperature = 500
        ignitorType = Nuclear
	useUllageSimulation = false
	// 50 Ignitions due to depreciation
    }
}

// FTmN 280 Nuclear Rocket
@PART[ftmn280]
{
    MODULE
    {
        name = ModuleEngineIgnitor
        ignitionsAvailable = 60
        autoIgnitionTemperature = 500
        ignitorType = Nuclear
	useUllageSimulation = false
	// 60 Ignitions due to depreciation
    }
}

[KerTrotsky]

Does anyone have a video of this mod in action? I found a few references to it, but it's just lumped in with a bunch of other mods and it isn't shown.

I will make one which previews my new [Realism] install base for standard Kerbol system, and specifically featuring Engine Ignitor during a test mission.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_5iEHqtmOev0cuhboBZCuA/videos

[KerTrotsky]

Does anyone have a video of this mod in action? I found a few references to it, but it's just lumped in with a bunch of other mods and it isn't shown.

[KerTrotsky]

There seems to be an issue : Engines which have ignited on the next powered stage in the stack shut off immediately after a decouple of the lower powered stage using KW Rocketry decouplers or interstage decouplers, and KW Rocketry engines (with stock fuels). I can make a video of this, but it's pretty clear this is happening. It doesn't seem to me this is WAD, and I need to know what's happening here if I'm going to feature this mod in videos.

My stack designs typically put the next engine in the stack to ignite before the stage below is separated, so that we have a situation where the next engine in the stack is firing before and during the actual separation of the stage which approaches fuel out. With this design paradigm, for some reason the next engine in the stack is igniting and firing, but the moment decouple happens the engine which has ignited and should be now the main engine immediately shuts off and goes into an unstable fuel state. I've tried different combinations - a traditional separation and fire in the same stage activation, firing the engine simultaneously with separation; adding a standard decoupler, etc. Result is always the same.

Edit : It may be that the 2nd Stage engine is shutting down because of a large difference in TWR between the booster stage and the second stage, with the second stage having a much lower one. This would induce instability in a low or no pressure tank - and stock fuels do not simulate pressurization. Still waiting for comment from the dev.

Edit : attaching radial monoprops to the 2nd stage, and firing them before attempting to ignite the 2nd stage seems to work reliably. Possibly the issue here is WAD.

Edited September 26, 2014 by KerTrotsky

[KerTrotsky]

I hope that you can develop integration with the new ModRocketSys pack, found here. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/93067-0-24-2-WIP-Modular-Rocket-Systems-v0-6-%282014-09-24%29-Stock-alike-Parts-Pack

I've crossposted this request in the ModRockeySys thread as well.

[HoneyFox]

There seems to be an issue : Engines which have ignited on the next powered stage in the stack shut off immediately after a decouple of the lower powered stage using KW Rocketry decouplers or interstage decouplers, and KW Rocketry engines (with stock fuels). I can make a video of this, but it's pretty clear this is happening. It doesn't seem to me this is WAD, and I need to know what's happening here if I'm going to feature this mod in videos.

My stack designs typically put the next engine in the stack to ignite before the stage below is separated, so that we have a situation where the next engine in the stack is firing before and during the actual separation of the stage which approaches fuel out. With this design paradigm, for some reason the next engine in the stack is igniting and firing, but the moment decouple happens the engine which has ignited and should be now the main engine immediately shuts off and goes into an unstable fuel state. I've tried different combinations - a traditional separation and fire in the same stage activation, firing the engine simultaneously with separation; adding a standard decoupler, etc. Result is always the same.

Edit : It may be that the 2nd Stage engine is shutting down because of a large difference in TWR between the booster stage and the second stage, with the second stage having a much lower one. This would induce instability in a low or no pressure tank - and stock fuels do not simulate pressurization. Still waiting for comment from the dev.

Edit : attaching radial monoprops to the 2nd stage, and firing them before attempting to ignite the 2nd stage seems to work reliably. Possibly the issue here is WAD.

That's strange, I've designed many rockets that ignite the next stage before decoupling (e.g. a rocket that imitates Proton-M which ignites the 2nd stage before 1/2 sep) with EI and have no such problem. Anyway I will do a test to check this again.

EDIT: I cannot reproduce on my side... perhaps because the 1st stage's final TWR is not extremely high...

Edited September 30, 2014 by HoneyFox