Modular Fuel System Continued v3.3 (OBSOLETE)

[gm537]

To add to the whole NTR or not to NTR discussion:

I think the issue here is that in Real Fuels w/o Realistic masses H2 is too light (and tanks are too heavy) to get mass ratios like those mentioned by SRFirefox. If I fill a standard tank with 100% H2 the mass ratio of just the tank turns out to be around 1.75 which gives dV = 4,390 at 800 ISP. For a tank filled with MMH/N2O4 you get a mass ratio of 11.1 which gives dV = 8,030 at 340 ISP. So yeah I think that in just Real Fuels w/o Real Mass it is best to just avoid the NTRs. (Note my version is 3.1 or 3.2 so slightly old and I apologize if this has somehow been changed) I don't know how this changes with Real Masses but I suspect it brings it more in favor of the NTRs.

Hope this helps all!

[AbeS]

Did you check with the balloon cryo tanks? they have less mass, haven't used NTRs though so I don't know if they are good even with those tanks

[gm537]

My older version of MFS doesn't have the balloon tanks, though I checked the standard cryo and they aren't any better. I suspect the balloon tanks were added in part to help with this situation.

So I was reading about the RCS multiple fuels stuff (and wondering how to do it myself) and came across something curious which is: Why is the RCS Module text the same for the RCS block and the Linear port in the configs? What tells KSP the block can thrust in 4 directions and the port only in one?

[NathanKell]

gm537: Again, total number of tanks doesn't matter. Total mass does. Even without RM, try adding LH2 tanks until you have the same total _mass_ rocket, not same total size.

Balloon cryo was added in 3.3 I believe; thus far only Stretchies implement it (but stretchies are all you need, so...)

Regarding RCS: rcs thrust transforms are set by the model. Linear port has one, RCS block has 4. In the part.cfg you're defining the stats for all thrust transforms of that type on that model.

[Starwaster]

MFS doesnt seem to be working under 0.23. tanks / engines only using their stock resources.

Anyone else tried it? will look at the log file to see what the problem is, just havent had the chance yet.

gm537: That's how H2 behaves in real life. It's a very light low density fuel that provides better thrust and delta-V per kilogram. If you're intent on only comparing a given volume of H2 against an equivalent volume of a denser fuel then you should expect the result you got. If you dont want to use larger tanks of H2 then it can't be helped.

Edit: but yes, update to latest version and use realistic mass option.

Edited December 18, 2013 by Starwaster

[jrandom]

Starwaster: it's a known issue in MFS. A fix is in the works.

[NathanKell]

Starwaster: MFS indeed does not work. I'm aware, and taniwha graciously spent a good chunk of time fixing it, so you'll get v4 ASAP when I get my changes to the .22 branch integrated into his.

[Deredere]

Anyone else tried it?

Yeah, s'not working, and tanks edited with MFS are back to default volumes. I was dying trying to figure out why my rover was suddenly busting its wheels like saltine crackers until I realized the tank I was using as a structural element was back to 100 tons.

[taniwha]

Starwaster: Unless Nathan has already updated MFS without notice (he does have my patches, though), it won't work in 0.23. There were some rather significant changes to how loading works.

NathanKell: I realized I forgot to do engines (the only MFS tanks I have are Talisar's). It should be easy enough to extend my design changes to engines (or I can do it when I get an updated EL out).

[ialdabaoth]

So, any chance of getting it integrated into .23's 'tweakables' system?

[Starwaster]

kkthx for the replies. figured something like that and I figured you probably knew but wanted to make sure.

[NathanKell]

ohai ialdabaoth! *bows*

taniwha did that, yes.

Although tweakables is really weak at the moment--I was kinda hoping "stock" MFS (i.e. non-RealFuels, non realistic masses) would no longer be necessary, but you can only tweak resource amounts, not which resources themselves.

[taniwha]

Actually, I didn't really do anything to integrate with tweakables. They just worked once I got MFS working at all. I was quite impressed .

[drtedastro]

Ok, so if i am reading this correct, MFS still needs some work to be compatible with 0.23.. No rush, I just want to make sure I dont load the wrong stuff. I make enough problems for myself without doing that.....

thanks for all of the great work.... REally, really good stuff....

[Guest]

Could you add a provision that would define the minimum amount of resource that could be loaded into a tank? I'd like to use that for SRMs, certain designs allow variable propellant loads, but only to a degree (80% minimum, or such).

[NathanKell]

drtedastro: Correct. taniwha has it fixed for tanks. I have engines working, except no visual FX show up (audio is fine). As soon as I figure that out, and do some cfg updates, good to go. A few days, I reckon. Thanks so much, especially for the patience!

Dragon01: I'll add it to the list. Should be doable.

[drtedastro]

Hey, no problem'o..... You mod'rs do so fantastic.... I / WE really appreciate all of the great work that you do. Thanks for all ......

[Guest]

Will the CONFIG node also be able to control the effects used by the engine? I thought it shouldn't be too hard (in the current version you could literally alter every single field in ModuleEngines with a config), but now that I've seen the EFFECT nodes, it looks a bit complicated.

Anyway, I'd really like to have a way to alter engine visuals based on the fuel used. Don't worry about making the actual effects, I'd just like a way to implement this.

[Dirt_Merchant]

Gotta say, absolutely love the work you guys have done, really makes KSP much more rewarding for me. Quick request though, is there any way we can get the provisional version of MFS w/RF+RM as a hold over for v4? I certainly don't need engine FX if the alternative is no MFS. Again, thanks for your time and work!

[ialdabaoth]

ohai ialdabaoth! *bows*

taniwha did that, yes.

Although tweakables is really weak at the moment--I was kinda hoping "stock" MFS (i.e. non-RealFuels, non realistic masses) would no longer be necessary, but you can only tweak resource amounts, not which resources themselves.

Aha. So what we really need to do then, is move the engine fuel selector off of its menu and onto the 'tweakable' menu (preferrably as a single line with a '<' and '>' button), and do something similar with the fuel tanks.

... give me a few days, I'll see what I can figure out.

[SFJackBauer]

Take your time fellas, I take the opportunity to exclaim my deep appreciation and respect for the work all of you have put into this and all the related mods. Much appreciated!

[NathanKell]

Dragon01: It's been my plan for, oh, since I started working with MFS, to have CONFIG-based engine FX. It won't be in v4, but it's definitely planned.

Dirt_Merchant: YGPM.

ialdabaoth: cool! Although given how many stats are involved (and that it's not just engine fuel mode but also techlevel that MFS changes) I'm not sure it's worthwhile; you'd still want to have the MFS GUI up to see thrust, Isp, mass, etc.

SFJackBauer: thanks!

[jrandom]

It's so strange how I'm missing all of the realfuels during my .23 testing, when before Realism Overhaul I always thought, "meh, real fuels... sounds like an unnecessary complication". Now I'm stomping around yelling to the heavens about not having LiquidH2.

I am so looking forward to the next release.

[drtedastro]

Same here..... How soon we get spoiled.

[Starwaster]

It's so strange how I'm missing all of the realfuels during my .23 testing, when before Realism Overhaul I always thought, "meh, real fuels... sounds like an unnecessary complication". Now I'm stomping around yelling to the heavens about not having LiquidH2.

I am so looking forward to the next release.

Sack cloth and ashes baby. Rent garments. Weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Either that or fire up 0.22 again! (I still have my 0.22 installs....)