[0.90]Kerbal Isp Difficulty Scaler v1.4.2; 12/16/14

[somnambulist]

That is correct. It is intended to reduce the dV to orbit, but not reduce the dV while in vacuum; this requires a very, very low multiplier in the atmosphere, but a multiplier of 1 in vacuum. Otherwise, it wouldn't be "FAR to Stock KSP, Atmosphere Only", it would be "FAR to not really stock KSP at all, Atmosphere Only."

Ahh ok. I've just always assumed that the setting was to affect ISP only in atmosphere ISP, removing the dV gains from launching under FAR.

[Jim Meillente]

Hello,

KSP-AVC v1.1.5.0 is reporting this mod is for KSP v24.2.

[JackCY]

Hello,

KSP-AVC v1.1.5.0 is reporting this mod is for KSP v24.2.

Verified, just came to report the same, updated my KSP-AVC and it started to report that. Updated KIDS from github instead of kerbalstuff but same thing. The version file says 0.25 but it must be checking what it was compiled for I suppose and that could be 0.242.

[cybutek]

KSP-AVC works slightly differently to how it used to. As in if a remote version file is available and has the same version as the local one, it will use what is contained within the remote one for compatibility checks. This means that compatibility checks can be changed on the fly without having to re-download an entire mod just to get rid of any warnings. For example if a mod still works perfectly fine across a new KSP version, or for any reason the local version file compatibility requires changing.

@Ferram4 you need to update https://github.com/ferram4/Kerbal-Isp-Difficulty-Scaler/blob/master/GameData/KerbalIspDifficultyScaler/KIDS.version and any warnings users are getting will cease. Might also be worth adding in a "DOWNLOAD":"https://github.com/ferram4/Kerbal-Isp-Difficulty-Scaler/releases/" (or similar) field so players can go straight to the download page from within the game.

[ferram4]

... well, it's fixed. But given how many problems have been caused by me screwing up the AVC version file, and the fact that I don't use it myself, I'm tempted to simply pull AVC support for the next version. It'll make things a lot simpler on my end and certainly avoid a lot of the metadata hassles with a release. Sorry guys, it's seeming a lot like it's just not worth it.

[Hyomoto]

It was never worth it. The whole thing with metrics bundling and version checking for mods is more than just a little ridiculous.

Also, I know you said this and AJE don't overlap, but would you explain that a bit better? AJE affects the thrust of the engines based on air density, if I understand correctly, and KIDS adjusts thrust based on ISP. It seems like they both affect thrust for the same reason. Is there anyone who has tried both that would like to chime in?

Edited October 19, 2014 by Hyomoto

[ferram4]

AJE simulates the inner workings of a jet engine. It's not perfect, but jet engines do end up behaving very close to actual jet engines with it.

KIDS can optionally switch to Isp varying thrust rather than fuel consumption. It does nothing to jets at all when that setting is selected, because that would result in stupid things.

Their effects are not related in the slightest.

[JackCY]

... well, it's fixed. But given how many problems have been caused by me screwing up the AVC version file, and the fact that I don't use it myself, I'm tempted to simply pull AVC support for the next version. It'll make things a lot simpler on my end and certainly avoid a lot of the metadata hassles with a release. Sorry guys, it's seeming a lot like it's just not worth it.

I find AVC useful, tells me when there is an update which for some mods can happen often and are useful. And can also take me to the download page quickly.

Instead of having to search regularly and check all the installed mod web pages for updates *faint*

AJE simulates the inner workings of a jet engine. It's not perfect, but jet engines do end up behaving very close to actual jet engines with it.

KIDS can optionally switch to Isp varying thrust rather than fuel consumption. It does nothing to jets at all when that setting is selected, because that would result in stupid things.

Their effects are not related in the slightest.

Just what I've been looking for, thanks.

Will try.

---

Oh well, tried. Not compatible. Took off, that was it, ran out of fuel and I only climbed to 11km.

Turned KIDS to Stock KSP = 1/1. Launched again and behold, my engines are at full throttle, spitting smoke and visually at full blast but have ZERO thrust and eat no fuel

Something is wrong with between AJE and KIDS.

A "Thrust varies with ISP" has to be checked in KIDS for jet engines to have any thrust when using AJE.

Lets see how far it flies this time with 1/1 set in KIDS. No idea why the engines ate fuel as fast as there is a large hole shot in the fuel tank before when 0.55/0.55 was set in KIDS when using AJE.

Again, 11km out of fuel. Really weird, might need some crazy high custom ISP preset in KIDS coz AJE changed the engine consumption a lot.

Intake air demand always zero too.

Edited October 19, 2014 by JackCY

[Hyomoto]

AJE simulates the inner workings of a jet engine. It's not perfect, but jet engines do end up behaving very close to actual jet engines with it.

KIDS can optionally switch to Isp varying thrust rather than fuel consumption. It does nothing to jets at all when that setting is selected, because that would result in stupid things.

Their effects are not related in the slightest.

That'll do. Thanks.

[Camacha]

What about RealFuels and KIDS?

[Jim Meillente]

What about RealFuels and KIDS?

I use Real Fuels & KIDS with the setting "FAR to Real Life, Adjusted", seems to work just fine (if you enjoy a real challenge).

[weeble]

I use Real Fuels & KIDS with the setting "FAR to Real Life, Adjusted", seems to work just fine (if you enjoy a real challenge).

Hm I'll have to try that. Do you use any engine packs?

[Hyomoto]

Well, nothing like testing something first hand to get results and here they are! KIDS and AJE clearly clash. I am guessing there might be settings which can fix this, but basically KIDS will turn every plane into their ultimate forms. You can easily hit Mach 1 coming off the runway. I don't know what the interaction exactly is, but I'm guessing it turns out my original question was more relevant than it was given credit for. AJE affects thrust, KIDS affects thrust, and together they make for one hell of a crazy ride where you can take off at 5% thrust and hit 300m/s under 10 seconds. It's ridiculous.

[Jim Meillente]

Hm I'll have to try that. Do you use any engine packs?

Stockalike Real Fuels Engine Configs

KW Rocketry - Novapunch - RLA Stockalike - AIES - Kerbal Stock Launcher Overhaul - Klockheed Martian Space Shuttle Engines are the main ones I use.

[S1gmoid]

I can second that. KIDS does truly weird .... to the jet engines in .25.

Well, nothing like testing something first hand to get results and here they are! KIDS and AJE clearly clash. I am guessing there might be settings which can fix this, but basically KIDS will turn every plane into their ultimate forms. You can easily hit Mach 1 coming off the runway. I don't know what the interaction exactly is, but I'm guessing it turns out my original question was more relevant than it was given credit for. AJE affects thrust, KIDS affects thrust, and together they make for one hell of a crazy ride where you can take off at 5% thrust and hit 300m/s under 10 seconds. It's ridiculous.

[NathanKell]

I reported the issue on Github. I think ferram is aware by now.

[Tellion]

Hi, thanks for the great addition to this game!

I just noticed that this mod has its issues with variable Isp engines such as the VASIMR from NFP, is there a way to exclude some engines from the KIDS thrust correction by ways of a MM file?

Thanks in advance!

[velve]

Hi there folks I have a quick question about KIDS. Ive conducted a minor test just to evaluate the different presets and these are my results. The test was conducted with a basic FLT-800 fuel tank with a LV-T45 attached to it, to keep out variables I did all the launches at maximum thrust from launch. I am using FAR running 32bit KSP so it is working. I did not test the presets not including FAR as they are not my aim in the question that is to follow.

538,000kms - FAR to stock Universal

368,000Kms - Far to stock Atmosphere only

73,100Kms - FAR to real life adjusted

47,500Kms - FAR to real life raw.

So basically all I'm looking to understand is regarding the last two, the FAR to real life raw/adjusted. Simply because they use the settings toggled on which are the "Extend curve to zero ISP" and "throttle varies with ISP".

Do these settings included in these presets still allow for better fuel efficiency in a vacuum? Because both their multipliers for in atmosphere ISP and vacuum ISP are the same. I have tried multiple launches on the "FAR to real life raw" preset lowering the throttle to try and achieve a greater height, but I fall short of the maximum thrust control by about 20,000kms each time.

This means it is still more efficient to launch at maximum throttle? I am not bashing KIDS at all, by no means I am just trying to understand if the mod itself deals with efficiency in any particular way.

And finally I apologize for all the questions, but what would be regarded as the most "realistic" setting? Is FAR to real life adjusted setting actually pretty close to being considered realistic? I find the other presets to still be a bit gamey, I am no rocket science but I just cant fathom the idea of a single tank of fuel being launched half a million kilometers into space.

//Just adding that I know in stock KSP the 500,000+ is also attainable and it is not KIDS that is making it "gamey"

Edited November 13, 2014 by velve

[NathanKell]

Your problem is not KIDS. Your problem is that Kerbin is 1/3 the radius of our Moon. FAR to Real Life adjusted means that you should have a similar payload fraction as real life rockets do (it accounts for both the size of Kerbin, and the fact that KSP engines and tanks are heavier than in real life).

Well, also your problem is that sounding rocket != orbital rocket. Going straight up takes comparatively little delta V; orbital velocity is mostly sideways velocity.

This is an Aerbee Hi, an early sounding rocket:

This is a Thor-Able (later Thor-Delta, later Delta) LV, which places in orbit a lower payload at a lower altitude than the Aerobee Hi lofts. (Note the people standing around the base of it.)

What was your payload btw? If we consider payload to be effectively nothing, then your mass ratio will be quite high (3:1) which yields considerable delta v, 10.8 * Isp. For unadjusted 370s Isp, that means almost 4000m/s.

[velve]

Ah yes the payload was essentially nothing, I only strapped a stayputnik on top.

KER states that my DeltaV is 1,642m/s and a 3.23 min 8.08 TWR on the Real life adjusted preset. I'm not as versed in all these things as most on the forum, but I grasp most concepts. I did not attach a fairing so I'm guessing I could have acheived at least another 10,000kms. I know going straight up is not really a viable option in any scenario I was just trying to figure out if KIDS somehow introduces fuel efficiency with throttle control and atmospheric densities. If I understand correctly what KIDS is trying to do is "fudge" this somehow.

I'm still juggling the idea of playing with FAR to real life adjusted. Because of the introduction of funds to kerbal I'm assuming this preset will introduce the need to set up refuel stations in orbit in order to conduct missions further than minimus. I'm scared I become attached to this setting but it just ends up being way too difficult later in the game. I'm playing on hard difficulty but not really struggling for funds at this moment, and I've been playing on the FAR to stock KSP universal preset, but after this test I conducted I feel its just a bit easy haha

[cantab]

If you want to stay with the Kerbol system as it is, then for realism (rather than difficulty, which is not the same thing) you should either keep Isps as they are, or maybe decrease them across the board slightly (since 370, let alone 390+, is way too high for [sane] storable propellant; try .85 multipliers for both).

Incidentally this is what I came up with comparing KSP rockets to real ones using hypergolic propellants. The .81 of the FAR-Stock preset is done for game balance but it feels just a bit mean to me.

Hi, thanks for the great addition to this game!

I just noticed that this mod has its issues with variable Isp engines such as the VASIMR from NFP, is there a way to exclude some engines from the KIDS thrust correction by ways of a MM file?

Thanks in advance!

Seconding this. At the very least I don't really want to nerf the ion engine, and I wouldn't mind keeping the SRBs as they are in stock too. Of course this could be featuritis for KIDS - if I want fine control over my engine Isps I could do a module manager file instead.

[NathanKell]

Interestingly, the SRBs and the nuclear engines have the correct efficiency for real life (in dry mass and Isp, though the nuc uses way-too-dense fuel), it's just the chemical liquid engines that are 4x as heavy as they should be and have, like, kerosene+ClF5 Isp. The ions...gah, the ions. They're better by, like, 3-5 orders of magnitude than real life.

[Starwaster]

and the nuclear engines have the correct efficiency for real life (in dry mass and Isp, though the nuc uses way-too-dense fuel), .

Interesting, I would have put it the opposite: It's Isp is too high for the density of its propellants

[Matt516]

Have noticed an issue with this mod - the description says that although ISP doesn't properly update in the parts list, Kerbal Engineer should still calculate the proper dV. I have found this not to be the case - at least in the VAB. While designing rockets, Kerbal Engineer doesn't calculate the proper dV. It does, however, calculate properly once in launch. Is this intended/known behavior?

EDIT - My modlist:

ModuleManager 2.5.4

Chatterer

Kerbal Engineer

Deadly Reentry

Farram Aerospace Research

Kerbal ISP Difficulty Scaler

Procedural Fairings

Kerbal Joint Reinforcement

Stock Bug Fix Modules

Edited December 26, 2014 by Matt516

[ferram4]

It is known behavior, and it's a bug that needs to be addressed at some point. I'm pretty sure I know what's happening, but I have to find a way to make it work.