[1.8-1.9] Modular Fuel Tanks v5.13.1

[dlrk]

9 minutes ago, taniwha said:

Please don't do that. If you asked a question and later found the answer yourself, edit your post to include the answer. This way, others can see your question and answer. Sure, you might feel a little silly in the process, but you might be someone's hero.

I apologize.

[ss8913]

This mod seems to be *actively* incompatible with 1.9.x - is that just due to a version checking string that needs to be updated (ie, if I changed that string and recompiled, it'd work?)  or is the incompatibility deeper than that and requires some work?

[Starwaster]

6 hours ago, ss8913 said:

This mod seems to be *actively* incompatible with 1.9.x - is that just due to a version checking string that needs to be updated (ie, if I changed that string and recompiled, it'd work?)  or is the incompatibility deeper than that and requires some work?

It's just a warning due to the version numbering not matching. 

It may well run in spite of the warning. Or it may not. No guarantees

[ss8913]

On 3/4/2020 at 7:51 AM, Starwaster said:

It's just a warning due to the version numbering not matching. 

It may well run in spite of the warning. Or it may not. No guarantees

it seems to work fine, at least the way I use it, as-is.

[ss8913]

On 3/9/2020 at 11:31 AM, ss8913 said:

it seems to work fine, at least the way I use it, as-is.

in fact, I can find no function which *does not* work in 1.9.1 - you may be able to just update the version string to remove the load-time warning, and release it for 1.9.1 as-is.  Although you likely have a better suite of tests than my anecdotal results

In the meantime, however, if one simply ignores the warning, the mod functions as expected.

[TheRatCircus]

On 10/12/2019 at 3:13 AM, pawelz said:

I needed some further fuel capacity for my space-taxi style SSTO running on HTP and therefore wanted to add some parts from the B9 Aerospace mod. Specifically I wanted to add the shoulder fuselages (B9_Aero_HL_Extension_A/B/C). 

Adding one part usually works fine but from then on I have to be really careful. Copying the added part completely messes things up, it creates a copy instantly halfway into the ground with which I cannot really interact with while also disabling right click menus.

Signal boost on this bug; I'm getting it too on 5.13.0 for 1.8.x, even while running only MFT and no other mods.

Whenever I reproduce, the logs start to look like this:

https://pastebin.com/mKd8XgTb

[Starwaster]

@TheRatCircus those logs indicate Real Fuels not Modular Fuel Tanks mod. The two share a common base with each other but you are different mods and if it’s really RF you have then you should post your report in the RF thread. And include a link to the entire log and your ModuleManager.ConfigCache file please. 

[TheRatCircus]

@Starwaster I don't have RealFuels installed.

Both the log and ConfigCache are too big for Pastebin.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1nqmnxiw6pP-GfDAhaVaFTipboPPnEvBx

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1j1pGIHBxILY3Aq9xrXtr40UimBvmJvDL

Edited March 17, 2020 by TheRatCircus
Redundant comment removed.

[Starwaster]

On 3/16/2020 at 9:41 PM, TheRatCircus said:

@Starwaster I don't have RealFuels installed.

Both the log and ConfigCache are too big for Pastebin.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1nqmnxiw6pP-GfDAhaVaFTipboPPnEvBx

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1j1pGIHBxILY3Aq9xrXtr40UimBvmJvDL

Must have forgotten that they share the same namespace.

I'll take a look at those when I get a chance

[taniwha]

I have released version 5.13.1 of Modular Fuel Tanks. Other than adjusting the version check to cover KSP versions 1.8 and 1.9, the only changes are RF related (and thus do not affect MFT as far as I can tell).

Barring nasty issues that require a bug-fix, this might be the last version of MFT. I have a replacement in the works that one could consider to be MFT++. I just need to get its UI on par with (or better than) MFT's before I can declare MFT to be deprecated. However, as I said: not just yet, and bug fixes will take priority.

[Monniasza]

On 10/15/2016 at 3:11 AM, drtedastro said:

I am chasing same type problem with MFT and Mk2Expansions.

trying to track down exactly which line in which config is causing it.

Cheers.

Here is my update:

Exclude parts with Interstellar Fuel Switch, Firespitter Fuel Switch or B9 Part Switch

[taniwha]

Better would be to replace IFS or FSFS it, but maybe skip B9PS

Edited May 13, 2020 by taniwha

[dlrk]

Does anyone know why the MFT config for CryoTanks uses a negative mass for LqdHydrogen?

TANK
    {
        name = LqdHydrogen
        amount = 0
        maxAmount = 0
        utilization = 10
		mass = -0.0003386364
    }

I'm trying to add LqdMethane to this config, and that info would help.

[taniwha]

@Dirk: to lighten the tank. A jumbo-64 filled with 6400u of LqdHydrogen will have a dry mass of only about 1.83t instead of 4t. Stock tanks effectively have a base mass of 0 and a tank mass of 0.000625 (for most stock resources).

[dlrk]

@taniwha Thanks. Do you know what number would work for liquid methane, or would the same number? Also not 100% clear on why the tank is lightened for LH2.

Edited June 15, 2020 by dlrk

[taniwha]

Any number above -0.000625 (otherwise you'll get a 0 or negative mass tank). As for a good value: very difficult.

The reasoning for the lightening is stock tanks are silly heavy for their capacity.

Anyway, as some help for balancing...

A container's minimum mass is always directly proportional to the volume of its contents at the same pressure. This is a curious result of how things cancel when you calculated the stresses on tank walls, but it comes from the required cross-section area of the tank walls being proportional to the internal surface area of the tank by a ratio determined by the internal pressure and the tensile strength of the tank wall material. This means that while KSP tanks are excessively massive, they are at least balanced against each other (since they all hold stuff at more or less the same pressure).

[dlrk]

On 6/15/2020 at 2:06 AM, taniwha said:

Any number above -0.000625 (otherwise you'll get a 0 or negative mass tank). As for a good value: very difficult.

The reasoning for the lightening is stock tanks are silly heavy for their capacity.

Anyway, as some help for balancing...

A container's minimum mass is always directly proportional to the volume of its contents at the same pressure. This is a curious result of how things cancel when you calculated the stresses on tank walls, but it comes from the required cross-section area of the tank walls being proportional to the internal surface area of the tank by a ratio determined by the internal pressure and the tensile strength of the tank wall material. This means that while KSP tanks are excessively massive, they are at least balanced against each other (since they all hold stuff at more or less the same pressure).

Would it be unbalanced to simply use the same value as for LH2? I don't totally understand how calculate a proportional weight

[taniwha]

@Dirk: well, for one, those things were really for RealFuels (before the split), so I suspect using LH2 stats for CH4 would actually be balanced *against* you as CH4 wouldn't need to be as cold and thus probably have lower pressure (and thus require less mass).

For another, the thing to do is to choose a material (btw, stock tanks seem to be iron, with the Jumbo-64 at 9mm thick walls iirc) and an internal pressure. The shape and volume determine the internal surface area. The internal pressure, internal surface area and tensile strength of the material determine the cross-sectional area needed, which gives you the thickness. From there, you can get the mass.

Anyway, yeah, just go with LH2, it's probably close enough to be reasonable

[Starwaster]

@dlrk While using negative TANK mass values can work, it's really not very safe. It's better to go with an appropriately lower positive value. Tank mass IRL as @taniwha said is linked to how much the tank has to be pressurized but is also (probably to a lesser degree) linked to stresses from propellant mass on the ground. That's why LH2 tanks were given a lower mass value. Balance wise it should be safe to use RealFuels values for tank masses.

Those values can be found here and you should probably just stick with the Default block

https://github.com/NathanKell/ModularFuelSystem/blob/master/RealFuels/Resources/RealTankTypes.cfg

[dlrk]

Ok, I'll just use the RF values. Or possibly just trim that CFG to just have the cryotank resources and see if that works.

Could I get some information on the relationship between amount,max amount and utilization? I see a post that says that utilization is a multiplier of maxamount, but both the CryoTanks MFT patch and the RF one have amount and maxamount as 0, though the Cryo's patch has a utilization of 10, while RF has it as 1. If maxamount is zero, what if anything does utilization do?

[Starwaster]

On 6/21/2020 at 4:37 PM, dlrk said:

Ok, I'll just use the RF values. Or possibly just trim that CFG to just have the cryotank resources and see if that works.

Could I get some information on the relationship between amount,max amount and utilization? I see a post that says that utilization is a multiplier of maxamount, but both the CryoTanks MFT patch and the RF one have amount and maxamount as 0, though the Cryo's patch has a utilization of 10, while RF has it as 1. If maxamount is zero, what if anything does utilization do?

It depends specifically on where you are seeing that used. If it's a TANK node especially in a TANK_DEFINITION then it's because the amounts are meant to be zero by default. If it is in a ModuleFuelTanks then you can set up default values for specific resources (and even use percentages for maxAmount)

Utilization is a multiplier and is usually 1. It is higher for compressed gasses and could even be used to simulate SpaceX super chilled RP1/LOX. It's still valid when paired with a maxAmount of zero because the player can then come along and add that tank via the VAB editor in which case maxAmount is set and utilization comes into play.

I'm not familiar with CryoTank or its patches and I don't know why they would set utilization to 10 as it's literally 10x (1000%)

There's actually more than one area where utilization is used. It's used in TANK nodes where it behaves as I said (1 = 100%) but there's also a utilization field in ModuleFuelTanks where 100 = 100%. Maybe whoever wrote that patch thought that they were setting it to 10%. (but that seems equally strange. I just don't know why they did it that way)

[dlrk]

5 hours ago, Starwaster said:

It depends specifically on where you are seeing that used. If it's a TANK node especially in a TANK_DEFINITION then it's because the amounts are meant to be zero by default. If it is in a ModuleFuelTanks then you can set up default values for specific resources (and even use percentages for maxAmount)

Utilization is a multiplier and is usually 1. It is higher for compressed gasses and could even be used to simulate SpaceX super chilled RP1/LOX. It's still valid when paired with a maxAmount of zero because the player can then come along and add that tank via the VAB editor in which case maxAmount is set and utilization comes into play.

I'm not familiar with CryoTank or its patches and I don't know why they would set utilization to 10 as it's literally 10x (1000%)

There's actually more than one area where utilization is used. It's used in TANK nodes where it behaves as I said (1 = 100%) but there's also a utilization field in ModuleFuelTanks where 100 = 100%. Maybe whoever wrote that patch thought that they were setting it to 10%. (but that seems equally strange. I just don't know why they did it that way)

Thanks! I'm making good progress with a new MFT config for Cryo. Just need to resolve an issue with a B9 tank

[dlrk]

B9 seems to have a somewhat elaborate MM config for MFT compatibility. I can't seem to figure out how to write an MM cfg that will either override B9's to add a cryo tank to a part instead of a B9_Fuselage tank or add LH2 to the B9_Fuselage. This is my most recent attempt:

 

@TANK_DEFINITION[B9_Fuselage]:NEEDS[B9_Aerospace&ModularFuelTanks&!RealFuels]:FOR[CryoTanks]:FINAL
{
    TANK
    {
        name = LqdHydrogen
        amount = 0
        maxAmount = 0
        utilization = 1
		mass = 0.0000016
    }
}

------------------------------------

Fixed, did it like this:

 

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleFuelTanks]]:NEEDS[!RealFuels]:FOR[zzz_CryoTanks]
{
@MODULE[ModuleFuelTanks]:HAS[#type[B9_Fuselage]]
  	{
       	%typeAvailable = B9_Fuselage
       	typeAvailable = Cryogenic
   	}
}

 

Edited July 1, 2020 by dlrk

[DerekL1963]

Does anyone know how to turn off the version check?  MFT appears to work fine in 1.10.1, but something is pronouncing it incompatible and partially deleting it.

[VoidSquid]

Afaik you can't turn it off, unfortunately.

Edited August 12, 2020 by VoidSquid