[1.8+] Real Fuels

[swamp_ig]

Hi

There's a further update of the update I posted above here:

Same deal as last time - install over the top of your existing real fuels 5.3

I'd appreciate any linux users posting 'It works' if it work for them, or give me the log like MarkN did above if it doesn't.

Edited May 22, 2014 by swamp_ig

[MarkN]

After some messing aroud because I hadn't seen that there is a new PP version as well, I have tested the further update, and while the part seem to work perfectly, there is still one error in player.log

liquidEngineMini(Clone) added to ship - part count: 3

(Filename: /BuildAgent/work/d3d49558e4d408f4/artifacts/LinuxStandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 53)

stage count is: 0

(Filename: /BuildAgent/work/d3d49558e4d408f4/artifacts/LinuxStandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 53)

Event Type Ignored: Expose
Event Type Ignored: Expose
PartMessageListener method ProceduralParts.DecouplerTweaker.ChangeAttachNodeSize does not support the delegate type KSPAPIExtensions.PartMessage.PartAttachNodeSizeChanged as declared in the attribute

(Filename: /BuildAgent/work/d3d49558e4d408f4/artifacts/LinuxStandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 53)

proceduralStackDecoupler(Clone) added to ship - part count: 4

(Filename: /BuildAgent/work/d3d49558e4d408f4/artifacts/LinuxStandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 53)

stage count is: 1

(Filename: /BuildAgent/work/d3d49558e4d408f4/artifacts/LinuxStandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 53)

This error only occurs with the decoupler, and not the tanks or the nose cone.

[gesia]

Love this mod, but I noticed several issues with 5.3 and the stock engine config.

- Nuclear engines have an ISP of 1000 when used with H2, but you get VERY little delta-v out of it compared to other engines. There seems to be something seriously off with these. Also, although they are quite similar, their weights GREATLY differ.

- There is no fuel selection dialog for RCS thrusters and they will only use the generic "MonoPropellant". Any other fuel, even if in a tank the thruster is directly attached to, will be ignored.

- Only Kerosene, MMH and LiqH2 are used, other fuels cannot be selected for any engine. And for jet engines, there is only jet fuel.

- Under some conditions, there are some ugly line wraps in the fuel selection window which will introduce an annoying scroll bar.

- When moving/copying symmetrical tanks it may result in only one of them containing any fuel. This is especially true for jet tanks, in the plane hangar and when grabbing a part the tank is attached to instead of the tank itself.

Any chance of these getting fixed in 6.0?

Cheers!

[Starwaster]

Love this mod, but I noticed several issues with 5.3 and the stock engine config.

- Nuclear engines have an ISP of 1000 when used with H2, but you get VERY little delta-v out of it compared to other engines. There seems to be something seriously off with these. Also, although they are quite similar, their weights GREATLY differ.

The problem is not with the nuclear engine. Respectfully, the problem is with your understanding of rocket science.

DeltaV computations are based largely in part on mass and hydrogen is the least dense of all the elements.

Put another way. Hydrogen has the greatest ISP per kilogram of any other propellant. Per kilogram. It is ~70kg per kiloliter.

So what you need to do is use larger fuel tanks. Possibly as much as 11 times more by volume.

[NathanKell]

- Nuclear engines have an ISP of 1000 when used with H2, but you get VERY little delta-v out of it compared to other engines. There seems to be something seriously off with these. Also, although they are quite similar, their weights GREATLY differ.

As Starwaster says, there's nothing off with these. You're just not using enough fuel. Stick like 4-5 Jumbo64s on a single NTR and you might get decent deltaV. If you're comparing NTR now to NTR pre-RealFuels, compare the same mass of fuel. Not the same wet mass, not the same number of tanks, mass of fuel.

- There is no fuel selection dialog for RCS thrusters and they will only use the generic "MonoPropellant". Any other fuel, even if in a tank the thruster is directly attached to, will be ignored.

This is because RCS thrusters don't have multiple configs by default. If you want modular RCS, get Realism Overhaul.

- Only Kerosene, MMH and LiqH2 are used, other fuels cannot be selected for any engine. And for jet engines, there is only jet fuel.

What engine configs are you using?

- Under some conditions, there are some ugly line wraps in the fuel selection window which will introduce an annoying scroll bar.

Screenshot?

- When moving/copying symmetrical tanks it may result in only one of them containing any fuel. This is especially true for jet tanks, in the plane hangar and when grabbing a part the tank is attached to instead of the tank itself.

Known issue. We're working on it, but KSP's part-cloning is horrific at copying over variables.

[swamp_ig]

After some messing aroud because I hadn't seen that there is a new PP version as well, I have tested the further update, and while the part seem to work perfectly, there is still one error in player.log

liquidEngineMini(Clone) added to ship - part count: 3

(Filename: /BuildAgent/work/d3d49558e4d408f4/artifacts/LinuxStandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 53)

stage count is: 0

(Filename: /BuildAgent/work/d3d49558e4d408f4/artifacts/LinuxStandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 53)

Event Type Ignored: Expose
Event Type Ignored: Expose
PartMessageListener method ProceduralParts.DecouplerTweaker.ChangeAttachNodeSize does not support the delegate type KSPAPIExtensions.PartMessage.PartAttachNodeSizeChanged as declared in the attribute

(Filename: /BuildAgent/work/d3d49558e4d408f4/artifacts/LinuxStandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 53)

proceduralStackDecoupler(Clone) added to ship - part count: 4

(Filename: /BuildAgent/work/d3d49558e4d408f4/artifacts/LinuxStandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 53)

stage count is: 1

(Filename: /BuildAgent/work/d3d49558e4d408f4/artifacts/LinuxStandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 53)

This error only occurs with the decoupler, and not the tanks or the nose cone.

Thanks for the concise bug report (even though it's a PP issue not a RF one )

I can see that there's an issue there - will fix it.

[jsimmons]

swamp_ig I just tested your RF update and the latest PP on my 64bit Linux system. I saw no problems when loading and testing rockets made with PP/RF in both RSS and non-RSS setups. Will do more extensive testing this weekend.

[gesia]

Hey, thanks for the quick reply.

As Starwaster says, there's nothing off with these.

Actually, while I may have underestimated the (anti-)density of H2 - I need to check that - this would practically render these engines useless. So, from a gaming point of view: Does it make sense?

But ignoring that, there are in fact things wrong with these: The weights of these 2 engines greatly differ, as I already wrote. We're talking 2 tons vs. 45 tons, with both having the same appearance and dimensions. Also, the menu of the "regular" nuclear engine (as opposed to the tri-modal one) is messed up. The button names are incorrect (you choose another fuel than the button says) and the upgrade buttons do not react to the actual level (i.e. you start at 3, press increase, the isp and such update, but the button still shows 3).

What engine configs are you using?

The stock engine configs by Raptor831 and Chestbuster from the first page of this thread.

[Probus]

So before I actually create a mission to test this theory, It looks like:

1. Kethane produces oxidizer, not LOX.

2. You have to use the same tank to hold both kethane and fuel if you don't get fuel lines till later in the tech tree.

Is that correct?

[Starwaster]

So before I actually create a mission to test this theory, It looks like:

1. Kethane produces oxidizer, not LOX.

2. You have to use the same tank to hold both kethane and fuel if you don't get fuel lines till later in the tech tree.

Is that correct?

1. There's configs around that allow conversion of kethane into alternative propellants such as LOX. Not sure where they've got to now. Search the thread for them. If I come across any of my old kethane configs I'll post it here because I did have one once upon a time that did conversions into the more common Real Fuels available at the time. (including, I think, Methane though I might just have been using Kethane configured engines at that time. I don't remember...)

[NathanKell]

1. Changelog of v5.3: added eadrom's Kethane config. So yes, produces LOX.

2. False: you just need valid crossfeed between your converter and the tank. Mount the converter on top / below your fuel tank and you're all set, for example.

[Raptor831]

gesia: Looks like the stock config is reducing the mass of the stock LV-N down while the trimodal LV-N is a bit higher. I forgot about the trimodal when I was tweaking the LV-N for stock-ish mass, whoops. But neither of them should be 45 tons, I don't believe, even if you set useRealisticMass = false. I don't know what would be doing that, but I'd start by reinstalling the plugin just to check. The non-responsive tech level display seems to imply some sort of plugin issue, either installation issues or plugin conflict weirdness. But again, I'm just shooting in the dark with that.

NathanKell: I've added a few more engines (mostly HGR test stuff) to my personal configs, and I'd like to get those added to the stock config. Can you PM me either the new .xls with the standardized fuel ratios or just the ratios themselves, whichever would be easier for you. I'll make those changes and get them back to you.

Also, I've got some fuel tank configs for various mods I use, if anyone would like to use them. Link here: http://cl.ly/1d0C1R1h3o32 This includes some KSPI tanks that were missed or changed names, HGR, SXT, Aerojet Kerbodyne, PorkJet's SpaceplanePlus, kommit's Octostrut pack, and the B9 Expansion pack.

[Starwaster]

gesia: Looks like the stock config is reducing the mass of the stock LV-N down while the trimodal LV-N is a bit higher. I forgot about the trimodal when I was tweaking the LV-N for stock-ish mass, whoops. But neither of them should be 45 tons, I don't believe, even if you set useRealisticMass = false. I don't know what would be doing that, but I'd start by reinstalling the plugin just to check. The non-responsive tech level display seems to imply some sort of plugin issue, either installation issues or plugin conflict weirdness. But again, I'm just shooting in the dark with that.

NathanKell: I've added a few more engines (mostly HGR test stuff) to my personal configs, and I'd like to get those added to the stock config. Can you PM me either the new .xls with the standardized fuel ratios or just the ratios themselves, whichever would be easier for you. I'll make those changes and get them back to you.

Also, I've got some fuel tank configs for various mods I use, if anyone would like to use them. Link here: http://cl.ly/1d0C1R1h3o32 This includes some KSPI tanks that were missed or changed names, HGR, SXT, Aerojet Kerbodyne, PorkJet's SpaceplanePlus, kommit's Octostrut pack, and the B9 Expansion pack.

Before you go tweaking those LVN's too much, keep in mind they're already grossly underweight (setting aside for a moment the statement of one of them weighing 45 tons... not sure why that would be unless someone went and tampered with them again behind my back after all the tweaking I did to get them to RL values) People may not like that but those engines don't even account for shield mass as it is. Maybe Kerbals are immune to radiation but the projected mass of a 111.2 kN NTR is about 4.23 mt not including shielding which would be another 2.02 mt. (per engine)

So let's not make these engines too light.

[Raptor831]

Before you go tweaking those LVN's too much, keep in mind they're already grossly underweight (setting aside for a moment the statement of one of them weighing 45 tons... not sure why that would be unless someone went and tampered with them again behind my back after all the tweaking I did to get them to RL values) People may not like that but those engines don't even account for shield mass as it is. Maybe Kerbals are immune to radiation but the projected mass of a 111.2 kN NTR is about 4.23 mt not including shielding which would be another 2.02 mt. (per engine)

So let's not make these engines too light.

The stock LV-N with the current stockalike config is basemass 1.4 tons. In the RF config it's 6.676 (which is about your math with shielding). Reason I did that is because I play with useRealisticMass = false. For a stockalike "I just want more fuel choices" game I didn't want to start with a 20 ton LV-N, which requires a truly large H2 tank just to make it worth using. (Which is probably realistic, but hey.) Stock LV-N is 2.25 tons, so the reduction is still less than a standard engine. LV-T30 starts at .4 tons in the stockalike config and is 1.25 tons standard.

Though, I'm just tweaking these for the way I'd play. If they'd be better off at the higher mass, I'll gladly remove those from the stock config and let them ride properly at realistic values. I'll go and test that now that I know what the heck I'm doing with these configs.

EDIT: After testing these, I could go either way on the mass of the nuclear engines. Using H2 it just feels like you need so much volume it's crazy, but your mass is still lower. Although, if you need less space, just switch to Methane. Little heavier, but delta-V can end up being the same for a bit more mass. Any thoughts on which way the stock config would be better served by?

Edited May 24, 2014 by Raptor831

[Elouda]

Im using the latest version of RealFuels (from the repository, as I'm using it with Procedural Parts), and the following is happening;

When I place a 'Size2LFB' (The NASA combined Tank+Engine), the game will set dry mass as if it was a tank, without accounting for engine mass. When I toggle the techlevel for the engine, it will update the mass correctly in the ActionGroup window and for VOID, MJ, etc., but not on the right-click window for the part itself. As soon as I change the fuel, the mass of the engine 'vanishes' again (even from VOID, etc. calculations) until I change the techlevels again.

Interestingly, this does not happen with RF 5.3, but I'm wary of using that with PP since I do not know if its compatible with PP. I've been trying to look at the source for both to figure out whats going on (its probably in ModularFuelTanks.cs), but the file has been rewritten so much that with my limited experience with C# I can't seem to find the issue.

For now I'm just not using them, but just thought I'd point this out incase anyone else hasn't noticed it yet.

Note: I actually just remembered that the same was happening with the pods when I tried to add a ModularTank to them for RCS use - the rest of the pods mass would 'vanish'. I was using the ModuleManager files from RO as an example of how to add them.

Edited May 25, 2014 by Elouda
Additional Note

[Starwaster]

The stock LV-N with the current stockalike config is basemass 1.4 tons. In the RF config it's 6.676 (which is about your math with shielding). Reason I did that is because I play with useRealisticMass = false. For a stockalike "I just want more fuel choices" game I didn't want to start with a 20 ton LV-N, which requires a truly large H2 tank just to make it worth using. (Which is probably realistic, but hey.) Stock LV-N is 2.25 tons, so the reduction is still less than a standard engine. LV-T30 starts at .4 tons in the stockalike config and is 1.25 tons standard.

Though, I'm just tweaking these for the way I'd play. If they'd be better off at the higher mass, I'll gladly remove those from the stock config and let them ride properly at realistic values. I'll go and test that now that I know what the heck I'm doing with these configs.

EDIT: After testing these, I could go either way on the mass of the nuclear engines. Using H2 it just feels like you need so much volume it's crazy, but your mass is still lower. Although, if you need less space, just switch to Methane. Little heavier, but delta-V can end up being the same for a bit more mass. Any thoughts on which way the stock config would be better served by?

Looks like I took into account the shield after all then... thought I had left it out.

as for the last, dunno. if its just for personal play then whatever you feel comfortable with

[NathanKell]

gesia: I played around a bunch with the NTRs Friday night and was unable to replicate your issues, implying very strongly you have a broken install.

Further, even with a mass of 6.6 tons (the lowest-TL NTR--Raptor831, make sure you increase TL as desired, just like any other engine--high-TL NTRs have much better TWR and Isp), you can get a quite crazy amount of deltaV. Of course, it would help to use Balloon Cryo tanks, but even regular Cryo tanks you should have a mass ratio asymptotically reaching 27.77, yielding (without payload) ~30km/sec of dV at 900s Isp.

Raptor831: Sweet, thanks! The most up-to-date version of the file is in the second post, although as always it defaults to RftS. There should not have been any significant changes since the one you last used (only swapping over to KM_Gimbal, which probably shouldn't be done for Stockalikes anyway). Tell you what: why don't you create a new thread for "Stockalike RF Engine Patches" and I'll link it? Since I think you just volunteered.

You can make the ratios whatever you like...many engines use many different ratios. Even the last sheet you sent me has multiple ratios: KL is 2.3,2.4,2.5, MMH is 1.6, 1.65, or 1.7, AZ is 1.6, HL is 5, 5.5, or 6, UDA is 2.6, UD is 2.1.

Interestingly enough, IIRC Bob Braeunig ran the numbers and found an EDS-sized stage, if nuclear, would perform better with LCH4 than with LH2, due to the density and thrust advantage. Obviously for high-dV requirements you'd be better served by LH2, but for medium dV, considering you get a density advantage and that LCH4 is only mildly cryogenic, it begins to look *very* good.

The one issue with NTRs, however, that I'm just thinking of: unlike stock engines, which have 30% the TWR they should (roughly), NTRs have about 200%+ the TWR they should, so useRealisticMass=false, for NTRs, is bad news (although it does keep them in line with stock engines when changed for Kerbal dV requirements...). Basically, KSP vastly underforms with chemical, and vastly overperforms with nuclear. (Heh, not even considering the density*Isp advantage--when you include that too...)

Elouda: Sounds like basemass was not set to -1 in the MODULE. Do so, and the part's dry mass will not be touched. What do you mean by "right click window on the part itself"? Of course any changes won't get applied to what's in the Editor Parts List; that's a different object (the original prefab part) than what you placed on your craft and changed.

However, if behavior changes between RF v5.3 and swamp_ig's changes, you might want to PM him or post on the PP thread.

If those configs *do* have basemass=-1, sounds like swamp_ig broke the "override basemass" feature

[Raptor831]

Tell you what: why don't you create a new thread for "Stockalike RF Engine Patches" and I'll link it? Since I think you just volunteered.

So, I guess I did volunteer.

In any case, here's the thread: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/81239-Stockalike-RF-Engine-Configs

On the NTR weight, I kinda went in the middle. All of the engines are in line with the "Goal TWR" in the XLS, so I went with that on the NTRs, both stock and mod. So, they'll still be massive, but not quite as bad. I figure you can get nice dV numbers if you do it right, and the point of Real Fuels is to be a bit more realistic. Ratios are varied as well, so watch your tanks.

Let me know if anything looks odd and I'll fix it up.

[Elouda]

Elouda: Sounds like basemass was not set to -1 in the MODULE. Do so, and the part's dry mass will not be touched. What do you mean by "right click window on the part itself"? Of course any changes won't get applied to what's in the Editor Parts List; that's a different object (the original prefab part) than what you placed on your craft and changed.

However, if behavior changes between RF v5.3 and swamp_ig's changes, you might want to PM him or post on the PP thread.

If those configs *do* have basemass=-1, sounds like swamp_ig broke the "override basemass" feature

Thanks for the reply.

This is the MM code for the tank portion of the part;

@PART[Size2LFB]
{
	//!RESOURCE[LiquidFuel] {}
	//!RESOURCE[Oxidizer] {}
	//!RESOURCE[MonoPropellant] {}
	MODULE
	{
		name = ModuleFuelTanks
		volume = 32000
		type = Cryogenic
		basemass = -1
		TANK
		{
			name = Kerosene
			amount = full
			maxAmount = 37.694087%
		}
		TANK
		{
			name = LiquidOxygen
			amount = full
			maxAmount = 62.305913%
		}
	}
}

So they do have basemass set to -1, and it does indeed seem to take effect in 5.3 but not in the newer versions. Was not aware that someone else was responsible for those changes, so will go mention this there too.

With 'right-click menu' I mean the popup one you get when you right-click something thats been placed in the VAB, which for RealFuels shows part volume, mix, dry and wet mass, etc.

[NathanKell]

Raptor831: Post updated. Thanks for taking this on!

Elouda: swamp_ig is fixing it. Looks like in some of the new code the basemass override gets lost. Thanks for the report!

[swamp_ig]

I've got a new release of the improved RF.

Changelog:

• Added button to show RF engines API in parts mode
  
• Fixed issues with Size2LFB
  
• Fixed issues with symmetry attaching
  

If you use the stock engines config, there's a problem with the Size2LFB.

Here's a fixed version of it, which you can install over the top of an existing RealFuels 5.3 install (or my previous update)

Edited May 27, 2014 by swamp_ig

[Raptor831]

If you use the stock engines config, there's a problem with the Size2LFB.

Checked out the config, what does the dedicated = true mean? I haven't seen that one before.

[swamp_ig]

dedicated means that the tank is used only by one co-parted engine. (so SRBs and the LFB)

In effect, it hides the MFT api, and automatically switches the fuel mix whenever the config of the attached engine changes.

[Raptor831]

dedicated means that the tank is used only by one co-parted engine. (so SRBs and the LFB)

In effect, it hides the MFT api, and automatically switches the fuel mix whenever the config of the attached engine changes.

Nice. Thanks.

Also, I fixed (I think) the stockalike configs in my thread. If you find any other errors, let me know and I'll clean them up.

[MNorman]

Using the version released on 26th May, the functionality of the useRealisticMass option in RealSettings.cfg seems to be reversed for tank dry masses. Setting it to true results in normal KSP massess, while setting if to false results in the reduced, realistic masses. The engine masses, on the other hand are the other way around, with a values of false reulting in KSP masses and true resulting in realistic masses. The behaviour of the engine masses is the same as previous versions, while the tank masses are changed.

While checking this I noticed that the additional dry mass for a Nitrous Oxide tank is much greater than for other tank types (3 time the additional dry masss for a Xenon tank, and 30 time that for a nitric acid tank). Is this intentional?