[1.8+] Real Fuels

[ThomasJun]

[quote name='Starwaster']It's configurable. There's probably just a problem in your MM patch

This should probably work
[CODE]
@PART
[*]:HAS[RefuelingPump]
{
%pump_rate = 1000
}
[/CODE][/QUOTE]

Yes, that is exactly same as what i did.

But in it's source code, it is set to constant value.

ModularFuelSystem/Source/Pumps/RefuelingPump.cs : Line 17
[CODE]
double pump_rate = 100.0; // 100L/sec per resource
[/CODE]

So in game playing, the pump rate is always 100.0, whatever its descrption on VAB.

Assuming from your answer, it's made configurable but not actually works.

[Starwaster]

[quote name='ThomasJun']Yes, that is exactly same as what i did.

But in it's source code, it is set to constant value.

ModularFuelSystem/Source/Pumps/RefuelingPump.cs : Line 17
[CODE]
double pump_rate = 100.0; // 100L/sec per resource
[/CODE]

So in game playing, the pump rate is always 100.0, whatever its descrption on VAB.

Assuming from your answer, it's made configurable but not actually works.[/QUOTE]

That's only the default value if nothing was specified in the config. However, looking at the source [url]https://github.com/NathanKell/ModularFuelSystem/blob/master/Source/Pumps/RefuelingPump.cs#L16-L17[/url]

It's also marked as Persistent so any existing pumps will use whatever value was configured when you created that craft or put it on the launch pad. That means that if you created something, decided you wanted the pump to pump faster and exited the game and changed it, that craft is still using the old value of 100.

[Borogove]

Installed Realism Overhaul via CKAN, and the game hangs on the loading screen. Tail end of the log pointing at ModuleEngines.Flameout:

[code]
DragCubeSystem: Creating drag cubes for part 'proceduralSRBRealFuels'

(Filename: /Users/builduser/buildslave/unity/build/artifacts/MacStandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 56)

MissingMethodException: Method not found: 'ModuleEngines.Flameout'.
at RealFuels.ModuleEnginesRF.GetThrustInfo () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0
at RealFuels.ModuleEnginesRF.GetInfo () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0
at PartLoader.CompilePartInfo (.AvailablePart newPartInfo, .Part part) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0
at PartLoader+.MoveNext () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0

(Filename: Line: -1)

RemoteTech: ModuleSPU: OnDestroy

(Filename: /Users/builduser/buildslave/unity/build/artifacts/MacStandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 56)

RemoteTech: ModuleRTAntenna: OnDestroy

(Filename: /Users/builduser/buildslave/unity/build/artifacts/MacStandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 56)

RemoteTech: ModuleSPUPassive: OnDestroy

(Filename: /Users/builduser/buildslave/unity/build/artifacts/MacStandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 56)

Missing method ModuleEngines::Flameout(string,bool,bool) in assembly /Users/russell/Library/Application Support/Steam/SteamApps/common/Kerbal Space Program/KSP.app/Contents/Data/Managed/Assembly-CSharp.dll, referenced in assembly /Users/russell/Library/Application Support/Steam/SteamApps/common/Kerbal Space Program/GameData/RealFuels/Plugins/RealFuels.dll
[/code]

[Starwaster]

[quote name='Borogove']Installed Realism Overhaul via CKAN, and the game hangs on the loading screen. Tail end of the log pointing at ModuleEngines.Flameout:

[code]
DragCubeSystem: Creating drag cubes for part 'proceduralSRBRealFuels'

(Filename: /Users/builduser/buildslave/unity/build/artifacts/MacStandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 56)

MissingMethodException: Method not found: 'ModuleEngines.Flameout'.
at RealFuels.ModuleEnginesRF.GetThrustInfo () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0
at RealFuels.ModuleEnginesRF.GetInfo () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0
at PartLoader.CompilePartInfo (.AvailablePart newPartInfo, .Part part) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0
at PartLoader+.MoveNext () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0

(Filename: Line: -1)

RemoteTech: ModuleSPU: OnDestroy

(Filename: /Users/builduser/buildslave/unity/build/artifacts/MacStandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 56)

RemoteTech: ModuleRTAntenna: OnDestroy

(Filename: /Users/builduser/buildslave/unity/build/artifacts/MacStandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 56)

RemoteTech: ModuleSPUPassive: OnDestroy

(Filename: /Users/builduser/buildslave/unity/build/artifacts/MacStandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 56)

Missing method ModuleEngines::Flameout(string,bool,bool) in assembly /Users/russell/Library/Application Support/Steam/SteamApps/common/Kerbal Space Program/KSP.app/Contents/Data/Managed/Assembly-CSharp.dll, referenced in assembly /Users/russell/Library/Application Support/Steam/SteamApps/common/Kerbal Space Program/GameData/RealFuels/Plugins/RealFuels.dll
[/code][/QUOTE]

Something didn't update properly it looks like. Was this on a fresh install?

[Borogove]

[quote name='Starwaster']Something didn't update properly it looks like. Was this on a fresh install?[/QUOTE]

No, I've added and removed a lot of stuff. I suppose I could try freshening up.

UPDATE: Reinstalled KSP, re-CKANed, and it works now. Thanks. Edited November 21, 2015 by Borogove

[NathanKell]

PSA
That error occurs if you never updated KSP due to the silent patch. Redownload KSP fresh to get on build 1028, not 1024.

[kanelives]

[quote name='Borogove']No, I've added and removed a lot of stuff. I suppose I could try freshening up.

UPDATE: Reinstalled KSP, re-CKANed, and it works now. Thanks.[/QUOTE]
I'm getting that issue too, not sure what I did wrong... I guess I'll just try again. I figure out what it was I'll post it.

Edit oh wait, redownload ksp... Edited November 21, 2015 by kanelives

[fairy]

I was just wondering, are there any tutorials on how to set up fuel tanks and engines for Real Fuels? I've modeled a couple of rockets to scale using Blender, and I want them to perform as close to the real thing as possible. I find by using the stock fuels, my fuel tanks/stages tend to weight a lot more than they should. I find myself having to reduce the fuel tanks empty mass in order to have a TWR above 1.0, which causes very high G's at stage burnout. I'm guessing that is a result of the stock fuels being heavier than what certain real world fuels are.

I've been doing 3D modeling for quite a while, but have not done any modding before, so I'm a somewhat unsure of what to do when it comes to MM and messing with .cfg files. Is it enough to just set up the tanks and engines for Real Fuels, or do I need to set them up for Realism Overhaul as well? Or are they one and the same?

Thank you :)

[NathanKell]

If you have real-scale parts and give them real stats using RF, you've...basically set them up for Realism Overhaul anyway. :)
Your best bet would be to come by the [url=http://webchat.esper.net/?channels=RO]RO channel on espernet[/url] to get realtime help; most RO (and indeed RF) configuring is applied via MM patches, rather than in an 'original' config. That mostly involves just not using the MM operators, though.

At the simplest, you'd just be adding a ModuleFuelTanks module to your tank part(s) with the appropriate type and the volume (in liters). For the engine, you'd set it up with the correct thrust, throttling (if any), propellant use, and number of ignitions. That can all be done in the ModuleEnginesRF module or, if you want to represent multiple possible engine configurations (like LR79-NA-11, LR79-NA-13, etc) you'd add an additional ModuleEngineConfigs to handle the switching.

[fairy]

[quote name='NathanKell']If you have real-scale parts and give them real stats using RF, you've...basically set them up for Realism Overhaul anyway. :)
Your best bet would be to come by the [URL="http://webchat.esper.net/?channels=RO"]RO channel on espernet[/URL] to get realtime help; most RO (and indeed RF) configuring is applied via MM patches, rather than in an 'original' config. That mostly involves just not using the MM operators, though.

At the simplest, you'd just be adding a ModuleFuelTanks module to your tank part(s) with the appropriate type and the volume (in liters). For the engine, you'd set it up with the correct thrust, throttling (if any), propellant use, and number of ignitions. That can all be done in the ModuleEnginesRF module or, if you want to represent multiple possible engine configurations (like LR79-NA-11, LR79-NA-13, etc) you'd add an additional ModuleEngineConfigs to handle the switching.[/QUOTE]

Allright thank you, sounds somewhat simple enough. I still might just pop by the RO channel, as I still have a couple of questions.

[lextacy]

questions ! :D

1. How much units of [U][B]solid fuel[/B][/U] do I need to put in this line ? Do I put what the stock value was? Or do I need to use a converter?

[SIZE=1][I] MODULE
{
name = ModuleFuelTanks
volume = x <--------------
type = PSPC
}[/I][/SIZE]

2. Ive been experiemneting with mixture ratios.

Here is an example.......
LqdHydrogen 68.00 %
LqdOxygen 32.00%

Is this going to burn evenly? Will I get fuel left over when the engine flamesout due to a bad mixture? What I mean is will both bi-propellants empty in the tank at same time?

[Raptor831]

[quote name='lextacy']questions ! :D

1. How much units of [U][B]solid fuel[/B][/U] do I need to put in this line ? Do I put what the stock value was? Or do I need to use a converter?

[SIZE=1][I] MODULE
{
name = ModuleFuelTanks
volume = x <--------------
type = PSPC
}[/I][/SIZE]

2. Ive been experiemneting with mixture ratios.

Here is an example.......
LqdHydrogen 68.00 %
LqdOxygen 32.00%

Is this going to burn evenly? Will I get fuel left over when the engine flamesout due to a bad mixture? What I mean is will both bi-propellants empty in the tank at same time?[/QUOTE]

1) As a rough estimate, stock resources have 5 times the volume of RF (well, really CRP) resources. So you can go quick and dirty and multiply the stock capacity of a tank by 5. This only works for Mono/LF/O. Xenon and ElectricCharge don't work that way. The [B]real[/B] way is to calculate dimensions of the stock part and calculate the volume of a pill tank (two half-spheres on either ends of a cylinder) that fits inside. Add or subtract as needed for the particular part. Go math. :) Also, you don't define resources as your tank type. A tank type defines what resources can fill it. So, Default tanks basically take any rocket fuel/propellant. ServiceModule is pressurized and can take pretty much anything. Cryogenic tanks can take the same as default (I believe) but reduce the boiloff penalties for cryogenic fuels at the cost of extra weight. And so on. Check out the links on the first page for more info.

2) Your engines define your fuel/propellant mixtures, as in real life. Your tanks can be filled to match the engine ratios in the VAB/SPH. So, as long as you pay attention in the VAB, you'll always burn evenly. Also remember that in KSP the ratios are [B]volumes[/B]. Most resources online that talk about ratios are [B]mass[/B] ratios. More maths to get from one to the other. If you're going for realistic parts/engines (which is the assumption given it's [B]Real[/B]Fuels :wink: ) that will help out.

[NathanKell]

If you want the same mass of solid fuel, you need to multiply the original non-RF units by their density ( 0.0075 ) and then divide by the density of the new solid fuel you picked (probably something close to 0.00178 although it does vary a few grams PSPC/HTPB/PBAN/etc).

[lextacy]

[quote name='NathanKell']If you want the same mass of solid fuel, you need to multiply the original non-RF units by their density ( 0.0075 ) and then divide by the density of the new solid fuel you picked (probably something close to 0.00178 although it does vary a few grams PSPC/HTPB/PBAN/etc).[/QUOTE]

THANKS! I did the maths and it came up with around around 5x the tank sizes needed.

[SpacedInvader]

I'm experiencing an issue with pressurized tanks not always behaving as if they are pressurized. As a rule, I always use the service module tank type for my final stage tank so that I don't have to mess around with ullage when I'm trying to perfect an orbit, but I've noticed with the most recent version (both of KSP and RF since I haven't played since 0.90) that the service module tank type will often allow fuel to go into the "very unstable" condition, even though it is listed as being pressurized. This seems to happen most often after the craft has been coasting for a time and can usually be corrected by imparting some centrifugal force onto the tank, but unless something has changed that I missed, if the tank is pressurized, there should be no ullage simulation at all, right?

[Svm420]

[quote name='SpacedInvader']I'm experiencing an issue with pressurized tanks not always behaving as if they are pressurized. As a rule, I always use the service module tank type for my final stage tank so that I don't have to mess around with ullage when I'm trying to perfect an orbit, but I've noticed with the most recent version (both of KSP and RF since I haven't played since 0.90) that the service module tank type will often allow fuel to go into the "very unstable" condition, even though it is listed as being pressurized. This seems to happen most often after the craft has been coasting for a time and can usually be corrected by imparting some centrifugal force onto the tank, but unless something has changed that I missed, if the tank is pressurized, there should be no ullage simulation at all, right?[/QUOTE]
Pressurized tank have no effects on ullage you still need rcs or solid motors to promote propellant stability. :)

[SpacedInvader]

[quote name='Svm420']Pressurized tank have no effects on ullage you still need rcs or solid motors to promote propellant stability. :)[/QUOTE]

This appears to be new then... in the past a pressurized tank (service module) + a pressure-fed engine (orbital maneuvering engine) = no ullage simulation. As far as I can tell, there is no longer a distinction between pressure-fed and non pressure-fed engines in the configs, unless I'm missing something?

[Svm420]

[quote name='SpacedInvader']This appears to be new then... in the past a pressurized tank (service module) + a pressure-fed engine (orbital maneuvering engine) = no ullage simulation. As far as I can tell, there is no longer a distinction between pressure-fed and non pressure-fed engines in the configs, unless I'm missing something?[/QUOTE]
Can't say how it was before and I am not sure about pressure fed engines I use RFStockalike not full RO. Nathan has been trying to squash that myth for a while though pressurized tank should never had any effect on ullage. He could explain it, but that is the truth.

[SpacedInvader]

[quote name='Svm420']Can't say how it was before and I am not sure about pressure fed engines I use RFStockalike not full RO. Nathan has been trying to squash that myth for a while though pressurized tank should never had any effect on ullage. He could explain it, but that is the truth.[/QUOTE]

It may be the truth, but it certainly presents a problem with my current mod setup as I'm using the SETI balance mod and RCS thrusters aren't included in the tech tree until quite some time down the line, though that isn't an issue with RF, but rather SETI. That said, I just want to be sure I'm not experiencing a bug rather than a feature. I also use RFstockalike, and even with that config set, there were pressure-fed engines in the past as I described. If you are correct, and I don't have any reason not to believe you, then the old way must have been deemed unrealistic and removed, which makes me a little sad as it was always nice to have at least a few "easy-mode" engines to allow for smoother orbital operations.

PS: On a side note, and purely out of curiosity, what do you have against CKAN? Edited November 26, 2015 by SpacedInvader

[Svm420]

[quote name='SpacedInvader']It may be the truth, but it certainly presents a problem with my current mod setup as I'm using the SETI balance mod and RCS thrusters aren't included in the tech tree until quite some time down the line, though that isn't an issue with RF, but rather SETI. That said, I just want to be sure I'm not experiencing a bug rather than a feature. I also use RFstockalike, and even with that config set, there were pressure-fed engines in the past as I described. If you are correct, and I don't have any reason not to believe you, then the old way must have been deemed unrealistic and removed, which makes me a little sad as it was always nice to have at least a few "easy-mode" engines to allow for smoother orbital operations.

PS: On a side note, and purely out of curiosity, what do you have against CKAN?[/QUOTE]
I too use SETI if that is the case with RCS consider strapping some small SRBs or just moving the RCS forward in the tech tree.. It's a single player game so that can't be cheating. Just a necessity for that level of realism. :)

[SpacedInvader]

[quote name='Svm420']I too use SETI if that is the case with RCS consider strapping some small SRBs or just moving the RCS forward in the tech tree.. It's a single player game so that can't be cheating. Just a necessity for that level of realism. :)[/QUOTE]

I might try moving some RCS blocks up in the tech tree, but SRBs probably wouldn't work for small orbit adjustments, both because such adjustments usually use less dV than the SRB contains, and because you can only use them once. I do find it a little funny that SETI placed reaction wheels before RCS blocks, but again, that's an issue with that mod rather than this one.

[NathanKell]

Welcome back! :)

For the first few months of (my continuation of) RF's existence, I was under the misapprehension that highly pressurized ([B]highly[/B]--all tanks are pressurized, but only some are highly) tanks didn't have to worry about ullage. I was wrong. That's been correct for like a year or two now, so no, it's not very new. :]
However, the myth persists...

If you're not playing RO, then...yeah, you need a tech tree that works for you. If you _are_ playing RO, the only tech tree we support--the only career mode period we support--is RP-0.

[SpacedInvader]

[quote name='NathanKell']Welcome back! :)

For the first few months of (my continuation of) RF's existence, I was under the misapprehension that highly pressurized ([B]highly[/B]--all tanks are pressurized, but only some are highly) tanks didn't have to worry about ullage. I was wrong. That's been correct for like a year or two now, so no, it's not very new. :]
However, the myth persists...

If you're not playing RO, then...yeah, you need a tech tree that works for you. If you _are_ playing RO, the only tech tree we support--the only career mode period we support--is RP-0.[/QUOTE]

Thanks :)

As for the pressurized tanks + pressurized engines = no ullage, I was definitely using this last year with 0.90 (I even fired up my 0.90 backup install to give it a try), though this was before the igniter functionality was wrapped into RF, so that may have been where the change was properly made? That all said, is RCS the best way to handle ullage on satellite sized craft? Also, when asked about the absence of pressure-fed engines in the config, Raptor831 mentioned in the stockalike configs thread that he was probably going to be making all of the orbital engines pressure fed soon, after which he'd add / remove from the list as needed. Once in place, how is this going to interact with RF and ullage?

PS: I do want to get back to playing RSS + RO, but I just can't see it working without x64 support with all the mods I love to run, so I'll have to wait until 1.1 hits. Edited November 27, 2015 by SpacedInvader

[FlarpingFlipperFlapper]

Hi ! I am new to this game and downloaded this mod. Im having an issue with only my hydrogen/lqdOxygen tanks. The hydrogen runs out way out before the liquid oxygen does. I l know this cant be due to boil off because this is happening right on the first stage. Im like wow after 5 seconds of engine fire I ran out of fuel in a 60,000 L tank. Im using values such as 62% LqdHydrogen and 38% LqdOxygen to experiment with some different mixtures. The way stock-a-like has them ,it is 76% hydrogen. I thought maybe I would get better ISP . I would like post here to make sure if It was my boo boo.

[blowfish]

11 minutes ago, FlarpingFlipperFlapper said:

Hi ! I am new to this game and downloaded this mod. Im having an issue with only my hydrogen/lqdOxygen tanks. The hydrogen runs out way out before the liquid oxygen does. I l know this cant be due to boil off because this is happening right on the first stage. Im like wow after 5 seconds of engine fire I ran out of fuel in a 60,000 L tank. Im using values such as 62% LqdHydrogen and 38% LqdOxygen to experiment with some different mixtures. The way stock-a-like has them ,it is 76% hydrogen. I thought maybe I would get better ISP . I would like post here to make sure if It was my boo boo.

The engine will only use a fixed mixture ratio.  The tanks will give you the option to automatically configure for a particular engine once it's attached.