[1.8+] Real Fuels

[Alex38]

5 hours ago, Starwaster said:

As it says on the front page, a separate set of engine configs is necessary. You cannot use RF without engine configs.

Spoolup is something that has to be configured. Engines are instant on by default.

Oh.. okay.. I just wanted to be sure thanks

What could i do to config it myself ?  

[Phineas Freak]

@Alex38 I gave you a partial answer over on the RO Discussion Thread for that but not the config itself. What you should add as a Module Manager patch file to get the spoolup is:

@RFSETTINGS:AFTER[RealFuels_StockEngines]
{
    %throttlingRate = 3.0
    %throttlingClamp = 1.1
}

Assuming that you are using RFS of course.

[Alex38]

11 hours ago, Phineas Freak said:

@Alex38 I gave you a partial answer over on the RO Discussion Thread for that but not the config itself. What you should add as a Module Manager patch file to get the spoolup is:

@RFSETTINGS:AFTER[RealFuels_StockEngines]
{
    %throttlingRate = 3.0
    %throttlingClamp = 1.1
}

Assuming that you are using RFS of course.

Ok thank you very much for your help, that's really cool !  

Just a last question, to make a patch I just need to copy and paste that into my text editor and name it .cfg ? and that's it ? 

EDIT: that's fine, it works now thank you so much i've been searching this config for a while now ! 

Edited February 1, 2017 by Alex38

[stratochief66]

For anybody interested, there is a new RO forum page, since the forum ate our old one. Thanks to @Theysen for putting it together again.

 

[md530f]

Some of you might have seen this over on the BDB forum but I was wondering if anyone had a set of working (or at least almost working) configs for BDB. I see that the engines have very basic support (all set to KerLOX) but none of the tanks appear to work. If nobody is working on this at all, can somebody point me in the right direction of how to start this? Looking at the .cfg files gives me a headache....

[linuxgurugamer]

I've gotten a request to have the K2 Command Pod supported in RF: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/155013-12-k2-

I haven't the foggiest idea what would need to be done, could someone take a look and let me know?  or, just get a config added to RF?

Thanks

[Phineas Freak]

@linuxgurugamer Something like the following patch will do the job:

@PART[K2Pod]:FOR[RealFuels]
{
	!MODULE[ModuleFuelTanks],*{}

	MODULE
	{
		name = ModuleFuelTanks
		type = ServiceModule
		volume = 350
		basemass = -1

		TANK
		{
			name = ElectricCharge
			amount = 75
			maxAmount = 75
		}

		TANK
		{
			name = MonoPropellant
			amount = 15
			maxAmount = 15	
		}
	}

	!RESOURCE,*{}	
}

Do note that it is supposed to be included with RF. Remove/replace the FOR pass if it is going to be included with your own mod.

BTW, the two screenshots that @xel'lotath posted over to the K2 Command Pod thread are a bit misleading: the user has installed the RSS/RO/RP-0 suite of mods but your mod is not supported by them (it is getting a generic RF support but has improper RO support).

Edit: just saw your reply on the K2 thread.

Edited February 7, 2017 by Phineas Freak
Not a lot but a bit...

[linuxgurugamer]

4 minutes ago, Phineas Freak said:

@linuxgurugamer Something like the following patch will do the job:

@PART[K2Pod]:FOR[RealFuels]
{
	!MODULE[ModuleFuelTanks],*{}

	MODULE
	{
		name = ModuleFuelTanks
		type = ServiceModule
		volume = 350
		basemass = -1

		TANK
		{
			name = ElectricCharge
			amount = 75
			maxAmount = 75
		}

		TANK
		{
			name = MonoPropellant
			amount = 15
			maxAmount = 15	
		}
	}

	!RESOURCE,*{}	
}

Do note that it is supposed to be included with RF. Remove/replace the FOR pass if it is going to be included with your own mod.

BTW, the two screenshots that @xel'lotath posted over to the K2 Command Pod thread are misleading: the user has installed the RSS/RO/RP-0 suite of mods but your mod is not supported by them (it is getting a generic RF support but has improper RO support).

Edit: just saw your reply on the K2 thread.

@NathanKell

Any chance to get this included in RF or should I add it to the K2 mod?

@Phineas Freak

Thank you

[linuxgurugamer]

8 hours ago, Phineas Freak said:

@linuxgurugamer Something like the following patch will do the job:

@PART[K2Pod]:FOR[RealFuels]
{
	!MODULE[ModuleFuelTanks],*{}

	MODULE
	{
		name = ModuleFuelTanks
		type = ServiceModule
		volume = 350
		basemass = -1

		TANK
		{
			name = ElectricCharge
			amount = 75
			maxAmount = 75
		}

		TANK
		{
			name = MonoPropellant
			amount = 15
			maxAmount = 15	
		}
	}

	!RESOURCE,*{}	
}

Do note that it is supposed to be included with RF. Remove/replace the FOR pass if it is going to be included with your own mod.

BTW, the two screenshots that @xel'lotath posted over to the K2 Command Pod thread are a bit misleading: the user has installed the RSS/RO/RP-0 suite of mods but your mod is not supported by them (it is getting a generic RF support but has improper RO support).

Edit: just saw your reply on the K2 thread.

I replaced the FOR with NEEDS, and if/when RF adds it, I'll remove it from K2

Thanks

[stratochief66]

Editted: Forum ate my breakfast

Edited February 8, 2017 by stratochief66

[stratochief66]

On 2/5/2017 at 7:59 PM, md530f said:

Some of you might have seen this over on the BDB forum but I was wondering if anyone had a set of working (or at least almost working) configs for BDB. I see that the engines have very basic support (all set to KerLOX) but none of the tanks appear to work. If nobody is working on this at all, can somebody point me in the right direction of how to start this? Looking at the .cfg files gives me a headache....

The way I see it, there are two sides to configuring a part. One is the form, and the other is function.

If you are trying to configure a tank (ie. Second stage of the Saturn V, the S-II stage) that already has an RO config for it, you can pretty much just learn and nab from those existing configurations.

https://github.com/KSP-RO/RealismOverhaul/blob/master/GameData/RealismOverhaul/RO_SuggestedMods/FASA/RO_FASA_Saturn.cfg#L489-L529

Feel free to ask questions if you can't quite figure out what one line or another does, or even if you're fairly certain, present your best guess and ask if it is correct.

Volume is in litres, for example (volume = 1364256.2) which was probably the end run of a long and ugly calculation, converting some source website (or multiple site's) reports of the fuel mass of that stage, modified to account for the fuel mixing ratio, then using density to go from mass ratios to the actual tank fuel volume. As you can see, it is much easier to borrow a value if someone else has already configured a tank that matches what you're looking for.

By 'form' I mean the scaling, mostly this part of the RO config for a part:

https://github.com/KSP-RO/RealismOverhaul/blob/master/GameData/RealismOverhaul/RO_SuggestedMods/FASA/RO_FASA_Saturn.cfg#L496-L500

If BDB operates on a certain scale down from the real parts, that will be fairly easy. Even if it scales down and sticks to come consistent scaling for reach family of rocket/stage, then once you find the right scaling numbers you can re-use them for many parts. This bit converts the size of the part as used by BDB in stock, through this changing of the scaling to hopefully match the actual proportions of the real rocket it represents.

Edited February 8, 2017 by stratochief66

[Starwaster]

On 2/8/2017 at 3:35 PM, stratochief66 said:

 

If BDB operates on a certain scale down from the real parts, that will be fairly easy. Even if it scales down and sticks to come consistent scaling for reach family of rocket/stage, then once you find the right scaling numbers you can re-use them for many parts. This bit converts the size of the part as used by BDB in stock, through this changing of the scaling to hopefully match the actual proportions of the real rocket it represents.

What he probably wants for scale is @rescaleFactor = 1.5625  if I understand their scaling correctly and if they're consistent about that scale.

[raptor_xxl]

Hi, I have real fuels and Space Y (Heavy Lifters and Expanded) mods installed and the 7.5m fuel tanks have very little volume, less than 3.75m. How can I configure them to have appropriate volume? The 5m and 10m tanks have proper volume

Edited February 15, 2017 by raptor_xxl

[Meltdown]

Hey,

I've been using RF with RSS and alot of other mods for a while now and always was thinking that a higher ISP is better but I found something annoying ingame that I simply can't understand :

All rocketengines that are burning LoxLH have a higher ISP and thrust stated but compared to KeroLox or any other Derivate it's simply an underperforming experience. Is this an intended feature or did I encounter a config's bug?

 

And while I started another reply, is there anyone on the config for BDB still working? I would like to use those nicely textured engines in my RSS campaign but the boiloff is making this incredibly hard. I could also contribute some lines but first of all I have to undertand how to implement it.

 

edit

I found a few RF stockalike configs in the bdb-topic (klick me) about a year ago. Can I use them as a reference for RSS and all the other missing engines or did anything change since feb 2016 I should know of? What's this @AthmosphereCurve all about?

Edited February 16, 2017 by Meltdown
RF-stockalike configs

[demol]

Hello guys. Thank you for the great mod.

I repost my question from the "stockalike eng" topic:

Quote

 

Have a slight midgame problem: Ore converter still produce liquid fuel, oxidizer and monopropellant instead of usable resources.

Can ore converter be modified too?

 

 

 

[Phineas Freak]

2 hours ago, Meltdown said:

All rocketengines that are burning LoxLH have a higher ISP and thrust stated but compared to KeroLox or any other Derivate it's simply an underperforming experience.

That's how the liquid rocket propellant science works: high Isp --> low thrust, low Isp --> high thrust. Do not try to use hydrolox for heavy lifting, use it for efficiency, low mass, high energy orbits.

1 hour ago, demol said:

Have a slight midgame problem: Ore converter still produce liquid fuel, oxidizer and monopropellant instead of usable resources.

Can ore converter be modified too?

I do not think that resource conversion is something that RF will ever do since it is out of scope. There is a WIP mod that converts the stock resource converters to work with realistic resources though: https://github.com/jbengtson/RealISRU

[Starwaster]

 

1 hour ago, Phineas Freak said:

That's how the liquid rocket propellant science works: high Isp --> low thrust, low Isp --> high thrust. Do not try to use hydrolox for heavy lifting, use it for efficiency, low mass, high energy orbits.

Or use it in upper stages so that the lower stages (burning other combinations) have more delta-V / TWR as in Saturn-V.

Also people, about the Isp - thrust relationship, higher Isp propellants have more thrust per unit mass of the propellant. I think that's part of what confuses people new to RF about hydrogen. It's a high energy fuel but its low mass gives it a low base thrust.

[VikingStormtrooper]

Both @Phineas Freak and @Starwaster are right. The specific impulse is defined as the ratio between thrust and mass flow rate of propellant needed to grant that thrust (and the acceleration of gravity ASL if you like, but this is not important now); for this reason, it is right that Isp measures the thrust per unit mass in a given time, or thrust/the time derivative of mass in infinitesimal terms.

At the same time, there are no possibilities to have both high specific impulses and high thrusts with the usual thrusters. Chemical rockets can be used as launchers because of their very high TWR, but their Isp is considerably lower than that of electrical thrusters (like 460 s against 1000 s); on the other hand, electrical thrusters have very low TWR and can be useful only in space, during very long burns. Due to the highest specific content of energy in fuel, what is closer to "high-thrust, high-Isp" is the nuclear propulsion, nothing you can see in practice.

[Meltdown]

1 hour ago, Starwaster said:

 

Or use it in upper stages so that the lower stages (burning other combinations) have more delta-V / TWR as in Saturn-V.

Also people, about the Isp - thrust relationship, higher Isp propellants have more thrust per unit mass of the propellant. I think that's part of what confuses people new to RF about hydrogen. It's a high energy fuel but its low mass gives it a low base thrust.

 

6 hours ago, Meltdown said:

Hey,

I've been using RF with RSS and alot of other mods for a while now and always was thinking that a higher ISP is better but I found something annoying ingame that I simply can't understand :

All rocketengines that are burning LoxLH have a higher ISP and thrust stated but compared to KeroLox or any other Derivate it's simply an underperforming experience. Is this an intended feature or did I encounter a config's bug?

 

Pardon my ignorance if I was a bit unprecise in my first post but what I was talking about was the delta-v of both props compared to it's capacity taken in a tank as I just got confused and got misleaded by KERs output while playing around with both props in the VAB.

As you can see the stats are more inline with your predictions and the volume of the LO2-LH2mixture basicly got tripled compared to the RP-1 LO2 stored in one tank. I simply saw the impulse, thrust and the d-v and just thought something went fubar. (0.0708kg per 1l Lh2 according to http://www.storhy.net/train-in/PDF-TI/10_e.pdf)

 

[Starwaster]

27 minutes ago, Meltdown said:

 

Pardon my ignorance if I was a bit unprecise in my first post but what I was talking about was the delta-v of both props compared to it's capacity taken in a tank as I just got confused and got misleaded by KERs output while playing around with both props in the VAB.

As you can see the stats are more inline with your predictions and the volume of the LO2-LH2mixture basicly got tripled compared to the RP-1 LO2 stored in one tank. I simply saw the impulse, thrust and the d-v and just thought something went fubar. (0.0708kg per 1l Lh2 according to http://www.storhy.net/train-in/PDF-TI/10_e.pdf)

 

So what exactly are you saying? Are you still confused about something? Or is everything good now?

[Cratzz]

Hey @NathanKell i have some issues with some tanks that cause negative mass with Tweakscale. The C7 Brand Adapters, and the MK3 Parts

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5191989/KSP.log

Any input would be much appreciated!

EDIT: Made a video too from VAB and launch. - https://youtu.be/R_3zAvel9-M

EDIT: And btw, almost ALL tanks seem to have a much too low dry weight. For example, a T800 tank in stock weighs half a ton dry, with RealFuels 0.075 tons.

EDIT: I disabled "useRealisticMass" and now the dry weight seems right, still get negative mass on all tanks tho.

Edited February 17, 2017 by Cratzz

[Meltdown]

15 hours ago, Starwaster said:

So what exactly are you saying? Are you still confused about something? Or is everything good now?

I have one more question I'm not 100% sure about :

  @MODULE[ModuleEngine*]
  {
    @name = ModuleEnginesRF
    @maxThrust = 350
    @heatProduction = 156
    @atmosphereCurve
    {
      @key,0 = 0 275
      @key,1 = 1 248

taken from ...\Gamedata\RealFuels-Stockalike\Stockalike_Squad.cfg l.166 ff

The allocationcurve of the ISP in the Atmosphere is set to only 2 values which should be sufficient for such a small ISP but I would like to know If you or any other forumuser could tell me which function is representing the correlation between density of the atmosphere and the increase in ISP most accurately? Is there a difference in the function between different props?

I haven't done alot of programming with Unityscript but might it be that the KSP engine is calculation it on it's own and it just needs the start-ending ISP ?

[Phineas Freak]

@Meltdown Since it is a curve, more points can help but the actual difference will be so small that it is not even worth thinking about adding them (RO for example strives for realism, yet this kind of accuracy is useless). Besides, how are you going to model the engine? You need hard data on the nozzle shape, chamber pressure and temperature, propellant chemistry (both for the reactive propellants and the exhaust products by mass) and more.

TL;DR: two points for the atmospheric curve are fine. Do not bother for more.

Edited February 17, 2017 by Phineas Freak

[pellinor]

On 16.2.2017 at 11:57 PM, Cratzz said:

Hey i have some issues with some tanks that cause negative mass with Tweakscale. The C7 Brand Adapters, and the MK3 Parts

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5191989/KSP.log

Any input would be much appreciated!

EDIT: Made a video too from VAB and launch. - https://youtu.be/R_3zAvel9-M

EDIT: And btw, almost ALL tanks seem to have a much too low dry weight. For example, a T800 tank in stock weighs half a ton dry, with RealFuels 0.075 tons.

EDIT: I disabled "useRealisticMass" and now the dry weight seems right, still get negative mass on all tanks tho.

Should be fixed with the next TweakScale release (and is already part of the dev version).

[Cratzz]

2 hours ago, pellinor said:

Should be fixed with the next TweakScale release (and is already part of the dev version).

Awesome, thx for the heads up.