[1.8+] Real Fuels

[Jacke]

7 hours ago, Cratzz said:

Yea it was the latter, that it was skewed. That seemed kinda stupid that the orientation of Mechjeb would affect the orientation of the entire craft, so never occured to me.

It's another reason to use MechJeb partless by using ModuleManager to add the appropriate MechJeb MODULES to every Command Pod.

[JebIsDeadBaby]

Hi, 

is it RF that adds extra tank to command pods? If yes, where these tanks are defined? In the game they are described as Service Modules, however tweaks to this type of tank in RealTankTypes.cfg does not affect tanks in command pods. 

EDIT: OK, I found it in RealFuels-Stockalike/Fuel_Conversions. 

Edited September 26, 2018 by JebIsDeadBaby

[Vincento117]

Hi 
i'm using real scale boosters and space Y with the stock config of RF, everything works fine except two things :
-all solid boosters still use "solid fuel" with their stock stats 
-The Rs25 and 68 engines only have a kerosene/liquid oxygen config (they should have a Hydrogen/oxygen)

i 'm still new to the heavy modding part of ksp so i might totally forget something
 

Edited October 12, 2018 by Vincento117

[Starwaster]

8 hours ago, Vincento117 said:

Hi 
i'm using real scale boosters and space Y with the stock config of RF, everything works fine except two things :
-all solid boosters still use "solid fuel" with their stock stats 
-The Rs25 and 68 engines only have a kerosene/liquid oxygen config (they should have a Hydrogen/oxygen)

i 'm still new to the heavy modding part of ksp so i might totally forget something
 

You need to download an engine pack that reconfigures engine appropriately. (these are configs only that convert the stock engines and various engines of other mods)

Realism Overhaul has such an engine pack built into it.

Or download Stockalike RF Engine Configs.

 

[Vincento117]

Thanks ! i was already using stockalike config but it didn't support real scale boosters i found the configs for RSB in the Ro files, except that the arianne boosters cannot be filled with their engine fuel
anyway since Ro isn't updated it could be nice to put the configs it had inside here

[Starwaster]

6 hours ago, Vincento117 said:

Thanks ! i was already using stockalike config but it didn't support real scale boosters i found the configs for RSB in the Ro files, except that the arianne boosters cannot be filled with their engine fuel
anyway since Ro isn't updated it could be nice to put the configs it had inside here

Maybe put in a request to @Raptor831 for support for the relevant engines...? (RF doesn't do engine configs anymore)

[DJ Reonic]

I am attempting to finish out RF configs for Cormorant Aeronology. I am having significant issues with the Shuttle External Tank parts. I can't seem to get them to lose the FSfuelSwitch module or their LF/Ox fuels. Does anyone have any insight on this? Someone please let me know what I'm doing wrong. It would be much appreciated.

Spoiler

@PART[CAET]:FOR[RealFuels]
{
    
    !MODULE[FSfuelSwitch] {}
    !PROPELLANT[LiquidFuel] {}
    !PROPELLANT[Oxidizer] {}
    !PROPELLANT[MonoPropellant] {}    
    
    MODULE
    {
        name = ModuleFuelTanks
        volume = 88000
        type = Cryogenic
    }
}

@PART[CAETnose]:FOR[RealFuels]
{
    
    !MODULE[FSfuelSwitch] {}
    !PROPELLANT[LiquidFuel] {}
    !PROPELLANT[Oxidizer] {}
    !PROPELLANT[MonoPropellant] {}    
    
    MODULE
    {
        name = ModuleFuelTanks
        volume = 72000
        type = Cryogenic
    }
}

@PART[CAET_extension]:FOR[RealFuels]
{
    
    !MODULE[FSfuelSwitch] {}
    !PROPELLANT[LiquidFuel] {}
    !PROPELLANT[Oxidizer] {}
    !PROPELLANT[MonoPropellant] {}    
    
    MODULE
    {
        name = ModuleFuelTanks
        volume = 72000
        type = Cryogenic
    }
}

 

Edited October 14, 2018 by DJ Reonic

[Starwaster]

43 minutes ago, DJ Reonic said:

I am attempting to finish out RF configs for Cormorant Aeronology. I am having significant issues with the Shuttle External Tank parts. I can't seem to get them to lose the FSfuelSwitch module or their LF/Ox fuels. Does anyone have any insight on this? Someone please let me know what I'm doing wrong. It would be much appreciated.

  Hide contents

@PART[CAET]:FOR[RealFuels]
{
    
    !MODULE[FSfuelSwitch] {}
    !PROPELLANT[LiquidFuel] {}
    !PROPELLANT[Oxidizer] {}
    !PROPELLANT[MonoPropellant] {}    
    
    MODULE
    {
        name = ModuleFuelTanks
        volume = 88000
        type = Cryogenic
    }
}

@PART[CAETnose]:FOR[RealFuels]
{
    
    !MODULE[FSfuelSwitch] {}
    !PROPELLANT[LiquidFuel] {}
    !PROPELLANT[Oxidizer] {}
    !PROPELLANT[MonoPropellant] {}    
    
    MODULE
    {
        name = ModuleFuelTanks
        volume = 72000
        type = Cryogenic
    }
}

@PART[CAET_extension]:FOR[RealFuels]
{
    
    !MODULE[FSfuelSwitch] {}
    !PROPELLANT[LiquidFuel] {}
    !PROPELLANT[Oxidizer] {}
    !PROPELLANT[MonoPropellant] {}    
    
    MODULE
    {
        name = ModuleFuelTanks
        volume = 72000
        type = Cryogenic
    }
}

 

First, check the spelling, especially case as these are case sensitive.

Second, where is FSFuelSwitch actually being added to those parts? If it's from an external config file then you need to see when it is being scheduled. If it is scheduled AFTER RealFuels then you need to reschedule your configs.  BUT. If they are marked :FINAL then FSFuelSwitch is getting added dead last in scheduling which makes it tough to get rid of. (It's almost always a bad idea for a modder to use :FINAL and definitely not for something like adding FSFuelSwitch)

[DJ Reonic]

On 10/14/2018 at 4:46 PM, Starwaster said:

First, check the spelling, especially case as these are case sensitive.

Second, where is FSFuelSwitch actually being added to those parts? If it's from an external config file then you need to see when it is being scheduled. If it is scheduled AFTER RealFuels then you need to reschedule your configs.  BUT. If they are marked :FINAL then FSFuelSwitch is getting added dead last in scheduling which makes it tough to get rid of. (It's almost always a bad idea for a modder to use :FINAL and definitely not for something like adding FSFuelSwitch)

So, the FSFuelSwitch is added in the part configs themselves. I had to remove it to get RF to work, but the main Shuttle ET lost texture switching and RF wouldn't work. I'm not quite sure how to get around this issue. The Shuttle ET is the only thing I am having problems with.

[AeroGav]

Can anyone help me make an engine config file ?   I know you should probably learn to walk before trying to run,  but if I just needed a simple Kerolox or Hydrolox engine i wouldn't be trying to do my own.

I am trying to create a bimodal NTR with two modes :

Mass 1.75 T

Mode 1 -  NTR mode.    Fuel is 100%  LqdAmmonia.   Thrust 400kn.   Vac ISP 520 seconds,   Atm ISP  312

Mode 2 -  Afterburner.   Fuel is Hydrolox, with a ratio of 3KG Oxygen per 1KG Hydrogen burned,  Thrust 600kn,  Vac ISP 642  Atm ISP 480

Yes, this is meant to be for a near future Shuttle 2.0

The NTR mode with storable, dense Ammonia is an upgrade on the hypergolic OMS,    while the afterburner mode is used on launch, running off the external tank  and thus can use cryogenic propellants, since boiloff is not a concern.

 

I tried modding the BiModal NTR (which comes with stockalike) by hand, but 

I keep getting error unkown RESOURCE {LqdAmmonia     Ratio 1.00 }  when selecting this engine,  and it has a thrust and an ISP of zero when not in afterburner mode.

I suppose i could just use two sets of engines instead of a bimodal, since that ups the difficulty , but apart from the wastefulness of this approach,  i am not aware of any  ready made engines for  NTR with  Ammonia anyway

[Starwaster]

@AeroGav

That error means what it says. There is no resource by that name. 

I'm having to guess here since you chose to type your error out instead of including actual log as well as including the config that caused the error but if it literally said LqdAmmonia     Ratio 1.00  then it literally thinks that the name of the resource is LqdAmmonia     Ratio 1.00.

Go look at your config. make sure that ratio is on its own line. You can't do the whole thing inline.

[AeroGav]

On 10/18/2018 at 6:26 PM, Starwaster said:

@AeroGav

That error means what it says. There is no resource by that name. 

I'm having to guess here since you chose to type your error out instead of including actual log as well as including the config that caused the error but if it literally said LqdAmmonia     Ratio 1.00  then it literally thinks that the name of the resource is LqdAmmonia     Ratio 1.00.

Go look at your config. make sure that ratio is on its own line. You can't do the whole thing inline.

Damn,  the original file as seen in Notepad looks like everything is on the same line,  but putting an [ENTER] between the two fixed that error.

Looks like Notepad is screwing things up by hiding the formatting characters, causing extra ones to be added or removed from the file without fessing up?

I did look at your spreadsheet , but couldn't figure out how to use it, especially for a bi modal engine like this.

Unfortunately, I'm still having issues with the modded engine.   The ISP values are wrong in pure NTR mode,  the Vacuum ISP is too high and the Sea Level  ISP lower than I specified.

Parameters I was trying to get -

 

Mass 0.75T

 

NTR Mode

Fuel LqdAmmonia   Ratio 1.0

Thrust 200kn

Vac ISP 520,   Atm  300   (observed values of 925 and 286!)

 

Afterburner Mode

Liquid Ammonia Ratio 1.16        HTP  Ratio  0.1

Thrust 400kn

Vac ISP 450,   Atm  360  (observed Vac ISP of 620?!,  sea level ISP correct)

Here's the butchered file - https://www.dropbox.com/s/nsoob4svbflvxhi/Squad_NTR_modularEngines.cfg?dl=0

... and this is the file before i started hacking it (from the stockalike engine pack)  

https://www.dropbox.com/s/yhcb9gh4ovq1vup/Squad_NTR_modularEngines.zip?dl=0

[Starwaster]

@AeroGav still trying to wrap my mind around this... it's been awhile since I did engine configs for things like trimodals (technically that's what it would be since it's three modes of operation not two) but it shouldn't be too hard...

Also, use Notepad++ instead of Notepad. It will change your life. https://notepad-plus-plus.org/

I found one section that was still inline instead of two lines (atmosphereCurve at 44-47) but  that should at worst just screw up the atmosphere curve - not sure what the exact effect would be.

Another issue is the use of ModuleHybridEngine - I don't think anyone really uses that anymore: A little background history: It actually extends the ModuleEngineConfigs class while adding similar functionality to MultiModeEngine, which it predates. Now that we have MultiModeEngine, nobody really uses ModuleHybridEngine... it PROBABLY still works ok but I can't guarantee that. The only circumstance that I can think of is if you wanted a nuclear engine type that could be configured in the VAB for multiple propellant types AND added afterburner support for all of them. 

Which looking at your configs isn't what you're after and even I'm not sure how to write such a beast. If you WANT to do that it should be possible to work it out but right now I'm concentrating on your original goal. Also, it might be why the isp values were getting munged. It modifies isp (ispSL and ispV - but the math doesn't add up to the numbers you were seeing)

Here's a corrected patch. This works but the thrust/isp values for afterburner mode seem questionable to me. Maybe you want it to have realistic values or maybe you don't... not sure what effect high test peroxide has on ammonia....?

Spoiler

+PART[nuclearEngine]:FOR[RealFuels_StockEngines]
{
    @name = nuclearEngine-trimodal.AeroGav // If you're using the stockalike configs the original name would have conflicted
    @author = NovaSilisko, Starwaster, AeroGav
    @title = LV-N Atomic Rocket Motor, trimodal

    @description = Despite the big scary trefoil painted onto the side of this engine, its radioactive exhaust, and tendency to overheat, the LV-N Atomic Rocket Motor is harmless. Mostly. This one can inject LOX into the nozzle stream to increase thrust at the expense of fuel efficiency.

    MODULE
    {
        name = MultiModeEngine
        primaryEngineID = Regular
        primaryEngineModeDisplayName = Regular
        secondaryEngineID = Afterburner
        secondaryEngineModeDisplayName = Afterburner
    }

    @MODULE[ModuleEngines*]
    {
        @name = ModuleEnginesRF
        PROPELLANT
        {
            name = LqdAmmonia
            
            ratio = 100.000000
            flowMode = STACK_PRIORITY_SEARCH
            DrawGauge = true
        }
        !PROPELLANT[Kerosene] {}
        !PROPELLANT[LqdOxygen] {}
        !PROPELLANT[LiquidFuel] {}
        !PROPELLANT[Oxidizer] {}
        %engineID = Regular
        @minThrust = 0
        @maxThrust = 200
        !atmosphereCurve{}
        atmosphereCurve
        {
            key,0 = 0 520
            key,1 = 1 300
        }
    }

    MODULE
    {
        name = ModuleEnginesRF
        engineID = Afterburner
        directThrottleEffectName = powerflame
        runningEffectName = powersmoke
        thrustVectorTransformName = thrustTransform
        exhaustDamage = True
        ignitionThreshold = 0.1
        minThrust = 0
        maxThrust = 400
        heatProduction = 325
        fxOffset = 0, 0, 1.0
        PROPELLANT
        {
            name = LqdAmmonia
            
            ratio = 1.16
            DrawGauge = True
            %resourceFlowMode = STACK_PRIORITY_SEARCH
        }
        PROPELLANT
        {
            name = HTP                
            ratio =  0.1
            DrawGauge = True
            %resourceFlowMode = STACK_PRIORITY_SEARCH
        }
        PROPELLANT
        {
            name = EnrichedUranium
            ratio = 0.00000000001
        }
        atmosphereCurve
        {
            key = 0 450
            key = 1 360
        }
    }
    !MODULE[ModuleEngineConfigs],*{}
    MODULE
    {
        name = ModuleAlternator
        OUTPUT_RESOURCE
        {
            name = EnrichedUranium
            rate = -0.0000000005
        }
        OUTPUT_RESOURCE
        {
            name = DepletedUranium
            rate = 0.0000000005
        }
        OUTPUT_RESOURCE
        {
            name = ElectricCharge
            rate = 3.0
        }
    }
    MODULE
    {
        name = ModuleGenerator
        //resourceThreshold = 0
        isAlwaysActive = true
        OUTPUT_RESOURCE
        {
            name = ElectricCharge
            rate = 1.5
        }
        OUTPUT_RESOURCE
        {
            name = DepletedUranium
            rate = 0.0000000005
        }
        INPUT_RESOURCE
        {
            name = EnrichedUranium
            rate = 0.0000000005
        }
    }
    RESOURCE
    {
        name = EnrichedUranium
        amount = 5
        maxAmount = 5
    }
    RESOURCE
    {
        name = DepletedUranium
        amount = 0
        maxAmount = 5
    }
}

 

[AeroGav]

1 hour ago, Starwaster said:

Here's a corrected patch. This works but the thrust/isp values for afterburner mode seem questionable to me. Maybe you want it to have realistic values or maybe you don't... not sure what effect high test peroxide has on ammonia....?

Good work...  that's so much more readable too than how it looks in Notepad.

My justification for thrust and ISP values are in this post

HTP is an Oxidizer and NH3 is a fuel,  apparently it gets about 260 seconds impulse at sea level.    I did some dodgy extrapolation from the LANTR project,   the performance charts showed that if you add enough LOX to burn about one eighth of the Hydrogen flow,   you double the thrust whilst losing one third of the ISP advantage that LH2  NTR has over Hydrolox.     Of course it may well be that a litre of HTP results in a lot less energy release than a lire of LOX as used per LANTR...   feel free to share your thoughts on a better estimate.

My main doubt is thrust.  I based the thrust values off the TWR achieved by project Timberwind,  but that's likely far too high for stock scale KSP .    

[Starwaster]

4 minutes ago, AeroGav said:

 

HTP is an Oxidizer and NH3 is a fuel,  apparently it gets about 260 seconds impulse at sea level.    I did some dodgy extrapolation from the LANTR project,   the performance charts showed that if you add enough LOX to burn about one eighth of the Hydrogen flow,   you double the thrust whilst losing one third of the ISP advantage that LH2  NTR has over Hydrolox.     Of course it may well be that a litre of HTP results in a lot less energy release than a lire of LOX as used per LANTR...   feel free to share your thoughts on a better estimate.

My main doubt is thrust.  I based the thrust values off the TWR achieved by project Timberwind,  but that's likely far too high for stock scale KSP .    

I'll take a look at that and see if I figure out what values would be appropriate.

I can tell you though that the main reason why the LH2+LOX LANTR gained such an increase is primarily the increased mass flow. It depends of course on the exact mixture ratio but for a 3-1 mix, you're quadrupling the original mass flow of the hydrogen only mode because LOX is much denser than LH2, almost fifteen times denser. HTP is denser than liquid ammonia but only by about 2x.

In order for the in-game engine module to fulfill the thrust request (and it is realistically accurate assuming the numbers provided to it are accurate) it is having to increase ammonia mass flow from 39.22 kg/sec to 77.09 kg/sec. Ideally you want your thrust level and resource ratios to be such that the primary propellant's mass flow does not increase or decrease. (this was something that I had a hard time achieving when I created the original LANTR config for the trimodal back when the engine config was actually part of Real Fuels before engine configs were removed from the mod entirely)

[oguz]

hi, can iodine be added into the mod?

[blowfish]

17 minutes ago, oguz said:

hi, can iodine be added into the mod?

What engines use iodine?

[oguz]

14 minutes ago, blowfish said:

What engines use iodine?

Iodine can be used in ion engines   Same ion engine can use different types of fuels such as xenon, argon, iodine etc.

 

Spoiler

 

Here is a performance comparison between xenon-iodine

Spoiler

 

Some more info about iodine in ion propulsion systems

Spoiler

 

Iodine's usage as fuel in NASA programs ; https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Lunar_IceCube#/Propulsion

It could be so much fun to play with it  

[Gordon Dry]

@oguz so it's solid. That means it would have NO_FLOW ? And that would mean a dedicated tank needs to be attached directly to the iodine powered engine, no pumping through the vessel. Some immersion, though ...

[oguz]

Yes, iodine stands in it's solid form at 113.7 °C and below. With this way, much more fuel can be stored in same volume of fuel tank, than xenon or argon, so much more density & less fuel tank mass is there. This is from NASA's pdf during their tests

so there are still flow, but keeping fuel tank-engine distance short would be more ergonomic since certain climate environment is being kept in tank & propellant flow line during tests.

[Gordon Dry]

29 minutes ago, oguz said:

keeping fuel tank-engine distance short

Make the engines using iodine check if the tank is nearby - more code ...

[Starwaster]

9 hours ago, Gordon Dry said:

Make the engines using iodine check if the tank is nearby - more code ...

No. Just make it like any other propellant and trust the player to place storage tanks sensibly. If they don't want to then don't make them.

[Vas]

Shame this doesn't fully work with 1.5.1, engine flames are invisible.

Also a shame this is unrealistic in terms of Engines, as each engine type gets a max of one ignition which makes them unplayable except as an initial launch.  No multiple maneuvers once you get to space, its all one shot one go and then you have to throw away your engine.  Real engines don't do that, so it can't be called Real.  This just needlessly complicates the game in my opinion, I can't figure out what to use and what to do because every engine has multiple configs and every tank has multiple configs and it confuses the crap out of me having 30 different types of fuels...

Just thought I'd provide my thoughts.

 

Just as a point of proof, the engine limitations you impose that are very very very wrong I'll link some things below with a bit of explanation.

The ISS has to reboost its altitude many times a year, 10-12 times a year, and from what I heard from a friend is that the ship that docks for a while has 20-30 ignitions for this. This graph will show you that the ISS does in fact lift its altitude nearly once a month.

First stage engines only have one ignition, while second stage engines require the rocket to be in acceleration to ignite.  But thats just for engines that send you off into orbit, every single engine in your mod has one ignition, a max of 2 is what I've seen.  That makes it totally unusable and worthless.  How do you perform a maneuver once you get to space?  You can't shut down your engine or it permanently dies.  You can't time warp to the other side of the planet to boost your PE either because that'd also shut your engine down.  A worthless engine.

Even my propane heater can self ignite, and does so 2-5 times a day during winter, thats up to 600 times a year, its many years old so thats at least 6,000 times.  Sure, its not a ship thruster but it is an ignition.

Unfortunately, I can't exactly find nasa grade information here to prove my point on the realism aspect of this but from what I can see with almost everything researched for the level 2 science facility, all engines in your mod max at 1 to 2 ignitions making them unusable.

I will likely only see posts that mention me or quote me.

[Crashonaut]

Most non-hypergolic engines have a limited amount of ignitions, typically based on how much 'starter fluid' (TEA-TEB), other starting methods are normally used on the launch pad, pyrotechnic or electrical. Upper stage engines, with multiple restarts, have a limit due to either starter fluid, or power, ullage propellant or a series of other factors. only hypergolics have an extremely high restart count. The ISS, Space Shuttle, or other space craft use hypergolics for RCS, orbital maneuvering systems, including the altitude control systems of the ISS.

[Starwaster]

@Vas You mention a number of times in your post about proof and realism. Historically, rocket engine tend to have hard finite limits on restarts especially Even SpaceX with its reusable Merlins are not infinitely restartable and that's why they lost the center booster on the Falcon Heavy: The booster ran out of TEA-TEB and could not re-ignite the two side engines and overshot the barge and crashed hard into the ocean. As @Crashonaut says, rockets that use hypergolics are inherently restartable though even they have limits in the range of 10s of thousands of restarts. We don't model that and just assume that they are infinite. (the actual limitation on such motors is actually due to wear and tear so not within the scope of RF)

That's just cold hard reality. We don't model every aspect of reality that would affect engine restart capability and are therefore have to abstract things down to the level of assigning a hard ignition limit. The motor either has a limited number of ignitions or is infinite. You can talk about proofs all you want but what you need to do is increase your level of knowledge about how rockets in the real world work. They ARE limited as to restarts, especially in the early years (50s-60s) which is the time period that RF focuses on.

If you don't like that you have a number of choices ranging from not using RF at all to writing patches to remove ignition limitations from your personal installation. 

Edit: Other choices are possible such as writing up a patch that tries to model things by assigning every ignition resource that is appropriate on a per engine basis. This includes things such as electricity (for spark plug ignited engine such as the J2), TEA-TEB for engines that use pyrophoric ignitors and finally pressurants. (literally gasses that pressurize the tank. J-2 theoretically could have been restarted infinitely but required its tanks to be pressurized prior to each firing. In the case of the Saturn's S-IVB this meant including enough pressurant for 2-3 restarts. Most missions only required two though there was at least one that involved a third restart). It would be up to you to research the engines you want to patch and determine what resources you want to include based on how realistic you really want things to be. If you're serious about wanting your engines realistic then these are the things that have to be considered on a per engine basis. Consider those things and maybe you'll start to understand why engines get configured with hard limits. Again, it's about abstraction.

Edited November 8, 2018 by Starwaster
Expanded my answer a bit