[1.8+] Real Fuels

[Angstinator]

1 hour ago, Flibble said:

Is your rocket accelerating? If not then yes it's normal - you need to accelerate to settle the fuel in the bottom of the tank.

I do have two pairs of ullage motors igniting 0.3 seconds after booster flameout, but further experiments have shown things that don't quite fit:

• The motors cannot prevent ignition failure despite being staged to burn for three seconds before main engine ignition.
• Propellant stability snaps to 25% or 0%, depending on circumstances I do not yet understand, on stage jettison instead of booster flameout.
• When the main engine is staged to ignite together with the boosters vapour formation and flame-out occurs the moment the boosters are jettisoned despite the engine operating at up to 50% power.

[Flibble]

29 minutes ago, Angstinator said:

I do have two pairs of ullage motors igniting 0.3 seconds after booster flameout, but further experiments have shown things that don't quite fit:

• The motors cannot prevent ignition failure despite being staged to burn for three seconds before main engine ignition.
• Propellant stability snaps to 25% or 0%, depending on circumstances I do not yet understand, on stage jettison instead of booster flameout.
• When the main engine is staged to ignite together with the boosters vapour formation and flame-out occurs the moment the boosters are jettisoned despite the engine operating at up to 50% power.

You might not have enough thrust from the main engine to prevent fuel rebound when the boosters cut off, similarly the ullage motors may not have enough thrust to actually settle the fuel.

Do you get the same effect if you throttle up to 100% before booster separation? How about trying higher thrust ullage motors?

[Gordon Dry]

On 12/30/2013 at 9:14 AM, NathanKell said:

See this helpful guide by TaranisElsu.

Link is broken and I don't find it ...

[Gordon Dry]

So I hope this works now:
GameData\zFinal\zzz_AddFuelToWings.cfg

TANK_DEFINITION:NEEDS[RealFuels]
{
	name = Wing
	highlyPressurized = False
	basemass = 0.000039 * volume
	TANK
	{
		name = AvGas
		mass = 0.000008
		utilization = 1
		fillable = True
		amount = 0.0
		maxAmount = 0.0
	}
	TANK
	{
		name = Kerosene
		mass = 0.000012
		utilization = 1
		fillable = True
		amount = 0.0
		maxAmount = 0.0
	}
}

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleLiftingSurface],!MODULE[ModuleCommand],!MODULE[ModuleControlSurface],!MODULE[ModuleFuelTanks],!RESOURCE[*]]:NEEDS[RealFuels]:FINAL
{
	MODULE
	{
		name = ModuleFuelTanks
		basemass = -1
		// utilizationTweakable = true
		utilization = 0.75
		type = Wing
		typeAvailable = Wing
		typeAvailable = Fuselage
		typeAvailable = Structural
		volume = #$/mass$
		@volume *= 4000
		@volume ^= :\.\d+$::
	}
}

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[FARWingAerodynamicModel],!MODULE[ModuleCommand],!MODULE[FARControllableSurface],!MODULE[ModuleFuelTanks],!RESOURCE[*]]:NEEDS[RealFuels,FerramAerospaceResearch]:FINAL
{
	MODULE
	{
		name = ModuleFuelTanks
		basemass = -1
		// utilizationTweakable = true
		utilization = 0.75
		type = Wing
		typeAvailable = Wing
		typeAvailable = Fuselage
		typeAvailable = Structural
		volume = #$/mass$
		@volume *= 4000
		@volume ^= :\.\d+$::
	}
}

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleLiftingSurface],@MODULE[ModuleFuelTanks],!MODULE[GPOSpeedPump]]:NEEDS[RealFuels,GPOSpeedFuelPump]:FINAL
{
	MODULE
	{
		name = GPOSpeedPump
	}
}
@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[FARWingAerodynamicModel],@MODULE[ModuleFuelTanks],!MODULE[GPOSpeedPump]]:NEEDS[RealFuels,GPOSpeedFuelPump,FerramAerospaceResearch]:FINAL
{
	MODULE
	{
		name = GPOSpeedPump
	}
}

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleFuelTanks]:HAS[#volume[0],#type[Wing]]]:NEEDS[RealFuels]:FINAL
{
	!MODULE[ModuleFuelTanks] {}
}

I've decided to not pressurize the wings' internal tanks ...

Edited May 31, 2019 by Gordon Dry
added FAR configs - fixed copypasta typo - fixed TANK_DEFINITION and basemass mistake - added small sanity fix at the end - changed multiplier to fit the volume to that of B9 Procedural Wings - added GPOSpeedFuelPump

[Gordon Dry]

Because also very small fins are patched to get a ModuleFuelTanks and its volume is 0 because @volume ^= :\.\d+$:: I added a small sanity fix at the end of the patch to delete that ModuleFuelTanks again

(^with the changes mentioned below, that patch mentioned above will not happen that much anymore)

While fiddling with the B9 Procedural Wings (whose already got ModuleFuelTanks by RF itself) and comparing them to static wings I see a discrepancy in fuel volume.
So I edited the patch above to make the values fit to those of B9 Procedural Wings.
And I scrapped tanks inside control surfaces ...

Edited May 30, 2019 by Gordon Dry

[JebIsDeadBaby]

Hi, I created a config for Pug engine from Restock+ mod. I configured it as a pressure-fed engine with 200 liters integrated pressurized tank. However, if I connect it to a default, non-pressurized tank, it will draw fuel from this tank as well. Is this a limitation of the mod or a bug? I expected it to ignore non-pressurized tanks in the fuel flow.  

[Starwaster]

4 hours ago, JebIsDeadBaby said:

Hi, I created a config for Pug engine from Restock+ mod. I configured it as a pressure-fed engine with 200 liters integrated pressurized tank. However, if I connect it to a default, non-pressurized tank, it will draw fuel from this tank as well. Is this a limitation of the mod or a bug? I expected it to ignore non-pressurized tanks in the fuel flow.  

It’s not possible at this time to to limit KSP’s resource requests to pressurized tanks. We detect if they are there and can be accessed by the engine. We can ensure  the pressurized tank has the resources required by the engine but once those conditions are met and the engine makes the resource request we can’t stop ksp from fulfilling that request from tanks it thinks are eligible but which we do not. 

Edit: at least not without restricting access to that tank by other eligible consumers. 

[Tinkman]

Hey guys! I'm consistently having an issue with lighting rockets, even while stable on a launchclamp. Usually the first time I light an engine after a 100% fresh install it will work, but after that it will never work again. When I stage, the number of ignitions doesn't decrease, and activate and deactivating the engine repeatedly doesn't change anything. This has been happening with any install that included Real Fuels, including 1.6.1 RO, 1.3.1 RP-1, 1.3.1 RP-1.1 and a 1.6.1 install with only real fuels, its required dependencies and stockalike RF configs. These issues do not seem to happen on my PC, only on my Mac. Any ideas on what could be causing it? Here is my log: https://www.dropbox.com/s/vhlvu02wzdt11g6/Player.log?dl=0

[Starwaster]

17 hours ago, Tinkman said:

Hey guys! I'm consistently having an issue with lighting rockets, even while stable on a launchclamp. Usually the first time I light an engine after a 100% fresh install it will work, but after that it will never work again. When I stage, the number of ignitions doesn't decrease, and activate and deactivating the engine repeatedly doesn't change anything. This has been happening with any install that included Real Fuels, including 1.6.1 RO, 1.3.1 RP-1, 1.3.1 RP-1.1 and a 1.6.1 install with only real fuels, its required dependencies and stockalike RF configs. These issues do not seem to happen on my PC, only on my Mac. Any ideas on what could be causing it? Here is my log: https://www.dropbox.com/s/vhlvu02wzdt11g6/Player.log?dl=0

The log isn't telling me anything obviously abnormal is going on. You said it works on your PC but not your Mac. Are they both running the same version of everything? (same version of Real Fuels, same version of RF stockalike.

(actually one thing I notice is that several parts patched by stockalike configs are trying to insert ignition values into the PART node itself in addition to ignition values in the engine configs but the result of that would be that the engine isn't configured as they intended. What you're describing seems different)

edit #2: Show a screenshot of the engine's PAW menu when it's not igniting.

Edited June 19, 2019 by Starwaster

[spacegeek37]

I've come back to KSP after a few year's hiatus, and after slowly tweaking and adding mods I'm starting to think that going straight into 1.7 wasn't a great idea. Many mods haven't updated yet, and I was wondering if anybody has managed to get this one to work on 1.7.1.

[Starwaster]

5 hours ago, spacegeek37 said:

I've come back to KSP after a few year's hiatus, and after slowly tweaking and adding mods I'm starting to think that going straight into 1.7 wasn't a great idea. Many mods haven't updated yet, and I was wondering if anybody has managed to get this one to work on 1.7.1.

The most recent official version was built for KSP 1.6 but will work for KSP 1.7.*  but you want KSP 1.7.2 because there are a few PAW bugs introduced in 1.7.1

 

[Cratzz]

On 5/6/2019 at 12:29 AM, blowfish said:

The ModuleManager warnings are coming from RF Stockalike, not RF itself

Nonetheless I have stubmitted a PR to fix them: https://github.com/Raptor831/RFStockalike/pull/100

Thx for the submit, It says there that 3 files has been changed, does that mean it has been merged with Module Manager v4.0.2 & i can download a fixed version?

Edited June 23, 2019 by Cratzz

[Starwaster]

1 hour ago, Cratzz said:

Thx for the submit, It says there that 3 files has been changed, does that mean it has been merged with Module Manager v4.0.2 & i can download a fixed version?

No, because the pull request hasn't been accepted yet. The file changes mention still exist ONLY in the pull request. It is possible to go through the pull request file by file and download each one. (click Files changed, then next to each file difference set, click the three dots ... and on the menu that pops up click view file. It will show you the actual patched file. For best results right click Raw and then click save as

[Cratzz]

7 hours ago, Starwaster said:

No, because the pull request hasn't been accepted yet. The file changes mention still exist ONLY in the pull request. It is possible to go through the pull request file by file and download each one. (click Files changed, then next to each file difference set, click the three dots ... and on the menu that pops up click view file. It will show you the actual patched file. For best results right click Raw and then click save as

Thx for taking your time & giving me a detailed informative answer, i just applied the changes and it worked great.

Now i don't have to wait for complete recompiles and releases anymore or ask the dreaded question "when" Good stuff!

Edited June 24, 2019 by Cratzz

[spacegeek37]

On 6/20/2019 at 8:57 PM, Starwaster said:

The most recent official version was built for KSP 1.6 but will work for KSP 1.7.*  but you want KSP 1.7.2 because there are a few PAW bugs introduced in 1.7.1

 

Thanks for the advice. I managed to get a 1.7.2 game working with this mod and many others, but there are still a few probes that need to come back before I can permanently install RealFuels.

 

However, trying out the mod did bring up one more question: are there tank settings for life support tanks? The "stock" configuration for TAC life support tanks has all the necessary supplies, but editing them requires either algebra or guesswork. So far I've just used simple configurations for them, but anything other than that is an inconvenience.

 

EDIT: It also seems that using tweak scale on some engines causes them to have negative mass. Is there a fix for this?

Edited June 25, 2019 by spacegeek37
New Information

[Starwaster]

10 hours ago, spacegeek37 said:

Thanks for the advice. I managed to get a 1.7.2 game working with this mod and many others, but there are still a few probes that need to come back before I can permanently install RealFuels.

 

However, trying out the mod did bring up one more question: are there tank settings for life support tanks? The "stock" configuration for TAC life support tanks has all the necessary supplies, but editing them requires either algebra or guesswork. So far I've just used simple configurations for them, but anything other than that is an inconvenience.

 

EDIT: It also seems that using tweak scale on some engines causes them to have negative mass. Is there a fix for this?

Did you actually TRY your desired probes with 1.7.2 or did you just assume they wouldn't work? If they are just parts packs then the likelihood of them NOT working is so low as to approach zero percent. Even a lot of plugins will continue to work in spite of compatibility warnings which should really be interpreted as version mismatch warnings since no code can actually detect an 'incompatibility'. All those incompatibility warnings you see are the result of version comparisons.

Even Real Fuels for KSP 1.3.1 will work in KSP 1.7.2 though I wouldn't recommend actually doing so when there are newer versions out. (note that when it comes to plugins YMMV considerably. It all depends on whether what changed in the KSP code was actually something that got used and how it got changed)

No, there isn't any explicit support for life support in Real Fuels so there's no types of tank settings for it, sorry  

As for the negative mass issue, I'd need to know more. I assume it was scaling down the engine that did it? Was the engine part an engine only or did it have fuel tanks included on the engine part? Are there other plugins besides RF/TweakScale that can affect the mass of that part?

[spacegeek37]

4 hours ago, Starwaster said:

Did you actually TRY your desired probes with 1.7.2 or did you just assume they wouldn't work? If they are just parts packs then the likelihood of them NOT working is so low as to approach zero percent. Even a lot of plugins will continue to work in spite of compatibility warnings which should really be interpreted as version mismatch warnings since no code can actually detect an 'incompatibility'. All those incompatibility warnings you see are the result of version comparisons.

I think you misunderstood. There was no compatibility problem with the probe ship files, but the active ones in a save still had stock fuel and I needed to finish up with them first.

4 hours ago, Starwaster said:

As for the negative mass issue, I'd need to know more. I assume it was scaling down the engine that did it? Was the engine part an engine only or did it have fuel tanks included on the engine part? Are there other plugins besides RF/TweakScale that can affect the mass of that part?

Yes, scaling down the engine caused negative mass. It happened to all engines connected to real fuels (KSPIE engines worked fine, as did non-engine parts). Later, I removed all mods except Tweakscale, Real Fuels (stockalike configs) and their requirements, and the problem persisted. I vaguely remember encountering this before, and I've found it mentioned on a few other posts.

[Starwaster]

21 minutes ago, spacegeek37 said:

I think you misunderstood. There was no compatibility problem with the probe ship files, but the active ones in a save still had stock fuel and I needed to finish up with them first.

Yes, scaling down the engine caused negative mass. It happened to all engines connected to real fuels (KSPIE engines worked fine, as did non-engine parts). Later, I removed all mods except Tweakscale, Real Fuels (stockalike configs) and their requirements, and the problem persisted. I vaguely remember encountering this before, and I've found it mentioned on a few other posts.

I'll try to take a look at it sometime... it's not really something I use anymore. It seems like it's just always had one issue or another

[spacegeek37]

50 minutes ago, Starwaster said:

I'll try to take a look at it sometime... it's not really something I use anymore. It seems like it's just always had one issue or another

It's a serious bug, but mostly a minor inconvenience. There are plenty of engines to choose from.

[spacegeek37]

On a different topic, I've been working on configs for Near Futures spacecraft propulsion to make some of the new engines work with Real Fuels, but I can't figure out how to set their specific impulse. What do the IspV and IspSL values do to the in game performance?

[Starwaster]

15 hours ago, spacegeek37 said:

On a different topic, I've been working on configs for Near Futures spacecraft propulsion to make some of the new engines work with Real Fuels, but I can't figure out how to set their specific impulse. What do the IspV and IspSL values do to the in game performance?

It scales the Isp for vacuum and sea level respectively. It scales them by the base Isp for the engine type. Look in RealSettings.cfg under RF_TECHLEVELS -> ENGINETYPE. You probably want type O (Orbital)

Now then, strictly speaking, ModuleEngineConfigs is not necessary to make an engine work with RealFuels. It's only necessary if you want multiple configurations for the engine. Different versions using different resources, or different gimbal settings, etc. (note that in the current release gimbal settings in MEC does not work but will be fixed in the next release)

[spacegeek37]

On 6/27/2019 at 11:51 AM, Starwaster said:

It scales the Isp for vacuum and sea level respectively. It scales them by the base Isp for the engine type. Look in RealSettings.cfg under RF_TECHLEVELS -> ENGINETYPE. You probably want type O (Orbital)

Now then, strictly speaking, ModuleEngineConfigs is not necessary to make an engine work with RealFuels. It's only necessary if you want multiple configurations for the engine. Different versions using different resources, or different gimbal settings, etc. (note that in the current release gimbal settings in MEC does not work but will be fixed in the next release)

Well, I had already finished most of the ModuleEngineConfig, so I finished it by editing ISP multipliers and setting engine type. I decided to go with engine type L (Launch, I assume) because the engines were essentially Super Dracos, made to be used in an atmosphere.

[Tinkman]

On 6/19/2019 at 2:20 AM, Starwaster said:

The log isn't telling me anything obviously abnormal is going on. You said it works on your PC but not your Mac. Are they both running the same version of everything? (same version of Real Fuels, same version of RF stockalike.

(actually one thing I notice is that several parts patched by stockalike configs are trying to insert ignition values into the PART node itself in addition to ignition values in the engine configs but the result of that would be that the engine isn't configured as they intended. What you're describing seems different)

edit #2: Show a screenshot of the engine's PAW menu when it's not igniting.

No idea what was causing it, but it stopped. Sorry for the late reply!

[Starwaster]

New SSTU release which fixes a negative mass compatibility issue with Real Fuels. Anyone trying to use SSTU with RF should download that update. The update is for 1.7.x but should work with 1.6.x as well.

[Starwaster]

Real Fuels update. It should hit CKAN whenever it does indexing.

version 12.8.0

change log

• Make MLI cost, mass and max layers configurable (in part config file)
• Changed Show UI and Hide UI to Show Tank UI and Hide Tank UI (PAW text)
• Unmanaged resources. ModuleFuelTanks can have UNMANAGED_RESOURCE node to declare a resource name, amount and maxAmount (same format as RESOURCE). Even if all tanks are removed, this unmanaged resource will always be present and all tank resource amounts are in addition to the unmanaged quantity.
• tank type initializes with Default if no type is specified. (fixes edge case physics breaking bug)
• GUI performance improvements by @yump
• Fixed TANK_DEFINITION fallback system
• Fixes and improvements for engine GUI and engine GUI symmetry handling
• Fixed issue where selecting different MEC engine configurations would cause a tank PAW to fill with duplicate config buttons. by @todi
• added new TANK_DEFINITION fields by @siimav
• actually find a fallback MEC config instead of lying and saying we couldn't find one when we didn't look for one!
• boiloff data available in PAW without spamming the log with debug data.
• Stock Real Fuels now has MLI Tech Upgrades. Max layers will increase as you progress through fuel / construction nodes in career.
• Certain procedural parts will correctly calculate tank surface area in editor. (by correct we mean it should match up with what you see in flight mode so costs and mass will be consistent). Does this for SSTU, Procedural Parts, B9 Procedural Wings and ROTanks
• Boil-off of propellants will respect the infinite propellant cheat if it is turned on.

Also has new Solver Engines in it. (minor fix for PAW not displaying propellant requirements met %)

Edited August 30, 2019 by Starwaster