[1.8+] Real Fuels

[Stellarwave]

Is it (still?) possible to define unlock cost and minimum tech levels on a per config basis? I tried to do some custom configs for an engine with a ModuleManager patch, though none of entryCost,sciEntryCost,minTechLevel etc. have any effect for me when in the ModuleEnginesRF or ModuleEnginesConfigs (or the configs themselves) nodes.
I did look at the source code on GitHub, though my C# skills are very limited so i couldnt really find any more information on whether this is still implemented and i also didnt find any existing patches which use these features.

[gilflo]

Hello

Is there a bug with the multi layered Insulation on fuel tank ? They are set to 10 and can be set to 100 for maximum insulation, which can be effective with LH2 tank for example.... but every time I save a ship with MLI set to 100, the MLI set to 100 stays only for one launch. If you select again you ship in the VAB and launch again, or if you revert to launch the MLI of all tank are initialized to 10......no way to save it definitely with a given value!

[Starwaster]

On 6/28/2021 at 5:47 PM, gilflo said:

Hello

Is there a bug with the multi layered Insulation on fuel tank ? They are set to 10 and can be set to 100 for maximum insulation, which can be effective with LH2 tank for example.... but every time I save a ship with MLI set to 100, the MLI set to 100 stays only for one launch. If you select again you ship in the VAB and launch again, or if you revert to launch the MLI of all tank are initialized to 10......no way to save it definitely with a given value!

Sounds like a new bug in Real Fuels. I can't repro that in an older version.

[NathanKell]

On 6/30/2021 at 10:00 PM, Starwaster said:

Sounds like a new bug in Real Fuels. I can't repro that in an older version.

This is a bug from when the UPGRADES were introduced. They are set to additive, which means every upgrade gets added together, meaning you get multiple values in the ConfigNode of  ` maxMLILayers = <whatever>`. So if you have multiple of these upgrades unlocked in the tech tree, you get multiple maxMLLayers lines in the module that MFT loads, meaning one of them (probably not the one you want) takes precedence on load.

 

Fixed by removing the "IsAdditiveUpgrade" flag. You should only use that if the upgrade is additive on previous upgrade confignodes (i.e. say you have a module that has a bunch of OPTION nodes, and each upgrade adds another OPTION node. You use the flag then to say "don't remove previously added OPTION nodes when you add this upgrade's.)

Edited July 10, 2021 by NathanKell

[NathanKell]

Fix released.

v13.1.0
* Fix B9PS autoswitching when the part in question has resources (#268)
* Ignore residuals requirements with ignoreForIsp propellants.
* Fix bug with the implementation of MLI upgrades that led to the total MLI layers being broken on craft load in career.
* Support showing rated continuous burn time as well as rated burn time in the module info text.

[MatterBeam]

I am very impressed than an 8 year old mod is still being maintained.
Kudos to @NathanKell

[Starwaster]

@NathanKell and yet it worked flawlessly when upgrade configs were written the way I intended for them to be written when I implemented the system. 

[NathanKell]

2 hours ago, Starwaster said:

@NathanKell and yet it worked flawlessly when upgrade configs were written the way I intended for them to be written when I implemented the system. 

And yet the cfg was unchanged from when you committed it. My guess is you did not test all cases (i.e. multiple upgrades in an active career where you create something in the editor, give it  max MLI layers, save it, load it, exit scene, launch, quicksave/load, etc--the ordering of ConfigNode loading may change in those cases) and thus missed that you had set them to be additive upgrades incorrectly.

 

EDIT: It is of course possible that how KSPFields load ConfigNode values has changed during your absence, and its prior behavior masked the incorrect use of IsAdditiveUpgrade, but what seems more likely is that you were not able to trigger the edge case in your testing. As to what IsAdditiveUpgrade does--as I wrote the feature in question (Part upgrades, not RF's use of them, to be clear), I feel I'm on pretty firm ground when it comes to understanding its use. Though it is on me if the demo I released regarding upgrades left that unclear.

Edited July 13, 2021 by NathanKell
clarified example, added edit

[NathanKell]

On 7/10/2021 at 4:10 PM, MatterBeam said:

I am very impressed than an 8 year old mod is still being maintained.
Kudos to @NathanKell

Do want to clear up that I'm one of many, though my name remains on the OP.

[mateusviccari]

How do I patch the ISPs from the RFSettings.cfg? I want to make my own patches increasing the ISPs by some factor without changing the original file

Forget it, I changed the ISP directly on the engine configs

Edited July 17, 2021 by mateusviccari
Problem solved

[mateusviccari]

Can I bundle RealFuels with some edits together with my set of configs if I want to release them here?

Edited July 18, 2021 by mateusviccari

[NathanKell]

4 hours ago, mateusviccari said:

Can I bundle RealFuels with some edits together with my set of configs if I want to release them here?

Please use MM patches to make the edits and just have a RealFuels dependency? Everything you'd want to edit, short of requiring recompiling the dll, you can patch with MM.

[NathanKell]

v13.2.0
* Switch to showing effective tank volume, rather than liters at STP, of propellants in the autofill buttons. Solves the "autofill with 99% pressurant" UI bug.
* Improve the value passed to MJ/KER regarding predicted residuals.

[mateusviccari]

I'm struggling to make the Clydesdale SRB from stock KSP  to use real fuels. I managed to make everything work (burning PBAN, working throttle curve). The engine works as expected but there's no sound nor plume/exhaust (I don't have Real Plume, I just want the vanilla effects). This is my patch, what am I doing wrong?

EDIT: It happens with all engines. I just didn't notice with liquid fuels because I was using the Waterfall mod. So the question now is, how to use RealFuels without any plume mod and still keep the vanilla sound and exhaust effects?

Spoiler

@PART[Clydesdale]:FOR[RealFuels_StockEngines] 
{	
	@cost = 14941

	@MODULE[ModuleEngines*]
	{
		@name = ModuleEnginesRF
		%EngineType = SolidBooster
		%allowShutdown = False
	}

	@MODULE[ModuleGimbal]
	{
		%gimbalRange = 4
		%useGimbalResponseSpeed = true
		%gimbalResponseSpeed = 16
	}

	//!MODULE[ModuleGimbal],*{}
	!MODULE[ModuleEngineConfigs],*{}
	!MODULE[ModuleAlternator],*{}
	!MODULE[ModuleFuelTanks],*{}
	!RESOURCE,*{}

	MODULE
	{
		name = ModuleFuelTanks
		volume = 69413
		type = PBAN
		basemass = -1
		TANK
		{
			name = PBAN
			amount = 69413
			maxAmount = 69413
		}
	}

	MODULE
	{
		name = ModuleEngineConfigs
		type = ModuleEngines
		configuration = PBAN
		modded = false
		origMass = 21
		
		CONFIG
		{
			name = PBAN
			minThrust = 0.01
			maxThrust = 4455
			heatProduction = 200
			PROPELLANT
			{
				name = PBAN
				ratio = 1
				DrawGauge = True
			}

			atmosphereCurve
			{
				key = 0 352.35
				key = 1 307.8
			}

			curveResource = PBAN
			thrustCurve
			{
				key = 1.000 1.000
				key = 0.500 0.950
				key = 0.300 0.850
				key = 0.150 0.800
				key = 0.050 0.750
				key = 0.010 0.350
				key = 0.004 0.100
				key = 0.000 0.001
			}
		}
	}
}

 

 

Edited July 19, 2021 by mateusviccari

[NathanKell]

On 7/18/2021 at 4:08 PM, mateusviccari said:

I'm struggling to make the Clydesdale SRB from stock KSP  to use real fuels. I managed to make everything work (burning PBAN, working throttle curve). The engine works as expected but there's no sound nor plume/exhaust (I don't have Real Plume, I just want the vanilla effects). This is my patch, what am I doing wrong?

EDIT: It happens with all engines. I just didn't notice with liquid fuels because I was using the Waterfall mod. So the question now is, how to use RealFuels without any plume mod and still keep the vanilla sound and exhaust effects?

  Reveal hidden contents

@PART[Clydesdale]:FOR[RealFuels_StockEngines] 
{	
	@cost = 14941

	@MODULE[ModuleEngines*]
	{
		@name = ModuleEnginesRF
		%EngineType = SolidBooster
		%allowShutdown = False
	}

	@MODULE[ModuleGimbal]
	{
		%gimbalRange = 4
		%useGimbalResponseSpeed = true
		%gimbalResponseSpeed = 16
	}

	//!MODULE[ModuleGimbal],*{}
	!MODULE[ModuleEngineConfigs],*{}
	!MODULE[ModuleAlternator],*{}
	!MODULE[ModuleFuelTanks],*{}
	!RESOURCE,*{}

	MODULE
	{
		name = ModuleFuelTanks
		volume = 69413
		type = PBAN
		basemass = -1
		TANK
		{
			name = PBAN
			amount = 69413
			maxAmount = 69413
		}
	}

	MODULE
	{
		name = ModuleEngineConfigs
		type = ModuleEngines
		configuration = PBAN
		modded = false
		origMass = 21
		
		CONFIG
		{
			name = PBAN
			minThrust = 0.01
			maxThrust = 4455
			heatProduction = 200
			PROPELLANT
			{
				name = PBAN
				ratio = 1
				DrawGauge = True
			}

			atmosphereCurve
			{
				key = 0 352.35
				key = 1 307.8
			}

			curveResource = PBAN
			thrustCurve
			{
				key = 1.000 1.000
				key = 0.500 0.950
				key = 0.300 0.850
				key = 0.150 0.800
				key = 0.050 0.750
				key = 0.010 0.350
				key = 0.004 0.100
				key = 0.000 0.001
			}
		}
	}
}

 

 

Sorry, I haven't patched stock stuff in literally half a decade at this point, if not more. Your best bet is asking on the Stock Configs thread. 

 

[mateusviccari]

I tried adding an afterburner config for  the stock nuclear engine. I left both the regular (lh2) and the afterburner (lh2+lox) with the same ISP, the only difference is that the afterburner gets more thrust and consumes liquid oxygen. But for some reason the afterburner gets a lot more delta v than the one using only lh2, even being heavier because of the liquid oxygen.

I was expecting less Delta v since we have less fuel (lh2) in the same tank compared to only lh2. My guess is that it's computing the liquid oxygen as fuel and since lo2 is more denser we have"more fuel".  Am I not understanding some basic rocketry concept, or did I just do something wrong in the config? 

Forget I ever asked this question, of course the oxidizer has a direct effect on Delta-V. If I reduce the mass of the craft to match the first one I will get similar performance.

Edited July 28, 2021 by mateusviccari
I was probably drunk when I asked this question

[NathanKell]

v13.3.0

* Fixed thrust axis (for ullage etc) to use KSP 1.2+ support for multiple thrust transforms.
* Fully hide B9PS switcher in flight.
* Fix some issues with tooltips.
* Fix EntryCostModifiers not interacting correctly with PartUpgrades.
* Use independent throttle, if active, when determining if an engine is throttled up.
* No longer include dependent mods in the archive - CKAN installs them for you.

[MissMolly]

Hello and good day

 

I have Ksp 1.12.x with ckan 1.30.4

running Real fuels along side RSS and it dependence. and FASA for the Apollo and Saturn parts. I will post this as well on Fasa Forum as Im not sure where the problem is.

So my problem is as follows. 

Fasa parts- With the  Apollo craft built the problem is the   5m Fuel tank that is filled with kero and Lox with the Apollo F1 eng  is burning more Lox then Kerosene, leaving me with about 1/4-1\2 of the volume still with all that  Kerosene. I also while I was getting this post together. I saw that when the LOX  ran out I hit the  (X) key to shut the engs off to my surprise the Lox and Kerosene began to refill I did  look to see if it was coming from one of the other tanks but they were all full. 

This also happens on the next stage that has the same tank but run the  Apollo J2 but here it just burns the  LOX and not the Kerosene.  When I was getting my screen shots I realized the claps were refilling the tanks. 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/vwm4l59l5e4ojji/screenshot1.png?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/93f24ryd38bwe5g/screenshot3.png?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/74a66fnb6xz8knw/screenshot4.png?dl=0

 

 Log here https://www.dropbox.com/s/b49gi1a0fb1p8xs/KSP.log?dl=0 I think this is the log file you all like to see.

 

Edited August 11, 2021 by MissMolly

[Wolves_Hero]

Broken mod no options on fuel tanks, KSP 1.12.2

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2589343758

[Lisias]

21 hours ago, Wolves_Hero said:

Broken mod no options on fuel tanks, KSP 1.12.2

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2589343758

Since you have TweakScale installed on the tank, you have MM installed (forgetting MM was my first guess).

On the other hand, It's a way long time since the last time I checked TS on RF, so there's a good chance that TS is "killing" RF by accident.

Please post your KSP.log and ModuleManager.ConfigCache on the TweakScale's thread and I will check it.

[Lisias]

On 8/30/2021 at 2:13 PM, Wolves_Hero said:

Broken mod no options on fuel tanks, KSP 1.12.2

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2589343758

Nope.  It's working fine, and I tested it on my dirtiest 1.12.2 test bed:

And it's working fine (didn't checked TweakScale, I'm on working hours - I will do it later just in case).

Please check if all the dependencies are met, and matching the KSP version you are using:

• Community Resource Pack
• Solver Engines

My guess is that a hard dependency (perhaps Solver Engines?) is not installed or is badly installed, and so RF is not being loaded and so, do not works on your rig.

 

[Wolves_Hero]

36 minutes ago, Lisias said:

Nope.  It's working fine, and I tested it on my dirtiest 1.12.2 test bed:

And it's working fine (didn't checked TweakScale, I'm on working hours - I will do it later just in case).

Please check if all the dependencies are met, and matching the KSP version you are using:

• Community Resource Pack
• Solver Engines

My guess is that a hard dependency (perhaps Solver Engines?) is not installed or is badly installed, and so RF is not being loaded and so, do not works on your rig.

 

I downloaded Solver Engines finally worked now. Solver Engines was not included Real Fuel or other mods

[Shaztek]

On 1/31/2021 at 7:07 PM, SpacedInvader said:

So it turns out I wasn't quite paying attention to what I was reading from when I replied to your post, the patch notes are from KSP 1.11.1 actually and after downloading that, I do see the line they were referring to in the configs. After some testing it looks like it doesn't matter what resource you patch into the jetpacks because they don't actually refill from whats on the ship but rather from a magical stockpile. With that said, I think I might know where you went wrong here... did you change both the tank contents and the KerbalEVA module's fuel of choice? Here is the patch I just whipped up to make my jetpacks use Hydrazine instead of EVA Propellant and it works just fine:
 

@PART[kerbalEVA*]:NEEDS[RealFuels]
{
    @MODULE[KerbalEVA]
    {
        @propellantResourceName = Hydrazine
    }
}

@PART[evaJetpack]:NEEDS[RealFuels]
{
    !RESOURCE[*]{}
    RESOURCE
    {
        name = Hydrazine
        amount = 5
        maxAmount = 5
        isTweakable = False
    }
}

My thinking is you changed the jetpack's contents, but not the fuel the kerbal's eva module, which is actually a part of the kerbal themselves, wants to see. If I'm still wrong here, my best suggestion is to remove the service tanks from the kerbals and just pick a single fuel for them to use and define it in a fixed way like I did in the patch.

EDIT: Considering the fact that the tanks refill magically, it might be better from a realism perspective to use something like nitrogen since hydrazine is just a little too terrible of a chemical to be put into something you might accidentally fire inside the ship...

Hi,

I am having the same problem with not getting any fuel in my EVA packs.  Can you please explain to me where I need to apply this patch?  Thanks.

[Eddy119]

Hi, the FASA Apollo CSM engine doesn't recognize the CSM as being pressurized despite it being a pressurized part. I also just posted it on GitHub (edit: the RO GitHub)... Sorry it's getting on my nerves and I'm too busy to figure it out on my own... Thanks...

Edited October 7, 2021 by Eddy119
Realism overhaul GitHub

[Cratzz]

Hello! Great mod, one question - i was gonna update to latest version (v13.5.0) but noticed that the version is from 2016?