[1.8+] Real Fuels

[Starwaster]

13 hours ago, WolfieKSP said:

Please disregard the rant above ^ I have forgot about my second tank, but the problem still remains, my Nerva's have horrible dV's  in Hydrogen config (methane is a little bit better) I think the problem is in the hydrogen storage now

That makes for a  pretty confusing read. The only information or detail is in the first post but then you say to disregard the first post so that means there's really not enough information at all. 

What tank are you having problems with? If it allows changing the tank type, make sure the type isn't set to inappropriate type. For example, you wouldn't want it set to Service Module if it's meant to be a large integrated type. SM has a higher base mass and if that's what you're using for your H2 tank then you can really screw yourself over. With appropriate tank types (Default, Cryogenic, Balloon, etc) you won't run into abnormal dry mass situations.

(all this assumes it's not a mod part with inappropriate configuration for that part)

Edited February 9 by Starwaster

[WolfieKSP]

On 2/9/2024 at 9:44 AM, Starwaster said:

That makes for a  pretty confusing read. The only information or detail is in the first post but then you say to disregard the first post so that means there's really not enough information at all. 

What tank are you having problems with? If it allows changing the tank type, make sure the type isn't set to inappropriate type. For example, you wouldn't want it set to Service Module if it's meant to be a large integrated type. SM has a higher base mass and if that's what you're using for your H2 tank then you can really screw yourself over. With appropriate tank types (Default, Cryogenic, Balloon, etc) you won't run into abnormal dry mass situations.

(all this assumes it's not a mod part with inappropriate configuration for that part)

Sorry for making it confusing haha, I was using normal stock tanks (with restock installed) I can't choose the tank type tho, is there a tutorial or something like that?

[Starwaster]

8 hours ago, WolfieKSP said:

Sorry for making it confusing haha, I was using normal stock tanks (with restock installed) I can't choose the tank type tho, is there a tutorial or something like that?

If you don't have a menu option for different tank types then it might not be a Real Fuels tank.

Are you using the same tank for H2  as you are for hydrolox? Or are they two different parts? Asking because in Real Fuels, you change how much of a resource the tank has based on what needs it. For instance, if you have a nuclear engine, you go into the tank GUI and add all hydrogen. (or all ammonia, methane, water if the engine allows changing between those types)

So if it's two different tank types that you're choosing between then doesn't sound like it's an RF tank.

[Katikar]

I seem to be having a problem with the dv equations with mechjeb, KER, and the built-in dv calculator. It relates to cryogenic engines, specifically they don't seem to calculate the use of oxidizer-it shows the "stage end" weight as if the tanks are still full of liquid oxygen, resulting in totally inaccurate dv totals. but only in the VAB, interestingly, the problem does not persist when the craft is in flight. running on ksp 1.12.x with the stockalike configs and the Bellabong 1.2 BDB patch found here: https://github.com/Bellabong/RealFuels-Stock/releases

[Mr_Memetic]

any way to get support for Kerbal Reusability Expansion?

[velonmusk]

On 1/31/2021 at 5:07 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...

i know im pretty late but how do install this patch?

[Aelfhe1m]

4 hours ago, velonmusk said:

i know im pretty late but how do install this patch?

Copy the patch text into a new empty text file and save it into GameData as a .cfg file with any filename you want, I suggest a new folder to hold all your patches and then a meaningful name (e.g. GameData/Z_MyPatches/RealFuels_EvaFuel.cfg)

[Gnarf]

Edit: Okay, got it

Edited May 13 by Gnarf

[Mossconfig]

Cryoengine's new methalox engines don't have configs, would anybody here be able to share, or help me out in making some?

[Xt007]

No methalox configs, but https://github.com/tinygrox/RealFuels-Stock.git  if you haven't already checked it out.  You could write your own config doing the math to approximate them.

[JebIsDeadBaby]

Dear devs, 

please remember that kOS scripts may use the string stored in the Propellant field. Since propellant stability is crucial for successful ignition I'd say most, if not all, kOS users access this field often. Whenever you change anything  in either descriptive or numerical part of the propellant stability string, this may cause  problems with kOS scripts that expect some specific strings.  In the latest update you removed one zero from the decimal part of stability percentage and it took me quite a while to figure out what's going on. 

Would be nice if any changes to these strings were documented in a changelog. Many thanks. 

[Starwaster]

On 10/15/2024 at 3:11 PM, JebIsDeadBaby said:

Dear devs, 

please remember that kOS scripts may use the string stored in the Propellant field. Since propellant stability is crucial for successful ignition I'd say most, if not all, kOS users access this field often. Whenever you change anything  in either descriptive or numerical part of the propellant stability string, this may cause  problems with kOS scripts that expect some specific strings.  In the latest update you removed one zero from the decimal part of stability percentage and it took me quite a while to figure out what's going on. 

Would be nice if any changes to these strings were documented in a changelog. Many thanks. 

It would be a good idea if you created an issue on the Github repository about that. For increased visibility.

[JebIsDeadBaby]

@Starwaster - I thought about it but issues are for problems that are expected to be fixed and closed and there's nothing to fix here. The mod itself isn't broken because of this and won't be fixed if they reverted this change. This would be an unclosable issue. So I decided not to, just to avoid creating a mess. A discussion page on mod's github page would be perfect for things like this. Another project I follow has it, so I guess it's build-in into github and all it takes is to enable it? Maybe you could ask devs to consider this, if you know how to reach them?

[Starwaster]

3 hours ago, JebIsDeadBaby said:

@Starwaster - I thought about it but issues are for problems that are expected to be fixed and closed and there's nothing to fix here. The mod itself isn't broken because of this and won't be fixed if they reverted this change. This would be an unclosable issue. So I decided not to, just to avoid creating a mess. A discussion page on mod's github page would be perfect for things like this. Another project I follow has it, so I guess it's build-in into github and all it takes is to enable it? Maybe you could ask devs to consider this, if you know how to reach them?

They all hang out in the Realism Overhaul Discord and I don't go there anymore. And I'm not sure any of them really pay attention to the RF topic anymore.
Could try pinging @NathanKell @siimav @blowfish and see who maybe turns up.