Scripto23 Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 (edited) 1. I've been using TACLS and I have a config (from jrandom's Additional Configs folder) that adds minimal life support to all manned modules. If I were to add resources directly then it would mess with people using different life support mods. Maybe Nathan or somebody who knows more about ECLSS resources can help?2. I just checked the craft and I believe the Dragon capsule might be default empty of fuel. If it is, right click it and fill it with MMH + N2O4 for the SuperDracos and that should add the necessary mass to help it fly straight. I'll upload a corrected craft today that includes that. It will probably still be a little unstable but if it still won't get to orbit let me know. Edited January 16, 2014 by Scripto23 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agathorn Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 1. I've been using TACLS and I have a config (from jrandom's Additional Configs folder) that adds minimal life support to all manned modules. If I were to add resources directly then it would mess with people using different life support mods. Maybe Nathan or somebody who knows more about ECLSS resources can help?And that is a perfectly fair point. The only reason I even brought it up was that if you are going to release it for the realism crowd, then there is a good chance they are using ECLSS. At least us newcomers since its the currently recommended LifeSupport mod for RO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scripto23 Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 Yeah, I was actually thinking of switching over today. All the cool kids are doing it . But funny just as I mentioned that config somebody posted in the ECLSS thread the exact file you need. You can check the thread or here's the link Though now that I look at it, it only covers up to a three person pod Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cardajowol Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 Nathan did you put the Soviet Engines in to your stock like cfg? as I added them in but I can't config them and well they look way to powerful... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starwaster Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 You might think so. But e.g. the first Agenas weren't restarable IIRC and D and GATV were only qualified for 16 ignitions.After reading something like that, of course I have to go and try to find out more (like I need another time sink in my day, yeah, way to go Nathan. Hope you're proud of yourself) and I didn't learn what I set out to learn but I did find out that the LM ascent engine (made by Bell like the Agena engine) was rated for 35 restarts, nearly twice as many. Why so many? Just for redundancy? Or maybe higher thrust hypergolic engines damage the chamber/valves? I dunno.I also learned (or rather was reminded) that there sure were a lot of old geezer engineers at NASA, Bell and the aerospace industry in general back then.... and it saddened me to think that so many of them are gone now.... It's known btw that there's only a few of the original NTR guys still alive and kicking. Makes me think that if we're going to restart the NTR program we're having to start over almost from scratch. We should be so much further ahead than we are now So sad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NathanKell Posted January 16, 2014 Author Share Posted January 16, 2014 cardajowol: Soviet Engines is already RF compatible (other than using LF instead of Kerosene), so I don't touch them. They're 100% size, 100% mass, 100% performance.Starwaster: Heh. :]I thought LMAE was TRW? But nope. Guess only LMDE was. Regarding restarts, I presume that's to rendesvous with CSM without burning any CSM departure fuel. Probably couldn't guarantee a pure two-burn transfer, let alone a launch to rendesvous. Well, the LMAE article on wikipedia mentions that NTO/AZ50 was so corrosive that they didn't even static-fire the LMAE before use, so I'm guessing yes to your question.Yeah... :\ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 You might think so. But e.g. the first Agenas weren't restarable IIRC and D and GATV were only qualified for 16 ignitions.From what I've read, they were rated for 8 ignitions in total. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pol Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 (edited) 'm tried to take a look at this, mostly for more complexity. Size of engine model does not bother me and replication of historical rockets is not what I intresed in. I play in stock sized system, but with lot of mods. I read whole thread but still not compleatly sure what I'm doing here.What options I must to use? I take this stockalike config - everything looks more or less resonable, but seems I sometimes have much more delta from rocket then previously(from KER readings), well, not big deal, but maybe this is not as intended, and FAR already cut some of my to orbit delta need.What fuel intended to use for interplanet NTR powered returns? Hidrogen is nise but seems like it will all vapor before I reach destanation? Menthane maybe?KSPI NTR is give to me 200m/s of delta with hidrogen in setup where was more then 2000m/s with LF in stock fuel system. Is this corect or I did something wrong? Edited January 16, 2014 by Pol spelling Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NathanKell Posted January 16, 2014 Author Share Posted January 16, 2014 Pol: there are two approaches for using realistic-ish stuff with the stock KSP universe.1. Use KIDS to scale down Isp. That means you'll need just as big a rocket as in real life, for the smaller KSP universe.2. Have useRealisticMass (in RealFuels/RealSettings.cfg) set to false (defaults to true) which will mean that you have approximately the same dry mass for tanks, and TWR for engines, as you would in stock KSP.Hydrogen has a very, very low density. You need to compare how much deltaV you're getting for the same mass of fuel, not the same volume of fuel. And yes, it does have considerable boiloff, even in cryogenic tanks. Liquid Methane is probably a better bet--lower Isp, but higher thrust and lower boiloff and higher density, all of which mean that it doesn't have markedly worse performance than pure LH2.You obviously will get different deltaV, because everything has been modified to conform to reality. If you just want a harder and more complex stock-like experience I heartily recommend FlowerChild's Better Than Starting Manned mod. If you do want to use realistic fuels, etc., then see the two options above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xZise Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 On the stockalikes I've been working on. I've been extensively... 'testing' them lately and run into some concerns I want input on. Mechjeb, especially when landing, loves to toggle the engines on and off repeatedly, and it won't ensure proper ullage on engines. I can make this 'okay' with the stockalikes by giving them a large number of reignites, disabling ullage simulations, or by turning off limited ignitions altogether. What do stockalike users want?I'm using your config and I'm pretty happy with it. And I don't think you should make the Engine Ignitor parts more forgiving. I mean it is like you aren't even using Engine Ignitor when you can restart the engine ridiculously often and don't have to bother with ullage.Fabian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pol Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 I expect it will be somehow different, I was not sure what is intended and what is my own fault. And I not really familiar with rocket reality in deep except some common sense. It become little clear now. But KSPI NTR still behave little weird, if in stock 2,5 reactor is give somehow similar results to lv-n, there it's like two times worse, and more fuel is make it even more worse, I just was not sure it is correct. Now I think it's because LV-N is much more lighter then in stock but, looks like KSPI performs more worse by it self, or maybe I wrong with fuel amount, I just prefer it over lv-n because of more intresting mechanic inside. Anyway, it's possible all this is more KSPI related. Also "tri-modal" do not show setup, but maybe it is intentional.I know about BTSM, and it's looks intresting, but some features I already have from other mods and more intresting progression tree looks really nice, and I looking for more resonable tree changes but I'm not sure about compatibility with all other mods I have, actually it's clearly says it's don't want to support anything alongside RF, looks like, have patches for everything I have and make all this engines and how they work more diverse and intresting. I'm OK to broke some habbits. Just testing how it's played and can I deal with changes it provide.It's not questions, just some explanations. Thanks for patience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starwaster Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 Ok, revisiting the NTR generator issue, I updated my files here: (Squad / KSPX only)Did two things. Bumped up nuclearFuel/nuclearWaste consumption/production a bit because I'm still seeing some power issues.Removed the ElectricCharge resource because it seems like it's actually interfering with the ModuleGenerator somehow. Not sure how really though there's another post elsewhere I found where electric producing engines were interfering with solar panels located elsewhere on craft. Doesn't seem like it got a lot of attention but it seems like it was an issue with several engines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Himidori Shuumoto Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 I got a report that there is something wrong with the following code:@PART[NP_lft_375m_9m]{ //!RESOURCE[LiquidFuel] {} //!RESOURCE[Oxidizer] {} //!RESOURCE[MonoPropellant] {} //!RESOURCE[XenonGas] {} MODULE { name = ModuleFuelTanks volume = 8680 type = Cryogenic }A of my friends told me that the volume should be 86080 rather than 8680 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Himidori Shuumoto Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 BTW, if RF no longer use the resources "liquidfuel" and "oxidizer", would you please stop changing their densities? Because some of my mods (not supported by RF but written for RSS, using "liquidfuel" and "oxidizer") can not work anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NathanKell Posted January 17, 2014 Author Share Posted January 17, 2014 Starwaster: there's no here here...Himidori Shuumoto: you're correct, it should be 86080. I'll fix that.Regarding LF/Ox, I'm not changing their densities: they're still 1g/cc. RF changes the size of a KSP unit though, from ~5L to 1L. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deathsoul097 Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 (edited) -Deleted due to stupidity, and not reading first- Edited January 18, 2014 by Deathsoul097 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NathanKell Posted January 17, 2014 Author Share Posted January 17, 2014 (edited) The second post of this thread has what you want: MFSEngines.cfg. Just make sure you open MFSEngines.cfg once you've downloaded it and installed it, and set useRealisticMass back to true. Edited January 18, 2014 by NathanKell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deathsoul097 Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 Oh, umm... Note to self: Read the fine print before going on a rant.Sorry about that NathanKell (God, that feels so wierd calling someone else nathan. I dont know anyone IRL with the smae name as me.) I will redact the post in a minute or two. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NathanKell Posted January 18, 2014 Author Share Posted January 18, 2014 (edited) No probs. Edited my reply as well.Yet another sign I need better docs/OP...I'm actually Nathanael btw, so *almost* Nathan. Edited January 18, 2014 by NathanKell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chestburster Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 You could update the stockalikes with my latest release if you want N. The DL was a few pages back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NathanKell Posted January 18, 2014 Author Share Posted January 18, 2014 Oh crap! Will do. I must have forgotten. Sorry! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NathanKell Posted January 18, 2014 Author Share Posted January 18, 2014 Done so. I also re-exported with min throttle removed and with fixes where TWRG changed MFS3.3->RF (so engines are once again mostly balanced for TL). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoneyFox Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 You could update the stockalikes with my latest release if you want N. The DL was a few pages back.Hi, it looks like the engine mass is pretty big even if the useRealisticMass is set to true. Is there anything wrong with this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbeS Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 Shouldn't that be expected for stock-alike configs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NathanKell Posted January 18, 2014 Author Share Posted January 18, 2014 (edited) HoneyFox: use the one I posted in post 2. Chestburster's had some issues I fixed. (Newly reupped just to be sure; I may have uploaded the original by mistake.) Edited January 18, 2014 by NathanKell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.