[1.8+] Real Fuels

[blowfish]

2 hours ago, Commissar said:

well, i'm having an issue, in that realfuels is not loading, at all. i've got procedural parts, and it doesn't recognize that RF is on, and the rf config menu is absent.

i installed via ckan.. tried completely removeing and reinstalling, but no dice. it just woin't load

https://www.dropbox.com/s/uvofhf2do4h0uoa/output_log.txt?dl=0

Well you definitely have an out of date ModuleManger.  Try updating that, and if you problems persist upload your log again.

E: best make sure all the current versions of your mods are comaptible with KSP 1.2 or later

Edited January 8, 2017 by blowfish

[Snownoise]

Is there a way for RF to support two engines simultaneously in one part?
Like the new Soyuz engine from TantaresLV. It have one ModuleEnginesFX module for main engine and other for vernier.
I tried to add second ModuleEnginesRF to config, but is doesn't work well...

Also, does RF support upgrades in ModuleEnginesRF module? I want to make upgrades with increased ignition count for several engines.

[delta wee]

Where can I find the source for the stock-alike configs? I'm trying to use the Real Scale Boosters mod but it looks like the configs for that mod are missing in the latest RF-stock-alike configs. I want to get an older version of the RF-stock-alike configs and copy the configs for RSB.

Edited January 10, 2017 by delta wee

[stratochief66]

5 hours ago, delta wee said:

Where can I find the source for the stock-alike configs? I'm trying to use the Real Scale Boosters mod but it looks like the configs for that mod are missing in the latest RF-stock-alike configs. I want to get an older version of the RF-stock-alike configs and copy the configs for RSB.

 or

On 1/8/2017 at 5:34 AM, Snownoise said:

Is there a way for RF to support two engines simultaneously in one part?
Like the new Soyuz engine from TantaresLV. It have one ModuleEnginesFX module for main engine and other for vernier.
I tried to add second ModuleEnginesRF to config, but is doesn't work well...

Also, does RF support upgrades in ModuleEnginesRF module? I want to make upgrades with increased ignition count for several engines.

 

I don't believe RF currently supports the new upgrades system. I'm not sure if doing that would require changes to RF itself, I'll try to remember ask about that next time I see NK or another competent coder.

There are some examples of engines in RO with multiple engines, generally when we wanted a vernier for roll control.

https://github.com/KSP-RO/RealismOverhaul/blob/master/GameData/RealismOverhaul/RO_SuggestedMods/FASA/RO_FASA_Titan.cfg#L658

I believe giving it a unique thrustVectorTransformName is the secret sauce to get that working. It may not look like that part has two engines, but most parts in RO now use global engine configs that get added in by magic/MM later. (using engineType = LR91 in that case)

Edited January 11, 2017 by stratochief66

[Viper_607]

I've run into an odd glitch where by using the MMH + NTO fuel mix in a procedural parts fuel tank, the tank will cause the ship to experience the kraken or become a floating object that experiences lift for no reason. I've set the use realistic fuels to false in my game, perhpas there's something odd with the mass when that flag is set to false?

 

Edit: Apparently I did something to the probe body itself further up causing it to, very often glitch out under odd circumstances. Possibly I did some odd shenanigans when building the probe.

Edited January 11, 2017 by Viper_607
Different cause

[Dermeister]

Is there a mod out there that allows the use of RF With proper realistic performance engines but with out needing Realism overhaul? I don't want to use the upscale for capsules ect but I do use Real solar systems so I do need the performance of realistic engines. But I want to play with Kerbal size capsules ect because I want to play as kerbals, not humans.

[Viper_607]

2 hours ago, Dermeister said:

Is there a mod out there that allows the use of RF With proper realistic performance engines but with out needing Realism overhaul? I don't want to use the upscale for capsules ect but I do use Real solar systems so I do need the performance of realistic engines. But I want to play with Kerbal size capsules ect because I want to play as kerbals, not humans.

I believe all you have to do is use the stockalike configs and not make any changes to the true fuel value = false, and it should have the performance and weight of real engines and thus, is suited to working on the actual real world earth.

[Dermeister]

21 minutes ago, Viper_607 said:

I believe all you have to do is use the stockalike configs and not make any changes to the true fuel value = false, and it should have the performance and weight of real engines and thus, is suited to working on the actual real world earth.

IS that new? because a year ago when I played It was not scaled properly it was made for 64k and not full scale.

[blowfish]

1 hour ago, Dermeister said:

IS that new? because a year ago when I played It was not scaled properly it was made for 64k and not full scale.

RF Stockalike isn't "made" for any particular rescale.  It makes the masses of engines and tanks realistic.  This happens to work well for a 6.4x rescale (especially since other parts like crew pods etc retain their heavy stock masses) but there's nothing inherent about that.

Edited January 11, 2017 by blowfish

[Dermeister]

1 hour ago, blowfish said:

RF Stockalike isn't "made" for any particular rescale.  It makes the masses of engines and tanks realistic.  This happens to work well for a 6.4x rescale (especially since other parts like crew pods etc retain their heavy stock masses) but there's nothing inherent about that.

I;m just saying that in the past When I asked questions regarding the game and my using of RF and RS and the facti was using stock configs that due to the scaling the engine performance configs of RF with the Stock engine config worked best with 64k thus making it harder than real life for ISP and DV. And that  it would be better if I used RO for the Engine configs. So I was simply wondering if it was possible to use RO engines with out Installing all of the other stuff in RO. For a Realistic Engine performance with a 1 to 1 Earth and solar system rescale. I'm not saying theres anything wrong with RF i'm just looking for solutions to the fact that I want to use RF witth RS but not using all the RO stuff. Because It always seem that with RF and stock engines configs SPace crafts always need more fuel than the real life counter part. Because as you say the masses of the engines ect. So I'm looking to see if theres a mod out there that fixes that.

[blowfish]

25 minutes ago, Dermeister said:

I;m just saying that in the past When I asked questions regarding the game and my using of RF and RS and the facti was using stock configs that due to the scaling the engine performance configs of RF with the Stock engine config worked best with 64k thus making it harder than real life for ISP and DV. And that  it would be better if I used RO for the Engine configs. So I was simply wondering if it was possible to use RO engines with out Installing all of the other stuff in RO. For a Realistic Engine performance with a 1 to 1 Earth and solar system rescale. I'm not saying theres anything wrong with RF i'm just looking for solutions to the fact that I want to use RF witth RS but not using all the RO stuff. Because It always seem that with RF and stock engines configs SPace crafts always need more fuel than the real life counter part. Because as you say the masses of the engines ect. So I'm looking to see if theres a mod out there that fixes that.

I think you may need to be a little more specific about what you want to be realistic and what you don't.  As far as I_sp goes, even stock engines are pretty realistic for modern hypergolic propellants (but there's no option to use higher performance propellants).  Now, let's talk about RF Stockalike.  RF Stockalike makes the masses of engines and tanks realistic, gives you more propellant options, and introduces other aspects of real rocket design like ignitions and boiloff.  So for a pure rocket (tank+engines), you should be able to achieve pretty much the same thing with RF Stockalike as in RO.  The key difference is that RF Stockalike doesn't touch the masses of any other parts, so they're going to be much heavier than in real life.  So you need more rocket with RF Stockalike only because the payload itself (plus other secondary features of the rocket) are heavier than they would be in real life.

[Dermeister]

47 minutes ago, blowfish said:

I think you may need to be a little more specific about what you want to be realistic and what you don't.  As far as I_sp goes, even stock engines are pretty realistic for modern hypergolic propellants (but there's no option to use higher performance propellants).  Now, let's talk about RF Stockalike.  RF Stockalike makes the masses of engines and tanks realistic, gives you more propellant options, and introduces other aspects of real rocket design like ignitions and boiloff.  So for a pure rocket (tank+engines), you should be able to achieve pretty much the same thing with RF Stockalike as in RO.  The key difference is that RF Stockalike doesn't touch the masses of any other parts, so they're going to be much heavier than in real life.  So you need more rocket with RF Stockalike only because the payload itself (plus other secondary features of the rocket) are heavier than they would be in real life.

"The key difference is that RF Stockalike doesn't touch the masses of any other parts, so they're going to be much heavier than in real life.  So you need more rocket with RF Stockalike only because the payload itself (plus other secondary features of the rocket) are heavier than they would be in real life." Exacly I think I heard the engine mass was higher compared to performance too? am I correct? that's why I was looking for Stock alike 3d models but with the Performance of Real engines. I did not know how ever that the other parts were heavier.

[blowfish]

1 minute ago, Dermeister said:

"The key difference is that RF Stockalike doesn't touch the masses of any other parts, so they're going to be much heavier than in real life.  So you need more rocket with RF Stockalike only because the payload itself (plus other secondary features of the rocket) are heavier than they would be in real life." Exacly I think I heard the engine mass was higher compared to performance too? am I correct? that's why I was looking for Stock alike 3d models but with the Performance of Real engines. I did not know how ever that the other parts were heavier.

No, RF Stockalike adjusts the masses of all engines such that their TWR is realistic (there is a setting to make the masses more like stock but it is disabled by default).

[Dermeister]

On ‎1‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 2:31 PM, blowfish said:

No, RF Stockalike adjusts the masses of all engines such that their TWR is realistic (there is a setting to make the masses more like stock but it is disabled by default).

Exelent it must be noted the last time I played KSP with RS and RF was months  ago, Maybe even close to a year.it's been a while! so the info I had might of been old!

 I did notice the engine config says this . "

This is a set of configs for the Real Fuels mod designed to fit in with stock. This will be best with stock and stock-aligned mods, on a stock-scaled Kerbin or 6.4x sized Kerbin.

If you play stock, you should set the Real Fuels setting useRealisticMass = false in RealSettings.cfg. If you play with the 6.4x scale Kerbin, leave that setting as default.

This does require Real Fuels to be installed as well as ModuleManager 2.x. If you have Real Fuels running already, you have everything you need."

 

As you can see it mentions 6.4k but what about RSS. if I use RSS is this also the correct engine config? or does this mean i'm forced to get RO?

 

Edited January 12, 2017 by Dermeister

[Meltdown]

I recently switched from SMURFF to RF as the cost of a simple orbit-capable rocket went to over 80k Spesos with multiple Asparagus stages and what not. Barely reached the magic 10k dV mark with it. Now I came back to RF (played with it in Stock but got annoyed of the ullage necessity and RT). It looks okay with the Stockalike configs and the realistic mass set to false. My design for an orbiter went from a behemoth with like a million stages to a single shape, 4 engine powered rocket and three stages for 14k Spesos. So my point is yes, the Stockalike config is correct for RSS too but I havent tried any Earth - Jupiter - Pluto windows yet, they might get a bit tricky, especially with RT installed.

If you feel still unsecure, you can change the mass of the non-engine-related parts by 25% to compensate. RF is only tweaking the mass of tanks & engines. Thrust aso is still the same afaik.

Edited January 13, 2017 by Meltdown
because i can

[Dermeister]

1 hour ago, Meltdown said:

I recently switched from SMURFF to RF as the cost of a simple orbit-capable rocket went to over 80k Spesos with multiple Asparagus stages and what not. Barely reached the magic 10k dV mark with it. Now I came back to RF (played with it in Stock but got annoyed of the ullage necessity and RT). It looks okay with the Stockalike configs and the realistic mass set to false. My design for an orbiter went from a behemoth with like a million stages to a single shape, 4 engine powered rocket and three stages for 14k Spesos. So my point is yes, the Stockalike config is correct for RSS too but I havent tried any Earth - Jupiter - Pluto windows yet, they might get a bit tricky, especially with RT installed.

If you feel still unsecure, you can change the mass of the non-engine-related parts by 25% to compensate. RF is only tweaking the mass of tanks & engines. Thrust aso is still the same afaik.

I've just recently reinstalled so ill try it out to see how it goes.

[Raptor831]

On 1/11/2017 at 3:01 PM, Dermeister said:

Exelent it must be noted the last time I played KSP with RS and RF was months  ago, Maybe even close to a year.it's been a while! so the info I had might of been old!

 I did notice the engine config says this . "

This is a set of configs for the Real Fuels mod designed to fit in with stock. This will be best with stock and stock-aligned mods, on a stock-scaled Kerbin or 6.4x sized Kerbin.

If you play stock, you should set the Real Fuels setting useRealisticMass = false in RealSettings.cfg. If you play with the 6.4x scale Kerbin, leave that setting as default.

This does require Real Fuels to be installed as well as ModuleManager 2.x. If you have Real Fuels running already, you have everything you need."

 

As you can see it mentions 6.4k but what about RSS. if I use RSS is this also the correct engine config? or does this mean i'm forced to get RO?

 

Basically, I "made" Stockalike for my own install. Which was most of the RO mods on 6.4x scale. That's why I mentioned that in the OP of the thread. It's not tied to any size, technically, so you can use it with stock size, micro-sized, or RSS. 6.4x works well because stock parts are, on average, about 64% of real parts (I believe this is based on the Mk 1-2 pod). So, all of the parts "feel" like the right size and you need about the right sized rockets to get to the Mun, get to orbit, etc.

All of that said, if you drop RF Stockalike on an RSS install, it'll work fine. As mentioned, your pods and payloads will be a tad too heavy for realistic missions, but the engines will scale properly if you were to use any other realistic engine packs.

[Dermeister]

9 hours ago, Raptor831 said:

Basically, I "made" Stockalike for my own install. Which was most of the RO mods on 6.4x scale. That's why I mentioned that in the OP of the thread. It's not tied to any size, technically, so you can use it with stock size, micro-sized, or RSS. 6.4x works well because stock parts are, on average, about 64% of real parts (I believe this is based on the Mk 1-2 pod). So, all of the parts "feel" like the right size and you need about the right sized rockets to get to the Mun, get to orbit, etc.

All of that said, if you drop RF Stockalike on an RSS install, it'll work fine. As mentioned, your pods and payloads will be a tad too heavy for realistic missions, but the engines will scale properly if you were to use any other realistic engine packs.

nice so it's basically only the mass of the pods and satelites that are not scaled well for RSS. because they are over massed for the engine perfoemances. The parts did this just to Balance the game in a stock solar system.. SO even a smaller pod weights more than what Apollo did even doe the kerbal pod is smaller? is what you're saying?

Edited January 14, 2017 by Dermeister

[Raptor831]

5 hours ago, Dermeister said:

nice so it's basically only the mass of the pods and satelites that are not scaled well for RSS. because they are over massed for the engine perfoemances. The parts did this just to Balance the game in a stock solar system.. SO even a smaller pod weights more than what Apollo did even doe the kerbal pod is smaller? is what you're saying?

Pretty much, yes. The Apollo CM was just under 4 tons with ~4m diameter (http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraftDisplay.do?id=1969-059A), and the kerbal Mk1-2 is like just over 4 tons with 2.5m diameter. Kerbal stuff is dense.

Here's a good explanation of the difference between "real" stuff and stock stuff: 

So when you only adjust the tanks and the engines, your mass fractions get thrown off compared to Real Life^TM. But if you're on 6.4x size, it kind of comes out even. I haven't run the math, but I think you still get really good mass fractions on 6.4x with RF Stockalike, just not as insanely good as stock. dV to orbit in 6.4x is like 7.5 km/s. Stock is like 3.5-4 km/s, and it's like ~10 km/s for Earth. (If I'm off, smarter people please correct me! )

[Dermeister]

5 hours ago, Raptor831 said:

Pretty much, yes. The Apollo CM was just under 4 tons with ~4m diameter (http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraftDisplay.do?id=1969-059A), and the kerbal Mk1-2 is like just over 4 tons with 2.5m diameter. Kerbal stuff is dense.

Here's a good explanation of the difference between "real" stuff and stock stuff: 

So when you only adjust the tanks and the engines, your mass fractions get thrown off compared to Real Life^TM. But if you're on 6.4x size, it kind of comes out even. I haven't run the math, but I think you still get really good mass fractions on 6.4x with RF Stockalike, just not as insanely good as stock. dV to orbit in 6.4x is like 7.5 km/s. Stock is like 3.5-4 km/s, and it's like ~10 km/s for Earth. (If I'm off, smarter people please correct me! )

Do you guys know if Procedural parts mod Dry mass is more inline with Real life?

Edited January 14, 2017 by Dermeister

[Raptor831]

37 minutes ago, Dermeister said:

Do you guys know if Procedural parts mod Dry mass is more inline with Real life?

Proc Parts should line up with stock by default. RF configs change them to realistic dry masses.

[Dermeister]

1 hour ago, Raptor831 said:

Proc Parts should line up with stock by default. RF configs change them to realistic dry masses.

Nice So I have nothing to do but to Get Proc parts and RF and it will automatically make them into realistic? this is nice

[The-Doctor]

On 1/14/2017 at 7:00 PM, Raptor831 said:

Proc Parts should line up with stock by default. RF configs change them to realistic dry masses.

does your mod make a normal KSP sized rocket be able to reach orbit in RSS? I'm thinking of having another go at RSS

[Dermeister]

http://imgur.com/a/ms8Bs

 

Any of you guys know what's causing that  Puffiness escaping my Rocket?

[Raptor831]

14 minutes ago, The-Doctor said:

does your mod make a normal KSP sized rocket be able to reach orbit in RSS? I'm thinking of having another go at RSS

RF+Stockalike configs gives engines realistic TWR, which makes RSS much more doable with stock-ish parts. Stock-sized orbital rockets will not get you to orbit in RSS with or without RF Stockalike configs. RSS delta-V to orbit is just under 3 times more than stock Kerbin dV to orbit. RF will give you better TWR on tanks and engines, so a Mainsail with a single orange tank will get you more dV on RF, but not enough to simply take Kerbal X and get to orbit in RSS.

26 minutes ago, Dermeister said:

http://imgur.com/a/ms8Bs

 

Any of you guys know what's causing that  Puffiness escaping my Rocket?

If you're using Stockalike, make sure you grab the latest version. I had some RCS effects issues that just got fixed. If it isn't that, I honestly don't know.