[1.8+] Real Fuels

[Phineas Freak]

@Nightside It is somewhat complicated. The KSP engines use normalized volume ratios, the tanks are configured with mass ratios in mind (in reality they also use volumes but it is almost impossible for the user to work with volumes) and the manufacturer engine data sheets mostly use stoichiometric ratios.

TL;DR: You have to convert the stoichiometric ratio into a normalized volume ratio for the engines and/or a mass ratio for the propellant tanks (if provided by the mod in hand and you want to have them pre-filled).

For that exact reason i created a custom utility to automatically configure engines and tanks given a propellant mass, propellant type and O/F ratio.

[Starwaster]

6 hours ago, Phineas Freak said:

@Nightside It is somewhat complicated. The KSP engines use normalized volume ratios, the tanks are configured with mass ratios in mind (in reality they also use volumes but it is almost impossible for the user to work with volumes) and the manufacturer engine data sheets mostly use stoichiometric ratios.

TL;DR: You have to convert the stoichiometric ratio into a normalized volume ratio for the engines and/or a mass ratio for the propellant tanks (if provided by the mod in hand and you want to have them pre-filled).

For that exact reason i created a custom utility to automatically configure engines and tanks given a propellant mass, propellant type and O/F ratio.

The engines will actually normalize the ratios themselves. Configuring the engine with volume ratio of 0.3104732691 - 1 ratio is just as valid as 0.2369169035 - 0.7630830965 and both will result in the same mass flow in the engine.

Not sure what you mean about tanks since all you have to do is click an appropriate button in the VAB and they autoconfigure the tanks according to which engine you're selecting. Unless you're talking about writing a pre-configured tank file or something similar?

[Phineas Freak]

3 hours ago, Starwaster said:

The engines will actually normalize the ratios themselves.

Hmm, good to know that. Thank you!

3 hours ago, Starwaster said:

Unless you're talking about writing a pre-configured tank file or something similar?

Yep, exactly. There are some parts that it is either required or easier for the end user to have them pre-configured with the correct propellants and at the correct mixture ratio. For the rest of them it is always better to have them empty and fill them "in the field".

[Starwaster]

4 hours ago, Phineas Freak said:

Yep, exactly. There are some parts that it is either required or easier for the end user to have them pre-configured with the correct propellants and at the correct mixture ratio. For the rest of them it is always better to have them empty and fill them "in the field".

LOL, the only time I ever had to do that with a part, it was intended for a ship using NTR and the tank only had LH2, so the math was real easy on that

 

[Phineas Freak]

@Starwaster I did it for some CMES and ProbesPlus parts. Though it mostly helps as a test to see if a specified propellant mass of a launch vehicle/rocket stage really translates into sane fuel & oxidizer mass values.

[Nightside]

Thanks for the help. I'm trying to add some methalox engines and haven't found much info except that the fuel ratio of the Raptor is about "3.8" (I assume this is lox/CH4)

So as long as my flow ratio=3.8/1 the rest is worked out automatically?

Edited July 5, 2017 by Nightside

[Phineas Freak]

@Nightside For an O/F ratio of 3.8 and a Methalox propellant combination the actual KSP ratios are:

• CH4: 0.4154
• LOX: 0.5846

For Methalox any ratio between 3 and 4 is broadly acceptable (actual stoichiometric ratio: ~2.8) so do not worry too much.

Edited July 6, 2017 by Phineas Freak
Fix typo

[blowfish]

2 hours ago, Nightside said:

Thanks for the help. I'm trying to add some methalox engines and haven't found much info except that the fuel ratio of the Raptor is about "3.8" (I assume this is lox/CH4)

So as long as my flow ratio=3.8/1 the rest is worked out automatically?

Are you trying to do this for RF Stockalike or RO?  The procedures are very different.

[blowfish]

RealFuels v12.2.0 for KSP 1.2.2 is now available

• Fix for engines not properly loading pressure fed setting from ModuleEngineConfig
• Fix for cryogenic tanks exploding during analytic mode after long periods unloaded
• Avoid possible NRE on fuel pumps when launching with Extraplanetary Launchpads
• Fuel pumps must now be present and active in order to avoid boiloff during prelaunch (previously being on the launch pad was enough)
• Fuel pumps are now enabled by default and enabled setting respects symmetry in the editor
• Streamline fuel pump enable/disable UI - now a simple button rather than display + button

[blowfish]

The 1.3 update will follow shortly, but a lot of people (mainly RO folks) wanted some of these fixes for KSP 1.2.2 as well

[blowfish]

RealFuels v12.2.1 for KSP 1.2.2 is now available

• Fix tank's initial temperature not being set correctly on vessel spawn and when launch clamps are attached
• Remove some logspam for boiloff in analytic mode (high timewarp)
• Make sure tank's lowest temperature is calculated correctly and that part temp is only set if cryogenic resources are present
• Fix negative temperature caused by conduction compensation in analytic mode (high timewarp)
• Fix sign error on flux in analytic mode (high timewarp)

Sorry for not having a 1.3 version yet, but there were some rather serious bugs here that needed to be sorted out

[Plecy75]

I'm having issues getting all of Community Resource Pack's resources (specifically RocketParts) to show up in the UI so I can put them in tanks. Any ideas?

Without this there's no way to get my orbital shipyard running

Edited July 18, 2017 by Plecy75

[Earthquake]

When I open the game,it crashes

[Starwaster]

4 hours ago, Earthquake said:

When I open the game,it crashes

Make sure you have the right mod version for KSP. There is no update for KSP 1.3 

if you require any help beyond that then logs logs logs

[Darkfedor]

Hello, could we have an estimated date of release for the 1.3 version ? or it's too soon ? Thanks for reading

[Earthquake]

On 2017/7/20 at 10:54 PM, Starwaster said:

Make sure you have the right mod version for KSP. There is no update for KSP 1.3 

if you require any help beyond that then logs logs logs

Well I know the version I use is incorrect.The version of RSS is also 1.2,but it can run.

Is there no other way to make it work?

[Starwaster]

45 minutes ago, Earthquake said:

Well I know the version I use is incorrect.The version of RSS is also 1.2,but it can run.

Is there no other way to make it work?

No, it has to have an update for KSP 1.3.0 - that hasn't always necessarily been true of past KSP updates; sometimes a plugin would continue to function with new KSP updates, sometimes it would just need a recompile and sometimes it would need code changes. Usually, failure just meant the plugin wouldn't function.

However, with KSP 1.3.0, if a plugin hasn't been recompiled and a part is present with a PartModule from the un-updated plugin then KSP crashes when it tries to compile that part. Personally I consider that a bug and I think Squad does too in that it should be able proceed without crashing though the plugin would still be non-functional. (could be wrong though, maybe it's not being considered a bug)

[Earthquake]

18 hours ago, Starwaster said:

No, it has to have an update for KSP 1.3.0 - that hasn't always necessarily been true of past KSP updates; sometimes a plugin would continue to function with new KSP updates, sometimes it would just need a recompile and sometimes it would need code changes. Usually, failure just meant the plugin wouldn't function.

However, with KSP 1.3.0, if a plugin hasn't been recompiled and a part is present with a PartModule from the un-updated plugin then KSP crashes when it tries to compile that part. Personally I consider that a bug and I think Squad does too in that it should be able proceed without crashing though the plugin would still be non-functional. (could be wrong though, maybe it's not being considered a bug)

Well.

[kerboman25]

hey guys

 

i have a question about the RD-100 series of engines. In the configs it says that it only gnites on the ground but when i'm on the launch pad and want to ignite the engine it doesn't want to what is the reason of this problem?

[Phineas Freak]

@kerboman25 This was a minor issue with the "ground ignition only" feature of RF that RO implements. It has since been removed from the RO global engine config. Grab the latest .cfg and replace the old one.

[Blackline]

Hi guys, can anyone here tell me what this PR is supposed to do? https://github.com/blackliner/RealBattery/pull/4

I don't use RF myself, but I very welcome any additional stuff if it makes people happy. I just need to know what that stuff is doing.

[Starwaster]

7 hours ago, Blackline said:

Hi guys, can anyone here tell me what this PR is supposed to do? https://github.com/blackliner/RealBattery/pull/4

I don't use RF myself, but I very welcome any additional stuff if it makes people happy. I just need to know what that stuff is doing.

Real Fuels lets the player control what resources are assigned to a 'tank' part. (tank can be a loose term; in this case it would be like a battery)

The thing that determines what a given tank can hold is the TANK_DEFINITION. The patch in that pull request lets any tank that could have electric charge (basically adding batteries to the part) also add StoredCharge.

As you note in the PR comments, by itself it seems to do nothing. The player could configure tank parts with StoredCharge but if, as you say, your mod / resource definition won't allow for StoredCharge to actually flow into the part then it's probably pretty useless. Nothing else in there adds your mods modules to the part.  (the kinds of parts that this would affect in RF would be plane fuselages, service modules and electric propulsion tank parts (Xenon tanks that also contain batteries for ion engines)

About the mass / utilization... that looks really screwy because the end result is that one StoredCharge would require a 'tank' mass (really battery mass) of 2.89 metric tons due to the math involved. Mass is the tank mass for one volume unit and utilization is how volume unit of the resource will fit in one tank volume unit... EC had a utilization of 1000 and mass of 0.00289 so... yeah, it's going to end up as 2.89 tons per volume unit of SC.... I am not familiar with your mod and what kind of power density your batteries (capacitors?) have so I could be wrong but that seems screwy to me.

[JaviLL]

I know this might have been answered already, but I'm unable to use RCS.

I use the right tank (service mod) to get high pressures, also setting the right fuel (nitrogen) and I'm mounting the RCS thrusters on the tank itself to avoid crossfeed issues. The thrusters are set to nitrogen as well.

If I check the fuel delivery overlay, it seems for some reason they are not delivering the fuel as it should.

Am I doing something wrong here? Could a different mod be causing this behaviour? If I use modules that have RCS built in (like the gemini RCS module or similar) they work just fine, but I need bigger ones now and I can't get them to work.

Here's a screenshot of the config:

Help

[JaviLL]

Never mind guys, even though it seems they aren't working in the VAB and the engineers report shows as they aren't receiving any fuel, in the actual launch they do.
It's confusing though, might be something to fix in later releases.

Great mod!

[Starwaster]

@JaviLL Just a thought... it might be that the propellants in the main RCS module aren't set up to allow crossfeed and most of the resources involved don't allow it. But in the engine configs (which also covers RCS) they are set up to allow it. (engine and RCS configs can override resource flow settings)

I don't actually know that's what's happening mind you, I could be wrong. But it just seems like the sort of thing that would confuse the stock KSP code.