[1.8+] Real Fuels

New Horizons · May 24, 2018

Oh great, a new version for V1.4.3 ;-)

Does anyone tried Stockalike Engine Configs? The link on the front page appears missing.

EatVacuum · May 24, 2018

If you can't be bothered to scan just the last few posts before asking a question why would you expect anyone to take the time to answer?

Only a couple of posts up from yours there are two posts mentioning engines and SRBs missing when you try the current stockalike with Real Fuels.

But anyway stockalike engine configs are here...

But Raptor hasn't updated for 1.4.3 and the current Real Fuels so back up your saves before trying it.

Edited May 24, 2018 by EatVacuum
Types and added info

Tonas1997 · May 28, 2018

Hi, I've been trying to create a patch for the Real Scale Boosters mod, so that the engines use their real-life fuels (e.g.: the RS-25 currently runs on kerosene instead of liquid hydrogen). I created a config which switches the engines' propellants for the correct fuel+oxidizer combos, in addition to their correct burn ratios, but the patch doesn't seem to work.

The config file was placed on the RealFuels-Stockalike folder and looks like this:

@PART[RSBengineAJ-10-118K]:FOR[RealFuels_StockEngines]
{
  @MODULE[ModuleEngine*]
  {
    @PROPELLANT[LiquidFuel]
    {
        @name = Aerozine50
        @ratio = 0.4654
    }

    @PROPELLANT[Oxidizer]
    {
        @name = NTO
        @ratio = 0.5346
    }
  }
}

@PART[RSBengineArianeVSRB]:FOR[RealFuels_StockEngines]
{
  @MODULE[ModuleEngine*]
  {
    @PROPELLANT[SolidFuel]
    {
        @name = HTPB
    }
  }
}

@PART[RSBdelta2srm]:FOR[RealFuels_StockEngines] //S1 SRB-KD25k
{
  @MODULE[ModuleEngines*]
  {
    @PROPELLANT[SolidFuel]
    {
        @name = HTPB
    }
  }
}

@PART[RSBdelta3srm]:FOR[RealFuels_StockEngines] //Launch Escape System
{
  @MODULE[ModuleEngines*]
  {
    @PROPELLANT[SolidFuel]
    {
        @name = HTPB
    }
  }
}

@PART[RSBdelta3srmG]:FOR[RealFuels_StockEngines] //Separatron
{
  @MODULE[ModuleEngines*]
  {
    @PROPELLANT[SolidFuel]
    {
        @name = HTPB
    }
}
 @PART[RSBdeltaIVsrm]:FOR[RealFuels_StockEngines] //Rockomax BACC Solid Fuel Booster
{
  @MODULE[ModuleEngines*]
  {
    @PROPELLANT[SolidFuel]
    {
        @name = HTPB
    }
}

@PART[RSBengineAtlasSRB]:FOR[RealFuels_StockEngines] 
{
  @MODULE[ModuleEngines*]
  {
    @PROPELLANT[SolidFuel]
    {
        @name = HTPB
    }
}

@PART[RSBengineAresSRB]:FOR[RealFuels_StockEngines] 
{
  @MODULE[ModuleEngines*]
  {
    @PROPELLANT[SolidFuel]
    {
        @name = PBAN
    }
}

@PART[RSBengineCastor30]:FOR[RealFuels_StockEngines] 
{
  @MODULE[ModuleEngines*]
  {
    @PROPELLANT[SolidFuel]
    {
        @name = HTPB
    }
}

@PART[RSBengineCastor120]:FOR[RealFuels_StockEngines] 
{
  @MODULE[ModuleEngines*]
  {
    @PROPELLANT[SolidFuel]
    {
        @name = HTPB
    }
}

@PART[RSBengineF1]:FOR[RealFuels_StockEngines] 
{
  @MODULE[ModuleEngines*]
  {
    @PROPELLANT[LiquidFuel]
    {
        @name = Kerosene
        @ratio = 0.380
    }

    @PROPELLANT[Oxidizer]
    {
        @name = LqdOxygen
        @ratio = 0.620
    }
}

@PART[RSBengineF1A]:FOR[RealFuels_StockEngines] 
{
  @MODULE[ModuleEngines*]
  {
    @PROPELLANT[LiquidFuel]
    {
        @name = Kerosene
        @ratio = 0.380
    }

    @PROPELLANT[Oxidizer]
    {
        @name = LqdOxygen
        @ratio = 0.620
    }
}

@PART[RSBengineF1B]:FOR[RealFuels_StockEngines] 
{
  @MODULE[ModuleEngines*]
  {
    @PROPELLANT[LiquidFuel]
    {
        @name = Kerosene
        @ratio = 0.380
    }

    @PROPELLANT[Oxidizer]
    {
        @name = LqdOxygen
        @ratio = 0.620
    }
}

@PART[RSBengineH1]:FOR[RealFuels_StockEngines] 
{
  @MODULE[ModuleEngines*]
  {
    @PROPELLANT[LiquidFuel]
    {
        @name = Kerosene
        @ratio = 0.384
    }

    @PROPELLANT[Oxidizer]
    {
        @name = LqdOxygen
        @ratio = 0.616
    }
}

@PART[RSBengineHM7B]:FOR[RealFuels_StockEngines] 
{
  @MODULE[ModuleEngines*]
  {
    @PROPELLANT[LiquidFuel]
    {
        @name = LqdHydrogen
        @ratio = 0.7630
    }

    @PROPELLANT[Oxidizer]
    {
        @name = LqdOxygen
        @ratio = 0.2370
    }
}

@PART[RSBengineJ2]:FOR[RealFuels_StockEngines] 
{
  @MODULE[ModuleEngines*]
  {
    @PROPELLANT[LiquidFuel]
    {
        @name = LqdHydrogen
        @ratio = 0.745
    }

    @PROPELLANT[Oxidizer]
    {
        @name = LqdOxygen
        @ratio = 0.255
    }
}

@PART[RSBengineJ2X]:FOR[RealFuels_StockEngines] 
{
  @MODULE[ModuleEngines*]
  {
    @PROPELLANT[LiquidFuel]
    {
        @name = LqdHydrogen
        @ratio = 0.745
    }

	@PROPELLANT[Oxidizer]
    {
        @name = LqdOxygen
        @ratio = 0.255
    }
}

@PART[RSBengineLR101]:FOR[RealFuels_StockEngines] 
{
  @MODULE[ModuleEngines*]
  {
    @PROPELLANT[LiquidFuel]
    {
        @name = Kerosene
        @ratio = 0.3821
    }

    @PROPELLANT[Oxidizer]
    {
        @name = LqdOxygen
        @ratio = 0.6179
    }
}

@PART[RSBengineRD180]:FOR[RealFuels_StockEngines] 
{
  @MODULE[ModuleEngines*]
  {
    @PROPELLANT[LiquidFuel]
    {
        @name = Kerosene
        @ratio = 0.338
    }

    @PROPELLANT[Oxidizer]
    {
        @name = LqdOxygen
        @ratio = 0.662
    }
}

@PART[RSBengineRL10A3|RSBengineRL10A42]:FOR[RealFuels_StockEngines] 
{
  @MODULE[ModuleEngines*]
  {
    @PROPELLANT[LiquidFuel]
    {
        @name = LqdHydrogen
        @ratio = 0.7335
    }

    @PROPELLANT[Oxidizer]
    {
        @name = LqdOxygen
        @ratio = 0.2665
    }
}

@PART[RSBengineRS25]:FOR[RealFuels_StockEngines] 
{
  @MODULE[ModuleEngines*]
  {
    @PROPELLANT[LiquidFuel]
    {
        @name = LqdHydrogen
        @ratio = 0.7215
    }

    @PROPELLANT[Oxidizer]
    {
        @name = LqdOxygen
        @ratio = 0.2715
    }
}

@PART[RSBengineRS27A]:FOR[RealFuels_StockEngines] 
{
  @MODULE[ModuleEngines*]
  {
    @PROPELLANT[LiquidFuel]
    {
        @name = Kerosene
        @ratio = 0.3874
    }

	@PROPELLANT[Oxidizer]
    {
        @name = LqdOxygen
        @ratio = 0.6126
    }
}

@PART[RSBengineRS68]:FOR[RealFuels_StockEngines] 
{
  @MODULE[ModuleEngines*]
  {
    @PROPELLANT[LiquidFuel]
    {
        @name = LqdHydrogen
        @ratio = 0.7285
    }

    @PROPELLANT[Oxidizer]
    {
        @name = LqdOxygen
        @ratio = 0.2715
    }
}

@PART[RSBengineRS68]:FOR[RealFuels_StockEngines] 
{
  @MODULE[ModuleEngines*]
  {
    @PROPELLANT[SolidFuel]
    {
        @name = PBAN
    }
}

@PART[RSBengineVikas]:FOR[RealFuels_StockEngines] 
{
  @MODULE[ModuleEngines*]
  {
    @PROPELLANT[LiquidFuel]
    {
        @name = UDMH
        @ratio = 0.4963
    }

    @PROPELLANT[Oxidizer]
    {
        @name = NTO
        @ratio = 0.5037
    }
}

@PART[RSBengineVulcain2]:FOR[RealFuels_StockEngines] 
{
  @MODULE[ModuleEngines*]
  {
    @PROPELLANT[LiquidFuel]
    {
        @name = LqdHydrogen
        @ratio = 0.7049
    }

    @PROPELLANT[Oxidizer]
    {
        @name = LqdOxygen
        @ratio = 0.2951
    }
}

@PART[RSBengineXLR81]:FOR[RealFuels_StockEngines] 
{
  @MODULE[ModuleEngines*]
  {
    @PROPELLANT[LiquidFuel]
    {
        @name = UDMH
        @ratio = 0.4511
    }

	@PROPELLANT[Oxidizer]
    {
        @name = IRFNA-III
        @ratio = 0.5489
    }
}

@PART[RSBenginePSLVps1]:FOR[RealFuels_StockEngines] 
{
  @MODULE[ModuleEngines*]
  {
    @PROPELLANT[SolidFuel]
    {
        @name = HTPB
    }
}

@PART[RSBenginePSLVps3]:FOR[RealFuels_StockEngines] 
{
  @MODULE[ModuleEngines*]
  {
    @PROPELLANT[SolidFuel]
    {
        @name = HTPB
    }
}

@PART[RSBenginePSLVsrb10m]:FOR[RealFuels_StockEngines] 
{
  @MODULE[ModuleEngines*]
  {
    @PROPELLANT[SolidFuel]
    {
        @name = HTPB
    }
}

@PART[RSBenginePSLVsrb13m]:FOR[RealFuels_StockEngines] 
{
  @MODULE[ModuleEngines*]
  {
    @PROPELLANT[SolidFuel]
    {
        @name = HTPB
    }
}

I based the code on the existing patches for other engine mods, which work perfectly. What am I missing?

Edited May 28, 2018 by Tonas1997

Starwaster · May 28, 2018

@Tonas1997

You are missing a lot of }

It looks like specifically you forgot to close a lot of your MODULE patches.

Remember, whenever you are writing something by hand that requires closed brackets, braces or parentheses, always do BOTH of them and then go back and write the code, script or patches that goes in between.

For instance if I do @MODULE[ModuleEngineConfigs]{} and THEN go and fill in what I needed in between the { and } then I can't forget to close it afterwards.

If you use Notepad++ it will often do that for you though it misses closing a pair if they are inline and nested such as if you are doing nested conditional HAS

Tonas1997 · May 28, 2018

37 minutes ago, Starwaster said:

@Tonas1997

You are missing a lot of }

It looks like specifically you forgot to close a lot of your MODULE patches.

Remember, whenever you are writing something by hand that requires closed brackets, braces or parentheses, always do BOTH of them and then go back and write the code, script or patches that goes in between.

For instance if I do @MODULE[ModuleEngineConfigs]{} and THEN go and fill in what I needed in between the { and } then I can't forget to close it afterwards.

If you use Notepad++ it will often do that for you though it misses closing a pair if they are inline and nested such as if you are doing nested conditional HAS

And I call myselft a programmer... thank you! I'm using Notepad++ as you said, but since I'm copying the MODULE nodes directly from the RO config files - instead of writing the code by hand - I missed the unclosed parentheses.

Tonas1997 · May 28, 2018

EDIT: As it seems, it's not a simple matter of changing fuels and ratios; the config screwed up the entire mod, so now I have engines which are ridiculously overpowered, tanks that hold fractional amounts of fuel... oh well. Building a full patch will be a PITA

Starwaster · May 29, 2018

3 hours ago, Tonas1997 said:

EDIT: As it seems, it's not a simple matter of changing fuels and ratios; the config screwed up the entire mod, so now I have engines which are ridiculously overpowered, tanks that hold fractional amounts of fuel... oh well. Building a full patch will be a PITA

Treat stock volumes as 5 liters per stock unit. That's a good rule of thumb. (RF uses liters as the volume unit)

as for your engines I don't know what to say except to be careful what ro engines you base your config off of

Pixie Perfect · June 8, 2018

Is anybody having trouble getting boil off to work? I'm playing with RSS/RO/RP-1 and playing RF 12.6.0 and I get the MLI layers when selecting a tank, but for some reason I can move the slider from 0-100 and it doesn't seem to do anything no matter what setting it's on. When I go into space, it's like liquid hydrogen never boils off.

Starwaster · June 8, 2018

11 minutes ago, Pixie Perfect said:

Is anybody having trouble getting boil off to work? I'm playing with RSS/RO/RP-1 and playing RF 12.6.0 and I get the MLI layers when selecting a tank, but for some reason I can move the slider from 0-100 and it doesn't seem to do anything no matter what setting it's on. When I go into space, it's like liquid hydrogen never boils off.

not enough information.

In the RealFuels folder edit the RealSettings.cfg file and in the section that says RFSETTINGS add a line that says debugBoilOff = True

Enable thermal debugging (Alt-F12 -> physics -> thermal check the top box)

Put a Default type tank (when viewing the tanks in inventory in the VAB it will tell you what type they are) with LH2 in it and leave MLI at 0

Then launch it into orbit. Once it is in orbit right click on the tank and post a screenshot of the tank with its context menu showing (what you get when right clicking)

Also ModuleManager.ConfigCache files and output_log.txt file

Pixie Perfect · June 8, 2018

I added the line in RealSettings.cfg file ... it changed it a bit for whatever reason...

RFSETTINGS
{
	engineMassMultiplier = 4.0
	useRealisticMass = true
	heatMultiplier = 1.0
	debugBoilOff = True?
	
	globalConductionCompensation = False
	ferociousBoilOff = False
	analyticInsulationMultiplier = 1
	
	instantThrottleProps
	{
		val = SolidFuel
		val = PSPC
		val = HTPB
		val = PBAN
		val = HNIW
		val = NGNC
	}

It put a ? after true ... is that a problem? I'll launch something into orbit and show you what I get and upload the two files.

Pixie Perfect · June 8, 2018

Okay, so I did get burn off this way. Odd, because I have a vessel orbiting the sun and it just doesn't burn even if I watch it for over a week. It's a balloon type tank though. I'll post a pic of the one I just sent up and the one that's got me curious. It's not just that one either, there are others that I can go all the way to the moon with and I'll see like 1 point of delta V burn.

Anyways ...

Album https://imgur.com/a/v8PfLg3 will appear when post is submitted

Album https://imgur.com/a/aRk80N4 will appear when post is submitted

MM ConfigCache: https://ufile.io/x7c24

Output log file: https://ufile.io/tcd55

Let's try the pic upload again..

The one I just sent into orbit:

The one that isn't burning off fuel:

Ugh... I run high res and I guess the upload site can't keep up with it. Let me know if I need to reload it.

Edited June 8, 2018 by Pixie Perfect

Starwaster · June 8, 2018

@Pixie Perfect

No, that question mark being inserted at the end is wrong; if your editor program autocorrects then change it back to what I said to put in there or it won't work right.

Also, the text in the screenshots has to be readable. I can't do anything with those. I feel like I'm going blind trying to read it.

Use something like imgur. You don't even have to log into it to upload a picture.

Pixie Perfect · June 8, 2018

@Starwaster

Okay, I got the debugger to work.

https://imgur.com/a/GfHTTqn

Top is the one I just launched, it's getting boil off. Bottom is the one orbiting the sun which isn't boiling off. Do you need me to re upload the two files?

Starwaster · June 8, 2018

4 hours ago, Pixie Perfect said:

@Starwaster

Okay, I got the debugger to work.

https://imgur.com/a/GfHTTqn

Top is the one I just launched, it's getting boil off. Bottom is the one orbiting the sun which isn't boiling off. Do you need me to re upload the two files?

The bottom one has thermal conductivity consistent with about 100 layers of MLI for 0.0435 Watts x 40.48 m² = 1.761 Watts getting through the insulation which is a pretty trivial amount of heat for radiators to take care of. The tank walls are under 20.15 which is the boiling point of hydrogen as configured for all of the tank types that carry hydrogen.

The only way I see a problem there is if there weren't any radiators to be getting rid of that 1.761 watts. Otherwise those numbers look right.

Pixie Perfect · June 8, 2018

1 hour ago, Starwaster said:

The bottom one has thermal conductivity consistent with about 100 layers of MLI for 0.0435 Watts x 40.48 m² = 1.761 Watts getting through the insulation which is a pretty trivial amount of heat for radiators to take care of. The tank walls are under 20.15 which is the boiling point of hydrogen as configured for all of the tank types that carry hydrogen.

The only way I see a problem there is if there weren't any radiators to be getting rid of that 1.761 watts. Otherwise those numbers look right.

I don't use any radiators. None of them show up in my RP-1 game. Unless the RL10 engine has a built in radiator?

Aren't the maximum number of layers 10? Also, there appears to be a negligible weight difference (2.0 diameter x 1.0 Length = .301 tons at 0 MLI, and .310 tons at 100 MLI) and no electricity hit even if I set the MLI to 100.

I did reload the rocket to see a .0532 kg / hr boil off though.

I suppose I can always self limit myself to MLI 10, which I don't have a problem with doing if that's a realistic amount of boil off to expect from a well insulated cryogenic tank. But it seems a bit overpowered to be able to set it at 100 and be able to reach Jupiter without any significant boil off. Is the performance of this situation working as intended?

Thank you for your help, by the way.

Starwaster · June 8, 2018

30 minutes ago, Pixie Perfect said:

I don't use any radiators. None of them show up in my RP-1 game. Unless the RL10 engine has a built in radiator?

Aren't the maximum number of layers 10? Also, there appears to be a negligible weight difference (2.0 diameter x 1.0 Length = .301 tons at 0 MLI, and .310 tons at 100 MLI) and no electricity hit even if I set the MLI to 100.

I did reload the rocket to see a .0532 kg / hr boil off though.

I suppose I can always self limit myself to MLI 10, which I don't have a problem with doing if that's a realistic amount of boil off to expect from a well insulated cryogenic tank. But it seems a bit overpowered to be able to set it at 100 and be able to reach Jupiter without any significant boil off. Is the performance of this situation working as intended?

Thank you for your help, by the way.

MLI is passive; there is no power usage; it stands for multi layered insulation. It's double reflective mylar. In vacuum, the main heat transfer through MLI is radiation so each layer receives less and less thermal radiation. (there is increased heat leakage in an atmosphere because the layers are filled with gas but it's still better than a naked tank)

It's meant to complement an active cooling system like cryocoolers which radiators emulate.

If you didn't have any then there should have been some boiloff and I'm not sure why reloading would make a difference unless there had been an error but I don't see any exceptions in your log, at least not relevant here. The kinds I would be looking for would also have shown up in your screenshot as NaN for certain numbers like conductivity or the MLI data. (stands for Not a Number which is really bad when you need to do accurate maths)

As far as it being overpowered, IRL you would be seeing differences between 10s of kilowatts (only basic foam insulation which you can't see but all H2 tanks have) and 10s of watts or less for MLI depending on how many layers. It's basically just aluminized mylar so it doesn't have much mass to it. There is a cost in money which I made pretty linear and is based on the total surface area for material cost + labor costs which I had to guess at.

If it needs further balancing then maybe a future update can limit layer quantity based on research advancement and I'm open to specific suggestions and feedback as to how it can improve.

Pixie Perfect · June 8, 2018

Thank you for the explanation and your time, @Starwaster!

Tonas1997 · June 16, 2018

Has anyone found a way to fix the incompatibility between Tweakscale and RealFuels? I'm playing on a 1.3.1 save that uses both mods, and downscaling an engine will sometimes cause its mass to become negative; attempting to launch a vehicle with such a part doesn't usually end well (to put it mildly...).

This bug is well-known, but I couldn't find a fix yet... Any ideas?

Starwaster · June 18, 2018

On 6/16/2018 at 7:33 PM, Tonas1997 said:

Has anyone found a way to fix the incompatibility between Tweakscale and RealFuels? I'm playing on a 1.3.1 save that uses both mods, and downscaling an engine will sometimes cause its mass to become negative; attempting to launch a vehicle with such a part doesn't usually end well (to put it mildly...).

This bug is well-known, but I couldn't find a fix yet... Any ideas?

My favorite manifestation of that bug involved a tall rocket stack becoming pinned in place in the location of the errant engine allowing me to send the entire stack spinning like a ferris wheel without ever leaving the launch pad.

Anyway...

If the engine in question can actually store resources, such a bug becomes more likely. I find such engines should always have their baseMass (in ModuleFuelTanks) set to -1 which means MFT won't touch the mass (as far as the fuel tank portion of it goes)

If it's just an engine (no tanks on the part) then it's an issue with the two mods each trying to operate on the mass and it's hard to even impose any kind of sanity checking because it may not be possible for either mod to know what the final outcome is going to be because neither one actually sees the final mass outcome. They only know what the original mass of the part was and how much they want to adjust it by. Neither one actually adjusts the mass directly; they're only passing along a mass delta.. (I'm making an assumption here in that TweakScale does the same thing as RF and makes use of GetModuleMass)

Edit: Squad's implementation of GetModuleMass has long been problematic (especially but not limited to cases where resources are concerned) and really needs some work by Squad to

Don't allow any single module to drop mass to a negative value, especially not ever. (this is just a basic sanity check that should always have been there but isn't)
Don't allow the final result of multiple modules to drop mass to a negative value.
Allow modules to pass along a lower limit as to how low the mass could actually go in the event that multiple modules are affecting mass.

Not sure this has ever been raised on the bug tracker about GetModuleMass but we really should do so...

Edited June 18, 2018 by Starwaster

Tonas1997 · June 22, 2018

On 6/18/2018 at 3:02 PM, Starwaster said:

My favorite manifestation of that bug involved a tall rocket stack becoming pinned in place in the location of the errant engine allowing me to send the entire stack spinning like a ferris wheel without ever leaving the launch pad.

Anyway...

If the engine in question can actually store resources, such a bug becomes more likely. I find such engines should always have their baseMass (in ModuleFuelTanks) set to -1 which means MFT won't touch the mass (as far as the fuel tank portion of it goes)

If it's just an engine (no tanks on the part) then it's an issue with the two mods each trying to operate on the mass and it's hard to even impose any kind of sanity checking because it may not be possible for either mod to know what the final outcome is going to be because neither one actually sees the final mass outcome. They only know what the original mass of the part was and how much they want to adjust it by. Neither one actually adjusts the mass directly; they're only passing along a mass delta.. (I'm making an assumption here in that TweakScale does the same thing as RF and makes use of GetModuleMass)

Edit: Squad's implementation of GetModuleMass has long been problematic (especially but not limited to cases where resources are concerned) and really needs some work by Squad to

Don't allow any single module to drop mass to a negative value, especially not ever. (this is just a basic sanity check that should always have been there but isn't)

Don't allow the final result of multiple modules to drop mass to a negative value.

Allow modules to pass along a lower limit as to how low the mass could actually go in the event that multiple modules are affecting mass.

Not sure this has ever been raised on the bug tracker about GetModuleMass but we really should do so...

Thanks for the answer!

So I guess the only way to stop the bug from happening would be to disable engine mass adjustment on RF's side whenever Tweakscale is present, right? Or is it more complicated?

...I assume either option would (at least) involve a full recompile of RealFuels.

Starwaster · June 22, 2018

2 hours ago, Tonas1997 said:

Thanks for the answer!

So I guess the only way to stop the bug from happening would be to disable engine mass adjustment on RF's side whenever Tweakscale is present, right? Or is it more complicated?

...I assume either option would (at least) involve a full recompile of RealFuels.

You could try making a Module Manager patch that sets origMass on ModuleEngineConfigs and every nested CONFIG to -1. That should stop RF from adjusting engine mass but that also means you get no mass reduction from tech level increases.

BUT... remember I also mentioned that this can happen if the engine also has ModuleFuelTanks on the part! In which case baseMass on module ModuleFuelTanks should be -1. (in which case you might not have to do anything to ModuleEngineConfigs)

If I knew what part you were experiencing this on I could probably give a more precise answer. I'd need your ModuleManager.ConfigCache file and the name of the parts in question. (or does it happen on every single engine part that you tweak?)

Tonas1997 · June 22, 2018

16 minutes ago, Starwaster said:

If I knew what part you were experiencing this on I could probably give a more precise answer. I'd need your ModuleManager.ConfigCache file and the name of the parts in question. (or does it happen on every single engine part that you tweak?)

As requested, here's the ConfigCache file.

The bug happens with, basically, every single engine in the game that uses both mods (there are a few exceptions - namely RCS thrusters from B9). If it helps, here's a folder containing the TS, RF and part configs for an engine which does trigger the bug.

Edited June 22, 2018 by Tonas1997

Starwaster · June 22, 2018

@Tonas1997

Give this a try. Make a file ending in .cfg and paste the following contents into it. Save that file. (somewhere in your GameData folder)

I have no idea if it will work and you will lose any tech level increase benefits on mass from using this.

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleEngineConfigs]]:NEEDS[RealFuels,TweakScale]:FINAL
{
	@MODULE[ModuleEngineConfigs]
	{
		@origMass = -1
		@CONFIG[*],*
		{
			@origMass = -1
		}
	}
}

Tonas1997 · June 22, 2018

2 hours ago, Starwaster said:
@Tonas1997

Give this a try. Make a file ending in .cfg and paste the following contents into it. Save that file. (somewhere in your GameData folder)

I have no idea if it will work and you will lose any tech level increase benefits on mass from using this.
@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleEngineConfigs]]:NEEDS[RealFuels,TweakScale]:FINAL
{
	@MODULE[ModuleEngineConfigs]
	{
		@origMass = -1
		@CONFIG[*],*
		{
			@origMass = -1
		}
	}
}

Oh my god, that worked! The Atlas (and most other engines) can now be scaled down without reaching negative mass values!

There are a few exceptions, however:

- Engine clusters still suffer the negative mass bug. I guess it has something to do with those configs using different modules, which aren't affected by your patch.

- As predicted, engines that include fuel storage will still be problematic... but in a different way: scaling them won't result in any mass changes whatsoever (forgot to notice if that happened with a full or empty fuel tank).

Starwaster · June 23, 2018

@Tonas1997

looks like engine clusters had more than one MEC...

This will fix it. Not sure what the solution is for engines with tanks in them... I stuck something else in there that might do it. No idea if it does or doesn't

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleEngineConfigs]]:NEEDS[RealFuels,TweakScale]:FINAL
{
	@MODULE[ModuleEngineConfigs],*
	{
		@origMass = -1
		@CONFIG[*],*
		{
			@origMass = -1
		}
	}
}

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleEngines*],@MODULE[ModuleFuelTanks]]:NEEDS[RealFuels,TweakScale]:FINAL
{
	@MODULE[ModuleFuelTanks],*
	{
		%basemass = -1
	}
}

[1.8+] Real Fuels

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation