[1.8+] Real Fuels

[Ralathon]

Is it intentional that the tank configs have !RESOURCE[LiquidFuel] {} etc are //ed out in every config but stretchytanks? As is the tanks will remain filled with LiquidFuel and Oxidizer, even if you fill them with something else. Removing the // seems to fix this with no ill effects. Is this just some artifact from testing?

[NathanKell]

What version are you running? That was fixed ages ago.

[Ralathon]

What version are you running? That was fixed ages ago.

The download from Dropbox via the first page. Last update was 14 days ago.

[NathanKell]

That's *really* weird. You're saying for a regular, say, FL-T800 tank, it starts with its LF/Ox. You remove them in the action editor, add whatever other fuels you want, launch, and the LFO returns?

[Ralathon]

That's *really* weird. You're saying for a regular, say, FL-T800 tank, it starts with its LF/Ox. You remove them in the action editor, add whatever other fuels you want, launch, and the LFO returns?

No, I'm saying that the module manager files don't remove the LF/Ox because all the "!RESOURCE[XXXXX] {}" lines are //ed out.

So if I use the addon as it comes out of the box, I end up with a FL-T800 tank that contains LF/Ox and in addition I can add all the usual fuels RealFuels provides. It seems rather obvious to me that those // don't belong there, so I removed them to make it all work properly. Just wondering if this is just an oversight, or if they are intentional and there is some mechanic I'm unaware of.

[xZise]

I have them commented out (aka not edited) and they work fine. So I don't know why it's not working for you.

Fabian

[NathanKell]

Ralathon: I know they're commented out. What I'm asking is how it negatively impacts the tanks' actual use: when you place the tank, is there LFO in it that you can't remove? If you remove it in the VAB, does it reappear in flight?

[Starwaster]

No, I'm saying that the module manager files don't remove the LF/Ox because all the "!RESOURCE[XXXXX] {}" lines are //ed out.

So if I use the addon as it comes out of the box, I end up with a FL-T800 tank that contains LF/Ox and in addition I can add all the usual fuels RealFuels provides. It seems rather obvious to me that those // don't belong there, so I removed them to make it all work properly. Just wondering if this is just an oversight, or if they are intentional and there is some mechanic I'm unaware of.

The mechanism is that that functionality is handled by the plugin itself now and not the config file. If you're having to re-enable those lines that are commented out then either you uncovered some bug or there's something wrong with your installation. You should remove that folder (edit: Gamedata/RealFuels/*) entirely and reinstall from a fresh download.

[sidfu]

have a question are nukes suppose to be using insane ammounts of fuel. for example the stock nuke takes 272h2 in default setting. using that much u have to carry insane ammounts of fuel just to use them. also the novapunch 2.5m nuke doesnt have a fuel selection even thou info says it does. the fatman nukes have been updated and the .cfg is no longer working for them also.

i have the use realsitc mass set to false. the mutiplier is set to 4.8 for tank and 3.2 for engines. anyon eknow what i need to change to make the nukes use a reasonable ammount of fuel.

as it stands just to use a 71power nuke u have to carrry 20tons of fuel to get a crappy ammount of dv.

btw im not using RSS. just like to have diffent fuels for differnt things to do.

[Guest]

So, I've found that RealFuels don't work with ModuleEngineFX. Is support for it planned? I'd really like to add better engine effects, but as it is, it's either them or RF.

[Shad0wCatcher]

ski- Intended. LH2 is not particularly dense, so you need more to provide the same amount of dV as say kerosene. The upside is that it masses very low; so you just need large, light tanks of LH2 to power nukes (or just use Ammonia, water [if using KSPI, since it's rather economical both thrust and dV-wise], or Methane).

[NathanKell]

sidfu: NTRs use less propellant mass than they did before RF, since their Isp is higher. What has changed is that, since LH2 is very light, you need many *liters* of it, compared to other denser propellants. What you have to look at is your total craft mass, not your total craft volume.

Also, note that you may not want to use non-realistic mass if you plan on using NTRs: the NTRs in RealFuels have realistic masses (which means even *lower* TWR than in KSP) so with a 3.2x multiplier to mass they must be exceedingly heavy.

The NTRs do have some issues at the moment since ModuleHybridEngine is broken; I need to fix it. Same with (Dragon01) supporting ModuleEnginesFX. As I've said in a number of places I'm away this and next week and have only an old laptop and spotty net access, so no promises.

[sidfu]

so what do u recomend to put the mutipliers at then. so delte the hybrid engine moduel and lower the mutiplier?

even if they do use less propellant mass having to have 12k h2 just for 1min burn is alot compared to 5min burn and 800dv more using the lv 909.

well no matter if can figure out how to balance it toward a good area. also another question nathan when u have a engine that doesnt have a real fuels .cfg the tanks are hard to fill what was the percentage for using normal oxy and liquid fuel.

Edited February 6, 2014 by sidfu

[xZise]

[...]even if they do use less propellant mass having to have 12k h2 just for 1min burn is alot compared to 5min burn and 800dv more using the lv 909.[...]

Did you compare the mass or the volume? I haven't used the LV-N yet, but as I understand it, you need to compare the masses but usually you only get shown the volumes. But as the density of LH2 is so low, you need a lot of it. But I don't know if they would make ever sense. I know that in the previous revision (Modular Fuel System) where there was no distinction between RF and Modular Fuel Tanks some argued that the LV-N would never make sense, even if you have infinite amount of fuel.

Fabian

[Starwaster]

Did you compare the mass or the volume? I haven't used the LV-N yet, but as I understand it, you need to compare the masses but usually you only get shown the volumes. But as the density of LH2 is so low, you need a lot of it. But I don't know if they would make ever sense. I know that in the previous revision (Modular Fuel System) where there was no distinction between RF and Modular Fuel Tanks some argued that the LV-N would never make sense, even if you have infinite amount of fuel.

Fabian

The main issue before was that some fuel tank types were not adding the right mass, so engine tests using those tanks made some engines look more efficient than they should have been, especially when compared with engines mounted on tanks that were adding the right mass. Once corrected, LVNs were a lot more attractive. Unfortunately, the hydrogen issue still confuses people, but there's really not much to be done with that. As you stated (and Nathan and Shadowcatcher) people keep looking at fuel volume and not realizing they need to be looking at mass.

Also too is what application is the engine for? You probably wouldn't want to use an NTR setup to deliver and land a few tons of payload. So if people are using test setups with something like a space probe, of course it's not going to make a lot of sense.

[NathanKell]

sidfu: I don't really know what to suggest for multipliers; I haven't played non-RSS in soooo long. It's probably easier to just use realistic masses on and use KIDS, rather than futzing with multipliers.

Change ModuleHybridEngine to ModuleEngineConfigs instead.

It's 12k *what* though, 12k liters? Meaningless. What matters is mass.

You shouldn't need a modular engine config for any engine for it to be recognized by a tank in RF; you'll still get the autoconfigure button. Anyway, stock KSP uses 55% Ox, 45% LF by volume (aka units).

Regarding LH2 "making sense" - you might find LCH4 (LqdMethane) a better deal. It has a rather high Isp (though not quite as high as LH2) but is much denser with lower boiloff.

[birrhan]

Having a problem with the engines being modifiable under the options (middle) tab, like normal. Stock engines can be modded for fuel type and tech level, but KW rocketry ones cannot--and I've found that stock engines do not provide nearly the thrust or ISP necessary to get anything off the ground. I know I've had this problem before, back around the 0.23 rollout and everyone was scrambling to udpate mods for compatibility. But in the interim I (a) uninstalled it all, and ( it looks like all the kinks have been ironed out. Using a standard build of the RSS suite + Joint Reinforcement and KER--see images for full mod list and config list within Real Fuels. All of the mods were downloaded yesterday, so should be current, and they were added to a clean install. Feels like a config error, but I don't know where to go from here.

Tangential to this: Is there a better repository of real-world style engines? The proper test would be to recreate a real world rocket, but that's impossible with "stock" engines--any recommendations for a mod other than KW?

EDIT: this appears to be the culprit. Deleting it fixes the issue. It appears to be part of the RO download, so it seems like it shouldn't be there...

Edited February 9, 2014 by birrhan

[SFJackBauer]

You've just deleted the part of the RealismOverhaul mod that I maintain

I've made a clean 0.23 install yesterday with all the Realism mods and everything works fine. Seems you had two engine cfgs (ex. mine and NathanKell's RtfS), so deleting one of those will clear the conflict.

Regarding real style engines, check the RealEngines link in my sig. There are links for a handful of propulsion packs. Also there is FASA for the Mercury/Gemini rockets.

[ialdabaoth]

The NTRs do have some issues at the moment since ModuleHybridEngine is broken; I need to fix it. Same with (Dragon01) supporting ModuleEnginesFX. As I've said in a number of places I'm away this and next week and have only an old laptop and spotty net access, so no promises.

Can you describe what's broken?

[Starwaster]

Can you describe what's broken?

It's the hybrid engine module that's broken. LANTR/trimodal style rockets that use it cannot be configured. I think it still functions if given a tank with H2/O2 and launched but I forget...

[NathanKell]

I changed a bunch of stuff in MEC for tech levels but that broke something in the hybrid, it nulls in OnGUI.

[Zander]

Hey guys,

I just wanted to share this tool I made for real fuels. Its a small C# program with a GUI that can do all the conversions between mass and volume and mixture ratios necessary for making engine configs and filling fuel tanks with Real fuels. It also can tell you the ISP for a certain propellant flow rate and thrust.

It comes with a drop down selector with the most common fuels and oxidizers preset with their densities or you can do a new propellant type if you want.

Since the real life technical manuals usually give rocket mixture ratios by mass but real fuels needs it by volume this tool can save you a lot of calculating by hand.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/69184-Real-Fuels-Propellant-Mixture-Converter-V-1-3-%28Feb-13th%29

[brooklyn666]

I've got a bug where the RCS propellant I add to the command module (Hydrazine, HTP, what have you) usually the Mk 1-2 pod, disappears after I jettison my service module for reentry. And I don't mean the tank is empty, I mean the green bar at the top right isn't there anymore. Any ideas?

[NathanKell]

Happens every time? I'll try to replicate when I get home (I don't recall it ever happening to me...), but meanwhile, post output_log.txt?

[camlost]

Nathan, do u think RF is going to convert to moduleenginesFX?