[1.8+] Real Fuels

[RedAV8R]

But this is what confuses me. The config nodes are inside the engine configs module - so 2 levels down. What i'm hoping is I can write CFGs to modify the techRequired data without having to redefine the whole engine configs. Yeah?

@MODULE[ModuleEnginesConfig]

}

@CONFIG[name]

{

%techRequired = blahblahblah

}

@CONFIG[name2]

{

%techRequired = blahblahblah

}

}

PLEASE Read the ModuleManager thread, the first couple posts gives GOBS of information on what you need to do.

Edited July 4, 2014 by RedAV8R

[Raptor831]

Raptor831: I set it per node. I guess I could add a "TL required" version? It would look up the engine type, and then the node<->TL correspondence of that type.

Actually, I like the idea of using the tech nodes. It's more flexible (you can pick the TL node as well as others), and it gives some interesting options for the tech tree.

[jrandom]

Would it be at all possible to have tanks be able to autofill for RCS thrusters that have binary components? It's a bit of a pain having to determine the relative amounts every time I try something else out. Having an autofill ability like we currently have for engines would be stellar!

Edited July 5, 2014 by jrandom

[Agathorn]

Would it be at all possible to have tanks be able to autofill for RCS thrusters that have binary components? It's a bit of a pain having to determine the relative amounts every time I try something else out. Having at autofill ability like we currently have for engines would be stellar!

Sorry this is REAL fuels here. Next version is goign to require you to get a gas can from the shed and a funnel and fill the tanks yourself.

[jrandom]

Sorry this is REAL fuels here. Next version is goign to require you to get a gas can from the shed and a funnel and fill the tanks yourself.

What? But I'm scrawny. I could lift, like, 1 delta-v. It'd take ages!

[NathanKell]

I do mean to do that, yeah. But it'll take a bit of finagling.

[Hodo]

What? But I'm scrawny. I could lift, like, 1 delta-v. It'd take ages!

Well you wouldn't be scrawny by the time you finished filling a Delta V Heavy launcher.

On a side note, I never realised how much I love this mod until I went back to a stock fuel system in KSP. The options it affords is just great.

Thanks again Nathan for doing this.

[Starwaster]

Well you wouldn't be scrawny by the time you finished filling a Delta V Heavy launcher.

On a side note, I never realised how much I love this mod until I went back to a stock fuel system in KSP. The options it affords is just great.

Thanks again Nathan for doing this.

No, he'd be collapsed from exhaustion near the bottom of the rocket, unable to move as it ignites and incinerates him to a crisp

[Guest]

Actually, LH2 is surprisingly light. LOX isn't heavy, either, weighing much less than kerosene. So it might not be that bad with a Delta V Heavy. Well, it'd be a bit chilly, but you can wear whatever Russians do during their winters. What would be bad would be filling up a Proton...

[Starwaster]

Actually, LH2 is surprisingly light. LOX isn't heavy, either, weighing much less than kerosene. So it might not be that bad with a Delta V Heavy. Well, it'd be a bit chilly, but you can wear whatever Russians do during their winters. What would be bad would be filling up a Proton...

If that's the case he's still exhausted because he had to make more trips for the H2:P

[Kitspace]

Protons do not use hydrogen

Now serious.

Stock resources like liquid fuel oxidizer and monopropellant are still present in the game including the Real Fuels interface.

What are they used for now? Are their properties tweaked to stand for some real life resources?

Why do the real hypergolic monopropellants seem to be consumed faster than the stock one?

Where do I get some good configs for bipropellant reaction control thrusters if such exist?

[Raptor831]

Where do I get some good configs for bipropellant reaction control thrusters if such exist?

I can answer this part. There are some good configs in the Realism Overhaul download. It adds Real Fuels options to the AIES, KW, RLA, and Squad using the ModuleRCSFX mod. Most are monopropellant setups, but I believe all of them have at least one bipropellant setup.

[SpacedInvader]

So I've got a new problem with the service module definition. This time its that it can't coexist with predefined TACLS resources in a part. For example, the FusTek logisitics module as modified by the included TACLS config includes a year of supplies for one kerbal. The RO config for FusTek then adds a 10KL service module, but with the new TACLS RF configs, when that service module is defined, it wipes out all of the previously defined TACLS resources.

[Starwaster]

So I've got a new problem with the service module definition. This time its that it can't coexist with predefined TACLS resources in a part. For example, the FusTek logisitics module as modified by the included TACLS config includes a year of supplies for one kerbal. The RO config for FusTek then adds a 10KL service module, but with the new TACLS RF configs, when that service module is defined, it wipes out all of the previously defined TACLS resources.

How are you checking for the TACLS resources? If you're looking at the RF configuration menu they won't show up there because they're not RF configurable.

Did you try rightclicking the part? Or checking it 'in the field'?

Edit: @Kitspace, re hypergolic consumption. Differing densities from stock would cause different consumption rates. how do they compare to monoprop in density?

Edited July 6, 2014 by Starwaster

[ThorBeorn]

I have got this bug which seems to break symmetry. It occured after updating to RF 6.4 from 6.3. At the same time I also updated to the latest RO before v.6 alpha (was it 5.3.1 maybe?). The tank GUI which should appear when right clicking a tank in VAB disappears when trying to open the GUI in a tank which was created using symmetry. Once I right click a symmetry part I can no longer open any tank GUI, and the craft must be reloaded. And from there it repeats.

Looks like it can be avoided as long as you only right click the original part and never right click a symmetry part.

I love this mod btw!

[NathanKell]

Kitspace: the stock resources are not hidden because, given how modded KSP is, not all parts will ever be converted to RF standards; therefore you can still add the stock resources to RF tanks if necessary.

No idea why the real ones are consumed "faster"--You can check the Isp of the RCS thruster under each configuration; the one with the highest Isp will consume the least mass per second of firing. Note I say mass though--maybe you're confused because the real propellants are less dense than MonoPropellant and thus the consumption per liter is higher? (Err, Starwaster said this too.)

SpacedInvader: Good point. RO will need to rewrite its patches to account for RF tank presence.

ThorBeorn: On the problem craft: 1. backup the .craft. 2. Open the craft ingame. 3. Save the craft. 4. Load the craft again. 5. Check if problem persists. If so, log pls.

And thanks!

[SpacedInvader]

CAn the RF tank definitions for the Service Module be written so that intake / output tanks are defined as pairs? For example, if you define a 100L Oxygen tank, a 100L CO2 tank is also defined. The reason for this is that recycling of byproducts is pretty important to long term life support design, but use of a service module then means that you have to manually establish the size of each tank, which could be somewhat tedious.

[jrandom]

CAn the RF tank definitions for the Service Module be written so that intake / output tanks are defined as pairs? For example, if you define a 100L Oxygen tank, a 100L CO2 tank is also defined. The reason for this is that recycling of byproducts is pretty important to long term life support design, but use of a service module then means that you have to manually establish the size of each tank, which could be somewhat tedious.

Funny, I just came in here to ask if we could have some kind of "Lock Together" button for binary fuels so if I need to adjust the amount of binary fuel in a tank I don't have to try to exactly get both right by hand. I do this a lot to get the wet/dry CoMs right where I want 'em, and it's easy if I'm just adjust the size of a tank... but sometimes I need to keep the tank larger than the fuel it can hold, for balance reasons, and I need to be able to adjust both quickly since I iterate on my designs very rapidly. This process goes way faster if I can just move the slider back and forth while watching the CoM.

[Rayder]

Is it possible to config an engine to use different fuels, but not use Tech levels? Or do I have to specify just one tech level and set the engine to use it?

I'd like to configure an engine so that I can use different fuels, but not worry about the tech levels just yet.

[ialdabaoth]

Kitspace: the stock resources are not hidden because, given how modded KSP is, not all parts will ever be converted to RF standards; therefore you can still add the stock resources to RF tanks if necessary.

This is why I've supported, since RealFuels was under my control, using "LiquidFuel" as the RP-1 equivalent, "Oxidizer" as the N2O4 equivalent, and "MonoPropellant" as the Hydrazine equivalent.

I really wish that 'stock' RealFuels would stick to a maximum of maybe, 8 fuel types (LiquidFuel/Oxidizer/MonoPropellant/Peroxide/CryoFuel/CryOx/XenonGas/SolidFuel), and RSS could release its own RealFuels reconfigs along with all its other 'super-detailed' reconfig patches.

[dlrk]

Using LiquidFuel as Kerosene and Oxidizer as N2O4 wouldn't make much sense, since Kerosene is generally used with LOX(CryOx).

Liquidfuel as MMH and oxidizer as N204 would make sense, along with using kerosene and cryox together.

[ialdabaoth]

Is there a particular reason why Kerosene and N2O4 aren't used together in our world, that would likely apply equally to Kerbin?

Note: Germany apparently fielded a low-cost RP1/N2O4 engine in the 70's and 80's, until the Soviets pressured them to stop development.

Edited July 7, 2014 by ialdabaoth

[dlrk]

Hmm, well N2O4 is denser than LOX, and a booster doesn't need to have storable propellants

[RedAV8R]

Is there a particular reason why Kerosene and N2O4 aren't used together in our world, that would likely apply equally to Kerbin?

Note: Germany apparently fielded a low-cost RP1/N2O4 engine in the 70's and 80's, until the Soviets pressured them to stop development.

My guess is cost, it's toxic and reactive and heavily regulated, the storability likely outweighs those issues for small upper stages and long duration stuff, but to use as 1st stage booster, if an accident were to occur, contamination is a big deal. Look at the Apollo-Soyuz accident.

[ialdabaoth]

My guess is cost, it's toxic and reactive and heavily regulated, the storability likely outweighs those issues for small upper stages and long duration stuff, but to use as 1st stage booster, if an accident were to occur, contamination is a big deal. Look at the Apollo-Soyuz accident.

So, not things that Kerbals should have to worry about, then?