[1.8+] Real Fuels

[NathanKell]

Yeah, the Soviet engines thing is my problem, sorry. 8.1 as soon as I fix scaling and GUI.

[White Owl]

I know it isn't NathanKell's or RealFuel's problem, but I figure somebody in this thread will know. What's the best tool for displaying delta-V from RCS with all these different fuels?

[Starwaster]

I know it isn't NathanKell's or RealFuel's problem, but I figure somebody in this thread will know. What's the best tool for displaying delta-V from RCS with all these different fuels?

MechJeb 2.

I don't think any of its default windows display it so you have to create a custom window (using its custom window editor) that displays it.

[White Owl]

MechJeb 2.

I don't think any of its default windows display it so you have to create a custom window (using its custom window editor) that displays it.

Yeah, that's what I've used in the past, and that's what I was trying now. It doesn't appear to be able to read the thrust and Isp of alternate-fueled RCS ports. Not even if I set them to use monopropellant.

Anyway, that's probably a Mechjeb limitation, not a Real Fuels limitation.

[Northstar1989]

@NathanKell

I recently came across a *MAJOR* realism/balance issue that is missing from RealFuels related to boil-off rates...

APPARENTLY, larger fuel tanks suffer proportionally less boil-off as both heat leakage and the rate of escape of gasses through the tank walls is dictated by the Cube-Square Law...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propellant_depot#Boil-off_mitigation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square-cube_law

It MAY also help that fuel tanks are pressure vessels, and thus their walls have to become thicker the greater their volume (this is also the reason why it turns out fuel tank mass scales more-or-less linearly with volume in real life), although the article never mentioned this. Do thicker vessel walls inhibit boil-off? I'd have to do more research on that...

Anyways, larger fuel tanks should definitely have MUCH lower rates of boil-off for their volume due to the aforementioned heat leakage and surface area for gas escape issues I mentioned earlier...

The BEST AND MOST REALISTIC way to simulate boil-off would actually be to give all fuel tanks a constant rate in direct proportion to their surface area. Yes, this would mean partially-empty tanks experience more boil-off than full tanks carrying the same volume of fuel- but this is actually *precisely* the case in real life- boil-off rate is determined mainly by fuel tank surface area rather than volume...

Regards,

Northstar

P.S. I'm aware this would encourage "Bigger is Better" when it comes to rocket design- but IMHO that's a GOOD idea, as besides being very "Kerbal", it's also largely true in real life. Bigger rockets experience proportionally less atmospheric drag when ascending through the atmosphere. Guidance and control systems don't have to make up as large a percentage of their mass, since the mass of a guidance computer is roughly the same for a huge or a tiny rocket. Bigger fuel tanks have proportionally less surface area for their volume and the walls are thicker- which makes them easier/cheaper to manufacture. AND, bigger fuel tanks also apparently experience less boil-off. The one *major* disadvantage large rockets have in real life, besides the logistics of getting them assembled and set up on the launchpad in the first place, is that it's significantly harder and more expensive to manufacture/design larger rocket engines- a problem that can handily be circumvented by using engine-clusters instead...

Edited October 17, 2014 by Northstar1989

[Rabada]

@NathanKell

I have been trying to build a very high DeltaV ion powered probe in a game using V8.0 of this mod. I have a few questions about how you have your config files set up.

First of all, at the bottom of the Suad_modularFuelTanks.cfg file you have 2 different volumes for Xenon. I'm guessing this is a typo. The squad .625m xenon tank hold somthing like 7000 units of xenon while the radial tanks hold 20k. Is 70 or 200 supposed to be the correct number?

@PART[xenonTank]:FOR[RealFuels]
{
	MODULE
	{
		name = ModuleFuelTanks
		volume = 70
		type = Xenon
	}
}
@PART[xenonTankRadial]:FOR[RealFuels]
{
	MODULE
	{
		name = ModuleFuelTanks
		volume = 200
		type = Xenon
	}
}

Also, does Realfuels have any other effects on the stock ion engines?

[Felbourn]

@NathanKell

I have been trying to build a very high DeltaV ion powered probe in a game using V8.0 of this mod. I have a few questions about how you have your config files set up.

First of all, at the bottom of the Suad_modularFuelTanks.cfg file you have 2 different volumes for Xenon. I'm guessing this is a typo. The squad .625m xenon tank hold somthing like 7000 units of xenon while the radial tanks hold 20k. Is 70 or 200 supposed to be the correct number?

Also, does Realfuels have any other effects on the stock ion engines?

Xenon has a tank utilization of 100 as far as I can see, making these really hold 7000 and 20000 liters. (Xenon is stored under pressure.)

[NathanKell]

Northstar1989: That's a good point. However, since a RealFuels "tank" part is, unless it is a balloon tank, just a structural thing inside which actual tanks are placed, I can't assume exterior geometry (and therefore surface area) is the area of the tank. I think a decent approximation would be to calculate loss rate as something like the (2/3) power of volume, rather than just volume, multiplied by some constant (because we assume that tanks are capsule-shaped, not spherical).

Note that boiloff is always based on the maxAmount of the resource, never the current amount, so that doesn't have to be changed.

Rabada: Felbourn is correct. The other change is that because xenon is much less dense, but the ratio of liters of xenon : units of Electric Charge is unchanged, you will be using much, much more power than before.

[Northstar1989]

Northstar1989: That's a good point. However, since a RealFuels "tank" part is, unless it is a balloon tank, just a structural thing inside which actual tanks are placed, I can't assume exterior geometry (and therefore surface area) is the area of the tank. I think a decent approximation would be to calculate loss rate as something like the (2/3) power of volume, rather than just volume, multiplied by some constant (because we assume that tanks are capsule-shaped, not spherical).

Note that boiloff is always based on the maxAmount of the resource, never the current amount, so that doesn't have to be changed.

The Square-Cube Law (which I must remind you applies equally well to non-spherical shapes: in fact the "classic" case is a cube, not a sphere) actually gets factored in TWICE- once to determine the relative increase in Heat Leakage (which increases at the 2/3 power of volume), and once to determine the relative change in Surface Area through which the fuel can actually leak out: thus boil-off should only increase as the 4/9th power of volume- a little less than at the rate of the square root (1/2).

The math probably gets a little more complicated than this, however, as the walls are thicker, and thus better insulators from the outside environment even without insulating foam (and any added insulating foam becomes exponentially more effective with a larger tank) in larger tanks, and the accumulation of vapors in the fuel tank suppresses the formation of additional vapor until the existing vapor can seep through the tank walls...

I suggest reading the following NASA analysis of cryogenic boil-off for more detailed numerical models:

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20080013162.pdf

I would say as a first approximation that the boil-off should increase at somewhere between the square (1/2 power) and cubic (1/3 power) roots of tank volume- although once again, the NASA document will be the best place to find hard numerical models (I'm going to sit down and try and read through some of it now- why did I turn myself into an engineer? I majored in biology to get *away* from having to do so much math...)

Regards,

Northstar

[NathanKell]

Yeahwell I majored in philosophy

I based the boiloff for non-cryo (i.e. "lightly insulated") tanks on the stated 700lb/hr boiloff on S-IVB, but that doc looks worth a good read, thanks.

[Northstar1989]

Yeahwell I majored in philosophy

I based the boiloff for non-cryo (i.e. "lightly insulated") tanks on the stated 700lb/hr boiloff on S-IVB, but that doc looks worth a good read, thanks.

Well apparently the smaller tanks than whichever one you set to have a 700 lb/hour boil-off rate had a much LOWER boil-off rate than they should have, then, assuming you scaled boil-off linearly instead of by an exponent less than 1...

Also, though this is by no means a new issue to RealFuels, I would like to see RealFuels be able to fill any tank with KSP-Interestellar LiquidWater through its modular fuel system when both RealFuels and KSP-Interstellar are installed.

This would be an EXTREMELY useful feature that by all means *should* be a part of RealFuels, because it would allow players to store LiquidHydrogen and LiquidOxygen in the form of water (and then electrolyze them when the fuels are needed) to avoid boil-off, and there is no real reason any normal fuel tank should NOT be able to hold a modular amount of water.

KSP-Interstellar solves all the problems with energy-demands this imposes by allowing players to either carry nuclear reactors on their spacecraft, or beam the power via microwaves from a solar or nuclear power satellite in orbit elsewhere...

I've already been following up a little with Dreadicon about trying to get this in the new RealFuels/KSP-Interstellar Integration Config he is drawing up, but I figured I should follow up on this along as many lines of inquiry as possible to make sure it gets implemented/fixed...

Also, NathanKell, did you see the lines of code I already drew up to be added to the RealFuels/KSP-Interstellar Integration Config?

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/95671-RealFuels-KSP-Interstellar-Integration-Config?p=1459379&viewfull=1#post1459379

My lines of code are already complete (for the functions they are trying to accomplish- admittedly there are still a fair number of features that need to be fixed for *FULL* compatibility between RealFuels and KSP-Interstellar, such as the LiquidWater storage in modular fuel tanks issue I raise above...) and have been tested with both RealFuels and Interstellar installed- they work like a charm, even if others might eventually come up with more elegant solutions...

Even though I've been talking with Dreadicon, who is trying to get a more elegant and complete set of solutions up; mine are of equivalent complexity to the ones already in the incomplete integration config that comes with RealFuels (in fact, they are basically just copy-pastes of the existing solutions with changes in the names of parts/resources and ratios to apply fixes to other parts/resources/features than the ones already fixed in the config), so they're not *bad* by any means- and I'd like to see them make their way into the integration config that comes with RealFuels just in case Dreadicon doesn't get something more complete out anytime soon (or misses some of the fixes I already posted, assuming they would already be included in the config).

Regards,

Northstar

Edited October 18, 2014 by Northstar1989

[Northstar1989]

Also, for reference when considering what else needs fixing for an integration-config: KSP-Interstellar's Meth/LOX engine lags far behind the Space-X "Raptor" in almost every possible design criteria. Here are just *SOME* of the specifications for comparison:

Interstellar's "Deinonychus 1-D"

Thrust 1425 kN (thrust does not vary with atmospheric pressure in stock engine module)

Mass 3500 kg (for the record- what TWR is that?)

ASL ISP 309 s

VAC ISP 368 s

Space-X's "Raptor"

ASL Thrust 6900 kN

VAC Thrust 8200 kN

Mass Unknown- but TWR predicted likely to exceed 120

ASL ISP 321 s

VAC ISP 380 s

Keep in mind that the "Deinonychus 1-D" is not available until "Experimental Rocketry" - the *very last* tech node in the rocketry series of the tech-tree! So, it would be perfectly reasonable to expect it to significantly out-perform Kero/LOX engines in many ways, considering its higher tech level (and as a Meth/LOX engine, it is in fact a bit further towards the "high ISP" end of the fuel-density vs. ISP spectrum than Kero/LOX engines...)

Regards,

Northstar

Edited October 18, 2014 by Northstar1989

[regex]

Northstar, when considering integration with Interstellar, please keep in mind that this mod, Real Fuels, concerns itself with the fuels and mixtures, not with engines. That is why you need an engine config to properly use the mod. Several engine configs should be listed in the first few posts as well as a spreadsheet to generate your own. The issue with Interstellar's methane engine is likely because it is balanced against stock rather than real world values. If you want to change how good it is you can generate a config using the spreadsheet.

[Northstar1989]

Northstar, when considering integration with Interstellar, please keep in mind that this mod, Real Fuels, concerns itself with the fuels and mixtures, not with engines. That is why you need an engine config to properly use the mod.

Good point- and I should have remembered this by now. I'll kick this over to the Stockalike integration config- since that engine pack balances engine TWR and ISP against real-world norms while not directly converting any stock or mod engine into an actual real-world one; and as I've never actually played with either of the other engine configs, and have no idea whether they have any Interstellar compatibility to begin with...

EDIT: But didn't the base RealFuels mod already have at least some KSP-Interstellar compatibility? If I remember correctly, there is already an integration config in the base RealFuels that switches over the Interstellar methane tanks to be modular- which would be the kind of thing that fits in the base RealFuels mod. And it also set the Nuclear Thermal Rocekts in Interstellar to use the new resources (it doesn't cahnge thrust or ISP, just the resource names), if I remember correctly.

So wouldn't *THAT* be the kind of thing that fits in the base mod. And if the Meth/LOX engine is already being modified via a MM patch in the base RealFuels mod to burn the new resources (also in the same file with the changes to the fuel tanks and NTR's), then would it work to apply a separate MM patch to the same part to fix the ISP and TWR?

I guess I'll need to go and check whether it's the base mod of Stockalike config that owns the existing integration config...

Regards,

Northstar

Edited October 18, 2014 by Northstar1989

[Northstar1989]

@Regex

I just went and double-checked, and it does indeed seem that the existing integration config for KSP-Interstellar is actually part of the BASE RealFuels mod.

The problem is, it changes the resources consumed/stored by the Interstellar Hybrid Rockets (similar to an SRB, it is both a tank and engine) and Meth/LOX engines with a MM patch already. So if changes to the TWR and ISP of either of these parts were included in an *additional* config file that came with the "Stockalike" config, how would this work? Wouldn't editing a part once with MM, and then going back and editing the same part again with MM create issues?

The following changes are already made in the *EXISTING* integration config (which is part of the BASE RealFuels mod, not any engine config) to three Interstellar engine parts:

@PART[AluminiumHybrid1]
{
	@MODULE[ModuleEngines]
	{
		@PROPELLANT[Oxidizer]
		{
			@name = LiquidOxygen
			@ratio = 4.05
		}
	}
	@RESOURCE[Oxidizer]
	{
		@name = LiquidOxygen
		@amount = 1543
		@maxAmount = 1543
	}
}

@PART[FNMethaneEngine]
{
	@MODULE[ModuleEngines]
	{
		@PROPELLANT[LqdMethane]
		{
			@ratio = 0.443
		}
		@PROPELLANT[Oxidizer]
		{
			@name = LiquidOxygen
			@ratio = 0.557
		}
	}
}

@PART[vista]
{
	@MODULE[ModuleEngines]
	{
		@PROPELLANT[LiquidFuel]
		{
			@name = LiquidH2
			@ratio = 20
		}
	}
}

That's not even counting the changes made to NTR or electric engine propellants, *exactly* in the same manner as the ones I suggest adding below, for NTR fuels that weren't part of Interstellar back when the integration config was written... (based on version dates) Here are the changes to NTR and electric engines that are already part of the config found in the *base* RealFuels mod:

@BASIC_NTR_PROPELLANT[Hydrolox]
{
	@guiName = Hydrolox
	@PROPELLANT[LiquidFuel]
	{
		@name = LiquidH2
        @ratio = 0.73
	}
	@PROPELLANT[Oxidizer]
	{
		@name = LiquidOxygen
		@ratio = 0.27
		@DrawGauge = False
	}
}

@BASIC_NTR_PROPELLANT[Hydrogen]
{
	@guiName = LiquidH2
	@PROPELLANT[LiquidFuel]
	{
		@name = LiquidH2
	}
}

@BASIC_ELECTRIC_PROPELLANT[Hydrogen]
{
	@guiName = LiquidH2
	@PROPELLANT[LiquidFuel]
	{
		@name = LiquidH2
	}
}

Note that for some strange reason, the last MM patch (the one to LiquidFuel --> LiquidH2 in electric engines) is duplicated, and an identical version is present again just a few lines later in the same config (the line above it is provided for context, so you can see it's a duplicate and not just a copy of the same line as before)

@WARP_PLUGIN_SETTINGS
{
	@HydrogenResourceName = LiquidH2
	@OxygenResourceName = LiquidOxygen
}

@BASIC_ELECTRIC_PROPELLANT[Hydrogen]
{
	@guiName = LiquidH2
	@PROPELLANT[LiquidFuel]
	{
		@name = LiquidH2
	}
}

The MM patches I already wrote up (also posted below) are in *exactly* the same spirit as the ones in the base RealFuels config (in fact they were derived from the original integration config code). So regardless of whatever is done with the more complete integration config Dreadicon is working on (if/when he finishes it), or the problems with the Meth/LOX engine ISP/TWR I mentioned here, the changes below should be integrated into the .CFG that comes with the *base* RealFuels mod:

@BASIC_NTR_PROPELLANT[Methalox]
{
	@guiName = Methalox
	@PROPELLANT[LqdMethane]
	{
        	@ratio = 0.443
	}
	@PROPELLANT[Oxidizer]
	{
		@name = LiquidOxygen
		@ratio = 0.557
		@DrawGauge = False
	}
}

@BASIC_NTR_PROPELLANT[Ammonia]
{
	@guiName = Ammonia
	@PROPELLANT[Ammonia]
	{
		@name = LqdAmmonia
	}
}

@PART[FNAmmoniaTank]
{
	MODULE
	{
		name = ModuleFuelTanks
		volume = 10731
		type = Default
	}
}

If it wasn't clear from the actual code, two of these MM patches fix new modes of NTR propulsion not addressed in the existing config (as they weren't part of Interstellar back when the integration config was written), and the other makes a fuel tank found in Interstellar into a modular one- which said tank was either overlooked or not present before...

Regards,

Northstar

Edited October 18, 2014 by Northstar1989

[Northstar1989]

Eeek, it appears the code patches I made and posted here were *already* outdated for RealFuels 8.0 by the time I re-posted them here!

Apparently, NathanKell decided to change the name of the LiquidOxygen resource again for some reason, and so now it needs to read "LqdOxygen" instead of "LiquidOxygen" in the patch I posted here earlier... So here's the updated version:

@BASIC_NTR_PROPELLANT[Methalox]
{
	@guiName = Methalox
	@PROPELLANT[LqdMethane]
	{
        	@ratio = 0.443
	}
	@PROPELLANT[Oxidizer]
	{
		@name = LqdOxygen
		@ratio = 0.557
		@DrawGauge = False
	}
}

@BASIC_NTR_PROPELLANT[Ammonia]
{
	@guiName = Ammonia
	@PROPELLANT[Ammonia]
	{
		@name = LqdAmmonia
	}
}

@PART[FNAmmoniaTank]
{
	MODULE
	{
		name = ModuleFuelTanks
		volume = 10731
		type = Default
	}
}

Also, how would one go about adding another resource (such as "LqdWater") to the list of resources that can be added to a tank through the modular fuel tanks part of RealFuels? Specifically, how would one go about doing that so a resource only shows up *when a particular mod in installed* (such as KSP-Interstellar). THAT'S the tricky part...

LqdWater is a resource that is needed in large amounts with KSP-Interstellar and RealFuels installed, so the single tiny dedicated radial tank that normally comes with KSP-Interstellar is not nearly enough storage (normally, you immediately want to electrolyze LqdWater into LiquidFuel/Oxygen, but with RealFuels installed the LqdHydrogen and LqdOxygen you produce would immediately begin to slowly boil-off, so you want to keep things in water form as long a possible...) It needs to be stored in large amounts, so it can be electrolyzed at will to produce fuel for maneuvers, rather than immediately out of necessity...

Regards,

Northstar

Edited October 18, 2014 by Northstar1989

[regex]

Regarding the three walls of text you've supplied me with this morning, well, I'm sick and out of it, but I think the basic gist is that Real Fuels should edit an engine? No, that's for configs to handle. You are correct in approaching the stockalike config maintainer for changes to KSPI engines. Configs allow customization to fit many needs while sharing the same back end. For instance, NathanKell can have a config for his alternate history while I can have one for my beloved Soviet engines and the stockalike folks can have one that remains familiar to then, etc...

Apparently, NathanKell decided to change the name of the LiquidOxygen resource again for some reason, and so now it needs to read "LqdOxygen" instead of "LiquidOxygen" in the patch I posted here earlier...

No, that was me, as the last few pages of discussion here would reveal. I did that for consistency and also because I nearly doubled the available fuels.

Also, how would one go about adding another resource (such as "LqdWater") to the list of resources that can be added to a tank through the modular fuel tanks part of RealFuels?

ModuleManager. Write a config to add LqdWater (or whatever it's called) to the tank types of your choice. E: Remember, Tank Types. Check out the file in Real Fuels, that's what you'll be adding to with a new MM config.

Edited October 18, 2014 by regex
spelling

[diomedea]

Well, I'm having a problem with Real Fuels 8.0. If I install this add-on alone, all is well. But I am installing it in good company of other add-ons, most notably with Kethane and InterStellar. Without Real Fuel, KSP loads fine. But when I add RF to the mix, KSP stops loading while spitting this on the output_log:

LiquidOxygen not found in resource database. Propellant Setup has failed.

(Filename: C:/BuildAgent/work/d63dfc6385190b60/artifacts/StandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 49)

NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object
  at ModuleEngines.SetupPropellant () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 

  at ModuleEngines.OnLoad (.ConfigNode node) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 

  at PartModule.Load (.ConfigNode node) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 

  at Part.AddModule (.ConfigNode node) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 

  at PartLoader.ParsePart (.UrlConfig urlConfig, .ConfigNode node) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 

  at PartLoader+.MoveNext () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 

(Filename:  Line: -1)

Now, I can see the term "LiquidOxygen" still with a few cfg files in the RF install ("BobCat_RealEngines_kerofix.cfg"; "KethaneConverter.cfg"; KSP_tanks.cfg"; KSPI_MFS.cfg"). But, "LiquidOxygen" does NOT match any other file from Kethane, KSPI, or even stock KSP (however, there is one icon named "LiquidOxygen.png" with KSP Alternate Resource Panel, and that sure is proof a resource had that name before). A number of resource references in RF are named "LqdOxygen" instead, so probably there is some mismatch that only shows when resources are to be matched across multiple mods.

[regex]

Now, I can see the term "LiquidOxygen" still with a few cfg files in the RF install ("BobCat_RealEngines_kerofix.cfg"; "KethaneConverter.cfg"; KSP_tanks.cfg"; KSPI_MFS.cfg"). But, "LiquidOxygen" does NOT match any other file from Kethane, KSPI, or even stock KSP (however, there is one icon named "LiquidOxygen.png" with KSP Alternate Resource Panel, and that sure is proof a resource had that name before). A number of resource references in RF are named "LqdOxygen" instead, so probably there is some mismatch that only shows when resources are to be matched across multiple mods.

Exactly. You can find a list of resources that have been renamed here. It looks like the config files in question will need to be updated, I'll try to do that this weekend sometime if NathanKell doesn't. If you want to make the changes yourself just make sure the old names are converted to the new names, per the guide in the post I linked, for the entire Real Fuels project. You can use a good generic IDE for this (I use Komodo), a good text editor (although I'm not sure if one can do search-replace on entire directories), or command line tools under Linux.

[diomedea]

Exactly. You can find a list of resources that have been renamed here. It looks like the config files in question will need to be updated, I'll try to do that this weekend sometime if NathanKell doesn't. If you want to make the changes yourself just make sure the old names are converted to the new names, per the guide in the post I linked, for the entire Real Fuels project. You can use a good generic IDE for this (I use Komodo), a good text editor (although I'm not sure if one can do search-replace on entire directories), or command line tools under Linux.

That is great help. I may not be successful making those changes myself, but I'm glad for your suggestion, I like to try and see if things work. If not, I'll happily wait for the changes, you and Nathankell certainly know how to make them properly .

[regex]

That is great help. I may not be successful making those changes myself, but I'm glad for your suggestion, I like to try and see if things work. If not, I'll happily wait for the changes, you and Nathankell certainly know how to make them properly .

Apparently this was already done. Since NathanKell isn't around I've cut a new release for the mismatch. THIS IS NOT AN OFFICIAL RELEASE! You are probably better off waiting for NathanKell to do this since I'm not up on how a proper RF release is done, but I'm pretty sure this should work for the interim. If you're worried, just copy the config files to your 8.0 install folder.

[diomedea]

Apparently this was already done. Since NathanKell isn't around I've cut a new release for the mismatch. THIS IS NOT AN OFFICIAL RELEASE! You are probably better off waiting for NathanKell to do this since I'm not up on how a proper RF release is done, but I'm pretty sure this should work for the interim. If you're worried, just copy the config files to your 8.0 install folder.

Excellent. Installed that pre-release, and it shows to be working ! (Certainly I did not spend enough time to check it is all fine, but the problem I had is solved and the expected functionality of RF is there). Many, many thanks!

[Northstar1989]

ModuleManager. Write a config to add LqdWater (or whatever it's called) to the tank types of your choice. E: Remember, Tank Types. Check out the file in Real Fuels, that's what you'll be adding to with a new MM config.

I don't want LqdWater added to a specific tank- I'm want it added to the list of fuels that can be included in *ALL* tanks- but only when KSP-Interstellar is installed.

And yes, I know it would be through ModuleManager. Saying that isn't giving me any useful information. HOW would I actually go about doing it through ModuleManager? What files what I (or somebody more capable of coding than me) need to patch so that it shows up on the modular fuels list when KSP-Interstellar is installed? Patching just specific tanks WON'T accomplish what is necessary/desired here...

Also, it appears the base RealFuels mod missed the K1 Heavy Lifter fuel tanks from NovaPunch- they still only hold LFO:

Since these are the first seriously-large 2.5 meter tanks available in my tech progression, it's kind of annoying to be unable to use them...

Regards,

Northstar

Edited October 18, 2014 by Northstar1989

[NathanKell]

regex, hope you feel better!

Northstar1989: I have pulled the existing KSPI_MFS.cfg from RealFuels, pending inclusion of your and dreadicon's updated one. I will only post about that topic, going forward, in the topic you created for it; I am not going to try to keep up with your crossposting and I ask others to not post about KSPI-RF integration here either.

Regarding boiloff, it will be in the next major version; I don't have time to redo the whole system for 8.1.

Regarding the NovaPunch tank, thank you for that. I will endeavor to update RF configs for current Novapunch for RF 8.2, if no one is kind enough to do a pull request by then.

[Northstar1989]

Northstar1989: I have pulled the existing KSPI_MFS.cfg from RealFuels, pending inclusion of your and dreadicon's updated one. I will only post about that topic, going forward, in the topic you created for it; I am not going to try to keep up with your crossposting and I ask others to not post about KSPI-RF integration here either.

Affirmative.

I posted again on the integration-config thread, so go and take a look at that. Basically, in a nutshell (and I promise I'll do my best to make this the last thing I say about it on this thread), the MM patches that affect the KSP-Interstellar engines which are part of the base RealFuels config ought to be removed from that config so that the individual engine configs can alter both the resources and ISP/TWR of those engines in one go...

Also, Regex, I hope you feel better! (I'm actually sick too at the moment)

Regards,

Northstar

Edited October 18, 2014 by Northstar1989