[1.8+] Real Fuels

[NathanKell]

Northstar1989:

As I mentioned before, while your formula is very useful for people making engine configs where insufficient information exists (though I remind you that it does need a fair amount of information itself, which can itself be rather hard to find), I don't have plans to use it in RF at this time.

Also, StarwasTer has pointed this out a number of times, and I will now as well. It's a T not an H.

junkie_business: If you can't find data on the mixture ratio, you might have better luck finding data on the tankage of the stage to which the engine is attached; that might specify how many kg of each propellant is stored, and thus give you the MR.

[Northstar1989]

Northstar1989:

As I mentioned before, while your formula is very useful for people making engine configs where insufficient information exists (though I remind you that it does need a fair amount of information itself, which can itself be rather hard to find), I don't have plans to use it in RF at this time.

You can *EASILY* set the Exit Area to reflect the same Vacuum and Sea-Level ISP as in real life. The shape of the curve will automatically be the same as now in-between as a result (assuming you haven't made any changes to the way it is calculated at intermediate atmospheric pressures for a particular engine).

Let's say that with the actual Exit Area, as measured by the nozzle-size of the Poodle engine, we get a Sea-Level ISP of 80 seconds. Yet we know that the real Poodle gets a Sea-Level ISP of 120 seconds. Just reduce the Exit Area used in the calculation accordingly (or add a Nozzle Efficiency term to the equation to implement the necessary adjustment) to a value where Sea-Level ISP = 120 seconds, and all the other performance parameters should match how they are in RealFuels now.

Without fixing the formula, we don't have a realistic relationship between Atmospheric ISP and throttle-level, and the Atmospheric ISP bottoms out at 101.325 kPa, and never dips lower. Considering that we already know how to implement the formula such that it perfectly matches *measured* real-world performance (either change the Exit Area to a non-physical value, or add a Nozzle Efficiency term for each engine), why are you so reluctant to change the code for the better?

Regards,

Northstar

Edited February 10, 2015 by Northstar1989

[Parmenides]

Why does the craft stats mass after loading a rocket or after a mission showing much too big masses? (up to factor 20x to big) mechjeb shows correct ones?

[RocketBlam]

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/64118-0-90-Real-Fuels-v8-3-Dec-20-14?p=876665&viewfull=1#post876665

This doesn't cover more than half of the fuel/ox combos available. What about the others?

[Starwaster]

You can *EASILY* set the Exit Area to reflect the same Vacuum and Sea-Level ISP as in real life. The shape of the curve will automatically be the same as now in-between as a result (assuming you haven't made any changes to the way it is calculated at intermediate atmospheric pressures for a particular engine).

Let's say that with the actual Exit Area, as measured by the nozzle-size of the Poodle engine, we get a Sea-Level ISP of 80 seconds. Yet we know that the real Poodle gets a Sea-Level ISP of 120 seconds. Just reduce the Exit Area used in the calculation accordingly (or add a Nozzle Efficiency term to the equation to implement the necessary adjustment) to a value where Sea-Level ISP = 120 seconds, and all the other performance parameters should match how they are in RealFuels now.

Without fixing the formula, we don't have a realistic relationship between Atmospheric ISP and throttle-level, and the Atmospheric ISP bottoms out at 101.325 kPa, and never dips lower. Considering that we already know how to implement the formula such that it perfectly matches *measured* real-world performance (either change the Exit Area to a non-physical value, or add a Nozzle Efficiency term for each engine), why are you so reluctant to change the code for the better?

Regards,

Northstar

It's not a coding issue. It's an engine configuration issue. Engines cap at 1 atmosphere because they are configured to do so in their engine configurations. Not because there's a coded formula somewhere that needs fixing.

The amount of work does not justify the gains

Why does the craft stats mass after loading a rocket or after a mission showing much too big masses? (up to factor 20x to big) mechjeb shows correct ones?

Do you have Tweak Scale installed with RF? That's where I think that's coming from.

[Northstar1989]

This doesn't cover more than half of the fuel/ox combos available. What about the others?

The explanation of Nuclear rockets is also blatantly wrong- modern NTR designs can achieve TWR's of around 10 when designed for vacuum use (as in the SNTP Program) and around 30 when designed as launch-engines (as in Project Timberwind- which honestly was just ludicrous from a safety/environment standpoint...)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Timberwind

Oh well, you can't always have it all...

- - - Updated - - -

It's not a coding issue. It's an engine configuration issue. Engines cap at 1 atmosphere because they are configured to do so in their engine configurations. Not because there's a coded formula somewhere that needs fixing.

Actually, there *IS* a coded formula. Haven't you ever looked at the entry labeled "Atmosphere Curve" in a KSP engine config? It's expressed as a set of numbers that basically feed into a formula for a curve coded elsewhere in KSP (much like Module Engines references code elsewhere in the game). There *IS* code that is used to generate the current atmospheric performance of engines, it's just not code that is accurate to real life... (Fuel Flow varying rather than Thrust with ISP, for instance...)

The amount of work does not justify the gains

How so? Many people could have said *PRECISELY* the same thing about coding the Thrust/ISP fix that RealFuels includes, yet we went ahead and did it. Why should making atmospheric ISP vary with throttle-level (or not floor out at 1 atmosphere of pressure) be any different?

I'm getting the sense that you're resisting the idea just because it's *MY* idea, and you would have eagerly supported it if it had been made by anybody else. I've gotten very little attention given to *any* of my suggestions made for this mod from you (or to a lesser degree, NathanKell), and the vast majority of them (even simple changes so that parts hold RealFuels tanks instead of LiquidFuel) were simply never implemented at all with no good reason given...

I'm only trying to help this mod be all it can be. I'd appreciate it if you cooperated and worked with me towards that more- we're both after the same goals here, and I know you're capable of much better behavior than simply ignoring me...

Regards,

Northstar

[Parmenides]

Do you have Tweak Scale installed with RF? That's where I think that's coming from.

I dont have it installed so the problem must be something else

[Starwaster]

Actually, there *IS* a coded formula. Haven't you ever looked at the entry labeled "Atmosphere Curve" in a KSP engine config? It's expressed as a set of numbers that basically feed into a formula for a curve coded elsewhere in KSP (much like Module Engines references code elsewhere in the game). There *IS* code that is used to generate the current atmospheric performance of engines, it's just not code that is accurate to real life... (Fuel Flow varying rather than Thrust with ISP, for instance...)

be all it can be. I'd appreciate it if you cooperated and worked with me towards that more- we're both after the same goals here, and I know you're capable of much better behavior than simply ignoring me...

Regards,

Northstar

This is how the system works. You're at atmospheric pressure 0.5 and you want to know your Isp. The code looks at the atmosphereCurve and finds a key (the pressure) and takes the Isp from that.

		atmosphereCurve
		{
			key = 0 319
			key = 1 262
		}

In this case we have only two keys so it interpolates between 0 and 1 and grabs a value halfway in between. (each entry can take an additonal two parameters besides key/value to control the curve)

The code looks something like this:

Isp = atmosphereCurve.Evaluate(pressure);

You want to control Isp (and therefore thrust)?

Then produce configs whose keys go past 1.

You can fix this entirely via configs rather than going into the plugin code.

If I ignore you, it's because you constantly argue things you know only a little about ("a little knowledge is a dangerous thing") and your arguments consists more of walls of text as though you're trying to drown out the other side. You're also insulting and denigrating and it's not worth it to have to deal with that constantly.

[StoryMusgrave]

But, But, But. I swear you can compress Hydrazine 400% and make 4L fit into 1!!!! They do it all the time.

Edited February 10, 2015 by StoryMusgrave

[Starwaster]

But, But, But. I swear you can compress Hydrazine 400% and make 4L fit into 1!!!!

And, sadly, that's part of why I don't consider it to be worth it to pursue the matter.

You'd have to devote a good chunk of time vetting the proposal as presented because it can no longer be taken at face value after the fuel tank debacle. (the original principle behind it isn't entirely unsound but the derived application as presented needs serious examination)

[Northstar1989]

Here's a running record of the changes I've suggested so far, numbered by their chronological order... I skip posts unrelated to changing/improving RealFuels

Post #1 - I suggested fixing the "Radial Engine Body" part (the stack-mounted part that acts as both an intake and fuel tank, changed to hold fuel in 0.24) to hold fuel, and the radial RCS tanks to hold RealFuels RCS propellents.

Post #2 - I clarified what the radial engine bodies were. Another player interjected that the models had been around since C7, and only recently got fuel. Only then was it stated that they would be fixed (although as of this release, 5 months later, only 1 of the 2 parts of this type *have* been fixed- one of the radial engine body type parts still only holds LiquidFuel in RealFuels 8.3...)

Post #3 - I suggest adding a KSP-I/Realfuels Integration config for the first time ever. I was answered that the existing config was dated, but no response was made to my suggestion of adding/fixing it.

Post #4 - I suggest working the new KSP-I/RF config off the old/dated config, and try to recruit Regex to help create it (as I don't have the expertise).

Post #5 - I also try and recruit undercoveryankee to work on the KSP-I/RealFuels config. Regex responds shortly after with a brusque and slightly rude refusal to help (even though I've done nothing that should have given him reason to take offense), NathanKell politely refuses, and undercoveryankee apparently ignores me altogether.

Post #6 - Noticing that my requests for an experienced hand are being ignored, I start work on fixing some of the issues with KSP-I/RF integration not already covered by the existing integration-config. I post a link to my progress so far, kept on another thread...

Post #7 - I point out for the first time the Square-Cube Law is not being applied to tank boil-off rates in RealFuels: large fuel tanks are suffering far too high a rate of boil-off/ heat leakage as a result. NathanKell shortly thereafter responds that it is a "good point" I brought up, and seems to be considering the merits of changing boil-off rate to the (2/3rd) power of volume, which he presents as an *alternative* to scaling boil-off rate at the ratio of Surface Area: Volume despite the fact that this is precisely the mathematical relationship that describes the ratio of surface area: volume (essentially he politely says "No, you're wrong- this is what it should look like" and then goes on to describe *exactly* what I just suggested in his own words...)

Post #8 - After doing some additional background reading (including a NASA document on cryogenic liquids boil-off), I come to the realization that boil-off should actually scale with approximately the (4/9) power of volume instead of the (2/3) power- and refine my suggestion accordingly. NathanKell responds shortly thanking me for the NASA doc, but showing no indication he will fix the boil-off rate to scale anything other than linearly with volume... (to my knowledge, boil-off *STILL* scales linearly in "Realfuels"- where's the realism there?)

Post #9 - I remind NathanKell that, if boil-off rate is not fixed, the behavior of RealFuels will still be unrealistic. I also discuss (on an entirely unrelated note) that I would like help adding water-storage to RealFuels tanks to players using KSP-Interstellar can store their HydroLox as water and only electrolyze it shortly before it is needed on long voyages. Finally, I ask about the code I've already written up for KSP-I/RealFuels integration (more progress since the last post I mentioned it) getting integrated into RealFuels...

Post #10 - I point out that the KSP-Interstellar Meth/LOX engine performs very poorly compared to real life designs. Regex shortly thereafter politely reminds me that such issues should be brought up in one of the engine config threads...

Post #11 - I raise the concern that there might already be a MM patch to change the resources the KSP-I Meth/LOX engine consumes, and that having multiple MM patches aimed at the same part might cause issues...

Post #12 - I confirm that there is indeed an existing MM patch to the engine I want to fix. I also point out that there is a duplicate-entry in the existing KSP-I/RealFuels config (the one that is outdated) and suggest some additional lines of code to add to the integration-config in the meantime while Dreadicon (who at this point I have begun collaborating with) works on a more complete integration-config starting with the work I've already done...

Post #13 - I realize that the name of Liquid Oxygen has been changed in the latest RealFuels update, overnight. I post a new set of lines of code that correct for the name-change. The changes are in *exactly* the same style as changes already in the existing (outdated) KSP-I/RealFuels integration-config at this point, yet Regex rudely berates me for "3 walls of text" (though most of my posts are code, not text) and for wanting to "edit an Engine" through RealFuels- completely ignoring that the vast majority of my 3 posts are about adding new fuel-modes for the KSP-I NTR's in *exactly* the same way as existing MM patches do in the existing config. A player (diomedea) posts shortly thereafter citing a CTD caused when trying to load KSP, with one of the responsible files being *precisely* the file I was trying to fix to use the new resource-names before Regex rudely shut me down...

Post #14 - I am suffering some confusion about how to add water-storage to RealFuels tanks (an issue I have still not received much help with), and as to precisely what Regex means by "tank types" in RealFuels. I also point out a series of NovaPunch2 fuel tanks (the "K1 Tanks") that are still stuck holding LF/O... (eventually fixed, I believe, but not 100% sure as I ended up deleting all cylindrical fuel tanks to be replaced by Procedural Parts tanks at a later date...) NathanKell announces a bit later that he has *completely pulled* the existing KSP-I/Realfuels config from the current version of RealFuels, and will not allow any more discussion of the integration-config on the RealFuels thread (which still seems quite dictatorial to me- and I doubt would have been done had it been anyone else working on the integration-config...) He does promise a fix to boil-off rates in RealFuels 8.2, though- although to my knowledge this promised fix *still* hasn't been included as of RealFuels 8.3 or the next approaching version...

Post #15 - I acknowledge NathanKell's orders, and as *one last thing* I need to say on the topic, ask that no MM patches that apply to the KSP-I engines be included in future KSP-I/RealFuels integration-configs (when they are added back in) that go with the main RealFuels mod, but instead be kicked over to the individual engine-configs so there will only be one MM pass on each engine... (to avoid potential bugs/issues) I also wish Regex well, as he says he is sick. Dreadicon announced the KSP-I/RealFuels integration-config is almost ready a bit later, without any repercussion from NathanKell (confirming my suspicion that either NathanKell is only saying this to shut me up, or is enforcing the rules unevenly- although I am/was happy Dreadicon got in no trouble as I was collaborating with him on said config...)

Post #16 - I point out another NovaPunch2 tank that only holds LF/O. AFAIK, this tank still hasn't been fixed as of today, despite being pointed out *nearly 5 months ago*... (confirming my point- my suggestions are largely being ignored unless someone else being treated with more respect jumps on the bandwagon as well...) I also ask if somebody could do a round-up of other parts in NovaPunch2 that need fixing, as I am trying to learn ModuleManager (as most of Regex's help has amounted to telling me to learn ModuleManager). Regex then immediately jumps in and basically (tacitly) tells me to go do the roundup (make the list) myself...

Post #17 - Despite my stated intent to spend my time trying to learn ModuleManager, I agree to do the round-up anyways (I never do end up learning ModuleManager, partly as a result...) Regex says a bit later he's fixed the Novapunch2 tanks- and some of them do end up getting fixed, although at least one of the tanks I suggest never appears to get fixed... (or perhaps the fix was just bugged)

Post #18 - In as few words as possible (due to NathanKell's restriction on discussing the KSP-I/RealFuels integration-config) I explain that I haven't updated yet, as I am waiting on said integration-config (which is finished, for the time being- and as it turns out for all time ever, as Dreadicon never ends up helping finish up the remaining loose ends...), and point out a couple Firespitter tanks that still hold LiquidFuel or Oxidizer (they are one-resource tanks, and *to this day* still have not been fixed for Realfuels- despite this post being 5 months ago...) A while later, a player named Kolago talks about wanting to store water in RealFuels tanks and electroylze it- precisely what I was trying to do before, but received no help with... Nobody is able to point out he can already do this with RealFuels, as the KSP-I/RealFuels integration-config makes this possible, due to NathanKell's ban on discussing the config...

Post #19 - I remind NathanKell about his promised fix to tank boil-off rates, and refine my explanation of the expected behavior a little further (not only does boil-off scale at the 4/9th power for a tank with a given outer wall thickness, larger tanks tend to have thicker walls and thus experience less heat-leakage...) I ask him how the boil-off fix is coming along. NathanKell never responds to my question.

Post #20 - I explain that some crew capsules are only carrying Monopropellant instead of Hydrazine or a RealFuels RCS tank of some sort- an issue which is *very* slowly responded to, and *still* has not been fixed for many mod crew capsules as I understand it (I've been so into unmanned rockets and manned service modules coupled with probes lately that I haven't used a crew capsule in a month or two- but I pointed out the issue 5 months ago, and 2-3 months back it was *still* a major issue...)

Post #21 - I respond to another player's question about how to figure out if RealFuels resource prices are accurate, and comment that the SolidFuel prices are way out-of-wack (*MUCH* too high) in RealFuels: implying that they should be fixed. The other player later jumps on this bandwagon as well, and IIRC the issue *was* eventually fixed, much later. I also remind NathanKell about the crew capsule issue, as nobody had responded to my last post about the issue... NathanKell later responds about SolidFuel costs (acknowledges they are too high- although a fix doesn't materialize for a long time thereafter), the crew capsule issue (says Regex fixed it- although as it later turned out he did an incomplete job...), and basically declares that he is not going to fix boil-off rate after all as it would make small tanks boil-off too quickly (although making small tanks less desirable for cryogenics and large tanks better was the *WHOLE POINT* of implementing the Square-Cube Law in this aspect...)

Post #22 - I argue a little for still fixing boil-off rates to correspond to the Square-Cube Law, and NathanKell appears to change his mind about not fixing it (briefly).

Post #23 - I argue for more aerodynamic thermal fins, as the current parts in RealFuels at this time are extremely un-aerodynamic (short+boxy). Eventually this will lead to the creation of a deployable Thermal Readiator part, based on the same ZZZ model as is used in KSP-Interstellar: but not until a considerable number of posts where I am constantly told it is unnecessary... A thermal fin with an actual aerodynamic shape (so that it can operate during launch, rather than having to fold up inside a fairing) is a dream of mine that is never realized, however- I eventually try to create such a part myself, and even get it (briefly) integrated into RealFuels, but it doesn't work right- and nobody ever helps me to fix it despite multiple requests for help...

This list of posts has gone on long enough. What would come next is a long group of posts where I debate the merits of adding an aerodynamics thermal fin (which is never added- but a deployable version is instead based on somebody else's idea...) and a debate over compression of cryogenic liquids (about which I was completely wrong, as I got some numbers a couple orders-of-magnitude off, and though LH2 compressed over 60% when it only compresses about 0.6% at high pressures, and most other cryogenics not at all...), as well as my latest posts advocating fixing the Thrust/ISP relationship to be even more realistic in-atmosphere (by switching to a method of ISP calculation that takes into account changes in exhaust pressure based on throttling, and doesn't floor at 1 atmosphere of pressure...)

A pattern has emerged, though. I try and suggest something, and Regex, Starwaster, or somebody else is rude/confrontational about it any brushes off my idea no matter how good/bad it is. Sometimes, they insult me for no reason (like calling me "Northrats" instead of "Northstar", or berating me for a "wall of text" when it was literally just lines of code and a few short paragraphs of text...) NathanKell then sometimes comes in, and acts as a peacemaker- but makes promises to add features that are never included (a fix to boil-off, for instance), gives orders not to discuss certain subjects, etc.

I don't mean this list to irritate or annoy anybody. I don't do it to build up my own ego, or tear anyone else down. I just do it to show that, from literally some of the very first suggestions I made on this thread, I have been treated with a lack of respect becomes most obvious when compared to how I am treated across most of the rest of this forum, and on other mod threads I have suggested changes to... Meanwhile, NathanKell is a moderator on these forums, and has felt it appropriate to warn me for things like bugging Dreadicon too much (I won't go into more details, since I don't believe we're supposed to publicly discuss Infractions), but has done absolutely nothing when Regex is just brusquely rude (although I'm aware he treats a lot of people that way, it's still not right/acceptable) or even spoken up a little when Starwaster simply ears my ideas apart with little mercy... (even when they are quite valid, and ought not to be torn apart)

Regards,

Northstar

[Northstar1989]

And, sadly, that's part of why I don't consider it to be worth it to pursue the matter.

You'd have to devote a good chunk of time vetting the proposal as presented because it can no longer be taken at face value after the fuel tank debacle. (the original principle behind it isn't entirely unsound but the derived application as presented needs serious examination)

Starwaster, that's a jab at my credibility, and I really don't appreciate it. There's a reason I felt the need to post that long list of posts, showing how my ideas have been consistently brushed off on this thread *from the very beginning*, and your treatment of my ideas has been a BIG part of that.

You can't justify brushing off every idea AFTER that bit with the cryogenic-liquids compression debate (which I've already admitted I was wrong about: several times), since you've been brushing off my ideas for literally MONTHS before that (the proof is right in this thread, if you're willing to play archivist like I was). You just don't want to lsiten to anything I have to say.

Also, this equation has sources. It has LOADS of evidence behind it. You don't have to look any further than Wikipedia to find it (although that's NOT where I originally got it- I got the equation from a NASA document on rocket equations!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_engine_nozzle#Specific_Impulse

When you substitute the definitions for the symbols, you get, right there on Wikipedia:

Force = (Mass Flow Rate of Exhaust Gas) * (Exhaust Gas Velocity at Nozzle Exit) + (Exhaust Gas Pressure at Nozzle Exit - External Ambient Pressure) * (Cross-Sectional Area of Nozzle Exhaust Exit, m^2)

Which is what I've been simplifying and posting here as either:

Force = (Mass Flow Rate) * (Specific Impulse) * g + (Exhaust Pressure - Background Pressure) * (Exit Area)

*OR* (note that the term "Background Pressure" is the more commonly used one on university and NASA websites, rather than "Ambient Pressure")

Atmospheric Thrust = Vacuum Thrust - (Background Pressure) * (Exit Area Factor)

Where (Exit Area Factor) is Exit Area with modification for Nozzle (In)Efficiency, and the following mathematical simplifications/generalizations are made:

Force = Thrust

Vacuum Thrust = Mass Flow Rate * Exhaust Velocity + Exhaust Pressure * Exit Area

(Note that both Mass Flow Rate and Exhaust Pressure, and thus Vacuum Thrust, scale linearly with throttle setting- at least in theory...)

Exhaust Velocity = Specific Impulse * g

The fact that I can even make all these mathematical conversions/simplifications so easily/flawlessly should indicate to you that I have a firm grasp of the subject-matter, if you're *ALREADY* not convinced by my overall intellect (IQ in the genius-range, I'm sure it comes across in my writing) and repeatedly-stated very high level of education in real-life (I have a Bachelor's from an Ivy League school with good grades, and a Master's from a major research university...)

I try not to brag, but if you're going to attack my credibility just because of one stupid mistake discussing a subject I didn't have much knowledge about... (cryogenic fuel storage in rockets)

Regards,

Northstar

P.S. I'm aware of the need for a term to reflect "Nozzle Efficiency"- however these are *idealized* equations, simply re-posted to make a point. The version we include in RealFuels can and should include adjustments like a term for Nozzle (In)Efficiency, and anything else you may think is worth reflecting regarding how practice (which I don't know enough about) diverges from theory... (which I have a quite reasonable grasp of some aspects of)

Edited February 10, 2015 by Northstar1989

[Starwaster]

Bringing zzz's radiator over to Real Fuels is something I've wanted to do for a long time; the configs I created for it have existed for months and have even been posted here and elsewhere several times. Don't think you had anything to do with that.

And the deliberate mangling of my own handle is something you've been doing for months so you don't get to complain about 'Northrats'. That was done once as a reminder to you that I might not appreciate it being done to myself and I owe you a metric ton of Northrats for it.

Edited February 11, 2015 by Master Tao
private decision removed

[NathanKell]

Northstar1989: I have already stated my position on this suggestion. If you'd like to have it implemented, I suggest forking and doing so--RF has an open license, and as you point out you have enough changes you want to make that a fork seems very reasonable.

[futrtrubl]

Well according to the devnotes changing thrust instead of flow for ISP may be a thing in 1.0

[junkie_business]

-SNIP-.

Regards,

Northstar

Man, nobody here is under any obligation to even acknowledge any suggestions you make, much less implement them. Which university you attended is irrelevant and nobody cares what you say your IQ is. [REMOVED]

If you have ideas, why not implement them yourself like NK says? I'm trying to RSSize some mods; having never done anything even remotely codinglike before I've asked NathanKell and others what were probably silly questions and received nothing but civilized responses. Consider that the reactions you look to be getting from modders may not be their problem.

Also your complaint that someone criticized you for a 'wall of text' was hilarious, it being buried in a wall of text. Congratulations on that.

Edited February 11, 2015 by Master Tao

[Northstar1989]

Don't think you had anything to do with that.

That kind of thing isn't helping. In fact, it's just rude and disrespectful- which kind of proves my point.

And the deliberate mangling of my own handle is something you've been doing for months so you don't get to complain about 'Northrats'. That was done once as a reminder to you that I might not appreciate it being done to myself and I owe you a metric ton of Northrats for it.

That was entirely accidental- I ahven't been *trying* to mangle your handle. But as you said yourself, you deliberately mangled mine...

-SNIP-

I do think that you need to introspect a little as to why you're acting this was Starwaster. Because I haven't done anything to deserve it.

Regards,

Northstar

- - - Updated - - -

Man, nobody here is under any obligation to even acknowledge any suggestions you make, much less implement them. Which university you attended is irrelevant and nobody cares what you say your IQ is. [REMOVED]

My credibility was attacked directly. Repeatedly. It's only about time I stand up for myself.

If you have ideas, why not implement them yourself like NK says? I'm trying to RSSize some mods; having never done anything even remotely codinglike before I've asked NathanKell and others what were probably silly questions and received nothing but civilized responses. Consider that the reactions you look to be getting from modders may not be their problem.

Because my ideas AREN'T that radical, and SHOULD NOT require a separate mod. They're what should be simple adjustments to a widely-popular mod, some of which NathanKell previously said were priorities anyways (like fixing atmospheric ISP so it doesn't bottom out at 1 atm pressure). They're only being shut down out of disrespect. And I ask you, what have I done to deserve it? DON'T fall into the common trap of justifying treatment of a victim by how they react to the criminal- you can't say I deserved to be treated with disrespect based on finally going ahead and making a list of all the times I've been ignored after MONTHS of this...

Also your complaint that someone criticized you for a 'wall of text' was hilarious, it being buried in a wall of text. Congratulations on that.

Is there any need to be rude and abrasive? What have I done to you to deserve this?

Treat others with respect- as you would wish to be treated. Honor them at all times. If you have a quarrel with your brother, state it frankly and provide evidence (which is what I've done here). These are simple moral imperatives (and might I add, very close paraphrases from how the Bible directs us to treat others- if you're a Christian). I think we can all live up to them- you and everyone else on these forums is better than to stoop to rude behavior.

Regards,

Northstar

Edited February 11, 2015 by Master Tao

[Starwaster]

Well according to the devnotes changing thrust instead of flow for ISP may be a thing in 1.0

I dunno, that looks more like 'done deal' than 'may be'

Aside from the input revision, I’ve also gone over the Engines code, and tweaked them so that now throttle regulates the fuel flow rate, instead of the final thrust. That means fuel flow stays constant, and as Isp changes as you leave the atmosphere, thrust output increases (as opposed to thrust staying constant and fuel consumption changing).

To which I can only say It's about freaking time!

Thanks Squad.

Thanks Max

Love you.

[Specialist290]

Calling a brief timeout on discussion to assess what's going on and give people time to cool down. Watch this space.

EDIT: Now that we've had a little time to think and calm down...

It looks like the discussion turned way too personal over the last couple pages there. We're seeing a lot of passive-aggressive sniping from both sides of the argument here, and it seems to have boiled over into the open with the last exchange there.

Now, I'm going to assume that everyone here ultimately wants what's best for the future development of this add-on. I understand that when you're passionate about seeing something succeed, you might take criticism of your suggestions for its betterment a little personally, which can lead to some heated, spur-of-the-moment remarks.

However, keep in mind that on these forums, making personal attacks on another user's character is against the rules. More importantly, it contributes nothing productive to the discussion, and generally does nothing but ruin relationships and poisons other people's reception of feedback that might otherwise have been taken objectively and acted upon.

Now we're not saying that everyone has to suddenly like each other or agree on every little thing -- but try to give the other party the benefit of the doubt. Be patient. Don't be high-handed with your criticism. Assume the other party is acting in good faith, and respond to their remarks, whether you agree or disagree, without resorting to snippy remarks, attacks on the other party's character or intelligence, or other such editorializing.

Again, everyone here ultimately wants this to be the best add-on it can be; just because someone disagrees with and criticizes your idea, or just because NathanKell himself doesn't think it would be feasible to implement, doesn't mean your input is not appreciated or that he wouldn't necessarily want to see the results of you attempting to implement it yourself (and might -- no guarantees, mind you -- add it into the main mod if it's implemented particularly well).

To conclude: Don't take things too personally; discuss the argument, not the person; and keep things civil and on-topic.

Edited February 11, 2015 by Specialist290
Always that one typo... -_-;

[PrinceLestat]

my RF is not allowing me to change tank types or fuel types or load fuel for that matter those tweaks dont even show up in the option menu when i right click the tank i am using realfuels as modualer fuel tanks breaks my game and wont even let it load

[Raptor831]

Thanks for the reply. I've been playing around and things seem to be working out, but how do I find those ratios if I don't know the IRL flow rates? I could do it for F1 because it's well documented, but I'm having trouble finding information for other engines, or I can only find the total F+O flow, as with the Fregat engine.

Sites like astronautix.com generally give the F/O ratio on whatever engine you're looking up. Generally, I'll do a Google search for a specific engine (say "RL-10 rocket engine" or "RD-180 rocket engine" or something). Either Wikipedia (which has been pretty accurate so far) or astronautix.com come up most often, and they usually have the numbers you need. Also, might be useful to Google the rocket the engine is used on (say "Centaur upper stage rocket" or "Russian Proton rocket"), since many engines are tied to the rocket they were used on. Research takes a while, especially if you have an obscure engine.

But, if you know the fuels and the mass ratio, you can derive the flow rates in volume for KSP. It's a bit of a pain to do it manually, but there are two tools that can help. NathanKell has a XLS file that he used to generate a bunch of engines for his RftS thread/pack, which will get you everything you need to get configs out. If you don't like spreadsheets, I made an online tool for generating configs based on the XLS here: http://bit.ly/rfstockalike Both of them will do the messy math for you and give you some cues as to what numbers are appropriate. At the end you'll get usable engine configs to add to your own ModuleManager config.

Edited February 12, 2015 by Raptor831
Grammar, clarity...

[Shania_L]

I have a question about an effect I am getting in game that I believe is due to RealFuels, I think it is probably a feature rather than a glitch. I am using the Stockalike configs.

RealFuels scales the thrust of an engine based on its ISP yes?

I am getting an effect whereby I get lower thrust sat on the launchpad than I am quoted in the VAB. It would appear that the VAB is quoting vacume thrust rather than sealevel. Now for the majority of the mission vaccume thrust is nice to know, except for the very first bit, I am finding that my rockets tend to go backwards when I first launch them even though the VAB has assured me I have a TtW of over 1.2

An example, KW Rocketry Maverick-1D, (1.25m first stage engine) the RealFuels dialogue in the VAB quotes a thrust of 350KN using KeroLox (at Tech3).

Image

However on the pad I get 210KN, thats only 60% of the thrust I was expecting.

Image

But once in orbit I do get the full 350KN.

Image

I have tried multiple engines, tech levels and fuel mixes from different mods and stock, they all get a reduction, but it is not consistent.

Is it possible to have a toggle in the VAB to switch between sealevel and vaccume thrust? or is there one already that I have not seen?

[lurkoholic]

Kerbal engineer has a toggle to show the thrust/Isp for atmospheric (sea level) and vacuum. It also can show your ship's TWR and ISP for all of the planets and moons. I don't know of any other way to get the sea level thrust, other than using a calculator

[NathanKell]

As the latest Dev Notes point out, in real life an engine's turbopumps don't magically pump faster at sea level. Isp is a measure of how much thrust you get from a unit of fuel; where Isp is lower (like sea level) you get less thrust. That means that engines don't produce their rated thrust until in vacuum; at sea level they produce (sea level Isp / vacuum Isp * max thrust) thrust.

KER's "Atmosphere" mode will show you the correct TWR, and in MechJeb, if you have the Delta V stats window open, click 'all stats' -- SLT is your Sea Level Twr.

[Shania_L]

Mmm, looks like I need to swap my data mod, I currently use VOID (based off KER) but it doesnt show any atmospheric data, simply vacume stats.

I knew it was something intentional, I just thought there would be some way of showing the values. Vacume thrust is nice to have but ISP is king, whereas at sealevel its all about thrust.

As a 'rule of thumb' then, if I go for engines with a vacume and sealevel ISP that are fairly close then it is a better 1st stage engine?

Comparing the Maverick-1D against the LV-T30 then, even though the LV-T30 has lower total thrust, it has a better spacing of atmo vs vac ISP (60% vs 90%). So despite the max thrust difference (350 vs 268) the LV-T30 actually produces more thrust on the pad than the Maverick (210 vs 241.2).

Thanks for the answers.