RealFuels Engine Configs choice

[NathanKell]

Given discussion on the RealFuels thread, I've decided to create a poll to find out what the userbase *actually* uses/wants in terms of engine configs.

Please select the option that best describes what you want from engine configs for RealFuels.

1. Just give my engines/tanks new fuel choices please! This means mass and (base) thrust are kept the same, and all that's changed is adding some new fuel modes (and giving each mode a realistic Isp). This is what the "stockalikes' config currently does. Engines will not be at all realistic.

2. Realistic Stockalike: this means keeping engines' roles just as they are, and keeping thrust more or less the same, but changing mass and Isp for realistic TWR and performance (and using realistic dry mass for fuel tanks). This is like playing with the current "stockalikes" config in realistic mass mode. Note: you may get engines that look *so* wrong for their role (Squad, and most modders, don't make the appropriate engine bell for the engine's reputed role).

3. 100% Real Engines! This means having a set of 100% real-stats, real-size engines (drawn from current and former existing rocket engines). This is SFJackBaeur's RealEngines pack. Note that this goes from real engine to KSP engine, so only those mod engines that look like real counterparts will be used. Sizes from "tiny" to 10m.

4. Real engines....but don't change their size! This is like RealEngines, except you won't be able to build rockets larger than Proton or Saturn IB (unless you cluster engines), since no existing engine is larger than 5m. Options further limited since many RealEngines are rescaled, even if they're rescaled to diameter 5m or less.

5. Realistic engines from RftS: Tries to convert all stock and most mods' engines into realistic engines, rescaling and changing roles as necessary. No 100% matches with real engines, but you should be able to replicate most real-life rockets, from the WAC Corporal to Saturn V or even more. This is the Reaching for the Stars engine pack. Because I'm not limited to finding models that look like real engines, I can go from KSP engine to real engine, and thus support most engines.

6. Something else: make a post to explain.

Edited January 6, 2014 by NathanKell

[rottielover]

#1 - though I think you should offer the real sized solar system crowd the realistic settings, perhapse bundling the config with real size solar system on that thread?

That said I think you should keep in mind the video game montra of "easy, medium, hard". That is, #1 is easy mode, you can install this mod and use new fuels if you desire (I am of the thinking that tanks and engines should start out using stock resources and settings unless changed in this "mode".

On the other end of the spectrum I think you have the full on hard core realism settings. Engines and tanks come un configured till you choose he's you want. Designed for use with real sized solar system.

Does that make any sense? I'm happy to discuss.

[jrandom]

I want a combination of 100% RealEngines + Option #5 (RtfSEngines) for all engines not covered by RealEngines. (I've done this by hand in my current game by keeping the stock engines from RtfSEngines and deleting from it everything covered by RealEngines.)

[AdmiralTigerclaw]

I vote for 2.

REAL engines seem nice, but they're all made specifically for actual spacecraft with specific mission goals in mind. Not something that lends itself very well to the lego-like way KSP works. It's really a difference of choosing custom parts vs store brand generics. Until there's a mod where we can actually dynamically design our engines (nozzle shape, combustion chamber, etc...), then it's better to have a strong collection of generic parts than to go custom.

[rottielover]

I have also come to realize that I might not be understanding your descriptions in the correct way. So ignore me for the moment till I have time to experiment with your "reaching for the stars" config.

[J_Davis]

I think a big part of the question, which is kinda separate, is also "Do you want to explore the Kerbolar system or Solar system?" That makes a big difference. I want all the options and challenges of real space flight with the reduced scale and manageability of Kerbol.

[AbeS]

I want a combination of 100% RealEngines + Option #5 (RtfSEngines) for all engines not covered by RealEngines. (I've done this by hand in my current game by keeping the stock engines from RtfSEngines and deleting from it everything covered by RealEngines.)

I want that too!

[bs1110101]

Could you make it so that if it doesn't have a config for the engine, it could make a guess about what it's thrust and isp with other fuels would be? Something like it doesn't find a config, so LOX and LH2 would be +20% isp and -30% thrust (I just made up those values) this would be good enough until someone wants to make configs for the engines.

Another idea, why not have any lf and ox tank also go to a default in the same way?

[Spartan125]

Why not make a config for each one when you have spare time?

[J_Davis]

Why not make a config for each one when you have spare time?

To be fair, if you have one you really want, you can always grab the xls and create your own configs, setting them however you feel like. It does take a little while to do, so it's not quite fair to expect Nathan (or me and Chestburster) to go creating a config for each approach.

[metroidman63]

I agree with J_Davis that the option should always be there for a Kerbal config OR a RSS config. Maybe this should be two seperate polls (if that's possible), for each type of player's opinion.

On option #2: Without RSS, I play with the stockalike config, but with all of the @mass and origMass lines removed, because I find that otherwise things become way too easy (real world TWRs in a scaled down game), and I'm not sure who this option is meant to appeal to.

[asmi]

You've probably guesses what I would choose, but here it is - #4. There is a reason no 10 m engines exist or even in development, and it has to do with basic physics, not lack of imagination. If you want to build super-heavies, cluster engines like engineers do in reality. THIS is realistic. I've managed to build 200 mT class SHLV using BobCat's real engines only, so it definitely is possible. And you get a taste to the kind of issues RL engineers have to deal with designing such rockets.

P.S. Oh and Proton has 6 engines on the first stage

Edited January 6, 2014 by asmi

[NathanKell]

when you have spare time?

HAHAHAHA...

metroidman63: that's what the useRealisticMass option is there for. If you set it to false, then you get KSP-esque TWRs and dry masses. Please don't comment out mass and origMass; that's why I added that setting.

asmi: actually, you want number 3, I think. You'll note neither SFJackBauer nor I make any 10m engines per se; the only things that big are clusters that for KSP purposes are treated as a single part (like the (19x) Matriarch or 5x Bearcat in NovaPunch). What #4 means is, see that J-2X clone in AIES? Let's not actually scale it to the size of a real J-2X (2.5->2M). Or, see that J-2 lookalike in Novapunch? Let's leave it as a 1.25m base (1m wide nozzle) rather than scale it up to 2m-wide nozzle like the real J-2.

Or that other AIES engine that's obviously an RL-10B, but totally not the right size for RL-10B. Scaling doesn't mean scaling up in this context; it means scaling to reality.

Edited January 6, 2014 by NathanKell

[metroidman63]

That's what I thought it was supposed to do Nathan, so I originally did that and it didn't do anything. Thought I was the one missing something, otherwise I would have said something earlier haha.

[asmi]

asmi: actually, you want number 3, I think. You'll note neither SFJackBauer nor I make any 10m engines per se; the only things that big are clusters that for KSP purposes are treated as a single part (like the (19x) Matriarch or 5x Bearcat in NovaPunch). What #4 means is, see that J-2X clone in AIES? Let's not actually scale it to the size of a real J-2X (2.5->2M). Or, see that J-2 lookalike in Novapunch? Let's leave it as a 1.25m base (1m wide nozzle) rather than scale it up to 2m-wide nozzle like the real J-2.

Or that other AIES engine that's obviously an RL-10B, but totally not the right size for RL-10B. Scaling doesn't mean scaling up in this context; it means scaling to reality.

Can you show me engine in that pack that looks like J-2X or RL-10B? I haven't seen anything even remotely similar over there... The only model I've seen so far that more-or-less closely resembles J-2X is in american pack...

[NathanKell]

metroidman63: as usual, typos are my bane. Open MFSEngines.cfg and put a @ in front of useRealisticMass = false

asmi:

One on the left looks rather like a J-2X:

I misremembered; the one in the middle isn't an RL-10, it looks like the RL-60 plans. http://www.aerospaceguide.net/rocketengines/rl60.html (note model on left is clearly missing its carbon nozzle extension).

[Thalur]

I want a combination of 100% RealEngines + Option #5 (RtfSEngines) for all engines not covered by RealEngines. (I've done this by hand in my current game by keeping the stock engines from RtfSEngines and deleting from it everything covered by RealEngines.)

I favour this one too, but it won't let me vote (I guess my account here is too new?).

[AbeS]

Yup, after some hours (days) it lets you do normal stuff

[metaphor]

I vote for 2.

REAL engines seem nice, but they're all made specifically for actual spacecraft with specific mission goals in mind. Not something that lends itself very well to the lego-like way KSP works. It's really a difference of choosing custom parts vs store brand generics. Until there's a mod where we can actually dynamically design our engines (nozzle shape, combustion chamber, etc...), then it's better to have a strong collection of generic parts than to go custom.

I have to agree with this. I really like KSP's lego-like approach to construction.

What would really be nice is if we had a Stretchy Engines mod similar to Stretchy Tanks, where you can dynamically adjust the thrust of an engine without changing its Isp or TWR (maybe size would also change proportional to thrust). Someone who's not Nathan Kell get on that, he's already got a lot on his plate.

[Captain_Party]

I really want #2 + RealEngines but no rescale. Rescaling the engine bells and length and stuff is fine, but I dont really want the new size system. Making the engines realistic with real engines preformance but not actual engines stats. KSP is all about building something yourself and if you only have real-life engines, you'll have to make real-life rockets. And most people like making custom ones. So... Ja.

[bcolyn]

For use with RSS + RO it would be nice to have a good range of different engines that go with the RO size system and offer realistic performance and mass. They don't have to match any particular real engine tough. Good part of the fun of KSP is build-your-own-rocket, i'd recon if i want to rebuild a real spacecraft i'd mod the engines anyway.

[AbeS]

RftSEngines do that

[FanaticalFighter]

What would really be nice is if we had a Stretchy Engines mod similar to Stretchy Tanks, where you can dynamically adjust the thrust of an engine without changing its Isp or TWR (maybe size would also change proportional to thrust). Someone who's not Nathan Kell get on that, he's already got a lot on his plate.

This. Oh god, please this.

[Deathsoul097]

Hmm. Im all for 95% Real Engines: I like the whole, 1:1 scale, and rescale of RO, but I like being able to control my throttle and restarting my engines, that's just how the game works to me now. If I could have this, then I would be playing with RO, but for now just many mods, RSS, RF, and no rescale. (I do have the 1:1 soviet engines though. Those are very nice. All I want is the American engines, and I will be very happy indeed.)

[NathanKell]

That's easy: open the real_engines_stats file and search/replace the following:

change all

throttle =

to

throttle = 0 //

and change all

name = ModuleEngineIgnitor

to

name = DISABLEDModuleEngineIgnitor