[1.0.5] Advanced Jet Engine v2.6.1 - Feb 1

[Autochton]

That's assuming you're on Kerbin. RSS is where they'd shine.

Heck, even 6.4xKerbin would benefit a good deal.

Is there support for RF-style tech levels in this mod? The engines mentioned run a gamut from the 1950s to close to today to near-future engines, with a heavy overweight in the 1970s. Most of these engines feature later developments and variants, so it would make sense to me that they become available as engine tech progresses and then gain advances over time like the rocket engines of RF do.

[Halo_003]

I must be missing something but how do you download this mod? I'm clueless when it comes to github. Is there an idiot proof .zip by chance?

[NathanKell]

I have now posted a release. It should work. Note that if you're using a dev release of FAR, you will have to recompile to get working props.

Changelog:

v1.5

Backports from NathanKell's fork:

*Redone piston engine support (inter/aftercoolers, multiple speed/stage superchargers,

volumetric efficiency, ram air, and real performance for the included piston engines)

*Jets show gross thrust as well as net thrust

*Some intake area tweaks (still needs work to get sqft area of each intake part

*Ported over all real jets and piston engines from RftS.

*All included jets should perform like their real counterparts now. Real stats were used

when available, educated guesses made when not.

*Cleaning and variable-renaming in the EngineSim code for clarity and understanding

*Update to 0.24.2 and FAR 0.14.1.1

*Seamlessly works with or without RealFuels

Fixes from taniwha to the DA (TVPP) engines and intakes.

Download

License is now LGPL, with the exception that authors get veto over inclusion in any modpacks.

camlost, do you want this in the OP?

[Guest]

Ehh... still no configs for NMB's F-100 and both BahamutoD's jets? Please, try to get around to doing them. I'd really love to see Bahamuto's Vector turned into a PAK FA's engine (AL-41F1).

Also, I've released the P&W Thrust System: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/81754-Release-BobCat-Ind-Space-Planet-products

Scroll down to "Falcon II Thrust System". It's a complete F-35 engine, complete with the lift fan.

[NathanKell]

Ehh...still no pull request. Try to get around to doing them!

Seriously, look at the date stamps. Other than some backported stuff from my dev branch, this is months old. I will try to get around to it, because those are awesome engines, but I really can't drop everything else (which is *also* behind) just to do that one thing. If it really bothers you, you can just copy-paste the module from the high-tech F100 that's already in the mod.

[thorfinn]

Excuse me for being "that guy", but is simple-AJE still a thing?

[NathanKell]

My understanding is that's what camlost is working on right now (while still somewhat busy in RL). AJE will more or less hold constant, since the changes I've been making to the propeller model makes more sense as a different mod, as does ferram's rewriting of the jet code. So expect to see a thread from ferram and me in the dev forum at some point soon, and more info from camlost on SJE/BJE/whatever.

[ialdabaoth]

Ack! *twitch* okay, looking at the AJE configurations...

A primary mod should NEVER use :Final in its ModuleManager CFG! Ever ever!

You should be replacing 90% of those :FINALs with :FOR[AJE]

If you really need stuff to happen AFTER RealFuels makes its pass, those nodes (and only those nodes!) should have :AFTER[RealFuels]

Otherwise people who distribute third-party MM cfg mods have NO WAY to apply deltas without them getting overwritten by your mod!

Other than that, really impressed with the work here.

[Guest]

Ehh...still no pull request. Try to get around to doing them!

Seriously, look at the date stamps. Other than some backported stuff from my dev branch, this is months old. I will try to get around to it, because those are awesome engines, but I really can't drop everything else (which is *also* behind) just to do that one thing. If it really bothers you, you can just copy-paste the module from the high-tech F100 that's already in the mod.

I know I can have F-100, the config is out there (though I'm not sure which version is it; NMB's look like P&W one). I'm more concerned with AL-41F, actually, and with the P&W Thrust System.

Edited September 9, 2014 by Guest

[thorfinn]

My understanding is that's what camlost is working on right now (while still somewhat busy in RL). AJE will more or less hold constant, since the changes I've been making to the propeller model makes more sense as a different mod, as does ferram's rewriting of the jet code. So expect to see a thread from ferram and me in the dev forum at some point soon, and more info from camlost on SJE/BJE/whatever.

OK, thanks. I will readily admit that I tried AJE, but it was too hard for me I could not play without FAR by now, but full on AJE is too much of a harsh mistress for the kind of game I play; I hope that a NEAR-style version will be be exactly as much realism as I can handle

[camlost]

I've made a basic module for BJE already. The idea is that the engine still uses pre-defined velocity curve, but thrust will scale upon atmo density. IntakeAir is no longer an requirement, and Isp is defined using an IspCurve against speed not altitude.

So the question is still, we need to define the IspCurve for each engine. Another problem is that the velocity curve and max thrust is usually poorly-defined. Take a look at this 'basic jet engine'

maxThrust = 150

velocityCurve

{

key = 1000 0 0 0

key = 850 0.2 0 0

key = 0 1 0 0

}

To make it worse, many mod authors simply copy this curve and don't care. The question here is, we're defining a standard. Technically what AJE is to BJE is not what FAR is to NEAR. NEAR neglects certain effects to make things simple. AJE, similar to FAR, is using equations to calculate performance, but BJE uses pre-defined curves. How much difficulty is solely dependent on how do you define the curves.

So most work will be spent on balancing stuff with test flying etc.

Edited September 9, 2014 by camlost

[KwirkyJ]

As a feature request, could you please add support for the Karbonite air-breathing engines? I tried dabbling in EngineSim, and became most confused in how to convert its output to your Module's variables, even with the (supposed) documentation in AJETester.

An addendum to ialbadaoth's comment regarding your MM files, two things:

(1) some tidying of your formatting would be appreciated, such as consistently using only tabs or only spaces throughough blocks, module removal sections on single lines with consistent spacing (e.g., !MODULE[name] {}; note single space), &c.

(2) could you possibly consider extracting engine additions to separate files, perhaps each prefixed by the mod it is adjusting (e.g., KAX_RRAE2100.cfg, or B9_GEYJ93GE3.cfg)? For those of us who want easier access to picking which engines to keep or discard – there are a great many of them you add – it would be a great boon from having to dig out the relevant sections and comment them.

[Camacha]

I noticed an aircraft that flew fine with one engine nacelle suddenly did not even get any thrust. After removing AJE, everything seemed fine again. Is the difference that big? I checked air intake and in both cases it is kind of similar.

I solved it for now by sticking two huge Radial Intakes on the craft, but that does not seem ideal. If I understand the behaviour I might come up with a better fix.

[Tidus Klein]

One question? could we get realistic flameouts and have intakes actually suck in air? its hard to build a good looking VTOL when the intakes always need to face the direction your going.

And realistic flameouts as in if you only got one engine your basically screwed.....good luck getting it started again X(

[Guest]

Mid-air restarts are very much possible, except in case the engine is damaged. I think that the normal, KSP flameout can usually be recovered from, because they're caused by the engine being starved for air. Restarting is impossible if the engine is damaged (say, by a bird strike or enemy fire), but not when it's just out of air for a while. Realistic restart requirements could be done, though.

[camlost]

I noticed an aircraft that flew fine with one engine nacelle suddenly did not even get any thrust. After removing AJE, everything seemed fine again. Is the difference that big? I checked air intake and in both cases it is kind of similar.

I solved it for now by sticking two huge Radial Intakes on the craft, but that does not seem ideal. If I understand the behaviour I might come up with a better fix.

Which engine? Which 'huge' inlet? One possibility is that the inlet area is not correctly set

One question? could we get realistic flameouts and have intakes actually suck in air? its hard to build a good looking VTOL when the intakes always need to face the direction your going.

And realistic flameouts as in if you only got one engine your basically screwed.....good luck getting it started again X(

You can't. There's no place for air in the NASA code, neither for flameouts. In the future it should be possible when we use ferram's new engine sim code.

But, I'll take the suggestion by Vrindi above, that should make things a little easier.

[Camacha]

Which engine? Which 'huge' inlet? One possibility is that the inlet area is not correctly set

I should have been more specific. I am running one P&W F100 engine at the back of the aircraft. The nacelle is directly in front of that. As long as I try and run it only on that nacelle, I get zero thrust. If I add a single XM-G50 radial intake, however, everything works like it should and I get a happy 50 kN.

I noticed the nacelle has no area indication. Might that be the problem?

[Tidus Klein]

Mid-air restarts are very much possible, except in case the engine is damaged. I think that the normal, KSP flameout can usually be recovered from, because they're caused by the engine being starved for air. Restarting is impossible if the engine is damaged (say, by a bird strike or enemy fire), but not when it's just out of air for a while. Realistic restart requirements could be done, though.

Oo ya I know there possible, just hard to get right (my grandfather worked for the air force at one time thats why I know) Just saying It would add a nice layer of complexity to the mod, and flame-out's as in the actual engine shuts down. not just produces 0 thrust

[camlost]

I should have been more specific. I am running one P&W F100 engine at the back of the aircraft. The nacelle is directly in front of that. As long as I try and run it only on that nacelle, I get zero thrust. If I add a single XM-G50 radial intake, however, everything works like it should and I get a happy 50 kN.

I noticed the nacelle has no area indication. Might that be the problem?

The nacelle don't have AJEInlet, and IMO they shouldn't have any. Right click on the parts and see

[FennexFox]

Is inlet area dynamically recalculated? Assuming I have 2 rapiers, 2 f100 and two shock cone intakes, and use 2 of the engines only at a time, will they have full inlet area?

[mossman]

Something doesn't seem right

Notice the '5.4 cm' in the second screenshot.

This is only for the prop engines sharing the KAX radial model.

Why was the rescale factor for these parts set to 0.015?

Edited September 14, 2014 by mossman

[NathanKell]

On prior versions of KAX, that was correct (keptin's original rescaleFactor was 0.0125). Evidently in the latest version keptin re-exported the model smaller and changed the rescaleFactor to 1.0

[Camacha]

IMO they shouldn't have any.

Why shouldn't they have any? It seems to serve as an intake in the stock game.

[bs1110101]

I can confirm the stupidly tiny radial prop bug.

Also, speaking of tiny props, can you make configs for the .5m prop from SXT?

[Tidus Klein]

Stupidly small props....yup I got them too...I think the kerbals are trying to give ants planes now....what is this a prop for ants