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

[blowfish]

On December 15, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Wolf123 said:

Any engine i use with AJE just reads "status locked", never used to happen before...

Sorry I haven't had time to look at this.  Post your output log and I'll try to investigate this weekend.

2 hours ago, JagerVonSmith said:

Is anyone else having engines give 0 thrust? Every single engine prop and jet are being engaged and throttling up but not going anywhere.

Sounds like a a bad install.  Try reinstalling AJE and SolverEngines.  If that doesn't work, post your output log so we can figure out what's going on.

[Wolf123]

Yeah i was having the exact same problem as @JagerVonSmith all my engines were just giving 0 thrust, only way i fixed it was completely re-downloading and re-installing KSP.

[JagerVonSmith]

On 12/30/2015 at 10:28 PM, blowfish said:

Sorry I haven't had time to look at this.  Post your output log and I'll try to investigate this weekend.

Sounds like a a bad install.  Try reinstalling AJE and SolverEngines.  If that doesn't work, post your output log so we can figure out what's going on.

Yup KSP didnt install a certain config correctly i believe which made engines give 0 power. I reinstalled ksp and it worked perfectly thanks!

[blowfish]

On 12/30/2015 at 0:41 PM, Wolf123 said:

Yeah i was having the exact same problem as @JagerVonSmith all my engines were just giving 0 thrust, only way i fixed it was completely re-downloading and re-installing KSP.

Okay, now that I have time to investigate, do you still have the "status locked" issue?

Unrelated development news: Jets now use a more accurate method of determining airflow (they assume that the turbine inlet vanes are choked rather than a constant mach number at the compressor intake).  The biggest noticeable result is that supersonic thrust growth is much less now - this means that supersonic flight is harder, but you also don't get the ridiculous runaway thrust growth like you used to.  I was still able to take my crappy SR-71 replica up to Mach 3.3, and it could have gone higher, but now it requires most of its afterburner to maintain that speed, and can't maintain supercruise there like it used to.  This change isn't released yet, and I'm not quite sure when it will be.

It also appears that the animation modules aren't working, I'll try to investigate some time in the next week.

Edited January 5, 2016 by blowfish

[Sovek]

Any reason why I'm not getting sounds for my jets with AJE installed?

 

Edited January 6, 2016 by Sovek

[blowfish]

28 minutes ago, Sovek said:

Any reason why I'm not getting sounds for my jets with AJE installed?

Shouldn't be.  Which jets, and could you post an output log?

[Sovek]

its the CF34-3B that doesnt have any sounds for some odd reason. The J85 does have sounds. Havn't unlocked the other jets yet.

[blowfish]

11 hours ago, Sovek said:

its the CF34-3B that doesnt have any sounds for some odd reason. The J85 does have sounds. Havn't unlocked the other jets yet.

Well, I can't seem to replicate, so could you try this:

1. Reinstall AJE and SolverEngines
2. If the problem persists, post your output log (if you're not sure how to do that, follow the first link in my signature)

[Horus]

Seems that this mod is not Vens Stock Revamp mod friendly  All jet engines have different issues: zero or negative thrust, persistent full-size flames, etc.

[blowfish]

52 minutes ago, Horus said:

Seems that this mod is not Vens Stock Revamp mod friendly  All jet engines have different issues: zero or negative thrust, persistent full-size flames, etc.

Make sure you're using the most recent version of both Ven's (1.9.1) and AJE (2.5.4).  But TBH none of these issues should have to do with Ven's: to my knowledge, it doesn't change any of the jet effects.  If reinstalling AJE doesn't fix anything, post your output log (if you're not sure how to do that, follow the first link in my signature).

[Horus]

Both AJE & Ven's pack are proper version & properly installed. Might be air intakes configs then - trying mod wit stock planes and they are pretty weak.

[blowfish]

6 minutes ago, Horus said:

Both AJE & Ven's pack are proper version & properly installed. Might be air intakes configs then - trying mod wit stock planes and they are pretty weak.

Hmm.  As far as intakes go, as long as you have a reasonable amount of area you should get positive thrust (at least at full power, at lower throttle there is a bug that produces negative thrust for some engines which is fixed but hasn't been released yet).  You can check by opening the engines GUI (turbine-like icon in the toolbar) and checking the intake area - if it's anything less than 100%, you will get some thrust loss.

As for the effects, do you have RealPlume or HotRockets installed?  The way AJE interacts with effects was changed recently and I'm not sure that either has been updated to reflect this (HotRockets hasn't been updated in a very long time regardless).

[Horus]

12 hours ago, blowfish said:

Hmm.  As far as intakes go, as long as you have a reasonable amount of area you should get positive thrust (at least at full power, at lower throttle there is a bug that produces negative thrust for some engines which is fixed but hasn't been released yet).  You can check by opening the engines GUI (turbine-like icon in the toolbar) and checking the intake area - if it's anything less than 100%, you will get some thrust loss.

As for the effects, do you have RealPlume or HotRockets installed?  The way AJE interacts with effects was changed recently and I'm not sure that either has been updated to reflect this (HotRockets hasn't been updated in a very long time regardless).

Yeah, I got it about intakes areas. Stock planes are just not ready for this

I've got neither RealPlume nor HotRockets installed.

[blowfish]

5 hours ago, Horus said:

Yeah, I got it about intakes areas. Stock planes are just not ready for this

I've got neither RealPlume nor HotRockets installed.

So if neither of those are installed, the best thing to do now would be to provide your output log and module manager config cache and we can see what's going on there.

[Svm420]

On 11/9/2015 at 0:11 PM, blowfish said:

It's pretty easy to add configs, but I don't want to add a bunch of engines to AJE that I don't have time to test. If you like, I can walk you through creating new engine configs.

Hey @blowfish Would you still be willing to do this when you have time? Thanks!

[blowfish]

12 minutes ago, Svm420 said:

Hey @blowfish Would you still be willing to do this when you have time? Thanks!

Sure.  I meant to write up a wiki page, but that'll have to wait.  In the mean time, here's a brief overview of the parameters

• Area: area of the compressor/fan intake, in m².  Note that this doesn't include the bypass.  Thrust basically scales by this.  Will be set automatically if dryThrust is set.
• BPR: Ratio of bypass (fan) area to core area.  Zero for turbojets, generally 0.3-0.6 for low bypass turbofans, and about 3-12 for high bypass fans.  When this is specified it's really a ratio of mass flows, but AJE equates the two for now.
• CPR: Pressure ratio of compressor (including fan) at design conditions
• FPR: Pressure ratio of fan at design conditions.  Irrelevant for turbojets.
• Mdes: Design mach number (i.e. where CPR and FPR are measured)
• Tdes: Design temperature (kelvins) (i.e. where CPR and FPR are measured)
• eta_c: Adiabatic efficiency of compressor.  Generally left at default.
• eta_t: Adiabatic efficiency of turbine.  Generally left at default.
• eta_n: Adiabatic efficiency of nozzle
• FHV: How much energy is extracted when fuel is burnt, in joules/kg.  Set automatically if drySFC is set.
• TIT: Turbine inlet temperature, the maximum temperature that the turbine can take (kelvins).
• TAB: Max temperature that the afterburner can take.  Set to 0 for no afterburner.  Automatically set if wetThrust is set.
• exhaustMixer: whether the cure and bypass flows are mixed before the afterburner/nozzle.
• adjustableNozzle: Whether the nozzle is adjustable and can therefore produce supersonic exhaust.  Note - even if this is false, the nozzle is still sort of counted as adjustable, just that the exit mach is capped at 1.
• defaultTPR: Default intake TPR to use for static thrust calculations.  Generally 0.95 for subsonic intakes, 0.9 for DSI, and 0.85 for supersonic intakes.
• maxT3: Maximum temperature that the compressor can take at its outlet.  The engine overheats and explodes when it exceeds this.
• drySFC: Specific fuel consumption at static conditions with full throttle and no afterburner (kg/kgf-h I think).  This is used to set FHV.
• dryThrust: Thrust at static conditions with full throttle and no afterburner (kN).  This is used to set Area.
• wetThrust: Thrust at static conditions with full throttle and afterburner (kN).  This is used to set TAB.

Hope that helps, let me know if you have any questions.

[m4ti140]

Ok, so I wanted to make a config for a new engine, or more specifically CF34-10, as the included CF34-3B has terrible performance and cannot be used for the same applications as stock Wheesley (which topped out at 120kN as opposed to 41kN of this one) and I noticed that it has been butchered even more than it should have been:

1. The mass... 4.1 tonnes? Really? The real one weights 760kg, that's less than 1/4th of that (edit: noticed it's fixed on github already, so nvm)

2. "areaFudgeFactor = 0.65 // The real CF34 is slightly bigger than 1.25m, so have to compensate" CF34-3 is actually slightly smaller than 1.25m

3. Also why CF34-3 in the first place? That engine sucks (pun unintended). Why not PW-6000 or even CF34-10?

EDIT: Do I just leave area blank if I want it to be automatically set by thrust?

Edited January 14, 2016 by m4ti140

[blowfish]

6 minutes ago, m4ti140 said:

Ok, so I wanted to make a config for a new engine, or more specifically CF34-10, as the included CF34-3B has terrible performance and cannot be used for the same applications as stock Wheesley (which topped out at 120kN as opposed to 41kN of this one) and I noticed that it has been butchered even more than it should have been:

1. The mass... 4.1 tonnes? Really? The real one weights 760kg, that's less than 1/4th of that

2. "areaFudgeFactor = 0.65 // The real CF34 is slightly bigger than 1.25m, so have to compensate" CF34-3 is actually slightly smaller than 1.25m

3. Also why CF34-3 in the first place?

1. Fixed in dev, not yet released
2. According to this spec sheet, the maximum diameter is just over 1.25m, so maybe I was using an incorrect number before.  But that fudge factor is mostly just set to get the required area to match up with the intake.  An alternate solution would be to increase the intake area.
3. Even if it's still a little big, it's the smallest variant.

Edited January 14, 2016 by blowfish

[m4ti140]

4 hours ago, blowfish said:

1. Fixed in dev, not yet released
2. According to this spec sheet, the maximum diameter is just over 1.25m, so maybe I was using an incorrect number before.  But that fudge factor is mostly just set to get the required area to match up with the intake.  An alternate solution would be to increase the intake area.
3. Even if it's still a little big, it's the smallest variant.

1. I noticed now

2. You may have better data then. Also I wasn't sure what fudge factor did.

3. Maybe, but we severely lack high-bypass turbofans in 80-120 kN thrust range and 1-1.5m diameter range. I'm gonna try making configs for a couple of engines (at least CF34 and PW6000) possibly with models rescaled from either Wheesley (with matching intake and nacelle) or Goliath.

Now how to force AJE to figure out area on its own? EDIT: nvm, it works

Also: I noticed a lot more engine configs in squad.cfg, do they require Procedural Parts?

Edited January 14, 2016 by m4ti140

[blowfish]

4 hours ago, m4ti140 said:

Also: I noticed a lot more engine configs in squad.cfg, do they require Procedural Parts?

All the rescaled, stack-attached engines do currently.  Currently we don't really have a clean solution for separating "stockalike" AJE from something more realistic as far as stack sizes go.  I think it's generally a good idea to avoid rescaling stock parts, but sometimes that results in engines that aren't quite the right size, for instance the J-58 is larger than 1.25m in real life.

[m4ti140]

9 minutes ago, blowfish said:

All the rescaled, stack-attached engines do currently.  Currently we don't really have a clean solution for separating "stockalike" AJE from something more realistic as far as stack sizes go.  I think it's generally a good idea to avoid rescaling stock parts, but sometimes that results in engines that aren't quite the right size, for instance the J-58 is larger than 1.25m in real life.

Yes, but you could rescale them with rescale factor instead (unless you're doing something more sophisticated here) so they are available without procedural parts installed.

[blowfish]

12 minutes ago, m4ti140 said:

Yes, but you could rescale them with rescale factor instead (unless you're doing something more sophisticated here) so they are available without procedural parts installed.

It works for podded engines, but for stack-attached engines there wouldn't be anything of the right size to attach them to.

[Autochton]

8 hours ago, blowfish said:

It works for podded engines, but for stack-attached engines there wouldn't be anything of the right size to attach them to.

Well, without procedural parts, anyway. Hmm, maybe a MM patch, then, that scales engines to real size in the presence of PP? :NEEDS[ProceduralParts] in the patch declaration would do it. It'd be transparent to non-users of PP, and PP users could then have engines at the exact realistic size.

[NathanKell]

That seems fair.

[blowfish]

10 hours ago, Autochton said:

Well, without procedural parts, anyway. Hmm, maybe a MM patch, then, that scales engines to real size in the presence of PP? :NEEDS[ProceduralParts] in the patch declaration would do it. It'd be transparent to non-users of PP, and PP users could then have engines at the exact realistic size.

I actually suggested that at one point, but someone brought up that it would complicate craft sharing between people with/without PP.  One other feature that was requested was for a more "stockalike" experience where the jet engine physics would be changed but not the part titles or descriptions.  I'm still sort of thinking about how to do this.  My current thinking is to mark all the realism patches as :NEEDS[RealismOverhaul|AJE-RealEngines] (AJE-RealEngines so that someone without RO could install them if they want just by creating that folder).  Without either one of those, all the (non podded) engines would conform to stock sizes and retain their stock descriptions and titles.