Jump to content

Stockalike RF Engine Configs v3.2.6 [01/20/19][RF v12]

Raptor831

By Raptor831
in KSP1 Mod Releases

 Share

Recommended Posts

Raptor831

Raptor831

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Woops, did not mean to write that here. >_< I ment "KSO support?"

I was quite tired. Don't judge me :P

Ha! Whoops. :wink:

At the moment, no, there isn't KSO support. You could download the XLS in the repo and add the engines to the custom area and see where you get. If you do get it working, send me the XLS or at least the data you used.

I haven't touched KSO in a while, so I don't even know how many engines they have anymore. Also, you'd need tank support too, which would be separate from this config. But the tanks are easy to configure, but they'll mess with the mass, which might alter the balance they have going for the whole pack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sidfu

sidfu

Posted
Posted

anyone else having issues where not all the fuel is being burned in the tanks?

it seems that the settings real fuel uses to how much these engines burn dotn even out so when u select the tanks fuel its not putting a perfect ammount like mft does. when i play again later today ill test and tell u a few engines that do it. think both the 200 and 220 power stock engine did it but ill check to make sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raptor831

Raptor831

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Uhhh Raptor, we have a problem:

http://i.imgur.com/EqL41cR.jpg

LiquidMethane is listed *twice* as a fuel required for the Meth/LOX engine. And each entry has a different amount required... (the first of these numbers seems to be the one in error)

No idea what's causing it.

Regards,

Northstar

Sounds like there's a KSPI config in there that isn't supposed to be. The current RF v8.1 does not have any KSPI configs. If you have the 8.2 pre release then there's the new one you and dreadicon have been working on (but that doesn't have any reference to the engine). Previous versions have a config with the methane engine edited, which could cause what you're seeing. Can you replicate this with just fresh copies of RF, Stockalike, and KSPI?

anyone else having issues where not all the fuel is being burned in the tanks?

it seems that the settings real fuel uses to how much these engines burn dotn even out so when u select the tanks fuel its not putting a perfect ammount like mft does. when i play again later today ill test and tell u a few engines that do it. think both the 200 and 220 power stock engine did it but ill check to make sure.

With Stockalike, you have to be careful with different engines using the same mixtures. Every mod has its own ratio, so whenever you change engines, reset the tanks. Been there, done that. :wink:

Other than that, once the tanks are filled it shouldn't matter what's in them, the engine should burn the correct fuel ratio. Set up a test with just a pod, one tank, one engine, and autofill the tanks. If it still burns out oddly, then check your logs. If you can't see anything in them, post the player.log (or player_log.txt) somewhere and give a link.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Northstar1989

Northstar1989

Posted
Posted
Sounds like there's a KSPI config in there that isn't supposed to be. The current RF v8.1 does not have any KSPI configs. If you have the 8.2 pre release then there's the new one you and dreadicon have been working on (but that doesn't have any reference to the engine). Previous versions have a config with the methane engine edited, which could cause what you're seeing. Can you replicate this with just fresh copies of RF, Stockalike, and KSPI?

That *is* with the latest versions of RF (the 12/3 dev build), Stockalike (Release 2.06), and KSP-I (Release 0.13, hasn't been updated for some time).

With Stockalike, you have to be careful with different engines using the same mixtures. Every mod has its own ratio, so whenever you change engines, reset the tanks. Been there, done that. :wink:

Other than that, once the tanks are filled it shouldn't matter what's in them, the engine should burn the correct fuel ratio. Set up a test with just a pod, one tank, one engine, and autofill the tanks. If it still burns out oddly, then check your logs. If you can't see anything in them, post the player.log (or player_log.txt) somewhere and give a link.

What fuels was he using? He may have also been experiencing uneven boil-off of the different fuel components (for instance, a Kero/LOX engine will typically have a little Kerosene left at the end of a mission as some of the LOX boils off before it can be used. The solution in that case is to pack a little extra LOX, or insulate and cool the tanks to the point boil-off becomes negligible...)

Regards,

Northstar

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raptor831

Raptor831

Posted
  • Author
Posted
That *is* with the latest versions of RF (the 12/3 dev build), Stockalike (Release 2.06), and KSP-I (Release 0.13, hasn't been updated for some time).

Reason I asked for fresh installs is because if you merged the files, the old KSPI_MFS.cfg is probably still there. Just trying to rule that possible issue out. I'll try to check on my setup this weekend to see if it happens to me (don't have KSPI on my main install). Also, if you could, pop up a log so I can see what files are applying to your engine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Northstar1989

Northstar1989

Posted
Posted
Reason I asked for fresh installs is because if you merged the files, the old KSPI_MFS.cfg is probably still there. Just trying to rule that possible issue out. I'll try to check on my setup this weekend to see if it happens to me (don't have KSPI on my main install). Also, if you could, pop up a log so I can see what files are applying to your engine.

Fresh installs. I never merge folders for precisely that reason.

How do I pop a log again? I'm a little rusty- it's been a while since I had to do it...

Also, here are a BUNCH of parts that still hold LF/O instead of the appropriate real-world fuels for some reason. The list includes some fuel tank/ engine hybrids (parts with both fuel storage and propulsion capabilities- such as the Odin Heat Shield, which strangely doesn't actually work as a heat shield with DRE), which is why I post this here as well as on the main RealFuels thread:

Javascript is disabled. View full album

The parts come from stock, Firespitter, and NovaPunch2. Oh, and there's the screenshot of the KSP-I Meth/LOx engine at the end again, just to have everything in one place...

Regards,

Northstar

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BeafSalad

BeafSalad

Posted
Posted

I am a little confused as to the balance of these configs. Are they balanced for RSS or the stock scale Kerbol system. In the real fuels faq it suggests using a difficulty scalar with KIDS of 0.333 but it does not say if that is if using real engines. I have had a quick look at using 0.333 but the rockets would have to be huge just to get into orbit. At the moment I have just got it set to 1.

What would you suggest setting the scalar when also using FAR?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Starman4308

Starman4308

Posted
Posted
I am a little confused as to the balance of these configs. Are they balanced for RSS or the stock scale Kerbol system. In the real fuels faq it suggests using a difficulty scalar with KIDS of 0.333 but it does not say if that is if using real engines. I have had a quick look at using 0.333 but the rockets would have to be huge just to get into orbit. At the moment I have just got it set to 1.

What would you suggest setting the scalar when also using FAR?

As far as I can tell, Raptor's configs are designed to be realistic moreso than balanced. If you try to replicate Apollo in RSS with Raptor's configs, your booster will come to just about the same amount of mass as a Saturn V. As such, it's ridiculously overpowered for stock planets: you're probably going to want to either nerf Isp a lot* or install some RSS configuration.

*I suspect 0.333 was recommended for people who wanted realistic booster sizes for stock planets. In stock, despite the ludicrously heavy fuel tanks and low TWR engines, you still come off with tiny rockets compared to what real missions would require. The Saturn V had a payload ratio to LEO of about 4%. The Vanguard came close to being the smallest rocket to ever lift payloads to orbit, and the heaviest thing it lifted was a 23 kg satellite, for 10 tonnes of booster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raptor831

Raptor831

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

@Northstar1989 Not sure what's up then, but again I'd wager there's another config floating somewhere that's messing with the Stockalike config. I'll check to see what it looks like on my end. The tanks aren't part of this mod, but any engine/tank combo I mess with does contain a proper RF tank. The Odin heat shield is not something I messed with, since I didn't assume it had any propulsion. I can adjust if needed. As to your second bug, that particular engine does not allow hydrolox until you've unlocked Advanced Rocketry. But if it's happening on other engines, I have no idea. I really want to say something about your setup is borking something in RF, but I can't say without a log. The logfiles are located in different places depending on your OS. On a Mac, it's at ~/Library/Logs/Unity/player.log, but on Windows I'm not sure. If you search for those locations on the forum, there's a few threads about it.

@BeafSalad Starman is on the money here. I've essentially made a realistic config for "Kerbin-scale" planets. The configs work best, I think, with the 6.4x scale RSS, but you can use them on stock Kerbin. They'll be ridiculously overpowered without either KIDS or setting useRealisticMass = false in the RF settings config. Possibly both. They could be used in RSS full-scale as well, but you'll end up needing a lot of engines to do so. Kind of a detriment to part count in that regard.

@uncle natzer Can't say for sure from the information you gave. Does RF work at all? Are all the resources showing up? Can you bring up the fuel tank menus? Do you have Module Manager installed?

EDIT: @Northstar1989 I checked both your errors on my system and couldn't get them to happen. Methane engine only has two resources used, and all engines seemed to have the correct options for fuel/oxidizer configs. It's most likely some mod conflict somewhere. If you can replicate it with only RF, Stockalike, and KSPI installed, then we have a bigger problem.

Edited by Raptor831
Updated tests
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raptor831

Raptor831

Posted
  • Author
Posted
So, umm, I fixed it. Something about not having the RFStockalike folder's contents installed. I haven't the slightest idea what that folder does *sarcasm*. Thanks for the help though!

Glad you got it working. I admit, the install is a bit of a pain. Hope you enjoy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raptor831

Raptor831

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Are the Heavy Lifters' LH2/LOX ISPs at ground level supposed to be even better than RP-1/LOX? Big tanks are a hassle, but you can get some serious payloads up. It does cost more for the bigger tank & fuel. Is that the intended trade-off?

What NathanKell said is correct. The Isp of hydrolox is really good compared to kerolox. The tradeoff is the volume of the fuel. Hydrogen is just not dense at all! Which is why, in real life, kerolox is still a preferred mix for launch stages. You should check your delta-V for similarly sized stages for hydrolox and kerolox. You still get more delta-V out of kerolox because of the density, even though hydrolox is the much more efficient fuel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Northstar1989

Northstar1989

Posted
Posted (edited)
@Northstar1989 Not sure what's up then, but again I'd wager there's another config floating somewhere that's messing with the Stockalike config. I'll check to see what it looks like on my end. The tanks aren't part of this mod, but any engine/tank combo I mess with does contain a proper RF tank. The Odin heat shield is not something I messed with, since I didn't assume it had any propulsion. I can adjust if needed. As to your second bug, that particular engine does not allow hydrolox until you've unlocked Advanced Rocketry. But if it's happening on other engines, I have no idea. I really want to say something about your setup is borking something in RF, but I can't say without a log. The logfiles are located in different places depending on your OS. On a Mac, it's at ~/Library/Logs/Unity/player.log, but on Windows I'm not sure. If you search for those locations on the forum, there's a few threads about it.

EDIT: @Northstar1989 I checked both your errors on my system and couldn't get them to happen. Methane engine only has two resources used, and all engines seemed to have the correct options for fuel/oxidizer configs. It's most likely some mod conflict somewhere. If you can replicate it with only RF, Stockalike, and KSPI installed, then we have a bigger problem.

I didn't change any part of my mod package (I did not uninstall or re-install anything else- I only updated RealFuels by deleting the RealFuels folder and re-installing it fresh with Stockalike), and the previous version of Realfuels+Stockalike was working for me just fine, so a mod-conflict is out of the question (this was in an ongoing Career game I started with RF+Stockalike already installed, where I was up to Very Heavy Rocketry- I definitely already had Advanced Rocketry).

The only thing I can possibly think of similar to that is that ModuleManager needs another update to work with the current version? I have ModuleManager 2.5.1 installed.

Here is the output_log:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6kLJnJL0tLnRDV5RHQ3OWtBOVk/view?usp=sharing

Regards,

Northstar

Edited by Northstar1989
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raptor831

Raptor831

Posted
  • Author
Posted

@Northstar1989: I responded to your stuff in the RealFuels thread, but the short answer is this: I have no friggin' idea. Only thing left I got is to grab the finalized config from the game database in the "cheat" menu, and see what we can see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Northstar1989

Northstar1989

Posted
Posted
@Northstar1989: I responded to your stuff in the RealFuels thread, but the short answer is this: I have no friggin' idea. Only thing left I got is to grab the finalized config from the game database in the "cheat" menu, and see what we can see.

I'll try to get that to you soon, though I've never used the cheat menu (for *anything*), so I have no idea how to obtain that finalized config... any advice/help on how to do this would be appreciated.

Also, I have more to add to my bug report, that I noticed after I posted before:

Not only are none of the engines with multiple possible fuel modes are tweakable, tech levels also do not show/ are not adjustable when right-clicking on engines for me.

For instance, this engine I showed before from NovaPunch2 is supposed to work with both HydroLox and hypergolics- but is currently stuck on hypergolics, and has no visible tech level I can tweak when I right-click on it when added to a rocket in the VAB/SPH...

Hrb177l.jpg

I don't know if this additional information is at all helpful, but I wanted to put it out there. Maybe knowing that the tech level interface is also broken somehow helps you figure out what might be the problem?

I wish bugs like this weren't so difficult to figure out. :confused:

Regards,

Northstar

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Northstar1989

Northstar1989

Posted
Posted
What NathanKell said is correct. The Isp of hydrolox is really good compared to kerolox. The tradeoff is the volume of the fuel. Hydrogen is just not dense at all! Which is why, in real life, kerolox is still a preferred mix for launch stages.

Might the fact that Liquid Hydrogen is extremely difficult to store, and embrittles many metals (including steel!) have something to do with it? Building engines and fuel tanks that can handle LH2/LOX is a MAJOR engineering challenge compared to ones that burn/hold Kero/LOX...

You should check your delta-V for similarly sized stages for hydrolox and kerolox. You still get more delta-V out of kerolox because of the density, even though hydrolox is the much more efficient fuel.

Ahh, but you can build a larger (higher-volume) launch stage because it's lighter. Hydro/LOX allows you to get more Delta-V for the same launch-engine if you increase the tank volume enough- but it comes at the duel costs of higher boil-off and more expensive fuel (LH2 is much more expensive than Kerosene- although in RealFuels, like in real life, fuel costs are basically negligible anyways...)

The larger tanks are also more expensive- although whether Kero/LOX or Hydro/LOX is cheaper for the same payload largely depends on the relative cost of fuel tanks vs. engines. If tanks are cheap and engines expensive, then Hydro/LOX is cheaper. If it's the other way around (like in stock KSP- where an empty fuel tank can cost almost as much as engine under it) then Kero/LOX is cheaper.

Personally, I play with Procedural Parts- which makes fuel tanks EXTREMELY cheap (I'm not sure it's balanced or realistic, but I play with what I've got...) so I've switched to Hydro/LOX for most of my launch stages... (which is one reason having all my engines in the VAB of my existing save suddenly stuck on hypergolics or Kero/LOX is so annoying- though at least existing craft seem unaffected...)

Regards,

Northstar

Link to comment
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...