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

[Nerezza]

That makes sense. RPM's coded to turn off when it has no battery power. I never had this problem because I had set up my tanks to automatically have power added in.

Speaking of RF though, I've gone ahead and pulled it from my install. I spent half an hour trying to begin designing a dedicated launch vehicle so I could begin with satellite and station deployments in a new career, and everything had quit working on me (couldn't change engine propellants or tank contents. When I could, I could add infinite amounts of fuel as long as I just kept pressing the button to add fuel..). I'm sure it's not Stockalike but the RF plugin itself, but I'm not really bothered by this issue enough to want to spend more time with RF.

[Raptor831]

That makes sense. RPM's coded to turn off when it has no battery power. I never had this problem because I had set up my tanks to automatically have power added in.

Speaking of RF though, I've gone ahead and pulled it from my install. I spent half an hour trying to begin designing a dedicated launch vehicle so I could begin with satellite and station deployments in a new career, and everything had quit working on me (couldn't change engine propellants or tank contents. When I could, I could add infinite amounts of fuel as long as I just kept pressing the button to add fuel..). I'm sure it's not Stockalike but the RF plugin itself, but I'm not really bothered by this issue enough to want to spend more time with RF.

Make sure everything is up to date. RF has some issues with tanks not wanting to delete properly. It's also usually safer to do the tanks within the tank GUI, and not the right-click menu. It's not game breaking, you just have to abide by some house rules.

Alright, I got the culprit:

This section from the Fuel_Conversions.cfg

..code snip..

Causes the RPM screens to go black. I have not the slightest idea why - maybe someone in the RPM thread does though, so I will ask there too.

Edit: Lol, got it, I should have followed the RPM thread while dealing with this. Its the batteries, apparently rpm refuses to work at all when there are none in the pod itself. Thanks for all the help everyone!

That part of the config will actually be gone in the next update. I've got it updated to the point of pulling MonoProp and ElectricCharge and placing them in tanks from the start. Just have to fix the TACLS, B9, and SDHI issues. (SDHI hijacks the Mk1-2 pod with static LS resources, so we'd have to knock that out too)

[Raptor831]

Huzzah! I think I have all the pods working with built-in MFTs with appropriate resources (including ElectricCharge for RPM usage). The FusTek Resupply Pod (which is unmanned) needs its own config, but other than that, you should have editable tanks in all pods with pre-filled hydrazine in place of MonoPropellant, pre-filled ElectricCharge, and pre-filled TACLS resources (if you have that installed). All of this without having to edit any other files in another mod.

For those keeping score, all I'm doing is some well-timed edits. If you know what modules appear at specific times in MM's run, you can manipulate what other configs are actually editing and/or removing.

You can download this from the repo (link in the OP). I'd like to have a few of you test this before I do another release, just to make sure I'm not missing anything. This Fuel_Conversion.cfg is the biggest MM thing I've had to deal with.

(Special shout out to sippyfrog who is the original author on the conversion file! Thanks again!)

[SpaceHungryMan]

Got a question.

I noticed that Real Fuels gives your tanks several dozen different fuel combination options. With this set of configs, only 15 or so are available for use.

Is there a particular reason why? Are the other fuels redundant? Or are we missing out?

Not a complaint. Just curious.

[NathanKell]

Some of the other propellants are so utterly crazy that believe me you are not missing out--or if you are missing out, you're missing out on a quick and toxic kaboom. There's a reason v8.0 was called "Cold War Nightmare Edition." Florine not toxic enough on its own? Combine it with chlorine!

[Tellion]

Huzzah! I think I have all the pods working with built-in MFTs with appropriate resources (including ElectricCharge for RPM usage). The FusTek Resupply Pod (which is unmanned) needs its own config, but other than that, you should have editable tanks in all pods with pre-filled hydrazine in place of MonoPropellant, pre-filled ElectricCharge, and pre-filled TACLS resources (if you have that installed). All of this without having to edit any other files in another mod.

For those keeping score, all I'm doing is some well-timed edits. If you know what modules appear at specific times in MM's run, you can manipulate what other configs are actually editing and/or removing.

Sounds great, downloading now! Btw, is this working with the newest TAC_LS, because there were some compatibility issues with RF/MFT I believe...

[SpaceHungryMan]

Florine not toxic enough on its own? Combine it with chlorine!

I decided to look that up and found this:

"It is, of course, extremely toxic, but that's the least of the problem. It is hypergolic with every known fuel, and so rapidly hypergolic that no ignition delay has ever been measured. It is also hypergolic with such things as cloth, wood, and test engineers, not to mention asbestos, sand, and water  with which it reacts explosively. It can be kept in some of the ordinary structural metals  steel, copper, aluminum, etc.  because of the formation of a thin film of insoluble metal fluoride which protects the bulk of the metal, just as the invisible coat of oxide on aluminum keeps it from burning up in the atmosphere. If, however, this coat is melted or scrubbed off, and has no chance to reform, the operator is confronted with the problem of coping with a metal-fluorine fire. For dealing with this situation, I have always recommended a good pair of running shoes." (John Drury Clark)

And I have to ask, how was its toxicity and volatility reflected in gameplay? Was it a tradeoff type thing where you get increased performance at the cost of decreasing life support or something?

[Firov]

On the subject of all of the unused fuels in Stockalike Engine Configs, would it be feasible to remove them so that they no longer show up in the resource list? I'm mostly talking about the resources like the various "MON" mixtures, Aniline, Ethanol75, and a number of others. As far as I can tell, these fuels aren't used anywhere in the Stockalike configs, so they just clutter up the tank menu.

Naturally, it would make sense to keep some "unused" resources like the lead ballast (perfect for testing payload capacity).

Anyway, great work on the Stockalike configs. I can't imagine playing 64k without it.

Edited February 4, 2015 by Firov

[undercoveryankee]

I decided to look that up and found this:

"It is, of course, extremely toxic, but that's the least of the problem. It is hypergolic with every known fuel, and so rapidly hypergolic that no ignition delay has ever been measured. It is also hypergolic with such things as cloth, wood, and test engineers, not to mention asbestos, sand, and water  with which it reacts explosively. It can be kept in some of the ordinary structural metals  steel, copper, aluminum, etc.  because of the formation of a thin film of insoluble metal fluoride which protects the bulk of the metal, just as the invisible coat of oxide on aluminum keeps it from burning up in the atmosphere. If, however, this coat is melted or scrubbed off, and has no chance to reform, the operator is confronted with the problem of coping with a metal-fluorine fire. For dealing with this situation, I have always recommended a good pair of running shoes." (John Drury Clark)

And I have to ask, how was its toxicity and volatility reflected in gameplay? Was it a tradeoff type thing where you get increased performance at the cost of decreasing life support or something?

If you're playing without a part-failures mod, fuel toxicity and instability are mostly concerns for the designers of the parts and fueling systems. Life support shouldn't really be affected because crew wouldn't be exposed to fuel unless something fails. In KSP terms, fuel-handling difficulties should mostly be reflected in higher costs for those fuels and parts using them.

If you are playing with random part failures, difficult fuels should have appropriate modifiers to failure probability and damage.

- - - Updated - - -

On the subject of all of the unused fuels in Stockalike Engine Configs, would it be feasible to remove them so that they no longer show up in the resource list? I'm mostly talking about the resources like the various "MON" mixtures, Aniline, Ethanol75, and a number of others. As far as I can tell, these fuels aren't used anywhere in the Stockalike configs, so they just clutter up the tank menu.

Naturally, it would make sense to keep some "unused" resources like the lead ballast (perfect for testing payload capacity).

Anyway, great work on the Stockalike configs. I can't imagine playing 64k without it.

ModuleManager isn't quite smart enough to figure out whether you have engines that aren't managed by Stockalike that might want those fuels. It's even harder to figure out whether some mod might be using those resources for something that isn't an engine. I think showing everything that's available for the tank type is going to be the most reliable approach.

[Raptor831]

RealFuels deals with the resources specifically, I just use them. And yes, there are a bunch I don't use.

For example: MON* is essentially N2O4. By definition, MON3 is a 97% N2O4/3% Nitric Oxide mix. So, for all practical purposes, you can call it N2O4. Plus, I've only ever found 1 engine in my research that has been noted to use MON3 (or any MON*). And all of the scary, nightmare fuels I'd rather not even touch. And, frankly, there's no real tradeoff to use any of these fuels since toxicity isn't really modeled.

Do note, however, that I do use Ethanol75 on the FASA Redstone engine, the SXT Black Arrow engines, and the LV-T30 engine. That mix got some love in the last few updates. Also, methalox got into a few engines; specifically, SpaceY ones.

I'm working on a set of extra configs that will take existing engines and either rescale them for another size, or be an upgrade of the engine. This is especially helpful to people with a ton of part mods who can't get a lot of the engines (like me ). But, also adds some alternate engines into the pot. And while we're here, does anyone have some suggestions? Any holes in their engine list they need filled? I'm hopefully going to limit this to Stock/NASAMission, FASA, KW, and SXT engines. Possibly AIES. That'll give enough variety but doesn't break the bank mod-wise. I've already got upgraded F1 and J2 in FASA (thrust/Isp bumps), and a smaller KW SPS engine.

[SpaceHungryMan]

Thanks for the explanations everyone! I was just worried that I might be missing out on some high-performance fuels.

And while we're here, does anyone have some suggestions? Any holes in their engine list they need filled?

Ahem. As it happens, I have been giving some thought to this as well especially since Tweakscale is disabled. Personally, I would like to see some or all of the following:

1) 5m low-profile orbital engines. They don't have to be monstrously powerful or efficient, I just want them to be flush with my fuel tanks.

2) Orbital engines with 300 - 800 kN of thrust. Seems to be a gap there currently.

3) 5m upper-stage engines with 2 000 - 6 000 kN of thrust.

4) 3.75m upper-stage engines with 500 - 2 000kN of thrust.

5) Lower-stage engines with a 6.25m form factor or greater. Not a necessity, purely for aesthetic purposes. And maybe because it would be awesome.

6) Smaller engines for clustering/gimballing. Always wanted to try that.

Possible engine candidates to fulfill #1:

- L2 Atlas Low-Profile Engine from B9 Aerospace. The prettiest of the bunch. Especially the engine effects.

- CAPELLA Orbital Maneuvering System from Tantares.

- LV-T95-8 Liquid Fuel Engine Assembly from Near Future Spacecraft.

- RKMX-4 "Quadroodle" Liquid Fuel Engine from R&S Capsuledyne.

Possible engine candidates to fulfill #4:

- Liquid Fuel Engine, 3.75m "Terrier" from MRS.

- Various Bertha engines FASA and/or Novapunch.

- Micro Mother from Novapunch.

Thoughts?

[Firov]

RealFuels deals with the resources specifically, I just use them. And yes, there are a bunch I don't use.

Fair enough. I figured it was a longshot anyway.

I'm working on a set of extra configs that will take existing engines and either rescale them for another size, or be an upgrade of the engine. This is especially helpful to people with a ton of part mods who can't get a lot of the engines (like me ). But, also adds some alternate engines into the pot. And while we're here, does anyone have some suggestions? Any holes in their engine list they need filled? I'm hopefully going to limit this to Stock/NASAMission, FASA, KW, and SXT engines. Possibly AIES. That'll give enough variety but doesn't break the bank mod-wise. I've already got upgraded F1 and J2 in FASA (thrust/Isp bumps), and a smaller KW SPS engine.

This would be fantastic, and definitely be a huge help as engine selection, even with KW, B9, and AIES, is severely lacking in many cases, especially for Kerbal 64k. One thing I'd love, and I know it's just a pie in the sky dream, is a minor rebalance on some of the smaller engines to bring them up a bit closer to real values, just for usability in Kerbal 64k, or other non-10x rescales.

Take the real life Merlin 1D for example, which appears to be no larger than ~1 meter in diameter. It produces 620kN at sea level, and ramps up to 690kN in vacuum. The best 1.25 meter engine available between KSP, KW, and AIES is probably the KW Wildcat, producing a miserly 230kN of of thrust at sea level, and 280kN in vacuum, resulting in a maximum TWR of just over 80, compared to the Merlin's ~155.

This comparative lack of thrust on the smaller engines really hurts the ability to produce useful lifters using engine clusters in anything other than stock scaled Kerbin.

I actually thought my clustering days were over until I stumbled into SpaceY, and its 'Kiwi' engine. That perfect little 1.25 meter engine produces 411kN at sea level, and 455kN in vacuum, while managing a maximum TWR of ~120. Still not equivalent to something like the real life Merlin 1D, but that's fine since I know that Stockalike isn't meant for 10x rescales, like RSS. In many ways, the 'Kiwi' feels like the perfect middle-ground for a 1.25 meter engine, since it compares a lot more favorably with the larger engines in terms of thrust to diameter ratio.

Unfortunately, the comparative weakness of the other 1.25 meter engines makes them kind of a hard sale. In fact, it's largely impossible to use any other 1.25 meter engine, alone or in clusters, on anything larger than stock Kerbin.

Still, I know that trying to go through and rebalance all 1.25 meter engines against the Kiwi would be quite a chore. Besides, maybe you'll include some new, more powerful 1.25 meter engines in these extra configs?

Either way, I do love the mod. It, combined with Kerbal 64k, makes for a refreshing challenge.

Edited February 7, 2015 by Firov

[Northstar1989]

A bit of a bug here, that appears to be due to a catch-all code for engines in RealFuels+Stockalike:

This engine should be using KSP-Interstellar ChargedParticles, *NOT* Kerosene...

Regards,

Northstar

[Raptor831]

A bit of a bug here, that appears to be due to a catch-all code for engines in RealFuels+Stockalike:

http://i.imgur.com/4CQJr4n.jpg

This engine should be using KSP-Interstellar ChargedParticles, *NOT* Kerosene...

Regards,

Northstar

Well, that's odd because in the KSPI part file, it uses LiquidFuel. (ref: https://github.com/FractalUK/KSPInterstellar/blob/master/GameData/WarpPlugin/Parts/Engines/MPD/part0.cfg#L153) Anything that has a ModuleEngine* module that uses LiquidFuel gets changed to Kerosene with the catch-all. So unfortunately, the MPD thruster gets switched. I don't use KSPI, so I don't remember exactly what it's original state works like. But, if it actually breaks, you can write a specific config for it and it will not use the catch-all.

[Northstar1989]

Well, that's odd because in the KSPI part file, it uses LiquidFuel. (ref: https://github.com/FractalUK/KSPInterstellar/blob/master/GameData/WarpPlugin/Parts/Engines/MPD/part0.cfg#L153) Anything that has a ModuleEngine* module that uses LiquidFuel gets changed to Kerosene with the catch-all. So unfortunately, the MPD thruster gets switched. I don't use KSPI, so I don't remember exactly what it's original state works like. But, if it actually breaks, you can write a specific config for it and it will not use the catch-all.

KSP-Interstellar normally uses LiquidFuel as a placeholder that gets overwritten by other fuels. However, in this case the MM patch to change LiquidFuel to Kerosene is preventing it from replacing LiquidFuel with "ChargedParticles"...

Regards,

Northstar

[Tellion]

That should be solvable with MM's priority parameters, no?

[Raptor831]

Well, yes, but KSPI really needs an engine config if it's going to overwrite fuels after the fact. I really don't have the knowledge on KSPI and/or the systems it aims to simulate (much less the extra time) to figure out appropriate configs and numbers for it. The normal chemical engines (like the aluminum-hybrid and the methalox engines) are easy enough, but stuff like the MPD engines or the fusion drive are way above my pay grade.

I could just add a :NEEDS[!WarpPlugin] to the fuel override, but only a handful of engines need the block. Doing it that way would nullify the catch-all for every engine in the game if KSPI is installed. I could add those specific engines to a config that adds the LiquidFuel back in, but that amounts to doing a KSPI config outright anyway.

If any of you have some bright ideas I can try, I'm all ears. The only alternative that I can see is to add a RFStockalike-specific tag that gets checked for in these catch-alls, that when present prevents the override from happening. Essentially, the catch-all would pass over the part with this flag. Thoughts?

[irbisgreif]

I'd say that it's probably fastest to just add [!KSPI*] to the catchall?

[Raptor831]

I'd say that it's probably fastest to just add [!KSPI*] to the catchall?

I'm going to just go with this for now. I'll try and add something a little less broad later, but it will fix the problem.

Also, some good news! I've added the ability to submit new engines and tweaked engines directly to me from the webapp. So, if you add an engine from an unsupported mod, it can be added to the webapp quickly. Previously, I'd need to manually create the engine in my app and figure out what values were entered to get the config. This way, I can keep the app up to date without spending a lot of time on it. At the bottom of the engine page, you'll see a submit button. Click that when you're done, and I'll be alerted and be able to add them to the app. Do note, this does not replace submitting a pull request on GitHub. Thanks to all who have helped me out with new engines (especially Tantares...), I really appreciate the help.

And some more good news. I've added SRB thrust curves to the options when we're setting up solid motor mixture configs. So, you should be able to create up to 7 different curves for your SRBs and select them like a fuel mixture in the VAB/SPH. I haven't fully tested this one yet, so if you want to hit the webapp (http://bit.ly/rfstockalike) and run some tests, it'd help out. There are 6 curves (plus the "stock" non-curve) you can choose from. I'd like to thank Felbourn for creating the config-ready data for these curves. For visual reference, curves are here: http://www.braeunig.us/space/pics/fig1-14.gif They should be described within the options, as well. All curves will start at half thrust, and quickly ramp up to full. At the end of the burn, you'll have 1% thrust for the last 1% of your fuel load. So you'll have to stage them away prior to them burning out, but that should make them a bit easier to clear from your craft. The curves are not final, so if you have suggestions, please let me know. EDIT: Err, the curves aren't working at the moment. If you try it, make sure to add "curveResource = SolidFuel". I forgot it in the webapp. It'll be fixed soon, though.

Edited February 15, 2015 by Raptor831

[Northstar1989]

Hi Raptor,

Great to see you're trying to figure out the KSP-Interstellar Magnetic Nozzle fuel-overwrite issue.

I've been working on improving Nuclear Thermal Rocket realism over in KSP-Interstellar (surprisingly, the TWR and ISP were *TOO LOW* for more recent/modern real-world performance specs, as found with projects such as the Strategic Defense Initiative's Project Timberwind and the US Air Force Space Nuclear Thermal Propulsion Program...)

Anyways, one issue I came across is that the LOX-Augmented Nuclear Thermal Rocket (LANTR) fuel-ratios were messed up when using the KSP-I/Realfuels integration config for Hydro/LOX fuel-mode with NTR's...

That inspired me to take a look at the fuel-ratios for the RealFuels-Stockalike LANTR LV-N's as well, and it turns out their fuel-mixture is also messed up. HERE is the CURRENT fuel-mixture:

		CONFIG
		{
			name = LqdHydrogen+LqdOxygen
			thrustVectorTransformName = thrustTransform
			exhaustDamage = True
			ignitionThreshold = 0.1
			minThrust = 0
			maxThrust = 303.9466
			heatProduction = 325
			fxOffset = 0, 0, 1.0
			// Assuming LOX / H2 ratio of 3-1 (mass)
			//        0.6941 Isp
			// volume ratio conversion
			// 1.141 kg LOX (1L) x3
			//
			// 1.141 kg LH2 (16.10444601270289L)
			// mixture ratio by mass:
			// = 0.003423 kg O2
			// = 0.001141 H2
			PROPELLANT
			{
				name = LqdHydrogen
				ratio = 16.10444601270289
				DrawGauge = True
			}
			PROPELLANT
			{
				name = LqdOxygen
				ratio =  3.0
				DrawGauge = False
			}
			PROPELLANT
			{
				name = U235Rods
				ratio = 0.00000000001
			}
			atmosphereCurve
			{
				key = 0 642
				key = 1 386
			}
			IspSL = 0.6941
			IspV = 0.6941
		}

However, as can be found in THIS document on LANTR, the CORRECT fuel mass-ratio in a LANTR is *NOT* 3:1 for a roughly 200% thrust-increase, as the config assumes...

The correct fuel mass-ratio is 4:1 for a 214.44% thrust-increase (so Thrust should be 349.6573 kN instead of 303.9466 kN).

CURRENT Vacuum Thrust: 303.9466 kN

CORRECT Vacuum Thrust: 349.6573 kN

This means that the LANTR fuel-mode should burn significantly more LOX-rich (which reduces problems with the boil-off and fuel-density of having large amounts of LH₂). But it's not ALL sunshine and rainbows- the current Specific Impulse is also too high...

According to the document, the Specific Impulse should only be 62.88% of LH2 alone, not the 69.41% currently used in the config.

This means that the Vacuum ISP needs fixing... Here are the values at Tech-Level 5:

CURRENT Vacuum ISP: 642

CORRECT Vacuum ISP: 581.7

The Sea-level ISP is too low, though...

This is because the way atmospheric-compression works (which can be *APPROXIMATELY* modeled by the formula Atmospheric Thrust = Vacuum Thrust - Exit Area * Ambient Pressure) you see a more or less constant decrease in Thrust for a given nozzle size/shape and exhaust gas composition (the specific heat capacity of the exhaust gasses affects the result) regardless of the Thrust or Mass Flow Rate (however the higher the Vacuum Thrust and Mass Flow Rate is for a given nozzle, the relatively smaller this compression-effect is compared to total Thrust, due to higher Exhaust Pressure...)

So, you see a thrust-loss to atmospheric compression of 44.58 kN for Hydrogen-only fuel-mode at Tech Level 5 at sea-level. You see a thrust-loss to atmospheric compression of 121.20 kN for LH₂/LOX at Tech Level 5 at sea-level, although I AM *EXTREMELY* SURE THIS NUMBER IS INCORRECT, as *at most* you should see a maybe 50-60 kN of Thrust when running the LV-N in LANTR mode at sea-level (the Thrust-loss is greater due to lower exhaust gas specific heat capacity...)

So, there are two methods to determine the CORRECT sea-leve ISP. One is to assume the current atmospheric-compression loss for LH₂/LOX is correct, but the Vacuum Thrust level was wrong. This leads to an only *slight* DECREASE in calculated sea-level ISP, as the Vacuum ISP was too high previously...

The other, better-supported (by real world equations) method is to assume an only slightly-increased atmospheric-compression loss for LH₂/LOX compared to LH₂ alone, AS THEY HAVE THE EXACT SAME ROCKET NOZZLE- in which case you see a *large* increase in sea-level ISP...

Once again, at Tech-Level 5 (the values given in the config, with rules given on how tech-level increases it...)

CURRENT Sea-Level ISP: 386 seconds

CORRECTED Sea-Level ISP by method #1: 380.07 seconds

CORRECTED Sea-Level ISP by method #2: 481.88 seconds (assumes a 60 kN thrust-loss due to atmospheric-compression)

Of course, all these values are working within the bounds of Tech-Level 5 LV-N Trimodal engines. Which is great for NERVA-era performance (where a TWR of between 1 and 2 was the best that could be expected), but *PATHETIC* compared to modern-era NTR performance (where Project Timberwind designs looked set to achieve a Vacuum TWR of 30 with just pure Hydrogen, and at a Vacuum ISP of 1000 seconds!) This goes more into the issue of Thrust increasing *MUCH* too gradually with increases in LV-N tech-level than it does with any fundamental flaw with the part/system...

The fact is, Nuclear Thermal Rockets have seen *MUCH* more drastic improvements in design performance with improvements in technology than chemical engines over the past 50 years... This REALLY ought to be modeled in the Stockalike config (i.e. the final tech-level should yield a TWR of around 25-30, even if the initial tech-level TWR is only 1-2...)

Regards,

Northstar

- - - Updated - - -

Some of the other propellants are so utterly crazy that believe me you are not missing out--or if you are missing out, you're missing out on a quick and toxic kaboom. There's a reason v8.0 was called "Cold War Nightmare Edition." Florine not toxic enough on its own? Combine it with chlorine!

But why even *BOTHER* adding the nightmare-fuels to RealFuels if there are no engines that actually use them in-game? In that case, it just clutters the interface, and is a waste of programming effort. What's the point???

Regards,

Northstar

- - - Updated - - -

RealFuels deals with the resources specifically, I just use them. And yes, there are a bunch I don't use.

For example: MON* is essentially N2O4. By definition, MON3 is a 97% N2O4/3% Nitric Oxide mix. So, for all practical purposes, you can call it N2O4. Plus, I've only ever found 1 engine in my research that has been noted to use MON3 (or any MON*). And all of the scary, nightmare fuels I'd rather not even touch. And, frankly, there's no real tradeoff to use any of these fuels since toxicity isn't really modeled.

Do note, however, that I do use Ethanol75 on the FASA Redstone engine, the SXT Black Arrow engines, and the LV-T30 engine. That mix got some love in the last few updates. Also, methalox got into a few engines; specifically, SpaceY ones.

I'm working on a set of extra configs that will take existing engines and either rescale them for another size, or be an upgrade of the engine. This is especially helpful to people with a ton of part mods who can't get a lot of the engines (like me ). But, also adds some alternate engines into the pot. And while we're here, does anyone have some suggestions? Any holes in their engine list they need filled? I'm hopefully going to limit this to Stock/NASAMission, FASA, KW, and SXT engines. Possibly AIES. That'll give enough variety but doesn't break the bank mod-wise. I've already got upgraded F1 and J2 in FASA (thrust/Isp bumps), and a smaller KW SPS engine.

You couldn't work at least a *few* of the new fuel-modes in?

In THAT case, I would really prefer if you just found some way to remove them with Stockalike...

Anyways, regarding engine re-scales/balances, what about NovaPunch2? People always seem to talk about KW Rocketry and FASA here like they're the ONLY game in town, but NovaPunch has been around a *LOT* longer than either of these up-starts, is *still* quite popular and under active development (thanks to Tiberion), and actually has analogs for a *lot* of the same real-life engines and engine-roles as KW Rocketry (in some cases, KW Rocketry may have even blatantly ripped-off engine ideas from NovaPunch...)

Personally, I don't use KW Rocketry or FASA. I'm a NovaPunch man...

Regards,

Northstar

Edited February 20, 2015 by Northstar1989

[Raptor831]

@Northstar1989: I read over that PDF you linked twice, and I can't see a single piece of info on mass ratios of the fuel/oxidizer that says 4:1. I see MR = 3 on a few places, and I see O2 and H2 injections being 1:1. Anything else, I can't seem to find. The config was originally written by Starwaster (if we're talking about the stock clone, and not Porkjet's newer LANTR), and I assume he didn't pull that number from nowhere. I just don't know where to dig this up, since Google is failing me. :shrug:

This is all above my pay grade, so I went to Atomic Rockets to pull data. Looks like the listing for LANTR (link) is pretty much where the config is at.

According to the numbers, if my math is correct (since Isp isn't given but exhaust velocity is):

IspV in NTR mode = 940s

IspV in LOX mode = 647s

If that's the case, the vacuum Isp of both modes is just about dead on. And to top it off, the thrust increase from NTR to LOX (111 kN to 303 kN) is an increase of 2.7 times, which is exactly what Atomic Rockets comes out with. So, given that I'd trust Atomic Rockets to be accurate, I wouldn't change the numbers. If anything, I'd fudge the thrust down a bit, since AR's numbers are 67kN/189kN for NTR/LOX modes, but I'll take the assumption that you could scale up the thrust with a bigger reactor and keeping the TWR near the same. As for IspSL, there are a ton of variables for that, not just atmospheric pressure. Again, I assume Starwaster pulled the numbers from some source, I just can't find anything good about LANTR on Google at the moment. So, we'll keep those for now.

As to the TL scaling, that's completely out of my hands. The RealFuels code dictates that, so you're unfortunately at the mercy of NathanKell to update the mod before any changes come about. The only alternative is to just make a TL8 (which exists for NTRs) LANTR or NTR with the given numbers. Heck, hit the webapp and plug stuff in and copy the resulting config out to test away with. If you come up with a good engine, let me know and I can include something in the config.

RE: Nightmare fuels - I don't use them because I don't know what the heck they'd be used for. The example with MON3 stands: none of the major sources seem to differentiate between MON* and N2O4, so I can't find anything good for it. Other than arbitrarily saying "this set uses MON3" and "this set uses MON5", there's nothing really to work from. I suppose I could do that, but I'd have to decide which "groups" get what mixture. I don't remove them because I don't want to interfere at all with RealFuels proper. That's not the intent of the config set. I'm already doing enough damage with the stinkin' catch-all config, I really don't want to try and support altering the fuel list. It shouldn't be that big of a deal, 90% of the time I use the autofill options anyway. It's not like you couldn't write a config to just remove them from your own install either. I'm just not going to do that for this config due to the support problems it would cause.

As to why they are there: because they are real fuels. It's really for the RO config set, IMO, so that different engines can use the proper fuels they were designed for. Others are there for nice what-ifs that you couldn't (or shouldn't) test in real life, like the flourine/chlorine mix. I don't plan on tossing in a fuel mix just because it's there. Almost all of the engines I know of use kerolox, hydrolox, or hydrazine-derivative/N204-derivative. There's a few methalox engines coming, and the Russians used some scary stuff (i.e. UDMH/IRFNA). Other than that, there's solid fuels and some monopropellants (helium, HTP, etc). All of those mixtures have at least one example in the configs. Granted, you'd probably need 64-bit KSP on Linux to even load all of the engines, but you get to pick what mods you use.

Which leads me to RE: Extra Configs - The reason I picked those is because, well, that's what I use. Selfish, probably, but I initially wanted to keep the mod-list to a minimum for that particular project. But, I can probably expand it anyway. I used to use NovaPunch a ton in my rockets. The only thing that bugs me is the artwork; NP just doesn't look right to me when compared with KW, AIES, and even stock. NP also felt a bit more powerful than they should be to me. I kept coming back to particular engines to use every time because I couldn't beat the performance with anything else.

And as for types, KW, NP, FASA, and SXT have J2 engines, and even the 5-engine layout used for the Saturn V. (Ok, FASA doesn't have it, but you can make it) I like variety, so I make them all a bit different in my configs. FASA I try and keep closest to "real life" because it's explicitly trying to model real engines in KSP. The KW Wildcat XR is essentially the back-end of the S-IV stage (which obviously is a J2), but it's not specifically the J2. If anything, they've all ripped off real engines. (the Ariane engine in KW?!?)

Unfortunately, since I don't use NP, I can't really test any upgraded versions at this point. I'd be happy to add some uprated engines, certainly. If you want to set up some configs on the webapp using the original engines as a base, use the new submit function to send them to me. Just leave a note here or something letting me know which ones you've sent.

The above goes for anyone as well. I won't say I'll use everything, but I'd certainly appreciate some suggestions.

Edited February 21, 2015 by Raptor831
clarity...

[djnattyd]

Hey Raptor, quick question; does your most recent config support the new FTMN engines? I've installed both of them and your config but haven't actually been able to get in game to see if they work (RAM overload, CTDs, Weird load locks, etc) and given that I'm now at my mod limit, knowing whether they work or not will help me decide on where to start culling my install.

[Raptor831]

Hey Raptor, quick question; does your most recent config support the new FTMN engines? I've installed both of them and your config but haven't actually been able to get in game to see if they work (RAM overload, CTDs, Weird load locks, etc) and given that I'm now at my mod limit, knowing whether they work or not will help me decide on where to start culling my install.

I know that feeling. And yes, the new FTmN engines should work.

[djnattyd]

I know that feeling. And yes, the new FTmN engines should work.

This has made me both happy and sad because now I have to have a serious think about what I should drop :'( lol

[Raptor831]

Ok, made some updated to the repo. New SXT engines are there (should be 4 new ones: two based on Vanguard, one solid kick motor, and the aerospike), and someone submitted some of the KSOS engines for use on the webapp. Whoever made the submissions, thanks! You can go to the repository to download those. I'll be setting up a proper release in the next few days, so there will be a proper .zip download and anyone using CKAN can get it as well.