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

[fallout2077]

[quote name='Starwaster']output_log.txt (not ksp.log please)
ModuleManager.ConfigCache

Post those files please.[/QUOTE]

Alright, sure thing. Here you go!

Output Log: [URL="https://www.dropbox.com/s/dxoxlqpozzlxsmg/output_log.txt?dl=0"]https://www.dropbox.com/s/dxoxlqpozzlxsmg/output_log.txt?dl=0
[/URL]
ModuleManager Config Cache: [URL]https://www.dropbox.com/s/dxtwgt6hon6w2sv/ModuleManager.ConfigCache?dl=0[/URL]

Sorry for posting the wrong log file (KSP.log)... I always thought that output.log was only generated during crashes, thus my logic behind posting KSP.log. Edited November 16, 2015 by fallout2077

[blowfish]

You've got a bunch of exceptions related to RealFuels. Try the latest build from Github - I believe that a lot of critical changes have been made since Starwaster's prerelease.

[fallout2077]

[quote name='blowfish']You've got a bunch of exceptions related to RealFuels. Try the latest build from Github - I believe that a lot of critical changes have been made since Starwaster's prerelease.[/QUOTE]

Umm... I really, really hate to sound like an idiot, but where do I find the latest build on Github? From what I'm seeing, the latest build is RF 10.8.0, which was released 3 days ago (the one that I have downloaded and installed).

[blowfish]

[quote name='fallout2077']Umm... I really, really hate to sound like an idiot, but where do I find the latest build on Github? From what I'm seeing, the latest build is RF 10.8.0, which was released 3 days ago (the one that I have downloaded and installed).[/QUOTE]

Never mind. RF doesn't include binaries in the repository. For future reference it's "Download ZIP" on the left side of the repository's main page. Guess you'll just have to wait though. Edited November 16, 2015 by blowfish

[fallout2077]

[quote name='blowfish']Never mind. RF doesn't include binaries in the repository. For future reference it's "Download ZIP" on the left side of the repository's main page. Guess you'll just have to wait though.[/QUOTE]

Pheew... I thought I was blatantly missing something. Oh well, I don't mind waiting... I'm just trying help out however I can; as long as I'm actually helping and not being a pest, I'm happy!

[blowfish]

[quote name='fallout2077']Pheew... I thought I was blatantly missing something. Oh well, I don't mind waiting... I'm just trying help out however I can; as long as I'm actually helping and not being a pest, I'm happy![/QUOTE]

Well the button is there regardless, but the download doesn't include the compiled dll - this varies from mod to mod.

[Raptor831]

I'd just stick with 1.0.4 for now. The stockalike configs will work with 1.0.4 until everything else gets updated to work with 1.0.5.

[fallout2077]

[quote name='Raptor831']I'd just stick with 1.0.4 for now. The stockalike configs will work with 1.0.4 until everything else gets updated to work with 1.0.5.[/QUOTE]

Alrighty, no problem... thanks for the help you guys!

[Konnor]

Greetings, Raptor. I have a balance-related question.

The 48-7S is one of my favorite engines, but I use it almost exclusively for orbital maneuvers. But with (relatively) recent integration of limited ignitions it now has only one ignition (and it has probably always been L+ type, though I didn't pay attention to that until now).

The question is, is it intentional design decision?
I know I can set number of ignitions to anything I want in the config, but single ignition for an engine like this seems a bit odd to me, so perhaps it should be changed (well, if not, then leave it as is, I'll find a replacement or change the config locally).

[NathanKell]

It's listed as L+ presumably because that's its role in KSP.
As of 1.0, KSP engines generally fall into one of four categories
1. Vernier
2. Booster (first stage engine)
3. Sustainer (core engine, or second stage)
4. Upper/vacuum engine

So for size 0, the LV-1R is a vernier, the Spark is a booster, and the LV-1 is an upper. Size 1, the engines are 24-77, LV-T30, LV-T45, LV-909 respectively. Etc.

[Konnor]

[quote name='NathanKell']As of 1.0, KSP engines generally fall into one of four categories
1. Vernier
2. Booster (first stage engine)
3. Sustainer (core engine, or second stage)
4. Upper/vacuum engine[/QUOTE]
Thanks for the explanation.

All right then, shouldn't this same logic apply to non-stock engines as well? Take KW Rocketry 1.25m engines, for example: we have
[list]
[*] WildCat-V (intended as launch vehicle engine): engineType = L+, makes sense
[*] Maverick-1D (with highest thrust of the three): engineType = U, seems a bit off
[*] and Vesta VR-1 (defined as an upper stage engine in its description): engineType = U, OK
[/list]
Yet all three of them have only one ignition (more with hypergolic fuels actually, but not significantly more).
Same thing with 3.75m engines, WildCat XR, even though U, single ingnition. One would expect a few restarts from U-type engine, but maybe they are just like that, fire once and deal with it?
...Still Vesta VR9D, 2.5m upper stage, comes with 12 ignitions.

I see some inconsistency here; I get that ignition-related mechanics is there to impose more realistic limits, but it seems too limiting as it is.

[Raptor831]

The ignitions are tied to the mixtures. You generally need to use hypergolics to get more than one ignition. Stuff like J-2 or Merlin 1D clones get exemptions because in RL they're actually designed to relight with non-hypergolic fuels. But those tend to be the exception. They are also tied to the individual mixture configs, which means that on the parts screen you only see the default mixtures ignitions. If they've been set as such, an engine could have 12 ignitions when you use UDMH/NTO but it defaults to kerolox which only has 1, and therefore you can only see the default ignitions.

And there are always murky decisions made here. Or ones I made for reasons I can't remember. Most engines don't say "This is for upper stages" in the description, and even then that description could mean L+, U, U+, or O. So sometimes I flip a coin, or just set the engine to how I like to use it. But yeah, I agree the Maverick probably should be a launch engine, since it's pretty high thrust for that size compared to stock. :huh: Not sure how that's been missed for this long, but hey. That's why I ask for feedback; I can't keep track of all 340+ engines in the configs all by myself. :wink:

[B]Edit:[/B] Went ahead and made the Maverick a launch engine in the repo. You can DL now from there if you like. Edited November 22, 2015 by Raptor831
Grammar, clarity...

[AeroGav]

I had a look at this mod because a problem my RAPIER/NERV based spaceplanes sometimes have is either too much oxidiser i cannot use, or too much LF i have no use for.

The problem , in this mod , is that the RAPIER and NERV use different fuels entirely.

However the Rapier is in fact based on the proposed SABRE engine that uses liquid hydrogen. It could probably run off Methane instead but at significant loss of performance - it's operation depends on a highly cryogenic fuel. In this mod, it runs off Kerosene only.

The other jets could also use alternative fuels - Methane and Hydrogen, and would be pretty agnostic about it, the only changes in performance resulting from different heating value per kg or l of the fuel itself.

Then again, my space planes have lots of wing area - stitched together from multiple big S strake and delta segments - that hold most of their fuel. It's pretty unlikely these high surface area to volume wing tanks could carry cryogens isn't it?

In which case I probably want to switch to nuclear turbojets eh?

Oh well, guess i'll try modular fuel tanks.

[Raptor831]

The RAPIER should use kerosene in jet mode and kerolox in rocket mode by default. With AJE it was set to use methane, as well. Methane tends to give you around the same delta-V, I believe, to a hydrolox setup, simply because hauling around enough LH2 requires a ridiculous amount of tankage.

Can't say much about if a tank would work or not. Though, insulation would become most of your thickness as you got thinner and thinner.

Also, I doubt the regular jets could run off of methane or hydrogen as they are built. It's probably technically possible, but I just don't see the practicality of it. Kerosene seems like a much better idea within an atmosphere, given it's density at air temperatures and the logistics of trying to use cryogenics in a platform that small. Skylon is one thing, since that bird will end up being pretty big, but anything that uses a normal turbojet just wouldn't be big enough to make the additional overhead of cryogenics worth it, IMO.

Then again, I'm certainly not the guy to discuss jet mechanics or even rocket engine mechanics. If I'm way off base, someone please do correct me.

[NathanKell]

See [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_CL-400_Suntan]Lockheed's SUNTAN project[/url] and also [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Isinglass]ISINGLASS[/url].

[blowfish]

Re: RAPIER - I think that any turbine engine designed to even approach Mach 5 would need to be precooled, and thus would need cryogenic fuel. LH2 is ideal, but liquid methane provides an interesting intermediate when hydrogen-fueled engines are also available. Not sure if methane gives you the efficiency you need to reach orbit in 64k/RSS though - particularly since most of your delta-v is in rocket mode.

Re conventional jets and cryogenics: you're correct that it doesn't really make sense to use cryogenics for lower speeds. The main issue is the volume penalty - methane is about half as dense as kerosene and hydrogen is much less dense, but you also have to contend with pressurized tanks, which means that you can't store fuel in the wings anymore and space efficiency in the fuselage also goes down. I've toyed with models of some precooled methane jets which either allow higher top speed or higher efficiency (by increasing the compression ratio), but that's way outside the scope of RF stockalike and probably even outside the scope of AJE.

[Lucius]

I know you list support for "vanguard", but would that also include Custom Clusters?
[URL="http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/130662"]http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/130662[/URL]

If not, any plans to incorporate them?

[legoclone09]

Just want to say many parts in Tantares do not have configs, because they are new! But the Soyuz engines work!

[Raptor831]

[quote name='NathanKell']See [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_CL-400_Suntan]Lockheed's SUNTAN project[/url] and also [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Isinglass]ISINGLASS[/url].[/QUOTE]

As I have grown to expect, you've shown me something I did not know before. :) I should have figured that the US military tried out all of this stuff in the 50s and 60s. <sarcasm>So, when's the last aerospace breakthrough we've had?</sarcasm>

[quote name='blowfish']Re: RAPIER - I think that any turbine engine designed to even approach Mach 5 would need to be precooled, and thus would need cryogenic fuel. LH2 is ideal, but liquid methane provides an interesting intermediate when hydrogen-fueled engines are also available. Not sure if methane gives you the efficiency you need to reach orbit in 64k/RSS though - particularly since most of your delta-v is in rocket mode.

Re conventional jets and cryogenics: you're correct that it doesn't really make sense to use cryogenics for lower speeds. The main issue is the volume penalty - methane is about half as dense as kerosene and hydrogen is much less dense, but you also have to contend with pressurized tanks, which means that you can't store fuel in the wings anymore and space efficiency in the fuselage also goes down. I've toyed with models of some precooled methane jets which either allow higher top speed or higher efficiency (by increasing the compression ratio), but that's way outside the scope of RF stockalike and probably even outside the scope of AJE.[/QUOTE]

As far as hybrids, I doubt they could do anything without using cryogenics. It's probably a benefit to use fuel/propellant that cold considering the temps that it'd have to deal with. I seem to remember, though, that Nathan and camlost had a chat about methane being just efficient enough to get small spaceplanes into orbit. Which is why the RAPIER was methalox and the SABRE was hydrolox.

I dunno if exotic jets are outside the scope of AJE. Seems like the place they'd end up to me. Unless they need to go into something like a KSPI or NearFuture. Stockalike needs to be adjusting jet fuels now in addition to rocket fuels thanks to AJE separating that concern out, so it's already something I'm thinking about. But swapping fuels is pretty easy for me once the engine models are done. :wink: Would AJE be able to handle a methane-burning turbojet?

[quote name='Lucius']I know you list support for "vanguard", but would that also include Custom Clusters?
[URL="http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/130662"]http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/130662[/URL]

If not, any plans to incorporate them?[/QUOTE]

The "Vanguard" is for the original Vanguard Astrodynamics VX series. ([URL="http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/127803"]thread here[/URL]) I won't say that I've never heard of the other one because it looks familiar, but I really don't remember that one. As for integration, yes, I can add it to the list. :)

[B]EDITS BELOW[/B] - Ninja'd...

[quote name='legoclone09']Just want to say many parts in Tantares do not have configs, because they are new! But the Soyuz engines work![/QUOTE]

Tantares is a bit of an oddball. They have their own stockalike RF configs bundled, so traditionally mine are only there if for whatever reason you didn't like theirs. And to be honest, they're conflicting at this point, so it'd be safer to delete one or the other for the time being. I'm debating on filling out my end, just to cover all the bases. Edited November 25, 2015 by Raptor831

[SpacedInvader]

I've noticed since my most recent return that hypergolic fuel / engine configurations now have limited ignitions whereas in the past this wasn't the case. I've read a few pages back on the RF thread that Nathan mentioned on the same line that a: "Even hypergolic engines don't have inifinite relights", followed by b: "even hypergolic pressure-fed engines (which usually have effectively infinite relights) are still subject to ullage concerns". With those statements in mind, I'm left wondering whether I'm supposed to have infinite relights on hypergolic engines like the old days.

In addition to this, I've noticed that there don't seem to be any more pressure fed engines like there used to be, forcing ullage simulation onto all engines even when using a pressurized tank mode like a service module. I'm wondering if this option even exists anymore as I'm not even seeing a reference to it in the configs.

I'm really hoping both of these still exist in some form as having at least a few pressure-fed hypergolic engines with infinite relights made tasks like perfecting geosynchronus orbits or landing from orbit much less of a headache...

Finally, on load I'm getting three MM errors with the stockalike config from the fuel-conversions.cfg:

[LOG 12:02:20.167] [ModuleManager] Error - Cannot parse variable search when editing key volume = #$/RESOURCE[MonoPropellant]/maxAmount$
[LOG 12:02:20.168] [ModuleManager] Error - Cannot parse variable search when inserting new key maxAmount = #$/RESOURCE[ElectricCharge]/maxAmount$
[LOG 12:02:20.168] [ModuleManager] Error - Cannot parse variable search when inserting new key maxAmount = #$/RESOURCE[MonoPropellant]/maxAmount$

I've looked into that config, but my modding skills are pretty rusty and I'm not understanding where things are going wrong. Edited November 26, 2015 by SpacedInvader

[Raptor831]

First up, there are no pressure fed engines at the current moment. When RF added ullage and ignitions, that never got added to these configs. It's something I've been aware of, but I haven't figured out a good place to start with. It is built into RF, so I just need to add that into the configs. At this point, I'm probably going to just make all orbital engines pressure fed to start with. We can add/remove from there.

I've seen those errors before. Which part are they in reference to? Usually that's the Mk1-2 Capsule and it's caused when you have TACLS, SDHI service module, RF/Stockalike installed. It's a weird order issue (in that case) that I can't ever seem to nail down. (Please never use :FINAL unless you have to...) If it's another part, then I'll need the part at least, but the full log would be useful.

[SpacedInvader]

[quote name='Raptor831']First up, there are no pressure fed engines at the current moment. When RF added ullage and ignitions, that never got added to these configs. It's something I've been aware of, but I haven't figured out a good place to start with. It is built into RF, so I just need to add that into the configs. At this point, I'm probably going to just make all orbital engines pressure fed to start with. We can add/remove from there.

I've seen those errors before. Which part are they in reference to? Usually that's the Mk1-2 Capsule and it's caused when you have TACLS, SDHI service module, RF/Stockalike installed. It's a weird order issue (in that case) that I can't ever seem to nail down. (Please never use :FINAL unless you have to...) If it's another part, then I'll need the part at least, but the full log would be useful.[/QUOTE]

Hmmm... I already asked this on the RF thread, but it seems like it might apply just as much here, but how will making the engines pressure-fed affect ullage since Nathan has said that highly pressurized tanks will be subject to it?

As for the errors, they don't seem to be attached to a part, but rather are thrown from the fuel-conversions.cfg during game loading. I do have all three of those mods, so maybe its the same thing you've already seen, though I'll have to do some digging to see if they are actually attached to a specific part. On a side note, I do use :FINAL for a few personal mods (mostly to remove tech restrictions from procedural parts / fairings), but I am curious about the potential negative effects of that? In going back through my KSP.log, I've been noticing hundreds, if not thousands of NREs which seem to be related to various mods, but I've never really been great at sorting out root causes for NREs... Maybe that has something to do with it? Edited November 27, 2015 by SpacedInvader

[Raptor831]

On 11/27/2015, 12:39:05, SpacedInvader said:

Hmmm... I already asked this on the RF thread, but it seems like it might apply just as much here, but how will making the engines pressure-fed affect ullage since Nathan has said that highly pressurized tanks will be subject to it?

As for the errors, they don't seem to be attached to a part, but rather are thrown from the fuel-conversions.cfg during game loading. I do have all three of those mods, so maybe its the same thing you've already seen, though I'll have to do some digging to see if they are actually attached to a specific part. On a side note, I do use :FINAL for a few personal mods (mostly to remove tech restrictions from procedural parts / fairings), but I am curious about the potential negative effects of that? In going back through my KSP.log, I've been noticing hundreds, if not thousands of NREs which seem to be related to various mods, but I've never really been great at sorting out root causes for NREs... Maybe that has something to do with it?

Ullage will be affected however RF pressure-fed engines are supposed to be affected. ;-) Meaning, it'll probably still need to have the fuel settled. So I've heard, the Apollo SPS needed that even though it was pressure-fed and used hypergolic fuels. So it's not totally unrealistic.

I forget how I traced that particular error down. The fuel_conversion.cfg changes all the pod monoprop/electricity stores to ServiceModule tanks, but chokes on that particular pod since SDHI/TACLS change the defaults (it gets rid of the resources, which is what that error is saying it can't find). I'll have to go looking for that one again... :-/

The :FINAL problems come in when mod authors use them to nuke some part of a config or make last second changes to it, and then another person needs to do something only after that has run. It's not really possible to do without some more MM shenanigans, which ends up being this untraceable mess. It's safer for mods to use :FOR[ModName], :BEFORE, or :AFTER since other mods/users can make use of the built-in ordering MM provides. If you're just doing some homebrew MM configs to adjust things (i.e., I put MechJeb into all command pods via MM), then :FINAL isn't as bad. In my example, it'd probably be better to run that right after the MechJeb pass. But no one's adding MJ modules in my mod stack, it doesn't conflict with anything.

[blowfish]

Pressure-fed engines still require ullage - even if the tank is highly pressurized, there's nothing keeping the propellant at the right end of the tank.  RCS generally uses special tanks which keep the fuel in the right place (bladder or surface tension membrane).

[ebigunso]

I think this thread should have Real Plumes and Hot Rockets written as a recommended mod in the first post so it's easier for everyone. Since it's pretty much required now if you don't go on to make your own effects which most probably won't do.