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

[Kerbal01]

Does this include the minimum throttle level for the M1D from the Laztek Pack? Or can someone tell me how to add it?

[Raptor831]

@ebigunso OP is updated. Thanks for the reminder.

@DarthVader Just added that to the repo. Direct link: https://github.com/Raptor831/RFStockalike/blob/master/GameData/RealFuels-Stockalike/Stockalike_LazTek.cfg

[djnattyd]

Hey Raptor,

Is there any reason why the Vector doesn't show up in the engines tab? If I open up the manufacturer tab it shows as being made by Realfuels.

 

Every other engine including the two SRBs added by RF show fine, it's just the Vector that doesn't.

[Ryland_k]

hey, have an issue here, I am running this mod (1.0.5 and using CKAN) and while all the features in the VAB (fuel selections and gui) seem to be working, my engines dont have limited ignitions or ullage simulation, even though the values for them are set to true in the realfuel settings file. In flight, when i rightclick on the engine, I get no info on fuel stability, and when I right click on a fuel tank all I get is amount of fuel remaining, no other metrics. Any idea whats going on? I am not using realism overhall, but i do have solver engines and comm. resource pack as requested by CKAN (and a bunch of other mods like FAR and mech jeb, among others, but nothing that I think should cause a conflict.) If it matters, I am also using real plume and real chute but they shouldent mess with it right?

 

Ive posted this in the real fuels thread as well, so maybe someone there will know whats up?

 

If it helps, im on a new install of ksp with the following mods:

 

 

 * Active Texture Management - X86 - Aggressive 5-0

 * Chatterer 0.9.7

 * Connected Living Space 1.2.0.1

 * Deadly Reentry Continued v7.3.1

 * Distant Object Enhancement v1.6.4

 * Distant Object Enhancement default config v1.6.4

 * Environmental Visual Enhancements 1:EVE-1.05-4

 * Ferram Aerospace Research 3:0.15.5.4

 * Kerbal Alarm Clock v3.5.0.0

 * Kerbal Joint Reinforcement v3.1.4

 * KSP AVC 1.1.5.0

 * KW Rocketry 2.7.0-community

 * MechJeb 2 2.5.5.0

 * MechJeb Modules for FAR 1.0.0

 * MechJeb and Engineer for all! 1.2.0.0

 * Modular Rocket Systems LITE 1.10

 * Procedural Fairings v3.15

 * Procedural Fairings - For Everything! v0.1.1

 * Procedural Parts v1.1.11

 * RealChute Parachute Systems 1.3.2.6

 * Real Fuels rf-v10.8.1

 * Real Plume 2:v10.4.9

 * Real Plume - Stock Configs v0.1

 * Real Fuels: Stockalike RF Configs v3.0.0

 * Ven's Stock Part Revamp v1.9.0

 * Crossfeed Enabler v3.3

 * Module Manager 2.6.13

 * Environmental Visual Enhancements - Config files 1:EVE-1.05-4

 * ModularFlightIntegrator 1.1.2.0

 * KW Rocketry - Community Fixes 0.4.2

 * Firespitter Core v7.1.5

 * Community Resource Pack 0.4.8.0

 * Solver Engines plugin v1.14

 * SmokeScreen - Extended FX Plugin 2.6.9.0

[speedwaystar]

@Ryland_k

On 12/19/2015 at 4:19 PM, Ryland_k said:

hey, have an issue here, I am running this mod (1.0.5 and using CKAN) and while all the features in the VAB (fuel selections and gui) seem to be working, my engines dont have limited ignitions or ullage simulation, even though the values for them are set to true in the realfuel settings file.

the fix for this is (or was) hidden somewhere in the RealPlume forum thread. i just looked for it and failed to find it, but luckily (although i'm not using RealFuels atm), i still have a copy of the ModuleManager fix:

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleEnginesRF]]:BEFORE[RealPlume]
{
   @MODULE[ModuleEnginesRF]
   {
      %RFConfig = TRUE
   }
}

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleEngines*]:HAS[#RFConfig[TRUE]]]:FINAL
{
   @MODULE[ModuleEngines*],*:HAS[#RFConfig[TRUE]]
   {
      @name = ModuleEnginesRF
   }
}

the important bit is HAS[#RFConfig[TRUE]] istead of HAS[RFConfig[TRUE]] (the hash)

enjoy!

Edited December 25, 2015 by speedwaystar

[dlrk]

^Thanks for that. I had just assumed they stopped modelling it in the latest Stockalike.

Any chance of that being included by default in stockalike?

[Joco223]

I installed RF with stockalike RF and when i clikc to set up fuel in the tank for the engine that is attached, the proportions are not set up right. I always run out of liquid oxygen while the other mixtures without it are fine

[Starwaster]

1 minute ago, Joco223 said:

I installed RF with stockalike RF and when i clikc to set up fuel in the tank for the engine that is attached, the proportions are not set up right. I always run out of liquid oxygen while the other mixtures without it are fine

Liquid O2 (LOX, commonly) is cryogenic and begins boiling in its tank ( as soon as it is filled IRL, and requires constant topping off)

It's not uncommon to run out before something like RP1 (kerosene) and should be planned for

 

[Joco223]

3 hours ago, Starwaster said:

Liquid O2 (LOX, commonly) is cryogenic and begins boiling in its tank ( as soon as it is filled IRL, and requires constant topping off)

It's not uncommon to run out before something like RP1 (kerosene) and should be planned for

 

So, is there a way of perserving cryogenic fuels for mun missions and interplanetary missions? Is there another mof that let's you preserve them?

Or is it just useful for 1st and 2nd stages of a rocket?

Edited January 8, 2016 by Joco223

[Ralathon]

11 hours ago, Joco223 said:

So, is there a way of perserving cryogenic fuels for mun missions and interplanetary missions? Is there another mof that let's you preserve them?

Or is it just useful for 1st and 2nd stages of a rocket?

Use a cryogenic tank if you want to store it for longer periods. The big orange tank should be cryogenic.

[Joco223]

1 minute ago, Ralathon said:

Use a cryogenic tank if you want to store it for longer periods. The big orange tank should be cryogenic.

I have procedural parts so im using them.. I tried to put some fuel with LOX in a tank set to cryogenic but it still boiled off when i reached to the mun?

[Starwaster]

Ser

On January 9, 2016 at 6:18 AM, Joco223 said:

I have procedural parts so im using them.. I tried to put some fuel with LOX in a tank set to cryogenic but it still boiled off when i reached to the mun?

Use service module type. It has better insulation. Don't use it for very large stages if you care about realism. Only use it in actual service modules as there are no procedural restrictions on its use. 

[Joco223]

5 minutes ago, Starwaster said:

Ser

Use service module type. It has better insulation. Don't use it for very large stages if you care about realism. Only use it in actual service modules as there are no procedural restrictions on its use. 

Ok, thanks for the help!

[01010101lzy]

Added OverPoweredTech 1.8's new engines to a fork of this. I am testing it now.

[Adam_]

I have a question: why when I use hypergolic fuel mixture there are limited ignitions on the engine? 

[NathanKell]

....because "how do I ignite the propellants" is really not the hardest part of restarting an engine.

[Raptor831]

6 hours ago, Adam_ said:

I have a question: why when I use hypergolic fuel mixture there are limited ignitions on the engine? 

NathanKell is right. To explain a bit further, spinning up turbopumps to feed fuel into a combustion chamber is a non-trivial operation. You still need something to start them, and whatever means you do use you have to carry with you (i.e. it's a limited quantity). This applies to most non-orbital engines. Orbital engines and RCS systems that use hypergolics don't have that problem, which is why they have effectively "unlimited" ignitions. Even that isn't unlimited, because burning engines need to get rid of heat and suffer wear on moving parts. Therefore, engines are designed with X number of restarts in mind, or X seconds of operational use (ex: Merlin engines on the F9 first stage - 3 starts, so many seconds, etc). Because RCS is generally open a valve to release pressurized gas, it doesn't have as many points of failure; which means more "restarts". IIRC, the SM engine on Apollo was very restartable, but it wouldn't just restart forever. So, a lot of restarts. A hypergolic launch engine still has to push massive amounts of propellant/fuel through the engine to lift things, even if you don't need a starter "spark".

TL;DR: Engine parts still wear out and need some kind of starting mechanism to start up turbopumps even with hypergolics.

[blowfish]

To add to what Raptor831 said, the reason that "Orbital" engines have effectively unlimited ignitions is because they are assumed to be pressure-fed and thus do not have turbopumps.

[Starwaster]

1 hour ago, Raptor831 said:

NathanKell is right. To explain a bit further, spinning up turbopumps to feed fuel into a combustion chamber is a non-trivial operation. You still need something to start them, and whatever means you do use you have to carry with you (i.e. it's a limited quantity). This applies to most non-orbital engines. Orbital engines and RCS systems that use hypergolics don't have that problem, which is why they have effectively "unlimited" ignitions. Even that isn't unlimited, because burning engines need to get rid of heat and suffer wear on moving parts. Therefore, engines are designed with X number of restarts in mind, or X seconds of operational use (ex: Merlin engines on the F9 first stage - 3 starts, so many seconds, etc). Because RCS is generally open a valve to release pressurized gas, it doesn't have as many points of failure; which means more "restarts". IIRC, the SM engine on Apollo was very restartable, but it wouldn't just restart forever. So, a lot of restarts. A hypergolic launch engine still has to push massive amounts of propellant/fuel through the engine to lift things, even if you don't need a starter "spark".

TL;DR: Engine parts still wear out and need some kind of starting mechanism to start up turbopumps even with hypergolics.

To put some numbers to this, the shuttle's OMS was rated for 1,000 restarts and 15 hours of operation. (which is actually quite a lot of reusability)

[Adam_]

ok thanks, thats explains a lot. 

[NathanKell]

To put it another way: if getting the propellants to combust was all that mattered, you could start up your car with a match.

[Joco223]

Why do some engines get put into Fuel Tanks tab after installing this mod? There are some KW, Crygoenic and some Stock engines in Fuel Tanks tab

[blowfish]

20 minutes ago, Joco223 said:

Why do some engines get put into Fuel Tanks tab after installing this mod? There are some KW, Crygoenic and some Stock engines in Fuel Tanks tab

If you have 3.0.0 that shouldn't be happening - there's a patch that should specifically prevent that.

[Joco223]

1 minute ago, blowfish said:

If you have 3.0.0 that shouldn't be happening - there's a patch that should specifically prevent that.

I downloaded it via CKAN. I made a .cfg for the stock engines to have limited ignitions as seen in previous posts. Maybe because of that?

[Starwaster]

1 hour ago, Joco223 said:

Why do some engines get put into Fuel Tanks tab after installing this mod? There are some KW, Crygoenic and some Stock engines in Fuel Tanks tab

This mod wouldn't be doing that (not directly though it could happen indirectly, more in a bit). Either those parts were already mis-categorized or they specified a deprecated category called Propulsion. As Propulsion no longer exists, KSP reroutes those parts according to whether they have the stock engine module or not. This is where the indirect part comes in: the mod changes the engine module to a Real Fuels module (ModuleEngineRF) which is not recognized by KSP as an engine so it assumes it must be a fuel tank.

StockalikeRF tries to switch categories to Engine itself. So make sure you have the very latest version: Delete whatever you have and download from here: https://github.com/Raptor831/RFStockalike/releases/latest

If it still happens, be specific about what engines are affected.

Edit: Ninja'ed

Edited January 22, 2016 by Starwaster