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

[Traches]

That all makes a lot of sense! Thanks for the hard work. Would it make sense to add some cold-gas RCS thrusters to the early tech tree? 

[Phineas Freak]

On 6/1/2016 at 8:03 PM, Traches said:

Quoting the RF OP:

Lunar Module Descent Engine (LMAE) - page 8.

And this is not the only example. The RD-275 engine can only be started once (being a booster engine - someone could argue that it is because of the dependency to the ground equipment), most variants of the AJ10 had 1 to 5 ignitions (the Apollo SPS was rated for 50 ignitions - later variants depended only on the onboard Helium supply), the XLR81 (only the later variants could be reignited) and many more that i forget.

Edited November 16, 2016 by Phineas Freak

[Raptor831]

6 hours ago, Traches said:

That all makes a lot of sense! Thanks for the hard work. Would it make sense to add some cold-gas RCS thrusters to the early tech tree? 

You're welcome.  There should be a nitrogen gas mode to all of the RCS I have configured. There are a lot of RCS parts though, and I've not "officially" configured enough of them. Stock, B9, RLA, KW, and SXT should be fine.

EDIT: Oh, and these should all be available as soon as you unlock the parts. So your N2 cold gas should be ready in early-game.

Edited June 2, 2016 by Raptor831

[fallout2077]

Hey Raptor, a fairly long while ago (back in KSP 1.0.5 days), you and I were talking about ullage and your configs, and how you weren't totally satisfied with how your configs handled it. Several updates later, can you say that you're happier with ullage now, or have you not really bothered with it?

[Raptor831]

@fallout2077 I've just now been able to start testing some things. So, no, I'm not 100% happy with the current state of ullage/ignitions (they're too closely tied to think about them separately), but I am making a bit of progress there. Mostly, I have to make a bunch of decisions on which engines to remove ullage (in the case of small engines like a probe OMS) and adjust the ignitions as appropriate (i.e. how many ignitions should this engine actually have, considering it's type and probable use).

And then of course make sure everything is actually config-ed out. At least on that point, my generator is all set up to use the current syntax (and not EngineIgnitor modules that have effectively been depreciated within RF). So, really what it boils down to at this moment is me getting off of my duff and actually doing the work.

But I would say I feel like ullage/ignitions is about 30% of the way there; works as advertised, but not rolled out fully.

[fallout2077]

Thanks for the response, @Raptor831! It's always nice to hear some positive progress reports!

[Razgriz01]

Since the last update to this mod, some of the SpaceY SRBs aren't working correctly.  The thrust limiter doesn't work on some of them (you can change the slider but it doesn't affect anything), and some of them will overheat and explode within seconds of being ignited if you change the burn profile via the real fuels menu.  The SpaceY S115 Heavy Lift SRB suffers from both of these issues, and the SpaceY S217 Super Heavy Lift SRB suffers from at least the thrust limiter issue (have not tested the it for the other one).  This is not a full list, just the ones I've noticed the problem with.

[Raptor831]

14 hours ago, Razgriz01 said:

Since the last update to this mod, some of the SpaceY SRBs aren't working correctly.  The thrust limiter doesn't work on some of them (you can change the slider but it doesn't affect anything), and some of them will overheat and explode within seconds of being ignited if you change the burn profile via the real fuels menu.  The SpaceY S115 Heavy Lift SRB suffers from both of these issues, and the SpaceY S217 Super Heavy Lift SRB suffers from at least the thrust limiter issue (have not tested the it for the other one).  This is not a full list, just the ones I've noticed the problem with.

There are two different mechanics here:

1) Not being able to thrust limit is a "working as intended" issue. Real SRBs don't do that, so you need to pick the SRB(s) that suit your craft. It does kind of leave you in a bind, sometimes, but If you grab Procedural Parts there's a "stretchy" SRB that you can tune. I'm not sure it gets the same TWR as the rest, but that can be altered with MM if needed (and which I intend to test in the near future).

2) The explody SRBs is an actual bug that I am (unfortunately) aware of. You can read in the Real Fuels thread about what happened, but basically the thrust curves are borked. I don't know if this got introduced in 1.1.x or what, but the curves we have currently spike above 100% thrust, which causes them to overheat and explode. I just got finished creating new curves to replace the old but I haven't tested them out yet.

The new curves are in the generator already, if anyone wants to try their own configs with them. If my tests are acceptable, I'll be rolling the new curves into the SpaceY SRBs ASAP. In the meantime, just use the stock "curve" (i.e. no curve) and the overheating problem goes away.

[Razgriz01]

On 6/4/2016 at 2:41 PM, Raptor831 said:

1) Not being able to thrust limit is a "working as intended" issue. Real SRBs don't do that, so you need to pick the SRB(s) that suit your craft. It does kind of leave you in a bind, sometimes, but If you grab Procedural Parts there's a "stretchy" SRB that you can tune. I'm not sure it gets the same TWR as the rest, but that can be altered with MM if needed (and which I intend to test in the near future).

I understand where you're coming from with this.  Out of curiosity, are the stock SRB configs handled by this or by real fuels alone?  Since the stock SRBs can be thrust limited, but are still handled by real fuels.

Edited June 6, 2016 by Razgriz01

[Raptor831]

15 hours ago, Razgriz01 said:

I understand where you're coming from with this.  Out of curiosity, are the stock SRB configs handled by this or by real fuels alone?  Since the stock SRBs can be thrust limited, but are still handled by real fuels.

Well, apparently the stock SRBs are currently not set to be thrust locked in the Stockalike configs. This is not my intention long term, since they really should be thrust locked. Seems those haven't been updated in a bit.  You can however write a MM config to "adjust" that setting to give you the thrust-limit option on any SRB configured by RealFuels. Maybe something like this:

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleEngineConfigs]:HAS[#configuration[SolidFuel]]]:AFTER[RealFuels_StockEngines]
{
  @MODULE[ModuleEngineConfigs],*
  {
    @CONFIG,*
    {
      %throttle = 0
    }
  }
}

*NOTE: I haven't tested that, but it looks right to me...

Real Fuels itself will adjust SolidFuel to appropriate volumes (see here: https://github.com/NathanKell/ModularFuelSystem/blob/master/RealFuels/zSolidFuelMult.cfg) which will pseudo-balance any non-configured part that has/uses SolidFuel.

[Starwaster]

On 6/4/2016 at 5:41 PM, Raptor831 said:

There are two different mechanics here:

1) Not being able to thrust limit is a "working as intended" issue. Real SRBs don't do that, so you need to pick the SRB(s) that suit your craft. 

Real SRBs actually do 'limit thrust'. They set it during the manufacturing stage with different shaped and sized cores*. That's where much of the shuttle's SRB differential thrust levels during its flight came from. The SRB was designed that way. So it's not outside the realm of believability that a custom SRB with lower thrust level than usual could be bought and that's really all you're doing in the VAB when you adjust that thrust limiter: You're having a new booster built with customized thrust to be built and delivered.

*Yes, I know, it's not quite the same thing, but the point is that it's very much possible to customize an SRB to a set level of thrust... in real life.

[Raptor831]

30 minutes ago, Starwaster said:

Real SRBs actually do 'limit thrust'. They set it during the manufacturing stage with different shaped and sized cores*. That's where much of the shuttle's SRB differential thrust levels during its flight came from. The SRB was designed that way. So it's not outside the realm of believability that a custom SRB with lower thrust level than usual could be bought and that's really all you're doing in the VAB when you adjust that thrust limiter: You're having a new booster built with customized thrust to be built and delivered.

*Yes, I know, it's not quite the same thing, but the point is that it's very much possible to customize an SRB to a set level of thrust... in real life.

Well, didn't really think about it that way. I have a tendency to assume that solids are pretty set at the design phase with a certain max thrust and thrust profile/curve. But there's nothing stopping you from stacking differently cored segments to make a custom-built option at a certain thrust and profile, is there? So yeah, seems to make sense that we should be able to pick the thrust level just as we can pick the thrust curve.

[Starwaster]

4 minutes ago, Raptor831 said:

Well, didn't really think about it that way. I have a tendency to assume that solids are pretty set at the design phase with a certain max thrust and thrust profile/curve. But there's nothing stopping you from stacking differently cored segments to make a custom-built option at a certain thrust and profile, is there? So yeah, seems to make sense that we should be able to pick the thrust level just as we can pick the thrust curve.

The only issue I can really see with it is the ability to limit the thrust right on down to 0. Or is that just an empty case? Yeah sorry, we forgot how to math and ended up not filling your SRB case with any SRB.

[Raptor831]

1 minute ago, Starwaster said:

The only issue I can really see with it is the ability to limit the thrust right on down to 0. Or is that just an empty case? Yeah sorry, we forgot how to math and ended up not filling your SRB case with any SRB.

I was thinking about this as well. I thought about maybe doing a 50% lower limit to still give you the "I love it, but does it come in a lite version?" without the "SRB shell" issue.

[Starwaster]

@Raptor831So, I found a thing... here are some different shapes and their effects on thrust. 

[Raptor831]

@Starwaster I think I need to add that kerbal one to my generator. SRBs with a side of BadS.

[jdub3350]

Posted this in the Real Fuels thread as well, because I'm not sure where it applies- 

I had been playing a game with RSS, SMURFF, and procedural tanks (got used to them playing RO and can't go back), and I had monkeyed with the procedural tank size limitations for career mode, and it worked fine.  Now that I've installed real fuels and the stock configs (this is not an RO install), the tank limits have gone back to their annoyingly tiny upgrade steps.  Is there a config somewhere I can mess with?  I've been unable to find it.  

Also, are Kerbal Stock Launcher Overhaul engines configured for use with Real Fuels with these configs? 

[Canis Dirus Leidy]

I have found that many plumes misaligned and wrongly scaled (see, for example, much-suffering LV-909). So there is alternative exhaust configs (at least) for stock engines: Squad.cfg and AJE.cfg(Some duct tape needed to prevent messing with Squad.cfg jet engines plumes).

P.S Don't make pull request due to 1)can't be sure that everything properly scaled and aligned (especially for hydrolox pale plumes) 2)current RealPlume version don't have prefab for methane engines, so I use hydrolox plume as quick and dirty solution 3)plume configs for AJE currently mess with other stock jets plumes, but I didn't dig deep.

[Raptor831]

10 hours ago, jdub3350 said:

Posted this in the Real Fuels thread as well, because I'm not sure where it applies- 

I had been playing a game with RSS, SMURFF, and procedural tanks (got used to them playing RO and can't go back), and I had monkeyed with the procedural tank size limitations for career mode, and it worked fine.  Now that I've installed real fuels and the stock configs (this is not an RO install), the tank limits have gone back to their annoyingly tiny upgrade steps.  Is there a config somewhere I can mess with?  I've been unable to find it.  

Also, are Kerbal Stock Launcher Overhaul engines configured for use with Real Fuels with these configs? 

RO (RP-0 in this case, specifically) configs for the procedural sizes are here: https://github.com/KSP-RO/RP-0/blob/master/GameData/RP-0/ProcSizes.cfg  For 10x/RSS sizes, you probably just want to rip that straight from there. You'll need to alter the :FOR[RP-0] pieces though, since running anything with that pass will set RP-0 as "installed" as far as MM is concerned. Change it to :FOR[LocalCustomChanges] or something similarly unique.

KSLO was, at one point, configured with Stockalike. Unless the parts have changed names or roles, they still should be fine. The harder part was configuring the parts for FAR and getting all the tanks straight. And in RSS/10x sizes, KSLO will be really tiny without scale adjustments.

2 hours ago, Canis Dirus Leidy said:

I have found that many plumes misaligned and wrongly scaled (see, for example, much-suffering LV-909). So there is alternative exhaust configs (at least) for stock engines: Squad.cfg and AJE.cfg(Some duct tape needed to prevent messing with Squad.cfg jet engines plumes).

P.S Don't make pull request due to 1)can't be sure that everything properly scaled and aligned (especially for hydrolox pale plumes) 2)current RealPlume version don't have prefab for methane engines, so I use hydrolox plume as quick and dirty solution 3)plume configs for AJE currently mess with other stock jets plumes, but I didn't dig deep.

I've also noticed some of the plumes are not quite dialed in. If you can help, it would be appreciated! I can say, though, that changing any AJE parts to use ModuleEnginesRF is going to break them. blowfish and I have talked about it a few times, and the best thing to do there it to let AJE use it's ModuleEnginesAJE and not override it. Which is something I haven't apparently added to the main repo yet.  Add that to my list.

Related, though, is that Stockalike specifically isn't really messing with jets. AJE is much better suited to that. I don't mind the plumes, because those are secondary, and I doubt splitting those off into a separate mod is worthwhile. And I have what I consider "fallback" configs for jets when AJE isn't installed. But these configs can't adjust jets like they need to be. If you're playing 6.4x scale or 10x scale, I'd consider AJE something of a requirement, just as much as FAR. So, I'm making a big assumption that people tend to have that installed if they want to use jets often.

[Canis Dirus Leidy]

58 minutes ago, Raptor831 said:

Related, though, is that Stockalike specifically isn't really messing with jets. AJE is much better suited to that. I don't mind the plumes, because those are secondary, and I doubt splitting those off into a separate mod is worthwhile. And I have what I consider "fallback" configs for jets when AJE isn't installed. But these configs can't adjust jets like they need to be. If you're playing 6.4x scale or 10x scale, I'd consider AJE something of a requirement, just as much as FAR. So, I'm making a big assumption that people tend to have that installed if they want to use jets often.

Well, in case of RealPlume configs problem is what patches in AJE.cfg don't check AJE availability. So just add NEEDS[AJE] to them (and NEEDS[!AJE] to "stock" plumes) looks enough.

Edited June 16, 2016 by Canis Dirus Leidy

[jdub3350]

9 hours ago, Raptor831 said:

RO (RP-0 in this case, specifically) configs for the procedural sizes are here: https://github.com/KSP-RO/RP-0/blob/master/GameData/RP-0/ProcSizes.cfg  For 10x/RSS sizes, you probably just want to rip that straight from there. You'll need to alter the :FOR[RP-0] pieces though, since running anything with that pass will set RP-0 as "installed" as far as MM is concerned. Change it to :FOR[LocalCustomChanges] or something similarly unique.

KSLO was, at one point, configured with Stockalike. Unless the parts have changed names or roles, they still should be fine. The harder part was configuring the parts for FAR and getting all the tanks straight. And in RSS/10x sizes, KSLO will be really tiny without scale adjustments.

 

Thank you for the help! 

[Kahuette]

Thank you for your work! This mod in combination with KScale create a very satisfying experience.

Do you plan to restrict throttling for some engines in future versions ?

Edited June 22, 2016 by Kahuette

[undercoveryankee]

On 6/6/2016 at 10:36 PM, Raptor831 said:

I was thinking about this as well. I thought about maybe doing a 50% lower limit to still give you the "I love it, but does it come in a lite version?" without the "SRB shell" issue.

That's how KW Rocketry configures its SRBs with the stock engine modules. Minimum thrust is set to 50% (so sliding the thrust limiter all the way to the left gives 50% thrust and double burn time). Judging by the part descriptions, they expect you to be using reduced thrust more often than you use maximum thrust.

If you want to offer some options without going all the way to fully-customizable, you could generate alternate configurations locked at 50%, 75%, and 100% thrust.

[Raptor831]

On 6/22/2016 at 3:28 PM, Kahuette said:

Thank you for your work! This mod in combination with KScale create a very satisfying experience.

Do you plan to restrict throttling for some engines in future versions ?

Thanks! Yes, I do. In the future, they should be similar to how RO feels, in that L and L+ engines generally don't have much throttle, U and U+ engines have some throttle, and O engines have as much as they can muster.

On 6/24/2016 at 3:47 PM, undercoveryankee said:

That's how KW Rocketry configures its SRBs with the stock engine modules. Minimum thrust is set to 50% (so sliding the thrust limiter all the way to the left gives 50% thrust and double burn time). Judging by the part descriptions, they expect you to be using reduced thrust more often than you use maximum thrust.

If you want to offer some options without going all the way to fully-customizable, you could generate alternate configurations locked at 50%, 75%, and 100% thrust.

Yeah, the alt configs seem to be a great idea. Not all the difficult either. I think I should start with a 50% lower limit (half thrust, double time). It's easy to think about the rated numbers as such, so I think that's acceptable and fits into gameplay well.

[NathanKell]

Even that Bastion of Pedantic Realism, RO, lets you use the thrust limiter on solids.