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

[Raptor831]

On 2/23/2017 at 5:38 PM, eberkain said:

When I run across an engine that does not have a config, should I just post here?    Lets say I wanted to create configs for the SuperDraco engines in Kerbal Reusability Expansion, where would I start? 

If you want to set up configs, go here: http://bit.ly/rfstockalike

Best way to get them included is to make a pull request on the GitHub repo, after you use the generator to build configs.

3 minutes ago, Cratzz said:

Im using RealFuels so the former, RFStockalike configs.

Ok, I'll try and see what's up.

[Cratzz]

12 minutes ago, Raptor831 said:

Ok, I'll try and see what's up.

Thank you man, would really appreciate it

[jdub3350]

Is anyone currently working on configs for ProbesPlus engines or the new NF:Spacecraft engines?  If not I'm considering trying my hand at them, it would be cool to actually contribute for a change.   

[Raptor831]

41 minutes ago, jdub3350 said:

Is anyone currently working on configs for ProbesPlus engines or the new NF:Spacecraft engines?  If not I'm considering trying my hand at them, it would be cool to actually contribute for a change.   

I can say I haven't worked out configs for those yet, so take a shot! That's what the generator is for (http://bit.ly/rfstockalike).

My strategy has always been to match the thrust of the "stock" engine, then adjust the mass to fall in line with the right TWRs. Also try and match fuel options with similar engines from similar mods. I'll also be happy to answer questions about things. I'm not always as timely as I could be, but I'll get there.

[jdub3350]

3 hours ago, Raptor831 said:

I can say I haven't worked out configs for those yet, so take a shot! That's what the generator is for (http://bit.ly/rfstockalike).

My strategy has always been to match the thrust of the "stock" engine, then adjust the mass to fall in line with the right TWRs. Also try and match fuel options with similar engines from similar mods. I'll also be happy to answer questions about things. I'm not always as timely as I could be, but I'll get there.

Thanks.  I know for the ProbesPlus mod, most of the engines have historical inspiration, so I would think I'd want to have real world stats for those (since they would be used in RSS).  Is that a right line to take?  

For the NF: Spacecraft I'd go with your approach.  I appreciate the input.  I don't know how quickly I can do them, but its something I'd like to undertake.  

[eberkain]

5 hours ago, Raptor831 said:

If you want to set up configs, go here: http://bit.ly/rfstockalike

Best way to get them included is to make a pull request on the GitHub repo, after you use the generator to build configs.

There are two superdraco engines that are surface mount for using on the side of the mk 1-2 pod.  One of them also has RCS built in.   Is there another engine that I can look at that is setup that same way?

[jdub3350]

1 hour ago, eberkain said:

There are two superdraco engines that are surface mount for using on the side of the mk 1-2 pod.  One of them also has RCS built in.   Is there another engine that I can look at that is setup that same way?

The LazTek link on that page has a superdraco section. http://ksp.joshuawagneronline.com/#/mods/laztek

Edited February 27, 2017 by jdub3350

[eberkain]

Before I start going through and adjusting the plume offset on a bunch of engines can someone confirm that they see this too with Vens Stock Revamp installed?  For example the Coxwain engine using Kerolox, the other two fuel configs are fine.  

Edited March 1, 2017 by eberkain

[SuperTrev]

Hello,

I have a small issue with this I think. The RT-5 has no plume. With SmokeScreen and RealPlume installed but without RealPlume-RFStockalike I just get the vanilla effects obviously, but with the RealPlume configs from this mod installed I just get nothing. The other SRB's that I have tried with this seem to work well though. I'm pretty sure it's just me doing something wrong but I can't figure out what it is.

 

 I

 

I don't know why I didn't have the SmokeScreen UI open when I took this, but if it's helpful, the same solid rocket modules "Solid-Lower, etc." are visible with the RT-5 as with the other SRB's but there are zero active particles while its burning.

 

 

These are the mods I have installed currently. SmokeScreen is 2.7.2, RealPlume is 10.5.1, Stockalike Configs are 3.2.3. Everything else should be the most current version available.

 

Output_Log https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/44072139/output_log.txt

 

Thanks for the help, I've never needed support before so if I'm forgetting to include some relevant information then you'll have to forgive me.

Edited March 2, 2017 by SuperTrev
word

[Svm420]

27 minutes ago, SuperTrev said:

Thanks for the help, I've never needed support before so if I'm forgetting to include some relevant information then you'll have to forgive me.

 

Hi, I am the one who made the configs for realplume for this mod. I went to find the issue and it is that the config has the wrong transformName. If you want to correct this yourself you will need to open the Realfuels_Extra_Parts.cfg file. Inside find the entry that looks like this. It will have thrustTransform instead of thrust. 

@PART[solidBoosterSmall]:FOR[RealPlume]
{
	PLUME
    {
        name = Solid-Lower            //pre-fabbed plume you want
        transformName = thrust //which transform to attach the plume
        localRotation = 0,0,0           //Optional - Any rotation needed
        localPosition = 0,0,-0.33           //Any offset needed
        //flare|plumePosition are optional, and conflict with localPosition.
      //flarePosition = 0,0,1         //If localPosition is insufficient
      //plumePosition = 0,0,2         //Specify flare and plume positions separately.
        //Only specify one of these
        fixedScale = 0.8                  //Size adjustment to resize to engine
        energy = 1                      //Adjust length of plume
        speed = 1                       //Adjust speed to fit resize, 
                                        //generally close to 1:1 with scale.
    }
    @MODULE[ModuleEngines*]
    {
        @name = ModuleEnginesRF
		// =  Solid-Lower
    }
    @MODULE[ModuleEngineConfigs]
    {
        %type = ModuleEnginesRF
		@CONFIG,*  //Add the effect to every engine config
        {
            %powerEffectName = Solid-Lower
        }
    }
}

One of these days I will update go back through the configs, but not anytime soon. Any other issues likely a result of me not using every fuel type for every engine.  

 

P.s. Great post with all the needed info Thank you!

16 hours ago, eberkain said:

Before I start going through and adjusting the plume offset on a bunch of engines can someone confirm that they see this too with Vens Stock Revamp installed?  For example the Coxwain engine using Kerolox, the other two fuel configs are fine.  

 

Likely a result of me not using every fuel with every engine or it maybe I fixed it on my local copy and need to submit the fixes. If you would upload you MM.cache file so I can compare the actual numbers to see if my local copy is fixed or has the same issue.

Edited March 2, 2017 by Svm420

[SuperTrev]

Quote

 

Wow, that was really fast. Support in like 5 minutes, this community is impressive.

So, I just made the config edit you suggested and it doesn't seem to help. I tried all of my other SRB's. "I reinstalled Vens and RLA Stockalike." They all work either with RealPlume effects or Vanilla effects for the ones without RealPlume support. Except the Flea. This shouldn't bug me, I'll use the flea probably 5 times this play through then never again but I think I'm obsessed with this now. Another thing I noticed, all of the SRB's make reference to different modules in the SmokeScreen UI. The Flea's modules start with "solidBooster.sm Solid-Lower..." and as far as I can tell the RT-5 is the only one that makes reference to that. So, I feel like whatever that is might be the issue.

Edited March 2, 2017 by SuperTrev

[Svm420]

2 hours ago, SuperTrev said:

Wow, that was really fast. Support in like 5 minutes, this community is impressive.

So, I just made the config edit you suggested and it doesn't seem to help. I tried all of my other SRB's. "I reinstalled Vens and RLA Stockalike." They all work either with RealPlume effects or Vanilla effects for the ones without RealPlume support. Except the Flea. This shouldn't bug me, I'll use the flea probably 5 times this play through then never again but I think I'm obsessed with this now. Another thing I noticed, all of the SRB's make reference to different modules in the SmokeScreen UI. The Flea's modules start with "solidBooster.sm Solid-Lower..." and as far as I can tell the RT-5 is the only one that makes reference to that. So, I feel like whatever that is might be the issue.

 

 

 

Ahh, I see now. VSR adds a part with the same name as the one from RealFuels.

 Add this to the end of the VenSR.cfg and see if it looks ok. If not it will need to be adjusted.

@PART[solidBooster_sm]:FOR[RealPlume]
{
	PLUME
    {
        name = Solid-Lower            //pre-fabbed plume you want
        transformName = thrustTransform //which transform to attach the plume
        localRotation = 0,0,0           //Optional - Any rotation needed
        localPosition = 0,0,-0.33           //Any offset needed
        //flare|plumePosition are optional, and conflict with localPosition.
      //flarePosition = 0,0,1         //If localPosition is insufficient
      //plumePosition = 0,0,2         //Specify flare and plume positions separately.
        //Only specify one of these
        fixedScale = 0.8                  //Size adjustment to resize to engine
        energy = 1                      //Adjust length of plume
        speed = 1                       //Adjust speed to fit resize, 
                                        //generally close to 1:1 with scale.
    }
    @MODULE[ModuleEngines*]
    {
        @name = ModuleEnginesRF
		// =  Solid-Lower
    }
    @MODULE[ModuleEngineConfigs]
    {
        %type = ModuleEnginesRF
		@CONFIG,*  //Add the effect to every engine config
        {
            %powerEffectName = Solid-Lower
        }
    }
}

 

Edited March 2, 2017 by Svm420

[eberkain]

8 hours ago, Svm420 said:

Likely a result of me not using every fuel with every engine or it maybe I fixed it on my local copy and need to submit the fixes. If you would upload you MM.cache file so I can compare the actual numbers to see if my local copy is fixed or has the same issue.

My local copy matched what was on github, which matched with smokescreen in-game, so I did a pull request to fix it.  

https://github.com/Raptor831/RFStockalike/pull/83/commits/1af9b293b873903353be5d8fe66472f03ad1bcda

Every time I build something I seem to run across an engine with a bad plume, small bugs like this really get on my nerves, but this is in the realm that I can fix on my own.   What I've committed to is building a spreadsheet of all the engines I have installed (just about everything that has been updated to 1.2) as part of my career logbook, and I'm going to use it as a checklist to test every plume one by one and see what ones need fixed.  Only worked on it a couple hours so far, but here is where it will be.  

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JTfMDEn7UeBsPZoiL_CGK77bNoDUOTTpWvKRCWDN3gw/edit#gid=1469871694

 

[eberkain]

So a couple questions.  

No engine seems to utilize the minimum thrust limit.  I understand not wanting a strict real world limit where 80-90% is the lowest you can throttle.  But it does upgrade with engine tech level and the 25-50% range would be down to something like 2-5% at tech 7.   I think it would be an interesting mechanic to have in play.  What was the reasoning to omit the feature entirely?

Also, some engines that were monoprop before now have configs for hypergolic mixtures.  That doesn't seem to realistic, there are three monoprop in Real Fuels, Hydrazine, NTO, and HTP,  Hydrazine seems to be the one used alot and its supposed to be the top tier choice, HTP is used some, NTO isn't really used at all.   Whats the reasoning behind using hypergolics and monoprops on the same engines?

[Starwaster]

On 3/5/2017 at 7:26 AM, eberkain said:

So a couple questions.  

No engine seems to utilize the minimum thrust limit.  I understand not wanting a strict real world limit where 80-90% is the lowest you can throttle.  But it does upgrade with engine tech level and the 25-50% range would be down to something like 2-5% at tech 7.   I think it would be an interesting mechanic to have in play.  What was the reasoning to omit the feature entirely?

Behaviorally it would be too much of a departure from stock; these engine configs are 'stockalike'.

Quote

Also, some engines that were monoprop before now have configs for hypergolic mixtures.  That doesn't seem to realistic, there are three monoprop in Real Fuels, Hydrazine, NTO, and HTP,  Hydrazine seems to be the one used alot and its supposed to be the top tier choice, HTP is used some, NTO isn't really used at all.   Whats the reasoning behind using hypergolics and monoprops on the same engines?

While it technically isn't a monopropellant engine anymore, it's not unrealistic that there would be a hypergolic engine that serves the same application. Just like most RCS engines are monopropellant, there are also hypergolic RCS especially where you need a higher powered RCS for heavier craft.

[jdub3350]

@Raptor831 I started messing around with the config generator last night...is the "mass" value in kg?  Is it a fools errand to plug in real world values and expect them to work out, or is there some massaging required? 

[Raptor831]

5 hours ago, jdub3350 said:

@Raptor831 I started messing around with the config generator last night...is the "mass" value in kg?  Is it a fools errand to plug in real world values and expect them to work out, or is there some massaging required? 

The mass is in KSP mass units, which should be tons (i.e. 1 mass = 1000 kg). And no, it's not a fools' errand. I can't claim coming up with the maths (that'd be NathanKell mostly, I think), but the generator under the hood should give you approximate real-world numbers for engines. So, if you drop the Merlin 1D engine specs in the generator, it should be green or yellow on the TWR. Generator assumes that the mass includes the thrust plate, IIRC, so make sure if you pull numbers that it matches that (or adjust accordingly).

Edited March 7, 2017 by Raptor831
grammar...

[jdub3350]

35 minutes ago, Raptor831 said:

The mass is in KSP mass units, which I should be tons (i.e. 1 mass = 1000 kg). And no, it's not a fools' errand. I can't claim coming up with the maths (that'd be NathanKell mostly, I think), but the generator under the hood should give you approximate real-world numbers for engines. So, if you drop the Merlin 1D engine specs in the generator, it should be green or yellow on the TWR. Generator assumes that the mass includes the thrust plate, IIRC, so make sure if you pull numbers that it matches that (or adjust accordingly).

Thanks!  The tinkering shall continue then. 

[shoe7ess]

Request:
I'm not sure if this is the correct place to ask for this, but I'm wondering if we could get some MM patches to make RF compatible with Bluedog Design Bureau. The engines for BDB are all setup to use real fuels, but the tanks use B9PartSwitch, and the only fuels are LF/O and LH2/O. The fuel tanks are nicely modeled and textured in BDB as most are analogues of real life rockets. Problem is if you want to use real fuels these fuel tanks are basically best used as just structural pieces. If I had the time I would add in at least kerolox setups for each tank so that they can be used with most of the BDB engines, but alas I'm pretty busy and the most time I have for KSP is on Sundays (my day off).

I'll place this same request in the regular RF thread because I'm not sure where exactly the best place to make a request is between the two.

 

Thanks!

Edited March 14, 2017 by shoe7ess

[AeroGav]

Sorry I couldn't seem to find the answer on google or the FAQs,  but we're encouraged to mod our own engines, but where are the config files of the mod engines actually stored?

Stockalike RealFuels comes with a "Trimodal" version of the NERV engine, for example , and i don't know where to look for it in the mess of txt files.

I'm trying to build a spaceplane whose engines use a common fuel source, to the greatest extent possible.

Hence,  I'd  like the NERV and Jet engines to run off ammonia or hydrazine , and keep a small amount of LOX to boost through the launch profile.

[AeroGav]

Another question - I just had a mission fail because the

"Coxswain" melted its internals from heat

after separating the stage containing that engine.  It wasn't even active yet?   The separation occurred at mach 4.7, 36km.   Didn't know that liquid fuel rocket engines were at risk from this?

I am also using Advanced Jet Engine and have Interstellar installed.  Is is  a conflict, or is there a flight envelope i need to be aware of when using the hydrolox Coxswain?

[Starwaster]

21 minutes ago, AeroGav said:

Another question - I just had a mission fail because the

"Coxswain" melted its internals from heat

after separating the stage containing that engine.  It wasn't even active yet?   The separation occurred at mach 4.7, 36km.   Didn't know that liquid fuel rocket engines were at risk from this?

I am also using Advanced Jet Engine and have Interstellar installed.  Is is  a conflict, or is there a flight envelope i need to be aware of when using the hydrolox Coxswain?

That's a SolverEngines bug. SolverEngines is used by ModuleEnginesRF.

We're aware of it but the precise cause has not been found yet.

All I can offer is the following workaround: Under the KSP cheats section, enable 'Ignore Max Temp'. SolverEngines checks for that cheat and will not destroy engines if it is enabled.

The downside is that you will probably get your log spammed with NullRefs until the cheat is disabled so that the engine can go ahead and destroy itself.

[AeroGav]

With the cheat enabled, the engine had a full temp bar, even though it was only 220K/3600K

I tried waiting for the temperature to go down further before starting the engine, but i hit the ground first.   So I started the engine, and it the overheat bar shrank as the temperature climbed past 600k.   Is there "too cold" for the Coxswain,  or SolverEngines is getting negative and positive integers confused?

[Starwaster]

33 minutes ago, AeroGav said:

With the cheat enabled, the engine had a full temp bar, even though it was only 220K/3600K

I tried waiting for the temperature to go down further before starting the engine, but i hit the ground first.   So I started the engine, and it the overheat bar shrank as the temperature climbed past 600k.   Is there "too cold" for the Coxswain,  or SolverEngines is getting negative and positive integers confused?

The overheat bar is a stock only thing and is affected only by the stock KSP part temperature. SolverEngines (and its RF derivative, SolverRF) maintain a separate temperature which is what is spiking when the engine decouples. 

The two temperatures (stock part.temperature and modded engine temperature) are separate things and track separately.

[Starwaster]

@AeroGav

Although I have seen this happen fairly often, now that I've stuck some debug code in I can't seem to find a craft that this happens reliably on. Do you have a craft file that you see this on a lot that you can share with me? Preferably with stock parts

Edit: I see what overheat bar you're talking about now. sorry I thought you were talking about the stock one.

Edit #2: Ok, so I found a craft where I can reproduce this reliably and it only happens if the engine/booster is decoupled while it is NOT firing. Even on a freshly spawned craft on the pad. If it is currently firing when decoupled it will not explode even after it runs out of fuel. Decoupled after firing and empty and it explodes...

Edited March 26, 2017 by Starwaster