[1.x+] Community Resource Pack

[FreeThinker]

regarding EnrichedUranium, KSPI calls it UF4, it has the same density ksp density, which is 0.005. I'm fine with renaming it, but why do you want to change to change the density to 0.1?

- - - Updated - - -

*frowns* I'm not exactly sure what you mean. LOX by definition is liquid oxygen, not a generic oxidizer. It does need cryogenic storage, though not as badly as LH2 does.

Modeling boiloff is beyond the CRP scope though. If you really want a LqdOxygen thing, we can probably do it, I'm just saying that I assume we've already got it in stock resources.

EDIT: I see you edited your post quite a lot. Makes more sense now. I'll just tell you that LOX would be a slight amount heavier (probably 0.00575 vs Oxidizer at 0.00500) according to current conversions.

Please do not use the them LOX, it's to easy to confuse with stock KSP Oxidiser. Since no CRP mod defined a Liquid Oxygen resource yet, it would be best to use the Existing one, which is RealsFuels LqdOxygen.

Edited February 25, 2015 by FreeThinker

[Nertea]

To normalize the volume across the resources, it's correct in a relative sense considering the large density of uranium. It could go lower, as I mentioned in the post above, I wouldn't say nuclear fuels are final.

Still confused - so do you want a CRP entry for liquid oxygen or not?

[FreeThinker]

In the list you mention Science as a KSPI resource, I'm not familiar with this resource. KSPI does not use it at the moment, it uses Stock Science

Edit: I will be back later

[Nertea]

Well then I can get rid of it . I expect it's a relic from when Science didn't exist. Why don't you compile all of your requests into a single post in the meantime, so we can clear up this "stuff gets edited in and overlaps" problem.

[futrtrubl]

To normalize the volume across the resources, it's correct in a relative sense considering the large density of uranium. It could go lower, as I mentioned in the post above, I wouldn't say nuclear fuels are final.

Still confused - so do you want a CRP entry for liquid oxygen or not?

For the density of nuclear fuel I think it should be much less dense. You aren't going to store solid chunks of uranium, at best they would be clad and given plenty of space so they are nowhere near critical density. Actually I think one popular method of storing uranium is as a salt solution.

As for plutonium 238 I believe there might be plans to use it (in the USI constellation of mods) for RTGs and such.

If we use LOx for liquid oxygen then we should have another resource for a liquid non-cryogenic oxidizer. But it seems better if we are making liquid fuel a non-cryogenic equivalent then LOX should be too and this would keep it more consistent with stock.

Edward

[RoverDude]

I have no plans for plutonium as of now, so I am good with dropping it in the short term. If I do the RTG thing, I can revisit it

[FreeThinker]

I like to propose to add LqdNitrogen, KSP can retrieve it directly from Earth/Kerbin atmosphere to be used as a propellant in thermal noozles and electric engines

RESOURCE_DEFINITION

{

name = LqdNitrogen

density = 0.000824907

unitCost = 0.00006

flowMode = STACK_PRIORITY_SEARCH

transfer = PUMP

isTweakable = True

}

[RoverDude]

Side note - because we have a combination of 5L and 1L units out there, it's probably a good idea to specify which we're talking about

[futrtrubl]

I like to propose to add LqdNitrogen, KSP can retrieve it directly from Earth/Kerbin atmosphere to be used as a propellant in thermal noozles and electric engines

RESOURCE_DEFINITION

{

name = LqdNitrogen

density = 0.000824907

unitCost = 0.00006

flowMode = STACK_PRIORITY_SEARCH

transfer = PUMP

isTweakable = True

}

I believe this is what IntakeAtm is for, but more general so works for any atmosphere not just ones with Nitrogen.

Edit: Oh, I see what you mean. For more long term storage.... But what mod uses this currently?

Edited February 25, 2015 by futrtrubl

[FreeThinker]

I see you added LqdNitrogen good, but it's density is still wrong, it should be 0.00082490, which is the density of Nitrogen in realistic store cryogenic state.

- - - Updated - - -

I believe this is what IntakeAtm is for, but more general so works for any atmosphere not just ones with Nitrogen.

Edit: Oh, I see what you mean. For more long term storage.... But what mod uses this currently?

No, IntakeAtm is an unrefined resource, highly dependent of the atmosphere it is taken from. It's only usefull for JetEngines, as a KSPI propulsion it is useless

[Nertea]

That's an assuming 1L =1 unit density value. If you want that, fair enough, but just letting you know that it would be nice to move everything to consistent units (1 unit = 5L), which I did for all the others (that's the one that's in there right now).

[FreeThinker]

You are kidding right? If you are going to use 5L you going to create major sadness! Almost all liquid resources are already used with Real Fuels and they all use 1L . Please don't create a resource nightmare! You will achieve exact the opposite of that we try to accomplish

Edited February 25, 2015 by FreeThinker

[NathanKell]

RF picked 1 unit = 1 liter for good reason--not just because the math gets much easier, but also because of how KSP clamps resource transfer so less resource per unit is very good. TACLS did the same thing, I think for the same reasons.

Now, as to how to proceed. I obviously don't have a stake in CRP, but there are certainly players who want to have both RF and CRP-dependent mods in the same install. That gives rise to, IMO, three options.

1. Things stay as they have been: CRP defines its own resources, as does RF, with names that don't collide. That means that we have to deal with the silliness of converting between Ammonia and LqdAmmonia, but it means we're not defining the same name of resource twice (that's very bad).

2. We entirely give up on any kind of interaction; CRP and RF are left in a "use one, not the other" state. Since our aims are very different, that won't affect that many people, but it will affect some.

3. One side adopts the other's convention.

All three routes have obvious downsides. The "feel" of RF is very different than CRP and CRP-related mods (regex once referred to it, the last time this got discussed, as "realismz!" vs "lolsokerbal"), so us standardizing might not make sense. It also, of course, doesn't make sense to have two sets of resources floating around that do the same thing, and it would further be a problem to have things colliding and completely incompatible.

As to RF itself, RF must not compromise completely-real densities for things--even were I to accept the use of returning to 5L units, which I don't (I think 1L makes more sense for a real-resources world, just as 5L makes more sense for a kerbal world), RF certainly would need 100% real densities for whatever volume standard it uses.

I'd be interested to hear your-all's thoughts on this.

[Nertea]

No arguments there at all, that's the perennial problem, which could be elegantly solved if Squad decided to define volume properly!

My idea of the goal of CRP is that it provides a standardized framework for mods that does not change stock mechanics and vaguely ensures that different argon tanks work together, etc. There's no such effort required for RealFuels based mods, because RF chooses real values that are essentially pre-standardized.

As to the options:

1. This is probably the best compromise and it what I'd like to push for. As long as mod makers are diligent in defining module resource properties as MM-targetable parameters instead of hardcoding them, it makes it relatively easy to write patches that convert one set of fuel standards to the other. It's really not horribly difficult to ensure that CRP resources aren't conflicting with RF (there's lots of way to abbreviate liquid hydrogen, for example). This was in fact the reason that I named some of my own custom resources the way I did (LiquidHydrogen vs RF LH2).

2. A viable backup, but it leaves mods that want to support both (which I generally do) in potential trouble.

3. I don't think this is viable. For one, RF should stay RF and not adopt stock KSP's unit madness if it can be avoided at all. Conversely, adapting RF for CRP immediately means that simple compatability with stock is off the table, which is not something I want.

[Guest]

I would love to see the community standardize on 1unit -> 1L to sort of "force Squad's hand", but, like NathanKell, I have literally no stake in CRP (I mean, I use it in one install, but I don't really care how it's implemented since I don't really mod anymore). The problem with that sort of standardization is that CRP then must ship with ModuleManager, although I think the scripts would be pretty simple. OTOH, standardizing means that everyone has access to all fuels and resources, bringing about a great unity in the community.

[RoverDude]

Hopping in

So I for one also (personally) prefer 1L = 1 Unit. That being said, a great deal of those out there are 5L. Some of which are simply not going to change. i.e. if CRP changes it's definition of Ore or Metal, I completely hose compatibility with EL.

So we are 100% clear. My position in this has been that the unit of measure is up to the curating app, and whatever said curator can agree to with the community.

Since I personally have nothing in the fuels department (or more correctly, I'll follow whatever Nertea does since we have a ton of overlap), I'll leave it to FreeThinker and Nertea to decide what makes sense.

Just know we can't change EL, can't change TAC-LS (tho TAC-LS already uses 1L units), etc. - just change what we agree to as a group.

[Northstar1989]

1 unit = 1 liter is highly desirable for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the way KSP internally handles resources (which makes it desirable to have less resource per unit).

Currently, the KSP-Interstellar Extension Config myself and FreeThinker have been working on is making every effort to use realistic resources. We've added Liquid Nitrogen, for instance, which matches the real density of LN₂ and is used as a propellant for thermal and electric rockets. We use an identical definition of Nitrogen to RealFuels for its gaseous form. We also have LiquidCO2- which is once again based off real-world densities.

It would be nice if CRP would move to match realistic resource densities, honestly. Not only would using real densities allow automatic compatibility with mods like RealFuels if the same name were also selected- it would make it MUCH easier for the community to agree on densities for new resources by simply citing real-world densities instead of making arbitrary and subjective arguments about what is "balanced".

Realistic densities would also be more intuitive for players- as the most plausible/believable thing is always going to be real life...

Regards,

Northstar

[UnanimousCoward]

Realistic densities would also be more intuitive for players- as the most plausible/believable thing is always going to be real life...

From a purely philosophical point of view, I have to disagree with this: human beings have an amazing ability to believe stuff that simply isn't true...

[NathanKell]

Before you write off EL changing, I suggest you just ask taniwha, he might be fine with 1L.

[Northstar1989]

I believe this is what IntakeAtm is for, but more general so works for any atmosphere not just ones with Nitrogen.

Edit: Oh, I see what you mean. For more long term storage.... But what mod uses this currently?

KSP-Interstellar Extension Config (which FreeThinker is the author of, and I am a major contributor to) uses Liquid Nitrogen for thermal rockets and plasma thrusters.

It is important to distinguish Liquid Nitrogen from IntakeAtm for a number of reasons. Not the least of which is that IntakeAtm is theoretically a whole-air mix that is meant to be used only for Thermal Turbojets and should differ in composition from planet to planet...

Besides that, though, players can launch thermal rockets right from the launchpad with Liquid Nitrogen aboard- it is not just purely an ISRU resource. Due to the fact that thermal rockets obtain more Thrust per Megawatt of ThermalPower when using propellants with higher molecular weight, but at a lower ISP (this is the same trend as expected in real life), players have a lot to gain from ordering the densities of their Thermal Rocket propellants (and the size of their Thermal Rocket Nozzles) in decreasing levels, like in the following example:

Stage 0: Liquid Nitrogen launch-stage (high Molecular Weight propellant confers high fuel-density and good Sea-Level ISP: Vacuum ISP ratio)

Stage 1: LOX-Augmented Methane upper-stage (LOX-augmentation confers additional Thrust and fuel-density)

Stage 2: Ammonia orbital/transfer stage (with relatively larger ExitArea nozzle than Stages 0 or 1 for better Vacuum ISP... Ammonia is dense and easy to store...)

Stage 3: Pure LH₂ return-stage (Hydrogen confers the highest possible Specific Impulse, but is low-density and difficult to store)

Using progressively lighter propellants allows you to get the most Delta-V for a given quantity of ThermalPower (which is important as nuclear reactors are heavy, and Microwave Beamed Power is expensive...) Note that I used "LH₂" as the Hydrogen-resource name, as KSP-I Extended has built-in RealFuels-compatibility, and is toying with the idea of switching the Interstellar-specific engines to require RealFuels LH₂ instead of stock "LiquidFuel" for balance reasons... (because, with the new/improved modern reactors and better Thrust/MW from Thermal Rockets to match real-life NERVA data of 0.3 kN/MW at 850 seconds with Hydrgoen, "LiquidFuel" is too powerful due to its combined high density *and* ISP...)

If players did not have each of these gasses (which can all be found and separated from planetary atmospheres- a rocket like this could launch from Duna just as easily as Kerbin (Duna's atmosphere contains small amounts of Nitrogen, like Mars, and players can manufacture Ammonia from Nitrogen and Hydrogen via the Haber Process in KSP-I Extended...) they could not stage the density of propellants in their rockets. Simply using "IntakeAtm" is unrealistic (as atmospheric composition varies by planet) and inefficient for a Thermal Rocket...

Regards,

Northstar

[RoverDude]

1 unit = 1 liter is highly desirable for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the way KSP internally handles resources (which makes it desirable to have less resource per unit).

Currently, the KSP-Interstellar Extension Config myself and FreeThinker have been working on is making every effort to use realistic resources. We've added Liquid Nitrogen, for instance, which matches the real density of LN₂ and is used as a propellant for thermal and electric rockets. We use an identical definition of Nitrogen to RealFuels for its gaseous form. We also have LiquidCO2- which is once again based off real-world densities.

It would be nice if CRP would move to match realistic resource densities, honestly. Not only would using real densities allow automatic compatibility with mods like RealFuels if the same name were also selected- it would make it MUCH easier for the community to agree on densities for new resources by simply citing real-world densities instead of making arbitrary and subjective arguments about what is "balanced".

Realistic densities would also be more intuitive for players- as the most plausible/believable thing is always going to be real life...

Regards,

Northstar

Last I checked, not a single person here is arguing against using realistic densities - that's precisely what Nertea is proposing. The only difference is whether stuff goes 5L or 1L - and as I noted when I first started this project, that's up to the curating app, or for folks to hash out.

There will always be stuff in CRP that is 5L based simply because some folks choose to match against stock, or because mods are not interested in changing, or because it's a collective and consistent shorthand for a lot of mods (just as 1L is a shorthand for others).

That has as much to do with real world densities as ham does with hamsters.

- - - Updated - - -

Before you write off EL changing, I suggest you just ask taniwha, he might be fine with 1L.

I would not take that bet if I were you as it would be a breaking change that trickles down to every resource EL uses, and in turn trickles down into a wave of folks who will have to redeploy.

Side note - well, side note(s).

Nobody here is saying to use unrealistic densities. But people are confusing 1L vs 5L with realistic vs not realistic. Apples and tractors, ham and hamsters. So if we're going to have a discussion of 1 vs 5, have it on it's own merits without tossing down an invalid 'realism' card.

Also - let us please remember that CRP's goal is not to dictate one way or the other, it's a way for us to not break each other's stuff, whether that's resource measurements or resource distribution.

Hence why, to channel Regex for a bit, you have 'Magical Fairy Poop' alongside discussions of what the heck Oxidizer is alongside resources with alternate units of measure. It's a clearing house, regardless of what end of the spectrum you are on, and it has (to date) worked spectacularly well. And that bit will not change. What's happening at the moment is we have FreeThinker and Nertea behaving like rational adults and negotiating out how best to make stuff interop (mine will follow whatever theirs does). And that's awesome.

Also, don't forget it is also about how we handle resource mapping. Meaning, right now we use Regolith. In the past we used ORS and ORS-X. And in the future we'll use stock. So that someone looking to fuel a reactor can use the same resource in NFT, USI, or KSPI-E, and can also harvest a raw material from the same place and not have to have two scanners, two drills, etc.

@FreeThinker - in light of the second point, I'd like to propose standardizing on Uraninite for uranium harvesting, and as Nertea noted, consolidate Alumina with Substrate so we have one less scanner/map/harvester for folks to sort through.

[FreeThinker]

Let me make some suggestions :

SOLIDS: For any Solid resources, a 5 unit per liter sounds fine. This includes Ore, Metal, EnrighedUranium, DepletedUranium, Aluminia, Aluminium, Actinides Substrate, Minerals and Teflon. This should keep taniwha happy.

LIQUIDS: For any (cryogenic) liquid I propose to use the 1 unit per Liter standard. Which includes LqdAmonnia, LqdDeterium, LqdPerroxide, LqdHe3, LqdHelium, LqdC02, LqdHydrogen, LqdMethan, LqdNitrogen, LqdOxygen, LqdTritium, Litium and of cource Water and WasteWater.

GASES: For any gas like ArgonGas and XenonGas (which is missing), I would like 1 unit per liter but 5 unit per liter would be possible. I would advice 1 since it's the easiest one (least amount of confusion)

Regarding LqdCO2, I noticed it is claimed by BioMass. Note it is also used as a thermal propelant in KSPI. However I noticed it uses a 4.5 units per Liter density scale.

I guess it would make sence for any organic resource but C02 is just a basic molecule. Since CO2 is also a liquid and used for NTRs, I highly suggest to put it in the 1 unit / Liter scale, otherwise I'm forced to use my own LiquidC02 version (and I don't want that)

Regarding any fantasy resources like LiquidFuel, Oxidiser, Karbonite, Karborandum or SpaceCows, I really don't care. I would suggest to keep them what they are, I think.

Edited February 26, 2015 by FreeThinker

[RoverDude]

RE atmospheric resources - totally cool with adding ones in that folks are using. Regolith is extremely tolerant about stacking configs, so no need to tussle on precise percentages (it just sorts it out). Hence, no prob with Jool having both Karbonite and Hydrogen.

That being said, they should not be done as a straight liquid form - that just does not make sense. And I pretty strongly disagree with scooping LiquidFuel out of the air (not sure if KSPI-E does this). I am a lot more ok with scooping Hydrogen and through a converter compressing it into LiquidHydrogen. Same with Nitrogen. If you want it harvestable, awesome. But having an atmosphere full of LqdNitrogen does not make a lot of sense

[FreeThinker]

@FreeThinker - in light of the second point, I'd like to propose standardizing on Uraninite for uranium harvesting, and as Nertea noted, consolidate Alumina with Substrate so we have one less scanner/map/harvester for folks to sort through.

Uraninite for uranium harvesting Sounds fine with me, they are very similar. Regarding consolidating Alumina and Substrate, I'm not sure if its realsitic. Aluminia is a very specific resource while Substrate is an generic abstract mixed resource like IntakeAir. It's like saying IntakeAir is the same as Nitrogen. For a large part that would be true on Kerbin, but go the another Planet/Moon and the mix would be completely different

- - - Updated - - -

That being said, they should not be done as a straight liquid form - that just does not make sense. And I pretty strongly disagree with scooping LiquidFuel out of the air (not sure if KSPI-E does this). I am a lot more ok with scooping Hydrogen and through a converter compressing it into LiquidHydrogen. Same with Nitrogen. If you want it harvestable, awesome. But having an atmosphere full of LqdNitrogen does not make a lot of sense

Yes I was in doubt about this as well, having both Nitrogen in Gas form (from athmosphere) and Liquid Form for storage sounds fine with me. I already do this in KSPI Extended, which scoops RF Nitrogen in it's gas state from the athmosphere and converts it to Liquid Nitrogen

Edited February 26, 2015 by FreeThinker

[FreeThinker]

Additionally, I made some FlowMode changes to some of the KSPI resources, because ALL_VESSEL sucks.

WasteHeat is currently a global heat type which is available everythere on a vessel. This effectivly allow you to put a gigantic radiator at the top of a wing and it would work as well when connected directly to the reactor. This does not seem terrible realistic, so A flow version would make more sense I guess.

Before we adopt WasteHeat as a standard, has anyone tested how KSPI reacts to other mods generating WasteHeat? There may be other parts of KSPI that every heat source is supposed to participate in, with possible unexpected behavior if you generate heat it isn't accounting for.

A significant problem with WasteHeat instead of SystemHeat might be its diffence in quantity. KSPI Wasteheat is the result of Reactors producing GigaWatts. Do the parts you want to generate WasteHeat also generate GigaWatt? if not, any WasteHeat generated would me insignificant compared to that of KSPI.

Edited February 26, 2015 by FreeThinker