[1.8.1 - 1.12.3] Realistic Atmospheres

[Jivaii]

Just installed this mod. Gonna be entertaining! =D

[toric5]

any idea if this will mess with orbital resource gathering, of the sort that karbonite and K+ uses?

[Galileo]

30 minutes ago, toric5 said:

any idea if this will mess with orbital resource gathering, of the sort that karbonite and K+ uses?

No it doesn't touch resources or the way they are gathered.  This just makes the atmospheres behave more realistically. 

[toric5]

Just now, Galileo said:

No it doesn't touch resources or the way they are gathered.  This just makes the atmospheres behave more realistically. 

yah. my question is whether or not it can cause the atmosphere to rise up to the point where your 'orbital' resources are no longer outside the atmosphere. im guessing that the resource bands dont move up with the atmo?

[OhioBob]

1 hour ago, toric5 said:

yah. my question is whether or not it can cause the atmosphere to rise up to the point where your 'orbital' resources are no longer outside the atmosphere. im guessing that the resource bands dont move up with the atmo?

I don't use the mods that you reference, but it seem likely the problem you suggest could be real.  This mod does nothing to alter the configuration settings of other mods.  So where this mod has increased the height of an atmosphere, it's probable that it could absorb an orbital resource band.  That's assuming the altitudes at which the resources are located is static.  I don't know how the other mods work, so I can't say with certainty.  You may just have to try it out and see what happens.

[JetJaguar]

I have a question about Jool.  The molecular weight is 2.2 g/mol, but in the config file you have:

atmosphereMolarMass = 0.022

It seems that something is off by a factor of 10, or am I misunderstanding the units used in the config file?

[OhioBob]

On ‎2‎/‎2‎/‎2017 at 8:36 PM, JetJaguar said:

I have a question about Jool.  The molecular weight is 2.2 g/mol, but in the config file you have:

atmosphereMolarMass = 0.022

It seems that something is off by a factor of 10, or am I misunderstanding the units used in the config file?

You are correct, thanks for catching what is a very big mistake.  The units are kg/mol, so it should be 2.2 / 1000 = 0.0022.  I've checked my original computations and they are correct, I just made a typo when I entered the value in the config.  All this time Jool's atmosphere has been ten times denser than it should be.  I'll fix it and release an update.

[OhioBob]

Realistic Atmospheres, version 1.2.3

A significant error in Jool's atmosphere has been found and corrected.  Because of a typo, Jool's atmosphere had a molecular weight of 22 g/mol instead of the correct value of 2.2 g/mol.  This means that Jool's atmosphere was 10 times denser than it should have been.  Warning to previous users of this mod, expect Jool's atmosphere to behave differently than in earlier versions.  Don't rely on previous experience to predict future performance.

[OhioBob]

 Be advised that Realistic Atmospheres, version 1.2.3 works with KSP 1.3 and Kopernicus 1.3.0-1.

 

Edited May 27, 2017 by OhioBob

[strudo76]

Kopernicus is up to 1.3.0-4 now. Is it generally safe to update Kopernicus without breaking this mod, or best to wait until you've taken a look at the changes?

[OhioBob]

On ‎6‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 7:41 PM, strudo76 said:

Kopernicus is up to 1.3.0-4 now. Is it generally safe to update Kopernicus without breaking this mod, or best to wait until you've taken a look at the changes?

I haven't tired with Kopernicus 1.3.0-4 yet, but this mod has a pretty good track record of not breaking with Kopernicus updates.  You're probably safe, but I need to check it out just to make sure.

[KerbMav]

How would I safely integrate this mod into my 2x Kerbin with 1.5x atmosphere via Sigma Dimensions?

I have the feeling the atmosphere is a bit thicker in the upper layers now, or maybe it is just the 1km/s more orbital speed, but I am getting a lot of reentry heating very soon after entering a few meters of atmosphere.

[Sigma88]

1 hour ago, KerbMav said:

How would I safely integrate this mod into my 2x Kerbin with 1.5x atmosphere via Sigma Dimensions?

I have the feeling the atmosphere is a bit thicker in the upper layers now, or maybe it is just the 1km/s more orbital speed, but I am getting a lot of reentry heating very soon after entering a few meters of atmosphere.

for 10x @OhioBob suggestion was 

Atmosphere = 1.25
atmoTopLayer = 1.6

so for 2x it would be

Atmosphere = 1.05
atmoTopLayer = 1.12

which will give you an atmosphere height of 82320

if you want something closer to 1.5 you could try

Atmosphere = 1.125
atmoTopLayer = 1.3

[OhioBob]

8 hours ago, KerbMav said:

How would I safely integrate this mod into my 2x Kerbin with 1.5x atmosphere via Sigma Dimensions?

I have the feeling the atmosphere is a bit thicker in the upper layers now, or maybe it is just the 1km/s more orbital speed, but I am getting a lot of reentry heating very soon after entering a few meters of atmosphere.

Realitstic Atmospheres is completely compatible with Sigma Dimensions.  Just install both RA and SD and write your SD config as you normally would.  If you're getting too much reentry heat shortly after entry, it sounds like you might not be using the atmoTopLayer multiplier.  atmoTopLayer is used to extrapolate the atmosphere beyond where the original curves left off so that you get a thinner upper atmosphere.

The formula that I use for the atmosphere factors is,

Resize^LOG(X)

where X = height at 10x / height at 1x.

So for atmosphere, the height at 10x is 1.25, and the height at 1x is 1.  And the total height of the atmosphere at 10x is 1.25*1.6 = 2, and at 1x it is 1.

Therefore, for a 2x resize I'd use the following:

Atmosphere = 2^LOG(1.25) = 1.07

Total height = 2^LOG(2) = 1.23

atmoTopLayer = 1.23 / 1.07 = 1.15

I generally use the computed value of Atmosphere without modification.  There's more flexibility with atmoTopLayer.  For instance, in this case we might want the final height of the atmosphere to be 1.2 times the original height so we don't get a bunch of weird numbers.  In that case,

atmoTopLayer = 1.2 / 1.07 = 1.121495327

 

Edited June 24, 2017 by OhioBob

[KerbMav]

@Sigma88 @OhioBob

As I was not looking for a proportionately scaled atmosphere for my 2x Kerbin just a higher one that thins slower, I went with

@Resize = 2
@Atmosphere = 1.153846153846 	
@atmoTopLayer = 1.300000000000	
@dayLengthMultiplier = 4

for the atmosphere, reentry seems to work better for now, more testing for g during reentry required.

And I only picked

@Kopernicus:FOR[RealisticAtmospheres]
{
	@Body[Kerbin]
	{
		@Atmosphere
		{
			temperatureLatitudeBiasCurve
			{
				key = 0 13 0 -0.2
				key = 15 10 -0.2 -0.2
				key = 38 0 -0.8 -0.8
				key = 60 -13 -0.7 -0.7
				key = 75 -25 -0.65 -0.65
				key = 90 -32 -0.4 0
			}
			temperatureLatitudeSunMultCurve
			{
				key = 0 12 0 0
				key = 22.5 14.5 0 0
				key = 45 11 -0.18 -0.18
				key = 90 4 -0.12 0
			}
			temperatureAxialSunBiasCurve
			{
				key = 0 0 0 0
			}
			temperatureAxialSunMultCurve
			{
				key = 0 0 0 0
			}
			temperatureEccentricityBiasCurve
			{
				key = 0 0 0 0
			}
		}
	}
}

from RA to see if I get a bit more frost bite at the poles.

[OhioBob]

@KerbMav, the stock temperatureLatitudeBiasCurve for Kerbin has a broader latitudinal range of temperature than RA.  From +17 at the equator to -50 at the poles.  So the poles should be frostier in stock than in RA.  For temperatureLatitudeSunMultCurve, there not a large difference between stock vs. RA.  Through the RA range is based on a scientific paper that I found studying diurnal temperature range on Earth, so I think it may be more lifelike.  The RA latitudinal range is also based on real life models of Earth.

[SamBelanger]

I tried and beautiful work

Edited July 29, 2017 by SamBelanger
GG

[Gordon Dry]

CurseForge is bad the last time, very slow, no download response for minutes etc.

What I want to say:

Please also use GitHub and Spacedock

[Gordon Dry]

Does this not confuse TWR readouts of any mods, like MJ or KER ?

Because I launched a quick test rocket, 2nd stage should start with TWR 1.11 at sea level and be above 1.30 when staged, but vessel get's slower and slower ...

No FAR or DR is installed!

I also have TCA installed for testing, but for the vessel it's deactivated...

Log:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/dl7nb7hzhh2kfra/2017-07-30-1 KSP.log.zip?dl=1

Edit:

It seems that TWR ASL has to be > 1.5 and at about 18km altitude still > 1.25 to get through.

I will add FAR and DR again and test it with them.

Edit:

With FAR it's working.

 

Edit²:

but it shouldn't be like that. A TWR of 1.1 should be enough to get lifted, no matter what.
And I know that KER in several situations is wrong, so I have to peek one eye to the MechJeb readings... but still, a minimum of 1.5 is not okay.

Edited July 31, 2017 by Gordon Dry

[OhioBob]

@Gordon Dry, there's nothing about Realistic Atmospheres (RA) that should be causing the problem you're describing.  I've never experienced the problem and no one else has ever reported it.  I also don't see anything in the logs that suggests a problem related to RA.  I suspect there's likely something else causing the problem.  But you have about 200 mods installed, most of which I'm unfamiliar with.  I can't begin to suggest what might be at fault.
 

Edited August 2, 2017 by OhioBob

[Kandréas]

On 31/7/2017 at 0:04 AM, Gordon Dry said:

Does this not confuse TWR readouts of any mods, like MJ or KER ?

Because I launched a quick test rocket, 2nd stage should start with TWR 1.11 at sea level and be above 1.30 when staged, but vessel get's slower and slower ...

No FAR or DR is installed!

I also have TCA installed for testing, but for the vessel it's deactivated...

Log:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/dl7nb7hzhh2kfra/2017-07-30-1 KSP.log.zip?dl=1

Edit:

It seems that TWR ASL has to be > 1.5 and at about 18km altitude still > 1.25 to get through.

I will add FAR and DR again and test it with them.

Edit:

With FAR it's working.

 

Edit²:

but it shouldn't be like that. A TWR of 1.1 should be enough to get lifted, no matter what.
And I know that KER in several situations is wrong, so I have to peek one eye to the MechJeb readings... but still, a minimum of 1.5 is not okay.

I got the same issue while flying small test rocket with a TWR of at least 2.5 (I have only RA, not FAR).
The problem is that the drag increase a lot during the transonic phase of the flight (around 0.95 Ma, according to the KSP's AeroGUI); this, combined with the weight of the craft, can result in an opposite force higher than thrust, slowing down the rocket a little until the drag decrease after passing the sonic speed. The higher are the TWR, the lower this phenomenon is.
I think that this problem is related to the drag model of KSP (and not to RA), while FAR is using a better one.

PS: keep in mind that the TWR doesn't take count of the drag forces applied to the rocket during flight in atmosphere.

[Ivy]

How does this affect RealChute? I imagine there would have to be manual tweaking rather than the realchute presets being able to fully work from the get-go.

[OhioBob]

On ‎8‎/‎27‎/‎2017 at 11:37 PM, Ivy said:

How does this affect RealChute? I imagine there would have to be manual tweaking rather than the realchute presets being able to fully work from the get-go.

I don't know, I haven't done any testing with RealChute.  You'll just have to try it and see.  That being said, I see no reason why any parachute wouldn't work just as well with these atmospheres as with any other.

 

Edited August 31, 2017 by OhioBob

[Galileo]

25 minutes ago, OhioBob said:

I don't know, I haven't done any testing with RealChute.  You'll just have to try it an see.  That being said, I see no reason why any parachute wouldn't work just as well with these atmospheres as with any other.

Works just fine  

[Gordon Fecyk]

If I want to combine Realistic Atmospheres with Galileo's Stock Visual Terrain, would I need to overwrite SVT's atmospheres with RA's? Or do these play well together already?

SVT doesn't appear to change (or even specify) atmosphere configs, and RA doesn't appear to change (or specify) any terrain configs, so at first glance they should work together.