Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
cbroughton

Realism Mod

43 posts in this topic

I'm doing what I can to make the parts of Kerbal Space Program reliable (when needed), and realistic in the sort that the game is actually semi-difficult to play, not just as simple as slapping on some random parts and hitting launch, T, space.

Anywho; these parts come with some crib-notes (hints to their usage) as well as all of the original parts files, and modified parts config. I have removed the winglets from the game as well as they do... very odd things, very unpredictably odd things.

I hope you enjoy these. Please tell me what you think. This is the first thing I've done for Kerbal, so... please don't be too harsh if I messed up something rather large.

Readme:

1. Backup your existing Parts (required) and Ships (recommended)

2. This mod is meant to be used without other parts, as I've not balanced them; so delete your Parts folder after backing it up.

3. Extract the archive into your KSP folder, and load up the example ships (if you want to).

vvv Download Links in SECOND POST vvv

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Click a version number to download! The current recommended version will always be bolded.

v0.1

- Initial Release

v0.2

- Fixed an unintended result where the SRBs were basically rendered useless.

- Fixed an unintended result where the mk1pod was way too heavy to do much.

v0.3

- Finally fixed the SRB balance (hopefully)

- Lowered the weight on the mk1pod a bit, considering we don't know what it's made of.

- Optimized the parachute to deploy at the correct height for the mk1pod's weight and drag.

v0.4

- Balanced SRBs yet again.

- MK1Pod was too heavy for the parachutes, again.

- SRBs were too resistant to explosions.

- Removed hints and readme from archive, it's in the post now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like it, but I feel like you're just saying you don't like boosters. They way this is set up, all you can really use is two stages of boosters and the rest is liquid fuel. If you use 2 stages of boosters the sas will haphazardly keep you from spinning out of control, and either way you only get so far. And then the liquid fuel is so heavy that you'll find once your booster inertia is down you'll be forced to throttle the hell out of your liquid fuel which ends up over heating very very easily. Still though, I like it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like it, but I feel like you're just saying you don't like boosters. They way this is set up, all you can really use is two stages of boosters and the rest is liquid fuel. If you use 2 stages of boosters the sas will haphazardly keep you from spinning out of control, and either way you only get so far. And then the liquid fuel is so heavy that you'll find once your booster inertia is down you'll be forced to throttle the hell out of your liquid fuel which ends up over heating very very easily. Still though, I like it.

I do not mind solid rocket boosters, but in all reality's sake you cannot do a whole lot with something that weights so much. Look at rocketry in real life, most solid rocket fuel tanks are shred off before the rocket leaves earth's atmosphere to my knowledge. I strived to add some difficulty to the game, and I think you'll see that I have.

The liquid fuel (and the mk1 pod itself) are heavier because it only makes sense for them to be. The liquid fuel containers are rather heavy, but have more fuel as the fuel is stored under compression (which idk, just makes sense to me.)

I've made a ~10 stage module that can get out of earth's gravity, orbit, land, and re-launch from earth; but it can't enter orbit a second time yet; I'm working on that, :) It's all up to your skill at flying it seems, and throttle control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right on I'll try to make some more complex ships tomorrow, in the mean time I'll stick with the mod.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll have to agree with darrknox, it seems you dislike boosters but I'll throw this in: You don't like them because they're nice and easy to use for simple rockets.

Perhaps you might want to look at the actual burn time of a solid rocket motor.

Consider this, the existing solid rocket boosters are great for punting a very heavy rocket off the launch pad and to 3,000 feet up before you throw off the final solid stages to transfer to the liquid motors. Alternatively you could just make a giant cube made of solid boosters and punt yourself into orbit like some of the guys at the SA forums have. Or maybe that idea just makes your brain hurt when you imagine a large cube of SRBs launching a tiny little capsule into space?

Before you say 'realistic' you might want to consider that you just said 'I don't know but, just makes sense to me.' It implies you don't know about rocketry very well but instead feel like you're entitled to express your opinions as fact.

Have you ever analyzed the composition of the pod and fuel tanks? Maybe that pod might just be built out of cardboard with some coating, it seems to have the crash survivability of a capsule built like that (Able to withstand small impacts, crushes outright in contact with anything else). Oh wait, game pod, no 'fluff' or anything. No 'Titanium-A' shared by armor of supersoldiers and mecha. It happens to be a pod, weighing unknown units and made of unknown composition. Oh and that fuel? No idea if they're using something hilariously fun like hydrazine (That'd explain why Bill and Bob are freaked out all the time.)

Bonus: Ever consider that tanks are not 'supersoaker' ('Compression') bladders and actually have, gasp, fuel pumps?! Or maybe you might want to read up on liquid rockets that have reignite capability in space and find out about the fun things like having to deal with sloshing in the fuel tank (... Odd, fuel under compression wouldn't slosh, would it?)

On .73 I've made a 5 stage rocket that will launch off the pad, go into orbit, dive back into the atmosphere and then head back into orbit then deorbit.

On .8 I've also made another 5 stage rocket that does exactly the same but with a much enlarged final stage and with less solid boosters.

And on .83 I've made much more simple, 3 stage rockets that do exactly that with large payloads (3 of the stock liquid fuel tanks)

Does it mean anything that I can build rockets that do this? Not really. Does it mean anything you can build rockets that something similar? Not really. It does mean we have very, very large rockets with very high thrust output.

This seems more like an attempt to 'reimagine' the gameplay to your personal tastes more than 'realism.' (What realism, KSB has more in parallel with a hilarious version of the Soviet Space Program and every possible little explodey incident that potentially could of happened and has happened.)

Oh and I don't mean this post as an attack towards you, it just seems you have some misguided ideas and you're honestly trying to change the gameplay. Perhaps you might want to call this a gameplay changing mod and not a 'realism' mod. It just seems very off for you to call it a 'realism' mod relative to what KSB provides right now ('Not a flight simulator.')

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps, viewing it as a difficulty increasing mod?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm having an issue with this. When I descend with my parachute, I'm going twice as fast as normal when my parachute opens at ~500 meters, causing the command module to explode. I'm not sure if the command module is too heavy, or if the parachute is too weak, but it's really grinding my gears knowing that the families of these astronauts are going to have one less plate at the table.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I can deduce about the mod it's that there's more gravity than normal. But yeah, my parachute did was not able to save my astronauts either :-[

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just booted up my game and noticed that I've typed a few figures completely wrong. It was not my intention to make Solid Rocket Boosters useless 5 second thrusts like they were, sorry about that. I've uploaded a better one of that.

And yeah, regarding your post; sure; I don't have any clue about rocketry, but as this is a game I figured nobody would fly off the handle there, but hey, it is the internet :).

And yeah, the command module was one of those mis-typed figures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uploaded. It still needs more work, but should be a bit better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Double the numbers for parachute's open and semi open drag states and you'll fix the problem of not being able to land properly. You will risk tearing the capsule off the rocket and/or the chute being torn off the capsule if the capsule's weight is raised too much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, the capsule still seem to heavy considering as you said, it could be made of anything as far as we know. I'll work on v3 soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should update the index to reflect the stable V0.3 release. Downloading now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good job hope to see better and improve versions later on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uploaded an example rocket so people can see that this pack is not too impossible to use. I managed to get that small non-complex rocket up to 42,000 meters and still land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'In the early days of high altitude sounding rockets with small motors, such as Goddard’s WAC Corporal, propellants were delivered to the motor by pressurized gas. But today’s giants burn such extraordinary amounts of propellant per second, only extremely high speed pumps can deliver the fuel and oxidizer in sufficient quantities fast enough. These pumps are driven by the same propellants burned in the engine.'

I see nothing about fuel under compression here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'In the early days of high altitude sounding rockets with small motors, such as Goddard’s WAC Corporal, propellants were delivered to the motor by pressurized gas. But today’s giants burn such extraordinary amounts of propellant per second, only extremely high speed pumps can deliver the fuel and oxidizer in sufficient quantities fast enough. These pumps are driven by the same propellants burned in the engine.'

I see nothing about fuel under compression here.

Liquids are actually relatively incompressible. They might be delivered by pressurized gas, but that's not the same as compressing a bunch of fuel so you can fit more in a tank. That much is definitely outside the realm of 'realism.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few points for everyone here:

1. Many rocket fuel components are not natrually liquids. They're chilled to change them from a gas to a liquid. Typiclly at the very least the oxidant, (Oxygen), will be like this. Though a few room tempreture liquid fuels do exist. This chillng from a gas to a liquid does indeed increase the density. Still density varies.

Oxygen is about 1.14KGGrams per L, Hydregon about a 60 Grams per liter, Kerosene is noticably more at 0.77KG per liter.

As such through chilling it is indeed possibble to increase density.

2. A few purly asolid fuel to orbit rockets have been built, most are ICBM's, (Yes an ICBM is cabple of orbiting somthing, if the payload being carried is sufficently reduced). As such solid fuels aren't that bad and some, (Due to better densities), are better than Hydregon+Oxygen at anything but near zero atmospheric preashure ranges.

3. Solid boosters are typiclly capable of far higher thrusts than similar size liquid fuel systems, at the expense of total burn time. The Shuttle SRB's are particuarly notable, outputting an individual thrust higher than any liquid engine ever built. Even the dear old F-1 engine isn't that powerful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few points for everyone here:

1. Many rocket fuel components are not natrually liquids. They're chilled to change them from a gas to a liquid. Typiclly at the very least the oxidant, (Oxygen), will be like this. Though a few room tempreture liquid fuels do exist. This chillng from a gas to a liquid does indeed increase the density. Still density varies.

Oxygen is about 1.14KGGrams per L, Hydregon about a 60 Grams per liter, Kerosene is noticably more at 0.77KG per liter.

As such through chilling it is indeed possibble to increase density.

Right, but once your fuel has been liquified, I don't think you can compress it much further (if at all, practically speaking). I'm not a physicist or chemist so I could be wrong about this, but I really don't think compressing/cooling rocket fuels beyond the point of liquefaction is a feasible means of increasing fuel capacity on a spacecraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It isn't, but the OP didn't specify that the fuels where compressed in liquid form. I suspect said OP simply though you can make a gas liquid with sufficent preashure, (in a manner of specaking this is true, but only at preashures far beyond what any material we can concive of can contain).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It isn't, but the OP didn't specify that the fuels where compressed in liquid form. I suspect said OP simply though you can make a gas liquid with sufficent preashure, (in a manner of specaking this is true, but only at preashures far beyond what any material we can concive of can contain).

I both did not anticipate so much hate-trolling, and didn't bother thinking through the whole 'fuel compression' bit. I've read the above posts, and while it seems like elitism to me; they do make great points. Sure, the fuel cannot be stored under compression in liquid form, but why would you store the fuel in liquid form? The only thing a liquid fuel engine requires is that the fuel be liquid before it gets to the engine, not that the fuel actually be stored in a liquid.

Another great point is the heat in space, or lack there of. What is the ambient temperature of space exactly? Because I'm sure that too would increase the density of most liquids, even though liquids are technically 'compressible'. You'd still save... ~5% or something? Just a guess, but I remember from science classes that when a substance loses energy, its molecules stop repulsing each other as strongly; and hence would be 'compressed' to a definition.

--

I don't claim to be a PHD in anything, I only have basic university level courses, everything else is still high school level; including math and science. So don't take my posts as fact, and don't think for a second that this is how I want them interpreted.

Also, if you compare my fuel values on liquid engines in the cfg to the originals, you will notice that mine are hardly compressed any more than the originals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0