Alcentar

[1.3] RealEnginesPack v1.8 OMS and Apollo engine release. 22/07/2017

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, Alcentar said:

Because I tried to do it but nothing happened. :P

I, uh, see. If you want help with it send me a PM. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

I, uh, see. If you want help with it send me a PM. :)

It would be interesting to know, although I do not see the point in this, at launch it still will not be visible.  :P

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

6 hours ago, Alcentar said:

It would be interesting to know, although I do not see the point in this, at launch it still will not be visible.  :P

 

I know most people cant see them move but it just bothers me when I'm looking at your engines up close at launch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Grabek said:

Hi just quick question - is it possible make compatible with KSP 1.3.1?

 

This will work forever, until SQUAD changes the operation of the engines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as it pure parts, AFAIK there is no reason they shouldn't work. Before RealEngines, I was using Bobcats old SovietEngines for a very long time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Alcentar said:

This will work forever, until SQUAD changes the operation of the engines.

I'm usually using CKAN so I've not seen it in Compatible, then I did it manually and it works fine.

Thank You!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, WhiskyHotel3 said:

How do I install the RO engine configs?

please help

The configs are part of the RO installation (literally in the "RealismOverhaul" folder).

If you got more questions, you should go to the RO-thread. Alcentar has nothing to do with the RO patches, they are usually written by RO-contributors.

Edited by Temeter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kerbal01 said:

surface attached engines aren't getting thrust or prop, I have to run fuel lines to them

Maybe the part has fuel crossfeed disabled? Necessary to supply radially attached engines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Temeter said:

Maybe the part has fuel crossfeed disabled? Necessary to supply radially attached engines.

that was the problem. Using SSTU tanks, apparently that's not enabled by default.

Edited by Kerbal01

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Kerbal01 said:

that was the problem. Using SSTU tanks, apparently that's not enabled by default.

Jep, that's where I learned that rule too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the only criticism I have is the lack of a working nozzle extension on the RD-0146. Not only does it look a bit odd(can't put my finger on it), but, in reality, it would fail to meet its true potential in a vacuum without said nozzle extension. Kinda like how the nozzle extension works on the "Chelyabinsk" or the RL-10 in the cryo engines mod pack is what I picture here. Other than that, I can say that this is one of the best engine backs I've seen in quite some time. Keep up the fantastic work!

Example:

OUVe8XR.jpg

Edited by FiiZzioN
Image for example

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FiiZzioN said:

I think the only criticism I have is the lack of a working nozzle extension on the RD-0146

There seems to be two variants of the RD-0146 that I've seen.  There's the model with the nozzle extension (which the old KOSMOS URM pack modeled), and a variant that does not have the extension, which this pack and Bobcat's old soviet engines pack model.  I'm not sure if that's really two different variants, or if many of the photos on line are of models of the engine with the extension removed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/10/2017 at 12:31 PM, MOARdV said:

There seems to be two variants of the RD-0146 that I've seen.  There's the model with the nozzle extension (which the old KOSMOS URM pack modeled), and a variant that does not have the extension, which this pack and Bobcat's old soviet engines pack model.  I'm not sure if that's really two different variants, or if many of the photos on line are of models of the engine with the extension removed.

I think it's just many photos without the extension. If you look at pictures of the stage that it's meant to be used on, almost all, if not all of them have the extension. The stage I'm referring to is the KVTK, shown here.

Edited by FiiZzioN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey guys, I'm having problems with RealEngines v1.5, Realism Overhaul v11.5.1 on KSP 1.2.2.

I built a ship with the RD-58 engine, then did *something* to my install, and now KSP claims RD-58 is missing. Why? It shows a model loading error in the log file:

File error:
(null)
  at (wrapper managed-to-native) UnityEngine.AnimationClip:SetCurve (string,System.Type,string,UnityEngine.AnimationCurve)
  at PartReader.ReadAnimation (System.IO.BinaryReader br, UnityEngine.GameObject o) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
  at PartReader.ReadChild (System.IO.BinaryReader br, UnityEngine.Transform parent) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
  at PartReader.ReadChild (System.IO.BinaryReader br, UnityEngine.Transform parent) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
  at PartReader.ReadChild (System.IO.BinaryReader br, UnityEngine.Transform parent) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
  at PartReader.ReadChild (System.IO.BinaryReader br, UnityEngine.Transform parent) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
  at PartReader.Read (.UrlFile file) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
 
(Filename: C:/buildslave/unity/build/artifacts/generated/common/runtime/UnityEngineDebugBindings.gen.cpp Line: 42)

Model load error in 'D:\Program Files\KSP-1.2.2-rss\GameData\RealEngines\RD58.mu'

 

Any Idea what could be the problem here? I would not only like to get my ship back, I also like the engine and the model. All the files seem to be present:

QDd2SSv.png

Edited by Kobymaru

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 22.01.2018 at 2:35 AM, Kobymaru said:

Hey guys, I'm having problems with RealEngines v1.5, Realism Overhaul v11.5.1 on KSP 1.2.2.

I built a ship with the RD-58 engine, then did *something* to my install, and now KSP claims RD-58 is missing. Why? It shows a model loading error in the log file:


File error:
(null)
  at (wrapper managed-to-native) UnityEngine.AnimationClip:SetCurve (string,System.Type,string,UnityEngine.AnimationCurve)
  at PartReader.ReadAnimation (System.IO.BinaryReader br, UnityEngine.GameObject o) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
  at PartReader.ReadChild (System.IO.BinaryReader br, UnityEngine.Transform parent) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
  at PartReader.ReadChild (System.IO.BinaryReader br, UnityEngine.Transform parent) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
  at PartReader.ReadChild (System.IO.BinaryReader br, UnityEngine.Transform parent) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
  at PartReader.ReadChild (System.IO.BinaryReader br, UnityEngine.Transform parent) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
  at PartReader.Read (.UrlFile file) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
 
(Filename: C:/buildslave/unity/build/artifacts/generated/common/runtime/UnityEngineDebugBindings.gen.cpp Line: 42)

Model load error in 'D:\Program Files\KSP-1.2.2-rss\GameData\RealEngines\RD58.mu'

 

Any Idea what could be the problem here? I would not only like to get my ship back, I also like the engine and the model. All the files seem to be present:

QDd2SSv.png

You tried to just reinstall the REP???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24.1.2018 at 8:12 PM, Alcentar said:

You tried to just reinstall the REP???

I had version 1.5, because I thought that's the last version compatible with KSP 1.2.2. This one still had the error regardless of reinstalling.

Version 1.8 seems to work for me, and looks like it's also 1.2.2 compatible although it's marked as 1.3.0.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For anyone who has this mod and also the B9PartSwitch mod, @Alcentar included two textures for the RD-0120 engine - the all-gray engine that you see now, and a variant with red on it.  This MM Patch will let you change the texture in the VAB using B9PartSwitch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I no found a normal confirmation that the NK-33/43 has a gimbal, but found evidence that the N1 used small control motors in the three stages of the rocket.

I also do not see where gimbal is placed at all.

Who in the subject ,show me it. :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Alcentar said:

I no found a normal confirmation that the NK-33/43 has a gimbal, but found evidence that the N1 used small control motors in the three stages of the rocket.

I also do not see where gimbal is placed at all.

Who in the subject ,show me it. :huh:

Everything I read says NK-33 / NK-43 has no gimbal.  N-1 used differential steering and roll control motors.  Soyuz-2-1v uses steering motors with NK-33.  Orbital Sciences Antares used modified NK-33 (Aerojet AJ-26) that added gimbals, but I do not have pictures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, MOARdV said:

Everything I read says NK-33 / NK-43 has no gimbal.  N-1 used differential steering and roll control motors.  Soyuz-2-1v uses steering motors with NK-33.  Orbital Sciences Antares used modified NK-33 (Aerojet AJ-26) that added gimbals, but I do not have pictures.

So it is, but in REP they have gimbal... :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/7/2018 at 2:41 PM, Alcentar said:

So it is, but in REP they have gimbal... :P

By looking at the Aerojet pictures. the Gimbal is ABOVE the engine hardware for the NK-33.   IE not part of the model you created Alcentar.  

https://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1012/19aj26test/

http://www.rocket.com/loxhydrocarbon-booster-engines

The last photo on the 2nd link shows an Antares with the bottom skirt removed.    You can clearly see new hardware above the thrust structure of the NK-33 engine.  This hardware is not something that would be seen on any rocket due to how it integrates with the structure of the tank.  So I personally see no reason to create this extra detail.  By looking at this admitedly low detail picture it appears that the Gimbal setup is for 2 engines...   As in the Gimbal hardware is separate from the engines that mount to it.  

And here is a Youtube video of an AJ-26 burn test from the top of the Rocket engine itself.   Note you only see the engine bell and plumbing but you can clearly see the gimbal is ABOVE the point of view

 

 

 

 

Edited by Pappystein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NK engine family does not have gimballing capability since, as other users mentioned, the N-1 LV used differential throttle for steering. As @Pappystein also mentions, OATK had to create a custom engine mount for Antares that includes gimbal actuators, moving the entire engine structure. Now, under stock KSP there is absolutely no way to manage either of these things. So, you cannot blame @Alcentar for his decision of adding gimbal transforms to the engine. Hell, even under RO we configure them to have gimballing, even though in reality they did not have such capability!

(I could also make a case of the wrong S5.92 engine gimballing. The Fregat US, similarly to Antares, moves the entire engine and does so in the X-Y plane, not by changing the thrust vector angle. Something that is also impossible in stock KSP and difficult to achieve with IR.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.