rsparkyc

[1.2.2] Realistic Progression Zero (RP-0) - Lightweight RealismOverhaul career v0.54 June 15

Recommended Posts

So, I guess time to start a new game - the old one was getting pretty unstable anyway.

I haven't been able to do a CKAN install of RP for ages and ages. With all the recommended mods just installed; (ie. just select everything!) there is a ton of stuff that's not RP-0 or RO supported. Some of them look pretty cool - ie. high thrust but rubbish ISP in the starting node. And I've never seen them before.

In general, do you reckon these are challenge breaking and I should install no non-RP0, or are they just not yet supported?

To put it in perspective, on moderate difficulty, I have usually "beaten" the game by the end of 1955. I never make it to Mars with manned missions because I get bored or the game gets unstable, but I've unlocked all the useful tech nodes and have everything fully upgraded. But I want more options.

 

I was always sad that so many of the parts were just of no use because the price/performance meant using things like the F1 or M1 or any solid not in the first 2 nodes was just pointless as better, cheaper parts could be substituted. I want to play with more engines :lol:; make more interesting designs!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, the game is what you make it.  That being said i used near future electric propulsion for my Europa mission and i wouldnt do it again, it felt too much like a stock game and it diminishes the achievement in the long run.

You should definetly try manned Mars mission! Its a whole other ball game, it really makes you realize how much more difficult would real life mission to mars be, compared to the moon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, species said:

You should definetly try manned Mars mission! Its a whole other ball game, it really makes you realize how much more difficult would real life mission to mars be, compared to the moon.

Yeah, I just played a couple of hours and have accidently optimised the start even more. Would have easily made orbit within ~7 months. Starting again with Hard for no reverts - that will make things interesting and we shall see if I can keep all my astronauts.

I kind of want to do that. I have gone so far as to put a station with 3 years of supplies for 2 people into Mars orbit. I guess I like RO and RP-0/1 because it is realistic; well for a game at least. So on that note, there is no way to put 2 or 3 people into an Apollo capsule for a year or more - they would probably kill each other. And, (in real life) there is no way humans are doing a return trip to Mars without ISRU. The rocket equation is not your friend. I'm not saying its technically impossible - just that it wouldn't go down that way when we have at least 2 technologies that would get you off Mars almost for free.

So while my game tries not to crash launching a 40,000+ tonne rocket, I'll be more annoyed than excited :/

I guess that's the real reason I've avoided it till now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if this is the right place to post (I apologize if it's not), but could someone help me figure out how to use the procedural fairings (i.e. insterstage base) properly in RP-1 and Realism Overhaul?  I can't seem to get my second stage to decouple correctly.  I've tried using both insterstage and payload fairings as well as using an actual decoupler.  Thanks in advance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, golfsoccer9 said:

Not sure if this is the right place to post (I apologize if it's not), but could someone help me figure out how to use the procedural fairings (i.e. insterstage base) properly in RP-1 and Realism Overhaul?  I can't seem to get my second stage to decouple correctly.  I've tried using both insterstage and payload fairings as well as using an actual decoupler.  Thanks in advance.

Photos of your rocket in the vab might help.  Also you will probably get  faster turnaround on RO/RP-0/1 discord https://discord.gg/3CNYSC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/29/2018 at 9:51 AM, New Horizons said:

Is there a thread for RP-1 releases and discussion? 

Not yet that i know of, but RP0 is evolving into RP1 and there is no going back :)  There is a RP1 section on the RO Discord.  There is pretty extensive early game balancing after the most recent RiS game shows how easy it was to abuse SR contracts.

NathanKell has been hot on tuning the timings to get first orbit closer to '58 than we have now (mid '51)

 

On 1/4/2019 at 3:16 PM, golfsoccer9 said:

Not sure if this is the right place to post (I apologize if it's not), but could someone help me figure out how to use the procedural fairings (i.e. insterstage base) properly in RP-1 and Realism Overhaul?  I can't seem to get my second stage to decouple correctly.  I've tried using both insterstage and payload fairings as well as using an actual decoupler.  Thanks in advance.

Use the higher of the nodes to get a decoupler, otherwise put a decoupler on lower node and separate using that.  Interstage fairing are not intended to separate, using fairings in their place will allow you to eject them out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm i seem to have an issue where my kerbals stopped requiring training at all, even tho its enabled in difficulty setting. I can use every kerbal anywhere without any proficiency or mission training, pretty sure it worked at start Oo. 

 

edit - https://www.dropbox.com/s/lkeco49qctqha70/output_log.txt?dl=0    log if anyone cares :D

Edited by species

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, species said:

Hmm i seem to have an issue where my kerbals stopped requiring training at all, even tho its enabled in difficulty setting. I can use every kerbal anywhere without any proficiency or mission training, pretty sure it worked at start Oo. 

What capsules/cockpits are are you testing this with? If the parts have an entry cost of 1 then no training is required before being able to assign crews to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, siimav said:

What capsules/cockpits are are you testing this with? If the parts have an entry cost of 1 then no training is required before being able to assign crews to them.

Mercury from FASA, but i jsut time warped to Gemini and that still requires training, thats weird.

What i did specifically is got 4 astronauts for Gemini at start and all those required training. Then i flew few missions and recruited 4 more for Gemini, and those new 4 can fly Mercury without proficiency or mission training. Hope im not confusing too much lol :D

Guess its not a problem since im close to Gemini anyway.

 

edit - RP-1 seems to get it fine, since i cant have the new guys do a mission training since they dont have the proficiency. But KCT allows me to board em for some reason.

Edited by species

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/14/2019 at 3:10 AM, species said:

edit - RP-1 seems to get it fine, since i cant have the new guys do a mission training since they dont have the proficiency. But KCT allows me to board em for some reason.

Yeah, noticed this too. I'm just playing fair and training them anyway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for this awesome mod, however could we please be given a predicted date for when it will be updated to work with ksp 1.4.5 as realism overhaul has recently been updated to this version

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are working on an update.  It will be ready when it is done.  

After that I believe the current plan is to work on updating to 1.6.1.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey there, quick question regarding the RP-0 Preset for KCT. I'm using RP-1 on 1.3.1, having used CKAN to install nearly everything, and I was wondering if it's normal, with that preset loaded, for a standard V-2-style with 2 upgrade points into the VAB, to take 292 days to construct? Oh, I should also mention that I did tool the parts.

Edited by fallout2077
A bit more info...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@fallout2077 : That sounds about right, assuming you haven't invested many points into VAB build rate yet.  

Edited by AVaughan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know if I should ask this on the rp-1, RO or Realfuels thread, but here it goes:

Is there a way to add additional RCS fuel combinations into RO/rp-1? I've been digging trough the gamedata files and cannot seem find where they are specified. The different MM configs all seem to direct to eachother but if I make an additional config or edit it doesn't seem to get picked up by the game so I can't use it. I think I've dug trough every forum post and Github issue that mentions RO and RCS, but I'm coming up with a blank so far.

The reason I want this is I want to add lCH4/lO2 and lH2/lO2 as a later option in the tech tree. With the better and better mod compatibility we have gotten from rp-1 the late tech tree has been given more options for the post-Apollo era. Engines like the BE-4 and the RL-10CECE variants are in the tree by default and SpaceX raptor is also supported. What I'm missing is RCS tech past the apollo ERA, yes the TL levels up some more giving more efficiency and a bit more thrust, but nothing new is added, forcing you to still use heavy Mono- or Bi-propellant RCS tankage. Also I've been editing some REALISRU files and it seems to "work" on my game, so I've set myself a goal of doing a ISRU Mars mission.

I've been researching the subject online and loads of work has been done in RL over the past 10 years on these systems, including vacuum chamber long duration live firings and NASA has flown a methalox test bed with a full Methalox RCS system for a while. The gist of the later documents is the hardware could be made mission ready right now if the mission to use it existed. That is all in NASA public documentation, I would guess SpaceX and BO are also diligently working on these systems. So basicly looking at a 2010-2020 bracket for placing them in the tech tree.

So for the DEVS my question would be: Is expanding the RCS fuel options being considered???

I'd be willing to work out the numbers needed to add it, which shouldn't be too hard, it's only rocket science after all :D. I just need to know which data is needed.

Apart from that any pointers as to which config files to EDIT to get this working are very appreciated.

Some documentation:

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20170006927.pdf

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20170004427.pdf

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20030067582.pdf

Can't imagine playing KSP without RO/rp-1 anymore, it just ads so much more gameplay.

Edited by Rob K
typo's, added links

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, AVaughan said:

@fallout2077 : That sounds about right, assuming you haven't invested many points into VAB build rate yet.  

Okay then, thanks for reassuring me... now I know that I don't have a wonky RP-0 setup. Thanks for putting my mind at ease!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I ask who the heck is actually in charge of deving RP1 these days? Its not like I expect "support" for the mod, you guys aren't getting paid. But nobody even seems to reply to discussions on balancing and the like these days.

Would be good to know who is running the show, since I'm not sure it is the OP anymore?...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of discussion in the rp-0/1 section of the RO discord https://discord.gg/AsJA897 , and some on github.  (I'm not sure whether any discussion is happening anywhere else).

 

I'm not sure that any one person is running the show.  Nathan Kell has been on discord, and Pap, plus lots of other people.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, AVaughan said:

Lots of discussion in the rp-0/1 section of the RO discord https://discord.gg/AsJA897 , and some on github.  (I'm not sure whether any discussion is happening anywhere else).

 

I'm not sure that any one person is running the show.  Nathan Kell has been on discord, and Pap, plus lots of other people.

 

OK. Thanks for the reply. Personally, I find github to be extremely confusing. And I don't use discord (never tried, but I understand its for voice chat, which is no-go for me). But at least now I know where the action is! Ta :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Antstar said:

OK. Thanks for the reply. Personally, I find github to be extremely confusing. And I don't use discord (never tried, but I understand its for voice chat, which is no-go for me). But at least now I know where the action is! Ta :lol:

Discord offers both text channels and voice channels.  Most of the RO/RP-0/1 channels are text channels.  (Think next generation IRC).  That works much better for discussing things when not everybody will be online at the same time.  Voice chat works well for people actually playing realtime multiplayer games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe one of you can give me a hint how to proceed. I want to modify entryCost of an engine. I guess it should happen at the end of all MM patches.

I tried this one:

@PART[liquidEngine]:FINAL
{
    @entryCost = 4000
}

But in the end I find a very different value ingame and it seems to collide with the following 

// NOTE: all . and _ are replaced by -
ENTRYCOSTMODS
{
}
@ENTRYCOSTMODS:FOR[RP-0]
{
	PART
	{
		name = liquidEngine
		maxSubtraction = 6000
		entryCostMultipliers
		{
			FASAMercuryAtlasEng = 0
			bluedog-atlasSustainer = 0
		}
		entryCostSubtractors
		{
			RO-LR-89 = 4000
			FASAMercuryAtlasEngBooster = 4000
			bluedog-atlasBooster = 4000
			liquidEngine1-2 = 1000
			FASADeltaMB3LFE = 1000
			SHIP-LR-71 = 1000
		}
	}
}

in "EntryCostModifiers.cfg"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Liquidengine" doesn't really work in rp1. The costs are set in a spreadsheet which is used by rp1 to create a config for all parts. It can be edited directly but you need to use python for that.

 

What you can do is make a "final" mm patch ro change the config for an engine after rp1has set its configs.

 

For an example on how to do that look in the realisru github. It has a config file to add parts to the tech tree. You can use that as an example to do what you want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Rob K said:

"Liquidengine" doesn't really work in rp1. The costs are set in a spreadsheet which is used by rp1 to create a config for all parts. It can be edited directly but you need to use python for that.

 

What you can do is make a "final" mm patch ro change the config for an engine after rp1has set its configs.

 

For an example on how to do that look in the realisru github. It has a config file to add parts to the tech tree. You can use that as an example to do what you want.

Thank you for a qiuck assist. I went through those files, but couldn't find any special treatment for entryCost. I am not that much interested in RP-Configs for engines (using already working Real Fuels Stockalike in a scaled universe anyway), but want to move and modify engines in the techtree, it works fine so far, but for entryCost. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a more sensible method of matching the diameter of a procedural part to a non-procedural part, other than "just eye-balling it"?

For example, the Aerobee parts all match up, but if I put a procedural nose-cone on it, what diameter should it be?  380mm "looks" right, but I'm not certain.  I'm also not certain how accurate the match needs to be to not impact FAR's modelling, so eye-balling it may well be good enough?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.