Jump to content

Who's playing Realism Overhaul etc.?


Zeiss Ikon

Recommended Posts

A few weeks ago, I found a series of videos on YouTube by Grayduster, documenting (I presume, I'm only on episode 8 so far) a playthrough of 1.3.1 Realism Overhaul with RP-1 (the Dev branch of RP-0, with a much more, IMO, sensible tech tree).

I'm finding, however, that some things don't really work as I'd expected (and yes, this does seem to be "as intended" operation, in most cases).

If you don't create a NoNonRP0 folder (and delete ModuleManager.ConfigCache, if it's not your first game start), your parts bin is flooded with "Non RP-0" parts -- but if you do, you don't get some (IMO) critical starter parts and probably a few other important bits -- the premade Aerobee fins and tanks, for instance; pretty important since the WAC Corporal/Aerobee analogs are very important to the early career (and there's apparently no way to bypass those vessles, due to lack of selection for small solid rocket motors and not-yet-working procedural SRMs).

Then there's the issue of how long Kerbal Construction Time says it will take to build your rockets -- which seems to vary wildly with difficulty levels.  I'm currently playing at "normal", and a Bumper equivalent (A-4 engine and suitable tanks, pushing a WAC Corporal or Aerobee upper stage) was taking only about 36 hours to build, from VAB design to ready to roll out -- but in my first career attempt, this same rocket (give or take a tiny detail) was taking more than a year to complete; it took me from 1951-01-01 to May of 1958 (and the retirement of both Jeb and Val) to launch something like seven sounding rocket missions.

Now, I know this is Dev Branch for RP-0, and some of the other stuff is dev level -- and I'm not complaining; I'll find a KCT setting that seems reasonably realistic and that will solve the build time issue; over time, RP-0 will get straightened out, too.  I'm not willing to drop back to 1.2.2 -- that's the version I started with on KSP, and I've quite gotten used to the newer game (I wish I could play the RSS/RO/RP-1 on 1.4.3, in fact).

Is anyone else playing RO on 1.3.1, and if so, can you make suggestions on what KCT settings and other things to use?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did put most of my build points into VAB -- a few into SPH, as I had some plan for X planes, and a few into tech.  The problem, in that first career attempt, was that there were so few to spread around.  I might do better with those settings now, I've improved on getting All The Science, but seriously, the real world launched eight Bumpers (A-4 pushing a WAC Corporal, which was a baby Aerobee) between 1948 and late 1950, had launched eight or nine WAC Coporals on their original Tiny Tim boosters between 1944 and 1946, had an ongoing Aerobee program that launched more than twenty rockets just during IGY 1956-1957.  By 1958, Juno I put Explorer I into LEO, where it stayed long after its batteries ran down.

It doesn't seem unreasonable that, with good play, one ought to be able to recreate the real world time line relative to what launches when.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I had a quick look at this on my rp-1 install (which hasn't been updated for a few months, so certainly isn't uptodate).  I started a new game and designed a new Aerobee + Tiny Tim rocket.  (I used procedural tanks and procedural wings like I normally do).   I put all the starting points in VAB build rate (again like normal, once I get some science points I'll be able to unlock a tech and can then put that point into research rate.  I'll typically buy a few points early on as well).  Before I tooled the tanks, KCT said the Wac Corporal would take about 63 days.  After tooling that dropped to 21 days.  (Normal difficulty, with the RP-0 KCT preset.  That matches my recollection of earlier games as well.  Subsequent rockets should be faster to build as kct rewards using the same parts with faster build times).  So my best guess is that either something was wrong in your original playthrough, or you weren't using the RP-0 KCT preset.  For the second playthrough, 36 hrs seems a little fast for a Wac Corporal design at the start of career, but is probably possible if you put enough points in VAB build rate.  (By the time I did a geostationary launch in career I was able to push out my workhorse comsat/weathersat design in 7-10 days last time I played). 

Edited by AVaughan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm.  Maybe I just didn't approach things correctly.

I really don't want the "unmanned before manned" "don't worry if your Kerbals retire" approach Grayduster used in his video series, so I need to keep the SPH active to give Jeb and Val something to fly before I get to a Mercury analog (which requires getting into the 25+ tier of the tech tree to get capsules that can stand reentry -- the "Conical Cockpit" and X-1 cockpit aren't stable with heat shield forward, so burn up when they hit the dense atmosphere around 25 km.  Alternately, I need to get things built and flown and science collected fast enough to build Mercury before 1957 -- which was what I was trying to do in my first career with this setup.

BTW, is there something I need to do to make the runway usable?  I don't recall the 1.3.1 runway having all sorts of what look like drainage control ridges across it, but it certainly does (even after one upgrade) in this setup.  It's almost impossible to take off from, unless you have an airplane that can lift off between ridges (and a fully laden X-1 analog isn't that airplane).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Zeiss Ikon said:

Conical Cockpit" and X-1 cockpit aren't stable with heat shield forward, so burn up when they hit the dense atmosphere around 25 km

Speaking from experience I have used those cockpits as an early orbital capsule, so its not an impossibility. I just need to use the giant non rp0 huygens heatshield. Worked decently well at the time. Definitely not preferable to an actual capsule, but it's not totally unreasonable. 

I should also note that this was also in rss/ro, if that matters. Though I kinda assume it is? 

Edited by qzgy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have also used the X-1 cockpit for sub-orbital manned altitude contracts.  From memory I added something blunt right behind the capsule, then used the offset tool to move it to the front of the capsule, so I had 2 blunt ends, wrapped everything in a fairing, then used a rocket to go nearly vertical.  It got up to around 160km.  (If you shut the engine down early you can do multiple contracts, each with a higher altitude). That got my kerbonauts enough experience that no-one retired before I got a proper capsule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found that flying from the runway would set back their retirement dates, at least by a few weeks or months at a time.  The problem is taking off from the runway.  Last night I built a Bonanza, hoping Jeb and Val could at least ferry Bill or Bob to locations to get "flying" science.  Same problem I had with the Hyperfly (X-1 analog): can't get the thing over the seams in the runway without breaking parts.  There may be some things I need to look up on how to set the constant speed prop and what flap setting to use for takeoff (sure didn't seem like I had 375 kW at the propeller), but the big issue was that when I hit the first runway seam, the tail cone exploded.  Not to mention that, after recovering the remainder of the aircraft, Jeb's retirement date didn't change, nor did he go "on leave" (does he do that only for rocket powered or potentially supersonic aircraft, perhaps?).

BTW, @AVaughan, flying a fully fueled WAC Corporal with Tiny Tim booster, using B9 "Early" procedural wings for fins results in the fins burning off, which causes the craft to break up, after which you can't collect science (even though the telemetry ring and science instruments are fully intact and still attached to the nose cone).  I found that cutting the fuel in the sustainer to 50% allowed the thing to start slowing down after the fins started to emit that voluminous smoke trail, but before they actually came off (perfect!), which still got almost 30 km, which was enough to get the science needed to unlock "Post War Material Science" which includes the Aerobee fins, engine, decoupler, tank, science module, parachute pack, and nose cone.  I presume the B9 "Supersonic" procedural parts would survive the Mach 2.5+ flight (since the really high speeds are late enough to be above 25 km) -- but by the time I unlock them, I have the Aerobee parts.

I think the "first flight" contract actually assumes you'll just put together an A-4 "kit" -- 8 parts plus the launch clamp, all in the tech node that unlocks when you take the contract.  That rocket will go 200+ km and 1500 m/s, without any real effort on the part of the player.  I started with the WAC mainly because the US had flown more than a dozen of them before the shipment of A-4 parts arrived in the US -- it's a 1944 design.  Honestly, I think it would be amusing if RO/RP-* included the early Goddard rockets -- the front engine ones, and the later "conventional" looking designs (one of which was the first self-powered device to exceed the speed of sound, with the lid from a coffee maker for a nose cone).  Congreve and Hale rockets might be going a little too far back...  :rolleyes: 

At the very least, I'd like to be able to set the start date earlier than 1951 -- start, say, on 1946-01-01, with a few other "reformed" missile motors that could be repurposed into sounding rockets, or boosters and upper stages for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have trouble landing planes, so I never build any in RP-0.  But in stock KSP before about 1.3, the starting landing strip was terribly bumpy, and the standard workaround was to taxi off the runway and onto the grass, and takeoff/land there.  (That is perfectly flat).   

I normally start with a wac-corporal, and have never had the proc wings burn off during ascent, but as I said we probably have different parts mods.    (My install is also a few months out of date, so I expect at least some mods are at different versions.  There are also a few different proc wing mods available, so we might be using different proc wing mods.  I have a version of B9-aerospace wings I installed on Feb 05.  Manually installed, so it might have been manually patched.  Whatever @Bornholio's spreadsheet was recommending at that time).  Are you using part kits for the Aerobee stage?  I always use proc tanks and I start both engines and release the launch clamps at T-0, and probably slightly overburn the Aerobee.   

I've uploaded a Wac-Corporal design to Google Drive https://drive.google.com/open?id=19XNSx4kyStO5h_7vkZRwlCK-h198M6cD .  On my install the wings max out at about 345 degrees during ascent, and burn off during descent.  (But that isn't a problem at that time). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/22/2018 at 11:32 PM, Zeiss Ikon said:

the premade Aerobee fins and tanks, for instance; pretty important since the WAC Corporal/Aerobee analogs are very important to the early career (and there's apparently no way to bypass those vessles, due to lack of selection for small solid rocket motors and not-yet-working procedural SRMs).

 Use Procedural Parts, Proc. Wings and TinyTim booster.

 

8 hours ago, Zeiss Ikon said:

Same problem I had with the Hyperfly (X-1 analog): can't get the thing over the seams in the runway without breaking parts@AVaughan.

1. Install Vessel Mover and launch from grass

2. Install Shuttle Landing Facility from Real KSC mod.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I play, :) at 1965 in my RP-1 career probes all over the solar system in transit, in my little tiny windows I have between work and family life.  Also do a load check for 1.4.4 mods once a week or so just to keep the new spreadsheet up to date in the hopes that we get a 1.4.x release at some point.   Hopefully its stable now at 1.4.4 and FAR can update soon. Its the wall for a lot of stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, AVaughan said:

I normally start with a wac-corporal, and have never had the proc wings burn off during ascent, but as I said we probably have different parts mods.    (My install is also a few months out of date, so I expect at least some mods are at different versions.  There are also a few different proc wing mods available, so we might be using different proc wing mods.  I have a version of B9-aerospace wings I installed on Feb 05.  Manually installed, so it might have been manually patched.  Whatever @Bornholio's spreadsheet was recommending at that time).  Are you using part kits for the Aerobee stage?  I always use proc tanks and I start both engines and release the launch clamps at T-0, and probably slightly overburn the Aerobee.   

I've uploaded a Wac-Corporal design to Google Drive https://drive.google.com/open?id=19XNSx4kyStO5h_7vkZRwlCK-h198M6cD .  On my install the wings max out at about 345 degrees during ascent, and burn off during descent.  (But that isn't a problem at that time). 

There must be some detail differences between your WAC and mine.  I might note that my proc fins didn't burn off (until reentry) in two previous careers on the same install.

I just test flew yours in sandbox, and as you noted, the fins got hot, but never reached the smoke trail stage (which I presume represents the leading edge of the fin ablating away just before complete failure).  I note your fins have more sweep than mine, and are thicker at the tip (I emulated the original WAC/Aerobee fin shapes when I built the B9 Procedural (Early) fins for the first iteration).  Mine is 5 mm larger diameter (305 vs. 300 mm), masses 3 kg heavier (0.296 T vs. 0.293 T), and I used a procedural nose cone with the full 50 s of fuel in the main tank, instead of forming my nose from a tank (likely accounting for most of the mass difference), though mine is about the same shape as yours.  The only thing I can see is that my fins being thinner at the tip, or a difference in nose cone shape that isn't easy to spot, must have enough lower drag to let my version go that tiny bit faster at slightly lower altitude near the end of boost.  IOW, this application is right on the bleeding edge of the tolerance of the B9 (Early) wings.

I'm using the same proc wings mod you are, not sure about version (don't know whether B9 for 1.3.1 updated between early February and mid-June; mine also required manual installation, though no patching -- not on CKAN yet).

In any case, IMO, the Aerobee engine burn time cycle (50 s) ought to be limiting enough in the earliest part of the game that it makes little sense to put 1944 fins in a 1952-ish tech node, though I can see some logic in grouping them with the other Aerobee parts from Tantares (accurately shaped engine w/ optional shroud, long Aerobee tank, science and recovery parts, telemetry ring, despin module, science module, nose cone).

@winged too -- hadn't occurred to me to try to launch a supersonic rocket plane from the grass -- and I don't have one built yet in my most recent career restart (haven't got the XLR-11 engine unlocked yet and there's no way that Derwent centrifugal compressor turbojet is going supersonic).  Honestly, the research time is what's killing me.  I keep getting contract offers that require stuff I don't have the tech to build yet (like the persistent, from-the-start "first artificial satellite" -- there is just no way to launch such a thing with a rocket you can build before, at least, launch pad upgrades and unlocking either the Redstone A6 engine/fin can or the LR-79, plus the Baby Sergeant parts).  Not to mention failing contracts because they're too short to manage a rebuild after an on-pad or second stage ignition failure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Yeah, @CaptainHaywood it does put some demand on your machine.  You need a minimum of 12 GB RAM (16 GB recommended, since I'm still not running all the parts mods), and 4 GHz isn't any too much processor speed.  My laptop runs stock KSP pretty well (until it overheats due to cooling problems), but it hasn't got enough RAM and only 3.4 GHz maximum turbo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Zeiss Ikon said:

Yeah, @CaptainHaywood it does put some demand on your machine.  You need a minimum of 12 GB RAM (16 GB recommended, since I'm still not running all the parts mods), and 4 GHz isn't any too much processor speed.  My laptop runs stock KSP pretty well (until it overheats due to cooling problems), but it hasn't got enough RAM and only 3.4 GHz maximum turbo.

You need that much power for RO? Dang, no wonder it crashed my laptop. I have a 8th gen Core i3, 8 gigs of DDR4, and Intel UHD 620 graphics. KSP plus Near Future and some convenience mods runs pretty well if I turn off antialiasing, crank up the physics Delta time, and disable vsync. It looks like crap, but it's playable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My desktop machine has an 8 core AMD FX-8350 with maximum 4.1 GHz turbo, 16 GB RAM, and everything that matters is on SSD, but with full RO (including E.V.E., most of the parts mods, and Principia) I get yellow clock even when my craft are down to 8-10 parts (a WAC Corporal, for instance, is 20+ parts at launch).  It takes me about twenty to thirty minutes to do an orbit launch that runs up just over five minutes of MET.  The thing is, more cores/threads doesn't help in the least; like a lot of games, KSP does virtually everything in a single thread (avoids having some parts get out of synch with others).  An Intel Core processor the same speed as the AMD I have would probably be adequate to keep my clock green most of the time, because Intel processors get more done on each cycle than AMD FX -- but I was on a budget when I last rebuilt my machine, and it's still a big step forward from the Core2Quad with 8 GB that I had before.

I've watched in htop (a Linux utility that tracks memory and CPU by process) as KSP loads, and my RO install runs up to 12 GB RAM at peak, then settles back to about 10.5 once everything is loaded.  You could probably load it in 12 GB physical RAM  (the OS will swap stuff out), but that would kick my near fifteen minute load time up by another factor of two or more (swap is SLOW compared to RAM).  It might be worse on Windows, or it might not (I have virtually no experience with Windows 10).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My RO/RP-1 install uses about 4GB in windows task manager.  But I have a fairly bare bones RP-1 install, with almost no part mods beyond the requirements, and low res RSS textures, and no graphics mods.  Load time for me is about 5 mins on an old i7-860 with 12 GB ram.  (Windows is on a 256 GB SSD, but games and the pagefile are on an HD).  So I think a similar install should load on an 8Gb machine, but you should probably close as many other programs as possible first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/30/2018 at 7:05 PM, winged said:

 Use Procedural Parts, Proc. Wings and TinyTim booster.

1. Install Vessel Mover and launch from grass

2. Install Shuttle Landing Facility from Real KSC mod.

Wiki claims Delamar [Dry] Lake Landing Strip was "designated as an emergency landing site for the X-15", but from memory the test flights intentionally landed there as well.  In the wiki it mentions that they dropped the X-15 while over the lakebed, so presumably if the engines didn't fire (or weren't planned to fire like the first few tests), they would land on the lakebed.  So this type of thing was hardly unusual for early space flight.

On the other hand, I'm pretty sure you would have to build landing strips near KSC [the one in Florida].  Any long flat surface will typically be covered with water unless intentionally built up as runway.  But using natural runways is hardly breaking realism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will guarantee you that both Muroc Dry Lake and Delamar Dry Lake (both used as landing sites for various air-dropped X-planes at various times) are flatter and smoother than the grass north of the runway in my RSS/RO/RP-1 install.  I've now tried launching even fairly light-loaded airplanes from the grass, and landing them there.  Both are prone to issues.  Sure seems to me that even in 1951 the capability existed to pave a 3+ kilometer runway smoothly enough that it won't throw your airplane into the air if you hit a seam at 10 m/s.

Edited by Zeiss Ikon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/15/2018 at 5:48 PM, Zeiss Ikon said:

Yeah, @CaptainHaywood it does put some demand on your machine.  You need a minimum of 12 GB RAM (16 GB recommended, since I'm still not running all the parts mods), and 4 GHz isn't any too much processor speed.  My laptop runs stock KSP pretty well (until it overheats due to cooling problems), but it hasn't got enough RAM and only 3.4 GHz maximum turbo.

Hmm. I have 8GB installed currently and it's been enough for everything I can throw at it besides a 500 part station. Although I couldn't install all of the parts mods. Framerate is definitely no bueno though.

Edited by Ultimate Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Ultimate Steve said:

Hmm. I have 8GB installed currently and it's been enough for everything I can throw at it besides a 500 part station. Although I couldn't install all of the parts mods. Framerate is definitely no bueno though.

Exactly.  The more parts mods you have, the more RAM you need.  I was just looking at the empty nodes on the right hand end of the tech tree last night; it looks a lot like either I didn't install some optional parts mods, or there's a plan for stuff that hasn't yet been selected to be part of RO.  Either way, I'm not too worried; by the time I can unlock enough nodes to care about those, they'll be filled in.  ;)

Link to comment
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.

×
×
  • Create New...