Jump to content

RP-1 Realistic Progression One v1.10.3 for KSP 1.10 [2021-07-11]


pap1723
 Share

Recommended Posts

RP-1 Realistic Progression One

RP-1-Logo-400px.jpg

Welcome to Realistic Progression One (RP-1), one of the most challenging and rewarding experiences available in KSP. RP-1 provides a well-developed and carefully balanced career mode for use in conjunction with Real Solar System (RSS) and Realism Overhaul (RO).

As the sequel to RP-0, realism, features, and gameplay experience are improved and deepened. We used to say that it was a lightweight career addon, but it has become a lot more in the recent years.

RP-1 is the ultimate community effort. There have been contributions from 76 different community members since the inception of the project so many years ago.

As RP-1 has grown and matured, the need for better documentation has grown as well. Community members @nepphhh and @Norcalplanner have put in a tremendous amount of time to create detailed documentation that provides installation instructions and gameplay tips and tricks.

Join us on our Discord Server!

https://github.com/KSP-RO/RP-0/wiki

Completely rewritten and updated, the RO/RP-1 wiki is the current and future home of up-to-date information for RP-1 players both new and experienced. The wiki includes:
•    Introduction to RP-1 and overview of the mod’s main features
•    Easy-to-follow installation instructions
•    Comprehensive and annotated mod recommendations list 
•    Loads of guides for new players 
•    Troubleshooting and help for broken installations and rocket design
•    Frequently-updated FAQs and How-To guides
•    Myth-busting false KSP lessons to help ease the transition from Kerbin to Earth
•    A first launch tutorial with thoughtful discussion and careful explanations
•    Links to other important resources to help get you started with Principia, ROKerbalism, kOS, and Mechjeb PVG ascent guidance

 

Download & Installation

Download from Github

Also Available from CKAN

Follow all instructions from the RP-1 Wiki or no support will be given!

Installation Instructions

 

Licensed under CC-BY-4.0

 

Tlkyrbd.png

aa3iIYK.jpg

8ttWCeR.jpg

LJN2Yj7.png

Here is a collection of images taken by RP-1 career players: https://imgur.com/gallery/QUMU6JA

 

All credit goes to everyone that has contributed to this huge undertaking. Especially: @NathanKell @pjf @siimav MikeOnTea @rsparkyc Wrobz 
 

Edited by pap1723
New Release!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Congratulations! on the release gents. It's much appreciated how much time and effort you guys put into this.

I haven't been playing a lot of KSP lately because my RSS/RO/RP-0 install is a little bricked after so many hours, and I don't seem to be able to recover it. (1.3.1)
This release, however, gives me some inspiration to start over on again a clean install.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, tonybalony said:

If I only played stock but I want something harder, should I try this? Can I turn the difficulty down? And what starting parts do I get?

You should read the RP-1 wiki and decide for yourself. The introduction here is probably the best place to start. Yes, you can turn the difficulty down and starting on easy is probably the right thing to do. Nevertheless I can promise you that RO/RP-1 is going to be difficult at first if you haven't played it before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, tonybalony said:

If I only played stock but I want something harder, should I try this? Can I turn the difficulty down? And what starting parts do I get?

Unless you get extremely discouraged by lots of mistakes and a huge learning curve, absolutely!

Start by throwing out everything you know about playing KSP, but keep what you've learned about orbital mechanics and spacecraft maneuvering.  This is almost a completely new game. 

The tech tree is radically different from the stock one.  It fixes everything I hate about the stock one, too.  

If you find KSP boring now because the things that used to be huge achievements are now trivially easy, RSS/RO/RP1 is for you.

Edited by RoboRay
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/28/2019 at 11:47 AM, tonybalony said:

I played a bit of RP-0 a long time ago and enjoyed it... How different is this from RP-0? Does it change anything? Can I have both installed at the same time?

If you enjoyed RP-0, you'll enjoy RP-1. And it's not possible to have both installed at the same time, which is a good thing since RP-1 is better developed than RP-0.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Changelog from Previous Version

  • Gate 52-55 tech behind materials science node
  • Fix Castor 1 Entry cost modifiers
  • Add support for New ROEngines
  • Add No-EVA tag to 1.25m Crew Carrier
  • Restore the science container on Deep-space procedural avionics
  • Move the Gamma engines to the 1958 node
  • Patch Procedural Avionics to operate at 1073K to Allow proper Usage
  • Make Maneuver Nodes available with Lunar Comms Tracking Station upgrade
  • Add LF2 Agena
  • Add KCT Resource_Variable for LqdFluorine
  • Remove the Breaking Ground Science Contracts
  • Fix Procedural Avionics NAN error
  • Disable Procedural Avionics logging

CONTRIBUTORS

Thank you to everyone who contributed for this release!
@MikeOnTea @pap1723 @lpgagnon @siimav @Capkirk123

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, tonybalony said:

But there are soo many links on the wiki page......what ones should i read :D

If you ask questions, we'll do our best to direct you to the best wiki resources. But of course, there's no substitute for just reading it all anyways!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has any one managed to put a low tech object into orbit with a 20t launch mass?  Even with early AJ-10s and LR89/79s, balloon tanks and Tank III I cant seem to get it done.  That is not even considering the fact that I have no idea how I am going to get the 450k I will need to do tooling and engine unlocks.  My sounding rocket contracts are only netting 12-13k and take about 21 days to build.  FYI that is about 2 years doing 35 missions assuming they are unlimited.  My aerobee core weights .063t which is lighter then the spudniks at .083t although both of these seem heavier then I remember.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I've done it from the 20t pad. I think the rocket had RD-101 + 2xAJ10-27 + XASR stages with Tank-II. I really wouldn't recommend going that route though. Ideally you should build a 60t pad and use proper orbital rocket engines for getting into orbit. If you haven't already done it, then accept the First Scientific Orbit contract which has an advance large enough to purchase all the tech you need. It becomes available after accepting the First Orbit contract but has a 2 year deadline which may require some planning to get the required science instrument unlocked in time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, siimav said:

Yes, I've done it from the 20t pad. I think the rocket had RD-101 + 2xAJ10-27 + XASR stages with Tank-II. I really wouldn't recommend going that route though. Ideally you should build a 60t pad and use proper orbital rocket engines for getting into orbit. If you haven't already done it, then accept the First Scientific Orbit contract which has an advance large enough to purchase all the tech you need. It becomes available after accepting the First Orbit contract but has a 2 year deadline which may require some planning to get the required science instrument unlocked in time.

Thanks I will keep trying.  Ideally if you can get 20t to work then scaling for 40t and 60t is pretty simple with mass to be used for satellite contract's comsat payload.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/5/2019 at 2:21 PM, Nich said:

Has any one managed to put a low tech object into orbit with a 20t launch mass?  Even with early AJ-10s and LR89/79s, balloon tanks and Tank III I cant seem to get it done.  That is not even considering the fact that I have no idea how I am going to get the 450k I will need to do tooling and engine unlocks.  My sounding rocket contracts are only netting 12-13k and take about 21 days to build.  FYI that is about 2 years doing 35 missions assuming they are unlimited.  My aerobee core weights .063t which is lighter then the spudniks at .083t although both of these seem heavier then I remember.

It probably won't be very reliable :D:D but build a Vanguard http://www.astronautix.com/v/vanguard.html and put the vanguard probe core up :cool: sputnik is super heavey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ug I spent 4 hours building an optimized 19.997t rocket. 

3 stages,

325kn LR79 class for 1m49s gave it a nice 1.4 twr off the pad to minimize gravity losses

68.6 kn LR105 class for 4m30s made a decent sustainer but I wish it could have gotten down to 50-55 kn as the current stage has too high twr and doesn't burn for the full 5m30s

20 kn W-class vacuum has way too high twr but it has the best ISP and can use balloon tanks which gives it a hands down advantage until the RD105

 

I was in the final phase of testing before checking how much lead I was putting into orbit.  After about 10 failed ignitions of the LR105 class I finally find they cant be air lit until tier 5 or 7, cant remember.

<throws computer out the window>

<goes and picks it up>

<Purchases 60t pad and starts building my standard R107 60t Lifter>

any suggestions on how to make Simple Procedural Engines configs for R107 and R108?  These engines really don't work great until you can put 300-400t on a pad. and need to put 15-25t in orbit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never even tried to do a 20-ton orbital launcher. But a 25 or 30-ton rocket on a 60-ton pad is generally pretty doable, so I tend to follow the (heavier) path of least resistance.

Recent changes to the contract framework make rushing FO not nearly as good of a strategy as it used to be, so I've had to adjust my expectations. I even skipped the RD0103 this career altogether, waiting for the first LR89 instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ya I am not sure I like how the early career is structured.  I have played a couple of play through and I think the best start has 100-150 points in the VAB with a level 4-5 pad before investing anything in science.  With 20 points in the VAB I was making 7k every 15 days on sounding rockets or about 170k a year. I ran into pad weight limits so I started investing in science which was a mistake.  I should have kept investing in the VAB and pad until I am making 340t rocket in a day.  This should be enough to fling stuff at the moon with basic tech.  And it is a sufficient build rate that I can do pretty much anything I want (Man base for the Moon or Mars) with about a month of build time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I recently installed 1.7.3.  I think I may have mucked up my Kerbalism install.  I took out a plane and temp and pressure flying low at earth require 180 days/357 days to complete per biome.  Is this right?  It feels like these are the on orbit values.  Even at 4x physical time warp and a bomber with enough fuel to fly 32 hours (1, 8 hour work day at 4x) I am looking at 1-2 years to get all the biome data for earth.  I also have 2 buttons for most experiments which further leads me to believe I messed something up.

I installed Kerbalism (core), from master branch, and then copied everything from ROKerbalism (configs), from master branch replacing everything that had a conflict.  In  KerbalismConfig/Profiles, I deleted "Default"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Nich said:

So I recently installed 1.7.3.  I think I may have mucked up my Kerbalism install.  I took out a plane and temp and pressure flying low at earth require 180 days/357 days to complete per biome.  Is this right?  It feels like these are the on orbit values.  Even at 4x physical time warp and a bomber with enough fuel to fly 32 hours (1, 8 hour work day at 4x) I am looking at 1-2 years to get all the biome data for earth.  I also have 2 buttons for most experiments which further leads me to believe I messed something up.

I installed Kerbalism (core), from master branch, and then copied everything from ROKerbalism (configs), from master branch replacing everything that had a conflict.  In  KerbalismConfig/Profiles, I deleted "Default"

The way I install is to just grab and use the master branch from ROKerbalism git and not bother with Kerbalism git

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Xt007 said:

The way I install is to just grab and use the master branch from ROKerbalism git and not bother with Kerbalism git

Thanks that worked great.

I also update RO and RP-1 while I was doing that in case anyone runs into the same issue

Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...