[1.2] Real Solar System v12.0 Dec 8

[jrandom]

Problem with moving KSC is that when you move a PQSCity, you need to rebuild the sphere afterwards, I think. That will make all terrain disappear and the game pause for a few seconds.

The alternate approach, cloning the model everywhere, would work better I think.

Ah, that makes sense. Well then, if you find a way to clone it, I fully support the idea.

[beckom2]

Hi. My status bar when loading the mod for the first time gets stuck at Duna at PQS Duna: PQSMod_VertexColorMapMod. The Jeb model is still moving and the music playing, however it doesn't progress. The game hasn't thrown up an error either. Is it because of a lack of RAM or another reason.

[Felger]

Hi. My status bar when loading the mod for the first time gets stuck at Duna at PQS Duna: PQSMod_VertexColorMapMod. The Jeb model is still moving and the music playing, however it doesn't progress. The game hasn't thrown up an error either. Is it because of a lack of RAM or another reason.

An output log would be helpful here. (go to install directory/KSP_Data/output_log.txt, upload it somewhere, post it here).

[JokingHinge]

Beck, I had your problem, I tried another texture pack and the mod worked fine.

[redrem]

I made fashions for heavy system of Kerbol. It is really possible to fly on a drain without perversions.

Projekt 3,14

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/99715-Project-3-14-(RSS-cofig-end-Others)?p=1533588#post1533588

[VonFrank]

I was curious, where was the information of the elevation profiles gathered for the various planets and moons? Specifically, the values for the highest and lowest points on the surfaces to input into 'heightMapDeformity'. Some, (like Venus, Earth, The Moon, and Mars) are easy to find, but I cant find anything on things like Jupiter and Saturn's moons.

I noticed the values put into the RealSolarSystem.cfg file are accurate for some bodies, but others, (Europa for example) seem to have arbitrary values like 1000 or 2000 for the 'heightMapDeformity'.

Does anyone know of a source where this information is available? It would help increase the accuracy of RSS.

[Rothank]

Small problem here.

I'm planning a permament moon base. I already have comms around the Moon providing ~100% coverage, now it's the time for finding a good location. I thought about Peary (North Pole) or Shackleton (South Pole) craters, as they have some frozen water in permanently shaded areas and they are supposed to have peaks of eternal light scattered around them.

My questions are:

1) Do these peaks of light exist in KSP RSS? As far as I know (and Wiki says) they are tied to the axial tilt. Is RSS' Moon tilted the same way as the real Moon?

2) If they don't - what other location would you recommend for a permament lunar base? Equator? ~28 degrees inclination? Average spacecraft's inclination after Hohmann transfer? Any ideas?

SilverGlobe Spacetech, leading humanity to the new frontiers!

[Felger]

REQUEST FOR TESTING:

Hey all, putting together some biome files for RealSolarSystem (in preparation for the Realistic Progression Zero mod). I'd very much appreciate some testing on these for a sanity check that everything works just about right. Note that the ScienceDefs.cfg isn't ready yet, so you should just get the default 'landed at mun' message in each biome, but if you could give this a shot that'd be excellent!

Download

The zipped files there go in GameData/CustomBiomes/PluginData/CustomBiomes/Basic/

And there's just one new config for the Moon. Want to get a sanity check before I get too far down the line making these.

[Starwaster]

Small problem here.

I'm planning a permament moon base. I already have comms around the Moon providing ~100% coverage, now it's the time for finding a good location. I thought about Peary (North Pole) or Shackleton (South Pole) craters, as they have some frozen water in permanently shaded areas and they are supposed to have peaks of eternal light scattered around them.

My questions are:

1) Do these peaks of light exist in KSP RSS? As far as I know (and Wiki says) they are tied to the axial tilt. Is RSS' Moon tilted the same way as the real Moon?

2) If they don't - what other location would you recommend for a permament lunar base? Equator? ~28 degrees inclination? Average spacecraft's inclination after Hohmann transfer? Any ideas?

SilverGlobe Spacetech, leading humanity to the new frontiers!

We don't have real axial tilt at all. It's simulated by careful manipulation of the planet's orbital inclination. But in actuality each planet has no axial tilt.

[Rothank]

We don't have real axial tilt at all. It's simulated by careful manipulation of the planet's orbital inclination. But in actuality each planet has no axial tilt.

So no eternal light for me?

[ThorBeorn]

Does anyone have a smart way of adding KSC locations that requires minimal amount of height adjusting the PQSCity and PQSMod_MapDecalTangent?

I choose a location first (long, lat + arbitrary repositionRadiusOffset), KSC then appeared in a 800 m deep pit. From there I estimated how much extra height was needed. The second time I landed a kerbal right next to the pit to measure height difference. I figure there must be a more clever approach no?

This is in 10x Kerbol system btw.

[Ralathon]

2) If they don't - what other location would you recommend for a permament lunar base? Equator? ~28 degrees inclination? Average spacecraft's inclination after Hohmann transfer? Any ideas?

SilverGlobe Spacetech, leading humanity to the new frontiers!

Both poles and the equator of the moon are prime locations for base building. The reason is that the poles always allow you to launch into an orbit with an instant transfer window back to earth and easy access to polar stations. The equator is good because a transfer from there to earth isn't that much more expensive than a perfect transfer and you'll always have a launch window to potential space stations in an equatorial orbit.

If you go for the poles you can always launch surface --> earth or surface --> station, but you can't go station --> earth for most of the time. If you go for equatorial you can always go surface --> earth, surface --> station and station --> earth. But anything --> earth is more expensive (on average, once every 13.5 days you'll have a perfect launch window).

Any other point on the moon means picking your poison: large dV costs to fix your inclination or infrequent launch windows (at most 27 days apart).

I prefer equatorial for the flexibility, and it allows you to land somewhere with the earth just over the horizon, giving pretty pictures.

[Felger]

Problem with moving KSC is that when you move a PQSCity, you need to rebuild the sphere afterwards, I think. That will make all terrain disappear and the game pause for a few seconds.

The alternate approach, cloning the model everywhere, would work better I think.

Actually, it just occurred to me that you could use Kerbin side to have multiple launch locations.

[braininator]

You would then have to deal with the issue that quite a few of the locations will be underwater and such, though it would would probably be possible with a MM patch.

[simmy2109]

So question here... I'm really interested in this mod, but I seem a potential problem. Obviously when you make everything "real", the Delta-V requirements to everywhere (including orbit) is going to increase. So you're going to need bigger, more powerful rockets. But you are limited by stock/mod parts and the VAB, both in terms of total rocket height and the core diameters available. For example, to make a "real" Saturn V, you would need 10m cores, double the largest available tanks and engines. So as far as I can see, your only available workaround will be creating wider rockets by adding more parts. The part count count skyrocket to points where framerate could become a real annoyance (a limit of how KSP models vehicles as a flying collection of parts in formation). Am I missing something or is there a way to scale everything (parts and VAB height included)?

[Felger]

So question here... I'm really interested in this mod, but I seem a potential problem. Obviously when you make everything "real", the Delta-V requirements to everywhere (including orbit) is going to increase. So you're going to need bigger, more powerful rockets. But you are limited by stock/mod parts and the VAB, both in terms of total rocket height and the core diameters available. For example, to make a "real" Saturn V, you would need 10m cores, double the largest available tanks and engines. So as far as I can see, your only available workaround will be creating wider rockets by adding more parts. The part count count skyrocket to points where framerate could become a real annoyance (a limit of how KSP models vehicles as a flying collection of parts in formation). Am I missing something or is there a way to scale everything (parts and VAB height included)?

Realism Overhaul!

[jrandom]

So question here... I'm really interested in this mod, but I seem a potential problem. Obviously when you make everything "real", the Delta-V requirements to everywhere (including orbit) is going to increase. So you're going to need bigger, more powerful rockets. But you are limited by stock/mod parts and the VAB, both in terms of total rocket height and the core diameters available. For example, to make a "real" Saturn V, you would need 10m cores, double the largest available tanks and engines. So as far as I can see, your only available workaround will be creating wider rockets by adding more parts. The part count count skyrocket to points where framerate could become a real annoyance (a limit of how KSP models vehicles as a flying collection of parts in formation). Am I missing something or is there a way to scale everything (parts and VAB height included)?

RealismOverhaul scales things up, including engines, Procedural Parts lets you make tanks the size you need, and RealFuels gives you realistic fuels with differing masses and volumes (like Liquid Hydrogen which is really light, but takes up a lot os space). Yes, your rockets will be larger, but not nearly the monsters you'd have to build if you ran RSS w/out RealismOverhaul.

[metaphor]

If anyone wants a heightmap for comet 67P for a Rosetta mission in RSS, there's some in this thread.

It looks something like this when used on Gilly:

This is part of my Rosetta mission I just put together quick and dirty before the landing tomorrow. Planning on doing the launch and gravity assists etc when I have more time.

[Starman4308]

So question here... I'm really interested in this mod, but I seem a potential problem. Obviously when you make everything "real", the Delta-V requirements to everywhere (including orbit) is going to increase. So you're going to need bigger, more powerful rockets. But you are limited by stock/mod parts and the VAB, both in terms of total rocket height and the core diameters available. For example, to make a "real" Saturn V, you would need 10m cores, double the largest available tanks and engines. So as far as I can see, your only available workaround will be creating wider rockets by adding more parts. The part count count skyrocket to points where framerate could become a real annoyance (a limit of how KSP models vehicles as a flying collection of parts in formation). Am I missing something or is there a way to scale everything (parts and VAB height included)?

RealFuels changes fuel masses to be much more realistic, and the engine configs (I personally love Raptor's stockalike config) usually tweak fuel tank and engine masses to be much more realistic. As such, you will get a lot more delta-V out of each stage and out of each tonne of rocket. It's still not enough to bring rocket sizes down to match stock, but it helps out with some of the nasty exponential part. Just do be aware that boiloff of cryogenic fuels (like liquid hydrogen) is a thing in this mod.

The 6.4x config (either Raptor's original, mentioned in the OP, or Paul Kingtiger's in-development integrated install) reduces the difficulty a bit, although you don't get real-world planets.

Procedural Parts lets you make SRBs and fuel tanks of arbitrary size: my only gripe with it right now is that the tanks are ridiculously cheap, having been scaled for Realism Overhaul and not for anything resembling normal career mode games. I think that might be getting worked on, but for now, just send sacrificial rockets into the ocean if you want to compensate for the tanks' low cost.

KW Rocketry, and possibly other part packs like NovaPunch, include 5m engines and some truly spectacular SRBs. I know KW is RealFuels-compatible.

FAR, if you can deal with the difficulties of realistic aerodynamics, makes ascent (and DRE reentries) much easier by removing the souposphere: you'll see probably 1-2 km/s delta-V shaved off launch costs.

TweakScale can arbitrarily scale stuff up, but I have heard it conflicts with many mods.

I personally dislike Realism Overhaul for throwing out the stock engines and rescaling too much, as well as making career mode very difficult to have fun with, but I suppose it's alright if you enjoy trying to replicate real-world missions, and deal with a few things KSP leaves out (like how weak real reaction wheels are). Just be aware that RO changes a lot of gameplay at once. I think it might also have been shut down for some reason.

Edited November 12, 2014 by Starman4308

[pingopete]

A taster of what Biome based texture control could offer. Using GE hi-res screen prints.

[Felger]

Can I have some of that please? Seriously, that looks awesome!

[jrandom]

I don't think my setup is going to be able to handle that level of imagery detail. It looks absolutely fantastic, though.

[Starwaster]

A taster of what Biome based texture control could offer. Using GE hi-res screen prints.

http://i.imgur.com/x8UkRBv.png

Stop trying to pass off NASA Earth images as in-game!

we're onto you..

[AlaskanGlitch]

I am running 64-bit Vista Ultimate SP 2 w/8 GB RAM. I had some memory issues using the 8192 and 4096 resolutions. The "RealSolarSystem Status" window would hang when loading the color maps on Eve when using the 8192 resolution), or Kerbin when using the 4096 resolution. According to the ModuleManager, I have 1421 patches successfully applied (including RealSolarSystem). However, when I used the 2048 resolution everything loaded just fine. I am looking forward to exploring our solar system.

By the way, installing the 32-bit version of KSP is not an option under Steam. Steam automatically installs the 64-bit version if your O/S is 64-bit.

[NathanKell]

Steam installs both the 32bit and 64bit KSP clients. Unless you specifically elect to use the 64bit executable, you are playing in 32bit KSP (had you been using the 64bit executable, you would not have seen an RSS status window ).

You might try selectively upgrading your textures, if, once KSP is loaded, your memory usage is under 3GB; if not, you are probably stuck with the 2048s, sorry.