[1.2] Real Solar System v12.0 Dec 8

[p3asant]

I looked over the logs a bit, didn't see any smoking guns as far as errors.

You do seem to alt-tab away from the game quite a bit. What do you have going on in the background and how much memory do you have to do it with?

(you'll read where people say it doesn't matter if you have more than 4gb because the game is only 32 bit but it really does matter; if you only have 4gb then your game has to share that with your system and anything else going on in the background, like a web browser with 69,105 tabs open)

One last thought to leave you with; have you tried starting a new game? (sandbox or career) Especially after adding any mods that weren't there before your current save game was started?

Well, i have 16gb ram but around 8gb in use with chrome at all times.

Does that really effect ksp performance?

[li7in6]

Depends on if you use anything else that does thrust correction?

Such as Modular Fuels?

Oh really? MFS does isp thrust correction?

I was having issues with StretchySRB's being incompatible with KIDS thrust correction and was trying to work out an exclusion workaround. But if that functionality is already in MFS then I'm just wasting my time.

Guess I should pay more attention.

[iVG]

Yup, thrust and Isp scales up.. Also the latest mechjeb accounts for the fact and shows you a Sea level twr. Very useful.

[Sternface]

Have you considered doing a 'lite' version of this mod?? One that changes the planet locations but not size or distance between. I enjoy the realistic placement of the planets...but the size change kinda kills it for me. Most the planets look horrible (I run on 1/2 res so I can use more mods), your forced to use MFS, and then its (to me at least) the same game...you just have to time warp more than before.

Would like to play with your orientation of planets, but to me it seems pointless to me to have to use an extra mod to build the same craft i was before...but having to wait longer to get em where they going.

Keep in mind this is just my personal opinion....the mod is great, you have done great work here...just not for me as is.

Sorry for the long post. Here is a summary: This mod is cool because it makes good design and optimization a requirement. It makes all the advanced technology actually useful and needed, and not just a cool novelty. Realistic sizes and distances = massive required dV budget. Massive dV budget means that the weight, ISP, and thrust trade-off is no longer trivial - it is required, and of primary concern.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, it does come with warps with much greater time compression, so that pretty much cancels out the increased travel time.

The beauty of this mod, IMHO, is not the placement, but the size and distances involved. Half the fun for myself was in creating something capable. And let's be real, this doesn't require much in stock. In stock KSP, you could reach orbit with minimal effort. Just add a 1.25m fuel tank and a small motor and bam, orbital velocities. I remember in stock, I used to add extra unneeded dead weight to my rockets just so that I would need to make them bigger and more complicated.

For myself, what it boils down to is this: I never had to worry about weight in stock KSP, considering how little dV was required to do pretty much everything. However, rocket science and space travel is all about weight, or at least it should be. This mod fixes that, and makes weight the primary concern due to the fact that a very large dV budget is required to do anything. And the larger the dV involved, the more weight becomes a serious consideration and limitation.

In stock, I had no need for high ISP motors. Ions, nuclear - they were cool, but unneeded. This made their inclusion, as well as sacrificing thrust for ISP, pretty irrelevant. No trade off, and inconsequential design optimization= unbalanced for myself. Unbalanced quickly turned into boredom.

I understand that not everyone will share my opinion, considering that it's an opinion. I would recommend trying it out again with this in mind. It really makes everything you do so much more satisfying. Plus, those big multistage rockets are a blast to create and fly.

I just started a new career mode, and I love the fact that I cannot actually reach anything beyond the moon without better equipment. In stock, you could land and return from Duna with only the first few tech nodes unlocked. And a trip to Jool or Vall? Better have some seriously high ISP motors, and some seriously powerful booster motors. With the realistic sizes and distances, I actually see a future need for Kethane mining and Extraplanatary launch pads as a matter of requirement. Some of the ships I plan on building for manned interplanetary missions will require the lower gravity and lack of atmosphere just to make it into orbit. So for the first time, I actually have a need to build that Munar base and mining operation.

P.S. Check out the sunrise and sunset from low kerbin orbit with this mod.

P.P.S. Another example of how game-changing this mod is:

I wanted to make a low science fly-by of the sun. To my wonderful horror, I saw that I needed a dV budget of around 22,000m/s just to lower my solar Pe to below 1,000km from Earth's orbit, which is required for science. Even with the ion tech node unlocked, I did not have the higher-end energy-production nodes unlocked to actually run it. And I didn't have powerful enough lower-stage motors to put something using conventional motors with a dV budget of 22,000m/s into orbit. So instead, I built a craft capable of reaching Saturn (dres), and used a gravity assist plus the fact that a higher Ap burn will be more effective in lowering Pe. This got me the low-pass solar science I needed, and was immensely satisfying .

dV optimization puzzles like this are unneeded and absent in stock, and really is only done for giggles. This mod makes you do them for science!

Edited November 17, 2013 by Sternface

[iVG]

things

Exactly!!!

[KhaosCorp]

Well, it does come with warps with much greater time compression, so that pretty much cancels out the increased travel time.

The beauty of this mod, IMHO, is not the placement, but the size and distances involved. Half the fun for myself was in creating something capable. And let's be real, this doesn't require much in stock. In stock KSP, you could reach orbit with minimal effort. Just add a 1.25m fuel tank and a small motor and bam, orbital velocities. I remember in stock, I used to add extra unneeded dead weight to my rockets just so that I would need to make them bigger and more complicated.

Are you not using the MFS mod as well?

Because Im not seeing this...not even close. I am building the same size/style rockets I was without RSS and MFS and they are almost as capable. Sure everything is bigger...but MFS just changes all the mass, thrust, and ISP of a craft, so to me it seems to balance back out to being about the same.

Yes I have MFS installed right..and yes im using the realistic weights.

ummm...just a side though....maybe include a little readme with the MFS mod giving (very) short descriptions of the fuel types and common uses...a little off-topic I know, but honestly had only heard about 1/2 of those fuels before...kinda clueless on the rest, my intrest in spaceflight is 80% "wow thats awesome/beautiful/amazing" and 20% "well thats cool, but how the hell did they manage it" =)

[iVG]

Which fuels you do not understand/familiar with?

In general, Liquid Fuel is RP-1 which is very commonly used on 1st stages, including Atlas V which will be launching tomorrow with MAVEN. Liquid Oxygen + H2 is highly combustable and produces higher Isp in expense of thrust. Generally used in last stages (Centaur).

Hypergolics are easily stored (do not boil off with time). Best used for longer missions. They are dense but don't have any advantage over RP-1+LOX in terms of thrust.

Monopropellant is for RCS as in stock KSP.

That's pretty much all you want to know. Of course some rockets use entirely LOX+H2 (delta 4). The engine's nozzle is the decisive factor there. Vacuum optimized engines lose a LOT of thrust at sea level.

[Sternface]

Khaos, I am using that mod with realistic fuel and mass.

In stock KSP, I was able to deliver a small probe to orbit with a single 50kN motor. That would be impossible with this mod.

Stock orbital velocities were what, a little less than 2 km/s? How can the same same rocket bring the same mass to ~7.5km/s? The modular fuel mod doesn't affect ISP and fuel-density enough to do this, so more thrust is required to carry the extra fuel needed to hit 7.5km/s.

P.S. The much higher atmosphere also means that any given rocket will experience more drag, and lower ISP on their way to orbit. And the longer ascent would mean that more energy is expended on gravitational drag, I think.

Edited November 17, 2013 by Sternface

[iVG]

Absolutely. The smallest rocket I was able to build (5 tonnes to low orbit) was something like 120 tonnes at launch. And that is with very careful piloting + couple of attempts for figuring out the best ascent profile.

[KhaosCorp]

Stock orbital velocities were what, a little less than 2 km/s? How can the same same rocket bring the same mass to ~7.5km/s? The modular fuel mod doesn't affect ISP and fuel-density enough to do this, so more thrust is required to carry the extra fuel needed to hit 7.5km/s.

But its NOT the same mass...nothing is when MFS is loaded. The rocket a put a picture of before as a test....that craft in VAB without MFS is 532.98tons....with MFS the EXACT same rocket had a VAB weight of 450.19 tons.....

Also, the fuel in question is the MMH, that seems to be mixed with some highburn NoS (the N2O4).

[iVG]

Monomethylhydrazine and dinitrogen tetroxide are hypergolic. They ignite on contact. that reduces the mass and complexity of engines. Also they do not boil off and can be stored for extended periods of time. Both oxygen and hydrogen boil off. Oxygen slower than hydrogen but still noticeable once you get to 5-6 months of travel time.

[Starwaster]

Monomethylhydrazine and dinitrogen tetroxide are hypergolic. They ignite on contact. that reduces the mass and complexity of engines. Also they do not boil off and can be stored for extended periods of time. Both oxygen and hydrogen boil off. Oxygen slower than hydrogen but still noticeable once you get to 5-6 months of travel time.

FYI. One suggested depot storage scheme relied on hydrogen boil off to help keep the LOX colder and help minimize its own boil off. (I guess that's poor man's refrigeration)

[Starwaster]

Well, i have 16gb ram but around 8gb in use with chrome at all times.

Does that really effect ksp performance?

In as much as it provides your OS and not-KSP programs more breathing room, yes.

KSP itself can only use 4gb of course. And do you have any idea how hard it is to type this on an iPhone with a squirmy kitten trying to get between you and the phone? Thank god for autocorrect.

Edit: wait... There's non-KSP software? WTH?

[Starwaster]

Are you not using the MFS mod as well?

Because Im not seeing this...not even close. I am building the same size/style rockets I was without RSS and MFS and they are almost as capable. Sure everything is bigger...but MFS just changes all the mass, thrust, and ISP of a craft, so to me it seems to balance back out to being about the same.

Yes I have MFS installed right..and yes im using the realistic weights.

ummm...just a side though....maybe include a little readme with the MFS mod giving (very) short descriptions of the fuel types and common uses...a little off-topic I know, but honestly had only heard about 1/2 of those fuels before...kinda clueless on the rest, my intrest in spaceflight is 80% "wow thats awesome/beautiful/amazing" and 20% "well thats cool, but how the hell did they manage it" =)

Earth sized Kerbin requires about 9kms delta-V to achieve orbit. It's not even feasible that any rocket will have the same performance as it did in stock.

Unless you're using an older unpatched version of MFS.

[KhaosCorp]

Earth sized Kerbin requires about 9kms delta-V to achieve orbit. It's not even feasible that any rocket will have the same performance as it did in stock.

Unless you're using an older unpatched version of MFS.

Just downloaded MFS yesterday, so probably not an old version.

I dont see how your not understanding this....its the same craft file..NOT the same rocket.....

When the craft is loaded with MFS its 100tons lighter and higher on-pad TWR.....

[iVG]

Yes, that is absolutely normal, MFS reduces dry mass of fuel tanks and engines.

The thing is you can't take a craft from stock KSP, stick MFS onto it, load it in RSS and expect it to reach orbit. Not gonna happen. Ever. 9 km/s is what takes to go to Jool in stock.

[diablos]

Just downloaded MFS yesterday, so probably not an old version.

I dont see how your not understanding this....its the same craft file..NOT the same rocket.....

When the craft is loaded with MFS its 100tons lighter and higher on-pad TWR.....

Khaos, we gotta start talking basic rocket currency here, because everybody here is talking past each other. Please tell, what were the payload mass fractions to a ~200km orbit of your rockets in stock vs RSS? In my experience, on stock KSP, 10% was easy to achieve and 15% doable. With RSS, with an LH2 upper stage I can manage between 3-4%. If I only use LiquidFuel (rocket-grade kerosene), I barely manage 2-3%. Using only basic tech packages, after much trial and error and lots of tuning I finally got there at ~1.5% (with a 5-stage rocket, mind you).

Now you showed a rocket which by your statement has a total mass of ~450t. How much of that actually makes it to orbit in RSS? By my reckoning it's not going to be more than ~10-15t (~2.5-3.5%, though that depends on fuel and engine choices - something that is not apparent from that screenshot).

[iVG]

Well, he tried to compare stock designs with RSS. Yes, mechanics are the same, payload, fuel, engines but that's about it. It takes much, MUCH more effort in RSS vs. stock. And that's the beauty of it.

[KhaosCorp]

Khaos, we gotta start talking basic rocket currency here, because everybody here is talking past each other. Please tell, what were the payload mass fractions to a ~200km orbit of your rockets in stock vs RSS? In my experience, on stock KSP, 10% was easy to achieve and 15% doable. With RSS, with an LH2 upper stage I can manage between 3-4%. If I only use LiquidFuel (rocket-grade kerosene), I barely manage 2-3%. Using only basic tech packages, after much trial and error and lots of tuning I finally got there at ~1.5% (with a 5-stage rocket, mind you).

Now you showed a rocket which by your statement has a total mass of ~450t. How much of that actually makes it to orbit in RSS? By my reckoning it's not going to be more than ~10-15t (~2.5-3.5%, though that depends on fuel and engine choices - something that is not apparent from that screenshot).

I wasn't testing to orbit...I been playing awhile...the appeal of getting a pod into orbit JUST to do it has been gone since about 48hrs after I purchased the game.....

And yall are so focused on 'how much harder it is' your ignoring half the info i provided......

This is about a comparision of STATS of the same craft file between having MFS installed and not, and how that applies to RSS.

NON-RSS...pad weight of 532.98 tons, TWR on pad of 1.23

RSS+MFS...pad weight of 450.19 tons, TWR of 1.68!!!!

Almost 100 tons and .5 TWR....that a BIG difference. Should also note that launching in normal game stage one is at 96% throttle the whole stage to maintain terminal velocity....even drops a little speed when the boosters drop.

With MFS the first stage runs at about 40-45% throttle to maintain terminal...going up to about 90% when the boosters drop.

[diablos]

Also, should be noted that the curvature of Earth can be seen from as little as 500ft alt....

Sorry, but I call BS on this, and here's why. On a good day, given very clear skies, you can see about 100km through the air. Even assuming the Earth's surface is a perfectly smooth sphere, you'd get a curvature of less than:

(modeling the Earth's surface as a flat disc here, since on these scales it's a reasonably good approximation)

90deg - arccotan(166m / (2 * 100000m)) = 0.05deg

Or about 3 minutes of arc. For comparison, Tycho Brahe, one of the best astronomers before the invention of the telescope, managed about 2 minutes of arc, in perfect viewing conditions in the dead of night. No way you're gonna be able to discern a 3 arc minutes of curvature spanning your entire field of view on a rough surface with non-ideal viewing conditions.

For comparison, this is how the actual curvature looks like from almost 100 times higher than what you said (and thus amplified by about 100x):

http://www.dedleg.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/light_on_plane_wing.jpg

[KhaosCorp]

Sorry, but I call BS on this

Call it all ya want, I have seen it myself in small craft plenty of times.....your gonna need the most ideal conditions, but still possible to see the earth is round at that height...and many other that are MUCH lower than 3km...that was the whole point of posting that....

Maybe stick to the topic instead of trying to go out of your way to say "your wrong"....

[diablos]

I wasn't testing to orbit...I been playing awhile...the appeal of getting a pod into orbit JUST to do it has been gone since about 48hrs after I purchased the game.....

Wait, so you're saying that RSS+MFS is "[..] the same game" as stock, but you didn't try orbiting the thing? Fine, what delta-v does MechJeb or Kerbal Engineer report?

And yall are so focused on 'how much harder it is' your ignoring half the info i provided......

This is about a comparision of STATS of the same craft file between having MFS installed and not, and how that applies to RSS.

Stats mean nothing without context. Your craft might very well be lighter and more powerful, but if it doesn't even get you into orbit vs. originally getting to the Mun, then how can it be the same?

NON-RSS...pad weight of 532.98 tons, TWR on pad of 1.23

RSS+MFS...pad weight of 450.19 tons, TWR of 1.68!!!!

Couple of points: RSS doesn't do anything to rockets, only MFS does. Also, TWR means nothing without contrasting it with the delta-v budget. I can build a super-light rocket with a TWR of >50, but with only 50m/s of delta-v. Will it get me anywhere? Nope. But OMG look at that TWR!!1!

Almost 100 tons and .5 TWR....that a BIG difference.

Yes MFS makes stock rocket parts more efficient. In fact, stock Kerbal parts underperform relative to real-world rockets, partly in an effort by Squad to balance the game and make it challenging enough (esp. after they had made it a lot simpler by reducing the sizes of planes and giving them unrealistic densities). If you're playing stock KSP, you're probably justified in saying that MFS makes it "too simple". But enter RSS. Just for a Munar orbit-and-return mission you're going to need about 14.2km/s of delta-v. Using that rocket, you'll get about a 5t spacecraft back to Kerbin (assuming your maneuvers are optimal).

Should also note that launching in normal game stage one is at 96% throttle the whole stage to maintain terminal velocity....even drops a little speed when the boosters drop.

With MFS the first stage runs at about 40-45% throttle to maintain terminal...going up to about 90% when the boosters drop.

All that says is that with MFS your first stage is overpowered or too small (in terms of fuel). Either get rid of the SRBs and improve your payload to orbit mass fraction, or add more fuel to the first stage (increase your total delta-v).

[diablos]

Call it all ya want, I have seen it myself in small craft plenty of times.....your gonna need the most ideal conditions, but still possible to see the earth is round at that height...and many other that are MUCH lower than 3km...that was the whole point of posting that....

It's much more likely you saw the edge of your own circular horizon. Sorry, but math doesn't lie.

Maybe stick to the topic instead of trying to go out of your way to say "your wrong"....

I don't mind about difference of opinion - e.g. your claiming that the game feels the same with RSS+MFS is entirely plausible - but you don't get to invent your own facts. Honesty matters.

[KhaosCorp]

It's much more likely you saw the edge of your own circular horizon. Sorry, but math doesn't lie.

I don't mind about difference of opinion - e.g. your claiming that the game feels the same with RSS+MFS is entirely plausible - but you don't get to invent your own facts. Honesty matters.

When did I 'invent' any facts at all?? I have expressed opinions and given data directly from MJ2...nothing was invented.

And if your wondering where I got the 500ft figure it wasnt from math (and btw, math dont lie, but nor does it always tell the whole story) but rather from the 160+ jumps Ive done, I used to be a certified jumpmaster till I got put on full disability. And honestly, its not hard to tell difference between the planet and horizon.

Just curious how often/many times youve been up in small craft, how many jumps have you done, that you can argue the point so much?

Sorry, but I trust my eyes alot more than your math....

Now, if anyone is actually interested in continuing this convo in a civilized manner Id be happy for it...

Edited November 18, 2013 by KhaosCorp

[Starwaster]

I wasn't testing to orbit...I been playing awhile...the appeal of getting a pod into orbit JUST to do it has been gone since about 48hrs after I purchased the game....

This. ^^^^^^^^^^

you just invalidated everything else you've said and you really have nothing meaningful to contribute.

Are you just here to troll? I can see no other purpose to your being here at this time.

I am so very sorry you're not enjoying the mod but please leave the rest of us alone until you're actually wanting to participate.