Jump to content

[1.2] Real Solar System v12.0 Dec 8


NathanKell
 Share

Recommended Posts

Every time I try to install it, I get nothing. Sometimes, the space ports end up in large holes (not sure if that part was fixed). However, even when I install it with textures, it just shows Kerbin on the main screen and on occasion, crashes when loading a save.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok, i am not a modder, but i spent some time to read descriptions of cfg files and ...

RealSolarSystem\LaunchSites.cfg pulled on github ... but this file is for launch site switcher (?)

without switcher is ingame used RealSolarSystem\RSSKopernicus\Earth\Earth.cfg ... where it is? ... ouch ... bad repository :D

 

... pulled ;)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Osel yes the file to modify is LaunchSites.cfg -- RSS only has alternate launch sites available if KSCSwitcher is installed (see the OP) and therefore that is the file to modify to fix the other launch sites. The default launch site (Cape Canaveral) is fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my game use  RealSolarSystem\RSSKopernicus\Earth\Earth.cfg

i dont using switcher ... and cape is in my game underground when i leave  repositionRadiusOffset = 53 in cfg ... need 125 to have clear runway

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, NathanKell said:

@ColKlonk yes, it's very possible to add launch sites. Here's what the terms mean.

https://github.com/NathanKell/RealSolarSystem/wiki/PQSCity-and-PQSMod_MapDecalTangent

@Bobdabiulder Yes, it is.

@lextacy You'd use either Kopernicus or Custom Asteroids.

It is taking too long to start, I'll try redoing the download of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Bobdabiulder said:

UPDATE: WHY is Earth's gravity so much higher than that of Kerbin?!  I find this really annoying.  Also, great textures :)

The surface gravity is the same (or should be -- it was last I played RSS a few days ago).  However, because Earth is much bigger than Kerbin, it is much more massive (surface gravity is GM/R^2, which is the same for both planets, and since Earth is 10x bigger, its mass is thus 100x bigger) and a spacecraft has to go much faster to stay in orbit (V = sqrt(GM/R), there's a factor of 100 from M and 10 from R, so V is over 3x more for Earth).  You need about 9.5 km/s of delta-V (maybe as little as 9.2 with practice) to get into LEO vs. 3.5 to get into LKO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The new models and textures are great! I just landed a mission at the Moon's South pole and those those ridge artifacts from where the meshes stitched together are completely gone. It looks superb, I've been itching to build Lunox bases at the poles, and now I can. Next step is to land a rover and scout out the best spot. Everything is prettier too, I even noticed a nice wave effect on Earth's oceans as I was parachuting to a landing. It is superb! Combined with the latest RO updates (improved boiloff management, new configs for SXT and RSB, etc.)  this game took a big step upward for me.

     I tested the new sidereal rotation period for Earth and updated Moonfinder. 86164.0989 seconds, right on the nose.:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Kerbas_ad_astra said:

The surface gravity is the same (or should be -- it was last I played RSS a few days ago).  However, because Earth is much bigger than Kerbin, it is much more massive (surface gravity is GM/R^2, which is the same for both planets, and since Earth is 10x bigger, its mass is thus 100x bigger) and a spacecraft has to go much faster to stay in orbit (V = sqrt(GM/R), there's a factor of 100 from M and 10 from R, so V is over 3x more for Earth).  You need about 9.5 km/s of delta-V (maybe as little as 9.2 with practice) to get into LEO vs. 3.5 to get into LKO.

So that is why it's sooooo hard!  Thank you!

 

Also, someone should add a space station on the Mun option for sandbox mode >:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/20/2016 at 4:55 PM, mr_trousers said:

EDIT: On another note, I've tried a couple different launch stations as supplied in RSS now. Florida and California are fine, but the one in French Guyana had several buildings under the terrain. Most importantly, the tracking station was underground, so I had no way to open it and select a different launch site. I had to exit the game, go into RSS settings, and change the latitude and longitude of the site and hope I chose one that was better located. I then changed to one of the Japanese launch sites, and I've got the same problem. Is there some solution to this? Or maybe just a way to open the tracking station without being able to click on it? Halp.

I found out that I had my terrain detail not set to maximum.  Changing that fixed a lot of the launch sites for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 22. 3. 2016 at 7:55 AM, ColKlonk said:

For Testing (and play ?)  purposes, would it be possible for someone to make 2 fictitious bases, one on the Equator and one at either North or South Pole.

 

 

 

nathankell? the agreement to include imaginary base?

i have some fine tuned in my cfg ;)

( some airports near equator, south pole, and (lol) mount everest )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if this is where this question should go but, I was wondering if for each of the launch locations do I need to upgrade all the buildings in each of the locations. I understand updating the launch pads , runways and hangers but the tracking station is used to for all vehicles, the R&D is I would assume is for everywhere,  as is mission control for contracts. and administration building.

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, StuntFlyer said:

I don't know if this is where this question should go but, I was wondering if for each of the launch locations do I need to upgrade all the buildings in each of the locations. I understand updating the launch pads , runways and hangers but the tracking station is used to for all vehicles, the R&D is I would assume is for everywhere,  as is mission control for contracts. and administration building.

Thanks

Since you're playing career, I assume you're also using Realism Overhaul and RP-0. If so, it depends on whether you use Kerbal Construction Time too. If you do, and you use the RP-0 preset, upgrades to general buildings (tracking station, mission control etc.) will persist across launch sites while you'll have to upgrade runway and launch pad on each site you want to use.

If you use some other combination of mods, I can't give you a definitive answer, but I doubt facilities will upgrade sine it's KCT that takes care of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, I wanted to make sure and not start any upgrades to other tracking stations because in one of the descriptions it read something like space craft could be recovered from there and wasn't sure if it needed to be updated, I do have one tracking station being upgraded now and will find out soon if I can recover from other locations.

thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now I am switching from Mercury-like craft to Gemini. I was wandering, why that MK3-9 capsule from Near Future has such a large diameter. camparison gives:

MK1 (stock) - 1 m

MK2 (stock) and MK3-9 (Near Future) 4 m 

 

As far as I red, Gemini was about 3 m in diameter and Apollo a little less than 4 m. Maybe tthe scale factor "RO_NearFuture_Spacecraft.cfg" should be smaller than 1.6.

(Size and weight of TKS VA Command Module seems to off, too.)

 

What do you think?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey guys,

So I've been playing with RSS for a while now, but only just begun trying to send probes interplanetary, namely to Mars.  I've got a good launcher, a decent probe design, and what I think is a good window, but I'm running into unexpected dV issues.

I've read a lot of material about trans-Mars injection burns, and a good amount on the Earth-Mars transfer window and the minimum energy window, but nowhere can I find any material on plane change maneuvers.  When I attempt to get an intercept from LEO, I simply can't.  Mars is about a 1.5 degrees inclined, and the minimum energy transfer window will always have me crossing Mars' orbit about as far from the AN/DN as you can get.  This means I end up having to do an 800+ dV correction burn during the transfer, and that's about 115 days from the injection burn.  That means that I have to carry extra hypergolic fuel, since hydrolox or anything using LOX will have long boiled off by that point.  Carrying an extra 800-900 dV's worth of hypergolics (which are heavy) means I now need a much bigger launcher and that, in turn, means it's going to cost a LOT more.

Anyway, does anyone know how real world rockets deal with this?  Is there anything in particular I should be typing into google to find info on this subject?  How do you all go about solving this problem?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not an RSS player, so I'm probably missing some of the nuances here. That said, what's your launch window? It seems to me like you ought to be able to get an intercept by simply adding normal/antinormal to your LKO ejection burn (both earlier and cheaper than your burn seems to be be).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...