[0.23.5] Realism Overhaul: ROv5.2 + Modlist for RSS 6/30/14

[ThorBeorn]

Aazard:Thanks! Ofcourse, your TAC RO fixes sound very interesting. The only thing I did, that could be a conflict is adding ElectricCharge (batteries). I don't mind changing these. What I do want though, is for crewed and "active" parts to require ElectricCharge and from the looks of it, that's exactly what you're doing. And also inside lightning needs to consume more EC. How about 250 watts? More? 10x20w luminiscent strip lights per large module running at 80% efficiency seem realistic after looking at a webpage for a manufacturer of industrial lights. But maybe someone knows more about lightning inside the ISS. I couldn't find anything on NASA or wiki. But from videos inside it looks quite bright.

Feel free to PM me, I'd sure like to see what you've previously done with FusTek and TAC life support. I can also try to do some rescaling of those parts if you want to, no problem!

RacoonTOF: Yes, it just looks a bit worse than it usually does when upscaling parts. I dunno if sumghai are done with theses adjustments himself, since it's a dev release and all. I will adjust these in tiny increments until I find something satisfying. Then it's all copy paste from there I guess. And compared to what you have go through (restarting KSP every time), it shall be quite glamourous I believe

Good work on that ATV, the bottom compartment looks very cool!

Edit: A 5 m stretchy tank has breakingTorque/-Force set to 2000 and node size to 5. I can change the values to this. But my impression was that a node size larger than 3 didn't increase stiffness actually.

And also, hasn't things become wobblier since .23.5 compared to .23? I'm noticing quite a big difference, that is with RSS/RO and the appropriate KJR on both installs.

Edited April 28, 2014 by ThorBeorn

[RaccoonTOF]

The changes in .23.5 to stiffness are what allows node sizes larger than 3 to make a difference now And yes, lots of mod parts do not have their nodes rescaled properly to take this into account, so if you are using non-updated parts, you will be a lot more wobbly than the same under .23 (especially since KJR removed most of the stiffness changes with the .23.5 version as well, since most of them were now included in stock stiffness, based on the above mentioned node sizes).

As for lighting - interior lights don't actually consume much power at all these days, thanks to using LED lights for the most part in place of the old incandescents. Just as a real-world example I can point to personally (since power storage, power usage, and lighting are all very important issues living on a sailboat too, lol) my original lighting in the boat, which lit up a 22' x 10' x 6.5' space, plus high-intensity reading lights used to pull 25.2 amps @ 12 volts, or roughly 300 watts. The same amount of light output (lumens) supplied by my current LED replacements pull 3.6 amps @ 12 volts, or about 43 watts. And that is lighting up a volume that is nearly 4x as large as the Orion capsule, and almost 6x the interior space as the Apollo CM, plus that is assuming all lights on at once which won't usually be the case.

[ThorBeorn]

Cool! I'm no good with feet, but converting the 6.5 x 4.4 x 4.4 m Karmony part to feet gives approximatley 21' x 15' x 15' - not too far from your sail boat

That's not accounting for wall's thickness, but who cares. From now on I suggest Fustek SPE has LED lights at maybe 60 watts (the same as the lamp on my desk lol). The IACBM's will be lower. Any objections? This can be changed easily later if someones disagrees. I just want to feel that I have the people who are going to be using this later agreeing on most decisions.

Regarding stiffness: For me personally I really dislike wobbly parts. And I could just raise the values by a factor of 100 ignoring what is real or not.

Regarding maxTemp: I'm leaning towards lowering the values even more maybe to 1000-1200 degrees. I figure none of the space station parts are built to survive re-entry, they are built to burn up in the atmosphere. As long as they survive launching to a low orbit in a rocket of decent TWR. They will probably be protected inside fairings anyway.

Otherwise editing top- and bottom nodes has made connections perfect. Now I'm moving models lenghtwise internally in the parts themselves to eliminate tiny gaps between models orignially in the mod. This turned out to be tedious buisiness and I might quit soon.

Will do some play testing tomorrow, then support for TAC or/and KAS can be added. And then it should be finished I think.

NathanKell:I know you are super busy right now. When you have done all releases and recuperated in a couple of days, I'd be happy to hear what you have to say about the Fustek RO config I'm doing.

[blux_]

I can't find attachNodeDiameterFactor in the FAR config file. Was it changed in a FAR update or something?

[Guest]

@ RacoonTOF & ThorBeorn: Awesome info provided, cleared up some of my issues understanding just what i am trying to do, how density works and how utilization effects storage.

Once the dust clears from all the RPL and RO updating i will attempt to confer with Nathan, if he wishes my input, on getting RO TAC to be reasonable. The NASA doc on life support is very informative!

I can almost taste the recycled air now!

This really is starting to get awesome, RO is really steaming along!

[RaccoonTOF]

The IACBM's should actually be HIGHER use than the interior lighting, they need to be much higher intensity and throw light over a larger area than the interior lighting. You'd probably be ok with 45 watts for the interior lighting, and maybe 150 watts for the IACBM lights (they are intended to light up the docking target, not just light up an internal work area ) Think of it like the difference between the dome light in your car and your headlights

One problem with raising the stiffness TOO high is that then you can end up not having enough flex in the structure to compensate for dynamic stresses from thrust inputs/aero drag/etc. Now, aero drag isn't AS important with the FusTek parts, since they are intended to be launched under a fairing...but they are also intended to be able to be used as part of a surface base as well I'd say the 2000/size 5 node values from the slightly larger procedural tanks are probably a good start. If that is too low still, take them up to 3k maybe, but certainly not to 200k [EDIT: As a point of reference, I've got the SLS Main Core stage set to 4445 breaking force/torque, and it is rock solid even with 9199 kN of main engines thrusting under it, and 17 MN of boosters attached to its sides...certainly none of the FusTek parts should be seeing forces in those ranges ]

Edited April 29, 2014 by RaccoonTOF

[Guest]

I found data HERE claiming "The 75 to 90 kilowatts of power for the ISS is supplied by an acre of solar panels", i think that number is per day and thats about the amount used by about 70 to 90 "average" Canadian homes...ALOT of power to say the least, I would allow Life support cfg settings to handle its power drain (on manned components only mind you) and then play with its numbers from there if it seems too little for realism. the unmanned components would need a good pass over though to bring numbers into the area of realism

But if the power drain rates get to high it would become near impossible to power it via solar arrays and require a nuke reactor or beamed power from KSPI.

Thats just my 2-cents, but i am a fan of attempting to set "standards" in things like power use & life support (although this is easier said than done). I'm very excited to see how your numbers play out along side life support power drain, as it shouldnt be easy to power a station, but it should still be feasible to do so purely on solar power generation, mind you an "acre", or about 4047 square meters...yikes, of them

[NathanKell]

Apologies for my recent non-presence on this thread. I *will* catch up and respond. Been super busy updating everything.

Life support updates will have to go in the next release, which I hope to have be only a week or two at most away.

Changelog:

v5 -- \/

*Moved WAC Corporal and V-2 parts to RPL; added in Engine Ignitor and throttle-limiting support

*Merged RedAV8R's FASA patches (maintained by RedAV8R)

*Merged brooklyn666's RT2 patches

*Updated 2.5m heatshield title for clarity

*Fix Proc Fairing node sizes

*Switched to ModuleRCSFX for RCS thrusters. Now supports bipropellant RCS!

*Updated RealChute integration with new parts (thanks stupid_chris!)

*Will automatically set correct FAR settings (0.13.2+)

[RaccoonTOF]

@Aazard - Ya, there's no question that it draws a lot of power. Though not all of it is for life support, a lot of that is the science facilities too, but it's still quite a bit of the total. Power usage in KSP in general is very low in comparison to RL usage, and the whole thing really needs a complete overhaul I think, more than just a rescale of the storage and generation aspects. For ongoing production though, solar really is incredibly efficient though - remember that for a space station, mass is the real limiting factor and not area. Solar panels need a LOT of space in comparison to other power generation options, but they take up very little mass to be effective (in comparison). Of course, with how we can just extend and retract the panels in KSP pretty much at-will, that's less of an issue than in RL too .

[ThorBeorn]

First of all, thank you NathanKell! I hope you get some well deserved rest now.

I think there may be a small bug/typo in the new RO release. My game won't load past "linearRcs" in Squad/Parts/Utility/LinearRCS. I'm looking at the new RCS_Squad.cfg, but I haven't found any oddities yet.

On the other hand I've also upgraded to MM2.05 and the newest RealFuels but they shouldn't cause this should they?

Edit: Maybe reading the new OP and installing ModuleRCSFX is a good idea. I even got this from output_log.txt: "Cannot find a Module of typename 'ModuleRCSFX'".

The game starts up fine now.

Edited April 29, 2014 by ThorBeorn

[panarchist]

I found data HERE claiming "The 75 to 90 kilowatts of power for the ISS is supplied by an acre of solar panels", i think that number is per day and thats about the amount used by about 70 to 90 "average" Canadian homes...

A kilowatt is a rate-based unit of measurement - 75-90kW is 75-90 kilojoules per second. One day of production at that rate would be 1,800-2,400kWh or 6.48-7.78Gj. That's in Earth orbit, mind you, where solar output is 1.35kW/m2. At half the distance, you get double the power, and at twice the distance, you get 1/4 the power. At Jupiter's orbit (5.2AU), you get an output less than 4% of what you get in Earth orbit, which is why solar is not practical beyond Mars.

ISS currently generates about 84kW - the amount diminishes over time due to UV and micrometeoroid damage. None of these effects are currently directly modeled in KSP, though I seem to recall at least one mod which models the decline in solar power due to distance. (newcomer to the thread, so please pardon me if the particular mod is common knowledge)

According to the Boeing website, ISS has 27,000 sq ft. of solar panels - a bit more than a half acre. (1acre=43,560ft2 or 4046.86m2) This is corroborated with the data on NASA's website.

NASA quotes it as "enough to power 40 homes", but Americans are more prolifigate spenders of power than Canadians. ;-)

Thats just my 2-cents, but i am a fan of attempting to set "standards" in things like power use & life support (although this is easier said than done). I'm very excited to see how your numbers play out along side life support power drain, as it shouldnt be easy to power a station, but it should still be feasible to do so purely on solar power generation, mind you an "acre", or about 4047 square meters...yikes, of them

As a side note, KSPI may be mis-stating their electrical units by a factor of 1,000. If you look at the RL values for the Mercury electrical system, and compare those values to the Command Pod Mk 1, 1 electric charge is equivalent to 1Mj.

Mercury: 13.5kWh in batteries = 48.6Mj

Command Pod Mk 1 = 50E (suspiciously close to 48.6E, which would mean 1 electric charge = 1Mj)

I posted that info once in the KSPI thread, - actually it was in this thread, in this post - but it's lost somewhere in all the updates, so I don't know if that info was followed up on.

Of course, this probably also means that most of the electrical consumption rates in the game are inaccurate.

Edited April 29, 2014 by panarchist
botched the math - corrected now

[Guest]

A kilowatt is a rate-based unit of measurement - 75-90kW is 75-90 kilojoules per second. One day of production at that rate would be 1,800-2,400kWh or 6.48-7.78Gj. That's in Earth orbit, mind you, where solar output is 1.35kW/m2. At half the distance, you get double the power, and at twice the distance, you get 1/4 the power. At Jupiter's orbit (5.2AU), you get an output less than 4% of what you get in Earth orbit, which is why solar is not practical beyond Mars.

ISS currently generates about 84kW - the amount diminishes over time due to UV and micrometeoroid damage. None of these effects are currently directly modeled in KSP, though I seem to recall at least one mod which models the decline in solar power due to distance. (newcomer to the thread, so please pardon me if the particular mod is common knowledge)

According to the Boeing website, ISS has 27,000 sq ft. of solar panels - a bit more than a half acre. (1acre=43,560ft2 or 4046.86m2) This is corroborated with the data on NASA's website.

NASA quotes it as "enough to power 40 homes", but Americans are more prolifigate spenders of power than Canadians. ;-)

As a side note, KSPI may be mis-stating their electrical units by a factor of 1,000. If you look at the RL values for the Mercury electrical system, and compare those values to the Command Pod Mk 1, 1 electric charge is equivalent to 1Mj.

Mercury: 13.5kWh in batteries = 48.6Mj

Command Pod Mk 1 = 50E (suspiciously close to 48.6E, which would mean 1 electric charge = 1Mj)

I posted that info once in the KSPI thread, - actually it was in this thread, in this post - but it's lost somewhere in all the updates, so I don't know if that info was followed up on.

Of course, this probably also means that most of the electrical consumption rates in the game are inaccurate.

a mk1 command pod has 64320 Electric Charge in the existing RO fixed TAC and a usage rate of rate = 0.2666666. with 1 charge equal to 1Kw. Everything in existence of stock KSP is very unrealistic, hence the RO fixes (of which TAC seems most suited to handle power usage of atleast manned components)

PS 1 kw is equal to 1kJ/sec (1 kW = 0.001 MJ/sec)

I found a better source (it was linked to me) for life support numbers HERE

Edited April 29, 2014 by Guest

[O Nerd]

What the...?

http://youtu.be/7Ml8u3adXg0

[panarchist]

a mk1 command pod has 64320 Electric Charge in the existing RO fixed TAC and a usage rate of rate = 0.2666666. with 1 charge equal to 1Kw. Everything in existence of stock KSP is very unrealistic, hence the RO fixes (of which TAC seems most suited to handle power usage of atleast manned components)

Oh, cool - thanks.

PS 1 kw is equal to 1kJ/sec (1 kW = 0.001 MJ/sec)

Yes, that's exactly what I stated above.

I found a better source (it was linked to me) for life support numbers HERE

Winchell Chung's site is awesome, I've contributed to it before, and he extensively researches things. If you look at the first reference on that page, you'll see he links to the exact same NASA doc I pulled my numbers from and referenced.

[RaccoonTOF]

Urgh...for some reason Procedural Parts are not loading any parts anymore with the new version (and yes, I've already removed the DLL requirement from the config file). It was working fine till I installed the new version of RO in between testing restarts, so I'm thinking some other config got overwritten in some way that conflicts now. Unfortunately, I'm going to have to be going back to the old RO version unless I can figure out where the conflict is - PP is kinda required for RSS

EDIT: And I'll second loving Project Rho/Atomic Rockets - that's actually what got me into KSP in the first place I'm also amused that the first link there is the same PDF I linked you to earlier Aazard...AND the same one panarchist has been using It really is the best source for accurate numbers, although as is mentioned on the Atomic Rockets site, it CAN be "more data on life support than you know what to do with" at times

Edited April 29, 2014 by RaccoonTOF

[Lord Aurelius]

I just found this mod a short time ago and was able to get working with just the required mods, but I'm confused with regard to installing all the recommended mods. Also, could the first post be updated with links to all the mods listed?

First, the recommended tech tree has its own giant list of mods included in its thread, are we supposed to install all of those as well or ignore that list and use the list in this thread?

Several of the mods in the parts packs list have comments in parentheses after them, for example KW rocketry lists batteries, fairings, rcs, does that mean we only install those specific parts since the rest haven't been rebalanced for realism overhaul?

Also, for mods listed as partial, could we have more information on what parts work and what don't?

From the mod list, it also looks like texture compressor is pretty much a requirement for a full install unless we're supposed to delete a bunch of redundant parts from the various packs. Is this correct?

Is there an install guide somewhere in this thread (or in another thread) that has already answered these questions or can provide additional guidance as to how to get everything working together correctly?

[RaccoonTOF]

Alright, it looks like my work on the ARM rescales is going to have to be put on hold for a short bit here. I've got some conflict which I'm being unable to nail down which has caused all my procedural tanks to vanish (they are showing as compiling correctly in the output log, just not showing up in the VAB) and additional issues with parts activating randomly at launch. At least a couple of issues I've tracked down to improper spaces in some of the RealEngines configs, which I've gone and fixed (latest version of MM is very picky about whitespace) and a couple of other mod conflicts between 2.0.x MM and 1.5.7 MM - PP needs the 2.0.x version though, so I'm also in the process of culling mods that are conflicting with anything past 1.5.7. In short, going to be spending the next few days of KSP time working on setting up yet another fresh RSS install (with the new RO, RSS, RF, etc releases as well), getting everything back to a stable state, re-pruning parts directories, etc. Thankfully the weather here is pretty frightful atm (did I really just say that?) so I'll have a higher proportion of KSP time to boat time for the next few days at least Then I'll get back to the rescales and see if removing the current buggy issues with other stuff resolves some of the problems I was having with my own custom configs as well

[jandcando]

Every time I revert to launch, the game crashes. I have to go to the VAB and then launch from there. I can load rockets from the launch pad just fine, but I can't revert to launch during a flight, or after I crash (the ship). My list of mods is in the zip file, along with the generated crash report. https://www.dropbox.com/s/afmr1iia7pmaaaw/Crash%20Report.zip

[craigmt1]

Just upgraded to the latest version, and I've noticed a major performance hit. Where a second in game clock used to be 2 on my laggiest ships, even on my smaller ones its almost 4 seconds for each in game second. I even went about removing obsolete packs like Jackbauer's engine configs and it is still very, very slow. Is it ModuleRCSFX causing the problems? I can't seem to get that to work properly either. Any ideas?

[IllusiveJeb]

I have a bit of a problem, the game starts nicely but then hangs after some time has passed and also from the get-go MM says it has found an error in RO's Probes_AIES.cfg.

Here is my \GameData (all up to date btw):

I thought this is the right sub regarding what I troubleshooted:

• Launching the game with all current mods except Realism Overhaul allows me to load a save and continue from there on.
  
• Tested with both aggressive and basic configs of ATM.
  
• If I remove AIES, then the MM says that there's an error in one of the KW's part (KWrcsPod.cfg yada yada) and then hangs when loading that part. If I remove KW and AIES from gamedata, this happens and hangs:
  
• Game hangs on this situation everytime:
  

Thanks for the help in advance.

[Ceribia]

I was having the same hang on load problem. After looking in the log I realized I was missing ModuleRCSFX.

Still getting the error about Probes_AIES.cfg but things seem to work.

[BombastixderTeutone]

Can somebody explain me what the Utilization controller in the VAB does?

[Kerbium]

Probe_AIES.cfg : @PART[//Maxurpod] to @PART[Maxurpod]

This may fix problem.

Edited April 30, 2014 by Kerbium

[BombastixderTeutone]

How do I ignite the Nova punch F1(five) Engine? I have external Launchclamps attached to the tank above it, but can't put them directly against the engines. I can't start my rocket that way

[O Nerd]

... Help, please?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ml8u3adXg0

EDIT: That was... Weird, to say the least.

Edited May 1, 2014 by O Nerd