[0.25] Realism Overhaul w/ RedAV8R [Terminated]

[Kitspace]

I suppose the textures on the pods look like a good place for roll thrusters which are anyway already placed with the very same kind of idea and close to these points just not quite aligned. I am not saying that it is important for the matter just for complete visual pleasure.

So if the thrusters do fire as expected physically then does anybody have any ideas why could such a weird thing happen?

Is it a problem with module RCSFX? I always thought that the association between the thruster and the audible and visual effects it produces is hard coded in to the game? Right? I think this should be considered a bug worth fixing because apart from breaking the general immersion it makes it hard to tell right away whether they are on or off when you control thrusters on individual parts via action groups and have the global system enabled as well as making it quite impossible to watch out not to hit something or someone with your exhaust which is important in reality.

As far as I remember they have Remote tech modules that say something like local control which enables us to use the attitude computer and the task planner with them as well as all the pods whether manned or not do have an antenna. Anyway this is still required for sending any data via the visibility and connection conditions instead of the plane stock algorithm and can be quite useful for some other mods. And by the way there are lots of stock things that you have turned upside down completely for the only purpose of hardcore realism. Is not that the main idea of this mod? Why should this bit be consistent with stock? I think it was good in the previous release. Also there were suggestions to write a config that would automatically add the module to any active command parts.

Hope you will get it to work. Any ideas how much is left to do with it?

All in all this is a very awesome mod and I like to think that it is getting better and better.

Thank you.

[RedAV8R]

Thrusters on Stock. It's not happening. Get over it. If the pod was designed anything realistic I would consider it. It's not. Therefore I did something that does work, and is proven to work. I don't care about your visual pleasure. Especially when it's unrealistic. I care about function.

Effects. As I said in the OP. I'm not touching effects and I'm not worried about effects. I don't care about your visual pleasure. I care about function. They function. Discussion over.

Remote Tech. Pods do not and will not have RT modules. Test Stock + RemoteTech and prove me wrong. You won't. If you cared to read back a few pages you'll see that when RT modules WERE added it to manned pods it broke the capability of attaching an unmanned probe to the same craft and allowing it to function when all the crew left the station. If anything this is a limitation of RT. If you want better functionality then talk to them. It's not my problem. I actually fixed a bug I created by removing the RT modules from manned pods that I had originally put in.

Look at it this way, if you hop into an airplane, you don't need a connection to the ground in order to fly it. You need an antenna to communicate but you don't need one to fly. So how the current implementation of stock function NOT realistic? If you want an attitude computer or task planner then you can use mechjeb or some other autopilot, just like real life. If you install an antenna on a pod. THEN it will say "local control". Still no flight computer. But you can transmit science back, which is disabled in sandbox, which is the only thing supported at this time. So doesn't really matter then does it.

Think of RT as a way of controlling objects in space via the ground (or command station also in space).

As for the suggestions for a config to add the module to command parts. I don't recall that, links to those suggestions would be appreciated.

Hope I get what to work. How much left of what?

[Kitspace]

Ok let us really just get over the thrusters positions as I have said it is not that important to me either.

I understand when you do not care about enhancing the effects and making things look nice but I do not quite understand when you do not care about a complete lack of effect which does break some function. I have described a couple of examples of the practical functional usefulness of these effects by the way. Maybe it is not of a thing of great importance but it is a function that does affect flying to some extent. And also it is the first time I see anything like this in the game so it is interesting for me. So do you know the cause of the problem at least approximately so I can find out more or ask the author of one of the other mods involved if it is related to him or her?

Broke the capability of both local and remote control? Weird. I always try to place an unmanned guidance probe core on top of my launch vehicles no matter if the payload vessel is manned or not and never had a single problem. Maybe I should test it further in some situations.

I mean the LazTek pack and the fixes you said you are now working on.

Also do you know that about a month ago Nathan Kell released a new version of RCSFX?

He says that some weird stuff was fixed actually.

I have just ran across it suddenly.

It is located in a new thread of its own.

Edited October 2, 2014 by Kitspace

[RedAV8R]

@kitspace: Do thrusters provide thrust? Yes. Do thrusters use fuel while providing thrust? Yes. Result. They are functioning. Visually SEEING exhaust (in the game context) are called effects. Per the OP. I am not concerned with that. If you are so concerned with reality you do realize you should be flying within the IVA right. In which case a person may not be able to visually see all thrusters firing. They aren't concerned with that. If attitude changes are correct, and fuel usage is correct. Then there is the concept of faith which is telling them, yes, the thrusters are working. Problem, I don't know, I don't care. For the 2nd time, this effects discussion is closed. Case Dismissed with Prejudice. Unless somebody has a working fix they would like included. Further attempts at discussion will be considered harassment and reported as such.

While on the discussion of ModuleRCSFX...Yes, I know of the release. I knew of the release before it was released. If you cared to check, you'd have discovered that the release on it's own thread is the same as that contained within RO. You obviously never looked to realize that NK owns the repo in which RO is located.

RemoteTech. Yes, the previous configs with manned pods having RT modules included caused issues. This was reported in what is likely the best bug report this thread has ever seen. It was replicated, a fix tested and then implemented. Which not surprisingly also matches stock functionality. Any future discussion for a feature request needs to be brought up with the people of RemoteTech. When implemented on their end, it can then be implemented within RealismOverhaul. Case Dismissed.

LazTek is currently in testing. Configs are basically done. Pending good tests and no RL interruptions, I'll have a release tonight.

[Redhotita1]

I just tried to remake the Apollo CSM... for the 6th time.

Since you removed the 4m Heatshield decoupter i had to use tweak scale and i noticed that... it's little bit heavy...

E: The capsule should be of 3.9 meters, and not 4.2 meters, as shown in the image below.

Edited October 2, 2014 by Redhotita1

[RedAV8R]

@Redhotita1: The decoupler issue has been resolved along with the decoupler force. That'll be in the next release. The Squad Mk1-2 Command Pod is the Squad Mk1-2 Command Pod. It's not Apollo, if it was, it would have been renamed Apollo. If you want an Apollo there are several replicas to choose from.

[Redhotita1]

@Redhotita1: The decoupler issue has been resolved along with the decoupler force. That'll be in the next release. The Squad Mk1-2 Command Pod is the Squad Mk1-2 Command Pod. It's not Apollo, if it was, it would have been renamed Apollo. If you want an Apollo there are several replicas to choose from.

ow... Sorry, i though it was the Apollo, the FASA one it's kinda glitchy last time i tried. RCS not working properly etc, bugs that have been solved i guess.

Thanks for the answer, and for fixing it!

You're doing an awesome job! Please, keep doing this

[Spooks]

Hallo i have a problem my ksc is +- 200 meter below the ground in a big hole

i made a reinstall first test all mods all is working ook so i install rss and ro

i only have not Tac installed

i do not have a log i am not crashing its working no errors i know of

thanks for your time

[RedAV8R]

@Redhotita1: Yep, the FASA and also OLDD Apollos have not yet been worked on. Originally we were making 3rd party stock like pods analogous to real counterparts. This led to some size issues that I just didn't like. So if replica, then they will be sized appropriately, if stock like, they are simply human sized. Thank you for the words. They are coming soon:) Moving along as fast as I can given work and 34 week pregnant wife. DennyTX is currently working on some fantastic fixes for his Apollo (which is shared by FASA as well), and I'm working with him as best I can.

@Spooks: This is an RSS issue. Likely caused by the fact you did not follow directions and install a texture pack with RSS. Further issues can be discussed in the RSS thread. Not this one.

Edited October 2, 2014 by RedAV8R

[Redhotita1]

Moving along as fast as I can given work and 34 week pregnant wife. DennyTX is currently working on some fantastic fixes for his Apollo (which is shared by FASA as well), and I'm working with him as best I can.

Nice! Good luck with that!

I didn't noticed the WIP for the FASA, sorry. Take your time for make a good job, I can wait

Don't thank me... You just deserve it. Everybody involved in Real Solar System related mods are doing great!

Enough OT, Sorry

[Ophiuchus]

Hey Red, just a few little things -

the AIES RS-68A weighs 9.9t in game, while every source I've found gives a weight of 6.7t (http://www.ulalaunch.com/products_deltaiv.aspx)

the NASA pack 4xSSME engine has both ASL and vacuum Isp of 453

the thrust curve on the KW GEM-46 and GEM-60 builds up very slowly, taking about 3 seconds to hit 90%ish

the attach nodes for the NASA pack Pyrios booster base are floating ~20m above the booster (unless I messed something up updating to most recent RO; they were working previously)

And just as a flavor thing, the RLA RS-2200 seems pretty overpowered, with throttling, low weight, great Isp etc. Since it was never built maybe replace with the XRS-2200? (http://www.astronautix.com/engines/xrs2200.htm) And since we've got plenty of CECE/RL-10s, maybe a CE-20 and LE-5 for some variety?

Great work and thanks

[RedAV8R]

@Ophiuchus:

1. Weight of RS-68A - Thank you, corrected.

2. NASA 4xSSME ISP - Thank you! Had the right Isp in the config but the index was wrong (duplicated). Fixed the index for the curve. Thank you again.

3. GEM-46/60 - YEP. The GEM40/46 take 20secs for full power. The GEM60 take 7.5-10sec for full power. Pull the latest ATK Catalog, thrust curves are in there.

4. Pyrios node. Um...I redid the NASA Pyrios at some point, now uses the NASA tanks and stock big 2.5m tank to increase it's length. If you see nothing the tanks were deleted in your install. Might check that first. If you want, delete current RO folder, reinstall the latest.

5. RS-2200. Going to think about that...what I may do is default that to the XRS-2200 but have the full power RS-2200 as another config. Isn't RealFuels awesome, everybody say thanks to NK.

6. At one time I had an idea for the LE-5 or LE-7. That got shelved in favor of something else. Lovad has a decent HII series stuff and I've got another link for another H-II series that will be done as well. I haven't looked at it, hopefully the engines are separate parts in that pack, unlike Lovad.

[Ophiuchus]

@3, yes, but they hit ~80 or 90 % almost instantly, the same as the GEM-40s (http://www.ltas-vis.ulg.ac.be/cmsms/uploads/File/DataSheetSolidATK.pdf), while in game they deliver ~150kn thrust for several seconds (releasing clamps at the same time as igniting solids results in a dramatic fall to the pad, unlike say a DIV launch where they are lit at t-0 and certainly develop appreciable thrust in a fraction of a second) ie in your configs the GEM40s start at 0.721 thrust while the GEM46 and GEM60 start at 0.147 and 0.019 respectively

@4, yup, that's my problem, deleted all the stock tanks in favor of PP

@5 thanks, NK

Edited October 2, 2014 by Ophiuchus

[RedAV8R]

@Ophiuchus:

#3. Well had you provided that detail from the start I would have fixed it:wink: Should be much better now. Starting at ~75% or so now. I appreciate it.

#4. There are better tanks out there, but I'm assuming stock tanks and parts in general will remain. Should probably make that clear in instructions. Would avoid the silly things like this.

[Ophiuchus]

@Red

I'll be more specific in my nitpicking in the future Just re-downloaded the Squad tanks, props for the Pyrios design

[Phredward]

Is there a new spreadsheet of engine thrust, weight, isp, etc? SFJackBauer's RealEngine spreadsheet was really useful to me, and I feel like it was great to be able to check values there for realism. I could probably whip up a script to make one filled in from config values, if you feel like that would be useful RedAV8R.

[RedAV8R]

@Phredward: I personally have a spreadsheet with mod/model/name/real manufacter/model, but no performance specs. You make something, I'll post it.

[teal'c]

Hmm I think the j-2 (cluster of 5 engines) from the KW pack is overweight. It's the same engine as the one in the novapunch mod. However, the KW one weighs way more.

[Phylan]

This is more of a philosophical question than a support question for users of this mod in general, so apologies if this doesn't belong here. But are there any good tips for controlling a launch vehicle during atmospheric flight in RO/RSS? I find that gimballing the engines on the high thrust or clusters of medium thrust engines imparts too wild a motion and tend to eventually shake the vehicle apart. especially with SAS engaged. I've had some success with winglets, but there's still a period where the air is too thin for control surfaces but where RCS doesn't really do the job. I've stacked a few Advanced SAS modules on top of one another and that hasn't really been enough either. I'd be grateful for any advice.

And thanks RedAV8r for a great mod.

[Hattivat]

@Phylan:

1. Caps-lock enables fine control mode (apologies if you already knew this one, but many people don't), that should help

2. Have some patience, remember that your rocket has inertia (ie. it keeps turning for a while after you release the button, therefore don't hold it too long)

3. Avoid creating stages with excessively high final TWR (that is, TWR at stage burnout above let's say 6)

4. If you can't avoid these, adjust your flight path so that you perform most of the necessary maneuvers before you reach excessively high TWR (e.g. turn more aggressively), so that you can just keep pointing straight ahead during the moments when your TWR gets very high.

[Phylan]

@Phylan:

1. Caps-lock enables fine control mode (apologies if you already knew this one, but many people don't), that should help

2. Have some patience, remember that your rocket has inertia (ie. it keeps turning for a while after you release the button, therefore don't hold it too long)

3. Avoid creating stages with excessively high final TWR (that is, TWR at stage burnout above let's say 6)

4. If you can't avoid these, adjust your flight path so that you perform most of the necessary maneuvers before you reach excessively high TWR (e.g. turn more aggressively), so that you can just keep pointing straight ahead during the moments when your TWR gets very high.

Thanks, I was using fine control. And yeah, tapping for very short control inputs has been my method. I've had trouble limiting stage burnout TWR even for stages that have the desired starting TWR (I've been aiming for 1.4 - 1.7). I'm thinking about using action groups to turn down the thrust limiters approaching the end of the stage. From what you're saying I'm mostly on the right track and just need to design better rockets, so I'll push onward. Thanks!

[teal'c]

@Phylan:

Also, what helps for me when I have wobbly rockets is to turn off SAS while turning. The SAS tends to want to overcorrect and cause the rocket to wobble out of control. I try to get the rocket a bit stable again before turning SAS on after I made my course corrections.

[Kitspace]

Does anybody actually use vernier thrusters and what engines do you use for that purpose?

It is useful if you need roll control with only one engine or when you have too much control authoritiy with main gimbal.

What part pack from the ones supported has something for that?

Are there any other sane realistic means of effectively and reliably controlling a thrusting rocket during ascent on all three axes?

Many rockets have no vernier nozzles and one nozzle on a stage or more than one nozzle but one axis gimbal only or something how are they controlled?

I will not believe that they have no authority on both roll and yaw but how do you control a rocket with two axes?

[RedAV8R]

@teal'c: Thanks. I need to make a pass and check for some consistency between packs. This particular case has been fixed now.

@Phylan: Appreciate the words. Hattivat provided some pretty good guidance, better vehicle design, better ascent profile. Both would make a world of difference. There is a reason why most vehicles are 3 stages, either 3 core, or 2 with boosters. Using SRBs will give you a push to get out of the thick part of the atmosphere, while using a smaller main engine that won't push your TWR sky high. Seriously, make some that mimic real vehicles first, see how it's done, then you can tweak as necessary, or don't tweak and just use them as is. Building your own rockets is fun, but with as many vehicles as there are out there, I find using real ones meet most, if not all goals. The fun for me is doing things IN space, not getting those things TO space. To each their own.

@Hattivat: Thanks.

@kitspace: Are you talking IRL or in game? IRL, verniers are used in different ways on different engines. While some single engine stages have gimbaled exhaust giving roll control or RCS for roll control, others have another small engine to provide roll. Like the LR-101 found on the Atlas series. Some stages have a single main engine and 2-4 vernier engines providing all 3 axis of control. The point is generally all vehicles have 3 axis of control in some way, shape, or form. So what's the problem?

Edited October 3, 2014 by RedAV8R

[Hattivat]

Thanks, I was using fine control. And yeah, tapping for very short control inputs has been my method. I've had trouble limiting stage burnout TWR even for stages that have the desired starting TWR (I've been aiming for 1.4 - 1.7). I'm thinking about using action groups to turn down the thrust limiters approaching the end of the stage. From what you're saying I'm mostly on the right track and just need to design better rockets, so I'll push onward. Thanks!

Yeah, from your comments it seems you are on the right track. One tiny thing: 1.4-1.7 is a high initial TWR in real-life, if you aim for that with all your stages, it may contribute to your problem. Normally only the first stage needs a TWR >1, and even it doesn't need it as high as 1.7; a TWR of 1.25 works just fine.

edit: You might also want to take the good advice from RedAV8R and try to build a replica of some real life rocket, that should be instructive.

Edited October 3, 2014 by Hattivat