Sign in to follow this  
RedAV8R

[0.25] Realism Overhaul w/ RedAV8R [Terminated]

Recommended Posts

I just can't for the life of me seem to get the F-1 engine from FASA working, it always flames out on the launchpad and says "LiquidOxygen Deprived". Every other engine in FASA seems to work fine, though. Any ideas?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just can't for the life of me seem to get the F-1 engine from FASA working, it always flames out on the launchpad and says "LiquidOxygen Deprived". Every other engine in FASA seems to work fine, though. Any ideas?

Post a *.craft file that exhibits this issue. I'll see where you went wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here ya go: https://copy.com/ASnARvfgXGqsbdK2

It's basically a Saturn V with a dummy payload and procedural tanks. It may load with the fuel tanks empty, but even filled, and with fuel lines placed directly from the tank to the engines, it still doesn't ignite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Launched just fine for me...

Make sure your RO is completely updated to the latest version. BTW...there are new parts with the FASA pack that bring the FASA Saturn V to within centimeters, maybe milimeters of the correct size, and that is what the pack was tested with, using PP tanks and the thrust structure is not how it's intended to be flown, and it's a whole lot more stable. I noted your rocket is a wobbly fella.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a heads-up: TAC Life Support got a new pre-release for 0.9 that uses 1U = 1L by default. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried upgrading everything before I posted but still no dice. Ah well, I guess I'll use Hakari's F-1 for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just a heads-up: TAC Life Support got a new pre-release for 0.9 that uses 1U = 1L by default. :)

lol /10chars

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just a heads-up: TAC Life Support got a new pre-release for 0.9 that uses 1U = 1L by default. :)

Yep I know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To thoughts. Have we thought about a way to add a min time between launches. to Recycle the launch pad, and maybe an Assembly time for rockets? And what about A Failure Rate that goes down with testing on new parts/designs. Because I know the early Redstones had 1 in five Failure rate, and so did the Titan. Not sure if that's possible with the limits of the game code. But I Think any thing that keeps me form making back to back launches

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To thoughts. Have we thought about a way to add a min time between launches. to Recycle the launch pad, and maybe an Assembly time for rockets? And what about A Failure Rate that goes down with testing on new parts/designs. Because I know the early Redstones had 1 in five Failure rate, and so did the Titan. Not sure if that's possible with the limits of the game code. But I Think any thing that keeps me form making back to back launches

I remember reading recently about a failure mod, though I'm not sure what stage of development its in currently. That being said, Kerbal Construction Time will cover the rest of that. Setting the time multiplier to something like 10 will give you build times as high as 60 days for complex rockets, but as low as 3-5 for reusable craft like space planes. It also supports recycling of recovered parts like boosters if you've put parachutes on them, and allows for science to be generated by building things to simulate knowledge acquired from developing new materials and building processes. Personally I think its a must have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will the included lifesupport.cfg work with this prerelease?

I don't know. Probably not. I need to look tomorrow. I know RF likely will need some tweaking but we will get things squared away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To thoughts. Have we thought about a way to add a min time between launches. to Recycle the launch pad, and maybe an Assembly time for rockets? And what about A Failure Rate that goes down with testing on new parts/designs. Because I know the early Redstones had 1 in five Failure rate, and so did the Titan. Not sure if that's possible with the limits of the game code. But I Think any thing that keeps me form making back to back launches

All good ideas but beyond the scope of this project other than providing support and/or integration with this mod. This mod only modifies existing parts and mods to give more realistic figures. Not introducing more features.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had some fun in orbit tonight: Tried docking with my lunar lander while in Earth orbit, and the magnetic force between the docking ports ripped off the top fuel tank on the lander when the ports were still over a meter apart. I added a lot of struts to try to fix the issue, and while they didn't break, the fuel tank didn't exactly stay attached (and the docking never completed, no matter how much I used RCS to stabilize things). Am I completely messing up, or is the magnetic force too great? The service module is fully-fueled and the lander is still attached to the 3rd-stage lunar transfer section that is, since I never left orbit, still full of fuel:

XNdv0PY.jpg

(Also, how are people hiding images in spoiler sections? I don't see anything in the editor that lets me do that.)

Edited by jrandom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I noticed one thing that I am not sure is suppose to happen. Why do the engines have no throttle? Every time I activate them and throttle up they are all at 100% even though my throttle is at like 2%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So I noticed one thing that I am not sure is suppose to happen. Why do the engines have no throttle? Every time I activate them and throttle up they are all at 100% even though my throttle is at like 2%.

Look for the "Minimum Throttle" value after right-clicking on an engine. A lot of real rocket engines aren't actually throttleable, or are only minimally throttleable. Usually it's just the orbital engines that have a wide throttle range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We go through this once a month or so. Real rocket engines are *not* designed to throttle. There are two exceptions to this rule.

1. Modern high-performance lifter engines are designed to throttle, either to reduce G loads on the crew during the tail end of first stage burn, to allow for throttling down the central core in a common core/multicore setup, or to ease aerodynamic stresses at Max Q. This generally means down to about 70% rated thrust, or "shallowly throttleable"

2. Lander descent engines are designed to be "deeply" throttleable, that is down to a few to ten percent of their rated thrust. That includes the LMDE, some in-testing variants of the RL-10 designed as the cryogenic successor to the LMDE, and...that's about it. Oh, and the stuff used on, say, Viking.

You can see right here the list of engines and their throttleability, or look any given engine on google and find out its throttling range.

jrandom: in real life, orbital engines are the ones that *aren't* throtteable. They have many reignitions, so if you screw up you can light it again; and you have RCS to fine tune your parameters (also not throttleable; it pulses).

Because, in RftS, I don't know what engines people plan to use for their landers, I'm much more generous about throttling. But this is RO. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... in real life, orbital engines are the ones that *aren't* throtteable. They have many reignitions, so if you screw up you can light it again; and you have RCS to fine tune your parameters (also not throttleable; it pulses).

I uh... why, I meant landing engines! Yes, that's the ticket! It was a typo! The keys are, like, right next to each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We go through this once a month or so. Real rocket engines are *not* designed to throttle. There are two exceptions to this rule.

1. Modern high-performance lifter engines are designed to throttle, either to reduce G loads on the crew during the tail end of first stage burn, to allow for throttling down the central core in a common core/multicore setup, or to ease aerodynamic stresses at Max Q. This generally means down to about 70% rated thrust, or "shallowly throttleable"

2. Lander descent engines are designed to be "deeply" throttleable, that is down to a few to ten percent of their rated thrust. That includes the LMDE, some in-testing variants of the RL-10 designed as the cryogenic successor to the LMDE, and...that's about it. Oh, and the stuff used on, say, Viking.

You can see right here the list of engines and their throttleability, or look any given engine on google and find out its throttling range.

Oh, I did not know that. Thanks! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone have any advice on that docking port magnetic force issue I posted a screenshot of? If I can't fix that, I can't do my moon mission. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which docking ports were you using?

That said, I've got a list of parameters via NK for docking ports that I'll be going through here soon.

The list and it's defaults:

acquireForce = 2

acquireMinFwdDot = 0.7

acquireMinRollDot = -3.40282347E+38

acquireRange = 0.5

acquireTorque = 2

captureMaxRvel = 0.3

captureMinFwdDot = 0.998

captureMinRollDot = -3.40282347E+38

captureRange = 0.06

minDistanceToReEngage = 1

undockEjectionForce = 10

'MinRollDot' default is likely an 'ignore' value, however one can likely force a specific Roll Alignment with these.

A lot of these will be nuked quite substantially, just haven't gotten in to test yet.

Edited by RedAV8R

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Which docking ports were you using?

The NASA Std. Docking Port that looks like the old-school regular docking port. But... ah... I TweakScaled them down to 1 meter in radius. I'm going to run some tests tonight to see if non-tweak-scaled ports have the same issue. Funny thing, though -- the port itself was fine. It was the procedural tank underneath it that ripped off from lander, and it ripped off at the wider 2-meter base. If you look at the image, you can see that 16 struts weren't enough to hold it in place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The NASA Std. Docking Port that looks like the old-school regular docking port. But... ah... I TweakScaled them down to 1 meter in radius. I'm going to run some tests tonight to see if non-tweak-scaled ports have the same issue. Funny thing, though -- the port itself was fine. It was the procedural tank underneath it that ripped off from lander, and it ripped off at the wider 2-meter base. If you look at the image, you can see that 16 struts weren't enough to hold it in place.

I'm not supporting parts modified from my already modified items, it does bring up an issue that will be adjusted here soon. Tweakscale doesn't change anything besides mass with ports, though that MAY have a factor in it. Otherwise I think you are onto the right path, besides the ports having too much strength (known and fix coming), the PPs have too little. I'd look there for support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh. Wasn't asking for you to make any non-relevant changes, just needed the information as to the root cause! Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this