Sign in to follow this  
RedAV8R

[0.25] Realism Overhaul w/ RedAV8R [Terminated]

Recommended Posts

Yes, very light parts are very jiggly. Check the rescaled mass of the docking port.

(For this reason it might be worth making docking ports mass more than they "should", and other things less, simply to get around the physics problems? Depends what they "should" mass anyway.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm quite new to this mod, looks promising, however, I can't get any FASA craft into orbit.

Tried the explorer, Atlas and Saturn 1B. (and redstone but that one luckily didn't go to orbit either ;)

stages run out of fuel way too quick. I installed all the required mods as listed,

engine/fuel wise:

ModuleRCSFX

Real Fuels

Engine Thrust Controller

KM_Gimbal

no luck with FAQ and WIKI either.

Any thoughts? Cheers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Post a picture of the rocket (with stats per stage from KER or MJ2) then describe how you fly your ascent profile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't seem to find the config for RemoteTech 2 which adds stations to each base location.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are two screenies, It looks like Dv is by far not enough. should be at least 7-8KM/s plus whatever needed to climb out of the atmosphere.

screenshot8_zps49153ad6.jpg

screenshot9_zpsf40df388.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's in the second post of this thread.

Oh wow, how did I not see that. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both those rockets look miniscule, they are too small to go to orbit in RSS. Are you sure all fuel tanks are full with the right fuels? Also you have ridiculous TWR's all around. Your first stage should be around 1.2 and only going down from there (make sure to use SLT TWR for first stage).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rico, I think you should move the launch clamps to the same stage that your main engines are, having it in a separate stage seems to mess your Mechjeb estimates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here are two screenies, It looks like Dv is by far not enough. should be at least 7-8KM/s plus whatever needed to climb out of the atmosphere.

Yes, you've got a bad rocket all around. I'm not sure exactly what you have all installed, but you are missing a lot of things there. No way with RSS/RO properly installed with all it's dependencies should your rocket look like that.

Rico, I think you should move the launch clamps to the same stage that your main engines are, having it in a separate stage seems to mess your Mechjeb estimates.

No, that is not needed, and no, it doesn't screw up the estimates. In fact having your clamps go after your engine starts is the right way of doing things...engine is started, and allowed to show 100%, then clamps are released, if you have solids those may be started at the same time of release, or milliseconds before the clamps are released.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

[...]

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
No, that is not needed, and no, it doesn't screw up the estimates. In fact having your clamps go after your engine starts is the right way of doing things...engine is started, and allowed to show 100%, then clamps are released, if you have solids those may be started at the same time of release, or milliseconds before the clamps are released.

I'm not contemplating the correct way to launch here, I'm well aware of how it looks like in real life. What I'm concerned about here is the correct way to make sure Mechjeb calculates his delta-v properly, because it sure as heck doesn't look like it does in those screens. That Juno rocket in the second screen should have way more than 800 m/s of delta-v in its first stage, even without being resized for RSS. It's a FASA replica that is supposed to reach orbit in this configuration, and Rico seems to have constructed it properly, so even assuming that he somehow failed to install RO patches/resizes for FASA, his rocket should still have about 4.5k delta-v, not 1.5k. Hence my suspicion that Mechjeb's readings are off.

Edited by Hattivat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure why you have so little delta V on your atlas and Juno rockets the juno should have enough delta v for at sub orbetal hope. I have had my own inssues with the Atlas but my problem to low a twr to leave the launch pad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to double-post, but this is a separate topic: I've installed the new RO yesterday, which finally includes full configs for Porkwork's habitats. As it happens, I'm beginning a series of manned missions that will use them quite extensively, and for that reasons have previously modified the RO configs for them as a stop-gap measure. So I am familiar with the topic to some degree, and looking at the new configs I can't help but ask a few questions:

1. Why mess with the node_stacks, if "rescaleFactor = 2.4", or even "rescaleFactor = 8.0" would work just fine? It makes it terribly complicated to customize things.

2. What is the basis of mass calculations for the modules? Their mass seems grossly underestimated in comparison to the numbers I've previously gathered from the web. Example: PA550 is currently 9.3 tonnes when full of supplies. The real-life BA 330, which it is probably supposed to emulate (similar dimensions), is projected to weigh over TWENTY tonnes.

3. Why aren't the modules made bigger? Currently even the biggest one is barely the size of the planned transhab.

Edited by Hattivat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not contemplating the correct way to launch here, I'm well aware of how it looks like in real life. What I'm concerned about here is the correct way to make sure Mechjeb calculates his delta-v properly, because it sure as heck doesn't look like it does in those screens. That Juno rocket in the second screen should have way more than 800 m/s of delta-v in its first stage, even without being resized for RSS. It's a FASA replica that is supposed to reach orbit in this configuration, and Rico seems to have constructed it properly, so even assuming that he somehow failed to install RO patches/resizes for FASA, his rocket should still have about 4.5k delta-v, not 1.5k. Hence my suspicion that Mechjeb's readings are off.

It's NOT the launch clamps, period. The Juno should have over ~5500m/s of DeltaV just in the last 3 stages, with TWR pushing 16-20 in each stage. His install is FUBAR, and now without logs or more detail we can't tell him what is wrong. Did I say it's NOT the launch clamps yet? You have no idea if his MechJeb readings are correct or not. You don't know what the weight of his rocket is, what kind of fuel and how much, NOTHING. Immediately thinking oh MechJeb is wrong, move your launch clamps...no. Wrong move.

What I can tell you is that his Juno I IS NOT built correctly, which tells me RO is not installed properly (or at all).

FYI What it should look like:

screenshot0_zpsd6dfe67a.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not contemplating the correct way to launch here, I'm well aware of how it looks like in real life. What I'm concerned about here is the correct way to make sure Mechjeb calculates his delta-v properly, because it sure as heck doesn't look like it does in those screens. That Juno rocket in the second screen should have way more than 800 m/s of delta-v in its first stage, even without being resized for RSS. It's a FASA replica that is supposed to reach orbit in this configuration, and Rico seems to have constructed it properly, so even assuming that he somehow failed to install RO patches/resizes for FASA, his rocket should still have about 4.5k delta-v, not 1.5k. Hence my suspicion that Mechjeb's readings are off.

It doesn't mess up MechJeb though. I have never seen MJ get messed up because of staging that way. I do it often. Though MJ always gets the TWR wrong, it has nothing to do with staging like this.

My first though its.. Did you put fuel in all the tanks? heh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry to double-post, but this is a separate topic: I've installed the new RO yesterday, which finally includes full configs for Porkwork's habitats. As it happens, I'm beginning a series of manned missions that will use them quite extensively, and for that reasons have previously modified the RO configs for them as a stop-gap measure. So I am familiar with the topic to some degree, and looking at the new configs I can't help but ask a few questions:

1. Why mess with the node_stacks, if "rescaleFactor = 2.4", or even "rescaleFactor = 8.0" would work just fine? It makes it terribly complicated to customize things.

Apparently it has to do with a bug in the game that can cause rescaleFactor to get applied twice in certain conditions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry to double-post, but this is a separate topic: I've installed the new RO yesterday, which finally includes full configs for Porkwork's habitats. As it happens, I'm beginning a series of manned missions that will use them quite extensively, and for that reasons have previously modified the RO configs for them as a stop-gap measure. So I am familiar with the topic to some degree, and looking at the new configs I can't help but ask a few questions:

1. Why mess with the node_stacks, if "rescaleFactor = 2.4", or even "rescaleFactor = 8.0" would work just fine? It makes it terribly complicated to customize things.

2. What is the basis of mass calculations for the modules? Their mass seems grossly underestimated in comparison to the numbers I've previously gathered from the web. Example: PA550 is currently 9.3 tonnes when full of supplies. The real-life BA 330, which it is probably supposed to emulate (similar dimensions), is projected to weigh over TWENTY tonnes.

3. Why aren't the modules made bigger? Currently even the biggest one is barely the size of the planned transhab.

Apparently it has to do with a bug in the game that can cause rescaleFactor to get applied twice in certain conditions.

1. Agathorn is partially right, and the bigger issue is because rescaleFactor works in all dimensions, there are numerous times when width and height need different scales, which obviously can't be done with rescaleFactor alone. Additionally, quite frankly, I don't give a darn how 'customizable' my configs are after the fact.

2/3. The original. There are still many objects which aren't based on anything in particular and I wasn't paying attention to be based on the Bigelow's. Now with that in mind, some more work can be done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's NOT the launch clamps, period. The Juno should have over ~5500m/s of DeltaV just in the last 3 stages, with TWR pushing 16-20 in each stage. His install is FUBAR, and now without logs or more detail we can't tell him what is wrong. Did I say it's NOT the launch clamps yet? You have no idea if his MechJeb readings are correct or not. You don't know what the weight of his rocket is, what kind of fuel and how much, NOTHING. Immediately thinking oh MechJeb is wrong, move your launch clamps...no. Wrong move.

The Juno I first stage in its non-RO version should have about 2000 m/s of delta-v, so the fact that it only has 800 in his case does tell us something and is part of the detail that might be needed to solve his problem.

And I am frankly completely unable to understand why you got so worked up about my simple suggestion for him to change his staging and reupload the pictures; I merely wanted to remove one potential source of uncertainty. Relax, mate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2/3. The original. There are still many objects which aren't based on anything in particular and I wasn't paying attention to be based on the Bigelow's. Now with that in mind, some more work can be done.

1. Ok, I get it, although no offense, I'm going to delete that and continue using my rescaleFactor = 2.4 config.

2. Well, FYI, they are off by a wide margin. This needs to change even if you keep all else as it is now. At its current size the PA 550 should weigh at least 13.2 tonnes (that's the weight projected for the original Transhab).

3. Um, ok, but you did base your decision to set the scale to 1.88 on something? Hopefully you haven't just picked a random number?

Also, a module with a name like "PA 330" is quite obviously intended to emulate the real-world BA 330, I think it would be appropriate to give it similar dimensions and stats. Or to change its name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Juno I first stage in its non-RO version should have about 2000 m/s of delta-v, so the fact that it only has 800 in his case does tell us something and is part of the detail that might be needed to solve his problem.

And I am frankly completely unable to understand why you got so worked up about my simple suggestion for him to change his staging and reupload the pictures; I merely wanted to remove one potential source of uncertainty. Relax, mate.

You haven't seen me worked up yet, but the fact that you refused to listen that IT'S NOT THE LAUNCH CLAMPS, it's a definite face palm moment. Yes, obviously even a basic FASA install with or without RSS this user should have far more than what he has. Not to mention the fact that the first stage has a burn time of 23s, something obviously isn't right. That's all that MJ shows us, a symptom that at least one thing is wrong, or better yet, confirmation that the user can't reach orbit. No wonder, he only has ~15% of the DeltaV he should have. The fact that MY screen shot showing a correct build, with launch clamps otherwise in the same position, not to mention another user saying the same thing.

1. Ok, I get it, although no offense, I'm going to delete that and continue using my rescaleFactor = 2.4 config.

2. Well, FYI, they are off by a wide margin. This needs to change even if you keep all else as it is now. At its current size the PA 550 should weigh at least 13.2 tonnes (that's the weight projected for the original Transhab).

3. Um, ok, but you did base your decision to set the scale to 1.88 on something? Hopefully you haven't just picked a random number?

Also, a module with a name like "PA 330" is quite obviously intended to emulate the real-world BA 330, I think it would be appropriate to give it similar dimensions and stats. Or to change its name.

1. None taken, don't care either.

2. Yep, apprently, considering I just increased size, without respect to simulating a specific object, this should not be surprising.

3. That scale was based upon matching docking port sizes...it was not random.

Well since this is just a hobby and while I have heard of Bigelow, it was more towards the BEAM module that will go with the ISS, but never did any research otherwise. I appreciate you bringing to my attention the analogous nature of these parts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the fact that you refused to listen that IT'S NOT THE LAUNCH CLAMPS, it's a definite face palm moment.

It may have something to do with the fact that instead of simply saying "I know it for a fact that launch clamps would not mess up MJ calculations" you chose to lecture me on the superior realism of such a staging order. With my signature and all you could have guessed that I'm not one of the guys who come here to ask why their engines don't throttle (no offense to them intended, everyone was a rookie once).

The fact that MY screen shot showing a correct build, with launch clamps otherwise in the same position, not to mention another user saying the same thing.

Sure, these did remove my doubts, as you might have noticed. Your first reply, however, did nothing of the kind, as it was basically off-topic, so I don't see why you'd be surprised that I didn't instantly give up on this lead.

1. None taken, don't care either.

2. Yep, apprently, considering I just increased size, without respect to simulating a specific object, this should not be surprising.

3. That scale was based upon matching docking port sizes...it was not random.

1. Fair enough.

2. Fair enough.

3. Ok, that does make sense.

Well since this is just a hobby and while I have heard of Bigelow, it was more towards the BEAM module that will go with the ISS, but never did any research otherwise. I appreciate you bringing to my attention the analogous nature of these parts.

You are welcome, and thanks for co-creating this awesome mod pack.

As far as mass is concerned, the baseline seems to be in the range of 45-55 kg per cubic meter of space. That's dry mass without any furnishings, so actual proposed modules are usually heavier. In order to calculate the space inside the module, you have to subtract about 0.3-0.4 m from its radius and height to account for the thickness of the walls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It may have something to do with the fact that instead of simply saying "I know it for a fact that launch clamps would not mess up MJ calculations" you chose to lecture me on the superior realism of such a staging order. With my signature and all you could have guessed that I'm not one of the guys who come here to ask why their engines don't throttle (no offense to them intended, everyone was a rookie once).

Sure, these did remove my doubts, as you might have noticed. Your first reply, however, did nothing of the kind, as it was basically off-topic, so I don't see why you'd be surprised that I didn't instantly give up on this lead.

Let's see...care to read that again...

No, that is not needed, and no, it doesn't screw up the estimates.

So apparently you missed it. I understand it happens...

Aside from that. I don't give a rats rump what your signature looks like, and apparently that has further proven it does not mean squat about what your level of experience/expertise/troubleshooting skills are.

We are done here.

Share this post


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