Sign in to follow this  
RedAV8R

[0.25] Realism Overhaul w/ RedAV8R [Terminated]

Recommended Posts

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

So it seems, sorry about that.

and apparently that has further proven it does not mean squat about what your level of experience/expertise/troubleshooting skills are.

This coming from someone who has just admitted that he basically has no idea whatsoever about the parts that he is creating realism configs for. Besides, I never claimed any sort of expertise other than being able to install RO so that it works properly, I was only trying to be helpful. Like you said, "it's only a hobby".

We are done here.

Well, I thought I was about to help you make the Porkworks habitats plausible, but if the only purpose of this discussion for you was to prove a point then I guess I'll keep that to myself. Happy config-fixing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, I thought I was about to help you make the Porkworks habitats plausible, but if the only purpose of this discussion for you was to prove a point then I guess I'll keep that to myself. Happy config-fixing.

The 'we are done' was in reference to the discussion about the other user's issue, but that wasn't made explicitily clear. Help/suggestions with Porkworks is welcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Sorry if I mis the obvious,

I've just fully re-installed KSP with the mods listed as mandatory and best with:

Real Solar System

Real Fuels

Deadly Reentry

Ferram Aerospace Research by ferram4

RealChutes by stupid_chris

Engine Ignitor by HoneyFox. NOTE: DO NOT extract the included zips of config files; if you already extracted the config files, delete them.

ModuleRCSFX by ialdabaoth

Advanced Jet Engine by camlost

Engine Thrust Controller by HoneyFox. NOTE: DELETE the cfg that comes with it.

KM_Gimbal by dtobi. If you already have Space Shuttle Engines, you have this. Otherwise you need it.

Best with:

TweakScale

Procedural Parts

RemoteTech 2

Procedural Fairings

TAC Life Support

ModuleFixer

Additionally MechJeb for the stats. and FASA

this is my gamedata folder.

Clipboard01_zps279fd74f.jpg

Again the same happens. ridiculous low Dv

The only thing is that the module fixer link is broken (not on curse). and I found another version on the net which has no .dll as described.

Edited by Ricovandijk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you please upload your log to dropbox or something.

I also DON'T see RO on that list.

I don't see the NASAMission folder either.

Nor do I see EngineIgnitor (which may be somewhere else, but I don't see it.

Also not on list is KM_Gimbal (which may be somewhere else, but I can't see it.

Edited by RedAV8R

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help/suggestions with Porkworks is welcome.

Fine. The things I've established so far:

1. I was a bit off in my initial measurements, the biggest of Porkjet's habitats, PA550, is actually slightly larger in your config than the real-life Transhab, not slightly smaller. In any case, the original Transhab is among the smaller expandable habitats proposed , so it probably shouldn't be the biggest habitat available in RO.

2. An expandable habitat roughly the size that PA550 is now in your config would weigh about 13.5 tonnes as an empty shell, about 23 tonnes as a bare-bones space station module, and about 27 tonnes in deep-space mission configuration (this includes ECLSS and communication equipment). This would be considered a sufficient habitation for a crew of six on a Mars mission.

3. The dimensions. I'm only talking about the inflatable part of the modules in its fully deployed state, since it's the dimension that matters most. In your current config, PA 330 is approximately 7 x 7 m (height x diameter, both external) and PA 550 is approximately 9.35 x 9.35 m. Real life designs and proposals are:

BA 330 9.5 x 7.6 m, 330 m3 volume, crew of 6, 23 tonnes including furnishings;

BA 2100 18.6 x 13.4, 2100 m3 volume, crew of up to 18, 70 tonnes empty shell, 100 tonnes including furnishings;

BA 1150 no data, 1150 m3 volume, no data, 70 tonnes (furnished, I guess?)

Transhab 8.5 x 8.3 m, 342 m3 volume, crew of 6, 13.2 t as an empty shell, 27 t furnished for a deep space mission;

Sundancer 7 x 7 m, 180 m3 of volume, crew of 3, 8.6 t as an empty shell;

I can't seem to find any data/proposals on anything resembling the F.L.A.T. part, and only one data point for the centrifuge - the inflatable centrifuge on Nautilus-X would be about 18 m in diameter.

Given that none of the modules listed above has actually flown yet, I think we are under no obligation to copy their dimensions exactly. Therefore the least labor-intensive solution would probably be to assume that PA 330 (inflato2) equals Sundancer, and therefore has a dry mass of at least 8.6 tonnes and a crew capacity of 3, whereas PA 550 (inflato1) represents BA 330/Transhab and therefore has a dry mass of at least 13.2 tonnes and a crew capacity of 6. These masses however are for empty shells; given that these are supposed to be habitation modules, it would probably be better to account for furnishings and ECLSS. PA 550 would weigh over 20 tonnes in this case; I can't seem to find any estimates for Sundancer, but we can guesstimate it would weigh around 12-15 tonnes.

I can of course provide sources and explanations for everything if necessary.

Edited by Hattivat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cipherpunks: I don't really understand your question. What does "10% lowest throttling" mean? But as to throttling in RealEngines, you'll note that every engine listed in the PDF you linked that is in RealEngines has its correct throttling. (The SSME in real life has a min throttle in the 60s; the one in that study was a research model.)

Do note that the first PDF is a study of throttling engines--it doesn't list the vast majority of engines, which don't throttle at all.

Ricovandijk: regarding the Case of the Missing Delta V: yeah, sounds like a seriously broken install. We need logs. Also, it's worth pointing out, which I think might have gotten lost, that your delta V estimates are off: you need 9.3km/sec or so to reach orbit, not 7-8.

Also, regarding the Atlas, do remember to drop the boosters at 2 min 15 sec into the flight: Atlas has a particular method of staging where instead of the boosters being separate cores, the booster engines feed from the main tank. You need to drop them at 2m15s into the flight.

Finally, glad to see things back on track (and great to see two smart knowledgeable people combining notes on the habs).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah sorry guys that was a screenshot before installing all that.

Anyway I've done it all again, this time also re-installing KSP rather than just deleting the mod folders. also I installed the claw patch. now it's working! although my .craft files are all messed up so maybe I had an outdated file somewhere.

Thanks for the help!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, I think I probably *have* figured out what the problem was: You didn't have RO. That meant that with Real Fuels, you carried approximately 1/5 of the mass of fuel that you would in normal KSP, leading to those even-smaller-than-stock-FASA numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm reposting this since it apparently got buried in people arguing over MechJeb data (I'm sorry if this isn't okay):

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.

So with Real Engines, the LMDE is the only engine good for landers bigger than probes, and if one wants to have a greater variety of lander engines, RftS is recommended? e.g. for bigger stuff/higher gravity, atmospheric landings, ... (is Mars atmosphere relevant for ISP?). Or would that be the point where it's recommended to do a little research and 'build' (-> create .cfg) appropriate engines myself?

By the way, is there a engine list for RftS similar to the one for RE you posted there? That would be helpful for deciding which pack to use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RftS are 'realistic' engines, some essentially based on real engines, or a natural progression of what could happen, RealEngines contains, well, real engines, not saying there isn't anything out there, but something like the LMDE is the only engine used for manned landers on another surface, there are a couple other lander engine models for KSP that are currently 'unused' with RealEngines, and when the time comes for more time to be devoted to those we'll get to them.

BTW, RftS has it's own thread and you would likely get better, quicker info back posting there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Garek: here is the spreadsheet I use to generate RftS engines. It lists all RftSized rocket engines.

RedAV8R will be the first to tell you that it's not recommended if you want realism. :D (And I agree! :) )

But if you want to use the RPL tech tree, or want more "options" than actually-produced engines provide you with (and note "produced", not just "designed") then you might want to use RftS.

Interestingly, it's possible to use multiple-ignition engines as lander engines, assuming you bring a lot and they have many ignitions. Place, say, 12 engines on your lander. As you want to decrease thrust, shut them off in pairs. If you get down to two, use their multiple ignitions to toggle them on and off to balance your thrust.

(Note, this is basically how a lot of reusable rockets with propulsive landing were planned to work, i.e. ROMBUS: it had 36 engines, of which 4 would be reignited a few seconds before impact to slow from terminal velocity to a gentle landing.)

Mar's atmosphere is...not really relevant. You'll maybe lose 10-15 seconds of specific impulse, and 3-5% of your thrust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Continuing my investigations into habitats: As far as centrifuge is concerned, the 18 m diameter one of the Nautilus-X project is supposedly just barely large enough to be of any practical benefit for the crew: at the maximum projected spin rate that would not induce vertigo in the crew, it would produce Mars-like gravity levels. In light of this information, I guess the RO-configured centrifuge should not be any smaller than that. To reach Nautilus-X size, the porkworks centrifuge would have to be in 2.5 scale. That would have about 450 cubic meters of space, enoughto provide habitation to 6 people over long periods of time. I'm talking scale here because I have no idea how to translate that into stack_nodes, as I've never dabbled in that. No idea about the weight, all we can do here is guesstimate. My guesstimate is: over 30 tonnes.

On the other hand, the Orbital Orb as currently configured is apparently too large. The orbital modules of the Soyuz and Shenzhou spacecraft, which Porkworks orbital orb is pretty obviously modeled to resemble, have a height of about 3 meters and a diameter of about 2.5 meters, whereas the Orbital Orb as currently configured for RO is roughly 4.5 x 4.5. To have roughly similar dimensions to real world modules of the same kind it would have to be in 1.2 scale. It's also way too heavy now, as the weight of real world examples is below 1.5 tonnes dry (keep in mind it's basically just a shell, it's not build to survive reentry, Soyuz has a separate module for that).

Still no info on anything resembling the F.L.A.T. part, so I guess it's fair game for your imagination.

Edit: This is how a 1.2-scale orbital orb and 2.5-scale centrifuge look like in comparison to standard RO-configured Mk 1-3 and ISS node:

Javascript is disabled. View full album

I think the orbital orb looks like a correct soyuz, and although the docking port doesn't fit it perfectly, it still looks well enough in my opinion.

The centrifuge is pretty massive, as it should be.

Edited by Hattivat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I noticed last night that the ALCOR pod has something on the order of 3000 liters of tank space. Is that... is that realistic? I mean, it's great and all if you're using MMH/N2O4 as fuel since RCS and the ascent engine can share the same fuel, making for a really compact vessel, but I don't know how realistic that is.

I found this when building a new lander and saw the life support numbers were ridiculously huge. Maybe they're set for ECLSS instead of TAC? Anyhow, reducing that to one day of supplies leaves over 2 cubic meters of room for other stuff. Just not sure if its overpowered/overvolumned or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello! I am having a problem with the new NASA update 3.5 meter engines, it still says they use LF and Oxidizer, not Kerlox, or Hydrolox. The new engines would be really useful for making larger rockets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question: How do I transmit science to KSC with RemoteTech2. I have the thing activated but I can't figure out how to connect to Transmit it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RedAV8R: When can we expect to have craft files for the packs included? Thanks. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys! Could you please tell me what's the best payload percentage that exists IRL? (Payload divided by total mass of the rocket with payload onboard)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hattivat: THANK YOU! Hoping to get some good time to work on things tonight.

jrandom: Well...Can't say I looked for if the ALCOR is based on something or not, but I'd look at it this way. I sized the pod so that it fits a NASA Docking System Port...such as that makes a pod that is roughly 3m wide by ~2.5m tall...also remembering it has a crew capacity of 3. Internal volume of that would be ~16kL. I also basically set it up for 7 days worth of life support supplies, which may be high, Apollo was on the surface for just over 3 days though, just because it's there doesn't mean you have to take it all...If anything the pod is a bit bigger than what it could be, also carrying 50% more people. Bigger question maybe is what do you think should happen.

JT2227: The NASA Mission 3.75 parts have not been touched...yet...they are on the list and have been for a while, just other things ahead of it at this time.

Tygoo7: That question is more appropriate for the RemoteTech thread...that said, once science is gained, you must be connected to, have a path to, KSC, check the map view, it won't transmit unless you are.

Woopert: When there is time, still LOTS to do before I get to that point.

O Nerd: Well...While personally I haven't heard/seen stats for a rocket stated like that, not saying they aren't out there, but usually I just see stats based on how much payload a certain launcher can put into a certain orbit.

Edited by RedAV8R

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jrandom: Well...Can't say I looked for if the ALCOR is based on something or not, but I'd look at it this way. I sized the pod so that it fits a NASA Docking System Port...such as that makes a pod that is roughly 3m wide by ~2.5m tall...also remembering it has a crew capacity of 3. Internal volume of that would be ~16kL. I also basically set it up for 7 days worth of life support supplies, which may be high, Apollo was on the surface for just over 3 days though, just because it's there doesn't mean you have to take it all...If anything the pod is a bit bigger than what it could be, also carrying 50% more people. Bigger question maybe is what do you think should happen.

Ah, that explains it -- set for 7 days by default. That means all is well! Also means I don't have to rebuild my lander from scratch again, which is always nice. And being able to put a good fraction of the ascent stage's fuel directly in the lander cabin is extremely useful, CoM-wise. (I made room by simply shrinking the life support down to 1 day's worth.)

Also, did some tests and discovered that tweakscaling the docking ports is a Bad Idea, just like you said! I've removed my cute but ultimately useless .cfg that added tweakscale to those parts in my game and am in the middle of building my next lunar attempt. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BTW, RftS has it's own thread and you would likely get better, quicker info back posting there.
I knew that thread, but as I read only the first few posts I thought it was meant for the RftS mission reports, and not RftS mod discussion.
Garek: here is the spreadsheet I use to generate RftS engines. It lists all RftSized rocket engines.

All the info I wanted and even more :) For future reference (and new guys) it would maybe be helpful to add this link, and the one for the real engines stats, to the OP.

or want more "options" than actually-produced engines provide you with (and note "produced", not just "designed") then you might want to use RftS.

That's exactly my point, so I will use RftS in the future.

Interestingly, it's possible to use multiple-ignition engines as lander engines, assuming you bring a lot and they have many ignitions. Place, say, 12 engines on your lander. As you want to decrease thrust, shut them off in pairs. If you get down to two, use their multiple ignitions to toggle them on and off to balance your thrust.

(Note, this is basically how a lot of reusable rockets with propulsive landing were planned to work, i.e. ROMBUS: it had 36 engines, of which 4 would be reignited a few seconds before impact to slow from terminal velocity to a gentle landing.)

Interesting concept, I might implement that with some scripting. (No, not kOS, at least not until it gets proper functions. Maybe kRPC or something like that.)

Mar's atmosphere is...not really relevant. You'll maybe lose 10-15 seconds of specific impulse, and 3-5% of your thrust.

Good to know.

Thank you both for your helpful replies!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been eying this on and off for a while, and I'm sure I'll have it installed within a few weeks when I finally stop resisting, but I have a question:

*snip*

*Realistic battery and solar panel numbers, and usage for RT2 antennae. 1EC/s = 1kW. Solar panels don't produce much, but they're light.

*snip*

Wouldn't it make more sense to use Joules, or Watt-hours, or even really Coulombs? Wattage is a rate, and it doesn't mean anything without the amount of time it's applied over. To say that you have 2 kW stored on your ship means nothing, 2 kWh or 7.2 kJ means quite a bit.

Now, without looking at the actual configs, I couldn't say whether or not this actually matters, since Watts tend to translate into Watt-hours pretty well, given that 1 Wh is literally 1 Watt applied for 1 hour, but I'm a stickler for correct units.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm having some trouble with part sizes. The Mk1 Command Pod is very large, and none of the parts seem to fit it. I think its size was changed to 2m, but the 2m DR heatshield doesn't fit. The RealChutes parachutes don't have a size that fits the top of the pod, and the procedural parts tanks can't expand large enough to accommodate the bottom of the pod. Here is a pic:

1ahGSsal.png?1

Modlist:

Toolbar

AJE

Custom Biomes

Deadly Reentry

KER

Engine Ignitor

Enhanced NavBall

FAR

HullCamVDS

KW Rocketry

Module RCSFX

Procedural Fairings

Procedural Parts

RealChute

RealFuels

RO

RSS

RT2

TAC Life Support

Kerbal Alarm Clock

TweakScale

km_Gimbal_2.0.dll

Module Manager 2.1.5

If anyone has a solution to this problem, I would be very interested.

Edited by jandcando
Less Huge Pic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm having some trouble with part sizes. The Mk1 Command Pod is very large, and none of the parts seem to fit it. I think its size was changed to 2m, but the 2m DR heatshield doesn't fit. The RealChutes parachutes don't have a size that fits the top of the pod, and the procedural parts tanks can't expand large enough to accommodate the bottom of the pod. Here is a pic:

If anyone has a solution to this problem, I would be very interested.

Well...first, the Mk1 has a heatshield built in...so adding another one is pretty redundant. You are right about the parachutes...you'll need to wait a bit for that...big RC update coming soon and some rework is required so I'm not fixing it, only to have to redo things again here shortly. And yes, the procedural tanks will expand large enough, I'm guessing you are in career mode, need to unlock more to get bigger tanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well...first, the Mk1 has a heatshield built in...so adding another one is pretty redundant. You are right about the parachutes...you'll need to wait a bit for that...big RC update coming soon and some rework is required so I'm not fixing it, only to have to redo things again here shortly. And yes, the procedural tanks will expand large enough, I'm guessing you are in career mode, need to unlock more to get bigger tanks.

Ok thanks for the information. Should I delete all stock tanks so that everything fits?

Share this post


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