Jump to content

[0.25] Realism Overhaul w/ RedAV8R [Terminated]


RedAV8R

Recommended Posts

I just got a communications relay satellite/lander around the moon in RO with the 8192 textures. I must say that it looks spectacular. A sight to behold at 40km above. Makes me want to bring up a rover next time and do a little prospecting. :)

If you guys haven't seen it in highest detail, you're missing out.

By the way, is the RAPIER engine a real engine or did it get missed somehow?

And, one other question... How do I take a screen shot without Steam in the background? My 64bit doesn't run from Steam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just got a communications relay satellite/lander around the moon in RO with the 8192 textures. I must say that it looks spectacular. A sight to behold at 40km above. Makes me want to bring up a rover next time and do a little prospecting. :)

If you guys haven't seen it in highest detail, you're missing out.

By the way, is the RAPIER engine a real engine or did it get missed somehow?

And, one other question... How do I take a screen shot without Steam in the background? My 64bit doesn't run from Steam.

If you want to use Steam overlay to take screenshot you need to launch the game from Steam. Steam does not allow steam in-game in games not launched from Steam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's great! With that data, you could make a realism pack for Yogui's ESA pack. :) Both Vega and Ariane 5 are listed there, and Diamant was a liquid rocket (only the final stage was solid, and thrust curves are simple on those). I'd do it (already tried, once), but I won't have time for KSP until late september.

YOU BETCHA, ESA pack just got a BIG boost. I've found some good info on the ATV as well.

Do I need to do my gravity turn differently in RSS? :o

If you want efficiency. OH YEAH! Well...depends on how you were doing it before. Long gone are the days of launching straight up, then powering back up when apogee is reached to circularize the orbit.

I just got a communications relay satellite/lander around the moon in RO with the 8192 textures. I must say that it looks spectacular. A sight to behold at 40km above. Makes me want to bring up a rover next time and do a little prospecting. :)

If you guys haven't seen it in highest detail, you're missing out.

By the way, is the RAPIER engine a real engine or did it get missed somehow?

And, one other question... How do I take a screen shot without Steam in the background? My 64bit doesn't run from Steam.

It is fantastic isn't it. Big shout out to NK and his texture minions on that one. If there be such a thing as the RAPIER, I haven't seen it, but I haven't looked either. AJE messes with it at the moment. As for the screenshot. I've long ago kept steam out of the picture. Let it do it's thing to download KSP. Then I copy the folder to main backup drive, which is then copied again to my game drive. Create some shortcuts to the 32 and 64bit exe. Runs just fine. Then you can use the integrated KSP screenshot function. Look for the key in the mapping in the KSP settings pages.

Edited by RedAV8R
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do I need to do my gravity turn differently in RSS? :o

Yes, you do, in short. :) Check out this video by SFJackBauer, he launches a Saturn V replica. See how all the pitch maneuvers are gradual and smooth.

He also launched a Space Shuttle replica; this video is worth checking out as well.

The RSS wiki is also worth checking out.

https://github.com/NathanKell/RealSolarSystem/wiki/_pages

Long gone are the days of launching straight up, then powering back up when apogee is reached to circularize the orbit.

Speaking of which -- how do you avoid this while using MechJeb with RSS? I've read the RSS wiki of course (specifically, the page on RSS MechJeb ascents), but I couldn't find out how to avoid this part. The autopilot was doing it's thing and all of a sudden it starts warping towards apogee, and I'm just like -- "No, MechJeb! That's not how it works in real life!"

P.S.: expect the interstage file soon. blackheart612 and I made a new one that has the same proportions for the conical section as the real one. To compensate for the Aerojet Kerbodyne parts not being full scale, we added a cylindrical section underneath the cone so it still works the same.

Edited by Woopert
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How I can get names of the planets and moons represent what they are set to be in RSS? Like Mun to Moon?

You can't, as far as I'm aware. Renaming planets breaks stock functionality due to how KSP references planets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How I can get names of the planets and moons represent what they are set to be in RSS? Like Mun to Moon?

I don't think it's possible, for now at least. You could probably talk with NathanKell about it, he could probably explain it. Ask him in the RSS thread. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Woopert: You can turn off warp during ascent, there is a radio button. To prevent your engines stopping, just takes tweaking the ascent profile manually so that it flattens out your ascent short of your wanted target apogee, but it will continue the burn because it won't stop until your apogee reaches the target set. So then your current position becomes perigee and your wanted target becomes your apogee as it should be, and engine cut-off. Small coast phase until your apogee is reached and a small burn to raise your perigee. Don't be alarmed, depending on your profile and craft, on initial ascent you'll actually top out and your altitude starts to decrease before your burn raises the apogee high enough to achieve orbit. This is normal and happens in real life too.

@FinnishGameBox: At this time, you don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How I can get names of the planets and moons represent what they are set to be in RSS? Like Mun to Moon?

Can't be done now as that would effect other mods or due to KSP limitations. There is a mod in early development that is working to fix that however. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/88168-Early-development-0-24-Kopernicus-Planetary-System-Modifier

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bothersome: I see no reason why any of the stuff you mentioned is impossible to add if you're willing to edit RT2's code

JMac: Very informative post: thanks! And sounds like you have some *very* useful info for a recoding of RT2's range and handling code...

FinnishGameBox: a 100x100km orbit is still inside the atmosphere, and 4000m/s is way too low. Sounds like an install issue.

Woopert: you need to turn sufficiently shallowly that MJ does not exceed the desired apogee on the ascent. Or you can temporarily set the "orbit altitude" thingie to higher than you like, and circularize at a lower altitude on the way down (as many modern LVs do). In either case I expect the problem is your upper stage has too high a TWR.

PaidLeber: That won't fix the issue, since the issue is that there are places in Squad's code where Kerbin is hardcoded, for example the "recovery" button you get when landed or splashed; that is hardcoded to check that body.name == "Kerbin" or it won't appear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NathanKell: I was launching an SLS replica, the boosters had already separated and the core stage was operating and an apogee of 200k was hit. MJ then proceeded to warp to apogee. I think the problem was, I originally had too *low* of a TWR, or at least was pitching over too much, so I increased the final angle to about 10 (was trying to find the "sweet spot" so I could have an automated launch).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SLS core stage *is* overpowered as upper stages go. That's the problem with stage-and-a-half design, unless your sustainer has a remarkably low TWR it's going to be overpowered for traditional ascents. What you'd want to do, I think, is yeah, loft high while on boosters (maybe to apogee of ~150km?) then pitch over and burn as near horizontal as possible. By the time you hit apogee it should be around 200km?

I would suggest turn shape of maybe 60 (70?), and turn end of 170km? maybe 180? Final angle 0, obvs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The new Chaka Monkey Exploration update looks really nice, the Orion will look perfect! I hope you (RedAV8R, I mean) can find a way to match it up with the new Aerojet Kerbodyne parts. :)

vckC7O.jpg

NathanKell: thanks man, will try that next time I boot up KSP. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SLS core stage *is* overpowered as upper stages go. That's the problem with stage-and-a-half design, unless your sustainer has a remarkably low TWR it's going to be overpowered for traditional ascents. What you'd want to do, I think, is yeah, loft high while on boosters (maybe to apogee of ~150km?) then pitch over and burn as near horizontal as possible. By the time you hit apogee it should be around 200km?

I would suggest turn shape of maybe 60 (70?), and turn end of 170km? maybe 180? Final angle 0, obvs.

Sorry for butting in, but what is this "turn shape" you speak of? I'm trying to get better at achieving orbits in RSS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are an angel! My confidence is a bit higher than yours considering 1, it's a thesis, you'd have to be a moron to use bad data (though there are plenty out there), and 2, combined with 1, the supervisor works with EADS Astrium...the maker of the darn thing (or at least a big partner) you'd be an even bigger moron to use bad data when your supervisor works in the place who makes the thing.

NOW...anything on the Aerojet 73F:P

Nah... information of Aerojet 73F is very difficult to get. I haven't even found anything telling me in what rocket this SRB is used. :blush: And Aerojet website only mentions AJ-60A for its Atlas V launch vehicle if I didn't miss anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Turn Shape" might be listed in MJ's settings but it's really not just a MJ thing. It's normally called a gravity turn. However, MJ tries to keep the flight close to the listed curve so as a result, your rocket is not always pointed "into the wind". This can cause rockets to break apart from forces applied in ways you might not want them applied.

That's why most ppl don't launch rockets with MechJeb in RSS/RO because of MechJeb not understanding how to do it properly. You can get a close approximation of the true gravity turn if your rocket is built, loaded, throttled, and balanced right. That's why I posted that rocket. If more people could actually get things to space, they might play RO a little more and learn more about real space travel. That rocket is just a tool for that.

In real life, no real person actually controls the rockets going into space. They're all done by computer. So if we are to mimic a real space program, we need flight computers. The real challenge is in the engineering of said crafts to do the planned mission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nah... information of Aerojet 73F is very difficult to get. I haven't even found anything telling me in what rocket this SRB is used. :blush: And Aerojet website only mentions AJ-60A for its Atlas V launch vehicle if I didn't miss anything.

Yeah, it's all a naming issue. I've seen the Atlas V SRBs (from 0-5) named the AJ-60A, I've seen 73F, just now I see AJ-62, or sometimes just the Atlas V SRB.

Getting closer... and closer.

Edited by RedAV8R
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it's not usually called a gravity turn. It might be on these forums (aided and abetted by MJ calling what it does a gravity turn), but it's not. A gravity turn is "pitch over a degree or so 500m off the pad, let gravity do the rest.*" Neither MJ nor modern rockets fly gravity turns; they fly pitch programs, i.e. they constantly control the rocket and try to keep it at desired pitch. MJ does not do an optimal job of it, which leads to the problems you describe.

*which gravity will do: consider that each second the rocket adds speed both up and sideways, and air resistance subtracts from both, but gravity subtracts only from up. Thus your velocity vector will get "pulled" downwards, and air resistance will, if your craft is statically stable, keep your craft aligned with the velocity vector. Then the rocket will add a bit less up and a bit more sideways, and the cycle will continue, eventually ending in (a) you leaving the atmosphere or (B) you heading straight down.

Also, apologies if you *do* know the difference. I just see *so* many people describe a hands-on flight as a gravity turn, and it's both annoying and, more to the point, actively unhelpful (especially in RSS). :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, it's all a naming issue. I've seen the Atlas V SRBs (from 0-5) named the AJ-60A, I've seen 73F, just now I see AJ-62, or sometimes just the Atlas V SRB.

Getting closer... and closer.

Don't tell me you are gonna retrodict the thrust curve by analyzing the acceleration curve & rocket weight & engine/srb motor's Isp... :P That's too tricky and may not be accurate enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bothersome: I see no reason why any of the stuff you mentioned is impossible to add if you're willing to edit RT2's code

JMac: Very informative post: thanks! And sounds like you have some *very* useful info for a recoding of RT2's range and handling code...

If someone wants to take that on, I'm more than happy to be available to bounce ideas off of. Most of what I know on space-based radio theory I only learned from a friend at school who was related in some way to the guy that developed a lot of the coding for Voyager's signals. Everything else I know about space radio is generally available online, although some seems as difficult to find as the SRB curves seem to be. My actual radio experience deals primarily with short range (<100km... like the time when I was 10 and accidentally jammed TV signals to the block for a while) stuff and most of my recent programming experience is embedded systems so I'd be considerably better at writing the software for the space ship itself rather than the plugin for the space ship game =)

I'd generally say that doing something like making radio signals work in kerbal was outside the realm of possibility, but the modding community seems to be insane, yourself especially. (And I mean that as a compliment to the modding community).

I also really don't think that RT, in its current implementation does much useful for RO:

The signal delay functionality doesn't allow for autonomous processing so removes the vast majority of unmanned mission capabilities which I think is directly against the idea of RO - the only way to improve that is something like a better version of kOS to do things like fire retrorockets at a specific altitude and then deploy airbags. For the majority of users it also needs to be simpler. Preferably with buttons and sliders and a drag and drop mission planner.

In Sandbox mode I can lob a network of satellites to pretty much any planet in the solar system in a single launch so I see it as adding only a level of annoyance that everyone has to do once and then forget about. Perhaps one could argue that there aren't a lot of people that can do that and it may take them dozens of attempts... and so on and so forth. But no matter what it's difficulty or annoyance for the sake of difficulty not for the sake of realism.

In Career (RPL, which I thought about putting in a bid to take over if I had more time) there is a bit more difficulty in putting together a satellite network. I do recognize, as I said before, that the satellite communications network is unrealistic, especially in the time frames that RPL theoretically deals with, but I did actually enjoy the challenge of launching the first 2 satellites in my simple network (the remainder were essentially automated mechjeb ascents... and bored me to death). I did enjoy being able to upgrade them as my tech improved and I planned out Luna, Venera, etc... but for realism sake I think that would be better handled either in the contract system or as science missions (ie use the dedicated probe concept and place ComSat 1 in such and such orbit). There are already plugins for similar in the contract system. I really see a bit of a merging of the Red and NK concepts for Career mode using a hybrid Tech and Contract system, and I really don't know how my convoluted track on radio theory made it to writing a new career mode, but, there it is, it was a long day trudging through the (literal) desert for me today and that does strange things to a person's head sometimes.

Anyway, that's my probably a lot more than $0.02

-JM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will say, on the subject of ascent pitch program, I launch most of my rockets with Mechjeb and have no problems at all, as long as I design them carefully, and am conservative enough with my numbers. With a TWR of approximately 1.35 on the pad, I'll happily launch with these mechjeb settings: pitchover starting at 1.5km, turn end altitude of about 150, and a turn profile of about 46%. If my second stage TWR is <1 then I raise the turn end pitch from 0 to increase time to apoapsis, and drop it to 0 manually, or I pitch above the horizon once I reach apoapsis as it says in the RO wiki. If the first stage TWR is lower (1.2 or so) I'll start the turn at 2km, and use a less aggressive profile, something like 50-55%.

I find Mechjeb incredibly helpful in RSS/RO, except of course, pinpoint landings on Kerbin, due to the G's and re-entry heat. But that's just cause I don't have the skills to do choose a landing point manually with a correct re-entry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...