[0.25] Realism Overhaul w/ RedAV8R [Terminated]

[Woopert]

RedAV8R: Out of curiosity, what mods do you use with RSS / RO? I'd like to see if there's anything I should install. I'd also be curious to know what mods NathanKell uses with RSS / RO.

Cheers

[Rothank]

Guys, I have a request and I'm not sure where to post it. I'd love to have SSME realistic/RftS config for Klockhead Martian's Space Shuttle Engines, but can't find one nor I don't know how to make one myself. Anyone willing to help me a bit? I'm still using 23.5, if it makes any difference.

[RedAV8R]

I haven't 'played' KSP for months now, it's all be testing, code, restart, test, code, etc.

But in the interest of what I've got installed as my basic start pack that's NOT on the required or recommended list. CrewManifest, Firespitter (dll only), RPM (basically required for several mods), HyperEdit (testing purposes), InfernalRobotics (dll only), PartAngleDisplay, PWings and PFairings, RCSBuildAid, Romfarer (for robotic arms and docking window), SCANSat (will have some RO tweaks later), SmokeScreen (required by some), TACFuelBalancer.

I keep a pretty trim basic install, keeps loading time to a minimum.

[jandcando]

@RedAV8R,

I'm not sure if you already knew this or not, but the heat from 5 FASA J-2 engines makes FASA's Saturn S-II Aft Skirt "burn up on reentry." Also the Saturn IB/V Instrument Unit allows me to control unmanned rockets without a RT2 connection. Other than that, I am really enjoying the FASA updates!

EDIT:

I don't know if this is user error or a bug, so I thought I would show it to you: http://youtu.be/BHk5cQQPL_M

If it is a bug, I think that the Saturn S-IC Thrust Structure needs reinforcement.

EDIT2:

After giving my Saturn V a payload of Apollo 11, it did not spontaneously explode. I believe that is because the TWR was lower this time.

Edited August 26, 2014 by jandcando

[thunderstar]

i don't know if post this here or in real fuels, but some of my engines, specially the AIES 3m engines overheat at ridiculous speeds, i mean i can only fire them for 4 second or them explode, wich doesn't make burns annoyingly long but actually impossible.

[OtherBarry]

Having an issue with the Thiokol (ATK) GEM 40s. They seem to subtract thrust rather than add it. When I attach them to my delta II core, when I have MechJeb set to include cosine losses, it shows the thrust as decreasing, and when I turn the cosine option off, the thrust goes back to what it should be like. This is also true on launch, in that the rocket won't leave the launchpad until the cosine loss included TWR goes above 1. Haven't tested this with the other boosters yet, but will look into it.

Edit - Also, the node heights on the RS-27A seem to be a fair bit higher than they should. There's about a 30cm gap between the top of the engine and the fuel tank above it.

Edit 2 - Turns out the node problem is with all KW engines. Doesn't seem to apply to any of the other engines.

Edited August 25, 2014 by OtherBarry

[HarbingerIMEF]

This is starting to aggravate me. I've installed all of the essential mods, and get no prompt for which Tech Tree I'd like to use. Any suggestions on how to force it?

[RedAV8R]

@RedAV8R,

I'm not sure if you already knew this or not, but the heat from 5 FASA J-2 engines makes FASA's Saturn S-II Aft Skirt "burn up on reentry." Also the Saturn IB/V Instrument Unit allows me to control unmanned rockets without a RT2 connection. Other than that, I am really enjoying the FASA updates!

EDIT:

I don't know if this is user error or a bug, so I thought I would show it to you: http://youtu.be/BHk5cQQPL_M

If it is a bug, I think that the Saturn S-IC Thrust Structure needs reinforcement.

As part of RO there are specific parts with combined tank/thrust structure/aft skirt, whatever. When using these, no issues were experienced...back in 23.5...I haven't made it to FASA yet, and I'll keep an eye out when I do. I will make sure better notes are made that mention this.

i don't know if post this here or in real fuels, but some of my engines, specially the AIES 3m engines overheat at ridiculous speeds, i mean i can only fire them for 4 second or them explode, wich doesn't make burns annoyingly long but actually impossible.

Make sure you have the latest version of RO. This was repaired in the latest version.

Having an issue with the Thiokol (ATK) GEM 40s. They seem to subtract thrust rather than add it. When I attach them to my delta II core, when I have MechJeb set to include cosine losses, it shows the thrust as decreasing, and when I turn the cosine option off, the thrust goes back to what it should be like. This is also true on launch, in that the rocket won't leave the launchpad until the cosine loss included TWR goes above 1. Haven't tested this with the other boosters yet, but will look into it.

Edit - Also, the node heights on the RS-27A seem to be a fair bit higher than they should. There's about a 30cm gap between the top of the engine and the fuel tank above it.

Edit 2 - Turns out the node problem is with all KW engines. Doesn't seem to apply to any of the other engines.

Fixed the Castor IV/GEM 40 issue. Thank you. As for node issues. Make sure you follow install directions exactly. When doing so, this is not an issue.

[Ippo]

This is starting to aggravate me. I've installed all of the essential mods, and get no prompt for which Tech Tree I'd like to use. Any suggestions on how to force it?

Did you install Treeloader? It's not in any of the lists in the OP, so having installed all the essential mods doesn't help (besides, treeloader is only useful for career / science modes, and neither mode is supported).

[mecki]

Noone could verify this for me on the Real Solar System thread so I'm trying here:

I'm hitting the big East Crater while Kerbal Engineer and Mechjeb think that I'm still about 7000m above the ground (not sea level). Sea level is supposed to be around something like 14000m lower.

My SCANsat altitude maps are really really bright, the whole surface seems to be far above sea level.

Also my orbits look quite close to the moon in map view for their rated heights.

I already reinstalled the latest release and the textures.

Earth seems to be OK, I can't say anything about other planets though.

[Bothersome]

I'd like to make a suggestion to RO that I believe would be a realism enhancement.

Please make the gimbals on engines (the ones that have gimbals) limit settable while in the VAB/SPH buildings, like the way you limit thrust.

This would resolve a lot of problems of auto-pilots jerking the rockets around when the fuel tanks are almost empty. For instance, I need a rocket engine to have a certain thrust so that I can get an initial lift rating to say 1.3 TWR, but as the fuel runs out, the TWR climbs to say 7.5 (just an example) but because the gimbals are set to 5 degrees, it's too much and causes the tall rocket to bend too much. Many a times, I only need 0.5 degrees of gimbal. This would fit reality because as the space administrator, I could always order these engines with these limits set or have my crew program these limits in before launch.

What do you think?

[RedAV8R]

@mecki: Sorry bud, no idea, haven't tested anything on the moon in quite some time.

@Bothersome: Not going to happen. That said, your rocket designs need some work. No reason to have TWR that high, get another stage in there, or increase your payload. Modern launchers are 4-5g max. If your rocket is bending, it's too tall, with too much weight up top. Again, more reason for staging, to spread the load. Best if you learn to just turn off the gimbal when the burn is getting close to being done. Or request your autopilot maker to do it for you, or have it not chase the target like it's doing. Now, if you'd like you can convert ModuleGimbal over to something like KM_Gimbal...I believe that will allow that option. I can not and will not offer support though.

[NathanKell]

Bothersome: Actually, I'd ask HoneyFox to update the "lite" version of TweakableGimbal to .24 if s/he hasn't already; that will do exactly what you want (allow tweaking gimbal range from 0 to max gimbal range)

[regex]

This would resolve a lot of problems of auto-pilots jerking the rockets around when the fuel tanks are almost empty. For instance, I need a rocket engine to have a certain thrust so that I can get an initial lift rating to say 1.3 TWR, but as the fuel runs out, the TWR climbs to say 7.5 (just an example) but because the gimbals are set to 5 degrees, it's too much and causes the tall rocket to bend too much. Many a times, I only need 0.5 degrees of gimbal. This would fit reality because as the space administrator, I could always order these engines with these limits set or have my crew program these limits in before launch.

I don't know about MechJeb, but for the stock SAS what I do is turn on fine control (Caps Lock) at launch. When the rocket starts getting towards the last of its fuel I turn off the SAS and guide by hand (i generally guide by hand anyway, only using SAS to lock a heading briefly). It's a bit more involved but a lot more reasonable to control and a lot more fun. .

[NathanKell]

Also you might consider adding verniers (like the LR-101) and turning off your main engine(s) gimbal(s) and flying on vernier gimbal alone once you get light.

[jandcando]

Lol I feel bad about bothering you with all these FASA issues, but now that the Saturn IB/V APS Flight Pack needs a pressurized tank, it can't use its own fuel that it holds.

And the Apollo Command Module parachutes are always semi-deployed above the craft in the VAB, and during flight in the atmosphere. They disappear once the air gets too thin, though. The also fail to deploy on their own and have no staging icon.

Also that problem about the Saturn S-IC Thrust Structure exploding was fixed by giving my Saturn V a heavier payload, so maybe it wasn't a bug.

Edited August 26, 2014 by jandcando

[RedAV8R]

Lol I feel bad about bothering you with all these FASA issues, but now that the Saturn IB/V APS Flight Pack needs a pressurized tank, it can't use its own fuel that it holds.

And the Apollo Command Module parachutes are always semi-deployed above the craft in the VAB, and during flight in the atmosphere. They disappear once the air gets too thin, though. The also fail to deploy on their own and have no staging icon.

Also that problem about the Saturn S-IC Thrust Structure exploding was fixed by giving my Saturn V a heavier payload, so maybe it wasn't a bug.

Not surprised at all with the FASA stuff. Again, I haven't gotten there. I responded to your last message as well. Solution. Wait. Time. Although, no the APS pack is ServiceModule type which pressurizes the tanks, and the engines are pressure fed. You've got a wonky installation if it's not working for you. Read my last message about the S-IC, and the S-II as well.

- - - Updated - - -

Also you might consider adding verniers (like the LR-101) and turning off your main engine(s) gimbal(s) and flying on vernier gimbal alone once you get light.

Guess what...the NovaPunch pack now has a LR-101 as part of it:)

[chicknblender]

I am having a little problem with an RCS-based Moon lander. It's just a probe core and a procedural tank with 3 downward-facing linear RCS ports (functioning as both attitude control and thrust). It works fine at first, but after a minute or so of burning, the RCS ports start to malfunction. They still fire in sync when I press 'H' (i.e. , forward translation / fire engines), but they don't respond at all when I try to adjust my attitude. I still have more than half my propellant when this happens, and it happens with multiple different propellant types and RCS port configurations. I can post pictures/files if needed, but I wanted to see if there was an obvious reason for this behavior first.

Edited August 26, 2014 by chicknblender

[jandcando]

I am having a little problem with an RCS-based Moon lander. It's just a probe core and a procedural tank with 3 downward-facing linear RCS ports (functioning as both attitude control and thrust). It works fine at first, but after a minute or so of burning, the RCS ports start to malfunction. They still fire in sync when I press 'H' (i.e. , forward translation / fire engines), but they don't respond at all when I try to adjust my attitude. I still have more than half my propellant when this happens, and it happens with multiple different propellant types and RCS port configurations. I can post pictures/files if needed, but I wanted to see if there was an obvious reason for this behavior first.

I have this problem occasionally, as well. It is much more noticeable in parts which have multiple RCS ports built into them, like the Apollo Service module w/ RCS. It is rarely a real problem for me, but if you're trying to make a lander with it...

[NathanKell]

Can you post a craft and modlist? That sound like a weird issue.

[chicknblender]

Can you post a craft and modlist? That sound like a weird issue.

Alright. For testing purposes, my current build looks like this:

* fresh copy of KSP 0.24.2 (win64 build, all settings default)

* RO plus all the required mods (latest versions of everything as of 1 hour ago)

* HyperEdit

* Absolutely nothing else.

I then built a craft (file here) consisting of the OKTO2 probe core, the small RCS tank (hydrazine), and three symmetry-placed linear RCS ports. It looks like this.

I then HyperEdited the craft to Moon orbit, activated RCS/SAS, turned to orbital retrograde, and held "H" to translate forward. Everything works fine at first, but when orbital velocity reaches about 750 m/s, attitude controls stop responding correctly although forward translation continues to work. If I get the craft turned back to prograde and can increase my orbital velocity back above 750 m/s, everything works as expected again.

I confirmed the same behavior in high Kerbin orbit: above 750 m/s orbital velocity, all's fine. Decelerate to less than 750 m/s, RCS attitude inputs don't work. Accelerate back above 750 m/s, everything works again.

I tested the analogous craft in stock KSP + HyperEdit, and the problem does not occur (at Kerbin anyway; Mun's orbital velocity is already less than 750 m/s so I couldn't test there).

Any ideas? I am happy to assist with debug tests but I don't know where to go from here.

[jandcando]

Hey I found a parts pack that I think would blend in well with Realism Overhaul! I'm couldn't find a forum page for it, so here is the Curse link.

[NathanKell]

IIRC World Space has much better assets than that.

chicknblender: that's super helpful! I will try to replicate today, and keep you posted.

[Ivan Ivanovich]

Umm... could it be that the TAC life support stackables don't get scaled properly? At least I couldn't find any that I could slap underneath an MK1-2 pod (the 3-person capsule) sensibly. Is it me or is that part not properly resized?

Same question for the RC-001 and RC-L01 (the remote control "pods") parts, though there I was able to resize them properly so that the remote tech remote control part would fit under a capsule.

[Guest]

IIRC World Space has much better assets than that.

No, it doesn't. It's pretty poor as far as quality goes, TBH. JPLV pack, on the other hand, has both H-II series and a number of solid-fuel launchers, in rather good quality and quite modular, too. I'd really like to see a realism config for that.