Jump to content

[0.25] Realism Overhaul w/ RedAV8R [Terminated]


RedAV8R
 Share

Recommended Posts

@Keudn: You've got a multitude of things not up to date in your install. FAR being one of them. RSS is out of date. As is Texture Replacer, RealFuels, pWings. Obviously most of those won't cause a problem, but FAR definitely could. Update and retest please. Also make sure those dishes aren't activated while you launch.

Alright I will update and see, and they weren't activated

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, please post *exactly* what it says in the flight log; that will determine whether it is FAR or RemoteTech doing the antenna-destroying.

Also, I have just now created a Realism Overhaul Discussion Thread in General Addon Affairs. It's the place for "how do I..." questions rather than "the mod is brokened! Halp?" questions. This way we can leave RedAV8R in peace to keep making awesome stuff. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@RedAV8R : Updating FAR didn't fix it, antenna still flys off

@NathanKell : The Flight Results say

"Joint between Reflectron KR-7 and M-Beam 200 I-Beam Pocket Edition failed due to aerodynamic stresses

Joint between M-Beam 200 I-Beam Pocket Edition and Fl-R25 RCS Fuel Tank failed due to aerodynamic stresses

M-beam 200 I-Beam Pocket Edition collided into FL-R25 RCS fuel tank". The antenna doesn't actually blow up or explode, it just flys off the ship and noclips through it. The I-Beam it is attached to blows up according to the Flight Results though. I can see the antenna come out the bottom and it says it is debris so the antenna doesn't get destroyed.

If I need to I can record it and put it on youtube

Edited by Keudn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Keudn: No need for a video, but a parts list and picture of craft in the VAB would be handy. I've launched several test vehicles with a KR-7 and KR-14 and no breaking. I'm guessing it's more of an issue with the construction of the sat and/or control of vehicle that's causing the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Keudn: No need for a video, but a parts list and picture of craft in the VAB would be handy. I've launched several test vehicles with a KR-7 and KR-14 and no breaking. I'm guessing it's more of an issue with the construction of the sat and/or control of vehicle that's causing the issue.

It actually will be easier for me to make a quick video LOL, I'll edit this post when I get it uploaded

Then FAR is the one ripping them off.

I suggest you keep all antennas well inside fairings until out of the atmosphere.

Antennas are inside fairing while they are broken off, I even stuck a random I-beam on it to make the fairings go farther out in case the antenna was poking through

Video (

) sorry for the artifacting idk why it was doing it and I'm not bothering to find out lol Edited by Keudn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOVE RO and all associated mods. I have so much trouble trying to get it installed, and am not really sure how many features are working as they should. I respect that there cannot be a single download that handles the entire overhaul, but maybe a program that checks your install for missing features? I am working my way through the NASA scheme on a .25 RO install (seems really good, best RO I've installed), and am somewhere near the end of Gemini.

2 questions I guess:

1. There are engines (4 of 11) that require a pressurized tank that I don't seem to have. Is this a part I am missing? or a mod/setting I am missing or have installed incorrectly?

2. When re-entering a mk1-2 pod using the unsymmetrical CoB (which is truly fantastic) I find it bothersome to keep the pod level. SAS works fine, but spends fuel fighting pitch change. I tried to use the wing leveler from FAR which claims to only use control surfaces yet uses RCS fuel when activated, but my random adjusting of the settings in FAR did not produce anything useful. Is there a RCS based Autopilot mod where you can isolate pitch out of the equation? I over compensate and waste fuel controlling with the mini joystick on my throttle controller.

Keep up the great work by the way!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Keudn: Just checking, you do have the latest procedural fairings too, right. I asked for a part list and picture, or even craft file, so that I can duplicate this. Because right now, I can't. It is true that with FAR and fairings of any sort should be preventing FAR from touching those parts, but without more information from you, I can't help.

@coldblade2000: When it's done. Yes, FASA and LazTek will be supported. FYI, asking the proverbial "Are we there yet?" plain annoys me. If I had the ability I'd delay the release to those who do that, it bothers me that much.

@Kilgore Trout: There is a program in the works that will make one's life easier, I don't have many details, but it's there and progressing quickly from what I understand.

#1. What was RCS tanks should be pressurized now with the latest RealFuels and Procedural Parts you can change the tank to ServiceModule type, which is pressurized.

#2. Going to have to fly it manually w/o SAS.

Edited by RedAV8R
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Keudn: Just checking, you do have the latest procedural fairings too, right. I asked for a part list and picture, or even craft file, so that I can duplicate this. Because right now, I can't. It is true that with FAR and fairings of any sort should be preventing FAR from touching those parts, but without more information from you, I can't help.

Procedural Fairings is up to date. Here is my craft file that is doing this. https://www./?bv98x1j6xq0cxma

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Keudn: You launching a deep space probe? That's a heck of a launcher for such a small payload.

I've gotta test on my big machine yet, but what I do see.

#1. A pre-launch TWR over 1.88 SLT is WAY too much.

#2. The winglets and control surfaces are not needed either. You have a main core engine capable of all 3 axis of movement. Anything more can lead to problems of it's own.

#3. Your upper stage is too powerful as well. No good reason for a 1.86 TWR.

#4. Your core stage needs a small boost. Not 4x 5-seg Shuttle SRBs. Otherwise it nearly has enough to achieve LEO on it's own.

What MAY be happening is some over agressive maneuvering at high speed and low altitude. While FAR shouldn't be breaking things being covered, your launch vehicle is far from optimal too.

Also. Your satellite itself, I would prefer to have some form of power generation. Be it RTGs or solar. Running batteries alone...you'll be space junk sooner than you realize.

Edited by RedAV8R
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Keudn: You launching a deep space probe? That's a heck of a launcher for such a small payload.

I've gotta test on my big machine yet, but what I do see.

#1. A pre-launch TWR over 1.88 SLT is WAY too much.

#2. The winglets and control surfaces are not needed either. You have a main core engine capable of all 3 axis of movement. Anything more can lead to problems of it's own.

#3. Your upper stage is too powerful as well. No good reason for a 1.86 TWR.

#4. Your core stage needs a small boost. Not 4x 5-seg Shuttle SRBs. Otherwise it nearly has enough to achieve LEO on it's own.

What MAY be happening is some over agressive maneuvering at high speed and low altitude. While FAR shouldn't be breaking things being covered, your launch vehicle is far from optimal too.

Also. Your satellite itself, I would prefer to have some form of power generation. Be it RTGs or solar. Running batteries alone...you'll be space junk sooner than you realize.

Its a communication satellite so I stop loosing connection when I need another burn -_- so yeah I want it to go pretty high, I might use the launcher to land a few com stations on the moon. I tried it without all the winglets and it started oscillating and ripped itself apart, it doesn't do it with the winglets though so idk. I'm not doing any maneuvering when I launch the rocket, it is going straight up when the antenna breaks off, when you launch it just do what I did in the video and put SAS on and just go straight up, you won't make it to 20,000m without the antenna breaking off. Just zoom in so you can see through the fairing and watch it fly off when the rocket reaches ~300m/s. And it has solar panels on it.

EDIT : I just made a different rocket and the antennas are doing the exact same thing, I even have two struts for extra support. Here is the second rocket file (https://www./?6x2dze4fzspzyq2)

Edited by Keudn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I finally installed the latest RealismOverhaul. Looks great, even with the short list of currently supported parts! Here's a few things I noticed:

The stock rl10b-2 is highly throttleable, but http://www.astronautix.com/engines/rl10b2.htm and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RL10 don't show it having any throttleability (also the kw version of the part has min throttle = max throttle). On a semi-related note: does it seem like a good idea to add the CECE to the list of alternate configs to that engine? Now that it's got so many, it seems like the right place to me.

The procedural decoupler seems to have a hard time locking into the very bottom node of the mk1-2 pod heat shield (when attached to a mk1-2 pod). If it locks in higher up it won't separate (which then causes the reentry to have a very low drag coefficient, besides probably other badness). In addition when it's attached in what I believe is the correct location, there's a noticeable gap in the rocket (although everything handles fine). See this album.

The built in mk1-2 pod has no thrusters capable of firing in the prograde direction. I assume that's intended (due to the shape of the pod) but wanted to double check. Also, from a UI perspective, I couldn't figure out a way to fill up the pod with more fuel without attaching a separate rcs block, configing it to mmh+nto and then clicking fill tank.

I think you mentioned earlier how to attach multiple engines under one tank, but I couldn't figure it out. I ended up using editor extensions to enable surface attachment, and then placing 3x nk-33 under a procedure tank. Everything worked, although the engines sink far into the tank. If you can explain what I'm supposed to be doing, that would be great.

There doesn't seem to be any lights in the utility menu. Not sure if you're giving them a re-work for realism, or if they just got dropped somehow.

That's everything! It was fun. procedural interstages seemed not-crazy-heavy which is great (and a pleasant change from .23). Keep up the good work!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just updated to the latest RO, noticed that the probe cores have been rescaled. I find it strange that the OKTO and OKTO2 (now very different sizes) have the same volume available for fuel (50L), yet the mass has changed. I also tried reproducing the behavior on TweakScale's page (resizing the Rockomax X200-16 fuel tank); although the part scales, neither the volume or mass is adjusted.

I re-downloaded TweakScale and ran a directory-diff of GameData/TweakScale/* vs. fresh download of TweakScale. The only change is the addition of GameData/TweakScale/TweakScaleInteraction/TweakScale_RealFuels.dll.

Most everything else in my install seems to work (I paid careful attention to installation instructions). Did I mess up the install somehow, or is this a bug?

Log file

Interesting bit from the log:

AssemblyLoader: Exception loading 'TweakScale_RealFuels': System.Reflection.ReflectionTypeLoadException: The classes in the module cannot be loaded.

at (wrapper managed-to-native) System.Reflection.Assembly:GetTypes (bool)

at System.Reflection.Assembly.GetTypes () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0

at AssemblyLoader.LoadAssemblies () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0

Additional information about this exception:

System.IO.FileNotFoundException: Could not load file or assembly 'Scale_Redist, Version=1.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=null' or one of its dependencies.

File name: 'Scale_Redist, Version=1.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=null'

For reference, the list of files under GameData

I used the following console command to generate the file (after changing to the GameData directory):

ls -lnFR > FileList.txt

I'd appreciate if someone else with a working install of RO could generate a similar dump, for validation. I realize there will be some specific changes such as user/group id, and file sizes for the RSS textures, but it would still be useful for comparison and validation of a proper install.

Thanks

Edited by mdosogne
fix typo #2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Use the specially designed decoupler for the Mk1-2 pod. It's the gray one that used to be (maybe still is?) called UP40.

2. If you right-click the pod choose Show Fuel GUI; or go to action editor mode and click on the pod.

RedAV8R: I've been thinking. What about making the LR-1R a vernier? Maybe a LR101 to go with the stock LR89 and LR105? That still leaves the LV-1 as the generic thruster.

Also, on that note, what about making all engines radially attachable, so we don't have to use either the Proc Fairing thrust adapter, or cubic struts? Can be done by a quick MM config (which I volunteer to write).

mdosogne: nuke RF and TS; redownload both fresh; install TweakScale; install RF. That should work, and if it doesn't, please let me know on the RF thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks NathanKell. I think I just didn't think of using the one that looked like the old one since it didn't have "procedural" in the name. It works great.

I figured out the thrust plates, I think. They're hard to attach to procedural tanks (they end up "inside" the bottom). From an ease of use perspective, they make it difficult to experiment, since you have to detach engines to change count.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

mdosogne: nuke RF and TS; redownload both fresh; install TweakScale; install RF. That should work, and if it doesn't, please let me know on the RF thread.

I found a fix for the TS / RF issue and posted it to the RF thread.

On the RO side: I still find it strange that the OKTO (now 2m, 750Kg) and OKTO2 (0.5m, 50Kg) have the same volume (50L) available for fuel (or electric charge, using the default tank configuration). This doesn't seem to be a TS issue as I initially thought.

Edit: I realize the OP says to "do my research" before posting, but I'm not sure which real-world part these are based on, given they're still using stock descriptions.

I did notice that there is a very large difference in the electric charge requirements for the remote command module. This leads me to believe that the electric consumption was scaled by accident, instead of the electric storage capacity... unless the OKTO is meant to be built of vacuum tubes, and then I would expect a much, much greater electric resource consumption :)

Edit 2: More research - I measured the volume occupied by these parts using similarly sized Procedural Real Fuels tanks.

OKTO2: V=18L (cylinder, 0.1m length, 0.48m diameter). Current storage capacity: 50L (impossible)

Ranger Mk III: V=267L (cylinder, 0.46m length, 0.86m diameter) Storage capacity: 50L (plausible)

OKTO: max. V=3950L (cylinder, 1.14m length, 2.1m diameter) Current storage capacity: 50L (seems low, even if it also contains a reaction wheel with torque=0.025)

QBE: max. V=3332L (1.4m x 1.4m x 1.7m) Current storage capacity: 200L (seems low, even if it also contains a reaction wheel with torque=0.05)

Edited by mdosogne
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Keudn: I mean deep space probe, like Voyager. You don't need 17km/s+ of dV for a geosync orbit. What you've got is enough for a moon landing and back, not including the RCS budget. You seem to have glanced over the entire fact that your launcher TWR is WAY too high, not to mention your ascent profile is less than optimal, you shouldn't be going straight up at 20km alt.

I'll test your other bird here too.

@Phredward: RL-10. Yep, found a NASA reference, but no corroborative evidence yet. For the time being I'm going to turn that back to non-throttleable. KW is no longer supported at this time, though it will be, so don't be surprised about differences. As for the CECE, that was my plan, but others thought it better to be separate. I'm more in favor of having the CECE be a part of the RL10 rather than it's own. It's part of the family, and the differences between the A and B series is substantial, yet I find it better to keep them together. Since there are few REAL models available, for generics, doesn't seem to much matter to me.

Yeah, the DRE decoupler is the one to use. I need to add a special one just for the Mk1-2 pod, as the DRE decouplers have been modified to use TweakScale. You are correct about the Mk1-2 having no prograde thrusters. What RCS it has is built around Apollo, which didn't have them either. UI, that's RealFuels, you can blame NK for not allowing RF to find engines to fill them. I can't do anything about that. I've purposely left extra room for a person to add anything they want.

Procedural Fairings has a procedural thrust plate that can be modified for various engine configurations. Best to increase size before attaching to craft. Ex. Pick in part list, and don't attach, just drop it somewhere you can right click on it and increase it's size, then place and place engines. Editor extensions does have the radial, BUT it uses the part origin to place them, so that's why they sink in. Another comment directed mostly at NK will follow a bit later.

Lights are there, not sure why you can't see them, but they are there.

@NathanKell: I really do like the idea of turning the LR-1R into the LR-101. I'll get on that...and by that I mean copy/past the FASA config:)

If there were a way to turn surface attachment on/off I'd be ok with it (default to off), but it's not that big of a step to use an extra part to place multiple engines. In my experience, having surface attach engines were more a PITA than it was worth, and the added unrealistic possibility that a person can add 4 radially attached F-1s to the side of their launcher, not that a person should or would. I've also experienced enough models where angles are treated weirdly enough that surface attach works oddly.

@ThorBeorn: /\ /\ /\

@mdosogne: I do need to work on the stock cores a bit more. Most don't have a real world analog yet, though open to suggestions. The ranger I need to research my self, that's left over from when NK was doing the configs. If you want to help, great. Glad you figured out your TweakScale issue...though you didn't do what NK told you. Fact is the default installation paths when using the most current version of both RealFuels and TweakScale *DO* work, there is no need to move files around.

Edited by RedAV8R
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@mdosogne:Glad you figured out your TweakScale issue...though you didn't do what NK told you. Fact is the default installation paths when using the most current version of both RealFuels and TweakScale *DO* work, there is no need to move files around.

Before you ask, I started the RO install with a fresh copy of KSP 0.25. This is what I did: I "nuked" (removed TS and RF) directories and replaced them with a fresh download. I checked the included read-me for special installation instructions, and found nothing relevant. By the way, "Copy into GameData" means I have to Copy/Merge the directory structure because copying over a directory will overwrite on a Mac. So when I find the RF zip with a TS directory, I carefully copy the contents of this TS into the existing GameData/TS directory. I was still able to reproduce the issue so I removed *ALL* mods, and put back only TS and RF. I read the logs, which suggested two possible problems: a) duplicate KSPAPIExtensions and B) Missing DLL dependency. I ruled out (a) because the binaries are identical. As for (B), the log file indicated a missing DLL dependency by name; it seems that TweakScaleRealFuels.dll failed to load because it depends on Scale_Redist.dll, which is not in the PATH. Knowing how DLLs work... (they load dependencies automatically if found in the same dir) I decided to move the DLL. Lo and behold, it works. I don't know what system you used to test the install, but on *my system* it doesn't work. Perhaps on the developer's own system, a duplicate DLL or extra dir. in the PATH causes things to work better than when deployed? It's happened to me before.

I'm a developer and I know how frustrating it is when I can't reproduce a bug, claim it's closed, and have it reopened. Were you watching over my shoulder? Let's keep this friendly; please don't make accusations about what I did or didn't do. There is more likely some variation between our systems and/or an installation instruction being misinterpreted.

I really wish that someone with a working RO install would produce a directory listing as I did, so these files can be compared. That way, after downloading and installing, people could verify that they have the correct directory structure. There must be a Win32 console command that produces something similar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@mdosogne: AH, see, you didn't say you started fresh. Had you done that, would have avoided things. I also didn't state that it does work on Win. So that's my fault. A mis-communication due to lack of details on both our parts. You also have to realize that normally we aren't dealing with people as well skilled as yourself. We have to start with the basics. That means not assuming that the user did what you did, unless they say they did (you didn't), and even then we've seen people screw it up. No harm, think our minds are meshed now.

So, the bottom line is, this MAY very well be an issue with linux/macOS that is NOT present on Win because the current default installation does work on Win platforms. I would say though, I personally don't see a reason for the extra folder, even on windows, so to prevent these issues, I'd be welcome to see them placed all in the 'plugins' folder. That is unless NK has a specified reason for the departure.

Last, this is not an RO issue. This is a TweakScale/RF interaction issue which would present itself regardless if RO was installed or not. Regardless of platform or computer. So I'm going to consider that particular issue closed, at least on this thread. I have taken note of your findings with the probe cores however and will be spending some time on them in the near future.

Edited by RedAV8R
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Keudn: Your second craft is suffering from nearly identical issues as the first. It's simply too powerful. Once again, the vehicle has over 16000 dV. That is simply not needed for your intended mission. I didn't make it to my big machine yesterday, so hopefully I'll take a look here this afternoon. In the mean time, build some replica launchers based on real vehicles to learn the basics, then go from there. There is a repository and a discussion forum that would be helpful for you. Once FASA is done here, you can use some Titan's or even Atlas-Agena's to launch what you need. I also suggest you use the RT settings file provided which adds more ground stations.

I found the solar panels, sneaky buggers. That and they were hidden by you using tweakscale, not your fault, just that craft files don't load right when tweakscale is used.

Edited by RedAV8R
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...