NathanKell

Realism Overhaul Discussion Thread

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, stratochief66 said:

@MadRocketScientist whatever one you can find the best images for, ideally something with verniers though, since I don't think any real ones were able to gimbal the main nozzle itself

Just make sure to let us know which version it is a model of, so it ends up with accurate stats :)

Alright, got it. It will probably be the flight model then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/1/2017 at 8:32 AM, Combatsmithen said:

So. How compatible is every RO mod with 1.2?

https://github.com/KSP-RO/RP-0/issues/610

rsparkyc compiled a list of the mods, and his estimation of their current state, etc. tl;dr you can assemble it, but you'l have to work for it. if you've got a working 1.1.3 install of RO, it is much easier to stay there :)

On 3/1/2017 at 9:45 AM, SpaceOdissey said:

Where I can download Realism overhaul for KSP 1.2.0?

https://github.com/KSP-RO/RealismOverhaul/releases

A pre-release version exists, and can be acquired there. Pre-release means it isn't in CKAN yet, and that we know it still has a few issues that we're still working on.

On 2/26/2017 at 2:48 PM, IncongruousGoat said:

Does anybody know where I could find a small Kevlar drogue chute part? I'm working on a Venus lander in RP-0, and need such a chute to slow my descent without simultaneously catching on fire. However, my current install doesn't appear to have one.

The atmosphere of Venus is thick as sin. Just pointing a heatshield forward should get you down to slow-ish, then you can deploy chutes shortly before landing at low speed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, stratochief66 said:

The atmosphere of Venus is thick as sin. Just pointing a heatshield forward should get you down to slow-ish, then you can deploy chutes shortly before landing at low speed.

That's the idea. The problem is, Venus's atmosphere's ambient temperature exceeds the temperature limits of all the parachutes I have at my disposal. I'm currently trying to get around the problem by changing the RealChute config for the FASA Mercury probe chute to use Kevlar as the material instead of silk (it seems reasonable to me that NASA would be able to manufacture a Kevlar parachute if the need arose).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@IncongruousGoat Is there any particular reason why you need to use the FASA Mercury parachute pack? Besides being overkill for Venus applications, the inline RealChute parachute will give you a ton more options, including changing the parachute material.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Phineas Freak said:

@IncongruousGoat Is there any particular reason why you need to use the FASA Mercury parachute pack? Besides being overkill for Venus applications, the inline RealChute parachute will give you a ton more options, including changing the parachute material.

 

For some reason, my install doesn't actually give me the option to change the parachute material (or anything else, for that matter) on the RealChute parachutes. It might have something to do with RP-0. Either way, I don't have that choice. Plus, that parachute is a bit big for my 1/2 ton lander.

What I meant by the FASA Mercury parachute was the probe chute, the one that barely weighs 100kg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, IncongruousGoat said:

 

For some reason, my install doesn't actually give me the option to change the parachute material (or anything else, for that matter) on the RealChute parachutes. It might have something to do with RP-0. Either way, I don't have that choice. Plus, that parachute is a bit big for my 1/2 ton lander.

What I meant by the FASA Mercury parachute was the probe chute, the one that barely weighs 100kg.

 

To edit realchutes, you have to go to the action group editor, and then click the chute. It will open the configs, where you can set the size of the part, material, and the area (and thus weight) of the deployed parachute. 

Edited by leudaimon
typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, leudaimon said:

 

To edit realchutes, you have to go to the action group editor, and then click the chute. It will open the configs, where you can set the size of the part, material, and the area (and thus weight) of the deployed parachute. 

Ah, that explains it. Thank you-that should make things much easier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been working on getting a playable version of RO/RP-0 going on KSP 1.2.2, but I can't find the early US engines (LR79, LR89, LR105) in game. I have all of the dependencies and recommended mods installed. I assumed those engines came from Ven's Stock Revamp, which I have grabbed the last working version of from Github.  Do they come from a different mod that I need to be troubleshooting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't mean to be rude but if you are going to put mods together in a pack then in my mind it would be up to you to at least attempt to fix issues first not just send them to a mod author

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Jobadiah If you don't have these engines then the problems might be bigger than you think. Both the LR-79 and the LR-89 are part of RO itself (redistributed with RO) and the LR-105 is a stock Squad engine.

(VSR just beautifies the LR-105 BTW. It does not touch the other two  so you should have at least the LR-79 and the LR-89 in the part list).

42 minutes ago, AceCrafted said:

I don't mean to be rude but if you are going to put mods together in a pack then in my mind it would be up to you to at least attempt to fix issues first not just send them to a mod author

Who is doing that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Phineas Freak said:

Who is doing that?

The front page clearly states that for bugs/issues go to a mod author not the pack maker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Phineas Freak said:

@Jobadiah If you don't have these engines then the problems might be bigger than you think. Both the LR-79 and the LR-89 are part of RO itself (redistributed with RO) and the LR-105 is a stock Squad engine.

Ok. I had tried fresh installing just RO, but that didn't solve it. I guess I need to go to a clean build and try re-installing RO and its mods one at a time.

Edit: Deleted my old 1.2.2 RO install and started from scratch. Re-installed only the mods on the RO page of the golden spreadsheet. The missing engines are back. Now to see if they stick around after installing RP-0. If they don't, I will switch to that thread. Thanks for the help Phineas Freak

Edit 2: Found the cause. The SSTU-Optional Patches folder removes the stock parts these engines are based on. So if you guys want to use SSTU with your RO, do not install the SSTU-Optional Patches folder

Edited by Jobadiah
update to issue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Jobadiah said:

I guess I need to go to a clean build and try re-installing RO and its mods one at a time.

A lot of things have changed between the KSP 1.1.3 and the KSP 1.2.2 versions so starting from scratch is required. If you need help, don't hesitate to ping us here! Also, do not forget the golden spreadsheet from @rsparkyc!

1 hour ago, AceCrafted said:

The front page clearly states that for bugs/issues go to a mod author not the pack maker

Umm...you do realize that there are dedicated support threads for RSS, RO and RP-0, right? And that this is a discussion thread about RSS/RO/RP0, not a support one? And that the aforementioned mod authors of the required mods are part of the KSP-RO team? And that the KSP-RO team does not create/redistribute "mod packs" but you have to install every required/recommended/supported mod separately?

So, i am asking again: who is doing that?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you guys thought about an all-in-one mod?

RO is very popular, but has so many dependencies, each being an independent project.

Some times one of them for some reason fails to download from CKAN or the download

is not available on that day or has been updated and conflicts with X or Y and a previous

version which works well with everything is hard to find, or the whole thing is on halt 

waiting for Z to be updated.

 

Instead, what if an all-in-one package was created, in a way people could download

a single file containing RO and all it's dependencies, versions that were extensively

tested together and are known to work really well?

 

Every now and then, these versions could be updated to a new version after users

reported here that they are working well and fine with the rest of the package.

 

I personally don't care much about having the latest of the latest in each of my mods,

the updates which contain a tiny little new feature. I prefer to have everything working

very well as a whole, and eventually down the line download updates when there's

plenty of them with many many new additions. I'm sure I'm not alone on this.

 

Simpler? I could see more users trying RO when they don't have to go through a 

spreadsheet to know what's what and what to download where and why.

Yes it will all be in CKAN when it's done and ready, but you all know CKAN, it can be a pain.

Edited by JeeF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JeeF said:

Have you guys thought about an all-in-one mod?

[snip]

The problem with this is that RO depends on mods that the authors have licensed in a way that disallows redistribution. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Mad Rocket Scientist said:

The problem with this is that RO depends on mods that the authors have licensed in a way that disallows redistribution. 

Gah

Hate when people do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So when will we see RO for version 1.2.2? I want to launch my own lunar program, but I can not do it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Fenyx said:

So when will we see RO for version 1.2.2? I want to launch my own lunar program, but I can not do it!

Never, the whole project was cancelled, the team was abducted and the mod servers exploded.

On 3/9/2017 at 9:14 AM, JeeF said:

Have you guys thought about an all-in-one mod?

 

That is never ever ever ever going to happen ever. I could explain why but I'm not going to because it's been beaten to death countless times already, just know it won't happen for reasons.

Edited by raidernick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How accurate is the aero model without FAR ? i'm running 1.2.2  prerelease and i sorta feel getting past mach 1 is quite harder (feature?)

 

Edited by Alpha_Mike_741

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/27/2017 at 0:51 PM, Mad Rocket Scientist said:

Alright, got it. It will probably be the flight model then.

Like Nasa picks the crappiest version....  I cheer loudly from the sidelines any work on proper nukes.  (Loud peanut gallery scream "make me a Timberwind model", knowing full well its still classified)

QsLZ8e2.png

Edited by Bornholio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Bornholio

Just a hip guy, chilling between two giant nuclear rockets.

There are at least a few nuclear rockets that already work within RO, last time I tried them. For example, Atomic Rockets has a number of engines config'd I can see in RO.

https://github.com/KSP-RO/RealismOverhaul/blob/master/GameData/RealismOverhaul/RO_SuggestedMods/AtomicAge/RO_AtomicAge_Engines.cfg

The mod page 'says' 1.0.5, but parts mods generally aren't broken by ever KSP update, so there is no harm in giving them a shot. My interest is in more realistically modeled nuclear engines.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, stratochief66 said:

@Bornholio

Just a hip guy, chilling between two giant nuclear rockets.

There are at least a few nuclear rockets that already work within RO, last time I tried them. For example, Atomic Rockets has a number of engines config'd I can see in RO.

https://github.com/KSP-RO/RealismOverhaul/blob/master/GameData/RealismOverhaul/RO_SuggestedMods/AtomicAge/RO_AtomicAge_Engines.cfg

The mod page 'says' 1.0.5, but parts mods generally aren't broken by ever KSP update, so there is no harm in giving them a shot. My interest is in more realistically modeled nuclear engines.

 

//Just a hip guy, chilling between two giant nuclear rockets.// Robert Hanrahan was a agency director in 2011. Not sure about now. How did he not die from radiation cancer! /shock  He's touching those nuclear death cans!

Ah yes Atomic age is in use on my build, but I like the things that exist in reality.    Also this.

Got my fix of on timberwind in the mid 90's and been a junkie since.  Hard though given the huge amount of misinformation on the web.  I especially like the <1 TWR bull crap for NERVA. Which is of course derived from the most conservative design of second stage nuclear Saturn.  Stinking tank mass was obnoxious.  There is only basic stats for a timberwind series on Wikipedia but they are within acceptable tolerance given that they are not classified data. Just note that design size includes tankage.

Unfortunately the real reason SS-N was the Kiwi-B4 derived design is because the blew one up intentionally. Modifying it to go prompt critical.  This was able to show exactly what it took to put in a worst case failure mode and showed that is was unrealistic to assume any chain of failures would "blow up". Phoebus and Pewee didn't have this test done because it caused USSR to claim we violated the nuclear test ban treaty.  Just spent 2 hours looking for a video I know i had, and know exists of Kiwi-TNT exploding. /sigh  They locked the reflectors in full position and added high speed actuator to the beryllium rods to rotated full on them in a few ms instead of the normal few degrees per second. Result.056936bbb8b374268e41b04b59ed7dae.jpg

Less damage than a Saturn main stage going up in flames and the radius of lethal radiation dose was smaller than the radius of large debris impacts.  Yup get sick at 2000', killed by shrapnel at 2700'.  Lessons on why fractional orbit weapons (non-nuclear) are banned by the Regan era nuclear weapon treaties. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.