Jump to content

Realism Overhaul Discussion Thread


NathanKell
 Share

Recommended Posts

Is there any good mod(pack) for colonization in RSS/RO?

I would like to try and build independent (or at least as independent as possible) bases/colonies on other planets/moons but I need a mod that can simulate resource harvesting and has some good parts for base building.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, tseitsei89 said:

Is there any good mod(pack) for colonization in RSS/RO?

I would like to try and build independent (or at least as independent as possible) bases/colonies on other planets/moons but I need a mod that can simulate resource harvesting and has some good parts for base building.

Check this out. One of its goals is to integrate MKS colonization parts into Realism overhaul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey all, i'm currently having an issue with my antennas overheating and exploding. 

I noticed that all the antennas have a max internal/external temperature of only 473 K, as soon as I get into Earth orbit they start overheating. If I start to timewarp in any way, there is a sudden spike in temperature and my antennas immediately explode.

I have over 70 mods installed, but i've narrowed this problem down to Realism Overhaul. I tried changing the max temperature in the part files and the MM cache, but to no avail. 

Does anyone have any workarounds? (besides using altF12)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Bornholio said:

@tychochallenge log please :) fixing it is better

Well, my issue isn't exactly an error in that my game freezes or crashes. 

And the timewarp overheating issue only occurs in low orbit, but when it happens, only the antennas explode, due to the fact that their max temperature for some reason is so low.

Other than that, the timewarp issue doesn't seem to affect anything else. I'm just looking for a way to change the antenna's max temperature.

I'll try to replicate the issue and send a log tomorrow. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still quite new to RO and am running to a problem I seem to be unable to solve...

Whenever I'm putting lqdHydrogen or lqdOxygen in to my tanks they just boil off in a matter of just few days. Even if I'm usin cryogenic tanks. So my question is how can I get them to stay in their tanks?

Most of the engines are using lqdH and lqdO or at least lqdO and something else and I obviously cant use those engines for anything beyond LEO for now...

Edited by tseitsei89
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, tseitsei89 said:

I'm still quite new to RO and am running to a problem I seem to be unable to solve...

Whenever I'm putting lqdHydrogen or lqdOxygen in to my tanks they just boil off in a matter of just few days. Even if I'm usin cryogenic tanks. So my question is how can I get them to stay in their tanks?

Most of the engines are using lqdH and lqdO or at least lqdO and something else and I obviously cant use those engines for anything beyond LEO for now...

umm that's intended.....Cryogenic tanks don't stop boiloff they just slow it down. Hyodrogen molecules are so small they can actually diffuse through the tank wall there is almost no way to prevent them from boiling off. Theoretically you could use some kind of cryogenic recycling system but it would be extremely heavy and use a ton of power. No such system has ever been put into use in space yet. So no, no you can't use cryogenic fuels beyond LEO, you need to use hypergolics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, raidernick said:

umm that's intended.....Cryogenic tanks don't stop boiloff they just slow it down. Hyodrogen molecules are so small they can actually diffuse through the tank wall there is almost no way to prevent them from boiling off. Theoretically you could use some kind of cryogenic recycling system but it would be extremely heavy and use a ton of power. No such system has ever been put into use in space yet. So no, no you can't use cryogenic fuels beyond LEO, you need to use hypergolics.

Ok thanks. I knew it was a real intended thing. The speed at which it happens just surprised me completely...

 

Another question: is there a way to filter engines in the VAB while building so I could filter out all that use lqdH and lqdO?

Edited by tseitsei89
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there a reliable way to launch into a trans-lunar orbit with an Ariane 5 ECA? I needed the ECS upper stage to finish Earth orbit insertion, but then I have no ignitions left. The plyload was a bit too heavy for the ES stage.

I am thinking about doing a sub-orbital parking orbit where I line up with the lunar AN/DN and lob the second stage to a 800 km ~ 1 Mm or so Apogee and plan an injection burn that takes me directly into trans-lunar; the problem is I am not sure if this will work all the time or the moon will move to a position where I have to wait until I get to the other side of Earth to do the TLI burn...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Mr. Sandman said:

Might have been already asked , but is there an estimated release date for Realism Overhaul 1.3?Don't take this badly , just curious on whenever I have to start packing my stuff to switch on the newer update.Thanks

It is a slow process, It depends on each required mod first being 1.3.  For some mods the change is as simple as recompiling once. Others require fundamental fixes. Then RO needs to accommodate any changes they make.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1A7gQkIiQKi0VtRecE6p86KCKuoawZPdzk7NlaxssRJ4/edit#gid=523836116

So the answer is no :P  That said lots of work is happening in development RO & RP-0

Version release on Reddit  https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1it8cZ_t8J67m4oPOvjzgBxHZvSXsvhNTPhlDVqEGTFY/edit#gid=0

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Bornholio said:

It is a slow process, It depends on each required mod first being 1.3.  For some mods the change is as simple as recompiling once. Others require fundamental fixes. Then RO needs to accommodate any changes they make.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1A7gQkIiQKi0VtRecE6p86KCKuoawZPdzk7NlaxssRJ4/edit#gid=523836116

So the answer is no :P  That said lots of work is happening in development RO & RP-0

Version release on Reddit  https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1it8cZ_t8J67m4oPOvjzgBxHZvSXsvhNTPhlDVqEGTFY/edit#gid=0

Thanks a lot for the useful infos.I'll keep an eye on the development.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, wb99999999 said:

Is there a reliable way to launch into a trans-lunar orbit with an Ariane 5 ECA? I needed the ECS upper stage to finish Earth orbit insertion, but then I have no ignitions left. The plyload was a bit too heavy for the ES stage.

I am thinking about doing a sub-orbital parking orbit where I line up with the lunar AN/DN and lob the second stage to a 800 km ~ 1 Mm or so Apogee and plan an injection burn that takes me directly into trans-lunar; the problem is I am not sure if this will work all the time or the moon will move to a position where I have to wait until I get to the other side of Earth to do the TLI burn...

When I push with LR105 uppers and know it will have excess fuel I will add a set of 2 or 4 LR101s to expend the rest of the fuel into TLI. So unless you can conserve an ignition then either reduce the stage to just enough to make orbit with an extra small stage to push TLI or add a secondary pusher that can use the same fuel.  Its almost always more efficient to design a good small Bus stage with a multi ignition engine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, tseitsei89 said:

Whenever I'm putting lqdHydrogen or lqdOxygen in to my tanks they just boil off in a matter of just few days. Even if I'm usin cryogenic tanks.

A thing I learnt the hard way - "Cryogenic" type of tanks is inferior to "Servce module" in terms of Hydrolox storage possibilities. Do not count on using hydrolox engines several weeks from LEO, but for running the fuel cells on a two week lunar mission, it is enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, michal.don said:

A thing I learnt the hard way - "Cryogenic" type of tanks is inferior to "Servce module" in terms of Hydrolox storage possibilities. Do not count on using hydrolox engines several weeks from LEO, but for running the fuel cells on a two week lunar mission, it is enough.

I hope they could one day add extra insulation as an option, in the form of panels (as used on Atlas-Centaur) or just a heavier tank with MLI. Boil-off should be a concern regardless, but with a modern insulation on place it really shouldn't happen so viciously in just a few hours after the launch.

5 hours ago, Bornholio said:

When I push with LR105 uppers and know it will have excess fuel I will add a set of 2 or 4 LR101s to expend the rest of the fuel into TLI. So unless you can conserve an ignition then either reduce the stage to just enough to make orbit with an extra small stage to push TLI or add a secondary pusher that can use the same fuel.  Its almost always more efficient to design a good small Bus stage with a multi ignition engine.

I see. Maybe I will try a kick motor or an Agena. It just feels very wrong to have a lower ISP (and higher thrust no less) stage atop of the low thrust ECS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, wb99999999 said:

I hope they could one day add extra insulation as an option, in the form of panels (as used on Atlas-Centaur) or just a heavier tank with MLI. Boil-off should be a concern regardless, but with a modern insulation on place it really shouldn't happen so viciously in just a few hours after the launch.

I see. Maybe I will try a kick motor or an Agena. It just feels very wrong to have a lower ISP (and higher thrust no less) stage atop of the low thrust ECS.

Depends on the heat loading, if you have radiators you can manage the heat load and minimize or eliminate the losses.  Starwaster also has a heat pump mod that uses more realistic power amounts but either way going above x1000 time warp inflicts analytic mode and heat will not be controlled properly.  Cryogenic tanks just lower the heat load by adding insulation.  Service modules add even more insulation and allow for higher pressures at the expense of more weight and lower capacity. If the tank can be kept at 20K or less then Hydrogen boiloff is not an issue. Likewise LqdMethane and LqdOxygen can be kept much easier since the are far higher boiling points and lower expansion ratios.  Commonly if a Hydrogen stage is being used to do TLI or other Injection burn it can just be over provisioned with hydrogen to make up for the boil off relative to the LOx.

One thing about having a higher thrust Transit bus is that is will lower gravity losses and improve maneuver accuracy. That said I love cavea-B RCS and 1&2kN Thrusters for probe driving.  Usually once you have that you can go straight to Lunar orbit and even landers if you using drop tanks and a small probe.  Most common for me in those missions is an AJ-10 Early since it is restartable.  Have you also thought of direct ascent and not going into a parking orbit? That would allow you to use the stage without needing an extra ignition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bornholio said:

Have you also thought of direct ascent and not going into a parking orbit? That would allow you to use the stage without needing an extra ignition.

How do you do a direct ascent exactly? I usually do a parking orbit so that I can burn at Earth-Moon AN/DN when I can launch from a high latitude site, and for lower latitude sites I just wait for the inclination to line up. Is it possible to directly ascending to the Moon from say like, Baikonour? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, wb99999999 said:

How do you do a direct ascent exactly? I usually do a parking orbit so that I can burn at Earth-Moon AN/DN when I can launch from a high latitude site, and for lower latitude sites I just wait for the inclination to line up. Is it possible to directly ascending to the Moon from say like, Baikonour? 

I'm not the person to give a great answer for direct ascent, but with MJ you can launch to rendezvous with a bit of error. That is the only way I have done it.  Made a 70m/s midcourse correction at midpoint.

You can slop quite a bit for a few hundred dV.  I never line things up unless I'm doing a free return path. Very seldom do i do more that basic alignment on launch and I launch to 28.608 instead of the proper 28.363. Baikonour will be a bit more difficult to always find a good intercept. Also if you are doing a polar mapping mission or landing on the poles its actually worse to line up, since you want to drop in over or under the moon. I find that 240dV is enough to correct for any number of horrible alignments (some will always fail) but even 90deg out of phase is not a useless orbit to launch from.

One thing to do is place a junk sat in a test orbit and do planning nodes from that.  use Cheat Orbit screen or hyper edit to place the sat in an orbit that is co-planar with the Moon and in about whatever you are likely to use as a parking orbit.  Then place a second in a test orbit high enough that you can get to with 0 to minimal dogleg on launch.  Then make planning nodes from that and see how you can get intercepts from many odd angles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

@tseitsei89 I created the following module manager config to tag engines so that I could filter by fuel type in the editors.  It doesn't cover all the fuel types but just the main ones I tend to use.  There are two entries for each fuel type: one for engines with engine configs and one for engines without them.

You can then filter engines by typing something like, for example, "engine methane" into the filter box to find all engines that do, or are capable of using, methane.

Spoiler
@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleEngineConfigs]:HAS[@CONFIG[*]:HAS[@PROPELLANT[LqdMethane]]]]:FINAL
{
    &tags = engine
    @tags = #$tags$ methane
}

@PART[*]:HAS[!MODULE[ModuleEngineConfigs],@MODULE[ModuleEngines*]:HAS[@PROPELLANT[LqdMethane]]]:FINAL
{
    &tags = engine
    @tags = #$tags$ methane
}

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleEngineConfigs]:HAS[@CONFIG[*]:HAS[@PROPELLANT[Aerozine50]]]]:FINAL
{
    &tags = engine
    @tags = #$tags$ aerozine
}

@PART[*]:HAS[!MODULE[ModuleEngineConfigs],@MODULE[ModuleEngines*]:HAS[@PROPELLANT[Aerozine50]]]:FINAL
{
    &tags = engine
    @tags = #$tags$ aerozine
}

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleEngineConfigs]:HAS[@CONFIG[*]:HAS[@PROPELLANT[Kerosene]]]]:FINAL
{
    &tags = engine
    @tags = #$tags$ kerosene
}

@PART[*]:HAS[!MODULE[ModuleEngineConfigs],@MODULE[ModuleEngines*]:HAS[@PROPELLANT[Kerosene]]]:FINAL
{
    &tags = engine
    @tags = #$tags$ kerosene
}

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleEngineConfigs]:HAS[@CONFIG[*]:HAS[@PROPELLANT[LqdHydrogen]]]]:FINAL
{
    &tags = engine
    @tags = #$tags$ hydrogen
}

@PART[*]:HAS[!MODULE[ModuleEngineConfigs],@MODULE[ModuleEngines*]:HAS[@PROPELLANT[LqdHydrogen]]]:FINAL
{
    &tags = engine
    @tags = #$tags$ hydrogen
}

 

You can add support for more fuel types by adding more entries and setting the PROPELLANT type and @tags to the fuel type you want to make searchable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there a RSS patch for ISU Life Support?I noticed that Kerbal in ISU consume supplies based on their normal Kerbin day (6 hours), making things pretty impossible.I tried tweaking ISU LS from the main menu , but the Hab values in the VAB and on the runway differ quite a lot (I had 2 years and 40  days in VAB and 112 days on the launchpad).Yes , all the LS systems were active.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heya!

I wanted to suggest to make the 'FASA Saturn V APS' pods an RCS only system, not using the engine module for forward thrust.

It quite often seems to have issues with mechjeb's special RO ullage treatment, since mechjeb won't 'throttle up' until at least some thrust is available and the main engine is 'stable'. I might be wrong and have overlooked other issues, but that's how it 'felt'. And they mess up the dV readout and burn time.

If the APS pods would be an ordinary RCS system, mechjeb would use them automatically for ullage, I guess, and if one configures them from tweakables to run with main throttle, they will as well continue to run throughout the entire burn of the main engine.

 

Still enjoying the heck out of the whole RO suite, it's a wonderful toolset to 'figure out' what theoretically would be already possible with all the technology, disregarding monetary input.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi, it's me again^^

I'm currently making a mini-mod, intended for providing a whole lot of real-world-agencies (companies) for RealismOverhaul.

In that regards, I noticed a hand full of 'discrepancies' on manufacturer tags on different engines, mostly just minor things like "NPO Energomash [Glushko]" having that [Glushko] suffix, therefore not showing up in the VAB's manufacturer tab labelled only "NPO Energomash".  Another example would be "Airbus Defence and Space" which exists as well as "Airbus Defence & Space".

 

So I thought about writing some ModuleManager configs to only 'righten' those entries without touching anything else.

I took a look in the current RO-repository on GitHub and looked at the RD-107 engine configs.

 

Since I'm basically 'blank' in regards of writing MM configs, I thought I copy the first few lines, if that is legit^^

I've prepared only a test config so far, containing following entries:

@PART[*]:HAS[#engineType[RD107-117]]:FOR[RealismOverhaulEngines]
{
       %manufacturer = NPO Energomash
}

@PART[*]:HAS[#engineType[RD108-118]]:FOR[RealismOverhaulEngines]
{
       %manufacturer = NPO Energomash
}

 

Would this work or would I break things with configs like those two entries?

Any kind of info would be much apreciated :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@h0yer The best thing to do, as you found out, is to explicitly set the manufacturer tag inside the global engine configs. And no, it will not break anything! Just manually check if the actual global engine config doesn't already set that field.

Also, if you have the time and the will, would you like to do so for the actual RO engine configs? Just clone the repository and do a PR with your changes, i surely would appreciate that!

Edited by Phineas Freak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Phineas Freak said:

@h0yer The best thing to do, as you found out, is to explicitly set the manufacturer tag inside the global engine configs. And no, it will not break anything! Just manually check if the actual global engine config doesn't already set that field.

Also, if you have the time and the will, would you like to do so for the actual RO engine configs? Just clone the repository and do a PR with your changes, i surely would appreciate that!

Oh, that's wonderful, I'd love to contribute directly to RO :)

I think I have already forked RO, I'll take a few deeper looks...

That would basically make any patches for my minimod obsolete, which I'm OK with, and is even somewhat desireable^^

Perfect, the weekend is just a few hours away :D

Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...