Jump to content

[1.2.2] Realistic Progression Zero (RP-0) - Lightweight RealismOverhaul career v0.53 June 12

pjf

By pjf
in KSP1 Mod Releases

 Share

Recommended Posts

Jovus

Jovus

Posted
Posted

Yep, just figured that out about an hour ago. Though there was the confounding issue of not realizing what the tech development upgrade was for, either. Thanks!

First time with RSS/RP-0. I'm having a blast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
syzygy123

syzygy123

Posted
Posted

I've installed RP-0 along with RSS and RO via CKAN. I've noticed that a lot of the engines aren't recognized by testflight. Jumping over to sandbox, only a couple of the engines that I've tried can accumulate test data. The rest aren't recognized. Is this an installation issue, or does testflight not support RP-0 as of now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rothank

Rothank

Posted
Posted (edited)
I've installed RP-0 along with RSS and RO via CKAN. I've noticed that a lot of the engines aren't recognized by testflight. Jumping over to sandbox, only a couple of the engines that I've tried can accumulate test data. The rest aren't recognized. Is this an installation issue, or does testflight not support RP-0 as of now?

AFAIK Testflight supports (mostly) only the basic, earlier engines. Later ones don't have proper configs for now.

Edited by Rothank
My grammar is bad.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rothank

Rothank

Posted
Posted
Hey,

I can't change the size of the parachutes. I updated from an older Version today and now It doesn't work. Is this a known issue?

Are you trying to resize using the action group menu or via right-click? Right-click option was from tweakscale and caused issues, so it got scrapped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KittenLandmine

KittenLandmine

Posted
Posted

So for a couple hours today I couldn't figure out why my rocket engines were cutting out shortly after takeoff (Aerobee for example) It wasn't due to insufficient ullage as it would occur ever when the rocket has ignited just fine and was already travelling up, nor was it an issue with the part failures. I also noticed that there were a few posts of people on here who had the same problem, but never figured it out...

Turns out it was MechJebs terminal velocity limiter. For some reason it was on by default. During liftoff whenever my rockets would gain just enough speed, MechJeb would try and throttle the engine back, causing it to die, then the rocket was no able to re-ignite. So I turned it off in the MechJeb ascent profile window and all is well.

Just thought id make the post for anyone that runs into the same problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
syzygy123

syzygy123

Posted
Posted
Also, it desperately needs a config update, hasn't been touched since .90 really.

And, syzygy123, welcome! :) (And awesome name!)

Thanks! I'll uninstall testflight for now. It feels weird to have some parts able to fail and other that never do. Maybe if I have time I'll figure out how the part config works and add some things. Anyone using Dang It! with RP-0?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Niemand303

Niemand303

Posted
Posted

Hello everyone, I've been talkign in #RO about RP-0 configs and suggestions and I saw that the RP-0 tech tree is really bizarre after Tier 4 with lots of empty nodes and such. Here is my version of the tech tree I'd suggest for the mod. Green nodes are new ones, red are existing but edited and white are the untouched ones. Leaving here for discussions (click the image for higher resolution):

kytlpNP.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SirKeplan

SirKeplan

Posted
Posted

why not have Early ISRU a tier earlier? stuff like sabatier reaction is simple in many ways.

I personally don't like the idea of sticking too closely to how tech progressed in real life, instead go for what would be reasonable if focus had been to develop the tech, so stuff like ISRU could possibly go even earlier for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BevoLJ

BevoLJ

Posted
Posted

Anyone have any suggestions on a entryCost/cost of RTGs? I was thinking about moving the rtg from the near future tech to 1960s tech node for obvious reasons, but not sure on the cost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bedi

Bedi

Posted
Posted (edited)
Anyone have any suggestions on a entryCost/cost of RTGs? I was thinking about moving the rtg from the near future tech to 1960s tech node for obvious reasons, but not sure on the cost.

i found this:

http://www.spacesafetymagazine.com/aerospace-engineering/nuclear-propulsion/nasa-pay-entire-pu-238-production/

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/636900main_Howe_Presentation.pdf

https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/rps/rtg.cfm

i think that the most expensive part of the rtg is the plutonium. It looks like few million per kg.

Edited by Bedi
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jovus

Jovus

Posted
Posted

Are the A-4 parts from the Taerobee pack really supposed to be part of the Start node? I ask because it's fairly easy to hit orbit without upgrading tech at all, if so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rothank

Rothank

Posted
Posted (edited)
Are the A-4 parts from the Taerobee pack really supposed to be part of the Start node? I ask because it's fairly easy to hit orbit without upgrading tech at all, if so.

Well, technically A4 is '40s tech, and yeah, there were orbit capable iterations of A4 planned. So, given enough resources, money and trial'n'error achieving orbit was possible as early as 1946 maybe even a bit earlier.

Source (check A9/A10 to A12):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggregate_(rocket_family)

Edited by Rothank
fixed source link
Link to comment
Share on other sites
winged

winged

Posted
Posted
Hello everyone, I've been talkign in #RO about RP-0 configs and suggestions and I saw that the RP-0 tech tree is really bizarre after Tier 4 with lots of empty nodes and such. Here is my version of the tech tree I'd suggest for the mod. Green nodes are new ones, red are existing but edited and white are the untouched ones. Leaving here for discussions (click the image for higher resolution):

http://i.imgur.com/kytlpNP.png

What will happen to parts which are already placed in the nodes you're planning to delete? Will I need to place them again?

for example: AdvLanding (line 2411 in tree.yml)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Laie

Laie

Posted
Posted
Well, technically A4 is '40s tech, and yeah, there were orbit capable iterations of A4 planned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggregate_(rocket_family)

That's paper rockets. By the same token, the IPP/SLS would be 1960s tech.

The A4 was good enough to lob a substantial warhead to altitude; it doesn't seem totally incredible that it could have launched a tiny satellite without the R&D that went into the redstone. In real life satellites were an afterthought. Had they been the priority (as they are in RP-0), the first satellite may well have happened in the 40s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Autochton

Autochton

Posted
Posted
That's paper rockets. By the same token, the IPP/SLS would be 1960s tech.

Well, they pretty much are, though.

The A4 was good enough to lob a substantial warhead to altitude; it doesn't seem totally incredible that it could have launched a tiny satellite without the R&D that went into the redstone. In real life satellites were an afterthought. Had they been the priority (as they are in RP-0), the first satellite may well have happened in the 40s.

The main problem wrt. A-4 and orbital rocketry would be one of guidance. Getting it to follow the trajectory you would need to get a small payload into orbit with it would be a trick and a half, honestly, given that its own guidance was of the "land somewhere in Greater London" precision capabilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Laie

Laie

Posted
Posted
That's paper rockets. By the same token, the IPP/SLS would be 1960s tech.
Well the most powerful rocket ever was launched in the 60's. =D

Wasn't that the Energia? As to my comment, strike SLS (=DynaSoar), put STS (Space Shuttle and Nuclear Moon Shuttle) -- 60s tech in principle, but certainly not in practice.

The main problem wrt. A-4 and orbital rocketry would be one of guidance.

I guess you're right. But how is one to replicate this in the game? 3rd person view and navball and insta-steadying timewarp will give you abilities the real rocket builders couldn't even dream of. Everybody knows that the A4 flew in the early forties. If it's in the game, it pretty much has to be in the starting node, together with avionics that allow for a controlled flight. If that means one can make orbit on starting tech, that's just how it is.

In a similar vein, nothing stops you from combining RD-107/8 engines with balloon tanks, for Titan-like capabilities in 1959.

Before we wonder how it's possible to preempt this, I'd like to ask if we should even try.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jovus

Jovus

Posted
Posted
In a similar vein, nothing stops you from combining RD-107/8 engines with balloon tanks, for Titan-like capabilities in 1959.

Before we wonder how it's possible to preempt this, I'd like to ask if we should even try.

I guess that depends on the scope and intent of the mod. Namely, if the purpose here is to provide a (fairly) realistic historical tech progression while possibly making concessions to playability, then I'd say no, don't try at all and leave it how it is. If the purpose here is to take RO/RSS and make a playable career mode out of it with a passing nod to history, then yes, it might be worth a try. In essence, the difference between the two is a difference of emphasis.

I'm not coming down on either side, by the way. It's not my mod, and I think too much user input on the matter of scope and intent to a project results in a feature-creepy mess. I'm just pointing out what seems to me a reasonable rubric on which to decide the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Niemand303

Niemand303

Posted
Posted
What will happen to parts which are already placed in the nodes you're planning to delete? Will I need to place them again?

for example: AdvLanding (line 2411 in tree.yml)

They will be moved to new nodes, I think I can do that. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NathanKell

NathanKell

Posted
Posted

The engine on the Redstone was very much a derived V-2 engine (100kN more thrust, 10s more Isp in vacuum, cylindrical not spherical combustion chamber) and it certainly put things in space (running Hydyne on Juno I, as well as in original form on Redstone-Sparta). All that was really needed was the guidance for a 3-axis stabilized body unit to aim spin-stabilized apogee kick motors (whether solid or liquid)--and, of course, uprating the thrust enough to carry upper stages.

Even ignoring V-2-derived hardware, however, I highly recommend reading up on two things, first the US Navy's High Altitude Test Vehicle program starting in 1946, and second the answering study from the USAF the RAND Corporation's World Circling Space Ship study of May 1946.

Sadly, the HATV program was blocked by the Air Force, who saw no interest in orbit at the time (though they commissioned the RAND study to keep an oar in the water).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...