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

[leudaimon]

I've been looking at the energy outputs of some early solar panels and probes with built-in solar panels, and I believe there must be some problem with the units, as the first panels have a smaller energy output than some of the earliest FASA probes with built-in panels. For some examples:

Probes
Vanguard 1/2 and GRAB 1: 6/min = 360/h
Explorer 6 and Pioneer 5: 9.6/min = 576/h
Tiros 1 and Transit-2A: 30/min = 1800/h

Panels:
ST1: 45.4/h
ST2: 1.5/min = 90/h
ST3: 9.4/min = 564/h

Is this expected? Looking at sizes, the probes have very small (or apparently invisible) panels, and I would expect their output to be an order of magnitude smaller than the first dedicated panels, not higher.

Edited March 24, 2016 by leudaimon
decided to turn the edit into a new post

[nightingale]

8 hours ago, chrisl said:

<...> So I look at the contract file a bit more and notice that one of the requirements for the contract is:

expression = VesselIdentifier(spaceStation) != null && Vessel(spaceStation).CrewCount() == 0

So if I understand correctly, it's looking for any orbiting vessel that is identified as a spaceStation but only if that vessel currently has no crew on board.  My Skylab hasn't had 0 crew since it was first launched so I'm not sure why this station crew rotation contract even became an option for me and I'm guessing that's why it's still listed as "spaceStations (TBD)".

7 hours ago, NathanKell said:

@chrisl I am also confused why that contract triggered, because it should not. @nightingale any idea there?

In a word: timing.  That expression is only ever executed once (at contract generation time).  So when the contract was generated, the station probably existed and had no crew.  Once generated, it didn't matter that the expression would've had a different result, as it's simply never checked again.  I don't have a good answer for this one with what's currently available in Contract Configurator, so I've raised #496 with my thoughts on how to address it in the long term.

That being said, I do see a fairly major issue with that contract.  On this line, the vessel = crewCapsule probably was supposed to be define=crewCapsule.  Unless there is another contract that defines crewCapsule, but I think that this is leftover from a previous iteration of the contract that had an extra couple steps IIRC.

5 hours ago, chrisl said:

I'm wondering if Contract Configurator has a way to get a list of Kerbals that exist on a station (either when the contract is created or maybe just when the crewCabin ship makes rendezvous), then verifies that the returning craft not only has at least 2, but that those 2 were part of the original list.

Sure does, something to this effect:

DATA
{
    type = List<Kerbal>
    kerbals = Vessel(spaceStation).Crew()
}

You can then use @/kerbals anywhere that accepts a list of Kerbals.

4 hours ago, chrisl said:

*nods*  I suppose if there is a way to figure out which kerbals are on a space station, you could also figure out which kerbals were on the capsule that was trying to rendezvous with the station.

That part's actually more difficult - the kerbals on the capsule aren't known at contract generation time, and that's when expressions are executed.  Best way to do it given that is a two part contract (ie. two contracts).

[leudaimon]

By the way, I found some other issues:

- my tech tree looks pretty messed in some spots, with nodes overlapping (especially the staged and orbital rocket branches). There are also some orphan nodes, which start in the middle and have no parent node to connect.

- I failed to transmit science using the Explorer 6 probe antenna. While it provides remotetech connection, science appears to be transmitted but does not add points or complete contracts. I found this weird, given everything works fine when I use the Communotron-16.

- Finally, I would expect these bugs to be known, but there is a bunch of stuff that work without delay - especially the rcs and thrust controls, allowing for easy total control of the craft. Besides, some stuff don't need a connection to work, such as doing science and turning batteries off (this is an easy exploit of insufficient energy for a mission).

[NathanKell]

@leudaimon

1. That sounds like perhaps a broken install? Those nodes are fixed AFAIK. There are some orphans down at the bottom, which is intentional, however.

2 and 3 sound like RemoteTech bugs...try asking there?

[PTNLemay]

On 3/18/2016 at 0:26 AM, NathanKell said:

Ah, crap I thought I responded to you @PTNLemay.

Don't worry, I removed the nose cone, replaced it with a fuel tank.  It worked in the end.  I also added more antennas, I'm not sure if me going out of range was the problem, but if that was an issue it's fixed.

I found a new problem though.  I just unlocked the AJ10 engine, and I'm trying to use it and the Baby Sergents to create a super light suborbital rocket.  Everything works fine except for the Aerobee stage.  I'm doing everything the same as usual, but for some reason the Aerobee is giving me a 100% failure rate, telling me it has vapor in the feed lines and then a flameout.  I know this is usually what happens when you don't have the right ullage motors fired before you turn on the aerobee, but I have those ullage motors... 

Three of the little first tier sepatrons, just sightly inclined to give it a spin stabilization.  I also dialled them down a bit so I have a good 3 second window in which to activate the aerobee.  But every time, it flames out.  I tried different altitudes, from 39 km up to 55 km.  It's just not working.  I used the aerobee on upper stages with my A-4 rocket, but I'm not sure what I've done that's inherently different on this one.  Aside for the rocket being lighter and less expensive.  I remember reading on the forum that the AJ10 shouldn't be used as a first stage, but that part seems to work fine.

This is the whole rocket in the hangar.

 

Edited March 24, 2016 by PTNLemay

[NathanKell]

If you are moving quickly during separation, you'll get a comparatively large amount of drag. Light the upper engine before the lower engine burns out, 1-2s before, then separate when the lower stage burns out.

[PTNLemay]

So is the drag causing a hard deceleration and causing the gases in the pipes to move in the wrong direction?

Or do you mean the rocket is moving so fast that it's causing problems with the exhaust gases trying to get out of the aerobee's engine bell?

[NathanKell]

The former. Watch your engine icon in the staging list, watch how quickly it goes from clear to red when the thrust stops.

[PTNLemay]

I see, thanks for the help!  I actually managed to solve the problem by replacing the aerobee stage with a whole bunch of Baby Sargents.  It looks pretty silly (all tall and spindly, like a rocket made of broomsticks), but it works.

[leudaimon]

4 hours ago, NathanKell said:

1. That sounds like perhaps a broken install? Those nodes are fixed AFAIK. There are some orphans down at the bottom, which is intentional, however.

 

@NathanKell Curious... I've been playing with this install from CKAN for some time now and had no other issues... RP-0 has been upgraded in the last updates with no errors. Both branches are clickable, even though not so easily, and have parts in them. I'll try to reinstall anyway to check if it fixes itself.

What about the solar panel output inconsistencies I mentioned in the earlier post, maybe it results from some broken install also?

Thank you for the response!

[PTNLemay]

I went back to more testing, and I'm back to being suspicious.  I checked on my old rocket that uses an A-4 first stage and an aerobee 2nd, and before I even hit a TWR of 2 the fuel says it's stable.  With this one though, I made it all the way up to TWR = 3.3 and all throughout it says "Feed pressure too low".  You can see in the screengrab, before I've even turned on the engine or separated from stage 1, it says "Status: Flame-Out!"  Is that normal?

Edited March 25, 2016 by PTNLemay

[NathanKell]

@PTNLemay a pressure-fed engine requires a highly-pressurized tank. In the VAB, right click on the tank feeding it and change its type to one of the highly-pressurized ones.

 

@leudaimon I'll check on the solar stuff; it may be that we're underestimating the solar tech of the time if the numbers for those probe cores are right.

[Varamin]

On 22.03.2016 at 2:32 PM, Temeter said:

If you are just going for cost efficiency, it often even makes sense to just skip hydrogen systems on smaller rockets and LEO launchs. If you want to min/max a bit, In RP-0 the RD253/275m and RD-0210 are incredibly cost efficient (+ incredible T/W ratio). Using RD275 booster rockets is often cheaper than actual SRB's. Same reason these engines are used on the Proton rockets until today. Of course with the downside of using incredibly dangerous, toxic fuel.

Thanks, they really are too cheap for what they do. Designing my LVs exclusively around those does reduce my launch costs by about half... If they were larger, I could use them for everything, but KSP lags too much with too many parts.

On the subject of engines, what is the currently recommended method of using ion propulsion? Orbit manipulator seems incompatible with the latest KSP, and using realistic ion engines with physics warp (even increased using mods) doesn't seem doable. (I don't mind unrealistic solutions if this means they are playable.)

[NathanKell]

@leudaimon I think there was perhaps a rounding error or something. Because TIROS by that listing is granting 500W, and even TIROS's successor, Nimbus, provided only 165 watts. TIROS itself was supposed to use only about 20 watts.

 

@Varamin yeah, they're really mostly balanced due to poorer reliability.

 

For ions, use Principia.

[NathanKell]

@leudaimon config error, will be fixed in next RO. For some reason the stock amounts were retained.

[leudaimon]

@NathanKellOh, good to know. So the "correct" values are for the panels, and the probes are overestimated?

[NathanKell]

Yep. TIROS, for example, should have a charge rate of 21 watts (1.26/min)

[leudaimon]

Ok. And is the energy consumption correct for the avionics modules? Because this makes it even harder to have a probe with a positive energy budget in the early game, but also more realistic as the early probes did not have active control during the mission, right?

[NathanKell]

Exactly right. It's possible, but to use the Mariner-level dish it takes 6 panels that unlock in that node, and that only works while you're powered down, and you probably need even more when out by Mars. It's hard. Possible, but hard.

[PTNLemay]

On 3/25/2016 at 0:30 AM, NathanKell said:

@PTNLemay a pressure-fed engine requires a highly-pressurized tank. In the VAB, right click on the tank feeding it and change its type to one of the highly-pressurized ones.

The procedural generated tanks seem to be the ones that have the most trouble.  With the normal tanks I can turn the pressurization on and off no problem, but with the procedural ones it either comes pressurized or not, and I can't switch them.  Anyway, I managed to work around it.  (Once I came across a pressurized one, I quickly stuck it in sub-assemblies.  So it's saves for future use.)

 

This next problem though has me stumped.  I'm trying to use aircraft cockpits for suborbital hops, so maybe it's not meant to work.  But yeah, the center of lift is acting very strangely.  The first pic shows me using 2 heat shields.  I'm trying to throw on more heat shields to bring the center of mass down lower.  The bottom pic is with 3 heat shields.  The center of lift shot way down.   This of course makes the capsule tumble nose-down when I try and have it re-enter the atmosphere.

 

Edited March 26, 2016 by PTNLemay

[NathanKell]

@PTNLemay you can set them to a highly-pressurized mode. Instead of using the << and >> buttons for the tank type chooser, drag the bar like it's a tweakable range. Use Fuselage or (if you have the tech) ServiceModule.

The cockpit would probably not survive anyway, although you won't need more than a single heatshield (and they're unlikely to run out of ablator anyway; if you get in a situation where the flux is higher than the ablator's cooling rate, it'll kill all the shields, not just the first...). Instead, you might want to try using really large wings.

[Oksbad]

Question: For funding I think some of the documentation suggested putting difficulty on Normal and using part unlock costs, or to not use part unlock costs and drop contract payouts to 20%.

I'm currently about 10 hours into a game where I have difficulty on Normal and don't seem to have part unlock costs. Can I enable part unlock costs or drop contract payouts without starting a new save?

Edited March 27, 2016 by Oksbad

[NathanKell]

@Oksbad yes you should be able to toggle that in your sfs file.

[karlack26]

Hello all, I have been really enjoying all of the work and effort that you guys have put into RSS RO and RP-0, outstanding work. 
I have an idea to add to this wonderful group of mods  but have no clue if it is possible. 
Basically an at altitude launch of x planes and other small vessels. 

Ideas for implementation.
  Add another launch site but this looks like a plane sitting beside the SPH.(as you upgrade it you could the plane can get larger and larger)
Treat it like the other buildings/launch sites and use the 3 tier upgrade system.  Each upgrade would increase  altitude and weight of vessels it can launch
 Tier 3 should have upper weight and altitude cap. No launching 2000t rockets from 80,000m.  Keep it under what air breathing engines can function at and weight at what the largest jets can carry today. 
Also along with monetary requirements for building upgrades  you could have research requirements as well. So  the tier 2  upgrade would need the second tier of engines researched. Tier 3 a higher tech node researched. 

Any ways just  a rough idea i came up with.
Though with 1.1 around the corner you guys will be pretty busy getting the  old stuff working again.
Keep up the good work.  




 

[Oksbad]

Thanks for all the effort you put into these excellent mods!

Edited March 30, 2016 by Oksbad