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

syberianbull

syberianbull

Posted
Posted

Hello, I'm having some problems with mass scaling with winglets. The mass that is shown in the editor increases when the vehicle is placed on the launchpad. A .1 scale winglet that weighs a couple of kilos in the editor ends up doubling the mass of the whole rocket on the launchpad.

I archived the bare install, and the issue persists if I start from the bare install and just add all of the necessary mods for RP-0 from CKAN.

I have found someone else that has had the same exact issue, but posted in the tweakscaledevelopment thread without a response:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/110899-WIP-TweakScale-Development-Thread?p=1798816#post1798816

Would be greatful if someone could comment on whether this is a tweak scale or RP-0 config issue and on how to fix it. The non-controlled .3m sounding rockets just don't fly without winglets, so game progression is very difficult.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Doc_Ruby

Doc_Ruby

Posted
Posted
Why did the tiny tim booster and the cockpit get removed in the latest update?

It didn't? I did a fresh steam & CKAN install last night and it was still there. Have you checked to see if its still in your parts list?

Hello, I'm having some problems with mass scaling with winglets. The mass that is shown in the editor increases when the vehicle is placed on the launchpad. A .1 scale winglet that weighs a couple of kilos in the editor ends up doubling the mass of the whole rocket on the launchpad.

I was playing around with these last night and experienced the same issue. You can occasionally replicate the effect within the VAB as well, and tweaking the scale of the winglets up and down provides for strange adjustments in ship mass. I've resulted to only using the Pwings for now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NathanKell

NathanKell

Posted
Posted

Rabada: thanks! :)

Taking your points in order: we offer the cube core long about TL5 or 6 IIRC, that supports up to 3 tons. Thing is, though, there really haven't been very many heavy probes, so your best bet until then is to use 3 Surveyor cores (each supports 1t, together you get 3t). We don't support KWR very much at all yet, but that's a very good idea. I believe pjf is reworking antennas.

Lillienthal: I'll investigate, that sounds weird. Does it work if you do it yourself? Note that avionics cores that support low-power mode will automatically enter it whenever you timewarp, so that's another route... Glad you like the stuff, and good catch on the formatting! :)

chrisl: thanks for the avionics report, I'll check it out. As for the SRMs, exactly what is telling you they only burn for 84 seconds? Have you tried them out to verify they only burn for 84 seconds? Mechjeb/KER/VOID aren't aware of thrust curves, so they assume that the SRMs always burn at max thrust--but that's totally false. :)

As to the second post, found the bug. < rather than > when checking crew counts. Oops...

Doc_Ruby: as pjf said, awesome! Thank you so much!

A few FAQ suggestions:

Regarding supported/optional: RP-0 assumes you are playing with all the mods Realism Overhaul (and RP-0 itself) Recommends. They may not be strictly required, and are thus 'optional', but you won't get the full experience. FASA is supported well enough now to be small-R recommended for RP-0 use, but there are still some unsupported bits of it (true of stock and SXT too of course).

I think you mean Active Texture Management ;)

On biomes, the biomes are done by 2048x1024 textures, which means a resolution on the order of 20km per pixel at the equator on Earth. So the biome will only be accurate to within twenty kilometers...you're going to have to get pretty far out into the ocean for the science system to notice.

On engines: TF: Engines have different roles. You can't expect to safely air-light (i.e. as a second stage) an X-405 or LR-79 engine, and you can't expect to light an AJ10 when there's high dynamic pressure (aka going fast in the atmosphere--wait until the air thins out more). That's taken into account by TestFlight. It's also highly recommended that you do some ground tests of your engines before flying them on rockets; that will build up flight experience and make them more reliable. Finally, engines have rated burn times; they are much more likely to fail the longer past the rated burn time you try to run them. EI: Liquid Engines require propellants to be settled (i.e. at the bottom of their tanks) for them to function. This isn't a problem on the ground, because gravity handles it, but in freefall liquid propellants will 'float up' in the tanks, leading to the feed lines having vacuum or pressurant in them. Thus you need to settle the propellants yourself before ignition (by thrusting 'forward' using solid ullage motors or RCS) or ignite the engine before the propellants have a chance to unsettle, i.e. before the prior stage burns out (hot-staging).

On the altitude contract: As of v0.26, you can complete that contract in the starting node--we support flight as an alternative path now! :)

chrisl: sounds like an issue for the DRE thread, but make sure you're using the absolutely latest RO and FASA.

RobotsAndSpaceships: they were moved to Realism Overhaul. RP-0 should be creating a career mode for RO, not adding lots of parts. :)

syberianbull: that's a tweakscale issue. I suggest you use B9 Procedural Wings instead of trying to use stock wing parts, let alone tweakscaling stock wing parts.

Yemo: sorry, what does that have to do with anything? Neither RP-0 nor Realism Overhaul are on KerbalStuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pjf

pjf

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Release time!

v0.30 - Static Cat

  • Electric charge is now free! (You still have to pay for the batteries) (thanks awang)
  • Avionics no longer locks when a craft meets its minimum crew requirements. (thanks chrisl)
  • Avionics from non-command parts now count towards total avionics. (also thanks chrisl)

Download from our releases page, or via the CKAN.

~ pjf

Link to comment
Share on other sites
chrisl

chrisl

Posted
Posted
chrisl: thanks for the avionics report, I'll check it out. As for the SRMs, exactly what is telling you they only burn for 84 seconds? Have you tried them out to verify they only burn for 84 seconds? Mechjeb/KER/VOID aren't aware of thrust curves, so they assume that the SRMs always burn at max thrust--but that's totally false. :)

As to the second post, found the bug. < rather than > when checking crew counts. Oops...

Ah. Yeah, it's Mechjeb giving me the 84s burn time. I wasn't considering the thrust curve either.

chrisl: sounds like an issue for the DRE thread, but make sure you're using the absolutely latest RO and FASA.

Ok. I just reinstalled RO, RP0, DRE and FASA to make sure I had the latest versions of all of them. Still having the issue so I'll post over on the DRE thread for assistance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
chrisl

chrisl

Posted
Posted
chrisl: sounds like an issue for the DRE thread, but make sure you're using the absolutely latest RO and FASA.

Ok, this seems to be partly a DRE issue and partly a RO issue. After some research, there are apparently no DRE configs for any of the FASA modules. Along with my problem report, I asked about a set of DRE configs for FASA parts.

That said, this issue was also caused by RO. After much sifting of my output_log.txt file, I found that the FASAApollo_CM_HeatShield part was created in FASA (obviously) and altered by only three mods: RO, RP0 and Better Buoyancy. By default, FASA set maxTemp=3600 for this part. However, RO makes a couple changes. In one change (RO_FASA_ApolloCSM.cfg), it adds the "ModuleHeatShield" and does not alter maxTemp. But in another change (RealismOverhaul_Global_Config.cfg) all parts that don't have either ModuleEngines or ModuleHeatShield get their maxTemp set down to 800. And apparently RealismOverhaul_Global_Config is being applied before RO_FASA_ApolloCSM. The end result is that FASAApollo_CM_HeatShield is having it's maxTemp lowered and then having the ModuleHeatShield module added. It might be a good idea to have RO_FASA_ApolloCSM update the maxTemp at the same time it's adding the ModuleHeatShield to the part just to make sure an appropriate maxTemp is being setup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
C3nturionsparta

C3nturionsparta

Posted
Posted

Hi, Just updated my RPO game and started a new career. For some reason procedural fairings are missing from the start node and so is the Aerobee .3m sustainer engine. Both are available in the sandbox. Any idea????

Everything worked fine fine before :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites
chrisl

chrisl

Posted
Posted

Ok, so I know that Mechjeb doesn't report the correct burn time for the UA-1205 SRM rockets used on the Titan IIIC/D/E because it doesn't take the thrust curve into account. However, I'm concerned that maybe the thrust curve might be too extreme. Here's my issue. I needed some money so I took a "Put satellite into GEO orbit of Kerbin" contract. I put together a fairly light (0.240t) satellite and mounted it on top of a Titan IIIE rocket. From what I can find, the Titan IIIE should be able to put 15.4t into LEO or 3.7t into Trans-Mars Insertion, so putting a tiny .24t into GEO should be well within it's capabilities. And when I was creating the UA-1205 using procedural SRB (which means basically 100% thrust for entire burn), that was completely doable. But with the UA-1205 with "proper" thrust curve, I'm about 800dV short of reaching GEO. Is there a site that gives some idea of the thrust curve the UA-1205 SRMs should have?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
vosechu

vosechu

Posted
Posted

I just re-installed KSP because I wanted to try RP-0 but I'm getting a ModuleManager failure that's preventing me from starting up the game. Help would be much appreciated!

Mods installed via ckan, updated and refreshed seconds ago. Only mod installed was Realistic Progression Zero v0.30. All recommended mods were installed, no suggested mods were installed.

Error from KSP_Data/output_log.txt:


PartLoader: Compiling Part 'Squad/Parts/Engine/solidBoosterBACC/solidBoosterBACC/RO-X-248'

(Filename: C:/BuildAgent/work/d63dfc6385190b60/artifacts/StandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 49)

PartLoader Warning: Variable RP0conf not found in Part

(Filename: C:/BuildAgent/work/d63dfc6385190b60/artifacts/StandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 49)

TestFlightInterface: Could not find TestFlightInterop module

(Filename: C:/BuildAgent/work/d63dfc6385190b60/artifacts/StandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 49)

Cannot find a PartModule of typename 'ModuleEngineIgnitor'

(Filename: C:/BuildAgent/work/d63dfc6385190b60/artifacts/StandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 49)

NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object
  at RealFuels.ModuleEngineConfigs.TLTInfo () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 

  at RealFuels.ModuleEngineConfigs.GetInfo () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 

  at PartLoader.ParsePart (.UrlConfig urlConfig, .ConfigNode node) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 

  at PartLoader+.MoveNext () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 

(Filename:  Line: -1)

When I look in the ModuleManager.cache file I'm seeing this, but I can confirm that this model does not exist:


UrlConfig
{
	name = RO-X-248
	type = PART
	parentUrl = Squad/Parts/Engine/solidBoosterBACC/solidBoosterBACC
	url = Squad/Parts/Engine/solidBoosterBACC/solidBoosterBACC/RO-X-248
	PART
	{
		name = RO-X-248
		module = Part
		author = NovaSilisko
		rescaleFactor = 1
		node_stack_bottom = 0.0, -1.002142, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0
		node_stack_top = 0.0, 1.00352, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0
		node_attach = 0.0, 0.0, -0.2193544, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0
		sound_rocket_hard = running
		category = Engine
		subcategory = 0
		title = non RO (RP-0 yes) - Altair (X-248) Solid Kick Motor
... snip

I tried just removing that engine from the RO_Squad_Engines.cfg but it failed later on with some other engine. I'll try to get that one and figure out what happened there but it takes me a while to hunt these down (total newb to MM)

Thank you so much for the help and for making this amazing modpack!!

- - - Updated - - -

Next failure is SXTLT80, similar error but slightly different. 


PartLoader: Compiling Part 'SXT/Parts/Engine/J2Engine/part/SXTLT80'

(Filename: C:/BuildAgent/work/d63dfc6385190b60/artifacts/StandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 49)

PartLoader Warning: Variable RSSROConfig not found in Part

(Filename: C:/BuildAgent/work/d63dfc6385190b60/artifacts/StandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 49)

PartLoader Warning: Variable RP0conf not found in Part

(Filename: C:/BuildAgent/work/d63dfc6385190b60/artifacts/StandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 49)

TestFlightInterface: Could not find TestFlightInterop module

(Filename: C:/BuildAgent/work/d63dfc6385190b60/artifacts/StandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 49)

Cannot find a PartModule of typename 'ModuleEngineIgnitor'

(Filename: C:/BuildAgent/work/d63dfc6385190b60/artifacts/StandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 49)

TestFlightInterface: Could not find TestFlightInterop module

(Filename: C:/BuildAgent/work/d63dfc6385190b60/artifacts/StandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 49)

Cannot find a PartModule of typename 'ModuleEngineIgnitor'

(Filename: C:/BuildAgent/work/d63dfc6385190b60/artifacts/StandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 49)

NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object
  at RealFuels.ModuleEngineConfigs.TLTInfo () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 

  at RealFuels.ModuleEngineConfigs.GetInfo () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 

  at PartLoader.ParsePart (.UrlConfig urlConfig, .ConfigNode node) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 

  at PartLoader+.MoveNext () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 

(Filename:  Line: -1)

NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object
  at ModuleJettison.OnStart (StartState state) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 

  at Part.ModulesOnStart () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 

  at Part+.MoveNext () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 

(Filename:  Line: -1)

- - - Updated - - -

So, it looks like if I disable those two engines I can boot up just fine, so hopefully that means it's not widespread problems! :)

If this needs to be in the SXT threads please let me know. I'm not sure exactly how to read MM stuff so I wasn't sure where to start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rabada

Rabada

Posted
Posted
Ok, so I know that Mechjeb doesn't report the correct burn time for the UA-1205 SRM rockets used on the Titan IIIC/D/E because it doesn't take the thrust curve into account. However, I'm concerned that maybe the thrust curve might be too extreme. Here's my issue. I needed some money so I took a "Put satellite into GEO orbit of Kerbin" contract. I put together a fairly light (0.240t) satellite and mounted it on top of a Titan IIIE rocket. From what I can find, the Titan IIIE should be able to put 15.4t into LEO or 3.7t into Trans-Mars Insertion, so putting a tiny .24t into GEO should be well within it's capabilities. And when I was creating the UA-1205 using procedural SRB (which means basically 100% thrust for entire burn), that was completely doable. But with the UA-1205 with "proper" thrust curve, I'm about 800dV short of reaching GEO. Is there a site that gives some idea of the thrust curve the UA-1205 SRMs should have?

I have had a similiar issue with different SRBs, I think it was with the Ariene V's SRBs. Eventually I figured out that the problem I was having was that I was waiting until the SRBs burned out before I staged them. However in real life SRBs are still burning when they are staged. the thrust curves in this mod for SRB s has them still burning but barely producing any thrust for quite a while after they should have been dumped. since I waited for them to completely run dry before I staged them, I basically had my rockets carry a bunch of dead weight that provided barely any thrust. This drastically reduced the amount of dV I got from my rockets.

Now whenever I add SRBs to my rockets using the realism overhaul mod, I look them up online first to find their burn time on Wiki. I always keep the thrust limiter on them set to 100%. When I launch my rockets I discard my solid boosters a second or two after the burn time I find on Wikipedia. For example, if I'm using a GEM 60, I'll ditch my SRBs at T+ 93 seconds because according to this the burn for 91 seconds.

Lately I have been using the Smart Parts mod to automate this and it works very well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
komodo

komodo

Posted
Posted

Vosechu; Not going to quote you for length, but I ran into an almost identical issue with the stockalike configs. It boiled down to two different MM patches attempting to modify the same part, and MM freaking out because of it. Also, check your MM/Real Fuels Versions; I think they have to be up to date to work together these days.

Disclaimer, that I don't know if this is the problem you're having, but it certainly smells familiar :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
vosechu

vosechu

Posted
Posted
Vosechu; Not going to quote you for length, but I ran into an almost identical issue with the stockalike configs. It boiled down to two different MM patches attempting to modify the same part, and MM freaking out because of it. Also, check your MM/Real Fuels Versions; I think they have to be up to date to work together these days.

Disclaimer, that I don't know if this is the problem you're having, but it certainly smells familiar :)

Thanks, maybe there's a new incompatibility. Since I just installed everything today I'll look at older versions of the two to see if something funny changed in recent MM or something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
vosechu

vosechu

Posted
Posted (edited)
vosechu, looks like a CKAN issue with not pulling the latest Ven's Stock Revamp. I'll try to fix it for CKANers.

Thank you so much NathanKell!

I've downloaded the new version of Ven's but alas, no dice. I also killed my MM cache and tried other versions of MM. But it's okay, I miss the J2 but there are other options. :)

Edited by vosechu
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chrisl

chrisl

Posted
Posted
I have had a similiar issue with different SRBs, I think it was with the Ariene V's SRBs. Eventually I figured out that the problem I was having was that I was waiting until the SRBs burned out before I staged them. However in real life SRBs are still burning when they are staged. the thrust curves in this mod for SRB s has them still burning but barely producing any thrust for quite a while after they should have been dumped. since I waited for them to completely run dry before I staged them, I basically had my rockets carry a bunch of dead weight that provided barely any thrust. This drastically reduced the amount of dV I got from my rockets.

Now whenever I add SRBs to my rockets using the realism overhaul mod, I look them up online first to find their burn time on Wiki. I always keep the thrust limiter on them set to 100%. When I launch my rockets I discard my solid boosters a second or two after the burn time I find on Wikipedia. For example, if I'm using a GEM 60, I'll ditch my SRBs at T+ 93 seconds because according to this the burn for 91 seconds.

Lately I have been using the Smart Parts mod to automate this and it works very well.

I noticed that when I did a test launch of a Delta II using the GEMs so I was ready for it on the UA-1205. I hadn't thought about watching the burn time, though. I have been right-clicking on the SRB itself and watching the thrust it's actually producing. There's a point where the thrust stops dropping which is when I jettison them but it may be even that is later then they should be jettisioned. I've got another Titan IIIC (sending up the MOL) I'm going to be launching soon so I'll try the timing thing and see if that makes a difference.

That being said, since I've actually been watching the thrust being produced by the SRBs while they burn, it sure seems like they spend very little time at max potential thrust. Maybe that's normal but you'd think if a rocket was rated at 5000kN, it would actually be close to that (say, within 90%) for an appreciable amount of time. I'll watch more closely on my next launch but it really seemed on that last launch that I was only within 90% of rated thrust for a second or two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
chrisl

chrisl

Posted
Posted

This may or may not be an RP0 issue but I'm getting ready to land the LM for the first time and while the descent engine is definitely running, there is no visual "flame" to tell you it's running.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
chrisl

chrisl

Posted
Posted

I still question the thrust curve on the UA-1205 SRMs. I just launched my MOL on a Titan IIIC. As Rabada suggested, this time I paid attention to my burn time, though I did watch the thrust percent and actual thrust. Anyway, from what I read on various Wiki's, the UA-1205 should burn for 115s. Presumably that means the two UA-1205 on the Titan IIIC should produce at least greater then 1.0twr for 115 seconds. However, at t+1:48 (108s), I'm reduced to 0.99twr with the SRMs burning at only 23.625% of rated thrust. If there's a page out there that says the UA-1205 burns for less then 115s before jettison, please point me to that page. Otherwise, could we please look at the thrust curve on these SRMs so they have the thrust they should have during their burn time?

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