63Hayden

Haha!

Charlie, I will personally give you $5 if you make this mod compatible with v1.9 by the end of the week.

Right, thanks.

Is there a general consensus here as to the best version of KSP to use with realism overhaul, and all the recommended mods? I find that if I use a more recent version of the KSP, a lot of recommended mods just aren't updated to be compatible. I'm currently using 1.6.1, but a lot of the mods I want just aren't updated. For instance, the ALCOR lander was made for version 0.9 I believe - Very outdated. Also, as a side question, is there a way to reduce the part count, or at least "hide" some of the parts you don't want to use in the editor or when you are loading the game? With a fully modded RO install, my game can take upwards of 15 minutes to start. Any help appreciated, thanks.

I loaded the Saturn V from the craft files, and yeah the J2's seem very underpowered. I always launch into an orbit with a zero relative inclination to the moon, or as near to zero as possible. I'll do as you suggest here and see if it works.

The Saturn V craft file in the the "Realism Overhaul Craft Files" mod pack does not have enough delta v for TLI. I've tried many times to make orbit with enough delta-v to make TLI, but it's never worked out. A simple calculation shows that there is not enough delta-v (3,000 m/s) after orbital insertion (9,400 m/s) to make TLI. Wondering if this is just an issue with my setup or not.

Hi. It's been a while since I last posted here, but I've been getting back into KSP lately. Anyway, I noticed that while building rather complex designs in the VAB or SPH that take a bit of time to craft, the "Move Tool" stops snapping after a certain amount of time has passed, which is a problem since I use it all the time for aligning independently placed parts that can't be placed using symmetry. Currently, a workaround is to just restart the game, since that fixes the problem for a while, but eventually it just stops functioning. I can still use the per-pixel movement for the Move tool, snapping just doesn't work. The only mod I had installed while experiencing this issue is Kerbal Engineer Redux. Any potential solution would be greatly appreciated, thanks. Regards, Hayden

That makes sense. I will incorporate this information in future designs. Thanks.

Is the main advantage to this design it's high TWR. I've built similar rockets to this in the past when messing around in sandbox mode, but it can't be very cheap if you were using it regulalry in career mode.

Thanks for the very informative post. I now realise that I wasn't giving enough thought to the variation in ISP at sea level vs vacuum. I'm very surprised to hear that you can reach orbit using 2,800m/s, as you say; I'm typically a close to a full 1k higher than that with my launch vehicles. Despite having well 1,000 hours in gameplay, I still clearly have a lot to learn.

Yeah, right now the biggest thing I can improve on is my ascent profile. I'll take into consideration the suggestions you guys have made here, and I should be more efficient from here on out. Thanks for the input.

Thanks for taking the time to answer my question. The ascent procedure you provided is generally what I would aim to follow in the past, so I guess I'm not too inefficient in what I'm doing. However I would typically reduce my thrust to avoid overshooting my target orbit Apokee, and by no longer doing that, I might see an reduction in the delta-v required for orbit. I find KSP to be more enjoyable when I'm guessing my way through things, and more often than not I have ample delta-v to do what I want to do anyway. I suppose the 3,400 m/s is just there as a rough target for reaching orbit, and after reading your post, it's pretty obvious now that that figure can't possibly apply to every vehicle design due to factors like TWR and atmospheric drag. For now, I'll work on improving my ascent profile, and ensure my designs have a sufficient TWR. Since I started using Kerbal Engineer years ago, I always based my TWR on the Saturn V, as I saw that as the staple launch vehicle. Anything with a TWR of 1.15 or higher I thought was more than enough, but after reading some posts I now realize that you should aim for something closer to 1.5. Anyway, I appreciate the help, and have yourself a good day.

I've been playing KSP for years, and for the most part have just guessed my way to orbit, while worrying about delta v for ejection and insertion burns at other bodies. However, I've since taken an interest in being as efficient as possible in all aspects of my gameplay. I was following the suggested 3,400 m/s of delta v found in the common delta v map. I went as far as installing mechjeb to reach orbit automomonously, which you'd expect to be as efficient as possible. However, the delta v requirement for the circularisation would always come up short by 100 m/s or so. As a follow up, is the 3,400 m/s suggested in the map based on vacuum thrust?

Right. I had this problem too, when I first started out with realism overhaul. It's a feature introduced by Real Fuels, which is relied upon by RO itself. The 'vapor in feedlines' message that you get appears when the fuel in your storage tank is 'unstable', which is to say that it has collected at the opposite end of the tank, away from the engine. What you need to do is get the fuel and oxidizer into the feedlines using a small measure of thrust; just enough to move the liquids back. This can be achieved by using separation motors in the proceeding stages of your rocket. Once you're been in space for a while, the fuel/oxidizer will naturally move around in the storage tank, but you can just use small pulses of RCS thrust to alleviate this. The best way to identify the current state of the fuel/oxidizer in your stage is to right click on the engine utilizing said liquids; somewhere in that summary you'll find what I'm talking about. Hope this information helps. Regards, Hayden