nanomage

after abandoning the stock 'Ore makes all' rule, Kerbalism needs something to guide the chemical reactions, so it assumes (via the default.cfg profile) that monopropellant is hydrazine, liquid fuel is methane, and oxidiser is hydrogen peroxide, for the purposes of calculating the ISRU reactions. It doesn't however actually do anything to change the actual in-game resource produced as the product of the chemical plant from 'monopropellant' to 'hydrazine', e.g. LiquidFuel it produces stays the same stock LiquidFuel, It's just being produced as if it were methane. To properly implement the real chemicals you would I'm afraid need to create another kerbalism profile which makes it's own reaction definitions to create the actual real fuels, that is, implement reactions that output Kerosene, Hydrazine, UDMH, MMH, lqdOxygen and all those other chemicals that RealFuels adds.

the only idea that comes to mind is that you probably have to keep the principia gui open for it to continuously update the maneuvre marker position throughout the burn (because the burn is defined in a different frame from your navball if i understand correctly).

I have an install of rp-0 on 1.3.1 with both principia and persistent rotation, and things do persistently rotate through timewarp. I haven't tested angular momentum conservation vs saves/reloads reverts. However, i think there is an issue with how principia implements axial tilt that leads to spin-stabilised craft changing orientation during SoI change, potentially causing loss of sunlight, if that's what you're after

Hi, awesome to see Kerbalism picked up (by someone with no life no less!) May I please request instructions on how to add reactions to chemical plants - I want to add kerbalism reaction to liquefy kerbalism Hydrogen resource into Liquid Hydrogen used by Nertea's cryogenic and nuclear engines, and potentially create an array of dedicated radiator-liquifier parts for that.

It breaks with the mods that modify physics - orbital decay, persistent thrust, this sort of stuff. As mentioned earlier, Sigma binary breaks but Duna/Ike behave like a proper binary in Principia anyway. Proper gravity has the potential to break planet packs and especially star/galactic object packs, but check https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/164681-122-13-and-131-planet-patches-for-principia/ I think it also causes Trajectories to go slightly crazy as it tries to constantly recalculate atmospheric predictions, and may cause Hangar to crash if a vessel is released in orbit. Performance is all right as far as i can say

Hi, this is some great stuff! Are there plans to add RO/RP-0 configs for these awesome vehicles?

this is as designed. the reason to upgrade VAB in RP-0 is meant to be unlocking additional KCT assembly lines, and i think also improving the first one. (the better the VAB the more build points you get per upgrade point)

hale used to collide with ovok in 13 kerbal years in OPM. Definitely try out Scotskerb's patches mentioned here, if that doesn't help get rid of ovok or stash it someplace safe (like low eve orbit)

HI, I've got a question regarding how to add new processes to a kerbalism profile. I've attempted to add a hydrogen liquefaction process to the default profile, and to have it MM patched to the ISRU units, by modifying the default.cfg in kerbalism/profiles: I added a Process {...} declaration to the Profile {...} node, a MODULE {name = ProcessController} section to the ISRU reactors MM patch, a SETUP {} under the MODULE Configure in that patch, and a RESOURCE_DEFINITION {} at the end of the file. However instead of the expected result of a new process being added to the pool of "Configure ISRU" options, what I get is displaying the toggle interface button for all previously existing processes, with the only notion of the new one in tech tooltip in R&D. what am i missing there?

you can configure every satellite (in the config tab of kerbalism interface) to stop sending the notifications you don't want to receive (untick battery and signal, basically)

I think the scrubber thing is an issue caused indirectly by cryotanks - i ran into it as well and 'fixed' it by removing cryotanks boiloff plugin (which i suspect is a really crude and bad way). Cryotanks has a dll that probably does retroactive modelling for electric charge consumption, and kerbalism generally breaks horribly with mods that can do that. For me the conflict took the form of huge parasite drain of electric charge on a vessel immediately after load and that lead to the scrubber going off, and CO2 building up in the atmosphere, and then in kerbals, which sounds very much like what you described. Real space crew would start mask-breathing oxygen in this case but it looks like this is not implemented. Just turning the scrubber on is useless because it needs days to work through the elevated CO2 content anyway. Thanks for the reply! If any of the other mods' ISRU processes are used (like Ore -> Hydrolox, or Ore->Lithium that I think cryotanks and NFT do, or the refrigeration that you mention IFS does), is kerbalism able simulate them in the background? If the answer for that is going to be no, I think I'll try adding the liquefaction processes to profiles/default.cfg and attaching them to the ISRU converters to make them kerbalism processes, for the start.

I fired OPM up and it was unstable. First of all, any modifications to stock would rollback the retrobop.cfg fix that principia by default applies to the unmodded stock system, so you have to manually apply that. second thing, i saw 2 innermost satellites of sarnus (hale and ovok, i think) collide after some time.

I guess it depends on how fully modded your KSP is. This would probably break horribly with the mods that do orbital decay or on-rails thrust. Other issues are pretty minor. Hangar CTD's when you try to spawn a vessel in orbit. TCA and Mechjeb don't understand it and attempt to do their autopiloting in conics approximation, so relying on them for orbital maneuvres can get inconvenient/irritating/suicidal. CKAN scanning of the Mun, Duna, and especially Ike is awkward because polar orbits get disrupted quickly. Last i checked, it worked with persistent rotation. It definitely works with RSS/RO, (even better than with stockalike systems), kerbalism, KIS, and does not conflict with NFT. it's so addictive I can't play without it anymore. For me it's not even as much the proper gravity but the frame-dependent trajectory plotting, it's just a much better approach. performance is all right

Hi, thanks and this is an awesome mod. Consistent background processing is just so brilliant, and nice realisticish ISRU is a cherry on top of the cake! So, I've got a few ISRU questions - is it possible/planned to be able to extract carbon and nitrogen from non-atmospheric bodies (modelling extraction of methane clathrates, methane ice, carbonaceous chondritic material, nitrates or even nitrogen ice if extremely far from the sun)? If not currently implemented would patches with these processes be welcome? - Is there a way to forgo nitrogen pressurisation and go apollo-style with a 0.2-0.4 bar pure oxygen atmosphere instead, sacrificing some crew comfort for elimination of nitrogen from the life support chain? - is there an ability lo liquefy hydrogen to use in CryogenicEngines/KerbalAtomics?

If you're still talking about RO/RP-0, that sounds really bugged. I've looked at the MPD patches that RO applies, and they all 3 of them seem to have the correct thrust modifier applied. @PART[mpdt-25]:FOR[RealismOverhaul] { %RSSROConfig = Theoretical @title ^= :Magnetoplasmadynamic Thruster:MPDT @title ^= :$: [Theoretical] %MODULE[WarpableEngine] { %name = WarpableEngine } !MODULE[TweakScale] { } @MODULE[ModuleEngines*] { @PROPELLANT[LiquidHydrogen] { @name = Hydrogen } @maxThrust *=0.001 } } if that works it should i think bring it down to 242N thrust, quite realistic and pretty much useless without some sort of on-rails thrusting.

yes, you're doing it right this time, and these figures all appear correct, that's exactly the kind of performance increase to expect from an NTR. NTR's are heavy and require larger and heavier tanks, so they cripple your mass ratio big time. Of course you can have better results if you keep increasing the mass of your NTR stages. For example, a comparison of S-IVB vs a hypothetical nuclear third stage for Saturn on the wiki yields a 9.5kmps vs 8.9kmps increase in delta V. An even bigger stage would capitalise further on the decreasing empty mass ratio of propellant tanks. EDIT: another point where you NTR can outperform chemical rockets is if you can afford to bring your twr down to ~0.1-0.3. NTR achieve high specific impulse at comparatively normal exhaust temperatures, so they can afford longer burn times. You'll have to split your burns though

that sounds like it's intended and realistic hydrolox propellant mixture is actually ~85% oxygen by mass and thus an order of magnitude denser than pure hydrogen for NTR. Go for the same mass, not volume, for your NTR stages and then you'll see them gains!

Phobos has the same issue as well, actually I would expect all non-atmospheric bodies to have it. I don't think they are all fixed in RSS 1.3. Phobos for example has timewarpAltitudeLimits = 0 200 1500 2500 20000 50000 60000 100000 given the actual dimensions, per wiki, of 27 × 22 × 18 km and the mean radius of 11.2667 km, you would probably want something more like timewarpAltitudeLimits = 0 6000 10000 15000 20000 50000 60000 100000 to avoid being managed by principia on touchdown, especially if landing close to the longest axis.

the quaking terrain issue, and landers bouncing/exploding on touchdown, is not performance-related, it's known to be caused by principia trying to manipulate vessel position at the ground level. Here's how i edited the timewarp altidude definitions to solve this (i was very blunt in my approach because i don't really know what these numbers refer too: timewarpAltitudeLimits = 30000 30000 30000 30000 100000 300000 600000 1000000 with this i can land, though descending from 30k without timewarp can get tedious

This is a known issue https://github.com/mockingbirdnest/Principia/issues/1413 , and i believe the commonly employed workaround is to set 1x warp altitude higher than the highest point of planetary surface in RSS kopernicus configs. I also heard rumours that the next RSS release was gonna fix it

As far as i understood from the discussion in principia thread, It's quite difficult to hunt for stable sets of initial conditions when dealing with toy-sized planetary systems (such as the kerbalised gas giant systems tend to be). The only things that come to mind and might be worth trying quickly before shipping unstable moons to orbit another body are that a- resonant orbits are more likely to be stable if they never allow the bodies to closely approach b- retrograde orbits (relatively to the more massive perturber, like bop is made retrograde relative to tylo in principia) are more likely to be be stable in the sarnus example, Ovok has large oscillations of eccentricity, maybe because it's close to a resonance with massive Eeeloo ( 29 435/57 905 = 0.50833)

This is awesome (though probably quite difficult to fix in a non-ivasive way) if you are interested in OPM, their Sarnus system is unstable or was unstable a couple of principia versions ago:

well there's always the option that doesn't require research: you can remove bop (or any other offending celestial) from joolean orbit and make it circumsolar instead, or make it orbit any other planet (it will probably be stable enough around dres?). Sure it damages the feel of OPM, but on the upside, most anyone can do it.

EDIT: Oy vey: other issues below I ran a quick in-game test and it appears that with OPM & Principia installed, the Jool system is in the unstable resonance again, with Vall thrown into eccentric orbits and ejected entirery in a matter of months. Retrobop isn't present either, so Bop is expected to follow I believe. (confirmed Bop ejected in 10 years) After ejection, orbit of Vall is not drawn properly by KSP, and I think principia won't treat it as a circumsolar planet either for flight planning purposes, so it becomes tricky to reach (or even find)! I'm not sure what side this should be fixed on. In the Sarnus system, the blue second innermost sattellite exhibits some sort of eccentricity periodicity. It collides with the yellow one in 13 years. I'm not sure if this is a cause for concern, though it'd sure destroy the rings were they real Urlum seems to have two satellites in the same orbit in L4/L5, is that intended?

Concept of SoI is still there and used for science calculations and worlds-first records, so i think it would for stock flyby contracts too. It just has no influence over the vessel trajectories.