Bornholio
-
Posts
546 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Bornholio
-
-
1 hour ago, itsthatguy said:
@Bornholio I have in fact been removing a lot of parts from Ven's , SXT, and Squad. (Mainly various tanks, I tend to only use procedural tanks anyway). I can't stand the MASSIVE amount of clutter that you end up w/ after having so many part packs. Again, I mainly only use them for the engines that they provide.
I've just deleted semi-sat wheels, connected living space, ship manifest, and deploy-able engines (I was using cryogenic engines but I deleted it and forgot to remove this earlier).
Still getting crashes, particularly when leaving the VAB and SPH.
Output_log.txt time
-
@itsthatguy You will need to delete some "Dependencies" manually since CKAN doesn't know that they aren't true requirements. Just remove the folder from Gamedata or better yet make a backup location so you can put it back.
What is really a dependency is very person related. For instance Test Flight is considered critical and very good support is in RO for all engines. But it is very CPU heavy when you have a lot of engines. The game will play very different if you don't have it since a lot of early engines have very short burn times. An A-9 and XASR combo will take you to orbit pretty easy without burn time limits. Personally I would add it back in.
Semi Sat reaction wheels goes away without pain.
You can easily go Remote Tech free and just use comnet.
KSC Switcher can go if you only want to play at the Cape.
Ship Manifest and Connected Living Space can drop without to much pain. Ship manifest however gives you fuel dumping capability that can be hard to replace.
Persistent Rotation and Hangar extender can go but they have very defined uses.
If you don't do aircraft then AJE can go as can Firespitter.
Deployable engines can go if you aren't using an engine pack that needs it.
Real Fuels/FAR/RSS/Deadly Reentry/Real Heat gone and it starts loosing a lot of the important realism end.
You might find a lot of benefit from manually cleaning out parts in Vens and SXT. Get rid of some duplication and un-used parts. Same thing for any part pack including the stock parts.
-
On 11/19/2017 at 6:49 PM, Mike` said:
Thanks, but i'm sorry, even on NTRS i was only able to find vacuum data for the RL10 with some quick searches. Then again, it somehow makes sense, given that it is a vacuum engine.
So you're saying the J-2X is also optimized for low altitudes, yet the RL10 has a higher sea/low altitude level Isp?
Anyway, yes, in RO, it's currently probably good to use as a ground-started sustainer together with large SRBs. Not so in real life, however, unless it's new year's and you like large fireworks, i guess.
I think you are missing two things, RL-10B is 3x expansion and less than half the chamber pressure so thats more than 6 x pressure that instability will happen at.
Yes the RL-10 is very much a vacuum only engine 280:1 At/Ae Ratio 462ISP 4412kPa
https://www.google.com/search?q=4412+kpa+atm https://www.google.com/search?q=4412+kpa+psia
J-2X runs fine at Sea level 92:1 At/Ae Ratio 448ISP 9515kPa http://www.rocket.com/j-2x-engine IIRC its about 650kN on the stand or 228ISP. As a sustainer it could be ground lit and throttled to minimum until Just after Max Q then ramped until separation of boosters of whatever form you use. Regardless it was designed to be lit 4 times so its best role is final ascent, circularize, Injection burn and correction burn or Lunar Circ (with lots of MLI layer for tanks) for a large payload. Personally I prefer the J-2S Ascent to parking orbit and low TWR High ISP Injection stage. Oh and nukes, luv me some nukes.
Feel free to look up the curve or calculate the Pc/Pe Ratio using the chart below that is good for the range of fuel mixtures the J-2X is likely to use.
chamber pressure 1280psia (https://www.google.com/search?q=1%2C380+psia+kpa&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8) = 4412 or ~93Atm
See MIT's lecture on modeling nozzles MIT16_50S12_lec7.pdf as a good reference.
Next Note that expansion nozzles seem to be pretty easy changes in the scheme of things and are modified to match expected mission regime.
J-2X at the time was being developed as a low cost alternative to the SSME RS-25 with a High Altitude optimized nozzle. Its much greater chamber pressure due to RS-25 derived turbo machinery allows it to operate at a higher range of pressures than a similar low pressure chamber and also reduces the size of High nozzle ratio impact. Otherwise as stated above stick with a higher TWR J-2S or even J-2, or if you need a lower altitude an RS-25 Is expensive but appropriate.
-
@Mike`Searching the NTRS server for data! Sorry for the salt but learning how to use the Nasa Technical Report Server is awesome.
Way One : Google [ site:ntrs.nasa.gov rl10b sea level isp ]
Way Two: from https://ntrs.nasa.gov/ [ rl10b sea level isp ]
The RL10B2 isn't a ground level engine, and real losses would greatly affect its thrust and ability to run. comparing its 15km altitude or higher ISP curve would make some sense since it is a vacuum optimized engine. Calculation curves don't have flow instability included, also watch out for numbers that are "Ideal" instead of validated numbers. Calculated ISP for a higher Ae/At ratio nozzle will show the higher values even though they are in a critically expanded region. This is a real number, it is just not useful. For KSP it is useful in that it is used for the curve versus pressure. Understand that fuel flow method can make a huge difference in ISP and ability to perform at various altitudes. The J-2X is optimized for low to high altitude operation and high thrust to weight. Strapping large SRB's and using it as a sustainer is a good role.
2 hours ago, delta wee said:Would the configuration files of fuel tanks need to be modified in order for them to be able to use the new propellant?
Yes you will need to modify some part to use the resource also. The best way is using a Module Manager .cfg but you can copy or edit an existing tank. See how real fuels does it for the best way. You could also just modify real fuels .cfgs if your already using that (my assumption given we are in RO land).
-
On 11/12/2017 at 7:11 PM, delta wee said:
Is there something else that needs to be done besides adding an entry to the CommonResources.cfg file in order to add a new propellant which can use to fill tanks?
Using CRP as an example make a small .cfg file adding the resource and then either modify or make new a consumer for the resource. You can make it all in one file if you want. Suggest that you separate it a custom mod folder so you can easily extricate it it you don't want to use it or it breaks things. Alternately squad/resources/ResourcesGeneric.cfg can be added to.
Example see https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/CFG_File_Documentation#RESOURCE
EvilAI.cfg
RESOURCE_DEFINITION { name = SelfReplicatingBooleanCode displayName = SRBC Units density = 0.1 flowMode = ALL_VESSEL transfer = PUMP isTweakable = true isVisible = true unitCost = 0.5000000 color = .25,.25,1 volume = 1 }Then pick a useful module to consume or modify it in another part https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Module.
-
1 hour ago, delta wee said:
Are the names for resources in the CommonResources.cfg file allowed to have spaces in them?
Yes and No, the module space name must not (name=), but description names may (displayName=).
If you want much more detail on CRP Roverdude and crew over in CRP land have better detail and look like they have done a huge amount of work localizing lately.
-
2 hours ago, Mike` said:
Looking at the RO source, i see that upper stage engines seem to have a sea level Isp in the 200-250 range - isn't this far too much though? Flow separation would cause thrust instabilities and might even damage the engine. But even disregarding flow separation, i found this handy rocket thrust simulator from NASA. Using it to try to determine sea level Isp, i get much lower values (and also a shock warning at too low altitudes). The idea for more realistic behavior of those vacuum engines is thus to reduce Isp below a certain nozzle exit pressure to ambient pressure ratio to zero or some small value (or don't allow the engine to be ignited at all). Also, below that ambient pressure, where we assume no flow separation occurs, Isp could be approximated with that thrust simulator. I plotted such Isp curves for a few vacuum engines of another mod, setting the Isp to zero when the nozzle exit pressure is below 10 % of the ambient pressure. The curves are plotted against the altitude of Kerbin's atmosphere:
Note how the RL10B-2 has to pay for that huge nozzle/expansion ratio at low altitudes. The J-2X works better at low altitudes than the RL10s because of a higher chamber pressure.
Any thoughts about this?
Generally they are not guesses, they are available estimates from some reliable source. Commonly this is NTRS data such as https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20100034922.pdf
Worrying about sea level thrust on these engines is not too much of an issue. They don't have the thrust to be useful as first stages and most of the time a modern first stage is putting them in a safe and well known altitude. Nothing in KSP handles thrust instability and flow separation so its up to the designer not to pick wrong engines. NASA and others have investigated widened range solutions via aerospikes (Annular and Linear). Even the J-2 has seen both forms for test stand runs (J-2T and XRS-2200) but commonly the solution is upping the chamber pressure.
-
12 hours ago, StellarumSectatio said:
Does anyone have any part recommendations for high efficiency engines, like Ion engines, VASIMR, bimodal NTR, etc?
Any electric drive will tax your patience considering that they generally need many hours of burn to be useful https://github.com/KSP-RO/RealismOverhaul/wiki/Ion-Engines. The BNTR (peewee class 500MW) and NERVA II (Phoebus class 5000MW)are useful at the 6-12km/s fuel load range, any less likely use a 455-465ISP Hydrolox.
I put set of engines based on real NTR's in RO that are ground tested that have Methane configs in addition to Hydrogen https://github.com/KSP-RO/RealismOverhaul/commit/3d726589e207285825c36cd022716f71dc86960a. If Methane config nukes are an option ( only the soviet RD-0410 was ever tested) they will out perform Hydrolox in the 3-5km/s range and then Hydrogen Nukes will outperform Methane in the 7-10km/s range. https://github.com/KSP-RO/RealismOverhaul/wiki/Engine-Usage-and-Stage-Sizing
If you are using Nertea's Future Prop one option if you have patience is using the Plasma RCS single thrusters as a cluster main drive, the ISP is above Nukes but relatively low allowing them to have reasonable TWR thus giving burn times that might only be an hour long for capture burns and other big dV changes.
A nuke powered VASIMR is doable but generally outperformed by NTR unless you need 20km/s dV or more and then you will be doing overnight or worse burns at x4 physical timewarp.
If you are looking for an advanced realistic option the highest performance up to the 20km/s range is the SNTP (a 1000MW reactor) they have a design TWR in the mid teens and an ISP of 940. With only 5 ignitions they are very optimal for a planetary injection/correction/capture. For any high ISP option Hydrogen/Cryo boiloff is the main problem so you need a solution to that for keeping any cryo fuels.
-
On 11/7/2017 at 3:17 PM, jrodriguez said:
After lift off, the rocket starts to rotate more and more. It seems like the gimbal is making it to rotate? Have you ever experienced something similar?
Yes, lowering gimbal is usually a good thing, also I find control surfaces can be lowered a lot of authority. This is a real world problem also
One place I notice it a lot is with a-9 engines, the twr is generally high because the burn time is not long enough to increase the fuel fraction any higher and the craft will do a pitch buck if gimbals and CA is not turned down. Verniers can help or hurt.
If the Control loop in KSP could be tuned we could solve the problem relative to FAR and other RO changes.
@Wallygator Put a github issue up for it and describe it carefully, give any supporting information and if you want add any changes you made as examples.
-
9 hours ago, hypervelocity said:
hey guys - quick one for you all!
anyone knows what happened to the Astrium Aestus engine? I used it a lot in 0.90 and then I just lost it! I am now using Astris as my favourite deep space engine due to acceptable ISP, infinite restarts & storable propellants.
thanks in advance!
Any time I can't find something a Github repository search helps figure it out.
https://github.com/KSP-RO/RealismOverhaul/search?utf8=✓&q=aestus&type=
https://github.com/KSP-RO/RP-0/search?utf8=✓&q=aestus&type=
Do you have the NONONRP0 folder? that can make it not show up, in dev RP-0 its assigned to '92 rocketry.
-
Spent the day working on Getting RO running on 1.3.1
Updated the RO Golden 1.3/1.3.1 spreadsheet Guessing that RO/RP-0 will go straight to 1.3.1 now.
Play some not RO first, launched Sub-Orbital tourists a bunch of times with this 8+Jeb Tourister, landing gear crushed, so they got replaced by structural. Everything recovered including the boosters.
Radar Mapping Kerbin
Same Radar Mapper on the way to Mun and Minmus
-
Lots of additions to the spreadsheet and added a column for 1.3.1 availability.
KSP RO Debugging (AKA: The Golden Spreadsheet) Mk1.3 &Mk1.3.1
Added links to awangs testing .dlls have started testing RSS and then RO in 1.3.1.
Moar links and additions, feel free to update as it is open edit.
-
A long lapse of play thanks to being very busy.
Did a re-useable dual stage comnet to mars ship after reading a little spacex stuff
Heavy SRB first stage. Landing legs and aero to bring it down on a boat.
First Stage testing, battery died before legs deployed, Petal Adapter is supposed to be a large air brake once slowed down, still barely got it recovered intact.
Lots of drop tanks, all disposable, jettisoned in sets of 4.
Second stage d-orbits and lands upside down.
Transit bus is a Methane nuke (SNTP-Full Flow Expander version) since 5 ignitions is perfect for the transit as the sat needs to enter a good orbit at mars. It does about 7k dV on Tanks shown.
Parking Orbit at mars, xenon drive on sat has 15k dV for a long life orbiting mars
-
Mr. @NathanKell he's so dreamy. I'm getting twitchy without having his twitch lately.
-
5 minutes ago, icedown said:
Update 1.3.1.14
Thanks icedown
-
For those requesting 1.3 update, it is work but some have it running. I'll ask awang to post his .dll's for critical things.
KSP RO Debugging (AKA: The Golden Spreadsheet) Mk1.3
Or you can go look at the PR's in critical mods for submitted .dll's.
as an example https://github.com/KSP-RO/RealismOverhaul/pull/1775
-
4 hours ago, Brigadier said:
I cannot find a dev build on GitHub (although I see the commit) and have little idea of how to go about compiling one on my own. Does the build at https://ksp.sarbian.com/jenkins/job/MechJeb2-Dev/ include this PR?
here are the builds https://ksp.sarbian.com/jenkins/job/MechJeb2-Dev/ Read the PR listings https://github.com/MuMech/MechJeb2/pulls?utf8=✓&q=is%3Apr to see what is changing
Each build will list the Version level it is on 2.6.0 for KSP1.2.2 and 2.6.1 for KSP1.3.0. Need to have due diligence and read commits to understand each builds changes. But usually latest is fine, just expect the occasional bug introduction.
-
This is why
XB-36 specifically, they ended up using a multi-truck wheeled gear design as the additional rough field operation was deemed unneeded.
It is also quite a bit lower ground pressure than large multiwheeled designs and for the same landing gear volume able to support much more weight. It is somewhat heavier and much more expensive. At the time the single wheel for it was heavier and crushed concrete and asphalt tarmacs very rapidly.
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a279100.pdf Aircraft Tire/Pavement Pressure Distribution research from late 80's
Most other uses are focused on the ground pressure. a quick estimate of ground pressure is the inflation pressure of the tire (25-45 for autos) and (150-400 psi for aircraft), an M1 Abrams at 70tons is only 15psi. Peak pressures are usually about double this for a round tire across the contact surface. Tracks are closer to 1.6x average for peak contact surface. This all adds up to dramatic surface pressure reductions. Similar results come from ski's and they of course are much lighter and simpler. X-15 used rear skis instead of wheels for that reason. Additionally dead load on a given concrete pad is the limit but this in only the case in the largest aircraft.
Landing on dry lake bed the ground pressure for the gear mus be low. Commonly aircraft that emergency land on dirt need gear repair. The X-15 wanted to land on dry lake beds as an alternate, Rogers and Delmar dry lakes specifically.
-
1 hour ago, HaydenTheKing said:
It is a 1.3 instal
ok duplicated what you are seeing in that install, i'll add an edit when i get a solution to it. But i'm guessing its just a simple module manager MJ module adder problem. Double check if you can see it in Sandbox VAB.
If you want to force MJ to unlock early in career.
-
42 minutes ago, HaydenTheKing said:
Mech Jeb not installing
Mod list: https://imgur.com/a/XgYnj
Output Log: https://www.dropbox.com/s/vdy13u70137aptf/output_log.txt?dl=0
PC Hardware: I7 4790k, 32gb DDR3, GTX 1080TI
Make sure you are loading 2.6.1.0 on KSP 1.3.0 install... Looks like the hashes match. Do you have mechjeb for everyone or something else that adds the mechjeb module to the pods and cores you are using?
-
22 minutes ago, Phineas Freak said:
Well...that's the problem. I do not support CKAN and the metadata for the dev versions are currently completely broken.
K I'll see if I can post a fix or if not ask CKAN folks to pull the 1.3 version off. Either way I'll add a note to the Mk 1.3 spreadsheet for RO.
-
5 hours ago, Phineas Freak said:
@Bornholio RSSVE requires Scatterer v0.0320b under KSP 1.3. The 0.0320 release is meant for KSP 1.2.2 and will not work.
Generally, a green band around the planet means that the Scatterer assembly is loaded but it is not compatible with either the Scatterer body configs and/or the KSP version used.
* scatterer 2:v0.0320b(cached) installed via CKAN so thats not my issue but definitely part of the cause.
Running dx11 and dx9
CKAN seems like it didn't load the config folder, so manual install it is. Which fixes it.
-
59 minutes ago, Agustin said:
that's what I get
Use the BBC code link from the image, img and /img in brackets. Then edit the post to size the picture. Block off big numbers of pics in spoilers to keep your posts smaller.
Venus in RSS dev, KSP1.3 with Pap's new Scaled RSS textures that reduce system demand and have cleaner biomes.
-
On 9/2/2017 at 3:59 PM, Kitspace said:
Are there any dependancy mods that are still waiting for an update for the game version 1.3?
Yes mainly Real Heat (has a dev test .dll), and Real Solar System (has much new work and optimizations, has test .dll), DRE has Beta version (does seem to work fine).
Test Flight is a big one for RP-0 to come forward, Persistent Rotation and PF-FE need work and then RO itself needs a build (and has lots of dev work in channel). RCS build aid needs a 1.3 build
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1A7gQkIiQKi0VtRecE6p86KCKuoawZPdzk7NlaxssRJ4/edit#gid=0
RP-0 has a few more above and beyond that plus it has lots of dev work in channel. Critically for that KCT needs a build and has a fork in RO for @NathanKell's awesome work.
Real Fuels needs a test .dll for the development and Starwaster has a much improved insulation system in the works.
Taerobee and Kerbal Renamer both need builds (haven't looked into what state they are in).
for Misc Items RSSVE has a test branch for 1.3 (Needed to install scatterer .320b manually since CKAN didn't install the config folder). KSC switcher will need a build and Engine Lighting and Planet Shine may need builds
Realism Overhaul Discussion Thread
in KSP1 Mods Discussions
Posted · Edited by Bornholio
crash report doesn't tell us much Output log holds all operations from beginning of load through last time on. Make sure you put the file in a download spot like dropbox, since it will be truncated otherwise.
'Spose this trouble shooting should be in the other topic also.