gleedadswell

One thing I keep running into is part size mismatches. KW, AIES and NP all introduce a lot of parts at the 1 m, 2 m and 3 m size. But there are no adapters to go 1m->1.25m, 1.25m->2m, 2m->2.5m, 2.5m->3m. Is there a package out there with adapters of these sizes? I looked around Spaceport but didn't find one that looked like it would have them. For now I've just been tolerating higher drag. The stretchy conical tank would do this but at my low tech level it can only do 0.5m->0.625m. Also, the basic capsule is 2 m. But there is no 2 m heatshield that I can see. Suggestions?

Not entirely sure how to answer that. Is there a particular config file I should look at? Inside the RealFuels folder there are, of course, a large number of .cfg files. I'm using KW, NP and AIES to give myself enough engines. So my engine configs would be whatever came in those packages (right?). The only thing I've changed is which ignition resource is used by the Maverick-V (edited IgnitorKW.cfg in the EngineIgnitor directory). I'm sure that hasn't answered your question. Can you clarify?

I wouldn't describe it as a *swarm* of low equatorial sats. I have six, at an altitude of 1200 km, separated by about 60 deg. to give full equatorial coverage. I'll get around to polar later. As long as you've copied the RT2 config. out of the RPL_TweakPack (which I had initially forgotten!) so your comm ranges are longer this works perfectly well.

Ah, no I see what I've done wrong. I had missed copying RemoteTech_Settings.cfg from the RPL Tweak Pack over into the RT2 directory. Doing that rebalances things. So everything is looking good. Cheers!

OK, there seems to be a "dueling mods" thing going on here. I'm seeing a very different value from 0.75/s. Obviously you can't account for every possible set of mods that every user will install so this is perfectly understandable. I've done some testing to try to figure out why. Here are some results for a few parts in the game run from a clean directory with different mods installed. For each part I give the name of it as it appears in the game and the id it has in the persistent.sfs file, to avoid confusion: Stock KSP (I'm sure you know this) ST1 solar panel (solarPanels5): 45/min (i.e. 0.75/s just as you say) CommTech EXP-VR-2T (RTLongAntenna3): NA since it isn't a stock part Comms DTS-M1 (mediumDishAntenna): 15/packet Directory with just RT2 (I'm sure you know this as well) ST1 solar panel (solarPanels5): 45/min CommTech EXP-VR-2T (RTLongAntenna3): 0.18/s Comms DTS-M1 (mediumDishAntenna): 0.82/s With various realism mods (more or less the suggested list for the Realistic Tech Tree LITE) ST1 solar panel (solarPanels5): 1.1/min CommTech EXP-VR-2T (RTLongAntenna3): 0.18/s Comms DTS-M1 (mediumDishAntenna): 0.82/s So one of the mods in the "realism" combo is radically reducing the power production of the solar panel. I'm going to guess it is the Realism Overhaul Tweak/Resize Pack since it changes a lot of parts (right?). I'll test further to try to verify this. In any case it is resulting in very unrealistic Comm Sats, as I mentioned. On another thread http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/58135-TechTree-0-22-Milestone18-Realistic-Progression-LITE-%28Get-on-TreeLoader!%29/page59 NathanKell suggests an edit I can do to Remotetech2_settings.cfg to reduce the power consumption by the antennas. I'll try that but I'm wondering why the solar panel power output is so reduced. I'll also make a post about this on a thread related to the Realism Overhaul family of mods. Cheers! ----Edit later---- Aha! I had missed copying the RemoteTech_Settings.cfg over from the RPL Tweak Pack into the RT2 folder. Doing that rebalances the antenna power requirements with the solar cell power production. So things are looking good.

Ah, you're having a busy time. I tried to PM you (about the aircraft tech nodes again) and your box was full. PM me when you've freed up some space and I should be able to send you more testing info. on the RC chutes. Cheers!

I'm really enjoying this mod. It totally changes the game and gives you more reasons to do launches other than gathering science. I'm playing with it in conjunction with a variety of "realism" mods, and it is a great addition to them. But there is an issue that I'm running into: the power demands of antennas! The power demands seem much too high and mean that communication satellites based on real satellites don't work. For example, the antennas which seem like logical choices for the main antenna on early, low-orbit comm sats (omnidirectional ones with a few thousand km range) requires power to the tune of 0.1-0.2 units per second. The only photoelectric panel available at the start is the ST1 which generates 1.1 units/min. So to power your antenna you need around 10 panels facing the sun. Fitting this much on a single satellite makes for a pretty big satellite. The smallest I've managed able to power an antenna like this had a fueled mass of 5.4 t (admittedly, I could have built it with empty fuel tanks, but as long as it has to be this big I figure it might as well supply a good portion of its own delta v). To make a higher orbit satellite with a dish (say the Comms DTS-M1) the smallest satellite I've managed is 6.1 t and a ridiculous part count of 405 because of all the panels. I'm not convinced this even has enough power (I'm still getting it into orbit). For comparison, early comm sats like Syncom and Intelsat had fueled masses under 100 kg. They only used surface mounted photoelectric panels, like what the early game panels are trying to model. So it would be good for realism if the power demands were such that we could build satellites in this size range and have them work. Now of course, if you're not using ECLSS, you can rely on the power not draining when you aren't looking at the satellite, but this feels like cheating and it doesn't solve the problem of how you maneuver the satellite into place without constantly running the batteries dead. But like I said at the start, this is a great mod! Cheers!

It tracks power consumption of inactive craft? Ooooo...I may have to switch from TAC next time I start a game. I'm enjoying this tech tree mod enough that it is a certainty I'll start a new game with it at some point. But this brings up an issue that I'm running into: the power demands of antennas in the RemoteTech 2 mod. The power demands seem much too high and mean that communication satellites based on real satellites don't work. This may be an issue to take up on the RemoteTech thread rather than here, but it is partly a result of which photoelectrics you have early in (just about any) tech tree. I'll post it to both. For example, the antennas which seem like logical choices for the main antenna on an early, low-orbit comm sats (omnidirectional ones with a few thousand km range) requires power to the tune of 0.1-0.2 units per second. The only photoelectric panel available at the start is the ST1 which generates 1.1 units/min. So to power your antenna you need around 10 panels facing the sun. Fitting this much on a single satellite makes for a big satellite. The smallest I've managed able to power an antenna like this had a fueled mass of 5.4 t (admittedly, I could have built it with empty fuel tanks, but as long as it has to be this big I figure it might as well supply a good portion of its own delta v). To make a higher orbit satellite with a dish (say the Comms DTS-M1) the smallest satellite I've managed is 6.1 t and a ridiculous part count of 405 because of all the panels. I'm not convinced this even has enough power (I'm still getting it into orbit). For comparison, early comm sats like Syncom and Intelsat had fueled masses under 100 kg. They only used surface mounted photoelectric panels, like what the early game panels are trying to model. So it would be good for realism if the power demands were such that we could build satellites in this size range and have them work. Now of course, if you're not using ECLSS, you can rely on the power not draining when you aren't looking at the satellite, but this feels like cheating and it doesn't solve the problem of how you maneuver the satellite into place without constantly running the batteries dead. Anyway, like I said this probably more an issue for the RemoteTech thread.

Hi again, Still loving this mod! Just few things I noticed early in the tech tree that seem a bit odd, all to do with the aircraft progression: 1. the earliest aircraft tech node (Supersonic flight) doesn't contain the control elements. Shouldn't those be one of the first aircraft techs? Building any aircraft without them is...challenging. 2. the mk2 fuselage and mk2 to size 1 adaptor are in the first aircraft node but the mk1 fuselage is in the second node (High Altitude Flight). Should that be reversed? 3. the delta wing is in Supersonic Flight and the swept wing is in High Altitude Flight. Historically swept wings preceded delta wings (right?), so should that be reversed? 4. the RealChutes stack chutes of various types are in the Early Staging node, but the drag chutes aren't there (I haven't found where the stack drag chutes are yet). Given that the cone drag chute (not so useful - where do you put it?) is in the start node it probably makes sense to put the stack drag chutes in an early node. Cheers!

You're very welcome! Looking around on the Stretchy thread it looks like this is normal. Apparently as I develop more along the rocketry tech stream the conical tank will gain in its ability to be stretched. I haven't been able to do that yet (Wow! Getting the research going after the first few flights needs a network of communication sattelites, and getting that network up and running at this tech level is hard!), but once I do I'll post back to let you know whether that is working. Or maybe someone else has seen their stretchy tanks improve with tech progression and can post to verify it. Well, I think any of us who do development of code are sort of amazed when even fairly simple code works. When something as complex as this even half works it is cause for celebration.

Hi all, I *love* playing with this tech tree and a range of "realism enhancement" mods. The extra challenge over and above regular KSP is awesome. I'm using most of the mods suggested in the first post on this thread (all I've left out are FASA, KAS and Lazor, and I've added in procedural fairings). I'm still pretty early in the tech progression. You really have to claw your way up! There are just a couple of things I've noticed that are mildly aggravating: 1. The stack separators don't seem to be organized in the progression in a logical way. With Starting Technologies, Basic Rocketry and Early Staging you get some very small separators (0.5 and 0.625) and some really big ones (up to 4 m!), and some at 1.25 and 2.5 m. But you have none at 1.0 m, which is a bit of a pain since the A9 engine is 1 m. There are some big stack separators (3 and 4 m) from RealChutes which appear in Early Staging, which is probably a mistake. I imagine this is just a problem with making the tech tree work with every single other mod that a player might conceivably play with. Shouldn't that be easy? ;-) 2. Something is up with the stretchy conic fuel tank. If I play in sandbox mode it is fully stretchable. But in career mode its top and bottom diameters are only adjustable over a very narrow range. Is this intended? Will it get "more stretchy" as my tech increases? This is a very ambitious mod and I'm amazed at how well it is interfacing with a whole lot of other mods. Awesome work! Cheers!

I'm thoroughly enjoying this mod, coupled with various other "realism" enhancements. Great work! Has anyone else found that the KW Maverick-V engine doesn't ignite no matter what you do if you've got the Engine Ignitor mod? Yes, I've verified that it was connected to the right kind of fuel (I'm using RealFuels) and I had filled the tank (I'm using Stretchy Tanks). I noticed that the Maverick-V was the only engine whose ignition resource was liquid fuel + oxidizer. So I went into the .cfg and changed it so it uses Hypergolic Fluid. Now it works. Is there something wrong specifically with engines using their fuels as the resource used in ignition? Cheers! Geoff