[1.12] KSP-RO - Realism Overhaul [16 May 2022]

[Starwaster]

1 hour ago, strudo76 said:

Hey there

I'm putting together a bit of a frankenstein RO install, just adding bits and pieces, but I think I have found a couple of errors in the GameData\RealismOverhaul\RO_SuggestedMods\Squad\RO_Squad_Utility.cfg related to changes to the FuelCell part, when comparing to the FuelCellArray part

<snip!>

As you can see, the FuelCell is missing the @ symbol for the module elements, which creates duplicate entries in the part. It is also missing the two ! lines to remove the existing input and output resources.

Unless this is the intended function of those two parts, but the duplicated values makes me feel it's not supposed to be like that.

Thanks

Simon

No, those lines definitely were definitely missing a patch operator. As written, all it was doing was adding in duplicate fields with different values.

Also, it should have been deleting the stock input/output resources and it wasn't.

I created a pull request fixing that part of the config

[Damo84]

Hi,

I recently installed RO/RSS and RP-0 and I'm having an issue with my RCS. None of my RCS turn on and in the VAB the flight engineer keeps reporting "unused monopropellant", even with the aerobe despin module which has its own supply of helium. 

I would greatly appreciate any suggestions on a way to fix this, I love these mods and I've reinstalled multiple times and googled a possible solution and cant find one. This is my last effort to fix please help!

I'm running on KSP 1.2.2, thanks in advance for any advice.

My game data folder:

[Starwaster]

@Damo84 it sounds like something isn't installed properly. Nothing uses monoprop - generic and typically replaced in parts with hydrazine.

RCS itself can be configured for different propellants use the action group editor and select RCS  and choose the propellants you want - do the same for parts with monoprop (probably command pods)

 

 

[JuxuR]

First of all a big thank you for everyone making this amazing mod! Can’t play the game any more with out this mod. 

I was going through the changelogs of 1.4 and 1.5. To me it seems that there isn’t much in the patches that would benefit RO. Am I missing something and is there something major changing that will also benefit/affect RO?

Cheers,

Juxu

[Damo84]

@Starwasterthanks for the reply. I'm sure I'm using the correct fuels for the command and control engines for instance hydrazine with the early thrusters, yet the engineer reports that the fuel is unused and the thruster is not receiving the monopropellant that it needs. I've attached a screenshot of my craft in the VAB with the aerobe despin module as an example. It can't even access it's own helium tank. 

This issue is occurring in career mode. When I go into sandbox mode I have many more fuel type options for the RCS thrusters and the only one that the engineer report won't flag as unused is the monopropellant, all others, hydrazine, nitrogen etc are flagged as unused and I get the "engines not receiving propellant" warning.

Again thanks in advance for any help or advice.

Edited November 22, 2018 by Damo84
Additional information

[Starwaster]

@Damo84 Your screenshot doesn't actually demonstrate what resource your RCS is using but the report is talking about the stock resource named Monopropellant and there are four 'consumers' (i.e. engines/RCS) that aren't getting it thus indicating that you have four engine or RCS parts that are not configured for Hydrazine or any other RF fuel but they are configured for Monopropellant.

So you need to either right click your RCS and click the button for the engine GUI or use the Action Group Editor and select the RCS parts. Then configure them manually and don't assume that they are automatically using Hydrazine. Make a note of what parts are using Monoprop so you can report those parts specifically so they can be looked into.

[etheoma]

btw how does it make sense for hypergolic fueled engines to have a ignition limit, or a minimum thrust for that matter. The second I assume is more implemented because you cannot have an efficiency curve based upon your thrust level. However the first makes no sense what so ever. Yeah no engine is going to last forever but I would think 500 ignitions would be fair enough, maybe 100 ignitions for larger much more powerful engines or once with particularly high specific impluses.

But with this mod 90% of the hypergolic fueled engines are unthrottleable and a decent number have only 1 ignition which makes no sense at all.

Why even use hypergolic fuels if you cannot relight the engines, it's like the reason you use them well reliability as well but that doesn't really factor in KSP.

Edited November 23, 2018 by etheoma

[Starwaster]

1 hour ago, etheoma said:

btw how does it make sense for hypergolic fueled engines to have a ignition limit, or a minimum thrust for that matter. The second I assume is more implemented because you cannot have an efficiency curve based upon your thrust level. However the first makes no sense what so ever. Yeah no engine is going to last forever but I would think 500 ignitions would be fair enough, maybe 100 ignitions for larger much more powerful engines or once with particularly high specific impluses.

But with this mod 90% of the hypergolic fueled engines are unthrottleable and a decent number have only 1 ignition which makes no sense at all.

Why even use hypergolic fuels if you cannot relight the engines, it's like the reason you use them well reliability as well but that doesn't really factor in KSP.

I definitely agree that most of the hypergolic engines are woefully limited with regards to ignition.

But as for throttling, that's just matter of fact: Most rockets especially in the early days of rocketry were limited in throttle capability. Generally it's a matter of stability or efficiency: You can't just limit flow of propellants into the chamber. It was designed to operate at specific temperature and pressure and if you limit flow into the chamber you change those parameters. It could suffer not only reduced efficiency but it could even damage the engine.

[etheoma]

21 hours ago, Starwaster said:

I definitely agree that most of the hypergolic engines are woefully limited with regards to ignition.

But as for throttling, that's just matter of fact: Most rockets especially in the early days of rocketry were limited in throttle capability. Generally it's a matter of stability or efficiency: You can't just limit flow of propellants into the chamber. It was designed to operate at specific temperature and pressure and if you limit flow into the chamber you change those parameters. It could suffer not only reduced efficiency but it could even damage the engine.

There is a difference between being unthrottlable and having limited throttling I am not saying that all hypergolic engines should have a full range of throttling or even that any should but certainly more than they do which as said ~90% currently have no throttling capability and your kind of screwed for a small landing a small probe well small by KSP standards.

Edited November 24, 2018 by etheoma

[Starwaster]

3 hours ago, etheoma said:

There is a difference between being unthrottlable and having limited throttling I am not saying that all hypergolic engines should have a full range of throttling or even that any should but certainly more than they do which as said ~90% currently have no throttling capability and your kind of screwed for a small landing a small probe well small by KSP standards.

Realism Overhaul is supposed to model real engines and a lot of research went into it. If an engine in the game is supposed to represent a real world engine and it is unthrottleable then chances are its real world counterpart was likewise unthrottleable. Most of the engines aren't throttleable you say? Guess what, most engines IRL aren't either.

IT HAPPENS.

Pick a new engine and/or redesign your craft.

I was just in the same boat when I realized my lander couldn't throttle when I was in the last few kilometers and I immediately had to go check the engine because I was so sure it was throttleable and guess what? IT WASN'T. Sure as hell it wasn't in real life.

IT HAPPENS.

Pick a different engine. Or patch your game so that you can throttle all your engines as you will and then don't call it Realism Overhaul anymore because it won't be.

[SkyKaptn]

Is RO still being developed? I am unsure of whether to start fresh in 1.3.1 or just wait it out some more.

[phoneix_007]

I have trouble with my RSS/SRP-0 1.3.1 install. Everytime I try to launch the game, it crashes midway through loading. Any fix?

Output log: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Id2x-GeMqbSVai3uszJjJixmu-7aAnM2/view?usp=sharing

My mod list: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fI-gVv95IvOlSfCHWw9JESvsGJwpldwp/view?usp=sharing

 

[winged]

On 11/24/2018 at 12:59 AM, etheoma said:

your kind of screwed for a small landing a small probe well small by KSP standards. 

That's what TD-339 was designed for - tiny 0,45 kN engine for small spacecrafts. Also I don't know what you mean by "small by KSP standards" but most of my small landers are about as light as IRL (from 200 to 2000 kg on the Moon and Mars). Want to deliver 400 kg lander to the Moon? - Use four of them. Maybe a heavy rover? Build a skycrane with 16 of them like I did:

Spoiler

 

 

For heavier payloads there is also Gemini Lunar Landing Engine (12 kN), SuperDraco (60 kN ?), Lunar Descent Engine (43 kN) and RL-10 CECE in different variants (Hydrolox or Methalox - 67 kN). The last two you can use for very heavy payloads including crewed landers on Moon and Mars:

Spoiler

 

Edited November 25, 2018 by winged

[etheoma]

On 11/24/2018 at 4:05 AM, Starwaster said:

Realism Overhaul is supposed to model real engines and a lot of research went into it. If an engine in the game is supposed to represent a real world engine and it is unthrottleable then chances are its real world counterpart was likewise unthrottleable. Most of the engines aren't throttleable you say? Guess what, most engines IRL aren't either.

IT HAPPENS.

Pick a new engine and/or redesign your craft.

I was just in the same boat when I realized my lander couldn't throttle when I was in the last few kilometers and I immediately had to go check the engine because I was so sure it was throttleable and guess what? IT WASN'T. Sure as hell it wasn't in real life.

IT HAPPENS.

Pick a different engine. Or patch your game so that you can throttle all your engines as you will and then don't call it Realism Overhaul anymore because it won't be.

I was specifically talking about hypergolic engines.Honestly though my opinion doesn't really matter, but I don't think the main concern should be what engines exist now as we have only ever had manned missions as far as the moon. You can be damn sure that if we were going further we would have different engines. The concern should be what is a realistically possible perhaps being conservative on that would be best, but if you expect people to actually explore the beyond the moon it seems kind of dumb to have a hard limit on using current engines.

And in fact there isn't a hard limit of current in use engines an NTR has never flown but we know they are totally possible, and in fact the engine it's self is extremely simple. Yes there have been on earth tests so the engines did exist, but the ISP number we use have not been demonstrated as they were used in atmosphere and the specific impulse was inferred. You could Infer what is a reasonable modification to an engine to add throttling capabilities. 

If that sounds reasonable to anyone in a development roll for RO maybe adding extra configs for a few engines which sacrifices specific impulse and or thrust for throttling on a few engines wouldn't be unrealistically possible. I am not saying 100% range 25% - 50% would be fine, it would still mean being careful and having action groups to disable engines as you descend. but it would make it possible to lands using those engines. 

In fact you would still likely use 2 unthrottleable engines for the better ISP / thrust when you are heavy and 2 throttleable engines for actually landing when you are lighter

Edited November 25, 2018 by etheoma

[winged]

6 minutes ago, etheoma said:

the concern should be what is a realistically possible perhaps being conservative on that would be best, but if you expect people to actually explore the further than beyond the moon it seems kind of dumb to have a hard limit on using current engines.

If that sounds reasonable to anyone in a development roll for RO maybe adding extra configs for a few engines which sacrifices specific impulse and or thrust for throttling on a few engines wouldn't be unrealistic.

RO is already doing that. Look at the mentioned before Gemini engine or RL-10 CECE. They have never flown on a real mission but RO includes their configs.

[Norcalplanner]

Regarding non-throttling of hypergolic engines, I found it helpful to put three engines in a line on the bottom of an early lunar probe, and controlled via two action groups.  I had full, 2/3, and 1/3 throttle available, which (combined with pulsing engines) was enough to land a half-dozen probes safely on the moon.

[etheoma]

Oh btw I meant a 25% - 50% range not 50% - 75%... a 75% range would be unrealistic for a modified engine I think. I was getting min throttle mixed up with range which is inverse.

Edited November 25, 2018 by etheoma

[RoboRay]

If you have data (theoretical or even just plausible data is fine) supporting realistic alternative history, modern or futuristic engines, feel free to implement them.  RO is community-driven, so you are one of the people in a development role for RO. 

The person who has an idea is usually among the best people to implement it... they understand the issue and have motivation to resolve it.

[donoya]

Hey, is there a list somewhere for mods that support RO/RP-1 for KSP 1.3.1? I know there's the 'golden spreadsheet', but that seems to only mention mods that are recommended/suggested. However, I've tried playing with mods that were not in the suggested, recommended, or required sections and they still worked fine together (just maybe not balanced correctly). So is there a public list that includes those mods, as well?

[JohnMcLane]

1 hour ago, donoya said:

Hey, is there a list somewhere for mods that support RO/RP-1 for KSP 1.3.1? I know there's the 'golden spreadsheet', but that seems to only mention mods that are recommended/suggested. However, I've tried playing with mods that were not in the suggested, recommended, or required sections and they still worked fine together (just maybe not balanced correctly). So is there a public list that includes those mods, as well?

See first post of the thread for mods that RO is supporting, for other mods there are no RO configs yet, so there are not supported and will show in the VAB/SPH under non RO parts. And for RP0/RP1 its the same.

[donoya]

49 minutes ago, JohnMcLane said:

See first post of the thread for mods that RO is supporting, for other mods there are no RO configs yet, so there are not supported and will show in the VAB/SPH under non RO parts. And for RP0/RP1 its the same.

But is support a requirement for the mod to function? Like for instance: stock station parts expansion. It's not supported, but will it still work? What about kerbalism? The reason I'm asking is because I'm trying to figure out if it's a memory issue or a mod issue that's causing my game to crash after loading scenes (and I'd rather not need to get rid of mods like photon sail and ksp interstellar extended if I don't have to).

[JohnMcLane]

5 minutes ago, donoya said:

But is support a requirement for the mod to function? Like for instance: stock station parts expansion. It's not supported, but will it still work? What about kerbalism? The reason I'm asking is because I'm trying to figure out if it's a memory issue or a mod issue that's causing my game to crash after loading scenes (and I'd rather not need to get rid of mods like photon sail and ksp interstellar extended if I don't have to).

They work, if there is no incompatibility between mods. But they are build against stock kerbal system and maybe underpowered or not working as intended.

I used Interstellar with RO, no problem, but with configs its more immersive and realistic

Edited November 26, 2018 by JohnMcLane

[Agustin]

On 11/24/2018 at 6:55 PM, phoneix_007 said:

I have trouble with my RSS/SRP-0 1.3.1 install. Everytime I try to launch the game, it crashes midway through loading. Any fix?

Output log: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Id2x-GeMqbSVai3uszJjJixmu-7aAnM2/view?usp=sharing

My mod list: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fI-gVv95IvOlSfCHWw9JESvsGJwpldwp/view?usp=sharing

 

you have multiple modulemanager. Just grab the 3.0.4 and delete the others.

[serialblack]

On 11/24/2018 at 4:55 PM, phoneix_007 said:

I have trouble with my RSS/SRP-0 1.3.1 install. Everytime I try to launch the game, it crashes midway through loading. Any fix?

Output log: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Id2x-GeMqbSVai3uszJjJixmu-7aAnM2/view?usp=sharing

My mod list: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fI-gVv95IvOlSfCHWw9JESvsGJwpldwp/view?usp=sharing

 

I am having the same issue, I only have MM 3.0.4 installed. It seems to be random, but always after the patches are finished. If I remove realism overhaul through ckan, which also removes real fuels, and real plume, then everything loads fine, albeit somewhat unusable with half an RP1 install. I have tried different versions straight from github, no success. I have taken everything from the golden spreadsheet for 1.3.1 ....also clean install of 1.3.1 straight from steam. I have had issues before i could work out, but this one has me stumped. 

[Epox75]

Hello everyone! I'm back to KSP after more than a year and I'm doing a career with 1.3.1, RO and the dev version of RP-0. I have a very simple request: once I made a cfg patch to fix the AIES landing gears by copying it from the AIES thread, which isn't available anymore... maybe some of you have it?

Thanks in advance, 

Epox