[1.2.2] Realistic Progression Zero (RP-0) - Lightweight RealismOverhaul career v0.54 June 15

[Lilienthal]

On 28.9.2017 at 9:36 PM, Lilienthal said:

Install RP0

I managed to kill my installation of RP0. Also it got pretty old, and I have the feeling that a lot of mods are not 100% perfectly installed. (Especialyl now with 1.3 around.)

Is there an easy way to install RP0? Does it currently work just out of the box with ckan? Or which tricks do you need? (Especially: How do you avoid installing 1.3 versions that don't run on 1.2.2 ?)

 

Thanks in advance,

Gustav.

Let me answer myself: ckan worked like a bliss. No problems. I can only reccomend using it. (pro-tip use the Mechjeb-Dev branch and select the RO version of mechjeb.)

Thanks to all who worked hard to make ckan versioning work fine!

Gustav

[nanomage]

On 30/09/2017 at 9:48 AM, harlikwin said:

Well, I tried to do it as you said. I designed 3 vehicles at ~78 tons. The conventional design using 9 RL-10 enines, 1 design using a single NERVA 2, and another design using 6 bi-modal NTR's. All pretty much have the same Delta V ~9k. I just used a command module and swapped out tanks (all cryo-balloon tanks) and engines to get a TWR ~.5 or better

6xBimodal NTRs = (13.65 ton of engine mass) 9815 Dv

9X RL10 engines (2.25 tons of engine mass) is  8180 Dv (If I reduce the fuel load by 10 tons to account for the heavier NTRs, DV is 7764 Dv)

1x Nerva2 = 13T engine mass which is 9206 DV

So I really don't get it, the ISP of the RL10 is 422, while the NTR's are 900+. So to my possibly incorrect way of thinking I should be getting way more DV out of the NTR's for the same overall "mass" of rocket which is mainly fuel. I mean 2x ISP = 20% gain in DV seems off to me. 

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

Edited October 3, 2017 by nanomage

[BerthNerd]

One question: Is it intended that a basic RP-0 install does not have any heat radiators?

[PrivateJoker]

Hi there,

I want to play RSS/RO/rp-0 on KSP 1.2.2 with all the required mods, but my game crashes at the loading screen like you can see in the image I linked. I tried serveral clean installs and mod versions but nothing works. I have linked the crash-image and error-logs. Does anyone has an idea?

 

Error.png

error.txt

KSP.log

 

Edited October 4, 2017 by PrivateJoker

[harlikwin]

On 10/2/2017 at 8:57 PM, nanomage said:

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

 

Its interesting, and yeah I can just keep adding tank=DV to the NTR and at the same mass as the liquid fuel rocket I see more gains, but it gets stupid large, and in KSP TWRs that low mean absurd burn times. I consider the .5TWR about the bare minimum for anything "playable" and even then its often marginal.

Interestingly, I also started to play around with near future propulsion and while I think parts of it are broken (VASMIR doesn't seem to work) the MPD thruster are surprisingly good (maybe too good or bugged). I can build a relatively decent performing spacecraft with a TWR of ~.5 with 10-15k DV that is reasonably small. The only issue is the large power requirements. 

[nanomage]

4 hours ago, harlikwin said:

 

Its interesting, and yeah I can just keep adding tank=DV to the NTR and at the same mass as the liquid fuel rocket I see more gains, but it gets stupid large, and in KSP TWRs that low mean absurd burn times. I consider the .5TWR about the bare minimum for anything "playable" and even then its often marginal.

Interestingly, I also started to play around with near future propulsion and while I think parts of it are broken (VASMIR doesn't seem to work) the MPD thruster are surprisingly good (maybe too good or bugged). I can build a relatively decent performing spacecraft with a TWR of ~.5 with 10-15k DV that is reasonably small. The only issue is the large power requirements. 

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.

[paladin17]

On 13.07.2017 at 4:40 PM, AlekM said:

Uhm, I can't get 'landingMoon' contract to spawn. I doesn't appear in the mission control as unavailable. I did the 'first_MoonFlybyUncrewed', which is the requirement. I have +800 rep.

Relevant (I think) mod versions:

• KSP 1.2.2
• RP-0 build 54
• Contract configurator 1.22.2

What should I look for as a cause?

I have exactly the same problem and cannot determine the cause. The contract sits in the RP-0 folder, but the game doesn't seem to recognize it. It's not even on the Mission Control lists. I've done lunar flybys already (maximum possible times).

[Nich]

So I have a question about the limited attitude control probes.  These seem to have full control when using Flight computer or Mech Jeb.  Is this intentional or a limitation of modding?  Lately I have been playing MJ only when avionics are unlocked but flight computer gets control even if avionics are locked.  I was thinking about only allowing commands to be uploaded when avionics are unlocked as I have come to realize how powerful the flight computer is when you get familiar with it.

[hargn]

On 10/10/2017 at 7:11 PM, paladin17 said:

On 13/07/2017 at 3:40 PM, AlekM said:

Uhm, I can't get 'landingMoon' contract to spawn. I doesn't appear in the mission control as unavailable. I did the 'first_MoonFlybyUncrewed', which is the requirement. I have +800 rep.

Relevant (I think) mod versions:

• KSP 1.2.2
• RP-0 build 54
• Contract configurator 1.22.2

What should I look for as a cause?

I have exactly the same problem and cannot determine the cause. The contract sits in the RP-0 folder, but the game doesn't seem to recognize it. It's not even on the Mission Control lists. I've done lunar flybys already (maximum possible times)

Hi,

Please tip Alt+F10. It should display the contract configurator debug window.
Then extend the contracts to visualize the landingMoon contract : you should see what are the requirements that are not met to enable the contract.

If the contract doesn't exist, then your install may be broken, the log should contain the error that broke the loading of the contract.

@Nich, I believe that it's a limitation with how RP-0 deals with RemoteTech and MechJeb.
But I don't know how the RP-0 authors wanted to implement this avionics behavior.

Edited October 11, 2017 by hargn
Fix bad key sequence for CC debug window

[hargn]

@PrivateJoker Hi,

Sorry for the time I took to answer your last post.

With the infos you gave me, I do not find what the issue with your game, unless that it crashes during MM is applying patches for RP-0 (I'm not part of RO/RP-0 developpers).
If you still have your issue, I can only give you some advices :

Proceed by steps, and make a backup of you GameData folder between each step. Test if your KSP install is clean and the mods are working between each step :

1. Install a fresh KSP 1.2.2 install.
2. Install RSS,
3. Install RO
4. Install RP-0 (recommended)
5. Install RSSVE (also recommended)
6. Install RO/RP-0 recommended/suggested mods, not all at once

You should see which mod makes your install bugged.

[paladin17]

11 hours ago, hargn said:

Hi,

Please tip Alt+F10. It should display the contract configurator debug window.
Then extend the contracts to visualize the landingMoon contract : you should see what are the requirements that are not met to enable the contract.

If the contract doesn't exist, then your install may be broken, the log should contain the error that broke the loading of the contract.

@Nich, I believe that it's a limitation with how RP-0 deals with RemoteTech and MechJeb.
But I don't know how the RP-0 authors wanted to implement this avionics behavior.

Thanks a lot for the input.
The problem indeed seemed to be caused by a screwy install of RP-0. Don't know how that happened though.
But anyway, I've cut/pasted out the whole RP-0 folder and put a new one from the GitHub instead. Then I accepted the contract (as it finally appeared), and swapped my previous RP-0 install back. Because this playthrough would have been screwed otherwise: the new tech tree

Spoiler

(man, was I surprised when I first saw it - is this going to be the new default tree? I think I used this perl script to generate my current one)

is not compatible with the previous one from my save. And there is some trouble with KSC facilities (like my upgrades are not recognized by the new mod install).
But anyway, I'm quite happy I've resolved the immediate problem. This damn contract was preventing me from getting the holy grail contract of crewed landing.
Thanks again.

[New Horizons]

Did anyone managed to use this mod in a KSP 1.3.1 install? Are there any experimental recompiled versions out there? I am asking because activities on the front of RO and RP-0 seem to be non-existant for a very long time, which makes me sad.

Testing RP-0 0.54 with KSP 1.3.1 leads to a crash while loading.

[hypervelocity]

hey guys - quick one for you all! I also posted in the RO forum as I was not sure what would be the appropriate realm for the question

I am playing a carreer game in KSP 1.2.2 & RO/RP-0, and I was wondering if 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!

[chrisl]

Anyone know if the "LifeSupportStation" contract works or not?  I looked at the contract file and it looks like you just need to have less than 26% of food, water or oxygen for he contract to come up.  I've been watching for the contract every since my food supply hit 25%.  I'm now down to 16% food, but still no contract.  I do have 30% water and 77% Oxygen so maybe the contract requires all three to be under 25%?  Anyway, just wondering if anyone has seen this contract come up.

[MatBailie]

Just had a play with the developmental version of RP-0 and am very impressed at the amount of work that must have gone in to this

I'd love to help out with testing, balancing, etc, I already have a few questions about balance, such as why rollout costs are so high (I've seen the formula, but can't find any comments or notes on its intention).

Ping me a message if you guys think you have the time to answer questions while I test?  (I did notice that github has been quiet for some time, so I'm keen that any help I can offer doesn't use up more of your personal time than it saves!)

[winged]

On 8.10.2017 at 11:40 PM, harlikwin said:

 

Its interesting, and yeah I can just keep adding tank=DV to the NTR and at the same mass as the liquid fuel rocket I see more gains, but it gets stupid large, and in KSP TWRs that low mean absurd burn times. I consider the .5TWR about the bare minimum for anything "playable" and even then its often marginal.

This is realistic and intended, in order to make NTR engines useful you must keep your TWR lower than 0.30

 

On 8.10.2017 at 11:40 PM, harlikwin said:

Interestingly, I also started to play around with near future propulsion and while I think parts of it are broken (VASMIR doesn't seem to work) the MPD thruster are surprisingly good (maybe too good or bugged). I can build a relatively decent performing spacecraft with a TWR of ~.5 with 10-15k DV that is reasonably small. The only issue is the large power requirements. 

Their performance is clearly broken by orders of magnitude.

[Kevin Kyle]

I hope I am asking this in the right thread. Im not sure if it is or not but....... Doing NathanKell's tutorials for rp-0 and in episode 4 he uses the RD-103. In my engine UI it says I lack tech for the RD 103. RD-102 is good to go which is what I have been using instead. So, what must I do to get the RD-103 to stop saying that I lack tech?

 

Actually Im in episode 3 but ready for 4

Edited November 4, 2017 by Kevin Kyle

[MatBailie]

6 hours ago, Kevin Kyle said:

I hope I am asking this in the right thread. Im not sure if it is or not but....... Doing NathanKell's tutorials for rp-0 and in episode 4 he uses the RD-103. In my engine UI it says I lack tech for the RD 103. RD-102 is good to go which is what I have been using instead. So, what must I do to get the RD-103 to stop saying that I lack tech?

 

Actually Im in episode 3 but ready for 4

You need Basic Rocketry for the RD-103 config.

Generally speaking it's just a case of needing a higher level tech in the same part of the Tree.

• RD-100 = Start
• RD-101 = Post-War Rocketry Testing
• RD-102 = Early Rocketry
• RD-103 = Basic Rocketry
• RD-103M = Orbital Rocketry

Where looking at the techs in the Tech Tree doesn't help, you can also look in the config files, such as...

• /GameData/RP-0/Tree/TREE-Engine_Configs.cfg
  • Line 943
• /GameData/RP-0/Tree/RP0TechTree.cfg
  • Line 2175

[Kevin Kyle]

Ahhhh , OK ! , I couldnt figure it out, Thanks for that

[MatBailie]

What's wrong with this logic?

If I launch straight up, with no aerodynamic losses, all my kinetic energy (on the vertical axis) will convert to gravitational potential energy.

• I know I start with ~408m/s horizontal speed
• I expect to reach Apoapsis with the same 408m/s horizontal speed
• I know the force of gravity reduces with altitude, but not significantly, and that's not the problem anyway

 

So, if I have a launcher with 9,777m/s available dV...

• E_k = 0.5 m v²
• E_p = GMmh ~= 9.8 m h
  • As it's linear with height, this works as the difference in E_p from sea level
• All E_k is being converted to E_p
• 0.5 m v² ~= 9.8 m h
  • h ~= 0.5 v² / 9.8 ~= 4,877km

So, if I instantly accelerated to 9,777m/s vertically, with no atmosphere, I would reach an altitude of 4,877km?

But I launch to 7,750km.

 

I had previously been deducting ~1,200m/s (from the vacuum dV as given by MechJeb) for gravity losses at launch and the lack of infinite acceleration, aerodynamic drag losses, engine performance losses in atmosphere, etc, etc.  Which gave me an expected maximum altitude of ~3,750km, so I was amazed to reach just over double that.  And even more amazed that it's more than my expected "perfect" / "lossless" expected altitude of 4,877km...

What stupid mistake am I making in my rough calculations?

 

EDIT: Oh, GMm/R² does actually vary meaningfully by the time you reach 7Mm.  Assumptions for LEO are not valid up there...

Edited November 6, 2017 by MatBailie
corrected figures, slight additional explanation

[Scorpu]

Hello. I would like to ask for some information from 1.2.2 RP-0. I don't have access to my computer currently so I can't check this in my KSP install. 

I need RP-0 cost of following engines (VAB cost):

RS-25 (SSME), RS-68A, J-2S, J-2X, SLS SRB and Bimodal Nuclear Thermal Rocket (the one with ~65kN, 930 isp).

Thanks

[dangel74]

Hello, everyone. Thanks for great mod. I installed it on KSP 1.2.2 via CKAN. My prop plane flew just fine but my jet with derwent V engine seems like not getting enough fuel, although I have a lot of Kerosine and more than enough (according to required area parameter) air intake. https://imgur.com/9nwIy6f

Edited November 7, 2017 by dangel74

[winged]

5 hours ago, Scorpu said:

Hello. I would like to ask for some information from 1.2.2 RP-0. I don't have access to my computer currently so I can't check this in my KSP install. 

I need RP-0 cost of following engines (VAB cost):

RS-25 (SSME), RS-68A, J-2S, J-2X, SLS SRB and Bimodal Nuclear Thermal Rocket (the one with ~65kN, 930 isp).

Thanks

RS-25 - 5700

RS-68a - 3500

J-2S - 2500

J-2X - 3310

SLS SRB - 19000

BNTR - 28000

[Scorpu]

Thank you, @winged.

But why is SLS SRB so expensive? Also, one more thing about RP-0 costs that has bothered me, is that Apollo Command Module is ~6500 in Kerbal funds. Meanwhile, Orion CM costs 60000. I heard that Lockheed Martin, which is Orion's prime contractor, is sometimes called 'money blackhole'. But does it really have to be reflected in RP-0? 

 

 

[winged]

4 hours ago, dangel74 said:

Hello, everyone. Thanks for great mod. I installed it on KSP 1.2.2 via CKAN. My prop plane flew just fine but my jet with derwent V engine seems like not getting enough fuel, although I have a lot of Kerosine and more than enough (according to required area parameter) air intake. https://imgur.com/9nwIy6f

15 kN of static thrust seems to be about right for me.

 

9 minutes ago, Scorpu said:

Thank you, @winged.

But why is SLS SRB so expensive? Also, one more thing about RP-0 costs that has bothered me, is that Apollo Command Module is ~6500 in Kerbal funds. Meanwhile, Orion CM costs 60000. I heard that Lockheed Martin, which is Orion's prime contractor, is sometimes called 'money blackhole'. But does it really have to be reflected in RP-0? 

 

 

You should ask @NathanKell about that.

 

In my installation I simply cut down costs for various parts to make them more playable, for instance Orion costs 2x less, SRBs 3x less etc.