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

[Antstar]

13 minutes ago, Bornholio said:

sound rocket payload goes in Tank I-hp , kerbals retire on missions after they end(recovered)

As for build rate i spend the BP i earn from unlocking tech nodes on VAB build rate.  you can launch your first craft in 4 days if you make a tiny craft and by day twelve you can have a build rate of .4 even with hard difficulty. maxsimal beat me to orbit (on day 120ish) in our RiS test. Sounding rockets contracts can be pushed to a 5-10 day tempo.

Hmm, ok. I couldn't see it in tank 1 but found a post saying you need service tank. It was an old post and I will check again. Since I still have not unlocked it I have not tried these yet, only altitude contracts which have been disappointing to say the least. It always pushes the bar higher than your last test result - not the last result asked for in contract. As a result, you need a better rocket every time which is completely anti to the concept of encouraging standardisation.

Ill admit, I wish I had put more points into VAB. I have about 1/3 in VAB and 2/3 in science because I wanted to get away from engines that fail more often than not. I'm not ready to write a bug report, but the corporal has become completely $hit IMO. It cant be trusted to light at high G, wont light at no G, and at the start of the game those are your options. It dies after burnout of the tiny tim if you do a ground ignition. it doesnt seem to like too much rotation. So yeah, Im pushing A4/A9 with more happiness except that im getting screwed by rollout and maintenance costs. Not that I enjoy 50-150days between launches but at least I will have good orbital tech before 1960. Seriously though, can anyone think of an actual example of a rocket that cost more to roll to the launchpad than it cost to build?

At the end of the day, I play KSP to have fun and I'm not going to have fun launching 100 pointless missions that wont even advance my science to grind for cash - compounded by the fact that im overseas on a crap laptop so change of scene takes forever, ie. like 3 mins to build a rocket, accept a mission, launch a rocket.

So, I think from what you said, I'm just playing it wrong and the maintenance and rollout costs would be less screwy if I was launching lots of annoying (to me) up and down contracts

New tech tree seems good so far. It makes more sense, although there are a lot of empty nodes even near the start! I will reserve any more judgments till I see how it plays when I unlock more goodies

[Antstar]

Quote

1. Proficiency Course Give a skill set that allows the 'naut to be trained to do missions in that crew space.
2. Refresher Course Retrains or updates the training time for a previously proficiency trained crew member.
3. Mission Course Trains the crew to perform upcoming missions. (available slots = 2x crew capacity of part)

• Training time is BaseTime from part multiplied by 0.5(@0) to 1.5(@1.0) base on stupidity.
• Mission duration is BaseTime multiplied by 0.5 to 1.5 base on stupidity.

Can someone explain what the difference between 1 and 3 is? what is the difference between 'doing missions' and 'performing upcoming missions'?

 

Oh, and @Bornholio you are indeed correct that sounding payload can go in the pressurised tank 1. However it does not say this in the info about the tank and it does say that payload can go in the service module tank in its blurb. So I guess that's something that should be fixed??

Edited April 8, 2018 by Antstar

[Lilienthal]

22 hours ago, Antstar said:

Quick question regarding the suggested settings for KCT with the current RP-0...

The initial BP make a small rocket take about a month to build (ok, sounds right) and a 1 science node take 2 months to unlock (sure). But the upgrade points are 30,000 to purchase and do next to nothing to improve things. after putting 1 point into the VAB it tells me that I will get a +0 improvement from another. similiarly for science I woud need something like 10 or 20 points to double my progression. This feels like an order of magnitude error to me?

I suspect this is a settings problem - I am happy to manually edit it to get it right, but what are the correct suggested settings for the current RP-0?

EDIT - so I just played on. It seems more reasonable now, except the 30k per point, which makes me

I have no idea why it said +0 points (rounding to the nearest 0.1??) because it did in fact add a small amount of BPs

MORE EDIT - So I just found all of this detailed. But not under RP-0, under RO (even though it says use the RP-0 settings for KCT). I almost feel that RO and RP-0 should just merge into one thread, it is very hard to know where to post about things

 

Also maybe not well-known fact. (At least it took me a while to figure out): Each time you _start_ researching a new tech, you get update points for KCT. (or UPA as it might sonn be called.)

7 hours ago, Antstar said:

Can someone explain what the difference between 1 and 3 is? what is the difference between 'doing missions' and 'performing upcoming missions'?

 

Oh, and @Bornholio you are indeed correct that sounding payload can go in the pressurised tank 1. However it does not say this in the info about the tank and it does say that payload can go in the service module tank in its blurb. So I guess that's something that should be fixed??

1 gives you the ability to send kerbals to training.  I.e. not proficiency means they cannot get mission training. 

3. is necessary for missions. 

Makes more sense now?

[Antstar]

2 hours ago, Lilienthal said:

Also maybe not well-known fact. (At least it took me a while to figure out): Each time you _start_ researching a new tech, you get update points for KCT. (or UPA as it might sonn be called.)

1 gives you the ability to send kerbals to training.  I.e. not proficiency means they cannot get mission training. 

3. is necessary for missions. 

Makes more sense now?

OK, makes sense. The documentation needs more clarity though

Yeah, I knew about the upgrade points. Of my 32, 30 came from science that will take >10 years to research (it looks as though I may be able to research advanced science without the prerequisite as long as it was paid for?? Is this the intention??). The other 2 were free. Oh to have 30k to spend to buy a point. Well I can dream.

 

Also I think I found a bug but I'm not sure as it would be kind of hard to reproduce. So I used the SPH to make a rocket (why not, it took 2 years but meh) and in that time I tooled a tank for the A9 rocket used. Then I realised I needed an antenna for the crewed suborbital mission I had been building for 2 years, but to my shock and horror even making no changes to the craft caused it to be only 96% complete. I assume (can't be sure. can't test) that this was because the tank was now much cheaper. Not cool to have to wait for another month just because I am saving some money

 

On the subject of tooling (and this is just my opinion) I love the concept but really (really, really, really) hate the implementation. the "tank" (why a tank I do not know) to hold my sounding payload is more than 1/3 of the cost of my rocket. I can't make it cheaper in any reasonable way - there is no point tooling the part. So maybe I make a pointlessly big tank and stick it under a fairing?? Sure, so I tool a fairing. But whats this? The fairing is procedural. I cant make it stay exactly the same shape and size for use with other vehicles, so when it shrinks just a tiny bit (on its own, no way to stop it) I end up paying a truckload for it. I'm going to stick with it for now to see if more standardisation of say 3 of 4 stages makes it more useable but tooling is definitely on death row.

[Bornholio]

47 minutes ago, Antstar said:

OK, makes sense. The documentation needs more clarity though

Yeah, I knew about the upgrade points. Of my 32, 30 came from science that will take >10 years to research (it looks as though I may be able to research advanced science without the prerequisite as long as it was paid for?? Is this the intention??). The other 2 were free. Oh to have 30k to spend to buy a point. Well I can dream.

 

Also I think I found a bug but I'm not sure as it would be kind of hard to reproduce. So I used the SPH to make a rocket (why not, it took 2 years but meh) and in that time I tooled a tank for the A9 rocket used. Then I realised I needed an antenna for the crewed suborbital mission I had been building for 2 years, but to my shock and horror even making no changes to the craft caused it to be only 96% complete. I assume (can't be sure. can't test) that this was because the tank was now much cheaper. Not cool to have to wait for another month just because I am saving some money

 

On the subject of tooling (and this is just my opinion) I love the concept but really (really, really, really) hate the implementation. the "tank" (why a tank I do not know) to hold my sounding payload is more than 1/3 of the cost of my rocket. I can't make it cheaper in any reasonable way - there is no point tooling the part. So maybe I make a pointlessly big tank and stick it under a fairing?? Sure, so I tool a fairing. But whats this? The fairing is procedural. I cant make it stay exactly the same shape and size for use with other vehicles, so when it shrinks just a tiny bit (on its own, no way to stop it) I end up paying a truckload for it. I'm going to stick with it for now to see if more standardisation of say 3 of 4 stages makes it more useable but tooling is definitely on death row.

make the tank small radially attach and tool small tank

Fairings have a lock shape button. Make a sizing payload first, lock the fairing then tool and re-use

 

Edited April 8, 2018 by Bornholio

[Antstar]

17 minutes ago, Bornholio said:

make the tank small radially attach and tool small tank

 

This sounds like a workaround to me. But. Sure

I have literally no idea how it would be possible to achieve orbit in less than about 3 years. Can you show/link me to anything regarding how you did this in 1/10th of that time? I can't see how you managed to do any research, so I feel as though you would need something like 2^5 - 1 WACs which is ridiculous

 

EDIT- I am officially ruined. I can't complete contracts; in 3 years I will fail some big ones and go deeply into the red; and its going to be 10 years before my technology is researched. I'm going to burn down the VAB for the insurance money and move somewhere that doesn't extradite to any country with a launchpad. Then change my identity and start again

 

Edited April 8, 2018 by Antstar

[DRVeyl]

5 hours ago, Antstar said:

This sounds like a workaround to me. But. Sure

I have literally no idea how it would be possible to achieve orbit in less than about 3 years. Can you show/link me to anything regarding how you did this in 1/10th of that time? I can't see how you managed to do any research, so I feel as though you would need something like 2^5 - 1 WACs which is ridiculous

 

EDIT- I am officially ruined. I can't complete contracts; in 3 years I will fail some big ones and go deeply into the red; and its going to be 10 years before my technology is researched. I'm going to burn down the VAB for the insurance money and move somewhere that doesn't extradite to any country with a launchpad. Then change my identity and start again

 

Ouch.

I'm nowhere near as fast as they are.  But I didn't feel like fighting for achieving orbit before the 1956 Orbital Rocketry tech, where an LR79 + AJ10 definitely has the capability at ~40 tons [requires a pad upgrade.]  If you know when you're <3 years out, the 500k advance for achieving orbit pays for the pad upgrade (75k), the rocketry entry costs (~150-200k?) and several upgrade points.  Early, each point seemed about +10% to research speed or production speed.

Being way too cautions in buying upgrade points, I got 1956 orbital rocketry tech mid/late 1955.  Most of my funding came from doing way too many repeated missions for sounding rocket altitude and difficult sounding rocket payload missions, and some of the world-first payouts for altitude.  IMO this time period could use some balancing, as it feels like you need to do the missions to generate cash [especially if playing with the recommended "hard" settings] but it is a long time between interesting new capabilities from research.  I wasn't doing anything interesting or different with the launches, and had designed an LV that would generally last through several iterations of contracts.  I was aiming to keep rocket build times around 30-40 days.  I freely admit that my opinion about balance is based on not knowing an optimum path through this early game [specifically when to take which advances, what upgrades/unlocks are absolutely necessary, what excess funds should be assigned to upgrade points and spread across build/tech times].  I stayed at KSC, so didn't spread any to get "quicker" access to different biome sciences eg flying/high atmo/space low from different launch facilities.

 I missed the whole "sounding payload in pressurized tank-1," too, and ended up waiting for service module 1.  Thus... I certainly wasn't spamming the payload missions until a little later, and it was basically just altitude!

[Antstar]

Hah, 12 days. beat this

 

[Guest]

56 minutes ago, Antstar said:

Hah, 12 days. beat this

 

That is a typical "1st launch" craft, try reducing PPC fuel to 0.1 manually, add a barometer and thermometer, you can skip parachute as it wont go high enough to matter just enough to hit 1m/sec and count as "flying". you can net a telemetry report, barometer  reading and thermometer reading all "flying over shores"  plus recovery of vessel that survived flight in about 5 days of build time, this should get you a good handful of science points, enough for a handful "upgrade points" in 1 launch. Dont forget that the VAB and SPH can build concurrently so not using it is a total waste.

Edited April 9, 2018 by Guest
unsure of exact science point amount

[Guest]

Seeing as early game is mostly about "rushing" the "free" upgrade points.

In the VAB its normally "1st launch" craft to  a Tiny Tim boosted WAC corporal for karmin line, to a Camera/bio sample carrying V2/A4 for sub-orbital,  then repeat recoverable V2/A4 & RD-100 based altitude/payload sounding rockets with Cameras until you eat up flying/atmo/low space of the 4 local reachable biomes and can drop the camera (by that time you will most likley have the ion mass spectrometer to replace camera with then its after flying/atmo/low space of the 4 local reachable biomes  with it)  and manned sub-orbital rocket flights in the X-1 cockpit (dont for get proficiency and mission training for all your astronauts in that cockpit) until you have the upgrades to pad to build your 1st orbital rocket to launch the "1st artificial satellite".

In the SPH you might as well start building a jet to do the break the sound barrier and x-plane contracts you can manage with the starting jet engine & buzzard cockpit, it should finish within the 1st month (dont for get proficiency and mission training for all your astronauts in that cockpit) then forget about it until you can  get a better jet engine (and/or maybe do some fancy hybrid x-1/jet builds) to get a plane  that can do x-planes high contracts built (imho thats low priority)

For your upgrade points maybe 15 to 20 into the VAB then just use all the rest on the R&D center plus buy more when you can. 

Upgrade the launch pad ASAP, then the tracking station, then the mission control

For R&D unlocks to max your science out i would go 1st plane node first for the X-1 cockpit (for suborbital manned flights) then science and probe parts (explorer 1 and early controllable core are a must) and your first few rocket nodes. But remember even with an air lit V2/A4  core, boosted by 2x RD-100 that are ground lit and a few spin stabilized WAC rocket engines stages (like a 4x WAC tage to a 3x WAC stage to a 2x WAC stage to a 1x WAC final stage) and a upgraded pad you can make orbit. So its really all about rushing the funds for that pad upgrade and getting your free VAB/R&D upgrade points ASAP

 

that ended up being super spammy but thats done now lol

[Antstar]

On 4/9/2018 at 4:01 AM, Aazard said:

Seeing as early game is mostly about "rushing" the "free" upgrade points.

In the VAB its normally "1st launch" craft to  a Tiny Tim boosted WAC corporal for karmin line, to a Camera/bio sample carrying V2/A4 for sub-orbital,  then repeat recoverable V2/A4 & RD-100 based altitude/payload sounding rockets with Cameras until you eat up flying/atmo/low space of the 4 local reachable biomes and can drop the camera (by that time you will most likley have the ion mass spectrometer to replace camera with then its after flying/atmo/low space of the 4 local reachable biomes  with it)  and manned sub-orbital rocket flights in the X-1 cockpit (dont for get proficiency and mission training for all your astronauts in that cockpit) until you have the upgrades to pad to build your 1st orbital rocket to launch the "1st artificial satellite".

.....

Yeah, it isn't these I have a problem with, it is the near - must of launching complete garbage at first. My suggestion is to do away with this and just give us maybe 6-10 points to start the game with, and disable getting points for the 1 or 2 science nodes to discourage building complete rubbish and actually encourage building real rockets that ya' know, go to space, or at least the upper atmosphere. They had artillery in WWI even, there is nothing creative about launching utter garbage into the lower atmosphere

PS. @Aazard you get an extra like because I just noticed your avatar

So, the early game after the launching of garbage, where you launch spin stabilised rockets followed by A4s then staged A4/WACs seems balanced to me. It was fun and the rewards are commensurate with the difficulty.

Then we get to the post orbital period and again we hit a problem. I'm going to say it belongs here because it is mostly about test flight and construction time, but both are running RP-0 configs:

1) the rockets ALWAYS cost ~4x as much to deploy to the launch site as the cost of building them. I think I already said that this is ridiculous and challenged anyone to find a real world justification for this. When the first stage doesnt fire it is heartbreaking. Not because of the loss of a 1.3k rocket, but because of the 5k cost to deploy it to troll it back to the VAB and back out again. This is just stupid. I mostly just cheated with the revert, only accepting every 4th failure as something I had to pay for.

2) the reliability of a 3 stage rocket is just unrealistically bad. I am running something roughly akin to the vanguard with a LR89 first stage below it ATM to throw payloads to altitude for money. The first stage is not the problem, usually, but excluding failures where the mission is still salvageable (ie partial loss of thrust with only a few seconds of burn time left) the failure rate seems to be somewhere between 4/5 and 9/10. Now the vanguard was crap, but not that crap. After they blew up the first few on the launchpad they definitely got better than 1/5. for what its worth, I can not research any more reliability and I'm not even pushing the engines up to their specified burn time. So, yeah, fixering-upering needed there IMO.

I really appreciate the work that has been put into this mod but I'm not going to sugar coat what I think are problems that were introduced

To balance this otherwise acidic post, some really good things (IMO) compared to the 1.22 release:

1) When I buy the LR89 I can then buy the LR79 at greatly reduced cost. This is as it should be

2) When I unlock one version of an engine (ie a model, from a mod) all models of this engine (including from other mods) get unlocked together and act as the same component.

3) Introducing multiple types of tank that can be improved as technology is researched, specifically improved weight and utilisation. Although I think that if you have tooled a 2x2m type I tank you should get a discount on the 2x2m type 2 tank (perhaps only 50% discount? It shouldn't be trivial but it shouldn't be full price)

4) contracts to throw ever heavier payloads to ever greater altitudes, even after you have achieved orbit. This does allow you to refine your lower/booster stages and get more time on your engines without expensive payloads.

5)Multiple levels of upgrade for facilities, not just 1,2 and 3

 

[Guest]

Well honestly we are talking about a 1950 alternate reality, your basically developing new rocket engines then "test fireing" on rockets you expect to complete a meaningful mission. I suggest you treat the 1st few launches of any new component as "experiential", so strap that sucker to a "cheap" sounding tank with something useful like a basic recoverable science package and get the test flight data maxed out. As too "roll out" cost I treat it as the costs of assembly, QA, pumping, paying boats not to sail down range, launch crew wages, preparing the pad/crawler... All stuff you would need to pay again if launch got scrubbed. Space craft history is filled with failures, mission goals not completed, stages failing to ignite or separate, heck even crew members burning to death in "simple systems tests". So R&D your stuff and put it through a proving process before putting crew or payloads ontop of your newest possible failure. You'll still fail but less spectacularly. And waiting for polish in RO/RP1 most likely means waiting for the end of major main game patches 

[Dukemaster]

I'm using Realism Overhaul and RP-0, along with a whole host of other mods for this playthrough. I do have Mission Control and the Tracking Station upgraded to level 2. Yet for some reason maneuver nodes are unavailable to me. For a brief time while ascending through the atmosphere I can click on my blue line flightpath and place a node, but once I get high enough and transition to space, my flightpath line turns pink and I can no longer click on it. Also, I cannot right-click on other ships, moons, or planets to make them targets. I can't rendezvous with anything, or leave Earth orbit. Essentially, I can't play the game.

I'm not sure if this is MechJeb, Principia, or some other mod that's blocking it, or perhaps a setting I haven't found yet, or a genuine bug.

Please help. Many thanks and appreciation to you all.

[Antstar]

3 hours ago, Dukemaster said:

I'm using Realism Overhaul and RP-0, along with a whole host of other mods for this playthrough. I do have Mission Control and the Tracking Station upgraded to level 2. Yet for some reason maneuver nodes are unavailable to me. For a brief time while ascending through the atmosphere I can click on my blue line flightpath and place a node, but once I get high enough and transition to space, my flightpath line turns pink and I can no longer click on it. Also, I cannot right-click on other ships, moons, or planets to make them targets. I can't rendezvous with anything, or leave Earth orbit. Essentially, I can't play the game.

I'm not sure if this is MechJeb, Principia, or some other mod that's blocking it, or perhaps a setting I haven't found yet, or a genuine bug.

Please help. Many thanks and appreciation to you all.

Its Principia. That mod is in theory great but has some issues and this is one of them. You need to create the nodes using the principia tools - and be careful because if you dont set the iteration frequency just right, especially for a trip to say Venus, it will eat your 32GB of memory and completely crash the game. You also can't execute the nodes safely with MechJeb and you have to be careful to make the node invarient if you want to try to execute it in some frame of reference other than what it was created in (eg, you made a tangential burn in an Earth frame but want to watch in real time your trajectory relative to Venus). Hope this helps

 

[Antstar]

OK, so, I am getting the hang of the tooling now. Its very "kerbal" to make a 1m long tank and then stack 10 on top of each other. I had just gotten used to using proceedural parts to avoid making stuff like this. Suggestion: put it in the FAQ?

Anyway, I need to ask about ComSatPayload. I can't find any of my tanks/configurations that will take it. But also I have to point out that I skipped researching the node which unlocks type II because I needed the node that gives type III anyway. As far as I can see, it is not mentioned in the description for the parts anywhere in the research tree, so in what does CamSatPayload go?? Thanks

Oh, and is the ability to pay for but skip researching nodes a bug or a feature? Just curious if that was intended?

 

EDIT - never mind. I found it. I was looking at normal tanks not at service modules (duh).

Edited April 16, 2018 by Antstar

[Antstar]

So, how do we know what science experiments can be run where??

Some are obvious, like the orbital perturbation experiment. Even spectral analysis that mentions cloud tops I can take a good guess at. But I'm a scientist IRL and I have no idea if meaningful data could be obtained from a magnetometer on the surface

I looked at the parts config files but its just so much code to me (not a computer scientist ). I guess eventually there will be a wiki, but is there anything on the github that i missed?

[AVaughan]

See https://github.com/KSP-RO/RP-0/wiki/Science .  

[Guest]

anyone else miss this:

 

Quote

 

Setting up for Development Install

1.3.1>>>> new as of 12-Apr-2018

1. start with a clean KSP 1.3.1
2. install RSS (CKAN)
3. install RO (CKAN)
4. the remaining dependencies which are available through CKAN:

• CommunityCategoryKit
• ContractConfigurator
• CustomBarnKit

5. manual install of the un-CKAN'ed mods:

• RP-0 (Developmental)
• TestFlight (dev)
• KerbalRenamer
• B9 ProcWings

6. Finally, replace some DLLs: KRASH to ignore tooling and TestFlight for sims: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ew6i18x6vg4dd5t/KRASH.dll?dl=0 RemoteTech and ContractConfigurator incompatibility: https://www.dropbox.com/s/1qcko5e8a8wq0ds/CC_RemoteTech.dll?dl=1 [X] Science anti-stutter DLL: https://www.dropbox.com/s/cad7tc9wvcrx6dp/%5Bx%5D%20Science%21.dll?dl=0

New difficulty level config should have correct reward levels by default.

 

I guess we will be skipping a 1.3.1 release then?

 

[species]

Is the AJ10_early and AJ10_mid supposed to be nonRP0 with the "RP1" dev branch on 1.3.1?

 

I am aware that im using a dev branch so it might be bug or just me wrongly installing the mods. On one hand it was way too OP to have infinite restart engine this early, but i can research upgrades for it, just dont have the actual engine in tech tree

 

Anone?

[chrisl]

On ‎4‎/‎25‎/‎2018 at 5:43 AM, species said:

Is the AJ10_early and AJ10_mid supposed to be nonRP0 with the "RP1" dev branch on 1.3.1?

 

I am aware that im using a dev branch so it might be bug or just me wrongly installing the mods. On one hand it was way too OP to have infinite restart engine this early, but i can research upgrades for it, just dont have the actual engine in tech tree

 

Anone?

None of the AJ10 early engines could be restarted.  You don't get your first restartable AJ10 engine until the AJ10-104 which comes with the mid engine.

 

Also, in my setup none of the AJ10 engines are listed as nonRPO so I'd have to guess you have something improperly installed.

[species]

32 minutes ago, chrisl said:

None of the AJ10 early engines could be restarted.  You don't get your first restartable AJ10 engine until the AJ10-104 which comes with the mid engine.

 

Also, in my setup none of the AJ10 engines are listed as nonRPO so I'd have to guess you have something improperly installed.

Are you also running 1.3.1?

 

I tried full reinstall and its still nonRP, so im guessing its not happening for me ^^  Its not a big deal really, i can get the 190 later on and im using the XRL99 from X15 as a gemini era SPS. 

 

Thank you for your asnwer tho.

[chrisl]

5 minutes ago, species said:

Are you also running 1.3.1?

 

I tried full reinstall and its still nonRP, so im guessing its not happening for me ^^  Its not a big deal really, i can get the 190 later on and im using the XRL99 from X15 as a gemini era SPS. 

 

Thank you for your asnwer tho.

Yes, I'm running 1.3.1.  One thing I notice is that the only AJ10 engines I have available are from SSTU but they aren't listed a nonRPO.

[species]

53 minutes ago, chrisl said:

Yes, I'm running 1.3.1.  One thing I notice is that the only AJ10 engines I have available are from SSTU but they aren't listed a nonRPO.

Awesome! Thanx! Installing SSTU gave me access to all the AJ10s, theyre a bit different model than i had in 1.2.2. but theyre there!

 

edit- gotta admit, it was a bit weird using the XLR11 as a lunar transfer stage engine

 

edit2- damn there are some good looking engines in SSTU!

Edited April 26, 2018 by species

[chrisl]

19 minutes ago, species said:

Awesome! Thanx! Installing SSTU gave me access to all the AJ10s, theyre a bit different model than i had in 1.2.2. but theyre there!

 

edit- gotta admit, it was a bit weird using the XLR11 as a lunar transfer stage engine

 

edit2- damn there are some good looking engines in SSTU!

I love SSTU stuff.  The only issue is that RO has some issues with masses when you use the engine clustering.  A single engine always masses correctly.  But when you start using the cluster feature, each additional engine weighs twice as much.  So a two engine cluster has the same mass as 3 engines.  A three engine cluster has the same mass as 5 engines.  etc.  It's only ever been an issue, though, when I work with big engines (like a cluster of F-1 or RS-25).

On a different topic, from what I can tell, none of the new procedural fuel tanks have a cryogenic option.  Actually, from what I can tell, all of the new procedural tanks (standard, balloon and SM) have the same wall thickness and insulation.  How do you create tanks with insulation?  Like for long term storage of cryogenic fuels. 

[species]

5 hours ago, chrisl said:

How do you create tanks with insulation?  Like for long term storage of cryogenic fuels. 

I had the same problem around the time i was starting manned Mars missions. Ive tried everything, even some special tanks mod(you cant really 100% mitigate LOH boiloff), but even then i was out of 4k delta-v worth of LOH before i got to mars.

So since then ive been using hydrolox engines for nothing else but getting out of Earth parking orbit(+/- few days). Nuclear for Mars and near furute propulsion mod electric for manned Jupiter missions.

I guess you can always delete the boiloff alltogether from .cfg file, but that felt like cheating