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

[chrisl]

16 hours ago, species said:

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

Even with nuclear engines, you still need LH2 which has the worst boil off.  I'm not really expecting 0 boil off, especially for a Mars or beyond mission.  But should be able to come close to that for a "return to the Moon" mission.  Presumably with heat radiators and plenty of insulation.  I know the proposed Altair lunar lander was supposed to provide the thrust to enter a high inclination lunar orbit, plus have enough dV left to make a lunar decent to the polar regions.  All using RL10 hydrolox engines.  Which means a minimum three days (and probably closer to 4-5 days) storage for all that cryogenic fuel.  But even using the old Cryogenic tanks that wasn't really feasible unless you launched with a significant amount of extra fuel you intended to lose.

As for a mission to Mars, the only thing that makes sense there (even assuming nuclear engines) is heat radiators, plenty of insulation, and some sort of active cryo process that allows you to convert the boiled off H2 back into LH2, presumably through a liquefaction process.  But in any event, the first line would be lots of insulation which the new Type 1 through Type 4 tanks don't seem to provide.  From what I can see in the config files, all nine tank types have the same 0.01 (LOX, LNH3, LCH4) & 0.0381 (LH2) insulation which according to the notes is no insulation and basic insulation.  I'm guessing more types will eventually become available.

[species]

6 hours ago, chrisl said:

Even with nuclear engines, you still need LH2 which has the worst boil off.

Theres one engine, i think its the bimodal one or some of the NearFuture ones that can be configured to run on ammonia. Its way heavier tho but i rather built heavier rocket than deal with boiloff. And electric engines almost felt like vanilla game to be honest.

Also there is this this mod but ive never got it to work in both 1.1.3 and 1.2.2., no matter if i used cryogenic or service module tanks, still was losing 4k+ delta-v before i even reached mars, making year long stay mission impossible. 

Didnt try it in 1.3.1. yet tho, but yea i dont have any cryogenic option for procedural tanks either.

 

[Guest]

@Bornholio want to weigh in on boil-off mitigation?

[Bornholio]

Two ways.  First use a heatsinks/cryopumps to deal with it.  @Starwaster has good options. Pretty sure he is working on more realistic power consumption. we talked about good source material yesterday.  This will allow long term storage but high time warp messes with it. JPL Cryo refrig pdf

Second use the new RF and increase insulation.   This and slight over provisioning will do moderately long duration missions.

Alternately there is a simple off switch config for boiloff. I only use this option if my missions include a cryopump sufficient to deal with the heat.

@TANK_DEFINITION[*]:FINAL
{
	@TANK,*
	{
		@loss_rate = 0
	}
}

Edited April 28, 2018 by Bornholio

[Starwaster]

2 hours ago, Bornholio said:

Two ways.  First use a heatsinks/cryopumps to deal with it.  @Starwaster has good options. Pretty sure he is working on more realistic power consumption. we talked about good source material yesterday.  This will allow long term storage but high time warp messes with it. JPL Cryo refrig pdf

Second use the new RF and increase insulation.   This and slight over provisioning will do moderately long duration missions.

Alternately there is a simple off switch config for boiloff. I only use this option if my missions include a cryopump sufficient to deal with the heat.

@TANK_DEFINITION[*]:FINAL
{
	@TANK,*
	{
		@loss_rate = 0
	}
}

FYI, the insulation update hasn't been pushed out yet. Blowfish is going to be handling that soon. An update to Heat Pumps will follow that as soon as I work some of the bugs out of my current build.

Also, loss_rate is only used by the old legacy system. It's currently only used for resources that lack an entry for vsp (latent heat of vaporization). There are some TANK nodes that still use it but only for resources lacking vsp data. The code is set up to only look for loss_rate if vsp is absent. i.e. as a fallback system for things like diborane, ethane, ethylene and others. The more common resources such ls O2, LH2, CH4 and NH3 would be unaffected even if loss_rate = 0 were set for their tanks.

[siimav]

1 hour ago, Starwaster said:

An update to Heat Pumps will follow that as soon as I work some of the bugs out of my current build.

Thanks for working on a update to the Heat Pumps mod. If i may ask, have you managed to add any improvements to how the thermals work in analytical mode?

[Starwaster]

14 hours ago, siimav said:

Thanks for working on a update to the Heat Pumps mod. If i may ask, have you managed to add any improvements to how the thermals work in analytical mode?

Yes. Especially with insulation. When MLI is present it actually changes how quickly the tank part changes temperature in analytic. Actually, if anything it's too slow ATM because the rate needs tweaking. But that will probably work in the player's favor if they have their tank properly cooled before timewarping. If not and the tank is too hot then it won't cool down as fast as it should. The rate can be tweaked in the RFSettings file so the plugin doesn't have to be recompiled.

Also, if Heat Pumps parts are present and cooling then RF will detect that even during analytic mode and and keep the tank cooled as appropriate by overriding analytic temperature and saying 'hey this is how hot we REALLY are'. (see, ordinarily, applying flux to a part in analytic mode has no effect on that part. Instead it applies to the entire vehicle's homogenized temperature)

[chrisl]

If Heat Pumps mod can be used to help mitigate boil off for long duration flights, can I suggest that it be added as a recommended (or even suggested) mod in the OP?  This is the first I'd ever heard of it before.  I'll definitely be giving it a try as I get my new 1.3.1 career moving forward.

 

EDIT: One other thing, though this may actually be a change in RF instead of RP-0.  In 1.2.2 most of the cryogenic fuels had a field called "boiloffProduct".  If you included an empty tank to hold the gas (i.e., an empty Hydrogen tank on a rocket with an LH2 tank), the boiled off gas would fill up this empty tank.  In 1.3.1 the "boiloffProduct" field doesn't appear to be included.  Has this functionality been removed?

Edited April 30, 2018 by chrisl

[Starwaster]

2 hours ago, chrisl said:

If Heat Pumps mod can be used to help mitigate boil off for long duration flights, can I suggest that it be added as a recommended (or even suggested) mod in the OP?  This is the first I'd ever heard of it before.  I'll definitely be giving it a try as I get my new 1.3.1 career moving forward.

 

EDIT: One other thing, though this may actually be a change in RF instead of RP-0.  In 1.2.2 most of the cryogenic fuels had a field called "boiloffProduct".  If you included an empty tank to hold the gas (i.e., an empty Hydrogen tank on a rocket with an LH2 tank), the boiled off gas would fill up this empty tank.  In 1.3.1 the "boiloffProduct" field doesn't appear to be included.  Has this functionality been removed?

That's an RF thing and to my knowledge no RP0 patch has ever touched boiloffProduct. 

I only enabled it on the ServiceModule tank type and only for LOX, LH2 and CH4. The reason is that that boiloff mass is also used for ullage control (via propulsive venting) and any boiloff gas collected can't be used for that. 

It could be argued though that very large tanks with minimal insulation are going to have more boiloff than is likely to be collected so the impact on other tank types probably would have been negligible.

In any case, ServiceModule still has boiloff gas generation set up for those three resources.

Also, I wasn't sure it would work but stock radiators DO function in analytic in a manner that Real Fuels can utilize for cooling. Their main issue still being unrealistic energy costs for said cooling

Edit: Oh and they probably won't do anything when returning to a craft after a long period of time where analytic kicks in for the long time delta... (like hours/days/weeks/etc etc) - or they might. Have to test that out.

Edited April 30, 2018 by Starwaster

[hargn]

Hi there,

I'm currently testing RP-1and its new features, so thanks a lot to everyone who have worked on it (and also the release of all RO mods for KSP 1.3.1)

So, two things I have to ask here :

• The [X] Science dll linked by the wiki Setting up for Development Install :Temp Page: cannot be load in my game.
  Which version of [X] Science the dll is based on? Mine is 5.11
• After to have unlocked the Early Rocketry node, the RD201 config is available to purchase with an (really big) amout around 198k$.
  But without to have unlocked this config/part, the RD201 is available in the VAB. What is the intended behavior here?

Voila, it's all at this time. Thanks for your advices.

[AVaughan]

I think it was grabbed from the [X] Science thread.  There was discussion about the [X] Science causing stutters there, and someone released a patched version/dll.  If you can't find a version that is working for you, you should be able to just use an unpatched version of [X] Science.  Just be aware that the "Here and Now" window will cause noticeable stutters every time you enter a new biome/situation.

[Guest]

Not to pester but are we still looking at a 1.3.1 release or going right to 1.4.x

 

[Bornholio]

5 hours ago, hargn said:

Hi there,

I'm currently testing RP-1and its new features, so thanks a lot to everyone who have worked on it (and also the release of all RO mods for KSP 1.3.1)

So, two things I have to ask here :

• The [X] Science dll linked by the wiki Setting up for Development Install :Temp Page: cannot be load in my game.
  Which version of [X] Science the dll is based on? Mine is 5.11
• After to have unlocked the Early Rocketry node, the RD201 config is available to purchase with an (really big) amout around 198k$.
  But without to have unlocked this config/part, the RD201 is available in the VAB. What is the intended behavior here?

Voila, it's all at this time. Thanks for your advices.

the [x] science has a stutter issue, and a fix dll. but it still is laggy even after the fix dll just less.

any engine upgrade bout in node will cost no money and do nothing.  bought in VAB engine UI it will have proper cost.

[ValynEritai]

Will 1.2.2 install still work properly via CKAN? Getting bored of Vanilla so want to try RP-0 out but I'm too lazy to install the development build. haha

[hargn]

@Bornholio@AVaughan

I was aware and I noticed the stutters issues with [X] Science.
Apparently, @Warezcrawler released new patches (look at its post) : https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kyNOp-4ZeOuM1pipNiqUqLIS4xP9JxCa/view

I cannot test it before this evening, if it works (or if someone can perform the test), the right thing would be to update the link in the RP-0 wiki.

For the engine config, I've test it with the A4/A9 engine, the upgrade cost only 30k$ in the VAB.
Maybe the costs of engine upgrades in the nodes should be set to null. That will avoid some useless and very expansive purchases when clicking on purchase all button in the node

[Bornholio]

11 hours ago, hargn said:

@Bornholio@AVaughan

I was aware and I noticed the stutters issues with [X] Science.
Apparently, @Warezcrawler released new patches (look at its post) : https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kyNOp-4ZeOuM1pipNiqUqLIS4xP9JxCa/view

I cannot test it before this evening, if it works (or if someone can perform the test), the right thing would be to update the link in the RP-0 wiki.

For the engine config, I've test it with the A4/A9 engine, the upgrade cost only 30k$ in the VAB.
Maybe the costs of engine upgrades in the nodes should be set to null. That will avoid some useless and very expansive purchases when clicking on purchase all button in the node

Thanks for the link

As to engine upgrades doesn't matter what they cost in the node, they neither purchase on an "all" nor cost any money if purchased individually.  If set to zero they would auto purchase, and probably also if null. So they have been left as is because it doesn't affect anyone.

Sure it would be nice if someone fixed the code on that :) would also be a waste of time functionally.

[PhantomC3PO]

Hello,

I'm not sure if this is the correct spot to ask this, but here goes. I'm currently playing RP-1 and want to add in some of the specific parts (mainly tanks and the like) that come as part of different mods like BDB and raiderneck's russian launchers etc. so I can use their premade tanks instead of using procedural ones (they have put so much work into them it seems wrong to just use their engines). I've been looking at the github and have found the spreadsheet that you use to generate all the configs for RP, but I'm just seeking guidance around working out costing. I'm reasonably comfortable doing the .cfg's, I just want to know if someone has a method of calculating prices other than just looking at parts already in the game and trying to transpose them into other parts?

 

[MaltYebisu]

On 5/1/2018 at 6:43 AM, ValynEritai said:

Will 1.2.2 install still work properly via CKAN?

@ValynEritai In the OP it says:

Quote

We recommend installing via the CKAN, ckan.exe install RP-0 on the command line, or just look for "Realistic Progression Zero" in the GUI.

I don't think anything have changed with the version of RP-0 (or its recommended/required mods)  for KSP 1.2.2 to make it stop working with CKAN. Just have a clean KSP 1.2.2 install and fire up CKAN. It should work.  

[chrisl]

Can someone explain the Rollout Cost in RP-1 to me?  I'm just starting my RO/RP1 game.  Build my first rocket which is an A-4 with some science added in.  VAB cost is 585.  Rollout Cost is 1335.5 according to KCT.  That means it's going to cost me 2.28 times as much to get the rocket on the launch pad than it did to actually build the thing.  That doesn't make a lot of sense.  The VAB is were you design and build a rocket so shouldn't the cost there include the actual purchase and assembly of the parts?  It's not like you can order a bunch of parts but never pay for them because you decide not to rollout the rocket.  Shouldn't the Rollout Cost just be the cost of actually moving the finished (and presumably paid for) rocket to the pad and launching it?

 

EDIT: Something else I just ran into.  I don't normally create airplanes.  Mostly because I can't ever seem to get them to fly correctly (likely because I don't understand the aerodynamics enough) but also because flying a plane with a keyboard where key presses are either on full or off full is very hard.  So this is my first time building something in the SPH.  And then only so it could be building while I continue to produce sounding rockets.  I took one of the starting airplane cockpits then used a procedural tank, the lower half of the A4 rocket (from Taerobee), some winglets and parachutes, and put them altogether to create a rather crude "rocket plane".  Initially the costs of the plane was around 500 but I noticed that none of the parts (including the cockpit) included electricity so I added some to the cockpit.  That jumped the price of the plane from around 500 to around 4500.  4000 extra just to add a battery (didn't matter if I included 1EC or 400000EC.... cost was the same).  That means with a basic SPH (can't afford most KCT upgrade points so the SPH builds at 0.05 BP/s) it's going to take around 1500 days to build a plane.  Considering all I did was add electricity to a part that should have already had it (I don't think you can run life support without it), the jump in price and the excessive build time seem inappropriate.

Edited May 4, 2018 by chrisl

[Guest]

Anyone else notice tank weights change slightly in RP-1? Now a tier 0 orbital (RD-100/A4/WAC based) rockets are now VERY tricky to design. My current design had to resort to 2x RD-100 75 second  boosters with 10 ton procedural avionics units each, an air lit 75 second RD-100 core with a 3rd 10 ton procedural avionics unit and 4 WAC stages (50.1 secondd each, 6x to 2x to 1x to 1x with sounding rocket avionics unit plus thermometer/barometer) to just get over 9525 DV. The sucker has 30 tons of total avionics control on the pad with a mass of 40 tons and a core with 10 tons of avionics control with a mass of 15 tons.

TLDR tier 0 orbital rockets are almost a no go in RP-1 unless my design is some how flawed. Seeing 10 WAC rockets bundled just looks wrong and tempts test flight too much. Any suggestions to reduce the wrath of the test flights gods??

Edited May 4, 2018 by Guest
Added seconds of stages

[AVaughan]

@chrisl  Rollout costs include things like wages and training for launch control teams and pad personal, plus costs associated with moving the rocket to the pad, fueling, (in real life fueling with some of the toxic propellants can get very expensive), and range safety costs.  Apparently these costs have been properly researched.  Personally I agree that just counting those costs as part of the total cost in the VAB would be simpler, and less confusing to new players.  

For the battery, was that a procedural battery?  If so the unexpected costs might be because it wasn't tooled.  You can also add electric charge to tanks in the same way you add fuel or satellite payloads (I'm not sure about the starting tanks, but some of the later tanks definitely support adding electric charge).  I normally add battery capacity that way, rather than using dedicated batteries.  Also I'm pretty sure the starting cockpits aren't supposed to support full life support, (so that people can't use them for breach the karman line manned rockets), so they probably aren't intended to support missions that need electric charge for life support.  

[chateaudav]

I am discovering RO/RSS/RP-0 for a few days. As i used to, i managed my install with CKAN, so with KSP 1.2.2 to ba able to play RP-0.

Is it better/easier to stay with this install or to go to KSP 1.3.1 and RP-1 with a manual install and golden sheet ? What are the differences, pros and cons ?

Thanks !!

[michal.don]

Thanks to everybody developing RP-0 for their work - I've had a blast playing it since 1.0.5!

I have a question about the "dev" version for 1.3.1, since I've never played any dev version of a mod - are the dev versions usually compatible with the "official" release? Meaning, if I start playing now, will I be able to continue my carreer after the release for 1.3.1. officially drops? Or is it likely that I'll have to relinstall, and start over?

Thanks,

Michal.don

[Bornholio]

2 hours ago, michal.don said:

Thanks to everybody developing RP-0 for their work - I've had a blast playing it since 1.0.5!

I have a question about the "dev" version for 1.3.1, since I've never played any dev version of a mod - are the dev versions usually compatible with the "official" release? Meaning, if I start playing now, will I be able to continue my carreer after the release for 1.3.1. officially drops? Or is it likely that I'll have to relinstall, and start over?

Thanks,

Michal.don

The developmental branch (also known as RP-1) is 1.3.1 compatible as is current master however it is save breaking from several points.

Current master uses Community Tech Tree as a base for the tree while RP-1 uses a much larger tree that is based on historical time frame and linear tracks of development.  Only one technology node has a shared name between them.

Contract Configurator is shared between them but RP-1 uses its own fully developed set of contracts instead of the various mod packs and stock contracts.

Science is tuned to the new tech tree in RP-1 with an eye towards balance and hopefully historical tech advancing. Master Branch uses considerably different tech availability.

The KCT portion of the rules has a lot of balance issues between the RP-0 and RP-1

RP-1 new features are also save breaking from the perspective of tracking. For instance tooling keeps a list of each procedural item you have paid the cost on and as you move along a career it makes sense to reuse these items. 

There is discussion of making the next release for both a RP-0 master and Development branches so that we have a 1.3.1 version that is not save breaking. 

3 hours ago, chateaudav said:

I am discovering RO/RSS/RP-0 for a few days. As i used to, i managed my install with CKAN, so with KSP 1.2.2 to ba able to play RP-0.

Is it better/easier to stay with this install or to go to KSP 1.3.1 and RP-1 with a manual install and golden sheet ? What are the differences, pros and cons ?

Thanks !!

Everything is available for 1.3.1 if you play using a master branch.  Alternatively you can play the Developmental Branch

The 1.2.2 version is playable but many fixes are rolled into the 1.3.1 version of mods needed.

 

[michal.don]

3 hours ago, Bornholio said:

The developmental branch (also known as RP-1) is 1.3.1 compatible as is current master however it is save breaking from several points.

I might have misunderstood the difference between master and dev then....

Now I understand that 1.3.1. master is already out (RP-0), but work continues on "dev branch", which will become RP-1? And the two are not compatible to each other? Is that correct?

Thanks,

Michal.don