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

[Beetlecat]

On 10/23/2018 at 12:38 PM, Nich said:

Have not been on the forms in a while.  What is the difference between RP-0 and RP-1?

I am still trying to progress in my 1.2.2 RP-0 campaign.  Does anyone know why my throttle goes to zero when ever i Activate my Gemini lander engine on on my low tech moon lander?

Low tech -- you ain't kidding! Must be a heck of job to keep that thing pressurized.

[Guest]

As to my earlier post, a starting single engine jet that fast was very hard for me, I think major improvements could be made. Its mostly empty tanks even with 12min worth of full throttle flying, so vastly reducing body and wing size would save alot of mass. But i'm having issues scaling it down, anyone know more about planes and area ruling than I do, using the limits of RP-1 starting tech nodes? I'd like to see it break its current 20,000m ceiling, 25,000m would be my goal and to get up closer to its engines max speed of 399m/sec in level flight at 10,000m, currently its limited to about 362m/sec in level flight at 10,000m.

TLDR: help me redesign to save alot of mass while keeping/improving its ceiling/flight characteristics.

Edited October 24, 2018 by Guest

[Bornholio]

7 hours ago, Nich said:

@MaltYebisu is it released on CKAN?  I have been wanting to do a modular play through.

Also a big bootiful tech tree https://github.com/KSP-RO/RP-0/tree/Developmental

Massive number of contracts also. But steep learning curve.

Interesting lander, unfortunately in RP-1 we have leaky cockpits if they are not vacuum rated.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Bornholio said:

Also a big bootiful tech tree https://github.com/KSP-RO/RP-0/tree/Developmental

Massive number of contracts also. But steep learning curve.

Interesting lander, unfortunately in RP-1 we have leaky cockpits if they are not vacuum rated.

until you get the x-1 cockpit... that thing needs a nerf

[Guest]

On the topic of leaky cockpits and the X-1 cockpits slight OP'ness...

Where is our 1 seater plane cockpit in the RP1 starting tech nodes. We have the big cargo/bomber cockpit, the multi-crew passage cockpit and the 2-seater light bomber/fighter cockpit but we have no single seat light nose or in-line cockpit. Even un-pressurized something half the length and mass of the 2 seat cockpit would be very welcomed.

Both the F-86 Sabre and the MIG-15 were in service by 1949 we could use one of their cockpits?  Anything to save a few hundred kg and a meter of length lol.

**MIG-15 & F-86 Sabre pictured**

heck if someone can model or find an existing one, i'll take a Gloster Meteor cockpit or a ME-262 cockpit

On the subject of jets, I noticed something about the break the sound barrier's "Fly faster than 343 m/s" requirement  for competition.

Doing some reading I found that  Mach 1 AT SEA LEVEL is, depending on temperature and a few other factors, between 331m/sec to 342m/sec

BUT at 11km, the start of the  "Tropopause", the cooler part of the atmosphere between the Troposphere and Stratosphere @ roughly 11,000m to 19,000m (11km to 19km) Mach 1 is only 295m/sec. This is an altitude that takes little design effort to reach.

Should contract reflect this? like over stating this contract only requires you to be in a state considered flying at this speed, regardless of altitude?

Or an optional completion at the lower speed if altitude is over 11km? 

Just thinking...

Edited October 29, 2018 by Guest

[Lilienthal]

Hey people,

I hope everyone is fine.

One Q: Is there any point in upgrading the VAB building beyond level 1? It costs 1m, is it good for anything?

[Bornholio]

1 minute ago, Lilienthal said:

Hey people,

I hope everyone is fine.

One Q: Is there any point in upgrading the VAB building beyond level 1? It costs 1m, is it good for anything?

Build rates are multiplied by a VAB Factor (1.0,1.25,1.5), also it allows for a second or third build channel (still have to spend points albeit at a double rate) So until 114 VAB Build points its more efficient to invest in build rate (Build Rate of 5.3)

BuildRateFormula = (1+([L]*0.25))*((([I]+1)*((0.00125*((min([N],15)^2)+min([N],15)))+(max(0,([N]-15))*0.05))) + max(0.05-[I], 0))*sign([L]-[I])


Variables: N=num upgrades, I=rate index (0 based), L=VAB/SPH upgrade level, R=R&D level, S=Number of unlocked tech nodes, All "Crew Variables"
	Note: This uses some tricks to achieve various goals. First, the max() section sets the first build rate to start at 0.05 and all the others to start at 0. Second, the *sign() section limits the number of rates you can have based on the VAB upgrade level . It works because a negative rate is considered "disabled"

See https://github.com/magico13/KCT/wiki/Presets:-Internals for what this means

[winged]

On 10/11/2018 at 4:34 AM, Bornholio said:

Made a little album of starting a 1.4.5 RP-1 career 

Nice start. Few (hundred) more launches and you will plant a flag on Ganymede like me:

[Norcalplanner]

49 minutes ago, winged said:

Nice start. Few (hundred) more launches and you will plant a flag on Ganymede like me:

Impressive achievement! Is this in 1.4.5?

[winged]

27 minutes ago, Norcalplanner said:

Impressive achievement! Is this in 1.4.5?

1.2.2

[Guest]

I just noticed kerbals are about 1000kg extra mass when added to a craft, any one know why? 

[AVaughan]

@Aazard Sounds like https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/155700-131-realism-overhaul-v1210-29-apr-2018/&do=findComment&comment=3476718from the RO thread.  (No word on what is the cause yet). 

 

[Guest]

5 hours ago, AVaughan said:

@Aazard Sounds like https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/155700-131-realism-overhaul-v1210-29-apr-2018/&do=findComment&comment=3476718from the RO thread.  (No word on what is the cause yet). 

 

Humm, I think your right. I'll repost the "full story" of my issue incase anyone has had this issue and found a fix.

------------------------------------------------- post from RO thread detailing issue ------------------------------------------------

anyone find a fix for the 100kg extra per crew per part attached to a crewed pod?? i

Its become a "biggie" issue as I have a current obsession with very early single engine supersonic jets in rp0 and trying to find my design error i finally rebuilt from the ground up noting CoM/CoL, FAR data, notes i had made reading insanely complex papers online. Anyways part of it was noting weight of every part/fuel/life support and I was dumb founded the mass shrank from my original aprox 5050kg to aprox 1450kg. I figured "I MUST TEST THIS!!" and added a pilot and my heart sank it jumped to aprox 3250kg, add a 2nd crew and bang its aprox 5050kg. This more than doubles my weight with just 1 crew... if the mass was right this little jet might really push some serious altitude.

TLDR: why are kerbals adding aprox 1800kg each? they weigh more than a 17m long supersonic jet?

Even the fittest (or fattest) person that would reasonable be an astro/cosmo-naut might weigh 90 to 110kg  (198LBS to 220LBS) so its like i'm carrying 18 people instead of one. HUMM thats like 36 people... i built a 1/3 sized concorde!

 

•  
• Quote
•  
• Edit

[winged]

Part I of my RP-0 mission to Ganymede - cargo section.

Full album with description: https://imgur.com/a/WO7d4

 

Part II - tomorrow.

[winged]

Part II - https://imgur.com/a/Zjvow

USS Discovery over Antarctida - September 2001

LEO mass: 1880,0 t

Total length: 178 m

Total delta V: 17300 m/s

 

 

Approaching Ganymede - February 2004.

 

 

Nearly 40.000 science points collected during single mission.

Edited November 2, 2018 by winged

[Bornholio]

21 hours ago, winged said:

Part II - https://imgur.com/a/Zjvow

 

 

Will you be making a video?

[winged]

13 hours ago, Bornholio said:

Will you be making a video? 

Yes, but that will be expedition to Europa with the same architecture and few improvements.

[Bornholio]

Guess i made the gif of the launch too large here is  my Jotun I launcher out of vandenburg in '56

https://i.imgur.com/nvOL0eT.gifv

Three Stage (pair of LR89's, LR-91 gets it to orbit in up to 240x240, has 800dV for orbital operations from a triple Cavea-B thruster. 

PEG gets it to orbit just fine, though it doesn't have a solution until the second stage clears.

After upgrade cycles, extending the operational limit to 20 days using an improved support module.

Got everything tuned so there is no space junk.  even the apogee kick motor retro's out of orbit.

 

Edited November 6, 2018 by Bornholio

[hargn]

Splendid Trip @winged  !!!

And nice vessel @Bornholio. Where did you find these solar panels (which mod) ? I believe I never saw them in any of my RO/RP-X install.

[Bornholio]

14 hours ago, hargn said:

Splendid Trip @winged  !!!

And nice vessel @Bornholio. Where did you find these solar panels (which mod) ? I believe I never saw them in any of my RO/RP-X install.

They are Taniwha's addition to RP-0, think they have been in developmental for 9 months or so.

[BerthNerd]

Is there any RP-0 usable mod for non-round tanks in changeable sizes? I find it quite hard to build nice looking satellites with the round tanks if the comsat payload requirements get quite high. Same is true for some space probes or lander stages. Do you guys know something that works with real-fuels?

[hargn]

Yes, that could be a really nice addition to be able to build procedural parts with a regular polygon base.
One button to select the shape : circular or polygon, and in the last case, a cursor to select the number of sides.

You're not the first one who asks for the feature, unfortunatly.
I think that it shouldn't be a really hard to implement feature, unless, maybe ,for the texture application on the part to my opinion.

[JohnMcLane]

Hey could use some input!

I try to make a Space Shuttle RP0 NoCost config.

Using this mod:

There are two important numbers:

Estimated cost per launch in 2011:   ~ 450mio $;
Estimated cost for whole Space Shuttle program (Launches included):  ~196bill $;

Estimated cost per launch 2011   ~ 450mio $ 2011to1965/1000 = 63.000$ in RP0 Money
EntryCost for all parts combined = 63.000$ * 20 = 1.260.000$ in RP0 Money
That are nice numbers, with recovery its a win after a few flights, of course not very realistic because of this number: 196bill $. The Development/ maintanace cost  are not really included: 
196.000.000.000 - (135 (flights)* 450.000.000) = 135.250.000.000 $ 2011to1965/1000 = 18.940.000$ not included in my calculations above.
18.940.000/135 = 140300 per flight needs to be added.

63000 + 140.300 = 203.300 $ per Launch (EntryCost 4.066.000$) that number on the other side is to high i think, mainly the per launch cost because i can build a  proc parts shuttle for around 50.000 and allready have the Entrycost paid.

What advise would you give me? Launch cost of 63.000 and the higher EntryCost, because Shuttles are expensive...1:64 cost ratio and not 1:20

 

Edited November 15, 2018 by JohnMcLane

[aluc24]

Hey, guys, have any of you managed to get RP-0 to work with KSP 1.3.1? The rest of RO seems to be updated and working with KSP 1.3.1 (including RP-0 dependencies), but when I put the RP-0 (for KSP 1.2.2 version) in Gamedata, the game crashes before reaching the main menu. I assume that version doesn't work. Or are you all still running RO on KSP 1.2.2?

[AVaughan]

@aluc24 I'm not sure what the current state of RP-0 in github is, but some months ago the developmental branch was working fine.  https://github.com/KSP-RO/RP-0/tree/Developmental

Edited November 16, 2018 by AVaughan