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

[Rob K]

@New Horizons

Not a really quick reply but I'm pretty sure you can just set an entrycost = xxx in a mm patch, just refer to the right part.

[Atlessa]

This may have been asked (and answered) before, but google doesn't seem to find it... so...

Why is RSS a hard requirement?  I'd like to use RP-0 on a different system (Gameslinx' planet overhaul scaled up to 10x).  Is there a way for me to do this?

[chrisl]

It's been awhile since I posted anything so I'm not even sure I'm in the right place.  OP still refers to 1.2.2 and RP-0 while I'm playing on 1.3.1 with RP-1 (v1.00 according to CKAN).  If I'm in the wrong place, appreciate directions to the right forum.  Anyway.....

I've just getting my new career to the point where I'm getting into manned orbital/sub-orbital launches.  As with most of my career games, I try to recreate historic rockets.  Unlike in most of my previous games, though, this time I'm creating Russian missions along side US missions.  So I'm at the point where I'm working on my first unmanned Mercury/Redstone launch while at the same time I'm building my first unmanned Vostok launch.
So far I've been able to deal with the "rollout cost" thing without much issue.  I did have to create an MM patch so that the prices for Raidernick's R7 tanks were the same price (ie, made no sense that the first two varieties were costed at 125 while all the rest were 12500).  But otherwise I've not messed much with costs.  
So I'm building my Mercury/Redstone.  It costs 6,278 in the VAB.  And KCT says the Rollout Cost is 16800.7 and will take about 32.5 days to build with a 1.25BP/s.  I'm building this at my Canavaral launch site.
I'm also building the Vostok at my Baikunor launch site.  It also have a 1.25BP/s.  VAB says it will cost 10,221 to build.  That makes sense as there are more ports so it should be more expenseive.  But according to KCT the Rollout Cost is 111476.8 and will take nearly 290 days to build.
I get that the Vostok is "more rocket" than the Redstone.  It's dry weight is around 29t where the Redstone is only around 9.5t.  Wet weight is around 287.5t vs Redstone at 32.6t.  But I don't understand why a rocket whose parts are 63% more expensive would have a Rollout cost that's 664% higher or a build time that is 892% longer.  At that cost (around 122k) I'd question if the actual contracts would pay for the rocket.

At this point I'm probably going to have to cheat and grant myself extra cash both to afford the "rollout cost" for the Vostok and to speed up production so it's even marginally closer to the Redstone.

And it's just makes me really worried about what it's going to cost for Voskod, Gemini and Apollo.

 

[Rob K]

Yeah, rollout costs are pretty crazy in rp-1.

My solution was to cut them to 15%. You can edit the rollout cost formula in the KCT options.  To compensate I tool all procedural parts. I almost never use the premade tanks.

My reasoning behind it is, you basicly cant build a tank without tooling (well you can but it's hard).

A 15% rollout cost gets me to about 200k rollout for a saturnV, with a tooled VAB cost of about 150k (first time tooling costs like 2m for the whole thing). That way you actually make some money doing manned contracts, otherwise your entire manned program will run at a giant loss beyond your first moon landing and progression to something like manned Mars becomes near impossible.

Sure a lot of people would disagree with cutting rollout costs this much, but I prefer building and flying stuff, and not go completely broke on a single failed launch.

Edited March 22, 2019 by Rob K
Typo

[chrisl]

Like I said, I'm not up to Saturn yet but have to say, if Saturn V only costs 150k with a 200k rollout (with your 15% redunction), that isn't nuts.  What freaks me out is the 10k build and 111k rollout.  I get that Rollout is supposed to cost more than build cost, but that seemed like a pretty extreme difference.  Every other rocket I've build (including all the sputnik and luna missions I've run using R7 rockets), the difference between build and rollout has been manageable.  Luna 1 (which is basically the same launch vehicle used on Vostok) had a build cost of 6832 and a Rollout cost of 22260 for a total estimated cost of 29k.  But apparently adding 4k to the build cost equates to an extra 89k in Rollout costs which seems crazy.

Question is, how did you reduce the rollout cost?  I know it's the "RolloutCosts" KCT formula but I know some of these formulas are pretty stange.  Can I just tack "* 0.15" to the end?

And that doesn't address the build time issue, either.  My Luna 1 rocket had an estimated 45 day build time.  But my Vostok (which, again, uses the same basic launch vehicle) is going to take 298 days.  My Luna 1 was only about 9t lighter and cost about 4000 (build cost) less.  So it doesn't make a whole lot of sense that it will take over 6 times longer to build the Vostok.

[Rob K]

You can just put the whole rollout cost formula between brackets ans add a *0.15 to it.

For build time, just add more build points, thats where most of my money went, after science building upgrades.

In my current save (which I cant open cause the game does a CTD when I try to load) I think I have 2 build rates at about 15 points and 1 on 7ish. I think I can churn out a moon landing mission every 6 to 8 months with that.

One of the biggest cost drivers is human rated stuff, also I never use the premade tanks. You could try replicating it with PP and see what the build cost and time is for that.

[chrisl]

I'd do that (increase build rate) except for two issues.  

First is cost.  I have a level 2 VAB so it costs me 30000 for a 0.0625 increase.  Going from a 1.25 to a 7 would cost something like 2.76mil.  I'm already having issues because I run multiple launch sites (Vandenburg, White Sands, Canavaral & Baikunor).  And I obviously don't need to update them all to that level, but just getting Canavaral and Baikunor to a 7 would be prohibitively expensive. The "First Orbital Flight (Crewed)" contract is only worth about 1.6mil so that doesn't even cover the cost of upgrading one launch site.

Second, if I upgraded the build rate to a 7 so that my manned rockets would be built in a more timely rate, my unmanned rockets would be outrageously fast.  At a 7 build rate, my Luna 1 rocket (and probe) would take about 8 days to build while the Vostok would take about 52 days.  I get that the man rated capsule probably took longer to assemble and all than the pretty simple Luna 1 impactor probe, but the time difference seems extreme.

Finally, it's got nothing to do with my using premade tanks versus PP.  My complete Vostok 1 rocket shows build cost 10221, Rollout cost 111476.8 and build time (at 1.25) of about 290d.  If I remove the rocket and just look at the Vostok pod, SM, decoupler and parachute (just 4 parts), I'm looking at build cost of 4411, Rollout cost of 75085.1 and build time (at 1.25) of basically 250 days.  So my rocket (excluding the Vostok capsule) only costs 5810, with Rollout cost of 36391.7 and build time (at 1.25) of about 40 days.  The Rollout Cost of just the launch vehicle still seems a little on the high side, but not outrageously so.  And the build cost and build time both seem just fine.  It's the Vostok capsule that's the problem.
The issue seems to simply be how the Rollout Cost and Build time are calculated for the pod.  If I remove everything but the pod itself, that one part has a build cost of 1813 (doesn't seem outrageous), Rollout Cost of 61819.7 (seems VERY high) and build time (at 1.25) of basically 227 days (also seems VERY high).  That basically means that 78% of the build time, and 55% of the Rollout Cost, is for a single part which seems crazy.

And then the other "manned" rocket I'm working on.  My Mercury-Redstone.  It's showing build cost 6278, rollout cost 16761.5 and build time 32.5 days.
If I take away the launch vehicle and just work with the Mercury capsule it shows build cost 3887, rollout cost 11614.2 and build time 18 days.
And the Mercury pod alone shows build cost 3202, rollout cost 9756.8 and build time 14.5 days.
There are more parts in the Mercury (9 vs 4 on the Vostok).  It's launch mass is 2.722t vs 5.13t for the Vostok.
Ultimately, the build time and rollout cost for the Mercury/Redstone is not outrageous.  But apparently the heavier (2.502t vs 1.011t), but less expensive (1802 vs 2502), Vostok needs 6 times more rollout cost (61819.7 vs 9756.8) and 15 times more build time (226d21h vs 14d10h).

 

EDIT: So I figured out some of the equation.  And some of the reason the Mercury pod is so much less expensive and faster to build than the Vostok.  The Mercury pod has ModuleTagAvionics, ModuleTagEngineSolid, ModuleTagHumanRated, & ModuleTagReentry.  Vostock has ModuleTagAvionics, ModuleTagHabitable, ModuleTagHumanRated, & ModuleTagReentry.  I'm not really sure why the Mercury is tagged as "ModuleTagEngineSolid" since it doesn't have a built in solid rocket motor and I'm not sure why it's not listed as "ModuleTagHabitable".  I created a temporary file to reset ModuleTagEngineSolid to ModuleTagHabitable.  Now my Mercury pod alone costs 2502, rollout cost of 20175.6 and build time of basically 57days.  So that change had an effect of the rollout cost and build time.  But it still doesn't explain why the Vostok pod has such a higher rollout cost or build time.  The Vostok pod is less expensive and as far as I can tell from the EffectivePartFormula, the mass of the part isn't a factor.  Also, the Mercury pod has a higher part variable (0.14166699999999999 vs 0.13750000000000001).  So you'd expect the Mercury Pod to have higher rollout cost and build time.  Unfortunately, there are some variables in RolloutCostFormula that I can't identify, so I can't determine if there's another error on the Mercury pod or an error on the Vostok pod.

 

EDIT2: So after alot of digging, I think I know what the issue is.  So, as a test, I altered the EffectivePartFormula by removing the "[PV]*[MV]*" at the beginning of the equation.  Then I went into the VAB and pulled up the Mercury Pod.  The KSC site I'm testing at only has a build rate of 1.0.  The build time is listed as 21d4h3m31s with a rollout cost of 10369.6.  And the Vostok shows 12d3h7m35s with a rollout cost of 8597.8.  That makes sense as the part cost for the Mercury capsule is higher than the Vostok.
Then I exited the VAB and again adjusted the EffectivePartFormula.  This time I just removed the "[MV]*" portion.  So I should be including the Part_Variables in the cost.  Went back into the VAB.  Mercury capsule now shows build time of 3d6h40m51s and rollout cost of 6862.6.  So the PV definitely had an effect there.  But when I pulled up the Vostok pod, the build time remained 12d3h7m35s with a rollout cost of 8597.8.  So it looks like there is an issue with the Part_Variables for rn_vostok_sc being applied to the EffectivePartFormula which is obviously going to throw off the BP and rollout cost for the part.
And I believe I know what is causing the issue.  Kerbal replaces the underscore character (_) in part names with a period (.).  So even through the part file says "rn_vostok_sc", in Kerbal the part is listed as "rn.vostok.sc".  I created a copy of the RP0/RP1 KCT preset file, then modified the name of the part to reflect periods instead of underscores.  This time when I pull the part up in the VAB I get a build time of 1d22h46m5s and rollout cost of 6602.  So it looks like KCT isn't have it's part variable names altered from underscores to periods.  Which means that will need to be manually done.  I've done that to my copy of the file so hopefully I won't have further issues with these pods.

Edited March 22, 2019 by chrisl

[Guest]

5 hours ago, chrisl said:

I'd do that (increase build rate) except for two issues.  

First is cost.  I have a level 2 VAB so it costs me 30000 for a 0.0625 increase.  Going from a 1.25 to a 7 would cost something like 2.76mil.  I'm already having issues because I run multiple launch sites (Vandenburg, White Sands, Canavaral & Baikunor).  And I obviously don't need to update them all to that level, but just getting Canavaral and Baikunor to a 7 would be prohibitively expensive. The "First Orbital Flight (Crewed)" contract is only worth about 1.6mil so that doesn't even cover the cost of upgrading one launch site.

Second, if I upgraded the build rate to a 7 so that my manned rockets would be built in a more timely rate, my unmanned rockets would be outrageously fast.  At a 7 build rate, my Luna 1 rocket (and probe) would take about 8 days to build while the Vostok would take about 52 days.  I get that the man rated capsule probably took longer to assemble and all than the pretty simple Luna 1 impactor probe, but the time difference seems extreme.

Finally, it's got nothing to do with my using premade tanks versus PP.  My complete Vostok 1 rocket shows build cost 10221, Rollout cost 111476.8 and build time (at 1.25) of about 290d.  If I remove the rocket and just look at the Vostok pod, SM, decoupler and parachute (just 4 parts), I'm looking at build cost of 4411, Rollout cost of 75085.1 and build time (at 1.25) of basically 250 days.  So my rocket (excluding the Vostok capsule) only costs 5810, with Rollout cost of 36391.7 and build time (at 1.25) of about 40 days.  The Rollout Cost of just the launch vehicle still seems a little on the high side, but not outrageously so.  And the build cost and build time both seem just fine.  It's the Vostok capsule that's the problem.
The issue seems to simply be how the Rollout Cost and Build time are calculated for the pod.  If I remove everything but the pod itself, that one part has a build cost of 1813 (doesn't seem outrageous), Rollout Cost of 61819.7 (seems VERY high) and build time (at 1.25) of basically 227 days (also seems VERY high).  That basically means that 78% of the build time, and 55% of the Rollout Cost, is for a single part which seems crazy.

And then the other "manned" rocket I'm working on.  My Mercury-Redstone.  It's showing build cost 6278, rollout cost 16761.5 and build time 32.5 days.
If I take away the launch vehicle and just work with the Mercury capsule it shows build cost 3887, rollout cost 11614.2 and build time 18 days.
And the Mercury pod alone shows build cost 3202, rollout cost 9756.8 and build time 14.5 days.
There are more parts in the Mercury (9 vs 4 on the Vostok).  It's launch mass is 2.722t vs 5.13t for the Vostok.
Ultimately, the build time and rollout cost for the Mercury/Redstone is not outrageous.  But apparently the heavier (2.502t vs 1.011t), but less expensive (1802 vs 2502), Vostok needs 6 times more rollout cost (61819.7 vs 9756.8) and 15 times more build time (226d21h vs 14d10h).

 

EDIT: So I figured out some of the equation.  And some of the reason the Mercury pod is so much less expensive and faster to build than the Vostok.  The Mercury pod has ModuleTagAvionics, ModuleTagEngineSolid, ModuleTagHumanRated, & ModuleTagReentry.  Vostock has ModuleTagAvionics, ModuleTagHabitable, ModuleTagHumanRated, & ModuleTagReentry.  I'm not really sure why the Mercury is tagged as "ModuleTagEngineSolid" since it doesn't have a built in solid rocket motor and I'm not sure why it's not listed as "ModuleTagHabitable".  I created a temporary file to reset ModuleTagEngineSolid to ModuleTagHabitable.  Now my Mercury pod alone costs 2502, rollout cost of 20175.6 and build time of basically 57days.  So that change had an effect of the rollout cost and build time.  But it still doesn't explain why the Vostok pod has such a higher rollout cost or build time.  The Vostok pod is less expensive and as far as I can tell from the EffectivePartFormula, the mass of the part isn't a factor.  Also, the Mercury pod has a higher part variable (0.14166699999999999 vs 0.13750000000000001).  So you'd expect the Mercury Pod to have higher rollout cost and build time.  Unfortunately, there are some variables in RolloutCostFormula that I can't identify, so I can't determine if there's another error on the Mercury pod or an error on the Vostok pod.

 

EDIT2: So after alot of digging, I think I know what the issue is.  So, as a test, I altered the EffectivePartFormula by removing the "[PV]*[MV]*" at the beginning of the equation.  Then I went into the VAB and pulled up the Mercury Pod.  The KSC site I'm testing at only has a build rate of 1.0.  The build time is listed as 21d4h3m31s with a rollout cost of 10369.6.  And the Vostok shows 12d3h7m35s with a rollout cost of 8597.8.  That makes sense as the part cost for the Mercury capsule is higher than the Vostok.
Then I exited the VAB and again adjusted the EffectivePartFormula.  This time I just removed the "[MV]*" portion.  So I should be including the Part_Variables in the cost.  Went back into the VAB.  Mercury capsule now shows build time of 3d6h40m51s and rollout cost of 6862.6.  So the PV definitely had an effect there.  But when I pulled up the Vostok pod, the build time remained 12d3h7m35s with a rollout cost of 8597.8.  So it looks like there is an issue with the Part_Variables for rn_vostok_sc being applied to the EffectivePartFormula which is obviously going to throw off the BP and rollout cost for the part.
And I believe I know what is causing the issue.  Kerbal replaces the underscore character (_) in part names with a period (.).  So even through the part file says "rn_vostok_sc", in Kerbal the part is listed as "rn.vostok.sc".  I created a copy of the RP0/RP1 KCT preset file, then modified the name of the part to reflect periods instead of underscores.  This time when I pull the part up in the VAB I get a build time of 1d22h46m5s and rollout cost of 6602.  So it looks like KCT isn't have it's part variable names altered from underscores to periods.  Which means that will need to be manually done.  I've done that to my copy of the file so hopefully I won't have further issues with these pods.

hold up,

"_" in a part name becomes a "."

just how many parts across how many mods are effected by this? is there a way to safely mass edit this issue "away"?

* long time no post from me, my obsession with a starting parts mach 1+ in level flight capable single engine jet took alot out of me.

It hit the wall at just over 366m/s @ 15,100 meters altitude, with a flight ceiling of 20100 meters and zoom climb ceiling of just over 25000 meters (best attempt 25237 meter into loss of control flat spin dive recovered at 8000 meters. My goal was to hit starting jets "thermal" limit of 400m/s in level flight. I just couldnt get area ruled any better or any lower in mass, I blame the lack of a much lighter and slightly smaller in diameter 1 person "F86 Saber like" cockpit lol. But I'm back in...

[New Horizons]

Is it intentional that all Kerbals start as Active and this list gets even longer while playing? I never have an applicant. All actives are pilots.

Edited March 25, 2019 by New Horizons

[chrisl]

On 3/22/2019 at 5:58 PM, Aazard said:

hold up,

"_" in a part name becomes a "."

just how many parts across how many mods are effected by this? is there a way to safely mass edit this issue "away"?

* long time no post from me, my obsession with a starting parts mach 1+ in level flight capable single engine jet took alot out of me.

It hit the wall at just over 366m/s @ 15,100 meters altitude, with a flight ceiling of 20100 meters and zoom climb ceiling of just over 25000 meters (best attempt 25237 meter into loss of control flat spin dive recovered at 8000 meters. My goal was to hit starting jets "thermal" limit of 400m/s in level flight. I just couldnt get area ruled any better or any lower in mass, I blame the lack of a much lighter and slightly smaller in diameter 1 person "F86 Saber like" cockpit lol. But I'm back in...

I edited 8 lines in the copy of "RP0_KCTPresets.cfg" that I'm working with.  For the most part, the fact that KSP changes "_" to "." in part names isn't an issue because it doesn't effect anything while the game is loading.  But from what I can determine, the information in the KCT Presets file is only looked at after the game is running.  So it's only variables (specifically Part_Variables) in the KCT Presets file that have to be written differently.  And those variables only seem to be related to crewed orbital modules (i.e., Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Vostok, Voskod, Soyuz, etc).  

[Steve N]

One thing that I have found a bit tedious at the start of a career has been the need to cobble together RCS control from individual thrusters. It would be nice to have rcs blocks available in an early node. They can of course have low performance as befits the start of a campaign. You wouldn't be gaining performance but just losing the hassle of manaully building 4 way blocks in the VAB.

 

[siimav]

1 hour ago, Steve N said:

One thing that I have found a bit tedious at the start of a career has been the need to cobble together RCS control from individual thrusters. It would be nice to have rcs blocks available in an early node. They can of course have low performance as befits the start of a campaign. You wouldn't be gaining performance but just losing the hassle of manaully building 4 way blocks in the VAB.

 

Some of the RCS quads have already been moved to the starting node on the development version of the mod. This change will be part of the next official release in the near future.

[JohnMcLane]

https://github.com/KSP-RO/RP-0/wiki/RP-1-Installation

The wiki says try ckan for installing rp-1 but i cant find it there.... is it not there anymore? 

https://imgur.com/dkRhgcX

 

[MatBailie]

7 hours ago, JohnMcLane said:

https://github.com/KSP-RO/RP-0/wiki/RP-1-Installation

The wiki says try ckan for installing rp-1 but i cant find it there.... is it not there anymore? 

https://imgur.com/dkRhgcX

 

Your image is so low resolution that I can't read any of it.

What version of KSP are you on? It needs to be 1.3.1, in which case it shows up fine for me.

EDIT:

Appears it was my phone snaffuing the resolution.  You're on the same version of KSP and CKAN as I am, and yet I can see Realistic Progression on my screen...

Edited April 29, 2019 by MatBailie

[JohnMcLane]

7 hours ago, MatBailie said:

Appears it was my phone snaffuing the resolution.  You're on the same version of KSP and CKAN as I am, and yet I can see Realistic Progression on my screen...

Now I installed it manually like i always do, but just the thought of doing it with ckan gave me some hope not to sit an hour on installing all the mods. On my old 1.3.1 RP-0 install, i can find RP-1 on ckan, seems something with my install is messy. nobody needs to worry about that.... Thanks for the reply anyway!!

[MaltYebisu]

There are over 500 commits to master since the latest release and what looks like a 1.6.1 branch of RP-1 was created a while ago. Is there a Golden Spreadsheet for 1.6.1, or should we just play the release version from December last year?

I know most of the action in the RO-community is on Discord and Github, but it would be nice to see some updates and news or discussions on the forum as well. 

[siimav]

38 minutes ago, MaltYebisu said:

There are over 500 commits to master since the latest release and what looks like a 1.6.1 branch of RP-1 was created a while ago. Is there a Golden Spreadsheet for 1.6.1, or should we just play the release version from December last year?

I know most of the action in the RO-community is on Discord and Github, but it would be nice to see some updates and news or discussions on the forum as well. 

The Golden Spreadsheet for KSP v1.6.1 can be found here. Most of the dependencies have been updated by now but there are still some that need a bit of work. Overall with a bit of tinkering it's possible to get the RSS/RO/RP-1 suite working on 1.6.1.

There's also an install guide on how to get the latest RP-1 master running on KSP 1.3.1. Unfortunately it involves installing quite a lot of backports and unofficial forks to get the most out of it.

[MaltYebisu]

Thank you @siimav .

[alaxandir]

Hi, I'm trying to play RP-1 and having some troubles!

I'm a little confused in regards to the installation process and what version of KSP I'm supposed to be playing!

I have RSO installed on KSP 1.3.1 and I installed RP-1 following the instructions on the GitHub Wiki. The mods run without issue but I'm missing some things it seems like I should have! My procedural parts can only be cylinders, I have no fairings, no decouplers other than the stock ones. It seems impossible to get a reasonable altitude (i've managed 180 km with what I have) but I'm clearly missing some parts!

My question is this, are the backports mandatory? I don't understand what exactly the term backport means, and the wiki doesn't specify if they need to be done or not. I installed all the mods I have from CKAN with the exception of Principa and RSSVE.

Thanks!

[Lilienthal]

Thank you all very much for the new RP-1 release.

Definitely another huge improvement over the old one.

You people rock!

 

[Flibble]

Can old save games be used with the new release? Or is it better to start fresh?

[JohnMcLane]

23 hours ago, Flibble said:

Can old save games be used with the new release? Or is it better to start fresh?

There are some part changes that caused some of my craftfiles to not work anymore. Did not check if RO or RP-1 related.

But there seems to be a problem with the RP-1 contracts not showing up. Did two installs, both via https://github.com/KSP-RO/RP-0/wiki/RP-1-v1.1-Installation-Instructions

and both times there were no contracts at all. In the Settings also was no option to select the RP contracts. ContractConfigurator is version 1.27.2 RP-1 from https://github.com/pap1723/ContractConfigurator/releases/tag/1.27.2

the version file says 1.27.1. And i did delete the old version, no overwriting

Someone with the same experience?

EDIT: On the third try, it seems to have worked...
EDIT2: There is a mod i installed not compatible with ContractConfigurator, after installing part packs, no contracts again. i will find out and post it here

Edited May 19, 2019 by JohnMcLane
Third Try

[Flibble]

I installed latest from github locally built against 1.6.1 and I had RP-1 contracts in the difficulty select.

No idea if they're working correctly as my game crashed when I tried to start a new career.

[MaltYebisu]

For everybody trying to install RP-1 for 1.6.1: 

@Bornholio made an install guide you might want to check out. It is still WIP, but I think it is worth a look. 

The Golden Spreadsheet Mk1.6 is also useful. 

[RedKraken]

Starwaster updated deadly reentry for 1.6 about 2 days ago :  https://github.com/Starwaster/DeadlyReentry/releases

And realheat most recent commit has a dll recompile for 1.6.1 : https://github.com/KSP-RO/RealHeat

Edited May 20, 2019 by RedKraken