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

[sfhq]

2 hours ago, Phineas Freak said:

@sfhq CKAN really messes things up...it lists CBK v1.1.13.0 as KSP 1.2.2 compatible when in fact it is only KSP 1.3 compatible. I am also 100% sure that KCT/MagiCore are also incorrectly listed (CKAN provides the MagiCore v1.3.0 which guess what...it is compatible only with KSP 1.3).

• CBK v1.1.12.0 link
• MagiCore v1.2.5 link (provided by the complete KSP 1.2.2 KCT pack, install both KCT and MagiCore just to be sure)

God, i hate CKAN...

 

1 hour ago, TheRagingIrishman said:

@sfhq install Real Fuels manually, it just updated and the metadata isn't fixed for it yet

Hi,

it took quite a while and wasn't fun at all, but after a lot of searching, I managed to downgrade all mods including binaries (.dll files) to a version compatible with KSP v1.2.2. It now launches with all requirements of RP-0.

To make it even more confusing, KSP version requirements displayed by CKAN do not always match the real requirements by the mods. So I had to look at all this information manually and some files were quite hard to find. I very much like content availible at spacedock.info, as they also offer all old versions, this greatly helps. Some mod authors also keep (at least some) older versions availible, but not all.

Thanks to Phineas Freak and TheRagingIrishman for all attempts at helping me, it's much appreciated.

sfhq/Mark

 

[Phineas Freak]

Since there have been major problems with the CKAN versioning, i took the liberty and created a basic RSS/RO/RP-0 mod list for KSP 1.2.2. This includes all required mods, along with some recommended/suggested ones. This is not a full list by any means, check the RO OP for the complete one:

Spoiler

Mod Name	Mod Version
Advanced Jet Engine	v2.8.0
B9 Aerospace Procedural Wings - Fork	v0.40.12
Community Resource Pack	v0.6.6.0
Community Tech Tree	v3.0.3
Contract Configurator	v1.22.2
Custom Barn Kit	v1.1.12.0
Deadly Reentry Continued	v7.6.0
Ferram Aerospace Research	v0.15.8.1
Firespitter Core	v7.5.1
Firespitter Resources	v7.5.1
Kerbal Alarm Clock	v3.8.4.0
Kerbal Construction Time	v1.3.5.7
Kerbal Joint Reinforcement	v3.3.2
Kerbal Renamer	v0.7
Kopernicus	v1.2.2-6
KSC Switcher	v0.7
MagiCore	v1.2.5
MechJeb	v2.6.0.0
Modular Flight Integrator	v1.2.4.0
Module Manager	v2.7.6
Persistent Rotation	v1.8.4
Procedural Fairings	v3.20
Procedural Parts	v1.2.11
Real Plume	v10.5.1
Real Solar System	v12.0.0
Real Solar System Textures (note 1)	v10.4
RealChute	v1.4.3.0
RealHeat	v4.4
Realism Overhaul	v11.5.1
Realistic Progression Zero	v0.54
RemoteTech	v1.8.6
Retractable Lifting Surface Module (note 2)	v0.1.4
SCANsat	v16.11
SmokeScreen	v2.7.5.0
Solver Engines	v3.1
SXTContinued	v0.3.12.1
TAC Life Support	v0.13.0
Taerobee	v3.0
TextureReplacer	v2.5.4
Toolbar	v1.7.13.0
Ven's Stock Part Revamp	v1.9.6

 

Note 1: There are three texture packs with different resolutions (2K, 4K and 8K), pick the one that your system can handle: https://github.com/KSP-RO/RSS-Textures/releases/tag/v10.4
Note 2: Part of SXTContinued.

And a raw version of the above list, as exported from CKAN (useful if you want to do a 1:1 text comparison to see if you are missing a mod and/or you have a wrong version installed). You can export the version list of your own install by opening CKAN and selecting the "File --> Export installed mods..." option (it will prompt you to save the file as a "CKAN favourites list (*.ckan)" file, ignore it and use the "Plain Text (*.txt)" option):

Spoiler

Advanced Jet Engine (AdvancedJetEngine v2.8.0)
B9 Aerospace Procedural Wings - Fork (B9-PWings-Fork 1:0.40.12)
Community Resource Pack (CommunityResourcePack 0.6.6.0)
Community Tech Tree (CommunityTechTree 1:3.0.3)
Contract Configurator (ContractConfigurator 1.22.2)
Custom Barn Kit (CustomBarnKit 1.1.12.0)
Deadly Reentry Continued (DeadlyReentry v7.6.0)
Ferram Aerospace Research (FerramAerospaceResearch 3:0.15.8.1)
Firespitter Core (FirespitterCore v7.5.1)
Firespitter Resources config (FirespitterResourcesConfig v7.5.1)
Kerbal Alarm Clock (KerbalAlarmClock v3.8.4.0)
Kerbal Construction Time (KerbalConstructionTime 1.3.5.7)
Kerbal Joint Reinforcement (KerbalJointReinforcement v3.3.2)
Kerbal Renamer (KerbalRenamer 0.7)
Kopernicus Planetary System Modifier (Kopernicus 2:release-1.2.2-6)
KSC Switcher (KSCSwitcher 0.7)
MagiCore (MagiCore 1.2.5)
MechJeb 2 (MechJeb2 2.6.0.0)
ModularFlightIntegrator (ModularFlightIntegrator 1.2.4.0)
Module Manager (ModuleManager 2.7.6)
PersistentRotation (PersistentRotation 1.8.4)
Procedural Fairings (ProceduralFairings v3.20)
Procedural Parts (ProceduralParts v1.2.11)
Real Plume (RealPlume 2:v10.5.1)
Real Solar System (RealSolarSystem v12.0.0)
Real Solar System Textures - 8192 x 4096 (RSSTextures8192 v10.4)
RealChute Parachute Systems (RealChute v1.4.3.0)
RealHeat (RealHeat v4.4)
Realism Overhaul (RealismOverhaul v11.5.1)
Realistic Progression Zero (RP-0 v0.54)
RemoteTech (RemoteTech v1.8.6)
Retractable Lifting Surface Module (RetractableLiftingSurface 0.1.4)
SCANsat (SCANsat v16.11)
SmokeScreen - Extended FX Plugin (SmokeScreen 2.7.5.0)
Solver Engines plugin (SolverEngines v3.1)
SXTContinued (SXTContinued 0.3.12.1)
TAC Life Support (TACLS) (TACLS v0.13.0)
Taerobee - Stockalike X-1 & More (Taerobee 1:3.0)
TextureReplacer (TextureReplacer v2.5.4)
Toolbar (Toolbar 1.7.13.0)
Ven's Stock Part Revamp (VenStockRevamp v1.9.6)

I will repeat that this list is meant for KSP version 1.2.2, no more, no less.

Edited August 3, 2017 by Phineas Freak
Notes!

[sfhq]

13 minutes ago, Phineas Freak said:

Since there have been major problems with the CKAN versioning, i took the liberty and created a basic RSS/RO/RP-0 mod list for KSP 1.2.2. This includes all required mods, along with some recommended/suggested ones. This is not a full list by any means, check the RO OP for the complete one:

  Reveal hidden contents

Mod Name	Mod Version
Advanced Jet Engine	v2.8.0
B9 Aerospace Procedural Wings - Fork	v0.40.12
Community Resource Pack	v0.6.6.0
Community Tech Tree	v3.0.3
Contract Configurator	v1.22.2
Custom Barn Kit	v1.1.12.0
Deadly Reentry Continued	v7.6.0
Ferram Aerospace Research	v0.15.8.1
Firespitter Core	v7.5.1
Firespitter Resources	v7.5.1
Kerbal Alarm Clock	v3.8.4.0
Kerbal Construction Time	v1.3.5.7
Kerbal Joint Reinforcement	v3.3.2
Kerbal Renamer	v0.7
Kopernicus	v1.2.2-6
KSC Switcher	v0.7
MagiCore	v1.2.5
MechJeb	v2.6.0.0
Modular Flight Integrator	v1.2.4.0
Module Manager	v2.7.6
Persistent Rotation	v1.8.4
Procedural Fairings	v3.20
Procedural Parts	v1.2.11
Real Plume	v10.5.1
Real Solar System	v12.0.0
Real Solar System Textures (note 1)	v10.4
RealChute	v1.4.3.0
RealHeat	v4.4
Realism Overhaul	v11.5.1
Realistic Progression Zero	v0.54
RemoteTech	v1.8.6
Retractable Lifting Surface Module (note 2)	v0.1.4
SCANsat	v16.11
SmokeScreen	v2.7.5.0
Solver Engines	v3.1
SXTContinued	v0.3.12.1
TAC Life Support	v0.13.0
Taerobee	v3.0
TextureReplacer	v2.5.4
Toolbar	v1.7.13.0
Ven's Stock Part Revamp	v1.9.6

 

Note 1: There are three texture packs with different resolutions (2K, 4K and 8K), pick the one that your system can handle: https://github.com/KSP-RO/RSS-Textures/releases/tag/v10.4
Note 2: Part of SXTContinued.

And a raw version of the above list, as exported from CKAN (useful if you want to do a 1:1 text comparison to see if you are missing a mod and/or you have a wrong version installed). You can export the version list of your own install by opening CKAN and selecting the "File --> Export installed mods..." option (it will prompt you to save the file as a "CKAN favourites list (*.ckan)" file, ignore it and use the "Plain Text (*.txt)" option):

  Reveal hidden contents

Advanced Jet Engine (AdvancedJetEngine v2.8.0)
B9 Aerospace Procedural Wings - Fork (B9-PWings-Fork 1:0.40.12)
Community Resource Pack (CommunityResourcePack 0.6.6.0)
Community Tech Tree (CommunityTechTree 1:3.0.3)
Contract Configurator (ContractConfigurator 1.22.2)
Custom Barn Kit (CustomBarnKit 1.1.12.0)
Deadly Reentry Continued (DeadlyReentry v7.6.0)
Ferram Aerospace Research (FerramAerospaceResearch 3:0.15.8.1)
Firespitter Core (FirespitterCore v7.5.1)
Firespitter Resources config (FirespitterResourcesConfig v7.5.1)
Kerbal Alarm Clock (KerbalAlarmClock v3.8.4.0)
Kerbal Construction Time (KerbalConstructionTime 1.3.5.7)
Kerbal Joint Reinforcement (KerbalJointReinforcement v3.3.2)
Kerbal Renamer (KerbalRenamer 0.7)
Kopernicus Planetary System Modifier (Kopernicus 2:release-1.2.2-6)
KSC Switcher (KSCSwitcher 0.7)
MagiCore (MagiCore 1.2.5)
MechJeb 2 (MechJeb2 2.6.0.0)
ModularFlightIntegrator (ModularFlightIntegrator 1.2.4.0)
Module Manager (ModuleManager 2.7.6)
PersistentRotation (PersistentRotation 1.8.4)
Procedural Fairings (ProceduralFairings v3.20)
Procedural Parts (ProceduralParts v1.2.11)
Real Plume (RealPlume 2:v10.5.1)
Real Solar System (RealSolarSystem v12.0.0)
Real Solar System Textures - 8192 x 4096 (RSSTextures8192 v10.4)
RealChute Parachute Systems (RealChute v1.4.3.0)
RealHeat (RealHeat v4.4)
Realism Overhaul (RealismOverhaul v11.5.1)
Realistic Progression Zero (RP-0 v0.54)
RemoteTech (RemoteTech v1.8.6)
Retractable Lifting Surface Module (RetractableLiftingSurface 0.1.4)
SCANsat (SCANsat v16.11)
SmokeScreen - Extended FX Plugin (SmokeScreen 2.7.5.0)
Solver Engines plugin (SolverEngines v3.1)
SXTContinued (SXTContinued 0.3.12.1)
TAC Life Support (TACLS) (TACLS v0.13.0)
Taerobee - Stockalike X-1 & More (Taerobee 1:3.0)
TextureReplacer (TextureReplacer v2.5.4)
Toolbar (Toolbar 1.7.13.0)
Ven's Stock Part Revamp (VenStockRevamp v1.9.6)

 

Hi again,

you're really doing a great job at supporting RP-0.

Since my last reply, I've been able to add some interesting of the "suggested" mods and KSP is still running. Regarding CKAN, I have to revoke my previous statement:

CKAN DOES proper version checking and is QUITE ABLE to install an older version if needed by KSP. But it depends on the CORRECT METADATA to be provided by the package author.

I just installed some stuff using CKAN again and I watched for that metadata information. If multiple mod versions are included in the metadata with different values of supported KSP versions, CKAN usually picks the right mod version, NOT always just the latest. CKAN knows of 3 states: ideal version, compatible version, incompatible version, color-coded in the metadata display list.

So I guess, there is at least one, maybe more mods required by RP-0 that do not carry along the correct metadata information. This obviously is why the CKAN mod installation crashes KSP afterwards.

Just thought you should know.

 

sfhq/Mark

 

[Phineas Freak]

CKAN is great for installing and managing an extensive list of mods, like the RSS/RO/RP-0 suit of mods (IIRC @pjf created CKAN for that exact reason). The problem is exactly what you said, the metadata validation. Folks like @linuxgurugamer are doing an excellent job maintaining all ~900 of active mod metadata, especially at times like these (two very active KSP versions. mods developed for both of them). But, in the case of RO, if even a single patch is not installed correctly (with the proper versioning) things will break very badly, very quickly. It is very difficult sometimes to debug such problems, as the mods appear to be the correct ones.

<personal opinion> I believe that the case of the two active KSP versions (a large gap between mod version updates) is the problem. For every previous release, users jumped ship very quickly, with the mods following that trend. This time things were...different, as the KSP 1.3 version did not bring anything groundbreaking into the play. </personal opinion>

[sfhq]

47 minutes ago, Phineas Freak said:

@pjf@linuxgurugamer

<personal opinion> I believe that the case of the two active KSP versions (a large gap between mod version updates) is the problem. For every previous release, users jumped ship very quickly, with the mods following that trend. This time things were...different, as the KSP 1.3 version did not bring anything groundbreaking into the play. </personal opinion>

I agree completely. I myself was quite disappointed with v1.3 of KSP, especially because of the very limited number of languages they added. IMHO, they missed several important ones. For example, I've got some friends who'd like to try out KSP, but they lack the required knowledge of English. There are a lot of KSP players here and potentially even a lot more - if they just supported German. Sadley, they don't. For me, it doesn't make any difference - so I have nothing to gain with v1.3, but a lot to loose (compatiibility, at least until all mods have been ported to it).

I really hoped they'd work on something else for v1.3, but just some languages... :-(

sfhq/Mark

 

[NeilC]

2 hours ago, Phineas Freak said:

<personal opinion> I believe that the case of the two active KSP versions (a large gap between mod version updates) is the problem. For every previous release, users jumped ship very quickly, with the mods following that trend. This time things were...different, as the KSP 1.3 version did not bring anything groundbreaking into the play. </personal opinion>

Actually, in my opinion 1.3 did add something groundbreaking: the ground literally stopped being broken.

With the added precision issues that playing at RSS scale brings, I find that the SPH runway is totally unusable in 1.2.2. Better to roll off onto the grass, and that still breaks my planes half the time for no good reason. Until RSS/RP-0 get 1.3 support, I find planes are not a worthwhile option.

So I, for one, hope that this two-version thing ends ASAP!

[Phineas Freak]

@NeilC Unfortunately, there are still problems with the runway but the gaps/bumps now only they appear half of the times that you launch a vessel. In order to get a completely flat runway you will need to install RealLaunchSites. KSP 1.3 also has performance issues because of the new localization system (though slated to be fixed with the KSP 1.3.1 patch).

At least the surface seams have been fixed...

[hargn]

16 hours ago, Phineas Freak said:

@sfhq CKAN really messes things up...it lists CBK v1.1.13.0 as KSP 1.2.2 compatible when in fact it is only KSP 1.3 compatible. I am also 100% sure that KCT/MagiCore are also incorrectly listed (CKAN provides the MagiCore v1.3.0 which guess what...it is compatible only with KSP 1.3).

• CBK v1.1.12.0 link
• MagiCore v1.2.5 link (provided by the complete KSP 1.2.2 KCT pack, install both KCT and MagiCore just to be sure)

God, i hate CKAN...

The issue is not CKAN itself, but rather the mod authors that don't update the .netkan or .version files of their mods

CBK v1.1.13 has declared that the min KSP version is v1.2.2 so ckan will install it for KSP V1.2.2

For MagiCore, it is weird because the version v1.3.0 is declared as compatible for KSP v1.2.2

But maybe I'm wrong about this...

Edited August 4, 2017 by hargn

[siimav]

8 hours ago, Phineas Freak said:

@NeilC Unfortunately, there are still problems with the runway but the gaps/bumps now only they appear half of the times that you launch a vessel. In order to get a completely flat runway you will need to install RealLaunchSites. KSP 1.3 also has performance issues because of the new localization system (though slated to be fixed with the KSP 1.3.1 patch).

At least the surface seams have been fixed...

For me, 1.3 actually improved FPS for high partcount vessels by about 50%. I noticed it on a 250 part station that went from ~10 FPS to ~15. That's a huge difference in the playability of the game.

So personally, I'm definitely looking forward to the 1.3 update for RP-0. 

[BerthNerd]

May I ask what the progress is, to increase support for more Science Experiments from DMagic Orbital Science?

I started my playthrough with a "NoNonRP-0" folder, so that unsupported parts are not shown, however that leaves the variety in science parts a bit lacking and makes it hard to build cool probes (by visual means)

What does it mean for those science parts if they are Non-RP-0? I assume it means, that they are usable, but not balanced in the tech tree and if they were, science gains would need to be rebalanced if there are so many science parts, as science would otherwise be too easy.

I have no experience in modding KSP myself, so I can't say if it is lots of work or if it's hard, but if integrating them should be relatively understandable, I would offer my support.

 

Edited August 9, 2017 by BerthNerd
Addition of content

[Ultimate Steve]

Hi, I have a question. Is there a set RP-0 funds to USD conversion rate?

EDIT: Are there any tourist/rescue contracts at all? Or are they disabled?

Edited August 12, 2017 by Ultimate Steve

[pap1723]

56 minutes ago, Ultimate Steve said:

Hi, I have a question. Is there a set RP-0 funds to USD conversion rate?

EDIT: Are there any tourist/rescue contracts at all? Or are they disabled?

RP-0 uses USD normalized to 1965 and then divided by 0.

There are no tourist contracts available. 

[ubik2]

Quote

RP-0 uses USD normalized to 1965 and then divided by 0.

Divided by 1000.

Because of inflation since 1965, that means that a kerbal dollar is worth around $7,762.67 today.

[Dunbaratu]

I noticed that when it offers the "First human landing on moon" contract, one of the requirements is to plant a flag.  But that requires upgrading the Astronaut complex to level 2 first, and you get the contract offered without checking for the astronaut complex level.  In other words, if you take the contract without noticing that, and it costs more money to upgrade the astronaut complex than you have.... then you get penalized for the lunar landing contract failure because you literally cannot do the contract yet and don't have the money to upgrade the building yet.

Could that be changed to not offer that contract until you have flag planting ability?  (or remove astronaut complex upgrades from the requirements for flag planting, because, let's face it, flag planting should be pretty low tech and happen automatically once you can EVA on the surface of the moon.)

 

[a_schack]

5 hours ago, Steven Mading said:

I noticed that when it offers the "First human landing on moon" contract, one of the requirements is to plant a flag.  But that requires upgrading the Astronaut complex to level 2 first, and you get the contract offered without checking for the astronaut complex level.  In other words, if you take the contract without noticing that, and it costs more money to upgrade the astronaut complex than you have.... then you get penalized for the lunar landing contract failure because you literally cannot do the contract yet and don't have the money to upgrade the building yet.

Could that be changed to not offer that contract until you have flag planting ability?  (or remove astronaut complex upgrades from the requirements for flag planting, because, let's face it, flag planting should be pretty low tech and happen automatically once you can EVA on the surface of the moon.)

 

The first solution raises another issue: "Why don't I get the crewed moon landing offered?", and having to know you won't get it offered until you've upgraded your Astronaut Complex. It's not really too dissimilar to figuring out "Oh wow, this moon lander requires me to send x tons to orbit, and that requires a bigger launcher and while I can probably get the tech if I focus on it, the LV will weigh so much I need to upgrade my pads and I can't make that in time".

It's also akin to taking contracts with specific orbits, which are the majority of contracts in the next release, and forgetting to upgrade your tracking station and mission control to get manuever nodes.

As for the other solution, to remove the requirement, that has some other consequences. What's the reason to upgrade your AC then? Well, given what's being worked on now with training for specific manned command parts and, I guess it makes sense to be able to plant flags right off the bat, but have e.g. capsules be gated behind AC level - think level 1 for cockpits, level 2 for Mercury/Gemini, level 3 for Apollo and so on. But really, that still means you need to upgrade your AC.

Overall, since there's also a lot of implicit requirements of building upgrades for other contracts, I'd suggest perhaps have those "first of a kind" contracts contain a disclaimer about making sure you have the AC level, the pad level and the mission control/tracking station level.

[Dunbaratu]

7 hours ago, a_schack said:

The first solution raises another issue: "Why don't I get the crewed moon landing offered?", and having to know you won't get it offered until you've upgraded your Astronaut Complex. It's not really too dissimilar to figuring out "Oh wow, this moon lander requires me to send x tons to orbit, and that requires a bigger launcher and while I can probably get the tech if I focus on it, the LV will weigh so much I need to upgrade my pads and I can't make that in time".

It's also akin to taking contracts with specific orbits, which are the majority of contracts in the next release, and forgetting to upgrade your tracking station and mission control to get manuever nodes.

To make it a similar situation manuever nodes would have to be a hard requirement to be allowed to perform any burns at all, and they're not.  All the burns you perform with a manuever node could have been done without the help of the node.  Manuever nodes don't cause your engine to become ignitable when it otherwise wouldn't have been.  Manuever nodes help you *plan* the burn to reach a given orbit.  They are not a requirement to make it possible *at all* to make the burn like the astronaut complex is for flag planting.  Tonnage limits on the launchpad are also not as much of a hard boolean limit because how much they hinder you varies depending on tech tree upgrades for engine ISP, your rocket design, etc. If RP-0 prevented you from getting an orbit contract based on *it's heuristic guess* of how hard it would be for you to do that would be a problem because for some players that guess would be wrong and it would be doing them a disservice to use that heuristic guess to prevent giving them the contracts they actually *can* achieve but the game doesn't realize it. 

But this flag planting feature isn't such a heuristic guess.  It's a hardcoded boolean guarantee that it's impossible to plant a flag without that AC upgrade.

Quote

As for the other solution, to remove the requirement, that has some other consequences. What's the reason to upgrade your AC then? Well, given what's being worked on now with training for specific manned command parts and, I guess it makes sense to be able to plant flags right off the bat, but have e.g. capsules be gated behind AC level - think level 1 for cockpits, level 2 for Mercury/Gemini, level 3 for Apollo and so on. But really, that still means you need to upgrade your AC.

AC upgrades to make EVA's better makes sense (i.e. change how much TAC life support resources an EVA can store.  Change how much EVA propellant you have on an excursion).  But flag planting is such a low tech thing.  Its a silly holdover from the stock game (which, by the way, never offers you a "plant flag on" contract until that astronaut complex upgrade).

Another thing that makes sense for AC upgrades is G-force tolerance (again, the idea is the suits are getting better, which is always what I envisioned the AC being all about.)

Another thing that makes sense for AC upgrades is limiting allowed Kerbal experience level.  (i.e. to level up, you need better training programs.)  Or the opposite, instead of limiting allowed level, use it to impart some XP points to new hires (again, it represents training) to make them closer to levelling up.

A lot of possibilities exist that feel more sensible than "after we invented the self-contained space suit, we finally figured out the even harder problem of how to stick a rod through the top of a flag so it stays unfurled without air."

Quote

 

Overall, since there's also a lot of implicit requirements of building upgrades for other contracts, I'd suggest perhaps have those "first of a kind" contracts contain a disclaimer about making sure you have the AC level, the pad level and the mission control/tracking station level.

 

 

 

The only indication of that additional requirement is a one-line thing buried in the bullet points.  Adding a one-sentence description of that bullet point doesn't really change this much, I think.  What would work better would be to change the title of the contract.  In stock, all contracts that require a flag planting actually say they are flag planting contracts in the title itself.  Which makes sense because if you ask someone, "Can you plant a flag on the moon yet?" they will know that implies also landing a person.  But the reverse is not true.  If you ask someone "Can you land a person on the moon yet?" they're not going to automatically assume that means also planting a flag.  If the title says "plant flag on the moon" it implies both landing a person and flag planting at once in one compact statement.  It might make a better title.

Edited August 17, 2017 by Steven Mading

[a_schack]

47 minutes ago, Steven Mading said:

To make it a similar situation manuever nodes would have to be a hard requirement to be allowed to perform any burns at all, and they're not.  All the burns you perform with a manuever node could have been done without the help of the node.  Manuever nodes don't cause your engine to become ignitable when it otherwise wouldn't have been.  Manuever nodes help you *plan* the burn to reach a given orbit.  They are not a requirement to make it possible *at all* to make the burn like the astronaut complex is for flag planting.  Tonnage limits on the launchpad are also not as much of a hard boolean limit because how much they hinder you varies depending on tech tree upgrades for engine ISP, your rocket design, etc. If RP-0 prevented you from getting an orbit contract based on *it's heuristic guess* of how hard it would be for you to do that would be a problem because for some players that guess would be wrong and it would be doing them a disservice to use that heuristic guess to prevent giving them the contracts they actually *can* achieve but the game doesn't realize it. 

But this flag planting feature isn't such a heuristic guess.  It's a hardcoded boolean guarantee that it's impossible to plant a flag without that AC upgrade.

I can assure you that you will need to upgrade your launchpad, and more than once, before you can send a moon to the moon, even as spam-in-a-can.

My point is, I don't mind having a hard coded boolean that you need to upgrade the AC before sending a man to the moon. I completely agree that flag planting makes no sense in itself, and you can always discuss if gating is good game design or not, but in my view it serves its purpose of forcing you to spend money to upgrade and forcing you to plan ahead. What it doesn't do is provide a reason that will suspend disbelief, nor does it do a very good job of making you aware of the gating. And in my opinion, not having maneuver nodes is as big a hard coded boolean, because I simply wouldn't know the math to figure it out by hand, nor would I want to spend the time doing it. I'm already doing it for the new contracts that require a specific eccentricity, and that's reasonably simple.

51 minutes ago, Steven Mading said:

The only indication of that additional requirement is a one-line thing buried in the bullet points.  Adding a one-sentence description of that bullet point doesn't really change this much, I think.  What would work better would be to change the title of the contract.  In stock, all contracts that require a flag planting actually say they are flag planting contracts in the title itself.  Which makes sense because if you ask someone, "Can you plant a flag on the moon yet?" they will know that implies also landing a person.  But the reverse is not true.  If you ask someone "Can you land a person on the moon yet?" they're not going to automatically assume that means also planting a flag.  If the title says "plant flag on the moon" it implies both landing a person and flag planting at once in one compact statement.  It might make a better title.

What I meant was that you'd need a big fat red text saying "HERE BE DRAGONS", not a casual note in the bottom. And because RP-0 is scary, I'd prefer it for all contracts that are really big milestones or are offered before you can reasonably expect players to have the tech. Experienced players will know and disregard, but new players won't smash head into wall. The step from a lunar orbit to a lunar landing is massive. And it doesn't take long before you're offered Mars and Venus contracts. If you don't know RP-1 well enough, you could easily be tempted to take them, because it's not that much dV and there's a window coming up. Only it's 4 years before you get the antenna to do it.

[Dunbaratu]

15 hours ago, a_schack said:

And in my opinion, not having maneuver nodes is as big a hard coded boolean, because I simply wouldn't know the math to figure it out by hand, nor would I want to spend the time doing it. I'm already doing it for the new contracts that require a specific eccentricity, and that's reasonably simple.

I hope by you saying "already doing it for the new contracts" the "it" in question is merely giving a warning text, rather than entirely refusing to spawn the contract. I've done satellite specific orbit contracts many times without taking the time to place manuever nodes to plan them.  (Which is why I don't agree that they belong in the same category as being unable to plant a flag.  That's preventing the physical action entirely, not merely making the physical action harder to plan for.)
 

Quote

 

   The step from a lunar orbit to a lunar landing is massive.

 

But that's not the issue here.  The step in question is not the step from lunar orbit to lunar landing.  It's the step from lunar orbit *passing over* the step of mere lunar landing, and all the way to lunar flag planting.  Because of how the game works and the building upgrades work, that's a much bigger step than the mere step from orbit to landing.  I can do a lunar landing and return right now in the career, but I don't do it because there's no contract that rewards me for it unless I also plant a flag.

As for the issue of giving a warning text, I still think just naming the contract itself "plant flag on moon" would be better.  The phrase "plant flag on" includes the presumption that it involves a landing a person too the instant you read it in the list, before you even click on it to look at the details, whereas the other way around (the way it is now) isn't like that.  You don't presume flag planting from the title "land on".  This also would match how stock describes such contracts, which would help people moving to RP-0 from stock instantly understand what the contract is.

As to the issue of wanting the AC upgrades to continue being a game gating feature, I think you could do that without the weird unrealistic flag-planting limit by just swapping which power goes with which upgrade level of the building (if you can do that). Like so:

Current way:

upgrade 1. surface samples

upgrade 2. flags

Better way:

upgrade 1. flags

upgrade 2. surface samples

It would also make the contract in question a lot more sensible because the need to plant flags would be easier to attain.  You wouldn't need to sink 1,500,000 funds into the AC upgrade just to plant a flag, but you'd still want to do so later to get the juicy science points from those surface samples.  An incentive to upgrade it to the max level would still be there, but it would make a lot more sense now, and happen more spread out, rather than needing to do it before even the first landing.

It makes more sense for gameplay because surface samples are a more powerful ability than flags.  It also makes more sense historically because the later Apollo missions did a much better job of collecting rocks, good rocks, useful rocks, than the earlier ones did, specifically because astronauts were getting better geology training (something that makes sense to model via the astronaut complex).

 

[a_schack]

12 minutes ago, Steven Mading said:

It makes more sense for gameplay because surface samples are a more powerful ability than flags.  It also makes more sense historically because the later Apollo missions did a much better job of collecting rocks, good rocks, useful rocks, than the earlier ones did, specifically because astronauts were getting better geology training (something that makes sense to model via the astronaut complex).

I'm sorry, I think you're misunderstanding me. I agree that flag planting in itself makes no sense. I think that being forced to upgrade your AC before doing a manned landing on the moon is a good idea.

I also think that either hard or soft requirements (on requiring buildings or tech or whatnot) on missions are good. But I think the contracts need to do a better job at explaining what you need.

[pap1723]

3 hours ago, a_schack said:

I'm sorry, I think you're misunderstanding me. I agree that flag planting in itself makes no sense. I think that being forced to upgrade your AC before doing a manned landing on the moon is a good idea.

I also think that either hard or soft requirements (on requiring buildings or tech or whatnot) on missions are good. But I think the contracts need to do a better job at explaining what you need.

@a_schack and @Steven Mading

I have been following this string of comments and ideas surrounding the missions and find many of your thoughts and ideas that are raised here, interesting. The gating is something that is done so that players cannot land someone on the Moon in 1952. There needs to be proper structure and groundwork laid, but in KSP, it isn't completely possible without having "gating".

With the new version of RP-0 that will be coming out, many of these early exploits are not possible. But, all of that being said, I have taken the advice of adding a strong NOTE to the Moon mission to let the player know that they need to upgrade the Astronaut Complex to allow Flag Planting.

[a_schack]

@pap1723 is there any chance you can make those warnings in a different colour to make them stand out? Generally, I love the warnings on the new contracts, like the Molniya orbit. And I'd suggest adding warnings about antennas to especially the early interplanetary flyby missions too. Perhaps even to the first lunar flyby contracts too. I think that's one of the things, that'll throw new players off.

[Lilienthal]

I really enjoy RP-0. It is however pretty sluggish. (running on fast processor, win7-64, 16GB)

Are there any estimates around that show which mod is especially CPU hungry? I could do without a few of them if this speeds things up.

Any suggestions?

Thanks!

[siimav]

19 hours ago, Lilienthal said:

I really enjoy RP-0. It is however pretty sluggish. (running on fast processor, win7-64, 16GB)

Are there any estimates around that show which mod is especially CPU hungry? I could do without a few of them if this speeds things up.

Any suggestions?

Thanks!

Are you sure it's the CPU that's bottlenecking the performance? For me it doesn't really run that much worse than stock game based on CPU usage. The visual mods on the other hand are really bringing my lowly laptop GPU to it's knees. I think scatterer is especially at fault.

You could also run for example MSI Afterburner and check what percent of GPU usage you are getting?

[Leraw]

Realistic Progression 0 is amazing, however I have a weird problem:
Trying to land on the moon has proven impossible, because when i go very close it becomes apparent that the ground is very shaky for some reason, and with shaky I mean its like a amazingly strong earthquake (or moonquake), so upon touching the ground, even with a surface velocity of ~1 m/s according to mechjeb, i bouce off and start bouncing on the lunar surface until i get so fast that my spaceship gets destroyed.

I'd like to do a video of this, but I dont know how, and screenshots dont really show the shaking very well...

Has anybody encountered the problem as well or knows the solution?

Restarting or reinstalling has not helped.

Regards,
Leraw

[ubik2]

1 hour ago, Leraw said:

Trying to land on the moon has proven impossible, because when i go very close it becomes apparent that the ground is very shaky for some reason, and with shaky I mean its like a amazingly strong earthquake (or moonquake), so upon touching the ground, even with a surface velocity of ~1 m/s according to mechjeb, i bouce off and start bouncing on the lunar surface until i get so fast that my spaceship gets destroyed.

I'm pretty sure this is an issue with Principia. If you remove it, the moon stops teleporting around and blowing up any ship that gets too close to the surface.

For a while, I would drop Principia in for getting my craft from Earth orbit to a Lunar orbit, then remove the mod and restart to land, then add it again when I'm done. These days, I've been running enough Lunar missions that I haven't bothered re-enabling it. Unfortunately, it actually needs to be removed (it's not enough to disable it from the in-game Principia UI), and with the long startup times, it's tedious to switch.