Jump to content

[1.2] Real Solar System v12.0 Dec 8

NathanKell

By NathanKell
in KSP1 Mod Releases

 Share

Recommended Posts

Hattivat

Hattivat

Posted
Posted (edited)

[edit:] This post is obviously addressed to smartbunnies.

How exactly does not having DRE installed "heavily" reduce the fuel requirements? A typical heatshield only weights one tonne. I can understand not wanting to add it though, it does add some complexity to the missions.

As for your problem:

First off, it is perfectly possible to launch without any special configs, it just requires more staging, see:

Second, you can get your fuel tanks and engines balanced for RSS by installing Procedural Parts + Real Fuels (reduces tank dry mass) + Stockalike engine configs (reduces engine masses to what they would realistically weigh with the thrust they have), you don't need the rest of Realism Overhaul. I don't know if Real Fuels is "too much realism" for you, but it's the best solution I know of.

Third, you could try using ferram's isp scaler: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/52882-0-24-2-Kerbal-Isp-Difficulty-Scaler-v1-4-8-14-14 You'd probably have to create your own config for it though, as it's usual purpose is the opposite of what you need.

Fourth, if none of the above sound OK to you, the solution might be to install the x6.4 config for RSS, as it is perfectly balanced for "default" KSP rocket performance.

Edited by Hattivat
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bedi

Bedi

Posted
Posted (edited)
Personally I gave up on using TOT, couldn't get it to work well. Kerbal Alarm Clock and Protractor are sufficient for this kind of missions. (If using KAC, always use the "formula" option for setting launch window alarms)

I thought KAC won't work with RSS

I know little about TOT (could never get it to work on mac) but yes, it seems as if Earth is in the correct departure position and Venus is in the correct arrival position, so your transfer is not going to work. Also your ascending/descending node are irrelevant to departure time, but relative inclination and normal/anti normal velocity in your departure burn. For reference, RSS starts on 1/1 1951 at 00:00, so you should be able to add your KSP Universal Time to that, and then use TOT to get an exact date rather than relying on angles.

I thought RSS starts at 1/1 1950 at 00:00 so my kerbal kalendar is on the wrong date. Anyway i make 500m/s ÃŽâ€V correction and i will get ecounter year later. THX for help.

Can anybody recommend a mod that has a balanced fuel tanks and engines for this. I am not read to go full RO yet and am looking for something where it is balanced for the full scale and not the stock scale. If not a mod than at least some guidance for the math to rescale the configs. My current mods are:

FAR

KAC

KJR

KW Rocketry

RealChutes

Blizzy's Toolbar

MechJeb

Docking Port Alignment Indicator

NavBall Enhancement

RSS

(Note the lack of DRE. I am not ready for that much realism yet as I rely very heavily on it to reduce my fuel requirements)

Real fuels will help you. You should think about adding Realism overhaul, so you will get real engines, but from what i know real fuel will make your engines more efficient (and fuel tanks will store more fuel).

Edited by Bedi
Link to comment
Share on other sites
smartdummies

smartdummies

Posted
Posted
[edit:] This post is obviously addressed to smartbunnies.

How exactly does not having DRE installed "heavily" reduce the fuel requirements? A typical heatshield only weights one tonne. I can understand not wanting to add it though, it does add some complexity to the missions.

I am a mediocre mission planner and pilot. I will often need to return to Kerbin without an orbital insertion burn, and I also have a tendency to rely entirely on areobraking for my orbital insertions when an atmosphere exists. So DRE does tend to make my Kerbals nervous.

As for the rest, thanks for the suggestions. I will try the Procedural Part + RealFuels + Stockalike combination. I tried the 6.4x config but it lacked the awe and scale that I get from the full size.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RedAV8R

RedAV8R

Posted
Posted
I am a mediocre mission planner and pilot. I will often need to return to Kerbin without an orbital insertion burn, and I also have a tendency to rely entirely on areobraking for my orbital insertions when an atmosphere exists. So DRE does tend to make my Kerbals nervous.

As for the rest, thanks for the suggestions. I will try the Procedural Part + RealFuels + Stockalike combination. I tried the 6.4x config but it lacked the awe and scale that I get from the full size.

If you are using a full scale RSS, then there is no reason why NOT to get Realism Overhaul. Follow a few simple rules and return is easy, even with DRE. Realism Overhaul simply turns objects and performance into real world numbers, if you are using a real world, use real world numbers. Honestly, it's more simple and easy to just do full RO and learn the right way, then to try and ease out of stock gradually into real life, that is if real world is what the end goal is. It's easy to read up on real launchers that exist, build something similar and go. Otherwise you have more trial and error, and when you do go full RO, there is even more shock to the system. May be easier now, but it'll be harder later. Quite procrastinating and just get RO (and dependencies) and have fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Starwaster

Starwaster

Posted
Posted

Kerbal AlarmClock works fine with RSS.

To the Mediocre Planner / Pilot.

You're mediocre because you play in mediocre conditions. Stop being mediocre and get DREC. Not using it isn't saving you fuel. Get it and start challenging yourself. (You really want the RO heat shields for RSS. Even if you installs nihongo else from RO. Get the shields) Stop being mediocre today!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cremasterstroke

cremasterstroke

Posted
Posted

Hi Nathan, I've experienced a small bug with Real Solar System and the newer versions of Module Manager. With version 2.2.2 bundled in your release the various launch sites show up fine. [spoiler=]lDZrsdT.png

However with 2.3.x they disappear - in fact the buttons to toggle them don't show up either [spoiler=]OcWMwHy.png

In the output logs 0 launch sites are being loaded with 2.3.x, while the normal 22 are loaded with 2.2.2. Link to logs: using version 2.2.2 and version 2.3.3

My GameData folder: [spoiler=]bqFSH9E.png

I've cross-posted this to the MM thread as well. For now I've gone back to 2.2.2, even though it doesn't seem to affect anything else.

. All mods are latest versions AFAIK, RSS is version 7.2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Starwaster

Starwaster

Posted
Posted
Hi Nathan, I've experienced a small bug with Real Solar System and the newer versions of Module Manager. With version 2.2.2 bundled in your release the various launch sites show up fine. [spoiler=]http://i.imgur.com/lDZrsdT.png

However with 2.3.x they disappear - in fact the buttons to toggle them don't show up either [spoiler=]http://i.imgur.com/OcWMwHy.png

In the output logs 0 launch sites are being loaded with 2.3.x, while the normal 22 are loaded with 2.2.2. Link to logs: using version 2.2.2 and version 2.3.3

My GameData folder: [spoiler=]http://i.imgur.com/bqFSH9E.png

I've cross-posted this to the MM thread as well. For now I've gone back to 2.2.2, even though it doesn't seem to affect anything else.

Check back in the MM thread. 2.3.4 has been posted to address those and other issues.

. All mods are latest versions AFAIK, RSS is version 7.2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
maccollo

maccollo

Posted
Posted

So since Venus has a different atmosphere now I decided to make a new ascent vehicle. Taking of from just 900 meters above sea level I only needed 12.8 km/s to get into a low 190x190 orbit.

As a result my Venus ascent vehicle is a meager 211 tonnes at lift off. It's just like taking off from Eve. Frankly the epicness factor has dropped significantly.

venusAscent1.jpg

VenusAscent2.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lopiko

lopiko

Posted
Posted

In my game this mod results in completely random system, with only Kerbin and Moho having real-life textures. All other planets have stock size and looks. Orbits are completely random. How can i fix this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
maccollo

maccollo

Posted
Posted (edited)

Found this paper that used measurements from the Vega landers.

http://libgen.org/scimag/get.php?doi=10.1007/bf00056477

The atmosphere seems spot on. Actually, it should possibly be slightly thinner in some parts. This saddens me.

One thing that seems off is that most of the surface should be very close to sea level altitude, ± 1 km or so. But I'm having a really hard time finding many places lower than 5 km. Several places along the equator is 12 km above sea level, but the biggest mountain along the equator is Maat Mons at a height of 8 km.

Edited by maccollo
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hattivat

Hattivat

Posted
Posted

I might be wrong, but isn't the problem with achieving realistic difficulty for Venus ascent stemming mostly from the fact that the minimum Isp of the engines in KSP is calibrated for Earth sea-level pressure, so there is no way to account for massive Isp losses from Venus's hellish atmpsheric pressure?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Starwaster

Starwaster

Posted
Posted
I might be wrong, but isn't the problem with achieving realistic difficulty for Venus ascent stemming mostly from the fact that the minimum Isp of the engines in KSP is calibrated for Earth sea-level pressure, so there is no way to account for massive Isp losses from Venus's hellish atmpsheric pressure?

Every single engine would need corrected thrust curve data. I think it clamps to the keys. So if the highest pressure it has as a key is 1 then the corresponding ISP for atm pressure 1 is the lowest is as low as it gets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
smartdummies

smartdummies

Posted
Posted
Kerbal AlarmClock works fine with RSS.

To the Mediocre Planner / Pilot.

You're mediocre because you play in mediocre conditions. Stop being mediocre and get DREC. Not using it isn't saving you fuel. Get it and start challenging yourself. (You really want the RO heat shields for RSS. Even if you installs nihongo else from RO. Get the shields) Stop being mediocre today!

I think you vastly overestimate me. FAR was my first mod and I still need multiple launches due to rapid mid flight disassembly. Based on some vids of rockets I've seen, what I really need is imagination for my builds. Tall classic rockets is about all I can build. I fully expect that I will get the full RO at some point, but I need to go one step at a time.

The Real Fuels + Procedural Parts + Stockalike config is working well for right now. I can say that RF and PP are wonderful. I really should have gotten these earlier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NathanKell

NathanKell

Posted
  • Author
Posted

lopiko: Please follow the directions here.

maccollo: Hah, I always like when people do my work for me. Thanks! I'll look into the terrain issue. I thought I corrected planet radius for the heightmap, but we'll see.

Hattivat, Starwaster: I really should add that feature of KIDS to RF (linear extension of the curve to, say, 1000 atm of pressure).

cremasterstroke: thanks so much! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
metaphor

metaphor

Posted
Posted (edited)
So since Venus has a different atmosphere now I decided to make a new ascent vehicle. Taking of from just 900 meters above sea level I only needed 12.8 km/s to get into a low 190x190 orbit.

As a result my Venus ascent vehicle is a meager 211 tonnes at lift off. It's just like taking off from Eve. Frankly the epicness factor has dropped significantly.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22015656/venusAscent1.jpg

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22015656/VenusAscent2.jpg

That sounds about right. You're using FAR/NEAR, and a very tall skinny rocket, which makes the terminal velocity a lot higher, and the atmospheric delta-v loss a lot lower than with the stock atmosphere. Try taking off stock Eve or Jool with FAR, there's a huge difference.

As far as terrain height, I think there's just an altitude offset. Venus's "sea level" altitude corresponds to about 4-5 km KSP altitude. Venus's lowest point is probably set as the 0 m altitude marker in KSP. KSP doesn't work well with negative altitude numbers, so that makes more sense than using an arbitrary "sea level" definition (same with Mars too). The atmosphere is actually set so that the 0 m altitude marker in KSP corresponds to the 0 km altitude in Venus atmosphere tables like the one you linked. But I'm not sure what altitude that represents (and I haven't found any data going below 0 km). In any case, it shouldn't make much of a difference since the scale height is very high near the surface, which means the atmosphere doesn't change much as you go higher or lower in altitude.

Edited by metaphor
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Audon

Audon

Posted
Posted

Im trying to get this to work. i picked the Real Solar system cfg but with planets from Planet Factory aswell, made by Metaphor. But KSC just spawns underground. not playable at all.. whats the deal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Audon

Audon

Posted
Posted
The config for Planet Factory--I'm not sure that's been updated recently. I would not suggest using it right now.

I have edited the OP to mention that it appears to be for 6.2, quite a few versions ago.

Aha. Thanks for the fast response though! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...