[1.2] Real Solar System v12.0 Dec 8

[Nori]

I have seen this bit but could not believe it. I am running agressive active texture management and did not install anything that could greatly increase the memory usage. What can I do with it?

As you get further into the game and launch more complex ships it is easy to use more memory. So it really isn't surprising.

If you are running windows try starting task manager, go to processes and after you start KSP check how much memory it is using. If it gets up to 3,000,000K then you are hitting the max.

ATM is nice, but it isn't a magic switch to allow you to install everything you want. It also doesn't include configs for all mods. So you might want to look in BoulderCo and compare it to your GameData folder and see if you can add any configs to reduce memory usage. Also, try reducing textures to half res in settings.

Otherwise you have to make the hard choice of removing some mods or parts.

[RedAV8R]

Ok, guess I should have kept my question here.

If I wanted to use RSS but don't want to use the Realism Overhaul, is there some engine/fuel tank config/project somewhere to scale/balance for RSS?

Realism Overhaul is designed specifically with RSS in mind, why don't you want to use it?

Furthermore FAR is all but required for RSS, which leads to massive problems with stock weights and sizes.

[Nori]

Realism Overhaul is designed specifically with RSS in mind, why don't you want to use it?

Furthermore FAR is all but required for RSS, which leads to massive problems with stock weights and sizes.

Yes I realize RO is made specifically for RSS and they are designed to more or less play together.

Essentially I don't think I want a lot of the RO changes. Real Fuels is pretty awesome, but adds a lot of complexity I'm not sure I'm ready for. Don't particularly like the limited throttling (I know it is realistic, but I do play to have fun and that doesn't sound fun to me). Those two things pretty much are core to RO so I can't exactly change them.

Don't have a issue with FAR. I use FAR, DRE and RT2 already.

I'm really just wondering if someone else out there wanted to play in a upscaled system, but didn't want to use RO and thus made a more stockalike overhaul.

[RedAV8R]

So you want realism (you did choose RSS, FAR, DRE, RT2, etc), but you can't handle realism. All simplicity to the statement aside.

There is very little added complexity with RealFuels, with a simple push of a button tanks can be filled the correct proportion of fuel required for the engine you choose. Replicas already have their tanks filled. I would not be too concerned with that. The limited throttling is a change most aren't prepared for. Between that and limited restarts it does add complexity.

Other than those two, you pretty much are running everything required for RO anyway. This issue you will run into is that generally speaking, stock masses are pretty well in line with real world figures. While sizes are about 1/3 too small. Objects are more dense than real life. So when you go full scale, now suddenly especially atmospheric flight, things become dangerous and people die, ships are destroyed, etc. So resizing objects is pretty well required across the board, which RO does.

Just because you 'play for fun' doesn't mean you can't be realistic while you do it. Once you get over the fact you can't throttle an engine as much, it's still fun. I honestly think what you equate to 'fun' is really something like "I want it easy". Because really, your 'fun' level doesn't decrease because an engine is either on or off.

Seriously though. You WILL become a BETTER PLAYER by using RO, so much that 'stock' won't be fun anymore and will be 'too easy'.

Get RO, actually try it for 2 weeks. If that doesn't change your mind, I'll pay for your copy of RO.

[Starwaster]

Ok, guess I should have kept my question here.

If I wanted to use RSS but don't want to use the Realism Overhaul, is there some engine/fuel tank config/project somewhere to scale/balance for RSS?

I don't use Realism Overhaul either. I know you said in another post after this one that you are reluctant to try Real Fuels because of its complexity, but it's not really that complex. After awhile you won't even notice it's there. But you will notice its absence on fresh installs of KSP. RF is hardly a requirement, but the ability to make upper stages out of liquid H2/O2 results in lighter upper stages carries the same benefits in the game that it does in real life. Less mass in your upper stages means more delta V in your lower stages.

As far as tanks, KWR has 5 meter tanks and engines. That's more than enough for anything that we currently put into orbit in real life. (look at the Delta series for inspiration for rockets that will fly in RSS)

For heavier projects you might want to consider Procedural Parts which is the successor (second successor?) to Stretchy Tanks. It doesn't do engines (procedural engines would be nice...) but will let you make 8.6m and 10m tanks so you could do systems like Ares or SLS. The engines from KWR still come in handy here.

Procedural Fairings has a configurable thrust plate that allows you to attach arbitrary numbers of rockets in configurations of your choosing.

[Noctis]

First of all - I love this mod.

But I have a small problem. Some of the launch sites are... broken:

https://imgur.com/SDkUcfF,HSFWHSw#0

https://imgur.com/SDkUcfF,HSFWHSw#1

I'm using 8192x4096 textures.

[Kitspace]

I have just reinstalled the whole thing from scratch this time with the complete pack of Realism Overhaul.

Now I have a new big problem this time directly related to the Real solar system mod itself.

Some planets including our own are rescaled properly but most of them are not rescaled or replaced at all so it ends up like we are the outermost planet in the solar system while most of the planets are placed between the sun and Venus.

I have no idea what logs or configs to post or what could be wrong with it so I can post a few pictures of the tracking station for clarity. Can you help me please?

Thank you!

Edited September 25, 2014 by Kitspace

[Starwaster]

I have just reinstalled the whole thing from scratch this time with the complete pack of Realism Overhaul.

Now I have a new big problem this time directly related to the Real solar system mod itself.

Some planets including our own are rescaled properly but most of them are not rescaled or replaced at all so it ends up like we are the outermost planet in the solar system while most of the planets are placed between the sun and Venus.

I have no idea what logs or configs to post or what could be wrong with it so I can post a few pictures of the tracking station for clarity. Can you help me please?

Thank you!

Did you remember the texture downloads?

(no, seriously. If those are missing, then RSS will choke when parsing RealSolarSystem.cfg causing all planets not already parsed to use defaults.)

[Nori]

So you want realism (you did choose RSS, FAR, DRE, RT2, etc), but you can't handle realism. All simplicity to the statement aside.

There is very little added complexity with RealFuels, with a simple push of a button tanks can be filled the correct proportion of fuel required for the engine you choose. Replicas already have their tanks filled. I would not be too concerned with that. The limited throttling is a change most aren't prepared for. Between that and limited restarts it does add complexity.

Other than those two, you pretty much are running everything required for RO anyway. This issue you will run into is that generally speaking, stock masses are pretty well in line with real world figures. While sizes are about 1/3 too small. Objects are more dense than real life. So when you go full scale, now suddenly especially atmospheric flight, things become dangerous and people die, ships are destroyed, etc. So resizing objects is pretty well required across the board, which RO does.

Just because you 'play for fun' doesn't mean you can't be realistic while you do it. Once you get over the fact you can't throttle an engine as much, it's still fun. I honestly think what you equate to 'fun' is really something like "I want it easy". Because really, your 'fun' level doesn't decrease because an engine is either on or off.

Seriously though. You WILL become a BETTER PLAYER by using RO, so much that 'stock' won't be fun anymore and will be 'too easy'.

Get RO, actually try it for 2 weeks. If that doesn't change your mind, I'll pay for your copy of RO.

I've been trying to think of how to respond for the last few hours since you brought up many good points.

My current game has a plethora of mods, many of them for realism(TAC-LS, FAR, DRE, Real Chutes, KIDS, LH for the NERVA), but is in the stock Kerbin system. I'm not great at the game by any means, but I'm not too bad. Given that though I feel like stock size is too simplistic. Getting to space with your very first rocket just seems so wrong. Thus my reason for looking into RSS.

I suppose my reluctance for using RO is definitely laziness to a extent. Throttling engines and limited ignitions are restrictive to a extent and I'm not sure if I want to take that on. For instance, I use FAR but I'm a wimp (or lazy) and turn part failures off.

As for RF my reluctance in regards to complexity is more that I have decision paralysis... I love the idea of RF, but the sheer number of choices is overwhelming.

I think I will probably setup another install and try a basic install of RSS, RF and RO and see how I fair.

Anyway, thank you for your thought provoking response.

[Kitspace]

Yes I have definitely installed the texture pack.

Wait. Do you mean that I need all of them as some of the planets are only included in some of them?

And anyway Nathan says in the first post that of course planets will not change their visual appearance without those texture packs but they definitely will get bigger anyway. As you can see here some of the planets are looking good and some are not enlarged in any way and their orbits are unchanged as well so it could be something different.

[Kunzite]

Yes I have definitely installed the texture pack.

Wait. Do you mean that I need all of them as some of the planets are only included in some of them?

And anyway Nathan says in the first post that of course planets will not change their visual appearance without those texture packs but they definitely will get bigger anyway. As you can see here some of the planets are looking good and some are not enlarged in any way and their orbits are unchanged as well so it could be something different.

Have you tried the 4096 resolution texture pack? I had the same problem when I tried the 8192 res pack. Using the 4096 textures fixed it.

[Guest]

First of all - I love this mod.

But I have a small problem. Some of the launch sites are... broken:

https://imgur.com/SDkUcfF,HSFWHSw#0

https://imgur.com/SDkUcfF,HSFWHSw#1

I'm using 8192x4096 textures.

What's your terrain detail set to?

[Starwaster]

To all modders wanting to tamper with AtmosphereCurve data for the planets, and submit same to the repository or distribute config files with your altered data publicly:

Make sure that maxAtmosphereAltitude matches the highest altitude present in your AtmosphereCurve data! Other mods may depend on this field containing correct data!

[Noctis]

What's your terrain detail set to?

It's set to "default".

[NathanKell]

Noctis: known issue, sorry. Fixes gratefully accepted, however (asmi fixed Baikonur...)

Just mess around with the params in the cfg, and use reorientFinalAngle if they end up default orientation not East.

That said, do try it on High detail first. That can help.

Kitspace: RSS is breaking during load for some reason. Please follow the guide in the READ FIRST sticky in Modded Install Support regarding posting logs. Note that each texture pack linked in the OP *does* contain all planets.

Nori: with RO fuel choices are actually not so extreme, since each engine (with *very* few exceptions) will only accept one fuel mixture anyway. All you have to do is pick your engine, just like always. (RCS, you do get choices, but N2O4/MMH or N2O4/Aerozine is pretty much always best if you can get it, or hydrazine if you want a monopropellant.)

Starwaster: The Comic Sans! It burns!

[metaphor]

To all modders wanting to tamper with AtmosphereCurve data for the planets, and submit same to the repository or distribute config files with your altered data publicly:

Make sure that maxAtmosphereAltitude matches the highest altitude present in your AtmosphereCurve data! Other mods may depend on this field containing correct data!

On that note, I was going to make some AtmosphereCurve and TemperatureCurve data for the gas giants to replace the existing atmospheres. How far deep should I go? Altitudes above gas giants' surfaces are usually given above the 1 atmosphere of pressure level, but probes can go pretty far down beyond that. So.. down to 1 atmosphere, or 500-1000 km further down to temperatures of 1000K and pressures of 10000 atmospheres, or somewhere in between? The Galileo probe went down 150 km below the datum to 25 atmospheres of pressure and 450K temperatures.

[Starwaster]

On that note, I was going to make some AtmosphereCurve and TemperatureCurve data for the gas giants to replace the existing atmospheres. How far deep should I go? Altitudes above gas giants' surfaces are usually given above the 1 atmosphere of pressure level, but probes can go pretty far down beyond that. So.. down to 1 atmosphere, or 500-1000 km further down to temperatures of 1000K and pressures of 10000 atmospheres, or somewhere in between? The Galileo probe went down 150 km below the datum to 25 atmospheres of pressure and 450K temperatures.

When I was experimenting with this, I remember thinking that down to the metallic layer would be ok and no further.

I actually experimented with taking my curve data all the way down to the core (yeah I know, not realistic, it was just for the heck of it) and I noticed there were some serious graphical glitches in the reentry FX and some camera gimbal lock issues. Not that you would want to go that far, just to make you aware that there are some hard limitation involved.

[Kitspace]

Believe it or not but this time I can not even get the log because it crashes with out of memory again.

The very same thing that was happening last time. There was a bug yesterday but at least it worked and today the whole game does not work at all. And honestly to the best of my knowledge I did absolutely nothing to the game between these occasions. It already ran with the amount of mods it currently has so it is capable of running it and that certainly is far less than the amount of mods it used to have. I did not even leave a save game behind since yesterday. I keep posting it here because I believe it is somehow related to the presence of the Real solar system.

[RedAV8R]

@kitspace: The ONLY relation to your issue and Real Solar System is the fact that depending on which texture pack you are using with RSS the memory requirement grows substantially. You only need ONE of the packs, each contains all you need in various resolutions. Note, you are also capable of mixing and matching textures. At this time I'm using the largest for Earth, Moon, and Mars, while using the smallest textures for other planets.

You've gotten several hints and tips to resolve your issue. I WILL REPEAT, this is NOT related to RSS (besides texture size).

@kitspace:

You can get over it and start uninstalling things to bring your memory requirement down. Better ATM configs maybe. Delete parts you don't use from bigger mod packs. Smaller texture sizes for things.

As you get further into the game and launch more complex ships it is easy to use more memory. So it really isn't surprising.

If you are running windows try starting task manager, go to processes and after you start KSP check how much memory it is using. If it gets up to 3,000,000K then you are hitting the max.

ATM is nice, but it isn't a magic switch to allow you to install everything you want. It also doesn't include configs for all mods. So you might want to look in BoulderCo and compare it to your GameData folder and see if you can add any configs to reduce memory usage. Also, try reducing textures to half res in settings.

Otherwise you have to make the hard choice of removing some mods or parts.

[Starwaster]

Believe it or not but this time I can not even get the log because it crashes with out of memory again.

The very same thing that was happening last time. There was a bug yesterday but at least it worked and today the whole game does not work at all. And honestly to the best of my knowledge I did absolutely nothing to the game between these occasions. It already ran with the amount of mods it currently has so it is capable of running it and that certainly is far less than the amount of mods it used to have. I did not even leave a save game behind since yesterday. I keep posting it here because I believe it is somehow related to the presence of the Real solar system.

you're right, I don't believe it. unless you have deliberately disabled Unity logging then you HAVE logs. you always have logs regardless of whether you crashed or not and regardless of why. you can miraculously get not a single error and you still have logs.

go back to Nathan's last post to you, and follow the link he gave you. the post he linked to provides information on how to get at your log. zip up the log and put it on dropbox or a download hosting site of your choosing (hint: choose Dropbox) and provide the link so that people can help

[von Ziegendorf]

I'm still playing KSP 0.23.5 with RSS 6.2 and Planet Factory and have just discovered that Triton is plain black. I mean from map view and ship view on high enough orbit it looks correctly, but when I get lower to land it became black, like some texture was missing or what? The surface physically exists - it was possible to land and there were rocks around. In PF folder I have ascension_map and ascension_normal PNG. For example Ablate also has such two files and looks correctly. Any idea what can be wrong?

[RedAV8R]

You are using an outdated KSP and RSS. Upgrade to the newest version if you expect support.

[metaphor]

I'm still playing KSP 0.23.5 with RSS 6.2 and Planet Factory and have just discovered that Triton is plain black. I mean from map view and ship view on high enough orbit it looks correctly, but when I get lower to land it became black, like some texture was missing or what? The surface physically exists - it was possible to land and there were rocks around. In PF folder I have ascension_map and ascension_normal PNG. For example Ablate also has such two files and looks correctly. Any idea what can be wrong?

That's probably due to Planet Factory. PF used to have a bug with Ascension (the body that is used as Triton) where the surface would appear completely black from any angle. That bug was supposed to have been fixed a long time ago, but I guess not entirely.

I'm not sure if this bug always existed or not in the RSS config... maybe you're just the first person to ever go to Triton.

[Hattivat]

You are using an outdated KSP and RSS. Upgrade to the newest version if you expect support.

You do realize that the specific body he has problems with doesn't even exist in the current version? I'd say it is debatable whether the newest version can actually be called an update over the 23.5 Planet Factory config.

[von Ziegendorf]

RedAV8R: I know it's outdated, that's why I don't demand solution but rather politely ask for any suggestions In the KSP 0.24.2 Planet Factory doesn't work (or a least I couldn't get it to work) so there will be no Triton to cause problem.

metaphor: Good hint, I have never been to Ascension in 'stock' system to be sure if it was working there. Now I came up with an idea about editing the game files to swap Triton and maybe Charon. I'll see if this is going to work.