Starwaster Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 (edited) I want to ask: how hard RSS relies on Realism Overhaul and other hardcore realism mods? I'd like to make myself a dedicated RSS build to fly in sandbox mode, but I want only FAR and DRE from the "list of recommended mods", and I definitely do not want Realism Overhaul. Obviously, I'll need RSS heatshields, but what scares me is many references to RO in that DRE config (the one from OP in DRE thread).Getting by without RO is do-able. I only use the RSS heat shields myself.If you do that you should at least be using procedural parts. And a pack with decent engines like KWR. (with just KWR I got by without Procedural Parts for quite a while before it updated)Edit: Oh and Real Fuels. And actually you CAN get by with just the stock engines for the small stuff. Especially if you have RF so you can build lighter upper / core stages using LOX+H2 designs. (not saying you'll want to, just that you can put things like sats or the Mk1 into orbit) Edited October 23, 2014 by Starwaster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlrk Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 If you want RSS with the Kerbol system, and no RO, I recommend 6.4x Kerbol system config, stockalike real fuels Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regex Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Confirming that 6.4x Kerbin RSS with Real Fuels and a realistic engine pack plays a lot like stock with a decently sized solar system; you don't need RO at all. One of the great things about using the 6.4x config is that you can take pretty much any stock parts mod and slide it right in (that was the whole point of the 6.4x config, you don't have to resize parts because the solar system is the same scale), barring engine configs and resource conflicts with Real Fuels of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sinpro Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Hello EmmaDid you solved your problem?I have the same problem with Duna (6/17). Memory used 7.1 Gb, free memory 8.9 Gb. Installing realism overhaul. Using 8192 textures. If it fails, I'll try using 4096 texturessometines, I also get a game crash when editing body: MunThx and regards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sinpro Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Well, just FYI I used 4096 textures and it solved my problem. It compiled all planets at game launch in less than a minute and no errors Just minmus lostnot sure if due to RSS or Realism Overhaul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cipherpunks Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 (edited) Unfortunately since new loader seems like this is not compatible with DevHelper anymore :-( DevHelper starts too early (moves me to VAB as intended), so that RSS loader window disappears after about 0.5 seconds, but then I can't launch anything, and TS shows that stinky midget Kerbin, not earth :-(This is really bad, because waiting for KSP to load this and that, then wait for my click, then load something big and time-consuming again - will inevitably eat my life time in counter-productive manner, but in reality I can not allow that, so I'd better stop playing KSP for now.OTOH I really would like to see this incompatibility fixed somehow. Edited October 23, 2014 by cipherpunks fix url to post url Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motokid600 Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Whats everyone using for a DeltaV map? The one id been using is in km/s and that screwed me up BIG TIME. So are there any in m/s that anyone knows of?EDIT: Uhh.. well I found one using m/s, but.. it uses the same values. Why does it say a 250km LEO needs 9.4m/s ? That's... not right... right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cipherpunks Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 (edited) 9.4km/s seems about right because of gravity drag (maybe slightly too much, though).(edit: image removed to save BW, see metaphor signature a couple of posts below) Edited October 25, 2014 by cipherpunks removed image Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motokid600 Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 (edited) Gravity drag, huh? Heh.. learn something new every day...Lol, I just realized I forgot to hotlink the map I used. That's the one.. thanks.Uh.. question actually.. If a rocket has a higher TWR are the effects of gravity drag less apparent? Therefore less dV to orbit? Edited October 24, 2014 by Motokid600 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starwaster Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 Whats everyone using for a DeltaV map? The one id been using is in km/s and that screwed me up BIG TIME. So are there any in m/s that anyone knows of?EDIT: Uhh.. well I found one using m/s, but.. it uses the same values. Why does it say a 250km LEO needs 9.4m/s ? That's... not right... right?I had a delta-V map but I threw it out. I also then refused to stop and ask for directions on my way to space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motokid600 Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 Lol, well.. call it a reference point I suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NathanKell Posted October 24, 2014 Author Share Posted October 24, 2014 I think that was a typo--gravity losses and drag losses are what's being described. Just as surface area increases drag losses, low TWR (aka a longer time to ascend) increases gravity losses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
montyben101 Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 Hey, the CSS shuttle now has 2 different configs for use with this mod, I'm trying both out to see if they work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cremasterstroke Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 Why does it say a 250km LEO needs 9.4m/s ? That's... not right... right?Think about it - LEO has an orbital velocity of ~7.7km/s, so with a ~9.4km/s dv requirement, the loss to gravity drag is ~1.7km/s. Low Kerbin orbital velocity is ~2.3km/s, so with a dv requirement of ~3.4km/s (with FAR/NEAR), the losses are ~1.1km/s. Then take into account the fact that atmospheric limit for Earth in RSS is nearly 2x the height of that for Kerbin.Uh.. question actually.. If a rocket has a higher TWR are the effects of gravity drag less apparent? Therefore less dV to orbit?Higher TWR is good, up to a point - given that dv requirement is so high, many designs have upper stage TWR of <1 - this means that they have to maintain a pitch above the velocity vector to maintain vertical velocity - which reduces the dv being effectively used to accelerate horizontally. So a TWR>1 during the entire ascent would mitigate this. But higher TWR usually means less fuel, smaller payload fraction, and/or heavier engines - which means either less total dv and/or more massive rocket. So in the real world, many (most?) launch vehicles have upper stage TWR<1. And too much TWR also makes it difficult to pull off an optimal gravity turn, which is probably more important for overall efficiency.I think that was a typo--gravity losses and drag losses are what's being described. Just as surface area increases drag losses, low TWR (aka a longer time to ascend) increases gravity losses.Gravity drag is a real thing - it's much easier to just say gravity drag than 'the sum of gravity losses and drag losses'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metaphor Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 I have 9.0 on the more complex solar system delta-v map (see signature) because I accounted for rotational speed at the equator.It depends a lot on what kind of rocket you use, its thrust and aerodynamics. If you have a very high-thrust large rocket with a needle-like shape, you can get into orbit for as little as 8.0 km/s. If you have a smaller, blunter, or lower-thrust rocket, it might take you as much as 12 km/s. Most real rockets are in the range of 9-10 km/s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldfang35 Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 I keep crashing whenever I install the newest version of RSS (8.2.1) the loader in the startup screen gets to 6/17 and then crashes.KSP version:25.0.642 Windows 8 32-bitlog: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ptvuteb7bf2equf/output_log.txt?dl=0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedAV8R Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 @goldfang35: Out of memory. Need to decrease your texture load somehow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldfang35 Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 I don't think so since first of all I have 32GB of ram so ksp is using the full 3.2 GB of ram and also when I lower the version down to 8.1 it works fine with the 8192 which is what I am using when I crash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedAV8R Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 (edited) @goldfang35: Mmmm...I *DO* think so. When I said it the first time I wasn't lying, you'll see clear as crystal in your log.DynamicHeapAllocator out of memory - Could not get memory for large allocationCould not allocate memory: System out of memory!Trying to allocate: 178956972B with 4 alignment. MemoryLabel: NewDeleteAllocation happend at: Line:0 in Overloaded New[]Memory overview[ ALLOC_DEFAULT ] used: 414489484B | peak: 0B | reserved: 430799344B [ ALLOC_GFX ] used: 339631327B | peak: 0B | reserved: 364701020B [ ALLOC_CACHEOBJECTS ] used: 66184B | peak: 0B | reserved: 12582912B [ ALLOC_TYPETREE ] used: 0B | peak: 0B | reserved: 0B [ ALLOC_PROFILER ] used: 133560B | peak: 0B | reserved: 8388608B Could not allocate memory: System out of memory!Trying to allocate: 178956972B with 4 alignment. MemoryLabel: NewDeleteAllocation happend at: Line:0 in Overloaded New[]Memory overviewNow, let me get this straight you have Windows 8 32-bit, running the 32-bit KSP application?If you wanna bicker about running out of memory, I can't help you. The fact is you *DID* run out, and you need to do something. ATM or Texture Replacer would be beneficial. If you plan on running any sort of mod(s) other than stock + RSS, it'll be essential. There is the new DDS loader that is showing promise too, allowing a person to utilize their graphics memory too (I think). My recommendation, decrease resolution on those bodies you don't plan on going for a while, while leaving Earth, Moon, Mars higher, as you can mix and match what textures you use. Edited October 25, 2014 by RedAV8R Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NathanKell Posted October 25, 2014 Author Share Posted October 25, 2014 Your log says you ran out of memory. Doesn't matter how much RAM you have; KSP is a 32bit process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldfang35 Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 (edited) Thnx it works now. Also how come the newer version takes so much more ram than 8.1. I was running a good 20+ mods on 32-bit with full textures and had no problem. I don't see how 8.2 differs to much from 8.1 in the changelog Edited October 25, 2014 by goldfang35 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NathanKell Posted October 25, 2014 Author Share Posted October 25, 2014 I have no idea, since 8.2 should use *less* RAM, and certainly does for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MightyDarkStar Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 I'm gonna install this mod tomorrow to try it out but is there a KSC or an airstrip in Britain? I wanna tour Scotland! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pingopete Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 Hey Nathan: Did you say you managed to expose the cam values in the latest 8.2.1 RSS config? What where the lines? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MightyDarkStar Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 Is there actually multiple launch sites to choose from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts