[WIP][TechTree @ 0.23.5] - [MS19e] - Realistic Progression LITE

[randomness5555]

Wow, that was a LOT of things to download. Still, this looks great, let's hope it actually works on the old potato comp eh?

[Semmel]

@Semmel

I have the latest version of Realism Overhaul and RPL and I don't experience the same things you do

Yes, it was quite a pain at the beginning to get to TL1, but after that, it was really, really easy. I don't remember exactly how it went, but now, I'm at tier 3 too and I have already made rockets with 4m diameter, so it's not restricted here.

Do you use stretchy SRBs or procedural parts? I typically use one ascent stage and one vacuum stage to get into orbit. For the first stage I try to go for kerosine + liquid O2 and for the vacuum stage I go for liquid H2 + liquid O2 because it is much lighter than other fuels and the engines are more efficient. I dont have it here right now, but I can send you the design of my vengard rocket when I get back home.

Semmel, you should be able to stretch the tanks more that that (for some reason, there 'seems' to be a volume lock, like tier 4 it seems to be 10kLitres). But if you do like i told you, you can stretch them bit more freely and it is not cheating. So, once more, when you are placed a stretchy tank on your craft, save, exit VAB, go to science building, click the last opened engine node there (nothing else), exit science building and return to VAB, now you should be able to quite freely to alter the size of the tank. Once you have placed interstage fairing or another adapter and placed next tank, repeat the above again.

Also, it is not necessary to use biggest engine all the time, you can always use smaller engines in clusters if that works to get twr 1.2-1.5 to launch.

I know what you told me and I can confirm that this works, just I dont want to abuse a bug. Why use restrictive rules only to break them? Besides, I hate switching buildings. I cant think of "building switching" being part of my rocket design process.

I do not use the "biggest" rocket available either. When I get home, I can tell you the proper names of engines and upload the design file. I managed to build the rocket, thats not the issue. I just cant see how the historical statement that early rocket design suffers from weak engines are reflected in the mod when I have to fight to get wreak engines. After all, I cant take a strong rocket and throttle it down as needed because they are mostly not able to do so. Also I dont need to build a whopper rocket for a 1T payload. ;-)

Working on diameter limits

Thank you! Are you also maintaining the procedural parts mod? Because swamp_ig is listed as thread owner..

Cheers,

Semmel

Edited May 21, 2014 by Semmel
sneaky sentences cut in pieces..

[Mirean]

I use stretchy SRBs right now, because I was told they are supported and procedural parts aren't. And yes, my designs are similiar - kerolox first stage (sometimes with boosters) and hydrolox second stage (+ sometimes small, 3rd solid upper kick stage, something like PAM in real life).

[NathanKell]

PP is (loosely) derived from Stretchy, and I'm somewhat involved helping swamp_ig with integration and some other stuff. What I meant was that I was working on a patch RPL can use to change diameter limits, like how RPL has its own custom limits for Stretchy.

What I'm looking at right now is a limit of, starting from TL0:

3m

5m

8m

12m

infinity (TL4)

Your limitation should usually be engine, not tank size. While no rocket wider than 2m was built at TL0, that didn't really mean they *couldn't*.

[Semmel]

Ok, to fulfill my promise, here is my design:

I use the Decurion engine in tech level 3. Sea level ISP: 250, max thrust 415 (at tech level 0, 290 max thrust)

And as vacuum stage LR46R, thrust 66 vacuum ISP 452 and max thrust is 70 (at tech level 0, 66 max thurst).

In case of the Decurion, there are weaker engines, but not efficient ones (high sea level ISP) and in case of the LR46R, there is only one other liquid H2 liquide O2 engine, but it is much stronger. I have the fealing the 450 ISP are very strong, dont know if thats realistic or not. But its the best engine the game will give me so I take it. This is no rant over the tanks any more as the argument is settled. I just wanted to point out, if I take a stronger first stage engine, I would need more fuel tanks to balance the rocket which means making it rather tall. A higher diameter is very welcome, thx Nathan. And yes, your suggestion of 3-5-8-12-infty seems to be quite reasonable. Maybe adjust the minimal diameter for conic fuel tanks as well, so it is easier to build sounding rockets when your probe core is only 150mm across at its base ;-)

Cheers,

Semmel

[NathanKell]

Sorry, thought it'd go without saying that minimum diameter will be 1cm. :]

In your case I would suggest a *much* larger second stage. You really don't need such high TWR; an initial [vacuum] TWR of 0.75 or even 0.5 would be fine. The LR46 etc are basically RL-10s. (And yes, 450s is fine for hydrolox). You probably should be getting about 2/3, rather than 1/3, of your deltaV from that stage. You also can stretch your bottom tank a lot; since by the time the SRBs burn out you'll be approaching vacuum Isp on the Decurion, you only need about 1.5 *vacuum* TWR from it at SRB burnout, not 2.42!

[Semmel]

In your case I would suggest a *much* larger second stage. You really don't need such high TWR; an initial [vacuum] TWR of 0.75 or even 0.5 would be fine. The LR46 etc are basically RL-10s. (And yes, 450s is fine for hydrolox). You probably should be getting about 2/3, rather than 1/3, of your deltaV from that stage. You also can stretch your bottom tank a lot; since by the time the SRBs burn out you'll be approaching vacuum Isp on the Decurion, you only need about 1.5 *vacuum* TWR from it at SRB burnout, not 2.42!

For this particular rocket, you are right, I could have used a much larger 2. stage and a smaller 1. stage. I wouldn't have needed the boosters either because the liquid hydrogen is much lighter than the first stage kerosine. I wasnt quite sure how much dV is required to reach the vacuum though. Also, it looked more rockety to have a small second stage and a big first stage. w.r.t. the TWR of the second stage.. yes, I run the rocket at 50%-20% thrust because it was too strong. Unfortunately, its the weakest hydrolox engine I have (maybe I need to install the Russian rocket pack after all..). The 2.42 vacuum TWR were a result of the total dv needed. Maybe my design process ist quite right.. I first made the probe to be below 1T, then the second and first stage so that their proportions looked right, balancing the launch TWR to between 1.2 and 1.4. I realized that in order to get the dV needed to reach orbit, I needed more fuel, so I could either increase the first stage and use a stronger engine (didnt work out well because of fuel tanks.. hence discussion above) or using SRBs. Then, I adjusted the SRBs length to match the dV needed following by adjusting their thrust to not exceed the 1.4 launch TWR. I never really considered the dV of the first stage at SRB burnout. Your suggestion to increase the second stage and reduce the first stage in size sounds a solid solution to all the problems.. Ill try that next..

Cheers,

Semmel

PS: Never had so much fun designing a rocket since I managed to make a manned mission to Duna in stock KSP... Thank you all for that experience!

[Semmel]

For anyone interested in changing the sizes of the ProceduralParts:

In the folder \GameData\ProceduralParts\Parts\ZOtherMods

within files:

RFTank1Default

RFTankBalloon

RFTankBalloonCryo

RFTankCryo

RFTankService

Change the appropriete lines to:

		TECHLIMIT {
			// FL-200 - 1.25 x 1.1105 m = 1.363 kL
			name = start
			diameterMin = 1.0
			diameterMax = 1.5
			lengthMin = 1.0
			lengthMax = 1.5
			volumeMin = 0.001
			volumeMax = Infinity
		}
		TECHLIMIT {
			// FL-T400 - 1.25 x 1.87819 m = 2.305 kL
			// FL-T100 - 1.25 x 0.78125 m = 0.959 kL
			name = basicRocketry
			diameterMin = 0.5
			diameterMax = 2.0
			lengthMin = 0.5
			lengthMax = 2.0
		}
		TECHLIMIT {
			// FL-T800 - 1.25 x 3.75 m = 4.602 kL
			name = advRocketry
			diameterMin = 0.2
			diameterMax = 3.0
			lengthMin = 0.2
			lengthMax = 4.0
		}
		TECHLIMIT {
			// X200-32 - 2.5 x 3.75 m = 18.408 kL
			name = heavyRocketry
			diameterMin = 0.1
			diameterMax = 5.0
			lengthMin = 0.1
			lengthMax = 8.0
		}
		TECHLIMIT {
			// Jumbo-64 - 2.5 x 7.5 m = 36.816 kL
			name = heavierRocketry
			diameterMax = 7.0
			lengthMax = 16.0
		}
		TECHLIMIT {
			// Kerbodyne S3-14400 - 3.75 x 7.5 = 82.614kl
			name = veryHeavyRocketry
			diameterMax = 10.0
			lengthMax = 32.0
		}

		TECHLIMIT {
			// Not in main sequence. Depends indirectly off basicRocketry only
			// X200-8 - 2.5 x 0.9375 m = 4.602 kL
			name = advConstruction
			diameterMax = 3.0
		}

		TECHLIMIT {
			// Not in main sequence. Depends indirectly off basicRocketry
			// Oscar-B - 0.625 x 0.3485474 m = 0.107 kL
			name = precisionEngineering
			diameterMin = 0.1
			lengthMin = 0.1
		}

		TECHLIMIT {
			// Make everything unlimited for metaMaterials
			name = metaMaterials
			diameterMin = 0.001
			diameterMax = Infinity
			lengthMin = 0.001
			lengthMax = Infinity
		}

This removes the volume restrictions and adjusts the fuel tank sizes to more flexible values.

[pingopete]

Hi, I can't seem to add some of the procedural wing parts to the tech tree, I've given them all the node: aerodynamicsystems in the config but this only makes the 2nd wing type and basic p-control surface appear. No matter what I do I can't get the AllMovingControlSurface in any of the nodes???! Where does RPL alter the techtree progression? I've looked through all of RPL folder and can't find anything.

[MedievalNerd]

Hi, I can't seem to add some of the procedural wing parts to the tech tree, I've given them all the node: aerodynamicsystems in the config but this only makes the 2nd wing type and basic p-control surface appear. No matter what I do I can't get the AllMovingControlSurface in any of the nodes???! Where does RPL alter the techtree progression? I've looked through all of RPL folder and can't find anything.

Should be in the starting node:

NODE

{

name = newnode_2565

techID = TechTreeStart

pos = -2297.167,395.6667,-31

icon = START

cost = 0

title = Starting Technologies

description = Starting Tech - Part 1 (Research the node above this one as well!)

anyParent = False

hideIfEmpty = False

parents = node0_start

PARTS

{

name = decoupler.ftr

name = FASAFlagPod

name = FASAlaunchClamp125

name = mumech.MJ2.AR202

name = mumech.MJ2.AR202.features1

name = mumech.MJ2.AR202.features3

name = mumech.MJ2.AR202.features4

name = Proceduralwing2

name = Proceduralwing2EndPiece

name = ProceduralAllMovingWing

name = ProceduralwingBac9

name = RLA.decoupS

name = miniFuelTank

name = launchClamp1

name = radialDecoupler2

}

}

[MedievalNerd]

For anyone interested in changing the sizes of the ProceduralParts:

<snip>

This removes the volume restrictions and adjusts the fuel tank sizes to more flexible values.

Hey Semmel,

Nathan sent me an MM tweak file that those the above. I'll be putting it into MS19f. Along with a few other fixes I've been noting from the forum posts since release.

Just hope people won't try your suggestion and end up doing funny things in the process.

[Semmel]

Yeah, I think I'll edit it away as soon as you release 19f. I already noted that the stack decoupler dont scale accordingly. Thats the first time that I fiddle around with the numbers..

Also, somehow (even though available in the tech tree), the nosecone part of the procedural fairings are missing from the VAB. I dont know why, I already reinstalled all mods, but didnt help. I only have the procedural interstage +fairings available, but not the nose-cone-fairings. Maybe the procedural stuff got updated and the part catalogue mod messed it up or something.. Dont know.

[MedievalNerd]

Yeah, I think I'll edit it away as soon as you release 19f. I already noted that the stack decoupler dont scale accordingly. Thats the first time that I fiddle around with the numbers..

Also, somehow (even though available in the tech tree), the nosecone part of the procedural fairings are missing from the VAB. I dont know why, I already reinstalled all mods, but didnt help. I only have the procedural interstage +fairings available, but not the nose-cone-fairings. Maybe the procedural stuff got updated and the part catalogue mod messed it up or something.. Dont know.

In any case, you should always use MM tweaks to fix stuff you don't like in another mod's .cfg files.

But I'll admit that the way the PP cfg file is made for the tech levels, it's not that obvious to make a MM tweak file. (Hence why Nathan parachuted one my way )

[curiousepic]

Other than the time needed to create them, is there anything being waited on before there is a comprehensive install instruction list and/or video?

[prc]

Is it just me with my installation of MS19e or does anyone else kerbnauts appear to die asap exiting a command pod? Pilot cannot be controlled. Once on 2 manned pod managed to dislodge EVA pilot from the capsule by trying to exit another one or something. After manually switching to either of the guys, they have oxygen depleted. Tested in sandbox mode.

For some time it says in the pilot complex that the pilot is EVA, but soon it turns MIA.. no idea how much gametime, but just a few changes between space complex and ship.

Using TAC lifesupport mod.

Any ideas how to fix ?

[MedievalNerd]

Is it just me with my installation of MS19e or does anyone else kerbnauts appear to die asap exiting a command pod? Pilot cannot be controlled. Once on 2 manned pod managed to dislodge EVA pilot from the capsule by trying to exit another one or something. After manually switching to either of the guys, they have oxygen depleted. Tested in sandbox mode.

For some time it says in the pilot complex that the pilot is EVA, but soon it turns MIA.. no idea how much gametime, but just a few changes between space complex and ship.

Using TAC lifesupport mod.

Any ideas how to fix ?

Hi prc,

That sounds more like a TAC issue. (Kerbals not having oxygen when exiting the capsules) And since you tested this in sandbox it's sure that RPL isn't at fault since in Sandbox you don't get the tech tree. (Although the MM tweak files still remain in effect)

Other than the time needed to create them, is there anything being waited on before there is a comprehensive install instruction list and/or video?

lol, yes time is pretty much the key mitigating factor for everything in life.

As I mentioned previously, I also work a full time job as a Project Manager for an outsourcing QA Company. So it's not like I have the energy to consecrate all of my weekends to RPL continuously, I have to take a break once and a while.

There are already some things being worked on for the installation instructions. But me and Nathan are a bit butting heads to the level of simplicity we need to go to. And judging by some of the mistakes I've read for this and other mods, it's quite traumatizing how much you have to explain things. Just asking someone to install a mod you can get varying results:

* Some people don't extract the files and just shove the archive in the game data folder (if it even is in the correct folder).

* Some people don't pay attention to only keep the actual mod folder, and not the archive name. IE when taking a mod from Space Port, you don't want to keep the Upload12-12-12_Modname folder. But I know some people who tried to keep it and that totally breaks any attempts to refer to the content of said mod with Module Manager. (Since some tweaks refer to specific folder names)

* And then you have post installation instructions which in some cases seem to be ignored completely. IE, ModuleRCSFX for RO. I mean there is a reason why it's not in bold red letters on Nathan's thread.

So it's not just time, but also coming to an agreement to the level of detail the instructions should include. And I'm actually concerned that if you go too far on the simple level, then it'll throw moderately skilled people off and they'd ignore the video and perhaps miss some of the more subtle things that the video would do good to explain.

It should be noted that in the end, it's not like we are hiding details. Everything is written in the installation threads, but one must read the entire OP thread of ALL the mods. Or they will miss something. Life is hard, but reading the OP of 15 mods isn't that bad is it?

Cheers,

[romie]

is fustek station parts added to your tech tree

[ThorBeorn]

is fustek station parts added to your tech tree

Hey. I have made a RO rescale for FusTek Station Parts which will probably be in the next RO update, P.M. me if you're interested. As of now though, FusTek does not have its own tree in RPL MS19, but you can add the parts the the nodes you prefer.

[romie]

Hey. I have made a RO rescale for FusTek Station Parts which will probably be in the next RO update, P.M. me if you're interested. As of now though, FusTek does not have its own tree in RPL MS19, but you can add the parts the the nodes you prefer.

o ok I thought that RO all ready had an FusTek rescale in it and i add them in

[MedievalNerd]

is fustek station parts added to your tech tree

Nope, but I can work on that.

I also really want to implement ScanSat? gah, the name eludes me for some silly reason.

[B4rberblacksheep]

I'd love to see Fustek and SCANsat implemented into this. I was wondering though, is StretchySRB's being switched out to Procedural Parts at some point?

[NathanKell]

Yes. The next version of PP and Real Fuels with be in much better sync, and the next version of RPL will integrate much better with PP.

[Semmel]

I also really want to implement ScanSat

Thx, that would have been my next question ;-)

Also, you do a good job on things, just the number of mods, their parts and individual quirks are a bit traumatizing. One not only has to pay attention to all the mods in the list of RPL, but also all required mods of RO as well, and if these have other requirements.. one basically has to go through an entire tree of mods. And sometimes, things go wrong. Especially when some descriptions are not in the main thread, but in some random answer below (like for example the RftS pack, which Nathan put for some reason not into the main post of the thread). Then there are things that cant go together like real engines and RtfS. Also it doesnt help that not all mods basic folder structure is identical. Some mods have the GameData fodler as first folder, some dont. Some have even ModName/GameData/ModName/Parts.. which is utterly confusing if you forget to watch in each and every folder you put into the game data folder.

I also have a full time job and work on my thesis at the weekends. So I get to play maybe 1h a day if I am lucky. When I started with RPL/RSS/RO, it took me days of preparing, finding and downloading all mods, read their descriptions and follow their instructions. Now, I am much faster on everything, but its still not very easy. But I can understand peoples frustration, its just too much to juggle with, especially when doing it for the first time.

And one other thing that bugs me like hell. I usually dont use all these mods. I installed them only for playing in the RSS world, using the RPL tech tree. Most of the parts i am not interested in, but they are there and basically make everything hard to use. With the RPL tech tree, you have a way of mitigating this. In my opinion (I might be wrong), if one plays RPL, he wants to finish the tech tree in some realistic order. Beeing KSP, it might not be necessary to have 5 types of fairings around for example, one type would be enough. Its also not necessary to have 50 different types of fuel tanks and adapters around. Special shaped fuel tanks might be nice, but most of the cylindrical ones can just go into the bin.

The last problem can be solved by concentration the RPL tech tree in such a way that only necessary parts are in the base tree. For special parts like the Gemini, Soyus, Apollo packs etc, extra nodes can take all the parts that go together. The nodes would cost 0 science and can be researched after all the required tech nodes are unlocked. That way, all the superfluous stuff is out of the way of a normal progression in RPL. This not only makes playing the RPL tech tree easier to play, it would also support the idea of providing a self consistent game experience within RSS.

Cheers,

Semmel

[MedievalNerd]

Thx, that would have been my next question ;-)

Also, you do a good job on things, just the number of mods, their parts and individual quirks are a bit traumatizing. One not only has to pay attention to all the mods in the list of RPL, but also all required mods of RO as well, and if these have other requirements.. one basically has to go through an entire tree of mods. And sometimes, things go wrong. Especially when some descriptions are not in the main thread, but in some random answer below (like for example the RftS pack, which Nathan put for some reason not into the main post of the thread). Then there are things that cant go together like real engines and RtfS. Also it doesnt help that not all mods basic folder structure is identical. Some mods have the GameData fodler as first folder, some dont. Some have even ModName/GameData/ModName/Parts.. which is utterly confusing if you forget to watch in each and every folder you put into the game data folder.

I also have a full time job and work on my thesis at the weekends. So I get to play maybe 1h a day if I am lucky. When I started with RPL/RSS/RO, it took me days of preparing, finding and downloading all mods, read their descriptions and follow their instructions. Now, I am much faster on everything, but its still not very easy. But I can understand peoples frustration, its just too much to juggle with, especially when doing it for the first time.

And one other thing that bugs me like hell. I usually dont use all these mods. I installed them only for playing in the RSS world, using the RPL tech tree. Most of the parts i am not interested in, but they are there and basically make everything hard to use. With the RPL tech tree, you have a way of mitigating this. In my opinion (I might be wrong), if one plays RPL, he wants to finish the tech tree in some realistic order. Beeing KSP, it might not be necessary to have 5 types of fairings around for example, one type would be enough. Its also not necessary to have 50 different types of fuel tanks and adapters around. Special shaped fuel tanks might be nice, but most of the cylindrical ones can just go into the bin.

The last problem can be solved by concentration the RPL tech tree in such a way that only necessary parts are in the base tree. For special parts like the Gemini, Soyus, Apollo packs etc, extra nodes can take all the parts that go together. The nodes would cost 0 science and can be researched after all the required tech nodes are unlocked. That way, all the superfluous stuff is out of the way of a normal progression in RPL. This not only makes playing the RPL tech tree easier to play, it would also support the idea of providing a self consistent game experience within RSS.

Cheers,

Semmel

Hi Semmel,

Thank you for the praises.

It's definitely true that handling all these mods for a new comer to KSP could be, and surely is, daunting to say the least. And yes, reading all the OP's and following up on any post installation instructions adds another layer of difficulty.

In terms of segregating mods from stock KSP, that would be hard considering I use some models of those mods for RPL probes. IE, Sputnik 2 is a resized KW Rocketry nosecone.

But you did point to something Nathan and I previously suggested. IE, if you use PP or StretchySRB for fuel tanks, then you can definitely delete the tanks for those mods manually. That would downsize the amount of parts considerably. Same thing with fairings, if you use procedural fairings, don't need all the NP/KW fairings. As long as you make sure not to delete stuff that is being used for RPL Probes/Experiments. If you go in the parts of the RPL Tweak Pack you can check which model I use, for the most part I stuck to stock.

And stuff like IR or LAZOR, I placed them in the tree as to make them optional. I'm not sure if I'll use them to make experiments down the road. But those are like not even on my radar for now in terms of integrating experiments to them. See this a sort of disclaimer.

Again speaking parts, anything pertaining to engines so KW, NP, the oms & double oms engines from the Shuttle Engines, etc. Those are rather crucial if you don't want to end up with a lack of engines/thrust at a certain tech level.

Nothing stops someone to not include all the mods, but one should do so carefully and not arbitrarily.

As for making RPL "stock compatible", that wouldn't work considering that RPL has been heavily modeled based on Nathan's Rfts. So engine diversity/choice would be heavily restrictive. With engine sizes going up to 10M, you need a good diversity of models/sizes. Plus there are already a crazy amount of nodes, if I start put sub nodes to each node for 'non stock' mods it would be probably pretty hard to keep it looking decent. It's already pretty bizarrely shaped.

But let's keep in mind RPL is still in it's alpha stages to polish and such is still miles away from the final 'vision'. I'll be working on polish and clarifying installation instructions as development moves forward.

Cheers,

[prc]

Hi prc,

That sounds more like a TAC issue. (Kerbals not having oxygen when exiting the capsules) And since you tested this in sandbox it's sure that RPL isn't at fault since in Sandbox you don't get the tech tree. (Although the MM tweak files still remain in effect)

Yeah. Found the issue actually in career mode as Jebb kinda died @orbit, then tried it again in sandbox mode. Thanx for reply. Had to ask as I had it working with MS19c version. Thus I have broken something while installing. Someone had similar issue with TAC at its own forum threads, but reinstalling TAC as instructed did not fix the issue. Will try to figure out it later.