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

[Semmel]

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.

Well, especially as a newcommer, its impossible to know what to delete and what not. Also, I was persuing the idea of writing a not-needed delete script to address that problem, but I do not want to be made responsible for damaging peoples PCs for rackless use of that script, so I stopped. It might be possible however, to deal with the parts issue on the tech tree level. I assume that you handpick all the parts that go into one node. Therefore, you can decide to leave all the not-needed parts away. To give such delete instructions for new players is only a source for mistakes and further installation issues. Giving users instructions to delete parts is just asking for trouble. Its much better to be handled on a install script which is likely not going to happen or within the tech tree it self.

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.

I wasnt talking about the engines. The engines and their variety are absolutely necessary for RPL. I also didnt want to imply to make subnodes for each tech node that you have. I ment to leave away non-essential parts in the main node and collact non-essential parts into a small number of nodes, sorted by topic. For example:

One node that contains all the Mercury parts in GameData/FASA/Mercury/ except the engines (and other stuff included in the tech tree). So you get a mercury node that can be unlocked if you have all the tech required for it. An other node would be than for all the Soyuz stuff, which is not really necessary for the RPL tech tree (except maybe the engines) and only cludder everything with stuff that is not very useful if you do not want to build a soyuz rocket.

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.

Of course, I dont know what you envision for RPL and its entirely up to your judgement what you want to do with it. I just give you my idea and what I like vs what I dont like within the current version. If that helps you make a better mod, I am happy If you think about my suggestions and decide against them, thats fine as well, at least you thought about it and had a reason not to do it. BTW, restricting the number of parts has one more advantage that just occurred to me. In the next version of KSP, money will play a role. It will be very difficult to balance the RPL tree with that aspect. The less parts you have to balance, the easier it is for you ;-)

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.

That is well appreciated and I think a good approach at the moment. I personally dont use LAZOR (since its in Extra, I think one can simply leave it away), but I love the way the interstellar mod, the IR mod, the AIES aerospace mod, Remote Tech and KW rocketry are integrated. Very good job on these.

[TheJoseph98]

#4 - Realism Overhaul Tweak/Resize Pack - By NathanKell & Myself (LINK): NOTE: follow the instructions immediately below the download to switch to the RftSEngines engine configs.

Good god, why is installation so complicated, I can't find the bloody tweak/resize pack

And also, I can't find download link for Remotetech 2 anywhere

Edited May 31, 2014 by TheJoseph98

[ThorBeorn]

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/59207-0-23-5-Realism-Overhaul-ROv5-1-Modlist-for-RSS-5-7-14 - Realism Overhaul, download link is under the picture in the first post.

As for Remote Tech 2, it's download link on Spaceport is dead, since Spaceport is no more. Don't know what to do about that. Someone could P.M you a dropbox link with a copy of their RT2 if that's allowed. Otherwise wait until the RT2 guys fix a new download link. Also make sure you get the community hotfix for RT2.

[MedievalNerd]

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/59207-0-23-5-Realism-Overhaul-ROv5-1-Modlist-for-RSS-5-7-14 - Realism Overhaul, download link is under the picture in the first post.

As for Remote Tech 2, it's download link on Spaceport is dead, since Spaceport is no more. Don't know what to do about that. Someone could P.M you a dropbox link with a copy of their RT2 if that's allowed. Otherwise wait until the RT2 guys fix a new download link. Also make sure you get the community hotfix for RT2.

RT2 is still up on github, just use the second link on the RT2 OP.

(He calls it bugs & reports I think, but the build is there)

[Semmel]

General Question:

How do you design rockets in RPL? I tried to go after creating a family of launch vehicles that can carry some tons into orbit. However, as I progress in the tree, I find that I use one type of launch assembly very scarcely. I designed a 2.5T lifter for a communication satellite network and if I remember correctly, I also used it for the Luna and earth orbit bio mission. For the Mars and Venus flyby missions, I am now in the progress of designing a 5T lifter. But how much dV to give the lifting rocket? Am I going more for security and give it 10.000m/s dV? But what to do with the left-over dV, once in orbit?

I already used a 5T, 10000 dV lifting rocket for the NK1 experiment (Bio sample return from moon orbit). Once in Orbit of Earth, I had almost 1000 m/s dV left over from the launch, so I decided to use it to boost the way to the moon. Making it so, that the second stage with the leftover dV will deorbit. Then I spend the fuel of the probe that went to the moon. Of course, in the end, I had a lot of dV left in it, which was simply lost. How to deal with that? Just ignore left-over dV as long as the mission is a success? Doesn't hurt to have extra, does it? So if designing standard rockets, this is going to happen almost all the time.

Or is it better to design an edge-on rockets for each payload? Costs much more time to do, but .. it is more effective in terms of fuel consumption. On the other hand, in reality the same rocket is launched many times with different payload. So what do they do with left-over dV? I am not in the Falcon 9R aera yet where I can strap landing lags on my rockets.. So what to do here? Just design the best rocket possible for a given level of technology and use it for all launches, no matter how much dV is wasted? I hate to waste dV.

MedievalNerd: Might I request one more part early on in the tech tree, please? It would be great if it were possible to mount a small computer core, radially onto second stages of rockets, so I can manually deorbit them with the leftover fuel from the accent. In reality, this is not necessary because the atmosphere takes care of that in a matter of weeks after a launch. But in KSP, space debris is on rails and will not deorbit, even if well into the atmosphere. It would be great to keep my orbit clean The control module could be build into the always-on antennas, or in a small, radially mounted device.. It would also be neat if it were as heavy as a battery pack, that can be mounted on the opposite side of the control unit.

Cheers,

Semmel

[Makeone]

I think that such small probe core comes with FASA or some other recommended parts packs, it just sits in control tab rather than command tab. They also made some similar mini probe cores in the modelling challenge or what ever it was called.

MedivalNerd: could you fix the explorer explanation part that it does NOT contain an antenna and requires one to actually work. Also, the Swedish(Sic!) bio probe has both exams marked as SL (SpaceLow), makes obviously easier to do the mission, but as i always fail to de-orbit it properly (as there is no torque on anything...).

Semmel: I think that you should design your rocket the way you think they work. Optimal dV for orbit is 9,500m/s, but to me, that is really super optimal launch, and as this is still KSP where we are the 'computer' that flies the rockets, it doesn't hurt to pack a little extral, like 10,500m/s. Like you said, rest goes to waist if you get perfect launch...like ever?

Also true, that now that i restarted my career on RSS, i have managed to get stuff up with pretty much 'standard' rocket where both main sections were KeroLOx and 3rd, orbital stage was hypergolic. Bigger problem sometimes is the need for proper engine, as there one with 1150KN and then next is whooping 9MN, but i found that 5 LR29's can give nice thrust, close to 2000KN.

[Semmel]

I think that such small probe core comes with FASA or some other recommended parts packs, it just sits in control tab rather than command tab. They also made some similar mini probe cores in the modelling challenge or what ever it was called.

Ok, Ill have a look into the FASA stuff.

Semmel: I think that you should design your rocket the way you think they work. Optimal dV for orbit is 9,500m/s, but to me, that is really super optimal launch, and as this is still KSP where we are the 'computer' that flies the rockets, it doesn't hurt to pack a little extral, like 10,500m/s. Like you said, rest goes to waist if you get perfect launch...like ever?

Yeah, a little extra is not bad. I just hate to waste stuff .. But I cant be bothered to produce useless mini-payloads that eat up superfluous mass. Like, I use the 5T launch system to launch a 4T probe and the remaining 1T just.. well, deorbits in terms of unused fuel. And I got pretty good in launching. I guess in only 10-15% of the launches, I make a fatal mistake, usually turning too early for very heavy rockets. So maybe going for a 100% success rate would be more a goal to achieve on the cost of some wasted dV instead of accepting failure in 10%.

Also true, that now that i restarted my career on RSS, i have managed to get stuff up with pretty much 'standard' rocket where both main sections were KeroLOx and 3rd, orbital stage was hypergolic. Bigger problem sometimes is the need for proper engine, as there one with 1150KN and then next is whooping 9MN, but i found that 5 LR29's can give nice thrust, close to 2000KN.

I had a similar problem for my 5T launcher. But then I discovered the adapter plate that lets me mount multiple engines which gives a lot more flexibility. With the adapter plate, it would even be possible to just restrict one self to a small selection of rockets instead of using what ever the tech tree provides. Its good to have the choices, but using a colorful family of rocket engines is not realistic.

NathanKell: Would it be possible to add engine failure rates into the rfts mod? Someone else probably suggested that before.. would be nice to have an "engine out" capability rocket like the Falcon9.. don't know about the mechanic though..

Edit: The community was again faster than me. Just found this: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/81794-Alpha-1-Dang-It!-A-random-failures-mod

Cheers,

Semmel

Edited June 3, 2014 by Semmel

[TheJoseph98]

Good god, why is installation so complicated, I can't find the bloody tweak/resize pack

And also, I can't find download link for Remotetech 2 anywhere

I'm quoting myself from few days ago, I'm on Realism Overhaul page, but I can't find this tweak/resize pack and installation is so complicated, I demand a installation video tutorial

and also, why can't you just put everything in one zip file, why do we have to download all those mods and fixes and god knows what not individually?

Edited June 6, 2014 by TheJoseph98

[MedievalNerd]

I'm quoting myself from few days ago, I'm on Realism Overhaul page, but I can't find this tweak/resize pack and installation is so complicated, I demand a installation video tutorial

and also, why can't you just put everything in one zip file, why do we have to download all those mods and fixes and god knows what not individually?

Oh, so you are making demands now? That's interesting, I'm definitely inclined to give in when asked so nicely.

As for why not all in one zip question, that's been asked numerous times and answered. Multi-tiered problem, from licensing, to updates & inconsistent releases. It would be hell to maintain. If someone wants to go out of their way and ask all the modders for their permission, combine the pack, and host it while making sure to keep it updated. Go right ahead. But it should be known that some modders already said no, and I sort of understand their reasons. The last thing you want is to have people popping on your page, posting issues that have been fixed in the latest release, but the 'pack' wasn't updated yet.

And I hope your sig is outdated, because I won't be giving support to someone who openly says that they are pirating the game. Quite shameful.

[TheJoseph98]

Yeah, my sig was outdated, sorry, I just don't use the forums very often if at all so I forget about those things, no worries I bought the game, but installation of this mod is way too complicated, I can't install this... meh, I'm not even gonna bother, I'll download maybe 2-3 mods but that's about it, I'm sorry if I caused any inconvenience, I just want to play this game in a different way, I'm bored of vanilla KSP

[xandalis]

So, I'm working my way through the tech tree in an RO/RSS career game. I've kind of hit a point where I'm not sure what I should be shooting for next... Any suggestions anyone?

[MedievalNerd]

Yeah, my sig was outdated, sorry, I just don't use the forums very often if at all so I forget about those things, no worries I bought the game, but installation of this mod is way too complicated, I can't install this... meh, I'm not even gonna bother, I'll download maybe 2-3 mods but that's about it, I'm sorry if I caused any inconvenience, I just want to play this game in a different way, I'm bored of vanilla KSP

Fair enough, glad to hear you finally got to encourage Squad for making this amazing game.

I'll say one thing though, if you find the installation complicated, you'd probably find the whole assemble of mods even more complicated specifically with RSS/RO and massive changes they bring.

And no it's not an inconvenience at all, perhaps I misunderstood why you said that, but not having someone play RPL is definitely not a problem.

I've booked some 4 day weekends mixed with some National holidays in Canada which are coming up soon. I'll see if I can work on the installation instructions/video. But I am more inclined on adding more experiments, or start the push for MS20 and get video/photo and manned experiments into the fold.

It's true that there are a lot of mods, but in the end apart form being a lot of them, there isn't that many complicated steps to do. Although RO, RPL & RSS do have little additions/changes you need to do other than installation the mod.

Hang in there peeps!

[DoctorJon]

Unable to use this since spaceport is now Curse and there's no copy of treeloader on Curse.

[pjf]

Firstly, MN, thank you so much for RPL. It's been awesome, and has very much been giving me the experience I've been after!

I'm hesitant to add to a 174 page thread when I think that my questions may have already been answered elsewhere, but alas my search-fu hasn't been successful in bringing anything up. My apologies if I'm re-asking an already answered question here.

I've just unlocked "Luna 1 & 2", but the node only contains Luna 1. I'm worried that either I've missed installing a pack, or deleted the part unintentionally. I nuked a lot of parts as recommended by Nathan, and I'm worried I might have caught a probe accidentally. I'm happy to do digging to find where that might be, but I just want to check there is supposed to be a Luna 2 in the tree.

As an aside, is the RPL code up on Github or elsewhere? I'm happy to fix spelling mistakes and report what looks like misplaced tech (eg: batteries and RCS tanks in the radiators node), but I figure a large thread isn't ideal for that (especially spelling fixes, where a pull request is likely to be easier all round).Many thanks again for a great mod!

~ pjf

[pjf]

Oh, Venera 2 is also a completely empty node (I just unlocked it), so I'm guessing I've accidentally nuked a probe part somewhere... D'oh!

[MedievalNerd]

Oh, Venera 2 is also a completely empty node (I just unlocked it), so I'm guessing I've accidentally nuked a probe part somewhere... D'oh!

Here are the RPL probes that are currently implemented.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/58135-TechTree-0-23-5-MS19e-Realistic-Progression-LITE-%282014-05-11%29?p=778717&viewfull=1#post778717

[DoctorJon]

Any way to get around a non-functioning Treeloader download link to play with this?

[gunnyfreak]

I took the treeloader from kspinstellar, working ok so far

for some reason my stretchy tanks can't go beyond 1.5 M diameter though, not sure if that's not intended or not (have advrocketry so far)

if intended, is there a way to mod that?

ty

[pjf]

@RN: D'oh! Apparently I searched everywhere, but looking in the first few nodes of the thread were beyond me!

@gunnyfreak: Stretchy Tanks are determined by your tech level in engines, so if you put more science into engines, you'll get bigger tanks. Having said that, I know a few people have mentioned there's a 9K/6m engine in about the 3rd or 4th node, but stretchy tanks only go up to 4.5m at that point, but I'm guessing that engine is misplaced.

Oh wait, there was a patch to not starting with stretchy-tanks being large enough. I don't have the post it was in, but I have it in my git history:

diff --git a/StretchyTanks/Parts/tech.cfg b/StretchyTanks/Parts/tech.cfg
index ec2e092..510a9c3 100644
--- a/StretchyTanks/Parts/tech.cfg
+++ b/StretchyTanks/Parts/tech.cfg
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 STRETCHYTANKMAXRAD
 {
   name = Default
-  start = 0.1
+  start = 1000
   basicRocketry = 0.25
   advRocketry = 0.5
   heavyRocketry = 1

[gunnyfreak]

yeah, I'm at the 3rd node, and I have a lot of 2m / 2.5m engines, but I can't get bigger than 1.5m tanks

I tried editing that file, didn't work

[NathanKell]

Hmm. Depends on *how* you edited. Let me translate from diff-ese

Open StretchyTanks/Parts/tech.cfg

Find line

start = 0.1

change it to:

start = 1000

No more size limits!

[issarlk]

Also, somehow (even though available in the tech tree), the nosecone part of the procedural fairings are missing from the VAB.

I have the exact same problem. I hoped to use procedural fairings since they are so much more convenient. But they are not in the VAB, only in the tech windows.

[Hattivat]

Some feedback:

Overall it's a very nice idea, I like the probes, etc.

However, there are a few complaints. First of all, player gets the probe cores long before he gets the engines used to launch them historically. I mean, I have the sputniks, but I have no way of recreating the R-7 rocket; I have the explorer, but I don't have the A7 engine. Second, some missions seem utterly impossible to do properly. I mean, did someone seriously succeed in launching Sputnik 2 without any RCS or reaction wheels? If yes, I'd like to know how, to me it feels like riding a drunk horse.

[ThorBeorn]

Some feedback:

Overall it's a very nice idea, I like the probes, etc.

However, there are a few complaints. First of all, player gets the probe cores long before he gets the engines used to launch them historically. I mean, I have the sputniks, but I have no way of recreating the R-7 rocket; I have the explorer, but I don't have the A7 engine. Second, some missions seem utterly impossible to do properly. I mean, did someone seriously succeed in launching Sputnik 2 without any RCS or reaction wheels? If yes, I'd like to know how, to me it feels like riding a drunk horse.

I must say I agree with what you say, but that is the whole point with the RftS engine pack - it's not supposed to act as a bunch of exact copies of real engines. The solution imo would be to just change the names of the probe cores to something more alternate history-ish. Problem solved. If you want to replicate real rockets then you should use the real engines cfg which is not meant to be used with RPL.

[Hattivat]

I should have been more precise: RPL's required mods already provide the necessary parts (FASA has the A7 engine, KW rocketry has russian-style side tanks, and Bobcat's russian engines include all the necessary ones iirc), the issue here is that RPL does not give access to these parts early enough. The result is that at the moment I have huge modern-looking kerolox engines (which descriptions claim are German) at my disposal but need to spend 100 more science to get a WWII-grade alcohol-fueled engine (A7 was directly derived from V-2 technology). That is plain absurd.

Also, a third issue: It might be a result of some sort of mistake on my part during the installation process, but some engines have absurd sizes. I mean, one American engine with 195 thrust is literally four times the volume of a Russian one with 380 (or sth like that) thrust.