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

[tmikesecrist3]

here is my problem rocket there is a photo with, and with out the Farring

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/dbaawiilg5p3tye/AACF_uq_4RG1qwg7VAuyARzIa

[ElasticRaven]

In the VAB, the Vanguard probe core says 36.0/hour (=0.01/s) electric charge required, but when I launch, it uses 0.2/s. Has anyone else seen this? My probe would just be a giant solar panel if I had to accommodate 0.2/s

[Thalur]

tmikesecrist3: Your rocket looks okay to me, the upper stage is a bit long and thin for my taste but I don't see why that would be causing you to lose control. Are you letting mechjeb do all of the flying or controlling it yourself? Try hand-flying your rocket to see if it still happens then. You can still have the mechjeb ascent guidance target turned on without letting mechjeb do the flying.

I have been having issues where my rockets sometimes enter an uncontrollable roll in the last 60s or so before the first stage burns out. I finally figured part of it out today: for some reason the gimbaling of my first stage is broken so the roll commands are reversed (it works fine with RCS and locked gimbals). This means that when I have SAS turned on it tries to counter the roll by rolling the other way but that actually makes it worse!

Patupi: The only issues I have had with RCS have been to do with the way the RCS fuel doesn't flow through parts. Is it possible that some of your RCS fuel is stored in tanks not connected to the RCS thrusters so you can't use it?

As an aside to MedievalNerd, it would really help if fuel lines were in the T1 node with the RCS as satellite building can get quite painful without them. I promise not to use them to build asparagus staging monstrosities .

ElasticRaven: Vanguard uses 0.01/s for me on the launchpad and 0.02/s when the data recorder is active. Are you sure you don't have anything else on your rocket that is draining your power? Communotron 16s are an obvious candidate as they use 0.13/s whereas the 32 version doesn't use any unless it is transmitting data.

[tmikesecrist3]

Though there is one thought I hand about Removing the reaction wheels from the Explore probe... How did they control it, they did not use RCS on it. and I dont think the Sargent Rockets gimbled. and with how tiny it was I would think a reaction wheel would work in that case?

[griffin247]

well iam still exploding if i use up my fuel, and mj still wont fly at the inclintion i want it to.

[ElasticRaven]

Figured out my issue. kOS (in use via a custom MM config) was draining power. For some reason, when I tried toggling the power earlier today, it didn't work (or maybe I simply misread it ).

[Hattivat]

here is my problem rocket there is a photo with, and with out the Farring

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/dbaawiilg5p3tye/AACF_uq_4RG1qwg7VAuyARzIa

Seems decent overall. Only two minor things:

1. It would probably help your aerodynamics to reduce the diamater of your fairing base to match the diameter of your first stage.

2. What is your max TWR for the first stage? It seems like it is pretty high, which might be part of your problem, the higher the TWR, the higher the acceleration, and the higher the acceleration, the harder it is to control.

If I recognize it correctly, your second-stage engine is the LR46R. It has good gimbal, so you should be able to use it to recover if you lose control. I mean, you don't have to face exactly the way you want to fly before engaging the engine, you can start it regardless and simply use it to steer in the correct direction.

As for the explorer probe and reaction wheels: I think it was spin-stabilized. Reaction wheel would have worked, but I don't think they had the technology then. IIRC reaction wheels only started to be used in the 70s, and are a very expensive piece of equipment (as well as being nowhere near as powerful as they are in the stock game).

[tmikesecrist3]

max TWR is 10.53 according to my delta v tab on mech jeb. If I am not mistaken that would be my TWR at burn out right? on of the reasions the rocket stages are so big is because I needed to get my twr at launch down, that and I needed enough dealta V. So I had to add waight so fuel seemed to be the way to salve both problems. I wonder if part of my problem is the fact that when useing MJ Assent auto pilot. My ap rechices set altutied before my gravaty trun is compleat and after burn out or shut down my rocket starts tumbling

[Hattivat]

max TWR is 10.53 according to my delta v tab on mech jeb. If I am not mistaken that would be my TWR at burn out right? on of the reasions the rocket stages are so big is because I needed to get my twr at launch down, that and I needed enough dealta V. So I had to add waight so fuel seemed to be the way to salve both problems. I wonder if part of my problem is the fact that when useing MJ Assent auto pilot. My ap rechices set altutied before my gravaty trun is compleat and after burn out or shut down my rocket starts tumbling

10.53 is very high, it's generally best to stay below 7. Yes, that is your TWR at burnout, and what it means is that your rocket becomes very hard to steer towards the end of the first stage. I understand the reasons behind your design decisions well, I've been there (i.e. at low tech levels) too. Suggested solution: try disengaging mechjeb after the first stage burnout, use RCS to manually arrest any tumbling, and then fly the rest of the way manually (easy, have the orbit info window open and just make sure your time to apoapsis doesn't fall under 10s, whenever it starts to fall towards that limit, pitch skywards). Don't worry if after second stage burnout your periapsis is still in the atmosphere, your RCS should be enough to correct that.

EDIT: One tip for rocket design: SRBs are much more useful in RSS/RO than in the stock game. With them, you can have a rocket that is just one stage + boosters. In fact, that's what my main satellite launcher (8 t to LEO) is like. It's max TWR is 5.09 in this configuration, very manageable.

Edited June 29, 2014 by Hattivat

[Patupi]

Patupi: The only issues I have had with RCS have been to do with the way the RCS fuel doesn't flow through parts. Is it possible that some of your RCS fuel is stored in tanks not connected to the RCS thrusters so you can't use it?

I'm not sure how that would affect it. The ship had a central H2 + O2 tank, then directly on that were radial, spherical, mono-propellant tanks and KW 45deg RCS ports... and the point is they worked at first, then just quit later on, on multiple ships of different designs. Very odd. If it was going to fail I'd expect it to either work or not work, not work for a bit then fail. I even tried right clicking on the RCS ports individually and disabling then re-enabling them. No luck.

[Semmel]

Hi all!

Sorry for the radio silence the last week, I was at the SPIE conference (was there anyone else?) and had no time for KSP whatsoever. I managed to finish the tech tree as far as RPL goes at the moment and I find it pretty good so far. I havnt finished the tech tree, I just finished all the custom experiments. The experience was quite good and I like the direction this goes. I havn't had such fun with KSP in a long time as I had to play it in the RSS environment using RPL. Thank you again for making this fantastic tech tree mod!

Some suggestions or more opinions what I would change. Of course, please dont feel entitled to follow any of them, I dont want to drive your progress but I still want to give you feedback.

* I guess it would be viable to decouple the experiments parts from the probe cores. That way, it is not necessary to launch an experiment if one wants to build a communication network for example. So it might be nice to have two or more types of probe cores, normal ones and radiation hardned ones (heavier). Normal probe cores simply stop working after 100 days in space or something, radiation hardened ones might survive indefinitely. The experiments them selfs are goodthough. They are diverse enough to be fun! Only the lack of instructions ingame what to do with them is a bit troublesome. The text is not always very helpful.

Also I experimented with SCANsat and I find the experience quite satisfying. Not for collecting science though (I only scanned Earth and the Moon) because the science return is just too small for the afford. But its still nice to do. BTW: The moons elevantion seems odd, except for some craters, the entire surface is at or above 7000m. Would be nice to rebalance the 0-level for elevation if possible.

I would like to see the transmission of science option of the Science Jr and Goo container being removed or set to 0. These experiments are clearly designed for sample return experiments. Would make sense to not be able to transmit them.

All together, the probes to launch are too light. I never needed to launch more than 5T into LEO. It would be nice if experimental equipment became heavier. Maybe for a moon rover, I would need 10T launch system.. It would be nice to have something that is really heavy and not fuel to launch into orbit. A space station does not really count as you cant do anything with it. And even if, as soon as the number of parts become reasonably high to be considered a space station, the game becomes unplayable due to lag. So I would like to see some really heavy non-station and useful things to launch.

I said it before and I say it again: The number of useless parts that can be replaced by procedural equivalents are too large. Especially aerodynamic parts. Also many parts that are specific to certain real space ships seem to be misplaced in the tech tree. Given the nature of the game (build your own rocket and fly it to the moon et al.), many of the specialized parts (not engines) should be hidden away somehow to make the parts list shorter and less clattered with junk. I know that some people like to replay history, but to do that, RPL seems to be the wrong concept. To replay history, a tech tree is not the appropriate tech model. Instead a linear progression is much more appropriate, with only a few options in the beginning: US tech vs. Russian tech vs. European tech. After that it should be rather linear with a few dead ends here or there. If a tech tree concept is preferred with themed tech in its branches, hisory is maybe not the best model to look at. In a tech tree approach, the nodes should focus on functionality and leave out shrapnel like warheads or parts that are clearly designed to recreate real space craft like the specific Mercury tech, Gemeni tech and Soyous tech.

Some issues/bugs:

* The text for the range of antennas seems wrong. They always range further than the text describes.

* It is hard to balance a probe with a radially attached antenna. I tried to balance it with other experimental parts of equal mass but did not succeed. I suspect the mass of small parts is not simulated correctly. Because the small probe engines do not provide enough gimbling (0.01 or so degrees, effects at least two engines), the result is a huge expense in RCS fuel. I suspect this is a bug. Cant say if it is due to the rescaling or due to a engine replacer mod, probably the latter. (Hope you read this Nathan..)

* The node for nuclear engines goes on top of the right information panel.

* The text of the Sputnik2 node does not fit in the available space

* The science parts of AIES are available before the corresponding stock science parts

Cheers,

Semmel

[tmikesecrist3]

Has any one notices that the A4 engine (1m) really likes to over heat and blow up, what do I do about that... and why does it not take the fuel tank (which is nearly full) with it?

[rcollier]

Is there a fix for getting the Procedural Fairings 3.x to appear in the tech tree? As of now I've lost the fairing bases. I still have access to the fairings and interstage fairings.

[NathanKell]

EliteAnax17: remove TweakableEverything. If it still bugs out, post your log.

tmikesecrist3: they *didn't* control it. Explorer I was spin-stabilized. Here's what happened.

1. Jupiter-C lower stage burns out, establishing apogee.

2. Thrust section detaches.

3. The "bucket" with the solids and the guidance unit reorients for apogee kick.

4. The solids (and Explorer) are spun up (IIRC something like 1000RPM)

5. The first set of Baby Sergeants decouple and fire

6. The next set decouple and fire

7. The final Baby Sergeant detaches and fires, placing Explorer I in orbit

griffin247: recall that polar orbits require ~500m/s more delta V. Other than that, please say more (and more clearly) what your problem is.

[BadRocketsCo.]

Okay, I still cant get the first probe anywhere. I do have the "Probes" folder in FASA, but the WAC Corporal just does not show up, not even in sandbox!

[tmikesecrist3]

yeah I am having troble making orbit my self... I almost did it last time but then I lost contact with my ground station. kind of surprised it did not excite the programed maneuver though. I supose the computer might not have been smart enough to do it... hmmm

[griffin247]

i got the secience required to unlock 3rd teir of landing legs so i can get manourver planner , and guess what i got rover instead, so ive just wasted a week geeting the 300 points and the 300 points , it turns out manouer planer is on the middle teir and is already unlocked but i dont have it. ive done a new install and will see if that solves my problem

[ThorBeorn]

* The text for the range of antennas seems wrong. They always range further than the text describes.

That is because the effective range between two antennas of different range, antenna A and B, is calculated as following: Effectiverange = Range A + SquareRoot of(RangeA x RangeB). This is when Antenna A has the longer range of the two.

I think NathanKell came up with this to better simulate realistic ranges where a small antenna can communicate with a large one far away. Probes don't always carry gigantic dishes irl.

* It is hard to balance a probe with a radially attached antenna. I tried to balance it with other experimental parts of equal mass but did not succeed. I suspect the mass of small parts is not simulated correctly.

This mod will help you with balancing of asymmetric stuff: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/35996-0-23-x-RCS-Build-Aid-v0-4-6-ARM-patch-fixes

[Agathorn]

Can I ask how you are managing to control available sizes on stretchy tanks based on tech nodes? Is this something that is a feature of StretchyTanks you are using?

[NathanKell]

Yes. Since v7? v8? Stretchy has supported that. It's in the file tech.cfg in StretchyTanks/Parts. RPL has a module manager patch file that changes the values.

Procedural Parts has a much more involved system.

[Hattivat]

i got the secience required to unlock 3rd teir of landing legs so i can get manourver planner , and guess what i got rover instead, so ive just wasted a week geeting the 300 points and the 300 points , it turns out manouer planer is on the middle teir and is already unlocked but i dont have it. ive done a new install and will see if that solves my problem

It says "rover autopilot", but that's what made manuever planner appear for me. I'm sorry it didn't solve your problems.

[tmikesecrist3]

Here is something I was thinking, this is my first time I have been playing with the RSS mods... What I am thinking about doing is once I unlock maned pods its trying to think of how to build and unmanned test pod to make sure that when I Risk an astronaut. so I want to keep the mass as close to the same for the maned version

[Hattivat]

I think FASA provides a tiny part that can be attached to the side of any command pod to facilitate such testing. As far as mass is concerned, don't worry, kerbals are weightless when inside the pod, and I don't RO changes that.

[tmikesecrist3]

oh I was worried about what ever I might add to make the pod unmanned.....

[Hattivat]

Ok, now I have a problem myself. I'm trying to construct a massive 300t to LEO lifter, but procedural fairings and interstages only go up to 6m, which is not enough. Is there any way to make them bigger? I think NathanKell posted a solution somewhere, but I can't seem to find it.

EDIT: Nevermind, found it.

Edited July 3, 2014 by Hattivat