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

[disembodied]

Look at the mass of your fuel tank. Hydrogen takes up a lot of space for the same mass. 1 ton of fuel for 6 tons of engine is not going to get you much delta-v. You need very physically large (but not very massive) tanks to use nuclear engines efficiently. The balloon tank also helps since the regular one doesn't have a good full/empty mass ratio for hydrogen.

I can get a lot more or the same amount (depending on fuel types, and even then the O engine usually wins out in TWR, mass or both) of dV out of an engine with ~400 isp over one with 850 with the same fuel tank and about the same overall mass. I imagine the baloon tanks will boost the regular engines' dV as well, so I basically can't see a reason in using the LV-N at all, unless I'm missing something obvious.

[MedievalNerd]

Most glorious victory!

I have no idea what I was doing wrong with the chemical release module, but it's fixed now. I was able to have an experiment that was conditional on having no more of said 'chemical', and it could only be released in a specific situation. FINALLY!

Yay!

It's not perfect, but it's working. So I won't mess with it too much apart from making sure the error messages are intuitive and make sense. IE, not referring to Data or the Recorder.

So I just need to update all those awesome mods, and do another mega tech tree sweep, going over each item. (Epic fun!)

Once that is done, I just need to make generic experiments for Venus & Mars to keep you guys busy, and then well... I think we should be done!

Ugh, I'm so happy it worked, you have no idea!

This was the biggest hurdle at this point, and it's behind us!

Sentences that end with exclamation marks!

TLDR; weekend release seems like it wouldn't be impossible! Hopefully not Sunday... D:

Edited January 31, 2014 by MedievalNerd

[metaphor]

I can get a lot more or the same amount (depending on fuel types, and even then the O engine usually wins out in TWR, mass or both) of dV out of an engine with ~400 isp over one with 850 with the same fuel tank and about the same overall mass. I imagine the baloon tanks will boost the regular engines' dV as well, so I basically can't see a reason in using the LV-N at all, unless I'm missing something obvious.

The 450 Isp engine uses hydrogen + oxygen, which is about 5 times denser than the pure hydrogen the nuclear engine uses. The nuclear engine is also about 6 tons compared to the hydrolox engine at 0.1 tons. Since delta-v depends on full mass/empty mass, the nuclear engine is really only useful for large payloads of 10+ tons, otherwise the engine's 6 tons contributes too much to the empty mass of the stage. A 20 ton payload with 100 tons of hydrogen fuel would get 13 km/s of delta-v from the nuclear engine, while a 20 ton payload with 100 tons of hydrolox would get only 8 km/s of delta-v from a 450 Isp engine.

[MedievalNerd]

WEEE! Most elaborate experiment ever carried out by Kerbal kind... Not really... And don't mind the text, it was a long and frustrating process so I was going a bit mad in the end.

EDIT: I've decided to name this screenshot: Around Kerbin when the bars fell, his box wide open!

Edited January 31, 2014 by MedievalNerd

[NathanKell]

Congratulations!

[kasperhangard]

Amazing Medieval! Really looking forward to it!

[m_robber]

Awesome! Can't wait!

[palker]

Did you consider boosting the science returns of EVA reports and Crew reports cause as it is right now the manned space program is just a waste of science. I mean 8 science for eva report from high orbit that is useless considering how difficult it is to actually get there. I know that it it is possible to get plenty of science on the Mun but landing Kerbal there requires rocket that brings my FPS to grinding halt while unmanned rockets are much more CPU friendly.

I guess i will try to edit my save file to get a refund on that science and re-lock the node.

[MedievalNerd]

Did you consider boosting the science returns of EVA reports and Crew reports cause as it is right now the manned space program is just a waste of science. I mean 8 science for eva report from high orbit that is useless considering how difficult it is to actually get there. I know that it it is possible to get plenty of science on the Mun but landing Kerbal there requires rocket that brings my FPS to grinding halt while unmanned rockets are much more CPU friendly.

I guess i will try to edit my save file to get a refund on that science and re-lock the node.

Howdy palker,

Manned experiments/science definitely needs a lot of love! Before I got caught up in this chemical release plugin I inteded to include some of the first manned custom experiments. Given the extraneous delays, I'm going to go for MS19 without adding them just yet. But good point, I could investigate upping the stock science awarded by Crew & EVA reports.

The only thing that is dangerous about playing with the stock experiments is that they apply for all bodies, so increasing it to make Kerbin relevant, will make Jool and others give huge payouts because of the way it operates. (via multipliers set for each body and it's situations).

Don't you worry, I totally intend to give manned experiments a push! I could even slip in some placholders if it doesn't prove too complicated. This is still in alpha with many facets in progress. So you will get some odd deadends and the likes.

In the end we'll make it happen! Thanks for the feedback and trying it out!

[metaphor]

The only thing that is dangerous about playing with the stock experiments is that they apply for all bodies, so increasing it to make Kerbin relevant, will make Jool and others give huge payouts because of the way it operates. (via multipliers set for each body and it's situations).

If you can get a crewed mission to Jool you probably should get a lot of science from it. Looking forward to the patch!

[MedievalNerd]

If you can get a crewed mission to Jool you probably should get a lot of science from it. Looking forward to the patch!

Yes true, I'm not saying it shouldn't be considerable. But the fact that there is one main value which is processed through all the multipliers, it has a butterfly effect. Adding 1 point to an experiment that is in Kerbin Orbit, will be worth 4 points on Mun, and 7 on Jool. (With some variations to situations).

This is a bit why I started the whole 'body/situation' specific experiments, so that you don't have to worry about the butterfly effect of an 'open' experiment. It's like mods which add new experiments, they bring in a whole load of science points each when factoring that they work around every body. (Well except for atmospheric only experiments)

[Ratzap]

I'm still scraping science off the Mun to get better parts to go visit other planets so the timing of 19 is about right for me

[Guest]

Found issue with "explorer" probe core: It seems to have an built in transmitter with unlimited RT2 range (or very large unlisted range). sorry if that was mentioned already. Any thoughts on the "new" 0.23 style of limited science from transmissions vs returns? I find myself with 0.3 science points uncollected from the "explorer" probe (flying/near space/high space) unless i bring 3 of them (transmitting to max, then storing last reading for recovery on each), not a big deal as they are light but a bit "grindy", final word on base value vs cap value and returns vs transmitting?

[MedievalNerd]

Found issue with "explorer" probe core: It seems to have an built in transmitter with unlimited RT2 range (or very large unlisted range). sorry if that was mentioned already. Any thoughts on the "new" 0.23 style of limited science from transmissions vs returns? I find myself with 0.3 science points uncollected from the "explorer" probe (flying/near space/high space) unless i bring 3 of them (transmitting to max, then storing last reading for recovery on each), not a big deal as they are light but a bit "grindy", final word on base value vs cap value and returns vs transmitting?

The only thing 0.23 seems to have done is enabled the 'resettable = yes' field to a default no. That field was already there in 0.22, just set to yes by default.

All grinding should be eliminated with RPL. Experiments are either transmittable or not, and base & cap values are matched. (IE, zero grinding.)

MS18 might not be properly keeping those values in check since if I'm not mikstaken, Devs played with the payout of certain science instruments, so my tweaks are dated!

I hate grinding when it comes to science in KSP, I'd rather have several missions conducting similar experiments, than to just grind something 3-4 times in one go... Meh.

EDIT: How come you have the explorer core!? I've been making that for MS19...? Oh, maybe it was released as part of RO... Strange!

[Guest]

Its from RO i think (the explorer core, that is), i have yet another issue, I have no access to HTP fuels, i see engines that can use it, but have no access to the fuel itself, I am very confused by real fuels "how to" namely this text and the on page text it references>>>

"NOTE: follow the instructions immediately below the download to switch to the RftSEngines engine configs." citing this i believe?? >> "OPTIONAL:

Reaching for the Stars Engines. Delete your SFJBRealEngines folder, remove any current RftSEngines.cfg anywhere in GameData, and download and install the Reaching for the Stars pack. Note you will need the latest ExsurgentEngineering plugin from careo (HERE--replace any existing ExsurgentEngineering.dll with it, or install it into GameData/ExsurgentEngineering/Plugins [making folders as necessary]) , until dtobi's Space Shuttle Engines or Smart Parts mods are updated with dtobi's new gimbal fixes."

Can you please clarify this so others (and I) dont have issues, I really want it to be as realistic as possible and seemingly missing HTP just makes me wonder if i have other rocket type issues. (i have kerosene show up, just not its mated "HTP")

Honestly Medieval Nerd your techtree and all the added goodies is AWESOME! as a side note a have access to WAC corporal core (no exp), A4 rocket, explorer core (giger-counter exp) and a number of ICBM nuke MIRV payloads (<WTF is this for, payload weight testing??) which i think are from RO/FASA/mystery source

EDIT: I think i was being foolish, it seems only "super stretchy" fuel tanks hold both kerosene and HTP together, other tanks can hold one and not the other (allowing for "funky" multi-tank designs to bypass the width restrictions) so I DO have both HTP and Kerosene, just not the brain power to read descriptions in depth before comming to the conclusion i somehow broke RPL

Edited January 31, 2014 by Guest

[MedievalNerd]

Its from RO i think (the explorer core, that is), i have yet another issue, I have no access to HTP fuels, i see engines that can use it, but have no access to the fuel itself, I am very confused by real fuels "how to" namely this text and the on page text it references>>>

"NOTE: follow the instructions immediately below the download to switch to the RftSEngines engine configs." citing this i believe?? >> "OPTIONAL:

Reaching for the Stars Engines. Delete your SFJBRealEngines folder, remove any current RftSEngines.cfg anywhere in GameData, and download and install the Reaching for the Stars pack. Note you will need the latest ExsurgentEngineering plugin from careo (HERE--replace any existing ExsurgentEngineering.dll with it, or install it into GameData/ExsurgentEngineering/Plugins [making folders as necessary]) , until dtobi's Space Shuttle Engines or Smart Parts mods are updated with dtobi's new gimbal fixes."

Can you please clarify this so others (and I) dont have issues, I really want it to be as realistic as possible and seemingly missing HTP just makes me wonder if i have other rocket type issues. (i have kerosene show up, just not its mated "HTP")

Honestly Medieval Nerd your techtree and all the added goodies is AWESOME! as a side note a have access to WAC corporal core (no exp), A4 rocket, explorer core (giger-counter exp) and a number of ICBM nuke MIRV payloads (<WTF is this for, payload weight testing??) which i think are from RO/FASA/mystery source

lol, the payload is from FASA if I'm not mistaken. And yeah, It's for flair most likely. I doubt it's an actual warhead.

As for these 'reach for the stars' engines, I think Nathan started having people submitting different engine configs for RealFuels. I'm sticking to RftsEngine for now, so I'm not too familiar with alternate configs or installs. Since this is very specific to real fuels, unless Nathan passes by I'd suggest posting that question on the Real Fuels thread. ... OK, I'm starting a cold and my mind is failling. RFTS = Reach For The Stars... ugh...

HTP fuel? See, I've been away from playing KSP for 3 months now, and I've lost track of new accronyms? Dammit! lol

Is that fuel that requires the cryo tanks? (I have no idea what I'm talking about...)

Edited January 31, 2014 by MedievalNerd

[Guest]

lol, the payload is from FASA if I'm not mistaken. And yeah, It's for flair most likely. I doubt it's an actual warhead.

As for these 'reach for the stars' engines, I think Nathan started having people submitting different engine configs for RealFuels. I'm sticking to RftsEngine for now, so I'm not too familiar with alternate configs or installs. Since this is very specific to real fuels, unless Nathan passes by I'd suggest posting that question on the Real Fuels thread. ... OK, I'm starting a cold and my mind is failling. RFTS = Reach For The Stars... ugh...

HTP fuel? See, I've been away from playing KSP for 3 months now, and I've lost track of new accronyms? Dammit! lol

Is that fuel that requires the cryo tanks? (I have no idea what I'm talking about...)

Its ok i think i figured it out, the issue was with my brain and not the mod/game/modders work >. problem existed between keyboard and chair

Note HTP is (according to wikipedia): High-test peroxide or HTP is a high (85 to 98 percent)-concentration solution of hydrogen peroxide, with the remainder predominantly made up of water. In contact with a catalyst, it decomposes into a high-temperature mixture of steam and oxygen, with no remaining liquid water. It was used as a propellant of HTP rockets and torpedoes, and has been used for high-performance vernier engines.

Edited January 31, 2014 by Guest

[Ratzap]

Even to the Mun crewed is worth it. Uncrewed probe to fresh biome - 388 science. Crewed to fresh biome, 600 science. 212 difference then multiply by 15 biomes = 3180 science extra.

If you open manned stuff just after getting the final science piece you minimise the amount of repeat missions to same biomes.

[Guest]

Even to the Mun crewed is worth it. Uncrewed probe to fresh biome - 388 science. Crewed to fresh biome, 600 science. 212 difference then multiply by 15 biomes = 3180 science extra.

If you open manned stuff just after getting the final science piece you minimise the amount of repeat missions to same biomes.

With the addition of the "remote crew report camera", and the "unmanned surface sample analyzer" parts the only "real" advantage to manned is EVA reports and flag planting, as long as you have comms up and working it is cheaper and "safer" to use unmanned probes, missing out on minor amounts of science (but your still "missing" them, so manned still has an advantage)

[NathanKell]

The probe core in RO is the WAC Corporal nose. The only Explorer core out so far is from FASA, as MedievalNerd says, and RPL doesn't support it yet.

You can use RSS to change the body science multipliers...

Regarding HTP: Bug. I somehow managed to remove it from default tanks. It'll be fixed ASAP.

One of the warheads is from FASA; the rest are from the RftS Pack. They're stuff I made for my mission reports thread. That's why it's called RftS Pack.

[palker]

Launcher with enough dV to land on the mun -> 2,5 FPS at launch. First 2 minutes of launch ingame take real world 12 to 15 (4,3Ghz AMD 6300).

Probe lander 15-20 Fps, launching in real time.

I think i know which i will stay with.

[Ratzap]

With the addition of the "remote crew report camera", and the "unmanned surface sample analyzer" parts the only "real" advantage to manned is EVA reports and flag planting, as long as you have comms up and working it is cheaper and "safer" to use unmanned probes, missing out on minor amounts of science (but your still "missing" them, so manned still has an advantage)

Those aren't in the pack are they? At least they're not in the tech tree under science. I know there are plenty of mods to add science and let probes do pretty much anything but if they're not in the pack I won't bother. Same as I'm not adding mods to double or triple science made - I'll experience the pack as intended.

[palker]

Those aren't in the pack are they? At least they're not in the tech tree under science. I know there are plenty of mods to add science and let probes do pretty much anything but if they're not in the pack I won't bother. Same as I'm not adding mods to double or triple science made - I'll experience the pack as intended.

They are in the FASA pack and i think that they are fair game as real probes have surface sample analyzing instruments and cameras. And if you return sample back to Kerbin it does not really matter who took it.

[Ratzap]

They are in the FASA pack and i think that they are fair game as real probes have surface sample analyzing instruments and cameras. And if you return sample back to Kerbin it does not really matter who took it.

FASA hasn't been integrated with this pack yet according to the author a few pages back so any parts are likely to be using the stock science system and in the wrong tech node. But play it how you like, personally I'll not use them at this point.

[Visari]

about manned vs unmanned samples:

Manned flights were capable of bringing back relatively larger samples than probe flights.

In addition, the first manned lunar sample return was in 1969, while the first unmanned lunar sample return was in 1970.