[0.23.5] Realism Overhaul: ROv5.2 + Modlist for RSS 6/30/14

[Hattivat]

2. It should work, yes. And as most of the resources Interstellar adds are already realistic and are not present in RealFuels, it basically boils down to LiquidFuel, Oxidizer and Monopropellant. I think it would be easier to change Interstellar's parts to use (and produce) Liquid H2, LOx and Hydrazine than the other way around.

3. No idea how to do it plausibly, as I'm not a chemist, but actually: Why would you? I mean, with advanced technology that Interstellar gives you Liquid H2 is pretty much all you need. Hydrazine is n2h4, while ammonia is nh3, so I'd assume that it's relatively easy to turn one into the other. As an example, Laythe's oceans are supposed to be full of ammonia.

Regarding Kethane: It's hopelessly unrealistic (producing Xenon out of a hydrocarbon, lol), whereas Interstellar is chemically realistic (hydrolizing water into Liquid Fuel and Oxidizer, for example), so I'd say that makes much more sense to use Interstellar for refueling in a realism-focused KSP client.

[MathigNihilcehk]

@Reign of Magic

Thanks for the answers.

Regarding Kethane, I really hate the idea of using Kethane for a number of reasons. 1: It has limited resources. I don't want to use up a solar systems worth of resources on accident, even if that is realistic. 2: Fuel conversion doesn't make sense. Kethane can be converted into anything, and the law of mass conservation is broken.

Regarding the ISRU refinery and production chains, I just found Wikipedia has a lot of info on the remaining fuels. There is a half dozen solid rocket fuels out there and more than likely a few processes to get the last two mono-propellants, so I can probably morph new processes out of the ISRU to make them.

@Hattivat

2: Thanks, that helps a lot.

3: Hehe, I've taken chemistry before, but it seems straightforward. I mean just balance the chemical equation in a converter(atom conservation and all that), and set some energy requirement to balance the conversion. There are tables for this kind of stuff, and there is also Wikipedia. The tricky bit is in creating a new conversion, once I know the rates. I assume just locate how Interstellar's other conversion work and toying with them a bit will yield successful results. CFG's seem to be pretty straightforward.

Regarding Kethane, I totally agree with you. I'm probably going to include the mod, then disable any parts not required by Modular Kolonization System. That system is incredibly realistic, I just don't know why they'd make it dependent on Kethane...

@all

That concludes all of my questions. Thanks for being so helpful. If anyone is interested in what happens next, let me know.

Edited June 18, 2014 by MathigNihilcehk

[Hattivat]

@3: I meant: Why would you even use solid fuel outside of Kerbin, when Interstellar gives you awesome engines which run on Liquid H2?

And yeah, I like MKS very much too. Haven't thought of using it in RSS though, that's very ambitious (I still find it challenging to do a moon landing in Realism Overhaul, and haven't yet tried to leave Earth SOI in my career mode save).

[Arteals]

From time to time I'm getting spam of the exception: "NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object". After it I can't return to space station or revert the flight. Any buttons from menu are not working, so the only way to get over it is to restart the game. I've installed all the stuff for Realism Overhaul and Real Progression and, unfortunately, have no idea what mod causes an error. The only 100% way to reproduce an issue is to burn spacecraft in atmosphere. But sometimes I get it in random situations. Does anyone have an idea what can it be? Or how can I find out what mod causing an exception?

[Reign Of Magic]

@Reign of Magic

Thanks for the answers.

Regarding Kethane, I really hate the idea of using Kethane for a number of reasons. 1: It has limited resources. I don't want to use up a solar systems worth of resources on accident, even if that is realistic. 2: Fuel conversion doesn't make sense. Kethane can be converted into anything, and the law of mass conservation is broken.

Regarding the ISRU refinery and production chains, I just found Wikipedia has a lot of info on the remaining fuels. There is a half dozen solid rocket fuels out there and more than likely a few processes to get the last two mono-propellants, so I can probably morph new processes out of the ISRU to make them.

...

Regarding Kethane, I totally agree with you. I'm probably going to include the mod, then disable any parts not required by Modular Kolonization System. That system is incredibly realistic, I just don't know why they'd make it dependent on Kethane...

@all

That concludes all of my questions. Thanks for being so helpful. If anyone is interested in what happens next, let me know.

Yeah, Kethane kinda does break some laws of the universe, but that is what happens when you use a small/simple all inclusive mod.

I would like the idea of the ISRU Refinery making all the fuels, but then you run into the problem of having to add all the specific resources to each planet via the open resources plugin, and then (if going full realism) match them to each specific celestial body, or locations on each body. That sounds like a lot of hassle when I bet you could just mess with the kethane cfgs to change the ratios more to your liking (that being said and knowing Nathan, he probably has decent ratios already since the ratios are added by his mod Real Fuels). That being said, if you manage to get the ISRU working with all fuel types let me know!

As for MKS, I have never used it so I can't help you there, but that sounds really cool, Especially if you can make a 100% self sufficient colony somewhere else. That would be fantastic when combined with extra-planetary launch pads mod.

@3: I meant: Why would you even use solid fuel outside of Kerbin, when Interstellar gives you awesome engines which run on Liquid H2?.

One of the main reasons to use solid fuels outside of Kerbin's SOI is the ISRU Refinery can refuel the aluminium hybrid rocket from anywhere on the surface of the Moon, and I am sure a couple other celestial bodies. In addition to that, solid rocket fuel would probably be easier to manufacture and and definitely store or handle when off-world. Although that is just a stab in the dark seeing as I am not a chemical engineer.

Here is the link to the Hybrid Rocket which I refer to: https://github.com/FractalUK/KSPInterstellar/wiki/Aluminum-Hybrid-Rocket

Another problem with Interstellar relying on H2 is this, which is taken directly from the Real Fuels forum post. : The main complication however is that LH2 must be kept extremely cold; boiloff is a serious issue even in insulated (cryogenic) tanks

[Hattivat]

One of the main reasons to use solid fuels outside of Kerbin's SOI is the ISRU Refinery can refuel the aluminium hybrid rocket from anywhere on the surface of the Moon, and I am sure a couple other celestial bodies. In addition to that, solid rocket fuel would probably be easier to manufacture and and definitely store or handle when off-world.

Sure, but this one is already included in Interstellar. I meant using ISRU refinery to produce the more exotic fuels from Real Fuels - I don't really see a reason to do that.

Another problem with Interstellar relying on H2 is this, which is taken directly from the Real Fuels forum post. : The main complication however is that LH2 must be kept extremely cold; boiloff is a serious issue even in insulated (cryogenic) tanks

Sure, boiloff is a big issue for long missions. However, you wouldn't use solid fuel for interplanetary transfers or any other long-term missions, would you? I mean, for every purpose I can think of for using solid fuels off-Kerbin (which is mostly achieving orbit on some other planetary body) you could just as well use a microwave-powered nuclear thermal rocket using LH2 as fuel.

[Edit:] Actually, now that I think about, Interstellar itself does provide a neat solution to the boiloff problem - if I remember correctly you can use regular water as "fuel" in nuclear thermal rockets.

Edited June 18, 2014 by Hattivat

[Reign Of Magic]

Sure, boiloff is a big issue for long missions. However, you wouldn't use solid fuel for interplanetary transfers or any other long-term missions, would you? I mean, for every purpose I can think of for using solid fuels off-Kerbin (which is mostly achieving orbit on some other planetary body) you could just as well use a microwave-powered nuclear thermal rocket using LH2 as fuel.

[Edit:] Actually, now that I think about, Interstellar itself does provide a neat solution to the boiloff problem - if I remember correctly you can use regular water as "fuel" in nuclear thermal rockets.

For myself, I tend to use hyperbolic or other fuels that don't boil off (I don't think I have unlocked nuclear or the plasma engines yet in my playthrough). I do use solid fuel, but that is mainly just to help the first launch stage get off the ground I don't think I have used it for anything past that (aside from ullage motors for stage separation).

As for the water thing. I am not sure If I am doing something, but I can never get the Thermal rockets, or the Thermal Turbo Jets (which function similarly to rockets once you have reached a certain tech point) to use water as a fuel source. Even if I select it as the fuel type to use in VAB and have nothing but water on my rocket, It will not use water as a fuel type. I would like to use water once I unlock it, because water isn't all that rare (or at least the components)

Question In regards to Remote tech packet/intervals as set by the RT2_RO.CFG

So. I got to mars, and was using the AIES Comlar 1 dish to transmit, Long story short that thing has slower connection speeds than dialup. Why is it that some of the dishes have such crazy tramitting speeds.

Example: Comlar 1 has a packet size of .1 and a transmit interval of 1.5..... To math this out real quick for a 10mits science bit it will take 100 transmittions (10/.1) which equates to 150 seconds (100*1.5). Is this intended? Because sending back science and having to let it run for at minimum of 150 seconds (I believe 10 mits is the smallest experiment and the largest especially with KSP Interstellar can reach well in the thousands) per experiment seems a bit crazy to me.

Granted this seems to only be on the extremely long range Dishes like the Comlar 1

Edited June 19, 2014 by Reign Of Magic

[Hattivat]

I've found a handy comparison of different fuel options for long-term missions:

System Isp (s) Advantages / Disadvantages

Hydrogen NTR 850-900 Excellent Isp, poor storability & density, heavy

Methane NTR 650-700 High Isp, fair storability & density, heavy

Pentaborane NTR 550-600 High Isp, good storability & density, heavy, neutron absorber?

Ammonia NTR 400-450 Medium Isp, good storability & density, heavy

LOX-LH2 400-450 Medium Isp, fair storability & density

Other Chemical 300-350 Low Isp, excellent storability & density, light

Solid 300 Low Isp, excellent storability & density, simple, little control

(source: http://www.thespacerace.com/forum/index.php?topic=2878.30 )

Seems to me that methane NTR and ammonia NTR are the best options (especially considering an additional advantage - ease of off-world production). Both are readily available in Interstellar.

[Miximix]

Of all the orbital launchers currently used, two have the most launches: Soyuz-U and Proton-M, leaving everything else far behind. However, it somewhat bugs me that RealEngines pack doesn't have Proton second/third stage engines, RftS pack is very "anti-Soviet" in general, and realism patch for BobCat's rockets from the second post is outdated and doesn't work. So I decided to clean up the config that I use and share it.

Soyuz-U and Proton-M parts rescale for use with Realism Overhaul

Soyuz-U: 7t to LEO from Baikonur

Proton-M: 21.6t to LEO from Baikonur

Requirements: BobCat's Soviet Pack, Procedural Fairings.

Basically, you only need 6 parts to build these rockets (assuming you make interstages with PF):

GameData\BobCatind\SovietPack\Parts\Proton\Proton_core_oxidizer_tank\
GameData\BobCatind\SovietPack\Parts\Proton\Proton_second_stage\
GameData\BobCatind\SovietPack\Parts\Proton\Proton_third_stage\
GameData\BobCatind\SovietPack\Parts\SoyuzU\Soyuz_U_firststagelateral_booster\
GameData\BobCatind\SovietPack\Parts\SoyuzU\Soyuz_U_Second_stage\
GameData\BobCatind\SovietPack\Parts\SoyuzU\Soyuz_U_Third_stage\

Config with crafts here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/3n4dbzshkweyvzf/RealisticSovietPack.zip (crafts contain parts from PF 3.02)

If you don't like anything, simply don't use this.

If anyone's interested, stats taken from here: Soyuz, Proton

Finally someone decidet to do that. But for some reason the config doesn't work for me and stats of the rocket are still default-like . Any ideas?

[RedAV8R]

Finally someone decidet to do that. But for some reason the config doesn't work for me and stats of the rocket are still default-like . Any ideas?

I will take a look, at some point once everything else is off my plate or at least in decent shape, I do plan on doing RSS configs for the whole BobCat series.

[Miximix]

I will take a look, at some point once everything else is off my plate or at least in decent shape, I do plan on doing RSS configs for the whole BobCat series.

That would be nice . Maybe i installed something wrong? from soviet pack folder i picked only 1st 2nd and 3rd stages of soyuz_u rocket and plugin from the post above.

[coldblade2000]

From time to time I'm getting spam of the exception: "NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object". After it I can't return to space station or revert the flight. Any buttons from menu are not working, so the only way to get over it is to restart the game. I've installed all the stuff for Realism Overhaul and Real Progression and, unfortunately, have no idea what mod causes an error. The only 100% way to reproduce an issue is to burn spacecraft in atmosphere. But sometimes I get it in random situations. Does anyone have an idea what can it be? Or how can I find out what mod causing an exception?

You can check out the ksp.log in the KSP_Data folder and find one of those exceptions. It should give you a log. Try pasting it here and we can further look into it. Better if you can upload the file to something like mediafire.

[Guest]

I have an idea to overhaul how jets are handled in RO. Currently, I found quite a few limitations regarding designing realistic planes, especially large subsonic ones, with an RO/RSS install.

The main idea: new fuel, Jet-A1 (or just Jet Fuel, essentially JP-8), with AllVessel type of flow.

Pros:

-Fuel drains equally from all tanks, making aircraft balancing easier.

-Wet wings become viable. Currently they're plagued by fuel flow logic bugging out on them. AllVessel type of flow alleviates this.

-No fuel lines needed for planes. Makes for a nicer look and less complexity.

-Could approximate reality better. Currently, "Kerosene" is either rocket-grade fuel or jet-grade, depending on what you feed it to. The new fuel could be slightly different.

Cons:

-Needs extensive config changes to AJE and jet engines in general.

-Jet engines wouldn't run on rocket fuel unless even more changes are made, with separate modes for Jet-A and Kerosene.

-Actually implementing wet wings would need somebody to figure out how much volume the tanks should have.

-Problems with Procedural Wings. They'd either be left out of the wet wing business, or need a plugin change.

Overall, I think it's something to consider. This could have a lot of advantages, but would require a lot of work, too, including somehow measuring volume of the wing pieces.

[RedAV8R]

I have an idea to overhaul how jets are handled in RO. Currently, I found quite a few limitations regarding designing realistic planes, especially large subsonic ones, with an RO/RSS install.

The main idea: new fuel, Jet-A1 (or just Jet Fuel, essentially JP-8), with AllVessel type of flow.

Pros:

-Fuel drains equally from all tanks, making aircraft balancing easier.

-Wet wings become viable. Currently they're plagued by fuel flow logic bugging out on them. AllVessel type of flow alleviates this.

-No fuel lines needed for planes. Makes for a nicer look and less complexity.

-Could approximate reality better. Currently, "Kerosene" is either rocket-grade fuel or jet-grade, depending on what you feed it to. The new fuel could be slightly different.

Cons:

-Needs extensive config changes to AJE and jet engines in general.

-Jet engines wouldn't run on rocket fuel unless even more changes are made, with separate modes for Jet-A and Kerosene.

-Actually implementing wet wings would need somebody to figure out how much volume the tanks should have.

-Problems with Procedural Wings. They'd either be left out of the wet wing business, or need a plugin change.

Overall, I think it's something to consider. This could have a lot of advantages, but would require a lot of work, too, including somehow measuring volume of the wing pieces.

You know, adding a new fuel is REALLY easy. As far as I can tell, this is all you need to get what you want.

Put this in any *.cfg file...

RESOURCE_DEFINITION

{

name = JetA1

density = 0.000804

flowMode = ALL_VESSEL

transfer = PUMP

isTweakable = true

}

From what I've seen AJE doesn't matter what fuel type it is...could be wrong, never used it, it's installed, but haven't tested jets for a long time...but otherwise. Getting procedural wings to work would be a job for that modder...for that matter this isn't an RO thing but a RF (RealFuel) addition. Otherwise, everything else behaves the same, though in reality not all aircraft use a 'all_vessel' type of fuel flow, sometimes its outboard wing, then inboard wing, center tank, etc, even your little Cessna, Piper, Beechcraft birds sometimes can only use left wing or right wing, or even left outboard, then right outboard, etc, it's up to the pilot to choose where they feeds from, and if they use one too long, then your balance is all screwed up, and there have been plenty of pilots who lawn darted because they forgot to switch, 'exhausted' their fuel supply, and made an unscheduled stop. Would have been fine had they simply switched tanks.

[Shukinen]

I recently installed all the RSS RF and realism overhaul then i installed the soviet pack but it isnt config with the real fuels and the realism overhaul, how can i make it work on real scale?

[RedAV8R]

I recently installed all the RSS RF and realism overhaul then i installed the soviet pack but it isnt config with the real fuels and the realism overhaul, how can i make it work on real scale?

Make a ModuleManager config file yourself, or wait for me to get to it. A lot on my plate, but it is on the list.

[Shukinen]

all right, thx, i just dont know much of programming and also in the masses that would be consiered good for the volume and all

[Guest]

You know, adding a new fuel is REALLY easy. As far as I can tell, this is all you need to get what you want.

Put this in any *.cfg file...

From what I've seen AJE doesn't matter what fuel type it is...could be wrong, never used it, it's installed, but haven't tested jets for a long time...but otherwise. Getting procedural wings to work would be a job for that modder...for that matter this isn't an RO thing but a RF (RealFuel) addition. Otherwise, everything else behaves the same, though in reality not all aircraft use a 'all_vessel' type of fuel flow, sometimes its outboard wing, then inboard wing, center tank, etc, even your little Cessna, Piper, Beechcraft birds sometimes can only use left wing or right wing, or even left outboard, then right outboard, etc, it's up to the pilot to choose where they feeds from, and if they use one too long, then your balance is all screwed up, and there have been plenty of pilots who lawn darted because they forgot to switch, 'exhausted' their fuel supply, and made an unscheduled stop. Would have been fine had they simply switched tanks.

While you're right that not all planes use a simple "All_Vessel" scheme, it's the best we can do in KSP. I'd recommend a plugin for tank management if there was one (TAC fuel balancer doesn't do much more than that, either). Besides, adding a fuel is the easy part (though I'd like it to be in RF, so that if I start making configs with it, there are no surprises). The hard part is adding it to wings in a realistic manner, which is why I'm posting it here. The main point, in fact, is doing wet wings with RO. AJE would not only need every jet switched to a new fuel, but also a new fuel mode would have to be added to a lot of them for rocket-grade kerosene, and stats adjusted so that rocket fuel performs better (it's cleaner than Jet-A/JP-8). Also, I'm not sure if a density change (since Jet-A doesn't have exactly the same density as RP-1) wouldn't mess with AJE. I'd try doing this, but I have no idea how to make the necessary calculations.

[RedAV8R]

all right, thx, i just dont know much of programming and also in the masses that would be consiered good for the volume and all

No worries, give me some time, I'll get to it.

[RedAV8R]

While you're right that not all planes use a simple "All_Vessel" scheme, it's the best we can do in KSP. I'd recommend a plugin for tank management if there was one (TAC fuel balancer doesn't do much more than that, either). Besides, adding a fuel is the easy part (though I'd like it to be in RF, so that if I start making configs with it, there are no surprises). The hard part is adding it to wings in a realistic manner, which is why I'm posting it here. The main point, in fact, is doing wet wings with RO. AJE would not only need every jet switched to a new fuel, but also a new fuel mode would have to be added to a lot of them for rocket-grade kerosene, and stats adjusted so that rocket fuel performs better (it's cleaner than Jet-A/JP-8). Also, I'm not sure if a density change (since Jet-A doesn't have exactly the same density as RP-1) wouldn't mess with AJE. I'd try doing this, but I have no idea how to make the necessary calculations.

Well, one could use TAC Fuel Balancer to switch tanks, a new basic fuel tank switching plugin wouldn't be a bad idea, use the toolbar plugin to bring up a basic tank switching screen one could leave up. Adding the fuel itself to RF can happen, quite easily, I'll work with NK to do that. It appears that JetA (not JetA1) has the same density as RP-1 in RF (0.000820), which looking at MilSpec the range is .000799-.000815, while russian rocket kerosene is heavier, so the 0.000820 isn't a bad figure to average the two.

So where does that leave us...Honestly, I'd just say, name a fuel 'JetA' give it the same 0.000820 density but 'ALL_VESSEL'. At least a stop gap until a plugin could be written.

Now...as for wings, I'd actually rather see tanks be given in RF than RO, but that's just me. Stock, and otherwise 'fixed' wings could be hard coded for volume, while procedurals would need some work with that developer (sorry can't think of name off top of my head), to get volume output out of that plugin, so that RealFuels could read it and make the appropriate adjustments. That's just geometry for the most part.

Now AJE. I really can't tell you how it works...what I am pretty sure of though, is that the name of the fuel doesn't matter, and likely the density, as it works the same with both LiquidFuel and Kerosene, both having vastly different densities. Of course I could be completely wrong. That said...making a change to AJE so that things run better on one than the other...I don't think is modeled. For that matter, most specifications for any jet engine is going to be made based on the fuel used/recommended in testing. Everything else is theory, manufacturers don't post specifications otherwise, besides MAYBE a general statement of increase/decrease thrust by 6.2% and increase consumption by xx%, or something like that.

So while I understand what you are thinking...besides adding the fuel type (I'll get that done), and fuel tanks to wings, which for procedural would requires some co-op with another developer, not a problem just statement of fact...your biggest hurdle is going to get camlost to get AJE to support what you are thinking...otherwise it's all kinda a moot point.

[curiousepic]

Are there any plans (or already available configs) to integrate TweakScale with RO such that we don't need a million different nosecone parts, etc?

I don't really care about scaling engines, I just want to MAKE stuff instead of wading through part lists (or spend two weekends rolling my own MM config)

Edited June 20, 2014 by curiousepic

[RedAV8R]

Are there any plans (or already available configs) to integrate TweakScale with RO such that we don't need a million different nosecone parts, etc?

I don't really care about scaling engines, I just want to MAKE stuff instead of wading through part lists (or spend two weekends rolling my own MM config)

Why YES!!! In fact NK and I were just discussing this issue as well. We STRONGLY suggest you get Procedural Parts (latest v0.9.14). That'll solve a majority of parts, like nosecones, decouplers/separators, and a couple other things. RealChute's takes care of those. Struts will be done with TweakScale, and a couple other things that my mind has gone blank on. New point release of RO coming shortly!!!

[curiousepic]

Why YES!!! In fact NK and I were just discussing this issue as well. We STRONGLY suggest you get Procedural Parts (latest v0.9.14). That'll solve a majority of parts, like nosecones, decouplers/separators, and a couple other things. RealChute's takes care of those.

Of course, but I still need to manually hide those nosecones, decouplers, etc.

Struts will be done with TweakScale, and a couple other things that my mind has gone blank on. New point release of RO coming shortly!!!

Awesome! I expect though that people will want to choose whether they want:

A: Original RO rescales and no TweakScale

B: Tweakscale parts with redundant parts hidden automatically (me)

C: Both visible so they can have some favorite decouplers, for example and hide the rest manually

Though I guess C people could just as well un-hide their favorite decouplers from the hide.cfg that would come with B.

EDIT: Clarification: essentially, I'm hoping that if we have RO, TweakScale, PP, PF, PW, and RC, that there would also be a config available that hides all stock and RO-rescaled parts that are handled by the other mods.

Edited June 20, 2014 by curiousepic

[RedAV8R]

Of course, but I still need to manually hide those nosecones, decouplers, etc.

Those that will be replaced by Procedural Parts will be hidden/removed in the next release.

Awesome! I expect though that people will want to choose whether they want:

A: Original RO rescales and no TweakScale

B: Tweakscale parts with redundant parts hidden automatically (me)

C: Both visible so they can have some favorite decouplers, for example and hide the rest manually

Though I guess C people could just as well un-hide their favorite decouplers from the hide.cfg that would come with B.

EDIT: Clarification: essentially, I'm hoping that if we have RO, TweakScale, PP, PF, PW, and RC, that there would also be a config available that hides all stock and RO-rescaled parts that are handled by the other mods.

Well, NK has yet to decide exactly how to handle it, but I'm strongly suggesting (like you), to go the TweakScale route and hide the rest, to me there isn't a point to have to scroll through gobs of parts to find what you want when one part does it all, same model, etc. From what I can tell NK pretty much feels the same way, though like always I could be wrong.

[Guest]

So while I understand what you are thinking...besides adding the fuel type (I'll get that done), and fuel tanks to wings, which for procedural would requires some co-op with another developer, not a problem just statement of fact...your biggest hurdle is going to get camlost to get AJE to support what you are thinking...otherwise it's all kinda a moot point.

Well, if you're adding Jet-A to RF, then I think Camlost could easily switch fuel types. We'll have to discuss performance alterations, though, figuring that out could be hard. Maybe running just on Jet-A at first would be best.