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

[metroidman63]

Indeed I have found the exact same issue, something to do with squad parts and rcs :/ a shame as thats the only part of RO I currently want

Try removing every folder from GameData except for Squad (to isolate the issue and get rid of long loading times while you're fixing) and put a freshly extracted RO folder in there with it, that worked for me (strangely enough after reinstalling RO enough times).

And brooklyn, IIRC that's a FAR issue that was fixed a few updates ago, try getting the newest version.

[dlrk]

I also revised the mass of the Mk5 cockpit to .78, using the same calculations as before with 500kg above the empty mass.

[pingopete]

pingopete: are you using RcsSounds? Or anything else that replaces RCS modules or engine modules?

Yeah, just saw the post, dragged the rcs files and some others from RO into RF and removed RCS sounds, the game loads properly now. If it means anything I have the new version of RCS sounds (V2.0)

Edit: I posted before the game finished loading, crashed on main menu, will try it with the whole RO and will post findings here

Edited January 12, 2014 by pingopete

[pingopete]

OK, It gets through the initial load menu now but crashes on main menu load. I have a crash output_log but I don't know how to get it up on here though

Edit: ok never mind it does work properly now, I had another conflicting engine config in RF folder, removed it, using jb engines and it works

Edited January 12, 2014 by pingopete

[sirklick]

Is there an engine pack that includes cfg files for the stock engines? With RealFuels, RealismOverhaul, and SFJBRealEngines installed the SQUAD engines are using LF/Oxidizer as are the RLA_Stockalikes which is "supported" by RO. I am sure I am sure missing something, but can't figure out what.

Edited January 12, 2014 by sirklick

[NathanKell]

dlrk: cool! I see how you're working the "materials" angle now and it makes good sense!

There's a problem, though, I'm sorry to say: so much of the space shuttle is actually its cargo bay, i.e. open space. It's also hard for me to believe that you can get a 2.2% structural coefficient kerolox (4.4 hydrolox) for that tank when rocket stages can barely reach that and they're not stresed/shielded for reentry. (If treated as a normal tank of 24.7m^3, its basemass would be .247t by RF, which yields 2.4%/4.8%). If I had to make a wild guess I'd suggest doubling it.

In fact, from a rough guesstimate of the shuttle's fuselage density (excluding payload bay) I get more like 30kg/m^3. Take ~2/5 fuselage length, take fuselage diameter, treat as cylinder, get 50kg/m^3; say 3/5 the mass is in the fuselage (probably more, so undershooting) and get 30kg/m^3.

But, we all know the shuttle was not the best design ever, *and* much of that was from the SSMEs and crew section, so probably ~400kg for your part is fine. Maybe 600kg if you're feeling ungenerous.

Crew life support, pressurization, etc., is actually quite heavy: Compare a 2m section of Titan tank with, for example, the Gemini capsule.

I'd suggest something on the order of a ton or so for the cargo section (since there's no pressure vessels inside it to give structural support) and maybe 1.5t for the crew module at the least. S2 is, what, one-person? If it's 3, then 3+t begins to sound right. Heck, I'd bet money the nose of an F-22 is at least a ton, and it doesn't have the kind of heatshielding a spaceplane needs.

One good thing to check against is current large fighter aircraft. If your spaceplane's dry mass, if it's F-22-sized, is less than 15 tons (F-22: 20t), worry.

brooklyn666: 1. They are indeed properly sized. It is only KSP that sizes them wrong.

(Example: J-2X, nozzle diameter 3 meters. SFJB rescaled the engine being used as a J-2X to have nozzle size 3m).

I haven't made any rescales of partmods' tanks becuase, well, yeah. Stretchy. And to make real rockets you'll like need 2.4m tanks, 6.6m tanks, and maybe a few 10.2m tanks. Oh, and 3.05m (120 inch) tanks for those pesky Americans.

That said, rescales are easy if parts don't use MODEL nodes. Change rescaleFactor as desired, change volume (in the RealFuels patch) to oldVolume * [(newRescaleFactor / oldRescaleFactor) cubed]

2. Update FAR. You're running a *very* old version.

sirklick: use RftSEngines instead. Follow instructions immediately below download link for RO.

What you're missing is that RealEngines only replicates, err, real engines. Since Squad engines don't look anything like real engines, they're not supported by RealEngines.

[dlrk]

Nathan: Heh, good point about my miscalculation there. It's a definite issue I'm having here that there is very limited data regarding spaceplanes, since the only operational one was the shuttle. I'll use 500kg as the tank weight, and a ton for the cargo, 1.3tons for the crew compartment, 1.5 for the cockpit. I haven't actually worked on S2 cockpit yet, I'm using the Mk5.

I do think that given the limited data we have, the 30kg/m3 number sounds reasonable. I think spaceplane parts require a bit of extrapolation/imagination, since the only operational design was the shuttle, and it was mostly cargo. The closest attempted project is the Rockwell X-30, which is also pretty light.

Do you want me to send you the cfgs?

[NathanKell]

dlrk: Ah, if you're using Mk5 (with what, 3 crew? 5 crew?) then you want way more than 1.5t. I thought you were using the S2 cockpit, sorry, since you were talking about S2 LFO tank.

Same with the crew compartment or the cargo bay if they're larger than the S2 fuselage I'd say.

I realized I actually undercounted more than I thought. Might be the full 50kg after all. But anyway, for a "future" spaceplane, 30 sounds good for structural parts. But the check also should be, IMO, build a spaceplane, check it size, compare its dry mass to shuttle / X-33* / etc.

*note: X-33 will be quite light since no crew and crew compartment and associated systems.

I do indeed!

[dlrk]

Nathan: I'm using the Mk5 with 3 crew, the mass set in RO, I haven't changed it. Everything else is S2.

I'm definitely learning quite a bit now about why a sea-landing spaceplane hasn't been invented.

[dlrk]

I don't know if you can help me here, but when I try to do a water landing, I hit the water intact, but the spacecraft winds up being destroyed after skidding on the water aft of the cockpit

[AbeS]

Stock KSP water is deadly, RSS amplifies it

[NathanKell]

dlrk: ah, ok, checked the file (was made by SFJackBauer) and it says 4 tons for the mk5, which "sounds right."

Regarding water landings: I don't actually know anything about water landings etc in KSP You might check in on the boats thread, or Firespitter which did seaplanes IIRC?

[dlrk]

Gotcha, I'll check out the boats and firespitter info, I'm trying the firespitter floats now.

Let me ask you a quick DREc question, is there a guide to adding heatshields/creating new ones? I'd like to add a shield to wings and structural panels

[NathanKell]

dlrk: there's no guide, no. But for that stuff, with no ablative shielding, it's super simple. You just copy a ModuleHeathsield from, say, a stock spaceplane fueslage part. If it's to be for a fuselage, leave the direction the way it is; if it's for a wing, set direction to 0, 0, 0

You will probably want to *massively* bump up reflectivity, and also up maxTemp a lot. While 0.25 (25%) and 1700 works for normal Kerbin, you probably want something like 2500 and 0.9 (at least!) for RSS. Have to try and see during reentry, though.

Also, a BIG PSA for the people experiencing hangs because of RCS Sounds. Thanks to lots of testing help from Draft I have made and uploaded a new version of RF (4.2) that fixes that issue.

[MildMicah]

I need help. For some reason when using this my game won't load past certain parts like "Micro engine" or something of that nature I'm not sure why. I've deleted the part but then it freezes on other parts of other mods. ? Confused. help

[AbeS]

Maybe you have reached your memory limit? Are you using this mod? Because you should Active Texture Management - Save RAM without reduction packs!

[brooklyn666]

Forgive my ignorance here, I'm still new to RSS and all of the accompanying mods, but I see to be having some issues with my use RftSEngines.cfg, or alternatively, I'm doing something wrong.

I'm still fairly early on in medieval tech tree, so I don't have a lot of engines unlocked yet, but a lot of them have attachment nodes that are way above and/or below the engine, so if attached, it looks like they are floating. Also, a lot of engines look like they're misidentified. There's one, I don't know what it's called in the game, but it's tiny and the description says it was used on the upper 2 stages of the Saturn V. It's definitely not, since it's not the J2.

Other engines appear twice, (such as the Redstone A7 from FASA) as different sizes, and with wildly different characteristics and fuel mixtures.

I'm totally bewildered. Have I placed the file incorrectly, or is there a specific version I should be using? Any help is greatly appreciated.

Currently I have Stockalike, KW, FASA, NP, AIES, Bobcat's Soviet and American packs, and Merlin packs installed.

[AbeS]

If you are using RftSEngines make sure you delete the SFJBRealEngines folder, I'm mentioning this because that description you quoted appears on RealEngines configs and not in RftSEngines. If it isn't the case then just ignore this comment

[Whirligig Girl]

where do you nput the FASA.cfg?

[NathanKell]

GregroxMun: put it in the RealismOverhaul folder.

[Agathorn]

@NathanKell

I noticed that none of the AIES Pods have SPUs to allow them to work with Remote Tech. At least they didn't for me, unless I missed something? Anyway not sure what the proper scope is for making one mod compatible with another but since RO encourages the use of both, I thought i'd post it here. My reason for posting, is I went and made a patch .cfg to provide SPUs to all the AIES unmanned pods. Then I noticed in the OP that support for AIES pods is "partial". What else needs to be done? Maybe I can help out there?

[Agathorn]

I'm having a problem with this engine:

I'm using the RealEngine configs, but not sure how best to identify the engine. The problem i'm having is it seems the attachment points are off. First, the engine goes "into" the fuel tank above a little bit. This is weird but not a big problem. What IS a big problem though is the attachment point at the end of the engine, for the decoupler, is in the middle of the engine!

[NathanKell]

Agathorn: Ah, yeah, I hadn't noticed their lack because I've been running with a modulemanager cfg that adds SPUs to AIES probes since the day RT2 came out...I store it in the RT2 folder, and on the presumption that others did too I didn't want to risk a second copy in RO. But now that we have the % operator it's safe.

The partial support meant (1) that I haven't touched the other crewed AIES pod and (2) I hadn't worked over the probes. In particular they're lacking the reaction wheel nerfing (I think on next release I may just delete the wheels in probes/pods rather than nerfing them), per-pod battery configs, and rescaling, in part because I didn't have time to sit down and figure out what size/mass made sense for them. I mean, the big cube is obviously a Block II GPS bus, but not sure about the rest. What sizes / masses do you think appropriate?

Regarding the engine. The "going into the fueltank" thing is a trick SFJackBauer devised to get around the issue that most KSP engine models are actually engines + giant fuel tank butts, basically. (Look up pictures of rocket engines. At most they have a turbopump etc at the top, or a set-of-girders thrust structure. Not a fuel tank cap.) Which is bad if you, for instance, want to use the engine on a different-sized fuel tank. Can't do anything about using an engine with a giant honking dome on a *smaller* tank, but for bigger tanks SFJackBauer devised this system where the unsightly dome is hidden inside the fueltank.

No idea why the bottom stacknode is moved too, though. Maybe SFJackBauer flipped a sign?

[Agathorn]

Are there any specific guidelines I can use for the batteries/panels? Or is it just a matter of try to determine what is real and go from there. Mass/charge are all based on real units right?

Have solar panels from AIES been done? They seemed to be a bit strong to me, but I might be wrong on that.

[NathanKell]

1EC = 1kJ. 1EC per second = 1kW. Mass was eyeballed to be like a silver-oxide battery circa 1966 (Ranger 6 had info. I used it.) I have no idea about density--it's probably *way* too low.

Solar panels range from ~80W/m^2 to 180, IIRC, depending on year. Mass is guesstimate based on the kg/m^2 of the solar cells + backing + folding/tracking mechanism. If you have better numbers on mass, do please use them (and let me know!)

AIES panels were done, yes (SolarPanels_AIES.cfg)--they ranged from 80 to 110W/m^2.