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

[Hodo]

When I am on the launch pad, the CO2 tanks get "refueled" by the launch clamps... how can I stop this from happening?

If you use TAC Fuel balancer, set that tank to dump. If not right click on the tank and lock it.

[dlrk]

The landers, at least the default two, seem to be a bit two large. The two Kerbal lander is about the size of the three kerbal pod, and the on kerbal lander is only slightly smaller.

[TeeGee]

Lunar mission delta v...

Ive been researching for my next mission. And I'm trying to figure out how much delta v we need from launch to splashdown in a lunar landing mission. I know it takes 9500 m/s delta v for LEO parking orbit. Translunar injection, orbit insertion, landing, takeoff, TEI I am a little fuzzy on. And while I am at it, delta v to every planetary body in RSO and RSS would also be useful...

[Hattivat]

here you go:

The return from moon orbit doesn't require much delta-v, around 1000 should suffice if you are precise enough.

[TeeGee]

here you go:

The return from moon orbit doesn't require much delta-v, around 1000 should suffice if you are precise enough.

http://i.imgur.com/SqdzxzF.png

I was JUST looking at that exact same map (and even downloaded it)! Thanks!

[Agathorn]

I'm not sure which "Realism" thread to post this in, so i'm going to post it here in the master thread.

I'm looking for some guidance on haw to tweak part settings myself rather than using these packs. Now I don't mean "how" in a technical sense. I know how to use Module Manager to modify the parts. I mean more like what sorts of changes do I need to make, and guidance on how to derive the proper values for RSS.

My problem is I love RSS and the more realism based mods, but I don't like some of the choices i'm forced to make to use them. I don't like using Procedural parts for my tanks for example, and the engine configs makes such major changes to the engines that they are really no longer compatible with non-procedural parts very well. Also it feels they work a lot better in sandbox mode, whereas I prefer a more structured career mode.

The other problem is that i'm always running into parts I want to use that aren't configured for RSS/RO and that leaves me in a bind. If I had the understanding of what needs to be done to make a part work with RSS then I could setup my own configs for those parts.

So yeah really what i'm asking here is for some information or guidance, to help me understand what sort of changes need to be made to parts to make them "RSS" compatible, and how do I derive the numbers I need.

[RedAV8R]

I'm not sure which "Realism" thread to post this in, so i'm going to post it here in the master thread.

I'm looking for some guidance on haw to tweak part settings myself rather than using these packs. Now I don't mean "how" in a technical sense. I know how to use Module Manager to modify the parts. I mean more like what sorts of changes do I need to make, and guidance on how to derive the proper values for RSS.

My problem is I love RSS and the more realism based mods, but I don't like some of the choices i'm forced to make to use them. I don't like using Procedural parts for my tanks for example, and the engine configs makes such major changes to the engines that they are really no longer compatible with non-procedural parts very well. Also it feels they work a lot better in sandbox mode, whereas I prefer a more structured career mode.

The other problem is that i'm always running into parts I want to use that aren't configured for RSS/RO and that leaves me in a bind. If I had the understanding of what needs to be done to make a part work with RSS then I could setup my own configs for those parts.

So yeah really what i'm asking here is for some information or guidance, to help me understand what sort of changes need to be made to parts to make them "RSS" compatible, and how do I derive the numbers I need.

What parts do you want to change??? 5.2 should be released within hours and we are in finishing touches of v6.0, which includes TweakScale for darn near everything in part packs that aren't based on real rockets, especially fuel tanks. This decreases part count, but increases options for builds. As soon as 0.24 is released, v6.0 will be released very shortly after.

Seriously though if there is something that's not 'real enough' for you, let us know. We'll take a look at it for you, and make changes if it's needed/required. I don't know how much more 'real' you want or can get? We strive to ensure our parts have correct volumes, correct sizes, to the best that KSP can offer. I will say that better career support is one of our goals, so keep that in mind as well.

What is the aversion to Procedural Parts for tanks? RealEngines make engines sized correctly (now I will be taking a look at this to ensure things are as they should, but I'm not expecting many changes). So yes, at this moment, RealEngines makes stock tanks darn near worthless, TweakScale support will help, but there will likely be scenarios where pre-sized parts just won't cut it. This is where procedurals come into play. Make it exactly like you need.

Now personally, I like to launch real vehicles, sure making some is fun too, but not my usual SOP.

The end game for this post is...If you know how to use MM, then we are done here. Make them real. It's a blanket statement, but it fits. Physical size, and then performance/storage specifications using our list of supported mods.

[Agathorn]

Seriously though if there is something that's not 'real enough' for you, let us know. We'll take a look at it for you, and make changes if it's needed/required. I don't know how much more 'real' you want or can get? We strive to ensure our parts have correct volumes, correct sizes, to the best that KSP can offer. I will say that better career support is one of our goals, so keep that in mind as well.

No it isn't about making it "more real". I like what you guys have done. It is more a matter of being able to take the parts I like and use them with RSS. Right now if I were to do that all my rockets would be severely underpowered.

What is the aversion to Procedural Parts for tanks? RealEngines make engines sized correctly (now I will be taking a look at this to ensure things are as they should, but I'm not expecting many changes). So yes, at this moment, RealEngines makes stock tanks darn near worthless, TweakScale support will help, but there will likely be scenarios where pre-sized parts just won't cut it. This is where procedurals come into play. Make it exactly like you need.

1) I don't like the flexibility. I am of the same mind as Scott Manley here. Procedural parts are too powerful. Creativity comes from restriction. If I can just suddenly make a tank any size I want, or a fairing any size I want, then everything becomes too easy and reduces my fun. Me personally, I play KSP more as a mission designer and planner, not as a pilot. My fun is in building the vehicles, and in planning the missions. I leave the piloting mostly to MechJeb.

2) I don't like the textures. By its nature, procedural parts have to use resizable repeating textures. Some of them look ok, but in general I prefer the look of other parts.

As for the engines not matching up with tanks, thats the root of the problem, but not the end of it. With the "real engines", and please correct me if i'm wrong, there doesn't appear to be any real clear progression in sizes. As I said I like to play in career mode, where I start out with crap and slowly unlock better and more capable parts as I go. Assuming for the moment that the tanks I liked did fit the engines, I still find it hard to classify progression on the engines along with sizes. The 1,2,3 meter size categories in stock KSP make it easy to define part progression. Now maybe this is a result of me not looking at it hard enough.

In my ideal world, I would use RSS with the following parts:

KSP Interstellar

KW Rocketry

AIES (I do remove the fuel tanks from AIES, I prefer the KW ones.)

B9

LazTech SpaceX

And some misc parts from other packs

The end game for this post is...If you know how to use MM, then we are done here. Make them real. It's a blanket statement, but it fits. Physical size, and then performance/storage specifications using our list of supported mods.

Is it? Just exactly real stats or as close to it as possible? It was my understanding that RSS/RO stuff was at some particular scale of real life, not exactly real life. Are you saying if I just make the size, mass, isp, thrust, fuel capacities, etc of everything match real life, then i'm good? Does KSP even support vehicles that big? I could have sworn there was some scaling involved even in RSS due to game limitations.

[RedAV8R]

No it isn't about making it "more real". I like what you guys have done. It is more a matter of being able to take the parts I like and use them with RSS. Right now if I were to do that all my rockets would be severely underpowered.

Ok, so I'm just seeing that the support for other packs isn't where you want it now.

1) I don't like the flexibility. I am of the same mind as Scott Manley here. Procedural parts are too powerful. Creativity comes from restriction. If I can just suddenly make a tank any size I want, or a fairing any size I want, then everything becomes too easy and reduces my fun. Me personally, I play KSP more as a mission designer and planner, not as a pilot. My fun is in building the vehicles, and in planning the missions. I leave the piloting mostly to MechJeb.

2) I don't like the textures. By its nature, procedural parts have to use resizable repeating textures. Some of them look ok, but in general I prefer the look of other parts.

Everybody has their own style of play. When I play (and I haven't in a while, it's all been testing) I use real vehicles, there are so many that it darn well can fit almost any mission you choose.

As for the engines not matching up with tanks, thats the root of the problem, but not the end of it. With the "real engines", and please correct me if i'm wrong, there doesn't appear to be any real clear progression in sizes. As I said I like to play in career mode, where I start out with crap and slowly unlock better and more capable parts as I go. Assuming for the moment that the tanks I liked did fit the engines, I still find it hard to classify progression on the engines along with sizes. The 1,2,3 meter size categories in stock KSP make it easy to define part progression. Now maybe this is a result of me not looking at it hard enough.

Yep you are right, there isn't a solid set progression, because real rockets come in all sorts of shapes and sizes. Now yes, some more solid progression is need, one behind the scene thing in most part packs I'm doing is adding yearIntroduced = ****. This will be used by NathanKell to set up some realistic progression in Career mode with RO. The key to realize is 'progression' doesn't size. Look at Saturn...damn thing is 33 feet in diameter, while Falcon 9 is 12. Now totally different goals, but that's space. Even the yet to be made SLS core stage is only 27.5 feet.

In my ideal world, I would use RSS with the following parts:

KSP Interstellar

KW Rocketry

AIES (I do remove the fuel tanks from AIES, I prefer the KW ones.)

B9

LazTech SpaceX

And some misc parts from other packs

Haven't touched it, I might, but because it's future based, is last on my list.

DONE

DONE

Will be worked on, it is on the list.

DONE

I see a majority of your list that is already done...

Is it? Just exactly real stats or as close to it as possible? It was my understanding that RSS/RO stuff was at some particular scale of real life, not exactly real life. Are you saying if I just make the size, mass, isp, thrust, fuel capacities, etc of everything match real life, then i'm good? Does KSP even support vehicles that big? I could have sworn there was some scaling involved even in RSS due to game limitations.

That is what we do here, real stats where we can find them or the closest approximation of it. The scale is 1:1. Just like the planets and orbits themselves. That is exactly what I'm saying, that is what has been done with part packs all along. Now obviously stock KSP, KW, NP, AIES, and RLA which while may be loosely based upon something real, they are what we'll call the 'generic packs'. Except for engines (which are sized and spec'd as IRL), other parts are a generic lego-building block pieces to build rockets, which v6.0 and TweakScale make them even more so, w/o increasing part count. Have you not tried FASA, OLD, Lovad Saturn's...obviously not...full 1:1 scale. Now the top of the rockets exceed the VAB model, RSS tweaks the allowable space for parts so that it scrolls above the roof. Nope, no scaling, it's all 1:1, or as best as we can match because sometimes models in part packs are built with the 1.25, 2.5, 3.75 progression in mind, so that to mate one piece with another a different size it can get tricky or not real at all, but I'm doing my best to ensure it is...The FASA Saturn V is likely within a few millimeters to centimeters of the real thing, both height and diameter of all parts. The OLDD Saturn V is a couple meters off due to some scaling issues with the model that DennyTX has offered to fix, just haven't gotten together yet.

[curiousepic]

Just wanted to voice support for Agathorn's playstyle; I (currently) much prefer to find interesting solutions on my own, and play around with possibilities, rather than play RO/RSS as a history simulator, or restrict myself to RPL. I'm also not playing with RemoteTech or engine ignitor.

And along those lines, FYI, I'm currently working on some realistic MM cfg edits to dtobi's Asteroid Cities, to play around with mining asteroids for water and using water as the basis for near-future exploration, as is planned by Planetary Resources, etc. I'm also eager to play around with real-ish mid-future tech as in KSPI, especially fusion torch ships.

EDIT: I think what Agathorn is asking for, and what a lot of us would enjoy, is guidelines on helping anyone who wants to create real-ish MM cfgs for any given parts pack, such that we can help contribute to the project (Or I should say "our specific vision of what we want out of the project, in a modular fashion so that we can make as many people happy as possible, because we know standardizing everything to fit everyone is basically impossible"). We could make and test our changes, get permission from the original author, and then present them to you guys for review, or just post them ourselves.

Edited June 30, 2014 by curiousepic

[Agathorn]

When you say KW Rocketry and AIES are "Done", does that mean the entire parts pack? In my past experience with RO, "done" really just meant things like pods, engines, batteries, solar panels. Things like Fuel Tanks were pretty much always skipped because it was assumed you were using Procedural Tanks. But bear in mind that my experience with RSS/RO is from its very earliest days, and before you came on board.

I guess what I should say is I like playing with realistic parts, not "historic recreations" if that makes any sense. I don't need, nor necessarily want, an exact replica of the Saturn 5, or the J-2 engine, or what not. What I want is engines and parts that can be combined to build realistic looking and behaving rockets of my own design.

I really didn't know things were supposed to be exactly 1:1 scale. Did RSS/RO start out with a scale and then change to 1:1? I could have sworn it wasn't 1:1 before.

At the end of the day my eventual end game goal with KSP is to be able to build and play with rockets, satellites, space stations, rovers, etc that aren't necessarily reproductions of real ones, but ones that look like they could be.

Anyway, knowing that things are supposed to be 1:1 scale lets me tweak things on my own so that's good.

BTW KSPI may be "future tech" but its all based on real world science, or near future science on the books. Really the Alcubierre drive is the only thing "out there".

[Agathorn]

EDIT: I think what Agathorn is asking for, and what a lot of us would enjoy, is guidelines on helping anyone who wants to create real-ish MM cfgs for any given parts pack, such that we can help contribute to the project (Or I should say "our specific vision of what we want out of the project, in a modular fashion so that we can make as many people happy as possible, because we know standardizing everything to fit everyone is basically impossible"). We could make and test our changes, get permission from the original author, and then present them to you guys for review, or just post them ourselves.

Pretty much this yeah. I honestly think that the "Realism Movement" would greatly benefit from a "Mod Author's Guidelines" or something similar, to provide standard guidelines for making parts and plugins fit in. Now if the answer is just simply "Make it 100% real size, scale, mass, fuel, electric, etc, etc" then that is cool.

[RedAV8R]

Agathorn and Curiousepic:

Yes, with v6.0 which introduces TweakScale, fuel tanks are also done, from .5m to 5m. Now, obviously nothing is ever 'DONE' because it can't be if KSP itself isn't, but the answer to that question is yes, way more parts are included with the 'generic packs' than before. If there is something specifically missing, please let us know.

Can't say what 'early' days are, but since I joined on several months ago, everything is 1:1 for all my part pack patches. Using what information is available.

Well, maybe what you really are looking for is RPL. Realistic, but not real.

While KISP that all may be true, and based on solid theory, there is no application of a lot of that, and so while it is 'on the list' there are way bigger priorities than that.

I applaud the offer to help out, and help is appreciated, the direction we've got going is "real" where possible. Size, mass, resources, etc. For example, the FusTek Station parts, while roughly based on the American components of the ISS, it's not 'real'. Now what we will do, is ensure that scaling is about what a module would be. There are certain hard ideas that will be followed.

For instance, RO v6 will do away with 2.5m, 2.0m, 1.25m, 1m, and 0.625m docking ports. It will now be APAS89/95 with the correct 1.55m docking ring (the overall size is bigger), the CBM with it's 2.0m docking ring, and the NASA Docking System with it's 1.55m docking ring that WILL NOT dock with an APAS89/95 despite being the exact same size. Other docking types will be added as requested or encountered. As such since the only 'real' aspect that the FusTek station pack has is the IACBM I will resize that to match the 2.0m CBM and then size the station parts accordingly. That's my plan, I haven't gotten there yet.

Another example would be my Orion/Delta upper stage pack. Using the Taurus, SDHI, and Aerojet Kerbodyne, one can get an approximation of the finished product, performance specs of the the Delta upper stage are very close to real, size and shape is 'real-ish' because that's the model we have. As long as general length/width is the same, things should be good. Looking at the Orion, well nobody has made one...so based on the dimensions of Orion, I scaled the Taurus, looks a little funny (to the very funny point), but overall it's accurate. Since specifications are constantly in flux, it won't be 'exact'. While the OLDD/FASA Gemini, Mercury, Apollo is all very close indeed to the real thing because we have books upon books of solid info on it.

Any work you two do, please PM me or NK, who might very well ask you PM me anyway, with what plans you have and then later finished product, and we can work to include it in the collection.

[Agathorn]

Agathorn and Curiousepic:

Yes, with v6.0 which introduces TweakScale, fuel tanks are also done, from .5m to 5m. Now, obviously nothing is ever 'DONE' because it can't be if KSP itself isn't, but the answer to that question is yes, way more parts are included with the 'generic packs' than before. If there is something specifically missing, please let us know.

Can't say what 'early' days are, but since I joined on several months ago, everything is 1:1 for all my part pack patches. Using what information is available.

Well, maybe what you really are looking for is RPL. Realistic, but not real.

While KISP that all may be true, and based on solid theory, there is no application of a lot of that, and so while it is 'on the list' there are way bigger priorities than that.

I applaud the offer to help out, and help is appreciated, the direction we've got going is "real" where possible. Size, mass, resources, etc. For example, the FusTek Station parts, while roughly based on the American components of the ISS, it's not 'real'. Now what we will do, is ensure that scaling is about what a module would be. There are certain hard ideas that will be followed.

For instance, RO v6 will do away with 2.5m, 2.0m, 1.25m, 1m, and 0.625m docking ports. It will now be APAS89/95 with the correct 1.55m docking ring (the overall size is bigger), the CBM with it's 2.0m docking ring, and the NASA Docking System with it's 1.55m docking ring that WILL NOT dock with an APAS89/95 despite being the exact same size. Other docking types will be added as requested or encountered. As such since the only 'real' aspect that the FusTek station pack has is the IACBM I will resize that to match the 2.0m CBM and then size the station parts accordingly. That's my plan, I haven't gotten there yet.

Another example would be my Orion/Delta upper stage pack. Using the Taurus, SDHI, and Aerojet Kerbodyne, one can get an approximation of the finished product, performance specs of the the Delta upper stage are very close to real, size and shape is 'real-ish' because that's the model we have. As long as general length/width is the same, things should be good. Looking at the Orion, well nobody has made one...so based on the dimensions of Orion, I scaled the Taurus, looks a little funny (to the very funny point), but overall it's accurate. Since specifications are constantly in flux, it won't be 'exact'. While the OLDD/FASA Gemini, Mercury, Apollo is all very close indeed to the real thing because we have books upon books of solid info on it.

Any work you two do, please PM me or NK, who might very well ask you PM me anyway, with what plans you have and then later finished product, and we can work to include it in the collection.

Very cool that you are doing the Fustek station parts as well!

Anyway I think that if I can somehow figure out progression on these things, I can make them work for me. That is really what it all comes down to. Being able to make it work well in career mode. I've looked at RPL a couple times, but it just adds too much baggage for me, hence why i'm basically building my own custom tech tree and setup with the mods I like.

[AndreyATGB]

What I recommend you do Agathorn is to download everything you talked about and everything else you want and see how it currently is. You should probably also get RO from GitHub instead of this thread so you can be in sync with RedAV8R. It's much easier to list what's missing/what you want done rather than guessing from your past experiences and what's been said here. RO has changed over the past few months after all.

[jrandom]

1) I don't like the flexibility. I am of the same mind as Scott Manley here. Procedural parts are too powerful. Creativity comes from restriction. If I can just suddenly make a tank any size I want, or a fairing any size I want, then everything becomes too easy and reduces my fun.

That just means you're not picking difficult-enough missions!

Seriously, though, if the ability to make a tank of whatever size or sizes you need makes the game too easy, design wilder, bigger missions! The difficulty in RSS KSP shouldn't be some set of arbitrary limitations. Your only enemy is physics.

Procedural fuel tanks too easy? Fine, here's a use case for them: -- in a single launch, land three kerbals on Mars/Duna with a two-kerbal rover and bring them back safely. With a life support mod installed. No reverts, no quickloads unless KSP itself crashes or glitches.

In KSP you can make your own difficulty. Restricting yourself to a small number of pre-made tanks really just increases your part count, not the difficultly of space travel.

Edited June 30, 2014 by jrandom

[RedAV8R]

What I recommend you do Agathorn is to download everything you talked about and everything else you want and see how it currently is. You should probably also get RO from GitHub instead of this thread so you can be in sync with RedAV8R. It's much easier to list what's missing/what you want done rather than guessing from your past experiences and what's been said here. RO has changed over the past few months after all.

Indeed. Make a list of what you want, part wise, and then combined we can tackle that list, rather than giving a broad spectrum.

[jrandom]

Indeed. Make a list of what you want, part wise, and then combined we can tackle that list, rather than giving a broad spectrum.

I would be interested in a Spaceplane Plus rescale once the new parts are out. Maybe something closer to Skylon dimensions? (I don't actually know how much larger the parts should be, just that they're all stock kerbalsized right now.)

Edit: Instead, maybe have two rescalings -- full-Skylon width, and... I dunno, another at maybe half that?

Edited June 30, 2014 by jrandom

[Benoit Hage]

Greetings!

Little bug report: The Remote Tech 2 GigaDish2 called in R.O. Reflectron GX-256 is not working properly. The animation is not occuring. Neither in the VAB, nor at the launchpad. Using Action groups is not helping neither. All other antenna's are fine but this one.

Current version of Remote Tech: 1.4.0.

Anybody else is experiencing this?

I thought that putting True in allowManualControl = False in the R.O. folder config file at the antenna section would help... it does not.

Edited June 30, 2014 by Benoît

[Hattivat]

Agathorn: While I understand that you might not want to use RPL, I think you should take a look at its config for Procedural Tanks/Fairings and try to implement something similar in your career mode. I don't know how exactly that is achieved, but their diamater is tech-restricted, so with early tech you can only go up to 2 meters, then 3, then 4, etc. This might be what you are looking for.

[Hodo]

That just means you're not picking difficult-enough missions!

Seriously, though, if the ability to make a tank of whatever size or sizes you need makes the game too easy, design wilder, bigger missions! The difficulty in RSS KSP shouldn't be some set of arbitrary limitations. Your only enemy is physics.

Procedural fuel tanks too easy? Fine -- in a single launch, land three kerbals on Mars/Duna with a two-kerbal rover and bring them back safely. With a life support mod installed. No reverts, no quickloads unless KSP itself crashes or glitches.

In KSP you can make your own difficulty. Restricting yourself to a small number of pre-made tanks really just increases your part count, not the difficultly of space travel.

While a bit harsh I agree with jrandom here. I find Procedural/stretchy tanks to be more of a parts count saver then anything else. Nothing worse then taking time to build a beautiful rocket, and all of its glory and spend 2 or 3 hours on the construction part of it only to have it fail because of the parts count causing the physics engine to do stupid things, or lag your computer so much that it just wont work.

Do you honestly think that NASA said, well the largest fuel tank we have is 150 liters of capacity. Well lets not build a larger one, lets just use a bunch of the smaller ones. I don't think so.

[jrandom]

While a bit harsh...

Oh crud, did I come across as harsh? I didn't mean to, I swear!

Argh. I hate that tones of voice and facial expressions don't carry across in text.

[RedAV8R]

ALRIGHT!

RO v5.2 is out. Doesn't have the TweakScale stuff, that is in 6.0 which will be released shortly after 0.24 of KSP is released. That'll give us enough time to finish the few small things up there.

[Hodo]

ALRIGHT!

RO v5.2 is out. Doesn't have the TweakScale stuff, that is in 6.0 which will be released shortly after 0.24 of KSP is released. That'll give us enough time to finish the few small things up there.

I am still tracking down that bug that is causing all my errors in the log. I am tempted to do another clean install and see if that fixes it, but not looking forward to it. Not exactly the easiest thing now that I have RO in a seperate install on my computer so Steam doesn't auto update it.

[RedAV8R]

Greetings!

Little bug report: The Remote Tech 2 GigaDish2 called in R.O. Reflectron GX-256 is not working properly. The animation is not occuring. Neither in the VAB, nor at the launchpad. Using Action groups is not helping neither. All other antenna's are fine but this one.

Current version of Remote Tech: 1.4.0.

Anybody else is experiencing this?

I thought that putting True in allowManualControl = False in the R.O. folder config file at the antenna section would help... it does not.

Yep, it was broken, fixed it the day before yesterday. Pretty sure it didn't make it to the 6.0 release, IF I get things settled with 6.0 before 0.24 I will release it, with a 0.24 compatibility update following it.