[0.23.5] [WiP] RedAV8R Realism Packs for RSS - Last Update 18 June 2014

[RedAV8R]

With some nudging by NathanKell I have taken over the Realism Packs for FASA and have worked on several others during that time. It's time to share them with everyone else. They are largely a work in progress as the mods used continue to evolve.

These files requires Realism Overhaul by NathanKell as well as all those required by itself.

Until RftS has a few bugs fixed, these packs will not work with the RftS engine pack option with RO.

Also required is:

KM_Gimbal.dll by dtobi as found in Space Shuttle Engines

Engine Thrust Controller by HoneyFox - DELETE the config found in this file.

ModuleRCSFX by ialdabaoth - Awesome ModuleRCS replacement that turns RCS into a true mutli-propellant and enables pod based RCS to provide roll control.

TAC Life Support by TaranisElsu

STRONGLY Recommended is:

ModuleFixer - The compiled module is no longer available on SpacePort, but the source can be found here. Prevents things 'blowing up' in the VAB/SPF editor.

Recommended is:

RemoteTech2 by Cilph - Will be supported when the new RT2 comes out that works with KSP 0.24

FUTURE ADDITIONS

ECLSS by asmi - Not supported at this point but when ECLSS 0.20 arrives support will be added.

Now Available:

RSS_Resources.cfg is NO LONGER NEEDED with the latest RealFuels - YOU MUST DELETE this file if you still have it, otherwise bad things happen.

Current Releases - 18 June 2014

FASA - by Frizzank - Realism Pack HERE

Saturn V Apollo Series by OLDD (DennyTX) - Realism Pack HERE

Saturn IB/V and HIIA/B by Lovad - Realism Pack HERE

KerbX - A SpaceX analogue - Realism Pack HERE

LazTek - SpaceX Launch Pack and Exploration Expansion - Realism Pack HERE

The Orion Spacecraft and Delta Cryogenic Second Stage Realism Pack HERE

Requires:

Taurus HCV

by jnrobinson

Sum Dum Heavy Industries Service Module System

by sumghai

Aerojet Kerbodyne

by blackheart612

With these packs now included with RO by NathanKell, drop all files in this packs into the RedAV8R folder within RO, make sure you delete all the old files, there are some that have been deleted outright that are no longer needed in the newest versions.

More to Come:

Lionhead Aerospace

Special Thanks to NathanKell for some help/guidance and the use of his FASA Realism pack as a starting point.

Those with suggestions, comments, etc, please feel free to post them here. Anything that seems way off, is inaccurate, or whatever, let me know and I'll do my best.

Engines now all updated (I think, let me know if I missed one) with KM_Gimbal. Operation with MJ playing nice is coming soon, so getting a head start here.

This work is licensed under a CC BY-NC-SA Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Edited June 20, 2014 by RedAV8R
Update!

[Guest]

Sorry for not updating my Soviet Pack configs, but I'm kind of waiting for the next version to come out. When I get back to RSS (will probably finish CSS first), I might start working on the ISS realism packs, but not promises. I might also work on CSS realism configs once I work out the boosters for the normal one.

[RedAV8R]

I've done some preliminary work on SpaceFactory Angara but it's way down the road. I'd really give you any push to do a CSS realism pack soon after you finish the stock KSP version. Having that manned lift capability would be awesome combined with the ISS realism.

Totally agree with you though, being in between versions is frustrating, between that and others waiting until 0.24 comes out, it's a minor headache which only feels better when you just throw your hands up and wait.

Any luck with thrust profile for the Lionhead Ariane? I know last we spoke you were still missing them. I've got a pretty decent profile built in the FASA pack for the UA1205s all using HoneyFox's ETC. Which reminds me, I need to add that to the requirements on the OP:)

[Scripto23]

This is great! But I already created a realism overhaul config for the Laztek pack (link in my sig), seems time could have been better spent on overhauling a pack that didn't already have an RO config. I also worry this might cause confusion with two realism overhauls of the same pack out there.

[RedAV8R]

I've just recently downloaded the ISS pack, and I'm not opposed to working on it either.

[Woopert]

What about this? Is the linked page still being updated or should I switch over to this? I already have a Saturn V with the LEM so I hope the scales are the same. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/71271

Nonetheless, thanks so much for doing this! I love re-scales!

Oh, and for KerbX, I'm assuming I should delete the one included with Realism Overhaul?

[The Destroyer]

I'm not sure I understand KerbX... Wasn't it dead long ago?

[Guest]

Yeah, it is dead, but it's still rather good. On the other hand, when Lazarus released his own versions of Falcon 9 1.0 and Cargo Dragon, we should probably use that and obsolete KerbX.

As for Ariane thrust profile, I'm still at loss. Oh, and it would be great if you found someone to make custom effects to go with the realism packs. What we need would be 4-6 basic effects (Hypergolics, Kerolox, hydrolox, SRBs and some minor variations on those), just independently scaled to each rocket engine. Perhaps Nazari could help.

[RedAV8R]

This is great! But I already created a realism overhaul config for the Laztek pack (link in my sig), seems time could have been better spent on overhauling a pack that didn't already have an RO config. I also worry this might cause confusion with two realism overhauls of the same pack out there.

Scripto23, I do realize you had already made a realism pack config. IMO, I found your realism to not be as realistic as I was hoping. So I made my own, which I find is more realistic (I'll freely admit I have included a few select things that you had done like FAR configs and CoolRocket configs), and I have also included more in terms of other realistic mods, like Engine Ignitor and RealChute.

[RedAV8R]

Yeah, it is dead, but it's still rather good. On the other hand, when Lazarus released his own versions of Falcon 9 1.0 and Cargo Dragon, we should probably use that and obsolete KerbX.

That's my exact feelings. While KerbX is old, and essentially dead developmentally, since they are just parts, modern configs can revive great models. When modern Falcon 1, Falcon 9 v1.0 and Cargo Dragon are made, I'll stop updating the KerbX stuff. One has to admit the engine models are great.

[RedAV8R]

What about this? Is the linked page still being updated or should I switch over to this? I already have a Saturn V with the LEM so I hope the scales are the same. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/71271

Nonetheless, thanks so much for doing this! I love re-scales!

Oh, and for KerbX, I'm assuming I should delete the one included with Realism Overhaul?

This page is brand new and will be continually updated! Look at dates:) I have seen yours, perhaps if we work together we can get something truly awesome. As DennyTX's LEM is part of FASA, It's been done and is included in that FASA pack:)

For the KerbX, no need to delete the RO, (didn't know there was something there for it)? I know SFJackBauer has his real engine mod which requires KerbX for the Merlins. This actually creates new engines so that SFJackBauer isn't affected.

[Scripto23]

Scripto23, I do realize you had already made a realism pack config. IMO, I found your realism to not be as realistic as I was hoping. So I made my own, which I find is more realistic (I'll freely admit I have included a few select things that you had done like FAR configs and CoolRocket configs), and I have also included more in terms of other realistic mods, like Engine Ignitor and RealChute.

If you found something that was inconsistent with a real world value, I would have been happy to look into modifying it. I spent a lot of time making sure every value was as realistic as possible. Other thank EI and RealChutes integrations, what values are you using that you think are more realistic than mine? I only took a quick look through your config so I haven't had a chance to look at everything, but I noticed you didn't even modify the main tank length for instance, it is ~7 meters too short. It probably would have been better to collaborate on a single config rather than having separate ones.

Edited March 22, 2014 by Scripto23

[RedAV8R]

If you found something that was inconsistent with a real world value, I would have been happy to look into modifying it. I spent a lot of time making sure every value was as realistic as possible. Other thank EI and RealChutes integrations, what values are you using that you think are more realistic than mine? I only took a quick look through your config so I haven't had a chance to look at everything, but I noticed you didn't even modify the main tank length for instance, it is ~7 meters too short. It probably would have been better to collaborate on a single config rather than having separate ones.

Oh man, I must have forgot...oh wait...THERE IT IS [WiP] it was there all along. One thing I noted was your fuel burn time is like 30sec over what it should be for the 1st stage. Thank you for posting about the length, eventually I would have gotten there, just hadn't made it yet. Why are you so sore? Could we have partnered up, absolutely. If we want to combine forces and see what happens, I'm game. Let me know.

[Scripto23]

Oh man, I must have forgot...oh wait...THERE IT IS [WiP] it was there all along. One thing I noted was your fuel burn time is like 30sec over what it should be for the 1st stage. Thank you for posting about the length, eventually I would have gotten there, just hadn't made it yet. Why are you so sore? Could we have partnered up, absolutely. If we want to combine forces and see what happens, I'm game. Let me know.

I've stated several times to contact me if somebody disagrees with a value in the config or finds more accurate numbers. And I wasn't "sore" until you said my cfg wasn't "realistic enough" without even citing specific examples. I put a lot work into making certain it was indeed "realistic enough" so for somebody to claim otherwise is insulting, especially when their version has inaccuracies. Where are you getting your burn time from? This source states 180s, mech jeb tells me my first stage burn time is at 182s. Anything else that is not realistic? When I have some time I'll take a closer look at your config, I would still be open to collaboration.

[RedAV8R]

Scripto23, Let me clear the air a bit. First, I likely had my own personal LazTek realism pack long before you started working on one. For my own personal use. This whole thing wasn't a completely new adventure after the fact. At the time mine was basically tweaking fuel type and flow, etc to match real life numbers, but didn't do any scaling. Now that i've hit RSS heavier I decided to scale my project, and then you came out with yours, so I tried it, didn't care for it. Didn't follow your project either, so any request for info, comment, whatever, I never saw, never looked. So I continued my project. Now I'm posting for the masses. That said, some things I've noted is your thrust is too low for the 1st stage. Even SpaceX numbers are showing about 20-30kN higher per engine. The upper stage looks good. Well, I nuked and redid my install and I'm showing 182s now, so that is my mistake and I'll own up to that, I've got no idea why it was showing so far off.

[Scripto23]

I just want to say I think what you're doing here is great. I loved Nathan FASA rescale and I am really looking forward to using your updated version. Anybody who contributes the "greater good" of adapting mods to RSS is good in my book.

As awesome looking as SpaceX's website is, it is just some superficial information in flash format maintained by the PR department. It's not like the engineers are posting that information there for reference. Many of the numbers they have posted there are outdated or are rounded up or down for convenience. Did you notice that the first stage thrust of 6672kN (the number you are using from the SpaceX website) just so happens to be *exactly* 1,500,000 lbf? So despite it being the SpaceX website, it is not a reliable source for exact numbers. Again, this source is by far the most comprehensive I have found in my research (though I have found errors even here). For the Merlin 1D thrust the aforementioned source has it listed as 716kN and wikipedia has it at 720kN with an "[inconsistent] reference". So while maybe not exact down to the kN, my numbers are not 20-30kN off.

I'm not trying to convince you to use my pack, you can do what you like. I like it, if you don't that's fine (though it is usually nice to know why, so I can do everything in my power to make it better). But don't say my cfg is not realistic enough for you. I have done my research which why I was offended when you try call me out with incorrect information.

[RedAV8R]

Well SpaceX's website wasn't the only one I found with that info. Regardless, it's a matter of trying to find an accurate source, some are obviously better than others, and sometimes it comes down to using multiple sources just to get an idea of what is going on. Reading more even on SpaceX's page you can see they quote 716kN several times as well. That combined with SOMETHING causing KSP to show the 30+ sec over, that was the first thing I've noticed that I didn't like. So now, yeah, 2 over isn't bad at all. Oh well. What is to note is that they are expecting to increase the max thrust on the 1D at some point, something which we can model with Nathan's EngineConfig. I really do think the community would do well with a combined effort on our parts to polish off this bird. Let me know.

[Hodo]

Why don't you do like most intelligence agencies do around the world. When you don't know the exact number and are faced with conflicting or different values, average them. 9 times out of 10 that is closer to the real number than anything posted by any one source.

[Scripto23]

Yeah I remember seeing the figure of ~80% for what the Merlin1D is currently using of its real max thrust. My guess is when they bring out the Falcon Heavy they will at the very least increase the thrust for single vac engine of the second stage. Hopefully by the end of today I can take a look at your config in depth so we can compare and contrast numbers and work together (also hoping to play around with FASA!).

Also now that we've cleared up the previous misunderstanding regarding my ability to create realistic and accurate overhaul configs, I would like to share my WIP config for the SpaceX Raptor methalox engine (see the link in my sig for RaptorEngine.cfg, needs the newest version of HotRockets too and KOSMOS for the SuperDraco engine model if you want it). This engine has been announced by SpaceX to power the biggest rocket ever built for their eventual MCT (Mars Colonial Transporter). Using the most recent figures that have been released, it will be a 10m core setup with 9 2.4m engines in the octaweb arrangement, each engine capable of 4500kN with a vac Isp of 363. The single core variant will be able to put ~150t into LEO, and the inevitable tri-core Heavy will be able to put a whopping ~500t into orbit, though with the intended re-usability factored in, these numbers will be significantly lower. The stated goal is to send 100t to Mars, which combined with ISRU (In-Situ Resource Utilization) capability, will allow the MCT to manufacture propellant on Mars for the return trip.

I am in the process of creating some ISRU part configs, which can essentially be thought of as a realism overhaul of Kethane. They will use the sabatier reaction combined with reverse water gas shift reaction to take mined martian water and atmospheric CO2, and convert it into methane and LOx. I'll share them as well once they are more polished.

Here is the Falcon BFR Heavy compared to a regular Falcon Heavy:

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Edited March 23, 2014 by Scripto23

[curiousepic]

I really do think the community would do well with a combined effort on our parts to polish off this bird. Let me know.

Yay! Maybe we can all just get along. We're all super nerds and SpaceX fans here, and if we want people to get into RO/RSS stuff, it's best to have a consensus we can point to instead of bifurcating.

Along those lines, I realize it might be against licenses to distribute, but what's the best way to go about integrating KerbX models with Laztek and RedAV8R/Scripto23's cfgs?

Also,

I am in the process of creating some ISRU part configs, which can essentially be thought of as a realism overhaul of Kethane.

Woot!!!

Edited March 25, 2014 by curiousepic

[Guest]

Shouldn't methane flames be blue? Otherwise, looks good.

[Scripto23]

Shouldn't methane flames be blue? Otherwise, looks good.

Thanks, and yes the flames should be blue, but I don't know of a way to modify the flame color in HotRockets, and my unity modeling skills are not adequate to create my own .mu particle effects. The only currently available effects that are blue are the ones being used for the jet engines and those wouldn't look quite right.

[brooklyn666]

Hey Red, there seems to be a bug with your FASA cfg that causes the LM descent stage icon to enlarge when you click on it until it takes up the whole screen. It's not a major issue, I just wanted to let ya know.

[RedAV8R]

Hey Red, there seems to be a bug with your FASA cfg that causes the LM descent stage icon to enlarge when you click on it until it takes up the whole screen. It's not a major issue, I just wanted to let ya know.

No there is not a bug with my FASA config, that is a KSP bug where multiple resources without a module of some sort causes that glitch. It is widely known. Some mods make sure a part with multiple resources have a dummy module, say RCS with no thrust. Since the Decent Stage was just a single Monopropellant resource you didn't see it before, after my FASA cfg it now has 4, without a module, therefore the KSP bug. Since I refuse to include a 'dummy' module in my cfgs for what is a KSP bug, I use THIS as a workaround, which does the same thing, but later on once the bug is fixed, simply remove the plugin. No editing of files is then required.

[brooklyn666]

I know it's a well known bug, it wasn't an accusation. I didn't know what caused it nor that there was a fix, so thanks for that.