[0.25] Realism Overhaul w/ RedAV8R [Terminated]

[Legwan]

WELL...you kinda sorta followed directions. I'm happy to report THIS IS NOT AN RO BUG. Have you ensured each and every requirement is up to date...mainly RealChutes...your log is spammed with NRE's associated with RealChutes, I believe the latest version fixes this issues. Latest RealChutes is v1.2.4.

Thanks for reply

Updated to 1.2.4 (previous 1.2.3) - strange roll is gone, but the main issue remains

All remaining mod seems to be up-to-date.

Here is logfile with new realchutes HERE if someone would be so great to help me.

Update:

Removed RealChutes and the problem is gone - will post my issue in appropriate topic, thanks for pointing me in the right direction!

Edited August 6, 2014 by Legwan

[Ophiuchus]

Thanks for reply

Updated to 1.2.4 (previous 1.2.3) - strange roll is gone, but the main issue remains

All remaining mod seems to be up-to-date.

Here is logfile with new realchutes HERE if someone would be so great to help me.

I had the same issue, in my case updating TweakScale fixed it

[RedAV8R]

I experience the same bug with all stock-chutes, also the radial ones, but not with the ones from RealChute. So the game is not completely unplayable for me, but I would appreciate a fix of that, too.

However, priority for me would be a fix in Procedural Parts, for they are not procedural anymore and alternatives are causing frequent crashes...

Anyways, I am glad RO has made it into .24.2 so quickly. Respect, keep it up!

Procedural Parts has been fixed, might want to double check what version you have.

[mecki]

Thanks for reply

Updated to 1.2.4 (previous 1.2.3) - strange roll is gone, but the main issue remains

All remaining mod seems to be up-to-date.

Here is logfile with new realchutes HERE if someone would be so great to help me.

Update:

Removed RealChutes and the problem is gone - will post my issue in appropriate topic, thanks for pointing me in the right direction!

Did you delete the Module Manager files within the new RealChutes version?

[Major Gene]

Appreciate the update. Thanks for your time and efforts in developing this outstanding mod!

This is an issue with the thrust curves, they need to be updated, we are working on it. Solution. Time. Wait.

[RedAV8R]

ALL: Going to release a new update for RO, this is a compatibility fix for the new RealChutes that was released. Before RealChutes had a *.zip archive that we told users NOT to extract...now those MM files are included already unzipped. I have updated RO to allow users simply extract and go, rather than hunting files and deleting them.

I HIGHLY recommend for this last release to DELETE both the Realism Overhaul folder AND the RealChutes folder, and re-install both.

IT'S UP Realism Overhaul v6.0 ALPHA 9

v6.0 ALPHA 9 \/

*EngineIgnitor Fixes

*Some more work on KW SRBs, ADDED GEM40, Isp fixes

*Typographical Error Fixes

*LazTek parachute fix

*RLA PowerGeneration, ElectricEngines, Stockalike now fully supported!

*Updated TweakScale stuff with latest release

*Updated KW Fuel Tanks for RealFuels update

*Updated RealChutes to work wih MM files now included.

*Start AIES rework (very much a WIP)

*Minor KW Engine fixes

Edited August 6, 2014 by RedAV8R

[NathanKell]

Awesome!

Regarding the "view changes / rocket floats upward" issue: this is an issue that people have found on stock x64 installs, and with any collection of mods. RO itself (or RealChutes or...) does not seem particularly to blame, but the issue is exacerbated by having a (number of) mods installed, pretty much no matter which.

[RedAV8R]

Awesome!

Regarding the "view changes / rocket floats upward" issue: this is an issue that people have found on stock x64 installs, and with any collection of mods. RO itself (or RealChutes or...) does not seem particularly to blame, but the issue is exacerbated by having a (number of) mods installed, pretty much no matter which.

That's what I thought, but needed to get this release out before I investigated it further. Now I don't have to:) Onto more AIES work.

[ThorBeorn]

PLEASE. Follow the troubleshooting steps in the OP. There is NO NEED to look in the configs, they are correct. This is an install problem or something on YOUR end. If the proper steps are followed. NO PROBLEMS.

I already did that ofcourse. I have done some troubleshooting and it turns out the "NoAutoShroudConfigs" version of KW Rocketry causes these issues. This is on a clean .64 install with ONLY the required RO mods + KW rocketry. With the regular version of KW rocketry everything works just fine. I can't see why this happens though.

To reproduce: Simply install the noshroud cfgs of KW Rocketry.

Logs:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/hvogrpsgmlyeyik/output_log_NOSHROUDS.txt

https://www.dropbox.com/s/u3ovwffqp9up472/output_log_regularKW.txt

Now I'm looking forward to get my hands on the new version of RO.

[RedAV8R]

I already did that ofcourse. I have done some troubleshooting and it turns out the "NoAutoShroudConfigs" version of KW Rocketry causes these issues. This is on a clean .64 install with ONLY the required RO mods + KW rocketry. With the regular version of KW rocketry everything works just fine. I can't see why this happens though.

To reproduce: Simply install the noshroud cfgs of KW Rocketry.

Logs:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/hvogrpsgmlyeyik/output_log_NOSHROUDS.txt

https://www.dropbox.com/s/u3ovwffqp9up472/output_log_regularKW.txt

Now I'm looking forward to get my hands on the new version of RO.

Why yes...strange things indeed...Ok, new plan. RO will now convert standard configs to a no auto shroud configuration, since we have PFairings and other shrouds included with KW anyway. Sound like a plan!

And what do you know...Using configs as shipped (not extras) everything works great, and removes shrouds. Seems that except for one engine not having it's Jettison module removed, not a single engine required a change:) I did update the OP however to explicitly state NOT to use the "no shroud" or "instant thrust" configs in the extra folder.

Edited August 6, 2014 by RedAV8R

[ThorBeorn]

Nice! I'm glad that I could help.

[mecki]

Why yes...strange things indeed...Ok, new plan. RO will now convert standard configs to a no auto shroud configuration, since we have PFairings and other shrouds included with KW anyway. Sound like a plan!

And what do you know...Using configs as shipped (not extras) everything works great, and removes shrouds. Seems that except for one engine not having it's Jettison module removed, not a single engine required a change:) I did update the OP however to explicitly state NOT to use the "no shroud" or "instant thrust" configs in the extra folder.

This sounds great!

Thank you for the great work!

Two things I recognized about the SRB:

I just tested the "ATK GEM 46". On the launchpad, the boosters got refueled by the clamps. This probably is a little bit not so realistic.

Also their fuel depletion got slower and slower as they came to their end. The TWR (and thrust) was at 0 before the fuel was depleted. However they kept burning (flame-animation and sound).

However, their TWR on launch seemed more reasonable now and as displayed in VAB.

I'm not sure if this is RO or RealFuels, that's why I posted this in both threads.

[RedAV8R]

This sounds great!

Thank you for the great work!

Two things I recognized about the SRB:

I just tested the "ATK GEM 46". On the launchpad, the boosters got refueled by the clamps. This probably is a little bit not so realistic.

Also their fuel depletion got slower and slower as they came to their end. The TWR (and thrust) was at 0 before the fuel was depleted. However they kept burning (flame-animation and sound).

However, their TWR on launch seemed more reasonable now and as displayed in VAB.

I'm not sure if this is RO or RealFuels, that's why I posted this in both threads.

Had you read but one page back from your post you will see SRBs of all sorts are having problems due to the thrust curve. We know about, we know how to fix it, but doing so in a realistic fashion is going to take some time. The implementation of thrust curve is based on fuel remaining, MOST thrust curves I've ever seen published are time based...So one has to convert a time based curve into a fuel remaining based curve. Lots of math involved.

[mecki]

Had you read but one page back from your post you will see SRBs of all sorts are having problems due to the thrust curve. We know about, we know how to fix it, but doing so in a realistic fashion is going to take some time. The implementation of thrust curve is based on fuel remaining, MOST thrust curves I've ever seen published are time based...So one has to convert a time based curve into a fuel remaining based curve. Lots of math involved.

Sorry, I'm well aware that this problem is known – I posted about it some pages ago myself. I thought that it was supposed to be fixed with the last update, so I wanted to share my experience. But that seems to have been a misunderstanding on my side.

[RedAV8R]

Sorry, I'm well aware that this problem is known – I posted about it some pages ago myself. I thought that it was supposed to be fixed with the last update, so I wanted to share my experience. But that seems to have been a misunderstanding on my side.

Nope, not sure what comment of mine would have led to that conclusion, but be assured when it is fixed, it will be shouted from the mountain tops.

[mecki]

Nope, not sure what comment of mine would have led to that conclusion, but be assured when it is fixed, it will be shouted from the mountain tops.

Thank you

[TeeGee]

I've also been having issues with the shuttle engines SSME's not showing up in the VAB anymore. Has anyone else experienced this problem? I've posted in the shuttle engine thread and haven't gotten a response yet, thought I would try ROS just to be sure.

[RedAV8R]

I've also been having issues with the shuttle engines SSME's not showing up in the VAB anymore. Has anyone else experienced this problem? I've posted in the shuttle engine thread and haven't gotten a response yet, thought I would try ROS just to be sure.

Could very well be an issue since the last update dtobi did, reorganized things...and things are resized...so the reorganization broke the path for the models being sized...yep...that's it...Rambling I know, putting thought to keyboard. As soon as I'm done with AIES (hopefully this afternoon) I'll start in on updating the RS-25s of dtobi's.

Once again I will point out, and I will update the OP too.

If you have Realism Overhaul installed...and some part mod is broken. COME HERE FIRST!!! Realism Overhaul modifies parts, therefore if you have problems with a part mod, and Realism Overhaul covers it and touches it, it's RO's responsibility. Not whoever made the part originally. If you are unsure... then do this.

1. Fresh install of KSP

2. Install part mod you are having problem with (and any dependencies if required). That's it. No RO. No RO dependencies (unless needed by the original part mod).

3. Launch KSP. If it works. Then something else is buggering it up, it's not the original developers problem.

Edited August 7, 2014 by RedAV8R

[TeeGee]

Could very well be an issue since the last update dtobi did, reorganized things...and things are resized...so the reorganization broke the path for the models being sized...yep...that's it...Rambling I know, putting thought to keyboard. As soon as I'm done with AIES (hopefully this afternoon) I'll start in on updating the RS-25s of dtobi's.

Once again I will point out, and I will update the OP too.

If you have Realism Overhaul installed...and some part mod is broken. COME HERE FIRST!!! Realism Overhaul modifies parts, therefore if you have problems with a part mod, and Realism Overhaul covers it and touches it, it's RO's responsibility. Not whoever made the part originally. If you are unsure... then do this.

1. Fresh install of KSP

2. Install part mod you are having problem with (and any dependencies if required). That's it. No RO. No RO dependencies (unless needed by the original part mod).

3. Launch KSP. If it works. Then something else is buggering it up, it's not the original developers problem.

Okey dokey! Thanks Red!!! Take your time, I'm not in any rush for the update I just thought you guys/girls should know bout this!

[ThorBeorn]

I've also been having issues with the shuttle engines SSME's not showing up in the VAB anymore. Has anyone else experienced this problem? I've posted in the shuttle engine thread and haven't gotten a response yet, thought I would try ROS just to be sure.

It's just the new folder structure in Klockheed Martian that's causing this.

To fix it, open the RO_KlockheedMartian.cfg in RealismOverhaul/REWORK.

In the model node replace:

"model = Klockheed_Martian/Parts/Ssme-s/model" with "model = Klockheed_Martian_SSE/Parts/Ssme-s/model"

and

"model = Klockheed_Martian/Parts/Ssme-s-Straight/model" with "model = Klockheed_Martian_SSE/Parts/Ssme-s-Straight/model".

[TeeGee]

It's just the new folder structure in Klockheed Martian that's causing this.

To fix it, open the RO_KlockheedMartian.cfg in RealismOverhaul/REWORK.

In the model node replace:

"model = Klockheed_Martian/Parts/Ssme-s/model" with "model = Klockheed_Martian_SSE/Parts/Ssme-s/model"

and

"model = Klockheed_Martian/Parts/Ssme-s-Straight/model" with "model = Klockheed_Martian_SSE/Parts/Ssme-s-Straight/model".

FIXED! Thanks ThorBeorn!

EDIT: Sigh, FASA isn't working now. The CM pod doesn't have the same modular tanks it used to (switched from NMH to monopropellant, volume has been reduced drastically) and my craft files have become kaput. So sad.

Here is what has happened:

Everything is ok (I think) except the apollo CM.

Edited August 7, 2014 by TeeGee

[TeeGee]

I also asked Ledenko and since he has released the files for public use, I'd like to recommend his command pod for ROSization!! It's a really cool looking pod IMO. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/82045-K-P0110-Apollo-like-crew-module

[ninjaweasel]

For all those having issues with other mods, I had to re-install a bunch of folders after the latest update. Procedural Parts and Fairings, and SmartParts all stopped working, possibly others. A simple folder delete and reinstall fixed them.

The new thrust curves on the SRBs are awesome! What an ambitious project!

I built and test flew an Ariane V (ECA) today (Mass was accurate to within 1% of real world figures). With my standard 1t test satellite as a payload, TWRs were as follows:

T +0: 0.95. Amusement followed the launch attempt as this massive rocket walked all over Kourou, since I didn't put launch clamps on it

T+15: 1.33. Positive rate of climb established

T+60: 3.23. Mach 1.4 at 8000m

T+75: 3.87. Mach 2.7 at 16000m. Atmospheric density at about .14 but still under high dynamic pressure. (even got an indication of aerodynamic failure, but couldn't figure out what fell off).

T+80: 3.93. peak TWR

T+120: 2.80 Gradual TWR fall off during the transition to down range flight (which came late because I feared changing pitch and ripping the rocket apart!)

T+157: SRB thrust @ 20Kn, SRBs jettisoned

I would say initial thrust could be about 30-35% higher, and the drop off needs to be faster (they're only rated for a 129 second burn). Although the X Axis of the graph is compressed since it shows the whole flight, Figure 3.2.1.a in the users manual is a good reference.

I'll play with the EAP-241A for a while (if you'd like me to) if you can confirm for me the function of the two numbers in your thrust curve. I think I get it, but want to be sure before I waste a bunch of time and just screw it up. The Ariane V users manual has Time/Speed, Time/G force, and Time/Altitude curves, so I should be able to put together a pretty good profile.

PS: NK, this is where my other thread about getting the GTO burns perfect comes in. Unlike the Delta series upper stages, the upper stage of the Ariane V has no re-ignition capability, so you don't have the same flexibility for GTO and plane change burns. This rocket is going to be HARD to fly!

[RedAV8R]

@ninjaweasel: The curve in the config has to be Fuel Remaining vs. Thrust...

[ninjaweasel]

Thought so, just wanted to be sure!