Jump to content

[0.25] Realism Overhaul w/ RedAV8R [Terminated]

RedAV8R

By RedAV8R
in KSP1 Mod Releases

 Share

Recommended Posts

coldblade2000

coldblade2000

Posted
Posted

Hey, I'm having some trouble with heatshields...being too good at their job. By that I mean going 10km/s with a perigee of 50km still barely produces any heat, but more annoyingly, barely produces drag. Last mission I had to have a perigee of 30km and suffered a max of 3gs.

I believe it is the heatshields because if I, say, leave the decoupler on, it produces normal amounts of drag and heat.

This was all tested with a MK1-2 pod with the DRE 4m heatshield for the MK1-2. All mods updated, tried reinstalling. I want to know if anyone else has had this issue before I start blaming DRE/RO. If it is my mistake, I'll keep searching for any thing I might have installed wrong or something.

Edit: BTW, I kinda fixed the offcenter CoM thing. The capsule being unable to translate part I mean. I basically just deleted the Mk1-2 and MK1 pods' RCS modules, they were messing with the other RCS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RedAV8R

RedAV8R

Posted
  • Author
Posted

@coldblade2000: Off center CoM thing. Translation. In game, why not just right click on the pod in question and shut off the RCS on the pod. No need to delete anything.

@teal'c: This same type of error has been reported before. Easy fix. I'll take care of it. Tankage, yep, plenty of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Semmel

Semmel

Posted
Posted (edited)

Before you are gearing up for 0.25 update.. I want to report one problem:

I started with a fresh install of 0.24.2, installed all "minimum requirements" and all "best gameplay" mods, taking care of the red text where applicable, from the recommended mods, I use

CrossFeedEnabler by NathanKell (v3.0.1)

Kerbal Joint Reinforcement (v2.4.3)

MechJeb by many (v2.3.1)

Active Texture Management by rbray89 (v3.4)

Toolbar by blizzy78 (v1.7.6)

and from the supported mods, I use

KW Rocketry by Winston & Kickasskyle (v2.6c)

LazTek SpaceX by LazurusLuan (Launch v3.1a)

I get an error stating, that some of the firespitter parts could not be loaded, but I dont know if that effects gameplay in any way.

First thing I did to test everything was to load the Falcon 9 Dragon V2 rocket from LazTek, as expected the parts were scaled to fit the RSS settings. I had to re-assemble the rocket because the resize didn't place the parts at the correct location, but I got it right as far as I can tell by reattaching every single part.

Rocket launches fine, but on ascend, at around 2min30 to 2m40 into the flight, the fuel tank of the first stage overheats and a second after that the nose cone as well. The Falcon9 has a liftoff TWR of 1.3 and the acceleration at the time of overheat is 2.7g. The ascend profile is such that I start pitch at roughly 80 m/s (approx. 1km height) and pretty much follow the surface prograde vector after that. At the time of overheat, the Rocket was roughly at a 45 deg angle. I forgot the velocity and height, sorry. I understand that the overheat is caused by deadly reentry, but I assume that is not supposed to happen.

I probably did something wrong during install or I have to reconfigure something I am not aware of. Any ideas?

Edit: I should add, I run it on Windows7 64 with the 32bit executable of KSP.

Edit 2: Ill get the output log as soon as I am home. Sorry, I dont have it with me right now.

Edited by Semmel
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RedAV8R

RedAV8R

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

@Semmel: The process for 0.25 has begun. I'll make sure I take another look at it when LazTek is good to go with 0.25. Hopefully with new DRE and soon RealHeat those issues will subside. I'm guessing that DRE was the cause and with the *cough* troubles *cough* that NK and StarWaster have had with the most recent versions make for some rough going.

Edited by RedAV8R
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lilienthal

Lilienthal

Posted
Posted (edited)
Before you are gearing up for 0.25 update.. I want to report one problem:

I started with a fresh install of 0.24.2, installed all "minimum requirements" and all "best gameplay" mods, taking care of the red text where applicable, from the recommended mods, I use

CrossFeedEnabler by NathanKell (v3.0.1)

Kerbal Joint Reinforcement (v2.4.3)

MechJeb by many (v2.3.1)

Active Texture Management by rbray89 (v3.4)

Toolbar by blizzy78 (v1.7.6)

and from the supported mods, I use

KW Rocketry by Winston & Kickasskyle (v2.6c)

LazTek SpaceX by LazurusLuan (Launch v3.1a)

I get an error stating, that some of the firespitter parts could not be loaded, but I dont know if that effects gameplay in any way.

First thing I did to test everything was to load the Falcon 9 Dragon V2 rocket from LazTek, as expected the parts were scaled to fit the RSS settings. I had to re-assemble the rocket because the resize didn't place the parts at the correct location, but I got it right as far as I can tell by reattaching every single part.

Rocket launches fine, but on ascend, at around 2min30 to 2m40 into the flight, the fuel tank of the first stage overheats and a second after that the nose cone as well. The Falcon9 has a liftoff TWR of 1.3 and the acceleration at the time of overheat is 2.7g. The ascend profile is such that I start pitch at roughly 80 m/s (approx. 1km height) and pretty much follow the surface prograde vector after that. At the time of overheat, the Rocket was roughly at a 45 deg angle. I forgot the velocity and height, sorry. I understand that the overheat is caused by deadly reentry, but I assume that is not supposed to happen.

I probably did something wrong during install or I have to reconfigure something I am not aware of. Any ideas?

Edit: I should add, I run it on Windows7 64 with the 32bit executable of KSP.

Edit 2: Ill get the output log as soon as I am home. Sorry, I dont have it with me right now.

IMHO, this is not really a sign of a bad install but of turning too early. Try Alt-D-R and right click the parts. I turn my rockets at about 10km and hardly ever exceed 2g on ascend.

edit: there was also some discussion in this threat about the new settings for DRE. You could also tweak those. (Again: Alt-D-R)

Edited by Lilienthal
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lilienthal

Lilienthal

Posted
Posted
@Lilienthal: Um...no. Not for efficiency. FWIW, IRL the shuttle ran around 3g, saturn V was around 4.

I keep having problems with Fairings. Procedural fairings have been the most wobbly parts of my rocket and the Nova fairings seem kind of clumsy to install. So I try to fly without them. This significantly reduces the possible acceleration.

However, looking at your historical data, I might try a design where I increase the acceleration again after max Q.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hattivat

Hattivat

Posted
Posted

Lilienthal, this might be helpful (quoting myself from another thread):

To solve your problem with procedural fairings: first, strut your payload to the fairing base, decoupler joints are too weak for large payloads; second, you can make the whole thing much more rigid by utilizing the following technique (if your payload can be adapted for this): put a stack separator on top of your payload, then put another fairing base on top of that, but this time inverted 180 degrees. This way when you put the fairing walls on the lower fairing base, they will only reach to the upper fairing base and the fairings are now acting as a structural support. Then adjust the diameter of the top fairing base and put a stock nosecone on top of it. Voila!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Semmel

Semmel

Posted
Posted
@Semmel: The process for 0.25 has begun. I'll make sure I take another look at it when LazTek is good to go with 0.25. Hopefully with new DRE and soon RealHeat those issues will subside. I'm guessing that DRE was the cause and with the *cough* troubles *cough* that NK and StarWaster have had with the most recent versions make for some rough going.

Thx for the trouble anyway. Here is the promised file: https://www.dropbox.com/s/zavdst1yzvgaaxb/output_log.txt?dl=0

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lilienthal

Lilienthal

Posted
Posted
Lilienthal, this might be helpful (quoting myself from another thread):

Thank you. I'll definitely try that!

I keep thinking about the optimal acceleration and was wondering: What's the minimum \Delta v you guys need to get into orbit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RedAV8R

RedAV8R

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

@teal'c: I assure you, that was not intended. On this next pass I make through everything for 0.25 I'll try to ensure everything is generally the same.

@Lilienthal: While acceleration is important, that's not the way to determine what accent profile to use. The upper stages of the Explorer missions had a 20+g load, and due to lack of understanding in those early missions a very not optimal route. It quite literally was similar to the stock KSP method of go up until main engine burns out, then stage, wait for apoapsis and then fire next upper stages in succession.

Edited by RedAV8R
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lilienthal

Lilienthal

Posted
Posted (edited)
@Lilienthal: While acceleration is important, that's not the way to determine what accent profile to use. The upper stages of the Explorer missions had a 20+g load, and due to lack of understanding in those early missions a very not optimal route. It quite literally was similar to the stock KSP method of go up until main engine burns out, then stage, wait for apoapsis and then fire next upper stages in succession.
Obviously, there is more to ascent than high acceleration. I usually go up as fast as I can considering Q, TWR and wobble and then tilt so that I be constantly about 1min before apoapsis. If I am basically horizontal I reduce thrust if necessary to achieve orbit directly at apoapsis. However, I'd be interested in better understanding it. Could you or someone else point to some theory about optimal ascent? (I don't mind maths.) Edited by Lilienthal
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RedAV8R

RedAV8R

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Don't be afraid to pass apoapsis and descend before a stable orbit is achieved. Look at things as more of a goal at the end, rather than a guideline as you ascend. Now obviously, every vehicle and payload will be different. Some payloads may not be able to handle high g. This isn't quite modeled in KSP yet. I'd also suggest you remove 'wobble' as some determining factor in your ascent. That's KSP, don't use it as a factor to determine how to fly. All things considered if everything else is ok, wobble is negligible. If it's not, then you have an issue with parts, not your ascent.

Do some research on actual vehicle ascent profiles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Devinci

Devinci

Posted
Posted

Have you guys realized that the best mod that could come out for Realism Overhaul is a Procedural Engines mod?

I wish someone can make it happen.:D

I find myself downloading some mods just for the engines. My Unity3D/programming knowledge are limited otherwise I would undertake the development of such a mod. I'll wait a bit for one otherwise I will just make a bunch of engine parts as that's easy for a 3D modeler like myself. :wink:

Regards

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...