Jump to content

[0.25] Realism Overhaul w/ RedAV8R [Terminated]

RedAV8R

By RedAV8R
in KSP1 Mod Releases

 Share

Recommended Posts

Keudn

Keudn

Posted
Posted
@Keudn: I mean deep space probe, like Voyager. You don't need 17km/s+ of dV for a geosync orbit. What you've got is enough for a moon landing and back, not including the RCS budget. You seem to have glanced over the entire fact that your launcher TWR is WAY too high, not to mention your ascent profile is less than optimal, you shouldn't be going straight up at 20km alt.

I'll test your other bird here too.

Alright but I'm not looking for an optimal rocket I'm looking for why my antennas keep flying off.

- - - Updated - - -

@Keudn: Your second craft is suffering from nearly identical issues as the first. It's simply too powerful. Once again, the vehicle has over 16000 dV. That is simply not needed for your intended mission. I didn't make it to my big machine yesterday, so hopefully I'll take a look here this afternoon. In the mean time, build some replica launchers based on real vehicles to learn the basics, then go from there.

I found the solar panels, sneaky buggers. That and they were hidden by you using tweakscale, not your fault, just that craft files don't load right when tweakscale is used.

Okay, but do the antennas fly off for you too? I can't do anything when my satellites don't have connection because I can't put dish antennas on them

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RedAV8R

RedAV8R

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

@Keudn: It's all relative, if your launcher is too powerful then forces are too extreme which cause not good things to happen to payload/rocket. So while you may not be looking for an optimal rocket, it's required in order to perform a proper successful launch.

FWIW, FAR and PF aren't playing nice when the base is resized. Known issue. Which could be the problem, but I need some more testing.

Edited by RedAV8R
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Keudn

Keudn

Posted
Posted
@Keudn: It's all relative, if your launcher is too powerful then forces are too extreme which cause not good things to happen to payload/rocket. So while you may not be looking for an optimal rocket, it's required in order to perform a proper successful launch.

I can try making a smaller rocket with less TWR, but I don't see how it should affect things inside the fairing

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RedAV8R

RedAV8R

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

@Keudn: It shouldn't, and I admitted this fact previously, that is a known issue right now with FAR and PF. I'm going beyond that though and telling you your launch vehicles are not as they should be, and if things fail, it's not necessarily a bug with anything. Physics suck, I know. But that's what RSS/RO/FAR/DRE is all about.

Edited by RedAV8R
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Keudn

Keudn

Posted
Posted
@Keudn: It shouldn't, and I admitted this fact previously, that is a known issue right now with FAR and PF. I'm going beyond that though and telling you your launch vehicles are not as they should be, and if things fail, it's not necessarily a bug with anything. Physics suck, I know. But that's what RSS/RO/FAR/DRE is all about.

Alright well I'll build some replicas and see if I can keep the antennas on them, I'll post if they still break off

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RedAV8R

RedAV8R

Posted
  • Author
Posted

@Keudn: Remember, it's bug with FAR/PF. Until you see "isShielded = True" on the part while in the VAB, it will fall off if aerodynamic forces get too high, as if it weren't under a fairing because according to FAR, it's not. That's a bug with PF/FAR that until it's fixed, you will continue to have these types of issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Keudn

Keudn

Posted
Posted
@Keudn: Remember, it's bug with FAR/PF. Until you see "isShielded = True" on the part while in the VAB, it will fall off if aerodynamic forces get too high, as if it weren't under a fairing because according to FAR, it's not. That's a bug with PF/FAR that until it's fixed, you will continue to have these types of issues.

Alright thank you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NathanKell

NathanKell

Posted
Posted

RedAV8R: 1. Cool! Yeah, it just seemed to fit so well. :)

Have to give it a gimbal on the thrust transform itself, which won't be pretty, but will work.

2. In KSP 0.25+, hold down ALT to disable surface attach. It will default to on if available, but it is toggleable that way (as it was/is via Editor Extensions ALT-R command). And as for surface-attaching F-1s, FAR will just rip them off, so I wouldn't worry about it. :) Though 4 radial F-1s plus nose cones will look rather like the bottom of the Saturn V, I think, so there's that too.

Regarding TweakScale integration: sounds like OSX/Linux search upper case before lower case paths? In that case, try renaming the folder tweakScaleIntegration. The main point is that it must load *after* the TweakScale main plugins (in TweakScale/plugins [which is annoyingly lower case] ) and also after RealFuels/Plugins. If that fixes it, I'll change the case for next release. Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Keudn

Keudn

Posted
Posted

So I'm trying to build a Delta II rocket and the lower stage has 37,900 litres of fuel and weighs 100 tons. I got the volume to be pretty close but the tonnage is completely off. I have 36kL of kerosene and liquid oxygen but that only weighs about 40 tons. The lower stage burns for 265 seconds but my 36kL of fuel will burn for 91 seconds. Do I build the rocket based off tons, burn time, or volume?????

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RedAV8R

RedAV8R

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

@Keudn: While this really should be in the discussion thread rather than this support thread and I'll have it moved later, I'll answer this now for you. Not sure where you got the 37,900 figure, and that actually sounds about right......but that's fuel, kerosene. Not both. That figure doesn't include the LOX, the oxidizer.

- - - Updated - - -

Is this working with kerbal construction time? I mean that mod does make the game way more immersive...

Do you see it mentioned anywhere on the OP? It's not. Therefore I haven't tested it, or integrated it with anything. Considering career mode support is not happening by me, which includes cost, which KCT depends on, I wouldn't bet on it.

Edited by RedAV8R
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mdosogne

mdosogne

Posted
Posted
Regarding TweakScale integration: sounds like OSX/Linux search upper case before lower case paths? In that case, try renaming the folder tweakScaleIntegration. The main point is that it must load *after* the TweakScale main plugins (in TweakScale/plugins [which is annoyingly lower case] ) and also after RealFuels/Plugins. If that fixes it, I'll change the case for next release. Thanks!

I can confirm changing to lowercase fixes the issue on OSX.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Schmonzo

Schmonzo

Posted
Posted
Do you see it mentioned anywhere on the OP? It's not. Therefore I haven't tested it, or integrated it with anything. Considering career mode support is not happening by me, which includes cost, which KCT depends on, I wouldn't bet on it.

Sorry, did not mean to offend, thanks for the info

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lilienthal

Lilienthal

Posted
Posted (edited)
Sorry, did not mean to offend, thanks for the info

Hey Schmonzo, you can also just try it. I am happily playing RO career mode, although I have to live with a few oddities. Like electricity (not just batteries) being very costly, or some contracts not possible as e.g., a orbit at 90,000m is not possible in RO/RSS.

I'd be interested in your experience.

BTW Red, I really like your approach that now every item has mentioned if it is not yet adapted to RO. So I can use them, but am aware of some imbalances and future change.

Edited by Lilienthal
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kejchal

Kejchal

Posted
Posted

Got problem with collecting science from mk1 lander can (landerCabinSmall). "Take data" not showing up on right click. I figured out it is some problem with rescaling, so I removed %rescaleFactor = 1.6 in RO_Squad_Command.cfg in this part section for a moment, then I was able to collect data without problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RedAV8R

RedAV8R

Posted
  • Author
Posted

@Kejchal: Um...I want to see (pictures) what you are talking about. Because in stock condition. The MK1 Lander Can has a "Crew Report" button on right clicking the part. The same button is there upon right click with Realism Overhaul and dependencies installed. I have never seen that visual model scaling could/would affect science in any way shape or form.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
walkinator

walkinator

Posted
Posted

I think Kejchal is talking about taking data from the mk1 lander can as a kerbal in EVA, so it can be transferred to another part. Since this action requires you to right click on the crew hatch, scaling could be a potential issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kejchal

Kejchal

Posted
Posted
@Kejchal: Um...I want to see (pictures) what you are talking about. Because in stock condition. The MK1 Lander Can has a "Crew Report" button on right clicking the part. The same button is there upon right click with Realism Overhaul and dependencies installed. I have never seen that visual model scaling could/would affect science in any way shape or form.

clean copy + RO + all minimal (RSS,RF etc.),new save

http://imgur.com/piPv71s

same KSP without addons

http://imgur.com/YfSf76L

It affects all EVA interactions - Save/take data .

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Felger

Felger

Posted
Posted
clean copy + RO + all minimal (RSS,RF etc.),new save

http://imgur.com/piPv71s

same KSP without addons

http://imgur.com/YfSf76L

It affects all EVA interactions - Save/take data .

For just the lander can, or for every manned vessel? Also, perhaps the logs might be useful in this case (go to KerbalSpaceProgram/KSP_Data/output_log.txt, upload it somewhere like dropbox or mega, link it here)

Just tried it in my own version, can confirm the issue, I'm looking into it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Felger

Felger

Posted
Posted

Found the issue:

MODULE
{
	name = ModuleScienceContainer

	reviewActionName = Review Stored Data
	storeActionName = Store Experiments
	evaOnlyStorage = True
	storageRange = 1.3
}

Turns out the storage range is too small. If you climb up to the top of the can, you're close enough to the center of the can to access the modules:

http://i.imgur.com/dP3feiP.jpg

Shouldn't be an issue to fix, as a temporary workaround could do something like:

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleScienceContainer]:AFTER[RealismOverhaul]
{
	@MODULE[ModuleScienceContainer]
	{
		@storageRange *= 2
	}
}

Which will effectively multiply the reachable range of the science container in the ship by two. This should probably be included for any pod parts that are rescaled, otherwise might run into this sort of thing again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Felger

Felger

Posted
Posted

Note that this is a very blanket solution, the best solution will be one that increases the range on a per-part basis, since not all parts are scaled the same. If you don't mind being able to access the part from very far away, this will work. Keep in mind that the same will hold true for other EVA accessible actions, so things like extending solar panels, fixing wheels, etc. won't be able to access if the 'range' parameter is inside the part's mesh.

If you find any other instances of this problem, post them here so it can get fixed.

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