[0.25] Realism Overhaul w/ RedAV8R [Terminated]

[Ophiuchus]

I have some question concerning this mod and the rescaling of parts.

Is it correct that teh Mk1 Pod is bigger than the first tanks and engines that become available in career mode?

Is it correct that the Mk1-2 Pod is 4m, while there are no 4m tanks or adapters in the stock or KW parts? And the Mk3-9 (Near Future Spacecraft) is in between (2.5m).

Shouldn't the RemoteTech Reflectron DP-10 be available from the beginning in career mode? With RealismOverhaul it is not.

And: When I spawn on the runway, my Pod sank in. So did my Kerbalnaut on EVA, too. Also in SpaceCenter view the buildings are sometimes hard to click, their clickable area seems to be off (only sometimes).

I read the FAQ and just wanted to clarify these things to confirm that I installed correctly.

Thank you!

RO is not integrated with career mode and trying to use it there will be problematic, use sandbox. Or download Realistic Progression Lite and the Reach for the Stars engine pack for a career-ish experience.

[O Nerd]

@RedAV8R The log was basically that repeated thousands of times. Didn't feel like spamming a whole page. Yes, i still know how to read, and if you want to see the whole thing, Include file key'>do it. Fun stuff.

Edited August 3, 2014 by O Nerd
'd'

[RedAV8R]

I have some question concerning this mod and the rescaling of parts.

Is it correct that teh Mk1 Pod is bigger than the first tanks and engines that become available in career mode?

Is it correct that the Mk1-2 Pod is 4m, while there are no 4m tanks or adapters in the stock or KW parts? And the Mk3-9 (Near Future Spacecraft) is in between (2.5m).

Shouldn't the RemoteTech Reflectron DP-10 be available from the beginning in career mode? With RealismOverhaul it is not.

And: When I spawn on the runway, my Pod sank in. So did my Kerbalnaut on EVA, too. Also in SpaceCenter view the buildings are sometimes hard to click, their clickable area seems to be off (only sometimes).

I read the FAQ and just wanted to clarify these things to confirm that I installed correctly.

Thank you!

1. Did you read the OP like I told you 45min ago...??? Must not have...so here it is in big bold letters...THERE IS NO SUPPORT FOR CAREER MODE!!!

2. Yes, the Mk1-2 Pod is ~4m...YES, there ARE 4m tanks and adapters with stock and KW when TweakScale is installed. Near Future, WIP, I have no idea at this point, haven't gotten to it since the big 2.* update.

3. OH WAIT... Read Number 1!!!

4. Must not have read the OP...Realism Overhaul is PART mod...that's it. So what you are describing isn't related.

5. Not very well you didn't.

[ninjaweasel]

Edit: lol... double ninja'd

I have some question concerning this mod and the rescaling of parts.

Is it correct that teh Mk1 Pod is bigger than the first tanks and engines that become available in career mode?

Is it correct that the Mk1-2 Pod is 4m, while there are no 4m tanks or adapters in the stock or KW parts? And the Mk3-9 (Near Future Spacecraft) is in between (2.5m).

Shouldn't the RemoteTech Reflectron DP-10 be available from the beginning in career mode? With RealismOverhaul it is not.

And: When I spawn on the runway, my Pod sank in. So did my Kerbalnaut on EVA, too. Also in SpaceCenter view the buildings are sometimes hard to click, their clickable area seems to be off (only sometimes).

I read the FAQ and just wanted to clarify these things to confirm that I installed correctly.

Thank you!

- Your first mistake is playing in career mode. I did that too. Until somebody writes a mod to support Careers in RO/RSS, play sandbox.

- Yes. Tank sizes remain at their stock default, but are tweakable.

- Again, tweakable.

- Again, forget career mode.

- Things sinking into the runway: I don't think that problem is unique to RO/RSS. I recall that happening in stock as well. That being said, I've noticed some oddities in RSS such as bases spawning under Earth texture tiles, completely missing tiles etc, so it could be an RSS issue. I recommend you ask the question in that thread if you find it to be a major issue.

- Clicking on buildings in SpaceCenter view: Agree. You have full pan and scan and zoom control though, so you can find a better angle without much trouble.

Edited August 3, 2014 by ninjaweasel

[mecki]

1. Did you read the OP like I told you 45min ago...??? Must not have...so here it is in big bold letters...THERE IS NO SUPPORT FOR CAREER MODE!!!

2. Yes, the Mk1-2 Pod is ~4m...YES, there ARE 4m tanks and adapters with stock and KW when TweakScale is installed. Near Future, WIP, I have no idea at this point, haven't gotten to it since the big 2.* update.

3. OH WAIT... Read Number 1!!!

4. Must not have read the OP...Realism Overhaul is PART mod...that's it. So what you are describing isn't related.

5. Not very well you didn't.

Thank you for the quick answer!

Although I read the FAQ I was not sure if it was normal that the career mode made parts disappear that were there before. The lack of proper pricing and tech tree in career mode didn't mean necessarily to me that the parts would be that different / not there. Since there were no pictures or something similar I just wanted to make sure. I did not want to insult anyone.

I installed the Reach for the Stars engine pack but Realistic Progression Lite doesn't seem to be working in 2.2 (yet?).

Of course I will check for the SpaceCenter questions in the RSS thread.

Thank you for this great mod!

[RedAV8R]

@RedAV8R The log was basically that repeated thousands of times. Didn't feel like spamming a whole page. Yes, i still know how to read, and if you want to see the whole thing, Include file key'>do it. Fun stuff.

You wouldn't have spammed this page if you followed directions which told you do exactly what to do.

However, what this log shows is you failing to read, understand, and follow directions.

Support denied.

[O Nerd]

Thanks for nothing.

[Woopert]

I've found that these dimensions work well for an SLS interstage.

8.4 meters bottom width

10.5 meters tall

5 meters top width

Usually I use simple math to calculate the height for things like an interstage, like subtracting the height of the overall height - (core stage + Orion MPCV), but I couldn't find some of the dimensions online. My guess is around 10.5 meters for the height.

[frencrs]

You wouldn't have spammed this page if you followed directions which told you do exactly what to do.

However, what this log shows is you failing to read, understand, and follow directions.

Support denied.

Thanks for nothing.

RedAV8R, O Nerd paid you good money for this mod! How dare you!

[Traches]

@Traches: Um...well you are half there...First, humor me, and get your KSP install out of (X):/Program Files (x86)...Bigger problem...You've also buggered up the install of RealFuels, TAC LifeSupport and a few others. IE, you didn't follow those instructions properly.

KSP has been perfectly happy on my X: drive for almost a thousand hours, (including previous versions of RO) as well as all my other steam games and a plethora of other programs. Did something change that would require it to be on the C drive? I have my OS on an SSD and need to conserve space. I realize it's nonstandard, but is there a reason you think it's actually causing a problem? Anyway, I made a copy of the KSP folder (C:\KSP Test\Kerbal Space Program) and it had the same problem.

I hadn't installed TAC LS, I had only copied the folder that comes with RO. I've deleted it, but that doesn't fix the problem. The installation of Real fuels consists of copying it to my Gamedata folder (the configs should come from RO if I understand correctly), so I'm not sure how I could have messed it up. I've deleted and reinstalled it, but still no dice. Which other mods have I buggered?

For the sake of troubleshooting I removed everything but squad, nasamission, RO, and modulemanager, and I still see almost nothing in the VAB. (Here's a logfile.) I think modulemanager might be throwing fits, but I'm not sure how, why, or how to troubleshoot!

[Ophiuchus]

RLA RLA EE-R-10 Resistojet Thruster RLA_resistojet_med

RLA RLA EE-R-01R Resistojet Thruster RLA_resistojet_micro_r

RLA RLA EE-R-05 Resistojet Thruster RLA_resistojet_small

RLA Rockomax "Cutter" Linear Aerospike Rocket RLA_linearspike_med

RLA MPR-45 Monopropellent Engine RLA_mp_med

RLA MPR-5R Monopropellent Engine RLA_mp_rad

RLA MPR-5 Monopropellent Engine RLA_mp_small

RLA MPR-1 Monopropellent Engine RLA_mp_tiny

RLA Rockomax "Spinnaker" Liquid Engine RLA_s_highengine

RLA LV-T5 Liquid Fuel Engine RLA_s_lowengine

A few more possibilities

MPR-45: 11D58M (Bloc-D engine)

MPR-5: S5.92, S5.98 (Fregat and Briz engine)

LV-25: RD-0212? It looks a lot like the RS-88, which isn't that far in the future considering its use on CST-100

EE-R-05: With the attach point ~1/3 down , it could make a good Bell 8096,8048, and 8081

[pjf]

KSP has been perfectly happy on my X: drive for almost a thousand hours, (including previous versions of RO) as well as all my other steam games and a plethora of other programs. Did something change that would require it to be on the C drive? I have my OS on an SSD and need to conserve space. I realize it's nonstandard, but is there a reason you think it's actually causing a problem? Anyway, I made a copy of the KSP folder (C:\KSP Test\Kerbal Space Program) and it had the same problem.

RO is almost entirely (in fact, I think entirely entirely) ModuleManager and standard .cfg files. It really shouldn't care where it's located, and so I'd be very surprised if being installed on X: is the problem (or if it is, it's nothing to do with RO).

In your logfile I can see a Null Reference Exception in ModuleEnginesFX that may or may not be causing you issues. There's a second NRE in there that *may* related to MessageSystem, but that's not as clear, and I have no idea if MessageSystem is part of core, a mod, or something else entirely.

~ pjf

[RedAV8R]

KSP has been perfectly happy on my X: drive for almost a thousand hours, (including previous versions of RO) as well as all my other steam games and a plethora of other programs. Did something change that would require it to be on the C drive? I have my OS on an SSD and need to conserve space. I realize it's nonstandard, but is there a reason you think it's actually causing a problem? Anyway, I made a copy of the KSP folder (C:\KSP Test\Kerbal Space Program) and it had the same problem.

I hadn't installed TAC LS, I had only copied the folder that comes with RO. I've deleted it, but that doesn't fix the problem. The installation of Real fuels consists of copying it to my Gamedata folder (the configs should come from RO if I understand correctly), so I'm not sure how I could have messed it up. I've deleted and reinstalled it, but still no dice. Which other mods have I buggered?

For the sake of troubleshooting I removed everything but squad, nasamission, RO, and modulemanager, and I still see almost nothing in the VAB. (Here's a logfile.) I think modulemanager might be throwing fits, but I'm not sure how, why, or how to troubleshoot!

Actually KSP is fine on some other drive, doesn't require the C: drive...I asked you to remove it the program files directory...It can stay on X: as X:\KSP just fine. Your previous log showed this:

Assembly-CSharp v1.0.0.0
  ModuleManager v2.2.0.0
  AJE v1.0.0.0
  CustomAsteroids v1.0.0.0
  CustomBiomes v1.0.0.0
  DeadlyReentry v5.1.5319.31493
  EngineIgnitor v1.0.0.0
  FerramAerospaceResearch v0.14.1.1
  ferramGraph v1.3.0.0
  JsonFx v2.0.1209.2800
  ModStatistics v1.0.5311.28247
  ModuleRCSFX v2.1.5227.30904
  KSPAPIExtensions v1.7.0.0
  ProceduralParts v0.9.17.0
  RealChute v1.2.5321.29610
  RealismOverhaul v0.6.0.0
  RealSolarSystem v0.7.1.0
Non-DLL mods added:
Mods by directory (subdirs of GameData):
  NASAmission
  RealFuels
  Robert
  Source
  Squad
  ThunderAerospace

Tells me RealFuels was not installed properly.

Do this. Delete, absolutely everything from KSP, the whole folder. Remove it from Steam. Redownload it. Now run it...parts there. Good! Now work down the required list and install it them one at a time. Running KSP in between those installs and see what happens.

[RedAV8R]

RO is almost entirely (in fact, I think entirely entirely) ModuleManager and standard .cfg files. It really shouldn't care where it's located, and so I'd be very surprised if being installed on X: is the problem (or if it is, it's nothing to do with RO).

In your logfile I can see a Null Reference Exception in ModuleEnginesFX that may or may not be causing you issues. There's a second NRE in there that *may* related to MessageSystem, but that's not as clear, and I have no idea if MessageSystem is part of core, a mod, or something else entirely.

~ pjf

It's not RO, it's KSP in general. Sometimes being in windows program files directory gives some weird permission issues. Not saying that is the problem, but you never know. Regardless he does not have things installed correctly. So.

[Jetwave]

@Red: I could take a crack at making a realistic tech tree, and later on, contracts, if no one else more skilled than me wants to. It'd probably take me a while to get a complete version with science points being replaced with research over time like you wanted, but I think is could be a great opportunity to learn and get into KSP modding, something I've been wanting to do for a while now. I'd appreciate it if someone could provide me with a few things that would help a lot and probably speed up how fast I can get a working version out:

-I would like to know whether you would prefer a linear tech tree, with no choice as to what gets researched next, or a tree similar to stock, but more compressed (choosing between aviation or rocketry for example)

-You have said you want RO to begin in the 50s, and RealFuels documentation mentions that the earliest engines in the pack are WWII and post-war. Given this time frame, would you prefer to start with V-2 rocketry tech, early jet engine/aviation tech, or both?

-If possible, a spreadsheet for RealEngines which shows which default engines became which real world engines, so I can put them into the right tech node.

-Some more clarification as to what you want with fuel tanks. Do you want people to start with all fuel tanks, and as they progress the fuel tanks get lighter/stronger/hold more fuel? Or do you want something closer to stock, where the player unlocks progressively bigger and stronger fuel tanks?

-If it exists, a link to a forum or some documentation which explains .DLL files in KSP modding (what program to use to open/edit them, what they are used for, etc.) I ask because I have never come across them in any other game, and I can't figure out how to open them.

Of course, I am by no means an expert at coding, and any and all help would be greatly appreciated. I am only one person, and as such it will take me a while to get through all the part mods. I will be starting with stock, then moving on to part mods supported by RealEngines, then possibly other non-supported part mods. I don't think I will be able to do the cost re-balancing on top of this, so someone else can feel free to do it.

[RedAV8R]

@Red: I could take a crack at making a realistic tech tree, and later on, contracts, if no one else more skilled than me wants to. It'd probably take me a while to get a complete version with science points being replaced with research over time like you wanted, but I think is could be a great opportunity to learn and get into KSP modding, something I've been wanting to do for a while now. I'd appreciate it if someone could provide me with a few things that would help a lot and probably speed up how fast I can get a working version out:

-I would like to know whether you would prefer a linear tech tree, with no choice as to what gets researched next, or a tree similar to stock, but more compressed (choosing between aviation or rocketry for example)

-You have said you want RO to begin in the 50s, and RealFuels documentation mentions that the earliest engines in the pack are WWII and post-war. Given this time frame, would you prefer to start with V-2 rocketry tech, early jet engine/aviation tech, or both?

-If possible, a spreadsheet for RealEngines which shows which default engines became which real world engines, so I can put them into the right tech node.

-Some more clarification as to what you want with fuel tanks. Do you want people to start with all fuel tanks, and as they progress the fuel tanks get lighter/stronger/hold more fuel? Or do you want something closer to stock, where the player unlocks progressively bigger and stronger fuel tanks?

-If it exists, a link to a forum or some documentation which explains .DLL files in KSP modding (what program to use to open/edit them, what they are used for, etc.) I ask because I have never come across them in any other game, and I can't figure out how to open them.

Of course, I am by no means an expert at coding, and any and all help would be greatly appreciated. I am only one person, and as such it will take me a while to get through all the part mods. I will be starting with stock, then moving on to part mods supported by RealEngines, then possibly other non-supported part mods. I don't think I will be able to do the cost re-balancing on top of this, so someone else can feel free to do it.

You are welcome to start something. Don't worry about time, if you are working on it, it is going to be faster than if I were to.

As I've pointed out..using the existing KSP engine is going to be a challenge, if not impossible...the 'tech tree' shall be time based starting with 1950 (as this is when RSS has set it Epoch to). Parts shall appear based up time. I have started to add the tag 'yearIntroduced' as part of the configs. This date can be used when present, or research for an appropriate year. It shall be first successful flight for most parts, engines can be first flight unless that was the reason for a failure. Use your best judgement, things can always be moved.

There shall be no research or monetary funds required to advance to the next year. If it's 1951, then all engines introduced/flown from 1951 or before shall be present, with no interaction required by the user.

I've got a working spreadsheet with a table of engines, there are no stats on it as of yet. You only need to be concerned with the year Introduced/flown, as that determines when it becomes available.

All 'generic' fuel tanks shall be available from the the start, with mass/cost/strength changing as time goes on. Fuel capacity shall remain the same. Fuel tanks from specific rockets, and generally all structural type parts shall appear when that specific launcher achieved IOC.

NK would have better info about actual C# code as it pertains to KSP and the compiling of such.

Now, please don't let this discourage you. These are requirements that I feel are necessary to be included with RO. If you do not feel the same way, please be assured you have my full support to create your own separate mod completely under your own name or team that you feel enhances the RO experience and allows others to use RO in a career type environment.

[Jetwave]

@Red: Alright, so I will start with re-organizing the stock tech tree by year. For now I'll leave it in as costing Science points, once the order of all the parts is correct I'll start looking into removing science. I might be able to figure out a way to replace science with a year "Resource" after that. It would match the in-game date, so people could time warp or modify the persistent.sfs if they wanted. Of course this would require making a plugin that would allow a player to set the starting date of the space program, which would also allow for choice of which year to start in (50, 55, 80, etc.).

For your "yearIntroduced" tags, are they in the RealEngines configs?

The only info I need from the spreadsheet is which RealEngines engine goes with which normal engine, so that once I figure out the year introduced of the RealEngine, I can then check which stock engine it is, then move it to the correct year.

Would I be able to set your yearIntroduced tag for research nodes, and then run a check so that when the in-game year is => yearIntroduced, it would automatically unlock the node in the tech tree (which will probably get hidden once I implement a year resource) and all the parts in that node?

Potential mod name (what do you guys think?): Technological Realism Enhancement Endeavor (T.R.E.E.)

It might not be the best, since this mod will likely remove the tech tree, so feel free to suggest a better name, I'm sure you can come up with something better than what I did while half asleep at 2 in the morning.

Anyways I'm off to bed, see y'all tommorow.

[ninjaweasel]

Hmm, I've been launching my Delta III with 6 ground, 3 air.

http://i.imgur.com/RO1ryKl.png

http://i.imgur.com/dh9MiiH.png

Booster sep is a lot more difficult on the Delta II because FAR tends to slam them back into the core. I used a S-II retro as an ullage motor with just 15 units of fuel. Put it near the booster center of mass and its kind of shocking how fast they jump away.

The Viking engine isn't in any of the parts packs I have installed, so I cloned the LR-87 to get a Viking 4, 5C and 6. Ariane is really difficult to control because of the skinny neck not being as rigid as the larger diameter core

http://i.imgur.com/iy8doqy.png

http://i.imgur.com/Uy1Konb.png

I found the Delta III Payload Planners Guide. It confirms 3 ground start, 6 air start.

http://www.upv.es/satelite/trabajos/pracGrupo15/Marte/Lanzador/PDF/Delta3.pdf

I'm done building all the Delta family (from the II to the IV Heavy). It's about 20 sub-component assemblies all told, mostly just due to the number of first stage configurations. Once I'm done flight testing and tweaking, I'll start a .24 RO craft repository.

Edited August 4, 2014 by ninjaweasel

[Ophiuchus]

I found the Delta III Payload Planners Guide. It confirms 3 ground start, 6 air start.

http://www.upv.es/satelite/trabajos/pracGrupo15/Marte/Lanzador/PDF/Delta3.pdf

I'm done building all the Delta family (from the II to the IV Heavy). It's about 20 sub-component assemblies all told, mostly just due to the number of first stage configurations. Once I'm done flight testing and tweaking, I'll start a .24 RO craft repository.

It's 6/3. From the planner's guide:

In launches from both eastern and western sites,the first-stage RS-27A main engine and six of the nine strap-on solid rocket motors are ignited at liftoff. Following burnout of the six solids, the remaining three extended-nozzle GEM LDXLs are ignited

[ninjaweasel]

It's 6/3. From the planner's guide:

Ah, I read 1.2.1 wrong, where it said 3 ground start SSRMs have TVC. I guess that's three Vectoring, 3 not.

[Traches]

Do this. Delete, absolutely everything from KSP, the whole folder. Remove it from Steam. Redownload it. Now run it...parts there. Good! Now work down the required list and install it them one at a time. Running KSP in between those installs and see what happens.

Alright, here goes:

-I removed KSP from within steam, then deleted the entire folder once it was done.

-Reinstalled, launched, started a new sandbox game, and the parts were there. Quit out.

-Copied RealismOverhaul, ModuleRCSFX, And ModuleManager2.2.0.dll straight from the zip in the OP into my gamedata folder.

-Launched it, started a new sandbox game, and the parts were gone.

It doesn't matter if I launch it from steam or directly from the KSP folder, or if I use 32 or 64 bit. There's some other strange behavior too-- the bar on the loading screen only goes about halfway before jumping to the main menu, and after I quit KSP windows seems to think all my left clicks are right clicks until I actually do right click. It's bizarre.

Edit:

Okay, with some trial and error I've narrowed it down to 4 config files. With any one of them installed (even if there's nothing else at all), my VAB is mostly empty. If I don't install any of them, I can run the rest of the RO mod with everything in the VAB that should be.

Those files:

\RO_Squad_Engines.cfg

\RedAV8R\FASA\RedAV8R_FASA_Mercury_Pod.cfg

\RedAV8R\KerbX\RedAV8R_KerbX.cfg

\RedAV8R\LazTek\RedAV8R_Laztek_Launch.cfg

I haven't dug through them yet (I can make sense of KSP config files, but I'm not familiar with modulemanager syntax), but I imagine they're doing something that for some reason modulemanager doesn't like on my particular computer. Here's a logfile with just RO_Squad_Engines.cfg and modulemanager installed.

Edited August 4, 2014 by Traches

[NathanKell]

Whooo boy, lotta posts.

Regarding career. I hate to be odd man out, here, but I'd really prefer to *not* have things purely time-based. For instance, with only a bit more funding Centaur could have been operational a lot sooner. An early focus on stations (and a circumlunar flight) rather than a moon landing would have changed a lot of things around; this was the original NASA plan before Kennedy selected the moon landing approach instead. By contrast, if you are doing very poorly, your space program is a string of failures, and you're barely able to manage orbit, why should Saturn V and the LEM become available like clockwork?

I see three paths a "real career" mode might take.

1. You are given historical missions and historical technology, and asked to complete those missions.

2. Technologies and (and parts, and configs...) are placed in logical progression; for instance researching early hydrolox yields the original RL-10, and further advances will lead to RL-10A-x and J-2; capsules move from early Mercury/Vostok like things (spam in a can) to actually-maneuverable ones to sophisticated spacecraft like Apollo or Soyuz.

3. Some hybrid.

Now #1 has the advtange of being exactly real history...but it isn't a career, it's a set of specific challenges with specific hardware selections, and could better be handled by restricting what parts are available in sandbox mode. It squanders the freedom of the game, in my opinion, and, because the results of prior challenges have no impact on what is required of, and available to you later on, is less of a "real experience" than #2. Frankly, it is less realistic to expect that you'll get an SSME in 1981 if you have a different 1960s, than that you will get something that flows logically from what you've done. If you (as NASA) decide against hydrolox early on, why on Earth would you get ever-more-impressive hydrolox engines automatically, rather than things actually relevant to the history you are creating? Technological advancement does not occur in a vacuum, and is certainly not unaffected by the uses to which it is put.

On a less theoretical note: RPL is up for adoption right now. Especially since MN planned to offer a "real engines" version of the tree anyway, it seems a great candidate to make these changes on.

I had long planned to make (primarily for RPL, but also for other uses) a "generic techlevels" plugin that would act like a combination between tweakscale and RF: you could define, per part, the various changes unlocking new R&DNodes would make (mass decrease, solar panel efficiency increase, etc). That's a plugin that needs to be made, and that needs to interface very well with TweakScale and with RF (since everything will be changing the same stats...)

If someone wants to make that, that would be awesome.

RedAV8R: yes, it's not hard to set the initial date of the game. You can just substitute a different starting epoch in the RSS.cfg file, although the game will still say "Year 1". For instance, in RSS v7 I changed to starting in 1951 instead of 1950, so Year 1 = 51 instead of 50 for easier computation by the user of the Earth date.

Smartbrain5: You must unlearn what you have learned. KSP teaches you bad things about rocket engines. What matters for a rocket engine's thrust is its *throat* diameter, not its nozzle exit diameter. The expansion ratio (exit:throat) varies greatly between different rocket engines, dependent on the altitude at which they are designed to operate. A rocket nozzle is designed to expand the exhaust gas to ambient pressure. At sea level, that's 101.325 kPa. In vacuum...that's 0. Compare the XLR11 with the RL-10, for example. see here for more. RedAV8R: time for more FAQ!

RedAV8R: you probably also want to do the alt model for the LV-T5 (which has a sane nozzle!!!), and also the Kingfisher? For the LV-T5 (alt), hmm, trying to think of any *small* gas generator-driven orbital engines....

Woopert: depends on the ambient pressure. A smaller nozzle (to a point!) is going to be more efficient at sea level.

Traches: that is just how the log works. You get those lines in between the actual debug lines. Load up a totally stock KSP install and check the log; you'll see those lines there too. (It's probably printing out the line number of the functional call that does the actual log printing).

O Nerd: RedAV8R is making a point here: if you don't follow the directions in the OP, why should he follow your direction to respond to you?

(I'm a big softie though [sorry Red!] and will thus give you a hint: that's not from RO, that's from RPL, which isn't for .24 yet and is therefore broken.)

Woopert: No, since Proc Fairing sides are generated entirely procedurally at runtime, there *is* no mesh to use in a MODEL node.

[RedAV8R]

@Traches: You failed to install Realism Overhaul properly, or it's not loading properly, hence my request to install KSP OUTSIDE the program files folder, it can be straight x:\KSP if you want, just get it out of the program files. The reason I can tell you that is right at the beginning of the log. Your log shows this:

[ModuleManager] compiling list of loaded mods...

Mod DLLs found:

Assembly-CSharp v1.0.0.0

ModuleManager v2.2.0.0

Non-DLL mods added:

RealismOverhaul

Mods by directory (subdirs of GameData):

NASAmission

Squad

Your log SHOULD show this:

Mod DLLs found:

RealismOverhaul v0.6.0.0

Non-DLL mods added:

Mods by directory (subdirs of GameData):

000_Toolbar

Note what section that is in. So either you don't have the latest version of RO, or you removed something that shouldn't have been removed. I'm going to ask you one more time. Please move the KSP folder. THEN Delete all but NASAmission and Squad from the GameData folder. Now launch. Parts? Now add ONE of the requirements. Launch. Parts? Now add ONE more of the requirements. Launch. Parts? Etc, etc, etc. THEN install the latest RO. Launch. Parts? Your latest attempt skipped everything I asked you to do. Don't make that mistake again.

The simple matter is. None of those files you pointed out is the problem. Why, because there are plenty of others that DON'T have problems, myself and NK included. There IS something wrong with your install and/or location that is causing issues.

Edited August 4, 2014 by RedAV8R

[RedAV8R]

NK brings up some very valid points I had not considered, and he's right. Being that part of the project was the absolute lowest of priority for me, and my job is far from being done (will it ever be???) the easiest/best thing I can do is wash my hands of that aspect of the project entirely. I am here to provide realistic stats and performance to parts.

I do ask that whoever IS going to take on that job, that any changes to parts (cost/entry cost/tech-level/etc) be made in a separate file...perhaps named something like "ROCareer_****.cfg" where the "*****" is the part mod being modified. Not only does that keep things separate, but I'm thinking, maybe, it will make editing easier, as one doesn't have to stare at performance numbers and all that other 'stuff'. Just an idea.

[RedAV8R]

RedAV8R: you probably also want to do the alt model for the LV-T5 (which has a sane nozzle!!!), and also the Kingfisher? For the LV-T5 (alt), hmm, trying to think of any *small* gas generator-driven orbital engines....

Yeah, the LV-T5 (alt) isn't on that list because it's already been taken, has been for some time, set up as a AJ-10-190.