Realism Overhaul Discussion Thread

[Alex38]

6 minutes ago, Mad Rocket Scientist said:

Darn, that's frustrating.  I hope someone can help on the RF thread.

Yeah that's very frustrating actually, i hope so  we'll see, if someone find the answer i'll post it here so that anyone who have the same issue can fix it  

7 minutes ago, brooklyn666 said:

What version of macos are you using? I have Sierra and ckan works for me if you use mono or wine to open it.

i'm on yosemite 10.10.5, and the version of ckan i founded wasn't up to date i think, which one do you use ? 

[brooklyn666]

It should work if you follow the directions here. It's sometimes a little buggy for me but if you force quit and reopen it usually works

[njbrown09]

Is RO updated for 1.2.2 on ckan?

[Tiafan]

I tried the pre-release RO for 1.2.2 for a new career including the latest RemoteTech. When I built the first sounding rocket I could not transmit science from the telemetry unit. The transmission gets up to 100%, but no science is recorded.

Anybody else has this problem or is it just me ? Also wondering if it's RO or RT...

[rsparkyc]

On 1/31/2017 at 10:38 AM, Alex38 said:

but i'm on mac, i can't have ckan, I tried ckan before, but it's not fonctionnal on mac (not the right version so all the mods like RO were not there )  so unlucky ! 

I'm also on a mac.  You can get ckan to work, you just need to use mono.  The command line interface works better than the GUI.

1 hour ago, Tiafan said:

I tried the pre-release RO for 1.2.2 for a new career including the latest RemoteTech. When I built the first sounding rocket I could not transmit science from the telemetry unit. The transmission gets up to 100%, but no science is recorded.

Anybody else has this problem or is it just me ? Also wondering if it's RO or RT...

That has been fixed on the develop branch, but they don't have a release with that in it yet, so you'd need to compile it yourself. (https://github.com/RemoteTechnologiesGroup/RemoteTech/pull/715)

Edited February 1, 2017 by rsparkyc

[gemini4]

I love solid rocket motors. They can be great for reliable, fairly low-cost launchers, and I the constraints they incur. However, I feel like the procedural solid rocket motors become useless by the mid to late-game. Their dry masses are higher than the existing solids provided, and they a procedural booster costs a lot more than a provided booster of the same size. Together, this makes them nearly unusable when you have advanced solids available, which is a shame. I really like the ability to customize solid rocket motors to my liking, but their performance isn't good enough to justify it. Also, I've noticed that, in my install at least, procedural SRBs can only gimbal in one direction, which can make control very difficult. They also don't seem to have thrust curves, which isn't a huge issue, but a nice realism touch to have. 

[Tiafan]

1 hour ago, rsparkyc said:

That has been fixed on the develop branch, but they don't have a release with that in it yet, so you'd need to compile it yourself. (https://github.com/RemoteTechnologiesGroup/RemoteTech/pull/715)

It works ! You sir are a star +1

[winged]

40 minutes ago, gemini4 said:

I love solid rocket motors. They can be great for reliable, fairly low-cost launchers, and I the constraints they incur. However, I feel like the procedural solid rocket motors become useless by the mid to late-game. Their dry masses are higher than the existing solids provided, and they a procedural booster costs a lot more than a provided booster of the same size. Together, this makes them nearly unusable when you have advanced solids available, which is a shame. I really like the ability to customize solid rocket motors to my liking, but their performance isn't good enough to justify it. Also, I've noticed that, in my install at least, procedural SRBs can only gimbal in one direction, which can make control very difficult. They also don't seem to have thrust curves, which isn't a huge issue, but a nice realism touch to have. 

I've built a couple of things with procedural solids and I have exactly the same feelings as you. They have pretty stockish, crappy wet/dry mass ratio - roughly 1,5-2x worse than non-procedural solids and their price is at least 2x as expensive as it should be.

[JeeF]

Sorry I'm not very savvy on how GitHub works.

Can someone explain what exactly I need to do to download the latest recompile for 1.2.2? (RO and RP-0)

[rsparkyc]

3 hours ago, JeeF said:

Sorry I'm not very savvy on how GitHub works.

Can someone explain what exactly I need to do to download the latest recompile for 1.2.2? (RO and RP-0)

As for RO, you can go to the releases page here: https://github.com/KSP-RO/RealismOverhaul/releases

RP-0 is a bit more complicated.  I have a PR out to update that to 1.2.2 (https://github.com/KSP-RO/RP-0/pull/606), so you would really need to download that fork (https://github.com/rsparkyc/RP-0/tree/1.2_CCupdate), compile it, and move it into your GameData directory.

[JeeF]

28 minutes ago, rsparkyc said:

As for RO, you can go to the releases page here: https://github.com/KSP-RO/RealismOverhaul/releases

RP-0 is a bit more complicated.  I have a PR out to update that to 1.2.2 (https://github.com/KSP-RO/RP-0/pull/606), so you would really need to download that fork (https://github.com/rsparkyc/RP-0/tree/1.2_CCupdate), compile it, and move it into your GameData directory.

And what tools do I need to compile it? I don't know much about programming =/

Edited February 2, 2017 by JeeF

[hargn]

7 hours ago, JeeF said:

And what tools do I need to compile it? I don't know much about programming =/

So you have two choices :

1. You buy and dowload Visual Studio, you learn to use it, then you read the posts on this forum to learn how to develop addons for KSP, then you will know enough to configure Visual Studio for RP-0 and all of its dependencies. Then compile it (in release configuration for obvious performance reasons), you fix all errors that will be raised, you compile it, you fix... and then you'll be able to put your RP-0 into your gamedata folder.
2. Else, you wait for the great guys that works on the RO/RP-0 suite decide that these mods are playable and stable enough to be released.

Personnaly, I've chosen the second solution while I'm software developer (for my defence, I could do it, but I miss time to work it on).

[Sol Invictus]

Doesn't RP-0 just need it's Tree.cfg to be built using command "perl bin/yml2mm"? I did just that with a clone of 1.2_CCupdate branch of @rsparkyc's RP-0 and it seems to be working just fine on my install of KSP 1.2.2. I have tech tree, contracts and everything. It even correctly recognizes which parts are supported by RP-0 and which are not, hiding the latter if "NoNonRP0" folder is found in GameData.

Edited February 3, 2017 by Sol Invictus

[rsparkyc]

On 2/2/2017 at 8:20 AM, hargn said:

So you have two choices :

1. You buy and dowload Visual Studio, you learn to use it, then you read the posts on this forum to learn how to develop addons for KSP, then you will know enough to configure Visual Studio for RP-0 and all of its dependencies. Then compile it (in release configuration for obvious performance reasons), you fix all errors that will be raised, you compile it, you fix... and then you'll be able to put your RP-0 into your gamedata folder.
2. Else, you wait for the great guys that works on the RO/RP-0 suite decide that these mods are playable and stable enough to be released.

Personnaly, I've chosen the second solution while I'm software developer (for my defence, I could do it, but I miss time to work it on).

@JeeF There's a community edition of visual studio that works just fine and is free.  I'm actually on a mac, and downloaded windows a windows 10 ISO (from Microsoft, free and legal, no need to activate) so I could boot up a VM, then installed Visual Studio Community Edition in it (again, free).  

2 hours ago, Sol Invictus said:

Doesn't RP-0 just need it's Tree.cfg to be built using command "perl bin/yml2mm"? I did just that with a clone of 1.2_CCupdate branch of @rsparkyc's RP-0 and it seems to be working just fine on my install of KSP 1.2.2. I have tech tree, contracts and everything. It even correctly recognizes which parts are supported by RP-0 and which are not, hiding the latter if "NoNonRP0" folder is found in GameData.

I couldn't get that to work for me, but I also don't think I made any changes to files that would cause a change in Tree.cfg

Edited February 3, 2017 by rsparkyc

[Sol Invictus]

34 minutes ago, rsparkyc said:

I couldn't get that to work for me, but I also don't think I made any changes to files that would cause a change in Tree.cfg

What I meant by my previous comment was that I didn't compile anything from source that's in cloned 1.2_CCupdate RP-0 branch of yours. I just ran command "perl bin/yml2mm" to create Tree.cfg and copied content of GameData folder. There is already RP0.dll plugin inside it, isn't it? Or is it an old plugin from 1.1.3. release, and I need to compile it from source after all to get the updated stuff? I might been mistaken when saying that everything works fine, I haven't tested much beyond looking through contracts and tech tree.

[rsparkyc]

6 minutes ago, Sol Invictus said:

What I meant by my previous comment was that I didn't compile anything from source that's in cloned 1.2_CCupdate RP-0 branch of yours. I just ran command "perl bin/yml2mm" to create Tree.cfg and copied content of GameData folder. There is already RP0.dll plugin inside it, isn't it? Or is it an old plugin from 1.1.3. release, and I need to compile it from source after all to get the updated stuff? I might been mistaken when saying that everything works fine, I haven't tested much beyond looking through contracts and tech tree.

What I was referring to was that I couldn't get the perl command to work because of missing libraries.  The dll that's in there is the 1.2.2 dll, so you don't need to recompile that.

Edited February 3, 2017 by rsparkyc

[Sol Invictus]

42 minutes ago, rsparkyc said:

What I was referring to was that I couldn't get the perl command to work because of missing libraries.  The dll that's in there is the 1.2.2 dll, so you don't need to recompile that.

I just installed Strawberry Perl and ran the command from Windows command line.

[EliasDanger]

Question to those who are testing the pre release, how much would you say 1.2.2 improves performance? Specifically the stutter due to garbage collection? Are heavy launches much smoother and faster would ya say?

That assumed performance boost of 1.2 on RO is pretty much the main thing I am looking forward too. @rsparkyc said it runs fine except with the visual enhancements, but does it run better and smoother than 1.1.3 and by how much? What else is exciting about the 1.2.2 release do you think? I gotta know so I can set my hype levels accordingly.

[rsparkyc]

8 minutes ago, EliasDanger said:

Question to those who are testing the pre release, how much would you say 1.2.2 improves performance? Specifically the stutter due to garbage collection? Are heavy launches much smoother and faster would ya say?

That assumed performance boost of 1.2 on RO is pretty much the main thing I am looking forward too. @rsparkyc said it runs fine except with the visual enhancements, but does it run better and smoother than 1.1.3 and by how much? What else is exciting about the 1.2.2 release do you think? I gotta know so I can set my hype levels accordingly.

Sorry to crush your hype, but honestly I feel like it's about the same.  I know there are some mods that can increase the amount of mem KSP uses to reduce garbage collection, but I'm still playing around with those

 

Edited February 4, 2017 by rsparkyc

[EliasDanger]

40 minutes ago, rsparkyc said:

Sorry to crush your hype, but honestly I feel like it's about the same.  I know there are some mods that can increase the amount of mem KSP uses to reduce garbage collection, but I'm still playing around with those

 

I've tried that, but I never noticed much of a difference with it.

I'll set the hype levels to low then. Stock 1.2 seemed a huge performance boost to stock 1.1.3, and overall seemed more polished. I'm just surprised it doesn't seem to bring much to Realism Overhaul. 

[rsparkyc]

I never had any issues stock, so maybe that's why.  Maybe my issue was number of mods, and not base performance.

[EliasDanger]

5 minutes ago, rsparkyc said:

I never had any issues stock, so maybe that's why.  Maybe my issue was number of mods, and not base performance.

Well, on my rig if i ever try to dock two ships with over 1000 parts each in 1.1.3 or you have a huge space station the game is a crawl. Single digit fps. In 1.2, it's like 20-30 fps with huge ships.

[rsparkyc]

1 hour ago, EliasDanger said:

Well, on my rig if i ever try to dock two ships with over 1000 parts each in 1.1.3 or you have a huge space station the game is a crawl. Single digit fps. In 1.2, it's like 20-30 fps with huge ships.

I don't have the patience for 1000+ parts

[Phineas Freak]

11 hours ago, EliasDanger said:

Stock 1.2 seemed a huge performance boost to stock 1.1.3, and overall seemed more polished. I'm just surprised it doesn't seem to bring much to Realism Overhaul.

It does but in another way: stability. With KSP 1.1.3 you would have a crash almost every time that you did something (editing/launching a craft, changing game scenes, deleting a part in the editor etc). I have yet to see a crash in KSP 1.2.2 (excluding these caused by outdated assemblies) and that is with a ton of mods, many of them really heavy.

[rsparkyc]

4 minutes ago, Phineas Freak said:

It does but in another way: stability. With KSP 1.1.3 you would have a crash almost every time that you did something (editing/launching a craft, changing game scenes, deleting a part in the editor etc). I have yet to see a crash in KSP 1.2.2 (excluding these caused by outdated assemblies) and that is with a ton of mods, many of them really heavy.

That part is true.  I can't remember the last time KSP crashed.