[1.1.2] Realism Overhaul v11.0.0 May 8

[Bender222]

I think ou should not mark fasa as compatibe because I have tried using it a dozen or so times and it still has big issuess. Most of the fasa .crafts lload with onl their capsules and the ones that actually load the full rocket are clipped and varius parts are larger/smaller diameter.

[Briefmoment]

One dumb question, if you don't mind: How do you get these big boosters firmly attached to the main stage? On my large rocket, the radial decouplers are just too weak to hold them straight and no matter how much struts I use, they point more diagonally or inwards the stage.

I place the Bottom tank on the Radial Decoupler and strut the nose of the booster the the core. It works fine. Why? Physics... xD

[Yaivenov]

Bender222: It shifts the center of mass of the pod to allow you to perform a lifting reentry.

Could such a mass shift be incorporated into the inflatable heat shield to solve some of it's stability problems? As in shifting the COM towards the shield, not moving it off center for lift purposes.

[Lamb_Shift]

Hi All,

Is it possible to set a thrust limiter for liquid engines? (RO, real fuels).

MechJeb shows the decrease in TWR in the VAB, but the rocket still accelerates with 3-4g when launched.

[Kitspace]

Hello.

Is there a way to make a generic vernier engine that would have a few size options and a lot of common fuel mixture options like it is done with the stock attitude control thrusters? That would be very convenient because currently there are so few options of particular real life vernier engines and there are many cases where they are impractical to use because of their thrust level or their fuel mixture or both.

How do real life rocket stages actually deal with the lack of the full control authority from engine gimbal? If you have two or more engines and they gimbal both ways then you have full three axis control and there is no problem. But what if you only have one engine and no roll axis or a pair of engines which only gimbal one way giving you pitch and roll but no yaw?

I know some real life rockets do not have active control on all three axes but then how do they stabilize that axis whether actively or passively so it stays what it is supposed to be? I know some of the rocket upper stages spin for that purpose but still most do not and that is only ever applicable if you do not need to change your attitude anymore.

Also by the way regarding the bit of the previous question how do those spinning stages put themselves in that condition?

Some of the engine models in the game have a third node in the middle which places the stock shrouds around the engine if something is attached to it. Is that intentional and what is it for?

If I clip some parts into each other or attach them to the node opposite to what is expected logically this joint starts to jump and wobble when physics load finally settling itself like floating on some springs a few feet below the actual expected joint. Why does this happen and can this be fixed or avoided? It is not about cheating but for example could be used to fit a battery or a guidance unit into the hollow space inside the fairing base structure.

I have also commonly experienced the bug with the part mass growing to insane numbers if reverting to launch or using the tweakscale slider.

Is it somehow possible to force the pods into the descent mode by default to have it the realistic way at all times?

Thank you!

[ANWRocketMan]

I think ou should not mark fasa as compatibe because I have tried using it a dozen or so times and it still has big issuess. Most of the fasa .crafts lload with onl their capsules and the ones that actually load the full rocket are clipped and varius parts are larger/smaller diameter.

FASA is perfectly fine. The problem is the way KSP .craft files work. It saves relative positions to the root part not the actual attachment positons at the nodes etc. When FASA was rescaled the part files don't work. You will have to rebuild them yourself.

Hello.

Is there a way to make a generic vernier engine that would have a few size options and a lot of common fuel mixture options like it is done with the stock attitude control thrusters? That would be very convenient because currently there are so few options of particular real life vernier engines and there are many cases where they are impractical to use because of their thrust level or their fuel mixture or both.

How do real life rocket stages actually deal with the lack of the full control authority from engine gimbal? If you have two or more engines and they gimbal both ways then you have full three axis control and there is no problem. But what if you only have one engine and no roll axis or a pair of engines which only gimbal one way giving you pitch and roll but no yaw?

I know some real life rockets do not have active control on all three axes but then how do they stabilize that axis whether actively or passively so it stays what it is supposed to be? I know some of the rocket upper stages spin for that purpose but still most do not and that is only ever applicable if you do not need to change your attitude anymore.

Also by the way regarding the bit of the previous question how do those spinning stages put themselves in that condition?

I support your idea in the configurable vernier engine.

They use all kinds of methods from fins and so on. Higher stages often have some level of RCS system to help control them. Most US rockets don't seem to have verniers for example but take Orions launch, it had full three-axis control. The problem is only if you have a single centre-mounted engine. For first stages use fins(not too big, you want stability not an aeroplane or something you cant move from the airstream). In space or higher altitudes you can use RCS for roll control. Some rockets don't have roll control initially and I myself get away with that. It takes some extra skill piloting them but not too hard as long as you're not trying to pitch or yaw too rapidly.

Second stages often have small solid boosters that spin the spacecraft very fast or RCS, after which they do the burn. Afterwards they keep the spin when they need the stability or it is slowed down propulsively(engines or RCS) or by some inertial dampeners.

Watch this video for reference on the spinning.

Some of the engine models in the game have a third node in the middle which places the stock shrouds around the engine if something is attached to it. Is that intentional and what is it for?

No idea on the third engine node. Haven't seen it.

If I clip some parts into each other or attach them to the node opposite to what is expected logically this joint starts to jump and wobble when physics load finally settling itself like floating on some springs a few feet below the actual expected joint. Why does this happen and can this be fixed or avoided? It is not about cheating but for example could be used to fit a battery or a guidance unit into the hollow space inside the fairing base structure.

It's a stock KSP bugas I have seen it in stock. It gets exasterbated with procedural fuel tanks and so on. It has to o with the node sizes and inaccuracies and incapability of the physics engine. Struts or surface attachment of those extra parts is the recommendation. And don't do physical time acceleration when that happens.

I have also commonly experienced the bug with the part mass growing to insane numbers if reverting to launch or using the tweakscale slider.

Just launch the craft and revert to the VAB. It should set to proper masses then. It's a workaround but it's not all that big an issue. There are many other bugs like this with Procedural Parts and so on.

Is it somehow possible to force the pods into the descent mode by default to have it the realistic way at all times?

Thank you!

They were like that initially. But having that sometimes makes it extremely difficult to maneuver the craft in space when you're docking or firing your thrusters to do a burn. You have to very carefully balance the part which isn't always possible whilst keeping low part counts and so on. There should be some way to do it in the config but I haven't looked at it yet.

Edited December 6, 2014 by ANWRocketMan

[plasmeus]

You're probably going too deep into the atmosphere too rapidly if that is happening. The descent mode is set up so that the pod can have the proper AoA and be stable there so that it performs a lifting re-entry and stays in the thinner parts of the atmosphere for as long as possible bleeding off as much velocity as possible.

If you have high velocity in dense atmosphere the force on the pod will be much greater, following this and the shifted CoM the pod will have a greater rotational force which will exceed the correctional forces from RCS and other aerodynamics. Once you slow down enough the denser atmosphere shouldn't be a problem.

Unfortunately the problem isn't as simple as that. Even at my parachute opening speed of <300 m/s almost all of the FASA pods will flip over or gyrate wildy. This happens reguardless of what reentry angles I do, even when I have a periapse of ~90 km.

I have tried editing the RO config files to change the CoM and but that only worked when it was translated down an additional meter. My thoughts are that the source of the problem is either incorrect aerodynamic properties or incorrect mass.

Edited December 6, 2014 by plasmeus

[Kitspace]

Also how to decrease the acceleration near burnout?

[Hattivat]

Also how to decrease the acceleration near burnout?

The only possible way is when you are using multiple engines, you can shut some of them off. That's what Saturn V did, for example - it shut off the central engine of the first stage before others to limit acceleration.

Other than that, the best solution is: use less overpowered engines and/or have more stages.

You can also keep the rocket as it is, but instead adjust your flight profile to accommodate your high Max TWR. The way to do that is to turn far enough BEFORE you reach uncontrollable levels of TWR to be able to afford to just let it fly straight ahead during this period.

[ANWRocketMan]

Also how to decrease the acceleration near burnout?

Check my post #356 for your earlier questions.

Unfortunately the problem isn't as simple as that. Even at my parachute opening speed of <300 m/s almost all of the FASA pods will flip over or gyrate wildy. This happens reguardless of what reentry angles I do, even when I have a periapse of ~90 km.

I have tried editing the RO config files to change the CoM and but that only worked when it was translated down an additional meter. My thoughts are that the source of the problem is either incorrect aerodynamic properties or incorrect mass.

You're correct on the incorrect aerodynamic properties. The stock pod also has issues with anything but the proper Mk1-2 heat shield and will do the same. I'm having that issue currently with the VA Capsule too where it will librate and move around a lot. Spinning too. There's not much you can do about that. I haven't tested the FASA pods themselves admittedly. If my power isn't out tomorrow I will test it.

Edited December 6, 2014 by ANWRocketMan

[Bender222]

Unfortunately the problem isn't as simple as that. Even at my parachute opening speed of <300 m/s almost all of the FASA pods will flip over or gyrate wildy. This happens reguardless of what reentry angles I do, even when I have a periapse of ~90 km.

I have tried editing the RO config files to change the CoM and but that only worked when it was translated down an additional meter. My thoughts are that the source of the problem is either incorrect aerodynamic properties or incorrect mass.

I personally tested a career where I utilized the mercury capsule exclusively and I probably performed dozens of re-entries and it worked everytime. I did not get farther though because I was really trying to stick to the fast parts as much as I could and the performance didn't match up/ I didn't have all the needed parts for the specific rockets. Speaking of Fasa, I am willing to remake every .craft file for RO but i would like someone to check for errors.

[plasmeus]

I personally tested a career where I utilized the mercury capsule exclusively and I probably performed dozens of re-entries and it worked everytime. I did not get farther though because I was really trying to stick to the fast parts as much as I could and the performance didn't match up/ I didn't have all the needed parts for the specific rockets. Speaking of Fasa, I am willing to remake every .craft file for RO but i would like someone to check for errors.

Sorry about not being clearer. When I said most, I meant the all the pods except the mercury one.

[Bender222]

the fast apollo capsule looks so good though. a shame it doesn't work.

[thyriel]

As something is still messed up with my RO installation, anyone has an idea what mod is causing this serious problems and is destroying my savegames ?

The problem is, soon after the first few flights the VAB and spacecenter take up to 5 minutes to load (game freezes between). I already tracked the problem down to the entries for the achievements in the savefile. Sections like this:

SCENARIO    {
        name = ProgressTracking
        scene = 7, 8, 5
        Progress
        {
            FirstLaunch

Every entry there that has a crew member associated lists some thousands Jebediah Kermans instead only one. After i deleted those weird entries the VAB / SpaceCenter loads fine again.

List of mods installed:

- Realism Overhaul
- AJE
- Community Tech Tree
- Crossfeed enabler
- Custom biomes (RSS)
- DDSLoader
- Deadly reentry
- Docking port alignment indicator
- Engine ignitor
- FASA
- FAR
- Engineer Redux
- Kerbal Joint Reinf.
- KW Rocketry
- Module Fixer
- Module Manager
- ModuleRCSFX
- Proc. Fairings, Wings, Parts
- RasterPropMonitor
- Real Effects
- RSS
- Real Chutes
- Realism Overhaul
- Realistic Tech Progression Zero
- SmokeScreen 2.5
- SXT
- TAC
- TechManager
- TextureReplacer
- Toolbar
- WeakScale
- Enhanced Navball
- 4k DDS RSS Textures

EDIT:

I reinstalled RO on a fresh KSP install with only the mimum mods and then added one by one to track the problem further down. It's Realistic Progression Zero RP-0 that causes the problem. As soon as its installed it doubles the crew members in the savefile everytime i click the space center, VAB or so. After a few clicks it's some hundreds, and soon too much to be loaded without crashing the client. Removed RP-0 only and it worked again. Installed RP-0 again and the savefile was corrupted again.

EDIT2:

just heard in IRC this was fixed in last nights update of RP-0 (just in case someone else has that problem). V0.15 should have it fixed

Edited December 6, 2014 by thyriel

[Miximix]

Can someone post your settings of Deadly re-entry, accessed by ALT+D+R? I think, that default settings don't work out pretty well :/

[Yaivenov]

Oh, just a thought, but would it be possible to "fake" some comets into the game via re-textured asteroids in high elliptical orbits?

[Beduino]

All my AIES parts are still named non RO! Is that a bug or something? Crap only wanted the RS-68 engine was stock in RO :/

Edited December 6, 2014 by Beduino

[Kitspace]

Thank you very much for all the answers!

So using thrusters for the missing control channel like roll is common in real life? Just I could not find any descriptions of that system in use for some reason. How does this system work on the Saturn or the Delta rockets for example or any other upper stage with one single chambered engine? Also is there any attitude control difference between a single core and a triple core Delta first stage? If a rocket does not have authority on the roll channel how to keep it stable and prevent it from drifting around freely?

Some Russian launchers have no authority on yaw channel.

Some of my rocket stages have quite an insane range of thrust to weight evolution like hardly being able to get off the ground with its current engine that is more of underpowered than overpowered but still having some trouble with acceleration near burnout. That happens mostly to common two stage launchers. Sometimes I have to go to three stages to put a satellite to low orbit.

Also how do real rockets deal with various payloads differing in mass and weight distribution? As I understand the thrust to weight ratios and the position of the centre of mass must be kept quite precisely?

And a game specific question.

Are there any tools like ejection angle calculators and aerobraking prediction indicators that do work with the real planets?

[Briefmoment]

Thank you very much for all the answers!

So using thrusters for the missing control channel like roll is common in real life? Just I could not find any descriptions of that system in use for some reason. How does this system work on the Saturn or the Delta rockets for example or any other upper stage with one single chambered engine? Also is there any attitude control difference between a single core and a triple core Delta first stage? If a rocket does not have authority on the roll channel how to keep it stable and prevent it from drifting around freely?

Some Russian launchers have no authority on yaw channel.

Some of my rocket stages have quite an insane range of thrust to weight evolution like hardly being able to get off the ground with its current engine that is more of underpowered than overpowered but still having some trouble with acceleration near burnout. That happens mostly to common two stage launchers. Sometimes I have to go to three stages to put a satellite to low orbit.

Also how do real rockets deal with various payloads differing in mass and weight distribution? As I understand the thrust to weight ratios and the position of the centre of mass must be kept quite precisely?

And a game specific question.

Are there any tools like ejection angle calculators and aerobraking prediction indicators that do work with the real planets?

• To start, you must know a fair amount about aerodynamics. A rocket like the Delta IV, that uses a RS-68(A), will not have any gimbal range on the actual motor nozzle. Instead it has a small vernier motor extruding from the combustion chamber to control roll and some attitude control. As the rocket will rise, it will nose it over slightly. From there on out, if the rocket has over a 1.0 TWR, it will stay pointing Pro-grade all the way to MECO. Aerodynamic forces pretty much keep all rockets pointing where they will need to go, that is why if you launch a rocket like in Stock KSP and nose it over 45 degrees at 10 kilometers, it will flip out and disintegrate, that is why rockets in the real world do not do that.
  
• It takes me maybe two stages to get something about the size of a small satellite into Geosynchronous orbit. The goals you should look for, is 1.3 TWR for liftoff, around .8 to 1.0 TWR for the upper stage. As you will be close to vacuum, there is no need for any high TWRs here. I like to keep a goal to myself when I create a liquid booster that the booster itself should have a 1.7 TWR. That way, when I stack a upper stage and payload, I can adjust the thrust of the engine accordingly or the amount of fuel accordingly. I can post a download link to my Delta IV Common Booster Core for Realism Overhaul. You will need AIES, and Procedural Parts (I take it you will obviously have all the required mods for RO.)
  
• I sort have just answered this question. Most rockets will only allow a set amount of payload weight, that is the point to where they cannot achieve an efficient launch. I try to build my payloads as small and light as possible. Please refer back to my ideals for TWRs on this. Or you can go look at Farram's guides for RO on the first page of this thread.
  
• Yes, you can use Transfer Window Planner, and Trajectories. I will link both, they are quite the tool for RO.
  

Transfer Window Planner: HERE

Trajectories: HERE

Edited December 6, 2014 by Briefmoment

[Briefmoment]

All my AIES parts are still named non RO! Is that a bug or something? Crap only wanted the RS-68 engine was stock in RO :/

Do not worry! They work perfectly! If you look back to page 27 or so on this thread, you will find a Imgur album of me using the RS-68s for my mock Delta IV Heavy.

Imgur: HERE (If you'd like proof-of-warranty, I imagine the non-ro titles will be removed some near update)

Edited December 6, 2014 by Briefmoment

[Briefmoment]

Oh, just a thought, but would it be possible to "fake" some comets into the game via re-textured asteroids in high elliptical orbits?

I do not think it will be hard. Maybe you can try it out by creating some textures or configs!

[Briefmoment]

Can someone post your settings of Deadly re-entry, accessed by ALT+D+R? I think, that default settings don't work out pretty well :/

Deadly Re-entry works fine with RO. The default settings work pretty well, because of this, you will need to know how to create a lifting re-entry. Also, you do not want to go down to steep when re-entering the atmosphere. Otherwise you will die if not by G forces, by overheating the heat shield.

[Hattivat]

DRE works fine on reentry, but it's a bit too harsh on ascent. In real life rockets with an initial sea-level TWR of 1.5 or even 1.7 get launched without serious problems, in current DRE they tend to burn up. This should be solved once DRE is replaced by RealHeat, which is in the works.

As for creating comets - RSS used to have a "custom asteroids" mod bundled with it, with configs that made it recreate the asteroids belt, comets and trans-Neptunian objects. I don't know why it's no longer the case, but I suspect it's either because of compatibility problems or because it consumed more RAM than it was worth.

Edited December 6, 2014 by Hattivat

[Briefmoment]

As for DRE, if you burn up on liftoff, then the accent profile is too harsh.

[ANWRocketMan]

As for DRE, if you burn up on liftoff, then the accent profile is too harsh.

Usually as a result of too high TWR at launch which leads to having to do a much more rapid gravity turn in order to be able to launch to a low enough orbit. Real rockets however sometimes do have such high TWR launches and lower ascent profiles. As far as I know, it's not even possible to do the Saturn V launches of the Apollo program properly without burning it up.